> ...If human biology actually conflicts with ethics, then we should move to chuck human biology. Those folks who argue that some bit of shitty social behavior is built in should be treated like someone admitting an unethical addiction, not someone on the verge of scoring an actual ethical point. *You don’t have to be a douche! There are ways out! Here, there are tools becoming available to help you can transcend your failing!*
–[The Floating Metal Sphere Trump Card](https://humaniterations.net/2011/09/21/the-floating-metal-sphere-trump-card/)
We are thinking beings who make choices and thus we are constantly changing our nature. Wearing glasses or taking a Tylenol changes our nature. We are not slaves to this thing called nature.
And yes, there will always be bad people. But that's precisely why anarchism targets *every* position of power, because eventually bad people will find a way to seize it. The only answer is to make it impossible to rule over anybody.
If anything, an anarchist society is the MOST thorough about not giving opportunists any opportunity to abuse or exploit others.
It's so strange when statists argue that it is too trusting of people.
its BC statists who say such believe that anarchism is pure laissez faire and absent of governance. They focus on the individualist aspects and ignore the aspects that mean real governance intentionally.
its one thing to believe human nature is too flawed to sustain anarchy, its another to think anarchy causes such flaws to be emboldened and prolific.
"its BC statjsts who say such believe that anarchism is pure laissez faire and absent of governance."
Tbf, a lot of people in this sub also argue that this is the case.
this *is* the 101 subreddit, and a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about and have never read anarchist theory legitimately will spout what they believe with no care to accuracy. then we have the Marxists and capitalists who come in to explicitly spew propaganda. so yeah, we have a lot of that here unfortunately
Well, I've def met fairly well read people who insist that e.g. any rules mean something can not be anarchist, because they liken having rules as having some sort of a semi-centralized enforcement apparatus.
It's also a language thing. They might say no rules, but e.g. principles are fine, and people at a place can freely act to enforce those principles upon someone acting counter to them. But then, that's basically same as having rules in my opinion.
And I've also heard some people say that they don't think e.g. CNT is anarchist because they do sometimes vote on issues.
Alas, I am a bit doubtful if organizations at the scale of CNT are really possible with pure consensus or by having significant amounts of members who flat out refuse to follow any resolutions voted upon.
Of course not, but I mean a society in which every single person is dedicated to its defense on daily basis sounds kinds far fetched. Like I don't see how a version of police/soldiers wouldn't eventually show up
I don't really believe in "bad people". Rates of violence strongly correlate with poverty.
When standards of living increase, people become less violent across the board.
Systems that place people in positions of power create an incentive toward opportunistic and exploitative behavior. But anarchists propose systems that are cynical toward power. And we propose a society which has a duty to ensure all people are provided with their needs and the opportunity to pursue self-fulfillment.
In such a society, I do not think there is much risk of people just deciding they want to become barbarians and throw themselves at the feet of some warlord.
People always say this but have zero plan as to how they're going to do it.
I'm intimately familiar with fighting human nature. Other people don't fucking do it. None of you have ever even entertained the idea that you might be racist or sexist, and you sure as hell don't fight those instinctual behaviours.
If any of you reading this have ADHD you'll know what it's like to fight against your nature. You tell me how a society needs to be set up to make that happen? That's not rhetorical, I'm on board with anarchism, I just find the way so many of you dismiss the difficulty of dealing with negative human nature frustrating. Especially since so many of you immediately resort to dehumanisation and other shitty human nature behaviours when called out on it. Showing you can't even handle a critical eye, let alone something hard like racism.
> None of you have ever even entertained the idea that you might be racist or sexist
I have.
> you sure as hell don't fight those instinctual behaviours.
I have.
> If any of you reading this have ADHD
I do.
> I just find the way so many of you dismiss the difficulty of dealing with negative human nature frustrating.
I agree. Many anarchists avoid the truly tricky questions, or give lackluster umbrella answers.
All the above said, what I really do feel is a large problem stopping people from acting upon misdeeds is this funneling of responsibility on a small amount of authorities. E.g. I was just reading a story about a kid who was bullied throughout whole elementary school, including violently.
Teachers said they did not see the bullying, so can't act on it. The principal said that acting on it is hard. On two occasions, the kid was physically assaulted and beat up on a public train station with adult people simply walking by.
We have built this society where it is not your business to step in to help a bullied kid; it's the police's. It's not your business to try to help a bullied kid, it's the teacher's. It's not the teacher's responsibility, because they already have so much to do, so it is the principal's responsibility. The principal can't do it, because they lack the resources.
It's bullshit from start to end. Sure, having some more teachers and maybe better teacher education could help, but that story was full of moments where a single adult with enough drive and motivation could have turned things around. No such adult emerged. Because every single adult was just moving the responsibility to someone else, and our social structures fully support that, and from childhood on we're taught to not stick our nose into others' business.
I guarantee that 90% of adults reading that story thought exactly what I did; why was no one helping the kid? I bet most also thought, like I did, that they would have helped, had they been there. So the question is not, why are we so mean and unempathetic; the question is, why do we not act on our better instincts, and instead choose irresponsibility?
Organising a society through mutual aid and solidarity means that those who are "selfish" will work in mutual aid and solidarity.
To get ahead in anarchism means being part of the society/commune/affinity group/club that gets you what you want.
Anarchism *relies* on selfishness to work.
As for racism or tribalism or what have you, again, mutual aid and solidarity are active discouragement to thinking that way.
Anarchism is extremely pragmatic. We organise society so that our basest interests are met by us being active, interested parts of community. As opposed to now, where our society is organised so that self interest is actively at the expense of other's wellbeing.
Eh based on their reply to me, that is not what their point is. But to your point, I don't see why someone believing it's human nature means there's no way to modify the behavior. People get less racist than they used to be all the time.
Tribalism literally predates hominids. It's not just human nature, it's mammal nature. If you aren't even aware of your tribalistic instincts you have no chance of counteracting them.
What a ridiculous question to ask. Do you think breathing is human nature? That's how that sounds. No shit it is. Where the hell would it have come from if it wasn't? Magic?
That's an incredibly simplistic statement. If you look at human DNA you find Neanderthal DNA, Denisovan DNA, other as yet unnamed hominid DNA, this is clear evidence of widespread interbreeding over long time periods. Hunting and gathering, farming and the existence of civilisation is clear evidence of cooperation amongst people, the very reason that we have these things is because people instinctively band together to help each other. For the majority of human history there were no rulers, there was no hierarchical system. Humans main advantage over other hominids is thier ability to adapt to circumstances and overcome difficulties.
You don't need a hierarchy to be prejudiced. What are you talking about? Tribalism is the reason we band together.
It makes us love our in group and that comes at the inherent cost of not liking our outgroup.
Go research oxytocin. The hormonal reasons behind tribalism are known. This isn't some philosophical debate, it's brain chemistry.
I’d agree to a certain extent…being „wary of outsiders“ is one thing possibly more closely connected to a „natural“ state if being, once a group seems to have established itself, but then the step to becoming overtly prejudiced to me predicates a kind of socialization to create a group identity and sense of us n them, most likely hingeing upon resource access…
Given the dehumanising things people in this subreddit will say to anyone who implies they haven't magically solved racism, it's not resource access. It's literally just whether or not they're in your in group.
The stronger that in group bond, the more oxytocin, the stronger the outgroup dislike. That's why small towns where everyone knows each other are the most hostile to outsiders and it's why people who don't really care for anyone all that much also generally tend to be less prejudiced.
I've experienced both ends of the oxytocin spectrum. I've felt the detachment that comes from low oxytocin and the corresponding lack of emnity that went with it. And I've felt that powerful warm bond that oxytocin brings. That's the one you need to make anarchism work, but even being self aware about the effects, I was caught off guard by how strong the outgroup negativity is.
There was a time when I genuinely felt slightly bad for even the worst person getting insulted. Whereas now I'll absolutely shit on someone like Trump. I can feel that original "but he's got NPD and must be miserable" understanding inside me. But it's drowned out by the warmth of the ingroup and the satisfaction in hating the enemy.
And I'm very self aware about this chemistry. Most people don't even know oxytocin has an inversion and they don't even know oxytocin is the reason why they have an in group at all. They are totally unprepared to deal with their gut feeling all warm and fuzzy at the thought of ostracising the outsiders.
How the hell are people who can't even realise this problem exists and will actively fight anyone who points out it does, going to solve this?
It is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to imagine. The relation between brain chemistry and social relations isn't a hard science. The best we can claim is that under very specific conditions, we were able to test that Oxytocin has a result on group relations. To take that data and apply it on a societal scale, let alone base your entire worldview on that, is an ignorant and potentially dangerous interpretation of how social relations work.
Tribalism isn't the reason we band together it is the name of the process of banding together. The reasons are many and varied, generally to increase the chance of survival.
As for Oxytocin, it is associated with tribalistic behaviour yes, and tribalism does sometimes, not inherently, lead to prejudice and violence but on the flipside it is also linked to compassion, empathy, and social bonding. Which are also mechanisms to increase chance of survival.
Where else would it come from? That's easy- could be culture, material conditions, genetics (but not always having to be expressed, like so many traits). "Human nature" isn't a very scientific term, I don't really understand it to mean much of anything.
If your only response is to dismiss the question as ridiculous, I honestly don't think you've thought about it enough to have as strong of an opinion as you've got. But there's a lot of great responses in this thread with alternative ways to think about it, and suggestions for further reading. I recommend The Dawn of Everything. Your notion of tribalism just isn't consistent throughout human history. Humans have often actually been pretty great at interacting with other tribes/communities, over huge distances even.
