Where are we going, how can we change?

an investigation into the motivations for human action
as applicable to a sustainable future

The Human Condition

What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters, compared to what lies within us.

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Why does a person act?

A person acts at the basest level because he desires. This is called impulse-action. That which acts has desire. Desire is a need. Desire is necessary or there would be no action. Without action nothing would happen. Without happening nothing would exist. The proton desires the electron and, acting on this attraction, things are made.¹

An animal desires food and water. This need not be contemplated. There is a lacking which must be satisfied to sustain life. If there is no ability to act on desire, death will be the result. The rock is not living, not because it does not have desire, but because it is unable to act-it must be acted upon.

Why do I drink water? I drink water because I am thirsty. Thirsty does not enter the realm of thought. It need not be thought. Desire happens without thinking.

When desire is satiated this is recognized as pleasure. When a desire is not being met and crosses a critical threshold this is when suffering arises. The set point for what a person might recognize as suffering is subjective and based on an individual’s frame of reference. As well, the recognition of degrees of pleasure is subjective and can be influenced based on the individual’s frame of reference.

That which is necessarily desired for health and well-being can be confused with excessive growth of desire resultant from excessive stimulation and growth from the base healthy level. This unhealthy desire may convey a similar feeling, of that which must exist for the proper functioning of the individual, but will increase the likelihood for future suffering. The base healthy level of desire is that which, if maintained, will maximize the potential for longevity and quality of life. The need to satisfy desire well beyond the base healthy level is addiction. For instance, a person will over-eat because the body has grown too fat. Excess and unnecessary cells desire to be fed. The desire is truly present. However, this is detrimental to the overall well-being of the organism. Eating behavior can be modified when one has knowledge and control.

The ability to control desire, which is excessive and harmful to the overall well-being of the organism, is called either morality or common-sense. When one has lack of understanding of causal relationships, they can rely on morality, supported by myth, to help control excessive negative desire. This can help better the chances for the survival of the individual.

Applying the tools of: mythology, common-sense, or science to affect an outcome are examples of rational choice making. Rationality is conscious decision making. Humans modify, add, or subtract to action initiated by desires when making a rational decision.

For instance, does a human being desire to sit in an office cubicle for eight hours a day, for 40 hours a week, for 50 weeks a year? This is not an intrinsic desire. It is an action decided by conscious thought process, which is known to lead to value which can be traded for the satiation of underlying desire and to acquire those things which can increase the comfort of life.

A person is educated to perform tasks, however illogical from a standpoint of direct usefulness, to provide for sustenance. Not unlike the mouse trained to dispense its food by hitting a lever, the human is trained to perform tasks to receive money-the ability to buy food, water, and shelter in varying degrees of quality. Once sustenance has been assured, the human will seek to improve his quality of life.

A group of men bounce a ball and run back and forth attempting to put it through a hoop. Their compensation is great for this task and thousands of others appreciate it. The value in society is what? It must be a great value or the action would not be compensated so highly. The spectators are being entertained. The game is a means for providing entertainment or even meaning for the spectators.

For human beings, the abstract concept of meaning also helps to modify action. Humans are apparently the only creatures who are concerned with meaning. For instance, a bird does not consider the meaning of its nest, conveyed by the character and arrangement of the materials which constitute it. It must somehow inherently, or through education, understand the cause and effect of the arrangement of the sticks in its nest in order to increase the likelihood of safety and protection of its offspring. The nest shape is not representative of something of which it is not. Its shape is the direct resultant of its usefulness.

When a bird builds a nest there is no meaning in the shape of the nest. One may say it is concave and woven, matted thick with sticks and branches-a receptacle-safe for putting eggs. The safe and comfortable feeling of the nest-is what it is-for the bird. It fits the bird and the eggs. It is useful for holding the eggs and a safe place to keep them. It does not mean that it is safe-it is safe. The nest is built out of the materials at hand which can be manipulated by a bird, with a construction method the bird can readily accomplish with its beak and feet. The nest can be attached to a tree.

