Egoism

[Omnis_Sathanas]

Vegetarians often fit into the same model, feeling bad about eating animals, but having no problem being part of a consumer-driven society that results in the extinction of countless species every single day. Likewise, Leftists say they want to help the workers and the poor, while at the same time they sell out national industries to foreign countries ("global co-operation", remember?) and take cabs home to their two-million-dollar-flats in the segregated suburbs (multiculturalism...for those who cannot afford better?). Liberals whine about individual freedom, but cannot see a problem in denying free religious schools a place in society, censoring Internet, and complaining about "political terrorists" - it's all about "preserving freedom".

In conclusion altruism, as a modern phenomenon, is a sickness that must be seen for what it really is: disguised egoism. Don't be fooled by another loser who wants you to "save nature" by replacing light bulbs and turning down the heat in your living room - it's insignificant in the face of global overpopulation and overconsumtion. Most people you meet will have been struck by this altruism, and constantly prattle on about how they want to "help others"; what they really want is to appear as the new Jesus of the modern age - knowing that with it comes power and a lot of cash. Morality works the same way, disregarding its preferences: death is not fun, competition means someone has to lose, and not all are fit to be leaders. Answer? "You shalt not kill", "We Are All Equal" (repeat twice every hour), "You matter too, vote for us". While it's hard (and sometimes outright impossible) to know if a person works for a task out of idealism or egoism, the key is to analyze his method and effect. An altruist claims to work 8 hours every day for humanity's sake and ignores better options if they violate individual rights (something Christians, democrats/liberals, and humanists share in common). It's as if Jesus manifested as a dysfunctional modernist, looking for the next business plan to become rich. Do what's right - nail them to the cross and let them cry, while you will spend your time creating change in this God-forsaken world of madness.

http://www.corrupt.org/articles/altruism

I'd agree that there is an inherent problem with a lot of special interest groups who don't realize that their combined efforts amount to almost nothing in the face of a destructive global system. A few do-gooders who are educated enough to see that something's wrong, but tell people to do things in line with the "every little bit helps" mentality by saying donate a few dollars to charity or turn the water off while brushing your teeth will not have enough of an effect to make any difference in the long term.

So many want to project that image into the public sphere that shows them trying to make a difference and do what's right, but won't sacrifice anything in terms of their personal lives. I'm reminded of a group of punk kids I used to know who would do drugs at their friend's concerts and sing songs about how fucked up society is, then come home and watch Simpsons and Family Guy re-runs for hours; they didn't even care whether it was consistent with their beliefs. "Dude the media sucks, but I just watch the Daily Show cause it's funny."

 

[hibernal_dream]

I find it very interesting that a text of 100 lines can be perceived as too long.

If it could be written in 25 lines then yes, easily.

 

[Blowtus]

Interesting post Cryosteel.
I'm not sure I see such a distinction between your concepts of altruism and idealism. Why does anyone care about anything? It makes them feel better, no? Short term, small picture stuff (altruism, according to you) is always much easier to understand than long term, big picture stuff. (idealism) The motives don't seem entirely seperate though - just the requirements of intelligence, ability, and probably the self esteem to ignore the mass.

Feeding starving Africans is a straightforward matter to understand - you feed a baby and it survives. Rejoice. Population control and other individually harsh, community oriented measures are much less tangible and don't make as much sense to people operating on a short term, animal level. The short term result is negative, if anything.

I had become interested in Buddhism lately, finding it's fundamentals of general interest and value, hoping there was a religion around actually doing large scale 'good'. Even though it perhaps guides individuals to 'better' long term paths, it seems that it doesn't really assist in areas of conflict between short and long term, on anything more than that individual basis. The only path I see to a broader understanding of 'long term' benefit in society is more development (and demonstration of the uses) of rational thought in general. I am not sure you could conquer the 'individual liberty' style of thinking other than by helping them conquer it themselves.

 

[hibernal_dream]

In conclusion altruism, as a modern phenomenon, is a sickness that must be seen for what it really is: disguised egoism.

Not true: An altruistic region of the brain has been found. It's not simply a case of people acting in self-interest.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/dumc-aob011807.php

 

[hibernal_dream]

Of course i'm assuming the research methods were sound, since they would know what they were doing far better than I. But I would be interested in seeing the altruistic activities they had the test volunteers do. Almost any activity can be related back to self preservation/improvement.

I guess I just don't see how any a priori philosophical nonsense such as the OP can demonstrate that altruism in humans does not exist - give me some hard evidence and i'll accept it

 

[Blowtus]

How might that region have evolved if not because it allows one's genes to propagate? The research may well show that the motivation to help others corresponds with activity in a certain part of the brain - it doesn't show that this part of the brain's ultimate function is anything other than preservation of the self.

This article - http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/060529_altruism.htm - suggests it could be a case of 'group survival' - members of groups with altruistic members are more likely to have the opportunity to propagate, even if the ones performing the altruism limit / destroy their own ability.

 

[Blowtus]

That doesn't explain cells 'choosing' to die without reproducing though.
From the article I linked above:

Volvox cells have a division of labor. All but 16 permanently renounce reproducing themselves to take on other jobs, such as moving the group around by swimming. A similar division occurs in most multi-cellular creatures: their cells are either “germ” cells—reproducers such as sperm and eggs—or “somatic” cells, all the others, which leave no heirs after the individual dies.

This can be seen as a profound form of altruism. By not reproducing, somatic cells commit evolutionary suicide to benefit the group. Something similar also occurs in insect colonies, which often have sterile “worker” castes.

 

[Blowtus]

Yeah. Maybe I read too much into the formula for kin selection or didn't apply it properly? Seemed to me that if C = 100% (death) that R x B couldn't be greater. Thinking now I guess it's likely that's just wrong and we both posted basically the same theory