What We Get Wrong About Human Nature

Summary

The script explores the concept of human nature, challenging the traditional belief that it is inherently selfish or competitive. It traces philosophical perspectives from figures like Socrates, Confucius, Marx, and indigenous cultures, highlighting that human behavior is shaped by social, economic, and environmental conditions. The script argues against the idea that hierarchy and oppression are inevitable, suggesting that humans are capable of cooperation and altruism. It calls for an anarchic rethinking of societal structures to unlock humanity's potential for freedom and equality, emphasizing that change is both possible and necessary.

Takeaways

• 🤔 The concept of human nature is complex and varies across cultures and philosophies, challenging the idea of a universal human essence.
• 🌐 Human nature is not fixed; it is influenced by a range of factors including culture, environment, and societal structures.
• 🧠 While some instincts like fear and disgust may be common, their triggers and manifestations differ significantly among individuals and societies.
• 🌿 Indigenous philosophies often emphasize the interconnectedness of humans with nature, contrasting with views that see human presence as inherently destructive.
• 🏛️ Historical figures like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle contributed to the discourse on human nature, with varying views on its composition and potential.
• 📚 Confucian philosophers like Mencius and Xunzi had contrasting views on whether human nature is inherently good or bad and the role of reflection and learning.
• 🌱 The philosophy of Ubuntu from Southern Africa highlights the importance of community and interdependence in defining humanity.
• 🌳 Animist beliefs, which see all life as interconnected, promote a sustainable and reciprocal relationship with the environment.
• 🔄 Karl Marx's view on 'species-being' suggests that human nature is not static but evolves within social and historical contexts.
• ⚖️ The existence of egalitarian and peaceful societies challenges the notion that hierarchy, patriarchy, and competition are inherent to human nature.
• 🌟 The potential for social change and the creation of more cooperative and just societies lies within our capacity to question and reshape our current conditions.

Q & A

What is the main argument against the concept of a universal human nature?

The main argument is that human behavior and needs are not static but vary according to culture, climate, and identity. It suggests that what is considered 'human nature' is influenced by social, political, and environmental conditions rather than being a fixed, universal trait.

How does the script challenge the idea that certain traits like fear and disgust are universal to all humans?

The script challenges this idea by pointing out that not everyone experiences fear or disgust in the same way, and what they fear or are disgusted by can vary significantly from person to person, and from culture to culture.

What role does the script suggest hormones play in determining human behavior?

The script suggests that while hormones may influence our behavior, humans are not slaves to their hormones and can override base impulses when necessary.

What are the 'four beginnings' of human nature’s morality according to Mencius?

According to Mencius, the 'four beginnings' of human nature’s morality are: a sense of compassion that develops into benevolence, a sense of shame and disdain that develops into righteousness, a sense of respect and courtesy that develops into propriety, and a sense of right and wrong that develops into wisdom.

How does Xunzi's view on human nature contrast with Mencius'?

While Mencius believed that human nature was inherently good and that virtues develop through reflection, Xunzi held the view that human nature was essentially bad and that learning was necessary to overcome the destructive and competitive tendencies of humans.

What is the concept of 'Ubuntu' mentioned in the script, and what does it emphasize?

Ubuntu is a form of African humanism that emphasizes the interconnectedness of humanity, encapsulated by the phrase 'I am because we are.' It suggests that one's humanity is tied to the well-being of the community.

How does the script relate the concept of animism to the treatment of nature?

The script relates animism to a respectful and sustainable interaction with nature, as animists believe all beings are related. This belief leads to a lifestyle that practices reciprocity and sustainability, rather than extraction and waste.

What does the script suggest about the inevitability of war and other forms of oppression?

The script suggests that war, patriarchy, and other forms of oppression are not inevitable or inherent to human nature, but rather consequences of certain sociopolitical and economic arrangements.

How does the script view the idea that hierarchy is a part of human nature?

