Print

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

[Fenrir]

All right, but you are still implying that my hypothetical desire for a golden palace is endagering the human race. I am not advocating wanton selfishness; I am trying to get nenjin to explain why we should not want the things that he says that we should not want.

Which, as I type this, he has done, but without success.

I just find it ironic that we can build gold-plated houses, rip down mountains, float cities into goddamn space....and yet we reject the idea that learning not to crave more than we can actually use is something we can't learn as a species. Like our human ego is so towering, it's more insurmountable than tearing down a mountain.

What do you mean, “actually use?” So long as it pleases us, why should we not want gold-plated houses? Why should we not want to rip down mountains? Why should we not want space cities?

[G-Flex]

All right, but you are still implying that my hypothetical desire for a golden palace is endagering the human race. I am not advocating wanton selfishness; I am trying to get nenjin to explain why we should not want the things that he says that we should not want.

It's not about wanting something being a danger to others. It's about whether or not what you want is possible to achieve without harming others.

There's nothing wrong with wanting things, but there is something wrong with your standards being so high that it's detrimental to yourself and/or the people around you.

[nenjin]

Happiness comes in many forms, from many sources. At what point is a behavior maladaptive, when doing said thing hurts you even it as it gives you exactly what you want?

Monkey gets a choice between two buttons, one gives a food pellet, the other gives liquid cocaine.

Monkey whacks the liquid cocaine dispenser until he dies of a heart attack.

Let me put it in more tangible terms.

Gamer finds most amazing game ever. Spends 14 hours at their PC a day. Becomes a diabetic. Loses social life and friends. Becomes depressed. Dies. The way they should have lived, or a trap they deliberately walked into?

What we want is not the truest indicator of what we should do, or what's best for us personally or as a species. The fuel crisis for example. It's our species wide cocaine button, and we're still pressing it because it gives us everything we want that gives us "happiness."

As for what actually uses means, you're right, it's a vague term. But if a guy wants to make rock statues to decorate their whole island with, and ends up using all the rock people would have used to make houses, it's arguable he's got more than he could ever "use" by comparison to everyone else.

Fenrir you take the position that what we choose is always right, that we're making exactly the decision we need to at that point in time. I'd argue we're not that smart or that good and we need be mindful of doing better.

[anzki4]

So long as it pleases us, why should we not want gold-plated houses? Why should we not want to rip down mountains? Why should we not want space cities?

Because there are more important things we can spend our resources?

[Fenrir]

What we want is not the truest indicator of what we should do, or what's best for us personally or as a species. The fuel crisis for example. It's our species wide cocaine button, and we're still pressing it because it gives us everything we want that gives us "happiness."

That is not what you wrote. You did not say that the gold palaces did things to us that we consider hurtful. You did not say that the mountain levelling had consequences that we did not like. You did not say that that the space cities stole resources from things that we thought were more important. You attacked humanities desire for more. You called it a hoarding disorder, but you even admitted that this was the very thing that brought humanity out of the caves.

Your examples do not relate to what you said. You were not questioning the monkey's choice of cocaine. You were questioning the monkey's desire to receive anything at all. In the gamer's story, he did not really get what he wanted; he got depressed and died.

Fenrir you take the position that what we choose is always right, that we're making exactly the decision we need to at that point in time.

No. I am taking the position that what we want can only be wrong if it is not what you want.

Because there are more important things we can spend our resources?

I did not type “why should we not build--”. I typed “why should we not want--”.

[G-Flex]

Also, the notion of individual effort for individual property (and the sanctity thereof) cannot be taken for granted in the slightest. These attitudes change depending on the society you live in and how it functions.

People, in taking it for granted, seem to have the bizarre idea that this notion is absolute and overrides any social concern. "If I can work hard enough for X, why should I not have X?" begs the question of how you're getting X in the first place. News flash: It wasn't just your hard work. All that we have and earn is not only due to our own efforts and "luck" (and how is "luck" a fair determinant of who gets what?), but also due to the collective efforts of everyone else in society making that possible. Things that we know, do, and are capable of, are also due to our upbringing and the colossal infrastructure (physical and social and intellectual) of society that exists around us, supports us, and has done so since before we were born. This is as true for a billionaire as it is for the rest of us. People aren't entirely self-made and don't exist in isolation. Sure, you might "work hard enough" to afford a solid gold house, but who's building it? Who figured out how to build them in the first place? What social and political infrastructure exists that would allow you to do so? It's rather selfish and damn near sociopathic to assume that you have no obligation to give back to the society that made you and all your efforts possible in the first place. Some degree of individual freedom and property is something I think we can all agree is useful and productive in society, but the same goes for some degree of collective obligation.

[Fenrir]

G-Flex, I hope I have not been so clumsy as to make you suppose that I was suggesting that working hard for something is sufficient for one to have it. I am merely asking nenjin why he thinks that humanity as a whole should not want shinier things at all.


In response to what you said, I would offer that it is often unclear precisely how much anyone owes society, especially considering that society is not a monolithic entity, as people contribute to varying degrees. It is not like society could send me a bill every month.

[nenjin]

You did not say that the gold palaces did things to us that we consider hurtful. You did not say that the mountain levelling had consequences that we did not like. You did not say that that the space cities stole resources from things that we thought were more important. You attacked humanities desire for more. You called it a hoarding disorder, but you even admitted that this was the very thing that brought humanity out of the caves.

