We aren't all that evil... are we?

[Kerensky287]

After years of reading "acclaimed" literature by well-known authors, I've noticed an annoying trend: they almost always seem to write about humanity's tendency towards evil. Things like Lord of the Flies, 1984 and Howard Fast's short story The Large Ant (lesser known, I know) always seem to focus on our violence above all else.

Why? That's not all there is to us.

In the short story, the narrator talks about how he sees a really big ant (7, 8 inches maybe) and instinctively kills it with his golf club. It turns out that this was actually some kind of superintelligent life form, and these things had been getting killed left and right across the country. Why? The narrator doesn't know. The people who have found the things getting killed don't know. But they all agree that it's because humans are too violent, and should be ashamed of ourselves.

Now, say this happened in real life. This MASSIVE ANT appears nearby. I'd kill it, but not because I'm violent. It's a combination of the fact that I don't know what kind of creature this is (ie. whether it can hurt me or not), the element of surprise (OHMYGODITSHUGEKILLIT) and the imminent threat (It's close enough to hurt me, so it's me or him). It's part of our instinct. You'd probably do the same thing if a human stranger was in the same position relative to you.

Anyway, while I've forgotten most of my good points, I think it can be safely said that humans, the creators of music, art, literature, drama, etc, are NOT AS BAD AS WE ARE MADE OUT TO BE.

Your thoughts?

[ArlanKels]

It's less the fact that it's towards evil, but rather toward self-promotion and self-survival.

The Human mind is hardwired for the survival of oneself and those closest to you. Kind of a pack mentality-esque thingy.
Yar.

[TopHatAssassin]

Doesn't that survival instinct often lend itself toward actions one would consider evil, or having rather unkind undertones? In terms of humans fighting humans, I mean. We squabble over land and resources and whatnot, use rather unpeaceful methods to acquire them, rather than go about trying to give everyone as fair a piece as possible.

[Kerensky287]

I think it has something to do with duties. We are given a responsibility, ie President, and we try to fulfill those responsibilities however possible. Like in World War 2, when America stayed out of the fight for as long as possible - the president does his job, keeping his people safe and happy. Then Pearl Harbour happened, and suddenly the responsibility became helping to defeat the Axis... and with our perception of life as it is/was, thousands of human lives were an easy trade-off.

By perception of life I refer to our caring more about one life than many. "One death is a tragedy, the deaths of millions a statistic."

But yes, survival instinct has a lot to do with it as well.

[Doc ock rokc]

Man is no means Evil. as it has been said its our basic instinct to protect ourselfs and our loved ones. Though we are animals we are the only beasts that hunt for the thrill of it.
After all Evil spelled backwords is Live. So if we want to live we sometimes have to do things that are not Good.
maybe in the future we will figure out a way to stop or basic instincts.
but i dont see that coming anytime soon

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Doc ock rokc

After all Evil spelled backwords is Live.

I don't mean to weaken your point, but that doesn't have anything to do with anything. It's only that way in English.

And I think our instincts are still applicable sometimes. Our pack mentality? Not so much. I mean, it's still important to form families, make friends and so on, but not to the exclusion of others.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

After years of reading "acclaimed" literature by well-known authors, I've noticed an annoying trend: they almost always seem to write about humanity's tendency towards evil. Things like Lord of the Flies, 1984 and Howard Fast's short story The Large Ant (lesser known, I know) always seem to focus on our violence above all else.

Why? That's not all there is to us.

It's time for

Choose your Own Postventure!

CHOICE A: People who aren't bitter and maladjusted don't tend to become writers, and writers who aren't bitter and maladjusted don't tend to be picked as Great Writers by the bitter and maladjusted people who decide who's a great writer. GO TO POST 537847

CHOICE B: Stories about a bunch of kindhearted considerate people who go around being nice to each other and hugging and shit tend to be really boring stories. GO TO POST 326965

CHOICE C: People are assholes who are you trying to kid. GO TO HUMANITY IS BEYOND REDEMPTION, SUICIDE IS THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM ALL-CONSUMING DESPAIR

[Kerensky287]

How about Choice D: we are concerned more by what's negative than by what's positive because evolution gave us an "If it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality? That would explain the media. And maybe the writers who write about evil humanity only focus on the bad parts?

[Odjn]

There's a few reasons.

One, Evil Is Cool.

Two, the dark side of our nature is fascinating. I mean, unless you don't want human characters, you can make your protag NoEvilJesusMan fight BabyRaperSatanBoy all you want. In fact, Tolkien did it and did it well. But if you want realistic human characters they have to have flaws, weaknesses, impurities.

Three, Man versus Himself is a damn good conflict.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Fithfiend

CHOICE A: People who aren't bitter and maladjusted don't tend to become writers, and writers who aren't bitter and maladjusted don't tend to be picked as Great Writers by the bitter and maladjusted people who decide who's a great writer. GO TO POST 537847

Post 537847

This doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. Books like these are famous because they're provacative, and theyre provocative because they show humans darker side. It doesn't make it true, just interesting.