• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Realization: Most people in modern society are anti-social.

Status
Not open for further replies.

lazarus102

Well-Known Member
We often tend to label only those that lack friends or a social life, as 'anti-social'. But the truth is, most people are anti-social. For example, thousands, if not millions of people cross one another in city streets on a daily basis, but it's extremely rare for any of them that don't already know one another, to converse, or even greet another person. And the few that do, are typically not well received, and are thought to be 'crazy'. Like, "OMG, who are you, get away from me.. Why are you talking to me..? I don't have time for this.."

We have actually been adapted by society to be a very anti-social species, that even find it rude to talk to people that we don't have a pre-established connection with; without some form of reason or excuse.

A large part of the reasoning behind this is 'precious snowflake' syndrome. Everyone so afraid to talk to one another for fear that they might hurt their precious sensitivities.. And of course the anti-socialism and general feelings of disconnect, raise the underlying angst in a lot of people, which makes them resent those around them that won't talk to them. It gets a bit circular at that point.

Another part of it is the societal drive towards individuality. Only worry about the individual, only worry about yourself. You can only fix you, to hell with everyone else .etc.

But with a societal hierarchy that is based almost entirely on capital gain, what else could be expected? Success based purely upon money; the purpose of money, buy more things, ergo, the greediest of us ( IE: people with the most drive to maximize their personal material gain) rise to the top.

Greed is the enemy of socialism. Because for one to be truly greedy, they put the needs of themselves (and maybe their families) over the happiness, or in many cases, even the lives of others.

But being rich is much like chasing the dragon; a term used on druggies that perpetually chase their first big high (while never catching it). People work their entire lives to be/stay rich, but then so often die without ever having experienced true happiness.

So we've got so many people running their solo hamster wheels, passively sad and angry about the way the world is, but too blind to see that all they need to do in order to fix it all is to get off of that hamster wheel, and walk their own path's.

TBH, even a lot of people that think they're happy, are merely living in a state of cognitive dissonance. If you get unreasonably angry at any one thing, more than once every few days, then there's a good chance that you are not actually happy. Also that the thing you're getting mad at, probably isn't even the real cause for that negative emotion.
 

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
I admit some anti-social attitudes on my own part, but my main reasoning for doing it is because I know just how easily I snap and I don't want to cause collateral damage. At least that's the part I know for sure.

There are a couple places where I think you've made a mistake on this realization though.

Greed is the enemy of socialism. Because for one to be truly greedy, they put the needs of themselves (and maybe their families) over the happiness, or in many cases, even the lives of others.
It's an extremely common mistake to think that "truly greedy" and "the happiness and lives of others" are mutually exclusive. They're not.

You're focusing too much on the short term with this. There's also long-term greed. If you've ever heard of the phrase "spend money to make money", it falls under the long-term. (Alternately in some cases: "If you love something, set it free - if it comes back it's yours, if not then it wasn't meant to be.")

Examples of long-term greed that wind up giving consideration to others:
  • Land development is SUPPOSED to fall under this category with the logic of "Let's let others do something with the land, I'll get a piece of it". I have heard of enough stupid landlords to know that too many landowners still do not understand the concept properly.
  • Environmental cleanup fits, under logics like "I want to have clean water and decent air, so let's do something about the things polluting them."
  • Trying to save threatened/endangered species definitely counts. How much more selfish can you get than wanting to continue to see the species in the future and putting in the resources to ensure it happens?
I'll come up with more as I see them. And I'm well aware people are going to try counter-examples. It's the nature of philosophical discussions to do so.

Can long-term greed go disastrously for others? I am... WARY of calling all the land conquest throughout history a form of "long-term greed". They're grabbing more than they can handle. They're not thinking fully of how they can use it, or getting so grandiose that they're out of touch with the reality of the situation. It's still way more "short-term greed" thinking than most people believe.

It takes a LOT of intelligence to do long-term greed in a good way, and for that I admit I have little faith in modern people.

But with a societal hierarchy that is based almost entirely on capital gain, what else could be expected? Success based purely upon money; the purpose of money, buy more things, ergo, the greediest of us ( IE: people with the most drive to maximize their personal material gain) rise to the top.
Not quite. What you describe as "the people with the most drive" are actually "the people willing to give up autonomy for wealth". (I'd say "selling your soul for wealth", but let's focus on more widely-accepted intangibles.)

When you're that high up, all eyes are on you. You can't make a serious move without everyone breathing down your neck about it. You really have no option to be free.

The "hierarchy" is incredibly easy to spot as total BS. The power's actually much closer to the bottom, where the autonomy is. The top is... you describe it as "chasing the dragon", I outright call it a form of enslavement.

You watch rich businessowners, you start to understand how much it sucks to have lots of money. I'm... pretty sure that's why you get a lot of bad bosses - they see their autonomy slip and they worry too much about getting it back.



