On human nature...

Profil de SimonKlatu verata niktuPhotosBlogListesPlus

Outils

Aide

< Précédente Suivante >

11 juillet

Is it in our nature to be evil? Or good? Let us for a moment divorce ourselves from any religious connotations or definitions of the words and instead frame them purely in the following terms:

evil - deeds, actions, or words intended to hurt, harm, denigrate, or destroy.

good - deeds, actions, or words intended to help, support, nurture, grow, prosper,thrive.

Let's also not forget there is a 3rd option: Neutral. Meaning neither good nor evil, but opportunistic. Opportunistic in the sense that we sometimes find ourselves in a dilemma where we are forced into one position or the other depending on the perceived cost/benefit of a decision or action that lies before us.

Is it not always more profitable to take rather than to give? Does this not help to improve the chances for selection of the individual for survival by means of increased accumulation of resources and better preparation for unforeseen circumstances ahead?

From a purely material perspective, perhaps this is true. However, some time in our prehistory there had been a need for evolution of cooperation. We are social creatures, descended from social creatures. But could that be changing as we move into an increasingly isolated world where the only links between individuals are their brief economic exchanges?

Where at one time in our prehistory we needed to form cooperative bands in order to aid our hunting and gathering activites and thus increase our chances of survival against nature, the seaons, and the elements, today we live a largely sheltered existence where money and material possessions are the tools of survival and measures of success. Whereas before we needed the collective efforts of the clan to meet our daily needs, today we need only the fruit of our own individual labours. Perhaps this is because today a currency exists for free exchange of goods and services, without the need for the personal attachments once required of your tribe-fellows who worked next to you in the fields or the hunt; or, produced the necessities of clothing and tools for which you bartered with like labours of your own? Your interactions with others necessarily needed to be lengthy, up-close and personal. You lived in the same community and knowing who you were depending on had a whole different significance than it does today. When people toil long together they tend to form strong social bonds. And, back in our prehistory, being good was a opportunistic-positive trait that favoured survival and so cooperation took hold. It wasn't until free commerce and trade become ubiquitous before formal religion and worship began to spread. Was this cause, or effect? Probably a bit of both. Like goods and wares, a "message" can also be carried far and wide by caravans. Also, it was during these times that people likely began to recognize that a new force or system of beliefs was needed to help one another adhere to the old ideal of cooperation. Such concepts as "goodness", "charity", "caring for your fellow man" had to be invented since now wealth could be easily acquired simply by taking what you saw another person had. Cooperation had to thus evolve to rely on some external abstract idea or power rather than the previous concrete relationships amongst clansmen. This was necessary for people of that day to survive the economic revolution of their new reality: interclan trade and diminished direct dependence on one another.

In a sense, materialism, the advent of a free market, and a freely tradeable currency has abstracted the hard-to-value barter of handicrafts for labours to a free flow of goods and services, each valued using an abstract economic unit representing effort/work (the redeemable note: dollar, pound, lira, drakhma, peso, etc.)

In such an economic system, everything material has an economic value. But one question we may ask is: do our relationships with others have a monetary value? How much money would it take for you to screw over a stranger? Betray a friend? Steal from a family member? How about divorcing your husband? How about contesting an inheritance in which you felt you were owed more than your siblings?

Does a human life have a specific, defined monetary value? You better believe it. Military, governmental, and even corporate decisions are often made based on notional values placed on human life. And not all people are valued in the same way. Gender, race, age, health, education, salary, and earning potential are all valued monetarily. Have you ever purchased a life insurance policy? How were your premiums calculated?

Governments and militaries do it:

Should we bomb that city full of innocents to get a few insurgents? Sure... they're REALLL bad guys (eg. Falluja) and the innocents are ragheads who are worth very little anyway. (Not my opinion)

Should we drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and kill 500,000 million people for the sake of saving our country from a costly war in terms of money, resources, and our own people? Of course. We can end the war quicker, save perhaps a few thousand of our people and all that economic capacity and resources could be put to better use.

Should we wage war on a country and place a 10 year-long embargo on it, leading to the death of 1 million innocent people to get rid of a dictator that is no longer playing ball on the issue of strategic oil reserves worth billions? You better believe it.

See, opportunity and opportunity cost can both justify war and justify peace. There is nothing contradictory with this. In the final analysis, it is all a cost/benefit tradeoff, and increasingly the costs are measurable with the one universal measuring stick: currency. cold, hard cash.

For some further examples:

How about going for a married guy because he is "generous" or a "good provider" and you have dated nothing but losers? Is having him worth more than finding a new best friend? How often does this happen? Is it statistically significant, or just an anomaly.

Are these acts evil, or good? Or are they neutral and opportunistic? It all depends on your frame of reference, and there are as many view points as there are issues and people.

So, back to the original question... is today's opportunistic milieu favouring increasing "good" or "evil" in people? Well, the draw of money is quite strong and as we can see with today's Y-gen'ers, it's all about the bling, and worshipping of fame for the lifestyle it brings. It's all about the dollar and how you can maximize $$$ while minimizing work. They think they are being clever, but what are they trading in return for the easy dough? What are they giving up when they screw over a friend, or a loved one. Are they simply being "smarter" than the other guy? Or are they simply making it impossible to ever fully trust one another when we know everything and everyone has a price? How will the human race fare when our societies become an "every man for himself" proposition?

So, in a post-hunter/gatherer, post-agrarian, post-industrial world where money is God and wealth the new religion; a world where a human life can be assigned a monetary measure, where does that leave us for the future "advancements" and revolutions to come? What will be ultimate our fate?

