IF CHE WAS ALIVE TODAY
- Thread starter The Duke of Earl
- Start date
Actually, its FACT that everything we do is for self...biologically speaking of course. Our motivation in EVERYTHING we do is to seek pleasure and avoid pain...incentive. Even if you give to a charity, you STILL are doing it for yourself. Do you not get pleasure from doing something good? Does it not make you feel good? That is how the pleasure system in our nervous system/brain works.
So pleasure/avoiding pain is something that is HARD WIRED in ALL humans...and one can argue in all living things. Surviving (eating, sleeping, etc.) is considered a basic motivation/incentive system.
Greed can be looked upon as a motivation to seek pleasure...incentive.
So changing the course of nature is alot harder than one might think.
So pleasure/avoiding pain is something that is HARD WIRED in ALL humans...and one can argue in all living things. Surviving (eating, sleeping, etc.) is considered a basic motivation/incentive system.
Greed can be looked upon as a motivation to seek pleasure...incentive.
So changing the course of nature is alot harder than one might think.
No, it's not a theory. Take identical twins and have them grow up in entirely different environments and see what happens. Twin A grows up in a rich wealthy family with great eduction, healthcare, etc. Twin B grows up in Compton under a broken family, no education, crime, etc. Compare them 20 years later (if twin B survives that long) and see if there is a difference in consciousness or not.
You should know this, you live in Seattle. Why is it that Seattle is so liberal compared to say, Texas? If you're born in seattle, chances are you'll have liberal leanings because that's our environment, this is what we know. I can go eat a cheeseburger at Dick's in Capital Hill and be surrounded by gays & weirdo's, that's a perfectly normal day in seattle. If you're born in buttfuck alabama, chances are you hate homo's and love god.
You should know this, you live in Seattle. Why is it that Seattle is so liberal compared to say, Texas? If you're born in seattle, chances are you'll have liberal leanings because that's our environment, this is what we know. I can go eat a cheeseburger at Dick's in Capital Hill and be surrounded by gays & weirdo's, that's a perfectly normal day in seattle. If you're born in buttfuck alabama, chances are you hate homo's and love god.
Key word: likely. Not surely, or absolutely....but surely. Your are basically saying that nurture wins. However, that has NOT been proven. Nature vs. nurture is one of the biggest, if not THE biggest, quandry in the scientific/psychology community. YOU should know that. You are basically saying that we are in fact molded only by our environment.
What about the man raised as a woman, only to still show male qualities and actually REVERT back to a male at 13? This person had their penis removed at less than a year old, and was even given female hormones. This person ALWAYS felt like a male, even if the parents raised him as a she.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
What about the man raised as a woman, only to still show male qualities and actually REVERT back to a male at 13? This person had their penis removed at less than a year old, and was even given female hormones. This person ALWAYS felt like a male, even if the parents raised him as a she.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer
I don't understand where the debate lies. Does anyone actually believe that environment doesn't play a huge role in consciousness?? This is common knowledge. Even so, let me ask you personally, what do you think? Going back to my twin examples, do you believe the conditions will have a play?
Come on bro, this is a tad bit different don't you think? You're born a male or female, trying to trick ones sex isn't really comparable to the basic idea that conditions create who you are. I ask you again, do you or not believe conditions mold who you are? If you were born in Texas, or India, or China, don't you think your views would be totally different?
But you never mentioned it either, which is very important when discussing human nature.
Come on bro, this is a tad bit different don't you think? You're born a male or female, trying to trick ones sex isn't really comparable to the basic idea that conditions create who you are. I ask you again, do you or not believe conditions mold who you are? If you were born in Texas, or India, or China, don't you think your views would be totally different?
But you never mentioned it either, which is very important when discussing human nature.
Of course. I am a firm believer that both nurture and nature play roles in making someone who they are.
Of course I believe that experiences HELP mod someone, but it is not the SOLE reason someone is who they are. I can not tell you what I would be like anywhere else because I am HERE now. Predicting or assuming anything else would a a HUGE fallacy on my part.
My point is that you seemed to basically give everything to nurture and nothing to nature...which is fine, that is your stance, but there is ALWAYS going to be evidence to say otherwise. Humans are BORN with innate traits, this is FACT.
Of course it is, but I didn't see it relevant in the conversation and is common knowledge.
Of course I believe that experiences HELP mod someone, but it is not the SOLE reason someone is who they are. I can not tell you what I would be like anywhere else because I am HERE now. Predicting or assuming anything else would a a HUGE fallacy on my part.
My point is that you seemed to basically give everything to nurture and nothing to nature...which is fine, that is your stance, but there is ALWAYS going to be evidence to say otherwise. Humans are BORN with innate traits, this is FACT.
Of course it is, but I didn't see it relevant in the conversation and is common knowledge.
I'm not asking you to predict anything, I'm just asking if you believe you would be different, say born under strict islamic rule with different parents who enforce a different belief system with a completely different education system. Is it really hard to admit you would be different?
