8 ms·

> I wonder why the interviewee is so confident that the world will always be a place of conflict. It always has been. > I can think of no rational, or no nec

> I wonder why the interviewee is so confident that the world will always be a place of conflict. It always has been. > I can think of no rational, or no necessary, reason why multiple conflicting powers should exist based on the lines on a map. You mean other than the fact that it's always been that way? These are just tribes on a larger scale, humans are tribal, we fight, it's in our nature.

woodman 10y ago
> ...we fight, it's in our nature. Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"? Do you feel the same way about slavery which, until relatively recently, was the natural order of things?
- gnaritas 10y ago
  Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported. Saying something is in our nature doesn't justify it, it's merely an explanation why something still is. As long as resources are scarce, man will fight, that is the way of things.
  - woodman 10y ago
    > Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported. That misses the point, but I can pin the example down if that helps: ... publicly supporting slavery, until relatively recently, was the natural order of things. The point is that saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it - because everything everybody has ever done or will do is something in our nature. > As long as resources are scarce, man will fight... This is better than the nature angle, but not by much - as pretty much anything (including adherents to a religion) can be called "resources". We just need to crack the whole post-scarcity thing... kind of a silver lining.
    - gnaritas 10y ago
      > saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it It doesn't justify it, never claimed it did, but it most certainly does explain it.
      - woodman 10y ago
        I understand your position, but I guess I've failed to communicate mine effectively - because you don't seem to understand me when I've said in two different ways that your nature argument is tautological.
        gnaritas 10y ago
        Ok, better to just say that, but I still don't agree. > Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"? Of course we do, much of culture isn't in our nature, but is learned. Advanced mathmatics isn't in our nature, it is learned. "in our nature" essentially means because it's human, and that isn't tautological imho. The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological.
        woodman 10y ago
        Yeah we definitely aren't going to see eye to eye on this, because we don't even agree on what it is to be human. Whereas I include the direct consequences for biological imperatives in the definition, "Advanced mathmatics" is a direct and logical consequence of curiosity and the capacity for relatively high level cognition, you seem to restrict the definition to only include the biological imperatives... which leaves me to wonder at how you differentiate the species from the rest of the animals. > The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological. That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because it is human nature to fight over land. You can substitute one or both instances of "land" with "scarce resource" if you like, but it is still a tautology - because land is a resource that is scarce :)
        10y ago

woodman 10y ago

> ...we fight, it's in our nature. Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"? Do you feel the same way about slavery which, until relatively recently, was the natural order of things?

gnaritas 10y ago
Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported. Saying something is in our nature doesn't justify it, it's merely an explanation why something still is. As long as resources are scarce, man will fight, that is the way of things.
- woodman 10y ago
  > Slavery is still very much alive, it's just no longer publicly supported. That misses the point, but I can pin the example down if that helps: ... publicly supporting slavery, until relatively recently, was the natural order of things. The point is that saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it - because everything everybody has ever done or will do is something in our nature. > As long as resources are scarce, man will fight... This is better than the nature angle, but not by much - as pretty much anything (including adherents to a religion) can be called "resources". We just need to crack the whole post-scarcity thing... kind of a silver lining.
  - gnaritas 10y ago
    > saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it It doesn't justify it, never claimed it did, but it most certainly does explain it.
    - woodman 10y ago
      I understand your position, but I guess I've failed to communicate mine effectively - because you don't seem to understand me when I've said in two different ways that your nature argument is tautological.
      - gnaritas 10y ago
        Ok, better to just say that, but I still don't agree. > Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"? Of course we do, much of culture isn't in our nature, but is learned. Advanced mathmatics isn't in our nature, it is learned. "in our nature" essentially means because it's human, and that isn't tautological imho. The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological.
        woodman 10y ago
        Yeah we definitely aren't going to see eye to eye on this, because we don't even agree on what it is to be human. Whereas I include the direct consequences for biological imperatives in the definition, "Advanced mathmatics" is a direct and logical consequence of curiosity and the capacity for relatively high level cognition, you seem to restrict the definition to only include the biological imperatives... which leaves me to wonder at how you differentiate the species from the rest of the animals. > The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological. That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because it is human nature to fight over land. You can substitute one or both instances of "land" with "scarce resource" if you like, but it is still a tautology - because land is a resource that is scarce :)
        10y ago