Good point... Well, if we've always been doing X, and it seems we cannot do without it (well, try to argue against that); and then at some point we started doi

Good point... Well, if we've always been doing X, and it seems we cannot do without it (well, try to argue against that); and then at some point we started doing Y (while still doing X); and Y is conflicting with/retarding X; then Y must be detrimental to our human nature. On a different line of thought... In this case, X (i.e the spatio-temporal interdependence of our species) seems to pretty much enable Y anyway, so could X further be said to be more fundamental than Y? Well, Y also could be argued to enable X (hey, consumerism keeps us interacting with each other, etc.)... but it does a rather poor job overall. I don't think it's a great innovation, as much as some sociologists would probably wish to believe. So... All in all, and to be more polite, we say it's preferable to postulate X, rather than Y, as fundamental to the so-called human nature, in order to make possible desirable results – such as a thirst for learning, curiosity, a concern for others, etc.