An architect could likely design a house as a nest. The designer may say this conveys the feeling of comfort and safety. However, in this case, the so-called meaning is coming from the remembrance of a bird’s nest not in the actual quality of the nest-house itself. A house built of sticks and straw is not actually safe but will likely pose a serious risk to burning, rot, or infestation by pests and rodents. This illustration points out that the human is likely the only animal who will do something consciously symbolic to express a meaning that is actually contradictory to the displayed article’s usefulness.

For humans, what is the purpose of meaning? What does it mean to mean something? A group of words means something in that it expresses a thought. An artistic picture means something in that it expresses a feeling.² Poetry means an emotion. Feelings, thoughts, emotions are not physical-they are intangibles. Meaning is the way to express the intangible.

There are many common human actions that provide a source of inquisition as to why they are done? There may not seem to be any intrinsic value to the individual and the underlying desire is hard to pinpoint.

For instance, it is common to see a smoker, on finishing a cigarette, throw the butt on the sidewalk. This is common behavior on the streets of towns and cities in The United States, or elsewhere in the world. This action is enlightening as to some citizens’ relationship to their environment. Often, there is a receptacle, in close proximity, where the butt could be thrown with limited effort, however, flicking it on the ground is chosen instead.

First, there is willfulness in this act. This is the will of the individual to exert influence. The right of the individual to exert influence has been supported and promoted by a trend toward an increased value for the liberty of the individual. Smokers, having been more and more marginalized by societies, are no longer permitted to smoke most places indoors, and having been relegated to the out of doors, normally end up on balconies, or on the sidewalk. The individual does not want to be controlled by any law he feels unjustly limits his liberty. The feeling may be latent, however, the individual does not want to have his beliefs legislated against, and may rebel in some manner. This is the will to control your own action. It is not to suggest that the liberty of the individual is not an archaic and intrinsic feeling, but only that its promotion as a right by societies has increased the acceptability for individuals to act in a way that may previously have been discouraged. The throwing of the butt on the sidewalk is at some level, even if sub-conscious, the smoker’s statement to the greater society of how he feels about his marginalization. The individual viewpoint wants to be expressed and understood.

Secondly, although, petty littering may be illegal, it is not enforced. Laws are not enforced which are not valued by the society at large. For example, the majority of people exceed the highway speed limit but are not stopped because it is understood that a speeding ticket is only issued for an excessive violation. The same is true for littering. The smoker would be less likely to throw an empty cigarette package on the sidewalk. However, the butt being small, and the infraction being petty, does not cross that threshold at which society’s values are violated. People may want to exclaim some power over their natural world, or exercise their intrinsic feeling for liberty, but are feeble when confronted by an actual danger or repercussion to their well-being. The threat of strict enforcement will overcome the individual’s self-exertion. This is the technique used to keep employees towing the company line or, at its more extreme, to keep the citizen’s mouth shut amongst dictatorial regimes. It is necessary to maintain the rights of the collective by limiting the expression of the individual.

Third, the common citizen, especially in societies such as the United States, has little feeling of responsibility for his environment beyond what is deeded to him. There is a limited understanding of connectedness to the natural world. This is the result of his society’s values. These values are transmitted to the citizen by either education or mis-education. His critical sensibilities may not have been strengthened to the point of being affected by that which would affront those who are more highly sensitized to visual relationships. There is, as well, little feeling of individual connectedness to the world around. His understanding of the collective liberty of individuals is likely completely unformed. It is highly likely that his belief system supports a compartmentalized separation of the environment between the man-made and the natural. The man-made environment is considered to be unnatural and so is less affected by pollution. As well, personal ownership of property enforces the belief, that the property is not the smoker’s own and, as such, has no affect on his well-being; it’s not where he lives and he is disaffected by anything that happens in this place.

Fourth, there is laziness. Laziness has a negative connotation but is, in its essence, an inherent quality of all things. It is of the same nature of taking the path of least resistance; such as the property of water to flow down stream and around, rather than through, impediments in its way. Laziness, however, differs from taking the path of least resistance in that it is a conscious decision. It is consciously decided to act with the least amount of exertion. This is due to a rationalizing quality amongst conscious beings. Another example, of the human’s intrinsic nature to take the most readily accessible way, can be seen on a University quadrangle. Where walking paths are not aligned in a pattern that coincides closely enough with the most direct path to destination points, pedestrians will wear their own paths through the grass in patterns more convenient for their normal travel.

