If scarcity of food&water is no longer a survival issue, why are we still living by "the law of the jungle"?

Question

This is the fully-worded Q : If scarcity of food & water is no longer a survival issue, why are so many still living by "the law of the jungle" (in all its updated forms)?

I could not find an appropriate category for my Q, so I chose the philosophy category hoping some there may have addressed this Q in some way!

Answer 1

Survival is survival, whether it's food, water, security or what have you.  It's our basic primal instinct to survive

Answer 2

our society protects us form the need to acquire the basics: food heat and shelter.

I do not agree that we still live by the law of the jungle we live by the renaissance tenet that all men are equal. our society protects the weak because it realises the feeble physical nature of man often belies his intellectual or social qualities,and thus our society encapsulates that we have evolved beyond 'the law of the jungle'

Answer 3

Did food prices suddenly go down since I was last at the store? It's bad today and it was bad yesterday and it will continue to get worse in all the tomorrows Law of the jungle? You have not seen the real jungle yet

Answer 4

Has food become plentiful in Bangladesh all of a sudden?  Why are senior citizens still eating Kal Kan or Friskies instead of steak?  I have to choose between food and medicines each month and usually end up not getting all I need of both and this is in the US, so tell me again how obtaining food is not a survival issue.

Answer 5

I am not sure what you exactly mean by the "law of the jungle" but the context here implies to me that you’re speaking of the use of force and/or violence by some to gain something of value from others. If my reading of your question is correct than the answer is, unfortunately, easy: Morality does not increase, or decrease, with the level of stuff one has or does not have. Of course in extreme times, such as when one has no water or food, the chances that violence will be used goes up but it still does not change the fact that morality is not tied to the amount of physical stuff one has. Your question assumes the modern Western outlook, both capitalist and communist, that the environment determines action, which is why this question and various other forms of this question so baffle the modern mind. To put it another way -- Those in poverty can be equally moral as those whom are not in poverty. The only scarcity that really matters in the determination of moral behavior is when there is a scarcity of values, not a poverty of physical conditions but a poverty of the soul.

Edit -- All socioeconomic isms may take for granted the "law of the jungle "but that doesn't mean that all political systems do.  The term "socioeconomic" assumes a modern understanding of political polities and hence discounts, without conscious thought, the ancient view of politics as being a developer of character. We can trace the genealogy of the "law of the jungle" as a development of Hobbes, the first true Darwinist, who establishes the principle of self-preservation as the primary concern of politics. Of course, Hobbes would no doubt see the "law of the jungle" as a perfect example of the state of nature but that would be begging the argument since the argument is if the "law of the jungle" underlines or is the human condition. Self-preservation naturally leads to economics, which produced both the rightist and leftist political outlooks. The right finding the economic results of modernity largely fair enough regardless of the inequalities produced. Or course, the left has never been happy with the inequalities produced but has largely agreed with the view of man as an economical being. Both are united in seeing humans as economic beings first and to not seeing politics as the primary concern (to the degree that politics is important  it is to improve the economic lives of its citizens). Your question, it seems to me, accepts this viewpoint, which is why this is a question in the first place. Your question assumes the modern viewpoint and yet at the same time attempts to judge by non-modernity morality.

Ps -- The modern way to answer your question would be to talk about relative desires. Meaning scarcity is always defined relative to the person. If you have a big screen TV and I don't my desires, born out of my relative scarcity, will demand that I find away to get a big screen TV regardless of the cost to you. Of course, this answer doesn't answer your question but it does imply that human desires are infinite. In other words, the "law of jungle" reigns still because our satisfaction with our lot in life is measured relative to how we see others are living (Largely the difference between Locke and Rousseau).

Answer 6

Scarcity of real food is a still a problem. Look at the garbage that we eat here in america. The only reason that you think its no longer an issue is because anyone can get a burger for one dollar at McDonald's.  But then we wonder why we're all obese, or unhealthy, always depressed and tired all the time. Try eating organic, you'll go broke in a month. I tried it, its about $300 a week. Can't do it.  

Answer 7

Because mankind evolves physically very slowly compared with his mental evolution over the last few thousand years.