Society/Culture What makes a man a man?

[Gethelred]

I see some value in it at times (particularly when discussing evolutionary forces), but I always cringe whenever human behaviour is compared to animals. I mean, chimps, yeah... Ok maybe, if it's a small evolutionary example. But still...

We aren't animals. I'll die on this hill and take anyone who disagrees down with me.

I really think the value in the comparison is only useful when you're talking about the things we cannot help; our instincts, and our biology, our physical advantages and disadvantages when compared to other species.

I think the fact we were a prey species at least initially explains an incredible amount of things about how our society has evolved, and how we seem at once to cling to each other whilst making everyone else feel awful. We're essentially a species addicted to domestic abusers in how we glorify the selfish ahead of the selfless, and how we reward those who deliberately leave others out in the cold over people who protect those who cannot protect themselves, in how an awful lot of people will willingly submit to a leader they know will mistreat them for their own gain on the basis of supposed strength.

After all, a shit life is better than no life at all. Safety and conformity ahead of individuality and happiness.

 

[ShanDog]

I think the fact we were a prey species at least initially explains an incredible amount of things about how our society has evolved, and how we seem at once to cling to each other whilst making everyone else feel awful. We're essentially a species addicted to domestic abusers in how we glorify the selfish ahead of the selfless, and how we reward those who deliberately leave others out in the cold over people who protect those who cannot protect themselves.

I think one reason we are bad at this is because societies at scale (thousands to millions of people) has only occurred since the equivalent of morning tea today in the grand scale of time. That's why evolutionary comparisons are fraught with danger, and also why I insist we aren't animals. We've (very recently) transcended that level of existence by so much that we may as well have arrived from a different planet compared to the rest of the fauna on Earth.

 

[Gethelred]

I think one reason we are bad at this is because societies at scale (thousands to millions of people) has only occurred since the equivalent of morning tea today in the grand scale of time. That's why evolutionary comparisons are fraught with danger, and also why I insist we aren't animals. We've (very recently) transcended that level of existence by so much that we may as well have arrived from a different planet compared to the rest of the fauna on Earth.

I see this view akin to how I see a teenage boy saying that he wants to be nothing like his father, considering how much we simply haven't dealt with the change in size and scope of society. We've more or less just up and ignored the social ahead of the scientific and the economic.

We're living with the bones of what we used to be every single day, borne down by their weight. Sure, evolutionary comparisons are - mostly - full of shit, but that's not because of our development of technology or ideas rendering us different or 'better'. And I don't know if we've 'transcended' other life by all that much; it's only really within the last 100 years we've built anything that would outlast us if we all disappeared, ideas that would allow us to continue if most of us vanished that would perpetuate our society.

When we colonize another planet, then I'll be all for talking about how we've transcended an animal's existence. We'll have escaped all earthen species eventual bane by doing so. 'Til then, we're still just an incredibly advanced part of Earth's biosphere.

And yes, I know you'll die on that hill.

 

[ShanDog]

'Til then, we're still just an incredibly advanced part of Earth's biosphere.

I understand this perspective, I just think it's underselling just how drastically different we are to the closest possible animal match you can think of.

Sent via a device made of minerals and compounds extracted from the earth by giant machines, processed in a complicated way that most people don't understand, via wireless connections as a result of studying strange, distant celestial singularities, through an unseen network of computational devices performing advanced mathematics at inhuman speeds to communicate abstract ideas in a language no other known being could understand.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

Is 'because we're a social species' too simplistic?

I really think it's that simple. We've got tradition stuck on top of trends and intercommunication millennia old coupled with survival imperatives that are being met easily and extended lifetimes that have caused us to multiply and to mean that where there might once have been one or two people within a community that were different now there are thousands, millions of them. And all of them can talk on the internet.

We are attracted to others like ourselves. We actively seek community. And over time, that community grows, it develops its own culture and subcultures and countercultures. I rather think we shape our appearance/identity to shape our culture more than our gender, anyway; look at the supposed examples of manliness in this thread. The vast majority of the experiences evinced to make one feel like a man are Australianisms, or at the very least are Australian conceits.

We conform, because if we don't we are alone. It doesn't even have to be an active process.

Conformity was seen by the ancient Greeks as a feminine trait; resistance masculine.
It wasn't quite as simple as that, of course, but here we are in the twitter age.

 

[Gethelred]

Conformity was seen by the ancient Greeks as a feminine trait; resistance masculine.
It wasn't quite as simple as that, of course, but here we are in the twitter age.

It never is. It's the pursuit of simplicity that is the problem.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

It never is. It's the pursuit of simplicity that is the problem.

How so?

