2. Considerations about human nature
The economic and political systems that govern us have evolved from successive adaptations made to earlier status quo situations, but as one might expect, these systems are still encumbered with the baggage of past autocratic regimes. Thus, it is not difficult to conclude that they are not meeting the demands and expectations of modern human beings.
The time is right, therefore, to introduce changes, taking advantage of the multitude of information age tools now available to us. This is what Ergonocracy is all about: the design of a new regime. However, when a new model is created in any field of knowledge, we must first start with an analysis of the real characteristics of contemporary human beings, as it is crucial to understand the traits and the nature of those it is meant to serve.
Due to the fact that Ergonocracy models attempt to promote the best possible surroundings, or environment, for human beings to inhabit, it is essential to be aware of how modern man really functions, both at the micro level, i.e. in individual terms, and at the macro level, i.e. in sociological terms. This is the same type of approach a doctor would take. Firstly, he or she gets to know the patient and tries to identify the disease. Only then can the doctor prescribe the best type of treatment.
Here follows a summary of a man’s principal characteristics, at least those likely to have the greatest impact on the definition of these models, as observed through the lens of
Ergonocracy.
It can be discerned that …
Human beings’ polygamist nature will also be detailed, although this conclusion is not extremely relevant to define the political and economic models.
Ergonocracy sees human beings in this way for a number of reasons.
2.2 Human beings are extremely adaptable
This statement is broadly consensual and the conclusion unavoidable. Human beings are adaptable by nature, which is simultaneously our greatest strength and our most serious weakness.
It is logical to conclude that man is altruistic and behaves well if the environment that surrounds him and his life experiences generate feelings of fraternity, kindness and mutual assistance. This only occurs if the given environment possesses characteristics that allow people to coexist without reasons for fear, anxiety or anger.
Of course, the reverse is also true, that harsh environments tend to produce rude and hardened people.
If there is indeed a relationship between the nature of the environment and the nature of man, then an effort must be made to modify man’s surroundings. This tendency has been taken into account in the defining of political, economic, social and judicial Ergonocracy models.
Even though man is demonstratively adaptable, changes must be dealt with carefully. Man is biologically programmed to accept change, as he constantly seeks to improve processes and find better ways to solve problems. At the same time, however, man has a tremendous fear of the unknown, not to mention the well-known behaviours associated with resistance to change. This implies that all Ergonocracy models ought to be introduced in such a way as to be regarded as systems that will ease people’s lives, not complicate them further.
The fact that man is adaptable brings up another concern. In defining Ergonocracy models, we have to take into account that from a very early age, human beings are extremely susceptible to the messages they receive. Education is therefore fundamental, being the foundation for all achievement. Also, even though they are highly adaptable, humans tend to be creatures of habit and routine, another reason why education is crucial, as these habits and routines should be established and guided from a very early age.
2.3 Human nature is nomadic and “tribalistic”
Another essential feature of human beings that Ergonocracy models consider being of great importance, is the fact that human nature is nomadic and “tribalistic”. This trait has been genetically programmed into human beings over the overwhelming majority of our evolutionary history.
Let’s next discuss the concept of the enlarged tribe.
According to this concept, the greater the feeling of identification amongst neighbours, the easier people will find it to integrate into a group or tribe. The sense of belonging to a group will be mutually reinforcing and bring benefits both to the individual and the community.
The implications of the concept of the enlarged tribe naturally led to the concept of the Global Community, which extends the concept of the tribe to all of a country’s citizens. It also helped to engender the concept of Local Communities of Common Interest; the notion that each Local Community must organise itself as an independent and self-managed unit, much as if it were a tribe.
The concept of the enlarged tribe reinforces the theory that Homo sapiens is the result of a natural evolutionary process, in a constant state of change and adaptation to his environment. Indeed, we spent by far the longest period in our evolutionary history in a primitive environment, i.e. man was one among many predators, claiming predominance at the top of the food chain through use of intelligent and coordinated strength. During these ages, man assumed a nomadic lifestyle where hunting and plant gathering activities played a dominant role.