The script argues that while expertise may exist, hierarchy, which relies on authority and the power to command obedience, is a social construct and not a natural law. It suggests that humans are capable of self-governance without hierarchy.

What is the script's stance on the role of social conditions in shaping human behavior?

The script posits that social conditions significantly shape what is considered 'human nature.' It argues that different societies, such as egalitarian versus hierarchical ones, will foster different behaviors and traits in people.

How does the script conclude about the potential for social change and human liberation?

The script concludes that change is not only possible but inevitable, and that by recognizing and opposing conditions that favor domination, and by proposing and implementing horizontal social arrangements, humans can liberate themselves and realize their potential for freedom.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Exploring Human Nature

The paragraph delves into the concept of human nature, questioning its universality and suggesting that it is not fixed but varies with culture and environment. It discusses basic human instincts such as fear and disgust and how they manifest differently across individuals and cultures. The paragraph also touches on the influence of hormones on behavior and the universal human needs like air, water, food, and shelter, while emphasizing that the ways these needs are met are culturally diverse. It critiques the tendency to focus on humanity's negative traits when discussing human nature, such as in arguments about systems of oppression, and highlights how different philosophical and cultural perspectives have historically interpreted human nature, from Socrates and Aristotle to Confucian and indigenous philosophies.

05:02

🌏 Cultural and Philosophical Variations of Human Nature

This paragraph contrasts various cultural and philosophical views on human nature. It discusses the Confucian views of Mencius and Xunzi, the latter arguing that human nature is inherently bad and needs education to be improved. It also mentions the legalist Han Fei's belief in human selfishness and the contrasting views of Akan and Yoruba philosophies, which emphasize community and selfless contribution. The paragraph introduces the concept of Ubuntu, an African humanism that views humanity as a collective quality. It also discusses the Rarámuri tribe's belief in interconnectedness with nature, and how many indigenous cultures see humans as part of the natural world, not separate from it. The paragraph critiques the rise of capitalism and its impact on the human-nature relationship, suggesting that it has led to a view of human nature as destructive.

10:02

🏆 The Illusion of Competition and the Reality of Cooperation

The paragraph uses a satirical skit to illustrate the destructive nature of competition, exemplified by a game show scenario where teams representing different cultures compete for limited resources, leading to the loss of their land, homes, and more. It argues against the common view that human nature is inherently selfish, greedy, and competitive, suggesting instead that humans have a range of possibilities encoded in our biology and that our behaviors are shaped by sociopolitical and economic arrangements. It points out that war, patriarchy, and gerontocracy are not inevitable but are consequences of certain social structures. The paragraph also discusses the existence of peaceful, egalitarian societies and how they contrast with hierarchical ones, emphasizing that human nature is not fixed but is influenced by the conditions in which people live.

15:05

🌱 The Potential for Egalitarianism and Social Revolution

This paragraph discusses the potential for humans to organize themselves without hierarchy and to resist injustice. It argues that human nature is not a fixed concept but is shaped by social conditions, and that both egalitarian and hierarchical societies are possible. The paragraph emphasizes the importance of recognizing and opposing conditions that favor domination, proposing horizontal social arrangements to reshape human powers, drives, and consciousness. It critiques the idea of human nature as a tool of social control and argues that anarchists are not demanding too much from human nature but are instead calling for a questioning and transformation of various social aspects. The paragraph concludes with a call for a social revolution that can bring about liberation and emphasizes that change is not only possible but inevitable.

Keywords

💡Human Nature

Human nature refers to the inherent characteristics, traits, and behaviors that are typically attributed to human beings. In the video, it is explored as a complex and multifaceted concept that is not fixed but influenced by various factors such as culture, environment, and societal structures. The script challenges the notion of human nature as inherently selfish or violent, arguing that it is shaped by social conditions and can manifest in both cooperative and competitive ways, as seen in the discussion of different societal structures and indigenous philosophies.

