Fascinating! But what has gone haywire with our invention? It seems that we are starting to select for more bullying, more violence, and more antisocial behavior. We are well on our way to changing our genes back toward wild animals.
No, not starting to select, only reacting to changing environment with old possible behaviour, that is not fully selected out, only silenced.... Agressivity still is a partly necessary behavioural possibility, when environmental changes requires that....
Perhaps we're just noticing anti-social behavior more these days because we've evolved far enough in a positive direction to no longer consider it normal or acceptable. In a way, then, anti-social people are pushing humanity towards friendlier, more social behavior. After all, moving on from things we don't like is an important way to learn and improve.
I understand. Change always seems much too slow when you need it the most. But often you don't actually notice change itself anyway; what's visible is people's resistance to it. Sending you happiness and all the best!
Absolutely my first thought when I read this article. I'd love to think that we "domesticated" ourselves into kind and helpful beings who support one another. But when I look around...that is not the world that I see. Thank you for your comment.
I felt the exact same way but then I got to the part about working symbiotically with technology and technology is steering us away from what we truly value imo. And let’s hope that we evolve or “domesticate” to eradicate the noise of social media and all that stuff that makes us feel dumb and yucky and get back to what we do value which is social connection and less aggressive behaviors (which make us feel unsafe). Maybe we’re in an era where we are not working in a positive way with some technology and we’ll change our genes to reject it.
I think this is just a simplistic approach to a very complex evolutionary dynamic. I am hopeful that we can put an end to the negativity and belligerence of our society, but I am not convinced that is an evolutionary process as much as a social process.
Last week I did a 2-day workshop for the most expensive boys' school in South Africa.
My thesis was that mental health in young men is caused by the repression of emotion and untamed maleness (which obviously looks different in each man) so we all went a bit wild and got into our emotions.
At the end of two days, they gave me a full two-minute standing ovation. It sounded like thunder.
Thank you for this article, Kevin. Based on the experience above, I have to wonder of how much of the untamed man - the undomesticated man - still lives deep inside our brains and forces us to fires and finding food even when we don't have to.
And if that is true is repressing that part of ourselves which is now seen as ugly or savage causing us deep confusion and harm?
What are your thoughts Kevin? Is the growing mental health crisis in men tied to our domestication becoming extreme and stifling?
What you see as repressed, “…[that which] is seen as ugly or savage,” is generally thought of as violence, aggression and cruelty.
Personally, I believe it is quite possible that the male of our species must evolve past this “untamed maleness” before we destroy ourselves. I am all for exploring repressed emotions in men—let’s start with sorrow, fear, joy and appreciation.
Most women fear the "wild man," the basic core of man, and try to tame this. Then men suffer being pussy-whipped, as women have gone further into sharing emotions than men. Men need to connect with their inner "wild man" before they can do the solid shadow-work needed to remove aggression towards women.
No. I am not encouraging a war of the sexes. Quite the contrary. I am asking for an awareness of this aggressive male energy that can only be directly approached, in my experience, by men helping each other, and with the encouragement and support of women. This is best done in a male only initiation, such as the New Warrior Training Adventure, as given by the ManKind Project. See: mkp.org
Phew. When you referred to men being “pussy whipped” as the reason for male aggression, I mistakenly thought this was another blame the victim story. I will definitely check out your project.
Just as women need more men to stand against gender-based and domestic violence, women need to support the men who encourage young men to see themselves as integral to our healthy society.
I totally agree with this, but I think the challenge is how to stay clear of stereotypes while doing it?
I feel like our fathers lost so much in embracing of testosterone only as men and we see that today, manfisted so destructively in corporate and politcal leadership.
Likewise, we are seeing markers of how repressing the wildman to become socially acceptable is damaging young mens too.
I feel like Joseph Cambell's work might hold the answer but translating that while steering clear of stereotypes feels like a minefield.
