[salinsky]

Cog forgot to mention that he believes shooting hippies is a manly act.
He should get MAN OF THE YEAR award.

[Newfie]

"Joe" .... Freaked me out. Still have that last scene in my head. Ug.

[Newfie]

My Wife and I were both raised to strive to

"leave it better than you found it."

I can't say we have been successful.

We have destroyed much of nature and our own ability to thrive.

[sparky]

.
Coming out of the bottle shop ,the frosty bottles of brew soaked the paper bag ,
a couple fell and broke on the sidewalk , I was picking the shards to clean the mess when a girl with her man came and told me I should complain to the store for improperly packaging my purchase.
as she was insistent , I looked at her and politely say
..." Lady ,I'm a man ,it's my world ...it's my shit "
she looked at me uncomprehending while her man , standing behind , nodded energetically

[Tanada]

.
Coming out of the bottle shop ,the frosty bottles of brew soaked the paper bag ,
a couple fell and broke on the sidewalk , I was picking the shards to clean the mess when a girl with her man came and told me I should complain to the store for improperly packaging my purchase.
as she was insistent , I looked at her and politely say
..." Lady ,I'm a man ,it's my world ...it's my shit "
she looked at me uncomprehending while her man , standing behind , nodded energetically

Bravo! If more would take self responsibility the world would be a much better place and people would expect it instead of playing the blame game.

[Newfie]

That's why I so dislike folks blaming "they", TPTB, Repbs/Dems, Bildenbergers, or what ever.

[onlooker]

Simple but profound do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Grifter]

Oh yeah, one more, Give Credit: ^^David Foster Wallace; Infinite Jest

If I'm getting this right, not heard of him except for wiki just now but recognising anything other people do, clever stuff, good ideas, if that's what it means it works. Everyone wants credit for the good stuff they do, and they give it in return, to others.

So mine's: Don't be selfish.

[Newfie]

For a very long time I've held the concept that, if truth be told, Al out everything we do is selfish. If not for our outright personal gain then so that we fit into the culture better. In extreme circumstances so that we don't have to face violating what the culture expects.

Five meant in a foxhole. A grenade is lobbed in. One guy falls on the grenade to absorb the blast saving the others. Selfish or unselfish?

The unselfish argument is popular and easy so I'll leave it alone. The selfish argument is more interesting.

He has been programmed, or acquired in his DNA, the desire to have his group/colony/tribe survive over any other. Deep inside he WANTS his HIS genes to be triumphant. It best if it is his specific genes but if not then his related genes. Thus he sacrifices his life in the selfish gesture to promote his gene pool. And additionally, perhaps, his culture has inculcated him with the idea that "sacrifice" is the highest honor. So he grabs that honor.

Other examples would be army ants attacking much larger predators knowing many will die in the attack.

Or Jihadis (or for the aged among us..Buddist monks or Vietnamese peasants) committing suicide so that their greater culture goes forth.

So I am always skeptical of elevating "selflessness."

Just things I consider. How my mind wanders.

[onlooker]

The trick is to be selfish for the sake of your family meaning the human family.

[Newfie]

What the hell does that mean?

[onlooker]

What the hell does that mean?

I mean that traditionally we have been separated into so many groups throughout time and yes we have shown selfishness for the sake of "our" group. So my point is only when we see "our" group as the entire human family can our selfishness be turned into something actually favorable for the collective human species.

[Newfie]

Define favorable?

[AgentR11]

In doomer spirit..

To do that which enhances the ability of one's offspring to contest the coming bottleneck with competent forcefulness.. and a smile.

Practiced a little kendo and karate with miniAgent and then sat under the trees watching the goldfish ; while listening to the battle cries of a teen beating the pulp out of the heavy bag. Considering this, I noted a tiny green anole as it made the life and death decisions involved in stealing a sip of water. This brief era has made homo very soft, and very artificial. But the world will embrace us again once we decide, or are forced, to rejoin it. It won't be fun or immediately pleasant. It will be better.

[onlooker]

Favorable as in allowing the human species to live in harmony with each other and with Nature.

[Newfie]

Harmony. Good word.

So that would include reducing humanities footprint pretty severely. Reducing human population?