If I come up with more counters to the philosophy I'll add it.
 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
Another part of it is the societal drive towards individuality. Only worry about the individual, only worry about yourself. You can only fix you, to hell with everyone else .etc.
I'm in a poor position to help most other people if my own affairs are in some state of shambles, and that's assuming they want my help. I CAN only fix myself, if that even, and if I'm at a reasonable level of functionality I MIGHT be able to help others fix themselves. My desire to help some people may stem from a selfless place, but persisting when my help is refused veers more and more into the selfish and arrogant the harder I persist... and some people (myself included) would just as soon figure things out themselves as often as possible. Who the hell am I to step in and grab someone else's steering wheel? What do I know of their troubles? What sort of sanctimony must I be drunk on to think myself capable of fixing others as I constantly find myself putting myself back together again?
 

lazarus102

Well-Known Member
It's an extremely common mistake to think that "truly greedy" and "the happiness and lives of others" are mutually exclusive. They're not.

You're focusing too much on the short term with this. There's also long-term greed. If you've ever heard of the phrase "spend money to make money", it falls under the long-term. (Alternately in some cases: "If you love something, set it free - if it comes back it's yours, if not then it wasn't meant to be.")

Examples of long-term greed that wind up giving consideration to others:
  • Land development is SUPPOSED to fall under this category with the logic of "Let's let others do something with the land, I'll get a piece of it". I have heard of enough stupid landlords to know that too many landowners still do not understand the concept properly.
  • Environmental cleanup fits, under logics like "I want to have clean water and decent air, so let's do something about the things polluting them."
  • Trying to save threatened/endangered species definitely counts. How much more selfish can you get than wanting to continue to see the species in the future and putting in the resources to ensure it happens?
I'm stupidly tired right now, cuz I been up like 24ish hrs. So I'll do a proper reply tomorrow. Just wanted to hit on this point.

Those two points that you made involve organizations which are typically driven by donations. Which either come out of the pockets of the lower class, or as tax write offs for the upper-middle class.

Don't even get me started on UNICEF.. The CEO of that company gets stupidly large bonuses every year, and it's a fukin charity..

But they are mutually exclusive. How else do you explain one person having multiple billions of dollars in their bank/stocks .etc, while entire countries of people are progressively starving to death? If you can 'feed a family for the price of a cup of coffee', then by that logic, a single billionaire should have the power to solve world hunger.
 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
I'm stupidly tired right now, cuz I been up like 24ish hrs. So I'll do a proper reply tomorrow. Just wanted to hit on this point.

Those two points that you made involve organizations which are typically driven by donations. Which either come out of the pockets of the lower class, or as tax write offs for the upper-middle class.

Don't even get me started on UNICEF.. The CEO of that company gets stupidly large bonuses every year, and it's a fukin charity..

But they are mutually exclusive. How else do you explain one person having multiple billions of dollars in their bank/stocks .etc, while entire countries of people are progressively starving to death? If you can 'feed a family for the price of a cup of coffee', then by that logic, a single billionaire should have the power to solve world hunger.
It's effectively impossible for even the most gregarious person in the world to actually, truly care deeply about more than about a few hundred or so individuals tops - MAYBE more than that but I doubt there's someone who can really keep all those interpersonal connections going in their minds. Everyone else beyond that limit starts becoming less an individual in their own right to this person and more defined by superficial characteristics and assumptions stemming from those. This isn't to say they're necessarily evil or bad or callous, though some of the more cynical or outright sociopathic ones quickly figure out how to turn a mask of selflessness into a disguise for incredible selfishness.

Even though someone can't deeply care about all 7 billion or so humans on the planet, not deeply caring is not the same as apathy much less antipathy, but people have figured out ways to conflate them as convenience dictates typically for the purpose of shaming other people into donating to charities that eventually prove to be little more than slush funds for the manipulators.

Regarding humans as a social animal - there is a GULF between the typical size of a given social animal's "society" for lack of a better term and the scope of human society. For all 7 billion or so humans on the planet to be social with one another requires getting into eusociality... which is the realm of some invertebrates and maybe a handful of mammalian species (naked mole rats are the only ones that even come to mind). Grasping that scale of sociality is utterly fucking IMPOSSIBLE for most people, and most of the ones who say they can grasp it are kidding themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RAM

Well-Known Member
How else do you explain one person having multiple billions of dollars in their bank/stocks .

Billionaires don't literally have billions of dollars sitting around in their bank accounts. They secure billionaire status by having at least one billion dollars in total net worth.

It's also not a money issue but a logistical and political one. A nation that's ruled by an iron-fisted dictator, a bunch of tribal warlords, or a hodgepodge of criminal syndicates (most of the countries dealing with food insecurity generally have dysfunctional, weak, or virtually non-existent central governments as well) isn't going to let an outside billionaire gift tons food to the starving people under their rule. They're going to take control of those food shipments to leverage power over of their subjects ("behave and I'll reward you with nosh"), sell the food to enrich their own pockets, or give the food to various powerful and influential actors who support them in order to maintain their loyalty.

