Human Nature

[Alan V]

I think we're compulsively decent in general.  Might not be for an accurate reason or even a good reason...consider the effort and risk involved (or wrongly believed to be involved) in being evil, but I do think it would be difficult to explain why we're not consistently doing our worst if bad or even amoral acts were something like behavioral gravity.   

I think we intend to be decent and even try very hard to be decent, but I am not convinced that being polite and going along with our social groups is actually good for us or others, our us-versus-them tribalism being what it is.  What we seem to be doing, instead, is going along to get along.  That's one of the reasons I have found Trump so alarming.  He has demonstrated that people, in this particular case Republicans, will sacrifice many of their most closely-held principles for the sake of conformity when they are socially dominated by a pathological liar.

Since as a voter I am primarily concerned about climate change, I consider lying in the face of such a problem as evil, and those who go along with such lying as evil.  Humans are human-centric social creatures, which was good enough during our evolution.  However, that human nature now threatens to undermine our planet.  So it is not really human-centric in the long run.

Last year was the hottest on record, and CO2 emissions spiked.  We are already close to 1.5 C of warming over the pre-industrial average.  According to a CNN article, 84% of coral reefs have suffered another bleaching event, the highest percentage ever.  We humans are failing to react appropriately. I have lost my faith that people are honest enough to meet the challenges of our times, primarily because of our evolved nature. I no longer believe that we can transcend that nature.

Is such misanthropy justified, or am I missing something obvious?

[Belacqua]

I don't wish to ignore you, but I find your replies puzzling.  I really don't know how to respond, but will give it a shot.

This is kind of you. I realize I'm not on the same wavelength as most people here.

I would much rather hear about what you find relevant in such things, at least in brief.  You seem well-intentioned at least.

Fair enough. You shouldn't have to read a thousand pages to get my meaning. 

And I assure you that I am well-intentioned -- in fact I'm sort of blandly stating what seems obvious to me, with the least possible drama. 

Dante takes Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and makes an adventure story of it. As the pilgrim Dante travels through the levels of Hell and Purgatory he sees examples of the ways in which people go wrong, and why. In the smallest possible nutshell, the idea is that we are always motivated by love of something, but we may love things that are not really good for us. 

I find these books valuable, as well as the C.S. Lewis book (which is not really at the level of the other two) because they parse out in detail the ways in which our human nature is likely to go wrong. 

I do enjoy reading, but collected so many books before I retired that I am unlikely to finish all the ones that I already own.

The Japanese word for buying more books than you could ever possibly read is tsundoku. Since I am an addict, and my wife runs the public library, it's the sort of thing we deal with!

I think all political parties should be able to address the facts with their own particular policy prescriptions.  If they ignore or deny problems, they aren't really problem-solvers IMO.

Yes indeed. Though some problems are certainly undeniable, well-intentioned people may sincerely offer different possible solutions. The trouble comes when the people who pay the bills distort the decision-making process. This is a major problem for both parties, and I see no way of getting away from it any time soon. 

I especially think that no solutions will be found as long as we give one party a pass, simply because they're not quite as bad as the other party. Both can be bad.

I don't think that reasonable politicians elected by well-informed voters are an impossibility -- like four-sided triangles or whatever. But in the present system pretty much all the power is arrayed against such a thing. 

I am wondering whether secular humanistic perspectives could help moderate my rather misanthropic perspectives.

Serious, good question. Has anybody offered hopeful words here? 

Certainly secular humanist values, if applied to fair politics, would be a great improvement over what we have now. Humanist values, as I understand them, are not simply the values of capital. 

Just for fun, I asked Grok "What are the values of secular humanism?" AI, as always, is to be taken with a grain of salt:

---

Secular humanism emphasizes human reason, ethics, and compassion without reliance on religious or supernatural beliefs. Its core values include:

Reason and Critical Thinking: Using evidence, logic, and science to understand the world and solve problems.

Ethics and Morality: Developing moral frameworks based on human well-being, empathy, and fairness, independent of divine authority.

