you video helped me, but i don't believe that if you are born into poverty and finally escape that cycle, it is luck. don't you think like Plato and Aristotle that it is human nature to find happiness? it is only nature to want to escape from an impoverished life and attain happiness.
"Those who grow up in wealth are not going to have to resort to those behaviours" Vlad Tehpes, Edward Longshanks, Harald Hardrada... these names mean anything to you? I can't find any quote from before Marx about changing the world by changing yourself. You seem to be making stuff up.
The problem is: people do shape their environments based on their general intelligence levels. As far as economic prosperity goes, why are there some cultures/races continually living well below the poverty line? Generally speaking, the races that scored the worst on standardized IQ tests lived in the worst conditions. Environment only accounts for a part of the deviation, while the rest is genetic.
And I think you should read The Blank Slate - the modern denial of human nature by Steven Pinker. Cause... there's human nature <.< (doesn't really contradict your ideology tough)
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
The way that organisms adapt is to environmental pressure. You can place organisms in a wide array of environments and as long as they can reproduce successfully, natural selection will not cause them to evolve to any great significance. Just because human nature isn't static doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Communism would only really succeed where pressure (of resources or the lack thereof) is great enough that you would be more likely to survive and reproduce by adopting it.
That was an awesome video! I loved when you said around the lines of "piss off and go compete with a tiger on an island" haha excellent stuff and broke it down very well. Although, I am a Roman Cathoic and believer of God, I also understand the social aspects to life and totally agree with what you were saying. Keep it up my friend and keep talking. All the best, Sean. Politics BA University of Greenwich UK
"(Darwin's) ideas have been appropriated by many different ideologies and personalities (sic) yet most of these commentaries were developed with very little understanding of Darwin's actual views, whether political or scientific." - "Evolution & Ecology of the Organism" (Rose & Mueller, 2006)
I findamentally disagree, and the video post explains, there is no human nature, only bahavior. We may peceive these characteristics to be natural , but surely nothing is "natural"
there are no populations, only individuals. an individual is a step in evolution. how many genetic mutations are found per generation?
rand was correct. she dealt with the actual building blocks of evolution, as opposed to doing the impossible, namely, controlling the environment. we are social creatures, yes, but society itself is an illusion.
I agree with most of what he said except one thing; "this will be the most productive environment". Now, maybe I'm arguing semantics, but I believe he should have phrased it; "perhaps this would be an environment more conducive to productivity".
I find it distasteful when people argue with certainty that they simply do not have.
Loved the video xx13moons, very logical points. I agree, pure capitalism doesn't work, neither does pure communism. A mixed economy is the best imo, in my country (Ireland) we all have free healthcare and social welfare etc. Education (even college) is paid for by the government, which people avail of regardless of background/social status. Yet there is always a private option, allowing people to recieve a better standard of living through there efficency and competitive drive. Subscribed!
yea I've seen both the Zeitgest movies, I thought they were pretty great. Some parts were a bit... liberal with the facts, but most of it seemed right on. Thanks for commenting.
I'd doff my cap to you were it not for my disdain for bourgeois practices.
A couple of notes in support.
You mentioned paedophilia as an individual issue. Even a majority of paedophiles were themselves abused as children. It's no coincidence.
If 'nature' outweighs nurture, then why do parents bother "raising" their children in specific ways - to be generous, to be polite, to be respectful and tolerant?
The one thing I think you missed in this video is a short investigation of this claim that
It's repeated verbatim and ad nauseum in the public domain. Why? Why those exact words each time? Enter the cultural hegemony. The dominant discourse is monopolised by bourgeouis media and philosophy.
"Human nature is greed" excuses and justifies the capitalist's existence. Society has always seen greed as an intolerable vice. The task is to normalise the practice.
Yet, it's just 'not' normal to steal a lollipop from a three year old when there's no one around to see.
Yes, you're right. "Greed" must be "human nature" if the system is going to continue on as it is. If everyone started figuring out that human nature is not in-fact all greedy; the entire structure of our capitalist civilization would quickly crumble to pieces. Greed is the glue that keeps the parts together. So, in our warped view, greed is not only an innate human behavior, but greed is "good." Good for the economy; for a culture that thrives on consumption.
"I'd doff my cap to you were it not for my disdain for bourgeois practices." I don't understand what you mean here. You think I'm advocating "bourgeois practices" in some way?
Darwinism and Marxism are completely different ideologies, competition and survival of the fittest don't seem to coincide with Marxism. Religious conservatives are flawed in there ideology as well, how can you believe in god and be a social Darwinist. God is a control freak totalitarian, he would probably be an admirer of Marx if he existed.
