What is the name for the desire to believe humans are more important than we really are

[PlaceboTarget]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Uh, no. That’s a discredited, and fairly racist, in a noble-savage kind of way, belief about hunter-gatherer societies.

As a rule, reference works do not idealize hunter-gatherer societies “in a noble-savage kind of way” or “fairly racist” manner.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

The truth is that the ones that have been studied tend toward extreme tribalism, disliking everyone outside of the tribe, to the extent that young men for shits and giggles will go on early morning murder-sprees against neighboring tribes.

The truth is that the term tribalism is an ideological term. Western nationalist or imperialist societies have shown more tribalism than hunter-gatherer societies in general and, what is more, they have exported this behavior to the cultures they have come in contact with as well.

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

You need to stop reading new age tripe and read some serious works.

Unsolicited advice.

[Cheshire_Human]

@PlaceboTarget

Unsolicited advice.

More unsolicited advice. You probably don’t know as much as you think you do.

[randompattern]

Self-aggrandizement?

[PlaceboTarget]

@Cheshire_Human

More unsolicited advice. You probably don’t know as much as you think you do.

Who does?

[Human_Action]

@wolfpup

On what basis can you possibly say that ancient hunter-gatherers “revered [all] life forms”? Seems to me that they were just doing what they needed to do to survive, and living in harmony with nature.

Unless overhunting species to extinction counts, they weren’t living in harmony with nature:

Returning to hunter-gatherers, Mr LeBlanc argues (in his book “Constant Battles”) that all was not well in ecological terms, either. Homo sapiens wrought havoc on many ecosystems as Homo erectus had not. There is no longer much doubt that people were the cause of the extinction of the megafauna in North America 11,000 years ago and Australia 30,000 years before that. The mammoths and giant kangaroos never stood a chance against co-ordinated ambush with stone-tipped spears and relentless pursuit by endurance runners.

This was also true in Eurasia. The earliest of the great cave painters, working at Chauvet in southern France, 32,000 years ago, was obsessed with rhinoceroses. A later artist, working at Lascaux 15,000 years later, depicted mostly bison, bulls and horses—rhinoceroses must have been driven close to extinction by then. At first, modern human beings around the Mediterranean relied almost entirely on large mammals for meat. They ate small game only if it was slow moving—tortoises and limpets were popular. Then, gradually and inexorably, starting in the Middle East, they switched their attention to smaller animals, and especially to warm-blooded, fast-breeding species, such as rabbits, hares, partridges and smaller gazelles. The archaeological record tells this same story at sites in Israel, Turkey and Italy.

The reason for this shift, say Mary Stiner and Steven Kuhn of the University of Arizona, was that human population densities were growing too high for the slower-reproducing prey such as tortoises, horses and rhinos. Only the fast-breeding rabbits, hares and partridges, and for a while gazelles, could cope with such hunting pressure. This trend accelerated about 15,000 years ago as large game and tortoises disappeared from the Mediterranean diet altogether—driven to the brink of extinction by human predation.

@UY Scuti

The truth is that the term tribalism is an ideological term. Western nationalist or imperialist societies have shown more tribalism than hunter-gatherer societies in general and, what is more, they have exported this behavior to the cultures they have come in contact with as well.

What does it mean to show more tribalism? If it’s killing people in a different tribe than yourself, the hunter-gatherers give our agricultural societies a run for their money.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@PlaceboTarget

As a rule, reference works do not idealize hunter-gatherer societies “in a noble-savage kind of way” or “fairly racist” manner.

Uh, no, that’s also not true. What reference works specifically are you getting your information from?

[/quote]
The truth is that the term tribalism is an ideological term. Western nationalist or imperialist societies have shown more tribalism than hunter-gatherer societies in general and, what is more, they have exported this behavior to the cultures they have come in contact with as well.
[/quote]

Cite?

And before you ask, my counter-cite is The Better Angels of Our Nature, a book that traces the history of violence with hard facts starting with evidence from archaeological digs and moving through statistics from modern wars. If you’re not interested in reading this excellent work but are curious about the ideas, you can watch his TED talk.

