The Life You Can Save: Peter Singer's Practical Ethics

[apeiron]

I agree up to this point... my experience is that DanP is highly socialized, but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

 

[nismaratwork]

But things are real if they have have purposes and have effects. So there is a social level of organisation that has evolved and is in fact "the level above us all individually". It is something real, that wants something done.

Even more than this, it makes us who we are. We are all socialised much more than we realize as even our "higher" mental abilities such as to be self-aware, to have autobiographical memory, etc, are socially evolved habits of thought.

But there is this confusion going round that humans form society rather than society is what forms humans . And it is that mistaken belief that then leads to the kind of existentialist angst you express.

People live by the rules because they can't not. And then get unhappy about it because they think the rules are arbitrary.

To me it seems a better life strategy to understand the deep nature of the rules and so be able to play an active role in their continued evolution.

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

I think that morality is a useful tool like any other, and I think it's a real construction of people and evolutionary biology. I don't think that when everyone is dead, it will matter; whether that happens in a hundred years, a million, or a billion. I'm not feeling angsty, I just place the value of say, a human life in the context of the connections that person has with others. If those connections don't exist, it comes down to one person's private world, their future, and nothing more.

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

 

[apeiron]

We're cooperative animals; to have gotten to this point to begin with we had to be, and so we are. We are not however, moral even by our own standards for the most part, so much of what is considered moral behaviour is really isolated, not social..

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist. And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

I think that like nature/nurture, it's a complex interaction of both, and in the case of humanity, morality, and society, they're also a complex feedback system. That doesn't make something any more objectively real however; real things survive when nobody is there to imagine them. In my view (lets not get too QM here) the moon is there whether I'm looking or not, dead or alive. History is what it is, regardless of my observation; that is real, morality is a construct.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

 

[nismaratwork]

This is self-contradicting. Our ability to know we are breaking social codes - not living up to them - simply proves they exist.

Note that I've consistantly said, "norms", because I don't beieve in a code to "live up to", that isn't a pastiche of fictions. I want to run a 100 mph, but failing to do so doesn't imply the reality of such speed in humans simply because I've set it as a goal. Social norms are useful only as that; norms... not good, not bad, just rules of the road which are changing and changeable given time and place.

And the fact that we then negotiate some personal balance is also part of the theory here. We are not forced to follow a path deterministically, instead we creatively choose some appropriate balance between the competitive and the co-operative courses that are open to us.[/quotee]

We seek balance for a number of reasons, including the desire to avoid punishment. Around .6%-1% of the population can't even make that determiniation, but those imagined norms are no less binding. That balance is as changeable as the context you're in anyway.

What else is freewill but our being aware of the general social context and then our ability to creatively anticipate the outcome of a fairly unlimited range of choices of how to behave? And then generally do the right thing - or reap the evolutionary consequences over the long run.

Could we have only 2 choices and still have free will? I'd say yes, so why complicate matters? Besides, evolution has allowed for people beyond just sociopaths who lack the capacity to function according to social norms; they have been very successful despite many millenia spent trying to eradicate them. Free will is the ability to choose, or withold a choice (the ultimate 3rd choice), I'm not arguing against free will.

But that is the claim that was being made (as cited in Baranger's paper) - competition~co-operation is a universal principle by which evolving systems self-organise. It is real and exists across all such systems.

This may be too Platonic for your tastes. But then the systems view does see form as being just as real as substance.

And yes, morality is a construct (hint: this is the view of the school of social constructionist psychology - though it often wishes it called itself the school of social constructivism so as to have avoided the inevitable po-mo confusion).

So morality is what is constructed by the collective force of past individual actions, and that construction - a moral code - is then what constrains future individual actions.

It's far too Platonic for my taste; for me form and substance are different. You have correctly identified my views on the matter, and... while I wouldn't ascribe to anyone school of thought, I definitely identify with SCP.

 

[DanP]

You continue to fail to produce evidence to back your claims. But then your claims continue to be incoherently formed :P.

First you accept a genetic basis to competition~co-operation (the selfish gene theory agrees). But then you dispute one of the obvious biological mechanism that are the expression of that evolutionary imperative (neuromodulators like oxytocin, testosterone, norepinephrine, etc).

