Appeal to human nature

[Chestaan]

[Mavorpen]

I...what?

Where did I say the failure of communal societies is due to technological deficiency? I stated that the failure of Marxist societies is partially due to that.

You didn't say "partially due to that", and even then, you need to explain why.

I'm just a simple man who doesn't know the difference between "Marxist" and "communal" societies, you see. I need an explanation.

No. You're not understanding. I'm stating that we've seen failed attempts at implementing Marxism, due to the fact that it requires a certain advancement in technology, which is why Ethal do not see Marxist societies.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

You didn't say "partially due to that", and even then, you need to explain why.

I'm just a simple man who doesn't know the difference between "Marxist" and "communal" societies, you see. I need an explanation.

No. You're not understanding. I'm stating that we've seen failed attempts at implementing Marxism, due to the fact that it requires a certain advancement in technology, which is why Ethal do not see Marxist societies.

That's exactly what I thought you meant. What I'm trying to understand is why it requires a certain advancement in technology. What's the reasoning behind that relationship?

I'm only asking because I'd consider it rather unintuitive.

[Mavorpen]

No. You're not understanding. I'm stating that we've seen failed attempts at implementing Marxism, due to the fact that it requires a certain advancement in technology, which is why Ethal do not see Marxist societies.

That's exactly what I thought you meant. What I'm trying to understand is why it requires a certain advancement in technology. What's the reasoning behind that relationship?

I'm only asking because I'd consider it rather unintuitive.

I have no idea what you're asking.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

That's exactly what I thought you meant. What I'm trying to understand is why it requires a certain advancement in technology. What's the reasoning behind that relationship?

I'm only asking because I'd consider it rather unintuitive.

I have no idea what you're asking.

You claimed that there was a causal relationship between technological advancement and the success of Marxism. I'm asking you to explain why that relationship exists. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

[Mavorpen]

I have no idea what you're asking.

You claimed that there was a causal relationship between technological advancement and the success of Marxism. I'm asking you to explain why that relationship exists. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Because Marxism calls for it to be.

I thought you were asking something else because honestly, this question is extremely silly.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

You claimed that there was a causal relationship between technological advancement and the success of Marxism. I'm asking you to explain why that relationship exists. I don't know how to make it any clearer.

Because Marxism calls for it to be.

I thought you were asking something else because honestly, this question is extremely silly.

That's a superficial answer. What's the logic behind it?

[Mavorpen]

Because Marxism calls for it to be.

I thought you were asking something else because honestly, this question is extremely silly.

That's a superficial answer. What's the logic behind it?

No, it's the correct answer to what you asked.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

That's a superficial answer. What's the logic behind it?

No, it's the correct answer to what you asked.

No, but it is the laziest answer to what I asked.

I'm just asking you to back up your claim with something substantial. Even citing the explanation that Marx gave for asserting that such a relationship exists would be sufficient. I don't see why this is so difficult, unless you really don't know.

[Ethel mermania]

that i think communism in its ideal state would be a good thing?
i have read marx, and i think he has a lot of interesting things to say.
and i have seen the world, and despite the efforts of mnay people i have not seen a true marxist society in action

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.

[Trotskylvania]

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.

For Marx it's pretty simple. If there's not much surplus being produced by society, there's no way to equitably distribute it. So, to even talk about equitable distributions of social surplus, you need advanced levels of productive forces, so you don't have subsistence level production. That means advanced technology, and thus better communication systems as well as higher population densities, which are important to facilitating democracy and egalitarianism.

[Kilobugya]

because i believe in evolution. man is no different than any other species.

Which specie makes art ? Burry their dead ? Walked on the Moon ? Mastered nuclear power ? Have a general purpose language ? Runs the Internet ? Man doesn't have any fundamental difference with other species - but man has such a superior cognitive ability that he is, in fact, way different from all other species. It seems there is a kind of critical threshold, where, when you're above it, you become wholly different. Such phenomena are quite common in nature - just lowers a tiny bit the temperature, and you'll convert water to ice. Just increase a tiny bit the number of uranium in a stack, and you'll make it go BOOM. Just increase a tiny bit the intelligence of apes - and you get general purpose language, art, culture, writing, philosophy, science, Curiosity on Mars and the Internet. And that's way different.

[Ethel mermania]

because i believe in evolution. man is no different than any other species.

Which specie makes art ? Burry their dead ? Walked on the Moon ? Mastered nuclear power ? Have a general purpose language ? Runs the Internet ? Man doesn't have any fundamental difference with other species - but man has such a superior cognitive ability that he is, in fact, way different from all other species. It seems there is a kind of critical threshold, where, when you're above it, you become wholly different. Such phenomena are quite common in nature - just lowers a tiny bit the temperature, and you'll convert water to ice. Just increase a tiny bit the number of uranium in a stack, and you'll make it go BOOM. Just increase a tiny bit the intelligence of apes - and you get general purpose language, art, culture, writing, philosophy, science, Curiosity on Mars and the Internet. And that's way different.

1. elephants and quite a few of the ape family.
2. chimps
3. humans
4. many species have language,

even if you were right, and humans were unique, we are still a prisoners of our evolutionary biology, which is my point

[Ethel mermania]

lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.

For Marx it's pretty simple. If there's not much surplus being produced by society, there's no way to equitably distribute it. So, to even talk about equitable distributions of social surplus, you need advanced levels of productive forces, so you don't have subsistence level production. That means advanced technology, and thus better communication systems as well as higher population densities, which are important to facilitating democracy and egalitarianism.

i did not remember, thanks.

[Kilobugya]

Because that is natural, we have arrived precisely where nature has led us. When mankind starts to tamper with its innerworkings, it becomes artificial.

Natural doesn't mean good, artificial doesn't mean evil. Smallpox is natural. The vaccine that eradicated it is artificial, and is "tempering with humanity innerworkings". And yet it was one of the most wonderful achievement of humanity, and I hope we'll have much more of those.

Who would be choosing what is the best?

But once again, not chosing is chosing ! Chosing to not change is chosing as much as chosing to change is.

Like I stated, humanity will never agree on a set ideology.

Read the OP again, if someone thinks that communism would be wonderful, but can't work with "human mature", then changing human nature is the ethical answer. The question of how many people must agree with a change before we implement it, on how to take the decisions, ... is of course fundamental before taking action, but is secondary to the OP.

If you give a government the technology to alter human nature to support its ideology, it would be quite possible for them to continue altering its citizens nature to support its advancing goals.

The technology will be developped. That's not a question of if, but of when and how. And yes, like with all technologies, there are risks and possibilites of disaster which are on the same scope than the potential benefit. What we have to do is ensure that the best comes out of it, not the worse.

It stands as a possibility that for every change in a human's nature, that another problem would arise to take its place.

In all the possible changes that can be done, all will have problems that will have the same magnitude than what is fixed ? Why for, law of god ? Are the problems created by vaccines anywhere near what they solve ? And anesthesia ? And electricity ?

Thus our individual choice making begins to deteriorate.

Where is the individual choice in act you do out of anger or lust, and then regrets for the rest of your ? Technology has potential to both improve and damage our individual choice making. The question is how to wield it so we have the good, but not the bad.

[Obamacult]

Your diatribe is Orwellian and ridiculous.

First you make an absurd fallacious statement that:

Predictably, you have misunderstood everything about my argument.

What kind of nonsense is this? By your definition it is 'greed' that I engage in trade with someone else in a free, voluntary and peaceful society that makes us both better off or the exchange wouldn't have been undertaken in the first place!

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's nonsense.

For one, I was characterizing a common appeal to human nature argument. You seem to have totally disregarded everything, both in the characterized argument as well as my own response.

Why is that anything that communists want they have to get by coercive means? Why is it that you should have any business meddling in my life and the life of those I trade with in a free, voluntary and peaceful transaction that has nothing to do with you?

See above. For one, you ignored that it is the traditional anti-communist appeal to nature argument that categorically denies that humans can live in a minimally coercive (i.e., communist) society. They attribute this to greed, and that man's rapacious nature will prevent free, voluntary societies.

Mind your own business, moreover if you want to live in a collectivist hell hole anywhere in a free society -- then within a free society you have the right and privilege to do so. Indeed, within a free society all things are possible. I won't tread on you, you don't tread on me. Presumably, if your world view is so effective at producing growth and increased living standards -- then you should welcome a free society in which to practice it and juxtapose its success against the 'squalor and decay' of my capitalist society!!!

Your mistake is believing that private property has anything to do with freedom. Private ownership of the means of production is not conducive to freedom. It is in fact a means by which the bourgeoisie exercise their dictatorship over society. So long as this state of affairs exists, people are not free.

What kind of bullshit is this!

You want to tinker on your brain and physiology, by all means do so, but I advocate freedom from this kind of nonsense. Presumably, you would prefer to make this mandatory and managed by the 'state'?!!

Indeed, where do you come by these barbaric positions?

Public school?

Again, you've charged in here, totally misunderstanding the whole point. The point I was making is that by making the "human nature" argument, you concede the moral correctness of your opponents position, and are left in our modern age, if you want to be internally consistent, with the logic of the argument pushing you to advocating changing human nature.

Communism is a joke.

It is based on a system that discentives merit and rewards sloth. It wouldn't matter how you tinkered with the genetic make-up of a species -- communism would still suck because there is no incentive to work hard since you are not directly rewarded for your effort. Similarly, there is every incentive to kiss ass and/or sit on your ass because you still get an equal portion of an ever diminishing pie.

The only genetic manipulation that will make capitalism as inefficient as any statist system is to make people irrational so they do not respond to societal incentive in a rational and self-interested manner.

INdeed, the genetic engineering that you are proposing would turn man into an automaton who cares little for his self-interest. And why would anyone want to surrender his freedom and his life's goals to satisfy the warped ideological fantasies of some despot?

[Kilobugya]

But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?

When we educate and teach children, they change, to the point they are no longer humans children. Is there no value in childhood ? Humanity as a whole is still in childhood. Very creative children, but still unruly children, who still believe in fairy tales, who spend so much energy showing they are the strongest kid of the block that they let thousands of their own die from hunger and postpone indifinitely the exploration of space. Humanity is improving, slowly, with time. We don't feed people to lions like the romans did. In most of the world, we don't even have the death penalty anymore. In most of the world, we take care of disabled instead of casting them out of the city.

But we still have a lot of growing up to do. And if we can use a bit of genetic engineering or something else to speed up then great. Sure we have to be careful. Very careful. Very very careful. But yet, every passing hour, about one thousand of children die from starvation - while we have the technology to grow food for everyone and more. If by refusing to use genetic engineering we postpone by one year the eradication of starvation, we killed 6 millions of children. That's what the bets are.

[Conserative Morality]

When we educate and teach children, they change, to the point they are no longer humans.

Since when?

Is there no value in childhood ? Humanity as a whole is still in childhood. Very creative children, but still unruly children, who still believe in fairy tales, who spend so much energy showing they are the strongest kid of the block that they let thousands of their own die from hunger and postpone indifinitely the exploration of space. Humanity is improving, slowly, with time. We don't feed people to lions like the romans did. In most of the world, we don't even have the death penalty anymore. In most of the world, we take care of disabled instead of casting them out of the city.

Hm, yes, childhood's end.

But we still have a lot of growing up to do. And if we can use a bit of genetic engineering or something else to speed up then great. Sure we have to be careful. Very careful. Very very careful. But yet, every passing hour, about one thousand of children die from starvation - while we have the technology to grow food for everyone and more. If by refusing to use genetic engineering we postpone by one year the eradication of starvation, we killed 6 millions of children. That's what the bets are.

What part of genetically modifying human beings has to do with starvation?

[Kilobugya]

even if you were right, and humans were unique, we are still a prisoners of our evolutionary biology, which is my point

That's wrong for two reasons. First because "evolutionary biology" is so versatile and wide that there is a huge room of manoeuvre within it, and then because we actually change it (or at least, in the near future, we will be able to). We started to rebel against "evolutionary biology" the day we invented the condom, tousands of years ago. We are no longer its slave, and the more we understand it, the more we understand how to overpower it. Science and reason allow us to escape any prison - the gravity well of Earth as much as evolutionary biology. When you full understand something, you become master of it.

[Mavorpen]

Well...yes. Because these efforts have usually occurred in technologically deficient countries. That's not how Marxism is supposed to work.

lenin would disagree.
as to karl, marx wrote in an industrial age, i think he would accept marxism in a post industrial age. preindustrial, i agree he did not think it possible, but i dont remember why.

Trotsky covered the why already

As for "Lenin would disagree," that is false. Lenin understood that you need a vibrant economy with an advanced technological sector. Russia lacked this. Hence why he relied on an international revolution in other countries already more advanced technologically.

[Kilobugya]

Communism is a joke.

Your strawman of it, sure.

It is based on a system that discentives merit and rewards sloth.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Capitalism is the system of sloth : the capital owner, just by the fact that they are owners, receive most of the produced wealth without having to work. While the ones doing the hardest of work live at barely survival level.

communism would still suck because there is no incentive to work hard since you are not directly rewarded for your effort.

Sure, the factory workers are rewarded for their effort when they are fired because, thanks to the profit made on their work, the boss can now afford the temporary cost of outsourcing. And the miners, have a hard life of work, are rewarded by a quick death due to lung disease.

Communism, in its purest form, doesn't give material reward for effort sure - communism is a system for abundance society. But there are many other forms of reward than material wealth - social position, pride, glory, feeling of being useful, ... Why do so many people volunter in NGO, cleaning beachs after oil spill, helping the eldery, ... ? Because man needs to feel useful. That incentive may not be enough to run the economy now. But one day, we'll have enough technology so very few labor will be required - except the one we do for fun, art, science, ... - and the "feeling useful" feeling will be enough motivation. Education can fasten that. If genetic engineering can too, why not ?

Similarly, there is every incentive to kiss ass and/or sit on your ass because you still get an equal portion of an ever diminishing pie.

Communism never was about giving the same portion to everyone. Communism is "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". There are many way to approximate that - abundance communism is a long-term solution, when technology and mentality will converge to a state where it's possible. In the meanwhile, there is much we can do to get closer to it, without having lower incentive to produce. Actually, it is HARD to get lower incentive to produce than under capitalism, where most of the workers don't see much of the wealth they produce.

The only genetic manipulation that will make capitalism as inefficient as any statist system

Actually, there are many, many domains where "statist systems" are much more efficient than capitalism, without any genetic engineering. But that's not the point of the topic.

is to make people irrational so they do not respond to societal incentive in a rational and self-interested manner.

Rationality is a tool, not a goal. You can rationally try to maximize your own happiness, or you can rationnally try to maximize the one of your family, or of your friends, or of your tribe, or of humanity as a whole.

INdeed, the genetic engineering that you are proposing would turn man into an automaton who cares little for his self-interest.

There is no link between "little care for his self-interest" and "automaton". You can have an automaton that only cares about self-interest. But no one is speaking about people not caring at all for their self-interest. Humans care for a lot of people - for themselves, for their family, for their friends, for their tribe, for humanity as a whole. And depending of their education and environment they'll care more for one or the other. If through education, or through genetic engineering, we can make people care more for humanity as a whole, and a bit less for themselves, and as an outcome have every one having **more** personnal happiness.

And why would anyone want to surrender his freedom and his life's goals to satisfy the warped ideological fantasies of some despot?

There is no need to surrender freedom - quite the opposite, it'll make freedom much more real.

[Kilobugya]

When we educate and teach children, they change, to the point they are no longer humans.

Since when?

Ooops sorry that was a typo, I meant "they are no longer children". Thanks for pointing it, I edited my post.

Hm, yes, childhood's end.

Sorry I don't get the reference.

What part of genetically modifying human beings has to do with starvation?

Lowering aggression and selfishness, improving cooperation, altruism and long-term planning. Or improving intelligence.

[Mavorpen]

Communism is a joke.

It is based on a system that discentives merit and rewards sloth.

According to...?

It wouldn't matter how you tinkered with the genetic make-up of a species -- communism would still suck because there is no incentive to work hard since you are not directly rewarded for your effort. Similarly, there is every incentive to kiss ass and/or sit on your ass because you still get an equal portion of an ever diminishing pie.

Several things wrong here.

1) You assume the profit motive is the only motive that provides incentive to work, an assumption that is wholly unfounded in reality. Humans have a natural drive for knowledge and curiosity, as one would expect from a social animal capable of higher order thinking. There's also the value motive, which retains a sense of profit while at the same time eliminating the detrimental effects of a system driven solely by the profit motive.

2) The notion that you can contribute nothing and get something is not even a core belief among communists. Hell, of the communist-like communes that we have observed, rarely do we see such a thing occur. This is just one example:

Anthropologists have recounted the societies of communities such as pygmy tribesman, who live in very similar ways to our ancestors. One of these tribesman lived by the belief that selfishness is of the highest morality. The man, Cephu, was actually stealing the meat hunted collectively by his fellow tribesman.

At an impromptu trial, Cephu defended himself with arguments for individual initiative and personal responsibility. “He felt he deserved a better place in the line of nets,” [the anthropologist Colin] Turnbull wrote. “After all, was he not an important man, a chief, in fact, of his own band?” But if that were the case, replied a respected member of the camp, Cephu should leave and never return. The Mbuti have no chiefs, they are a society of equals in which redistribution governs everyone’s livelihood. The rest of the camp sat in silent agreement.

Faced with banishment, a punishment nearly equivalent to a death sentence, Cephu relented.

The only genetic manipulation that will make capitalism as inefficient as any statist system is to make people irrational so they do not respond to societal incentive in a rational and self-interested manner.

What does statism have to do with anything in this thread? Please keep your, "TAXES R EBUL!" nonsense in appropriate threads please.

INdeed, the genetic engineering that you are proposing would turn man into an automaton who cares little for his self-interest. And why would anyone want to surrender his freedom and his life's goals to satisfy the warped ideological fantasies of some despot?

Actually, we wouldn't have to try very hard, since humans are extremely altruistic at the youngest ages, and seem to only grow more selfish and greedy as they age, due to being forced to live in a system that rewards greed and doesn't focus nearly enough on helping others.

[Conserative Morality]

Ooops sorry that was a typo, I meant "they are no longer children". Thanks for pointing it, I edited my post.

That makes a little more sense, but most see childishness as a phase that should be moved past; few see humanity in the same manner.

Sorry I don't get the reference.

Childhood's End is a science fiction novel in which all of mankind is 'uplifted' into being a part of a universal hive mind over a matter of generations, under the guise of improving themselves and their society.

Lowering aggression and selfishness,

Putting the genetic 'freaks' at a major advantage in this brave new world...

improving cooperation, altruism and long-term planning.

Humans are already pretty good at those three things.

Or improving intelligence.

Intelligence is not a stat which can have it's numbers improved. Do you mean memory? Information retention?

[Norstal]

But should we change human nature? At what point would such changes render us something other than human? Is there no value in being human?

This is a gotcha argument. I don't accept any of the premises. It has no other purpose than to make the people who do accept the premises by making appeals to human nature feel uncomfortable and contemplate their navels.

Oh, well, I guess I'll just copy and paste your post whenever someone makes that fallacy then. Thanks, I guess?