They are closer to our natural way to be. The basic things within them we retain except when society malfunctions. Like the invention of the atom bomb the advancement of society brought other weapons of harm.
The apes live in packs. There are structures within them. There are many things analogous to humans.
But there's that one thing. Of all the apes I know they all exist in groups. In tribes. They may have different social orders but the one quality of living in a group is seen as a basic thing.
Herds are common for mammals. It's older species and birds like the albatross which trigger my memory of the opposite of this need to exist in a group.
I am being simplistic here because I have a lack of knowledge. But I have a sense. I sense the research which shows human contact with a generally therapeutic aim has benefits for mental health. The research into the correlation between exclusion and isolating, disability and poorer outcomes shows how the opposite of group/social interaction is bad.
But most of all I know it from personal experience. Isolation. Not belonging. To some people that really sucks.
This may be a basic need not addressed well enough. Considering primate behaviour as a template for advanced human behaviour might seem stupid. Considering the problem of mental illness...it might not.
The animal had to adapt from a basic existence which millions of years of evolution designed it for to the needs of civilisation and society.
What if civilisation and society was never formed with considering how primates live and be? What happens if part or all of mental illness is a product of this maladaption, or illness, in society?
No comments:
Post a Comment