Are Humans Naturally Greedy?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Are humans naturally greedy? Explain why you think they are or aren't.

[The Sloth]

maybe, or maybe not. it's difficult to make positive statements about "human nature," as it's more precise to say that human nature is volatile, rather than fixed. in other words, behavior is mostly based on the prevailing socio-economic-cultural patterns of the time period. these things could be minor, or fairly monolithic. regardless, behavior is a reaction to circumstances; circumstances are not a reaction to behavior, at least not at first.

[closetcommie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:08 AM
Are humans naturally greedy? Explain why you think they are or aren't.
We're greedy because we're animals first and foremost. We do share -- once we've had "enough" ourselves and generally only with those we love and trust. In another thread, I mentioned this "supergood" ideal of man that many in the West have -- that man is some transcendent being whose inherent nature is like that of the risen Christ or something.

It's all bull, of course. If civilization falls (when), we'll see how "super" we can become -- you know, without guidance or infrastructure. This is why any sort of "regime change" should be accompanied by a logical approach to getting from point A to point B -- and why relying on transcendant-man ideals could fail us on the Day After Tomorrow.

I'm sure for some that returning to our ancient root-pulling past is the goal. I don't think it was Marx's, and it sure the hell ain't mine.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:22 AM
We're greedy because we're animals first and foremost.
Explain how non-human animals express and show that they are greedy?

[Delta]

I think humans are naturally selfish, but not necessarily greedy.

People are selfish because they always do what they want. They never do what someone else wants. That doesn't mean that people aren't charitable, it's just that the joy they get from charity is worth more to them than whatever they could otherwise get with the money. That also doesn't mean that people don't force others into situations they don't want to be in, it's just that once in that situation the person chooses the option that they want from those available.

With greedy being the hoarding of wealth or resources, I don't see why people should be inherently greedy. Especially if being greedy is looked down upon by society, then people will dismiss greedy behavior for their own selfish reasons of self-respect.

[Taiga]

Greed isn't surprising when there is a lack of resourses (food etc). In such cases greed is just means to survive. But if we build a prosperous society where everybody has the access to everything and people still will be 'greedy' then we'll talk about natural greed.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Well wouldn't this fact jeapordize our entire system? If humans are greedy then they'll take to much from the system.

[( R )evolution]

I think born greed is bull shit, it is are enviroment that affects us and creates us and is a direct reflection upon the way we act. Do you think there will be some diffrence of opinion between a person who has ived in a gehtto and a person who has lived in a rich house? hell yea. We are born as free people a clean slate, it is society that screws us over and makes us become greedy, greed is the feul of the captialist system. In the US we have propaganda that affect us and infulence us that begins since we were babies, 3/4 of the kids in american sepnd half of there time on there asses wacthing TV. Do you think the stuff on TV is completely un-biased? Hell no, thoose kids are fucking wacthing Fox news and the goveremnt is planting the seeds of deception upon the minds of little kids so that when they become older all they care about it the money and not to question the authorian of the goverment.

[hoopla]

I would imagine that it would be impossible to develop any trait withoit input from the environment. And I would imagine that it would be impossible to develop a trai without input from our genes.

If people are greedy then sure they would not be greedy without their genes (they would just be sludge, e.g.), but maybe, you can&#39;t consider what we would be like without an environment of some sort. The closest you can get is the environment in which the gene is selected for - and, I would imagine that co-operation would have been selected for over selfishness, maybe <_<

[Ol' Dirty]

Greediness in sentient beings are not individualy determined, but affected by socio-economic and cultural factors. If a person grows up in a society of scarcity and destruction, they will have adapted an attitude of so-called greediness. In a society of abundance, and attitude of empathy.

It&#39;s that simple. No human nature involved. :)

[Luís Henrique]

Greed is a social concept, not a biological one.

Can one "naturally" fit a social concept?

Luís Henrique

[which doctor]

I don&#39;t like the word greed.

Humans naturally act in their own best interests.

[More Fire for the People]

I would not say humans are ‘greedy’ but self-interested, and for the flourishment of self-interests humans form communities which reflect the sum total of self-interests.

[JKP]

[email protected] guys&#33; Did you know that since we&#39;ll probably use labor vouchers after the revolution it doesn&#39;t matter if people are greedy or not.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 06:24 PM
Greediness in sentient beings are not individualy determined, but affected by socio-economic and cultural factors.
...
It&#39;s that simple. No human nature involved. :)
True, there is no human nature, only the ensemble of social relations.

