Is Hierarcy a natural Human condition?

[eschereal]

@XT

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.

Nitpick: the word is spelled “cues”, like (cognate with) the signals that actors interpret to time their actions; a “queue” is a line-up of people or data, or a Chinese braided ponytail.

How humans establish hierarchies is not entirely clear. We would have to study people tabula rasa to figure out what typical behavior sans cultural influence would be. I suspect the mechanism is a combination of chemistry, charisma and wile, given that athletic ability itself is not a surefire route to dominance among human grapes.

[wolfpup]

@DinoR

There’s reason to believe the common housecat likes to kill.

I keep hearing the bit about cats liking to torment mice, but I’m not convinced there isn’t some natural and beneficial (for the cat) reason for that behavior. Not being a student of cats I can’t comment further!

@DinoR

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.

I wouldn’t regard it that way at all. Overpopulation of any species is going to be environmentally problematic, but that isn’t directly the fault of the species or its behaviors. It’s not like the deer deliberately turn on every available light on Earth Day out of sheer spite, or refuse to recycle because they hate environmentalists, or litter the landscape with plastics and beer bottles, like some people I know. The major problem cited in your link was that abundant deer populations prefer eating native vegetation rather than destructive invasive vegetation. Can’t say that I blame them. The question is, what brought in the invasive vegetation? Was it the deer, or was it – as usual – the humans?

[Blake]

@wolfpup

I keep hearing the bit about cats liking to torment mice, but I’m not convinced there isn’t some natural and beneficial (for the cat) reason for that behavior.

And exactly the same is true of humans. This is just special pleading

Overpopulation of any species is going to be environmentally problematic, but that isn’t directly the fault of the species or its behaviors.

And exactly the same is true of humans. This is just special pleading.

The question is, what brought in the invasive vegetation? Was it the deer, or was it – as usual – the humans?

Why does it matter? Isn’t some natural and beneficial (for humans) reason for that behavior?

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

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.

And yet, which species (human or baboon*) is the more populace? Why is that?

Look, we humans have waaaaaay more capacity for death and destruction than other primates. Point being, we don’t utilize that capacity anywhere near what our less tutored cousins would. You say that humans are at constant war-- you think baboon troops are not constantly at war? Really? Where did you get that idea from?

Humans have been on an ever decreasing journey of violence since the dawn of civilization. Even with the horrible wars of the 19th and 20th century, the trend of human violence has been down.

*and you can count ALL the species of baboon if you like.

[wolfpup]

@Blake

And exactly the same is true of humans. This is just special pleading

No, the difference is that animal behavior is driven by basic survival and generally limited to magnitudes of influence constrained by their own physical limitations. Only humans engage in massively large-scale mechanized changes that have global impacts and are driven by ever-increasing demand – not for basic survival but for iPhones and Cadillac Escalades. And we engage in these massive environmental impacts with practically no corresponding sense of responsibility whatsoever. “Special pleading”? We have the ability to potentially wipe out all life on this planet including ourselves. Ain’t that special? :rolleyes:

@Blake

Why does it matter?

It matters because stupidity is not an excuse for the irresponsible exercise of planet-altering power. The present state of humanity is a lot like a teenager with his first car and brand-new driver’s license, and all he can think about is how fast he can go, with one hand on the wheel and the other one texting on his phone. No doubt out there in the galaxy there are civilizations that have survived this phase, and grown older and wiser. What I believe we must somberly ponder is whether we will survive our civilizational teenager phase.

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

No, the difference is that animal behavior is driven by basic survival…

Do you have a cite for that? Because I’d be very surprised to learn that was true. Chimps who take over rival groups kill all the infants for “basic survival” reasons? What threat to their “basic survival” are the infant chimps?

[Kropotkin]

This essay by the late, great Stephen Jay Gould may be of interest.

https://www.marxists.org/subject/science/essays/kropotkin.htm

[Contemporary_Logic]

@Mr.Nylock

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.

This assumes that something that requires the use of force to sustain is unnatural.

I’m assuming that this is your definition of force:

coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.

