System Ideologies and the Emergence of Consciousness and Civilization

 System Ideologies and the emergence of consciousness and civilization: What processes lead to the emergence of the collective voice representative of our experience of being alive?

Since the dawn of Civilization, our leaders have marveled at that miraculous moment in human evolution, where some spark ignited the human intellect in all its glory, waking it up from its long-kept dormant state, and leading it to the discovery and conquest of the world. For hundreds of thousands of years, our ancestors had been wandering around the face of the planet without much purpose or objective; but now that our mind's full potential had been finally unleashed, we were ready to start sowing crops, domesticate animals, build all sorts of crafts and, at last, the prodigious invention of writing and civilization. Philosophers of all times have then wondered how was that truly unique magic moment, what sparked the phenomenal ignition of the human brain 15,000 - 20,000 years ago, separating us from all other animals and leading us to create states and become civilized. 

However, if we carefully examine the human brain and compare it with any other primate's brain, there is really very little difference, other than the human brain's asymmetries. Moreover, the degree to which humans reason out of thin air is very limited. For example, it is not likely that human beings found out how to start a fire out of deep thought and reasoning. It is not credible that anybody ever sat down and began reasoning, what is that needed to be done in order to start a fire. It is far more likely that one day someone threw a rock and accidentally sparked a fire. From there it was much easier to figure out how to reproduce the magic event by first producing a spark and next causing a fire from such spark. It is then really fortunate that we eventually came to stand up on our rear limbs, so that our hands became free to take on actions such as throwing rocks.

   

 In fact, there is no evidence to suggest that there is anything specifically in the human brain that predestines the development of states and civilization. Rather, there is a good case to be made that some form of "civilization" will naturally and organically emerge from any population of individuals, who, on one hand, feel an intense drive (and find a strong pleasure when successful) to dominate and exploit anyone within his or her reach; but, on the other hand, have an existential dependency and need for love, to the extent that their sense of 'happiness' is mainly determined by the degree to which they feel loved.      

Yes, the rise of the state is the result of a slow organic process, whereby the different ingredients - which make up a state - emerge, develop and interact with each other. Scholars will generally recognize the existence of a state whenever a series of elements are found: namely, large, densely-populated urban centers, settlement hierarchies, economic specialization, monumental buildings, social hierarchies and - the jewel in the crown - writing. While some of these factors will often serve as precursors for others, in some other cases they may conflict against each other. For example, a large concentration of people in a given place will naturally lead to economic specialization and the association of smaller surrounding towns and villages to form a settlement hierarchy. Similarly, an hierarchical social structure is likely to produce monumental buildings. On the other hand, as counterintuitive as it may be, large concentrations of people do not blend well with social hierarchies. This conflict is an important caveat, since it is these two factors - large concentration of people and social hierarchy - which make up the essential driving forces leading to the rise of the state and civilization. 

