Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[Jester]

Trees don't invent chainsaws, make them, then go postal on other trees, or themselves. Show me a reasoning tree, or one that makes decisions.

Trees don't reason, and humans don't photosynthesize. What makes either evidence of an escape from determinism?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Trees don't reason, and humans don't photosynthesize. What makes either evidence of an escape from determinism?

Oh, that's easy. Quantum fluctuations are truly random, and not based on predetermined causes.

[DeeBye]

Oh, that's easy. Quantum fluctuations are truly random, and not based on predetermined causes.

I seriously think your replies are designed to make zero sense. This forum isn't a philosophy pissing contest. Just say what you want to say.

edit: that applies to everyone else not talking about Blackfish

[eppie]

So why is it strange that it works the same with us?

Trees don't invent chainsaws, make them, then go postal on other trees, or themselves. Show me a reasoning tree, or one that makes decisions.

What I meant is that in this universe there probably are few things so similar as humans and trees so it would be very strange if just for us there would be a handy little thing to which the laws of nature don't apply. And that would be strange.

[kandrathe]

I seriously think your replies are designed to make zero sense. This forum isn't a philosophy pissing contest. Just say what you want to say.

It's not funny if you got to explain it... See... I linked to a video called -- Quantum Fluctuations of Trees -- which is really a DOTA battle with trees... AND... Quantum fluctuations (as far as we know) are truly random, and so... cannot be part of the huge cause and effect "tree" than would produce a deterministic universe.

But, in essence you are correct that we are at an impasse. I cannot prove randomness truly exists without mastering sub atomic physics, and no one can prove an infinite chain of causal events creating a deterministic universe either.

edit: that applies to everyone else not talking about Blackfish

What's to say? Everyone thinks it's bad.

[eppie]

Quantum fluctuations are truly random, and not based on predetermined causes[/url].

Well of course this is the reason you can't predict the future, even if it were 'set'.
But this still doesn't mean there is some special power we have that let's us bypass the laws of physics.

---

edit: that applies to everyone else not talking about Blackfish

I didn't see it but I am against keeping animals in captivity although I support the work zoos do for the protection and conservation of endangered species.

Anyway, pigs are at least as intelligent and emotionally sensitive as Orca's and what we do to them........

[LennyLen]

Anyway, pigs are at least as intelligent and emotionally sensitive as Orca's and what we do to them........

I eat them for breakfast. Bacon should be considered a food group all by itself.

[Jester]

Anyway, pigs are at least as intelligent and emotionally sensitive as Orca's and what we do to them........

I eat them for breakfast. Bacon should be considered a food group all by itself.

Which, I suppose, leads us back to the beginning of the thread: What do Orcas taste like? (Idempotence and Deebye tell us: like Orcas.)

If it's okay to eat Porca, why not Orca?

This is maybe how we lash our digression about free will back into the original topic. It seems clear that animals think. If they think, are they subjects of morality? (How about chickens? Fish? Insects?) Is it okay to eat them? To capture and train them for our amusement? Is one better than the other?

Do I have to become a vegan? Or is it okay to keep them (or kill them) if we treat them more humanely while we do it?

I know it's a question barrage. But I've never been entirely sure how to take a moderate position on this, without becoming either Ted Nugent or Peter Singer. Or even Pete Seeger.

-Jester

[eppie]

Which, I suppose, leads us back to the beginning of the thread: What do Orcas taste like? (Idempotence and Deebye tell us: like Orcas.)

If it's okay to eat Porca, why not Orca?

This is maybe how we lash our digression about free will back into the original topic. It seems clear that animals think. If they think, are they subjects of morality? (How about chickens? Fish? Insects?) Is it okay to eat them? To capture and train them for our amusement? Is one better than the other?

Do I have to become a vegan? Or is it okay to keep them (or kill them) if we treat them more humanely while we do it?

I know it's a question barrage. But I've never been entirely sure how to take a moderate position on this, without becoming either Ted Nugent or Peter Singer. Or even Pete Seeger.

-Jester

Well the question if to become vegetarian or vegan depends on much more than just what the animal feels.

Now very important; the total CO2 production of eating 100 grams of meat.
Fish probably are less intelligent etc than pigs, but fishery costs an enormous amount of energy compared to what you get out of it when eating.
Using edibles for feeding animals instead of directly consuming them etc.
Health, in the first world most people eat more meat than is healthy (be it just because of fat and cholesterol or because of hormones and pollutants).
The consumption of endangered species.


Anyway to get back to your first question. Not eating animal based on how much it feels is up to yourself I guess, but let' say that the human race hasn't taken that into account when they were deciding which animal they would eat and which not.

[kandrathe]

Now very important; the total CO2 production of eating 100 grams of meat.
Fish probably are less intelligent etc than pigs, but fishery costs an enormous amount of energy compared to what you get out of it when eating.
Using edibles for feeding animals instead of directly consuming them etc.
Health, in the first world most people eat more meat than is healthy (be it just because of fat and cholesterol or because of hormones and pollutants).
The consumption of endangered species.

Doesn't vegan also produce CO2? Doesn't it very much matter what the cow eats, as opposed to what the Vegan eats. How much CO2 in the way of fertilizer, tractor gas, human labor, pesticides, etc. were used in making bean curd, or soy milk? If the cow is range fed, rather than grain fed, does that count. If you don't have range, well then, the next best choice is to understand the total cost of your cow feed.