We just talked about resource scarcity. Do I really need to detail the whole debate up until now to make the point there's no free lunch? I really hope not. That's the whole point of this debate. If there were such thing as a free lunch, we wouldn't be talking about Capitalism or Communism. Hence why I'm not going to talk about a society built on infinite resources. (Mostly because humans will turn whatever is scarcest around them into a commodity.)

Everything has a cost: to you, to someone else, to the environment, to the work force. Each example I cited is exactly about choice, the choice to continue doing what you want in spite of all perceived costs because it gives you what you crave. You could argue a billionaire is as addicted to amassing wealth as a rat is to getting a dose of cocaine, or a gamer is playing themselves into an early grave. Everything has a cost, and the issue with wealth is the cost is often passed down the line to other people. That's where choice becomes immoral.

As to the hoarding disorder versus caves, it's a value judgment and it continues to be relevant today. Our desires fuel innovation. We get better technology because we crave faster cars, faster computers, faster internet and better versions of things we already have. In the discussion about progress, of any kind, the costs are almost universally always downplayed AND undervalued. At a certain point you end up with diminishing returns on everything. When have we reached the point as a society, a species or an individual where we're sacrificing more to get incremental benefits (another $1.5 million in the bank, the iPad3?), and where the cost isn't being paid by the people making the choices?

[Fenrir]

We just talked about resource scarcity.

There just isn't enough gold in the ground to gold-plate everyone's palace.

Then perhaps the issue we need to address as a species ISN'T RESOURCE SCARCITY, but our ridiculous need to have gold-plated palaces. It may be the hardest thing humans have ever tried to learn, but curbing our desire for things beyond what we actually need is what I think would save us as a species.

You were not talking about resource scarcity in your post. You said so. You then go on to decide that we desire more than we need.

[nenjin]

They're two different issues linked. One side says "oh if we just solve the scarcity issue, problem solved." The other side says "gee, maybe how we treat those resources is the real issue." Like I said, in a world where food and money replicate for "free", we'll turn something else into a commodity to hoard, which eventually becomes people because they're the only resource we know we can make more of at a drop of the pants.

Resources will always be scarce, that defines the problem but not a solution. You keep trying to nail this down to single phrase arguments, like this is just a black and white issue. It's very much a gray scale. Any vegans in the house? Should we go into the basic costs involved in just staying alive?

[Fenrir]

They're two different issues linked. One side says "oh if we just solve the scarcity issue, problem solved." The other side says "gee, maybe how we treat those resources is the real issue." Like I said, in a world where food and money replicate for "free", we'll turn something else into a commodity to hoard, which eventually becomes people because they're the only resource we know we can make more of at a drop of the pants.

So, when resources are easy to get, we will start hoarding human beings instead, because they are easy to get. That does not make sense, and this does not support anything you said in the post I quoted.

Resources will always be scarce, that defines the problem but not a solution.

That is very true. Not really doing anything to support your argument that human beings should not want golden palaces, but very true.

You keep trying to nail this down to single phrase arguments, like this is just a black and white issue.

No, I am trying to nail down your argument so you will need to defend it instead of shifting it.

[nenjin]

So, when resources are easy to get, we will start hoarding human beings instead, because they are easy to get. That does not make sense, and this does not support anything you said in the post I quoted.

Use your imagination. In a world where all our material needs are accounted for and supplies unlimited, what become the one thing you CAN'T have by default? Other people's fealty, respect, support or service. Control over others. That's what becomes the scarce resource. How do you ensure that scarce resource ends up in your hands? You create more of it.

That's partly why I look askance at people's hoarding. Because I know that humans easily fit into that equation and we're not that far removed from looking at each other as meat, weighed by the pound.

No, I am trying to nail down your argument so you will need to defend it instead of shifting it.

Maybe you should start addressing it instead of saying "no", because there's not much left to respond to and your attitude is starting to annoy me.

[Criptfeind]

I know that a man is not able to make a solid gold house by himself. Society makes it for him yes. And Society demands a price on it. That price is in money. Like everything else you can put a price on a solid gold house. I am saying if someone meets that price, why should they not be able to buy it?

[nenjin]

I am saying if someone meets that price, why should they not be able to buy it?

If the man is paying the price himself, and not the price via the exploited labor and captured resources of others, they're more than entitled to it. But where do their resources come from? Is it built on the backs of others who had their "fair share" restricted so someone else's share is bigger? Does that gold house represent the share that others didn't get and don't get to partake of?

[Fenrir]

So, when resources are easy to get, we will start hoarding human beings instead, because they are easy to get. That does not make sense, and this does not support anything you said in the post I quoted.

Use your imagination. In a world where all our material needs are accounted for and supplies unlimited, what become the one thing you CAN'T have? Other people's fealty, respect, support or service. Control over others. That's what becomes the scarce resource. How do you ensure that scarce resource ends up in your hands? You create more of it.

That's partly why I look askance at people's hoarding. Because I know that humans easily fit into that equation and we're not that far removed from looking at each other as meat, weighed by the pound.

So we should not want more, simply because, one day, we might start trying to control one another? People already do that, and you are just assuming that our desire for more is only later going to strip us of our desire for a happier community. A happier community is part of that desire for more, just like the “ridiculous” golden palace. We are only more justified in wanting a happy community because it pleases us, as does the golden palace.

Maybe you should start addressing it instead of saying "no", because there's not much left to respond to.

I am addressing it, but, every time I do, you refuse to acknowledge that I am. You keep throwing this muck at me in an effort to obscure what I am trying to address, so, with every post, I am left trying to shake the mire from my paws.