What if there were no rules and civilization to shackle human beings to the opinions of the majority, what if we responded to our needs (and whims) first? If any of you have read The Lord of the Flies, I was wondering if you also think humanity might actually thrive in the absence of such order? After all, that is what we are inclined to, why supress it?

I think your thinking of anarchy, and so, it is most likley that the most powerful and viscious will win out. Sure, soem "good guys" (TM) will have nukes or lots of weapons, but arent likely to win out.

We most certainly arent inclined to not having societal structures and laws, given that the past few hundred thousand years have been spent living in societies with rule and laws. They exist because they enhance the survival of their members in a world that isnt quite as friendly as we'd like, yet has large amounts of resources and such that we can thrive on.

I was speaking of human beings being inclined to rebellion. To defy rules and regulations. A world where there were no "good" or "bad" guys, just people surviving for themselves (in a very small nutshell thats what I'm suggesting). After all, aren't morals just some other people's opinions? Why should anyone be required to obey rules?

Ofcourse they would survive.
Not all of them, not most of them, but the species would survive and be much better for it.
There would naturally be structure, random anarchy isn't a real thing, its something that can happen when people have been restricted for years and suddenly have freedom. But it could only ever last a few weeks tops. All social animals including humans have an instinctual natural social structure. So anarchy would be quite ordered.
Humans now suddenly going into anarchy would be pretty disastrous. BUT if we never gained law and imposed order, if we remained naturally anarchistic, we'd be in great condition. As would the planet. There'd be cooperative clans of people with territories that they lived off and defended from outsiders. It wouldn't be individuals running riot over the country side if thats what you're thinking. We are social animals and being social is essential for our survival.
Having law and civilisation is certainly not essential to our survival. Essential to the survival of worthless individuals perhaps, people who by rights shouldn't survive. But not essential for the survival of the species. We survived hundreds of thousands of years without any of that, millions of years if you count our ancestors from before we were homo-sapiens.

Ofcourse they would survive.
Not all of them, not most of them, but the species would survive and be much better for it.
There would naturally be structure, random anarchy isn't a real thing, its something that can happen when people have been restricted for years and suddenly have freedom. But it could only ever last a few weeks tops. All social animals including humans have an instinctual natural social structure. So anarchy would be quite ordered.
Humans now suddenly going into anarchy would be pretty disastrous. BUT if we never gained law and imposed order, if we remained naturally anarchistic, we'd be in great condition. As would the planet. There'd be cooperative clans of people with territories that they lived off and defended from outsiders. It wouldn't be individuals running riot over the country side if thats what you're thinking. We are social animals and being social is essential for our survival.
Having law and civilisation is certainly not essential to our survival. Essential to the survival of worthless individuals perhaps, people who by rights shouldn't survive. But not essential for the survival of the species. We survived hundreds of thousands of years without any of that, millions of years if you count our ancestors from before we were homo-sapiens.

exactly the "storyline" i was looking for.. any internet references i can use or something to consolidate the theory?

tnx :)

I suppose the obvious answer to Dr lounatic is that thats how we started. Then the last 10,000 years happened and we found ourselves like this. Whats to stop it happening again? Answer- nothing really.

"I was speaking of human beings being inclined to rebellion. To defy rules and regulations."
Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont. We already have a society like that, and cadres of people to punish those that infringe upon others too much.
"I like that car, I'm taking it"
*bang*
(car accelerates away with new owner.)



"A world where there were no "good" or "bad" guys, just people surviving for themselves (in a very small nutshell thats what I'm suggesting)."
Indeed, they are. But they are also surviving for their relatives and friends. If you try to survive just for yourself, it wont be much fun.


"After all, aren't morals just some other people's opinions? Why should anyone be required to obey rules? "
Because the world isnt fair, and by and large you'll be better off by obeying the rules. But yes, morals are someone elses opinion, thats why lots of people move elsewhere in life, or else, campaign to change the rules, and often succeed.

for a while, but as soon as the resources ran out the brute uneducated ones who would be using us as slaves would die off, then we would have our society back

for a while, but as soon as the resources ran out the brute uneducated ones who would be using us as slaves would die off, then we would have our society back

who is to say the absence of society means "brutes" will be uneducated? I think they can and will be resourceful. Not to mention the "slaves" would probably die off first in a situation like that.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they dont. We already have a society like that, and cadres of people to punish those that infringe upon others too much.

Yes, but we are dispositioned to NOT follow rules obediently.

Because the world isnt fair, and by and large you'll be better off by obeying the rules.
If there weren't any rules for a society, things would be managed the old fashioned way.

There will always be at least one rule to follow.

“Survival of the Fittest” comes to mind.

Cooporation is the word to remember for without it how would anything ever be done?

Actually the only rule the world needs is this:

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

who is to say the absence of society means "brutes" will be uneducated? I think they can and will be resourceful. Not to mention the "slaves" would probably die off first in a situation like that.



Yes, but we are dispositioned to NOT follow rules obediently.


If there weren't any rules for a society, things would be managed the old fashioned way.

the intellignet community are generally weaker than the unintelligents, nerds, muscleheads. although we would be put to slave laour, gathreing food for them, we would not be require to grow any, once the food ran out they would die and we would start farms

Actually the only rule the world needs is this:

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html
The reason why this applies is that it is natural that you will treat well someone that treats you well. This have been statistically proven in psychological studies. In psychology, we call this law "reflected appraisal". It's not true in all situations. It is true only when the self-esteem of the individual is actually normal. An individual with low self-esteem will clinge to people that treats them badly, because those people will confirm their self-concept, that is, who they think they really are.

