Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

The hypocritical nature of the species

11 replies to this topic
spoof
  • spoof

    ?

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2002

#1

Posted 10 April 2005 - 03:10 AM

NB – This isn’t a political, racial, sexist, or religiously motivated topic - it simply calls for the frank views of members.

We, as a species, are both innovative and inventive.

How is it that millions of people have a PC and yet millions of people are without adequate food or water?

Why does the term “security” (when placed in a governmental and national context) often involve the removal of “safety” of an individual’s human rights? Isn’t to be secure, the same thing as to be safe?

Why does the Catholic Church still condemn the use of contraception? One could argue that contraception goes against what nature intended. Doesn’t utilising medical science go against what nature intended? Didn’t the previous Pope have many “unnatural” medical operations before his final demise?

Why, when various national industries collapse, the people on the ‘board’ get 6 and 7 figure payoffs for failure? Why do the workers get told their pensions (which they may have worked towards, and contributed to, for several decades) are now gone?

Why do people spend their entire lifetime attempting to highlight environmental concerns, only for their government to try and rape the resources of another country?


Why do criminals get more “protection” and seemingly have more rights than the “victims”?

Why do various “women’s” magazines emphasise perfection, run articles on cosmetic surgery and then denigrate those that would actually try to live up to such a standard?


I’m not exactly happy with the world of today, as perhaps you can infer wink.gif



This topic is asking the question:


Are we, as a species, truly hypocritical?

Corporate_Nothing
  • Corporate_Nothing

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Oct 2004

#2

Posted 10 April 2005 - 03:43 AM

Yes, we are. People = sh*t.

spoof
  • spoof

    ?

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2002

#3

Posted 10 April 2005 - 04:02 AM Edited by spoof, 10 April 2005 - 04:05 AM.

Given this is D&D, extrapolations on such (re: the above) POV’s would be more than welcome. One might even go so far as to say they were a prime requisite.

Obviously, such a consideration has seemingly eluded certain individuals sad.gif

I’m hoping this isn’t the case for subsequent participants in this thread……………

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#4

Posted 10 April 2005 - 04:05 AM

If, by "as a species", you mean the statistical average and significant majority, then yes, I agree.

However, some of those examples are not truly hypocritical. For instance, your first example of having a computer while other people starve is not hypocritical in and of itself. It's only hypocritical if that person believes that everyone should help other people. Otherwise, if, like me, they take the naturalistic attitude of survival of the fittest, then there's no hypocrisy at all. I can say that it's an unfortunate thing that it happens, but I feel no need to sacrifice myself for their cause, because I can see clearly how their situation is not some random occurance, but is instead caused by their own governments and exacerbated by their own ridiculous social norms which I won't go into here.

People did not evolve to be logical and consistent. They evolved to attain social power, which in turn grants eating and breeding power. Logic simply helped in this regard. If the hypocritical person is the one who eats best and fvcks the most, then evolution calls for hypocrisy as an advantageous trait. Never forget that we are the way we are because we have adapted to natural and social pressures for millions of years. We are no more than animals, and no less subject to evolutionary processes than anything else in the universe. Ideals such as equality, equity, justice, peace, love, sharing, virtue, trust, fidelity, etc are simply that: ideals. They only exist in respite from prejudice, loss, injustice, war, hate, greed, debauchery, deceit, and infidelity, and even then only in partialities.

We are humans. We adapt to the pressures around us. That is what we are best at doing. And look how poorly some people even do that *cough*religions*cough*. No, there is no hope for our species ever reaching any ideals. All that there is left to do is wait for us to wipe ourselves out.

Yes, we are truly hypocritical.

spoof
  • spoof

    ?

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 16 Apr 2002

#5

Posted 10 April 2005 - 05:00 AM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 10 2005, 05:05)
However, some of those examples are not truly hypocritical. For instance, your first example of having a computer while other people starve is not hypocritical in and of itself

Of course they weren’t……..and they weren’t meant to be. All my “examples” were merely intended to provide something to think about.