Like always, you are fallacious in extreme. I only dispute your claims that oytocin is any kind of proof that morality is inborn. Those claims are voodoo. I might be posing as you say, but you are the only person on this site who in several hundreds posts produced nothing else but empty philosophy. You can't prove anything you say.

The song remains the same. Just about everybody finds a religion to preach :P

 

[DanP]

What is happening with the web is in fact a great experimental test of the principles of complex systems. So old morality gets broken down it seems due to the web, and then what new morality emerges? Does it reveal the same central striving after a productive balance between competition and co-operation? If so, then my approach is validated.

I think we would all agree that the moral answer when it comes to IP is that payment should be fair in the web world. To encourage people to produce IP (a locally constructive action) we need to have a co-operative set of social or global constraints. We must agree to pay in some common coin. And the equilibrium price will be somewhere between the old rip-off monopolistic pricing of the 1990s CD revolution and the "free" pricing of Napster rip-offing. So bring on micropayments. And boo to Apple iTunes for limiting the platforms on which tunes can run. etc.

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

The morality of the net is striving after a fruitful equlibrium between the locally competitive and the globally co-operative.

That morality could have been "anything" given the web is a new level of social organisation. Yet look at how it is self-organising a morality. Is it not arriving at exactly the same essential dynamics?

Actually, no. What actually happens is that humans seen a medium in which they can steal almost at will, because the law enforcement is elusive on internet, the arm of law is weak, and the identity of the thief is much more easier to be protected.


There is no self organizing morality here. It's the same old song. Humans seen a way to break the laws and get away with it. It is not "self evolving morality on internet" which will stop them, but unleashing the hounds to cut with their teeth the offenders. It is organization of law enforcement, and fighting back against of the offenders which will put an end to this.

No morality. Those humans steal. They know it. They also know that for now they can get away with it. This is how much humans act.

And no, the equilibrium of price is not born of morality. Is born from the wish of the big record companies to minimize the loss. Not because they seen the "immorality of their rip-off prices". As long as they don't control the internet, they will just play to minimize their loss. If they manage to control the internet, rip-offs , as you call them (nothing is a rip off, btw, as long as you find idiots paying for it ), will come back. It's cold game theory.
A way to maximize their profits in changing market conditions. And so it is for the ones who infringe IP. Maybe one day the price for this IP will be so low , and the presence of law stronger, that paying the lowered price will be more easy then breaking the law. Cold game theory again. Morality my ***.

 

[DanP]

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times if you don't even believe that morality has a functional basis?

How can you say something meaningful about the correct morality for our times when you believe it;s a functional religion ?

 

[DanP]

Heh... no. but that he doesn't recognize them as real. I'm of much the same mind, which is that social constraints are useful in leading a good life, but that they have no intrinsic meaning or value.

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

 

[DanP]

- Moral ideas evolve socially to constrain social behaviour.

Actually no. Those constrain arise from the clash of many different social behaviors in different social contexts. Those behaviors have no ethical load whatsoever by themselves.

Morality doesn't evolve to constrain anything. It's a man made narrative, a descriptive of human beleifs over the equilibrium in a certain moment in time in a certain society. Some of the elements of the story may correspond to the actual equilibrium, describing it correctly, some are personal beliefs, some are "fantasy". It also has no normative value. All in all, it's human make-belief, which fails to describe properly the equilibrium you talk about.

It's just a flawed story narrating human perception of the equilibrium. I can understand why humans have such a strong wish to make morality more than a flawed story. They are snared and blinded by ideals, going as far as inventing countless gods to give normative strength to the flawed descriptive story called morality, story which describes only believes.

 

[nismaratwork]

I do find social psychology as very real. the power of social is enormous.

My problem is generally with humans which claim that things like morality are innated and evolved naturally. Should they at least offer some proof, but they cant, at least not at the current time. All their theories are as proof-able as is a religion. Morality is a man made invention. Like religion. One of those days someone will shout that religion is naturally evolved and oxytocin is proof for the fact that we are all religious. It never stopped anyone from doing anything. One of those things which looks good on paper and in philosophy books. Codexes of law are useful. Law enforcement is useful, yes. Courts of law. Prisons. Some claims codexes of laws have origins in normative morality. I disagree. They are born from the necessity to protect your skin.

It is law, punishment and retribution which stops humans from turning on each other much more often than they do. Not morality or Lord of the Rings.

