Human Nature: God made us this way, we cannot change

[Grudge]

As human beings, we descended from heaven as we are today, there was no development whatsoever of the physical and mental condition of human beings throughout history. We are exactly the same today as when we were hunters and gatherers living a highly primitive form of existence with exactly the same inclination towards a pattern of behavior that the primitive existence compelled us towards.



Nothing has changed in our nature since then. War, violence, women as inferiors, exploitation of others, etc…all of these things were embedded in us since we descended from heaven. We are born sinful.



Anything which suppresses our natural inclination towards certain god sent forms of behavior is just unrealistic, utopian and destined to result in failure. Hence we should embark on a retreat. We should embrace violence, put women back in the kitchen and step up exploitation. Whites must civilize blacks since they cannot do it on their own. We should embrace the law of the jungle (which apparently is defined by these very behaviors).



This is the sort of immature gibberish one can mainly expect from children, or those who were raised religious, who since then have rejected religion, but still hold on to some its dogmatic beliefs.



A scientific observation, or simply a study of the history of man, would at once destroy all mistaken assumptions.



What a few on this board fail to understand is that human nature changes according to your material conditions. It was NEVER a static phenomenon. Therefore you cannot say that this one form of human behavior that existed at a certain period of time IS THE NATURAL WAY and is representative of the ideal one for us to emulate because it was never god sent and is in a constant state of evolution.



All our thoughts and perceptions are the material world reflected in our brains, through signals sent via organs and nerve cells. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, nerves under the skin etc. Our thoughts, our behavior as a society is determined by our surroundings, the form of society we live in, and our economic mode of production. Whichever form our material conditions take, we conform to the requirements it places on us.



It was not always that human beings exploited other humans, theft aside. Before agriculture and domestication of animals was discovered, humans had to hunt and gather. Their means of subsistence were extremely limited.



At this point in time, what exploitation could there be of the labor of others in these small hunting groups when the very existence of the individuals within that group depended on team effort? Here each hunter had to make use of his arms and legs to hunt. Could this have been a structure that would tolerate any sort of idleness?



Let’s take a look at theft as a form of exploitation.



First, theft itself is driven by a need to satisfy the requirements of subsistence. But if the means of subsistence were adequately fulfilled, there would be no need to steal. There would have been no need to domesticate animals and invent agriculture either. We are not concerned with Winona Ryder’s compulsive theft which is an exceptional case. What I am saying is that your material conditions determine your behavior. Change those conditions and your behavior will change.



Second, if everyone embraced exploitation, as some geniuses on this forum point out is our natural inclination, and engaged in theft, would anything actually get produced? What would there be to steal then if nothing were produced through hard actual work? It is clear that the majority do work. Does not theft and exploitation appear as a deviation, rather than a natural form of behavior?



Can exploitation then be regarded as a universally static natural behavior? No. Neither did private property exist since the beginning of time. But today, corporations will privatize even the water of other countries when given the freedom to do so.



It is often suggested that violence is our nature, or in other words, we carry a certain bloodlust within our selves that is just waiting to be unleashed so we can go around killing people at random.



But if violence really was in our nature, then why has society as a whole developed in the opposite direction? Why did individuals band together to form groups based on cooperation, and then on to civilizations?



Violence between countries does not occur purely because of a violent instinct. It is because of other factors such as exploitation of the resources of other countries, ethnic/race conflicts, and religious conflicts. If you get rid of these factors then it is certainly possible for violence between countries to end because you are ending the reasons for war.



The first step however is to realize it can be done so and has been done so by some countries. The next step is to get out there and struggle for realizing these goals. Arm chair critics of such ‘utopian concepts’ such as peace and end to exploitation need not apply.



If dumbasses like Uber Grim Kult during feudal times thought that the peasants and bourgeoisie were being utopian in struggling to end feudalism in France, that feudal exploitation was ‘human nature,’ then unfortunately for them, they turned out to be wrong and consigned to the gallows for their ‘realistic views’ on human nature when the French Revolution happened.

