Nice altruist thoughts, Will, but out of reality.
We are primates. Primates kill. There are reports of 'rogue' chimpanzees who will 'murder'.
It is, to a point, 'human nature'. The difference is, as Cyn pointed out, we have free will and the ability to reason; we don't know for sure other mammals do, although evidence is trying to be built for dolphins(who also murder and rape) and elephants.
Note that there might be countries with "low" murder rates, but they're there and who is to say that the reasons the rate is "low" is because of oppressive factors within those governments. I'll bet Cambodia had a low murder rate...because one person and his thugs did all the killing and thus "crime" was viewed differently.

I'll just say that I agree that primarily this is just a sad and unfortunate story.

And I understand why the public face of Turkey might feel ashamed, but not why Turkey should feel ashamed.

Humanity is full of inconsistencies and sometimes things just don't make sense. People are bound to be incomprehensibly ugly to one another just as they are bound to be inconceivably kind to one another. If both are human nature, then human nature really doesn't function as much of an explanation for this woman's murder. If to rape and murder is human nature, then why do so few of us (relatively speaking) aspire to it?

I think rather, these kinds of things occur when one or many of us forget our human nature due to powerful environmental influences and other corroborating factors.

I will use the collective 'we' term..even though
I understand that for some of 'us' ....that triggers a backlash quiver,
of 'forced teaming'.....

'we' see hate..we taste hate...we hate it...we hurt...we want better
we cry...we think we understand...we should know better...we shout..
we bleed...we continue....we hold on....we teach...we destroy...
we die...we heal...we write songs...
we.....

I'd want those responsible punished and I'd still think she was a dumbass. I don't feel responsible for everyones behavior in my community.

I'm shocked.

Nope. Murder is in our genetics, as is being social and protection of that community from murder. Those who can not control their traits get removed from being able to harm others. Its still all quite nicely "natural".

Civilization is but the ultimate end of our social nature + intelligence, war is our desire to solve problems violently + intelligence. Both have served our species well over the years.

Shit does happen and I'm not going to shed extra tears over a self proclaimed artist who did a very silly thing which turned out to be fatal over anyone else who was murdered. She put herself in harms way to prove a point, and instead showed just the opposite, ironic indeed. The murder of an innocent is always tragic, this one more no more tragic than the next.

Actually, this is just as tragic as it is ironic, it you view it in the classical sense. More tragic than the average murder, which is why it is so newsworthy. The irony helps the tragedy along.

Sympathy is genetic. The woman is dead. Don't hide your genes.

Actually it is, and no one in this thread is losing any sleep over her death.

No, this is true. I just didn't want to let you get away with downplaying the tragedy of this story. This is not your average murder. There are uncommon ramifications of this incident. As an example, note the thread we've created about this. I will take a guess that this post won't be the last one either.

I sleep.....but oh the nightmares...

this woman went out on a crusade not understanding the nature of humanity. Yes will, there IS a human nature. We are living beings, not unlike gorillas, lions, bears, hippos, or any other living breathing mammal on the planet. Your desire to seperate humans from the animal kingdom by virtue of a brain not withstanding, we are still animals. As humans, we have a self preservation gene. We have predatory genes. We have DNA that directs our selves towards the desire of things that the will to do what we want to obtain those. Evil acts CAN be part of this makeup of the human gene.

There is evil in the world and until more people wake up to that reality and combat it, we'll see stupid people like this unfortunate woman become a victim to it.

i'll close this off with my new favorite quote,

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. 'Albert Einstein'.

No seriously, "human nature" is like "Murphy's Law". It's a general figure of speech referring not to any specific science or philosophy to speak of, but rather simply to a lazy reasoning out of something.

The scary part of your post is that you try to explain a non-scientific term with bad science and a bit of religion (like intelligent design). "Evil" is a vague religious term. Genetics is biology. Behavioral traits are psychology. A murder/rape can be explained usually by psychology, and on occasion biochemistry of the brain, but if you're going to use religion you can't use science without creating a terrible mess.

I have no wish to enter into a long discussion on if she had it coming or not, and on what is or isn't human nature, so I am sorry if my contribution doesn't contribute to what you all seem to be focusing on most.

