When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That bubble around you seems nice. Inside of it, altruism actually exists!
That bubble around you seems like it sucks. Inside of it, people make no sacrifice for others. People don't hold doors open for people they don't know. Don't share food and supplies in emergencies. Soldiers don't die to protect their fellows. It may be projection, but it is not reality. I'm not saying that everyone is altruistic all the time, or even often. You are saying that no one is, ever. I have seen people make personal sacrifices others. People they did not know and who would never be able to thank them. I have even had people make sacrifices for me, for no good reason. Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Nice try. It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions". You probably have something better to do than this too, though.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions".
The obvious conclusion is that only the wealthiest countries can afford to become superpowers. That might indicate why superpowers stop being superpowers when their economies decline. Russia was resource rich before it became a superpower. It lost it's superpowers when it's economy could not keep up with the costs. The US was resource rich before it became a superpower. Economy and internal strife are what is kicking our butt. It may cost us superpower status as Russia's did. I don't know about England. Did its superpower status follow or lead colonial acquisitions? What about its military? I know it kept it by always having a navy more powerful than it top (2 or 3?) enemies, combined. I recall that started being allowed to slip at some point. I don't know if it lead economy & decolonization or not. China's economy is driving their military expansion, not the other way around. But, Brazil is resource rich, it may get there, but not with people like Lula driving. North Korea, big military, not a superpower. France, killed by it's culture. And Germany. Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war. I'm going with "the economy drives", not the other way.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
That bubble around you seems nice. Inside of it, altruism actually exists!
That bubble around you seems like it sucks. Inside of it, people make no sacrifice for others. People don't hold doors open for people they don't know. Don't share food and supplies in emergencies. Soldiers don't die to protect their fellows. It may be projection, but it is not reality. I'm not saying that everyone is altruistic all the time, or even often. You are saying that no one is, ever. I have seen people make personal sacrifices others. People they did not know and who would never be able to thank them. I have even had people make sacrifices for me, for no good reason. Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
I've never seen, nor experienced in any other way, any real altruism. If it exists at all, it's so rare that it managed to completely escape my notice. That is no proof of anything, but it's strong evidence. Altruism exists in moralistic stories designed to indoctrinate kids.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Who knows, maybe they had a motivation you're just not aware of. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly for a moment, and did it by accident. But anyway, if it made them feel good then it wasn't really altruism, because they got something in return. So then you get this situation: - nice people sometimes pretend to be altruistic for kicks. Doesn't count. - ássholes like me sometimes pretend to be altruistic when it suits them. Doesn't count. - other people do a bit of both. Doesn't count.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions".
The obvious conclusion is that only the wealthiest countries can afford to become superpowers. That might indicate why superpowers stop being superpowers when their economies decline. Russia was resource rich before it became a superpower. It lost it's superpowers when it's economy could not keep up with the costs. The US was resource rich before it became a superpower. Economy and internal strife are what is kicking our butt. It may cost us superpower status as Russia's did. I don't know about England. Did its superpower status follow or lead colonial acquisitions? What about its military? I know it kept it by always having a navy more powerful than it top (2 or 3?) enemies, combined. I recall that started being allowed to slip at some point. I don't know if it lead economy & decolonization or not. China's economy is driving their military expansion, not the other way around. But, Brazil is resource rich, it may get there, but not with people like Lula driving. North Korea, big military, not a superpower. France, killed by it's culture. And Germany. Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war. I'm going with "the economy drives", not the other way.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Oh come on, surely you dont believe what you write! If the US consistently did what it though it was right it wouldnt have invaded Iraq. It would have done more in Bosnia, it would have done more in Ruanda, it would not have got involved in Kosovo. Face facts, altruism exists only as an ideal. Given the choice between altruiam and personal gain, we, and every single person on earth, will choose personal gain. If you really think that the most important motivation in the world of man is NOT money and power then you are living in a dream. I could give money to charity, I do sometimes, but not that much, and not as much as I spend on my own life. So do you. And if it came down to your last 1000 dollars you would sure as fuck spend it on you and your familly before giving it to someone elses familly. Altruism is a luxuray, and a small gesture. When its up against reality, it is discarded as easilly as any other ideal.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh come on, surely you dont believe what you write!
