[Jatsie]

I am of the opinion, that there is no such thing as a selfless act.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by SSH

Birth rates in the western world are too low, not enough to sustain population in many countries and need to increase or otherwise who is going to generate the wealth in 40 years time that makes the stockmarket (and thus pension funds) increase enough to support the growing number of retired people.

We can't continue to let our economic system rely on population growth, whether in the industrial or the developing world. "Sustainability" may be an overused buzz-word, but if we are planning to stick around on this planet for the long term, stabilizing (and probably reducing) the population is a non-negotiable necessity.

[SSH]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

We can't continue to let our economic system rely on population growth, whether in the industrial or the developing world. "Sustainability" may be an overused buzz-word, but if we are planning to stick around on this planet for the long term, stabilizing (and probably reducing) the population is a non-negotiable necessity.

Another reason to have more kids: let them solve the problem since I'll be dead by then

[tsa]

Originally Posted by After a brisk nap

We can't continue to let our economic system rely on population growth, whether in the industrial or the developing world. "Sustainability" may be an overused buzz-word, but if we are planning to stick around on this planet for the long term, stabilizing (and probably reducing) the population is a non-negotiable necessity.

Exactly, so we need to go through a period in which there is no money for any luxuries. We have no choice; we have to get the population down to make sure we won't destroy our environment too much.

[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I don't like giving change to beggars, because even though they might need it more than I do, I find the act of begging to be so degrading that the very thought of supporting such an act repulses me. I am, however, more than happy to give change to street musicians, if I like the music they're playing.

I'm the opposite. I give change or even dollars when I can. But for the exact reason you say you don't give change. I can't help but pity those in that situation, even if they brought it upon themselves, that they have to live off of others merely to survive. That and there isn't much way out of that. I'm pretty sure it's because of this fear I have that I'll also be a failure.

EDIT: Just read through all of the middle pages, and goddamn guys. Children = animals, yea right. Although I typically think animals deserve more respect than we give them. I almost find it offensive that you use animals to represent some lower rung of a hierarchy that you're then lowering children to. I tend to believe that humans have little right to control or use animals or that animals must have a certain personality or beauty to be appreciated.

[jacog]

We're all animals.

[Spiwak]

Exactly.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I don't support the idea that animals are in some way inferior to humans to begin with. I then don't support the idea that children are equal to a supposedly inferior group, not animals in the literal sense but the idea of an inferior group, which davies tagged as "animals." If that makes any sense.

[Squinky]

This is all I have to say.

[Jatsie]

Does a babycake follow the same principle as a fishcake?

If so, I know what I'm having for dinner.

[Squinky]

Baby flesh is tender and succulent.

[Jatsie]

Plus, once you chop off the head and bind the limbs, it fits perfectly into one of those home spit roasting machines.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

I am of the opinion, that there is no such thing as a selfless act.

Sure there is, if it's not preconcieved.

If someone reacts by jumping down to the train tracks to grab a person who just fell into them so they can pull them to safety just before being smooshed, that's selfless.

Can you imagine burning up in a building? Then imagine how selfless it is for someone to jump into the building to pull you out, without thinking about it first, at great risk to thier own safety. It happens enough--how is that not selfless?

[Jatsie]

People only perform actions, if the result produces for them a benefit of some sort.

In your examples, the average person knows that when they see somebody in imminent danger, they will feel terrible if they watch that person die. They act in order to avoid a negative consequence. They also get the secondary benefit of being a hero and the good feelings that go along with that.

[Aj_]

It's not accurate to say people only perform actions through self-interest, because people perform actions unconsciously. We are in business of consciously acting in self-interest. People running into buildings, and saving people, are either pushed by unconscious forces, or are acting consciously which, if Jat316sob is correct (this is my understanding also), would be acting in self-interest in some way or another.

[Spiwak]

I agree with jat, actually. I think basically what he's trying to say is the old Plato story of the Ring of Gyges. The story hypothesized a ring that could make the wearer invisible, and basically the idea was that if anyone, whether just or unjust, were to have such a ring they would act unjustly and mischieviously and do whatever the fuck they wanted because they didn't face the fear of retribution. And thus men do not naturally behave justly, but out of necessity to escape punishment or shame. That's example is obviously a little extreme, but if you think about it, when we do 'the right thing,' are we really doing it selflessly? I doubt it, because at the very least we do it to feel good about ourselves (or, if you're religious, to please your God), if not for the respect or material rewards we could get out of it.

[Sage]

I support the MGM Bill.

[Spiwak]

For the last couple years I've been leaning towards the feeling that I'm missing out by not having my foreskin. I wish my parents hadn't had it done to me.

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Originally Posted by Jat316sob

People only perform actions, if the result produces for them a benefit of some sort.

In your examples, the average person knows that when they see somebody in imminent danger, they will feel terrible if they watch that person die. They act in order to avoid a negative consequence.

You're assuming a lot. Does that happen (the hero is acting only to avoid the tragedy to themselves)? Probably.

Is it always the case? Is there never an occurrence of someone rushing in on instinct simply because they think that they can avoid the tragedy for the sake of the victim and not to save themselves from anguish? I don't believe so.

They also get the secondary benefit of being a hero and the good feelings that go along with that.

That would be a pre- or post-conceived notion, given at least some thought. The instinct to save someone in the moment doesn't always allow for that.

At any rate, your opinion is unpopular to me, so bravo!

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Save the foreskin!

[jacog]

Only an unpopular opinion in the US.