As this epoch lasted hundreds of thousands of years, it is natural to conclude that the traits acquired during this period were those that contributed most to forming the human temperament.
Although nobody knows exactly, the tribe - more precisely the nomadic tribe - on average could consist of between twenty to ninety people. It represented the centre of each individual’s world and the only source of vital support available.
Some authors claim that during this era people started to implement some type of functional division of tasks between men and women, creating relationships in which the weakest individuals could be assured of some support by the group. To be expelled from the group tribe would be, in effect, a death sentence, as an isolated individual would be vulnerable to the attacks of a rival group and, more importantly, would have to protect him or herself from other predators. Not forgetting the difficulties he or she would experience in obtaining food and shelter.
It is most likely that each member of a tribe experienced deep feelings of belonging to his or her group. However, this feeling of being part of a close-knit family differs completely from another type of feeling about family that would arise later. There were no specific unions destined to assure children’s upbringing and education, because all children were part of the group and were therefore cared for by everyone. Every man would tend to act as if any child was his descendant and, indeed, this could literally be possible, as many authors believe that sex was practiced in an amorphous manner within the tribe6 and that there were no specific obligations among the members of the group, the natural exception being mother-child relationships.
The objective was the continuation of the group as a whole, not merely one’s family lineage as later came to happen.
This resulted in continuous food surpluses, which meant that a significant part of the tribe’s members started to have free time to apply to non-core activities.
For some, this consisted of spending time in leisure activities, but others would dedicate their time to specific, productive activities. During this period, mankind saw the rise of craftsmen, healers and the first practitioners of witchcraft while, at the same time, trade and communication among tribes were spreading.
Now that groups of hunter-gatherers had transformed themselves into farmers, they discovered that they had lost the mobility they once had. Man had become sedentary. Now he had time to invent and discover, and to start looking for new ways to meet his needs. People began to gather in ever larger groups where the natural order of the tribe no longer worked. Previously, all differences had been resolved within a given family and monitored by the tribe leader and the elders. But the tribe had ceased to exist.
In its place, man saw the rise of permanent fixed structures, buildings, castles, and villages, along with a new breed of leaders who ultimately exercised distant, cold and self-interested power. These new bosses, protected by their castles and armies, forced the creation of a functional means of exchange, directly under their control.
Most individuals became sedentary and because they now lived in a fixed location, started building their own dwellings. Now the individual’s social core was different, that role no longer being played by the tribe. This new trend resulted in family structure being reduced to its minimum social expression: the couple and their children.
The primary objective was no longer the survival of the group, but the continuity of one’s lineage through the survival of the family unit. Man could no longer rely on the support of the group in raising his children, although in many cases there were places where children were cared for while parents were working. These caretakers were often close family members, usually older relatives who were no longer physically able to contribute to the family by working in the fields.
The couple’s relationship tended to become more durable as each couple had to take care of its own offspring. The male started to take direct responsibility in child raising, so he could no longer take the risk that these children were not his. Gradually, he became increasingly autocratic, using his physical supremacy to demand complete fidelity from his wife as a way of ensuring his offspring, as he could not afford to spend his energy on illegitimate descendants.
The male had a tough life, however, shouldering the burden of the harsher agricultural tasks as well as many other chores that required great exertion. Undoubtedly, additional help and labour was always welcome. More children meant a larger work force, which meant a larger area for production and increased productivity.
Furthermore, with the development of means of exchange, couples realised that the more children they had, the greater their security would be when they reached old age, as they no longer had the tribe to protect them. Thus, the population grew at an increasingly faster pace and soon the first civilizations began to emerge.
This trend toward a sedentary civilization was an inevitable and important milestone in our evolution. According to the enlarged tribe theory, this is a relatively recent process, which means that our present lifestyle - our modern ecosystem - is not in harmony with our real nature.
The conclusion is that because we have difficulty adapting to our new surroundings, living the way we do, produces harmful consequences at all levels and is responsible for much of our anti-social behaviour.
