When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
Yeah, screw the fact that the US didn't strip western europe of everything useful after WWII, and spent billions of 1940's $ on the Marshall plan, building up industry that trashed us in the 60s & 70s. It was just long range suck on the market we knew you'd become. But, hey, everyone knows the EU and all its subunits are mother teresa's habit, right? Germany was never in it for the money, they just wanted to control the world. What's the harm in a little liebenstrum? France hasn't had a military success since they helped kick the brits out of the us. The brits haven't done much for anyone since argentina (which I will forever appreciate), and they are the ones who are so bad they helped the us most. Spain, portugal, all those poor lost colonies. I know the whole lot of you gave up colonization out of the goodness of your black little hearts, right? Germany got split in two, west paid east to take their toxic waste, then they got stuck with it on reunification, and still had to take care of the low life east. fat_boy, your comment isn't even stupid. Where are you from, again? Whose education system are you a product of? How did you learn to type and nothing else? ------------------------------------------------------- I am purposely not including the latest entrants to nato, as they seem to understand that this life you live isn't free. I know i'm pissing off a lot of good people, who aren't as arrogant as fat_boy, and learned a little better history - not that showed the us was the cat's meow, but that learned freedom costs lives and blood so that shits like him can talk his trash. I'd like to apologize to all the little eu states I missed, and if you'll let me know who you are, i'll remember to add you to my future tirades, unless i forget.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
the US didn't strip western europe of everything useful after WWII,
The question was not "when did the US not do something, even though it promised material gain".
RichardM1 wrote:
spent billions of 1940's $ on the Marshall plan, building up industry that trashed us in the 60s & 70s
Building a fortress against the red antichrist.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, hey, everyone knows the EU and all its subunits are mother teresa's habit, right?
But mommy, the other kids did it too! Not that I fully agree with the OP, but your counterarguments don't hold much water. [edit] how did east / west germany get into that discussion, anyway?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
I am kind of going off topic slightly, particularly with the last comment I made, but I am quite interested in the ego how we learn it from our environment, and what it means to us in life. From my point of view I happen to feel my ego was way out of kilter with my id, its probably typified by the fact I donit live in the country of my birth. Anyway, altruism. I do think that it is a sentiment born of prvilege. Literally, without means, altruism is the last thing a person will think of since the drive for self survival is so strong in us. And self survival is a moving goal. To some its enough food for the day, for others its world domination. Slight asside here, imagne the termoil in ones being needed to feel that world domination is self survival. Truly, who would want to be that person. Not me. I am happy with my lot. There are those who will lay down their lives for others. They seem to be rare, and perhaps geting rarer. It seems todays world has entirely lost its sense of standards. When I think of the UK taking part in the gulf war for example, I see a total surrender of values we once held as being British; a sense of fair play, honesty and compassion. It is perhaps for that reason that I become increasingly cynical and less interested in taking part in such a world. I hope you are right. I hope there truly is sufficient altruism in the world. Perhaps we could make utopia if there were.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I am kind of going off topic slightly
No biggy, I'm in it for the discussion. I don't know the id/ego dichotomy, I only new a little Freud, 30 years ago. :rolleyes: Altruism is clearly an evolutionary truth. Even your statement that people feel good from it shows we have evolved to be altruistic. It is done in certain parts of the wild, for the same postulated reason - if I sacrifice for those around me, I am likely to increase the chance of my related DNA being passed along. There used to be the argument about "selfish" DNA. What we are finding now is that DNA also makes us giving, because it passes parents genes on as a secondary effect. People die for other people, sometimes when they think about it, sometimes instinctively. Instinct is the right word. Instinct is what makes the little head think for the big one. It makes reflexes to back away from pain, approach pleasure. Instinct is what causes us to do things that might be irrational, but helpful. Altruism is not born of privilege. I'm pretty sure the stats show people who have known deprivation are more likely to help than people who have not. Gates sort of skews the "giving" averages, though.
fat_boy wrote:
When I think of the UK taking part in the gulf war
The reason you think the UK is is losing it's sense of fair play is because you are cynical towards its government, and assume nothing it does is honest, compassionate or fair. "UK went in for oil" or "UK went in to help a friend state that was viciously attacked". You can find the good and bad in everything. "Bush lied people died" is a lie, but accepted. He was wrong, and people died, but people think he had to know, so he must have lied, for personal gain. I think he mainly tried to do the right thing. His sense of right and mine are different, as I know yours and mine are. We go in with different biases and we see different things, based on what we expect.
fat_boy wrote:
I hope you are right. I hope there truly is sufficient altruism in the world.
