TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Why do we need violence to transfer power?

Revolutions are some very effective types of mass manipulation through which power changes and shifts. Why do we, humas, hold on to our positions or ideas even if we know we are wrong?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Jan 28 2012: Philip Slater in a bok called "EarthWalk" gives some interesting insight on this. Slater writes that "a machine-like response in the face of danger had no value until men began making war on each other".

    Evolution, suggested Slater, selected for "machine-like" thinking in terms of organization that cancelled the individual in favor of collective warfare that sacrified the individual to a greater cause. As a consequence, we tend to think in terms of collective organization to protect our personal interests."Greatest good for the greatest number". Dawkins, of course, gave us the "selfish gene", which then replicates itself as near perfectly as possible, generation to generation. To do so, the gene would need control of its immediate environment as much as possible, and cede control only in terms of what was mutually beneficial to neighboring genes. A machine-like response in the face of danger, therefore, would best serve the interest of the "genetic replicative algorithm", and allow for a greater control of environment and territory.

    The biological "algorithm" therefore, would tend to select machine-like responses in the face of all threats, which would further make those religions that successfully proselytize the most successful in the evolutionary scheme. That is why successful religions also condone war as an extension of "God's will". The same "algorithms" that produced nation-states also produced religions. This suggests that the individual should not take part in either religion or government.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.