I just needed to say that I'm very sorry for that poor woman. Truly sorry.

I think she was trying to confirm for herself, and perhaps for others, that human nature is diverse, and that though you shouldn't trust some people, there are always many others you can trust. This may still be true, but...

This was a most unfortunate murder and I can't help but feel that it is pointless to dissect the situation, except to say that this only seems to confirm the worst in ourselves. Though the event may have been fortuitous, it seems quite perverse and saddens me.

Okay, this is a bit off the mark. I don't think Will meant to separate humans from the animal kingdom. He's well educated; I'm sure he knows we're animals. But to say we are unlike the zoo you listed and to simply lump us together as animals and call it "nature" is an oversimplification. We have genetic traits passed onto us that might explain much of our behaviour, but that isn't the end of the story. Society and our unique developmental histories play huge roles in our behavioural patterns. Evolutionary biologists have been studying this for years.

The problem with discussing "human nature" is that it gets far too glossed. As we've seen, we immediately jump on DNA, genes, etc., while overlooking much of the long history of behavioural study (the latter of which, consequently, makes up a much greater body of work than the former). To call the sum of our actions an exclusive result of our genetic makeup isn't going to get us anywhere if we are to understand the deplorable acts people commit. It's much more complex than that. The behavioural sciences have been grossly overlooked so far in the thread. Our greatest efforts to prevent and deal with the crimes we most fear are rooted in these. Genetics is a factor, but I think it acts only as a baseline to certain research and applied studies related to human behaviour (that is, if it's going to be of any actual use).

While I can commend her for the desire to prove this point, is was really a shame she was naive enough to actually believe it. Throughout history mankind has continued to prove just the opposite is true. From the crusades to modern day, a small percentage of humans have continue to prey on the weak. And this will continue, regardless of punishment, until the end of the world.

so you're more intelligent than albert einstein? or are you saying that einstein wasn't as educationally advanced as you?
will, I admit that you are highly intelligent, but I've heard many scholars, world leaders, academics, and philosophers talk about evil existing in the world. I hear about it today in several books that I skim through. Do you know something more about the world today than all of those people do/did?

:rolleyes: He chose to attempt eloquence instead of accuracy in his statement. Religious terms are often thought to be more eloquent. Here is a more accurate statement:
Doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it?

Edit: I'm probably a better pianist than Einstein, but does that take away from anything he did or make me special? Of course not. Some people are bound to be better than Einstein at some things (though very few at maths) because while Einstein was one of the most brilliant men of all time, he wasn't the most brilliant in everything he did. If he were here, I'm sure he'd agree.

And so should Italy for making someone so stupid they would hitch hike alone through such an unstable area.

the irony of this is almost as good as when CNN report "Woman killed by nonlethal ordinance".

You're equating optimism with murder?

No, in this case, with suicide.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
Robert Heinlein

Her actions were stupidity. I feel no sense of great lose here.

She had the same stupidity as people like Gandhi, the Dali Lama, and Martin Luther King Jr. (on a different scale, of course); the stupidity of real optimism.

Is that absurdist or does it mean something?

The Dali Lama isn't stupid enough to hitch hike through China.
Gandhi fought(in his own way) to free his country.
Martin Luther King fought to free his race.

She, well, she had a wedding dress. Yes, I see now how she should be listed with the greats with a plan like that......

A little of both.

Ummm no, not even close.

Even if she made it through and everyone treated her like a magical fairy from gumdrop island, nothing would have changed in the world.

A hero may throw himself on a live grenade to save the men around him. It is self sacrifice that is both rare and held in high esteem.

An idiot would throw themself on a grenade to show that grenades are not really all that dangerous.

This woman was an idiot, she landed on a live grenade.

So you think the Dali Lama is 100% safe in India?
HE DID?! I thought he was the guy that called football plays and made crappy Sega video games. Oh wait, that's John Madden.
Are you sure he wasn't the one that invented peanut butter? WAIT, that was George Washington.... Carver.
She was trying desperately to take a stand against violence. She was fucking brave and marginalizing her disrespects a hero.