Jeff Bezos doesn't have the power to end world hunger because there are other factors at play that contribute to it that he alone can't surmount or account for.
 

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
But they are mutually exclusive. How else do you explain one person having multiple billions of dollars in their bank/stocks .etc, while entire countries of people are progressively starving to death? If you can 'feed a family for the price of a cup of coffee', then by that logic, a single billionaire should have the power to solve world hunger.
Simple; you're focused on the one person and your statement implies it's THEIR greed.

That's not how it works.

At that level, you do not make that money alone. Getting to that kind of level requires a lot of debts to a lot of people ("benefactors"), all with their own desired outcomes.

In that situation it's the benefactors' greed that controls the rich man's life and actions, NOT that of the rich man himself.

What you generally see happen there is that the rich man completely gives up on what they want. They're now chasing what the benefactors want, instead of their own longings. They've in fact completely given up on their greed.

They're now a puppet.

Thing is this path happens no matter the rich man's original intentions.
 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
Billionaires don't literally have billions of dollars sitting around in their bank accounts. They secure billionaire status by having at least one billion dollars in total net worth.

It's also not a money issue but a logistical and political one. A nation that's ruled by an iron-fisted dictator, a bunch of tribal warlords, or a hodgepodge of criminal syndicates (most of the countries dealing with food insecurity generally have dysfunctional, weak, or virtually non-existent central governments as well) isn't going to let an outside billionaire gift tons food to the starving people under their rule. They're going to take control of those food shipments to leverage power over of their subjects ("behave and I'll reward you with nosh"), sell the food to enrich their own pockets, or give the food to various powerful and influential actors who support them in order to maintain their loyalty.

Jeff Bezos doesn't have the power to end world hunger because there are other factors at play that contribute to it that he alone can't surmount or account for.
If someone had 7.something billion dollars lying around and (for the sake of this exercise) could feed everyone in the world for a dollar apiece... well, cool, everyone eats for a day.

And they're now broke. Not a rabbit coming out of that hat again.

The next day, the hungry people wonder who's going to feed them next... and maybe someone else steps up.

Two days.

Maybe more cash flows in, maybe it can be repeated for a week. Two weeks. A month.

Hunger ended for a month. That's pretty awesome.

But I sure as fuck hope those hungry people learned how to produce food for themselves in the meantime, because they're fucked the moment the billionaires can't or won't feed them.
 

Connor J. Coyote

¥otie ¥otezer
We often tend to label only those that lack friends or a social life, as 'anti-social'. But the truth is, most people are anti-social. For example, thousands, if not millions of people cross one another in city streets on a daily basis, but it's extremely rare for any of them that don't already know one another, to converse, or even greet another person. And the few that do, are typically not well received, and are thought to be 'crazy'. Like, "OMG, who are you, get away from me.. Why are you talking to me..? I don't have time for this.."

We have actually been adapted by society to be a very anti-social species, that even find it rude to talk to people that we don't have a pre-established connection with; without some form of reason or excuse.
Eh...... as a guy who lives in a big city myself..... I can honestly say yes, (I agree)..... and no, (I don't agree) with that.

As.... on the one hand - yeah.... there are many "anti-social" people that you'll encounter; and this is especailly true for us, (who live in the big cities). But.... that also applies to just about anywhere.... and I find that there are some "diamonds in the rough" as they say.... where: you *will* be able to encounter some friendly, social people..... and - even in a big city, (like the one I live in) - this is true.

And so - I can agree that: whenever someone says that anti-social people are the majority, in our society.... or, even the norm now. But...... (on the flip side of that): I can also say that - if one looks in the right places, (with the right individuals) - then, you can encounter some *very* social people also..... that are more than willing to chat up a storm with you and even spend some time with you.

And within big cities - (like I live in): sometimes knowing someone "who knows someone" as they say.... can be a great way to get one's "foot in the door" with people (socially) as well.

And so - having one or two friends, for example... (that one may be able to make) - can often times lead to more opportunities socially with others, later on. Like: getting invited to dinner parties, or Sunday brunches, or whatever..... and in these situations, encountering more "social" people is not only a real possibility, but even: expected.

But... the dark underside of all this, of course - is (within a big city like this) or... even any city - these days..... people do have a tendency to "keep to themselves", and "mind their own business" so to speak, with strangers.

And this largely for well-being survival purposes..... as - a semi-crazy individual on a semi-deserted subway train at night, (for example) - isn't necessarily someone that I want to interact with.

And in those cases, I avoid those people, whenever I can.... and for most of us (in these situations): being "anti social" is a matter of survival, at that point.
 
Last edited:

Yakamaru

Autumn wolf
Greed is the enemy of socialism. Because for one to be truly greedy, they put the needs of themselves (and maybe their families) over the happiness, or in many cases, even the lives of others.
Putting yourself first isn't greed, it's called self-interest. It's egotistical to expect other people to put you first before themselves. If anything putting your own needs before others is normal, natural and how our society functions, and it functions well in that regard. It's greedy to want what others have, plain and simple.