You obviously didn't listen to what I said. If you did, you wouldn't have left this comment. "Survival of the fittest" applies to populations more than individuals. Especially when we're talking about social animals, like Chimpanzees or Humans. We work together; alone, we are useless. Thus the fittest population (group, culture, tribe, whatever) survives moreso than the fittest individual. And the "fittest" population is one that works in unity, community and togetherness. Right?
That's certainly a nice spin on the issue but the strongest most fit individuals are the ones that last, that's what natural selection is. The individual with the strongest genes is the one that has the offspring. The chimp that can fight survives while the chimp that cannot dies, that survivor reproduces, passing those genes on to his offspring. Eventually the weak die off and the stronger INDIVIDUALS thrive. In conclusion, self determined individuals evolve. Right?
You completely misunderstand the process of natural selection.
Do you REALLY think that billions of years of biological evolution was hinged on the "strength" of individuals? wtf. Wow.
I'm ending this discussion because I'm rather tired of having to carry on about simple scientific facts. If you want to know, you'll know. This is the information age, afterall. May God bless.
You're blind if you don't see individual strength is what makes a society or species more fit to survive, and you misinterpret me if you think I'm saying one strong individual can carry the rest, I'm saying a population of strong individuals united as one nation or species is much stronger than a collection of sick and dying outcasts. Also, just because you believe in capitalism does not make you greedy, it makes you self determined and responsible. Marxism died. Equality is earned. Get over it.
Marxism died? Interesting considering that half of the world nations are Communists. Also, with the economy lately, it looks like Capitalism is well on it's way to the grave as well. Every political system has it's problems, Communism or otherwise. And unless you're forgetting, the USA ranks terrible on many core issues like income, health care, longevity, etc.. compared to other stable socialist countries like Sweden and Norway. Not everything fits into neat little boxes... yea..
and please don't tell me what to "get over." I don't take very kindly to facetious ignoramuses, k? So take the nonsense and stick it back up your ass kid. Now begone, gnat.
You're wrong, and xx13moons is quite right to say that you don't understand Darwinism. There's no point in trying to bluff you're way through it, because anyone who has read the Origin Of Species can see immediately that you haven't, or at least failed to understand what you were reading somehow.
Your misunderstanding stems from listening to those influenced by bourgeois 'philosophers' such as the Social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer.
This leads you to, as Spencer did, misconstrue "Strength" for
"suitability", or "adaptability". Evolutionary strength isn't about fighting - as Peter Kropotkin demonstrates in "Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution". It can be camoflage, the ability to survive long periods without water. In the case of humans, our evolutionary strength is our ability to co-operate. As isolationist creatures, we would perish, something which we (what you call) "pinkos" are able to comprehend.
The second point on which you are wrong is that you fail to indicate any
philosophical justification or logical link explaining why evolutionary 'strength' (the ability to survive as a species in nature) legitimises social and economic inequalities or varying relations to the means of production.
More to the point, if physical strength is the indicator of success then........wow.
Bill Gates must be packing one Hell of a body underneath that wimpy exterior.
Nor does inhereitance come into your equation.
Ignorance is no excuse in this day in age. Get reading.
People working together for their common interest, rather than for a few capitalists in control of the means of production, all of the resources, are "sick and dying outcasts" ? Actually it's people like you who are sick and dying.
Capitalism creates artificial values and scarcity..Do you actually think there isn't enough food in the world to feed everyone ? We have the material and human resources, as a society to do anything..Money - capital is a false, destructrive system.
I don't see any of the preexisting civil-isms' (cap, soc, com...) progressively serving man. especially as they all draw from a corrupt monetary system.
check out some of the discussions on "TZMofficialchannel" I'm sure many of peter Joseph's and jacque fresco's views will interest you.
And the "fucked up" humans are a factor in this equation that pretty much roughens the prospects of the utopian attempt as seen with Communism. Regardless of the good intentions a system has there will always be a moron in there pulling some strings and the masses, sadly who don't have the intellectual capabilities, will not see through it and thus for, we'll probably never (I know, it's negative) achieve better.. I totally agree with you regarding your speech, it's quite clever.
Well, how can you shape a better environment if most people act selfishly? It does really begin with the person. You change yourself, and the world does change. If people are fucked up, they're going to create a fucked up society. I'll agree, that if you're raised in a shit hole, the odds are against you, but a person can be aware enough to rise above it. It's been done by people raised in very harsh conditions. Trying to change the society first is the cart before the horse. Inner is the outer.
The question is how do you break the cycle. If the child brought up in desperate circumstances is shaped into a person that tends to reinforce that desperate situation they end up fighting anything that raises them out of that situation. The culture/environment the child is in, has an almost evolutionary quality in itself and will not lightly submit to its own extinction.
