Can we live without social systems?

     In my essay Are we other than our social systems?   I concluded that we are, in fact, other than our social systems since we came before them and they developed as a means of controlling the population with the rules being made by a ruling elite.  Social systems are not a natural part of our species.  Starting from the premise that this is true,  I can not help but wonder whether or not a group of humans could live together without any social systems as I have defined them. (i)

     The reason that I wonder whether or not we could actually live together without social systems is three-fold: (1) we have had social systems for thousands of years, (2) most people believe that social systems are a natural part of being human, and (3) over-population makes many of the factors which contributed to the success we experienced in the first 90% of our existence impossible to replicate. I think it is fair to assume that everyone would agree that we can not "go back".   Many people, throughout history, have tried to return to a previous more prosperous or happier time.  We know it doesn't work. Our history, current situations, experiences and mentality are all different from that at the time to which we might like to return. For that reason it can never be the same.  

    What this means is that if we are going to somehow attempt to replicate the communal life situation of those who lived in the days without social systems, or without social systems are we know them, we must look for a new and different way to create the results we desire.  

     One of the things I'm sure that we would all like to replicate is greater equity.  This isn't going to happen while we still have the haves and havenots.  I think it is reasonable to assume that the one-percent who control our lives and own 44% of the world's wealth (ii) isn't going to decide to share.  When you create the divide between the  haves and havenots you quickly find that the havenots will fight among themselves for the scraps the haves drop. It's called survival. President Lyndon Johnson; originally a good-ole boy southern politician who knew how to manipulate this reality then became the US President to pass some of the most important civil rights legislation in history; explained the concept politically.  According to Bill Moyers,  an American journalist and political commentator who served as the ninth White House Press Secretary under the Johnson Administration from 1965-67, when President Lyndon Johnson was in Nashville, TN with a group of southern politicians Johnson told Moyers the secret to their success.  "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket.  Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." (iii)  How are we ever to get the one-percent to share their wealth and the poor to stop fighting among themselves for the scraps?   I do believe that it would be possible to non-violently force the top one-percent to share. What I don't believe possible is getting the remaining 99% to cooperate. We have no experience of anything other than struggling and fighting over what the one-percent don't take.  I'm afraid that the only thing we could expect would be failure. 

     One of the ways to force the one-percent to accept an egalitarian society is to crash their precious capitalistic system.  That really wouldn't be hard. It is totally unsustainable and barely functional as it is.  If the havenots would actually cooperate and refuse to over-consume, the system would quickly collapse. Sadly, it would be the havenots who would suffer most so you can't blame them if they refused to cooperate.  Since I can not see any other way of non-violently forcing the haves to cooperate, I would have to conclude that we are doomed to failure. 

     The other option would be to change the social systems. I figure that would be a lost cause as well since it is the elite few who define the social systems. The masses changing the social system would be rather like Orwell's Animal Farm.  In that book the animals rebelled against the authoritarian farmer and took over the farm. By the end of the book the pigs and dogs had become the elite with the saying "all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal." (iv) We would eventually end up creating another elite group to set the rules just as the pigs took over the position and power of the farmer. Actually we see this same pattern in the American Revolution, French Revolution and the Russian Revolution, among many others. 

     This historic reality would support the position of the early twentieth century philosopher, Juddi Krishnamurti. Were he here now I'm sure he would argue that this is cyclical. When we attempt to break free we end up just establishing another 'environment' (like my social systems) as a savior. The only way to become truly free is to stop and question the environment. "But if you understand the significance of environment, that is, wealth, poverty, exploitation, oppression, nationalities, religions and all the inanities of social life in modern existence, not trying to overcome them but seeing their significance, then there must be individual action, and complete revolution of ideas and thought. Then there is no longer a struggle, but rather light dispelling darkness." (v)

     This confronts us with a conclusion that I was really hoping to avoid; viz. individual personal action.  Krishnamurti obviously would not hold out any hope for group action. Animal Farm.  

