What is human nature?

shereads

Sloganless
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Posts
19,242
Just finished reading Bill Bryce's "History of Everything." The final chapters are on the emergence of homosapiens, the hundreds of species that have become extinct at our hands, and the mystery of what motivates the most intelligent creature to be the most destructive.

Some examples: We all know the dodo became extinct in a matter of decades after its home islands became a port of call for European sailors. I had always assumed that the birds died out because they were an easy food source. Wrong. The vast majority were killed for sport: beaten or kicked to death and left to rot. An entire species of harmless, unique creatures, wiped out in a matter of years for no better reason than that their lack of fear made it easy. "If you wanted to gather all of the dodo birds in an area, the most efficient way was to grab one of their members and get it squawking." The rest of the flock would come running to see what all the noise was about. Unable to fly, and having evolved without any land predators, they were as helpless as they were unafraid of us.

A single taxidermied specimen of the dodo existed until a museum curator ordered it burned because it had become "unpleasantly musty."

The Carolina Parakeet, also extinct. The only parrot species native to North America, described by naturalists of the time as the most beautiful bird on the continent. A self-proclaimed nature lover and amateur orinthologist wrote in his journal about how easily he killed an entire flock in an afternoon:

He would fire his shotgun into a tree full of the birds. The uninjured ones would briefly scatter, but then gather around the fallen ones, "with such apparent concern for their dead that I sometimes felt conscience-stricken." He continued the experiment until all but a few were dead.

Like the dodo, there is no evidence of the Carolina Parakeet except for drawings. The last to die in captivity was stuffed but later destroyed.

Another 19th century naturalist wrote about how he felt "a sense of joy" when he realized he had killed the last mating pairs of a recently discovered species of forest bird called the black malmo.

Bryce writes, "If you were going to select one species to have dominion over all the others in this lonely cosmos - to study them, record their existence and their habits, or even mark their passing - it would not be homosapiens...But we're the best choice currently available. It's even possible that we're the only choice there is."

Considering the brutality we inflict on our own kind every day, these examples of what we've done to other species are worth pointing out, for the sake of argument, only because it can't be argued that the dodo or the black malmo were killed for any logical reason. The Carolina Parakeet was considered a crop pest, which still doesn't explain the slaughter of thousands by a "bird lover" who was just curious about their behavior.

What's your own theory about human nature? Is violence without any apparent motive really an abberrant behavior? Or is violence inherent to our nature, and something we work to overcome?
 
Last edited:
shereads said:

What's your own theory about human nature? Is violence without any apparent motive really an abberrant behavior? Or is violence inherent to our nature, and something we work to overcome?
History tells us violence is part of us (especially male part). There are many possible causes.

Or maybe a cause is not needed, as I just found out the other day that long-nosed dolphins kill for apparently no good reason too.
 
Thanks for this and your comments elsewhere.

When I was a wee lad living in England I had a collection of 'crested newts' - lizard like amphibians, then common, now rare. I came how one day to find them all crushed to death, my cricket bat used as the instrument of death. Quite what possessed to school friends to inflict this damage is beyond my reckoning save but for the example of the Dodo and Carolina Parakeet - it's because we can.

So here is the conundrum is it the means and opportunity to inflict suffering that permits it to happen or an inherent desire for species domination? I know it's rephrasing your question.

I've asked myself this in respect of my Cousins recent murder, particularly after the weekend news clarified the circumstances of the crime. Ultimately I have to believe the only reason he was killed was because the means existed (through guns) to cause his death - he might otherwise have escaped with a severe beating. The next question is who's responsible for the guns...? It goes on and on.

I'm quite happy to believe there are a few really vicious individuals in every collection of peoples who get their kicks from violence, extreme violence. I can also see how it is possible to be a mass murderer of an animal species, I pour boiling water over ant nests each summer but have never got near to exterminating the little bastards.

All of the great feats of hunting, I'm thinking particularly of Scottish grouse and pheasant shoots, occured in days when the opportunity was provided. Now days whilst you could still shoot a thousand grouse in a day the cost of providing a thousand grouse to shoot denys the opportunity.

Similarly with fishing, the Newfoundland Banks fished out because the opportunity existed. In St Ives in Cornwall in the early years of the last century the fisherman landed more fish each day in that single port than there were people living in the UK - again opportunity.

We do the same with strong nation against weak nation. No matter what the motivation, the opportunity to act is either self evident or constructed politically.

I think it is human nature to be opportunistic, opportunity and violence make uncomfortable bedfellows.
 
I myself suspect it's because we're one of the few animals with an ego. That is with feelings about ourselves and our place in the universe.

Egos can be held up in two ways, positively and negatively. That is by doing good or evil.

The nature of evil is such is that it is very easy to do. The dodos were easy to kill, same with the parakeets. The perps walked away thinking, "Look at how powerful I am! I am indeed better than these stupid creatures."