Therefore, it is completely understandable that, even when there may be a trash can close by, the sidewalk has already been established as an acceptable place to deposit a cigarette butt, (through non-enforcement of petty littering) and it is more convenient.

Humans normally will take a path of least resistance unless they exert control. Control is used to minimize negative future outcomes from arising.

Other actions should be looked at to get further insight into how humans make choices.

Where basic sustenance has been provided for, and where physical comfort of the individual has been achieved, one can see choice action that has, at its core, the value of displaying material possessions. This is noticeable anywhere in the world. It is evident in all classes of society above the most extremely impoverished, but, as an example, it is quite obvious among the upper classes of American society, such as those who dwell in the American suburb. Much credit must go to Thorstein Veblen, who so precisely described more than 100 years ago the reasoning for the need to display possession, in his Theory of the Leisure Class. It is unnecessary to exhaust the topic broached here, as it is already contained and thoroughly examined in the above mentioned book, but some paraphrasing of this behavior is offered to gain insight. As Veblen pointed out, conspicuous consumption, conspicuous leisure, as well as dress, manners, and numerous additional behaviors have evolved simply as symbols of financial well-being. At their core, they have their rationale in the need, especially in regard to industrial societies, into which the entire globe has now been assimilated, to show the ability to pay and the need to emulate. The need to emulate in order to obtain reputability is as basic to the essence of animal behavior as any, and is mandated by the need to belong to the tribe. The behavior we mention here is interesting, like the previous discussion of meaning, in its necessity to be purely wasteful and useless. This uselessness does not imply that there is not sound reasoning for its existence, but merely that it does not provide for any direct increase in comfort to the individual or in the direct procurement of the elements of sustenance.

An example of the wasteful, from the American suburb, is the large and pristinely manicured lawn. The needs for maintenance of this lawn are time consuming and costly. The function of the lawn has really no practical use, and although resembling a small-scale pasture or grazing field, does not, of course, serve this purpose. A lawn may provide for the play of children, or perceived privacy. However, it is actually rare to see children playing on the lawns of the average American suburban home, and even less so amongst the wealthier of whom we are speaking here. As well, privacy would be more usefully afforded by a landscape shielded from the street, rather than one fully on display for the public to admire with the frontal elevation of the house fully exposed. If used for the purpose of play, the lawn will cease to have the well-groomed character and would not be of the type referred to here. The well-groomed suburban yard is nothing more than a symbol of the owner’s ability to afford it. It is maintained due to the human’s need to emulate those of the class of which he associates himself. As Veblen wrote, “Many items of customary expenditure prove on analysis to be almost purely wasteful, and they are therefore honorific only, but after they have once been incorporated into the scale of decent consumption, and so have become an integral part of one’s scheme of life, it is quite as hard to give up these as it is to give up many items that conduce directly to one’s physical comfort, or even that may be necessary to life and health.”³

If one travels through the upper-class American suburb with a visitor from a foreign place of less advantage, she or he may be queried as to why such arable and seemingly valuable land would be planted in such a manner; when a more useful planting, such as in the keeping of a plot of crops, or an orchard, or grazing ground for the maintenance of small farm animals, or space for sheltering hogs or chickens could be had. These visitors are unaccustomed to the symbolic, if practically useless, but necessarily wasteful, purpose of the yard as status symbol essential to the culture they are observing. They are mistaken in thinking the ground could serve better purposes by becoming practically useful; even if in the culture they come from this would be the case.

Other useless symbols from the American suburb such as: the non-functioning shutter, the dormer without occupied space behind, the mixing of elements of historic architectural styles, and the unused formal living room, are not for any practical use, but are simply a display of wastefulness necessary to show the inhabitants pecuniary advantage.

In Veblen’s time, wasteful display was more limited amongst a smaller middle and upper class as more of the populace struggled around the sustenance level and for basic comforts. Today however, even those considered poor, have enough money, often available through credit, to be able to display items such as electronics, automobiles and clothing necessary to emulate the class with which they wish to be associated.