No it's not my stance, some things are nature, the genes that are passed down to you cannot be changed. But thats why I used the twin example, identical genes, identical DNA, but the outcome would be far from identical in the examples I used.
It's very relevant when discussing human nature, especially when you say "everything we do is for self" or imply that humans are greedy by nature.
No it's not my stance, some things are nature, the genes that are passed down to you cannot be changed. But thats why I used the twin example, identical genes, identical DNA, but the outcome would be far from identical in the examples I used.
It's very relevant when discussing human nature, especially when you say "everything we do is for self" or imply that humans are greedy by nature.
True but regardless of those differences, both the guy from Seattle and the guy from Buttfuck Alabama will almost certainly be more attracted to younger looking women with large proportional breasts, and large round eyes relative to other women.
In the same way both the guy from Seattle and the guy from Buttfuck will have a evolved natural proclivity towards altruism it when it is in their best interest to be altruistic.
Ask yourself what happens in natural disasters when food shortages occur and people are starving. Does everyone get together and share the food equally or do people fight over ration and hoard more for their own survival? People revert to their impulsive evolved tendencies to survive at all costs.
Guess what happened in the past. Our ancestors that were able to secure those resources were more likely to survive and therefore pass on those tendencies to the next generation.
Humans are regarded by most people who study them to be social creatures that have altruistic tendencies when that altruism can provide positive results for themselves, but value the survival of themselves and genetic relatives above those they are not related to.
Even beauty is based on your environment. In Roman does, larger women were seen as the most beautiful. That's why so many paintings in from that time period the women are a bit on the chunky size.
I would say that depends entirely on the people and what conditions they were raised under.
So the hunter/gatherer societies didn't collect food & resources communally and share?
I would say that depends entirely on the people and what conditions they were raised under.
So the hunter/gatherer societies didn't collect food & resources communally and share?
I agree but those standards of beauty range within a given spectrum. The average male prefers a hip to waist ratio of .7 . There are obviously some deviations from that average, but you are not going to find any large population of men that prefer a waist to hip ratio of .21 .
Finding a group of men that prefer a hip to waist ratio of .6 is not evidence that generally speaking human males prefer a hip to waist ratio of .7.
We need to be able to distinguish between the deviations in a given sample and not assume that they are evidence that the evolved characteristic is not present.
Why would you say that?
I am sure we can both posts hundreds of examples of peopling fighting over resources to stay alive, while the examples of people sharing resources or sacrificing their own resources for the benefit of someone who is not their genetic relative or assumed genetic relative are much fewer.
Again, because we are looking at the humans species as a whole, we need to be aware of the actions and tendencies of the majority because that is what we would expect the majority of people to be based on the statistics.
I didn't say anything about them not sharing and in fact it would be expected that they would collect resources communally and share.
That is the whole logic behind being altruistic when it is in one's own benefit because we expect that our favors now will be returned later. If I was able to gather more resources than you today, I would share so that you would share with me tomorrow.
Sharing resources has nothing to do with the underlying tendency the we are still acting in our own best/self interest and that ultimately we care about ourselves and genetic relatives first.
Using the relatively unmolested remaining hunter/gather tribes as the best examples, I would say those communities don't resemble anything close to communism because there individuals are usually rewarded with more resources (women, food, etc) based on their contribution to the tribe with the tribal leader often receiving the most resources. So those that are more successful in the hunter/gather societies were usually rewarded with more resources.
Regardless of whether or not the members of the tribe share with one another, the division of resources is largely dependent on one's status within the tribe.
I think communism can work on small scales. Like at a tribe/village level. But when the group gets too big its bound to fail. Especially when resources get scarce.
First off it's impossible for everyone to have the same of everything. Someone will always have a tiny bit more. Second you need someone(s) in charge. The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" also holds true in communist communities/nations.
You will be happy to know that there are pockets of a form of communism that are successful to this day. Just head to a Kibbutz in Israel to see communist ideas in action.
First off it's impossible for everyone to have the same of everything. Someone will always have a tiny bit more. Second you need someone(s) in charge. The saying "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" also holds true in communist communities/nations.
You will be happy to know that there are pockets of a form of communism that are successful to this day. Just head to a Kibbutz in Israel to see communist ideas in action.
If they had listened to Che they wouldn't be doing many of the things they have been trying to do since the 1990's they'd have done it in the 60's instead. Cuba needed & needs to be self sustaining instead it stayed a one commodity economy and shifted from being the client state of the U.S. to being the economic bitch of the soviet union.
Don't trade the soviets sugar for tractors Che would say. Trade them your brotherhood (sugar if needed) for the training to build tractor factories. That's how you truly become an independent nation.
But that's just one of many of the i told you so's.
Don't trade the soviets sugar for tractors Che would say. Trade them your brotherhood (sugar if needed) for the training to build tractor factories. That's how you truly become an independent nation.
But that's just one of many of the i told you so's.