arndt@lymph.DEC (02/27/85)
A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question
that I would like someone to answer please.
"Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?"
- Adolf Hitler
Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and
unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just
why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature?
Regards,
Ken Arndtrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Professor Wagstaff) (02/28/85)
> A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question > that I would like someone to answer please. > > "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" > > - Adolf Hitler > > Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and > unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just > why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature? [ARNDT] Why? Because not doing so can provide better longterm results for everyone. A larger and more diverse society unhindered by those who wish to exercise cruelty against other human beings winds up by its very nature being better in the long run: more freedom for individuals yields more innovation and production and widespread benefits. If you were trying to say that ONLY through "Uzibsmo (sp ... and sacrilege) says stuff", you were wrong again. But thanks for always asking those questions that you think can't be answered except on your terms. -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
john@x.UUCP (John Woods) (03/01/85)
> A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question > that I would like someone to answer please. > "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" > - Adolf Hitler > Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and > unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just > why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature? > Regards, > Ken Arndt Having accidentally missed the 'n' key on Arndt's article, I found it uniquely worth answering. How about: Human beings appear to uniquely have a choice in the matter (you don't see wombats sitting in French cafe's drinking espresso and debating philosophy, do you?). Choosing to strive to build generates pleasure in many humans (a simple, animalistic maximization function that even Ken can appreciate:-). Further, evolutionary pressure would seem to discourage mindless cruelty, as humans seem to have accumulated an excess of members who would rather not be mindlessly cruel, to the point where they will fight bloody battles to stop those who are. Further discussion of this ought to go to net.philosophy, because it might just turn out to be interesting. However, since this is net.flame, I guess I must say something unreasonable. How about: I have to remember to fix rnews to discard Arndt articles. Has anyone done this yet, in case I am re-inventing the wheel (:-)? -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Sorry, I don't feel deep right now.
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/01/85)
> > A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question > > that I would like someone to answer please. > > > > "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" > > > > - Adolf Hitler > > > > Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and > > unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just > > why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature? [ARNDT] > This question already presumes certain things that may not be true. One is that nature is *crueler* than human beings. Actually there have never been any species (to my knowledge, anybody know differently?) that went about systematically murdering other members of their own species. Other members of their species may wind up starving to death, being hunted by predators and so forth but the members of the species do not dispatch their fellows to the gas chamber or such themselves. Other species also do not have the peculiar institution of war: as ethologists have pointed out, while most species have established forms of agression for mating and so forth, a part of these forms is to *stop before murder*. It would not do the species much good if fighting over mates led to the decimation of the protagonists. There is also benevolence in nature. I just saw a "Nature" segment on the Osprey falcon: it was very touching to see both mother and father build the nest and bring food back to their young. Love is a *part* of nature! tim sevener whuxl!orb
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/03/85)
>>> A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question >>> that I would like someone to answer please. >>> >>> "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" >>> >>> - Adolf Hitler >>> >>> Anyone want to try and explain it. Of course we know religion is bosh and >>> unscientific and unrational so can the Uzibsmo says stuff. I mean just >>> why should humans be DIFFERENT than other things in nature? [ARNDT] >> > >This question already presumes certain things that may not be true. >One is that nature is *crueler* than human beings. Actually there have never >been any species (to my knowledge, anybody know differently?) that went >about systematically murdering other members of their own species. >Other members of their species may wind up starving to death, being hunted >by predators and so forth but the members of the species do not dispatch >their fellows to the gas chamber or such themselves. This is a myth. It is now known that many mammalian species actually do commit murder. I think primates are the best documented. Basically, chimpanzees have organized their society into the equivalent of street gangs, with terretorial claims and all. If a lone chimpanzee is at the wrong place at the wrong time, there is a good chance that he will be beaten to death. Since the chimps are perpetually in this state, their overall murder rate is much higher than that of humans, even including wars. See back issues of Discover magazine for more details. >Other species also do not have the peculiar institution of war: as ethologists >have pointed out, while most species have established forms of agression >for mating and so forth, a part of these forms is to *stop before murder*. The reason that they do not have war is lack of sufficient organization. When there sufficient organization, there can also be war: a mammalian body is simply a highly organized colony of eucaryotes, so a fight between two mammals is a war between colonies of cells. As to aggression which is related to mating, the animals have evolved weapons which are usually not powerful enough for murder, but the intent is to kill. For example, it would take a great deal of time and energy for an alpha bull walrus to kill its challenger, and usually has to settle for bruising it heavily and then resting or doing something else. >It would not do the species much good if fighting over mates led to the >decimation of the protagonists. True, but it may be in the best interest of the indivual members; see above paragraph. >There is also benevolence in nature. I just saw a "Nature" segment on >the Osprey falcon: it was very touching to see both mother and father >build the nest and bring food back to their young. > >Love is a *part* of nature! > tim sevener whuxl!orb Yes, but the general rule is indifference to anything other than offspring. The general rule for humans on the other hand is cooperation, while murder is usually exceptional enough to make the headlines of the local papers. And war is exceptional enough to attract the attention of the whole world. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "2*x^5-10*x+5=0 is not solvable by radicals." -Evariste Galois.
jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/04/85)
> > A person who, not so long ago was the idol of millions poised a question > that I would like someone to answer please. > > "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" > > - Adolf Hitler > > Ken Arndt Nature is neither cruel nor kind. It doesn't have the capacity. Cruelty implies intent, which implies conciousness. Human beings have conciousness, whereas nature as a whole doesn't. One might interpret "cruel" in the above statement by Mr. Schickelgruber to mean "giving pain to others" without any component of intent or conciousness. In this case my answer is that the world is more pleasant if we aren't cruel; since our conciousness gives us the ability to make choices, why not choose to be happy instead of miserable? The obvious answer to this is that cruelty causes unhappiness in others, not in the one who is cruel. My rebuttal is that this ignores the pleasure and satisfaction one gets from loving one's fellow human beings, and also that a cruel person is likely to suffer cruel retaliation. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
josh@topaz.ARPA (J Storrs Hall) (03/04/85)
> tim sevener whuxl!orb > Other species also do not have the peculiar institution of war: as ethologists > have pointed out, while most species have established forms of agression > for mating and so forth, a part of these forms is to *stop before murder*. > It would not do the species much good if fighting over mates led to the > decimation of the protagonists. The murder rate among many animals (not just Black Widows, I mean higher primates such as the Hamadryas babboon) are several times as high as human rates. The "benevolent nature" myth is just that. --JoSH
teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) (03/04/85)
> "Why shouldn't human beings be as cruel as nature is?" > Think a little and maybe you'll see the difference. The key is the ability to think. Some people in this world are no better than animals, including the one to whom the above statement is attributed. However, our intellect, which is higher than other species separates us and challenges us to be better. Eliyahu Teitz. p.s. As a side statement, I really don't see the purpose of the posting.