Dear Colleague,

predatory does not include all this - as you stated - predatory is to sacrifice something or somebody for own goals - in animal world to kill for own survival.

But all that you want to describe is far worse than predatory. it can be considered probably - "abusive", "authoritarian" if not "totalitarian", "dictatorship???", but most likely you need more than one word when it comes to politics as you describe in its actions - it is called "modern democracy" in politically correct language (i am sorry for sarcasm), but i would say that "arrogant self-centric manipulative autocracy" could work. Still you are not able to put there all the issues you enlisted but in order do so maybe  you can say "terror based political and economic exploitative elitism".

I hope i will be able to spend some time in near future in debating this topic. It is important to open it and keep it going.

Hello Uros:

  I appreciate your suggestion. It is accurate, but not quite what I'm after. What I'm envisioning is the summing-up of all human behaviors related to inordinate power and control under one word that is, in itself, impersonal, emotionally neutral, and universally understood. Note that implying a parallel with animal ecology is useful.

  Consider the possibility that animal predation translates into human behaviors in a multitude of ways. If animal predators could develop power and control over their prey in the same number of ways humans are capable of it, they would. Our predators have had the tremendous advantages of speech, manipulative rhetoric and body language, technical weaponry, and media ubiquity, not to mention taking advantage of the relatively very slow maturation of the human brain.

  So humans are endowed with an incredible variety of ways to act out predation, including killing of course, but not for survival-- for dominance. Also, predators in nature have no cognitive concept of self-sacrifice. If it happens, it happens, and they hardly notice. Similarly, human predators act entirely out of callous self-obsession but, again, to obtain power and control, rather than mere survival, and if they seem to not be succeeding they just switch victims. They do, however, make survival difficult for their prey, in order to dominate them, as would any animal predator. You can, of course, really tick-off a human predator if you genuinely threaten his or her belief in covert survival as a predator. I think we should try that sort of destabilization in our everyday language.

I wonder what your sources are for your analysis of animal behaviour, and why you jump to the conclusions you do? Is your analysis evidence based or behavioural? How does the concept of consciousness figure? Why do you want to condense everything into one symbholic term? Indeed what do consider to be the relationship between violences - symbolic, physical, psychological etc? There's an enormous amount of work on social domination (from the Frankfurt School to the Stanford Experiments), and a lot of studies of dominance behaviour in the animal kingdom. Oddly enough, perhaps the most popular theory of human motivation (Marlow's hierarchy of human needs) began as studies of dominance behaviour in primates - who were not, as such predators, but did compete for common resources.Primatecscience has moved on, but the connection remains instructive. It might be worth looking at some of this work because a good deal is obscured by making the move from literal predation to metaphor - your apparent assumption that the human brain is more or less a reptile brain with more tools being one consequence. I could also add that the srboreal approach to knowledge you adopt runs in the opposite direction to that advocated by Gilles Deleuze, who argued (with Gusttari) that because of the inadequacy and tiredness of language, and the multiplicity of reality, the job of philosophy was to generate more concepts, not fewer.

I think there is no single word and so tend to agree with Uros and Stephen. Why bother with trying for this 'holy grail'/silver bullet? What purpose does it serve to try for an omnipotent term that won't offend?A catch-all might,in fact,lead to dilution of the impact and the usefulness in the longer term.

There are other issues about defining terms and making discourse clear and unambiguous, especially in a fast moving VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain Complex and Ambiguous) world.

What about a suicide bomber for ISIL etc is he/she a predator/dominator in this sense or maybe a victim(of misplaced faith etc).especially when contrasted with those who have made some real, conscious self-sacrifice for others e.g. in the forces or emergency services etc?Or, do you see these as cases of covert domination/predation on peoples' emotions?A Psychopathic attempt to get fame--like the arsonist volunteer fireman who was arrested for starting fires in Victoria state in Australia a few years back,because he wanted to be a hero? Dominate the media as a 15-minutes of fame hero a la Warhol/ Write his own saga-at others' expense?

Folks, you have both demonstrated the need for "an 'omnipotent' term that won't offend" in rather hyperbolized analyses, in fact rather "predatory" in and of themselves, of a simple concept. I'm also disturbed by the complete absence of genetic and neuropsychological rationales for compulsively "predatory" behaviors that might demonstrate levels of commonality hitherto unexplored. Kind-of like waiting 70 years to suggest that The Donald is "mentally ill" and even then failing to appreciate that a consistently "predatory" pattern of behavior represents an identifiable neurophysiological state (having a genetic basis?) which may also characterize to some extent the behaviorally "predatory" minions of same.

Stephen: Do you really "wonder", or is that just sarcasm intended to be unbalancing? How is proposing a "working hypothesis" (based on a concept linking behavioral evidence to rhetorical explication) and asking a question "jumping to a conclusion", or is that what you have done? I explained that the purpose of using the term is to develop human consciousness of "predatory" practices generally by simplifying rhetorical criticism and proactively preventing deflection into relatively miniscule but related side-issues. Anything that is effectively "predatory" can simply be so labeled, rhetorically, and with effect. Take a certain person's entire business career, for example.

