A Thread to Restore Your Faith in Humanity

Status
Not open for further replies.

Katatonic

Kingfisher


A boy, Joshua Jones, and his father, Steve Jones, sat Sunday night in front-row seats at AT&T Park in San Francisco. The boy was in a wheelchair. Early in the game between the Los Angeles Dodgers and San Francisco Giants, the father struck up a conversation with Dodgers third base coach Tim Wallach. He said his son was very sick, that he was a Dodgers fan, and that his favorite player was Kemp. The boy, who has cancer, is unable to speak.

Wallach brought them a baseball. Later in the game, he told Kemp about Joshua. And when the game ended – Kemp had made the last out in a loss, the Dodgers' fourth in a row – Wallach returned to the dugout and found Kemp waiting for him. He wanted to go see the boy in the stands.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/viral-...g-fan-catches-dodger-off-guard-004632881.html
 

Homo_Sapien

Sparrow
I think Gio posted a valuable image on this thread but framed it in completely the wrong way.

Highlighting the exceptional cases of what could only be described as extended tribal empathy does not show that the entire human species is 'good', or whatever the OP was pushing at here.

Next time you see a video of someone showing incredible 'bravery and compassion' to save the life of a stranger, think about the millions of children and adults dying from easily preventable causes, the modern day enslavement of the North Korean people, the ongoing use of children as cannon fodder in those countries you've barely heard of...

...and humanity's collective decision to do nothing about it. Even when they have both the means and the time to do so.

So called humanists would rather argue with a religious nut-job on twitter than save and/or improve the lives of their fellow human beings.

And I would rather post on RooshVForum than spend the same effort helping others in need. I just don't put on a mask of selflessness or caring. I admit that I only think about myself and my immediate social circle most of the time. Just like every other animal on this planet.

Generally speaking, if they're not in the same tribe, nobody gives a shit.
 

Beyond Borders

Peacock
Gold Member
Homo_Sapien said:
Highlighting the exceptional cases of what could only be described as extended tribal empathy does not show that the entire human species is 'good', or whatever the OP was pushing at here.

Not what I was pushing for at all. I think the initial post is quite clear about what I was getting at, which is that with all the negativity we soak up through the media we often forget that there are still people out there with common, and sometimes very uncommon, decency. And that sometimes a little reminder is in order.

You seem so set on your dark world view that you'd even negate any evidence that some people do give a shit. I find that alarming, but a part of me, when in a dark mood, feels like that sometimes too. This thread was meant to be a reminder that we're not all pieces of shit - a motivator when the negativity gets you down.

Nowhere did I imply all people are good. Though I would say all humans do have the capacity for good. And I would say that there are fare more decent people in this world than indecent - regardless of what you and the media would have us believe. Could you imagine what the world would really be like if the average trip to the grocery store or walk down your street reflected the reality you see painted across the evening news every night?

It would be sheer chaos. The fact that betrayal, cheating, violence, and otherwise barbaric acts are still so outlandish to us is evidence in itself that they are abnormal in our society.

Either way, it wasn't my intent to philosophize about all that all.

Next time you see a video of someone showing incredible 'bravery and compassion' to save the life of a stranger, think about the millions of children and adults dying from easily preventable causes, the modern day enslavement of the North Korean people, the ongoing use of children as cannon fodder in those countries you've barely heard of...

...and humanity's collective decision to do nothing about it. Even when they have both the means and the time to do so.

Sure, let's ignore all the action that is taken to act against the world's challenges. If we can keep ourselves and others in a constant state of hopelessness by acting like no one out there cares or is trying, that ought to help things...:dodgy:

I agree there's a lot more we can do about these things. I hardly think dismissing every positive thing you see under that pretense is doing the world (or yourself) any favors though.

So called humanists would rather argue with a religious nut-job on twitter than save and/or improve the lives of their fellow human beings.

And I would rather post on RooshVForum than spend the same effort helping others in need.

A blanket statement that pretends no one on this Earth is dedicating their life to good causes and that every single person out there spends their time on Twitter. Simply a figment of your imagination. There are plenty of time-wasting hypocrites rotting away on Twitter, but that hardly describes every person who espouses a good cause.