People have an inherent need to emulate those of the class in which they identify. They will strive to appear as having met and surpassed the level of those who they would like to associate. “In any community where goods are held in severalty it is necessary, in order to ensure his own piece of mind, that an individual should possess as large a portion of goods as others with whom he is accustomed to class himself; and it is extremely gratifying to possess something more than others.”⁴ This is apparent, perhaps most readily for all classes, in their choice of dress and appearance.

The display of clothing and modification of individual appearance, which is inherently useless and purposely wasteful, abounds. The wearing of the man’s tie is an example of a display of a completely useless item; the function of which is not of any practical value, (and in fact may be detrimental to the well-being of the user in that it can impede the blood circulation to the upper extremity, or end up in the wearer’s soup). Although, of no practical worth, the tie is necessary, on a symbolic level, to simply say for the wearer, “I understand that the occasion, at which I am in attendance, requires the wearing of a tie.” The tie is simply a means of displaying the wearer’s knowledge of etiquette. The tie, it seems, may be losing its necessity for some occasions, where it was once always mandatory, and may possibly go the way of the woman’s corset, not to be seen again. If popular opinion shifts in this direction causing it to go out of fashion, it will need to be replaced by some other emblem, perhaps by a properly tasteful tattoo or piercing.

The more up to date examples of human display in the field of physical alteration are, in reality, equally wasteful and of the practically useless nature. The popularity of tattooing and plastic surgery has never been in greater vogue. Both are modifications of the individual allowing them to fit better into the society with which they wish to be associated. Although both present some dangers to the actual physical well-being of the individual, and unlike clothing are irreversible, they are none the less deemed necessary by the displayer. The extreme nature of the act, certainly, is part of the attraction for it communicates a level of commitment, beyond merely a change of clothes, to the society being appealed to.

Plastic surgery mainly concerns itself with a more youthful and more attractive appearance of the individual. Of course, the recipient will not actually live longer and their genetic make-up has not been altered. However, if the job is well-done, someone may be fooled that the modified is younger than their actual years. Breast implants and other surgeries are valued so that the individual is more attractive to their company. This is not mainly different than the emulation and maintenance of possessions by conspicuous consumption. The natural instinct is to indicate an advantage based on what society values.

Another prevailing belief manifested in the cultivation of bodily perfection, and in the manicured lawn, is the power of the human to exert maximum control over mother-nature. The natural processes are believed, by the majority of Americans, and other Westernized cultures, to be at the mercy of human choice-making. American society increasingly displays choice-making based on the notion that the human is in an ever-strengthened position to exert control over the natural world. We are free to manipulate nature by turning back the hands of time, changing bodily appearance, and cultivating nature to perfection. This myth is shattered time and again, for instance, when the mother who has ‘improved’ her appearance through plastic surgery, gives birth to a child of homely appearance due to her original unaltered genetic make-up. It is likely, we could reach a stage, if allowed to continue along current lines of thinking, where the genetics of the individual could be altered to choose only those traits preferred, and this is apparently a central motivation in genetic research. In another common example, people are astonished when natural disaster hits their community, and the belief of man’s control over nature is proven incorrect when their house is destroyed. Typically, citizens are outraged to learn that the authorities or scientists have not adequately controlled mother-nature.

The natural requirement of the human to strive for emulation and reputability, (to fit in), should not be underestimated and can come to the advantage to rapidly speed change in style and a change in popular values. One may witness the American society's conformity to so-called ‘politically correct’ behavior which had its origin in the culture’s acceptance and promotion of civil rights.

It is not within the scope of this writing to exhaust every nuance for all the motivations for human action, especially as this information is stored and readily available in already-written volumes describing human sociology. However, it is important to recognize those most pervasive and common motivations which guide the mainstream of our behavior in order to understand to what degree action can be expected to be modified without venturing outside what could be commonly accepted by individuals.

