Everything you know about human nature is wrong.

#1 Posted by Oliver Danni on April 14th, 2009 3:54 pm | link

Oh, Pace!! I realized at 1:12 when you go “What if that’s not…the truth??” that there was no way you were going to fully answer that question in 48 seconds and it was going to be like when you have all that build-up to what’s about to be a really great orgasm and then…then…then…THEN THE DOORBELL RINGS and it’s your grandma.

Where is my orgasm, Pace??! When do I get to know the truth?? D:

<3

#2 Posted by Pace on April 14th, 2009 4:15 pm | link

It’s kind of a long answer.

You could read these three books.

Or you could wait until next week. (:

#3 Posted by Elly on April 14th, 2009 6:11 pm | link

What makes you say something changed 10,000 years ago? What even makes human nature so vile? Looking at the animal kingdom, torture, sexism, rape, and cannibalism all are rampant. Inter-species war and genocide have occurred a thousand times over. Our slaughter is still infinitesimally small on the grand scale of things, even if it is an impressive tally for one species.

The only thing I changed is the simple scale of power that one human is capable of weilding. The nature of that power, though? It is simply the same actions on a grander scale. Apes and humans are both capable of infanticide, murder, oppression. One human just has more potential than one ape does.

#4 Posted by Elly on April 14th, 2009 6:12 pm | link

P.S.: This is the first time I’ve actually watched one of the videos on this site. Any chance of transcripts? I love reading what you guys come up with, but anything audio requires setting aside everything else I’m doing :)

#5 Posted by Gertrude Danni on April 14th, 2009 6:26 pm | link

Oliver? Oliver, it’s me, gram-gram! Are you home, Oliver? Oliver, what are you doing in there?

#6 Posted by Oliver Danni on April 14th, 2009 6:52 pm | link

Hehe…I’m looking forward to next week, althouuuuughhh…having never read those books, I have to wonder if you’d potentially be making the usual error in thinking that I would get the same thing out of them as you have which has led you to your conclusions about the nature of humanity? ;-)

I should read those books, I’m sure. I hope I will have more time to read this summer.

#7 Posted by Oliver Danni on April 14th, 2009 9:45 pm | link

I am so confused as I do not have a gram-gram named Gertrude and Danni is my middle name but is there really someone out there whose name is Oliver Danni and has a gram-gram named Gertrude?

#8 Posted by scwizard on April 15th, 2009 9:15 pm | link

I’m pretty sure rape and murder are older than 10,000 years. Do you have evidence showing otherwise?

#9 Posted by Pace on April 16th, 2009 6:27 pm | link

Sure, there was rape and murder, but they were isolated cases, not a systemic epidemic. Murder wasn’t institutionalized.

#10 Posted by Pace on April 17th, 2009 3:25 pm | link

@Elly: I strongly disagree. Details in future posts.

Also, I’m very curious to know what you mean by “inter-species war and genocide have occurred a thousand times over.” As for transcripts, thanks, we’ve put it on our to-talk-about list.

#11 Posted by Elly on April 17th, 2009 3:38 pm | link

As an example of “warfare”: Lions and hyenas both compete for the same ecological niche. Lions will actively hunt down hyenas, harass them, steal food, and just generally treat them in a very adversarial manner. (One source at random: http://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Video-Eternal-Enemies/dp/6304474636)

Genocide refers to the simple fact that there’s, well, thousands and thousands of extinct species that *aren’t* our fault. Species that died from climate changes, falling rocks, or by being wiped out by other species.

#12 Posted by Pace on April 17th, 2009 3:50 pm | link

Interesting. As I understand it, no species other than humans (in particular, post-10,000-years-ago humans) has ever sought to completely exterminate another species. I think these examples fall into the usual competing for natural resources, not intentional war or genocide. I wonder how much is intent versus ability. But I’ll look into it further.

#13 Posted by Elly on April 17th, 2009 3:55 pm | link

I’m not really aware of humanity doing anything terribly different: Lions fight hyenas when they encounter them. Humans wipe out cockroaches when they encounter them. I’m not aware of any species where humanity has gone signficantly out of it’s way to wipe it out despite it not being a local competitor/pest.

