|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Norway28797 Posts
There's a big difference between rejecting blank slate theory and stating with any confidence what traits commonly seen in humans constitute human nature.
For me, it is hard to accept that there are 'human nature' elements that I reject as being part of myself - at the very least, such examples will make me inclined to think that culture supersedes nature.
I have no problems accepting that hormones have some influence upon behavior and that differences in hormonal levels between men and women will constitute some difference in behavior between genders, but I have more problems accepting statements like 'greed' or 'wanting more than your fellow man' 'is human nature', because I don't think those hold true for myself. 
|
On April 27 2020 03:29 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 01:02 Slaughter wrote:On April 26 2020 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2020 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:
At a certain point, playing semantics becomes useless.
"But that isn't truly [insert system in question]!" Is used by every side of the political debate to try to trivialize the historical failures of their preferred system. Communists, libertarians, socialists, capitalists, you name it.
These discussions invariably fail to take into account human behavior and how it will warp a given system. It isn't a "but that isn't truly" situation nor are the wholly unscientific appeals to human nature/behavior appropriate or convincing to anyone who isn't already a devout adherent of capitalism. Calling the concept of human nature "wholly unscientific" just makes you look incredibly ignorant. I suggest you read "Human Universals" by Donald Brown. He compiled an extensive list of features of human culture, behavior, language and modes of thinking that are common for all peoples studied by science thus far. Here are some excerpts from Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" which discuss the book: + Show Spoiler +Value placed on articulateness. Gossip. Lying. Misleading. Verbal humor. Humorous insults. Poetic and rhetorical speech forms. Narrative and storytelling. Metaphor. Poetry with repetition of linguistic elements and three-second lines separated by pauses. Words for days, months, seasons, years, past, present, future, body parts, inner states (emotions, sensations, thoughts), behavioral propensities, flora, fauna, weather, tools, space, motion, speed, location, spatial dimensions, physical properties, giving, lending, affecting things and people, numbers (at the very least "one," "two," and "more than two"), proper names, possession. Distinctions between mother and father. Kinship categories, defined in terms of mother, father, son, daughter, and age sequence. Binary distinctions, including male and female, black and white, natural and cultural, good and bad. Measures. Logical relations including "not," "and," "same," "equivalent," "opposite," general versus particular, part versus whole. Conjectural reasoning (inferring the presence of absent and invisible entities from their perceptible traces).
Nonlinguistic vocal communication such as cries and squeals. Interpreting intention from behavior. Recognized facial expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and contempt. Use of smiles as a friendly greeting. Crying. Coy flirtation with the eyes. Masking, modifying, and mimicking facial expressions. Displays of affection."
"Sense of self versus other, responsibility, voluntary versus involuntary behavior, intention, private inner life, normal versus abnormal mental states. Empathy. Sexual attraction. Powerful sexual jealousy. Childhood fears, especially of loud noises, and, at the end of the first year, strangers. Fear of snakes. "Oedipal" feelings (possessiveness of mother, coolness toward her consort). Face recognition. Adornment of bodies and arrangement of hair. Sexual attractiveness, based in part on signs of health and, in women, youth. Hygiene. Dance. Music. Play, including play fighting."
"Manufacture of, and dependence upon, many kinds of tools, many of them permanent, made according to culturally transmitted motifs, including cutters, pounders, containers, string, levers, spears. Use of fire to cook food and for other purposes. Drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Shelter. Decoration of artifacts.
A standard pattern and time for weaning. Living in groups, which claim a territory and have a sense of being a distinct people. Families built around a mother and children, usually the biological mother, and one or more men. Institutionalized marriage, in the sense of publicly recognized right of sexual access to a woman eligible for childbearing. Socialization of children (including toilet training) by senior kin. Children copying their elders. Distinguishing of close kin from distant kin, and favoring of close kin. Avoidance of incest between mothers and sons. Great interest in the topic of sex."
"Status and prestige, both assigned (by kinship, age, sex) and achieved. Some degree of economic inequality. Division of labor by sex and age. More child care by women. More aggression and violence by men. Acknowledgment of differences between male and female natures. Domination by men in the public political sphere. Exchange of labor, goods, and services. Reciprocity, including retaliation. Gifts. Social reasoning. Coalitions. Government, in the sense of binding collective decisions about public affairs. Leaders, almost always nondictatorial, perhaps ephemeral. Laws, rights, and obligations, including laws against violence, rape, and murder. Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking of redress for wrongs. Mediation. In-group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of property. Sense of right and wrong. Envy.
Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death. Medicine. Rituals, including rites of passage. Mourning the dead. Dreaming, interpreting dreams. Many of these are found in other primates (or even more generally mammals in some cases), which would suggest they have an evolutionary origin. A sense of fair exchange is part of that. So is a drive to improve your own condition and that of your kin/your in-group. There is no indication that you could socially engineer people to be motivated to selflessly work for some greater good as long as their basic needs are met. I wouldn't cite an heavily old and outdated book and the guy who quoted that book heavily in his own as a core of your argument mate. Especially when even Pinker or people who lean more strongly towards the "nature" side wouldn't defend such a vague and broad term as human nature. Sure, it's an old book, but outdated how? There is plenty of evidence supporting it. Have you read Pinker's "The Blank Slate"? Because in it he's explicitly referring to several scientific disciplines like neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and such as sciences of human nature. An example of a trait that seems to have a biological foundation is gender identity. The fact that gender dysphoria exists or that boys who had their penises accidentally removed and were raised as girls do not identify as such clearly shows that we are not blank slates in that regard. There are more examples.
There is also evidence of the opposite so what is your point? It is not settled science in any way shape or form and consensus is more toward "its both but we don't know exactly how much of one or the other and on what aspects of humanity". One thing that contradicts your gender identity assertion that is....many groups of people have literally had more then two genders as part of their society through time. The Biological should not be neglected but really only older (stubborn) researchers come down firmly on Nature or Nurture side. The science has just moved past that debate, which is why I brought up the age of the book.
Behavioral genetics and both evolutionary psychology have also been heavily criticized for flawed methodologies and at times over reaching conclusions. Evolutionary Psychology in particular is a rather young theoretical approach and is still finding its way in some respects.
|
|
|
Blank Slate theory as a concept is almost unintelligible as Chomsky used to point out because the implication would be that individuals are merely surfaces that pretty much reflect what's thrown at them. An unstructured system without any faculties that are to some degree invariant has no way to impose meaning on anything.
As for what habits or cognitive faculties are actually innate is way too caught up in political or religious discourse, not to mention that the fact that there are such faculties doesn't imply that they're good or bad or useful at all still.
|
On April 27 2020 04:22 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 03:29 maybenexttime wrote:On April 27 2020 01:02 Slaughter wrote:On April 26 2020 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2020 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:
At a certain point, playing semantics becomes useless.
"But that isn't truly [insert system in question]!" Is used by every side of the political debate to try to trivialize the historical failures of their preferred system. Communists, libertarians, socialists, capitalists, you name it.
These discussions invariably fail to take into account human behavior and how it will warp a given system. It isn't a "but that isn't truly" situation nor are the wholly unscientific appeals to human nature/behavior appropriate or convincing to anyone who isn't already a devout adherent of capitalism. Calling the concept of human nature "wholly unscientific" just makes you look incredibly ignorant. I suggest you read "Human Universals" by Donald Brown. He compiled an extensive list of features of human culture, behavior, language and modes of thinking that are common for all peoples studied by science thus far. Here are some excerpts from Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" which discuss the book: + Show Spoiler +Value placed on articulateness. Gossip. Lying. Misleading. Verbal humor. Humorous insults. Poetic and rhetorical speech forms. Narrative and storytelling. Metaphor. Poetry with repetition of linguistic elements and three-second lines separated by pauses. Words for days, months, seasons, years, past, present, future, body parts, inner states (emotions, sensations, thoughts), behavioral propensities, flora, fauna, weather, tools, space, motion, speed, location, spatial dimensions, physical properties, giving, lending, affecting things and people, numbers (at the very least "one," "two," and "more than two"), proper names, possession. Distinctions between mother and father. Kinship categories, defined in terms of mother, father, son, daughter, and age sequence. Binary distinctions, including male and female, black and white, natural and cultural, good and bad. Measures. Logical relations including "not," "and," "same," "equivalent," "opposite," general versus particular, part versus whole. Conjectural reasoning (inferring the presence of absent and invisible entities from their perceptible traces).
Nonlinguistic vocal communication such as cries and squeals. Interpreting intention from behavior. Recognized facial expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and contempt. Use of smiles as a friendly greeting. Crying. Coy flirtation with the eyes. Masking, modifying, and mimicking facial expressions. Displays of affection."
"Sense of self versus other, responsibility, voluntary versus involuntary behavior, intention, private inner life, normal versus abnormal mental states. Empathy. Sexual attraction. Powerful sexual jealousy. Childhood fears, especially of loud noises, and, at the end of the first year, strangers. Fear of snakes. "Oedipal" feelings (possessiveness of mother, coolness toward her consort). Face recognition. Adornment of bodies and arrangement of hair. Sexual attractiveness, based in part on signs of health and, in women, youth. Hygiene. Dance. Music. Play, including play fighting."