Ah hem. Your environment, as with any young white American today, was and is 100% domineered by the ideas and outcomes of a capitalistc society. Not to mention, the only reason you even have the ability to discuss these things on the internet is because of the technology revolution in the 90s, completely fueled by aggressive capitalism. If you really believe the nonsense you are talking about, go stand on a soapbox. And if you hate our form of society so much, stop reaping its benefits.
This nonsense you spew about the innovations of capitalism is pure bunk. China is outdoing us in just about every industry; are they capitalist? And why the hell can't we sell an automobile anymore? You're entire argument is ad hoc, and ad hominem. Seriously. Usually, I only waste my words on people who can have decent, intelligent conversation. So consider yourself honored. Now begone, gnat!
My guess is that you watched nothing of what I had to say, you probably just looked at the title, saw "Marx" and thought, "I'm gonna show him!" Right? And if you did watch, it's obvious that everything I said went way over your head - since you felt the need to respond with completely irrelevant drivel. I have no problem with dissent; actually, I love debate. But intelligent, thought-provoking debate. I could care less about your insipid, thoughtless generalizations. So take them elsewhere.
This will2k fellow isn't necessarily dumb. I think he's 'on the right track' so to speak but really needs to look at the conflict of structure v. agency. He says that structure has %100 influence on individuals (agents). If that were the case, every thing we thought and say would be determined by the laws, norms, folkways, etc. that are embedded within social institutions. The past haunts the present as Marx might say.
What you are saying is that people are adaptable to a certain extent.
I'm not trying to "show you up" or anything like that. I'm trying to show that you and will2k have some common ground and shouldn't necessarily be at 'each others throats'. BTW insipid is an awesome word.
@shumich, Sorokin... can't say that I have actually. Thanks for the comments. You make some good points. I reacted that way to will2k because I sensed a bit of ... insincerity in what he was saying. Also his comment about, "if you actually believe this nonsense, go stand on a soapbox." I don't need to hear sarcasm and stupidity. My guess is that he really doesn't know that much about Socialism. Yes, it has a horrible track record, I'll give you that. But too many people assume to know what it is
Kind of like the "Tea Baggers," who walk around with nonsensical anti-Obama signs that say things like, "No More Socialism," as if we live in a political environment that is even close to socialism, it's not. America is about the furthest thing from Socialism imaginable. Too many people assume to know what socialism means, without actually researching Marxism, dialectical materialism, class issues, etc.. I just don't like straw-man arguments, i.e. "you just want to take other peoples money!" No
Humans, unlike animals, are not automatically driven to provide for their survival. Each individual must choose to do what is necessary to survive. Some do, some don't. What does someone who does have to gain by supporting - let alone what does the species have to gain by promoting the genes of - someone who does not?
Well, first I would say that your premise is faulty. What do you mean humans are not driven to provide for their survival? Of course they are. Also, we can only "provide" when the means are available. If you live in the desert, destitute and emptied of water and agriculture; there isn't going to be much to provide with. The resources have to be there to begin with; but that's becoming more and more difficult for third-world peoples as we keep taking them all for ourselves, in excess.
Marxist, religous believer, both deceived individuals........Self-interest is the driving force of progress. The individual is inviolate, the "group" has no rights.
It would all depend on how you might define "progress." That's a very vague term. Humans are a social species, would you agree? A few thousand years ago, one of the harshest punishments that an individual could have to face was banishment from the tribe - we've all heard stories of that. A man or woman violates the tribal laws and is cast out in the wilderness. Do you know why this was the most dreaded of punishments? Because we are USELESS alone. Most die of starvation or weather, quickly.
Like other primate species; our strength is in our numbers, and our ability (or lack thereof) to work together for the common good. Individuals are all but useless. Groups, working together, have built civilizations, the pyramids, airplanes, cured diseases, sent a man too the moon. Go out into the woods alone and live and see what you can accomplish (and bring NONE of the technology or tools that other people invented.) Let me know how that works out.
I'm about as "non-creationist" as anyone you will ever meet and they certainly didn't con me. I accept the *fact* of human nature because virtually every scientific study in the past 2 decades reaffirms it. Some scientists have taken this too far and basically claim *everything* is nature. Both sides hypotheses are false. We are the products of nature - and nurture. I personally suspect that nurture is the more important of the two - but that hasn't been conclusively shown yet.
If you're speaking about genetics, certainly I agree. I wouldn't call it "human nature" though. I'd just call it human genetics. The point I try to make is that, whatever our "nature" may be at any given time; it is subject to change; this includes our genetics of course. If our environment changes, we will change to adapt to it - genetics and all.