I'd say the real question is ALL human production/consumption activity which is oblivious to carbon production and energy consumption.

I've said it before... We could pretend to be eco-friendly by getting a new Prius, or SUV hybrid, and ordering the tofu dish at the local haut cuisine eatery. But, you'd save more resources if you get a reasonably priced used gas only car, and opt to telecommute 1 day per week. We save by maintaining productivity, and not consuming. Likewise, you could do much by just choosing to skip meat eating one day per week (except for the bacon), or choose one day a week to be a low calorie - fasting day. But, only if you are only resting and not working, or exercising that day.

[eppie]

Now very important; the total CO2 production of eating 100 grams of meat.
Fish probably are less intelligent etc than pigs, but fishery costs an enormous amount of energy compared to what you get out of it when eating.
Using edibles for feeding animals instead of directly consuming them etc.
Health, in the first world most people eat more meat than is healthy (be it just because of fat and cholesterol or because of hormones and pollutants).
The consumption of endangered species.

Doesn't vegan also produce CO2? Doesn't it very much matter what the cow eats, as opposed to what the Vegan eats. How much CO2 in the way of fertilizer, tractor gas, human labor, pesticides, etc. were used in making bean curd, or soy milk? If the cow is range fed, rather than grain fed, does that count. If you don't have range, well then, the next best choice is to understand the total cost of your cow feed.

I'd say the real question is ALL human production/consumption activity which is oblivious to carbon production and energy consumption.

I've said it before... We could pretend to be eco-friendly by getting a new Prius, or SUV hybrid, and ordering the tofu dish at the local haut cuisine eatery. But, you'd save more resources if you get a reasonably priced used gas only car, and opt to telecommute 1 day per week. We save by maintaining productivity, and not consuming. Likewise, you could do much by just choosing to skip meat eating one day per week (except for the bacon), or choose one day a week to be a low calorie - fasting day. But, only if you are only resting and not working, or exercising that day.

Of course the things you mention are important but it is pretty much accepted a vegetarian lifestyle is a lot more eco-friendly than a comparable meat eating lifestyle. Comparable i write because you should of course not compare a careful meat -eater with a vegetarian who only eats at Michelin starred places.

[kandrathe]

Of course the things you mention are important but it is pretty much accepted a vegetarian lifestyle is a lot more eco-friendly than a comparable meat eating lifestyle. Comparable i write because you should of course not compare a careful meat -eater with a vegetarian who only eats at Michelin starred places.

I guess I'm just one of those people that doesn't accept an "accepted fact" at face value. There is much cognitive dissonance in the "more eco than thou" crowd, when it comes to justifying their "you should do what I do" campaigns.

[eppie]

I guess I'm just one of those people that doesn't accept an "accepted fact" at face value. There is much cognitive dissonance in the "more eco than thou" crowd, when it comes to justifying their "you should do what I do" campaigns.

You have the right to believe anything you want but please don't play 'I don't believe the accepted facts' crap trying to make yourself look like some hero of common sense.
As it is now 90% of humanity doesn't want to 'believe these facts' because the don't want to feel guilty. So the people that do believe are a minority. Of course also the greenhouse effect is believed by a small group (by coincidence most serious scientist fall in this group ) but that doesn't make it less true.

I think discussing based on how many people believe a certain thing is not a very wise thing to do.

Again you are right that the "more eco than thou" crowd, when it comes to justifying their "you should do what I do" campaigns is often wrong about things... but you are discussing with me and not with them.

[kandrathe]

... but you are discussing with me and not with them.

And you also said, "...but it is pretty much accepted a vegetarian lifestyle is a lot more eco-friendly than a comparable meat eating lifestyle."

... you are discussing it with me, the omnivorous research crazy skeptic, not them, the complacent bean curd chewing sheeple.

But, yah, most people just want to do their thing (drink beer, eat a meat-lovers pizza, drive a hummer, watch the game a big screen TV) and not be bothered with the guilt of ruining the planet. Just like they want to go to Seaworld, or the circus, and be entertained by the wild animals held in captivity without having the guilt of driving wild animals into extinction due to loss of habitat, or through human exploitation.

So, again, just because "it's accepted" doesn't mean it is valid. It can be, just as anyone who is careful about the way in which their food, clothes, car, job, transport, house insulation, heating, air conditioning, electricity use, can do much to conserve -- without resorting to deprivation, or vegetarianism. We can draw all kinds of anecdotal, or stereotyped prejudicial claims, but without any evidence, we're just gabbing.

There is much of "it's accepted" or "it's normal" in our society towards which I chafe; Why does everyone have to clog the roads at the same time? Why do we think educating people must be done with them sitting at desks in classrooms? Why do we think working 30, or 40, or 50, or 60 hours per week is the right amount? Why the stupid work costumes, like suits and ties? Why do we want people to retire at a fixed age? Why do we all live in these separate box like dwellings? I could go on and on...

So, it's not just novel ideas, such as "vegetarianism is best" toward which I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of the very fabric of all our societal norms.

My younger sister is very close to me, and she's a vegetarian, atheist, scientist. Her son's idea of teen rebellion was to be a meat eater, and he joined the local Jewish congregation (mind you we're from a long lineage of Scandinavian protestants) with his friends. So, anyway, it seems the alfalfa sprouts are always greener in some one else's bowl. Or, maybe its just that we can make salads, but we can't make people eat them.