Cambell's use of King/Warrior/Lover/Magician can be useful. For example, when a man nears middle age he might be thinking differently and switch from Warrior to Lover.
But these archtypes do not replace the facilitated guts work (shadow work) in a safe community container where transformation happens. See: mkp.org
Love the reference! Thank you. Super helpful. I am using steteotype in the literal sense because work we do in schools is simplistic and kinda of requires those simple guidelines. Looking forward to understanding more what of you mean. Glossed over Cambell before. Will make time to get into in this Christmas. Thanks for your input
Interesting perspective. Potentially. Maybe there needs to be a recognition of the wild parts of ourselves being restrained as we evolve...certainly evolution hurts. A men's retreat where men can recognize this in younger men & guide them to healthy management of it could help. Similar to the women's Red Tent retreats, where women support & honor young girls as they come of age (vs this society which tells them to be ashamed of natural cycles, or be overly sexual with their looks to attract a mate- which society says is supposed to be financial & physical security, sadly many times not).
Giving support to young people in how to manage hormones & urges in a healthy way, & to mature people with life challenges, could guide some of the evolution in a positive direction. Potentially.
That's kinda of what we did with these boys (Grade 9)... we started with the wholeman - savage and emotions all intact.
Then we took out emotions post WW1/2 and then took our savage post #metoo and then looked at rise in mens mental health challenges and suicides (which are complicated I know but we simplified them as a warning marker.
This is the crazy part - I eat mostly meat I hunt, as a eater that feels most ethical for me and we consume the animal head to tail and package it as a family. It's pretty beautiful, almost spirtual processes embracing the savage nature of meat consumption... So that's what I did with these boys.
When they heard what we were doing, they spontaneously erupted in applause. It was totally unexpected.
Then while we were doing it we spoke about emotion. I told them how scared and insecure I felt on the hunt. We got curious. We tired to connect the wholeman again.
Boys on the fringes were included gently by those we were comfortable with the process. Shirts came off. Fires were made. For a full day the boys went a bit wild and cook then meat hanging on open fires as a small groups of 10.
Thankfully many men still possessed sufficient male aggression to be willing to run into machine gun fire at Normandy. Heroes every one of them. May God bless and keep them close to Him in Heaven.
I think that the Second World War came about as the result of a number of complex reasons but the main one was Hitler’s maniacal obsession to expand Germany. Indeed, perhaps if Neville Chamberlain had displayed more male aggression he could have deterred Hitler from believing that he could conquer Poland and then attain peace with the British.
Well some of it seem to be coupled to Testosterone signaling and function, as opposed to estrogenic impact..... Testosterone and agressiveness is well described within muscle builders... as well as coupled partly to male ( and female) sexual drive...
Humanity - not easily defined - something about expressing non agressive- socialization behaviour - coupled to Oxytocin signalling. Typical lacking / low in Autism- autistic functioning- having trouble understanding and appreciating others....
We have an infinite power as the architects of our lives in ways we cannot imagine. And it is those very beliefs and realizations, unlocked by testing and stretching the imagination, that reveal the full scope of agency we have in our lives.
This perspective makes us understand that the true strength of humanity does not lie only in external inventions like the wheel or artificial intelligence, but in our ability to reinvent ourselves from within, breaking down genetic and cultural barriers that are thousands of years old. From this arises the optimism typical of those who believe in the bold potential of humanity: we are ready to use this awareness to accelerate evolution not only biologically, but also socially, technologically, and spiritually.
In my opinion there is a mistake in reasoning. The domestication of plants and animals was intentional, someone decided to reproduce the individuals that suited us. In contrast, human "domestication" could be a consequence of less infantile individuals being more likely to die without offspring or with fewer offspring, meaning it would be "domestication" by natural selection, not intentional.
This is a very interesting perspective. I appreciate your sharing this additional mechanism. In some sense, the domestication could be operating unconsciously, which is to say that we innately "liked" more infantile individuals better, finding them easier to get along with and less scary, therefore resulting in more offspring...