Well, you can't just slough off "genetics" (and beyond that - all biological functions) as if it is just some abstract word.
We know that all cultures do certain things the same even if they had no prior connection to other cultures (the "poisoned well")
Use of language, right down to grammatical rules, facial expressions (smile = happy), death rituals, tribalism, and the list includes at least 150 different things that are cultural universals - from genetics - and that's nature.
I agree with everything you've said thus far in your comments. The entire point is that our "nature" is subject to change, it's pliable; would you disagree? Of course there are universals and constants in human behavior. That's a truism for all species. However, human "nature" is not a permanent, fixed thing. We're learning more and more about this as the potential for genetic engineering becomes greater, i.e. transhumanism. We can shape our own genetic legacy if we wish.
I'm not meaning to imply that I'm on the side of the Sociologists who say that the human mind is a blank slate waiting to be molded by socio-economic factors. That is somewhat true. But genetics are the biggest factor insofar as behavior is concerned. I would say that what makes a person who they are is a grand mixture of genetics AND socio-economic factors; and both of these things are subject to change.
'our "nature" is subject to change, it's pliable; would you disagree?'
That's the point of "nature" - it can't be changed. Individuals, in some instances can deem that they don't want to live according to "nature" and make a forced decision to change.
But I totally agree with you on where this is headed vis-a-vis transhumanism. We can actually change genetic codes that we find abhorrent in the 21st century - such as the larger animal being quick to throw a fist rather than talk.
In no way to I mean to diminish the role of genetics in determining human behavior. Genes are our "hard-wiring." In that sense, we're basically robots. But there is "soft-wiring" as well. Like, the "hard-wiring" of genetics can be tweaked here and there by varying social factors. So we can use that knowledge to our advantage or disadvantage. I see where you're coming from, I should have made myself clearer in the video.
(lol - "floating head") great vid though thanks x
l3londel3arbie 1 hour ago
you are totally uniformed about marx...starvation was one of his tools for population control...check out The Soviet Story
and then watch your video...A for effort...F for content.
MegaMandrake99 2 weeks ago
Great great video.
silvastomp 3 months ago
you video helped me, but i don't believe that if you are born into poverty and finally escape that cycle, it is luck. don't you think like Plato and Aristotle that it is human nature to find happiness? it is only nature to want to escape from an impoverished life and attain happiness.
massie255 4 months ago
Nice video, you hit the spot alright!
BlueFrog83 5 months ago
I've finally found a person (and video) who is sane.
zonilo1 7 months ago
"Those who grow up in wealth are not going to have to resort to those behaviours" Vlad Tehpes, Edward Longshanks, Harald Hardrada... these names mean anything to you? I can't find any quote from before Marx about changing the world by changing yourself. You seem to be making stuff up.
newperve 11 months ago
The problem is: people do shape their environments based on their general intelligence levels. As far as economic prosperity goes, why are there some cultures/races continually living well below the poverty line? Generally speaking, the races that scored the worst on standardized IQ tests lived in the worst conditions. Environment only accounts for a part of the deviation, while the rest is genetic.
wrdeboise 11 months ago
Karl Marx was shit head like me.
omega4chimp 11 months ago
You sound like an unusually smart Marxist :3
And I think you should read The Blank Slate - the modern denial of human nature by Steven Pinker. Cause... there's human nature <.< (doesn't really contradict your ideology tough)
Happypast 1 year ago
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
cwestsupporter 1 year ago
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
cwestsupporter 1 year ago
I enjoyed the video, as it was thoughtful, well delivered and intelligent. However,(always a however) all organisms absoloutely have an impact on their enviroment. All living organisms rather they be of higher intelligence or guided solely by instinct absolutely create change in their enviroment. However man is the only organism to not only impact the physical enviroment but also the intelectual enviroment, i.e political, economic and social. I can't believe you would argue against that.
cwestsupporter 1 year ago
normal is an opinion
the true def of normal: the way you as a individual think should be the right way/...
normal doesn't exist only opinions and theories and words that have been branded into our minds and said in a way to manipulate your own thoughts
WarWulf519 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
naneedj.info Iam single and am here
SuperIrane 1 year ago
You have a very good understanding of this subject and it shows the way you explained it in this video thank you
rahhfeerawrx 1 year ago
"...if you grow your beard long enough, someone will listen."
