Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> 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*.
I agree human nature is hard to understand.