Zeitgeist the movie (would be mandatory viewing if up 2 me)

[H20nly]

well don't forget to remember that while one man's motive is greed another man's motive could be survival. circumstances help define the motive.

[Machinesworking]

Yeah, what I'm saying is greed, selfishness whatever, is always a misaligned trait. It's not a genetic component of homo sapiens, it's an aberration of a survival motive. You see it all the time in people, this aligning of relatively unimportant wants into needs.

[twisted-space]

it's a historical fact that he existed - based on a lot of different sources. Whether or not he's the messiah or whatever is what's contested - not whether or not he existed.

Whether he existed or not is very much contested. In fact AFAIK there is no substantial evidence for his existance.
Myth and legend is not the same as fact.

[Homebelly]

I was reading about the idea of a selfish gene a while back.
I think it was some thing writen by the same guy that also argues for and is a spokesperson for English aithiests.

Any ways..
The theory goes that early man was born with a selfish gene, but were also able to develop reason.
Reason told him that he had a better personal chance of survival if he utilized the talents of others.
Further to that, if some one in the pack was able to elevate him self above the others on a social scalle he could increase his chances of survival more so by becoming the leader of the pack and then being able to allocate out the riskier jobs.

sorry about the spelling, my spell check, along with my horrible windowz work comuter, is taking a dump right now.

[Machinesworking]

I was reading about the idea of a selfish gene a while back.
I think it was some thing writen by the same guy that also argues for and is a spokesperson for English aithiests.

Any ways..
The theory goes that early man was born with a selfish gene, but were also able to develop reason.
Reason told him that he had a better personal chance of survival if he utilized the talents of others.
Further to that, if some one in the pack was able to elevate him self above the others on a social scalle he could increase his chances of survival more so by becoming the leader of the pack and then being able to allocate out the riskier jobs.

sorry about the spelling, my spell check, along with my horrible windowz work comuter, is taking a dump right now.

Well the main problem with that line of thinking is that you have a single person who rises to the top and a lot of people doing the riskier jobs, if this was a motive of all people then revolution would be a every year pretty much or every day. The main drive beyond self preservation in people is for harmony and cooperation, it's how we survive in a would with lions! and tigers! and bears! oh my! I understand the need to define our drives by our current social stratification, but it leaves something to be desired in terms of logistics if we are all, every one of us in fact programmed to subjugate others.

I think one of the most interesting and awful observations you can make if you buy my line of thinking is that leaders, people who want power are by far the most likely to be mentally unbalanced in some way, and IMO if you look around the world it's backed up time and time again.

[Homebelly]

I was reading about the idea of a selfish gene a while back.
I think it was some thing writen by the same guy that also argues for and is a spokesperson for English aithiests.

Any ways..
The theory goes that early man was born with a selfish gene, but were also able to develop reason.
Reason told him that he had a better personal chance of survival if he utilized the talents of others.
Further to that, if some one in the pack was able to elevate him self above the others on a social scalle he could increase his chances of survival more so by becoming the leader of the pack and then being able to allocate out the riskier jobs.

sorry about the spelling, my spell check, along with my horrible windowz work comuter, is taking a dump right now.

Well the main problem with that line of thinking is that you have a single person who rises to the top and a lot of people doing the riskier jobs, if this was a motive of all people then revolution would be a every year pretty much or every day. The main drive beyond self preservation in people is for harmony and cooperation, it's how we survive in a would with lions! and tigers! and bears! oh my! I understand the need to define our drives by our current social stratification, but it leaves something to be desired in terms of logistics if we are all, every one of us in fact programmed to subjugate others.

I think one of the most interesting and awful observations you can make if you buy my line of thinking is that leaders, people who want power are by far the most likely to be mentally unbalanced in some way, and IMO if you look around the world it's backed up time and time again.

Not really.
First of all most species will work together when faced with a risk from an out side alien species.
So if we are attacked by lions or tigers the group will come together to protect its self.
When the risk is elimintated or nutrilized they will go back to the usual pecking order.
Humans do that even now. Look at how wars are fought. Then, when the war is over, we go back to worrying about all the people we live with or near that are percieved to be different.
Also, to relate any kind of animalist or prehistoric behaviour to how modern human society works now doesn't really work. There are so many other influences on how we think and react that can create the illusion that we are working harmoniusly, when in fact we are not. The marketing/psychology people know that.

[Machinesworking]

Yeah, I see what you're seeing, but I disagree. Really though, all of this is kind of a moot point and not really science at all. This type of stuff is "soft" science at best and doesn't really follow any scientific method, just all really theoretical on both sides (to a fault imo).

The problem in general with psychology and the study of human traits is that we are in fact studying ourselves, hardly an objective view can be made.

I completely disagree about it being a moot point though. To a large degree we're talking about the core nature of people, and whether cooperation or sense of social place and comfort is more of an imperative than greed, selfishness and a desire to better oneself with disregard to others.

Personally I think it's obvious that people have both traits, what I'm saying is the dictators and "power hungry at risk to their own lives and others" types are driven by a selfishness born out of a misaligned fear of scarcity. On thing I'm getting from you though is this sense that through conditioning a baby as a young adult will learn to mourn the loss of a mother for more than it's own loss, which I just don't buy. The basic traits of little kids are all pretty dammed positive unless raised badly. They want to be part of things, they want entertainment, they want others happy, they don't try to take all the banana splits away from other kids at their birthday party because dammit it's their birthday! if they have enough ice cream they're happier if everyone gets enough, and may even worry if there's not enough. I don't think that's all social conditioning, I think it's our method of survival in action.

