War, the superorganism, and why men are utterly useless.

Submitted by IntricateGirl on March 12, 2006 - 2:55pm.

Posted in books | Evolution | Howard K. Bloom | Sociology | The Lucifer Principle | war | IntricateGirl | delicious | digg | reddit | 476 reads »

Now that I have your attention with such an outrageous title, I will be writing about my favorite book. Most people enjoy reading fictional works, or perhaps memoirs. I prefer sociological books that read like a college assignment. To that end, my favorite book is "The Lucifer Principle" by Howard Bloom. The title of the book comes from the first chapter. Mr. Bloom presents the story of Marcion, a Christian heretic in ancient Rome, who said that the creator could not be merciful. After all, evil was rampant, and everywhere you looked throughout nature, violence was to be found. To be able to create such violence, the creator must have understood violence, so he is to blame. Others did not like this idea and began to talk about Lucifer, a being which relished evil. Mr. Bloom states that perhaps Marcion understood the situation better. After all, Lucifer, even within the Christian lore, did not create the evil. He gave into its lure. "Evil" is a by-product of creation, says Mr. Bloom. The remainder of the book is dedicated to examining the evils of nature, creation, birth, etc. He does so through 5 concepts.

1) Self-organizing systems- things are mass-produced with cheap raw materials, and assembled into intricate products. But they are done cheaply so that they are expendable. Lest you think I am talking about cars, I'm not. I'm talking about humans. If you take the chemicals that go into the "making" of a human, they are terrifyingly cheap. I believe each human is worth $2 and change. Yet we assign a higher value to humans, at least until it is not fitting to do so. Any leader who has sent people to war has taken away the perceived value of the person's life. There are a million examples of some humans being worth more than others, and the self-organizing systems have decided which are more valued. When we talk about cells, we may be worried if we are losing heart or brain cells. But what if the cells are merely skin? We take great pride in sloughing off the old ones and making way for the new via exfoliation. If a homeless person is murdered, it is deemed to be not as big a loss to society as it would be if a leader were murdered. Why? They are not deemed as worthy of life. And frankly, males are worth far less than females. One man can impregnate a hundred women, and in 9 months, there will be 100 births. But one woman can only have on average one baby every nine months. Women are to be treasured, but this is an idea that nature enforces brutally. Men are more likely to be miscarried or stillborn, more likely to die in infancy, more likely to be killed in a homicide, and if they manage to avoid all these horrors, they still live a whopping 7-10 years less than women.

2) Superorganisms- In the book, Mr. Bloom provides the example of a sponge. Were you aware that you can place a natural sea sponge in a blender with a bit of water, push any button you want until the sponge is in a billion pieces, and they will reassemble themselves. If instead you separate those cells from each other permanently, they will die. Man is not the individual he wants to believe he is. One of the number one killers of man is not any kind of disease, but retirement. Find yourself without a use to the colony and your natural self-destruct programming kicks in. When it comes to mankind, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Continuing on that thought...

3) Memes- memes are the genes of memory. There is nothing tangible, and nothing to study under a microscope. They are simply thoughts that float around in our subconcious, until they find they right brain capable of bringing them together. Every religion, every type of government, and even every popular song on the radio has been the result of memes. Ideas build from one another, combine, and reproduce. Sometimes the result is benevolent, and sometimes it is not.

4) The Neural Net- This is what processes the memes that encounter us. We encounter so many ideas, especially in this information age, that most simply bounce off of us. But why? Our entire life has been a process of forming our own ideas about the way things work. Mr. Bloom provides an example of a farmer who claimed to have figured out the date of the end of the world. He inspired 50,000 people to wait for the end with him. Some closed their shops, others sold their own farms, convinced they would no longer need them. When the dae came and went without a hiccup from the planet or beyond, the date was changed. Once again, the world did not end. But by that time, people had become so invested in the ideas because their entire lives had been leading them to that belief, that they would not let something so small as the man being wrong about the date of end of the world stop them. By 1981, this movement had over 3.6 million members in 184 countries. They are known as the Seventh Day Adventists. This is merely an example, as the same arguments could be made of any religion by those who do not follow it. That is the point. A recent study said that both liberals and conservatives alike will ignore cold hard facts if it does not support their belief system. This should be remembered when people want to know why there are more people than ever converting to a religion that is seen as violent, degrading to women, bloody, and screams for you to die for your god. The question should not be why are they converting, but why wouldn't they. Everything they have ever known tells them that is the only choice to make.

