Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled? | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

Can humans exist without some people ruling and others being ruled?

The cavemen had their own caves. I suppose that there is no way of proving that they claimed ownership of it, but it seems to me that everything that ever was is based on ownership. Even cats mark their territory. It seems like the need to own things, like property, is something that all creatures do and we now just do it at a more advanced level.

I mean...can you think of any circumstance in which a person didn't own a house, that they didn't own object, that no one did? I don't see how that is possible. I suppose nomads, but they still owned clothing and knifes and just things that they used frequently. It was their own property, they made it, collected it, gathered it, etc.

I do not see how possesion of an object is not ownership.

The way that the ownership thing ties into the ruling thing, is that many people agreed at one point that they 'owned' something, like land for example. So countries were built, civilizations. In fact, society is based on the fact that we 'own' and 'share' the land, that in some way, it is ours.
 
I don't understand what that statement means. Please explain.
 
As long as we can change there is hope for us. Not everyone will be awakened at the same time. Their minds are not ready to listen. Ignorance is only bliss for so long. I wish we could all see each other as fellow humans. We need to realize that we are not always number one all the time. Others were there before we showed up. Life can be anything we want it to be. We only have to chose to make it happen. Others will follow our example and join in when they feel safe.
 
Last edited:
.....I'm being serious. I really don't understand, your point is vague with no reference to my post at all. "They shared."

Who? In relation to what?

Break down your point for me.
 
It means that they didn't own anything really in band level societies. They might have had utensils to hunt with and whatnot, but its not like they were attached to them or consider them possessions really. They only had what they could carry with them, and why wouldn't they share that?
 
Yeah, but I'm sure that they wouldn't give up their tools to a different nomad tribe that was heading in the opposite direction.

They shared within their group, not with everyone. So it was property of the particular group. If they had to they would defend their group's property against another group that wanted the same property.

That's essentially what any government or ruling system is about.
 
Actually, I don't think they'd bother defending their property, which is why it isn't really property. For a band level society, they would avoid conflict. If another tribe was trying to take something, it is easier to let them have it because another one would be easy enough to come by than it would be to fight for it. Human lives are much more valuable and difficult to replace (in a band level society) than say, a handmade hunting spear or the carcass of a particular animal.
 
This is possible in a microcosmic sense but for an entire race it's absolutely impossible. It boils down to the inequality of working classes. The fairytale of equality in society is not only impractical but is completely unintelligent.

To suggest that no human control any other is to suggest that we would all share equal responsibilities. This is something that could not be maintained with the absence of any structure. How would society manage waste, resources or any type of engineering issue without inequality in decision making or education?
 
I don't think that because people need to hunt and gather for food to survive that means they need to be told what to do and how to do it. Those things are instinctual.

Granted, those skills can be sharpened and improved by learning and all learning is collective. Early humans were egalitarian hunter gatherer nomads with no social stratification. Like I said before, it was the creation of tools and then aggriculture that brought about social stratification.

Tools and aggriculture brought about private property when people settled the land and produced more than they could use. Then, suddenly governing powers were set up to protect property of wealthy individuals from those who had less. That's what governments are for. Protecting property. Accept it under whatever guise you want such as "ensuring personal liberties." The law harrasses more than it helps.


This is a semi-random thought:
I was reading in a book called Against Civilization by John Zerzan (a collection of essays) that mentioned that peoples living in uncivilized isolated societies are immune to dental caries, have adequete nutrition, and high resistance to disease and mental illnesses modern peoples suffer from.

Can you imagine living in the wild and maintaining healthy teeth your entire life based on subsisting the foods of your natural surroundings? That's wild, considering people visit the dentist a few times a year to have their teeth cleaned and they still wind up rotting out of their head.
Just sayin', maybe that way of life isn't so dismal.



Yeah. I am just giving an example trying to say once you get something like that started even for once, things will then evolve itself.

Need or need not be told is not an absolute idea - some do, some don't.
It's more like discovering the usage of fire, you just need to know it's first use then the rest will take care of itself.

Now we got rockets, welding, candles... whtever it is, and things will surely keep on evolving.