Hmmm... I think that gray area you're mentioned is the interaction between evolved morality (fear of retribution, a sense of wrongness, empathy) and the much larger realm of social structures. I'm not suggesting that this should be an article of faith, but it's hard to ignore in the light of major personality disorders, and common behaviours indipendant of social pressures.

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks. It's as easy to separate the two as it is to tell whether or not something is "genetic", or "environmental"... answer: both.

 

[DanP]

I don't think complex moral systems have evolved, but our social interactions have, and they form the basis for more complex moral framworks.

Well, it's clear that they form the basis of social interaction. Not so clear IMO about morality , moral sense and so on. IMO an emotion such as fear is nothing but an emotion. Some choose to see it as a rudiment of
morality. Their right. But I want proof about it.

Humans don't even agree of what morality is. There are several philosophical currents about it. Some pretend that adding the words genes, oxytocin, innates to a morality discussion will make such a philosophical current science. Unfortunately, it remains philosophy so far. If you are interested you can read Jesse Prinz's paper on the subject of innate morality here. Its interesting.

http://subcortex.com/MoralityInnatePrinz.pdf

 

[nismaratwork]

I'll read anything except harlequin romance.

Hmmmm... you want proof that I'm not sure you can get without resorting to interpreations of the role of neurotransmitters and hormones. Still, I can see why you and Apeiron keep going around in circles... you want hard evidence, he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

I need to read more about this before I referee, forgive me guys.

 

[DanP]

he believes (and may be) offering it in a form you don't accept.

Philosophy constitutes no evidence. Anyway, behaviour It's a subject I love so I continue to play my song.

 

[nismaratwork]

Philosophy is not evidence, but it can be convincing and lead to evidence. We know so much, and yet are so baffled by the complexity of the human body and brain... at some point we have to speculate based on the best available data. True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

 

[DanP]

True, it will not be proof, but if you wait for proof we'll probably all be long dead.

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his.

But if conclusive scientific evidence arises Ill be forced to accept it. That will be the case with even some serious evidence point towards that conclusion. If I die before those come, so beeit. Evolution doesn't care if I was right or wrong, and I won't turn in my grave should they someday discover that morality is innate :P

 

[apeiron]

So what ? Until such a proof arise, I like my philosophy better than his.

As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.

BTW, because you again seem out of focus, the thesis is not that morality is innate, it is that it is evolved. And further, that it is organised according to general systems principles. If you must bluster, at least bluster about something resembling the argument. :P

 

[nismaratwork]

Guys... we all bluster sometimes, and there are few issues as passionate as those touching on morality. Dan... you're taunting apeiron, and simply preferring your own views is not philosophy.

Apeiron... you've presented a lot, but your conclusions are not incompatible with Dan's... I'm baffled as to why you seem to have such rancor for his view.

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

 

[DanP]

As can be seen, I've freely cited the theory/evidence from systems science, anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology. To claim that you are even doing philosophy, you would have to present an argument with a logical structure. Instead all we have is self-contradicting claims, vigorous denials, and games of word definition.

Philosophical ramblings are not evidence Apeiron. You didnt presented any kind of evidence. As you do in all your posts, you always steer away from anything which can pass as evidence.

 

[octelcogopod]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think empathy is pretty immediate and that it is more basic response to when someone is in pain or distress, but I think humans in general have a hard time feeling this empathy when victims are far away. Combine this with a lack of information, problems in their own lives and a society that generally accepts the status quo and you'll have a harder time getting anyone to /really/ do anything about how much inequality there is. There are many other factors including how little control an individual has but also the monetary system and how everyone has to in the end fend for themselves and their own survival and comfort/stability.

There's also an inherent problem of how no rights are "built in" to the universe, and how taking someones supper doesn't do /anything/ to YOU, unless another decides to do something about it. This freedom which makes it very easy to take from others (and worse) can mostly be contained with law and an overarching governing state to keep things in order. In this sense how are we in richer countries responsible for those in poorer countries? Is it purely up to the group or individual to feel such a responsibility? And even when we are directly responsible by feeding off the poorer countries by way of sweat shops and cheap labor, there is still /no/ incentive for us to change, as long we we have the physical power and social/economic structures in place to allow it. It is a very cold and uncaring universe.

