[Narz]

Link Here

A friend of mine on another forum had a link to this piece in his signature, I thought it was well written. I wrote this in response after reading it :

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ery interesting piece analyzing the tragedy of the commons. While I still do believe breeding beyond replacement should not be encouraged or rewarded I think that critique did a good job of dismantling some of the other parts of the essay that right-leaning folks like to use to justify private control & to insult the innate intelligence of pre-industrial (pre-capitalist) man in organizing himself sustainably without coercion or appeal to greed & that it's abundantly clear that greed & lust for power & control are not inherently the dominant forces that control men but modern capitalists & globalists imagine they are because arguing as such makes capitalism & unequal exchange inevitable & thus justifiable.

[Ludi]

Here's another essay discussing humans and their adaptation to mutual support in small groups:

http://anthropik.com/2005/09/thesis-7-h ... band-life/

[Quinny]

Seems good to me.

[Cloud9]

No doubt that cooperation and self sacrifice are bred into us when it is applied to those like ourselves. It must also be admitted that competition is bred into us. It manifests itself most often when we find ourselves pitted against the others for our very survival.

Remember that the manowe are the edible ones.

As for whether the tragedy of the commons is a myth, ask a fish; the tragedy of the commons is being played out on the world's oceans every day.

[mos6507]

If we're so adept at conserving resources then we better start demonstrating it before it's too late (if it isn't already) otherwise this is the sort of argument that only extraterrestrial archeologists will find interesting

[Auntie_Cipation]

Since, as usual, I'm a splitter in the room full of lumpers, I thought I'd add my two cents here.

Keep in mind that I have only the most basic understanding of the tragedy of the commons example, but I do think I get the gist of it. If I'm wrong, someone will certainly point it out, eh?

I think it's perfectly authentic to say that perhaps humans are hard-wired for altruism and get the benefits of evolutionary fitness from that.

However, there are lots of ways to display altruism, and some of them are pretty secure -- volunteering to help someone is the most basic -- offering someone food, shelter, money, whatever, shows off our goodness, lets us feel, authentically so, like we are helping, and yet doesn't risk or cost us anything except our time or whatever we've offered.

On the other hand, in the commons scenario, putting the interests of the community ahead of one's personal interests requires risking being taken advantage of in a big way. Isn't this an entirely other factor that needs to be included when the psychology of these behaviors is being assessed? The desire to not be ripped off, or the need to trust the people you're trying to help, certainly gets in the way (in the real world) of wanting to express "simple altruism".

[Javaman]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Narz', '[')url=http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/bullet133.html]Link Here[/url]

A friend of mine on another forum had a link to this piece in his signature, I thought it was well written. I wrote this in response after reading it :

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')ery interesting piece analyzing the tragedy of the commons. While I still do believe breeding beyond replacement should not be encouraged or rewarded I think that critique did a good job of dismantling some of the other parts of the essay that right-leaning folks like to use to justify private control & to insult the innate intelligence of pre-industrial (pre-capitalist) man in organizing himself sustainably without coercion or appeal to greed & that it's abundantly clear that greed & lust for power & control are not inherently the dominant forces that control men but modern capitalists & globalists imagine they are because arguing as such makes capitalism & unequal exchange inevitable & thus justifiable.

[sihmei]

Human social behaviour works like this:

1 - Be nice to insiders (cooperation)
2 - Be nasty to outsiders (conflict)

When resources are abundant these strategies are used less. When resources are scarce these strategies are used more.

As PO hits resources will become more scarce and life will become harder. Therefore people will begin to bond more closely with their family, friends, neighbours, local communities etc but become more hostile to those outside of that circle. As things deteriorate, this circle will get smaller and smaller and those inside that circle will become increasingly hostile and violent if need to be those outside it.

So yes, cooperation, friendliness, altruism is a part of human nature but also to at least an equal extent is hostility, discrimination and conflict.

[jbrovont]

Humans aren't particularly strong or survivable in the "wild," meaning outside their range of environmental influence. Banding together for the common purpose of survival transitioned from cultural to genetically ingrained long ago, so I definitely agree you have a point here.

Early humans delt with external (and internal) predators very differently than we do now in wasy that ensured the most selfish and destructive behaviors to the community didn't get passed on to the next generation. It's only been relatively recently in human history (a few thousand years) that power structures have emerged that allow this sort of parisitic and internally destructive behavior to persist and thrive - however we also see from history that unchecked, it leads to the inevitable destruction of the host civilization.

Industrialization and consequently globalization has fostered the growth of socially destructive internal predation to a previously unprecidented level. I imagine the ensuing collapse and resetting of socially responsible behavioral frameworks will be of an equally abrupt and tremendous scale.

Predation in nature and thus darwinistic natural selection works because the "prey" leaves the genetic pool. In socioeconomic "dawinism" the "prey" remains, learns, and passes their knowledge on to subsequent generations who invariably eventually conclude that their socioeconomic status isn't related to their ability or entitlement as much as it is to their situation. Revolution; civil war; the "social dawinists" swing in the gallows and humanity marches on.

This isn't new stuff. It's not even ancient stuff. It's just human nature. You hurt me, I hurt you. You hurt my neighbor repeatedly - whether I like them personally or not, when I realize you could do the same to me - that's when the pitchforks and torches come out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')'ve also argued here that people are biologically wired for altruism, that community involvement and sacrifice increase personal evolutionary fitness and have been bred into our behavioral pallet.

We can't help cooperating in spite of what the capitalists would like us to believe. No one has ever challenged this around here.