Human Nature

[Ivan Denisovich]

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.


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.

And yet despite (allegedly) having money they starve thus only proving my point about unkindness of human animal. Maybe my frivolities don't harm anyone (and maybe they even help which I doubt) but certainly such money could be spent better and yet they aren't. What a piece of work is man, indeed.

Per UN site main cause of hunger seems to be conflict. Where is pressure on politicians to help stop it? Where are protests? Perhaps West wouldn't be able to permanently end world conflicts but it sure as shit could do much more than it does. Humans however often don't have sympathy even to those living in the same country much less to those living far away.

[Alan V]

Humanity's evolved instincts to do good for themselves can prove to be bad for the planet in the long run (over-population, consuming resources, aggressive technologies, etc.), and thus for future people. That's what produces climate change, much more than any deliberate evils IMO.

So what I have been trying to convey is that human nature, including our doing good for ourselves (and not our just being selfish and doing evil), will not help us deal with climate change in the timely manner required. The problems with denialists and Trump and all of that are on top of what was already a perhaps intractably difficult problem, for that reason.

So Trump's reelection was the last straw for me.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Ivan Denisovich

I think you'll find that the pressure is often on those politicians to engage in those conflicts. Your frivolities probably pay some third worlders wages somewhere...and there would be no wage whatsoever without it....not that this helps them to be less hungry, as you note. Hunger is definitely a human problem, and one which highlights our potential for apathy and exhaustion, especially at a distance. I certainly wouldn't point to hunger or to conflict as proof of mans good nature. Those are, I think, on the opposite ends of our nature, and examples of things which we do under duress, and which create a vicious cycle of duress. I think it should go without saying that hungry people in conflict zones do not make great decisions. None of us do under those circumstances. As far as the wests ability to end conflict.,..the american century has been remarkably peaceful. That looks to be coming to an end. With that end will come the end of an amount of money already spent on charity just in the united states which could feed the world ten to two times over depending on who you ask and how a good diet is defined. That itself does (and would do) alot to end conflicts...but we'll still find other reasons to fight. We make them up when we have to.

Yes, I think we're generally good natured..but we're still the most dangerous animals on this rock. If aliens came here on safari it wouldn't be to watch lions anymore than we go to a lion hunt to watch mice.

@Alan V
There's a point of view that insists, were it true that doing moral good could be bad for the planet...we should defer to the moral good and not the planets state of stasis. The planet is not a moral agent or exemplar or metric or judge. It does not suffer in any way other than metaphorically. It can be harmed, but it doesn't know that..and if we're choosing between harming a conscious moral agent and harming a planet...morally speaking..that's a no brainer. Insomuch as that may cause future humans problems...A, that's the human condition..we also inherited those problems our predecessors failed to resolve. B, it's murky ground to decide which group of two groups of other people you're going to cause problems for. C, self righteous suicide by any description is a non starter in any deontological sense practically speaking. As in....maybe we should kill ourselves.....but we won't.

I do think that future people will be better positioned to resolve issues (assuming we don't fall off a demographic cliff and so lack the labor required to support replacement cycles)..in the same way that we are compared to even the recent past...and in the same way that all throughout history the solution to mans previous problems has become obvious and trivial across so many fronts. That is, granted, another part of my generally positive view of humanity. I don't think we're bad or getting worse. I don't think we've reached our developmental limits. More like put a toe in the pond. Some solutions to our current problems already exist and come from the past when it was less clear why we'd have chosen them over our contemporary processes, too. The first plastics were organic and minimally processed - and are still of higher quality than most heavily processed inorganics - my favorite example. We live in a plastic economy and the people who live in the places where we can grow the bests plastics are not all princes. Something is askance.

Similar to my response to Ivan, we'd find that the reason this set of circumstances is in effect is not because human beings are generally shitty...but that a vanishing fraction of a fraction of us definitely are shitty in specific ways. This is actually something were my opinion and yours probably mesh. Because we're not all monsters, we have trouble anticipating monstrous individuals, or responding to them in kind. Why are we not literally eating the rich right now, eh?