It's not cold and uncaring, it just is what it is, and that's pretty amazing... it just kind of stinks for humans. Given that we're a mere shred of the universe, a speck on a speck, I'd say the universe is ticking along quite well.

Anyway, I'd add, empathy is moderated to a great degree by priming, and also for many requires either a vivid imagination and experience, or proximity as in... seeing, hearing, and smelling the suffering of another.

It's one thing to talk about someone dying in fear and agony, and another to be close enough to smell their fear... some people need that immidiacy... and a very small number are pathologically unmoved.

 

[ptalar]

I recognize bickering when I see it... this is bickering. Nothing personal, we all know I can be a bickering weenie, but it makes me qualfieid in this case to identify it.

That is an understatement.

 

[ptalar]

I just finished Peter Singer's book "The Life You Can Save". It deals with practical ethics in approaching the topic of extreme poverty in the world. Peter essentially argues that any money spent on non-essential items and services is morally wrong. That money could be spent helping save the life a child who needs a vaccination or a sick widow on the street.

Peter stresses the term extreme poverty. Not someone who just lives in a trailer or someone on the street. Rather it's where someone's life is in real danger and has no real options (think africa...india...).

Peter gives an example of walking past a pond where a child is drowning. Most people will of course try to save the child by running in. If the option to save the child was that the passerby had to pay $5 a month for a few years, the vast majority would still do it. So why don't most people elect to save a child, say in in india, instead of going to a movie or buying an extra pair of shoes?

Of course I think the most powerful excuse is "out of sight, out of mind". But that is really no excuse. So Peter thinks we all live immorally and every day we indirectly let people die while continue to live relatively comfortable and extravagant lives.

Your thoughts?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer
http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

There are too many people in the world. The worlds resources are becoming scarce. The quality of human life is becoming cheap, hence the outsourcing going on. I cannot be responsible for other people who should of not been born based on the world resources being scarce and not equally distributed. If a family has 12 kids is that morally just? If they are poor and starving am I responsible for their irresponsibility? If I buy some toys for myself rather than give them money to eat am I the guilty one or the smart and shrewd one? As long as I replace myself and I take care of my own that is all I should be responsible for. Not everybody else. Our taxes take care of the rest.

 

[nismaratwork]

That is an understatement.

Awww... you say the sweetest things with those marbles in your mouth.

Hey, WhoWee, Russ, Ivan, Al, CAC, etc... you want to take the "world is overcrowded" fallacy, or shall I?

The world isn't crowded... it's snug... take the USA, we have a lot of food and space. True, if you dumped 5 or 6 hundred million more people in our population overnight we'd have to give up much, but "too many people"? Nah.

Too many people usually means, 'Too many poor people, too many people in a given resource area.'

 

[ptalar]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

 

[nismaratwork]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

Hmmm, excess people on the planet is one thing Phil, but it's more to do with the lifestyles we lead rather than the sheer number of people. In short, economics come into play, it's not a practical challenge if we all magically worked together.

In practice, because we rely on oil, coal, NG, Metals, Phosphorus, etc... it's about access to resources at a certain clip that matters. As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

You shouldn't feel guilty about giving your money to the poor AFAIK, and even if that were a lost cause, I don't think it's a cause for guilt.

 

[apeiron]

I enjoy good discussion, do please tell me why there are not enough people on the planet and we should feel guilty about giving our excess cash to the poor and needy. Phil is my name or you can call me ptalar.

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

 

[apeiron]

As to how many humans the planet COULD support... wow, I have no idea... a lot, if we changed to a mostly agragrian way of life, using modern farming techniques.

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

 

[DanP]

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

So what ? The market in India is open, and the price for their work is a resultant of the market conditions. As the market conditions will change, so will the price for their work. It;s already an equilibrium for current conditions.

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

No, not everyone does. And unless you want the world a big communist country, there always be what you call "imbalances". Some will have better air and better wages tan others. Maybe we deserve it. Perhaps what you call "imbalances" is actually the equilibrium. A free market equilibrium. Only commies believed in legends, such as controlled markets for the benefit of everyone and for the sake of "balancing" things socially.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, said Marx. I bet he was seeking "equilibrium and re-balancing" as well. Only that it doesn't work that way. The failure of Marxism is not a a theoretical question. It is reality. It happened time and gain in the world. Every regime based on Marxism collapsed into an economical black hole. Policy seeking to equalize individual welfare is not leading to equilibrium. Free markets are.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Re-balancing ? Can you prove that the situation is out of equilibrium ? The world doesn't have to be a big communist kibbutz to be in "balance".