Our nature as apes compounds this. Since we tend to go along with the group and the group does what its alphas tell it to do, when an alpha decides to do something evil we do as they ask.

It may have something to do with the ability to think abstractly. I've heard of two beta chimps murdering an alpha in his sleep. And I know that chimps send out war parties to patrol the borders of their troop's area. In the one example I know of a war patrol caught a female and child from another troop, killed them both and ate pieces of them in a ritualistic fashion.

We're not unique. But our ability to make tools and our inability to too rarely think through the consequences of our actions with these tools amplifies our ability at destruction.
 
Re: Re: What is human nature?

ChilledVodka said:
History tells us violence is part of us (especially male part). There are many possible causes.

Or maybe a cause is not needed, as I just found out the other day that long-nosed dolphins kill for apparently no good reason too.

What did you do to provoke the long-nosed dolphins? And how did they try to kill you?

I find the human race more likeable when I think of us as not-quite-evolved-enough apes than when I was religious and thought of us as having been created in God's image, in which case we're just hell-bent on screwing up.

If we emerged from the swamp, formed communities, climbed down from the trees when the forests receded, and somehow managed to fill the Louvre, compose Brahms Third Symphony, travel to the moon and invent the chocolate souffle during the pauses between our chimp-like fits of rage, we're pretty impressive. For apes.

If we were purpose-built as companions for our perfect Creator, we suck. Big-time.
 
"The veneer of civilization is very thin indeed and is often breached. " wrote Robert A Heinlein .

I have yet to see anything that disproves his theory,
 
neonlyte said:
When I was a wee lad living in England I had a collection of 'crested newts' - lizard like amphibians, then common, now rare. I came how one day to find them all crushed to death, my cricket bat used as the instrument of death. Quite what possessed to school friends to inflict this damage is beyond my reckoning save but for the example of the Dodo and Carolina Parakeet - it's because we can.

Something similar happened to my nephew when he was five or six. He came home crying because he'd seen some older boys killing frogs by throwing them against a brick wall. His mother thought the parents would want to know. (Animal-torture is common to children who grow up to be serial killers.) The boys' mother laughed. "They were having fun with some frogs. Who cares?" Is the lack of empathy inherited? Or does empathy for weaker creatures have to be taught?
Similarly with fishing, the Newfoundland Banks fished out because the opportunity existed. In St Ives in Cornwall in the early years of the last century the fisherman landed more fish each day in that single port than there were people living in the UK - again opportunity.

That kind of waste is common and was almost understandable in an age before we knew how quickly we could deplete a resource. We know better now, but it hasn't changed our behavior. We're like a race of idiot savants who can engineer beef cattle that think they're soybeans, but can't or won't conserve for the sake of our grandchildren.

So the answer is...We suck!

There. That was easier than I thought it would be.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
shereads said:

So the answer is...We suck!

There. That was easier than I thought it would be.

:rolleyes:

We sure do.

I had a strange and interesting conversation today with a scientist, a fungus expert (yes, I know, I move in exhalted circles). Fungus, as in mould, bread mould to be precise, has the same DNA constituents as humans. (Slightly different order otherwise we'd be on speaking terms)

Fungus is invasive, territorial, destructive, assimilative, and refuses to communicate outside of its sub-species. As yet, there is no evidence of a brain, just instinct.

If you gave fungus a brain do you think they'd start to use guns?
 
Another note from the Bryce book: homosapiens hasn't been around very long compared to other hominid species. There's an excavation site in Africa, on what would once have been the banks of a temperate-climate lake, that was in use for at least half a million years as a factory for making hand-axes.

Our own species first shows up in the fossil record only 90,000 years ago. In Miami, we can't let a hand-axe factory stand for more than a decade before tearing it down to build a sports arena.

I'll bet we nuked homo habilis out of existence because their hobby annoyed us. Stupid hand-axes.
 
neonlyte said:
We sure do.

I had a strange and interesting conversation today with a scientist, a fungus expert (yes, I know, I move in exhalted circles). Fungus, as in mould, bread mould to be precise, has the same DNA constituents as humans. (Slightly different order otherwise we'd be on speaking terms)

Fungus is invasive, territorial, destructive, assimilative, and refuses to communicate outside of its sub-species. As yet, there is no evidence of a brain, just instinct.

If you gave fungus a brain do you think they'd start to use guns?

See "Bambi" thread for the gun part.

