Above note: Climbing a pilon...wearing flares
In his book "Our Inner Ape" biologist Franz De Waal concurs with Nietzsche on the primacy of the "Will to Power" in the human race. Nietzsche saw the will to power as the true driving force in evolution. Darwin's "survival of the fittest" only explains how things work out, it does not explain the driving force in evolution. I believe this to be true, though there is not really a "will" in the case of plants for instance, there is a "striving" or "drive" for power that is not conscious.
Plants compete and strive for access to the power of the sun and other resources but this can't be called a conscious will. Also humans may be entirely unaware, or in denial, about striving for power. A person may believe they are only trying to do good when they seek to help the poor for instance, but might actually be doing it for the pleasurable power they experience in the process, at least partly.
I think we probably have at least one "power gene". A genetic predisposition to (mostly unconsciously) prefer power over powerlessness. This might manifest as a preference for anything that seems to have a very favorable cost-benefit ratio, such as technology, not just social-political power or primate dominance as might be thought. In other words our near universal obsession with the latest technology is probably based on instincts, not anything "advanced" or "modern" like rationality or science, the fact that this obsession is basically universal across cultures indicates this, rationality and science are comparatively rare cultural artifacts, instincts are universal. Animals fight to determine who is physically the most powerful and therefore eligible to mate in contests that are probably the origin of human sports tournaments. Seemingly pointless displays of use of powerful technology, such as billionaires taking rockets into space, might be explained by the same instincts. While this drive to power works with organic evolution it is not clear it works for technology, it may be disastrous when applied there.
Fortunately this ancient instinct for power does appear to be contradicted by many of our more recent "social animal" instincts and cultural trait such as caring, sympathy, cooperating, reciprocity and sharing. At times the instinct for power is suppressed by our social "civilized" side, at times they coexist, at other times power clearly preys on and exploits the social, perhaps they are symbiotic at times. (Ironically it may be this "nice" social side, more than our "nasty" drive for power that has resulted in our species spreading across and dominating the planet, inadvertently destroying most other species at least in the short term).
All addiction might be based on this instinct for power. We are "programmed" to want to use or attach ourselves to anything or anyone that seems to have power. The greater the power the greater the addiction; cars, e-scooters, computers- technology that becomes popular generally, institutions, drugs, loud music, psychopathy, horses, science, the supernatural, charisma, weapons. All can have power or the feeling or appearance of power. (The problem with an instinct for power is that it is primitive and is verified in primitive, ancient ways, primarily through the senses not through the intellect. So we can easily end up attaching ourselves to something that appears to, or feels like, it has power, such as monumental architecture, probably most printed and electronic media, or drugs, which my actually have no real power and may even make us weaker or kill us. The illusion of power may make us less concerned with political participation in the real world, perhaps this explains why authoritarianism seems to be on the rise around the world since the advent of the internet, it often creates an illusion of power, the opposite of the democratizing effect many expected (another possibility is the instant gratification of the internet has made national leaders expect the same of their office). On the other hand perhaps at times fooling ourselves that we have power may be beneficially cathartic. Sometimes it may be good to harmlessly fool our primitive brain into thinking we have power, with art or games say, especially if it proves impossible to get rid of these primitive instincts or find a useful outlet for them. The problem is, when are games and art catharsis when are they rehearsal? When should they be? )
The question now seems to be "have we become too good at getting or attaching ourselves to power?" Technological and institutional (e.g., globalist) power in particular seem to be exploding. Interpersonal domination, criminal abuse, self-abuse, substance abuse, passive aggression, bullying and other more traditional forms of power are also probably unconsciously intensifying among the poor in order to compete for dominance with people with ever greater institutional and technological power. (Perhaps this intensification explains why "losers" are increasingly hated, rather than ignored, pitied or romanticized, as social inequality becomes greater. Many resort to unsolicited, often illegal and physical, means of domination which impose on the rights of other people (the dominance of a "winner", such as a businessman with lots of customers, tends to be solicited, people voluntarily seek them out. It does seem that wherever inequality is greater the more noxious many of the poor become, this may be partly an unconscious form of competition with the rich and institutionally powerful)).
The problem with externally harnessed power is that it is not real - someone or something else still always has to do the work we skip when we harness it, it might be human slaves it might be oil. There is in reality always an equal cost for every extracted benefit, even though it may seem like we are getting something for nothing. Life, the will to power, appears to be an attempt to defy the laws of physics, to get something for nothing, a benefit without a cost. (Presumably use of harnessed environmental power is completely justifiable and basically essential, if we want to survive, when it defends us from or neutralizes the destructive power of nature, using fire or electricity for heating in winter for instance, but much beloved use of power is surely addiction-based, unsustainably destructive and extravagant, such as yearly international airplane holidays).