A move from metaphorical predation to literal seems closer at hand, as evidence is being developed to link "psychopathy" (a state defined by "predatory" actions) with brain structures (it would be interesting to know how other compulsive animal "predators" differ consistently in brain structure from their prey and determine whether there are parallels in humans). 

I make no assumptions whatsoever. I only present a "working hypothesis" that implementation of the word "predatory" to consistently individually and collectively describe activities that effectively or potentially "victimize or destroy others for personal gain" can draw attention to the social problem more directly than placing emphasis solely on individual and seemingly unrelated instances (or persons).

Of course, a genetic test and a brain-activity scan of persons who seemingly represent rather unadulterated examples of "human predation" and particular (?) patterns of tactics (http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/11/donald-trump-narcissism-therapists) could at least put the issue on a practical and impersonal (physical) level, if not just provide useful data.

Deleuze did not predict the modern more-than-adequate and philosophically antithetical use of language as a weapon. I may be suggesting that the synthesis of seemingly disparate concepts can effectively cause manipulative propaganda to appear "tired" and thus ineffective.

Tom: "Why bother" is a poor excuse for avoiding "working hypotheses" developed to mitigate divisive rationalizations of singularly "predatory" patterns. So how about proving this particular approach cannot be effective, even at stimulating consideration of other approaches to countering propaganda?

As a result of neuroplasticity, most any individuals subjected to particular stimuli can be induced to perform "predatory" acts. Altruism is antithetical to the self-obsession wholly characteristic of predation, so the acts you present as ambiguous are so simply because you are "mixing metaphors"-- mistaking the effects ("predatory") for the causes (delusional and, note, self-obsessive). Importantly, when it comes to rhetoric, we are talking about certain acts having "predatory" effects and possible neurophysiological (and genetic?) causes thereof, not about labeling individuals as "insane" (and, note, predatory animals are not "insane").

Think about what you do (e.g, expressing anger at another ["road rage"?])-- is it predatory in effect? Think about what others can do to you (e.g. intentional or compulsive [either way, weaponized] manipulative speech and body language)-- is it predatory in effect? In both cases, also consider it possible that effectively "predatory" acts are elicited by particular brain structures that contain triggers and we need to assist in developing "safeties", as in: "Oh, yeah-- 'predation' again! That's all folks!"

Who is this 'objective',pragmatic,reflective and expert observer able to stand apart from the wider sociocultural and technological context and gauge others impartially? In recent times the socio digital media have enabled more 'aggressive' behaviours such as trolling, or mysogynistic abuse of UK Labour Party female MPs by supporters of Mr Corbyn etc. 

Effects and causes can be reversible depending on the viewer's philosophy or ideology. The recent shootings of the police seem to me to be in line with the views expressed in the late 1960s by the likes of the Black Panthers e.g. Huey Newton, that white people only listen to the 'peaceful' black voices of dissent because of the perceived 'threat' from the more 'violent' black dissenters or Malcolm X and 'UnAmerican' Religions such as Muhammad Elijah .

ISIL suicide bombers probably imagine themselves -and are viewed by sympathisers-as rational and Altruistically self-sacrificing not predators who are self-obsessed. Even their 'handlers'/brainwashers who point them to a target-any target of 'infidels'/heretics etc, may regard themselves as self-sacrificing rather than predatory.  Doing this for the good of mankind---in the long run. It is always seen as a long run effect.

The EFFECTS and causes are viewed by many non-ISIL supporters as predatory forms of alienation and the ensuing warlike reactions of the West/Infidels seen as equivalent to 'road rage' by ISIL supporters (and some Anti-Iraq war activists who regard the BUSH/Blair 'pre-emptive' IRAQ war as predatory and the cause of the proliferation of terrorism in the Middle East and beyond). So the 'predatory' label may only work as a 'pragmatic' term for one side-the side with the power to define others .

Some folk also see these discussions as some sort of 'Academic' Alpha male contest, so I won't encourage that perception by engaging in further responses. You can have the last word if you like.

We need worthwhile goals, not obstructive rhetoric that demeans the capabilities of the human mind. Give people goals to work toward, and they will grab them to define a purpose in life.

"Who..."  The goal is to create some.

Yes, all media can engage in "predatory" activities (advertising revenue being one cause). A goal is to make people aware and wary of that.

A goal is to expose all ideologies as self-obsessive and divisive, and to go beyond "philosophy" to pragmatic analyses.

Fear creates anger. Predators create fear to produce social instability (anarchy) for self-benefit (power). "White people" is a vague and divisive generality designed to place blame on the majority of whites for allowing the extremist white fringe to exist. 50 years later we can attack fringe extremism itself, directly, impersonally and pragmatically-- we no longer need socially divisive, personalized rhetoric (but it is obviously still alive in the definition of "primitive" societies subject to manipulation by predatory self-obsessed individuals seeking power).

