Some Good News About Human Nature For A Change

[work in progress]

Humans Are Not Naturally 'Nasty'

Our species has a lot of pro-social tendencies, debunking the view that humans are competitive, aggressive and brutish in nature.



I wanted to post something about this study reported in Discovery News a week ago, but I was finding myself spending way too much time having to argue about climate change to do much else...so I'm taking a little break from that to focus on other interests.

"Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies," Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

​

If you're not familiar with Frans de Waal, he is an expert on primate research, who has written extensively in the last 10 years, that others in the social sciences, were too hung up on comparing human behaviour and societies with chimpanzees. De Waal has noted many times, that we also share a lot of commonalities with the too often overlooked subspecies of chimps - the bononbos. They tend to cooperate more than compete ruthlessly for food as chimps more often do, and they are not prone to the frequency or scale of violence of chimps. So, why not look at what we demonstrate as cooperative behaviour and value that, rather than all of the blather about the importance of competition and personal achievement....like we would find at CPAC, or the average REpublican candidate's rally?

"Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies," Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
​

Asked if wide public acceptance of empathy as natural would change the intense competition on which capitalist economic and political systems are based, de Waal quipped, "I'm just a monkey watcher."
But he told reporters that research also shows animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their "in-group" -- and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world.
"Morality" developed in humans in small communities, he said, adding: "It's a challenge... it's experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world."
Humans Are Not Naturally 'Nasty' : Discovery News


​

Considering that our modern world is overdosing on competition among people, and military and economic warfare between nations, I would say that it is a challenge that needs to be taken, if the human race has any chance of continued survival.

 

[Sunstone]

De Waal's views are similar to many other primatologists and scientists. And they appear to be a legitimate interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Me Myself]

It is natural both to be competitive and to be supportive.

It is simply part of human nature to experience impulses that are seemingly contradictory to one another, but they all have or have had their place into our evolution.

Both good and bad things are natural to us, but we can choose which parts of our natures to enhance.

 

[work in progress]

De Waal's views are similar to many other primatologists and scientists. And they appear to be a legitimate interpretation of the evidence.

Yes, but doesn't that reflect a gradual shifting away from the comparison with chimpanzees, and a focus on cooperative behaviour, instead of putting the emphasis on aggression and competition?

 

[Valjean]

Humans can be very altruistic and co-operative -- within their own tribes or platoons.

 

[work in progress]

Humans can be very altruistic and co-operative -- within their own tribes or platoons.

Yes, it's been like this for thousands of years.....should say millions, since kin altruism is strong in lower mammals that existed long before humans were around.

That's the easy part; now what good is tribalism in the modern world? If anything, it makes the world more at risk of destruction. Unless the Circle of Concern can really be expanded as a universal value, which most people actually believe, rather than mouth some religious platitudes occasionally, there is no future for humanity.

 

[Quintessence]

Humans are social animals. That we tend to have interactions to facilitate this - which are positive - shouldn't be surprising to anyone except the overly-cynical and pessimistic folks.

 

[Child of Stardust]

It is natural both to be competitive and to be supportive.

It is simply part of human nature to experience impulses that are seemingly contradictory to one another, but they all have or have had their place into our evolution.

Both good and bad things are natural to us, but we can choose which parts of our natures to enhance.

Exactly. Evolution is only concerned with one thing: pragmatism. Whether that pragmatism is "moral" or not is of no concern to it. That means horrible things happen in nature, and very positive and uplifting things are a part of it too. Indeed, the "moral urge" itself evolved because it was an advantageous trait.

Humans can be very altruistic and co-operative -- within their own tribes or platoons.

Yes, but is it so crazy to believe the world as a whole will be seen as one tribe?

I know adversarialism is a part of human nature, but again, we have to remember the law of evolution - if something's disadvantageous, it tends to be disfavored. Aggressive men may (say) be less economically successful in a world that demands more cooperation, and thus seen as less appealing, which will affect the course of evolution. Evolution doesn't stop just because we've created civilization (at least, I'm not of the school of thought it does). And you have other outlets for that drive too you can deliberately nurture, like sports and other "friendly" rivalries.

Already, the idea of colonialism is seen as something to be ashamed of, rather than something to be proud of (a "strong", mighty nation "gloriously" subduing "weaker", inferior ones). Televising the war in Vietnam helped people see war in a different light.