[eppie]

My younger sister is very close to me, and she's a vegetarian, atheist, scientist. Her son's idea of teen rebellion was to be a meat eater, and he joined the local Jewish congregation (mind you we're from a long lineage of Scandinavian protestants) with his friends. So, anyway, it seems the alfalfa sprouts are always greener in some one else's bowl. Or, maybe its just that we can make salads, but we can't make people eat them.

I personally have convinced several people of becoming vegetarian (or flexitarian). I am not some eco-whiner with hemp clothes. I like gourmet food, and think it helps my 'cause' if I order vegetarian in a starred restaurant. And I like my vegetarian food with a good wine.
My two sons eat some meat now and then, when their grandma is visiting or at the open market, and in school.
I will do anything I can to make them become real vegetarians, but I will not force them (that would contradict everything I always say about raising children religiously).

O and when I say accepted I mean by the serious scientific community. If you want to talk about the sense of buying eco-food produced on the other side of the world or the fact that eco-farming produces less per area etc. we can have a discussion. About vegetarian being more planet friendly than a comparable meat/fish diet this makes no sense.

[Taem]

Quick re:intro. I have no read all the posts in this thread since my last post. I've been very busy lately and just haven't had time, so I'm going to read through this thread, and comment where I feel it's necessary and hopefully I won't rehash much old content along the way.

...That is my personal belief on animals, however this does not change my reflections of what I know about altruism, and "why" people do what it is they do.

I don't subscribe to black and white thinking.

Is Pure Altruism possible?

"On Jan. 2, 2007, Mr. Autrey jumped down onto the tracks of a New York City subway platform as a train was approaching to save a man who had suffered a seizure and fallen. A few months later the Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu blocked the door to his classroom so his students could escape the bullets of Seung-Hui Cho, who was on a rampage that would leave 32 students and faculty members dead. In so doing, Mr. Librescu gave his life. "

It may be time to look beyond the sensationalism of Dawkins. I think while we are motivated by instincts, and biological behavioral patterns -- we are not robots and can exhibit intellect and free will beyond that of simple social insects.

Often, even altruistically, we can act selfishly. But, it is not the rule.

The irony here is that it is your thinking that is in fact "black and white" on this issue. The article you linked just furthers my point by proving how we've evolved our traits FROM these basic desires to survive and propagate. Let me ask you, why do you think you care even remotely about your offspring, that you feel emotions whatsoever? Do you honestly think you are special in some way, that you care for your offspring more than anyone else? Think again! We have all, including most animals, evolved these traits as an important evolutionary step in propagation! Perhaps you think you "care" about things because this emotion comes from your god as written in the good book (i.e. all good things come from above)? If so, you are even more deluded with religious philosophy then I ever dreamed. No, we've evolved emotions to help us "care" for our offspring so we could thrive through nurturing and propagation. That's all we are designed for, and it encompasses everything we do as a species and all our thoughts. This is why there is no true altruism because everything we do, we do for survival of us, or even of our species in those two example you cited.

It's funny, because I was in the car with my wife listening to the radio, and we could not find a single song on our way from Santa Barbara to Universal Studios that wasn't about propagation in some way (i.e. having sex, getting into a relationship ~ we know where that leads ~ or relationship problems in general, or money, or material possession related themes). No, not a single one. Our society is still very caveman'ish in it's logic, still focused on our primordial thoughts of "me-me-me" and procreation. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can take a step back and see people doing what they do simply for survivals sake. I'll reiterate, there is no true altruism in the pure sense of the word.

[Taem]

I mention the perception of good because I believe your views of society as a right/wrong based ideology are overly simplistic and completely jaded by your beliefs of altruism.

Um, at what point did I ever state my view of society is based on right/wrong, or even ideological at all? As a Marxist, "ideology" is a dirty word to me, because all it is, is an expression of ruling class interests or values. Ideology is just another term for 'false consciousness'. Secondly, my view of the world has absolutely NOTHING to do with altruism - I don't know where you got this idea from but there is no correlation there at all. Altruism is a product of capitalist, or probably even pre-capitalist society, and has no bearing whatsoever on my "beliefs". In fact, in a classless society, altruism would disappear entirely as a natural consequence of radically different existing social relations. Socialism and altruism have nothing to do with one another, unless you are talking about some type of 'utopian socialism' maybe; but I'm no utopian socialist by any measure.

What, are you trolling me now? AGAIN, I’ll quote you:

Humans can be both good and bad, but by nature, we are generally more of the former. When you put them in a hierarchal social organization of society though, one that is based on exploitation and commodity production for profits, then yes, you are going to bring out the worst in them.

Right there, you are stating our species has the capacity for being “good” and/or “bad”, that it is part of our very nature. Then you go on to tie in this desire to do good and bad with social organizations, I suppose what you’d call Capitalism. Right there, right off the bat, you’ve just proven with your statement (and you’ve said this plenty of times before) that you believe it’s our Capitalist society that brings forth the desire to be selfish and material, but this just proves your ignorance of the human condition and why you believe our species can change (with Communism) when in fact we can’t suppress the survivalist aspect of our heritage anymore than we could cease to be human!

I feel we as a race do things for self preservation above all else, and greed is just a part of that.