Same is true of our own extremists. Such "imaginations" can be labeled accurately as purely "self-obsessive", something ideology encourages. The "predatory" bit is an observation of their effects on others. The ultimate effect can be to spread self-obsession like a contagious disease producing additional predators who seek to "victimize or destroy others for personal gain."

Except that all "sides" have "the power to define others" in their own self-obsessive imaginations. We are not long from a time when hegemony and "taking sides" were generally considered the only solution. A goal is to consider "taking sides" divisively self-obsessive and hegemony predatory.

I hate to engage in the pragmatic reduction of self-obsessive, fear-mongering ad-hominem attacks, but it would not be surprising to see an "'academic' alpha male" express an interest in maintaining personal superiority over collaboratively investigating potentials for positive social change.

As the wolverine said to the squirrel, "Accept my superiority or I'll eat you" [then I'll eat you anyway].

But I digress (from the "simple"). Just picture yourself as a chicken involved in an election between organized predators (you know: hawks, snakes, weasels, etc.) seeking absolute hegemony, and disorganized potential prey (ostriches, lemmings, squirrels, antelope and the lot) not believing such a thing is possible.

The good thing, throughout the "animal" world, is that the predators cannot cooperate with one another. Hmmm, maybe that is another defining trait of being "predatory"-- all for self, none for all.

I thought the following article perfectly described the nature of "human predation" in American politics (albeit perhaps too ideologically specific)... 'bout time too: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-03/republicans-burn-down-one-last-institution

If it is "true." Or "possible." Or just so objectionable (except to predators) that all the possibilities have to be evaluated pragmatically and the worst possibilities have to be prevented, regardless of specific "ideology."

And for follow-up: http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-04/the-gop-insurrection-reaches-its-logical-endpoint

The prey outnumber the predators at least 5 to 1 (some say 100 to 1), so why can't they control the fate of the planet? Self-obsession, maybe?

"Predatory" carries the implication of intentionality - practicing predation is done on purpose.  However, much of "destructive human behavior" occurs because of carelessness or lack of knowledge about consequential impacts.  Sometimes the "road to hell" really is paved with the best of intentions, but no clear knowledge of what the likely outcomes will be.  When technologies are initially disseminated, the rationale is often human betterment, yet subsequent use (or over-use) can eventually offset the benefits to such an extent that accumulating detriments eventually predominate. The term "destructive human behaviors" is more encompassing.

That's OK, William. I intend the word "predatory" to indicate intentionality (either conscious or compulsive). Should a person be destructive with self-gratifying results unintentionally (is that really possible?), then the effect (not the person) can be called "predatory" in order to alert the performer to the need to consider consequences (and apparent motivations) more carefully before acting with the rejoinder "You don't want to be considered a 'predator', do you?"

While all possible outcomes might be obscure, "likely" outcomes should not be. And the overriding intention of the proposal is to encourage increasingly cautious examination of possible outcomes as a priority to action itself. If you can't see them, don't act immediately. For example, a child should be taught as a priority to determine which way a cherry tree is likely to fall before chopping it down. The lesson is in the potential, not the act.

What is in the interest of "human betterment" is not easily defined. One needs to interject consideration of "Which humans benefit?" Considering only the immediate instant is problematic as well, and indirect betterment might be an important consideration (not to mention the fact that humans are only one species).

The fact that powerful predators capable of controlling decision-making couldn't care less about anyone other than themselves makes idealism impractical, and, of course, they don't find self-aggrandizement destructive at all or the destruction of others of any concern, and might well find destruction itself entertaining as an indication of power (or maybe they just grew up playing with tractors or axes and the associated pleasure stuck). 

Predators can easily cope with accusations of being "destructive" with glib, manipulative rhetoric. They'd dismiss such accusations as "obstructive to progress" and "delusional and paranoid." But drawing a parallel to the relations between wolverines and bunny rabbits would present an interesting rhetorical dilemma for the predator and an educative experience for the potential prey.

The point is to firmly indicate that "progress" can (should?) be defined as the elimination of predation (destructive self-obsession) as the dominant paradigm of all decision-making, rather than the enrichment of predators and encouragement of self-obsession with only some "trickle-down" benefits to prey.

I too would like to see a more benevolent and less destructive form of decision-making throughout the world.  Regrettably, "predators" are very ruthless, very skilled in their predations, and often very practiced at disguising their actions.  After reading THE DARK WEB, it is apparent that many whose public lives seem quite mundane, are actually "closet predators" and "regressive provocateurs" when in the privacy of their own Internet communities.  Concurrently, many who act publicly have contrived to have marketers create a benevolent image. I see the real challenge in this regard, as being to present the case "against predation" so that it will resonate with the wider public to such an extent that they, en masse, will demand an end to it.  Until someone figures out a way to do THAT, we are reduced to merely fighting predation "around the margins!"  What argument would move the public to action?