💡Instinct

Instinct is an innate, hard-wired behavior that is not learned but is a natural response to certain stimuli. The video mentions fear and disgust as examples of universal human instincts that serve survival and self-preservation. However, it also points out that the specific objects or situations that trigger these instincts can vary widely among individuals and cultures, indicating that while instincts may be universal, their expressions are not.

💡Self-Preservation

Self-preservation is the drive to maintain one's own life and well-being. The script uses the concept to discuss how certain behaviors, like disgust, can be seen as mechanisms of self-preservation that prevent disease. It also touches on how self-preservation can be influenced by cultural practices and environmental factors, suggesting that while the need for self-preservation is universal, the means of achieving it are not.

💡Hormones

Hormones are chemical messengers in the body that regulate various functions, including mood and behavior. The video suggests that hormones may influence behavior, but humans are not solely governed by them. This is illustrated by the idea that people can override base impulses, indicating that human agency plays a significant role in behavior beyond biological factors.

💡Needs

Needs in the context of the video refer to the basic requirements necessary for human survival and well-being, such as air, water, food, sleep, and shelter. The script discusses how these needs are universal but the ways they are met can be highly variable and are influenced by cultural, climatic, and social factors. This highlights the video's theme that human behavior is not solely determined by inherent nature but is also a product of the environment and societal structures.

💡Hierarchy

Hierarchy refers to a system of ranking or organizing elements in a society where some individuals or groups have more power or status than others. The video challenges the idea that hierarchy is a natural part of human nature, instead suggesting that it is a social construct that can be both created and dismantled. It contrasts hierarchical societies with egalitarian ones, emphasizing that the prevalence of hierarchy in a society is not a reflection of inherent human traits but rather a result of social organization.

💡Animism

Animism is a belief system that attributes a living soul to all aspects of the natural world, including plants, rocks, rivers, and other entities. The video connects animism with indigenous philosophies that see humans as interconnected with nature, emphasizing a reciprocal relationship rather than one of domination. This perspective is used to critique the modern, capitalist view of nature as something to be exploited, suggesting that alternative worldviews can lead to more sustainable and harmonious relationships with the environment.

💡Social Constructs

Social constructs are concepts, beliefs, or practices that are created and maintained by societies rather than being inherent or natural. The video discusses how concepts like hierarchy and authority are social constructs, shaped by historical and cultural contexts. It argues that these constructs are not inevitable outcomes of human nature but are instead the result of specific social arrangements, which can be changed.

💡Egalitarianism

Egalitarianism is a social philosophy that advocates for the equal distribution of power, wealth, and rights among all members of a society. The video contrasts egalitarian societies with those that are hierarchical or oppressive, suggesting that the potential for both exists within human nature. It uses examples of peaceful, egalitarian societies to argue against the notion that competition, hierarchy, or oppression are inherent to human nature.

💡Material Conditions

Material conditions refer to the physical and economic circumstances that shape people's lives, including factors like access to resources, technology, and social organization. The video suggests that human nature is not fixed but is influenced by these conditions. It argues that different material conditions can lead to different expressions of human behavior, from cooperation to competition, and that changing these conditions can lead to more equitable and just societies.

💡Social Revolution

A social revolution refers to a fundamental change in the social structure and values of a society, often involving the redistribution of power and resources. The video posits that social revolutions are not only possible but necessary to challenge and change the conditions that perpetuate inequality and oppression. It suggests that human nature, with its capacity for learning, cooperation, and resistance to injustice, provides the foundation for such transformative change.

Highlights

The concept of human nature is a complex and debated topic, suggesting it's not a fixed trait but varies with culture and environment.

Fear and disgust are cited as potential universal human instincts, yet their triggers differ widely among individuals and cultures.

Hormonal balances may influence behavior, but humans are not solely governed by these biological factors.

Basic human needs like air, water, and shelter are universal, but their fulfillment varies by culture and identity.

