It's very readable and quite interesting. It aimed to have a veneer of science, when the science of animals and nature was still fairly undeveloped; and it succeeded in a sense, because its observations are still held in regard, but I think it succeeded much better as a work of philosophy.
In any case, it suffers a little for what I think is the naive thesis of "if only mankind could cooperate like the animals do, we would live in a utopia." Of course, mankind has demonstrated through thousands of years of history that tribes of men can't really cooperate in any grand sense, so the point seems rather moot.
In what ways has mankind demonstrated that "tribes of men" can't cooperate? Humans have been able to live in large decentralized polities for millennia and modern archeology strongly backs this up. Göbekli Tepe (~11kya), the still-standing mammoth houses of North Eastern Europe (~15kya), or perhaps best exemplified by "the new archaic" or "monuments without kings"[^0] which is a term used by archeologists to describe the study of certain North American monument sites like Poverty Point where massive complex monuments were built by mobile groups of foragers without the need for permanent habitation. These massive geo-engineering projects were taken on by many different independent but connected tribes of peoples.
Wherever you look we see constant evidence of humanity's ability to cooperate to achieve grand accomplishments. I mean we're on the internet ffs. Ever heard of Wikipedia? Or how most modern tech companies are only possible because of the massive efforts of the open source communities? These aren't really new behaviors for humanity. In fact, I'd argue that if you take a look at the way language evolved you'd find a lot of support for the idea that it's actually a defining characteristic of humanity
Mutual Aid Among Animals mentions the existence of Defectors. I would argue both that the existence of the internet in particular and civilisation in general is a sign that great numbers of people can cooperate effectively, and that the woeful Covid response is a sign that small numbers of people defecting can be ruinous.
The best laid plans of mice and men, therefore, would seem to be those that (a) allow Cooperators to combine with at least linear effect, and (b) are resistant to sizeable Defecting populations.
Defectors implies authoritarianism, and my way or the highway thinking. which have generally been the enemy of overall cooperation. Wikipedia and the internet work because they mostly aren't like that, and are at their worst when they are.
In a "one hand washes the other" model of cooperation, the right hand would be defecting if it was frequently washed by the left, while never (or infrequently) washing in return.
OK, so what model of overall cooperation would avoid Wikipedia drama?
(having seen humanity's response to Covid, I'm not willing to admit "the spirit of full cooperation will bloom as defecting behaviour withers away" as axiomatic. But I am curious as to what you have in mind?)
I don't have an alternative for Wikipedia. I'm saying we shouldn't lean into any (always seductive) way of thinking that demonises people who disagrees with our one true way of doing things. People should be herded cats; neither wild cats nor herded sheep.
I think Kropotkin would agree with you rather than GP -- you are making arguments that would in fact be dear to Kropotkin. Check out his books for yourself if interested.
His work on this subject was in large part a response to the influence of "darwinism" at the time, where it became commonplace to think that "evolution" meant that we were evolved to compete with each other viciously, that selfish competition was our evolutionary inheritance, that this was somehow proven by darwin that we were "naturally" inclined to brutal competition between individuals. (I think a lot of this thought is still commonplace, including in "evolutionary psychology.")
Kropotkin argued that this is a misreading of natural history and the effects of evolution, that in fact cooperation is just as much/more a factor in natural selection, in survivability, that all creatures were in fact "evolved" to cooperate -- including humans, and for sure there are many many places where intensive cooperation is visible in human history.
(He specifically wrote about "indigenous" societies being based on cooperation -- which I think is an over-simplification, "indigenous" societies historical and present are very diverse rather than uniform on this axis -- see _Dawn of Everything_ for a contemporary anarchist scholarly take on this diversity -- but that was Kropotkin's scholarly anarchist take at the time). (If humans have in modern times often chosen on a mass scale to mistreat and kill each other even though they are "naturally" cooperative, it is not because of some evolutionary predestination).
Is what I get as a summary of one of Kropotkin's theses. I think he would fully agree that cooperation is one of the defining characteristics of humanity, would fully agree that humans are "built for cooperation". Cooperation as fundamental and foundational to evolution, and to animal as well as human life (humans understood as animals in the post-darwin world) was, like, his whole thing.
I think GP's comment here is a mischaracterization. I am worried that y'all are going to get the wrong idea about Kropotkin here!
[He was thinking and writing in the Victorian era, and his approach to "science" is characteristic, it wouldn't be accepted as a proper "scientific" approach today. It is still, though, I agree with OP article, interesting and useful philosophy, which provides a challenge to what we can realize are some assumptions not scientifically validated of even contemporary "evolutionary psychological" thinking].
