"Its a dog eat dog world", (so said a cousin of mine)

grahamg

grahamg

Old codger
Location
South of Manchester, UK
Many aspects of society are of interest obviously, especially given my interest in fathers/parental rights etc., but this statement I last heard made by one of my first cousins, "That it is a dog eat dog world" has some resonance and repercussions for all kinds of social policy, (if everyone agrees its an accurate assessment of human nature, and what we all can expect from our fellow men and women?).

I would say there are many cases where people do not act in a way where they put their own interests above everyone else's, though it would be very foolish to assume no one ever does, (or perhaps that all of us are prone to at least consider our interests first, even before acting in the interests of others ahead of our own sometimes).

For example, coming forward to act as a witness when you are present when their is an automobile accident, or some other such case, where the benefit to the person/witnessed concerned in minimal or even nonexistent, (except perhaps our consciences will be clear if we do help someone, i.e. the "innocent party" in a road collision).
 

I think I did my cousin the disservice of misremembering his comment, and it should have read, "Its a jealous world", (not a "Dog eat dog world"), so maybe the two statements are connected as you may be jealous, leading you to try to take advantage of others.

(btw I think we can take it the statement is meant to be taken as a metaphorical "dog"! :unsure::whistle: ).

Quote:
"This expression refers to a place or situation that is highly competitive. In a dog-eat-dog world, people will do whatever it takes to be successful, even if that means harming others. Here's an example: “The music industry is dog-eat-dog; one day you're on top and the next, everyone forgot you!"

dog eat dog.1.jpg
 

Last edited:
6a0105369e6edf970b01bb08c46063970d-800wi
 
jujube said:
I remember my dad using the phrase often: "It's dog eat dog and the devil take the hindmost."

It was a strange phrase for him to use, though, as he was the least "dog eat dog" person in the world. I guess he was just referring to the state of society.
Click to expand...
The saying I remember that was quite like the one you've posted, and it was: "There are two sorts in this world, the quick and the dead"! :eek:

Now and again I mention my "so called friends", (real life friends, who maybe aren't quite as good a friend as they might be if you see what I mean?).

Well, in my humble view, in relation to the thread topic, I believe their lives trying to be "top dog" all the time, (hence being competitive with you, or assuming you're trying to put them down somehow, when all you're trying to do is innocently put across whatever it is you have to say).

It could be said they are half way towards being bullies or thugs, but luckily only half way, and they do have a better side, that can come out to save the day, and until some better friends come along I suppose I'll have to put up with them, (and they with me perhaps!). :rolleyes::oops:;)
 
You hear the term "social Darwinism," with its dog-eat-dog philosophy, a lot, especially these days. And Darwin himself actually talked about it. They weren't calling it that yet back then, but the concept has been around forever seemingly; Dickens wrote about it in the early 19th century. The followers of the dog-eat-dog philosophy usually justified it by saying stuff like, "Hey, all these scientists--including Darwin--keep telling us that man is just another animal and since the animal world is a cut-throat, dog-eat-dog world, then that's the way that human society should, and only can, be run." But as Darwin himself said, something like, "No one has to tell me that man is an animal. But! The brain of humans is like no other animal's on this planet. Yes, some animals can do forms of planning and organizing, but the human brain is orders of magnitude beyond that of any other animal. So with these amazing brains, we humans have the capacity to order society so that it is not a ruthless, dog-eat-dog society. We have that capability." And even though we've found that some animals, such as chimps, dolphins, elephants, are smarter than previously thought, Darwin is still correct that the human brain is enormously more complicated and capable than any other animal.

So the human brain is the only thing that I personally put hope in, the hopes for a better, more just society.
 
@officerripley

1) Many studies in recent decades showing that other animals besides humans display traits like compassion, a sense of fairness, etc.
2) My hope is in Consciousness, human and other. Because as much hope as the acceptance of neuroplasticity has given me, to me consciousness involves the metaphorical heart as well the brain. Both are necessary for balanced living. Contribute to well-being of the organism.
 
