C.C., I can't agree that greed is human nature. Anthropologists will tell you that H. Sapiens Sapiens are hyper social primates - our innate nature is to help each other and share. If it wasn't our ancestors would not have survived and we wouldn't be here.
Greed is soiciopathic behavior and as such, an aberration.
Greed, jelousy, need for higher social status, etc. all these are natural human behaviors/emotions.
Is there any way to prove/disprove that greed is NOT natural to human psychology? (Remember, anthropology is an inexact science and we are always discovering more about our past - and there is much disagreement amongst anthropologists concerning evolutionary psychology and human behavior).
Some, myself included, would say that the fact that the human race has survived this long is proof.
To borrow from 'The Descent Of Woman' by Elaine Morgan, our pre - hominid ancestors - Australopithecus Afarensis - weren't armoured, did not have fangs and claws to fend off hungry predators and couldn't run fast enough to escape them. They survived by banding together and living and working co-operatively.
Given that we still have a vestigial tail and a vestigial appendix, it seems quite reasonable to surmise we have retained characteristics of far more value.
Keep in mind too,that a lack of evidence is not proof of the negative. Can you prove there's not a teapot in orbit around the Earth?
Meanwhile, most science is inexact. Anybody seen Schrodingers' Cat?
Exactly (in reference to the teapot and Schrodingers' Cat). Multiple theories. No concrete proof. No hypothesis to be nullified (scientifically speaking).
There are theories that greed is innate. There are other theories that greed is not innate. Does anyone know for sure? Why are we arguing about something that we cannot be sure about?
Greed is innate in some individuals, but that doesn't make it less psychopathic. (The definitions have probably changed over the years, but originally a "sociopath" was merely a repeat criminal, driven to repeat criminal behavior, whereas a "psychopath" need not be a lawbreaker, but was born devoid of empathy and would strive to serve only himself while feigning concern for other humans. I prefer to stick to the original meanings of these words.)
Any scientific evidence that "greed" is not innate? Any definite consensus amongst anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists?
Who decides what human behaviors/emotions are natural or not? On what criteria? Does anyone know for sure? The manifestation of GREED is present in the oldest of stories/myths of mankind (way before the Bible).
It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate. Hypocrisy much?
There is evidence of altruism and social cooperation going back to Australopithecus afarensis. Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards.
>>"It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate"
Yes, I agree - you caught me :)
I am not contesting anything you said about evidence for "altruism" or "social cooperation".
I'm saying, is there ANY evidence/proof that "greed" is NOT natural (or for that matter that it IS natural)? Can this assertion be debated conclusively? Where does that leave us?
>>"Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards."
One can be altruistic at times and also greedy at other times. These emotions/behaviors are NOT mutually exclusive. Just like one can be good at times and bad at other times.
I would think that in a small community like a hunter-gatherer tribe, anyone showing too much selfishness and greed would be, er, sacrificed to the gods.
Read the Upanishads! The Vedantists etc We westerners only know maybe 10% of what we are and what we are capable of achieving. With an “illuminated heart” one has “eyes that can see” “ ears that can hear” and a compassionate will that can really help people to wake up to their capacity for real wisdom!
The problem I have with historical texts (especially older ones) is the accuracy of them. When the written word was rare (and when most of history was passed through word of mouth), there is much subjectivity (and changes for unconscious errors) to creep in. Also, history was often written by the victors and the elite/upper-classes through most of human existence.
What we "think we know" may be quite different from reality (if only we had time-machines). Archeology and anthropology helps, but there's only so much we can ascertain...
Totally agree. There are individuals, philanthropists who lack greed altogether. Also there are layers to greed. I know many who are content with a modest lifestyle, and for whom re-using/repurposing old items brings more joy than buying new. Some persons are driven by fear of destitution rather than primarily greed to acquire and hoard wealth.