#14 Posted by Oliver Danni on April 17th, 2009 4:32 pm | link

It’s a little hard to discern intent in another species without making the usual error…at least when we project our own experiences onto other humans, they can correct us! But I do think that, regardless of whether lions are going around thinking “hyenas are the antichrist! MUST ANNIHILATE!!”, or just tormenting and killing every hyena that they see, Elly’s example suggests that anti-hyenaism is integral to lion culture. The predator-prey dynamic in animals, as far as I’m aware with my limited science background, tends to be pretty absolutist…a housecat generally kills and eats every insect or rodent it ever sees, and goes after anything it thinks MIGHT be an insect or rodent. The cat probably wouldn’t be too disturbed if it killed the last mouse on earth, until it realized it had just wiped out its own food supply.

The difference I could see would be that humans are the only species I’m aware that systematically try to wipe out other groups of their SAME species, but throughout history when humans have tried to do this, they’ve done so by convincing themselves that the group they’re trying to wipe out is not really the same species, so I’m not convinced that this is significantly different from cats wiping out mice in that regard, especially since I don’t personally know enough cats to fairly evaluate their opinions.

Maybe the difference is that we perceive humans as being able to make moral choices about whether institutionalized murder is right or wrong, and we don’t perceive other animals as having made a moral choice when they kill each other…but again, there’s the usual error right there. How the heck do I know if a praying mantis or a great horned owl is making a moral choice or not?!

I think I might have just talked myself out of the fundamentals of my own belief system. (Again.) CRAP. *brain implodes*

#15 Posted by Elly on April 17th, 2009 6:12 pm | link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetramorium_caespitum Ants actually engage in warfare to conquer territory and wipe out enemy colonies.

#16 Posted by Revolutionary Tuesday: An evil genius zots the dude with three memes | Pace and Kyeli on April 21st, 2009 2:23 pm | link

[...] last week’s episode, I talked about how most modern humans have forgotten their true human nature due to something that [...]

#17 Posted by Hasufin on April 21st, 2009 3:10 pm | link

From an anthropological standpoint, 10,000 years ago roughly marks the rise of sedentism – we went from being nomadic or semi-nomadic groups of “hunter-gatherers” to settled groups focused on cultivation.
Significantly, that probably represented the first time in which the bulk of human energy was directed toward social rather than survival concerns.

I am dubious whenever the term “human nature” comes up, because it implies the existence of an objective moral construct, and I remain unconvinced of such. However, in this case I think that 10,000 years ago saw the rise of a plethora of new behaviors simply because for the first time an environment existed such that they could arise.

#18 Posted by Pace on April 21st, 2009 3:14 pm | link

Right, but I think that sedentism is an effect rather than the cause. Sure, people started settling down 10,000 years ago, but WHY did they start settling down?

#19 Posted by Hasufin on April 21st, 2009 3:20 pm | link

Well, it’s worth noting that 10 KYA wasn’t the first time humans settled down – so far that honor belongs tot he Natufian culture at 11.5 KYA. 10 KYA is simply the first time that it *worked*.

Truthfully, nobody knows quite whye sedentism arose then and not before or after. We really don’t have sufficient perspective to make anything like reasonable guesses. Maybe in a million years when chimps start building villages, or in a few centuries when we contact aliens, but until then, who knows? Maybe a few hundred thousand years is a perfectly reasonable period of time to expect a species to wander around before they figure out how to stay in one place.

#20 Posted by Pace on April 21st, 2009 3:24 pm | link

Well then, I’ll have to make some unreasonable guesses. (:

#21 Posted by andrea on August 11th, 2009 6:32 pm | link

i like your style, and your vision, but i completely disagree with what you are saying.

its a real problem: humans are impatient, greedy, and fuck up consistently more than they succeed.
the universe, God, the Tao, or whatever you want to call our creator or source, is slow, patient, generous, and always correct, but people don’t know it, they ignore it, and do not like to yield to its ways.

any human you find who is acting righteously — being loving, patient, generous, peaceful, trustworthy, faithful, kind, giving good counsel, etc — has transcended what is called human nature and is living from the deeper source.

#22 Posted by Pace on August 12th, 2009 9:24 am | link

I actually almost completely agree with you, Andrea!

…which makes me think that we’re making different assumptions rather than fundamentally disagreeing.

I think that being connected with the Divine and acting righteously is human nature. It’s the way the world is today that keeps us from being able to hear and connect with that deeper source. So maybe the assumption we’re differing on is that I view humans as part of the Divine and you view humans as separate from the Divine?