[Ivan Denisovich]

@Ivan Denisovich

I think you'll find that the pressure is often on those politicians to engage in those conflicts.  Your frivolities probably pay some third worlders wages somewhere...and there would be no wage whatsoever without it....not that this helps them to be less hungry, as you note.  Hunger is definitely a human problem, and one which highlights our potential for apathy and exhaustion, especially at a distance.  I certainly wouldn't point to hunger or to conflict as proof of mans good nature.  Those are, I think, on the opposite ends of our nature, and examples of things which we do under duress, and which create a vicious cycle of duress.  I think it should go without saying that hungry people in conflict zones do not make great decisions.  None of us do under those circumstances.  As far as the wests ability to end conflict.,..the american century has been remarkably peaceful.  That looks to be coming to an end.  With that end will come the end of an amount of money already spent on charity just in the united states which could feed the world ten to two times over depending on who you ask and how a good diet is defined.  That itself does (and would do) alot to end conflicts...but we'll still find other reasons to fight.  We make them up when we have to.  

Yes, I think we're generally good natured..but we're still the most dangerous animals on this rock.  If aliens came here on safari it wouldn't be to watch lions anymore than we go to a lion hunt to watch mice.

I disagree. As far as I am concerned humans good nature is just fairy tale some of us tell to themselves to feel better. Wars, hunger, poverty... nothing about it speaks about bipedal animal being good natured. It's uncaring, selfish and apathetic at best even if it is capable of compassion and mercy.

Similar to my response to Ivan, we'd find that the reason this set of circumstances is in effect is not because human beings are generally shitty...but that a vanishing fraction of a fraction of us definitely are shitty in specific ways.  This is actually something were my opinion and yours probably mesh.  Because we're not all monsters, we have trouble anticipating monstrous individuals, or responding to them in kind.  Why are we not literally eating the rich right now, eh?

If humans would actually be good then this vanishing fraction would be only capable of dreaming about their dastardly deeds. Genocidal, warmongering or evil in some lesser way politicians aren't conjured from thin air, people vote on them and they vote on them because just like biblical god (which coincidentally is another genocidal figure that is widely worshipped) they want to have politicians in their own likeness and in their own image. Those voting for likes of trump, orban or kaczynski aren't poor, misguided darlings. They're fascists, though often too dumb or cowardly to identify so.

[Alan V]

I do think that future people will be better positioned to resolve issues (assuming we don't fall off a demographic cliff and so lack the labor required to support replacement cycles)..in the same way that we are compared to even the recent past...and in the same way that all throughout history the solution to mans previous problems has become obvious and trivial across so many fronts.

Similar to my response to Ivan, we'd find that the reason this set of circumstances is in effect is not because human beings are generally shitty...but that a vanishing fraction of a fraction of us definitely are shitty in specific ways.  This is actually something were my opinion and yours probably mesh.  Because we're not all monsters, we have trouble anticipating monstrous individuals, or responding to them in kind.  Why are we not literally eating the rich right now, eh?

Climate change is different from other problems in that we have to anticipate it to deal with it effectively. We can't wait until it is all too obvious because by then natural feedback will have kicked in, making it impossible for humans to stop. That's what the 1.5C to 2.0C goals were supposed to be about.

So perhaps my biggest problem with humanity is why, no matter how well-intentioned we are, we so often have to learn the hard way.

[The Grand Nudger]

I disagree. As far as I am concerned humans good nature is just fairy tale some of us tell to themselves to feel better. Wars, hunger, poverty... nothing about it speaks about bipedal animal being good natured. It's uncaring, selfish and apathetic at best even if it is capable of compassion and mercy.

Perhaps you're right, but perhaps your metrics for good are not representative of the moral field in reality? 