Don't put words in my mouth! I never said there was a sufficient amount! :-D We can never make it a utopia. We can only make it a little better a day at a time, and know others are making it better and worse. People are bad and people are good. As long as there are weaker people, someone will try to exploit them, and all you can do is try and
-
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
harold aptroot wrote:
altruism according to the weak definition.
You call it weak, I call it real. If you go in with cynicism, you will always see something that supports it. Here, since you believe no one'll do a good deed just for the good, you make up conspiracy theory stuff. You TAKE IT ON FAITH that there is a bad reason behind it, even if you can't see it. Believers TAKE IT ON FAITH that God is the reason behind it, even if they can't see it. Does it seem any less rational in that light? Evolution has driven altruism for all. That is why man and other animals do it. Help the people around you, give, even to death, increases the chance of others around you. They are likely to share your DNA, and pass it along. Secondary effect, but still there.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
the US didn't strip western europe of everything useful after WWII,
The question was not "when did the US not do something, even though it promised material gain".
RichardM1 wrote:
spent billions of 1940's $ on the Marshall plan, building up industry that trashed us in the 60s & 70s
Building a fortress against the red antichrist.
RichardM1 wrote:
But, hey, everyone knows the EU and all its subunits are mother teresa's habit, right?
But mommy, the other kids did it too! Not that I fully agree with the OP, but your counterarguments don't hold much water. [edit] how did east / west germany get into that discussion, anyway?
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyYou want a piece a me on this? Get in line. :laugh:
peterchen wrote:
how did east / west germany get into that discussion, anyway?
Might as well ask why Monaco didn't. I got on a rant riff about Europe. The tune played itself.
peterchen wrote:
But mommy, the other kids did it too!
No. "You gonna bitch, don't overlook your own." He picks the US to complain about, often. When I push, he says "I didn't say EU was better". That is BS. I'm not saying the US only does stuff for the betterment of the world, but sometimes it does.
peterchen wrote:
Building a fortress against the red antichrist.
And exactly how is that only for material gain? We couldn't have done it for the good of western Europe? If you decide nothing is done for good, you won't see the good done by from anything. You complain we sold arms to both sides for material gain. We get into the fight and don't try to recoup our costs like everyone did in WWI. We spend a bucket of money to help Europe get back on its feet. We set up NATO and provide most of what's needed for its defense. You guys think neutron bombs were for fun and profit? They were for killing Russians without destroying Germany with blast damage and contaminating it forever with fall out. But Europe guys bought into the communist supported and funded Green Party war monger crap and thought it was bad. We sell to both sides. Greed. OK. We stop and send our men to die on European soil. Still greed. Um. We help Europe recover. Still greed. What? We devise way to keep from destroying Europe in a war. War mongering greed. That's just stupid. If you define US breathing as greed, then yup, everything we do is greed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You want a piece a me on this? Get in line. :laugh:
peterchen wrote:
how did east / west germany get into that discussion, anyway?
Might as well ask why Monaco didn't. I got on a rant riff about Europe. The tune played itself.
peterchen wrote:
But mommy, the other kids did it too!
No. "You gonna bitch, don't overlook your own." He picks the US to complain about, often. When I push, he says "I didn't say EU was better". That is BS. I'm not saying the US only does stuff for the betterment of the world, but sometimes it does.
peterchen wrote:
Building a fortress against the red antichrist.
And exactly how is that only for material gain? We couldn't have done it for the good of western Europe? If you decide nothing is done for good, you won't see the good done by from anything. You complain we sold arms to both sides for material gain. We get into the fight and don't try to recoup our costs like everyone did in WWI. We spend a bucket of money to help Europe get back on its feet. We set up NATO and provide most of what's needed for its defense. You guys think neutron bombs were for fun and profit? They were for killing Russians without destroying Germany with blast damage and contaminating it forever with fall out. But Europe guys bought into the communist supported and funded Green Party war monger crap and thought it was bad. We sell to both sides. Greed. OK. We stop and send our men to die on European soil. Still greed. Um. We help Europe recover. Still greed. What? We devise way to keep from destroying Europe in a war. War mongering greed. That's just stupid. If you define US breathing as greed, then yup, everything we do is greed.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
You gonna bitch, don't overlook your own
While I agree with the notion, it's the perfect recipe for a deadlock.
