Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[Taem]

Except your hypothesis is incorrect because history doesn't reflect what you describe. Our species HAS ALREADY changed over time, numerous times, through every epoch of history and demonstrably so. It is you, not I, that has the simplistic, mechanical view of human nature because you have been spoon fed pro-capitalist rhetoric that humans are inherently a particular way, when they very clearly, as history has proven, are not. Do you think a slave in Ancient Rome has the same conception of the world, or the same behaviors, as a serf does under Feudalism, or that either have the conception or behaviors as workers today under capitalism do? You would have to be not only dogmatic, but completely foolish, to think so. To realize that our nature is dynamic, complex and different based on our social being doesn't even require a Marxist analysis, it is just fucking common sense by now and isn't anything that hasn't already been verified anthropologically.

If your conception of humanity were the truth, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire would still be here today, and we would still live in a social order with relations based on citizenship and slavery, but we don't. The world isn't static, it is very dynamic, and social forces will, at some point, induce change - whether that change is gradual or revolutionary. We still have class struggle, yes, but class struggle is the only common denominator between then and now - the nature of the class struggle and the characterization that it takes on are not the same now as it was then.

What in the hell does this have to do with what I was talking about? And why bring up world history with altruism unless you're attempting to make the argument that as a species, we are growing kinder as we evolve? On the latter point, I beg to differ, and thought I was clear that our underlying principles are what cannot change. I must say I am disappointed in you; the only thing even remotely intelligent you said in those paragraphs, I bolded, and regarding that bolded part, our dynamic complexity as a species does not change the fact that we evolved from simple survivalist desires and that these desires encroach upon everything we do in our lives now, as they have since the time we were mere cells in the protoplasm before all life was formed.

Of course humans have an instinct to survive, but your argument that they cannot change ever

Again, where are you getting this from? I never said anything about people changing. What the hell are you talking about here? Of course people can change, I’m mentally different than I was a few years ago, and as a species, I’d like to believe we are constantly evolving and becoming more intelligent with each passing generation. But this has NOTHING TO DO with the fact as a species we evolved from RNA, and we will ALWAYS think about these survivalist instincts and we will always gather material possessions and power because it’s not something you can just rip out of our DNA – if you did that we wouldn’t be human anymore. We evolved out of chimps as the need arose to gather more supplies, forge for more food, find more efficient means of reproduction through concepts such as marriage and so forth. We evolved as a necessity to support these underlying principles I keep talking about, and we will continue to do so from now until forever – as of now, we are the ultimate evolved hunter/gatherer and nothing’s going to change that anytime soon.

Again, greed and our instinct to survive are not the same, yet you conflate them to be so. In hunter/gatherer societies, there was no such thing as greed - because people did not produce a surplus of goods based on a commodity form of production for profits. They produced and consumed what they needed to survive, and that was it. This isn't my opinion, this is an observable and empirical FACT.

Since you seem so interested in talking about early Homo sapiens, there are parables told in Aesop’s fables, earlier in American Indian fables, and even as far back as the bible who took their stores from Mesopotamia passed down from as early as the spoken language all talking about the evils of being greedy. Greed is nothing more than the desire manifest inside all of us to gather extra supplies so we don’t run out of “x”; it is intrinsic to our survival. How ridiculous is it to not be able to see that? Surviving off the land with just what is required? At not time was there ever a perfect society, and what you describe as greed, I define as one mans desire to gather more “x” because that urge in the brain from our core tells us it’s necessary. This is where I think you and I have a misunderstanding on what this means however; just because we have these desires does not make them correct for the betterment of society. At no time did I make excuses for the greedy man, merely pointed out that I understand why the greedy man does what he does, because it’s that part of our RNA we can never change unless we cease to be human!

It is no wonder you think my view is wrong, because you clearly have ZERO understanding of the Marxist framework!

And you are clearly misunderstanding what I’m saying, but lets continue because it leads into this:

Communism is NOT altruism. I repeat, it is not altruism. How many times do I have to say this? The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you should start reading more Marxist sources and literature before we continue our debate, since it is quite apparent you have little or no understanding of my views. I do not know of any communist who thinks society should be operated based an altruistic vision. I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it isn't what I am arguing.

Where am I getting this from? From your words. You seem to think Capitalism is the source of all greed and suffering in this world, and YOU have stated many times that in your vision of a perfect communistic society, everyone would live in perfect harmony giving and receiving equally. These are not my words, and I think not even yours, but those of a true Marxist. Yes, FIT, I understand you, however you are missing the point I’m trying to make! That this whole picture I’m painting has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with social classes, constructs, or structures, freedoms, restrictions, or laws. It’s something deeper that that, and I’m arguing that even in the best communistic society as close to perfect as you can imagine it, not amount of evolutionary change can change the human condition from feeling what our RNA desires for us, to procreate, to defend, to gather. Nothing you say can convince me this is something that could be eradicated from our species thoughts because I simply don’t believe that. And FIT, this isn’t something I was taught in any school or college, but became interested in the subject while doing biblical research and read many articles on it from great minds near and far, not of any particular affiliation or political motivation. This is something I see as a reality, that once humans realize this about all species on this planet, only then can we truly take a step back and realize what we were, what we are, and then visualize what we want to become knowing these are aspects of our personality we cannot change. And then, as a species we can grow and evolve into something even more beautiful and purposeful and hell, even your communistic utopia could be a reality, but only if people are that we will always have these desires, and they are not wrong, but define us as a species.

