Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand Psychopath?

[Dirk]

A child with nurturing parents will look to them for guidance, even if he/she is older and feels a need to keep some distance. To leave them alone in that situation and let them make their mistakes without interference is a poor strategy when we think of drugs, poor company, egotistical thinking and all kinds of things that is out there.

Hmm.. not sure. As hard as it can be. Everybody needs to learn their own lessons. If that involves drugs, poor company, egoistical thinking and all the other things out there, parents might have to let it go. Again, not sure about this one and how it should be approached. The only thing that will probably work is very hard work on theirselves, which will make it obvious to the child that the way of the parent is better than his own (maybe rebellious) way.

We essentially agree, but you seem to extrapolate the example of the "jewish mother syndrome" to all parents, and that is a broad generalization, in my opinion.

Not all, but many, yes.

Alle parents experience these conflicts to some degree, and as the child grows up there is a natural period of conflicting views that needs to be aknowledged and respected. If and when this is accomplished, parent/child can/will develop a relationship of trust and shared values.

That is a great scenario.

In a healthy relationship the parents still have the benefit of more experience and are naturally inclined to seek to give advice, more than minding their own business. This shouldn't be viewed as pathological behaviour, in my opinion.

Only if asked for.

No, but we need to get away from elitist thinking.

Agreed and also from 'poor me' thinking.

 

[Laura]

Dirk, I really don't have a lot of time to write up a lot of research I've done over the past few years that is going into a book, but I can suggest that you read "Anthropology and Politics" by Ernest Gellner for a few ideas to follow. It seems that, according to the best anthropological theories/studies, human beings evolved - could ONLY have evolved - in what amounts to a communistic social environment. It was the introduction of psychopathy, which was either a mutation or a cross between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon, that brought conflict and "independence" into the society which led to what we live with today: endless war and other evils. I've combed through thousands of books and academic papers for the clues, and I think I'm on the right track. Rand is wrong.

 

[StrangeCaptain]

What would you suggest? Should a child have contact with his parents against his will? Should books like Atlas Shrugged be banned? I would say let people decide for themselves and if they live by the philosophy of Ayn Rand for a few years, or even their entire lifes. It's their choice. Hopefully they will read a book or two, or fifty more and see the limitations of the philosophy.

Dirk,

If a child is 5 years old and is upset that his parents won't let him eat candy for dinner and wants to run away from home to some place where he will be allowed to eat candy for dinner, then my wild guess is that his parents should not let him run away from home; that they should keep him "against his will." That is a pretty outlandish example, but then again, making a blanket statement that children should make their own choices without any kind of consideration of age, family circumstances, etc is also pretty outlandish.

We also don't advocate banning books that we don't agree with. To my knowledge (unless I missed it), nobody suggested banning any books. That kind of manipulative reply is just not going to float here.

However, if you wish to discuss someone's ideas here that appear from our working hypothesis of how reality works to be flawed or pathologically influenced, then that will be pointed out by someone. It is not a personal attack.

I would also suggest you read Laura's reply carefully. There is a lot of context to most of the discussions that go on here whose foundation is the research of Laura and others. Many of the works that inspired our discussions and ideas on this forum will be presented in a short welcome message that you will receive after having made an introduction post. Thanks.

 

[Hildegarda]

She believes in personal responsibility which is great. She believes in the fact that the government should not intervene, which is great.

The expression, "government shouldn't intervene", is often just a projection of problems with father figures onto any structure of centralized authority. These same people who believe that often do not mind being fleeced by corporations, cartels or even psychopathic individuals among their family and friends. But the "big bad socialist government" gives them creeps. This makes no logical sense at all.

These same people like to use the term "personal responsibility", but in their view, it applies only to the underprivileged vulnerable people, who are referred to as "welfare queens" and such, and viewed as useless leeches. Those other people should shape up, get working or at least stop reproducing. On the other hand, they themselves do not seem to feel any personal responsibility towards society, either for themselves or others. They often avoid paying taxes, donate less money and work to charities. And, they are perfectly fine with their corporations accepting government bailouts and grants, i.e., being subsidized by society. Again, no logic.

 

[Dirk]

Dirk, I really don't have a lot of time to write up a lot of research I've done over the past few years that is going into a book, but I can suggest that you read "Anthropology and Politics" by Ernest Gellner for a few ideas to follow.

