Serendip is an independent site partnering with faculty at multiple colleges and universities around the world. Happy exploring!

Week 3 - Human Nature?

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

Affluence is inevitably

Affluence is inevitably accompanied by the heady desire to have it all and the misguided conviction that one can do so . In the health domain , this mind-set translates into not just ministering to the body's needs as and when they arise , but in a preoccupation with the labyrinth of preventive healthcare . The Holy Grail being health and wellness and longevity .
This in itself is not to be derided though it would be naive to hope that the body , a machine like any other , would not inevitably succumb to a certain amount of wear and tear with use . Where concern with well-being is on shaky ground is with " the flip-flop " of modern science where the whole point of science is self-doubt . To HRT or not to HRT ? To statin or not to statin ? Regular health check-up or not ?
The stakes - human life - are high and one can't be too careful . But too much analysis can lead to paralysis and defeat the very objective of the analysis in the first place .
Call it what you will , but making an informed guess/taking "a leap of faith"/"erring on the side of prudence"  might just be more fruitful in the long run . Though this is a path fraught with peril even for an Oriental fatalist !
nmackow's picture

Human "nature" as a learned behavior

I believe that human nature, apart from its instinctual aspects, is a learned behavior. We typically act as those around us act. We buy food in a supermarket, paying close attention to the costs of the items we want. We drive SUVs and minivans because they are safe in crashes and comfortable. I can't say that the average American (I cannot extrapolate these thoughts on any other country at the moment) really thinks about anything other than how the outcomes of their purchases affect themselves. I certainly never looked at my bananas as being shipped halfway across the world and having a harmful carbon footprint. They taste good and I buy them when they’re on sale.
That being said, however, I think, when presented with concise and accurate information about the things we do, we can change. Obviously this change must come from within but I do think it’s possible. And if we can, and the subject, such as our current environmental crisis, is serious enough, I think we should attempt to change human “nature”.
jfahl's picture

Nature No, Society Yes!


  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.

Yuri Hongo's picture


I do not believe that human nature nor technology rule the world. Instead, I believe in naturalism and that nature absolutely conquers all. Humans have survived the "survival of the fittest" and have clearly adapted to the changing environment. Therefore, when Revkin asks if we can change human nature, my answer to this question is: no, we cannot. I do believe, however, that there are certain aspects of ourselves that we can somewhat change, such as one day deciding to become a vegetarian. Of course people take religion and culture into consideration when making decisions. Although it may be human nature to crave meat, if people strongly believe in not killing animals for food, then it is possible to change the human mind.
Furthermore, if you add technology to this large picture, I believe the same thing applies here. Technology can certainly influence people to change. However, in the end, it is all about one's own beliefs and how he or she decides to execute it according to his or her survival in the world of "nature".

Eliza Brennan-Pratt's picture

Human Nature changes under pressure

I believe that it’s possible to change human nature, just as it’s possible to change someone’s mind. However, a change of such large proportions can only occur when humans are faced with a dire problem. The most obvious example comes from the article “Can people have meat and a planet too?” Right now, the idea of meat created in a petri dish utterly disgusts me and I’m probably not the only one in American society who feels this way. Eating meat is ingrained in the age-old practices of man. If most Americans are accustomed to eating meat that comes from an animal, why would he or she spontaneously decide to pick up that cultured meat from the deli section? Also, if people are eating meat in the first place, they have probably overcome the moral implications of their eating habits and are more in tune with enjoying it. As a result, the trip to the grocery store is a habitual, routine act that also provides a strong connection with human history.

As we read, world population will reach a whopping 9 billion by 2050. With such a massive increase in population, the water, food, space, etc. available to each person will be much less. In general, humans want choices and options without much inconvenience. On the other hand, when humans are faced head-on with the hardships of a skyrocketing population, they are bound to change. By buying cultured meat for the first time, the person may feel thrust into a foreign environment, but that definitely beats the grim picture of our planet if sustainable practices and technological solutions are not implemented.

cantaloupe's picture


I don't think it is possible to change human nature.  Human nature, to me, is our instincts.  We are prone to do certain things, such as eat meat.  Our body is made to eat meat.  We can chose not to eat it, but that doesn't change our human nature.  It is just changing our choices.  We can learn to make different choices.  It is possible for someone to decide that they aren't going to eat meat.  
Our choices will continue to change and I think that that is okay.  There is no way of stopping it, so we pretty much have to be okay with it.  I'm not totally into the grown meat idea, but with enough propaganda I'm sure I could be.  However, we would always have the internal desire to hunt and gather and eat meat.  So, the choice is always there to go back to.
mmg's picture

Change your perspective

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.