No, I think the rape and the murder took care of the disrespect part.
The rest is just good comedy.

:shakehead: not in my world.

in my world you do dumb things, you survive, you got lucky; you do dumb things and you get hurt or killed, you're an idiot.

pretty simple.

Will, have you ever gone hitchhiking in a developing country?

this and little tippler´s posts are the only originals for the last 2 pages at least. everyone has made their point at least thrice now and mostly this seems to be an attack on will´s idealism.

I don't think the comparisons to Gandhi, The Dalai Lama and MLK are that far off the mark. Of course, they put themselves into dangerous situations for their cause and two of them are DEAD for it, in case you have forgotten. The Dalai Lama is only alive today because he walked out of Tibet.

Regardless of your opinions on the efficacy of her actions, she deserves respect for having faith in something and for walking out her front door and making a stand for it. Disrespecting her death in order to mock will is pretty despicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

the difference between the actions of gandhi, mlk et al and that of pippa branca is basically one of publicness--safety lay in the publicness of the actions--civil disobedience presupposes that someone (or lots of people) are looking, because the looking changes an action into theater. it is as bad theater than a non-violent protest is not mowed down by police or army--not because of any particular ethics.

this lay behind my questions earlier about why she was doing this solo--not only because an art action like this is ultimately more about the documentation of the experience than the experience--and because in the idea (or fact) of witness (say) lay the safety of the actor.

This is true. But I suppose she had enough faith that the 'safety factor' would have diluted the meaning of her actions.

she didn't do anything desperately, nor did she take a stand against violence. She started her little walk to show the world the goodness of people. she was proven wrong. she is not a hero, she is a victim of her own gullibility.

we should not confuse bravery with naivete.

It is unfortunate not to mention horrifying for her to die that way, and I don't know what precautions if any she took, but she should have been aware of the dangers of what she was embarking on. To just go touring through known world hotspots and not have the security to protect herself is terribly irresponsible.

And although I will probably get slammed for 'blaming the victim,' we really don't know what led up to her subsequent demise. If she was so irresponsible in planning her tour, how do we know that same irresponsibilty didn't somehow contribute to her death.

If though she was blindsided and didn't see it coming, that really is aweful for her.

And shame, I don't believe in labelling guilt onto a people just because something horrible happened in their country. Besides there aren't enough grief councillors in the world to be sent in to deal with all that guilt.

i guess my point would be that without visibility, without documentation, her action has no meaning.

the irony is that the design of her piece made of her death an aspect of the project. in fact, the project is in a sense perfected by her death.

it skeeves me out a bit, thinking this way, simply because it kinda aestheticizes a rape and murder.
but at the same time, it makes her death an exemplary action, which runs in the opposite direction.

this runs in the same general direction as stockhausen's statement about the trade center attack as a "diabolical piece of conceptual art"--which it was, like it or not.

Yes, it is kind of skeevy. :p

But I totally get your point.

Does Mexico count? :confused:
I think you're brilliant!

EDIT - Nevermind, you've been thrashed enough by everyone else. Cheers...

"Human nature" is no less or more scientific than "society", "socialization", "the way you are raised", "the environment", "culture", "genetics", etc.. All of these terms are at too general a level to offer any predictive or explanatory power.

It is, actually.
OH, you meant to post this:
I suppose from a perspective that could be true. Still, human nature is antiquated and no longer relevant, whereas the other terms aren't.

It's not an attack on Will's idealism. To be honest, I rather like it. He states he case well and with thought, and still holds some sort of hope. The world needs more people like that. I however, am not like that. The world is never so bleak as when viewed with a tinge of hope.

His comparison and views in this case are, however, off mark in my opinion. King, Gandhi, and the Dali Lama all knew their stances could very well end up in death or worse. this moron, by the very nature of her actions and words, never even considered this as an outcome. That is stupidity. And that is why this whole thing is nothing more then a cleaning of the gene pool.

I will hold a person who willing goes to their death in the name of a higher ideal in the highest regards. Someone who blindly walks into an open man hole and dies is however just someone to be laughed at.