The new Unbelievable debate is up, and this time Justin found a fine Christian. A professor of nanotechnology who has enormous intellectual firepower and an incredible scientific background. The atheist is Lewis Wolpert, a very high-profile atheistic cell biologist in the UK, who debated William Lane Craig a while back.

The speakers:

Atheist scientist Lewis Wolpert debates believing scientist Russell Cowburn. Professor Lewis Wolpert is Emeritus Professor of Biology at University College London. Professor Russell Cowburn is Chair of Nanotechnology at Imperial College.

Cowburn is formerly of Cambridge University. Although he does concede evolution in the debate, yuck! That part where he concedes evolution is a little annoying. Still, he is a fine speaker, he radiates competence and confidence, and does a great job of explaining Christianity. I wish I could send him a Signature in the Cell. We have so much more evidence for intelligent design today, that there is no reason to make those concessions!

The MP3 file is here.

One funny thing occurs when Lewis Wolpert says that he gave up belief in God (as a Jew) when God wouldn’t help him to find his cricket bat. He also says that he has never heard of any evidence for God’s existence, which is odd since he debated Bill Craig.

If you listen to the whole thing, Justin also says that Wolpert will be back to debate William Dembski in January 2010 as part of a series on intelligent design. (Expelled is going to be released in the UK in 2010)

Wolpert’s case:

• Religious belief exists because it provides an evolutionary advantage
• There are so many different religions so Christianity cannot be correct
• There haven’t been enough recent miracles

Cowburn’s case:

• The kalam cosmological argument
• The fine-tuning argument
• The historicity of the resurrection

The full debate is available here at the web site of the church which hosted the debate. I note that it’s a independent evangelical Baptist church and I’m an independent evangelical Baptist, so yay! Just take a look at this church’s web page – it’s filled with debates! Now this is the church I would attend if I lived in London.

Los Angeles band ‘Rage Against the Machine’ (RATM) has just secured the Christmas number one in the United Kingdom (UK) music charts. Following a viral social networking campaign, more than half a million people downloaded the seventeen year old expletive laden anti-authoritarian track ‘Killing in the Name’, in an orchestrated attempt to prevent an act from the ‘X-Factor’ television show becoming number one for the fifth consecutive year.

From a social psychology perspective, it is interesting to note how the two groups of supporters differed in terms of preferred purchase medium, namely download versus compact disc. Consequently, group membership can be seen to be polarised in terms of factors such as technically literacy, age, conservatism, and so on.

This ‘battle’ culminated in a live performance by RATM on BBC breakfast radio being abruptly faded out when the famously anti-establishment band embarked on the song’s climactic barrage of swearing despite, rather ironically given the lyrics, having “been told not to” by the BBC.

Whilst ’sticking it to the man’ in this way may be viewed as a triumph for anti-corporate ‘people power’, it is somewhat debatable who the real winner from from this ‘chart war’ actually was.

Since X-Factor champion Joe McElderry and RATM are actually both Sony artists, however, the multi-national mega-label will have benefited from the overall increased volume of sales irrespective of who became number one. Furthermore, corporations have previously exploited or created such apparent ‘grass-roots’ movements by means of ‘viral marketing campaigns’ and ’street teams’.

As a previous commentator on the strange relationship between the corporate music industry and bands purporting to subvert society once said, “ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?” (Lydon, 1978).

Alternatively, perhaps the real winners are, in fact, the homeless, since the charity Shelter that supports them received donations of around £70,000 through the RATM campaign. Interestingly, such pro-social altruism is typically not a characteristic that many would associate with young music fans, who are commonly stereotyped in the tabloid press as selfish and anti-social. Furthermore, RATM have also pledged to donate their royalties to the charity.

On that seasonally appropriate positive note, I wish you all “Merry Christmas!” *<|:{)}

Story in the Independent

Chamberlain , K. & Hodgetts, D. (2008). Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review

Hogg, M. A., Hohman, Z. P. & Rivera, J. E. (2008). Why Do People Join Groups? Three Motivational Accounts from Social Psychology

Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social Psychology and Media: Critical Considerations

I thought we had heard it all when the chairman of Goldman-Sachs testified that they were “doing God’s work.” Apparently, that altruistic assertion went so well that Verizon has picked up the refrain.

In a response to the FTC’s request for justification for their high fees, Verizon claims their higher early termination fees “help the poor by making it more affordable for them to access the mobile internet,” according to Wired.com.

Of course, both companies made billions of dollars this year.  Apparently doing God’s work pays very well.

Courtesy of Butler Shaffer, a law professor in the Southwestern University School of Law and contributor for the Mises Institute, a humourous yet eye-opening take on Scrooge- Bah Humbug!