Ok, I'll note it down. Thanks.

It seems that, according to the best anthropological theories/studies, human beings evolved - could ONLY have evolved - in what amounts to a communistic social environment.

I wholeheartedly believe so. Makes a lot of sense.

It was the introduction of psychopathy, which was either a mutation or a cross between Neanderthal and Cro Magnon, that brought conflict and "independence" into the society which led to what we live with today: endless war and other evils.

Ok. Interesting. Then, doesn't the introduction of psychopathy require a change of approach? Carl Jung has a great model that
people go through in their development: dependence, independence, interdependence. Only after getting a certain amount of 'independence' you can become really interdependent with other people, because you have the means and resources to protect yourself from evil.

I've combed through thousands of books and academic papers for the clues, and I think I'm on the right track. Rand is wrong.

On the right track with what? With how evolution came to being exactly? Or with an effective approach of how to break out of suppression by psychopaths? Isn't there a lot of value in Rand's work when realizing that it is limited and that are much higher levels beyond it?

[quote author=Patience]
If a child is 5 years old and is upset that his parents won't let him eat candy for dinner and wants to run away from home to some place where he will be allowed to eat candy for dinner, then my wild guess is that his parents should not let him run away from home; that they should keep him "against his will." That is a pretty outlandish example, but then again, making a blanket statement that children should make their own choices without any kind of consideration of age, family circumstances, etc is also pretty outlandish.
[/quote]

Sure thing. Apologies if it wasn't clear: we were talking about children who got mature (say 21+) where parents still try to impose their will on their children.

[quote author=Patience]
We also don't advocate banning books that we don't agree with. To my knowledge (unless I missed it), nobody suggested banning any books. That kind of manipulative reply is just not going to float here.
[/quote]

Well, Laura did, though in a very specific context that might make a good case:

[quote author=Laura]
Well, using this article, one could make a good case that Ayn Rand's works should not be read by impressionable young people. I would send it to the school board and demand that they remove Rand from the curriculum.
[/quote]

I think a parent has to protect his child from making wrong choices and regulate the influences the child gets exposed to. Up till a certain age, giving more and more space to the child as he or she grows older and then leave him or her completely free when the child is ready. Realize that parents aren't gods either and they may 'think' they know what is right for the child, while in reality they don't and only inflict damage where they try to do good.

[quote author=Patience]
Many of the works that inspired our discussions and ideas on this forum will be presented in a short welcome message that you will receive after having made an introduction post. Thanks.
[/quote]

Will do. Thanks for your view.

[quote author=Hildegarda]
The expression, "government shouldn't intervene", is often just a projection of problems with father figures onto any structure of centralized authority. These same people who believe that often do not mind being fleeced by corporations, cartels or even psychopathic individuals among their family and friends. But the "big bad socialist government" gives them creeps. This makes no logical sense at all.

These same people like to use the term "personal responsibility", but in their view, it applies only to the underprivileged vulnerable people, who are referred to as "welfare queens" and such, and viewed as useless leeches. Those other people should shape up, get working or at least stop reproducing. On the other hand, they themselves do not seem to feel any personal responsibility towards society, either for themselves or others. They often avoid paying taxes, donate less money and work to charities. And, they are perfectly fine with their corporations accepting government bailouts and grants, i.e., being subsidized by society. Again, no logic.
[/quote]

Interesting. Thanks.

 

[Laura]

Very quickly, because again, I am rushed and doing five things at once: there's a thread on the forum here about Paul Mellars' book about Neanderthals... I think that a lot of stuff got collected in there that might interest you, Dirk. Also, a thread about pattern recognition though I can't think of the title of it right off hand.

 

[shijing]

The thread on Neanderthals is here, and the one on pattern recognition may be this one -- a forum search will turn up several threads of interest if you use that as a search phrase.

 

[Dirk]

Very quickly, because again, I am rushed and doing five things at once: there's a thread on the forum here about Paul Mellars' book about Neanderthals... I think that a lot of stuff got collected in there that might interest you, Dirk. Also, a thread about pattern recognition though I can't think of the title of it right off hand.

Ok interesting, will check it out.

The thing that interest me the most though is not how it came to be, but more how we can and have to break out of it.

