Science overturns view of humans as naturally ‘nasty’

[Hexen]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/


VANCOUVER, Canada — Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, a leading specialist in primate behavior told a major science conference.
“Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies,” Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
New research on higher animals from primates and elephants to mice shows there is a biological basis for behavior such as cooperation, said de Waal, author of “The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.”
Until just 12 years ago, the common view among scientists was that humans were “nasty” at the core but had developed a veneer of morality — albeit a thin one, de Waal told scientists and journalists from some 50 countries.
But human children — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said.
Research has disproved the view, dominant since the 19th century, typical of biologist Thomas Henry Huxley’s argument that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans, said de Waal.
And common assumptions that the harsh view was promoted by Charles Darwin, the so-called father of evolution, are also wrong, he said.
“Darwin was much smarter than most of his followers,” said de Waal, quoting from Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” that animals that developed “well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience.”
De Waal showed the audience videos from laboratories revealing the dramatic emotional distress of a monkey denied a treat that another monkey received; and of a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap.
Such research shows that animals naturally have pro-social tendencies for “reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation,” said de Waal, a Dutch biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia.
“Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.”
Asked if wide public acceptance of empathy as natural would change the intense competition on which capitalist economic and political systems are based, de Waal quipped, “I’m just a monkey watcher.”
But he told reporters that research also shows animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their “in-group” — and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world.
“Morality” developed in humans in small communities, he said, adding: “It’s a challenge… it’s experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.”

[Sasha]

For a Obama'ist de Waal's is awesome, his classic book "chimpanzee politics" about the powerstruggle (and eventually murder of the alpha male) in a chimp colony in a dutch zoo is one of the most gripping, macheavelli invoking books I ever read.

[MotherCossack]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/



I consider this great news seeing that the Human Nature falsehood is finally starting to get debunked.

i rest my case! i knew i was on to something...
my gut has got so much savvy!!!
i said some stuff on another thread [philosophy or something] about morality, which would have been more credible had i had this piece of science.
i am about to try and quote from it.

[MotherCossack]

i wrote this a week or so ago on a philosophy thread: "DOES OBJECTIVE MORALITY EXIST"
now, admitedly, morality is probably not the best word to use... but the research you have produced... seems to me ... absolutely supportive of my arguments.
so thanks....and like i said i really thought i was on to something.


Morality does not have to be considered a weapon in the arsenal of the enemy, or a tool at their disposal. I do not see why we have to dismiss the entire concept point blank as a negative constrict with nothing at all to offer.
I agree that the concept of morality is so frequently used as a whopping great stick to beat us all with, by those only interested in controlling us, subverting us and by dividing us ensure we remain disempowered.
But I have always wanted to believe that we should reclaim that word... it is ours not theirs.
In the perfect future when we, as a race have rediscovered our full human potential and have learned, all over again, to trust our instincts and learn to live without all the stifling social constraints and expectations, and all the dangerously misguided mis-conceptions and the plethora of layered shite, stacked up to the edge of reason, almost.

After all that I predict that we will be able to take responsibility for our own morality, trusting one another, I hope, to fairly judge each other.

(I have got a feeling that something similar operated a long time ago in England.... Middle ages, perhaps.)



may-be i am just a hippy child and a nut-job who thinks that we have all got dependable solid human instincts that, were we to listen to them, would guide us in a natural, and as- it- should- be kind of a way.....

i mean humanity did begin a long time before all this civilised crap started, did it not.




gawd... i suppose you are right...
no actually....hang about ..... i know loads of people that are genuinely selfless and whose motives do stand up to close scrutiny.

so i would say that being human means a lot of different things ....
it is just so hard to separate us from this god-awful modern construct....

maybe it would be more use studying the behaviour, especially in a social context, of our nearest relatives the apes... at least they exist in a more unspoilt environment.

[Rafiq]

Oh christ. What a load of shit.

It's common knowledge all species have to be cooperative to survive. That doesn't mean anything though. Fascism is cooperative, and capitalism is cooperative.

I can't believe this idiot would dare suggest humans have a pre-wired ethical framework. Because, being cooperative = ethical :rolleyes:

This article is more horrifically Idealist than those who say humans are naturally corrupt or whatever.