"Manufacture of, and dependence upon, many kinds of tools, many of them permanent, made according to culturally transmitted motifs, including cutters, pounders, containers, string, levers, spears. Use of fire to cook food and for other purposes. Drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Shelter. Decoration of artifacts.
A standard pattern and time for weaning. Living in groups, which claim a territory and have a sense of being a distinct people. Families built around a mother and children, usually the biological mother, and one or more men. Institutionalized marriage, in the sense of publicly recognized right of sexual access to a woman eligible for childbearing. Socialization of children (including toilet training) by senior kin. Children copying their elders. Distinguishing of close kin from distant kin, and favoring of close kin. Avoidance of incest between mothers and sons. Great interest in the topic of sex."
"Status and prestige, both assigned (by kinship, age, sex) and achieved. Some degree of economic inequality. Division of labor by sex and age. More child care by women. More aggression and violence by men. Acknowledgment of differences between male and female natures. Domination by men in the public political sphere. Exchange of labor, goods, and services. Reciprocity, including retaliation. Gifts. Social reasoning. Coalitions. Government, in the sense of binding collective decisions about public affairs. Leaders, almost always nondictatorial, perhaps ephemeral. Laws, rights, and obligations, including laws against violence, rape, and murder. Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking of redress for wrongs. Mediation. In-group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of property. Sense of right and wrong. Envy.
Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death. Medicine. Rituals, including rites of passage. Mourning the dead. Dreaming, interpreting dreams. Many of these are found in other primates (or even more generally mammals in some cases), which would suggest they have an evolutionary origin. A sense of fair exchange is part of that. So is a drive to improve your own condition and that of your kin/your in-group. There is no indication that you could socially engineer people to be motivated to selflessly work for some greater good as long as their basic needs are met. I wouldn't cite an heavily old and outdated book and the guy who quoted that book heavily in his own as a core of your argument mate. Especially when even Pinker or people who lean more strongly towards the "nature" side wouldn't defend such a vague and broad term as human nature. Sure, it's an old book, but outdated how? There is plenty of evidence supporting it. Have you read Pinker's "The Blank Slate"? Because in it he's explicitly referring to several scientific disciplines like neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and such as sciences of human nature. An example of a trait that seems to have a biological foundation is gender identity. The fact that gender dysphoria exists or that boys who had their penises accidentally removed and were raised as girls do not identify as such clearly shows that we are not blank slates in that regard. There are more examples. There is also evidence of the opposite so what is your point? It is not settled science in any way shape or form and consensus is more toward "its both but we don't know exactly how much of one or the other and on what aspects of humanity". One thing that contradicts your gender identity assertion that is....many groups of people have literally had more then two genders as part of their society through time. The Biological should not be neglected but really only older (stubborn) researchers come down firmly on Nature or Nurture side. The science has just moved past that debate, which is why I brought up the age of the book. Behavioral genetics and both evolutionary psychology have also been heavily criticized for flawed methodologies and at times over reaching conclusions. Evolutionary Psychology in particular is a rather young theoretical approach and is still finding its way in some respects.
Do you even know what my position is on the topic? Because it's not that nurture is irrelevant. My position is that the blank slate hypothesis is outright wrong. I agree that it's both and that it is to be determined to what extent nature and nurture are involved in whichever aspect of humanity.
The evidence for the opposite would be evidence for humans being, in fact, blank slates. There is no such evidence. If that were the case, gender dysphoria couldn't possibly exist. If gender were merely a social construct, how could those mutilated boys not grow up to consider themselves women, if they were socialized that way?
As for there being more "genders" in certain cultures, I think you're confusing labels we ascribe to certain things with what is actually beneath the surface. Whether we consider gay men a third gender or simply homosexual men doesn't change the reality of things. Pinker tackles this issue when discussing emotions in different cultures. There may be variability in triggers and responses, but the inner workings in the brain seem to be universal. Overall, he likens human nature to Chomsky's universal grammar and I think he's on point.
|
On April 27 2020 07:41 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 04:22 Slaughter wrote:On April 27 2020 03:29 maybenexttime wrote:On April 27 2020 01:02 Slaughter wrote:On April 26 2020 21:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 26 2020 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 26 2020 08:24 Stratos_speAr wrote:
At a certain point, playing semantics becomes useless.
"But that isn't truly [insert system in question]!" Is used by every side of the political debate to try to trivialize the historical failures of their preferred system. Communists, libertarians, socialists, capitalists, you name it.
