|
| Thread: Where is the world going? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted February 21, 2009 12:35 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And don't you agree that people help others "for the self"?
As in the definition of the word? Heck no.
____________
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 12:36 AM |
|
Edited by Geny at 10:22, 21 Feb 2009.
|
I honestly have no idea what are you talking about here, I just decided to take a quick glance and something caught my attention. This whole 'selfish' discussion. Since this is something I have been thinking about before I would like to add my opinion:
First of all, in a sense mvass' and deadman's observations are true - even when a person helps someone his actions can be viewed as selfish since he gets some kind of satisfaction from it. However, if that's how we're gonna look at it than we have to take into consideration something else: with that understanding of the word every man is selfish and every action you do or don't do is selfish, because everything you do, you do to get some kind of reward, whether it's material or spiritual is irrelevant.
Now, when a word that's supposed to describe an action in fact describe all possible actions it becomes redundant and useless and therefore cannot in any way be used in an argument. If you do want to use the world 'selfish' as some kind of an argument than you must give it the more common meaning which is - helping others without any serious material gain.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 12:49 AM |
|
|
del_diablo:
Why not?
Geny:
Not all actions are equally selfish, though. And, indeed, some actions may be completely unselfish - as described by DeadMan, whenever people hate what they're doing and don't benefit from the ends but they do it anyway. So my definition of "selfish" does not encompass all actions.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 01:09 AM |
|
Edited by baklava at 01:11, 21 Feb 2009.
|
For the love of money, MVass, can I put two words together without them being quoted separately? 
Alright, let's have it your way, it's been a while.
Quote:
All I'm asking is that you don't point at the ones who do and accuse them of being what's wrong wit the world.
I remember you saying how "condemnation of self interest is what is wrong with the world", actually. So if anyone is doing the pointing...
Quote:
Giordano Bruno, Socrates, Jesus, and Heraclitus wanted to spread or develop their philosophy. I understand that impulse.
If there is a connection between spreading philosophy and selfishness, I am not able to notice or comprehend it.
If you die spreading your philosophy, you apparently never really did it from self-interested, did you? You did it trying to open the people's eyes and make the world a better place.
And alas, you in fact do not understand that impulse, since I don't really believe you'd be ready to get burned at a stake or nailed to a cross attempting to make people's lives better. In fact, I remember you supporting Zielevitz when he refused to even pay the medical tax because of the "why should I help anyone when I earned this money myself" logic. And you're as self-interested as one can be, so I don't really think that's how it works.
You'll understand me if I express my sincere doubt over your level of understanding of Christ's philosophy.
Quote:
Leonidas was a king - do you think he'd remain one if the Persians took over?
None of the men who fought and died with him were kings.
Quote:
Modigliani was hardly a great man - just one artist out of many equally bad ones.
Or it's just that you don't have any taste in art.
Both options are equally plausible. I'd go with the latter one though. Just out of personal preference, and that's what it's all about, isn't it?
Quote:
And Jean of Arc was insane.
Why? Because she claimed she talked to God?
All those crusaders went to a desert to butcher innocents in the name of God, all those inquisitors burned people in the name of God, all those Popes committed all those sins claiming they were God's chosen, yet no one told them they're insane.
In my opinion... in the Dark Ages, Joan was far saner than 90% of the world around her.
Fact is, she lead France to victory.
France. To victory. In a war.
That's something, isn't it?
But she certainly didn't take that sword and lead armies out of selfishness. She did it because she didn't want her people to have to drink tea every day at 5 PM a few centuries later.
Maybe the problem is in your definition of selfishness, like people proposed. Selfishness, by itself, includes disregard for the well-being of others. And none of the men (and women) I mentioned behaved that way.
You just seem to claim that having any sort of goal or point in life is selfishness And though we all delight in arguing without understanding each other, it's sometimes best to just use some words the way they were meant to be used.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 01:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Now, when a word that's supposed to describe an action in fact describe all possible actions it becomes redundant and useless and therefore cannot in any way be used in an argument. If you do want to use the world 'selfish' as some kind of an argument than you must give it the more common meaning which is - helping others with any serious material gain.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 02:43 AM |
|
|
Bak:
I think the problem is our different definitions of selfishness. Your definition is self-contradictory, though. "Concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" - how can one concentrate on one's advantage or well-being without having some kind of regard for others?