We discovered teamwork, now we have democracy, republics, dictatorship or whtever it is.

I don't see it as anything good or bad personally, just a snowball rolling over time.
 
And Dragon, of course in our society there must be a governing body and hierarchy. That's what our civilization is composed of. Why is it that only in small groups of people, is it possible to have no rules and no hierarchy?

It is only possible because in small societies, if you don't like what someone says, you can ignore them. In larger societies, if you don't like what they say, they use the police on you.

A human being's desire to be free extends only as far as their ability to trust.

It's only possible in small societies because people who live in small societies are completely dependent on each other. A society, such as ours, where everyone does specialized work as a part of a system may allow for greater advancement and efficiency, but then people are dependent on the system rather than each other. It's an anonymous dependency; which allows people to take advantage of each other. It doesn't matter if you screw this person over, you can still do business with someone else. It's because of this that a way of policing people is necessary.

The trust comes from entrusting people with your life and your livelihood. Humans are social animals. We really can't survive on our own for a long period of time. An anonymous system allows us to trust in that rather than each other, thus taking personal relationships out of the equation. Why be vulnerable when the system will take care of us?

As an aside, I still have a hell of a time being vulnerable. I just recognize the problem. I haven't actually overcome it.

The source of this is probably due to survival of the fittest, like most things.

There's a phrase that I've come across that I prefer over "survival of the fittest." It's "survival of the most fit." It's not my own. I forget exactly where I heard it from. "Survival of the fittest" assumes that competition is primary. "Survival of the most fit" emphasizes adaptation, rather than competition. Competition is just one form of adaptation and it's actually a very short-sighted form of adaptation because you're always trying to gain the advantage.

If you're familiar with game theory, you'll find that cooperation pretty much provides the best outcome for both parties. This goes for predator-prey relationships as well. Despite the fact that the predator-prey relationship may not seem very cooperative, if one should gain an advantage over the other it's often to their own detriment. Either through the predators severely decreasing the population of their prey to the point of hurting their own population or the prey overpopulating to the point of destroying their own food base.

"The fundamental part of the predator-prey relationship is if you consume the flesh of another, you now take responsibility for the continuation and dignity of the other's community." --Derrick Jensen

If you don't, it's likely you'll starve. And the other's community goes far beyond the single species of whatever your prey is (be it plant or animal). They have their own dependencies as well.

Agreed that nations are crap. So ok if we all revert to small sustainable tribes we need to keep the internet going, so as to ensure the spread of scientific advancement and understanding. How much infrastructure and $ do you need to keep the interwebs going?

Scientific understanding is just one way of perceiving the world. It's the way our current (nearly global) culture has put the most emphasis on. Many different cultures with many different perceptions of reality are needed for the sake of diversity. Otherwise it's really no different from our agriculture, where we cut everything down and replace it with corn or wheat.

In order to keep the internet going, you would need some sort of organizing body, which would be detrimental to the societies...

I'm honestly in favor of complete cut-off.

*cheers* The internet has certainly been detrimental to my real social life.

The internet initially required massive infrastructure, but thanks to over investing, we can all use it now without it costing way too much.

Reverting to smaller societies is pretty much an impossibility. We're only getting bigger.

"Survival of the fittest?" I only quote that because continuing to get bigger will only ensure that you wipe out those you're dependent on, thus eventually leading to collapse anyways.

I can see how you think that. However, would you agree that the form civilization has taken is causing great harm to the planet? Do you think the planet could sustain a civilization that uses resources as if they are infinite and destroys ecosystems to suit their present needs?

Much of the problem comes from how we try to separate ourselves from ecosystems. We see things as "farmland and cities" and "ecosystems." We try to maintain the ecosystems as preserves and parks; untouched "wilderness." While the farmlands and cities are our domains, when farmlands and cities actually cause the most damage to biodiversity. We'd be better off trying to live within the ecosystems than trying to separate ourselves from them.

I think it's only a matter of time before the earth unleashes something catastrophic that knocks us all on our asses. I'm hoping that people will collectively realize the situation and opt to live a different way before that happens. What that way is, I cannot say.