Due to psychopathy the old evolutionary rules don't apply anymore. I still think it is very important to get a certain amount of independence and success for oneself so that one can protect oneself from psychopathic influences. Rand's philosophy can help here. After that you can join forces with other people at that level and help other people to get there, to create a synergistic force. Then you can kind of 'merge with the whole' and Rand's philosophy will be a thing of the past.

 

[monksgirl]

Re: Atlas Shrugged - somewhat prophetic?

I read somewhere that she was very close to Alan Greenspan

hi,

Yes, there is an association.
In Rand's "Capitalism: the unkown ideal", he writes a few articles.
According to wikipedia, _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_greenspan, the two were close until rand's death.
I did not realise how close the relationship was until today.
One of them is titled "Gold and economic freedom", in which he argues the merits of a gold standard.
I had previously thought he had disassosiated with rand, after becoming the fed's chair.

Rand was present in the Oval Office when Alan Greenspan was sworn into office as head of the Fed, standing next to Reagan

 

[Buddy]

I spent about a year or so checking out objectivism. It drew me in with the concepts of freedom and being responsible for oneself. Those are values I have long held. However, after long pondering, I could not get past the idea that the philosophy had twisting so as to leave the playing field open to predators. (This was before I even found SOTT/Cassiopea). My conclusion was that it may be a fine philosophy if there were no psychopaths in the world.

I mostly agree with FireShadow's take above. One thing I see is that people who don't really understand the whole societal context wind up just talking about the stuff within narrow scope views, while Rand's ideal "hero" is out there doing it and not even aware that he's being Objectivist about it.

There is Objectivism and there are the interpretations of it by a great many different mindsets and psychological conditions.

From my perspective, the people who have the biggest problem with Objectivism as a subject, also have not yet become aware of how genuine altruism has been ponerized, leaving a person with the impression that in order to be maximally beneficial to society, one must be totally self-sacrificing - as if one, or one's work has no value whatever. Also, people are generally unaware of how psychopaths influence the economy and everything else, while hiding themselves and the crimes they are responsible for behind others and 'ideas'.

To me, the underlying essence of Objectivism was the intention of bringing the concept or principle of "value exchange" out in the open. It happens that in an economic context, the "value" is money. The other contexts in which Objectivism was introduced was intended to demonstrate how this principle of "value exchange" would work in those contexts, yielding a man or woman who had integrity, principle and whose "wholeness" was oriented around a single principle, yielding nothing but the "good" for themselves and others.

In Rand's view, the ideal "hero" who is earning his own way is basically an honest, hardworking man. He is the one providing everything from jobs to taxes, products, services as well as "markets" and opportunities for others. Everyone he comes in contact with benefits in some way, because everything depends on this.

This ideal "hero" is not "selfish" in the sense that he believes no one should ever get anything that he doesn't pay for, but he may often be angry with people who demand "entitlements" and anything else they can get freely. Angry because what he has accomplished with his own life gives him ample info to juxtapose to others and see all the criminality, criminal-minded "you owe me's" and militant charitys and parasites demanding free gifts. Angry because he knows he is supporting every single one of these individuals, some of them "twice" from extortions and "contributions", and he might just be getting tired of it.

When John Galt (an example of this ideal "hero") insisted on his right to destroy his own factory, it was as the ultimate protest at having to carry the world on his shoulders.

Again, this is the territory of idealism, as I see it. Ayn Rand appeared to be unaware of psychopathy and its influences, and like FireShadow, I really don't see how the system, itself, can be destructive.

Some have said that there was a time in Rand's life when some of her Objectivist writings became more detached and objective, while her personal life was sinking into narcissistic pathology. That would be consistent with the idea of a narcissistic-type split into intellectual idealism and pathological behavior. Indeed, a man she worshipped and had a relationship with, had to leave her for his own psychological health (I believe it was Nathaniel Branden, but I'm not 100% sure) and this break-up hit her so hard, I don't even know that she recovered.

It seems to me that it was her descent into pathology and bitterness and the self-destructive behaviors that led her to her eventual end. And it seems that this time of her life is generally what people talk about and associate with Ayn Rand the person, and the subject of Objectivism.

But this is just my take which may need the input of more info to improve, so I could be off.

