Looking For The Principles Of Human Behaviour

Seeker25

Background

The current state of the world is dangerous, generating instability and widespread human suffering.

One legitimate attitude is to assume that humanity has no solution to these problems, a form of pessimistic fatalism articulated by Arthur Schopenhauer, for whom “life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom” (The World as Will and Representation, 1818).

Conversely, it is also legitimate to argue that the collective human intellect (approximately eight billion individual intelligences distributed across the Earth) should be capable of identifying ways to address the current global situation. As Baruch Spinoza argues, human reason is not external to nature but an expression of it and understanding the laws that govern reality is the first step toward acting adequately within it (Ethics, 1677).

It may be unproductive to argue indefinitely about which of these attitudes is ultimately correct, as such a debate risk becoming interminable. However, for those whose thinking aligns with Spinoza, it may become meaningful to open a dialogue about how humanity should attempt to address the present state of the world.

From this perspective, the initial task is to identify (and be able to justify) where could be found the guiding principles that must orient human behaviour.

Thesis

Human beings are a small component of a much larger system: the planetary system of Earth. In the same way, a driver is an element within a traffic system, and the liver is an organ within the human body. In certain cases, a sufficiently powerful element may modify the behaviour of the system as a whole. However, when this is not the case, the element (whether humanity, a driver, or an organ) must adapt to the governing laws of the broader system.

If an element persistently acts against the constraints of the system, systemic failure or catastrophe becomes likely. Humanity could disappear while the planet continues its evolutionary trajectory; a driver who ignores traffic signals may cause an accident, yet the traffic system itself remains intact; and if a liver disease cannot be healed, the individual organism may die while biological life as a whole persists.

The implication is clear: understanding the laws of the larger system within which humanity operates is not optional but necessary. Any sustainable model of human behaviour must be grounded in alignment with those systemic constraints rather than in opposition to them.

As Donella H. Meadows emphasizes, systems impose their own structures, feedback, and limits, and actors within them cannot sustainably act as if those constraints did not exist; effective intervention requires first understanding the behaviour of the system itself rather than focusing narrowly on the intentions of its components (Meadows, Thinking in Systems, 2008).

If we wish to proceed with this analysis, we must distance ourselves from our own human insignificance (having existed for only 0.004% of the planet’s total lifespan) and examine Earth’s behaviour from its origin to the present, seeking to identify the main evolutionary lines and determine how we must adapt to them.

The “Earth system” to which we belong, generates life, diversity, intelligence, and other emergent properties. My purpose is to debate the long-term trends of this Earth system and examine how we, the humanity, must adapt to them to avoid instability, or potentially catastrophe.

BC

The “Earth system” to which we belong, generates life, diversity, intelligence, and other emergent properties. — Seeker25

As products of the earth system, we are what we are, for better and for worse. As you say, "The current state of the world is dangerous, generating instability and widespread human suffering." We are often authors of our own suffering--being what we are: primate descendants with a big brain and strong emotions. We can't help that we have the brainpower to carry out irrational (even insane) plans. We can't help it that our aspirations are not in sync across 8 billion people. The world at universal peace and contentment would require that we were in agreement about how to live good lives. It would require magnitudes of reduced friction in all aspects of life.

We being what we are, universal peace and contentment and friction free human interaction is remote, at best. That's unfortunate, but that is also reality.

life swings like a pendulum backward and forward between pain and boredom — Seeker25

I disagree with Schopenhauer: There is no swinging pendulum. Pain and boredom are not the sum of existence. There is also joy. happiness, sadness, pain, boredom, joy, grief, amusement, love, sex, indifference, hatred, longing, inspiration, brilliant insight, abysmal stupidity -- all manner of moods and modes make up the 'stew' of life.

We can understand ourselves fairly well -- but more understanding won't change us. We would just see our good, our bad, our ugly, and our beautiful with more clarity.

One of our several problems is that there are a lot of us, and we have difficulty staying out of each others way. But then, when there were only 250 million of us (about the year 1000 a.d.) we had the same kinds of problems we have now. So, fewer of us wouldn't make that much difference.

