Human Nature: Communism vrs. Capitalism

[D_Bokk]

"In place of ruthless self-assertion it demands self-restraint; in place of thrusting aside or treading down all competitors, it requires that the individual shall not merely respect, but shall help his fellows; its influence is directed, not so much to the survival of the fittest, as to the fitting of as many as possible to survive."
-Evolution and Ethics (1893) by Thomas Huxley

(Note: Thomas Huxley was one of the early pushers of Darwin's theory.)

Survival is the only proven and commonly accepted part of human nature. Each species intends to reproduce and prolong their own survival. Social Darwinists and Capitalists suggest that humans "naturally" compete against each other for their own personal gain. However this in itself goes against our human nature, species never work against each other so only a minority of it's population survives and the rest die. Even if there are a few cases of this happening, they're likely to be outliers.

In a world without enough food, medicine and other instruments used for survival; capitalism would be the ideal economic system since it would be humans at their natural stage. However, humans have evolved to a point of intelligence in which humans can develop enough food and medication for all peoples. Even under capitalism, enough food is produced to feed all inhabitants of the world a healthy vegetarian diet (1) (http://www.sustainabilityinstitute.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn168faoed).

Naturally, the need for competition and hoarding of the food is illogical. Capitalism itself has become obsolete and to be working against human nature. At this point in our development, the new economic system of communism is the only presented solution to the unnatural hoarding of wealth.

To further prove my point, we can look at how animals evolve to survive certain pandemic. The most disastrous disease plaguing the earth today is starvation. 33,000 children die each day and parts of the world population have "evolved" and created a means to fight what used to be a worldwide problem. When other species find means to survive, they share their DNA via reproduction. The US and other Western countries are refusing to allow their "vaccine" to reach the third world countries. Species naturally aid the others with methods of survival and with the superior human intelligence, we're capable of taking human survival to greater levels. The problem is: we don't.

Greed is the most common defense of capitalism. The idea of it being human nature, however, is preposterous. Nearly all instances of greed can be related to the survival instinct outside the world of capitalism. Capitalist greed is by far the most unnatural human trait someone could have. This greed results in maintaining large amounts of wealth they could never possibly use and largely hinders the survival of the human race. As capitalism continues, more and more of the wealth will concentrate itself into the hands of a few and eventually leave the rest of the world to die, as Marx predicted. However, this will not happen because eventually the masses will rise up.

In the end, the individual survival which is capitalism is contradictory to human nature. Working against each other restricts many chances for human survival and therefore the only possibly solution would be: communism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by D Bokk
Survival is the only proven and commonly accepted part of human nature.

Not true at all; there are many human insticts inclusive of survival and reproduction.


Social Darwinists and Capitalists suggest that humans "naturally" compete against each other for their own personal gain. However this in itself goes against our human nature, species never work against each other so only a minority of it's population survives and the rest die. Even if there are a few cases of this happening, they're likely to be outliers.

It is true, humans are social animals however the ability to rationalise as well as the presence of neurological disorders among the species allow for instinctual behaviour to be over-ridden by thought.

There is, of course, no such thing as a "greed gene" that turns on a "greed instinct" however a "help your neighbour" gene also doesn't exist.


enough food is produced to feed all inhabitants of the world a healthy vegetarian diet

A "healthy" vegetarian diet does not exist.

In any case, enough food is already produced to feed every individual on the planet a
healthy omnivorous diet exclusive artificial supplements right this very minute, they simply can't afford the price; whether that price is monetary or otherwise.




Nearly all instances of greed can be related to the survival instinct outside the world of capitalism.

You've got this one backwards.

Never is guilt-ridden greedy bahaviour linked with the survival instinct; it's its antithesis.

[colonelguppy]

we also don't run off base instinct for all of our actions.

your analogy fails.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Vinny [email protected] 17 2006, 08:48 PM
[quote]enough food is produced to feed all inhabitants of the world a healthy vegetarian diet

A "healthy" vegetarian diet does not exist.

