Piwin -> RE: The pros and cons of the Nation State (Jun. 5 2023 14:53:33)
I agree. I'd imagine that kind of situation where it really is completely zero-sum probably did arise sporadically, but it's the exception not the rule. And it's the same today: we don't have a scarcity problem; we have a distribution problem. In our world it's not a guy refusing to share the single piece of chicken: it's supermarkets pouring bleach on the tons of produce they throw out just so homeless people can't eat it...
BarkellWH -> RE: chimps? (Jun. 5 2023 16:05:04)
quote:
killing someone in order to survive is very different than convincing/brainwashing a bunch of yokels to go kill people they never met because of "reasons"
Individuals kill for many reasons other than to "survive." Killing someone in order to steal his Rolex watch or in a home invasion to steal something is no different that the collective of individuals known as the "state" committing aggression (war) against another group in order to gain land, natural resources, or some other goods that the state wants. And the support of a majority of the inhabitants of the aggressor-state is not necessarily because they have been "brainwashed." It is often because they agree with the end-goal that they perceive the aggression will achieve.
Bill
chester -> RE: chimps? (Jun. 5 2023 16:30:24)
quote:
not necessarily because they have been "brainwashed." they agree with the end-goal that they perceive the aggression will achieve
and therein lies the brainwashing. do you really need examples?
anyway, i thought we were talking about violence being innate to humans so i drew a connection between survival and violence. i guess if the argument was made that working as a team is biological rather than cultural then...
Piwin -> RE: chimps? (Jun. 5 2023 16:52:09)
quote:
working as a team is biological
Dunno if it's carved in our genes, but none of us would survive the first few years of life without somebody else to take care of us, so at least for that we have to be social. As opposed to animals that just pop out of the womb ready to go. And that's something that is guaranteed to happened to you, as opposed to the who-gets-the-chicken scenario. Though I guess that just means social within the family, not necessarily outside of that.
BarkellWH -> RE: chimps? (Jun. 5 2023 17:14:42)
quote:
nd therein lies the brainwashing. do you really need examples?
I guess we differ in our sense of whether or not individuals have agency to think for themselves (even if they reach wrong conclusions). That the individual inhabitants of a state can be brainwashed is indisputable, but that they at times accept and support a state's aggression is not necessarily the result of brainwashing. Individuals have agency, and they may come to the conclusion (perceive) that the result of successful aggression against another state will reap benefits without being brainwashed. And if their expectations are met, from their point of view they will have been right.
Bill
Piwin -> RE: chimps? (Jun. 12 2023 4:36:09)
Was just watching an interview of Frans de Waal. Towards the end he mentions observations made with baboons during droughts: initially they expected that the increased scarcity of resources would make the baboons more aggressive than usual, but in fact it was the opposite: they became less aggressive. He interprets this as being about costs. Kind of similar to Wrangham's idea about why chimps don't attack unless they're 8 on 1. Except here the costs are just sheer caloric energy. There are fewer resources to go around, so you want to be more careful with how you spend your own energy.
So, maybe we can add that idea of a Pyrrhic victory to our chicken scenario. You can fight me over it, but if you end up spending more energy fighting me than you'd gain by eating the chicken, then it's pretty pointless. Even if you win, you still lose.
Here's the interview, but it's in French (the part about baboons during droughts is around the 1:12:30 mark).
