|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? 1
#28606225 - 01/01/24 06:12 PM (26 days, 1 hour ago) |
|
|
Modern economic theory depends on the axiom that man is naturally acquisitive and always acts for selfish reasons, ultimately. Most modern humans subscribe to this assumption.
There is in fact no genetic imperative making humans naturally selfish and acquisitive. Indeed, for hundreds of thousands of years we were a cooperative, non-materialistic species. If, for the sake of perspective, planetary evolution took a thousand years, human society as currently constituted would have lasted for less than a day. So, this "natural" acquisitiveness and material hoarding is the exception, not the rule.
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.
Would anyone like to offer a solution to this discrepancy?
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606301 - 01/01/24 06:45 PM (26 days, 48 minutes ago) |
|
|
I've seen jealousy in young children, as well as generosity so I think that we have some strong instinct for both behaviors and as you mention we are programmed by our culture, I suspect in a way that creates an imbalance in terms of these two instincts.
Examples of kindness are often a decent inoculation against the infectious disease of indifference and coldness. People who are shown love are more likely to be loving I think, so on and so forth. It's not really a solution, but it gives individuals a chance to try to make the world a better place one choice at a time. I also think that our behavior and examples speak more loudly than our words.
Speaking of the ruthlessness of our society and how we are taught to seek to compete against one another instead of work together, I think this article written, again, by Albert Einstein, has more than a few good points.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606314 - 01/01/24 06:56 PM (26 days, 37 minutes ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Einstein said: An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
In the article he observes that competition against one another has numerous detrimental effects. He also predicts the economic collapses we have repeatedly seen, which have been dealt with by using bailouts.
Isn't that funny? That when our capitalist society has repeatedly failed to be sustainable we keep using socialism to repair it.
I think so.
I wonder how many people in the USA who claim to hate socialism cashed their Covid checks?
Most of them, I'd wager. Making every one of them who did so a practicing socialist.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion] 1
#28606319 - 01/01/24 06:59 PM (26 days, 33 minutes ago) |
|
|
Good points. What it really comes down to is the fact that modern human societies, backed up by academia and science, treat human selfishness and the tendency to have as much as possible for oneself as a universal. When in fact, this behavior is only a small particular when considering the anthropological record.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606345 - 01/01/24 07:16 PM (26 days, 17 minutes ago) |
|
|
Indeed, our species has relied heavily upon cooperation to survive for most of its existence.
It is interesting that the wild type people of the past are considered more magnanimous by nature than the domesticated form of our species is today.
Still there was more cannibalism in the past, so it's complicated.
Speaking of people eating...
I'm reminded of the parable about Hell being a place where people seated at a table are trying to feel themselves with spoons too long to reach their mouths, they all suffer from hunger. In the parable Heaven is identical but the difference is that the people are feeding one another.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion] 2
#28606364 - 01/01/24 07:31 PM (26 days, 2 minutes ago) |
|
|
I think the urge to fit in socially is behind the insecurity based predatory fantasy marketing and eventual acquisition of most stuff.
Besides that we have an inclination to hunt and be stealthy which is a kind of being sneaky, and that adaptive sneakiness also can be warped into taking from others or from the community and getting away with it.
The term selfish is like the term vain. It wraps all sorts of behavior that may have socially difficult side effects, but some people really are just that, selfish and vain, and that's that.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
lostintimenspc
Stranger
Registered: 03/13/20
Posts: 222
Last seen: 6 days, 17 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28606501 - 01/01/24 09:49 PM (25 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
Compassion can correlate with a lack of power and a certain type of selfishness. You should help others because life is good and it doesn't affect your power.
-------------------- LSD, mushrooms and DMT are different structural levels within the same magically simulated mystery sometimes blandly called 'life' Your life, your call.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: lostintimenspc]
#28606627 - 01/02/24 04:50 AM (25 days, 14 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
lostintimenspc said: Compassion can correlate with a lack of power and a certain type of selfishness. You should help others because life is good and it doesn't affect your power.
knowing this to be true, what is your recipe for achieving compassion?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606813 - 01/02/24 08:59 AM (25 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
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.”