In any case, enough food is already produced to feed every individual on the planet a
healthy omnivorous diet exclusive artificial supplements right this very minute, they simply can't afford the price; whether that price is monetary or otherwise.


That's completely untrue. There are many healthy vegetarian diets, and vegetarianism is arguably healthier than a meat-eating diet. Furthermore, whether or not we can feed everyone meat is irrelevant to the fact that it is easier to feed them a vegetarian diet. The work required to produce such a diet is less.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by D A B
There are many healthy vegetarian diets, and vegetarianism is arguably healthier than a meat-eating diet.

I and the vast majority of MDs and MD PhDs do not agree.

If you care to see why, I believe there is a thread, or numerous threads in the S&E forum with more than enough evidence and refutations against vegetarian crapola.


Furthermore, whether or not we can feed everyone meat is irrelevant to the fact that it is easier to feed them a vegetarian diet.

Allow the people to feed themselves free of cost issues and they will instinctively feed themselves meat and vegetables as we are an omnivorous species.

In any case the entire concept of "feeding the entire world" is nothing more than tired hippy rhetoric with no significance, both politically and socially, to anything relevant to massive revolt; it falls in the same category of absurdity as "saving the whales" and "global warming" popular hysteria.

Like I previously stated, the is enough food already in existence for the entire world to be fed and it is the people's responsibilty to take the necessary actions to feed themselves.

Massive revolution begins in small clusters of individuals that take the initiative and social responsibilty to say "enough is enough" and act accordingly.

In essence they ignore bourgeios "price" and begin to feed themselves.


The work required to produce such a diet is less.

Interesting.

I didn't know that we had a modern day Nostradamus in our ranks.

Mystic predictions aside, it is not possible, or relevant, to remark on the amount of labour reqired to feed an individual within one "scheme" versus another in the event that massive revolution sometime in the future takes hold.

Attempting to make that distiction under modern capitalism is even more irrelevant and just as impossible.

To even the most seasoned of "seers". :lol:

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The vast amount of MDs and Phds do not agree that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. You are obviously talking something out of context or outright making things up. They might agree that it is not healthier or less healthy than any other diet, but that is why I used the word arguably.

As for the issue of taking less resources, it is simple. Livestock needs food to grow, and people at livestock. If people just eat what the livestock eat, less resources are used and less production is required.

Global warming is hysteria, now? What are you talking about.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)Not true at all; there are many human insticts inclusive of survival and reproduction.[/b]
Mind naming them?

You've got this one backwards.

Never is guilt-ridden greedy bahaviour linked with the survival instinct; it's its antithesis.
You're not paying attention. I said outside of capitalism, as in if there's only so much to eat and a person takes all of it to survive leaving the others with nothing.

colonelguppy
we also don't run off base instinct for all of our actions.

your analogy fails.
No it doesn't. My analogy isn't merely about basic instinct but how natural something is. It's unnatural to hoard wealth that you will never use or need.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 18 2006, 04:53 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 18 2006, 04:53 PM)
colonelguppy
we also don't run off base instinct for all of our actions.

your analogy fails.
No it doesn't. My analogy isn't merely about basic instinct but how natural something is. It's unnatural to hoard wealth that you will never use or need. [/b]
if it isn't instinct there no such thing as "natural" behavior. economic pursuits are controlled by rational thoughts and there are a number of reasons a person might want to hoard wealth.

[deadk]

D Bokk,



Survival is the only proven and commonly accepted part of human nature.

First, I do not doubt in the slightest that what I quoted from you is true; but you play fast and loose with your extrapolations.

Survival is the most fundamental aspect of human nature- this is clear. However, the issue you completely glossed over was whether we naturally perceive survival in a communitarian sense or in an individualistic sense. One could make a self-sealing, but no less true, argument that the survival of the individual is all that matters to the individual. There is not a single hypothetical you could offer that would disprove the notion that all individual act sub-consciously in their own self-interest. I realize this doesn't prove that all humans do, but it is something that should be dealt with in a post such as yours.