Stephanie Kim's picture

this website keeps saying my

this website keeps saying my email isn't registered, nor is my id that i wrote down during class.. but i'll keep posting anyways...:(

Humans have affected the environment in drastic accounts, and that with similar patterns, the Earth will eventually live short. I think that humans can learn to save and preserve the amount of resources we consume with much effort. We should work on improving our traditions and our habits to plan for future generations. By consuming only greens and vegetables, the human body finds it difficult to find protein and other nutrients. Most of our taste buds are also used to eating certain foods and thus, I find it impossible to have humans change our nature to consume meat. Yet, I think it'll be almost impossible to ask humans to stop eating meat nor is it fair to.
To come to a medium, people should put a stricter limit to the amount of animals we kill for meat. We should also make sure that we use all parts of the animal we kill, instead of using certain parts and throwing it away. We should also allow the animals to live freely instead of caging them in small areas.

jpfeiffer's picture

After reading Revkin's

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.

lwscott's picture

It would take somee time...

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.  


lwscott's picture

It would take somee time...

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.  


lwacker's picture

Current Events


For all of you interested, I have posted a link above to an article in today's New York Times that explores the negative repercussions of food additives in China.





Ann Kaltwasser's picture

culture your food and eat it too

(Well, for some reason, serendip felt it necessary to go back to the homepage while I posted my comment, so this will probably suck since I have to rewrite it. Ugh.)

The association I have with cell culture is tissue regeneration, and the association I have with, say, a hamburger, is a cow. To combine food and cell culture is just plain unappetizing. Although there is some disagreement as to the definition of :human nature," we know that early humans started out as omnivorous hunter-gatherers, hunting wild animals and gathering nuts and berries, or whatever a gatherer gathers. But now we have options available to us that the early humans never had, and with this almost excessive amount of information and demands for availability on nearly every commodity, we clearly strayed from the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. With so much available to us now, food fads from atkins to the grapefruit diet have appeared, and such paradoxes as the industrial organic food market and "unnatural" food philosophies such as veganism are a part of our everyday lives. Since canned food, how we think about food and what constitues as acceptable food has changed for us, and our "human nature," for the most part, now submits to mass-produced and heavily-modified food. The connection between petri dish chicken nuggets and an actual chicken squawking about the farmyard is a almost a severed one, yet look at how much processed food from real animals we currently take in.

abhattacha's picture

Should we change human

Should we change human nature ? Definitely , if the change would mean greater good for the greater number . For to see wrong , and the need for change , and do nothing would be to commit a ' sin of omission ' - Mark Twain's ' silent lie ' .
Can we change human nature ? Yes , if the benefits of the change / the consequences of not changing can be brought to their attention . For man is reasonable , and knows exactly which way his bread is buttered , even  if the inertia of doing things a certain way prevents him from seeing it for himself . That has been the story of civilisation - a few change , and change the many , often using technology to help them on their way .
On a less cynical note , I vehemently disagree that it is our " snake brains " which make us gravitate towards evil much more readily than to good . That the power of the negative is much more powerful than the strength of the positive is a fact of life rather than of human nature . If we had a predisposition to evil , there wouldn't be a phrase in the English language telling us to " appeal to the better nature " !
mcchen's picture

Human nature

In an attempt to define human nature, I came up with the notion that human nature is based on instinct.  Instincts that drive our actions which are virtually programmed into us to ensure our survival in this world. Human nature is also based on adapting to our environment and being able to form our own opinions.  In a sense, human nature can be altered if it came down to a life or death situation and our need for survival trumped everything else.  The way we perceive things and decipher our thoughts takes time to develop and is constantly changing after we are exposed to new experiences and ideas.  Therefore I do not think Revkin should generalize and lump all humans under the term "human nature" because everybody lives by their own standard and is shaped differently by their encounters.  In order to change human nature, you would probably have to work with every single individual and even then, only persuasion may work since some people do not appreciate new ideas that are forced upon them.
mkmerrill's picture

In the "beginning" it was

In the "beginning" it was in man's human nuture to hunt and gather for food for survival. Over time however, our human nature has shifted due to increase in technology (i.e. industrial food production). It is now within our human nature to buy artificially enhanced meat in prewrapped packages and shop for produce in stores rather than gather it from nature. Our human nature has addapted as a result of technological advances and I think they will continue to do so. For example, as the need to reduce industrial meat prduction increaes, new forms of meat production will emerge to help minimize its negative affect on the planet. In turn humans will adapt to the changes in a way that will affect the way they go about doing things; thereby affecting their human nature.  The question of whether or not we should change human nature to me is irrelevant. I think that as long as changes continue to be made human nature will continue to adapt out of neccesity regardless of whether we want it to or not.

