thredbear,
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')fter a couple of months of this
PeakOil is You
THE Human Nature Thread (merged)
by Barbara » Wed 23 Feb 2005, 05:06:18
you are NOT violent! A man wouldn't have waited two months: he'd beat the guy the 2nd day without further warnings...
**no english mothertongue**
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
--------
Objects in the rear view mirror
are closer than they appear.
- Barbara
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1121
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Zoorope
by AnnaLivia » Wed 23 Feb 2005, 05:29:17
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')
In Jared Diamond's book Collapse he talks about a small Pacific island called Tikopia that has been continuously densely populated for 3000 years. One of the observations made is that they had voluntarily given up their pigs because they recognized the damage pigs did to the environment. They also had several cultural methods of population control. One was a tradition for people without good prospects to perform suicidally dangerous open sea journeys. Just an example to show that human nature is more adaptable than you think. Societies can control their population (even without the pill) and societies can choose to avoid consuming all of their resources as quickly as possible.
')
In Jared Diamond's book Collapse he talks about a small Pacific island called Tikopia that has been continuously densely populated for 3000 years. One of the observations made is that they had voluntarily given up their pigs because they recognized the damage pigs did to the environment. They also had several cultural methods of population control. One was a tradition for people without good prospects to perform suicidally dangerous open sea journeys. Just an example to show that human nature is more adaptable than you think. Societies can control their population (even without the pill) and societies can choose to avoid consuming all of their resources as quickly as possible.
nero, i had to think hard about your contribution, but again i find these people were making choices based on the size of their environment, the numbers in their environment, the resources available, and personal economic factors (as stated, their prospects being good or bad). there is nothing there that enables us to ascribe human nature as the cause of their actions. if the choices they made were wise choices, it speaks to their intellect, not to their human nature. they could have been intrinsically good or intrinsically bad at the heart of it all, and still have made these choices/behaved this way, due to the recognition and acceptance of their circumstances, and practical considerations.
i ask readers to consider: don't extra pressures hurt life's happiness and make people frustrated? does anger come from hurt and frustration? does violence result from anger? it appears evident to me that violence can easily be traced to pressures...has been traced to pressures, yet we keep trying our damndest to trace it to where it is untraceable to, our nature.
Howard Zinn said something like this: it is simple and easy to blame nature for violence. it requires little thought. what is hard is to analyze the social, economic, environmental, and cultural factors that have historically led to violence.
i have not yet read every post that precedes this one (i will), but i will say that to my current knowledge no gene for aggression has been found. as a matter of fact i wonder if any genes have been found for any common human behaviors?
and what does it say, that a mental defect can cause violence? the very fact it is called a defect indicates it's ab-normality according to us, right? a mind with mental defect is often violent, but a violent human nature is said to be normal? what's up with that?
nero, you said human nature is adaptable. is it human nature that is adaptable, or is it human behavior that is adaptable? i think we could find vast examples that would illustrate that humans are indeed adaptable, and more adaptable than we may communally and commonly assume, but i have to say i see no proof from this about the nature of human nature. aren't we now in the realm of evolution and biology?
IS human nature adaptable? we need a definition of "human nature" before we can decide if it is, itself, adaptable. (Monte, i hope you are appreciating the effort being made here! i am near wore-out!) i will attempt with this: the constitution we are born with.
but i really can't answer whether that constitution can be said to adapt or not. i do know we adapt behaviors TO something. like stimulus (pressures) in our environment.
when the original statements were made that started this thread...that "human nature is violent", i challenged those statements precisely because they seem to be stating an absolute. and if we are going to accept and say for a certainty that human nature is violent, then i want proof. i think the consequences that could result from this notion are too important for us to be going on assumptions, so i said "please prove that statement".
so far, judging from their own subsequent statements, the people who said it don't appear to really believe what they said. they have contradicted themselves, but they have not owned up to that contradiction outright.
our emotional allegiance to cultural values threatens us far more than any so-called instincts.
and in case some of you have spotted it, yes, i am trying to hone my own debate skills through all of this exchange. yes, i have a second motive here, a "hidden agenda"...but there is nothing devious in this. i will be so bold as to suggest that better debate skills...or call them counter-argument skills...would enable all of us to get the message of peak oil "out there" faster, more effectively, more accurately, to more people.
