Selfishness and Society

[wil]

I didn't mean to say Bill Gates invented the internet, nor is he my saviour. He did state that he intended to see a computer at every desk and was laughed at. Without that vision the average joe like me would not have one at home and hence the internet would not be available to me. Nor have I read his biography, but yes I believe making money was on his mind when he was sitting in the garage putting components together...

Similarly I can wax poetic all I want about the negative affect of agriculture, industrialization, technological advances and overpopulation but does that mean I am not going to take advantage of blackberries out of season, or fresh organic eggs, or five different kinds of melons none grown within 2000 miles of me?? No, I'm not. Are any of you?

When comparing Empires I was not indicating the current is better in comparison to the last, I'm asking a question "Which was better?" Take it at face value, I want to know how we can improve and what should be done.

We can't change the past, nor go back to it. We also have a tendency to glorify it. However if one lived anywhere a prior to modern conveniences most of the place smelled like an alley that our current homeless frequent as both you and your neighbor emptied your chamber pot into the street every morning. Those glorious hunters and gatherers were nomads (I'll be waiting to be corrected again) because they made a mess of the summer hunting grounds and with carcasses, feces, waste it stunk and you moved on and came back when the smell was better and the wildlife got a chance to replenish itself. In North America the mastodon was wiped out when man arrived to this continent and exterminated it.

But my statement still stands, it'll take selfishness to get us to move forward, to find a system to live when we have twice or ten times as many people on this planet. Look at the population charts every hundred years, despite wars, plagues, epidemics we are still growing unbounded. How will we handle it 100 year from now??

Enough potshots....lets discuss solutions!!

[Pathless]

Okay, I'll bite again.

Originally Posted by wil

I didn't mean to say Bill Gates invented the internet, nor is he my saviour. He did state that he intended to see a computer at every desk and was laughed at. Without that vision the average joe like me would not have one at home and hence the internet would not be available to me.

Would this necessarily be such a bad thing? I know that the internet is convenient for all of us, and allows us to have access to a vast amount of information instantaneously, whereas before we may have had to search in books or ask other people, or even go without knowing certain pieces of information. The internet can be seen as just another manifestation of our need for faster, faster, now, now, now: instant gratification. Rather than see technological progress as an implicit good, I think it is prudent to measure benefits along with the malaise and discontent that industrialized and computerized technologies also bring into our lives--and also the effect that those innovations have on other human beings in other parts of the world, as well as animals, plants, and the Earth as a whole.

Similarly I can wax poetic all I want about the negative affect of agriculture, industrialization, technological advances and overpopulation but does that mean I am not going to take advantage of blackberries out of season, or fresh organic eggs, or five different kinds of melons none grown within 2000 miles of me?? No, I'm not. Are any of you?

I drink coffee that comes from South America, tea that comes from I'm not sure where. I eat bread that is mass-produced, I take advantage of imported dates and grapes because I like them and they are good for me. But do I need these things? Not really, although I certainly would be upset and need to adjust if I couldn't drink coffee when I want or eat grapes; or similarly if I didn't have access to medicine, yes, I would be in bad shape. But what doesn't get asked is what is the cost of all of this? Whether we take advantage of it or like it or not, what is its cost? How long can it last? The cost of the coffee I drink is not just fair trade wages paid to workers in Colombia or Guatemala. It's loss of biodiversity as well. It's loss of traditional ways of living. Is that worth my want of coffee? But it's not just me... the coffee is there, it is being "produced" from the land, so why not enjoy it? It's a complicated set of situations: the people that grow the coffee need work because the land must be put to use in the name of development and progress. They might have used to just gather food from their tropical landbase, hunted animals, but no more. Why? Because of progress and development--the encroachment of industrial civilization and the capitalist way of life.

Can you understand that no one asks these people if they would like to become "civilized"? Can you also understand that no one ever asked us, as citizens born into civilization? It's a given. But what is implicit in that given which is hardly ever examined is that civilization is based on a consumptive mode of ever-increasing expansion. Okay, fine. Always growing, always getting better through innovation and progress--that's good, right? It brings advances in medicine, food distribution, transportation, communication. It brings the world together, provides for global exchange of products and ideas. This is the paradigm of western/globalized civilization. What's not to love, right?

