I've tried explaining the idea of material conditions to people who still be live in

...

Ask them how their gigantic piles of boxes of newspapers and shit in their home is coming along if hoarding is human nature.

That's because there weren't any before that.

Women worked for millenia before WW1

The most primitive tribes see rape as a completely normal thing.

bump

Sort of a simple response but I've had some luck with it: Imagine that one day, when you get home, there is a bunch of fresh baked bread outside your door with a sign that says "take as much as you want." (And for whatever reason you know that it's safe to eat). Naturally, most people would take a large amount of it, excited about the free bread. Then the next day, you arrive home again and there's new bread, with the same offer. So you take a bunch more. And the next day it happens again. The first few times it happens, you take a bunch, expecting to save your bread for later. But pretty soon your stock of bread gets huge and you realize you have more than enough. Eventually, when you realize that there is going to be free bread for you everyday, you start only taking what you want for the time being. Hoarding is not human nature.

Human nature is irrelevant when we're on the eve of mass genetic engineering.

Communes that were based on kinship and family ties, supporting the gentic perspective.

Boom, there goes your argument.

Completely wrong. You start selling bread to other people carefully keeping the supply scarce to achieve the highest profit. You hire security and even an army to fight wars that will secure your exclusive access to the supply of bread.

That's like asking how much of what a car does is combustion-based. Genetics lays the groundwork for everything and influences every decision we make, but material conditions also play a huge role in every aspect of our existence. The idea that it's either genetics or material conditions - not both - is laughable.

Human nature exists - it's what determines how we respond to the material conditions around us. A monkey responds very differently to the same material conditions because it is biologically and neurologically different.

The real joke is that it is human nature to cough. That analogy only works because everyone knows that people working in acrid, toxic air are likely to cough. You implicitly accept that humans have a statistically significant nature even while you deny it with your words.

In this case they would actually be at odds even with the majority of bourgeois economists. The principle of diminishing marginal returns states that at a certain point the difference between the marginal benefits and the marginal costs of any given action will decrease. At a certain point the marginal benefits-marginal costs will be less than zero and at that point you can expect that a person will stop engaging in this action.

In the case of obesity, for example, obese people do stop eating, generally at a certain point when they feel full (or perhaps past that point when they start to feel sick). Even if we were to ignore the fact that the US at least, obesity disproportionally effects lower-income families (the relationship is more complicated than that, but if we were to take what your friends are arguing, we would assume that obesity would disproportionally effect those with more money as they have more ability to horde), and that obesity is in large part caused by the sort of food that we're eating (there's a lot of cheap, addictive, unhealthy food out there), these people are not constantly eating. They will stop eating at a certain point when a rough cost-benefit analysis ("how full do I feel?" "this food is unhealthy and I should stop," "is there something else I would prefer doing right now?" etc.) leads this person to conclude that they should stop eating and do something else.

They also don't take into account implicit costs. I would bet that they do not pick up pennies when walking around town. In fact, depending on their level of income, they might not even pick up $1 bills. The reason is that this is not worth their time even under the capitalist system. When people hoard shit it is almost always out of some sort scarcity. People will generally either hoard shit because they know that normally they would have to pay more for it and they want it for personal consumption (as I've explained there's a limit to this) or because they think they can exchange this mass of goods on the market and make a profit (which wouldn't work in a post-scarcity socialist society).

People, usually, only hoard in specific instances when a rough cost-benefit analysis tells them that they will somehow gain from hoarding. This is why probably your friends aren't spending every second of every day hoarding trash and shit they find on the streets in their free time.

Behavior is partly genetic, but genetics can only explain how we are likely to respond given environmental factors (for example I may have a genetic predisposition to addiction but that wouldn't manifest itself in an alcohol addiction unless I had access to alcohol). A change in environmental factors will change how genetic predispositions manifest themselves though within a given environment genetics will play a role in determining individual behavior.

yes, given the environment. It is human nature to cough when environmental factors trigger this coughing response. As you stated

The environment is what brings this "human nature" about. Given that air quality is bad, people will cough a certain amount. When environment changes, people will cough less.

youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g&index=17&list=PL39BF9545D740ECFF

well there goes your argument

I dunno my dude. If we take a look back at history we can see empirically that white people have a lesser capacity for empathy. I mean I'm not saying all white people are genocidal monsters, but they certainly have a higher propensity for it. I say we kill 'em.

