before I get started, I would like to specify that this thread is for serious discussion, so if you don't have something sensible to say, please don't say it.

I am a communist, and I hope that one day the whole world will be one utopian state, with total equality and self policing people. But I was talking to someone the other day, who said that Communism, like Pacifism, will never succeed, because Human nature won't let it. Is this true? Are humans unable to allow equality and peace? Is it our nature to be violent and greedy? Please tell me your views.

---

Nature vs. Nurture, man.


If nurture plays a big enough role, then sure we can nuture everyone into being good. But if nature has the bigger chunk, and if it's human nature to be bad... >_>


I also don't think you can generally say "Human nature is _____". Everyone is different.

---

Communism will never work because people aren't equal. They may be when they're born, but their social status, job and wealth all makes for a divided society, even if it'd be in a hamlet with 5 houses. Also an totally equal society wouldn't ever work because things need to get organized SOMEHOW, and total anarchy isn't really the best way to get stuff done.

---

Perhaps we should stick more on human nature, and not focus specifically on communism.


But yeah, I agree. The thing about what you said is, if everyone was equal, they would have the same wealth and status (non-work related). But the problem is when you get the the job... are you going to treat a doctor who saves people's lives the same as a cashier?

---

The reason you all have any reasonable arguments against communism is merely because everyone is basing their opinion upon the assumption that a monetary system is necessary.

For example what Tinker said, well DUH it's impossible with divided classes but that's because the whole POINT behind communism is that there are no divided classes. And this can be achieved, only by cutting off the system of 'wealth'.

As Marx, the founder of the idea said, "make according to capacity, take according to need". Or something along those lines. The point is, in a system were money does not exist, this so-called human nature would prove to be surprisingly different. (And I don't mean falling back to a trade system, which is a counter argument someone once used against it, because money is basically trade made easy through representation.)

Anyways, not sure whether we're talking about communism or anarchy or both here. It's both if you mean the tried-but-not-tested ideal.

---

Everyone would need to get the bare minimums, and nothing more.

Otherwise you need a monetary system, and everything starts to fall apart. (Even if everyone makes the same amount of money--which would probably cause problems with some people--you still need to determine prices, which can cause problems... (Why should I only get one video game, while that person can get a bunch of books?))

---

the essential human nature is to survive and be superior. we're not violent and greedy, it's just that the nature of control isn't something people are designed to do. i'm sorry, but humans can never achieve perfect communism by consent (not like how Light wants to control the world in Death Note). otherwise we wouldn't be human anymore.

It's not that it's human nature to be violent, evil and greedy. It's that it's human nature to be free, to do whatever we like, to be individual. The reason that communism will never work is that people want something that makes them different, we don't want to be just like it, we want to branch out, to create.

Also, communism is flawed in itself, it promotes equality, and peace. But what of the means to which communisum must be obtained, war, take over, there must be a leader, and an army, and a government, to maintain equailty. And thus, there are people who are above the others, who have more power. And power corrupts, so communism will fail. It's a vicious cycle, not that any form of government is perfect. But as stated, it's not a discussion of communism, it's a discussion of human nature.

---

I think Human nature is generally good. I don't believe people can be born evil but when applied to the political sense like this....I'd say it's not impossible for communism to work. Just that it's highly unlikely to work. If there is one weak link in the chain then...well.....the whole thing falls apart. I'd rather have a nice minimalistic society where people could express themselves through little things rather than mindless consumerism and where people helped one another with daily tasks.

Really I'd rather the whole word was a hippy culture with sharing and growing their own food.

---

If you could actually give me an argument as to why that would be necessary, I'd be willing to hear out the rest of your claims, but no. There's nothing that says this wouldn't work.


Creativity is one of the most important aspects of Marx's theory. Also, do you really believe that what little self-expression we have in this world is thanks to, and not limited by, our corporate capitalistic society?