That's okay as far as people love it, although there are some of us who feel violated by it and conscripted into it. But then, we benefit from it, right? So who are we to complain? We don't know how good we've got it. Well, again, I say: no one asked me if I wanted to live in this ultra-modern, civilized fashion. But whatver, it's how things are, so I have to get over it to an extent.

Fine. But there's another factor that intersects the expansionist/innovative trend of global civilization, which I've been trying to bring up here, but so far it's been pretty well ignored in favor of the rhetoric of improvement, progress, and now the request of "soultions." But the fact that we live on a finite planet is a fact and it won't go away, no matter how much we strive to improve things. Even if we did have a global free-energy machine, we only have so much water and land, and so cannot keep on expanding, innovating, and growing forever. Trillions of people living the high life is simply not a possibility.

Originally Posted by wil

When comparing Empires I was not indicating the current is better in comparison to the last, I'm asking a question "Which was better?" Take it at face value, I want to know how we can improve and what should be done.

Well, I don't think that was exactly your tone, but the internet text communication thing is not very tuned into subtlties, so I'll take your word for it. So you want to know "how we can improve and what should be done." Unfortunately, I don't have a nice answer for you, wil. As I've just said above, I don't think that we can go on improving infinitely. Not even G!d seems to be ready to supply us with infinite land, water, and energy. There seem to be limits. So, when we face those facts, what needs to be done seems to be clear: we need to dramatically revise how we live. When you are ready to talk about that, I'll be glad to.

Originally Posted by wil

We can't change the past, nor go back to it. We also have a tendency to glorify it. However if one lived anywhere a prior to modern conveniences most of the place smelled like an alley that our current homeless frequent as both you and your neighbor emptied your chamber pot into the street every morning. Those glorious hunters and gatherers were nomads (I'll be waiting to be corrected again) because they made a mess of the summer hunting grounds and with carcasses, feces, waste it stunk and you moved on and came back when the smell was better and the wildlife got a chance to replenish itself. In North America the mastodon was wiped out when man arrived to this continent and exterminated it.

I think this is all pretty much your own imagined interpretation, except maybe the mastadon bit, but I'm not even sure about that.

Originally Posted by wil

But my statement still stands, it'll take selfishness to get us to move forward, to find a system to live when we have twice or ten times as many people on this planet. Look at the population charts every hundred years, despite wars, plagues, epidemics we are still growing unbounded. How will we handle it 100 year from now??

And I stand my ground in my position as well. Those expanding population charts are a big problem. I understand your argument as far as it goes: that selfishness is valuable for technological innovation in a capitalist society; however, I don't accept that we can continue with that model and survive. We need to learn to cooperate in small groups, regionally addressing the concerns of not only the human populations, but the land and other animals as well. That should be our very first priority when we wake up every morning. If it is, I think other factors will begin to fall into place.

Originally Posted by wil

Enough potshots....lets discuss solutions!!

Don't feel too persecuted, wil. We can disagree and still be friends, as a high school teacher of mine used to say. It helps me to feel heard by you, though. Do you understand where I am coming from? Do you understand my concerns about finite "resources"? Also, do you feel understood by me? Have I demonstrated that I understand your position? If not, let me know what I'm missing, and I'll wrap my head around that to the best of my ability.

Peace,
P

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by wil

yes I believe making money was on his mind when he was sitting in the garage putting components together...

My statement still stands that not every human being creates and invents for profit. Some people are just creative and inventive. I think the historical and contemporary evidence agrees with me.

Similarly I can wax poetic all I want about the negative affect of agriculture, industrialization, technological advances and overpopulation but does that mean I am not going to take advantage of blackberries out of season, or fresh organic eggs, or five different kinds of melons none grown within 2000 miles of me?? No, I'm not. Are any of you?

I do my best to buy local. I get whatever produce is sent to me by my local organic CSA farm. They also produce fresh organic eggs and organic grass-fed beef. Most of the time, I cook from scratch, so I know where my ingredients came from and what is going into my dinner. I admit I don't have the luxury to do otherwise- I became to allergic to the pesticides and preservatives, dyes and other crap that is in food that isn't organic, pre-packaged, and trucked in from God-knows-where. For my own health as well as the earth's health, local organic agriculture and actually cooking my own food is my best option.