Regardless of what is the correct criteria which should be used to confer the titles of state and civilization, the crucial consideration to take away is that those communities exhibiting a rich economic specialization will enjoy a competitive edge. The relevance of this observation resides in the fact that competition will serve as the fundamental catalyzer for the processes responsible for the rise of the state. Every community requires certain food and material resources for its survival. Since these needs are widely shared across communities, as soon as they come in contact one with another, unavoidably some competition for the available resources will start. Naturally, the more efficient a community is, the higher its odds to prevail. Now, while the emergence of a state is doubtful to produce an improvement in a regular person's life, fact of the matter is that the state will make the community more efficient and, therefore, competitive. Since the rise of the state, ruling elites have engrained in us the notion, whereby civilization is humankind's paramount and most marvelous achievement. In this telling, writing is definitely civilization's jewel in the crown and the supreme expression of human intelligence. Yet, it turns out that the first function of writing was for inventory purposes. In the civilized world, it now became important to keep a record of the quantities you own of items such as foreign females; that is, slaves. Yes, as sinister as it sounds, contrary to what we have always been told, civilization is and has always been about one thing and one thing alone: How a few may be able to dominate the rest of the population. Now, as unsettling and chilling as it is, fact of the matter is that a population with a head (i.e. a ruling elite) is far more competitive than a population without it. Consequently, those communities which grow more efficient as a result of the emergence of a ruling elite and the development of a state, will then begin to expand and slowly but surely phagocytize or altogether wipe off those who do not. The human brain was definitely not wired up to one day create a state. As any hollow coconut could tell you, not only were coconots not made to one day venture into the sea, but just a few ever got the urge to do so. In other words, the rise of the state and civilization was never a matter of volition, but that of sheer survival. Contrary to the old-as-time ruling elites' mantra, communities did not came up with all the different prodigious ideas responsible for civilization, because those individuals were smarter or more virtuous; but simply because it became necessary to overhaul and revamp the community's social structure, in order to survive. In fact, there is every reason to believe, that these innovations were not the product of any conscious decision; but the natural upshot of the interaction with competing communities. Indeed, all the evidence points to the conclusion, that the series of ingredients which any community will need to meet civilization, actually popped out or were invented in different places at different times, by different people. Necessity, information exchange and competition then served as fertilizers and catalyzers causing the eventual coalescence of all the ingredients in one specific place. Indeed, there is a reason why the first states and civilizations appear in regions of extraordinary fertility, surrounded by vast swaths of unbearingly inhospitable terrain. The competition to occupy the Garden of Eden is going to be fierce, and accelerate all developments. Undoubtedly, any community hoping to survive the competition for the garden of Eden, should expect to be constantly challenged by invading hordes. Still, the community will be able to optimize its efficiency and strength, by developing a full-blown economic specialization, including, for instance: food production, religious, political and administrative functions, craft production and military duties. Now, while all specializations bear their merits in their own right, of crucial importance is the coexistence of a strong food-production force and a well-defined social hierarchy. Yes, in basic terms, a community will be more powerful, if it possesses a large population and a streamlined command structure. However, while most economic specializations will generally emerge naturally from any large concentration of people, the prospects of a community to optimize its efficiency are going to be continuously clogged by the repellency of any population to the rise of an elite ambitioning to dominate it. As counter'intuitive as it may seem, wile large, densely-populated nuclei will clearly benefit the most of a social hierarchy exercising administrative, political and control functions; it is rather unlikely that the population will want to come to terms with and seek this advancement. Needless to say, nobody likes to be bossed around or be told what to do. Hence, if you are doing fine and have some food on your table each and every day, why would you want to complicate your life the tiniest bit? In the early days of the first multi-cellular organisms, regular cells must have also felt mightly irritated by the electrical signals and various other pokes produced by the first nervous cells of the most primitive brains. Yet, no reasonable mind could honestly argue, that the development of a brain did not represent a mighty competitive advantage for those multi-celular organisms.

In contrast, it was far easier for a strong leadership to establish itself in small communities, where everybody new each other and there was little doubt who was the strongest, the most insightful and overall the best suited to lead the group. Should there ever had been any doubt, they sure as heck had found an opportunity to duke it out. Hopefully, the strongest would be smart enough and seek advise from the sharpest. They would then establish a marriage alliance to seal their deal. Once a chief of the village had been recognized, he became the group's new Alpha Male and everybody would unquestionably follow him wherever he went, whatever he said. However, these small communities were such, because the kind of bleak and forbidding landscapes where they would normally live and roam around did not allow for intensive food production sufficient to support larger populations. Luckily, necessity is the best fertilizer to sharpening up anybody's ingenuity, and these nomadic or semi-nomadic tribes are going to develop their own strategies, technologies and techniques to be able to overcome the stark limitations imposed by their environment and the meager wealth it allows to extract from their herds and trade based economy. Writing will be invented in the cities; but these nomads are going to figure out horseback riding, the wheel, the wagon and will excel at warfare. The Greeks of the Classic period also distained and turned up their noses at those uncivilized Barbarians, who were so stupid that they did not even know how to speak, but were only able to babble some meaningless sounds. That was until the so very intelligent and civilized Classic Greeks started to fight each other, continued killing each other, until their inferior Barbarian underlings came to take up the pieces and ended up dominating and enslaving them. A similar story is to be told about the Romans and pretty much every empire in History. Clearly, our masters are so stupid that they will never learn.