Morality is about an equilibrium of behavior. Globalization does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Morality is descriptive.

Yes, I am benefiting after what is happening to others. And they are already benefiting from the contact with the western civilization, and those who work for us already have a better life than those who choose they don't. And btw, you don't get to tell anyone who is "your own".

 

[alt]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

Permaculture does not just lie in our future. I lies in our present and near and distant past.

But it certainly is no answer for any burgeoning world population.

Permaculture isn't the answer .. the green revolution is seeing it's own limitations ..

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.

 

[alt]

A place to start might be considering how much of your own good life is due to a globalised economy where you benefit (probably unknowingly) from sweat shops and other forms of exploitation of the poor and needy parts of the world (where large populations, and a willingness to degrade their own environments, deplete their own ecological and mineral wealth, are what they have to sell).

A place like the US is less polluted because a place like Vietnam or India is more polluted. Goods like trainers and flower pots are less expensive in the US because someone in some other country is getting paid way below US wages.

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?

You personally don't have total responsibility for the imbalances, but everyone clearly has some responsibility.

What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.

You can chose to be selfish and "just look after your own". But that is being selfish. Or you can seek in small ways to be a small part of the rebalancing of things.

Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on Earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..

Morality is about an equilbrium of behaviour. Globalisation does mean that the remotest part of the world are now part of "your own". You are benefiting from what is happening to others. So you should be seeking to benefit them in return.

Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I received for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?

Just dishing out aid cash is not really the answer of course, except as a crisis measure. But micro-loans, educational programs, getting rid of rich country agricultural subsidies, buying fair trade produce, not bolstering autocratic regimes, etc. There are a whole bunch of initiatives you could support.

To what end ?

 

[ptalar]

In the end, no matter how far you take it, the ultimate conclusion is population reduction by evolution - natural forces such as hunger, disease, pesticlence, etc.

Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

 

[nismaratwork]

What? The green revolution has already happened. And will soon un-happen as petroleum becomes a constrained, increasingly expensive, resource, and as irrigation water disappears from the last of the great aquifers.

Or have you discovered a farming technique even more modern than chucking chemicals and dumping buckets of water on the land?

Maybe you mean permaculture?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permaculture

I would agree that does lie in our future, but I would doubt that it represents a step-change increase in the planet's population carrying capacity that the green revolution was.

I was thinking more along the lines of vertical farming and permaculture for less dense regions. In addition, if you repurpose some farmland used for cattle by fast food... you'd also free up fairly useful land for more efficient crops and livestock.

(note: I couldn't post this last night, sorry!)

 

[nismaratwork]

Sadly, that is where I was going with my discussion with nismaratwork. Unless we, the world human population, gets our population down to al level where we all have a good "quality of life" level, of say maybe 2 billion people on the whole planet, I believe we are heading for population reduction by evolution (or maybe more appropriate: Darwinism). That is why I am not sure I want to support an excess population. Better to have a quality life for a smaller world population than have an unlimited human population like we have now with all the misery, hunger, poverty and so forth going on.

Should have just said that, I agree and have made that very case to the cornucopian elements here myself in other threads. That's not the same as running out of room however, just running into natural limitations as people crowd together, and what we consider to be high quality of life is highly restricted by region.

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

 

[DanP]

Still, I'm not sure that knocking off a few billion people would yield the result you're hoping for, as alt is saying quite well. People horde resources, and people still flock together, fight, and there are always psychopaths willing to try and rule it all.

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?

One of the more interesting points made at the Edge conference is that “people who behave morally don’t generally do it because they have greater knowledge; they do it because they have a greater sensitivity to other people’s points of view,” otherwise known as empathy. Marc Hauser of Harvard reported that bullies—people clearly not acting morally-- are surprisingly sophisticated in the ways of interpersonal commerce, particularly in reading others’ intentions, but they are not able to "feel their pain." Which makes them good manipulators and strategic operators for their own benefit without the drag on their trajectory of caring about the impact of their actions on others.

