Is covetousness, greed and paranoia inevitable for humanity?

[Narz]

I don't mean are these things possible for a rare individual or two, I mean are they possible culturally.

Theoretically a peaceful, perfectionist (to use Civ I terminology iirc) society could hire a few paranoid types to safeguard their society against other exploiters but then who's to stop them from exploiting.

Makes me think of that Stallone, Snipes movie but I haven't seen it. Is it any good?

 

[Snerk]

Brb, need to google covetousness.

 

[schlaufuchs]

No. There is no inevitable human nature. Human behavior is shaped by social and economic relations, but even then, humans will exhibit all sorts of behaviors and tendencies within any given structure.

If we want to claim any kind of basal, “evolutionarily/naturally developed” nature or tendency, that would be towards sharing, collaboration, and mediation, as these tend to be the commonalities within the immediate-return Hunter gatherer societies that are most analogous to how humans would have been living for the vast vast majority of their time on Earth.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The OP has just described the band of thugs governing my province.

 

[tjs282]

Makes me think of that Stallone, Snipes movie but I haven't seen it. Is it any good?

If you mean Demolition Man then yes — that was a good fun movie
(Not sure if that's the only movie they've co-starred in? Unless Snipes was also in one of the Expendables sequels, none of which I've seen?)
Plus it also stars Sandra Bullock in one of her first major movie-roles (DM came out the year before Speed made her a superstar).

 

[Snerk]

No. There is no inevitable human nature. Human behavior is shaped by social and economic relations, but even then, humans will exhibit all sorts of behaviors and tendencies within any given structure.

If we want to claim any kind of basal, “evolutionarily/naturally developed” nature or tendency, that would be towards sharing, collaboration, and mediation, as these tend to be the commonalities within the immediate-return Hunter gatherer societies that are most analogous to how humans would have been living for the vast vast majority of their time on Earth.

These structures didn't just pop up in a vacuum, they are also products of biology. I agree that nothing is inevitable, and the huge range in different types of human social structures means we are very plastic. But never beyond elements of greed, or so it would seem.

I feel that if primal human nature was just geared towards collaboration then the world would look very different. Humans have been freed to make up our own purpose, but it some ways we are still slaves of biology.

 

[tjs282]

they are also products of biology.

Arguably yes, but only in the sense that the main scaffolds of our current power structures were originally set up by (borderline if not actual) sociopaths, at a time when human societies were still small and close-knit enough that one charismatic nutcase and his trusted lackeys ('cos you know, it was pretty much always a "him") could, using simple intimidation and/or actual brutality, hold sway over the remaining non-sociopathic individuals within that society.

Now that this is becoming more broadly recognised, we are slowly starting to pull away from and dismantle those structures, but it's a hard process, not least because it's being fought all the way by those who continue to benefit from the systems currently still in place (and who are, quite frequently, also direct descendants of the aforementioned charismatic nutcases, because their preferred wealth/power-structures were/are, of course, also designed to be heritable!).

i.e. we now live in a world where people like Donald Trump can get rich (at least on paper!) and become US President, and Vlad Putin can likewise become rich and Dictator for Life of Russia, because people like Trump and Putin set up most of our current power structures centuries/ millennia ago.

And that's also why sociopaths hate democracy so much — because they know (and have always known) that there are far more of us than there are of them, and modern human societies are also now too big and sprawling to be ruled by fear of direct personal attack.

IMHO, obviously

 

[Narz]

If we want to claim any kind of basal, “evolutionarily/naturally developed” nature or tendency, that would be towards sharing, collaboration, and mediation, as these tend to be the commonalities within the immediate-return Hunter gatherer societies that are most analogous to how humans would have been living for the vast vast majority of their time on Earth.

Even granting you the noble savage characterization as correct, nevertheless these societies you mention have been universally crushed by greedier ones.

Also we can't necessarily infer our past based on the few hunter gatherer societies that remain as the ones that remain tend to be on the worst land which wouldn't support expansionistic dreams very well.

 

[Narz]

Arguably yes, but only in the sense that the main scaffolds of our current power structures were originally set up by (borderline if not actual) sociopaths, at a time when human societies were still small and close-knit enough that one charismatic nutcase and his trusted lackeys ('cos you know, it was pretty much always a "him") could, using simple intimidation and/or actual brutality, hold sway over the remaining non-sociopathic individuals within that society.

Now that this is becoming more broadly recognised, we are slowly starting to pull away from and dismantle those structures, but it's a hard process, not least because it's being fought all the way by those who continue to benefit from the systems currently still in place (and who are, quite frequently, also direct descendants of the aforementioned charismatic nutcases, because their preferred wealth/power-structures were/are, of course, also designed to be heritable!).

i.e. we now live in a world where people like Donald Trump can get rich (at least on paper!) and become US President, and Vlad Putin can likewise become rich and Dictator for Life of Russia, because people like Trump and Putin set up most of our current power structures centuries/ millennia ago.

And that's also why sociopaths hate democracy so much — because they know (and have always known) that there are far more of us than there are of them, and modern human societies are also now too big and sprawling to be ruled by fear of direct personal attack.

IMHO, obviously

I mostly agree w this assessment.

