Why should I care?

[cole grey]

The suffering on this planet is caused by humanity turning away from love.
Or, if we are all animals and "higher love" does not exist, it is fine that children are starving. They are just the animals that weren't surviving natural selection anyway. Why should I care? It is my job to provide comfort for my family. That is our present phase of understanding as evidenced by cultures worldwide.
We are acting like animals.

Is this selfishness just natural, and proper?



P.S. Ignore the following advertisement.

 

[marv]

Well, the last time I checked, we were animals.

 

[cole grey]

Of the hominid family, yes.
Understood.
Please let me make clear to all that I know that already.
How does it not follow that the suffering of the other animals is not my problem?
I asked the question, why should I care?

 

[Raithere]

How does it not follow that the suffering of the other animals is not my problem?
I asked the question, why should I care?

In the long run, it is generally in our own best interest to help others.

In a series of non-zero-sum games cooperation is more profitable in the long run than competition.

~Raithere

 

[Leo Volont]

Well, the last time I checked, we were animals.

The 'Self' in your dreams... is it an 'animal'?

 

[Leo Volont]

There are so many levels of Existence. While in the Human Consciousness and infused with Love we should of course do all that we can do relieve all remediable Human suffering. But, then, if we should suddenly rise to the awareness of the Avenging Angels who visit Divine Retribution upon Humanity, then, in our Love for these Angels of Vengence, we would certainly sympathize with them.

At the Level of Suffering, it is our Duty to releive suffering. If we rise to that level where we percieve Suffering as a necessary Penance, that is, where Suffering becomes perceptable to us as an actual Grace, then it would become our duty to allow Suffering to persist. For instance, I think it was Anne Catherine Emmerich who once explained that by suffering a very painful disease prior to death, that much time could be shaved off from the stay in Purgatory. While considering that logic, it would seem contraproductive to 'relieve' any of the suffering of pain, as it was pain with a purpose.

So, anyway, you can have a Moral Caring, which is most easy to understand. And then you can have a Spiritual Aloofness which understands and even perceives a purpose in the suffering it contemplates, and therefore does nothing or little a alleviate it. Yes, that may seem callous, but we must each remain true to the Vision that God give us. But the worst moral failure comes from those who do nothing to alleviate Suffering out of sheer selfishness -- that even wasting time and resources on useless personal pleasure ranks at a higher 'personal' priority than saving the lives of others and minimizing their real sufferings.

 

[cole grey]

In the long run, it is generally in our own best interest to help others.

In a series of non-zero-sum games cooperation is more profitable in the long run than competition.

~Raithere

Where do we draw the line? Which humans are included in the game? You are saying we should co-operate with the starving child if we want to preserve ourselves. That is fine but it doesn't sound like a particularly good reason to send one some food, if I can better care for my own genetic line by spending my time on something more pressing. The species will survive if we do enough co-operating to maintain a suitable ecosystem. What will we do when there is not enough food or space for those who have control over the resources to maintain their needs?

 

[one_raven]

cole grey,
Are you suggesting that (or asking if) cooperation and caring for individuals that you do not directly know should cease at the line of impeding on "Natural Selection"?
Basically following the example of the natural animal kingdom?

 

[Leo Volont]

What will we do when there is not enough food or space for those who have control over the resources to maintain their needs?

Have you read Thomas Malthus's famous "Essay on Population"? He argues that humanity is, has been, and always will be maintaining a population which exists on the very edge of subsistence. There can occassionally be interruptions in the equilibruim, as, for instance, if new productive lands become available, there will be a spurt in population growth, but where food production is cut off, there will be subsequent starvation.

Civilized Societies attempt to engineer this equilibrium with factors that it can control, by discouraging early marriages (keeping girls and young men in schools longer and longer), or discouraging marriages entirely (encouraging Religious Orders and Celebacy). Efforts can be made to keep the Population even with its Resources.

Barbaric Societies largely depend upon success in War and genocide to eliminate competing populations. Therefore, it is always in the interests of Civilized Societies to either Civilize the Barbarian Societies within reach of its borders, or to destroy them as being the deadliest of threats.

 

[duendy]

The suffering on this planet is caused by humanity turning away from love.
Or, if we are all animals and "higher love" does not exist, it is fine that children are starving. They are just the animals that weren't surviving natural selection anyway. Why should I care? It is my job to provide comfort for my family. That is our present phase of understanding as evidenced by cultures worldwide.
We are acting like animals.

Is this selfishness just natural, and proper?

It isn't 'higher love' we need, but DEEPER love. we have LOST deep connection with Nature. mANY DONT want to say 'i am animal', they want to strut their stuff imagining they are something 'better than' and superior--to animals, to plants, women and Nature

So caring is really looking into how this came about, how do we begin refreshing this long-impoverished relationship with Nature which IS us--we didn't get dropped INto Nature, we cam eOUT of Nature--

once you really do care there is no way back. and therer can be despair cause you see others dont give a shit. but encouraging your passion of caring is vitally important for you others and Nature, cause if NOone cares we are in real trouble...actually we already ARE, which is why we must care and encourage others to care by speaking our truth

P.S. Ignore the following advertisement.

ok...i will

 

[water]

As for the game theorists here:

In the long run, it is generally in our own best interest to help others.