This type of force is used in other areas of the animal kingdom as well. Although animals cannot consent; They are thwarted from behaving in ways in which they otherwise would by the threat, or use, of force within their hierarchies.
Any way you define natural; The OT isn’t a rational line of inquiry. We’re living in the natural world, so in that sense; Everything is natural. If you mean natural, as in not the product of humans, then asking what comes natural to humans is a bit silly. If you mean natural, as in not the product of society, then what does it matter (unless you’re going the anti-industrialist, back to nature route à la Ted Kaczynski)?
It also succumbs to the naturalistic fallacy. Even if hierarchies are natural; It doesn’t mean they’re good or preferable.
In addition, there’s no reason to assume that because something works for animals; It will work for human-beings.

[wolfpup]

@John_Mace

Look, we humans have waaaaaay more capacity for death and destruction than other primates. Point being, we don’t utilize that capacity anywhere near what our less tutored cousins would.

I think the answer to that isn’t that we’re “amazingly peaceable”, but that we’re often smart enough to assess consequences and limit violence that we perceive would ultimately be counter to our own self-interest. Which is the main reason we haven’t yet vaporized ourselves in a nuclear war, and which is not at all the same as being inherently peaceable. And very, very often, we don’t even do that much, otherwise there would be few if any wars, and we wouldn’t have random violence all over the place in all societies, with particularly abhorrent violence commonplace in less civilized societies – and you should read “less civilized” as meaning “same humans, fewer rules”.

@John_Mace

Do you have a cite for that? Because I’d be very surprised to learn that was true. Chimps who take over rival groups kill all the infants for “basic survival” reasons? What threat to their “basic survival” are the infant chimps?

It’s not just “rival groups” – there have been notable instances of infanticide and cannibalism among chimps in general, with some debate about whether this is systemic and no real understanding of the cause. However, though this isn’t a subject I really know anything about, some of what I’ve read suggests that one theory about the infanticide is related to competition for scarcer resources due to human encroachment on the chimps’ habitats. Funny how it always seems to come back to the same thing.

[Blake]

@wolfpup

No, the difference is that animal behavior is driven by basic survival…

I would dearly love to see your evidence for this extraordinary claim.

Can you please provide a cite that says that two stags fighting are driven by basic survival rather than a desire to have the maximal choice of sexual partners sex?

Can you please provide a cite that says that when lions drive hyaenas out of their territory, they are driven by basic survival, rather than removing competition to maximise their own resoucres?

And if a desire to have the maximal choice of sexual partners and removal of competition to maximise resoucres is “basic survival”, then humans are also driven by basic survival.

As I said, you are simply engaging on special pleading. The only difference is that you now appear to be begging the question with these extraordinary claims about animals being driven purely by survival.

… and generally limited to magnitudes of influence constrained by their own physical limitations.

Which is a textbook example of a circular argument. How do you define “physical limitations” except as “a limited to the magnitude of influence”?

Only humans engage in massively large-scale mechanized changes that have global impacts and are driven by ever-increasing demand…

Yes,and?

Only termites engage in the building of self-contained cities walled off from the natural environment. Only birds go to sleep on branches with their heads under their wings. So what? Every species, by definition, does things that no other species does.

I assume that you have some point that you think this supports, but you haven’t actually told us what it is.

And we engage in these massive environmental impacts with practically no corresponding sense of responsibility whatsoever.

Can you pleas provide your evidence that other species have a greater sense of responsibility concerning their massive environmental impacts?

That was your point, right? That humans have a lower sense of respsonsibility than other species? Because if that wasn’t your point, then you really need to explain what your point is.

“Special pleading”? We have the ability to potentially wipe out all life on this planet including ourselves. Ain’t that special? :rolleyes:

You don’t actually know what special pleading is, do you?

It matters because stupidity is not an excuse for the irresponsible exercise of planet-altering power.

You just told us that so long a so long as their is a natural and beneficial (for humans) reason for that behavior, then it doesn’t need to be excused.

You really need to work a bit more on a coherent argument here, because yo are tying yourself in knots.

No doubt out there in the galaxy there are civilizations that have survived this phase…

Please provide your evidence that there is no doubt on this point.

What I believe we must somberly ponder is whether we will survive our civilizational teenager phase.

Was that was your point? A Chicken Little doomsayer rant against the eeevils of modern society. Made by someone using a $3, 000 computer that is powered by fossil fuels because they want to entertain themself on the fossil fuel powered internet.

[wolfpup]

@Blake

Which is a textbook example of a circular argument. How do you define “physical limitations” except as “a limited to the magnitude of influence”?