To my recollection it always has been a dog eat dog world. As the centuries roll on one would expect that humanity progresses ,more so toward our fellowman/woman. Instead,in my opinion, society has gone backwards, gone are the days when we could rely on speaking to and looking out for our neighbours, even our families have become totally immersed in themselves, not all of course, It’s now a ME ME ME world. Not my cup of tea at all.
 
Bellbird said:
To my recollection it always has been a dog eat dog world. As the centuries roll on one would expect that humanity progresses ,more so toward our fellowman/woman. Instead,in my opinion, society has gone backwards, gone are the days when we could rely on speaking to and looking out for our neighbours, even our families have become totally immersed in themselves, not all of course, It’s now a ME ME ME world. Not my cup of tea at all.
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem like the "utopia" Sir Thomas More wrote about five centuries ago I agree, but "it is what it is"(to use a hackneyed phrase!), and amongst it all look what good/great people there are around, and wonderful things that can still happen, I hope you'll agree(?)
 
What did Churchill have to say:
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/churchill-social-reform/

"Churchill understood that, “rule[ing] over free people is nobler and accompanied to a greater extent by virtue than ruling in the spirit of a master.”1 Virtue by choice is greater than virtue by force."

"Churchill fought to preserve liberty by giving his Liberal Party a platform of social reform,................

He did this through social policy. His reforms aimed to enhance the system under which Britons enjoyed freedom. They aimed to promote the humanity of the individual, as well as natural market mechanisms. The reform was “patient, the progress was steady,” and developed through existing political machinery."

"It is the needs of the soul that Churchill invokes: to strive towards the good, the true, the beautiful. For this reason, Churchill believes no one, “who can take advantage of a higher education should be denied his chance.”"

"For society to avoid being consumed by power, he writes, virtue must grow with it in direct proportion to the temporal dangers power poses. These dangers arise when mankind can no longer control his own progress; when progress instead starts to control it. Humanity becomes no different from its inanimate capital counterparts. Mankind loses the ability to strive towards those things which are noble and good."
 
There is just as much competition in the animal world....competing for food, mates etc. 'Survival of the fittest' is what it boils down to. Those who allow themselves to be trodden underfoot instead of standing up for themselves don't last long and their genes are not passed on to the next generation.
 
Lavinia said:
There is just as much competition in the animal world....competing for food, mates etc. 'Survival of the fittest' is what it boils down to. Those who allow themselves to be trodden underfoot instead of standing up for themselves don't last long and their genes are not passed on to the next generation.
Click to expand...
Here is the oddest thing though, should what used to be called "Social Darwinism" be all that matters, and determine whose genes get passed on to the next generation, "Why after so many thousands and thousands of generations are there meek and mild people in the world at all, why is it that not everyone wishes to be top dog all the time?" :unsure:

Social Darwinism.5.jpg
 
Last edited:
It's interesting that whenever a tyrant conquers a country, he executes all the intellectuals...suggesting that the uneducated brutes of the world are easier to control. It's also true that brutes seem to be in the majority. You ask why are there meek and mild people at all? It may be partly because they are more discerning when choosing a mate.
In the animal world, it is usually the female who does the choosing...the male has to prove himself worthy of fathering the next generation. When it comes to humans, however, we seem to choose people who are similar to ourselves. At the moment, the world is over-populated with humans, but we have quantity rather than quality.
The question is..'If decent, honest people had more children and brutes were in the minority, would the world be a better place?'
 
Lavinia said:
It's interesting that whenever a tyrant conquers a country, he executes all the intellectuals...suggesting that the uneducated brutes of the world are easier to control. It's also true that brutes seem to be in the majority. You ask why are there meek and mild people at all? It may be partly because they are more discerning when choosing a mate.
In the animal world, it is usually the female who does the choosing...the male has to prove himself worthy of fathering the next generation. When it comes to humans, however, we seem to choose people who are similar to ourselves. At the moment, the world is over-populated with humans, but we have quantity rather than quality.
The question is..'If decent, honest people had more children and brutes were in the minority, would the world be a better place?'
Click to expand...
You've covered a great deal of ground in your post here, hence I'll have to come back to try to respond to individual statements adequately I feel, though I will give you one almost throwaway response to this sentence: "When it comes to humans, however, we seem to choose people who are similar to ourselves", (when it comes to the partners with whom we choose to have a child).