---

In an amoral universe full of things which are not moral agents any amount of good done by any creature however minor either in absolute terms or in comparison to their capacity, or in relation to their full repertoire of behavior is more than the baseline amount of good there would be otherwise.  In this, saying that we do more good than wolves or worms may be a low bar, but it's also very difficult to argue with.  Not because people are good doing machines, as it were, but because we are at least capable and cognizant of good.  Now, I think that undersells us and the universe, other creatures, etc..that in framing things this way we are already drifting into unrepresentative and prejudicial framing - but it's worth thinking about as yet another strange notion that degenerate religions have smuggled into our compromised brains.

I've planted more trees than the average logger could cut down in 600 years just this spring.  If they worked as hard at it as I do and had access to specialized equipment commensurate to my own then..maybe...45 years?  I won't get sainted for it.  They aren't handing out awards.  No one's going to make me the mayor of town on account of my compulsion.  I couldn't point to that as a defense, excuse, or justification if I brutally assaulted my neighbor for the pure enjoyment of it....and with guys like me..you never know.....but still...that's good, no?   Utilitarian or moral good - I'll settle for either.   These are trees whose shade I will never enjoy.  They are for reforestation. They won't be marketable for at least 35 years...and the full benefit of the trees (for timber or reforestation) won't be realized for up to 200.  I make a modest salary.  Nothing anyone would upend their life to get their hands on.  Nothing they'd quit their jobs as mcdonalds supervisors for on pay alone.  The work itself is not easy.   

I hope that when I share my opinion that human nature is generally well meaning, generally good...this isn't taken to mean that we are just one thing.  That, because we're good natured, we are not also other things, are not also capable of other things.  Selfishness, apathy, violence for delight of violence.  It isn't really possible to do or be good if you cannot also do or be bad.  The trees I'm planting, for example..not capable of either.   They'll outlive me, and they'll benefit other people and environments in ways I couldn't...but in all those centuries they will never once actually be good or do a good thing. 

---

  

If humans would actually be good then this vanishing fraction would be only capable of dreaming about their dastardly deeds. Genocidal, warmongering or evil in some lesser way politicians aren't conjured from thin air, people vote on them and they vote on them because just like biblical god (which coincidentally is another genocidal figure that is widely worshipped) they want to have politicians in their own likeness and in their own image. Those voting for likes of trump, orban or kaczynski aren't poor, misguided darlings. They're fascists, though often too dumb or cowardly to identify so.

That sounds inaccurate, to me.  A bad actor may be more capable than a good actor, and a good actor is..if they're a moral agent at least, capable of failing. 

---

I'd also suggest that people don't vote for tyrants because they like authoritarian gods but that people manufacture authoritarian gods because we flirt with human tyranny.  That the mold is human, not divine, and very explicitly so.  Tyranny is expedient.  Expediency is one of our (many) specific defects.    Fear..ignorance, more examples (inextricably linked to our ability to be courageous and to learn).  That there may be some better (moral or utilitarian) way to resolve and issue does not itself resolve that issue or the need to resolve an issue with urgency.  

When my kids start failing around the house, maybe just one out of the many, I often resort to collective punishment.  Do I do this because I'm an evil tyrant who seeks out the bad for it's own sake or my enjoyment of it?  No.  It sucks...and I feel shitty doing it.  However, many hands make light work...and if what it takes to nip a thing in the bud is conscripting more people, and in a way that is intended to exploit their selfish and possibly apathetic impulses to avoid negative consequences.....that's what I'm going to do.    I'll try things the right way, and even the nice way, first.  Sure, maybe that's also self interested..I think doing bad shit (or doing shit the wrong way) is exhausting and I have some experience here...but even that, if we adjust our frame of reference for good to something more realistic and less fantasy based...is an explanation of how and why people are good or can be good even by accident, or even in the face of our attempt to do what is, on it's face or by itself, not good.

---

TLDR version (LOL?)
What can I say.  I'm a fan of man.  We often use the term self interested as a pejorative.  I think we'd be crazy not to be self interested, and if we weren't self interested enough to keep on kicking, at least, we'd never live to do whatever good we're capable of.  Additionally, if our self interest never aligned with good (again, moral or utilitarian) then where does all this human good (however defined) come from...and isn't that even more difficult to explain..then?

