Man's nature vs his evolution
 

Dlish's nonsense post inspired this idea ...

At first, I thought it would be fabulous to rid man of his hatred and lack of tolerance. But then I realized if man was full of love, patience and understanding, there'd be no appreciation for whatever existed that was good.

Do you think that's true? Is there really a possibility of a Utopia? Could man ever evolve to become a creature that could survive in actual harmony?

I've heard it argued that it's the nature of man. Conflict. Jealousy. Greed. Blah blah blah. But do we have the potential to move forward within, say, a million years if our planet still existed? Is it really our nature - something we can not fix? Is it genetic and if so, can generations begin to dilute it?

Is this why religion became such a strong force within society? Ensuring that man had hope to achieve this by dying?

I'm still a bit of an idealist and would like to think it could happen (before death). But as a realist, I think it's more than a thousand years away. I do believe that religion became the answer for the early politicians, as a morale-booster for those who had begun to lose hope, and also as a means of control.

What do you think?

Uh I disagree...plain and simple. Why would man not have appreciation for such things?

It is possible, yet we are nowhere near it today.

The hippies in the 60s, the Native Americas (before there were too many of them), and other far northern people are pretty calm.

You need to have a certain upbringing, study psychology, and learn what is really important in life. Plus the environment around you has to be good.

Or you could kill 75% of the male babies born everyday and a large number that are alive now. If men are distracted by sex, they won't have time to fight.

Disagree with what? That religion was created as a means to give people hope? :confused:

it's really difficult to say anything about "human nature" because everyone is born into a particular social situation; they're trained to be functional by internalizing aspects of that situation; their capacity to ask questions about human beings in general is entirely conditioned by a particular set of parameters that define being-human in a particular range of ways. human being in general is usually an abstraction based on (possibilities of /variations on) a particular construction of being human.

sometimes i think people invented god so they could pretend there was a some way to escape themselves. you know, if i am conditioned (this in the sense of being shaped in a particular way, not so much in the pavlov sense) then it'd be nice were there something unconditioned....i am specific, so maybe that something should be general....i am going to die, so maybe not going to die....on and on, a series of inversions, a way of daydreaming.

where i live the native american population was already largely dead from smallpox or hepatitis a few years before whitey arrived. whitey of course thought this providential. thank you jesus for the smallpox that took out all those natives. go figure.

the group that would hang out here in the summer spent alot of their time on an island i can see from my deck. they were apparently part of the algonquin somehow. from what i've read of algonquin mythology/history from 19th century maine mostly, they were folk who lived with a basically different sensory arrangement, one much more oriented to sound and other shifting things. they didn't think about geographies in terms of abstract shapes---more networks of sites.
the figures they thought about as parallel to god-types shifted shape all the time.

lately when i've daydreamed about human beings in general i've wondered about basically different sensory arrangements opening onto basically different worlds, like things are always multiple really but we see them through a general frame of reference that assumes reality (whatever that means) is single and that human beings are a type like rocks are or chaise lounges are, all variants on a single core.

maybe the problem is that we, collectively, have no way of thinking about multiplicity.

this started out being about one thing and ended up somewhere else i think.

no idea. I think I got threads mixed up.

To the OP:
I think through severe genetic manipulation we could achieve such. I think its even possible within the next 100 years if politics don't get in the way.

I don't know, I'm pretty skeptical that we'd ever be able to build some kind of utopia, we could certainly try and as we grow and learn as a species we might get close but it would never be perfect. There is always going to be some asshole looking to get ahead and do so by any means necessary, conflicts will always arise over resources, shelter, building families, ideologies or basic survival. It would only be exacerbated by living in a world were so many people aren't fighting to keep what they have, easy pickings for somebody who doesn't care about building a perfect world....or at least a perfect world for other people.

I think we just have to accept that the world is an ugly place and while we have done a lot to make it better with our modern societies and beliefs it would/will never be perfect.

Religion became such a strong force because of fear. It was the reason it was created. A way for people to explain things that they don't understand like death, those bright things in the sky like stars and lightning, and of course all those strange noises that come out of the darkness at night. Some of those things have been explained and became things like science and technology. The rest, like the fear of death, stay in religious hands for now. Humans like things to be explained, we're a very curious race.