Agree - but at the same time, it looks like he / they have a strong ability to dig up , and show the hidden darkness from last half century made by strong financial driven moneymaking, harvesting from increasing health deficits- that do not have curing disease as a goal, but earning morney from it....
But you seem "forgetting" that among humans still exists a wide variety, and the "unfriendly" traits are still present: aggression, ego, competition, violence. So it's true that, on average, we have become more friendly and cooperative as a specie. But within that average there is a wide spectrum.
Think about Navy SEAL or other special corps... they can be as destructive and savage as Neanderthals - but with the addition of fine tuned cooperation and sharp mind.
> "If all technology—every last knife and spear—were to be removed from this planet, our species would not last more than a few months."
This is untrue.
As a matter of fact, in such a situation the "less tamed" people would be the most likely to survive. 90% of our species would probably die within 3-6 months. The rest would find a way to survive. Literally "the survival of the fittest" (in an evolutionary sense).
In a nutshell: we have become friendlier, yes. But there is still a "wild beast" within us; it's just that we need it less and less nowadays. But it hasn't gone extinct.
Take your manliest man that you can imagine. Your best imaginarly he-man. Keep away from him fire, or any kind of weapons. No knife, no sticks. He lacks the claws and teeth of other animals. Put him up against a predator like wolves or lions. He dies.
Hmm. I took your "If all technology were to be removed from this planet" as physically disappearing, not forbidden.
- If every tool disappears, the strong and resourceful and willful (that 10%) will recreate them: the flint knives, the spears, the bows, etc. They would start again, as primitives, and they would again dominate nature.
- OTOH, if you mean "No tool can exist anymore, ever" (something that sounds more like magic than reality), then yes, of course in the end we would go extinct. We are too soft and slow and physically lacking. The tools are what made us Earth's "apex predator".
But the second scenario is unrealistic. The first, instead, could really happen in case of a worldwide colossal disaster.
Of course, but, what's your point? It is what it is. We have made this far thanks to our opposable thumbs as well, and many other traits. So what?
You could as well have said "If we were blind, we would die in a few days". Sure, but it doesn't describe reality so, again, what's the point?
Besides, tools aren't much useful without the skill and will to use them. Our species' tendency to aggression and willpower are what made those tools so effective: a knife is useless if I don't have the strength and will to use it on a prey. The ones who have those skills will survive much more easily than the meek ones.
The writings of Michael Pollan suggest that part of our domestication came from plants. These need to have their pollen (not Pollan) and seeds distributed, so they invented clever ways to get humans to help. Is AI currently involved the same way?
A fascinating premise with implications in all directions. With the inventions of, sequentially, the electronic computer to the Internet to social media to AI, how will we re-domesticate/are we re-domesticating ourselves? The traits that lead to 'success' in these realms are in many ways the opposite of the "friendliness" traits. How many generations of wealthy tech nerds having kids everywhere (hi, Elon) and lonely suicidal communitarians will it take before we redirect the species' evolution?
Fascinating! But what has gone haywire with our invention? It seems that we are starting to select for more bullying, more violence, and more antisocial behavior. We are well on our way to changing our genes back toward wild animals.
No, not starting to select, only reacting to changing environment with old possible behaviour, that is not fully selected out, only silenced.... Agressivity still is a partly necessary behavioural possibility, when environmental changes requires that....
Perhaps we're just noticing anti-social behavior more these days because we've evolved far enough in a positive direction to no longer consider it normal or acceptable. In a way, then, anti-social people are pushing humanity towards friendlier, more social behavior. After all, moving on from things we don't like is an important way to learn and improve.
Thanks for this viewpoint. I see the truth in it. But it's more positive than I'm feeling these days.
I understand. Change always seems much too slow when you need it the most. But often you don't actually notice change itself anyway; what's visible is people's resistance to it. Sending you happiness and all the best!
