Human Nature

[Pres Zount]

Many people believe that the way people think has always been the same, and that we will always think the way we do now. The truth is, like all things in nature, human consciousness and society are always in a state of change -"conditions determine consciousness" - in other words the way the world is determines how people think, or what "human natre" is.

For tens of thousands of years humans lived in small communal groups, sharing what food they collected themselves with the rest of the tribe, in return others food would be shared with them. Competition in such a tribe would mean that everyone would starve to death in a matter of days. Having slaves was once considered normal and part of human nature in ancient Greece, Rome etc. Euthanasia of older people was considered normal by nomadic tribes. Are these things considered human nature today?

Under Capitalism, racism, greed, conflict and a 'dog-eat-dog' mentality are considered part of human nature - 'these are things that are ingrained in who we are! You can't escape that!' In reality, it is the ruling class (the capitalists) do everything in their power to affect the way we think. Through our education, through the media, religion, etc., we are raised to have the values of the capitalist system. And what values are these? Precisely the competitive attitude which states that the only way to get ahead is to stomp on your opponents. We are raised to look away and think nothing of the homeless, the starving, those killed in war, etc. - or at most to say a prayer for them and give a little "charity" to ease our conscience.

If the way humans think, and what is considered "human nature" changes to reflect the self intrests of the ruling classes, then who is to say that we can't all think in an egalitarian way? We can be free from racism, bigotry and the need to be ultra compeitive, once the ruling class changes from the minority serving their intrests, to the majority serving theirs.

[SobaViolence]

i like you on this board. (y)

society is progress. just like how segregation ruled for most of western society, it's a progression towards liberation and freedom. look at the 'debate' on gay marriage. we are progressing towards a better world. at the same time we stand on the brink of total destruction.

but love shall overcome. Ghandi believed this. are you calling him a liar?


;) God bless the peace makers.

[Pres Zount]

Well Ghandi liked Hitler and he held back the Indian masses from taking power, but yes, love conquers all ;)

Unfortunatley hate is in power at the moment.

[SobaViolence]

"All humanity is one undivided and indivisible family, and each one of us is responsible for the misdeeds of all the others. I cannot detach myself from the wickedest soul."

"Truth never damages a cause that is just."

"The cause of liberty becomes a mockery if the price to be paid is the wholesale destruction of those who are to enjoy liberty."

"Where there is love there is life."

"In doing something, do it with love or never do it at all."

Ghandi was great and shall live past the memory of anyone living today.

[racer5.0stang]

look at the 'debate' on gay marriage. we are progressing towards a better world.

What does the debate on gay marriage have to do with a better world?

[Pres Zount]

What does the debate on gay marriage have to do with a better world?

Years ago even debate would be taboo, but now more and more people are wanting to voice their ideas. This is a change in society - society is changing for the better in some cases and worse in others - but if there is change then that means there is hope.

Change is not just possible, it is inescapable.

[SobaViolence]

i knew you would be an asset, pres zount (y)

[K-nowledge]

Change is human nature and is inescapable because of human natures strive to change for the better.

[racer5.0stang]

it is inescapable.

Not inescapable, inevitable.

[Funkaloyd]

Racer, out of curiosity, do you think that the Declaration of Independence and subsequent ratification of the Constitution made for a better world?

[racer5.0stang]

Racer, out of curiosity, do you think that the Declaration of Independence and subsequent ratification of the Constitution made for a better world?


Sure

[Pres Zount]

Not inescapable, inevitable.
err... they are the same thing in context.

[racer5.0stang]

err... they are the same thing in context.


Apparantly, you have never seen any of the Matrix movies.

It was a joke. :D

[Pres Zount]

Apparantly, you have never seen any of the Matrix movies.

It was a joke. :D

Sorry!

I don't like the matrix, can't stand all that hippy bullshit. :p

[racer5.0stang]

Years ago even debate would be taboo, but now more and more people are wanting to voice their ideas. This is a change in society - society is changing for the better in some cases and worse in others - but if there is change then that means there is hope.

Change is not just possible, it is inescapable.


It would appear that the most recent changes, have been changes for the worse.

[K-nowledge]

Thanks to terrorists.

[Pres Zount]

Thanks to terrorists.
Well, yes, obviously, the world would be perfect IF NOT FOR THOSE DAMN TERRORISTS!!!

[Qdrop]

okay,
if Soba and Pres Mount are done sucking each other off ;) , i'd like to point out that contemporary science does not really support your apparent view that human nature is not engrained at birth but rather programmed by society.

so you are proponant of the "blank slate"?
"we are all born with no pre-conceptions or hot-wiring"....we are ready to be molded by society completely?

[ASsman]

Fucking A-Rabs.

[Whois]

Humans are evidence that while you can make the primate walk upright, he's still just a fucking monkey.

(y)

[Qdrop]

human nature is both engrained at birth and formed by society.

correct.


Just like we no longer have tails due to evolution,

biological


we no longer think it's cool to subjugate entire races cause we are lazy.

social

not the same thing.

but both evolve due to social needs (environment)- the decrease of racial subjagation having more to do with increased education and the mental progression of ethical philosophies- which is part of the environment.



In all honesty...it's a chicken and the egg scenario. Do we evolve because society does or does society evolve because we do?

now THAT'S a fun topic.

[Qdrop]

So you are saying that our social needs cant evolve biologically within ourselves indivualy?

absolutely they can....
thus the evolution of group/pack animals such as ourselves.

[Pres Zount]

I didnt read the entire thread, but I did some of it.

human nature is both engrained at birth and formed by society.
"Human nature" in it's colloqial (sp?) meaning is not ingrained from birth. Of course, what is ingrained is a need to communalise with other humans, of course, this is all that humans have in the way of a "survial gene". If humans don't co-operate they die, if they form societies, share food, and develop tools and build buildings, they survive.

Just like we no longer have tails due to evolution, we no longer think it's cool to subjugate entire races cause we are lazy.

But the reason that we evolve is because society and mob thinking evolves.


In all honesty...it's a chicken and the egg scenario. Do we evolve because society does or does society evolve because we do?

Both. Society and humans evolve in tandem with each other. For example the French Revolutionl; the Feudal economy allowed for the creation of the merchant and middle class, when this class knew it had more political and economic power than the Feudal lords, and when they new society was being held back by them, they overthrew the king and the Feudal system in a revolution, allowing for society to develop into Capitalism. Society allows humans to evolve the way they think, and in turn they evolve society. This is true for all socio-economic sytems in history.

Which came first? Humans started with societies when they left the trees and became "human". If you don't want to call a family tribe a society, then Human evolution came first.

okay,
if Soba and Pres Mount are done sucking each other off , i'd like to point out that contemporary science does not really support your apparent view that human nature is not engrained at birth but rather programmed by society.
Okay, Poodrop, point away. Mind you I have the great thinkers of history on my side as well as recent scientific DNA findings.

[aenema]

If the way humans think, and what is considered "human nature" changes to reflect the self intrests of the ruling classes, then who is to say that we can't all think in an egalitarian way? We can be free from racism, bigotry and the need to be ultra compeitive, once the ruling class changes from the minority serving their intrests, to the majority serving theirs.
I believe that through the competitive nature of our ancestors from even the primative era human evolution it has brought us to where we are today.

Humans have competed with nature and other humans alike to survive and I believe that this trait is still promimently existent today. Ambition comes from a desire to excel others of your species and gain more power, imagine the way the animal kingdom works.

Human nature can be truly savage, murders, brawls and striving to harm others who are working against you stems from the primitive form of human beings.

This is also relative to the infamous 'Nature vs. Nurture' debate, can one be moulded be their true genetic being or can they infact become of what society holds already?

[Rancid_Beasties]

I still believe that social darwinism is engrained in human nature, and that in the tribal ages we used our competitive streak to gain an advantage over other species. Now that we have well and truly subjugated all species, and wiped out many along the way, we are focusing our efforts against other humans. So when you say that humans naturally have the ability to live communally, yes I agree that they do. But this does not mean that all humans can live in harmony with all humans. We are predators and we need prey :D

Ohh yeah and didn't you get that rule "u after q" drummed into you in primary/high school. Much like "i before e except after c" and "adjective describes a noun, like a field or fountain, street or town." :p

On a totally unrelated topic Pres, are you still at uni? Because there is an act that has just been put forward in the commonwealth government that will make student unionism voluntary ie it will reduce union numbers, events, services, atmosphere, political culture and the quality of university life in general. I think that is a good example of a commune (the student union) being broken appart in favour of individualism, segregation (people who are too lazy or poor to join the union will be excluded from all services), and capitalism. In the words of one of the Young Liberals "I dont want my money taken away from me to be spent on those who might not be able to afford services!!!! I want to spend my own money on my own things for me!!!" (in Australia liberal means conservatism and labor means neo-liberalism, while we have no democratic parties, no pure liberal parties and no left wing parties (of note)).

[Pres Zount]

OK, lets see.

Humans did not compete with each other in order to survive back in 'caveman' days. Small tribes that rarely see other tribes cannot compete within their own tribe. Food was scarse and the whole tribe had to continually be gathering and hunting. If you were a lone wolf, so to speak, and you went hunting alone and was unlucky that day, you starved. In a tribe that worked together and co-operated, you could share your hunt (which you could not possibly eat on your own) with the others, safe in the knowledge that they would share theirs the next day. If competition is ingrained in our heads, humankind would either be dead or stuck in the stone-age.

Competition (the kind that we are discussing) developed with the rise of basic markets and coinage.

I don't go to uni anymore, but I woudn't (and didn't) pay union fees. Why should I pay for a shit union that is run by the govt to provide me with shit services? Tas uni's union was shitter than I can imagine, they didn't even bother to stand against raising fees. A union that I would pay to be in would stand up for my student rights and would involve me, not just sell cheap beer and chips.

[aenema]

But cavemen would compete against the elements and other savage animals to survive. They struggled to stay on top of the food chain, so that's why I think we're still the same.


We can be free from racism, bigotry and the need to be ultra compeitive, once the ruling class changes from the minority serving their intrests, to the majority serving theirs.

These are the people that assume they can take place in some sort of "society"-chain, ruling classes and racism wouldn't exist if it wasn't for some who believed themselves to be superior to those who differ in race, sex, etc.

[Rancid_Beasties]

OK, lets see.

Humans did not compete with each other in order to survive back in 'caveman' days. Small tribes that rarely see other tribes cannot compete within their own tribe. Food was scarse and the whole tribe had to continually be gathering and hunting. If you were a lone wolf, so to speak, and you went hunting alone and was unlucky that day, you starved. In a tribe that worked together and co-operated, you could share your hunt (which you could not possibly eat on your own) with the others, safe in the knowledge that they would share theirs the next day. If competition is ingrained in our heads, humankind would either be dead or stuck in the stone-age.

Competition (the kind that we are discussing) developed with the rise of basic markets and coinage.

I don't go to uni anymore, but I woudn't (and didn't) pay union fees. Why should I pay for a shit union that is run by the govt to provide me with shit services? Tas uni's union was shitter than I can imagine, they didn't even bother to stand against raising fees. A union that I would pay to be in would stand up for my student rights and would involve me, not just sell cheap beer and chips.