I agree with you about the nuts, though...and I think they're voting against their own self interest. Yet another thing that would be difficult to explain if we really were bad natured little shits. Wouldn't their self interests be aligned, in that case? Magatism in the us is a product of fear and ignorance. The fear is well placed, the ignorance is not, and none of it serves man's nature, the moral good, or the utilitarian good. It's not even an expedient. Just a terrible mistake...full stop. Stealing brown peoples houses will not make more houses. Deporting labor and children will not improve our economy or productivity. Letting robber barons run roughshod over us will not make us wealthier. Destroying our environment will not make us more comortable. Letting criminals loot our institutions will not improve them. Even out and out racists as single issue voters still want to bake apple pies for their kids under roofs that don't leak in neighborhoods that aren't filled with small arms fire woken up every morning by the sound of an ied and the smell of burning deisel. Nationalists like myself, former combatants like myself, often end up wanting to put down their rifles and not shoot at anyone anymore...certainly don't want to see our own people get shot, or even worse, shooting each other. None of this matters to misanthropy...if we love heinous shit then we'd just want more of it....but it matters to me, it matters to us, I think?

[The Grand Nudger]

Climate change is different from other problems in that we have to anticipate it to deal with it effectively.  We can't wait until it is all too obvious because by then natural feedback will have kicked in, making it impossible for humans to stop.  That's what the 1.5C to 2.0C goals were supposed to be about.

So perhaps my biggest problem with humanity is why, no matter how well-intentioned we are, we so often have to learn the hard way.

I agree, I was pointing out that we often arrive at the solution to past problems in the then future - and when we do, we feel like our past selves or predecessors were straight dum dums for not seeing it or doing it in a timely way.  That we play catch up, that we remediate.  That we suffer, in the absence of our ability to do either thing.  That ability to be introspective, retrospect, self critical, inventive, and corrective is part of the mix of human nature that really is something in this world.  Capable of producing things which were not there before, of manifesting behaviors that have no real analogs.  That we were handed this baton and if we manage to hand it off that's not the worst outcome for us or the planet.

Learning the hard way, I think, comes down to biology.  We can be hurt, and we experience pain.  It's a hell of a motivator.  Something that might actually qualify for behavioral gravity.  We're hurting right now, and trying all the wrong things first.  We'll either learn or die..and the planet we'll be fine either way.  Like the prophet, George Carlin, said.  The planet is fine. Humans are a surface infestation. A temporary nuisance. Another name on the future list of also rans.

However, if our biggest complaint is that we have to learn the hard way and we think that's unfortunate..we're probably not talking misanthropy. That, to me, sounds like it comes from a place of caring and foresight which we could, imo, use alot more of. It's not like you're over there saying "humans have to learn the hard way, and that's great, because I would like to hit em even harder..and all the time..the filthy fucking fucks!"

[The Grand Nudger]

Tying it all together, I don't think that any good can come from internalizing life rejecting mythologies, in any form, however described (and however defined)...and that's where contemporary misanthropy in the west comes from. It all goes back to ridiculous gods and their ridiculous standards and the cultures we've built around them (or for them). Where just being yourself.....can be Bad™. How much we've been made to be ashamed to be human, and how much we seek public validation for private accomplishments and failures. How much we've been lead to believe that the problems we face as natural and social creatures in natural and societal environments are, actually....somehow....all specifically human problems. Our own fault.

No. This place is a meatgrinder. Nothing All Nicelike™ has ever survived here. Most of the nasty things are dead too. The worst I can personally say about us is that we're underacheiving reactionaries. It's a defect, but endearing in it's own way. Goofy fuckups with a baked-in mean streak. Even when I say that, there's a bit of guilt. I want to show more presence for living. Having experienced things that make me understand why decent people do shitty things - being able to empathize with prejudice, desperation, hopelessness, even illness...all of it, before evil. I try (and fail) to limit my own latent misanthropy to myself. Assume the worst of my own bad acts and the best of others. The presumption of positive intent is good practice in business and life.

