Are humans Good or Bad.

Whenever I hear the issue raised of whether human nature is essentially good or bad, I feel the question is misplaced. It seems like asking whether cats are essentially good or bad.

We have evolved certain tendencies which are good in some circumstances and bad in others.  In modern life, many of the features which may have benefitted us while living in the plains of Africa 100,000 years can now be a hinderance, such as our almost insatiable appetite for sweets and fats.  When we lived life as hunters and gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate material goods, and so being in a state constant craving for more and more likely served us well. This perpetual craving was necessary to stay alive. Since the invention of agriculture and much more so with modern technology, this state of constant craving leads to excess and waste. But is this something that can be held against us? Is it a moral failing for our technological advances to occur far faster than the rate of evolution? Can humans be held responsible for having evolved particular tendencies over millions of years, some of which can be destructive to ourselves and others, particularly when in a different context than those tendencies evolved to be helpful?  I don't believe this judgment is anymore fair than it would be to condemn a grizzly bear as evil if you let it run loose in a mall and it eats people or a bunch of large pretzels. Yes, the bear may end up with a stomach ache and the pretzel shop owner is now without pretzels or life, but the bear shouldn't be blamed for following desires which are otherwise beneficial, but within that context were harmful.

I am not trying to say that certain human tendencies and actions are not harmful and destructive, because some are. But in general, they are harmful because of context. In the context within which those tendencies evolved, they were beneficial, otherwise they would not have evolved. 

There are very few tendencies which might be seen as destructive regardless of the context. A person who today might be a regarded as celebrity because of their joke telling ability may have, in the past may have been regarded as serving little purpose. At the same time, someone who today may be seen as quick to anger or a brute may at one time played a valuable role in the survival of his tribe. 

If we had none of the traits we today regard as the failings of human nature, it is unlikely any of us would even exist today, because at one point in time those traits were necessary for our survival. To regard humans as bad, or even good, for maintaining  tendencies which were necessary at certain points in time for our survival, some of which are now destructive because of our radically changed environment, is, I believe, an unfair and misplaced judgment. 

Pictures from the Bedroom.

Some plants I am growing.

This is a Morning Glory plant. I tied some yarn from the base of the plant to the top of the window, allowing the vines to climb up up and away!
Basil plants. These plants would be much larger if I did not eat from it almost every day. I love fresh basil and add it to about half the foods I make. In addition to pasta dishes, it is also good tasting on sandwiches.
Hallway, with things on the floor.

Cougar

In all but two classes I have taken since at Evergreen, I have had women over 50 who seem to be drawn to me. (at Evergreen we only take one class at a time and that class may last up to an entire school year so this may not be as many as it sounds. Since the number is so few, I might as well say it is 3.)

One woman even called me on the phone to ask if I would like to get lunch. Another would ask me to eat lunch with her during our class lunch breaks. Another hasn't yet brought up the subject of lunch, but hopefully there is still time. Maybe I will wake up one morning and she will bring me breakfast in bed.

I don't believe any of these women have had anything other than platonic intentions. 

It feels nice to have positive attention from these older women. In Utah, it was rare to feel that older people saw me as anything other than weird or even unsettling, so it is a pleasant change of events to feel the reverse.

Perhaps one reason for this change is because of the difference in my attitude towards older women in school here versus in Utah. It is not that I have any with older women going back to school because I think it is great, but in Utah, whenever I had a class with an older woman in it, she seemed to carry her Mom mentality with her into the classroom. That sort of bossy know-it-all attitude that may be useful when, or a natural by-product of raising a bunch of kids can be very distracting in a class room. I once dropped a class because it had over FIVE older women. All through class it felt like a battle was happening between the teacher and these five women who seemed to feel they had registered to be bossy know-it-alls rather than students.

Here I have never experienced that phenomenon and if anything have found it to be reverse. The older women in my classes have seemed somewhat timid and reserved. And wanting to eat lunch with me.

Are Humans Good or Bad.

Whenever I hear the issue raised of whether human nature is essentially good or bad, I feel the question is misplaced. It seems like asking whether cats are essentially good or bad.

We have evolved certain tendencies which are good in some circumstances and bad in others.  In modern life, many of the features which may have benefitted us while living in the plains of Africa 100,000 years can now be a hinderance, such as our almost insatiable appetite for sweets and fats.  When we lived life as hunters and gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate material goods, and so being in a state constant craving for more and more likely served us well. This perpetual craving was necessary to stay alive. Since the invention of agriculture and much more so with modern technology, this state of constant craving leads to excess and waste. But is this something that can be held against us? Is it a moral failing for our technological advances to occur far faster than the rate of evolution? Can humans be held responsible for having evolved particular tendencies over millions of years, some of which can be destructive to ourselves and others, particularly when in a different context than those tendencies evolved to be helpful?  I don't believe this judgment is anymore fair than it would be to condemn a grizzly bear as evil if you let it run loose in a mall and it eats people or a bunch of large pretzels. Yes, the bear may end up with a stomach ache and the pretzel shop owner is now without pretzels or life, but the bear shouldn't be blamed for following desires which are otherwise beneficial, but within that context were harmful.

