Human nature
Pages
| Author | Topic: Human nature |
|---|---|
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 19:59
Profile
Homepage
quote:This came up in The If You Had a Billion Dollars Thread, and I agree with Jeros that it seems interesting, and deserves a good discussion. To start, I think the sins can be suppressed, though it takes a fairly constant watch by the individual. Nobody else can help a person control themselves (unless you use brain electrodes or something). Also, it's more likely that people will suppress such unpleasant habits as pride and greed if they feel safe (think Maslow's hierarchy of needs, if it helps). If a person feels insecure, they're just more likely to lash out by falling back on age-old instincts (greed as a survival measure, for example). Thus, we actually can (indirectly) help control each other by simply being civil to each other, trying to make everyone feel secure and able to survive. Thoughts? -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 20:39
Profile
Homepage
Sins- what, are we suppressing greed for solidarity with the poor? Your entire line of reasoning is based on psychology, particularly a brand thereof which does the bourgeosie's job of placing the onus on the individual. Furthermore, in an unrelated matter, you seem to think that greed is a "base" instinct- next thing you know, you might argue for capitalism as the most organic system. Now I'm pretty slow, but it seems sorta obvious who would impregnate you with those ideas. Or to put it on a much simpler level- how does "greed as a survival instinct" have any bearing whatsoever when you're dealing with a hypothetical sum of money so large that you could fill a swimming pool with its respective hundred dollar notes? As a policy, I refuse to say anything about human nature; doing so is inherently repugnant. Any dialogues about human nature will intrinsically limit it into compliance with the ideological traps of the dialogues' bearers. -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Fire! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Member # 919
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 21:10
Profile
quote:Thus, we should discuss nothing but the availability of fresh produce and the newest BoA scenario, and even then, personal opinion must be avoided at all cost. Or we could pull our heads out of our self-indulgent rears and realize that virtually anything could be substituted for "human nature" in your last sentence without affecting its verity. If that's enough to prevent you from adding your input, why hasn't it worked in the past? That said, I have nothing to add to the topic at the moment, although I do generally agree that a feeling of security can help to combat greed. It can also do the opposite, though - what if a man's security opens his eyes to the oppurtunities to manifest his greed, and gives him the confident to pursue these oppurtunities? I suppose the effect depends on the individual. [ Tuesday, July 12, 2005 21:18: Message edited by: Lady Davida ] -------------------- And though the musicians would die, the music would live on in the imaginations of all who heard it. -The Last Pendragon Polaris = joy. In case of emergency, break glass. Posts: 3351 | Registered: Saturday, April 6 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 5368
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 21:24
Profile
I wouldn't wan't to get rid of or bury my vices. They are too big a part of me. Getting rid of them would be akin to mental suicide. Somebody might be walking around afterwards but it certainly wouldn't be me. Use them. They can be powerful driving forces in one's mind. If you can twist them to a particular end, you can do great things. Greed is good and pride is even better... at least if funneled. They all have their uses. [ Tuesday, July 12, 2005 21:27: Message edited by: Hectonkhyres ] Posts: 43 | Registered: Friday, January 7 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5986
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 21:31
Profile
A sin / Pleasure seeking can never be entirely suppressed, and even then "morals" are defined by outside influences. Without a society attempting to cooperate with one another, human being would simply attempt to find ways to eliminate reproductive competitors and live a life most conducive to breeding. In short, the only way to even begin suppressing a "harmful or selfish desire" i.e. sin, is to have some sort of internal morality based on what one has learned in life, be it the concept of honor or even religion. Hence, sins bring us farther from "humanity" and more toward "beast" stature. Thus, sins can be suppressed to some extent, but you must learn how and why to suppress them. P.S. I apologize for anything that might sound like rambling. I'm rather tired, and although this might make sense to me now, I have no idea whether it's truly clear or not. Engaging in philosophical thought is rather fun to do at any time of the day, even at 2:30 in the morning. Oh, and to TM – Greed is a base survival instinct for humans because getting more of something helpful tends to aid our chances of finding a mate. Monetary greed might not be a base instinct, but greed for power is, and in this capitalist day and age, more money translates into more power. Why is the desire for more power a basic aspect of human survival? A human is more likely to find a mate if he or she is powerful. Whether or not this mate has a matching personality is irrelevant. Greed is also precisely why Marxism will never work in a large society. The average human slob will only care about his or her own self (i.e. greed). They don't want to be on the same level as everyone else...then there would be nothing to separate themselves from the masses and no ways for potential mates to pick their genes over the others! :P Cuba, Russia, and Maoist China all employed a form of Marxism that got corrupted by greedy people, besides. I hope I didn't just open a worm can... oh well. P.P.S: Obviously, I am biased towards the theory of natural selection. [ Tuesday, July 12, 2005 21:49: Message edited by: Slp006 ] -------------------- Wu wei... it's the only way Posts: 154 | Registered: Monday, June 20 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, July 12 2005 22:25
