Add lithium to drinking water

Hah, I don't believe that. You're far too conscientious of others to be truly tribal. :P

I prefer to think global, I want all of humanity to flourish, and I've seen far too many negative effects of tribal thinking to think it sustainable at a species-wide level. (Note - cherry picking some aspects of tribal thinking, such as "generosity to my tribe will increase my social standing" and pointing out that it is good doesn't mean that tribal thinking as a whole is better than more global thinking, and if it can work at a species-wide level, there's likely a correlation that goes beyond tribal or super-tribal thinking.)

Tribal does not automatically preclude being empathetic and aware.

I do not choose to do harm to any living thing. I do not choose to allow harm to be done to any living thing.

But...


I do choose to survive. And I do choose that my family, my friends, my tribe, shall survive with me.

It means, like the marines, we never leave each other behind.

Being tribal does not mean you love others less: It means you love your family more.

If you do not love yourself how can you love others?

If you do not love your family how can you love the world?

If you don't understand that your family is an extension of yourself how can you understand that the person a half a world away is but an extension of yourself?

How do you understand that a bear, a fish, a tree, or the clouds that reflect you to yourself in Roscharchian pictures are but extensions of yourself?

What good is it for a man to love the world when his child needs a hug?
 
Hah, I don't believe that. You're far too conscientious of others to be truly tribal. :P

I prefer to think global, I want all of humanity to flourish, and I've seen far too many negative effects of tribal thinking to think it sustainable at a species-wide level. (Note - cherry picking some aspects of tribal thinking, such as "generosity to my tribe will increase my social standing" and pointing out that it is good doesn't mean that tribal thinking as a whole is better than more global thinking, and if it can work at a species-wide level, there's likely a correlation that goes beyond tribal or super-tribal thinking.)

Maybe I don't know what kind of a tribe you are talking about.

I was raised by those who believe in Native American Tribal beliefs. "Generosity to the tribe" makes no sense to me. Social standing is not something that is acquired -- It is given. We are more of an "Everyone pitches in" than a "You sacrifice yourself for us" system. Freedom rather than devotion is more of a watch word to us.

We don't drink the kool aid.
 
Maybe I don't know what kind of a tribe you are talking about.

I was raised by those who believe in Native American Tribal beliefs. "Generosity to the tribe" makes no sense to me. Social standing is not something that is acquired -- It is given. We are more of an "Everyone pitches in" than a "You sacrifice yourself for us" system. Freedom rather than devotion is more of a watch word to us.

We don't drink the kool aid.

Collective, not individualistic, culture.
 
Do I need to state which I prefer?

If I were in a rose garden I would be a cactus. If I were in a cactus garden I would be a road runner.

No...self disclosure is not necessary.:P I think I got it figured out.
 
The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.

I have a problem with this whole concept.

Prior to John Locke rule was pretty much the province of the Divine Right of the Monarchy. John Locke proposed the concept of majority rule.

John Stuart Mill came along and pointed out that the majority could be a far worse task master than the monarchy. He thus proposed the protection of the minority.

John Stuart Mill was not ignored when the constitution was written and his ideas have not been ignored by the U.S. government today.

To ignore such a minority is to sanctify the attitude that NO minority should have ANY rights if it is inconvenient for the "majority". This is totally against the basic principles our nation was founded upon.
 
I'd prefer that the Chinese not flourish.

I'm not nearly so xenophobic. We're all humans. I want all of us to flourish.

Tribal does not automatically preclude being empathetic and aware.

I was using tribal in the EEA sense, where human behaviors developed. This is the epitome of in-group preference and out-group exclusion, which leads to things like xenophobia and "Us vs. Them" mentalities. Not a reference to any specific tribes.

I do not choose to do harm to any living thing. I do not choose to allow harm to be done to any living thing.

Are you a vegetarian/vegan? I commend you for sticking with your principles if you are. I prefer to limit myself to merely not harming or (to the best of my capabilities) allowing harm to come to sentient creatures. This includes border cases such as dolphins, primates, and (this one is newer/more difficult for me, but) pigs.

But...

I do choose to survive. And I do choose that my family, my friends, my tribe, shall survive with me.

At the expense of others? Would you allow 1,000 foreigners who you don't know die in order to save the life of your daughter? 1,000,000?

It means, like the marines, we never leave each other behind.

Being tribal does not mean you love others less: It means you love your family more.

In-group preference is simply the flip side of the same coin of out-group exclusion. It's the difference between not pulling the fat man who will stop a runaway car with 10 people in it out of the way, and pushing the fat man in front of the car.

If you do not love yourself how can you love others?

If you do not love your family how can you love the world?

If you don't understand that your family is an extension of yourself how can you understand that the person a half a world away is but an extension of yourself?

How do you understand that a bear, a fish, a tree, or the clouds that reflect you to yourself in Roscharchian pictures are but extensions of yourself?

What good is it for a man to love the world when his child needs a hug?

Please define: "extension of yourself". I don't understand your usage.

