Thursday, November 19, 2009

selfish bastards

SELFISH BASTARDS
Every pertinent article comments contains some form or another of the statement that people are selfish bastards. Yet, we keep getting statements such as it is advantageous to trade, or it is immoral to attack first or something similar. If people are indeedily doodily bastard coated bastards with creamy bastard filling ( not mine-stolen from TV’s “Scrubs” ) than it follows that they won’t always do the right thing. They won’t always trade instead of attack. They won’t always stay on the defensive. They won’t always refrain from eating each other during famines. When I bring these things up, half of you turn your head in shame, dramatically place the back of your hand to your forehead and declare that you are suffering from an attack of the vapors. Stop being a pussy, Nancy. These are the realities of life outside of the Oil Age. I grant you that more often than not, trade rather than war is the norm. And I grant you that 99% of the time cannibalism is not practiced. And not everyone engages in preemptive strikes to steal a potential enemies resources before being attacked themselves. But the only reason for that is that bad behavior is not beneficial at the time.
*
Everyone constantly performs cost benefit analysis before making any decision. If they are rewarded by good behavior, they will act as good as gold. If they can be rewarded for bad behavior, that is what they will do. Even acting properly without immediate feedback is subject to this. Either they want to get into heaven or karma will reward them for good behavior. Even the non-religious act as if their behavior will be paid back in kind. I don’t argue that good behavior isn’t the desired state of affairs. I’m saying that human nature will always prevail and we are a selfish bunch. And why not? It is a survival mechanism, programmed into our DNA. When the individual is rewarded by sacrificing for the group, that is why it happens. Not because they care for others in the group but because they care for themselves. Even good behavior for family is outside our control. We act by instinct, not moral superiority. And don’t think I’m being nihilistic. I’m being paranoid and negative, but realistic. We gladly bury our face in the popcorn bowl as we watch grizzlies or tigers catch their prey and start tearing them apart as they are still alive and suffering. The predators have no other need than survival. And despite the superiority attitude we bring about ourselves, we are still naked apes. We act on survival. Morality is how we justify sacrificing for the common good, but it is also how we justify normally bad behavior ( smiting the godless heathen, pacifying the lesser races, bringing democracy to the Muslim fanatics, saving others from their own leader, bringing capitalism to the communists, etc. )
*
Are we being totally blind by our upbringing? Are we ignorant enough that we can’t see past the propaganda? A lot of man years go into programming us to act according to the groups interest. Again, it is a survival mechanism. The group keeps us alive. But we also have to acknowledge those in the group who benefit for themselves. Is it imperative that males are bribed and/or forced to support their offspring. Of course. Do plenty of females take advantage of that and break up the family for financial gain? Of course. Does support of the geriatrics benefit the whole group? Of course. They teach wisdom and storehouse knowledge. Free babysitters and teachers, and they don’t eat much. Has a huge pampered class of welfare recipients used this historic necessity to live their last years by golf courses in Florida? Of course. Does trade benefit everyone, increasing luxury and being a support mechanism for localized disaster? Sure. Do tribes go to war anyway when they think they can steal more than trade will bring? Duh.
*
We have to act like we all want to get along. Trade and peace benefit us. But we always have to prepare for being turned on. As soon as it benefits your former friend, they will become your enemy. This is simply common sense, and it is a shame that our pampered lifestyles have blinded us to it. Of course we’ve been able to ( mostly ) live peacefully together. We’ve had a surplus of resources. Had. Past tense. Even if nine times out of ten trade rather than war prevails, you had better be ready for war. That ten percent will bite you in the ass.
END

9 comments:

ImaOldMainer said...

Amen brother.

Channel surfing daytime or primetime TV will attest that even during these "good" times people are capable of doing wrong. Without the watchful eye of the men in blue and threat of punishment, some will surely take advantage.

I think the walk softly but carry a big (preferably gun powder filled) stick policy applies. Don't go looking for trouble but be prepared to respond when it comes looking for you.

Publius said...

James,
OK Jim. You've convinced me to be prepared for the worst.
Wait - I already am!
I have followed your advice on many things, as well as the advice of others. Even down to the beauty of the simple bolt action Russians! It's an amazing piece of engineering by the way.

However, I am starting to realize that we have some differences in the realm of metaphysics, which means that these differences are basically religious/philosophical, and will never be resolved. We differ on the nature of reality.
I think that your current model of reality is correct much of the time, especially in times of scarcity.

However, history also shows rare individuals and whole societies that have chosen to be better than the naked ape that makes up part of our humanity. Unlike the ape, we have a capacity to transcend evil and acts of aggression.

Of course, choosing this transcendent path as an individual can get you killed: look at Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, etc.
These individuals, however, transformed their societies for the good. In Gandhi's case, he even did it in the face of relative scarcity and overpopulation.

