Reply to comment

At the end of Revkin's article, he asks, "What do you think? Can we change human nature? Should we?"

In my opinion, this question all boils down to human nature vs. human choice. Human nature implies instincts and urges, and human choice is what we decide to do. I think that human nature has already been changed when it comes down to primal things like for instance having children. It is human nature to have children and it is human choice to have an abortion, have artificial insemination or to not have children all together. That is one aspect of it, but what is Revkin referring to? Revkin is unclear as to what he wants changed about human nature. Is it political? If it is, then our human nature is to want change for our own life and our human choice is to want change for our own life and the lives around us.

When he asks if we should change our human nature, to me it is a no-brainer because we have already changed human "nature." Our nature was many years ago when humans were thriving in the wild, and now many of us have barely even taken a camping trip let alone set foot outside. To me human nature brings me back to everything primal. My english teacher last year once spoke about primal urges and how the time when everyone seems to go back to primal instincts is when you can not open a bag of chips and you bite the bag to rip it open. That is one of the few examples I can come up with where our human nature has not changed. When it comes to teeth and the new dental-fad is to have wisdom teeth taken out, that is proof we have lived past the use of those molars.

I guess out of the many examples that came to my head about human nature now vs. then, to me Revkin's question is almost too late because I think humans as a whole have moved past that question a long time ago. It isn't about changing human nature anymore, it is about changing human choice. It is our choice what to do with our lives now, it isn't set in stone for us what is in our destiny or our "nature."

Leigh