Greed is the most common defense of capitalism. The idea of it being human nature, however, is preposterous. Nearly all instances of greed can be related to the survival instinct outside the world of capitalism. Capitalist greed is by far the most unnatural human trait someone could have.

You have mischaracterized the nature of capitalism. "Greed" is a childish term that tells us nothing. Capitalism exists through objectification, the notion that we can "own" something. The concept of "ownership" is the root of capitalism, and unless you think the process of objectification can somehow be purged from the human mind- you are left in a capitalist system. Furthermore, ownership (the end result of objectification) falls in line with my individualistic view of human nature: we rationally perceive things in relation to ourselves. The individual sees the rock, and naturally identifies the rock as his. This sense of ownership, of course, stems from the will to survive.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)if it isn't instinct there no such thing as "natural" behavior. economic pursuits are controlled by rational thoughts and there are a number of reasons a person might want to hoard wealth.[/b]
What's rational about obtaining more wealth than you'll ever use?

deadk
First, I do not doubt in the slightest that what I quoted from you is true; but you play fast and loose with your extrapolations.

Survival is the most fundamental aspect of human nature- this is clear. However, the issue you completely glossed over was whether we naturally perceive survival in a communitarian sense or in an individualistic sense. One could make a self-sealing, but no less true, argument that the survival of the individual is all that matters to the individual. There is not a single hypothetical you could offer that would disprove the notion that all individual act sub-consciously in their own self-interest. I realize this doesn't prove that all humans do, but it is something that should be dealt with in a post such as yours.
I believe it's obvious that it's a communal sense. When in a life or death situation, people are more concerned with their own life - or the life of someone they love. However, outside of that situation - all of nature proves that the species will strive for survival as a whole. Why else would we reproduce? Why not just find a way to enjoy sex without the off spring? Logically, if one were only concerned with self - then they wouldn't be concerned with the future of the species: the children.

You have mischaracterized the nature of capitalism. "Greed" is a childish term that tells us nothing. Capitalism exists through objectification, the notion that we can "own" something. The concept of "ownership" is the root of capitalism, and unless you think the process of objectification can somehow be purged from the human mind- you are left in a capitalist system. Furthermore, ownership (the end result of objectification) falls in line with my individualistic view of human nature: we rationally perceive things in relation to ourselves. The individual sees the rock, and naturally identifies the rock as his. This sense of ownership, of course, stems from the will to survive.
Greed is, however, the realistic term. Anything otherwise is denial, their guilt forces them to refuse to believe they're being greedy. Ownership isn't universal; Native Americans for example couldn't even comprehend the Europeans who "owned" land. People only believe they need to own something because there is no other choice in order to survive. If you don't own a home, you're homeless; if you don't own farm, you're hungry ect.

The idea of ownership will be purged, that's how communism will arise. Only a small ruling elite will have property in the future because they strive for profit and wealth will concentrate into a few hands. At this point the proletariat (i.e. the people without property) will rebel. They don't own anything, and therefore they will easily make a transition from individual ownership to communal ownership.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 18 2006, 07:04 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 18 2006, 07:04 PM)
colonelguppy
if it isn't instinct there no such thing as "natural" behavior. economic pursuits are controlled by rational thoughts and there are a number of reasons a person might want to hoard wealth.
What's rational about obtaining more wealth than you'll ever use? [/b]
giving it later to those you know to improve their life? honor, prestige? personal satisfaction?

the very fact that people do it alot anyways doesn't bode well for your claim that doing such is somehow unnatural.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
giving it later to those you know to improve their life? honor, prestige? personal satisfaction?
All irrational. For one, you as a capitalist, shouldn't even support inheritance. It eliminates the drive to achieve; it eliminates motivation. Which is the argument so many bourgeois cling too. The rest are blatantly irrational... no explanation needed.

the very fact that people do it alot anyways doesn't bode well for your claim that doing such is somehow unnatural.
A lot of people do a lot of unnatural things. The definition of unnatural isn't "nobody does it" it's that the act goes against nature.