[TamPron]

this is stupid. too many words for the mabb.



i am drunked in this period

[Haunty]

Fuck it, I'm game. Give me 5 minutes to cigarette, and I'll be back to ponder this.

[zim]

i'll think about thinking about reading this

[Haunty]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]As human beings, we descended from heaven as we are today, there was no development whatsoever of the physical and mental condition of human beings throughout history. We are exactly the same today as when we were hunters and gatherers living a highly primitive form of existence with exactly the same inclination towards a pattern of behavior that the primitive existence compelled us towards.



Nothing has changed in our nature since then. War, violence, women as inferiors, exploitation of others, etc…all of these things were embedded in us since we descended from heaven. We are born sinful.



Anything which suppresses our natural inclination towards certain god sent forms of behavior is just unrealistic, utopian and destined to result in failure. Hence we should embark on a retreat. We should embrace violence, put women back in the kitchen and step up exploitation. Whites must civilize blacks since they cannot do it on their own. We should embrace the law of the jungle (which apparently is defined by these very behaviors).



This is the sort of immature gibberish one can mainly expect from children, or those who were raised religious, who since then have rejected religion, but still hold on to some its dogmatic beliefs.[/quote]



You might want to set those first three paragraphs aside, as it makes for a rather confusing transition into your actual argument. Consider putting that first part in quotations, or the like, seeing as how you're framing it as "something idiots might say."





[quote name="ManOfSteel"]A scientific observation, or simply a study of the history of man, would at once destroy all mistaken assumptions.



What a few on this board fail to understand is that human nature changes according to your material conditions. It was NEVER a static phenomenon. Therefore you cannot say that this one form of human behavior that existed at a certain period of time IS THE NATURAL WAY and is representative of the ideal one for us to emulate because it was never god sent and is in a constant state of evolution.



All our thoughts and perceptions are the material world reflected in our brains, through signals sent via organs and nerve cells. The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, nerves under the skin etc. Our thoughts, our behavior as a society is determined by our surroundings, the form of society we live in, and our economic mode of production. Whichever form our material conditions take, we conform to the requirements it places on us.[/quote]



Although your point is valid, I would go even further.



For instance:

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]... you cannot say that this one form of human behavior that existed at a certain period of time is THE NATURAL WAY...[/quote]

Based on what context I've gleaned from your Lenin thread, you seem to be saying that such behaviors as enslavement, corporal punishment, religious tyranny, etc. are not absolutes. In other words, behaviors and behavioral trends are not universally appropriate, and only represent ideal "human behaviors" or societal imperatives under certain conditions.



Either way, you've failed to account for 1) the spectrum of common innate drives in human beings, and b) the vastness of the difference in biological predisposition between individuals. Both of these points are crucial in formulating a conceptual model of the dynamics of civilization through the ages.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Can exploitation then be regarded as a universally static natural behavior? No. Neither did private property exist since the beginning of time. But today, corporations will privatize even the water of other countries when given the freedom to do so.



It is often suggested that violence is our nature, or in other words, we carry a certain bloodlust within our selves that is just waiting to be unleashed so we can go around killing people at random.



But if violence really was in our nature, then why has society as a whole developed in the opposite direction? Why did individuals band together to form groups based on cooperation, and then on to civilizations?



Violence between countries does not occur purely because of a violent instinct. It is because of other factors such as exploitation of the resources of other countries, ethnic/race conflicts, and religious conflicts. If you get rid of these factors then it is certainly possible for violence between countries to end because you are ending the reasons for war.



The first step however is to realize it can be done so and has been done so by some countries. The next step is to get out there and struggle for realizing these goals. Arm chair critics of such ‘utopian concepts’ such as peace and end to exploitation need not apply.[/quote]



As far as I can tell, this is the bulk of the message you want to get across. Now, you've just finished selling us the idea that human behavior is the manifestation of an incredibly complex array of physiological and psychological compulsions and needs. While I agree that most wars aren't fueled by some primitive human violent instinct, your argument seems to forget the point it just made. You say that war is, in fact, caused by "other factors, such as exploitation of the resources of other countries, ethnic/race conflicts, etc."



