5 ms·

Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about

by fexl 17y ago

Human survival and wealth depend on voluntary production and trade. That is already baked into the evolutionary cake. If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, then the human race would die out. Of course, a small portion of humans can and do live that way, but that is an aberration. If it ever becomes the norm, misery, illness, poverty, and death will prevail. [Ed. note: As expected, "red in tooth and claw" is voted up, and "people need to cooperate" is voted down. If that's karma then I'll have no part of it.]

zaphar 17y ago
While cooperation makes logical sense. The statistics and study of human behaviour indicate that far from being an aberration "red in tooth and claw" is far more the norm. Don't mistake culture and societal norms for the norms of natrual human behavior.
- fexl 17y ago
  What statistics? Why do you differentiate between "cultural and societal norms" and "natural human behavior?" Cultural and societal norms are natural human behaviors.
- skmurphy 17y ago
  One good book length counter-argument to "red in tooth and claw" is Robin Wright's "NonZero" (see summary site at http://www.nonzero.org/ http://www.nonzero.org/ for excerpts) that argues life's arrow is toward more complexity based on cooperation and that it's not a "zero sum game" where every gain is someone else's loss. Wright's thesis for humanity is that people cooperate far more in the context of society than they did even 20,000 years ago, allowing for much larger populations. This larger population enables more diversity and further complexity.
scrod 17y ago
I sure hope you're not suggesting that the recognition and protection of private property is somehow linked with the survival of the species, because that would demonstrate a pretty shallow view of history. Indeed, the notion of "private property" often comes hand in hand with authoritarian force: http://everything2.com/title/The+Enclosure+Movement http://everything2.com/title/The+Enclosure+Movement
- fexl 17y ago
  You have linked to a story of people who used authoritarian force to violate private property. The people who took that land from its rightful owners were thieves. Rightful property is established by production or trade. A rough recursive definition goes: Your body and mind are your property. If you make a thing using your property, that thing is your property. If you obtain a thing by trading your property for it, that thing is your property. (I view "gift" as a special case of trade, where the price is zero.) I would also define "trade" as a voluntary contractual interaction between two parties. The word "voluntary" precludes force, and the word "contractual" precludes fraud.
  - rudzki 17y ago
    It's a little bit more complicated. I mean, suppose it's true that the only things you own are your mind, body, and the things you make using them. Then, the only things you can legitimately own are your mind, body, and bodily waste. Oh, and spit. So, there must be something else that you can own. For Locke, you can own land and other natural resources by mixing your labor with it. (But what this really means is a matter of serious debate, involving very old people wearing argyle socks, pipe tobacco, and tenure)
    - fexl 17y ago
      I think the recursion gets off the ground better than that. Notice that I said "if you make a thing using your property, that thing is your property." Property starts with your mind and body but it doesn't end there. Certainly an infant produces spit, vomit, and poop. But it doesn't stop there. The infant also produces cuteness, affection, and love. In any case the parents give the infant food, shelter, education, and care for free. Those are gifts. So the infant grows into a strong, healthy, and wise adult. He obtains that position largely through gifts from his parents, but he has also done some production and trade along the way, for example any jobs he did as a teenager. Now he produces far more than spit, vomit, and poop. He uses his mind and body to produce all sorts of things other people value. He owns the products of his mind and body right up until the time he trades them for something else. Simple example: he buys a set of tools using the money he earned as a teenager cutting grass and starts a small repair business. He is now using both the physical and intellectual capital he has accumulated over the years to produce even more goods and services. That capital is his property. So my definition gets off the ground far better than you suggest. Spit and poop ... you so funny!
cabalamat 17y ago
> If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, Humans have been doing these things for as long as there have been humans... > then the human race would die out. ...and this hasn't happened. Ergo, your argument is wrong.
- fexl 17y ago
  You are not responding to the argument that I made. I said that if such behavior ever became the norm, the human race would die. As of now, only a small portion of humans behave this way. This happy fact enables humans to survive. However, on the basis of your comment I will scale back my argument a bit. It might be possible for some humans to survive in a movie fantasy post-apocalyptic world of pure rampaging feral aggression. But the number would be very few. It would consist of a few people picking berries and hunting rabbits in secret, and gangs of others occasionally sniffing them out and looting them. In reality, in order for a human being to survive, he must have things and services produced by other humans. He can't do it all himself. If he wants to ensure that other humans continue to produce the things he needs, the best way is to offer something in return. Certainly voluntary trade is not his only option. He could plead hardship and gain some sympathy that way. He could commit fraud, deceiving others into giving him what he wants. He could use force to take what he wants. But ultimately all of these options are limited and fraught with risks of their own. Why risk death when you can just wash a few dishes instead? So yes, humans have been doing stupid evil things for as long as there have been humans, and they will continue to do so. My point is, stupidity and evil are not sustainable or reliable methods for achieving life, happiness, health, and wealth. That is why they are called "stupid" and "evil."
  - DennisP 17y ago
    > In reality, in order for a human being to survive, he must have things and services produced by other humans. He can't do it all himself. Actually he can, and quite easily, as long as he's got the appropriate skills and the population density is low. We can survive comfortably in most environments; it's just that today our environment consists mostly of other humans.

