The idea that humans are inherently selfish and work for themselves is one the most stupid fucking myths invented by capitalists, it’s not even true in capitalism itself.
For all the individuality and selfishness that capitalism instills us with in order to survive in a cannibalistic system like it, you still see people going above and beyond and helping others with nothing to gain. Simple people risking their lives and swimming to rescue refugees so they won’t drown in the sea, people making food and distributing it to the ones who need it, people who risk their lives to fight fires that the capitalist state is unwilling to do so effectively.
We are a species that started out by being communal and evolved that way, the very reason that we became so advanced is that we are so capable of communicating and coming together to achieve common goals. While it doesn’t look that way in the capitalist dystopia that we live in, our nature is still inherent to us and it will awaken in full once we get rid of systems that rely on exploitation.
It’s certainly a reason, but here’s maybe why we shouldn’t think it’s all there is to the story. Let’s take it as a given that we should uncritically accept the traditional conception of our species as the most advanced. Plenty of other creatures’ languages and cooperation and writing systems are so robust and yet they don’t achieve that same status. And indeed, us reaching this level of advancement happened very quickly. These seem to suggest other events led to this, beyond just what our biology happens to be.
In any case:
we became so advanced…
The traditional ways in which we think of ourselves as having progressed the most involve concepts formed by our contemporary settler-colonial world. So it thinks we should be critical of that as well. What would be so incorrect about using other metrics, like how much we produce according to ability and distribute according to need? Along that axis, we’re clearly far less advanced than plenty of other groups. Instead, we consider ourselves as having progressed the most because of technological capabilities, independently of the value of their impact.
It seems plausible that while there are plenty who could have created the technological capabilities to do great atrocities as we have, only we found ourselves in the external, material conditions to develop those capabilities.
The idea that humans are inherently selfish and work for themselves is one the most stupid fucking myths invented by capitalists, it’s not even true in capitalism itself.
For all the individuality and selfishness that capitalism instills us with in order to survive in a cannibalistic system like it, you still see people going above and beyond and helping others with nothing to gain. Simple people risking their lives and swimming to rescue refugees so they won’t drown in the sea, people making food and distributing it to the ones who need it, people who risk their lives to fight fires that the capitalist state is unwilling to do so effectively.
We are a species that started out by being communal and evolved that way, the very reason that we became so advanced is that we are so capable of communicating and coming together to achieve common goals. While it doesn’t look that way in the capitalist dystopia that we live in, our nature is still inherent to us and it will awaken in full once we get rid of systems that rely on exploitation.
Hmmm is it really THE very reason?
It’s certainly a reason, but here’s maybe why we shouldn’t think it’s all there is to the story. Let’s take it as a given that we should uncritically accept the traditional conception of our species as the most advanced. Plenty of other creatures’ languages and cooperation and writing systems are so robust and yet they don’t achieve that same status. And indeed, us reaching this level of advancement happened very quickly. These seem to suggest other events led to this, beyond just what our biology happens to be.
In any case:
The traditional ways in which we think of ourselves as having progressed the most involve concepts formed by our contemporary settler-colonial world. So it thinks we should be critical of that as well. What would be so incorrect about using other metrics, like how much we produce according to ability and distribute according to need? Along that axis, we’re clearly far less advanced than plenty of other groups. Instead, we consider ourselves as having progressed the most because of technological capabilities, independently of the value of their impact.
It seems plausible that while there are plenty who could have created the technological capabilities to do great atrocities as we have, only we found ourselves in the external, material conditions to develop those capabilities.