"Greed is a PART of human behavior".... and human behavior is the result of survival needs, which makes greed take a back seat to optimal survival conditions. In answer to a question as to his desire to earn more billions, Ted Turner once said that he would never be poor.... or something close to that effect... implying that in his mind, 3 o4 billion bucks weren't quite enough to satisfy his fears... Was it greed, or feeling more secure??
I'm not American but one of my American political heroes was Huey P. long with his slogan 'Every man a king'. He proposed that once anyone had more than a million dollars, the Govt should tax their brains out.
Do you know what was the resulting effect? Corporations paid MORE to employees and invested more in "research & development". They decided that instead of paying MORE to the Govt. in taxes, might as well PAY EMPLOYEES MORE and increase productivity.
These days, all the money/profits goes into STOCK BUYBACKS and artificially increasing stock prices and pay packages of "upper management", CEOs, and Board Members.
BTW, this is JUST ONE example of how incentives can work. There are many more throughout history.
It was called "The Red Scare" for a reason. There was NO REAL THREAT - it was a manufactured narrative - Communists (and they were NOT Communists in reality - Stalin NEVER was) were not going to destroy and conquer the Americas. It was geopolitics, empire games, and Capitalism.
>>"at the discretion of bankers, paid employees more during a time period when - rightly or wrongly - a second or alternative system was still out there in the world"
Seriously? Is that the narrative you CHOOSE to believe? That there was REAL Communism? And that it was a REAL threat?
I suggest studying American economic history to understand the motivations behind different policies (and the resulting changes in socio-economic classes) rather than believing false narratives propagated by the Capitalists.
What exactly do you want to compare? Whether the threat of Communism was real or not? Or about US Economic history. Or whether Soviet Communism was real Communism? (it was not - real communism has NEVER existed anywhere in the world - it has been a theory that has been badly implemented by authoritarians and others).
How does "killing hope" figure into this discussion? The US was NOT fighting Communism (which never existed) - it was fighting an alternative system to Capitalism. Yes, many people will disagree with the definition of Communism - does ANYONE know how it would really work in real life? i.e. the knitty-gritty details and how the economic system would work? Not even Marx knew - he wrote 3 volumes (actually 6) on how Capitalism works (Das Kapital and Theories of Surplus Value).
>>"It's not about incentivizing stuff; it's about disincentivizing the manifestations of greed for greed's sake"
Suggestions? Examples? Incentives (and disincentives) are created (through various policies) to manifest desirable behaviors (and changes in behaviors).
Example: Increase TAX on smoking to disincentivize the behavior.
Similarly, create policies that disincentivize behaviors that lead to excess greed.
>>"Do you even know what DROVE the economic successes for the middle and upper middle classes in the US during that time period, including 1968?"
There are MULTIPLE reasons.
>>"It was the heavy government subsidization of science, manufacturing and technology SPECIFICALLY to counter the "red menace" during the Cold War"
Is that your theory/intuition? Without falling into the "correlation is causation" trap, how would you justify that line of reasoning?
At the end of WW2, the US had excess production capacity, strong manufacturing base, and a healthy and unharmed economy (unlike Europe, Soviet Union, Japan, etc.). This is when consumerism kicked into high gear and the "American Dream" was a reality (for white folk). Taxes HAD to be increased to fight inflation. That increase in taxes (including personal tax rates and high interest rates) incentivized certain behaviors.
"Criminalizing Greed" makes NO SENSE whatsoever. Greed is a PART of human behavior and psychology. It is innate.
What needs to happen is to CHANGE the INCENTIVES for encouraging and discouraging different behaviors, and CHANGE the systems.
C.C., I can't agree that greed is human nature. Anthropologists will tell you that H. Sapiens Sapiens are hyper social primates - our innate nature is to help each other and share. If it wasn't our ancestors would not have survived and we wouldn't be here.
Greed is soiciopathic behavior and as such, an aberration.
Greed, jelousy, need for higher social status, etc. all these are natural human behaviors/emotions.
