Human Instinct.

[Noah]

Hey guys,

Today in drama my teacher was talking about human instinct.

He was telling how human instinct exists because it is a natural instinct to survive and you don't need to think about it, it's a natural reaction.

I said 'Sir, I don't think human instinct exists' because really there isn't no scientific evidence to back it up.

He said 'Of course it does, why does a baby suck it's lips when it wants milk?' . Having a younger sister myself, babies do not naturally suck their lips when they want milk as to say 'Mummy bring your nipple here' as soon as they're born. What happens is the baby cries or has feeding times and it discovers sucking from the nipple provides milk and is satisfying, after learning that the sucking motion extracts milk ofcourse it will do that when it's hungry.

But that's not human instinct, it's not instant, it's found out that, sucking milk from a nipple is food. Isn't that knowledge?

Some people argue how it is an instinct to only fend for yourself and be greedy so therefor communism can never work but that's just not true.

So what is instinct? and does it exist?

Cheers,
Noah

[Led Zeppelin]

I hate drama, my drama teacher was a idiot, plain and simple.

I hate her.

Oh and human instinct does exist, that's scientifically proven.

[Scottish_Militant]

Instinct does exist, the will to survive, the will to eat, to reproduce etc. But if anyone argues that there is a fixed "human nature", "natural selfisness" etc then they are wrong.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:44 PM








He was telling how human instinct exists because it is a natural instinct to survive and you don't need to think about it, it's a natural reaction.


Smart guy.

There is a natural instinct to survive. If there weren't, you would have killed yourself already.



I said 'Sir, I don't think human instinct exists' because really there isn't no scientific evidence to back it up.

Ah but there is; piles of it.

Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003151...glance&n=283155 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0670031518/104-8636344-1517503?v=glance&n=283155)


He said 'Of course it does, why does a baby suck it's lips when it wants milk?' . Having a younger sister myself, babies do not naturally suck their lips when they want milk as to say 'Mummy bring your nipple here' as soon as they're born. What happens is the baby cries or has feeding times and it discovers sucking from the nipple provides milk and is satisfying, after learning that the sucking motion extracts milk ofcourse it will do that when it's hungry.

Babies instinctively know how to get their mothers milk. They innately know how to walk. They innately know not to go over a sheer drop off. They innately know language. Socialization, such as making out faces, is a biological and natural not a learned thing.

I really could go on.



But that's not human instinct, it's not instant, it's found out that, sucking milk from a nipple is food. Isn't that knowledge?

Nope.

A baby doesn't have to be taught this, they know it when they are born, or even before.

Babies suck on their thumb even in the womb.



Some people argue how it is an instinct to only fend for yourself and be greedy so therefor communism can never work but that's just not true.

Of course it's true.

The sad fact is though, that most people purveying that theory don't understand any of the science behind it.

People aren't 'inherently greedy' but they ARE inherently fragile, fickle, ignorant and enough people are greedy to ruin the whole system.

All emotions and actions are based in human biology.

[Publius]

Instinct does exist, the will to survive, the will to eat, to reproduce etc. But if anyone argues that there is a fixed "human nature", "natural selfisness" etc then they are wrong.

What do you mean by 'fixed human nature'?

Yes, not all humans are greedy all the time, but all humans do possess some 'greed', biologically.

A 'selfless' person has never existed and never will.

Children, before they are 'taught' anything are often extrardinarily selfish.

Do infants care about the needs of anyone other than themselves? Do toddlers?

THere are strict biological reasons for this form selfishness, and indeed, all forms of selfishness.

[Noah]

Cheers for the link Publius, will check the book out tommorow.

[Scottish_Militant]

"greed" and "selfishness" are not things that are pre-programmed into humans, these things are products of the conditions around them. People will fight over things when there is a lack of them, for example two hungry people would fight over a hamburger, but two well fed people would never fight over two hamburgers.

Its a case of conditions, not nature.


Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/067003151...glance&n=283155


Looks pretty shite.

I recommend reason in revolt http://wellred.marxist.com/index.asp?c=FB

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 08:23 PM

Instinct does exist, the will to survive, the will to eat, to reproduce etc. But if anyone argues that there is a fixed "human nature", "natural selfisness" etc then they are wrong.

What do you mean by 'fixed human nature'?

Yes, not all humans are greedy all the time, but all humans do possess some 'greed', biologically.

A 'selfless' person has never existed and never will.

Children, before they are 'taught' anything are often extrardinarily selfish.

Do infants care about the needs of anyone other than themselves? Do toddlers?

THere are strict biological reasons for this form selfishness, and indeed, all forms of selfishness.
You are right, we do strive for our self interest. All the communists that think that humanity can become completely altruistical are very wrong.

Who cares anyway, sacrifice is disgusting. I don't want to live with self less "dead" comrades.

However, what is self-interest?

Certainly, it isn't to accumulate an infinite amount of commodities, this is just the capitalist psyche, and the capitalist organization of appearances equates it as human nature.

What about real free time. What about the minimization of working hours in order to have time for your full development? What about the abolishment of hierarchy to reveal a new golden age where i have authority over me and my voice actually means something? What about unleashing completely your creativity in everyday life?

Saying that the current modes of production and consumption correlate with human nature is not acknowledging history.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 09:11 PM



"greed" and "selfishness" are not things that are pre-programmed into humans, these things are products of the conditions around them. People will fight over things when there is a lack of them, for example two hungry people would fight over a hamburger, but two well fed people would never fight over two hamburgers.

But of course, capitalism is the only system that can economically produce 'two hamburgers', so your point is moot.


Its a case of conditions, not nature.

What do you think conditions are, my friend?

Things that just appear out of the aether?

Conditions are representations of our nature.



Looks pretty shite.

Read it.

It will fuck up your theology.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 12:01 AM





Certainly, it isn't to accumulate an infinite amount of commodities, this is just the capitalist psyche, and the capitalist organization of appearances equates it as human nature.

I would say, illogical as it may sound, that accumulation of wealth is part of it.

Why do rich people want wealth? Vainglory.

They use it as a status symbol, something perfectly human, and thus, imperfect.

We're vainglorious creatures.

What does it tell you about our nature, that we would sooner buy 10 cars than help our fellow man?

It tells you that 'capitalism' did this; it tells me that man is flawed.

No system can make man do what is anathemetic to his nature.

And you know what the sad truth is? Our nature is more in line with wreckless spending than humanity.

Sad but true.

Is this a condition of capitalism? No, capitalism is a condition of this.

Do you think 'good', logical, rational people would be vainglorious or evil by choice or persuasion, or by nature?


What about real free time. What about the minimization of working hours in order to have time for your full development? What about the abolishment of hierarchy to reveal a new golden age where i have authority over me and my voice actually means something? What about unleashing completely your creativity in everyday life?

Obviously this doesn't mean that much to many people.

People CHOOSE money.

These things you mention, yeah, they sound great to you and I, but what do people invariably choose? Money and greed? Coincedence? Nope. Symptom of capitalism? Doubt it.



Saying that the current modes of production and consumption correlate with human nature is not acknowledging history.

No, it's acknowledging them; you just don't like the answer.

[black magick hustla]

I would say, illogical as it may sound, that accumulation of wealth is part of it.

Why do rich people want wealth? Vainglory.

They use it as a status symbol, something perfectly human, and thus, imperfect.

We're vainglorious creatures.

What does it tell you about our nature, that we would sooner buy 10 cars than help our fellow man?

It tells you that 'capitalism' did this; it tells me that man is flawed.

No system can make man do what is anathemetic to his nature.

And you know what the sad truth is? Our nature is more in line with wreckless spending than humanity.

Sad but true.

Is this a condition of capitalism? No, capitalism is a condition of this.

Do you think 'good', logical, rational people would be vainglorious or evil by choice or persuasion, or by nature?


That is bullshit, and I bet you know it.

We are social creatures. We strive for an amount of acceptance of our peers. The current spectacle of commodities changes humanity to a commodity and thus, as larger the exchange value is of that human, the more valuable he is in the illusion(N]

I bet you feel good by showing off your economics knowledge to people that actually appreciate it. While you may not be completely submerged in the current illusory sentiment of community, you do like discussing about your stuff.


Obviously this doesn't mean that much to many people.

People CHOOSE money.

These things you mention, yeah, they sound great to you and I, but what do people invariably choose? Money and greed? Coincedence? Nope. Symptom of capitalism? Doubt it.

People are molded by their surroundings.

