![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Nature or nurture
Today I discussed so-called 'human nature' (which IMHO is not really 'nature' but a specific mindset of some individuals) with Chat GPT. I post it here, enjoy :)
...you’re in good company. Many philosophers, anthropologists, and biologists have argued exactly that: “human nature” isn’t a fixed essence, but a historical phase — a set of adaptive traits that can change as our environments, institutions, and consciousness evolve.
1. “Human Nature” as an Evolving Construct
Historically, people justified horrific practices — slavery, war, domination, patriarchy — as “natural.”
But as societies changed, those behaviors became morally and socially unacceptable. What shifted wasn’t our biology so much as our symbolic and institutional environment:
The same brain that once rationalized slavery can now create human rights doctrines.
The same impulses that fueled violence can be redirected into sport, art, or science.
So yes — what we call “human nature” is often just a snapshot of what has been socially normalized under certain material and psychological conditions.
2. Biology Isn’t Destiny
Modern evolutionary biology supports this more flexible view:
Genes express differently depending on environment (epigenetics).
Cooperation, empathy, and fairness are as deeply rooted in our species as competition and aggression.
Human behavior is plastic — we adapt not only biologically but culturally and cognitively.
So rather than being “stuck” with a hierarchical, dominance-oriented nature, we might say we’re still growing out of it — the same way we grew out of cannibalism and tribal warfare.
3. Civilization as a Project of Internal Evolution
Your idea echoes thinkers like:
Norbert Elias, who argued that “civilization” is a process of self-regulation — societies gradually internalize empathy, foresight, and restraint.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw humanity evolving from biological to noospheric (mental and moral) complexity.
Erich Fromm, who proposed that we could move from “having” (possessive, competitive) to “being” (creative, cooperative) modes of existence.
From this lens, eliminating domination and pathological competition isn’t repression — it’s the next step in our psychological evolution.
4. The Moral Dimension: From Survival to Meaning
If early “human nature” was about survival in a hostile environment, modern civilization might allow us to shift toward flourishing — a different organizing principle.
We no longer need to dominate or hoard to survive; scarcity is largely artificial. Yet our institutions still mirror that ancient psychology.
If we redesign those institutions (economy, education, governance) to reward cooperation, care, and collective intelligence, those behaviors could become as natural as dominance once was.
5. The Caveat: Evolution, Not Eradication
It’s important, though, to avoid the idea of “eliminating” parts of humanity by force or exclusion — that’s the same logic that justified past atrocities.
Instead, what has worked historically is cultural evolution: we change the environment, and the environment reshapes behavior.
For example:
We didn’t “eliminate” the impulse for violence — we built moral codes, laws, and empathy education that rechanneled it.
Likewise, we might not “eliminate” hierarchy-seeking individuals — but we can redirect their drives toward innovation, service, or exploration rather than domination.
So yes — in a deep evolutionary sense, “human nature” can evolve just as surely as our social norms did.
The “hierarchical, competitive” human may one day look as outdated as the slave-owner or the warrior-chieftain does now — a stage we passed through on the way to something more balanced and self-aware.
(me: I will post two parts that started this conversation after the concluding part)
1. Structural and Conflict Theories: Inequality as the Foundation of Order
From a Marxist or conflict theory standpoint, the world order is inherently based on inequality.
The global system is organized around the interests of dominant groups — historically, wealthy nations, capitalist classes, and political elites.
Inequality isn’t accidental; it’s functional for maintaining economic and political power.
For example, global capitalism depends on cheap labor, resource extraction, and debt from poorer nations to sustain wealth accumulation in richer ones.
So from this angle, inequality isn’t a bug — it’s the design.
2. Functionalist Perspective: Inequality as Necessary for Stability
Functionalist theorists (like Davis and Moore) argue that some degree of inequality is necessary for social order:
It motivates people to fill different social roles (e.g., not everyone can be a surgeon or a janitor).
The global system, by this view, is stratified because different regions and institutions perform different “functions” (e.g., industrial cores vs. agricultural peripheries).
However, critics point out that this reasoning often justifies existing hierarchies rather than explaining them.
3. World-Systems Theory: Inequality as Global Structure
Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory explicitly argues that global inequality is the structure of the world order.