Individual: Hey, I made a video! =D
YouTube: SILENCE HIM!

Anyways.
The reason you said this is because of the, note: failed, attempted communism in our worlds. As we know, it's been tried along with retaining the monetary system. ...Yeah, doesn't work. I don't think you see my point here.


There's not really anyone that said communism means it has to be obtained that way. So a few people tried it that way. True. Does that mean it applies to the whole concept? No, the concept was brilliant. There were just a few fools in history who thought they could achieve peace through war, equality through difference.

Give me one example when a war ever brings peace? So yeah, what I'm saying is the gaiz who tried communism so far were idiots.

---

Ooh, an armchair philosophy thread, my favorite.

While the thread has already derailed a bit into talk about communism I would like to address the original topic—and start off with a small primer. The founders of modern political philosophy (mostly dead European guys, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau et al.) all used the concept of a state of nature as a foundation for their various thesis. A common criticism that they ran into was that has anyone really observed an actual state of nature? Absent of any government, order or structure, how do we know for sure what a group of people would do. Sure we can conceptualize and discuss it a priori but has “human nature” ever been empirically recorded, measured and studied? Looking through written human history, well, not really. Some philosophers of that time pointed towards the New World (the yet to be colonized Americas) as examples of savage lands driven solely by human nature, but such models of thought are awfully ignorant and bigoted. Even the so-called “savage” and “sub-human” lands had their own versions of government, structure and hierarchy. For the most part, the following largely drives our ideals of the state of human nature:
- What ideological “isms” we subscribe to
- Religious background, or lack thereof
- Our subjective experinces and education

Even with all that said, we could still apply scientific rigor, look for patterns and consistencies and form a reasonable theory. We do have tools at our disposal that the scholars of old could never dreamed of. Among them, a global community with access to information and histories of nearly every culture and society, advances in brain imaging technology and behavioral sciences (although behaviorism is a topic best left for another thread). But still, there always is the subjective aspect present in these sorts of controversial topics.

So what parallels could we draw across various cultures and societies and what can we infer about human nature from them? Well, starting from the OP’s comments about communism and pacifism, one thing that is quite consistent is the propensity for us humans to wage war. Armed conflict has been a mainstay of human society since, well, ever. Whether it be via religious factions, tribes or nation-states, war is so much a part of our history that we can almost say that it is a feature of humanity. While it could it be argued that our legacy of bloodshed was a product of maligned governments and dysfunctional leadership, I find that hard to buy. It is so consistent throughout the entirety of the political spectrum, across times and places that the only correlating factor is that the subject matter is us humans. Claiming that a new “ism” would be the solution to all our conflicts sounds rather naïve. Does this mean that violent conflict is a part of human nature? Not necessarily, but it could be taken in context as an argument for that point of view. There’s also the perspective that war & conflict is not an entirely “bad” thing for human society. War has served as the impetus for a great deal of technological and ideological development, the internet and computers being one of them. Again, this subject matter is really complex, and like many topics regarding morality and metaphysics, will probably never have a definitive answer.

I could go on for much longer on the subject but I run the risk of rambling on for far too long and making my post too unbearable and boring to read. Also, I would like to engage in the discussion about communism here but that would threaten to further derail the main topic of the thread, unless this is what you guys want. I’ll just say this; while it may be ideologically appealing it has a tendency to be not very pragmatic.

This topic reminds me of my socio/psychology/philosophy classes...

Anyway, what I believe about human nature is that it isn't that humans are naturally inclined to do evil (ex: Legalism) but more that we tend to be ruled by insticts and wants at first (in short, we're selfish). Granted, we mostly develop our insticts from socialization that subtly teaches us to act in certain ways but its the base emotions produced that help develop how we act. Usually though, these base emotions are towards the self rather than the rest of the world. One theory I heard that I really liked was that we develop the feeling to care towards others.