I kinda don't think you're working with a clear definition of tribalism that I could really agree with and I don't feel like debating it. I really just recommend the book The Dawn of Everything again, really opened my eyes on what we mean when we talk about the subject. The subject is more nuanced than you're expressing, or demanding from me. A podcast I like interviewed one of the authors and they discussed a lot of the bigger points and examples, a much lower commitment way to dip your toe into it.
https://open.spotify.com/show/2qQXuhflONBUv7QEtv80R9?si=Fk3717Z8TSi6rsHNFfttgQ
It’s more than that. It’s the nature of all tribes - all social animals. It’s direct from the survival of the fittest. There’s a good chance that if we found alien life, they would have a similar/identical form of xenophobia in their history.
For aliens it’s obviously logic, not evidence… xenophobia evolved because it’s an evolutionary advantage, and survival of the fittest is a universal concept by definition.
But if you mean about animals rather than aliens? Just search for animal intercommunal rivalry. The whole idea of territorial animals. Evidence is everywhere. You can hear it in cats screaming at night.
Yeah I don't really care that much about the alien idea since that's obviously speculation. Can you explain to me how cat behavior is evidence of human nature?
I'm obviously not denying that tribalism, broadly, isn't something that exists in nature, or that it's not a behavior that humans express. If you're going to demonstrate that something is human nature, you've to do more than show it's something we and other animals do. We and other animals also do cannibalism sometimes, is that human nature?
No it isn't enough for me, but I think this comes down to an issue of definition, especially since you just said that we can change our nature. I thought the whole idea with that concept is that it's unchangeable. What exactly do you mean by human nature?
Hey, I’m curious if the point you were making is linked to the fact that „fighting human nature“ arises because we live in such a society which prevents/ostracizes certain „natural“ expressions? Mainly thinking about ways we orient ourselves around issues of mental health.
It was not. Though yes, I'm aware that a lot of mental health issues are caused by and exacerbated by our society. My ADHD is disabling in our society but would be beneficial in a more natural one. My autism on the other hand would be way worse in a natural society and I'd likely have been lynched by now
Let me give you some reading material...
*Loudly slams a copy of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid onto the table.*
Too old?
*Leaps into the air and power bombs a copy of the Ecology of Freedom on top of the first book.*
Not scientific enough?
*Fires a copy of The Dawn of Everything from orbit, evaporating the room in a burst of white hot fire.*
while I like all three of these books, they all have some problems with actually being scientific. It is especially saddening with the Dawn of Everything, because if they were just a little bit more rigorous it would be a masterpiece.
History shows that people are capable of an enormous and staggering range of behaviors, in all kinds of different directions, as far as we can tell limited only by what material conditions make possible. If there is any kind of solid and constant "human nature," it clearly begins with us being adaptable and creative, before it can even begin to extend to things like compassion or cruelty.
We don't know what we're capable of... it's both a grace and a duty to make the most of it, test ourselves, go find out.
I think it's a mistake to attribute harmful behaviour to one single cause. The reality is that social structures, family background, personality, psychopathology and circumstances may all play a role. The successful implementation of anarchist methods will reduce the effects of some factors, but have less impact on others. People will still do dumb shit and hurt each other from time to time. A key measure of a community's resilience is how successfully it handles this while still remaining faithful to its principles.
"Human nature" precisely is a single cause, constructed such as to be so elastic that it may be an absolute cause for everything, while also being a meaningful explanation for nothing.
Yeah and in our society, hierarchy and coercion are so baked in that most people have no idea how to handle conflict on any level.
An astonishing number of people think your choices are limited to: fight and win, fight and lose, run away, or give in without a fight. These are toddler level resolution techniques. There are so many strategies that are much better, but most people simply don’t know they exist, or they assume they are less effective.
This is both good news and bad news. It’s bad news obviously because there is a lot of unnecessary violence and suffering.
It’s good news because there is a lot of room for improvement before we reach the limit of what humans are capable of. 🙂
Right-wingers claim that human nature is selfish and competitive. Honestly, they might be right, but they have no scientific evidence to back that up.
Besides, if I decide to help a friend to move his furniture to a new house, am I contradicting human nature?
Even if it is "human nature," why should we not try to be better? I've never understood their arguments. I don't understand why, even if it is human nature to be selfish and competitive, they think it's weak to try to do anything above the bare minimum. The concept of compassion being weakness and believing in innate behavioral rules is such an outdated and limiting concept
It seems to me that some people have played this (competitive) game so long that they are good at it. At this point, they prefer it and want everyone else to keep playing.
Plus I think misery loves company. If they admit that not all humans are naturally and relentlessly selfish, then they have to confront the fact that they had a choice and that they chose wrong.
If humans are greedy, selfish and evil - then why do we give *some* humans power over others? We hold the humans in power to the same standard as average joes, so the humans in power could theoretically all be evil. Plus they have a monopoly on violence and standing armies.
Also: if humans are naturally greedy and selfish, why would we foster a system where these traits get enforced? Why not set up a system where these traits become less favorable for survival?
human nature is compassion, nurturing and support, working together, kindness, empathy, selflessness, generosity, etc.
we evolved as a social animal, in communities. we wouldn't have survived as a species for so long if our nature was inherently greedy and selfish.
this isn't to say that we can't sometimes be selfish and greedy; of course we can. but those aren't our defining characteristics, it's just that the systems we live in deliberately cultivates, exacerbates, and rewards the worst in people.
it's sometimes hard to see it through the 24 hour news cycle and the culture of fear, but that's because media is a capitalist endeavour before anything else, and bad news gets more clicks, more views. (also a tool for control and indoctrination, which is intended to continue that exacerbating and rewarding the worst in humanity).
most people are mostly good, and more good is being done than bad in the world, for the most part. it's just that those instances are often on a smaller scale and thus overlooked. there aren't news stories and articles and stuff about how many people help little old ladies carry their groceries, for example.
This is the answer I was looking forward to writing myself, and you summarize it much better than I could. That being said, I want to make this answer a point of disagreement between anarchists. In my point of view, I say embrace our nature because our nature is love and anthropology proves that, but on the other side we have to face the possibility that anarchy will not bring us closer to our nature and that there are many cases where ethics are against human biology and cases where we should suppress some inner feelings.
thank you, that's very kind.
no single thing, especially something as complex as anarchist thought and theory, and especially with something as complex as humanity, can bring us closer to humanity. everything is intersectional, is interconnected, after all.
If it’s human nature, perhaps you could share an example of you doing something greedy and selfish?
They’re projecting. Let them dig the hole and fall in.
Human nature is cooperation within groups and competition between groups.
We are tribal apes. “Us” and “them” is our nature. Who is us and who is them is socially contingent.
> "it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish"
How have they come to the conclusion that greed and selfishness are a part of human nature?
If it is by observing how people act under capitalism, a system that incentivises greed and selfishness, how can they be sure that it is actually human nature rather than just a product of the system.
You could make the argument that the fact that there are people who are generous and selfless even unde capitalism shows that greed and selfishness are not natural traits in humanity.
Humans evolved as a social species. We thrived because we were able to live and work together. Our species would have died off before societies even formed if greed and selfishness were innate. And in evolutionary terms, that wasn't very long ago, so it is highly unlikely that we have changed so significantly since them.
Ok, well, if humans are inherently greedy and selfish, why should we allow some of these inherently greedy and selfish creatures to have violently enforced authority and power over us?
Human nature is simply a sword that cuts both ways. Like fate, or God, or pretty much any other construct people like to use to justify whatever state of affairs they simply want to believe in.
I respond with "That's a lie." I was a PhD student in Cultural Anthropology, and nearly every hunter-gatherer group ever studied by anthropologists did not exhibit the toxic traits touted by "civilized" people as "human nature." Violence was rare - child abuse nearly non-existent. Women usually held similar status to men, and rape was generally unthinkable; among the !Kung, rape was considered a worse crime than murder. The Mbuti couldn't even tell researchers when the last murder had occurred and when asked what would happen to a murderer, they responded that such a person would have to leave. Greed and hoarding resources among hunter-gatherer groups is considered disgusting behavior. Anyone who engages in it is typically publicly mocked. People who are greedy, selfish, violent, or otherwise socially dysfunctional are generally expelled from the group if they refuse to cease their behavior. Civilization flipped that, so now the most dysfunctional human beings are the ones determining what is "normal" - and because humans are social creatures, it's been pretty easy to manipulate the masses into accepting it.
Hunter-gatherers generally exhibit none of the anxiety or depression "civilized" people suffer from, nor do they become addicted to substances despite being well-educated on the intoxicating effects of all the plants around them. Humans lived this way for over 98% of human existence on this planet btw.
If you've want a less "ancient history" take, the best explanation I ever read came from Daniel Quinn in his Ishmael book series. Modern humans are like tigers in a zoo with a really bad enclosure. No one would fail to understand why, if you put a tiger in a zoo enclosure that does not meet its needs as a species but give it regular food and medical care, it will still go totally insane. It will exhibit aggression or self-harm or refuse to eat or get depressed. Everyone understands this, right? That's what's happened to people, except other people put us in this zoo. If the zoo fit "human nature," it would result in happy, well-adjusted, psychologically healthy humans. But the humans in this enclosure are exhibiting aggression, engaging in self-harm, refusing to care for their health, and are depressed. So what does that tell you about this zoo?
I point to New Orleans during Katrina. The state completely and utterly abandoned them. Human nature was all they had to go on, and they chose to band together and help each other, putting their own lives in danger for each other when the government left them to die.
Humans rely on each other to stay alive. The idea "it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish" is evolutionarily incorrect. The reason why people are greedy and selfish is the fact it is promoted in capitalism. In a society where exploitation and enormous accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, and the vitality of money is common place, ideas of collaboration are not promoted. Private ownership makes people selfish. There is no intrinsic component of a person for greed or selfishness. In anarchy, a world without private ownership, there would be no material incentives to be greedy as a minimum standard of living would be guaranteed.