As a person born with a severe disability I can very much relate how the brain does not house any kind of well of absolute intelligence, which can be interchangeably apply to any endeavor. Rather, you just become good at those task you devote yourself to and keep persevering on. Then, if your subsistence depends on your ability to overcome a given difficulty or hardship, you will be sure to figure it out, whatever it takes. If the Barbarians needed to fight in order to survive; they would eventually do so and become really good at it. As any hollow coconut could tell you, not every coconut tried to venture into the sea; but, luckily for him, his grandfather did. If the rich farming settlement down in the fertile river valley was still small enough; the Barbarian village's chief could eventually consider leading his tribesmen to take it over for themselves. Alternatively, some ambitious - perhaps somewhat psychopathic - young man may get it into his head to cajole his buddies, have them all get on their horses and seek fortune and glory, pillaging and plundering wealthy farming villages, burning houses, killing men and raping women along their way. Perhaps, if he comes out successful, he may soon become the chief of his own tribe and think on taking on larger farming towns. Who knows?, the nomadic warriors may eventually want to put down some roots. Perhaps, he or one of his descendents - perhaps, the son of one of the women he raped - will eventually rule the town. The town dwellers did not want to be bossed around; but now they have no choice anymore and will have to suck it all up from here on. Moreover, agonisingly enough, they may now have to adopt their new rulers' language.

Regardless of whether the farming town acquired its leadership and military prowess when it was still small and docile, or only after it had already grown up and had seen the Barbarian warriors moved in, dominance over the entire population will still need to be institutionalized somehow, so that it can be replicated over successive generations. For this purpose religions will often play a helpful role. The old leader and town's Alpha Male may have been strong, terrifying or just charismatic, and, on the whole, we all ended up loving him; but why the heck are we going to simply accept that his son is quite the same? Actually, the old Alpha-Male father will be deify after his death, and the new son of God will assert, that we all ought to obey him or else... In any event, much to the regret of our cute, little, peceful farming community next to the river, it is very unlikely that any strong, charismatic Alpha Male leader will ever rise under any kind of heavenly beautiful conditions. Much to the regret of our peaceful community, sooner or later, it will have to endure some shock-and-awe traumatizing experience to be beaten into submission.

Furthermore, this was only the first of many invasions. Our beautiful town by the river is so sexy, that it is bound to change hands many times from here on, and each of them it is certainly going to be absolutely horrible. The fierce warriors have naturally got entangled with the trappings of power, fallen accustomed to the fine and comfortable city life, and - in summation - rested on their laurels. If necessity is the best fertilizer for anybody's ingenuity; it is also part of our nature that abundance is the most potent sedative. This is the reason why we can only stay happy for a short while after our last accomplishment, and we soon need to engage in the pursuit of a new endeavor, if we want to avoid slowly slipping into depression. Indeed, Nature figured out very early in Evolution, that there is nothing more unproductive than a happy person. Adding to our sins, the ruling families were soon on each other's throats and consumed themselves - and the entire town along the process - in their infighting over power. All the while, invaders have kept come calling to our beautiful town by the river. Therefore, all what is left to see is which will be the last straw to break the camel's back. Obviously, the stronger the force, the higher the odds that it will succeed at bringing the town's defenses down. Yet, as terrible as it is certainly going to be, when the dust settles, the town will wake up stronger from the nightmare and will be a step further towards civilization. The town dwellers will learn from the new invaders, as the new invaders will learn from the town dwellers, and the end result of this information exchange will be a socially, technologically and economically more advanced community. Competition is indeed the most effective catalyzer for advancement.   