We may be doomed to suffer from our own faults, but we can do at least a little better.

Seeker25

↪BC

You have raised several interesting issues that I would like to comment on.

As products of the earth system, we are what we are — BC

But who are we? We are not merely evolved animals that behave according to instinct, that is, beings that produce similar reactions in response to similar stimuli. We possess, at least, three qualitative differences:intelligence (which enables us to evaluate and choose),conscience (awareness of ourselves, of our situation in the world, and of our condition as members of humanity), and freedom to act (provided that those in power do not steal it). The Earth system has endowed us with powerful tools to achieve high levels of human cooperation and personal well-being. It is up to us to decide whether we want to improve humanity.

The world at universal peace and contentment would require that we were in agreement about how to live good lives — BC

I fully agree with your opinion, because this is a crucial issue. Let me highlight a few ideas. It seems to me that, among most humans, there are far more points of agreement than of disagreement. Unfortunately, rogue governments do not help to achieve broad consensus, as they tend to focus on their own interests rather than those of their citizens. When objectives are clear, we frequently see populations align behind them and offer their support.

Although I cannot foresee what the outcome may be, I am convinced, as you suggest, that the first step is to identify our collective objectives. My proposal is that we must understand how the Earth system behaves, explain it clearly, and adapt our actions accordingly.

Let me describe a couple of trends (among many) within the Earth system.

Life propensity and diversity. There is no doubt that both are real and persistent features of the system. At the beginning, our planet was a ball of fire; today, its surface is covered by an uncountable number of living beings. Moreover, throughout its history, Earth has experienced five mass-extinction events, during which approximately 75–95% of all species disappeared. In every case, life and diversity eventually recovered.

Given that the Earth system behaves in this way, do we truly believe that we can achieve stability and well-being by killing people and destroying habitats rather than preserving them; by allowing those with different skin colours to starve; or by imprisoning those who think differently? Do we really think that these ideas (simple to explain and justify) cannot be understood and supported by large segments of humanity?

BC

But who are we? We are not merely evolved animals that behave according to instinct, that is, beings that produce similar reactions in response to similar stimuli. — Seeker25

I think it was Richard Feynman (bongo-playing nuclear physicist) who said, "nothing is mere". We are evolved animals, and many animals who appear to run only on instinct have to operate in a real world where instinct is not enough. So do we.

Our brains are designed to operate in a similar way, and we see each other doing very similar things from infancy forward. If that is so, it takes nothing away from our uniqueness as a species or as individuals. Other species also have various kinds of intelligence, and must make choices -- even honey bees. Consciousness is something we apparently have. I am not sure that we can determine that no other species has it. Earth worms? Probably not. Dogs? I suspect (without knowing) that they may have some consciousness. Primates? Probably. Maybe elephants.

I like to emphasize that we are part of a continuum of life which has been created over a long period of time. Our evolutionary history is why "we are what we are" and every other species is what it is as well.

Given that the Earth system behaves in this way, do we truly believe that we can achieve stability and well-being by killing people and destroying habitats rather than preserving them; by allowing those with different skin colours to starve; or by imprisoning those who think differently? Do we really think that these ideas (simple to explain and justify) cannot be understood and supported by large segments of humanity? — Seeker25

One of the features which Mother Nature gave us (for reasons which she didn't explain to me) is a 5 generation attention span--at the very best--between our grandparents and our grandchildren--about 100 years. (That really is "at best". Way best.). A lot of us have difficulty laying out a 5 year plan. Hungry investors want to see bigger profits every 3 months. Football (baseball) fans can manage 3 or 4 hours of sustained attention. Politicians think in terms of 2, 4, or 6 year terms. Personally, in my old age I tend to think of a day or two ahead.

So, when it comes to the question of:

how much water we can safely pump out of an aquifer
how long will it take to pay off the national debt
how much soil can we afford to lose every year
should we build houses on this flood plain which has been dry for 40 years

and so on, we are totally out of our element. We just can't act over long time periods, most of the time. Sure, some people are good mid-range planners. Doctors, for instance, have to plan for 12 years of training to be a specialist. Oil company execs have to think about how long an oil well will be productive. But oil executives may be completely unable to think about the long-term consequences of burning the oil in the well.

