Cancer has been cured. But will the economy allow it?

Post Reply New Topic

Again, this is from an encyclopedia. Are you aware of the term "propaganda"?




*sigh* Seems you're STILL not aware that the mainstream paints an inaccurate picture of something that has the potential to disrupt the status quo.



*Points up to previous statements that you have conveniently ignored*

And THIS isn't an ad hom? Not to mention how presumptive and derogatory it is, how hypocritical of you.

You say it is up to ME to provide you with the evidence, however I'm not that stupid. I've had enough experience of people demanding evidence while not doing a SHREAD of their own objective research to see RIGHT THROUGH that facade. I provide you with my evidence, you s**t all over it, denounce it as false and ignore all the content, then demand some REAL evidence of me when you are fully aware I've just given my strongest source.

Nice try. But I'm not that stupid. The second you refused to do any of your own thinking was the indicator.

I'm sorry, where exactly have I denounced your lack or possession of credentials? Uhhhh NOWHERE.



This is very much like the argument I would give against credentialism. However your stance is NOT one that comes from being critical of credentialism. Therefore, what you have said here is conveniently side-stepping every single one of my points and instead trying to denounce me through your PERCEPTION of my methodology. Sorry, but that isn't gonna fly.

Sorry, you have failed as an intellectual the second you typed that. That is not an attack. That is a fact. Let me explain.

By attatching me to the task of presenting this information in a format fit to "convince" you, you have cahrged me with the task of changing your perception with my conveyance of the data. In doing so, you have incorporated me into the data itself, seeing as you cannot be bothered to find it yourself, you are charging me with it. And considering your already existing bias of me, you have charged me with an impossible task. Because even if the most persuasive data were presented to you, it would not cause a single twinge of consideration in you. Because I would have presented it. This very act on your part is also a form of ad hominem. Shooting the messenger for not bringing them the message they want to hear.

You prefer to sit there and charge me with the task of convincing you, while doing no thinking of your own. Like a king sat impudently on his throne demanding his court jester to entertain him while making no effort to be accomodating for that entertainment. Such is the way of such a practise. The king is making it impossible to be entertained, because he is not making any effort himself to BE entertained. Thus it is ALL up to the court Jester, who also with the knowledge that his failure will result in his decapitation, is fighting a losing battle.

You are not a king, and I am not your court jester. If you want to understand this, do your own objective research, and your own thinking. You cannot hide behind the "evidence burden" fallacy. I call you out. The burden is OURS TO SHARE. However I have already done my part. I have presented this information in the hope that it would ENCOURAGE your mind to find out FOR ITSELF what is true and what is false. DO NOT charge me with the convincing of your own mind because Its not my job to make up your mind. It is YOURS.

So to sum up, beligerence, accusations and disguised demands will not get you far in this discussion. When demand cast-iron evidence from me while refusing to do ANY objective research is VERY telling. Not only that, but EVEN IF YOU WERE open to such information, then I can tell you all day. Until you actually look for yourself and ARRIVE at a decision FOR YOURSELF, then any information I give you, is MEANINGLESS. Truth cannot be told. It can only be realised. You think that an attitude so DEFENSIVE against a contrary view is gonna be easily swayed by someone that you have ALREADY denounced as wrong, REGARDLESS of the information they provide? *falls on the floor laughing*.

In a way THAT is a form of ad hominem, and intellectual laziness AND intellectual dishonesty. Because you are not considering the DATA SET and instead holding the messenger responsible for its conveyance. It is NOT my job to convince you. Hell, it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to convince you. You can ONLY be convinced by YOURSELF. Because it is your OWN thinking that will make this realisation.

No, this is why you need to do your OWN objective research and see for YOURSELF.

The need for the establishment to BLOCK any innovation to preserve marketshare is no conspiracy. Its just business. Its just a business that kills millions each year and makes billions in revenues in the process.

If you want further proof of this mechanism of the monetary system, watch the following video by my good friend Ben Mcleish.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owa32MvjBik[/youtube]

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 14 Aug 2011, 11:05 am, edited 3 times in total.

Well you did ask me if I was a person who had the misfortune to have had cancer while dismissing my point of view, to me that it is playing the "you can not know as you have not experience it first hand" card.