Therefore, the obligation of “homo technologicus”7 is to attempt to return man to his origins by changing his lifestyle and environment so that, in behavioural terms, he functions as a member of a tribe. This means putting into place the concept of the Local Community of Common Interest, where each person has the opportunity to choose his or her type of neighbours according to shared interests and lifestyles.
In this way we can replicate a return to our roots, resuming and correcting our evolutionary pathway, which was interrupted with the advent of agriculture and a sedentary civilization. Ergonocracy models take into account these reasons and embrace the concept of mobility by promoting long-distance work models, when possible, and streamlining residential relocation procedures.
Following this line of reasoning, Ergonocracy rejects the concept of personal leadership, proposing in its place a model based on collective decision-making. The assumption is, also, that people will widely accept all decision-making mechanisms that resemble the practical, simple and direct application of power that occurred in most tribes throughout our evolutionary process.
2.4 Human beings are insecure, selfish and easily corrupted
It is not difficult to allege that, generally, human beings are insecure, selfish and prone to corruption. Ergonocracy argues that all power exerts a bad influence on human behaviour. The individuals who hold it easily, succumb to corruption, which is one of the reasons why Ergonocracy proposes an innovative political model where all power is diluted and depersonalised, as far as possible.
Ergonocracy also places special emphasis on the historic origin of the concept of power and the notion of ‘production means possession’, which helps to explain the desire for power seen throughout the enlarged tribe era. Many history books claim that human history is the story of the struggle for power, as this phenomenon is at the root of most events and changes. It is therefore of the utmost importance to understand what is behind the desire for power.
The common denominator for all power plays, in wars, “coups d’etat”8, alliances, competition over commercial routes, empire formation, etc is the desire on the part of man or a group of men to attain power. Gaining and exercising power causes them to experience pleasure, as these two elements are related. Basic pleasure comes from the satisfaction of a need, which explains why power-seekers strive to demonstrate their superiority and dominance over others.
In this context there are many issues that are difficult to understand: why do individuals, who are already multi-billionaires, keep up their constant struggle to add to their already over-stuffed bank accounts? Why do all powerful men continue to strive to enlarge their domains?
The answer to these questions is subjective, though many complex explanations have been proposed. The fact is, for these kinds of men, power and the feelings it generates have become addictive9, so these individuals feel a real need to acquire and exercise it. The big question is: where do these needs come from?
Many reasons can be considered:
Besides unconscious desires, other reasons for power-seeking have to do with one very important aspect - fear:
Other power-seekers overestimate their capacities and truly believe that they are the people best suited for the mission. Still others firmly believe that they are working to satisfy the aspirations of their support group.
Although each case is different, many will agree that power is not an end in itself because it appears that most of those who hold it, are rarely able to take pleasure in their possessions and achievements. In some cases, this leads to feelings of disillusionment, although many power-seekers knew all along that this would happen when they made the decision to seek power. So, what is behind this ambition?
Above all, it should be noted that each human being is aware of his or her pettiness, fragility and mortality. Seeking power in all probability meets a subconscious need to compensate and take control over events. It represents a vain attempt to feel less vulnerable. In this way man at least has the illusion of overcoming his own mortality, as if to say: “Sure, we are weak, fragile and on our way to death, but still, I am the strongest”.
This sense of fragility that we all feel is due to our fear of disease and death, which explains why many people try to deal with this anguish through the “aspirin of social ascension”, or the desire to show others their power and their wealth.
We now find ourselves at a stage with which proponents of Ergonocracy take issue. This involves the appalling behaviours as snobbery, vanity, greed, pride, elitism, hooliganism and extreme forms of fleeting gratification that characterises the quest for power. Regrettably, power-seeking is also associated with creating façades, of favouring appearance over substance.
The most ignoble of these people are those who, instead of trying to evolve, prefer to diminish others so that they can stand out. Some people call this behaviour levelling down, because it is easier to do than working towards a positive, personal goal. This is the so-called “crab”10 effect, which is all too common and is arguably one of the worst forms of selfishness.
