QUESTIONING THE LEADER OF OUR PACK

I think the basic design of our evolution toward survival made it necessary for packs to form. We do cooperate within packs for win-win results. But given the dynamics of the earth (scare resources etc.) it seems global cooperation would be unlikely. What’s more likely is the system of national packs we have now - all cooperating toward collective goals and (generally) uncooperative or violent with one another. Of course, even these packs are further broken down in to smaller sub-packs (i.e. republican’s and democrats, Catholics and Jews, races, etc.) toward sub-goals. And there are competing interests between the main packs and the sub-packs. Nevertheless, at any given moment the behavior of the alpha of any pack is toward the accumulation of territory, wealth and power for his pack - both in relation to the packs members and to the other competing packs. Other variables are often at play, including competing interests toward the alpha’s individual accumulation of these things. Most decisions of any leader are made in terms of survival without any consideration for morality. It’s a startling catch 22 because the reality of the situation sometimes dictates that immoral behavior is in fact necessary toward survival. Justified war in the face of an attack comes to mind. The problem is that when our leaders act in these immoral ways, they reinforce their future ability to act immorally and (often) justify their behavior in false moral terms. Even though the reality of one or more situations may not dictate that further immoral behavior is actually necessary - and yet it becomes the norm. The change to a conscious human creates an ability now avoid the programs of our evolution and behave toward total cooperation as humans (no pack) through things like cooperation and self-sacrifice. To ignore our natural inclination to behave immorally toward survival. But as you can see by world events, this ability remains at war with the old instinctual programs of the past. Perhaps some global calamity is what is necessary to finally push us toward this reality? What happens when the pack leader suddenly forgets to share the kill with the other pack members? They (eventually) attack him. How many leaders were taken down by their own supporters for failing to share the wealth? What is at play when this occurs is an extreme version of this instinctual need to hoard and control both wealth and power. Every instinct we have can operate at extremes. At it’s worst it’s all encompassing and can lead to sociopathic and self-destructive behavior. As Buddhists would say what is required to overcome the dynamics of human programming is the cessation of desire. I think the right and left hemispheres of our brains are at odds with one another. I think that one side of the brain is strictly for survival at any cost - eat, steal, hoard, obtain power, fear, etc. I think the other side is what you would call the ability to be moral. I think that either side of this duality can be reinforced through use and that choice (or free will) is the initial inciting reaction or key ingredient which decides which side of your brain is going to operate now - once this decision is made or made repeatedly the ability to have an alternative choice is progressively eliminated.. Habits form easy. And de-programming strong reinforcement is often impossible. Behavior, therefore, is a product of environment, choice, use, habit (reinforced programs) and genetics. The brain is obviously a malleable organ and was intended to be as such. Pleasure, like pain, causes the release of chemicals in the brain based upon sensory input. As far as programs go - reinforcement creates a greater chemical need and a need for an increased sensory input to achieve the same (desirable) results - which is why (for example) people may engage in cumulatively more risky behaviors. On the other side of the coin are depressants (like alcohol) which negate sensory inputs. The more they are negated the more sensitive you become to the effects of not negating them. Notwithstanding these things, an initial choice needs to be made to engage in any activity which could create a spiral effect in either case. In today’s world when someone makes a decision to act as leader of our pack, we must question their motivations. Is the situation one where immoral behavior can be tolerated toward survival? Or is it just an extension of the pack leaders personal weaknesses?