Human nature is often portrayed as contradictory, with humans capable of both love and hate, creation and destruction.

The concept of human nature is used to argue against societal change, focusing on negative aspects over positive ones.

Historically, philosophers like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle contributed to the understanding of human nature through reasoning and the soul.

Mencius and Xunzi offered contrasting views on human nature, with one seeing it as inherently good and the other as bad.

Legalist philosophers like Han Fei and Western thinkers like Emile Durkheim and David Hume emphasized self-interest and egoism in human nature.

Indigenous cultures often see humans as interconnected with nature, emphasizing a kinship with the environment.

Animist philosophies regulate human interaction with nature, promoting sustainability and reciprocity.

Karl Marx's view of 'species-being' suggests human nature is formed within social relations and is not static.

The Rarámuri tribe's belief in iwígara reflects an interconnectedness with all life-forms, challenging the separation between human and nature.

The existence of peaceful, egalitarian societies challenges the notion of war, patriarchy, and hierarchy as inherent in human nature.

Human nature is not a fixed concept but is shaped by social conditions, with both cooperative and competitive behaviors possible.

The potential for social revolution lies in questioning and transforming societal structures, not in expecting perfection in human nature.

The concept of human nature is critiqued as a tool for social control, simplifying human complexity and reinforcing current societal organization.

Anarchists argue for the potential of human nature to evolve beyond current limitations, advocating for social change through questioning and transformation.

The narrative concludes with a call for recognizing the potential for change and the power of the people to reshape society.

Transcripts

Who are you? Who am I?  

What is the essence of humankind? What does it mean to be human?  

Human nature refers to the  fundamental traits of humanity,  

our most basic and natural ways of thinking,  feeling, and acting. Human nature is supposed  

to be this universal concept that, regardless  of nurture, regardless of our environmental,  

social, political, and psychological  conditions, we cannot truly transcend.  

I disagree. There are certain instincts we possess that I  

might consider universal to humanity—for instance,  fear, as a means of basic survival, or disgust,  

as a means of self-preservation from disease. Yet  not everyone experiences fear or disgust and what  

we fear or disgust varies considerably from person  to person, place to place, culture to culture.  

Some people fear the depths of the ocean, others  fear the peaks of the mountains. Some people are  

disgusted by even the idea of eating crickets, for  others it’s a healthy treat. The balance of our  

hormones may also play a role in determining  how we behave, but we are not slaves to our  

hormones. We can and do override our base  impulses when the situation calls for it.  

We also obviously have certain shared needs:  things like air, water, food, sleep, and shelter.  

We want safety, respect, and connection. We  seek pleasure. But how we meet those needs vary  

according to culture, climate, and identity. If human nature is just “what humans do,” then  

it is a concept of contradiction. Humans  hate and humans love. Humans are violent  

and humans are peaceful. Humans destroy and  humans create. Humans form hierarchies and  

humans tear them down. But when people bring  up human nature, particularly in arguments  

about the viability of liberation from systems  of oppression such as capitalism, patriarchy,  

and the state, they never seem to highlight our  noblest features, only our most despicable.  

Humanity is defamed by humans themselves. To the  misanthropes and their ilk we are all just agents  

of chaos and wanton environmental destruction.  They sweep aside the vast antagonisms of class,  

gender, and race. They dismiss the distinctions  between authoritarian empires and stateless  

societies, assigning all equal accusation. Capital  H U M A N I T Y overrides their examination of  

the social relationships and institutions  that have forged our present outcomes.  

So the question persists. Our journey begins.  

To discover what exactly  constitutes human nature.  

TITLE CARD (leaves pulling aside like a safari) I’m not the first  

person to explore the idea of human nature.  Across history and throughout the world,  

theorists and philosophers have posited  different interpretations of the concept.  