But clearly, competition is much more threatening and destructive to our self-preservation than cooperation is. Greed has nothing to do with it - it is just a natural consequence of capitalist society and its culture of consumerism, and commodity fetishism. I think you are oversimplifying things here, or just parroting bourgeois rhetoric. Greed and self-preservation need not go hand-in-hand. Does a single mother on welfare collect money from the state because she is greedy, or because she is making a rational economic decision available to her as a means to provide for her and her children?

What a strawman question you present; I won’t even bother to respond to it. Regarding greed, again, its part of our very nature to gather material possessions (food, wealth, and power to pass to future generations) and no regime change will alter this. What you call greed, I call one man’s self preservation – it’s all matters of perspective. This is not an oversimplification of the concept, but a truth. You, on the other hand, are trying to convolute a simple concept with undertows you don’t like by trying to convince me Communism is altruism, or at least your point of view is how our society should be.

In the case of these captured animals, I don't see a "right" or "wrong"; I see someone trying to preserve his/her way of life through profits on one side, and I see another comparing the way animals feel with the way humans feel as a way to try and understand what the animal might be going through (rather it's true or not) to justify a cause.

Its not just a question of ethics or fairness, its also a question of safety - for both the animals and people involved. There is a right and wrong here.

Is one belief "right" and the other "wrong"? I don't believe there is any such thing, only the compelling urge to do what we feel is "correct" for our own lives.

No man. Right and wrong do exist. If that weren't the case, we would have gone extinct long ago. You have totally bought into this whole culture of 'social darwinism/rugged individualism'....

How funny, because in order to believe there really is such a thing as “right” or “wrong”, you have to believe in a social structure that adheres to standards of morality governed by a society of like minded individuals which seems to oppose your communist beliefs in a lawless society, where people do what is right because they intuitively know what is right. What a strange world you believe in. The truth here FIT is that our species has an innate feeling of what is “right” or “wrong” based on emotions that have evolved inside all of us for propagation purposes, nothing more (see my post to Kath regarding our emotions as a gateway to a more prolific species). Do you think people commit acts you consider evil or vile if it didn’t serve some type of purpose to them? Other than serial murderers who have the hardwiring in their head gone wrong, doing an act you might consider evil, such as putting young girls into the sex slave trade, is usually done for money, which means its just another means of survival for someone. Some might say it’s no more evil then putting cattle in a stall where they can never move their entire lives so we can enjoy veil. Animals have emotions to, that much has been proven by science, but as you can see, when gathering supplies for survival (rather food, money, or power), it’s easy to turn a blind eye to what you might consider to be evil.

In one of my posts a few years back, I linked to an article showing how scientists infused RNA into mineral salt and watched the salt behave in a pattern similar to what we consider life forms, i.e. defending their “offspring”, gathering and hording vital nutrients, and one other aspect I don’t recall. This was a non-living organism that expressed the same aspects of life we view as sacred taboo of the ten-commandments! We are not so special as you seem to think we are! We have evolved to feel what we do based on these core evolutionary concepts, the ones RNA already contains. Yes, it really is that simple, that these core building blocks have grown into what we now perceive as a way of life, into our belief structure of right and wrong. But don’t you see, if you strip away all that evolutionary process, we have nothing left. We are built upon this simple concept and have evolved into our being because of our desire, through RNA, to propagate our species and survive! That’s why there is no good or evil, just different methods of survival used in varying degrees by all the different walks of life on this planet.

I try not to confuse morality with self preservation because, as I said, there is no true altruism; when you look at the world through my eyes, people stop looking so selfish, and you begin to understand exactly why people do what they do.

It's almost impossible to confuse morality with self-preservation. One is a subjective set of values, the other is the epitome of rationality. But yes, self preservation does not necessarily equate to selfishness. And yes, I have a very solid understanding of why people do what they do (most of the time). Also, I don't think there is any question that altruism has indeed existed as an objective social phenomena for millennia now. I think philosophical questions of why it exists or should it exist are more relevant in understanding human behavior.

Noun: altruism
1. The quality of unselfish concern or devotion for the welfare of others
2. Behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species

Then you are deluding yourself. It [altruism] exists merely as a tool of our evolutionary desire to further our species. I have yet to hear of someone watching their child get murdered in front of them and calmly walking away while the incident commences nary batting an eyelash. Of course not, because our instincts of survival are so strong, we will react to this threat! We desire to have our offspring live above all else, but feel discomfort in watching others suffer not because we are “good”, but because we have evolved to do what we think is best for the survival of our species. Its too bad there are so many varying opinions on what is best, so many different methods of gathering power.

[FireIceTalon]

What, are you trolling me now?

No one is trolling, except maybe yourself.

Right there, you are stating our species has the capacity for being “good” and/or “bad”, that it is part of our very nature. Then you go on to tie in this desire to do good and bad with social organizations, I suppose what you’d call Capitalism. Right there, right off the bat, you’ve just proven with your statement (and you’ve said this plenty of times before) that you believe it’s our Capitalist society that brings forth the desire to be selfish and material, but this just proves your ignorance of the human condition and why you believe our species can change (with Communism) when in fact we can’t suppress the survivalist aspect of our heritage anymore than we could cease to be human!

Except your hypothesis is incorrect because history doesn't reflect what you describe. Our species HAS ALREADY changed over time, numerous times, through every epoch of history and demonstrably so. It is you, not I, that has the simplistic, mechanical view of human nature because you have been spoon fed pro-capitalist rhetoric that humans are inherently a particular way, when they very clearly, as history has proven, are not. Do you think a slave in Ancient Rome has the same conception of the world, or the same behaviors, as a serf does under Feudalism, or that either have the conception or behaviors as workers today under capitalism do? You would have to be not only dogmatic, but completely foolish, to think so. To realize that our nature is dynamic, complex and different based on our social being doesn't even require a Marxist analysis, it is just fucking common sense by now and isn't anything that hasn't already been verified anthropologically.