Do you think most people would be christian in america if lets say, atheism would be mainstream in the organization of appearances? Do you think FASHION is completely NATURAL?

While there is individuality in everyone of us, our surroundings DO HAVE a heavy influence on us.

I don't buy that shit about A BLANK STATE either, but i certainly don't but the shit of capitalism.



No, it's acknowledging them; you just don't like the answer.

No it isn't.

[Publius]

That is bullshit, and I bet you know it.

OK, some of it's bullshit.

But not all of it.




We are social creatures. We strive for an amount of acceptance of our peers. The current spectacle of commodities changes humanity to a commodity and thus, as larger the exchange value is of that human, the more valuable he is in the illusion(N]

How is humanity changed to a commodity? This seems like psuedo-philosophical bullshit to me.




I bet you feel [B]good by showing off your economics knowledge to people that actually appreciate it. While you may not be completely submerged in the current illusory sentiment of community, you do like discussing about your stuff.

Yeah. But this isn't revalatory. It's a biological carryover from our tribe days. We associate those with similar interest, for example econonomics, as part of our 'tribe'. We're expanding our circle of friends.

THis doesn't disprove anything.


Do you think most people would be christian in america if lets say, atheism would be mainstream in the organization of appearances?

Why does religion exist?

I read in Time magazine about a certain part of the brain that corresponded to religious belief.

Perhaps we atheists have a different brain than theists. It's not unlikely to think that susceptability to religion (COnformity) would be a desirable evolutionary trait.

In fact, it is.



Do you think FASHION is completely NATURAL?

It has natural origins, yes.

'natural' is too vague a term.

Name me one human society that hasn't had 'fashion'. Can't, can you?

Is this just coincedence?




While there is individuality in everyone of us, our surroundings DO HAVE a heavy influence on us.

Yeah, they do, but not as great an influence as you'd like to believe.

Furthermore, most of our surroudnings are directly related to our nature.

I defy you to name something that isn't. People didn't just INVENT our surroundings, the made them for a specific, biological reason.



I don't buy that shit about A BLANK STATE either, but i certainly don't but the shit of capitalism.


Fair enough.

My view doesn't necessarily disallow a non-capitalistic system, just this utopian communism some people here propose.




Yes, surroundings influence people, but you also need to realize that people influence surroudnings.

It's an interplay.

[Xvall]

Children, before they are 'taught' anything are often extrardinarily selfish.

Yeah, but they will also, before being taught anything, play with and consume their own fecal matter. I don't think that's to say that "shit-eating" is an inherent aspect of human nature.

[black magick hustla]

How is humanity changed to a commodity? This seems like psuedo-philosophical bullshit to me.


It is not "phylosophical" at all.

While you are not a SLAVE in the feudal sense, you are indeed seen as a commodity by the current economical system. Which of the people are more likely to be idolized in western culture? Aren't those the people who have greater access to comodities, or who atleast apparent to have a greater access?

How does the economical system treats you, as a human, or as a commodity?


Yeah. But this isn't revalatory. It's a biological carryover from our tribe days. We associate those with similar interest, for example econonomics, as part of our 'tribe'. We're expanding our circle of friends.

THis doesn't disprove anything.[Quote]

It disproves the fact about your "VANGLORY" bullshit. Vanglory could simply mean the acceptance of someone in a social circle. The bourgeosie wants to sell, therefore it glorifies commodities. By glorifying them, they become admired in society.

[Quote]Why does religion exist?

I read in Time magazine about a certain part of the brain that corresponded to religious belief.

Perhaps we atheists have a different brain than theists. It's not unlikely to think that susceptability to religion (COnformity) would be a desirable evolutionary trait.

In fact, it is.

That is bullshit.

I have convinced some very zealous people that religion is a crock of shit. I was religious, and you were probably religious.

Don't you think being raised BY ALL THE FUCKING ENVIROMENT to become a religious drone has something to do with religiousness?

If it was necessary, then why do you think the bourgeosie are replacing myth already with commodity worshipping? Myth is not compatible with the current modes of production, and the bourgeosie knows it. The Vatican for example, has been forced to reform their doctrines numerous times because of this.



It has natural origins, yes.

'natural' is too vague a term.

Name me one human society that hasn't had 'fashion'. Can't, can you?

Is this just coincedence?


Fashion may be natural in the sense that something may become very popular. However, who dictates what fashion is? there is the key. Current Hierarchy makes it impossible for normal people to enrich culture and ideas, because we don't have the access to diffuse them.



Yeah, they do, but not as great an influence as you'd like to believe.

Furthermore, most of our surroudnings are directly related to our nature.

I defy you to name something that isn't. People didn't just INVENT our surroundings, the made them for a specific, biological reason.

Biological reason?

What the fuck.

People do mould the surroundings, but at the end, Power was the one that dictated its architecture.




My view doesn't necessarily disallow a non-capitalistic system, just this utopian communism some people here propose.


To be frankly, I don't believe we are going to be able to achieve PERFECT COMMUNISM. However, I do strongly agree that if the means of production where handed to the proletariat, we would enter a new golden age.



Yes, surroundings influence people, but you also need to realize that people influence surroudnings.

It's an interplay.

People influence the surroundings, but who has the means to diffuse more their ideas?

Proletarians, bourgeosie?

You choose.

[Publius]

Yeah, but they will also, before being taught anything, play with and consume their own fecal matter. I don't think that's to say that "shit-eating" is an inherent aspect of human nature.

Are you saying that children aren't innately selfish?

[Xvall]

No, not at all. I'm just pointing out that just because something is exhibited commonly in children doesn't necessarily mean it is some permanent inflexible aspect of "human nature".

[DisIllusion]

I agree with Xvall, most (if not all) babies aren't inherently racist, but they can be brought up that way by their racist parents. So wouldn't that mean that a baby's nature is the way we are all meant to be?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:24 AM



Yeah, but they will also, before being taught anything, play with and consume their own fecal matter. I don't think that's to say that "shit-eating" is an inherent aspect of human nature.

Are you saying that children aren't innately selfish?
Small children do tend to be selfish but they also can not fend for themselves.

A baby might cry he drops his lollypop because he has no way of getting another one. I would imagine that if you dropped a lollypop on the ground you would not cry, you'd just grab another quater and get one from the gumball machine where you got the first one.

If you dropped a cup of tap water you might be upset because you have a mess to clean up, now think if you dropped an expensive bottle of champaign. See the difference? People are not inherently selfish, it's the material circumstances.

[Tungsten]

Marmot

How does the economical system treats you, as a human, or as a commodity?
Which do you see the taxpayer as when you pick up your welfare cheque?


However, I do strongly agree that if the means of production where handed to the proletariat, we would enter a new golden age.
A golden age of what?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:36 PM
Marmot

How does the economical system treats you, as a human, or as a commodity?
Which do you see the taxpayer as when you pick up your welfare cheque?
Boo-hoo, you have to pay taxes.

Right wingers really are amazingly strange they trust the government to decide life or death and punishment for crimes, they trust the government to decide what's best for entire populations in other countries, but when it comes to taxes they suddenly become skeptical about the government's judgement.

I don't like paying taxes to this government that we have no real power over either. I hate that money from people goes to wars that most people are against and line the pockets of corporations who then can get around paying taxes themselves.

Even if you're not a revolutionary, there's an easy answer to taxes: tax the rich. Since the 70s the tax burdon has been pushed onto regular people and eased for large companies. If you don't like taxes, don't buy into the republican and democrat's "tax cuts" which only mean that regular people are paying a larger share while also getting less social benifits.

[Publius]

While you are not a SLAVE in the feudal sense, you are indeed seen as a commodity by the current economical system. Which of the people are more likely to be idolized in western culture? Aren't those the people who have greater access to comodities, or who atleast apparent to have a greater access?

Often.




How does the economical system treats you, as a human, or as a commodity?

The current one? As a combination of both.

Most people are interested only in commodities for their social purposes.

People don't want things for the sake of wanting of them, they want them because they're human.



It disproves the fact about your "VANGLORY" bullshit. Vanglory could simply mean the acceptance of someone in a social circle. The bourgeosie wants to sell, therefore it glorifies commodities. By glorifying them, they become admired in society.


People have always wanted fashion. Always.

The 'bourgeorsie' only sells what you want to buy.

People want to dress up and look nice for a reason, an evolutionary one. Roughly, sex.

People want to look good to appeal to the other sex.

Good luck getting around that one.



That is bullshit.

I have convinced some very zealous people that religion is a crock of shit. I was religious, and you were probably religious.