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606823 - 01/02/24 09:20 AM (25 days, 10 hours ago) |
|
|
I think social construction indicates that a lot (not all, I agree much of behavior is biology) of our culture is non-biological in origin and that in order to make it work there have been centuries of eugenics efforts.
We are the domesticated version of our kind, not the type that was adapted towards natural survival, if I am not mistaken. Particularly here in the US where I reside.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Lion]
#28606843 - 01/02/24 09:51 AM (25 days, 9 hours ago) |
|
|
what is deeper than foundational? storm sewers?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Lion] 3
#28606882 - 01/02/24 10:29 AM (25 days, 9 hours ago) |
|
|
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?
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,847
Last seen: 20 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle]
#28606925 - 01/02/24 10:55 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
I think culture is how we coordinate behavioral adaptations to environment.
Desert culture is about surviving in the desert. Arctic culture is about surviving in the arctic. City culture is about surviving in the city (and cities require diversity), farming culture is about serving in farmlands (which requires more homogeneity).
With technology, we are becoming masters of the environment, and culture can now break free from old survival bonds to the environment. We are creating our own environment. I see our current situation partly as a competition for the direction of our culture, it is free to diversify in many directions. Its like an evolutionary process.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Freedom] 1
#28606937 - 01/02/24 11:05 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Maybe? We don't typically call animal survival behaviors culture?
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Lion
Decadent Flower Magnate


Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 2 days, 11 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle]
#28606939 - 01/02/24 11:13 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
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.”
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Lion] 1
#28606946 - 01/02/24 11:21 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
I find the distinction between biology and environment suspect at scale. A moth developing spots is trying to hide from predators. But it developed spots because of tree coloration changing. Where does the biological imperative begin, and the environmental one take over? Where did the environmental one begin to influence biology? It's way too mixed for such distinctions to be much more than arbitrary IMO
But if one is trying to cease a behavior, such arbitration, whether it is biological or environmental, can help lead to significant change.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,847
Last seen: 20 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle]
#28606951 - 01/02/24 11:26 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Maybe? We don't typically call animal survival behaviors culture?
Cultural Evolution in Animals
Quote:
In recent decades, a burgeoning literature has documented the cultural transmission of behavior through social learning in numerous vertebrate and invertebrate species. One meaning of “cultural evolution in animals” refers to these discoveries, and I present an overview of key findings. I then address the other meaning of the term focused on cultural changes within a lineage. Such changes in humans, described as “cumulative cultural evolution,” have been spectacular, but relatively little attention has yet been paid to the topic in nonhuman animals, other than asserting that the process is unique to humans. A variety of evidence including both controlled experiments and field observations has begun to challenge this view, and in some behavioral domains, notably birdsong, cultural evolution has been studied for many years. In this review, I dissect concepts of cultural evolution and cumulative culture and appraise the accumulating evidence bearing on their nature and significance for evolutionary biology at large.
Man on Earth makes a convincing argument about culture adapting us to environment, IMO
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28606959 - 01/02/24 11:32 AM (25 days, 8 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: I find the distinction between biology and environment suspect at scale.
I'm inclined to agree.
Is all behavior geared towards survival? I wonder.
I think that there are some nuances there and that Freedom and Kickle both have good points that may not be in opposition.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion] 1
#28606985 - 01/02/24 11:48 AM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
before sailing ships and imperialism every 50 miles had a different culture. some were fishers, some hunters, some gatherers, some cultivators, some foragers, some had slaves, some were slaves, some had mushrooms. Some ate insects, some feared insects, some domesticated cows and dogs, some tattooed their faces, I couldn't list them all - but cultures were based upon local ecologies as much as on human biologies. and then there was cross pollination of ideas and interbreeding.
and long after that there was imperialism, money...
