What is the nature of man?

Does mankind have an innate nature? Assuming that mankind has one what does everyone think it is? Is man mostly good, mostly evil? Can we overcome our flaws? Are there perfect people? Can traits that humans have today ever be bred out or forgotten or amplified?
And if you want to state some of the consequences that mankind has to deal with due to his nature.

Yes to reproduce..
The fact that we have free will and thought has caused this to become complex to the stage that material wealth is needed to mate, we therefore work; become greedy and power hungry kill our planet and eventually will kill ourselves.

Looking at it from a religious sense we are ether the children of god or the by product of Lucifer so are we intermittently good or evil, but is good not what we are taught?
Nurture vs. nature

Yes traits can be forgotten or amplified look at the power of the media constantly bombarding us with bullshit propaganda to fat to slow must be skinny must have shinny new thing must eat mc Donald's and have a skinny non fat mocha chino with a sprinkle of cinnamon......im hungry

humankind's innate nature is to survive....

I agree with you fairy boy about the way in which mankind is going. But mating is not something that neccessarily has to be competitive. It "could" be done in other ways that make everyone equal.
Plus mankind is still not be content after procreating.
And if mankinds innate nature is to survive then man is destined to be dissappointed and he knows it.
The nature of man is selfishness. Everything a man does is to fulfill some desire he has. All motivations start with ourselves.
When we see others succeed, our desire grows for what they have. Some would say that the desire grows in order to have enough to charm the female. But this isn't neccessary. The reason that things are this way is greed. So man is Greedy
This breeds jealousy and hatred. And these are the reasons we do things that cause pain to others.
Other factors in ourselves that allow for society to grow are Fear and Laziness. Otherwise we would have anarchy.

But one thing that I find interesting is that it's the concept of selfishness that equates to love. In this sense love is a broad category that is interchangable with desire.
Everything we do, we do because we love it in one way or another. Or else it's amoral such as a sneeze. If someone hates you they actually love hating you!!! Everything comes from Love!!!
That's all I really wanted to say. Feel free to disagree.

humans are at the basci just animals, and all animals have a "nature".......weather we are good or evil, i think everyone has both inside of them, it just depends on wich you answer to that makes you who you are

human nature is to prosper and elevate to the next stage of existance. since the first atom to evolve into an eruption, to a star , to a galaxy, to galaxies , planets, moons , universe, earth , bacteria, living breathing organisms, and so on. just as it has been since natures beginning, it shall continue to be in nature to exell , adapt, and overcome. everything in existance , visible and non-visible came from the same first atom,and has grown like a tree of life from one seed , it is in our nature and destiny to bear the fruit of this tree!

I don't think human nature is either good or evil but a product of experiences and influences. Babies are born "neutral" and then become whatever they are. Plus, what are "good" and "evil" besides human creations based on our own values? What may be a virtuous act for someone may be the ultimate evil for another. Thus, it's pretty tricky to characterize the nature of all of humankind as "good" or "evil." (This means that there can never be a definition of a perfect person that everyone agrees on).

I think that human nature is divided into three equal parts: good, neutral, and evil and that is what we're born into. The neutral part is where environment and personal choices comes into play. From a religious point of view, good and evil are based on God's values and not ours.

"From a religious point of view, good and evil are based on God's values and not ours."

Different religions have very different values. Many if not all of these religions claim that their values are the "right values" as dictated by God. How do you know which religion and which set of morals is "right" if they're all different in some way and they all claim to be "right"? (besides faith)

i saw this question and immediately rephrased it to what, is the nature of man? Man does not ask what...he asks why, where, when, how...These people have a nature that is inquisitive..they are the peers of our development. Then u have those who follow this advice and use it to get money and dont acknowledge its source or add weight to what it means...they are more instinctive..their nature is based more on the need to fit in, meet their personal desires (chemical) and survive. Hierarchy in truth...just like animals....one day we'll see this

Oh..the answer is of course DNA + sub-environmental influence (plus or minus room for some divine intervention)

The answer is whatever one's chosen religion states it is. Christians, Muslims, Evolutionists and all other groups each believe in the correctness of their own religion. It is politically incorrect to say that one is right and others wrong because political correctness is the mind control technique used to destroy individuality, and make possible the transition to a Fascist New World Order.

"It is politically incorrect to say that one is right and others wrong because political correctness is the mind control technique used to destroy individuality..."

So are you suggesting that one religion is actually "right" and the others are "wrong"? - If you aren't, I sorry for this. If you are, I'd have to disagree. Many (but surely not all)! accept the religion/belief system that they were first exposed to (usually because this occurs at a youngish age and they are highly impressionable). Often they believe that their religion is "the real way of God" while the others aren't - but that claim is based only on their own experiences - it can't be proved. Lets say you were born and raised a Christian and had come to accept Christian beliefs. That set of morals would be right to you. For example, you'd know that stealing was wrong. Now lets say you were born and raised under ReligionX (just pretend) where stealiing is embraced rather than shunned. In this case, you'd know stealing wasn't wrong. Now from the perspective of someone who never was exposed to a religion - which one is right? I guess what I getting at here is how relative and dependant-on-perspective morals are. How can one choose a religion when anyone (or maybe everyone) could be right? The point: maybe man's nature exists in the form that you think it does, like religion.

It certainly can be proved. A couple joined my church a few years ago were originally Buddhists. The man's father was incredible ill and they summoned Buddhist monks to pray for his recovery but nothing they did could help him and he was sure to die. Then out of desperation they summoned a Christian pastor to pray for his father and afterward the father made a full recovery and they couple and father abandoned their Buddhist beliefs in favour of Christianity.
The father of another man in my church was a missionary in China, He and a partner had gone into a remote village and after their arrival they noticed that all the shelves in the homes that are normally dedicated to Buddha idols were empty. They soon learned that a man in the village had a dream that if the whole village removed their idols then two men would come and show them the truth about life.
The apostle Paul, who most would consider the most devout Christian was raised a Jew and he made a point of arresting as many Christians as he could before he came to personally know God through Jesus.

Those are great stories, but similar ones exist in nearly every religion, not just Christianity. It is also possible that it is just a coincidence. The recovery could have been caused by other factors like change in treatment and other details left out of miracle stories that could have some effect. Plus, many claims like this have turned out to be false.

Ex./

"Another trick that has been done is that missionaries, while treating the sick, will give medicine of no value and ask the tribal to take it while offering prayers to his local deity. Naturally, no cure of disease is likely to occur with the useless medicine. Then the missionary gives the tribal real medicine and asks the tribal to take it while offering prayers to Jesus. Then when there is a recovery, it is attributed to the power of Christ and not to the medicine. Such conversion activities take place these days more often in the tribal areas under the guise of social service. However, true social service should be done without expecting anything in return, including conversion.

Another thing that takes place is mass healings at meetings similar to revivals. What they do is pay people to attend the healings portraying themselves as being sick, or invalids on crutches, etc., who then get called up and are miraculously cured of their disease. This is attributed to the power of Christ, which then convinces many tribals that they too can benefit in various ways if they become Christian. This has not had much of an effect amongst the Brahmin classes, but the lower classes who attend are more vulnerable and are impressed by such things, and are then swayed toward Christianity."

excerpt from http://www.stephen-knapp.com/war_against_hinduism.htm

I am simply arguing your point about people just believing what they were taught to. There are many stories of conversions from other religions therefore people don't just accept their first teaching.
Also how can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your stories are more true than mine?