Individual Dignity and Autonomy: Respecting each person’s worth, freedom, and right to self-determination.

Social Justice and Equality: Promoting fairness, inclusivity, and the reduction of suffering through collective action.

Secularism: Advocating for the separation of church and state, ensuring decisions are based on rational, inclusive principles.

Scientific Inquiry: Valuing empirical evidence and the pursuit of knowledge through the scientific method.

Compassion and Altruism: Fostering kindness, cooperation, and support for others to enhance human flourishing.

---

I think I would add some things to this. The kind of education it suggests seems to be entirely STEM. But how we get from the "is" of science to the "ought" of morality isn't spelled out. I think that humanism, secular or otherwise, needs heavy doses of the humanities as well. 

Not that long ago, Carl Sagan said that “It was considered unthinkable for an aspiring physicist not to know Plato, Aristotle, Bach, Shakespeare, Gibbon, Malinowski, and Freud—among many others.” 

I think Gibbon is dated now -- respected as a great prose stylist but not as an accurate historian. Nonetheless, this kind of education -- and we could add any number of other names to the list -- would surely be necessary for a fuller understanding of human nature, its pitfalls and possibilities. Simply choosing up teams, then not allowing criticism of one's own side and not being willing to learn from the other -- may be human nature, but it's the kind of tribalism that we should do our best to avoid, I think.

[Angrboda]

I think we're compulsively decent in general.  Might not be for an accurate reason or even a good reason...consider the effort and risk involved (or wrongly believed to be involved) in being evil, but I do think it would be difficult to explain why we're not consistently doing our worst if bad or even amoral acts were something like behavioral gravity.   

I think we intend to be decent and even try very hard to be decent, but I am not convinced that being polite and going along with our social groups is actually good for us or others, our us-versus-them tribalism being what it is.  What we seem to be doing, instead, is going along to get along.  That's one of the reasons I have found Trump so alarming.  He has demonstrated that people, in this particular case Republicans, will sacrifice many of their most closely-held principles for the sake of conformity when they are socially dominated by a pathological liar.

You seem to dismiss and derogate the good to justify a focus on the bad. You see motivated behaviors in the good but attribute the bad purely to nature.

[Mister Agenda]

I think the vast majority of us intend to be decent, but many are very susceptible to propaganda and other manipulation. And most of the rest of are hardly immune to it. Methods of manipulation can be used to amplify our fears and worst impulses. They can be used to do the opposite, but that kind of manipulation doesn't seem nearly as successful.

[Alan V]

I think we intend to be decent and even try very hard to be decent, but I am not convinced that being polite and going along with our social groups is actually good for us or others, our us-versus-them tribalism being what it is.  What we seem to be doing, instead, is going along to get along.  That's one of the reasons I have found Trump so alarming.  He has demonstrated that people, in this particular case Republicans, will sacrifice many of their most closely-held principles for the sake of conformity when they are socially dominated by a pathological liar.

You seem to dismiss and derogate the good to justify a focus on the bad.

What I am saying is that we weren't evolved to take the long-term into account, at least beyond a point, or to deal with such complex problems as climate change.  So what we are doing in the short-term is going to be very bad for us in the long-term, let alone what it does to the natural world.

You see motivated behaviors in the good but attribute the bad purely to nature.

People's priorities will always be people first, starting with themselves and their families, but including their communities and their nations.  That doesn't leave much left for the planet as a whole or the future.  This problem is caused by both our human nature and the motivations that spring from it.

How can anyone change that?  I don't think we can.  So my problem with human nature is that it almost inevitably leads to undermining our environments. The exceptions are, as of yet, too rare to make a significant difference in a timely manner.

[Angrboda]

And yet, worrying about the planet is another example of prioritizing the personal (what you value, humanity) over any long term view (the planet will go on turning).

How is that not a similar example of what in others you describe as a negative?

[Alan V]

And yet, worrying about the planet is another example of prioritizing the personal (what you value, humanity) over any long term view (the planet will go on turning).

How is that not a similar example of what in others you describe as a negative?