If I would have wanted a discussion on “what is pedantic?”, I would have phrased my post with greater consideration wink.gif

I was attempting to start a thread on a very open-ended topic, to which most members could respond……..


In taking note of your early respect for the notions espoused by Darwin, might I point out that we live in much different and much changed times since those days.

It is no longer survival of the fittest.

In modern (western) society, it is increasingly more about survival of the people with most influence, money and power. I can appreciate how the term “fittest” can be adapted to “those that come out on top”, but I hardly think the writings of Darwin took such things into account.

You moved on to consider and accommodate such issues, in part; but primarily still emphasise the “I’m living well, so f*ck you” – I’m on top because I deserve to be on top mentality.

There’s nothing wrong with such a mentality, I personally am a subscriber to such an ideology tounge.gif

However, if we take a minuscule proportion of even the “statistical average” of the population – say 100 people (if we take the population of the world as 6 billion+); a point can be made.


If you were on your own and chased by 100 “statistically average” people down a dead-end alley and all 100 people had spiked baseball bats and were baying for your blood (through whatever circumstance) – when you were eventually forced to turn around and face them, would you be 100% secure in knowing that life was all about “survival of the fittest”?



All sentiments have value until they are placed in an alternative context wink.gif

biggceemoney
  • biggceemoney

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Apr 2005

#6

Posted 10 April 2005 - 05:13 AM

sometimes i tend to think that yes, we are the most hypocritical, bloodthirsty animals ready to ensnarl someone else as long as we get to the top in the process.

sometimes i also tend to think that certain people who are members of certain organizations have the power to control much more than they should and do it in a fashion that favors only the interest of them and anyone who is aligned with them.

some think somethings wrong with me for believing in conspiracy. none of my concern really.

some things are just as they appear and are quite hypocritical.

other things (or events or people or whatever) are the result of careful behind the curtain planning. citizens operate on a very basic level. its operational. wake up, go to work, get your work done, come home, feed kids, watch TV, go to sleep, etc. on the other hand, governments operate on a level beyond that of average thinking men.

i dont mean to bring up conspiracy where its not related but i think the way we are controlled has a lot to do with the actions that we commit ourselves too. this applies to things we do conciously and subconciously.

are we hyprocritical? simply stated, yes.

are we by nature hypocritical? i dont know.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#7

Posted 10 April 2005 - 11:49 AM

If we used all our money to help slackers and not prosper, where would we be now?

Tongue of Colicab
  • Tongue of Colicab

    629>1506

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2005

#8

Posted 11 April 2005 - 10:33 PM

Alot of thing in your (spoof's) post are things that I have thought about before.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Well, if I have something, I have it. The only reason why I still have it is because no one has taken it from me.

I hate it when the word 'unnatural' comes up in a discussion. What is natural? We make stuff to make life easier, Beavers make dams and use them as houses. It makes their life easier. So why can't we make computers to help talk to people across the globe, acquire information (and porn), and organize things? If you say 'because beavers make dams out of wood, and you can't find plastic for computers in nature', what is plastic made of (I'm not sure, myself)? Stuff that comes from nature.

@ 'criminals' statement: heh heh, never thought about that.

HoodyG
  • HoodyG

    Don't do drugs.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Nov 2004

#9

Posted 11 April 2005 - 10:37 PM

QUOTE (Tongue of Colicab @ Apr 11 2005, 22:33)
I hate it when the word 'unnatural' comes up in a discussion. What is natural? We make stuff to make life easier, Beavers make dams and use them as houses. It makes their life easier. So why can't we make computers to help talk to people across the globe, acquire information (and porn), and organize things? If you say 'because beavers make dams out of wood, and you can't find plastic for computers in nature', what is plastic made of (I'm not sure, myself)? Stuff that comes from nature.

Exactly. I wanted to come up with a similar story about ants but I thought to myself I don't want to bore you to death.

dr zoidberg
  • dr zoidberg

    Drain on society

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

#10

Posted 13 April 2005 - 08:59 AM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 10 2005, 05:05)
... I can see clearly how their situation is not some random occurance, but is instead caused by their own governments and exacerbated by their own ridiculous social norms which I won't go into here.