Sure, under my current life of working 50+ hours a week, I can't grow all my own food. But I do my best to support local, organic agriculture.

Take it at face value, I want to know how we can improve and what should be done.

I think the first road toward improvement is the end of empires. Second is to have a cultural value on cooperation and inter-dependency.

Snoopy basically summed up how I feel- if we see ourselves as distinct beings from others, that is the start of faulty and short-sighted decision-making, of fear, of hate, and of greed.

We can't change the past, nor go back to it. We also have a tendency to glorify it.

We can't change it or go back (without perhaps some innovations from modern physics) but that doesn't mean the future won't gravitate toward it once more. Time isn't really linear- perhaps it is cyclical.

I don't glorify the past, but I call it as I see it. Was life harder in some ways for human beings? Well, it was certainly shorter and less comfortable. But it also had a lot more free time to spend with family and on the arts. The average hunter-gatherer worked 20-25 hours a week, *including* making shelters and tools, doing dishes, etc. The rest of the time they played games, told stories, sang and played music, and just hung out as family groups. The average American works something like 50 hours a week, *before* going grocery shopping, doing dishes and laundry, mowing the yard, and washing the car. Sure, we live a lot longer, but to do what? To accumulate crap, clean it all, organize it all, and slave away for our next weekend.

Whether one is better than the other is a matter of perspective.

Whether one is more sustainable than the other is a matter of scientific fact.

I like my hot showers and neo-Victorian gothic clothes and plethora of interesting food to eat. But I'm not going to lie and act like that's somehow better for the earth than the days when people bathed in a river, wore the same two skins for years on end, and ate what was locally available in the wild. I'm not going to turn mindsets that aren't sustainable into values.

Those glorious hunters and gatherers were nomads (I'll be waiting to be corrected again) because they made a mess of the summer hunting grounds and with carcasses, feces, waste it stunk and you moved on and came back when the smell was better and the wildlife got a chance to replenish itself.

Sorry, wil, I just hand out facts if I have them. I'm not attacking you personally or anything. In some cases, this is true. In other cases, it isn't. Depends on the individual culture and how long they stayed in a given location, and how big the group was, etc. No matter how you slice it, though, it was more sustainable than we are now. This is why 90% of human history was hunting and gathering, and relatively stable. And this is why the last 10% of human history is increasingly unstable and outstripping the resource base.

In North America the mastodon was wiped out when man arrived to this continent and exterminated it.

This is actually highly debatable in the literature and many (perhaps most) archaeologists do not agree with this theory.

my statement still stands, it'll take selfishness to get us to move forward, to find a system to live when we have twice or ten times as many people on this planet. Look at the population charts every hundred years, despite wars, plagues, epidemics we are still growing unbounded. How will we handle it 100 year from now??

We won't. It's that simple. We can't have 2 or 4 or 10 times the people we have now. Nature is self-correcting and we're going to soon see our population be checked; there are many big disasters looming to do this. Selfishness or not, if people don't learn to put aside their greed, it will continue to get worse until those "four horsemen" step up their act.

Enough potshots....lets discuss solutions!!

Solutions that are based on the continuity of an unsustainable system like US capitalism? (Which is really faux capitalism, by the way...)

Or solutions that are based on sustainability?

Or some modification of the former as a band-aid that might extend our society's golden era a little while longer?

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

My statement still stands that not every human being creates and invents for profit.

We won't. It's that simple. We can't have 2 or 4 or 10 times the people we have now. Nature is self-correcting and we're going to soon see our population be checked; there are many big disasters looming to do this. Selfishness or not, if people don't learn to put aside their greed, it will continue to get worse until those "four horsemen" step up their act.

Solutions that are based on the continuity of an unsustainable system like US capitalism? (Which is really faux capitalism, by the way...)

Or solutions that are based on sustainability?

Or some modification of the former as a band-aid that might extend our society's golden era a little while longer?

