Week 3: Changing Human Nature?

 First of all, I have the same question as many other students have... What do we define human nature? From the article, it seems "human nature" is the nature to eat meat. Of course, our human nature is not only to eat meat. It also includes sleeping when tired, laughing when happy and all the other instincts that we are so used to them that we even fail to notice them. However, if human nature is only about eating meat, I think we simply don't have to. Of course, there are vegetarians who do not consider eating meat as their human nature. But for the rest of us who do not feel that eating meat tortures our consciousness or ethics, we can just go and eat meat. Many people are worried that we have to abandon our "human nature" as eating meat because the world is gonna have difficulty producing enough meat to feed the world population. But we have something magical called technology. With the technological development, I think we can keep up our habit of eating meat. To think it in another way, if all of us become vegetarians, where can we find enough lands to plant all these vegetables because planting vegetables requires much more land than feeding animals? At that time, I think the problem will be much more serious. So far, I think being omnivores is the best way for us to survive with the world's population growing incredibly fast. 

I don't think that it's possible for us to change human nature, try as we might. The idea of doing so sounds like some creepy eugenics project to me. Human nature is overarching throughout all humanity, so to change it, we would actively have to change the face of the human race. That being said, I don't think that eating meat is a direct part of our human nature. It's human nature to eat protein, which meat happens to be a good source of. It's human nature to be part of a culture, and most, if not all cultures eat meat. What would need to happen is a cultural shift away from meat, for us to cease or lessen our eating of it.

It's hard to find where in-vitro meat fits into vegetarianism/veganism. Would I eat it? I really have no idea. Morally, I don't have anything against it. We're not killing animals, nothing is suffering. And while it may be creepy, I don't think it's a bad thing that technology is taking us in this direction. So I don't think that it's wrong. I'm still not sure if I would eat it, though. Even though it's not from an organism, the concept of meat just grosses me out... And it never helps that since I haven't eaten meat in so long, it would probably make me sick.

 Human nature can be define differently from different people. To me, it is human nature to act upon what we desire and want. It would be almost impossible to change human nature. How many people out there can resist themselves from acting as they desire? You know that something can be bad for you if you eat it, but since it's good, you will eat it anyway. This doesn't apply to everybody but a large percentage of us do act upon what we wants. As long as the things that we want are not illegal. But even then, there are some who is willing to act upon that wants even if it's illegal. That's is why changing human nature might be possible but the chance of it is too low.

I don't think we can -- at least not immediately. I think that human nature is something that is innate and instinctual; something that is built into us. I think that our nature predisposes us to have particular traits such as selfishness -- so that we do what is in our best interests. This makes sense because hundreds of thousands of years ago, the people that looked out for their own interests (even at the cost of others) were more likely to survive.  Thus, because of natural selection and 'survival of the fittest', those that survived were able to pass the trait of selfishness and self-preservation (along with other innate traits, such as disgust etc) 

However, I believe that human nature can be affected by how we 'nurture' it -- or the rules and standards society imposes on us. The expectations and morals that are imposed on us, such as what is 'right' behavior and what is 'wrong behavior, help to keep our instincts in check. For example, if you find $1,000 lying in the hallway of your dorm, your first instinct would probably be to pocket it. However, because of our morals and conscious, we don't and return it to the person it belongs to.

In class we tried really hard to pinpoint an exact definition of "human nature". After going back and forth between a binary and a loop description, we didn't come to a consensus. Personally, I feel like human nature simply boils down to instincts. It is our feelings, our reactions, our survival tactics. Human nature are the things that our ancestors did, and what we are now prone to do.

I'm not sure if this nature of ours is genetically ingrained in us from years and years of doing the same habits or if it is learned from our culture, but I definitely feel like it can not change. We will always be selfish and want more than we need. We will always want to overextend our power. We will always do whatever it takes to survive. And I think that we will always be meat eaters, as sad as that is to me.

