Fable2Fan:

artiboi21:

meralonne:

artiboi21:

LethargicMotivator:

If three bucks improves somebody's quality of life instead of just making you fatter or more jacked up on coffee, then it's the right thing to part with the money. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to our current society because you don't need any worthwhile attribute to get very far, you just need to be underhanded, dishonest, and most of the time American. I would rather live in a society of equal living people who live at an average living standard than live in a society with some people far above the average, and some people far below.

go to china

Quit making the rest of the Americans on this board look bad. Our country was not founded on the principal: "Screw the other guy."

I agree Meralonne this indivdual has no idea what our country was established on.

it's not a matter of making Americans look bad. i'm trying to show you everyone is bad. i'm not attacking the american person i am attacking the human race.

Not one man/woman in this world is a perfect !00% person. with that everyone has sins.

and our country was created with the mind that we want to become independent. George washington himself stated that we should not be worried about forgein affairs and we should worry for ourselves.

and we do say "screw the other guy". when have we entered a war that we had nothing to do with benifitting our country?

the media brainwashes us to believing what they want. and if you do not believe this you have lost your mind.

Until you have been to war you don't know what you are talking about. As far as the media take them with a grain of salt.

We don't always say screw the other guy. Have you never heard of NATO? Or possibly how we have been in damn near every conflict in the last few decades?

Do you actually know why we go the war?

---

http://mr-thump-2.mybrute.com Try to beat me if you can!

Gigamet:

i try hard not to act like an a**, purely because, i'm not one in real life (or at least i hope everyones perception of me doesn't lean towards that). People usually do it for attention, as is my understanding of it all.

but i find, that being nice helps, for example:
"can you help me with this?"
the reply if you've been an a** :- "no, you're an a**!"
the reply if you've been nice :- "sure, i'll help"

theres an old saying, 'be nice to others, and they shall be nice to you'.
although, sometimes i do get rattled up, especially if its some kid who thinks he knows best. that grinds my gears...and has sometimes caused me to act badly towards others.

like someone said earlier though, perception is everything, not whether you're nice or not.
And might i add, this thread isn't a wall of text, oh no....its a fortress...

truth is i don't try to be an ass either because i am a nice person but when i get pissed off i tend to become an ***. and this thread is pointless to tell you the truth since it is going out of content.

but why i am going against most the people in this thread is because they are full of ***. no one is a person. so quit thinking so highly of yourselves.

---

artiboi21:

but why i am going against most the people in this thread is because they are full of ***. no one is a person. so quit thinking so highly of yourselves.

Your claims have gone from pointing out the obvious (yes, no one is 100% , no one needs telling) to some kind of typical teenage emo "The world is crap! Everyone is !" rant. What requirements do you require for someone to be a person? If no one meets them then that's a sign you should be reconsidering your impossibly high standards, not that anyone else is thinking highly of themselves.

Of course, we could go into the whole idea of '' and 'bad' being subjective concepts and there's no real way to determine who's right or wrong about it.

MrThump2:

Fable2Fan:

artiboi21:

meralonne:

artiboi21:

LethargicMotivator:

If three bucks improves somebody's quality of life instead of just making you fatter or more jacked up on coffee, then it's the right thing to part with the money. Survival of the fittest doesn't apply to our current society because you don't need any worthwhile attribute to get very far, you just need to be underhanded, dishonest, and most of the time American. I would rather live in a society of equal living people who live at an average living standard than live in a society with some people far above the average, and some people far below.

go to china

Quit making the rest of the Americans on this board look bad. Our country was not founded on the principal: "Screw the other guy."

I agree Meralonne this indivdual has no idea what our country was established on.

it's not a matter of making Americans look bad. i'm trying to show you everyone is bad. i'm not attacking the american person i am attacking the human race.

Not one man/woman in this world is a perfect !00% person. with that everyone has sins.

and our country was created with the mind that we want to become independent. George washington himself stated that we should not be worried about forgein affairs and we should worry for ourselves.

and we do say "screw the other guy". when have we entered a war that we had nothing to do with benifitting our country?

the media brainwashes us to believing what they want. and if you do not believe this you have lost your mind.

Until you have been to war you don't know what you are talking about. As far as the media take them with a grain of salt.

We don't always say screw the other guy. Have you never heard of NATO? Or possibly how we have been in damn near every conflict in the last few decades?

Do you actually know why we go the war?

I said, "We don't always say screw the other guy."

