From: Omixochitl2002@yahoo.com   
      
   mvillanu@hotmail.com (mvillanu) wrote in   
   news:dc4a405f.0311051939.2d84b28d@posting.google.com:   
      
   > u01mzb@abdn.ac.uk (FixinDixon) wrote in message   
   > news:<51f64020.0311050113.4120dd44@posting.google.com>...   
   >> > >   
   > [snip]   
   >>   
   >> > Did you expect anything different?   
   >> Yes.  I expected humanity to wake up and stop killing itself.   
   >   
   > It won't.  The whole reason why humanity undergoes such actions as   
   > "killing itself" is because humans, like all other animals, have   
   > self-preservation as an instinct.  This comes at the expense of other   
   > humans.   
   >   
   > Since humans are social and cultural animals, sometimes   
   > self-preservation means preserving the group that a particular human   
   > belongs to.  This comes at the expense of other groups of humans.   
   >   
   > Despite the big differences we have from our very distant cousins,   
   > when you boil everything down our behavioral dynamics is an exact   
   > match to the behavioral dynamics of chimps, and to some extent,   
   > gorillas.   
      
   Not quite.   
      
   a) people are more flexible than chimps   
   b) chimps aren't an exact match for each other (look up bonobos)   
      
   >> You're accepting that humanity is basically flawed?   
   >   
   > "Flawed" is a wrong way of looking at it.  It's not "flawed."  It just   
   > "is".   
   >   
   > Human behavioral dynamics are just an extension of how our primate   
   > ancestors behaved in the wild.  This is evident by observing how our   
   > contemporary ape cousins behave now.  Though our behavior is more   
   > complex and more convoluted, the basic elements are the same.  That is   
   > how we are.   
   >   
   > But if you want to look at it from a moral and ethical standpoint,   
   > then yes we are "flawed".  We have the capacity to "behave better" yet   
   > we consistently do not.  So from that point of view we are inherently   
   > "flawed".   
   >   
   > But let's look at it biologically again.  We have the capacity to   
   > behave better only because of guilt, and of our desire to not have   
   > negative things done to ourselves by others.  That's what created the   
      
   And because of flexibility, being less hardwired into particular concrete   
   actions than chimps are.   
      
   > concepts of morality and ethics in the first place.  There are certain   
   > actions that we do not want others to do to us, so we create laws to   
   > enforce the concept of morality and ethics.   
   >   
   > As for guilt, we feel it for our actions because we fear that the   
   > effects of those actions will impede our self-interests.  Hence we   
   > have religion and other methods of self-imposed control to force us to   
   > feel guilty, otherwise our actions may have detrimental effects to our   
   > self-interests.   
   >   
   >>  And you're not   
   >> looking to change it?   
   >   
   > I believe that once people realize and accept the fact that humans   
   > have inherent traits based on self-preservation and the attainment of   
   > self-interests (a byproduct of natural selection), then I think we   
   > will actually begin to treat each other better.   
   >   
   > Hitler didn't murder 6 million jews because he thought Germans had   
   > inherent flaws.  He murdered 6 million jews because he thought that   
   > his group of human beings were inherently GOOD.  He thought they were   
   > so good in fact, that they were actually SUPERIOR to other groups of   
   > humans.  As a result his behavior and the behavior of the rest of his   
   > countrymen resulted in not so good behavior.  Only they never realized   
   > it because they were so caught up in believing that they were so good.   
   >   
   > Al Queda didn't attack on 9/11 because they saw inherent flaws in   
   > their nature.  They attacked on 9/11 because they believed that their   
   > group of humans were inherently good.  So good in fact that other   
   > groups of humans who do not agree with their way of looking at the   
   > world should be killed.   
   >   
   > On the flipside, Americans think their socio-economic and   
   > socio-political infrastructure is good.  So good in fact that the rest   
   > of the world should do things their way, see things their way, and   
   > believe in things the way they do.  This infrastructure is so good in   
   > fact that it matters not if they impose their culture over other   
   > cultures, even if the fundamentals of another culture is in direct   
   > conflict with theirs.   
   >   
   > Go back 200 years and substitute "Europeans" for "Americans" in the   
   > previous paragraph, and it still fits.   
      
   More exactly, it still fits partially instead of fitting well.  Some   
   Americans disagree with other Americans (the "you're imposing your   
   culture on us!!!" complaint is often made by one American against   
   another), and of course you've got plenty of cultures and plenty of   
   inter-cultureal and intra-cultural disagreements within Europe too.   
      
   > My point is, it's not about our capability to be "good" to each other.   
   >  It's about our capability to be the direct opposite.   
   >   
   > Once people realize that that is our very nature, that we are in fact,   
   > nothing more than animals who happen to have sentience and intellect,   
   > then people will be driven to NOT act like animals because we like to   
   > see ourselves as superior to them.  The side effect of which would be   
   > increased respect for each other.   
   >   
   >>   
   >> > > And I'm sure that the 'cyberpunks' who   
   >> > > ahve gone before us were once pissed off too.  But they faded   
   >> > > away, joined the system.  And what's to stop any of us doing the   
   >> > > same?  "I can't beat the system, I may as well join it.  I might   
   >> > > be able to do some good there"...   
   >> >   
   >> > Again, did you expect anything different?   
   >>   
   >> Yes.   
   >   
   > I'm sorry you're disappointed.  I'm glad you still have such noble   
   > ideals.  I'm too jaded, hehe.   
   >   
   >   
   >> This is an exercise on everybody who posts here.  Assuming that the   
   >> CP subculture is based on characters and acts from CP books, it   
   >> stands to reason that anyone who posts here should base their outlook   
   >> on the common views of the CP books.  Thinking back to any CP book   
   >> I've read, the characters are all sickened by the world in which they   
   >> live, even if only at a basic level.  Yes they work within the world,   
   >> but even then they are looking to change it.  Why else would they   
   >> agree to go on these daft adventures?   
   >   
   > If my memory serves me right they go on adventures to earn money.   
   > Most of the time their employers are corporations.   
      
   So true.  It's realistic survival instincts all over again.  That's what   
   makes CP better than other SF.  :)   
      
   >> So, assuming that we are all sickened by the world we live in...   
   >   
   > Sickened is one thing.  Acceptance is another.  First accept it.  Next   
   > will come a move away from it.   
      
   Yep.  You gotta know the problem in order to solve it.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)