Ah, the old nature-nurture question. But if you claim one over the other,
you’ve missed the real point. We can’t have any kind of answer in “it’s
human nature” because we don’t know what that is, where it leaves off and
acculturation begins. So while I agree with Sven’s wife (who am I speaking
with? sorry to refer to you this way) that most people “will dabble,” I am
immediately overwhelmed with the question of Why?? Is it that they’re
incapable of anything else? Or maybe (this is always a good one) it’s
simple laziness! I have never been able to accept the answer that “It’s
just human nature.” It is obviously not human nature for some of us.
Why, A Thousand Times, Why? This is exactly the critical point for me. It
has to do with human creativity, which I truly do believe is an inherent
impulse, our nature. Yet, few people exhibit that impulse with any great
vigor after they reach school age. Given the high creativity of most
pre-school children, one must begin to look suspiciously at culture (or
nurture – more accurately, anti-nurture) as an oppressively mitigating
factor to human nature. The hopeful note in this kind of analysis is that
we can change culture. In fact, we always do change it, and are always in
the process of changing it. Which gets us back to the realization that
nature/nurture is an interdependent process. As our culture changes (as we
change our culture) our very nature changes. We’re doing it right now. My
own urgency is to be more aware of that process, take a slightly more
conscious view of how this works. Nor am I advocating purely rational
thinking, utter control of our actions. There is a changeful emulsion of
nature/nurture which can itself be recognized as the creative process. My
own view is that this is the “foundation world” which Sven insists on
elsewhere here.

Return to the Dialog