Selfishness is A Virtue

http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=3952

(Article copyrighted by author and the Mises Institute. Scrooge McDuck copyright Disney Corporation)

Season's Greetings!

Happy Holidays ( I personally celebrate Festivus) Everyone, May Liberty Bless Your Will and Grant You Victoria In The New Year!!!!

This is just a little reminder that the war can be over, if we want it to be. This time of year, we say that it is a time of giving and peace on Earth. But why can’t the entire year be filled with kindness and peace?

Someday there will be no tears, and no sorrow. Someday there will be a spiritual awakening in all of us, so all the fighting and war will be gone. There will be diversity in thoughts and opinions, but they will not make us hate. Someday these differences will make us love one another for who we are. Everyone will have the chance to live good lives; not in fear or anger.

This day will hopefully come soon. The turmoil in each heart will cease, and there will be nothing but love and kindness. The war is over in my heart. After my own personal breakdown, I have seen the lighter side of this whole mess. I don’t have to live like the rest of the people I know (or have known). I can be me, and live a light-hearted and altruistic life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another thing to keep in mind so there will be less tears:

There are different ways in which a company could approach its customers.

What Value Proposition could a company offer its Customers?

Some of the common value propositions you’ll see are -

1. Win-win – We’re providing you solid value and we want some value in return.
2. Win-win with benefits – We’re providing you solid value plus we’re doing good (or we are open) and we want some value in return.
3. Altruism – We’re providing you solid value and we want nothing in return.  
4. Altruism with benefits – We’re providing you solid value and we’re doing good (or we are open) and we want nothing in return.

However, this is what the companies are telling us.

What are they really going for (consciously or unconsciously)?

Perception Vs Reality

Companies always have their best interest in mind. They’re just using any means necessary to win customers.

Consider 3. and 4. in the above list – those are value propositions that make zero sense. If a company were actually truly good at 3. or 4. they’d be out of business in a year or two.

Yet, companies are very profitable based on 3. and 4. Perhaps its magic, perhaps it’s them exploiting our need to see goodness and self-sacrifice.

Self-sacrifice

There’s this grand illusion that people and companies are capable of consistently acting against their own self-interest.

It’s simply not true.

Why then are we quick to jump when companies or people promise to do things for no other reason than to help us?

1. Because it’s the most amazing thing in the world when someone subjugates their own self-interest to help others.
2. It’s the ultimate example of the individual sacrificing themselves for society, and society is set up to reward it.

We hand out Nobel Prizes for it.

Smart Strategies and Too-Smart Strategies

Smart Companies and People promote win-win

It makes sense to create win-win situations.

Any smart company or person will realize that you don’t really have to self-sacrifice. You can simply strike up an equitable bargain and get a reward that matches the amount of value you provide.

The problem arises when you get people who are too smart.

Companies and People that are too smart pretend to be sacrificing themselves for you

A company that provides value and also promises to be killing itself for you is a compelling proposition.

1. It would outpace a company that provided as much value but did not ‘do good’.
2. In fact, it would even beat a company that provided a little bit more value.
3. In a few rare cases, a ‘open, good’ company could even beat a rival company that provided a lot of value but was perceived as not good.

Which brings us to the ultimate strategy for a company that gets left behind.

Altruism is the best strategy for the #2 and #3 companies in a space?

#2 and #3 are truly in a bad spot -

1. The #1 company has more customers and economies of scale and more brand recognition.
2. It probably has a lead in some area that lets it become and stay #1 – experience? technology? customer service?
3. The #1 company can provide more value than any other company.

The best strategy for #2 and #3 would be to find an actual competitive advantage (or several) and find a way to get attention.

They have to arouse interest without having most of it flow to the #1 company (it’s got the brand recognition remember).

However, that takes a ton of work and sometimes a ton of time.

It’s much easier to use the twin illusions of openness and goodness

Perception is sometimes reality and the #2 company in a space can match or beat the value proposition of the #1 company by promoting its goodness and openness -

1. The best way to leverage openness – promise tons of benefits, some of which aren’t even real. 
2. The best way to leverage goodness – get customers to trust you to the level they’d never trust a company that doesn’t sell itself as good.  
3. Go out of your way to attack the ‘closed’ system another company has – attack all its competitive strengths as examples of being evil.

Some Prime Examples

A few examples of using ‘openness and goodness’ to attack #1 companies –  

1. The attack on Apple’s App Store. Everyone is scared that Apple own Mobile and that Mobile might be the future of the Internet. The solution – attack Apple as being evil.
2. The attack on Amazon. Amazon seem to be on track to own the future of Publishing. The solution – paint its main competitive advantages as evils.

It ought to be painfully clear that altruism is being used as a strategy.

Why Altruism as a Strategy is Powerful

The underlying psychological reason this works

Groups of people who helped each other and created win-win situations thrived at the expense of other groups that fought each other.