 

[Laura]

Very quickly, because again, I am rushed and doing five things at once: there's a thread on the forum here about Paul Mellars' book about Neanderthals... I think that a lot of stuff got collected in there that might interest you, Dirk. Also, a thread about pattern recognition though I can't think of the title of it right off hand.

Ok interesting, will check it out.

The thing that interest me the most though is not how it came to be, but more how we can and have to break out of it.

You can't figure out how to break out of something unless you understand the nature of it thoroughly - you kind of have to back-engineer things. Plus, you have to have evidence sufficient to convince others that any plan you might have is based on fact - primary reality - and won't make things worse. A social physician has the responsibility to "do no harm" and that means don't treat anything you don't understand.

Due to psychopathy the old evolutionary rules don't apply anymore.

Well, they do. We survived in a social context because we understood the nature of a certain set of predators. We just have to expand that set.

I still think it is very important to get a certain amount of independence and success for oneself so that one can protect oneself from psychopathic influences.

And how would you define this "success"? And how define this "independence." I've never seen anybody who was truly independent and successful. They either become successful in the psychopathic dog-eat-dog way with the manipulated help - or use - of others, the others being stepped on or repressed for that success, or become successful in a network with the willing help of others, and the others benefit also.

Rand's philosophy can help here. After that you can join forces with other people at that level and help other people to get there, to create a synergistic force. Then you can kind of 'merge with the whole' and Rand's philosophy will be a thing of the past.

Rand is very beguiling to a mind wounded by a pathological society. Have you read "Political Ponerology"?

 

[Dirk]

You can't figure out how to break out of something unless you understand the nature of it thoroughly - you kind of have to back-engineer things. Plus, you have to have evidence sufficient to convince others that any plan you might have is based on fact - primary reality - and won't make things worse. A social physician has the responsibility to "do no harm" and that means don't treat anything you don't understand.

Ok. Good point. I see how understanding how it came to be and how they operate exactly can aid in regaining control.

Well, they do. We survived in a social context because we understood the nature of a certain set of predators. We just have to expand that set.

Lol. Ok.

And how would you define this "success"? And how define this "independence." I've never seen anybody who was truly independent and successful. They either become successful in the psychopathic dog-eat-dog way with the manipulated help - or use - of others, the others being stepped on or repressed for that success, or become successful in a network with the willing help of others, and the others benefit also.

Hmm. Interesting. I am biased in thinking that it might be necessary to consciously adopt psychopathic dog-eat-dog and manipulative behaviour for a while before turning to the STO behaviour. Kind of the prisoners dilemma. As one has gained a certain amount of personell success and resources (money and things that have intrinsic value) one can make other decisions without fear of consequences. In the financial world they call this '-flick--you' money. I personally have huge problems with this however and have a very hard time to adjust to it. Pure STO behaviour doesn't work either (at least I haven't learned how to effectively) so I am kind of stuck in what direction I need to go.

Rand is very beguiling to a mind wounded by a pathological society.

Ok. I think so too. But doesn't it work to consciously adopt 'wounded' behaviour oneself. Again I am referring to the prisoner's dillemma.

Have you read "Political Ponerology"?

No, but I will.

 

[FireShadow]

...One thing I see is that people who don't really understand the whole societal context wind up just talking about the stuff within narrow scope views, while Rand's ideal "hero" is out there doing it and not even aware that he's being Objectivist about it.

There is Objectivism and there are the interpretations of it by a great many different mindsets and psychological conditions.

From my perspective, the people who have the biggest problem with Objectivism as a subject, also have not yet become aware of how genuine altruism has been ponerized, leaving a person with the impression that in order to be maximally beneficial to society, one must be totally self-sacrificing - as if one, or one's work has no value whatever. Also, people are generally unaware of how psychopaths influence the economy and everything else, while hiding themselves and the crimes they are responsible for behind others and 'ideas'.

To me, the underlying essence of Objectivism was the intention of bringing the concept or principle of "value exchange" out in the open. It happens that in an economic context, the "value" is money. The other contexts in which Objectivism was introduced was intended to demonstrate how this principle of "value exchange" would work in those contexts, yielding a man or woman who had integrity, principle and whose "wholeness" was oriented around a single principle, yielding nothing but the "good" for themselves and others.

In Rand's view, the ideal "hero" who is earning his own way is basically an honest, hardworking man. He is the one providing everything from jobs to taxes, products, services as well as "markets" and opportunities for others. Everyone he comes in contact with benefits in some way, because everything depends on this.