---

Undead---God:

artiboi21:

but why i am going against most the people in this thread is because they are full of ***. no one is a person. so quit thinking so highly of yourselves.

Your claims have gone from pointing out the obvious (yes, no one is 100% , no one needs telling) to some kind of typical teenage emo "The world is crap! Everyone is !" rant. What requirements do you require for someone to be a person? If no one meets them then that's a sign you should be reconsidering your impossibly high standards, not that anyone else is thinking highly of themselves. Of course, we could go into the whole idea of '' and 'bad' being subjective concepts and there's no real way to determine who's right or wrong about it.

i'm not emo i'm just pointing out that no one can be 100% . it is not human nature. humans are meant for nothing but destruction. sure we do have the people that don't like it, but if they were given the power they wouldn't care.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, "give a man power and he will only want more."

---

Raveeeeek!

So, anyway, I was gonna reply to stuff but then I saw Del agrees with me () and now we're talkin' about "your mom" jokes.

WHICH IS COOL I GUESS!

---

artiboi21:

i'm not emo i'm just pointing out that no one can be 100% . it is not human nature. humans are meant for nothing but destruction.

You should have stopped at 'no one can be 100% ,' because the rest of your ramble was pretty standard emo "everyone sucks" crap.

D&D's alignment system pegs humans as defaulting to 'neutral.' Neither truly , nor truly ; as prone to destructive impulses as to creative ones. I find that reasonably accurate as a generalization.

artiboi21:

i'm not emo i'm just pointing out that no one can be 100% . it is not human nature. humans are meant for nothing but destruction. sure we do have the people that don't like it, but if they were given the power they wouldn't care.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, "give a man power and he will only want more."

Humans are meant for nothing but destruction? What a load of rubbish. You're clearly not pointing out that humans aren't 100% , not in any meaningful way anyway, you're basically saying everyone is .

And yes, that is a standard emo type rant. You know, going on about how everyone's monsters.

artiboi21:

Undead---God:

artiboi21:

but why i am going against most the people in this thread is because they are full of ***. no one is a person. so quit thinking so highly of yourselves.

Your claims have gone from pointing out the obvious (yes, no one is 100% , no one needs telling) to some kind of typical teenage emo "The world is crap! Everyone is !" rant. What requirements do you require for someone to be a person? If no one meets them then that's a sign you should be reconsidering your impossibly high standards, not that anyone else is thinking highly of themselves. Of course, we could go into the whole idea of '' and 'bad' being subjective concepts and there's no real way to determine who's right or wrong about it.

i'm not emo i'm just pointing out that no one can be 100% . it is not human nature. humans are meant for nothing but destruction. sure we do have the people that don't like it, but if they were given the power they wouldn't care.

i guess what i'm trying to say is, "give a man power and he will only want more."

Give it up artiboi21! You're digging hole to bury yourself. 

---

http://mr-thump-2.mybrute.com Try to beat me if you can!

it wud be soooooo much bettur if everybudy was a vampyre xD

then ud neva hav things lik war or hungur becuz evrybudy wid be so much kooler n goffik jst liek the wurld is xD

I HATE MILEY CYRUS AND ALL PREPS

xXxMCR4LYFExXx

---

I only wrote this because I hate you.

LethargicMotivator:

it wud be soooooo much bettur if everybudy was a vampyre xD then ud neva hav things lik war or hungur becuz evrybudy wid be so much kooler n goffik jst liek the wurld is xD I HATE MILEY CYRUS AND ALL PREPS xXxMCR4LYFExXx

i agree with him lol (just the part about miley cyrus though)

---

Kaosprophet:

Barring the sociopaths. And I think you underestimate the power of a conscious mind to 'reprogram' basic instincts. But then, I suspect most people aren't fully conscious these days.

 I guess.

 But then maybe you're just talking plain bullshit. I would love an example of someone mind-over-mattering (mind-over-minding?!) something as primal as empathy.

If you see it as 'holding you back,' then you're still on the lower tiers of the pyramid; concerned with the physiological and safety needs. Empathy gets in the way of taking advantage of others to more easily meet those needs; but it is an advantageous mechanism (arguably even a necessary one) for fulfilling the needs of the social tier. You can't be a friend to anyone without it.

It's nuanced. Being able to turn it off and on, being able to fake it like a female orgasm, etc? That's sweeeet.

P.S. Being able to fake it like a MALE orgasm, perhaps? 

Yes, I am drunk.

