So when you ask if "we" will survive, if you mean the current Western consumer society, then the answer is no — unenlightened

I don't mean 'the current Western consumer society'.

War, famine, and disease will solve the problem. In the meantime — unenlightened

I think that is happening now. and that is the geopolitical situation obviating any human ability to adapt. I don't personally advocate genocide. That is status quo and I have to agree with you that I don't think we will change it, but rest assured, an Anthropocene extinction event will happen in all probability. Societies rise to empires and then fall and species rise and fall. It doesn't matter if it's a suicide went or climatic geological event.

Not sure any of that amounts to an essential nature. The fact that we interact with our environment and try to survive (like most creatures) is true. I'm not sure human nature is a useful frame. — Tom Storm

I didn't take this any further because I've been wrestling with these issues and my thoughts are not together enough to make a coherent argument. That being said, here is a quote I used in another thread earlier today. I don't mean this as an argument against your position, but it's a different perspective I thought you might be interested in.

The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror

I appreciate the sentiment in this post. And I'm thankful for the author (OP) for having put their thoughts together and such a cogent way.

Here are my thoughts on this subject.



If the human condition is anything, it is a blank canvas.

We become what we choose to be. Especially in today's world. Because of technology.

If we choose to be shaped (almost) exclusively by our exterior circumstances and environments, that is still a choice. Made mindfully or otherwise.

The world, reality is a collection of choices.

I think "human nature" (re: aptitude) consists in two aspects: (a) h. sapiens species-specific functional defects¹ (i.e. physical & psychological vulnerabilities – needs – which can become temporarily, permanently or fatally dysfunctional when neglected or acutely deprived) & (b) our suite of evolutionary cognitive biases².

On the other hand, I think "the human condition" (re: competence) consists in a plurality of ensembles, or repertoirs, of social relations-practices (like a habitus³) which generate various arts & kinds/degrees of knowledge (i.e. cultures).

defects (e.g.) thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, illness, exposure, etc [1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases [2]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitus_(sociology) [3]

And so I think of the human condition in sum as the struggle to preserve human nature while simultaneously striving to surpass (all of) human nature's inherent limits (e.g. immorbity ... immortality ... immateriality ...) :fire:

If the human condition is anything, it is a blank canvas.

We become what we choose to be. Especially in today's world. Because of technology.

If we choose to be shaped (almost) exclusively by our exterior circumstances and environments, that is still a choice. Made mindfully or otherwise.

The world, reality is a collection of choices. — Bret Bernhoft

I have to disagree with you. It's not possible that we are a blank slate, our whole system comes pre-loaded, pre-wired, so that is not blank. As far as choices, I don't think people choose to be born into situations rife with strife, war, famine, etc. Nobody is born fully formed and capable with the analytical ability to determine their life. Humans have varying abilities, strengths and weaknesses. One of the human traits is rarely seen, altruism, but it is there. Another is empathy.

(a) h. sapiens species-specific functional defects¹ — 180 Proof

First, how do you get footnotes installed? I had footnotes on my piece but nothin copied. Second, I'm a little confused by your comment because your use of 'functional defects' gives the sense of an ideal sapiens species, which I don't think you intend. I see our abilities relative to other humans, i.e., deficiencies/super-efficiencies, etc., but no ideal form that we should be striving toward or attempt to emulate..

And so I think of the human condition in sum as the struggle to preserve human nature while simultaneously striving to surpass (all of) human nature's inherent limits (e.g. immorbity ... immortality ... immateriality ...) — 180 Proof

I agree the human condition is the artifact, our world, which is trying to surpass our 'inherent limits', however, I see that as a problem. I think immortality and incorporeality can not be real goals and it is illusory think humans are other than autochthonous.

First, how do you get footnotes installed? — isomorph

They are just text or links with [#] on the end that corresponds to a (keyboard function) superscript¹ appended to a term or phrase. All the same text format. Idk how others do it but that works for me.

your use of 'functional defects' gives the sense of an ideal sapiens species

There's nothing "ideal" about

defects (e.g.) thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, illness, exposure, etc — 180 Proof

because every member of our species has these vulnerabilities; thus, they constitute our "nature", no?

... it is illusory [to] think humans are other than autochthonous. — isomorph

Why do you think so? H. sapiens have adapted themselves for tens of millennia to almost every ecosystem on Earth and have for over a half century in limited fashion lived in space off of the planet, no doubt as a prelude to future permanent extraterrestrial settlements. No doubt (in my mind, based on the anthropological record), humans are uniquely primates-which-are-also-more-than-primates. :monkey:

Clearly, in fact, it is "illusory" to suggest the "ideal" that, as your "autochthonous" remark implies, if humans were meant to fly, we would have wings ... Maybe limits-surpassing – limits-extending – goals are "illusory" but for tens of millennia so far these human illusions – sciences, histories, philosophies, arts ... fauna-flora domestication, exploration, trade, migrations – have worked spectacularly well (though, of course, not without significant costs as well).

First, how do you get footnotes installed? — isomorph

Those are not footnotes. ¹²³
However I remember one of @Michael's posts actually including footnotes. But I never saw it again.

defects (e.g.) thirst-hunger, bereavement, insecurity, shame, mortality, confusion, illness, exposure, etc — 180 Proof

I wouldn't call them defects, but I would just call them reality.

but for tens of millennia so far these human illusions – sciences, histories, philosophies, arts ... fauna-flora domestication, exploration, trade, migrations – have worked spectacularly well (though, of course, not without significant costs as well). — 180 Proof

I have not said 'sciences, histories, philosophies, arts..' are illusory. Autochthonous humans aren't ideals, they are brute facts. "Why is there anything? Because." It's a brute fact, just as , for all of our accomplishments, we can't live with ourselves and we destroy our habitat.