sanctus Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 I don't agree totally with confucios saying, for a simple reason it's to extreme; I mean people start to appreciate something not only when they have to live without it, but already when it becomes rare. An exemple, I know that in Europe (I wonder if there is the same fashion in the USA) since a couple of years everybody buys organic products (it seems to me that is a kind of fashion), but the nature isn't yet so bad that we couldn't grow anymore in the habitual way. Why did people change their mind? Organic products exist at least since the hippie's period, but only now they are "in"; the reason is that it has become difficult to deny that nature isn't starting to change, so people (maybe unconsciously) notice that nature as they know her is starting to get rare, so they want to try to keep it stable (maybe also for the fear of changes). What I actually want to say with all this is that I believe that people are changing attitude, they <u>start</u> to be able to slow down to appreciate nature. I underline start, because I don't know if this change in atitude will spread out quick enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 I disagree. People are getting more and more ruthless.Although some poeple are changing, but the magnitude of destruction by others are overwhelming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted March 22, 2004 Report Share Posted March 22, 2004 Sorry tinny, it depends on what you look at, you know the story about the half empty or half full glass. I mean if you look only at the facts that there are always more cars around, that the amazon forest is being cut of a huge amount every day, that in China they are building the biggest barrages ever and so on you forget to look at the other side: in (western at least) Europe nobody wants genetically modified food, Bush eventually didn't go digging in natural reserves of Alaska, it has become difficult to find someone who denies the greenhouse effect (even Shell -I find that a bit hypocrite, but...- makes advertissements saying that they want to be in harmony with nature) and so on. But I know one usually tends to drag himself down with the bad things and doesn't see any more the good ones..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 I'm not saying there aint good stuff/ good people who care. i mean that for every person to turn good and responsible and caring, there are probably hundreds who would turn from an average kid to a bad guy.It's because of the society. The influences etc. u might wanna read up about psycology and the laws of learning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted March 23, 2004 Report Share Posted March 23, 2004 ok, what I wanted to say is that I believe the proportion is changing, there used to be hundreds who turn bad, now they are always less to turn bad. But that's my opinion I can't prove it really, so, I agree, there isn't much scientific value for this argument. It's maybe just because I like to believe in mankind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 even most 'good people' aren't really good in other aspects. eg; a man tries to recycle a bag of cans. at the same time, he uses a car that pollutes the air. The magnitude of damage done there is bigger than the magnitude of improvement by recycling. a long time ago,So, it's not just the ratio of good and bad people, but also the ratio of good being done to bad being done for each person which is getting worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanctus Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 Yes you've got a point there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted March 24, 2004 Report Share Posted March 24, 2004 I think one should be careful of what is labeled "good" and "bad". I cannot for the life of me see the purpose of saying people are "bad" just because they drive a car. I have to drive a car every day to bring my daughter to daycare. How does that make me a "bad" person? Tinny, I think your point is a bit weak. This has nothing to do with "influences" and "laws of learning". It has something to do with the practicalities of the society we live in. Ten years ago, I drove a car which polluted three times as much as my current car. In addition,my currentcar wasbuilt as a recyclable unit - lots of things in it are made from recycled material, and lots of things will go back into the cycle when this car dies (this is the way most modern cars are built, mostly due to stronger regulation and consumer demands). Following your line of argument, I was (possibly) an average kid who turned really bad (because my old car polluted a lot) but now is getting better (because my new car pollutes less). I am possibly even better, too, because I also take a local train to work after having dropped off my daughter in daycare. Makes no sense to me to put a one to one value on people's actions and say "this is a bad thing to do, so that must be a bad person". People are more complex than that - as is our society. Tormod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TINNY Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 ok. so, objectively, what is good and what is bad?anyway, basically, most of us are bad. we're far from perfect.anyway, i've become a 'senior member' now, even though i post a lot of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lou Posted March 25, 2004 Report Share Posted March 25, 2004 for us, in our life, our object is to live, as same as all other organisms. so, live well and respect your life, and you will be "good" ; ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted April 6, 2004 Report Share Posted April 6, 2004 My 2 cents. People are in search of happiness, not money. We try and possess what we want, not need towards this end - hence the consumption of nature (whether material or personal). This is neither good nor bad, it's just what we do (nature? or selfishness? I like to think that we have enough reason to overpower instinct in most scenarios). It's greed, yes, but isnt greed the intent that we survive by? Is the argument against this free