Most of the time, most of us work with very short range plans, and feel we have to resolve our needs and wants in that short period of time. So, to use a current event, Donald Trump can't wait for diplomacy and negotiation to work out access to Greenland. No, we need to demand it RIGHT NOW. Vladimir Putin can't wait to work out some sort of security arrangement for Russia; he insisted on seizing bits of the Ukraine RIGHT NOW (starting with swiping Crimea 12 years ago).

We give lip service to peace and protecting earth's ecology. But when push comes to shove, peace and nature get tossed out the window. Why? Because our immediate concerns take precedence over more distant concerns (even if the consequences of ignoring ecology are grave). It's not that we are inherently evil, stupid, or insane. We simply are wired to prioritize the immediate over the distant when the immediate stakes are raised.

I don't like it, but that's the way it seems to be.

jkop

The “Earth system” to which we belong, generates life, diversity, intelligence, and other emergent properties. My purpose is to debate the long-term trends of this Earth system and examine how we, the humanity, must adapt to them to avoid instability, or potentially catastrophe. — Seeker25

In biology adaptation may result in balanced and stable systems, but all systems are not biological. We're part of many different systems: natural, artificial or socially constructed, good or bad etc. As long as they're intelligible, we can find out what to do.

But what is a larger "Earth system"?

A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. — Wikipedia

Since there are many different smaller systems, based on different laws, some contradicting each other etc it seems implausible that a larger system could be intelligible as a system.

frank

I like to emphasize that we are part of a continuum of life which has been created over a long period of time. Our evolutionary history is why "we are what we are" and every other species is what it is as well. — BC

About 99% of species that have existed on earth are now extinct. Do you have thoughts about the end of our species? I always thought it was kind of un-face-able, but do you feel like the possibility can be faced, and accepted? If we really are part of a continuum, maybe it's ok, because something else will take our place.

BC

Do you have thoughts about the end of our species? — frank

Damned if I know.

The major extinction events were the result of external catastrophic events. We could certainly have one of those -- a big rock hitting earth or a super volcano blowing, for example. Either of those could cause a precipitous drop in global temperature (sunlight greatly reduced by dust) long enough to starve us out along with a lot of other species.

We are a threat to ourselves. Global warming and nuclear war come to mind. The minds behind The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (thinking of their doomsday clock) are not optimistic about our future.

We should definitely face the possibility of extinction in order to protect ourselves from the delusion that we will just survive, no matter what. The space that was emptied in previous extinctions stayed empty. Chickadees are dinosaurs, but they are a far tweet from T-Rex. Our smart, conscious species might never be replicated. Mind might be gone forever if we are lost.

frank

Chickadees are dinosaurs, but they are a far tweet from T-Rex — BC

They're doing the best they can. There was an asteroid issue.

Seeker25

I like to emphasize that we are part of a continuum of life which has been created over a long period of time. Our evolutionary history is why "we are what we are" and every other species is what it is as well. — BC

Of course, our history explains what we are. However, I insist that it is important not to be mistaken when defining what we are. In the same way that it is true that an iPhone is made up of metals and plastics but is not only that—it is also a communications hub, a data bank, and more—we too are much more than an evolved animal. We possess enormous capabilities that allow us to determine what kind of world we want and, if we choose, how to adapt it to the Earth system of which we are a part.

Because our immediate concerns take precedence over more distant concerns (even if the consequences of ignoring ecology are grave). It's not that we are inherently evil, stupid, or insane. We simply are wired to prioritize the immediate over the distant when the immediate stakes are raised. — BC

Although modern life seems to push us toward short-term decision-making, our brains are not limited to the short term. On the contrary, they can imagine long-term futures, reconciling them with collective interests, and devising ways to act accordingly. The real problem of the 21st century is not cognitive limitation but the absence of solid reference points to guide behaviour, and the lack of convincing arguments to defend them.