I just don't put on a mask of selflessness or caring. I admit that I only think about myself and my immediate social circle most of the time. Just like every other animal on this planet.

Generally speaking, if they're not in the same tribe, nobody gives a shit.

I disagree. I personally do care about strangers and I typically do things to help people each and every day, sometimes in extremely small ways and sometimes in much bigger ways. When I see someone hurt or in danger, I always respond. Always. And I've even done so at my own risk.

I don't always help people I see in need (that are not in immediate physical danger) simply because I haven't the resources to do so and still take care of myself, but I do try to lend a hand when I can. I've helped people I didn't like or respect and thought of as enemies too...how tribal of me...

Many on this planet are far more selfless than I am in this regard, but the point is that people like us do exist, so apparently there are those that give a shit. Probably quite a few even on this forum, which I think we can all admit is a forum essentially focused on the self.

You've got a very negative worldview that isn't supported by what I see in the world around me, though I'm not sure where you spend your time, so perhaps your experience is different. At the end of the day, your problems sound personal more than anything else.

If Giovonny had a point worth making, it was a good one, but it wasn't the one you tried to mutate it into - it was the exact one he so clearly made. That people who don't see the good in the world around them everyday need to unplug themselves from the news and the Internet, get off their computer and get out into that world.

I've been doing that more often lately instead of spending so much time in RooshVforum, and that's why I haven't felt the need to post more videos. It's been a refreshing return to reality...
 

speakeasy

Peacock
Gold Member
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/02/cameron-lyle-bone-marrow_n_3202068.html

When Cameron Lyle learned that he was a bone marrow match for a man with cancer, he immediately agreed to donate, a decision that will effectively end his sporting career.

The 21-year-old University of New Hampshire track and field star got swabbed to join the bone marrow registry back when he was a sophomore and didn’t think much of it, WMUR reports. After all, Lyle told ABC, he had been told that there was a one in five million chance for patients to find a match in a non-family member.
 

Homo_Sapien

Sparrow
Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.
 

Beyond Borders

Peacock
Gold Member
Homo_Sapien said:
Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.

My response was not in any way an ad hominem, and if you took it that way it may have been your intrepretation. I can see in some instances where you may have read it that way, but even in those spots, I don't see how it could have been perceived as any more accusatory than your inferences about humanists on Twitter, etc.

I mentioned your implication that all humanists are just at play on Twitter rather than doing anything of merit to be a figment of your imagination, which is true, and I said your perspective seemed like a personal problem to highlight the point that anyone who really thinks that no one gives a shit when evidence to the contrary reveals itself on a daily basis needs a look at their focus in life.

I didn't mean it as an attack on your character but rather an observation of your ideas and stance on life overall, which in this case is valid since it's the very thing being discussed.

Anyhow, the intent of this thread was not to have a philosophical discussion, as I mentioned before. An attempt to derail it rather than understand that, whatever the nature of humankind be, some of us would rather also recognize the light that comes with the dark just misses the point. Even on a primarily selfish and narcissistic level, this recognition is good for the individual.

As for the fate of the world in 50 years, we'll just have to touch bases then, and at that point, if we're still both alive and kicking, I'd be glad to have a lengthy discussion on pessimism vs optimism in the greater scheme of the human condition as well as on the smaller scale of personal welfare.

Though I'd imagine even then there will be no absolutes in the world and humankind will be debating about the downfall of humanity and the coming end of the world, just as they were a hundred years before that and a hundred years before that.

As it is, with nothing but theory, conjecture, and perspective at hand to guess at the future, I really don't see going back and forth on it as much more than mental masturbation. You can refer to "The Rational Optimist" if you really do care for a counter-perspective to yours that is based in logic, but for now, I'm at a point in my life where I've found debates between polar opposites do very little to get me where I want to be right now and are a time-waster unless I have a concrete goal in mind.
 

RichieP

Pelican
Homo_Sapien said:
Beyond Borders, firstly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just realize that I write according to the materialist conception of history. I think morality doesn't play as big a part in human activity as resources do. What sounds pessimistic to you is realistic to me.

Secondly, the larger point I was trying to emphasize was that humans are still being viewed as special compared to other animals. Not only this, but they are seen as completely separate from the evolutionary process because of their more impressive cognitive ability.

