[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So we're back to "it's not that big of a problem", which is a fine position to take, but it seems one that's merely temporary. The problem became so large for music and television that they had to adapt; there's no reason to think that books won't have to do the same.

I guess.. Although it's mostly just because comparing it with racism is sort of like invoking Godwin. Anyway, what I really wanted to say: Change is not necessarily bad, even if most people dislike having to do so.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

1. Yes, greed is only endemic to the US. I’d recommend purchasing a few books by say, evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett – then, after having done so, we can have an honest discussion w/r/t human behavior as it relates to greed and selfishness.
2. what you perceive a special brand of greed homegrown in the US
3. The irony, is that you’re defending the very greed you rail against, the, I’ll take what I want and to hell with everyone else attitude all American’s apparently share.

1. "honest"? What does honesty have to do with theorizing about the way selfishness is expressed in humanoids? (and isn't reading them what's important, rather than purchasing their books?)
2. No, I was mostly talking about consumerism, not about greed. That said, I do think that this obsession with having stuff is something that came from capitalism, and the staunchest defender of that is certainly the USA. I know of few other countries that have people living there that directly equate income to perceived or subjective happiness. While in Europe it's rude to ask how much you make per year (especially in casual conversation), I have heard Americans asking this from their European acquaintances on numerous occasions.
Anyway, i'm not trying to make this in to a USA hate-fest, I'm just pointing out that we seem to believe different things are important.
3. It has nothing to do with irony, as I'm mostly trying to point you towards a possible explanation for where that drive to possess comes from, which in other forms it has done "wonders" for the world of today. And as a consequence hoping that you'll see that you can't seriously say that you disapprove of one without also disapproving of the other, as they're something of a package deal. Also, I'm not saying that "need" leads to "right," I'm just saying that this perceived need is just a consequence of something else.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

We most certainly can, but my point had more to do with the universality of certain human behaviors and characteristics, in this case, greed.

If this indeed was as universal and "natural" as you claim, why wouldn't it express itself in the same way in every person everywhere? Naturalistic fallacies are boring; culture and upbringing have way more to do with that than anything else. (and I doubt you'll be able to find even a single evo scientist or ethologist that will disagree with me there)