Horseshit About Human Nature
By Charley Earp at Jan 19, 2008 |
|
"We are all descended from rapacious, insatiable cheaters and (far
worse) rationalizers. Every generation of aristocrats (by whatever
surface definition you use, from soviet nomenklatura, theocrats, or
royalty to top CEOs) will come up with marvelous excuses for why they
should be allowed to go back to oligarchic rule-by-cabal and "guided
allocation of resources" (GAR), instead of allowing open
competition/cooperation to put their high status under threat."
The Enlightenment Strikes Back, Lifeboat Foundation Blog entry for
Jan. 2 2008 by David Brin http://lifeboat.com/blog/?p=111
Before I give in to my baser human nature and tear David Brin a new
anus for posting the above crapola, let me acknowledge that Mr. Brin,
science fiction novelist extraordinaire, almost seems to have his
heart in the right place, just to the left of center. Of course, I am
way to the left of center, hence my perturbation at Brin's
declarations about human nature.
Any argument that begins by asserting that something is human nature,
apart from, say, bipedalism and the prefrontal cortex is suspect from
the get-go. Again, to give respect where it's due, Brin's concern in
the above blog is to urge us all to Karl Marx more seriously. Amen to
that. However, his repeated appeals to human nature as giving rise to
oligarchy and top CEO's just ain't worth taking seriously.
Think about it, really. Brin says, "...it is the most natural thing in
the world for capital owners.to behave in the way that Marx modeled
[and] forecast.." OK, right there! Capital owners ain't representative
of human nature! They're representative of that tiny rapacious
minority that figures out how to exploit the other 90+ percent of
humanity. Again, walking upright on two legs, human nature. Becoming a
freaking quadrillionaire robber baron, not so dang much!
Brin goes on to admire FDR for taking Marx seriously. He criticizes
today's neoconservatives for not doing so. If they had, we would be in
a much better position vis-à-vis building a "progressive, dynamic
civilization." Again, Brin is encouraging a return to Keynesian and
Fordist economic models, not such a bad idea. However, his
justification for such a return is not that human beings are
suffering, not that workers are getting plundered, but rather that a
little bit of enlightened social programming will stave off the
dreaded Marxist "Workers' Revolution." What a guy!
OK, enough venting. Human nature is being studied scientifically these
days as never before and the conclusions are somewhat the opposite of
Brin's dark perspective. Compassion, cooperation, and empathy are
actually far more "natural" than is the desire to rip off the
proletariat. A recent article by Gary Olson - "Neuroscience and Moral
Politics: Chomsky's Intellectual Progeny - Are humans 'wired for
empathy'?" - summarizes a variety of research into empathy and human
nature and concludes, "Is it too much to hope that we're on the verge
of discovering a scientifically based, Archimedean moral point from
which to lever public discourse toward an appreciation of our true
nature, which in turn might release powerful emancipatory forces?"
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/10/neuroscience-and-moral-politics-chomskys-intellectual-progeny/
Indeed, human nature is after all a social nature. As Marx once wrote,
".the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single
individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social
relations."
Charley Earp is an expat Texan who hankers after Molly Ivins's way
with words. He lives in Chicago with his two children and wife.



Re: Horseshit About Human Nature
By Earp, Charley at Jan 20, 2008 21:09 PM
I hope it comes through that I was feeling a bit "ornery" when I wrote this, as we say in Texas!
Peace! Charley
Reply this comment
By notme, at Jan 19, 2008 19:57 PM
I\'ve always like Mr. Brin\'s novels. They aren\'t the best out there, but they\'d get a solid B+ from me. But I\'ve always taken his non-fiction pieces about society with a bit more of a grain of salt.
I\'d highly recommend a novel he wrote, I think simply called "Earth", that tells the state of the planet Earth in 2050. In it, he makes a very strong case that what we are seeing right now is a small window of opportunity for avoiding disaster. Right now, we have the energy and the resources to change things. But, if we don\'t get both our population growth and our energy use under control, that window will close. He paints a future where survival is so tight that there are no longer the resources to change.
So, I was tempted to defend him here. But, I rant often in comments on blogs about stereotyping. To me, any attempt to try to talk about a group of people as if they are all the same just doesn\'t work. At best its very sloppy thinking, and often its part of a deliberately attempt to mislead. All the talk about \'immigrants\' these days from the right would be an example of the later.
Since I don\'t like stereotyping as a means of argument in general, trying to stereotype every human being on the planet under the rubric of \'human nature\' is about as bad as that can be. How can you lump 6 billion individuals into one brief description? And like all bad stereotypes, it also seems to try to say that this is un-changeable. Its \'human nature\', so even the best intentioned human apparently can\'t fight it. Of course, 50 years ago we were told there was an intrinsic nature about \'negroes\' that made them incapable of being full participants in white society.
Always look at individuals. Never get fooled into thinking that you can put some label on someone or put them into a group and thereby understand them. Stop, talk to the individual, get to know them. You\'ll almost always find the simple stereotypes don\'t work.
Reply this comment