if you carefully observe what i am trying to teach myself to do here...like anticipating what the opposing argument would be before i ever even posted, like identifying and refusing to be sucked into irrelevant or side arguments, like pointing out attempts to evade, and insisting my "opposition" answer my primary question...some of you might just sharpen your own skills in "the art of persuasion". wouldn't that be a good thing amongst peak-oilers?
i perfectly well know that we are discussing a question that has intrigued and "stumped" the great minds for centuries. (though the preistcrafters will claim they know.) did i really think we would "settle" this once-and-for-all in this forum? all i can do with that thought is laugh.
but i do think this debate itself has great value. both for the secondary reason of improving our abilities to persuade effectively, and because there seems to be general agreement that we are facing a looming situation the exact likes of which we haven't encountered before...one having supreme consequences for us and for those in the future and for our mother earth. are we not all here precisely because we have surmised that the coming changes are of magnitude not to be ignored?
in light of that, delving into the nature of human nature seems more important than perhaps it has ever been, because i am convinced that what we believe about ourselves will affect what we think we are able to do, and therefore affect what we do effect.
Beliefs about human nature can become self-fulling prophecies.
Our brains create possibilities.
and here i would like to place these quotes:
from Emma Goldman: "Poor human nature, what horrible crimes have been committed in thy name! Every fool, from king to policeman, from the flathead parson to the visionless dabbler in science, presume to speak authoritatively of human nature. The greater the mental charlatan, the more definite his insistence on the wickedness and weaknesses of human nature."
and from John Stuart Mill: "Of all the vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effects of social and moral influences upon the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing the diversities of conduct and character to inherent natural differences"
to all who have contributed i say thanks for being partners in this dialogue. partners is good. it speaks of unity. annalivia really likes that unity thingee, you know. but hey, she's just an ol' softie who doesn't think people are bloodthirsty lusters for violence.
everybody was nice to everybody in here. good on us.
back to the debate now....because i still maintain that violence is learned response and not natural drive.
the persistence of war is not proof of its origin in human nature.
"O hell, here comes our funeral. Let us pry....for our missed understandings."
- AnnaLivia
- Peat
- Posts: 113
- Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: same as everyone
by Chocky » Wed 23 Feb 2005, 06:56:29
I'm not a big fan of philosophical discussions. If you accept that war and violence to some degree features in pretty much every human society ever, whether it is human nature or learned behaviour seems like a fairly unimportant distinction.
-
Chocky - Coal
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: The Land of Do-As-You-Please
by julianj » Wed 23 Feb 2005, 08:54:50
I fear I got lost in the detail the other day.
What I meant to say was
1. There's a difference between Tribal/Chimp violence and
War: which is a feature of organised, city based societies who have the surplus resources to attack other people. The first standing army was in ancient Sumeria, which not coincidentally was the first place to build cities (irony, its in modern-day Iraq).
Most of the people involved in the war don't actually do the fighting - they supply the resources to allow the war to continue.
So war is a cultural/social phenomenon rather than a mental one.
2. If violence was not socially conditioned, as I said earlier, Japan would be a very violent place, but its not, so whatever wiring may or may not be in the brain, we can override it. As we do in all sorts of ways every day in our lives.
And I rather agree with AnnaLivia, that extrapolating human nature from the peculiar rear-view mirror of our own prejudice and cultural bias is rather unreliable.
What I meant to say was
1. There's a difference between Tribal/Chimp violence and
War: which is a feature of organised, city based societies who have the surplus resources to attack other people. The first standing army was in ancient Sumeria, which not coincidentally was the first place to build cities (irony, its in modern-day Iraq).
Most of the people involved in the war don't actually do the fighting - they supply the resources to allow the war to continue.
So war is a cultural/social phenomenon rather than a mental one.
2. If violence was not socially conditioned, as I said earlier, Japan would be a very violent place, but its not, so whatever wiring may or may not be in the brain, we can override it. As we do in all sorts of ways every day in our lives.
And I rather agree with AnnaLivia, that extrapolating human nature from the peculiar rear-view mirror of our own prejudice and cultural bias is rather unreliable.