These discussions invariably fail to take into account human behavior and how it will warp a given system. It isn't a "but that isn't truly" situation nor are the wholly unscientific appeals to human nature/behavior appropriate or convincing to anyone who isn't already a devout adherent of capitalism. Calling the concept of human nature "wholly unscientific" just makes you look incredibly ignorant. I suggest you read "Human Universals" by Donald Brown. He compiled an extensive list of features of human culture, behavior, language and modes of thinking that are common for all peoples studied by science thus far. Here are some excerpts from Steven Pinker's "The Language Instinct" which discuss the book: + Show Spoiler +Value placed on articulateness. Gossip. Lying. Misleading. Verbal humor. Humorous insults. Poetic and rhetorical speech forms. Narrative and storytelling. Metaphor. Poetry with repetition of linguistic elements and three-second lines separated by pauses. Words for days, months, seasons, years, past, present, future, body parts, inner states (emotions, sensations, thoughts), behavioral propensities, flora, fauna, weather, tools, space, motion, speed, location, spatial dimensions, physical properties, giving, lending, affecting things and people, numbers (at the very least "one," "two," and "more than two"), proper names, possession. Distinctions between mother and father. Kinship categories, defined in terms of mother, father, son, daughter, and age sequence. Binary distinctions, including male and female, black and white, natural and cultural, good and bad. Measures. Logical relations including "not," "and," "same," "equivalent," "opposite," general versus particular, part versus whole. Conjectural reasoning (inferring the presence of absent and invisible entities from their perceptible traces).
Nonlinguistic vocal communication such as cries and squeals. Interpreting intention from behavior. Recognized facial expressions of happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust, and contempt. Use of smiles as a friendly greeting. Crying. Coy flirtation with the eyes. Masking, modifying, and mimicking facial expressions. Displays of affection."
"Sense of self versus other, responsibility, voluntary versus involuntary behavior, intention, private inner life, normal versus abnormal mental states. Empathy. Sexual attraction. Powerful sexual jealousy. Childhood fears, especially of loud noises, and, at the end of the first year, strangers. Fear of snakes. "Oedipal" feelings (possessiveness of mother, coolness toward her consort). Face recognition. Adornment of bodies and arrangement of hair. Sexual attractiveness, based in part on signs of health and, in women, youth. Hygiene. Dance. Music. Play, including play fighting."
"Manufacture of, and dependence upon, many kinds of tools, many of them permanent, made according to culturally transmitted motifs, including cutters, pounders, containers, string, levers, spears. Use of fire to cook food and for other purposes. Drugs, both medicinal and recreational. Shelter. Decoration of artifacts.
A standard pattern and time for weaning. Living in groups, which claim a territory and have a sense of being a distinct people. Families built around a mother and children, usually the biological mother, and one or more men. Institutionalized marriage, in the sense of publicly recognized right of sexual access to a woman eligible for childbearing. Socialization of children (including toilet training) by senior kin. Children copying their elders. Distinguishing of close kin from distant kin, and favoring of close kin. Avoidance of incest between mothers and sons. Great interest in the topic of sex."
"Status and prestige, both assigned (by kinship, age, sex) and achieved. Some degree of economic inequality. Division of labor by sex and age. More child care by women. More aggression and violence by men. Acknowledgment of differences between male and female natures. Domination by men in the public political sphere. Exchange of labor, goods, and services. Reciprocity, including retaliation. Gifts. Social reasoning. Coalitions. Government, in the sense of binding collective decisions about public affairs. Leaders, almost always nondictatorial, perhaps ephemeral. Laws, rights, and obligations, including laws against violence, rape, and murder. Punishment. Conflict, which is deplored. Rape. Seeking of redress for wrongs. Mediation. In-group/out-group conflicts. Property. Inheritance of property. Sense of right and wrong. Envy.
