Is civilization natural?

[lemit]

Well, is it? Are humans designed to live in large, more or less symbiotic communities? Is it natural to communicate with each other the way we are right now?

For that matter, are our communities symbiotic? Do we live comfortably with each other? Or are we just chimps howling and throwing sticks at authority before we retreat into our individual forests?

And if it is natural to communicate this way, how will our hands, eyes, and backsides evolve over the years?

--lemit

[CraigD]

Some preliminaries…
In science, care must be taken not only in how one answers, but in how one asks, questions. This thread’s post #1 is, I think, a case in point.

“Is civilization natural?” contains the implied claim of that biologically meaningful distinction can be made using the terms natural and not-natural. Though common in ordinary human language and thinking, I believe these terms are more appropriate in the discipline of moral philosophy than biological science. In biology, “natural” and “nature” are catch-alls for “everything that exists”, much like “universe” is in physics. Therefore, every biological entity or phenomenon is “part of nature”, or “natural”. The term “not-natural”, or “unnatural”, is practically a semantic null, like the sentence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”, or “this statement is false”.

“Are humans designed to …” is also a problematic question form, because “designed” implies conscious intentionality. Though it’s often convenient in biology and behavioral science to refer to structures ad phenomena as “designed”, this is normaly just a convenient linguistic shorthand for “selected” or simply “performs a recognized function”. In the past couple of decades, “designed” has become an especially touchy word due to its association with “intelligent design”, an anti-scientific political movement , so much so that it’s a good practice to avoid using the word other than in its strickly correct sense, as in “the Jarvic 7 was designed to replace a human heart”.

Preliminaries complete,

Originally Posted by lemit

Are humans designed to live in large, more or less symbiotic communities?

All zoological evidence suggests that all of the present day great ape species, including humans, are strongly social, with individuals living outside of troops of 10 to 100 for only brief periods, and then only in order to travel and establish themselves in new troops, while paleontology suggests this pattern was the norm for all of our “human-like” ancestor species.

Although at first glance humans appear dramatically different from other great apes in that our “troops” are much larger – hundred, thousands, or more individuals – I think this a mistaken conclusion, due to the confusion of the primatological concept of a “troop” with the human cultural ones of “village”, “town”, “city”, “nation”, etc. Although we humans identify ourselves with towns and nations of thousands or millions of individuals, our ordinary social interaction is rarely involve more than a few tens of people – family members, friends, coworkers, etc. My anecdotal experience suggests to me suggests that, regardless of our social circumstances, our ability to recognize and interact with others as people “familiar” to us is limited to somewhat less than 100 – about the same as the maximum size of a non-human great ape troup.

Even if such an collection is not a true “troop”, that we humans do identify socially with much larger groups (eg: in the cases of national identity, with hundreds of millions), is, I think, very significant. The other great apes don’t appear to do it in the wild, or even be capable of such forming such identification. Thus the idea of an non-human ape nation appears to belong in the realm of pure fiction

Originally Posted by lemit

Is it natural to communicate with each other the way we are right now?

As noted in the preliminaries above, being as we’re part of nature, whatever we do is “natural”. The way we’re communication now, however – via written language – appears to be completely unique among all animal species. And, although other animals – not only primates, but less closely related species, such as birds – are able to some extent to use communicate with vocalizations arguably qualifying as “language”, it’s reasonable, I think, to conclude that spoken language as we humans do it is unique to our species.

Originally Posted by lemit

For that matter, are our communities symbiotic?

As “symbiotic” means, by definition “the living together of different biological species”, no single-species community can be said to by “symbiotic” – though we humans enjoy symbioses with uncounted numbers of other species, from the many species of bacteria that allow our guts to work and cannot survive outside of it, to domesticated elephants

Originally Posted by lemit

Do we live comfortably with each other?

As with the word “natural”, “comfortably” is one more an informal, subjective human cultural than a biological one.

Subjectively, some people appear to feel comfortable around others, while some don’t. I think it’s incontrovertible, however, that hardly any human would be more comfortable, or in most cases even survive long, without the support of a large number of other humans. The rare humans with the desire, psychological disposition, and skills to live truly apart from human society (eg: secretly on a deserted island) are not, in my, nor, I think, the subjective judgment of most, more “comfortable” as a result.

Originally Posted by lemit

Or are we just chimps howling and throwing sticks at authority before we retreat into our individual forests?

But chimps don’t howl or throw sticks (and other things ) at individuals they perceive to be figures of authority. They do it at outsiders they consider threats and competitors – in short, at enemies. I think it’s clear that, in settings from sports spectating to international relations, we humans engage in essentially the same threatenting/warning behavior as other primates – and worse, like other primates, engage in inter-troop warfare and intra-troop intimidation, abuse, and murder. While our use of language does, IMHO, set us apart from Earth’s other animal species, our propensity for threatening display and aggression does not.