At times it seems costs can be harmlessly or even beneficially externalized; human waste from harnessing the power of food, handled skillfully, can feed plants for instance. The more ambitiously we try to harness power greater than ourselves , however, the more difficult it becomes to control and the greater and more disempowering the costs, perhaps inevitably, become, as with climate disasters from oil. (There is confidence we will figure out a way to harness as much energy from renewables in the future as we currently do from oil without the environmental and other costs, it is not clear this is possible. Are costs always equal to benefits? it is a law of physics that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, does that translate into an equal cost for every benefit, as define within human culture? It definitely looks that way sometimes.)
Also, ironically, if we are indeed prone to become instinctively "addicted" to power we risk becoming enslaved by it, and we are creating ever greater, more addictive, power with technological "progress" as it is presently defined and celebrated. We are likely to use, and compete for, such power all the time whether we need it or not, at the expense of more sensible activities. As a result of this overuse negative externalities or side effects, such as pollution and resource depletion, become ever more severe.
Finally, surrendering individual power and becoming a part of a greater more powerful whole, such as a community or corporation is probably what we think of as maturity and civilization. (I think being part of something bigger is about being part of something more powerful but it might be the opposite, it may be about interdependence which may make issues of power/dominance irrelevant, perhaps the "not striving", "going with the flow" found in many enduring traditional societies as Robert Knox Dentan hinted at when commenting on Christopher Boehm's "Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy." 1993.) The bigger and more inclusive the whole the more mature and civilized, and practical and sustainable, presumably. (To become part of a particular nation, ethnicity or race in opposition to, or at the expense of, the rest of humanity, for instance, is potentially extremely evil and destructive, this should be obvious to everyone by now but clearly it's not). So being part of a coherent (presumably the concept of "coherence" if it is to be viable, must acknowledge and incorporate the inescapable fact that individuals of different species must sometimes eat and kill each other, perhaps via the fact that species as wholes may form parts of sustainable communities) whole that includes not just all of humanity but the biosphere and whole planet, and potentially the cosmos as well, may be the happiest and most rational goal. (It is likely at least some people are incapable of this, they are only able to care about themselves or at best their sub-group (we all have a (presumably very primitive) part of our brain that thinks this way, in some it is usually or always the dominant part) . I'd suggest it would be more ethical and practical for science to focus solely on the possibility of moderating this capacity in people than to continue indiscriminately empowering it, making our extinction ever more likely. If it can't do this maybe we'd be better off without the power science gives us. (But since science so often serves the powerful, the highest bidder, it is probably more likely to come up with a way of making most of us into obedient zombies than better citizens.))
Also, ironically, if we are indeed prone to become instinctively "addicted" to power we risk becoming enslaved by it, and we are creating ever greater, more addictive, power with technological "progress" as it is presently defined and celebrated. We are likely to use, and compete for, such power all the time whether we need it or not, at the expense of more sensible activities. As a result of this overuse negative externalities or side effects, such as pollution and resource depletion, become ever more severe.
It is also possible that, although using labor saving technology may feel good or great, it may actually make us lesser people because power tends to foster egotism, which also feels great, but is the basis of evil. For instance I'd say that if you gave people a narcissism test after driving progressively bigger and more powerful vehicles their egos would get bigger with the vehicle. It may be that physical labor is one of the few things that can help us be better people, despite often being unpleasant, tiring or boring, because it can foster humility by reminding us of how limited our personal power really is (provided of course there are no other influences encouraging egotism). (It is interesting hard labor used to be given to convicts, it might not be that hard to find out if it reformed them. I suppose if you become very strong doing hard labor it could backfire you might become egotistical about your muscles. Promoting humility is perhaps the only was of making people more good, but it is extremely complicated given human nature, you can easily become arrogant thinking you are more humble than others. There probably should be a science of humility.)
Can we, and should we, consciously limit our largely unconscious and instinctive striving for power, recover our freedom (self-control) and save ourselves and apparently the biosphere from physical destruction?
There are already examples of limits to power in society such as speed limits or ridiculing egotism (this used to happen, not sure if it's still a thing) it may be time to think about extending this to areas like technology.
