Science overturns view of humans as naturally ‘nasty’ - Polidicks

[quote] VANCOUVER, Canada — Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, a leading specialist in primate behavior told a major science conference. “Humans have a lot of pro-social tendencies,” Frans de Waal, a biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, told the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. New research on higher animals from primates and elephants to mice shows there is a biological basis for behavior such as cooperation, said de Waal, author of “The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society.” Until just 12 years ago, the common view among scientists was that humans were “nasty” at the core but had developed a veneer of morality — albeit a thin one, de Waal told scientists and journalists from some 50 countries. But human children — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said. Research has disproved the view, dominant since the 19th century, typical of biologist Thomas Henry Huxley’s argument that morality is absent in nature and something created by humans, said de Waal. And common assumptions that the harsh view was promoted by Charles Darwin, the so-called father of evolution, are also wrong, he said. “Darwin was much smarter than most of his followers,” said de Waal, quoting from Darwin’s “The Descent of Man” that animals that developed “well-marked social instincts would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience.” De Waal showed the audience videos from laboratories revealing the dramatic emotional distress of a monkey denied a treat that another monkey received; and of a rat giving up chocolate in order to help another rat escape from a trap. Such research shows that animals naturally have pro-social tendencies for “reciprocity, fairness, empathy and consolation,” said de Waal, a Dutch biologist at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. “Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.” Asked if wide public acceptance of empathy as natural would change the intense competition on which capitalist economic and political systems are based, de Waal quipped, “I’m just a monkey watcher.” But he told reporters that research also shows animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their “in-group” — and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world. “Morality” developed in humans in small communities, he said, adding: “It’s a challenge… it’s experimental for the human species to apply a system intended for (in-groups) to the whole world.”[/quote] [url]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/science-overturns-view-of-humans-as-naturally-nasty/[/url]

This makes me optimistic.

[quote]Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish[/quote] Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] I'm just a monkey watcher.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] But people and animals are friendly when they NEED to, that's a naturally inherent moral! :downs:

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] you just used the word society if we were brutish, self-centred and such why the hell would we sustain a society

It's actually nice to know that all of Ayn Rand's raving bullshit about mankind being inherently and utterly driven by selfishness is now scientifically invalidated.

How do you create a trap that a rat has to help to get out another rat instead of going for chocolate.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800552]Really? Because last time I checked we're in a capitalist society while plenty of wars rage around the world, with virtually all governments using violent force to keep people paying taxes and not cracking each others skulls open[/QUOTE] I wish you'd actually read the entire article because it does explain in part why global war and etc continue to happen. Individuals who have empathy for their in-group have higher relative fitness compared to those who don't, historically and now. However, the advent of globalized society has occurred at an incredible rate in comparison to the time required for evolution. There is likely to not be a sizeable boost in relative fitness from being empathetic to those not in your in-group, therefore there is no evolutionary incentive to be globally kind and peaceful.

[QUOTE=Killuah;34800588]But people and animals are friendly when they NEED to, that's a naturally inherent moral! :downs:[/QUOTE] Makes me want to refer to [I]Lord of the Flies[/I].

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;34800614]Mmm, Last I check war and violence in general has been going down in the last few decades and that no one I have even met has been forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.[/QUOTE] [quote]animals bestow their empathy on animals they are familiar with in their “in-group” — and that natural tendency is a challenge in a globalized human world.[/quote] So really, it should be [quote] Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, that is, unless there are more than ten of them in a room[/quote] and the research isn't particularly applicable to humans now [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vodkavia;34800614]Mmm, Last I check war and violence in general has been going down in the last few decades and that no one I have even met has been forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.[/QUOTE] I guess the Rwandan genocide didn't happen, nor did the various civil wars in Africa That's because people pay their taxes. If they didn't, they'd be arrested. If they resisted arrest, they would be compelled with force. God are you stupid? [editline]21st February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Cloak Raider;34800596]you just used the word society if we were brutish, self-centred and such why the hell would we sustain a society[/QUOTE] Because it's in our self interest to be protected? You don't have to physically beat people on the head to be nasty

[QUOTE=Killuah;34800588]But people and animals are friendly when they NEED to, that's a naturally inherent moral! :downs:[/QUOTE] Individuals don't always know when they NEED to be friendly, and when they do, they don't always do it. This is evolution. It's not that individuals voluntarily take the most effective course of action for survival and increased reproductive success. It just so turns out that the ones who do survive more. These morals would of course be naturally inherent, as long as they're heritable factors.

[QUOTE=iFail;34800694] This is evolution. It's not that individuals voluntarily take the most effective course of action for survival and increased reproductive success. It just so turns out that the ones who do survive more. These morals would of course be naturally inherent, as long as they're heritable factors.[/QUOTE] What? why do they have be naturally inherent?

[QUOTE=Contag;34800664]So really, it should be [quote]Biological research increasingly debunks the view of humanity as competitive, aggressive and brutish, that is, unless there are more than ten of them in a room[/quote] [/QUOTE] perhaps, but the article points out that this is still quite cheery and optimistic compared to the previous scientific views on humanity.

Humans are idiots. No wonder Humans are the most ignorant species in the galaxy.

[QUOTE=Contag;34800721]What? why do they have be naturally inherent?[/QUOTE] Well, as long as it's a factor that you inherited genetically through the course of evolution, I'd say that you were born naturally that way. Just like if you had the genes for a widow's peak, and you have one [I]naturally[/I].