[freeztar]

Craig makes a good point.
For example:

Is rock and roll natural?
Is dyslexia nutaral?
Is the universe natural?

Everything is natural!
As Craig says, the biological meaning of "natural" is all inclusive.
The word "natural" is an abomination imho!

It's not too hard to see a stretch from "nature" to "natural". If "nature" is everything, then everything is "natural".

With that out of the way...

Civ is as natural as anything else that has, does, or will occur.

[Larv]

It is arrogant on our part to believe that whatever humans concoct is unnatural. We got that belief from Western religion—a very self-serving belief indeed.

[sman]

No. Civilization is defineately not natural. Yes, the term is ambiguous and yes, the question is terribly unscientific, but that doesn't make it meaningless. Or arrogant.

The cognitive niche is a sideline biological experiment that has never taken place before. Our environment is changing much faster than our evolution - we are only able to survive these changes by our extra-genetic plasticity which is totally unique to us.
Our instinctual apparatus hasn't changed since the hunter-gatherer times of hundreds of thousands of years ago, but our society has changed enormously since those times. Our gargantuan population is rife with the conflict between what we feel we must do because of our primeval instincts and what we know we must do because of our extragenetic learning.

Language is a good example. Most of it takes place in the visual cortex, that is, the machinery that, in chimps, is designed to process the continuous stream of optical data into meaningful correlations with our environment. In humans it has been co-opted for the expression of abstract concepts through metaphor. If you examine language you'll notice that it's mostly visual and spatial metaphor. Many other pieces of the primate brain have been hijacked by language in humans. In fact, I'll bet - with no other guide than a language like English - there's enough information to draw an almost complete wiring diagram of the brain, and not just the neocortical areas, the older parts too. The chances of a very strange east African Miocene ape communication globally with type-face symbols via the internet is about the same as the chances of adaptive saltation - and about as natural.

I believe the best we can do in this environment is to remember that it is not natural and that our best guides are artificial, like science and art and inter-tribal compassion - and internet forums. If we rely on what is natural I'm afraid this exquisite uniqueness called humanity, careening through space on this pale blue dot, will be lost.

[maddog]

Hmmm... Where to start....
IMHO, I feel you need some context to even begin to answer the topic of this thread in any
meaningful way.

As in, "natural" with-respect-to "what" ? Biology ???
As well as, what Criteria do you use to assess whether it is, or is not ?

As CraigD and Freezestar have so eloquently stated, you basically have no "rudder" to steer
this thread by.

You want my "opinion", it is free, no charge...
I would base my opinion on Biology (not my subject), Anthropology (interested, no expert),
and Logic (one of my subjects).
My criteria for success (being natural or not) is whether we behave similar to other
animals like ourselves ("being civilized") and would "civilization" cause extinction.

The former is studied by Behavioral Anthropologists. In every group studied, a population
group was fine until the population density got to much. Looking through history, you
see where either a population group of people either migrated elsewhere or disease
and death took over to thin the population.

As for Civilization possibly bringing about distinction, we have no evidence one way or
another to conclude.

Another way to consider, for any group of humanoid (bipedal mammalian creatures)
that learn enough to
1. communicate together
2. build a working group that extends beyond the immediate family
3. work together for a "common good".
Would this be enough to promote what becomes "civilization" ?
Look over history, you tell me.

maddog

[lemit]

As some of you might have realized, the origin of this thread is another thread with a similar name. My frustration over that thread led me to just start writing. As I wrote, I decided maybe there were some legitimate questions.

Your posts give me lots more questions. For example, is our understanding of civilization mainly visual? Can anybody refute or support that?

I hope people don't mind that I ask more questions than I answer. I'm here to learn. I also hope people don't mind the unscientific nature of my posts. In strict, mathematically supported science, I choose to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool.

--lemit

[sman]

Originally Posted by lemit

Your posts give me lots more questions. For example, is our understanding of civilization mainly visual? Can anybody refute or support that?

I LOVE questions! But I'm afraid I don't understand this one. Does this refer to my paragraph on language being bounced of the visual cortex? That was just an out-of-control digression to portray the uniqueness of man. Upon re-reading that post I noticed it is kindof confusing.

Civilization is one of the most thoroghly studied topics of modern times and a beautiful application of the scientific method has produced anthropology - the study of US. This is one of my passions. The reason I immerse myself in biology, cosmology, neuroscience and linguistics is really anthropology and I salivate for a dialogue in that vein.

