Are we naturally aggressive ?

kingrollo

Not us as cyclists - as human beings...

Was out with some 'friends the other night - one of whom is quite wealthy with his own business - his opinions on one or two things disturbed me'

- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work

- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough

Etc, etc,

I don't want to hold myself up as a moral angel because I am not - but when I see people with very little - and others with way more than need it bothers me - am I out of step here ?

Is f____ you jack I am alright - the accepted norm ?

slowbike

Are we naturally aggressive? I'd say that generally - yes - although the amount varies from person to person, if we're faced with something we can't run from then we'll fight. I think that's pretty natural for every species...

As for your "friends" opinion - he's entitled to them - doesn't make him right - any more than you with more socialist views are right - it's just what we as a country decide to do.

ayjaycee

I think I would tend to agree with Slowbike but I do think that your 'friend' is probably just a self-centered tosser who I would not particularly like to spend a lot of time around.

Alejandrosdog

ayjaycee wrote:

I think I would tend to agree with Slowbike but I do think that your 'friend' is probably just a self-centered tosser who I would not particularly like to spend a lot of time around.

and as he gets older he might understand just how fleeting success and health can be.

crispybug2

Money doesn’t buy happiness......


..but it does buy a superior type of misery!!

crispybug2

But the answer to the OP original point is that money does in some people’s* minds does get power and insulation from life’s bigger problems and that more money gets you more power and insulation, it may well be not correct but it doesn’t stop people thinking that way




* by some people I mean most people, sad but that’s the way it is!

nickice

kingrollo wrote:

Not us as cyclists - as human beings...



- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work

- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough

Etc, etc,

?

The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.

For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.

nickice

kingrollo wrote:

Not us as cyclists - as human beings...



- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work

- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough

Etc, etc,

?

The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.

For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.

nickice

kingrollo wrote:

Not us as cyclists - as human beings...



- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work

- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough

Etc, etc,

?

The first one is complicated. It's certainly a lifestyle choice for some but I wouldn't advocate removing all benefits.

For the second question, it depends on your definition of 'enough' most people already have enough money to just survive (in the normal sense of the word). That means we're all guilty of this. How many people don't have things they don't really need? It also depends what he does with his money. He's probably creating jobs etc. I'm always wary of when people start to say rich people 'don't need' their money so it should be taxed. It's just the politics of envy.

slowbike

and posting your response once isn't enough ... you have to post time and time again ...

Ben6899

Anyone in a perpetual search for more money has my sympathy.

slowbike

Ben6899 wrote:

Anyone in a perpetual search for more money has my sympathy.

I keep looking - but nobody seems to be dropping any around where I go ...

rjsterry

Alejandrosdog wrote:

ayjaycee wrote:

I think I would tend to agree with Slowbike but I do think that your 'friend' is probably just a self-centered tosser who I would not particularly like to spend a lot of time around.

and as he gets older he might understand just how fleeting success and health can be.

Very true indeed.

ayjaycee

Slowbike wrote:

and posting your response once isn't enough ... you have to post time and time again ...

In Nicks defence, there seems to be a problem with the BR servers at the moment - every time I've tried to post something, I get an 'Error 503' message saying the something has timed out. On that basis, it looks like the post hasn't happened but, in reality, it has.

nickice

ayjaycee wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

and posting your response once isn't enough ... you have to post time and time again ...

In Nicks defence, there seems to be a problem with the BR servers at the moment - every time I've tried to post something, I get an 'Error 503' message saying the something has timed out. On that basis, it looks like the post hasn't happened but, in reality, it has.

This is exactly the problem.

slowbike

nickice wrote:

ayjaycee wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

and posting your response once isn't enough ... you have to post time and time again ...

In Nicks defence, there seems to be a problem with the BR servers at the moment - every time I've tried to post something, I get an 'Error 503' message saying the something has timed out. On that basis, it looks like the post hasn't happened but, in reality, it has.