So, we reduce the argument to nihilism then? Gee, what a surprise

So I take it you didn’t actually read what I wrote then? This response must be because of my comment about the perfect communist society being lawless. I won’t deny I haven’t read up much on my Marxist, but from what I gathered from you no less, the perfect communist society would not require laws because they would just do what is right. Am I wrong in this thought?

Your sex slave trade example its a pretty dubious one.... I think it is a mistake to say it is just done for money…

Exactly my point, it’s something we can all agree is a terrible act, but those who are doing it are interested in profits, or even getting some action, but why those two things? Why not using kidnapped girls to weave socks to give to the homeless? Because of what I keep bringing up, that the desire for procreation and gathering material possessions and power are intrinsic to our very nature, and no amount of evolution will ever change that!

So you think the sex slave trade is ok then, because someone else is making money off that to survive? Jesus fucking christ....you are a total sociopath man, and it is no wonder the world is such a fucked up, backwards ass place to live in. Your thinking belongs in the Dark Ages.

I love how you overly generalize with vitriol to exaggerate your points, embellishing your angst with spicy adjectives directed at the previous respondent. I thought I made it perfectly clear in prior posts that I believe all creatures great and small have the desires of procreation, protecting their offspring, and gathering, but it just so happens in our species we have evolved to express these aspects to their fullest, and simply understanding that about people will help you/us to understand exactly where someone is coming from when they commit an act you or I might consider vile. Nowhere did I ever say it was okay to do this, or I agreed it was just some way to make money. No, I said I understood why people did these things. So to answer your open ended question, no, I don’t like it when people do things like this. I do feel these things are wrong and when I hear about people torturing one another, or selling children into the sex trade, I want to physically harm these sick fucks. But that has nothing to do with my understanding of why people do the things they do. Just because a homicide detective can get into the mind of a killer does not make him a goddamn psychopath… grow up FIT!

Now you resort to Biological Determinism, to make your point? Weak sauce.

I didn't say we were special, but now that you mention it, in some ways, yes we are. We are the ONLY species on this planet to have developed science, technology, visit space, and perhaps more importantly, we are the only species with a "history".

Do you deliberately misquote with that misdirect, or is your head crammed so far up your ass, all you see is shit wherever you look? I saw how Jester, Kath, Eppie, and others were going on a tangent about freewill and as you may have noticed, I did not engage them on that topic because I don’t agree with any of what they were saying. I feel we have complete freewill as a species, but just because I believe I can fly does not confer me the ability to jump off a fucking building and fly, does it? Just because you want to change and be altruistic in nature does not mean you can ever change where you came from; what I mean by saying that is everything you or I do will always have its roots in the very reason why we evolved into the species we did in the first place, our need to procreate and gather more power, and that’s not something we can “think” our way out of to change it!

So you would say that the furthering of our species is a selfish act? This doesn't seem logical to me. The advancement of humanity surely is a good thing, is it not?

If by selfish you mean survivalist in nature, then yes, we are all guilty. As I’ve stated a few times in this post, we evolved our logic and mental capacity in the past to help us harvest these procreation and gatherer desires from the offset. This evolved logic has helped us do astounding things, such as land rockets on the moon, yet it still cannot stop us from being who we are. I’d like us to evolve even further as a species, to a state I cannot even fathom, but I don’t see this happening anytime soon if we can’t even acknowledge the very nature that controls us, and always will!

You would do well to learn more about my views before arguing against them, lest you create strawman arguments as you have done throughout your entire post.

Cute. I admittedly don’t know a too terribly much about the intricacies of your points of view, but in this case, I don’t think they were necessary to support my argument. We simply have differing points of view on the way people act; you seem to think people are they way they are due to society, whereas I think they are the way they are because it’s in their very nature. We both agree in freewill, and that people have the capacity to overcome their desires using their freewill, however we disagree on these feelings; you seem to think they can be overcome and tossed on the wayside like a forgotten memory, I think they are part of our DNA formed from our RNA and we can never ever change these aspects of our desires – we can control them, but we can never change them! We both find acts our society considers vile in general (such as human trafficking) to be vile acts, and we both find the people who commit these vile acts to be disgusting worthy of a fitting punishment, but where we differ here is you seem to think there is something inherently wrong with these types of people, whereas I think they did what they did because it felt like the correct path for them to support their fundamental desires – but again, just because I understand why people might commit these evil acts does not in any way mean I think what they might be doing is alright! So there you have it, I suppose we can just agree to disagree from this point because our two philosophies are diametrically opposed. One final note: I hope I didn’t come across too crude; I tried to stay calm and only matched antics with you where I felt necessary, but I promise to keep out the vitriol in my future replies if you do the same.