Selfishness and Society

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Of course, trying to avoid the tempting ad hominem, yet reminded of the consequences of getting lost in one's own mind chasing the nature of infinity...where has this path taken Mr. Kaczynski?

Um... juan... you do realize that lots of people have thought of these things and NOT turned into a Kaczynski, right? Pick nearly any belief on earth and you'll find people who go off the deep end as the outliers. Take a good hard look at mainstream thought and you'll see the same thing.

It's not a nice or fair argument against someone to compare them to a criminal- this is like saying all Muslims will behave like suicide bombers or all Christians will behave like Hitler. Untrue and unfair- designed to raise hackles rather than intelligent conversation.

Gee, I really can't believe this thread has gone on this long. LOL

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Gee, I really can't believe this thread has gone on this long. LOL

YouTube - carpenters -We've Only Just Begun

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Gee, I really can't believe this thread has gone on this long. LOL

Originally Posted by snoop

I've rumbled you wil; you want to set the record for the most number of replies.

Appears he knew more than eye.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

YouTube - carpenters -We've Only Just Begun

*Snorts into my coffee*

LOL

[wil]

hmmm....

No disparaging remarks on either of the book suggestions I received...

Either that is silent agreement or more likely a sigh and a muttering of "this isn't worth responding to."

How about these selfish actions from Project Renaissance

*The core mission of Project Renaissance*

- To enable as many human beings as possible to become more than a
match for the situations, opportunities and problems or difficulties that
they find around them, and

- To enjoy a richer quality of life and experience.

*Mission Statement*
*The core beliefs of Project Renaissance*

- More often than not, the win of one of us is something of a win for
many, most, or all of us.

- As more of us become abler to solve the problems we variously
encounter, at least some of the problems solved will bear on the common
well-being, not only on the well-being of the solver.

- Most problems, however they may seem intractable, can nonetheless be
solved. And by you!

- Given the useful techniques, any of us can find the ingenious
answers with which to solve those and other problems.

- You are brighter than you think!

[path_of_one]

Well, I still am having problems going forth because your definition of selfishness is not the dictionary definition. Not sure if that got resolved in the last 7 pages, since I haven't had the time to read it all. But here, it again seems like what is perceived by you to be selfish is not actually selfish, since it makes no mention of self-interest at the expense of others. In fact, it seems to be aimed at training people to try their hand at creative problem solving for the *benefit* of others. That just ain't selfish.

[cyberpi]

I can gamble for a win-lose and I can gamble for a win-win or I can fold for a lose-win. Very different frames of mind. I heartedly agree with Juantoo3 that capitalism is much of the win-win rather than the win-lose... depends on the frame of mind. I agree with anyone who finds that the win-lose is selfish and that the win-win is not.

Hence I disagree with the definition, as many here have stated, that the opposite of selfishness is being self-less... I disagree with any definition that restricts as selfish everything other than a lose-win. I further submit the best laid lose-win, when that gift is placed appropriately... is also a potentially and eventually... a win-win.

[wil]

I still submit that selfishness can unintentionally lead to a benefical affect.

Its just a story, but Ebeneezer Scrooge changed his ways, as did so many.

There is a line, I think it is hazy, others think it defined.

Is eating veal selfish? Or how about that fawgraw (sp?) stuff? Is making an animal suffer for your palate selfish?

How about if I were to hoard all my money and not give to charity, not provide a nickel to anyone, because I wanted to utilize what Einstein thought was the most powerful thing known to man...compound interest...

Now say I do it for 60 years and then buy myself a yacht and spend the rest of my days traveling the world, is that selfish? (I think of all the people I benefitted by keeping my money in the bank allowing them to loan out 98% of it to people who used the money for home loans, to build businesses, etc. And then of course all the folks that worked building my yacht, and those whose produce I bought at every port, and those working in the wineries where I bought cases, am I selfish or supporting the people by my consumerism)

Or say I do it for 60 years and then live a meager life and take my millions to create a foundation assisting folks to learn a skill or grow food? Does the end justify the means? Was my original selfishness transformed?

Or say I give away everthing all along the way...sure it will only be a pittance of what I could accumulate if I were acting selfishly...but I gave it away..

I still say the more selfish we can all be (educating, funding, illuminating, hoarding for ourselves NOW) the more benefit we can be later.

[Paladin]

Pate de foie gras?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Paladin

Pate de foie gras?

yeah, that gross liver paste where they stick a tube down a goose throat and force feed it so the liver multiplies in size....that's it.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by wil

I still submit that selfishness can unintentionally lead to a benefical affect.

