TyrantValois wrote...
Ok, I'll share my opnion, and will be hated because of it. I'll be hated because of something incredibly simple, yet amazing. Love and hate are, as are feelings, are ways to socialize. We, humans, are NOT social beings. We grouped up and started this lovely amazing thing called society to make sure we get strenght in numbers. The world is cold and brutal, and we survived as a group, first in families, then larger groups, until cities and all... Long history short, to make socialization easier, we tend to love who we can get along with, and hate people we can't.
So yes, love and hate does need a reason. But we love and hate people for the wrong reason. And no, utopy is utopy and will still be. It's not possbile for somthing like world peace and anything like that to happen. We're warriors, we fight along ourselves for no reason, just for the pleasure of it. The humans work quite simply: we tendo to the pleasure, and run from the pain. We feel pleasure on other pain, and even on our won. War(mental confrotation), in every aspect, is a giant magnet lurking our personality into it. We're made of hate, war and pain. Love is a misunderstanding, peace is a interval between wars and pleasure comes with pain. That's all there's to it.
Time for the haters to show up!
First off, I'd like to point out that prefacing and concluding your post with, essentially,
haters gonna hate is not nearly as clever as you think it might be. If anything, the fact that you're self-aware of this makes me want to believe you're just posting in a tongue-and-cheek sort of fashion. Though, I don't think that's the case.
Humans are social creatures and social evolution has been taking place in humans since the great migration out of Africa between 125,000 and 60,000 years ago (Meredith 148). The act of war, alone, is an act of social interaction. And the behavioral trait of altruism could not exist in a species that is not a social one (Sahllins 12-16); just the same, neither could spite as it requires both a provider and a receiver.
Perhaps early --and I mean early--- human beings were not social creature, but the humans of today, the humans of yesterday, yesteryear, and of the last 60,000 millennium, are.
I won't call you ignorant because you seem to have a basic understanding of how societies developed, but I will call you stupid for coming to the conclusion that you did with that knowledge. Perhaps you're just in that teenage angst phase and are listening to too much Linkin Park. Maybe, maybe not. But I hope that's the case (or something similar) because at least you can grow out of it.
Works Cited:
Evolution and culture. Ed. by Marshall David Sahlins and Elman Service. Ann Arbor, MI: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1960; Andrey Korotayev, Nikolay Kradin, Victor de Munck, and Valeri Lynsha.
Alternatives of Social Evolution. Vladivostok: Far Eastern Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009. P.12-59.
Martin Meredith (10 May 2011).
Born in Africa: The Quest for the Origins of Human Life. PublicAffairs. p. 148. ISBN 9781586486631.