Namaste Path,

I'm not worried about you disagreeing, I welcome it as well as the rest. But you realize while you may say that the hunter gatherer is more sustainable, this may be true in limited areas and limited populations. The hunter gatherer had to defend/kill for his hunting grounds. You know the anthropology, you have the education, I don't, but we can all see that population growth hasn't stopped and isn't likely to any time soon. World populations it appears have been doubling every 125-150 years whilst we've the flu epidemic killing 25 million in 1918, WWI, WWII, German, Chinese, Russian and African genocides in the past 150 years haven't slowed that growth one bit.

100 years, and 1000 years ago, folks moved because it was too crowded, unsustainable.

I say we better plan for double and double and double because it will happen. And once again, I am not married to the US system, capitalism, I am asking what country current or past has a system that we should be looking at for our future?

[path_of_one]

Hunting and gathering worked in practically all locations, but yes, at low population levels. People didn't really defend/kill others much for territory; in most cases, it was self-regulating (through long interbirth spacing and short lifespan). Of course, it's not a possibility until most of the world's populace dies. I'm just saying it was, overall, a dumb move on the part of humans to domesticate stuff and go down the road of hoard-dom.

In terms of what works better- I think real capitalism would beat what we have going on in the States. I also think socialist democracy would work better- tends to yield higher education rates, better health care, more vacation and family time, and much lower consumption. You still get to vote and whatnot, but you just forfeit your shot at way more cash than you should have anyway. That's my take on it anyway.

After talking to people who lived in Austria, France, and Germany... it just seemed they had a much better deal. Free college education. Free healthcare. My Austrian professor said that in Austria she had six weeks of vacation a year (that is government regulated), two extra paychecks per year in summer and Christmas, and free college. And free healthcare. And they had universal programs to help parents with childcare. Sweden (I think it is) gives new moms/dads 18 months of government support and holds their jobs (last I heard)- they can split it between them, take it part time, whatever.

Basically, I think any system would work better where we close up the rapidly and alarmingly increasing inequality gap here in the US, all forfeit a little bit of the consumption-happy culture, and trade it for some real benefits: better health, better nutrition, better child care, better education, better communities.

There is something wrong with any country (like the US) that has such a high level of wealth and yet:
25%+ of the population has no health care.
More than half those in poverty are children.
College educations at even state schools are rapidly becoming unaffordable by the middle class.
People can't buy even a tiny starter home.
People eat junk because they can't afford decent, healthy food.
Some of the highest crime rates (especially violent crime) in the first world.
Etc. etc.

It's not that hard to do something different (in theory). We have several good European countries that have excellent health care, educational systems, and emphasis on building family time to look to for blueprints. Our problem in the US is we always want to be the best, the right ones, the greatest nation on earth. And most people are content to live with the inequality, the instability, and the crime in the *hope* that maybe one day they will magically make a million dollars.

Consumerism is simply unsustainable. And we are reaching critical limits. By nearly all scientific accounts I read (both social and environmental), there is no way we can continue to double. Invariably, we *will* hit up against the finite nature of the earth and her resources. How do I think this will occur? Not war. Not disease. Famine. Big time famine. Probably following some more decades of global warming and loss of fossil fuels on which our agricultural system is dependant.

Before we get to that point, while we still have a shot at it, it would help a ton if we reallocated an awful lot of this wealth to better health care, reproductive care, education, and marketing time off rather than buying stuff. Plain and simple, it just isn't right that some people get to buy ten houses and others don't get a house at all.

And truth be told... if there is any truth to the message of social justice that Jesus preached... basing society on selfishness and greed isn't helping *anyone.* The CEO who makes millions every year and buys ten houses- he's going to die just like everyone else, and you can't take all that crap with you. It doesn't help anyone's soul to be a slave to consumerism. Just look at the incredibly high rates of depression in the US, including among the rich. You can't buy joy. So I just see the whole thing as a big waste of resources...

[wil]

An example of selfishness in my book, her story below.

I accused her of selfishness, she said, "Yes, I suppose I am selfish in terms of my enthusiasm to evolve into my highest self for the benefit of the one we all are."