- Karl Marx
jag10 1 year ago 2
The way that organisms adapt is to environmental pressure. You can place organisms in a wide array of environments and as long as they can reproduce successfully, natural selection will not cause them to evolve to any great significance. Just because human nature isn't static doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Communism would only really succeed where pressure (of resources or the lack thereof) is great enough that you would be more likely to survive and reproduce by adopting it.
ultrapirtle 1 year ago
Holy hell; there exists someone on this planet who is not only opinionated but is intelligent. I am now a subscriber.
paco461 1 year ago
That was an awesome video! I loved when you said around the lines of "piss off and go compete with a tiger on an island" haha excellent stuff and broke it down very well. Although, I am a Roman Cathoic and believer of God, I also understand the social aspects to life and totally agree with what you were saying. Keep it up my friend and keep talking. All the best, Sean. Politics BA University of Greenwich UK
ashdotmanmc 1 year ago
Great video dude.
FOUGHETTHEPAST 1 year ago
"(Darwin's) ideas have been appropriated by many different ideologies and personalities (sic) yet most of these commentaries were developed with very little understanding of Darwin's actual views, whether political or scientific." - "Evolution & Ecology of the Organism" (Rose & Mueller, 2006)
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
towards the end, it kind of sounds like your communism.
which that's cool if you are. as you said earlier their is more than one way for a society to function.
but the problem that i'm having is that you mentioned that greed is a product of our environment. i disagree. i believe it's a human trait.
however, in communism, where everyone is given equal everything, i can see how the greed trait would be suppressed due to it not being applicable.
imaGetAnothrBeer 1 year ago
@imaGetAnothrBeer
I findamentally disagree, and the video post explains, there is no human nature, only bahavior. We may peceive these characteristics to be natural , but surely nothing is "natural"
lasbarricadasnow 1 year ago
towards the end, it kind of sounds like your communism.
which that's cool if you are. as you said earlier their is more than one way for a society to function.
but the problem that i'm having is that you mentioned that greed is a product of our environment. i disagree. i believe it's a human trait.
however, in communism, where everyone is given equal everything, i can see how the greed trait would be suppressed due to it not being applicable.
DoobieDude56 1 year ago
there are no populations, only individuals. an individual is a step in evolution. how many genetic mutations are found per generation?
rand was correct. she dealt with the actual building blocks of evolution, as opposed to doing the impossible, namely, controlling the environment. we are social creatures, yes, but society itself is an illusion.
ashxlon 2 years ago
I agree with most of what he said except one thing; "this will be the most productive environment". Now, maybe I'm arguing semantics, but I believe he should have phrased it; "perhaps this would be an environment more conducive to productivity".
I find it distasteful when people argue with certainty that they simply do not have.
TheWALOS 2 years ago
Loved the video xx13moons, very logical points. I agree, pure capitalism doesn't work, neither does pure communism. A mixed economy is the best imo, in my country (Ireland) we all have free healthcare and social welfare etc. Education (even college) is paid for by the government, which people avail of regardless of background/social status. Yet there is always a private option, allowing people to recieve a better standard of living through there efficency and competitive drive. Subscribed!
ApplesFallFromTrees 2 years ago
dude u have beautiful eyes
skollywhop 2 years ago 2
lol, thank you... :D
xx13moons 2 years ago
Good video. It's nice to watch youtube videos that puts you into a good mood early morning :D
I was wondering if you have seen Zeitgeist Addendum movie? I think you'll like it.
Peace.
asiandawn69 2 years ago
yea I've seen both the Zeitgest movies, I thought they were pretty great. Some parts were a bit... liberal with the facts, but most of it seemed right on. Thanks for commenting.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I'd doff my cap to you were it not for my disdain for bourgeois practices.
A couple of notes in support.
You mentioned paedophilia as an individual issue. Even a majority of paedophiles were themselves abused as children. It's no coincidence.
If 'nature' outweighs nurture, then why do parents bother "raising" their children in specific ways - to be generous, to be polite, to be respectful and tolerant?
The one thing I think you missed in this video is a short investigation of this claim that
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"Human nature is greed!"
It's repeated verbatim and ad nauseum in the public domain. Why? Why those exact words each time? Enter the cultural hegemony. The dominant discourse is monopolised by bourgeouis media and philosophy.
"Human nature is greed" excuses and justifies the capitalist's existence. Society has always seen greed as an intolerable vice. The task is to normalise the practice.
Yet, it's just 'not' normal to steal a lollipop from a three year old when there's no one around to see.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Yes, you're right. "Greed" must be "human nature" if the system is going to continue on as it is. If everyone started figuring out that human nature is not in-fact all greedy; the entire structure of our capitalist civilization would quickly crumble to pieces. Greed is the glue that keeps the parts together. So, in our warped view, greed is not only an innate human behavior, but greed is "good." Good for the economy; for a culture that thrives on consumption.
xx13moons 2 years ago
"I'd doff my cap to you were it not for my disdain for bourgeois practices." I don't understand what you mean here. You think I'm advocating "bourgeois practices" in some way?
xx13moons 2 years ago
No no. Don't you guys have doffing your cap in America?