I don't think we can really say we disagree on the practical things, just on the ultimate things. I would call you a nihilist based on my reading of your blog, but it's also possible you do have belief in the higher good. But I doubt it. You seem to be a social Darwinist. I still believe that people will be able to form alliances based on real mutual trust and friendship (aka love), and for those who dare to do this (with appropriate cautions and use of intuition to avoid the disguised wolves), they will manage to form a better village, town, or region that manages to escape some of the brutality that is sure to come.

The Amish are a good example. Nobody can claim that their society is not amazingly peaceful and free - and it is based on mutual trust and belief in their religion. I predict you will pooh-pooh this theory, but if their system works, it works.

In the end, we all base our action on our world view. You really believe that your dark view is correct. I really believe that it is possible to form human relationships based on friendship and love that would not break in the face of hardship. Even the brutal ancient Greeks thought so, and proved so... in the Illiad, many people fight to the death for their friends and countrymen.

Finally, let me say that I enjoy these debates, and would love to have a beer with you. You won't preemptively attack me in the bar, I hope?

David said...

Publius,
Jesus, Ghandi, etc operated in a time where there were massive surpluses relative to the population compared to the circumstances that would prevail deep on the downslope of the oil production curve.
While people in the 1st century were hardly rich by our standards, most of them had enough food to not die most of the time. To get to the kind of outrageous mortality that you're likely to see significantly post-peak oil, the only even close comparison is when the Black Plague ravaged England (about a third of the population died in a few years if memory serves).
Ghandi and Jesus were able to appeal to people's better instincts precisely because it WAS possible for most of them to not starve, most of them time (being able to multiply fishes and loaves helped an awful lot too). We just have no experience with an overshoot of this magnitude.

It's certainly possible for people in such a circumstance to band together and have real loyalty and friendship, but they'll need to defend themselves against other such groups who also have said loyalty until the population drops below the remaining carrying capacity. Then peace will once again become possible.
Like yourself, I am not a nihilist, nor am I a social darwinist, although I freely confess that my 'natural man' over which my religious beliefs are layered is quite the nihilist. I believe that Christianity obligates me to defend those who I have a special duty towards (friends, family, wife, our kids, myself), and that failure to so defend represents contempt for the gift of life from the Creator. I also believe that I am not permitted to attack another group for the sole purpose of getting their stuff so that I can survive. However, I'm not confident that I'd be able to resist said temptation, and I know very few would be able to when their kids are hungry. Therefore, to avoid the 'occasion of sin', I try to prepare. If a surplus exists beyond the needs of those I have a special duty towards, I'm inclined to be charitable, but I'm equally inclined to be aggressive in defense as needed, and to not be stupid isofar as the prosecution of warfare is concerned. Christianity is a pretty flexible system when you think about it---it even prescribes how one is supposed to relate in a master-slave relationship. Most of the parts of the Bible that most people are loath to talk about these days will no doubt see a serious revival post-crash.

James m Dakin said...

Publius, I think the main differance is that I'm paranoid and have too much supressed anger, whereas you might be of of a more chemically balanced nature :) Seriously, I think you are right and it is just a "glass half full or empty" outlook. And that it never will be resolved. But ain't it fun wasting energy on it?

_BAAL_ said...

well for all you yankee devils educated in a government facility: you can only believe in rational scientific evolution, and survival of the fittest. therefore you must worship the rich ruling class.....

i'd say go to a library and read Kropotikin's MUTUAL AID. but you won't find it for some reason, despite all that claptrap they feed you about all your goddamn freedoms, like McDung's and Buttwipe beer. join the hive mind, good citizen. despite what you are told or read, herds and tribes will not survive much less thrive without co-operation.

you can choose your own 'ism', for what you think works....i don't know.

Publius said...

@BAAL:
Uh... I think most of the readers of this blog are not really too into the "government facility" form of education. Give us a break!
I'll look up the Kropotikin, even though it was recommended by someone who comes off, superficially, as an arrogant jerk.

I was attacked by people recently for considering home schooling, so I really don't admire government controlled education. Sheesh... can't anyone be constructive and supportive anymore in these prepper blogs? :(

oldsubotai said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael said...

Thought you might find this interesting.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/consuminginterests/blog/2009/11/eggo_shortage_pumpkin_shortage.html

OGT said...

I'm not a yankee, but I have lived all over this united states. I have found stupid everywhere Ive been and greed and selfishness. I have also found hope in places where I thought there wouldnt be.

I think water seeks its own level. and eventually we will be joined to one another out of neccesity.

I prefer to be on my own but I see the need for community of some sort. The saying choose your friends wisely is the best advice I can pass on.