Nature vs. Politics

Post Reply New Topic

Obviously politics is part of our nature. However this topic is about political idealists stereotyping nature.

I've found it is common for people to want nature to fit neatly are around their politics. However why would it? Nature is not a conscious and entity that is considerate of people's ideals. It will quite easily run roughshod over their ideals.

I've seen this a lot: Pick an issue such as gender, sexuality, both oth side of these argument will argue that nature is one way so far as it suit their position, but will argue another way where it would be in conflict. Then they would use this to moralise.

In reality thing might not be so simple, thing can be both nature and nurture for example.

They are arguing from a moral high ground yet nature itself is not following their moral ideals. It isn't acting at all, it is just happening.

One of the tenets of the communist Left from its earliest years was a belief that Man could be be forcibly, deliberately, and intentionally remade, reshaped into a new form, with a new nature. This was rooted partly in Marxist teleology and also in false Lysenkoist genetics: If you use the force of the state to drive people into collectivism, then they will eventually become naturally collectivist, etc. (And the ones who die or starve to death, well, that just the price you have to pay to achieve socialist success.) The same kind of thinking is very conspicuous in Leftist movements today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Soviet_man

Sure, Darmok, as opposed to capitalism which allows people to die off per Darwinian standards, as nothing is more natural in their eyes than survival of the fittest. No, you're not biased at all (USSR was also by no means representative, nor can it possibly reflect politics a century later.)

In philosophical taoism there is a concept called Wu wei, which means "action less action" or non-action, non doing.

People are political, why? I haven't the slightest clue but more than likely because they are can probably account for 100% of humanity's problems. Nature is never political, but I do think it does follow a way, or pattern most times with some exceptions.

Who is to say though that being political isn't natural for our species. Could be, animals do have structures in thier communities.. so I guess for me this can all be chalked up to 'go figure' once you think you have something figured out you really don't.

You misunderstand what Darwin means by fittest. Fittest means most able to adapt of survive noting more nothing less. Darwin didn't cover group survival or group behaviour much, than is a newer field . Capitalism, is not a whole economic system however humans have adapted just fine under it. You also need competition capitalism is not enough on its own. Products and service have been a huge advantage to our survival as a species.

Name one Communist state that that hasn't already adopted capitalism and has a higher standard of living than those that have.

China for example, millions have been taken out of poverty since they made economic reforms that make China more capitalistic. You know how many people died under the great leap forward?

Also I should remind, human as a whole are surviving better than ever. If anything we survive a bit to well. There is problem with over population.

I'm not saying being political isn't natrual to us, it clearly is. I'm saying people expect nature to conform to their politcal ideals. This is wholly unrealistic.

Nature doesn't moralise it just is.

Politics is part of nature as are skyscrapers and plants. Everything in the universe is nature. What I'm saying is people expect parts to nature such as biology to fit neatly to what is political and morally convenient to them.

Chinese is interesting. You can have words an phrases that sound very similar which completely different meaning

Wǔ 武 means martility/martial
Wén 文 means civil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_and_wu

Wú 無 means negative/non
Wéi 爲 means being/doing

黐 Chī vs 기 Qi/Ch'i or glue/sticky vs energy force.

The new man concept also exited in some fascist groups, and other political schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Man_(utopian_concept)

Interestingly in Cambodia, New People were the bourgeois and Old People were the people Proletariat. This made no sense becuase the wanted to destroy history entirely.

Ahh. Ok, welp I think its kinda like asking a question like Why do people choose to sit in chairs vs sitting on the floor? Also I think people think they are special, (in the grand scheme of things) you know I the in significant speck on a blue dot and all,

But I dunno man, People are know it alls with an agenda and when you have one you want everything in your life to fit your bias, also contol is another reason. Most love being in control and out of control is scary, its actually funny but I beleive they think you can contol nature and to some extent you may be able to mess with it a bit but never having full total control of it.

I love eastern languages, wish I could speak it. But I have enough hard time with English so I will leave that to the professinals,