Succinctly put, Nicolo. Indeed. At the heart of the matter, we have the same drives and needs and desires. The very nature that helped mankind survive - acquisitiveness, ingenuity, resourcefulness, protectiveness... - can also put self above others. So instead of survival, you have greed. A person wants not only what is needed, but what the other has, too.

Specialization of talents and skills came as groups formed, but in order for one group to merge with another, one set of leaders would have to defer to another. And the followers have a power of their own.

Communication is a problem as well. Deception is possible because we use language to mislead as well as to inform.

Would we become less greedy and more open to peace if there were no poverty or other disadvantage? As we are now, I'd say, 'no.' If we could unite under some common goals, perhaps we would change, over time. But to do that, we'd need an over-arching goal - more than just a nebulous desire for 'peace.'

Hi Carl--" At the heart of the matter, we have the same drives and needs and desires. The very nature that helped mankind survive - acquisitiveness, ingenuity, resourcefulness, protectiveness... - can also put self above others. So instead of survival, you have greed. A person wants not only what is needed, but what the other has, too."

Yes, the whole thing comes down to the indivdual's choice of need or greed. A common goal might be self control rather than carrot/stick, it may be an evolutionary advantage.--nicolo

Yes, I was going to say that we are all inter-related, but not that closely ~ and even those who are, apparently, more closely related can't get along.

Well, just consider the family feuds that exist ...

Hi--So it seems were saying it is a sort of normal natural aggressive behavior which under some circumstances of miscommunication is threatening and causes an escalated response. In spite of the www miscommunication seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. i must admit that most of my conflicts have been due to my own misunderstanding, LOL! Seems we never have even enough time to understand those closest to us whom we think we know best.--nicolo

I think that this all boils down to a time when we had to protect ourselves and our homes from anyone who was different ~ just in case they might be out to harm our tribe.
And, within the tribe, there would be battles for leadership etc.

Hi--i would agree some of our agression is left over traits from evolution which helped get us this far and i think the in the last few millenia despite wars and massacres humanity has improved in overall empathy and compassion. So we have shed some unnecessary agression though evolution and some have gone further, some less. Since pysche has an effect on the physical body, perhaps maintaining emotional control and other positive charactoristics can over generations become an inherited trait, in a sense guiding evolution while avoiding removing of possible valuable traits, instead blending in more good. Of course one must decide what is "good", in this case it would be the greater good of how you would like the future world to be, versus total self-interest.
Now it would be rediculous to think we could get everyone to agree at once, so it is up to those that derive some kind of satisfaction or pleasure from doing so. That is one factor we have yet to consider--the satifaction of increasing "quality of life". If your not getting that, you should examine your religion or belief. Otherwise you are in what is called "bad faith", a hypocrisy according to kierkegaard. he's plucked more christian feathers than any atheist, im' suprised i don't see him come up very often.--nicolo

I don't know much about Kierkegaard but remember reading about him on this forum.

Here are the references:
















Perhaps we should have a thread on him.