Etiquette. Hospitality. Feasting. Diurnality. Standards of sexual modesty. Sex generally in private. Fondness for sweets. Food taboos. Discreetness in elimination of body wastes. Supernatural beliefs. Magic to sustain and increase life, and to attract the opposite sex. Theories of fortune and misfortune. Explanations of disease and death. Medicine. Rituals, including rites of passage. Mourning the dead. Dreaming, interpreting dreams. Many of these are found in other primates (or even more generally mammals in some cases), which would suggest they have an evolutionary origin. A sense of fair exchange is part of that. So is a drive to improve your own condition and that of your kin/your in-group. There is no indication that you could socially engineer people to be motivated to selflessly work for some greater good as long as their basic needs are met. I wouldn't cite an heavily old and outdated book and the guy who quoted that book heavily in his own as a core of your argument mate. Especially when even Pinker or people who lean more strongly towards the "nature" side wouldn't defend such a vague and broad term as human nature. Sure, it's an old book, but outdated how? There is plenty of evidence supporting it. Have you read Pinker's "The Blank Slate"? Because in it he's explicitly referring to several scientific disciplines like neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, behavioral genetics and such as sciences of human nature. An example of a trait that seems to have a biological foundation is gender identity. The fact that gender dysphoria exists or that boys who had their penises accidentally removed and were raised as girls do not identify as such clearly shows that we are not blank slates in that regard. There are more examples. There is also evidence of the opposite so what is your point? It is not settled science in any way shape or form and consensus is more toward "its both but we don't know exactly how much of one or the other and on what aspects of humanity". One thing that contradicts your gender identity assertion that is....many groups of people have literally had more then two genders as part of their society through time. The Biological should not be neglected but really only older (stubborn) researchers come down firmly on Nature or Nurture side. The science has just moved past that debate, which is why I brought up the age of the book. Behavioral genetics and both evolutionary psychology have also been heavily criticized for flawed methodologies and at times over reaching conclusions. Evolutionary Psychology in particular is a rather young theoretical approach and is still finding its way in some respects. Do you even know what my position is on the topic? Because it's not that nurture is irrelevant. My position is that the blank slate hypothesis is outright wrong. I agree that it's both and that it is to be determined to what extent nature and nurture are involved in whichever aspect of humanity. The evidence for the opposite would be evidence for humans being, in fact, blank slates. There is no such evidence. If that were the case, gender dysphoria couldn't possibly exist. If gender were merely a social construct, how could those mutilated boys not grow up to consider themselves women, if they were socialized that way? As for there being more "genders" in certain cultures, I think you're confusing labels we ascribe to certain things with what is actually beneath the surface. Whether we consider gay men a third gender or simply homosexual men doesn't change the reality of things. Pinker tackles this issue when discussing emotions in different cultures. There may be variability in triggers and responses, but the inner workings in the brain seem to be universal. Overall, he likens human nature to Chomsky's universal grammar and I think he's on point.
My point was that your response to GH's post implied you thought that there was an inherent human nature of some dubious course, Of which the science is still puzzling out what is going on. You also seemed to have only read Pinker's work and was greatly convinced by it and stopped learning about the subject. Your last point uh No. Gay is not a gender, it is a sexuality. Whatever castrated boys not growing up to think they are women study you like to hang your hat on doesn't invalidate gender as a social construct concept. Its more about how societies shape and influence norms on who should be assigned to what gender, hoq many there are, and jow thoae genders should act.
Anything universal theory when it comes to humans have been consistently shown to not work in the end. Universal Grammar itself is not without its valid criticisms. And this isn't just humanities but human biologists as well.
Pinker has essentially jumped the gun in his work. Or rather you can say a lot of his work is arguing against a proposed theory that already lost most of its support long ago. In a sense it was of a book you would have expected to come out 20 years earlier when the nature v nurture debate was happening but has become more irrelevant.
|
On April 27 2020 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:There's a big difference between rejecting blank slate theory and stating with any confidence what traits commonly seen in humans constitute human nature. For me, it is hard to accept that there are 'human nature' elements that I reject as being part of myself - at the very least, such examples will make me inclined to think that culture supersedes nature. I have no problems accepting that hormones have some influence upon behavior and that differences in hormonal levels between men and women will constitute some difference in behavior between genders, but I have more problems accepting statements like 'greed' or 'wanting more than your fellow man' 'is human nature', because I don't think those hold true for myself.
How do you define greed? We all act in our self-interest (or perceived self-interest) and that goes for charitable acts as for most people that brings them happiness. If being charitable made people feel shitty, or thought that it would make them go to hell (as opposed to heaven), etc. then you'd see less of it. It's why when people say someone is being greedy for wanting to keep their own money that they worked for and yet someone else who did not is not greedy for wanting it (the former's time aka money) I kind of tune out. It's important for people to be on the same page with definitions especially in arguments or debates.
Also, your self-bias and anecdotal appeal doesn't really hold weight to how a large society structures incentives and behavior. There have been a thousand and ten human experiments with socialism and communism, the vast majority have been comical failures with starvation and death generally soon to follow. There's a reason societies with strong Lockean style property rights and liberal traditions tend to be freer and more prosperous.
|
That's a rather crude way of putting hundred years of moral philosophy, Wegandi. The idea that altruism is in fact greed because you do it to feel better is formulated a bit more elegantly by Adam Smith, but I don't think it's a very good argument.
I don't think "human nature" is a great compass to argue for or against this or that system but if we have to go that road, it's evident that humans have both a genuinely altruistic and a genuinely selfish component.
So as usual it's a question of balance. Pretending to build a system on the assumption that one can or should entirely overtake the other is a recipe for disaster.
As for the best societies, they are the ones that balance the best personal and collective interest. As far as I am concerned, I find the US absolutely rubbish at taking care of the latter, and it's a country I would never consider to live in.
|
I find it pretty hilarious when people use the 'communism / socialism always failed in the past, just look at North Korea / Venezuela / USSR' argument. Imagine if French people at the end of 18th century said, 'well you know what, just look at what happened to Oliver Cromwell or the Ambrosian Republic, this whole anti-monarchist stuff is never gonna work.'
