In the animal kingdom, it has been stated that the main organisational principle is mutualism, where cooperation is complimentary towards each other, rather than competitive. If this is the case, what lessons can be drawn for Human organisation in society, and, if mutualism is as common as claimed, why can’t we learn from the example set by nature and develop a theory which incorporates that into a just and more equitable society?
Because we’re primates, and hierarchy is the norm in social primate societies. Not sure where you’re getting the stuff about “the animal kingdom” as if there was some generalization that could be made.
Well, I don’t think that all animals operate on a principal of mutualism all of the time…and many animals have hierarchies similar to human (wolf packs, lions prides, etc). Humans, of course, DO use cooperation and not exclusively competition in their societies as well.
But, at the base, we are humans and they are other species, so you aren’t going to be very successful in learning many examples from how their societies work and saying we should do the say things, nor vice versa. I don’t believe that animal species for the most part understand or operate to ensure a ‘more equitable society’, since that’s a human concept.
Well, there does seem to be a an innate sense of “fairness” in most primates, but then again there is an innate sense of “if you take over a group, kill the babies”, too.
But… Humans area amazingly peaceful animals. Imagine a sports arena full of baboons or chimps. Or, as one primatologist put it: If baboons had nuclear weapons, the world would be destroyed in about 15 minutes. Civilization teaches up how to be peaceful, not the animal kingdom.
Primate societies also vary a lot between species…even the grape apes (or maybe it’s great apes), which we are probably most closely related to genetically have a lot of differences between them, let alone between them and us.
But all the social species are hierarchies. Among the great apes, only orangs are solitary. Now, our closest cousins (chimps and bonobos) have significant differences in the way their societies operate, but they are still both hierarchical.
Considering that hierarchy is normal to human social behaviour, couldn’t that statement you’ve made be a projection of the concept of hierarchy onto nature, because it is a system that defines and controls the order of our own relationships?
Unlikely. But if you think it is, you could re-write every biology book in the world and prove every living biologist wrong.
Sure, but the way they establish hierarchies and their societies operate is different from each other and different from ours. We don’t operate like either gorillas (except when our insurgents fight of course) or chimps, though there are similarities in all of them that clue you in we are all primates. You could say there are similarities between how a wolf pack operates and a human troop, er, ‘in the wild’ I guess, but there are variations even between human societies that are as different between them as between us and the other grape apes.
What queues do humans use to determine hierarchy? Is the biggest or strongest human always in charge? What about the human with the largest, er, appendage or hair? The one with the clearest skin? Is the smartest (or dumbest) human always in charge? Because some species use fairly uniform queues to determine pecking order and control, but humans really don’t have anything like that, by and large.
To paraphrase, he who thinks quickest often laughs last…but not always.
But could that be instinctual behaviour in what we see as hierarchy in the animal kingdom, where as the hierarchy we created is a social nature, which is an institutionalised set of command and obedience?
Humans are cooperative, but even with cooperation the more complex work requires someone in charge. We’re not going to sow fields and reap harvests based on instinct.
No, we would sow fields and reap harvests to sustain ourselves.
If that’s true about baboons, it only underscores how closely related we are to them. Call me a cynic, but intuitively I find the “amazingly peaceful” characterization hard to accept.
Consider: we humans are almost constantly at war, somewhere in the world, and some of those wars have been absolutely horrendous. And where and when we are not at war, we’re expending vast resources preparing for it. The only reason we haven’t blown ourselves up in a nuclear Armageddon already – though we’ve come close – is that we’re at least smart enough to more or less understand that it would destroy all of us. But name one major nuclear power that has unilaterally disarmed. The nuclear club is growing, not shrinking. Individually and collectively we are extremely territorial, tribal, and fiercely competitive for power and control – observe the workings of any organizational hierarchy, public or private. Our greed is unbounded – try to find a rich person who declares that “I’m rich enough – I need no more”. They exist, but they are rare – more like freaks of nature than the norm. We’re the only creatures that don’t live in harmony with our environment, and the only ones AFAIK who kill for fun or out of malice – killing not just our fellow creatures but also each other, and often enjoying it – sometimes we call it “sport”, sometimes “justice”, sometimes we just descend to our primal reptilian impulses and don’t call it anything.
It’s true that civilization teaches us to be peaceful, but much of it runs counter to our nature and instincts. Civilization also teaches us unnatural concepts like fairness, equality, and justice. If someone offends us our natural inclination is to punch his face in or blow his head off (see “road rage” and “unhealthy effects of workplace stress”, for example). All of which is why the rules of civilization need constant and diligent enforcement.
ISTM that humans can be regarded as “amazingly peaceful” only in comparison to a very violent species indeed.
No, it’s the grape apes.
Well, we and cats.
That’s probably why we and cats get along so well.
For a more nuanced view of primate behavior look at some of the work done by Sapolsky.
Actually, I would have to say hierarchy is very unnatural. If it were natural, the use of force to sustain it would not be necessary. Perhaps you could say it is natural for humans to use force to establish a hierarchy.
There’s reason to believe the common housecat likes to kill. The cat cam study doesn’t specify they aren’t eating them but anecdotally a lot of cat owners can attest to being presented uneaten or only sampled corpses by their proud feline warriors.
Deer in the US currently are a great example of an animal living out of harmony with their environment. Here’s one cite. Overpopulation is a real concern with negative consequences on their habitats. Humans broke the “natural harmony” that allowed it by killing the wolves. The only thing innate about deer that maintained the harmony with the rest of their environment was that they were tasty meat for large predators.
For our close primate relative the Chimpanzee, there’s even evidence of them making territorial war on each other. Which really leads us back to the OP. The Gombe Chimpanzee War is great example of small group mutualism in violent com[petition with others of the same species.
There’s reason to believe the common housecat likes to kill even when food is not an issue. The cat cam study doesn’t specify they aren’t eating them but anecdotally a lot of cat owners can attest to being presented uneaten or lightly sampled corpses by their proud feline warriors. My former cat killed two mice in one place I lived (well technically he brought me one only mildly injured and I had to kill it). He nibbled on one but the one I killed he couldn’t be bothered with after it was no longer fun.
Deer in the US currently are a great example of an animal living out of harmony with their environment. Here’s one cite. Overpopulation is a real concern with negative consequences on their habitats. Humans broke the “natural harmony” that allowed it by killing the wolves. The only thing innate about deer that maintained the harmony with the rest of their environment was that they were tasty meat for large predators.
For our close primate relative the Chimpanzee, there’s even evidence of them making territorial war on each other. Which really leads us back to the OP. The Gombe Chimpanzee War is great example of small group mutualism in violent competition with others of the same species.