 

[RobbieK]

How so?

The pursuit of simple answers in a world of immense complexity can only lead to inadequate, overly generalised inaccuracies.

 

[ferball]

I see some value in it at times (particularly when discussing evolutionary forces), but I always cringe whenever human behaviour is compared to animals. I mean, chimps, yeah... Ok maybe, if it's a small evolutionary example. But still...

We aren't animals. I'll die on this hill and take anyone who disagrees down with me.

What are we then?

Aliens?

We are primates and all the differences we have made to the world compared to other primates are questions of scale not fundamental difference.

 

[ferball]

Including all that stuff you wrote about making an iphone or tablet or whatever it is you used to type (or transcribe) that.

 

[Ben The Donkey]

The pursuit of simple answers in a world of immense complexity can only lead to inadequate, overly generalised inaccuracies.

When I said "it wasn't quite as simple as that" I was referring to Greek philosophy overall. It's not an inaccuracy to mention that certain traits were viewed as masculine of feminine, but it is a disservice to that philosophy to simplify it as much as I did (out of perceived necessity).

The Japanese are an interesting little microcosm in which to observe social phenomenon.
If you were to compare, say, the salaryman with the sōshoku-kei danshi, or perhaps even Hikikomori, what constitutes "maleness", becomes a far more complex question and can shed more light on the general direction society is taking. As does the form male resistance to social constraint actually takes, in the face of reduced options.

 

[ShanDog]

What are we then?

Aliens?

We are primates and all the differences we have made to the world compared to other primates are questions of scale not fundamental difference.

I used the analogy of aliens, but no, not literally of course.

Compare an abacus with a self-aware artificial intelligence. Or a cave to a megacity. A single letter of the alphabet to Crime and Punishment. They may share a history of development, but when comparing them, the latter is so far in advance of the former (or as you say, the difference in scale) that there's little to absolutely nothing that can be learnt. So what use does it serve? I know it's an argument about pragmatism, but it goes even deeper than that IMO, particularly when you are discussing the fundamental nature of humanity.

 

[medusala]

We've (very recently) transcended that level of existence by so much that we may as well have arrived from a different planet compared to the rest of the fauna on Earth.

Disagree. My dog is far smarter than 80% of people still posting on the Trump thread.

 

[ferball]

I used the analogy of aliens, but no, not literally of course.

Compare an abacus with a self-aware artificial intelligence. Or a cave to a megacity. A single letter of the alphabet to Crime and Punishment. They may share a history of development, but when comparing them, the latter is so far in advance of the former (or as you say, the difference in scale) that there's little to absolutely nothing that can be learnt. So what use does it serve? I know it's an argument about pragmatism, but it goes even deeper than that IMO, particularly when you are discussing the fundamental nature of humanity.

The difference between an abacus and a self aware AI (which if it exists isn't telling us but honestly I've suspected the "internet" is kind of self aware for decades,) is just a matter of scale. The AI uses more switches.

I just don't see those differences as anything other than surface ones.

Emergence (which is how consciousness could theoretically grow out of an abacus via computers) could be used to support your argument but apart from the complexity of tools, which is really just a matter of time and trial and error, what real differences are there between our behaviour and that of other primates?

Did you watch that vid on chimp alpha males? They display behaviours that recently were considered uniquely human behaviours and not part of the animal kingdom at all. Compassion, kindness and empathy but also political behaviours like building coalitions and betraying coalition partners. they go to war, and engage in some of the darkest behaviours we associate with humans as well.

Its not in that vid but back in the early days of Chimp research when they were being taught how to use sign language Chimps started using the sign for shit or feces with the signs for particular researchers to describe researchers they didn't like. They started swearing and calling people shit as soon as they had a language both species could communicate with! You can't get much more human than that.

 

[ShanDog]

You can't get much more human than that.

Dunno, I reckon if the chimps caged the humans, recorded them with sophisticated equipment and conducted scientific research on them, it would be a bit more human

My whole point is that there becomes a point where the difference in scale is so large that two things with common ancestors become effectively two different things altogether.

 

[ferball]

But at the same time Shan I think things like our ability to manipulate DNA, use technology to enhance our biology (for example pace makers, hearing aids or stents) means that there may be something in what you are saying. Especially if we want to move beyond the surface of this planet. But at that point I think we are moving beyond being humnan and beyond being constrained by the limits of our biological evolution.

So I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, just think we aren't at the point you think we are yet (and we may never be.)

 

[ferball]

Dunno, I reckon if the chimps caged the humans, recorded them with sophisticated equipment and conducted scientific research on them, it would be a bit more human

My whole point is that there becomes a point where the difference in scale is so large that two things with common ancestors become effectively two different things altogether.