Quote:
I remember you saying how "condemnation of self interest is what is wrong with the world", actually. So if anyone is doing the pointing...
Yes, exactly! I don't blame the people who (say that) they are not following their own self-interest - I'm blaming the people who are condemning those who are pursuing it.
Quote:
If you die spreading your philosophy, you apparently never really did it from self-interested, did you?
Then you are either not rational or took a gamble that didn't pay off. Plus, they enjoyed spreading their philosophy, didn't they?
Quote:
None of the men who fought and died with him were kings.
They were soldiers. If soldiers run from the field of battle, then they're punished - possibly executed. Or they'd live under the Persian yoke - that's not very fun either.
Quote:
All those crusaders went to a desert to butcher innocents in the name of God, all those inquisitors burned people in the name of God, all those Popes committed all those sins claiming they were God's chosen, yet no one told them they're insane.
They weren't insane, just gr33dy. (Gr33d = application of some kind of self-interest that harms others.) And some of them were insane. And Hitler lead Germany to many victories too.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 02:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
how can one concentrate on one's advantage or well-being without having some kind of regard for others?
Huh? Of course you have to regard them as in how they feel like, not as in how profitable they are. Aka, if you care how others feel (and thus, you may help them if let's say they're sad or need help) then this is the biggest difference there is over your version of it.
Quote:
Then you are either not rational...
whoa wait just a sec and hold your horses man. How's that? (not like we are all immortal -- if you ask me what is irrational is the ILLUSION of that; that's why nature had to add that self-survival instinct, because our REASON would REJECT it as an ILLUSION). If anything THAT's irrational.
Quote:
And Hitler lead Germany to many victories too.
Ok and if you noticed what this was about, yes Hitler WAS a "great man" so to speak, as much as I hate to say that. He was a bastard as well, but he had great qualities -- aka he wasn't a dumbass. Of course qualities can be used for 'bad' reasons too. Doesn't mean he was an idiot.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 03:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Huh? Of course you have to regard them as in how they feel like, not as in how profitable they are.
I fail to grasp the difference. If you don't care what they feel like, then you won't make a "profit". If you like caring for them, then you are making an emotional profit.
Quote:
How's that?
Because once you're dead, you can't do anything any more.
As for Hitler, my point was that he could've been insane. I didn't say that he didn't accomplish much.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 04:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I fail to grasp the difference. If you don't care what they feel like, then you won't make a "profit". If you like caring for them, then you are making an emotional profit.
Nope. One thing is to care for them for their own good (even if that makes you feel good), another is to care for them for your OWN good.
Quote:
Because once you're dead, you can't do anything any more.
We'll all be dead. The future is just an illusion, at least so reason tells us that. Once you're dead, it won't matter that you lived 50 years or 100 years. There's a reason the self-survival instinct is an instinct...
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 04:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Nope. One thing is to care for them for their own good (even if that makes you feel good), another is to care for them for your OWN good.
Now you're sounding like DeadMan.
Quote:
Once you're dead, it won't matter that you lived 50 years or 100 years. There's a reason the self-survival instinct is an instinct...
It's an illusion and doesn't matter? k. Would you rather I tortured you for 50 years or a hundred years? You know, with reason, that I'd stop torturing you eventually. So why does it matter?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 11:27 AM |
|
|
mvassilev please stop it, its getting more ridiculess by the post. With your definition even self sacrifice is selvfish.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 03:42 PM |
|
Edited by baklava at 15:43, 21 Feb 2009.
|
Quote:
Your definition is self-contradictory, though. "Concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others" - how can one concentrate on one's advantage or well-being without having some kind of regard for others?
It's not my definition, it's the official definition.
