this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
206 points (96.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
802 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you essentially claim humans are basically "bad" (willing to harm others for unnecessary gain), and maybe there are a few good people but it doesn't matter?
I think you can more accurately say that human nature is to cooperate and share and there are a few psychopaths that fuck things up when allowed to gain power (and implement their extractive tooling like capitalism).
https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-dawn-of-everything-a-new-history-of-humanity-david-graeber/15873078
That's a bit of a reductive take on the parent comment.
Human nature to cooperate and share is not mutually exclusive with forming in-groups and out-groups.
Sure, but that was my intention, to distill the essence which I think I did fairly well. Was I wrong?
Agree, but that doesn't mean it isn't in our nature to also cooperate and trade amongst groups rather than default to making enemies. Humans forming groups/tribes etc doesn't imply that those tribes have to have exploitative interactions.
As a maybe silly analogy, thing of two families visiting Disneyland together. They maintain group membership, the parents only buy lunch for their own children, as the other kid's parent's can provide for them fine. But they enjoy the day together, and maybe buy each other treats. Then they go home to their separate homes, to maybe cooperate on another day.
But then think of two families where each has a psychopath that has effectively gained control of the family. Then the Disneyland trip is less likely to happen, especially being fun, even if the rest of the family is the same. Instead, there might distrust, competition, and attempts at exploitation between the families.
Which one of the above scenarios is "human nature"? Both? What's the difference? Resource contention and/or effective psychopaths preventing cooperation IMO (sorry I keep editing).
Yes. Reductive in a crude way, not clarifying. I don't think the parent comment at all implied humans are inherently bad and the occasional good doesn't matter.
Rather inversely, humans are tribalistic but achieve good in spite of tribalism.
Isn't the internet wild?
The product of literally 1000 generations worth of human cooperation, asking if humans will ever transcend tribalism on what is arguably humanity's most collaborative innovation?
Depends how we define 'overcome' really. I mean, if cooperation is evidence of overcoming it then the question doesn't need to be asked.
If we're talking about our biological instinct for tribalism, well that's why we're having the conversation isn't it.