Don think I'm disagreeing with you on the fact that humans should be able to work together... my point is that the whole reason behind divisions nowadays is a lack of competition outside of the species. When it was species against species, yes cooperation did exist. But now that we have domination, our numbers have spiraled out of control. Our 'tribe' is in some respects national, even worldwide. We have begun to realise that in a species of so many, the only people we are able to look out for is ourselves and occasionally our family (which i would compare to the tribal system in some respects). Its a terrible shame, but its a reality. Although the functionality of the family as a communalistic safety net really is fucked up by the whole notion of capitalist individualism, like some families just dont get enough basic neccessities, while another family (or even just an individual) has all the money and power, so nobody can help anybody. Or alternatively you get families that just dont help each other :( So competition has been around forever its just now with the global 'community' (it really isn't a community) its focused more on attacking and supressing certain groups for the benefit of the wealthy/elite.

Ohh and melbourne university union is quite excellent. They organise all the o-week activies, fund hundreds of clubs, offer counselling, guidance, financial support, childcare, i dunno the list just goes on. Plus they have a fair bit of clout over the uni admin. ie they scared the university to delay the fee rises (them and monash uni), they run a hell of alot of protests and they also provide representation in appeals to the uni board for academic stuff. They do actually stand up for the students, even if you are a liberal party member :p

Ohh yeah and they occasionally have free beer/sausages but usually thats just the individual subject societies doing that ie the law student society etc.

[Pres Zount]

Don think I'm disagreeing with you on the fact that humans should be able to work together... my point is that the whole reason behind divisions nowadays is a lack of competition outside of the species. When it was species against species, yes cooperation did exist. But now that we have domination, our numbers have spiraled out of control. Our 'tribe' is in some respects national, even worldwide. We have begun to realise that in a species of so many, the only people we are able to look out for is ourselves and occasionally our family (which i would compare to the tribal system in some respects). Its a terrible shame, but its a reality. Although the functionality of the family as a communalistic safety net really is fucked up by the whole notion of capitalist individualism, like some families just dont get enough basic neccessities, while another family (or even just an individual) has all the money and power, so nobody can help anybody. Or alternatively you get families that just dont help each other :( So competition has been around forever its just now with the global 'community' (it really isn't a community) its focused more on attacking and supressing certain groups for the benefit of the wealthy/elite.

If the whole reason for division (racism, I gather?) is because of a lack of competition outside of humanity, how can you explain the existance of non-racists? Far from getting MORE dvided, the world is getting LESS divided along ethnic lines.

It was the development of the modes of production and the possibility of a surplus that gave rise to the divisio of humanity. First, in classes, and then as the ruling classes needed a way to defend themselves, race division.

Also, the competition between nations usually involves just the ruling calss of that nation. Not the people. I for one don't care about most of the dealings of Australian private industry.

I am not saying that Competition does not and has not existed, that is absurd. What I am saying is that different socio-economic bases can either increase the amount of competition among humans, or decrease the need for it. It is not somethig that we are born with. generally, people now are more comptitive towards rival buisineses than they were during the medieval ages.

[Qdrop]

"Human nature" in it's colloqial (sp?) meaning is not ingrained from birth.

ok, first...give YOUR definition of Human Nature.
i agree it has become a rather broad and generic term that (depending on usage) can have ridiculously broad strokes.


Of course, what is ingrained is a need to communalise with other humans, of course,

which is one of many traits that evoloved in primates, yes.


this is all that humans have in the way of a "survial gene". If humans don't co-operate they die, if they form societies, share food, and develop tools and build buildings, they survive.

if this is "all" that you think humans have in the way of a "survival gene", you need to read more.
An inflamitory remark, yes (sorry), but in regards to a statement that shows an extremely narrow understanding of sociobiology and evolution...and reaks of someone who has only read 2 books on social evolution (with one view) and thinks they got it all figured out.


Both. Society and humans evolve in tandem with each other.

correct.


Society allows humans to evolve the way they think,

? - a tad vague there....please divulge.


and in turn they evolve society. This is true for all socio-economic sytems in history.

okay, i'm with you there.


Which came first? Humans started with societies when they left the trees and became "human". If you don't want to call a family tribe a society, then Human evolution came first.

well, even if you do want to call a primate family tribe a society....it (social interaction and social/cooperative groups) started waaaaaaay before primate even evolved really.
social tribes are in NO way strictly human, or primate for that matter.


Okay, Poodrop, point away. Mind you I have the great thinkers of history on my side as well as recent scientific DNA findings.

hehee....my man, you picked the WRONG socio/bio/evolutinary buff to slap box with....

please...list your books, papers, studies, ect...with authors that you are deriving your views from.
i'd like to check them out myself.

concerning you lack of faith in extensive ENGRAINED cognitive human nature....
well, for my side.....i'll START with this: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670031518/qid=1111068209/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-8566243-8997558

it really hits to the heart of what the debate is hear:

"In The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker explores the idea of human nature and its moral, emotional, and political colorings. He shows how many intellectuals have denied the existence of human nature and instead have embraced three dogmas: The Blank Slate (the mind has no innate traits), The Noble Savage (people are born good and corrupted by society), and The Ghost in the Machine (each of us has a soul that makes choices free from biology). Each dogma carries a moral burden, so their defenders have engaged in desperate tactics to discredit the scientists who are now challenging them.
Pinker provides calm in the stormy debate by disentangling the political and moral issues from the scientific ones. He shows that equality, compassion, responsibility, and purpose have nothing to fear from discoveries about an innately organized psyche. Pinker shows that the new sciences of mind, brain, genes, and evolution, far from being dangerous, are complementing observations about the human condition made by millennia of artists and philosophers.

"Drawing on decades of research in the "sciences of human nature," Pinker, a chaired professor of psychology at MIT, attacks the notion that an infant's mind is a blank slate, arguing instead that human beings have an inherited universal structure shaped by the demands made upon the species for survival, albeit with plenty of room for cultural and individual variation."
"...What might amaze is the persistent, often vitriolic resistance to these findings Pinker presents and systematically takes apart, decrying the hold of the "blank slate" and other orthodoxies on intellectual life."

for starters...

[Qdrop]

first, i'd like to point out that Anemea and Rancid have an excellant grasp on this topic....and i am quite in agreement with them.
they represent the general current standing of contemporty social-biological understanding.

OK, lets see.

Humans did not compete with each other in order to survive back in 'caveman' days. Small tribes that rarely see other tribes cannot compete within their own tribe.

it is true that it may have been rare for primate tribes to engage each other once extensive migration had begun, however prior to heavy migration and earlier in evolutionary history, competing tribes and families regularly competed in africa...as did earlier pack animals that pre-dated even primates. such evolved behavior doesn't simply disapear...particularly when it still has a hefty value for survival.
as early man rivals multiplied, confrontations become increasingly common...and direct competition resulted in homo-erectus (us) beating out neandertal among other dwindling human/primate branches.
as history progressed and humans exploded in the geography...such group vs. group behavior never left us...."war is older than man".


Food was scarse and the whole tribe had to continually be gathering and hunting. If you were a lone wolf, so to speak, and you went hunting alone and was unlucky that day, you starved. In a tribe that worked together and co-operated, you could share your hunt (which you could not possibly eat on your own) with the others, safe in the knowledge that they would share theirs the next day.

all true.


If competition is ingrained in our heads, humankind would either be dead or stuck in the stone-age.

such dissonance.
as i stated above...competition has never left us....and has served an extremely valuable survival trait.
you seem to think that inner-group cooperation cannot co-exist with general competition with those competing with similar resources (be it other animals or other groups)....explain where you derived this from.

the human mind has the complex ability to "weigh it's options" (a truley primate-only ability). we can and have been able to decipher the value of cooperating with outside groups or competing with them (sometimes both) depending on which deems the most value (or which behavior takes directive).


Competition (the kind that we are discussing) developed with the rise of basic markets and coinage.

again....your source?

[Qdrop]

It was the development of the modes of production and the possibility of a surplus that gave rise to the divisio of humanity. First, in classes, and then as the ruling classes needed a way to defend themselves, race division.

source?...or your detailed reasoning for this?

If the whole reason for division (racism, I gather?) is because of a lack of competition outside of humanity, how can you explain the existance of non-racists? Far from getting MORE dvided, the world is getting LESS divided along ethnic lines.


....
Also, the competition between nations usually involves just the ruling calss of that nation. Not the people. I for one don't care about most of the dealings of Australian private industry.

I am not saying that Competition does not and has not existed, that is absurd. What I am saying is that different socio-economic bases can either increase the amount of competition among humans, or decrease the need for it. It is not somethig that we are born with. generally, people now are more comptitive towards rival buisineses than they were during the medieval ages.
okay...your statement: "What I am saying is that different socio-economic bases can either increase the amount of competition among humans, or decrease the need for it.[which is true] It is not somethig that we are born with." is patently absurd and goes against contemporary science. you say you have DNA evidence to prove this?
please list it....really.

see, i think you are generally lacking on knowledge of group psychology and dynamics in general.
you seem to have little or at least incorrect knowledge about the history and previous-to-current studies on it's EVOLUTIONARY AND COGNATIVE ROOTS!
read more about it.

you seem to be of the opinion that group dynamics and the lot, is completely derived from social (environmental) morays....not at all from genetic predominance.
this is patently absurd.
christ...i really don't have the time (or the authority) to try and explain it all to you...but perhaps i can point you in a certain direction.

[Schmeltz]

Fuck biology. It doesn't matter anymore - haven't the relevant scientific authorities pointed out that we've basically ceased to evolve because of our cultural habits? If we mire ourselves in genetics and purely "natural" expressions of our behaviour we become no better than the animals. Our cultural evolution is what matters now, and we have the choice of limiting it to expressions of vulgar animalism or finding a genuinely progressive way to live together as a species. We won't get anywhere pretending that exploiting others in the name of competition is essential to survival.

[SobaViolence]

Fuck biology. We won't get anywhere pretending that exploiting others in the name of competition is essential to survival.

(y)

[aenema]

first, i'd like to point out that Anemea and Rancid have an excellant grasp on this topic....and i am quite in agreement with them.
they represent the general current standing of contemporty social-biological understanding.




as i stated above...competition has never left us....and has served an extremely valuable survival trait.

Thankyou Qdrop. It hasn't been long since I came to my own conclusion that social and psychological sciences tie together, so it's refreshing to be involved in stating and debating opinion here.

However;

Fuck biology. It doesn't matter anymore .

It most certainly does. I cannot see how one can imagine that biology is irrelevant in this case, I mean, biology is what we are, organic creatures.

If we mire ourselves in genetics and purely "natural" expressions of our behaviour we become no better than the animals.

Murder, rape, savage acts that occur so frequently in the world are all animalistic traits. We haven't become much better as a species.
Obviously, we are more civilized than our pimate cousins, but at the end of the day it's my belief we share the same genes and sub-concious/visibly concious personality traits.

