I don't agree that greed and power seeking are human nature. I think people are taught that what is important in life is money and power. Those people are the ones who don't see the importance of the natural world and they don't see or care that their greed and powermongering are destroying the entire planet and everything on it, including themselves. They have learned this from the greedy powermongers who came before them. They were not born with it. Look at the babies around you. Are they greedy and seeking power over anyone else?
Ah yes, we can excavate deeply into nature/nurture arguments. I would just offer that no one really has figured out just how disposed the primate neocortex is toward power hierarchies and their scaling by any means necessary. As a biologist, I reserve judgment. As I human, myself, if I'm naturally anything, it's skeptical of the various powder kegs that my species seems to want to play with in full recognition of potential disastrous consequences.
I have noticed that people most often say that it is "just human nature" when someone is aggressive or power seeking. I do not remember hearing the term used when people do acts of kindness.
Susan - acts of kindness become natural to you/me/others when someone has first visited acts of kindness upon us. It's not a genetically inherited trait, in my observation, it's the effect of particular environmental conditions.
For the more fortunate, this occurs young in a family, so they think it is 'natural', 'human nature', because it was their parents doing it to them.
That doesn't happen for every infant, though. There's plenty of studies showing what happens e.g. in orphanages.
You will also find that the propensity of men to hit women is increased amongst those who were physically abused as children. Just as children abused sexually tend to seek out abusers as partners when adults, for some reason that most people wish could be easily reversed.
Human nature in general is learned, although there are genetic predispositions involved too.
Some of us learned far more human kindness than we learned dominant power games. Others learned to manipulate, to coerce.
Our human nature usually results from what we happened to experience in the first 35 years of our lives.
Tribalism, selfishness, hunger for power, aggression, and greed are well known entities, present in human nature and corroborated by our long history. This what drives behavior, if you wish to split hairs.
I don't think people are either kind or cruel as part of "human nature". I think most of us underestimate our ability to learn. If anything is part of human nature, it is that ability to learn how to behave. The behaviour itself, whether positive or negative, is an aspect of our ability to learn. Who knows what is actually in our "nature"?
Sure, but that doesn't contradict or challenge the existence of human nature. No amount of learning can control the power of passionate outbursts when conditions arise. And they will in everyone's lifetime.
Alcohol and drugs are among means to subdue those. People using/abusing them often don't realize they help controllers quite a bit. Instead they should channel them into something productive. But again, that's in an ideal world which this one isn't and never will be.
In a sense you're treating the neuroendocrine system as a probabilistic complex dynamical system with bifurcation points. Perfectly valid, but still skirts the question of the limits of that system's operational parameters; or as Susan frames it: 'Who knows what is actually in our "nature"?'
I would not contradict or challenge the existence of human nature. I only question some of the behaviours that people excuse or dismiss as being human nature. I don't know what is actually human nature any more than you do.
Susan - ultimately there is no right answer to 'how much is enough'? I know that I felt a great visceral sense of achievement when I earned enough as a sole trader to upgrade my ICT suite, to pay for a nice 2 week holiday. I felt similar when I won a £50k contract working for an SME.
At some point most people say: 'OK, this much is enough'. The fact remains, however, that those left in the game are still saying 'More, more, more'.
Who decides where the ceiling is to be set?
It's a question with huge ramifications for society, you know.
humans start learning early. Still, 2 year olds are surviving, not seeking to have power over others. Adults who think 2 year olds are power tripping need some help themselves.
Two year olds are learning how far the word 'NO!' goes. They test the limits of what they can do to get their way. Throwing tantrums in the supermarket, refusing to eat the food at table, refusing to go to bed on time etc etc.
I don't agree that greed and power seeking are human nature. I think people are taught that what is important in life is money and power. Those people are the ones who don't see the importance of the natural world and they don't see or care that their greed and powermongering are destroying the entire planet and everything on it, including themselves. They have learned this from the greedy powermongers who came before them. They were not born with it. Look at the babies around you. Are they greedy and seeking power over anyone else?
Ah yes, we can excavate deeply into nature/nurture arguments. I would just offer that no one really has figured out just how disposed the primate neocortex is toward power hierarchies and their scaling by any means necessary. As a biologist, I reserve judgment. As I human, myself, if I'm naturally anything, it's skeptical of the various powder kegs that my species seems to want to play with in full recognition of potential disastrous consequences.
I have noticed that people most often say that it is "just human nature" when someone is aggressive or power seeking. I do not remember hearing the term used when people do acts of kindness.
Susan - acts of kindness become natural to you/me/others when someone has first visited acts of kindness upon us. It's not a genetically inherited trait, in my observation, it's the effect of particular environmental conditions.
For the more fortunate, this occurs young in a family, so they think it is 'natural', 'human nature', because it was their parents doing it to them.
That doesn't happen for every infant, though. There's plenty of studies showing what happens e.g. in orphanages.
You will also find that the propensity of men to hit women is increased amongst those who were physically abused as children. Just as children abused sexually tend to seek out abusers as partners when adults, for some reason that most people wish could be easily reversed.
Human nature in general is learned, although there are genetic predispositions involved too.
Some of us learned far more human kindness than we learned dominant power games. Others learned to manipulate, to coerce.
Our human nature usually results from what we happened to experience in the first 35 years of our lives.
The dark side of human nature is a fact, not an excuse.
Marci: It seems to me you are talking about human behaviour. Human nature is a kind of unknown entity, really.
Tribalism, selfishness, hunger for power, aggression, and greed are well known entities, present in human nature and corroborated by our long history. This what drives behavior, if you wish to split hairs.
Because it's assumed that people are by nature kind, caring etc. So it feels redundant to say that.
Cruelty etc are assumed not to be part of a human nature when viewed idealistically. The expression is used as a reminder therefore.
I don't think people are either kind or cruel as part of "human nature". I think most of us underestimate our ability to learn. If anything is part of human nature, it is that ability to learn how to behave. The behaviour itself, whether positive or negative, is an aspect of our ability to learn. Who knows what is actually in our "nature"?
Sure, but that doesn't contradict or challenge the existence of human nature. No amount of learning can control the power of passionate outbursts when conditions arise. And they will in everyone's lifetime.
Alcohol and drugs are among means to subdue those. People using/abusing them often don't realize they help controllers quite a bit. Instead they should channel them into something productive. But again, that's in an ideal world which this one isn't and never will be.
In a sense you're treating the neuroendocrine system as a probabilistic complex dynamical system with bifurcation points. Perfectly valid, but still skirts the question of the limits of that system's operational parameters; or as Susan frames it: 'Who knows what is actually in our "nature"?'
I would not contradict or challenge the existence of human nature. I only question some of the behaviours that people excuse or dismiss as being human nature. I don't know what is actually human nature any more than you do.
Susan - ultimately there is no right answer to 'how much is enough'? I know that I felt a great visceral sense of achievement when I earned enough as a sole trader to upgrade my ICT suite, to pay for a nice 2 week holiday. I felt similar when I won a £50k contract working for an SME.
At some point most people say: 'OK, this much is enough'. The fact remains, however, that those left in the game are still saying 'More, more, more'.
Who decides where the ceiling is to be set?
It's a question with huge ramifications for society, you know.
Skip the babies; look at a room full of 2-year olds. Then, yes.
humans start learning early. Still, 2 year olds are surviving, not seeking to have power over others. Adults who think 2 year olds are power tripping need some help themselves.
Two year olds are learning how far the word 'NO!' goes. They test the limits of what they can do to get their way. Throwing tantrums in the supermarket, refusing to eat the food at table, refusing to go to bed on time etc etc.