This is exactly the problem.

I did put that little wink at the end - I was just pulling your leg - I couldn't imagine anyone (with one exception) repeat posting the same thing over and over ...

john80

People are naturally competitive. The competition in many cases is self derived. Humans like all mammals will use aggression if it meets their competitive objectives and where we are different to other animals is that we can assess future future consequences within a societies rules. In many cases the aggression is a side effect of the competition they are engaged in.

FocusZing

I think depends on the person, upbringing, external influences, experience and age. The other thing is nothing is right or wrong we are who we are. Society needs carers as well as people who just want to rise to the top.

Like everything there has to be a minimum to maximum, limits to test and balance as a result.

kingstongraham

I assume this person looks after his family. It varies how far each person thinks social responsibility stretches.

rjsterry

Slightly off topic, but related: I was listening a R4 programme about anger. There was a section on its origins and how it must have provided some reproductive advantage for it to be present in modern humans. The facial expression associated with anger are instinctive rather than learnt (blind children pull the same face when angry) and this is a different expression from the one chimpanzees use so it must be a relatively recent evolutionary development.

The behaviour described in the OP is so common that one wonders whether this has similarly instinctual roots.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000yjs

DeVlaeminck

No I don't think many people are aggressive especially when faced with a realistic prospect someone might retaliate. It's all relative though, what is aggressive for one person might not be for another.

Pross

My default mode is laid back, aggression is something I sometimes get driven to by the behaviour of others so no, I don't think we are all naturally aggressive. It is the default mode for some though.

robert88

kingrollo wrote:

Not us as cyclists - as human beings...

Was out with some 'friends the other night - one of whom is quite wealthy with his own business - his opinions on one or two things disturbed me'

- Basically there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits as each person can choose to work or not to work

- Pursuit of money is a natural instinct and its right to pursue even more - even when you have enough

Etc, etc,

I don't want to hold myself up as a moral angel because I am not - but when I see people with very little - and others with way more than need it bothers me - am I out of step here ?

Is f____ you jack I am alright - the accepted norm ?

Perhaps you should read "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi?

Polanyi attempted to turn the tables on the orthodox liberal account of the rise of capitalism by arguing that “laissez-faire was planned”, whereas social protectionism was a spontaneous reaction to the social dislocation imposed by an unrestrained free market. He argues that the construction of a "self-regulating" market necessitates the separation of society into economic and political realms. Polanyi does not deny that the self-regulating market has brought "unheard of material wealth", but he suggests that this is too narrow a focus. The market, once it considers land, labor and money as fictitious commodities, and including them "means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market."

This, he argues, results in massive social dislocation, and spontaneous moves by society to protect itself. In effect, Polanyi argues that once the free market attempts to separate itself from the fabric of society, social protectionism is society's natural response, which he calls the "double movement." Polanyi did not see economics as a subject closed off from other fields of enquiry, indeed he saw economic and social problems as inherently linked. He ended his work with a prediction of a socialist society, noting, "after a century of blind 'improvement', man is restoring his 'habitation.'"

It is an important work. When written, socialism was seen as a potent force and a major threat by die-hard capitalists. Ever since that era (the 30s and 40s) they have made every effort to suppress and destroy socialism.

bompington

Robert88 wrote:

Perhaps you should read "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi?...
...It is an important work

... although completely wrong about most things:
http://bostonreview.net/class-inequalit ... -economics

robert88

bompington wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

Perhaps you should read "The Great Transformation" by Karl Polanyi?...
...It is an important work

... although completely wrong about most things:
http://bostonreview.net/class-inequalit ... -economics

Trouble is he rambles on about this and that without giving any precise reason why he is wrong other than to introduce the moral dimension to economics! Probably because a handbook for human happiness is impossible since human nature is too fickle.

