Irrational Anti-Social Behaviour

posted in: Opinion 1

Man, as ‘Social Animal’, is described prolifically in the annals of academia. The subject matter includes, but is not limited to, his survival traits, his communal strategy and the rules he adopts to promote communal performance and to negate communal stress. The incidence of behavioral deviancies occurring within human communities is strewn throughout written history as is also the varied nature of resulting consequences. Some claim that these consequences are more often counterproductive than not and can be likened to a recurring decimal; however, the current levels of applied technology would seem to negate such thinking.

Organizing communally as a strategy for prosperity as well as for survival is not confined to the human condition. There are many others of Earth’s communities that are seen to do so… We acknowledge it when we speak of such phenomena as briar patches, mating grounds, hunting packs, and hives. To describe the activity observed in these communities we make use of concepts like families of, and derived from. We use other constructs, hierarchal and modular. We also apply abstractions recursive, and analogy.  Much of the communal aspects of these others appear to be dependent upon hardwired physiological specialization. The elements, conscious choice and deviant action, if present are enforced at the physiological level. Two examples are shown below which demonstrate these speculations:

  1.  Bee/Ant: Employ biological specialization, task stratification and pheromone coercion to achieve and enforce compliance.
  2.  Briar Patch: Propagation by seed, as well as by root, and thick foliage to cover ground and exclude sunlight, biological adaptations, will effectively captures adjacent territory. The strategy by Suborning growing area enhances propagative capability

It can be argued that internecine conflict is a given phenomenon in most communal settings. From human behavior, perception seems to be a major determinant in response action. Consider what can follow when some individuals within a group see the mechanism for assigning status (and hence benefit) to be faulty or unfair. They may try for change and find it to be outside their control. In these circumstances conflict seems inevitable. These two quotes allow for some comparison:

  1. “The Man stood on the burning bridge whence all but he had fled.” Status given an individual for service performed witnessed by all is accepted by all to have been deservedly given.
  2. “On what food does our Caesar feed that he has grown so great?”  Status given for acts at remote venues evidenced only by a telling are subject to doubt and may be questioned.

To insist that all deviant behavior falls within the realm of Crime is surely an overstatement. We accept as fact that individuals differ biologically and intellectually. We accept that the Earth’s environments vary spatially, temporally and constituently. The pursuit of science in conjunction with the transport of information by the written word, has opened huge vistas of thought not accessible beforehand. Much of these thought processes have led to the evaluation of subjects like governance, motivation and environments. Techniques have been developed to identify elements of a study in minute. Such methodologies often provide germane insight into how complicated constructs operate. We come to understand that dire consequences can follow if interdependencies are ignored. Many who operate in the realm of research discover that a life form in danger of, or just about to be extinct had solved in its structure the answer to some pressing human need.

Despite the entire advance in technology much of humanity still operates in the Stone Age. Biological imperatives like mine, ours, status and most notable inheritance still rules our behavior. Many acknowledge that some individuals hold historical belief as truth. Individuals who do so are not likely to accept divergent thinking despite reasoned evidence to the contrary. With all this differentiation plainly in sight, we are unable to  come to grips with the need to recognize that the premises underlying  the way our governance is organized are no longer viable. We hang unto phrases like “born equal” and continue to propagate rules on the premise that such equality is “Carved in Stone” and will remain so to biological maturity and also forever. We pontificate about “equal rights” then make rules which seek to curtail that right. We modify a right intended to protect socio/religious freedom and reduce its protection by widening its application to include non-religious activity. We promulgate meme establishing rights without obligation. We distribute large rewards for trivialities. We continue to promote unrestrained exploitation of the environment, even when it becomes clear that the activity endangers all life on the planet. In short, we promote in-balance and pretend at outrage when deviant anti-social behavior follows.

  1. AnuNaki
    |

    Nice article!