If your conception of humanity were the truth, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire would still be here today, and we would still live in a social order with relations based on citizenship and slavery, but we don't. The world isn't static, it is very dynamic, and social forces will, at some point, induce change - whether that change is gradual or revolutionary. We still have class struggle, yes, but class struggle is the only common denominator between then and now - the nature of the class struggle and the characterization that it takes on are not the same now as it was then.

Of course humans have an instinct to survive, but your argument that they cannot change ever because of this point is a reductionist argument at best, entirely wrong at worst for the fact history has proven it wrong as I explained above. Class exploitation doesn't result because of "greed" - greed is an abstract USED to justify or encourage, usually by the dominant class itself, one classes dominion over another.

Lastly, the goal of communism isn't to suppress anything. In fact, it is under capitalism (not communism) where our instinct to survive is greatly suppressed because our survival depends on whether or not the capitalist class buys our labor, and if we are lucky to do that instead of standing in the unemployment line, then we forced to toil for them hourly and daily, are paid pennies for what we produce, because the capitalist class owns the means of production and extracts surplus value from our labor and pockets it for him/her self. The capitalist class is parasitic: it produces NO social value and lives off the value produced by the working class. This is an indisputable fact - a fact that neoclassical economists avoid because they know there is no refutation to this fact.

You are worried about us being dehumanized? My friend, WE ALREADY ARE DEHUMANIZED UNDER THE CURRENT SOCIAL ORDER OF CAPITALISM, because we are alienated from both our labor and the value it produces, which is commodified to produce other market commodities so the bosses can line their pockets more, at our expense. You should perhaps read something about Marxian economics before you start spouting off nonsense about "suppressing our survivalist instinct". In fact, I don't think there has ever been a better system at dehumanizing our species than capitalism, in that respect it has succeeded in spades.

What a strawman question you present; I won’t even bother to respond to it. Regarding greed, again, its part of our very nature to gather material possessions (food, wealth, and power to pass to future generations) and no regime change will alter this. What you call greed, I call one man’s self preservation – it’s all matters of perspective. This is not an oversimplification of the concept, but a truth. You, on the other hand, are trying to convolute a simple concept with undertows you don’t like by trying to convince me Communism is altruism, or at least your point of view is how our society should be.

It is you that is putting forth the strawman arguments here, not me. Again, greed and our instinct to survive are not the same, yet you conflate them to be so. In hunter/gatherer societies, there was no such thing as greed - because people did not produce a surplus of goods based on a commodity form of production for profits. They produced and consumed what they needed to survive, and that was it. This isn't my opinion, this is an observable and empirical FACT. There were no such things as classes, bosses, nation-states, or commodity production - all these things presuppose greed.

I don't call for regime change. Regime change and the destruction of an entire social order followed by the implementation of a new social order are completely different things, the second is much larger and more fundamental. I suggest you look up what the word regime means. Capitalism isn't a regime, it is a social order defined by a particular set of relationships to the productive forces of society and governed by a particular set of economic and social laws. It is no wonder you think my view is wrong, because you clearly have ZERO understanding of the Marxist framework!

Communism is NOT altruism. I repeat, it is not altruism. How many times do I have to say this? The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you should start reading more Marxist sources and literature before we continue our debate, since it is quite apparent you have little or no understanding of my views. I do not know of any communist who thinks society should be organized around the idea of altruism. I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it isn't what I am arguing.

The problem isn't my views, the problem is your fantastically delusional misunderstanding of what human nature is, of how and why it changes, and ultimately has a different characterization from one social order to another. There is no static, innate or definitive human nature. There is only the human nature that is reflective (and perhaps in some ways reinforcing) of the present order of things, that is contingent only upon the existence of said present order.

How funny, because in order to believe there really is such a thing as “right” or “wrong”, you have to believe in a social structure that adheres to standards of morality governed by a society of like minded individuals which seems to oppose your communist beliefs in a lawless society, where people do what is right because they intuitively know what is right. What a strange world you believe in. The truth here FIT is that our species has an innate feeling of what is “right” or “wrong” based on emotions that have evolved inside all of us for propagation purposes, nothing more (see my post to Kath regarding our emotions as a gateway to a more prolific species). Do you think people commit acts you consider evil or vile if it didn’t serve some type of purpose to them? Other than serial murderers who have the hardwiring in their head gone wrong, doing an act you might consider evil, such as putting young girls into the sex slave trade, is usually done for money, which means its just another means of survival for someone. Some might say it’s no more evil then putting cattle in a stall where they can never move their entire lives so we can enjoy veil. Animals have emotions to, that much has been proven by science, but as you can see, when gathering supplies for survival (rather food, money, or power), it’s easy to turn a blind eye to what you might consider to be evil.