His piece on Donald Trump was a lot more sure footed:

The dual addictions to carbon and credit are now under assault. The bill for relying on fossil fuels is turning up in the form of climate change, while swaths of the unprotected precariat work part-time jobs in Walmart and Home Depot to cover the monthly interest on their Visa cards.

The entire world cannot aspire to a western standard of living without something cracking under the strain.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/20/th ... 6dhDXIb5-g

pinno

Some behavioural psychologists put rats in a cage. They added 1 rat, then another and another until they suddenly started to spontaneously fight, despite being well fed and watered.
It is true of indigenous tribes where co-operation is required by everyone, such as the bushmen of the Kalahari for example, that they rarely fight. They have a scant conflict vocabulary.

The third world has seen catastrophic erosion of more symbiotic existences. In the first and developing world, mechanisation has eroded traditional vocations. This erosion of role, of position, ultimately - an individuals feeling of worth is lost in the now the volatile, less tangible, less structured world we live in.
Freedom is entirely dependent on income.
We have inequalities borne of the subjective i.e a stock brokers can and often earn more than a GP, a street cleaner earns less than a financial executives PA.
There are multiple examples of how our apparent esteem and perceived importance is a cause for potential assertion of one's status. In the grander scheme of things, the individual who seeks to underline their own status through aggressive behaviour, is part of a social fabric that is under innumerable and immeasurable pressures - money, terrorism, media, fear, competition, self worth, vanity. materialism and the status perceived through material acquisition is immense competition and underpins a lot of our lives - the seemingly inexorable cycle: work > gain > work > upgrade. (Upgrade the kitchen, your mobile phone, the car, the dwelling, the bike?).
Our survival does not rely directly with the immediate co-operation of others, our existences are not clearly defined in terms of function, role or hierarchy. Therein lies the erosion of traditional obligation and a historically more ordered, more defined social position. Without this definition, may I suggest that acting aggressively has little consequence?
Therein lies the grey and the rub.
In those pressures of modern existence, it is hardly surprising that individuals can act aggressively and in certain situations, commit acts of violence.
If we turn it on it's head, acts of aggression, are to me, an expression of insecurity but simultaneously, the promotion of ego is rife and acceptable.
If a person is content with their 'lot' , they are far less likely to be aggressive.

It isn't odd that this thread has descended into an argument about Capitalism or Socialism. Though, I don't think historical conquests, conflict and war before the industrial revolution can be discussed in that light. However, modern conflict on a macro or micro scale must be discussed with a backdrop of economics.

My own opinion is that whilst Capitalism has in no doubt transformed our lives, Capitalism has created misery for millions.
It beggars belief that the proponents of Capitalism are in denial of the fact. After all, we in the West have become fat (in stark degrees) due to the exploitation of goods, resources, people - internally and externally.
The argument "It's not Capitalism that's at fault, it's the governments that set the laws; the taxation laws, the welfare state etc" or worse "...there will always be winners and losers" as if it is a natural side effect that the majority of the worlds peoples live in poverty, is somewhat flawed. Poverty is directly linked to Capitalism.

Statements such as 'i'm alright Jack' and 'Look at me, i'm successful', suggest an intrinsic Autism.
I'm not saying that those who make such brash statements are Autistic, i'm suggesting that they are severely blinkered. Few are successful without detriment to others, the environment or equality. All success comes at a price, whether by design or default.
Now, before the honourable defenders of Capitalism start spouting bollox about the alternative - either Communism or socialism, I do not think there is a viable alternative to capitalism or socialism. The alternative is something in the middle, where better equality is at the forefront of decision.
We still have to have reward for contribution, for effort, for innovation and being entrepreneurial but we need to be more objective about the social and environmental contribution an individual or corporation makes. So long as individualism is promoted and reigns, our perceived status and perceived worth will always be measured by an infinite material yardstick. That carries an undeniable and potentially infinite amount of pressure.
Perhaps, simply, we're not so different to those rats. We need the heroin of status to elevate and differentiate ourselves from the next rat.