I mean, think about it. When we're born we're all pretty much thinking about ourselves mainly. We can't do squat for ourselves at that age and I think the cares of our caregivers are pretty low in comparison to how we feel for ourselves (I don't think I was being very considerate towards my parents want of sleep : P). But, for most of us (there are the minority tragic cases), we have someone that takes care of us and shows us how to care for someone else. It takes time but our worlds grow outside the self and begin to take into consideration the world and the people around us.

But even then, we still carry the basic needs and wants that both consciously and unconsciously drive us. The main reason I can't see a perfect utopian state ever coming into being is because while people and societies share the same basic emotional want what that want is or includes is very different. I know Marx said something about taking to each their own need and the Lockian Proviso says something (sorry for the vague terms, been a while since I had to look at this stuff) about as long as our needs don't entreat on someone else's but there's a limit to how far those can go before some form of conflict pops up. Conflict helps breed up other emotions aside from our different and basic wants/need and before you know it peace and equaility goes to hell.

---

It wouldn't work because once you get past the minimums, it's pretty difficult to give everyone in the world the exact same thing... and stupid, since not everyone will want the exact same thing.

And once different people have different things, they aren't equal, now are they?



You might suggest just giving everyone the same wage, but then there are two things wrong:
1. Giving everyone the same wage is right on one level, but completely rediculous on another level. Should a cashier really be paid the same amount as a policeman who risks his life, or a doctor who saves others' lives?
2. Price is also an issue... Even if everyone has the same wage, people will have different amounts of stuff because of different prices. And that might get people complaining, that they can only get a little of what they want, while other people can get a lot of what they want. (ex. How come when I spent my money I could only get one video game, while that guy could get a ton of books?!)



Beyond the necessities, there are just so many different factors that it's nearly impossible to keep them all balanced in such a way that everyone will be equal and happy. (Hec, even with the necessities it's pretty difficult.)



I like the way you hrased that very much :3

---

Now, there's where your way of thinking is derailed. This is why I talk about abolishing the monetary system; if you take away money or values of an object, all objects are equal. There is no need for people to have the same. Only when attempted in a system with money and capitalistic roots. If you take away the huge pricetag, a Ferrari is just another car. Maybe it's that bit more fast, but I, for one, prefer the simple design of a Volvo. See what I'm getting at?



I think you missed the point where I said that money and utopia don't combine. And you just gave yourself the reason why.


Anyways, on human nature, I think there is nothing in 'human nature' that prevents people from peacefully living in a utopia. The key feature of humans is their amazing ability to adapt to their situation: it's the very reason we got so far. I can only conclude that there is no predefined trait of humankind other than the urge to fit in; the urge to be part of 'it'. All humans want to fit into their society, or others may urge to be an element in a smaller group. At least that's what I think. And this is why I believe a utopia, as described by Figaro, is definitely possible.

---

What do you expect then? There's a reason money was invented, you know.

---

(I honestly thought it would be a topic about Michael Jackson -_-)

There is no such thing as human nature. Nature is supposed to be what existed before culture, but in fact, the opposite is true: nature wouldn't exist without culture, because we wouldn't be able to conceptualize it. We are condemned to have a cultural vision of nature. Even to understand our own bodies, we need science... The state of nature as described by Locke or Rousseau is a myth. Many anthropologists (Levi-Strauss...) have studied supposedly "primitive" societies, and found out that they all have some kind of culture.

Therefore, the problem is not whether communism is compatible with human nature, but with human culture. We obviously can't have any idea whether that's the case... however, we can observe what has happened up to now. So far, "degenerated" forms of communism have managed to last for decades (some, like North Korea, still exist today), but they would be more accurately defined as totalitarian regimes. As for more idealistic forms of communist societies, some people have tried to live in utopian societes according to the principles of Owen or Fourier, but to my knowledge, all of these attempts have failed rather quickly.