Using our own abilities, our muscles, minds, and self-control (where possible and realistic) rather than harnessing external servants may be the primary antidote to external power addiction. Maintaining a food garden rather than driving to the supermarket (and working to make money to pay for that drive and food) would be an obvious example (note: this idea needs development and more examples are needed. The relationship between this kind of small scale personal autonomy and being a part of something bigger and/or interdependence, discussed below, needs to be worked out).
If we don't limit or reverse our addiction to external power in a controlled, intelligent, scientific, fashion, limits and reversals will apparently be forced onto us via reciprocal and brutal "natural" disasters (if environmental science is to be believed and not dismissed as just another dominance/power trip which it undoubtedly usually is, but that, unfortunately, doesn't automatically prove the science false). (For the past century or so science has been celebrated for satisfying our instinct/addiction for ever greater power and has largely replaced faith in the power of God, even among those still seeing themselves as religious. But many technological "advancements" may actually be making us more primitive and barbaric by providing new unregulated arenas for the instinct for power (e.g., Hitler and radio, the laissez faire of the internet or e-scooters on the footpath.) Increasing scientific health and environmental warnings about scientific innovations and their effects may be signs at least some science is entering a more mature and civilized era of seeking to responsibly limit power (of course this could be just another manifestation of the will to power, to "change the world" by telling people what not to do on a grand scale but there is at least an element of modest self-limitation). Unsurprisingly this new role has not exactly been the universal hit servicing the "will to power" has been. )
There are already examples of limits to power in society such as speed limits or ridiculing egotism (this used to happen, not sure if it's still a thing) it may be time to think about extending this to areas like technology.
Using our own abilities, our muscles, minds, and self-control (where possible and realistic) rather than harnessing external servants may be the primary antidote to external power addiction. Maintaining a food garden rather than driving to the supermarket (and working to make money to pay for that drive and food) would be an obvious example (note: this idea needs development and more examples are needed. The relationship between this kind of small scale personal autonomy and being a part of something bigger and/or interdependence, discussed below, needs to be worked out).
If we don't limit or reverse our addiction to external power in a controlled, intelligent, scientific, fashion, limits and reversals will apparently be forced onto us via reciprocal and brutal "natural" disasters (if environmental science is to be believed and not dismissed as just another dominance/power trip which it undoubtedly usually is, but that, unfortunately, doesn't automatically prove the science false). (For the past century or so science has been celebrated for satisfying our instinct/addiction for ever greater power and has largely replaced faith in the power of God, even among those still seeing themselves as religious. But many technological "advancements" may actually be making us more primitive and barbaric by providing new unregulated arenas for the instinct for power (e.g., Hitler and radio, the laissez faire of the internet or e-scooters on the footpath.) Increasing scientific health and environmental warnings about scientific innovations and their effects may be signs at least some science is entering a more mature and civilized era of seeking to responsibly limit power (of course this could be just another manifestation of the will to power, to "change the world" by telling people what not to do on a grand scale but there is at least an element of modest self-limitation). Unsurprisingly this new role has not exactly been the universal hit servicing the "will to power" has been. )
Finally, surrendering individual power and becoming a part of a greater more powerful whole, such as a community or corporation is probably what we think of as maturity and civilization. (I think being part of something bigger is about being part of something more powerful but it might be the opposite, it may be about interdependence which may make issues of power/dominance irrelevant, perhaps the "not striving", "going with the flow" found in many enduring traditional societies as Robert Knox Dentan hinted at when commenting on Christopher Boehm's "Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy." 1993.) The bigger and more inclusive the whole the more mature and civilized, and practical and sustainable, presumably. (To become part of a particular nation, ethnicity or race in opposition to, or at the expense of, the rest of humanity, for instance, is potentially extremely evil and destructive, this should be obvious to everyone by now but clearly it's not). So being part of a coherent (presumably the concept of "coherence" if it is to be viable, must acknowledge and incorporate the inescapable fact that individuals of different species must sometimes eat and kill each other, perhaps via the fact that species as wholes may form parts of sustainable communities) whole that includes not just all of humanity but the biosphere and whole planet, and potentially the cosmos as well, may be the happiest and most rational goal. (It is likely at least some people are incapable of this, they are only able to care about themselves or at best their sub-group (we all have a (presumably very primitive) part of our brain that thinks this way, in some it is usually or always the dominant part) . I'd suggest it would be more ethical and practical for science to focus solely on the possibility of moderating this capacity in people than to continue indiscriminately empowering it, making our extinction ever more likely. If it can't do this maybe we'd be better off without the power science gives us. (But since science so often serves the powerful, the highest bidder, it is probably more likely to come up with a way of making most of us into obedient zombies than better citizens.))