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;34800719]Rwanda was an ethnic genocide, not a tax genocide.[/QUOTE] ??? What the fuck is your point? Are you contending that it wasn't pretty bloody violent? Do you understand what this [h2],[/h2] is? And that taxation is necessarily coercive because not everyone would voluntarily pay? Or is that too difficult for you to grasp?

[QUOTE]But human children — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce and pass on their genes, he said.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE][B]But human children[/B][SUB] — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because [/SUB][B]they need to cooperate with each other to reproduce[/B][SUB] and pass on their genes, he said.[/SUB][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][SUB]But human[/SUB] [B][U]children[/U][/B][SUB] — and most higher animals — are “moral” in a scientific sense, because they need to cooperate with each other to [/SUB][B][U]reproduce[/U][/B][SUB] and pass on their genes, he said.[/SUB][/QUOTE] What? :tinfoil:

[QUOTE=iFail;34800732]Well, as long as it's a factor that you inherited genetically through the course of evolution, I'd say that you were born naturally that way. Just like if you had the genes for a widow's peak, and you have one [I]naturally[/I].[/QUOTE] You know that evolution isn't necessarily genetic, right? Sociocultural evolution is fairly significant for humans at least, and you can see emerging examples in complex mammal and avian species

[QUOTE=BoSoZoku;34800736]What? :tinfoil:[/QUOTE] wow, nobody told you that people used to marry off and have kids at a much younger age?

[QUOTE=iFail;34800722]perhaps, but the article points out that this is still quite cheery and optimistic compared to the previous scientific views on humanity.[/QUOTE] I think that the journalist who wrote it didn't really do it justice I would have phrased it in terms of 'the capacity for a glorious utopian society exists!!' (as long as we can get one's identifying group broad enough to human)

[QUOTE=Contag;34800745]You know that evolution isn't necessarily genetic, right? Sociocultural evolution is fairly significant for humans at least, and you can see emerging examples in complex mammal and avian species[/QUOTE] i did say "as long as they are heritable factors" I just reread your question and I wouldn't say they [I]have[/I] to be naturally inherent. I'm just pointing out that Killuah's statement that they aren't naturally inherent at all is likely false.

[QUOTE=iFail;34800778]i did say "as long as they are heritable factors" I just reread your question and I wouldn't say they [I]have[/I] to be naturally inherent. I'm just pointing out that Killuah's statement that they aren't naturally inherent at all is likely false.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I'd say it's a combination of biological and sociocultural factors

[QUOTE=iFail;34800748]wow, nobody told you that people used to marry off and have kids at a much younger age?[/QUOTE] People marry? What's that? Also who is this "nobody" you speak of?

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;34800801]That sir, is an apostrophe. Rwanda isint comparable to the consequences most countries set for not paying taxes. I don't appreciate people using horrific events like that as a emotional hot button. Secondly, of course taxation is is necessarily coercive. Government does it by giving you an education, an army to protect you and a long list of other benefits.[/QUOTE] ??? I'm sorry, I think you legitimately misunderstood what I was saying I said [quote]I guess the Rwandan genocide didn't happen, nor did the various civil wars in Africa[/quote] in response to [quote]Last I check war and violence in general has been going down in the last few decades[/quote] No relation to taxes. I agree, taxation is, broadly, a very good thing that people should voluntarily pay. But not everyone would, which is why it's backed up force. Even the bit you mentioned about an army supports the view that, on the whole, there is a significant tendency towards "competitiveness, aggressiveness and brutish behaviour"

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;34800614]Mmm, Last I check war and violence in general has been going down in the last few decades and that no one I have even met has been forced to pay taxes at gunpoint.[/QUOTE] And don't get me wrong, I definitely think there is a capacity for far less violence, and that our current institutions play a significant role: [quote]Our Western conception of the state itself is predicated on Enlightenment era notions that violence is an essential or natural part of humanity (Albert, Jacobson & Lapid, 2001). Subsequently, violence utilized by the state is legitimated by the assumption that it is necessary to protect us from our intrinsic destructiveness. Max Weber aptly described the modern state as follows: “a human community that claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory” (as quoted in Härting, 2006). In addition to the state producing violence on a consistent basis, the creation of a council revolving around and rationalizing the use of violent coercive force normalizes conflict. This legitimation and routinization of coercive force and the surrounding structures and mechanisms (conventional IR academia and the UNSC for example) obscures possible alternatives and “has come to entrench many of the political problems it seeks to solve” (Bleiker 2011). In Étienne Balibar’s “Politics and the other scene”, he astutely indicates that the past century of extreme destruction has made it impossible to view coercive force as "a structural condition that precedes institutions”, and continues, writing that "we have had to accept…that extreme violence is not post-historical but actually post-institutional, [which] arises from institutions as much as it arises against them" (2002 as quoted in Härting, 2006). It is profoundly clear that an alternate conceptualization is necessary, and that via the utilization of violence, the United Nations Security Council will never achieve any measure of global peace, not only between states, but across them. [/quote]

[QUOTE=1239the;34800611]It's actually nice to know that all of Ayn Rand's aving bullshit about mankind being inherently and utterly driven by selfishness is now scientifically invalidated.[/QUOTE] But it isn't."moral" behaviour rises the in-groups fitness and thus your own. The rat giving up its chocolate and the monkeys helping each or is is an investment into long term group fitness instead of short term individual fitness. Because in the end it helps the individual to reproduce better. Because it's survival of the fittest, not the strongest.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo[/media]

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;34800596]you just used the word society if we were brutish, self-centred and such why the hell would we sustain a society[/QUOTE] Easier to pick off the weak ones when the strong hunt in packs.

Well, this just won me an argument. :v