Shoshi's picture

Human Nature?

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.  

Paul Grobstein's picture

Human nature?

Have been enjoying seeing/reading your various thoughts on this topic. Thanks all. Let me add to the mix ...

"As for "human nature", a principal theme of this essay is that there is not one, at least not when looking from a sufficiently broad perspective. "I am, and I can think, therefore I can change who I am" (Grobstein, 2004a) and also change things around me as well. Yes, we all start with certain understandings, preferences, biases, and the like (disciplinary or otherwise), including perhaps a wish for something stable and certain on which we can build our lives. But we are also story tellers (see Grobstein, 2007; Rorty, 1999), and that gives us the capacity to conceive what has not yet been and, potentially, to bring it into existence."

For more along these lines (including references), see The Brain, Story Sharing, and Social Organization.
lwacker's picture

Nonsensical musings on human nature

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? 

mhan's picture

A Battle

People have eaten meat for many centuries. I don’t think that they will be completely comfortable with a sudden and drastic change in eating habits. I don’t think people are going to even “want” to change their perception, unless there is a great incentive, a trade-off that can surpass their sacrifice, a constant battle against a nature that resists change, to embrace a new lifestyle that threatens their present state of reality.

As an imperfect species, I think it is human nature to cling to old beliefs, mindsets, thought-patterns, rather than embrace the new. I don’t think human nature can be totally changed, but I believe that humans can train themselves to change their way of thinking and approaching things. I believe it is possible to transform one’s mind but it requires a conscious effort to daily rid oneself of pre-conceived notions, mind-sets, and other hindrances that block our road to a clearer, broader perspective of life’s daily activities.

ihe's picture

human nature

Human nature  is basically a set of characteristics that everyone has in common. Except, how is human nature formed? By our cultures and the environmental factors that influence us when we come into this world. So can human nature be changed? Yes. no one is born with any knowledge of this world. It might be harder to change as your age increases, but it is definitely possible. All animals have to change in order to survive, if we had to change our nature in order to survive as a species, we should. Its only a matter if we want to change technology or our own brain.

I think its wrong to assume human brain does not change. Its just another learning/adjusting process.
emily's picture

A Ramble About Human Nature

I agree with what a lot of people have been saying, that it definitely depends on what he means by "human nature". In some cases, there are many habits which are so deeply ingrained that it would be too hard to reverse them. There is too large a population with all different opinions and agendas that I find it hard to believe it would be easily possible to change the "human nature" related to foods as a whole. For example, I do not believe that the whole world could go vegetarian in order to save animals, energy, or whatever. I also do not forsee the food industry as it is today changing for the better (to be healthier, more energy-efficient, etc.) as a whole. To change this, everyone in the world would have to be on the same page about everything which, as human nature wills it, is impossible. However, I believe smaller communities have a better chance to undergo change. It is easier in smaller numbers to group together and make the difference one wants to see. So, if there were several "small communities" that were large enough to voice an opinion and take action together, I believe change in any sort of thing could be seen. So while I believe people do have the opportunity to make changes and choose for his or her self certain things, I do not believe that human nature specifically can be changed at this point. This is because the human race has sort of overcome "survival of the fittest". That is the way which the nature of a species can change: slowly over time with the qualities of a species which is able to survive being passed down and that species getting stronger as a whole because of this. I believe that the technological advances in the world today prevent the "weak" from dying out and the preferable genes being passed on. For example, everyone has a chance to survive from many illnesses and diseases because of medicine. There is no way for humans to change human nature. Humans can only make choices for themselves. Nature is what controls human nature. 
aybala50's picture

No other choice...then yes

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? 