People have no obligations over other people. People work in a consensual mutually beneficial cooperative way and is how things ought to work, and only to the extent they consent and are willing to work with.

As for the rich, you will eventually run out of people's money. And when there's no one left of the billionaires, what then? Go for the middle class? This is coming off as nothing more than a mixture of ignorance and good old egotism to me.
 
Last edited:

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
The word you're looking for is asocial.

Anti-social is sociopathy.
So that's what felt off about this.

Given some of my earlier comments conflating the two, does "drives people away for their physical safety" fall more under asocial or antisocial?
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
While social conventions against striking up random conversations with people on the street can seem to create distance, I don’t think how social/asocial people are is necessarily the primary factor there. It’s simply not expedient to stop and chat with every person on the sidewalk. In some places/cultures, it’s considered normal/polite to chat with people waiting for the same bus you are, and in others it isn’t. I can’t pretend to know how those traditions came about, but the fact that both exist to me suggests that it’s not an inherent human quality.

At most, they might be different tactics for tackling a world where we’re liable to encounter more people, possibly even on a daily basis, than we are capable of building personal connections with.

Like, I’m pretty asocial myself, and partway face blind, as well as introverted (I recharge my batteries in isolation and most social situations drains them pretty fast). But I have still noticed that if you smile at people, they often smile back. If you give them a nod in acknowledgment/greeting as you pass each other, they’ll likely return it. I don’t believe, if we truly were asocial as a species, that either of those would be true.

Look at other social animals. I can’t think of any where acting familiar with strangers is particularly well received. Just because you’re social doesn’t mean you need to be ready to interact with every member of your species that crosses your path.
 

TyraWadman

The Brutally Honest Man-Child
We often tend to label only those that lack friends or a social life, as 'anti-social'. But the truth is, most people are anti-social. For example, thousands, if not millions of people cross one another in city streets on a daily basis, but it's extremely rare for any of them that don't already know one another, to converse, or even greet another person. And the few that do, are typically not well received, and are thought to be 'crazy'. Like, "OMG, who are you, get away from me.. Why are you talking to me..? I don't have time for this.."

We have actually been adapted by society to be a very anti-social species, that even find it rude to talk to people that we don't have a pre-established connection with; without some form of reason or excuse.


A large part of the reasoning behind this is 'precious snowflake' syndrome. Everyone so afraid to talk to one another for fear that they might hurt their precious sensitivities.. And of course the anti-socialism and general feelings of disconnect, raise the underlying angst in a lot of people, which makes them resent those around them that won't talk to them. It gets a bit circular at that point.

Another part of it is the societal drive towards individuality. Only worry about the individual, only worry about yourself. You can only fix you, to hell with everyone else .etc.


But with a societal hierarchy that is based almost entirely on capital gain, what else could be expected? Success based purely upon money; the purpose of money, buy more things, ergo, the greediest of us ( IE: people with the most drive to maximize their personal material gain) rise to the top.

Greed is the enemy of socialism. Because for one to be truly greedy, they put the needs of themselves (and maybe their families) over the happiness, or in many cases, even the lives of others.

But being rich is much like chasing the dragon; a term used on druggies that perpetually chase their first big high (while never catching it). People work their entire lives to be/stay rich, but then so often die without ever having experienced true happiness.


So we've got so many people running their solo hamster wheels, passively sad and angry about the way the world is, but too blind to see that all they need to do in order to fix it all is to get off of that hamster wheel, and walk their own path's.

TBH, even a lot of people that think they're happy, are merely living in a state of cognitive dissonance. If you get unreasonably angry at any one thing, more than once every few days, then there's a good chance that you are not actually happy. Also that the thing you're getting mad at, probably isn't even the real cause for that negative emotion.

 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
It's weird to realize that despite being incredibly cynical I somehow don't have the worst possible outlook on people. I don't really like them, most of the time, I don't have much faith in their ability to recognize mistakes and improve, but it could be worse I guess.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lazarus102

Well-Known Member
It takes a LOT of intelligence to do long-term greed in a good way
Also takes a lot to do it in a bad way. When you think about it, the leadership we have in modern day, isn't much more than a polished version of the days of nobility. Just that instead of one person benefiting from the suffering of the masses, it's thousands.

The top is... you describe it as "chasing the dragon", I outright call it a form of enslavement.
The bottom is no better, instead of chasing the dragon for wealth and riches, you're chasing the dragon just to survive (running from the dragon, might be a better analogy).. and there's no getting off of that train.. Many people don't even have the money to retire.. I've seen 60-80 year olds, working at McDonalds..

What you describe as "the people with the most drive" are actually "the people willing to give up autonomy for wealth".
Actually, you're half right on this. To elaborate, what you are describing, are the CEO's of this world. But those aren't the only rich people, and they are the ones that can alter their path to be the better half of the rich, IE, the majority shareholders. Either one has power through. Money is power. The CEO may not have as much choice in how he runs the company as he/she would like, but they do have the kinds of money to donate to the political campaigns that keep their interests in check (IE: the multi-million dollar yearly un-taxed bonuses, which are criminal from an objective viewpoint..).

