Oh hai human nature arguments.

Your now officially debunked by SCIENCE!

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-02-science-overturns-view-humans-naturally.html

Science > everything.

More data please?

Coolios.

Told u guyz.

Machiavelli does not approve.

Machiavelli and Hobbes does not approve.

Machiavelli, Hobbes, and every monarch that has ever lived does not approve.

An opinion by a biologist cannot proove immediatelly something. Reality showed exactly the opposite. In the biologist experiment, he says that the experiments on monkeys prooved that human nature is not competitive, but humans, even if they are from the same other of the animals in hte experiments, are very different from other primates. The fact that humans evolved much more then any other animal species, humans wre able to built a more individualist and more pro-freedom way of living, then a communitarian way of living.

There is no official debuking.

Human Nature: Self-Preservation and Procreation

/end

Is not that the goal of all Life forms?

Self-preservation is another word for selfishness. It is our nature to take for ourselves, not to give to others. All of history and contemporary society should give you the evidence for that.

The supposition that morality can develop in nature is preposterous, because morality requires complex thought, and thus a developed brain and language, to exist. Monkeys don't have either, which is already an established scientific fact. This "observed morality" bullshit is entirely subjective, and the article's labeling of it as such is ridiculously misleading. They find morality because they're looking for it, not because it's actually there.

They claim to have observed empathy in animals; so what? Humans feel empathy (well most do), but that doesn't mean we're not selfish bastards. Our capacity to feel for other people is overridden by our drive to survive. Altruism is trumped by greed every time.

bullshit ideological study
/debunked

Humans will naturally go after survival, do we have morals yeah but in the end its all about if we can survive or not. Perhaps humans as a hole should be more caring or selfless but its against are biological nature.

Are we talking about the link in the OP? Because I didn't read that shit.

Self-Preservation is another word for doing the action that equals the opposite of death. Whether this involves hording shiny rocks or keeping you damn mouth shut is irrelevant.

Self-preservation does not necessarily mean that people have to be or will be greedy. A member of a pack can have just as much intent to ensure its own survival as the survival of the pack, as the pack itself would be capible, as a group, to help ensure the survival of the individual than an individual can on its own.
Basically, it can be in the best interests of an individual to share in the short term to ensure survival in the long term.
Take for example, if you were a hunter in ancient times before the development of 'civilization'. You might be able to take down prey on your own, but if you are injured in the process, if can pretty much amount to a last meal, as you will likely not heal in time to hunt again when you need to, depending on what your injury level is. Compare that to a group, in which you would have to share, but you also would be able to guarentee to a degree that if you are injured during a hunt that others would help you while you recover. Add onto that the fact that a member moving in a group is more likely to have repeated success in hunting than an individual AND that being in a group raises the possibility to procreate, and a group looks more and more attractive.

Contrary to popular opinion, human nature, while it can change under severe circumstances, has not changed at its core in the mere four to nine millenia of civilization that humans have had. Many primal instincts still prevail within the human mind. The timespan is simply not as great as people like to think.

The fact that humanity [in some civilizations] have built a society built around the individual does not necessarily mean that humans suddenly are individualists in nature and biology. That we mass together in common grounds and work together with others towards common goals show that we are not simply greedy individualists.

Bear in mind that, when brought back to the bearest of existence, such as on the field of battle, do you demand payment to your fellow soldier to drink from your canteen when he lays on the side of the road dying of thirst? And even if you are so cold-hearted to, do you not face public scorn and the weight of military justice if they die because you did not help them? What, if we are individualists, drives them if they gain nothing from persecuting you for your actions?

Consider the myraid of public services, the things that some call in scorn 'positive rights', that the society, in spite of the vocal nay-sayers, embrace. Not just in the United States, but around the world. In Europe. In the Middle East. In Asia. Even in the most evil-considered-by-some, China. How do those who give their taxes to these things benefit from those that benefit? Do they see no moral reason for doing it? Or are they just pure economists, considering only how it benefits them?

What of the Red Cross, the Engineers Without Boarders, and others, who strive and toil every day to bring some modicum of comfort to their fellow humans? Humans that would probably still never live to see the level of wealth that their helpers seen or give back. What of the wars fought, the blood spilt, the thousands that give their lives to see others free? Did they see some gain in it?

Why do the ideologies of so many revolve with the idea that others are in any way important? Why believe in the rights of others if I already have the rights that I seek? Why universal rights? How does the guy next door having the same rights as I do benefit me? Why would I care if I already have those rights?

Why would a rich man of the mid nineteenth century care for the working class? Why would a lawyer from Probandar care about people living in South Africa? Why would a Calcuttan nun travel the world to bring attention to the needy?

If we are individualists, then why do I care for the people around me and what will become of them as much as what will become of me?

Or am I and all those millions who gave and still give a damn about the next guy just unnatural?

And thus starts another one of the classic Kali vs Imperial arguments of the forums. *everyone get some popcorn*

*Microwave beeps* It's done, I'm ready.

I side with Imperial for this (gets in shitstorm bunker)

EVERYBODY IN THE BUNKER!

Uuuuuummm... Anyone up for chess?