---

there's the argument of "if a tree falls in the forest, and nobody's there to hear it, does it make a sound?". who said that people need to conceptualize nature to bring it into existence? they only conceptualized something already existing.

Oh yeah, if a country is strong enough to beat all other countries,the whole word would probably become an utopian state. But to achieve that goal you have to experience volient and war, for sure both of them are against human nature.

just kidding.

Okey, as one species of all the animals, what's human's most basic nature? It's being exist, as long as possible. People tend to earn more and more for their own profit, and it's not as bad as it sound to be.Disire is something like a gun, it's awalys good if you use it in a right way. We have to be better to survive from the society.Becuase our society is accomplished by humen who want to gain a better life, the whole human society is getting improved.

In an utopian state, everyone is equle. No competition, no improvement. No arguing, no truth. No desire, no better life.

It's just against the most basic human nature, because there is no perfect society. The world can always be better.

---

> Absolutely, but that's not exactly my point. I'm not denying the existence of what we call nature. I'm questioning the accuracy of the concept of nature our culture has given birth to. I think the nature of the human being is, precisely, not to be natural. The (relative) efficiency of capitalism has nothing to do with our bodies, but with our culture.

---

It's a good idea but it would never succeed.
The power needed to make a utopia is corrupted every time someone aquires it.
Also people can't change for the better (I know this through my fifteen years of experience in life)

So yeah i'm sorry but you cant have a utopia

---

I didn't take the time to read the whole discussion as I'm really only gonna put in my two cents and leave.
(so if I just say the same thing as someone else, sorry)


I believe that human nature does lean towards greed and selfishness. Now, obviously, there are some people that can move past that, be it with the help of religion or pure self-control or whatever, but there will never be enough of those people or a wide enough permeation of those principles to allow something like communism to work. I am a capitalist myself, but even I can see the benefits of communism if only it could work. Unfortunately, my personal experiences and history itself have proven time and time again that this simply isn't the case.

---

it's impossible to move pass that. if you do, you aren't human anymore.

My view is this, on human nature, we like order, we like dominance or sub-obedience (basic animal trait that one) and in a more 'higher brain function manner' we like to work TOWARDS something. I will say it is possible for human nature to allow for equality, even when it might seem it

IE, Farmer takes care of 40 acres of land for food, you are taking care of some dull paperwork.. some would place the farmer above the officer worker BUT if both duties are necessary and these two people have the skills (and will) to perform them, neither is 'greater' if it is deemed so..

Problem here is, sure the farmer is helping people at and the office worker is providing administration and perhaps taking stock of tomatoes BUT what is the goal? (Sorry about this) but under communism I believe in stagnation, the 'goal' for Russian was to create socialism once created what is the next goal? You need to create something to look forward to or that farmer migth go 'bugger this, I am eating tomatoes today and getting fat instead of giving them to other people, who the hell do I need to feed that paper shuffler, no help to ME

ME ME ME ME that is the problem, the self, the individual desires, once that 'human nature' sets in, all is lost.. things need a group conciousness, a group effort, a group striving etc.. but what is this group? Giving it a name like a political force then it is not a group thing but a political one, give it a organisation name, it is not about people but about a big mythical creature of doom which wears black suits and tells you what to do.. it is like Functionalism, where society is seen as a human body and all spheres of society is to serve this personified thing, schools teach skills the SOCIETY needs(no need to teach office workers about plants, thei just need office skills), health to treat what the SOCIETY needs... soon we are lost in a world with no people but create Gods which should be made of people but is instead fear, lost aims, unhappy people who are not engaged beyond their assigned 'lot' and misguided, like rants like this HAHAHA.

Of course I am being a little shallow, human nature allows for alot of group dynamics and you could TRY to twist functionist theory into one which allows allows for self-growth, but that has alot of problems too.

Hope that made SOME sense.

---

I just mean that obviously, some people have acted out of generosity and kindness even when they have no benefit and/or have much to lose by doing so. Mother Theresa, Saint Nicolas, Jesus Christ, Martin Luthor King, Firemen, Police. The list goes on and on.

