Does Civilization have an Engine?

Originally posted by Palynka
Man is not opposed to Nature, but a part of it. Doesn't that entail that societies are a natural phenomenon and a trait of our species? This is what many people fail to grasp.

Also, war is a word that is only meaningful to species that live in organized groups. War then cannot be more "natural" than societies. Individual fights for survival cannot be considered "wars", in my opinion.

Perhaps a refinement of definitions of the natural ethic is called for.

These ideas are pretty much my own, and I don't know if they are valid in a scientific sense.

I see in nature two basic ethics that are guided by our biology. The ethic of the "provider" and the ethic of the "preserver". I mistakenly attributed these as "male" and "female" for a long time, then realized that they are no such thing. Every person has both ethic and how we respond to each is more nurture than nature.

In the provider ethic I see the soldier and those who are proud of his life, even should it be lost... because the provider ethic says to us "I will protect you." In the preserver ethic I see the soldier as a threat and the voice that calls out "give peace a chance".

The provider ethic says that if one slain deer is good then two are better. The preserver ethic says that the gain isn't worth the risk.

Are these natural ethics different for different people? Consider that they can become inert or unused depending on the stresses of society and of just maintaining a daily life.

A person who is responsible for the lives of others will always consider the provider ethic to be imperative, while one who is not responsible for the lives of others will inevitably have a high preservation ethic. And I'm not talking about one or two children who must be "supported" by soccer moms. I'm talking about stressful "near poverty" survival mode here. Wealth and the "provider" ethic cancel each other. There is an argument that this is why rich kids are usually the most alienated from their parent. The parent says "I provide! I am wealthy! My kids have no needs that aren't met." The child says, "I'm lonely."

Does this sound familiar? As the family size decreases, we become a more "progressive" civilization? And "Mormons are all redneck hicks with ten children"? The "mormons" have children depending on them. The "progressives" might have a dog. Or a cat.

This is a deliberate exageration for the purpose of illustrating a point.

So while war is quite natural, and societies are inevitable consequence of the survival instinct... our own preselected ethic seems to determine our attitude towards them. A provider will see war as necessary or "justified". A preserver will see war as somehow morally corrupt and "unjust". A provider sees society as a potential obstacle, while the preservation ethic views it as a bulwark against barbarity.

Thanks for your post. This is in response to scottishinnz's post above yours also. Thank you also.

Mike

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Perhaps a refinement of definitions of the natural ethic is called for.

These ideas are pretty much my own, and I don't know if they are valid in a scientific sense.

I see in nature two basic ethics that are guided by our biology. The ethic of the "provider" and the ethic of the "preserver". I mistakenly attributed these as "male" and "female" for ...[text shortened]... shinnz's post above yours also. Thank you also.

Mike

Yet, in your view, the provider sees society as an obstacle, yet is willing to die for his own in war. How do you reconcile these two things?

Originally posted by Palynka
Yet, in your view, the provider sees society as an obstacle, yet is willing to die for his own in war. How do you reconcile these two things?

A provider would never think of not dying for his kind because he sublimates the immediate need for self-preservation with an exaggerated sense of duty. He has SUBLIMATED the notion of society completely into the more real "band of brothers" that fits his/her needs in ethical decision making.

Two other observations....

1 - A person on the dole will tend to have a strong "preservation" ethic and a weak "provider" ethic because he/she is provided for. The strong "preservation" ethic will demand a "progressive" government.

2 - A person with no government monetary feedback will tend to have a strong "provider" ethic and a weak "preservation" ethic because he/she must provide for those on the dole which robs their ability to provide for their wards. These will demand a "conservative" or non-progressive government.


As in any generalization, take these for what they worth though, knowing that there are many exceptions.

One humorous note... In thinking about the two words -- "conservative" and "preservationist" -- one would think them synonymous, but they are exact opposites. When I really want a "Ted Kennedy" moment, I just envision him as "preservative" and it jells nicely with him being a fruit cake/nut case. lol

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
A provider would never think of not dying for his kind because he sublimates the immediate need for self-preservation with an exaggerated sense of duty. He has SUBLIMATED the notion of society completely into the more real "band of brothers" that fits his/her needs in ethical decision making.

The "band of brothers" is more real than the notion of society? I believe it's the opposite, actually. This is exactly why your provider needs to subliminate the notion of society. But this means that if he faced reality he would realize that his sense of duty is misfounded!

Your provider lives in perpetual cognitive dissonance.