Unsolicited advice.

Thank you for letting me know!

[wolfpup]

@Human_Action

Unless overhunting species to extinction counts, they weren’t living in harmony with nature

Fair enough, but I wasn’t really trying to defend the hunter-gatherers specifically, or any other specific stage in societal evolution. In fact if what you linked is true about the hunter-gatherers, it really just reinforces the actual point I madehttp://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17231911&postcount=75"] and the questions I asked which I note remain unanswered by the prime advocate here for anthropocentrism, to whom they were directed. That point being that at some point in the development of tools and technology, we stopped living in harmony with nature and became progressively more and more destructive to our environment, affecting not just our fellow creatures but also ourselves. Our only argument here would be where to draw that line. We have certainly been well past it for hundreds of years if not many thousands.

This bit from the article you linked also impressed me:

From the Kung in the Kalahari to the Inuit in the Arctic and the aborigines in Australia, two-thirds of modern hunter-gatherers are in a state of almost constant tribal warfare, and nearly 90% go to war at least once a year. War is a big word for dawn raids, skirmishes and lots of posturing, but death rates are high—usually around 25-30% of adult males die from homicide. The warfare death rate of 0.5% of the population per year that Lawrence Keeley of the University of Illinois calculates as typical of hunter-gatherer societies would equate to 2 billion people dying during the 20th century.

At first, anthropologists were inclined to think this a modern pathology. But it is increasingly looking as if it is the natural state. Richard Wrangham of Harvard University says that chimpanzees and human beings are the only animals in which males engage in co-operative and systematic homicidal raids.

So if a case is to be made for human exceptionalism, for our alleged transcendent “specialness”, perhaps it would be that we are the only species (except perhaps for the chimpanzee) who systematically murder each other, and we are uniquely the only ones who wantonly destroy our own environment.

[BigT]

Even the most rational people I know believe in human exceptionalism. Our consciousness lets us actually take away control from the random chance of natural selection and chart our own evolutionary course. We can control that which controls life itself. With our intelligence, we can eventually do what every other animal does, and do it better. Heck, we even design machines that can out think us in some ways. That’s how we are superior.

(Note, this is not reflective of my beliefs entirely, as I am not a rationalist.)

[oogabooga]

It doesn’t start with ‘A’, it starts with ‘E’: egomania

Also, more important in our tiny circle is… OP watched Cosmos in 2014? I hope it was a rerun from the 1970s. Otherwise it explains this stupid conversation and question, really.

We also have the Drake Equation. Do with it what you will, but the lack of it being even mentioned or attempted to be calculated implies incredible [del]egomania[/del] ignorance.

I sometimes wonder if NASA is specifically looking for shitty bacteria in places they have no chance to find it (like the moon and mars), just so they can claim that we’re goddamn brilliant, and the monotheists were right.
Anyone with 1/2 a brain would be concentrating on other solar systems. Life isn’t common, but it’s probably not uncommon either.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@wolfpup

So if a case is to be made for human exceptionalism, for our alleged transcendent “specialness”, perhaps it would be that we are the only species (except perhaps for the chimpanzee) who systematically murder each other, and we are uniquely the only ones who wantonly destroy our own environment.

Ants engage in wars on a level that drive our paltry human wars to shame. Bacteria destroy their own environment every day.

[John_Mace]

@wolfpup

So if a case is to be made for human exceptionalism, for our alleged transcendent “specialness”, perhaps it would be that we are the only species (except perhaps for the chimpanzee) who systematically murder each other, and we are uniquely the only ones who wantonly destroy our own environment.

It’s pretty common for male mammals to kill the young father by other males in order to mate with the mother. Won’t someone think if the children?

[elfkin477]

@wolfpup

The only reason we’re not being overrun by extraterrestrials – most of whom would likely be a good deal smarter than we are if you consider the incredibly short span of time in which we’ve even existed, let alone possessed technology –

Why do you assume that life on other planets would have existed a lot longer than on Earth?

[wolfpup]

@elfkin477

Why do you assume that life on other planets would have existed a lot longer than on Earth?

