 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Ethology-Sociology
It's generally assumed now that a human being is a social animal. Even clergy do accept it now (with some remarks although). Actually they do not reject even the evolution anymore.
Animals are ruled mainly by their instincts. While being constructing its honeycomb a bee is not free to vary its structure, to decorate it, for example. It should always be the same. Its structure is a result of long time evolutionary process and any changes would make it unable to fulfill its function. So animals are not free at all, at least they are not as free as it seems to us.
But they have no choice ( a simplest analogy could be drawn here: a very complex - higher complex that is known for now - so a very complex machine. It's nice to still have some mystery, so I doubt we'd be ever know it "in the whole"), so the simplest animals have no free will.
At the same time the stiffness of such animal's social construction would lead to its inability to react the changing environment conditions. So it seems that an evolutionary branch to highly socialized animals such as furmits, termites or honeybees would fail after all.
The evolution mainstream was aimed to the mind controlled decision making.
At the same time human beings have been originated from social animals. So they do have an instinct of living as a member of society. These instincts were presented as religions (that's why it's often said that all the religions do have common basis. It'd be the same for the same instincts have formed them. it's presented in the religion form for being going without any discussion).
The aim of religion rules is the attempt to establish the mind regulation of individual instincts. These instincts are to be regulated while living in society. The "safest" way of making them obligatory would be making them heaven.
But that was by no mean somebody's deliberate action. It comes from not mind-controlled social instinct (eg «common unconscious»).
These instincts expession strongly depend on historical, culture background and hence it results in many religion differences. Those features havr been arising in course of historical development, but today they do hardly affect the present-day word.
At the current time the society has been faced a huge problem. A way is to be found to conciliate individual free will and social being's instincts. That became so important because the technology development which had decreased the environmental pressure.
Since the end of the 19th century to the present time the technology has been developing making human life less depending on various natural disasters. So the morbidity and mortality rates have significantly decreased.
That has lead to human population increase too. At the same time as long as it was proved that human beings are - ... just animals, that have some basic simplest instincts. And at the first sight there is nothing more.
These instincts are to be followed unavoidable. These instincts fulfilling cause much pleasure. Pleasure is the main stimulus of human activity. ( all the present politechnologiests know how this could be used). However currently personal pleasure fulfillment would lead to many problems.
As long as human beings are still consumers, they have to consume various nature recourses and energy. That would lead to a society stratification. Well, it seems unavoidable, so let it be, but this process optimization is badly needed. The main thing is making people feeling the responsibility for the society beings "in the whole", but not for any personal position ecxeptionally.
I can't get anti-globalisers - the only way to get them is to regard this movement as just an example of youth maximalism. I suppose that globalisation is unavoidable. Its pluses got obvious after the tsunami, that happened last year. Well, the social reaction was an excellent example of the whole world united actions. This immediate reaction helped to avoid the consequences much worse. Thus the «iron cage» described by Weber seems to be the only solution. But large-scale educational projects should be initiated for that.
And certainly if left without proper control it would lead to various deformities. There should be a "feedback" - the American pattern of this feedback mechanisme is one of the best. They do have many problems but as long this option works, they would overcome them
However the "American way", the protestant ethic, trend to status uprising caused the commercialization wave. The Golden Calf upraising that was. That is dangerous but as long as there is a society feedback it's not as awful as any totalitarian systems are
By the way that is a reason I can't object against Iraq war. The totalitarian system there was. That should be crashed. I just wonder why it was done so «straight ahead».
The only reason of it could be found. As it has been spoken about for many times already the modern world is unipolar. The USA have no serious opponent thus they are rushing a lot, sometimes it is too much After all the same thing could be achieved much easier and by less victims)
The Golden Calf upraising led to commercial advertising overpowering. Advertising has to call for human basic individual instincts (an appeal for primitive pleasure obtaining, needed for goods advertising, would always do it). So that seems to me a reason this American way is objected by many people. But as long as they do have a feedback everything would be o'k. The feedback should be kept well.
Just recently the Russian society had accepted the commercial part of the American way without any feedback however. So here it is a real Golden Calf upraising. The slogan is "Money rule the world".
This situation has only one solution, I'd think. Nobody would be able to come back to the World of one century ago, even of 20 years ago. (and it would be ... at least strange to expect the mortality rate increase :-) So the only way seems to be wider people education, to provide control over primitive instincts. And that would lead to the birth rate decrease too.
Only the lest developed people have many children. It seems sometimes that the worse the conditions are the more children they'd have. But it'd be another issue to discuss.