Sure, it can. But the question is, does it generally or not? I think not.

Is making an animal suffer for your palate selfish?

Die? No. Suffer? Yes.

I still say the more selfish we can all be (educating, funding, illuminating, hoarding for ourselves NOW) the more benefit we can be later.

I still go with following Christ, who said to give it up now.

Sufficient for the day is its own trouble...

Could die tomorrow... All that good stuff. Guess I'm just not much of a capitalist or into delaying what I can do for what I might be able to do later. It just doesn't jive with my spirituality.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Um... juan... you do realize that lots of people have thought of these things and NOT turned into a Kaczynski, right? Pick nearly any belief on earth and you'll find people who go off the deep end as the outliers. Take a good hard look at mainstream thought and you'll see the same thing.

It's not a nice or fair argument against someone to compare them to a criminal- this is like saying all Muslims will behave like suicide bombers or all Christians will behave like Hitler. Untrue and unfair- designed to raise hackles rather than intelligent conversation.

Dearest Path of One, yours is a valid concern. I have not compared anybody to anybody other than the madness associated with genius. I actually found a great deal in the unabomber manifesto I could sympathize with, years ago anyway. Of course, that was before going to school to get a degree in business. What's that psychological syndrome where the kidnap victim begins to affiliate with the kidnapper? Is it the Stockholm syndrome? In any event, I find myself having a soft spot for Kaczynski. But he got carried away.

Ad hominem attacks are a diversion, I agree. Yet I have seen university professors here on this very site use ad hominem to dismiss arguments because they didn't want to address the harder issues. At least I mentioned my desire to avoid such, rather than blatantly going there as others do. "Well, what does he know? His politics don't agree with mine so his opinion isn't worth a plug nickle." Happens all the time, untrue fallacious reasoning, and I did not do that. If anything I was providing an alternate source for Pathless to consider that does parallel his own views, even though I disagree. But no brownie points for open minded thinking?

I did not at any time associate Pathless (nor any who agree with him) with Kaczynski. Nothing personal, but I doubt Pathless could hold a candle to Kaczynski's intellect. No harm, no foul, neither can I. The point I was trying to make with my statement is that when one gets lost so far out on such a mental tangent as Kaczynski did they run the risk of losing touch with reality. I think Kaczynski did just that, and the consequences proved deadly for a number of people, and resulted in Kaczynski becoming anti-social and eventually incarcerated for life. The allusion to those lost in their minds chasing the illusion of infinity is that both sets of genius are lost to greater society by madness. Pure and simple.

No insult nor injury intended.

[path_of_one]

Thanks, Juan- I think that explained the design behind your post well, and I understand where you were going with it now.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Pathless

Yes, I'm familiar with the term, and don't really mind it being applied to me. Anarcho-primitivist is another one that resonates with me right now. Please realize though that I retain the right to change my thinking and ideas in the future, and seem to elude categorical definitions that some people like to apply. Labels don't stick well to me, is what I'm saying.

That's fine, labels don't stick well to me either. Through the years, as I have aged and mellowed, a lot of my views have shifted.

Originally Posted by Pathless

I read a little bit of the link to Kaczynski's essay, or Manifesto if you want: and I have to say that although I'm not sure that I'll read all of it, and while I don't agree with a good bit of what I've read of his perspective so far--which seems fairly androcentric and privileged--I'd say that his description of the over-socialized individual describes fairly well my experiences being raised in so-called civil society:

That's fine. I give Kaczynski credit because he critiques or attacks the whole political spectrum. He isn't a reactionary railing at the liberals, and he isn't a radical railing at the conservatives. He is equally offended by everyone. And somehow in all of his madness he found a way to justify killing people to make his point public:

96. As for our constitutional rights, consider for example that of freedom of the press. We certainly don't mean to knock that right: it is very important tool for limiting concentration of political power and for keeping those who do have political power in line by publicly exposing any misbehavior on their part. But freedom of the press is of very little use to the average citizen as an individual. The mass media are mostly under the control of large organizations that are integrated into the system. Anyone who has a little money can have something printed, or can distribute it on the Internet or in some such way, but what he has to say will be swamped by the vast volume of material put out by the media, hence it will have no practical effect. To make an impression on society with words is therefore almost impossible for most individuals and small groups. Take us (FC) for example. If we had never done anything violent and had submitted the present writings to a publisher, they probably would not have been accepted. If they had been accepted and published, they probably would not have attracted many readers, because it's more fun to watch the entertainment put out by the media than to read a sober essay. Even if these writings had had many readers, most of these readers would soon have forgotten what they had read as their minds were flooded by the mass of material to which the media expose them. In order to get our message before the public with some chance of making a lasting impression, we've had to kill people.

emphasis mine, -jt3

Even in this section he is almost prescient, almost prophetic (IIRC, this was written years before the Genome Mapping Project was even started).

