Greed is Good (Fodder for a broad discussion of economics :))

[jafs]

Jafs, have you ever owned cats, as in at least two simultaneously?  They beautifully demonstrate how collaboration, peaceful co-existence, and competition can all be present in the same individuals.


Actually let me turn the thread topic around for a moment.  What is it about Ted Cruz do people like so much?  I'm completely mystified by that.  And unfortunately, if Trump doesn't get the nomination, Ted Cruz likely will.

I did have cats, mostly one, but once I had two - unfortunately I didn't understand cat behavior and interaction, and thought they'd just get along and be pleasant companions.  If I ever did it again, I'd learn enough to set up a good system to help them work things out better, as a friend of mine did.

There's no problem with those things co-existing - the problem comes when the "other guy" is demonized and hated, and the goal becomes to defeat them at all costs.  In PS's example, the traditional thing to do would have been to discuss and compromise, coming to something that wasn't ideal for either side, but included enough of their concerns to be viable.

We don't seem to do much/enough of that these days in politics.

Another thought about PS's example - there are sometimes ideas that would be win-win that don't get enough airtime, like legalizing drugs.  Much of the prison population, especially minority groups, are incarcerated for minor (in my view) non-violent drug offenses.  It's expensive to find, arrest, prosecute and lock people up, particularly with more for-profit prisons.  If we legalized drugs, we could save all of that money, and possibly re-direct it to treatment/education/job training programs without needing to spend/raise more money, especially if we taxed the sale of them, as we do with alcohol.

As the price of drugs fell, there would be fewer violent crimes related to them as well.

[jafs]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

[Benko]

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

Working together or compromise is not possible on certain issues e.g. if you allow 30,000 Syrian refugees in the country and 0.1% are terrorists, then you've let in 30 terrorists. 

Either climate change is man-made or it ain't.  In either case, compromise is not appropriate.

[Cortopassi]

Either climate change is man-made or it ain't.  In either case, compromise is not appropriate.

This is where I believe the arguing is a disservice to all.  Instead of climate change believers trying to shove policies, taxes and limitations down people's throats, and the deniers completely denying, why can't we just all agree that moving forward it simply makes sense to get more energy efficient?  And we are doing it anyway?

LED bulbs, nuclear, solar, wind, etc.  Just continue down the path that we are going.  It usually makes logical sense to try and improve products to use less power, at least for me, coming from an engineering point of view.  Don't force regulations to force people to do things that are going to end up being a natural course of action anyway.

Why is it so difficult on this issue to meet somewhere in the middle?  Sure, humans are probably adding to climate change.  But as well, solar activity and what not are driving factors as well.

We think so much is in our control.  Total BS.  One large volcanic eruption can swing the whole human race from trying to cool the planet to trying to figure out how to warm it to keep the race alive.

[jafs]

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

Working together or compromise is not possible on certain issues e.g. if you allow 30,000 Syrian refugees in the country and 0.1% are terrorists, then you've let in 30 terrorists. 

Either climate change is man-made or it ain't.  In either case, compromise is not appropriate.

Well, I agree that there are times when one view is superior to another, based on facts.

In that case, the superior (meaning more accurate) view should prevail.

But there are lots of times when compromise is not only possible, but more desirable than doing nothing, even though it's not completely satisfying.

[jafs]

I agree that local politics can be more satisfying at times.

The motivation to compromise would be the desire to actually accomplish things, and help solve problems.  We have plenty of problems in this country that need solving/improvement.

[Pointedstick]

Are you an engineer or otherwise in STEM, jafs?

[Benko]

I agree that local politics can be more satisfying at times.

More importantly, local control is more fair.  Whatever policies good, bad or insane are being enacted, if the local people want it, so be it.  They have to live under it.

Well, I agree that there are times when one view is superior to another, based on facts.

In that case, the superior (meaning more accurate) view should prevail.

The problem is very few things are scientifically understood 100%. However if you look at the history of e.g. medicine, science, etc people were often sure they understood things correctly. 

[Pointedstick]

I agree that local politics can be more satisfying at times.

More importantly, local control is more fair.  Whatever policies good, bad or insane are being enacted, if the local people want it, so be it.  They have to live under it.

Well, I agree that there are times when one view is superior to another, based on facts.

