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.

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.

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.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.