What would you say is the greatest problem threatening our society as a whole today? By this I mean the human society, not anyone's individual country or town. Also, the kinds of things I'm talking about are: crime, education, etc. You know, the big ones. Not specific things.

I'm honestly just hoping the debate will ensue of it's own accord from people trying to prove that their reason is the worst, but if it doesn't I'm sure I can spark one...

So let's hear it...

Originally Posted by Shtona

What would you say is the greatest problem threatening our society as a whole today? By this I mean the human society, not anyone's individual country or town. Also, the kinds of things I'm talking about are: crime, education, etc. You know, the big ones. Not specific things.

I'm honestly just hoping the debate will ensue of it's own accord from people trying to prove that their reason is the worst, but if it doesn't I'm sure I can spark one...

So let's hear it...

Just to feed your curiousity, I believe altruism is the greatest problem threatening our society.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Just to feed your curiousity, I believe altruism is the greatest problem threatening our society.

Oh what a kawinkadink: I think it's the teachings of Ayn Rand.

Would either of you like to give more of an explanation as to why you believe what you believe?

Originally Posted by Shtona

Would either of you like to give more of an explanation as to why you believe what you believe?

Sure, I'd be happy to. Altruism can be defined as selfless acts to help another. This would be where our objective morality (to keep the species surviving) comes in effect. Most people feel, mostly on an emotional level, that the way to keep surviving is to avoid death to the best of our ability. To do this we have created medicine and created institutions (governments) that restrict humans from killing each other. This is all meant to be done in altruism to do selfless acts to keep each other surviving through teamwork. However, I would argue that our altruistic acts of promoting life and keeping those who should have died still alive, is causing ourselves to become overpopulated. Our overpopulation has caused many problems in this world, mostly stemming from industrialism. The problems caused by industrialism are many but I will give a couple as an example. Pollution and Deforestation. Both of these are destroying the environment that all organisms rely on to live. So by promoting life, and thus overpopulation, we are promoting the death of our species in the end.

This is a very summed up reason. If you would like a much more in-depth look, I will provide it. I think this will suffice for now though.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Sure, I'd be happy to. Altruism can be defined as selfless acts to help another. This would be where our objective morality (to keep the species surviving) comes in effect. Most people feel, mostly on an emotional level, that the way to keep surviving is to avoid death to the best of our ability. To do this we have created medicine and created institutions (governments) that restrict humans from killing each other. This is all meant to be done in altruism to do selfless acts to keep each other surviving through teamwork. However, I would argue that our altruistic acts of promoting life and keeping those who should have died still alive, is causing ourselves to become overpopulated. Our overpopulation has caused many problems in this world, mostly stemming from industrialism. The problems caused by industrialism are many but I will give a couple as an example. Pollution and Deforestation. Both of these are destroying the environment that all organisms rely on to live. So by promoting life, and thus overpopulation, we are promoting the death of our species in the end.

This is a very summed up reason. If you would like a much more in-depth look, I will provide it. I think this will suffice for now though.

By saying this though, you make the assumption that these acts are altruistic. Creating medicine is not selfless as it can help you as well, the same goes for government. So would altruism be the culprit in the end, or would simple human ingenuity?

Originally Posted by Shtona

By saying this though, you make the assumption that these acts are altruistic. Creating medicine is not selfless as it can help you as well, the same goes for government. So would altruism be the culprit in the end, or would simple human ingenuity?

They are altruistic. Because humans feel that it shouldn't be everyone for themselves we came up with ways of preserving each others life. Take the American Association for Cancer Patients for instance. They lobby around asking for charity and support. If they did not, they would not get support and all the cancer patients would die. Cancer has nothing to do with me. It could, but it doesn't. Our altruism in helping support cancer patients is preventing them from dying and helping cause overpopulation. If medicine was limited to only the person who made it then it could be considered an act that wasn't altruistic. Since it is safe to say that the person who created each medicine is not the only one that uses it, it is altruistic in benefiting society as a whole. Our governments are created out of our wants to protect ourselves from harm. It is not an individual project and does not just benefit one individual. It benefits the majority. This is altruistic.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

They are altruistic. Because humans feel that it shouldn't be everyone for themselves we came up with ways of preserving each others life. Take the American Association for Cancer Patients for instance. They lobby around asking for charity and support. If they did not, they would not get support and all the cancer patients would die. Cancer has nothing to do with me. It could, but it doesn't. Our altruism in helping support cancer patients is preventing them from dying and helping cause overpopulation. If medicine was limited to only the person who made it then it could be considered an act that wasn't altruistic. Since it is safe to say that the person who created each medicine is not the only one that uses it, it is altruistic in benefiting society as a whole. Our governments are created out of our wants to protect ourselves from harm. It is not an individual project and does not just benefit one individual. It benefits the majority. This is altruistic.