     I have to admit to being a skeptic.  In fact, I can be so skeptical that I'm skeptical about being a skeptic.  Nevertheless, we can not ignore this option.  We have explored a couple of group options and found them frought with problems such as the cost in life and resources, the poor fighting over the crumbs and the development of a new elite.   If we consider making this quest an individual effort, we likewise find problems.  The biggest problem is the time factor.  Assuming that it could actually be accomplished, I would have to wonder how many hundreds of generations would pass before freedom and equity are achieved. Then there is the high percent of the population who wish to be free but are so indoctrinated by the elite that they believe that their life is as life should be. "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal." They would not participate in any group or individual effort mostly out of fear of losing what little they have because they have been convinced that this is truly their lot. 

     What all this means is that I see no way we could ever make living without social systems, or at least without our current social systems, a universal experience.  Again the skeptic in me doubts the ability of the current elite to permit groups of people to establish communities based upon equity, freedom and the hunter-gatherer (HG) model.  All we need to confirm this is look at how current hunter-gatherer tribes and other indigenous people who live outside the social systems are treated.  Indigenous people face "eviction from their ancestral lands, being denied the opportunity to express their culture, physical attacks and treatment as second-class citizens." (vi)  Brazil President Bolsonaro is outspoken in his desire to eradicate indigenous people from the Amazon. (vii)   Here in the United States indigenous people experience tremendous abuse. No treaty made by the US government has gone unbroken.  Even the growing nomad community, made up of people who do not want to live the conventional, sticks-n-bricks, capitalistic nightmare, experience growing harassment and prejudice. Why? Because those of us who do not want to participate in the capitalistic social system are seen as a threat to the system.  Not only might we attract more people to a simpler lifestyle but we don't participate in excessive consumption which is all that holds the fragile, unstable and unsustainable capitalistic system together.  Also almost all of us live in undeveloped, wilderness areas.  Capitalists want these areas to search for their treasures, dump their trash or other environmentally destructive activities. For someone to live anywhere without 'turning a profit' seems to be more than any self-respecting capitalist can handle. How, then, could we ever purposely develop communities, villages or tribes for those who would prefer to live a simple, egalitarian life? 

     I'm afraid that we can't leave this discussion or draw any conclusions without considering the most important problem with the greatest impact; viz. over-population.  Two of the most important factors in the success of the HG are small groups living together with plenty of area for all groups to hunt and gather.  We don't have either.  Even if we got the 1% to share and everyone was excited to participate, how are you going to create small group living with sufficient space when you have cities like Tokyo with 38 million people in 845 mi2.  That is one person for ever 1.36 square feet!!!  The entire planet has only 57,308,738 square miles.  That sounds like a lot but that includes land areas that are uninhabitable. According to the University of Texas only 24,642,757 square miles of the Earth's land is habitable.  Divide that by 7.7 billion people and we find that we already have one person on every .0032 square miles or about 312 people per square mile over the entire habitable land on Earth.   That isn't really sustainable nevertheless conducive to small group living with an agrarian or modified HG lifestyle.  

     It would seem that while there are probably many of us who are emotionally and intellectually prepared, and even desirous, to move toward a much simpler lifestyle, it is not currently an option for most because of the choke-hold of the capitalistic elite.  Even if we could overcome this blockade we are confronted by the sheer numbers of humans. I must admit that I do not want to contemplate, nevertheless put in print, what it would take for humans to live without social systems. It would seem that the best we can do is follow the advice of philosophers like Krishnamurti and find our freedom and peace as individuals who have learned to deal with the everyday negativity of the social systems.  

FOOTNOTES: 

(i)   see What Constitutes a Social System?  3/15/2020.   https://oldconservationist.blogspot.com/2020/03/what-constitutes-social-system.html

(ii)  Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report. 2019. 

(iii)  Lyndon B. Johnson. (1960)— Said in 1960 in response to racist signs held by Johnson's motorcade in Tennessee. Recounted by Bill Moyers, then a member of Johnson's staff, in Bill Moyers: "What a Real President Was Like; To Lyndon Johnson, the Great Society Meant Hope and Dignity," The Washington Post, Nov. 13, 1988.