5) The pecking order- This ties in with #1. After all, let's go on the assumption that Mr. Bloom is correct in his observations about the homeless man being worth less than a leader. Why? The pecking order, which exists in every species. Chickens, when given food have an already established pecking order. The one who eats first has usually gotten there by violent means, and it is by violence that he falls. When he does fall, he falls hard, and his self-destruct mechanism kicks in. Put a new chicken in, and he will determine his own place by fighting for a spot in line. Those at the end of the line will often not take on the higher ones for a better spot. They are convinced of their worthlessness. So what does this mean about "evil"? Many people in the US have begun saying that we are fighting a losing war, even those who were previously for the war. What changed? We lost or are losing our spot in the pecking order. We went from being on top to seeing that we can be bested in certain circumstances. And like the chickens, our self-destruct mechanism is kicking in. This is certainly not a thing I say with pride. It is up to us as a national superorganism, how far we fall.

In presenting this as my blog, I realize just how controversial it is. I am saying that every religion, every government, and every idea that mankind has ever had is destined to fail. They have in the past, and they will in the future. The question ends up being, for ourselves, will it be with a bang, or with a whimper? I post this as a meme that has reached my brain. Will it be latched onto, or will it be discarded? Only time will tell. As Mr. Bloom ends his book, evolution is the only chance we have to end our own savagery, and the evolution of a meme or idea is FAR faster than that of biology.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
March 12, 2006 - 6:56pm

Powerful lot of stuff here, Intricate

o ceallaigh's picture
o ceallaigh Says:

Much of which I like. I have not yet read Bloom's book, and will need to before commenting substantively. Just a couple of reflections for now.

a being which relished evil.

I have been suspicious of the portrayal of consciously-evil BWAAHAHAA!-type characters ever since I got to be old and battered enough to spot a metaphor without being taken in by it. Usually the person you find to be evil will tell you he's doing good if you ask him. C. S. Lewis explored this conundrum admirably in The Screwtape Letters. I can only define "evil" meaningfully in social terms - the "good" one is one who is "in" a group and will sacrifice self-interest for the group when called on to do so, while the "evil" one works only for himself. All other definitions are essentially labels you use to identify your friends and enemies, and ultimately that labelling system has meaning only for yourself.

Superorganisms. If what you've presented accurately represents Bloom's take, then I think he's confused "superorganism" with "social organism". A sponge will reassemble if you blend it, whereas I will not. But in all other attributes the sponge is more similar to any other individual animal than either is to a social species. The dynamics of social species are, I think, better explored in the "popular audience" writings of Konrad Lorenz (King Solomon's Ring) or Edmund O. Wilson (Sociobiology).

Memes and the Neural Net. I find the comparison of "memes" to "genes" unfortunate. Genes are documentable stretches of DNA. Memes represent a metaphorical expression of a phenomenon that we simply don't understand yet. Since memory is chemistry just like genes are, ultimately we will get to the bottom of it. But that time is not yet, and I think "memes" will fall out of scientific favor just like Freud's "ego", "superego" and "id". But I need to know much more about this topic than I do at present.

Pecking order. Actually, most species that have a "pecking order" hierarchy establish that hierarchy in the most non-violent way possible. Usually that way involves very large amounts of show and bluff, and in almost all species, bigger wins. Fights only result between two individuals of equal size and energy. I don't think the comparison between the pecking order of individuals within a group and the dynamics of what Lorenz called "militant enthusiasm" in humans is a good one. The pecking order has nothing to compare with a smaller foe (e.g. Vietnam) ultimately defeating a larger (your US and mine). Once again, Lorenz and Wilson seem to me to have a better handle on it. And historians like McPherson argue that "nothing succeeds like success", a dynamic remarkably similar to some of those Lorenz records in King Solomon's Ring and On Aggression.

This standard of blogging is very high. Keep it up!


March 12, 2006 - 9:16pm

I'll comment in order, so as

IntricateGirl's picture
IntricateGirl Says:

I'll comment in order, so as not to confuse my poor, tired brain.