I've been studying aspects of human behavior for about six years now, and the more I learned, the more confusing it got. The seemingly random cruelty seems to me to be an emergent property of our evolutionary path. Since it could be argued that humans were the first species on that rearranged their environment so that survival wasn't a moment by moment concern, we were literally left with too much time in our hands (and opposable thumbs). And while this has allowed us to make some genuinely miraculous advances in a number of respects, it also means that some people do cruel things for the worst possible reasons . . . because they can and have nothing else to do. But I think these stories are still exceptions rather than rules and as such tend to be more highly reported. Just a thought. Depressed now.:(
 
neonlyte said:
Fungus is invasive, territorial, destructive, assimilative, and refuses to communicate outside of its sub-species. As yet, there is no evidence of a brain, just instinct.

If you gave fungus a brain do you think they'd start to use guns?

How advanced is the brain?



More wierd science: there's more genetic diversity in a social group of 50 chimpanzees than in the entire human race.

A zebra and a horse are more different from each other, genetically, than humans and chimpanzees.

Dick Cheney is more closely related to bread mould than to a zebra.

A single unit of virus has none of the characteristics of a life-form. It's inert until it's in the company of others. (Like Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.)

Fungus denies any relation to Dick Cheney.
 
Last edited:
Evil Alpaca said:
. . . because they can and have nothing else to do.

I think that's an awful lot of it!

We have way too much leisure time; our lives are too easy and we get bored.

In the 21st century we (in the developed world, at any rate) don't have to go out and hunt or gather food, we don't have to make our own clothes, then spend hours cleaning and mending them. We don't spend hours preparing meals, making tools, building fires, and so on.

We have it too damn easy. Not complaining, mind you! But, those with a strong hunter/gatherer instinct (for example - they could have too much testosterone flodding their system), and even women with way too many hormones rushing around our bodies, might feel the need to quell that need in another way. Some do it through computer games. The real degenerates think it's ok to act violently towards another ape.

We all still have primitive man in us, although in some it's not as well buried as others. And in some, it merely manifests itself in other ways - strong sex drive, or whatever.

Another theory: our brains are too big for our own good; we haven't evolved enough to fit them yet.

Just my own theories. No scientific basis whatsoever.

Lou
 
Evil Alpaca said:
Depressed now.

Don't be depressed. There are sexy people here who write free dirty stories and have intriguing private parts. Life is good.
 
Alpaca's AV ...

I'm stunned. :eek:

I'm in love. :heart:

Come hither, darling little alpaca ...
 
Life is good...says the thread starter Shereads...


I should not...but...sighs...I truly think the devil makes me do it.

The skills gained by small mammals...rodents, a hundred million years ago as they scurried in the underbrush dodging dinosaur paws gave us our beginnings.

Small warm blooded creatures mainly vegetarian, that survived in the microcosm as the giants roamed the land.

Nature and our part, human nature, has but two imperatives: survival and procreation.

I loved the part of your post where you applauded the rise of man from muck to Gluck.

It has always troubled me that many view the nature of man as base and evil. We are what we are. After 60,000 years of life or death competition we turned out to be the meanest of all.

That is how Homo S. survived. The mud the blood and the beer.

It is very true than mankind can be cruel and mean spirited and you gave enough examples to make that point.

It is also true than man has cultivated a concern for animals and plants. Many species of flora and fauna exist today because they were found to be useful.

I have the same problem as many, I think, in trying to comprehend true evil in mankind. A hundred tomes on the subject seems not to have clarified the reasons for murder and genocide. Or thrill killings of living things.

Left brain, right brain, cerebral cortex, deep brain, primitive brain...a litany. Some babies are born with tails and the appendix is a left over organ for filtering poisons from eating raw meat.

Eating animal flesh for sustenance is abhorrent to many but man has a taste for blood.

I have always viewed a portion of the Liberal Left, the effete, aesthete who dream of transcending bodily functions to a higher plane of existence, as necessary. Necessary as a countermeasure to our sullied past.

I got snockered last night and watched a four hour NASA broadcast about risk taking as it applies to extended journies in space, to Mars and beyond.

Those very things that so many hate are seen to be the essential characteristics in the Core of Exploration that have taken man from the caves of France to the moon and soon beyond.

I think it was Robert Heinlein in one of his stories who spoke of humanity as we ruled the stars in a far off galaxy somewhere in the future, I paraphrase, "...the meanest critter to be born of woman in the entire universe..."

We break eggs to make omelets; any old egg that is handy.

amicus...
 
Amicus: I'd like to point out that the man who coined the phrase "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" was in fact Joseph Stalin talking about his concentration camps.

The Earl
 
shereads said:

What's your own theory about human nature? Is violence without any apparent motive really an abberrant behavior? Or is violence inherent to our nature, and something we work to overcome?

My theory of human nature is that it's *all* human nature- our cruelty, our kindness and everything in between. People sometimes use 'human nature' to justify our bad behaviour (or their own) I think that this is a crock. It is just as much in our nature to love as it is to hate, or we wouldn't be able to do it.

