Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
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.
1. "honest"? What does honesty have to do with theorizing about the way selfishness is expressed in humanoids? (and isn't reading what matters, rather than purchasing?)
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. No, i'm mostly trying to point you towards a possible explanation for where that drive to possess comes from, and that in other forms it has done "wonders" for the world of today. And hoping you'll see that you can't seriously say that you disapprove of one without also disapproving of the other.
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)
|
Actually, he doesn’t. Dennett is very much in the evolutionary psychologist camp.
From wikipedia:
“In Consciousness Explained, Dennett's interest in the ability of evolution to explain some of the content-producing features of consciousness is already apparent, and this has since become an integral part of his program. He defends a theory known by some as Neural Darwinism. He also presents an argument against qualia; he argues that the concept is so confused that it cannot be put to any use or understood in any non-contradictory way, and therefore does not constitute a valid refutation of physicalism. Much of Dennett's work in the 1990s has been concerned with fleshing out his previous ideas by addressing the same topics from an evolutionary standpoint, from what distinguishes human minds from animal minds (Kinds of Minds), to how free will is compatible with a naturalist view of the world (Freedom Evolves). In his 2006 book, Breaking the Spell, Dennett attempts to subject religious belief to the same treatment, explaining possible evolutionary reasons for the phenomenon of religious adherence.”
All humans, to a greater or lesser degree have a desire to accumulate stuff – the degree is attributable, at least, in part, to nurture, but there is a strong evolutionary, adaptive component as well.
Can you name me a culture that does not experience the full gamut of human emotions and behaviors, both negative and positive? Does upbringing influence behavior, absolutely, but take a look at studies of identical twins separated at birth – you might find yourself enlightened.
Another "trait" we have in common, British Colonialism is and was every bit as ruthless and barbaric as anything that occurred in the Americas, it’s history of atrocious behavior is every bit as sordid and depraved.
So, greed as a common human trait is a natural fallacy - really?
Wow.
Quote:
|
(and I doubt you'll be able to find even a single evo scientist or ethologist that will disagree with me there)
|
Really? Now your ignorance is on full display.
Start here, you might learn a thing or two.
Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate
And then when you're done, move on to this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._psychologists