Ted,
Our mark of success is riches beyond our wildest dreams. In that sense
you've set me up. Of course I will find it difficult to point to a major
invention where the inventor did not want to profit financially. It is the
Human version of Pablo's Dogs.
I recall at the Century 21 World's Fair, the row of pigeons pecking out
combinations of lights in order to receive a reward of a grain.
And so we set about doing those things which will bring us our reward. And
our culture extends riches and fame for those of us who get it right.
Of course not all great inventors of great inventions received their just
reward. Many of them discovered that, as they skipped happily to the Patent
Office, that someone had already stolen and patented their invention.
But still, most of us continue to dream of stumbling across a really clever
and new mouse trap that brings the world to our door.
Two thoughts. First, are we sure that what we consider to be modern
conveniences really are? Or have we cluttered our retail shelves with junk
that has been cleverly promoted by Madison Avenue?
And secondly, just because we are accustomed to dreaming of being rewarded
with piles of filthy wealth, is that the only incentive to getting our
inventor juices flowing?
I wonder how much the inventor of the camp fire received? And what about
the guy who made the first bow and arrow?
The wheel should have brought unbelievable wealth to the man who first
developed it.
How could we have advanced our civilization if we did not have some very
basic inventions done for other purposes than to bring personal wealth.
No, I believe that Greed is a fairly recent development in our human
history.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: On Human Nature
Carl:
Please name for me an inventor of at least one of the modern-day
conveniences we now take for granted in the U.S. (refrigerator, telephone,
radio, television, computer, etc.) who hoped to receive no personal reward
for what he/she did. Also, please name for me a modern-day convenience that
was invented by somebody living in a Communist society.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Carl Jarvis <carjar82@gmail.com> wrote:
Then if humans are unwilling to work collectively for the good of all, why
do they have it in their genes for the masses to work collectively for the
good of the Ruling Class?
We are born with a survival instinct. It is neither selfish or selfless.
It is a survival instinct the same as we find in any living thing, animal or
vegetable. Do we tell the moss growing on the trunk of the apple tree that
it is being selfish? Or the warring Hummingbirds fighting for a place at
the feeder that they should learn to cooperate?
We humans assign made up words to natural behavior and then judge it by the
meanings we have assigned to the Word.
Humans ability to make sounds, organize them and reuse them to convey
information and to then put marks on a piece of writing material and
preserve the words for future use has been as important to our survival as a
dog's nose is to its well being.
But we have to also understand the downside to words. They can trap us and
put our brains into a prison. We become slaves to the words and their
assigned meanings, and abandon the thought process.
Carl Jarvis
----- Original Message -----
From: "ted chittenden" <tchittenden@cox.net>
To: "Blind Democracy Discussion List" <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: On Human Nature
Stbon:
True in both cases. However, what I was arguing was that human beings are
born selfish and that selfishness has been how we've survived and prospered
thus far. This is ultimately why capitalism has surplanted Communism.
Communism looks good on paper, but it doesn't work because over the long
term, human beings living in modern societies are not willing to work for
the good of all with no or little reward.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Stbon Qofa <stbonqofa@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ted, But Catholics still need the sacrament of Baptism to cleanse their
souls of original sin, accepting the grace that was made available by the
crucifixion. And we still have to live with the fact that we no longer enjoy
Paradise on Earth. ie the Garden of Eden. Also, Nature v Nurture is a
quantitative debate, how much are we effected by nature v. nurture. It
really doesn't address the assumption of if we are born good or bad.
________________________________
From: ted chittenden <tchittenden@cox.net>
To: Blind Democracy Discussion List <blind-democracy@octothorp.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:27 PM
Subject: RE: On Human Nature
Miriam:
In the Roman Catholic faith at least, original sin was cleansed with
Christ's Crucifixion. However, that would not apply to the observed
behaviors of an infant. As Claude noted in an earlier response, the question
of how we humans gain our behaviors is wound up with the Nature vs. Nurture
controversy.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
---- Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@optonline.net> wrote:
This all sounds like a variation on the Christian belief that man is born in
original sin, or is it with original sin? Anyway, I'm not sure that you can
look at how a modern post industrial nation state functions, and analyze the
behavior in terms of the individual's potential for cooperation and self
serving behavior. The dynamics are totally different. Human behavior can be
analyzed through so many different lenses; psychological theories,
philosphies, economic theories etc.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounces@octothorp.org] On Behalf Of ted chittenden
Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2013 11:22 AM
To: blind-democracy
Subject: On Human Nature
Hi to all.
I have written that I believe that human beings are basically selfish and
greedy, and that this behavior is a survival instinct. However, the
situation is more complicated than what might appear at first glance.
One of the complications is the inability of human beings to read each
other's minds. We see people doing certain things and we assume selfish
motives, but there is really no sure way of determining that.
Another complication is our history. Roger is partially correct-early humans
relied on their groups for support and sustenance. But those same groups,
when bickering with each other over limited resources, often resorted to
violence against members of the opposite group, the precursor to human wars.
The modern day nation-state is just an extension of early human group
behavior with a lot more at stake.
Still another complication is that what we consider to be necessary for
survival varies from person to person. A week ago today I shared an article
about "Linda Taylor" (it wasn't her real name) who was named by the Chicago
Tribune as "the welfare queen" back in 1975. "Linda Taylor" appears to have
been a pathological liar with the intention of gathering all available
resources to herself for her own purposes. While many of the behaviors
attributed to "Linda Taylor" can be found in some corporate executives, they
most certainly do not represent the vast majority of behaviors among the
population as a whole. If they had, a lot more "welfare queens" would have
been brought to light in the ensuing years.
In summary, then, while I think that greed is a definite part of human
nature, it is not the only part, it varies from person to person, and is
very difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
--
Ted Chittenden
Every story has at least two sides if not more.
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
_______________________________________________
Blind-Democracy mailing list
Blind-Democracy@octothorp.org
http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
No comments:
Post a Comment