---

The_Orcid:

 So, point is, all that's stopping you and Motivator and Terrible from dicking up someone's pretty little day is a tiny little neuronal spark. A tiny little spark of primitive bullshit. That's telling you "PUT THE SPECIES FIRST PUT THE SPECIES FIRST" 

We have evolved to the point, however, where we can realize it.
 
And I think it's goddamn hilarious that's all heroism and tact and " will towards men" is. I find it goddamn hilarious. I find it knock-the-air-out-of-you depressing. 

You're all bullshitting yourselves.

How cute.

Another pre-programmed trait of humanity is to think that people who do not think like you, do so because they are not as enlightened and clevar as yourself. I like the part in discussions where one party reveals its complete lack of respect for opposing thoughts by reverting to this pathetic assumption, because that's when I know that it's been a waste of my time and I can do something more productive with my life.

I see you're trying very hard to be as Joker-like as possible. You'd probably also like The Comedian from Watchmen.

Edit 4 thread read:

The_Orcid:

Kaosprophet:

Barring the sociopaths. And I think you underestimate the power of a conscious mind to 'reprogram' basic instincts. But then, I suspect most people aren't fully conscious these days.

 I guess.

 But then maybe you're just talking plain bullshit. I would love an example of someone mind-over-mattering (mind-over-minding?!) something as primal as empathy.

What he means is that any enlightened individual must actively make an effort to decide which of the primal instincts that will determine his actions. Personally, I am toning down my other primal instincts, such as anger, greed and fear, and try to crank up on the more constructive ones, like empathy.

The reasoning behind this decision has to do with Kant's moral imperative. Basically, I'd like to live in a world where everyone did this.

The_Orcid:

Raveeeeek!

Yes?

Lord_Terrible:

How cute.

http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/1190/v10j.jpg

Edit: That's just standard long hair, folks. Not the emo kind.

Another pre-programmed trait of humanity is to think that people who do not think like you, do so because they are not as enlightened and clevar as yourself.

 
Yes.

'Course, we all consider ourselves more enlightened and clevar than other people all the time.

I like the part in discussions where one party reveals its complete lack of respect for opposing thoughts by reverting to this pathetic assumption, because that's when I know that it's been a waste of my time and I can do something more productive with my life.

The basis of my argument is that your thoughts suck.

But, seriously, I make these threads because I want to see if can be convinced otherwise. You're just not doin' it for me quite yet.

I see you're trying very hard to be as Joker-like as possible. You'd probably also like The Comedian from Watchmen.

I'm not trying very hard at all. Comedian is my favorite Watchmen.

What he means is that any enlightened individual must actively make an effort to decide which of the primal instincts that will determine his actions. Personally, I am toning down my other primal instincts, such as anger, greed and fear, and try to crank up on the more constructive ones, like empathy.

The reasoning behind this decision has to do with Kant's moral imperative. Basically, I'd like to live in a world where everyone did this.

Oooh, any "enlightened individual." Zing(!).

ANYWHO, ya tellin' me anger, greed, and fear can't be constructive, LT?

---

The_Orcid:

ANYWHO, ya tellin' me anger, greed, and fear can't be constructive, LT?

Glad you asked. Let's run through them, shall we?

ANGER
For the most part, anger is a huge vulnerability, prone to make you a tool for someone else's designs. Anger can also blind a person, leading to decisions that logically will do nothing at all to help the situation in the long run. So over all, pretty useless.

What anger can do for us though is to represent a deterrent for immoral actions. By extension, anger is the basis of legal systems of crime and punishment. Say you considered raping someone. This would make a lot of people Angry. That would probably make them *** You Up. Maybe you decide not to rape someone. Then that would be a Thing.

Taken to the extreme though, it is also the basis of angry mobs, vigilantism etc. So on the whole, anger is a pretty unconstructive instinct.

FEAR
Fear was great. When we roamed the forests, foraging berries and hunting wild game. Knowing what things to be Afraid of helped you stay alive. This instinct serve us well in situations where danger lurks everywhere.

Which is the exact opposite of our current situation. The statistical risk of getting killed or maimed for the average person in the western world is so ridiculously low that being Afraid is guaranteed to cause more grief than whatever bad things do happen to you. The instinct is still there though, and increasingly prolific too.

Fear is an even bigger exploit than anger. Fear is easy to inspire in people. And a person that is afraid, is easier to convince, or coerce, and will generally be subservient to whoever promises that person to make whatever he fears Go Away.