Same for the 'human nature' arguments. Shit like 'it's human nature that some are bound to be masters, and some will be slaves' has been perpetuated for centuries, there is absolutely no reason to believe that class divide based on wealth is any more 'natural' than class divide based on what family you were born into or the color of your skin.
Now, I don't think that Marxist communism is some ideal to aspire towards -- it's quite detached from reality and likely unrealistic; but if we are to ever evolve into a true post-scarcity society, there's going to have to be some serious changes in the way we do things. Most developed nations are already productive enough to make that step, but our society needs to catch up to technology. Prioritizing economic growth above all else makes sense in a society where food and shelter are still important issues that need solving; prioritizing economic growth above all else in a society that can take care of all its' members biological needs and still have plenty to go around, however, is rather counter-intuitive.
|
On April 27 2020 15:56 Salazarz wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious when people use the 'communism / socialism always failed in the past, just look at North Korea / Venezuela / USSR' argument. Imagine if French people at the end of 18th century said, 'well you know what, just look at what happened to Oliver Cromwell or the Ambrosian Republic, this whole anti-monarchist stuff is never gonna work.'
Same for the 'human nature' arguments. Shit like 'it's human nature that some are bound to be masters, and some will be slaves' has been perpetuated for centuries, there is absolutely no reason to believe that class divide based on wealth is any more 'natural' than class divide based on what family you were born into or the color of your skin.
Now, I don't think that Marxist communism is some ideal to aspire towards -- it's quite detached from reality and likely unrealistic; but if we are to ever evolve into a true post-scarcity society, there's going to have to be some serious changes in the way we do things. Most developed nations are already productive enough to make that step, but our society needs to catch up to technology. Prioritizing economic growth above all else makes sense in a society where food and shelter are still important issues that need solving; prioritizing economic growth above all else in a society that can take care of all its' members biological needs and still have plenty to go around, however, is rather counter-intuitive.
Well. French revolutionaries inspired themselves enormously from classical era examples. In particular Athens, but also the roman republic.
Ignoring the lessons from the fiasco of marxist experiments (which are a 100% occurence and whose consequences have more often than not been millions of deaths) is madness at that point. It doesn't mean we have to stop thinking and it doesn't mean that a mire equalitarian society is not possible, but I think anyone with a bit of common sense would agree that forced collectivization through revolution is quite a fucking horrible idea.
|
Norway28797 Posts
On April 27 2020 13:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:There's a big difference between rejecting blank slate theory and stating with any confidence what traits commonly seen in humans constitute human nature. For me, it is hard to accept that there are 'human nature' elements that I reject as being part of myself - at the very least, such examples will make me inclined to think that culture supersedes nature. I have no problems accepting that hormones have some influence upon behavior and that differences in hormonal levels between men and women will constitute some difference in behavior between genders, but I have more problems accepting statements like 'greed' or 'wanting more than your fellow man' 'is human nature', because I don't think those hold true for myself. How do you define greed? We all act in our self-interest (or perceived self-interest) and that goes for charitable acts as for most people that brings them happiness. If being charitable made people feel shitty, or thought that it would make them go to hell (as opposed to heaven), etc. then you'd see less of it. It's why when people say someone is being greedy for wanting to keep their own money that they worked for and yet someone else who did not is not greedy for wanting it (the former's time aka money) I kind of tune out. It's important for people to be on the same page with definitions especially in arguments or debates. Also, your self-bias and anecdotal appeal doesn't really hold weight to how a large society structures incentives and behavior. There have been a thousand and ten human experiments with socialism and communism, the vast majority have been comical failures with starvation and death generally soon to follow. There's a reason societies with strong Lockean style property rights and liberal traditions tend to be freer and more prosperous.
I see self-interest as different from greed. I think people everywhere, always, have wanted to have as much as the people around them have. This is self-interest. However, wanting more than the people around you (after your own basic needs are fulfilled - I understand self-interest making people prioritize themselves when resources are too scarce for everybody to have enough), that's what I consider greed. While I generally don't think looking at hunter-gatherer societies has much value in determining how we structure our larger societies, looking at them does have some value in determining what constitutes human nature.
And while I am no anthropologist, my impression is that most hunter-gatherer societies have been very egalitarian societies. There's usually been a leader, sure, and I'm sure some perks come with that. People have wanted credit for their skills, sure. But I don't have the impression that they had a hierarchical ladder for people to climb to get more or better food or housing. Maybe there's an argument to be made that once societies get too large, the personal connections making up the social bonds constituting the fabric that binds us together inevitably get weakened to the point where people start seeing their own needs as distinctly different and more important than the needs of their fellow man, but I don't think that's inevitable, at least, I think it's something highly exacerbated by capitalist and consumer culture, and advertisement tying happiness and success with material wealth.
