Ryu don't be a hero?

[Ronin]

There is a famous case from the 60's involving a woman named Kitty Genovese. She was raped and killed on the sidewalk outside her own apartment complex. Her neighbors watched it happen. Nobody called the police, because no one wanted to "get involved". This is called the "bystander phenomenon". Everyone waits for someone else to do something, so everyone does nothing.

Moral: Do Something.

[TracyKarate]

A terrible story, but not surprising to those who have studied human behavior. A very sad event.

[likuid]

I've heard about the Genovese story before, it just blows my mind everytime I hear it

[Mik_36]

Hi TracyKarate,

You sound like your in Psycology or something so I'm not going to pretend that I know anywhere near what you know about human nature, etc (I'm only a computer programmer). All I can tell you is that I'm not quite ready to give up on human nature just yet. I've heard of and seen humans do some pretty shi*ty things here and in the Balkans.

But I'm convinced that just standing by during a rape etc. is not necessarily hard wired into us, I think that is a cultural thing to some extent. What I'm saying is that I think our culture and others promote this "not my problem" attitude. So this is not necassarily a part of ALL of us, (i.e. I think it would be possible to change it in most of us).

Do I think it will change anytime soon in the U.S.? No, I'm just saying that I don't believe it is completely hopeless.

Just my opinion, but I'm no expert.

[Ryu (non-working password]

Mik,
Nothing is ever hopeless.
Culture, Instinct, environment, experience, and spirituality all have their part in the way humans behave with one another. Most just argue that it is one ingredient and not the other. "It's instinctual, not environmental, ..it's environmental, not instinctual."
It's kind of a false dychotomy. All of these issues have effect on us. Some people are more developed in some of these areas than other people. I kind of tend to believe that human beings are a kind of "God-animal" (bear with the term ) Because regardless where you say "morality" and "spiritual awareness" comes from (i.e. God, Nirvana, environment, upbringing, etc) Regardless why it's there, the point is that it is and always has been. Human beings, biologically are animals just like anything else. We are effected by the same instincts, and behaviors that all living creatures are in our own ways. People, however, have always had this concept of Right and Wrong, Moral and Immoral, so those concepts sometimes clash with our natural instincts, etc. We are somewhat like a race of animals that has touched upon a "spiritual" aspect of our existence if you will. We constantly reach for that spiritual plane whether it be God, enlightenment, whatever, but we must also face the animal instincts that have evolved within us. The "battle" is almost kind of a yin/yang type of philosophy. Though from personal experience I believe that continually reaching higher for that spiritual knowledge is much more beneficial than remaining an "animal"
ahaha this is kind of "out there." But I think you'll probably agree with the general premise.

Ryu

[Mik_36]

Hi Ryu,

I agree with you on what you said. I'd also like to add a couple things. Of course I'm no expert on Anthropology (I've only taken a few Anthropology classes), as well as a few Biology classes (Biology was my original major and I took Anthropology as electives).

Yes human nature is a very complex collection of biology and culture (i.e nature and nuture).

Example - we have the same instincts as an animal, say a dog, to eat as much as possible, but our culture tells us to share with our family etc. (this may also be hard wired into us, nobody knows for sure) but I believe this has come to us from culture, as sharing was advantagous to the whole tribe (i.e. culture).

Another example would be that our instincts (a male) are to have sex with as many women as possible (i.e have as many kids as possible). However, our culture has evolved to tell us that no, we should get married, and have kids with only one woman. (At least our formerly healthy culture used to tell us that, maybe it still does to a lesser extent.)

Why did our culture start to teach that? Because if it didn't there would be alot of starving kids in a culture looking for thier daddies, and the associated problems that come with all that.

And the cultures that didn't teach that just plain died out. Kind of like a Cultural Darwinism (evolution), you know what I mean?

So I think evolution not only selects out unfavorable physical traits in people but also selects out unfavorable cultural traits in groups (i.e just like evolution, if a culture has unfavorable traits it will be at a disadvantage and will eventually die out)

Does that make sense?

Anyway just my 2 cents.