There are two characteristics of the common human psychology, which are oppositional in nature, but occur in varying degree, in all those operating within the current global economy. These are referred to as the predatory and the sympathetic. The predatory nature manifests itself as: clannishness, cunning, unscrupulous, and dishonest behavior without regard for others.⁵ The individual is all- important and any means will be used to satisfy his/her wants. This is opposed by the sympathetic nature which values honesty, truthfulness, fair dealing, and the well-being of others. Both of these traits are inherent in every individual with either taking the predominant proportion. They are changeable within the individual at different points in his/her lifetime, or even at different times of the same day, as influenced by different conditions of the environment. These traits have been recognized as being carried within us from the most primitive parts of our nature. It is believed by some sociologists that what is referred here as the sympathetic is the more archaic and was in place amongst the very earliest society of humans. This stage has been argued by some to have been a non-predatory stage. The later evolved barbaric stage, which emphasized the predatory nature, followed later upon the development of the concepts of personal property and status. That the establishment of these behavioral motivations manifested themselves in evolving stages of human development does not seem possible to definitively prove. If one looks at the behavior of apes he will see both motivations manifesting themselves within the same individual and within the group at various times. This does not lend itself to supporting the notion of separate development but does support the notion of an archaic and inherent character within the human species.

The predatory nature of the individual is expressed at its most extreme as violent and barbaric behavior. As this behavior is outside the bounds of what we know consider civilized, it more often shows itself in less extreme ways as: cunning, scheming, clannishness, dishonest, and self-serving character and in which the predator takes advantage with utter disregard for others. Our current competitive global economic system values and promotes this. To succeed in business, it is necessary to develop this attitude. The society recognizes, values, and appreciates these traits. They are of course tempered within the individual, to a greater or lesser degree, by law and moral values which incorporate the sympathetic counter-side. Business schools promote predatory action, which as has been said, is already intrinsically available in our nature. The most moneyed individuals often have cultivated their predatory side and have reaped the reward of wealth as testimony to their success. The lawyer, who is mainly an agent of the moneyed and a protector of the predatory business culture; even if a prosecutor for the government, (as the government is run by the moneyed, and also needs the protection of the law which works for it, and protects its underlying economic values,) puts these traits most clearly on public display. The lawyer, in a slightly lesser degree than the business mogul, exhibits the predatory traits but makes them more visible to the public simply because of the more public nature of his/her profession.

The mogul’s predatory nature is cultivated behind closed doors, but is appreciated in board rooms, trading floors, and in the offices of professionals, and valued in proportion to the zest for monetary gain. Take for instance, the beliefs promoted and rewarded on the recently popular television show, The Apprentice, where the profit motive for the individual’s company is the primary concern and motivation. Behaviors are modified to serve this underlying motivation. One often hears the phrase, “its only business” to express a state of behavior which is dictated by the necessities of the market place but, if viewed by the more sympathetically inclined viewpoint, would appear otherwise distasteful. It should be stressed that, unlike Veblen, who so accurately and thoroughly described these predatory tendencies, but believed them to be occurring, almost to the exclusion of the sympathetic nature for individuals within the most moneyed class, it is not believed that in any individual, other than perhaps the criminally insane, the predatory nature always takes the overwhelming point of view. Even the billionaire businessperson, who acts in a predatory fashion by necessity in business, exhibits his/her sympathetic nature outside the office. This is often exhibited by philanthropic acts, charitable good-will, and religious devoutness.

We recognize the archaic sympathetic nature of humans everywhere. This is genuinely expressed by individuals all the time: as holding the door, or stopping to help a stranded motorist. It is true that charitable acts may be motivated by the predatory side of human nature in order to esteem oneself to the greater public, and it is sometimes hard to distinguish what action is done simply because of an inherent need to help, from what is done as a ploy for public approval. However, extreme cases of heroism are not rarely documented which point to this underlying un-coerced nature of the archaic sympathetic traits.

For example, in a fortuitous occurrence of synchronicity, shortly after the preceding statement was written, a disabled woman requiring the use of a crutch was observed to have fallen down on a sidewalk of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Before the street could be crossed, six or seven passers-by had already stopped to help this woman and were in the process of assisting her comfort and phoning for an ambulance. This example is as good as any other as emblematic of the interconnectedness felt between members of the human race.