You know, you tap your cap, or take it off your head and say "How-de-do-dee, sir?" as a symbol of recognition or compliment.
Very bourgeois practice.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
I'll elaborate for clarity. It was a compliment to your video. It's bourgeois on my part to 'doff' my cap in complimentary fashion.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
Thanks for the comments
xx13moons 2 years ago
Oh, lol... yea I get what you mean now.. my bad :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
Darwinism and Marxism are completely different ideologies, competition and survival of the fittest don't seem to coincide with Marxism. Religious conservatives are flawed in there ideology as well, how can you believe in god and be a social Darwinist. God is a control freak totalitarian, he would probably be an admirer of Marx if he existed.
ih8pinkos 2 years ago
You obviously didn't listen to what I said. If you did, you wouldn't have left this comment. "Survival of the fittest" applies to populations more than individuals. Especially when we're talking about social animals, like Chimpanzees or Humans. We work together; alone, we are useless. Thus the fittest population (group, culture, tribe, whatever) survives moreso than the fittest individual. And the "fittest" population is one that works in unity, community and togetherness. Right?
xx13moons 2 years ago
That's certainly a nice spin on the issue but the strongest most fit individuals are the ones that last, that's what natural selection is. The individual with the strongest genes is the one that has the offspring. The chimp that can fight survives while the chimp that cannot dies, that survivor reproduces, passing those genes on to his offspring. Eventually the weak die off and the stronger INDIVIDUALS thrive. In conclusion, self determined individuals evolve. Right?
ih8pinkos 2 years ago
You completely misunderstand the process of natural selection.
Do you REALLY think that billions of years of biological evolution was hinged on the "strength" of individuals? wtf. Wow.
I'm ending this discussion because I'm rather tired of having to carry on about simple scientific facts. If you want to know, you'll know. This is the information age, afterall. May God bless.
xx13moons 2 years ago
You're blind if you don't see individual strength is what makes a society or species more fit to survive, and you misinterpret me if you think I'm saying one strong individual can carry the rest, I'm saying a population of strong individuals united as one nation or species is much stronger than a collection of sick and dying outcasts. Also, just because you believe in capitalism does not make you greedy, it makes you self determined and responsible. Marxism died. Equality is earned. Get over it.
ih8pinkos 2 years ago
Marxism died? Interesting considering that half of the world nations are Communists. Also, with the economy lately, it looks like Capitalism is well on it's way to the grave as well. Every political system has it's problems, Communism or otherwise. And unless you're forgetting, the USA ranks terrible on many core issues like income, health care, longevity, etc.. compared to other stable socialist countries like Sweden and Norway. Not everything fits into neat little boxes... yea..
xx13moons 2 years ago
and please don't tell me what to "get over." I don't take very kindly to facetious ignoramuses, k? So take the nonsense and stick it back up your ass kid. Now begone, gnat.
xx13moons 2 years ago
You're wrong, and xx13moons is quite right to say that you don't understand Darwinism. There's no point in trying to bluff you're way through it, because anyone who has read the Origin Of Species can see immediately that you haven't, or at least failed to understand what you were reading somehow.
Your misunderstanding stems from listening to those influenced by bourgeois 'philosophers' such as the Social Darwinist, Herbert Spencer.
This leads you to, as Spencer did, misconstrue "Strength" for
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
"suitability", or "adaptability". Evolutionary strength isn't about fighting - as Peter Kropotkin demonstrates in "Mutual Aid: A Factor Of Evolution". It can be camoflage, the ability to survive long periods without water. In the case of humans, our evolutionary strength is our ability to co-operate. As isolationist creatures, we would perish, something which we (what you call) "pinkos" are able to comprehend.
The second point on which you are wrong is that you fail to indicate any
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
philosophical justification or logical link explaining why evolutionary 'strength' (the ability to survive as a species in nature) legitimises social and economic inequalities or varying relations to the means of production.
More to the point, if physical strength is the indicator of success then........wow.
Bill Gates must be packing one Hell of a body underneath that wimpy exterior.
Nor does inhereitance come into your equation.
Ignorance is no excuse in this day in age. Get reading.
samsonlovesyou 2 years ago
@ih8pinkos
People working together for their common interest, rather than for a few capitalists in control of the means of production, all of the resources, are "sick and dying outcasts" ? Actually it's people like you who are sick and dying.
Capitalism creates artificial values and scarcity..Do you actually think there isn't enough food in the world to feed everyone ? We have the material and human resources, as a society to do anything..Money - capital is a false, destructrive system.