I'm an adventurer (aren't we all?), travel enthusiast, idealist, dreamer, a wife and homemaker, a mother, a cancer survivor, and a social and business entrepreneur. My greatest adventure now is to know and understand myself so I can become my highest self in alignment with how our world is evolving.

I embrace change whenever and as often as it happens in my life. I've been an avid traveler since 1977 which I believe has deeply enriched my life.

Born in the Philippines, I started my professional career with the government of the Philippines then joined the private sector in 1983. Left my job a year after when marriage and the spirit and energy of Kathmandu beckoned. My mom and friends (except my best friend) thought I was crazy for listening to my heart and not my head but time proved them wrong.

I’ve been living in Kathmandu since1984. It's been a blessing to have relocated here as it has made me less materialistic and more spiritual, live more simply and keep learning, growing in self-awareness, loving, helping, and connecting with myself, others, nature, and God. Within the first year in Kathmandu, I took the 10-day Vipassana meditation course with Goenka and though I haven't been a regular practitioner, I continue to benefit from the learning in so many ways.

I resumed my management career by joining the private sector, international and national development organizations, and some of our self-created enterprises. Our son Milind joined Megh and myself in 1997 and we continue to learn, grow in love, and live simply and meaningfully. He's now in grade 5, a free spirit, an 'indigo child' growing into a fine, loving, sensitive, articulate young lad.

I've left the 9-5 work routine since 2005, thankfully, and set up a social and business enterprise Phelge Nepal Pvt Ltd to promote, along ethical principles, fine quality crafts of Nepal using natural materials, hand processing skills passed down through generations, and clean technologies.

[path_of_one]

Wil-- I can only say that your definition of selfishness is not the usual connotation in American usage. I think we're talking past each other here. I've already said that I don't think it's selfish to work toward having the basics met and some enjoyment in life. What's selfish is the extreme that many Americans push consumerism to, without regard for others.

This lady sounds like she's thinking of other people as she's making her decisions. That doesn't sound selfish to me.

From the dictionary:

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Selfishness is, by definition, excessive focus on oneself and a disregard for others.

So you can see why I think it's a lousy basis for society, which necessitates group survival and cooperation, so that it is sustainable long term.

This lady doesn't sound selfish to me at all. She sounds concerned about other people AND herself, which is fine in my book.

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Wil-- I can only say that your definition of selfishness is not the usual connotation in American usage. I think we're talking past each other here. I've already said that I don't think it's selfish to work toward having the basics met and some enjoyment in life. What's selfish is the extreme that many Americans push consumerism to, without regard for others.

This lady sounds like she's thinking of other people as she's making her decisions. That doesn't sound selfish to me.

From the dictionary:

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Selfishness is, by definition, excessive focus on oneself and a disregard for others.

So you can see why I think it's a lousy basis for society, which necessitates group survival and cooperation, so that it is sustainable long term.

This lady doesn't sound selfish to me at all. She sounds concerned about other people AND herself, which is fine in my book.

Exactly. As I see it most that were magnamonous in the end, to the nth degree. Carnegie-Melon started with Carnegie and Melon...huge foundations which have helped enourmously were originated by quite selfish men prior to becoming selfless.

Bill Gates was out to make money, lots of it, in the end donating billions to a foundation, yeah he could have been oh so selflless earlier and cut the prices of his software by what $20 a box? Instead it is like a form of natural taxation, those with the werewithal to buy his software and the computers funded the foundation.

Heinz, millions on condiments, known to be as one way as the come, the foundation gives off over 50 million a year...

Yes there are the Ghandis and Mother Theresas of the world, but I even see them as first working on themselves, raising themselves up and then it allowed them to be who they become and do sooo much more.

So yes, I say work on yourself to the nth degree, disregard the welfare of others so you can have such skill or talent in some field to be able to benefit folks long after your gone!

As Mila said, "Yes, I suppose I am selfish in terms of my enthusiasm to evolve into my highest self for the benefit of the one we all are." Yes the ends justify the means.

[Ciel]

Wil,

Ever thought of standing for President...........

At the very least I would love you as Englands Prime Minister.

- c -

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by wil

So yes, I say work on yourself to the nth degree, disregard the welfare of others so you can have such skill or talent in some field to be able to benefit folks long after your gone!

