Nice thoughts.

I think we also grew through a creative tendency, though I think it could be argued that destruction is a form of creativity or vice versa.

A form of iconoclasm, I think, is necessary for philosophical growth. But I fear one would need to create a replacement or risk being left groundless.

Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? — I like sushi

A herd, a troop, or a gang are collective defence mechanisms. A single buffalo cannot fend off a pride of lions, but a herd surely can. Before the discovery of fire, we probably did not eat meat, and therefore, we probably did not hunt. We still needed to fend off predators by forming gangs and defend against them collectively. It is not clear how mating worked back then, but it could have involved aggressive combat between males. Therefore, except for a possible mating season, I think that mankind was originally mostly cooperative. Therefore, I disagree.

I cannot see how humanity could have developed to the point we’ve reached today without sprouting from a natural destructive inclination. Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? Or if you think it was an admixture which way would you say we leaned more? — I like sushi

That we have evolved from an ancestry with destructive, combative or conflict-avoiding inclinations seems obvious. That we have evolved with the potential to see through our destructive tendencies and heed a deeper, more fundamental tendency to cooperate (to be aware, connect and collaborate) is arguable.

I would definitely say that we have learned more from being aware, connected and collaborative than from being destructive (ignoring, isolating and excluding). In fact, I would argue that being aware, connected and collaborative is the ONLY way to learn - or to evolve, for that matter.

I’m more or less suggesting that our cooperation grew from an initial destructive tendency. I certainly put a lot of weight into ‘empathy’, but I still think this may come from honing a destructive tendency.

I’m not suggesting an all or nothing, just that destruction is much easier than construction. Cooperation being a constructive endeavor.

Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? Or if you think it was an admixture which way would you say we leaned more? — I like sushi

The requirement to take other lives and to fight over land and resources does seem very much intrinsic to the human condition. Maybe it's one of the reasons why, in Buddhism, for example, the human condition was depicted as a state of woe, from one ought to seek release. Or, I suppose, from a high level, it's a reflection on man in the state of nature, which was not, as Jean Jacques Rousseau claimed, actually a state of grace, but one of strife and predation.

I’m not suggesting an all or nothing, just that destruction is much easier than construction. — I like sushi

Life is inherently violent.

Inter-species violence is necessary for predators to feed off prey and to remove competition for prey from one's territory. Intra-species violence is an important ingredient in the allocation mating rights. This principle is euphemistically called "competition" in biology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_(biology)

Violence exists because it is necessary.

There are rules in human society that seek to reduce violence. However, such rules can never be allowed to impede or obstruct the very principle of life, which always takes precedence. Therefore, the rulers in human society are continuously at risk of being smashed to smithereens. That is one reason why governing is a dangerous activity. If government tries to enforce rules that are contrary to the principles of life, it will sooner or later face an explosion of "natural" violence. I personally believe that we are again very close to a historical point at which the principles of life will regain the upper hand by attacking and destroying the ruling class.

I wasn’t necessarily talking about violent action. If there is a problem it seems to me that dealing with it in a cooperative manner is not the first port of call. Avoidance or destruction seems like the most efficient way to continue beyond the problem.

Just to repeat, I’m not denying how empathy plays a huge part or that we do generally lean toward cooperation. My thinking is focused on our more primal beginnings.

I agree we learn more by collaborating. I don’t see it as the first port of call though. Maybe once we learn the long term benefit of collaboration (social contract and such) then we become ‘civil’.

Life ignores, isolates and excludes more than it cooperates - all matter does, in fact. It seems to be a default - which I imagine you mean by ‘first port of call’. But that doesn’t necessarily make these tendencies more fundamental.

All of the forward steps in the universe have come about as a result of cooperation. The origin of life appears to have been contingent upon awareness, connection and collaboration, as has its evolution - while the diversity of life comes from the extent to which the various systems ignore, isolate and exclude (ie. natural selection and ‘survival of the fittest’).

It could be argued also that the origin of the universe was contingent upon these ‘cooperative’ tendencies, while the variety of elements and chemical reactions stemmed from destructive, combative or conflict-avoiding tendencies beginning at a sub-atomic level as a limiting or diversifying factor.

I guess it depends where you consider ‘primal’ to begin.

I think its possible to consider humanity as the last remaining outpost of potentially unlimited awareness, connection and collaboration in the universe...

The most pure form of a human being is that of egoism, or how our society loves to put "evil nature". Our way of thinking comes from the basis of destructive thinking, "doublethink", we accept false statements only to acquire that who doesn't belong to us. War, misery, destruction, etc, all of this come from the egoism, but not to metion the benefits that this selfishness brings to humanity would be evil of me. Peace, Prosperity, progress, all of this comes through the "Destruction" that humanity carries with it.

I cannot see how humanity could have developed to the point we’ve reached today without sprouting from a natural destructive inclination. Do you agree that we grew from a destructive disposition rather than a more cooperative one? Or if you think it was an admixture which way would you say we leaned more? — I like sushi

I don't think humans are inherently more destructive than any other predatory animal. For example, if wolves had the ability to develop technological extensions of their bodies, they'd quickly drive their prey to extinction. But humans are omnivores, with both predator and prey characteristics. We are capable of both competitive and cooperative behaviors. But, unlike most predators, we have no other species to counter our aggressive drives, as huge herds of ungulates tend to out-breed their small packs of predators.

Instead, the world itself is inherently moderated by a thermostat in that constructive Energy is offset by destructive Entropy, and Hot is balanced by Cold to maintain a livable temperature. So, in a Yin/Yang world, the dual nature of humans is adapted to compete where necessary, and to cooperate where possible. But, our big brains give us an unfair advantage. The only counter-balance to human predation may be our own collective conscience. That's why, as a species, we have an angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other, in a wrestling match for our collective soul. Our intelligence allows us to turn natural forces to our own advantage, and to find ways to repair the damage when those short-term advantages turn-out to have negative long-term consequences. Such as using fossil fuels to warm our cozy little homes, that in turn threaten to heat the whole planet to an unlivable degree.

We're not gods, so we learn by trial and error. But the wide-spread cynicism, that views humanity as a cancer on the face of Gaia is due in part to another positive-negative technology : modern drama-driven media that report in bold print all the raping & pillaging by oligarchs, autocrats, and technocrats, while relegating all the millions of mundane-but-positive efforts to the back page. So no, I disagree that humanity is a race of destructive demons. Instead, we are a Yin-Yang race in a Yin-Yang world, with both positive and negative characteristics that generally balance well enough to keep evolution on an upward arc. Think positive. :smile:


The Moral Arc : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moral_Arc

The Better Angels of Our Nature : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

The Upward Arc of Evolution : http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html

The BothAnd Principle : http://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page5.html

I don't think humans are inherently more destructive than any other predatory animal. — Gnomon

I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. My point was that I don’t see exactly how a more ‘destructive’ solution to problems wouldn’t be the grounding of later ‘constructive’ solutions. So when we come up against a problem we cannot overcome with force - ‘mental’ or ‘physical’ destructive intent - we then avoid the problem. If the problem persists we then look for cooperative advancement.

Overtime I am sure we’ve sided far more with cooperation being highly empathic creatures.

Let's take a longer over view than the last century. We evolved into our modern form roughly 300,000 years ago, and we lived as expert tool making hunter gatherers for about 280,000 years. During that time we were certainly not in any sort of Edenic state: We engaged in the sort of conflict that primates tend to engage in. (We are, after all, primates.). During those 280,000 years we did very little damage to the earth (we didn't have the means, yet). There weren't too many of us then, so we weren't always rubbing up against each other, the way people do in crowded cities.

Around 20,000 years ago, by some means not altogether known, we began to grow food, rather than using the snatch and grab method. There are still some people who hunt and gather. In order to do that, we had to settle down. We had to organize our labor, develop timing methods so that grain was scattered at the right time. In all, life quickly grew more complicated.

In another 15,000 years we had developed writing. We started building bigger things. (Much earlier we had already learned how to travel far and wide.). In not too many years later, the Greeks and others were philosophizing. Here we are.

SO, NO. Our beginnings weren't destructive. We became destructive as we developed the means to behave more dangerously in the manner of the primates we are--clever, very short-sighted creatures.