>>Mebbe we were interactive long before notions like mutual benefit occurred
>>to us. I reckon the 'utility' we derive from cooperation isn't a choice we
>>make; rather it *is us*.
>
>I think it's more complicated than that. We're inclined toward
>cooperation. We are reluctant to engage in unprovoked "first strikes" to
>grab more than what we regard as our fair share.
>
>But we are also very good at persuading ourselves that our fair share is
>the lion's share. And we are also extremely eager to engage in
>revenge--even extraordinarily self-destructive revenge--when we feel that
>others have double-crossed us...
It's a fundamental mistake to talk about what "we're" inclined toward
without a discussion of the context (both natural and social) in which we
make decisions, especially since that context helps determined exactly what
kind of items is we want a "fair share" of. This kind of stuff is just the
standard empty talk about unchanging human nature.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
"...[W]hat is called globalisation is really another name for the dominant
role of the United States." -- Henry Kissinger.