[maddog]

Originally Posted by lemit

Your posts give me lots more questions. For example, is our understanding of civilization mainly visual? Can anybody refute or support that?

Like sman, I wan't sure I understand this. You mean "visual" as in "visual oriented". I
would then answer; Yes, I think this is a component. I see though Civilization as Cultural.
So to ask whether Civilization is Natural is like asking "is it natural for population groups
to form a Culture" ? I think you can answer that question in the affirmative.

Originally Posted by lemit

I hope people don't mind that I ask more questions than I answer. I'm here to learn. I also hope people don't mind the unscientific nature of my posts. In strict, mathematically supported science, I choose to keep my mouth shut and be thought a fool.

I don't mind the asking of question per se. I am interested in question like yours that
promote dialog though. This is the power of Hypography in what can be discovered by
intercourse (verbal) with others to extend beyond what has you engaged in the moment.



maddog

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by sman

No. Civilization is defineately not natural. Yes, the term is ambiguous and yes, the question is terribly unscientific, but that doesn't make it meaningless.

The terms “natural” and “unnatural” aren’t meaningless, but their meanings differ greatly in different contexts.

In some scientific contexts, the terms are useful, though in many such context, other words, such as “artificial” are used as an alternative to “unnatural”. For example, in photography and acoustics, recorded data caused by the recording devices rather than the “natural” phenomenon being recorded are termed “artifacts”, and their study provide significant sub-disciplines.

In some contexts, such as “biological science” as I used it in post #2, “nature” and “natural” refers to the collection of all entities, while “not nature” and “unnatural” refer to an empty collection. In such a context, the terms are of such little use that “meaningless” seems to me a reasonable description of them.

Originally Posted by sman

Or arrogant.

In some contexts, natural/unnatural are used to promote world views in which a supernatural entity (usually termed “God”) endows humans, and humans alone, with a quality distinguishing us from the rest of nature. I think “arrogant” is a reasonable description of such world views.

In my experience, the most common use of natural/unnatural are in reference to the speakers beliefs about good and bad. Thus, “back-to-nature types” describe non-wild plants and livestock as unnatural and urban dwelling and bad, while “mainstream types” describe the beliefs and behavior of back-to-nature types as unnatural and bad. Religionists of one denomination may describe behaviors, such as homosexual intercourse, as unnatural, while religionists of another describe the same behavior as natural. In these cases, the terms natural and unnatural say more about the people using them than about that to which they refer.

Originally Posted by sman

Language is a good example. Most of it takes place in the visual cortex, that is, the machinery that, in chimps, is designed to process the continuous stream of optical data into meaningful correlations with our environment. In humans it has been co-opted for the expression of abstract concepts through metaphor.

I’m not a neurologist, but according to all the popular reference I’ve read (such as the wikipedia articles “visual cortex”, “Wernicke's area” and “Broca's area”), this isn’t correct. In humans, chimps, and other animals with human-like language ability, the “neurological machinery” involved in vision is anatomically distinct from that involved in recognizing and using language.

Although ones first thought would lead one to assume that language is neurologically most related to hearing, speech, and sight – senses – neuropsychology for the past couple decades, and more speculative psychological theories dating back much further, have increasingly favored the hypothesis that a key component in human language, symbolic thought, is more strongly related to the brain’s motor (muscle movement) centers. According to such theories, symbolic thought – arguably all “conscious” thought – uses repurposed motor nerve systems, not repurposed sensory systems. (For some links, see the wikipedia article “embodied cognition”)

Originally Posted by sman

If you examine language you'll notice that it's mostly visual and spatial metaphor. Many other pieces of the primate brain have been hijacked by language in humans. In fact, I'll bet - with no other guide than a language like English - there's enough information to draw an almost complete wiring diagram of the brain, and not just the neocortical areas, the older parts too.

I’ll take that bet!

Based on the reading I’ve been doing recently on the subject (Lakoff’s Metaphors We Live By and Philosophy in the Flesh), I don’t think any of the academics and technicals working in the field feel it’ll be possible to gain a good understanding of the brain without a lot of neuroimaging - MRI, PET, and more intrusive, “mindblowing” techniques. The idea that linguistic analysis alone is sufficient to explain the brain and behavior appears to have been thoroughly considered and rejected.

I think the point behind the wager, however, is right on, and a good example of thinking of embracing the concept of the embodied mind. Rather than seeking a detailed, minute understanding of the brain, cognitive linguistics and psychology appear to me to be focused on discovering simple, practical models in which a surprisingly small number of metaphors can be used to explain nearly all thought and behavior. Via such approaches, a practical scientific understanding of the mind may be possible without understanding its detailed neurodynamics – possibly a good thing, as the latter may prove very hard to gain.