In continuing with the notion that "if you get rid of these factors...you are ending the reasons for war," I don't understand is your logic at this point. You've just stated (in essence) that there are myriad different factors at play in any human action. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say "If only we could get rid of these factors." It simply isn't possible. There are 6.7 billion people on this planet, each of them operating under different biological rhythms, ethnic backgrounds, etc, and with individual psychological and physiological needs that must be met.



Simply put, it is quite impossible to meet all of their needs at once. Even if one were to meet the large-scale needs of an entire civilization (read, Hitler), there is no way to eliminate the environmental variables within the remainder to such a degree that conflict would never arise. For instance, if only Aryans were left after WWII, the odds against even that group getting along in the long run are unfavorable.



In short, I don't see your point. You seem to be driving at some sort of "happy medium" between the extremes of utopian fantasy and wild misanthropy. My observation, however, is that there isn't one. If this is all somehow related back to your previous rants against capitalism, I would like to offer the notion that it is foolhardy to believe one system is always right, the same point you seem to be making (although I can't imagine you'd mean to contradict yourself in such a manner).

[Grudge]

[quote name="HbW"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]... you cannot say that this one form of human behavior that existed at a certain period of time is THE NATURAL WAY...[/quote]

Based on what context I've gleaned from your Lenin thread, you seem to be saying that such behaviors as enslavement, corporal punishment, religious tyranny, etc. are not absolutes. In other words, behaviors and behavioral trends are not universally appropriate, and only represent ideal "human behaviors" or societal imperatives under certain conditions.[/quote]



No I have not said certain forms of behavior are 'ideal'. You have misread my post. War waging is not ideal for those on the receiving end of the stick.



[quote name="HbW"]Either way, you've failed to account for 1) the spectrum of common innate drives in human beings, and b) the vastness of the difference in biological predisposition between individuals. Both of these points are crucial in formulating a conceptual model of the dynamics of civilization through the ages.[/quote]



Please elaborate.



And secondly, are you grading my essay like an old university professor? What's with the "add quotation marks here, structure that better" nonsense?



This is not a graded assignment. A professorly attitude will not make your response more credible.





[quote name="HbW"]As far as I can tell, this is the bulk of the message you want to get across. Now, you've just finished selling us the idea that human behavior is the manifestation of an incredibly complex array of physiological and psychological compulsions and needs. While I agree that most wars aren't fueled by some primitive human violent instinct, your argument seems to forget the point it just made. You say that war is, in fact, caused by "other factors, such as exploitation of the resources of other countries, ethnic/race conflicts, etc."[/quote]



No, actually I haven't forgotten it. And please don't put words I haven't said into my mouth. Here, I'll say it short and concise so that there is no room for confusion.



Eliminate the conditions for exploitation, and you will eliminate exploitation. You will eliminate wars fought for exploitation.



Eliminate the conditions for extreme forms of religion that dictate policy, and you will not get crusades.



One by one, you eliminate the reasons wars occur.



It's as simple as ABC but you still managed to misunderstand in your effort to find contradiction in my argument.



[quote name="HbW"]In continuing with the notion that "if you get rid of these factors...you are ending the reasons for war," I don't understand is your logic at this point. You've just stated (in essence) that there are myriad different factors at play in any human action. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to say "If only we could get rid of these factors." It simply isn't possible. There are 6.7 billion people on this planet, each of them operating under different biological rhythms, ethnic backgrounds, etc, and with individual psychological and physiological needs that must be met.[/quote]



This paragraph is just a continuation of your misunderstanding of my post.



Furthermore, it seems that you have never heard of the concept of 'uniting despite differences for a common goal.' SOMETHING THAT EFFECTS EVERYBODY i.e THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS THEY LIVE IN.



Such as capitalism



Such as religion



Such as discrimination against women



Such as racism.





[quote name="HbW"]Simply put, it is quite impossible to meet all of their needs at once.[/quote]



Ofcourse it is. With the modern technology and large scale production we have today, we can actually wipe out hunger. But we cannot do it under capitalism.