RichardM1 wrote:
He picks the US to complain about, often
As said, I don't agree with him.
RichardM1 wrote:
And exactly how is that only for material gain?
You are right, that's material only in a contrieved indirect way. Still, the selfless sacrifice doesn't sit right. The US reacted full force when it was attacked. (I don't doubt the US would have been drawn deeper into WW2 anyway, Pearl Harbor was the event, not the cause).
RichardM1 wrote:
We couldn't have done it for the good of western Europe?
What you perceived as good for Western Europe. A small difference.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
harold aptroot wrote:
altruism according to the weak definition.
You call it weak, I call it real. If you go in with cynicism, you will always see something that supports it. Here, since you believe no one'll do a good deed just for the good, you make up conspiracy theory stuff. You TAKE IT ON FAITH that there is a bad reason behind it, even if you can't see it. Believers TAKE IT ON FAITH that God is the reason behind it, even if they can't see it. Does it seem any less rational in that light? Evolution has driven altruism for all. That is why man and other animals do it. Help the people around you, give, even to death, increases the chance of others around you. They are likely to share your DNA, and pass it along. Secondary effect, but still there.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it. It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*? To share their DNA? Maybe. That infinitesimal chance is the reason why I'm not a total arse to the Fairer Sex. But, of course, it isn't really about the DNA there.. Sounds rather selfish, cold and calculating to me though. And since it there is some benefit (though unfortunately non-material and therefore less important), and since it is also partly "hardwired behaviour", it isn't really the answer to the question. What other reasons are there? * probably bad grammar; I just woke up and I cba to look it up.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
You gonna bitch, don't overlook your own
While I agree with the notion, it's the perfect recipe for a deadlock.
RichardM1 wrote:
He picks the US to complain about, often
As said, I don't agree with him.
RichardM1 wrote:
And exactly how is that only for material gain?
You are right, that's material only in a contrieved indirect way. Still, the selfless sacrifice doesn't sit right. The US reacted full force when it was attacked. (I don't doubt the US would have been drawn deeper into WW2 anyway, Pearl Harbor was the event, not the cause).
RichardM1 wrote:
We couldn't have done it for the good of western Europe?
What you perceived as good for Western Europe. A small difference.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchyYou can only do good on purpose for what you perceive as good. Otherwise, you just did something, and someone else thought it was good. No altruism there. Same with bad. You can only do it on purpose if you know you are doing it. Doctors used to think they were doing good when they lobotomized. :-D Yes on Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying everything the US ever does is self sacrificial. This started because fat_boy said _nothing_ the US does is for anything but material gain, and I dispute that.
peterchen wrote:
While I agree with the notion, it's the perfect recipe for a deadlock.
I don't think so, if both sides are honest about it. If not, it wasn't going to go anywhere, anyway.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it. It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*? To share their DNA? Maybe. That infinitesimal chance is the reason why I'm not a total arse to the Fairer Sex. But, of course, it isn't really about the DNA there.. Sounds rather selfish, cold and calculating to me though. And since it there is some benefit (though unfortunately non-material and therefore less important), and since it is also partly "hardwired behaviour", it isn't really the answer to the question. What other reasons are there? * probably bad grammar; I just woke up and I cba to look it up.
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me.
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
RichardM1 wrote:
Altruism functions evolutionarily
This still sounds very questionable to me. If it's an instinctive evolutionary imperative, then it's not even conscious behaviour. In effect, "You" are not doing it, your instincts betray you and do it for you. That is part of their job. So if this is all the "altruism" there is, and that appears to be the case, then true altruism (following the wikipedia definition) doesn't exist, even if the weak form of altruism does. Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
You seem to take it on faith that there isn't a bad reason behind it.
A little, but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim, I am just asking you to explain how it can be, when I know good is done by people.
harold aptroot wrote:
It's really very easy - just ask yourself, why would anyone do anything that doesn't benefit themself*?
I'm the wrong person to ask that of. While I know the stupid and selfish reasons I do somethings, I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me. The "share the DNA" I was talking about is not getting laid. Most people are just as happy doing that if they don't have to _worry_ about actually sharing DNA, every time. Altruism functions evolutionarily by increasing the chance of your parents, or their parents, genes getting passed on.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim
Yes, and I will continue making it until I have evidence to the contrary, because it just makes sense. I follow the simple decision-making "algorithm":
// calculates whether you should do something.