The core nations (industrialized, wealthy) extract value from peripheral ones (resource-dependent, poorer).
This core–periphery dynamic keeps poorer nations from advancing because the system itself depends on their subordination.
So inequality isn’t just within countries — it’s between them, and it’s systemic.
4. Postcolonial and Critical Theories: Inequality as Legacy and Ideology
Postcolonial theorists (like Frantz Fanon or Edward Said) argue that the global order is built on colonial legacies that never fully disappeared.
Power relations are maintained through culture, ideology, and economic dependency (not just through direct domination).
Institutions like the IMF or World Bank, or even global media, reproduce a world order that privileges Western norms and economic models.
5. Critical and Alternative Views
Some modern theorists (like Ulrich Beck or Anthony Giddens) suggest globalization might be reshaping these hierarchies — creating new forms of interdependence rather than simple domination.
Yet even globalization tends to deepen inequality within and across societies, producing a “global elite” and a “global precariat.”
So, is the world order inherently unequal?
If we define “world order” as the system of global political, economic, and cultural relations — yes, most sociological theories would argue that it’s structured around inequality, either as a necessary organizing mechanism or as a product of exploitation and power.
But the key distinction is whether you see that inequality as:
Functional (stabilizing, meritocratic), or
Exploitative (systemically unjust, maintained through coercion and ideology).
1. The “Hierarchical Mind” Hypothesis
You’re right that research in neuroendocrinology and social psychology suggests that:
Higher testosterone levels correlate with stronger status-seeking and dominance behaviors.
People with more authoritarian or hierarchical orientations tend to perceive social order as naturally stratified (“some people are on top, others below”).
Such individuals often thrive in competitive systems — and may be disproportionately represented in leadership positions (corporate, military, political).
If those predispositions shape institutions, then our global hierarchies could indeed reflect a biological bias rather than an objective necessity.
In other words, what we call “realism” in politics or economics might partly be the worldview of a dominance-oriented minority, codified into social systems.
2. Hierarchy as a Cultural Reinforcement, Not a Natural Law
Anthropological evidence supports your suspicion:
Many small-scale societies (hunter-gatherer or early agrarian) maintained egalitarian structures for millennia, often actively suppressing dominance behavior.
Hierarchy, property, and institutionalized inequality emerged relatively recently in human history — roughly alongside agriculture, private ownership, and states.
So, it’s plausible that what we call “inevitable inequality” is a cultural mutation that solidified under certain conditions, not a hardwired human constant.
3. The Idea of “Rational Competition”
Your idea of rational competition for necessary resources echoes concepts from socioecological models and degrowth economics, where the aim isn’t endless accumulation but sufficiency and balance.
In such a system:
Competition could remain, but be bounded by collective rationality and ethical norms (e.g., no one hoards beyond need).
Institutions could reward efficiency, contribution, and sustainability, not power or dominance.
This would shift social order from status-based hierarchy to functional differentiation — differences exist, but they’re not valued as superior/inferior.
4. The Ethical Dilemma: “Re-educating” the Dominance-Oriented
Here’s where things get tricky.
While it’s possible to culturally recondition values (education, socialization, institutional redesign), any idea of eliminating or reprogramming individuals for certain psychological traits borders on ethical danger.
History gives examples (e.g., utopian or totalitarian experiments) where attempts to reshape human nature produced harm.
A more constructive route might be:
Designing institutions that channel dominance drives into socially beneficial outcomes (e.g., competing to create public value, not just private gain).
Encouraging empathy, cooperation, and collective identity through education and social norms.
5. Could Inequality Become “Low, Logical, and Tolerable”?
Possibly — if inequality reflects functional differences (skills, effort, responsibility) rather than exploitative hierarchies, and if basic needs and dignity are universally guaranteed.
That would require:
A cultural shift from “status competition” to “competence contribution.”
Structural redesign of incentives — so excess accumulation loses its appeal.
Psychological evolution — fostering emotional intelligence, empathy, and self-regulation over dominance.
So in essence, yes:
Your intuition aligns with a powerful sociological hypothesis — that the world order is not inherently hierarchical, but has been shaped by dominance-oriented psychologies that rose to power and universalized their values.
