[PREV - THE_ROAD_OF_BALI] [TOP]
HUMAN_NATURE
June 26, 2006
It appears to be human nature to make
gross generalizations about human nature.
Mine is that the nature of
humans depends on the kind
of humans you have.
The point behind this
stunning observation
is that there's no
absolute principle you
can cite about the
needs for rules.
In a group living situation,
with one group of people,
you might have to have
a regimented, rotating
schedule of dishwashing,
complete with penalties
for skipping your turn.
With another group of
people, there might be
no need for this:
people automatically
wash their own dishes,
and occasionally
volunteer to wash other
people's dishes without
being prodded, and without
fear that they're being
taken advantage of by
free loaders.
The difference between these two groups
may simply be that the people in one
were "raised right", and the people in
the other were not.
Or it may be that the second group
grew at a slower pace, and was able
to gradually socialize new members
into their cooperative system without
making a big deal of the indoctrination
process.
It used to seem to me that there were
probably size limits, measurable
boundaries that depend on scale:
In small groups of people it's at least
possible to get "communal" arrangements
to work smoothly, but as the size grows
it becomes statistically likely that
these arrangements will break down.
I'm no longer sure that
this is precisely true.
It could be that the cutoff
for "communal breakdown" is
itself a parameter that
varies between different
cultures.
If you expect it to happen,
it becomes more likely
it will happen.
And rules themselves have
their limits... a rule with
no enforcement mechanism
outside of the official
ones, a rule without moral
sanction, a rule whose
rightness no one implicitly
believes in... that becomes
a very weak rule.
When obeying the spirit of the law
becomes a joke, then the letter of
the law becomes irrelevant.
--------
[NEXT - THE_BIG_LIFE]