I say work on yourself to the nth degree, while keeping the welfare of others in mind. That doesn't mean having a short-term planning horizon (i.e., cutting the price of SW by $20 today rather than donating millions tomorrow).

But I still say that the crux of the matter is what "working on yourself" entails.

The bulk of Americans are self-centered and never do benefit anyone. Sorry to be a downer, but that's what I see. A whole lot of mindless accumulation, trying to look younger/better, focus on materialism. Most people are not Bill Gates or Heinz. Most people wind up spending the bulk of their lives and money on mindless consumerism, and no one benefits in the end. And for those vast crowds, I stand by what I say- they'd be better off working for the benefit of everyone now- reducing their consumption, donating whatever they can (including their free time), etc.

You keep pointing out the small percentage of geniuses whose life's work impacts society in a major way. I'm talking about the majority whose life's work won't, and whose overall trends do nothing but hasten unsustainability. Without engineering society and culture to keep people planning for the long-term, to keep them working for sustainability and cooperation... we're sunk. Even Bill Gates' fabulous work through his foundation is currently swallowed up by the accumulated negative effects of the millions of other Americans whose lives, time, and money are dedicated to over-consumption with complete disregard for others.

Working on yourself is a far cry from selfishness, as the dictionary definition points out.

As Mila said, "Yes, I suppose I am selfish in terms of my enthusiasm to evolve into my highest self for the benefit of the one we all are." Yes the ends justify the means.

Mila wasn't selfish by the dictionary definition.

And personally, I never feel the ends justifies the means. Wrong motivation/intent/focus always gives rise to perpetuating wrong, in my opinion. Whatever lies on the surface in the short-term is not indicative of what manifests long-term due to intent. Energy and will matters. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have had the whole discussion about the plate that appears clean but is really dirty. Nor would He have talked about the many works in His name that do not matter (all those that say "Lord, Lord" and He tells them to depart from Him, for He does not know them).

Our intent matters, if you are a follower of Christ. Jesus says quite clearly that the ends do NOT justify the means.

Of course, you are free to disagree with Him... but the combination of following Christ and an earth-based faith (that incorporates magic/energy work) does not allow me to do the same...

[wil]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Most people wind up spending the bulk of their lives and money on mindless consumerism, and no one benefits in the end. And for those vast crowds, I stand by what I say- they'd be better off working for the benefit of everyone now- reducing their consumption, donating whatever they can (including their free time), etc.

This is where I guess I need an education.

Lets say I'm into decadance, opulence, mindless consumerism, conspicous consumption.

I've got three mansions, a 200 foot yacht, and spend my days as a venture capitalist.

a. I've got a staff of 25 in my main office finding me deals to invest in, what would their families do if I quit?

b. I've got another staff of 40 as nanny and teachers for my kids, house staffs, boat staffs, what would there families do if I quit.

c. I invest about 10 million a year in startups, half of which fail, one third about break even and are able to pay me back in 10 years, and 1/12 do well and 1/12 are homeruns which make me over triple my money back the first year...If I don't do it, what will these creative people do that need millions to build factories that employ thousands of others??

d. I like a new yacht every few years...that keeps another 20 people employed.

e. I throw parties that are rediculous, but all that money goes somewhere.

f. I pay a ton of taxes

g. I donate to a ton of charities, just had a new neo natal wing of the hospital in my name...why do I donate? It saves me taxes, and gets my picture in the paper, and makes me look good. I donate because I'm selfish.

As a matter of fact every penny, every million I spend goes out to keep people employed somewhere, baking bagels, farming, working in factories,...and oh, I buy art to, I particuarly like to support up and coming artists as an investment. It puts food on their table before their talent is discovered and like my business ventures about one in twelve actually makes it big, the rest I'm just supporting because I like their stuff. And when my friends see there work in my house...they buy their stuff too!

What am I missing, without consumerism of the opulent, how do I keep my job??

Whether I am a carpenter, computer programmer, farmer, waitress, cook, or bottle washer I am a benefactor of the trickle down....everybody spends and it allows me to make a living.

[wil]

It looks like I'm about to prove my previous rumbling may have been correct.