Don't you think being raised BY ALL THE FUCKING ENVIROMENT to become a religious drone has something to do with religiousness?

If it was necessary, then why do you think the bourgeosie are replacing myth already with commodity worshipping? Myth is not compatible with the current modes of production, and the bourgeosie knows it. The Vatican for example, has been forced to reform their doctrines numerous times because of this.

You're not even attempting to comprehend my point of view. It's disparaging.

Obviously environement plays a role. I'm not denying that. None is.

But there IS a gene that directly influences ones religosity.

Read this:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodGene.htm

Of course your environment effects your religion, but if so does your biological wiring, moreso than you think: It's a combination.



Fashion may be natural in the sense that something may become very popular. However, who dictates what fashion is? there is the key. Current Hierarchy makes it impossible for normal people to enrich culture and ideas, because we don't have the access to diffuse them.


You're making a key mistake, thinking that you can simple make 'culture' and 'ideas' better.

You can't.

Why should normal people 'enrich culture and ideas'? Won't ordinary people just give out ordinary ideas?

Ordinary people are just that.


Why should culture be enriched? Why should ideas be enriched?

How does one go about 'enriching' those things? Isn't this totally subjective?



Biological reason?

What the fuck.

People do mould the surroundings, but at the end, Power was the one that dictated its architecture.


Power?

How did those people get power?





To be frankly, I don't believe we are going to be able to achieve PERFECT COMMUNISM. However, I do strongly agree that if the means of production where handed to the proletariat, we would enter a new golden age.


Why?

Why is the proletariat better than the bourgeosie?

Why would it run things any better?



People influence the surroundings, but who has the means to diffuse more their ideas?

Proletarians, bourgeosie?

You choose.

It makes no difference.

Are 'bourgeosie ideas' really that different from 'proletarian ideas'?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 08:52 PM


While you are not a SLAVE in the feudal sense, you are indeed seen as a commodity by the current economical system. Which of the people are more likely to be idolized in western culture? Aren't those the people who have greater access to comodities, or who atleast apparent to have a greater access?

Often.




How does the economical system treats you, as a human, or as a commodity?

The current one? As a combination of both.

Most people are interested only in commodities for their social purposes.

People don't want things for the sake of wanting of them, they want them because they're human.



It disproves the fact about your "VANGLORY" bullshit. Vanglory could simply mean the acceptance of someone in a social circle. The bourgeosie wants to sell, therefore it glorifies commodities. By glorifying them, they become admired in society.


People have always wanted fashion. Always.

The 'bourgeorsie' only sells what you want to buy.

People want to dress up and look nice for a reason, an evolutionary one. Roughly, sex.

People want to look good to appeal to the other sex.

Good luck getting around that one.



That is bullshit.

I have convinced some very zealous people that religion is a crock of shit. I was religious, and you were probably religious.

Don't you think being raised BY ALL THE FUCKING ENVIROMENT to become a religious drone has something to do with religiousness?

If it was necessary, then why do you think the bourgeosie are replacing myth already with commodity worshipping? Myth is not compatible with the current modes of production, and the bourgeosie knows it. The Vatican for example, has been forced to reform their doctrines numerous times because of this.

You're not even attempting to comprehend my point of view. It's disparaging.

Obviously environement plays a role. I'm not denying that. None is.

But there IS a gene that directly influences ones religosity.

Read this:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodGene.htm

Of course your environment effects your religion, but if so does your biological wiring, moreso than you think: It's a combination.



Fashion may be natural in the sense that something may become very popular. However, who dictates what fashion is? there is the key. Current Hierarchy makes it impossible for normal people to enrich culture and ideas, because we don't have the access to diffuse them.


You're making a key mistake, thinking that you can simple make 'culture' and 'ideas' better.

You can't.

Why should normal people 'enrich culture and ideas'? Won't ordinary people just give out ordinary ideas?

Ordinary people are just that.


Why should culture be enriched? Why should ideas be enriched?

How does one go about 'enriching' those things? Isn't this totally subjective?



Biological reason?

What the fuck.

People do mould the surroundings, but at the end, Power was the one that dictated its architecture.


Power?

How did those people get power?





To be frankly, I don't believe we are going to be able to achieve PERFECT COMMUNISM. However, I do strongly agree that if the means of production where handed to the proletariat, we would enter a new golden age.


Why?

Why is the proletariat better than the bourgeosie?

Why would it run things any better?



People influence the surroundings, but who has the means to diffuse more their ideas?

Proletarians, bourgeosie?

You choose.

It makes no difference.

Are 'bourgeosie ideas' really that different from 'proletarian ideas'?

The current one? As a combination of both.

Most people are interested only in commodities for their social purposes.

People don't want things for the sake of wanting of them, they want them because they're human.


All of us want things in a way.

However, what kind of things? Big Cars, clothes? Who dictates what makes expensive cars cool?

I can assure you cars don't interest me at all, nor television, nor GOOD BRANDS of clothes. Am I not human or what?



The 'bourgeorsie' only sells what you want to buy.

People want to dress up and look nice for a reason, an evolutionary one. Roughly, sex.

People want to look good to appeal to the other sex.

Good luck getting around that one.


What appeals the other sex? Why don't we travel around naked instead. I don't know you, but I do get arroused when I see a hot chick naked!

Look for example, who were the sex symbols before. Marylin Monroe is much more DIFFERENT than lets say, what is considered hot by the illusion right now.

She wasn't busty, she didn't have a big ass, and her clothes weren't that revealing.

The bourgeosie "sells" what he robbed from the alienated labor of the worker. However, what would happen if the proletariat had access to their own product?

I think we would start a new golden era of "fashion".




You're not even attempting to comprehend my point of view. It's disparaging.

Obviously environement plays a role. I'm not denying that. None is.

But there IS a gene that directly influences ones religosity.

Read this:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodGene.htm

Of course your environment effects your religion, but if so does your biological wiring, moreso than you think: It's a combination.


Interesting.

Maybe yoiu are right, maybe you are not.

However, even if you are right, you can agree that in current western societies, mythical superstition is wearing away. There are more atheists, and, people who are caring less and less.



You're making a key mistake, thinking that you can simple make 'culture' and 'ideas' better.

You can't.

Why should normal people 'enrich culture and ideas'? Won't ordinary people just give out ordinary ideas?

Ordinary people are just that.

Believe it or not, most people are fucking bored. and stressed, and are always pretty sad/angry. If people don't arent pelased with the passivity of Capitalism, then I definitely think that capitalism isnt'accepted" at all.




Power?

How did those people get power?

Revolutions and lies.



Why?

Why is the proletariat better than the bourgeosie?

Why would it run things any better?
- no capitalists= full fruit of labor, less poverty, more free time, and overall, a life without constraints.

There won't be an economy of sacrifice and humiliation, like current capitalism is.


It makes no difference.

Are 'bourgeosie ideas' really that different from 'proletarian ideas'?
Bourgeosie are less, and also have their class interests attached to it.

If the bourgeosie are less, then there will be less ideas and overall, less different things.

[tunes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 12:21 PM
Babies. . . . innately know language.

Kind of. We have the capacity for language; we don't know it innately. If you leave a child in a room forever it won't learn how to talk. This is because language is a set of rules, and if a child never "socially" learns when he or she is following/breaking them, they will not really "know" language.

In order to "know" language, it must have a culturally defined meaning. It is a social activity introduced and maintained by a set of rules.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 12:01 AM




Kind of. We have the capacity for language; we don't know it innately. If you leave a child in a room forever it won't learn how to talk. This is because language is a set of rules, and if a child never "socially" learns when he or she is following/breaking them, they will not really "know" language.

In order to "know" language, it must have a culturally defined meaning. It is a social activity introduced and maintained by a set of rules.

Yes, you're correct.

I should have clarified.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 02:36 PM
[

Which do you see the taxpayer as when you pick up your welfare cheque?

Ha, nice!

However, you don't realize that such things as WELLFARE are forced from outside. If they don't obey those biddings, violent action would happen.

Sorry, try again!


A golden age of what?

Maybe its useless to explain it to someone who is submerged so much into the quantitative.

[Raisa]

human instinct doest exist. why else would people feel the instinct to revolt?

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

When eskimos were first discovered, they thought that the concept of war - one nation setting out to destroy another - was crazy. They couldn't believe it.

When Red Indians were discovered, scientists gave them IQ tests to do. They could see no reason whatsoever why they could not help each other with the tests. They lives in a society of intense co-operation, not competition.