- julianj
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: On one of the blades of the fan
by threadbear » Wed 23 Feb 2005, 23:35:03
Somebody made the point that the Japanese are able to override their aggressive tendencies. That's a bit like pruning your emotions.--Human personality as an adventure in bonsai. Modern urban Japanese culture is possibly the most f'd up on the planet. Non violent, yes. A little twisted and stunted?--Oh yeah.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by julianj » Thu 24 Feb 2005, 07:28:28
At this very moment, a Japanese person, from their perspective of 2000 years of cultural superiority, is shaking their head sadly and saying:
Poor old threadbear$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')odern urban western culture is possibly the most f'd up on the planet.
Poor old threadbear$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')odern urban western culture is possibly the most f'd up on the planet.
Everything is relative.
I wasn't making the sole point that the Japanese socially and culturally restrain themselves from violence, I used them because they are such a clear example: we all do because its ingrained in our cultural norms, I might even say its human nature (where's the emoticon for tongue in cheek?).
- julianj
- Tar Sands
- Posts: 913
- Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: On one of the blades of the fan
by Aaron » Thu 24 Feb 2005, 09:53:18
Perhaps this thread is stumbling on how we each define some of the words used to describe mankind.
Violence is one of those blanket words which is mostly defined by the context of it's use.
A certain malice is implied by "violence", which can be misleading I think.
After all, even malevolent violence can be seen as a "good" thing depending on it's context.
If you're fighting to eliminate Nazi Death Camps, a certain amount of angry violence is a good thing yes?
Probably better to assign the word "combat" to humanity, than violence.
People do enjoy & seek combat in many forms. You are all doing so right this moment by participating in this thread.
Men and women both seek combat in vast numbers, if in different ways. If competition (aka Combat), is not part of human nature, then I'm a freak among men, having engaged in and enjoyed combat myself.
Come on folks... Chess is a form of violent combat after all.
What I think Anna means could be termed "evil violence" IMO.
To react with violence intended to harm absent any other goal.
In the complex quagmire of our lives, making poor choices on limited information can hardly be called human nature I think.
Maybe a better question is:
Are some people intentionally cruel by nature?
Of course they are.
Empathy is the measure of the most evolved life we have observed so far. Dolphins do it, so do some apes, and humans of course. But it's a learned thing, and not by nature. Experience & memory teach us empathy, in opposition to our egocentric beginnings as babies.
And it's all rooted in our most successful evolutionary mechanism... fear.
From fear, to misunderstanding, to hate, to combat, to suffering.
Martial Artists will understand what I mean when I say "Joyful Combat".
Until you let go of your fears born in childhood, and genuinely enjoy your combat, you will remain a child of the mind.
In terms of first causes, fear is the cause of "violence".
If fear is a part of human nature,
then so is violence.
Violence is one of those blanket words which is mostly defined by the context of it's use.
A certain malice is implied by "violence", which can be misleading I think.
After all, even malevolent violence can be seen as a "good" thing depending on it's context.
If you're fighting to eliminate Nazi Death Camps, a certain amount of angry violence is a good thing yes?
Probably better to assign the word "combat" to humanity, than violence.
People do enjoy & seek combat in many forms. You are all doing so right this moment by participating in this thread.
Men and women both seek combat in vast numbers, if in different ways. If competition (aka Combat), is not part of human nature, then I'm a freak among men, having engaged in and enjoyed combat myself.
Come on folks... Chess is a form of violent combat after all.
What I think Anna means could be termed "evil violence" IMO.
To react with violence intended to harm absent any other goal.
In the complex quagmire of our lives, making poor choices on limited information can hardly be called human nature I think.
Maybe a better question is:
Are some people intentionally cruel by nature?
Of course they are.
Empathy is the measure of the most evolved life we have observed so far. Dolphins do it, so do some apes, and humans of course. But it's a learned thing, and not by nature. Experience & memory teach us empathy, in opposition to our egocentric beginnings as babies.
And it's all rooted in our most successful evolutionary mechanism... fear.
From fear, to misunderstanding, to hate, to combat, to suffering.
Martial Artists will understand what I mean when I say "Joyful Combat".
Until you let go of your fears born in childhood, and genuinely enjoy your combat, you will remain a child of the mind.
In terms of first causes, fear is the cause of "violence".
