That misses the point, but I can pin the example down if that helps: ... publicly supporting slavery, until relatively recently, was the natural order of things. The point is that saying "something is in our nature" doesn't justify it or explain it - because everything everybody has ever done or will do is something in our nature.
> As long as resources are scarce, man will fight...
This is better than the nature angle, but not by much - as pretty much anything (including adherents to a religion) can be called "resources". We just need to crack the whole post-scarcity thing... kind of a silver lining.
It doesn't justify it, never claimed it did, but it most certainly does explain it.
> Do we perform any action that is not "in our nature"?
Of course we do, much of culture isn't in our nature, but is learned. Advanced mathmatics isn't in our nature, it is learned. "in our nature" essentially means because it's human, and that isn't tautological imho. The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological.
> The OP could think of no reason humans would have conflict over land, human nature is a reason, this is not tautological.
That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because it is human nature to fight over land. You can substitute one or both instances of "land" with "scarce resource" if you like, but it is still a tautology - because land is a resource that is scarce :)
Advanced mathmatics are not natural, they are a development of culture, our brains are in no way optimized for it and learning to do it often requires letting go of common sense. We're so bad at it that stupid machines are a bazillion times faster at it. Maths is not in our nature, it is a product of cultural evolution that could easily be lost should the wrong people die and could be reinvented with entirely different braches the next go around if at all.
When someone is talking about human nature, we're talking about those behaviors that always naturally emerge in individual human development like language, aggression, mating habits, etc, not things that may or may not happen like the development of science or math which are artifacts of particular cultures, not of humans in general.
> which leaves me to wonder at how you differentiate the species from the rest of the animals.
Why do I need to differentiate them, we're animals like any other, we do some things far better than other animals and many things far worse than animals, none of our abilities are unique in the animal kingdom, they're only unique in the level at which we can perform them, animals think, humans think better; we're only special when we choose to judge by things we ourselves are good at and we rig the contest by setting ourselves as the bar on something we happen to be good at and that's no different than a dolphin judging themselves superior to us because we're terrible in water and can't echo locate. It's hubris, nothing more.
> That fits the very definition of a tautology: humans fight over land because it is human nature to fight over land.
We'll just agree to disagree, I think you're rephrasing is a strawman, and now we're beating a dead horse.
Useless for your purposes, where you are comparing things of the same kind - you use behavior for that, not nature. Nature is used for comparing things of a different kind, like humans vs sea slugs. Also, nature is not the same word as natural...
> ...always naturally emerge in individual human development like language...
How is that any different from "Advanced mathmatics"? No known humans have had a written language but no numbering system, and speculation about the earliest humans without a written language is just that, speculation.
> Why do I need to differentiate them...
So that you can quantify, classify, compare, understand, intelligently discuss, etc.
> I think you're rephrasing is a strawman...
Eh, it conveyed the exact same meaning - it just more clearly demonstrated the logical flaw.
> ...and now we're beating a dead horse.
Maybe, but I will say that your last post communicated your thoughts on the matter very clearly - I never would have known otherwise that we disagree on about five other fundamental concepts.
I'll use whatever I choose to use when I'm making my point. You don't get to define my choice of differentiation.
> Also, nature is not the same word as natural...
That's just absurdly pedantic and a ridiculous point; I defined what I meant, take it or leave it but don't be obtuse.
> How is that any different from "Advanced mathmatics"? No known humans have had a written language but no numbering system, and speculation about the earliest humans without a written language is just that, speculation.
I think I was more than clear, naturally emerge in individual human development; i.e. all humans naturally develop it as part of their normal life-cycle. Language for example, this is vastly different than advanced mathematics which may not ever emerge until certain levels of culture are accomplished. Mathematics are not a natural part of the development of the individual human lifecycle.
> So that you can quantify, classify, compare, understand, intelligently discuss, etc.
Which can all be accomplished without said differentiation, so no, try again.
> Eh, it conveyed the exact same meaning - it just more clearly demonstrated the logical flaw.
No, it didn't.