I hold the view that while a large economic sector has appeared in the medical industry which is devoted to the mitigation and cure of cancer, I do not think that evidence exists to suggest that some immoral group of industry people are conspiring to prevent cancer being cured just to make some more money. The problem with such a group is that it is only as weak as the weakest member, if I found a perfect cure for cancer I would sell it to a drug company and sit back and never have to work another day in my life. The drug company would then market the product and make a vast amount of money. For example the team at Aston who came up with temozolomide which is an oral drug for brain cancer have worked with a drug company to bring the wounderful product to the marketplace thus helping sick people.

Yes, I did ask you if you are a cancer survivor. However your error is in the accusation that I was using this as a credentialism argument.



I like that you preface your stances this way.



I am not suggesting that "some immoral group" is doing this, that just stinks of a conspiracy theory accusation. What I am saying if you read my words properly, is that THE MONETARY/MARKET SYSTEM ITSELF would not allow cancer to be cured. I have already detailed why, so I don't know why you can't grasp it. Do I have to keep repeating myself for you to understand? Or maybe you should just go back, read, and absorb what I have said with an UNBIASED eye.

And it is NOT just to make some more money. The perpetual circulation of currency is what keeps GDP up, and the "economy" going. Way too much currency is circulated due to the presence of cancer and allllllll the means to diagnose and treat it, for the capitalist system to tolerate anything that will take away that money moving faculty. Is that any clearer for you?



You obviously do not see the difference between the money made on such a treatment versus the overall loss to the "economy". Think of it as a machine made of thousands of cogs. One stops moving, or even slows, and the entire machine suffers.

I still do not quite understand how a high rate of cancer is good for the economic health of the world. I can understand that if the death rate due to cancer is high then the state can get money more oftein through death duties.

But I hold the view that a healthy person is more likely to spend money on things like holidays and enjoying themselves than a person who is medically unable to go out and paint the town red (thus spending lots of money). Spending money is good for society as it provides employment and generates some tax money for the goverment.

After the september 11th event some goverments did things to try to encourage people with money to spend it rather than keeping it in a savings account. The interest rates did go down for a while after the terror attack.

I have been advised by a person who worked for years in the money industry that the best way for banks and goverments to react to a stock exchange crash (or major terror attack) is to keep interest rates low. I also know that VAT was lowered in the UK to try to increase spending by the general public a few years ago.

I think that if cancer suddenly stopped existing then it would lead to a surge in confidence which would increase spending and thus make more jobs and more tax money.

Oh dear. People giving perfectly reasonable arguments and instead you dismiss it as not doing objective research, when all you link us to is a youtube video.

It's also interesting to see people doing this in a none-threatening manner, when all you're doing is being condescending in response. I was going to reply constructively, but quite frankly, I see no point. Have a nice day.

The youtube video is supporting information for what mechanisms within monetary economics inhibits and blocks innovation and change. Have you bothered to watch it?



Ahhhh, of course throw the "you're being unreasonable" card that people throw when they're not getting their own way. Very mature. You think that ridicule based upon my PREVIOUS CSW job ISN'T being condescending? You think that throwing the ad hom bombs of "conspiracy theory" isn't being condescending? Wow, what hypocrisy. lol. You may not have noticed the reality of the situation due to your bias. But I understand your intention to leave.

Ok, do I need to walk you through this? Im'm being serious, coz I'm sure I've detailed this clearly enough so far. Either that or you've just overlooked everything I've written on the topic so far.



If that's the case, how come the travel industry isn't anywhere as lucritive as the pharmaceutical industry?



I agree. In part. Businesses have to think about what will maximise their profits. And economists have to consider what will keep currency circulating. And not just circulating, but speeding up. Hense the term "economic growth".

This is why goods and products are NOT designed to last. Because the faster something breaks down or becomes obsolete/outdated, the faster the consumer is forced to dish out even more money, producing even more circulation of currency.

Its otherwise known as planned obsolescence and cyclical consumption.

Anyone who studies economics will be able to back this up.



Actually this is more like since after the second world war. Global consumption is TWICE the amount it was since then. Watch a documentary called "The Century of Self" and you'll see.



That is only a very short-term patchwork solution. Because our economic system is INFLATIONARY by nature. Meaning it is a system based upon infinite growth, and infinite consumption. GDP does not stay up any other way.



Oh dear. Ok, just because people have more confidence DOES NOT mean that increased spending would be any solution to anything. What will they be spending? Just getting themselves FURTHER into the hole of debt? You know this reminds me of the mock-pharmaceutical advert on youtube for "Spenditol".