In that case, the superior (meaning more accurate) view should prevail.

The problem is very few things are scientifically understood 100%. However if you look at the history of e.g. medicine, science, etc people were often sure they understood things correctly.

Yep.

There are many circumstances I can envision in which even reasonable, rational people could come into an intractable political conflict. One is when the two parties disagree on whether there is a problem to begin with. Any compromise results in the party that believes everything to be fine losing something. Another circumstance is when information on the problem or the costs and benefits of various proposals are contradictory. Each side is able to cherry-pick information that supports their position and feel like the reasonable one. Since nothing is known 100%, as Benko correctly states, there is always going to be disagreement on this kind of stuff.

The reason why I asked if you are an engineer is because I recognize an engineery thought pattern that I share: the desire to find a 100% optimal solution for any given problem. I am an engineer myself and this impulse runs deep in my mind. It has been a hard lesson to learn that this generally desirable method of thinking only applies to certain realms of life. In human relationships, for example, it is often quite inapplicable. When it comes to politics, the same seems to be true.

It's a noble impulse, it really is. But I think different problem spaces require different tools and mindsets. Politics generally isn't an area of life where there is an optimal solution that makes everybody happy, especially when there is great diversity of thought. Politics is the realm of the "good enough to be acceptable."

[jafs]

I agree that local politics can be more satisfying at times.

More importantly, local control is more fair.  Whatever policies good, bad or insane are being enacted, if the local people want it, so be it.  They have to live under it.

Well, I agree that there are times when one view is superior to another, based on facts.

In that case, the superior (meaning more accurate) view should prevail.

The problem is very few things are scientifically understood 100%. However if you look at the history of e.g. medicine, science, etc people were often sure they understood things correctly.

That's what I mean by satisfying - it's easier to have smaller communities determine policies that more accurately reflect the will/desire of those voters.

Also true of science, although there is generally a progress towards a more accurate view of things.  And, often, popular beliefs lag behind that view.

I'm not an engineer, but I was very into math at a young age, and went to a very good math/science high school.  Yes, I'd always look first for an optimal solution - there's no harm in that, and it would be the best outcome possible.  If we have to adjust downwards from that, at least we started at the top.

There may be some very difficult contentious issues, but not all issues are like that, if you start with the view than we have a lot in common, and can find a way to connect/communicate based on that. 

[jafs]

This is where the idea of all of us just looking at our own smaller issues breaks down, and you need to be able to look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself.

It's kind of sad to me that this has to be said in this way, especially if we're talking about people who have managed to do well in our society.

That poor people who have to scratch and claw to get by wouldn't be able to look past that is more understandable to me.

[MediumTex]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

I have a sudden irrational fear that you may be a Kumbaya-bot.

Can you please provide an example of an act of violence between/among humans that gave you a rush of pleasure?  It needn't be anything too gratuitous.  For example, I found it very satisfying in the Kenny Rogers song "Coward of the County" when it became clear that sometimes violence is the right response to injustice in the world:

Everyone considered him the coward of the county
He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama named him Tommy, but folks just called him yellow,
Something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong.

He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison;
I took care of Tommy, 'cause he was my brother's son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy,
"Son my life is over, but yours has just begun".

"Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek
I hope you're old enough to understand,
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."

There's someone for everyone, and Tommy's love was Becky.
In her arms he didn't have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was working, the Gatlin boys came calling
They took turns at Becky (and there was three of them).

Tommy opened up the door, and saw Becky crying.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace, and took down his daddy's picture.
As the tears fell on his daddy's face, he heard these words again:

The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom;
One of them got up and met him half way cross the floor.
When Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! old yeller's leaving,"
But you could've heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked the door.

Twenty years of crawling were bottled up inside him.
He wasn't holding nothing back -- he let 'em have it all.
When Tommy left the bar room, not a Gatlin boy was standing.
He said, "This one's for Becky", as he watched the last one fall. (And I heard him say,)

"I promised you, Dad, not to do the things you've done
I walk away from trouble when I can
Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek,
And papa, I should hope you understand
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man".

There is an animal in us, and we shouldn't ignore or lose track of it.  It is always in there, and it guides our worldview and decisions, whether we realize it or not.