We won't get anywhere pretending that exploiting others in the name of competition is essential to survival.
Exploitation won't ever be justified as something right necessarily, but it is done for selfish reasons, for an individual to gain something in society. It is natural for human beings wanting to achieve, alike a predator to prey. It remains on the same tangent as I have discussed before and similarly to Qdrop.

Psychologists have worked for many years on trying to unravel the sub-concious, which is essentially the nuclus to the way humans have devloped socially and physically in the grey matter. The sub-concious is never touched upon.

We cannot change what is there, psychologists clain that if you were to see what lay there, it would shock us. Does this not say to you that a savage lies in us all by human nature as it has developed over time?

[Schmeltz]

We may be organic creatures, but we alone of all species on earth are more: we are social creatures and cultural creatures to a degree totally unmatched elsewhere in the animal kingdom. It is this quality that permits us to rise above our origins and be something more than other animals, and as such deserves more credit than our purely biological or organic traits.


Murder, rape, savage acts that occur so frequently in the world are all animalistic traits. We haven't become much better as a species.


Yes we have - we have forbidden such behaviour as socially and culturally unacceptable (or at least most of us have - notably, the more advanced and progressive human societies have done so). Does any other species punish its members for these animalistic traits? We do because our social and cultural evolution allows us to conceive of such behaviour as counterproductive, no matter how "natural" it is to other animals. You see? Culture trumps biology. We might share the same genes as the chimps, but it doesn't mean we have to squat in trees picking bugs out of each others' hair.


It is natural for human beings wanting to achieve, alike a predator to prey.


Who cares? We're beyond that now; we've constructed social and cultural structures that render predator-prey thinking largely unnecessary and actually detrimental to our progress as a species. As time goes by we can increase the sophistication of these structures until the darker aspects of our nature become even more subdued and less useful - unless we decide to hold ourselves back in the name of animalism and primitivism.


psychologists clain that if you were to see what lay there, it would shock us. Does this not say to you that a savage lies in us all


What, like Lord of the Flies? Maybe. Even if "a savage lies in us all" we can choose whether or not to let him out, and we can suffocate him in civilization until he doesn't matter any more. Are you trying to say that in spite of all the progress humanity has made as a species, we must inevitably bow to savagery and destructive, animalistic behaviour? I'd like to think history and evolution have produced more than that bleak assessment admits.

[ericg]

What a well layed out and dope thread! I wish moral, psycological, and social "revolutions" of the mind updated society as a progressive and functioning system instantly.... Why it seems to take a "Phone Booth" scenario is incredible. Without being too verbose, I think we all know proper... but it does take personal impetus... motivation reinforcement... and practical utilization to realize the efficiency at stake to make it all work right. As long as we know there is a right and wrong way for everything and develop a good experience and will.. collaborative self sense (mass convictive personna) of and are responsible for the right way(s) and self learning (truly face the music)..., we always benefit. People never want to come to a stand still and fix past blunders... But we have to become still to advance our minds to progress correctly... fixing the past is fixing the future. Yada, yada, yada...

In addition: Humble beginnings make fertile ground to learn and excerise the desire to appreciate. That's where it's at. Of course, one must learn this, before truly understanding that... like, understanding fundamentaly what truth relies upon is key. Concepts/ basic forces etc...
Parsing doesn't do it for me. It shows you want to be intelligent, but are ultimately unsure and not there yet, and really just need someone else to find yourself. It's cool though. Don't mind me.

[aenema]

We may be organic creatures, but we alone of all species on earth are more: we are social creatures and cultural creatures to a degree totally unmatched elsewhere in the animal kingdom. It is this quality that permits us to rise above our origins and be something more than other animals, and as such deserves more credit than our purely biological or organic traits.

Agreed, biological status isn't a sole thing in humans.


Yes we have [become much better as a species]- we have forbidden such behaviour as socially and culturally unacceptable (or at least most of us have - notably, the more advanced and progressive human societies have done so). Does any other species punish its members for these animalistic traits? .
I see what you mean here Schmeltz, society has quashed these things as socially unacceptable, laws have been made and people can reform. However, you cannot ignore the fact that just because society and law have forbidden thses things to happen, it means they are significantly least likely to occur. People have desires. Yes, psychoctics are the sort of people that maybe you and I would immediately think of to carry out atrocious acts such as rape or murder. Although, people can live their lives never actually carrying out this sort of thing, but desire is there, thus linking back to my original idea of what human nature is.

As humans we are notably more intelligent than some of the animal species, having built society and social ethics.

We might share the same genes as the chimps, but it doesn't mean we have to squat in trees picking bugs out of each others' hair.

Hrm, maybe you took what I said a little too literally?

Who cares? We're beyond that now; we've constructed social and cultural structures that render predator-prey thinking largely unnecessary and actually detrimental to our progress as a species. .
I don't think we are so far, after all, how do you explain ambition, that inner-drive that motivates one to achieve things? It's all to do with getting there, on top of society, like an animal/predator would assert its own power to prey, we strive to assert our own individual power in society. Another linkage between biology and sociology.

As time goes by we can increase the sophistication of these structures until the darker aspects of our nature become even more subdued and less useful - unless we decide to hold ourselves back in the name of animalism and primitivism.
Think back to how long it's been since our ancestors were savage, grunting cavemen hunting slaying for meat, thus survival.

The "darker aspects" of our nature aren't going to be any more subdued anytime soon.



What, like Lord of the Flies? Maybe. Even if "a savage lies in us all" we can choose whether or not to let him out, and we can suffocate him in civilization until he doesn't matter any more. Are you trying to say that in spite of all the progress humanity has made as a species, we must inevitably bow to savagery and destructive, animalistic behaviour? I'd like to think history and evolution have produced more than that bleak assessment admits.
As I was saying, it's all to do with sub-concious and what lies in it. You can't "suffocate" or stun any action from something you cannot control.

[Schmeltz]

However, you cannot ignore the fact that just because society and law have forbidden thses things to happen, it means they are significantly least likely to occur. People have desires.


Yes, people have desires. But people are vastly less likely to act on them when society classifies them as unacceptable. It doesn't really matter what people desire to do if they don't actually do it. I'm sure we've all wanted to kill our boss or our lover, but it's not many who actually do it, and it's fewer (proportionally) in some societies than in others - for social reasons. Again, just because we're able to define or recognize human nature doesn't mean we're inextricably bound to it.


how do you explain ambition, that inner-drive that motivates one to achieve things? It's all to do with getting there, on top of society, like an animal/predator would assert its own power


Well, I suppose I could say that the drive to be on top is just as social as biological. After all, people routinely behave in ways that will magnify their social status even if there is no other gain - you insult your friend at the bar to make the rest of your friends laugh, or whatever. Why do people really buy fancy cars? So they can drive around? Or so people can see them driving around? Sure we strive to assert our own power in society - but it's not necessarily biological. Now, you might point out that the desire to be socially on top is linked to the desire to be biologically on top, and perhaps that's true - but I submit that the social aspect has surpassed the biological aspect, especially since those at the top of society often roles purely social in nature - Bill Gates doesn't have thousands of kids, now does he?


You can't "suffocate" or stun any action from something you cannot control.


Well, if you can prove that all aspects of our behaviour proceed from subconscious impulses beyond our control, and that this subordinates all behaviour in the social realm, I suppose I'll accept that. Good luck. ;)

[ericg]

Oh... when devastatingly subjective, the initiative (objective) is lost. If only we lived in an efficient world, country, city.. where we had appropriated systematic means to focus on the right point of it all... Instead of having to resort to over anal-yzing everything to death, we should be synthesizing known qualities.....!!!! Virtue means more than anything.
This way everything falls in place correctly.
Gestalt psychology keeping it real.

[Ali]

Oh look. The Speed Freak's back.

WTF are you on, anyway? Incoherent fool.

[Pres Zount]

My definition of "Human Nature" is the nature of humans. It is ever changing, and is determined by society.

The common definition of "Human Nature" is the nature of humans which is ingrained in the mind and can't be avoided.


Of course, what is ingrained is a need to communalise with other humans, of course..


which is one of many traits that evoloved in primates, yes.

I actually disagree with myself here, I was thinking of what should be considered more ingrained than competition. You saying that these traits 'evolve' doesn't help your position, it implys that they were not always there. Which they weren't.

Society allows humans to evolve the way they think,


? - a tad vague there....please divulge.

For example the French Revolution; the Feudal economy allowed for the creation of the merchant and middle class, when this class knew it had more political and economic power than the Feudal lords, and when they new society was being held back by them, they overthrew the king and the Feudal system in a revolution, allowing for society to develop into Capitalism.


Society creates it's succesor. Each stage of socio-economic evolution has been overthrown by a more modern way of thinking. Primitive communism (tribes) gave way to the agrarian revolution and the asiatic mode of producton, it was the tribe system itself the allowed for, and at the same time forced, humans to develop farming and an end to simple subsistence living. Again, a good example is Feudalism: the evolution of tools and orginisation regarding production allowed for people to become rich off of trade in a way that was beyond the fathoms of the Feudal lords. The middle class of merchants found themselves with more economic power than the royalty, and of course economic power leads to political power. There was a revolution and the bourgeois way of thinking replaced the Feudal way of thinking: it was more liberal and more free and it allowed for the creation of great ideas and culture. Bourgeois culture replaced Feudal culture - and the socio-economic system of Feudalism created Bourgeois culture.

social tribes are in NO way strictly human, or primate for that matter.
But we're discussing "human" nature.

please...list your books, papers, studies, ect...with authors that you are deriving your views from.
i'd like to check them out myself.
Why do you need me to compile everything I have read? I'm presenting my thoughts right in front of you. I don't want this to turn into a copy and paste a link kind of debate. If you can't properly understand what your own views are enough so that you can easily post them in a way which others will understand, don't bother. This is not an diss to you, as I can se that you are capable of it. If you want to post a link to some scientific research or a graph or something, that's ok by me. I want to hear what you have to say, though. Again, I'm not jsut attacking you, I don't want to read a thousand pages of links, and I'm sure you don't either.

Plus, your exerpt hardly hits right to the heart - it looks like a blurb on the back of a book.

it is true that it may have been rare for primate tribes to engage each other once extensive migration had begun, however prior to heavy migration and earlier in evolutionary history, competing tribes and families regularly competed in africa...as did earlier pack animals that pre-dated even primates. such evolved behavior doesn't simply disapear...particularly when it still has a hefty value for survival.
as early man rivals multiplied, confrontations become increasingly common...and direct competition resulted in homo-erectus (us) beating out neandertal among other dwindling human/primate branches.
as history progressed and humans exploded in the geography...such group vs. group behavior never left us...."war is older than man".


how can it be 'rare' (read: 'non-existant') if it is ingrained in the human brain? Also, evolved behavior (evolved meaning that it didn't exist at some stage...) does go away or, more acuratley, it evolves. Just like a survival notion like euthanasia of the elderly can leave "human nature". You are agreeing on my fundamental argument; the whole point for this thread.

you seem to think that inner-group cooperation cannot co-exist with general competition with those competing with similar resources (be it other animals or other groups)....explain where you derived this from.


No I don't. I am not denying the existence of competition.