It's not about the lack of some kind of regard for others. It's about the lack of a wish to help them, or about readiness to step over them if it brings the selfish person any sort of profit. It means that the person mentioned just does not care for other people, unless it is FORCED to do that, in order to make more profit. A selfish person, by definition, will not help anyone if it can not draw profit from that. That's what they mean by "no regard for others".
Quote:
Then you are either not rational or took a gamble that didn't pay off. Plus, they enjoyed spreading their philosophy, didn't they?
If you're not doing something from self interest, that doesn't mean you are not rational. You can't just mark people who don't fit your theories as "irrational".
They enjoyed spreading their philosophy because they believed it was for the good of others, not their own good. If you're doing something believing you're doing it for the good of others, how on Earth does that make you selfish? If you used something like the word "ambition", we'd understand each other. But "selfishness" is, in this case, just... grammatically incorrect.
Quote:
They were soldiers. If soldiers run from the field of battle, then they're punished - possibly executed. Or they'd live under the Persian yoke - that's not very fun either.
Living under the Persians would still be considered by selfish people as far more profitable than getting slaughtered. Or they could've always joined the Persians and profit.
Besides, they were all free to go if they wanted to. There were numerous examples throughout history of garrisons doomed to death, and the commander telling them how anyone who wished to go away could freely go away - but they stayed.
Quote:
They weren't insane, just gr33dy. (Gr33d = application of some kind of self-interest that harms others.) And some of them were insane. And Hitler lead Germany to many victories too.
Hitler didn't lead his armies, he sat in his cabinet making wrong decisions. He attacked the Soviet Union, for chrissakes.
It's not the idea that you do well for a while, and then get destroyed. The art is to make your cause prevail in the end, and that's what Jean of Arc did - even if it meant her sacrifice. And sacrificing for the good of your people, no matter how you put it, is not selfish, MVass.
And if you're calling the Inquisition greedy and not insane, you may as well say the same for Hitler. Authoritative reign through fear, hate, discrimination and terror. Such greed is called psychopathy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted February 21, 2009 05:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Now you're sounding like DeadMan.
I don't know what that means but here's what I meant:
If you CARE for others for the sake of them, then you're let's say selfless. However, you CAN feel good as a 'reward'. But it doesn't mean you don't care about them in their own perspectives (compared to profit, which is "your" perspective not "theirs"). That is the difference.
Quote:
It's an illusion and doesn't matter? k. Would you rather I tortured you for 50 years or a hundred years? You know, with reason, that I'd stop torturing you eventually. So why does it matter?
It doesn't. You use the argument that, once you're dead, you won't do anything. But it's not like something we can stop. So once we're dead our life won't matter at all, by that logic. It's not my kind of logic, so of course i wouldn't accept that. And second, my self-preservence will kick in over reason.
But trust me, when you are on your deathbed, you do not care at all about how happy you were in your life (I'm talking about cynical attitudes like the above obviously).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
posted February 21, 2009 09:23 PM |
|
Edited by angelito at 11:02, 22 Feb 2009.
|
I've given an official warning in the feedback thread not long ago refering to off topic quote wars. I won't repeat that. Everyone knows what comes next. Your choice!
Edit:
Soft cleaning procedure done.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 22, 2009 12:22 PM |
|
|
I think my brain exploded while trying to figure out what the heck is going on here. Still going to try to make some sense of this mess, hoping I am ontopic. Not even sure there is a topic anymore.
Ok about selfishness. In a way Mvass is correct. Everything we do has some affect on ourselves. I don't agree that everything is selfish, but doing certain deeds can make you feel better. In a way that is self serving. So to that extent I agree. However, there are times that one does not think about the benifit (even often for some) even the 'feeling good' benifit. Sometimes people just do.
In example I will tell you what happened once with me and my cousin (On here as Jornsaber in case you missed that). Walking to a gas station because the vehicle we were in ran out of gas we came upon a scene of an accident. Two people were bleeding badly. Without thinking about it we both used our own shirts (ripping them into bandages) to stem the flow of blood. Now, remember, at this time I was female, but that is beside the point. We didn't do it because it would make us feel good (it was dang cold let me tell you) or anything, but because people NEEDED help. We didn't hesitate, or think about rewards..we did what we had to do (in our minds).
