Versão Portuguesa aqui.
About 20,000 years ago, humans were already hunters by nature. In this transition from the glacial era and the old world to the new world, the characteristics of our ancestors do not differ much from us, because in the inserted environment already they had well developed tools for hunting, as well as shelters and clothes that already confirm the speed of adaptation and survival.
The humans lived in tribes, small units that survived from hunting and sharing the remains of harvested food. With the progressive changes of the human, physical, as well as behavioral, mental, the obtaining of foods reached another level: Agriculture. The “old” hunter began another change with a deeper co-operation, in addition to cultivation the humans began shortly afterwards in the domestication of sheep, goats, and other animals, certainly captivated by the planted plantations. Horses began to be used in agriculture and transport (later as equipment of human wars), dogs used in hunting and protection of tribes.
This progression in agriculture meant that the tribes, once mobilized for the exhaustive and planned hunts as a way of obtaining food, now managed to generate their own food in large proportions, giving space to small new tasks that were not previously exploited.
Thus we enter the so-called age of specialization, where the hunter and now farmer, initiates an “urban revolution”, the necessity of expansion and division of tasks slowly created a localized interpersonal organization, thus giving rise to cities (supertribes).
The development of these cities and their population (between 7000 and 20 000 inhabitants initially), as well as the invention of writing that led to the existence of inter-communal communications and coordination, has made humans more and more reduced to a number Society) and to face a new stage in its evolution: the adaptation to a Boom of several people, impositions and rules of society necessary for the organization of the same, and the need for a greater interpersonal relationship, which biologically we were not prepared, the Which led to several conflicts, which at the same time were defining the heads of the subordinates making these supertribes some abrupt growth that gave rise to groups of superheads and supersubordinates.
All these social conditions created an “artificial atmosphere”, that is, controls and hierarchies where moral and ethical concepts were already put. With the creation of laws, humans was forbidden to do what the instincts told him, basically we can say that he surrendered to a kind of paradox created by himself, with habits, cultures and specific language in each supertribo, thus becoming A “different” being if it were excluded from it, after all each supertribus had specific characteristics that quickly occurred in contacts outside it. These social identities of language, culture, and religion have greatly altered humans social behavior due to the various changes and adjustments in the supertribes, thus increasing the complexity in the adaptation of our species.
Despite all the disadvantages of this social Boom, we notice that humans has adapted in various ways, continuing to use his exploratory instinct in various social areas, almost as though a survival response.
Thus we have the human creativity to be put into practice in societies, for example gardens, architectural art, among other sequences of events that were (and still are today) allowing man to adapt to the environment. Although the human brain is only 2% of our body mass, it consumes about 25% of all our energy.
This adjustment, however, made man seek greater power and control over others, hierarchies and groups were fought as in the struggles of nature, but this time adapted to a “social standard,” called the 10 commandments of power (Morris 1969):
Clearly display the insignia, postures and gestures of dominator;
– In times of active rivalry, aggressively threaten subordinates;
– In times of physical threat, the chief (or his delegates) must be able to subjugate subordinates;
– If the threat is directed more to the brains than to the muscles, the boss must be able to surpass the subordinates;
– Suppress the quarrels that arise between subordinates;
– Reward immediate subalterns, allowing them to enjoy the benefits of their elevated position;
– Protect the weakest members of the group from all undue persecution;
– Make decisions regarding the social activities of the group;
– From time to time, strengthen the trust of the lesser subordinates
– Always take the initiative by repelling threats or attacks from outside.
All these commandments rule the power. We see nothing more than all the dominant instincts of a wild species that acts by instinct, adapted to a great social evolution.
However, the complexity of this evolution of social behavior made life difficult for bosses, because it created a greater risk in their attitudes and behaviors dominant in the situations, thus creating the supersituations, result of the responsibility / power that the boss has in the management The subalterns and the whole supertribe.
But the very need for organization created a series of “arbitrary inventions” between the groups and subgroups, thus providing a more specialized and competitive social hierarchy, beginning to create distinct social classes, which in time became stronger due to their own Development of education and adaptation, where the age classes began to emphasize this old system of domination and subordination through meritocracy itself.