Let's look at the big elephant in the room.

I say work on yourself to the nth degree, while keeping the welfare of others in mind. That doesn't mean having a short-term planning horizon (i.e., cutting the price of SW by $20 today rather than donating millions tomorrow).

Short sighted vs. long term...

Oil companies. Big oil is getting lambasted for big profits. Forget that they've had big losses. Forget that they've been nailed for every conceivable environmental bill and issue we can get them on. Look at the profits they've made the past couple of years, Congress do something about it, tax the piss out of em!

Well take the profits that big oil has had against the risk. You know risk vs. reward, how much did they invest vs. how much did they make, or what about percentage, how much do they make a gallon? I'll save ya, its pennies per gallon. If they gave back all the money at the pump we wouldn't notice the difference. When I was a kid I saw a gas war and saw fuel less than a quarter per gallon in Arizona. I bought gas for 99 cents in Alaska in '85, we'll never see teens, never see 99 cents again, and it ain't because of big oil. Take a look at how much at the pump is taxes, and then of course there is the stores tax on income, and the distributors, and the big oil corporation...

So whose fault is it the oil companies are so big....err...I don't know, everyone who drives a car or turns on a light or uses anything in a plastic container or buys any produce or any product raise your hand....Yes you hunters and gatherers may sit down and quit smirking, the rest of us, we created it.

More oil leaks into the ocean every hour naturally than the Exxon valdeez leaked....We don't let them build refineries or drill in the ANWAR or the gulf or offshore but we want them to reduce their profits. They'd love to invest all their profits, in drilling, refineries and research if we'd let them, but we won't.

Big oil is selfish, they want to keep making profits, and we are the beneficiaries...yeah we complain about pollution as we mow our lawn with an inneficient engine that is worse than a jumbo jet at idle. We complain as we buy our tickets to fly overseas, we complain at the pump about the price, but we won't move within biking distance to work. Now I know that isn't all of us...only 99% the rest of you can go and sit and smirk with the hunter gatherers.

[Pathless]

In a way, the world-view of the party imposed itself most successfully on the people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them, and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening.

--George Orwell, 1984

[Pathless]

Wil,

You are continuing to approach this issue as if resources are infinite, or infiinitely recyclable. Oil especially is not infinite, nor is it recyclable.

Believe it or not, I am not smirking smugly. My brow is furrowed, I'm frowning. You have systematically ignored the points that I've brought up about finite resources. In a way, I guess that's okay; it's your thread, and it is about selfishness and society, not finite resources. I'm the one who made the connection between selfishness and the wasteful and heedless consumption of the Earth's finite resources.

You continue to argue this line that big business and (corporate) capitalism benefit all. After all, if Andrew Carnegie didn't employ all those steel workers and throw crazy parties, ordering salami and liquor from caterers and moonshiners, who would have put bread on those people's plates, right?

This is where I go back to indigenous people. Please allow me the indulgence here, even if you don't immediately see its relevance, or are tired of me beating this dead horse.

Christopher Columbus shows up on the shores of South America. He is looking for gold. He puts the natives to work looking for gold. Let's ignore how he chops off their hands if they don't "produce" gold for him, and look simply at the fact that suddenly he is imposing his will on a previously indepedent and sovereign people, who welcomed him as he arrived on their land. He effectively says, "You will now work for me."

This is the story of industry, I think. We have individuals, companies, and corporations who assume positions of supremacy and power over the land and over animals (including people). They bend land and animals (including people) to their will, in the name of industry and progress. They pay their workers, and call it good.

Meanwhile, the workers may be grateful for the work and the money, or they may be disgruntled, or they may be somewhere in between. In the long run, it doesn't really matter, because with the rise of industrialization and large-scale agriculture, the land is becoming increasingly destabilized.

Even if everyone was happy with the master-slave arrangement that (corporate) capitalism brings (perhaps in a beautiful disguise, if you see it that glamorous way), it is still lethal because, eventually, its insatiable appetite for industry and progress runs into the problem of limited resources.

But the machine has insinuated itself so well among the people that very few are willing to stare ahead and see the cliff (or wall) that is coming. Many people are distracted by the neat colors whizzing by the windows, or have turned their attentions to the DVD players and other gizmos that have been situated inside the high-speed vehicle of industry and progress.

