When has the US ever done anything for other than material gain/.
-
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
-
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
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:
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.
The French, a very agricultural country suffered imensely at the hands of the Germans. A lot of their produce was just taken by the Germans. There are some interesting books about this. For example a wellknown restaurant in Paris walled off the majority of its wine cellar just as the Germans invaded. After the war they tore the wall down and enjoyedx thousands of bottles of vert good vintage wine the Germans never knew existed. There are also stories of the French concocting revolting mixtures of crap wine and bottling it as Champagne for teh Germans, who never noticed. :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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