The 'bad' parts of technology cannot be separated from the 'good' parts

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can't get rid of the "bad" parts of technology and retain only the "good" parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can't have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through the use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much now, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous.[19]

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about "medical ethics." But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were "ethical" and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large.[20] Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an "ethical" use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited any genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today's world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial-technological system.

emphasis mine, -jt3
Rather a curious argument to oppose genetic research and manipulation, but it is a different step than the usual anti-abortion tact.

It's been a long while since I read this, and I have forgotten so much (Kaczynski warned as much) about what it said, but I did recall that his solution amounted to a whole lot of dead human bodies. That is what reminded me of Kaczynski in our previous discussion about "the painful transition" that will require the deaths of millions. That is where I disagree most with Kaczynski, and why I disagreed with you.

There are flaws in Kaczynski's assessment, but there is also a great deal of raw "in your face" to make a person wake up and take notice, but only for a moment.

He is right of course. Few will read his essay. Of those that do, few will remember what they read, their minds bombarded constantly with input from media sources far and wide. But there is another reason people forget his essay. It hits too close to home, and attempts to force them to face matters that are more comfortably dealt with in ignorance.

It is a hard essay, I think because ultimately it makes too much sense, even though it reads like the insane ravings of a lunatic. I know of no fiction more ironically compelling.

[juantoo3]

Under the section titled "Strategy" I found this:

Strategy

181. As we stated in paragraph 166, the two main tasks for the present are to promote social stress and instability in industrial society and to develop and propagate an ideology that opposes technology and the industrial system. When the system becomes sufficiently stressed and unstable, a revolution against technology may be possible. The pattern would be similar to that of the French and Russian Revolutions. French society and Russian society, for several decades prior to their respective revolutions, showed increasing signs of stress and weakness. Meanwhile, ideologies were being developed that offered a new world view that was quite different from the old one. In the Russian case, revolutionaries were actively working to undermine the old order. Then, when the old system was put under sufficient additional stress (by financial crisis in France, by military defeat in Russia) it was swept away by revolution. What we propose is something along the same lines.

183. But an ideology, in order to gain enthusiastic support, must have a positive ideal as well as a negative one; it must be for something as well as against something. The positive ideal that we propose is Nature. That is, wild nature; those aspects of the functioning of the Earth and its living things that are independent of human management and free of human interference and control. And with wild nature we include human nature, by which we mean those aspects of the functioning of the human individual that are not subject to regulation by organized society but are products of chance, or free will, or God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions).

184. Nature makes a perfect counter-ideal to technology for several reasons. Nature (that which is outside the power of the system) is the opposite of technology (which seeks to expand indefinitely the power of the system). Most people will agree that nature is beautiful; certainly it has tremendous popular appeal. The radical environmentalists already hold an ideology that exalts nature and opposes technology.[30] It is not necessary for the sake of nature to set up some chimerical utopia or any new kind of social order. Nature takes care of itself: It was a spontaneous creation that existed long before any human society, and for countless centuries many different kinds of human societies coexisted with nature without doing it an excessive amount of damage. Only with the Industrial Revolution did the effect of human society on nature become really devastating. To relieve the pressure on nature it is not necessary to create a special kind of social system, it is only necessary to get rid of industrial society. Granted, this will not solve all problems. Industrial society has already done tremendous damage to nature and it will take a very long time for the scars to heal. Besides, even pre-industrial societies can do significant damage to nature. Nevertheless, getting rid of industrial society will accomplish a great deal. It will relieve the worst of the pressure on nature so that the scars can begin to heal. It will remove the capacity of organized society to keep increasing its control over nature (including human nature). Whatever kind of society may exist after the demise of the industrial system, it is certain that most people will live close to nature, because in the absence of advanced technology there is no other way that people can live. To feed themselves they must be peasants or herdsmen or fishermen or hunters, etc.. And, generally speaking, local autonomy should tend to increase, because lack of advanced technology and rapid communications will limit the capacity of governments or other large organizations to control local communities.

emphasis mine, -jt3
Is any of this sounding famliar?