Bob Grimes wrote:

>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.

I didn't make myself very clear, the point I was trying to make was that it
seems unreasonable to equate greed with satisfying need. Taking MORE than
you need is how I understand greed, taking more than you need is a tendency
that evolution would not favour, I believe.

>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,

I agree, but in evolutionary terms taking MORE than one needs is of dubious
survival value. You wouldn't be able to keep up with the group carrying all
those extra bananas, and even if you could you would be unlikely to
benefit. When your primate group got hungry they'd just take what they need
from your cache. (This is before a political state developed to protect
your wealth remember.)

>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.

As the old Noam says, human nature is something nobody really knows
anything about, so your guess is as good as mine.  I just think you are
confusing greed with merely satisfying need.

[...]

>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.

I think the facts suggest otherwise. For example, in the wealthiest
industrialised countries of the globe, where some measure of security and a
relatively low infant mortality rate prevail, there is no "population"
problem. In fact the birth rate is below the death rate in Europe,
Australia and (I assume) nth. America. This suggests that social security
is the solution to the burgeoning human population.

I can't think of any facts that disagree with your assertion that
civilisation is a thin veneer but, as you say, I am slightly more hopeful
about what is beneath the veneer. I would have to be, since I've got 5
kids*.

Bill Bartlett
Bracknell Tas.

(*Doing what I can to make up for the other slackers.)