Seahawks Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger. Someone should have labeled that as NSFW. But that was hilarious. Simply because the person getting the finger was Seahawks.....ha ha And also because it was your finger. Must we go back and remind people who crap themselves just to leave?? LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Minor digression with regards to altruism: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -Adam Smith, 1776 Ironic, but true. Altruism is more a fantasy than a reality. I don't agree here. Pride in delivering excellence to others and care for one's community is a proven formula for making the most successful butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. Sure, rapacious businesses can and do thrive, particularly if they are so large that they can manipulate governments, but there are far more businesses who are not rapacious, do not willfully abuse their employees, and produce excellence products, which are thriving. Altruism, and the cooperative spirit it requires, is a fundamental component of self actualization; a need which evolution has implanted in humans just as surely as the need for food, sex, and a warm place to take a dump. This is the fundamental principle that trumps the pro business/anti government simpletons who continuously try to force fit their robotic formulas to explain and predict human behavior. In the end, humans are always better and more creative than the sea monkeys they've base their models on. If altruism were not a fundamental component of the human psyche, why would we have the groundswell of local, municipal, and statewide actions to reduce carbon emissions in the face of complete inaction at the federal level? Why are businesses and households 'going green' and becoming carbon neutral? The jury is still way out on whether or not this makes financial sense from an individual's standpoint, yet the tide is defininitely flowing in the green direction. In nature, as resources become more scarce, cooperation (always present in any biosphere) becomes more important than competition. So called 'socialist' policies, or those that require society wide cooperation, will increasingly become more important to human survival as a warming earth reduces what humans have evolved to consume if violent competition is to be avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger. Someone should have labeled that as NSFW. But that was hilarious. Simply because the person getting the finger was Seahawks.....ha ha And also because it was your finger. Must we go back and remind people who crap themselves just to leave?? LOL Sure, knock yourself out. Each of your posts ensures that we'll never need a reminder that you're a choad guzzling ass clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted March 16, 2007 Author Share Posted March 16, 2007 Oh and kevbone: if you want to "let loose", go back to Billcoe's proctology exam photo and pull out the doc's finger. Someone should have labeled that as NSFW. But that was hilarious. Simply because the person getting the finger was Seahawks.....ha ha And also because it was your finger. Must we go back and remind people who crap themselves just to leave?? LOL Sure, knock yourself out. Each of your posts ensures that we'll never need a reminder that you're a choad guzzling ass clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenSeagal Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Well put Tvash. I'm more optimistic towards this than my cynicism at times projects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Well put Tvash. I'm more optimistic towards this than my cynicism at times projects. Having stated the above...personally? I think we're all gonna fry in a nuclear holocaust. I'm still going to buy new ice climbing boots, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 Minor digression with regards to altruism: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." -Adam Smith, 1776 Ironic, but true. Altruism is more a fantasy than a reality. I don't agree here. Pride in delivering excellence to others and care for one's community is a proven formula for making the most successful butcher, baker, or candlestick maker. Sure, rapacious businesses can and do thrive, particularly if they are so large that they can manipulate governments, but there are far more businesses who are not rapacious, do not willfully abuse their employees, and produce excellence products, which are thriving. Altruism, and the cooperative spirit it requires, is a fundamental component of self actualization; a need which evolution has implanted in humans just as surely as the need for food, sex, and a warm place to take a dump. This is the fundamental principle that trumps the pro business/anti government simpletons who continuously try to force fit their robotic formulas to explain and predict human behavior. In the end, humans are always better and more creative than the sea monkeys they've base their models on. If altruism were not a fundamental component of the human psyche, why would we have the groundswell of local, municipal, and statewide actions to reduce carbon emissions in the face of complete inaction at the federal level? Why are businesses and households 'going green' and becoming carbon neutral? The jury is still way out on whether or not this makes financial sense from an individual's standpoint, yet the tide is defininitely flowing in the green direction. In nature, as resources become more scarce, cooperation (always present in any biosphere) becomes more important than competition. So called 'socialist' policies, or those that require society wide cooperation, will increasingly become more important to human survival as a warming earth reduces what humans have evolved to consume if violent competition is to be avoided. Self-interest and selfishness are two different things, and there are many times in which its in a given individual's self-interest to behave in a non-selfish manner. As far as altruism is concerned, the debate isn't about whether it exists or not, but whether it is reliable enough to serve as the sole basis for ordering social interactions - be they legal, economic, or what have you. To throw in another quote from Smith's era, (Madison) "If all men were Angels, there would be no need of government." Even if naked, unadulterated altruism could be relied upon to govern 99.9% of all behavior in 99.9% of the population, society would still have to develop mechanisms to deal with the sub-fraction of all persons or behaviors that was motivated by any of the baser motivations that actuate human behavior from time to time. The point of the rules in a market economy isn't to force people to like each other, or to compel them to make sacrifices on behalf of people that they may or may not like, or may or may not ever know - but to permit them to engage in those voluntary interactions which they wish to engage in because each side perceives the said interaction to be in his or her own-interest. One of the strengths of a market economy based on voluntary exchange is that unlike altruism - it permits socially beneficial cooperation amongst people who not only have no affinity for one another, but actively despise one another, or have no idea that the other even exists. I may hate the guy who offers the best deal on whatever it is that I want to buy, but if I buy whatever it is he has to sell and saved money in the process, we've engaged in a mutually beneficial interaction despite the absence of any warm-feelings between us. The same goes for the guy working half-way around the globe who works at Bayer AG that's developing a drug that may save my life. The guy doesn't even know I exist, could care less about my health, and he may not even like his job, but by dragging himself to work in the morning to put food on his own table, he's engaged in efforts that are profoundly beneficial to me. The scientist who developed the drug he's working for may be a selfish misanthrope who's sole motivation to develop the drug is to generate a fortune for himself, but what matters to me is not his motivation but the concrete benefits of whatever it is that he has created have for me or anyone else that may need it. What happens to any scheme for organizing society that requires universal altruism be exercised on behalf of not only those that you know and care for, but those that you know and dislike, let alone those that you'll never have any personal interaction with whatsoever? Of the manifold faults within socialist philosophy, this point is a minor one, but it alone is enough to render the entire enterprise untenable. When altruism fails, what mechanism does the society organized around the principle of universal altruism have to motivate people? Take a look at any state that tried to impose real, as opposed to adjectival, socialism and you'll find your answer. With regards to your last point - I would have to disagree with the assertion that resource scarcity can be counted on to inspire greater social harmony and solidarity, especially if you are talking about a scenario in which multiple ethnocultural groups find themselves dependent upon the same pool of diminishing resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted March 16, 2007 Share Posted March 16, 2007 perhaps be more careful about what you hear from politicians. whiskey. tango. foxtrot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 still don't understand why anyone wouldn't trust a scientist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted March 19, 2007 Share Posted March 19, 2007 Another example of a useless Seahawks thread I refuse to read I have never agreed with you more!!!! Hey seahawks…..do you climb? Who cares what you think K-fed??? I climbed your mamma this morning Your mama has grown by a lot more than 50% More like 50kg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.