Buddhist moks reject material possessions and violence. So human nature can't exist. Because if there was even one Indian/monk/eskimo that didn't fit your criteria of what 'human nature' is, the whole theory of 'human nature' would be nullified, because that eskimo/monk/Indian is still a human who doesnt have 'human nature'

However, I think human nature and human instinct could be different things. An eskimo who doesnt know the meaning of war would still defend himself until te last drop of blood if he was attacked by a polar bear. Yet he wouldnt start a war against a rival tribe. The same with Indians and buddhist monks. Just because people are not suicidal and give a damn about their lives, doesnt mean we are all inherently greedy, for example.

[Publius]

When eskimos were first discovered, they thought that the concept of war - one nation setting out to destroy another - was crazy. They couldn't believe it.

Completely made up.

The inuits knew violence very well.

Inuits were known for raiding other's villages.




When Red Indians were discovered, scientists gave them IQ tests to do. They could see no reason whatsoever why they could not help each other with the tests. They lives in a society of intense co-operation, not competition.

Except an IQ test isn't at all competive, it's merely an aptitude test; a psychological exam.




Buddhist moks reject material possessions and violence. So human nature can't exist. Because if there was even one Indian/md onk/eskimo that didn't fit your criteria of what 'human nature' is, the whole theory of 'human nature' woulbe nullified, because that eskimo/monk/Indian is still a human who doesnt have 'human nature'

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

For example, it's human nature to understand language, but there are humans that live without learning any language.

Does this invalidate the concept of us having innate language?

:rolleyes:

Monks, eskimos, Indians, they were all violent. There have been violent monks. Many of them. Tibet was a violent dictatorship under Bhuddist rule.

Every single human society has violence. Every single one.

You think this coincedence?

:lol:





However, I think human nature and human instinct could be different things. An eskimo who doesnt know the meaning of war would still defend himself until te last drop of blood if he was attacked by a polar bear. Yet he wouldnt start a war against a rival tribe.

Except for all the hundreds of times that they did, right?



The same with Indians and buddhist monks. Just because people are not suicidal and give a damn about their lives, doesnt mean we are all inherently greedy, for example.

But of course we are.

Group cooperation is indeed 'greedy' if we define the terms of evolution not as people, but as genes.

The best way for our genes to propagate is through reciprical altruism, for example birds giving warning signals to their fellows even though they risk their own lives.

This action insures that more of their genes ultimately get handed.

This is simple evolutionary theory, and it's clear you don't comprehend it.

It's in human nature to be greedy and selfish, but depending on your society and upbringing, this trait may not develop in a way you would expect.

[Publius]

I don't think you properly understand what one is asserting when one states something about human nature.

Saying it's part of human nature to be violent, in some circumstances, doesn't mean all humans will all be violent all the time.

Same for any biologically INFLUENCED (Not controlled) behavior.

Most people aren't violent, you're right. But everyone will resort to violence given the right circumstances.

People will fight to save their own lives, for example.

Human nature doesn't NECESSARILY preclude socialism or communism, or whatever.

It's possible for humans to have these violent, greedy natures but 'rise above them' as it were and behave in a generally socialist manner.

But I dont' think it's likely.

Communism, as described by Marx, though, is utterly impossible.

A gift economy is not possible, biologically, economically or socially.

[KC]

Completely made up.

The inuits knew violence very well.

Inuits were known for raiding other's villages.


Originally posted by Kropotkin: Mutual Aid+--> (Kropotkin: Mutual Aid)Let me also add that when Veniaminoff wrote (in 1840) one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people, and that among 1,800 Aleoutes not one single common law offence had been known for forty years. This will not seem strange if we remark that scolding, scorning, and the use of rough words are absolutely unknown in Aleoute life. Even their children never fight, and never abuse each other in words. All they may say is, "Your mother does not know sewing," or "Your father is blind of one eye."[/b]


Originally posted by Kropotkin: Mutual Aid+--> (Kropotkin: Mutual Aid)As to their love to children, it is sufficient to say that when a European wished to secure a Bushman woman as a slave, he stole her child: the mother was sure to come into slavery to share the fate of her child.[/b]


Kropotkin: Mutual [email protected]
Those who knew [the Hottentot] highly praised their sociability and readiness to aid each other. If anything is given to a Hottentot, he at once divides it among all present -- a habit which, as is known, so much struck Darwin among the Fuegians. He cannot eat alone, and, however hungry, he calls those who pass by to share his food. And when Kolben expressed his astonishment thereat, he received the answer. "That is Hottentot manner."


Kropotkin: Mutual Aid
Close cohabitation and close interdependence are sufficient for maintaining century after century that deep respect for the interests of the community which is characteristic of Eskimo life. Even in the larger communities of Eskimos, "public opinion formed the real judgment-seat, the general punishment consisting in the offenders being shamed in the eyes of the people." Eskimo life is based upon communism. What is obtained by hunting and fishing belongs to the clan. But in several tribes, especially in the West, under the influence of the Danes, private property penetrates into their institutions. However, they have an original means for obviating the inconveniences arising from a personal accumulation of wealth which would soon destroy their tribal unity. When a man has grown rich, he convokes the folk of his clan to a great festival, and, after much eating, distributes among them all his fortune. On the Yukon river, Dall saw an Aleonte family distributing in this way ten guns, ten full fur dresses, 200 strings of beads, numerous blankets, ten wolf furs, 200 beavers, and 500 zibelines. After that they took off their festival dresses, gave them away, and, putting on old ragged furs, addressed a few words to their kinsfolk, saying that though they are now poorer than any one of them, they have won their friendship. Like distributions of wealth appear to be a regular habit with the Eskimos, and to take place at a certain season, after an exhibition of all that has been obtained during the year. In my opinion these distributions reveal a very old institution, contemporaneous with the first apparition of personal wealth; they must have been a means for re-establishing equality among the members of the clan, after it had been disturbed by the enrichment of the few.

I suggest you read Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Petr Kropotkin. It covers this very subject extensively.


Every single human society has violence. Every single one.

Violence isn't the issue, though. You must look at the reason the violence occurred, not just the violence itself. The only reason many of these primitive societies were violence were based on either superstition, or blood-for-blood.



You think this coincedence?

No. I just don't think it matters. Saying "all societies have violence" proves nothing.




Except for all the hundreds of times that they did, right?


"They have wars" doesn't mean they have wars for power, or for territorial expansion, or wealth. Saying they have wars proves nothing. In order to make this a valid point you must connect this point to your argument. You must prove that these wars were for wealth, or territory, or anything like that. Good luck, though. They didn't have any concept of private property at all before outside influence. In which case, they handled it by distributing it evenly throughout the tribe.




But of course we are.

Group cooperation is indeed 'greedy' if we define the terms of evolution not as people, but as genes.

The best way for our genes to propagate is through reciprical altruism, for example birds giving warning signals to their fellows even though they risk their own lives.

This action insures that more of their genes ultimately get handed.

This is simple evolutionary theory, and it's clear you don't comprehend it.

It's in human nature to be greedy and selfish, but depending on your society and upbringing, this trait may not develop in a way you would expect.

Are you saying that people in these tribes were in these tribes and contributed because they were greedy and it was the best way of getting their genes spread? If so, then why does it matter if we have a greed gene? Doesn't that undermine the whole "communism goes against human nature" argument, as it shows that people are able to participate communaly?



It's possible for humans to have these violent, greedy natures but 'rise above them' as it were and behave in a generally socialist manner.

But I dont' think it's likely.

Why is that?



A gift economy is not possible, biologically, economically or socially.


Biologically?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Publius
Read this:

Is God in Our Genes? (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodGene.htm)

I'm rather surprised at your recommendation of such self-evident claptrap.

This guy -- Dean Hamer -- is a self-confessed charlatan...probably hustling his ass off for a "Templeton Prize".

Hamer actually has the gall to quote John Burn, medical director of the Institute of Human Genetics at the University of Newcastle in England!

“If someone comes to you and says, ‘We’ve found the gene for X, you can stop them before they get to the end of the sentence.”

Which is precisely Hamer's ludicrous claim!

He might just as well have put it on the front cover: This book is written for suckers and rational people are free to completely dismiss it.

Most of the remainder of this article is simply pious speculation...though the paragraphs about the social role of John Calvin in Geneva are quite sensible...actually a good summary of what purposes religion actually serves.

It is intellectually fashionable in our era to attempt to relate human behavior to genetic "causes"...from rather obvious motives of self-interest.