I don't really see human nature and the evolution of man as separate things. They are both going along hand in hand. But fear and war and intolerance shouldn't be the only things considered human nature just because they are considered bad. All those good things like love and compassion are part of human nature too. Love and hate can bring people together and tear things apart equally. Both have lead us to where we are today and i think both are needed to get us where we need to go.

I would have to say that because we don't need to get to that "perfect Utopian future" we probably won't.

Utopia's a nice goal to work towards.

right, just because Utopia isn't possible doesn't mean we should be complacent. doesn't mean we can't work toward it.

I look at it kind of the same way as I do global warming. We may not be able to reverse the effects of global warming, but that doesn't mean that taking the steps to eliminate it won't dramatically improve the lives of many generations to come.

I'm no Pollyanna. I have virtually no optimism that mankind will have a Utopian revolution in the next 1000 years. I don't know if it's genetic or environmental or something nasty in the water but mankind seems bent on self-destruction in one way or another. Whether it's through the horror of genocide or the more innocuous seeming slow death of self-inflicted heart disease and diabetes. We pollute our minds, our bodies, our environments and those of our neighbors whenever we get the chance. It's getting to the point where instead of wondering why it is this way and whether it can ever get better, I am concentrating on my forthcoming career and hoping to make just a few things better myself.

You know, I've been watching a lot of Star Trek NG the last few months and the question I keep asking Gene Roddenberry out loud here in my living room is 'how, Gene? it's great that you have conceived of this fabulous federation of planets with an earth that no longer has war or need and where everyone works for the betterment of society and technology because there is no longer a monetary system. But how did they get there?' Of course, Gene Roddenberry doesn't (didn't) know how, he's just dreaming like the rest of us, but it feels like a gigantic tease sometimes. And illuminates a little more the attraction of 'Trekkie-ness' and the desire to lose one's self in that world. Unfortunately I'm too old and cranky for that now, though. Sorry to digress.

ummmm.... What is Utopia? Your concept thereof and mine (and More's) may very well be extremely different. And that is a very good thing. And that is a major source of strife and conflict. I want my utopia, you want yours.

There are certain generic concepts (peace, happiness, harmony) that are definitely worth striving for always. But they are ideals; unattainable, and to a certain extent unrealistic. But desirable and worthwhile.

Can we eliminate hatred, jealousy, greed, and all things that make humans less than perfect? No. Should we try? Oh yes.

God/Nature/Evolution/Chance made us all different, and that is, indeed, a wonderful thing.

Genetic manipulation was in my mind before I got to your post. Not something like that done in such a short time than 100 years, but it could result in a new race being created eventually. Yet this race would still need co-operating with 'warrior' race to survive...

Somehow it sounds boring though to lose all those feelings that are considered negative - jealousy, hatred etc. So, in this utopia would it be just ok to share mates and spouses? Would there even have to be couples anymore?

utopia?
how is that different from conceptions of heaven--you know, like the talking heads once described it, as a place where nothing ever happens?

I really don't care about the word utopia. It's useful, a shortcut. It describes a vague idea of a time or place of consensus about the unworkability of disparity, poverty, endless violence. I mean, these things don't work. You don't have to be a dreamer to see that.

I think as long as our species retains the ability to wonder about its nature, we'll probably continue evolving philosophically. It's unquestioning acceptance of "the way things are" that tends to blind us to possibilities & allows/requires us to continue hurting ourselves by hurting each other.
...as much as I treasure Star Trek's theme, I can't see there from here, either, mm.

In order to achieve perfect harmony, peace, whatever wouldn't you pretty much have to eliminate most human traits including being able to think and reason? People would essentially have to turn a blind eye to any sort of inequity, pit falls or conflicts within the system and accept life exactly how it is regardless of any major flaws they see at the risk of creating faults, disagreements and fights. In other words everybody would have to be on the same page all the time, always be content with their lot in life and have no other desire/goals then to keep the perfect society afloat.

