• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Politics in General: "Individuals and Groups of Individuals"

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


WHAT KIND OF BEAST IS THIS?

In a profound sense, all human politics rests on a single fact: We are social animals. If humans were descended from bears -- a mostly solitary animal -- we would have no or almost no politics simply because, living alone, we would need none. But humans are descended from social primates, and so we are social animals in need of politics.

We are in need of politics to create and facilitate 'cooperation', which is of immense value to us in terms of our survival. By "cooperation" I do not mean only voluntary cooperation. Much cooperative behavior among humans is forced or involuntary, and I mean to include that kind of behavior in with voluntary cooperation when I use the word.

According to some scientists, cooperation was THE driving force behind human evolution. It was so important to our survival, that our survival depended on it more than on anything else. This new view of what most drove our evolution is steadily replacing all of the older views. e.g. Other animals had bigger muscles or sharper teeth and claws. But we were able to gang up on them due to our superior skills at cooperating with each other.


SO WE'RE SOCIAL ANIMALS...

So we're social animals. But what kind of social animal? Folks sometimes label us as a "herd animal" or a "Hive animal", but I think those comparisons are too superficial by miles. If one must compare our social nature to that of other animals, one should compare it that of the pack or club predators. The wolves, wild dogs, hyenas, and lions of the world.

In a metaphoric sense, pack and club animals are half-way between solitary animals and herd animals. Try thinking of them as animals that "Can't live with other animals, can't live without other animals".

Our politics is shaped by our nature as 'pack and club' animals. That is, one of the great dynamics in human politics is the tension or conflict between the needs of the individual on the one hand, and the needs of the larger group of individuals that he or she belongs to.

That tension or conflict fuels a dynamic -- a dynamic that runs throughout all of known human history. It is 'as old as the hills'. It was here before us, it will be here after us. And much -- so much -- of politics is about the struggle between the needs of the individual, and the needs of the individual's group.

Political extremists tend to emphasize one side over the other. They either put the needs of the individual on a pedestal, or they put the needs of the individual's group on a pedestal. Moderates or centrists tend to try balancing the two sides in one way or another.

There's more to politics than that. But that is one of the Grand, Enduring Themes of politics. If you want to truly understand what politics is all about, you absolutely must be aware of how politics is used to both create and solve conflicts between the needs of the individual and the needs of the individual's group.


SOME ETERNAL POLITICAL THEMES BASED ON THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE NEEDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL'S GROUP
  • How much control should other people have over me and how much control should I have over other people?
  • What right does anyone have to tell me whether I can do something or not?
  • Do I have a right to own property or must all property be owned in common by every member of my group?
  • Do I have rights?
  • Do I have responsibilities to others?
  • Where do my rights end and another person's rights begin?
  • Does my group owe me anything? If so, what?
  • Do I have an obligation to pay taxes?
  • Can I be forced into slavery to others?
  • Am I obligated to defend my group from its enemies?
  • Can I be punished for doing something I deem right, but that my group deems wrong?


 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's an excellent observation. I primarily thought we were herd animals but now that it's been mentioned I agree. We're more akin to pack animals.

There's no question chimps fall in that category as well as a good number of other primates. They get together for the social good, even for the welfare of its weakest member, and fight off and even hunt rival groups. Yet among themselves, will bicker and fight amongst each other sometimes to the death.

There's no question those instincts are alive and well among us.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
There was a man stranded on an island. Knowing he was going to be there for some time he build a home out of the wood and leaves from the palm tress.

Years later, a boat passed by and picked him up. They noticed that he actually had three structures, so they asked him, "What are those three structures?"

He pointed to the first one and said, "That is my home where I lived over the years".

He continued, "The second is the church I attended on Sundays. The third is the new church that I decided to go to because I didn't like the first one."

Would politics have been the answer to the problem in the first church?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, we are social animals, but we also seem to like having alphas: leaders who make our decisions for us. This is also in common with some of the other apes.

But we also have larger social groups that other animals. Especially once we gained agriculture and settled into cities, there has been a division in how goods are distributed: those in power get more of the goods and those not in power get less. While this is true in chimp societies, it is much more pronounced in human societies.

So, all too often, the 'good of the society' has come to mean the 'good of those in power'. It isn't so much the good of the individual vs. the good of the group as it is *which* groups get the goods.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
There was a man stranded on an island. Knowing he was going to be there for some time he build a home out of the wood and leaves from the palm tress.

Years later, a boat passed by and picked him up. They noticed that he actually had three structures, so they asked him, "What are those three structures?"

He pointed to the first one and said, "That is my home where I lived over the years".

He continued, "The second is the church I attended on Sundays. The third is the new church that I decided to go to because I didn't like the first one."

Would politics have been the answer to the problem in the first church?

I understood the joke to be a reference to either split congregations or denominational schisms. Maybe both. In my experience, congregations split, and denominations schism mainly for doctrinal reasons. Politics enters the picture largely in terms of the kind and quality of leadership on both sides.

By the way, it just now occurred to me the joke could refer to church-hopping. I read a bit about it a few years back. Seems to be a thing these days for some people. They attend a church for a year or so, then hop off to another one -- mostly because they like novelty, it seems.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Yes, we are social animals, but we also seem to like having alphas: leaders who make our decisions for us. This is also in common with some of the other apes.