Civilization so emerges as an elite of a few or one extended family rises to power over everybody else in the society. At last the society got a brain to command and coordinate the whole: From here on out, the ruling elite will determine the course of action and everybody else will obey and row in the same direction. While it is questionable whether the lives of the individual members of the collectivity will improve, Evolution shows that the community as a whole will most definitely become stronger and fitter as a governing entity establishes some law and order. Anybody is certainly free to think that life outside civilization is more enjoyable, but it will be a matter of time before she will be run over. In the same way that those animal species which developed a brain draw those which did not to the brink of total extinction; those societies where civilization emerged have slowly driven indigenous communities to the brink of extinction. Civilization has therefore become a matter of survival: submit to civilization or disappear. Of course, the choice has never been presented to us in such a stark manner. Neither does anybody ever think in such dramatic terms. Rather, we just ponder what will serve our wishes and interests best. After all, as social animals, we are all conditioned to follow the collectivity and work with other members. Yet, life under civilization is not quite the same as life in community. In fact, civilization is a whole new ballgame. Certainly, little did we know what was all in store for us: we have to get up early in the morning to go to work, we have to pay taxes, we are constantly told what to do and what we cannot do. Yes, we definitely lost our freedom; but, on the other hand, civilization gave as a strong sense of security. Nevertheless, let us not allow them to fool us, we never really had a reasonable choice; but, from the moment we are born we are indoctrinated into the belief that life under civilization is best. This is the crucial role of any system ideology: do not ask what is that the collectivity can do for you, but what you can do for the collectivity

Indeed, More likely than not, the elite's rise to power required some violence, but violence is clearly not a good long term approach to maintain the new system's order alive. In order to keep the populace's adherence, following, loyalty and submission, it is essential that they believe. Everybody, at a minimum, should believe that it is better to be with the system than against the system. As Confucius had thought, the common people is supposed to be obedient, dutiful and industrious. The trick is inducing them to be that way of their own accord, using the example of virtue and proper behavior from above, to instill shame in those who did not act properly. This is where a system ideology will come in handy: yes, the ideology is going to slowly, softly kill us with its song.   

Scholars in Human studies use the term 'system ideology' to refer to The framework of beliefs, values, rules, practices and ideas in general that the head of the society imposes on all the individuals of the collectivity, (arguably) in order to ensure the proper functioning of the whole. 

As the first territorial state in Human history, Ancient Egypt constitutes an excellent example of system ideology. There is a good case to be made, that it is in fact its ideology what makes the rise of the state possible. In the words of Encyclopedia Britanica: As a divine ruler, the Pharaoh was the preserver of the God-given order. He owned a large portion of the land and directed its use, was responsible for the people's economic and spiritual welfare, and dispense justice to his subjects. His will was supreme and he govern by royal decree.

In practical terms, as the example of the Pharaoh's Ancient Egypt illustrates, the system ideology will in general impose an account of what and how is the world around us, who we are, where do we come from, how things work, how to stay well, and how to prosper; all in all, how to lead a happy life.

Now, from the citizen's side, the system's ideology is received as the accumulated wisdom of the most learned and insightful among us, which is meant to help us understand the world around us. We so learn how things work, what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is that the individual member must do, if he or she wants to be respected, appreciated and loved by the others.

This is so much so that, under civilization, the transition from childhood to adulthood is no longer determined by the time the individual becomes sexually mature, but by when he or she has absorbed the bulk of the system's ideology; in other words, what is the role and set of functions he or she has to carry out as part and member of the civilized society.

With Civilization we definitely lost our freedom and no violence is required by the system ideology in order to enact the spell. All what it takes to have us all follow the head of the society's command is annuling our freedom of thought and so wiping out our will. Definitely, humans stopped reasoning and our thoughts, views and opinions became a mere repetition of what we heard from our tutors and teachers, and - fundamentally so as civilization grew - the mantras we are taught at church and, more recently, the Media. This is so much so that our educational system is even specifically and explicitly designed for that purpose. In elementary school, high school and college we are taught the basic knowledge we need to perform our role in society. Masters students are then lectured on the most advanced material on a specific subject, and it is only those few who receive enough support to be able to make it to Ph.D. studies, who are finally encouraged to come outside the box and think for themselves. A ph.D. degree requires an advancement, an addition and contribution to human knowledge; hence the Ph.D. student has to reason and learn to think outside the box; yet, even then, only for the very specific subject of the Ph.D. thesis; for everything else, much like everyone else. Contrary to general believe, it is not that the Children are stupid, but we were never given an opportunity, were never really allowed, to start thinking for ourselves and reasoning. The question is not who is that we should believe and listen to; rather, the real problem is that we stopped thinking for ourselves. Indeed, we are all, big and small, slowly becoming one more cell in the organism, our DNA has already done all the thinking for us, and we only respond and perform our duties according to it: definitely, Civilization is slowly, softly killing us with its song.  