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Freedom]
#28607001 - 01/02/24 12:06 PM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
@freedom Could be the cultural sentiment around animals is changing as humanity gets new looks at itself. In college there was an entire psychology course dedicated to comparing humans to animals and trying to distinguish what makes humans unique. More often than not the studies lead to recognizing an ability an animal species possesses naturally that humans don't. It both highlighted our dependency on external tools but also how our creation and utilization of such tools leads to a greater understanding of the behaviors of other life. Understanding imo leads to a greater sense of connectedness.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,847
Last seen: 20 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle]
#28607019 - 01/02/24 12:17 PM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
That seems true. I'm not sure what culture the idea comes from, sometimes its called modernity, or colonialism or 'Western', that all sounds kind of vague, but there is this idea that humans are above and seperate from animals.
I wonder where that comes from, maybe from domestication of animals
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Freedom]
#28607024 - 01/02/24 12:20 PM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Humans justify killing all sorts of ways. But a common one in recent times is to see the other as inferior, uncultured, unclean, and dangerous.
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#28607031 - 01/02/24 12:24 PM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
Mythology has often claimed that civilization was taught to our species by another. I have some beliefs along those lines that others would consider pretty far out, but they don't involve magic beings or aliens, just different forms of intelligent life on Earth.
Of course that's all trivia and a whole different topic, but I don't believe that we have the clearest picture of our ancient past.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,847
Last seen: 20 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle] 1
#28607032 - 01/02/24 12:25 PM (25 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Lion]
#28607040 - 01/02/24 12:34 PM (25 days, 6 hours ago) |
|
|
I would just say that culture evolves from biology only to a point. The similarities between all cultures dictate that this is the case to some degree. Human universals. But on the other hand, and this is modern anthropology's position, it seems there is a lot of evidence that culture can evolve quite independently of genetics.
In a very wide sense, DNA builds the circuits of the brain. But once one is out of the womb and in the world, the way those circuits get wired up varies widely and almost arbitrarily. This would highlight the variety of differences between cultures in time and space on Earth.
So I think for the most part culture is independent of biology, with a few universal behavioral themes.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28607057 - 01/02/24 12:56 PM (25 days, 6 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: I would just say that culture evolves from biology only to a point. The similarities between all cultures dictate that this is the case to some degree.
Genetic bottlenecks also result in cultural bottlenecks. The similarities of cultures are rarely convergent but are divergent. Genetic, cultural, linguistic and archaeological evidence can be used to make that case quite strongly.
The Jungian archetypes theory that the different similar aspects of culture are due to archetypes was based in the primitive belief in the separate origin of human races from distinct groups of primates. We now know that is not the case, the similarities are because of common origin that all peoples share and so called races are just adaptations of populations to environments over time.
I can show that the 8 fold path, the Bagua or 8 trigrams and the Ogdoad are all different versions of the same thing and can show how they diverged and developed from a single common culture a little over ten thousand years ago. One can follow the genetic development or the language back just the same, martial arts and even temple design and sacred sculptures relate. It's my favorite topic but I don't like discussing it too much because it requires familiarity with a massive amount of material and it can be offensive to those who believe in most organized religions or things like Jungian archetypes.
|
Freedom
Pigment of your imagination



Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 5,847
Last seen: 20 hours, 36 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion]
#28607064 - 01/02/24 12:58 PM (25 days, 6 hours ago) |
|
|
sounds like a fun book
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion]
#28607106 - 01/02/24 01:30 PM (25 days, 6 hours ago) |
|
|
I can show that the 8 fold path, the Bagua or 8 trigrams and the Ogdoad are all different versions of the same thing and can show how they diverged and developed from a single common culture a little over ten thousand years ago.
And what did that fork come from? 
I think I remember you saying you're into the etymology of words. Do you think there is an actual origin point? Or do you think our conception of origin is more akin to rounding off pi to 3.14?