I've seen studies indicating that happiness is strongly related to income/wealth, up to a certain point which at least for wealthy western countries seems to be around the median, and that beyond that, there is very little benefit to having more money from a personal happiness point of view. I can't necessarily say I would be happy with the global median, living in Norway and being surrounded by the Norwegian median, but I'm not sure the global median experiences real unhappiness because of scarcity (and not just because of comparison to significantly more wealthy people living elsewhere).
|
On April 27 2020 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 15:56 Salazarz wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious when people use the 'communism / socialism always failed in the past, just look at North Korea / Venezuela / USSR' argument. Imagine if French people at the end of 18th century said, 'well you know what, just look at what happened to Oliver Cromwell or the Ambrosian Republic, this whole anti-monarchist stuff is never gonna work.'
Same for the 'human nature' arguments. Shit like 'it's human nature that some are bound to be masters, and some will be slaves' has been perpetuated for centuries, there is absolutely no reason to believe that class divide based on wealth is any more 'natural' than class divide based on what family you were born into or the color of your skin.
Now, I don't think that Marxist communism is some ideal to aspire towards -- it's quite detached from reality and likely unrealistic; but if we are to ever evolve into a true post-scarcity society, there's going to have to be some serious changes in the way we do things. Most developed nations are already productive enough to make that step, but our society needs to catch up to technology. Prioritizing economic growth above all else makes sense in a society where food and shelter are still important issues that need solving; prioritizing economic growth above all else in a society that can take care of all its' members biological needs and still have plenty to go around, however, is rather counter-intuitive. Well. French revolutionaries inspired themselves enormously from classical era examples. In particular Athens, but also the roman republic. Ignoring the lessons from the fiasco of marxist experiments (which are a 100% occurence and whose consequences have more often than not been millions of deaths) is madness at that point. It doesn't mean we have to stop thinking and it doesn't mean that a mire equalitarian society is not possible, but I think anyone with a bit of common sense would agree that forced collectivization through revolution is quite a fucking horrible idea.
Certainly not my preference. Not worse than the millions already dying and that will die/be displaced by ecological collapse under the status quo though.
|
On April 27 2020 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2020 15:56 Salazarz wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious when people use the 'communism / socialism always failed in the past, just look at North Korea / Venezuela / USSR' argument. Imagine if French people at the end of 18th century said, 'well you know what, just look at what happened to Oliver Cromwell or the Ambrosian Republic, this whole anti-monarchist stuff is never gonna work.'
Same for the 'human nature' arguments. Shit like 'it's human nature that some are bound to be masters, and some will be slaves' has been perpetuated for centuries, there is absolutely no reason to believe that class divide based on wealth is any more 'natural' than class divide based on what family you were born into or the color of your skin.
Now, I don't think that Marxist communism is some ideal to aspire towards -- it's quite detached from reality and likely unrealistic; but if we are to ever evolve into a true post-scarcity society, there's going to have to be some serious changes in the way we do things. Most developed nations are already productive enough to make that step, but our society needs to catch up to technology. Prioritizing economic growth above all else makes sense in a society where food and shelter are still important issues that need solving; prioritizing economic growth above all else in a society that can take care of all its' members biological needs and still have plenty to go around, however, is rather counter-intuitive. Well. French revolutionaries inspired themselves enormously from classical era examples. In particular Athens, but also the roman republic. Ignoring the lessons from the fiasco of marxist experiments (which are a 100% occurence and whose consequences have more often than not been millions of deaths) is madness at that point. It doesn't mean we have to stop thinking and it doesn't mean that a mire equalitarian society is not possible, but I think anyone with a bit of common sense would agree that forced collectivization through revolution is quite a fucking horrible idea. Certainly not my preference. Not worse than the millions already dying and that will die/be displaced by ecological collapse under the status quo though.
Well, socialist (communist) societies of the 20th century have an absolutely abysmal record on environmental issues. In fact the countries doing the best in that regard have consistently been the places where individual and economic freedom have gone hand to hand with a very strong idea of common good, namely social democracies.
|
On April 27 2020 19:38 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 18:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 27 2020 17:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 27 2020 15:56 Salazarz wrote:
I find it pretty hilarious when people use the 'communism / socialism always failed in the past, just look at North Korea / Venezuela / USSR' argument. Imagine if French people at the end of 18th century said, 'well you know what, just look at what happened to Oliver Cromwell or the Ambrosian Republic, this whole anti-monarchist stuff is never gonna work.'
