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.
Maybe. But it's more complex than that. What about between tribes (when it comes to trading, for example)? One can think of many scenarios where there would have been a chance for greed to arise (think survival - i.e. being surrepticiously greedy for the purposes of survival, etc.)
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...
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.
Maybe. But it's more complex than that. What about between tribes (when it comes to trading, for example)? One can think of many scenarios where there would have been a chance for greed to arise (think survival - i.e. being surrepticiously greedy for the purposes of survival, etc.)
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...