Is there any way to prove/disprove that greed is NOT natural to human psychology? (Remember, anthropology is an inexact science and we are always discovering more about our past - and there is much disagreement amongst anthropologists concerning evolutionary psychology and human behavior).
Some, myself included, would say that the fact that the human race has survived this long is proof.
To borrow from 'The Descent Of Woman' by Elaine Morgan, our pre - hominid ancestors - Australopithecus Afarensis - weren't armoured, did not have fangs and claws to fend off hungry predators and couldn't run fast enough to escape them. They survived by banding together and living and working co-operatively.
Given that we still have a vestigial tail and a vestigial appendix, it seems quite reasonable to surmise we have retained characteristics of far more value.
Keep in mind too,that a lack of evidence is not proof of the negative. Can you prove there's not a teapot in orbit around the Earth?
Meanwhile, most science is inexact. Anybody seen Schrodingers' Cat?
Exactly (in reference to the teapot and Schrodingers' Cat). Multiple theories. No concrete proof. No hypothesis to be nullified (scientifically speaking).
There are theories that greed is innate. There are other theories that greed is not innate. Does anyone know for sure? Why are we arguing about something that we cannot be sure about?
This isn't an argument: )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ
Love the clip!
This. Empathy, altruism and social cooperation are innate. Greed is sociopathic.
Greed is innate in some individuals, but that doesn't make it less psychopathic. (The definitions have probably changed over the years, but originally a "sociopath" was merely a repeat criminal, driven to repeat criminal behavior, whereas a "psychopath" need not be a lawbreaker, but was born devoid of empathy and would strive to serve only himself while feigning concern for other humans. I prefer to stick to the original meanings of these words.)
Any scientific evidence that "greed" is not innate? Any definite consensus amongst anthropologists or evolutionary psychologists?
Who decides what human behaviors/emotions are natural or not? On what criteria? Does anyone know for sure? The manifestation of GREED is present in the oldest of stories/myths of mankind (way before the Bible).
It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate. Hypocrisy much?
There is evidence of altruism and social cooperation going back to Australopithecus afarensis. Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards.
Why would greed be less innate than altruism?
>>"It's pretty rich of you to demand scientific evidence that greed is not innate, when you provided no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that greed IS innate"
Yes, I agree - you caught me :)
I am not contesting anything you said about evidence for "altruism" or "social cooperation".
I'm saying, is there ANY evidence/proof that "greed" is NOT natural (or for that matter that it IS natural)? Can this assertion be debated conclusively? Where does that leave us?
>>"Altruistic people who are socially cooperative don't tend to be the greedy bastards."
One can be altruistic at times and also greedy at other times. These emotions/behaviors are NOT mutually exclusive. Just like one can be good at times and bad at other times.
I would think that in a small community like a hunter-gatherer tribe, anyone showing too much selfishness and greed would be, er, sacrificed to the gods.
Read the Upanishads! The Vedantists etc We westerners only know maybe 10% of what we are and what we are capable of achieving. With an “illuminated heart” one has “eyes that can see” “ ears that can hear” and a compassionate will that can really help people to wake up to their capacity for real wisdom!
The problem I have with historical texts (especially older ones) is the accuracy of them. When the written word was rare (and when most of history was passed through word of mouth), there is much subjectivity (and changes for unconscious errors) to creep in. Also, history was often written by the victors and the elite/upper-classes through most of human existence.
What we "think we know" may be quite different from reality (if only we had time-machines). Archeology and anthropology helps, but there's only so much we can ascertain...
Totally agree. There are individuals, philanthropists who lack greed altogether. Also there are layers to greed. I know many who are content with a modest lifestyle, and for whom re-using/repurposing old items brings more joy than buying new. Some persons are driven by fear of destitution rather than primarily greed to acquire and hoard wealth.