There would be no point in competing with someone who has the same genes as you since it is the genes that drive evolution. Going further, the more different the genes the more you would want to compete.
So this means that you would cooperate most with your parents then your siblings, then your family, tribe, race and species.
That is not Kropotkin's analysis; it is a very commonplace current "evolutionary psychology" analysis (as well as probably a common 19th century "social darwinism" analysis!)
I don't really want to get into the whole argument here -- it's one of those that we will go on forever with.
But the Kropotkin point of view would probably point out that humans as a species (and any species, in fact) have improved survivability and natural selection when we cooperate with those in our communities/populations without regard for family relations.
That may be true but we do not observe it in nature. Most mammals would prioritize their own offspring over others. "Without regard" is very rare to see
I think what "we observe in nature" is debatable. Kropotkin was taking part in that debate, although it was over 100 years ago.
There's plenty of cooperation between population members not directly related observed in nature, that's literally what Kropotkin's whole book is about.
In the realm of "thought experiment", which is what "evolutionary psychology" seems to love these days: If game theory says that "tit for tat" is often the best strategy, then it's not hard to explain how creatures might evolve to do that. And if creatures are doing "tit for tat" then it is simple to explain how they might evolve to help other members of the popuation, regardless of genetic relation -- who would then help them. Thereby improving the genetic success of both participants. Organisms cooperating with other members of their population mutually improves the survival rate of all of their genes.
but here I am having the argument I said I wouldn't. You know the way to get me -- dropping statements about what "we observe" as if it is universally agreed upon and settled and not subject to debate or question -- without even a citation!
Nature ecologies are so full of examples of mutual aid across all types of life that we are still discovering new relationships everyday. I'd like to see an updated collation of all these findings since kropotkin's writigs. Any suggestions?
I think the main thing missing from this simplistic analysis (which I would tie back to Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and the gene-centric view of evolution it proposed) is that organisms don't need to just replicate themselves, but also their environments. I mean look at lichen. A small colony of organisms from completely different domains of life and they would die without each other yet that algae would obviously prefer to replicate the fungi it partners with over some other species of algae. Bison need to keep grasslands healthy, worms need to keep the soil organisms alive, mycorrhizal fungi need to keep plants alive, plant roots have a large toolbelt of chemical dances it does JUST to cultivate the specific soil bacteria they like, our gut bacteria have it in their interest to keep us humans thriving and interacting socially, myrmecophyte trees attract and support ant life, capitalism needs to replicate artificial scarcity, parasitic plants like dodders actually provide a whole host of benefits to its hosts like acting as an above-ground communication network, beavers practice "niche construction", most "weeds" occupy a specific niche where they grow in disturbed soils only to "work themselves out of a job" by conditioning the soil to better health allowing for ecological succession to take place (e.g. dandelions decompacting soil), and your dog would very likely kill another dog (extremely genetically similar as they are) in order to save your life.
In the 1990s a cholera outbreak in South America created an interesting natural experiment. In some countries it was a deadly disease that spread through waterways. But in places with better hygiene, it couldn't spread through those typical pathways. So it eventually evolved into a much milder form in order to allow people to go out and socialize so it can continue to spread
This is why every single deadly pandemic has been zoonotic in origin. The black plague, covid, hiv, etc all came from other animals. It's a matter of maladaption. All the diseases that have been closely associated with humans for thousands of years have instead evolved to... not kill us. Some of them even became an essential part of our microbiome. Even herpes, a rather ancient human "parasite", actually plays some beneficial roles in our immune system. The microbial universe is a prime example of how organisms need not only replicate themselves but also the environments in which they thrive
Dawn of Everything shares the latest anthropology and archeology about prior societies. Spoiler: Science indicates a whole lot more cooperation than was previously assumed.
I'm quite bullish on the future of cooperatives. Perhaps like the worker directed social enterprises advocated by Richard Wolfe.
One missing "technology" is better, more durable governance. Cooperatives have been vulnerable to corporate capture (or transmutation). Like the farmer's cooperatives of yore. And they need better protection against coups, usurpers.
But surely that's solvable. We have 1,000s of successful examples to learn from.
Imagine a world where participating in a home owner association, local government council, or a volunteer org's executive board wasn't considered cruel and unusual punishment.
The person critiquing generally agrees that humans are cooperative but he takes issue with the author’s general position that people kinda just decide to organize culture in a certain way. Instead the video creator offers a materialist perspective that I find a lot more compelling.