I do believe what I write. But you don't seem to read what I write, or even what you write. I never said the US was always the good guy, you said it never is. Money and power can be motivators, you said altruism never is. I never said people or countries are ideal. People have screwed me for no other reward than doing it People have helped me for no reward. People risk death to help others, and knowingly die for others. I've put my job at risk so the right thing would happened for people, haven't you? You've never ever taken a risk for someone else when you didn't have to? Sure, altruism is also a resource driven. :rolleyes: If I am down to my last bucks, I will feed those I love, before a stranger. And my expectation is I would feed my kids and wife before me. My wife would feed the kids, before herself (or me :-D ). That is altruism. Why do you think it isn't? Altruism doesn't require some big hoopla. You don't have to be sure everyone in the world is taken care of before you are. It is trying to help when you can, stewarding your resources so you can continue to. Burning yourself out in an instant can be the easiest approach, but isn't the best. It's easier to eat a grenade to save people than it is to help other POWs keep faith for years. What about all those US liberals who say we should get out of the ME? They are giving up all that free oil we are pumping out of there. Isn't that altruistic? OK, your right, it's just stupid. :laugh: Do you really live a life where you don't see people help other, just to help?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I've never seen, nor experienced in any other way, any real altruism. If it exists at all, it's so rare that it managed to completely escape my notice. That is no proof of anything, but it's strong evidence. Altruism exists in moralistic stories designed to indoctrinate kids.
RichardM1 wrote:
Do you just write it off as an endorphin addiction on their part?
Who knows, maybe they had a motivation you're just not aware of. Or maybe they weren't thinking clearly for a moment, and did it by accident. But anyway, if it made them feel good then it wasn't really altruism, because they got something in return. So then you get this situation: - nice people sometimes pretend to be altruistic for kicks. Doesn't count. - ássholes like me sometimes pretend to be altruistic when it suits them. Doesn't count. - other people do a bit of both. Doesn't count.
Wow. That is hosed. Helping people doesn't have to hurt. By your own definition, someone has to not be thinking right to be altruistic. They have to not know there is altruism, and not know what they are doing is altruistic. Because, as soon as they know what they are doing is altruistic, it isn't anymore. Unless they hate being altruistic. So, to be altruistic: ..You have to help other people. ..You have to not want to help other people. ....Wanting to means it is for you, so it doesn't count. ..you have to not know you are helping ....you could not care: ......I have no feeling one way or the other, here is my food ..You can hate yourself: ....Giving yourself any pleasure pisses you off ....helping people gives you pleasure which pisses you off ......But then you are doing it to get pissed off, so it doesn't count ..You can die doing it ....You weren't thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count ....You were thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count[
al·tru·ism (ltr-zm):
n. 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.
](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism)[^] I don't see anything in the definition that says "An ideal, perfect and unattainable action or state, which, once aware of, destroys itself." Pretend 2 applies, if you make yourself believe 1 can't happen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Wow. That is hosed. Helping people doesn't have to hurt. By your own definition, someone has to not be thinking right to be altruistic. They have to not know there is altruism, and not know what they are doing is altruistic. Because, as soon as they know what they are doing is altruistic, it isn't anymore. Unless they hate being altruistic. So, to be altruistic: ..You have to help other people. ..You have to not want to help other people. ....Wanting to means it is for you, so it doesn't count. ..you have to not know you are helping ....you could not care: ......I have no feeling one way or the other, here is my food ..You can hate yourself: ....Giving yourself any pleasure pisses you off ....helping people gives you pleasure which pisses you off ......But then you are doing it to get pissed off, so it doesn't count ..You can die doing it ....You weren't thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count ....You were thinking clearly at the time, it doesn't count[
al·tru·ism (ltr-zm):
n. 1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness. 2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.