[Janus]

A lot of it has to do with insecurity in this capitalist system. In a capitalist system, people are always thinking in the backs of their hands that they could go broke the next day, which causes them to want to accumulate as much wealth as possible just in case. This need for a safety net will not be necessary in communism.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
giving it later to those you know to improve their life? honor, prestige? personal satisfaction?
All irrational. For one, you as a capitalist, shouldn't even support inheritance. It eliminates the drive to achieve; it eliminates motivation. Which is the argument so many bourgeois cling too. The rest are blatantly irrational... no explanation needed.

i didn't say they were objectively rational i said they were derived in a rational decision making pattern as opposed to a natural urge.



the very fact that people do it alot anyways doesn't bode well for your claim that doing such is somehow unnatural.
A lot of people do a lot of unnatural things. The definition of unnatural isn't "nobody does it" it's that the act goes against nature.

and how are you going to define whats natural for humans enless you compare it to the.... acts of humans?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
and how are you going to define whats natural for humans enless you compare it to the.... acts of humans?
Because human nature doesn't change with the generations... duh?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 03:11 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 19 2006, 03:11 PM)
colonelguppy
and how are you going to define whats natural for humans enless you compare it to the.... acts of humans?
Because human nature doesn't change with the generations... duh? [/b]
wait, are you agreeing with me?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
wait, are you agreeing with me?
No. Your logic is stupid. You're saying that if humans "do" something it becomes natural. If that were the case, nature would have changed many times over the years.

[colonelguppy]

thats what i'm saying, humans don't have natural behaviors, they use rational thought to dictate behavior.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
thats what i'm saying, humans don't have natural behaviors, they use rational thought to dictate behavior.
And I am saying you're wrong... proven by this scientific analysis of humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 05:06 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 19 2006, 05:06 PM)
colonelguppy
thats what i'm saying, humans don't have natural behaviors, they use rational thought to dictate behavior.
And I am saying you're wrong... proven by this scientific analysis of humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24 [/b]
is that supposed to be a joke or something?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy
is that supposed to be a joke or something?
It's to show we're still animals, not Omni-potent god-like beings... which is what you're claiming by saying we can shape nature to our own will. Anyway, there's nothing to debate here since you're just going to keep saying "There's no such thing as human nature!!111one1!!" when humans obviously have a survival instinct and an instinct to reproduce.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 19 2006, 05:38 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 19 2006, 05:38 PM)
colonelguppy
is that supposed to be a joke or something?
It's to show we're still animals, not Omni-potent god-like beings... which is what you're claiming by saying we can shape nature to our own will. Anyway, there's nothing to debate here since you're just going to keep saying "There's no such thing as human nature!!111one1!!" when humans obviously have a survival instinct and an instinct to reproduce. [/b]
yes, as motivation, but the concious decisions we make are rationally derived instead of instinctively driven. we all have a drive to survive and a drive to reproduce, how we go that is up to our conciesness (including actions concerning economic pursuits). if you deny this, you are denying reality.

besides, even if there is some kind of preset natural behavior (which you have yet to define) you have yet to provide any evidence as to how communism fits us better.

[JKP]

The human nature argument is fucking stupid; a Communist society will use LTVs as it introduces gift economy elements, thus making human nature irrelevant.

But if you want to argue about whether or not human nature exists (despite sociological evidence pointing to humans as being products of their environment) that's fine by me.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+--> (colonelguppy)yes, as motivation, but the concious decisions we make are rationally derived instead of instinctively driven. we all have a drive to survive and a drive to reproduce, how we go that is up to our conciesness (including actions concerning economic pursuits). if you deny this, you are denying reality.

besides, even if there is some kind of preset natural behavior (which you have yet to define) you have yet to provide any evidence as to how communism fits us better.[/b]
I'm not denying that the mind can stop natural behavior, but is it good for humans if they deny their urge to survive? Communism is the ultimate tool for survival, which is what nearly every human wants for themselves. So, what's the problem?

