Confusing column about "human nature" and the murder of 16 Afghanistan.
Brooks posits that "we are descended from creatures who killed to thrive and survive". If so, then the Republican idea of making survival tough for the lower 99%, stirring the pot with ignorance and anger while guaranteeing everyone the right to pack heat is simply NUTS.
Brooks starts out by making the case for nature vs. nurture. Yet, he seems to end by agreeing with those who behaviorally struggle "to strengthen the good and resist the evil". So, even the "innate good and evil" folks are making the case that putting effort into elevating the quality of the behavioral environment is our major hope. Following that reasoning, wouldn't it be wise for humankind to restrict our exposure to conditions that put us in "survival" mode (war, fear, anger, indignity, greed, etc) and invest in a societal environment that takes us beyond "survival" into conditions that bring out the best in us?
Apparently, the GOP doesn't think so. Its platform stands for increasing income disparity, increasing desperation, unregulated greed, sword rattling, denigration of science and education, despoiling the environment for the pursuit of bucks, permeating society with guns, praying with people who are intolerant of others and want to limit the rights of women. Are these the behavioral "struggles" that will bring out our innate "good"?
No comments:
Post a Comment