Each human being feels the world through his or her own senses and, like all living creatures, we are locked inside our own bodies looking out at the world from our own unique perspective. We are equipped with a well-honed sense of survival, which makes us selfish, self-centred beings, even though we do possess social skills and the ability to work in teams. This natural tendency to be egocentric leads us to conclude that all environment models should oppose this trend by promoting mutual cooperation that benefits both the individual and the group.
However, these models can never rely on a natural tendency in human nature to co-operate. Human beings will only do so if they feel they have something to gain. We must also remember that mankind is weak when confronted with opportunities for corruption. This, among many other reasons, is why we should promote the concept of dilution of power and endorse collective decision-making processes.
A factor which apparently seems to be an exception to this rule involves competitive activities, which should be fostered, since competition allows people to get rid of excess energy and negativity. People who do not have the opportunity to consume their accumulated energy, tend to be aggressive and competitive in their relationships with others.
Therefore, we can deduce that if an individual is successfully integrated within his or her “tribe” and if there are no reasons for fear or anguish about health or the future, his or her primary needs will be reduced and he or she will opt not to pursue power in order to reduce the chances of starting conflicts with his or her peers11. All models must therefore bring about the integration of the individual within the group.
Another logical conclusion is that it is crucial to create a system that is correctly protected in order to prevent corruption and malicious practices, reducing or eliminating all personal mandates.
2.5 Human beings’ polygamist nature
Our polygamist nature derives from our past
Human beings have spent the most significant period in their development - sixty thousand years – in nomadic tribes where polygamy was practiced. This is one of the most important reasons why we say that our true nature is, in fact, polygamous, and not monogamous12.
The monogenic way of thinking came about with the need to maintain family stability and occurred more or less at the same time as human beings adopted a more sedentary lifestyle with the advent of agriculture, that is, in the last ten thousand years.
Monogenic behaviour is a constructed social concept
In social terms, over the past two or three thousand years, the historic legacy of human kind in terms of monogenic behaviour is yet another example of the selfish and irresponsible actions of all past regimes for whom it was convenient to divide populations into small nuclei families.
In fact, even though monogenic behaviour is against our nature, it has been encouraged in most human societies over time, since it helps to stabilise societies, to encourage the growth of populations and, ultimately, to facilitate the acceptance of ruling powers.
It is necessary to try and explain our behaviour and our path, with the final goal of understanding who we really are, why we are this way and what type of Ergonocracy future models will be most suitable.
Our distant past - when man became sedentary
Primitive tribes used to practice polygamy at one time, but with the discovery of agriculture, man eventually became sedentary. Subsequently, populations became fixed in small, scattered locations and the traditional tribe was split into the basic family unit. This represented a substantial change in the existing paradigm. However, there are still a few traditional societies that practice polygamy and polyandry13 under certain conditions.
When the first buildings were erected immediately after the advent of agriculture, nomadic tribes that had previously shared their belongings, and the raising of children, evolved into small, slowly growing villages. Up until this time, children knew who their mother was, but not the identity of their father, except that he was one of the men in the tribe. This strong tendency toward promiscuity can still be seen today in certain primate communities. With agriculture and sedentary life, however, tribal members became less attached to their communities, as everyone began building his own home and a new basic nucleus was formed - the couple.
This contributed to a growing tendency for relationships to become more stable, since both members of the couple now had to shoulder the burden of raising their own offspring. These radical changes, therefore, gave rise to a new form of society in which the core was now the family, an invention of the sedentary era. There were advantages for both sexes:
This is why many cultures find it acceptable for men to have several wives, but not vice-versa.
The fact that men needed to ensure that their offspring were really theirs has led to feelings of both belonging and of jealousy. It is clear that this process took place over a period of many thousands of years. Now that it has become possible for men to confirm the true origin of their children, a very recent technological option14, these feelings will probably tend to diminish in the future.
In addition, there is another factor to take into account: certain authors believe that the practice of polygamy occurred during our nomadic tribal stage as an extremely useful tool for replenishing populations that suffered frequent casualties. Survival during these times was not an easy undertaking, as man faced innumerable difficulties linked to food gathering, natural disasters, bloody battles with other groups, a high mortality rate due to the lack of medical care, a high infant mortality rate, etc.