Empathy is one of the traits that lawyers often score low on--all the better to not deter us from surging onward on behalf of our clients, certainly some would say. But firms might consider steps to counter that tendency by adopting compensation and other encouragements to "feel each others' pain."

http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

Note that for me empathy is just another emotion. A modulator of behavior. Not a intrinsic component of morality, should you choose to define it in a non-descriptive way. Just saying.

 

[nismaratwork]

Referring to clinical cases, or to politicians, lawyers &co in general ?

Well, you've got me there... I was definitely thinking of the latter, but the former present a danger too. Generally unless you get a Genghis Kahn, Attila The Hun, or Alexander The Great... you end up with just-plain-crooks. Still, that's going to be one hell of a strain on a more limited and (presumably) devastated society dealing with billions of dead.

http://www.lawpeopleblog.com/2010/07/articles/ethics/natural-morality/

That's a very good point, and here I should probably stop speaking casually.

You have AS-PD (Anti-Social Personality Disorder) aka Sociopathy/Psychopathy/Moral Imbecility... and so forth. That is a complete diagnoses based on the presence of "Conduct Disorder" that continues into adulthood, when it becomes AS-PD. MOST people who match that diagnosis just are not competent to lead their lives, never mind hold office.

HOWEVER... traits... you can have Narcissistic traits, psychopathic traits, etc... which may not add up to a diagnosis of AS-PD, or PD:NT, but which for the rest of us is pretty damned close. It's not enough to be AS-PD, but the ultimate hallmark of AS-PD is a lack of empathy... not poor empathy, but a complete lack.

Sociopaths aren't trying to be evil, they don't feel your pain at all so they live in a world of their immediate wants. Often you find that some such people transient/indigent, and many more are career criminals or prisoners.

OTHER traits however, such as a high arousal threshold (not sex), can be fantastic if you're saaaaay, a firefighter. On the other hand you have daredevils, and a subset of addicts for the same reason. Why one person walks into burning buildings to save people, and others just shoot heroin is a topic of ongoing research. I'd add, not all firefighters have these traits, but you can see how any given sociopathic trait can lead to obvious career choices.

Lack empathy, and are willing to take crazy risks with yourself and others? Politician! Lack empathy, but you're smart and capable, and you want the 'best' things in life...maybe being a lawyer is a good match.

The trick here is this: if you genuinely, clinically, lack empathy... you can't be induced to experience it, although people who rise to that level often are able to mimic some of the range of appropriate responses and pretend. This is in contrast to the Bernie Madoff sociopath, who doesn't seem to experience any anguish at all, except where it's his life, and who literally is unable to see how others didn't "do this to [him]." Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here.

I'm still posting it.

 

[nismaratwork]

Oh, and re: NOTE: It's not an emotion, or a guarantor of morality... it's the basis however for it, along with insight. You take away someone's ability to imagine the emotions of others, and you end with something profoundly amoral. Empathy informs us of the state of others, or possible state of others, but alone it's no sure-bet that you'll react positively to it. Some people relish the pain of others, and some understand, but they're too self-involed (clinically or not) to bother.

Empathy is not Morality, but without empathy you have at LEAST an amoral person, who is not much of a person at all.

 

[DanP]

Add his total lack of remorse to the destruction wrought in his family, and his lack of meaningful reaction there, and an ugly picture emerges of a true sociopath.

What is that?

Without getting DSM on you:

Lacking Empathy
Lacking Insight
Lacking Planning (even when it harms one's self)
Lack of Drive (always takes the path of least resistance, or cuts through the crowd)
A history of the above in childhood, which continues into adulthood.

So... wow... I just went WAY off course here.

I'm still posting it.

You can't say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

 

[nismaratwork]

You can't say that Maddof lacked insight planing and drive :P

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime. Drive... well... that's complex... he did in fact take the cheap way, the easy (at first) way, without appreciation for the snowball he was rolling. Absurd given his knowledge of what he was doing, right?... not if you truly lack that capacity, and for you it's better to steal a candy bar than buy it with the money in your pocket.

 

[DanP]

He certainly lacked insight and introspection; consider that a man of his intelligence engaged in a crime that he didn't have to, for gains that nobody could spend in a lifetime.