JKP
But if you want to argue about whether or not human nature exists (despite sociological evidence pointing to humans as being products of their environemt) that's fine by me.
Do you deny that survival and reproduction are human nature, as well as natural for all living things?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2006, 07:59 PM
besides, even if there is some kind of preset natural behavior (which you have yet to define) you have yet to provide any evidence as to how communism fits us better.
I'm not denying that the mind can stop natural behavior, but is it good for humans if they deny their urge to survive? Communism is the ultimate tool for survival, which is what nearly every human wants for themselves. So, what's the problem? [/quote]
no its the ultimate tool of collective mediocrity, something many humans don't care too much for. i don't know if you've been paying attention to history or anything but the actions of humans overwhelmingly support the notion that we as a whole are not very concerned with collective well being (if it means sacrifice on the individuals part)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by D BOKK
Mind naming them? You're kidding me right? Adding even the most common of instincs to the list kills your logic.

I will drop a couple out for you: disgust, feeding (it's not the same as simple survival), altruism, language..shit jack this is jst the remedial shit; the list goes on and on..

Heres a link (http://www.ebookmall.com/ebook/109122-ebook.htm) for you.


You're not paying attention.

Not likely.


I said outside of capitalism, as in if there's only so much to eat and a person takes all of it to survive leaving the others with nothing.

This is simply nonsensical crapola; that person wouldn't last a New York minute.

You have failed to recognise that outside of capitalism and its common predecessors greed does not exist at all.

In addition, one can't instictively behave in that manner as it requires thought.


The vast amount of MDs and Phds do not agree that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy. You are obviously talking something out of context or outright making things up.

Bullshit.

Almost every real MD and MD Ph.D will positively agree that a balances omnivorous diet is the healthiest diet for humans as our bodies were made to consume food omnivorously.

I don't know what MD's you're talking about but my advice to you would be find a new doctor.


As for the issue of taking less resources, it is simple. Livestock needs food to grow, and people at livestock. If people just eat what the livestock eat, less resources are used and less production is required.

Economics is simply not that simple; especially when referring to the future.

In addition, humans cannot survive healthily on a simple diet of what the livestock eat.


Global warming is hysteria, now? What are you talking about.

Of course it's hysteria. It has been ever since the 10 year predictions that jackass who invented the theory made turned out to be drastically false.

Don't worry, another 10 years of the seas not rising, the global temperature not elevating (some places have actually gotten colder since the "big scare") and the sky not falling snd it will be nothing more than a big "oops".

Shit, it's already happening now.

People are getting fed up with all this rhetoric and no actual proof beyond speculation; eventually they let the media and the other political organisations that push this shit know it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:10 AM
The human nature argument is fucking stupid; a Communist society will use LTVs as it introduces gift economy elements, thus making human nature irrelevant.

But if you want to argue about whether or not human nature exists (despite sociological evidence pointing to humans as being products of their environment) that's fine by me.
What are LTVs?

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino
You're kidding me right? Adding even the most common of instincs to the list kills your logic.

I will drop a couple out for you: disgust, feeding (it's not the same as simple survival), altruism, language..shit jack this is jst the remedial shit; the list goes on and on..

Heres a link for you.
What? Disgust is a reaction that isn't the same for every human. "Feeding?" Right :rolleyes: . Altruism isn't true, you would know this if you ever lived in the West. Language was taught/learned, communication could possibly be one - but again this can be related to survival. Other animals use calls to warn their fellows or attract a mate. We only developed language because of our greater intellect.

Everything you list is either relatable to survival/reproduction or mere speculation without any real information to back it up

Not likely.
Then you're intentionally trying to be a jackass?

This is simply nonsensical crapola; that person wouldn't last a New York minute.

You have failed to recognise that outside of capitalism and its common predecessors greed does not exist at all.

In addition, one can't instictively behave in that manner as it requires thought.
Greed in the sense of selfishness, the want for merely themselves to survive with no regard for others. This occurs in dire situations and the survivors are not selfless otherwise they'd be dead too.

I never said greed was part of human nature either, I said 'instance of greed'... maybe I should have put quotes around the word greed so people like you don't have the opportunity to be a jackass?

And to negate your "addition" animals who don't think will not divide food equally when there's a shortage. They will try to get as much as they can so they can survive.

[Janus]

What are LTVs?
Labor time vouchers.


altruism
Vinny, could you provide a link or resource for that? I remember some researchers doing a study on altruism in infants but I never saw the report on how they were able to control certain confounding variables.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Wow D Bokk, I thought that since you were discussing human instincts you would at the very least have a rudimentary understanding of the material.

Boy was I wrong.


Originally posted by D Bokk+--> (D Bokk)What? Disgust is a reaction that isn't the same for every human. [/b]

I'll try to make all of my examples very short and in layman's terms considering the fact that you are completely ignorant of the topic:

The instinct of disgust is what you feel when you see a piece of rotting meat infested with maggots; it's your brain telling you that if you consume the meat you wil probably get very ill or even die is some cases. No human being that doesn't suffer from a neurological disorder will not be disgusted by this example.


"Feeding?" Right

Place a woman's breast to a new born infant for the first time and it will begin to draw milk from the nipple using suction; no one needed to teach the infant this because it relied on its instinct to feed to do it.


Altruism isn't true, you would know this if you ever lived in the West.

The altruism instinct is what drives individuals to rush into traffic to save a toddler that ran into the street to retrieve his ball. Ask them why and they will say "I didn't think, I just rected".


Language was taught/learned, communication could possibly be one - but again this can be related to survival

"Baby Talk" from infants is simply their language instinct being expressed prior to being developed enough to understand and speak the language of the parents.

At a certain stage in development relative to their mental capacity, the infant will suddenly begin to grasp the new language and begin to speak. Usually expressing simple terms relating to their own comfort and needs.

This is why a child's first word is usually "ma ma because she's the one that provides the nipple. Usually this is followed by simple changes in this first word to represent new items; for instance "ba ba" for "bottle".


Other animals use calls to warn their fellows or attract a mate. We only developed language because of our greater intellect

We're not talking about "other animals", we're talking about humans.

In addition, the pre-sapien vocal cords evolved in such a way to facilitate our language instinct as we evolved as a species.

A cat will never be able to communicate in our fashion, no matter what its intellect is; its vocal cords simply cannot produce these sounds.


Everything you list is either relatable to survival/reproduction or mere speculation without any real information to back it up

We call it "science". You should really check it out sometime.


Then you're intentionally trying to be a jackass?

It would be impossible at this point to steal your crown. You have that fucker locked up in a safe guarded by two meathead jerkoffs that also can't comprehend this material.


Greed in the sense of selfishness, the want for merely themselves to survive with no regard for others. This occurs in dire situations and the survivors are not selfless otherwise they'd be dead too.

That's not greed.


I never said greed was part of human nature either, I said 'instance of greed'... maybe I should have put quotes around the word greed so people like you don't have the opportunity to be a jackass?

Go fuck yourself you ignorant little goon; it's not my fault that you spoke out of your ass on a topic that you have little to no knowlege of and were corrected.


And to negate your "addition" animals who don't think will not divide food equally when there's a shortage. They will try to get as much as they can so they can survive.

Once again: we're not talking about animals, we're talking about humans.

Now, if you wanted to be even remotely coherent, you would have said something like: "the instinct of survival is the primary instinct within the human species and can on occasion override other instincts. The capacity for this occurance is dependent on environmental stimui as well the capacity, condition and state of the individual's mentality".

Not that you will even understand what that means. :lol:

Good luck with your ramblings D Bokk, I simply don't have the patience to hold your hand through this; that's what school is for.


Janus
Vinny, could you provide a link or resource for that? I remember some researchers doing a study on altruism in infants but I never saw the report on how they were able to control certain confounding variables.

Instictive human altruism is not a new concept. Try starting with "The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin.

[D_Bokk]

Well damn, the posts got rolled back.

I think my last post was asking the jackass to name one instinct that's cannot be related to: surivial or the enviroment.

