Human nature Liberals view human nature as a set of innate qualities intrinsic to the individual, placing little or no emphasis on social or historical conditioning. Humans are self-seeking and largely self-reliant creatures; but they are also governed by reason and are capable of personal development, particularly through education. Conservatives believe that human beings are essentially limited and security-seeking creatures, drawn to the known, the familiar, the tried and tested. Human rationality is unreliable, and moral corruption is implicit in each human individual. The new right nevertheless embraces a form of self-seeking individualism. ’ Socialists regard humans as essentially social creatures, their capacities and behaviour being shaped more by nurture than by nature, and particularly by creative labour. Their propensity for cooperation, sociability and rationality means that the prospects for human development and personal growth are considerable.“ Anarchists view human nature in highly optimistic terms. Humans are either seen to have a powerful inclination towards sociable, gregarious and cooperative behaviour, being capable of maintaining order through collective effort alone, or to be basically self-interested but rationally enlightened. Fascists believe that humans are ruled by the will and other non-rational drives, most particularly by a deep sense of social belonging focused on nation or race. Although the masses are fitted only to serve and obey, elite members of the national community are capable of personal regeneration as ‘new men’ through dedication to the national or racial cause. Feminists usually hold that men and women share a common human nature, gender differences being culturally or socially imposed. Separatist feminists nevertheless argue that men are genetically disposed to domination and cruelty, while women are naturally sympathetic, creative and peaceful. Ecologists, particularly deep ecologists, see human nature as part of the broader ecosystem, even as part of nature itself. Materialism, greed and egoism therefore re?ect the extent to which humans have become alienated from the oneness of life and thus from their own true nature.Human fulfilment requires a return to nature. political ideologies an introduction pg77 3rd edition 2003 Andrew Heywood We have been told over and over that "you can't change human nature", but the study of emic realities shows quite the contrary, that almost anything can become "human nature" if society defines it as such. Robert Anton Wilson.
PLEASE get noam chomsky and jacque fresco together to talk (no offense but they are both old so we need to kinda hurry)... this would make change even faster!
That'd be cool. A Peter Joseph-Chomsky discussion would be very cool also. It could be titled "What could be and why it isn't." Hopefully there would be part two entitled "What could be and we get there."
it's a shame fresco and Noam never exchanged words on camera. Jacque did a good lecture on free will www.thevenusproject.com/product/jacque-fresco-free-will-influence-background/
One question that strikes my mind upon stumbling upon this topic is: Are we doomed to top-down hierarchical social structures since we are not very distant from apes, that show a strong adherence to social hierarchy? So no matter how egalitarian a society we build, is there absolutely no chance of escaping dominance-submission?
Let me try to shed some light on this. Good question. There's a fundamental difference between dominance-submission among humans and apes or any other animals in that in our case it's entirely imposed on us through lifelong systems of indoctrination, brainwashing and constant propaganda that never stops, especially if you follow it. It for some might even start in their families, when kids get beaten by the parents for misbehavior, or even when parents yell at the kids when they don't do what they want. Not saying you should let your kids do whatever they want but some parents just go crazy about it. Then goes kindergarten, school, college, workplace, church, sports - all are top-down hierarchical institutions. This is something animals don't have :) And in the meantime many people reject hierarchies and look for jobs and lifestyles and even social relationships where they don't have to be dominated by anyone. In fact all would do that if they could. The answer is then we are not doomed; we have non-hierarchical co-ops (enterprises), schools where teachers don't teach but rather help kids to learn, and married couples with no male or female dominance. It's just the current political and economic framework is in strong favor of ownership, dominance, monopoly, suppression, control etc, and thus these forms still prevail, but they're not ubiquitous and what's more there's a tendency towards weakening of hierarchies globally. But we should keep fighting, it doesn't happen on its own.
Some are comfortable living within the dominance-submission archetype, some are not. Therefore, depending upon which camp you are in, you are either doomed or not doomed.
How is that intended for Pinker, when he has the same belief as Chomsky that humans do have nature. He makes the case in his book "The Blank Slate". Did you just make the connection based on the title of his book "The Better Angels of Our Nature"? In that, he argues that violence in the world has been declining historically, which is in line with what Chomsky is saying at 10:49, not that humans don't have nature.
Murugan Joan Ayisha Agreed. He has made plenty of comments disagreeing with Pinker’s more recent work and theses, such as The Better Angels of Our Nature. This comment however, I’d agree, is not a shot at Pinker. He levies those criticisms rather directly.
Sticks & Stones will Break my BONES. TRUE. Country Folks can Make it, Grow & Raise ur on Food. Treat others with respect until they/them don't treat u likewise. Nature Freedom Dreams.
Or we are a different species of apes. What is human nature is very, very complex. What is different, unique about humans. Are the differences of kind, or degree or both.
Might actually be a valid criticism of him. He can be flippant towards the other side. I thought about that while listening to John Mearsheimer. He always acknowledges debating isolationism presents a huge challenge since the argument for it makes so much sense at face value.