This ideal "hero" is not "selfish" in the sense that he believes no one should ever get anything that he doesn't pay for, but he may often be angry with people who demand "entitlements" and anything else they can get freely. Angry because what he has accomplished with his own life gives him ample info to juxtapose to others and see all the criminality, criminal-minded "you owe me's" and militant charitys and parasites demanding free gifts. Angry because he knows he is supporting every single one of these individuals, some of them "twice" from extortions and "contributions", and he might just be getting tired of it.

When John Galt (an example of this ideal "hero") insisted on his right to destroy his own factory, it was as the ultimate protest at having to carry the world on his shoulders.

Again, this is the territory of idealism, as I see it. Ayn Rand appeared to be unaware of psychopathy and its influences, and like FireShadow, I really don't see how the system, itself, can be destructive.

Some have said that there was a time in Rand's life when some of her Objectivist writings became more detached and objective, while her personal life was sinking into narcissistic pathology. That would be consistent with the idea of a narcissistic-type split into intellectual idealism and pathological behavior. Indeed, a man she worshipped and had a relationship with, had to leave her for his own psychological health (I believe it was Nathaniel Branden, but I'm not 100% sure) and this break-up hit her so hard, I don't even know that she recovered.

It seems to me that it was her descent into pathology and bitterness and the self-destructive behaviors that led her to her eventual end. And it seems that this time of her life is generally what people talk about and associate with Ayn Rand the person, and the subject of Objectivism.

But this is just my take which may need the input of more info to improve, so I could be off.

My time of exploring Objectivism was in 2006 (thereabouts), prior to finding Laura's work in late 2007. I had been reading the fantasy series "The Sword of Truth" by Terry Goodkind. I found their forum and participated for almost a year. Terry Goodkind and most of the regulars there were "objectivists".

Indeed, many of these members seemed (through their writings and interactions with others on the forum) seemed to be just "basically honest and hardworking" and fed up with feeling forced to support those who "won't help themselves". Of course, I did not know these people in person, so some may have just been good at "presenting a good front" in writing. However, it seems to me that the honest ones could only judge others by their own measure, and seemed not to realize how pathology infests even the best system. They saw a system that would work for them, not realizing that not everyone is like them.

In one of the discussion threads - "Is Man a Rational Being", I wrote the following:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

I am relatively new to Objectivism and Reasonism as such. I have had some encounters with its separate aspects. So my opinions are based on my current understanding. That said, here is my understanding:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality. They believe that the nature of reality is objective. That it is not dependent on what someone perceives, feels, or thinks of it. The old riddle "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to witness it; does it make a sound?" Objectivists believe it makes a sound.

2. Epistemology: Reason. They believe the only way to gain knowledge and find truth is to use the tool of reason. They do not believe in faith. Most are atheists, some agnostics.

3. Ethics: Self-Interest. Basically, enlightened self-interest as I understood it at the time was that "to be able to live in a better world, one must work to create that better world in ones choices and actions. To make choices that benefit all, also benefits self. Sort of a form of "Be the change you wish to see". For example, if I want a cleaner neighborhood, I need to pick up trash.)

4. Politics: Capitalism. More specifically laissez-faire Capitalism. They believe in separation between economics and State.

At this point, here is my personal take on this philosophy.

I am undecided on the nature of reality. I don't think all the votes are in. I've read some articles on quantum physics that seem to imply that the observer makes a difference. Not being a physicist, I do not feel qualified to make a pronouncement.

I like the tool of Reason. It is very useful. However, I think there are pitfalls. One must be very sure of one's premise, and be aware of all the factors involved, or the reasoning that follows can not be reliable.

I've already expressed my feelings on "Enlightened Self-Interest". See above.

Politics of laissez-faire capitalism sounds good in theory. They talk about the freedom to do business however you want. That in a free society, people make their own choices on who to do business with. Freedom always sounds good to me. But I feel uneasy with this. I'm not sure Man is really ready for this....

The Objectivists see Man as Rational. From what I have read (and remember that I am new to this philosophy), it seems that because Man has the capacity for reasoning; they think Man is rational. Well, Man also has the capacity for imagination. Imagination is not rational. It is valuable, but not rational. And Man has great capacity for passion (emotion).