I'm not really sure that would be utopia (kind of sounding a little 1984) for me but then again as others have pointed out what "utopia" is for one person is completely different for somebody else. Again I think we as a society can work towards making things "better" but it will never be perfect.

this notion of "perfect" seems basically an excuse to do nothing.
the argument goes:
"no society/government/human anything is/can be/will ever be perfect so anything goes in the present"
as if some imaginary perfect, static Form the only alternative to the imploding empire we live in and it's preference for dissociation as over against thinking about how things might be organized and/or made differently so as to improve the lives of most of us. and since we can't get there, what difference does it make?

as if "imperfection" is one thing and everything is the same within that one thing.

unless it's the Other of the moment of course.

I don't think its an excuse to nothing (at least it shouldn't be). I think most level headed people would agree we should always be working to fix the problems we do have as best we can but that same level headed person also realizes its never going to be perfect only, hopefully, better then before.

But I agree it seems some are put off by the notion that if it can't be perfect there is no point in trying at all, as though it has to be one or the other, failure or perfection. We could probably live in a pretty nice world if we put the work in but we can't be so silly as to assume we will ever eliminate all the problems we face as a people....and be okay acknowledging that.

it's strange because i was avoiding a power outage in a neighboring town with my brother last night and ended up in almost exactly this discussion, in which to be for what wikileaks is doing--for example--presupposes a critique of this order of things (duh)---which somehow got turned around to an assumption that i imagined there could be a perfect system (huh?)----which then got turned again to say this one's not so bad.

then i got thrown out of the united states again.
it happens every few weeks.
someone is always throwing me out.
i think it's a sport.

This is what I was really thinking about. I keep thinking about the "without darkness there is no light" preachings and wonder if we'd have to find a way to reverse this propaganda to make a harmonious lifestyle work for human beings. I think we each create our own personal propaganda, but it's based upon generations of ideologies that become part of our nature after a few generations.

If that's so, RB, are you saying we'd be stuck in a state of ennui, or would we be content with our simple lives?

i don't think there's a deus-ex-machina waiting in the wings to swoop in and straighten out the messed up story we made for ourselves for us. we have to do it. if we're not up for it, then probably yes, we'll slide into some boredom. like it seems alot of people live in now. can't get angry about what's happening around them because they feel like they've seen or heard everything and besides there's food to be had and beverages to be consumed and continuity to be maintained and who really wants to take on the responsibility of reorganizing how things work when continuity is just...so....there.

i think revolution is possible. nothing is given in advance. continuity is an illusion. discontinuity is an illusion. we make ourselves and we make the world---but from within parameters or constraints some of which we are aware of some of which we arent. but we, collective, do have that level of power if we choose to exercise it.


so i dunno. radically different options are possible. but it's hard to imagine people doing much to get there. particularly not in the depressing twilight of empire that we are living through. why bother reorganizing the social world when there's so much packaged fantasy that's right there?

Something to think about for all who say "human nature is bad". We are under stress in this civilization. From that - all the bad stuff. Look at KKK, when they met some resistance. They ran. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHY THEY WERE DOING WHAT THEY WERE DOING. They had no personal reasons (each - his own reason). They - had the feeling something was wrong (and it was), formed a mob, and started killing blacks. Mindless civilized zombies.

Here:
Black Indians (Afro-Native Americans) - Americas - ColorQ's Color Club
and:
Piracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can see these 2 groups of free people - some by birth, others by choice - were not racist, and had no problems with - other's religion.

Growing through the asphalt: Prisoner Exchange

Thanks for the reading material. Do I take it correctly that you think there is hope?

how are mans nature and evolution not totally interrelated? Evolution is part of nature. If anything, 'man's nature' is to evolve.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

Yes. Grass grows through the asphalt, on it, it does not care. Life cannot be stopped.
Here, the machine is beginning to fail:
Growing through the asphalt: England, 15 years old

I cannot ever see humanity. becoming completely Utopian. I can see a portion of the species doing so. Other portions no. In fact IMO it would be detrimental in the long run for the species to become passive.

It's good I agree
with so many of pai mei's
societal goals;

Here's not any disrespect
for technologies' provisioning
labor, thought, & capital:

It's too bad the last
accords means to the first one,
disrupting its next.

This species will never be passive.