“It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.” Anne Frank.
We all have our dark nature, capable of harming our own kind and other creatures, with or without provocation. In wars, though, we unleash it all in its violent forms to kill the so-called enemies, depending on which side of the spectrum one belongs. And while modern societies now enjoy peaceful existence, there are still pockets of atrocities erupting in smaller scales compared to that of the two world wars.
There is a parable of unknown origin which calls for a moment of reflection. It goes this way:
“An old man says to his grandson: There’s a fight going on inside me. It’s a terrible fight between two wolves. One is evil – angry, greedy, jealous, arrogant, and cowardly. The other is good – peaceful, loving, modest, generous, honest, and trustworthy. These two wolves are also fighting within you, and inside every other person too.
After a moment, the boy asks: Which wolf will win?
The old man smiles.
The one you feed.”
There’s a universal acceptance in the premise that the Homo sapiens (the species that we belong to) are naturally selfish, violent and evil. In fact until now many people still believe that we haven’t changed at all from our despicable nature. In The Humans (2013), Matt Haig wrote: “The humans are an arrogant species, defined by violence and greed. They have taken their home planet, the only one they currently have access to, and placed it on the road to destruction. They have created a world of divisions and categories and have continually failed to see the similarities between themselves. They have developed technology at a rate too fast for human psychology to keep up with, and yet they still pursue advancement for advancement’s sake, and for the pursuit of the money and fame they all crave so much.”
But there are hopeful, intelligent people who argue otherwise. They think our species has come a long way to becoming good, or that goodness is the norm, so to speak, and violence is just the exception.
To help us discuss the history of our “good” nature, I’ll touch on a few of the salient points from the weighty books of Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined (2011), 802 pages and Rutger Bregman, Humankind: A Hopeful History (2019), 461 pages.
Pinker accepts the premise of our violent past, that our history is mired in wars and genocides. However, he finds that “over long stretches of time…today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence.” This hopeful trajectory is backed up, according to Pinker, by six trends:
One, the transition from “the anarchy of the hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies” to “agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago” which reduces “the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature.” Pinker calls this trend the Pacification Process.
Second, the decline in violence is due to the “consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and infrastructure of commerce.” The consolidation occurs “between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century” in Europe called the Civilizing Process.
Third, there is this Humanitarian Revolution that offshoots “the first organized movements (which) abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism” during the 17th and 18th centuries in what is known as the Age of Reason and European Enlightenment.
Fourth, at the end of the Second World War, “the great powers and developed states, in general, have stopped waging war on one another” which resulted in the Long Peace process.
Fifth, at the end of the Cold War in 1989, “organized conflicts of all kinds – civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic government, and terrorist attacks – have declined throughout the world,” which Pinker calls the New Peace.
And finally, there is a “growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals” starting at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This is dubbed as the Rights Revolutions.
*************************
Bregman, on the other hand, begs a different argument. He believes in human goodness at the beginning of human history and presents evidences to prove his point. He thinks this hopeful view of humankind is radical which will not be readily accepted. Before laying down the facts of this “new realism” as he calls it, he makes three warnings to counter the criticisms of his “naive” argument: (1) he is standing against cynicism; (2) he is standing against authority who will label his work as subversive and seditious, and (3) he is standing against the headwind of ridicules heaped his way. Now we’re ready to open our minds and read his book.
Like all existential questions, we rely on philosophy to explain “the state of our nature.” In the early years, two opposing views stand out. In one side is the Englishman Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who says that human life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because we are free. In order for us to be happy and have peace, we have to surrender our liberty to an absolute ruler, which Hobbes identifies as Leviathan, a biblical reference to a sea monster. This view gives credence to the rulers of all ages to give them power, otherwise everything is lost.
Meanwhile, on the other side, is the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) who thinks “that man is naturally good, and that it is from these institutions alone that men become wicked.” He longs for that free-spirited “state of nature” when we were more compassionate, and that civilization makes us self-interested, cynical and corrupt. He urges to have our liberty back, otherwise everything is lost.
From philosophy Bregman shifts to science, particularly in areas of anthropology, archaeology and biology, in outlining the evolution of Homo sapiens. The evolutionary process, according to Bregman, has three basic ingredients: lots of suffering, lots of struggle, and lots of time. In a span of 50,000 years, we become the gold standard over five of the known hominins – Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo luȥonensis, Homo denisova, and Homo neanderthalensis. Why? According to Bregman, the tests results in comparing human toddlers with the chimpanzees and orangutans reveal that: “Human beings, it turns out, are ultrasocial learning machines. We’re born to learn, to bond and to play. Maybe it’s not so strange, then, that blushing is the only human expression that’s uniquely human. Blushing, after all, is quintessentially social – it’s people showing they care what others think, which fosters trust and enables cooperation.” Out of our sociability, language is developed to improve our communication to one another. But the other interesting finding of the anthropologists is that our anatomy is paedomorphic, hence the term, Homo puppy.
