Zeitgeist: Moving Forward Page #5

for instance, based on food sharing, gift exchange...

Small bands of people living predominately

off of foraging and a little bit of hunting

predominantly among people you have

at the least, known your entire life

if not surrounded by third cousins or closer;

in a world in which there is a great

deal of fluidity between different groups;

in a world which there is not a

whole lot in terms of material culture...

this is how humans have spent most of their hominid history.

And no surprise, that makes for a very different world.

One of the things you get as a result of that is far less violence.

Organized group violence is not

something that occurred at that time

of human history and that seems quite clear.

So where did we go wrong?

Violence is not universal.

It is not symmetrically distributed throughout the human race.

There is a huge variation in the amount of violence in different societies.

There are some societies that have virtually no violence.

There are others that destroy themselves.

Some of the Anabaptist religious

groups that are complete strict pacifists

like the Amish, the Mennonites, the Hutterites...

among some of these groups, the Hutterites

there are no recorded cases of homicide.

During our major wars, like World War II

where people were being drafted

they would refuse to serve in the military.

They would go to prison rather than serve in the military

In the Kibbutzim in Israel

the level of violence is so low that the criminal courts there

will often send violent offenders

people who have committed crimes

to live on the Kibbutzim in order to

learn how to live a non-violent life...

because that's the way people live there.

So, we are amply shaped by society.

Our societies, in the broader sense including our theological

our metaphysical, our linguistic influences, etc.

our societies help shape us as to whether or not we think

life is basically about sin or about beauty;

whether the afterlife will carry a price for

how we live our lives or if it's irrelevant.

In a broad sort of way different large societies could

be termed as individualistic or

collectivist and you get very different people

and different mindsets and I suspect

different brains coming along with that.

We, in America, are in one of the most individualistic of societies.

With capitalism being a system that allows you to go

higher and higher up a potential pyramid and

the deal is that it comes with fewer and fewer safety nets.

By definition, the more stratified a society is

the fewer people you have as peers - the fewer people with whom

you have symmetrical, reciprocal relationships -

and instead, all you have are differing spots and endless hierarchies...

A world in which you have few reciprocal partners

is a world with a lot less altruism.

[Human Nature]

So, this brings us to a total impossible juncture which is

to try to make sense in perspective science...

as to what that nature is of human nature.

You know, on a certain level

the nature of our nature is not to be

particularly constrained by our nature.

We come up with more social

variability than any species out there.

More systems of belief, of styles of family structures

of ways of raising children. The capacity

for variety that we have is extraordinary.

In a society which is predicated on competition

and really, very often, the ruthless exploitation

of one human being by another

the profiteering off of other people's problems

and very often the creation of

problems for the purpose of profiteering

the ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior

by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.

So the myth in our society is

that people are competitive by nature

and that they are individualistic and that they're selfish.

The real reality is quite the opposite.

We have certain human needs.

The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely

is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.

We have a human need for companionship and for close contact

to be loved, to be attached to, to be accepted

to be seen, to be received for who we are.

If those needs are met, we develop

into people who are compassionate

and cooperative and who have empathy for other people.

So...

the opposite, that we often see in our

society is, in fact, a distortion of human nature

precisely because so few people have their needs met.

So, yes you can talk about human nature

but only in the sense of basic human needs

that are instinctively evoked

or I should say, certain human needs

that lead to certain traits if they are met

and a different set of traits if they are denied.

So...

when we recognize the fact that the human organism

which has a great deal of adaptive flexibility

allowing us to survive in many different conditions

is also rigidly programmed for certain environmental requirements

or human needs

a social imperative begins to emerge.

Just as our bodies require physical nutrients

the human brain demands positive forms of environmental stimulus

at all stages of development

while also needing to be protected

from other negative forms of stimulus.

And if things that should happen, do not...

or if things that shouldn't happen, do...

it is now apparent that the door can be opened for not only

a cascade of mental and physical diseases

but many detrimental human behaviors as well.

So, as we turn our perspective now outward

and take account for the state of affairs today

we must ask the question:

Is the condition we have created in the modern world

actually supporting our health?

Is the bedrock of our socioeconomic

system acting as a positive force

for human and social development and progress?

Or, is the foundational gravitation of our society

actually going against the core evolutionary requirements

needed to create and maintain

our personal and social well-being?

[Part II:
Social Pathology]

So, one might ask where did this all begin?

What we have today... really a world in a state of

cumulative collapse.

[The Market]

You get it started with John Locke.

And John Locke introduces property.

He has three provisos for just private right and property.

And the three provisos are:

There must be enough left over for others

and that you must not let it spoil

and that you, most of all, must mix your labor with it.

It seems justified- you mix your labor with the world

then you are entitled to the product

and as long as there's enough left over for others

and as long as it doesn't spoil

and you don't allow anything to go to waste then that's okay.

He spends a long time on this and his famous treatise of government

and it's since been the canonical text

for economic and political and legal understanding.

It is still the classic text that's studied.

Well - after he gives the provisos

and you're almost thinking at the time whether you

are for private property or not

he has given a very good plausible and powerful defense

Rate this script:0.0 / 0 votes