Quote:
DividedQuantum said: We are not programmed by our DNA to be like this. We are programmed by our culture to be like this.
So, in contradistinction to economic and biological ideas, anthropology would tend to indicate that for most of our history we were not inherently acquisitive and always selfish.
Culture emerges from biology. It isn't some synthetic thing superimposed on our inherent nature; it's downstream of our genetic characteristics.
Maybe culture, and ideology in particular, can take on a life and momentum of its own that makes it 'break free' in a sense from the biological imperatives which caused it to arise. It's an interesting question. In any case I do agree with you that selfishness and acquisitiveness are not the foundational characteristics of human psychology. They're nested in a much deeper bundle of traits, and more pronounced in certain individuals and human groups than others.
-------------------- “Strengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that I’ve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I will— and I will have the will, strengthened as I’ll be with contemplation and study— at the crucial moments I’ll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.”
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Culture emerges from biology. It isn't some synthetic thing superimposed on our inherent nature; it's downstream of our genetic characteristics.
What leads you to this conclusion? When I look at biology I see obvious connections to the environment in which that biology exists, yet biology does not directly control. Which strongly indicates to me that biology is not 1-directional, imposing a downstream flow, but rather multi-directional with lots of give and take, dynamism, and change.
A moth that develops spots in response to soot on trees seems to be a response to changes in the environment. It's biology followed environmental changes, not the other way around. Saying that biology created the spots is technically accurate, they are a biological feature, but it really neglects the way other factors are entwined in such an arising.
Culture is likewise entwined with environment. One cannot say city life is the same as living on a farm, or in the jungle. Nor are the cultures of the many varied environments on Earth the same. If culture emerges from biology alone, why would this be?
Living in industrialized societies for example leads to changes in reproductive practices. This is visible amongst immigrants. Why would moving into a new cultural lead to changes in "fundamental" biological processes, if biology is driving culture?
Actually I totally agree with the thrust of your argument. Environment is a highly determinative factor in producing culture. When looking at the development of culture over centuries and millennia, I think what we see is environment impinging on biology. Newer cultures are perhaps more abstracted from one specific environment and are the results of things like the development of institutions, mass media, etc. The trajectory of all of these things still seem to have a very large biological component, though.
-------------------- “Strengthened by contemplation and study, I will not fear my passions like a coward. My body I will give to pleasures, to diversions that I’ve dreamed of, to the most daring erotic desires, to the lustful impulses of my blood, without any fear at all, for whenever I will— and I will have the will, strengthened as I’ll be with contemplation and study— at the crucial moments I’ll recover my spirit as was before: ascetic.”
|