Reply #76: Thanks - that does bring clarity to the idea [View All]

People who are devoted to purely cultural interpretations of human behaviour may object to classing us with ants and coral, but I strongly believe that in order to understand the situation, we need to look at it on all levels – from our chemical makeup to our most abstract expressions of art, science and philosophy.

I am trying to dive below the visible surface that is composed of cultural phenomena and investigate its roots. I used to want to do this to “prove” we were all doomed by our evolutionary biology. Now I do it because I suspect there’s information down there that may prove to be crucial. The exploration might provide deeper understanding of how we got into this worsening ecological situation, and might provide some positive guidance as we move into what looks like a period of accelerating change.

As I said, I see the situation in terms of levels. At the lowest level the one thing that is common to all humans is their biological need for energy - a need we share with all life, as you point out. In this you neatly articulated the core premise of my OP. Our basic requirement for energy remains unchanged no matter what physical, mental and cultural elaborations are built in top of it. Any time the energy supply to the organism fails, all else ceases.

Progressing up from the basic requirement for energy, we come to the physical structure of the organism. In humans this starts with the binocular vision, upright stance and opposable thumbs that define our physical competency. Then we have our large brain relative to our body mass. More important than pure size, though, is the structure of our brain – both in terms of the algorithmic processing power of the neocortex and the unconscious influences of the older parts of the brain. I’ve adopted the triune brain model as a descriptive framework for the unconscious neuro-psychological influences that are common to us all – especially our simultaneous tendencies towards cooperation and competition, egalitarianism and hierarchy, selfishness and altruism, autonomy and herding instincts.

Above that, of course, is the wonderfully varied cultural expression of those paradoxical traits – the level at which most of us operate every day, that we feel most fully expresses what it means to be human.

At each level it’s possible to ask both horizontal and vertical questions.

Horizontal questions are variants of “How does this level operate?” In other words, how does culture work in and of itself, how does our physical organism and its brain function, how do living forms find and use energy?

Vertical questions are along the lines of “How did this level arise from lower, supporting levels, and what does its structure imply for the levels above and/or below it?”

Take the OP’s orientation towards our food supply for example. Hw does the organism’s need for food combine with: the ecological opportunities for food available in the immediate environment; the ability of our neocortex to understand and control how food becomes available; our innate selfishness (making sure that I have enough food to survive) and altruism (making sure my group has enough food to survive); and the cultural expressions that develop around food as a result.

In reverse: how does the existing culture support and modify individual behavior regarding altruism and selfishness; how does that balance contribute to the technological choices we make about food production and distribution; and how do those choices affect the amount and type of food energy available to us?

I tend to be more interested in the vertical questions than the horizontal ones. That has led me into some mistakes because of my insufficient understanding of the level I was looking at – a classic being my failure to appreciate how cultural superstructure arises from infrastructure. Harris’ view makes it clear that the same tiered approach I use for the human system as a whole can be used within its cultural component, with the same sorts of horizontal and vertical questions to be asked at each level.

The whole thing becomes a very complex system, and it’s hard to ask clear questions about it - questions that don’t immediately devolve into simply a discussion of the horizontal issues at any given level. Still, I’m convinced that unless we expand our understanding of the whole human edifice as a system, we risk missing important factors that will determine the success or failure of our actions as we try to address the problems that are cropping up.
-------------------

Edited to add: As I said in post #77 above, the exercise in the OP lost its value due to the radically different systems at work on the two levels. It’s one thing to say that “All organisms need energy to live;” and “One of the goals of our culture is to ensure enough energy for its people;” and “Our culture denominates human activity in units of money.” Drawing conclusions about the linkages between those statements without clearly defining the goal of the analysis is a recipe for the confusion that inevitably ensued. Fortunately, it turned out to be a good discussion nonetheless.