I think Belagarth has hit upon a core difference in our positions. Science and the \"conservative\" view is that human nature is largely unchangable. Our behaviors are hardwired to a large extent through selective evolution. In making our societies, we need to be clear-eyed about what we have to work with - what can be changed and what can not.
\"Liberals\" respond that humans are changable and can be molded to meet our wishes. To some extent that is true. of course.
A \"conservative\" would say that we can overcome to some degree human nature but you can\'t change it. You can structure rewards and responsibilities to make human nature work for you.
A political example is Madison in the Federalist Papers. He knew that men will compete for power over their fellows - always have, always will. Teach a man otherwise is fruitless. His answer was to structure the government so that ambitions would be set against ambition.
Telling young women that they should act like men leaves women frustrated and leaves no one to do the essentials that women do and men can\'t.
Fukuyama\'s paper on social capital captures what we understand about human nature and society. Our pheromone experiments explore and expand what we know too.
Bookmarks