An old friend of my fathers used to say, in order for there to be compatible partners, or souses, "there has to be one more placid partner to match the more fiery one"!
 
Lavinia said:
It's interesting that whenever a tyrant conquers a country, he executes all the intellectuals...suggesting that the uneducated brutes of the world are easier to control. It's also true that brutes seem to be in the majority. You ask why are there meek and mild people at all? It may be partly because they are more discerning when choosing a mate.
In the animal world, it is usually the female who does the choosing...the male has to prove himself worthy of fathering the next generation. When it comes to humans, however, we seem to choose people who are similar to ourselves. At the moment, the world is over-populated with humans, but we have quantity rather than quality.
The question is..'If decent, honest people had more children and brutes were in the minority, would the world be a better place?'
Click to expand...
Okay, as my second go at respond to your post ill try to cover more of the things you've said, though I doubt I'll manage to respond to it all even now!
I don't think "brutes" are, or seem to be in the majority, (quite the reverse I'd say!).
You mentioned the levels of education in a population, and who might be easier to control.
I can agree with you to an extent, because our history does teach us there were many instances of intellectuals being persecuted or worse by despotic regimes, (and Churchill articulated the need to educate people to act as a force for good let's say, as a way of avoiding the worst kinds of government). We must be careful to avoid straying into politics here, so I'll stop there on this aspect of your post.
I think !maybe I've responded to your main points, but will return if something else comes to mind, and/or I feel I've not done you justice! :)
 
Thanks for your response graham. The title of the thread seems quite simple but it raises so many aspects of human behaviour. I'm not a professional sociologist but I am very interested in human society. Basically, life is a constant battle for all of us....standing up for our rights, competing for the Earth's resources. It's much easier for people to band together under a strong leader than try to do things differently.
I suppose you can't really discuss this sort of thing without straying into politics, so best to leave it there. It does demonstrate, though, how human behaviour and politics are linked and how aggressive leaders are brought to power.
 
Lavinia said:
Thanks for your response graham. The title of the thread seems quite simple but it raises so many aspects of human behaviour. I'm not a professional sociologist but I am very interested in human society. Basically, life is a constant battle for all of us....standing up for our rights, competing for the Earth's resources. It's much easier for people to band together under a strong leader than try to do things differently.
I suppose you can't really discuss this sort of thing without straying into politics, so best to leave it there. It does demonstrate, though, how human behaviour and politics are linked and how aggressive leaders are brought to power.
Click to expand...
I would suggest "leaders must show strength", (especially strength of character, decisiveness etc. obviously), though as you say far too close to the world we dont wish to discuss here even if we wished to, and there's plenty of safer ground talking about human behaviour to cover isn't there!
All the best, Graham :)
 
More research on the thread topic:
https://medium.com/@introspectivein...that-leads-to-societal-breakdown-a8ebae61be3e

Quote:
" It's descriptive of the Machiavellian ideology that loyalty needs scrutiny and resistance must be crushed, but when everyone is self-serving and playing against each other to get ahead it's as if they are cannibalizing each other."

And this:
https://www.mugglenet.com/2014/09/fluffys-political-representation-in-a-dog-eat-dog-eat-dog-world/

Fluffy’s political representation in a dog-eat-dog-eat-dog world​

Cerberus, derived from Greek mythology, constitutes the three-headed dog that guards the entrance to the Underworld. In Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone by J.K. Rowling, the Cerberus, christened “Fluffy,” is a giant three-headed dog that guards the trapdoor on the third floor, the first challenge of seven to retrieve the Philosopher’s Stone. Fluffy, as a three-headed dog, remains a rare creature in the wizarding world, perhaps one of the only of his kind. His three heads specifically keep him distinct as a magical animal and the ideologies they represent. Fluffy as a magical creature in the Harry Potter world serves as a symbolic political representation of such ideologies as elitism, conformism, perfectionism, and perspectivism.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top