I value the long-term interests of humanity over its short-term interests.  I also highly value the natural world as it is, which will be altered radically by climate change.

So just as you say, my assessment depends on my subjective values.  There doesn't seem to be any fulcrum on which to leverage a better outcome.

Being human, I am part of the problem I have described, and understand the stresses associated with admitting it.

So I obviously wish I was wrong in this assessment.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Alan V

I couldn't really say that you're missing anything. That you have a different view of human nature than I do can be chalked up to your own view being more credible based on your own life experiences at the least.

I would push back on the idea that people have abandoned their principles to embrace the donald. That they're going along to get along. That's what maga was doing before donald. He's their permission slip to be themselves unapologetically in public.

I would agree with you that it's possible for utilitarian goods and moral goods to be misaligned. "What needs to be done" for example..might be a utilitarian good and a moral bad (or vv). I also wouldn't argue with you that human nature is to exploit an environment. I also think we're going to continue handling this moment very poorly. That we're going to lose money while we wreck lives and destroy habitats, all utilitarian and/or moral bads.

I do think there's a fulcrum, a means, but it doesn't necessarily fit within the views and ideologies of the people most likely to be actively interested in such ends. Another potential misalignment like the one between utilitarian and moral goods. Like the misalignments between what we intend and what we actually do. The things I woulkd advocate for in the goal of saving the planet™..for example...will strike a great many people interested in saving the planet as a recipe for destroying even more of it, and theyre not necessarily wrong. I think they're wrong, ofc, but it's arguable. None of this would matter (to you, to me)...as genuine misanthropes. If we disliked humanity..and heard that what was good for the planet was bad for us we'd think "excellent, fuck em". Not....."I hope we don't fuck up even more and worse". Perhaps we live in a world full of exclusively suboptimal decision fields. Where every available choice is bad somehow, for someone or something. In that case, our attempts to navigate such a world and often manifesting surprisingly poor outcomes isn't because we're degenerates.

-which isn't to say we don't also often fuck up along degenerate lines. Personally, though..I feel like I've seen some of the worst we can do...that I've experienced the futility of my own efforts to do good many times...I'm a single issue environmental voter...and yet.....

[The Grand Nudger]

People's priorities will always be people first, starting with themselves and their families, but including their communities and their nations.  That doesn't leave much left for the planet as a whole or the future.  This problem is caused by both our human nature and the motivations that spring from it.

How can anyone change that?  I don't think we can.  So my problem with human nature is that it almost inevitably leads to undermining our environments.  The exceptions are, as of yet, too rare to make a significant difference in a timely manner.

Wanted to separate this out.  Let's say that's absolutely true.  Not because I think it is..but because if it is, then any credible plan to save the planet exploits that just as aggressively as I might exploit a wild meadow.  That's how we change That...for starters anyway.  

Leaning into misanthropy..if we want the best for the earth or..really, anything we touch, or anyone, we need to learn to appeal to the worst of human nature. If our lowest impulse and our highest aspiration can both be leveraged to some (utilitarian or moral) end, we rig the game. We create an alternative to the suboptimals which did not exist before. I've marketed on that pretty successfully. I've organized community action around the principle. I've propagandized and indoctrinated with it. I've driven people to extreme violence with it. To good and ill ends, ofc. It works. You tell one guy it's cheaper, another guy it's healthier, another guy it's more environmentally responsible, another guy it's more humane, it's more secure, it's more american. It's all true...and even if it weren't...misanthropy doesn't give a shit about lying to the degens. Say anything.

[Ivan Denisovich]

I think the vast majority of us intend to be decent, but many are very susceptible to propaganda and other manipulation. And most of the rest of are hardly immune to it. Methods of manipulation can be used to amplify our fears and worst impulses. They can be used to do the opposite, but that kind of manipulation doesn't seem nearly as successful.

I doubt it. Though it may be that people intend to be decent (just like they intend to go on diet tomorrow) but rarely are. If decency would be more than intention then I somehow doubt that issued like hunger or poverty would still exist. Decent people wouldn't let others starve even if said others would live thousands of kilometers from them.