We see this clearly when political leaders justify aggression in the name of “national integrity.” How can we argue that the well-being of citizens is a higher-order value than inherited notions of national sovereignty? Similarly, are fake news merely a technological pastime, or an attack on humanity itself? The Earth system required 4.5 billion years to generate intelligence, and fake news represent a serious assault on that achievement: instead of fostering intelligence, as education does, they deliberately undermine it.

Since there are many different smaller systems, based on different laws, some contradicting each other etc it seems implausible that a larger system could be intelligible as a system. — jkop

If we cannot clearly resolve the contradictions between systems of equal rank, we must try to understand how the higher-order system works. This is not always easy, but it is the correct path. Consider the human body: even its most basic systems present contradictions. Our digestive system encourages us to consume foods (proteins and fats) that are harmful to the circulatory system (cholesterol), and our nervous system, when under stress, predisposes us to eat more. To understand what is really happening, we must understand how the body and mind function as a whole and analyse their overall behaviour.

If we understand how the Earth system works, we will have a set of criteria that should serve as a framework within which lower-order systems ought to function and relate to one another: the political system, individual and collective freedoms, ecological balance, education and the dissemination of knowledge, economic development, and so on.

Seeker25

Do you have thoughts about the end of our species? I always thought it was kind of un-face-able, but do you feel like the possibility can be faced, and accepted? — frank

Humanity will eventually disappear. Our Sun, like many other stars, will exhaust its hydrogen fuel, then expand and engulf part of the Solar System. Fortunately, this is expected to occur in about five billion years.
However, we could disappear much earlier if we persist in imposing our own criteria while ignoring the evolutionary trends of the Earth system, which has—fortunately—endowed us with consciousness: the ability to understand ourselves, our place in the world, and the needs of others. From this point onward, it is up to us, exercising our freedom, to decide what attitude we choose to adopt.

ChatteringMonkey

Humanity will eventually disappear. Our Sun, like many other stars, will exhaust its hydrogen fuel, then expand and engulf part of the Solar System. Fortunately, this is expected to occur in about five billion years.
However, we could disappear much earlier if we persist in imposing our own criteria while ignoring the evolutionary trends of the Earth system, which has—fortunately—endowed us with consciousness: the ability to understand ourselves, our place in the world, and the needs of others. — Seeker25

Yes ultimately nothing is sustainable. Or put another way, sustainability is a matter of shorter or longer duration.

All other things being equal, most would probably agree that longer is better. But in practice all other things probably wouldn't be equal. Longer probably implies a lower energy less technologically advanced and less populous world. One could for instance imagine humanity surviving until the sun expands to far, living like we did most of our history up to the agricultural evolution, where nothing much changes... Or one could go the other way where we do shoot for the stars in a shorter less sustainable burst but reach higher heights.

And then who's to say what is better, this seems like something that can't be derived merely from evolution without some prior value-judgement.

From this point onward, it is up to us, exercising our freedom, to decide what attitude we choose to adopt. — Seeker

The issue with this point of view is that it assumes a kind of unified human agency, a universal 'we' that can collectively decide a direction for humanity as a whole.

That seems 1) implausible considering our history, there always have been competing groups of people with different interests. Geo-politics probably won't just go away any time soon.

And 2) it isn't entirely clear that a kind of unification of principles and goals would even be all that desirable to begin with. Competition between different groups of humans is a driving force that keeps us sharp and propels us forward. And from an evolutionary point of view, real diversity of groups is probably a more successful strategy than a unified humanity anyway, because then you have a bigger chance that a least some of them will be fit for changing circumstances.

ChatteringMonkey

Here's maybe something to ponder.

The history of life on earth has been one of punctuated equilibria, where you had on the one hand longer relative stable states where evolution went relatively slow. And then there also were shorter periods of dramatic change in the earths system that made entire branches of life die off and enabled those that remained to recover and to evolve rapidly to fill vacant ecological niches.

Part of what caused life to evolve in all its diverse forms was these periods of dramatic change. If we are saying that we want to conserve the current iteration of earths system, we are essentially saying we want to remain in the equilibrium state indefinably. But since that is only part of the equation that drives evolution, aren't we essentially trying to freeze that process in place? And from an evolutionary point of view wouldn't that be a kind of stasis and ultimately less interesting than letting the equilibrium be punctuated now and then?