](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism)[^] I don't see anything in the definition that says "An ideal, perfect and unattainable action or state, which, once aware of, destroys itself." Pretend 2 applies, if you make yourself believe 1 can't happen.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The "unselfish" part sums "my" definition up quite nicely. There is still 2, which comes down to not thinking clearly and letting instincts get the better of you. I suppose it happens from time to time. It's not really a good thing though, more of a loss of self-control.
-
The "unselfish" part sums "my" definition up quite nicely. There is still 2, which comes down to not thinking clearly and letting instincts get the better of you. I suppose it happens from time to time. It's not really a good thing though, more of a loss of self-control.
So, you are saying it is impossible to be unselfish, and that makes altruism impossible? All definitions from the free dictionary[^]
un·self·ish (n-slfsh):
adj. Generous or altruistic.
Well that was a freaking helpful definition! :laugh: :laugh: :~
gen·er·ous (jnr-s):
adj. 1. Liberal in giving or sharing. See Synonyms at liberal. 2. Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous. 3. Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake. 4. Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine. 5. Obsolete Of noble lineage.
So, altruistic and selfish are circular that has a tail off to generous. Generous doesn't say you have to hate yourself. (It says my generous waist line makes me altruistic. :) ) You are reaching too far. It does not require perfection. It does not require lack of reward. It is possible for people to be altruistic.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
So, you are saying it is impossible to be unselfish, and that makes altruism impossible? All definitions from the free dictionary[^]
un·self·ish (n-slfsh):
adj. Generous or altruistic.
Well that was a freaking helpful definition! :laugh: :laugh: :~
gen·er·ous (jnr-s):
adj. 1. Liberal in giving or sharing. See Synonyms at liberal. 2. Characterized by nobility and forbearance in thought or behavior; magnanimous. 3. Marked by abundance; ample: a generous slice of cake. 4. Having a rich bouquet and flavor: a generous wine. 5. Obsolete Of noble lineage.
So, altruistic and selfish are circular that has a tail off to generous. Generous doesn't say you have to hate yourself. (It says my generous waist line makes me altruistic. :) ) You are reaching too far. It does not require perfection. It does not require lack of reward. It is possible for people to be altruistic.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
No I never said you had to hate yourself.. But saying that generous equal altruistic is not quite right. According to wikipedia, "altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others". Later in the same article: "Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward" Great, incompatible definitions.
-
No I never said you had to hate yourself.. But saying that generous equal altruistic is not quite right. According to wikipedia, "altruism is selfless concern for the welfare of others". Later in the same article: "Altruism focuses on a motivation to help others or a want to do good without reward" Great, incompatible definitions.
you did not say hate, I was bring the inability to be altruistic to its logically absurd limit.
harold aptroot wrote:
But saying that generous equal altruistic is not quite right.
That is why I put my generous stomach in there, and was laughing at the unshellfish/altruistic definition loop. (had to do the shellfish thing) The problem with wikipedia is also its strength. You can get the reconciliation (sort of) of many viewpoints. But it is only sort of, it is not canonical. But it is a good source for sources. That's why I went to definitions, which really helped. :rolleyes:
harold aptroot wrote:
Great, incompatible definitions.
Well, we could look for circular, incompatible definitions. Do you see the problem with defining something as an impossible behavior? It's like defining 220 nanometer radiation as a color: no one can see it. If you can't no one can see it, it isn't a color. If you can't no one can do it, it isn't a behavior. [edit] Strike through and bold [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
That's nice but what point are you making? Being a super power and caring only about material gain still go hand in hand, even if one is not the cause of the other.