When you see a sparrow operating a forklift, let me know. When you see a squirrel removing entire mountain tops to mine coal, let me know. When you see that squirrel using some of the coal-mining proceeds to finance mass-media saturation-PR campaigns to try to convince everyone that coal is “clean”, let me know. When you see a deer detonating a nuclear weapon in the atmosphere that spreads radioactive fallout around the entire globe, let me know that, too.

@Blake

Every species, by definition, does things that no other species does.

I assume that you have some point that you think this supports, but you haven’t actually told us what it is.

I just did, above. For the second time.

@Blake

Can you pleas provide your evidence that other species have a greater sense of responsibility concerning their massive environmental impacts?

That was your point, right? That humans have a lower sense of respsonsibility than other species? Because if that wasn’t your point, then you really need to explain what your point is.

No, that was not my point. My point, as I tried to illustrate with the teenager-with-a-hot-car analogy but it went right past you, is that we’ve achieved an extremely high level of technological capability more quickly than we’ve been able to master its responsible use.

@Blake

You don’t actually know what special pleading is, do you?

No, I’m a complete idiot. If you’ve read some of my numerous other posts, you’d know that I enjoy playing with language.

@Blake

Was that was your point? A Chicken Little doomsayer rant against the eeevils of modern society. Made by someone using a $3, 000 computer that is powered by fossil fuels because they want to entertain themself on the fossil fuel powered internet.

I’m not sure what it is about using a computer that is supposed to disqualify me from commenting on environmental sustainability and the risks that we face as a species. In case it interests you, I try to live a sustainable lifestyle, and your attempted accusation of hypocrisy falls flat.

[Blake]

@wolfpup

When you see a sparrow operating a forklift, let me know.

And when you see a man flying by flapping his arms, let me know.

Still blatant special pleading my friend.

I just did, above. For the second time.

No, you didn’t. But I think I’ve worked it out.

My point, as I tried to illustrate with the teenager-with-a-hot-car analogy but it went right past you, is that we’ve achieved an extremely high level of technological capability more quickly than we’ve been able to master its responsible use.

Cite!

You keep making the extraordinary claims, but you haven’t been able to produce a single reference when asked. Argument form assertion backed up by more assertion won;t get much traction around here.

If you’ve read some of my numerous other posts, you’d know that I enjoy playing with language.

There is a difference between playing with language and being unable to defend your argument. You are doing the latter. You are engaging in blatant special pleading, and have been unable to provide any evidence to the contrary despite being asked multiple times.

I don’t think that it has escaped anybody’s notice that you have pointedly avoided answering any questions directed at you. Instead you attempt to weasel away with absurd rhetoric.

Even more apparent is that you haven’t been able to provide a single reference for you strident assertions

You made those claims that humans were unique, and you stated them as fact. Your whole argument hinge son them being true.

Now the moment of truth has arrived. Do you have any evidence at all to support your wild assertions? Please provide the references we have asked for.

Last chance. I won’t bother asking again. I simply just continue to point out your inability to support anything you say and will leave others to assess the credibility of the nonsense you have posted.

[outlierrn]

@Mr.Nylock

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.

Force isn’t used to sustain hierarchy, it’s used to sustain me and mines place in the hierarchy.

[wolfpup]

@Blake

And when you see a man flying by flapping his arms, let me know.

Still blatant special pleading my friend.

Obviously the point went completely over your head. The point being, to repeat, that animals are “generally limited to magnitudes of influence constrained by their own physical limitations”. That a sparrow cannot operate a forklift, that a squirrel cannot demolish mountain tops, that a man can fly in a jet plane but a bird has to flap its wings is precisely the point that went whoosh high above you!

@Blake

No, you didn’t. But I think I’ve worked it out.

In your own mind, yes.

@Blake

Cite!

You keep making the extraordinary claims, but you haven’t been able to produce a single reference when asked. Argument form assertion backed up by more assertion won;t get much traction around here.

Oh, for Christ’s sake, how many cites do you want to support the fact that technology is creating unpredictable – and potentially disastrous – effects? You can start here.

@Blake

You made those claims that humans were unique, and you stated them as fact. Your whole argument hinge son them being true.

Your comprehension skills are lacking. I have consistently argued the exact opposite of what you seem to think I believe.

[Blake]

So you are totally unable to provide references to back up your ridiculous claims.

That’s all we need to know.

