Is Human Nature Competitive or Cooperative? |
Another Victorian scientist, Herbert Spencer, coined the term “Survival of the fittest”, applying it to human society, claiming that competition is our fundamental nature. In 1966, Austrian ethnologist Konrad Lorenz published a bestseller called On Aggression in which he argued that human beings are innately aggressive, competitive, possessive and violent. A decade later evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene, about the human instinct for self-preservation; it sold over a million copies, and was translated into more than 25 languages. People who argue that “You can’t change human nature” make the mistake of assuming that because people are led to behave in a certain way in a capitalist society, that behavior reflects the essential nature of human beings. Therefore such people conclude that this behavior is natural for all human beings and that it is impossible to establish a society based on anything except a competitive struggle for private profit. Robert Augros and George Stanciu, in their book The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom of Nature, found that in fact cooperation, not competition, is the norm in nature, because it is energy-efficient and because predators and their prey maintain a kind of balanced coexistence. Today most anthropologists and psychologists assert that the question of nature or nurture is not an either/or issue, but one of interrelation-ship. We are born with certain instincts and tendencies, but through education, upbringing and our own conscious choices, we can transform our conduct, nature and personality. Firefighters, soldiers, human rights advocates and accidental heroes may endanger themselves or even sacrifice their lives in order to save others. As part of the science of yoga, relevant to the idea of improving human behavior, Sarkar used the term “Bio-psychology” to describe how the glands, nerves and brain of the body affect our behaviors, thoughts and feelings.
What We Owe Capitalism, In One Graph
As you can see, that number has dropped rather dramatically, starting as Communism began to fall and more of the world was able to benefit from economic freedom. It shows the relative number between those living in extreme poverty and those who do not, taking account of the massive increase in world population since 1820. The world has grown from about 1 billion people in 1820 to 7.5 billion today. It’s a tiny fraction today of what it was then, indeed a relatively small fraction of today’s population, and it’s dropping fast. Thomas Edison didn’t invent the lightbulb for free, nor did he – or J.P. Morgan, or George Westinghouse – throw vast personal resources at electrifying the world’s businesses and homes randomly. They were creating ex nihilo, literally bringing light to darkness, and opening up vast worlds of possibility in the process. If the left’s theories were true, not only would this graph show a completely different economic story, but almost all of the people represented on this graph would be dead, or never would have been born in the first place. All of pre-Capitalist human history, for thousands and thousands of years, were as horribly impoverished, with the tiniest possible group of “Haves” above the largest possible group of “Have-nots”, as the world was in 1820: indeed, most of it was quite a lot worse. What changed? The miraculous incentive-based system we call Capitalism, or economic freedom, which makes even the most selfish strive with all their abilities to improve the world around them. Third, the rise of global population, which we were promised meant that all of the world’s resources must necessarily be spread thinner over vastly increasing numbers with each passing year, thus inevitably bringing not merely famine but a consequent vast reduction in population, not to mention a standard of living for the survivors far beneath that of the Dark Ages.
O’ the Compassions of Capitalism |Other Blog
While at work yesterday, I noticed a new line of products that BR is releasing referred to as their Green line. This line of products is currently being sent out to various stores in a trial run to see how it sells in different areas, ultimately to find the most successful locations and strategically place them there. Now, the characteristics that distinguish this line is that they, both the item and price tag, are made with “Sustainable fibers” that are “Eco-friendly.” To be honest, I wasn’t that surprised when I first saw this in our store given the growing national concern for issues of social injustice that is increasingly being worked into the marketing world. This is a product line that was created by Bono and Bobby Schriver, chairman of DATA, that contributes a certain percentage of the revenue to help eliminate AIDS in Africa. Various companies can sign on and distribute their own Red Products. Back to the previous discussion of the BR “Green” line. Organic and Sustainable New Products: Banana Republic values the opinions and ideals of our customers. That’s why we responded when we learned customers wanted eco-friendlier products. Notice the reasoning – Because BR values the “Opinions” and “Ideals” of their customers, they responded by giving them what they wanted in the creation of “Eco-friendlier products.” I find it incredibly ironic that commodities such as this “Green” line are able to be promoted and praised for their compassionate concern when in reality these “Concerns” are set in terms of an inherently dehumanizing, capitalist system that can only function “Successfully” if commodities are peddled to consumers, and all others in the market are reduced to competitors. Now, I am sure that many of the people involved in this “Green” line, and many other product lines like it, are very well intentioned.