Maybe I don't know what kind of a tribe you are talking about.

I was raised by those who believe in Native American Tribal beliefs. "Generosity to the tribe" makes no sense to me. Social standing is not something that is acquired -- It is given. We are more of an "Everyone pitches in" than a "You sacrifice yourself for us" system. Freedom rather than devotion is more of a watch word to us.

We don't drink the kool aid.

See above.
 
In-group / out-group occurs in all societies, not just the tribal ones. It is a natural instinct for fulfilling a basic psychological need.
 
In-group / out-group occurs in all societies, not just the tribal ones. It is a natural instinct for fulfilling a basic psychological need.

Right, that's why I specifically defined that term, since I realized that it was being misinterpreted. I'm not referring specifically to "tribal cultures" or trying to imply that in post-tribal cultures it has evaporated (quite the opposite, in fact). I was referring to that because I thought it was a commonly used term indicating that the behaviors described initially developed when humans only grouped themselves into small tribes.

There are a lot of behaviors and thought patterns which developed when we still lived in small tribes on the African plains which were helpful at the time, but with modern technology and cultures are now unhelpful (such as high-caloric/high-fat foods tasting good and out-group exclusion). That was the usage that I was saying "tribal", so if you're referring to other uses of the word "tribal" then there's no conflict.
 
Right, that's why I specifically defined that term, since I realized that it was being misinterpreted. I'm not referring specifically to "tribal cultures" or trying to imply that in post-tribal cultures it has evaporated (quite the opposite, in fact). I was referring to that because I thought it was a commonly used term indicating that the behaviors described initially developed when humans only grouped themselves into small tribes.

There are a lot of behaviors and thought patterns which developed when we still lived in small tribes on the African plains which were helpful at the time, but with modern technology and cultures are now unhelpful (such as high-caloric/high-fat foods tasting good and out-group exclusion). That was the usage that I was saying "tribal", so if you're referring to other uses of the word "tribal" then there's no conflict.

Gotcha.:wave:
 
I do not choose to do harm to any living thing. I do not choose to allow harm to be done to any living thing.
But...

I do choose to survive. And I do choose that my family, my friends, my tribe, shall survive with me.

It means, like the marines, we never leave each other behind.

Being tribal does not mean you love others less: It means you love your family more.

If you do not love yourself how can you love others?

If you do not love your family how can you love the world?

If you don't understand that your family is an extension of yourself how can you understand that the person a half a world away is but an extension of yourself?

How do you understand that a bear, a fish, a tree, or the clouds that reflect you to yourself in Roscharchian pictures are but extensions of yourself?

What good is it for a man to love the world when his child needs a hug?


I do not choose to do harm to any living thing. I do not choose to allow harm to be done to any living thing.


Are you a vegetarian/vegan? I commend you for sticking with your principles if you are. I prefer to limit myself to merely not harming or (to the best of my capabilities) allowing harm to come to sentient creatures. This includes border cases such as dolphins, primates, and (this one is newer/more difficult for me, but) pigs.


Absolutely not. You are putting me in your choice of mail boxes -- I live in the one seven doors down. How can being a vegan, and eating living vegetables make a person superior to one who eats meat?

I said "any living thing" not "any creature." There is a difference.

You are assuming that animals are superior to plants. In your universe that may be a truth. In mine it is not.

We are designed to eat. We eat.

By the way. You are not saving a cow's life by not eating meat. If no one ate meat cattle, instead of being a thriving industry with millions of head, cows would be on the endangered species list and you would have to go to a zoo to see one.

I do choose to survive. And I do choose that my family, my friends, my tribe, shall survive with me.

At the expense of others? Would you allow 1,000 foreigners who you don't know die in order to save the life of your daughter? 1,000,000?

Interestingly enough exactly that is done every day, day in and day out. People tell their children, "Eat that, there are people starving in other countries will starve because they don't have it -- Yet not one of them sends a bite of that food to those people they just said will starve without it.

Your mother probably said something similar. Have you told her she should become a better person?

You ask me how many foreigners I don't know are worth one of my daughters that I love dearly?

How many is yours worth?

Or do you say the culturally appropriate thing to her, "You are 18 now, get the hell out of my house and support yourself. I don't know you any more?"


Being tribal does not mean you love others less: It means you love your family more.

In-group preference is simply the flip side of the same coin of out-group exclusion. It's the difference between not pulling the fat man who will stop a runaway car with 10 people in it out of the way, and pushing the fat man in front of the car.

Is this what you believe or what you have been taught?

There are no "either / ors" in real life. There are no dichotomies in real life.

Those are simply tools we use to try to find our way.
 
Absolutely not. You are putting me in your choice of mail boxes -- I live in the one seven doors down. How can being a vegan, and eating living vegetables make a person superior to one who eats meat?

I said "any living thing" not "any creature." There is a difference.

You are assuming that animals are superior to plants. In your universe that may be a truth. In mine it is not.

We are designed to eat. We eat.

