Why are humans so self-destructive? - Page 3

Starchild · November 15, 2003, 10:08

*Dusts off his Philosophy coursework*

We are self-destructive because we are free and that freedom terrifies us.

In the pre-modern era, the concept of an individual as we currently recognise it did not exist. You were born into a role for society that was very strict in its boundries. A serf would be born a serf, live a serf, die a serf. Even the "elite" were limited by the complex system of rules and marriages. A person was not free to explore their individuality.

With the ascension of democracy and capitalism, a new belief in freedom emerged. A person was no longer limited into the social role they had been born into and had a controlling stake (the vote) in society itself. However, this freedom brings with it an existentialist crisis. People don't want to truly believe that they are inherently responsible for the consequences of their actions. Being free moral agents brings with it the inability to shift blame to another party so people try to deny their freedom. Only a few can accept their free nature and most end up as neurotics.

One of the ways to deny freedom is to be destructive. There are two forms of destructive intent, outward and inward looking. Outward looking destruction solves the dilemma of freedom by actively removing that which forces the dilemma upon you, ie, society. Vandalism, robbery, arson, etc solve the problem of freedom by symbolically striking out at a society that prevents other, more useful outlets to expression of freedom. Inward looking destruction focuses on hurting the individual himself. Eating disorders, selfharm, etc seek to assert control on the person through the medium of pain. Freedom is denied by making one subject to the control of pain.

On a societial level, you too find the expressions of outward destruction (environmental damage, war, etc) and inward destruction (crime, drug abuse, etc). A society made up of individuals trying to deny their basic free nature will also attempt to deny it's own nature. People en mass are in retreat from the crisis of having to take responsibility for the consequences of the actions allowed to them by freedom to be a unique individual. A person who starves themself thin so they can look like the models on TV is afflicted with the same basic problem that a nation who ignores its pollution has.

Based, largely, on the work by Erich Fromm.

Zero · November 15, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by st_swithin
Who cares about the air we breath, the environment we pollute and destroy, the species of animals we drive to extinction, the oceans we poison with toxic runoff and sewage, or the atmosphere we slowly degrade with excess cow farts and hairspray propellants when there's a new season of Friends?!?

Where do we direct our attention and our resources? To the most visible concentration of resources - in California's case, we elected the Governator because he's got name recognition and lots of money and fame. If only CALPIRG or Greenpeace had a spokesperson like that.

No one wants to deal with reality because it's too damn depressing. That's why we have TV and movies and video games - we haven't been driven to distraction, we all took our own gas-guzzling SUV's and drove ourselves there.

Let the earth be destroyed - maybe when we're all on the brink of extinction in the aftermatch of a biological epidemic with a 98% mortality rate, we'll start caring about the planet we live on instead of whether or not Ben Affleck shaved his goatee.

Ben affleck shaved off his gatee!!!???

Lord Merciless · November 15, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by PeteH

While at this point I am suspecting you are just being intentionally dense, I will once again clarify, for the benefit of anyone who actually has taken the time to read things so far.

I used that link as something brief which could summarize some of the points I was making, not as the source of my arguement. It was one of the first few things found in a quick google search which was relevent. I would be happy to post an extensive reading list but somehow I doubt that is really what you are interested in. Especially since if it is so laughable that I would refer to that paper as an example, then you should easily be able to refute it right? Feel free to, anytime....

I see. So you don't even have other sources beside that crappy paper written by you.

PeteH · November 15, 2003, 21:08

Quote:

I see. So you don't even have other sources beside that crappy paper written by you.

For the benefit of the non-trolls:

American Holocaust David Stannard

Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian-Hating and Empire-Building Richard Drinnon

In Search of the Primitive Stanley Diamond

Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization, Afer Dachau Daniel Quinn

Running On Emptiness: The Pathology of Civilization John Zerzan

The Culture of Make Believe Derrick Jensen

Edward Tenner, Why Things Bite Back: Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences

John Gowdy, editor. Limited Wants, Unlimited Means: A Reader on Hunter-Gatherer Economics and the Environment

Jean Liedloff, The Continuum Concept: In Search of Happiness Lost (Classics in Human Development)

Living Within Limits: Ecology, Economics, and Population Taboos -- Garrett Hardin

Some are primary sources some are well documented secondary sources, a couple are fiction but helped with my own understanding of certain issues or offered a different perspective. If anyone would like specific recommendations on any of them feel free to drop me a line

Dis · November 16, 2003, 03:27

interesting thread. I'm happy the way it turned out.