I'm... pretty sure that's why you get a lot of bad bosses - they see their autonomy slip and they worry too much about getting it back.
Bosses are typically bosses because they enjoy power. A lot of the time, they are like that because they didn't have power at one point. Power, like with any possession, will fill the person that possesses it with a persistent fear of losing it. That is why those in power often abuse it, and become very demanding of those below them.

If I come up with more counters to the philosophy I'll add it.
Must it be counters? Lol.. Couldn't you be agreeable?

I'm in a poor position to help most other people if my own affairs are in some state of shambles, and that's assuming they want my help. I CAN only fix myself, if that even, and if I'm at a reasonable level of functionality I MIGHT be able to help others fix themselves. My desire to help some people may stem from a selfless place, but persisting when my help is refused veers more and more into the selfish and arrogant the harder I persist... and some people (myself included) would just as soon figure things out themselves as often as possible. Who the hell am I to step in and grab someone else's steering wheel? What do I know of their troubles? What sort of sanctimony must I be drunk on to think myself capable of fixing others as I constantly find myself putting myself back together again?
Eh, I didn't necessarily mean help other's fix themselves. I meant in terms of being a social species. Also in terms of looking below the surface at the psychological issues rampant in society.

Example: Everybody sees crazy Joe as crazy. Everyone thinks crazy Joe should get professional help. Turns out that when you actually dissect crazy Joe, all he really needed was some dedicated friends to believe in him and teach him how to even have friends. Crazy Joe got crazy old, and crazy Joe died alone.

All of our actions have consequences, but our inaction can form even worse consequences over time.

We all blame crazy Joe for being crazy, when in-fact it was our judgement, and neglect, rejection, and shaming of regular Joe, of which is responsible for the existence of crazy Joe.

We all have the power to help somebody, if we look beyond ourselves. And in many cases, helping someone else can teach us things about ourselves, and/or even be therapeutic towards our own internal issues.

It's effectively impossible for even the most gregarious person in the world to actually, truly care deeply about more than about a few hundred or so individuals tops - MAYBE
To know that many, yes, I agree, but you're running on the assumption that you need to know somebody in order to care for them. It certainly does help, and we tend to hold biases towards those we know. Caring and helping are positive things that can fill you with a sense of euphoria. Oscar Schindler saved over 1000 jews. And well, in the movie at least, in the end, he was down on his knees crying because he couldn't save more.

Billionaires don't literally have billions of dollars sitting around in their bank accounts. They secure billionaire status by having at least one billion dollars in total net worth.
Obviously, I said bank/stocks .ECT. Obviously they must have a bank acnt, at least I'd imagine they do. and .etc, accounts for any other investments outside of stocks. Regardless, they got mad bank (so to speak), and could be using it in more selfless ways.. I mean, that's a thousand million dollars.. most of us will never see more than 100k in our accounts before we die.. And many will starve to death without ever having a bank account.

It's also not a money issue but a logistical and political one. A nation that's ruled by an iron-fisted dictator, a bunch of tribal warlords, or a hodgepodge of criminal syndicates (most of the countries dealing with food insecurity generally have dysfunctional, weak, or virtually non-existent central governments as well) isn't going to let an outside billionaire gift tons food to the starving people under their rule. They're going to take control of those food shipments to leverage power over of their subjects ("behave and I'll reward you with nosh"), sell the food to enrich their own pockets, or give the food to various powerful and influential actors who support them in order to maintain their loyalty.

A billion is a shit-ton of money though. You could bring more than food, lol.. Dictator is one thing, but if we're talking tribal warlords, like in Africa, bring them guns, bring a small army.. Sam Childers did a bit of a job over there himself as a single person with a relative handful of resources. They made a movie about him "machine gun preacher".

But hell, if you want to make it political, what about helping the starving people in their own countries.. Why is there even starving people at all in first world countries that have billionaires living in them.. That fact is a bit more than disgusting.. WTF does a person need a thousand million dollars (or more) for, so badly that he can't help the people starving in his own back yard (so to speak)?

Simple; you're focused on the one person and your statement implies it's THEIR greed.

That's not how it works.

At that level, you do not make that money alone. Getting to that kind of level requires a lot of debts to a lot of people ("benefactors"), all with their own desired outcomes.

In that situation it's the benefactors' greed that controls the rich man's life and actions, NOT that of the rich man himself.

What you generally see happen there is that the rich man completely gives up on what they want. They're now chasing what the benefactors want, instead of their own longings. They've in fact completely given up on their greed.

They're now a puppet.

Thing is this path happens no matter the rich man's original intentions.
So, you're telling me that the person with enough money to own a house (mansion) big enough to house 100 people with room to spare, and their own private yacht with room to land their private helicopter, can't even afford (have enough expendable income) to keep several thousand people fed? They could probably (hypothetically) have that amount in a business savings acnt, and use the interest alone to pull that off..