[/quote]the human mind has the complex ability to "weigh it's options" (a truley primate-only ability). we can and have been able to decipher the value of cooperating with outside groups or competing with them (sometimes both) depending on which deems the most value (or which behavior takes directive).[/quote]
how can one weigh their options when it is their very NATURE TO DESTROY AND COMPETE?!

[/quote=Pres Zount]Competition (the kind that we are discussing) developed with the rise of basic markets and coinage.[/quote


again....your source?
Well I should have said 'the kind I was originally discussing'. You don't think that corporate competition was around in the stoe age, do you? It's not really important to where this thread is going anymore, but I'll type it out if you want me.


It was the development of the modes of production and the possibility of a surplus that gave rise to the divisio of humanity. First, in classes, and then as the ruling classes needed a way to defend themselves, race division.


source?...or your detailed reasoning for this?

Primitive communism (tribes) was a poverty striken way of living. Humans had to spend nearly all their time hunting and gathering in order to survive. Since everybody in the tribe had to do as much work as possible, there was little inequality. Whith the agrarian revolution came an over-abundance of food for those in the tribe, and the creation of surplus. For the first time in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, there was extra food. This meant that part of the tribe did not have to spend all their time with food production, this allowed for free time, and subsequent advances in tecnology. What it also created was a division in the tribe, some worked and some lived off the surplus. generally this was those that had been tribe leader or chief of some sort. This was the first major division in humanity - class division - and it still exists today.


okay...your statement: "What I am saying is that different socio-economic bases can either increase the amount of competition among humans, or decrease the need for it.[which is true] It is not somethig that we are born with." is patently absurd and goes against contemporary science. you say you have DNA evidence to prove this?
please list it....really.

You are agreeing with me again on the main point of my argument.

My "DNA evidence" are the discoveries about the human genome. You may remember it was in the paper and stuff a while ago. For decades, a large number of geneticists have argued that everything from intelligence to homosexuality and competitiveness was determined by our genes. The string of biological code present in humans was so long - some 3 billion units - that scientists had expected it to contain instructions to create anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 genes. What was found was around 30,000 genes. Too put that in perspective, a fruit fly has about 15,000. Corn has the same amount as humans.

Despite the fashionable tendency to deny the existence of progress in evolution, it is surely reasonable to suppose there is something more to Homo sapiens than corn? What I'm getting at is that there are not enough genes in humans to allow the existance of traits like competition and racism or whatever else to be ingrained in genes.

Dr. Craig Venter was the head of one of the institutes... I'll look up some of his stuff, gimme time. I'm going to bed.

[ericg]

Ali.. don't alienate yourself. It doesn't become you or the forum. I have to say I hope you soon resolve your own nature without frontin' an alibi.

I don't think you feel able to appreciate, so you become self destructive.

I don't want to play tic tac toe with you. It's played out. Don't continue to work yourself like that. I hope you're able to work out, cuz it's really non-winner/ starter shit.

Still presuming too much Peachy. It has you suckin' like a leech.

[ms.peachy]

Oh look. The Speed Freak's back.

WTF are you on, anyway? Incoherent fool.

In all honesty, I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with laughing at him.

You know, when you presume that someone you're interacting with is just, like, "weird", but not actually mentally ill or anything, you feel kind of OK with saying stuff like "what the fuck is wrong with you, you fucking freak" becasue you assume they are operating within a framework wherein they have some control. Know what I mean? But then every once in a while there are people who seem to have a real 'disconnect', something really actually not quite kicking over properly upstairs, and then taking the same shots start to seem just kind of cruel. Like rural villagers tormenting an idiot, or bear-beating. Taking pleasure from the suffering from others, or at least their inability to distinguish the insults to their own dignity.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

[ericg]

The (benign) nature of life is really to grow towards the light... Why fight yourself? "...You're just yellin' and wildin' wondering who I am. With those lies you're telling, you look like Toucan Sam. But my style's impregnable like the Hoover Dam..."

"...What the blood clot....What's all the fan fare? What's the to do?....."

"...No time...to listen to conflicting points of view..."
"...You must learn..."- Sublime

"...Listen..."- Hello Nasty

"...it's just 1, 2, 3..."- 311

"...Contact..."- pbs

[ericg]

It's been 2 years today since I started my gestational writings... 20 pages. No official title...

Worddocdemocrazy...- - -...

"This begins the gestational writings of a book; a tempered synopsis or very rough abridgement...in reality. It shouldn't be too hard to configure and digest in the future...."
Right here. Right now. The date is 3-18-03, the world is as confounded and dumbfounded as ever, where the American Presidency has been usurped and abused. Where the state has not taken revolution as humanity's intelligence holds true to date on mine and other's behalf, at least. I can't believe the usurpation; the overall but not limited to... the hypocrisy, illegitimacy, and plain wrongdoing of the world's leadership and the apparent majority of it's people that unfortunately can't tell for ignorance, fear and greed etc... which is arrogance, and which is the right, true and relied connotation...of it all; I mean, it's as if people don't (have the ability to) look up, recognize and discern (configure for the life of them) between the real (life) constellation, and an official newspaper feign's connect-the-dots. The world's affairs and agendas now have ended up stagnant and malignant in consequence. Without firm beliefs, decisive and affirmative action of all the people, this is what you get. Again, the date is 3-18-03. The situation is incredible, (for the masses that are not familiar with diction, the English language and it's correct usage, that means NOT CREDIBLE)for these intents and purposes. Yet somehow it predominates in the most critical and grave of circumstances..."

I'm actually sick of reading it. Hope someone finds it worth while.
...
2.Sick Tight
3.You Wouldn't Believe
.....
- 311: From Chaos

Try hard not to be so rotten again peachy.
My t-shirt has STATE CHAMPIONSHIP written up on it. :D

[ericg]

It so happened that I watched "Human Nature" last night. Anyone seen it? I love, damn, what's her name...anyway, you know... "True Romance"... "The Medium"... Out of the way movie.. but had a few hilarious moments.

[Documad]

It so happened that I watched "Human Nature" last night. Anyone seen it? I love, damn, what's her name...anyway, you know... "True Romance"... "The Medium"... Out of the way movie.. but had a few hilarious moments.
I'm really smart, but this is the only post I understand. :) It's Patricia Arquette. And strangely I rented Human Nature last month.

I read an interesting book last fall about old psychological experiments which made people look pretty rotten. People seemed both unlikely to help others and likely to actually hurt others if given any official reason. Like the people who were willing to administer what they thought were lethal levels of electricity to another person if instructed to do so by a guy in a white coat.

[ericg]

Yep, that's her name. She plays the tragic roles it seems. Maybe not like Bjork in Dancer in the Dark, but still...

Anyway, I don't know about interesting... but sounds rotten to me. Hell, being born is a trauma unto itself in some relative... (Besides A/C&D/C) I only know 2 kinds of electricity... positive and negative. Like constructive and destructive criticism.

Finished watching another movie called Siver City. (y) In retrospect, I'm mad that all we as a people can do is make a movie that beats around the Bush administrations illegal activities and criminal agendas... Even if the movie is done somewhat well, it was still bland. Perhaps appropriately bland for the bland masses though. So much get's secularized into making the profound seem meaningless by the fools in power that leech the commonwealth from the blind masses in the real mean time. Anyway, look forward to cappin', tappin', and mappin' the map to show the world ain't so damn flat ... Still want to see The Weather Underground.

"...Got my finger on the button..."
The Chemical Brothers: Pushing The Button: Galvanize
"...So don't touch me, 'cause I'm electric, and if ya touch me, you'll get shocked..."
Beastie Boys: Check Your Head: Professor Booty

PEACE

[Documad]

Still want to see The Weather Underground.
I didn't think it was a very good film, and it had a bizarre tone. My friends and I were laughing in parts and I'm sure that's not what the makers were going for. Especially funny were the reasons given for some of their bombings. It started out with big (if misguided) reasons, and when they ran out of those, they ended up bombing a post office because it was the anniversary of some obscure event. I think I've also read way too much history on the period to be a good audience for this stuff.

[ericg]

Hmm

[ericg]

Yeah it looked like... but still...

[zorra_chiflada]

i've never seen zount work so hard and write so much..... ever.
wow.
sorry, i'm too dumb to be in this forum. :o

[ms.peachy]

Try hard not to be so rotten again peachy.

I realise you may be unable to recognise it, but I was actually endeavouring to be compassionate. I have no desire to be mean to you. I suspect you have enough suffering and difficultly getting on in your life due to factors beyond your control, and I've no wish to add to that.

[ericg]

:D No that doesn't work. Still rather pungent. I guess you have to practice and try a little harder. You can't cut it when it's squishy rot like that. Wash your stinky finger, put it up in the air and say, "I'll type "freshhhhh" next time!"

What do you realise? Try realizing it next time. And I don't care how you spell it, but recognize better next time too. I suspect... Well, don't be worried about being mean to me. You don't really mean a thing to me.

I can appreciate the dissection and deletion of fools, but no more time for.. Let's see how well the ignore feature works.

[ms.peachy]

What do you realise? Try realizing it next time.

I am in England. I am using the Enlish spelling. I both realise and recognise many things.

I am sorry if you feel hurt by what I have said, but I do believe it to be true. I wish you well.

[ericg]

Oh your so flaky I can't stand it. Damn, for some reason I just can't ignore shit like that. Stop being so unnatural, it's giving a bad vibe to human nature. I know you'd like nothing more than for me to get dirty with you, but the thing is that your kind of dirty and my kind of dirty are two different things. Your a mess, and I'm trying to clean it up. You don't recognize this so you don't realize it. It's obvious your being a vindictive, spoiled little.. Why anybody would want to be so obviously played out and known to be that superficial.. unless they just don't know any better is pretty pathetic.. Why are you here on the BB's website? Here, get this... I wish you well so nobody else has to put up with your sick. And if that doesn't work, there's much worse waiting for you out there with that type personality.

[ms.peachy]

As I said, I'm sorry if I've hurt you. I know you will say "Ha, you can't hurt me you mean nothing to me" but yet you just seem to have such a great deal of animosity, it can't be coming from nowhere.

I sincerely do wish you peace and calmness, whether you believe it or not.

[racer5.0stang]

To my surprise, I could actually comprehend Ericq's posts. (y)

[ericg]

I know. That was like your only intent.. and that's why it went all wrong. Well, you'll get your wish, but not as easily as you may or may not think. I'm really sick of reinerating why I can't stand it- and how I know you planned it... though I'll always be inclined to set you straight. You can't front on the shit that you've created.

The world is full of people like you from the President of the United States all the way down to... It clots more in life than your little minds have yet to fathom. You drank the fizzy lifting drink and now the walls have to be cleaned. Keep the everlasting gobstopper, they were made for people just like you.

The Beastie Boys have been keeping tabs/records on people like you ever since the day. You may get off in your own little way, but you only end up playing yourself out in bigger ways. How can you not know that shit doesn't play here.

Please, take a minute.

Racer, good for you I guess, but your license was revoked a long time ago for the excessive running into walls. Why are you still clotting up this board.

