It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I think you've hit on a key point here:
Originally posted by Cauliflower
Born into a world of privilege and of unlimited resources this is probably true for most people.
Yes I know we aren't wolves, and I'm not trying to say we are. However I'm saying that wolves aren't as intelligent as humans and even for them, tendency toward violence is not simple and clear-cut. For more intelligent and more complicated creatures like humans, it's even less simple and clear-cut, so I don't think that we can say it "is" or "is not" in our nature to be violent.
Being an alpha wolf requires aggression, control, and leadership. Perhaps not surprisingly, alpha wolves typically possess higher levels of stress hormones than do subordinate wolves, who may not eat as much, but have, apparently, far less stress.
Pack members are usually, but not always friendly and cooperative. Wolves from other packs are usually, but not always enemies.
A new study indicates that human generosity may have a limit, even when being generous would fulfill our selfish tendencies too. In an economic game where investing all available resources in cooperation with others gave the largest possible reward, players would still hold back from contributing everything they had, and continued to view their collaborators as potential competitors. Our ability to cooperate appears to have definite limits, just as our selfishness does.
Originally posted by purplemer
A new study published last month in Nature Journalsuggests that humans are naturally good. This study adds to the mounting evidence against the popular misconception that corruption is a trait of human nature.
In ten experiments using economic games, scientists observed that faster decisions result in more cooperation and generosity, while slower, calculated decisions show a decrease in cooperation and generosity. The conclusion is that the automatic reaction is to be friendly, generous and cooperative, and only upon further consideration do humans become greedy or violent.
This kind of goes against what we are taught to believe. That it is natural for human beings to be negative to each other. Children know positive facial recognition from birth. Negative recognition is taught. I wonder how much society and government teach us to be negative..edit on 4-10-2012 by purplemer because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by generik
i don't think i agree with the findings. from what i have seen of young children and it doesn't seem to matter how they were raised seem to have a violent tendency. whether it be kicking, biting, scratching, pulling hair, throwing tantrums. they ALL seem to do it. pretty much as soon as they are really mobile this trait seems to come out to varying degrees. all it can take to trigger it is something they want, and you will not give it, or something they don't want like eating their dinner and they start. even the best behaved children seem to go through this especially if they are tired. that to me seems to state that it is inherent behavior and not trained behavior. in fact i have NEVER HEARD OF a child who didn't do this. especially at the age of about 2 or 3 years old. even to the point that one of the first learned and most often used words is NO or linguistically similar words for that or DO NOT LIKE. i see this behavior from pretty much all kids, doesn't mater if they are disciplined or not disciplined or even just let run wild.it also dosn't seem to matter if those around them constantly fight or never fight, or even if the only other person is a single parent. as such i can't swallow that it is LEARNED behavior.
Originally posted by tkwasny
When not mating nor feeding we seek nothingness and null.
We exist to be proxies to provide awareness of zero and nothing, for absorption by the Source that can not otherwise do so, being the All Things.
Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by Moneyisgodlifeisrented
So then an animals life, let's say a dogs life, is brought about to experience life? What about a butterfly? What about a fruit fly that only lives a couple of days? How about grass, what experiences does it get? Or even single celled life?
Your opppinion is of a religious " man is different, seperate from all other life" view point. If life was about experiencing "life" than things would be different, life wouldn't rrquire the death of other life to survive.
Instead, for life to continue, it requires the death of other life. When life ends, many many many new lives spring forth from that single death.
Life is simply a natural function of entropy. All states of all things always seek out a more chaotic state.
Order, therby peace, is not the nature of the universe, chaos, therby death and destruction is however.
I am not stating phylosophical beliefs here, I am stating known facts. You are using emotions to guide your responses, I am using cold hard logic.
Emotions are simply natures way of forcing desired responses to stimuli on the subject in question. We don't love because we are divine, we love because it is the best way to force most members of the species to work together to protect and guarantee the survival of their family unit. Fear only exists to force a flight or fight response, to guarantee the survival of the subject in question to guarantee a longer life, thus more time to breed more life. Joy and happiness only exist to force the desired effect of rewarding behavior that is productive to maintaining and ensuring the survival of the family unit, jonking around, pride etc.
The point is, life is designed at every level to ensure more life is born, so that it can die and give life to more life. There is no phylosophical answer as phylosophy was a construct of mans intuitive mind. It isn't a natural state, it is a end result of evveolutionary developement, that has given rise to the most dominant form of life known at present to have ever existed on this planet, nothing more.
One cannot think to apply man made consepts to natural evolution, it isn't the same thing, one simply is, the other was created out of want of an answer, as to what the reason for such an intuitive mind on such a hostile and violent existant, that is at the same time, finite, and huge beyond measure.