The Irrefutable Disproof

Then what is the point of our belief in the law of the jungle? The answer: None at all.

In reality, it is absolutely pointless to use animals as proof that the darkest sides of human civilization are "natural". Animals have not yet killed defenseless civilians during their wars. Animals do not invent weapons of mass destruction. Animals do not threaten the climate. Animals do not prove scientifically that unemployment and wars are necessary for economy. Animals do not enact laws that protect property and status instead of existential rights. The ones who follow the law of the jungle more than any other animal are human beings. 

The only reason we argue this way is that we need justification—because deep down, we know we are exploiting the powerless, and we feel it is wrong.

There is another fact we have to take into account before vi är färdiga med diskussionen om djungelns lag. Bevisen för naturens våldsamhet håller inte och det vet de flesta seriösa forskare:

—Lorenz' aggressive fishes and birds were studied in captivity. 

—Goodall's and Ghiglieri's warring chimps had been lured to the site by a feeding station with bananas, creating a situation of forced competition for resources that resembled captivity. 

—The status differences between Peterson's lobsters increased dramatically in lab tanks. 

Obviously, it is overcrowding that drives animal aggression. This means that no matter how much we want to, we cannot use animals to defend civilization; at most, we can use them to explain why civilization drives aggression, något som påpekats av otaliga forskare, bland annat Rutger Bregman nedan.

In fact, there have always been researchers who questioned the interpretation of the theory of evolution held by Darwin and his followers. It is simply that they have rarely been given the same space as those who defended the status quo. Here are a few examples:

—Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin's forgotten co-discoverer of the theory of evolution, argued that our capacity for empathy, morality, creativity and abstract thinking proves we are destined for something greater than dominance.

—The russian prince and geographer Pyotr Kropotkin's  studies of Siberian wildlife proved that the social Darwinists were wrong and that empathy pays off evolutionarily, species that thrived the most in the hard polar environment not being the most selfish but the most helpful.

—Alfred Adler, Freud's forgotten colleague who broke away due to the latter's dark view of humanity, found in his studies of children that the hunger for power is not innate but stems from a harsh upbringing. This drive spreads because those who have suppressed their own original softness come to hate it in others and seek to eradicate it.

—The largely forgotten psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Arno Gruen reached exactly the same conclusion half a century later in his search for the root of human evil.

—Psychoanalyst and Holocaust survivor Erich Fromm debunked Konrad Lorenz's claim that humans are violent and dominant by nature, citing data from hundreds of primitive cultures lacking both war and hierarchies.

All five realized that science was being misused to defend a destructive social order and that society needed fundamental change to better suit humanity.

​In recent decades, research has provided increasingly concrete evidence that large-scale societies—in short, civilization—have made humans so destructive.

—Primatologist Frans de Waal showed that stressed chimpanzees in captivity are particularly prone to bullying group members perceived as weak. He also debunked the myth that humans were the ones to introduce empathy, cooperation, and fairness to the world.

— Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky and epidemiologist Michael Marmot showed that both monkeys and humans literally become ill from status gaps.

—Anthropologist Robin Dunbar, by studying the neocortex of various primate species and comparing it to their troop sizes and early human societies, proved that the human brain can only maintain stable social relations with about 150 people and is therefore not designed for large-scale societies.

—Anthropologist Christopher Boehm used both archaeological findings and data from modern hunter-gatherer societies worldwide to prove that the social structure prevailing for 90% of human history is normally strictly egalitarian.

—Historian Rutger Bregman, having reviewed all existing research, showed that for 95% of history, humans survived through kindness and cooperation rather than dominance. He also demonstrated how the power-hungry among us later used the claim that humans are inherently lazy and selfish to create a society that forces us to become exactly that.

—Neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman prooved our reaction to social exclusion is as intense as physical pain and processed in exactly the same part of the brain, which indicates that in reality the need for belonging is our strongest driving force. 

—Creativity researcher Alfonso Montuori, like Wallace, Adler, and Gruen, concluded that it is natural for a being as complex as a human to cooperate. He suggests we must make an active decision to abandon our natural empathy to engage in the struggle for power. We only make that decision when the benefits—likely security—are significant enough.

​—Social psychologist Cameron Anderson showed that status in harmonious groups is based on knowledge and competence—how valuable someone is to the group—rather than a reign of terror. However, because we tend to interpret confident behavior as a sign of competence, we can be deceived into giving status to the wrong people in a society where status has instead become a matter of pure dominance.

—Neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky showed that even among apes, hierarchies built on aggression can be broken by cooperative group-members. After the most aggressive, dominant males of a baboon troop died in a disease outbreak, the troop shifted from a culture of violence to one of cooperation and low aggression that persisted for decades, even as new males joined from the outside. 

Furthermore, several researchers, including Sapolsky, Dunbar, Boehm, and Bregman, have discovered something interesting regarding the effects of testosterone and social control. They do not deny that some individuals are more prone to developing dominant behaviors than others. However, they have shown that this aggression can be restrained in small societies. For example, Sapolsky's studies of baboons living near a garbage dump showed that after the most aggressive, dominant males of a baboon troop died in a disease outbreak, the troop shifted from a culture of violence to one of cooperation and low aggression that persisted for decades, even as new males joined from the outside. 

Scientists with a gentle view of nature, evolution, and humanity represent the scientific majority today. However, they receive no recognition because their results show that we must fundamentally restructure society to live in a way that is natural for us.

​Even those who defended the ancient social order faced resistance. A few decades after Plato and Aristotle established that some people are created to rule and others to serve, the Cynics and Stoics argued that our reason and freedom of thought determine our value, rather than what or whom we own.

​In the time of Jesus, the Essenes believed that all people carry the same divine spark of life and abolished slavery within their own group. The early Christians also maintained that everyone is of equal value. They did not revolt openly against the Roman system but instead undermined it from within by treating slaves as full members of the household.

​Later, in the mid-18th century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the introduction of private property when humans became sedentary led to inequality by triggering greed, competition for resources, and the drive to dominate others. Rousseau believed that civilization does not refine humanity at all but only makes people false. For example, the wealthy use their superior knowledge to deceive the poor into accepting laws designed to protect the property of the rich.

If we want to use nature to justify the exploitation of powerless members of our own and other species, we should at least stop speaking of "survival of the fittest" and admit what we mean is prosperity for the bullies. What it is actually about is a system where the most egoistic individuals are able to take control and use this power to increase their advantages—a system only highly intelligent creatures like humans could develop. 

As long as egoism is allowed to rule, this system will be unbreakable because the more power you hold, the more you benefit from it. This means that to break the destructive structures of society, we need to realize that egoism is not as profitable as we thought. Or, we must become less selfish and consciously choose another way.

But to be able to do any of this, we first need to see through our own thought structures. This requires us to identify the destructive norm that prevents us from clearly seeing our own egoism.