I’ve been reading a book called Humankind: A Hopeful History.
The author, Martin Bregman, sets out to prove that we are in fact evolutionarily wired for cooperation rather than competition, and that our instinct to trust each other has a firm evolutionary basis going back to the beginning of Homo sapiens. Bregman systematically debunks our understanding of the Milgram electrical-shock experiment, the Zimbardo prison experiment (a hoax, deliberate attempts to sow discord), and the Kitty Genovese “bystander effect.” Some of the above big and dramatic psychology studies seem to have been misinterpreted, greatly manipulated or seem to be flat out false.
In place of these, he offers little-known true stories: the tale of twin brothers on opposing sides of apartheid in South Africa who came together with Nelson Mandela to create peace; a group of six shipwrecked children who survived for a year and a half on a deserted island by working together (versus The Lord Of The Flies Scenario); a study done after World War II that found that as few as 15% of American soldiers were actually capable of firing at the enemy (Many soldiers in battle show bravery but fire high or do not fire their guns at all; huge percentages of US Civil War guns were loaded but never fired; yet Andersonville was also obviously a thing). Even the history of Easter Island gets a thorough examination.
It is a very interesting read, rated over 4.3 on Goodreads, and quite optimistic. It is not naive about power politics or human history, but it tackles difficult issues head on and offers a refreshing and unusual perspective not often seen. I wonder if everything it says is true; some of the debunking boils down to people interpreting a psychology study or historical event in a certain way for self-interested reasons that are not reflected in the original documents or relevant interviews. The author writes well and is credible, but you take his word about certain original documents being misquoted by populists and demagogues. I’d like to see how historians view this book. Highly recommended. (A full 50% of 70,000 readers gave it five stars on Goodreads.)
One might reasonably argue the author has cherry-picked specific examples. I agree populations of people often behave better than you expect them to, but not all people. I think the effects of social media, the polarization of politics and the rise of populists are strong arguments that optimism has its limits. However, friendliness is underrated, and more powerful than many think.
Wonder if anyone has read this, what they thought, whether it applies in these dark times…
It probably goes back further than that. There’s a lot of cooperation among the other apes, and for that matter among members of a whole lot of different species – and sometimes between members of different species.
However – so do the ways in which we’re also wired for competition. Both traits exist in humans; the balance varies in specific humans, and specific societies may encourage one more than the other.
I haven’t read the book. If it shows up in one of the libraries I use, I might do so.
Most of human “competition” is cooperative: capitalism relies upon a common market and a uniform currency; sporting events require an agreed upon set of rules and customs; geopolitics relies upon mutual recognition, etc.
So I fully agree that people are inclined to cooperation. The book sounds interesting.
When you look at people, we are naturally tribal, which requires finding enough common ground to form a group. And that’s been the source of human progress: people building on the feats and ideas of each other to bring progress to the whole.
The failure of human civilization seems to arise when humans reject this cooperative instinct, as when they fail to recognize their relationship to other people. Things like xenophobia and bigotry result, and can lead to atrocities.
I’ve recently read other interesting books, such as Burn by Herman Pontzer that look at metabolism and exercise from an anthropological perspective. Also a good read. Most types of apes don’t share much; some do sometimes in what amounts to ignoring unauthorized borrowing. Pontzer successfully argues the point that sharing is a main reason of our success as a species. But also that it largely applies to one’s own group.
Those are all effects of human behavior, not primary causes. Polarization and populism are not new, far from it. Written history is full of those things, as far back as you care to go. About pre-history we have less direct evidence. “Social media” has just made the same kinds of human behavior that have existed for a long time more immediately available for other people to see.
What one needs in these “dark times” to avoid being depressed about the future is perspective and humility. No-one knows how current events are going to play out, and we know even less about long-term effects. Humans have been through some genuinely dark times, and have survived and thrived. My relatively few remaining years may be shitty, and that would be bad for me. Your offspring and their progeny may not thrive, and that would be bad for them. I’m not worried about human survival.
Hmm. I have a couple of Harari books that imply something different. I read them a chapter here and there. Mostly due to the future part, not so promising. When there is a situation where things are tight, competition steps in.