Interesting...

I guess I do hold the word 'altruism' to a higher standard than it's technical definition...

I'm curious. How would you go about remedying this altruism problem?

Originally Posted by Shtona

Interesting...

I guess I do hold the word 'altruism' to a higher standard than it's technical definition...

I'm curious. How would you go about remedying this altruism problem?

My views are highly controversial and may offend the mass of people who read them. I would like permission from a moderator to discuss my views of "anarchy by survival of the fittest" before I continue since it advocates the killing of the majority of the humans in the world. I have been referred to as Hitler for my views. However, Hitler did his out of hate, I advocate mine to save the species as a whole. If you wish to hear more, a moderator must grant approval before I go into detail as I do not wish to be banned over an offensive idea.

You wouldn't be banned over an offensive idea, so feel free to share. :yes: As we all know, everyone has an opinion, and you shouldn't think you'd be banned for sharing yours.

As long as people don't start flaming each other, and everyone remains mature, things should be fine. :yes:

I have a feeling I know what you'll say, and while it may be somewhat appalling for people to read, it is your opinion...

I think the greatest problem is how easily we forget that people are, you know people. That they aren't monsters, that they aren't a different species, that they have the same basic desires and motivations as we do. Even the most well-meaning people, civil activists and the like, have a tendency to reduce their fellow humans to faceless labels that need to be protected on occasion.

And in my opinion, that's where all of our problems originate. We make decisions based on us, our perspectives, or money, or an idea, and forget the "little" picture -- that we are affecting individual people, perhaps destroying their lives. People starve to death or are killed or are tortured or are enslaved or die of disease because we see them as a soulless mass and, well, we have more important things to worry about, like money or political implications or what future generations might think about us. We fail to properly deal with manmade threats like terrorism or murder because we're too busy demonizing the perpetrators to realize that if we kept in mind that they are really no different from us, we'd be able to better understand them, predict their behaviour, and stop them, perhaps even correcting the behaviour in the process. I think that, if we'd just stop trying to separate ourselves from the "undesirables" of our species, a whole lot of our most pressing issues -- terrorism, war, the environment, human rights violations, the global food crisis, and so on -- would solve themselves.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

My views are highly controversial and may offend the mass of people who read them. I would like permission from a moderator to discuss my views of "anarchy by survival of the fittest" before I continue since it advocates the killing of the majority of the humans in the world. I have been referred to as Hitler for my views. However, Hitler did his out of hate, I advocate mine to save the species as a whole. If you wish to hear more, a moderator must grant approval before I go into detail as I do not wish to be banned over an offensive idea.

So, I take it you have no concern for human rights, since you believe in ubermensch?

Originally Posted by Kris

So, I take it you have no concern for human rights, since you believe in ubermensch?

What makes you think I believe in ubermensch? I care not about the existence of a higher power, whether it be a superhuman, a God, etc. I believe in the existence of the species. The only right granted to all living organisms is the "right to try and survive." A social animal survives through living with a group. Altruism exists to promote the existence of the group. However, altruism has been taken too far as it has caused overpopulation. Overpopulation is killing the human species as well as all the other species on the Earth (plant and animal alike.) In order to depopulate the world in a way to grant equality to all, I propose we use an anarchy tactic that promotes survival of the fittest. The four main branches will clash. Intelligence, Charisma, Strength, and Dexterity. The best of the best will survive. Just because you are frail in body does not mean you won't survive if you are stronger in the other three categories. The best of the best survive through anarchy and the rest die off. With the majority of the human population gone, industry and all the negative effects (Pollution, Deforestation, etc) will go away. World hunger will no longer be an issue since the human species will be proportionate to the Earth once more. We must do away with altruism in order to survive the species as a whole. We have embraced life too long. We must now embrace death. Life cannot exist without death. Pleasure cannot exist without Pain. We must embrace balance or we will fall.

