This is one of my favourite topics for a philosophical pondering. No point to it really, other than a mental workout, but here goes.

If you removed all current religious, moral and social teachings, what behaviour would be "natural" to a human being? Let us look to our closest relatives, the chimpanzee, for clues as well.

Food - What do you think we would eat? We have adapted to consume all sorts of things, but what would our "natural" diet consist of?
Mating - Is monogamy a natural state? Would we mate for life?
Murder - It is hardly unusual in the animal kingdom. Creatures frequently kill each other in squabbles over territory and mating rights. Is it in fact natural for humans to kill each other?
Sex with children - we have a legal "age of consent" of sixteen. But in the animal kingdom, a female will mate as soon as she is able to reproduce. I started my periods when I was 11 and I know a lot of other girls are well below 16 when this happens. So it is natural to wait to mate??
Pecking orders - most animal societies have a strict pecking order. Lower members of the group are beaten and abused if they don't follow the rules and show subservience to the higher echelons. So are we fighting nature in trying to create a society of equals?
The weak and sick - not many animal societies support the weak and sick, and certainly not if it is to the detriment of the group. Generally these animals would simply be left to die. Is our society, where our weak and sick are cared for and nurtured, an unnatural state?

Please remember I am not asking what is "right" and "wrong" or what is better or worse. This is merely a thread about what is natural. I realise people may have all sorts of moral objections to these issues, but what I want to know is, would an uneducated human make these choices?

Or do you feel that ALL human behaviour must be natural anyway as it is born out of a natural state of being? That wars, weapons of mass destruction, chemicals, pollutants, rape, overcrowding, superbugs etc are all "natural" as they result from the natural, unhindered evolution of the human race?

I haven't had time to ponder this question in any real detail - I will do that later - but a couple of things sprang to mind immediately.

My first thought was that it is natural to be selfish. I don't think Man's natural state inclines towards sacrifice for the good of others - his first instinct would be to look after himself and his offspring and sod everyone else.

I also don't think it is natural for mankind to have a healthy regard for the life of other people, unless they are genetically linked to that person. E.g. man will fight to death for his family, but does not care inherently for people outisde of that genetic link.

Finally, I also think that it is man instinct to be tribal and territorial, and to an extent, mankind hasn't really overcome this particular state of naturalness, which is why we still have "turf wars" - countries fighting to snatch land from other coutries and why ownership is stil so important to man.

The thing that I think first altered many these natural instincts is a belief in a higher being (God or whatever), an afterlife etc. The idea that you will be punished after death for the bad things that you do in life and likewise rewarded for the good things. One of the tenements of nearly all religions (including pagan ones) is that the life of man is sacrosact. Even pagan religions, who may not believe in an afterlife as such, will often have superstitions which state that the things you do wrong in life will result in somekind of retribution. Most of these faiths will also preach some sort of "Good Samaritan" lesson which encourages people to look out for their neighbours.

These ideas of God, retributions, sanctity of life etc. go back thousands and thousands of years, and have ingrained themselves into all societies and become "legal", so that even people who do not adhere to any religious faith are forced or inclined to adhere to the tenements of the society they live in.

Probably a load of rubbish, but that was my firt thought. (See, I even think in a long winded way) :laugh:

My first thought was that it is natural to be selfish. I don't think Man's natural state inclines towards sacrifice for the good of others - his first instinct would be to look after himself and his offspring and sod everyone else. I also don't think it is natural for mankind to have a healthy regard for the life of other people, unless they are genetically linked to that person. E.g. man will fight to death for his family, but does not care inherently for people outisde of that genetic link.


I tend to agree with this. I can't think of an example in the animal kingdom where one tribe looks out for another, although as you rightly say they will protect their own.

Finally, I also think that it is man's instinct to be territorial.

I think so too. Again, I am not aware of any animal society that functions without territories. But what would you define as a "territory"? Our house? Our local area? Our country? Are wars between countries merely a result of the scientific improvements that enable man to cover greater distances than he ever could on foot?

Is the need to support a "team" of some sort, or be a member of some organisation merely harking back to our natural roots, whether it be a football team, a religious affiliation, or this MB?

It's a tricky one because what do you mean by natural state. If it's a question of how would we behave if we didn't live in our society, I don't think we can ever know although I suppose an anthropologist would have some ideas. There is a suggestion in your question that our society makes us live in an unnatural state. I suppose that is true to an extent, particularly as I think we have a primitive side to our natures that society forces us to suppress. But I also think that the rules and laws that we have to abide by, coming as they do from man, are in themselves an expression of our natures and so could be thought of as 'natural' laws.

what do you mean by natural state.