[quote name="HbW"]Even if one were to meet the large-scale needs of an entire civilization (read, Hitler), there is no way to eliminate the environmental variables within the remainder to such a degree that conflict would never arise. For instance, if only Aryans were left after WWII, the odds against even that group getting along in the long run are unfavorable.[/quote]



....what?



[quote name="HbW"]In short, I don't see your point. You seem to be driving at some sort of "happy medium" between the extremes of utopian fantasy and wild misanthropy. My observation, however, is that there isn't one. If this is all somehow related back to your previous rants against capitalism, I would like to offer the notion that it is foolhardy to believe one system is always right, the same point you seem to be making (although I can't imagine you'd mean to contradict yourself in such a manner).[/quote]



Noble effort, but in your attempt to sound like a professor and find contradictions in my arguments you've just ended up misunderstanding my post.

[Haunty]

My intent was not to sound like a professor. I'm only writing as someone who, when another person wants them to read their work, would prefer to read a well-organized paper than some disjunct ramblings. When someone isn't kind enough to do that for me at first, I point it out. The goal isn't to become credible, because I'm already credible with enough people to where your opinion doesn't really matter. And it's not like I'm trying to prove anything to the bard, because nobody cares.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Eliminate the conditions for exploitation, and you will eliminate exploitation. You will eliminate wars fought for exploitation.



Eliminate the conditions for extreme forms of religion that dictate policy, and you will not get crusades.



One by one, you eliminate the reasons wars occur.



It's as simple as ABC but you still managed to misunderstand in your effort to find contradiction in my argument.[/quote]



While I agree in principle, you're oversimplifying the process. What you're saying is akin to saying "in order to end starvation in Africa, end the conditions that cause starvation." This is something that would take decades and an unfathomable streak of unlikely events. Just for starters:

1. You would have to end starvation everywhere, simultaneously, or else one faction would make war to steal another faction's food.

2. It would have to be distributed amongst a population equally in order to be fair. Nonetheless, one group would feel that their family's needs aren't being met ("my wife is pregnant, she needs twice this much"). War.

3. You'd have to find a way to eliminate the tribal warlords from the picture, as they tend to horde supplies relentlessly.

4. Realistically, you'd want to develop a self-sustaining farming system for each tribe, in order for the benefits to be long-lasting. And then, in turn, one group would have better yield than another, which would promote conflict and crop loss.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Furthermore, it seems that you have never heard of the concept of 'uniting despite differences for a common goal.' SOMETHING THAT EFFECTS EVERYBODY i.e THE MATERIAL CONDITIONS THEY LIVE IN.



Such as capitalism



Such as religion



Such as discrimination against women



Such as racism.[/quote]



Historically speaking, evidence suggests that people will only unite "despite differences" in short-run situations, and only when they have the same priorities. Ending big capitalism, religion, and ethnic/gender bias would certainly help point some civilization in the right direction, this is another "easier said than done." How do you propose we go about eliminating religion, when such an enormous percentage of the world's population is religious and has been religious since the dawn of civilization?



History also shows, as far as government structure is concerned, that any time a group is placed in power over the finances of others, that group tends to wield their power irresponsibly. Example: the Soviet Union. Another problem is that until recently, capitalism has been paying off. America is a super-power. Many Americans are "wary" of capitalism, such that it does tend to cause conflict overseas, etc.

[Abzu]

Those first few paragraphs... I thought "Imran's lost it."

[Noyka]

Human nature doesn't exist, it's a learned "truth"

[Hugo.]

[quote name="Noyka"]Human nature doesn't exist, it's a learned "truth"[/quote]



While this is true, I do believe that some social concepts are logical within the discourse of human relations/existence.

Even to the point of genetic prediposition, altruism for example.

[scunt.]

I thought you didn't believe in god anymore imran

[ANGEL OF DESEASE]

God is fat, and he waste time.

[Charles Bronson]

ITT: Imran rants.

[Abzu]

The closest thing there is to Human Nature is that which is biologically encoded into us.