[Qdrop]

My definition of "Human Nature" is the nature of humans. It is ever changing, and is determined by society.

see, the "is determined by society" part is not fact.
that is opinion....your opinion....
and NOT supported by contempory science. (which says it is a mixture of both society (environment) AND biology.)


The common definition of "Human Nature" is the nature of humans which is ingrained in the mind and can't be avoided.

that is a stereotypical and antiquated definition.
and a slanted one at that.

no contemporary scientist holds the mantra that we are "perfect cognative slaves to our genes with no choice.."

you are creating a strawman.


I actually disagree with myself here, I was thinking of what should be considered more ingrained than competition. You saying that these traits 'evolve' doesn't help your position, it implys that they were not always there. Which they weren't.
competition has existed since the first forms of life appeared on this earth.
HOW each organism competes has evolved throughout time as life became more complex.



For example the French Revolution; the Feudal economy allowed for the creation of the merchant and middle class, when this class knew it had more political and economic power than the Feudal lords, and when they new society was being held back by them, they overthrew the king and the Feudal system in a revolution, allowing for society to develop into Capitalism.


Society creates it's succesor. Each stage of socio-economic evolution has been overthrown by a more modern way of thinking. Primitive communism (tribes) gave way to the agrarian revolution and the asiatic mode of producton, it was the tribe system itself the allowed for, and at the same time forced, humans to develop farming and an end to simple subsistence living. Again, a good example is Feudalism: the evolution of tools and orginisation regarding production allowed for people to become rich off of trade in a way that was beyond the fathoms of the Feudal lords. The middle class of merchants found themselves with more economic power than the royalty, and of course economic power leads to political power. There was a revolution and the bourgeois way of thinking replaced the Feudal way of thinking: it was more liberal and more free and it allowed for the creation of great ideas and culture. Bourgeois culture replaced Feudal culture - and the socio-economic system of Feudalism created Bourgeois culture.


i'm not debating that we have not made great strides in attempting to intellectually produce a economic system that best suits our needs.
primates possess the ability to "look ahead" and plan. traits that helped them (us) dominate the world.
our ability to change our world is exclusively a human primate trait (a cognative trait). a biological one.



Why do you need me to compile everything I have read? I'm presenting my thoughts right in front of you.
the reason i ask is that your views DO not echo current scientific sentiment....in fact they only echo outdated "utopian society" philosophy from hundereds of years ago if anything.
i am challanging you on your sources because i want to know if you researching your views or simply postulating them out of your own predisposed sentiment (read as: thin air).


I don't want this to turn into a copy and paste a link kind of debate. If you can't properly understand what your own views are enough so that you can easily post them in a way which others will understand, don't bother.

i understand. but if you are just going to make up data and science, claiming you have sciene and historical thinkers on your side...then i am going to call you out on it.

if you are going to claim that 2+2-1= 2......them you are going to have to explain your system of math and tell me who taught you...
cause it's wrong.


Plus, your exerpt hardly hits right to the heart - it looks like a blurb on the back of a book.

read the book.
it strikes to the heart of this entire debate and all of it's points.
he amasses all of the view points of the great thinkers of the past centuries with current up-to-date science.

also, try The Third Chimpanzee (jared diamond), and The Naked Ape (desmond morris) for some other sources.


how can it be 'rare' (read: 'non-existant') if it is ingrained in the human brain?

when early man first started migrating into europe, asian, ect....the new area was so vast, competing tribes rarely came in contact with each other...
you answered this earlier.


Also, evolved behavior (evolved meaning that it didn't exist at some stage...)

incorrect.


does go away or, more acuratley, it evolves.

it can, if the trait no longer has survival value in the current environment.
but a trait such as this (which has been evolved and strengthened for millions of years of life evololution) does not simply disappear in a short period of time.
such cognative evolution would take thousands and thousands of years....

not only that, but the current enviroment DOES preclude the need for competition.

moot point.


Just like a survival notion like euthanasia of the elderly can leave "human nature".

the suvival technique of killing of the weak or ill is a behavior trait still used by virtually all of the plant and animal kingdom....right down to bacteria (see the Global Brain and Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom),
but that is not to say that we don't, as primates, have the cognative ability to wax philosophical about such ideas as ethics and morals...and implament them into our social structure (basically give a name to pre-existing evolved behaviors).
the problem is when our law/ethics/morals do NOT blend with pre-existing evolved behaviors. (no pre-marrital sex for example).

what you often see in human society is the gift/curse complex.
we, as humans, evolved the amazing ability of cognative thought....complex planning, a sense of self, ect.
a gift ,
in that it helped us SHAPE our world in broad strokes and in very short periods of time.
we, with our minds, have made great strides in changing (evolving) our social stucture to suit our changing "needs".

but while our social structure can change rapidly....our biological traits do not change very quickly.
our society has outpaced our biology.
a curse.



how can one weigh their options when it is their very NATURE TO DESTROY AND COMPETE?!

how do they conflict so?


Primitive communism (tribes) was a poverty striken way of living. Humans had to spend nearly all their time hunting and gathering in order to survive. Since everybody in the tribe had to do as much work as possible, there was little inequality. Whith the agrarian revolution came an over-abundance of food for those in the tribe, and the creation of surplus. For the first time in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, there was extra food. This meant that part of the tribe did not have to spend all their time with food production, this allowed for free time, and subsequent advances in tecnology. What it also created was a division in the tribe, some worked and some lived off the surplus. generally this was those that had been tribe leader or chief of some sort. This was the first major division in humanity - class division - and it still exists today.

sure, not arguing any of that.



You are agreeing with me again on the main point of my argument.

umm....no. i was disagreeing with it.
read it again.



My "DNA evidence" are the discoveries about the human genome. You may remember it was in the paper and stuff a while ago. For decades, a large number of geneticists have argued that everything from intelligence to homosexuality and competitiveness was determined by our genes. The string of biological code present in humans was so long - some 3 billion units - that scientists had expected it to contain instructions to create anywhere from 100,000 to 150,000 genes. What was found was around 30,000 genes. Too put that in perspective, a fruit fly has about 15,000. Corn has the same amount as humans.

again...you need to read more.
your stance on DNA simply comes from ignorance on genetics.
it's not your fault.

you seem to think that we operate on a "one gene- on behavior trait" model.
we have one gene for every engrained behavior.

this is not true...not even close.

while there are some genes that appear to have such a singular trait...
the majority of our behavior comes from connections between the genes....
the genes work as a connected stucture....often hunderds working together for one behavior...which is why it is difficult, if not impossible to track down exactly which genes are responsible for what.
you need to think of the genetic codes as a spiders web, not a stack of books.

the behavior is NOT in the amount of genes as much as it is in the wiring of these genes.


Despite the fashionable tendency to deny the existence of progress in evolution,

??
see, this is what i'm talking about. what is this from?
what is your source on this sentiment?

it is surely reasonable to suppose there is something more to Homo sapiens than corn? What I'm getting at is that there are not enough genes in humans to allow the existance of traits like competition and racism or whatever else to be ingrained in genes.

see above.
sorry man....you lost that one.

that is NOT to say that society and culture hasn't played a role in programming and strengthening such ideals....
i'm not denying that either.


Dr. Craig Venter was the head of one of the institutes...
what institutes?
what are you talking about?

[Ali]

As I said, I'm sorry if I've hurt you. I know you will say "Ha, you can't hurt me you mean nothing to me" but yet you just seem to have such a great deal of animosity, it can't be coming from nowhere.

I sincerely do wish you peace and calmness, whether you believe it or not.I'm sorry, too, eriq. I had no idea you had problems, otherwise I wouldn't have said horrible things to you.

I wish you all the best on getting the help you need.

God speed.

[ericg]

Way too many droppings there Q. What the hell have you been eating? Chew on it a little less next time.

And Ali..
And all the strays made their noise.
Is everything you say going to turn out to be another logic dud from your popper box.

Oh my goodness. God help us all. :eek: :rolleyes: :)

[ericg]

The nature of the human life force is self explanatory. It strives to generate better generations. When this life force is impeded by faulty fucks creating blood clots in this divine system, nature will try and fight to break through and kill the killing force. Many however, go along to get along with the killing force. Welcome to America's world.

Fear leads to hate, and hate leads to the dark side it does. It's so simple I can't stand it. And yet here you are. Ye with little or no faith at all will then try to make death become you, and label it life. Little did you know there was a baby in her body and that real life will go on with or without you, but then you still want to kill anything that reminds you of how you become death... I say, fuck off and die motherfuckers and let me live my life, for life's sake. You don't know, because you don't listen.

Go listen To The Five Buroughs until you get why it was made for you.

[aenema]

Well, if you can prove that all aspects of our behaviour proceed from subconscious impulses beyond our control, and that this subordinates all behaviour in the social realm, I suppose I'll accept that. Good luck. ;)
I never insisted I actually had the answers, we are all discussing what we have learnt through theory, where the mind is concerned, there is little you can prove but many possibilities, as with many things you have discussed also.

[ericg]

"...Put your point on the floor and just prove it... You should have never started something that you couldn't finish 'Cause writin' rhymes to me is like Popeye to Spinach.... One after another you can all get some... You can't cut the mustard when you're frontin' it all..." -Check Your Head: P.B.

[Pres Zount]

see, the "is determined by society" part is not fact.Do you think we have the same nature of thought as a medieval peasant? No, we don't. What has changed? Have or brains enlarged to gigantic proportions? Have we evolved extra genes? what has changed? Does thought evolve by itself? You agreed with me earlier that socety and human thought develop in tandem, why are you changing your mind?

that is opinion....your opinion....
and NOT supported by contempory science. (which says it is a mixture of both society (environment) AND biology.)


stop blabing about opinions and get to proving me wrong. 2+2=4? THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION! I'm not going to let you turn this into a "that's just your opinion" match, either. Either disgrew with my opinions and say why or don't. just don't evade the points completely by saying "thats just your opinion".

What you are misunderstanding about what "contemory science" is that biology and genes give humans the oportunity for things such as competition and co-operation, and the enviroment shapes wich way that oportunity goes. you said something along the lines of "human nature does not allow socialism because humans are too evil, greedy, self absorbed etc" this is untrue when you realise that there is no such thing as a concrete law of "human Nature", and the prevailing way of thougt has changed throughout history. You don't seem to mind that the segregation of black and white used to be "human Nature" and considered ingrained in humanity, it was ingrained in humanity until society changed.

that is a stereotypical and antiquated definition.
no shit. but that's what alot of people think about "human nature".

competition has existed since the first forms of life appeared on this earth.
HOW each organism competes has evolved throughout time as life became more complex.

HUMAN NATURE. Humans are very different from single celled organisms and insects, yes? We are discussing the nature of humans.


i'm not debating that we have not made great strides in attempting to intellectually produce a economic system that best suits our needs.

