All human moral behavior straddles the line betweeen selflessness and selfishness, at some particular scale, from the personal to the societal/cultural.
Racism? Selfishness for the group.
Religious bigotry? Selfishness for the group.
Misogyny? Need I say?
Corruption? Selfishness for one's personal gain at the expense of the system, itself.
Goodness? Virtue? Honor? Positive cultural evolution? Selflessness in service to the whole.
That is why the world has been tending towards the negative for soooo long. We have been inculcated into belief systems that separate us from each other along some boundary, be it cultural, racial, religious, gender identification, sexual preference, country, neighborhood, ... whatever.
We are all one human race, of many ethnicities and cultures, but we will only begin to heal our blessed Earth and end all conflict, by recognizing that we are the only creatures capable of self-evolving a world culture of universal care.
The goal must be universal compassion towards one another, selflessly, except when such kind, selfless behavior would contradict the paradox of tolerance. In those instances, we must be unyielding, but as gentle as good outcomes allow. Only a compassionate society can know how and when to prosecute the vermin among us, who come from all walks of life. We must endeavor to teach the ignorant, while protecting the innocent.
Just systems of law, enforced fairly, are the bedrock of such a society.
I agree 100% with the values you espouse here, but I think it's a mistake to say the world has been trending negative for a long time. The values you've expressed here have been gaining ground for generations. (See Steven Pinker's ''The Better Angels of our Nature'' for an in-depth data-backed defense of this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur...). Your statement "Just systems of law, enforced fairly, are the bedrock of such a society" is almost exactly the thesis of that book.
I was turned on to the idea that Pinker might be quite wrong on these claims by David Graeber and David Wengrow in "The Dawn of Everything". I haven't read Better Angels of our Nature, and I haven't spent hours carefully verifying the Davids claims, but I must say, they certainly made it sound very convincing. Enough for me to feel like not reading Better Angels would not be a major loss in my life.
I went to that wikipedia article you link there to see if that gets a mention, and the "Criticism" section is ginormous. So I'm not going to go out on a limb and say you shouldn't be recommending it at all, but I will say that based on the very large number of serious scholars who were apparently upset enough about many of the claims of the book that they then went on to write long serious things criticising it, perhaps in light of that you should reconsider whether it's as "data-backed" as you thought.
It could have crap data, or good data poorly interpreted. The many critics seem to think both.
You should also see the criticism of "The Dawn of Everything", ie way overstating the veracity of certain history that they're trying to use to support Graeber's polemics on anarchism.
In typical Graeber fashion, the book is very fun to read, but he's an unreliable narrator of history, which is why they could only get a no name historian to be involved in an attempt to add credibility.
I wasn't saying we should dismiss Pinker because of that one book by the Davids, rather that we should be very sceptical of his work because of the absolute chorus of academics seriously contesting his methods, motivations, and conclusions.
I have read one long criticism of The Dawn of Everything, I don't know if it's the one you're referring to, but I didn't find it very compelling.
I've read several critics of Graeber otherwise though, and to me they roughly seemed to amount to: "we don't like what this person is saying." I mean, I could not find anything substantive in there, some direct, blatant issue with the scholarly work. Perhaps there's a tendency to get "over-excited" about some idea or other in his work, but I think readers (academic and laypeople) could consider forgiving someone for presenting their work with sincere excitement.
The comment about David Wengrow you make there is especially odd - for one, you make it sound like he was thrown in to the project as an afterthought to add some clout, which is factually not what happened, they collaborated for years in emails for what was originally a small project, which grew larger organically in a sort of growing excitement.
I wouldn't be big on bandying about academic records as proof of anything much, but he'd twenty plus years professional academic experience as an archaeologist, three books, a suitably voluminous number of essays and papers, etc etc. The usual "impressive academic" things had been done. So I don't get your dig there at all.
The main critique of the book that I've seen is that they use history that's quite ambiguous to tell a polemic story that supports Graeber's anarchist views.
