undefined

points

[-]

For now but not for good. Neglecting moral character works as a shortcut for maybe a generation or two. But that path leads to destruction and decay eventually. It can't last.

by iugtmkbdfil8345 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Thank you. Agreed. There are some practical limits to that path. It works in the current ecosystem partially because the resulting degradation is slow, but it is built upon societal trust. Once it is gone, it will be rather painful to restore. A new new deal will be needed, so to speak ( political evocation is accidental, but it is too late for me to coherently rewrite ).

by samiv3 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Hard men create good times. Good times create soft men. Soft men create hard times.

by gleenn6 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

So what is the best system to get people to be invested in the general welfare of all people? What are we supposed to do?

by greggoB6 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Your question seems to imply that people have to be corralled towards a specific action, which to me comes across as rather cynical.

Why is it not possible to lay out your arguments honestly and let people decide on the merits?

by iugtmkbdfil8345 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think, part of the issue is that, as a mass of humans, we tend to be rather dumb. And they certainly don't decide on merits, in aggregate. It is somewhat questionable if they decide on merits even as individuals ( unless we expand the definition somewhat ). But it is possible I got too cynical.

by Antibabelic6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Some problems don't have solutions.

by customguy2 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

This one does though. These issues are solely created by humans, so of course humans can solve them, that's not even a question. People who care need to keep speaking up and reaching out to each other, get together; and by doing so expose the people who don't care, or actively are against the general welfare of humans, like rocks on the beach when the tide recedes.

It takes so much work, so much criminal energy, so much money and campaigns, to divide people. Whereas the opposite, people getting to know each other and working together, happens "by itself" all the time, for the most banal of reasons. Just give them some time and space together; no lobbying required, no bribes or blackmail, no psy-ops; just our innate desire to live and let live.

Humans who prey on humans are sick, it's as simple as that. Humans who don't want to stand up to humans who prey on humans may not be sick, but they're not our best, that's for sure, and they must not be our gatekeepers or our compass.

by Antibabelic19 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

People getting to know each and working together to genocide another group of people that's slightly different from them does indeed have many precedents in history.

The problem with your idea is that you see "humans" as some kind of abstract unified whole. People care about their peers far more than they do about "humans" in the abstract. When you're a powerful venture capitalist, these peers are other venture capitalists for example. Some call this "class consciousness".