Given the topic of the latest post, I will speak some more about naturalistic informations about the human race, before getting started into pure babbling stuff.
we have to consider several things to speak about interactions inbetween human beings. We evolved as a semi gragarious species. We are very self reliable, but we ultimately thrive only in large herds. We tend to slowly rot in a corner without proper social interactions, while a great deal of socialization, or byproducts of it, nurture us into radiant specimen of our species. I insist onto the "byproducts" of human socialization, for many of us if truly thrilled by the prospect of good litterature or art in general, lack the motivation to perform long standing and numerous social activities. But ultimately, every cultural item is a byproduct of social interaction, would it be a scientific paper or a totem. You need several things that emerge onl by puting more than two human beings together to make them. You need what Richard Dawkins called memes. Which are essentially common symbolism and representation, edified by long standing relations between several group of people, and the individuals within these groups. It's a very, very long process, that is still ongoing today, a perpetual renewing of signification and themes. An evolutive process of common intellectual, mental and oniric baggage. We do not share the integrality of it with everyone else; that's why they are such things as different cultures. Even if the internet contribute to merge them, and blur more and more the boundaries between them, there are still cultures impermeable to our memes, and we are ourselves impermeable to some, if not most of their.
Social interactions are natural for human beings. We tend to live in group for a very long time, if not the entirety of our evolutionnary process. As far as fossil records goes, we notice this invariable trend of human settlement consisting of gathering of several individuals of the species. We lack several things to be a species of individualistic creatures; if we are territorial, it's because we attach price to land and inamovible ressources, and it advantages for a group, not because we defend a mating or hunting zone.
It is difficult to determine a "natural" type of social hierarchy within human beings. Some of our traits make us akin to the violent, patriarcal, extremely political and warlike chimps, while others link us to the subspecies of the bonobos, more peaceful and egalitarian. While we share these ressemblances, we are an entirely different breed of apes, and therefore, even if we share evolutionnary similar path to these of our cousins, it doesn't determine our behavior in the strictest manner. I consider our behavior to be more than a mere synthesis of the two, something unique to our species, because even if indirect observation can teach us very useful things about our traits, it does not adress our particular characteristics.
We seem to be really adaptable, having succesfully instaured several types of social structures and habits for ourselves. Some are universals, and are therefore simply named "cultural universal".
These are the basic bricks of human society everywhere.
But don't be fooled; even if they ensure similar structures, they may be functionnaly absolutely different. Their definition make them similars, but not identical, and this is as much for scientific conveniance in the establishment of classifications and categories as for describing legitimately perceived regularities in our behavior as a species that the term and the list of criterias it encompass exist. It must be noted that most of the time, when a society "cannot afford" one of the criteria, for one or several reasons proper to the particular situation of this society, it's "skipped" from their agenda. We are more adaptable than rigid in our normative structures. What the nomenclature really allow is the constatation of the universality of these concepts, if not their application.
Even so, some societies "lack" even the basic understanding of these allegedly core principles; most of the time, by an accident of history, they forgot one of them, wether it was for the strategical application of seletive ignorance I adressed earlier being enforced for to long, or because they simply cannot maintain it perpetuation given their conditions of existence.
I'm lazy, so I won't post the list, but you can found it on wikipedia. Bear in mind what I've told you about the limitations of this little list, and everything will be fine in your mindbending of the world and human societies.
This big detour was needed to introduce the different perspectives of my thinking on social questions.
There are a thing true for human beings in general: we need society.
Is it to profit of it byproduct or actively participating in it self transformation process, it is what is truly universal for us.
We evolved to survive and adapt trough it. It is for us, a way to be more than the sum of individuals, a lever to lift the earth, and achieve infinitely more than what would be otherwise possible for us. By accumulating our knowledge, redistributing it, crossing it several themes and concepts, ensuring a fertile interdisciplinary dialogue, and thus ensuring an ever growing inventivity, society demultiply to the power of thousand our innate ability to adapt and survive. Surely, by it rigidity, it can prevent some forms of adaptations, and favor unfit ideas over better ones. But that is merely due to a lack of activity in the precedently named traits rather than the contrary.
What we need is therefore thinking society, and shaping it, to ensure the advantages always outweight it inconvenients.
There is a term used to describe such a self reflecting society; it's called a Promethean society. Such societies are by definition aware of their trajectories, and self reflecting about it. But as a complex organism, it doesn't mean that each part is constantly reflecting about the whole, and the big picure around it, but rather that at least a part of the entity in question is actively thinking and warning the rest about the development of the group.
That is the little door by which I want to introduce my subject; I consider social engineering to be a necessity in the current century, pondering the titanesques challenges our species as a whole must face, whether immediately or later. Speaking about the global warming, a very real and ongoing threat, or hypothetical situations sciences determined as plausible scenarios and thus fates for our species, such as planet killer asteroids or supervolcanoes, these are the kind of problems we are at least integrating in our considerations, with a more or less pronounced sense of their dangerosity.
Social engineering consist in the conscious modification of social structures, and of our mematic materials, to fit our needs and expectation, future or present.
It can be done in many way, one of them I'm actually undertaking, said, the influence of other individuals by an individual alone, through ideas, themeselves shaped throughout the centuries by society itself.
My goal is federating a group of people around the idea of the faisibility of a Promethean society, and the emergence of a new type of socialy active individuals; Promethean beings. People aware of the broader consequences of the course of social development, and willing to share, act and shape it, to better our chances in surviving.
I'll come to what constitute a Promethean individual in a next post, having more than excedeed the number of lines (and certainly unverifiable typos) that I've originally allowed myself for today.