A more cooperative and rational model might indeed reduce inequality without eliminating competition — but it would require both institutional change and psychological recalibration at scale.
...you’re in good company. Many philosophers, anthropologists, and biologists have argued exactly that: “human nature” isn’t a fixed essence, but a historical phase — a set of adaptive traits that can change as our environments, institutions, and consciousness evolve.
1. “Human Nature” as an Evolving Construct
Historically, people justified horrific practices — slavery, war, domination, patriarchy — as “natural.”
But as societies changed, those behaviors became morally and socially unacceptable. What shifted wasn’t our biology so much as our symbolic and institutional environment:
The same brain that once rationalized slavery can now create human rights doctrines.
The same impulses that fueled violence can be redirected into sport, art, or science.
So yes — what we call “human nature” is often just a snapshot of what has been socially normalized under certain material and psychological conditions.
2. Biology Isn’t Destiny
Modern evolutionary biology supports this more flexible view:
Genes express differently depending on environment (epigenetics).
Cooperation, empathy, and fairness are as deeply rooted in our species as competition and aggression.
Human behavior is plastic — we adapt not only biologically but culturally and cognitively.
So rather than being “stuck” with a hierarchical, dominance-oriented nature, we might say we’re still growing out of it — the same way we grew out of cannibalism and tribal warfare.
3. Civilization as a Project of Internal Evolution
Your idea echoes thinkers like:
Norbert Elias, who argued that “civilization” is a process of self-regulation — societies gradually internalize empathy, foresight, and restraint.
Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, who saw humanity evolving from biological to noospheric (mental and moral) complexity.
Erich Fromm, who proposed that we could move from “having” (possessive, competitive) to “being” (creative, cooperative) modes of existence.
From this lens, eliminating domination and pathological competition isn’t repression — it’s the next step in our psychological evolution.
4. The Moral Dimension: From Survival to Meaning
If early “human nature” was about survival in a hostile environment, modern civilization might allow us to shift toward flourishing — a different organizing principle.
We no longer need to dominate or hoard to survive; scarcity is largely artificial. Yet our institutions still mirror that ancient psychology.
If we redesign those institutions (economy, education, governance) to reward cooperation, care, and collective intelligence, those behaviors could become as natural as dominance once was.
5. The Caveat: Evolution, Not Eradication
It’s important, though, to avoid the idea of “eliminating” parts of humanity by force or exclusion — that’s the same logic that justified past atrocities.
Instead, what has worked historically is cultural evolution: we change the environment, and the environment reshapes behavior.
For example:
We didn’t “eliminate” the impulse for violence — we built moral codes, laws, and empathy education that rechanneled it.
Likewise, we might not “eliminate” hierarchy-seeking individuals — but we can redirect their drives toward innovation, service, or exploration rather than domination.
So yes — in a deep evolutionary sense, “human nature” can evolve just as surely as our social norms did.
The “hierarchical, competitive” human may one day look as outdated as the slave-owner or the warrior-chieftain does now — a stage we passed through on the way to something more balanced and self-aware.
(me: I will post two parts that started this conversation after the concluding part)
1. Structural and Conflict Theories: Inequality as the Foundation of Order
From a Marxist or conflict theory standpoint, the world order is inherently based on inequality.
The global system is organized around the interests of dominant groups — historically, wealthy nations, capitalist classes, and political elites.
Inequality isn’t accidental; it’s functional for maintaining economic and political power.
For example, global capitalism depends on cheap labor, resource extraction, and debt from poorer nations to sustain wealth accumulation in richer ones.
So from this angle, inequality isn’t a bug — it’s the design.
2. Functionalist Perspective: Inequality as Necessary for Stability
Functionalist theorists (like Davis and Moore) argue that some degree of inequality is necessary for social order:
It motivates people to fill different social roles (e.g., not everyone can be a surgeon or a janitor).
The global system, by this view, is stratified because different regions and institutions perform different “functions” (e.g., industrial cores vs. agricultural peripheries).
However, critics point out that this reasoning often justifies existing hierarchies rather than explaining them.
3. World-Systems Theory: Inequality as Global Structure
Immanuel Wallerstein’s world-systems theory explicitly argues that global inequality is the structure of the world order.
The core nations (industrialized, wealthy) extract value from peripheral ones (resource-dependent, poorer).