However,


If a person grows up in a society of scarcity and destruction, they will have adapted an attitude of so-called greediness. In a society of abundance, and attitude of empathy.

it&#39;s the opposite of what you say. People who live in enclaves of abundance like the ruling class are hardly known for their asceticism or their empathy. They consume like hogs and fuck the rest of us.

However, the bottom line is that the capitalist system promotes greed as it attempts to sell its crap to us and convince us that our status, our identity, our very lives depend on it.

[Dyst]

As said before, greed doesn&#39;t exist. People act out of self-interest, which can at certain situations include other people&#39;s happiness.

[bombeverything]

No. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that human beings are inherently greedy.

[hoopla]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 17 2006, 05:45 PM
Greed is a social concept, not a biological one.

Can one "naturally" fit a social concept?

Luís Henrique
Imho, you have begged the question... a better way to put it would be greed is a value term, can you get an ought from an is :huh:

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+Aug 17 2006, 06:17 PM--> (Citizen Zero @ Aug 17 2006, 06:17 PM)
[email protected] 17 2006, 06:24 PM
Greediness in sentient beings are not individualy determined, but affected by socio-economic and cultural factors.
...
It&#39;s that simple. No human nature involved. :)
True, there is no human nature, only the ensemble of social relations.

However,

[/b]

If a person grows up in a society of scarcity and destruction, they will have adapted an attitude of so-called greediness. In a society of abundance, and attitude of empathy.


it&#39;s the opposite of what you say. People who live in enclaves of abundance like the ruling class are hardly known for their asceticism or their empathy. They consume like hogs and fuck the rest of us.

However, the bottom line is that the capitalist system promotes greed as it attempts to sell its crap to us and convince us that our status, our identity, our very lives depend on it.

Unfortunately, you forget the subjectivity of what you say. In a capitalist society, yes, thiswould happen. But in a society based on egalitarianism, people would be more giving, probably.

[TheGreatOne]

Yes, humans are probably naturally greedy. The man who had a disposition towards being greedy would be the one who was well-fed and would survive to pass on his naturally greedy genes, whereas the man who was not naturally greedy would give away his food to those who needed it more than him, and he would die.

[Mare]

Being greedy is subjective. Surely there are those who are "less" greedy than other people; yet greed seems to appear throughout the lives of every animal. Look at the behavior of monkies for example.

[Mare]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 12:42 AM
No. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that human beings are inherently greedy.
BS. How do you explain children who do not share their toys?

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by Mare+Aug 18 2006, 08:13 PM--> (Mare &#064; Aug 18 2006, 08:13 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 12:42 AM
No. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that human beings are inherently greedy.
BS. How do you explain children who do not share their toys?[/b]

As a product of a greedy society - i.e. capitalism. Greed is learnt not &#39;natural&#39;. We are social beings. You cannot accurately view human beings as somehow existing outside of their environment.

[da_prole]

Greed is a natural evolutionary trait, it is only (generally) looked down upon by Society.

[bombeverything]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 10:44 PM
Greed is a natural evolutionary trait, it is only (generally) looked down upon by Society.

Evidence?

[TheGreatOne]

The only evidence, and I use the term loosely, that can really be offered at this time is that in the jungles of Africa, a natural disposition towards greed is a trait that would have been selected for.

[Delta]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 05:42 PM
The only evidence, and I use the term loosely, that can really be offered at this time is that in the jungles of Africa, a natural disposition towards greed is a trait that would have been selected for.
Could you elaborate on that?

[TheGreatOne]

Sure. As I said before, a man who was greedy and who did not give his food away to others in need would be the man who was well fed and whose family would be well fed. Therefore he would survive to pass on his genes, and his children would survive to pass on their genes, which would most likely contain the "greedy" gene. On the other hand, if a man gave away his food to others who needed it more than him would have simply died because he would have had to work harder than the other man to put food on the table for his children, and in those times it was not safe at all to go hunting. If he chose not to go hunting any more than the other man, his children would end up malnourished and would not be as likely to pass on his genes. So naturally, I believe a person will put himself first over the community. I said I use the term loosely because this is based on absolutely no hard evidence.