A catastrophe isn't needed. Resources don't even have to run out. They only thing that's needed is for resources to become unprofitable and everything falls apart.

One thing is for sure: The way we're going is going to end and then what's next?

Do we split into tribes or bands and live as hunter-gatherers? Or do we live in a way that we never have?

There's no way to know. People will have to begin experimenting.

We should make our own community. Although, even communities have order -- there has to be some direction and some cooperation, and leadership is definitely helpful

I can't agree more.

If the world ever does become a global community, then it can be organized into smaller, localized communities in order to maximize the benefits to society. All you have to hope for in order for that to happen is...well...World Peace.

A Theory of Power

Someone will always have to be the wise man. A judge for the people. That's what laws are. Little judges in your life stopping you from doing what you want. Everyone would have to agree to the same things always! It's impossible for it to work without someone giving up their own personal freedom for the good of the group. So the group just becomes the judge in the end. And the group will cast you out.

Not law, but taboo. Taboo is actually more of a gray area whereas laws are more strict. The advantage of taboo is that personal circumstances can be taken into account. This is impossible when you're trying to unite a very large and diverse society. Which is why many smaller societies with a live and let live form of ethics would be ideal. This is how you do things... and this is how we do things. As long as we don't interfere with each other we can get along.

I don't think that because people need to hunt and gather for food to survive that means they need to be told what to do and how to do it. Those things are instinctual.

Granted, those skills can be sharpened and improved by learning and all learning is collective. Early humans were egalitarian hunter gatherer nomads with no social stratification. Like I said before, it was the creation of tools and then agriculture that brought about social stratification.

Tools and agriculture brought about private property when people settled the land and produced more than they could use. Then, suddenly governing powers were set up to protect property of wealthy individuals from those who had less. That's what governments are for. Protecting property. Accept it under whatever guise you want such as "ensuring personal liberties." The law harasses more than it helps.


This is a semi-random thought:
I was reading in a book called Against Civilization by John Zerzan (a collection of essays) that mentioned that peoples living in uncivilized isolated societies are immune to dental caries, have adequete nutrition, and high resistance to disease and mental illnesses modern peoples suffer from.

Can you imagine living in the wild and maintaining healthy teeth your entire life based on subsisting the foods of your natural surroundings? That's wild, considering people visit the dentist a few times a year to have their teeth cleaned and they still wind up rotting out of their head.
Just sayin', maybe that way of life isn't so dismal.

No the planet can't sustain us. When we make the planet uninhabitable, we'll have a period of wars and barbarism before we parish.

I hope there will be people with the foresight to form supportive communities before this happens. The trick will be avoiding those who weren't so prepared and dealing with uncooperative governments.

The cavemen had their own caves. I suppose that there is no way of proving that they claimed ownership of it, but it seems to me that everything that ever was is based on ownership. Even cats mark their territory. It seems like the need to own things, like property, is something that all creatures do and we now just do it at a more advanced level.

I mean...can you think of any circumstance in which a person didn't own a house, that they didn't own object, that no one did? I don't see how that is possible. I suppose nomads, but they still owned clothing and knifes and just things that they used frequently. It was their own property, they made it, collected it, gathered it, etc.

I do not see how possession of an object is not ownership.

The way that the ownership thing ties into the ruling thing, is that many people agreed at one point that they 'owned' something, like land for example. So countries were built, civilizations. In fact, society is based on the fact that we 'own' and 'share' the land, that in some way, it is ours.

You're confusing ownership through use and property. Ownership would be when someone is actively using something. Property would be when someone is entitled to something, whether they are using it or not. I could have a hut that I built myself and am currently living in. It would be my hut. Anyone else could build their own, unless their a complete lazy ass (which in that case they'd advocate property ownership so that other people would be forced to work for them).

Property is very specific to land, and not through use but entitlement. I may not be using this land, but it's still mine. If you want to build a hut there, or grow food there, then you owe me rent for it. This forces people to become dependent on the property owners and divides egalitarian societies.