From science, Bregman shifts his focus to the anecdotal evidences of psychology, history and sociology. In pre-historic life, there are ample evidences to prove that our ancestors were friendly, peaceful and allergic to inequality. Explorers also noted the “civilized” behaviour of the island inhabitants they discovered. In 1492, for example, a traveller, who was coming ashore in the Bahamas, observed: “They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword…and (they) cut themselves out of ignorance.” Bregman also found an obscure 1946 book of Colonel Samuel Marshall, Man Against Fire, which claimed that “the average and normally healthy individual…has such an inner usually unrealized resistance toward killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life.”
*************************
There’s no question that both have a very optimistic view of the future for humankind. The thing, though, is human nature seldom changes. One tragic event will make a cynic in all of us, in spite of the progress that has been made. We revert back to our cruel and violent ways while drawing the line of who is in and out of our circle. The Putin’s War against Ukraine is such a great example.
To end this discussion, I give the last word to Barack Obama. When asked how to boost the fading hopes of young Black people during the four years of the Trump administration, he said: “I’ve never lost hope over these last four years. I’ve been mad. I’ve been frustrated. But I haven’t lost hope and the reason is because I never expected progress to move directly in straight line. You make progress and then there’s some backpedalling and backlash.”
So I, too, am hopeful that the human species will find a way to bring out the very best way to live, though I may no longer be around to see it. I also want to impart that it’s always better to look through the lens of goodness in people. Evil is not born; it is learned.
22 December 2022
Better Angel v. Homo Puppy
“It’s a wonder I haven’t abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart.” Anne Frank.
By Rey Moreno
We all have our dark nature, capable of harming our own kind and other creatures, with or without provocation. In wars, though, we unleash it all in its violent forms to kill the so-called enemies, depending on which side of the spectrum one belongs. And while modern societies now enjoy peaceful existence, there are still pockets of atrocities erupting in smaller scales compared to that of the two world wars.
There is a parable of unknown origin which calls for a moment of reflection. It goes this way:
“An old man says to his grandson: There’s a fight going on inside me. It’s a terrible fight between two wolves. One is evil – angry, greedy, jealous, arrogant, and cowardly. The other is good – peaceful, loving, modest, generous, honest, and trustworthy. These two wolves are also fighting within you, and inside every other person too.
After a moment, the boy asks: Which wolf will win?
The old man smiles.
The one you feed.”
There’s a universal acceptance in the premise that the Homo sapiens (the species that we belong to) are naturally selfish, violent and evil. In fact until now many people still believe that we haven’t changed at all from our despicable nature. In The Humans (2013), Matt Haig wrote: “The humans are an arrogant species, defined by violence and greed. They have taken their home planet, the only one they currently have access to, and placed it on the road to destruction. They have created a world of divisions and categories and have continually failed to see the similarities between themselves. They have developed technology at a rate too fast for human psychology to keep up with, and yet they still pursue advancement for advancement’s sake, and for the pursuit of the money and fame they all crave so much.”
But there are hopeful, intelligent people who argue otherwise. They think our species has come a long way to becoming good, or that goodness is the norm, so to speak, and violence is just the exception.
To help us discuss the history of our “good” nature, I’ll touch on a few of the salient points from the weighty books of Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence has Declined (2011), 802 pages and Rutger Bregman, Humankind: A Hopeful History (2019), 461 pages.
Pinker accepts the premise of our violent past, that our history is mired in wars and genocides. However, he finds that “over long stretches of time…today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence.” This hopeful trajectory is backed up, according to Pinker, by six trends:
One, the transition from “the anarchy of the hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies” to “agricultural civilizations with cities and governments, beginning around five thousand years ago” which reduces “the chronic raiding and feuding that characterized life in a state of nature.” Pinker calls this trend the Pacification Process.
Second, the decline in violence is due to the “consolidation of a patchwork of feudal territories into large kingdoms with centralized authority and infrastructure of commerce.” The consolidation occurs “between the late Middle Ages and the 20th century” in Europe called the Civilizing Process.