So, we reduce the argument to nihilism then? Gee, what a surprise

Your sex slave trade example its a pretty dubious one, and you only prove my point more....I think it is a mistake to say it is just done for money (although that certainly a part of it); it is also an expression of power in our male dominated society, and one avenue how women are subjugated and exploited for profit under the capitalist system. So you think the sex slave trade is ok then, because someone else is making money off that to survive? Jesus fucking christ....you are a total sociopath man, and it is no wonder the world is such a fucked up, backwards ass place to live in. Your thinking belongs in the Dark Ages. If someone kidnaps one of your kids and sells them to be a sex toy for some sick perverted fuck, you will be singin' a very different tune then, guaranteed.

As for standards of morality, these are just another ideological projection of bourgeois thought; just as Absolutism and Geocentrism were for monarchs and the Catholic Church, respectively, during feudalism. In a communist society, laws are determined by the community itself, in the most democratic ways possible, and not coercively by a ruling class that has a centralized state to uphold and carry out bourgeois law, on behalf of the bourgeois as in capitalist society. "The ruling ideas of any age are always the ideas of its ruling class". It is only strange to you, because you've been duped into believing pro-capitalist rhetoric and market fanaticism to the point where any alternative is inconceivable. As Lenin once said, "A lie told long enough becomes truth".

In one of my posts a few years back, I linked to an article showing how scientists infused RNA into mineral salt and watched the salt behave in a pattern similar to what we consider life forms, i.e. defending their “offspring”, gathering and hording vital nutrients, and one other aspect I don’t recall. This was a non-living organism that expressed the same aspects of life we view as sacred taboo of the ten-commandments! We are not so special as you seem to think we are! We have evolved to feel what we do based on these core evolutionary concepts, the ones RNA already contains. Yes, it really is that simple, that these core building blocks have grown into what we now perceive as a way of life, into our belief structure of right and wrong. But don’t you see, if you strip away all that evolutionary process, we have nothing left. We are built upon this simple concept and have evolved into our being because of our desire, through RNA, to propagate our species and survive! That’s why there is no good or evil, just different methods of survival used in varying degrees by all the different walks of life on this planet.

Now you resort to Biological Determinism, to make your point? Weak sauce.

I didn't say we were special, but now that you mention it, in some ways, yes we are. We are the ONLY species on this planet to have developed science, technology, visit space, and perhaps more importantly, we are the only species with a "history".

I dont strip away any evolutionary process - I just reject your fucking sociopathic & nihilistic view of the world.

Then you are deluding yourself. It [altruism] exists merely as a tool of our evolutionary desire to further our species. I have yet to hear of someone watching their child get murdered in front of them and calmly walking away while the incident commences nary batting an eyelash. Of course not, because our instincts of survival are so strong, we will react to this threat! We desire to have our offspring live above all else, but feel discomfort in watching others suffer not because we are “good”, but because we have evolved to do what we think is best for the survival of our species. Its too bad there are so many varying opinions on what is best, so many different methods of gathering power.

So you would say that the enhancement of our species is a selfish act? This doesn't seem logical to me. The advancement of humanity surely is a good thing, is it not? I don't think any Marxist disagrees with this, unless you mean something else. The problem is, capitalism is very detrimental for this - because the system isn't designed out of a desire for human advancement or need, it is for a desire of PROFITS, EXPLOITATION, and POWER - which are antithetical to human need. You cannot have a system that does both of these things - it is one or the other. I don't like black and white arguments but in this case there can be no reconciliation between the two. In general, your post only serves to strengthen my viewpoint even more. I didn't really need the help, but thanks anyway.

And again, where do you get the idea that I am a supporter of altruism and think that is a philosophy that should be the guiding rule for how society is organized? For the last time, communism and altruism have no relationship to one another. The actual nature of people will be a natural consequence of the particular social relations that are intrinsic to communism, just as the nature of people as we see them presently are a natural consequence of the social relations that are intrinsic to capitalism. It makes no sense whatsoever to believe that our social being is going to be the same under communism as it is now, considering the social relationships between both social orders would be completely different from one another. Human behavior and consciousness have developed since the dawn of our species, so your argument is just irrational with no empirical basis to back it up.

You would do well to learn more about my views before arguing against them, lest you create strawman arguments as you have done throughout your entire post.

[Taem]

Except your hypothesis is incorrect because history doesn't reflect what you describe. Our species HAS ALREADY changed over time, numerous times, through every epoch of history and demonstrably so. It is you, not I, that has the simplistic, mechanical view of human nature because you have been spoon fed pro-capitalist rhetoric that humans are inherently a particular way, when they very clearly, as history has proven, are not. Do you think a slave in Ancient Rome has the same conception of the world, or the same behaviors, as a serf does under Feudalism, or that either have the conception or behaviors as workers today under capitalism do? You would have to be not only dogmatic, but completely foolish, to think so. To realize that our nature is dynamic, complex and different based on our social being doesn't even require a Marxist analysis, it is just fucking common sense by now and isn't anything that hasn't already been verified anthropologically.

If your conception of humanity were the truth, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire would still be here today, and we would still live in a social order with relations based on citizenship and slavery, but we don't. The world isn't static, it is very dynamic, and social forces will, at some point, induce change - whether that change is gradual or revolutionary. We still have class struggle, yes, but class struggle is the only common denominator between then and now - the nature of the class struggle and the characterization that it takes on are not the same now as it was then.

What in the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? And why bring up world history with altruism unless you're attempting to make the argument that as a species, we are growing kinder as we evolve? On the latter point, I beg to differ, and thought I was clear that our underlying principles are what cannot change. I must say I am disappointed in you; the only thing even remotely intelligent you said in those paragraphs, I bolded, and regarding that bolded part, our dynamic complexity as a species does not change the fact that we evolved from simple survivalist desires and that these desires encroach upon everything we do in our lives now, as they have since the time we were mere cells in the protoplasm before all life was formed.