Profile
Homepage
Natural selection's not a theory; it's mathematics. Given that hereditary variation exists within a population and some variations lead to more successful reproduction, variants favouring sustained reproduction will have an advantage in the long term. Society can't fight selection; it can only change the nature of the selective pressures. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
This Side Towards Enemy
Member # 3098
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 03:05
Profile
Sin, on the other hand, is something rather less than a theory. It's an abstract idea and even for those people who do believe in it, there are an infinite number of ideas as to whhat it is or is not. Myself, I would deny the very concept. Greed, excessive pride and their ilk are still wrong in my worldview, but they're wrong because humanity says so. -------------------- Voice of Reasonable Morality Posts: 961 | Registered: Thursday, June 12 2003 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 03:10
Profile
Hmm...I wasn't expecting one of my comments to spark a topic discussion, but oh well. Now I thought "natural selection" was biological and not controlled by outside influences. Animals for instance, adapt to nature over a LONG period of time to changes of their surroundings. I could be wrong, but that's what I remember in my sociology class. We are all "social beings", even though we could be anti-social towards each other. It is the mere fact that we work together with other people and "communicate" that we are "social beings". The distribuion of resources, usually controlled by the influence of "politics", since politics is literally who gets what in a society; whether it's right or wrong, who knows, is really unevenly balanced. Hence, our 3 major social classes of lower, middle and upper. Do people of a lower social hierarchy really want to be in that upper class? Of course they do, but the upper class has to control to the lower hierarchies, so they do not lose their control of influence of power. Thus, greed is born. We all want more out of life, unless you're one of those people that want to fulfill enlightenment rather than materialistic goods. Anyways, that's just the basic point I wanted to hit on, to analyze how the basic forms of greed are created, social hierarchy differences. -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 04:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:Not meaning to turn this topic into a biology lecture, but that depends on what you mean by "controlled" and "outside influences". Obviously the environment does determine what organisms are going to be selected to survive through future generations, even though it doesn't directly control the kinds of variation that arise in a population. To argue that natural selection isn't going to have a significant effect on the human condition requires the fairly pessimistic view that the human species won't survive long enough for further evolutionary effects to be observable. It's clear that some variations, such as adult lactose tolerance, have probably arisen since the development of agriculture a matter of a few millennia ago -- that's a short timescale geologically, even if it's a long time historically. So I don't discount the possibility that natural selection is going to lead to noteworthy changes in human biology and personality -- and with our living conditions changing faster than at any other time in human history, I wouldn't be surprised if we see the beginnings of changes within hundreds of years rather than thousands. Whether those changes make people happier is another matter entirely, of course. quote:I'd argue that these days, social status is best represented as a continuum rather than as a number of discrete groups. Moreover, it's not defined purely in terms of income. Let's be realistic here: the vast majority of people in developed nations, when they go to work, are not really engaged in a daily struggle for physical survival. quote:Now you're confusing social status with power; the two are related but not identical. Having power gives you social status, but being wealthier than someone doesn't necessarily give you direct power over them. It's just that being in the top 100 richest people alive impresses more people than being in the top 500 would. I suspect that's a big part of what the acquisition of wealth is about for the fabulously rich; the desire to beat the other guys who are trying to do the same thing. When the rich do take actions which harm the common people, they're motivated more by the desire to be just a little richer than other rich people than by any direct benefit they gain by harming those who are less well-off. quote:That's wanting more too; it's just wanting more of different things. quote:This is broadly correct, but as I say above I suspect that the major motivation for acquisitiveness in most people is to have more than those close to one's own social status, not to live a life of leisured aristocracy. We don't want to be richer than Bill Gates; we just want to be richer than that guy down the block who just bought a new sports car. Still, analyse all you like. Just don't expect it to make too much difference. The breathless voice of Should drowns in the roaring torrent of Is and Will. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 04:09
Profile
