3 ms·

I think our human nature is more a function of scarcity than anything else. If you look at Colin Turnbull's work comparing the Pygmy tribes to the Ik tribes, i

I think our human nature is more a function of scarcity than anything else. If you look at Colin Turnbull's work comparing the Pygmy tribes to the Ik tribes, it's pretty evident that under harsh conditions people are more ruthless and selfish then under conditions of relative plenty. I like to also compare the Old Testament from Deutoronomy onward and Gilgamesh. In Gilgamesh, which is a much older book, the world is vast, lonely and mysterious and man's primary struggle is with the forces of nature. In the Old Testament, the world is crowded and the the story line is dominated by near constant never-ending warfare.

hga 12y ago
My question in response is, "is that qualitative difference also qualitative?" I'm starting to think I agree, as long as you extend "scarcity" and "harshness" beyond the purely economic. Otherwise how do you explain what appears to be the majority of modern jihadists coming from at least the upper 1/2 of society, if not solidly middle class or above, e.g. the 9/11 hijackers? Of course, your thesis doesn't have to explain all examples of being "rutheless". As for your last point, hmmm. Is that in part a function of viewpoint, of e.g. the author(s) and audience(s)? ADDED: other counterexamples: The Japanese in WWII, the actions of some high caste Indians towards lower caste ones. (As a matter of fact, in India in the last few decades, while incomes have gone up, calories and quality of them has gone down for those lower on the socioeconomic scale...).