We didn't even 'feel good about ourselves' afterwards..and even when the newspapers proclaimed the 'mystery' people heroes, we did not come forward and try to gain anything from it. We could have, the police had our names and could have varified who we were, but we didn't. We even asked them not to, and they agreed. We did get something out of it. A free ride to a gas station and a new shirt, but we didn't do what we did because of that. We did it because it was the right thing to do.
Now, I fully expect you to find a 'selfish' reason for the act. Because you can not see anything else. For whatever reason you seek hidden motives. So..by all means.
There are good, kind people in the world. True..they are becoming rarer and harder to find. They are out there. But when a person only has alterior motives for what they do, they can't see them. Since everything they do has hidden agendas, they believe everybody does, even if they don't.
Capitalism has failed..but so has every other form of government. Until somebody comes up with one that works..and is a good balance between taking care of the populace AND incintive to achieve...mankind will suffer. I am not smart enough to know the answer, or egotistical enough to think I will find the answer.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2009 12:40 PM |
|
|
Capitalism has failed, but there are still many people sure that it's excellent.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 22, 2009 03:45 PM |
|
|
Mytical:
I'm afraid you didn't quite understand me, or maybe you didn't read all of my posts. I also wrote about inertia - which describes your action quite well.
And capitalism is an economic system, not a form of government. And it's never been tried fully, or even in a perfect mixed economy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 23, 2009 06:42 AM |
|
|
I disagree with you Mvass, even about Capitalism not being a form of government. Now before you think I have lost my marbles (I know too late) let me try to explain. In every form of government known to man there has always been something valuable. Currency, land, raw resources, whatever. Those who owned, had access to, or otherwise controlled those things had influence over those governments. Either directly or indirectly. As it is right now..in America at least..the 'capitalist' are in charge of things. Either directly or indirectly. In short Money talks and everything else walks. So in a way, Capitalism IS government. But that is a discussion for another thread.
The world is going to heck in a handbasket. That is where the world is going. We have conquered the main forces behind evolution. If you ever watched Idiocracy you may get the main gist. Instead of getting stronger/smarter people on the planet are getting weaker/dumber. It is probably too late to reverse the trend, or impossible to do so. To make matters worse, Mvass is right on one thing. People are becoming more selfish. Crueler, more stressed, and more angry. So yeah the world is pretty much doomed, but you can handle yourself a couple of different ways while you are in your mortal coil.
You can add to the problem by being selfish and only worrying about how it helps you. Or you can help those you can, when you can, and not worry about a 'reward'. Either take what you can, however you can, or try to make the world a slightly better place. You can be an elitist who thinks just because they have had some 'breaks' in life that they are better then everybody. Or you can try to better yourself and those around you.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2009 09:42 AM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 09:51, 23 Feb 2009.
|
Well, I think the world is getting better.
And contrary to what many others have said, capitalism seems to work quite well. The problem with looking at the direction of the economy is that people try to view it too short term. You have to ignore all these minor 5-10 year cycles. I've lived through at least one economic cycle worse than the one now. And depending on how you define it I've lived though maybe 3-4 cycles worse than now. I think the economy needs to be viewed over a minimum of 25 years, and I tend to also view it over a 100 year period. I think over both those time periods the overall economy, standard of living, standard of health and nutrition, and several other measures have improved dramatically, both in the US (which I'm more familiar with) and around the world.
That doesn't apply to just the economy. Virtually every aspect of "where the world is going" needs to be viewed long term.
I think it's already been noted that the world is largely at peace now....easily the most at peace it's been in my lifetime, and probably the most at peace over the last 100+ years. That's good, but in all honesty this peace hasn't lasted long enough on the historical timeline to make a good judgment about any sort of trend. But combined with some speculation as to some of the reasons, I think it's a positive sign.
Environmental progress has been TREMENDOUS over the last 30-40 years. I've always been an outdoorsy type, so I've really paid attention to this over the years. To put this into perspective: the words "environment", "ecology", "pollution", etc were not even words when I grew up in the 60s. They might have been in the dictionary, but they were not used, especially not like they are now.