Socrates believed that the life most suited to  human nature involved reasoning. His student  

Plato and Plato’s student Aristotle developed  a notion of the human soul in the 4th and 5th  

century BCE that consisted of two parts: one home  to instinct, passion, and desire, the other home  

to logic and reason. Aristotle in particular  also recognised man as political, meaning able  

to develop complex communities and systems, and  mimetic, meaning able to use his imagination to  

create artwork. I say man and not humanity because  Aristotle saw women as subject to men. Of course.  

Elsewhere Mencius, a Confucian philosopher  in the 4th century BCE, argued that human  

nature was good, with an innate tendency to an  ideal state formed under the right conditions.  

To him, the four beginnings of human nature’s  morality were: a sense of compassion that  

develops into benevolence, a sense of shame  and disdain that develops into righteousness,  

a sense of respect and courtesy that develops  into propriety, and a sense of right and wrong  

that develops into wisdom. He believed that the  development of virtues came from reflection,  

and if one didn’t reflect, they wouldn’t develop  their moral constitution. According to Mencius,  

evil came from a lack of reflection and  self-development in one’s natural direction.  

However, another Confucian philosopher in the 3rd  century BCE disagreed. Xunzi believed human nature  

was essentially bad and that learning was the only  cure for the destructive and competitive natural  

ways of humanity. Later on, the legalist framework  of human nature would embrace the notion of it  

being inherently evil. However, unlike Xunzi, they  didn’t think even education or self-cultivation  

could eliminate or alter one’s sick nature. Echoing many of today’s proponents of capitalism,  

3rd century BCE legalist philosopher Han  Fei argued that everyone is motivated  

by their unchanging selfish core to  take advantage of whoever they can,  

especially when they know they can get away with  it. Similarly, Emile Durkheim believed humanity  

to be naturally egoistic and David Hume assumed  humans were driven by selfishness and emotions  

and needed society to be more reasonable.  However, Hume also recognized that humans had  

an innate sense of honour, beauty, and nobility. In contrast, according to Akan philosophy, what it  

means to be a person is to selflessly contribute  to one’s family and community, of course adjusted  

for one’s level of opportunity. The size or type  of contribution matters far less than the practice  

itself. Further east along the West African coast,  the Yoruba held similar beliefs. To be a person is  

to be substantially dependent on others. The  community is the basis for the actualisation  

of one’s values and personality. This position  can also be found in the philosophy of Ubuntu,  

a form of African humanism developed in the  1950s that sees humanity as a quality we owe  

to each other. It can be neatly summarised by its  particularly iconic phrase “I am because we are.”  

Yoruba philosophy also recognises that while  humanity retains certain activities and needs,  

the way those activities are carried out and those  needs are met are subject to change according to  

ever-evolving material conditions. Karl Marx’s  concept of “species-being” was similarly  

informed by materialist analysis. He argued  against traditional concepts of human nature  

as incarnating in individuals in favour of human  nature forming within social relations. To Marx,  

human nature wasn’t permanent or universal,  but rather always determined in a specific  

social and historical formation.  Humans change their environments  

and their environments, in turn, change them. The Rarámuri tribe in the Sierra Madres region of  

what is now Mexico have traditionally believed  in iwígara, the idea that all life-forms are  

interconnected and share the same breath. Even  the land itself and the winds that blow through  

it share kin. Obviously, the sheer variety of  the philosophies of indigenous cultures cannot be  

painted with one broad brush, but we can identify  certain similarities. Many indigenous philosophies  

have recognised that we cannot be divorced  from our environments. There is no separation  

between human and nature. We are part of the same  family. Life can only be viable when humans view  

nature as kin, all part of the same ecosystem,  enhancing and preserving, giving and taking.  

Anthropologists refer to this way of seeing the  world as animism. Because animists believe all  

beings are related, they heavily regulate  their interaction with living systems,  

for the most part, and asterisks indeed  apply. That means that while they may fish,  

hunt, gather, and farm, they do so while remaining  cognisant of the sustainability of those systems.  