The first second-generation stars may have formed as long as 13 billion years ago, and certainly more than 10 billion years ago. Those second generation stars and the protoplanetary disks that would have formed planets would already have contained the heavier elements necessary for life, so that gives us an incredibly large window of time in which life could have evolved. In terms of longevity, the human species – depending on what definition you use – has only been around for some 200K to about a million years, and has only had serious technology for a few hundred years at the most. Dinosaurs, by contrast, existed for over 160 million years and were dominant for about 135 million. So my assumption is purely statistical, but by any measure, we seem to be the new kid on the block, and it seems very likely that there are very very old life forms and civilizations out there.

[LinusK]

Human nature.
Or, if that’s already been said, religion.

Wolfpup, I liked the Clifford Geertz quote “man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun.”

Thanks for that.

Another one: “Everyone is the star of his own movie.”
I don’t know who said it.

[Jiggerj]

@WheatCat

Our intelligence.

Please give examples of when our intelligence benefited the planet. So far we’ve destroyed all that we’ve ever touched.

Does anyone here actually think that the planet is better off because we exist?

[Human_Action]

@wolfpup

That point being that at some point in the development of tools and technology, we stopped living in harmony with nature and became progressively more and more destructive to our environment, affecting not just our fellow creatures but also ourselves. Our only argument here would be where to draw that line. We have certainly been well past it for hundreds of years if not many thousands.

Is “harmony with nature” even a real thing, though? Nature is a vicious, bloody competition, with no apparant harmony. Humans are quite good at that competition, but they aren’t the only ones, and plenty of extinctions had nothing to do with humankind. Microbes may have killed 90% of all extant life during the Permian era, to name one example.

[Human_Action]

@Jiggerj

Please give examples of when our intelligence benefited the planet. So far we’ve destroyed all that we’ve ever touched.

Does anyone here actually think that the planet is better off because we exist?

The planet is neither better nor worse off with humans on it, the planet simply is.

[Jiggerj]

@Human_Action

The planet is neither better nor worse off with humans on it, the planet simply is.

Really? lol Have you taken a look at the devastation we’ve caused to the Amazon? Have you not driven down a road or highway where the land was raped to lay down that road? Raped to build you a house, hospital, school, museum…? Are you not aware of the devastation caused by Chernobyl? Of animal extinctions caused by man? Of polluted waterways and oil spills? Of land rendered off-limits for 100,000 years because we’re burying spent nuclear rods there? Of the introduction by man of destructive animal and insect species into foreign ecosystems?

We humans are not mammals. We are a virus.

[Human_Action]

@Jiggerj

Really? lol Have you taken a look at the devastation we’ve caused to the Amazon? Have you not driven down a road or highway where the land was raped to lay down that road? Raped to build you a house, hospital, school, museum…? Are you not aware of the devastation caused by Chernobyl? Of animal extinctions caused by man? Of polluted waterways and oil spills? Of land rendered off-limits for 100,000 years because we’re burying spent nuclear rods there? Of the introduction by man of destructive animal and insect species into foreign ecosystems?

Really. The planet is 5.97219×10 to the 24th power kg of rock orbiting through space. It cannot be made better or worse off by the amount of forest cover in the Amazon basin.

Did you mean “ecosystem” or “biosphere”, perhaps?

@Jiggerj

We humans are not mammals. We are a virus.

Well, that’s just factually incorrect.

[John_Mace]

@Jiggerj

Really? lol Have you taken a look at the devastation we’ve caused to the Amazon? Have you not driven down a road or highway where the land was raped to lay down that road? Raped to build you a house, hospital, school, museum…? Are you not aware of the devastation caused by Chernobyl? Of animal extinctions caused by man? Of polluted waterways and oil spills? Of land rendered off-limits for 100,000 years because we’re burying spent nuclear rods there? Of the introduction by man of destructive animal and insect species into foreign ecosystems?

We humans are not mammals. We are a virus.

Whatever the name is for the desire to believe humans are more important than we really are, that’s a great example of it!