Number 95 : February 1999 |
Albert Dean (C94/29-31) : Where to start ? My model (polemical as it was) applied to the genesis of man as a whole, Albert included! Therefore, I look forward to meeting him next time I’m up a tree. However, whilst up there, I would contest his understanding of the evolutionary process; he clearly reads different books to me.
For example, I accept that our predecessors may have enjoyed a mixed diet, but even if a small part of it was meat, given that there were fewer butchers around then than now, we must have had to go out and invite a smaller neighbour to donate its body to our daily protein requirement. The small neighbour will usually have done this grudgingly, therefore the meal will probably have followed a successful chase and/or fight. It follows that the biggest, fiercest, etc, of our predecessors will have generally enjoyed more meals than their more passive partners, leading to more procreation, better survival, and so on, which provides the trail all the way through to the attitudes of the leaders on the battlegrounds of today, which include the city trading room and the football terrace more than any actual battlefield. Whether this was done from a home base in a tree or elsewhere is immaterial.
How does it follow that if we were slow we must have been timid? I would suggest it meant we were strong enough not to have developed speed for escape, and being cleverer than the average prey, we could select and devour the slower ones. Yes, maybe one that was infantile or past its prime, but if one is hungry, sport and morals don’t come into it. Ask any Great White shark.
I was going to respond in some way to the treatise on the tactical difficulties of bombing operations, but as it had nothing to do with the matter under discussion in the first place, I won’t. Railing on about the insanity of mass destruction, in the context of the argument I advanced, is as off the mark as railing at the destructive power of earthquakes or diseases.
If there is a philosophical point to make out of this at all, it is probably that the exchange illustrates a point I made (or implied) in C93, that there is a gulf between the weltanschauung of the likes of Albert and me, and we’re both probably equally pleased that this is the case. The best evidence of that is the way that he refers to the enemy in wars as "us" or "ourselves", when of course they are "them" or "the other", just like the fox in the trap or the turkey on the table!
We may not necessarily be the "planet’s finest", but we are indisputably the planet’s most successful. Enjoy !
Roger Farnworth (C94/25) "Is/ Ought" : a view of where our moral imperatives originate is provided by Maslow in his theory of the "Hierarchy of Needs". Crudely summarised, if we are lacking food or shelter, we get these things where we can at the expense even of our own tribesmen. If we have these, then we progress through the next tiers of need, ie, a partner to reproduce with, onto general socialising and community building, all the way through to self-fulfilment as a philanthropist, religious leader or politician. But it is a two way track; if, from the lofty heights of our self-fulfilled existence, we perceive ourselves to be lacking any of the more fundamental requirements, all bets are off; it’s back to the law of the jungle. (Often in such cases, for "need", substitute "greed"). Evidence? Sit in the public gallery of any court room, read any newspaper. Simplistic, but difficult to dispute. Therefore, contrary to what Michael Nisbet suggests (C94/9), morality is indeed a largely subjective, but certainly culturally determined matter, based usually on the lowest common denominator of what the most powerful can convince the masses that they should be permitted to get away with. Sad, innit?
Albert Dean (C94/27) "The Thinking Process" : a process as described, conducted alone and without challenge from external, uncomfortable viewpoints, is a little like sex for one; contrasted with the real thing it’s a tad unexciting.
Rick Street (C94/36) (in response to Martin Lake) : surely the idea of a social framework that allows us to live according to our true natures without harming others is something of a contradiction in terms, given the track record of our species; if there are no controls we eat each other. To live successfully together there has to be some kind of "win-win" situation, a social contract, and it is always a compromise over our instincts. I therefore have to support Martin’s view in this.
Kevin Arbuthnot