The system's ideology therefore becomes the DNA of the new polity: it sets the course the stream is going to flow, and everybody follows suit. Today's scholars in Human studies love to speak about human agency, as much as they hate to think of inevitability; but it is incredibly difficult to swim against the current. Even the most educated are driven by their love-and-hate emotions - rather than their rational thinking - to make their scientific judgements. It becomes a fool's errand to go against the grain. If the prevailing Public Opinion's current of thought demanded the nation resorted on the atomic bomb to once and for all finish off Imperial Japan, did truman really ever had a choice? Undoubtedly, Colonel Paul Tibbets, the pilot who actually dropped the bomb, most definitely did not. If he had ever refused, clearly somebody else had done it instead. Judge Aaron Persky, for example foolishly thought the final judgement on the Chanel Miller v. Brock Turner (alleged) sexual assault case laid down on him, and did not get, that our system's fake-feminist ideology would not accept anything less than having Brock Turner burned at the stakes. Hence he became the first judge to be recalled. There was clearly a reason why nobody ever said a word nor raised a finger when some other more docile court gave another young woman an order of protection against her blind husband. Certainly, no human being in his or her right mind would issue an order of protection against a blind person; but we forget, that the System is no human being. Indeed, terrifyingly enough, the bloodcrudling thought rising from all this reasoning is that, while human beings are known to feel love and allow their compassion and humanity to participate in their decision making processes, system ideologies do not. Evidently, system ideologies are coldblooded, heartless 'animals' and do not entertain any feeling, as they push for the most abominable, heinous and monstrous policies and actions. We all obey the leader, but the leader only follows the ideology; unless he is the kind of tyrant, who foolishly dares to defy the Public Opinion. Definitely, at some point it starts feeling as the system ideology has acquired life of its own, and, once it has grown sufficiently, the Revolution will start eating its children... There is no way around it: we just need to come to terms with the reality that, as long as the System's ideology flows from the lips of the upper class, the System is only going to work for those at the top of the society.

 

Yes, little by little, we are indoctrinated into stopping focusing on ourselves, and starting thinking instead on the collectivity, where it goes without saying that the collectivity will go wherever the head of the society says. As single uncivilized individuals living in Nature, it seems sensible to see procreation as the ultimate aim in life. While men seek to conquer some woman who is willing to give him some descendents; women try to identify the man, who will be better able to help her raising her children. However, as we become a society, little by little we start forgetting our individual natural drives, and the standing of the whole in the environment acquires more and more relevance. We can already see in other social animal species (like, for example, in bees), how it is of benefit to the community to have members, who are not procreation-minded, but are instead focused on other functions. It is so of no surprise, how Ancient Greece's intellectuals elaborated on how homosexuals would make for the best soldiers: as much as a homosexual man himself is likely to be among the first to feel  the utmost aversion against any form of violence, he will be ready to give his life for his lover, if that is what the Gods demanded.  

Clearly, our union is what makes us stronger. If a human being faces off a wild beast such as a lion, it is unclear what way the confrontation is going to go. However, if a big community of humans is matched against an equally-sized group of lions, there is little doubt that humans are going to come out on top. Indeed, humans' strength is our ability to work together. Now, love is what brings us together: we work together because we love and care for each other. Yet, admittedly, love may not always be enough to defeat a big pride of fierce lions; but eventually we may need civilization to ensure victory and undisputed supremacy. Fact of the matter is a community of human beings will rise to unprecedented and unparalleled levels of power, if its members are coordinated and follow a chain of command. In other words, our ascendency does not result from our superior intellect, but because we become coordinated and organized. For instance, if a battalion of soldiers constitutes a more effective fighting force than a band of fierce, uncivilized warriors; it is not because the soldiers are individually smarter than the barbarian warriors, but because soldiers, as civilized individuals, follow a chain of command and therefore fight as one man.       

Importantly, it is the system ideology what has us follow the chain of command. After all, ideologies (any kind of ideology, as a matter of fact) are nothing but a binding mechanism, where the strenth of the union comes determined by the degree to which its members believe in its ideology and or follow it. Clearly, we follow the ideology and work for the union, because it will revert back, or so we believe, to us. Much like with civilization, while it is arguable to what extent the individual members will actually benefit of the union, there is little doubt that the organization will get stronger. That is, whoever or whatever (if anything at all) runs the ideology will get stronger. Keep always in mind: you should not ask what the organization can do for you, but only what you can do for the organization. Soon enough the Revolution will start eating its children...