For instance, they take the upheavals at Teotihuacan as evidence that there was some kind of anarchist-ish revolution going on, when most scholarship believes that it's more likely an oligarchic system (with less emphasis on the monarch) who destroyed (from my memory) the temple/cult/district of the Feathered Serpent - a sub-group of their oligarchy.
This is interesting, but is pretty consistent with how other Mesoamerican ruling classes selected their rulers (Aztecs, etc.) ie there was often an oligarchy who picked them, not the populous as a whole via an anarchist / direct democratic method.
For Wengrow, I assume him working with the far-more-famous Graeber probably led to him to have some flexible interpretations of history, and I bet Graeber was pretty convincing + had a high power differential (implicitly) which could lead this to happen somewhat unknowingly.
The selfish / selfless binary is a bit simplistic to explain corruption.
If your brother killed someone, would you turn him over to the authorities? You can't answer this question by checking how selfish someone is - both options can be considered selfless acts.
If I remember correctly (can't find a source), places that answer yes to that question tend to have higher trust in institutions and lower rates of corruption
"The selfish / selfless binary is a bit simplistic to explain corruption."
Corruption is selfish gain. If one eschews corruption because they realize that it harms the society-at-large, then they are acting selflessly. If one eschews corruption because they're afraid of being caught and punished, then the legal system has prevented societal harm, by preventing corrupt selfishness by a public servant.
As to your hypothetical, I like my friend from Lousiana's saying, "If my aunt had a d*k, she'd be my uncle." Of course, in 2024, that saying is looking a bit ragged.
That said, extreme hypotheticals are not going to get to the bottom of this issue of corruption. It's the ordinary, everyday corruption that erodes society, not having to turn one's brother over to the authorities for murder. And ordinary, everyday corruption is both selfishness, pure and simple, and a failure of society to emplace the necessary checks to prevent it.
But most people misunderstand love as merely the feeling one has about another person or creature.
Love's highest manifestation is, however, an action that serves another person's happiness. It can be something that lessens a person misery or discomfort, or actually makes them happier in some way. It can be as simple as a warm smile on the street or giving something to them. Intention is important, and how it is received is irrelevant. The universe is sublime, and there is no end to our learning, if we so endeavor to plumb its depths.
Every human being's life is the result of such selflessly compassionate service, for, as infants, we must be given everything or we perish. For years. There is nothing tangible received for that giving, unless one understands how very tangible inner peace and happiness is. Understanding our place in this moral universe makes such happiness the only thing that matters, to those of us who actually understand. Know that no one is forced to comprehend or accept this most sublime of laws, just as there are flat-earth folks, too, who refuse to look through a telescope. We all have the choice to be as foolish (and unhappy) as we wish.
> That is why the world has been tending towards the negative for soooo long.
All evidence I've seen in the world is tending better. There are, and always have been concerning signs, but overall things have been getting better. But everyone places more emphasis on the concerning signs and doesn't really think of all the things that have gotten better.
Living standards have improved, but at vast cost the environment, and we show no signs of addressing this.
The amount of energy we spend on irrelevant stuff like the stock market & AI should instead be directed toward dealing with climate change, and not turning our oceans into lifeless garbage dumps. But our economical model can only handle things that make more money for rich people, so we won't.
The stock market is a good idea. Without it you wouldn't have most things you think are a good idea, nor probably half the things you think are a scandal because not everyone has them.
> But our economical model can only handle things that make more money for rich people, so we won't.
I think that might depend on how far you look to compare. Like 1700s to now, yeah we're better by any metric you can think of. But on a smaller scale there are some things tending down.
Even compared to the 1970s we are much better off. The ozone hole is in track. Lead has been removed from nearly everything. Nearly everyone has a cell phone. Much less world hunger.
In various ways, I completely agree with you, but there is a different level of negativity that is happening that is about the levers of power and wealth and what they are doing to the poor and the planet, itself. When a billionaire or government corruptly uses their power to press down on the populace for the gain of the wealthy, the effects are much more deleterious than the gains of we peasants, for example, learning how to no longer be racist or trans- or homophobic.