I will be the first one to admit that there are some flaws in Bloom's way of thinking. What I like so much about this book is that it provides a wonderful starting point for further research. He also has a very accessible writing style. His writing is full of examples. Some of these are great, and some are not so great.

I am going to be a little arrogant, and say that Bloom would call your definition of "evil" as simply your definition. It came from your neural net, and it's been filtered through every experience you've ever had. And while that's probably true as far as it goes, I agree with you completely. Good and evil, whatever that means, cannot exist without each other, because there is no way to define them otherwise. But there's the problem. There is no universal definition of good or evil that can be applied to all circumstances. And therein lies another problem. If a person accepts that the Christian God is the source of all good, and the Christian Devil is the source of all evil, then they are defined by each other. Lose one and the meaning collapses. This will cause big problems for the apocalypse.

I will have to read those books. Please do note that his use of examples is much better than my own, and I am attempting to collapse a rather large book into a few tiny paragraphs. All of his ideas tie in with each other, and because of the space provided here, it is too difficult to attempt to tie it all together like he did. So, it gets reduced, sometimes badly.

Memes are something that I had not heard of before this book. As such, I am certain that you know more about them than I do. While I think that we will understand the chemical process that occurs, I do not think that we will ever be able to mix certain chemicals together and achieve instant Christmas dinner circa 1985, as it were. Or at least I hope we don't. I do agree with you that it is a phenomenon we don't yet understand. And I agree that that it is a poor comparison between a proven thing which can be studied and measured, and one which is merely a concept, or a way to describe an otherwise unexplainable occurrence.

Let's chalk the pecking orders explanation to too hastily remembering what was actually written, combined with an oversimplification necessary for such a short discussion. You are right. Pecking orders tend to be as non-violent as they can be most of the time. There are two important distinctions to note. 1) When a newcomer is introduced, they must find their place, and because nobody is anxious to slide downward, this is when most conflicts take place. 2) It is to everyone's benefit to maintain the pecking order. Those on top are obviously well off, those in the middle are afraid of sliding downwards, and those on the bottom are barely scraping by as it is. If they are forced to fight constantly, their injuries would kill them.

If I understand Lorenz's "militant enthusiasm" it requires that people feel an outside threat. And as such, applying the term "pecking order" to all situations where a smaller country defeats a larger one would be a very bad idea indeed. Yet I think each term has its realm. It seems to be the intent that is in question. If a nation feels threatened by another, "militant enthusiasm" would apply. If a nation is looking for something superior, then I believe "pecking order" should apply. History is littered with both examples. An example of a "pecking order" between nations might be the treatment of the colonists and Native Americans. The colonists simply took the land because they viewed themselves as superior. I could go on for a while with the similarities to a pecking order, but I'll leave it at that.

Thank you for the compliment. I confess that I worry this standard of blogging is perhaps too high, and that we will be the only two debating any of this. :D

http://www.surfjunky.com/?r=Intricategirl


March 12, 2006 - 9:44pm

The standard of blogging

o ceallaigh's picture
o ceallaigh Says:

Your comments, like your blog, are deep and thoughtful. I rather suspected that the points I challenged were due to your condensation rather than your grasp of facts and concepts. And it's clear we will both benefit by doing reading that we might not have otherwise.

As for the standard being too high, well, I've always been advised throughout my life to "tailor your writing to your audience". The problem with this is that the audience can be unpredictable. For a long while, one could be forgiven for believing that no writer writing at levels above National Enquirer, Reader's Digest, or Hustler had any chance of making a living. Then P. J. O'Rourke comes along, pulling neither punches nor thesaurus excursions, and gains a wide audience.

So who knows? Maybe we'll set a trend. :)


March 15, 2006 - 7:21am

You were worried about -what-?

o ceallaigh's picture
o ceallaigh Says:

I worry this standard of blogging is perhaps too high, and that we will be the only two debating any of this.

As I write this, this blog has 160 hits and has been on the "most popular" list for three days straight. Hmmm... For that, I might even concede to being useless. :)


March 15, 2006 - 10:30am

HA! Then let me rephrase.

IntricateGirl's picture
IntricateGirl Says:

HA! Then let me rephrase. I worry that this standard of blogging is perhaps too high for my poor brain to think of new, worthy topics of discussion each day. In other words, don't get too used to it! lol

http://www.surfjunky.com/?r=Intricategirl


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.