A drop in cancer would lead to economic chaos. Think of ALLLLLL the industries that have been established that keep going because cancer exists. Think about all of them for a minute............................................

Now, take away cancer, and what have you got? MASS unemployment, MASS disparity because there ARE NO jobs in THAT quantity to absorb all those job losses, partly due to technological unemployment, (the gradual replacement of human labour by automation and technology) and partly because our planet is too broke to retrain those hundreds of millions of people.

This would result in MASSIVE additions to the unemployment benefit system (wellfare rolls or whatever you call it in the states) adding MORE pressure on government spending.

Such a strain would result in a collosal DECREASE of MILLIONS of people's purchasing power, that meaning less people being able to keep currency circulating (no, the super rich have no influence on general GDP) and the economy would collapse. That's just part of it that I can gather from the top of my head.

Simple enough?

It's my firm belief, that there is (and has been for some time), a cure for cancer and the common cold virus. But it will be held secret by the government to protect the pharmaceutical companies, and the earth-shattering taxes they generate, and the millions of jobs potentially lost by a cure for such things. Sad but I believe true.

Frighteningly, this is the case with many many things besides medicine. Case in point; the Global Warming/ozone hole conspiracy. That whole thing was trumped up by 3M and DuPont, who owned patents which were about to go to public domain (no longer renewable patents) for certain chemicals including Refrigerant 12 (Freon). By claiming that the R12 was causing the ozone hole to enlarge, they invented a reason to ban it in favor of the new refrigerant 134a. Isn't in interesting that the new stuff not only has smaller molecules which are much easier-leaked into the atmosphere, and that they are both fluorocarbons (damaging to the ozone layer if applicable), and..... Abracadabra: A new patent renewable for decades without any competition!

Charles

Finally, someone with their head screwed on.

However I would correct you on one thing. There's no conspiracy. Its just business as usual. The population are just conditioned to overlook it while they're being kept distracted by toys and gadgets, fast food, fashion, social status and how what you own dictates it, the fact that you must submit to employment or self-sacrifice of some fashioon or you starve to death, and by the way, if you're starting to become depressed or anxious about your life, then ask your doctor about Zoloft, and Prozac and Adderal!

Don't you worry ladies and gentlemen, you won't care that your empty life is being wasted for nothing more than economic perpetuation. hehehe

These conspiracy theories don't make sense. Why is there always some people who want to reject the obvious and invent something so fanciful and absurd? I suspect it's a kind of mental problem that helps them feel empowered.

I can tell you from working every day with cancer that there is no 'cure' -- even talking about a 'cure' for cancer shows ignorance because cancer is not a single disease with a single cause, but rather encompasses an enormous spectrum of potential molecular/genetic defects that result in a similar endpoint (i.e. a defect in the cell's ability to properly regulate its growth/proliferation).

For example, if a person's cancer is caused by their cancerous cells having acquired a mutation that activates k-Ras (a protein involved in regulating the cell cycle), then the most obvious 'cure' for that person is administering a drug that targets k-Ras and which, ideally, cells with constitutively active k_Ras are hypersensitive to. And guess what? We haven't made that drug yet. So there is no specific cure for cancers caused by activating k-Ras mutations. If we ever do develop a 'cure' for cancers caused by k-Ras activating mutations, you can be sure that it will be completely, 100% useless and ineffective for treating other cancers. Hopefully you can see that each cancer is essentially unique and so we are talking about multiple 'cures' for multiple different cancers.

Please stop spreading silly rumors and creating conspiracy theories on the internet about a 'cure for cancer'.

I have already asserted this. This is not a conspiracy. Let alone a conspiracy theory.



And why is there always some who ill slap the "conspiracy theorist" label on anyone who doesn't ask "how high?" when the system screams "JUMP!"?

There is a certain obvious state of affaris to those who do not wqish to look outside of the established mainstream frame of reference, and there is another obvious state of affairs to those who choose to do their own thinking.

Of course for those who choose to do their own thinking and choose to question the status quo, they gotta expectr to be labbeled as "cooks", "nuts" and "conspiracy theorists". So sad.



I can understand the mind-lock. We cannot tolerate a cure, or at least something that would lessen our dependance upon the healthcare system.