Absolutely my first thought when I read this article. I'd love to think that we "domesticated" ourselves into kind and helpful beings who support one another. But when I look around...that is not the world that I see. Thank you for your comment.
I felt the exact same way but then I got to the part about working symbiotically with technology and technology is steering us away from what we truly value imo. And let’s hope that we evolve or “domesticate” to eradicate the noise of social media and all that stuff that makes us feel dumb and yucky and get back to what we do value which is social connection and less aggressive behaviors (which make us feel unsafe). Maybe we’re in an era where we are not working in a positive way with some technology and we’ll change our genes to reject it.
I think this is just a simplistic approach to a very complex evolutionary dynamic. I am hopeful that we can put an end to the negativity and belligerence of our society, but I am not convinced that is an evolutionary process as much as a social process.
Do they not go hand in hand?
Perhaps...perhaps not. That is precisely why I think the approach is simplistic.
Last week I did a 2-day workshop for the most expensive boys' school in South Africa.
My thesis was that mental health in young men is caused by the repression of emotion and untamed maleness (which obviously looks different in each man) so we all went a bit wild and got into our emotions.
At the end of two days, they gave me a full two-minute standing ovation. It sounded like thunder.
Thank you for this article, Kevin. Based on the experience above, I have to wonder of how much of the untamed man - the undomesticated man - still lives deep inside our brains and forces us to fires and finding food even when we don't have to.
And if that is true is repressing that part of ourselves which is now seen as ugly or savage causing us deep confusion and harm?
What are your thoughts Kevin? Is the growing mental health crisis in men tied to our domestication becoming extreme and stifling?
What you see as repressed, “…[that which] is seen as ugly or savage,” is generally thought of as violence, aggression and cruelty.
Personally, I believe it is quite possible that the male of our species must evolve past this “untamed maleness” before we destroy ourselves. I am all for exploring repressed emotions in men—let’s start with sorrow, fear, joy and appreciation.
Most women fear the "wild man," the basic core of man, and try to tame this. Then men suffer being pussy-whipped, as women have gone further into sharing emotions than men. Men need to connect with their inner "wild man" before they can do the solid shadow-work needed to remove aggression towards women.
Let me get this straight, you are blaming women for male aggression against women? Am I gaslit yet? No.
No. I am not encouraging a war of the sexes. Quite the contrary. I am asking for an awareness of this aggressive male energy that can only be directly approached, in my experience, by men helping each other, and with the encouragement and support of women. This is best done in a male only initiation, such as the New Warrior Training Adventure, as given by the ManKind Project. See: mkp.org
Phew. When you referred to men being “pussy whipped” as the reason for male aggression, I mistakenly thought this was another blame the victim story. I will definitely check out your project.
Just as women need more men to stand against gender-based and domestic violence, women need to support the men who encourage young men to see themselves as integral to our healthy society.
I totally agree with this, but I think the challenge is how to stay clear of stereotypes while doing it?
I feel like our fathers lost so much in embracing of testosterone only as men and we see that today, manfisted so destructively in corporate and politcal leadership.
Likewise, we are seeing markers of how repressing the wildman to become socially acceptable is damaging young mens too.
I feel like Joseph Cambell's work might hold the answer but translating that while steering clear of stereotypes feels like a minefield.
Not sure what you mean by "stereotypes?"
Cambell's use of King/Warrior/Lover/Magician can be useful. For example, when a man nears middle age he might be thinking differently and switch from Warrior to Lover.
But these archtypes do not replace the facilitated guts work (shadow work) in a safe community container where transformation happens. See: mkp.org
Love the reference! Thank you. Super helpful. I am using steteotype in the literal sense because work we do in schools is simplistic and kinda of requires those simple guidelines. Looking forward to understanding more what of you mean. Glossed over Cambell before. Will make time to get into in this Christmas. Thanks for your input
Definitely not easy.... not coming out of nothing - maybe repressed also by Testosterone
Interesting perspective. Potentially. Maybe there needs to be a recognition of the wild parts of ourselves being restrained as we evolve...certainly evolution hurts. A men's retreat where men can recognize this in younger men & guide them to healthy management of it could help. Similar to the women's Red Tent retreats, where women support & honor young girls as they come of age (vs this society which tells them to be ashamed of natural cycles, or be overly sexual with their looks to attract a mate- which society says is supposed to be financial & physical security, sadly many times not).