Well, you asked me to elaborate.

primates possess the ability to "look ahead" and plan. traits that helped them (us) dominate the world.
our ability to change our world is exclusively a human primate trait (a cognative trait). a biological one.

yes, human production of food is seperate from animal apropriation of food because it is not based on purely instinct. A plan does not just fall out of the sky, though. A plan is the reconstruction by the brain of the elements and problems of an activity which are needed for survival. hunting a large animal for instance, requires a plan, but to plan head requires either being taught to or through trial and error. the ability to plan is developed through evolution of the human brain; the highly developed cortex, frontal lobe etc. these developments have allowed for planning. there is no "plan" gene. Hence the existance of peole who do not, or rarely plan ahead.

the reason i ask is that your views DO not echo current scientific sentiment....in fact they only echo outdated "utopian society" philosophy from hundereds of years ago if anything.
i am challanging you on your sources because i want to know if you researching your views or simply postulating them out of your own predisposed sentiment (read as: thin air).

It's funny, the idea that we are born with traits already ingrained and inescapable, are at least a thousand years older than the "outdated" books that you so cleverly hint at. Of course, you couldn't prove they are outdated, give a reason why they are outdated, or find anyone that could. But that's jsut my opinion, no need to get sidetracked. After all, the theory that states that the world is round, would you call it outdated?

Some books to read if you really, really want to. (because frankly, I do not have the time to go out and hunt for and then read those books. Maybe if I got one for christmas)

ABC of Materialist Dialectics (leon Trotsy)
Reason in Revolt (Alan Woods)
Human Development (John Pickard)
The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (Freidrich Engels)
The Materialist Conception of History (G.V. Plekhanov)
Historical Materialism (Mick Brooks)

Also, I understand why competition was rare amongst human tribes, but what I want to know from you is HOW it could be rare. Surely the lack of other tribes ould not have an effect on the level of competition in someones brain? Surely the tribe would have played football or chess to prevent them from destroying each other in a rage of ingrained madness?

Also, evolved behavior (evolved meaning that it didn't exist at some stage...)


incorrect.

HUH?!?! If a snake evolved wings, would the wings be present before or after the evoluion took place?

it can, if the trait no longer has survival value in the current environment.
but a trait such as this (which has been evolved and strengthened for millions of years of life evololution) does not simply disappear in a short period of time.
such cognative evolution would take thousands and thousands of years....

not only that, but the current enviroment DOES preclude the need for competition.

moot point.


No, it's not a 'moot' point. you have just gone straight over the point of this thread. The current enviroment does require a certain level of ruthless competition, this does not mean that a future environment does. Hence, socialism is not hindered by your notion that we cannot escape ingrained human nature.

And why does "a trait such as this" not simply disapear? If you put 100 rats in a cage and gave them only enough food for 50, oyu will see them fight and kill each other, but if you gave them enough food for all of them and then some, the rats will live together peacefully. A simplistic example, but it's only to get a point across.

the suvival technique of killing of the weak or ill is a behavior trait still used by virtually all of the plant and animal kingdom....right down to bacteria (see the Global Brain and Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom),
but that is not to say that we don't, as primates, have the cognative ability to wax philosophical about such ideas as ethics and morals...and implament them into our social structure (basically give a name to pre-existing evolved behaviors).
the problem is when our law/ethics/morals do NOT blend with pre-existing evolved behaviors. (no pre-marrital sex for example).

what you often see in human society is the gift/curse complex.
we, as humans, evolved the amazing ability of cognative thought....complex planning, a sense of self, ect.
a gift ,
in that it helped us SHAPE our world in broad strokes and in very short periods of time.
we, with our minds, have made great strides in changing (evolving) our social stucture to suit our changing "needs".

but while our social structure can change rapidly....our biological traits do not change very quickly.
our society has outpaced our biology.
a curse.

There is no point being dramatic, this is a discussion not poetry class. How can you agree with me earlier on the point that Humans and society evolve in tandem, and then switch to this waffle with a straight face? What problems are there? I gave you the example of feudalism, human thought and actions can change quite quickly. Social structure is changed because human thought changes. Are you suggesting that society evolves out of thin air?

I had a whole big thing typed out but I lost it, so I'm just going to say that you agreed with me on the fundamental point and I can't be bothered discussing further with someone who is so infuriating.

You agree on some things and disagree on others that are directly linked.
You are agreeing with me again on the main point of my argument.

umm....no. i was disagreeing with it.
read it again.

okay...your statement: "What I am saying is that different socio-economic bases can either increase the amount of competition among humans, or decrease the need for it.[which is true]


I just googled this stuff about genes and craig venter (head of a resaerch department mapping the human genome) I haven't even read it so I'm not biased or nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000000552D.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6561

[zorra_chiflada]

GO JOEY!! :D

sorry, i'm leaving.

[Qdrop]

Do you think we have the same nature of thought as a medieval peasant? No, we don't. What has changed?

the same "nature of thought"?
see ,again...a vague term that you really haven't defined well for this debate.

do we have the same brain structure and genetic predilicitions?
yes.
have we re-designed and updated our society and economic systems based on our increased populations/congestion and revised needs for individual rights that have arrison from the agragate increase in education?
yes.


Have or brains enlarged to gigantic proportions? Have we evolved extra genes?

no. not enough time.


what has changed? Does thought evolve by itself?

you seem to think that i and others have some notion that humans have ONE concrete thought process....right down to the nuerons, and that it is unchanging.
this is not the case.
while humans do have a finite amount nuerological patterns set forth by genetics....that is not to say that we have ALOT of room to move and devise.


You agreed with me earlier that socety and human thought develop in tandem, why are you changing your mind?

i haven't.


stop blabing about opinions and get to proving me wrong.

i'm stating facts and theory based on current science.
you are stating your own opinions based on...well nothing really. just your opinion.


2+2=4? THAT'S JUST YOUR OPINION!

what are you?...a DADAist?


I'm not going to let you turn this into a "that's just your opinion" match, either. Either disgrew with my opinions and say why or don't. just don't evade the points completely by saying "thats just your opinion".

my of point of stating "thats just your opinion" implies that your statement has no scientific merit.
you have no empiracal merit to your debate for the most part.
you are just pulling personal, contrived, uncorroberated opinion out of your head.

that's not my fault.....it's yours.
why get mad at me for your own shortcomings?


What you are misunderstanding about what "contemory science" is that biology and genes give humans the oportunity for things such as competition and co-operation, and the enviroment shapes wich way that oportunity goes.

that is correct....
i have not disagreed with that once.


you said something along the lines of "human nature does not allow socialism because humans are too evil, greedy, self absorbed etc"

not my words....but that is PART of the problem with such a system, yes.
history has my back on that.
sorry.


this is untrue when you realise that there is no such thing as a concrete law of "human Nature",

again. you are wrong.
and you state no source (science) for this opinion.
that makes it weak....and ultimately invalid.

if you keep saying that the earth is flat over and over....that will not make it so....as science has proven otherwise.

do you get what i'm saying?
you need science on your side if you want me to respect your opinion.


and the prevailing way of thougt has changed throughout history

a vague statement.
our society has changed, as has our economic systems (as we have stated).
we have thought up numerous differant cultural memes throughout the centuries that have been both beneficial and tragic to our society, yes.
all within the bounds of our finite nuerological structure (as determined by our genes)
our brains have the ability to create fuedal systems and democracy....this doesn't go against or disprove any engraned mental structure determined by genes.

i'm not arguing against that.

you seem to think that changing a economic system requires some fundamental change in congnative structure and thus proves there is no basic human nature.
that is incorrect.

if i move from a capitalist society to socialist one....the genetic structure of my cells does not have to change.


You don't seem to mind that the segregation of black and white used to be "human Nature" and considered ingrained in humanity,

?
when did i say slavery was engrained in human nature?
racism is....or, more specifically, group vs. group competition. (kinship, ect.)


it was ingrained in humanity until society changed.

slavery was a cultural/economic system that suited society for a time (still does in some regions of the world).
the exploration of ethical thought (philosophy) pushed for a cultural change in the US some time ago.
this did not require a change in human nature....
as group vs. group mentality is still very much alive (as is racism).


no shit. but that's what alot of people think about "human nature".

not my fault.
rise above it.


HUMAN NATURE. Humans are very different from single celled organisms and insects, yes? We are discussing the nature of humans.

all connected.
you need to understand that.

how can you be a proponent of evolution and not understand that?


the ability to plan is developed through evolution of the human brain; the highly developed cortex, frontal lobe etc. these developments have allowed for planning. there is no "plan" gene.

there is not one "plan gene", no.
but a wired system of genes that evolved to allow for this.


Hence the existance of peole who do not, or rarely plan ahead.

the fuck are you talking about?


It's funny, the idea that we are born with traits already ingrained and inescapable, are at least a thousand years older than the "outdated" books that you so cleverly hint at. Of course, you couldn't prove they are outdated, give a reason why they are outdated, or find anyone that could.

it's called science.
try it...you may like it.


But that's jsut my opinion, no need to get sidetracked. After all, the theory that states that the world is round, would you call it outdated?

no, science supports it...and continues to do so.

"outdated" does not refer to the length of time a theory has been around...but rather that is obsolete (proven wrong).


Some books to read if you really, really want to. (because frankly, I do not have the time to go out and hunt for and then read those books. Maybe if I got one for christmas)

ABC of Materialist Dialectics (leon Trotsy)
Reason in Revolt (Alan Woods)
Human Development (John Pickard)
The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man (Freidrich Engels)
The Materialist Conception of History (G.V. Plekhanov)
Historical Materialism (Mick Brooks)

so you haven't even read these books, yet you recommend them?

see, i think this is your problem...
you don't even research you own stance.


Also, I understand why competition was rare amongst human tribes, but what I want to know from you is HOW it could be rare.

i'm not sure what else you want to hear.
i answered this.
lack of contact with competing tribes would be mean rare inter-tribe competition.


Surely the lack of other tribes ould not have an effect on the level of competition in someones brain?

nope.


Surely the tribe would have played football or chess to prevent them from destroying each other in a rage of ingrained madness?

ingrained madness?
what kind of twisted, misguided idea about human competition do you have?

such transparent bias.



HUH?!?! If a snake evolved wings, would the wings be present before or after the evoluion took place?

my point being that competion has been a part of natural life since it's beginning....
there was no time when competition was not part of animal (or human) survival.



No, it's not a 'moot' point. you have just gone straight over the point of this thread. The current enviroment does require a certain level of ruthless competition, this does not mean that a future environment does.

says who?. you?


Hence, socialism is not hindered by your notion that we cannot escape ingrained human nature.

there is no "hence"...
you have made no empiracal argument to prove this.
you skipped the debate and went straight to your conclusion.


And why does "a trait such as this" not simply disapear? If you put 100 rats in a cage and gave them only enough food for 50, oyu will see them fight and kill each other, but if you gave them enough food for all of them and then some, the rats will live together peacefully.

first off......the rats will STILL engage in dominant/submissive behavior...no matter how much food is present.
i'm not sure what your definition of "peacefully"is.

second, the trait does not disappear....it simply is not activated or much more passive, due to change in environmental resources.

if you take the food away...the increased competition and violence will increase again.
see, the trait did not dissapear...did it?



There is no point being dramatic, this is a discussion not poetry class. How can you agree with me earlier on the point that Humans and society evolve in tandem, and then switch to this waffle with a straight face?

jesus, what an ass.

i am going over your head here?...
need me to dumb-it-down-a-shade, homer?

they evolve in tandem, yes. that is not to say our views on ethics and other metaphysical ideals cannot be in disharmony with our ingrained behaviors.
mental incongruelty and congnative dissonance is part of our thought pattern.

that is not hypocritical.