Indeed, if the ideology needs to be strong in order to survive, no resource can be spared. Everybody has to believe and be committed to the Project. It certainly should not take a rocket scientist to comprehend, that it will be best for everybody, if we all strive to advance the whole; but the system's ideology is nevertheless going to make sure, that the point is not lost on anybody. As Confucius had explained, virtue comes from above and those who do not behave properly should feel ashamed. It is then only smart to indoctrinate the people to identify 'the good' with all what advances the fitness of the whole, whereas 'the bad' is anything that is otherwise detrimental. to the whole. It stands to reason that for any ideology to survive, it will need to define as good people those individuals, who act always with the collectivity's welfare in mind, whereas the bad people are those, who act in complete disregard for the whole and only care about themselves. Hence, if you want to be appreciated and loved by the others, you should give yourself to the collectivity; whereas you should not expect anything but contempt from other people, if you only look after yourself. Yet, is it not exactly that, looking after oneself, what any animal in Nature is supposed to do in order to survive?

Definitely, as sound as the principle certainly is, it all is clearly much easier said than done. Let us be honest, as much as our ethical framework will never allow us to openly admit it, nobody is genuinely focused on the welfare of the society at large, but we are rather more concerned looking after ourselves. Yes, we will fight and die for our community or religiously pay our taxes; but that is only because we really do not see any other option and, oh well, at the end of the day, we all do get the point and believe, that we will benefit and it will pay us off if all goes well for the whole. Still, remarkably, just like everything else, with the passing of time system ideologies have also been refined, become more and more subtler and effective, and found ways to have us all enthusiastically support the system. With the advent of the printing press, Radio, Cinema and Television, as modern system ideologies have grown more and more insidious and pervasive and the System has acquired a tighter grip on our minds and lives, bafflingly enough, the immense majority of the population has become more and more convince, that we have reached "Freedom" and we are only getting freer by the day. As a matter of fact, on Election Day - despite all the contempt we feel for all politicians -, we all go vote, and, as much as it can still be argued, that we cast our vote with our very own selfish interests front and center, at the end of the day, for all what matters to the System and the ideology it grows from, it serves the purpose. 

In a way we can see system ideologies as living beings that - in a fashion similar to DNA or (benign or malign) computer viruses - set up shop in the minds of the members of a community and govern (positively or negatively) the members' individual behaviors and therefore the community's functioning as a whole: as long as we follow the ideology's directions, the System stays alive and continues running. At a minimum, we do reach the conclusion that it is better to be with the System than against the System. At a minimum, we accept to sail with the wind, and be part of and belong to the whole. Conversely, you may wholeheartedly embrace the System's ideological framework and are fully committed to its strengthening and perpetuation. Either way, we all have a sense that we are part of the whole and are willing to work for it. As a matter of fact, it will not be long before we all reach a good understanding, that we are all together in this, we start feeling as one, we belong to the whole and it is only smart to realize, that, if we stay united and work together for the well-being of the whole, it will eventually revert back in our own particular benefit and well-being. Needless to say, but still key to note, the stronger our belief, the steadfaster our adherence to the ideology, the more unconditional, unflinching and relentless our devotion and commitment to the whole, and, most crucially, the stronger and fitter - at least in the short term - the polity will be.