---

but only very few people. if we were all like that, it would be worse than a zombie apocalypse.

I fail to see how people acting out of kindness and generosity would be worse than a zombie apocalypse.

Are you saying you would prefer to bask in the humanity of greed and hatred than try to better yourself by acting better?
I'm not trying to insult or demean you, but your responses genuinely confuse me....

---

no. kindness an generosity is what helps us thrive. but imagine every single person acting like that. we really wouldn't be human anymore if greed, hatred, etc didn't exist.

no. kindness an generosity is what helps us thrive. but imagine every single person acting like that. we really wouldn't be human anymore if greed, hatred, etc didn't exist.[/quote]
I think I understand your train of thought now. Even if it is unorthodox.

That's like the argument that Evil is necessary because without Evil there would be no Good. there would just be actions. No Good or Bad either way....

Something deep to think about.

---

Nah he just means there isn't anything that could possibly be better than a zombie apocalypse.

Anyways.


There's also a reason why blimps were invented but I still think jet fighters are a lot faster.

---

of course, i already have all my provisions and machine guns ready in a secret trap door on the second floor. i've already knocked down my stairs too. can't wait to headshot zombies!

I'm skipping to Alaska. Because Zombies have no body heat. They'll freeze like corpse-sicles.

---

Guys, try to stay on topic. Let's not derail the thread.

---

I apologize. I shouldn't have said that but I couldn't resist the Red vs. Blue reference. I still shouldn't have said it, regardless.

Way to go, Greeny. You got us in trouble.

---

HOLY FUCK! this is quite the philosophical conversation. i'm starting philosophy class next year.

i think communism is great in the right hands. look at the countries that have and have had communism. they start out great but in the end the leaders go corrupt. i had a lot more to say. but i forgot it . so this is my opinion.

don't flame me for my short argument. i have a lot more but don't know how to word it and say it in english!

"looks and some previous post" and now i know why the previous debat topic got closed and never returned.

---

If you think this is trouble, just wait until the zombie apocal-

Back to communism and human nature.
I don't see why anyone would say evil and/or greed is simply part of human nature. It just doesn't make sense to me.

---

I don't think anybody has gotten flamed for their opinion yet. (On this thread anyway)

---

Just wait, you know who will show up... :/

But not much to add, I would just be repeating what Odrom and Tuesday said, so I'll just voice my agreement with their arguments.

It's a bit of a cop-out I know, but why repeat whats already been said?

---

I'm afraid there's very little need for aggression here-- I'm only lethargic. Odrom is the only person who's said anything with a remote amount of substance so far and I'm sure a majority of his post went over heads. Not that it matters, because this is probably going to go nowhere fast.

The inherent issues with a philosophy thread lie in their short-term lifespan. A debate such as "what is human nature" requires a good deal of esoteric knowledge in order to really enter into it while still offering input that matters. A lot of people tend to look at it rather narrowly anyways, which only further kills it.



I really must request that you don't hold back, lest this thread degrade into a series of people quoting posts with the words "I agree".

I'd love to engage with what we have now, but I'm not really motivated to do so. There's no way to say this without sounding like some pretentious dick, so I'll just out it: this discussion is trite

Speaking of which, at least I've completed two of the main requirements to really have a philosophy discussion. I've talked down to people and I've used the word "trite". Where does it go from here? Honk honk.

---

I went back here, saw the topic in my post, and decide discussing the Übermensch instead would be more interesting topic of human nature.

I sort of see the ideal of the Übermensch as an unattainable, yet thoroughly worthwhile venture for man. One strives to become the super man, but it is a goal meant to be only pursued, for it cannot truly be reached. Still, the steps required to achieve it are self-destructive, scary, and utterly counter to the very nature of humans, so is the enrichment worth it?