See my last post.

That is a fair point I just don't think we are there yet, but we seem to be on the cusp of it.

 

[ShanDog]

See my last post.

That is a fair point I just don't think we are there yet, but we seem to be on the cusp of it.

This discussion does remind me of one of the critical thinking questions I have that I throw at my students sometimes. It basically goes, "If the average human is 1 million times smarter than the average chicken, would it be ok if aliens 1 million times smarter than the average human started eating us?"

 

[ferball]

More Frans De Vaal:

Equal pay for monkeys.

 

[Power Raid]

standing whilst taking a pee

 

[Gethelred]

I used the analogy of aliens, but no, not literally of course.

Compare an abacus with a self-aware artificial intelligence. Or a cave to a megacity. A single letter of the alphabet to Crime and Punishment. They may share a history of development, but when comparing them, the latter is so far in advance of the former (or as you say, the difference in scale) that there's little to absolutely nothing that can be learnt. So what use does it serve? I know it's an argument about pragmatism, but it goes even deeper than that IMO, particularly when you are discussing the fundamental nature of humanity.

I once read it put that it's a matter of complexity and scale, using the metaphor of ants. Ants have cities - common ground - but would not be able to understand the point of a grocery store, Myers, McDonalds. We are still ostensibly using the same thing - a city is where a group of humans and ants live - but the way we live and the intricacies of it are so very different as to make the comparison near meaningless.

 

[Gethelred]

But at the same time Shan I think things like our ability to manipulate DNA, use technology to enhance our biology (for example pace makers, hearing aids or stents) means that there may be something in what you are saying. Especially if we want to move beyond the surface of this planet. But at that point I think we are moving beyond being humnan and beyond being constrained by the limits of our biological evolution.

So I'm not 100% disagreeing with you, just think we aren't at the point you think we are yet (and we may never be.)

I think on one hand, we're already butting up against our biology; there are whole groups of diseases that are being unearthed due to an increased lifespan and people's bodies just not being able to keep going beyond a certain point, and we are reaching a point in which food, water and shelter are no longer scarce resources (if we're not there already) which brings about its own problems, ie what do you do with all the people when you don't actually need that many to survive.

On the other, we're still kind of evolving. Each generation (acknowledging the inherent difficulty in measurement) is getting smarter than the last. Kids are getting exposed and used to technology sooner and adapting more rapidly; there are studies demonstrating source verification going on in increasingly younger groups, and demonstrating that directed advertising is getting less effective with each successive generation.

I really think - if we're talking pie in the sky stuff - that what will limit us in the future is the amount of time it takes to become an expert at world class levels when contrasted with the potential years of productivity at the other end. If it takes you 30-40 years and an increasing rate to become a physicist at the appropriate level to expand human thought, then naturally you're going to hit a wall eventually as people who just reach the appropriate level are now on borrowed time, and that's without a capitalist system ensuring those seeking such education for that kind of duration are almost always poor. Sure, someone will have a breakthrough from time to time and others will invent stuff that allows for shortcuts - imagine if, instead of graphics calculators and excel, we had to still use the abacus' of past years - it becomes a chokepoint for development without either a) extending the lifespan artificially or b) cultivating AI's to work on the problems we don't live long enough to solve.

 

[ferball]

This discussion does remind me of one of the critical thinking questions I have that I throw at my students sometimes. It basically goes, "If the average human is 1 million times smarter than the average chicken, would it be ok if aliens 1 million times smarter than the average human started eating us?"

That is a good question.

My missus is a vegan so i know what she would say.

I buy the meat I consume mostly but have no problems with killing something and eating it, I've done it before often enough and will no doubt do it again. And intelligence doesn't come into it. I dunno what does, something primal .... and brutal i guess. I wouldn't kill the wallabies that live around here and that I have watched have kids, grow, have their own kids etc etc but don't really care about the animals I am not familiar with. (On reflection, I was about to post this, that is a bit sus....)

So .... my answer would be I guess so, objectively, but don't expect me to go easy.

 

[Toump Ass]

This discussion does remind me of one of the critical thinking questions I have that I throw at my students sometimes. It basically goes, "If the average human is 1 million times smarter than the average chicken, would it be ok if aliens 1 million times smarter than the average human started eating us?"

Why can't the aliens just order pizza? That's what I do when mum cooks something with chicken in it.

 

[ShanDog]

Why can't the aliens just order pizza? That's what I do when mum cooks something with chicken in it.

Tweet Elon Musk the idea: Space Uber. Set it up now so that when the aliens come, we already got a delivery service organised. It's the perfect show of good faith!