It goes back to our other arc on this thread, altruism. You are making a judgment that no person (and no government made of people) is capable of altruism, because of how you define altruism. I disagree, but I will go with your definition for a minute, that argument is in the other arc.
fat_boy wrote:
When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain
That is the start, which lead to
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
which lead to
harold aptroot wrote:
Being a super power and caring only about material gain still go hand in hand
You say people who do things to feel good about themselves are not being altruistic. Fine. They are also not doing it for material gain. So, not everything is done for sex or money, and countries can't really have sex, even when screwing each other. It is possible for a people to all band together and do something to selfishly feel good about themselves, and end up doing something for other than material gain. Countries don't care about anything. People do. Countries get a personality from their rulers, and they, if people are lucky, reflect the people. Aw, fuck all that psychobabble, this is what it is: countries can "care" about more than material goods, because people can care about more than material good. You and fat_boy with your absolutes. People say conservative Americans see everything in black and white. You don't even have that gradation, you see everything in black.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
No, sorry, you make no sense. If you are rich, you only care about material gain. That is how it works. You wouldn't have tried to get rich otherwise, and it doesn't happen magically.
It makes no sense if you have an inbuilt filter that keeps repeating what you do. You say the sky is cloudy. I say look at the sun. you say you can't see it because the sky is cloudy, But history does not support that as the only reason: Bill Gates never worried about material gain, he worried about kicking butt on the next deal. The byproduct was wealth. My focus is on solving problems and making sure the customer gets what they want. The result is that I am paid well. I don't give the money back, and I wouldn't work for no pay, but a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic. The USSR was never rich, the citizens never had great material wealth, unless you were part of the dictatorial class. The proletariat were never better off then the serfs thy were under the Czars, and were probably worse off.
harold aptroot wrote:
It is also not like the Marshal plan wasn't to the advantage of the US - what other serious trade partners are there?
Don't flatter yourselves. In Western Europe's post WWII state, they were not trading partners. We could have dumped that money anywhere and created trade partners. Why did we do it, then? Western Europe were our friends, & a strong Western Europe could stand as a wall against communist dictatorship coming from the East, protecting itself and drawing the resources of the USSR away from easier targets.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic.
Whereas I targeted high income and adapted my capability and work ethic to acchieve that goal. Literally by learning programming and working in the kernel. And the fact that I value earning money the easiest way possible is actually a benefit to the company, because I dont fart around with SW. I just make it work as quickly as possible without adding any fancy crap to the code. Keep it simple is my motto, and get the product shipped! Oh, and by the way, the fact that YOU ended up with an education that allows you to make money as a 'by product' of your capability is a result of the desire by your parents that you make money. Just because your current situation owes itself to the ego of your parents rather than yours does not detract from the fact that weakth and success was a choice. It also doesnt matter how capable or skilled you are. Without desire you will acchieve nothing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
you did not say hate, I was bring the inability to be altruistic to its logically absurd limit.
harold aptroot wrote:
But saying that generous equal altruistic is not quite right.
That is why I put my generous stomach in there, and was laughing at the unshellfish/altruistic definition loop. (had to do the shellfish thing) The problem with wikipedia is also its strength. You can get the reconciliation (sort of) of many viewpoints. But it is only sort of, it is not canonical. But it is a good source for sources. That's why I went to definitions, which really helped. :rolleyes:
harold aptroot wrote:
Great, incompatible definitions.
Well, we could look for circular, incompatible definitions. Do you see the problem with defining something as an impossible behavior? It's like defining 220 nanometer radiation as a color: no one can see it. If you can't no one can see it, it isn't a color. If you can't no one can do it, it isn't a behavior. [edit] Strike through and bold [/edit]
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
It goes back to our other arc on this thread, altruism. You are making a judgment that no person (and no government made of people) is capable of altruism, because of how you define altruism. I disagree, but I will go with your definition for a minute, that argument is in the other arc.
fat_boy wrote:
When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain
That is the start, which lead to
harold aptroot wrote:
Becoming a superpower in the first place is the surest sign of only caring about material gain.
