Week 3 - Human Nature?

  There are essential truths about humans that have been engrained into our very biology, and therefore are our nature, because it is true for all humans. These truths include but are not limited to, the emphasis on acquisition of food, shelter and water, the tendency to form into a community and a search for property and ownership. This basic nature cannot be changed in any human being. However, one can play to human reason or emotion, and change behavior. Behavior, like which grocery store you frequent, what meat you eat or don't eat, or even how you cook your food, is malleable. So while agree with Revkin that you cannot change human nature, Revkin's definition of human nature is much more expansive and dips into what i consider flexible territory.

I think that within the article, Revkin’s use of human nature in the context of meat-eating is a gross reduction of human nature on the whole just to its eating preferences. However, in that sense, we cannot change human nature. Whichever way I look at this question – anatomically, anthropologically or historically, humans have been omnivores. We have been built to eat meat. Denying some people of meat might mean taking away their only source of protein. What of the man who lives near the North Pole? Will he grow lentils in his backyard? Or eat fish from the nearby ocean? Will the desert-man wait for vegetables to reach his tent, or while he eat goat meat? Our food patterns have woven into our cultures and elaborate festivals and rituals built around that. Can you change nine billion people to vegetarians? I think not.

I have particular difficulty in understanding the point of the statement – ‘Because the human brain does not change, technology must’. Why should the most sophisticated part of our bodies, the intricate organ that is better than any technology conceived, change? Instead of deliberating on food choice, we should expend our energies in saving food, creating lesser food waste, and making more food available to the hungry populations of the world. Yes, I am a speciesist, and I’d rather my species stays well-fed and well-cared for than try to attempt something as improbable as turning that species into herbivores.

After reading Revkin's article, I was absolutely in awe by the idea of growing meat in a petri dish. I do not find it at all feasbile, and although I understand that idea of trying to minimize the deaths of animals by converting to producing meat that has been grown in a petri dish, I cannot find one way in which this idea would be humane. It is human nature to consume meat, or if one chooses not to, there are countless other foods, not containing meat that can be consummed that are natural. However, the attempt to somehow change or alter human nature by encouraging consumers to eat meat that has been grown in a petri dish, I feel is absolutely unacceptable.

What worries me perhaps is the idea that many people in society now may not know even what a petri dish is, or they may not know just how much genetic engineering is involved in the production of meat grown in a petri dish. Therefore, in many ways, the idea of this meat that supposedly harms less animals than convential meat may sound rather appealing to a large majority of consumers, in a number of ways. However, it is still against human nature, and therefore, I do not believe that human nature can be changed. Human nature is instinctual and natural, and it nearly impossible to eliminate this attribute from a human being. Although there may be several forces that try to detract this from an individual, I still remain that it is impossible to change human nature.

To me, human nature can be almost interchangeable with instinct. Human nature is what comes natural to us humans; what actions are normal for us. Human nature and human nature involving eating are two different issues. But considering the title of this class, I believe human nature in terms of eating is determined by how you're raised.

Eating is how humans survive. It is how we receive energy and nutrition. Humans were born with teeth in order tear and rip our food apart so that it can be digested more easily. The human body needs the amino acids found in protein in order to be healthy and prosperous. If our bodies need protein and our teeth are designed to chew tough things then isn't it our human nature to consume the things that provide with this essential nutrient. Yes there are other ways to get protein but I have heard about many vegetarians that lack nutrients because of their choice to not eat meat.

If human nature is like instinct it would be very difficult to change. If it's something we're born with and grow up with it will probably the same amount of time to change it as it did to be used to it. People say elderly people are impossible to change. They're just too old. If you start at a younger age, kids are more susceptible to change. If you're trying to change human nature on a global scale that could millenniums.  

lydia 

Human nature is a phrase that can not truly exist; human nature implies that everyone is the same and that everyone has the same urges. However, there is always at least one exception to every supposed rule of human nature. I think that certain elements of “human nature” can be changed. However, most people do not want to BE changed. Most people like things the way they are and shy away from change and anything that will upset their lifestyle. To change people will have to make a concerted effort to stop destroying the environment and to stop eating meat, being an omnivore is too much a part of human nature. There are people who do not eat meat, but, as an ex-vegetarian, I can say that it is very difficult to not eat meat; your instincts still draw you towards to it.  

WhatI found to be most intriguing from the articles we read for Tuesday was theillogical manner in which food gets transported around the world. Why wouldconsumers as well as executives in Great Britain’s food industry feel the needto import 14,000 tons of chocolate covered waffles per year when they alreadyexport roughly the same amount of the same product? What is it about our inherent human nature that drives us to allay any and all fears regarding the negative consequences of our actions on the environment? What made consumers decidethat chocolate covered waffles from Venezuela were any different or better inquality than those from Newfoundland? Why waste all those fossil fuel resourceson the exportation of a product that your native country already produces?Revkin’s “globalizing world economy” ideology that “resources inevitably willflow to cheaper labor for processing into goods” must be at play in thisBritish waffle debacle. Surely any sensible human being would agree that theidea of flying shrimp caught in Scotland to China for shelling and then back toEurope for sale is completely nonsensical in a present day environmentallandscape of global heating, reduction of dependence on fossil fuel energy andthe mass production of “suburban subdivisions” where farms once were. Why is human nature so intrinsically linked to all arguments labelled as safe, cheap and convenient? 

When I first read this question I was wondering- What is human nature? Without knowing this vital piece of information it is impossible to change anything. After asking myself this question I decided that in my opinion it doesn't matter what human nature is. All that matters is I know that changing the nature of a person is really hard, if not impossible. Having said that I would argue that changing "human nature" in general is impossible, unless of course there is no other choice. For example- if we assume that eating meat is a part of human nature I would argue that it is impossible to convince everyone to give up meat, but if the world some how ran out of meat, people would learn to change their nature. But again only if left with no other choice. 

If we had the choice should we change human nature? For this question I would argue the diversity of human nature. If we think about eating meat as an example of human nature then what about the vegetarians etc.? People differ in so many ways depending on likes or dislikes, culture or religion etc. that while one thing is a person's human nature it may not be another persons. In this case who gets to decide what human nature is or what to change? 

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