In a series of non-zero-sum games cooperation is more profitable in the long run than competition.

Where do we draw the line? Which humans are included in the game? You are saying we should co-operate with the starving child if we want to preserve ourselves. That is fine but it doesn't sound like a particularly good reason to send one some food, if I can better care for my own genetic line by spending my time on something more pressing. The species will survive if we do enough co-operating to maintain a suitable ecosystem. What will we do when there is not enough food or space for those who have control over the resources to maintain their needs?

The problem nowadays is that the issue of cooperation has become moot, due to a long history of competition.

Presently, it is hard, if not impossible, to start cooperation, esp. with the poorest, as this would render us no return of profit.

Namely, "cooperation" with those countries usually looks like this: The richer country gives food and meds, the poorer country its natural resources (that can be used only in the richer country though!) or space for military bases. This is not cooperation, but exploitation.


If anything, it makes sense to cooperate with those closest around you. And those in the Third World ... well, in effect, all we can be is concerned, but powerless.

 

[Raithere]

Where do we draw the line? Which humans are included in the game?

I don't believe that one can simply draw a line, everyone is in the game. Personally, I am pragmatic about it weighing multiple factors (relative need, ability to help, proximal factors, responsibility to the situation, etc.). If I had unlimited means and ability, I would help everyone. (As an aside, this has interesting connotation regarding the morality of the powerful/wealthy and of god). Since I obviously do not, I help those I am most able to help as best I can.

You are saying we should co-operate with the starving child if we want to preserve ourselves. That is fine but it doesn't sound like a particularly good reason to send one some food, if I can better care for my own genetic line by spending my time on something more pressing.

It's a relative evaluation, based upon your own ethical values. "Higher" morality, IMO, is a derivation of our social nature... our need to operate in groups drove the evolution of our morality. As I stated above, I find that responsibility and proximal factors weigh into it.

You have more responsibility to your own children than to some one else's. So taking food out of your children's mouth to feed another does not make sense. But you probably didn't need a $5000 pair of rims for your Honda so perhaps you can afford to give some money to a homeless shelter or child welfare and just get the $2000 rims... it's up to you to decide. You can be selfish or contribute to the welfare of society. But if you play it as if it were a zero-sum game you will loose out in the end.

The species will survive if we do enough co-operating to maintain a suitable ecosystem. What will we do when there is not enough food or space for those who have control over the resources to maintain their needs?

The best strategy for this scenario is a modified 'tit for tat' response. If an individual or group refuses to cooperate you refuse to cooperate in return, occasionally forgiving and cooperating despite a refusal. Carl Sagan named it "The Brazen Rule 3".

~Raithere

 

[marv]

Cole, you answered your own question when you stated, "We are acting like animals." We humans are just a little more sophisticated than the rest of the fauna. We've simply risen to the top of the food chain.

 

[Raithere]

The problem nowadays is that the issue of cooperation has become moot, due to a long history of competition.

Actually, the longer the game runs the more sense the strategy makes. In a single game it always makes sense to be selfish. The longer the series of games the more a selfish strategy becomes self-defeating.

Presently, it is hard, if not impossible, to start cooperation, esp. with the poorest, as this would render us no return of profit.

It depends upon how you measure profit, we're not speaking a strictly monetary return. Poverty breeds any number of problems affecting everything from national stability to global economics and world health.

Namely, "cooperation" with those countries usually looks like this: The richer country gives food and meds, the poorer country its natural resources (that can be used only in the richer country though!) or space for military bases. This is not cooperation, but exploitation.

Exploitation sometimes occurs but most often there is a trade of resources and goods. Whether it is equitable or not depends on one's perspective. Certainly some will take advantage of a situation but that would not be cooperation.

If anything, it makes sense to cooperate with those closest around you. And those in the Third World ... well, in effect, all we can be is concerned, but powerless.

I'm not sure how you figure. Billions are spent annually in assistance programs. Many thousands offer their services towards assisting others. To dismiss the issue as you do is to be powerless... action makes the difference.

~Raithere

 

[Athelwulf]

Cole gray, I can answer yer question.

Imagine being one of those starving children. Wouldn't you want food? Wouldn't you want someone that cared enough to give you food? I think it's a safe bet you would.

Well, these children want someone that cares enough to give them food and shelter. Wouldn't you want to be one of those people that cared? You could make their lives better. Wouldn't you like the feeling of knowing you've done that?

 

[Godless]

The suffering on this planet is caused by humanity turning away from love.

No it ain't not, the sufferin in this planet is cause folks mekk wrong choices.

Or, if we are all animals and "higher love" does not exist, it is fine that children are starving.