I think the "circle of concern" evoked by another poster has indeed been expanding. Are we fully there? No, not at all, not at all. But when we are more interconnected, the fates of others affect us too. It's just inevitable. Why hasn't there been a full scale nuclear war? Because it would decimate humans in general. Granted, that's a more extreme example, but it helps illustrate the principle.

No one can be sure, but the increasingly global world we live in (as much as it has its dark side) really gives me hope that we may be coming closer to this ideal.

 

[work in progress]

Exactly. Evolution is only concerned with one thing: pragmatism. Whether that pragmatism is "moral" or not is of no concern to it. That means horrible things happen in nature, and very positive and uplifting things are a part of it too. Indeed, the "moral urge" itself evolved because it was an advantageous trait.

I feel a little uneasy with naturalist philosophers -- especially a lot of evolutionary psychologists, who are trying to use evolutionary principles to find their way to the perfect moral system today....Sam Harris being the latest example.

This is why I am nihilistic on the concept of how morality and ethical systems are created. I believe we mostly make it up as we go along, and basic principles like reciprocal altruism and kin altruism, can't tell us much about finding the best solutions for modern ethical problems.

I think the "circle of concern" evoked by another poster has indeed been expanding. Are we fully there? No, not at all, not at all. But when we are more interconnected, the fates of others affect us too. It's just inevitable. Why hasn't there been a full scale nuclear war? Because it would decimate humans in general. Granted, that's a more extreme example, but it helps illustrate the principle.

No one can be sure, but the increasingly global world we live in (as much as it has its dark side) really gives me hope that we may be coming closer to this ideal.

That may have been me, and I first came across the concept when reading the ideas of Peter Singer. He expands the concept past concern for the entire global human community, to applying these principles to other animals, based on their cognitive abilities for self-awareness. Robert Wright had an interesting take on the expanding "circle of concern" from hunter/gatherer societies to modern times in The Evolution Of God and how religious ethics went from total contempt for outsiders to ideas of universalism. But I find Wright to be a little too optimistic about the future, and today's world will either "beat their swords into ploughshares" because of the growing realization that wars and petty nationalistic rivalries are too expensive in our overcrowded world, or we take the Republican route of regressing into some sort of irrational denial of all risks....and civilization goes back to the dark ages, or something worse.

 

[Child of Stardust]

I feel a little uneasy with naturalist philosophers -- especially a lot of evolutionary psychologists, who are trying to use evolutionary principles to find their way to the perfect moral system today....Sam Harris being the latest example.

This is why I am nihilistic on the concept of how morality and ethical systems are created. I believe we mostly make it up as we go along, and basic principles like reciprocal altruism and kin altruism, can't tell us much about finding the best solutions for modern ethical problems.

Good point. I agree this is probably not a very good idea. I know Steven Pinker is part of *that* group of people, which includes Sam Harris (I see them as a bit of a circle jerk, to be honest, and I think they let their presuppositions get in the way a little too much... like they are starting with the answer and expect science to validate it) but I don't disagree with all of their ideas. I remember him mentioning something about our inherent moral sense being wonky (at least from the point of view of the "no harm" principle) in "The Blank Slate", where he mentioned how most people would cringe at the thought of a brother and sister having sex, even if they were using protection, and it resulted in no emotional harm and no regrets. I thought this was a good point.

What I was talking about was evolution giving us the concept of morality, not giving us a full fledged moral system "waiting to be discovered" (as I think Sam Harris says). Certainly not a moral system that is infallible, or objectively true in some way.

That may have been me, and I first came across the concept when reading the ideas of Peter Singer. He expands the concept past concern for the entire global human community, to applying these principles to other animals, based on their cognitive abilities for self-awareness. Robert Wright had an interesting take on the expanding "circle of concern" from hunter/gatherer societies to modern times in The Evolution of God and how religious ethics went from total contempt for outsiders to ideas of universalism. But I find Wright to be a little too optimistic about the future, and today's world will either "beat their swords into ploughshares" because of the growing realization that wars and petty nationalistic rivalries are too expensive in our overcrowded world, or we take the Republican route of regressing into some sort of irrational denial of all risks....and civilization goes back to the dark ages, or something worse.