What problems are there? I gave you the example of feudalism, human thought and actions can change quite quickly. Social structure is changed because human thought changes. Are you suggesting that society evolves out of thin air?

differant cultural memes appreared and spread to satisfy the changing population and social climate....
this did not require a neurological change or genetic change in the human mind.

our engrained human behaviors did not change....sorry man.
you keep thinking this "feudialism" example is somehow the key to your argument....
it is not.
it's empty.


I had a whole big thing typed out but I lost it, so I'm just going to say that you agreed with me on the fundamental point and I can't be bothered discussing further with someone who is so infuriating.

translated: "i'm losing....so i'm leaving"


You agree on some things and disagree on others that are directly linked.

no...i didn't.





I just googled this stuff about genes and craig venter (head of a resaerch department mapping the human genome) I haven't even read it so I'm not biased or nothing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000000552D.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6561


you haven't even read it?
why are you posting it?

[Pres Zount]

when did i say slavery was engrained in human nature?
racism is....or, more specifically, group vs. group competition. (kinship, ect.)

Wait, wait, wait... You are saying people are genetically racists? I'm leaving you well alone.


You can't pick up on rhetorical questions, you haven't actually got a concrete position and you spend half the time saying that you agree with me only to deny it later.

I HAVE read the books I recomended, I said I HAVEN'T the time to read yours.

I googled some scientific proof about our genes. I've read the same thing all before, I was giving it to you. The gist: Humans have around 20-30,000 genes, not the hundreds of thousands required for speific traits to be made up.


You said in the "Who has faith in Capitalism?" thread that socialism was impossible becasue of human nature. Did you mean something like 'current human nature'? Or, 'socialism is impossible today because people today are greedy, compeitive, racist.. etc'?

You must understand that Socialism is not the be all and end all, it is just a stepping stone.

[Qdrop]

Wait, wait, wait... You are saying people are genetically racists? I'm leaving you well alone.

racism...or more specifically: group vs. group behavior. yes.

read up:
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/SOCIETY.html

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no1/toq-editnote3-1.html

and i have plenty more.


You can't pick up on rhetorical questions, you haven't actually got a concrete position and you spend half the time saying that you agree with me only to deny it later.
lies lies lies. empty rhetoric.
this is the common pattern on this board when someone is getting thier ass kicked: they start making wild claims that THEY are obvioulsy winning and the other party has "made no strong points" and is "getting served" blah blah blah...
the argument from intimidation.

my stance has been laid out WITH scientific evidence to back up (try it some time), and i have not flip flopped once....


I HAVE read the books I recomended, I said I HAVEN'T the time to read yours.
you wording seemed to imply otherwise.

you seem to be concentrating on mostly Utopian Vision material....and avoiding others...

or perhaps, these are simply the first books you stumbled upon when you became interested in the subject...and you immediantly took them to heart, without considering varying sources first.

you'll learn....


I googled some scientific proof about our genes. I've read the same thing all before, I was giving it to you. The gist: Humans have around 20-30,000 genes, not the hundreds of thousands required for speific traits to be made up.

you're not reading my responses, i shall repeat them AGAIN!:

there is not one "plan gene", no.
but a wired system of genes that evolved to allow for this.

and

"you seem to think that we operate on a "one gene- on behavior trait" model.
we have one gene for every engrained behavior.

this is not true...not even close.

while there are some genes that appear to have such a singular trait...
the majority of our behavior comes from connections between the genes....
the genes work as a connected stucture....often hunderds working together for one behavior...which is why it is difficult, if not impossible to track down exactly which genes are responsible for what.
you need to think of the genetic codes as a spiders web, not a stack of books.

the behavior is NOT in the amount of genes as much as it is in the wiring of these genes."

....see, i answered this querry of yours several times. yet you keep bringing it up like an old war medal, as if it the crux of your argument and a thorn in my side....

enough with the strawmen....



You said in the "Who has faith in Capitalism?" thread that socialism was impossible becasue of human nature. Did you mean something like 'current human nature'? Or, 'socialism is impossible today because people today are greedy, compeitive, racist.. etc'?

socialims is unlikely to ever work for a variety of reasons....
one of which being because it conflicts with innate human nature traits that include greed, competition, group vs. group mentality, ect...


You must understand that Socialism is not the be all and end all, it is just a stepping stone.
i understand that much.

[Qdrop]

[Pres Zount]

socialims is unlikely to ever work for a variety of reasons....
one of which being because it conflicts with innate human nature traits that include greed, competition, group vs. group mentality, ect...


You must understand that Socialism is not the be all and end all, it is just a stepping stone.

i understand that much.

Really? Can you explain why it conflicts with human nature? (it doesn't matter if you think human nature changes or stays the same) Why would a socialist socio-economic plan never work?

Societies and people are always changing (you agree? Yes? I still can't tell). You agree that socio-ecnomic policies and human thought evolve in tandem (Yes? No?). Why would socialism be different?

This thread was started to say that Human Nature changes, if you understand what you say you do about socialism you would know that it does require a radical change in human thought to be properly implemented (this is proven possible- Russia 1917, Spain 1936, Venezuela... etc etc), but it does not require a complete change of human behaviour.

Before you say it again; no, it's not a moot point, it's why I started this thread, it is where I wanted the discussion to go. I don't care for long winded arguments that have taken me way from what I wanted to do. Forgive me for ignoring parts of your posts which seem to deviate from my thread.

In short:
Human thought changes, often quickly. (a few years rather than a few 1000)
Socio-economic policies change with human thought.
Human thought is affected by socio-economic policies.
The way humans think and act have changed over time, and they will continue to change. Socialism and Communism is not hamered by human thought becasue human thought changes. Socialism itself is the avenue for change an not the end product.

And you say that competition and greed, racism, etc will never change becasue they have always been there and always will, yes?

[Qdrop]

Really? Can you explain why it conflicts with human nature? (it doesn't matter if you think human nature changes or stays the same) Why would a socialist socio-economic plan never work?
i already did. read my previous posts.
jesus fuck...i am sick of repeating myself.



Scieties and people are always changing (you agree? Yes? I still can't tell).

through changes in environment and cultural memes...yes.


You agree that socio-ecnomic policies and human thought evolve in tandem (Yes? No?).

in tandem as in: always at equal rates and balanced?
no.
but both do change with time.
*human thought meaing patterns....not genetically.


Why would socialism be different?

patterns in thought can change....
but fundamentals like competition don't.

read those links i posted first....
those will answer better than me.
why not get the answers from a more qualified source.

unless this really isn't about debating the issue, but trying to test me personally.


This thread was started to say that Human Nature changes, if you understand what you say you do about socialism you would know that it does require a radical change in human thought to be properly implemented (this is proven possible- Russia 1917, Spain 1936, Venezuela... etc etc), but it does not require a complete change of human behaviour.

if that was the case.....why the failures?


In short:
Human thought changes, often quickly. (a few years rather than a few 1000)

patterns, ideas, memes....
not fundamentals.
the patterns, ideas and memes must FIT into the EXISTING fundamental framework.


Socio-economic policies change with human thought.

we can change them to better suite changing needs, sure.
as long as they don't go against FUNDAMENTAL human traits.


Human thought is affected by socio-economic policies.

like memes, yes.


The way humans think and act have changed over time, and they will continue to change. Socialism and Communism is not hamered by human thought becasue human thought changes.

no.
you're jumping.
socialism and especially communism require fundamental changes in human thought and behavior.
that's a problem.


And you say that competition and greed, racism, etc will never change becasue they have always been there and always will, yes?

never?
tough to say.....it would take millenia....and complete change in environment that would necessitate that change.
i don't see it happening.

[Pres Zount]

I am quite sure that you have not said why socialism would go against human nature, merely that it would. To answer the question you have to know what socialism entails, and what it requires, and then you have to say why these requirements will never be met. I don't think you have done this.


When I say 'in tandem' I don't mean at an equal and balanced rate, I just mean that they are reliant on each on each other.


If you want to class this as "testing you" then I'm okay with that. It was what you said that made me start this thread, so I would like to see you defend it. "Socialism is impossible because of Human Nature" is said alot, and often people have no idea what it means. You initiated it, I want to see if you understand why it is so. If oyu don't want to be "tested personally", don't step up to the plate. I don't want us to end up throwing "more qualified soures" at each other; I don't have the time.


When I gave the examples of Russia and other places that have undergone revolutions of this kind I was using them as examples to point out that a change in human thought is possible on that level. The general populace has to change their current thought to a certain point, ie wanting a revolution. The simple fact that they occured means that at some stage the majority of people wanted such a thing to happen. Their failures (Venezuela has not failed) havenothing to do with it, but if you want to talk about their failures I will, although human thought has nothing to do with it.


When you say that human thought must fit into existing framework, do you mean your fundamentals of competition, greed etc or the existing socio-economic framework?

no.
you're jumping.
socialism and especially communism require fundamental changes in human thought and behavior.
that's a problem.
Communism does, socialism does not. The only change in human thought that socialism requires have been proven possible, ie the want for it to happen. Your funamental traits that you believe in are not required to be non existant.



Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years in a sort of primitive communism, this is scientific fact, and if you want me to provide sources I will, but I dont think you will dissagree. If we lived like that before, what is stopping us from living like that again on a more modern basis?

[Qdrop]

I am quite sure that you have not said why socialism would go against human nature, merely that it would. To answer the question you have to know what socialism entails, and what it requires, and then you have to say why these requirements will never be met. I don't think you have done this.

well, if you want me to concentrate purely on the conflicts with human nature that socialism or communism present...
ego: (the need to acheive status, ect ...and to compete with others for the purpose of out-achieving)- this goes in line with the primary directive of competition shown in virtually all life forms.

the basics of ego and egotistical thought (which drives competition) is rather complex, but CANNOT simply be relegated to environmental or cultural programming.

liberty/freedom: socialism/communism entails too much control on what individuals can acheive and amass...
it concentrates on the whole of society, neglecting the individual.

it is these two lacking areas that cause socialism to not foster the crucial ingrediant for a thriving economy: incentive.

Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior.

you must appeal to the human trait of INDIVIDUAL EGO (through personal incentive) to make a mass economy go.


When I say 'in tandem' I don't mean at an equal and balanced rate, I just mean that they are reliant on each on each other.

ok.


When I gave the examples of Russia and other places that have undergone revolutions of this kind I was using them as examples to point out that a change in human thought is possible on that level.

no, it is not.
due to economic planning failures and the lack of personal incentive to it's human workforce to increase efficiancy...Russia, the wealthiest country in terms of natural resourses-with land stretching over 9 time zones, failed...and continues to sit in poverty.