(iv) Orwell, George. (1945). Animal Farm.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York.  

(v)  Krishnamurti, Juddi. Total Freedom: the essential Krishnamurti. Harper Collins Ebooks. p. 20.

(vi)   Tryon, Zoe  Indigenous Peoples.    ://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/indigenous-peoples/    

(vii)  Phillips, Tom  (26 Jul 2019)  'He wants to destroy us': Bolsonaro poses gravest threat in decades, Amazon tribes say.  The Guardian on-line.  https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/26/bolsonaro-amazon-tribes-indigenous-brazil-dictatorship

Meaning and purpose

Religions, governments and societies like to tell us that we must have meaning and purpose to our lives.  Actually, if we stop to think about it, almost every person and group with an agenda which they want to impose upon us tell us that we must have meaning and purpose to enjoy life. They, of course, are quick to provide the definition for that meaning and purpose.  To have a meaningful religious life is defined by doing what the religion tells you to do and believing what it tells you to believe.  Is that the definition of meaning and purpose? Forgive my skepticism. 

     The word 'purpose' isn't too difficult to define.  Merriam-Webster defines purpose as "something set up as an object or end to be attained: intention." (i)  I don't think this requires any in-depth analysis, do you?  Another way to say that we have purpose to our lives is to say that we have goals.  Any argument?  

     'Meaning' is a whole other problem. All of the definitions I looked at had as its primary definition or one of multiple definitions the use of the past-tense of mean as the definition. I was always taught that in logic, debate, lecture or anywhere else one might be required to define a term, you never use the term being defined in the definition.  Merriam-Webster's #3 definition is "significant quality. especially: implication of a hidden or special significance."  However, their example was "a glance full of meaning."    I switched to the word 'meaningful'.  That was just as bad.  Merriam-Webster said "1.a. having a meaning and purpose; b. full of meaning: SIGNIFICANT.  2 having an assigned function in a language system."  

     Do you know what you mean when you say "it adds meaning to my life"?  Tell me.  I don't understand. Now, if we want to read between the proverbial lines, we could look at the Merriam-Webster definition of 'meaningful' and drop the use of the root word "mean".  We could then say that meaningful means having a purpose. Significant. Would this work?  It would basically say that to have meaning in our lives means that we have purpose.  

     While I'm having a great time playing with definition and stirring things up so much that the probability of a working definition is about zero, I know most readers are already tired of the exercise. So let's move on. 

     This all started with the observation that religion, government (politics/nationalism/patriotism), and 

societies (social systems) all tell us that we need purpose to our lives and that purpose, of course, is defined by them.  That such institutions are so blatant about controlling our lives doesn't surprise me at all.  What does surprise me is that we are, in great number, so willing to accept their definitions and controls.  

     Why should anyone but you define and/or determine purpose in your life?  I must admit to being somewhat skeptical about the entire concept of us needing some sort of purpose to experience a fulfilling life.  What is more intense than just living life?  What is more successful or more satisfying than living life as you want?  The only real meaning in life is what you give it. The only purpose is to be yourself and live life to the fullest. 

     This doesn't mean that you must be a selfish reprebate. We have more than we need of those. I find it amazing that, as arrogant and selfish as we are as a species, many individuals find altruism very rewarding and it is that which gives them meaning and fulfillment. (ii)  If you are naturally a self-centered dred, the world already has to deal with that.  But if you're a good person being told by every social system out there what you are to do to experience a fulfilling life, you need to do what you experience and discover for yourself.  It might be just sitting and watching. That's okay too.  

FOOTNOTES:

(i) merriam-webster.com  

(ii)  this is an idea which needs some exploring. Why is this so?  See note "Individual vs Species."

Capitalism has limits ... ?

