It's somewhat of a mystery to me why people are so anxious to have there be a a human nature and have it count for a lot. Imagining that you are confined by your nature is basically imagining or asserting unfreedom. Why is it important to imagine yourself constrained by a "natural" box? Insisting on "human nature" as the basis of this or that behavior is generally a way of shrugging the shoulders and dismissing explanation: it's often a way of justifying the status quo. Clearly we have different physical capacities and probably different mental capacities, but we generally judge people by what they make of the hand they are dealt, rather than insisting that the really important thing about them is the hand they were dealt. The "american dream" is basically that "no one needs to be confined by the circumstances of their birth." Insisting on genetics or human nature as a foundation of self is in that sense "un-american:" it emphasizes the circumstances of your birth over what you made of them. It's human nature to make art; it's human nature to be indifferent to art-making. it's human nature to be religious; it's human nature to be skeptical of religion. It's human nature to make war: its human nature to make peace. it's human nature to compete: it's human nature to co-operate. It's human nature to hate difference: its human nature to be fascinated by difference. People do all these contradictory things and always have: so what in the world is the value of talking about "human nature" when human actions are so inconsistent? I'd agree it's in the nature of people to make culture, and that's what matters.