Giving support to young people in how to manage hormones & urges in a healthy way, & to mature people with life challenges, could guide some of the evolution in a positive direction. Potentially.
That's kinda of what we did with these boys (Grade 9)... we started with the wholeman - savage and emotions all intact.
Then we took out emotions post WW1/2 and then took our savage post #metoo and then looked at rise in mens mental health challenges and suicides (which are complicated I know but we simplified them as a warning marker.
This is the crazy part - I eat mostly meat I hunt, as a eater that feels most ethical for me and we consume the animal head to tail and package it as a family. It's pretty beautiful, almost spirtual processes embracing the savage nature of meat consumption... So that's what I did with these boys.
When they heard what we were doing, they spontaneously erupted in applause. It was totally unexpected.
Then while we were doing it we spoke about emotion. I told them how scared and insecure I felt on the hunt. We got curious. We tired to connect the wholeman again.
Boys on the fringes were included gently by those we were comfortable with the process. Shirts came off. Fires were made. For a full day the boys went a bit wild and cook then meat hanging on open fires as a small groups of 10.
I thought I was absolutely bonkers for trying this stuff (normally our work is a bit more intellectucal - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhSxmunNymphLoNcASV2q2E0DCTLjFR3Q&si=ZQN8rgF9GTBHluu8) but it seemed to work...
It really had a deep impact on me - the resonance. It feels like we are missing something as educators, mentors and parents of young men?
Thankfully many men still possessed sufficient male aggression to be willing to run into machine gun fire at Normandy. Heroes every one of them. May God bless and keep them close to Him in Heaven.
So the machine gun fire they were running into was not a product of male aggression?
I think that the Second World War came about as the result of a number of complex reasons but the main one was Hitler’s maniacal obsession to expand Germany. Indeed, perhaps if Neville Chamberlain had displayed more male aggression he could have deterred Hitler from believing that he could conquer Poland and then attain peace with the British.
Well some of it seem to be coupled to Testosterone signaling and function, as opposed to estrogenic impact..... Testosterone and agressiveness is well described within muscle builders... as well as coupled partly to male ( and female) sexual drive...
Our greatest invention is our humanity.
yes yes yes yes
Humanity - not easily defined - something about expressing non agressive- socialization behaviour - coupled to Oxytocin signalling. Typical lacking / low in Autism- autistic functioning- having trouble understanding and appreciating others....
I love this insight and perspective, KK.
We have an infinite power as the architects of our lives in ways we cannot imagine. And it is those very beliefs and realizations, unlocked by testing and stretching the imagination, that reveal the full scope of agency we have in our lives.
This perspective makes us understand that the true strength of humanity does not lie only in external inventions like the wheel or artificial intelligence, but in our ability to reinvent ourselves from within, breaking down genetic and cultural barriers that are thousands of years old. From this arises the optimism typical of those who believe in the bold potential of humanity: we are ready to use this awareness to accelerate evolution not only biologically, but also socially, technologically, and spiritually.
“We invented humanity.”
Maybe. But only from inside the OS that shaped that idea.
The real question is:
Who gave us the ability to invent anything at all?
Until we can step outside that structure,
we’re still just rearranging the furniture.
Beautifully written. Thank you.
In my opinion there is a mistake in reasoning. The domestication of plants and animals was intentional, someone decided to reproduce the individuals that suited us. In contrast, human "domestication" could be a consequence of less infantile individuals being more likely to die without offspring or with fewer offspring, meaning it would be "domestication" by natural selection, not intentional.