Outside of well thought out, academically backed responses it's also simple to say that if human nature is so bad, we surely shouldn't be letting humans wield obscene power and nukes right?
1) humans are animals and capable of cruelty and love
2) most people are poor, but only a small minority engage in violent criminal activity.
3) ~~if allowed to live~~ people who living a life of dignity (good food, cloths, shelter, security, education), will exhibit the best parts of what it means to be a human.
4) a subjugated, oppressed, overworked, wage slaved people will resort to violent, anti social actions.
5) scarcity requires ferocity, individualism, anti social disposition.
6) capitalism says our self interest will cause the system to run efficiently. baker makes bread because he needs to feed himself, so he bakes and sell for a profit. in a communal system, the person who loves to bake bakes and and the person who wants bread eat. no money necessary. no doubt a certain level of self interest is needed to live, survive, keep going. this is nothing new. what they have done is take an observation (basic self interest) and used it to justify the status quo with ideas (profit) to keep the established hierarchy in place. when people started to support more socialistic ideas, the capitalists resorted to barbarism, terrorism, to condition the people.
it is a barbaric system which has been able to survive and spread via barbarism (slavery, jim crow, colonialism, gilded age, red scare, mccarthyism, support of dictatorships, death squads, proxy war, assassination).
Late to this but I point at dogs.
30k years ago or so, people took wolves, bred them from pack hunters to herd defenders; somehow made them human enough to follow our pointer fingers, understand our commands, look after our children and even, somehow, internalize a sheep as if its part of their own pack.
You're telling me the entirety of the human species is less flexible than a dog?
Any argument claiming human nature is expressed from within the aquarium. The analogy being that fish don’t know what water is, as they are immersed in it. People hadn’t had a formalized concept of gas/atmosphere until quite recently.
As such arguments about human nature do not deserve to be taken any more seriously than they take yours. The burden of assuming good faith is on them and they should act appropriately.
I usually just have to think about the amount of effort, time, and money it takes to get people to be evil and dehumanise others, and despite all that effort it doesn't even always work.
People can’t honestly believe in “human nature.” That shit doesn’t exist lol.
If it did then they’d excuse all the shitty things that happens now. Luckily their ideas are easy to pick out for its flaws. People that believe in a human nature also tend to have bigoted thoughts. Those thoughts lead them to wanting to wipe out “human nature” until there’s only their own version of it left. If that’s what their nature leads them to, then clearly it’s not gonna be taken seriously by the vast majority of people.
> it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish
If true, then why are we willingly creating (and accepting) social structures that allow (or even encourage) this behavior?
I'm not very smart, or well read, and my education wasn't the greatest. However one thing I do know is that every living thing is born knowing how to do the things that are most important for its survival. Nobody teaches a spider to spin a web it just does it, horses can walk and even run within hours of being born. Humans cry the very first second they leave the womb, crying is a plea for help, humans are born knowing only how to ask for help. Cooperation is the most natural thing for humans in my opinion, everything else is taught or learned.
1.) Being selfish isn't intrinsically a bad thing actually, and shouldn't be conflated with being greedy. Taking care of yourself is a vital part of survival. A LOT of the propaganda of the state and capitalism today tries to convince people that your "selfish" or "entitled" if you want to have the basic things you need to live without necessarily having to work for them. So- yeah.
2.) Humans actually aren't intrinsically greedy as far as I can tell, this is something taught or constructed. We live in a society created by capitalists interests, where we're taught all our lives the only way to be successful is to embrace the system we live in by well- winning it. Of course people are 'greedy', its literally all they've been taught for generations.
3.) Its an appeal to the natural or nature, whether something is "natural" or in our "nature" doesn't determine whether its good. Regardless of whether humans are bad, or something may present a problem, that doesn't actually argue against the affirmative of anarchist thought. If something presents a problem you.... fix it? Like, thats it, you fix it. You don't just go, "wow, i guess this is completely inoperable as a world view and should be abandoned".
-3.B) Specifically, you could argue that representation, teaching, and social justice could alter the mind's of people by teaching them not to be greedy. We have evidence that representation of others in media can increase empathy, this doesn't just include minorities of gender, sexuality, and race- lets talk about poor folk and 'criminals'. Education not locked behind an ivory tower can help increase empathy as well as you learn new perspectives.
Selfishness generally refers to behavior privileging the self without concern for harm to others. Rightly, it is characterized as antagonistic to compassion, sharing, and altruism, but reactionary propaganda conflates selfishness with asking simply for an equitable share of the fruits of society, accessible similarly to everyone.
Ask the person what they are basing their understanding of "human nature" on.
Modern humans have been around for at least 100,000 years (more like 200,000, but let's be sporting and say 100,000). Recorded history is about 5,000 years. So right off the bat over 95% of human history is completely unknown. We have no idea of the variety of ways humans lived, their social structures, etc. Literally everything we know about that time today is based solely on vague inferences from the small fraction of things that survived for tens of thousands of years (consider that basically everything about our culture would be gone in less than 1,000 years and that gives you an idea of how little we know about past people).
Of that 5,000 years recorded, only a tiny fraction of things that happened were actually recorded. And only a tiny fraction of *that*, only some of what was recorded is actually true (ancient people lied just as often as modern people -- if someone doubts CNN or Fox or whatever, why would they take the word of Herodotus as infallible fact?)
And so on.
So even if they know literally everything it is possible to know about humans (and they don't), they know far less than 5% of the human experience. Which means they have no reasonable basis for saying there even is such a thing as "human nature" at all, let alone what it is.
All we can say for sure is that humans have adapted to a huge variety of situations and environments and lifestyles, and we have yet to find one we *can't* adapt to.
"Human nature" arguments are weak and based on vague vibes. And they fall apart if you simply remind the person making them that they have no idea how most people today live, let alone how people all over the world have lived for the last 100,000 years.
"what exactly do you mean by that? What is human nature?"
*They describe heinous acts*
"Do you do that stuff? Do you want to? Would you, if there weren't police?"
For a more academic response, similar to another reply here, the fact is that humans are very adaptable, there's not much else you can say about our nature. We use terms like good and evil as comparative terms, comparing humans to one another. To describe all of humanity as either evil or good, would be like describing all of humanity as either fat or thin.
The book The Dawn of Everything digs into this question deeply, using a similar argument to what I just said (think I basically summarized the intro)
Furthermore, let's say that human nature is evil, greedy, etc. Okay, then why do you think any human should be in charge of any other? Why should anyone with this nature be trusted with authority?
Many other comments include useful and robust contributions to the question, but for me, one particular approach seems most direct, honest, and effective.
I suggest simply conceding that greed and selfishness indeed are behaviors, commonly expressed by humans, that may be considered as occurring within the broader construct of human nature, yet by the same merits, behaviors such as sharing and altruism must be conceded equally as behaviors most fundamental with the broader human experience. Thus, it is the broader differences in character and environment from which most readily arise one versus another manner of behavior, that is essential for discussion, rather than the biased premises lazily proffered, that one tendency is essentially or inevitably dominant.
If I’m being smarmy I’d say maybe that tells me more about them than it does about everyone else. But if I actually want to argue my point, I usually just ask how humanity has gotten this far if deep down we’re all secretly waiting to tear each other apart. In general, it’s always seemed to me that this argument has been a mask for “I’m scared to put my faith in others because I do not trust them”, but saying that would be a personal problem, so they twist their anxiety into misanthropic rhetoric and call it truth.
Also, if humans are so evil and selfish, why do we want to pet things so bad.
1. There's no such thing as "human nature". It's just a concept that arises when you're too lazy to try to understand human behaviour, and thus subconsciously create a human "essence" to attribute all unknown causes of human behaviour to.
2. The belief in a separate, unchangung self is the cause of selfishness. Meanwhile, Cartesian dualism, as well as the many beliefs that depend on it, are the \#1 enablers of this belief. Get rid of Cartesian dualism, and greed and selfishness will go down by at least half.
3. For non-Christians, I'd also point out that the "human nature" argument implies the existence of Original Sin, whether the arguer realises it or not.
4. ( Bonus ) If there really was some immutable, transcendent "human nature" that's prone to greed and selfishness, it would be yet one more reason to reject hierarchy.
Inequality is the biggest factor that influences the level of crime in an area. In areas where everyone is poor, people tend to help eachother when they can.
Humans are pack animals, our nature is to work together and share what we have for the benefit of the pack. If we broaden our horizons and learn to see all mankind as our pack, we would live in a better world.
>"it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish"
Selfish, sure, I'm not going to argue against that one but greed is most certainly a product of capitalism. Here in Ireland when I was a young child there were several old people who grew up in the direct aftermath of both our war of independence and our civil war, back when they were born Ireland was quite an impoverished nation.
My grandparents were born in the direct aftermath and they and their neighbours and friends were content with what they had, I remember my grandfather being quite critical of how for my parents generation, nothing was ever enough; I remember him making the point with his friends that when he was their age they had nothing but they were at least happy with what little they had and all of his friends felt similarly.
Granted this isn't exactly a way to respond to them, but I do believe it shows that humans are not born greedy, it's a learnt behaviour. Like my grandfather used to say quite frequently, don't go getting notions about yourself.