As long as we can change there is hope for us. Not everyone will be awakened at the same time. Their minds are not ready to listen. Ignorance is only bliss for so long. I wish we could all see each other as fellow humans. We need no realize that we are not always number one all the time. Others were there before we showed up. Life can be anything we want it to be. We only have to chose to make it happen. Others will follow our example and join in when they feel safe.

I quoted this because I think I agree with it, assuming I'm interpreting it correctly. Someone's gotta make the first move. Others will follow.
 
Well, let's consider first the dawn of civilization...

Humans are naturally "pack" animals. We were similar to wolves in that we worked together and had a hierarchy. It's natural for there to be leaders and followers, or at least a form of direction -- as far as we know, almost all tribes had a leader of some sort, such as a chief or an elder.

As for property, there's a difference between territory and property. Take Native Americans...they didn't own the land, and were very good to it, but they had boundaries between their territory and those of other tribes; there were wars between tribes because of this.

In Europe as well, with Northern Germanic and Celtic groups and Roman, Greek and Egyptian civilizations, it quickly developed where territory was something to be desired. Hunting grounds, the promise of peaceful development and safe work, were a common need. Civilization, as it became more advanced, began considering this a sign of power, and thus the concept of ownership of land was born.
 
Yeah, so there isn't a nation where two groups of people don't want to take each other's land or defend their own land.

That's why ruling systems take place. Leaders of the tribe, alpha wolf of the pack. It seems kind of normal.
 
.....I'm being serious. I really don't understand, your point is vague with no reference to my post at all. "They shared."

Who? In relation to what?

Break down your point for me.
Well I'm not talking about cavemen, I'm talking about egalitarian tribes. For example, the Semai of Malaysia or the Kung! of the Kalahari Desert. They share everything. As hunter gatherers, what is gathered and caught depends largely on the day and mostly luck. Therefore, they don't acknowledge any member as more skilled than the others. There isn't specialization. A member can catch many animals for food in one day and the next day, catch none and be completely dependant upon another member's catch.
Thus, everything is shared.

In fact, it's considered an insult to both to say thank you. Gratitude to them means that you have evaluated the worth of the offering and did not expect the donor to be as generous. For a donor to acknowledge the generosity of their giving means that they feel the others indebted to them and expect to be repaid. In a society where everything is shared, being thankful is taboo.


Yeah, but I'm sure that they wouldn't give up their tools to a different nomad tribe that was heading in the opposite direction.

They shared within their group, not with everyone. So it was property of the particular group. If they had to they would defend their group's property against another group that wanted the same property.

That's essentially what any government or ruling system is about.
They didn't share with any other group because they are isolated. Isolation also ensures better health for them as well.

But if you consider the Native Americans and the Caribs or natives of Brazil, they were very generous with Europeans when they arrived. They were very welcoming and accepting and the Native Americans even showed early settlers how to survive. It wasn't until they were exploited and attacked and oppressed that they began to fight back. But it wasn't natural to them, it was only the result of the European's treatment of them.
 
Last edited:
and what happens when another tribe attacks that tribe? They all fight back? Well wouldn't that be 'ruling' over antoher tribe? Yeah, your defending your tribe but you are still infringing upon theirs.
 
Scientific understanding is just one way of perceiving the world. It's the way our current (nearly global) culture has put the most emphasis on. Many different cultures with many different perceptions of reality are needed for the sake of diversity. Otherwise it's really no different from our agriculture, where we cut everything down and replace it with corn or wheat.

Science as a tool is too valuable to just throw away, if you do away with the commercial side of science you end up with a tool for understanding the world, the more we understand the more sustainable we can be, it just has to be applied in the right way.
 
maybe humans can exist without rulers vs. ruled, but I think it would take a lot of genetic modifications for that to happen.

As we are? No. Why? Typology is a good enough explanation, even if only part of the reason...
 
I think we can exist but it would be unlikely. Instinct drives us to either lead or follow.
I like to think of a pack of wolves, where there is always an alpha of the pack. There are loners but if they are out of a pack for long, they will die easily so they constantly search for companionship.
There are some people who live on their own unruled by people (hermits maybe?) but at the same time the majority of us need some sort of leadership for our own mental state.