alister air wrote:
>>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.
>
>Actually, greed specifically is not "natural" and has not been around
>forever.  Violence is, IMHO, somewhat different, as violence was used for
>killing food.  But back to greed:
. . .

I see no reason other than adherence to social darwinism to believe that
humans are much different now compared to any earlier time. What do
"fundamental" and "natural" mean? How is it possible for something
naturally occurring to be "unnatural?" I thought that Freud had settled
this matter some time ago.