[Grudge]

[quote name="HbW"]My intent was not to sound like a professor. I'm only writing as someone who, when another person wants them to read their work, would prefer to read a well-organized paper than some disjunct ramblings. When someone isn't kind enough to do that for me at first, I point it out. The goal isn't to become credible, because I'm already credible with enough people to where your opinion doesn't really matter. And it's not like I'm trying to prove anything to the bard, because nobody cares.[/quote]



Thank you for clarifying that.





[quote name="HbW"]While I agree in principle, you're oversimplifying the process. What you're saying is akin to saying "in order to end starvation in Africa, end the conditions that cause starvation." This is something that would take decades and an unfathomable streak of unlikely events. Just for starters:



1. You would have to end starvation everywhere, simultaneously, or else one faction would make war to steal another faction's food.



2. It would have to be distributed amongst a population equally in order to be fair. Nonetheless, one group would feel that their family's needs aren't being met ("my wife is pregnant, she needs twice this much"). War.



3. You'd have to find a way to eliminate the tribal warlords from the picture, as they tend to horde supplies relentlessly.



4. Realistically, you'd want to develop a self-sustaining farming system for each tribe, in order for the benefits to be long-lasting. And then, in turn, one group would have better yield than another, which would promote conflict and crop loss.[/quote]



For all your pompous sounding accusations that I'm oversimplifying the process, quite predictably you yourself have a highly simplistic understanding of the situation many poor African nations are in and what is actually needed to bring change.



The end to starvation cannot occur within the existing framework. Many variables define this framework, such as the influence exercised by the West in African affairs to the detriment of the latter, and the lack of working class consciousness within these African nations – which can and must be built. ‘War making by other factions’ in those African countries torn by such divisions pre-supposes the continuance of the existing systemic framework. Your failure to understand this leads to your faulty conclusions which are very much within the box. Change of the framework is brought about by united action to overthrow influence by the empires, control your own resources, and set firm your path to development.



Attempts at such change have been made by several African nations but they have been thwarted numerous times by the West’s intelligence agencies, such as the CIA as you well know. You are free to study the African situation and conduct an analysis as to who benefits from weak, easily bribable and disunited nations in resource rich Africa.



Read the excellent book Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon.





[quote name="HbW"]Historically speaking, evidence suggests that people will only unite "despite differences" in short-run situations, and only when they have the same priorities.[/quote]



Please cite this evidence.





[quote name="HbW"]Ending big capitalism, religion, and ethnic/gender bias would certainly help point some civilization in the right direction, this is another "easier said than done." How do you propose we go about eliminating religion, when such an enormous percentage of the world's population is religious and has been religious since the dawn of civilization?[/quote]



Nobody said it would be easy. As for 'eliminating religion', ever heard of secularization? I have no issue with people harboring religious beliefs, just keep them out of education, government and don't encroach on others with it.





[quote name="HbW"]History also shows, as far as government structure is concerned, that any time a group is placed in power over the finances of others, that group tends to wield their power irresponsibly. Example: the Soviet Union. Another problem is that until recently, capitalism has been paying off. America is a super-power. Many Americans are "wary" of capitalism, such that it does tend to cause conflict overseas, etc.[/quote]



1) I am not a proponent of fascism.

2) Your example of the Soviet Union is wrong.

3) Wariness of capitalism in USA causes conflicts overseas? What?

[Charles Bronson]

How do you eliminate capitalism in a free society?

[Grudge]

by first recognizing that society isn't free under capitalism

[Haunty]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]For all your pompous sounding accusations that I'm oversimplifying the process, quite predictably you yourself have a highly simplistic understanding of the situation many poor African nations are in and what is actually needed to bring change.[/quote]



Look, I'm not going to have this debate with you if you're going to insult me every time I disagree with you. I'm aware I don't know everything, but I'm also smart enough to know that no one else does. You seem to be eager to debate, and I'll oblige, as long as I feel I'm not wasting my time.



You may be the smartest person on Earth, but I won't yield the debate simply because you posture as though I'm a fool for not presupposing you as such. My impression is that you're arrogant, and are easily insulted by people who aren't swayed by your pedagogy.



With that said, I acknowledge my potential bias, and am eager for you to educate me.