[MediumTex]

This is where the idea of all of us just looking at our own smaller issues breaks down, and you need to be able to look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself.

What do you make of the martial artist who would prefer to sip tea in the mountains and ponder his next volume of tree-themed haiku who reluctantly finds that it is once again time to open up a fresh can of whoop ass in response to a problematic human relations situation?

This person is fundamentally a man of peace and compassion, and yet he is equally at home practicing violence.  Such figures always struck me as a metaphor for a complete person--enlightened, and yet still fully in touch with his animal nature and passions.

[MediumTex]

This is where the idea of all of us just looking at our own smaller issues breaks down, and you need to be able to look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself.

But as a practical matter, I don't think compassion can be instilled in people by legislation or laws.  It is a personal and cultural thing.

I'd say trying to impose "compassion" by external means ultimately backfires.

You don't think that one can be coerced into compassion?  Isn't that what the New Testament is all about?  You know, be nice to each other or you will suffer for eternity.

***

The Whales chime in:

W1: Even their freaking thumb-bot divine compassion is laced with the implicit threat of everlasting violence.

W2: Savages.

[MediumTex]

But as a practical matter, I don't think compassion can be instilled in people by legislation or laws.  It is a personal and cultural thing.

I'd say trying to impose "compassion" by external means ultimately backfires.

You don't think that one can be coerced into compassion?  Isn't that what the New Testament is all about?  You know, be nice to each other or you will suffer for eternity.

***

The Whales chime in:

W1: Even their freaking thumb-bot divine compassion is laced with the implicit threat of everlasting violence.

W2: Savages.

I am but an apeman.

You gotta love the way humans celebrate their ascendance from their hunter/gatherer history, only to create a dominant economic system that basically re-creates the entire food chain depicted in financial, rather than caloric, terms.

The Martians laugh at us.

[stuper1]

You don't think that one can be coerced into compassion?  Isn't that what the New Testament is all about?  You know, be nice to each other or you will suffer for eternity.

The New Testament is not about coercion.  It's about hope that there's a way to overcome the animal nature that you mentioned earlier.  If someone doesn't want to take advantage of that, there is no coercion.  They are free to make that choice.

As far as having compassion on those who are less fortunate, the problem is that giving them handouts doesn't work.  Government is a very blunt instrument for showing compassion.

[MediumTex]

You don't think that one can be coerced into compassion?  Isn't that what the New Testament is all about?  You know, be nice to each other or you will suffer for eternity.

The New Testament is not about coercion.  It's about hope that there's a way to overcome the animal nature that you mentioned earlier.  If someone doesn't want to take advantage of that, there is no coercion.  They are free to make that choice.

...and if they make that choice it will just trigger an eternity of the worst kind of suffering imaginable.  How is that not coercive?  IMHO, true compassion arises from a belief in the good things that come from practicing compassion, not from the bad things that come from its absence.  If someone started telling me about how compassionate they were, and they then told me that if I didn't agree to their compassion-centric supernatural-themed model for living that they were going to throw me into an eternal pit of fire where I would burn forever, I might ask: "Where is the compassion in your pit of fire?  Where is the love in that suffering you impose?"

I love Jesus's message.  I just don't like the penalty for not following it.  I think that cheapens it.  Messages that are truly compelling don't need such penalties for non-compliance.  Apple doesn't need to threaten me with prison if I don't buy its products and services.  The government, OTOH, is happy to show me the cage I will be placed in if I don't buy its products and services.  Which model is closer to the New Testament?  Just saying. 

As far as having compassion on those who are less fortunate, the problem is that giving them handouts doesn't work.  Government is a very blunt instrument for showing compassion.

Fair enough, but I don't think that giving handouts to the more fortunate is very useful either.  To me, the government simply shouldn't be in the whoring business at all.  Instead of getting out of the business, though, it seems to have mainly stopped working the street corners, and everything is now high-end GFE $1,000 an hour stuff...but it's still whoring, except regular people are no longer allowed to participate.