Those "small" gains are absolutely important, and are essential for our next societal level-up, but the corruption-in-the-large is an order-of-magnitude (or two) more physically destructive. I mean, look how many fools look up to Elmo and his cohort of kleptocrats. And look how the fossil-fuel industry buried the truth of global heating.
That's why I believe that RATM's self-titled debut album is the most important album of the 20th Century. And while I understand rage to be purely destructive, I firmly believe there's a time for righteous anger, especially in the face of oppression and wanton destruction.
This sort of outlook is very common in psychedelic experiences and community conversations. I'd like to see a scenario where someone clever from that community starts a propaganda campaign pushing such ideas as a serious proposition, and comes equipped to efficiently dismiss the classic normative dismissals or rhetorical topic avoidance techniques, forcing all the "good people" to seriously consider if their thoughts, prayers, secular platitudes, etc are adequate.
It would be nice if we could make some progress on this front for a change.
PS: your closing sentence severely rubs me the wrong way because it feels like it could be interpreted as support for the status quo.
What country do you live in where there is actual justice? I've never heard of such a one. From what I see, the powerful dominate the weak, abuse the Earth with no concern for future generations, and manipulate systems to ensure their own group's wealth and impunity.
So, Sir, I stand with Banksy, Bob Marley, MLK, RATM and other like-minded agents of change. But I understand that love is the only way to forge a better future for our Earth and ALL her peoples -- but a fierce, unyielding love, to be sure.
I love the sentiment, but are there some potential flaws in the analysis?
We mostly pay lip service to these things, but if you look around the world at things that get done (what you refer to!), there's a lot more than lip service and nice sentiments/intentions involved.
It depends on what you mean by that. We can choose how we perceive the objective reality we live in. But, the totality of the world is really just the sum-total of results of what we are all doing to it, for the simple reason that all our free wills are equal, no matter how positive or negative. It is really that simple, but the wealthy and powerful move levers that affect far more people than I can (yet) move by myself.
> but are there some potential flaws in the analysis?
If there are flaws in my analysis, I am open to learning how to correct them. That is the only way to get better at anything, right? That said, the correctness of my foundation of logic is evident after more than a half-century on this Earth. Most people do not understand, but we physically manifest our cumulative karma as we age, from our tone of voice, to choice of words, to eye shine, and -- most of all -- to our inner peace and happiness, sense of humor and delight in the small things of life. Life is beautiful, and what we choose to manifest in this world shows up in our being as surely as a tree's experiences show up in their rings. The problem is that most people are too confused and mired in their self to learn how to see others for who they are.
> there's a lot more than lip service and nice sentiments/intentions involved.
Absolutely, but intention is a multiplier for the karma we receive for our actions, which are of paramount importance. That is why the feeling of love is not nearly as important as the selfless doing of compassionate deeds to serve others' happiness.
One thing you should be certain to understand: the selfish fools of this world have always been the majority, and not just within extrema such as Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan. Their dominant ignorance and my relative powerlessness do not diminish my family's efforts to create positive change in our every interaction with our fellow human beings. That our efforts mostly fall on deaf ears is not our failure, but theirs and theirs alone.
What we are doing is not sentiment, whether it is a kind word on the street or a couple of hours typing into HN. Teaching the truth of compassion is essential in this troubled world full of willfully ignorant human beings.
I like to phrase it as "people are so utterly selfish that they will even cooperate when it's in their interest" (where their interest includes simply feeling good because that's the training they went through - e.g. somebody gives up his life for his country may sound altruistic, but we might find it abhorrent if that means he kills a bunch of children).
I've never heard that saying before; I like it. Thanks for expanding my horizon.
The nature of human life is, however, that we feel good for making others feel good, and vice versa. We truly reap what we sow, but it is sublime and at odds with what most people value in life, namely wealth, pleasure, and power. And, along with our power to choose, we can choose to ignore our conscience's pleadings for better behavior.
So, in an odd (but accurate) way, making others happy is the most selfish thing we can do, because it is the only way to earn happiness, which is a mysterious flowing into ourselves from parts unknown.
