Rational Reptilian Rapacity Ravages Reverything

I was reading a post over at Pop Occulture by Tim Boucher[http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2006/10/22/is-the-reptilian-brain-in-control] where Boucher discusses the idea that the people who hold the power in the world -- the "powers that be", in his phrase -- are controlled by their "reptilian brains". The reptilian brain, or brainstem, is the part of the brain responsible for primitive self-sustenance drives like getting food and sex and the fight-or-flight instinct. Boucher discusses whether this may not be case as well; he posits that the mischief-making of the folks in power comes from how they follow rationality to its most unsavory ends.

My reptilian brain likes me most, so here's what I think: The "powers that be" may be technocrats who use rationality, but it should be remembered what they're using that rationality for. They use rational means -- often Machiavellian means -- to achieve the ends of power and wealth. Why do they want power and wealth? Their reptilian brains.

Their reptilian brains tell them they need to conquer others for power -- like animals secure dominance over rivals to mate. Their reptilian brains (primed for scarcity) tell them they must get food wherever and whenever they can, which translates -- through cultural conditioning -- into the neverending "hunt" for greater wealth, even if other people as "prey" fall by the wayside. I believe that a lot of what we think of as selfishness -- ego, atman -- comes from the reptilian brainstem and its drives for fight or flight, food and... sex. Rationality may be how the brainstem's drives are served, but rationality by itself cannot dictate a goal.

I've been reading Howard Zinn's essay "Machiavellian Realism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Means and Ends" which I think may have given me a few ideas for this post, what with the whole leaders-using-cold-rationality-for-selfish-reasons thing.

Postscript: After thinking about this issue off and on, I thought of something. The way I see it, the problem is not that we're being either too rational or too intuitional/instinctual. Rather it's that we're not being moral enough. We use reason to achieve instinctual goals but we don't do enought to factor morality (that is, the needs of others) into account when we do this.

---------------

-----------------

Back to contents:

http://jlhart7.blogspot.com/2006/07/contents.html