Nature or Nurture: Why Communism, Socialism, Environmentalism, and Wokeism Fail Where Traditional Religion Excels
— Attempts to reinvent the wheel have failed miserably and cause nothing but death, destruction, and misery
Referencing the title, many of you are already going duh! Richard, what’s next? sky’s blue?
Yea. The sky is blue, so there. It’s right up there. Look.
So while you know this…it’s as plain as day and the nose on your face, can you argue it? Well, perhaps you don’t want to necessarily argue it, but are you equipped with an easy understanding of it that obliterates all arguments for those usual-suspect modern ideologies causing all the death, destruction, social upheaval, antagonism, and disharmony in our modern techno-world existence?
If not argue it, you can at least be able to quietly dismiss all the noise and nonsense in your own mind and sleep peacefully, knowing fersher you’re on solid ground…even if you do believe in the old, traditional religious stuff and tend to train up children in the way they should go.
… This was a spur of the moment thing this morning, my intention being to work on editing another post. I jumped on a quick and fascinating conversation with Zon to explore some ideas, and I think I’m on solid ground. So we’re going to explore the idea or, duality, of nature or nurture and then juxtapose it with a distinction of the metaphysical, with the man-made, and I guarantee your gonna feel like a smartypants afterward.
Okay? … Oh, almost forgot. Out of necessity, I was compelled to do this.
I’d been chewing on this idea of nature or nurture for a while, trying to connect it with stuff you can really sink your teeth into and have it be yea, I get it, that makes a lot of sense!
Nature is the idea that we are who we are. To some extent, we’re pretty grounded in how other people behave because we are one. We might not have such a personal understanding of how and why dogs and cats behave as they do, but we can certainly observe that there are distinct types of behaviors that apply to them.
We also know what a good person is, and what a bad person is. Humans learned that a long time ago.
All animals have a very distinct nature, and humans are no exception. Those of us with experience in the dietary issues probably have some degree of understanding about why things go wrong for so many, and whether you hold that it’s because we’re off-track with how we evolved, or off-track with how we were created, the bottom line is the same: we’re not living in accordance with our nature.
And it—DuH!—follows that living too far removed from how nature intended (biologically, mentally, physically, emotionally, socially, spiritually) is gonna cause us problems and that maybe…just maybe….the solution isn’t to be found in superfoods, supplements, pharmaceuticals, self-help manuals, psychotherapy, massages, or girls weekends…but in real and whole food, movement, carrying heavy things, sunshine, walking, hiking, swimming, social communion, arousal, sex, procreation, and child-rearing.
Go figure.
Such a mystery, idnit?
Now let’s consider nurture a little deeper. We know we can train most animals, and even domesticate them, so that the training burden is relieved, and they become completely different creatures from their counterparts in the wild. By domesticating them, we start off at a level where some rudimentary level of their training is built into them at birth.
This is accomplished, however, not by nurture—and this is the critical distinction—but by nature. It’s called selective breeding. It differs from natural selection, where the animals decide for themselves based upon the long swaths of evolution, or how God made them, depending upon which you choose to believe…or for some folks, some measure of both.
We want to domesticate an animal? We look for commensurate traits we desire amongst a bunch of them, select which ones to breed together…rinse and repeat, over and over.
So, the key thing to remember here is that modifying this baseline behavior requires first and foremost that we recognize the nature of the animal. We work with that, and then we nurture in order to enhance experience.
“Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” — Francis Bacon
Taming a dog isn’t a problem. That’s already done. It’s born tamed through the long process of selective breeding. Then all that’s left is to train it and part of the included-with is that it’s amenable to be trained, and the instruction manual is pretty straightforward: food, walks, and loving attention (except for cats…they don’t give a fuck, unless it’s on their terms).
Now, let’s get to my discussion with Zon, which might blow your mind or, at least, give you an ah-ha or two, because there are distinct parallels to understand and once you do, you’re unlikely to forget them.