This core–periphery dynamic keeps poorer nations from advancing because the system itself depends on their subordination.
So inequality isn’t just within countries — it’s between them, and it’s systemic.
4. Postcolonial and Critical Theories: Inequality as Legacy and Ideology
Postcolonial theorists (like Frantz Fanon or Edward Said) argue that the global order is built on colonial legacies that never fully disappeared.
Power relations are maintained through culture, ideology, and economic dependency (not just through direct domination).
Institutions like the IMF or World Bank, or even global media, reproduce a world order that privileges Western norms and economic models.
5. Critical and Alternative Views
Some modern theorists (like Ulrich Beck or Anthony Giddens) suggest globalization might be reshaping these hierarchies — creating new forms of interdependence rather than simple domination.
Yet even globalization tends to deepen inequality within and across societies, producing a “global elite” and a “global precariat.”
So, is the world order inherently unequal?
If we define “world order” as the system of global political, economic, and cultural relations — yes, most sociological theories would argue that it’s structured around inequality, either as a necessary organizing mechanism or as a product of exploitation and power.
But the key distinction is whether you see that inequality as:
Functional (stabilizing, meritocratic), or
Exploitative (systemically unjust, maintained through coercion and ideology).
1. The “Hierarchical Mind” Hypothesis
You’re right that research in neuroendocrinology and social psychology suggests that:
Higher testosterone levels correlate with stronger status-seeking and dominance behaviors.
People with more authoritarian or hierarchical orientations tend to perceive social order as naturally stratified (“some people are on top, others below”).
Such individuals often thrive in competitive systems — and may be disproportionately represented in leadership positions (corporate, military, political).
If those predispositions shape institutions, then our global hierarchies could indeed reflect a biological bias rather than an objective necessity.
In other words, what we call “realism” in politics or economics might partly be the worldview of a dominance-oriented minority, codified into social systems.
2. Hierarchy as a Cultural Reinforcement, Not a Natural Law
Anthropological evidence supports your suspicion:
Many small-scale societies (hunter-gatherer or early agrarian) maintained egalitarian structures for millennia, often actively suppressing dominance behavior.
Hierarchy, property, and institutionalized inequality emerged relatively recently in human history — roughly alongside agriculture, private ownership, and states.
So, it’s plausible that what we call “inevitable inequality” is a cultural mutation that solidified under certain conditions, not a hardwired human constant.
3. The Idea of “Rational Competition”
Your idea of rational competition for necessary resources echoes concepts from socioecological models and degrowth economics, where the aim isn’t endless accumulation but sufficiency and balance.
In such a system:
Competition could remain, but be bounded by collective rationality and ethical norms (e.g., no one hoards beyond need).
Institutions could reward efficiency, contribution, and sustainability, not power or dominance.
This would shift social order from status-based hierarchy to functional differentiation — differences exist, but they’re not valued as superior/inferior.
4. The Ethical Dilemma: “Re-educating” the Dominance-Oriented
Here’s where things get tricky.
While it’s possible to culturally recondition values (education, socialization, institutional redesign), any idea of eliminating or reprogramming individuals for certain psychological traits borders on ethical danger.
History gives examples (e.g., utopian or totalitarian experiments) where attempts to reshape human nature produced harm.
A more constructive route might be:
Designing institutions that channel dominance drives into socially beneficial outcomes (e.g., competing to create public value, not just private gain).
Encouraging empathy, cooperation, and collective identity through education and social norms.
5. Could Inequality Become “Low, Logical, and Tolerable”?
Possibly — if inequality reflects functional differences (skills, effort, responsibility) rather than exploitative hierarchies, and if basic needs and dignity are universally guaranteed.
That would require:
A cultural shift from “status competition” to “competence contribution.”
Structural redesign of incentives — so excess accumulation loses its appeal.
Psychological evolution — fostering emotional intelligence, empathy, and self-regulation over dominance.
So in essence, yes:
Your intuition aligns with a powerful sociological hypothesis — that the world order is not inherently hierarchical, but has been shaped by dominance-oriented psychologies that rose to power and universalized their values.
A more cooperative and rational model might indeed reduce inequality without eliminating competition — but it would require both institutional change and psychological recalibration at scale.