Volconvo Debate Forums - View Single Post

Waychel · Dec 14, 2003, 06:38 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is partly what I was trying to say.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc... <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson.

Dec 14, 2003, 06:38 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
Waychel Supercalifragilistic Posts: 431	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Let us assume, for the moment. That 'greed' is a basic trait. Even Wilson says, that the basic drive is only 10% of our responsible actions. Our environment is responsible for 90%. Our environment being an Capitalist Represenative Society. Which promotes 'greed' as the best means of survivial. When humans are 'fighting' for survivial, they become self involed. Selfish and greedy creatures.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Of course we cannot say that a person is governed by instinct because we, as human beings, are no longer just animals; we have the ability to reason and think for ourselves. When a man murders another, he is held accountable for those actions and rightly so. However, this doesn't mean that this primitive part of him had nothing to do with it. To offer an analogy, this could be seen as dropping a pebble into a lake. The pebble initially only created one ripple, but that one ripple resulted in many others. I believe the same account and consideration should be taken in regatds to social impact, but I believe these both affect an individual equally. I do not think 90% of the responsibility of an individual's actions can be attributed to society - only themselves. Society and primitive nature are only factors. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I think 'greed' is an excessive desire for something. That why i think it is a bye product of the survivial instict. For example, if threaten by a 'food shortage'. One might become 'greedy', horde all the food. Fight anyone for the food. In order to survive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is partly what I was trying to say. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The greater sacrifice. Flying in the face of 'greed' and the 'survivial instict'. Sacrifice yourself, for your gene's being passed on. Giving your kin a better chance of survivial. Pointing at a possible, underlining social drive.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> This is true, but I believe it is also a mistake to hold family in the same regard as social drive. Assuring the success of one's family is assuring the success of one's own genes. This is not an obligation to one's social group but an obligation to one's drive of propagation. Keep in mind that lions and many other animals for the same reason will kill the offspring of others in their own species to insure that their own offspring encounter less competition as they mature. Equally, in many extreme circumstances, individuals often put more value upon the lives of their family than they do upon the hundreds or thousands that make up their social group. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Interesting. I can relate. But have you thought, how society affects us in other ways. The duel affect of laws. How the rich, can seem to do what they like. The poor being sent to prison. For example, When 'Robbie Williams', talks about his drug habit. Seems to play the bad boy. This is accepted as 'good olde robbie'. But when Joe Average, does drugs. 3-5 years for him. etc... <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I believe this is a matter of sociology rather than genetics/human nature so to speak. As for what I think of it, in our society we both conciously and unconciously judge others by how they have succeeded in life economically. We look at someone who is wealthier than us as having outdone us. This also gives us the impression that they are somehow ABOVE us. I believe that this is changing however. Law enforcement over the years has become bolder in cracking down on Hollywood and other "celebrities", such as Martha Stewart and Michael Jackson. Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.