Bill Bartlett wrote:

> Don Brayton wrote:
>
> [...]
> >Yes, the event of birth is the
> >preemminent signal to every living organism 'find food or die,'  but the
> >specific responses we have named greed and violence reach much farther
> >into the past and much more broadly across other instincts.  In fact,
> >they are perhaps more strongly triggered by mating instincts.
>
> Are you suggesting that greed and violence are natural, universal, human
> characteristics then?
> >
> >I prefer to think that we are thoughtful beings trapped in animal bodies
> >and it is our task to distinguish the two and tame the animal.  This is a
> >group exercise.
>
> Yes, we are animals. We must eat, and we feel the need to procreate, but
> were it otherwise we would simply not exist.
>
> These natural needs should not be confused with greed or violence though.
> Greed is clearly an unnatural and unnecessary response in a society that
> can produce more than enough to satisfy everyone's needs. That is continues
> to exist is symptomatic, not of some deep seated human condition, but the
> fact that our society is still organised as if it was was not possible to
> provide for the needs of everyone.
> Snip

The stage is set and I appreciated Bill's comments immensely (and agree accept
for certain principles); however (there is always a 'however,' isn't there?),
it would appear to me that it would be quite "natural" for greed and violence
to be part of our more "fundamental" nature as our relative affluency has not
been here for any time at all, relatively, speaking in evolutionary terms.
Thus, although I agree with you entirely that responsible societal ethics and
mores seem more productive and eventually less threatening to the group,  and
"taking" is probably unnecessary when we have the ability to feed and cloth
everyone.  It would also appear to me that the law of parsimony (Ockham's
razor) would indicate that "taking what one needs" is a very simple, natural
and direct way to supply those needs, especially if one is physically powerful,
quick, clever or possesses the facility for power.  In fact, it appears to me
to be the most "natural" way of all and observation of other species tends to
confirm that.  It is only after one finds that "the herd" may have the ability
to make ones actions "conform" to some other scheme, i.e., tit for tat, etc.,
and, after finding that debilitating injury or death can be suffered,  one
would tend to think along the line of cooperation, a much more complicated and
"intelligent" path but promising for the herd.  Thus,  the latter intelligent
but more recent evolutionary social developments have a long time to go to
overcome the tremendous history of a much more individually "short term" but
"more natural" means of productivity for oneself.

> Our society is organised little differently than it was in the middle ages,
> when universal freedom from want was not possible. For this method of
> organisation to be functional in these quite different circumstances, it is
> necessary to create ARTIFICIAL want, to stimulate the mass of people to
> yield up that which they produce for the benefit of others.

Snip

You described it, "ARTIFICIAL," as compared to the older more selfish modality,
artificial and "unnatural."


> So we have the spectacle of people suffering from deprivations of all
> sorts, even hunger, in modern societies which have the capacity, and do,
> produce more than enough for everyone's needs. The population, driven mad
> by this insane deprivation in the midst of plenty, is surprisingly peaceful
> and well adjusted, considering the immense provocation at the hands of
> their masters I would say.

I'm not at all sure that they haven't felt the provocation but, unfortunately,
they don't have the time from survival chores, nor the short term assets, to
successfully change the system sans tremendous risk of damage or destruction to
themselves and their current level of relative affluence.

Your position appears to me to be fundamentally more intelligent and long term
survival valued but still, too early for our species barely out of the "steal
it first and risk other things later" stage from when immediate reproduction
was an overwhelming need. In fact, I feel that is still the dominant drive
despite our oral protestations and my desire to be optimistic about mankind's
potential.  Civilization is a very thin veneer and, it appears to me, is shed
at a moment's notice and almost with relief to get past that "unnatural"
respect for the herd that many of us extoll.  Just our problems with population
control seem to validate this thesis, i.e., the older, more natural "drives"
have not yet "learned" (by natural selection) to limit population and enrich
our human assets.

Again, an excellent posting, Bill, and I hope that I've made my distinctions
clear even though my desires appear the same as your own...

Cordially,

Bob
--
Bob Grimes

http://members.aol.com/bob5266/
http://www.hotwired.com/members/profile/bobinjax/
http://www.phonefree.com/Scripts/cgiParse.exe?sID=28788
Jacksonville, Florida
[log in to unmask]      [log in to unmask]

Quoth the Raven, "Nevermore....."