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ? The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

 

[nismaratwork]

Nobody can scam other humans of even 100 USD without a insight in social behavior (ammount of insight prolly proprtinal to the complexity of the scheme), and understanding of others and playing with their emotions, not to talk intelligence. It's orders of magnitude less trivial to scam billions and get away with it over a period of almost 40 years. (if you trust FBI which says his scamming activities may have began as far as 1970 and he was only taken in custody in 2008.Manipulation of this order requires social insight, planning, flawless execution.

There's nothing written in stone that says sociopaths can't be intelligent... in fact they run the gamut. As with any personality disorder, it's not a monolith, and simply throwing out diagnositic criteria is of limited use. Do I KNOW that Madoff is a sociopath? Hell no... I've never met him for one, and that's a deal-breaker already. Do I suspect, based on his conduct? Yep. His scamming has been long term, but from what I read he made tons of mistakes, but had the charm and connections to smooth them over. That's not insight, that's manipulative behaviour, which is another major diagnostic critera for both CD, and AS-PD.

Can a criminal mastermind exist without empathy ? The planners of biggest heists and biggest conn works in the history, especially conns, could they ever pull what they did without an understanding of human feelings and reactions ?

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy. John Wayne Gacy is a fine example of someone who had no empathy, no remorse, and no insight and minimal planning. He was very good at being a predator, but he sucked at hiding it... he was caught wtih 30+ bodies AROUND him. That's very typical of sociopaths and serial killers (who are sometimes sociopathic, and sometimes not).

This is the basis of the quasi-myth of "Superficial Charm"... it's not empathy however, anymore than a crocodile empathizes with a gazelle... it just knows to wait until they take a drink.

The tradionatioal wisdom says they lack empathy. Ok, but how can you pull the strings to conn billions without understanding human behaviour and perceiving the feeling of others, alleviate their fears, tell them what they want to hear, string them to hell ?

For one thing, people in such powerful positions are often surrounded and supported by family members and colleeagues; they are after all, master manipulators. Having no compunctions about hurting others in any way makes you BETTER at manipulation. Remember however, that MOST sociopaths end:
1.) In prison
2.) Indigint
3.) Dead

The exceptions are not the rule, they're the really smart sharks, and ones who get lucky. If you look at a guy like Ted Bundy, he could have been caught earlier, but circumstanes conspired FOR him... eventually they have to for someone. That's not the norm however...

Another side of the lack of empathy, is the lack of regret and remorse, even when the harm is done to one's self, and the projection of blame. It's not just the usual, it's a genuine inability to appreciate personal responsiblity.

Hence the old, "Moral Imbicile"... or the translated from french, "Mania without Delirium"

It's long been held that sociopaths are not generally salvagable, and that while it's a mental illness, it's not an excuse. A sociopath knows they're doing the wrong thing, they just don't care.

 

[DanP]

You can form intellectual understandings of people, and how to manipulate them and their reactions... it doesn't require empathy.

empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

 

[nismaratwork]

empathy: understanding and entering into another's feelings

So , if you understand someone and his feelings , you have empathy by definition.

What exactly you try to express ? That if you do not mimic the emotional state of another automatically, there is only understanding without empathy ?

I'm not an expert in AS-PD, but you'll often notice innapropriate reactions in such people, and fankly they ARE good mimics. You can be a fine mimic, and manipulator based on cues given, and experience through trial and error.

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

 

[DanP]

I think you're giving even successful criminals too much individual credit.

Just saying, is not easy at all to conn somebody of billions, and doit on Wall Street where everybody and their mother is a financial expert.

As much as the deed itself is socially repugnant, it takes skills which frankly, too few ppl possesses IMO. You don't make billions by luck.

 

[octelcogopod]

And they are probably as happy with their lot in life as a US citizen - perhaps more so. Or should the whole world be on US wages ?



What imbalances ? The world, rigt now, this moment, is in perfect balance. It can never be otherwise.



Have you ever, I wonder, dealt with a wealthy Indian for example ? They are some of the most selfish people on Earth ! As you develope their (those you would help make more affluent, etc) lot in life, you had better make sure you develope their altruism too .. lol ..



Nice plattitude. But I can't see your point, unless you quantify the extent of such 'return'. I too, have been somewhat discontent with the 'return' I received for some efforts in the past during my life and my lot, and felt that I was used - taken advantage of, reduced to a slave in one or two cases. Will we be chasing my oppressors as well ?