If someone had 7.something billion dollars lying around and (for the sake of this exercise) could feed everyone in the world for a dollar apiece... well, cool, everyone eats for a day.

And they're now broke. Not a rabbit coming out of that hat again.

The next day, the hungry people wonder who's going to feed them next... and maybe someone else steps up.

Two days.

Maybe more cash flows in, maybe it can be repeated for a week. Two weeks. A month.

Hunger ended for a month. That's pretty awesome.

But I sure as fuck hope those hungry people learned how to produce food for themselves in the meantime, because they're fucked the moment the billionaires can't or won't feed them.
Yea.. You're taking what I said on a pretty basic level. Plus I said help starving people.. lol.. Why give people that're making an above living wage like 100k per year, a dollar? That's just silly..

Obviously if you're smart enough to have billions of dollars and maintain it, you're smart enough to make a proper kind of investment that would perpetually feed those people. A help the people help themselves kinda deally. That's the problem with society and mainstream mentality. We're taught to only give people a fish instead of teaching them how to fish. Hence we've got entire shelters the size of apartments to house homeless people, instead of a system in place to rehabilitate, and educate them and give them a proper shot at the life they missed out on.
 
Last edited:

lazarus102

Well-Known Member
I can also say that - if one looks in the right places, (with the right individuals) - then, you can encounter some *very* social people also..... that are more than willing to chat up a storm with you and even spend some time with you.
Perhaps better worded as, most people are asocial as a primary response. And yes, obviously if you go to a social club or somesuch in which people are (naturally) looking to socialize, you will probably find some that are social. But we don't naturally socialize with those around us on the level that we should. For example, look at how children socialize compared to adults (before they have "Dont talk to strangers!" pounded into their heads). They will literally walk up to ANYONE and say 'hello!', and expect a response in return.

I mean really, if you want evidence to how relatively socially screwed up we are, all you need to do is look to the children. We're trained out of innocence, trained to walk, talk and act specific ways.. We're practically robots compared to what we once were.

Hell, look at the community we're in.. So many of you dress up in animal costumes and go into public, even create online fursonaes as a way to escape an otherwise grim and cold reality..

within big cities - (like I live in): sometimes knowing someone "who knows someone" as they say.... can be a great way to get one's "foot in the door" with people (socially) as well.
Social networking, yep, well aware of that. Sadly I'm stuck in a tiny town for the time being.. Sides, this wasn't really a 'mememe' thread. It was more about a realization of the relative lack of socialization from the populous as a whole.

a semi-crazy individual on a semi-deserted subway train at night, (for example) - isn't necessarily someone that I want to interact with.
Suppose I'll be honest, this is something I've been fighting with a bit myself. I mean, the concept. But mainly because they could end up robbing me or something, OR they might be the nicest person I've ever met and end up becoming a lifelong friend of whom helps me as much as, I them. And all because I decided to believe in them. Or they might just rob me. Lol.. But on a personal note, I avoid drunk people either way. I can't stand the smell, and they're too damn repetitious, not to mention potentially volatile.

It's a definite moral dilemma, and even I still have some underlying fear of the homeless/vagrants and such. But that's largely because of society, and insecurities due to personal experiences with people that have used and abused me.

But if one walks up to me in a public place now, I do my best to treat them as I would want to be treated in a similar situation. Rather than pulling the typical walk away, be dismissive, /avoid, that they usually get from people. Though if they ask me for money, I do typically tell them I'm broke. It's effectively true since I don't carry cash on me, and I won't walk to a bank machine. Sides, I got enough huge corporations begging me for cash on a daily basis at my computer/console, so I've grown to detest it when people ask me for money, since I'm not exactly rich as it is (with being on disability).

Putting yourself first isn't greed, it's called self-interest. It's egotistical to expect other people to put you first before themselves. If anything putting your own needs before others is normal, natural and how our society functions, and it functions well in that regard. It's greedy to want what others have, plain and simple.

I rest my case.. congrats on being a robot with no original thoughts of your own. I say this not to be offensive but what you just said is the exact same copy/paste line I've heard many times over. People are taught to think that this is OK, because, guess what, the people with the most to gain from this mentality are the ones running things.

I may not be religious, but I was raised with a lot of religious knowledge, and the ideals that come with it (karma, equality, judge not lest ye be judged .etc). There's ways to help those around you, without screwing yourself. and even have some come back to you without screwing them (unlike the minimum legal wage workers at the bottom of a company run by a billionaire).

As for the rich, you will eventually run out of people's money. And when there's no one left of the billionaires, what then?
As I said earlier in this post, I'm not talking about handing out stacks like it's Xmas and the billionaires are Santa.. I'm talking about investing in the people, instead of only self-interest. If anyone's being 'ignorant' it's the people that think like you do; like there's only one answer to any given thing. Like I've said before, the people that confuse tradition for perfection.