GREED
A cornerstone of capitalistic thought is that "greed is ". I don't agree with "" part, but greed IS a fantastic motivator. Greedy people, more often than their counterparts, will go and perform labour, in order to serve their own ends. So, capitalism has managed to tap into the awesome power of Greed, by allowing people to satiate their greed, producing lots and lots of stuff in the process.

However. Worshipping greed has brought us far, we live in nice houses and have lots of iPods. But most of the crap that capitalism has brought us is utterly useless. Wearing Nike shoes or whatever ultimately does very little for your happiness, but in the process you managed to be partially responsible for some kid in Taiwan getting oppressed. The western world is pretty much responsible for holding the third world in economic slavery, causing a lot more grief than our luxurious excess cause us joy.

Communism failed because it failed to tap into people's native greed. The basic idea was instead to motivate people using their empathy and compassion, but it just doesn't work with the general populace. In an ideal society, consisting only of people driven by these instincts rather than the baser ones you mentioned, it would work, but sadly humans for the most part aren't like that.

So while uninhibited greed is efficient for individual gain, in utilitarian terms it is not constructive. I believe it could be, however, if people's greed was harnessed and controlled to do something constructive. It's an idea I have for an economic system somewhere between communism and capitalism, but that's a whole other discussion.

Capitalism is mainly about being fair. Companies will offer a lot of money to people who'll make a lot of money for them. The more competent you are, the more you get. That's the beauty of a free market.

Of course there's bureaucracy and people playing by different rules than capitalism's, which goes against the fairness, but that's a problem that'll exist in any form of economy.

Communism on the other hand is ridiculous drivel that can't work, on account of not providing a connection between competency and gain. Call that connection greed if you will, but it's absolutely necessary for a boundlessly growing market.

Removing it is like removing the connection between behaviour and reproduction in Darwinian selection. Imagine what would happen to evolution if you took all the resources available to a species and redistributed it equally according to each individuals' needs, regardless of their individual ability of obtaining what it requires. Natural selection would go down the drain, with random drift taking over.

The more competent you are, the more valuable you will be as an employee, and the higher pay you will receive. But the guy in charge of you, who goes to meetings and deliver status reports, will always earn a little bit more.

I don't see why how evolution concerns economical systems... The basic principle of evolution is that if you have reproduction, variation and selection, you will have progress.

Lack of selection (abundance of food, predator population wiped out by meteor etc.) will only create diversity in evolution, due to unregulated variation. It's happened numerous times in Earth's history, most notably the Cambrian explosion. All kinds of crazy species popped up that made no sense whatsoever, but since they weren't selected against we now have reptiles, mammals...

Anyway. What capitalism does (and does well) is to create a survival-of-the-fittest kind of ecology. This means intense progress. But, the success criteria in the ecology is profit. So, it's no longer just survival of the fittest, it's survival of the profittest. Har, har.

A system which I think is fairly evident by now has some nasty side effects, as making profit is a lot easier if it's at someone else's expense.

Lord_Terrible:

The_Orcid:

ANYWHO, ya tellin' me anger, greed, and fear can't be constructive, LT?

Glad you asked. Let's run through them, shall we?

ANGER
For the most part, anger is a huge vulnerability, prone to make you a tool for someone else's designs. Anger can also blind a person, leading to decisions that logically will do nothing at all to help the situation in the long run. So over all, pretty useless.

What anger can do for us though is to represent a deterrent for immoral actions. By extension, anger is the basis of legal systems of crime and punishment. Say you considered raping someone. This would make a lot of people Angry. That would probably make them *** You Up. Maybe you decide not to rape someone. Then that would be a Thing.

Taken to the extreme though, it is also the basis of angry mobs, vigilantism etc. So on the whole, anger is a pretty unconstructive instinct.

FEAR
Fear was great. When we roamed the forests, foraging berries and hunting wild game. Knowing what things to be Afraid of helped you stay alive. This instinct serve us well in situations where danger lurks everywhere.

Which is the exact opposite of our current situation. The statistical risk of getting killed or maimed for the average person in the western world is so ridiculously low that being Afraid is guaranteed to cause more grief than whatever bad things do happen to you. The instinct is still there though, and increasingly prolific too.

Fear is an even bigger exploit than anger. Fear is easy to inspire in people. And a person that is afraid, is easier to convince, or coerce, and will generally be subservient to whoever promises that person to make whatever he fears Go Away.