Yes because governments want their citizens to starve to death (admittedly some don't seem to care). Unfair trade practices have nothing to do with it. It's their fault if they're poor and why the hell should we do anything to help, after all we were all born into the same fortunate circumstances.

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 10 2005, 05:05)
People did not evolve to be logical and consistent. They evolved to attain social power, which in turn grants eating and breeding power. Logic simply helped in this regard. If the hypocritical person is the one who eats best and fvcks the most, then evolution calls for hypocrisy as an advantageous trait. Never forget that we are the way we are because we have adapted to natural and social pressures for millions of years.

This is a common misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. "Survival of the fittest" (a term not even used by Darwin but by his cousin Sir Francis Galton) doesn't mean that species adapt to their environment. What it means is that species which are "fit" for their environment will survive, and those who are not fit for their environment are, obviously, wiped out. Remember, giraffes don't have long necks because they need to eat from trees. They just happened to evolve with long necks while other short-necked versions of giraffe died off. Which brings me to my point: people did not evolve to be logical and consistent, because they had no control over the process. People just ended up this way.

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 10 2005, 05:05)
People did not evolve to be logical and consistent.

Is this conclusive evidence that you are not in fact a member of the human race? That you are, as I suspected, some semi-divine being having a laugh with us?

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 10 2005, 05:05)
Ideals such as equality, equity, justice, peace, love, sharing, virtue, trust, fidelity, etc are simply that: ideals. They only exist in respite from prejudice, loss, injustice, war, hate, greed, debauchery, deceit, and infidelity, and even then only in partialities.

You must have had a very hard life. You don't have any hope whatsoever. Although my own experiences have turned me cynical, I still believe that people are decent deep down and that love does exist.

Although I do believe that humans can be (and are) extremely hypocritical, I don't think this is based on evolution. It's more down to social pressures.

Mortukai
  • Mortukai

    Merciless Rancor

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 24 Aug 2003

#11

Posted 16 April 2005 - 12:36 PM

QUOTE (spoof)
You moved on to consider and accommodate such issues, in part; but primarily still emphasise the “I’m living well, so f*ck you” – I’m on top because I deserve to be on top mentality.

There’s nothing wrong with such a mentality, I personally am a subscriber to such an ideology

Well, I deserve my position as much as anyone deserves their position. That is to say, not at all. Nobody deserves their position, because nobody was given it according to something they had done. The only ideologies that teaches such a thing as "deserving" your lot in life are those that teach reincarnation, but I don't subscribe to such nonsense for reasons beyond the scope of this topic. In effect, I am where I am because this is where I am. I can say no more than this. Jupiter is the fifth planet from the sun simply because that's where it ended up, not because it deserved that position. Our sun is one of the furthest stars from the centre of our galaxy not because it did something to earn that place, but simply because that's where it happened to end up. I am not in any way seperate or above Jupiter or Sol or any other star or planet or body of matter in our universe, nor am I seperate or above a rock or river or a bacterium or a worm or a tree or a tiger or a bird. Do they deserve their lot in life? We like to think we're special, for many reasons, and some might even try to claim that we are because we are so complex, but I can assure you that the complexity of matter formations in our bodies pales in comparison to the interactions of matter in nebula condensation to form stars, and then in the ultra-dense hydrogen -> helium fusion that fuels a star's nucleus for billions of years: so dense, that light takes about one million years to move from the centre of the sun to its surface.

It's not so much "I'm living well, so fvck you", it's more a case of: "I'm living well, so that's how it is." or even: "Sh!t happens, get over it you whining pussy". But when it comes down to it, the underlying meaning is the same in all three. biggrin.gif

QUOTE (spoof)
If you were on your own and chased by 100 “statistically average” people down a dead-end alley and all 100 people had spiked baseball bats and were baying for your blood (through whatever circumstance) – when you were eventually forced to turn around and face them, would you be 100% secure in knowing that life was all about “survival of the fittest”?