Selfish or selfless?

What about Lores definition? Is that selfish or selfless?

[onlooker]

Okay, this question is the moment of truth Newfie. Reduce human population meaning I am part of reduction. I would say if a person chose to be part of reduction then he/she is acting in an unselfish way, otherwise in a selfish way because reducing population will allow for remaining humans to live in harmony with each other and Nature. Do not get me wrong I believe in the power of selfish motivation. This is why I believe it has always been necessary for mankind to see itself as one monolithic entity so that selfish tendencies can then take the form of actions to favor the collective whole. If we were a wise species that is what we would strive for. It is not always readily apparent that the whole's interest is akin to your individual interest. That is also why to combat these selfish tendencies, altruism must be woven deeply into the fabric of a society by both it's laws, norms, traditions and ethos. By the way Newf, have you been reading Ayn Rand books?

[Ibon]

Hypothetical game. You have a vial of a virulent pathogen. If you release it the worlds population will reduce to 200 million with no idea beforehand who will be spared. When you release that vial you know that most likely you and some or most or maybe all of your loved ones or kin may perish. Not releasing the vial means you live out your normal life span but there is a 99% that humans go extinct 100 years later due to catastrophic consequences. Do you release that vial? Or do you hold out for that 1% chance that we will save ourselves?

[onlooker]

Hypothetical game. You have a vial of a virulent pathogen. If you release it the worlds population will reduce to 200 million with no idea beforehand who will be spared. When you release that vial you know that most likely you and some or most or maybe all of your loved ones or kin may perish. Not releasing the vial means you live out your normal life span but there is a 99% that humans go extinct 100 years later due to catastrophic consequences. Do you release that vial? Or do you hold out for that 1% chance that we will save ourselves?

In keeping with what me and Newf were discussing. Interesting, that 1% chance complicates the matter. Then again what in life in truly 100% certain. Nevertheless, as you laid it out, it is quite clear, that the person who chooses not to release the vial is acting out of selfish motives and conversely the one who does is acting out of unselfish motives. Their should not be any grey area here for anybody.

[Ibon]

Hypothetical game. You have a vial of a virulent pathogen. If you release it the worlds population will reduce to 200 million with no idea beforehand who will be spared. When you release that vial you know that most likely you and some or most or maybe all of your loved ones or kin may perish. Not releasing the vial means you live out your normal life span but there is a 99% that humans go extinct 100 years later due to catastrophic consequences. Do you release that vial? Or do you hold out for that 1% chance that we will save ourselves?

In keeping with what me and Newf were discussing. Interesting, that 1% chance complicates the matter. Then again what in life in truly 100% certain. Nevertheless, as you laid it out, it is quite clear, that the person who chooses not to release the vial is acting out of selfish motives and conversely the one who does is acting out of unselfish motives. Their should not be any grey area here for anybody.

It is that 1% that is the kicker and actually in real life this creates something called self serving moral ambiguity. Since we can never be certain of an outcome in the future, we actually justify not making the hard choices by holding on to the small 1% chance that everything will work out. This is less about hope and more of a rationalization since we are morally squeamish about taking hard choices. By holding on to irrational hope we release ourselves from having to make the morally uncomfortable rational decisions when it comes to self regulation, whether this be consumption or breeding. We dress up that 1% as morally self righteous. What are some examples?

1) Withholding food aid to severely overpopulated areas whose bio-regions for decades have been incapable of self sufficient food production. Note that this is different than food aid sent as a short term emergency due to a drought year or temporary war etc.

2) Providing life extension drugs and medicines beyond any reasonable doubt of recuperation on terminally ill patients.

3) Allowing immigrants in and setting a precedent for continual long term immigration in areas with chronic over population and instability.

4) Allowing religious institutions to continue doctrines of the freedom to breed in poor countries where clearly this policy increases the physical misery and spiritual poverty of the inhabitants.

You can come up with many examples, just look at the policies we enacted or refused to enact during the past 100 years in our failure at self regulation.

We dress up policies as moral and humanistic when actually they were comfortable rationalizations in order to avoid hard choices.

We are masters at rationalizing our way out of morally hard choices.

An unselfish veneer that hides a cowardice selfish core.