CDZ True civilization should be our goal!

[DonaldFG]

False. "Original" human nature is NOT to cooperate but, like all other predatory mammals, to compete.

You can keep repeating that, but science shows otherwise. We are not originally predatory on each other. By the way, other creatures are not predatory within their species either, basically. Conflicts for mates and food do happen. (Go ahead and pick on that one.)

All of those wars stem from, at the most basic level, humanity's nature as predatory mammals..

If you cannot see wars as being started by leaders while lying to their people to get them to fight, you need to reread history. It's all about the rich and powerful wanting to be richer. Human nature is not what you think. Everyone wants peace and cooperation. Take a look at all the creatures that lie down together when they are not hungry. Much has been documented on this.

 

[DonaldFG]

Our original nature is to have children with our brothers and sisters and engage in cannibalism.

You are talking about extreme conditions that force behavior. This is not natural.

 

[koshergrl]

Our original nature is to have children with our brothers and sisters and engage in cannibalism.

You are talking about extreme conditions that force behavior. This is not natural.

Of course it's natural. Extreme conditions are *natural*. About as natural as it gets.

 

[DonaldFG]

Our original nature is to have children with our brothers and sisters and engage in cannibalism.

You are talking about extreme conditions that force behavior. This is not natural.

Of course it's natural. Extreme conditions are *natural*. About as natural as it gets.

If this were natural, it would be happening all the time! These things are rare.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False. "Original" human nature is NOT to cooperate but, like all other predatory mammals, to compete.

You can keep repeating that, but science shows otherwise. We are not originally predatory on each other.

No, it -doesn't- show otherwise.
And this is the second time you've meainglessly mentioned "predatory on each other" The fact that we do not usually hunt each other for food does not mean we are not predators by nature that this nature does not manifest itself in our motivations and interactions with one another.
Your entire argument is based on a false premise; human nature is to compete, not cooperate.

All of those wars stem from, at the most basic level, humanity's nature as predatory mammals..

If you cannot see wars as being started by leaders while lying to their people to get them to fight, you need to reread history.

Pretty sure I have that covered with my MA in the subject - reasonably sure you aren't able to teach me anything I donl't already know.
Wars, even those fought over ideology, are ultimately fought over resources of some kind and the desire to control them. He who controls the resources becomes stronger, he who does not becomes weaker - and the strong pass their genes.
Human nature, as a predatory mammal.

Also....
Your "civilization" allows for the use of violence by the people in self-defense and by the state in the enforcement of the law.
And so, what of your statement that "A society is not civilized if it allows violence of any kind"?

 

[9thIDdoc]

Let's see we're talking about a world government that "controls" it's citizens and does not allow violence of any sort. Except by minions of the state. You really think that in your wildest imagination that Islamic jihadists are ever going to go along with this?
Or American patriots for that matter? I'll pass (and fight) your "true civilization". Sounds just like the one described in the book "1984". Technology may change rapidly; human nature doesn't.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplus age, excrescence, adornment, luxury or folly which can--and must--be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly--and no doubt will keep on trying.?"
Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and. so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort"

Robert Heinlein

 

[Delta4Embassy]

While I applaud the sentiment, I'm afraid the human race is on borrowed time. We wont be around indefinitely. Projections of the aquisition of WMDs by terror groups who'd absolutely use them isn't cheerful or encouraging. Anything without zero chance of occuring has a 100% chance of occuring given unlimited time.
...

Toss in Yellowstone's supervolcano erupting, west quake megaquake, other supervolcanoes around the world cooking off and our continued presence as the dominant species on this planet becomes unlikely.

Thanks for agreeing on our serious natural threats! I say again, why should we humans continue to threaten ourselves when we have so much from nature to deal with?


We likely won't be around indefinitely if we continue our current trends. But this is definitely not necessary. We have the intelligence to change our ways and beginning cooperating for a global economic and technological future. If we can get past the endless war propaganda our governments dish out to retain power over us, we can take those few trouble makers out of power by simply no longer supporting them.


Yes, our weapons are getting more powerful. So we must stop letting the leaders of our nations make them. We, the people, don't need them in such vast quantities.

Sorry to say, but I think homo sapiens is an evolutionary dead-end. Our extinction may not be a bad thing. Give a more sensible animal the chance to evolve into the dominant species and hopefully avoid our many mistakes.

Bonobo chimpanzees come to mind. Often said to be the second most sexual animal on this planet after our own, yet unlike us they don't have the same problem with violence their identical, but separated relative of chimpanzees have evolving across a river in Congo. Absent us, they could well find it easier to evolve without our decimation of their habitat.

Trying to fix society when the animal itself is the problem is futile.

 

[DonaldFG]

Your entire argument is based on a false premise; human nature is to compete, not cooperate.

False according to who? It's not according to Scientific American, one of the most prestigious science magazines.
Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good After All - Scientific American

In reference to my comment:

If you cannot see wars as being started by leaders while lying to their people to get them to fight, you need to reread history.

You said:

Pretty sure I have that covered with my MA in the subject - reasonably sure you aren't able to teach me anything I donl't already know.

Wars, even those fought over ideology, are ultimately fought over resources of some kind and the desire to control them. He who controls the resources becomes stronger, he who does not becomes weaker - and the strong pass their genes.

Human nature, as a predatory mammal.

I congratulate you on your MA - that's nothing to sneeze at. Good work.
As far as new learning is concerned, everyone continues to learn - as long as they are alive. I'm pretty sure you are.

You are absolutely correct about the main source of human conflict being resources. I agree completely. However, in today's world I would say he who controls resources becomes richer, and he who does not becomes poorer. That's not good considering we are all born with the same right to those resources originally.

Also....

Your "civilization" allows for the use of violence by the people in self-defense and by the state in the enforcement of the law.

And so, what of your statement that "A society is not civilized if it allows violence of any kind"?

Should a society not respond to violence? I made the statement that everyone has the right to self defense. But most of us would rather avoid a violent reaction if we could. That's where police come in. For the few mental cases we are likely to always have, we will need police to keep the peace - and doctors to help them.

 

[DonaldFG]

Let's see we're talking about a world government that "controls" it's citizens and does not allow violence of any sort. Except by minions of the state. You really think that in your wildest imagination that Islamic jihadists are ever going to go along with this?
Or American patriots for that matter? I'll pass (and fight) your "true civilization". Sounds just like the one described in the book "1984". Technology may change rapidly; human nature doesn't.

No. We are talking about a world government that is controlled by its citizens - just the opposite. Many Islamic leaders have stated the basic principles of Islam as requiring peace and non-violence. I have heard that many of the radicals making the news do not even do their daily prayers. They are not true Muslims.

Unfortunately, it appears we are well headed towards a "1984" type state. Hopefully we will wake up before all is lost.

It seems you are another one who needs to read up on human nature. Check this:
Scientists Probe Human Nature--and Discover We Are Good After All - Scientific American