Essentially I mean devoid of moral or religious beliefs.

Of course some may deem these beliefs "natural" in that human society demands that you do not kill, you do nurture the sick, and so on, and that for a society to have rules is in itself "natural".

The question of what the "natural" state is, is really the point of the thread!

I suppose one of my motivations is concern as to how many of the rules in human society are borne out of concern for protecting that society as a whole, and how many were borne out of certain individuals banding together and deciding that using their influence in this way would be of pecuniary benefit to them.

Essentially I mean devoid of moral or religious beliefs.



From what I have read I have come to believe that there is a natural side to us (more primitive, instinctive, closer to nature) which we are generally not aware of because it is suppressed by our conscious, more rational, side. It's the aboriginal side of us, that has its roots way back in man's past. I also believe that there is a religious element to that natural side, and that it's more pagan in its nature than our established religions.

It is an interesting question Ceri and I have found myself wondering the same thing.

I think one of the things that made us civilized is the development of language. Before we had language it must have hard to empathize with another being. Another person couldn't explain what it was like to be in his or her shoes without some form of descriptive communication.

Chimps and the great apes have a more structured society than most other animal groups, and it's also been proved that they have a wide range of communication skills. They also are very protective of their group and their family members. Whether this is an instinctive way of protecting their own interests and the interests of their genes, or whether they do feel a certain amount of empathy I'm not sure. I think language, intelligence and empathy made what we could call a civlized society. What came first, I don't know but I think you'd have to take away one of those three things to get back to a 'natural' state.

The first thing that came to mind believe it or not was the film Mad Max lol.
In a post-apocalyptic society rules and order would go out of the window.
It would be kill or be killed, grab what you can or starve, and sexual morals would disappear.
With the breakdown of law and order, and those who minister it, anything would be permissible.
Even those of us with high moral values would soon find themselves adapting through necessity.
Tell me in that situation that you would not change?
Ancient Eygptians saw nothing wrong with necrophilia, it was perfectly acceptable to 'use' a recently deceased young woman for gratification.
There are many more examples i could use.

Before we had language it must have hard to empathize with another being.

But was it? Some believe that early humans communicated through other mediums. Indeed, studies show that over 85% of what we convey to others is through our body language, not the words we use. People who are good at spotting liars do so in the main by studying their subject's body position, micro gestures and so on. It's almost as though language itself was invented as a way of trying to CONCEAL what we were really thinking, rather than enhance it...

I snatch time on SO so this lot will be printed off to read and comprehend and maybe add too. Great thread Ceridwen

Personally I would say that mans natural state depends more on logic than empathy.

Monogomy - I doubt it, but then does it truly exist now?

Murder exists, but it's probably less a natural occurrance now than in primevil times.

Sex with children is an odd selection. Clearly wrong in our society, but human children develop far later than most infant animals, so I suppose you would need to define the question more accurately.

Going back to the logic thing though, humans dont have to reproduce purely to continue the species, they reproduce for different reasons, so I think the evolutionary perogative changes.

Dunno really, good question Ceridwen.

Sex with children is an odd selection. Clearly wrong in our society, but human children develop far later than most infant animals, so I suppose you would need to define the question more accurately.You might be surprised:
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

I think if all our laws and regulations were removed, in time different ones would be back in place. This is human nature.

Think how George Orwell showed this in Animal Farm.

An interesting addition to this comes from a conversation I was having with my brother recently, what if age was removed, no one knew, or needed to know the next persons age. It made me think how on meeting someone you immediately 'age' them, consciously or not.

You might be surprised:
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

This shows the average age of consent to be 16 - not sure why he'd be surprised?

This shows the average age of consent to be 16 - not sure why he'd be surprised?

Well I was suprised, I didn't know Irelands was 17!!

Personally I would say that mans natural state depends more on logic than empathy.

I'm not so sure - I think logical thinking is a relatively recent development for man - so before we developed it we must have lived in a natural state that could exist without it. In fact I'd go even further and say that it is our logical minds that tend to run against our natural inclinations?

I'm not so sure - I think logical thinking is a relatively recent development for man - so before we developed it we must have lived in a natural state that could exist without it. In fact I'd go even further and say that it is our logical minds that tend to run against our natural inclinations?

I agree. I don't think so called "rational" thinking is natural at all. The fact that humans now have sex for anything other than reproductive reasons is also quite possibly unnatural.