Most assuredly. I can think of no other time when the truth of survival of the fittest would be more true. For even though these 100 people would be "stastically average", surely I must have done something to anger them, in which case I was clearly not the fittest amongst them. The fittest would have been the one who incited the chase. Remember, "fit" doesn't mean "smart" or "strong" or "charming". It means "fit", as in "compatible with", as in "this key fits into this lock perfectly". The fittest is the one most compatible with the situation and/or environment, meaning they are the most likely to succeed or survive. If I managed to incite 100 average schmucks to kill me (one wonders where they all managed to acquire spiked baseball bats), then clearly I was not the best to fit amongst them.

QUOTE (dr zoidberg)
Yes because governments want their citizens to starve to death (admittedly some don't seem to care). Unfair trade practices have nothing to do with it. It's their fault if they're poor and why the hell should we do anything to help, after all we were all born into the same fortunate circumstances.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to those Ethiopian and Somalian type countries which are constantly in poverty. I've seen quite a few documentaries on them, trying to paint them in a sympathetic light (to appeal to people's pity and encourage them to pay donations to funds like the CCF), but only succeeding in showing me how much they are contributing to their own bad conditions. The government factions spend all their money on weapons and funding their private armies. The people do absolutely stupid things like deny education to children unless they wear uniforms (seriously, there are far, far bigger problems than worrying about whether all your students a wearing yellow polo shirts), or wake up at 4:30am to sweep the dirt that is their garden and wash the dishes (as if there isn't a better time for that than 4:30am). This sort of thing is supposed to make me pity them, but it only makes me annoyed at how fvcking stupid they are. I could easily fix the whole goddamn country in 5 minutes by laying down some sensible rules so that people can live according to their means.

No, they haven't been given the oppurtunities that we have. But I wasn't born into a millionaire royal family either. Rich or poor, none of us chose our lot in life, all any of us can do is make the most of what we've got. It does not follow that each individual must carry any of the burden for anyone else simply because we are all randomly assigned to our lives.

QUOTE (dr zoidberg)
This is a common misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. "Survival of the fittest" (a term not even used by Darwin but by his cousin Sir Francis Galton) doesn't mean that species adapt to their environment. What it means is that species which are "fit" for their environment will survive, and those who are not fit for their environment are, obviously, wiped out. Remember, giraffes don't have long necks because they need to eat from trees. They just happened to evolve with long necks while other short-necked versions of giraffe died off. Which brings me to my point: people did not evolve to be logical and consistent, because they had no control over the process. People just ended up this way.

See my earlier comments about what "fit" means in this context. But seeing as how I only just now introduced this definition, I'll respond according to your interpretation of the initial term:

I know about Darwin theory and how survival of the fittest was not originally part of it. I also know that species do not, as a rule, adapt to their environment ala Mendelian evolution. It's more a case that the environment selects the ones which are already best adapted to suit it, by killing off the others. So no, people did not evolve to be anything. There is no goal in evolution. It is simply an aimless process by which things happen the way they do. We ended up with some (in most cases, rather limited) capacities for reason and consistecy simply because it seems somwhere in the past some humans happened to be born with some meagre abilities in these areas and, as luck would have it, happened to survive and breed. And maybe after a many hundreds of generations some of these humans ended up with enough logical cognizance and were able to outperform other, less intelligent humans, and so became a superior choice of breeding mate.

Although "survival of the fittest" may not, strictly speaking, be an accurate evolutionary term, it most certainly is an accurate anthropological term. Among humans, who I might add, have a remarkable capacity for violence, it most definitely is the strongest and smartest who breed the most and succeed the most in other areas of life. I'm not just talking about logic and physical strength, but moreso talking about superiority in all aspects of humanity, such as emotional intellignence, strength of character, charisma, creative intelligence, social intelligence, etc. These traits are both naturally selected for, but moreso, sexually selected for. In males, at least. Females are sexually selected for mostly entirely different reasons.

QUOTE (dr zoidberg)
Is this conclusive evidence that you are not in fact a member of the human race? That you are, as I suspected, some semi-divine being having a laugh with us?

Yes.

QUOTE (dr zoidberg)
You must have had a very hard life. You don't have any hope whatsoever. Although my own experiences have turned me cynical, I still believe that people are decent deep down and that love does exist.