You seem to think that the human mind will greatly alter with you proposed plan. The best of the best will survive. Who's to say the best of THEM won't dominate the rest and control food/water supply. If people are forced to fight to survive they will most likely start hording these nessesities. Your plan would work if humans didn't act the way they do. People don't want to just "survive". They want comfort, luxuries. It's just the way we are. Your idea would simply not work because of this factor.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel

You seem to think that the human mind will greatly alter with you proposed plan. The best of the best will survive. Who's to say the best of THEM won't dominate the rest and control food/water supply. If people are forced to fight to survive they will most likely start hording these nessesities. Your plan would work if humans didn't act the way they do. People don't want to just "survive". They want comfort, luxuries. It's just the way we are. Your idea would simply not work because of this factor.

The ones that have the comfort and luxuries would be the target of the rest of the greedy population. They would most likely die. Materials hold no value if you have nothing protecting them. In true anarchy, thievery, murder, etc is allowed and legal. Take all the luxuries you want. Make yourself a target to the rest because that is what will happen.

Originally Posted by Tutela de Xaoc

Sure, I'd be happy to. Altruism can be defined as selfless acts to help another. This would be where our objective morality (to keep the species surviving) comes in effect. Most people feel, mostly on an emotional level, that the way to keep surviving is to avoid death to the best of our ability. To do this we have created medicine and created institutions (governments) that restrict humans from killing each other. This is all meant to be done in altruism to do selfless acts to keep each other surviving through teamwork. However, I would argue that our altruistic acts of promoting life and keeping those who should have died still alive, is causing ourselves to become overpopulated. Our overpopulation has caused many problems in this world, mostly stemming from industrialism. The problems caused by industrialism are many but I will give a couple as an example. Pollution and Deforestation. Both of these are destroying the environment that all organisms rely on to live. So by promoting life, and thus overpopulation, we are promoting the death of our species in the end.

This is a very summed up reason. If you would like a much more in-depth look, I will provide it. I think this will suffice for now though.

I agree on some of your points about our overpopulation, but I just want to say that human society has never been truely altruistic. We had a discussion about this in my anthropology class I took last semester in the spring. My idea of altruism is people not trying to screw each other over. Here in the US people get screwed over so much with policies. Like...with adoption, what I've come to notice is in how we deal with adoptions and who gets to adopt. How often do you hear of african american families getting the chance to adopt? I don't know if this is entirely true because I live in a state that is primarily white (I live in Vermont) but from my personal experience and what I've seen, it's white families who have the easiest time with adoption. So the system here excludes minority groups (or at least makes it very difficult).

Now if people could stop being greedy bastards and were to start treating everyone equally, I don't think there would be as many issues. But the problem is that goal is very unrealistic in my opinion because people are always going to look out for number one. Not everyone is like that, but I feel the amount of people who do have altruistic intentions are few and far between.

I went ahead and took care of Shalandriel's accidental double post, and I also deleted your response to her second post Tutela. Just FYI. :D

Overwhelming trust in capitalism.

Originally Posted by una

Overwhelming trust in capitalism.

Honestly, I'm not surprised someone said this here...would you like to explain how that is the greatest threat to society?

@ Shtona-

A fleeting glance at contemporary affairs provides an insight into the darker side of capitalism.
-Health care reform
-Recession
-Controversy about Iraq
-The huge sheer amount of poverty in the US

All this misery is spun from groups of human beings trying to screw over other groups of human beings. This happens on so many levels of society from small communities to big global corporations, and no one cares. How many people are concerned about where the goods they consumed comes from? Or how they were manufactured? Or how the employees were treated? Did everyone involved get a fair deal?

Originally Posted by una

@ Shtona-

A fleeting glance at contemporary affairs provides an insight into the darker side of capitalism.
-Health care reform
-Recession
-Controversy about Iraq
-The huge sheer amount of poverty in the US

All this misery is spun from groups of human beings trying to screw over other groups of human beings. This happens on so many levels of society from small communities to big global corporations, and no one cares. How many people are concerned about where the goods they consumed comes from? Or how they were manufactured? Or how the employees were treated? Did everyone involved get a fair deal?