Only issue is these same sociopaths are usually much more highly motivated towards power than live & let live types.

Assuming better humans could wrest power from aholes the question is how could they protect it?

 

[tjs282]

Only issue is these same sociopaths are usually much more highly motivated towards power than live & let live types.

Well, yes. I mean, isn't "seeking to exert power over others" one of the defining characteristics of sociopathy?

Assuming better humans could wrest power from aholes the question is how could they protect it?

We've already started wresting that power away, by converting from autocratic to democratic rules, and (generally!) refusing to elect them — or at least, bouncing them out of office once they've shown their true colours. And some of them (naming no names!) have a real problem with that.

If I was Dictator of the World, I'd institute psychological assessments for anyone who wanted to assume public office (politicians, judges), and/or wield lethal weapons (military, police), and bar anyone who 'failed' that assessment — except me, of course

 

[Narz]

We've already started wresting that power away, by converting from autocratic to democratic rules, and (generally!) refusing to elect them — or at least, bouncing them out of office once they've shown their true colours. And some of them (naming no names!) have a real problem with that.

I'm sure people have been ganging up on bullies & slaughtering/banishing them since humanity has existed.

If I was Dictator of the World, I'd institute psychological assessments for anyone who wanted to assume public office (politicians, judges), and/or wield lethal weapons (military, police), and bar anyone who 'failed' that assessment — except me, of course

But who gets to decide what the psychological assessments are or what they mean?

I don't mean to nitpick it's just that any gatekeeper (person, test, etc) is going to be potentially corruptible (including algorithms & AI).

 

[El_Machinae]

Figuring out how much to spend on defense is similar to figuring out how much to spend on redundancy. You never really know if you've overspent, only if you've underspent. And counterpoint to greed will be apathy, where we just don't know how much people are willing to work for strangers nor really the psychological inputs for each level or style of exertion.

Greed is very hard to overcome. In addition, there are so many paradigms that people hold where they believe that their own 'system' is superior but is also masking some unconscious urges. I don't really see a solution but to constantly quest for power and then to create systems that prevent others from accumulating too much. But good luck. We live in a world where a handful of people have immense amounts of authority over others, despite the different governmental experiments.

 

[emzie]

These structures didn't just pop up in a vacuum, they are also products of biology. I agree that nothing is inevitable, and the huge range in different types of human social structures means we are very plastic. But never beyond elements of greed, or so it would seem.

I feel that if primal human nature was just geared towards collaboration then the world would look very different. Humans have been freed to make up our own purpose, but it some ways we are still slaves of biology.

They kind of did pop up in a vacuum. If you want to reduce humans to our biology, then it's important to remember that for more than 95% of our history as a species, we were naturally selected by the African savannah, in groups that rarely exceeded 100 people. Take humans out of civilization, and we're collaborative -- within our group.

 

[EvaDK]

Is covetousness, greed and paranoia inevitable for humanity?​

Yes, because they are distinct human character traits; they are not motivated by instinct as far as we know. Covetousness and greed are for something you 'want', not something you 'need'. Paranoia is most often a symptom of mental illness. Covetousness is also the theme underpinning the Bible's fable about the first humans and their downfall, Adam & Eve. Hannibal Lecter also argued that 'to covet', was human nature.

 

[Hygro]

Paranoia is most often a symptom of mental illness.​

It's something just about everyone exhibits daily, to varying degrees. People be trippin' constantly, some more than others, and some consistently, well within the bounds of official mental healthiness.

 

[Snerk]

They kind of did pop up in a vacuum. If you want to reduce humans to our biology, then it's important to remember that for more than 95% of our history as a species, we were naturally selected by the African savannah, in groups that rarely exceeded 100 people. Take humans out of civilization, and we're collaborative -- within our group.

I'm not reducing humans to biology, just stating the fact that we are indeed products of that too. Humans have an unique ability to define ourselves but we can't take evolutionary biology out of the equation. That would be revisionism.

Humans as hunter-gathers, in addition to highly developed collaborative skills, probably also had violent hierarchical structures, tribal warfare, greed and other misery, just as all other intelligent primates capable of forming complex social structures do.

 

[Zardnaar]

They've found evidence of ancient hunter gatherer conflicts as well.

So yes I think the various negative traits are part and parcel of being an overly evolved self aware monkey with opposable thumbs.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Nothing is inevitable

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Nothing is inevitable

true, humanity could stop existing. either the old fashioned way, or by altering itself somehow.

 

[AdamCrock]

Narz, my dearly beloved and benevolent Australian Dictator "slushie" Overlord. The covet-ousness and a few more snesses are inheritant in our genetic code. We humans are greedy little rats (except we are not rodent but we are mammals as well). This makes us territorial, aggressive to outsiders, and clever. Bound with our brain capacity to learn it has produced many ways to kill or torture over the years. Our military achievements far outweigh our cultural achievements. As a race - humanity I rate : very low, because inherent aggressiveness and the will to kill the opposition. Shoul'd we discover alien race that is below out current technological level we will enslave/use and destroy it (like Native American Indians) and should we discover an alien race that is above us than we will first plea and the proceed to be destroyed by it.