>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:

Humans have been societal animals for ever (or as near as makes no
difference).
There are some societies which have remained pretty much unchanged (or as
unchaged as possible) throughout the "advances" of both western and eastern
"civilisation".

There are some (most?  all?) Eskimo tribes which practiced something we'd
recognise as a form of communism/anarchism.  I'm working from memory here,
but all goods and food was communal, and not only was hoarding frowned
upon, people who hoarded food (exhibited greed) could be killed for it.

So, if you're an Eskimo, greed is bad, people who are geedy suck, and so as
you don't want to suck, be outcast, or killed, you don't be greedy.

There's also a particular hunter-gatherer society in Africa (may be more?)
which functions on a more communal as opposed to communist level... they
tend to go for giraffes and large game.  You can't guarentee getting one of
these a day, even for all the hunters in the tribe, so when one hunter is
lucky enough to get one, he (the hunters are male) will share it with the
entire tribe.  This is not unusual, but what is is that firstly he will
pick the meat he wants only after everyone else has taken some, and
secondly even people who have not ever helped in the hunt can take meat.

Those who never contribute meat to the tribe can still eat, but their
status within the tribe is very low.  They are less likely to head a
family, as women are more likely to partner with a successful hunter.

>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.

From what I've read, this stage is a much more recent development.

Why?  Well, with the Eskimos, greed is actively discouraged, so few are
greedy.  With the hunter-gatherers, greed is passively discouraged (few
overt sanctions) and so few are greedy.  There's no benefit in being so for
an Eskimo, and little benefit for a hunter-gatherer.

In a capitalist society, greed is actively encouraged in every way
possible.  If you're greedy, not only will you not be killed, you'll have
the pick of partners, high status, and the admiration of (most of) society.

If you want more info or a reference or two, just let me know.

In solidarity,

Alister Air


--

|          Alister Air              |  "First we are systematically    |
| Information Technology Division   |  socialised to compete, and to   |
| University of Technology Sydney   |  want to compete, and then the   |
| Ph: 9514 5000    Fax: 9514 5513   |  results are cited as evidence   |
|    http://bounce.to/alister       | of competition's inevitability." |