If fear is a part of human nature,
then so is violence.
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by threadbear » Thu 24 Feb 2005, 17:22:37
JulianJ, I draw a sharp distinction between modern urban Japanese culture and their traditional culture. The modern culture is dismissive of it's own rich heritage. Wisdom and serenity have been replaced by worship of technology and neurotic inhibition.
-
threadbear - Expert
- Posts: 7577
- Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
by Chocky » Sat 26 Feb 2005, 01:15:31
I seem to remember in traditional Japanese culture, the Samurai had a right called something like 'Kill and depart' which meant they could kill any peasant they liked with no repercussions.
-
Chocky - Coal
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Wed 20 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: The Land of Do-As-You-Please
Human nature in a survival situation
by daniel347 » Fri 02 Sep 2005, 08:33:47
I had a conversation with a friend today about what would be the best way to act in a survival situation.
Would it be better to act solely for your own interests, even robbing people and committing crimes, putting yourself above your family and friends... or would you still have compassion, especially for children and the elderly, at the risk of your own survival?
"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." - Viktor Frankl, "Man's search for meaning"
It makes me glad to think that people can still act kindly even in a life or death situation. Deep down I think humanity has a good nature!
I'm interested to know what other people believe they would do, say if there were food shortages, or a situation like in new orleans at the moment. My friend told me he would definately put himself above everyone else. I thought at least my younger brother would be important to me, if not people in general, but I dont know what I would be prepared to do if I were starving.
What would you do, and why?
Would it be better to act solely for your own interests, even robbing people and committing crimes, putting yourself above your family and friends... or would you still have compassion, especially for children and the elderly, at the risk of your own survival?
"We who lived in concentration camps can remember the men who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away their last piece of bread. They may have been few in number, but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way." - Viktor Frankl, "Man's search for meaning"
It makes me glad to think that people can still act kindly even in a life or death situation. Deep down I think humanity has a good nature!
I'm interested to know what other people believe they would do, say if there were food shortages, or a situation like in new orleans at the moment. My friend told me he would definately put himself above everyone else. I thought at least my younger brother would be important to me, if not people in general, but I dont know what I would be prepared to do if I were starving.
What would you do, and why?
-
daniel347 - Wood
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Human nature in a survival situation
by Doly » Fri 02 Sep 2005, 09:34:00
I'd do what most people would do: stick with the people I love, and do anything to keep us alive. That's what most people in New Orleans are doing anyway. It looks like a few of them only care for themselves, but probably they never had anybody they cared for anyway.
-
Doly - Expert
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Re: Human nature in a survival situation
by gg3 » Fri 02 Sep 2005, 09:45:09
Human nature is not monolithic. It follows a bell-shaped curve on any axis of measurement you choose. Including "selfish - altruistic" and "law-abiding - law-breaking."
In an emergency, the fundamentals don't change, only their range of application.
A person who is normally altruistic, can be expected to become more so. A person who is normally selfish, can be expected to become more so.
When the limits of effective lawful order are breached by disaster, the fundamentals don't change, only the limits of individual behavior.
So for example we hear of people who are looting in order to get food and beverages for others who are literally going hungry and dehydrating to death. That's illegal behavior but it's motivated by altruism.
We also hear of people looting to get consumer baubles and weapons for themselves, to enable themselves to profit personally and to commit further crimes for their own aggrandizement.
And of course in the middle, the majority of looters are simply searching for food and drinkable water because they're starving and desperately thirsty. This is neither particularly moral or immoral; the places being looted are so wrecked that they will be written off as total losses and their contents buried in landfills, so the goods being stolen are effectively being rescued from the dumpster, and no one is being harmed.
(I should say here, that my initial reaction to stories of looters was to say that they should be arrested and held or if necessary shot on sight, in order to maintain public order. That opinion changed in light of the fact that both government and the private sector have demonstrated a complete and disgraceful lack of capability to meet essential needs including the provision of food, water, and sanitation, and the preservation of public order.)
Whenever you hear someone make a sweeping judgement about "human nature" being either universally "good" or "bad" in whatever way, what is most likely is that they are either describing *their own nature* or they are describing their *hopes* or their *fears* about others. Statements of that type have little or no ontological validity.
