The Perverted Darwinian Nature of the State

[rogerhicks]

I've just discovered this website and Stefan's ideas about the state, which have much in common with my own, which I have derived from taking a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, view of human nature and the situation (states and civilisation) it has over the centuries given rise and shape to. The state, it seems to me, conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original, natural and very tribal environment, in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation and the state, which now poses, deceitfully, as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment), while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment) to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients. I think this goes a long way towards explaining Stefan's observations relating to the state. It also explains the paradoxes and dilemmas that confront and confuse our brain, which evolution adapted to deal with a very different kind of environment from that of civilisation, which has been shaped over centuries to serve the interests of society's ruling elite and their favoured clients at the expense of society at large.

 

What makes the democratic state so special, but inherently unsustainable, is the fact that we are now ALL its clients, albeit very unequally. In order to get our support, politicians have to try, or pretend to try, to satisfy us all, which, of course they cannot possibly do, certainly not on a finite, vulnerable and already overpopulated planet.

 

We have a short window of opportunity, it seems to me, within which to use our hard-won freedoms to make truly radical changes to the state, which I don't believe we can do without completely (some authority has to enforce the rule of law and non-violence which otherwise tends to characterise all tribal societies), before it closes and these freedoms are lost. I elaborate on these ideas on my own blog, The Perverted Darwinian Nature of Civilisation: http://philosopherkin.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/civilisation-evolutionary-cul-de-sac.html

[PatrickC]

The state, it seems to me, conflates and confounds very different aspects of the original, natural and very tribal environment, in which human nature evolved, long before the advent of civilisation and the state, which now poses, deceitfully, as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment), while at the same time facilitating society's self-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment) to the advantage of its ruling elite and their favoured clients.

 

Hi Roger, Welcome to the boards.

 

I enjoyed your summarisation of the state, compared to the tribe, which made a lot of sense to me. I was curious what your thoughts might be (if any) about what you might consider as the benefits of the tribe.

 

Just to give you a backdrop on my own interest in this topic, I've been enjoying a book recently by Jack Donovan called, 'The Way of Men'. He talks a lot about how men can thrive together and their families in a tribal atmosphere. His ideas suggest that within this atmosphere that we can create relationship bonds of real and lasting value, compared to the neutering men have recieved via the state.

[waywardvariable]

Rogerhicks, thanks for your interesting post , a couple of questions; do you think it's accurate to assume that in the "very tribal environment" that you refer to that humans had already developed the very earliest incarnation of what we now refer to as "the state" in the form of such things as tribal leaders, "holy" men and the often complex web of superstitions and "taboos" that were principally used not only to enrich the tribal "leadership" at the expense of the productive members of the tribe but also to control the behaviour and social interacts of tribal members? If this is the case couldn't we then assert that this situation was brought about as a survival response to natural pressures and thus through the processes of evolution became part of our Darwinian Nature? 

 

Perhaps the current incarnation of the state is simply a manifestation of that very early human surival adaptation taken to scale and adapted to technological advancement?

[rogerhicks]

Hi Roger, Welcome to the boards.

 

I enjoyed your summarisation of the state, compared to the tribe, which made a lot of sense to me. I was curious what your thoughts might be (if any) about what you might consider as the benefits of the tribe.

 

Just to give you a backdrop on my own interest in this topic, I've been enjoying a book recently by Jack Donovan called, 'The Way of Men'. He talks a lot about how men can thrive together and their families in a tribal atmosphere. His ideas suggest that within this atmosphere that we can create relationship bonds of real and lasting value, compared to the neutering men have recieved via the state.

Thanks for your welcoming words, xelent. I'm pleased to have discovered Stefan's site.

 

I take it as given that Homo sapiens is an inherently and intensely tribal animal, which is so evident in our behaviour and motivations. It is not without significance that we have a culture which inclines us to trivialise, ridicule or demonise our inherent tribalism, so that the state and capital are free to manipulate and exploit for their own ends.

 

Clearly, there are now far too many of us for us to be able to return the kind of tribal society that existed before the advent of civilisation, which it is properly not a good idea to idealise anyway. Archaeological evidence suggests that life back then could be pretty brutal. We need to reinvent society, so that it caters for the human nature (personal, social and tribal) of all its members, rather than just for its privileged elites, which, because we are now so numerous (I consider myself a privileged member of society) is totally unsustainable (quite apart from all the injustice and inhumanity).

[PatrickC]

Clearly, there are now far too many of us for us to be able to return the kind of tribal society that existed before the advent of civilisation, which it is properly not a good idea to idealise anyway. Archaeological evidence suggests that life back then could be pretty brutal. We need to reinvent society, so that it caters for the human nature (personal, social and tribal) of all its members, rather than just for its privileged elites, which, because we are now so numerous (I consider myself a privileged member of society) is totally unsustainable (quite apart from all the injustice and inhumanity).

 

Yes, I broadly agree with you here. Sometimes people misconstrue that i want to go back to some ancient time, which clearly isn't possible, practical or even useful. The qualities I see in the concept of the tribe are 'bonding' and 'honour'. Not exclusively, because I also ascribe to the NAP and UPB as well.

 

Anyway, I'll take a look over your blog sometime. These are very new ideas for me at the moment, but I find them rather fresh and interesting all the same.

[rogerhicks]

Rogerhicks, thanks for your interesting post , a couple of questions; do you think it's accurate to assume that in the "very tribal environment" that you refer to that humans had already developed the very earliest incarnation of what we now refer to as "the state" in the form of such things as tribal leaders, "holy" men and the often complex web of superstitions and "taboos" that were principally used not only to enrich the tribal "leadership" at the expense of the productive members of the tribe but also to control the behaviour and social interacts of tribal members? If this is the case couldn't we then assert that this situation was brought about as a survival response to natural pressures and thus through the processes of evolution became part of our Darwinian Nature? 

 

 

 

I'm wondering why the smily  . 

 

I guess there would have been proto-states, before what we now recognise as actual states appeared, and these would have taken different forms (if any form at all) in different parts of the world.

 

I assume that for most of the time that human nature was evolving into what it still is, we lived in relatively small tribes or communities, in which everyone would have know everyone else, so that the kind alienation and anonymity which occurs in proto-state and state societies, and facilitates exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment), would have been unknown.

 

We don't like the state knowing too much about us, because we know that we can't trust it, and because of the patron/client relationship that exists between us. But as individuals, we do need to know who we can and cannot trust to have our best interests at heart. Thus, I envisage an "open society", facilitated by modern technology, which would effectively recreate the situation we were in in primitive tribal society.

 

Does that answer your questions?