by fexl 17y ago

zaphar 17y ago

While cooperation makes logical sense. The statistics and study of human behaviour indicate that far from being an aberration "red in tooth and claw" is far more the norm. Don't mistake culture and societal norms for the norms of natrual human behavior.

fexl 17y ago
What statistics? Why do you differentiate between "cultural and societal norms" and "natural human behavior?" Cultural and societal norms are natural human behaviors.
skmurphy 17y ago
One good book length counter-argument to "red in tooth and claw" is Robin Wright's "NonZero" (see summary site at http://www.nonzero.org/ http://www.nonzero.org/ for excerpts) that argues life's arrow is toward more complexity based on cooperation and that it's not a "zero sum game" where every gain is someone else's loss. Wright's thesis for humanity is that people cooperate far more in the context of society than they did even 20,000 years ago, allowing for much larger populations. This larger population enables more diversity and further complexity.

scrod 17y ago

I sure hope you're not suggesting that the recognition and protection of private property is somehow linked with the survival of the species, because that would demonstrate a pretty shallow view of history. Indeed, the notion of "private property" often comes hand in hand with authoritarian force: http://everything2.com/title/The+Enclosure+Movement http://everything2.com/title/The+Enclosure+Movement

fexl 17y ago
You have linked to a story of people who used authoritarian force to violate private property. The people who took that land from its rightful owners were thieves. Rightful property is established by production or trade. A rough recursive definition goes: Your body and mind are your property. If you make a thing using your property, that thing is your property. If you obtain a thing by trading your property for it, that thing is your property. (I view "gift" as a special case of trade, where the price is zero.) I would also define "trade" as a voluntary contractual interaction between two parties. The word "voluntary" precludes force, and the word "contractual" precludes fraud.
- rudzki 17y ago
  It's a little bit more complicated. I mean, suppose it's true that the only things you own are your mind, body, and the things you make using them. Then, the only things you can legitimately own are your mind, body, and bodily waste. Oh, and spit. So, there must be something else that you can own. For Locke, you can own land and other natural resources by mixing your labor with it. (But what this really means is a matter of serious debate, involving very old people wearing argyle socks, pipe tobacco, and tenure)
  - fexl 17y ago
    I think the recursion gets off the ground better than that. Notice that I said "if you make a thing using your property, that thing is your property." Property starts with your mind and body but it doesn't end there. Certainly an infant produces spit, vomit, and poop. But it doesn't stop there. The infant also produces cuteness, affection, and love. In any case the parents give the infant food, shelter, education, and care for free. Those are gifts. So the infant grows into a strong, healthy, and wise adult. He obtains that position largely through gifts from his parents, but he has also done some production and trade along the way, for example any jobs he did as a teenager. Now he produces far more than spit, vomit, and poop. He uses his mind and body to produce all sorts of things other people value. He owns the products of his mind and body right up until the time he trades them for something else. Simple example: he buys a set of tools using the money he earned as a teenager cutting grass and starts a small repair business. He is now using both the physical and intellectual capital he has accumulated over the years to produce even more goods and services. That capital is his property. So my definition gets off the ground far better than you suggest. Spit and poop ... you so funny!

cabalamat 17y ago

> If human behavior ever became "all about screwing over" other people, initiating force, and taking property without consent, Humans have been doing these things for as long as there have been humans... > then the human race would die out. ...and this hasn't happened. Ergo, your argument is wrong.

fexl 17y ago
You are not responding to the argument that I made. I said that if such behavior ever became the norm, the human race would die. As of now, only a small portion of humans behave this way. This happy fact enables humans to survive. However, on the basis of your comment I will scale back my argument a bit. It might be possible for some humans to survive in a movie fantasy post-apocalyptic world of pure rampaging feral aggression. But the number would be very few. It would consist of a few people picking berries and hunting rabbits in secret, and gangs of others occasionally sniffing them out and looting them. In reality, in order for a human being to survive, he must have things and services produced by other humans. He can't do it all himself. If he wants to ensure that other humans continue to produce the things he needs, the best way is to offer something in return. Certainly voluntary trade is not his only option. He could plead hardship and gain some sympathy that way. He could commit fraud, deceiving others into giving him what he wants. He could use force to take what he wants. But ultimately all of these options are limited and fraught with risks of their own. Why risk death when you can just wash a few dishes instead? So yes, humans have been doing stupid evil things for as long as there have been humans, and they will continue to do so. My point is, stupidity and evil are not sustainable or reliable methods for achieving life, happiness, health, and wealth. That is why they are called "stupid" and "evil."
- DennisP 17y ago
  > In reality, in order for a human being to survive, he must have things and services produced by other humans. He can't do it all himself. Actually he can, and quite easily, as long as he's got the appropriate skills and the population density is low. We can survive comfortably in most environments; it's just that today our environment consists mostly of other humans.