GREED
A cornerstone of capitalistic thought is that "greed is ". I don't agree with "" part, but greed IS a fantastic motivator. Greedy people, more often than their counterparts, will go and perform labour, in order to serve their own ends. So, capitalism has managed to tap into the awesome power of Greed, by allowing people to satiate their greed, producing lots and lots of stuff in the process.

However. Worshipping greed has brought us far, we live in nice houses and have lots of iPods. But most of the crap that capitalism has brought us is utterly useless. Wearing Nike shoes or whatever ultimately does very little for your happiness, but in the process you managed to be partially responsible for some kid in Taiwan getting oppressed. The western world is pretty much responsible for holding the third world in economic slavery, causing a lot more grief than our luxurious excess cause us joy.

Communism failed because it failed to tap into people's native greed. The basic idea was instead to motivate people using their empathy and compassion, but it just doesn't work with the general populace. In an ideal society, consisting only of people driven by these instincts rather than the baser ones you mentioned, it would work, but sadly humans for the most part aren't like that.

So while uninhibited greed is efficient for individual gain, in utilitarian terms it is not constructive. I believe it could be, however, if people's greed was harnessed and controlled to do something constructive. It's an idea I have for an economic system somewhere between communism and capitalism, but that's a whole other discussion.

anger is not a bad thing to have. this is only if you could control it.

in a senario (i think that's how you spell it) where you are either outnumbered or you are challenged by a stronger foe anger could be your greatest or worst ally. for instance, when you are angry your blood moves much faster throughout your body. this cause you to move faster and become stronger. that would help you out in that senario, but if you are not able to control your anger you could get not only other hurt but also yourself.

and another thing about anger. i used to have very high blood pressure (causes you to become insanely angry with everything), but throughout the years i have been able to become sort of "immune" to anger. this may seem like a thing but it's not. People do many things to help themselves out through the emotion-anger. Ever since i became "immune" to anger i have not cared about many things. I am also starting to not care about the safety of others and what would happen to world. Like on dec. 21, 2012 the world is "supposedly" going to go through a major change.

i cannot wait for that date to come whether the world will end or something drastic will happen to it. So without anger you tend to lose interest in not only activities but humanity also.

now fear you got just about right. i would like to add though, fear increases the amount of other emotions. for example like you said it is easier to put fear into someone to subject them to your will. Once that person sees your weekness they will harness all their anger to take you down through that weekness. and because they were afraid of you that will only make the person angrier.

after someone is done being afraid, it boosts the persons happiness to the most it could get. a comparison with that is when you are having sex it feels until you bust. and when you bust that is that most amount of pleasure you could get. (i know it's not a great comparison but bare with me)

and finally greed. Ohhh how people love to be greedy. i hate this the most about people but it is "programmed" into everyone to be greedy in some way.

and just to inform you greed cannot not be "harnest". everyone wishes they could become rich beyond their wildest imaginations. the only benifit that i could possibly think of about greed helping the economy is that more people work or work harder, otherwise their is nothing you can do.

and please do share you idea for greed and communisim because that right now is just making me laugh. but please enlighten me.

---

What is so special about greed, that it cannot be "harnest" like every other primitive instinct?

Greed is harnessed every time someone buys a lottery ticket, or enters a casino. Greed is harnessed every time someone performs a shitty job, in exchange for a bigger pay than what they need to just get by.

People are pretty easy that way. For example, in the event you were a woman, you can make a lot of guys do a lot of things by promising them a blowjob in return. That would be harnessing their lust.

For the common man, like the competent employee Ravek spoke of, your greed is satiated by fulfilling the success criteria of your employer. That is, you must do what they want you to do, and they will reward you money for it.

My problem with this is that employers, namely corporations, are also motivated entirely by greed. Their entire goal is to earn as much profit as possible, thereby making them and their stockholders rich, even though the Raveks actually created that wealth.

So, you have a powerful entity, in the form of a well controlled company, whose primary "base instinct" is greed, meaning that it will f*** over as many people as possible if it means profit.

If the controlling apparatus of this efficient and smoothly running entity was not motivated by greed, and instead by more productive feelings like compassion, then that'd be great. Basically, it is about taking the methods that make capitalism so efficient, and use them for constructive purposes rather than the arbitrary whims of profit. Communism only enters in that it is a system where someone actually sat down at one point and thought "now, what would be a fair and just system of society..."

The_Orcid:

Comedian is my favorite Watchmen.