Most female animals have a "heat" of some sort when they are sexually receptive - I have often wondered primitive man experienced this? Would a female only have been sexually receptive when she was able to conceive?

....I have often wondered primitive man experienced this? Would a female only have been sexually receptive when she was able to conceive?


That's a thought! Although I don't think it would be the case becaue human females have an immense window for conception when compared to other animals.

Barring any medical complications, human females are capable of conceiving at pretty much any time post puberty and pre-menopause. For many women that could be as much as 40 years, which is a lot of "sexually receptive" time.

Obviously, there are optimum times for conception within that timeframe, but theoretically whereas most other animals have a timeframe of maybe 1 month in the year when the female is capable of conceiving this limitation does not, and never has, applied to female humans.

So, while I agree that its possible that primitive woman may not have had sex for reasons other than procreation, I don't agree that this would restrict her libido in the same way that it restricts females of other animal species.

Come to think of it, male animals of other species also don't "spread their seed" except within the "heat" season and human males probably behave in exactly the same way. It only seems like they are always at it because a human females "heat" season is almost constant between puberty and menopause.

I read something in the paper today about a family in a "backward" area of Russia who had abandoned their severely handicapped daughter. This kind of behaviour is not uncommon in less "civilised" society. I must admit I cannot see any biological reason to prolong life in these circumstances, so I would suspect handicapped babies were simply left to die in primitive times. The "nurturing" behaviour we have today in these situations is almost certainly a programmed, as opposed to natural, response.

I was also watching a programme about chimpanzees. It seems they remain in a tight knit group for life, and look out for each other, but I couldn't tell whether they mate for life or not. It seems that most apes share childcare responsibilities and stay together for longer than other mammals, so I would suspect that the human "family" is not that unnatural. However it seems that other apes share the childcare burden more evenly between mothers - like an ape mothers and babies group!!

Perhaps this is why some new Mums struggle to cope on their own?

And if humans were meant to bond in groups, does that mean moving to another town/country etc is unnatural behaviour as well?

Swans are the only animal I know of that have the same mate for life.

Swans are the only animal I know of that have the same mate for life.

Wolves and albatrosses do too.

Not sure about humans!! :laugh:

I recall reading somewhere that (in primates) height has something to do with long-term fidelity. I.e. that the taller gender is more likely to require multiple partners. Male and female gibbons are the same height, and thus are monomagous.

Anyway, despite such digression, my feelings are that humans are now a very 'unnatural' genus, primarily because of the effects of society and mass communication combined with our intellect. I.E. that we are intelligent enough to understand the damage we do to those less capable/attractive, and to plot and plan in (cliques) er..... groups.

Social evolution has taken us to new spheres. I am not really convinced that these are really any better than the biological ones of geni less 'advanced' than ourselves.

I think survival of the fittest is the most natural form of human behaviour.

I agree that will always be true sheoque, but that which is 'fittest' is now (in the west) defined mainly on social desirability -also masked by a degree of voluntary fertility -leading to results I find quite frightening.....

Wolves and albatrosses do too.

Not sure about humans!! :laugh:


Wasn't Albatross an album by Fleetwoodmac?? They certainly wern't monogamous...they were at it all over the show :ohmy:

In apes the idea is to have a strong male leader who mates with a group of females. Other apes challenge that leadership and should they win they get the chance to pass on their genes thus improving the gene pool. It's been proved that female chimps do nip off for a bit of hanky with another male when they get half a chance. I'm not sure whether this is to bring variety to the gene pool or because they just fancy a bit on the side.

I wonder if our 'natural state' would be similar. Whether women would group together under a strong protective male leadership.

However, these days we're looking for so much more than just strength. You only have to read the 'ideal man' threads to see there's a plethora of qualities women look for. Perhaps the only 'natural' option amongst all the assets listed, is the desire for the partner to be physically attractive. Although it may seem like a person is being shallow to want that quality, there is a good reason for it. For instance symettry and stature both equate to health. In a woman, large hips and large breasts indicate someone with good child bearing potential so it's not really that hard to see why men are attracted to busty page 3 models.

Thinking about the body language Ceri, you may well be right. But when someone lies and you can tell they're being dishonest from their body language, this must be because the lie is coming from their lips and the truth is coming from their body. Therefore, language must still be an essential part of learning how another feels or reacts to a situation. I think it's language more than anything which has allowed us to develop into a civilized society.

The fact that humans now have sex for anything other than reproductive reasons is also quite possibly unnatural.