which lead to
harold aptroot wrote:
Being a super power and caring only about material gain still go hand in hand
You say people who do things to feel good about themselves are not being altruistic. Fine. They are also not doing it for material gain. So, not everything is done for sex or money, and countries can't really have sex, even when screwing each other. It is possible for a people to all band together and do something to selfishly feel good about themselves, and end up doing something for other than material gain. Countries don't care about anything. People do. Countries get a personality from their rulers, and they, if people are lucky, reflect the people. Aw, fuck all that psychobabble, this is what it is: countries can "care" about more than material goods, because people can care about more than material good. You and fat_boy with your absolutes. People say conservative Americans see everything in black and white. You don't even have that gradation, you see everything in black.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
We're just being realistic. Theoretically it might be possible for a country to temporarily care about a non-material gain, but I have not seen that being demonstrated. But non-material gain is generally unsharable. So it would also be a very unpopular move, because no one cares about non-material gains that they're not even getting. This gradation goes from Black to Fairytale. I'm not actually depressed ya know :)
modified on Friday, September 17, 2010 9:59 AM
-
harold aptroot wrote:
It's true that linkage does not imply causality. The other viewpoint seems to be "ignore the obvious conclusions".
The obvious conclusion is that only the wealthiest countries can afford to become superpowers. That might indicate why superpowers stop being superpowers when their economies decline. Russia was resource rich before it became a superpower. It lost it's superpowers when it's economy could not keep up with the costs. The US was resource rich before it became a superpower. Economy and internal strife are what is kicking our butt. It may cost us superpower status as Russia's did. I don't know about England. Did its superpower status follow or lead colonial acquisitions? What about its military? I know it kept it by always having a navy more powerful than it top (2 or 3?) enemies, combined. I recall that started being allowed to slip at some point. I don't know if it lead economy & decolonization or not. China's economy is driving their military expansion, not the other way around. But, Brazil is resource rich, it may get there, but not with people like Lula driving. North Korea, big military, not a superpower. France, killed by it's culture. And Germany. Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war. I'm going with "the economy drives", not the other way.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war
You could say Britain took on Germany Italy and Japan all by itself. It did, but had foreign troops from the Empire, and Italy was a push over in Africa. As for German rations, dont forget they raped the countries they invaded so they had plenty of food untill they started loosing teritory. Britain had rationing because we were importing a lot of our food. This was changed post war in order to avoid being in the same situation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
a high income hasn't been my focus, it has been a byproduct of my capability and work ethic.
Whereas I targeted high income and adapted my capability and work ethic to acchieve that goal. Literally by learning programming and working in the kernel. And the fact that I value earning money the easiest way possible is actually a benefit to the company, because I dont fart around with SW. I just make it work as quickly as possible without adding any fancy crap to the code. Keep it simple is my motto, and get the product shipped! Oh, and by the way, the fact that YOU ended up with an education that allows you to make money as a 'by product' of your capability is a result of the desire by your parents that you make money. Just because your current situation owes itself to the ego of your parents rather than yours does not detract from the fact that weakth and success was a choice. It also doesnt matter how capable or skilled you are. Without desire you will acchieve nothing.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
damn the white page bug. I'm getting sloppy about it and posting in the wrong spots. :rolleyes: --------------------- Actual response ---------------------
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and by the way, the fact that YOU ended up with an education that allows you to make money as a 'by product' of your capability is a result of the desire by your parents that you make money.
My parents never put pressure on me to make money, I am not a byproduct of that. They put pressure on me to learn in high school, but not much, and to 'earn' the help by getting good grades in college, but again, not much. I have friends who were not helped, they worked their way through school, entirely on their own, but still believe in a strong work ethic, are educated and capable, and don't think money is the do all and end all. They even act altruistically. I help my kids because I want them to have a full and happy life, not get stuck somewhere because they don't know enough to find out what they will enjoy in life. If they make money to support that, it's good. If they make money just to make money, it won't make them happy. If my kids end up being happy shoveling shit in a sewer, not making much money, they are better off then if they make 10 million a year and are not happy. They just won't dress as well. But, given your motivations, I can see why you might project that on the rest of the world. Thinking no one is altruistic is a way to not feel bad about a personal lack of altruism.
fat_boy wrote:
It also doesnt matter how capable or skilled you are. Without desire you will acchieve nothing.
