This is not to say that it’s impossible that we’ll ever have new data on human evolutionary history that could be relevant; far from it. But it’s important for all of us to resist the temptation to reach into a very sketchily known evolutionary past to justify current ethical, political, social or cultural preferences. Even when we agree.

“They” have their “killer ape” types; “we” have our Kropoktins and Childes.

I think it’s pretty clear that human beings are capable of selfish, destructive behavior. I think it’s pretty clear that human beings are capable of altruistic — or even just enlightened-self-interested, reciprocally altruistic — and constructive behavior. One need not search for some “natural” justification for a preferred one-sided view of human nature.

For example: what if it were somehow proven that human psychology just so happens to be more negative and selfish than positive? What are we supposed to do — declare the war of all against all to be Nature’s Way and have at it? Of course not. We’d organize ourselves in such a way that encourages the better angels, etc., and holds down the devils. Since it is very likely that people will never figure out what The Answer about our origins is, it seems like we ought to encourage our more constructive and loving side regardless of what The Reality, in some biological-evolutionary sense, may be.

We don’t like it when conservatives reach for some simplified biologically tarted-up argument to justify their more proximate social goals. We shouldn’t do the same. We should consider that it is possible that human beings are not somehow innately good and that it’s simply our social structure that holds us back. We don’t know. We may be nonviable. But I, for one, would like to see us try something new, socially and politically — such as, say, truly democratic, bottom up, socialism — before we kill ourselves off. Clearly, the capitalist way will kill us all sooner rather than later. It is possible that another structure would be better — I happen to think so — but it’s also possible that nothing will save us in the short run.

I guess I have a problem with biological arguments because they are really just statements of faith, not knowledge. We should operate on the warranted assumption that we can do better, but without any certainty that better will be good enough. There are no guarantees. We may simply be nonviable — in the short term. All species are nonviable in the long term, of course.

Optimism of the will, pessimism (or at least agnosticism) of the intellect on this score, as on so many others!

Thanks!

Mind you, I think Roubini’s essential “take” above is pretty flawlessly correct.

It’s merely that phrase — “socialism for the rich” — which has cropped up like “mushrooms in manure” ACROSS the web’s political spectrum that I find to be an unfortunate obfuscation.

Socialism, aside from perhaps the atrociously misnamed “National Socialism” of Nazi Germany, is CLEARLY not what we’re witnessing in the USA today. “Socialism” automatically implies a MORE, not less, equitable distribution of wealth. And this Corporatist (i.e., Fascist) bailout manipulation constitutes QUITE the opposite philosophy.

Just to throw in my own two cents on this, the above phrase has virtually swamped the Internet as a shorthand description of this bailout’s implications.

While it’s not exactly “inaccurate” to thus describe these furtive machintions, the phrase is nevertheless misleading and constitutes a hopelessly “politically correct” euphemism.

The “short and sweet” term for such unholy collaboration between government and big business, resulting in the generalized disenfranchisement of the people at large, is rightly “Fascism”!

It walks like a duck, and it’s long been talking like a duck. Shall we therefore plainly CALL it a “duck”?

Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown. It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented – many on the RGE Monitor Finance blog forum – alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street. And it is a scandal that even Congressional Democrats have fallen for this Treasury scam that does little to resolve the debt burden of millions of distressed home owners. Nouriel Roubini

Nouriel is one of the best and unlike some or unlike most tells the truth as best he can

Odd that you say this, because I just finished reading a book that said quite the opposite–that this was just a theory that was proven incorrect not too long ago.

* Atmospheric CO2 concentration rose to 383 ppm in 2007, which is 37 per cent above the concentration at the start of the industrial revolution of about 280 ppm in 1750.

The present concentration is the highest during the past 650,000 years and probably during the past 20 million years.

* The growth rate of emissions was 3.5 per cent per year for the period of 2000-2007, an almost four-fold increase from 0.9 per cent per year in 1990-1999

The shock rise in emissions means that the atmosphere is likely to warm quicker than previously thought and that disastrous changes in the climate predicted by scientists may now be unavoidable. Telegraph

Now what are we seeing on the hill right now? What we are seeing is put off today for the people of tomorrow. It sure looks like the decision has been made by some to go out in style if you can call that style. There is still time but will now require draconian measures. What we now see on the hill is 180 degrees in the other direction. I will be very interested in seeing what James Hansen has to say on these new numbers. This will not be easy far from it but to go out without a fight well there is something very wrong with that. Any preparations being made for what we can’t stop, no it’s the economy stupid. Sorry stupid doesn’t begin to explain it.

The new numbers, called “scary” by some, were a surprise because scientists thought an economic downturn would slow energy use. Instead, carbon dioxide output jumped 3 percent from 2006 to 2007.

That’s an amount that exceeds the most dire outlook for emissions from burning coal and oil and related activities as projected by a Nobel Prize-winning group of international scientists in 2007.

Meanwhile, forests and oceans, which suck up carbon dioxide, are doing so at lower rates than in the 20th century, scientists said. If those trends continue, it puts the world on track for the highest predicted rises in temperature and sea level.

An important point to note is the rate of these natural processes. The typical imbalance
between tectonic sources and sinks of atmospheric CO2 is about one ten-thousandths of a ppm of
atmospheric CO2 per year. In one million years this would be a CO2 change of 100 ppm, which
would cause large climate change. This natural rate of change should be compared with the
present human-made increase of atmospheric CO2, which is about 2 ppm per year.
So, yes, it is clear that natural climate changes are huge over long time scales,
encompassing even an ice free planet. But now the human-made rate of change of atmospheric
CO2 is ten thousand times larger than the natural rate that drove the huge climate changes.
Humans are now in charge of atmospheric CO2 amount and global climate, for better or worse. James Hansen

With this present trend I did the math that is no longer ten thousand times larger but fifteen thousand times larger.

After all these thousands of years and the knowledge in those thousands of years and the end of the human race because it’s the economy stupid it’s the money stupid and of course power it just feels so good. That new way of thinking Einstein spoke of probably TIME