Still reading Homo Deus… So many new things in history to absorb.
So it may be the case that our evolutionary success is due to Malice towards other spieces. We incorporated hatred into our society. When we hate something we stir up same hatred in other humans. In such a fashion we unite and destroy others somewhat irrationally. Even when in a time when resources and spaces are plentiful, we found a will to organize and fight. Deus author may say it is a shared fiction, but to me it feels more like a baser sentiment.
What we share, even more rudimentary than fictional stories about our kind, about ourselves, and about our world, is the sentiment of hating (or loving). We hate our enemies, and we love ourselves. We hate the devil and love God. We hate tornados and love balmy sundays.
Hatred! That is what makes us us.
Imagine a competitive situation: at the end of Titanic, Jack’s self hate made the fateful selection of letting rose survive. I wonder how often such a scene occur in evolution? Mommies throwing their babies out of fire or water while devastating the object of her despise-her own body. Can we bring our imagination to a scene in which huan success in evolution is in part due to united hatred, in addition to all of our other bonadaptations? Could it be that hating sentiment is the real key to our prosperity?
We carry out an experiment. Let us take a group of people and ask them to never hate, and while we’re at it, let’s also never have ill intentions. Such an experiment would scientifically test our hypothesis that people without hatred will be severely disadvantaged to an extent that they would not propagate successfully. Hypothesis can be proven false and can be replicated. It can be a very informative experiment.
I guess the best of this particular stroke-in-slow-motion(silm) was to question the completeness of shared-fiction as a theory of human advantage. Belief is a baser brain condition than ideas like: social norms, rules, laws, instructions, disobedience, success and failure. My feeling that these latter things in mind, necessary for survival of social human creature and society, are more important and identifiable aspects of our cognition important to our survival. One would not think of shared fiction as something uniquely worthy of note.
Here, the proposal is that if we want baser mentalities, we can arbitrarily pick the intents of malice as the key human advantage. Certainly I can comprehend it driving a lot of the stuff we do. But by the same token, you can see that demonstration of co-occurrence does not imply it’s necessity, and far from implication of sufficiency. If we hated our legs so, I can invent, build and mass-produce automobiles, right?
A functional extension of shared-fiction is probably the shared-program. Think West World… We have, by some means, come upon shared programming. We operae same way, I on the right and you to my left when driving. The fact that it is universal, that you are saying the same thing to yourself, subliminally persuades us that it is “right” in a way more superlative than an individual’s internal belief or our shared agreement. While it is true we share fictional believe that this is how it should be, what is more important is that it all works.
Consequentialism is king in social science IMHO.