For the past 70 or so years, evidence from field studies of the earth's last remaining hunting/gathering groups has been quietly mounting to a conclusion, largely unreported outside of journals and scholarly books. That conclusion is that the hunting/gathering groups are fiercely egalitarian. When someone tries to rise to an "alpha" position, the group gangs up and takes them down, usually via public ridicule combined at times with ostracism. They can even get themselves driven from the group. One thesis is that humans are naturally individualistic and that "egalitarianism" is not so much in our nature as it is our easiest means of taking down those who would rise up over us and thus threaten our individualism. The notion we are individualistic to the core is supported by various lines of evidence.

But we also have larger social groups that other animals.

Since 1992 it has been known that the average brain sizes of different primate species are closely associated with the average size of each species social group. i.e. our big brain evolved so that we could live in ever bigger groups. Put differently, 'society' drove the evolution of intelligence.

Please note: I say "brain size", but it's actually not the overall size of the brain here. It's a ratio of certain areas of the brain to certain other areas. Basically the areas related to thinking, consciousness, socialization, etc vs the areas less related to those.


Especially once we gained agriculture and settled into cities, there has been a division in how goods are distributed: those in power get more of the goods and those not in power get less. While this is true in chimp societies, it is much more pronounced in human societies.

So, all too often, the 'good of the society' has come to mean the 'good of those in power'. It isn't so much the good of the individual vs. the good of the group as it is *which* groups get the goods.

You're way ahead of me, Poly. I had planned at least two posts on "Politics in General". The first on the individual and the group. The second on the distribution of resources and wealth. To me, they can be divided into two related subjects.

My second thread -- distribution -- is still just paper notes on my desk. I was hoping to get to it later today or tomorrow.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I understood the joke to be a reference to either split congregations or denominational schisms. Maybe both. In my experience, congregations split, and denominations schism mainly for doctrinal reasons. Politics enters the picture largely in terms of the kind and quality of leadership on both sides.

By the way, it just now occurred to me the joke could refer to church-hopping. I read a bit about it a few years back. Seems to be a thing these days for some people. They attend a church for a year or so, then hop off to another one -- mostly because they like novelty, it seems.
LOL.... a lot of church splits is politics. (which is what the thread is about). Politics was part of the reasons why some wanted Jesus crucified.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
For the past 70 or so years, evidence from field studies of the earth's last remaining hunting/gathering groups has been quietly mounting to a conclusion, largely unreported outside of journals and scholarly books. That conclusion is that the hunting/gathering groups are fiercely egalitarian. When someone tries to rise to an "alpha" position, the group gangs up and takes them down, usually via public ridicule combined at times with ostracism. They can even get themselves driven from the group. One thesis is that humans are naturally individualistic and that "egalitarianism" is not so much in our nature as it is our easiest means of taking down those who would rise up over us and thus threaten our individualism. The notion we are individualistic to the core is supported by various lines of evidence.

On the other hand, it might well be that this is why these groups are still hunter/gatherers. Maybe eschewing alpha politics limits the society in ways that doesn't allow for certain types of technological development/change.


Since 1992 it has been known that the average brain sizes of different primate species are closely associated with the average size of each species social group. i.e. our big brain evolved so that we could live in ever bigger groups. Put differently, 'society' drove the evolution of intelligence.

Please note: I say "brain size", but it's actually not the overall size of the brain here. It's a ratio of certain areas of the brain to certain other areas. Basically the areas related to thinking, consciousness, socialization, etc vs the areas less related to those.

That I have seen. One aspect of this is that, as the number of individuals in a group goes up, the number of *interactions* goes up as the square and the number of triples as the cube. So, roughly, if the size of the group doubles, the number of pairwise interactions will quadruple and the number of triples (alliances) will go up by a factor of 8. This requires MUCH more brain power to figure out who is aligned with whom and why.

You're way ahead of me, Poly. I had planned at least two posts on "Politics in General". The first on the individual and the group. The second on the distribution of resources and wealth. To me, they can be divided into two related subjects.

My second thread -- distribution -- is still just paper notes on my desk. I was hoping to get to it later today or tomorrow.

Looking forward to it!
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
The Eternal Political Themes, well the correct answers to these questions are not set in stone. Meaning there is not a correct answer. It's a matter of convincing a majority of folks by argument/discussing or force to accept an answer.

I suppose people like to believe there is a moral solution to these questions but, as morality is greatly tied to culture and culture tends to evolve, so does our political answers.
 

beenherebeforeagain

Rogue Animist
Premium Member
On the other hand, it might well be that this is why these groups are still hunter/gatherers. Maybe eschewing alpha politics limits the society in ways that doesn't allow for certain types of technological development/change.




That I have seen. One aspect of this is that, as the number of individuals in a group goes up, the number of *interactions* goes up as the square and the number of triples as the cube. So, roughly, if the size of the group doubles, the number of pairwise interactions will quadruple and the number of triples (alliances) will go up by a factor of 8. This requires MUCH more brain power to figure out who is aligned with whom and why.
And there is still a limit on how many of these interactions any one individual can physically engage in. As population increases, it becomes increasingly likely that some individuals will NEVER directly interact with some other individuals.

This is where the differentiation starts to encourage non-egalitarian distribution of resources, imo
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Cooperation of any kind demands that the individual be willing to trade in some rights for the welfare of the group. For example Mountain Man, alone in the wilderness can poop anywhere he like just like the other animals. But, if Mountain Man goes to town to live, even for a while, he must trade in his right to poop anywhere he likes in return for the greater benefits offered by the cooperative group.

The greater benefits are made possible by specialization. In sports, the best teams win because the individuals play their specialized roles well. There is a synergistic effect to a well-functioning cooperative effort. The sum is greater than the parts.

In the inevitable conflicts between individual rights and the welfare of the group, the group's welfare must prevail or the cooperation (teamwork) breaks down.
 
Last edited:
Top