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle]
#28607148 - 01/02/24 01:56 PM (25 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
anthropological proof of origins in culture is harder to verify than proof that Trump is an insurrectionist, and that is patently obvious except to the severely demented.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28607208 - 01/02/24 02:28 PM (25 days, 5 hours ago) |
|
|
The 8 fold fork, so to speak, was just an example of material assumed to relate to archetypes classically that relates to a genetic, linguistic and cultural bottleneck that our species went though.
It's trivia, but it is fascinating trivia.
I select those because they even become the beatitudes and are taught by the Gnostics because they were transmitted through that guy everybody calls Jesus. Pretty sure he picked them up in Alexandria when he abandoned the Rabbinic tradition, before he became baptized as a Mandaean and then had the title Nazarene. The Rabbi that was with his family when they went to Egypt talked mad shit about him becoming a brick worshiper, in the Talmud. Christians ignore a lot of these records because they don't match the stuff that the Catholics voted on as Truth in Nicea. There really are contemporary records about the life and death of the man folks call Jesus, but they do not match the narrative that is preferred and so are rejected. I might even get around to relating more about that at some point, but probably not. I don't want to pour gasoline on the fire of some person thinking they are Jesus when they eat a bunch of mushrooms and think about God, which has happened more than a few times on this planet. I've met more than one person who claimed to be Jesus and who said that they learned they were him from taking psychedelics. I've often thought there should be a name for that.
Like I mention, the presentation of my perspective is quite offensive to numerous groups and people.
I mean, if I said that Turquoise boy, the solar deity of Native Americans was the same as the depiction of Vishnu as a young blue child in the Sun, is the same as Amitābha... I think that would fly in the face of what so many people believe that I'd be mocked without consideration. To me I've proven these things beyond a reasonable doubt. And yet for me there is no question of this.
I admit, I have an entirely different version of human history, of religious development, of evolution and of numerous other aspects than that which is commonly considered factual. Certainly I don't expect anyone to believe anything because some guy wrote it online, doubt is the most reasonable of all positions.
The thing is, though, that I am not a man easily convinced of anything.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Kickle] 1
#28607221 - 01/02/24 02:33 PM (25 days, 4 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kickle said: Do you think there is an actual origin point? Or do you think our conception of origin is more akin to rounding off pi to 3.14?
Depends on the context and the thing being discussed in terms of origination.
In general I know more about transmission than ultimate origin and I know likewise that even the most tenable of explanations can only rest upon the understanding of the information one has, thus I cannot be sure of anything at all, but I am sure that I know what I think and believe and that is relative and subject to change.
I wish I was more intelligent on the daily. It may be that my belief is nothing more than ignorance.
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion]
#28607558 - 01/02/24 06:42 PM (25 days, 51 minutes ago) |
|
|
The 8 fold fork, so to speak, was just an example of material assumed to relate to archetypes classically that relates to a genetic, linguistic and cultural bottleneck that our species went though.
I understand the concept of a bottleneck but am having a difficult time picturing that in real world terms. What sort of genetic circumstances can you relate this to? Or linguistic? Or cultural?
And have these circumstances not occurred again since that time?
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: redgreenvines]
#28607630 - 01/02/24 07:33 PM (25 days, 20 seconds ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: anthropological proof of origins in culture is harder to verify than proof that Trump is an insurrectionist, and that is patently obvious except to the severely demented.
Getting way off topic but here's my relation. Watched this to start the morning:
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#28607670 - 01/02/24 08:18 PM (24 days, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
As mentioned, I am not a man easily convinced of anything but this is also not the place to get into the details of my beliefs about these things. Here the basic information about the bottleneck in relation to timing and events sequence that relates to the elements I mentioned previously.
My best estimation is that the bottleneck occurred in relation to the event that triggered the Younger Dryas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
And that human populations were significantly diminished at that time.
This corresponds to Late Plesitocene extinctions in the Americas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Pleistocene_extinctions#North_America
Not only did it hit North America hard...