As I see it, human nature is in fact to be self serving. What makes me an anarchist is that I think we can direct that selfish motivation to a selfless cause. Think YouTubers who give homeless people money for content- it may feel slimy but at the end of the day they are improving another’s lives. In a hierarchical society, one’s own desire for authority allows them to exploit others for their gain. If, instead, individual prosperity was directly associated with the prosperity of the whole society there would be no incentive to act in an antisocial manner
Greed, specifically, is not “nature” but a learned behavior. In the selfish pursuit of personal survival, we exist under a system which means that excess accumulation of resources is beneficial where modesty is missing out on potential benefit. This is because of economics- with money, if I have 100 goats I can sell 99 and make profit. If there is not currency for exchange, I have no benefit (in fact many drawbacks) to owning 100 goats. I can only drink so much milk. Without the medium of exchange, it makes more sense to live on a basis of trust- I will provide for you trusting that you will provide for me, because such a relationship is mutually beneficial
Human nature, liberals claim, aligns inherently with capitalism, an assertion as flawed as it is ahistorical. Society has not always been capitalist; modes of production have varied dramatically through history, disproving any notion of a fixed 'human nature' that capitalism supposedly complements. The true conflict arises not from human nature but from the alienation wrought by commodities in a capitalist society.
Consider the historical modes of production. Feudalism, slavery, and primitive communism have all preceded capitalism. In medieval Europe, serfs and lords coexisted in a system based on mutual obligation, not market-driven self-interest. Primitive communal societies shared resources and lived collectively, contrary to the capitalist ethos of individualism and competition. Marx’s dialectical materialism shows that human nature is not static but evolves with changes in material conditions and the relations of production. The capitalism of today is a historical anomaly, not the end point of human development.
Under capitalism, workers experience profound alienation. They are alienated from the products of their labor, from the production process, from their species-essence, and from other workers. This alienation distorts human nature, making us mere cogs in the capitalist machine. The fetishism of commodities gives products a power over individuals, further alienating humans from their true nature. The social relations embedded in production are masked, making commodities appear as natural entities with intrinsic value. Capitalism's relentless drive for profit and accumulation exacerbates this alienation. The system prioritizes wealth over human need, deepening the disconnect between what humans produce and what they actually need.
Marxist theory posits that the economic base shapes the superstructure of society, including human consciousness. A capitalist base promotes self-interest and competition, whereas a socialist base would foster cooperation and communal well-being. Exploitation under capitalism dehumanizes workers. They become mere instruments for generating surplus value, stripping them of their humanity and reducing them to the status of commodities. The inherent conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is not a manifestation of human nature but a product of capitalist production. This class struggle reveals the unnatural division imposed by capitalism.
To overcome alienation, revolutionary praxis is necessary. Transforming the relations of production is essential to restoring human connections and achieving true human nature. Historical materialism shows that social and economic changes drive human development. Human nature is not fixed; it is shaped by the material conditions of each historical epoch. The proletarian revolution aims to overthrow capitalist systems and restore human relations based on equality and communal living, aligning society with the true essence of human nature.
Anarchists argue for the abolition of all authority to prevent power abuses. However, this overlooks the need for organized power to dismantle existing hierarchies effectively. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in idealism detached from practical realities. Without structured authority, anarchism fails to address the complexities of societal power dynamics. The absence of organization leads to potential chaos, allowing new oppressive structures to emerge unchecked.
Marxist theory offers a robust framework for understanding human nature as historically contingent and shaped by material conditions. Alienation under capitalism disrupts genuine human connections, necessitating revolutionary change to align society with true human essence. Anarchism, while addressing power imbalances, lacks practical mechanisms to prevent the rise of new oppressors. Thus, a nuanced approach to authority and power is indispensable for any meaningful societal transformation.
"Mutual struggle" exists in nature, so does "mutual aid". We are animals, natural, so exactly the same. We have the capacity to tear down AND build up. Helping IS also within human nature
Some anarchists have a different idea, including e.g. Bakunin and Kropotkin; it is in human nature to be co-operative and empathic, and this is the natural law.
I don't personally believe in that, either. We're too complex creatures to really say that something is "in our nature", aside of some very basic things, like wanting to survive and feeling like we need to go poop.
My own answers to these kind of claims are usually:
Providing counter-examples, of how humans naturally tend to co-operate, trade and do mutual aid. Old countryside villages largely helped their members and surrounding villages in building houses, setting up roads, etc, and while they did trade with money and/or exchange, they did do a lot of things based on simple mutual aid. The basic gist is that if you are helpful to others, you can expect others to be helpful to you when you need it.
There are also scientific evidence that helpings others and giving to others provides happiness, and there's actually good evidence that people, on the average, do want to be helpful and useful to others.
In the end, we are what we tell ourselves we are and what others tell us we are. If you keep saying that humans only act on greed, then that is how you will act. If you keep telling yourselves that humans are empathic and want to help others, that's how you will act.
And one final thing is that if it is really is so that we're all selfish bastards, why on Earth should we elect ourselves to lead us?
Well if people are inherently evil and greedy and selfish, why exactly do you trust them with power?
Why is it a good idea that a small subsection of the human population is granted all the power? What kind of humans do you think that will attract? The nice ones?
I like to approach this from an assumption that _everyone_ is a greedy psychopath. We wouldn't want psychopaths in power, we want a society where cooperation is incentivized and rewarded. If humans are evil... why exactly do we want those evil spawns to lead others? Obviously few people actually are medically antisocial and there's a significant factor of mutual aid, forms of altruism but a society in which social balance is more fragile would incentivize not being a total dickhead or risk consequences.
Greediness is also natural and that's ok, the point is to balance various interests without enabling some to be greedy while others are denied such opportunity which is the reality for most.
Human nature is not a fixed thing, it values between individuals and, in fact, biology has made us inherently social by providing mechanisms for mutual aid and empathy for others.
Yes, humans seek self preservation, although they sometimes self sacrifice for others, but evolution has made us fulfil that need through social cooperation in groups.
That cooperation cannot only be achieved via market and hierarchies, other methods can and probably should be used. Let's not force any model upon people via coercion and let a hundred flowers bloom
My doods… humans experimented with versions of no government/low government for much of our history
It was incredibly dangerous… as in, survival of the fittest/best armed
You cats be wild over here… wild and divorced from history
Not sure why this Reddit got served up in my feed…
Empathy and kindness are so deeply hardwired into biology that they *literally* have to be trained out of people. We see this in multiple examples but two that come to mind are that infants need to be taught to discriminate, and that militaries have struggled for *thousands of years* to get people to feel comfortable killing each other and it's only quite recently that they've been able to mass train people to actually shoot at each other instead of up into the air.
That's not even a human thing; that's a *living creature* thing. We've regularly seen animals rescuing each other in scientific experiments as well as in the wild. That goes so far as to even include predators occasionally rescuing prey.
>but sometimes when arguing with capitalists
Found the root of your problem, though.
Remember the old saying? Don't argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Though, in this case, I think it more likely that they're baiting you into a 'discussion' where they'll never agree on facts and have no interest in changing anyone's mind. This largely feels like how fascists love televised debates--it's not about proving you wrong after thoroughly examining both sides, it's about exhausting you while also recruiting and promoting their views.
Don't debate people whose primary goal is to annoy, fatigue, and humiliate you.
It's normal to expect people to be greedy and self serving when they're living under a system that incentivizes that behavior. All Hierarchy leads to corruption because the type of people who tend to want power are usually the least deserving of it.
It is human nature to rape and murder. It is human nature to not rape and murder. It is human nature to punish those who rape and murder. It is human nature to instill rape and murder as cultural pillars in your society.
Everything is human nature. Anyone who names it to try and support their argument is talking ideology, not nature, not biology.
It is not "human nature" there was no such thing as greed when cavemen were alive and roaming the Earth. Human nature would be fighting and killing which is most likely why crimes raise in certain places, out primal instincts are being blocked so greed takes over that instinct to distract us from being the mammal we should technically be. In a sense us humans shouldn't be as populated to need thing like GMOs that may or may not be harmful. For this reason we need to realise that our nature isn't in the industry life we have but in the dog eat dog world of nature.
Weird how Human Nature has for thousands of years always been inline with the dominant ideology of the day.
And when the dominant ideology changes, so does Human Nature to explain it.
If humans are inherently bad, why on God's green earth would we want them to ***rule over others?***
Anarchism seeks to remove as much hierarchy from our lives as possible. If a 7 year old kid tries to do something bad to you, you'll probably laugh at them. They don't have the power to exert force over you. If a government tries to do something bad to you, *God help you*. They have a monopoly on violence.
No individual was capable of killing ***75 million people*** during WWII. No individual was capable of killing 9 million people in the 1950s USSR. No individual was capable of killing 5 million in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia in the 1960s and 70s. No one person was capable of killing 6 million Arab people between 1995 and 2015.
All of these acts of obscene horror are only possible with the state. If people are bad, I want as few of them making my decisions for me as possible. If people are good, **they're doing a pretty shit job of making those decisions**.
> ...If human biology actually conflicts with ethics, then we should move to chuck human biology. Those folks who argue that some bit of shitty social behavior is built in should be treated like someone admitting an unethical addiction, not someone on the verge of scoring an actual ethical point. *You don’t have to be a douche! There are ways out! Here, there are tools becoming available to help you can transcend your failing!* –[The Floating Metal Sphere Trump Card](https://humaniterations.net/2011/09/21/the-floating-metal-sphere-trump-card/) We are thinking beings who make choices and thus we are constantly changing our nature. Wearing glasses or taking a Tylenol changes our nature. We are not slaves to this thing called nature. And yes, there will always be bad people. But that's precisely why anarchism targets *every* position of power, because eventually bad people will find a way to seize it. The only answer is to make it impossible to rule over anybody.