I like Starchild's answer the best. I may have to check that guy out.

Ahh the age-old question. To progress or not to progress. I have flip-flopped on this issue several times. I still am an envrionmentalist. But I try to be realistic about it. In the end, I don't think humans have the capacity to restrict growth. And nature will be forced to take care of itself. Eventually we will reach a cap in our population- more or less.

PeteH · November 16, 2003, 10:01

the problem I have w/ Erich Fromm is that h elacks any real understanding of human history. He just sort of took the assumptions made by others as fact and then constructed a new theory around those premises, without really checking of those premises are true. He ignores the fact that for nearly all of human history, just like a woodchuck didn't need to worry about what he was going to be when he grew up, humans did not have that worry either. The knew they would grow up to be human, with all that that entailed for their culture. He chooses the Renaissance as his point to start looking at change, but we were on this road long before that. It is part of the view that everythign before European civilization and the Roman empire etc is just part of the vast darkness of prehistory where nothing important could possibly happen (except of course hundres of thousands of years of humans thriving and spreading in concert with the rest of life)

Starchild · November 16, 2003, 10:13

*shrug* Never said I agreed with Frommy, just that I had to write an essay on him for my Philosophy course. I admit he's annoyingly eurocentric but what do you expect from a writer in his era?

Az · November 16, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

. the days of gilgamesh. We where already started at that point. you need to go back a few thousand years more.

You're not listening.

this land was lacking any government at those days. It was the villagers who did all of this.

General Ludd · November 16, 2003, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

. the days of gilgamesh. We where already started at that point. you need to go back a few thousand years more.

You're not listening.

this land was lacking any government at those days. It was the villagers who did all of this.

Do you have a point, then? Wether there was any kind of formal government or not doesn't really matter (how many times have I said I'm not talking about political structure, but priorities?) And you're not going to threadjack this into a debate about wether there where governments in 1500bc or not

. Whatever you want to call it, there was organized societies with large populations and social hierarchies.

You're not talking about a tribe of 30 people striping the hills of judea bare, here... atleast, I hope you're not.

Az · November 16, 2003, 14:20

are you being thick on purpose? I am telling you there were no large societies. there were barely towns!

Of course, these were thousands of people. but they were living simple lives, with tribal societies.

Kuciwalker · November 16, 2003, 14:29

Quote:

ants, dude. ants. It's even much more lethal, deadly, and barbaric than humans. But then again, humans aren't (completely) zombified by chemicals, etc.

Are you sure?

Az · November 16, 2003, 14:37

that's why I added "completely"

General Ludd · November 16, 2003, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

are you being thick on purpose? I am telling you there were no large societies. there were barely towns!

Now, I have to ask if you're being purposefully thick. ~1500BC mespotamia is the prime example of what I've been talking about this whole time, it's where this whole behaviour started. It is called the 'cradle of civilization' for a reason - because that's where we started coming together in large agricultural communities and started building cities, governments, and even armies.

You're citing the very first civilizations as evidence to what we did pre-civilization.

And should I even wonder how we could of possibly stripped entire regions of forests if there where, apparently, no large societies?

Dis · November 16, 2003, 15:26

1500 BC doesn't sound right.

Isn't 4000 BC the obvious answer? Civ2/3 type starting dates for civilization

Az · November 16, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Now, I have to ask if you're being purposefully thick. ~1500BC mespotamia is the prime example of what I've been talking about this whole time, it's where this whole behaviour started. It is called the 'cradle of civilization' for a reason - because that's where we started coming together in large agricultural communities and started building cities, governments, and even armies.

DUH! I am not talking about mesopotamia. I am talking about this land!

General Ludd · November 16, 2003, 16:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

DUH! I am not talking about mesopotamia. I am talking about this land!

Bah, Judea is close enough to mesopotamia. I've always used the term to referance everything between the gulf and mediterranean.

Eitherway, spliting hairs about geography and semantics doesn't change matters any. The societies you are talking about where agricultural, and that's what matters.

I believe I used the phrase "progress and profit" earlier, and agriculture is what made both of those concepts possible. Before agriculture it was impossible to grow a surpluss of food and store it for hard times - ie. profit. And with agriculture, we where able to create permanent homes/cities, and further develope the surrounding land to increase our profit and compete with neigbouring societies (and, I might add, the olden-day equivelant of CEOs - landlords and chieftains - became increasingly wealthy while doing less and less work) - ie. 'progress'. This is what made the goal of exponential growth possible, and if you want to see what it was like before then, you have to look at nomadic hunter/gatherers.