AquariaNetTV 1 year ago
I don't see any of the preexisting civil-isms' (cap, soc, com...) progressively serving man. especially as they all draw from a corrupt monetary system.
check out some of the discussions on "TZMofficialchannel" I'm sure many of peter Joseph's and jacque fresco's views will interest you.
Solid Vid, Ty
1 people 1 world
Th3Wab3 2 years ago
And the "fucked up" humans are a factor in this equation that pretty much roughens the prospects of the utopian attempt as seen with Communism. Regardless of the good intentions a system has there will always be a moron in there pulling some strings and the masses, sadly who don't have the intellectual capabilities, will not see through it and thus for, we'll probably never (I know, it's negative) achieve better.. I totally agree with you regarding your speech, it's quite clever.
afroschlan 2 years ago
@afroschlan, yea I agree, it's the age old battle over power. Thanks for the comments
xx13moons 2 years ago
Keep up the good work, fellow human. Sadly there are not more realists out there, other wise, who knows where we could be :)
afroschlan 2 years ago
Well, how can you shape a better environment if most people act selfishly? It does really begin with the person. You change yourself, and the world does change. If people are fucked up, they're going to create a fucked up society. I'll agree, that if you're raised in a shit hole, the odds are against you, but a person can be aware enough to rise above it. It's been done by people raised in very harsh conditions. Trying to change the society first is the cart before the horse. Inner is the outer.
wonderwhaz797 2 years ago
The question is how do you break the cycle. If the child brought up in desperate circumstances is shaped into a person that tends to reinforce that desperate situation they end up fighting anything that raises them out of that situation. The culture/environment the child is in, has an almost evolutionary quality in itself and will not lightly submit to its own extinction.
morganbath 2 years ago
Ah hem. Your environment, as with any young white American today, was and is 100% domineered by the ideas and outcomes of a capitalistc society. Not to mention, the only reason you even have the ability to discuss these things on the internet is because of the technology revolution in the 90s, completely fueled by aggressive capitalism. If you really believe the nonsense you are talking about, go stand on a soapbox. And if you hate our form of society so much, stop reaping its benefits.
will2k501 2 years ago
This nonsense you spew about the innovations of capitalism is pure bunk. China is outdoing us in just about every industry; are they capitalist? And why the hell can't we sell an automobile anymore? You're entire argument is ad hoc, and ad hominem. Seriously. Usually, I only waste my words on people who can have decent, intelligent conversation. So consider yourself honored. Now begone, gnat!
xx13moons 2 years ago
My guess is that you watched nothing of what I had to say, you probably just looked at the title, saw "Marx" and thought, "I'm gonna show him!" Right? And if you did watch, it's obvious that everything I said went way over your head - since you felt the need to respond with completely irrelevant drivel. I have no problem with dissent; actually, I love debate. But intelligent, thought-provoking debate. I could care less about your insipid, thoughtless generalizations. So take them elsewhere.
xx13moons 2 years ago
This will2k fellow isn't necessarily dumb. I think he's 'on the right track' so to speak but really needs to look at the conflict of structure v. agency. He says that structure has %100 influence on individuals (agents). If that were the case, every thing we thought and say would be determined by the laws, norms, folkways, etc. that are embedded within social institutions. The past haunts the present as Marx might say.
What you are saying is that people are adaptable to a certain extent.
shumich 2 years ago
I'm not trying to "show you up" or anything like that. I'm trying to show that you and will2k have some common ground and shouldn't necessarily be at 'each others throats'. BTW insipid is an awesome word.
Have you ever heard of Sorokin?
shumich 2 years ago
@shumich, Sorokin... can't say that I have actually. Thanks for the comments. You make some good points. I reacted that way to will2k because I sensed a bit of ... insincerity in what he was saying. Also his comment about, "if you actually believe this nonsense, go stand on a soapbox." I don't need to hear sarcasm and stupidity. My guess is that he really doesn't know that much about Socialism. Yes, it has a horrible track record, I'll give you that. But too many people assume to know what it is
xx13moons 2 years ago
Kind of like the "Tea Baggers," who walk around with nonsensical anti-Obama signs that say things like, "No More Socialism," as if we live in a political environment that is even close to socialism, it's not. America is about the furthest thing from Socialism imaginable. Too many people assume to know what socialism means, without actually researching Marxism, dialectical materialism, class issues, etc.. I just don't like straw-man arguments, i.e. "you just want to take other peoples money!" No
xx13moons 2 years ago
Loved the video. Subscribed.
adeadlysniper 2 years ago
Thank you, it's well appreciated :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
great video
RATMagainstbush8 2 years ago
Thanks :)
xx13moons 2 years ago
Humans, unlike animals, are not automatically driven to provide for their survival. Each individual must choose to do what is necessary to survive. Some do, some don't. What does someone who does have to gain by supporting - let alone what does the species have to gain by promoting the genes of - someone who does not?