[Janus]

Instictive human altruism is not a new concept. Try starting with "The Descent of Man" by Charles Darwin.
All right, thanks.


The altruism instinct is what drives individuals to rush into traffic to save a toddler that ran into the street to retrieve his ball. Ask them why and they will say "I didn't think, I just rected".
But couldn't there be other explanations for that rather than "it's programmed into us"? For example, is there not a certain amount of reinforcement for that type of behavior in society such as prestige, etc.?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by janus
But couldn't there be other explanations for that rather than "it's programmed into us"? For example, is there not a certain amount of reinforcement for that type of behavior in society such as prestige, etc.?


It's amusing to me that so many leftists waste their time with philosophical crap like "couldn't there be other explanations"; simply put, no there are no other explanations.

It's scientific material that has been worked by the most brilliant scientists in their field for generations and never gets refuted.

You can ignore science and reality like young D Bokk here and say shit like "there must be another explanation for apples falling to the ground besides gravity" but you would simply be wrong.

The left has a tendency to attack evolutionary psychology, like RS does, because the right likes to to use obscure theories from monetarily compensated "researchers" to make stabs at Communist thought by making outrageous claims about human nature and Capitalism; much like Ayn Rand did.

The reality is that the real ES scientist completely reject this crap for what it is: absolute nonsense.

There are no human instincts that fundamentaly defy the possibilty of the human species eventually living successfully under Communist principles; the faster that the left understands this the better it will be for all of us.

People like D Bokk "may" eventually "get it" however I'm not going to hold my breath. Considering the absolute absurdness of his views I think that he simply doesn't have the mental capacity to understand it; it just doesn't "make sense" to him and probably never will.

[Dean]

human nature has a few inherant qualities.

for starters, we are survivalists. that seems first and foremost, though our social nature encourages self - sacrifice of various forms - healthy or not. It is wisest to work together to survive, so we have a socially - oriented nature.

This forms a clear basis for communalism, which encourages communal responsibility for communal problems, that being all problems that we as humans face.

A third human nature that I see is a desire for education of the world; this is historically manifested as religion. Feuerbach, in fact, claims that religion is the reflection of the self onto one's world; basically, what you understand and how you respond to the world.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino+--> (Vinny Rafarino)It's scientific material that has been worked by the most brilliant scientists in their field for generations and never gets refuted.

You can ignore science and reality like young D Bokk here and say shit like "there must be another explanation for apples falling to the ground besides gravity" but you would simply be wrong.[/b]
WHAT SCIENCE? If you repeatedly say science backs it up - it doesn't make it any more true. You're a fucking joke. You've added nothing to the topic but claims that "science agrees with me" with absolutely nothing to back it up. And science does get refuted, just look at classical physics and the modern physics.

You still haven't proven me wrong in my claim that survival is the only instinct and maybe curiosity.

Dean
A third human nature that I see is a desire for education of the world; this is historically manifested as religion. Feuerbach, in fact, claims that religion is the reflection of the self onto one's world; basically, what you understand and how you respond to the world.
Never thought about curiosity, but it does seem like it would be a part of human nature since babies are always putting stuff in their mouth, touching stuff and exploring.

[Dyst]

This probably has been said before, but I didn't bother reading everything very well.

There is no such thing as "unnatural". Everything is a part of nature, as nature can mean everything, including humans and human inventions.

Thus nothing that happens can ever be considered "unnatural". Everything happens for a large number of reasons, none which are "better" or more "natural" than others.

[RebelDog]

The only reason people are greedy and selfish is because sometimes its the only road open to people to survive in the capitalist epoch. That says more about this cruel system than it does human nature.
Humans can be evil, greedy, selfish etc. Humans can also be loving, kind, sharing, co-operative, altruistic etc. These are the qualities that will flourish when capitalism is gone and people don't have to compete for their needs. Why be greedy when there is plenty for all? Why wage war when there is nothing to wage it against or for?

