I've been thinking about how we got into this collectivist mess and, as with many things in homo sapien, it is likely a combination of nature and nurture, with natural selection as the guide. So what forces were brought to bear upon us to create such an abomination?
My guess is that there were two primary drives: survival against harsh environmental conditions and survival against other tribes. The environmental version probably had it's greatest effect in the northern climes where communal living is more necessary. Imo, an Viking would be much less likely to survive on his/her own than someone living along the Nile. Everything in the North seems to be communal: hunting large game, surviving the elements - imagine living through below freezing temperatures for long periods without communal support. In the northern situation you have vast resources, but need a collective to realize them. I believe we see this type of collectivism in the environmentalist Hippie and Global Warming Fan Boy group think that has occurred recently. This collective also has fewer small tribe conflicts because they are more likely to feel brotherly love, but large wars are still possible when large cultural and genetic difference reduce personification of an objectified enemy (think world wars).
Collectivism born out of tribalism on the other hand would have smaller communes, and would be much more belligerent and war like. The enemy, by necessity, would more easily objectified with a smaller set of differences required to objectify. Personal loyalty would be highly prized and continually tested, with even mild dissension villainized. Think of rising stars in (collectivist) political parties, gang members, even sports teams.
The difference I see between them is that in the first you would naturally tend towards inter species win/win (even out of species win/win with domestication), while in the later you tend towards win/loose.
No comments:
Post a Comment