• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    What “Human Nature” goes against the idea of sharing tools, rather than letting wealthy people hold dictatorial control over them?

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Why do chimps kill chimps from other groups that come into their territory? Why do some chimps use aggression against other chimps to manipulate them, while other chimps use grooming?

      A certain degree of sharing is part of our human / animal nature, but so is a certain degree of claiming ownership over things, and certain individuals have more sway over decisions than others. Flat hierarchies with nobody in command seem to work in theory, but in practice it’s different.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s the Naturalistic fallacy at work, though. We aren’t chimps, nor is doing what humans did in the past necessarily better than what we do now. By that chain, you would be an Anarcho-primitivist.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            But we aren’t chimps, and you shouldn’t judge the effectiveness of economic structures on what chimps do.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              Nor should you pretend that we’re not apes, and that ape behaviour has no relevance to humans.

              • Gabu@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                It has about as much relevance as the behavior of any other mammal, circling back to my comment about rats.

              • blind3rdeye@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                We could study what various apes do, and try to use that to guess at possible human behaviour - or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly. Surely the direct observations of what humans do is going to give us a more accurate and useful model of human behaviour compared to observations of other species.

                • merc@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  or we could literally just look at human behaviour directly.

                  And when we do, we’ll discover that in many ways it’s similar to how other apes behave.

                  Surely knowing that the behaviour is so ingrained that it’s also how apes behave makes it clear that it’s not some easy thing to change.

          • Gabu@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            10
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            You’re a mammal, a rat is a mammal - should we just consider you the same as a rat?