I never finished "The Evolution of God" because I found much of it to be echoing the ideas in "A History of God", but did remember this being the general thrust of it. I think the main problem had more to do with the way he was framing it, almost like the moral equivalent of "necessary progress" (which most people still believe in, interestingly, hence: "it's 2012, people!"). I think that's as naive as "necessary progress" was, but I do think it's true that when the world becomes more interconnected, the "us" (of the "us" and "them" so deeply ingrained into our psyches) gets larger. The "them" is still there, and our treatment of "us" may be problematic at times, but overall we're nicer to "us" than "them", and predictably, considering more people as "one of us" has proven to be a good thing. A better alternative would be to get rid of the us/them thing altogether, of course, but I don't have much hope for that.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm definitely not denying that civilization might "go back to the dark ages", but I just don't think the chances are as good that it will. Predicting the future based on the past doesn't always work, but in a very general, overarching way, the pattern seems to have held true so far...

 

[work in progress]

Good point. I agree this is probably not a very good idea. I know Steven Pinker is part of *that* group of people, which includes Sam Harris (I see them as a bit of a circle jerk, to be honest, and I think they let their presuppositions get in the way a little too much... like they are starting with the answer and expect science to validate it) but I don't disagree with all of their ideas. I remember him mentioning something about our inherent moral sense being wonky (at least from the point of view of the "no harm" principle) in "The Blank Slate", where he mentioned how most people would cringe at the thought of a brother and sister having sex, even if they were using protection, and it resulted in no emotional harm and no regrets. I thought this was a good point.

Hi, good post! I forgot about this, so sorry for the long delay in responding.

I think you are right that Steven Pinker is heading in the same direction as Sam Harris, in looking for some way to ground moral choices with findings from evolutionary psychology.

Maybe because I have some aboriginal ancestry, I found when I listened to some of his lectures, that the pictures Pinker paints of the savagery of more primitive societies to be offensive. Some skeptics of what is called "new atheism" movement feel that part of the message behind the continual call for using "principles of the enlightenment" is a reformulated package of European exceptionalism, and my guard goes up when I hear someone telling us how bad our ancestors were, and how much better we are today because of modernity. Some anthropologists have noted that Pinker isn't using the best sources for data on hunter/gatherer societies...which are almost extinct as functioning groups today. And the available information, mostly gathered by researchers of the past who had either a hostile or a paternalistic approach to them is hard to trust. Were they really rapacious murderers? Well, that depends on the conditions where they were living, and the particular times as well. And if I attended one of his lectures, I'd like to ask Pinker about the prospects for continued progress now that the civilization we have created is bumping into the limits to further growth. Pinker seems to be somewhat of a libertarian when talking about economics...certainly he is a supporter of the present economic system; so what happens to moral progress when we have to start living more frugally with how we use energy and resources?

What I was talking about was evolution giving us the concept of morality, not giving us a full fledged moral system "waiting to be discovered" (as I think Sam Harris says). Certainly not a moral system that is infallible, or objectively true in some way.

That's what worries me about Harris! His fans talk about how inspirational he is; but to me, he comes across as a zealot. When he talks about what's moral and what's not, it's pretty clear that he is talking about his own vision.

I never finished "The Evolution of God" because I found much of it to be echoing the ideas in "A History of God", but did remember this being the general thrust of it. I think the main problem had more to do with the way he was framing it, almost like the moral equivalent of "necessary progress" (which most people still believe in, interestingly, hence: "it's 2012, people!"). I think that's as naive as "necessary progress" was, but I do think it's true that when the world becomes more interconnected, the "us" (of the "us" and "them" so deeply ingrained into our psyches) gets larger. The "them" is still there, and our treatment of "us" may be problematic at times, but overall we're nicer to "us" than "them", and predictably, considering more people as "one of us" has proven to be a good thing. A better alternative would be to get rid of the us/them thing altogether, of course, but I don't have much hope for that.

I never heard of Robert Wright before I got the "Evolution Of God." It is a pretty big reach, since he is trying to develop a theory describing the fundamentals of how religions arise and develop. His use of game theory to explain some of the changes, could explain those strange aspects of the Bible...such as how some books of the Old Testament are very cosmopolitan and generous in spirit to the gentile nations, while other writers want to kill them all.

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm definitely not denying that civilization might "go back to the dark ages", but I just don't think the chances are as good that it will. Predicting the future based on the past doesn't always work, but in a very general, overarching way, the pattern seems to have held true so far...

I'm a quarter way through a new book by psychologist Robert McCauley, who is a strong proponent of Dual Process Theory, and is highly skeptical of the believers in a modern secular golden age. He sees a slide back to ignorance as very possible....I'll keep reading and see what I can find.