Religious belief systems help to reinforce the interconnectedness of man, or sometimes all living things in nature, and so foster the expression of the sympathetic side. This can lead to conflict in individuals who are church goers but must indulge their predatory character in order to succeed in business. The guilt that may arise in these business people is likely one underlying motivation for philanthropic acts. It is not being suggested that Capitalist societies only reinforce the predatory nature. However, the degree to which the predatory nature is required is compulsory to the ferocity of the competitive market place entered into.

It should be emphasized that what has been referred to as the predatory nature is not intended to insinuate a negative connotation or to imply that the sympathetic nature is more ethical or correct. The attempt is only to define the motivations to act which can appear contradictory within the nature of a citizen living in an industrialized global economy. Both are considered essential to adaptation for success under this system.

In an extreme case where no control is exerted and the predatory nature is allowed to exert total influence, one may commit murder or steal. In a practical sense, this is not difficult to accomplish. Law can not prevent anyone from doing these things. The ability to decide is completely within the control of each individual. It is highly publicized in civilized societies that murder will not be tolerated and will be prosecuted. The majority will decide not to do these things. This is not to imply that the most barbarous acts are resultant from the most instinctive desire. It should be qualified that the belief is that barbaric action does result from an archaic predatory nature. However, this predatory adaptation first appeared at a later stage of development in the evolution of organisms, after the concept of possession had been formalized along with the right of the individual as separate from the collective. The values for peacefulness, truth, appreciation of workmanship, and the importance of the collective over the individual are more basic and intrinsic to Evolution. These values, referred to as the sympathetic, are the more primitive of the evolutionary traits available to the human being. The sympathetic nature still remains in evidence, even if its emphasis has been suppressed by the violent barbarian stages of society. The barbarian character is now more generally evident in its less physically violent, but still predatory manner, exhibited most clearly as business or political sense. However, the nature for murder and violent acts within society has been increasingly deselected as a positive advantage-giving trait.

Other types of killing, such as within a war, are taught as special cases where killing another human being is acceptable or even honored. Education and emulation greatly influences the action of the individual. It is a popular and often repeated theme, especially in recent times, with the decreasing honorific quality of war, the conflict that arises, even within the individual, between the most primitive qualities of human nature, (the sympathetic), and the later evolved, but still archaic, (predatory nature). This is typified by the soldier who finds himself in a fox hole with an enemy he has just killed, and uncontrollably on contemplating the personality of his murdered enemy, is overwhelmed by his primitive emotions of sympathy. More barbaric expressions of the predatory nature, such a dueling or the keeping of slaves, have gone out of fashion as values to be emulated.

Education can support that which is inherent in human nature. It is not part of healthy human nature to murder and murder is not accepted either by the now promoted predatory values or the essentially peaceful sympathetic nature. Education and mis-education reinforce and emphasize the archaic natures. Those, for example, who have been encouraged towards the cultivation of critical thinking but who have been prejudiced against a full appreciation of the predatory nature, will have difficulty discerning the contradiction of murder being more or less acceptable under different circumstances. This stress on a biased value system toward the sympathetic nature was typified by the peace and love generation of the 60’s. Flower power preached love and understanding against the predatory nature they recognized in the Viet Nam War or the struggle for civil rights. However, when confronted, for example, with the predatory necessity required to succeed within a global economic system, the overwhelming majority had to abandon their extreme counter-culture stance, in order to re-enter the mainstream economic system and accept its required value for use of the predatory nature in order to achieve success. Some may have chosen not to attempt to succeed economically, as they could not assimilate the nature of these two divergent natural necessities.

Of course, there are those rare people who make decisions for ideological beliefs that may be out of tune with prevailing thought. These can be found among the highly devout. They may shelter themselves in a monastic manner from others. This is not found in the mainstream of religious devotees, who must engage the global economy, but is manifested by a less social type.

Notes

1. The concept of innate desire was first made clear to the author in a seminar by Jeffrey Kipnis, The Ohio State University, 1998.

2. Leo Tolstoy, What Is Art? London: Penguin Books, 1995. The purpose of art is argued to be best defined in this book and its sentiment as to art’s value is adhered to throughout the writing.

3. Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: Mentor, 1953, p.80.

4. Ibid, p.38.

5. Ibid, The predatory nature is accepted as defined by Veblen throughout this book.