Yes, in the short run; but what about the long run? As much as the system ideology's core slogan will always explain, how it will always revert bak in our own individual benefit if we strive and work for the advancement of the whole, in practice that may not necessarily be the case.. Definitely, the strength of the ideology will not always necessarily translate into a stronger society. How often have we spend our entire life following the system's ideology to improve our society, and eventually found out that we have actually gone backwards? Nazi SS members were surely totally convinced, that they were working for the greatness of Germany and the German people, and yet..., it all ended in a total disaster, for the victims of the Holocaust, most definitely, but for the German people as well. Clearly, the system ideology is always created by those at the top, in order to cement and consolidate their power. A strong system ideology will have the entire population fully committed to the advancement of the nation and so eager to follow the leadership and command of the head of the society. After all, the whole point of Civilization is that the system ideology empowers the head of the society to extract more and more resources from the populace in order to achieve its objectives. The system ideology will always argue the objective is the improvement of the nation's standing; but, evidently, those at the top will usually have their own particular interpretation of this concept. Modern professional athletes may also resort on doping, in order to improve their performance, rise over their rivals and dominate the competition. In the short term we will see sunshine and roses all around us; however, when the organism is subjected to excessive stress for long enough time, at some point it is going to break down and fall. Perhaps the next cheater will then take over; but, it is to be expected that eventually it will become clear that helthier and more balanced lifestyles and methods yield better results in the long run.

 Yes, sooner or later the Revolution will come calling and start eating its children. That day, when the ideology goes against you, none of you will have a chance to fight it on your own. A single person stands no chance going against an ideology, for the very same reason that a single person stands no chance going against an organized and disciplined group of people. An ideology can only be defeated by some other stronger ideology. Consequently, when the going starts getting tough, it is time for you all to come up with some other better ideology with which to confront the beast, or you will all inevitably find yourself swept by the tide. 

We all have come to accept, that it is impossible to fix the System. Yet how does a viral micro-organism bring down a whole human being? There is clearly a reason why those at the top of our system are so fearful of social networks, and mass-Media cannot stop looking for ways to scare us against any mechanism whereby the people may be able to exchange ideas freely. In fact, here we can see once more the relevance of the ideology: If we perceive the system as a beautiful human being and portray the micro-organism as a malign virus, we would all get a strong apprehensive feeling against it. Yet, if we see the system as Big Brother and we devise the viral micro-organism as a viral message for freedom of thought and equal-opportunities, we would all be all for it. Now, at first glance, it would seem good enough to just bring down Big Brother, perhaps it would suffice if we simply stopped voting and therefore avoid supporting Big Brother; but we all need a DNA to stay united, alive and kicking, and feel fearful of what will happen without it. Consequently, in order for the change to succeed, the poisoning ideology has to be replaced with a stronger (hopefully more benign) ideology; that is, an ideology that works for everybody. As a matter of fact, pivotal events in Human History such as Christianity's conquest of the Roman Empire, the Protestant Reformation or the French Revolution should be understood as nothing but a replacement of the system ideology: the people came to assimilate there was a better way to organize their societies.      

Definitely, like any species' DNA, - to the extent that whatever does not perpetuate itself, is likely to eventually disappear - ideologies compete against each other and do so according to Nature's survival-of-the-fittest rule. Consequently, if we are able to correctly reason what makes a society more competitive, then we would be able to understand how ideologies evolve to produce that kind of successful societies. Clearly, those societies which are not competitive will disappear; those others which are competitive in the short term, but stagnate in the long run, will first shoot up and subsequently collapse; finally, those societies which follow slower dynamics and take a longer time to thrive, will first need to survive the domination of the faster-dynamics societies, before they can break out in all their splendor. Now, contrary to dominant belief, it certainly does not take a brain scientist to figure out that the societies which will flourish and be more competitive in the long run are those where the system works for everybody, rather than just for those at the top.    

As a matter of fact, given the parallelism between system ideologies and animal species' DNAs, it is possible to find some very good insight of what makes in Nature for an optimal organization of a large population of units. Indeed, fascinatingly, we can use the same concepts and mechanisms, which explain the rise of Civilization, to likewise visualize and understand how does Consciousness emerge:

Consciousness emerges when the joint activity and cooperation of a population of units give rise to a consistent sequence of actions and behaviors firmly aimed at the advancement of the standing of the whole in the world. Indeed, the basic purpose of our thoughts is to establish the foundations and elaborate the plans and strategies to advance our fitness and standing in the environment, and it is the joint activity and cooperation of the neurons in our brains what produce the coherent sequence of actions and behaviors which make up said plans and strategies. As our neurons start coming up with intermediate milestones to accomplish our ultimate goal, as well as the plans necessary to achieve said milestones, the first thoughts emerge in our minds on what are our needs and desires, as well as what plans should we follow to, respectively, satisfy and achieve them. As Descartes stated, the moment we start thinking on our needs and desires , as well as what is what we should do in order to fulfill them, becomes the moment where we become aware of their existence; that is, the moment we become conscious of our very own existence. Indeed, at some point it starts feeling as our train of thoughts have acquired life of its own.  

