I said that survival has to be our first desire "or nothing is any good any more".
That's why it's strong. It seems to be reasonable to assume that people with strong survival instincts are more likely to survive than those with weak ones. So, perhaps it follows that we who have survived have strong survival instincts.
But are they instincts or genetic predispositions? I mentioned Ashley Montagu's denial that Man had any instincts. But what about a suckling baby? Is that a genetic predisposition - a series of events that are ordained, or does the baby suck "instinctively"?
My view aligns with Montagu in that I think that Man's reason takes the place of instincts. Yet, as instinct provides a "perfect biologic response to a stimulus" how can reason be better than perfect?
Well, we have an advantage. When conditions change, the animal may be stuck with a less than perfect response. We may use reason to change our response to a more appropriate one.
I used fire in an earlier post. Faced with fire, the animal turns and runs. A human may run - or turn toward the fire with the intention of putting it out.
Reason gave us choice. And we must reason pretty well, for we have survived - without the "perfect response". It's led us in what I believe are not so desirable ways - for if we feel our ability to choose is inadequate, we turn choice over to others better equipped to make decisions - hence "leaders".
(On the other hand - if this works . . . . . ?)
I pointed out that if survival is good, then "ultimate survival" is best. Thus, the quest for immortality - and the next best thing, great age. However, redwood tree hugging isn't the only path toward our reverence for immortality.
You can produce e=m times c (squared) or a 5th Symphony, or a Trout Quintet, or "Irises", or "The Dance Class" - or you can murder 6 million people.
In a sense, all these produce immortality. On the other hand, if you can't produce a Trout- you can have children. In this way you can pass yourself (genetically and by example) into the future.
Then there is the political path to an oxymoronic temporary immortality - you can get a building, or a bridge, or an airport, named after you.
One other important consequence of the basic desire is that we tend to do things which are of advantage to us. Again, if we tend to do things which are of disadvantage to us, our breeding time will be shortened (a biological phrase I like).
So, those who choose advantage are more likely to survive than those who choose disadvantage.
This is a terrible thing to read for those who want everything to be warm and gooey, but as they say - that's the way it is. Some left wingers want to rely on a change in human nature to produce their version of Utopia. But, they will wait a long time.
Utopian communities fail, unless they have strong religious beliefs, or a charismatic leader (whose death ends them), or they change as did Amana, which became a profitable corporation.
Well, Keith, I've apparently said that people are greedy (unlimited desires) and selfish (personal survival). I've said they are lazy (least exertion) and that they are only out for themselves, uncaring of others (seeking advantage).
Yet, these traits that have (mostly) lifted his feet out of the mud, can take him to the stars.
Harry
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith wrote:
Hi Harry,
Overnight, your posting on survivability has combined with Brian McAndrews'
posting yesterday concerned with, inter alia, genetic imperatives and given
me first-pot-of-tea thoughts about why our survival instincts are so strong.
The strength of our survival instincts have always puzzled me and still
does. Somehow this is bound up with Richard Dawkins' ideas on the "selfish
gene" (which, as so stated, strikes me as being implausible). Nevertheless,
some sort of "destiny feature" that lies beyond our individual lifespans
seems to be built into us.
The traditional religions have always cashed in on this by holding out the
prospect of personal survival after death in a state of the greatest
felicity. This is understable because the religions always lined up with
the secular powers (or were themselves sole powers) in order to console the
mass of the people for their existing wretchedness of life. When the
religious message waned as a consequence of the enlightenment and the
growth of scientific thought in the west, the economists started
proclaiming a similar message -- but only for this life. From John Stuart
Mill onwards right through to Samuelson, the prospect of the perfectibility
of governments in distributing fairly the good things of life among all
their subjects has been a dominant theme.
But I still think that there's more to survivability than the personal
angle. There's a bigger game involved. This is why I believe that man must
endeavour to get into space. Otherwise we'll lose that vital spark that
makes us the species that we are. This is not to say that we possess this
exclusively. But now that we have the beginnings of the capability to
escape the earth and colonise space then I think we have a need do so or
else we'll inevitably collapse into a state of narcisism which will end
only when the next super-volcano blows us all to smithereens.
Keith
At 01:46 18/08/01 -0700, you wrote:
> Keith,
>
>"" thoughts!
>
> As I mentioned earlier, we don't know what a person's desires are - just
>that they extend before him. However, I suggested his first desire must be
>to survive or else, as we say, he will no longer be part of our study.
>
> So, we can surmise. (It's not an hypothesis, nor is it a theory - we are
>just surmising.)
>
> If survival is our first desire, we can argue that the longer we survive
>the more successful we are. Also that ultimate survival - immortality - is
>best of all.
>
> Well, we can't manage immortality, but we can revere those who make a good
>attempt - such as the very old.
>
> subject to special treatment by us.
>
> I don't think an apparently lifeless redwood forest is a patch on a
>deciduous forest with its umpteen varieties of flora and fauna, with
>sunshine and shade providing a constantly changing backdrop.
>
>"".
>
> So, there is the surmise.
>
> Harry
******************************
Harry Pollard
Henry George School of LA
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: (818) 352-4141
Fax: (818) 353-2242
*******************************