I apologize for the conciseness of that, but I'd rather try to get an interesting discussion going then just flat out say my feelings and then have that be that.

---

As a holder of a BA in philosophy & history, I have to say, half the fun is sounding like a pretentious dick. Although in real life it’s easier to convey that you were just being sarcastic and not serious, on the Internet things tend to degrade into a flame war. Trite? NO U!

Seriously though, I really enjoy these types of discussions, and will regularly take up positions I don’t personally agree with to foster additional debate. My intentions are not to troll or debase but rather to get people to think more on the subject. Sadly, this is one of the few applications where my degree is actually useful …

All right, onto the content. It’s a long read, remember, you asked for it …

Greeny, on the topic of the necessity of money and human greed/evil:
To explain why these concepts may be an unavoidable aspect of human society I’m going to present a mish-mash of various political, economic and philosophical theories (Plato, Locke, Adam Smith and some contemporary scholars). Hopefully simplified enough so it makes some sense--not because I’m trying to be a patronizing dork, but for my sake, one could really write volumes of books on this topic (which there are) and still not completely cover everything. Some of those works are so convoluted that it’ll make your brain leak out of your nose, trust me on that.

Let me start with a simple question: The shirt you’re wearing right now, did you happen to make it? By that I mean, harvest the raw materials, process it into thread, craft the buttons, and stitch it together in a professional way so it’s not just a heap of rags. Odds are the answer is no, and even if you happened to be a tailor, what about the house you live in or the food you ate last night. Unless you’re content with meager sustenance living, as people we rely on each other to build a network that allows us to better our standards of living.

So where does currency come into play? Imagine that you’re a settler of a brave new frontier: there are no laws, no government and no authority. You’re an apple farmer, your land contains an orchard that can produce far more than you’re able to consume. Larry, your next-door neighbor happens to be a carpenter. While you could go on living, paying no heed to each other, as it stands you could both benefit greatly from a little cooperation, who doesn’t like to up their standards of living? You set up a deal; Larry lends his expertise to improve your property in exchange for an amount of your crop. Nobody wants to work for nothing, something about that just seems … fundamentally wrong (I’ll get more into altruism later) after all, is not a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? But the community doesn’t just consist of you and Larry; there are a lot of people with varying goods and services they can offer.

So you say we don’t need money … we can get by with trade and barter. But what if its not apple season, and last year’s crop fell a bit short, you don’t really have an excess of any other goods to trade for your basic needs, your situation has essentially downgraded. If only there was something you could save, something that didn’t spoil or expire … something that other people desire that you could hold onto for this kind of situation. Or consider a different example; say this season’s apple crop is extremely abundant, so much that you’re swimming in apples. But the townsfolk are tried of them; nobody wants to trade with you. A guy in town, Nick, on the other hand has the know-how and equipment to change your apples to something others may desire: alcohol. But you don’t care much for cider yourself and there’s nothing Nick has that you want to trade for. Just giving them to Nick would be no better than just letting them go to waste and with that all your labor and toil, he’s not obliged to return anything to you in the future. While Nick may be grateful, his gratitude doesn’t put food on the table, or create new clothes. Sure you could set up a deal where Nick processes the apples and keeps a portion for himself as payment but neither of you are able to come to an agreement on what would be fair … how much is cider valued at? If only there was something we could assign an arbitrary, yet practical and standardized value with … well, you get the point.

There are hundreds of examples to be had, and not to mention taking place in a ridiculously simplified thought experiment, the underlying point to the story is that without a system of currency we are essentially stifling our potential growth. Pure trade economies are horribly inefficient and burdened with needless overhead. Wealth is essential for development, but with money comes the obvious question: how do we assign fair value and wages? Is it the amount of utilitarian value a good/service provides? Or is it merit? Various economic theories all strive to provide the best answer, from socialism to capitalism to everything in between. And this is just the pure economic sense of things; we have yet to factor in human qualities, such as desire, greed and gratuity.