On Monday 3/16/2020 the morning internet greeted me with the truly embarrassing story that the US President had tried to "poach"  ...  I think that is a polite way of saying bribe ...  German scientist working on a vaccine for the Corona virus. He wanted them to develop a vaccine exclusively for the US.  What part of 'we're all in this together' doesn't he understand?  None of it.  This is pure capitalism in action.  Karl Lauterbach, a senior German politician and professor of epidemiology, said in response to the report: "The exclusive sale of a possible vaccine to the USA must be prevented by all means. Capitalism has limits." (i)  

     I'm fairly certain that when Professor Lauterbach said 'capitalism has limits', he was addressing the selfishness and greed that is always at the core of capitalism.  I hate to break the poor professor's bubble, but there is no limit to capitalism's selfishness and greed.  I'm sure Herr Trump is probably wondering why the Germans are getting so excited. He was just acting like a capitalist.  How many news and FB articles have you seen today about someone buying all of the toilet paper or hand sanitizer in an area and wanting to sell it at an outlandish price? One man asked $50 for a $5 bottle of hand sanitizer.  Such behavior is capitalism at its worst. Apart from its innate instability, there are no limits on capitalism.   

     Some people believe that corporations are required by law to do everything legally possible for profit. I did some checking. According to an article by the Cornell Law School, (ii)  corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value.  As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. )   When the majority justices write "many do not do so" I must assume that they are considering all corporations, including the S-Corps and LLCs, which are the small mom-n-pop companies. If we limit the focus to the C-corps we find on the stock exchange, I would have strong doubts about the veracity of that claim. Have you ever seen a corporation do anything that wasn't profit driven?  Even giving to charity works as both a tax break and advertising.  One article Cornell quoted claims that the profit-above-all mentality is  "the product of the pressure that activist shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose on corporate directors." (iii)  

     I must admit to some serious skepticism regarding this claim. I don't doubt that there is pressure from those sources. After all, they themselves are an integral part of capitalism.  Profit is the primary purpose of a capitalist business. How immoral the business behaves is dependent upon the level of greediness of the management and stockholders. When we are confronted by the reality that one-percent of the population owns 44% of the entire world's wealth, (iv) we can hardly deny that we are witnessing unfettered greed. 

     And that brings us back to the ignoble Mr. Trump. This has always been his business style.  While there may be no legal mandate for a corporation to put profit above all, there likewise is no legal mandate to behave in a moral manner.  While much of the world is aghast that Trump would so blantantly attempt to corner the market on a vaccine so desperately needed to address a pandemic that is killing thousands all around the world, my only question is whether or not he was attempting to do this to line his own pockets. 

FOOTNOTES:

(i)  Colson, Thomas and Andrew Dunn (3/15/2020). Trump reportedly tried to poach German scientist ....  Business Insider Magazine on-line. 

(ii)  https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations-and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm

(iii)  The Shareholder Value Myth , Eur. Fin. Rev. Lynn Stout (April 30, 2013)

The Ideology of Shareholder Value Maxim (Watch), Evonomics

(iv) Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report. 2019. 

Are we other than our social systems?

     In my essay Homo Sapiens and Social Systems  I raise the question (#3) are we other than our social systems? 

     The differences, the changes, in our species, as seen in anthropological studies and some of my essays, is rather dramatic.  It wouldn't be the first time in scientific history that we differentiated between different groups of our species. For example, there were the homo erectus. <i>   We also distinguish between Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens although we find 1.5-2.1% Neanderthal-inherited genetic material among all non-African modern humans. <ii> Obviously the differences between pre-historic homo sapiens and modern homo sapiens is neither biologic nor genetic.  It must be something else; psychological, social, cultural.  I am toying with the idea of introducing a new name - homo complex - because our lives have become so complex that we can neither appreciate nor survive in a more simple surrounding.  Most people can not understand how Pamela and I live in the mountain or desert wilderness without all of the complexities of modern life.  Few of them would survive. I thrive.   

     We were taking a drive this evening. Pamela pointed out an old farm house we had both admired many times before and made the comment that it was so sad that there was no one to love the old place. I realized that it was too simple.  I'm sure it doesn't have a robot vacuum cleaner and most likely doesn't have a dishwasher or wifi with Alexa, or whatever her name is. It is a lovely place with lots of character and the basics comforts; water, electricity, and heat.  I'm afraid that someone is going to buy the land and tear down the lovely old house to build a complex modern dwelling. So sad.  