We live in a subtly reflexive, karmic universe. Only we human beings inhabit this plane of existence, because only we have the choice between selfishness and selflessness, with a conscience to orient ourselves, and a mind to evaluate the potentialities of every move we make. And we are each absolutely free to value the horrific (vice-eous) and eschew the virtuous.
WWII is a deep example of how societies can go so completely wrong, and yet be so confident in their intentions and self-destructive actions. It is also an example of other folks uniting to do good in the world. Both paths are totally human; the question is which path do each of us choose, and by which moral ethic?
I'm not talking about physical things. I'm only talking about our inner world, where the sowing and reaping are connected across time in varying ways according to the designs of creation itself.
That is why I counsel that it is best to just do good as often as possible, but without any connection to reward. Let the universe reward you in its time and place; it knows best, always. Simply send out your deeds' good vibes; they will return. Every time. And, all the while, one's internal peace and happiness will only grow.
[Also, William Gibson is by far my favorite fiction author. "The future is here, it's just not evenly distributed."]
> Goodness? Virtue? Honor? Positive cultural evolution? Selflessness in service to the whole.
"Selflessness" is itself selfishness. You act good, virtuous, honorable, etc to selfishly attain societal praise or esteem. Or even rewards in the afterlife.
> The goal must be universal compassion towards one another, selflessly
Not selflessly. Selfishly. After all, kant's categorical imperative is logically selfish. You would benefit from the realization of such a goal. Everyone would.
It's perceived selfishness that drives people toward good or evil. It's actually selfishness itself that defines good and evil.
While I largely agree, I was thinking about selfishness and selflessness in a different way.
In game theory, games have global optima and Nash equilibria, and they don't always coincide. Selfless people seek global maximum, selfish people seek Nash equilibrum (maximizing their gain given the others also maximize their gain).
As a society, we have choice to change the rules so that global maximum coincides with Nash equilibrium.
Here's a true relation that you can factor into your model, if you'd like, for, though I am a long-time programmer, I don't go in for the study of game theory. I am, however, familiar with some of the precepts. Here goes:
When a person causes negativity/unhappiness, the person(s) on the receiving end gets an equal positive amount of karma. Karma is what determines our long-term happiness or lack thereof.
When a person does something intended to cause positivity/happiness, there is no negative effect on the receiver, even if they refuse the gesture.
In other words, acts of selfish negativity incur a zero-sum negative karmic effect, every time, without fail, though often without being observed at the time (or even, ever). OTOH, acts of selfless positivity only incur positive internal karmic effect for the doer; nothing is lost by the receiver.
In yet more other words, we can only receive negative karma from our own actions; others' actions can only result in positive karma for ourselves (if we are on the receiving end of selfishly negativity). For example, a poor person loses no karma from accepting charity, though the giver definitely gains.
As such, karma is skewed asymmetrically towards easier positive creation; i.e. it's only a zero-sum game when the first choice is negative/selfish.
Why, then, have the world's populations not yet created a "Heaven on Earth"? Because we human beings are also free to ignore all notions of karma and the associated question of why we are happy/unhappy. If a person chooses to believe that they are just amoral animals competing for scarce resources, then they are fully authorized to live their lives that way. We are also free to believe that the Earth is flat. The universe is the sole arbiter of the truth, however, and we all reap what we sow. Every time, without fail, with perfect justice, however difficult it is for us to comprehend at any given time, given our state of moral undevelopment.
> Because we human beings are also free to ignore all notions of karma and the associated question of why we are happy/unhappy
A newborn can have a chronic disease that makes their life terribly difficult. Do you think negative karma caused that? Or can other things cause unhappiness?
Some people have been given greater challenges than others. Any difficulty given by the universe itself only counts positively for us, but we have to use it properly; i.e. we can't let it give us an excuse to be an ahole.
On the other end of the spectrum, most people feel that being born into wealth would be a great blessing, but look how those fools behave, wasting their blessings on themselves for meaningless pleasures that deplete the Earth, being callous in their treatment of those less fortunate, and generally working with their fellows to keep themselves on the top of the heap.