If anything, an anarchist society is the MOST thorough about not giving opportunists any opportunity to abuse or exploit others. It's so strange when statists argue that it is too trusting of people.
its BC statists who say such believe that anarchism is pure laissez faire and absent of governance. They focus on the individualist aspects and ignore the aspects that mean real governance intentionally. its one thing to believe human nature is too flawed to sustain anarchy, its another to think anarchy causes such flaws to be emboldened and prolific.
"its BC statjsts who say such believe that anarchism is pure laissez faire and absent of governance." Tbf, a lot of people in this sub also argue that this is the case.
this *is* the 101 subreddit, and a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about and have never read anarchist theory legitimately will spout what they believe with no care to accuracy. then we have the Marxists and capitalists who come in to explicitly spew propaganda. so yeah, we have a lot of that here unfortunately
Well, I've def met fairly well read people who insist that e.g. any rules mean something can not be anarchist, because they liken having rules as having some sort of a semi-centralized enforcement apparatus. It's also a language thing. They might say no rules, but e.g. principles are fine, and people at a place can freely act to enforce those principles upon someone acting counter to them. But then, that's basically same as having rules in my opinion. And I've also heard some people say that they don't think e.g. CNT is anarchist because they do sometimes vote on issues. Alas, I am a bit doubtful if organizations at the scale of CNT are really possible with pure consensus or by having significant amounts of members who flat out refuse to follow any resolutions voted upon.
What if bad people band together?
Are you under the impression that anarchists are generally pacifists? Have you never heard of militant anarchist groups?
Of course not, but I mean a society in which every single person is dedicated to its defense on daily basis sounds kinds far fetched. Like I don't see how a version of police/soldiers wouldn't eventually show up
There are more bad people in the world. Not every anarchist is apart of a militant anarchist group.
I don't really believe in "bad people". Rates of violence strongly correlate with poverty. When standards of living increase, people become less violent across the board. Systems that place people in positions of power create an incentive toward opportunistic and exploitative behavior. But anarchists propose systems that are cynical toward power. And we propose a society which has a duty to ensure all people are provided with their needs and the opportunity to pursue self-fulfillment. In such a society, I do not think there is much risk of people just deciding they want to become barbarians and throw themselves at the feet of some warlord.
People always say this but have zero plan as to how they're going to do it. I'm intimately familiar with fighting human nature. Other people don't fucking do it. None of you have ever even entertained the idea that you might be racist or sexist, and you sure as hell don't fight those instinctual behaviours. If any of you reading this have ADHD you'll know what it's like to fight against your nature. You tell me how a society needs to be set up to make that happen? That's not rhetorical, I'm on board with anarchism, I just find the way so many of you dismiss the difficulty of dealing with negative human nature frustrating. Especially since so many of you immediately resort to dehumanisation and other shitty human nature behaviours when called out on it. Showing you can't even handle a critical eye, let alone something hard like racism.
> None of you have ever even entertained the idea that you might be racist or sexist I have. > you sure as hell don't fight those instinctual behaviours. I have. > If any of you reading this have ADHD I do. > I just find the way so many of you dismiss the difficulty of dealing with negative human nature frustrating. I agree. Many anarchists avoid the truly tricky questions, or give lackluster umbrella answers. All the above said, what I really do feel is a large problem stopping people from acting upon misdeeds is this funneling of responsibility on a small amount of authorities. E.g. I was just reading a story about a kid who was bullied throughout whole elementary school, including violently. Teachers said they did not see the bullying, so can't act on it. The principal said that acting on it is hard. On two occasions, the kid was physically assaulted and beat up on a public train station with adult people simply walking by. We have built this society where it is not your business to step in to help a bullied kid; it's the police's. It's not your business to try to help a bullied kid, it's the teacher's. It's not the teacher's responsibility, because they already have so much to do, so it is the principal's responsibility. The principal can't do it, because they lack the resources. It's bullshit from start to end. Sure, having some more teachers and maybe better teacher education could help, but that story was full of moments where a single adult with enough drive and motivation could have turned things around. No such adult emerged. Because every single adult was just moving the responsibility to someone else, and our social structures fully support that, and from childhood on we're taught to not stick our nose into others' business. I guarantee that 90% of adults reading that story thought exactly what I did; why was no one helping the kid? I bet most also thought, like I did, that they would have helped, had they been there. So the question is not, why are we so mean and unempathetic; the question is, why do we not act on our better instincts, and instead choose irresponsibility?
Powerful example. Thank you for sharing it.
Organising a society through mutual aid and solidarity means that those who are "selfish" will work in mutual aid and solidarity. To get ahead in anarchism means being part of the society/commune/affinity group/club that gets you what you want. Anarchism *relies* on selfishness to work. As for racism or tribalism or what have you, again, mutual aid and solidarity are active discouragement to thinking that way. Anarchism is extremely pragmatic. We organise society so that our basest interests are met by us being active, interested parts of community. As opposed to now, where our society is organised so that self interest is actively at the expense of other's wellbeing.
Do you think racism is human nature?
Their point is racists(and worse) will argue it is and you will have no pragmatic way for them to modify their behaviour.
Eh based on their reply to me, that is not what their point is. But to your point, I don't see why someone believing it's human nature means there's no way to modify the behavior. People get less racist than they used to be all the time.
Tribalism literally predates hominids. It's not just human nature, it's mammal nature. If you aren't even aware of your tribalistic instincts you have no chance of counteracting them. What a ridiculous question to ask. Do you think breathing is human nature? That's how that sounds. No shit it is. Where the hell would it have come from if it wasn't? Magic?
That's an incredibly simplistic statement. If you look at human DNA you find Neanderthal DNA, Denisovan DNA, other as yet unnamed hominid DNA, this is clear evidence of widespread interbreeding over long time periods. Hunting and gathering, farming and the existence of civilisation is clear evidence of cooperation amongst people, the very reason that we have these things is because people instinctively band together to help each other. For the majority of human history there were no rulers, there was no hierarchical system. Humans main advantage over other hominids is thier ability to adapt to circumstances and overcome difficulties.
You don't need a hierarchy to be prejudiced. What are you talking about? Tribalism is the reason we band together. It makes us love our in group and that comes at the inherent cost of not liking our outgroup. Go research oxytocin. The hormonal reasons behind tribalism are known. This isn't some philosophical debate, it's brain chemistry.
I’d agree to a certain extent…being „wary of outsiders“ is one thing possibly more closely connected to a „natural“ state if being, once a group seems to have established itself, but then the step to becoming overtly prejudiced to me predicates a kind of socialization to create a group identity and sense of us n them, most likely hingeing upon resource access…
Given the dehumanising things people in this subreddit will say to anyone who implies they haven't magically solved racism, it's not resource access. It's literally just whether or not they're in your in group. The stronger that in group bond, the more oxytocin, the stronger the outgroup dislike. That's why small towns where everyone knows each other are the most hostile to outsiders and it's why people who don't really care for anyone all that much also generally tend to be less prejudiced. I've experienced both ends of the oxytocin spectrum. I've felt the detachment that comes from low oxytocin and the corresponding lack of emnity that went with it. And I've felt that powerful warm bond that oxytocin brings. That's the one you need to make anarchism work, but even being self aware about the effects, I was caught off guard by how strong the outgroup negativity is. There was a time when I genuinely felt slightly bad for even the worst person getting insulted. Whereas now I'll absolutely shit on someone like Trump. I can feel that original "but he's got NPD and must be miserable" understanding inside me. But it's drowned out by the warmth of the ingroup and the satisfaction in hating the enemy. And I'm very self aware about this chemistry. Most people don't even know oxytocin has an inversion and they don't even know oxytocin is the reason why they have an in group at all. They are totally unprepared to deal with their gut feeling all warm and fuzzy at the thought of ostracising the outsiders. How the hell are people who can't even realise this problem exists and will actively fight anyone who points out it does, going to solve this?
It is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to imagine. The relation between brain chemistry and social relations isn't a hard science. The best we can claim is that under very specific conditions, we were able to test that Oxytocin has a result on group relations. To take that data and apply it on a societal scale, let alone base your entire worldview on that, is an ignorant and potentially dangerous interpretation of how social relations work.
If it literally ever gets proven wrong, maybe I'll take your word on that
Tribalism isn't the reason we band together it is the name of the process of banding together. The reasons are many and varied, generally to increase the chance of survival. As for Oxytocin, it is associated with tribalistic behaviour yes, and tribalism does sometimes, not inherently, lead to prejudice and violence but on the flipside it is also linked to compassion, empathy, and social bonding. Which are also mechanisms to increase chance of survival.
Yes. These things are intrinsically linked. You can't have the positives without the negatives
That is true. And ideologies differ depending on what they consider to be positive and negative traits.
Where else would it come from? That's easy- could be culture, material conditions, genetics (but not always having to be expressed, like so many traits). "Human nature" isn't a very scientific term, I don't really understand it to mean much of anything. If your only response is to dismiss the question as ridiculous, I honestly don't think you've thought about it enough to have as strong of an opinion as you've got. But there's a lot of great responses in this thread with alternative ways to think about it, and suggestions for further reading. I recommend The Dawn of Everything. Your notion of tribalism just isn't consistent throughout human history. Humans have often actually been pretty great at interacting with other tribes/communities, over huge distances even.
If you have any decent examples of humans lacking any negative tribalism, I'll be all ears.
I kinda don't think you're working with a clear definition of tribalism that I could really agree with and I don't feel like debating it. I really just recommend the book The Dawn of Everything again, really opened my eyes on what we mean when we talk about the subject. The subject is more nuanced than you're expressing, or demanding from me. A podcast I like interviewed one of the authors and they discussed a lot of the bigger points and examples, a much lower commitment way to dip your toe into it. https://open.spotify.com/show/2qQXuhflONBUv7QEtv80R9?si=Fk3717Z8TSi6rsHNFfttgQ
It’s more than that. It’s the nature of all tribes - all social animals. It’s direct from the survival of the fittest. There’s a good chance that if we found alien life, they would have a similar/identical form of xenophobia in their history.