This is a very interesting perspective. I appreciate your sharing this additional mechanism. In some sense, the domestication could be operating unconsciously, which is to say that we innately "liked" more infantile individuals better, finding them easier to get along with and less scary, therefore resulting in more offspring...
Both directions might be operating - depending on our / human made environment
But who is the “we” that invented ourselves?
The stories we tell ourselves claim that this invention came from elsewhere.
Every culture has a founding myth about gods and semi-divine ancestors.
This argument sounds suspiciously Californian 😉
Too bad that the president of the Divided States of America is a throwback to the anti-social un-empathic Neanderthals. I fear for that country. 😱
Agree - but at the same time, it looks like he / they have a strong ability to dig up , and show the hidden darkness from last half century made by strong financial driven moneymaking, harvesting from increasing health deficits- that do not have curing disease as a goal, but earning morney from it....
Fascinating read!
Brilliant argument
Interesting read, and a fascinating theory.
But you seem "forgetting" that among humans still exists a wide variety, and the "unfriendly" traits are still present: aggression, ego, competition, violence. So it's true that, on average, we have become more friendly and cooperative as a specie. But within that average there is a wide spectrum.
Think about Navy SEAL or other special corps... they can be as destructive and savage as Neanderthals - but with the addition of fine tuned cooperation and sharp mind.
> "If all technology—every last knife and spear—were to be removed from this planet, our species would not last more than a few months."
This is untrue.
As a matter of fact, in such a situation the "less tamed" people would be the most likely to survive. 90% of our species would probably die within 3-6 months. The rest would find a way to survive. Literally "the survival of the fittest" (in an evolutionary sense).
In a nutshell: we have become friendlier, yes. But there is still a "wild beast" within us; it's just that we need it less and less nowadays. But it hasn't gone extinct.
Take your manliest man that you can imagine. Your best imaginarly he-man. Keep away from him fire, or any kind of weapons. No knife, no sticks. He lacks the claws and teeth of other animals. Put him up against a predator like wolves or lions. He dies.
Hmm. I took your "If all technology were to be removed from this planet" as physically disappearing, not forbidden.
- If every tool disappears, the strong and resourceful and willful (that 10%) will recreate them: the flint knives, the spears, the bows, etc. They would start again, as primitives, and they would again dominate nature.
- OTOH, if you mean "No tool can exist anymore, ever" (something that sounds more like magic than reality), then yes, of course in the end we would go extinct. We are too soft and slow and physically lacking. The tools are what made us Earth's "apex predator".
But the second scenario is unrealistic. The first, instead, could really happen in case of a worldwide colossal disaster.
I wasn't talking about the future. I was talking about the past. We have only made it to this point because of technology.
Of course, but, what's your point? It is what it is. We have made this far thanks to our opposable thumbs as well, and many other traits. So what?
You could as well have said "If we were blind, we would die in a few days". Sure, but it doesn't describe reality so, again, what's the point?
Besides, tools aren't much useful without the skill and will to use them. Our species' tendency to aggression and willpower are what made those tools so effective: a knife is useless if I don't have the strength and will to use it on a prey. The ones who have those skills will survive much more easily than the meek ones.
The writings of Michael Pollan suggest that part of our domestication came from plants. These need to have their pollen (not Pollan) and seeds distributed, so they invented clever ways to get humans to help. Is AI currently involved the same way?
- lots of interwoven possibilities, not one and only explanation.......
A fascinating premise with implications in all directions. With the inventions of, sequentially, the electronic computer to the Internet to social media to AI, how will we re-domesticate/are we re-domesticating ourselves? The traits that lead to 'success' in these realms are in many ways the opposite of the "friendliness" traits. How many generations of wealthy tech nerds having kids everywhere (hi, Elon) and lonely suicidal communitarians will it take before we redirect the species' evolution?
Actually the man himself Charles Darwin hinted at the process in his book The descent of man.