I posted that before I went to work, and as I walked out the door I realized Nite Owl was my favorite Crime Buster. Comedian is my second favorite Crime Buster.

Lord_Terrible:

Glad you asked. Let's run through them, shall we?

'K.

ANGER
For the most part, anger is a huge vulnerability, prone to make you a tool for someone else's designs. Anger can also blind a person, leading to decisions that logically will do nothing at all to help the situation in the long run. So over all, pretty useless.

What anger can do for us though is to represent a deterrent for immoral actions. By extension, anger is the basis of legal systems of crime and punishment. Say you considered raping someone. This would make a lot of people Angry. That would probably make them *** You Up. Maybe you decide not to rape someone. Then that would be a Thing.

Taken to the extreme though, it is also the basis of angry mobs, vigilantism etc. So on the whole, anger is a pretty unconstructive instinct.

 "Taken to the extreme" a lot of things would suck, huh? That's not much of an argument. Anger is a great ... motivator. I work out harder when I'm angry. We punish wrong-doers because we're angry. We get in sit-ins at 'Whites Only' diners because people are angry. 

FEAR
Fear was great. When we roamed the forests, foraging berries and hunting wild game. Knowing what things to be Afraid of helped you stay alive. This instinct serve us well in situations where danger lurks everywhere.

Which is the exact opposite of our current situation. The statistical risk of getting killed or maimed for the average person in the western world is so ridiculously low that being Afraid is guaranteed to cause more grief than whatever bad things do happen to you. The instinct is still there though, and increasingly prolific too.

Fear is an even bigger exploit than anger. Fear is easy to inspire in people. And a person that is afraid, is easier to convince, or coerce, and will generally be subservient to whoever promises that person to make whatever he fears Go Away.

 It's more like ... stupidity-mongering. Ignorance-mongering, what you're getting at there. We should fear gullibility.

 Plus, you're chalking up fear totally to its physicality. Fear of failure. Fear of ... regret. Don't tell me fear has never made you work harder, love harder? Why is that so unsavory?

GREED
A cornerstone of capitalistic thought is that "greed is ". I don't agree with "" part, but greed IS a fantastic motivator. Greedy people, more often than their counterparts, will go and perform labour, in order to serve their own ends. So, capitalism has managed to tap into the awesome power of Greed, by allowing people to satiate their greed, producing lots and lots of stuff in the process.

However. Worshipping greed has brought us far, we live in nice houses and have lots of iPods. But most of the crap that capitalism has brought us is utterly useless. Wearing Nike shoes or whatever ultimately does very little for your happiness, but in the process you managed to be partially responsible for some kid in Taiwan getting oppressed. The western world is pretty much responsible for holding the third world in economic slavery, causing a lot more grief than our luxurious excess cause us joy.

Not to get on a "whole other discussion", but you're putting a lot of value into those kids. Why should I care about them? Thought-experimentally speaking, one tortured kiddo in Taiwan whose screams of pure agony power the world's cafe latte machines gets a load of me and begs me to set him free. Why should I? I would, but I know by the cold, cruel, and metallic luster of SCIENCE that I'm shooting myself in the foot here.

Communism failed because it failed to tap into people's native greed. The basic idea was instead to motivate people using their empathy and compassion, but it just doesn't work with the general populace. In an ideal society, consisting only of people driven by these instincts rather than the baser ones you mentioned, it would work, but sadly humans for the most part aren't like that.

So while uninhibited greed is efficient for individual gain, in utilitarian terms it is not constructive. I believe it could be, however, if people's greed was harnessed and controlled to do something constructive. It's an idea I have for an economic system somewhere between communism and capitalism, but that's a whole other discussion.

 Again, there's an extreme word. Uninhibited. 'S far as society goes, pal, you're right. We need to work together, but on an individual level, it makes the most sense to convince everyone else to play ball and then take advantage of the situation. Thought-experimentally speaking again, the best possible world for the individual is one where you're at the best possible advantage. No?

---

Lord_Terrible:

The more competent you are, the more valuable you will be as an employee, and the higher pay you will receive. But the guy in charge of you, who goes to meetings and deliver status reports, will always earn a little bit more.

True, but it's not about how much of whatever the company sells he personally provides. It's about how much money he makes the company. People need some kind of management to work effectively, and if they didn't work effectively the company would lose a lot of money. That's the value in the existence of managers and such.