I believe the event sequence wiped out the Sebilians for example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebilian
and the Qadans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qadan_culture
Whose tools traces disappear around the same time as the Sebilians. Even the range for the disappearance of the Harifian culture hits about 10.8K years ago. All of these Egyptian cultures disappearance includes the same range for about 11K years ago. The event didn't just hit North America hard. After it those not wiped out by the event had to deal with something quite similar to a volcanic winter.
I don't think this is the place to discuss this topic though and I'm not inclined to outline and present it formally online. These are just examples of personal beliefs about aspects of our story, the tale of our species in relation to the history and future of this planet. However to the best of my understanding the origin of these cultural transmissions comes from limited populations that endured the Younger Dryas and the event that triggered it.
A few populations also escaped the event, in Australia for example, some of the Inca ancestors appear to have survived underground in a cave near Titicaca, but for the most part the human world was utterly decimated by a catastrophic event and a surprise ice age.
Wanna see a crater I think relates to the event in question? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iturralde_crater
An example of a myth relating to the event in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hou_Yi
For the record Wikipedia only has a few elements of the story listed, there is more out there if you want to look for it.
That's probably all I am going to write about this for now, it relates to private theories and such that I'd rather not put on the internet.
Edited by Nillion (01/02/24 08:19 PM)
|
Kickle
Wanderer



Registered: 12/16/06
Posts: 17,848
Last seen: 1 day, 3 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: Nillion]
#28607698 - 01/02/24 08:34 PM (24 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
No worries, thanks for sharing what you did. I'm not questioning your character specifically but I had no reference knowledge of specific abnormalities in that time period
-------------------- Why shouldn't the truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense. -- Mark Twain
|
loladoreen


Registered: 05/25/20
Posts: 5,322
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28607706 - 01/02/24 08:38 PM (24 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
I'm a very generous person. I have learned I am also selfish about some things. Like my time alone.
--------------------
“One doesn’t have to operate with great malice to do great harm. The absence of empathy and understanding are sufficient.”
|
nooneman


Registered: 04/24/09
Posts: 14,555
Loc: Utah
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum] 2
#28607733 - 01/02/24 09:15 PM (24 days, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
In psychology, it's fairly well studied that different people show different levels of prosocial behavior. Some people show little or none, others show a lot, most people are in the middle.
There are plenty reasons why prosocial behavior is beneficial for individuals. People who you help might help you in return, it can create social bonds which are incredibly important for finding lovers and jobs, it might make people think more highly of you which could benefit you socially, it can lead to promotions in the workplace because people want to work with others who they perceive as being nice or enjoyable to work with, and on a large scale it can help genes to survive by increasing the likelihood that a larger social group survives even if a single individual does not.
However, selfishness is also incredibly beneficial (for obvious reasons), and sometimes prosocial behavior can be useless.
Because both behaviors can be useful, we have people in our society who are selfish, and others who are very prosocial. Some people are maximizing one of the two traits, but most people fall in the middle.
|
blessed


Registered: 07/16/11
Posts: 1,085
Loc: ation: Tasmania
Last seen: 12 days, 8 hours
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum]
#28607994 - 01/03/24 05:07 AM (24 days, 14 hours ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Modern economic theory depends on the axiom that man is naturally acquisitive and always acts for selfish reasons, ultimately. Most modern humans subscribe to this assumption.
There is in fact no genetic imperative making humans naturally selfish and acquisitive. Indeed, for hundreds of thousands of years we were a cooperative, non-materialistic species. If, for the sake of perspective, planetary evolution took a thousand years, human society as currently constituted would have lasted for less than a day. So, this "natural" acquisitiveness and material hoarding is the exception, not the rule.
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.
Would anyone like to offer a solution to this discrepancy?
The problem is that, that's your opinion (bold out text), hinders any conclusions you might reach to be right/correct. One can not turn a theory into a fact, and then use that fact (actually an opinion), as a foundation for the findings of facts.