It seems that last questions sums up you're feelings about capitalism, or at least, that's what I gather from your post. If there's more, please, share. To answer that last question though, is pretty simple: Life isn't fair, why should everyone get a fair deal? I agree, it's unjust in some cases, but wouldn't we be better off dealing with each of those cases as they come? You can't beat human nature. You always want more than others (with only a few exceptions) and fighting it is usually only temporary, and causes a massive fallout afterwards (Great Depression).

Whoa, how did people trying to play nice with one another cause the Great Depression? Mind explaining that one, Shtona?

Originally Posted by Philomel

Whoa, how did people trying to play nice with one another cause the Great Depression? Mind explaining that one, Shtona?

The Great Depression wasn't caused by 'people trying to play nice', it was caused by several different reasons, but the length of the depression was arguably caused by policies put into place by F.D.R. It's an old debate (who/what caused/extended the Great Depression), but that's my belief. If you want another similar example look at the 70's under Carter.

Oh, and Phil: Don't twist what I say...

I'm posting from my blackbeery and it likes to act up, hence the double post, sorry.

She wasn't twisitng anything you said Shtona. You said 'causes a massive fallout' and then gave the great depression as an example. That's mis-wording on your part, he didn't twist a thing.

As to the people who are greedy being the ones who will die, that's not nessicarily true either. Just because they are greedy would not mean they are weak. Some of the greediest people are the most manipulative and the smartest of people. If they are smart they will find other greedy people who are weaker than them, and amass a sort of army around them. Even weak people who are intelligent have a way of protecting themselves, I'm not sure why you think this would change. People aren't going to suddenly just stop wanting luxuries, and I'm sure they can find a way to keep them. People aren't going to work JUST for themselves either, they still have families to care for, I don't think that would change. Your idea would take more than a change in government/way of life. A serious part of human nature would have to change.

Originally Posted by TheYaoiButterfly

I agree on some of your points about our overpopulation, but I just want to say that human society has never been truely altruistic. We had a discussion about this in my anthropology class I took last semester in the spring. My idea of altruism is people not trying to screw each other over. Here in the US people get screwed over so much with policies. Like...with adoption, what I've come to notice is in how we deal with adoptions and who gets to adopt. How often do you hear of african american families getting the chance to adopt? I don't know if this is entirely true because I live in a state that is primarily white (I live in Vermont) but from my personal experience and what I've seen, it's white families who have the easiest time with adoption. So the system here excludes minority groups (or at least makes it very difficult).

Now if people could stop being greedy bastards and were to start treating everyone equally, I don't think there would be as many issues. But the problem is that goal is very unrealistic in my opinion because people are always going to look out for number one. Not everyone is like that, but I feel the amount of people who do have altruistic intentions are few and far between.

When I read the OP, I got in my mind what would be best for "Humanity," not blacks, not whites, not mexicans, not chinese, the entire human species. So this equality holds no ground in this argument. It doesn't matter what color skin you have or what race you are from, you will be affected by pollution, by the destruction of the ozone layer, by deforestation, and many other problems caused by overpopulation. Overpopulation has nothing to do with race.

Originally Posted by Shalandriel

I'm posting from my blackbeery and it likes to act up, hence the double post, sorry.

She wasn't twisitng anything you said Shtona. You said 'causes a massive fallout' and then gave the great depression as an example. That's mis-wording on your part, he didn't twist a thing.

As to the people who are greedy being the ones who will die, that's not nessicarily true either. Just because they are greedy would not mean they are weak. Some of the greediest people are the most manipulative and the smartest of people. If they are smart they will find other greedy people who are weaker than them, and amass a sort of army around them. Even weak people who are intelligent have a way of protecting themselves, I'm not sure why you think this would change. People aren't going to suddenly just stop wanting luxuries, and I'm sure they can find a way to keep them. People aren't going to work JUST for themselves either, they still have families to care for, I don't think that would change. Your idea would take more than a change in government/way of life. A serious part of human nature would have to change.

Exactly Shalandriel. If they are strong in mind, charisma, strength, and dexterity then they will be the ones to survive. Materials will have no value. When there is no law against someone breaking into someone's house, killing all the people in that house and looting everything in it. People will soon realize they will need to start taking extra precaution or they will die if they have what other humans covet. There are humans out there that will start it. Lots of vigilantes out there as well. Someone kills someone, the victims go to kill the killer. Once everyone realizes they have to completely fend for themselves and be careful who they trust, the attitudes of all the humans will change. The ones who don't, will simply die.