reply to post by muse7
Everything is finite. The more finite things are, the more stress on the system. The more stress on the system, the higher the stakes are. Survival of
the fittest happens as a result of the competition. Each lifeform wants to survive and experience pleasure. They compete for the good life. Evolution
occurs as the species attempts to gain a foothold on pleasure and survival.
I don't blame people for this. It's just the way our universe is. Animals do it. Bacteria do it. Etc.
You cannot possibly save everyone. It's impossible. It's more convenient (and possible) to blame them or to say you have no responsibility over their
life. When we framed our government and our economy we went into it -knowing- we cannot save everyone. That's why it's so easy to blame others. And to
get mad. And so on. It distracts us from acknowledging that it's impossible to save everyone. Truth can work for you or against you. If a truth forces
you to admit that something you desperately want is impossible to reach or attain then that truth is working against you. We have evolved to distract
our mind away from it so we're more productive.
Some people are more altruistic than others. I am sure of that. But I also think there's an evolutionary reason for it. I think selfishness serves an
equal or greater role as well.
I can say good and bad things about altruistic people and selfish people. All people have characteristics about them that can be thought of as
altruistic or selfish.
The question is whether selfishness will survive moreso than altruism or whether altruism will survive moreso than selfishness. Selfishness will
almost always lead to individuals. Altruism seems to lead to a more collective oriented world, as opposed to a individual driven world.
If we had access to infinite easy energy, I wonder how it would impact everything?
When I think of making life better for others, I think of improving our technology. Our quality of life has steadily increased as our technology
evolves. We will always have a gap between the rich and the poor. There'll always be haves and have-nots. Even so, as our technology progresses, the
base cost and ease with which we can live minimally will improve. So if you want to help the poor then help the scientists and business owners market
As technology improves, we can produce more food, heat our shelters better, clean our water better, and so on. This reduces costs. Costs is what it
boils down to. A person living minimally 100 years from now might actually use more energy than the poor do today, but in real-life costs
(proportionally) there will be no difference. That person (in the future) will also live longer.
Don't underestimate how technology fits into all of this. Things would be a whole lot worse without the technology. We'd have a lot less to go around.
Diseases would spread more easily. Communication would be difficult. If you think it's bad now then remove the technology and watch humans become even
more base than they're now. By base I mean animal-like. Perhaps scientists have always been frowned on by humanists or luddites or religious radicals
because deep inside those kinds of people want life to be harder than it's. Why? Maybe because they have a romanticism for a less complicated life
that's more human-centered and less machine/computer-centered. The problem is that it's idealistic, not realistic.
We have to work to preserve human-values and beliefs, not to destroy computers/machines. Inevitably, what's considered human will change. That's what
evolution is. At one time, humans didn't even exist. Do you think the lifeforms back then wanted to be replaced by humans? Of course not. If they had
had a choice, they would never have allowed humans to dominate and replace them. But evolution happens slowly and a species can change without itself
realizing it (in the short-term). I think we'll become hybrid biological/synthetic at some point. We have to branch out and become more redundant to
protect ourselves. We need to be living in more types of envrionments. We can't stay as just one type of human. This is probably how it will start.
One of the things I've been telling myself lately is that... we can store the DNA of people to remember them. Think about it. Our DNA is like our
name. People should be storing it. People in the future may be able to build a model of a human based merely on DNA and could look at their genetic
ancestors face-to-face in a much more personal way than ever imagined. Perhaps this is a way of having a memory of things that no longer exist. It's
almost like traveling back in time.
edit on 11-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)