To what end ?

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does. Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it? I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work. By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves. The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics. The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence, and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

 

[DanP]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack. But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

Its not whatever they are happy or not, the question is whatever there exist an ESS. Happiness and unhappiness doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

[alt]

To say that the world is in perfect equilibrium is one of the most absurd statements I've heard in awhile, and I don't mean that as a personal attack.

No personal attack assumed - thanks for your comments. The world is in perfect, omnifarious balance. There are a huge variety of people, from the most wealthy to the most poor. That, I would say, is humanities lot. It has always been so - go back in history as far as you care, and tell me where or when it hasn't been so !

But seriously, there are billions who are starving and living off a couple dollars a day, many do not have clean water, and the west is highly profiting off the misery of those in poorer countries forced to work under poor conditions and are not given education or much of a chance to get the riches that the west does.

But seriously, what would happen if they got those riches ? Have you thought this through ?

Do you think they are happy because they don't know any better or because they chose not to be unhappy about it?

Probably a combination of both, an also, probably because they don't measure happiness by the standards which you assume, i.e., material assets, money, Western lifestyle, etc. I maintain that some people in poor third world nations, may in fact be healthier, happier, have greater longevity, etc, than many of your fellow citizens.

I think it's bordering on grotesque to spend so many billions on other things while at the same time people are starving everywhere. This is what humanity as a whole pays for the way things work.

Answer me this - a question I have put many times here, but which no one endeavoured to answer; What will you do with those now fed millions, their subsequent aspirations towards a wealthy (and probably profligate) lifestyle, and their multitudinous offspring for which such aforementioned aspirations would be even more compelling ?

By definition someone who has wealth will not want to do work that they do not have to do, but the ones who are poor must do all that work simply because they have to support themselves.

I agree. Even in the poorest societies, exists a hierarchy of workers and owners / bosses. Anyway, I work to support myself. Most folk here would be working to support themselves. What are you saying here ? That everybody in the world should have the same, or similar roles ?

The inequality is inherent both in localized situations and globally.

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ? That no one should have more than, say, one million dollars in net assets, and that anyone who has an excess, should have it seized and redistributed to the poorest ? What are you going to do then, when those poorest prosper ? Nobody here ever develops this argument to the extent of replying to this and other such questions that I pose.

Having the inequality is something we have to deal with, but I think it's extremely naive to keep running this mass consumption over here, which is both as environmentally destructive as it is unfair to people who don't even have the basics.

I agree that the West is overconsuming. I don't believe the answer is to enable millions, billions more, to head in the same direction. Giving them the basics sounds kind, and humanitarian and all, and I agree it IS. But you, other similar thinkers, contributors here, NEVER seem to want to take this part of the discussion one or two steps further.

The world is now one big "network" of flowing information and influence,

Not necessarily a good thing IMO

and I think we DO have a responsibility to change our mad consumption and inequality at least a LITTLE. Enough to bring some clean water and food at least

And then what ?

 

[chiro]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

 

[nismaratwork]

In a way I have to side with alt. Our lifestyle in the west comes at a cost to those who are exploited so that we can maintain our lifestyle.

I don't know if zero-sum is the best way of describing it, but if everyone demanded the lifestyle and inequality that many of us take for granted, then you need someone to exploit and realistically I can't see everyone having the lifestyle that those have at the top or even at the middle.

Its sad, but its the truth.

As contrasted with India, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, England, Russia, Italy, (enter African Nation Here)... or any other country save for a few largely homogeneous (and successful) wealthy Scandinavian countries?

 

[apeiron]

Yes, there is much inequality in this world. Would you prefer NO inequality at all ? Obviously not - so, what is your standard ? What is YOUR new scale of balance ?

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

 

[nismaratwork]

The only moral justification for tolerating social inequality that comes to mind is if there is equality of opportunity.

If life for people is to be set up as a competition to motivate their creative energy (and I have already argued that societies are naturally a balance of local competition~global cooperation) then what there must be equality of is the chance to enter the race.

So world inequality is "fair" if we are doing what we can to give real opportunity to everyone, and not creating mechanisms that hold them artificially back. (This would be the globally co-operative part of the deal).

Now that I'll buy.