Our daily diary interactions are guided by innumerable appeasement and/or propitiatory gestures, playful agonistic, with the function of appeasing others and making possible the gregarious life of beings highly aggressive, suspicious and informed to a behavior of hierarchy. Hierarchies are the healthy basis between a species, which has nothing to do with imposition or aggression, but as a means of maintaining social homeostasis.
Research Recommendations: Rosenthal Rats; Prisoner’s dilemma; Principle of Savannah.
We thus entered into a struggle for social domination. The retention of power and influence before subordinates in a variety of ways has enabled situations and supersituations to be controlled in a more manipulative and sustainable manner.
This hunting-situation has changed the paradigm of domination and subordination at high levels, especially in large urban areas, by the permanent and insistent tension with subordinates, thus explaining new behaviors (addressing mainly aggression, targeted aggression and self-aggression) in society and its constant interaction and adaptation.
Biologically, humans defends innately himself, the family and the tribe where he is inserted. Thus, in case of a threat, the defense of the group is intrinsic, and in the social case, we have within the group units for such effect permanently: Police, military or other protection force of the group.
Within these units, the role of chiefs and superheads, in a more developed and somewhat less “human” social context, that is, heads or superheads no longer have to show their face or appear, or even know men, called ” Specialists “, who will send in case of combat.
It is within these “we” and “other” contexts that the inner groups and the outside groups are governed, being in fact a very common justification for more violent acts between groups, because on either side they will be defending their group .
However, wars within the groups themselves are a matter to be mentioned. The subgroups that are created by being “different” from the rest of the group. Not different from habits, cultures or language, but different in opinion, racial tolerance and power. It is the different classes within the group that create subgroups where they create their own attacks, revolutions or other types of intervention.
It is the distinctions between inward groups and outside groups that can, for example, justify slavery, with a great struggle of opinions between the monogenists and the polygenists. Idiosyncrasy is still a reality today.
All the conflicts of the subgroups and their group can also be explained by the very development of social behavior, and by rational and intelligent control of the questions of civilization.
Desmond Morris describes the conditions on how to better analyze and question the conditions that prepare us efficiently for violence between groups:
Development of fixed human territories;
– Dilation of tribes in crowded supertribes;
– Invention of weapons that kill at a distance;
– Removal of the heads of the battle fronts;
– Creation of a class of professional killer;
– Growth of technological inequalities between groups;
– Increased aggression of frustrated situation within the groups;
– The demands of situation rivalries between heads of different groups;
– Loss of social identity within the supertribes;
– Exploration of cooperative instinct to assist the friends attacked.
These conditions lead us to the evidence of overpopulation in the struggle for situations, our species kills itself for reasons that it itself does not know. However, it is evident that animals in overpopulated zoos may also have this behavior.
The conditions for this kind of behavior are trivialized in our day-to-day life as a civilization, taking abortion, homicide, suicide and other situations that lead to our species almost as ecological control of population.
From primitive human to the present day, the population has increased more than 500 times, astronomical numbers compared to other species, which leads us to reflect on the need for this population control.
These our intraspecies struggles have caused the ideological commitment of some authors to manipulate the ambiguous and / or unambiguous sense of certain terms of ethology that have been appropriated and redefined with the loss of their traditional meaning for human sociology. Words like ‘hierarchy’, ‘dominance’, ‘property’ or ‘territory’ were extrapolated from biology to culture, accentuating the erroneous character and anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, calling into question their functions, evolution and subsequent ritualization. Not better, other terms appear to replace others, generating even more humanization, confusion, and incoherence.
The other species were thus doomed to labels and erroneous phenomena of their behavior explained by human ignorance, assumptions, and fallacies that are being passed down from generation to generation without a logical foundation in their words other than the need to mark presence at the moment To explain what is socially normal. The science is very clear in the difference of zoosemiotic in intra-species communication (intragroup / intragroup) and interspecies. All studies prove this assertion in both primates and other species.
The use of terms like “You are a donkey”, proof of anthropomorphism created for the sake of the insignificance of other beings, thus creating young humans a stereotype about our supremacy over other species. Humans, from an early age, mentalize children about the feelings of zoo animals or other similar situations, giving a false reality to the needs of other species and a sense of normalcy and welfare.