The sad fact about all of this is that the so-called theory of "sins" is probably what keeps humans motivated to do other things better or worse. I think it's just a fact of life. I do agree with all of your points Thuryl; I'm just wondering if you think humanity would change for the better or worse for itself in the long run. [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 04:12: Message edited by: Jeros ] -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 04:24
Profile
Homepage
We'll survive better, there's no doubt about that. Diseases of affluence such as obesity and atherosclerosis will eventually work themselves out if we're around for long enough, whether by medical technology, natural selection, or a bit of both. Will we be happier? Probably, but if so, maybe not by as much as we might hope. Too much happiness can be dangerous. [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 04:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 3364
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 06:54
Profile
Homepage
Sin is proud, independent rebellion against God in either an active or passive way. If there is no God, there is no sin, only law and instinct. The question assumes that God exsists. If God exsists, I believe that holy living can be achieved through sanctification of the Spirit if earnestly sought. That is, an individual cannot suppress their own sin but can petition God to suppress their desire to sin for them. Few who are famous have been granted this state. Mother Teresa was one, I believe Billy Grahm to be another. If God does not exsist, then there is no 'original sin' only instinct, which surely can be bypassed by higher thought and reasoning. It is only a matter of character and ingetrity. Integrity is doing what is 'right/good' when no one is looking. You are what you do in secret. -------------------- "Even the worst Terror from Hell can be transformed to a testimony from Heaven!" - Rev. David Wood 6\23\05 "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as you ever can." - John Wesley Posts: 1001 | Registered: Tuesday, August 19 2003 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 08:21
Profile
Homepage
quote:Ouch... should've known TM would slam me. (voice fills with seething anger) Welcome back TM... But anyway, back to the topic at hand... quote:Still, with what Thuryl has said, it sounds a bit more like we're talking about natural selection that isn't quite working... maybe "unnatural selection", because as he truthfully said, it's a very small part of humanity that struggles daily for life. Thus, the impulses we have now, which probably served a greater purpose back when survival was more of an issue (whatever the reason), are simply directed towards ends which have no true importance. And that is how cosmetic surgery was born. And Jeros, I agree that many people are completely happy with their place in the social hierarchy, but then how do we explain people who do try working tirelessly to get rich? Do we dismiss them as social anomalies? I honestly don't know how to answer the above question, as I'm pretty happy where I am in life. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 08:28
Profile
The end of natural selection is, whether consciously or not, being the most desirable for a mate. Cosmetic surgury certainly doesn't change that. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 08:31
Profile
Good question. Alas, I believe that no one can answer the question of people's "roles" that they are either forced into or "groomed" for. If you believe in words like "luck", "fate", and "destiny", there could be some kind of vague explaination, but I personally cannot come up with one. My only guess is that even though there are people that work their lives off to attain "prestidge" or any kind of position or role they want, they're not social abnormalities, rather that they're "unlucky" per se, to become successful. Maybe it's their destiny to fail, although that sounds wrong on many levels. It's just a matter of who gets the opportunities in life at the right moment and the connections that people have within their social networks. For example, people with larger friend networks that offer higher occupational statuses tend to get "off slightly easier" in terms of job requirements or specifications. If you're a virtural nobody, that position is harder to obtain, so more work is required to reach it. This probably is a poor example, but it's the best I can think of right now. Again, there is no definite answer. It's pretty much a wide-open opinion. -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 08:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:Actually, it does. Cosmetic surgery is meant to make people more attractive, thus more likely to find a mate (the detached biological perspective can be downright creepy sometimes). However, the body improvements from surgery are acquired traits, and cannot be inherited. So, it's cheating Darwin, because it leads people to choose the "surgically enhanced" folk over others, without offering any actual biological benefits. Unlucky to become successful... that's a good way of putting it, Jeros. Still, I think saying it's some people's destiny to fail is a bit harsh... more that they thought they could improve their lives and followed through on it, like many people would. It's just that they took it farther than most, and just made a mistake somewhere. Thus, those who fail should blame luck, not destiny (assuming they didn't just do something unbearably stupid to bring about their failure). -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 6102
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 08:55
Profile
