- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The owners use their captured public education and for profit media to turn us on one another and make us monsters.
They tell us avarice/greed, a well known character deficit and social blight for thousands of years is instead virtuous rational self-interest.
They force us to compete against one another rather than cooperate with one another as the basis of our economy, when an economy is meant to be a lowly tool of society for the explicit use of maximizing the efficient, equitable distribution of goods and services for the benefit of the citizens of the society. Our tail wags the dog. We are slaves to economic growth/metastasis we as a society do not benefit from.
The problem is that the sociopaths, mentally ill people literally incapable of empathy, something most humans have a strong need to exercise, that are among us quickly game society using their mental deficit as an advantage to take more than they need and manipulate others into elevating them, then manipulate those below them into fighting one another perpetually to stay on top.
Humans are social creatures. We’ve been conditioned to act as monsters, condemning our fellow humans literally dying in our streets of exposure and capital defense force brutality as “lowering our property values.”
This isn’t natural. It’s why our nation’s mental health is basically its own apocalypse of mass depression, anxiety, and never ending trauma. We are strongly discouraged from supporting one another, as we’re supposed to do the impossible, pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, then claim we did it alone. That’s the American delusion. 🇺🇸
This really resonates with me. You are an excellent writer.
The part about empathy is so real. A lack of empathy is a real advantage in today’s world, unfortunately. I think empathy should be one of the most important values a society should strive for, and we decided to make a society that rewards sociopathy instead.
A lot of animals are better at solving “prisoners dilemma” situations than us. Most animals would rather work together for the greater good but I guess they haven’t heard of capitalism.
I wonder if there is a more mutualist economic system. Oh wait!
Empathy is the new intelligence.
What does this mean
The Washington Post still has the article up:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-new-model-of-empathy-the-rat/2011/12/08/gIQAAx0jfO_story.html
And here’s the science article that prompted it:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1210789and here’s an old archive.org copy of it before the Washington Post started blocking the wayback machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140114012833/http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/a-new-model-of-empathy-the-rat/2011/12/08/gIQAAx0jfO_story.htmlAfter observing all of the animals I’ve ever lived with, I’ve come to the opinion (unsupported, I suppose, by any real evidence) that empathy is an important part of being alive. I think every living being has empathy, and humans just got quite good at beating it out of other humans to the point where displaying psychopathic traits became something culturally celebrated.
We’ve been trained to be this way, and we need to reverse that trend.
Altrusim is a good trait to ensure the survival of a species, while being a selfish bastard is a good trait to ensure the survival of the individual. It all depends on the situation.
But don’t you see all the wealth we are creating by doing things this way?!
Rats live like 2 years.
In two years, they learn how to be better to each other than a large part of the human race.
Meanwhile humans, when put thru the same experiment, realize they can make the human in the unpleasant box pay $ if it wants out. They then learn to create more boxes for more profit.
I dont believe this is inherent. It’s not human nature. Its social conditioning as a result of living in a capitalist society.
In a capitalist society, yes. Absolutely a lot of people would do this. But even then, its not everyone.
I live in capitalism but i would certainly not force someone to pay me to let them out of a trap. Especially if they were suffering. And i would never befriend someone that would.
I would think they were a cunt.
you must suck at capitalism then and would literally never be able to chair a publicly traded company maximizing profits, no matter the cost, for shareholders then. (i say lovingly)
I really dont mind sucking at capitalism.
That’s like saying “you suck at giving people cancer” or saying “you are terrible at being a complete dildo”
Yeah. I am fine with that.
If I’m ever told that I belong on a board of directors at a company, I’m going to Luigi myself. I would have deserved it
And i would never befriend someone that would.
My problem here: many of us are friends with one of the other person that thinks investing money in the stock market is a good idea and taxes for the rich is bad. Those people are already forcing others to pay to get out of a trap, they just have a few middle men.
This comes to my mind:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JFCgz959ARY
Rats can eat chocolate?
Yes, sorta like how you’re able to drink mercury, but you really shouldn’t.
Yeah to a degree, maybe it was some kinda low sugar chocolate or something
Capitalism wants us to believe that it’s the only stable solution, because it comes close to the natural order, and that in nature there is only selfish behaviour, eat or get eaten, homo homini lupus and so on. The truth is, this supposed natural state is completely made up and animals and human beings naturally behave much more selflessly than what is expected from us under capitalism.