You only have to look at the social dynamics of chimpanzees or gorillas to see how our common ancestor most likely behaved toward one another. In other words, empathetic within the tribe and outside the tribe, indifferent and often violent. Going further back into the tree of life, where survival is even more perilous, a weaker sibling is often neglected and left to die, giving the stronger one as much of a chance as possible. (An example, which is not uncommon in the animal kingdom: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/20938650)

The only thing that has changed is the progressive desensitization to the stranger that has occurred due to overpopulation combined with the abundance of resources. Think back 200 years ago when people's only emotions towards slave-owners were those of jealousy.

If it's not glaringly obvious to you now, you will realize the extent of human selfishness when this planet is drained of it's natural resources in about 50 years.

We're not actually that close genetically to Gorillas, and we're at least as close to Bonobos as Chimps. Guess how Bonobos live? Equality, minimal violence and plenty of carefree polygamous sex. That makes me happy.

Regarding the next 50 years: Yeah, it's not looking good. But then, it's not like we deliberately and malevolently raped the earth. It's the unintended consequences of our natural short-term and immediate thinking. Populations go up and down as the environmental carrying capacity changes... happens to other species all the time. So it's not surprising it's going to happen to us - it's a natural thing.

I dont think it's this dark thing called "human selfishness"...most societies are pretty caring and empathic. Just look at how many strangers live together in cities in relative cooperation. Even in the worst cities, more strangers live in relative cooperation than not. What we're not good at is taking global/long-term consequences into account in our actions - seeing the ramifications of the holistic system dynamics - but its not really our fault since our brains aren't wired for it, and daily life just doesn't incentivize us to care for people on distant continents or future generations.
 

Giovonny

Crow
Gold Member
Homo_Sapien said:
I think Gio posted a valuable image on this thread but framed it in completely the wrong way.

My frame was wrong? Honestly, I don't even know what my "frame" was? My point was that I have not lost my faith in humanity.

I agree with alot of your post. It's true that many people only care about those in their extended tribe. But, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't help someone of another tribe.

For example, you admit that you only care about yourself and the people in your social circle. (Like most of us, in general)

But, if you saw a child from another tribe that was thirsty, would you give him water?

If you saw a old lady from another tribe needed help lifting a heavy object, would you help her?

If a person from another tribe was hungry, would you give them food?

I suspect that you would help them, but, I don't know? Maybe you wouldn't?
 

RichieP

Pelican
samsamsam said:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-new-science-of-giving-212647170.html

The New Science of Giving
A young Houston couple is planning to give away $4 billion—but only to projects that prove they are worth it. Can they redefine the world of philanthropy?

They are going to work on, among other issues, nutrition and obesity.

YES I really hope they do give to some causes that are truly worthwhile.

I like their vision but I'm not sure fixing sub-systems in the US economy is really optimal; not in the grand scheme of things. The next 100 years are going to see massive suffering on an unprecedented scale in developing countries unless we really shift our values, bigtime. I would say something like these might be the leverage points:

-Cheap and effective methods for *really* improving mental health and cultivating calm, centered & compassionate attitudes, especially amongst those in positions of power

-Shifting root cultural values away from "Accumulate as much as possible" to "Have enough and then help others have enough too"

They seem like amibitious goals, but that foundation do say they want to tackle the systemic issues with no easy answers. These are the ones to go for IMO.
 

RichieP

Pelican
Giovonny said:
Homo_Sapien said:
I think Gio posted a valuable image on this thread but framed it in completely the wrong way.

My frame was wrong? Honestly, I don't even know what my "frame" was? My point was that I have not lost my faith in humanity.

I agree with alot of your post. It's true that many people only care about those in their extended tribe. But, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't help someone of another tribe.

For example, you admit that you only care about yourself and the people in your social circle. (Like most of us, in general)

But, if you saw a child from another tribe that was thirsty, would you give him water?

If you saw a old lady from another tribe needed help lifting a heavy object, would you help her?

If a person from another tribe was hungry, would you give them food?

I suspect that you would help them, but, I don't know? Maybe you wouldn't?


Well said sir. This is the root of compassion and these sentiments make me proud to be human. Important stuff, thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top