Hmm...if that's the case, then technically, there is no such thing as the perfect human being. Humans learn from their mistakes. Depending on the severity of the mistake that impacted that person's life is what the person typically ends up upon, unless they make a comeback story and become successful. Of course, if all else fails, blame it on bad luck. I personally am not sad or frustrated with life, rather that I just appreciate the things I have and move on. Examples of people who "were" successful, but kinda fell rock bottom: (All of these people can be argued upon) 1. Mike Tyson 2. Michael Jackson 3. O.J. Simpson 4. Those CEOs from Enron and Worldcom, and the other main people involved in corporate scandaling. I know there's a whole lot more, but these would be the more common ones that a lot of people would point out, I think. -------------------- "Truly, if there is evil in this world, it lies in the heart of mankind." -Edward D. Morrison Posts: 220 | Registered: Monday, July 11 2005 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 09:13
Profile
Adaptability and compensation do fit into natural selection though - after all, a person has to be able to acquire the means and knowledge to afford cosmetic surgery, and thus improve their desirability. The ultimate result is getting to the bed - it doesn't matter what the kids look like. :) Access to cosmetic surgery is just another way humans have adapted to their environment (i.e. the options available to them in the world) in order to thrive. Note that selection doesn't have to make sense necessarily. Consider all the foot fetishists out there. In what way does their basis for finding women attractive help advance the gene pool? [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 09:25: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 10:45
Profile
Homepage
Exactly... it's natural selection with none of the benefits. Thus, even if there is theoretically a perfect human being (see below), then we'll never get there. I know that saying it's all about natural selection is a bit shallow (and I know that it isn't all about that), but it still seems ethically questionable that people choose to circumvent it via cosmetic surgery. Naturally, it's perfectly fair for burn victims and people with similar circumstances (after all, that's just trying to return to normal). And the idea of a perfect human being is so incredibly improbable that it's not really worth consideration (but consider it I will). If one ever showed up somehow, their genes would get mixed in to the gene pool and never be seen again. On a side note, imagine how boring the perfect human would be... not exactly someone I'd want to hang out with anyway. They'd basically be inhuman, because our imperfections/quirks/oddities are what makes us human. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 10:55
Profile
With regard to natural selection, I don't think the terms "fair," "right," "wrong," or "perfect" necessarily even apply. The first three don't apply because values don't exist in nature - they are completely fabricated by people. It's not fair, right, or wrong when a fox kills a rabbit, it just is what it is. The last doesn't apply because "perfect" is a completely relative notion when it comes to evolution. [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 10:57: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 878
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 10:59
Profile
quote:No, it also depends on ability to survive long enough to mate, ability and inclination to allow your children to in turn survive and mate, and desire to select a suitable mate who will do so as well for the children. That said many concepts such as sin, morality, fairness, justice, etc. come from evolved social inclinations that allow societies to better survive and expand, which the intelligent nature of humans required us to rationalize these inherited social behaviors into explainable (if not always entirely logical) reasons. -------------------- Warning: Posts may contain misspellinks and typo.s Posts: 409 | Registered: Sunday, March 31 2002 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 11:00
Profile
Define perfect. If you find yourself being satisfied with your day, then you are decently adapted to your environment. I am not adapted to large city living, so I live where I do. Others would freak out, and are better adapted to cities. This is not strictly a learned thing, as "quirks" like agoraphobia and claustraphobia can occur from birth. Human nature is something that can not be discovered by humans. We need to find a third party that is capable of translatable speech to study us and explain our nature. That already is the hope and dream of millions of ET believers, and billions of afterlife believers. So maybe the essence of human nature is the need/desire to have all this explained. *this message sponsored by philosophy talk - another reason to listen to public radio* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 11:23
Profile
Homepage
Wow- what a blast of nostalgia! Just when I thought ben was the only reactionary phallus-horper, along comes the gimp boy of inane debates past... I'll try to keep myself terse. "Or we could pull our heads out of our self-indulgent rears and realize that virtually anything could be substituted for 'human nature' in your last sentence without affecting its verity." Congratulations- you've stuffed whole sentences down my mouth without having any idea what I said whatsoever. When I say that I refuse to comment on "human nature", that doesn't mean I'm chickening out of an argument. (Hell, if you've been here for more than a day, you should know that I flat-out never do that. Only times I've ever left a discussion I was in the middle of is when I was banned.) I mean that arguing about human nature is the perfect way to immortalize the dialogues of the bourgeoisie. For context, the classic conservative "response" to communism is that it isn't in human nature- merely saying that somehow dispels the need