[Pointedstick]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

I have a sudden irrational fear that you may be a Kumbaya-bot.

jafs gives me a very Star Trek vibe: all about how we ideally should be rather than a frank acknowledgement of how the vast majority of us really are. The humanistic utopian optimism of Star Trek is fun and refreshing to watch in the form of TV entertainment, but there aren't a lot of applicable political lessons there. And notably, all the non-human species of Star Trek embody current vices of the humans of today: Klingons are wrath and violence, Ferangi are greed and selfishness, Romulans are deception and treachery, Cardassians are militarism and regimentation, etc. When the Federation encounters these species, they need to deal with them realistically, acknowledging that in all likelihood, the Klingons will start a brawl in the mess hall, the Ferangi will cheat them, the Romulans will stab them in the back, and the Cardassians are planning a war with them. And whenever they forget these things and get taken advantage of, it's portrayed as a cautionary tale of how even enlightened people living in a utopian society must remain vigilant to approach the universe as it is, not how they wish that it should be.

[jafs]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

I have a sudden irrational fear that you may be a Kumbaya-bot.

Can you please provide an example of an act of violence between/among humans that gave you a rush of pleasure?  It needn't be anything too gratuitous.  For example, I found it very satisfying in the Kenny Rogers song "Coward of the County" when it became clear that sometimes violence is the right response to injustice in the world:

Everyone considered him the coward of the county
He'd never stood one single time to prove the county wrong.
His mama named him Tommy, but folks just called him yellow,
Something always told me they were reading Tommy wrong.

He was only ten years old when his daddy died in prison;
I took care of Tommy, 'cause he was my brother's son.
I still recall the final words my brother said to Tommy,
"Son my life is over, but yours has just begun".

"Promise me, son, not to do the things I've done
Walk away from trouble if you can.
It won't mean you're weak if you turn the other cheek
I hope you're old enough to understand,
Son, you don't have to fight to be a man."

There's someone for everyone, and Tommy's love was Becky.
In her arms he didn't have to prove he was a man.
One day while he was working, the Gatlin boys came calling
They took turns at Becky (and there was three of them).

Tommy opened up the door, and saw Becky crying.
The torn dress, the shattered look was more than he could stand.
He reached above the fireplace, and took down his daddy's picture.
As the tears fell on his daddy's face, he heard these words again:

The Gatlin boys just laughed at him when he walked into the barroom;
One of them got up and met him half way cross the floor.
When Tommy turned around they said, "Hey look! old yeller's leaving,"
But you could've heard a pin drop when Tommy stopped and locked the door.

Twenty years of crawling were bottled up inside him.
He wasn't holding nothing back -- he let 'em have it all.
When Tommy left the bar room, not a Gatlin boy was standing.
He said, "This one's for Becky", as he watched the last one fall. (And I heard him say,)

"I promised you, Dad, not to do the things you've done
I walk away from trouble when I can
Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek,
And papa, I should hope you understand
Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man".

There is an animal in us, and we shouldn't ignore or lose track of it.  It is always in there, and it guides our worldview and decisions, whether we realize it or not.

I don't like bullies, having been bullied as a child, and so I love stories where the victim turns the tables on the bully, and gives them a good whomping, like the Karate Kid movies.

[jafs]

This is where the idea of all of us just looking at our own smaller issues breaks down, and you need to be able to look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself.

What do you make of the martial artist who would prefer to sip tea in the mountains and ponder his next volume of tree-themed haiku who reluctantly finds that it is once again time to open up a fresh can of whoop ass in response to a problematic human relations situation?

This person is fundamentally a man of peace and compassion, and yet he is equally at home practicing violence.  Such figures always struck me as a metaphor for a complete person--enlightened, and yet still fully in touch with his animal nature and passions.

Sure, especially if the violence is in self-defense or the defense of others.

[jafs]

This is where the idea of all of us just looking at our own smaller issues breaks down, and you need to be able to look at the bigger picture, and have compassion for people less fortunate than yourself.

But as a practical matter, I don't think compassion can be instilled in people by legislation or laws.  It is a personal and cultural thing.

I'd say trying to impose "compassion" by external means ultimately backfires.

Compassion can't be coerced, by legislation or anything else.  But I'll vote for what I perceive to be the more compassionate views/policies.