volitional death of your own person? If it's our 'mother' earth that we want to save we need another planet, i.e. materials. If we want to stop pollution we need cleaner materials (better technology?). Long live science for both of these endeavours i feel. Our final century was an enjoyable read about the future of the human race Quote: "never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 By Geko........People are in search of happiness, not money. We try and possess what we want, not need towards this end - hence the consumption of nature (whether material or personal). This is neither good nor bad, it's just what we do (nature? or selfishness? I like to think that we have enough reason to overpower instinct in most scenarios). It's greed, yes, but isnt greed the intent that we survive by? Is the argument against this free volitional death of your own person? If it's our 'mother' earth that we want to save we need another planet, i.e. materials. If we want to stop pollution we need cleaner materials (better technology?). Long live science for both of these endeavours i feel. Our final century was an enjoyable read about the future of the human race Quote: "never doubt that a small group of people can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has" First of all, I love that quote, it's one of my favorites! Now, as to the rest, here are some of my thoughts and feelings... "People are in search of happiness, not money. We try and possess what we want, not need towards this end"I agree that people search for happiness. However, I think that society clouds our perspective on what 'happiness' is, and how to attain it. For most people, happiness = stuff. To get 'stuff', you need money. You can either steal the money, work your butt off for it, inherit it, earn it through investing, etc. (or I guess you could print it on your new Dell, but this might not be the best idea for the long run, huh?) And I think you are right about people being confused between wants and needs. Also, most people in the US accept the societal view of happiness - big house, new SUV, DVD, MP3, cool toys for 2.6 children, name brand clothes, and a two week vacation in the Bahamas every year. Of course, it's when people don't attain this level of happiness that they become very unhappy with their lives. I think different countries have different standards for happiness. On a missions trip to Africa, happiness was a good mosquito repellent. For the Africans, it was finding food for their child's next meal, and seeing every one of your children alive each morning, knowing nobody died during the night. Man, talk about perspective!!! And as for greed, I think that is a very base emotion. It works well for those living in a capitalistic society, it's a great motivator to work hearder to earn more to buy more to be happier than anyone else, isn't it? So greed is good for employers in a twisted way, isn't it? If we were as greedy for each other, or for the human race in general, can you imagine how the world would be? I mean, if it was as important to me to make sure every single child in my town had a hot meal tonight, not just my family, can you imagine the difference? If doctors were greedy to see people receive treatments, greedy to save lives instead of expand their bank accounts, can you guess how many people would still die from lack of basic healthcare every day? If you were as greedy for the health and welfare of your neighbor as you are for yourself...? Oh wait, that's not greed is it? It's altruism. Man, I just can't get away from that word these days! I like to think that we have enough reason to overpower instinct in most scenarios It costs less than a Big Mac a day to feed an orphaned child in Africa, and many other parts of this world. Roughly the cost of your double-whipped-steamed milk-vanilla-grande would cover the cost of immunizations for foreign children that die of diseases we don't even see anymore in the US. Is it reasonable for these children to die? Or is the instinct for our own pleasure and comfort too strong? Well, thousands of children are going to die today. Have you had your coffee and Big Mac yet? Oh, and thanks sanctus for the heads up on this thread! And don't worry about your English. It is much better than many people born and raised here!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyes By Geko........ People are in search of happiness, not money. We try and possess what we want, not need towards this end - hence the consumption of nature (whether material or personal). This is neither good nor bad, it's just what we do (nature? or selfishness? I like to think that we have enough reason to overpower instinct in most scenarios). It's greed, yes, but isnt greed the intent that we survive by? Is the argument against this free volitional death of your own person? If it's our 'mother' earth that we want to save we need another planet, i.e. materials. If we want to stop pollution we need cleaner materials (better technology?). Long live science for both of these endeavours i feel. Our final century was an enjoyable read about the future of the human race "People are in search of happiness, not money. We try and possess what we want, not need towards this end" A) I agree that people search for happiness. However, I think that society clouds our perspective on what 'happiness' is, and how to attain it. B) For most people, happiness = stuff. To get 'stuff', you need money.Also, most people in the US accept the societal view of happiness - big house, new SUV, DVD, MP3, cool toys for 2.6 children, name brand clothes, and a two week vacation in the Bahamas every year. Of course, it's when people don't attain this level of happiness that they become very unhappy with their lives. I think different countries have different standards for happiness. C) And as for greed, I think that is a very base emotion. It works well for those living in a capitalistic society, it's a great motivator to work hearder to earn more to buy more to be happier than anyone else, isn't it? So greed is good for employers in a twisted way, isn't it? If we were as greedy for each other, or for the