Of course humans have an instinct to survive, but your argument that they cannot change ever

Again, where are you getting this from? I never said anything about people changing. What the hell are you talking about here? Of course people can change, I’m mentally different than I was a few years ago, and as a species, I’d like to believe we are constantly evolving and becoming more intelligent with each passing generation. But this has NOTHING TO DO with the fact as a species we evolved from RNA, and we will ALWAYS think about these survivalist instincts and we will always gather material possessions and power because it’s not something you can just rip out of our DNA – if you did that we wouldn’t be human anymore. We evolved out of chimps as the need arose to gather more supplies, forge for more food, find more efficient means of reproduction through concepts such as marriage and so forth. We evolved as a necessity to support these underlying principles I keep talking about, and we will continue to do so from now until forever – as of now, we are the ultimate evolved hunter/gatherer and nothing’s going to change that anytime soon.

Again, greed and our instinct to survive are not the same, yet you conflate them to be so. In hunter/gatherer societies, there was no such thing as greed - because people did not produce a surplus of goods based on a commodity form of production for profits. They produced and consumed what they needed to survive, and that was it. This isn't my opinion, this is an observable and empirical FACT.

Since you seem so interested in talking about early Homo sapiens, there are parables told in Aesop’s fables, earlier in American Indian fables, and even as far back as the bible who took their stores from Mesopotamia passed down from as early as the spoken language all talking about the evils of being greedy. Greed is nothing more than the desire manifest inside all of us to gather extra supplies so we don’t run out of “x”; it is intrinsic to our survival. How ridiculous is it to not be able to see that? Surviving off the land with just what is required? At not time was there ever a perfect society, and what you describe as greed, I define as one mans desire to gather more “x” because that urge in the brain from our core tells us it’s necessary. This is where I think you and I have a misunderstanding on what this means however; just because we have these desires does not make them correct for the betterment of society. At no time did I make excuses for the greedy man, merely pointed out that I understand why the greedy man does what he does, because it’s that part of our RNA we can never change unless we cease to be human!

It is no wonder you think my view is wrong, because you clearly have ZERO understanding of the Marxist framework!

And you are clearly misunderstanding what I’m saying, but lets continue because it leads into this:

Communism is NOT altruism. I repeat, it is not altruism. How many times do I have to say this? The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you should start reading more Marxist sources and literature before we continue our debate, since it is quite apparent you have little or no understanding of my views. I do not know of any communist who thinks society should be operated based an altruistic vision. I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it isn't what I am arguing.

Where am I getting this from? From your words. You seem to think Capitalism is the source of all greed and suffering in this world, and YOU have stated many times that in your vision of a perfect communistic society, everyone would live in perfect harmony giving and receiving equally. These are not my words, and I think not even yours, but those of a true Marxist. Yes, FIT, I understand you, however you are missing the point I’m trying to make! That this whole picture I’m painting has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with social classes, constructs, or structures, freedoms, restrictions, or laws. It’s something deeper that that, and I’m arguing that even in the best communistic society as close to perfect as you can imagine it, not amount of evolutionary change can change the human condition from feeling what our RNA desires for us, to procreate, to defend, to gather. Nothing you say can convince me this is something that could be eradicated from our species thoughts because I simply don’t believe that. And FIT, this isn’t something I was taught in any school or college, but became interested in the subject while doing biblical research and read many articles on it from great minds near and far, not of any particular affiliation or political motivation. This is something I see as a reality, that once humans realize this about all species on this planet, only then can we truly take a step back and realize what we were, what we are, and then visualize what we want to become knowing these are aspects of our personality we cannot change. And then, as a species we can grow and evolve into something even more beautiful and purposeful and hell, even your communistic utopia could be a reality, but only if people are that we will always have these desires, and they are not wrong, but define us as a species.

So, we reduce the argument to nihilism then? Gee, what a surprise

So I take it you didn’t actually read what I wrote then? This response must be because of my comment about the perfect communist society being lawless. I won’t deny I haven’t read up much on my Marxist, but from what I gathered from you no less, the perfect communist society would not require laws because they would just do what is right. Am I wrong in this thought?

Your sex slave trade example its a pretty dubious one.... I think it is a mistake to say it is just done for money…

Exactly my point, it’s something we can all agree is a terrible act, but those who are doing it are interested in profits, or even getting some action, but why those two things? Why not using kidnapped girls to weave socks to give to the homeless? Because of what I keep bringing up, that the desire for procreation and gathering material possessions and power are intrinsic to our very nature, and no amount of evolution will ever change that!

So you think the sex slave trade is ok then, because someone else is making money off that to survive? Jesus fucking christ....you are a total sociopath man, and it is no wonder the world is such a fucked up, backwards ass place to live in. Your thinking belongs in the Dark Ages.