[outlierrn]

@wolfpup

It’s not just “rival groups” – there have been notable instances of infanticide and cannibalism among chimps in general, with some debate about whether this is systemic and no real understanding of the cause. However, though this isn’t a subject I really know anything about, some of what I’ve read suggests that one theory about the infanticide is related to competition for scarcer resources due to human encroachment on the chimps’ habitats. Funny how it always seems to come back to the same thing.

Really? I thought it had been pretty well established that male chimpanzees kill the offspring of females they haven’t mated with and ascendant male lions kill the offspring of the defeated in order to bring forward the day when they can start fathering their own, and that this was natural and beneficial to the successful males.

If I’m wrong, please fight my ignorance with facts.

[Blake]

@outlierrn

If I’m wrong, please fight my ignorance with facts.

Good luck with that.

[wolfpup]

@outlierrn

Really? I thought it had been pretty well established that male chimpanzees kill the offspring of females they haven’t mated with and ascendant male lions kill the offspring of the defeated in order to bring forward the day when they can start fathering their own, and that this was natural and beneficial to the successful males.

If I’m wrong, please fight my ignorance with facts.

This is getting really far removed from the original point, the most recently relevant snippet of which was my statement that animals are “generally limited to magnitudes of influence constrained by their own physical limitations” whereas humans dominate the planet through technological leverage, a leverage that may well be beyond our ability to wisely control, a point that I thought was eminently clear but that the previous poster is consistently not getting.

I am no expert on chimps, but your point that “it had been pretty well established that male chimpanzees kill the offspring of females they haven’t mated with” seems contradicted by even the most casual Googling. It’s not that you’re necessarily wrong – you might be right – who am I to argue? It’s the “pretty well established” part that seems doubtful …

The paper draws attention to puzzling aspects of infant killing and cannibalism in chimpanzees.

Infant killing and cannibalism in free-living chimpanzees - PubMed

Although there is not a clear answer why chimps engage in this very violent and sometimes gruesome behavior there are many ideas and suggestions.

Chimpanzee Cannabalism and Infanticide

No simple explanations have emerged for chimpanzee infanticide, however, because the behavior varies widely …
http://as.cornell.edu/departments/anthro/faculty/upload/1999-Arcadi_Wrangham__Infanticide.pdf

The observations support the arguments that infanticide has been an important selective force in chimpanzee social evolution and that females with dependent infants can be at great risk near range boundaries, but why male chimpanzees kill infants is still uncertain.

Infanticide and cannibalism by male chimpanzees at Ngogo, Kibale National...

But since this is far removed from my area of expertise, perhaps you could fight MY ignorance with facts. And I mean that sincerely.

[eschereal]

@Blake

… and generally limited to magnitudes of influence constrained by their own physical limitations.

Which is a textbook example of a circular argument.

No, it is not, it is a convoluted sentence that is really not all that hard to parse. Get your terminology correct or fail to use it.

It matters because stupidity is not an excuse for the irresponsible exercise of planet-altering power.

You just told us that so long a so long as their is a natural and beneficial (for humans) reason for that behavior, then it doesn’t need to be excused.

What the hell are you talking about? He never said any such thing. Are you just throwing buckets of high-faluting bullshit around hoping some of it will stick?

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

I think the answer to that isn’t that we’re “amazingly peaceable”, but that we’re often smart enough to assess consequences and limit violence that we perceive would ultimately be counter to our own self-interest. Which is the main reason we haven’t yet vaporized ourselves in a nuclear war, and which is not at all the same as being inherently peaceable. And very, very often, we don’t even do that much, otherwise there would be few if any wars, and we wouldn’t have random violence all over the place in all societies, with particularly abhorrent violence commonplace in less civilized societies – and you should read “less civilized” as meaning “same humans, fewer rules”.

It’s not just “rival groups” – there have been notable instances of infanticide and cannibalism among chimps in general, with some debate about whether this is systemic and no real understanding of the cause. However, though this isn’t a subject I really know anything about, some of what I’ve read suggests that one theory about the infanticide is related to competition for scarcer resources due to human encroachment on the chimps’ habitats. Funny how it always seems to come back to the same thing.

Sure, there may be OTHER reasons that chimps engage in infanticide, but that doesn’t matter. I’m more interested in a cite for your claim that “[non-human] animal behavior is driven by basic survival”. First, you need to define what you mean by “basic survival” and you have to clarify how you differentiate such behavior from other behavior. I know you are not making this argument, but you almost sound like you are claiming a “special creation” for humans that doesn’t apply to non-human animals.