// true means "do it", false means "don't do it"
// both "calculate" functions try to estimate the long-term effect the best they can.
bool MakeDecision(Action A)
{
return CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCost(A);
}Where the function CalculateBenefit is supposed to be purely objective, but in practice it isn't and some "emotion"-crap may play a role. Anyone with any sense follows this "algorithm", because it results in the highest expected benefit/cost ratio. With their conscious decisions anyway; instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can. If there is no benefit, the cost is always higher than the benefit. "True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit. Since the cost can not be negative, it will always be greater or equal to the benefit, making the result
false. Therefore, no one with any sense will ever do something truly altruistic. QED. -
You can only do good on purpose for what you perceive as good. Otherwise, you just did something, and someone else thought it was good. No altruism there. Same with bad. You can only do it on purpose if you know you are doing it. Doctors used to think they were doing good when they lobotomized. :-D Yes on Pearl Harbor. I'm not saying everything the US ever does is self sacrificial. This started because fat_boy said _nothing_ the US does is for anything but material gain, and I dispute that.
peterchen wrote:
While I agree with the notion, it's the perfect recipe for a deadlock.
I don't think so, if both sides are honest about it. If not, it wasn't going to go anywhere, anyway.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ah if only it was easier to tell good from evil! The same could be said about the russians, or the east german leaders: they did what they perceived as good. No more than that: I've lived both, and I'd vote for the west, too: because they make it possible (maybe not much easier) to get "away from it all".
RichardM1 wrote:
Doctors used to think they were doing good when they lobotomized
Seemed to work better than electric shocks :rolleyes:
RichardM1 wrote:
I don't think so, if both sides are honest about it.
Best would be everyone just starts being better - or at least stops making it worse.
Agh! Reality! My Archnemesis![^]
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
RichardM1 wrote:
I also know that I do (some) things because I believe them to be the right thing, even though they are a PITA for me.
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
RichardM1 wrote:
Altruism functions evolutionarily
This still sounds very questionable to me. If it's an instinctive evolutionary imperative, then it's not even conscious behaviour. In effect, "You" are not doing it, your instincts betray you and do it for you. That is part of their job. So if this is all the "altruism" there is, and that appears to be the case, then true altruism (following the wikipedia definition) doesn't exist, even if the weak form of altruism does. Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
harold aptroot wrote:
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
Giving up breakfast to an out of work guy who is sitting at a corner with a sign. Giving up a seat on the bus to someone who needs it more. Make sure the people working under you get credit, with those above you, for what they do. Stay there for a minute more to hold the door open for someone. Help people who need it, or who could just use it. Is this stuff foreign to you? Really? Is it an EU thing that people don't help each other? Do you just expect the state to take care of people, so you can ignore them?
harold aptroot wrote:
This still sounds very questionable to me.
Hey, I don't come up with this crap! Well, I didn't come up with _this_ crap. This is part of evolutionary biology. Right out of Scientific American, in the last 10-15 years.
harold aptroot wrote:
So if this is all the "altruism" there is
It is not. I was showing the evolutionary basis. That leads to pushing people out of the way of a bus and jumping on grenades. Instinctual, immediate reactions. All of the thought out activities are not from instinct.
harold aptroot wrote:
Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
WTF??? Whether or not the moon exists at all is just a matter of definition. After all, everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese, and that ball of rock in the sky is not made of green cheese! You don't play silly semantic games with whether selfless means "you have to not know it's good, and you can't feel good about doing it", and then say "Well, it's all just definition". "Weak" vs "strong". That is pretty much pathetic, man.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
but you are making the bold "no good at all" claim
Yes, and I will continue making it until I have evidence to the contrary, because it just makes sense. I follow the simple decision-making "algorithm":
// calculates whether you should do something.
// true means "do it", false means "don't do it"
// both "calculate" functions try to estimate the long-term effect the best they can.
bool MakeDecision(Action A)
{
return CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCost(A);
}Where the function CalculateBenefit is supposed to be purely objective, but in practice it isn't and some "emotion"-crap may play a role. Anyone with any sense follows this "algorithm", because it results in the highest expected benefit/cost ratio. With their conscious decisions anyway; instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can. If there is no benefit, the cost is always higher than the benefit. "True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit. Since the cost can not be negative, it will always be greater or equal to the benefit, making the result
false. Therefore, no one with any sense will ever do something truly altruistic. QED.harold aptroot wrote:
instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can.
