Human Nature

[Alan V]

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.

This seems to be the case. There are tradeoffs in everything, and of course people prefer the tradeoffs that hurt other people or the environment instead of themselves. The wealthy and powerful especially often find ways to escape the consequences of their own bad decisions.

Our failure to navigate such a world was likely caused by religious ideas as much as anything. Those ideas told us that a perfectly good God created the world, so of course the tradeoffs of such a world must be cast in good-versus-evil terms. Are such religious ideas degenerate or simply based on human nature and our wishful thinking?

From this point of view, all of the good we are doing in the present must necessarily be offset by all the damage we are doing to the environment and to future people. In the case of climate change, we are the wealthy and powerful people who are pushing our own tradeoffs elsewhere.

[Alan V]

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.

The problem with this idea is that we could never be competitive in employing such techniques, considering those who are so far ahead of us in exploiting human weaknesses through advertising and propaganda. Not that I would want to anyway, since it would be anti-democratic.

[Alan V]

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.

Just as you say, people have limited leverage on their own human impulses.

Plus, in a world of suboptimal choices as Nudger pointed out, if we fed all the starving poor people we might just end up with even more starving poor people.  We couldn't change their problems with poor agricultural environments and over-population.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Just as you say, people have limited leverage on their own human impulses.

Or they simply don't give a shit. I don't really believe that people want to be decent. They may want others think that they are decent but that's quite the difference.

Plus, in a world of suboptimal choices as Nudger pointed out, if we fed all the starving poor people we might just end up with even more starving poor people.  We couldn't change their problems with poor agricultural environments and over-population.

Or we would simply pay more for some goods or go without some luxuries. This is irrelevant however as I don't see worldwide protests against money being wasted on frivolities when there are thousands starving.

[GrandizerII]

There is a popular saying in Arab cultures that partially goes something like this: "the relative before the stranger".

I think in terms of tendencies, we are selfish and tribalistic by nature, and it's hard to see this not being the case. But (typically) as we mature and become more rational with time, we realize other people (including people from groups outside of our own) actually do matter and that we should care about their rights and plights as well. This applies not just at the individual level, but also societal level as well (which may explain why we care more about the plights of minorities than ever before).

But of course, people are flawed and we don't all grow and mature equally (if ever), so there are bound to be those who refuse to allow for this type of progression, and continue to cause/allow harm for others perceived to be different from us and/or unworthy of our considerations.

[Alan V]

There is a popular saying in Arab cultures that partially goes something like this: "the relative before the stranger".

I think in terms of tendencies, we are selfish and tribalistic by nature, and it's hard to see this not being the case. But (typically) as we mature and become more rational with time, we realize other people (including people from groups outside of our own) actually do matter and that we should care about their rights and plights as well. This applies not just at the individual level, but also societal level as well (which may explain why we care more about the plights of minorities than ever before).

But of course, people are flawed and we don't all grow and mature equally (if ever), so there are bound to be those who refuse to allow for this type of progression, and continue to cause/allow harm for others perceived to be different from us and/or unworthy of our considerations.

I most certainly think there are many good people in the world.  However, since our human nature remains essentially subjective and therefore opportunistic, such good people will likely always remain a minority.  We simply don't have the educational systems to deal with our problems, and even those systems are under attack by reactionaries worldwide.

[Angrboda]

I'm reminded of discussions asking what spiritual means. My answer has always been that it is the quest to understand that aspect of human nature which we can't readily introspect or demonstrate. I think there is a great chasm of unknown about human nature and the ideas presented here pose a simplification of what for some is a lifelong question. Yes, humans do evil and behave selfishly, yet they also are imbued with altruistic impulses, hold doors open for each other, and sacrifice much of their lives to raise their children. Why isn't the average father elsewhere, sowing his oats, and letting mother and child fend for themselves? Why aren't more men rapists? Why do people band together to provide each other with water and roads and police? There is, perhaps a yin and yang here, that one can view humans as positive or negative depending upon what filters we use. Yet so much of human nature remains a mystery, that trying to tie it all up in a neat bow seems destined to distort and misrepresent.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just as you say, people have limited leverage on their own human impulses.

Or they simply don't give a shit. I don't really believe that people want to be decent. They may want others think  that they are decent but that's quite the difference.

Plus, in a world of suboptimal choices as Nudger pointed out, if we fed all the starving poor people we might just end up with even more starving poor people.  We couldn't change their problems with poor agricultural environments and over-population.

Or we would simply pay more for some goods or go without some luxuries. This is irrelevant however as I don't see worldwide protests against money being wasted on frivolities when there are thousands starving.

A very large number of the starving and malnourished people of the world have money for food.  A surprising number of them are in agriculture.  More than enough food is made.  Far more.  Hunger in the world right now mostly boils down to market disparities.  That it doesn't make financial sense to send (or sell) a product to a place where you could only get half (or less) the dollar amount for it as some other market.  Point being, continue to spend on your frivolities...it really isn't what's making people hungry.  Alot of the time, your frivolities are the only reason they have any money to buy the odd bit of starch that comes along.

[GrandizerII]

There is a popular saying in Arab cultures that partially goes something like this: "the relative before the stranger".

I think in terms of tendencies, we are selfish and tribalistic by nature, and it's hard to see this not being the case. But (typically) as we mature and become more rational with time, we realize other people (including people from groups outside of our own) actually do matter and that we should care about their rights and plights as well. This applies not just at the individual level, but also societal level as well (which may explain why we care more about the plights of minorities than ever before).

But of course, people are flawed and we don't all grow and mature equally (if ever), so there are bound to be those who refuse to allow for this type of progression, and continue to cause/allow harm for others perceived to be different from us and/or unworthy of our considerations.

I most certainly think there are many good people in the world.  However, since our human nature remains essentially subjective and therefore opportunistic, such good people will likely always remain a minority.  We simply don't have the educational systems to deal with our problems, and even those systems are under attack by reactionaries worldwide.

I don't really disagree with most of what you're saying here really. Even if the majority of the people of this world were good people, all it takes is a considerable number of greedy, power-hungry assholes to fuck things up for everyone and slow down progress.

Historically, we've always had this problem though, so it's not really news.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Alan V

I think saying that we prefer the tradeoffs that hurt the environment (or others) rather than ourselves greatly oversells both our alleged shittiness and our general competence. You don't "prefer not starving"...for example. You are physically and psychologically compelled to resolve your starvation issue by any possible means until you do resolve that issue, or die.

If it's a question of competitiveness, we will never be competitive telling the underdeveloped world they have to starve and be poor and stop having kids to save the planet, for example. That's not just false, it's cruel. There is no excess humanity. That's not a thing. Poor agricultural environments can be changed with the application of two things. Petrochemical products and/or livestock.

I think that any strongly dichotomous religious view of human nature or morality is degenerate, yes. One of the beliefs that degenerate religions stuck us with was the notion that we are somehow distinct from nature. That a "natural environment" excludes humanity and human behavior. It's usually a setup for some transactional desire. So that we know the details of the purchase well in advance and can plan accordingly, lol. I get your urge to avoid propaganda and exploitation, and that doesn't sound...to me..like a misanthrope speaking. You want to win the game the right way more than you want to win the game, doing those things to people would be undemocratic and wrong. There's a preference, in the way that our existential needs ( or the planets, if we believe in such a thing, and it excludes us somehow) aren't.