Lord_Terrible:

Lack of selection (abundance of food, predator population wiped out by meteor etc.) will
only create diversity in evolution, due to unregulated variation. It's happened numerous times in Earth's history, most notably the Cambrian explosion. All kinds of crazy species popped up that made no sense whatsoever, but since they weren't selected against we now have reptiles, mammals...

That kind of event momentarily randomly wipes out a large part of the gene pool. That eliminates the advantage of the genes that happened to work well in the status quo but not necessarily on their own, by destroying the status quo entirely. Of course that will lead to more variety, and that's not a problem. After that, selection resumes as before.

But there's a difference between that and what communism does, which I'll get to in a moment.

Lord_Terrible:

Anyway. What capitalism does (and does well) is to create a survival-of-the-fittest kind of ecology. This means intense progress. But, the success criteria in the ecology is profit. So, it's no longer just survival of the fittest, it's survival of the profittest. Har, har.

A system which I think is fairly evident by now has some nasty side effects, as making profit is a lot easier if it's at someone else's expense.

I completely agree.

So now for communism. In stead of people fulfilling their needs by buying s with the profit they made, in ideal communism everyone would fulfill their needs equally regardless of what else they've been doing. This makes profit useless, and so removes the selection criterium.

The evolutionary analogy to this is would be to magically guarantee, say, exactly two offspring to each individual. Then there is no selection, so random drift will take over. Genes that promote reproduction (and longer survival for more reproduction) suddenly have an equal chance of being transmitted as genes that don't. After prolonged time, the species wouldn't be specialised for reproduction and survival anymore. If then suddenly the artificial provision of offspring stopped, there would be a near-extinction.

In economy, if you guarantee fulfillment of needs regardless of competency, then you promote the lack of competency. If you keep that up for a few generations, and then ever have an unexpected shortage of s, it'd be disastrous. Communism is completely unstable. There has to be some kind of selection, some kind of incentive to do better.

I think that ideally we'd have a selection environment in which selection were done on how much you profit society. But there's no way we'd be able to rate every single job on its benefit to society as a whole. How do you compare a hairdresser's and pilot's worth to society as a whole? That's impossibly complicated. We can only rate a job's worth locally ... and there we have capitalism again.

Capitalism and Darwinian selection aren't the kindest of solutions. But they're the only ones we know that are stable and actually work.

artiboi21:

Lord_Terrible:

The_Orcid:

ANYWHO, ya tellin' me anger, greed, and fear can't be constructive, LT?

Glad you asked. Let's run through them, shall we?

ANGER
For the most part, anger is a huge vulnerability, prone to make you a tool for someone else's designs. Anger can also blind a person, leading to decisions that logically will do nothing at all to help the situation in the long run. So over all, pretty useless.

What anger can do for us though is to represent a deterrent for immoral actions. By extension, anger is the basis of legal systems of crime and punishment. Say you considered raping someone. This would make a lot of people Angry. That would probably make them *** You Up. Maybe you decide not to rape someone. Then that would be a Thing.

Taken to the extreme though, it is also the basis of angry mobs, vigilantism etc. So on the whole, anger is a pretty unconstructive instinct.

FEAR
Fear was great. When we roamed the forests, foraging berries and hunting wild game. Knowing what things to be Afraid of helped you stay alive. This instinct serve us well in situations where danger lurks everywhere.

Which is the exact opposite of our current situation. The statistical risk of getting killed or maimed for the average person in the western world is so ridiculously low that being Afraid is guaranteed to cause more grief than whatever bad things do happen to you. The instinct is still there though, and increasingly prolific too.

Fear is an even bigger exploit than anger. Fear is easy to inspire in people. And a person that is afraid, is easier to convince, or coerce, and will generally be subservient to whoever promises that person to make whatever he fears Go Away.

GREED
A cornerstone of capitalistic thought is that "greed is ". I don't agree with "" part, but greed IS a fantastic motivator. Greedy people, more often than their counterparts, will go and perform labour, in order to serve their own ends. So, capitalism has managed to tap into the awesome power of Greed, by allowing people to satiate their greed, producing lots and lots of stuff in the process.

However. Worshipping greed has brought us far, we live in nice houses and have lots of iPods. But most of the crap that capitalism has brought us is utterly useless. Wearing Nike shoes or whatever ultimately does very little for your happiness, but in the process you managed to be partially responsible for some kid in Taiwan getting oppressed. The western world is pretty much responsible for holding the third world in economic slavery, causing a lot more grief than our luxurious excess cause us joy.