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure. I'm supposed to be the nut fundamental Christian, you are supposed to be the rational man who understands where this stuff comes from. Instinct is a subtle and tricky thing, but if it were a treacherous bastard who stabbed you in the back, evolution would be BS, or else humans would never have survived.
harold aptroot wrote:
"True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit.
[much rolling of eyes, sarcasm and laughing] You are parsing the language like a liberal lawyer reading the constitution, pulling abortion out of unreasonable search and seizure. Altruism is doing something for no material benefit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not an encyclopedia, though it is used that way. I can go in and write "altruism means purple". Wikipedia is a place to get an overview, and a place to find links to real sources, if you are lucky. It is not authoritative. Didn't your Mom ever teach you that? :-D OK, I see your problem. You are using the wrong algorithm. Here is the right one. You were effectively returning MAX_DOUBLE for CalculateCostMultiplier.
bool MakeDecision(Action A, Person B)
{
Cost cost = CalculateCost(A);
return (CalculateBenefit(A) > cost)||
(B.CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCostMultiplier(B)*cost)
}I believe you use the algorithm you mentioned, based on your comments. Please don't limit everyone else to your way of doing things. And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
instinct is a treacherous bastard and will stab you in the back whenever it can.
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure. I'm supposed to be the nut fundamental Christian, you are supposed to be the rational man who understands where this stuff comes from. Instinct is a subtle and tricky thing, but if it were a treacherous bastard who stabbed you in the back, evolution would be BS, or else humans would never have survived.
harold aptroot wrote:
"True" altruism (following the wikipedia definition) is not supposed to result in benefit.
[much rolling of eyes, sarcasm and laughing] You are parsing the language like a liberal lawyer reading the constitution, pulling abortion out of unreasonable search and seizure. Altruism is doing something for no material benefit. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is not an encyclopedia, though it is used that way. I can go in and write "altruism means purple". Wikipedia is a place to get an overview, and a place to find links to real sources, if you are lucky. It is not authoritative. Didn't your Mom ever teach you that? :-D OK, I see your problem. You are using the wrong algorithm. Here is the right one. You were effectively returning MAX_DOUBLE for CalculateCostMultiplier.
bool MakeDecision(Action A, Person B)
{
Cost cost = CalculateCost(A);
return (CalculateBenefit(A) > cost)||
(B.CalculateBenefit(A) > CalculateCostMultiplier(B)*cost)
}I believe you use the algorithm you mentioned, based on your comments. Please don't limit everyone else to your way of doing things. And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure.
It amounts to the same thing. Your instincts do not care about you. They care about reproducing, because that's the kind of instinct that survives down the generations. They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you. Instincts stabbing you in the back is precisely how we survived as a species. Really man? The "it's wikipedia and therefore untrue" argument is something teachers use to make it hard for you to actually find something. Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time. And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
RichardM1 wrote:
And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Right.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
So, can you give me any examples of such silly behaviour?
Giving up breakfast to an out of work guy who is sitting at a corner with a sign. Giving up a seat on the bus to someone who needs it more. Make sure the people working under you get credit, with those above you, for what they do. Stay there for a minute more to hold the door open for someone. Help people who need it, or who could just use it. Is this stuff foreign to you? Really? Is it an EU thing that people don't help each other? Do you just expect the state to take care of people, so you can ignore them?
harold aptroot wrote:
This still sounds very questionable to me.
Hey, I don't come up with this crap! Well, I didn't come up with _this_ crap. This is part of evolutionary biology. Right out of Scientific American, in the last 10-15 years.
harold aptroot wrote:
So if this is all the "altruism" there is
It is not. I was showing the evolutionary basis. That leads to pushing people out of the way of a bus and jumping on grenades. Instinctual, immediate reactions. All of the thought out activities are not from instinct.
harold aptroot wrote:
Whether or not altruism exists at all is then merely a matter of definition.