Wheeeeeeeeee....

BAM!!

Oh ****, we hit the wall. Someone call an ambulance. Oops, the ambulance can't make it. Paramedics are very busy and also dealing with the resource shortages, which meands they can only help a very limited number of people. Unfortunately, this wreck didn't make the cut. Crap. Anyone know CPR? Is there a doctor in the house?

I know, metaphors... sheesh.

I'll see if you respond to this post. If not, I probably will just start ignoring this thread and leave you to your line of thought, which you seem intent on pursuing regardless of my arguments against anyway...

[Bishadi]

Bullshit.

Selfishness is not a virtue, and it is not a force for the greater good.

simply put… yep.

Selfishness can isolate thinking of a person, as if nothing else exists, so to damage another has no inert responsibility.

Without community or a consistent observation of the ‘total’ organism of a society, eventually it becomes 2008. What we have now!

Dear Gawd. I don't understand.

Let him who hath understanding…….. reckon ………this is pretty universal

Firstly, I'd like to say that selfishness is a fact of life. What do I mean by this? Humans are animals. Just like any other animal we are bound by the laws of natural selection. If you can't compete, you don't survive.

Logical, early modern and the sounds of a father trying to instill a desire to succeed but that isolating self, is the cause of all evil.

For example; if selfishness is a fact of life, then you should not have a job. As you are not looking out for yourself but conforming to a paradigm.

Without greed I'd doubt we'd even have TV, or telephone, yeah it might be out there, but who would have manufactured it without profits, who would have advertised and transported it without profits, what shows would be on without commercials?

sad but possibly true. Then again, you are speculating what could have been such that if Edison never damaged Tesla, we would have free energy.

we are completely disconnected from nature while heedlessly consuming nature's "products."

It cannot last. That is the reality we are dealing with.

in a Moore’s law kind of way…. Sad but true.

For some to have the wealth they have, many more others must exist at extreme poverty levels.

each is a serf in a capitalistic regime but don’t know it.

Then another commercial will share what sounds good and then onward…. Another need. Almost like a pusher; ‘you must believe or you will burn in hell’ The point is, we do not need oil and it is easy to share how, but most do not comprehend or choose to find out for themselves; just the same with theology.

Many actually believe what a few misleading ideas suggest.

This is where I guess I need an education.

Lets say I'm into decadance, opulence, mindless consumerism, conspicous consumption.

Then you are the head of a pyramid that as you have all the good from all four sides to see and enjoy life, below you, many are getting crushed.

Many close below, get a portion, and the ones below them see a new step to reach but all in all, the majority are left hopelessly under foot, in the dark.

But in the light of things, if you are that wealthy then be a white horse and contribute for the benefit of mankind. The reason the truth is not all over right this very minute is that not only does each exposed needs to try but that each must contribute to further the knowledge. So when the ‘white horse’ stands, then a new wave of life giving knowledge furthers for the total.

In a sense it is primarily of selfishness that knowledge has not progressed for the benefit of mankind. For example: MIT is making ‘tape’ and adhesives with the scientific data of entanglement/casimir/van der waals force……. When in fact (I can prove it or I would not say it), that is the missing link (gravity) to the whole cosmological sciences. The data was shared in a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) where a wavelength for rubidium reflects the entangled state or energy upon mass in a reproducible form. But these guys are not looking for answers, they have products to produce for the corporate sponsors. So again, at the expense of us (we the people) our educational facilities are using knowledge for the purpose of a product (tape) rather than pursuing the truth, first.

It is one reason why I quit all institutional pursuits, no one will own the truth.

Meaning, just as the ‘adhesives’ being produced with Casimir (nano tubules) form, the physics as to exactly how it is occurring do not conform to any relativity models, so here they are working on a form that could be answering questions for life and the medical field, yet there is no intent….. as if there is nothing to gain, the pursuit is not performed. And what cracks me up is I have their data and use it to build.

Selfishness can be seen as inbred into our society even at the level that seems should retain absolute integrity.

But a personal favorite comes to mind;

"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."

Socrates