That said, I believe we have always been acquisitive and selfish.
There are children right now who have little to nothing, the kind of child that would be happy playing with a worn out bike tyre, yet if they went from that situation to being given the vast options like most first world kids are presented with, I believe said child would soon show signs of acquisitive and selfishness given the right circumstance.
And
Most people (around 90-99% of all people) that say they love someone (regardless of who it is), say "I love You" and demonstrate their love for someone else, do it from a selfish position. That is, if person A says that they love person B, but then person A received absolutely nothing back from person B, you would find that person's A "love" would soon end.
|
Nillion
Nobody

Registered: 04/14/22
Posts: 1,000
Loc: Terra Firma
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: blessed] 1
#28608033 - 01/03/24 06:39 AM (24 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
Unconditional love is Quote:
blessed said: Most people (around 90-99% of all people) that say they love someone (regardless of who it is), say "I love You" and demonstrate their love for someone else, do it from a selfish position. That is, if person A says that they love person B, but then person A received absolutely nothing back from person B, you would find that person's A "love" would soon end.
I love everybody and expect nothing and I still think that is pretty self serving. It if didn't help make me happy and help me find peace I doubt I would have pursued the ability to love neighbors like myself. I'm not sure that selfless love can even exist and I write that as a parent who wakes up early and makes food for children to help them prepare for the day. Even when I serve others I also serve myself.
Edited by Nillion (01/03/24 06:42 AM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,818
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: blessed]
#28608370 - 01/03/24 11:41 AM (24 days, 7 hours ago) |
|
|
That’s not an opinion at all. It reflects a hundred years of ethnographic findings by professional anthropologists. It is academic anthropology’s official position. It is not controversial within the field.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
pineninja
Dream Weaver



Registered: 08/17/14
Posts: 12,468
Loc: South
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: DividedQuantum] 1
#28616953 - 01/10/24 09:40 PM (16 days, 21 hours ago) |
|
|
Naturally speaking we are far more symbiotic than we are taught....if we aren't then we are the first organism I'm aware of that doesn't have a give take existence.
Though with a culture that effectively promotes pissing in the well we are perverting this fundamental nature and due to the imbalance it has created we may well destroy ourselves.
Without this base symbiotic potential we wouldn't be here having this debate.
If one believes that we are never to correct ourselves because we are without the tools we are doomed. It'll take an awaking to realise that we have a role and are more than capable of performing it.
It all begins within a belief. Taught by the never ending competitive narrative. Reinforced deliberately by educational deceit. You must win your Darwinistic comparative.
This low level crude explanation. Hailed as one giant step forward. Is just another symptom. When conciosnesses are left unexplored.
A narrowing of all potential. Allows the mangagers to get you stood in line. Fueled billionaires jet transcontinental. While scientists get lost in time.
Where tangibility can rest only in physicality. When constructed atoms need be newly discovered. Why Newton needs a destructibility. Collecting any truths we can recover.
It all begins within a belief. That ones separation can be measured. A successful chart to bring relief. To it you must be tethered.
-------------------- Just a fool on the hill.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: pineninja]
#28617257 - 01/11/24 06:28 AM (16 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
maybe it is defensive acquisitions as armor
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
mkcobain
The Freak



Registered: 01/18/16
Posts: 101
Last seen: 13 hours, 37 minutes
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: redgreenvines] 1
#28618346 - 01/12/24 06:14 AM (15 days, 13 hours ago) |
|
|
The natural habitat of a human is clans of a few hundered members. Is it selfish of a member sacrificing its life for the continuity of the clan? What is the "self" here the clan or the member? If you find this selfish then your answer is "yes".
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,526
|
Re: Are humans naturally acquisitive and always selfish? [Re: mkcobain]
#28618363 - 01/12/24 06:35 AM (15 days, 12 hours ago) |
|
|
might want to edit, but I think you are on to something
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
|