It is not difficult to conclude that polygamy, as practiced by our respectable ancestors, explains the modern tendency toward macho behaviour which persists, even in the face of severe criticism.
Human beings should acknowledge and recognise their polygamist nature
If human beings acknowledged and recognised their polygamist nature, people would end up living their lives differently. This would have the following advantages:
Monogenic life is unnatural and implies consequences, such as betrayals
In all recent or past societies where marriage has represented the social standard and where people have been expected to live together in monogamist relationships, a high percentage of extra-marital relationships have always occurred, obliging the people concerned to live double lives with all of the associated theatrical drama.
Our need for and pursuit of extra-marital relationships is largely due to the demonstrable fact that, in human beings, sexual desire is directly linked to the sense of curiosity and discovery that sets our species apart from others.
We are talking about the constant pursuit of novelty, new sensations and pleasure in taking risks. It is apparent that many people find it extremely exciting, not only to be with their lovers, but also to experience the thrill inherent in the risk of getting caught. This desire is especially heightened when a couple is preparing to have extra-marital sex for the first time. These characteristics are highly contradictory to a monogenic way of living.
Another important factor is that everyone needs to be convinced that he or she is still appealing to and appreciated by other people.
Of course, it is clear that there will always be people who sincerely prefer traditional monogenic relationships. What we can designate as pure monogamy is the preferred option of those who would never betray their partners. Although this type of behaviour is not innate to the animal order to which we belong as a species - primates15 - it nevertheless exists.
The reality is that couples in a long-term relationship invariably reach a point where they experience a certain tiredness and lack of excitement. This is due to the absence of novelty and to the boredom of our daily routines. Many couples in this situation find it extremely difficult to resist the temptation to cheat on their partners, although many end up doing so out of loyalty, the fear of getting caught or getting sick (venereal diseases) - or due to a lack of courage or opportunity.
The most precious principle underlying Ergonocracy models is freedom, which includes all types of freedom. The greatest enemy of freedom is deception, which keeps us in a permanent state of castration and misapprehension. Both parties, the deceived and the deceiver, lose in this process. The problem is that it requires courage to overcome the temptation to lie. The person who manages to do so trusts in the notion that the long-term benefits will outweigh the immediate short-term gain. Deception is the option of the weak and ignoble. Someone who has to lie to achieve a certain goal is no more than a slave, one who possesses neither freedom nor self-esteem.
Nobody is perfect
Most people who live as couples like living with their mates. However, this does not necessarily mean that, from a sexual point of view, the mate is the right person. The reverse is also true - a person might have a lover with whom he or she enjoys practicing sex, but may still know there is nothing more to the relationship. This obvious fact is not necessarily a contradiction.
In essence, sex should be seen as just one more source of pleasure. We must realise that it would be a great coincidence if our partner in life were perfect in all respects. In real life things do not often work out this way, as most people are multi-faceted. Our mate is simultaneously a lover, a friend, a partner in the creation of children, an economic and work partner and someone who understands us, encourages us and advises us. It is nearly impossible to possess all of these qualities and simultaneously to be a good lover. Nobody is perfect. Thus, only by coincidence and extreme good luck will we find someone who meets all these types of distinct criteria.
In the rare cases of couples who are truly in love, time is their worst enemy. This also helps us to defend the notion that each person should assume his or her needs as something natural and instinctive, without shame, as we were born with the instincts inherent to our species. Furthermore, both partners should accept this and talk about their secret desires.
In summary
For all of the reasons stated, it is elementary common sense that human beings are not monogenic by nature and that monogamy is, in fact, a social invention imposed over time through tradition, having been gradually incorporated by almost all cultures and civilizations. Monogamy became accepted as something natural and instinctive when, in reality, it is completely unnatural and an endless source of human suffering.
Taking into account that the modern social status quo is a result of the legacy left behind in the habits and traditions of previous generations. Monogamy is not an inn