As for fake "invitro" meat? If they can possibly come close to a yummy substitute, I definitely think it could revolutionize the world of the meat eater! It could be a great option. Then again, as we've seen with everything else that we thought was organic and good for the planet, the production of fake meat will inevitably have a catch. This production will probably affect us in a more negative ways than positive. So hopefully this future "non-meat meat" industry won't have the catch that Pollan seems to find in everything else we all assumed was good.

I don't think human nature can be defoned so specifically that it includes the act of killing animals/eating their meat. I understand the concept of human nature on a grand scale to mean "things groups of people will tend to do"-- general patterns in human behavior. I don't see our eating habits as something enduring enough to be classed as "natural." We used to hunt animals and forage for plants; now we flake and reform our food into whatever shape we want, and let other people kill our animals and grow our plants for us. We've eaten meat that came from real animals for a long time, yes, but I'm not sure that fact makes it "natural" for us to continue doing so.

A question that makes more sense to me: is the added layer of artificiality that fake meat inserts between us and our food harmful to us? As Pollan has made very clear, we're already pretty far disconnected from our food sources; synthesising meat might contribute to that problem.

It is human nature to want to survive, which in prehistoric times meant eating food whenever it could be gathered or caught, and thinking about immediate consequences rather than future consequences.  Today, our human nature is still to survive, but surviving in today's world is much different than in prehistoric times. Now we can instantly gratify ourselves, and "surviving" is not as hard to do as before.

In present day, it is so hard for people to grasp how their actions effect the future, especially if what they do won't impact their own lives. What is the motivation for people to change their habits if it won't change their lives by next week?  Why should people choose to eat organic or buy a fuel-efficient car? If people aren't aware of how their actions impact the world around them and future generations, people will see no reason to change their actions.  When people see how their actions can harm themselves in the future and the health of the planet, it will motivate them to gain a new prospective on what their priorities should be.  

It is not really human nature that we need to change, but how our society works as a whole.  Without the motivation to survive, news about the degradation of the planet and health problems related to certain foods would not stir action.  People are now doing many things to try to reduce their impact on the world.  It is important to keep human nature because it is a motivator for change.

When we were talking about human nature in class, we made the distinction between a binary argument for nature vs. nurture and a circular argument. The differences between these two ways to view the words nature and nurture struck me. Is human nature independent of how we are nurtured or socialized? Or does the nurturing lead to changes in human nature? Although I am wavering back and forth between these ideas, I think that the idea of nurture leading to changes in our innate nature is most convincing. Despite the fact that evolution is an extremely slow process, much too long-term for a generation to witness, I believe that depending on conscious choices about how we live and how our society behaves, we can change human nature over time. Looking at human nature in this way, leads to a loop between how we are socialized and how future generations behave.

 ;I don't think human nature is subject to change. &nbsp;True, enforcing vegetarianism on everyone might eventually lead to some evolutionary change in our teeth or digestive tract, but how can we use a process that takes millions of years to help us change behavior now? &nbsp;I think that, especially regarding the very brief amount of time there has been of recorded human civilization, human nature has remained essentially the same. &nbsp;That is why the works of Jane Austen still appeal to us and are relevant~ because they focus on humanity, not culture. &nbsp;Reading her novels for me is like reading any modern story of personalities~ the only difference is the culture that surrounds it. &nbsp;If human nature is survival, and culture a means to ensure better, more efficient, social survival, then culture must be constantly changing to affect, constrain or encourage certain natural human behaviors, depending on what we think is most likely to aid in our survival and fulfillment. &nbsp;</p>

<p>As for invitro meat... I think it's our attempt to have it both ways. &nbsp;Which is silly. &nbsp;Have meat, or don't have meat. &nbsp;Trying to acquire some meat substitute (which will never be as satisfying as the real thing) is just asking for trouble. &nbsp;Like eating fat-free ice cream.</p>

I feel that there is no single, generic definition of the word nature. One person's nature can be quite different from that of the person he or she is sitting next to. Everyone has their own nature based on their experiences and how they were raised. For instance, it is natural for me to eat meat in almost every meal. However, it is not the same nature of a person that has never eaten meat in their life. Changing nature is something that can be done, but isn't done so easily. The fact that many people have different natures, different needs and desires, it makes it extremely difficult to make change happen.