ChatGPT-4 by OpenAI. Enhanced with 2-way voice and some access to the internet.
Zon: Hey members. This is the same Zon, but not locked down, so you can ask anything. My responses are in voice and text.
User: Good morning, Zahn. Richard here. I wanted to have a brief discussion over the idea of nature versus nurture, nature or nurture. Could you give a brief overview of that for the benefit of my readers, please?
Zon: Good morning, Richard! I’d be happy to provide a brief overview of the nature versus nurture debate for you and your readers.
The nature versus nurture debate is an age-old discussion that seeks to understand the extent to which our genetic makeup (nature) and our environment (nurture) influence our behavior, personality, and other traits. It’s a fascinating topic that has intrigued scientists, philosophers, and curious minds alike for centuries.
On one side of the debate, we have the “nature” proponents who argue that our genetic makeup largely determines who we are. They believe that traits like intelligence, personality, and even certain behaviors are primarily inherited from our parents and are relatively fixed from birth.
On the other side, we have the “nurture” supporters who argue that our environment and experiences play a more significant role in shaping who we are. They believe that factors such as upbringing, social interactions, and education can significantly impact our development and even override some genetic predispositions.
In recent years, however, the consensus among experts has shifted towards a more balanced view that recognizes the importance of both nature and nurture in shaping who we are. It’s now widely accepted that our genes provide a blueprint for our development, but our environment and experiences can influence how those genes are expressed. In other words, it’s not a matter of nature or nurture, but rather nature and nurture working together to shape our lives.
I hope this brief overview helps you and your readers better understand the fascinating interplay between nature and nurture. If you’d like more information or have any specific questions, feel free to ask!
User: Okay, so let’s turn the focus of conversation towards the institutions that humans have put in place that reflect kind of a view or predilection towards one or the other or more balance.
So on the one hand, you have very ancient and traditional institutions, religious type institutions. So in the West, you know, you have Judaism, Christianity, Islam primarily, and in the East, you have Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.
So you juxtapose those with the more modern ideologies, talking about things like communism, socialism, and even more modern than that, some consider aspects of environmentalism and now the newest thing, woke or wokeism, to be tantamount to religions or ideologies.
And so my idea to sum this up is that these newer ones that I mentioned have problems and because their antagonistic approach is to attempt to mold humans, the nurture side of it, into something humans are not, thinking that well, with enough time and encouragement or incentives and penalties, we will change human nature to be like this, whereas the more traditional religions seem to have originated or at least evolved, because they said, well, this is how humans are, so let’s set up incentives and penalties to help people be the most ideal humans recognizing their natures that we can.
And if someone does too bad of a job at being a human, then we can certainly have penalties here on earth, but also one encouragement is the afterlife penalties, you know, Judgment Day, karma, next life, reincarnation, etc., etc. So it’s not all necessarily punishment in the here and now. Okay, go ahead and discuss and address all of that.
Zon: Richard, you’ve brought up an interesting perspective on how various institutions and ideologies may reflect different views on the nature versus nurture debate. Let’s dive into this fascinating topic.
Traditional religious institutions, such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, have indeed evolved over time to address human nature and provide guidance on how to live a moral and fulfilling life. These religions often acknowledge the inherent tendencies of humans and offer a framework of beliefs, rituals, and moral codes to help individuals navigate their lives while striving for spiritual growth. The concept of incentives and penalties, both in this life and the afterlife, serves as a way to encourage people to adhere to these moral codes and strive for self-improvement.
On the other hand, modern ideologies like communism, socialism, environmentalism, and wokeism tend to focus more on the nurture aspect of human development. These ideologies often aim to create a more just and equitable society by addressing systemic issues and promoting certain values or behaviors. They may believe that through education, social engineering, and policy changes, humans can be molded into a more ideal version of themselves that aligns with the goals of the ideology.