[Sasha]

Oh christ. What a load of shit.

It's common knowledge all species have to be cooperative to survive. That doesn't mean anything though. Fascism is cooperative, and capitalism is cooperative.

I can't believe this idiot would dare suggest humans have a pre-wired ethical framework. Because, being cooperative = ethical :rolleyes:

This article is more horrifically Idealist than those who say humans are naturally corrupt or whatever.

You should read his book "age of empathy" where this is based on, this article does no justice to the well researched and very interesting book, here is a excerpt: http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/251555/sept

[Ocean Seal]

It is too difficult to discern whether humans are "evil" or "good" because the mode of production is too intertwined, and it has nothing to do with socialism anyway.

[Franz Fanonipants]

congratulations science, you have just discovered social theory yet again

[MotherCossack]

Oh christ. What a load of shit.

It's common knowledge all species have to be cooperative to survive. That doesn't mean anything though. Fascism is cooperative, and capitalism is cooperative.

I can't believe this idiot would dare suggest humans have a pre-wired ethical framework. Because, being cooperative = ethical :rolleyes:

This article is more horrifically Idealist than those who say humans are naturally corrupt or whatever.

yeah... you know what .... humans are neither good or bad they are animals.

we exist in such large numbers at the present time, it would be reasonable to expect a wide variety of different types, colours and sizes etc etc.
homo sapiens represent nothing more nor less than just another branch on the evolutionary tree. [that is until we come up with a more credable explanation of life and how it happened/s on planet earth.]

you my dear comrade are nothing more nor less than a single representative of that species... it just so happens that you are one of the more impolite and discourteous members of the human race.

[Rafiq]

... it just so happens that you are one of the more impolite and discourteous members of the human race.

Indeed, thank you for your courtesy

[Decolonize The Left]

yeah... you know what .... humans are neither good or bad they are animals.

we exist in such large numbers at the present time, it would be reasonable to expect a wide variety of different types, colours and sizes etc etc.
homo sapiens represent nothing more nor less than just another branch on the evolutionary tree. [that is until we come up with a more credable explanation of life and how it happened/s on planet earth.]

you my dear comrade are nothing more nor less than a single representative of that species... it just so happens that you are one of the more impolite and discourteous members of the human race.

I think Rafiq's point, despite being delivered in a rash manner, is that the notion of "human nature" and/or any sort of claim as to the "essence" of human beings regarding morality is nonsense.

If you take political theory 101, you begin with arguments on human nature. You read Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. They all talk about how humans are X, Y, and Z in essence, that is, before society/development/etc... What they are really trying to pinpoint is the essence of the human animal.

Now, Rafiq is (in my mind) noting that this:
a) assumes a point of beginning when humans stopped being monkeys and became humans(which is contradictory to evolution by natural selection)
b) that at this point there is some sort of identifiable structure which is unique to humans
c) that this structure can be called a 'nature' or 'essence' and will reveal the underlying characteristics of humankind

Only b. is remotely plausible and this structure would only be a physical denotation in regards to gene/key characteristics in physical make-up which allowed for a clear demarcation of a new species.

The end point here is that there is no human nature, there is no base ethical standpoint for human beings, there is no common moral essence for any species because morality is a subjective and relative human phenomenon resulting from linguistic developments over thousands of years and cannot be applied retrospectively to hard physical facts.

- August

[ColonelCossack]

Indeed, thank you for your courtesy

I think MotherCossack got a bit confused; she thought you were calling her an idealist moron. She was on the verge of tears... I really must remember to tell her you were talking about the OP. She's a bit paranoid like that. Anyway yeah the point is take no notice of her.

[Rafiq]

I think MotherCossack got a bit confused; she thought you were calling her an idealist moron. She was on the verge of tears... I really must remember to tell her you were talking about the OP. She's a bit paranoid like that. Anyway yeah the point is take no notice of her.

What? I don't think MotherCossack is a moron. I didn't see her posts, either, as a matter of fact, I just replied to the OP. Actually, I wasn't calling anyone in this thread a moron except for the person who wrote the article and the so-called "Scientist(s)" involved.

Shit... I feel like crap

[Decolonize The Left]

What? I don't think MotherCossack is a moron. I didn't see her posts, either, as a matter of fact, I just replied to the OP. Actually, I wasn't calling anyone in this thread a moron except for the person who wrote the article and the so-called "Scientist(s)" involved.