I love how you overly generalize with vitriol to exaggerate your points, embellishing your angst with spicy adjectives directed at the previous respondent. I thought I made it perfectly clear in prior posts that I believe all creatures great and small have the desires of procreation, protecting their offspring, and gathering, but it just so happens in our species we have evolved to express these aspects to their fullest, and simply understanding that about people will help you/us to understand exactly where someone is coming from when they commit an act you or I might consider vile. Nowhere did I ever say it was okay to do this, or I agreed it was just some way to make money. No, I said I understood why people did these things. So to answer your open ended question, no, I don’t like it when people do things like this. I do feel these things are wrong and when I hear about people torturing one another, or selling children into the sex trade, I want to physically harm these sick fucks. But that has nothing to do with my understanding of why people do the things they do. Just because a homicide detective can get into the mind of a killer does not make him a goddamn psychopath… grow up FIT!

Now you resort to Biological Determinism, to make your point? Weak sauce.

I didn't say we were special, but now that you mention it, in some ways, yes we are. We are the ONLY species on this planet to have developed science, technology, visit space, and perhaps more importantly, we are the only species with a "history".

Do you deliberately misquote with that misdirect, or is your head crammed so far up your ass, all you see is shit wherever you look? I saw how Jester, Kath, Eppie, and others were going on a tangent about freewill and as you may have noticed, I did not engage them on that topic because I don’t agree with any of what they were saying. I feel we have complete freewill as a species, but just because I believe I can fly does not confer me the ability to jump off a fucking building and fly, does it? Just because you want to change and be altruistic in nature does not mean you can ever change where you came from; what I mean by saying that is everything you or I do will always have its roots in the very reason why we evolved into the species we did in the first place, our need to procreate and gather more power, and that’s not something we can “think” our way out of to change it!

So you would say that the furthering of our species is a selfish act? This doesn't seem logical to me. The advancement of humanity surely is a good thing, is it not?

If by selfish you mean survivalist in nature, then yes, we are all guilty. As I’ve stated a few times in this post, we evolved our logic and mental capacity in the past to help us harvest these procreation and gatherer desires from the offset. This evolved logic has helped us do astounding things, such as land rockets on the moon, yet it still cannot stop us from being who we are. I’d like us to evolve even further as a species, to a state I cannot even fathom, but I don’t see this happening anytime soon if we can’t even acknowledge the very nature that controls us, and always will!

You would do well to learn more about my views before arguing against them, lest you create strawman arguments as you have done throughout your entire post.

Cute. I admittedly don’t know a too terribly much about the intricacies of your points of view, but in this case, I don’t think they were necessary to support my argument. We simply have differing points of view on the way people act; you seem to think people are they way they are due to society, whereas I think they are the way they are because it’s in their very nature. We both agree in freewill, and that people have the capacity to overcome their desires using their freewill, however we disagree on these feelings; you seem to think they can be overcome and tossed on the wayside like a forgotten memory, I think they are part of our DNA formed from our RNA and we can never ever change these aspects of our desires – we can control them, but we can never change them! We both find acts our society considers vile in general (such as human trafficking) to be vile acts, and we both find the people who commit these vile acts to be disgusting worthy of a fitting punishment, but where we differ here is you seem to think there is something inherently wrong with these types of people, whereas I think they did what they did because it felt like the correct path for them to support their fundamental desires – but again, just because I understand why people might commit these evil acts does not in any way mean I think what they might be doing is alright! So there you have it, I suppose we can just agree to disagree from this point because our two philosophies are diametrically opposed. One final note: I hope I didn’t come across too crude; I tried to stay calm and only matched antics with you where I felt necessary, but I promise to keep out the vitriol in my future replies if you do the same.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm not going to respond to the whole post because its late, I am tired and don't have the energy to address everything you said right now.

But as far as free will goes, I don't think we agree here either, comrade. In the Marxist framework, the concept of free will is generally rejected, although there are some disagreements among Marxists as well regarding this. From this perspective, choices are and can only be made within the context of the mode of production in which we live, they are constrained by material forces and our social organization. Our choices are made a priori, subconsciously, before we actually "make" them. For the most part, I agree with this view, although there are times, in particular revolutionary circumstances, when humans can fundamentally change things beyond their normal capacity to do so though even here there are still material constraints in revolutionary situations. Generally speaking though, free will does not exist from the viewpoint of most Marxists from what I can tell. I'm not a Leninist, but he sort of summed up free will, or the lack thereof when he stated "Revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed. At no other time are the masses of the people in a position to come forward so actively as the creators of a new social order".

At the same time however, the other end of the spectrum, determinism, is a load of crap as well. The free will vs. determinism dichotomy is unscientific anyways, and probably why most Marxists reject both. Neither one really provides us with a realistic, ontological understanding of how the world works.

And yes, we have a very fundamental disagreement on our view of human nature. Human nature for me, while having some biological aspects, is largely social. The reason I used history in my post, is because our nature and state of being, has changed greatly throughout every epic of history - from HG societies to capitalism. My point was to prove that human nature is not some fixed, innate biological concept as most people think it is. We not only disagree about what human nature is, but also what its role is: for you, it is a cause of material circumstances. For me, it is an effect, or result, of them - although it is probably more accurate to say that material conditions and human nature likely have a sort of reciprocal relationship to some extent. But still, material conditions predominate this relationship, for the simple fact that matter must exist before consciousness or behavior can.

You are still thinking that I think humans should be altruistic, which is not what I am saying at all. You are looking at things from a philosophical view of human nature, but I am looking at them from objective, material class interests - these are two very different things. Pursuing ones own class interests isn't altruistic in the least - communism would be something that is built around the larger, objective and material interests of the proletariat(which actually would cease to exist as a class under communism, as would the bourgeois), and not around some altruistic notion of human consciousness.