Same for the 'human nature' arguments. Shit like 'it's human nature that some are bound to be masters, and some will be slaves' has been perpetuated for centuries, there is absolutely no reason to believe that class divide based on wealth is any more 'natural' than class divide based on what family you were born into or the color of your skin.
Now, I don't think that Marxist communism is some ideal to aspire towards -- it's quite detached from reality and likely unrealistic; but if we are to ever evolve into a true post-scarcity society, there's going to have to be some serious changes in the way we do things. Most developed nations are already productive enough to make that step, but our society needs to catch up to technology. Prioritizing economic growth above all else makes sense in a society where food and shelter are still important issues that need solving; prioritizing economic growth above all else in a society that can take care of all its' members biological needs and still have plenty to go around, however, is rather counter-intuitive. Well. French revolutionaries inspired themselves enormously from classical era examples. In particular Athens, but also the roman republic. Ignoring the lessons from the fiasco of marxist experiments (which are a 100% occurence and whose consequences have more often than not been millions of deaths) is madness at that point. It doesn't mean we have to stop thinking and it doesn't mean that a mire equalitarian society is not possible, but I think anyone with a bit of common sense would agree that forced collectivization through revolution is quite a fucking horrible idea. Certainly not my preference. Not worse than the millions already dying and that will die/be displaced by ecological collapse under the status quo though. Well, socialist (communist) societies of the 20th century have an absolutely abysmal record on environmental issues. In fact the countries doing the best in that regard have consistently been the places where individual and economic freedom have gone hand to hand with a very strong idea of common good, namely social democracies.
So long as you ignore that those social democracies are fully aware that their current plan leads to complete ecological collapse.
When considering collectivist vs individualist frameworks it is quite irrefutably collectivism that exclusively provides the required underpinning for the necessary global effort to minimize the ecological fallout of our status quo.
|
And so long as we ignore that most of our natural environment had been destroyed before 1945 anyway.
Apart from countries too sparsely populated to achieve that in time. US, Canada, Russia.
The destruction of the Amazon sped up during the democratic capitalist years. Not under the dictatorship.
What a weird metric to use.
|
I don't see how living in a socialist utopia makes people want to stop eating meat or fly across the world.
Nor do I think publicly owned business are more likely to embrace pollution reduction, in fact it might do the opposite when such measures result in a direct reduction of their paycheck.
Your problem lies with people, not social or economic systems.
|
On April 27 2020 13:32 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2020 03:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:There's a big difference between rejecting blank slate theory and stating with any confidence what traits commonly seen in humans constitute human nature. For me, it is hard to accept that there are 'human nature' elements that I reject as being part of myself - at the very least, such examples will make me inclined to think that culture supersedes nature. I have no problems accepting that hormones have some influence upon behavior and that differences in hormonal levels between men and women will constitute some difference in behavior between genders, but I have more problems accepting statements like 'greed' or 'wanting more than your fellow man' 'is human nature', because I don't think those hold true for myself. How do you define greed? We all act in our self-interest (or perceived self-interest) and that goes for charitable acts as for most people that brings them happiness. If being charitable made people feel shitty, or thought that it would make them go to hell (as opposed to heaven), etc. then you'd see less of it. It's why when people say someone is being greedy for wanting to keep their own money that they worked for and yet someone else who did not is not greedy for wanting it (the former's time aka money) I kind of tune out. It's important for people to be on the same page with definitions especially in arguments or debates. Also, your self-bias and anecdotal appeal doesn't really hold weight to how a large society structures incentives and behavior. There have been a thousand and ten human experiments with socialism and communism, the vast majority have been comical failures with starvation and death generally soon to follow. There's a reason societies with strong Lockean style property rights and liberal traditions tend to be freer and more prosperous.
Greed is wanting for the sake of having.
It isn't greedy for the pauper to want a fraction of the prince's wealth, it is greedy for the prince to pursue more wealth for no other reason than he wants to be richer. One needs the money because it will make a massive difference to his life. The other wants it despite it making no difference at all to his life beyond pleasure.
|
Do you seriously think billionaires are real life Scrooge McDucks who pursue more wealth for no other reason than to have a bigger pile of money they can dive into when they're bored?
|
On April 27 2020 22:02 Sent. wrote:
Do you seriously think billionaires are real life Scrooge McDucks who pursue more wealth for no other reason than to have a bigger pile of money they can dive into when they're bored?
They don't? When I was a child and saw that, I knew what my goal was in life. A pool of money and to dive. In it. That's not a real thing?
|
Why? There are people who have more money than they could possibly spend in a lifetime, and they still try to make more money.
They could instead pay their employees more. But they choose that they want more money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