Shit... I feel like crap

Relax. The internet is filled with misunderstandings - it's where 90% of all problems on this forum come from. It is also why respectful discussion is so vital to a well-functioning internet community. You can learn more by clicking on my tendency, the Respectful Discussion Activist group.

ooooohhhhh yeah. that was one nice shameless plug.

- August

[Hexen]

Wait...I thought the article debunked human nature, I think I didn't read the article completely only read the title.

[Franz Fanonipants]

Science: we are only like 40 years behind on understanding people. now we will find out, racism is not real!

[Book O'Dead]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/



I consider this great news seeing that the Human Nature falsehood is finally starting to get debunked.

I don't buy into any generalized definition of "Human Nature" either, but I do happen to think that we humans are and have always been a pretty awful bunch. How else to explain our collective and individual histories of assaults on each other and Nature?

As helpful as it is in solving any debate regarding the nature of "human nature" (beh!), Biology cannot be the only appropriate scientific tool with which to settle questions that justly fall into the realms of social history, psychology, sociology and, yes, political economy.

[Franz Fanonipants]

I don't buy into any generalized definition of "Human Nature" either, but I do happen to think that we humans are and have always been a pretty awful bunch. How else to explain our collective and individual histories of assaults on each other and Nature?

reactionary thoughts comrade

you explain it by understanding class struggle

[Book O'Dead]

reactionary thoughts comrade

you explain it by understanding class struggle

I too affirm the sociological principle of the class struggle. But, unlike many here and elswhere, I do not use it as a definitive explanation for all social phenomena.

After all we humans had been brutal with each and with nature long before private property and social classes existed. That is, there never was a Garden of Eden.

[black magick hustla]

Science: we are only like 40 years behind on understanding people. now we will find out, racism is not real!

:shrugs: science is just another method to help us understand our surroundings. this scientists are simply looking at the situation with another lense that isnt social theory bro. also wtf is your problem with science, you keep railing against it all the time. why do u wanna sound like every dickhead that swears by critical theory

[Zav]

Humans have strong pro-social tendencies?
http://alltheragefaces.com/img/faces/jpg/misc-you-dont-say.jpg
And here I was thinking we developed language and culture just to compete with each other.

[NewSocialist]

But he told reporters that research also shows animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their “in-group” — and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world.
“Morality” developed in humans in small communities, he said, adding: “It’s a challenge… it’s experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.”

Am I the only one who caught this? why would a communist celebrate this as good news? hes basically saying that internationalism is a challenge and maybe one that can't even be reached. this de Waal asshole can take a flying fuck.

[Hexen]

Am I the only one who caught this? why would a communist celebrate this as good news? hes basically saying that internationalism is a challenge and maybe one that can't even be reached. this de Waal asshole can take a flying fuck.

Once again I didn't read the full article and I only got excited over the headline title. I think I made a serious mistake.

[Sasha]

Am I the only one who caught this? why would a communist celebrate this as good news? hes basically saying that internationalism is a challenge and maybe one that can't even be reached. this de Waal asshole can take a flying fuck.

Isn't internationalism a challenge?
Don't we all agree that egalitarian primitive societies as the bushmen can be a inspiration but that we need Marxist/anarchism/whatever to make a revolution in the developed world?
A challenge doesn't mean we should step away from it...
De waal in his book argues also extensively how developments as the internet diminish "othering". He also spends several chapters talking about how emphatic bonds can be formed cross species, how empathy even can overcome other instincts like hunter pray leading to tigers suckling piglets and chimps saving a bird with a broken wing.
Offcourse we as communist should welcome a book that argues that we as humans are anything but naturally selfish and egoist but instead that we are wired to form communal bonds with others, that empathy is our default.
It's our challenge to take it beyond what De Waal, being the Obama liberal that he is, thinks is possible.

[Kenco Smooth]

How is this in any way news? No-one who's say is worth a damn has questioned for a second that evolution has resulted in humans having a certain predisposition to social interaction for near enough half a century. That includes people who are often vilified on here for being 'reactionary' in their views on biology/psychology such as Dawkins and Pinker.