Not so sure. Could it be that sex also has the purpose of bonding a couple?

I think survival of the fittest is the most natural form of human behaviour.
I think this is exactly right, but "fittest" doesn't have to mean physically the strongest of course. I think that humans have thrived as a species firstly because we use our brains to make us more powerful than our physical bodies would allow, and secondly because we group together in societies which are stronger than the sum of their parts.

Therefore I reckon that "natural" human characteristics would include:

- competitiveness
- grouping together in societies
- use of brain to solve problems

The fact that humans naturally group together would suggest that social skills, care for others, respect for authority and acceptance of rules or "norms" are a basic part of our makeup.

BTW great thread Ceri! http://www.survivor-online.co.uk/forums/images/icons/icon14.gif

Not so sure. Could it be that sex also has the purpose of bonding a couple?

I really don't know SF. There is a lot of debate about whether female animals actually "enjoy" sex. Indeed in some animals societies, the sexual act almost seems akin to rape - a female cat, for example, will viciously attack her mate immediately after sex unless he gets away quickly. I don't think there is any agreed view on this, so I cannot say whether the human female was given a clitoris for the purposes of "enjoying" sex or not (and thus bonding with her partner). Certainly, if the clitoris WAS designed for this purpose, it was subject to something of a manufacturing error, as its location does not readily lend itself to being excited through penetrative sex.

This "enjoyment" factor however does seem different from other mammals in other ways - for example, a female human cannot easily be penetrated unless she is lubricated, and to become lubricated she has to be aroused. There does seem to be a level of male participation here that exceeds anything else in the animal kingdom - so maybe you are right!

I wonder if our 'natural state' would be similar. Whether women would group together under a strong protective male leadership.

Interestingly, in the "primitive" religions such as paganism, the woman is revered as the more "dominant" sex (that's not quite the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do). In some animal societies, such as lions, the females do indeed "rule the roost". This does not seem to be the case with chimps, although each group does contain a dominant female to whom the others defer.

However I wonder why the primitive religions saw the female in this way, and why it was thus necessary for the Christian church to change the image of the sacred female and have us all worship an entity that was essentially created in a masculine form, with Mary Magdalene cast as a whore? I wonder whether women were historically the "leaders" - or would we be correct in assigning that role to the male? Or perhaps the burden was equally shared?

However I wonder why the primitive religions saw the female in this way, and why it was thus necessary for the Christian church to change the image of the sacred female and have us all worship an entity that was essentially created in a masculine form, with Mary Magdalene cast as a whore?

At a guess, I'd say that the pagan viewpoint of women being the more revered sex had a lot to do with the fact that women give and nuture life, from childbirth to child rearing (breast feeding etc).

As to the Christian Church's desire to change that image - well, Christ was a bloke wasn't he, so I'd guess that was a big reason why men took a more leading role in the faith. And while Mary Magdelene was cast as a whore (which may or may not be correct depending on your viewpoint), the Virgin Mary was cast as unswervingly pure and feminine, so its not like the ladies came off all bad in the new faith. Although admittedly, she didn't having the starring role in the bible.

Back on topic though, in many species in the animal kingdom neither gender has a more dominant role within the "community", but rather they each have very specific and equally important roles to play, with the male being the protector and provider, and the female being the carer and nurturer, giving birth and rearing the young. That's probably natural in ALL animal species - including humans - so all this modern living, with women forging successful careers alongside the men isprobably completely unnatural for us.

Hmm...perhaps I should start a new thread about the origins of the Bible, Pagan religions and the debate about the role of the female...are you up for that Blink??!!

Interestingly, in the "primitive" religions such as paganism, the woman is revered as the more "dominant" sex (that's not quite the word I'm looking for, but it will have to do). In some animal societies, such as lions, the females do indeed "rule the roost". This does not seem to be the case with chimps, although each group does contain a dominant female to whom the others defer.

However I wonder why the primitive religions saw the female in this way, and why it was thus necessary for the Christian church to change the image of the sacred female and have us all worship an entity that was essentially created in a masculine form, with Mary Magdalene cast as a whore? I wonder whether women were historically the "leaders" - or would we be correct in assigning that role to the male? Or perhaps the burden was equally shared?
That's a bit unfair of you to lay that on the Christians Ceri. In the cultures where Christianity developed - Hebrew, Greek and Roman - men pretty much ruled the roost. In fact, I think that's the norm for almost all human societies. Even Celtic society - with its priestesses - had more Kings than Queens I think. So basically Christianity just reflects the world it developed in.