The general populace has to change their current thought to a certain point, ie wanting a revolution. The simple fact that they occured means that at some stage the majority of people wanted such a thing to happen. Their failures (Venezuela has not failed) havenothing to do with it, but if you want to talk about their failures I will, although human thought has nothing to do with it.

bah.

if you are going to simply argue that "imperfect socialism does not work well...but once it is perfected..."...just save it.

it is moot to argue about "perfect systems" as perfection will never happen.
ANY perfect system would be equal with any other perfect system because they both work perfectly!....relative philosophy.

but this isn't fantasy land.

systems will always be imperfect.....
imperfect capitalism works better than imperfect socialism....
period.


When you say that human thought must fit into existing framework, do you mean your fundamentals of competition, greed etc or the existing socio-economic framework?

correct.
it doesn't matter if you don't believe that.
if you don't believe the sun is hot, it still continues to warm you.



Humans lived for hundreds of thousands of years in a sort of primitive communism, this is scientific fact, and if you want me to provide sources I will, but I dont think you will dissagree. If we lived like that before, what is stopping us from living like that again on a more modern basis?
key factor- the size of the population.
communes don't work well past a very small population.
they collapse.

[Pres Zount]

well, if you want me to concentrate purely on the conflicts with human nature that socialism or communism present...
ego: (the need to acheive status, ect ...and to compete with others for the purpose of out-achieving)- this goes in line with the primary directive of competition shown in virtually all life forms.

the basics of ego and egotistical thought (which drives competition) is rather complex, but CANNOT simply be relegated to environmental or cultural programming.

liberty/freedom: socialism/communism entails too much control on what individuals can acheive and amass...
it concentrates on the whole of society, neglecting the individual.

it is these two lacking areas that cause socialism to not foster the crucial ingrediant for a thriving economy: incentive.

Market prices, the profit-and-loss system of accounting, and private property rights provide an efficient, interrelated system of incentives to guide and direct economic behavior.

you must appeal to the human trait of INDIVIDUAL EGO (through personal incentive) to make a mass economy go.
I told you in a previous thread that socialism allows you to make more money than others, build wealth, own a business... If you believe that money is the only incentive to achieve then you wont be let down with socialism. Private property is not denounced, it is only the means of production wich are taken to be nationalised; ie big industry, oil production, timber, mining. The natural resources of a nation. Nobody is going to nationalise McDonalds. You can keep your fish and chip shop.





no, it is not.
due to economic planning failures and the lack of personal incentive to it's human workforce to increase efficiancy...Russia, the wealthiest country in terms of natural resourses-with land stretching over 9 time zones, failed...and continues to sit in poverty.
You misunderstood. I was pointing out that the existance of a revolution in russia meant that people wanted one. That was the change in thinking I was talking about, the radical change in what people thought; the idea that a revolution could take place. You can't deny that a socialist revolution is possible, it has happenend numerous times.

BTW Russia has been Capitalist officialy for at least 15 years, and market forces were present before the wall came down. yet the average person is in much deeper poverty now than before... Oh, and if personal incentive was the problem in russia, why did it take 70 years for it to surface?



[/quote]
if you are going to simply argue that "imperfect socialism does not work well...but once it is perfected..."...just save it.
[/quote]
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I don't understand how you came to this conclusion. If you want to talk about stalinist russia, china, etc and their problems, do so. My bet is I know more about soviet history than you. no offence.


correct.
it doesn't matter if you don't believe that.
if you don't believe the sun is hot, it still continues to warm you.

:confused: "correct" does not answer my question. It's not yes or no, it's A or B. "Do you want a lolly, or an ice-cream?" "Yes"


key factor- the size of the population.
communes don't work well past a very small population.
they collapse.[/quote]
That's an interesting point of view, I've never heard that before. So give me some time to assume a position. In the mean time, are there any historic examples?

[Qdrop]

I told you in a previous thread that socialism allows you to make more money than others, build wealth, own a business... If you believe that money is the only incentive to achieve then you wont be let down with socialism. Private property is not denounced, it is only the means of production wich are taken to be nationalised; ie big industry, oil production, timber, mining. The natural resources of a nation. Nobody is going to nationalise McDonalds. You can keep your fish and chip shop.

hmmm...well then all modern definitions of socialism and text i have read is wrong. were do you get your info/ideas on socialism from? please direct me.

i am aware that socialism and communism are not the same, as socialism is the in-between before communism.
but, as i understand it and have read, both intail the state ownership of property and a standard nationalization of wages for each individual- thus removing profit and capital incentive from the workforce.

if you say this is wrong, i need you to explain, in some detail, how an ideal socialist system would work compared to capitalism....
detailing the differances in profit, ownership, wages, ect.


You misunderstood. I was pointing out that the existance of a revolution in russia meant that people wanted one. That was the change in thinking I was talking about, the radical change in what people thought; the idea that a revolution could take place. You can't deny that a socialist revolution is possible, it has happenend numerous times.

this doesn't require a fundamental change in congnative traits.
and these revolution happened becaues the system that was in place was also NOT conducive to human behavior. just as the revolution in 1989 when communism (or whatever version they had) in the USSR was kicked out.


BTW Russia has been Capitalist officialy for at least 15 years, and market forces were present before the wall came down. yet the average person is in much deeper poverty now than before... Oh, and if personal incentive was the problem in russia, why did it take 70 years for it to surface?

well see, that's the thing....they tried it for 70 years and never got it to work...people struggled from the get go.....when was the USSR anything but poor?
70 years and it never worked.
they've been trying capitalism for 15 years, but shit, if you gave socialism 70 years.....

i personally find that place (Russia) a miserable excuse for a country...
they are THE richest nation in the world as far as natural resources....yet they have squandered it for over a century....and even with a capitalist system they are still stuggling.
tragic buffoons...
i mean, when does one stop criticizing the system, and start looking at the people (particuarly the leaders) for fault?



If you want to talk about stalinist russia, china, etc and their problems, do so. My bet is I know more about soviet history than you. no offence.

i don't doubt it. and you obviously know more about socialism too.
but that, unfortunately does not make you any more right.


:confused: "correct" does not answer my question. It's not yes or no, it's A or B. "Do you want a lolly, or an ice-cream?" "Yes"

sorry, i meant the fundamentals of human behavior's framework.


That's an interesting point of view, I've never heard that before. So give me some time to assume a position. In the mean time, are there any historic examples?
examples?
have EVER heard of state-sized commune any where in the world at any point in history?

[Ace42]

hmmm...well then all modern definitions of socialism and text i have read is wrong. were do you get your info/ideas on socialism from? please direct me.

i am aware that socialism and communism are not the same, as socialism is the in-between before communism.
but, as i understand it and have read, both intail the state ownership of property and a standard nationalization of wages for each individual- thus removing profit and capital incentive from the workforce.

The UK has been nationalised and re-privatised in many industries over the years. Nationalised industry did *NOT* have a set wage for all labourers. The "state ownership of property" was literally the state ownership of the assets of the corporations they bought out. There is no more capital incentive for a privatised ticket conductor than there was for a nationalised one (indeed it is the same ones on the same trains on the same routes charging more for the same service).

Socialism, like capitalism, is an ideology. Governments can follow the principles to a greater or less extent without becoming "socialist" or renouncing "socialist principles."

Generally, and this is a term you will generally not find in dictionaries outside the UK, socialism equates to any government system which is predominantly concerned with the interests of society over the interests of a minority. In that respect, it is populist. That said, the interests of the populist majorty are not often reconciled with what is best for them. Paradoxical though it may seem, Iraq should be an obvious example of this.

[Qdrop]

The UK has been nationalised and re-privatised in many industries over the years. Nationalised industry did *NOT* have a set wage for all labourers. The "state ownership of property" was literally the state ownership of the assets of the corporations they bought out. There is no more capital incentive for a privatised ticket conductor than there was for a nationalised one (indeed it is the same ones on the same trains on the same routes charging more for the same service).

so, in a socialist system...wages (and their incentives) would not change?
what about the market system that dictates wages?

can you ask for a raise? can you quit and get the same job somewhere else working for more money?

state ownership of the bought assets?
so what is the incentive for an entrapranuer? are their any entrapranuers? business owners? without profit incentive, what force drives for better efficiancy?


Socialism, like capitalism, is an ideology. Governments can follow the principles to a greater or less extent without becoming "socialist" or renouncing "socialist principles."

understood.
you go with whatever mixture works.
i have no problem with that.

[Ace42]

so, in a socialist system...wages (and their incentives) would not change?
what about the market system that dictates wages?

It depends on the system. My personal system, which I do not feel inclined to elaborate on, involves the liquidation of labour. However, there is no need for a closed market system in socialism. Theoretically a socialist system (if properly managed) should be able to compete head to head with privatised competitors. While the removal of private competitors should (theoretically) improve the nationalised services, this is the end not the means.

However, a minimum wage system in the UK has not in any way shape or form harmed our economy, neither has the welfare state (google for the genuflexions of the excellent Tony Benn on these matters) which shows that the state pushing down on the "free market" scales is not necessarily such a bad thing. The government making the exploitation of environmental heatlh an unattractive prospect is a *good* thing. Despite it "upsetting" free-market economics.

{quote]can you ask for a raise? can you quit and get the same job somewhere else working for more money?[/quote]

Ideally, there would be no money, so a raise would beyond point. However, even in a perfectly communist society, getting the acceptable resources to persue your production should not be difficult or thwarted.

so what is the incentive for an entrapranuer? are their any entrapranuers? business owners? without profit incentive, what force drives for better efficiancy?

Privte ownership seldom correlates to better efficiency. In the UK there is a NEGATIVE correlation between privatisation and efficiency. Sad but true. In a perfectly communist system, efficiency (not profit) is the goal
And thus service, not abuse of the system is key. With a merchanicalised instustry, the sophistication of technology is not a threat to jobs, but of benefit to the whole community, and so thouroughly endorsed.

understood.
you go with whatever mixture works.
i have no problem with that.

Viva la revolcion, comrade!

[Qdrop]

It depends on the system. My personal system, which I do not feel inclined to elaborate on, involves the liquidation of labour. However, there is no need for a closed market system in socialism. Theoretically a socialist system (if properly managed) should be able to compete head to head with privatised competitors. While the removal of private competitors should (theoretically) improve the nationalised services, this is the end not the means.


However, a minimum wage system in the UK has not in any way shape or form harmed our economy, neither has the welfare state (google for the genuflexions of the excellent Tony Benn on these matters) which shows that the state pushing down on the "free market" scales is not necessarily such a bad thing. The government making the exploitation of environmental heatlh an unattractive prospect is a *good* thing. Despite it "upsetting" free-market economics.

still seems like quantum physics to me: lots of theory, not enough study, no demonstrated success (for the most part).


Ideally, there would be no money, so a raise would beyond point. However, even in a perfectly communist society, getting the acceptable resources to persue your production should not be difficult or thwarted.

see, i'm just not buying that (no pun intended).
see below...


In a perfectly communist system, efficiency (not profit) is the goal
And thus service, not abuse of the system is key. With a merchanicalised instustry, the sophistication of technology is not a threat to jobs, but of benefit to the whole community, and so thouroughly endorsed.

ehh....again...this doen't jive with human nature, as the above debate goes.

and there will never be a "perfectly" anything.
you must account for failures and ineffeciancies.


Viva la revolcion, comrade!
whoa, slow down.
don't push the man-beast.