Post: #26

Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.

Post: #27

(05-13-2013 08:00 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.

My response was not in any way an ad hominem, and if you took it that way it may have been your intrepretation. I can see in some instances where you may have read it that way, but even in those spots, I don't see how it could have been perceived as any more accusatory than your inferences about humanists on Twitter, etc.

I mentioned your implication that all humanists are just at play on Twitter rather than doing anything of merit to be a figment of your imagination, which is true, and I said your perspective seemed like a personal problem to highlight the point that anyone who really thinks that no one gives a shit when evidence to the contrary reveals itself on a daily basis needs a look at their focus in life.

I didn't mean it as an attack on your character but rather an observation of your ideas and stance on life overall, which in this case is valid since it's the very thing being discussed.

Anyhow, the intent of this thread was not to have a philosophical discussion, as I mentioned before. An attempt to derail it rather than understand that, whatever the nature of humankind be, some of us would rather also recognize the light that comes with the dark just misses the point. Even on a primarily selfish and narcissistic level, this recognition is good for the individual.

As for the fate of the world in 50 years, we'll just have to touch bases then, and at that point, if we're still both alive and kicking, I'd be glad to have a lengthy discussion on pessimism vs optimism in the greater scheme of the human condition as well as on the smaller scale of personal welfare.

Though I'd imagine even then there will be no absolutes in the world and humankind will be debating about the downfall of humanity and the coming end of the world, just as they were a hundred years before that and a hundred years before that.

As it is, with nothing but theory, conjecture, and perspective at hand to guess at the future, I really don't see going back and forth on it as much more than mental masturbation. You can refer to "The Rational Optimist" if you really do care for a counter-perspective to yours that is based in logic, but for now, I'm at a point in my life where I've found debates between polar opposites do very little to get me where I want to be right now and are a time-waster unless I have a concrete goal in mind.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #28

(05-13-2013 08:00 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.

We're not actually that close genetically to Gorillas, and we're at least as close to Bonobos as Chimps. Guess how Bonobos live? Equality, minimal violence and plenty of carefree polygamous sex. That makes me happy.

Regarding the next 50 years: Yeah, it's not looking good. But then, it's not like we deliberately and malevolently raped the earth. It's the unintended consequences of our natural short-term and immediate thinking. Populations go up and down as the environmental carrying capacity changes... happens to other species all the time. So it's not surprising it's going to happen to us - it's a natural thing.

I dont think it's this dark thing called "human selfishness"...most societies are pretty caring and empathic. Just look at how many strangers live together in cities in relative cooperation. Even in the worst cities, more strangers live in relative cooperation than not. What we're not good at is taking global/long-term consequences into account in our actions - seeing the ramifications of the holistic system dynamics - but its not really our fault since our brains aren't wired for it, and daily life just doesn't incentivize us to care for people on distant continents or future generations.

Post: #29

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #30

No life-saving here, but still...

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #31

(05-09-2013 03:17 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  I think Gio posted a valuable image on this thread but framed it in completely the wrong way.

My frame was wrong? Honestly, I don't even know what my "frame" was? My point was that I have not lost my faith in humanity.

I agree with alot of your post. It's true that many people only care about those in their extended tribe. But, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't help someone of another tribe.

For example, you admit that you only care about yourself and the people in your social circle. (Like most of us, in general)

But, if you saw a child from another tribe that was thirsty, would you give him water?

If you saw a old lady from another tribe needed help lifting a heavy object, would you help her?

If a person from another tribe was hungry, would you give them food?

I suspect that you would help them, but, I don't know? Maybe you wouldn't?

Post: #32

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-sc...47170.html

The New Science of Giving
A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

They are going to work on, among other issues, nutrition and obesity.

Post: #33

(05-18-2013 03:20 PM)samsamsam Wrote:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-sc...47170.html

The New Science of Giving
A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

They are going to work on, among other issues, nutrition and obesity.

YES I really hope they do give to some causes that are truly worthwhile.

I like their vision but I'm not sure fixing sub-systems in the US economy is really optimal; not in the grand scheme of things. The next 100 years are going to see massive suffering on an unprecedented scale in developing countries unless we really shift our values, bigtime. I would say something like these might be the leverage points:

-Cheap and effective methods for *really* improving mental health and cultivating calm, centered & compassionate attitudes, especially amongst those in positions of power

-Shifting root cultural values away from "Accumulate as much as possible" to "Have enough and then help others have enough too"

They seem like amibitious goals, but that foundation do say they want to tackle the systemic issues with no easy answers. These are the ones to go for IMO.

Post: #34

(05-18-2013 02:17 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(05-09-2013 03:17 AM)Homo_Sapien Wrote:  I think Gio posted a valuable image on this thread but framed it in completely the wrong way.

My frame was wrong? Honestly, I don't even know what my "frame" was? My point was that I have not lost my faith in humanity.

I agree with alot of your post. It's true that many people only care about those in their extended tribe. But, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't help someone of another tribe.

For example, you admit that you only care about yourself and the people in your social circle. (Like most of us, in general)

But, if you saw a child from another tribe that was thirsty, would you give him water?

If you saw a old lady from another tribe needed help lifting a heavy object, would you help her?

If a person from another tribe was hungry, would you give them food?

I suspect that you would help them, but, I don't know? Maybe you wouldn't?

Well said sir. This is the root of compassion and these sentiments make me proud to be human. Important stuff, thanks.

Post: #35