Human nature provides all the ingredience, it is for us to decide what to use and what not to use.

and lastly, nothing that can be found within mankind is foreing to me. the light and the shadow are in us all. What we lable as 'monster' and 'inhuman' is there as well, although we may try to distance ourselves from it, we can only deny the truth. We are all capable of the worst that mankind has to offer, and we are all capable of the best- and the highest ideals.

It is our choices, not our nature that makes us who we are. If I may steal a line from Dumbledoor.
 
Tatelou said:
Another theory: our brains are too big for our own good; we haven't evolved enough to fit them yet.

Just my own theories. No scientific basis whatsoever.

Lou

And not a bad one at all.

Our two year old is a genious. He's quite smart enough to get himself into situations that he can't handle!!!:)
 
amicus said:
Life is good...says the thread starter Shereads...


I should not...but...sighs...I truly think the devil makes me do it.

The skills gained by small mammals...rodents, a hundred million years ago as they scurried in the underbrush dodging dinosaur paws gave us our beginnings.

Small warm blooded creatures mainly vegetarian, that survived in the microcosm as the giants roamed the land.

Nature and our part, human nature, has but two imperatives: survival and procreation.

I loved the part of your post where you applauded the rise of man from muck to Gluck.

It has always troubled me that many view the nature of man as base and evil. We are what we are. After 60,000 years of life or death competition we turned out to be the meanest of all.

That is how Homo S. survived. The mud the blood and the beer.

It is very true than mankind can be cruel and mean spirited and you gave enough examples to make that point.

It is also true than man has cultivated a concern for animals and plants. Many species of flora and fauna exist today because they were found to be useful.

I have the same problem as many, I think, in trying to comprehend true evil in mankind. A hundred tomes on the subject seems not to have clarified the reasons for murder and genocide. Or thrill killings of living things.

Left brain, right brain, cerebral cortex, deep brain, primitive brain...a litany. Some babies are born with tails and the appendix is a left over organ for filtering poisons from eating raw meat.

Eating animal flesh for sustenance is abhorrent to many but man has a taste for blood.

I have always viewed a portion of the Liberal Left, the effete, aesthete who dream of transcending bodily functions to a higher plane of existence, as necessary. Necessary as a countermeasure to our sullied past.

I got snockered last night and watched a four hour NASA broadcast about risk taking as it applies to extended journies in space, to Mars and beyond.

Those very things that so many hate are seen to be the essential characteristics in the Core of Exploration that have taken man from the caves of France to the moon and soon beyond.

I think it was Robert Heinlein in one of his stories who spoke of humanity as we ruled the stars in a far off galaxy somewhere in the future, I paraphrase, "...the meanest critter to be born of woman in the entire universe..."

We break eggs to make omelets; any old egg that is handy.

amicus...

Thoughtful and startlingly inoffensive, Smoove A. Thank you.
 
TheEarl said:
Amicus: I'd like to point out that the man who coined the phrase "You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs" was in fact Joseph Stalin talking about his concentration camps.

The Earl

They served omelettes? I'll bet they weren't very good.
 
Re: Re: Re: What is human nature?

shereads said:
What did you do to provoke the long-nosed dolphins? And how did they try to kill you?
:D

I find the human race more likeable when I think of us as not-quite-evolved-enough apes than when I was religious and thought of us as having been created in God's image, in which case we're just hell-bent on screwing up.
Precisely what is it that's giving me the niggling feeling we're headed backward as a species? I don't think my heart is clean, but neither is it soiled. It's a common involuntary reflex response to motion. There's no high brain function linked to the act.

If we emerged from the swamp, formed communities, climbed down from the trees when the forests receded, and somehow managed to fill the Louvre, compose Brahms Third Symphony, travel to the moon and invent the chocolate souffle during the pauses between our chimp-like fits of rage, we're pretty impressive. For apes.
No longer could modern citizens pretend to be naive. We were now jaded; the world was spinning more quickly. The remains of high school flowed by like a wide, slow, pulsing river of cool chocolate milk. But we don't ever say it out loud, do we? One day we were all walking across the surface of the moon, then we discovered a way home.

If we were purpose-built as companions for our perfect Creator, we suck. Big-time.
You and me, both, bebs :D
 
I think there's reason for hope.

Humans evolve through their culture faster than we evolve biologically, and culture is often more influential in shaping who and what we are than our biology. Culture tells you what's right and wrong and who you are.

The evolution of culture over the past few hundred years shows a growing sense of empathy between us and the rest of creation. It wasn't that long ago that we considered other people to be fair game for extermination because they weren't really human. The idea that blacks and Indians and even women were just as human as white European males was pretty revolutionary, and still is to some people.

I think the same is true with the rest of creation. We're slowly learning respect. I think you can get a pretty good feel for a person's intelligence by gauging their empathy for other creatures.

---dr.M.
 
Back
Top