At this point, we simply do not know -- in a scientific sense -- what portions of human behavior are "innate" and what portions are "learned". Some interesting hypotheses have been made...but solid evidence is still very fragmentary.

The general line of "argument" that "communism is impossible" because it "violates human nature" says more about the "human nature" of its proponents than anything else of interest.

Indeed, it is an "argument" that "bites its own tail". If humans "can't" be communists, then what's the fuss about?

That which is "impossible" will never happen and, consequently, there is no need for "anti-communism".

Any more than we must make a determined effort to stamp out the plague of unicorns that's killing all the grass in our subdivisions. :lol:

My own expectation is that geneticists will ultimately discover that certain gene complexes confer a propensity for certain kinds of behavior...that may or may not emerge as a consequence of environmental factors.

A musical genius on the level of J.S. Bach who was born on a Pacific island in 1265CE would have written no fugues...the cultural apparatus of Polynesia had "no room" for that activity.

A "Sam Walton" or "Bill Gates" born into a communist society would build no "great commercial empires"...because such a society would have "no room" for such activities.

That which is completely "unthinkable" really can't be done.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Publius]

Originally posted by Lazar+Dec 10 2005, 08:18 AM--> (Lazar @ Dec 10 2005, 08:18 AM)
[/b]
First of all, I very much doubt the validity of these statements. TIme after time a tribe has been declared bereft of violence or property, yet, inevietably, the claim turns out to be false. I would assume this to be similar, but I don't know enough about the specifics.



Originally posted by Kropotkin: Mutual Aid+--> (Kropotkin: Mutual Aid)Let me also add that when Veniaminoff wrote (in 1840) one murder only had been committed since the last century in a population of 60,000 people, and that among 1,800 Aleoutes not one single common law offence had been known for forty years. This will not seem strange if we remark that scolding, scorning, and the use of rough words are absolutely unknown in Aleoute life. Even their children never fight, and never abuse each other in words. All they may say is, "Your mother does not know sewing," or "Your father is blind of one eye."[/b]

You'll believe anything, won't you?




Originally posted by Kropotkin: Mutual Aid
As to their love to children, it is sufficient to say that when a European wished to secure a Bushman woman as a slave, he stole her child: the mother was sure to come into slavery to share the fate of her child.

Which proves what?




Kropotkin: Mutual [email protected]
Those who knew [the Hottentot] highly praised their sociability and readiness to aid each other. If anything is given to a Hottentot, he at once divides it among all present -- a habit which, as is known, so much struck Darwin among the Fuegians. He cannot eat alone, and, however hungry, he calls those who pass by to share his food. And when Kolben expressed his astonishment thereat, he received the answer. "That is Hottentot manner."

Again, proving what?

Tribal behavior is very different from modern behavior, for many reasons.

One is that most of your tribemates share at least some of your genes.

Even these 'selfless' tribes faught with and shunned non-tribe members?

Why isn't their selflessness universal?

People will be selfless when it's ultimately to their benefit, example being, a small band or tribe.

If you don't share with your tribe mates and they don't share with you, you all die.




Kropotkin: Mutual Aid
Close cohabitation and close interdependence are sufficient for maintaining century after century that deep respect for the interests of the community which is characteristic of Eskimo life. Even in the larger communities of Eskimos, "public opinion formed the real judgment-seat, the general punishment consisting in the offenders being shamed in the eyes of the people." Eskimo life is based upon communism. What is obtained by hunting and fishing belongs to the clan. But in several tribes, especially in the West, under the influence of the Danes, private property penetrates into their institutions. However, they have an original means for obviating the inconveniences arising from a personal accumulation of wealth which would soon destroy their tribal unity. When a man has grown rich, he convokes the folk of his clan to a great festival, and, after much eating, distributes among them all his fortune. On the Yukon river, Dall saw an Aleonte family distributing in this way ten guns, ten full fur dresses, 200 strings of beads, numerous blankets, ten wolf furs, 200 beavers, and 500 zibelines. After that they took off their festival dresses, gave them away, and, putting on old ragged furs, addressed a few words to their kinsfolk, saying that though they are now poorer than any one of them, they have won their friendship. Like distributions of wealth appear to be a regular habit with the Eskimos, and to take place at a certain season, after an exhibition of all that has been obtained during the year. In my opinion these distributions reveal a very old institution, contemporaneous with the first apparition of personal wealth; they must have been a means for re-establishing equality among the members of the clan, after it had been disturbed by the enrichment of the few.

Again, this does nothing but maintain the obvious. It is of mutual benefit to share inside a small, homogenous community.

In a larger world, with an economy, this sort of thing makes no sense.

People ultimately do what is to their benefit. In some cases, this sharing, in other cases, it isn't.



Violence isn't the issue, though. You must look at the reason the violence occurred, not just the violence itself. The only reason many of these primitive societies were violence were based on either superstition, or blood-for-blood.

Or property/hunting grounds. Or for purposes of theft. Or for purposes of procuring females. Or for purposes of power.

They did it for the exact same reasons we do it.




No. I just don't think it matters. Saying "all societies have violence" proves nothing.


It proves that violence is inherent to human society.



"They have wars" doesn't mean they have wars for power, or for territorial expansion, or wealth. Saying they have wars proves nothing. In order to make this a valid point you must connect this point to your argument. You must prove that these wars were for wealth, or territory, or anything like that. Good luck, though. They didn't have any concept of private property at all before outside influence. In which case, they handled it by distributing it evenly throughout the tribe.


They had wars to steal the other tribe's food or items. Wealth.

The same things fought for today.

'Private property' doesn't make any sense in a nomadic tribe. What are you going to own, ice? There was nothing to own.

Private property arose when agriculture arose. Proclaiming that pre-agricultural societies didn't have property is akin to saying that because animals don't have property, we shouldn't.



Are you saying that people in these tribes were in these tribes and contributed because they were greedy and it was the best way of getting their genes spread? If so, then why does it matter if we have a greed gene? Doesn't that undermine the whole "communism goes against human nature" argument, as it shows that people are able to participate communaly?


I don't know, does it?

Let's find out: Pay-Pal me your money, and we'll see how this large commune works out.

If you choose not to send me your money, tell me why.


Why is that?

Humans aren't perfect. Enough of them are avarous, or stupid, or malfeascent, or whatever, to fuck up any social order one may come up with.

There is no logical reason why a social democracy should have any flaws. If people were indeed perfect, it would be perfect: The system is entirely dependent on the people within it.

If you take the same people that fuck up a social democracy, and supplant in communism, do you think anything will change?

THe system doesn't make people, people make the system.



Biologically?

Some are different, and some people are better or worse, at any trait, including morality or social customs.

THese differences maky any idyllic society impossible.

[KC]

First of all, I very much doubt the validity of these statements. TIme after time a tribe has been declared bereft of violence or property, yet, inevietably, the claim turns out to be false. I would assume this to be similar, but I don't know enough about the specifics.

There are numerous sources in the book. Check them if you like.



If you don't share with your tribe mates and they don't share with you, you all die.


How does that one work? Hmmm? What if the Eskimos didn't redistribute their wealth? They certainly wouldn't die from it. Yet they still do. This argument has no validity.



Or property/hunting grounds. Or for purposes of theft. Or for purposes of procuring females. Or for purposes of power.

Hunting grounds were held in common. They didn't war for property. The main reason wars happened were because of superstition or a misunderstanding between a member of each tribe that escalated (usually because of superstition or blood-for-blood).




They did it for the exact same reasons we do it.

Prove it.




It proves that violence is inherent to human society.

So what?




They had wars to steal the other tribe's food or items. Wealth.


No, they didn't. Again, prove it.



'Private property' doesn't make any sense in a nomadic tribe. What are you going to own, ice? There was nothing to own.

Food, tools, weapons, etc...



Private property arose when agriculture arose. Proclaiming that pre-agricultural societies didn't have property is akin to saying that because animals don't have property, we shouldn't.


Actually most of the tribes that had agriculture still held everything in common.




I don't know, does it?

Let's find out: Pay-Pal me your money, and we'll see how this large commune works out.

If you choose not to send me your money, tell me why.

No. I need money because the society we live in dictates it. Hardly anything to do with human nature. Nice try though!


Humans aren't perfect. Enough of them are avarous, or stupid, or malfeascent, or whatever, to fuck up any social order one may come up with.

There is no logical reason why a social democracy should have any flaws. If people were indeed perfect, it would be perfect: The system is entirely dependent on the people within it.