All of this to say that the following is probably also still an essentially human perspective on things:

The “Earth system” to which we belong, generates life, diversity, intelligence, and other emergent properties. My purpose is to debate the long-term trends of this Earth system and examine how we, the humanity, must adapt to them to avoid instability, or potentially catastrophe. — Seeker25

The "Earth system" is a changing system, and instability and catastrophe was historically part of it.

magritte

if we persist in imposing our own criteria while ignoring the evolutionary trends of the Earth system, which has—fortunately—endowed us with consciousness: the ability to understand ourselves, our place in the world, and the needs of others. From this point onward, it is up to us, exercising our freedom, to decide what attitude we choose to adopt. — Seeker25

Natural unplanned evolution is not necessarily our ally if we are dreaming of survival as a species. Naturally, the only foreseeable trend is extinction now or later due to some environmental upheaval that makes human life impossible, or over-population and disease, or unbridled global technological abuse. To defeat the pessimistic projections of the concerned scientists we could appeal to unnatural selection by introducing beneficial genes into all humans to create the long imagined superhuman to be our descendants. This is a frightening but not an impossible project given where current scientific research is headed.

frank

↪ChatteringMonkey

A Euglena is a one celled thing that has both mitochondria and chlorophyll. It's hard to kill because if it has light, it gets energy that way. If there's no light, it can eat.

Plants and animals both went through all sorts of evolution trying to survive, and in the process, became complex, but they're still precarious compared to the Euglena (algae).

Which just goes to show: we humans exist because of adversity. If we had utopia, we would just sit there.

BC

We possess enormous capabilities that allow us to determine what kind of world we want and, if we choose, how to adapt it to the Earth system of which we are a part. — Seeker25

One of the things that emerged from our evolutionary progress is hubris.

On the contrary, they can imagine long-term futures, reconciling them with collective interests, and devising ways to act accordingly. — Seeker25

We can certainly imagine long term futures. Science fiction writers do a handsome job of this.

Let's say there were clear predictions in 1976 that the level of atmospheric CO2, methane, and other green house gases was expected to reach reach high enough levels to begin producing significant climate / weather changes by 2026. Whatever level was reached in 2026 would not be a peak. In 2026 we know that the greenhouse gas levels continue to rise and whatever consequences will derive from these gas levels will last far into the future (because greenhouse gases are long-lasting).

Did the ordinary people of the earth do much about global warming? Did governmental leaders, possessing considerable power, do much about global warming? Did the leaders of various industries who manufacture greenhouse gases (directly or indirectly) change any company policy? Did I, an ecologically concerned guy, change my diet to cut greenhouse gases? Did you? Did you do everything you could to assure a future for you, your siblings, you children, and your friends?

The answer to these questions is almost certainly "NO" in all cases. Why?

In 2026, the industrialized countries of the planet have not accomplished much in the way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They have met, made earnest speeches, signed treaties, and so on but nothing much has resulted. The main reason is that reducing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is highly inconvenient (it really is), it involves uncomfortable changes in life-style, (it really does), and it will cost a lot of money (it's expensive). AND we who will be the first to experience the inconvenience, the discomfort, and the cost will not see much benefit. The people who will see the benefit of our efforts haven't been born yet.

We may not agree about this, but I don't believe we are actually able to make major sacrifices for people who are not born yet. When we benefit future people, it is usually after we have benefitted ourselves. Hoover Dam was finished in 1936. It benefitted people right away. It still does.
We are still using the Brooklyn Bridge (1869), but it wasn't built for our benefit. it was built for the people who needed it in the 19th century.

Maybe there is not enough mass suffering for us to see the wisdom of working hard to eliminate greenhouse gas production. I know it is happening, but so far the climate in Minnesota has remained quite pleasant. People (with AC) still like living in awfully hot Phoenix, apparently.

ChatteringMonkey

Which just goes to show: we humans exist because of adversity. If we had utopia, we would just sit there. — frank

Yes and this is, as you probably know, one of Nietzsches main issues with a purely utilitarian view on morality. We need some adversity to be able to grow. The quest to reduce all suffering would ultimately also reduce what we can be as human beings.