[bombeverything]

As I said before, a man who was greedy and who did not give his food away to others in need would be the man who was well fed and whose family would be well fed. Therefore he would survive to pass on his genes, and his children would survive to pass on their genes, which would most likely contain the "greedy" gene.

What? So greed is biological? :D


On the other hand, if a man gave away his food to others who needed it more than him would have simply died because he would have had to work harder than the other man to put food on the table for his children, and in those times it was not safe at all togo hunting. If he chose not to go hunting any more than the other man, his children would end up malnourished and would not be as likely to pass on his genes. So naturally, I believe a person will put himself first over the community. I said I use the term loosely because this is based on absolutely no hard evidence.

You are right about that. People respond to their environment. Human nature is neither &#39;good&#39; nor &#39;bad&#39;. In your scenario I guess you are assuming that there isn&#39;t enough food for all. Thus if this happened wouldn&#39;t this be a response to the environment (the lack of food) rather than some inherent trait within the individual?

I am not going to even go into the genes thing...

[Delta]

Someone wanting food for their family is not greed, that is natural selfishness.

Greed is defined as excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves . What good does it do to possess more food than one needs?

[food-chain1]

Native Americans of the Pacific NorthWest gained status by giving stuff away. The more one gave, the more status. Pre-Capitalist peoples all over the globe owned practically everything communally. Marx wrote much on this in his Ethnological Notebooks. He predicted the possiblity of a Russian Revolution writing in 1882 without the need to go capitalist at all.

[da_prole]

Originally posted by bombeverything+Aug 18 2006, 06:58 PM--> (bombeverything @ Aug 18 2006, 06:58 PM)
[email protected] 18 2006, 10:44 PM
Greed is a natural evolutionary trait, it is only (generally) looked down upon by Society.

Evidence? [/b]
Evidence? Human beings.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 12:51 AM
Sure. As I said before, a man who was greedy and who did not give his food away to others in need would be the man who was well fed and whose family would be well fed. Therefore he would survive to pass on his genes, and his children would survive to pass on their genes, which would most likely contain the "greedy" gene. On the other hand, if a man gave away his food to others who needed it more than him would have simply died because he would have had to work harder than the other man to put food on the table for his children, and in those times it was not safe at all to go hunting. If he chose not to go hunting any more than the other man, his children would end up malnourished and would not be as likely to pass on his genes. So naturally, I believe a person will put himself first over the community. I said I use the term loosely because this is based on absolutely no hard evidence.
Sure he will put himself before society, but survival of the individual and survival of society are rarely, if ever, mutually exclusive, at least not in present times.

[Luís Henrique]

In the XIX century, capital apologists justified capitalism through the concept of "abstinence": capitalists are rich, they used to say, because they abstain from senceless consumption, and are intelligent enough to spare for the following days.

Now capital apologists use to justify capitalism no more in a "virtue", but directly in "vice"... no longer "abstinence", but "greed"&#33;

It would be funny if it weren&#39;t a sign that capitalism has come to the days of its decadence.

Luís Henrique

[Xvall]

Yes.

Because I say so.

[which doctor]

Originally posted by da_prole+Aug 19 2006, 02:56 PM--> (da_prole @ Aug 19 2006, 02:56 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 06:58 PM

[email protected] 18 2006, 10:44 PM
Greed is a natural evolutionary trait, it is only (generally) looked down upon by Society.

Evidence?
Evidence? Human beings. [/b]
People do what they believe is in their own best interests. In this day and age it often means greed. That however does not mean that greed can be abolished in a society where it is not in ones self-interest to collect vast amounts of material goods to keep for themselves.

[Rage Against Right]

[/QUOTE]Greed is a natural evolutionary trait, it is only (generally) looked down upon by Society.

I dont see how most of society looks down upon greed...The capitalist world has got to where it is today through accumulating money.

I dont think humans are naturally greedy but merely a product of their environment the world around has wanted more so we think we should have more to...On the other hand those who come from a poor background and come into money will be greedy and continue to want more if they do not have an understanding economics and ethical reason.
I think we should aim to be more not to have more

[liberationjunky]

My belief is humans only act if it is going to benefit them in someway. Even those who help others in kinds of volunteer work (which seems like a very unselfshish thing) do it because it makes them feel good about themselves because they feel they are doing something thats positive.