I don't want to go off topic on this one but certainly in Europe, the female was regarded as sacred and this simply didn't go down too well with the Church. Why do you think it was deemed necessary to slaughter millions of women and claim they were "witches" just because they used to mix up a few herbs etc to cure people?

Anyway, back on topic.

Food....what do you think we SHOULD eat? Consider this -

If you see a nice, juicy, red apple or a bowl of strawberries, it will probably make your mouth water. But does it have the same effect to see a lamb running round a field? Or a cow or pig? I can't think of ANYONE who goes "yummy yummy" at the sight of a live animal. But surely if animals were our NATURAL food, we'd have some sort of instinctive reaction to them - wouldn't we?

That's a bit unfair of you to lay that on the Christians Ceri. In the cultures where Christianity developed - Hebrew, Greek and Roman - men pretty much ruled the roost. In fact, I think that's the norm for almost all human societies. Even Celtic society - with its priestesses - had more Kings than Queens I think. So basically Christianity just reflects the world it developed in.
That is exactly why Religions like, (I can only comment on) Christainity needs to evolve with the social changes in society. Truth humility charity etc are basic to all religions. Thats what counts not judging lifestyle or choices.
I have tried other religions but decided best to stick within the old favourite my mormon friends tell me even some mormon parishes esp in california are choosing to allow open homosexual life partner couples who are not agreeing to be celibate within that relationship to continue to be members and participate fully and let God judge in the next life. Of course singles wether gay or straight need to remain chaste till making a life partner commitment. Thats real progress.

I'll stick to the food discussion.

Maybe live animals don't make our mouth water because to do so would mean we'd be happy or at least comfortable with the idea of killing them. I have never been without food for long enough to entertain killing anything to eat let alone feel comfortable doing so. I don't imagine anyone else here has either.

Perhaps we're not the best people to approach on this Ceri. If a person were truly starving, it seems possible that their natural instinct would come to the fore and maybe they would see the frolicking lamb as their next square meal. Do you remember that team or rugby players who were marooned in the Andes after their plane crashed who survived purely because they ate the frozen flesh of their comrades! Could I eat the dead flesh of a companion, could I kill something that was full of life to survive. I don't know and hopefully I'll never have to find out.

An interesting subject. As we evolved life was mostly a struggle and our genes were programmed with two main aims: First, to survive, and then to breed.

We evolving humans developed a number of strategies to fulfil these aims. The reason why human females become fertile at such an early age is because..well...when life expectancy was about 30, you needed to get a crack on and get breeding other wise you'd give birth when you were too old to look after your offspring.

Now we live longer and the pressure to reproduce isn't so urgent, but our bodies and hormonal systems haven't really changed that much. There's even some evidence that our western diets, rich in fat, may make girls come into puberty earlier.

Likewise with the way we treat our old and infirm. There was originally probably a survival advantage in keeping granny well fed. She could act as a child minder while the more able bodied, younger mothers helped gather food. This might, overall, help increase productivity and survival rates in emerging hunter gatherers/agricultural societies. Plus the older folk were a good store of knowledge.

But, I am sure that in pre-history the benefits of keeping a sick/older member of a society alive were weighed up, and in times of scarcity, if the survival of the group as a whole was compromised, then granny got the chop.

My husband thinks we all used to be apes, he says humans had a tail which fell off as we evolved ????? i am getting a little worried about him. Haaaa :laugh: every time he brings up the subject i start singing "The Funky Gibbon" song which he does not find very amusing.

My husband thinks we all used to be apes, he says humans had a tail which fell off as we evolved ????? i am getting a little worried about him. Haaaa :laugh: every time he brings up the subject i start singing "The Funky Gibbon" song which he does not find very amusing.

I'm afraid he's right. If you shove your hand down the base of your spine you can still feel the knobbly bit where your tail used to be! Tails were extremely useful when our (very ancient) ancestors were living in trees - they were an in effect an extra hand to grip with and also offered a bit of help in the balance department.

But when you live on the ground and start walking on two legs they can be more of a hindrance, and so evolution kindly phased them out for us.

Oh darn it why are husbands always right ?????? (sigh) :angry:

Well, at least you know now why he scratches his ar*e and grunts.

on second thoughts.................. yep he is related to the apes, he does scratch his parts, burp, fart, and grunt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wacko:

on second thoughts.................. yep he is related to the apes, he does scratch his parts, burp, fart, and grunt !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wacko:


There ya go, who needs Darwin?!