Joshs

↪ChatteringMonkey

Yes and this is, as you probably know, one of Nietzsches main issues with a purely utilitarian view on morality. We need some adversity to be able to grow. The quest to reduce all suffering would ultimately also reduce what we can be as human beings — ChatteringMonkey

Not only that, it would eliminate pleasure itself.

“…the satisfaction of the will is not the cause of pleasure: I particularly want to combat this most superficial of theories. The absurd psychological counterfeiting of the nearest things . . . instead, that the will wants to move forwards, and again and again becomes master of what stands in its way: the feeling of pleasure lies precisely in the unsatisfaction of the will, in the way it is not yet satiated unless it has boundaries and resistances . . .

The normal unsatisfaction of our drives, e.g., of hunger, the sexual drive, the drive to move, does not in itself imply something dispiriting; instead, it has a piquing effect on the feeling of life, just as every rhythm of small painful stimuli strengthens that feeling, whatever the pessimists would have us believe. This unsatisfaction, far from blighting life, is life's great stimulus. - Perhaps one could even describe pleasure in general as a rhythm of small unpleasurable stimuli . . .
(Nietzsche’s Last Notebooks)

frank

Yes and this is, as you probably know, one of Nietzsches main issues with a purely utilitarian view on morality. We need some adversity to be able to grow. The quest to reduce all suffering would ultimately also reduce what we can be as human beings. — ChatteringMonkey

:up:

Seeker25

↪ChatteringMonkey

↪BC

I think we are saying similar things, and they are not contradictory.

We do not know how long our civilization may last, but it seems desirable that, for as long as it does, we pursue the following goals: A) that it does not end abruptly (for example, through a nuclear war or catastrophic climate overheating), and B) that life is not a continuous source of suffering for millions of people.

If we accept both goals as desirable, the next question is: what should we do to achieve them?

As you have seen, my proposal is that our behaviour should take as a reference certain higher-level trends that transcend humanity itself, trends that no one has decided upon, and which the Earth system is demonstrably following. These trends are clear, easy to identify, and have many practical consequences that we can discuss in detail later. For now, I will simply list them to clarify what I mean: A propensity for life; diversity; fragile and ephemeral life; beauty; balance; freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness
.
The essential point is that our actions as humans should not confront the trends of the Earth system. On the contrary, we should assimilate and promote them. By doing so, we would achieve greater stability and well-being.

These principles are compatible with most human activities, as well as with competition among us, debate, and the defence of legitimate viewpoints. However, they are not compatible, among other things, with war, dictatorships, extreme social differences, inequality, systemic imbalances, restrictions on education, unhealthy habitats that prevent a dignified life, and so on.

What is required is to accept a frame of reference that has not been imposed by anyone but is instead defined by simple observation of the evolution of the Earth system. We can affect, partially and temporarily, the evolution of our planet, but we cannot alter its long-term trajectory.

I do not believe that accepting these principles should be seen as a sacrifice. On the contrary, it would increase our stability and could become a requirement of good governance for those in power, in the sense that it is not legitimate to make decisions that oppose the interests of those of us who inhabit the Earth and of those who will come after us.

BC

A) that it does not end abruptly (for example, through a nuclear war or catastrophic climate overheating), and B) that life is not a continuous source of suffering for millions of people. — Seeker25

Both are difficult, but eminently worthwhile and do-able. Maybe we could say B) that CIVILIZATION (such as it is) not be a continuous source of suffering...

Famine, for instance, usually has political causes -- Sudan, for example, or Gaza.

A propensity for life; diversity; fragile and ephemeral life; beauty; balance; freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness — Seeker25

I agree with the first three items, plus balance. But 'beauty, freedom; intelligence; socialization; mutual dependence; complexity; and consciousness' are, in my opinion, NOT part of earth-trends. They belong to the sphere of human activity, and of course are also eminently worthwhile.

"Earth-trends" is your term, and you define it more inclusively than I would. We may not be able to agree on the fine print, but I seems like we are both on the same side.

Looking For The Principles Of Human Behaviour

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions