Appeal to human nature

[Kilobugya]

Who is to say that those 'loving, caring brains' are doing the right thing.

And who is to say evolution did the right thing and there is nothing to change ?

Would they have the right to speak for humanity as a whole? I highly doubt that everyone in the world would find a certain ideology the only perfect way to go. Like I said, someone's perfect utopia is another's living hell. Even nations cannot agree on the best way to govern themselves, let alone humanity choose a method to govern itself.

Accepting a change or refusing a change is just choosing between two alternatives, exactly like if we had to chose between two different changes. You can't say "we don't have a perfect decision making mechanism, so we don't change anything". Because that's taking a decision, which is the product of an equally imperfect decision taking mechanism.

The only thing valid in your argumentation is that we've to be careful, to evaluate carefully the different alternatives, do our best so we don't forget any and we don't underestimate the consequences of any. And then, we'll have to chose, using an imperfect decision making, because anyway we have to chose. Refusing to chose is making a choice in favor of status quo, in favor of the blind, careless, bloody cruel evolution - and if there is something to be sure of, it's that evolution just couldn't make us optimal.

[Ethel mermania]

how about animal nature then?

may mammals try and conserve energy as much as possible. if another animal hunts and kills, many animals will chase the killer away and take the spoils for little work.

we are biologically programmed to be lazy selfish shits...

The why do people do voluntary and charitable works? Why do they pursue education that won't necessarily further their career? Why do they seek promotions that won't necessarily give more power or money?

We do have a 'lazy selfish shit' nature, but we also have an altruistic pragmatist nature, and a drive to do things just for the sake of doing them. And both are valid survival characteristics.

All you've got to do is shape the expression of those 'natures' - to create the balance you want.

how do you "shape" those natures?

[Mavorpen]

how about animal nature then?

may mammals try and conserve energy as much as possible. if another animal hunts and kills, many animals will chase the killer away and take the spoils for little work.

we are biologically programmed to be lazy selfish shits, which is the anthesis of what is required for a true communist society.

i too buy into the theory of the nobility of communism, and the utter impossiblity of it working.

I'm not sure why you're applying something from other mammals onto humans.

[Ethel mermania]

how about animal nature then?

may mammals try and conserve energy as much as possible. if another animal hunts and kills, many animals will chase the killer away and take the spoils for little work.

we are biologically programmed to be lazy selfish shits, which is the anthesis of what is required for a true communist society.

i too buy into the theory of the nobility of communism, and the utter impossiblity of it working.

I'm not sure why you're applying something from other mammals onto humans.

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

[Reichsland]

Who is to say that those 'loving, caring brains' are doing the right thing.

And who is to say evolution did the right thing and there is nothing to change ?

Would they have the right to speak for humanity as a whole? I highly doubt that everyone in the world would find a certain ideology the only perfect way to go. Like I said, someone's perfect utopia is another's living hell. Even nations cannot agree on the best way to govern themselves, let alone humanity choose a method to govern itself.

Accepting a change or refusing a change is just choosing between two alternatives, exactly like if we had to chose between two different changes. You can't say "we don't have a perfect decision making mechanism, so we don't change anything". Because that's taking a decision, which is the product of an equally imperfect decision taking mechanism.

The only thing valid in your argumentation is that we've to be careful, to evaluate carefully the different alternatives, do our best so we don't forget any and we don't underestimate the consequences of any. And then, we'll have to chose, using an imperfect decision making, because anyway we have to chose. Refusing to chose is making a choice in favor of status quo, in favor of the blind, careless, bloody cruel evolution - and if there is something to be sure of, it's that evolution just couldn't make us optimal.

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

Who would be choosing what is the best? Like I stated, humanity will never agree on a set ideology. Our imperfect nature is what gives shape to various methods of rule. Also, what standard is there to say what a 'optimal human' is? 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. It stands as a possibility that for every change in a human's nature, that another problem would arise to take its place.

Say that a population supports communism due to changes in their nature. On the other side, a population supports capitalism. They are opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Thus they might find themselves hating each others ideology. Hate is a trait found in human nature. If each government decided to erase hate, then it it would be just a short step before they are dictating what humans like and hate. Thus our individual choice making begins to deteriorate.

[Free Soviets]

itt: approximately no one catches the philosophical move trots made.

[Reichsland]

itt: approximately no one catches the philosophical move trots made.

Enilighten me

[Ethel mermania]

itt: approximately no one catches the philosophical move trots made.

catches or accepts?

[Free Soviets]

itt: approximately no one catches the philosophical move trots made.

catches or accepts?

catches

[The Joseon Dynasty]

catches or accepts?

catches

Explain what it is everyone missed, then.

[Norstal]

how about animal nature then?

may mammals try and conserve energy as much as possible. if another animal hunts and kills, many animals will chase the killer away and take the spoils for little work.

we are biologically programmed to be lazy selfish shits, which is the anthesis of what is required for a true communist society.

i too buy into the theory of the nobility of communism, and the utter impossiblity of it working.

Then you should change human nature. Like what Trots said.

I'm not sure if anyone understands this. That it's a fallacy. Trots is only explaining why this is fallacious. It can go either way:

1. Irrelevance, since not every human is the same and thus, that nature is not in every human.
2. Irrelevance, it just means we should change nature.

[Mavorpen]

I'm not sure why you're applying something from other mammals onto humans.

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

I...what? Evolution actually requires us to be LESS selfish. You're applying traits from mammals who are nowhere near the level of social interaction of humans. Indeed we are one of the only species that regularly applies compassion and altruism to those outside of our normal social groups.

[Norstal]

The why do people do voluntary and charitable works? Why do they pursue education that won't necessarily further their career? Why do they seek promotions that won't necessarily give more power or money?

We do have a 'lazy selfish shit' nature, but we also have an altruistic pragmatist nature, and a drive to do things just for the sake of doing them. And both are valid survival characteristics.

All you've got to do is shape the expression of those 'natures' - to create the balance you want.

how do you "shape" those natures?

If the Christians stopped the Aztecs from continuing human sacrifice, I don't see a reason why people keep arguing this one.

I mean, it was bloody and whatnot. But not impossible.

[New England and The Maritimes]

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that none of the people who bring up "human nature" have any fucking clue what they're talking about and could not rigorously explain human nature if you gave them a million years, right? It's easy enough to dismiss out of hand and show for the stupid argument it is.

[Ethel mermania]

how about animal nature then?

may mammals try and conserve energy as much as possible. if another animal hunts and kills, many animals will chase the killer away and take the spoils for little work.

we are biologically programmed to be lazy selfish shits, which is the anthesis of what is required for a true communist society.

i too buy into the theory of the nobility of communism, and the utter impossiblity of it working.

Then you should change human nature. Like what Trots said.

I'm not sure if anyone understands this. That it's a fallacy. Trots is only explaining why this is fallacious. It can go either way:

1. Irrelevance, since not every human is the same and thus, that nature is not in every human.
2. Irrelevance, it just means we should change nature.

i have a problem with trying to change human nature,.

[Ethel mermania]

how do you "shape" those natures?

If the Christians stopped the Aztecs from continuing human sacrifice, I don't see a reason why people keep arguing this one.

I mean, it was bloody and whatnot. But not impossible.

so we eradicate the folks who disagee with us?

[Norstal]

Then you should change human nature. Like what Trots said.

I'm not sure if anyone understands this. That it's a fallacy. Trots is only explaining why this is fallacious. It can go either way:

1. Irrelevance, since not every human is the same and thus, that nature is not in every human.
2. Irrelevance, it just means we should change nature.

i have a problem with trying to changing human nature,.

Like I said, as much as I hate to admit it, a grand example would be Christianity's influence during the Dark Ages and Colonialism. The Catholic church managed to preserve science, helped established rationalism, and in Colonialism, changed the very nature of people across the Americas.

The only problem is how to do that peacefully.

[New England and The Maritimes]

itt: approximately no one catches the philosophical move trots made.

Sorry I'm taking Intro to Philosophy next term. I only know the bit I know from reading Aristotle.

[Ethel mermania]

how do you "shape" those natures?

If the Christians stopped the Aztecs from continuing human sacrifice, I don't see a reason why people keep arguing this one.

I mean, it was bloody and whatnot. But not impossible.

so we eradicate the folks who disagee with us?

and is it inhernetly human nature to have human sacrifice?

[Norstal]

If the Christians stopped the Aztecs from continuing human sacrifice, I don't see a reason why people keep arguing this one.

I mean, it was bloody and whatnot. But not impossible.

so we eradicate the folks who disagee with us?

No. You're missing the point. We have to do it bloodlessly. Another example is how the two world wars was fought over ideologies and resources. Now we have trade agreements and freedoms to accommodate those ideologies. So, again, human nature can be changed.

and is it inhernetly human nature to have human sacrifice?

It is. That doesn't mean it can't be suppressed and eventually eliminated.

[Ethel mermania]

i have a problem with trying to changing human nature,.

Like I said, as much as I hate to admit it, a grand example would be Christianity's influence during the Dark Ages and Colonialism. The Catholic church managed to preserve science, helped established rationalism, and in Colonialism, changed the very nature of people across the Americas.

The only problem is how to do that peacefully.

that ignores the contribution of arab, indian, and chinese societies.

and what the church did to the america's is a crime against humanity.

[Valtakuntia]

Can I appeal to your better nature?

[Mavorpen]

Still waiting on scientific evidence humans are naturally self-centered bastards.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Still waiting on scientific evidence humans are naturally self-centered bastards.

You'll be waiting forever. There's a reason humans and our ancestors have lived in tribes for the past ~5-6 million years.

[Mavorpen]

Still waiting on scientific evidence humans are naturally self-centered bastards.

You'll be waiting forever. There's a reason humans and our ancestors have lived in tribes for the past ~5-6 million years.

Drat. I guess I'll never get a response to this then.

I...what? Evolution actually requires us to be LESS selfish. You're applying traits from mammals who are nowhere near the level of social interaction of humans. Indeed we are one of the only species that regularly applies compassion and altruism to those outside of our normal social groups.