Human nature

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

A simple question--do you think that human nature has changed since man was created (evolved) in our present form?

The pessimistic answer is "no"; humans are still in thrall to the same emotions, fears, appetites and motivations that have dominated us since the dawn of history. The pessimist would point to the ongoing savagery that continues undiminished in spite of continuous advances in science, technology and art.

The optimist might say "yes"; we are a more civilized animal than ever. Look at the complicated, interactive, cooperative world civilization that we have built. Yes, our savagery is still all too manifest but through the "collective unconsciousness", each generation is more informed and more civilized than the previous one (statistically, anyhow). Whereas our physiological evolution has not changed in tens of thousands of years, our ethical evolution continues to advance, albeit slowly and with setbacks.

What do you think? Does human nature change or are we essentially the same critter that we have always been?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 14, 2001

Answers

If human nature was capable of changing, then you wouldn't be supporting the GOP, which is destroying our planet. You wouldn't be in support of new nuclear power plants and oil drilling and burning.

If YOUR OWN human nature was capable of change, you'd be capable of seeing that service to the planet is greater than self-service, the mantra of the GOP. The GOP "savagery is still too manifest" and I don't see that you and your GOP friends are any more "informed and civilized" than previous ones -- on the contrary, your pro-pollution politics are anti-rational.

Your politics evince a lack of self-respect or protection one might feel for oneself, one's neighbor, and one's environment. I don't call that evolution, but devolution and the willful destruction of our home and species.

-- So Much for Your Philosophy (gop@hypocrite.com), May 14, 2001.


SIN is alive & well ,on planet earth!

sure will be wonderful-when the END is finally here!!

in the meantime--don,t be suprised by the evil in mens heart's.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 14, 2001.


SMFYP--

So your answer to my question is "no"?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 14, 2001.


Lars-- If Plato, Socrates, Shakespeare be our guides, no, human nature has not changed. In regard to the complexity of today's society, it's just a matter of conditioning and training. Again, constants in human nature. Thin veneer.

I happen to believe that Western Civilization *has* collapsed if music, art, culture, language, philosophy, government, and civility are indicators of the civilized state. It has occured gradually-- as the process at the end of the Roman Empire did as well.

BTW SMFYP-- you go, girl. At least, now, more people are speaking out. Unfortunately, the crime-- the unpardonable sin of selling our birthright to the highest bidder-- is not limited to one party.

-- Miss Ann Thrope (random@thoughts.com), May 14, 2001.


My answer all depends on whether you count culture as part of human nature. If you mean the kind of human nature that is encoded in our genes and drives our innate behavior, then it is pretty certain in my mind that "human nature" of that sort has not changed in the 120,000 some odd years since homo sapiens sapiens first evolved.

But humans developed this odd thing called culture, based first and foremost on our ability to transmit learned behavior across many generations. Culture has an imperfect grip on our nature, because it requires our consent. Culture also shrewdly makes use of our innate nature to reinforce itself, so it maximizes the chances of wringing that consent from us. It can be as simple as using our fear of punishment to enforce the law, or as sophisticated as a cathedral window to enhance our belief in the sublimity of god.

So, if you count learned cultural effects as part of "human nature", then I am equally certain that our expressed nature does change and evolve. The animal layer that sits underneath the cultural layer ensures we don't change all that radically, but the accumulation of cultural behavior ensures we evolve much faster than most animals ever could through genes alone.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 14, 2001.



Very well put, Nipper. I totally agree with your answer.

-- CD (costavike@hotmail.com), May 14, 2001.

LN--

Viva! We agree for a change. What you call "culture" is what I called "collective unconsciousness" (a little Jungianism there).

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), May 14, 2001.


Miss Thrope: "I happen to believe that Western Civilization *has* collapsed... "

On my bad days, I am tempted to agree with you.

Brave New World is shot through with flaws and has a silly plot, but there is something very canny and profoundly true about Huxley's vision of how the rulers of the world would eventually choose to use shallow mass pleasures and mental vacuuity to pacify the masses. But a rough justice prevails. After the cultural well has been poisoned the children of the powerful come along and drink their fill.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 14, 2001.


Little Nipper-- Culture as "expression" of human nature-- evolving over time. Good. Very, very good. It is the correct response to the complexity of Lars' question. I'm impressed.

Meantime-- bring on the rough justice!

-- Miss Ann Thrope (random@thoughts.com), May 15, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