There exists no biological reason why libertarian communism cannot be an complete success for the human race and drive us to great things as a global society. There exists many biological, historical and evolutionary reasons to suggest capitalism is a stepping stone to such a society, not the final and greatest manifestation of human civilisation as pro-capitalists love to delude themselves by believing.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by dissenter
The only reason people are greedy and selfish is because sometimes its the only road open to people to survive in the capitalist epoch.

I think the phenomenon is closer related to cultural tradition rather than merely "surviving".

In an environment where the majority of the population is starving, "hoarding food" (an unlikely event in its own right) is by no means a guarantee of longevity. Most induviduals will succomb to disease or some other environmental occurence prior to dying of starvation.

Besides that, the wealthy are no more worried about "survival" then they are about their servant's health yet they still continue to amass more wealth.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 03:44 PM
This probably has been said before, but I didn't bother reading everything very well.

There is no such thing as "unnatural". Everything is a part of nature, as nature can mean everything, including humans and human inventions.

Thus nothing that happens can ever be considered "unnatural". Everything happens for a large number of reasons, none which are "better" or more "natural" than others.
i think the idea is essential, meaning that it is something that is pretty much common to all people and forms the basis for our choice of response to worldy problems. nature means 'inherant quality' as well as it's implied contemporary definition, that is 'of the (sometimes nonhuman) world.' You're right to point out that there is no real difference between man-made world and otherwise, but i don't think that the term was used in the same context as you are speaking of.

[Janus]

It's amusing to me that so many leftists waste their time with philosophical crap like "couldn't there be other explanations"; simply put, no there are no other explanations.
It's not philosophical, it's scientifical. When you examine human nature, you're going to have to be able to account for certain confounding variables such as uprbringing and environment,etc.


You can ignore science and reality like young D Bokk here and say shit like "there must be another explanation for apples falling to the ground besides gravity" but you would simply be wrong.
Well, could you provide some evidence and links that I could look at concerning the scientific evidence for this rather than ranting about some don't accept it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's not philosophical, it's scientifical. When you examine human nature, you're going to have to be able to account for certain confounding variables such as uprbringing and environment,etc.

If by "scientifical" you mean "scientific", you would still be wrong. It's complete philosophical crap.

In addition, "human nature" is not affected by individualistic variables in environmental stimuli.


Well, could you provide some evidence and links that I could look at concerning the scientific evidence for this rather than ranting about some don't accept it.

How about you "link" your ear to a telephone and contact a College admissions agent; either that or "link" your hand to the mouse and navigate over to Google for some independent research.

I'm not your mommy or your proffessor.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by Vinny Rafarino

How about you "link" your ear to a telephone and contact a College admissions agent; either that or "link" your hand to the mouse and navigate over to Google for some independent research.

I'm not your mommy or your proffessor.
How sad. You can't prove your argument, so you want everyone else to do it for you? You seem to have been told all of these "facts" by someone else and are just parroting it.

You sir are a waste of time.

[Janus]

How about you "link" your ear to a telephone and contact a College admissions agent; either that or "link" your hand to the mouse and navigate over to Google for some independent research.

I'm not your mommy or your proffessor.
Calm down. You are the one making authoritative statements, you should back them up.

I was simply asking if you had any helpful links. All you provided me with was the "descent of man".

[Vinny Rafarino]

Calm down. You are the one making authoritative statements, you should back them up.

Homes, what part of "this is remedial material" don't you understand? Do you also need a "link of support" if I stated that human blood contains 5000 to 10000 leukocytes per cubic millimeter? Or that each cubic millimeter of human blood should contain 250000 to 500000 platelet blood cells?

Fucking Google it kid and stop bothering me with this juvenile crap!

[Janus]

Homes, what part of "this is remedial material" don't you understand?
You said that human nature, mainly altruism, existed. I asked how researchers were able to suppress confounding variables in their experiments. Then you called it all philosophical bs.

I have no idea what evidence you're using which is why I asked for a link. You can't just expect people to accept your statements based on your own authority.

So is this what you're talking about here?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

The other stuff I found had to do with altruism in the religious view of it.