I agree with you that such a scenario is a difficult one. However I'm not implying that we have ever found a "wonder-drug".



As I said, there is no "wonder-drug".



Absolutely. I wholly advocate that. However as long as we have money in the equation, we will NEVER see that come to fruition.



And can you please stop jumping on the "conspiracy theorist" accusation band-wagon that every ignorant person who wants to silence someone who thinks for themselves and questions the established orthodoxy? Seriously, you're not helping by perpetuating this intellectually dishonest horse-s**t.

I can always tell if someone is out of their depth and are resorting to insults and ridicule when they refer to alternative views as "silly rumours" and "conspiracy theories" because you know what this demonstrates? That the person saying them cannot refute them so they resort to a smear campaign. Politicians are a prime example of this tactic. And it verges on ad hominem. So please, give it a rest. You seem to think that I've never been called a conspiracy theorist by a blinkered slave to the status quo. (Just so you know, that isn't a reference to you personally. )

Cancer is a complicated disease -- as you know we're talking about molecular/genetic defects going on within a cell that looks otherwise completely normal (mostly). There are countless very intelligent people working on this challenging problem in both university labs and within companies, in thousands upon thousands of research groups in just about every country on Earth. The way research is conducted and funded is simply incompatible with the idea that there is some elusive supremely empowered individual/institution deliberately withholding cures for the masses. My own boss sits on a NIH/NIC committee that approves grants and decides how government money is awarded to university research groups. He often tells us details about these meetings and there is nobody above them, and I assure you that they themselves are completely oblivious to any cure for cancer or an agenda to prevent its release. In fact, human nature being what it is, a lot of these people have enormous egos and are often happy to exaggerate their contributions to get some recognition -- if there was a 'cure', or even the potential for a 'cure', you can be sure they wouldn't delay even for a moment to win the most revered Noble prize ever awarded. That's just human nature.

I am currently reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma but my next book will be "Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer"

http://www.amazon.com/Emperor-All-Malad ... 1439107955

it seems to be one of the oldest all human foes. A built-in flaw in the human being.

That doesn't mean that its an insurmountable problem. I know its easy to dismiss this as fantasy, because its touted about as insurmountable. We're pelted by this in the media people equating the impossibility of a cancer cure alongside the impossibility of eternal youth, come on, surely you see that we are TAUGHT to disbelieve that cures can be found for disease.



Yea, and its all for nothing coz according to you cancer CANNOT be cured *facepalm*



You're STILL ignoring my very, very simple point aren't you? *Sigh* ok, here we go, yet again, its not the whim of some "elusive supremely empowered individual/institution". Ok? Get this conspiracy theory out of your head right now. This isn't down to people, or establishments. Are you paying attention here? Coz this part is very important:

It is the monetary/market system ITSELF that cannot tolerate the loss of currency circulation that the curing of any major disease like cancer would cause.

Let me break it down for you AGAIN:

Our current system relies upon perpetual circulation of currency. This is what keeps GDP up. That's why goods and products are designed to break down or become obsolete quickly, you have to free up any potential jam in this perpetual circulation principle. You can't deal with any stoppage of currency movement, because that would result in economic weakness. Surely you're smart enough to in the least picture how much currency is kept circulating because of the financial mechanisms in place because of the oncology and pharmaceutical industry. The BILLIONS that are continually circulating because of this EXTREMELY lucritive enterprise. Now, take away the very thing which this enterprise is fuelled by; Cancer. Now picture what devastating immediate AND knock-on effect that would have for GDP and hense the "economy".

HUNDERDS OF MILLIONS would be out of a job, because they are employed in the field of the TREATMENT of cancer. And no they can't be "redeployed" into different positions in the healthcare industry if there is NO VACANT positions, and with the government cut-backs on services like the already chronically strained NHS, do you HONESTLY think there's gonna be consideration for these displaced workers?? There is no employment sector on the planet that can absorb all those job losses so as a result the vast majority of those HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS will be forced to put themselves on the benefits system. And quite a few of them will starve because there will simply be nowhere left for them to turn.

In turn those MILLIONS being added to the benefits system will more than likely force the already STRAPPED government (coz now ALL governments of the world are in debt to each other) to force EVERYONE'S benefits down so they can more evenly distribute benefit payments. As such MILLIONS more people will not be left with enough to live on, THEY won't be able to afford to spend back into the system EITHER, so THEY will starve to death as well.

