3 ms·

The problem is that there are many people in the world who think that these are problems to be fixed - that human nature is fixable. If we change those parts o

The problem is that there are many people in the world who think that these are problems to be fixed - that human nature is fixable. If we change those parts of ourselves we'll become less than human. The better approach is to accept our nature and work with it rather than against it.

pron 9y ago
The better approach is to argue and decide what it is that we want to try and improve rather than decide a priori based on arbitrary heuristics[1]. It is not in human nature to fly, yet many would agree that inventing airplanes was a good idea. This is exactly what politics is for: to collectively decide what goals we should collectively try to achieve. [1]: You see this approach in people who like following a fixed, simple set of rules, rather than exercising fluid judgment. E.g. you'll see some who claim that the line for coercion falls at physical violence, that changing attitudes is "fighting nature" but technology isn't, etc..
- golemotron 9y ago
  Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. That's what I meant by "changing human nature." The value judgements that the GP was describing are both rational and evolutionarily reinforced. When time, attention, and resources are scarce people choose their family or tribe first. It's a basic survival imperative - the people closest to you will help you too. Civilization can try to smooth the rough edges but without civilization our innate programming will reassert itself. You mentioned "we" as well. What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it.
  - pron 9y ago
    > Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. Sure, but no one is talking about brain implants. Is encouraging certain behaviors like growing wings? Political action has been phenomenally effective over the ages in shaping behavior. Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process[1] (1939) is a wonderful study of how behaviors (and even feelings) we now deem natural are just the result of a long chain of social change. But what matters most isn't underlying sentiments (the feeling of us vs. them) but rather behavior (behaving as us vs. them). The fact that the intensity of us vs. them behavior has changed considerably (in both directions) throughout history, shows that we're not talking about essential human nature, but how that nature is channeled. > What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. "We" is society, and I don't think anyone disagrees that societies work to improve the condition of their members. Deciding which improvements we should make and how we should make them is precisely what political debate is about, but I don't think that the ideal of improving our lives is controversial in the least. > Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it. I completely disagree. The context of us vs. them isn't the existence of groups who disagree, but the belief (and the subsequent behavior) that assumes that the debate is a zero-sum game. I don't necessarily frame the (sometimes vehement) debates I have with those I disagree with as ones where if I win they lose and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process

pron 9y ago

The better approach is to argue and decide what it is that we want to try and improve rather than decide a priori based on arbitrary heuristics[1]. It is not in human nature to fly, yet many would agree that inventing airplanes was a good idea. This is exactly what politics is for: to collectively decide what goals we should collectively try to achieve. [1]: You see this approach in people who like following a fixed, simple set of rules, rather than exercising fluid judgment. E.g. you'll see some who claim that the line for coercion falls at physical violence, that changing attitudes is "fighting nature" but technology isn't, etc..

golemotron 9y ago
Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. That's what I meant by "changing human nature." The value judgements that the GP was describing are both rational and evolutionarily reinforced. When time, attention, and resources are scarce people choose their family or tribe first. It's a basic survival imperative - the people closest to you will help you too. Civilization can try to smooth the rough edges but without civilization our innate programming will reassert itself. You mentioned "we" as well. What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it.
- pron 9y ago
  > Trying to grow wings is different from inventing a flying machine. Sure, but no one is talking about brain implants. Is encouraging certain behaviors like growing wings? Political action has been phenomenally effective over the ages in shaping behavior. Norbert Elias's The Civilizing Process[1] (1939) is a wonderful study of how behaviors (and even feelings) we now deem natural are just the result of a long chain of social change. But what matters most isn't underlying sentiments (the feeling of us vs. them) but rather behavior (behaving as us vs. them). The fact that the intensity of us vs. them behavior has changed considerably (in both directions) throughout history, shows that we're not talking about essential human nature, but how that nature is channeled. > What is the "we" you speak of? If you check around you'll see that not everyone agrees with you. "We" is society, and I don't think anyone disagrees that societies work to improve the condition of their members. Deciding which improvements we should make and how we should make them is precisely what political debate is about, but I don't think that the ideal of improving our lives is controversial in the least. > Us v. Them surfaces again, strangely in the context of advocacy against it. I completely disagree. The context of us vs. them isn't the existence of groups who disagree, but the belief (and the subsequent behavior) that assumes that the debate is a zero-sum game. I don't necessarily frame the (sometimes vehement) debates I have with those I disagree with as ones where if I win they lose and vice versa. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Civilizing_Process