When you hear someone say "humans *are* (intrinsically good or intrinsically bad)", the question you should ask them is whether they are describing themselves, or their hopes, or their fears.
In an emergency, the fundamentals don't change, only their range of application.
A person who is normally altruistic, can be expected to become more so. A person who is normally selfish, can be expected to become more so.
When the limits of effective lawful order are breached by disaster, the fundamentals don't change, only the limits of individual behavior.
So for example we hear of people who are looting in order to get food and beverages for others who are literally going hungry and dehydrating to death. That's illegal behavior but it's motivated by altruism.
We also hear of people looting to get consumer baubles and weapons for themselves, to enable themselves to profit personally and to commit further crimes for their own aggrandizement.
And of course in the middle, the majority of looters are simply searching for food and drinkable water because they're starving and desperately thirsty. This is neither particularly moral or immoral; the places being looted are so wrecked that they will be written off as total losses and their contents buried in landfills, so the goods being stolen are effectively being rescued from the dumpster, and no one is being harmed.
(I should say here, that my initial reaction to stories of looters was to say that they should be arrested and held or if necessary shot on sight, in order to maintain public order. That opinion changed in light of the fact that both government and the private sector have demonstrated a complete and disgraceful lack of capability to meet essential needs including the provision of food, water, and sanitation, and the preservation of public order.)
Whenever you hear someone make a sweeping judgement about "human nature" being either universally "good" or "bad" in whatever way, what is most likely is that they are either describing *their own nature* or they are describing their *hopes* or their *fears* about others. Statements of that type have little or no ontological validity.
When you hear someone say "humans *are* (intrinsically good or intrinsically bad)", the question you should ask them is whether they are describing themselves, or their hopes, or their fears.
-
gg3 - Expert
- Posts: 3271
- Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: California, USA
Re: Human nature in a survival situation
by MattSavinar » Fri 02 Sep 2005, 11:03:35
Human nature is controlled by human genes. Human genes care about one thing: making more copies of themselves.
Thus humans will act in whatever fashion that their "genetic-subconscious" complex had perceived will best preserve their ability to make copies of themselves. The conscious mind will then rationlize the behavior as something it perceives will be accetable by the group.
In some cases, this means doing things you or I might consider "altruistic." In other cases, this this means doing things you or I might consider "evil." If this means accepting as true something that is obviously false, then so be it. From the genes standpoint, it doesn't mattert. Truth, justice, goodness etc. . . are not part of the genes' mission statement. Those are labels we slap on behavior after the fact depending on the group's social norms.
What about the person who sacrifices themselves to save others you ask? Well, those genes get weeded out of the pool.
It's one of the more upsetting aspects of our situation, imho.
Matt
P.S.
John Denver DOES NOT have permission to reprint what I wrote above. He will simply twist it and take it out of context.
JD: if you're reading this, don't even try it buddy.
Thus humans will act in whatever fashion that their "genetic-subconscious" complex had perceived will best preserve their ability to make copies of themselves. The conscious mind will then rationlize the behavior as something it perceives will be accetable by the group.
In some cases, this means doing things you or I might consider "altruistic." In other cases, this this means doing things you or I might consider "evil." If this means accepting as true something that is obviously false, then so be it. From the genes standpoint, it doesn't mattert. Truth, justice, goodness etc. . . are not part of the genes' mission statement. Those are labels we slap on behavior after the fact depending on the group's social norms.
What about the person who sacrifices themselves to save others you ask? Well, those genes get weeded out of the pool.
It's one of the more upsetting aspects of our situation, imho.
Matt
P.S.
John Denver DOES NOT have permission to reprint what I wrote above. He will simply twist it and take it out of context.
JD: if you're reading this, don't even try it buddy.
-
MattSavinar - Elite
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Sun 09 May 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Human nature in a survival situation
by Doly » Fri 02 Sep 2005, 11:07:46
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')What about the person who sacrifices themselves to save others you ask? Well, those genes get weeded out of the pool.
')What about the person who sacrifices themselves to save others you ask? Well, those genes get weeded out of the pool.
Actually, no, if that person dies saving their relatives. That's why, in a survival situation, most people behave as I outlined above.
-
Doly - Expert
- Posts: 4370
- Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