True, but no bearing on the issue of altruism.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
modified on Saturday, September 18, 2010 2:40 PM
-
We're just being realistic. Theoretically it might be possible for a country to temporarily care about a non-material gain, but I have not seen that being demonstrated. But non-material gain is generally unsharable. So it would also be a very unpopular move, because no one cares about non-material gains that they're not even getting. This gradation goes from Black to Fairytale. I'm not actually depressed ya know :)
modified on Friday, September 17, 2010 9:59 AM
I disagree with the realistic part, as you might suspect. [Fatalistic. Pessimistic. I can go with those.] We could have stripped Europe like the USSR did, we didn't. [This could have been ignorance, not altruism, and was popularity neutral, as a result] We spent big bucks building Europe back with the Marshal plan. [This was popular, and, using a 'realistic' definition, altruistic] Bush spent 15x10^9 on AIDs in Africa. [fat_boy said it was just PR, but where else did Bush show he cared about PR?] I'm not in fairyland - I see the bad stuff, too, and the people who try to make the bad stuff. But good stuff does happen, both at the personal and nation state levels, if not so often. I'll take your word on depression, as you sound so optimistic about it (if nothing else). I didn't know I was, either, & I'm serious, even on my worst days. And stuff helps.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
What ever. People do things for the good of others. They expect nothing from anyone else, in return. It making us feel good shows it's an evolutionary reward for that action. It is a real behavior, reinforced over an evolutionary time scale, that is visible in humans and other animals. Deny it if you want, but that makes it no less true.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Germany took on most of the western world, by itself, and only went on rationing late in the war
You could say Britain took on Germany Italy and Japan all by itself. It did, but had foreign troops from the Empire, and Italy was a push over in Africa. As for German rations, dont forget they raped the countries they invaded so they had plenty of food untill they started loosing teritory. Britain had rationing because we were importing a lot of our food. This was changed post war in order to avoid being in the same situation.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
You could say Britain took on Germany Italy and Japan all by itself.
A little difference is that Britain had no choice but surrender. Germany did the attacking. As for who Italy helped in WWII, what you said about Africa.
fat_boy wrote:
As for German rations, dont forget they raped the countries they invaded so they had plenty of food untill they started loosing teritory.
Thanks, that's a good point, that fits well with the facts. It had not been presented to me previously, and I hadn't thought of it myself. I would like to remember it, only question is if my memory works. :(
fat_boy wrote:
Britain had rationing because we were importing a lot of our food. This was changed post war in order to avoid being in the same situation.
That's good. Learning from experience is a must. Now the US is starting to outsource military production, which is NOT learning from history.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
I disagree with the realistic part, as you might suspect. [Fatalistic. Pessimistic. I can go with those.] We could have stripped Europe like the USSR did, we didn't. [This could have been ignorance, not altruism, and was popularity neutral, as a result] We spent big bucks building Europe back with the Marshal plan. [This was popular, and, using a 'realistic' definition, altruistic] Bush spent 15x10^9 on AIDs in Africa. [fat_boy said it was just PR, but where else did Bush show he cared about PR?] I'm not in fairyland - I see the bad stuff, too, and the people who try to make the bad stuff. But good stuff does happen, both at the personal and nation state levels, if not so often. I'll take your word on depression, as you sound so optimistic about it (if nothing else). I didn't know I was, either, & I'm serious, even on my worst days. And stuff helps.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
See where "stripping europe" got the USSR? Apparently it's a bad plan :) Just because we don't know the real reason doesn't mean there isn't one.. lying about the reason for a little PR, even if they don't care about that, is often less effort than telling the truth because it is likely something complicated. Also what is this "good stuff" you speak of? Altruism isn't good, it's silly. It would be good if there's something in it for yourself, but then it'd only be altruism according to the weak definition. edit: I'm going to be a little busy now, I'll have time later of course..
modified on Saturday, September 18, 2010 3:33 PM