The Law of the Jungle

One way to justify the exploitation of others is to blame nature. We are all familiar with the "law of the jungle". In the jungle, we believe, life is a harsh struggle for survival where the strongest and fittest individuals win and might makes right. We are particularly fond of referring to pack animals like wolves and chimpanzees, noting that they actually bully one another to the benefit of the group and seeing this as proof that it is natural to favor the group at the expense of certain individuals. 

Am I really claiming we humans still follow the cruel order of wild animals? No, not at all. It is far more complicated than that. The truth is, we use nature to prove that our society is not based on exploitation even though it is, a conclusion we reach through a kind of circular reasoning:

​1. We see the fact that animals eat each other and maintain hierarchies as proof that the exploitation of powerless is a trait we have inherited from them.

​2. We then see the fact that animals eat each other and maintain hierarchies as proof that might makes right in nature, meaning animals follow the law of the jungle.

​3. Next, we see our status as civilized beings as proof that we no longer follow the law of the jungle.

​4. Finally, we see the notion that we have moved beyond the law of the jungle as proof that civilization raises humans above nature.

​5. Since the law of the jungle is defined as might making right, we consider it proven that our society is not based on exploitation.

​Having well established that we have tamed nature through civilization, we are able to view every small sign of progress compared to earlier humans as a victory over our original cruel nature but remain blind to examples of cruelty surpassing anything seen before, such as the Holocaust or the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The fact that our society is in reality an institutionalization of the right of the strongest we can completely ignore.

​A long line of researchers has defended the prevailing social order by citing nature and humanity's inherent destructiveness. Many of them are immensely influential, which suggests that validating those in power is a formula for success:

—Founder of the theory of evolution Charles Darwin argued there are more and less "evolved" peoples, the most civilized and dominant ones ranking the highest. 

—Social Darwinist Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest", using examples like sparrows and turtles as proof that poor people are weak and rich people strong by nature.

—Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche claimed life does not merely strive for survival but for the gain of as much power as possible, arguing that modern civilization suppresses true human greatness due to the 'slave morality' of equal human worth.

—Founder of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud claimed human beings are born with an innate tendency toward destruction and violence, manifesting as aggression toward others, and argued the only purpose of civilization is to suppress these dark, natural instincts. 

Because Darwin himself was the first to abuse his discovery of natural selection, it seems logical to presume that the level of knowledge at the time was simply lower and the view of humanity less developed than today. That is also how most of us see it. Darwin’s belief in European superiority is almost consistently justified by the claim that Darwin was a "product of his time". But if that were the case, we would see an evolution within the field. This is not what happened. Instead, the same basic outlook has persisted since Darwin’s day:

—In the 1960s, zoologist and former Nazi Konrad Lorenz used violence among fish and birds as proof that humans have a natural aggression needing an outlet, claiming human civilization is so comfortable it risks making people too soft. Lorenz's insights into human aggression were considered so important that he was awarded the Nobel Prize. 

—In the 1970s, evolutionary theorist and Oxford professor Richard Dawkins used game theory to prove humans are genetically designed for egoism and dominance and argued that through culture and reason, humans can choose to build a society kinder than nature.

—In 1990s, evolutionary biologist and member of Jane Goodall’s research team Michael Ghiglieri used their observations of warring chimpanzees as proof that aggression is a natural human trait and something society need to curb.

—As recently as 2011, Harvard professor Steven Pinker used historical data and records of tribal warfare to show our ancestors were extremely violent compared to us and give proof that civilization is steadily taming our darker instincts.

—In 2018, professor Jordan Peterson used fights between lobsters as evidence that attempts to create a perfectly equal society go against the natural biological order.

Of course, researchers no longer claim powerless people are born weak, and certainly not that Europeans are superior. But they insist civilization is good for us. To defend a civilization built on the exploitation of the powerless—both within societies and across borders—is the same as saying the powerless are inferior and Europeans superior. Civilization does not make us increasingly better; it only makes us polish our language.

—In this way, we misuse science to prove animals follow the same logic as humans: the logic of absolute egoism. We call it "the law of the jungle". But we also use science to claim humans are less cruel than animals. This "mild" human way, we call "civilization". The result is a view of nature as cruel and human civilization as peaceful and empathetic by comparison—a view that seems perfectly waterproof to us. Then what is the point? 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:

—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.

In fact, the view that hierarchy is a natural order did not originate with the theory of evolution. The ancient Greeks held the same firm belief in a universal order where it was natural for some to rule and others to serve. Aristotle described this as a cosmic natural law, accessible through reason, based on the idea that everything in the universe has a specific purpose.

For the following two millennia, Aristotle's logic was used to justify an egoistic social order, for which evolutionary theory was later claimed to be the final scientific proof. The only difference was that with Darwin, the ruling elite could begin using pure biology to justify injustice.

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 realize that we are letting egoism rule. This requires us to identify the destructive norm that prevents us from clearly seeing our own egoism.