Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Is life for mankind in a state of nature “nasty, brutish and short” or anarchic utopia?

0
Posted

Is life for mankind in a state of nature “nasty, brutish and short” or anarchic utopia?

0

I think a state of nature would evolve. Originally, it would look rather like the cinema world of Mad Max, and truly exist as a Hobbesian state. But the human brain is hardwired for order. It’s why we see patterns in clouds and ink-spots. As a species we need order, continuity and predictability; and thus, over time, new government would emerge. My suspicion is that the first government would be dictatorial and based on the “strong man” who knock heads together and create order from chaos. But eventually it would soften to something more moderate. Bottom line, I think the Lord of the Flies is a better description of the state of nature; and that it would not be a happy place.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.