Neurons in the inferior temporal cortex (IT) develop selectivity for certain complex visual patterns such as facial features: whenever the preferred visual stimulus falls into the neuron's 'receptive field' (field of view), it will cause the cell to elicit a burst of action potentials. On the other hand, neurons in the Lateral Intra-Parietal sulcus (LIP) have been observed to be specialized in the coding of locations in the environment in eye-centered coordinates. Unlike their counterparts in IT, LIP neurons' bursts of activity may serve sensorial and or motor functions: namely, they may code the location of a stimulus in the environment and or the target location for a saccade (abrupt eye movement between fixations). In the latter case, the excited firing rates of LIP neurons pointing at different target locations should be seen as competing against each other; so that whichever stimulus draws most activity and gathers most support wins the competition, and will become the next pattern we look at. Importantly, this competition can be biased and directed based on "our wishes". Indeed, those LIP neurons pointing at some specific "sought-after stimulus" will received enhanced support from neurons in the visual cortex responsive for said "sought-after stimulus". Now, while LIP neurons code locations in eye-centered coordinates, in other areas of the parietal cortex other reference systems are employed. Obviously, trunk-centered and hand-centered coordinates are better suited for grasping and other hand actions. In addition, head-centered coordinates are very useful to transform between different reference frames, like, for example, when reaching for a visual target, or in many other visual-motor coordination tasks.    

To make a very long story short, exactly as in a complex society, we find in the brain countless 'populations' of neurons specialized at a plethora of different tasks. The magic spark then ignites when one of these populations of neurons (most likely in the prefrontal cortex) connects the dots and sets all other cells to work together! For instance, whenever we need to find a certain visual stimulus in the environment, these prefrontal cortex neurons issue a command to retrieve from memory a visual representation of the sought-after stimulus. This mental representation is then projected into the visual cortex, most likely through the inferior-temporal cortex. In fact, experimental evidence suggests, that neurons in the visual cortex responsive for those features, which make up the sought-after stimulus, will receive this kind of top-down / feedback, enhance activity. Consequently, if the stimulus turns out to be present in the visual field, those visual cortex units selective for its visual features and those LIP units selective for its eye-centered position will fire more strongly. In other words, the sought-after stimulus will win the competition for attention, as the LIP units coding its location impose the target for the next saccade. Hence, next thing we know is that the sought-after stimulus is right before our eyes, and our wish has been fulfilled.  

Clearly, as long as the different parts work together, the whole stays alive. Consequently, the feeling of being alive corresponds to the activity of those units coordinating - at the highest level - all the other units in the organization. The beautiful music of life goes on playing, as long as the conductor of the orchestra maintains the synchrony. Interestingly, when it comes to our consciousness, we get this view from the top down; whereas, when it comes to our nation, we get the view from the bottom up. Indeed, our thoughts reflect what we need and desire, as well as how we should act to fulfill those needs and desires: "Where is X? Ah, there it is! Now, let's act upon X to achieve Y", "Hmm, I feel hungry, let's go get some food", "Oh, my baby is crying, I need to feed it some food". Similarly, if we watch mass-Media, we would see what those at the top of the society think the nation should do, in order to flourish and prosper. They are the voice of the nation and it feels as we could hear what is going through the nation's mind, what does the nation have in mind: "The drought will cause this year a low agricultural yield: we will need to import some food", "One of our allies has been attacked, we should send them some aid to help in their defense".  

 

Interestingly, if we consider who is the people that speak for our collective mind, it is much easier to realize how much less credit our consciousness deserves for all the brainstorming going on in our brains. In the same way that our political leaders are by far not the brightest of among us, there is a lot of brainpower involved in our instincts, which our reason does not deserve any credit for. In fact, in the same way that public opinion is what really drives political power in our modern societies, it would be reasonable to say that it is all the computation and processing involved in our instincts, what is really in charge and drives our reason.