I am not trying to say that certain human tendencies and actions are not harmful and destructive, because some are. But in general, they are harmful because of context. In the context within which those tendencies evolved, they were beneficial, otherwise they would not have evolved. 

There are very few tendencies which might be seen as destructive regardless of the context. A person who today might be a regarded as celebrity because of their joke telling ability may have, in the past may have been regarded as serving little purpose. At the same time, someone who today may be seen as quick to anger or a brute may at one time played a valuable role in the survival of his tribe. 

If we had none of the traits we today regard as the failings of human nature, it is unlikely any of us would even exist today, because at one point in time those traits were necessary for our survival. To regard humans as bad, or even good, for maintaining  tendencies which were necessary at certain points in time for our survival, some of which are now destructive because of our radically changed environment, is, I believe, an unfair and misplaced judgment. 

More on group Hierarchies.

Considering the post I wrote below, on the role of serotonin and a person's perceived status relative to those around them. I wonder if this phenomenon is one aspect of what makes religion such a powerful force. When God or Gods are part of a person's life, it creates a separate social hierarchy aside from the observable one. Aside from whatever additional hierarchies are created by the physical aspects of a religion, such as a priesthood class, there is also the invisible hierarchy with God or Gods at the top.

 

A person's perceived status would no longer be based simply on how they fit with people around them, because now the hierarchy has another element: God. Serotonin has been shown to play a large role in spiritual feelings, and perhaps that is because a person who is feeling something spiritual is feeling they have high status within the 'God hierarchy'. The individual may be feeling a sense of God's love and approval which would allow them to see themselves as having a some sort of  "higher status" than they otherwise would. 

Serotonin and the Grandiose.

Something about mania that had long seemed bizarre to me now, I think, makes sense.

A common element, when a person is experiencing a manic episode, is grandiose thinking. Depending on the degree of the episode, a person may come to believe they are God or Jesus or something relevant to their experience and culture that is at the pinnacle of that particular field.

It didn't seem that their was any obvious connection between someone feeling euphoric, and believing they occupied the highest possible position in their social group.

However, as I have learned more about the role of serotonin, it seems to make perfect sense.

Serotonin is probably one of the most well known neurotransmitters. Most anti-depressants on the market today work by affecting serotonin in the brain. Like most neurotransmitters, serotonin has a variety of functions, not all of which are entirely clear, but one of it's primary functions relates to a person's status within a social group.

When a monkey, (or a person or an ape or a gorilla and other non-primates even lobsters ), has high social status relative to those around them, their serotonin levels increase.  Dominate primates, with high levels of serotonin exhibit certain behaviors that allow them to be recognized as the leader of the group such as confidence and calm. Subordinate primates with low serotonin levels also exhibit characteristic subordinate behavior and demeanor. A study was done at the University California by Michael McGuire which showed that Human beings, even children who observe a group of captive monkeys can quickly recognize who is the Dominate individual.

It is not simply that those with high Serotonin levels tend to become the dominate individual(though this may play a role as well.) When the group hierarchy is artificially altered so that the subordinate monkey becomes dominate, the once dominate monkey's serotonin levels decrease, while the currently dominate monkey's serotonin levels increase. And similarly, if certain animals are injected with serotonin they then exhibit behavior characteristic dominance.   The same effect has been shown in humans as well. An individual's serotonin levels has a direct correlation to their perceived status relative to those around them. I think a little bit of introspection on our lives experience also shows this to frequently be true.

Considering this, it seems clear why, when a person is experiencing a manic episode, and their serotonin levels are extremely high, they would then perceive themselves as having as much status as a person could possibly have, ie. feel like Jesus.

I have a lot more thoughts on this, but I don't want this entry to be too long.

While I was writing this I was reading about different dominate animal behavior, one interesting thing I read "Chimpanzees show deference to the alpha of the community by ritualised gestures such as bowing, allowing the alpha to walk first in a procession, or standing aside when the alpha challenges."  This stood out to me because it sounded so much like L Tom Perry said in reference to the functioning of the Quorum of the Twelve:

 "We are certain to follow the order of the Church in our meetings and in all we do. This has been clearly established. For example, I would never think of going through a door before Elder Packer. He is the President of our Council."