Thing is, even the phrase homo homini lupus predates capitalism significantly, and the sentiment dates back to before even the phrase. ‘Naturally behave’ is a very questionable phrase.
We have the ability to be better and build better societies than we currently have under capitalism. I just don’t think an appeal to a state of nature is useful or accurate.
People didn’t wait for formal capitalism to be assholes.
i did
I think there is definitely a line from early modern natural state theory to today’s justification of capitalism, although the argument has somehow reversed itself.
Actual natural behaviour is not even important, since we abandoned that some time ago, and it probably isn’t desirable to go back. Its just easier to sell an ideology when you disguise it as natural order.
Empathy over natural selection ftw.
Empathy was created by natural selection - of groups, not individuals, of course.
It’s natural selection which has born empathy. There are a lot of species which are successful because they are collaborative.
Same story with us humans. We usually prefer groups and collaboration. And look what we can achieve if we put all of our minds and strengths together.
Yet, this hasn’t been sufficient to overcome some individuals who live and enforce competitiveness.Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene goes into this in greater detail. Many species are hardwired to be willing to sacrifice their own lives for the survival of their kin. Basically, genes that code for protective and social behaviors might result in any given individual more likely to die before reproducing, but makes that individual’s close genetic kin more likely to survive to reproduction such that a particular group/pod/clan/flock is much more likely to persist over generations.
The extreme example is ants and bees, where most of the workers we see biologically cannot reproduce and are dead ends as individuals. But they work for the hive/colony, and the reproducing queen is the center of that reproductive strategy.
You see it with a lot of animals, especially those wired to be social.
Fear and stress shut down empathy. But narcissists feel constant fear and stress. And we’ve made a hellworld that rewards narcissism
I think we shouldn’t underestimate human empathy. The problem is just that we build structures to avoid it. Rich people choose to not see poor people too much or they would feel empathy and be inclined to help them. If the poor are far away, merely an abstraction that is said to exist, then their existence is not felt strongly enough to trigger an empathy response. Surely there are exceptions to some degree, but I think humans are very empathetic and that’s one of our great powers.
We have places like San Fransisco and New York, with some of the richest people in the whole world regularly walking past homeless encampments. I don’t think the structure is the problem. I think it has much more to do with the culture and family they are raised in.
We live in a society that rewards narcissism. Our society tells these rich people that homeless people are only homeless because of bad personal choices.
There is no reward for empathy, besides the positive feeling a healthy person would get from being kind. In fact, being empathetic can be a detriment to being successful, so many upper class families skip that lesson plan on purpose.
I like the one where they gave rats a lot of food and space (rat paradise) and let them breed till they were crawling over eachother till there wasnt enough food for them all. When most of them died and food was available once more, the remainders stopped eating and all the rats died.
Rats are interesting but I think the guy that programmed them left in some bugs.
Yeah idk if I just watched most of my friends and family drop dead from starvation, I don’t think I’d want to go on living either.
Even the creator of that experiment said it was deeply flawed, and that their colony broke down because there was literally nothing to enrich their lives in the habitat. They were essentially going crazy from boredom.
He then went on to design rat experiments that were designed to actually facilitate a fulfilling and engaging life for the rats, and they thrived, from what I recall.
Is this going to be a model for the history of mankind?
rats are strange little critters. incredibly clever, but you’ll never know what they’ll use their smarts for
On the other hand, they willingly live in sewers and their sense of smell is stronger than ours.
But good or bad is still subjective.
E: maybe a little broad. I meant pleasant smells. In the case of rats probably dictated by biology.
You’d probably willingly live next to a bakery.
Well, everyone’s got their kinks.
I’m just saying, we can be superior that we don’t willingly live around the poo gas.
Many people on certain sites disagree.
Don’t think there has ever been much dispute of a rat’s intellect
I don’t think this was about the intellect either, just about empathy. Sure, the free rat could learn to open it quicker, but the point is that it did. It didn’t eventually figure “eh, nothing in it for me”, it repeatedly went and freed the other to the point of routine.
They’re known to be the only animal on the planet more intelligent than dolphins. IIRC only two of them survived though, while the dolphins all left in time.
That’s mice, you fool!
Couldn’t this be explained by the “tit-for-tat” hypothesis? That selfless behaviour is learned in communal animals, and that its implied it will be you who need help next time?
There is a bat species that I think feeds on blood, and they share the food they managed to get in a night, if a bat refuses to share one night then the next time they get left out of the sharing.