| MontanaHatchet said: You're comparing human technology and capabilities with human social behavior. Sounds like a flaw in YOUR logic to me. One is an accomplishment in technology. Worldwide communication at fast speed is accomplished through things such as telephones, the internet, etc. These things are technology. All of the nations helping each other all the time and providing aid is an example of a social accomplishment, one which will never be effectively possible. While we do currently have things like the United Nations, free trade, and a general collaboration between nations, the type of thing you mentioned will never happen. Humans are simply not the creatures you described. Your argument seems to be like an old Disney line. "ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE" sounds like what you were getting at, but I'm not sure. I'm sure that one day we'll have travel across the stars, and a greater understanding of microscopic organisms, with the cures for every virus and disease and condition that ravage the world today. But that's technology. Technology has been constantly progressing for thousands of years now, but social progress has been progressing much more slowly. And even though social progress has been great from say...10,000 years ago, we still have the same pack mentality. Another thing. I don't think anyone was really treating the Haitians as inferiors. I think most people were indifferent to Haiti before the catastrophe (I know I couldn't really have cared less). If you asked the average person about Haitians, they'd either tell you that they don't even know who they are, or something vague ("they're alright, I guess..."). Few people, except for racists and bigots, would call or consider them inferior. Human nature, above all else, is to find a group to belong to and fight the groups that oppose you. And while this instinct has been muddled somewhat by our complicated nature and higher intelligence, we still always have that element of a beast within us. That's why you see so much pride in nations, religions, race, etc. People want to feel like they belong to a group, because people are social. But ultimately, different groups will always clash, especially groups with millions of people and similar interests. Also consider that so much of technological progress in the past has been because people were studying new ways to kill each other for their own best interest (metal forging, study of new elements with gunpowder, etc.). We may one day see a collaboration between nations where every one is always helping each other out, but no nation will do it unless its in their own self interest (making themselves look good, opening up new trade partnerships). People are selfish, and we can only change our nature so much. I could rant on and on about how what you described would never work, but I think I've explained it enough by now. So next time you claim I'm making a mistake in my logic, check your own please. Thank you! |
Well no need for damage control but you did make a mistake and I proved it quite easily. It happens, try not to take it so personally. But arguing with logic is not a good thing to do.
Second, I did say it was an idealist rant. But it's more than that. It is a question of why the idealist rant has to be the impossibility while the brutal reality is common acceptance. Basiically, why accept what we know is bad when we can achieve something far greater. We strike my argument down as childish thoughts or the impossible, but none of those are true whatsoever. Maybe it's man's willingness to accept the status quo that is the issue.
Now as I stated, if you want to get into a human nature argument, you have to do better than that. A sense of belongingness doesn't necessarily constitute human nature. You could state that due to being born and raised in a family, that it is "nurtured" into you that you need to belong to something. That you need to be a part of something. However, using that argument, to confirm the validity of it as a human nature idea isn't logical.