Governance....maybe not so much, lol. Those people are all weirdos. Not a normie in the bunch. If I were writing laws and manufacturing ideologies anew...I'd probably insist that the government had to assume positive intent on behalf of any person (citizen or non citizen) it was dealing with (or accusing)....but that the government itself possessed and should never possess any such right or privilege. I think we should make it a practice to routinely crawl all the way up all their asses just because it's tuesday. "People", for example, are going towards alternative energy all on their own. The market has spoken. The math has turned. The physics are conspiring against ff and derivatives as we know and use them. Some of our politicians in some of our governments are bucking all of that, and they'll fail. Maybe our job is not so much to prevent them from trying as it is to make sure they fail even faster. Help them learn through pain. Make them broke, and hungry, and scared...while the rest of us become more fulfilled, more secure, less exploitable.

[Ivan Denisovich]

Perhaps you're right, but perhaps your metrics for good are not representative of the moral field in reality? 

If my metrics for good aren't representative then such metrics are irrelevant. It's like this crap about best possible world invented to make god blame free for all shit in the world he supposedly created. No matter how hard I look I can't see smidgen of evidence for this supposed goodness of human nature. Humans certainly can be good but as far as I am concerned aren't inherently so.

That sounds inaccurate, to me.  A bad actor may be more capable than a good actor, and a good actor is..if they're a moral agent at least, capable of failing. 

So people are so ineffective at doing good that few bad actors are enough to fuck up all their effort? Seems like excuse to me, just like when theists starts trumpeting about free will when some ask why their almighty god does not stop rapists.

I agree with you about the nuts, though...and I think they're voting against their own self interest.  Yet another thing that would be difficult to explain if we really were bad natured little shits.  Wouldn't their self interests be aligned, in that case?

Obviously they're voting against their own interests (as long as we're talking about working and middle class). But why voting so would be difficult to explain if human would be bad by nature? If anything it makes things far simpler - humans are bad so they chose (yes I know it sounds dramatic) evil. Interests of working and middle class people are largely different from interests of millionaires and billionaires and that won't change no matter how despicable people in question will be. Class supersedes morality in this.

Magatism in the us is a product of fear and ignorance.  The fear is well placed, the ignorance is not, and none of it serves man's nature, the moral good, or the utilitarian good.  It's not even an expedient.  Just a terrible mistake...full stop.  Stealing brown peoples houses will not make more houses.  Deporting labor and children will not improve our economy or productivity.  Letting robber barons run roughshod over us will not make us wealthier.  Destroying our environment will not make us more comortable.  Letting criminals loot our institutions will not improve them.  Even out and out racists as single issue voters still want to bake apple pies for their kids under roofs that don't leak in neighborhoods that aren't filled with small arms fire woken up every morning by the sound of an ied and the smell of burning deisel.  Nationalists like myself, former combatants like myself, often end up wanting to put down their rifles and not shoot at anyone anymore...certainly don't want to see our own people get shot, or even worse, shooting each other.  None of this matters to misanthropy...if we love heinous shit then we'd just want more of it....but it matters to me, it matters to us, I think?

I have no idea what you're trying to say but people willingly supporting cruelty and inhumanity certainly aren't evidence of this supposed goodness of human nature. If anything their support for cruelty shows that human nature is anything but good.

[Angrboda]

I agree with you about the nuts, though...and I think they're voting against their own self interest.  Yet another thing that would be difficult to explain if we really were bad natured little shits.  Wouldn't their self interests be aligned, in that case?

Obviously they're voting against their own interests (as long as we're talking about working and middle class). But why voting so would be difficult to explain if human would be bad by nature? If anything it makes things far simpler - humans are bad so they chose (yes I know it sounds dramatic) evil. Interests of working and middle class people are largely different from interests of millionaires and billionaires and that won't change no matter how despicable people in question will be. Class supersedes morality in this.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Wikipedia || Low information voter