On Tue, 26 Oct 2004, Steve Brust wrote: @> Oh, and, by the way, I keep hearing about "human nature" but the only @> precise descriptions of it I've ever heard of involve characteristics @> that are clearly based on and learned from a given society, or culture. @> Other than the instinct to survive, just what IS "human nature?" Theoretically, human nature should be any unalterable characteristics that a thing must have to /be/ a human in the first place. Which definition, unfortunately, is going to vary from person to person. There are problems of exclusion, for instance: Are amputees inhuman because they don't have two arms and legs? Are suicidal people inhuman because they do not possess the instinct to survive? Are deliberately or inadvertently childless people human because they lack the desire or ability to continue the species? Are mentally handicapped people inhuman because they lack certain higher brain functions? Are people with severe brain damage inhuman because they lack /all/ higher brain functions? At some point you will start saying yes to these questions, but there is no widespread agreement as to where that point is. Further, there are problems of inclusion: if you're basing it on genetic structure alone, is a severed arm a human? If you're basing it on human components, would something with an artificial brain but a human body be human? If you're basing it on survival instincts, is anything with any DNA human? At some point you start saying no to these, but unfortunately that isn't clearly defined either. There are a few things which are probably necessary but not sufficient: a certain genetic structure, a tendency to fit oneself into social structures in one way or another, the need to eat, digest, and excrete. Now to the opinion part: In the common use? "Human nature" is shorthand for "people are horrible bastards". It doesn't have anything to do with the actual nature of a human; it's just another unfortunate turn of phrase, and one which is frequently used in attempts to justify unjustifiable behavior at that. What people usually mean here is: "What do people behave like if you remove them from their social structure?" Which is a bizarre question, because social structures are as much a part of being human as being made out of certain chemicals is. What you get when you take society away isn't actually a human being anymore. It's also a useless question, since if our various societies are actually destroyed we won't be worrying about this kind of thing.