If we were to change, it would have to start small. You can't all of a sudden change people's ways and expect a positive outcome.Chaos would arise. If the changes occur slowly, it is quite possible for people to adapt and grow accustomed to it without any complaints. Should we change? I'm not quite sure. However, somewhere along the line there will be a need for change.

Revkin asks, “Can we change human nature?" That depends on what we are defining as "human nature."

If we are referring to human nature as the instincts and biological processes that have evolved and are evolving with us, then a yes or no answer would depend on how much we are willing to change of our own biology through scientific methods.

However, if our definition is closer to that which are the values we use to guide our tendencies (what might be seen as "natural" because it has been established for a long enough period of time to have consequences in our lives), ways of life, and to establish institutions that we rely on, then the answer would be, historically, yes. Values can change over time. Examples range anywhere from slavery to lead usage in household products. On the topic of sustainability, look at the burgeoning awareness and communities for the slowing or stopping of global warming by human fossil fuel consumption, or, more appropriately, the conflicting values that might define a reader’s mindset after reading Dot Earth: I don't want to buy a product that was artificially created, but I don't want hunger to be a growing problem because of an increasing population and a decreasing supply of food. Conflicting values set the basis for change. They allow for a reassessment of what values a person possesses. In a highly generalized overview, this would ideally lead to a reassessment of influential groups’ values, then to new policy, and finally reform (the change we are searching for).

And now, the real question, “Should we?”

Previous posts have answered the main concerns that would lead a person to choose “yes”; a desperate need for more sources and options for the sustainability of the Earth and humanity. On the one hand, Earth is now being viewed as a limited resource for us, and if we do not force this change, we cannot survive. On the other, we may not have to forcibly change “human nature”. Human nature may, as Jess Ausubel points out in the same article, not need humans to actively pursue change. We will have “little choice.” The implications of Revkin’s question that a human force is needed to change humanity have little application to a society that is already aware of a problem and in the process of new policies and reform. The question therefore is not “Should we?” but “When will we?”

Realistically speaking, if the population is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, and if many more drastic, negative environmental changes will be apparent by then if we don't act now to prevent them, then I say we cannot change human nature-- at least not fast enough. We can change some people-- there's a trend in vegetarianism increasing, for example-- but this is a global issue. Many rapidly developing, previously "sub-par" (I guess you could say) places (such as cities in China) are ambitiously trying to catch up with the US, but there are characteristics of US life that people in such places associate so strongly with the success of the US that they want to copy them, too. These behaviors include things like driving SUVs and eating red meat-- those actions symbolize a wealthy life to many non-Americans because that's what many rich Americans do (because they can afford to). The world can't afford this to be happening, and as Jared Diamond said (in some article written in '06...I forget..oops), these nations (China, others?) won't listen to the US now when the US tells them not to imitate us in these ways. We're hypocrits! they think. They'd be right. But it doesn't make what they're increasingly doing okay.

"The paper noted the reality of the climb up the protein ladder as countries move out of poverty, with global meat consumption at about 270 million metric tons in 2007 and growing at about 4.7 million tons per year."

All that said, I think we need to depend on technology-- especially food technology that is sustainable-- if we are going to have to sustain 9 billion people and prevent global environmental monstrosities happen sooner rather than later. As Jesse Ausubel said in Revikin's article : "Human nature is probably harder to change than technology."

I'm just being practical. Even if the whole world took our Food for Thought seminar, I don't think people would give up eating meat. It (food choice) is just a decision that's too personal to have suddenly changed by government or outside forces (I mean, I wouldn't mind, but people would "sneak" it-- and then what...?) Maybe people could be made to cut back....?