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Well, first I would say that your premise is faulty. What do you mean humans are not driven to provide for their survival? Of course they are. Also, we can only "provide" when the means are available. If you live in the desert, destitute and emptied of water and agriculture; there isn't going to be much to provide with. The resources have to be there to begin with; but that's becoming more and more difficult for third-world peoples as we keep taking them all for ourselves, in excess.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Damn, you're right. I forgot about the ruins of an ancient, African version of New York City which was recently unearthed.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Marxist, religous believer, both deceived individuals........Self-interest is the driving force of progress. The individual is inviolate, the "group" has no rights.
216trixie 2 years ago
It would all depend on how you might define "progress." That's a very vague term. Humans are a social species, would you agree? A few thousand years ago, one of the harshest punishments that an individual could have to face was banishment from the tribe - we've all heard stories of that. A man or woman violates the tribal laws and is cast out in the wilderness. Do you know why this was the most dreaded of punishments? Because we are USELESS alone. Most die of starvation or weather, quickly.
xx13moons 2 years ago
to add to this comment: prison is our failed method of incorporating this concept of banishment while trying to recondition...
Th3Wab3 2 years ago
Like other primate species; our strength is in our numbers, and our ability (or lack thereof) to work together for the common good. Individuals are all but useless. Groups, working together, have built civilizations, the pyramids, airplanes, cured diseases, sent a man too the moon. Go out into the woods alone and live and see what you can accomplish (and bring NONE of the technology or tools that other people invented.) Let me know how that works out.
xx13moons 2 years ago
very well said. my video on equality of opportunity was just a small part of what you covered here.
cubanoafuego 2 years ago 2
Human behavior is real, human nature is a creationist con.
InsurgenistCujo 2 years ago 3
I'm about as "non-creationist" as anyone you will ever meet and they certainly didn't con me. I accept the *fact* of human nature because virtually every scientific study in the past 2 decades reaffirms it. Some scientists have taken this too far and basically claim *everything* is nature. Both sides hypotheses are false. We are the products of nature - and nurture. I personally suspect that nurture is the more important of the two - but that hasn't been conclusively shown yet.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
If you're speaking about genetics, certainly I agree. I wouldn't call it "human nature" though. I'd just call it human genetics. The point I try to make is that, whatever our "nature" may be at any given time; it is subject to change; this includes our genetics of course. If our environment changes, we will change to adapt to it - genetics and all.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Well, you can't just slough off "genetics" (and beyond that - all biological functions) as if it is just some abstract word.
We know that all cultures do certain things the same even if they had no prior connection to other cultures (the "poisoned well")
Use of language, right down to grammatical rules, facial expressions (smile = happy), death rituals, tribalism, and the list includes at least 150 different things that are cultural universals - from genetics - and that's nature.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
I agree with everything you've said thus far in your comments. The entire point is that our "nature" is subject to change, it's pliable; would you disagree? Of course there are universals and constants in human behavior. That's a truism for all species. However, human "nature" is not a permanent, fixed thing. We're learning more and more about this as the potential for genetic engineering becomes greater, i.e. transhumanism. We can shape our own genetic legacy if we wish.
xx13moons 2 years ago
I'm not meaning to imply that I'm on the side of the Sociologists who say that the human mind is a blank slate waiting to be molded by socio-economic factors. That is somewhat true. But genetics are the biggest factor insofar as behavior is concerned. I would say that what makes a person who they are is a grand mixture of genetics AND socio-economic factors; and both of these things are subject to change.
xx13moons 2 years ago
'our "nature" is subject to change, it's pliable; would you disagree?'
That's the point of "nature" - it can't be changed. Individuals, in some instances can deem that they don't want to live according to "nature" and make a forced decision to change.
But I totally agree with you on where this is headed vis-a-vis transhumanism. We can actually change genetic codes that we find abhorrent in the 21st century - such as the larger animal being quick to throw a fist rather than talk.
AncientAtheist 2 years ago
In no way to I mean to diminish the role of genetics in determining human behavior. Genes are our "hard-wiring." In that sense, we're basically robots. But there is "soft-wiring" as well. Like, the "hard-wiring" of genetics can be tweaked here and there by varying social factors. So we can use that knowledge to our advantage or disadvantage. I see where you're coming from, I should have made myself clearer in the video.
xx13moons 2 years ago
Thank you for sharing your smartness with us mortals XD Can we have your brain now?
organdva 2 years ago 4