For entertainment only:

According to HumanForSale.com, the monetary value of my life is $1,612,080. How much is your life worth? http://www.humanforsale.com/

23:17 | Ajouter au blog | Personal

Commentaires (11)

Pour ajouter un commentaire, connectez-vous avec votre identifiant Windows Live ID (si vous utilisez Messenger ou Xbox LIVE, vous avez un identifiant Windows Live ID). Connectez-vous

Vous n'avez pas d'identifiant Windows Live ID ? Inscrivez-vous

	Curtis Sprisslera écrit : Oh, and on the subject of that Human for Sale thing, I don't think it assumes you'll be killed. Young, white women command a high price because they are worth the most as sex slaves; young men are also valuable because you will get a lot of years of hard labour out of them. I think it estimates values very high, though, like those online IQ tests. 19 Déc.
	Curtis Sprisslera écrit : Paris Hilton is an ugly brat! Sorry...the mention of her name gives me a tic not unlike Turret's. ha ha.... On the subject of good and evil, I think we can say this: We made up the definition of good an evil, based on how we know other people want us to behave. If we're "good" it's because we do things that cause people to like us, if we're "evil" it's because we do them harm. Thus, all that really tells us is that: 1. not being liked causes us pain (as does witnessing suffering) 2. we use that desire to avoid sympathetic pains and to be liked to encourage people treat us well It's just an evolutionary trait that helped us survive. There is evidence that our "social conscience" developed very early in our evolution. Empathy is part of that evolution...an aversion to witnessing suffering of someone you perceive to be like yourself. We are subservient to our desire to experience positive feelings and avoid pain. That's how living things function. We only exercise "free will" in our choice of how we go about our attempt to feel good...hardly overriding free will at all. So are we good or evil? I guess by saying I don't believe in free will, I'm also saying that I don't believe in those concepts. Inevitably, a person who feels bad about himself will say that he is a bad person, whether or not it is justified, and many people who do a lot of harm will claim to be good people. Opportunists, though, you hit the nail on the head with that one. I do think that the way our world has come to hold money as god is a human achievement, directly attributable to the bankers who work tirelessly to engineer our society to be controllable through money. In that way, I think these people are responsible for many evils. They've put us between a rock and a hard place. I really respect what AcaciaAvenue (isn't that what giraffes eat?) said about trading all that wealth for decent people. The good news is, if this is caused by people with names and addresses, then they can be fought. Maybe it doesn't have to be this way. (and I'd like to say right now that I'm not a communist) The bad news is, it may be human nature. Every primitive people I've ever learned about, right up to every modern society, demonstrates its success through waste. That is a human fundamental that we will fight until the end of time. Although I should say, I never studied psychology or philosophy, so I don't pretend to know much about this. I'm probably missing something major. I did study economics...I wish more people understood what money really is and the difference between money and wealth. DavidM started to explain some very good points, and I'll elaborate. The dollar has lost about 98% of its value since WWI, gold has stayed the same. This has led to the illusion of an increased value of gold, since as the dollar drops in value the price of gold rises. However, gold is still worth about the same in terms of labour, resources, textiles, food, etc. 2000 years ago an ounce of gold would buy you pretty much the same stuff it would now. Maybe a nice suit of clothes, for example. Money is a great idea, it facilitates trade, but like every powerful invention, some people will try to exploit it. Keeping your wealth in money form means it is really easy to lose it. 19 Déc.
	amykristen a écrit : Fun link Amy 17 Juil.
	Kilmati a écrit : Poor Syd. Well, I guess it could've been a more traumatic lession. Damn good thing the dog didn't need to be spayed. LOL 13 Juil.
	neuronaut42 a écrit : Heh, good lesson, Kyle. The earlier kid's learn that, the better. :D 13 Juil.
	Kyle a écrit : Also, keep in mind that the definition of good and evil isn't exactly set in stone, even within one's own household. This reminds me of a lesson I recently taught my daughter. After two years of stress, we had to give away one of our dogs because she was "causing too much trouble". I'm trivializing the decision but it was justified, if only for the safety of my neighbour's kids. The lesson it taught Syd? No matter how much we love you, we WILL get rid of you if necessary. 13 Juil.
	DavidM a écrit : Just 2 quick points: The invention of money allows us to quantify value but that doesn't mean value didn't exist before money (sort of like how mass existed long before units of mass and scales were invented). People put value on human life since they have had to plan organized attacks and defences (probably a few million years ago). Second point is don't confuse money and wealth. Money is just a convenient medium of exchange. Wealth is whatever is desirable and valued (which is different from person to person though there are of course many examples of things most people value). 12 Juil.
	Simon a écrit : Thanks for the comments guys! And, kell, I know you're one of the genuine ones. That's one of the qualities that makes you so different; so special. 12 Juil.
	Nyniane22821 a écrit : Excellent blog entry! I'd rather have a few friends, a bit of money...and give and recieve lots of love and cooperate with people, then have the bling bling and the Paris Hilton hair, body, style, and lonely life. I'd rather be a genuine article, then screw my fellow man...I'd also, fight for my fellow man, I am frustrated by apathy and people that are lukewarm on things sush as this. 12 Juil.
	22-AcaciaAvenue a écrit : $2,177,352, funny, I FEEL worthless, and I'd trade it all to have decent ppl in my life, but then I guess I couldn't afford food or rent and die, so what's the point of having ppl in ur life if ur dead huh? nice blog btw, its my psychology class all over again. 12 Juil.
	22-AcaciaAvenue a écrit : army of freakin darkness 11 Juil.

Rétroliens

L'URL de rétrolien de ce billet est :

http://kilmati.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!50E1454EFD60E60!116.trak

Blogs Web qui font référence à ce billet

Aucune