Oh, by the way, this scenario is NOT taking into account the massive civil unrest that would ensue. This is what would happen if humanity did nothing and just let the entire economic ship sink. No, picture the worst riot we have seen, and imagine it globally. That's what's actually coming on the horizon when the "economy" crashes ANYWAY.

But back on point, such a scenario would result in a CATASTROPHIC drop in human purchasing power, meaning that many, many, many people won't be able to afford to keep paying back into the system, driving the ALREADY decimated GDP EVEN FURTHER down, causing the entire economic system to come crashing down around our ears.

And this example I just gave was what it would do to a completely healthy economic system that ISN'T on the brink of complete collapse AS OUR CURRENT SYSTEM IS SUFFERING RIGHT NOW.

You understand now? Ok, I shouldn't have to explain that again.

Your refusal to see this for yourself is your problem, not mine, so please don't think you should hold me accountable for that and sentence me to have to explain it to you over, and over, and over again, coz I have a life of my own, right? And you have your own brain right? USE IT!



*facepalms again*

So NIH/NIC commitees are more powerful than the treasury? More powerful than the FDA? More powerful than the CDC? More powerful than the Federal Reserve Bank? *falls on the floor laughing*

Sorry, had to point that out. But anyway, as I have ALREADY stated, this isn't about people or institutions. Its about the very construction of the economic system itself.



*facepalms so hard I cave in my own head* Don't get me started on the "human nature" fallacy...............................Ok, you got me started, here we go:

Here's a video version of what I'm about to say (Starting at 3:30):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aPcjxAElgM[/youtube]

And here's the transcript:

When it comes to human nature, I have a fundamental dissagreement. However first, lets examine the notion of human nature.

Typically, when people talk about human nature in this respect, they're referring to the unchanging discourse observed in the dominant value systems. I.e. rampant materialism, selfishness, hostility, aggression, self-destructive attitudes, greed, apathy, social stratification, etc.

When you look at this list you notice that this formula is the best formula of behaviour to benefit the monetary-market system. Now other systems of human operation, are not so much benefitted by this set of dominant values, but our current system, yea, that does fit nicely now doesn't it? Now, just take a moment to consider that when thinking about capitalism. Does the term "Self Fufilling Prophecy" come to mind at all? Coz believe me, it should.

This set formula of behavioural attributes applies to ALL humans, right? Hense the maxim HUMAN nature. Then how come if you look at differing cultures and settlements across the planet, you will notice a vast diversity in the values, beliefs, perspectives and societal standpoints held by people? When you study the behaviour and values of other cultures and people, this previously mentioned template of human nature does not apply, does it?

If it were in fact true that is is in our nature to behave, violently, greedily, selfishly, materialistically and self-destructively, then how come we see no evidence whatsoever of this being reflected identically all over the world? Why don't we see identical behavioural patterns displayed by people living in different social systems? Why do we never hear of serial killers in egalitarian tribes in Tahiti?

I've actually asked quite a few people this question, and generally, besides wanton insults, which I expect, I generally get the response to the effect of:

"Well it's obvious that it can be programmed in and out of people".

Exactly! We are creatures of conditioning. We as human beings are capable of ANYTHING given sufficient conditioning. I'll give you 2 examples of extremes of human behaviour.

Serial and mass murder, and choosing a life of pacifism, here's another example:

Serial rape, and choosing a life of celebacy.

We have VAST potential for diversity of behaviour, mainly coz we are EXTREMELY maleable by our environment. I once heard someone say in a documentary I think it was, or a film, that even in the United States, the most capitalistic country in the world, there is a great diversity, his actual words were:

"Coz everything is possible here, we have every possible evil and every possible good"

Why do we have fields of study, research and treatment such as psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, etc. that are there to examine the root causes of human behaviour and shape it into more conjusive manners? Why do we have these fields of science which cost millions upon millions every year, when human nature stands in it's way? Why bother rehabilitating someone with severe type A personality disorder, when it is in our nature to be greedy, materialistic and selfish?

The fact that we are capable of everything possible in the spectrum of possible human behaviour, shows that EVEN IF THERE WERE such thing as human nature, then it doesn't really hold much sway to be completely honest, does it?