I'm white and I almost unironically agree with this

if this is not ironic, pls stop

so sensitive. yes this is ironic. I thought this would be clear based on the fact that I was using Holla Forums language to justify anuddah shoah

8.8927/10 memeing, friendo.

CUCK

Nod an argument ;DDD

JIDF detected.
Kikes actually have lesser capacity for empathy. Not white people.

Most of it is, down to what party you vote for.

Culture can only modify the statements genetics puts forth.

Culture can make a man take care of kids and wash dishes, but he's not going to like doing it. His genetics will not let him.

True communism can only be possible with human genetic engineering.

So are you using that flag ironically or…

I have a degree in developmental biology, and I published one article in genomics circles.

This place is confusing as fuck sometimes.

This is a lamarckist view from the late 1800s-1920s.

People used to think if you wore a hat of a confident seeming actor, you would gain their confidence. Or if you redecorate your house like a successful person, you would become successful. It's basically a throwback to ancient superstitious bullshit, almost as quaint as voodoo.

Starting in the 1920s people figured that lineage has something to do with a person. Of course they went a bit overboard and killed a few million people… but that's only because they didn't know about genetics, and couldn't do targeted genetic engineering.

Brains are flexible though, very flexible. Under the right conditions a persons brain can be taught to think they are a chicken. That doesn't make genetics wrong, it just means you're using the flexibility granted by genetics to stretch in a completely different direction.

tl;dr genes are the key, if the proportion of people with left-wing genes increases, socialism will naturally occur. but keep in mind: genocide is reactionary, genetic engineering is revolutionary.

I think it would be important to understand the science before making such claims.

raypeat.com/articles/articles/genes-carbon-dioxide-adaptation.shtml

The diet guy?

OP this is easy. Genes doesn't have such a big role as everyone makes it out to be. Specially the cognitive revolution and the american biology/evolutionary theory are scrutinizing this importance because they are lame.

KK. Check this deadly combination out.
What is genes? DNA. What does DNA do? It codes for protein. Period. Think of the way from coding of protein to being an active consciousness in modern day. Even from protein to brain activity are millions of biological procedures which are highly dependent on context.

Next up check out neoteni. It basicly states that humans are born to soon because of our big heads and our brain is still developing in the first year of birth so we are more exposed to contextual changes than other mamals.

Combine those 2 and you have a deadly combo against this reductionist who can only understand theories by their 14 year old frustrations "men are evil. I want to fuck that lady but she's hotter than me. Why come he can sex? etc."

Show at least

Is proving something to someone on an anonymous imageboard worth the self doxx?

Not the paper its self. But a synopsis of the information

I don't quite understand how the genetic trait exists in some to vote for a system quite as exploitative as capitalism. I can understand the perception that some humans are selfish bastards and some opt for the co-opt to progress, but this masochistic gene? I don't quite understand its use in nature.

Genes are just the basis. They do not magically make us immune to outside influence with aryan enchantment.

Even diamonds can be crushed.

I'm not going to go that far, but it was on conserved regulons in e.coli. Ask me anything regarding the topic.

Larger amygdala = more antisocial, more concerned with survival and competition with the next guy.

I can understand this I just don't quite understand why then if you are more concerned with personal survival that you would work and sacrifice for a capitalist?

It's more down to competition and antisocial behavior.

It's hard to be competitive under socialism.

So how do we transition to socialism in your opinion?
im serious and not just being snarky

Short term: drugs that suppress amygdala and competitiveness.

Long term: genetic engineering of the next generation.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply dismiss these individuals from the co-opts being that labor will be (and is already) so efficient?

What happened to science user?

Taken over by people who have a political ax to grind.

cant find any evidence of the deletion?

You could test this experimentally by teaching a prematurely born monkey to solve differential equations or discuss philosophy. I mean, genes don't matter right, so if you put it in the right environment it must be able to be as smart as a human?

...

Yeah, I mean it's not like a pajeet or nigger could ever do those things