[quote name="ManOfSteel"]The end to starvation cannot occur within the existing framework. Many variables define this framework, such as the influence exercised by the West in African affairs to the detriment of the latter, and the lack of working class consciousness within these African nations – which can and must be built. ‘War making by other factions’ in those African countries torn by such divisions pre-supposes the continuance of the existing systemic framework. Your failure to understand this leads to your faulty conclusions which are very much within the box. Change of the framework is brought about by united action to overthrow influence by the empires, control your own resources, and set firm your path to development.[/quote]



Let's say that "the empires" cease their negative influence, and begin to aid Africa in whatever manner is necessary. What do you propose?



I'll admit as readily as anyone that the capitalist system is flawed. My point is that there isn't a system that is clearly any better. Every previous system has failed, and most of the alternatives I've come across are wildly naive and fatally unrealistic.

[Grudge]

I did not insult you. I haven't called you any names in that last post.



You've accused me of being arrogant. Where am I being arrogant?



It was you who had a professorly attitude as if you were grading an essay. Isn't it YOU who told ME that I was oversimplifying things? When I retort back on that, you call me arrogant? I have every right to reply to you that it is not me who is oversimplifying things, rather it is you who is doing that.

[Haunty]

I said that you're oversimplifying things and you said I'm pompous for saying that. It's not name calling, but it's not good debating either. Either way, I don't see this going anywhere, so I'm done.

[Devy]

[quote name="ANGEL OF DESEASE"]God is fat, and he waste time.[/quote]



MINE!

[scunt.]

[quote name="Decree of Sodomy"]I thought you didn't believe in god anymore imran[/quote]

[Grudge]

That's true. What's the confusion then?

[scunt.]

No confusion.

[Grudge]

ARE YOU PLAYING A GAME

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]by first recognizing that society isn't free under capitalism[/quote]



USSR failed bud.

[Grudge]

Yes it did. And its failure merits a closer, critical examination than just a blanket generalization.

[Charles Bronson]

Collectivization failed. If I wasn't so lazy, I would argue this out.



EDIT: Just realized you're Finnish. That is fairly ridiculous that you even like communism. Your people fought (successfully) both the fascists and the communists.

[Grudge]

Collectivization was a success.



And why are you this lazy? Are you generally laid back?

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Collectivization was a success.[/quote]

Well it did get a HELL of a lot done in the USSR, at the point of a gun. And all for what? You complain that capitalism is bad, but its much much better than collectivization. It worked because Russia was a backward country. Here in America we don't have that problem. Development occurs because people wish to return a profit.



As a communist, you are an atheist (although I was a christian when I believed this dogma). Since this is the only life there is to live, why would you wish to make it slavery (collectivization)? Shouldn't people just enjoy their short existence?

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]

And why are you this lazy? [/quote]

Finishing up with school work. Semester is coming to a close.

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]

Are you generally laid back?[/quote]

Yes.

[Grudge]

[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Are you generally laid back?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]



Is communism to blame for that or something else?

[Haunty]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Yes it did. And its failure merits a closer, critical examination than just a blanket generalization.[/quote]



I agree. Let's do.



In fact, I'd like to pick your brain, since you have far stronger opinions than I have. Pardon me if I ask stupid questions.



First, in what sense do you consider collectivization to have been a success?

[Charles Bronson]

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]
[quote name="Uber Grim Kvlt"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Are you generally laid back?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]



Is communism to blame for that or something else?[/quote]

My personality is to "blame" for that.



Being laid back isn't a problem.



If true communism could occur, it would be nice doing nothing and getting paid, but that isn't how things work.

[ANGEL OF DESEASE]

Women beated God. They can re-create their boobs

[Grudge]

[quote name="HbW"]
[quote name="ManOfSteel"]Yes it did. And its failure merits a closer, critical examination than just a blanket generalization.[/quote]



I agree. Let's do.



In fact, I'd like to pick your brain, since you have far stronger opinions than I have. Pardon me if I ask stupid questions.



First, in what sense do you consider collectivization to have been a success?[/quote]



This should be some other topic, some other day. Like Uber Grim Kult, I too am feeling lazy.

[Haunty]

So am I. Don't think I've looked at this topic in days.