They do so in the spirit of reciprocity, not  extraction. They live by the principles of  

what today’s ecological economists would call  a steady-state economy—never extract more than  

ecosystems can regenerate and never waste or  pollute more than ecosystems can safely absorb.  

The decline of animist ontology has  coincided with the rise of capitalism,  

which has continued to sever our bond with  nature, leading to many people embracing  

the view that human nature is fundamentally  destructive. Human presence has come to be  

seen as a threatening corruption of the natural  world. We’ve become estranged from our role as a  

species of stewards. [SKIT]  

“Welcome everyone to the final round of Musical  Chairs Death Battle. We’ve got quite the crowd  

out here today in the stadium for this fantastic  finale as each round more and more teams have been  

eliminated. With each round, teams have lost  not just a seat on one of the coveted musical  

chairs, but also their land, homes, food,  livelihoods, healthcare, children and more.  

Competition has gotten vicious as the tournament  has continued, with former allies turning bitter  

rivals as they fight to survive against  the onslaught of the prevailing champions.  

The Taino, the Yoruba, the Maya, the Wet'suwet'en,  the Kalinago, and other fan favourites have been  

knocked out by the all-time  champions, Team Empire.  

However, everything is on the line with  this finale, as the question remains,  

who will win this final chair? Team Haiti  has admirably held its ground throughout  

the tournament, but Team Empire looks about  ready to take them out once and for all.  

Let’s listen in on what’s happening on the field  as the two competitors, George Hobbes-Columbus and  

Jean-James Ayiti face off for the final chair. “I don't see why we're fighting man, look at all  

these chairs. Clearly, there's enough to go  around, so what game are we playing? There  

are other ways to live with each other,  be with each other where life isn't just  

a competition for a place to rest. Look at us,  what we're doing to each other; it's making ALL  

of our lives worse off. And for what? All  this violence and devastation, for what?”  

“Money, power, control, it is our birthright. We  are empire and won’t rest until all this world’s  

chairs are ours. You will sit where ww want you  to sit, you will stand when we want you to stand.  

You will fight viciously amongst each other for  a seat at the table like crabs in a barrel. We  

will enjoy our thrones of profit, because we will  own you and you will take whatever we give you.  

You will struggle and you will toil for the  mere button on the cushion of our footstool.  

And when we win this competition,you  will beg us for the right to sit.”  

“Wheeww that some good ol fashioned smack  talk. Welcome back to the best place you  

could be on a weekday, in the presence of  the spectacular, stupendous, and intoxicating  

spectral of competition. I can't imagine  anything more enlightening, more enigmatic,  

more ebay than what we have been blessed to  observe with our orbital lobes today. Mhmm you  

smell that, that's the vivacious energy coming  from this glorious crowd as we get ready for This  

incredible finale of the Musical Chairs Enclosure  Death Battle beginning right after this word from  

our sponsor: Chairs for Africa. Chairs for  Africa For every chair Team Colonizer wins,  

they’ll graciously donate beautiully, reused,  refurbished, ready to relove chairs to the  

somehow impoverished people of Africa. Truly  touches my hearts, we'll see you after this.”  

[SKIT] We are told that human nature is selfish, greedy,  

and competitive, but the truth is that we have  a range of possibilities encoded in our biology.  

We can be aggressive or we can be peaceful. We can  be patriarchal or we can be egalitarian. We can be  

cruel or we can be kind. We can be competitive  or we can be cooperative. Some claim that war  

has been a fact of human life basically since we  carved the first spear. But war is not inevitable.  

It’s a consequence of certain sociopolitical and  economic arrangements. Some stateless societies  

knew only peace for centuries before having to  defend themselves from waves of colonization,  

enslavement, genocide, invasion, disease,  and more. Others claim that patriarchy and  

gerontocracy are baked into human nature. They  are, after all, some of the oldest forms of  

oppression. But the existence of longstanding  gender- and age-egalitarian societies,  

such as the Mbuti and the Hadza, as well as the  fluidity of gender as a concept recognised even  

in prehistoric art, highlights that neither  patriarchy nor gerontocracy are unassailable.  