eolecki's picture

Manufactured Meat

The point that stuck out to me the most in this article was the statement “there is no reason to doubt that a long-term trend toward more concentrated food production will eventually lead to manufactured meat.” I completely agree with this statement. As time has progressed our eating habits have adapted to new technology. This adaptation occurred not because it had to, but because it was more convenient. It is easier to buy food that has a ton of preservatives in it rather than have to go to the store and buy fresh food everyday. I believe that human nature is driven towards convenience, and technology responds to that drive by making everyday life as convenient as possible. Based on the overall trend of society, my prediction is that human nature will again adapt and incorporate “manufactured meat” into everyday diet and eventually there will be no social stigma attached to consuming it.
Anna Melker's picture

human nature as a cultural container

I see human nature as a concept used by cultures, often to block progress of consciousness (it's human nature to make war!) and to explain animalistic/unconscious behavior. Looking from a scientific point of view, I know that organisms are constantly changing, and from a sociological point of view, I know that peoples' moral codes are challenged and re-established in essentially every generation. Therefore, I do not think that our capacity to take on new identities and roles in nature and society belies our 'human nature'. One could say that human nature is an oxymoron, since we are so removed from nature--to a certain extent we rely on predator-prey relations, but we have thought up so many ways to control growing times and weather (irrigation in arid environments) that our web of reliance on nature is quite different than even 200 years ago...
For this reason, I think our 'instinctual' feelings are often mistaken as human nature (although they are natural) and then forgiven by society by being labelled human nature. Examples of these instinctual feelings are jealously and anger. Though they naturally occur in our bodies and minds, it does not mean that we, as superior beings (read: followers of moral codes), can't control them.
Human nature is a cop-out.

mlapiana's picture

Understanding Human Nature

I believe that we can't change human nature but by understanding human nature the government with the help of private organizations can lead humans into a more sustainable, enviornmentaly-friendly direction. For example, the fact that humans like to have someone to believe and that most follow with the trend of what other humans are doing can help leaders to learn what direction they should take us. By creating enviornmentaly-friendly laws and MAKING the population head in a enviornmental frindly direction headway can be made regarding the climate crisis. Most consumers buy what is cheap and convenient and not what is best for the earth. Nothing is going to change quickly enough unless we are made to change!


hwiencek's picture

human nature

To me, there is a flaw in what Revkin defines as human nature.  There are people who are willing to not eat meat, to eat sustainably, etc--which makes me think that it is not human nature (and I'm assuming that human nature is universal) that dictates that we are wasteful and eat meat.  I suppose I see human nature as more of the instincts that people have and choices that people make (ie, vegetarians/vegans), rather than their biological make-up (which argues that humans are biologically designed to eat meat).  I don't know whether in this case we should be trying to change human nature, but rather trying to change how the dominant part of human society has developed.  I think it is more because society (as a whole) is lazy and a vast majority of the population is removed from the actual meat industry (and thus do not consider the fact that their meal has a past) that we take little interest in the ethics behind the situation.  I suppose that I do agree with Singer in wishing that enough of the population would take an ethical stance and thus force a switch to laboratory grown meat; however, I find making the switch to be very much more important than the actual reason behind it.  But, at the same time as I write this, I remind myself that I still eat meat--obviously not laboratory grown--and when I remember the meat's dark past I get a guilty conscience and join Singer's ranks in terms of ethics...but not for long enough.
Anonymous's picture

What is human nature?

When you try to generalize about a whole group of people (unless you are speaking in terms of us being the same species), you will always have at least someone that does not fit into that broad description. What exactly is human nature, if there isn't a specific behavior that applies to all humans? The fact that we are able to think and make choices is what unites us a species and separates us from the rest of the natural world and at the same time creates diversity among us. In response to Rivkin, I think what needs to be put on the forefront are certain human behaviors exhibited by groups within our species that need to be changed. In terms of correcting these actions in order to live more sustainable lives, we can lead by example, show, ask, and plead for change, but forcing our way of life upon others is not something I will accept. While people may not always follow the guiding light, no matter how well intentioned it may be, they may not follow it. The response to this is not oppression and a foreceful hand.
I do not agree that strict vegetarianism should be the way of life, I do believe that locally grown food and watching our waste will lead to a more sustainable life. The way to bring about this kind of change in the world is to start doing things ourselves, and hope that people will follow along.

lraphael's picture

human nature vs. human choice

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."


kscire's picture

Human Nature

It all depends on what you mean by human nature.  I don't believe that all of us have "snake brains" which make us more prone to evil than good. If it is truly for the greater good of people and everyone is presented with the facts and the right tools then it is "human nature" to do the right thing. "Because the human brain does not change, technology must" - this statement is completely ridiculous. Sure, maybe you could say the physiology of the brain changes little but it isn't right to equate technology to a compensation tool to deal with our inadequacies as a race.