All animals have a "selfish" desire for survival, only one animal has a society advanced enough to offer electricity and near complete control of the environment. That, I think comes from an advanced brain and a tribal drive for cooperation.

[Machinesworking]

Also, to relate any kind of animalist or prehistoric behaviour to how modern human society works now doesn't really work.

The overpopulation studies on rats would beg to differ.

[Forge.]

I was reading about the idea of a selfish gene a while back.
I think it was some thing writen by the same guy that also argues for and is a spokesperson for English aithiests.

Any ways..
The theory goes that early man was born with a selfish gene, but were also able to develop reason..

I read something else that said one of the by-products of humans walking upright was that the brain had to be fairly useless and squishy at birth so that the head could fit through the birth canal, making us a species that could not survive without care from a female AND male protector, and there is evidence the males have stuck around with the females as far back as the ice age even when separated from their "clans" or whatever.....

in other words, because our brains are squishy at birth, we just could not have survived natural selection without more primary care than most other species... so you could say it is actually in our nature to care about other humans.....

incidentally this is a similar line of thinking to why humans have co-existed with dogs for so long - at some point in history humans had to be prepared to feed or even look after orphaned wolves, despite the fact that wolves were one of man's main threats........ wolves are nowhere near as 'cuddly' as modern dogs, and they didn't have guns then, so that's actually a pretty big deal if you think about it...

[Homebelly]

Also, to relate any kind of animalist or prehistoric behaviour to how modern human society works now doesn't really work.

The overpopulation studies on rats would beg to differ.

I'm not sure what your alluding to here, but people are not rats, and rats are not subjected to all manner of media, marketing, moral, religious and governmental controls.

[rikhyray]

I was reading about the idea of a selfish gene a while back.
I think it was some thing writen by the same guy that also argues for and is a spokesperson for English aithiests.

Any ways..
The theory goes that early man was born with a selfish gene, but were also able to develop reason..

I read something else that said one of the by-products of humans walking upright was that the brain had to be fairly useless and squishy at birth so that the head could fit through the birth canal, making us a species that could not survive without care from a female AND male protector, and there is evidence the males have stuck around with the females as far back as the ice age even when separated from their "clans" or whatever.....

in other words, because our brains are squishy at birth, we just could not have survived natural selection without more primary care than most other species... so you could say it is actually in our nature to care about other humans.....

incidentally this is a similar line of thinking to why humans have co-existed with dogs for so long - at some point in history humans had to be prepared to feed or even look after orphaned wolves, despite the fact that wolves were one of man's main threats........ wolves are nowhere near as 'cuddly' as modern dogs, and they didn't have guns then, so that's actually a pretty big deal if you think about it...

Absolutely amazing thread! I just came back home from some shopping and like usual was listening to Ricky Gevrais podcast, cant believe it, this thread, your post in particular is like direct extension of Ricky show, same mind flow.
I think it is all conspiracy ( Ricky Gevrais must be Illuminati or Jesus, or both) got to get myself that kind of helmet the OP wears, or maybe it is too late, my soul was sucked into some matrix/Zeitgeist/RickyGevrais Podcast/Universe ....

[AceLuby]

it's a historical fact that he existed - based on a lot of different sources. Whether or not he's the messiah or whatever is what's contested - not whether or not he existed.

Whether he existed or not is very much contested. In fact AFAIK there is no substantial evidence for his existance.
Myth and legend is not the same as fact.

There are actually quite a few Jewish and Roman writings outside of the bible that confirm his existence. Ask any religious studies major and they will tell you that his existence is not contested outside of some conspiracy theories.

[H20nly]

it's a historical fact that he existed - based on a lot of different sources. Whether or not he's the messiah or whatever is what's contested - not whether or not he existed.

Whether he existed or not is very much contested. In fact AFAIK there is no substantial evidence for his existance.
Myth and legend is not the same as fact.

There are actually quite a few Jewish and Roman writings outside of the bible that confirm his existence. Ask any religious studies major and they will tell you that his existence is not contested outside of some conspiracy theories.

the fact that the Roman outpost under Pontius Pilate even had to deal with the uproar in the Jewish community served as milestone and a marker from a third (mostly) unbiased party. the Romans weren't Jews and Christians hadn't really happened yet, but the Romans kept documents and records outside of the opinions of the Jews that were casting the stones. Ponitus was appalled that they would do this to a seemingly innocent man. he made sure he covered his bases before giving in to the mob. so in this case, there was a lot more of an upheaval over a prisoner than the typical shuffling and sentencing.

[Machinesworking]

I'm not sure what your alluding to here, but people are not rats, and rats are not subjected to all manner of media, marketing, moral, religious and governmental controls.

There were studies on overpopulation done on rats in the late 50s and 60's. They introduced more and more rats into a "population" that left out the natural inclination in rats for a certain amount of breathing room, and watched them break down socially: Some rats became loners, and rejected any interaction with other rats, some rats became rapists, some young male rats banded together to form rape, violence and food stealing gangs. Some rats stopped eating and became what looked like manic depressives, some overate and hoarded food, some went completely insane, became homosexual. In fact all the behaviors of modern civilization could be observed. Of course in uncrowded conditions some of these traits could be observed, but not at all on the same level, the "family rat" with a Female and male + babies that acted like rats normally do was not the norm.

We are, in fact just animals. Smart animals, but just animals. To me anyway, because animals don't seem to carry fear and grudges generationally we are much worse than animals behavior wise,

[LoopStationZebra]

^The rat story would have been much better if it had included:

"Some rats, having been killed by rape gangs, returned to life and started feeding off the flesh of the living rats."