If you take the same people that fuck up a social democracy, and supplant in communism, do you think anything will change?

How would a handful of people fuck it up?




THe system doesn't make people, people make the system.

Being determines consciousness.



Some are different, and some people are better or worse, at any trait, including morality or social customs.

THese differences maky any idyllic society impossible.


Haha why is that? Because people are different, treating everybody as equals won't work?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:44 PM




There are numerous sources in the book. Check them if you like.


And how many of them have since been refuted?



How does that one work? Hmmm? What if the Eskimos didn't redistribute their wealth? They certainly wouldn't die from it. Yet they still do. This argument has no validity.


Of course they would die from it. They hunted as groups. If they didn't share the kill, then most of the members would starve to death.

If you don't share the hunts with your tribemates, they'll die.

If you fail to share with the tribe, they'll refuse to share with you and leave you isolated. You die.

If you don't share tools, your tribe won't be able to make what you need; you die.

If you don't share weapons, the hunts won't succeed: You die.

If you didn't help out the members of your tribe (Often genetically related), then THEY die, and your genes won't pass on. You (Your genes) die.

This is simple stuff.



Hunting grounds were held in common.


early all Inuit cultures have oral traditions of raids by Indians and fellow Inuit, and of taking vengeance on them in return. Although these tales are generally regarded not as accurate historical accounts but as self-serving myths - violence against outsiders as justified revenge - it does make clear that there was a history of hostile contact between Inuit and other cultures. In Alaska, the Inuit became accomplished raiders through constant feuding. Given the narrow margins of survival, the advantages of supplementing one's hunt by stealing from one's neighbours seem obvious. Even within an Inuit band, breaching traditional justice and wronging another Inuit was routinely punished by murderous vengeance, as the story of Atanarjuat shows. Within a community, punishments were meted out by community decision, or by the elders, and a breach meant that the victim and his or her relatives could seek out restitution or revenge.

Hunting grounds were NOT held in common. Why would you share your food, the only means of your survival, with another, enemy tribe?

It makes no sense.

Prove to me ancient tribes held hunting in common.



They didn't war for property. The main reason wars happened were because of superstition or a misunderstanding between a member of each tribe that escalated (usually because of superstition or blood-for-blood).

And where did you read this?

Are you honestly denying that ancient people fought wars for food and for women; for material conquest?



Prove it.

They are, biologically, the same people we are. They thought the same way, basically.

Our needs now were their needs then.

If people fought for 'power' today, why wouldn't they then?



So what?

Human societies will always be violent.



No, they didn't. Again, prove it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit

Humans are innately teritorial, stemming from are tribal days.




Food, tools, weapons, etc...

Food: If you don't share it, your tribemates will die, and thus, you'll die.

Tools: How many hammers does an individual need?

Weapons: How many spears does a person need? If you give someone else those spears, you aid the hunt and thus your own survivial.



Actually most of the tribes that had agriculture still held everything in common.


Really? Prove it.




No. I need money because the society we live in dictates it. Hardly anything to do with human nature. Nice try though!

Because you're selfish.

You don't care about me, you care about SURVIVAL.

You don't give me your money because you'd likely starve without it. You are only interested in sharing if it benefits you.

You're greedy.

Just like me.

Just like everyone.

You're selfish; it's what allows you to survive. If you weren't selfish, you'd have wired me the money by now, and would likely be starving.

It's in your nature to be selfish. The 'society' doesn't dicatate it; you could starve to death if you wanted, and be unselfish, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO.

Human nature.



How would a handful of people fuck it up?


All it takes is one Hitler, or one Stalin.

The most evil people are those that want, and thus often get, power.




Being determines consciousness.

Conciousness determines being.



Haha why is that? Because people are different, treating everybody as equals won't work?

No, it won't.

You think I, a person of supreme intellect (If I do say so myself...) would like to be treated equally with everyone else? Ain't happening.

[red team]

A gift economy is not possible, biologically, economically or socially.

Water is for the most part free in first world countries. Air is universally free. Lightning storms are free. Wind is free. If you build a hydro electric plant gravity and water provides you with a free source of electricity. The sun's been blazing away for more years than human beings have been in existence and the sun gives out more energy in a single second than the Earth in its entire history. Public infrastructure for the most part once its been built is fairly cheap to maintain so its almost free unless someone confiscates it so that it becomes their "cash cow".

What we have here then is material scarcity because of out technological backwardness not any law of nature prohibiting material abundance. What we need is a full frontal attack to bend nature to our desires, but Capitalists are more interested in advertising than research and development because it gains them more money.


Red Team

[Publius]

Water is for the most part free in first world countries. Air is universally free. Lightning storms are free. Wind is free. If you build a hydro electric plant gravity and water provides you with a free source of electricity. The sun's been blazing away for more years than human beings have been in existence and the sun gives out more energy in a single second than the Earth in its entire history. Public infrastructure for the most part once its been built is fairly cheap to maintain so its almost free unless someone confiscates it so that it becomes their "cash cow".

And?



What we have here then is material scarcity because of out technological backwardness not any law of nature prohibiting material abundance. What we need is a full frontal attack to bend nature to our desires, but Capitalists are more interested in advertising than research and development because it gains them more money.


So oil is not scarce?

[red team]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:56 PM


Water is for the most part free in first world countries. Air is universally free. Lightning storms are free. Wind is free. If you build a hydro electric plant gravity and water provides you with a free source of electricity. The sun's been blazing away for more years than human beings have been in existence and the sun gives out more energy in a single second than the Earth in its entire history. Public infrastructure for the most part once its been built is fairly cheap to maintain so its almost free unless someone confiscates it so that it becomes their "cash cow".

And?



What we have here then is material scarcity because of out technological backwardness not any law of nature prohibiting material abundance. What we need is a full frontal attack to bend nature to our desires, but Capitalists are more interested in advertising than research and development because it gains them more money.


So oil is not scarce?

SOLAR POWER

Today, commonly available solar panels are 12% efficient

History of Solar Power, 7th paragraph down.
http://www.solarexpert.com/pvbasics2.html

Every day the sun showers Earth with several thousand times as much energy as we use. Even the small amount that strikes our roof is many times as much as all the energy that comes in through electric wires. With the sun straight overhead, a single acre of land receives some four thousand horsepower, about equivalent to a large railroad locomotive. In less than three days the solar energy reaching Earth more than matches the estimated total of all the fossil fuels on Earth!

History of Solar Power, 2nd paragraph down.
http://www.solarexpert.com/pvbasics2.html

Gobi dessert total land area: 1,300,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gobi

Sahara dessert total land area: 9,000,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Libyan dessert total land area: 1,100,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Desert

Great Basin dessert total land area: 500,000 square km
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Basin_Desert

Total combine area of the four largest desserts on Earth where solar panels for electrical generation will be ideal, but human habitation is not: 11,900,000 square km

12% x 11,900,000 square km = 1,428,000 square km
where 100% of the Sun's output is converted into pure, free energy.

So you don't even have to ruin to property values of the rich, pampered urban upper class to do it. Final analysis, its not going to get done. Free abundant energy is not in the interest of the profit system and those who directly benefit from it.

LIGHTNING POWER

General Power

* One strike has enough energy to light 150,000,000 light bulbs. (Discovery.ca (http://www.exn.ca/video/?video=exn20040405-lightning.asx); May 17)

The following data is from an Atlanta Journal article (cited here (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/lightning2.html))

* About 95 people die from lightning yearly in the U.S.
* A single thunderstorm can release 125 million gallons of water (that's the volume of 16 Washington Monuments).
* One storm can discharge enough energy to supply the entire U.S. with electricity for 20 minutes
* A large Midwestern cumulonimbus can tower 12-15 miles (Mount Everest is 5.5 miles high.)
* There are approximately 2,000 thunderstorms at any given moment worldwide.

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Lightning_Power

FUSION POWER

http://www.iter.org

ROBOTICS

http://www.dominic.lopez.net/cyber.html
http://www.robotbooks.com/
http://cyborgdemocracy.net/

DESIGN SCIENCE

http://www.bfi.org/

quotations by R. Buckminster Fuller:

"Humanity is acquiring all the right technology for all the wrong reasons."

"Either war is obsolete or men are."

“To expose a 4.2 trillion dollar ripoff of the American people by the stockholders of the 1000 largest corporations over the last one-hundred years will be a tall order of business.”

