![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anansi133I'm idly scratching my dog's ears, and it occurs to me to wonder- why are animals and children so much easier to love than adults?
Some of it is chemicals and brain wiring, I know. Neoteny signals the oldest part of our brains to protect thems that have it.
But I think it's also language: as in, my dog will rarely refuse me. Children, too, are not in a good position to compete with an adult agenda.
Contrast this with what I know of my peers. We're ADD, We're aspie, we're highly mental and really crunchy, and often not fun to party with. I suppose one could conclude that there's a whole subset of the human population that's just hard to love, and I'm in that. But I don't see things playing out any better in the slower, dumber, warmer part of the gene pool.
My idea right now is that it has to do with language. What makes my dog more lovable than most people I know, is that he doesn't have enough language to confuse me. By implication, it's easier to feel affection for subordinates than it is to feel for superiors.
And that's sort of the DNA for all of human history, isn't it? Rather than directly appreciate the people on our shoulders, the ones with the better view of the world, we are invited to cathect with the greater good, with the high school mascot or the national ideology, or, God forbid, our religious peers!
And for those who dwell below us on the pecking order, we're encouraged to show charity, restraint, chivalry almost.
The big idea here, is that warfare (human struggle) does not come from competition for resources. We access resources much better when we cooperate. Maybe warfare really stems from identity issues. Chattel doesn't challenge our sense of self the way trade partners do.
My utopian fantasy, in that big dumb happy poly bonobo cuddle pile sense, is that somewhere in the state-space, is a language we could adopt, where we look like puppies to each other.
[Of course, there would also be times when competition is necessary, and we'd need to have difficult negotiations, and the language would have to change. (sure, I can imagine a temptation to cheat under those circumstances, and pretend to be a puppy just to gain access to the other dog's throat. My hunch is that these moments can be minimized the same way you minimize cheating everyplace else- make it more advantageous to follow the rules than to break them.)]
I guess this is hardly a new idea, really. Lots of people I know think of themselves as part of a larger peace movement. Some of the time, the toolbox of language is the focus. More often than that, though, is more of the same, "let's declare war on War and those who practice it". My crunchy aspie fascination with military history is typically not welcome in such groups.
In short, I don't much look like a puppy to this subset, nor do I much feel like cuddling them.
I guess it's back to the drawing board...
Some of it is chemicals and brain wiring, I know. Neoteny signals the oldest part of our brains to protect thems that have it.
But I think it's also language: as in, my dog will rarely refuse me. Children, too, are not in a good position to compete with an adult agenda.
Contrast this with what I know of my peers. We're ADD, We're aspie, we're highly mental and really crunchy, and often not fun to party with. I suppose one could conclude that there's a whole subset of the human population that's just hard to love, and I'm in that. But I don't see things playing out any better in the slower, dumber, warmer part of the gene pool.
My idea right now is that it has to do with language. What makes my dog more lovable than most people I know, is that he doesn't have enough language to confuse me. By implication, it's easier to feel affection for subordinates than it is to feel for superiors.
And that's sort of the DNA for all of human history, isn't it? Rather than directly appreciate the people on our shoulders, the ones with the better view of the world, we are invited to cathect with the greater good, with the high school mascot or the national ideology, or, God forbid, our religious peers!
And for those who dwell below us on the pecking order, we're encouraged to show charity, restraint, chivalry almost.
The big idea here, is that warfare (human struggle) does not come from competition for resources. We access resources much better when we cooperate. Maybe warfare really stems from identity issues. Chattel doesn't challenge our sense of self the way trade partners do.
My utopian fantasy, in that big dumb happy poly bonobo cuddle pile sense, is that somewhere in the state-space, is a language we could adopt, where we look like puppies to each other.
[Of course, there would also be times when competition is necessary, and we'd need to have difficult negotiations, and the language would have to change. (sure, I can imagine a temptation to cheat under those circumstances, and pretend to be a puppy just to gain access to the other dog's throat. My hunch is that these moments can be minimized the same way you minimize cheating everyplace else- make it more advantageous to follow the rules than to break them.)]
I guess this is hardly a new idea, really. Lots of people I know think of themselves as part of a larger peace movement. Some of the time, the toolbox of language is the focus. More often than that, though, is more of the same, "let's declare war on War and those who practice it". My crunchy aspie fascination with military history is typically not welcome in such groups.
In short, I don't much look like a puppy to this subset, nor do I much feel like cuddling them.
I guess it's back to the drawing board...