Being striken with disease is an effective way to go within oneself and connect with the Source of all creation, which is an essential part of the intent of the creation of our human nature. One way to look at the Unfathomable Creator is as the Ultimate Loner. It is a blessing to have been created as a human being, for only we can connect with It, and receive the blessing of reaching out for It.
That is the Ultimate Design of the human race, with our absolutely free will, but within a universe that rewards the seeker who connects with the sublime majesty of the Creator of all that will ever be. The Greatest Command is to, first, "Love God with all your being". That is not because we can add anything to It, nor because It is needy in any way. No. It is because the universe is designed to reward those of us who use our free will and energy to radiate love into the universe; it radiates that love back from within ourselves in happiness, clarity, and purpose.
Another way to look at the underprivileged (in money or health) is that they are rewarded for being where a person of means can prove their humanity, and thus giving them the chance to learn how happiness is gained from selflessly sharing, not from selfishly keeping.
Karma is a human-only dimension of the universe we inhabit. We alone have free will, a conscience, and a mind capable of discerning right and wrong, thus we alone lose and/or gain karma.
I would say that when there was only one human being, there was only positive karma, so I would say that there was no negative karma until there was a second person to do something wrong to the first person, thus facilitating the transfer that results from a negative deed.
From another perspective, I'd say that the first human being could sin against God, but that doesn't align with my understanding of how human beings were created. My understanding is that Adam was created in a state of grace, as a Prophet, free of negativity, but that as the population grew, our negative tendencies (to vice) established itself and the karma began to flow.
[I have some understanding of how the universe works, but I in no way claim to be authoritative. That said, I don't see any obvious errors in my reasoning.]
If karma is the result of will, what we're asking here is "When did the first willful creature come into existence?"
(Or, if karma is simply synonymous with cause and effect, then we can probably say the first karmic act was the big bang, the effects of which we are living with even now. But I think that's a less useful view, so let's abandon it.)
> Karma is a human-only dimension of the universe we inhabit. We alone have free will
Some say only homo sapiens is willful, but that seems unlikely given what we've learned about other now-extinct members of our genus. Did they have free will and/or karma? Do elephants, great apes, dolphins, house pets truly have no free will?
At this point it becomes imperative that we define "free will,"[0] and we just might get stuck there. It's a toughie. We are apparently physical systems, constrained by the laws of the universe just as every other system. Perhaps we are simply acting out our biological programming, another domino falling in a long deterministic line back to the universe's beginning[1]; perhaps we are endowed with the ability to modify reality itself through observation, that our "will" acts in concert with physical law to create reality; perhaps all things have a measure of "will" proportional to their internal systems' complexity[2]... maybe some version of all of these[3] or none of them.
In my opinion, karma is a useful framework for recognizing that we are, indeed, all connected to Kevin Bacon, and whatever we do will ultimately effect that poor man.
Racism? Selfishness for the group. Religious bigotry? Selfishness for the group. Misogyny? Need I say? Corruption? Selfishness for one's personal gain at the expense of the system, itself.
Goodness? Virtue? Honor? Positive cultural evolution? Selflessness in service to the whole.
That is why the world has been tending towards the negative for soooo long. We have been inculcated into belief systems that separate us from each other along some boundary, be it cultural, racial, religious, gender identification, sexual preference, country, neighborhood, ... whatever.
We are all one human race, of many ethnicities and cultures, but we will only begin to heal our blessed Earth and end all conflict, by recognizing that we are the only creatures capable of self-evolving a world culture of universal care.
The goal must be universal compassion towards one another, selflessly, except when such kind, selfless behavior would contradict the paradox of tolerance. In those instances, we must be unyielding, but as gentle as good outcomes allow. Only a compassionate society can know how and when to prosecute the vermin among us, who come from all walks of life. We must endeavor to teach the ignorant, while protecting the innocent.
Just systems of law, enforced fairly, are the bedrock of such a society.