Communism failed because it failed to tap into people's native greed. The basic idea was instead to motivate people using their empathy and compassion, but it just doesn't work with the general populace. In an ideal society, consisting only of people driven by these instincts rather than the baser ones you mentioned, it would work, but sadly humans for the most part aren't like that.

So while uninhibited greed is efficient for individual gain, in utilitarian terms it is not constructive. I believe it could be, however, if people's greed was harnessed and controlled to do something constructive. It's an idea I have for an economic system somewhere between communism and capitalism, but that's a whole other discussion.

anger is not a bad thing to have. this is only if you could control it.

in a senario (i think that's how you spell it) where you are either outnumbered or you are challenged by a stronger foe anger could be your greatest or worst ally. for instance, when you are angry your blood moves much faster throughout your body. this cause you to move faster and become stronger. that would help you out in that senario, but if you are not able to control your anger you could get not only other hurt but also yourself.

and another thing about anger. i used to have very high blood pressure (causes you to become insanely angry with everything), but throughout the years i have been able to become sort of "immune" to anger. this may seem like a thing but it's not. People do many things to help themselves out through the emotion-anger. Ever since i became "immune" to anger i have not cared about many things. I am also starting to not care about the safety of others and what would happen to world. Like on dec. 21, 2012 the world is "supposedly" going to go through a major change.

i cannot wait for that date to come whether the world will end or something drastic will happen to it. So without anger you tend to lose interest in not only activities but humanity also.

now fear you got just about right. i would like to add though, fear increases the amount of other emotions. for example like you said it is easier to put fear into someone to subject them to your will. Once that person sees your weekness they will harness all their anger to take you down through that weekness. and because they were afraid of you that will only make the person angrier.

after someone is done being afraid, it boosts the persons happiness to the most it could get. a comparison with that is when you are having sex it feels until you bust. and when you bust that is that most amount of pleasure you could get. (i know it's not a great comparison but bare with me)

and finally greed. Ohhh how people love to be greedy. i hate this the most about people but it is "programmed" into everyone to be greedy in some way.

and just to inform you greed cannot not be "harnest". everyone wishes they could become rich beyond their wildest imaginations. the only benifit that i could possibly think of about greed helping the economy is that more people work or work harder, otherwise their is nothing you can do.

and please do share you idea for greed and communisim because that right now is just making me laugh. but please enlighten me.

What in the hell are you talking about?! You just started ranting about anger and sex!

---

Well I havent read all 4/5 pages but after reading Orcids message Ive sumed up a brief answer with the very little time I have to get my ass of this computer before I'm cuaght.

First off I have to say I'm more upset when I get called names or mocked online then in real life, In real life face to face I can deal with the problem if I get too insulted, but I carnt on the internet, also in real life most people know not to push too far becuase of the responce they may get from the person there pushing however on the interenet such thing doesnt happen becuase the guy throwing the insults is annonymouse he's safe behind his keyboard possibly living thousands of mile away from the guy he's insulting, the guy getting insulted carnt do much about it cept maybe turn of his comp and get of the site for a while or try and bare it, he carnt exactly stick his and through the monitor and hope it hits the insulter on the other side.

On the internet I do have a amount of confidence such confidence that I dont have in real life, I feel as if I can talk to people without making too much of a *** out of my self. its same with places like tagged, I can talk to women alot easier, I mean on there I can just say hello to a random stranger and not care and possibly start a whole big conversation and get to know said person alot better, in real life however I wouldnt have the confidence to walk up to a random stranger and start talking to them like that, well not atleast before a couple bottles of newky brown.

Perhaps the confidence stems from the fact that ive got time to think before I react on the internet, got time to think about my responce and ponder wether what I'm about to say should be said, in real life however its all fast paced, if I sat there thinking about what to say too long i'd look and idiot, and becuase in real life I dont think before I speak I can say some real stupid and random things.

However my general personality doesnt change online dispite my confidence being on the up. I tend to speak my mine dispite the fact that ive got time to filter out some of the stupid randomer stuff that would pop out in real life. I generally try to just get along like I do in real life and I like to debate and discuss whilst also trying to help out others, I also like to learn from others and learn about my mistakes.

---

"IrishMorn"
If Adon and Sagat step in....ah, what the hell, I'll get drunk and join in on that one.

Fable2Fan:

What in the hell are you talking about?! You just started ranting about anger and sex!

You bothered reading all that ?