Be careful about this conversation spiraling into political mud slinging.
I didn't really intend the political part to even be emphasized on, as it wasn't really the main point at all. But people have a bad habit of defending the filthy rich because 'they earned it'. But really, how do you work hard enough to 'earn' 1000's of times more money than most people will make in a lifetime? They sure as hell aren't working thousands of times harder (because that's a literal impossibility).

But for the sake of forum diplomacy, I will ask that people cut down on any arguments that lean towards politics. There's plenty of other aspects to delve into.

In some places/cultures, it’s considered normal/polite to chat with people waiting for the same bus you are, and in others it isn’t. I can’t pretend to know how those traditions came about, but the fact that both exist to me suggests that it’s not an inherent human quality.
That's actually a very good point. Things often get normalized within society because everyone within that society does things a specific way. It's only when you take note to realize that things don't have to be that way, that you come to the realization that things that are 'normal' aren't necessarily natural human traits.

At most, they might be different tactics for tackling a world where we’re liable to encounter more people, possibly even on a daily basis, than we are capable of building personal connections with.
That's one way of looking at it, but consider the well known concept of two people being stuck in an elevator together, and the awkwardness that is naturally perceived by those that view that scenario on TV, or w.e.

Obviously one other person isn't too much to handle, but we still find ourselves discomforted by the thought.

if we truly were asocial as a species
Not as a species. Like I said, children, especially young children, are very social. The part about being asocial, is taught as we get older.

Just because you’re social doesn’t mean you need to be ready to interact with every member of your species that crosses your path.
That's true, but mostly what I'm talking about is how little socialism goes on with unknown people, relative to how many people there are. It's that initial defensive layer people have. I think a lot of people tend to overthink before even considering a stranger to be a potential friend. Much like you'd see in anime's when it's playing out the awkward thoughts of a younger individual entering a new situation.

It's weird to realize that despite being incredibly cynical I somehow don't have the worst possible outlook on people.
After all I've been through, I should outright hate and dismiss humanity as a lost cause. But I too, have more faith in people than is often warranted. I think there is some good people, some bad people, and a whole lot of people that just follow whatever is trending.

but it could be worse I guess.
Could also be better, I wish more people would recognize that side of things.
 
Last edited:

Firuthi Dragovic

Gamer Dragon, former speedrunner
Must it be counters? Lol.. Couldn't you be agreeable?
I'll see if I need to answer anything else later, but this?

If you want real honesty? The stance I'm hoping to take and may eventually promote on greed, some of which I may have accidentally contradicted in my attempts to answer you, is... I actually want to nullify the "greed is unforgivable" stance because I suspect it's causing people to hoard.

Hoarding actually has a lot of roots in anxiety and fear. Demonizing greed will reinforce those feelings.

It's beyond the scope of this discussion but... there's almost assuredly an equivalent for all the "deadlies".
 

Yakamaru

Autumn wolf
I rest my case.. congrats on being a robot with no original thoughts of your own. I say this not to be offensive but what you just said is the exact same copy/paste line I've heard many times over. People are taught to think that this is OK, because, guess what, the people with the most to gain from this mentality are the ones running things.

I may not be religious, but I was raised with a lot of religious knowledge, and the ideals that come with it (karma, equality, judge not lest ye be judged .etc). There's ways to help those around you, without screwing yourself. and even have some come back to you without screwing them (unlike the minimum legal wage workers at the bottom of a company run by a billionaire).
People have no obligations over others. It is a matter of consent and wanting said obligations. For family and close friends it comes as natural due to being people we know and like. For strangers however I nor anyone else have any obligations, and it's egotistical to expect otherwise. Our species is the most social but being social have a time and place. Being unhappy is a you problem, mate. Not everyone else's problem.

There are indeed ways to help others, but they are not obligatory, only encouraged.

"Give a man a fish he have food for a day. Give a man a fishing rod and teach him how to fish and he's got food for a lifetime."
Help others into helping themselves, because at the end of the day no one is going to come in and save you. Knowing how to take care of yourself is vital for your own happiness.
As I said earlier in this post, I'm not talking about handing out stacks like it's Xmas and the billionaires are Santa.. I'm talking about investing in the people, instead of only self-interest. If anyone's being 'ignorant' it's the people that think like you do; like there's only one answer to any given thing. Like I've said before, the people that confuse tradition for perfection.
Self-interest is what drives people, yourself included. Be it for yourself or those close to you. I just don't delude myself and go around claiming it's for for the good of everyone or some other false virtuous bullshit.
 

Khafra

Heave away, haul away
What you're describing in this thread has been thought of already, it's called Utopia. A big part of it is that it the name means "the non-existant place", make of that what you will.
 
O

O.D.D.

Guest
Yea.. You're taking what I said on a pretty basic level. Plus I said help starving people.. lol.. Why give people that're making an above living wage like 100k per year, a dollar? That's just silly..
OK. Fair point.