Well as a matter of fact, I did have a very hard life. But that's neither here nor there. I do have hope, but it's a different kind of hope than what I suspect you assume. I have hope that there will be some attractive young girl out there that is actually worth my attentions. I have hope that the members of my family will not meet untimely deaths. Hope, for me, is a desire about things which are completely out of my control, but which are still within the realms of rational probability. For all things which are at least partially within my control, I have confidence. I have confidence that I can personally step up and overcome the challenges that face me, be they social, emotional, physical, or intellectual.

People, deep down, are not decent. They are animals. They are afraid. They are subordinate. They are greedy. They are vengeful. They are emotional and irrational. When stripped of social barriers, they revert to little more than bald fragile apes who can talk. There are very, very few, if any, who would maintain any semblance of rational ethical behaviour if the entire societal structure broke down. In fact, we can see a glimpse of this happening today. Society is slowly breaking down as I type this, and has been for years. The cracks appear faster every day. Capitalism and "democracy" are so appealing because they appeal to people's innate desire to control everyone else and not be controlled in return. People don't care if millions suffer so long as they themselves have the oppurtunity, no matter how remote, of attaining great wealth. That's why communism is so feared. It removes the ability to realise greed and power over others.

No, deep down, no matter how optimistic you are, people are cowardly, viscious, selfish animals. And it makes sense that we are. If the world were filled with loving, trusting, sharing people, one single viscious and selfish human would rule the world in a day. The most hostile environment for humans to evolve in is our own social environment, and evolutionary processes have ensured that only the selfish survive. It is thus within our nature to be hypocritical, by wanting others to treat us as we want to be treated, but wanting ourselves to be free to treat others as we wish.

dr zoidberg
  • dr zoidberg

    Drain on society

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2005

#12

Posted 19 April 2005 - 09:38 AM

QUOTE (Mortukai @ Apr 16 2005, 13:36)
You misunderstood me. I was referring to those Ethiopian and Somalian type countries which are constantly in poverty. I've seen quite a few documentaries on them, trying to paint them in a sympathetic light (to appeal to people's pity and encourage them to pay donations to funds like the CCF), but only succeeding in showing me how much they are contributing to their own bad conditions. The government factions spend all their money on weapons and funding their private armies. The people do absolutely stupid things like deny education to children unless they wear uniforms (seriously, there are far, far bigger problems than worrying about whether all your students a wearing yellow polo shirts), or wake up at 4:30am to sweep the dirt that is their garden and wash the dishes (as if there isn't a better time for that than 4:30am). This sort of thing is supposed to make me pity them, but it only makes me annoyed at how fvcking stupid they are. I could easily fix the whole goddamn country in 5 minutes by laying down some sensible rules so that people can live according to their means.

Yeah that's true, they don't have the proper leadership to confront their problems.That's ridiculous, refusing education over something so irrelevant as clothes. Typical of humans, ignoring the bigger picture. And there are presidents who'd rather spend $1million on a tank than provide education or food. It's not like they need to win votes. Maybe if we didn't have a democracy this is what it would be like, and this would certainly prove the hypocrisy of all this "liberty equality & fraternity" crap.

QUOTE
If the world were filled with loving, trusting, sharing people, one single viscious and selfish human would rule the world in a day. The most hostile environment for humans to evolve in is our own social environment, and evolutionary processes have ensured that only the selfish survive. 

In other words, nice guys finish last. I know well how true that is.

QUOTE
Although "survival of the fittest" may not, strictly speaking, be an accurate evolutionary term, it most certainly is an accurate anthropological term.

In an anthropological sense, certainly. "Survival of the fittest" is central in cultures across the world, where those who have, have power. A lot of people don't understand the term though, evolution really is just about luck. If you accept this theory. It makes sense, but there are some problems with it, like scientists have never witnessed an animal evolving, and evolution relies on the random chance of freaks being born every so often, which doesn't seem to happen to our species that much. Super-humans would be a better term than freaks. But that's a whole different topic.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users