Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Sergarr]

hence why I've said previously that humans are shit at long-term decision making

this is why elites are always shitlites

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Snip.

I am not from a camp who believes that "natural" things are better than "artificial" and it will stay that way forever. It is hard to create a stable planetwide ecosystem and so far our tech doesn't allow that but progress never stops.

[mainiac]

To all you anthropologists: RELATIVE TO WHAT?

[Zangi]

Snip.

I am not from a camp who believes that "natural" things are better than "artificial" and it will stay that way forever. It is hard to create a stable planetwide ecosystem and so far our tech doesn't allow that but progress never stops.

So... uhh... ya, fuck yea, humanity!  Lets make our own environments!

Its something humans would try to do after things get fucked up enough(by humanity).  So sure.

[Loud Whispers]

Not really sergarr-- Humans cooperate only where it suits them personally, and specifically, only where they see a direct payoff.
Killing off fossil fuel use, to escape the anthropocene mass extinction?  "What about my stock prices! OMG!"
That's the problem.

Fuck you China, back to destitution and humiliation! Stop being selfish!

[SirQuiamus]

Hmmm... What comes to that "altruism only for the altruistic" thing: As far as I understand it, altruism in the biological sense is any behaviour that benefits another individual regardless of the immediate cost to the first individual. It is an evolved trait that could only have come into being by way of group selection within genetically homogenous populations, such as prehistoric human tribes for example. From a cold, evolutionary perspective, pure altruism is profoundly anachronistic in a diverse, large-scale human society such as ours: What kind of mechanism could possibly promote such behaviour among genetically unrelated individuals? It doesn't stand to reason (says the liberalist). It's no wonder that self-interest is regarded as a more "rational" motivator for human behaviour, and altruism is regarded as a specific subset of self-interest – a reciprocal cost-benefit gamble. For the rational homo economicus, the only reason to help others is to receive help in the future, and of course, this implies that such "altruism" is limited to helping (exclusively human) individuals that are capable and willing to offer their help in return. What I'm saying is that once altruism is qualified with some additional heuristic of mutual benefit, such as "only helping altruistic people," it turns into your run-of-the-mill cooperative egoism – the very thing that's currently shitting up our societies and our planet.

[Sergarr]

For the rational homo economicus

Aaaand you lost me.

FYI altruism is not rational for an individual. It's rational for society as a whole.

[smjjames]

To all you anthropologists: RELATIVE TO WHAT?

I dunno, the Antareans from Betelguese V? What exactly is your question?

[SirQuiamus]

@Serg:

Wikipedia is your friend.

Also, remember that some people (such as libertarians) think that society as a whole does not exist.

[Sergarr]

@Serg:

Wikipedia is your friend.

Also, remember that some people (such as libertarians) think that society as a whole does not exist.

1) I know what :homo economicus: is. Humans are not "homo economicus", in general.

2) That's the first time I've heard about people denying the very existence of society.

[mainiac]

What exactly is your question?

What exactly do all of these relative terms devoid of reference mean?

[ChairmanPoo]

interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/opinion/paul-krugman-ending-greeces-bleeding.html

[Helgoland]

A SPIEGEL article about Varoufakis' resignation. Interestingly there is the theory that it was Syriza's right wing who wanted to see him go.

That article also explains a bit about why he's not that well-liked among the Germans and the institution negotiators.

[smjjames]

What exactly is your question?

What exactly do all of these relative terms devoid of reference mean?

Which terms devoid of reference are you talking about? You're the one being vague now.

[Antsan]

Governments are product of evolution. If they were as ineffective as anarchists claim they wouldn't exist.

Ineffective at what is the question. They are certainly ineffective at what I'd like them to do, that is, providing base necessities.

All notions of "most humans are egoists" are just libertarian propaganda.

What kind of libertarian?

@debate about altruism:
Social Darwinism hides everywhere.
We are talking about our concrete lives, not the potential lives of fifty generations in the future.
I don't know about most people, but I, personally, do feel very bad about homelessness, war, famine and stuff like that. Whether me caring about that stuff makes it more likely that I have much offspring in fifty generations is of no consequence to me. That's abstract, far away, inconsequential to my life. What is of consequence is that I walk past several homeless people almost every day, war is a daily occurrence and while it's not directly affecting me it still manages to make me feel bad.
And, judging by how people around me act, my feelings are not unusual. We, as humans, evolved to care about other humans. We do have empathy. There are many people who pretend that they somehow untrained their empathy and are happier due to that, but frankly, to me those existences seem mostly much poorer than my own. Maybe I'm just arrogant. I don't know.
Ignoring our feelings just because they might mean an evolutionary disadvantage is counterproductive to your own well-being and seemingly also counterproductive to your evolutionary success, if you take a look at the kind of destruction that attitude is causing.

This is still egoism and it might still fit into homo economicus. The point is that empathy is often falsely (I think) seen as a liability instead of a part of humans. It defines us and satisfying your consciousness is actually necessary for your well-being, just like food, water, sex, attention, love and all of that stuff.

@Sergarr:
The existence of society depends on your perspective, which is just another way of saying that it's subjective. It can be a useful abstraction, but sometimes it gets in the way of seeing things properly.