At the end of the day, what is the basis for 99.9% of all human (and all animal) behavior? Is it really as base-level as self-pres? or is that too simple (and incomplete) of an explanation?
Is self-preservation the ultimate 'prime mover'? Or something else?
- Thread starter SoundMaster
- Start date
No. I think there are more drives than that. Self-preservation is the most important thing if one's main goal is comfort and security but not everybody is satisfied with just that. Some desiring thrill (aggression, sex, escape etc) more for example.
MasterOLightning
Optimator
Trying to find something that explains 99.9% of all human behavior is the wrong approach here. Yes, it is too narrow to assume self-preservation is the prime motivation.
I happen to believe that sympathy and empathy are the most important things in differing human behavior from animal behavior. These are things that only seem to appear as you go up the evolutionary ladder. The basest form of sympathy has to be a mother caring for her young, but simple creatures don't possess this; you have to look at more complex creatures. I guess primate behavior is closest to human, and you do find sympathy/empathy in their groups. Humans take this far beyond any other species. Sympathy/empathy is the basis for morality systems. Look at Christianity's golden rule.
I'd love to learn how this trait came to develop in more advanced species, as it appears to be more than just a survival tool.
I happen to believe that sympathy and empathy are the most important things in differing human behavior from animal behavior. These are things that only seem to appear as you go up the evolutionary ladder. The basest form of sympathy has to be a mother caring for her young, but simple creatures don't possess this; you have to look at more complex creatures. I guess primate behavior is closest to human, and you do find sympathy/empathy in their groups. Humans take this far beyond any other species. Sympathy/empathy is the basis for morality systems. Look at Christianity's golden rule.
I'd love to learn how this trait came to develop in more advanced species, as it appears to be more than just a survival tool.
derek
Grey Eminence
Or even more so if such a trait is now disappearing as the world becomes more "dog eats dog" everyday?
Final_Product said:
But is the world moving in this direction more so than in the past? Or has it always been in this direction? One can easily argue that the 20th & 21st centuries, even with the advent of mass-destructive weapons/war, was/is still the most humane time humanity has ever experienced.
MasterOLightning said:
True, but self-preservation can also include a mother's care for her young. She's preserving herself by preserving her genes/DNA in her offspring.
Taken out to the larger picture, that applies to society. The overall stability and prosperity of a society helps to preserve the 'self' within it. Less war, less crime, etc., all increase any one individuals chances of survival, thus preservation of self.
Most human mechanisms have roots in survival instincts. For example, greed, fucking, need for social acceptance. But if it were used as a basis for explaining everything, then explain why so many people smoke cigarettes even with the knowledge that they are poisonous and will eventually kill them. It should also be noted that other species in the animal kingdom demonstrate playful behaviour. Is enjoyment then also a tool of survival? Is musicianship something which we undertake because we are unwittingly doing so according to some survival instinct? There will obviously be arguments we could all come up with both for and against.
Also, in regards to the discussion above, I would have to say that both war and sympathy are skills acquired from survival (even though they would seem to conflict with one another). Humans are a social species, not unlike wolves. Going to war is fighting to preserve the DNA of your clan. Sympathy is learned from nurturing in order to preserve a life.
Also, in regards to the discussion above, I would have to say that both war and sympathy are skills acquired from survival (even though they would seem to conflict with one another). Humans are a social species, not unlike wolves. Going to war is fighting to preserve the DNA of your clan. Sympathy is learned from nurturing in order to preserve a life.
Taking a cue from Freud (read: Id & Superego) and Maslow (His "Hierarchy of Self" is an indispensible reference here)...and taking a little leeway, I think motivation for most anything can linked to two basic drives:
1) Action for the Self (A1)
2) Action for the Society (A2)
--"Action for the Self" is that basic drive to survive - a person will act in his best interests.
--"Action for the Society" is also a basic drive to survive - do what will best propagate the species.
A1 is a stronger tendency than A2; when there is a conflict between the two, A1 will win out over A2 (in the case of most people).
1) Action for the Self (A1)
2) Action for the Society (A2)
--"Action for the Self" is that basic drive to survive - a person will act in his best interests.
--"Action for the Society" is also a basic drive to survive - do what will best propagate the species.
A1 is a stronger tendency than A2; when there is a conflict between the two, A1 will win out over A2 (in the case of most people).
MasterOLightning
Optimator
Okay, so I think I can refine what I said before. There are three levels of motivation then:
1. Self-preservation
2. Species-preservation
3. Ecosystem-preservation
You can find the first two in the animal kingdom, but only humans seem to express desire (and have the ability) to save other species, and reclaim the environment. I guess in our modern society there's a spectrum from those who will destroy the environment in the name of self-preservation and those who will sacrifice the self and the species for the sake of ecosystem preservation. Perhaps those who are eco-fascists/terrorists were given much higher levels of ecosystem preservation than self-preservation. Maybe evolution is making this quality a part of a growing number of people?
1. Self-preservation
2. Species-preservation
3. Ecosystem-preservation
You can find the first two in the animal kingdom, but only humans seem to express desire (and have the ability) to save other species, and reclaim the environment. I guess in our modern society there's a spectrum from those who will destroy the environment in the name of self-preservation and those who will sacrifice the self and the species for the sake of ecosystem preservation. Perhaps those who are eco-fascists/terrorists were given much higher levels of ecosystem preservation than self-preservation. Maybe evolution is making this quality a part of a growing number of people?
derek
Grey Eminence
Interesting idea. I can see the traits of ecosystem preservation quite dominant, but I dont know if said trait is becoming greater in number through evolution. For me, its more likely that education has made certain folks more aware of the problem and awakened their need to deal with it. Millions of folks couldnt care less.
SoundMaster said:
No, it is either desire or will, in my (Vedic) worldview.
Paradox of self-preservation: to preserve the self requires preserving and nurturing the world and environment.
infoterror said:
But can one then look at this paradox simply as the means to acquiring the end (self-pres)? If so, it's no longer a paradox at all.
SoundMaster said:
It is a paradox, because sometimes the self must be given up for the whole. And that leads to more interesting thoughts...