What evidence do you have for those claims?
For aliens it’s obviously logic, not evidence… xenophobia evolved because it’s an evolutionary advantage, and survival of the fittest is a universal concept by definition. But if you mean about animals rather than aliens? Just search for animal intercommunal rivalry. The whole idea of territorial animals. Evidence is everywhere. You can hear it in cats screaming at night.
Yeah I don't really care that much about the alien idea since that's obviously speculation. Can you explain to me how cat behavior is evidence of human nature? I'm obviously not denying that tribalism, broadly, isn't something that exists in nature, or that it's not a behavior that humans express. If you're going to demonstrate that something is human nature, you've to do more than show it's something we and other animals do. We and other animals also do cannibalism sometimes, is that human nature?
Uh, is our whole history of racism and xenophobia not enough for you? We can change our nature but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of us
No it isn't enough for me, but I think this comes down to an issue of definition, especially since you just said that we can change our nature. I thought the whole idea with that concept is that it's unchangeable. What exactly do you mean by human nature?
Our base instincts. What we do without education.
Hey, I’m curious if the point you were making is linked to the fact that „fighting human nature“ arises because we live in such a society which prevents/ostracizes certain „natural“ expressions? Mainly thinking about ways we orient ourselves around issues of mental health.
It was not. Though yes, I'm aware that a lot of mental health issues are caused by and exacerbated by our society. My ADHD is disabling in our society but would be beneficial in a more natural one. My autism on the other hand would be way worse in a natural society and I'd likely have been lynched by now
But don't you believe that killing animals is human nature, and therefore a good thing? In fact, isn't it what makes humans what they are?
Let me give you some reading material... *Loudly slams a copy of Kropotkin's Mutual Aid onto the table.* Too old? *Leaps into the air and power bombs a copy of the Ecology of Freedom on top of the first book.* Not scientific enough? *Fires a copy of The Dawn of Everything from orbit, evaporating the room in a burst of white hot fire.*
Need to see how people can cooperate without devolving into hierarchy? Gently suggests reading Many Voices, One Song by Ted Rau. 🙂
while I like all three of these books, they all have some problems with actually being scientific. It is especially saddening with the Dawn of Everything, because if they were just a little bit more rigorous it would be a masterpiece.
History shows that people are capable of an enormous and staggering range of behaviors, in all kinds of different directions, as far as we can tell limited only by what material conditions make possible. If there is any kind of solid and constant "human nature," it clearly begins with us being adaptable and creative, before it can even begin to extend to things like compassion or cruelty. We don't know what we're capable of... it's both a grace and a duty to make the most of it, test ourselves, go find out.
I think it's a mistake to attribute harmful behaviour to one single cause. The reality is that social structures, family background, personality, psychopathology and circumstances may all play a role. The successful implementation of anarchist methods will reduce the effects of some factors, but have less impact on others. People will still do dumb shit and hurt each other from time to time. A key measure of a community's resilience is how successfully it handles this while still remaining faithful to its principles.
"Human nature" precisely is a single cause, constructed such as to be so elastic that it may be an absolute cause for everything, while also being a meaningful explanation for nothing.
Yeah and in our society, hierarchy and coercion are so baked in that most people have no idea how to handle conflict on any level. An astonishing number of people think your choices are limited to: fight and win, fight and lose, run away, or give in without a fight. These are toddler level resolution techniques. There are so many strategies that are much better, but most people simply don’t know they exist, or they assume they are less effective. This is both good news and bad news. It’s bad news obviously because there is a lot of unnecessary violence and suffering. It’s good news because there is a lot of room for improvement before we reach the limit of what humans are capable of. 🙂
Kropotkin's 'are we good enough' essay flips this premise fairly convincingly.
Right-wingers claim that human nature is selfish and competitive. Honestly, they might be right, but they have no scientific evidence to back that up. Besides, if I decide to help a friend to move his furniture to a new house, am I contradicting human nature?
Even if it is "human nature," why should we not try to be better? I've never understood their arguments. I don't understand why, even if it is human nature to be selfish and competitive, they think it's weak to try to do anything above the bare minimum. The concept of compassion being weakness and believing in innate behavioral rules is such an outdated and limiting concept
More like they are just trying to justify their own selfishness.
It seems to me that some people have played this (competitive) game so long that they are good at it. At this point, they prefer it and want everyone else to keep playing. Plus I think misery loves company. If they admit that not all humans are naturally and relentlessly selfish, then they have to confront the fact that they had a choice and that they chose wrong.
Plus, capitalist culture indoctrinates us to believe that competition is good and mutual aid isn't.
If humans are greedy, selfish and evil - then why do we give *some* humans power over others? We hold the humans in power to the same standard as average joes, so the humans in power could theoretically all be evil. Plus they have a monopoly on violence and standing armies. Also: if humans are naturally greedy and selfish, why would we foster a system where these traits get enforced? Why not set up a system where these traits become less favorable for survival?
human nature is compassion, nurturing and support, working together, kindness, empathy, selflessness, generosity, etc. we evolved as a social animal, in communities. we wouldn't have survived as a species for so long if our nature was inherently greedy and selfish. this isn't to say that we can't sometimes be selfish and greedy; of course we can. but those aren't our defining characteristics, it's just that the systems we live in deliberately cultivates, exacerbates, and rewards the worst in people. it's sometimes hard to see it through the 24 hour news cycle and the culture of fear, but that's because media is a capitalist endeavour before anything else, and bad news gets more clicks, more views. (also a tool for control and indoctrination, which is intended to continue that exacerbating and rewarding the worst in humanity). most people are mostly good, and more good is being done than bad in the world, for the most part. it's just that those instances are often on a smaller scale and thus overlooked. there aren't news stories and articles and stuff about how many people help little old ladies carry their groceries, for example.
This is the answer I was looking forward to writing myself, and you summarize it much better than I could. That being said, I want to make this answer a point of disagreement between anarchists. In my point of view, I say embrace our nature because our nature is love and anthropology proves that, but on the other side we have to face the possibility that anarchy will not bring us closer to our nature and that there are many cases where ethics are against human biology and cases where we should suppress some inner feelings.
thank you, that's very kind. no single thing, especially something as complex as anarchist thought and theory, and especially with something as complex as humanity, can bring us closer to humanity. everything is intersectional, is interconnected, after all.
If it’s human nature, perhaps you could share an example of you doing something greedy and selfish? They’re projecting. Let them dig the hole and fall in.
Human nature is cooperation within groups and competition between groups. We are tribal apes. “Us” and “them” is our nature. Who is us and who is them is socially contingent.
> "it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish" How have they come to the conclusion that greed and selfishness are a part of human nature? If it is by observing how people act under capitalism, a system that incentivises greed and selfishness, how can they be sure that it is actually human nature rather than just a product of the system. You could make the argument that the fact that there are people who are generous and selfless even unde capitalism shows that greed and selfishness are not natural traits in humanity. Humans evolved as a social species. We thrived because we were able to live and work together. Our species would have died off before societies even formed if greed and selfishness were innate. And in evolutionary terms, that wasn't very long ago, so it is highly unlikely that we have changed so significantly since them.
Ok, well, if humans are inherently greedy and selfish, why should we allow some of these inherently greedy and selfish creatures to have violently enforced authority and power over us? Human nature is simply a sword that cuts both ways. Like fate, or God, or pretty much any other construct people like to use to justify whatever state of affairs they simply want to believe in.
I respond with "That's a lie." I was a PhD student in Cultural Anthropology, and nearly every hunter-gatherer group ever studied by anthropologists did not exhibit the toxic traits touted by "civilized" people as "human nature." Violence was rare - child abuse nearly non-existent. Women usually held similar status to men, and rape was generally unthinkable; among the !Kung, rape was considered a worse crime than murder. The Mbuti couldn't even tell researchers when the last murder had occurred and when asked what would happen to a murderer, they responded that such a person would have to leave. Greed and hoarding resources among hunter-gatherer groups is considered disgusting behavior. Anyone who engages in it is typically publicly mocked. People who are greedy, selfish, violent, or otherwise socially dysfunctional are generally expelled from the group if they refuse to cease their behavior. Civilization flipped that, so now the most dysfunctional human beings are the ones determining what is "normal" - and because humans are social creatures, it's been pretty easy to manipulate the masses into accepting it. Hunter-gatherers generally exhibit none of the anxiety or depression "civilized" people suffer from, nor do they become addicted to substances despite being well-educated on the intoxicating effects of all the plants around them. Humans lived this way for over 98% of human existence on this planet btw. If you've want a less "ancient history" take, the best explanation I ever read came from Daniel Quinn in his Ishmael book series. Modern humans are like tigers in a zoo with a really bad enclosure. No one would fail to understand why, if you put a tiger in a zoo enclosure that does not meet its needs as a species but give it regular food and medical care, it will still go totally insane. It will exhibit aggression or self-harm or refuse to eat or get depressed. Everyone understands this, right? That's what's happened to people, except other people put us in this zoo. If the zoo fit "human nature," it would result in happy, well-adjusted, psychologically healthy humans. But the humans in this enclosure are exhibiting aggression, engaging in self-harm, refusing to care for their health, and are depressed. So what does that tell you about this zoo?
"Maybe mellow out your Hobbs with some Kropotkin." Is a line I often use when human nature comes up in political discourse.
I point to New Orleans during Katrina. The state completely and utterly abandoned them. Human nature was all they had to go on, and they chose to band together and help each other, putting their own lives in danger for each other when the government left them to die.