human race in general, can you imagine how the world would be? I mean, if it was as important to me to make sure every single child in my town had a hot meal tonight, not just my family, can you imagine the difference? If doctors were greedy to see people receive treatments, greedy to save lives instead of expand their bank accounts, can you guess how many people would still die from lack of basic healthcare every day? If you were as greedy for the health and welfare of your neighbor as you are for yourself...? Oh wait, that's not greed is it? It's altruism. Man, I just can't get away from that word these days! I like to think that we have enough reason to overpower instinct in most scenarios D) It costs less than a Big Mac a day to feed an orphaned child in Africa, and many other parts of this world. Roughly the cost of your double-whipped-steamed milk-vanilla-grande would cover the cost of immunizations for foreign children that die of diseases we don't even see anymore in the US. Is it reasonable for these children to die? Or is the instinct for our own pleasure and comfort too strong? Well, thousands of children are going to die today. Have you had your coffee and Big Mac yet? A) Happiness is temporary and subjective. Who the **** cares what someone else, or some other country thinks happiness is? This isnt a state thing that government should/can provide; it can only be found by an individual. B) Doesnt make a difference what it is for certain people, it's still happiness. I do not see how wealth = happiness (nor in contrast how poverty = happiness). Enthusiasm = happiness in my opinion, but as i said happiness is subjective. C) There is nothing inherently negative with the term greed. People find the connotations themselves (as you have im afraid). D) Dont forget to sign your yearly conscience cheques. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 A) Happiness is temporary and subjective. Who the **** cares what someone else, or some other country thinks happiness is? This isnt a state thing that government should/can provide; it can only be found by an individual. geko, i totally agree!! Happiness should be an individual pursuit. Government should not 'provide' it. Who cares what someone else has, or some other country thinks is happiness? Most of America cares, unfortunately. B) Doesnt make a difference what it is for certain people, it's still happiness. I do not see how wealth = happiness (nor in contrast how poverty = happiness). Enthusiasm = happiness in my opinion, but as i said happiness is subjective. Do you ever hear people 'dream out loud' about what it would take to make them 'really happy'? Usually, for most people, 'happiness' is something that they will GET after they get their next raise, new car, or better looking body, instead of a FEELING that exists at a particular point in time. C) There is nothing inherently negative with the term greed. People find the connotations themselves (as you have im afraid). You are right, I portrayed greed in a very negative light, and that's only true if taken to extremes. Thanks for pointing that out. And honestly, I think that there is something that everyone is greedy for. D) Dont forget to sign your yearly conscience cheques. Sign it for what? To prove to someone else how 'good' I am? Not a chance. Besides, so many of those dollar-a-day programs are complete scams that cater to exactly the people who do it for exactly that reason. People think it's ok to ignore the rest of the world if they write a $50 check every month. My point, for this topic, is that the world CAN change, but people have to be willing to make those changes. Part of that would be agreeing on what needs to change. That's tough. What may tug at my heart strings (starving children, anywhere!), may not even phase you, while your passion may bore me. So how could WE agree on what changes need to be made in order to make them? Maybe we should just take a BIG survery of everyone in the whole world to see what would make them haoppy, or what they thought should change, then take the top 5 answers and work towards those. Wouldn't that just solve everything??? ( I hope you can recognize my sarcasm!!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyes<i My point, for this topic, is that the world CAN change, but people have to be willing to make those changes. Part of that would be agreeing on what needs to change. That's tough. What may tug at my heart strings (starving children, anywhere!), may not even phase you, while your passion may bore me. Precisely.... you've confirmed that it's personal and that it can be done. But change is started with an individual thought. A group is sometimes used to make it happen quicker and/or more efficiently (whether it be a personal, local, national or global target). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishEyes Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Precisely.... you've confirmed that it's personal and that it can be done. But change is started with an individual thought. A group is sometimes used to make it happen quicker and/or more efficiently (whether it be a personal, local, national or global target). Do you ever get the feeling that you have the same views as someone else, just a different way of expressing them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geko Posted April 21, 2004 Report Share Posted April 21, 2004 Do you ever get the feeling that you have the same views as someone else, just a different way of expressing them? Cant think of anyone off hand but no doubt other people have opinions the same as mine. I generally agree with skeptical views. Tormod and Freethinker are the token skeptics on this site i would say (that i've seen), so i may have similar views to them (i dont think ive reiterated them anywhere mind, but maybe i have). Many of my philosophical views stem from the belief in human selfishness, therefore anyone who believes in human selfishness could have similar views to mine. Why do you ask? Do you feel the same way (excluding your religious beliefs because that would be understandable)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.