Human Nature

Hello, Project (Machine Project?).

No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: “When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s.” That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

Yes. I can.

Human means the “Hue-of-Man” wherein Man is the higher order of the species of homosapian. Animals do not have that higher order (national, world, and eugenics governments) that creates human cultures.

In another perspective;

If human nature is 100%, it can also be represented as the combination of,
98% animal nature + 2% specific human nature.
Despite the significant difference in the external expressions of humans as distinct from other living things, I think the above combination is applicable to describe human nature.

For example, if we were to transplant that 2% of human properties to our nearest primates, they would like to be very similar to humans in time.
At present primates/dolphins already have some degree of culture that are similar to humans, i.e. the use of tool, games, language, deliberated evil, etc.

That is also my estimation and assessment. But these 2% are not really few - we know it, especially from genetics.

The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own “island” (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

That’s an interesting theme.

That’s not true, alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species.

What is not true?

Whether “alpha males and their mates get the first resources in almost any species” or not is obviously not important for luxury beings. Are Occidental humans alpha males and their mates? Do they have the most descendants? No! The reverse is true: They have the least descendants. Do the humans with the most descendants (thus currently the Black humans in Africa) get the first resources? No!

Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!

I cannot see how luxury is a significant difference animal nature and human nature.
Another difference between animal and human nature is the degree of self-consciousness on a continuum.
If the highest degree of self-consciousness in animals (e.g. primates, dolphins, elephants, etc.) are say 10/100, then humans could be rated 60/100.

Many animals are driven to extravagance by their procreation impulses.
Some birds go to the extreme of decorating their nests and themselves to attract the other sex. As mentioned the alpha male/female will also engage in excesses as selfish indulgence in order to dominate.
They do not regard it as ‘luxury’ only because their degree of self-consciousness (self-awareness, ego, etc.) is significantly lower that those of humans.

Humans also engage in the same excesses like animals but the difference is due to their higher degree of self-consciousness and egoism. Where they do it to the extreme, that is not normal human nature but rather it becomes a mental disease of obsession, compulsive disorder behavior, addiction, etc.

It is true humans do not conform to Darwinian theory of adaptation in full.
However humans still conform to general evolution theory and the preservation of the species in terms of large numbers, i.e. 7 billion++ and growing. I think the human species is quite secure until the Earth is physically inhabitable* for all humans.
*Singed/charred by the Sun coming near to Earth or destroyed by a rogue meteor, etc.

Prismatic, please correct the quotations in your last post!

In the case of the humans self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism is one aspect, yes, but the main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: “extreme”) after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal (“individual”) development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, … were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

So is, naturally primates are 99.9%-animals, but culturally primates are 99.9%-primates.
(primates do have ‘culture’ but very insignificant if compared to humans)

What about this;
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but ‘nurturally’ humans are 98%-humans.

My intuition is that it’s way too reductive to say human nature boils down to this one trait, or any one trait that I can think of, but the human ability for sophisticated abstraction and shared abstraction comes to mind. Our mental categorization and schematism of the world set us apart from the beginning and have only become more prominent since.

I can go along with that - and do.
fuse, if you could compare humanity to only one animal, which would it be? I’m being serious here.

A superior creature ought to be able to reproduce endlessly and survive eternally.

So luxury is culture, and culture is luxury?

Will you?

What are examples of the higher order of humanity?

A cat/dog hybrid. Part lion, part wolf, and in modern times I feel rather like it’s part house cat, part domesticated dog.

If you consider “nurture” as a main aspect of human culture: yes. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

Yes.

When?

As I said (for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the “luxury islands”.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say “human nature is human culture/s”, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!

Rabbits and cock roaches do that. Does that make them superior? :mrgreen:

The most implicit distinction between Man and cockroaches is in his ability to dream. If cockroaches could dream, they would look like armored, iron men by now. Perhaps this is somewhat what Kafka may have had in mind.