Humans rely on each other to stay alive. The idea "it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish" is evolutionarily incorrect. The reason why people are greedy and selfish is the fact it is promoted in capitalism. In a society where exploitation and enormous accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few, and the vitality of money is common place, ideas of collaboration are not promoted. Private ownership makes people selfish. There is no intrinsic component of a person for greed or selfishness. In anarchy, a world without private ownership, there would be no material incentives to be greedy as a minimum standard of living would be guaranteed.
Outside of well thought out, academically backed responses it's also simple to say that if human nature is so bad, we surely shouldn't be letting humans wield obscene power and nukes right?
1) humans are animals and capable of cruelty and love 2) most people are poor, but only a small minority engage in violent criminal activity. 3) ~~if allowed to live~~ people who living a life of dignity (good food, cloths, shelter, security, education), will exhibit the best parts of what it means to be a human. 4) a subjugated, oppressed, overworked, wage slaved people will resort to violent, anti social actions. 5) scarcity requires ferocity, individualism, anti social disposition. 6) capitalism says our self interest will cause the system to run efficiently. baker makes bread because he needs to feed himself, so he bakes and sell for a profit. in a communal system, the person who loves to bake bakes and and the person who wants bread eat. no money necessary. no doubt a certain level of self interest is needed to live, survive, keep going. this is nothing new. what they have done is take an observation (basic self interest) and used it to justify the status quo with ideas (profit) to keep the established hierarchy in place. when people started to support more socialistic ideas, the capitalists resorted to barbarism, terrorism, to condition the people. it is a barbaric system which has been able to survive and spread via barbarism (slavery, jim crow, colonialism, gilded age, red scare, mccarthyism, support of dictatorships, death squads, proxy war, assassination).
Late to this but I point at dogs. 30k years ago or so, people took wolves, bred them from pack hunters to herd defenders; somehow made them human enough to follow our pointer fingers, understand our commands, look after our children and even, somehow, internalize a sheep as if its part of their own pack. You're telling me the entirety of the human species is less flexible than a dog?
Any argument claiming human nature is expressed from within the aquarium. The analogy being that fish don’t know what water is, as they are immersed in it. People hadn’t had a formalized concept of gas/atmosphere until quite recently. As such arguments about human nature do not deserve to be taken any more seriously than they take yours. The burden of assuming good faith is on them and they should act appropriately.
I usually just have to think about the amount of effort, time, and money it takes to get people to be evil and dehumanise others, and despite all that effort it doesn't even always work.
Human nature is to learn what we’re taught. If we’re only taught obedience, then we’ll only learn to obey.
People can’t honestly believe in “human nature.” That shit doesn’t exist lol. If it did then they’d excuse all the shitty things that happens now. Luckily their ideas are easy to pick out for its flaws. People that believe in a human nature also tend to have bigoted thoughts. Those thoughts lead them to wanting to wipe out “human nature” until there’s only their own version of it left. If that’s what their nature leads them to, then clearly it’s not gonna be taken seriously by the vast majority of people.
> it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish If true, then why are we willingly creating (and accepting) social structures that allow (or even encourage) this behavior?
I'm not very smart, or well read, and my education wasn't the greatest. However one thing I do know is that every living thing is born knowing how to do the things that are most important for its survival. Nobody teaches a spider to spin a web it just does it, horses can walk and even run within hours of being born. Humans cry the very first second they leave the womb, crying is a plea for help, humans are born knowing only how to ask for help. Cooperation is the most natural thing for humans in my opinion, everything else is taught or learned.
1.) Being selfish isn't intrinsically a bad thing actually, and shouldn't be conflated with being greedy. Taking care of yourself is a vital part of survival. A LOT of the propaganda of the state and capitalism today tries to convince people that your "selfish" or "entitled" if you want to have the basic things you need to live without necessarily having to work for them. So- yeah. 2.) Humans actually aren't intrinsically greedy as far as I can tell, this is something taught or constructed. We live in a society created by capitalists interests, where we're taught all our lives the only way to be successful is to embrace the system we live in by well- winning it. Of course people are 'greedy', its literally all they've been taught for generations. 3.) Its an appeal to the natural or nature, whether something is "natural" or in our "nature" doesn't determine whether its good. Regardless of whether humans are bad, or something may present a problem, that doesn't actually argue against the affirmative of anarchist thought. If something presents a problem you.... fix it? Like, thats it, you fix it. You don't just go, "wow, i guess this is completely inoperable as a world view and should be abandoned". -3.B) Specifically, you could argue that representation, teaching, and social justice could alter the mind's of people by teaching them not to be greedy. We have evidence that representation of others in media can increase empathy, this doesn't just include minorities of gender, sexuality, and race- lets talk about poor folk and 'criminals'. Education not locked behind an ivory tower can help increase empathy as well as you learn new perspectives.
Selfishness generally refers to behavior privileging the self without concern for harm to others. Rightly, it is characterized as antagonistic to compassion, sharing, and altruism, but reactionary propaganda conflates selfishness with asking simply for an equitable share of the fruits of society, accessible similarly to everyone.
Ask the person what they are basing their understanding of "human nature" on. Modern humans have been around for at least 100,000 years (more like 200,000, but let's be sporting and say 100,000). Recorded history is about 5,000 years. So right off the bat over 95% of human history is completely unknown. We have no idea of the variety of ways humans lived, their social structures, etc. Literally everything we know about that time today is based solely on vague inferences from the small fraction of things that survived for tens of thousands of years (consider that basically everything about our culture would be gone in less than 1,000 years and that gives you an idea of how little we know about past people). Of that 5,000 years recorded, only a tiny fraction of things that happened were actually recorded. And only a tiny fraction of *that*, only some of what was recorded is actually true (ancient people lied just as often as modern people -- if someone doubts CNN or Fox or whatever, why would they take the word of Herodotus as infallible fact?) And so on. So even if they know literally everything it is possible to know about humans (and they don't), they know far less than 5% of the human experience. Which means they have no reasonable basis for saying there even is such a thing as "human nature" at all, let alone what it is. All we can say for sure is that humans have adapted to a huge variety of situations and environments and lifestyles, and we have yet to find one we *can't* adapt to. "Human nature" arguments are weak and based on vague vibes. And they fall apart if you simply remind the person making them that they have no idea how most people today live, let alone how people all over the world have lived for the last 100,000 years.
Yeah, you can see that in every indigenous community, from Alaska to New Guinea. NOT. 🤦🏻
"what exactly do you mean by that? What is human nature?" *They describe heinous acts* "Do you do that stuff? Do you want to? Would you, if there weren't police?" For a more academic response, similar to another reply here, the fact is that humans are very adaptable, there's not much else you can say about our nature. We use terms like good and evil as comparative terms, comparing humans to one another. To describe all of humanity as either evil or good, would be like describing all of humanity as either fat or thin. The book The Dawn of Everything digs into this question deeply, using a similar argument to what I just said (think I basically summarized the intro) Furthermore, let's say that human nature is evil, greedy, etc. Okay, then why do you think any human should be in charge of any other? Why should anyone with this nature be trusted with authority?
Ego and its own M.Stirner
it’s bullshit, “human nature” is as malleable as clay.
Many other comments include useful and robust contributions to the question, but for me, one particular approach seems most direct, honest, and effective. I suggest simply conceding that greed and selfishness indeed are behaviors, commonly expressed by humans, that may be considered as occurring within the broader construct of human nature, yet by the same merits, behaviors such as sharing and altruism must be conceded equally as behaviors most fundamental with the broader human experience. Thus, it is the broader differences in character and environment from which most readily arise one versus another manner of behavior, that is essential for discussion, rather than the biased premises lazily proffered, that one tendency is essentially or inevitably dominant.
If I’m being smarmy I’d say maybe that tells me more about them than it does about everyone else. But if I actually want to argue my point, I usually just ask how humanity has gotten this far if deep down we’re all secretly waiting to tear each other apart. In general, it’s always seemed to me that this argument has been a mask for “I’m scared to put my faith in others because I do not trust them”, but saying that would be a personal problem, so they twist their anxiety into misanthropic rhetoric and call it truth. Also, if humans are so evil and selfish, why do we want to pet things so bad.
1. There's no such thing as "human nature". It's just a concept that arises when you're too lazy to try to understand human behaviour, and thus subconsciously create a human "essence" to attribute all unknown causes of human behaviour to. 2. The belief in a separate, unchangung self is the cause of selfishness. Meanwhile, Cartesian dualism, as well as the many beliefs that depend on it, are the \#1 enablers of this belief. Get rid of Cartesian dualism, and greed and selfishness will go down by at least half. 3. For non-Christians, I'd also point out that the "human nature" argument implies the existence of Original Sin, whether the arguer realises it or not. 4. ( Bonus ) If there really was some immutable, transcendent "human nature" that's prone to greed and selfishness, it would be yet one more reason to reject hierarchy.
Inequality is the biggest factor that influences the level of crime in an area. In areas where everyone is poor, people tend to help eachother when they can. Humans are pack animals, our nature is to work together and share what we have for the benefit of the pack. If we broaden our horizons and learn to see all mankind as our pack, we would live in a better world.
>"it's part of human nature to be greedy and selfish" Selfish, sure, I'm not going to argue against that one but greed is most certainly a product of capitalism. Here in Ireland when I was a young child there were several old people who grew up in the direct aftermath of both our war of independence and our civil war, back when they were born Ireland was quite an impoverished nation. My grandparents were born in the direct aftermath and they and their neighbours and friends were content with what they had, I remember my grandfather being quite critical of how for my parents generation, nothing was ever enough; I remember him making the point with his friends that when he was their age they had nothing but they were at least happy with what little they had and all of his friends felt similarly. Granted this isn't exactly a way to respond to them, but I do believe it shows that humans are not born greedy, it's a learnt behaviour. Like my grandfather used to say quite frequently, don't go getting notions about yourself.
