/lit/ - Literature

>>6967218

This is an old debate. I'd argue that greed, in combination with opportunity and wealth are instinctively human. I state these conditions because a lot of social scientists point out that for the most part of human history, hunter-gatherer societies were based on cooperation and not greed. This is true, but I'd argue it's because there wasn't any wealth-production/opportunity to be greedy as resources and material goods were limited and status symbols were obsolete in an equal society.

>>6967218
Women like fancy things, and will compete endlessly to be fancier than other women. Men are greedy because they're insecure in the loyalty of their women.

would you rather £one billion or save a human life?

>>6967218
If you use the phrase human nature on /lit/ a bunch of neckbeards will pop up and bitch about it.

is every topic on lit so jewish-centered? geez

>>6967254

this sums it up pretty well

>>6967257
and what about gays?

>>6967218
There's no such thing as "Human nature", there are only behaviors that are thought to be typical of people but are actually only typical within certain societies. Greed as such only exists in societies where there is an uneven distribution of necessities. That behavior is typical of class societies but class societies have only existed for a few thousand years, while the vast majority of human history has been without notions of commodity, currency, private property, and non-egalitarian community based relations. "Human nature" as a term is just a thought-terminating cliche- it offers an easy abandonment of ethical considerations for "just-so" justifications.
This question comes up all the time. Lurk more, honestly.

>>6967259
the money. there are too many people on earth now anyway. the money at least can be used for a good cause

>>6967218
>/lit/ - literature

no, humans originally never experienced scarcity because they lived in an idyllic garden where they plucked hot pockets from the hot pocket bushes and no threats to their lives ever loomed

There is no "nature".

Besides, we are taught to be greedy. Capitalism does not accept for you to just grow to a certain point and stay. Staying still is just waiting for a bigger fish to eat you. We are taught greed in school, on television, on the way we consume and the way we produce.

>>6967254

No, actually. The first developments from hunter-gatherer societies to villages were caused by people that took capital from others and redistributed them for innovations. Without greed we would still be living in hunter-gatherer societies. Greed, although unfair, is progress.

>>6967300

You act as though half these threads don't discuss philosophy and throwaway personal topics?

I see no theatre or linguistic discussion on this board, but I don't complain.

>human nature

Every time.

>>6967218
Greed, is something that is practiced by any species that looks out for its own survival.

>>6967327
>The first developments from hunter-gatherer societies to villages were caused by people that took capital from others and redistributed them for innovations.

Actually, you're talking out of your ass. This is my area of expertise, and I can tell you there are numeruous hypotheses about what caused the sedentary transition, and none of them include capitalistic innovation. The general consensus postulates that a more moderate climate stimulated the growth of certain plants, which reduced the need to be ambulant as a community. These semi-sedentary societies gradually became permanent.

No such thing as human nature. The only things that are consistent is the biological necessities needed to sustain life. You can condition people to whatever you want them to be.

>>6967268
>gays
Who knows, they're pretty anomalous and a tiny minority of the population of you just count those who adopt it as an identity and sole orientation. Followimg the lead of straight women, who many gays envy for their influence over straight men, would be a decent hypothesis.

>>6967327
>The first developments from hunter-gatherer societies to villages were caused by people that took capital from others and redistributed them for innovations.

This is probably the stupidest shit I've ever read my entire life.

>>6967406
Marxist Leftist Post-Structuralist detected.

We could reduce everything to self-interest if we wanted. In a certain sense, my concern for others is "greedy" because I'm only concerned for them because of what they can do for me (e.g., they bring me joy.)

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing or necessarily leads to a "hunt for wealth". Greed can take us to the opposite end. Our concern for our own happiness can lead us to eschew material wealth, if the process of accumulating it makes us unhappy or otherwise limits our personal autonomy.

>>6967454
The trust is independent of politics and ideology my friend.

>>6967218
>>6967397
when your parents get old, if they have no money, will you let them root in a street in order to save those dollars for yourself?

>>6967479
The world isn't either black or white. But having a grey world, doesn't exclude greed from being part of humanity.

>>6967477
>implying you're not just an idiot completely enamored by ideology even though you think you're not

>>6967487
>greed from being part of humanity.

So everyone is greed? There is no non-greedy people?

>>6967479
Yes.

>human nature

>>6967498
No, every creature acts in their own self interest.

>>6967498

You better read what I actually said, or don't have some basic reading comprehension?

>>6967327
Jesus please be an intentional, ironic shitpost

>>6967514
if you say that trait A is part of Human nature, every human has that trait.

Like having a long neck is part of giraffe nature.

>>6967509
acts in their own self interest =/= greed

>>6967218
I think humans are greedy. But I don't believe that "hunting for wealth" is a side-effect of that. At least not totally. Neither do I believe capitalism nurtures greed.

The vast snowballing of capital is not the result of some innate negative traits. It is the result of a prevailing ideology that venerates productivity and progress, and that is far from natural.

>>6967218
Greed is an excess like the other vices. Food isn't bad but gluttony is, there is nothing inherently wrong with sex but it can be perverted by lust, self-esteem is good for you but pride comes before the fall. It's a form of ignorance, the obese stop appreciating food and become a slave to it. Trading the pleasure they derived from food in exchange for a burden in a form of idolatry.

>>6967254

> hunter-gatherer societies were based on cooperation and not greed.

but anon, most people would think that is greedy to kill people over 28 years old, and to abort infants or kill children once they are born

those things were done by hunter-gatherer societies and we don't know if they were done by greed or by rational choice

>>6967218
Sure, territoriality is a trait in many animals, humans included.

>>6967259
I could save a lot of lives with a billion dollars anon

>all the people ITT denying that human nature exists

Is there any more delusional group of people on Earth than Marxists?

>>6967533
Are you saying that they do not overlap?

Not precisely, but I think egotism and narcissism can be, which lead people to think they have some kind of a right to more than what they already have.

>>6967586
sometimes greed is rational choice.

Why do Marxists get so furious over the term "human nature"?

>>6969162
Because it proves them wrong.

>>6969162
Marxism studies production, and production is how something come to be separate from nature.

>>6969162
Because it's a normative, unfalsifiable "checkmate" argument.

It's normative because it appeals to the postulated state of nature as inherently good or simply unchangeable. It is unfalsifiable because greed is only one out of numerous human behaviours, and because liberal individualism is a unoque product of Western cultural and philosophic tradition.