     Now, whether we have become Homo Complex as a result of our social system or our social systems reflect our transition could be a debatable issue.  My position is that we have been created by our social systems.  At first this doesn't make sense, but let me explain. 

     With the advent of farming we began to see the development of private property which led to a before unknown division of haves and havenots.  Beliefs in deities existed prior to this development but it would be hard to call it religion. The advent of organized religion seemed to coincide with the development of a ruling class - let's call it government to keep things simple. From earliest history we see government and religion working together to control the masses.  On occasions religion oppose their government but, if religion is successful in replacing the government they opposed, they are always in partnership with the new government. None of this is new information and it is easily documented. I'm not going to take the time to do the documentation. Let me direct those who are unaware of this to the history of Egypt and the development of the Pharaohs, the history of China, the history of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire and the development of modern Europe starting in the Middle Ages.  If you really want to get into it, start with  Lee, Richard B. & Richard Daly, ed. (2004R)  The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers.  Cambridge Univ Press. 

     Religion, government and now capitalism all tell the people what they think, what is real, what is acceptable, what is desirable, what they should do, what they should not do, etc.  If you do not agree

 to this control you are currently in physical danger from people who have been so indoctrinated, so brainwashed that they might physically attack you because they have been told that to disagree with the systems makes you an enemy and it is okay to be cruel to an enemy.  If you do not believe this try publicly criticizing Christianity, the government - most specifically Donald Trump and the Republican Party, and/or capitalism.  The least you will receive is a severe reprimand. Many public figures receive death threats. Having witnessed the mob mentality and "it's okay to be violent to your opponents" espoused by the current US President, I hate to think what could be the worst to happen.

     I guess we could have a 'which-came-first' debate. Did people come up with the systems and concepts, or were the systems and concepts the creation of an elite few?  Can you imagine people as a group coming up with the idea 'hey, I think our god wants us to give the priest 10% of everything we have.'?  Or do you think it most likely came down from the priest, 'your god says that to do his work you are to give me 10% of everything you have.'  And how about women? Do you think they decided that they're inferior to men and should be treated like chattel? If we study history, do we ever see the general population develop a religion, government or an economy?  I don't think so.  Every scenario that pops into my mind one can trace the development, definition, etc., of a new system to an elite few. Also to pop into my mind was the famous quote from George Orwell's book, Animal Farm. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," proclaimed the pigs, who had become the elite and defined the new society with themselves in charge. <iii> 

     All said, it seems to come down to modern humans, homo complex, being the creation of our social systems.  Historically it does seem that the ruling classes and social elite always determined the beliefs and rules of the social systems.  It would therefore follow that we are actually other than our social systems; viz. that the social systems have developed as a control mechanism with the rules being made by an elite few.  

FOOTNOTES:   

<i>  Homo erectus is an extinct species of the human lineage, formerly known as Pithecanthropus erectus, living in the Pleistocene period about two-million years ago. They had an erect stature, a well-evolved postcranial skeleton, smallish brain, low forehead, and protruding face. Homo Erectus are believed to be the direct ancestors to several human species, such as Homo Heidelbergensis, Homo Antecessor, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and Homo Sapiens.  (Sources: Wikipedia. Dictionary.com.  humanorigins.si.edu (Smithsonian)) 

<ii>   Wikipedia.  Also see www.humanorigins.si.edu (Smithsonian) and Neanderthal DNA in Modern Human Genomes is not silent at www.the-scientist.com.  

<iii>  Orwell, George. (1945). Animal Farm.  Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. New York.  

  

What constitutes a social system?

     In earlier notes and essays I have mentioned the early twentieth century philosopher Juddi Krishnamurti and his environments, which he identifies as the source of our psycho-spiritual suffering and describes them as "wealth, poverty, exploitation, oppression, nationalities, religions, and all the inanities of social life in modern existence,...." (i)  I guess I don't really like his use of the word 'environment'.  Even though I understood that he was talking about our social environment, I prefer to apply the concept of social systems.  This, of course, means that I must define, or at least describe, a social system. 