Originally posted by Palynka
The "band of brothers" is more real than the notion of society? I believe it's the opposite, actually. This is exactly why your provider needs to subliminate the notion of society. But this means that if he faced reality he would realize that his sense of duty is misfounded!

Your provider lives in perpetual cognitive dissonance.

Spoken like a true preserver and fearful child.

Why are you so afraid?

lol

You see, we went from an easy open discussion of ideas to you wanting the world to support your views. grin. Not an attack, just an observation.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You see, we went from an easy open discussion if ideas to yu wanting the world to support your views. grin. Not an attack, just an observation.

No, I actually didn't present my personal views at all. I simply pointed out some of the logical conclusions that stem from your exposition that you don't seem to be aware of.

But since you define yourself as a provider, I'm not surprised by your own cognitive dissonance. Not an attack, just an observation. grin.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I actually didn't present my personal views at all. I simply pointed out some of the logical conclusions that stem from your exposition that you don't seem to be aware of.

But since you define yourself as a provider, I'm not surprised by your own cognitive dissonance. Not an attack, just an observation. grin.

That's ok with me.

I wonder now if you want to just argue for the sake of argument. As I said, I have nothing tied up in these ideas. They seem interesting to consider. They may or may not be accurate and they may or may not have any "truth" to them.

In my view, knowing that you have always tended to be very insecure (as in pseudo-lib), I don't know what to say.

I guess that I can say that what you say has never made any sense to me, so why expect it now. And i'm sure you feel the same way. Which may or may not be proof of the evolutionary chasm dividing our ethic.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
That's ok with me.

I wonder now if you want to just argue for the sake of argument. As I said, I have nothing tied up in these ideas. They seem interesting to consider. They may or may not be accurate and they may or may not have any "truth" to them.

In my view, knowing that you have always tended to be very insecure (as in pseudo-lib), I don't kn ...[text shortened]... you feel the same way. Which may or may not be proof of the evolutionary gulf in our ethic.

No, I find your ideas interesting although I obviously don't agree with them. I appreciate that you take the time to expose them and I thank you for it.

This doesn't mean that I agree with you though. Think of it as some sort of ideological Bushido. I appreciate coherence even when I disagree with the underlying assumptions. Coherently, you cannot distrust society and be willing to die for it. If you can, explain me how because your story about subliminal notions of society sounds like the guy fooling himself.

As for accusations of insecurity and pseudo-lib, don't assume you know my position. I'm definitely not anti-war, FYI, I just think it needs a coherent reason.

Originally posted by Palynka
No, I find your ideas interesting although I obviously don't agree with them. I appreciate that you take the time to expose them and I thank you for it.

This doesn't mean that I agree with you though. Think of it as some sort of ideological Bushido. I appreciate coherence even when I disagree with the underlying assumptions. Coherently, you cannot distrus know my position. I'm definitely not anti-war, FYI, I just think it needs a coherent reason.

You are putting words and ideas into the mind of our poor soldier.

You leaped to the conclusion of substituting society for the band of brothers. Or perhaps I misunderstood the question of "how can he go to war". In the band of brothers answer I thought you meant how can he bolster courage to face bullets. I think you meant "how can he forsake society and go to war".

Can this be the source of this misunderstanding? It is probably my fault as I am writing code and posting at the same time. I will not be surprised if my over-the-counter sales app doesn't start spitting ethical imperatives at the users tomorrow. Sigh.

Coherently, you cannot distrust society and be willing to die for it. If you can, explain me how because your story about subliminal notions of society sounds like the guy fooling himself.

This is a bold statement. One way to change society is to fight for a minority opinion in war. Are you really saying that only if one trusts society can he be a soldier? If so, give examples of why this is so. As to subliminal notions of society, you need to get out more. Have you ever heard of the Crips or the Bloods? How about the 49ers or the Rams? Can one assert that these are viable examples of members of societies sublimated into their own "higher cause"? Here are a few examples of really good soldiers who were not content with the society they fought for. The fighting 92nd. The most decorated unit of WWII, the 442nd and the fighter jocks who 'never lost a bomber' under their protection... the 332nd. These are just a few of many.

http://www.historynet.com/magazines/world_war_2/3034036.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Combat_Team

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Airmen

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I think that we all can find purpose, but it may be in areas outside of our pursuit of money, ie, "jobs" or employment. Family, church, hobbies and even Pets seem to be capable of making our lives "worthwhile".

Did you know that some people who lose pets grieve longer than an average person who loses a child? I always thought this was absurd until I realized that the disproportionate love was really a -- reason for being -- of a lot of people. Who am I to scoff at what makes others "needed" and brings meaning and purpose?