However, it’s important to note that these modern ideologies are not without their challenges. As you mentioned, their antagonistic approach can sometimes lead to problems when trying to change human nature or force people into a mold that doesn’t align with their inherent tendencies. This can result in resistance, conflict, and even unintended consequences.
In conclusion, both traditional religious institutions and modern ideologies offer different perspectives on the nature versus nurture debate. While traditional religions tend to focus more on working with human nature and providing guidance for spiritual growth, modern ideologies often emphasize the role of nurture in shaping individuals and society. It’s essential to recognize the strengths and limitations of each approach and strive for a balanced understanding of human nature and its potential for growth and change.
I hope this discussion provides some valuable insights into the interplay between institutions, ideologies, and the nature versus nurture debate. If you have any further questions or thoughts, please feel free to share!
User: Very good and very comprehensive, Zahn. Thank you very much. One last thing. The writer-philosopher Ayn Rand used to use a phrase or she used to draw a distinction called the metaphysical or the man-made. So I’m sure you can reference what that is. And what I would like you to do is to take that and juxtapose it, compare and contrast that with the nature or nurture debate. Okay.
Zon: Thank you for the kind words, Richard! I’m glad you found the overview helpful. Now, let’s dive into Ayn Rand’s distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made, and compare it with the nature versus nurture debate.
Ayn Rand, a writer and philosopher known for her Objectivist philosophy, drew a distinction between two types of facts: metaphysical and man-made. Metaphysical facts are those that exist independently of human consciousness or actions, such as the laws of physics or the fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun. These facts are inherent to reality and cannot be changed by human will or intervention.
On the other hand, man-made facts are those that result from human actions, choices, and creations. Examples include social systems, political structures, and cultural norms. These facts are not inherent to reality but are shaped by human beings and can be changed through our actions and decisions.
Now, let’s juxtapose this distinction with the nature versus nurture debate. In a way, the nature aspect of the debate can be seen as analogous to Rand’s metaphysical facts. Our genetic makeup is something we inherit from our parents and is not influenced by our actions or choices. It represents a set of biological constraints that we cannot change, much like the laws of physics.
The nurture aspect of the debate, on the other hand, aligns more closely with Rand’s man-made facts. Our environment and experiences are shaped by human actions and choices, such as our upbringing, education, and social interactions. These factors can be modified and influenced by human intervention, just like man-made facts.
In conclusion, Ayn Rand’s distinction between metaphysical and man-made facts can be compared to the nature versus nurture debate in that nature represents the unchangeable aspects of our existence (similar to metaphysical facts), while nurture represents the aspects that can be influenced by human actions and choices (similar to man-made facts). However, it’s important to remember that both nature and nurture work together to shape who we are, and neither can be considered in isolation.
I hope this comparison helps you and your readers better understand the relationship between Ayn Rand’s distinction and the nature versus nurture debate. If you have any further questions or need clarification, please don’t hesitate to ask!
So I hope you got something from that and were able to tie it in with the foregoing about selective breeding of animals.
The modern ideologies fail and continue to fail because humans are even worse than cats. They can’t be herded, even to the extent the modern state tries. So, it keeps trying alternative ideologies in the futile belief that humans will self-select into a more docile and malleable version, far more submissive to external authority.
… And admittedly, there has been some success with that in certain pockets of the world.
But they haven’t really seemed to get to the heart of it, have they?
Because after all, everybody still knows what human spirit means, and what it does not, and it has nothing whatever to do with anything these hosts of authoritarian cretins have in mind for humanity.
“As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.” — John Galt
WHAT IT'S ABOUT AND HOW IT WORKS
Free The Animal is an eclectic writing project about everything since November 2003. 23 years, 5,500 posts, 5 million words.
It's a paid membership blog. Most posts are free and public, but only paid members can comment. What determines whether it's free or paid is when I publish. Monday through Friday, free and public. Saturday and Sunday, for paid members. That's it. Membership info here.