By the way. You are not saving a cow's life by not eating meat. If no one ate meat cattle, instead of being a thriving industry with millions of head, cows would be on the endangered species list and you would have to go to a zoo to see one.
I love chicken and steak and I also love tofu. I plan to have bacon for breakfast tomorrow morning and I will be having a tofu Thai style dinner later this week.

Interestingly enough exactly that is done every day, day in and day out. People tell their children, "Eat that, there are people starving in other countries will starve because they don't have it -- Yet not one of them sends a bite of that food to those people they just said will starve without it.
I've always had an issue with that one for just this reason. My mother never said that one to me. It was one of my teachers who said that to me
 
Please define: "extension of yourself". I don't understand your usage.



.


I'm not sure I can without getting into religious issues.

You do not believe in the fundamentally spiritual nature of the universe therefore you cannot conceive those simple things I hold to be true.

You can add and subtract human lives against each other in a simple mathematical formula because you have disconnected yourself from the essence of what humanity is.

You don't understand that the fat man you pushed in front of, or saved from, the train is yourself. It does not matter which one you save, or how many, or who they are. Both the ones you save and the ones you condemn are in fact yourself.
 
Absolutely not. You are putting me in your choice of mail boxes -- I live in the one seven doors down. How can being a vegan, and eating living vegetables make a person superior to one who eats meat?

I wasn't referring to superiority, actually. I'm neither vegetarian nor vegan, though I have (actually, as of making that comment to you, since that was the first time I've thought about it in those terms) decided that I will no longer eat pork or porcine-originated products, since I do think that sentient creatures are superior to non-sentient creatures.

I said "any living thing" not "any creature." There is a difference.

Fair enough, I didn't notice that. My mistake.

You are assuming that animals are superior to plants. In your universe that may be a truth. In mine it is not.

Well, if you want me to start ranking things, then yes, I actually would consider [the experiences of] animals to be superior to [the experiences of] plants, because to the best of my knowledge, they are much more expanded. This is the basis for my view that sentience is superior to non-sentience, as well.

We are designed to eat. We eat.

We (and by "we" I mean those who live in similar cultural conditions to me, not "all humans") are also prosperous enough to be able to choose what we eat. This is why I've chosen not to eat anything derived from sentient beings.

By the way. You are not saving a cow's life by not eating meat. If no one ate meat cattle, instead of being a thriving industry with millions of head, cows would be on the endangered species list and you would have to go to a zoo to see one.

I'll substitute "pig" for "cow", since I don't value a cow's life anywhere close to as much as a pig's, and I still eat beef. I'm aware that I'm not actually saving lives by choosing not to eat pork. For me, this is more of a moral choice, rather than an actually causive choice. As for your latter point, that isn't an issue at all to me - if people no longer purposely raised pigs (especially in as vile conditions as they are raised) purely for the purpose of butchering and eating them... I would be happy. A planet where 100 billion humans are being raised by superior aliens solely for the purpose of shortly later killing them is far less desirable (to me) than a planet where 1000 humans are unsupported by the native superior aliens and must fight for survival of their territory.


Interestingly enough exactly that is done every day, day in and day out. People tell their children, "Eat that, there are people starving in other countries will starve because they don't have it -- Yet not one of them sends a bite of that food to those people they just said will starve without it.

Yeah, this is a false cause-and-effect chain, and is silly if people actually believe it. I'm aware that my actions have no direct (and probably not even any indirect) effects. And I can accept that, because that moral action I've chosen is still more desirable than the alternative.

Your mother probably said something similar. Have you told her she should become a better person?

I dunno if my mom actually ever did pull that. If she did once I was old enough to think about it, I probably told her that she was being silly, lol.

You ask me how many foreigners I don't know are worth one of my daughters that I love dearly?

How many is yours worth?

I have no children, and don't plan on having any in the near future, so I'd be willing to bet that anyone with children will tell me that my opinion is worthless. But the (simple) answer to that question is that people are (generally) equally worthy; the reason my daughter would naturally feel worth more is because worth is a subjective measurement that is easily altered by experience - I certainly value some people in my life more than others because of my experiences with them, and I would assume that there's very little that can be a more involved relationship than with raising a child.

However, eventually you have to get to the point of being able to shut up and multiply. Once you have large enough numbers, say, 1 planet's worth of people (so... 6 billion, give or take?) has to be worth more than even your experiences with your own daughter, to be able to flourish as a species.

Is this what you believe or what you have been taught?

Heh, if anything, I was taught the opposite of much of this. I might certainly be wrong and later change my mind, but to the best of my working knowledge, this is how I choose to organize my life.
 
The thing is that we should look at the whole scale of economics and mortality.

In terms of mortality, if you add a substance to the public that may save 100,000 more lives a year yet may cause 1,000 premature deaths attributed to that substance, it's worth adding it.

For me, I will NOT consider what 1,000 will have to say because those 1,000 people obviously do not care about how 100,000 lives were saved. And you shouldn't.

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit: Goliath Episode Summary on TV.com
 
Back
Top