"Greed is a PART of human behavior".... and human behavior is the result of survival needs, which makes greed take a back seat to optimal survival conditions. In answer to a question as to his desire to earn more billions, Ted Turner once said that he would never be poor.... or something close to that effect... implying that in his mind, 3 o4 billion bucks weren't quite enough to satisfy his fears... Was it greed, or feeling more secure??
I'm not American but one of my American political heroes was Huey P. long with his slogan 'Every man a king'. He proposed that once anyone had more than a million dollars, the Govt should tax their brains out.
Needless to say, he was assassinated.
I think it was “delusion” !
>>"It would be easy to outlaw the most blatant manifestations of greed in the economy, healthcare and government."
Nope - not do-able. Greed has existed since humans have existed (regardless of economic or social system).
Q. How would you outlaw greed? Or happiness or sadness or love or hate or anger? These are BASIC human emotions.
These BASIC human emotions can be controlled by changing INCENTIVES (i.e. profit motive, etc.).
Here is one example: Increase corporate TAXES. The Corporate taxes in the US in 1968 reached 52.80% (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/historical-corporate-tax-rates-brackets/).
Do you know what was the resulting effect? Corporations paid MORE to employees and invested more in "research & development". They decided that instead of paying MORE to the Govt. in taxes, might as well PAY EMPLOYEES MORE and increase productivity.
These days, all the money/profits goes into STOCK BUYBACKS and artificially increasing stock prices and pay packages of "upper management", CEOs, and Board Members.
BTW, this is JUST ONE example of how incentives can work. There are many more throughout history.
>>"...the "threat" of Soviet communism..."
It was called "The Red Scare" for a reason. There was NO REAL THREAT - it was a manufactured narrative - Communists (and they were NOT Communists in reality - Stalin NEVER was) were not going to destroy and conquer the Americas. It was geopolitics, empire games, and Capitalism.
>>"at the discretion of bankers, paid employees more during a time period when - rightly or wrongly - a second or alternative system was still out there in the world"
Seriously? Is that the narrative you CHOOSE to believe? That there was REAL Communism? And that it was a REAL threat?
I suggest studying American economic history to understand the motivations behind different policies (and the resulting changes in socio-economic classes) rather than believing false narratives propagated by the Capitalists.
What exactly do you want to compare? Whether the threat of Communism was real or not? Or about US Economic history. Or whether Soviet Communism was real Communism? (it was not - real communism has NEVER existed anywhere in the world - it has been a theory that has been badly implemented by authoritarians and others).
How does "killing hope" figure into this discussion? The US was NOT fighting Communism (which never existed) - it was fighting an alternative system to Capitalism. Yes, many people will disagree with the definition of Communism - does ANYONE know how it would really work in real life? i.e. the knitty-gritty details and how the economic system would work? Not even Marx knew - he wrote 3 volumes (actually 6) on how Capitalism works (Das Kapital and Theories of Surplus Value).
>>"It's not about incentivizing stuff; it's about disincentivizing the manifestations of greed for greed's sake"
Suggestions? Examples? Incentives (and disincentives) are created (through various policies) to manifest desirable behaviors (and changes in behaviors).
Example: Increase TAX on smoking to disincentivize the behavior.
Similarly, create policies that disincentivize behaviors that lead to excess greed.
>>"Do you even know what DROVE the economic successes for the middle and upper middle classes in the US during that time period, including 1968?"
There are MULTIPLE reasons.
>>"It was the heavy government subsidization of science, manufacturing and technology SPECIFICALLY to counter the "red menace" during the Cold War"
Is that your theory/intuition? Without falling into the "correlation is causation" trap, how would you justify that line of reasoning?
At the end of WW2, the US had excess production capacity, strong manufacturing base, and a healthy and unharmed economy (unlike Europe, Soviet Union, Japan, etc.). This is when consumerism kicked into high gear and the "American Dream" was a reality (for white folk). Taxes HAD to be increased to fight inflation. That increase in taxes (including personal tax rates and high interest rates) incentivized certain behaviors.
Maybe I misunderstood what you meant? Can we try again?