[unclesammy]

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

This seems pretty contradictory to me. You claim that it's important to develop intellectually and technologically, while also claiming that we shouldn't allow materialistic things to surpass a true need as defined by Maslow. (Let me just take a moment to say that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is simply a theory, and is by no means the ultimate definition of what we actually need at the bottom line.)

Indeed, but most psychological ideas are only theories, and most can't be called scientific. This includes, Essentialism, Aristotle, Christian philosophy, Liberalism, Marxism, Darwinism, Freud, Non-self Theories, Feminism, and so forth. Even the scientific theories of today are just that; theories until proven wrong.

In the realm of psychology, though, it is hard to develop a distinct science based on controlled variables due to many reasons, including the inhumanity associated with testing human behavior. Much of the theories based on human behavior are full of speculation, but many make persuasive theories for argument, Maslow being among them.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I don't think there's a way to reduce the importance of such "secondary priorities" to the point that they no longer have a major influence on people. Once their "primary priorities" are fulfilled, people are going to want more.

I will not argue that humans will continue to want to improve on their existence. "Wanting more" is quite vague though, and when you consider the argument of the secondary and primary priority that I put forward, it is only after the realization that without the knowledge that our primary priorities, unless ignored, are the most vital to our survival.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I agree with preserving humanity, but not love and altruism. Preserving the human race is a pretty obvious need for our survival as a human race, but love and altruism are not necessary at all for our survival as a human race. True, humans do need human contact, but to say that love and altruism are basic needs for survival is rather ridiculous, in my opinion.

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows is acting for the good of his pation; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benifit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind..."

--Charles Darwin

It is after the realization that in order to preserve our existence, we must acknowledge the inherent importance of cooperation with the whole of humanity, and the preservation of our entire environment. Consider bacteria as a contrast; a bacterial infection can surely kill you or I, yet in order for us to maintain a healthy digestive system, we depend on a sustainable, good bacteria within it. Even this bacteria, if not checked and balanced (not sustained), would kill us.

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

I don't see anything inherently wrong with wanting to defend one's ideas. It has the potential to lead to quite a bit of conflict, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will. I don't shoot everyone in the head who disagrees with me about things.

Indeed it is very important for a diversity in opinions, and that I will not argue against either. But, historically, there are many who would kill or be killed to preserve their ideas or oppress others' ideas (Catholicism, Nazism, and so forth).

Originally Posted by Ground_Breaker

People can have differences of opinion and still be tolerant of them, but that isn't going to stop them from defending their ideas as well. I think what you're suggesting here is that if we remove the reasons people disagree (I believe you define those reasons as "secondary priorities"), then people will never disagree. The problem is that people are always going to find something to disagree about.

I'm not suggesting people shouldn't disagree at all, you must have misunderstood. There is no doubt in my mind that people will have many different experiences in their life, all contributing to their own perception of "good and evil," which in turn will translate to conflict. Tolerance is exactly what I am suggesting here. It is important that people understand that their constructed perceptions are less important than their natural and primary perceptions of good and bad.