Now you say in your question that we have always been this way, but does that dictate that our behaviour overtime tells of a certain "nature", or is this down to the fact that there has been a condition which has caused us to act this way for so long? Well I would argue the latter, coz I can tell you what that condition is. It's known as scarcity. For all of human being's existence, we have lived within scarcity. There has never been enough to go around. And as a result, just like what we witness in the animal kingdom, social stratification develops as a coping and management mechanism. Now granted, I would agree that if any kind of "nature" applies to any idea of us being stratified, hoarding and alike, I would only say this exists within the context of when we live within scarcity. I would agree that it is natural for any form of life that has at least rudimentary intelligence and mobility to develop social stratification and hoarding behaviours, but only when there isn't enough to go around.

My point is here that people argue that this is the way we will behave REGARDLESS of the social system. People say to me that we will still be greedy, selfish, materialistic, hostile, homocidal in a system where everyone is equal and everyone is provided for in abundance by technology that serves to liberate us. Now for one thing, both the assertion of this behaviour, well this supposed behaviour, in addition to the manifestation of the behaviour itself is utterly absurd and irrational, its doesn't, make, sense.

Now, part of this human nature thing is tied in with genetics. Ever since the discovery of genes in the mid 1800s, then people have had a new whipping boy that they could blame everything on. Coz at the time of the discovery of genes, we were not educated in the ways in which they changed, or the ways in which we can manipulated them. So from the outset, we were presented with this unchanging set of blueprints, that apparently, seems to govern everything about us. So understandably, in order to devise an explanation for the sheer savage, inhumane, irrational and destructive things that we do, we have devised the argument:

"Oh, I dunno, it's genetic"

However, after actually doing my homework on this I have realised that instead people should be saying something along the lines of:

"It's possibly epigenetic"

Epigenetics is essentially the study of how genes can be turned on and off, mainly by environmental stimuli. You see genes are not autonomous initiators of commands. They don't govern anything about our behaviour, all they do is manage the release of certain hormones and proteins, that's all. Now granted a person may have a genetic propensity towards violence say, however that in of itself does not make them violent. ok? It takes an environmental stimulus for example an insult, or injury, or something that causes that particular gene to switch on (or off), or release a chemical which in turn enables that person to be violent.

Now in the context of human nature and epigenetics, there is a lot of research you can do, I personally recommend the work of Dr. Gabor Mate, who also featured in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward. But yea, there's a lot of stuff you can look up about this.

Now with all this said, what weight does genetics have when thinking about our behaviour? What allows it's development, what stimulates and manifests it? The genes have little to no influence at all here. So as Dr. Gabor Mate himself said, the genetic argument is really just a cop out. And I would also extend that to the human nature argument, which has been birthed from this genetic argument fallacy, that THAT is a cop out as well, so really, its a cop-out within a cop-out. Coz when you think to yourself that everything negative in this world is because of some immovable genetic wiring, or inescapable human nature, then it enables you to relax. It enables you to stop thinking, coz why wish something to change when it never can, you know? So you see from there arises a form of what I call "Intellectual Laziness", where people are clutching at straws in regards to their scapegoats, and genetics seems to be one of the main ones. You see when people have established a scapegoat, then they have their blame already firmly placed, and it was easy for them as well, so yea, double trouble. But the real trouble here is not only the hasty nature of finding an easy scapegoat, but also when they are proven wrong. They prefer to cling onto their established blame association than consider anything else. Coz of course, considering anything other than what they have slapped the finger of blame on is dangerous to their mindset. Don't forget, people have a near pathological fear of being proven wrong. And being proven wrong is eroneously construed with inferiority and failure.

So anyway, back to the point Adam, the hasty grabbing of the genetic scapegoat is what stops people from having to think. Namely about whether the system ITSELF has any hand in this. When we think about things in these terms we begin to realise that the system we have now is in fact THE GENERATOR of all the negative, paradoxic, hostile, greedy, destructive and selfish behaviours you see around you. But then again, people say:

"But it can't be the system, it MUST be in our genes and in our nature"

Its what they've been TOLD their whole life, and they just REPEAT it, I'm sorry, but that's rubbish.

Also the excellent film Zeitgeist: Moving Forward spends a good 40 MINUTES dispelling the whole human nature and genetics argument with interviews from Dr. Gabor Mate, Prof. Robert Sapolsky, Richard Wilkinson and Dr. James Gilligan.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w[/youtube]

So yea, please don't try the human nature fallacy with me again.