Is hierarchy human nature? Expertise may  always exist in some form or fashion, but  

hierarchy relies on the principle of authority,  which is a social construct, subject to change,  

that empowers the ruler in an ongoing hierarchical  relationship to give commands and make the  

subordinate obey under threat of violence. Humans  have cooperatively self-governed their lives for  

thousands of years without rulers. We are capable  of both authoritarian and anti-authoritarian  

behaviour. Avoiding authoritarianism and  maintaining egalitarianism relies on a conscious  

understanding of one’s material conditions  and an anarchic determination to resist social  

arrangements that give some people the advantages  and ability to impose their will on others.  

Peaceful, egalitarian societies have existed  alongside patriarchal warmongers throughout  

our history. Which traits predominate in our  society is determined by what our material  

conditions incentivise. Everyone can learn  cooperative behaviour when they have the need or  

desire to do so. In nearly all natural disasters,  cooperation and solidarity among people increase,  

and it is common people, not governments, who  volunteer to do most of the work carrying out  

rescues and protecting one another throughout  crises. Without our capacity for altruism,  

built upon the evolutionary foundation of  mutual aid and cooperative child rearing,  

we would not be human. That isn’t to deny the role of mutual struggle,  

but it must be stressed that the dominance of  greed, selfishness, and competition are an outcome  

of specific social arrangements and material  conditions. Whether acting in one’s self-interest  

to pursue personal well-being produces cooperation  or oppression is determined by the systems an  

individual is embedded within. As Bri’ish  philosopher Andrew Collier wrote in Marx:  

A Beginner's Guide, “To look at people in  capitalist society and conclude that human  

nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a  factory where pollution is destroying their lungs  

and saying that it is human nature to cough.” Ultimately, the conditions in our society are what  

shapes what “human nature” is, how it develops,  and what aspects of it are made manifest.  

Egalitarian societies and hierarchical societies  will shape people in radically different ways.  

Both are within the realm of future possibilities.  We know that human beings have the ability to  

think and learn for ourselves, that we are social  creatures capable of organising ourselves without  

hierarchy, and that we can recognise and oppose  injustice. With these three characteristics in  

mind, by recognising and opposing the conditions  that favour domination and proposing horizontal  

social arrangements to actively reshape  our powers, drives, and consciousness,  

we can bring forth our liberation.  

Human nature is a mythology of social control  weaponised to simplify our complexity and reify  

the way that present society is organized, whether  via divine right, original sin, or sociobiology.  

Human nature is a lazy mental shortcut to  avoid confronting preconceived notions,  

prejudices, and assumptions. Human nature  is an effective propaganda tool limiting our  

recognition of our possibilities and serving the  constriction of our education and imagination.  

Anarchists are accused of demanding too much from  human nature. I think it’s quite the opposite.  

We’re told that without the state, the world would  descend into chaos. “The state protects us from  

bad people.” No. As Kropotkin rightfully argued  in Are We Good Enough, “both rulers and ruled are  

spoiled by authority” and “both exploiters  and exploited are spoiled by exploitation.”  

The powerful are corrupted by power and the  powerless become either servile or rebellious.  

Even if human nature were as wicked as some say  it is, providing avenues to power over others  

would be a terrible mistake. We don’t need  perfect people to spark a social revolution,  

we just need people willing to question and  transform our economy, politics, relationships,  

technologies, cultures, philosophies,  education, and identities in an anarchic  

manner. It won’t happen overnight, nor will  it entirely eliminate conflict between people,  

but slowly and surely, fuelled by the indomitable  human spirit, the social revolution will  

bring out the untapped potential of freedom  embedded within our so-called human nature.  

We have not arrived at the end of history. Change is not only possible, it is inevitable.  

All power to all the people. Peace.