These folks don't need food, they need BIRTH CONTROL. So they quit havin kids when they year freakin starvin.

Why do yall recon it's urine responsibility ta feed these kids?.

farst tekk cyear of urine own, then try ta do the best yall can, ta help others. But it's not just one individual that should be helpin. The Vatican has over billions of bucks that could help these folks, but 'cause they follow the wrong religion, the Vatican can cyear less what happens toem . Mormons year one of America's riches church, but most of the fortune stays in their own cofers, Christian Coalition, had enough clout an' money ta re-elect an idiot ta the precidency, yet they don't help these poor helpless folks. Why should yall care? Is yuens a billionaar?. can yall really mekk a freakin difference on urine own? I suppose yall kaint. Fin' a reputable organization ta donate some money too, or start urine own, I hyear that non-profit organizations year the most profitable. The CEO of United Way embelsels fer over $500,000 bucks. Anyway It's not urine responsibility, wanna do somethin? git off urine ass feelin all quilty an' shiet an' donate money wif evary paycheck, mekk urine self live meekly so others can have a betner life. But remember becarefull who yall donate to, becuse yall may be makin someone else rich, an' the folks will still be starvin. Ya reckon?
Yall liss'n here. Oh!! by the way, here's a link ta one of these CEO's that rip off urine money claick

EXcuse my country accent.

Godless.

 

[Leo Volont]

The Vatican has over billions of bucks that could help these folks, but ...

Godless.

Why is it that people think that the Vatican has any money? The Vatican does not have a program of taxation on Catholics, and what Catholics throw into the collection plates could not possibly add up to Billions of Dollars, since it should be obvious to everybody by now that Catholics are among the World's poorest people. And then the Catholic Church has its hospitals and schools to maintain. There is no extra money laying around as is demonstrated by all the school and hospital closings occassioned by the pedophile lawsuits. The loss of only a Million here and a Million there was too much for the Vatican to be able to absorb with any savings it might have had squirrelled away.

Then there are rumours. Back in the seventies it was rumoured that the Cardinal in charge of the Vatican Ex Chequer was rather amiss in diversifying the Vatican's Stock and Equity Portfolio and had gone 'short' on a commodity that had gone up instead of down, and that the Vatican was almost forced into bankruptcy when it became time to pay the difference.

Well, how is it that anybody supposes that the Vatican could have recovered from this brush with economic insolvency. They do not print money like some sovereign nations do. It is reasonable to suppose they are still just barely getting by.

 

[Leo Volont]

A suggestion was made that we only need Birth Control.

Actually, there are more alternatives then just that.

Barbarian Tribes used to do away with all female infants, keeping only the boys. After all, female children aren't as useful as much as they simply get in the way of things. Of course, women are eventually required, and so this has been one of the primary reasons why there have always been barbarian raids upon Civilized Settlements, for the capturing of young women.

Surprisingly, this custom of stealing women was useful in spreading language and culture to the barbarian hordes. The stolen brides would insist upon being understood only in their own language, and if they became something like favored pets, they would insist upon the acquisition of certain of Civilization's ameliorations.

But weeding out the female babies did in fact prove a viable way of keeping the levels of barbarian population under some control. Today, the Chinese and the Hindus have informally adopted the same measures, through the use of ultrasound identification of the sex of fetuses, the females are selected for abortion. Of course, where this is widely practiced, not every boy will grow up to have a wife. Young Women will be something of a rare commodity for which there will be a great demand. Only the relatively rich will be able to keep a wife where the competition for females is that intense. But I genuinely believe the poor men will be happier alone than to be with partners who will ever nag them and blame them for all their capricious instances of unhappiness. And the Rich Men being married will be something of the poor man's revenge, for it has been noticed that rich women do not complain any less than the poor ones.

 

[Godless]

The Vatican prints it's own money Leo!.

The Administrative Structure
The Railway Station

The State has its own currency and issued its own postage stamps.

Vatican money, by virtue of special agreements with the Italian State, is legal tender also in Italy. It is also legal tender in the Republic of San Marino by virtue of the Agreement between this Republic and the Vatican City State of 30 December 1931, ratified on 25 May 1932.

According to article 1 of the Law of the Vatican of 31 December 1930 no. XX, the decimal monetary system was adopted, the monetary unit being the gold lira. It was foreseen, through the agreements with the Italian Government, that Vatican money would always be aligned with the legal value of the Italian lira. Lacking its own issuing institute, the Vatican State coins its own metallic money every year at the Italian Mint with cut, weight and measure equal to that of the Italian coins and by allotment according to the concordat on monetary conventions with Italy.http://www.pellegrinocattolico.com/ctv/state.htm

G.

 

[Raithere]

Why is it that people think that the Vatican has any money?

Have you ever been to the Vatican? A more obscene display of wealth I cannot imagine.
They could probably buy a small country if they ever sold off the artwork in a single room.

Yeah, right... the Vatican doesn't have money.

~Raithere