Comments (3)

On March 4, 2007 at 10:56 PM , Anonymous said...

This is a very “cherry-picked” argument as you would say first off you are arguing for the whole of humanity yet you named the “popular culture” of a single country that represents less then 5% of the world population in only a small segment of time. Second human nature is complex to simply say anything applies to the whole of humanity you would have to prove that the opposite never occurs or at least infrequently enough that it is not reflective on the whole of humanity, this is why in things like science your objective is not find a situation where your hypothesis is true but to try and disprove your hypothesis and if you can not disprove it then and only then is your idea sound. Even if you are only talking about a tendency then you would need to present enough examples that compare the amount of times that a subject tends towards one side or another. I am not going to sit here and try to prove another argument I am too lazy to go through and pick out sources and examples for a supporting argument but I will show that your arguments have some glaring holes, besides I am long winded enough as it is. Now for the “proofs themselves”

Counter argument:
1.) A.) Band together as a group in order to best ensure mutual perpetuation against the dangers of the world.

While as a whole I agree with this statement, it does not say that within a group individuality is destructive to the group as you imply with your part b proof. A diverse group with opposing ideas and thoughts will be more inventive and will more quickly root out troublesome problems. Second competition (which requires separate groups) is an encouraging aspect of society to be more productive, you simply have to look at the fact that most inventions or social institutions came about as a result of competition and I am not just talking about war or conflicts (I can elaborate with examples if you want but to keep this response short just look it up for yourself for now).

1.) B.) Some of the strongest values of popular culture: Venerate and worship the willful and brash loner.

This is mainly an American value, in fact most other cultures view individualism as a bad thing and promote group based thinking and the dangers of individuality. The Japanese even have a good quote that sums this up “The nail that sticks out the farthest gets hammered first.” The loner value only strongly came about during the wild west era with the romantization of the solitary cowboy or frontiersman.

2.) A.) To prolong human life as long as possible by taking as few risks as possible.

Risk are inherent in the basics act of life even walking carries some form of danger but things that are really required like obtaining food are especially risky (should I hunt a dangerous task, or try and farm a chancy bet ect.) This only shows everything has some level of risk but this does not prove that taking more risks is better. While taking more risks is not always better, it can be better sometime (often enough) because some higher risked activities can result in an improved quality (and this is normally reflective on length as well) of life. (again be creative I am sure you can think of a few if you tried and I am sure there are enough to prove my point.)

2.) B.) Admire and encourage the brave and foolish risk-takers.

See above. The risk takers when they come to success often reap great rewards for their risks (why they usually take them in the first place), this generally leads to increase desire to be a risk taker.

3.) A.) To best ensure propagation of the species by mating as often as possible with disparate members of the genealogical pool, spawning large amounts of genetically diverse young capable of withstanding the depredations of nature.

This may seem logical but just does not work out practically. In smaller groups after only a few generations this does not lead to a diverse genealogical pool, because paternity is impossible to trace and intermarriage is very likely to occur. This is especially true since we as humans lack the capacity to immediately determine relations with those around us which most animals that follow this patter posses. In larger groups this also does not work since a small group of people who become infected (which will eventually happen) or carry some dangerous form of STD (such as AIDS), will then become quiet prevalent in the whole of the society especially if it is not immediately apparent (as it has with AIDS now). Finally socially this usually only benefits a small group of either gender (usually males since they don’t get pregnant) and usually even in polygamous or polyamorous societies it is only the rich elite that benefit from this.

(As a minor note recent scientific findings point to promiscuities sex as damaging to reproductivity rates as a women’s immune system starts to build a deterrent to rapidly altering distinct but not totally different foreign cells.)

4.) B.) The most beautiful and true form of loving relationship is that between one man and one woman, until one or both pass away.

Again mainly a very American line of thought in fact earlier eras saw romantic love as subversive to society.

Well that is all for now if you want anymore in depth arguments just ask.

 

On April 7, 2007 at 5:18 PM , Anonymous said...

Good god man, the counter is longer than the original argument. Much of the counter does indeed ring true, but the argument does hold logic. I mean to say that man is both innately perverse as well as not perverse. To say that the nature of man is to his best is to belay the fact that man kills man for the reason of they have more shiny metal in their dirt or the fact that they worship a different invisible man in the sky(god’s existence aside) than we do. This cannot be said to be in humanities best interests. On the other hand, despite the whole cadre of stupid things that humanity can be said to have done. Man has come a long way and has managed to do well for itself. The whole of existence cannot be said to be anyone thing for we are six billion people strong and all are unique in some way by their very nature. The only thing we all have in common is that we are we and that is that.


Also, did anyone notice that it is 0 comments followed by 1 comments?

 

On August 13, 2010 at 2:12 PM , Anonymous said...

Amiable brief and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you as your information.