Third, there is this Humanitarian Revolution that offshoots “the first organized movements (which) abolish socially sanctioned forms of violence like despotism, slavery, dueling, judicial torture, superstitious killing, sadistic punishment, and cruelty to animals, together with the first stirrings of systematic pacifism” during the 17th and 18th centuries in what is known as the Age of Reason and European Enlightenment.
Fourth, at the end of the Second World War, “the great powers and developed states, in general, have stopped waging war on one another” which resulted in the Long Peace process.
Fifth, at the end of the Cold War in 1989, “organized conflicts of all kinds – civil wars, genocides, repression by autocratic government, and terrorist attacks – have declined throughout the world,” which Pinker calls the New Peace.
And finally, there is a “growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against ethnic minorities, women, children, homosexuals, and animals” starting at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. This is dubbed as the Rights Revolutions.
*************************
Bregman, on the other hand, begs a different argument. He believes in human goodness at the beginning of human history and presents evidences to prove his point. He thinks this hopeful view of humankind is radical which will not be readily accepted. Before laying down the facts of this “new realism” as he calls it, he makes three warnings to counter the criticisms of his “naive” argument: (1) he is standing against cynicism; (2) he is standing against authority who will label his work as subversive and seditious, and (3) he is standing against the headwind of ridicules heaped his way. Now we’re ready to open our minds and read his book.
Like all existential questions, we rely on philosophy to explain “the state of our nature.” In the early years, two opposing views stand out. In one side is the Englishman Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who says that human life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” because we are free. In order for us to be happy and have peace, we have to surrender our liberty to an absolute ruler, which Hobbes identifies as Leviathan, a biblical reference to a sea monster. This view gives credence to the rulers of all ages to give them power, otherwise everything is lost.
Meanwhile, on the other side, is the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) who thinks “that man is naturally good, and that it is from these institutions alone that men become wicked.” He longs for that free-spirited “state of nature” when we were more compassionate, and that civilization makes us self-interested, cynical and corrupt. He urges to have our liberty back, otherwise everything is lost.
From philosophy Bregman shifts to science, particularly in areas of anthropology, archaeology and biology, in outlining the evolution of Homo sapiens. The evolutionary process, according to Bregman, has three basic ingredients: lots of suffering, lots of struggle, and lots of time. In a span of 50,000 years, we become the gold standard over five of the known hominins – Homo erectus, Homo floresiensis, Homo luȥonensis, Homo denisova, and Homo neanderthalensis. Why? According to Bregman, the tests results in comparing human toddlers with the chimpanzees and orangutans reveal that: “Human beings, it turns out, are ultrasocial learning machines. We’re born to learn, to bond and to play. Maybe it’s not so strange, then, that blushing is the only human expression that’s uniquely human. Blushing, after all, is quintessentially social – it’s people showing they care what others think, which fosters trust and enables cooperation.” Out of our sociability, language is developed to improve our communication to one another. But the other interesting finding of the anthropologists is that our anatomy is paedomorphic, hence the term, Homo puppy.
From science, Bregman shifts his focus to the anecdotal evidences of psychology, history and sociology. In pre-historic life, there are ample evidences to prove that our ancestors were friendly, peaceful and allergic to inequality. Explorers also noted the “civilized” behaviour of the island inhabitants they discovered. In 1492, for example, a traveller, who was coming ashore in the Bahamas, observed: “They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword…and (they) cut themselves out of ignorance.” Bregman also found an obscure 1946 book of Colonel Samuel Marshall, Man Against Fire, which claimed that “the average and normally healthy individual…has such an inner usually unrealized resistance toward killing a fellow man that he will not of his own volition take life.”
*************************
There’s no question that both have a very optimistic view of the future for humankind. The thing, though, is human nature seldom changes. One tragic event will make a cynic in all of us, in spite of the progress that has been made. We revert back to our cruel and violent ways while drawing the line of who is in and out of our circle. The Putin’s War against Ukraine is such a great example.
To end this discussion, I give the last word to Barack Obama. When asked how to boost the fading hopes of young Black people during the four years of the Trump administration, he said: “I’ve never lost hope over these last four years. I’ve been mad. I’ve been frustrated. But I haven’t lost hope and the reason is because I never expected progress to move directly in straight line. You make progress and then there’s some backpedalling and backlash.”
So I, too, am hopeful that the human species will find a way to bring out the very best way to live, though I may no longer be around to see it. I also want to impart that it’s always better to look through the lens of goodness in people. Evil is not born; it is learned.
22 December 2022