     I identify four dominant social systems: family-community; religion; politics-nationalism; and economics.  The criteria for a social system is that it exploits and oppresses those whom it encounters.  It is also the basis for conflict, as well as real and psychological suffering.  

     We are drawn to these systems because all systems present themselves as the means to our happiness.  Likewise each of the systems is self-portrayed as a positive and necessary manifestation of human life. Who would dare say anything negative about their family?  Nevertheless a family system can, and often does, exploit and oppress its members. Girls, for example, are told to act like "ladies"; i.e. do what the system considers girls things; and be submissive to the male population of the family and community. The family often determines the education and career path of the members.  For much of European history the first born male was to be a priest and the second born male a soldier. Girls were to be married to a "good" husband; that usually being defined as one with money and/or position; and be a good and submissive wife. 

     Recognizing the reality of the family-community social system does not mean that one does not love their family members and may love their community.  I love my family very much.  In fact, I love Pamela's family (ii)  and claim them as my own. Nevertheless I am aware of and accept the role of family/community as a social system. 

    When I started running long distance cross-country trails of forty to fifty miles or more at the age of sixty-seven, there was one member of my family who asked the others "are we going to allow him to do this?"  It was a well-meant attempt to be protective, but it was still the foundation of an oppressive act. 

     I have a grandson who loves sciences and is looking for a good college. He probably has the IQ of a Mensa and all of the finest science and engineering schools in the country are recruiting him. For some reason he thinks he wants to go to the Air Force Academy. I have strong feelings against him becoming a part of the military, but if I were to use my role as his grandfather to pressure him to go a different direction, I would be manifesting the oppression of the family-community social system.  How many of you readers were either the target of this type of exploitation and oppression or have seen it in your own family?  You may even recognize it in your own behavior as a family member.  

     Most people are afraid to criticize religion. I am assuming that they are afraid not only of the power of religions but that they might suffer for eternity if the religion is right.  I was not only a member of a religion when I was younger, but I was a priest.  It was only after years of personal struggle and study that I recognized the truth about religion, especially my own. At this point in my life I hold that religions played, and continues to play, a major role in the decline of homo sapiens. But that is another issue and is addressed elsewhere. 

     Suffice it to say religion exploits and oppresses.  It gets the follower to give it whatever it asks, whether that be their first-born son or their money.  It tells people what they will believe and what they will think. It has historically supported and continues today to support ruthless capitalists and violent authoritarian politicians and governments. It uses threats and fear to control its members and often condones bigotry and violence toward those who would disagree.  

     Politics-nationalism has always been a ruthless and violent system.  There is a saying "when anarchy comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a Bible."  Well, anarchy has come to the United States and guess what ... it justifies itself by waving a flag; playing on people's patriotism and love of country; and holding up a Bible; claiming that it is God's chosen ruler. It maintains its power through violent oppression of any who would disagree and exploiting the desire people have to be proud of their homeland by making them believe that 'the enemy' - anyone who is opposed to the anarchist, even a good citizen - will take away their homeland. 

     Economics has always been a powerful and generally evil social system.  Today most of the world has become capitalistic through colonization, exploitation and oppression. Capitalism, which many Americans think was an American idea, actually goes back to Europe a couple of hundred years before the colonization of America. It is really nothing more than a continuance of feudalism; viz. the rich lord; now known as a CEO, etc.;  grows richer by the labor and consumption of the serfs; today's workers.  Capitalism is protected by politicians who gain great wealth from the capitalists and is blessed by religion; most specifically Chistianity; so that people are afraid to oppose it. 

     Whether we like it or not, there is no denying that social systems are the building blocks of arrogance, greed, nationalism, war, bigotry and other forms of violence.  

FOOTNOTES:

(ii)  In a lecture in Ojai, California, June 16, 1934.  From book  Krishnamurti, Juddi.  Total Freedom: the essential Krishnamurti.  Harper Collins Ebooks.  p. 20.  

(i)  Pamela and I are two widowers who found each other late in life. We have seven children and eleven grandchildren between us. 

