I have this theory (which probably means I read it somewhere and have forgotten where) which goes that *within nature the bigger the stable collective societal group the less independent and important to that group the individual becomes.*
e.g. The panther compared to an ant.

From an anthropological perspective it would seem that man was meant to be a comparatively small communal species (Family, tribe clan). Human societies that fall into these groups tend to be less stressed, conflicted and more content, each member having their place and purpose. As Pericles pointed out nature has endowed us with the ‘hardwired’ means to identify ‘our’ group.

The problem seems to come when definitions for ‘belonging’ and ‘unique place’ become more abstract, less consistently obvious. First comes colour then ethnicity, culture including religion and finally status.
Some would argue, therefore these divisions are normal/natural and shouldn’t be opposed but this is only true if one accepts that man shouldn’t/wasn’t supposed to live in huge ant like communities where the individual is comparatively unimportant to the whole.

It seems that our societies have evolved beyond their purpose of protection and survival yet we as species haven’t. Our modern world consists of instant gratification, instant facts in a culture of me first micro “families (?)” where everyone know the cost of every thing but the value of nothing.

It is this conflict between the two is central to most of our societal problems.
Is there still generally a relevant place for the extended family? e.g. where elders are more than part time baby sitters and child spoilers a place where they have a meaningful (traditional) role as keepers of wisdom?

The Amazonian jungle tribes are less virtually non-hierarchical and democratic yet elders although regarded as equals are respected as the source of wisdom and experience.

It is one thing to have knowledge but wisdom is knowing when, what and how to use that knowledge.

What do you think?

Interesting. People do often bitch about the Industrial Revolution which took us from clan to city, and I in part agree, I am proud of our scientific/artistic progress and various advancements but we seem to need a lot more adjusting time.

It is to fast, now we see every bit of pain and indulgence on the planet via internet.

It’s almost come full circle where it does come down to what one believes and the logic having the meaning over the evidence as evidence is now just mass produced by each side according to its needs.

It’s possible that with the upsizing from clan to city that the clan is now the larger cultural group, hence everyone defending their belief of what it is so strongly. This can range from their own races traditions to a belief in a mix of cultures as right.. It varies wildly, another reason it is all to fast.

They say in WW2 people didn’t have depression as much as the communal problems of fighting the enemy was all pervading and existential inner hurts had to take a back seat.

I believe it is location and culture/belief that people grapple for. I don’t think we can get back to small tribes though I do agree things were more stable and workable for people.

This coming recession or even depression may pulls us back to more realistic concerns as we drop the abstract in favour of a veg garden to survive.

In the past, humans have demonstrated great innovation when faced with a problem. Sometimes, humans may not be willing to identify or face these problems until too late and until the point of catastrophe (in some cases) but usually when the writing is on the wall we can be pretty creative and unselfish. Look at the way we band together in a crisis or after a natural disaster.

Perhaps the issue is that while our societies have evolved away from the idea of protection and survival in a primitive context, we are still biologically wired and no matter how advanced we become technologically, on an emotional level we still seek protection and survival.

The parameters have changed to the survival within a man-made economy, which, for some reason some see as a biological organism with a life of it's own and something that cannot be tampered with even if moderations might be made for mutual and societal benefit.

Sometimes it does take a disaster of some kind to make us realise that there is more than the 'self' and our survival depends on working together as a group. This is achievable without losing sight of the individual.

There was certainly security in the clan or tribe but there was also inbreeding and parochialism. Man does not seem destined to cope in large ant like communities as you say examinator, but there are advantages to a bigger collective.

Perhaps the answer as always lies somewhere in the middle. Groups of smaller cities within a habitat rather than one or two congested cities and with them the inherent problems of overcrowding, pollution and as Meredith mentioned, depression.

If social commentary is anything to go by, people by and large are fed up with the 'me me' society.

Following on from meredith's last paragraph, I read somewhere recently that there have been enormous increase in the sale of vegetable and other edibles (seeds and plants), suggesting that people are willing to make changes when needed and perhaps get back to the basics and a desire to know where our food comes from.

examinator wrote: “From an anthropological perspective it would seem that man was meant to be a comparatively small communal species (Family, tribe clan). Human societies that fall into these groups tend to be less stressed, conflicted and more content, each member having their place and purpose.”

Any empirical evidence that any of this was true of such societies? This thinking has shades of the ‘noble savage’ to me. In fact in many of these more primitive human societies, life was short, difficult and brutal, often involving servitude to the more powerful. There has never really been a time in human society when might wasn’t right. Although, there is arguably less of it now than there ever was.

As to the ‘instant gratification’ that is indeed quite a new factor among much of society. However, it was very common among the elite centuries ago. It is more pronounced now because more of human society has an opportunity to indulge. The increasing prosperity of the middle classes has brought indulgence within reach of many more. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not. Are we better with a society where only those at the top are allowed to indulge their whims or one where that is spread more evenly?

to all three,
Terrific responses. I definately need more time to consider and respond but again interesting thanks and not one insult I am a happy little examinator ant.
:-)

When a society substitutes

-pornograpy and lust for love and compassion..
-'get away with it if you can' for 'ethics, honesty and respect.
-'greed and obscene wealth accumulation for frugal and generous living...
-When men and women exchange natural relations for un-natural...
-When 'tolerance' is used as a weapon of intolerance...
-When anti-racism is used to promote that very thing...
-When Discrimination is condemned by those who doing just that
-When the tail wags the dog...

Then.. yes.. we have lost ....the plot.

And be assured.. we will reap exactly what we have sown.