> mankind has demonstrated through thousands of years of history that tribes of men can't really cooperate in any grand sense
I'd argue the fact that humans can live in reasonably stable polities of more than a billion people proves, and in an economic space of practically the entire planet (globalisation!) proves we absolutely can cooperate at grand, epic scales.Whether or not that means Kropotkin is right is another thing, but we're built for cooperation.
I'd argue that the fact that humans can live in reasonably stable polities of more than a billion people only proves that there exist social systems and structures which can achieve reasonable outcomes even without cooperation by incentives which ensure that agents who do not intend to cooperate but act competitively and even maliciously still act reasonably out of pure self-interest and fear of retaliation for defecting.
Are you ignoring the billion and a half people that have been lifted out of poverty since the 50s or 60s? We can definitely cooperate to benefit the masses of humankind and we do.
Are you ignoring that despite knowing the consequences of climate change for a hundred or so years, "we" chose to ignore them for corporate profits?
What's the point of lifting anyone out of poverty if we are actively ruining our environment through obviously unsustainable behaviour?
How many more billions of people could we have brought out of poverty if the goal wasn't to improve bottom lines? What about all the displaced people due to wars for oil?
No, I'm not. Some of that wealth was created by externalizing costs in the form of pollution. Because that is how our society was designed and we did not have good alternatives until around the turn of the century. But most of it was not. Most was genuine wealth that improved many people's lives.
The point of lifting people out of poverty - which doesn't mean they have now have money; it more means they have more access to education, healthcare, and capital - is that those people are now in a better position to help us deal with the future challenges, climate change being one of them. In addition to their quality of life being much better. There is a significant bootstrapping effect.
>How many more billions of people could we have brought out of poverty if the goal wasn't to improve bottom lines?
We don't know. It is difficult to say what would happen in a different timeline. But if Mao-era China and the Soviet Union are any indication, what we decided upon was a much better outcome than that. If you can design a system where wealth is allocated in a way that creates more wealth than it does currently, plenty of folks are all ears. Lots of people in positions of influence like creating more wealth.
We did not have good alternatives, until we did; and
We suppressed progress, had people killed, and squashed all attempts at public ownership of the goods, launched defamation campaigns, buried people in lawsuits, had them locked in their homes or jail for no reason other than being a block at corporate earnings.
If you have to slave away your life to pay for access to education, you clearly don’t have access to it, you are paying with your life for it.
What wall street and the rich are asking for is absurd. Gains on top of gains, chasing growth on rate of growth.
People in places of influence care about creating more wealth for themselves. They clearly don’t care about the average person because they are not the average person.
lets assume for a moment that we don’t have access to space, we are confined on earth, and have finite resources to work with. Certain people by virtue of chance end up consuming orders of magnitude more resources by virtue of their lineage and the place they were born it.
By said virtue, they impose onto the rest of us their will, and make it so they don’t face any repercussions for their wastefulness.
Can you argue, in good conscience, that all the resources spent on and by somebody like Musk, are better spent on Musk than feeding families in Africa, building infrastructure and providing top notch education to have more doctors and researchers do stuff like, idk find cures to all the different forms of cancer that we have?
> In any case, it suffers a little for what I think is the naive thesis of "if only mankind could cooperate like the animals do, we would live in a utopia." Of course, mankind has demonstrated through thousands of years of history that tribes of men can't really cooperate in any grand sense, so the point seems rather moot.
In one paragraph you say that his biological observations are still held in high regard. (Nothwithstanding that the science of such things was farily “underdeveloped”, he protested… you know, like how people massively protest against Darwin’s theories, from about the same era?) Then you take a dump on those same observations in the next paragraph because people who have lived in class societies, under strict hierachies (that’s all of recorded history, yes) weren’t nice to each other? Well… why do you think anarchists proposed an alternative to that?
You know what is utopian? To build a society on such a flawed human nature as what we have, centred around our selfish shortcomings—basing socity on on subjugation, oppression, and exploitation, so that (predictably) the ones who are vile and strong will take as much for themselves as they can and exploit the rest—see history—and for us collectively to doom ourselves by ruining the planet by pillaging it of its resources and all kinds of ecological balance. That’s utopian!
But congrats on your ebook project. Your pathetic little gloss demonstrates how classic literature is often wasted like pearls before swine.
It's very readable and quite interesting. It aimed to have a veneer of science, when the science of animals and nature was still fairly undeveloped; and it succeeded in a sense, because its observations are still held in regard, but I think it succeeded much better as a work of philosophy.
In any case, it suffers a little for what I think is the naive thesis of "if only mankind could cooperate like the animals do, we would live in a utopia." Of course, mankind has demonstrated through thousands of years of history that tribes of men can't really cooperate in any grand sense, so the point seems rather moot.