| OCR Text |
Show SO WHO CAN LIVE ON BANANA LOLLIPOPS? Social groups on the primate level seem to form in response to danger or common need. Though several of our less brainy cousins will band together for defense, only the chimpanzee will share food voluntarily. Foraging as a group, however, provides an excellent protection-to a predator, an eight member social unit probably looks like a nightmare (sixteen hands and no body)-and sundry pleasures like having someone pick lice from your fur. Human societies, too, probably formed out of these circumstances, but the pressures of an arduous life made us even more interdependent. The primitive human not only had to be quick, intelligent and resourceful; he had to be sociable as well. A pack hunter who does not co-operate goes hungry. While proto-humans were probably closer to glorified scavengers than to pack hunters, the idea prevails-co-operation was the rule, not the exception. often-all of these are good sense for survival. But, when good old Charlie Hominid escaped survival pressure, the mascara hit the mixmaster. All kinds of strange behavior could be learned and even passed on. The lessening of pure physical need was a gradual process, so there were still some survival axioms, but the parameters broadened. Not only were there adaptations to different environments, there were different adaptations to the same one. Hokay, so now we all (Northern Hemisphere Average Man) live in the same basic environment. We've all different learned responses to given situations, and there are few parameters. Which means many things, but one most important one is the lack of symbol-oriented behavior whicn tells us we are all one big tribe. Resulting in homicide. Who can really care about his fellow man when there are so many of them that survival never depends on anyone? ED OR THINLY DISGUISED METAPHOR LABELLED All of the above leads up to this question: Why is the case different now? What will make/let a man kill another man? Political theorists, philosophers and the boys in the back room have postulated many things to account for the brutality of fellow man. Most of them have had similar forms, namely, that men originally were meanest, most vicious and cunning creatures running around some fictitious jungle. But we know better, which leaves us up a nonexistent tree. Behavioral analysts are now in the process of murdering one another to decide whether men are more beast (in instinct) or less, but one thing seems to be-men have, in a number of instances, substituted learned responses for instinctual reaction. Which gets us to the point behind the question. In a primitive condition where learned behavior was the basis for survival, variance in conduct was probably confined by narrow parameters. Gathering food and sharing it, staying within a dominance hierarchy (or Elders-is-wiser - cause - they - alive -so- listen system), not killing one another off too H |