So, yes, the golden rule is valid, as long as it is not imposed by a third party. It has to come from within, otherwise it is impossible to stand the obvious trials. It has to come from the "heart".

Btw, this is a natural law, just like the demand-supply "law" in economics.

I'm not sure whether the reason society is able to function in harmony is because of the human condition and some of the emotions that we experience i.e. guilt, fear, remorse, empathy. i dont know whether these feelings are innate (born into us) or whether they're a direct result of the way we are conditoned and brought up by society (probably a combination of both). either way, these feelings are a social control mechanism that prevent us from committing anti-social acts, together with the "consequences" imposed on us by society for such behaviour. the reasons for "law and order" in society are strikingly obvious, needing almost no explanation. but i still believe that society functions because each individual acts in their own self-interest, rather than in the interest of others/the bigger picture. this might sound contradictory at first, but if you sit down and think about it, its right on the money. it's not so much a morality issue (eg the notions of right and wrong or good and bad) that prevents us from committing immoral acts, its more-so the foreseeable consequences. so therefore by not stealing, not raping, not killing and such things we are acting in our own self interest. maybe a person who commits crimes deems it to be in their best interests? i mean be honest, have you never contemplated doing such things? why didn't you do it...was it because you decided it was "wrong" or because you didn't think you'd get away with it? (the consequences outweigh the personal gain). let me give you a cheap analogy to explain what i mean. lets say that rape was declared legal in the united states. if rape is no longer a crime, would the number of rapes in the united states increase drastically? probably yes. now the reason for that is pretty obvious - the rapist is no longer violating a law, but hes only violating another person. he may still be violating a social structure but not a law, (meaning no consequences for him), so hey why not? because he will feel guilt? this all amounts to nothing. what is the overall outcome of this scenario - considerable increase in the amount of women getting raped, and more men getting their jollies (sorry i dont know how else to put it). all crimes are driven by some motive, but you have to have created unhappiness in one person to create happiness in another person. the same applies to all crimes i.e. mugging, stealing, assault...your taking one persons money to make yourself happy, and making them unhappy (and unwealthy) in the process. does that mean its all an equilibrium?

I'm not sure whether the reason society is able to function in harmony is because of the human condition and some of the emotions that we experience i.e. guilt, fear, remorse, empathy. i dont know whether these feelings are innate (born into us) or whether they're a direct result of the way we are conditoned and brought up by society (probably a combination of both).
Earlier psychology scholars believed that we were born like a "blank sheet". Now, I think they are accepting both situations.


either way, these feelings are a social control mechanism that prevent us from committing anti-social acts, together with the "consequences" imposed on us by society for such behaviour. the reasons for "law and order" in society are strikingly obvious, needing almost no explanation.
This is certainly not the best way. Imposing that has proved to be non-efficient. The best way would be to decrease individualism and increase the sense of community.


but i still believe that society functions because each individual acts in their own self-interest, rather than in the interest of others/the bigger picture. this might sound contradictory at first, but if you sit down and think about it, its right on the money.
I see that you have studied economy... :D


it's not so much a morality issue (eg the notions of right and wrong or good and bad) that prevents us from committing immoral acts, its more-so the foreseeable consequences. so therefore by not stealing, not raping, not killing and such things we are acting in our own self interest. maybe a person who commits crimes deems it to be in their best interests?
It doesn't always work.

i mean be honest, have you never contemplated doing such things?
No.


why didn't you do it...was it because you decided it was "wrong" or because you didn't think you'd get away with it? (the consequences outweigh the personal gain). let me give you a cheap analogy to explain what i mean. lets say that rape was declared legal in the united states. if rape is no longer a crime, would the number of rapes in the united states increase drastically? probably yes. now the reason for that is pretty obvious - the rapist is no longer violating a law, but hes only violating another person. he may still be violating a social structure but not a law, (meaning no consequences for him), so hey why not? because he will feel guilt? this all amounts to nothing. what is the overall outcome of this scenario - considerable increase in the amount of women getting raped, and more men getting their jollies (sorry i dont know how else to put it). all crimes are driven by some motive, but you have to have created unhappiness in one person to create happiness in another person. the same applies to all crimes i.e. mugging, stealing, assault...your taking one persons money to make yourself happy, and making them unhappy (and unwealthy) in the process.
Interesting thought. I guess that would be the consequences in our society, simply because we are too individualistic. interesting appying an economic theory to a... sociology one...


does that mean its all an equilibrium?
Yeah well... you know the answer... :D

I still belive that humanity would strive without having the rules regulations that we all abide by now, because despite the whether they were in affect or not there would still be the natural law of life (the weak die and the strong survive etc.)

I have always liked the social structure depicted in the novel The Dispossessed by Ursula le Guin; the people of Anarres are anarchists, but far from behaving like madmen, they are controlled by their own internal policemen.
The society of Annares in fact is relatively peaceful, but is locked in a conservative mindset; no-one dare rock the boat, which has no-one at the helm.
To find recognition for his achievements the protagonist Shevek has to leave this society and work with the capitalistic world of Urras.

So I tend to think that anarchy as a political system could be made to work on a small, unambitious scale; but it is no good for an energetic developing society.

Well what are waiting for southstar, get up and try it. Hell the worse that could happen is survival of the fittest would become our religion, and the better clause is we solve any problem of over-population.

Well what are waiting for southstar, get up and try it. Hell the worse that could happen is survival of the fittest would become our religion, and the better clause is we solve any problem of over-population.

Well I actually took you guys' ideas and wrote my paper on it. My english teacher seemed to think it was just another of my conspiracy theories though.. :confused:


Off to China.. :D