Do you have a figure on the number of starving people? A rough estimate. Once you've got that number, where are they? How do we get food to them? We need to acquire it (doesn't matter how - donated, bought), get it put together and shipped/distributed. Oh, and depending on where they are, we need to make sure it actually goes to the ones who need it. Not, you know, a local warlord/mob boss/etc. who will basically steal it and either hoard it to control hungry people, or sell it elsewhere.

So we need:
Analysis
Acquisition
Logistics
Security

And we will need constant followup to make sure these are being done, that impact is being made, and that any adjustments that need to be made are done in a timely fashion.

The overly simplified scenario I was positing? That would be MUCH EASIER. That's what a lot of people do now - throw a dollar at the problem, hope it goes away, hope someone uses that dollar properly because I mean it's not like you can do anything about it if they don't.

Understand - we have people starving IN THE UNITED STATES. IN A FUCKING FIRST WORLD COUNTRY. We have malnutrition HERE, IN OUR COUNTRY, THAT WE CAN NOT COMPLETELY ADDRESS. There are a lot of overfed people walking around here, to be sure. There's a horrifying amount of food waste. There is a MINDBLOWING amount of inefficiency and a shocking absence of effective response for the most part.

But let's try and fix the rest of the world when we're coming apart at the seams in a lot of ways. Our infrastructure is held together with duct tape, spit, toothpicks and fervent prayers in a lot of places. Our social programs are honestly a fucking sick joke. Our medical care is some of the best in the world and it's also some of the least accessible to our own citizenry. Our educational performance has PLUMMETED. And nobody is doing a damn thing of worth about it. People TALK about it a lot, and then they decide that the best way to address it is to politely ask the government that has CONSISTENTLY SCREWED THE FUCKING POOCH FOR DECADES ON THIS SHIT to maybe do a little better this time. And when it doesn't come to fruition, because of course it doesn't, they just politely ask again in 2-4 years.
 

quoting_mungo

Well-Known Member
That's one way of looking at it, but consider the well known concept of two people being stuck in an elevator together, and the awkwardness that is naturally perceived by those that view that scenario on TV, or w.e.

Obviously one other person isn't too much to handle, but we still find ourselves discomforted by the thought.
You’re looking at a single isolated event rather than looking at the event as part of the fabric of each person’s life, though. If distancing yourself from strangers a little bit is how you cope with there being more people than you’re literally capable of forming relationships with, that’s a pattern you’ve formed. Being stuck in a small space with a stranger breaks the pattern, and that in itself will cause awkwardness and discomfort. Yes, there’s only a single stranger there right then, and if you’re stuck for an extended time you probably will end up striking up a conversation. This is liable to happen faster if the context is such that you can safely assume a shared interest - spontaneous interaction between strangers happens a lot more at events focusing on specific interests than they do on the street. On the street, telling someone their dog is cute is less likely to get a cold shoulder than trying to strike up a conversation about some random thing, because by making the comment you are establishing a common interest (the dog).

Again, look at social animals. Two wolves, or horses, or whatever, with no prior familiarity won’t react well to suddenly being stuck in a space the equivalent size together. This is essentially how we got the whole concept of dominance in wolf packs with alphas and betas, and horrible dog training practices like Milan’s “alpha roll” or whatever. Someone tried to artificially create a pack by tossing a bunch of unrelated wolves into the same space, and decided the dysfunction that resulted was representative of naturally formed packs.

Any one interaction has the potential to involve only you and one other person. Any one interaction like this is not too much to handle (ignoring issues like social anxiety and trauma etc; obviously they could have tremendous impact here). But there isn’t just one interaction. After this interaction there will be another, and another.

Not as a species. Like I said, children, especially young children, are very social. The part about being asocial, is taught as we get older.
I don’t believe it’s quite that clear cut. Children also eat paste. ;) I am not a developmental psychologist or anthropologist, so this is just my personal reasoning, mind.

Looking again at animal behavior, and specifically the behavior of social animals, you see a lot of behavioral differences between sexually immature and adult individuals, as well as different behavior in the same adult when interacting with other adults VS interacting with youngsters. Adults tend to be more tolerant with children, and show less hostility towards a strange child than a strange adult. (Exceptions exist, of course, and some of those exceptions will be outright gruesome.) My guess would be that it’s natural/developmentally appropriate for young children to seek a tribe, and they don’t have strong filters in place for what adult individuals “belong” in that tribe - probably in part because living in groups as large as we do today is, on an evolutionary scale, a new phenomenon.

As practically any creature grows older, strange/unfamiliar things will generally be treated with more apprehension than when they were young and still learning about the world.

That said, yes, we absolutely do also actively teach children that blind trust in strangers is inappropriate, and they do learn, if nothing else so by osmosis, the social norms of the culture they live in, including how much and how to interact with strangers. I simply think that it would be overly simplistic, to the point of being inaccurate, to assume that a child absent discouragement from their surroundings would retain the social behavior of their youth into adulthood unchanged.
 

Simo

Professional Watermelon Farmer
Scanning this thread reminded me of this:

E2jpT0xXoAMa3SH.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top