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/...ter_fuller.html (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/r/r_buckminster_fuller.html)

TOTAL WORLD ADVERTISING BUDGET (ESTIMATED)

The World Federation of Advertisers is the voice of advertisers worldwide representing some 90% of global ad spend - some US$ 400 billion ad spend per annum - through a unique, global network: 46 national advertiser associations and numerous multi-national corporate members.

Last paragraph
http://www.iab.net/news/pr_2004_10_28.asp


Final analysis, its not a matter of economics or science or technology most of which has already been developed or could be developed quickly given funding and resources, its a matter of political will and the priorities of the present economic system.


Red Team

[Publius]

:rolleyes:

[poetofrageX]

ok, i haven't read the whole thread, so if this has already been said, please corercct me.

The Kalahari Bushmen in southern Africa live communaly, and do a perfect job of it. Everyone who is able hunts, others look for fruit, or anything else the community needs. They bring it all back to the village, and everyone eats, and there is enough for everyone, and if there isn't everyone sacrifices a little food. Everyone eats, no one grows fat, no one starves. Men and women are treated equally, there is no government(since governments only exist to protect and regulate property), everyone has shelter, there is no war.

So, Publius, are you suggesting the Kalahari Bushmen aren't human?

[Publius]

ok, i haven't read the whole thread, so if this has already been said, please corercct me.

Yeah, it's the exact same tired argument that is drawn out of its cave every single time this debate ensues.



The Kalahari Bushmen in southern Africa live communaly, and do a perfect job of it.

Except for the fact that they live in destitute poverty.

A perfect job of dying before you reach the age of 30 is nothing to be proud of.



Everyone who is able hunts, others look for fruit, or anything else the community needs.

Which is totally obvious to anyone understanding human nature.

Heard of reciprical altruism?



They bring it all back to the village, and everyone eats, and there is enough for everyone, and if there isn't everyone sacrifices a little food.

Everyone sacrafices a little food to everyone else?

What a perverse abuse of generalities.

How can 'everyone', denotating all members, give anything to themselves and thus sacrafice something?

Clarity.



Everyone eats, no one grows fat, no one starves.

The hell you say?

Starvation rates are astronomical in hunter-gathererer societies.



Men and women are treated equally,

I quite doubt it.



there is no government(since governments only exist to protect and regulate property),

Not quite.

Government is not necessary at this stage of the game, yes, but it's likely the tribes have a Big Man.



everyone has shelter,

Of course.

They live in a forest, surrounded by trees.



there is no war.

:rolleyes:



So, Publius, are you suggesting the Kalahari Bushmen aren't human?

You've got my position pegged!
:rolleyes:


Do you people seriously believe this shit about natives being perfect and selfless?

They aren't 'selfless', or 'altruistic', they are 'poor'.

It's easy to be equal when you have nothing.

What does that prove?


There are simply reasons why the Bushmen behave in ways you percieve to be similar to communism; they have nothing to do with beneavalance or altruism but they have everything to do with lack of a structured society.

[Re-visionist 05]

i personally think that our instinct is ever changing. What was necessary in pre historic time is no longer necessary now. By this point a good portion of the world should have abandoned its "natural instincts", and will eventually find a new driving force to its existence.

[Publius]

i personally think that our instinct is ever changing.

Slowly changing, yes.



What was necessary in pre historic time is no longer necessary now.

Passing on your genes is ALL that is necessary, evolutionarily.


By this point a good portion of the world should have abandoned its "natural instincts", and will eventually find a new driving force to its existence.

Sounds great!

Now back in reality, where people haven't given up on their instincts, like survival, real things are happening.

[bur372]

If humans re naturally greedy then why do the evans still live in north east siberia where it gets -60 degrees celcius during winter.

There are some evans who still live with there herd. One of the herders mikhail neustroyev said " Last year I slept in the snow on january 27. it was -55 degrees celcius and i had walked all day without food because there were wolves about. At night I just put down some furs, Built a fire and wrapped my clothes tightly round me"

If it is human nature to be greedy why don't these people move to Moscow?

Surely they would enjoy a better standard of life?

[Publius]

If humans re naturally greedy then why do the evans still live in north east siberia where it gets -60 degrees celcius during winter.

There are some evans who still live with there herd. One of the herders mikhail neustroyev said " Last year I slept in the snow on january 27. it was -55 degrees celcius and i had walked all day without food because there were wolves about. At night I just put down some furs, Built a fire and wrapped my clothes tightly round me"

If it is human nature to be greedy why don't these people move to Moscow?

Surely they would enjoy a better standard of life?


What does this have to do with selfishness?

Maybe they enjoy it, I don't know.

[Vinny Rafarino]

By this point a good portion of the world should have abandoned its "natural instincts", and will eventually find a new driving force to its existence.

Like all genetic traits, genetic behaviour patters will also evolve to fit the conditions in which the species exists.

Some instincts will fade while others will remain intact; new instinctual behaviours could possibly even emerge.

To say a species must "abandon" instinctual behaviour and find a new "driving force" is not applicable to reality it two ways:

The first being that a normal subject from a certain species cannot "control" its instinctual behaviour, they cannot simply choose to "abandon" them.

Second, humans in particular do not "need" any sort of "driving force" to explain its own existence. It's a rational choice that is made individually and cannot be defined inder "instinctual behaviours".

[bur372]

If people are greedy then surely that greed would motivate them to wish for an easier life?

[Comrade Yastrebkov]

So, according to Publius, if I see an injured animal in the road that has been hit by a car and I help it, this is because I want to pass my genes on through it...And also, look up "inuit history" on google. Your argument that they were notorious for making war hundreds of times is invalid.

[Publius]

If people are greedy then surely that greed would motivate them to wish for an easier life?

Exactly.

Which is why communism is unlikely.

[Publius]

So, according to Publius, if I see an injured animal in the road that has been hit by a car and I help it, this is because I want to pass my genes on through it...

Not necessarily.

Would such behavior towards animals be useful to your survival, evolutionarily?

Yes.

You could domisticate the animal, or consume it, instead of leaving it to die there.

And, I don't know if its because of biology or culture, but people (Espescially children) seem to revere animals.

I would say that this is nearly universal.




And also, look up "inuit history" on google. Your argument that they were notorious for making war hundreds of times is invalid.

No, its quite valid.

[ComradeRed]

I'm sorry to say that "human instinct" both exists and does not exist.

Now what the hell does that mean? Obviously it's a contradiction and the rest of the post must be wrong via Occam's razor, right? No, shut up.

The human brain has three main components: the stem, the midbrain, and the cerebral cortex.

The stem is what most reptiles have, it identifies the "fight or flight" mechanism, and other similiar mechanisms. Now this is fine and all, reptiles have survived thousands of years with this alone; but this is inadequate for describing mammals like humans.

The next level, the midbrain, is a little more complex. Here, patterns are beginning to be identified (though not necessarily remembered!). The midbrain deals primarily as a complex stem, or a simple cortex.

The cortex identifies, stores, and readjusts patterns. Language, for example, is one big pattern (it's what seperates humans from animals). Faces and facial expressions are a set of a large number of patterns. But what about "readjusting" patterns?

Well, have you noticed when walking on several stairs that are all most the same height but one is off, you become uneasy? That is because that step doesn't fit in the pattern; the cortex is taking this into account and creating a more complex pattern to explain the stairs.

"Greed" and "human instinct" in the popular (social science) sense of the word is nothing but a pattern recognized based on how well rich people do by screwing others over. It isn't "programmed" into people, as the Austrian/Neoclassical school of thought would have you believe; it's all a pattern.

[bur372]

If people are greedy then surely that greed would motivate them to wish for an easier life?


Exactly.

Which is why communism is unlikely.

Then how come the evans still live in siberia and haven't moved to moscow?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 09:52 AM




Then how come the evans still live in siberia and haven't moved to moscow?

Maybe they like living there.

There's no gurantee that life in Moscow, or anywhere else, is 'easier'.

[вор в законе]

Hey guys,

Today in drama my teacher was talking about human instinct.

He was telling how human instinct exists because it is a natural instinct to survive and you don't need to think about it, it's a natural reaction.


The desire for survival is not a ''human instinct'', neither this desire exists only in the case of humans. Every living organism strives to survive and reproduce. Thus because humans are living organisms, the majority of them strives to survive and reproduce. And i say the majority because , as it seems, the humans are the only living organisms who are willing to end their lifes, and cosequently refuse to survive, intentionally. Hence since not all humans strive to survive and reproduce then there is no such thing as ''human instict'', for instict is of no use to humans who have the ability to reason and formulate in their minds, as opposed to the animals who merely act upon urges and thus since they can not think rationally they are in need of an ''instict'' which is enough to satisfy their needs or requirements.