Individual vs Species

     In my note, Meaning and Purpose, I made the observation that many people find their own personal meaning and purpose in altruism despite the fact that our species is arrogant, violent, destructive and self-centered. What is the difference? We are all, like it or not, members of that arrogant, self-centered species known as homo sapiens. 

      There are two premises at which we must look. Firstly, that there are altruistic people. I don't think this is hard to establish. Just look at the number of not-for-profit organizations and those who gladly give their time, talent and money to the cause. Many people seem to live for the cause which tells me that they find it meaningful and a fulfilling purpose.  

     The second premise; viz that humans, as a species, are arrogant, self-centered and destructive; seems equally easy to observe for me, but I believe that there would be some objections.  I do believe that the main reason for any objection is that to acknowledge this truth means that we are describing ourselves.  None of us wants to be a part of such a nasty species. 

     The philosopher, Juddi Krishnamurti, uses the word environment to express what I would call social environments or social systems, to distinguish from  a natural environment. He defines these as family, religion, government, economy, etc. These, he teaches, are the source of our unhappiness and psychological suffering. He also teaches that all of these environments have their own agendas which includes controlling the individual.  It seems absurd to say a religion is arrogant, self-centered and not altruistic. Nevertheless, if we look at a religion as a social system and not the individual members, we see the truth of Krishnamurti's premise.  They are arrogant and self-centered. Many require strict adherance and regimentation and insist that they are the only true religion. That's pretty arrogant and self-centered. They are not altruistic.  They almost always have an other-worldly goal, apart from controlling members. An altruistic act may help a member achieve the prescribed goal but it is not the primary purpose of the religion. 

     Christians, for example, claim to be followers of Jesus. All evidence is that Jesus was a fierce social advocate - feed the hungry, be kind to your enemy, accept peoples' differences, etc.  The religion that claims to be his followers do not insist upon social advocacy and an amazing number of its members have not only never been altruistic but shun those who are, yet are arrogant and self-centered enough to be certain that they are going to heaven because they follow their church's rules. 

     I don't think we have any problem seeing the arrogance and self-centeredness in the other social systems. Governments, politics in general and the wealthy capitalist are the ultimate definition of arrogance and selfishness. 

     With this I am going to assume the validity and truth of these two premises. 

     That brings us back to the question of how we can account for the reality that an altruistic person can be a member of such an arrogant and self-centered species.

     The answer might well lie in the discussion of the premises.  There is no denying that the social systems, which seem to be behind and advocating for arrogance, violence, destructiveness and self-centeredness, are created by and run by humans.  There seems to be no denying, although it is yet another premise one could debate, that these social systems are the primary manifestation of and advocators for human arrogance, violence, destructiveness and self-centeredness. 

     Krishnamurti holds that these social systems are in conflict with us and are the source of our suffering and that we only find relief when we question them and stop trying to escape. I'm not sure what he expects when we stop trying to escape, but I find real validity and truth in his assertion that we can only find relief when we stop and question. My first question would be to question their validity. 

     This brings me to a question for which I thought I already had the answer; viz. Is it our species that is arrogant, self-centered, violent and destructive or is it the social systems that control our species?  The dog breeds Pit Bull, German Shepherd, and Doberman are not born vicious. They are made that way.  Are we modern humans the product of our social systems?  

     This question was totally unanticipated when I started this essay, but it might just contain the answer to my original question. If we look back in human history we find strong evidence that we have not always been our current despicable species. This conclusion can be supported by hunter-gatherer groups that still exist today. There is no doubt that we are controlled and manipulated by Krishnamurti's (social) environments; what I am calling social systems. Therefore it would follow that there can be people who, despite the power, pressure and control of the social environments, act in a natural and altruistic way that is meaningful, purposeful and fulfilling for them. 

     While this answers my original question it raises others: (1) is the species we observe as a manifestation of the social systems different than the original homo sapiens?  (2) Who are the beneficiaries of social systems?  (3)  Are we other than our social systems?  (4) If so, can a group of humans live together without any social system(s)? 

FOOTNOTES:

(i) see essay What Constitutes a Social System?