What is "human nature?" Anyone making the claim that "X" is part of human nature, but "Y" is not part of human nature, needs to be very careful. Because the fact that humans do both X and Y is already evidence that both are a part of human nature. The fact that humans are consumerists that focus locally proves that consumerism is a part of human nature, by definition.

Sure, you could point to the influence of the media and how it shapes our behavior. But then again, the media is a social construct, something we humans have created and directed at ourselves. Thus, once again, the construction of mass media is also a part of human nature. All this would prove is that human nature is highly malleable.

How can you even begin to argue that something is "against our very human nature?" The fact that humans do that behavior is evidence it is in our human nature. You see, making such a claim relies on some inherently non-human standard of determining human nature and morality (since it seems your argument has to do with morality).

I think you made an exceedingly weak argument, by relying on such hand-wavy and self-defined notions as "human nature."

Good point...

Well, if we've always been doing X, and it seems we cannot do without it (well, try to argue against that); and then at some point we started doing Y (while still doing X); and Y is conflicting with/retarding X; then Y must be detrimental to our human nature.

On a different line of thought... In this case, X (i.e the spatio-temporal interdependence of our species) seems to pretty much enable Y anyway, so could X further be said to be more fundamental than Y? Well, Y also could be argued to enable X (hey, consumerism keeps us interacting with each other, etc.)... but it does a rather poor job overall. I don't think it's a great innovation, as much as some sociologists would probably wish to believe.

So... All in all, and to be more polite, we say it's preferable to postulate X, rather than Y, as fundamental to the so-called human nature, in order to make possible desirable results – such as a thirst for learning, curiosity, a concern for others, etc.

>What is "human nature?" Anyone making the claim that "X" is part of human nature, but "Y" is not part of human nature, needs to be very careful. Because the fact that humans do both X and Y is already evidence that both are a part of human nature.

Or that other people had fucked up society so much (for their own benefit, unrelated to X and Y), so that people are forced to do Y.

Like, for example, being a child prostitute.

Nothing in human nature (outliers excluded) makes a child want to prostitute itself. But they do it, all over the world, either because they are threatened with violence, or because they have to eat and it's something they can do to achieve that.

I gave an extreme example -- normal prostitution is equally off. As are tons of other things (working 16 hour shifts at some shitty factory in China for example, or eating fast food crap day in and day out), but those are not as controversial and people accept them more.

All you have shown is that it is within human nature for humans to force other humans to do terrible things (i.e. to fuck up society)

No, you missed the other part I have shown, which cames naturally from the above: that there are things that are forced upon some humans, and thus not a part of their nature or natural tendencies.

Uh... no. All you have shown is that it is within human nature to do something you don't want to do because you are being forced to (because you fear being killed or being beaten, or because you are desperately trying to survive).