What is called human nature is really a reflection of the human condition: if all people had a reasonable share of territory and resources, such products of 'human nature' as war and crime would become extremely rare. -GRE Issue 76

Are products of human nature such as war and crime actually products of the human condition--specifically, lack of resources and territory? The speaker daims so. I strongly disagree, however. Whether we look at science and history, or simply look around us in our daily lives, we see ample evidence that human aggression is the product of our nature as humans--and not of our circumstances.

First of all, the claim runs contrary to my personal observation about individual behavior--especially when it comes to males. One need look no further than the local school-ground or kindergarten playroom to see the roots of crime and war. Every school-yard has its bully who delights in tormenting meeker school mates; and in every kindergarten classroom there is at least one miscreant whose habit is to snatch away the favorite toys of classmates--purely for the enjoyment of having seized property from another. And these behaviors are clearly not for want of resources or territory. Thus the only reasonable explanation is that they are products of human nature--not of the human condition.

Secondly, the daim flies in face of what scientists have learned about genetically determined human traits. Many human traits--not just physical ones but psychological ones as well are predetermined at birth. And to a great extent we have inherited our genetic predisposition from our non-human ancestors. One might argue that lower animal species engage in warlike behavior for the main reason that they must do so to protect their territory, their dan, or for food not because of their nature. Yet, this point begs the question; for we humans have been genetically programmed, through the evolutionary process, to behave in similar ways. In other words, doing so is simply our nature.

Thirdly, the claim makes little sense in the context of human history. Prior to the last few centuries the inhabitable regions of our planet provided ample territory and resources--such as food and cultivable land--to accommodate every human inhabitant. Yet our distant ancestors engaged in war and crime anyway. What else explains this, except that it is part of our inherent nature to engage in aggressive behavior toward other humans? Moreover, if we consider the various experiments with Marx's Communism, it becomes clear that the pure Marxist State in which all territory and resources are shared according to the needs of each individual does not work in practice. Every attempt, whether on the macro- or micro-level, has failed at the hands of a few demagogues or despots, who aggress and oppress like playground bullies.

In sum, the author of this statement misunderstands the roots of such phenomena as war and crime. The statement runs contrary to my personal observations of human behavior, to the scientific notions of genetic predisposition and evolution of species, and to the overwhelming lack of evidence that providing ample resources to people solves these problems.