- Feb 2023
from aggression and international conflict to overpopulation and the destruction of the environment, people display a capacity for great selfishness and antisocial behavior. Can an evolutionary perspective – with its inherent focus on the functionality of human behavior – help explain the occasionally self-destructive and maladaptive side of human nature?
- from aggression and international conflict to overpopulation and the destruction of the environment,
- people display a capacity for great selfishness and antisocial behavior.
- Can an evolutionary perspective
- with its inherent focus on the functionality of human behavior
- help explain the occasionally self-destructive and maladaptive side of human nature?
- Jan 2023
the neo-Darwinists were practically driven to their conclusions by their initial assumption: that science demands a rational explanation, that this means attributing rational motives to all behavior, and that a truly rational motivation can only be one that, if observed in humans, would normally be described as selfishness or greed.
- Jan 2022
You will lend him your car or your coat -- but your books are as much a part of you as your head or your heart.
Mortimer J. Adler misses out entirely on the potential value of social annotation by suggesting that one shouldn't share or lend their annotated volumes.
Fortunately this sort of advice wasn't previously dispensed in the middle ages or during the Renaissance, particularly by scholars. (See also The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus by Owen Gingerich in which he outlines the spread of knowledge by sharing books and particularly the annotations within them.)
We need ways to detect and suppress parasitic gains — for example, massive corporations like Amazon that pay zero taxes towards the upkeep of the infrastructure their profits depend on, or likewise billionaires who pay lower tax rates than nurses.
And contrary to that science-denying slogan of Margaret Thatcher’s, that “there is no such thing as society,” no human has ever survived or thrived without a tribe or society.
Is this a general feature of the conservative far right of constantly denying our humanity and care for each other?
And protecting life-supporting cooperation requires suppressing certain kinds of selfishness. Biologists, unlike many economists, grasp when the “greed is good” ethos gets deadly.
At what scale might such cooperative efforts fail?
Look at the scale of the bitcoin bros using crypto and bitcoin as a completely selfish endeavor. Has this reached a scale for social failure? (Separate from the end date at which the bitcoin/crypto system completely fails and collapses?)
- human resources
- conservative movement
- government regulation
- parasitic gains
- privatize profits socialize losses
- Margaret Thatcher
- Republican party
- Jul 2021
“!e ‘projecting’ of‘futurologists’ uses the future as the safest possible context forwhatever is desired; it binds one only to selfish interest. But makinga promise binds one to someone else’s future.”
This is part of why Mark Zuckerberg's promises to "do better in the future" are wholly unbelievable and disingenuous.
- Oct 2020
When she reached the end they were hysterical
Although it may seem a bit surreal, the fact that all of Isabel's friends seem that shallow and selfish, I think that this is ment to be an overexageration of what is actually going on in the minds of many of our surroundings. That is, those reactions wouldn't nessesarily be apparent not one bit, in the real word, but many people would react exactly this way internally towards the misshappening of other people. To me it seems that Mansfield is trying to give emphasis on the disturbingly strong shallowness of today's relationships, a fact that while is very strong, it is not at all that obvious.