for any sort of deeper dialogue. Hell, those same dialogues can be used against everything from mass transit to sharing, with the only purpose of it being to make people more self-destructively self-centered. "If that's enough to prevent you from adding your input, why hasn't it worked in the past? ... That said, I have nothing to add to the topic at the moment," Damned hypocrite. "I wouldn't wan't to get rid of or bury my vices. They are too big a part of me. Getting rid of them would be akin to mental suicide. Somebody might be walking around afterwards but it certainly wouldn't be me." Wonderful- so now, there is no sense of self beyond what Whitey tells you to do? I've seen army ants with less of an authority-dependant attitude. "Use them. They can be powerful driving forces in one's mind. If you can twist them to a particular end, you can do great things. Greed is good and pride is even better... at least if funneled. They all have their uses." Absolutely. If you get rich enough, you can get poor mexicans to water your plants without having to use the whip. Great deeds indeed. "Pleasure seeking can never be entirely suppressed, and even then 'morals' are defined by outside influences. Without a society attempting to cooperate with one another, human being would simply attempt to find ways to eliminate reproductive competitors and live a life most conducive to breeding." Thanks for your invaluable contributions to the topic, Mr. Foucault. Unfortunately, I don't really like being limited to my genetalia, no matter how much the Catholic Church will tell us that it's the only alternative to not being mortally ashamed of our nocturnal emissions. Or think about it this way- sexism is one of capitalism's best-running methods of extracting labor. It's also the oldest, since God™ knows how badly we need to hump out new kids to run the farm, eh? No bad seasons plaguing them Mormons, you know. Not saying that sex is inherently sexist- but if you can think of a context where the essence of the plugging goes beyond a ritual to secure property rights, then let me know. Of course, some liberal types will always insist that their relationship is perfectly hunki-dori, whilst accepting those Jungian dialogues about male fermanence and ignoring those irritating figures of lower female salaries. "Greed is also precisely why Marxism will never work in a large society. The average human slob will only care about his or her own self (i.e. greed)." Hah! See? I told you so! I really did! (See the beginning of the post.) "P.P.S: Obviously, I am biased towards the theory of natural selection." How much melanin do you have? "We are all "social beings", even though we could be anti-social towards each other." Point of clarification: Being antisocial is not the same as being avoidant. Antisocial means that one rejects social guidelines, whereas avoidant means that one is not sociable. I'm not sure if this changes your meaning, but it's an oft-made terminology error. "Do people of a lower social hierarchy really want to be in that upper class? Of course they do, but the upper class has to control to the lower hierarchies, so they do not lose their control of influence of power. Thus, greed is born." I agree completely. Let me put this at a different angle: Greed is the moral of the upper-class that places the onus for advancement on the lower-class. The Man tells darkey, boobs and trailer whitey that they can reach the pinnacle of his glory if they partake in the sacraments of the capitalist church, which causes guilt and shame for not advancing themselves (and their ten kids- see above). Thus they won't spite the higher-ups by producing less, since ultimately it's their own faults anyway. "Whether those changes make people happier is another matter entirely, of course." Bigger boobs, bigger boobs, bigger boobs... [/praying] "Now you're confusing social status with power; the two are related but not identical. Having power gives you social status, but being wealthier than someone doesn't necessarily give you direct power over them." lol (If the rich don't have "direct power" over the poor, then explain to me just how the hell they pull some of the crap they do.) "Integrity is doing what is 'right/good' when no one is looking. You are what you do in secret." I knew it! That MLK Jr. arsehole really did have it coming. Take that, affirmative action! "If God does not exsist, then there is no 'original sin' only instinct, which surely can be bypassed by higher thought and reasoning. It is only a matter of character and ingetrity." But wait... Doesn't that make god's role in a sociopolitical sense a bit superfluous? ... The rest of the topic seems to be natural selection, and since I've precognized the arguments, I'll end here. -------------------- 私のバラドですそしてころしたいいらればころす Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 11:45
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then there is the circumstances. According to an article I read some while ago, the largest factor explaining how good grades kids get at school in Finland (it was about high school level kids) was mother's education level according to a study. Last year the same study got same results. "Greed is also precisely why Marxism will never work in a large society. The average human slob will only care about his or her own self (i.e. greed)." Hmm... The same argument could be used against capitalism, as a reason why we must take create some kind of a mechanism in order to prevent powerful greedy people (i.e. the capitalists) from taking too much surplus value (if that was the right translation) from poor people's wages. [ Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:48: Message edited by: Milu ] Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, July 13 2005 11:52
Profile
Homepage
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |