To:
Comment at the Guardian |
|||
In response to a Guardian article, "Dead-duck decisions" by Mark Lawson on the quality of political leadership
Link to
article and thread at
The Guardian.
Is it not
time we looked at society, politics and
leadership more objectively, from an
evolutionary and anthropological
perspective?
Human
behaviour and emotions evolved over
millions of years to serve the survival
and advantage of individuals and their
family groups in the natural environment
(which included other, rival, groups of
humans). From the very beginning, these
family groups needed leadership,
which was normally provided, presumably,
by a dominant male.
With the
advent of civilisation the natural
environment was increasingly replaced by
an artificial "socio-economic
environment", where Homo sapiens' blind,
dumb-animal, Darwinian struggle for
survival and advantage continued, some
family groups, i.e. their leaders,
seeking to dominate and exploit others,
which resulted in the creation of
kingdoms, some of which developed into
empires. These tended to be unstable,
because of their size, and break up into
separate kingdoms or nation states,
which are now the basic units of
political power, providing the essential
framework within which individuals, now
largely independent of and indifferent
to their extended family group, continue
to struggle for survival and advantage
(for themselves and their immediate
family).
Free-market
capitalism developed within this context
to both serve and exploit humankind's
animal nature and behaviour, our needs
and desires, principally, of course, in
the narrow, dump-animal (as opposed to
more enlightened, human) self-interests
of those in a position to influence its
development (particularly leaders and
other dominant males, and occasionally
females).
If the
sociology, politics and leadership of
any country were studied from this
perspective, they would become a lot
more intelligible.
Most
urgently, we would recognise and begin
to understand the inherent
non-sustainability of the existing
socio-economic order, which, because it
is so deeply rooted in our animal nature
and behaviour, naturally causes us to
give priority to economics (the
household of man in the socio-economic
environment) rather than to ecology (the
household of our planet in the natural
environment), despite human survival now
demanding the opposite.
Our big
brains and prodigious intelligence are a
mixed blessing. On the one hand they
give us the potential to recognise the
situation and adapt our behaviour
accordingly, while on the other (and
this dominates us completely at the
moment) they enable us to rationalize
and blind ourselves to the situation and
the consequences of us continuing to
pursue our narrow, dumb-animal
self-interests (which mainly boil down
to gaining or retaining wealth and
power, or status) in the artificial
socio-economic environment, despite this
leading, as it manifestly is, to
ecological and climatic disruption and
disaster.
More in this
vein at
http://www.spaceship-earth.org
|
|||
2nd Post It's a very important point that [Grinch] makes (see below), but it does create something of a dilemma for a democracy. But now, following on from my first post: Those who rise through the system to lead us are unable to recognise wider socio-economic reality (including its inherent non-sustainability), because, like the rest of us, they are totally immersed in and dependent on it, and even more expert than most at exploiting it. They are motivated and driven (as we all are) largely by their animal nature and its narrow self-interests, which of course, they rationalize and present as a desire to serve others (their constituents, country, company etc). We need leaders who are not driven and blinded by their animal nature, but unfortunately that is exactly what the system (rooted, as it is, in our dumb-animal nature) developed to give us. Which is another dilemma. Grinch's post: TeflonBliar: "A limited form of direct democracy has existed in Switzerland for years. Why not here?" Because, my friend, that is the absolute f*cking worst idea I have ever heard. Do you know when women got the vote in Switzerland? 1971. Why was that? Because they had to have a national referendum on it, and only men could vote. Do you know when Switzerland joined the UN (the UN, for god's sake?) 2002. Why was that? Direct democracy again. If you give direct democracy to the people, all political progress will halt in its tracks. There is no group of people more cowed, dull, apathetic, ignorant and bull-headed than the general populace. Do you think the England team would do better if we could all have a go at playing, by rotation? Would you rather entrust your heart operation to an amateur? Well then - leave politics to the professionals, please. I have no wish to be governed by Jade Goody and the readers of Heat magazine. |
|||