This is what you will exclaim to your discredited teacher.

[Publius]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15 2006, 01:43 AM







The desire for survival is not a ''human instinct'',

What ignorant shit.

So every single creature in existence, except for humans, has a desire to survive?

At what point along the evolutionary ladder did it get decided that humans should get rid of the very trait that gives them the incentive to live.

Of course humans have a survival instinct. If they didn't, a human infant would just let itself starve to death.


neither this desire exists only in the case of humans. Every living organism strives to survive and reproduce. Thus because humans are living organisms, the majority of them strives to survive and reproduce. And i say the majority because , as it seems, the humans are the only living organisms who are willing to end their lifes, and cosequently refuse to survive, intentionally.

Suicide is an abberation. It's a flaw that comes along with our developed reason.

Whats ironic is that our reason, what makes us human, is also our downfall in so many ways.

Suicide, war, hatred, prejudice, etc are all products of the same machinary that produces love, affection, peace, and tranquility.

A blessing and a curse.

Humans have survival instinct, just as humans have an instinct to eat, but that doesn't mean they can't commit suicide or starve themselves.

You would agree humans have an instinct to eat, correct? But there are still bulemic and anexoric people.

IT's an abberration, not a specific result of nature or lack of it.


Hence since not all humans strive to survive and reproduce then there is no such thing as ''human instict'',



for instict is of no use to humans who have the ability to reason and formulate in their minds,

An instinct to eat is surely useful, as you won't survive long enough to reason out your motivation to eat.

An instinct to enter a parasympathetic state at a sign of danger is useful because you don't have time to reason out the danger and then decide to increase your heart rate via biofeedback.

Reason doesn't supercede instinct, it exists along side it and its this competition between them that produces the abberative effects you've noted.

You can't get rid of instinct; you can never get rid of the instinct to eat, but you can, through your reason, not eat.

Note the difference?

THe instinct is always there. We likely have as many, if not more, instincts than any animal.

We certainly have as much 'nature', we just have reason in addition to it.

You can't drop one in favor of the other; it doesn't work like that.

There's a balance between the two.



People who kill themselves as opposed to the animals who merely act upon urges and thus since they can not think rationally they are in need of an ''instict'' which is enough to satisfy their needs or requirements.

Reason is just a tool to satisfy our needs and requirements. It's no 'better' than instinct except that it confers us a far greater chance of survival.


This is what you will exclaim to your discredited teacher.

I wouldn't 'exclaim' anything.

[вор в законе]

What ignorant shit.

So every single creature in existence, except for humans, has a desire to survive?

At what point along the evolutionary ladder did it get decided that humans should get rid of the very trait that gives them the incentive to live.

Of course humans have a survival instinct. If they didn't, a human infant would just let itself starve to death.

That is untrue, but I don't expect anything else other than the twisting of statements when one cannot grasp the basics.

Every organism struggles to survive in order to ensure continuation of the species. This although is not ''human instict'' neither any kind of ''instict''. It is simply the ''natural'' reaction that is characteristic to all living organisms.

But since your lack of knowledge in biology is telling, i feel obliged to elaborate what i mean by ''natural'' reaction.

The enteric nervous system is a complex system, controlling many bodily functions independently while also intricately linked to the central nervous system. When animals were first evolving, their main concern was physical sustenance and so the first nerves to develop were those in the digestive track. As life evolved further, animals required a more complex brain, but the gut's nervous system was too important to be marginalized. ''Nature'' thus maintained the enteric nervous system independent of the central nervous system in the brain and spinal cord.

Now pay attention. There is a hormone secreted by adipose (fatty) tissue which informs the brain of the amount of fat stored. Its absence may provoke severe obesity with eating disorders and pituitary hormone deficits. Hence the reason that all living organisms have the general urge to survive and consequently eat, it is because of this hormone and not because of any kind of ''insticts''. There is no such thing as ''instict'' and never was.

Exclaim this as well to your once again discredited teacher. He successfully validated that the capitalist educational system is a miserable failure.

[bur372]

Of course life in moscow would be easier they would not have walk around all day without food just to protect there herd. There's no gurantee but there a pretty high chance that life would be easier.

You agree that if people are greedy then surely that greed would motivate them to wish for an easier life.

Thus the fact that these people live nomadic lives with very little posseions and a very hard way of life then surely people are not naturally greedy?

[Publius]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 15 2006, 01:31 PM




That is untrue, but I don't expect anything else other than the twisting of statements when one cannot grasp the basics.

Every organism struggles to survive in order to ensure continuation of the species. This although is not ''human instict'' neither any kind of ''instict''. It is simply the ''natural'' reaction that is characteristic to all living organisms.

But since your lack of knowledge in biology is telling, i feel obliged to elaborate what i mean by ''natural'' reaction.

The enteric nervous system is a complex system, controlling many bodily functions independently while also intricately linked to the central nervous system. When animals were first evolving, their main concern was physical sustenance and so the first nerves to develop were those in the digestive track. As life evolved further, animals required a more complex brain, but the gut's nervous system was too important to be marginalized. ''Nature'' thus maintained the enteric nervous system independent of the central nervous system in the brain and spinal cord.

Now pay attention. There is a hormone secreted by adipose (fatty) tissue which informs the brain of the amount of fat stored. Its absence may provoke severe obesity with eating disorders and pituitary hormone deficits. Hence the reason that all living organisms have the general urge to survive and consequently eat, it is because of this hormone and not because of any kind of ''insticts''. There is no such thing as ''instict'' and never was.

Exclaim this as well to your once again discredited teacher. He successfully validated that the capitalist educational system is a miserable failure.

It makes perfect sense that 'instinct' (An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli) would be totally biological in nature.

What does this prove? Humans are nothing but biology. Their thoughts, reasons and instincts are merely biological, chemical and electrical responses.

Instinct is obviously biological; what else would it be? Magic?

If your biology dictates a form of behavior to you, than it's instinct.

Your 'natural reaction' fits exactly the definition of instinct.

It is instinct.

You're splitting hairs here.

[Publius]

Of course life in moscow would be easier they would not have walk around all day without food just to protect there herd. There's no gurantee but there a pretty high chance that life would be easier.

This doesn't have anything to do with selfishness.

It's like saying 'life on the moon would be easier, so selfish people should live on the moon'.

Greed does not necessarily mean 'easy life'.

Many rich people (Greedy people, wouldn't you say) work 70 or 80 hours a week. They could easily work 40 or 30 or not at all.

Are they not greedy?



You agree that if people are greedy then surely that greed would motivate them to wish for an easier life.


Define 'easier'.

To a herder, who has spent his whole life herding, herding is probably pretty easy wheras city life, to which he is not accustomed, may be very difficult.

To us, the situation is reversed.




Thus the fact that these people live nomadic lives with very little posseions and a very hard way of life then surely people are not naturally greedy?

They are greedy in their own way.

[Cullmac]

If we're going to bring the human race back down to an animalistic level (which i feel is a mistake) then 'instinctivly' we are SOCIAL creatures, the family has always been the most basic unit of society where we have always SHARED everything. The day when we stop looking at eachother as American, as rich, as poor or as christian but as a big family will be the day when communism is the logical choice.

[bur372]

They are greedy in their own way.

Please elaborate. Nomads are known for leading lives without luxury goods althought they have the money to.

[Publius]

If we're going to bring the human race back down to an animalistic level (which i feel is a mistake)

Because you are as superstitious as any theist.

It's not a mistake, it's who we are.

Get comfortable with it.

We're not 'equal' to animals but we are a type of animal.

Saying we are 'above' animals is somewhat contentious. Yes, we have culture and society, but we also have war and rape and murder.

It's not a good comparison.


then 'instinctivly' we are SOCIAL creatures, the family has always been the most basic unit of society where we have always SHARED everything. The day when we stop looking at eachother as American, as rich, as poor or as christian but as a big family will be the day when communism is the logical choice.

That's a nice try, until you realize its impossible.

If we really were 'one big family' we wouldn't be fighting now, or kiling now, or raping now.

The thing is, 'family' only works because family members know and care about each other.

I don't know you and I really don't care about you. Sorry, its just a fact of life.

You can't treat someone as family unless they are family; familiar to you.

Saying the human race is 'one big family' or can be is possibly the most idealistic pipe-dream I've ever heard.

Our chances of 'getting to heaven' are greater than living as 'one human family.