Speaking of human factors, onto the issue of “greed and evil”. So back into our happy little hypothetical world: Every member of the community is for the most part a rational person; they all employ their free will and enjoy their free agency. They all agree that open hostility solves nothing and strive to prevent it. However, something’s been bothering you lately. There’s a guy, Gant, whose behavior is a little unnerving. He slacks and half-asses any work he does, and in trades demands far more than he could possibility use, overall he’s just a shady fellow. You determine that he’s an overall negative influence for the community but what exactly can you do about it? Remember, our hypothetical settlement is a “free” society; there are no official laws or State. There is where the essence of the problem lies, in a free society, everyone is entitled to everything and everyone is free to do anything, including being huge douchebags. You could approach Gant and demand that he shape up, but he simply exclaims: ‘Who died and made you king?’ This brings the question, on who’s standards are you going to base acceptable behavior on, how are you going to enforce it? Gant wasn’t exactly hurting anyone but say he was. We are then ‘justified’ in driving Gant out of the community with our pitchforks and torches but all that accomplishes is establishing a state of conflict between two parties. The solution of course, is government.

The founders of modern politics pretty much shared the view that as a people, we have to give up some of our rights and freedoms in order to empower the state--the function of which is to protect our property, our interests and ourselves from ... well, us. Our laws are based on our system of morals that determine if an act is right or wrong. But why are certain acts evil? Why are they bad? It is simply what each of our various cultures dictates or is there something more, something universal? Modern democracies are built upon the idea of basic human rights that transcend subjective barriers; ‘bad’ acts are generally those that infringe on them. Just look at the Declaration of Independence; “We hold these truths to be self-evident …”. Are there really self-evident truths, things that have intrinsic moral value? That’s a heavy question … our lawmakers sure tend to believe so. However, this is only one viewpoint, again, like on the topic of economics, there is an innumerable amount of ideologies and templates that attempt to give the best answer.

What am I getting at with this? Consider the following: By having standards we create the possibility of going against them. By acknowledging free will we must then accept that some of our choices may be “better” or “worse” than others. I wouldn’t go on to say that greed and evil are a part of human nature, but like entropy they are an inevitable feature of our existence. The very reason why we even have politics, religion and philosophy is that we are human and are capable of self-regulation and empowering and bettering ourselves. The idea of a utopia itself can be seen as something we can never truly achieve. Besides, even with all the talk of doom and gloom, compared to medieval times even the worst off 3rd world countries today have made some progress in the quality of life. We have to be doing something right.

It’s also worth noting that a lot of the theories that the above essay is based on have a few basic premises:
That as people we:
- desire a better life (in terms of living quality, life expentencey, happiness, health, etc) for ourselves and our offspring
- have an aversion to suffering and a desire for pleasure (no, not just *that* kind of pleasure, get your mind out of the gutter)
- acknowledge the concept of ownership and entitlement (although we may not agree on the details)
- there’s more but I don’t feel like listing em all
Are these features “human nature”? Well, as I mentioned in my previous post, that’s a matter of interpretation, regardless, it is a consistent factor across all our cultures with very few exceptions and likely not going to change anytime soon. Well then, why don’t we just change the way people think? Alter culture and society for the betterment of mankind … Plato thought of that several thousand years ago, it’s easier said than done. What can change the nature of a man? That is the riddle …



The Ubermensch, hmm, its been about 3 years since I last read anything about Nietzsche so I’d have to rummage through my stack of old books for that … on the other hand that’s too much work, I’m supposed to be taking a break from academia, copypasta off of wikipedia is so much easier but lacks quality … ima stay out of that discussion for now.

I can certainly write more, I haven’t even started on the discussion about communism or altruism, but if there’s no interest to be had I’m not going to bother.

*bonus points if you can pick out the various videogame quotes I’ve used, playing a lot of video games can be helpful … hurr