9

How annoying is it when people mock us for acknowledging that human nature exists?

Submitted by Defasher in anticiv

Yes, there is such thing as human nature. Humans aren't above the rest of the natural world, above the instincts that all animals are born with. Last I checked, we're still still living beings. Our higher cognitive abilities don't make us un-natural. When we talk about human nature and science-worshipers scoff and mock us, they're only in denial as to what humans are. We're not artificial lifeforms, as much as they'd like that to be true. We're part of nature, and nature is part of us.

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

5

Pop wrote

I have a problem with technological mediation and cities but I don't think that human nature exists, except in the broadest sense that whatever humans can do is human nature

otherwise I'm agnostic about it since it seems a pretty complicated issue with loads of confounding variables
I don't think that people who think we don't have human nature also think that it implies we aren't a part of nature - just that there aren't inherent traits (like selfishness, or deference to authority) that are built into humanness

what would you consider to be human nature?

5

tnstaec wrote

Same here. The term has claimed and used by just about every modern ideology. If there is a human nature, it's hard to disentangle from all of the garbage people associate with it. (ie: "humans are greedy by nature, therefore capitalism is justified").

I'd phrase it this way: humans are a part of nature; humans are not exempt from natural limits; humans are not biological robots; humans are animals.

4

AgentW_C wrote

That's about how I feel about the whole "Human Nature" meme. While there may be traits inherent to us humans, at the same the "But human nature!" argument is more often used by assholes to justify assholish policies that run over the rights and lives of other people.

Plus, the idea that humans are inherently violent brutes, really doesn't hold up. Everyone goes on and on about how if there's a disaster, we'll have all these panics and riots, but with every natural disaster, what happens is that the vast majority of people do what they can to look after each other and help each other out. There are a few bad seeds who do some rioting, but they are few and far between. Most research shows that humans are generally wired for altruism; we are wired to be kind to each other and help each other out.

Agriculture on a massive scale didn't really take off until ten thousand years ago, yet Homo sapiens have been around for about fifty thousand years. If we were inherently violent and unstable and needed a massive State to make us be good and not hurt each other, how did we managed to survive for forty thousand years without it? Surely we would have wiped ourselves out ten times over.

1

ConquestOfToast wrote

The issue isn't that humans aren't part of nature. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone stating there's some static entity of human nature. The issue arises that because of the deep social aspects of our existence, the nature of a human changes within the social contexts that arise. So in that sense human nature does exist, but there isn't any or much human nature that exists in a void, because we end up dying from lack of contact ☹️.