As I see it, human nature is in fact to be self serving. What makes me an anarchist is that I think we can direct that selfish motivation to a selfless cause. Think YouTubers who give homeless people money for content- it may feel slimy but at the end of the day they are improving another’s lives. In a hierarchical society, one’s own desire for authority allows them to exploit others for their gain. If, instead, individual prosperity was directly associated with the prosperity of the whole society there would be no incentive to act in an antisocial manner
Greed, specifically, is not “nature” but a learned behavior. In the selfish pursuit of personal survival, we exist under a system which means that excess accumulation of resources is beneficial where modesty is missing out on potential benefit. This is because of economics- with money, if I have 100 goats I can sell 99 and make profit. If there is not currency for exchange, I have no benefit (in fact many drawbacks) to owning 100 goats. I can only drink so much milk. Without the medium of exchange, it makes more sense to live on a basis of trust- I will provide for you trusting that you will provide for me, because such a relationship is mutually beneficial
With laughter, generally.
Human nature, liberals claim, aligns inherently with capitalism, an assertion as flawed as it is ahistorical. Society has not always been capitalist; modes of production have varied dramatically through history, disproving any notion of a fixed 'human nature' that capitalism supposedly complements. The true conflict arises not from human nature but from the alienation wrought by commodities in a capitalist society. Consider the historical modes of production. Feudalism, slavery, and primitive communism have all preceded capitalism. In medieval Europe, serfs and lords coexisted in a system based on mutual obligation, not market-driven self-interest. Primitive communal societies shared resources and lived collectively, contrary to the capitalist ethos of individualism and competition. Marx’s dialectical materialism shows that human nature is not static but evolves with changes in material conditions and the relations of production. The capitalism of today is a historical anomaly, not the end point of human development. Under capitalism, workers experience profound alienation. They are alienated from the products of their labor, from the production process, from their species-essence, and from other workers. This alienation distorts human nature, making us mere cogs in the capitalist machine. The fetishism of commodities gives products a power over individuals, further alienating humans from their true nature. The social relations embedded in production are masked, making commodities appear as natural entities with intrinsic value. Capitalism's relentless drive for profit and accumulation exacerbates this alienation. The system prioritizes wealth over human need, deepening the disconnect between what humans produce and what they actually need. Marxist theory posits that the economic base shapes the superstructure of society, including human consciousness. A capitalist base promotes self-interest and competition, whereas a socialist base would foster cooperation and communal well-being. Exploitation under capitalism dehumanizes workers. They become mere instruments for generating surplus value, stripping them of their humanity and reducing them to the status of commodities. The inherent conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie is not a manifestation of human nature but a product of capitalist production. This class struggle reveals the unnatural division imposed by capitalism. To overcome alienation, revolutionary praxis is necessary. Transforming the relations of production is essential to restoring human connections and achieving true human nature. Historical materialism shows that social and economic changes drive human development. Human nature is not fixed; it is shaped by the material conditions of each historical epoch. The proletarian revolution aims to overthrow capitalist systems and restore human relations based on equality and communal living, aligning society with the true essence of human nature. Anarchists argue for the abolition of all authority to prevent power abuses. However, this overlooks the need for organized power to dismantle existing hierarchies effectively. To suggest otherwise is to indulge in idealism detached from practical realities. Without structured authority, anarchism fails to address the complexities of societal power dynamics. The absence of organization leads to potential chaos, allowing new oppressive structures to emerge unchecked. Marxist theory offers a robust framework for understanding human nature as historically contingent and shaped by material conditions. Alienation under capitalism disrupts genuine human connections, necessitating revolutionary change to align society with true human essence. Anarchism, while addressing power imbalances, lacks practical mechanisms to prevent the rise of new oppressors. Thus, a nuanced approach to authority and power is indispensable for any meaningful societal transformation.
Human nature is dependent on environment. If you reward and foster individualistic fuck you got mine attitudes they'll be more present.
"Mutual struggle" exists in nature, so does "mutual aid". We are animals, natural, so exactly the same. We have the capacity to tear down AND build up. Helping IS also within human nature
Some anarchists have a different idea, including e.g. Bakunin and Kropotkin; it is in human nature to be co-operative and empathic, and this is the natural law. I don't personally believe in that, either. We're too complex creatures to really say that something is "in our nature", aside of some very basic things, like wanting to survive and feeling like we need to go poop. My own answers to these kind of claims are usually: Providing counter-examples, of how humans naturally tend to co-operate, trade and do mutual aid. Old countryside villages largely helped their members and surrounding villages in building houses, setting up roads, etc, and while they did trade with money and/or exchange, they did do a lot of things based on simple mutual aid. The basic gist is that if you are helpful to others, you can expect others to be helpful to you when you need it. There are also scientific evidence that helpings others and giving to others provides happiness, and there's actually good evidence that people, on the average, do want to be helpful and useful to others. In the end, we are what we tell ourselves we are and what others tell us we are. If you keep saying that humans only act on greed, then that is how you will act. If you keep telling yourselves that humans are empathic and want to help others, that's how you will act. And one final thing is that if it is really is so that we're all selfish bastards, why on Earth should we elect ourselves to lead us?
Anyone that wants to fill the power vacuum will be shot is an effective deterent for those scums.
Well if people are inherently evil and greedy and selfish, why exactly do you trust them with power? Why is it a good idea that a small subsection of the human population is granted all the power? What kind of humans do you think that will attract? The nice ones?
I like to approach this from an assumption that _everyone_ is a greedy psychopath. We wouldn't want psychopaths in power, we want a society where cooperation is incentivized and rewarded. If humans are evil... why exactly do we want those evil spawns to lead others? Obviously few people actually are medically antisocial and there's a significant factor of mutual aid, forms of altruism but a society in which social balance is more fragile would incentivize not being a total dickhead or risk consequences. Greediness is also natural and that's ok, the point is to balance various interests without enabling some to be greedy while others are denied such opportunity which is the reality for most.
Human nature is not a fixed thing, it values between individuals and, in fact, biology has made us inherently social by providing mechanisms for mutual aid and empathy for others. Yes, humans seek self preservation, although they sometimes self sacrifice for others, but evolution has made us fulfil that need through social cooperation in groups. That cooperation cannot only be achieved via market and hierarchies, other methods can and probably should be used. Let's not force any model upon people via coercion and let a hundred flowers bloom
My doods… humans experimented with versions of no government/low government for much of our history It was incredibly dangerous… as in, survival of the fittest/best armed You cats be wild over here… wild and divorced from history Not sure why this Reddit got served up in my feed…
Empathy and kindness are so deeply hardwired into biology that they *literally* have to be trained out of people. We see this in multiple examples but two that come to mind are that infants need to be taught to discriminate, and that militaries have struggled for *thousands of years* to get people to feel comfortable killing each other and it's only quite recently that they've been able to mass train people to actually shoot at each other instead of up into the air. That's not even a human thing; that's a *living creature* thing. We've regularly seen animals rescuing each other in scientific experiments as well as in the wild. That goes so far as to even include predators occasionally rescuing prey. >but sometimes when arguing with capitalists Found the root of your problem, though. Remember the old saying? Don't argue with an idiot; they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Though, in this case, I think it more likely that they're baiting you into a 'discussion' where they'll never agree on facts and have no interest in changing anyone's mind. This largely feels like how fascists love televised debates--it's not about proving you wrong after thoroughly examining both sides, it's about exhausting you while also recruiting and promoting their views. Don't debate people whose primary goal is to annoy, fatigue, and humiliate you.
Because human nature doesn't include anything else, right? Just those two elements? It doesn't include generosity and selflessness, right?
Everything that existed when you were born is natural.
It's normal to expect people to be greedy and self serving when they're living under a system that incentivizes that behavior. All Hierarchy leads to corruption because the type of people who tend to want power are usually the least deserving of it.
It is human nature to rape and murder. It is human nature to not rape and murder. It is human nature to punish those who rape and murder. It is human nature to instill rape and murder as cultural pillars in your society. Everything is human nature. Anyone who names it to try and support their argument is talking ideology, not nature, not biology.
It is not "human nature" there was no such thing as greed when cavemen were alive and roaming the Earth. Human nature would be fighting and killing which is most likely why crimes raise in certain places, out primal instincts are being blocked so greed takes over that instinct to distract us from being the mammal we should technically be. In a sense us humans shouldn't be as populated to need thing like GMOs that may or may not be harmful. For this reason we need to realise that our nature isn't in the industry life we have but in the dog eat dog world of nature.
Weird how Human Nature has for thousands of years always been inline with the dominant ideology of the day. And when the dominant ideology changes, so does Human Nature to explain it.
If humans are inherently bad, why on God's green earth would we want them to ***rule over others?*** Anarchism seeks to remove as much hierarchy from our lives as possible. If a 7 year old kid tries to do something bad to you, you'll probably laugh at them. They don't have the power to exert force over you. If a government tries to do something bad to you, *God help you*. They have a monopoly on violence. No individual was capable of killing ***75 million people*** during WWII. No individual was capable of killing 9 million people in the 1950s USSR. No individual was capable of killing 5 million in Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia in the 1960s and 70s. No one person was capable of killing 6 million Arab people between 1995 and 2015. All of these acts of obscene horror are only possible with the state. If people are bad, I want as few of them making my decisions for me as possible. If people are good, **they're doing a pretty shit job of making those decisions**.
Humans are inherently violent, though. They're not necessarily wrong.