[MediumTex]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

I have a sudden irrational fear that you may be a Kumbaya-bot.

jafs gives me a very Star Trek vibe: all about how we ideally should be rather than a frank acknowledgement of how the vast majority of us really are. The humanistic utopian optimism of Star Trek is fun and refreshing to watch in the form of TV entertainment, but there aren't a lot of applicable political lessons there. And notably, all the non-human species of Star Trek embody current vices of the humans of today: Klingons are wrath and violence, Ferangi are greed and selfishness, Romulans are deception and treachery, Cardassians are militarism and regimentation, etc. When the Federation encounters these species, they need to deal with them realistically, acknowledging that in all likelihood, the Klingons will start a brawl in the mess hall, the Ferangi will cheat them, the Romulans will stab them in the back, and the Cardassians are planning a war with them. And whenever they forget these things and get taken advantage of, it's portrayed as a cautionary tale of how even enlightened people living in a utopian society must remain vigilant to approach the universe as it is, not how they wish that it should be.

Yes.

I share jafs' belief in compassion as a way of perfecting our nature, but at the same time the argument for compassion is anything but a killer argument, especially when it is being made to someone who holds power and remembers what it took to get the power.

Love should guide our paths, but many don't see it that way, and even among those who do see it that way, many are deeply anxious about the possibility that they will be thrown into a pit of fire and burn forever if they don't walk the path properly.  The latter group can sometimes make the love path a more nervous place than you might think.

[jafs]

Also, as far as dominance goes, it's true that in the animal kingdom, a very usual model is dominant/submissive, with alpha/beta stuff.  We have some of that, but also some other options, and the ability to think about things in a different way.

For much of what people do, we need to work together rather than against each other.

I have a sudden irrational fear that you may be a Kumbaya-bot.

jafs gives me a very Star Trek vibe: all about how we ideally should be rather than a frank acknowledgement of how the vast majority of us really are. The humanistic utopian optimism of Star Trek is fun and refreshing to watch in the form of TV entertainment, but there aren't a lot of applicable political lessons there. And notably, all the non-human species of Star Trek embody current vices of the humans of today: Klingons are wrath and violence, Ferangi are greed and selfishness, Romulans are deception and treachery, Cardassians are militarism and regimentation, etc. When the Federation encounters these species, they need to deal with them realistically, acknowledging that in all likelihood, the Klingons will start a brawl in the mess hall, the Ferangi will cheat them, the Romulans will stab them in the back, and the Cardassians are planning a war with them. And whenever they forget these things and get taken advantage of, it's portrayed as a cautionary tale of how even enlightened people living in a utopian society must remain vigilant to approach the universe as it is, not how they wish that it should be.

Well, I liked Star Trek a lot, both the original and some of the later versions, so that seems fair 

Human beings have the capacity for many choices, and I'd like for us to make good ones, better ones than many people currently make.  In fact, I'd say that unless we do that we will almost certainly wind up destroying ourselves, along with a lot of nature.  We've developed an amazing amount of technology that gives us a lot of power.

You can't always come to an agreement with everybody about all issues, and so sometimes we just have to choose what we think/feel and act accordingly.  So I vote for people whose views are more aligned with mine, even though none of them are identical, because I have a combination of liberal/conservative/libertarian perspectives.

I'd just like for the atmosphere to be less toxic and for people to be able to discuss/debate ideas without hating each other.  That way there's much more of a chance for us to find some agreement/harmony.

[MediumTex]

I don't like bullies, having been bullied as a child, and so I love stories where the victim turns the tables on the bully, and gives them a good whomping, like the Karate Kid movies.

...or maybe a little Billy Jack when he finds out that the evil mayor and his thugs have made it legal to knock ice cream cones out of little girls' hands:

[MediumTex]

Human beings have the capacity for many choices, and I'd like for us to make good ones, better ones than many people currently make.  In fact, I'd say that unless we do that we will almost certainly wind up destroying ourselves, along with a lot of nature.  We've developed an amazing amount of technology that gives us a lot of power.

Yes!  Yes!  Yes!

I'm with you brother.

But how do you do that?

I think that you do it through persuasion, but effective persuasion has to start with where people are at today.  They're often petty and passion-fueled, and can be very grabby in many ways.  It's like trying to domesticate a cross between Helen Keller and a chimpanzee.  They can be blind to so many things except their next impulse, and they can wreck a whole lot of stuff before they learn much of anything.

But yes, I am 100% with you on the kindness and compassion thing.  Implementation is the challenge.