WTF??? Whether or not the moon exists at all is just a matter of definition. After all, everyone knows the moon is made out of green cheese, and that ball of rock in the sky is not made of green cheese! You don't play silly semantic games with whether selfless means "you have to not know it's good, and you can't feel good about doing it", and then say "Well, it's all just definition". "Weak" vs "strong". That is pretty much pathetic, man.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
harold aptroot wrote:
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
Yes, actually, I do. Not all the time, I'm a saint, but I'm no Saint. :)
harold aptroot wrote:
Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
It comes down to whether you think wiki is canonical or not.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Is this stuff foreign to you? Really?
Yes actually. Who really does that stuff? You?
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
You're allowed to have that opinion. Seriously though, it all seems to come down to whether you think wikipedia is crap or not.
RichardM1 wrote:
That is pretty much pathetic, man.
So you understand, I was referring to the argument. Argument aside. Religion aside. Even America, EU aside. We are clearly from different world views. You can't see that altruism happens. I do it and see it, daily. I think you believe your definition, are not just arguing it. I am the same. I don't know how to reconcile that. I'm a hard over right wing nut gun owning capitalist conservative. But I believe in random acts of kindness and systematic acts of charity.
Winston Churchill:
We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
No, instinct is 100ks to 1Ms of years of evolutionary pressure.
It amounts to the same thing. Your instincts do not care about you. They care about reproducing, because that's the kind of instinct that survives down the generations. They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you. Instincts stabbing you in the back is precisely how we survived as a species. Really man? The "it's wikipedia and therefore untrue" argument is something teachers use to make it hard for you to actually find something. Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time. And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
RichardM1 wrote:
And what does Quantum Electo-Dynamics got to do with this? QCD right at you.
Right.
harold aptroot wrote:
They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you.
Well, Harold, I'm at a loss. Religion aside, it is clear that we have totally different world views. I don't consider helping people who can't pay me back to be of no benefit. I think it the right thing to do, to look out for other people. It's clear you are on the "I got mine", "what's in it for me" group. Was "Wall street" the name of the movie where the catch phrase is "Greed is good"? "Materialistic, greedy, capitalist Americans" is the only connection I get between Europe and how you describe things.
harold aptroot wrote:
Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time.
You are over blowing what I said. I use Wikipedia all the time, for research. But it isn't canonical, not to where you can parse out stuff like you are doing.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
"B" is a variable. The value of the object effects the multiplier. When "B" is my wife, I value the cost to her very much. When "B" is hungry and stuck on the street, not as much, but still much. When "B" is some prick in a Porsche, with vain vanity plates, blowing through traffic, cutting people off, wanting me to get out of his way when there are no holes in traffic, the multiplier goes to infinity, the value of their benefit goes to zero. I should have put the multiplier on "B"'s benefit. That would have shown as a value of the person, not an inverse value.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
They may therefore stab you in the back - risking your life to save your children has no benefit for you, but your instincts may betray you.
Well, Harold, I'm at a loss. Religion aside, it is clear that we have totally different world views. I don't consider helping people who can't pay me back to be of no benefit. I think it the right thing to do, to look out for other people. It's clear you are on the "I got mine", "what's in it for me" group. Was "Wall street" the name of the movie where the catch phrase is "Greed is good"? "Materialistic, greedy, capitalist Americans" is the only connection I get between Europe and how you describe things.
harold aptroot wrote:
Enough people check that site for the contents to make sense most of the time.
You are over blowing what I said. I use Wikipedia all the time, for research. But it isn't canonical, not to where you can parse out stuff like you are doing.
harold aptroot wrote:
And who is this person B and why should you care about their benefit? Their benefit is not yours, so... whatever?
"B" is a variable. The value of the object effects the multiplier. When "B" is my wife, I value the cost to her very much. When "B" is hungry and stuck on the street, not as much, but still much. When "B" is some prick in a Porsche, with vain vanity plates, blowing through traffic, cutting people off, wanting me to get out of his way when there are no holes in traffic, the multiplier goes to infinity, the value of their benefit goes to zero. I should have put the multiplier on "B"'s benefit. That would have shown as a value of the person, not an inverse value.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Yea I thought that inverse value thingy was kinda odd, but then I though "oh well why not, the math works out" As to the rest, I don't believe there's much point in continuing this conversation..
I agree, but it has been a good one. I appreciate the effort you put into it and the crap you were willing to take from me. I figured everyone did altruism to some extent, so I learned about how other people see things. [tips hat]
Opacity, the new Transparency.