The human species had a very rapid development compared to the other species. From natural habitats he moved into a world that was fortuitously artificial and gigantic, altering not only the mode of interaction and living, but also customs and other forms of survival. It will be necessary to demonstrate how much it was necessary for the human species to adapt so quickly to the pressure that the change provided.
But is this control something “human”? Does the fact that we currently avoid war with war or the threat of nuclear or chemical technology also influence this behavior?
We are evolving and somehow being protected by fear itself, outside groups sometimes mingle with the inner groups, creating the subgroups within the groups, the most alarming question is when will there be that difference, and if so Persist how we will deal with it in a “human” way, without the use of technology that can simply decimate us from the planet? What is the measurement model for us to be superior? What benefits at the species level make us rational if we live for the moment in a virtual reality? What is the concept for such? How can we be rational if we are quickly condemned to the needs of the society we live in?
Humans look for their social silhouette. Social networks opened this door of opportunity to our most primitive instincts, thus allowing the creation of groups, paranoid states, disorganized and incoherent, systematized delusions, where the constant struggles are only the territorial struggles of our ancestors now with the defense of a Virtual shield that facilitates a kind of social mimicry.
Culture is the biological adaptation of the human genus that has key properties or characteristics that are subject to the same evolutionary algorithm, selective variation, retention, transmission. It is based on human nature and constrained by it. Culture and society are reciprocally dependent as functional units.
Our society (or our group, or the anthropological site) has been improving some primitive instincts of our species, especially that of curiosity, the need to search, find and verify. The most common example is criticism and loss aversion, because we pay more attention to the negative because it is an instinctive sign of danger.
The modern human can still use and abuse this “freedom”, but will future generations of supertribors be able to adapt and, above all, face such a wide range of what we are doing. All together, we enter the retroactive of natural selection (natural selection – social selection – sexual selection based on social selection).
The Dominican in human societies has evolved from sexual potency and violence to biol- ernance, with a tendency to evolve more with the help of the social sciences in conjunction with evolutionary psychology.
Humans, dogs and horses, especially, had a cruel heritage from our ancestors. We live in cement cages manipulated by the chiefs of this super-tribe. They are subject to the ever-changing cultures of every tribe, whose only duty is to obey our whims. But we all have something in common: We’re scared. We may not have this notion, perhaps that is why we should pay more attention to them and understand that we are together.
We should use inter-species and inter-species understanding and respect as a lesson to our intra-species relationship and be more asymmetrical and coherent.
The modern human was forced to shift to his own survival. We would be surprised how we continue to be a primitive tribal hunter, ill equipped to face the social risks of an impersonal community.
The old primitive hunter uses another garment, another weapon and another paradigm: Survive in this cement jungle.
Main image: “We already are to dismiss our own species with so many evolution needed yet” — Roberto Barata
This article would be published in a book for commercial purposes. But we want to reach out more professionals and families with updated and real information, so the content is being released for free. If you believe in this project, make a voluntary contribution of your choice and we can continue with the free publications. If you are a company and want to take an active part in this project, contact us.
ANDERSON, C. & Kilduff, G. (2009). Why dominant personalities attain influence in face-to-face gourds? The competence-signaling effects of trait dominance. Journal of Personality and Social Phychology, 96(2):491-503.
BAUMEISTER, R. (2005). The cultural animal. London: Oxford University Press.
BLANK, R. & HINES, S. (2001). Biology and Political Science. New York: Routledge.
BUSS, D. (2001). Human nature and culture: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Journal of Personality, 69,955-978.
DEMELLO, M. (2012). Animals and Society: An introduction to human-animal studies. Columbia University Press.
GREENE, J. (2013). Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them. New York: Penguin books.
HENRICH, N. (2007). Why humans cooperate. New York: Oxford University Press.
MORRIS, D. (1967). The Naked Ape: A Zoologist’s Study of the Human Animal. Delta(1999).
MORRIS, D. (1969). The Human Zoo. Kodansha America, Inc.
MORRIS, D. (2002). PeopleWatching. Vintage Books.
SCOTT, J. P. (1976). Violence and social Disaggregation. Aggressive Behavior, 1, 235-260.