In my memory I'd say that the first real stirrings of the environmental movement started when I was in about grade 5 in the mid 60s. It was a "new" science in our classes....or maybe it was in our geography class, I'm don't remember for sure. We called it conservation, not environmentalism. Early on the term pollution was not really used.
The early movement was more along the lines of stopping "littering". You'd be surprised how much trash people used to throw out the window of their car, or on the sidewalk, or anywhere else they were. It might sound minor compared to some modern environmental issues that we now understand, but back then this was a major, and quite successful, public awareness campaign. There is a HUGE difference in the amount of visible trash on the ground and in the water. And it's not just visible "innocent" paper kind of trash...people thought nothing at all about dumping their used motor oil or pesticides in the lake or river.
When I was a kid we always knew who was doing laundry because of all the soap suds we saw in the ditch in front of the house. Water treatment plants for anything other than sewage didn't exist. (and where I grew up there was no sewage treatment either, it was just pumped into the septic system in the back yard)
Cars run magnitudes cleaner than they used to. Industrial pollution is a fraction of what it used to be. I've traveled throughout N America all of my life. There used to be a LOT of cities that made me choke and burn my lungs and eyes, simply by driving through. That is very rare now.
Yes, there is a long way to go with the environment. But we've made tremendous progress and even though there have been some faster and slower periods, there has been continuous progress for the last 40+ years. People my age and younger grew up learning about the environment and the problems associated with it. Whereas my parents were not even aware there was a problem....for one thing, the science didn't even exist in their younger days.
The advances in science and medicine have been huge. When I was born a satellite had never been put into orbit, in the US only a minority of people had TVs, and radios all had tubes instead of transistors. All the phones were "party lines". If you wanted to use the phone you had to first pick it up and listen to find out if someone else was on the line.
I later watched the first man step on the moon. Finally in 1967 we got a color TV (which was before most people).
When I graduated from high school there was no such thing as a calculator, much less something called a computer since the microprocessor didn't exist yet. Even when I first started working in an engineering department in 1979 I still used a slide rule. That's VERY recent the way history measures time.
And medicine....there have been thousands and thousands of medical discoveries and cures just during my lifetime. I remember the first heart transplant, that was totally AMAZING to do something like that. It almost seemed like some kind of Dr. Frankenstein experiment. Now it's a fairly common and successful procedure. And mapping DNA!!!? We barely even knew what it was when I was a kid, and mapping it would not even have been dreamed of.
So now I sit here in front of the computer talking to people from around the world. I have a webcam with a microphone and I can talk to people anywhere in the world with good quality audio and full screen video. That was pure science fiction when I was a kid. And to be honest, I'm not sure if I really believed it would exist in my lifetime.
This is too lengthy to go into the social changes in my lifetime. For now I'll just say that things are "different". Let's just say that I much prefer wearing my blue jeans rather than a white shirt with a black tie at a company where everyone looks like the same cloned monkey in a black suit. As we used to say, down with establishment and f**k the status quo.
I'm not trying to claim that everything is bright and rosy, because it's not. There are a lot of serious problems in the world that need to be addressed. But this thread isn't about how good or bad the world is, it's about which direction it's going. Of course some places have more problems than others, some places get worse while others get better. But overall I really believe it's getting better. Many of the trouble spots have stabilized and are making progress.
Look at South America and all the turmoil, civil war and unrest it had 20-30 years ago. There are still some potential problems, but largely things have stabilized and they have made tremendous strides as a result. Look out world, here comes S America. I think they have a near term potential to be a bright shining star. They have such vast natural wealth. They have hard working people. They are a happy people with a rich and colorful culture. And oh, is it just me or has anyone else noticed that 5 years ago there were virtually no S Americans on the internet and now we are seeing them more and more all the time?
|
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
|
posted February 23, 2009 06:32 PM |
|
|
In my time "cooker" wasn't even a word - we ate our meat raw and loved it! Seriously though, we are living on the pinnacle of civilization. It has never been this good and it's only going to get better.
____________
|
| |
|
|