In the Sword of Truth books, there are "Wizard's rules". For example rule #1 "People are stupid. They will believe a lie if they are afraid it is true, or if they want it to be true." I may not have chosen to use the word stupid, but I agree with this rule. Does this sound rational?

Another rule is "Passion rules Reason". Hate to say it, but I agree with this one, too. Mastering my own emotions has been a real challenge, and I have not succeeded yet. How many people you know even try? It is a known that high emotion short circuits rational thought. How rational is this?

We hear reports in the news occasionally that someone under the influence of some music, book, movie, etc did something criminal. We have rating systems for movies, and music, etc for the reason that there is evidence that media can influence people. We all know the power of The Commercial. Marketers and advertisers study this in great detail in order to influence us to buy their products. We know about it and yet we buy.

Critical Thinking is not taught in our schools. In our Colleges and Universities it is offered but not required. We have all heard of "Mob Rule", but still we do not teach our children to think critically. (Think about how this affects our voting for our leaders).

In my final analysis, I find Objectivism to have some fine ideals. Many aspects are admirable. I am definitely on the side of personal freedom and the concepts of enlightened self-interest. I find Reason and Critical Thinking to be the best tool to use in the search for truth, and knowledge. I think we all would benefit in practicing both.

Perhaps, over time, as more and more people got better at the use of Reason and enlightened self-interest we would then be ready for laissez-faire capitalism. At present, I do not believe Man is Rational. Capable of obtaining it? Sure. I do not believe we are rational enough at this time to base our politics on it. Yet.

I think that for now, to loose this system, would be to open the playing field to allow wolves to prey on unarmed victims. (yes, currently we do have capitalism, but isn't it some what regulated?) Until the citizenry is armed with Critical Thinking, we have no defense against being taken over by "the wolves". And believe me, the wolves are out there.

In regards to that last paragraph, I did not fully realize how very much the regulations had been stripped from capitalism and here we are now seeing the results of that "unregulated capitalism".

Interestingly, the "Sword of Truth" books were made into a TV series "Legend of the Seeker". I tried to watch it because I had long wanted to see the book made into a film version. However, I could not watch all the way through as the story had been completely changed. All the elements and characters were there, but the story was soooo different. It seemed to move from an objectivist theme to a Christian one. I have since been pondering this in relation to all the Christians and Objectivists in the Right Wing...was this some sort of effort to integrate these two seemingly opposite philosophies? I don't know.

 

[Laura]

I think I understand your dilemma. I also think you haven't given being part of a true network striving toward "STO" (for lack of a better term) a chance. Most people haven't and have a hard time doing it because it is VERY hard to undo years of programming. We are inculcated into the psychopathic reality from birth and all our programs and buffers develop as a way to survive. Giving them up feels to us like being naked, cold, alone, abandoned. It's scary. You can only do it in a network, and then you learn how to BE in a network, and that includes learning how to create a strategic enclosure, how to understand "good and evil" in terms of your aim, (which, in a network, is the aim of the network - all for one and one for all). There's a discussion on the forum here about some very difficult things Gurdjieff taught or exampled, including things written about in "Meetings With Remarkable Men." Do a search on that - I think it will be well worth your time.

Gee, so many threads to read, eh?

 

[Dirk]

Hmm. Interesting. I am biased in thinking that it might be necessary to consciously adopt psychopathic dog-eat-dog and manipulative behaviour for a while before turning to the STO behaviour. Kind of the prisoners dilemma. As one has gained a certain amount of personell success and resources (money and things that have intrinsic value) one can make other decisions without fear of consequences. In the financial world they call this '-flick--you' money. I personally have huge problems with this however and have a very hard time to adjust to it. Pure STO behaviour doesn't work either (at least I haven't learned how to effectively) so I am kind of stuck in what direction I need to go.

For instance, in our evolution we hunted animals down for food (at least that is the common believe, I personally do best on raw, ripe, organic, fresh, whole fruits and vegetables, preferably one at a time. That suggests to me that hunting was not an essential part in our evolution, but I might be missing something here). This is an STS behaviour. When going to STO we should leave eating animals behind. But we seem to have needed to be STS in order to survive (otherwise no food). Aren't there parallels in modern time in the sense that STS behaviour is necessary, just in order to be able to survive and get to the next level?