That meant you had two traits rise to prominence -

1. The trait to help other people. Note that this was still second or perhaps third to self-interest. 
2. The trait to recognize and reward people who were helping us.

Companies and People that are too smart will exploit the second trait.

That’s why you often have companies push very intangible benefits i.e. we are open and we are good and we are trustable.

These ‘features’ often have little value to customers. However, the reciprocation they invoke is very tangible.

The worst offenders are usually the ones claiming to be the most altruistic

Take Facebook. They changed their policy so by default people’s personal information will be exposed to the world.

They wrote about it as ‘We are now giving you better Privacy options and more control’.

Facebook is the poster-child of a too-smart strategy -

1. They give away their product for free promising no costs.
2. They then turn around and expose customer information to advertisers.
3. When that doesn’t work they try other measures like Beacon (which got shot down by users).
4. When that doesn’t work they change default privacy to no privacy to try to get traffic from search engines. 

At every step they are claiming to be doing what’s good for customers.

What they are really doing is trying to monetize customers in ways not agreed to by customers.

The Moral of the Story

There is no Moral to the Story.

Every company wants to get something from you.

It’s up to you whether you prefer -

1. To pay upfront.
2. To know what you’ll pay down the line. 
3. To pretend that it really is free and the company is doing it out of the goodness of their heart. 

Several people I correspond with have commented that they feel guilty taking time out for AVS. I have also found myself justifying this use of time to others. I’d like to look at how value might be assessed for time spent.

The first line of defense I have in this situation is to ask what I would actually be doing otherwise. Rarely do the alternatives offer higher value for time spent, usually they require more effort/resource for less satisfaction, or worse, they require little effort/resource but tend to diminish satisfaction (TV/alcohol are great examples of worse-than-wasted time).

A while back I said that I feel at the core that I am an inventor/philosopher. It’s good to have a simple reply to the questions, “What are you?” or “What do you do?”. They’re silly questions, but it is convenient to be able to reply meaningfully. I am nominally human. I make my living mostly by graphic design. Reasonable summary, but hopelessly incomplete. To answer, “What are you?” with a job designation is never a good thing, so I usually evade that one, and, like most people, I do so many things that it’s a matter of responding with the response the questioner most likely wants, which is usually a job designation. I usually oblige, briefly discuss the weather and move on. I rarely find value in spending time with someone whose initial interest in me is the nature of my employment. I can usually be quite certain that they really don’t want to know, and that it’s just the opener for them to go on about their high-power whizz-bang career or how underpaid and undervalued they are at their place of work.

Anyway, having determined “what you are and what you do” to your personal satisfaction, it then becomes possible to decide how any particular activity or inactivity might help or hinder advancement.

“Values” are something I’ve often commented on too. For me, they are the essence of every decision. Whether you can enumerate your values or not, you have a set that shape your interaction with the outside world. Where values are not well understood it can lead to any manner of inconsistent and often inappropriate action. These problems can exist against two references – the first is what others think of your actions (this is exists in two modes also, what you think they think and what they actually think), and the second is against your self-identified self. It is not possible to advance successfully in any endeavour unless doing so is consistent with your values/true nature. It is this incompatibility that is leading many power/money climbers into great personal distress. It has to be understood that not everyone is “made” for the package promoted in most Western societies. Some people will find themselves at odds with, or on the edge of, the “quo”. This can be manifested as depression/anxiety/sundry mental illness, or it can be proudly and courteously worn as individuality. I have wavered between the two all my life, with the balance gradually settling on the side of the contented individual. It has been the evolution of the “courteous” aspect that has taken time – I am free to be whoever I wish to be, but that does not oblige anyone else to like it. If I am to have a peaceful existence amongst others it is necessary for me to “do in Rome” to a certain degree.  Zealous assertion of my perspective is almost never useful – my impression of the importance of a particular “special interest” is almost never consistent with its actual importance to the world as a whole. A sideline observation – if I have to be over-zealous in presenting a point of view, it is almost certainly not as self-evident or desirable to others as it is to me – I have to question whether the benefit of this concept that I perceive for myself has the applicability and value to others that I am acting as if it does. Mostly it’s something of special significance only to me, that I’m trying to glorify by elevating to crusade proportions, seeking approval by consent, or consent by approval, from others.

This leads to a very important question. What does actually matter? As far as I can tell, almost nothing. As far as I can tell, most of the high-profile ideals, altruism, philanthropy, self-sacrifice, wealth, fame and fortune have a hidden or overlooked flip side that makes the nett good questionable. “Greater good” is often cited as the justification for unpopular acts, with the implication that the perpetrator has access to a bigger picture than the critics. Well, the picture is way bigger than anyone, and I mean ANYONE, can fully grasp. At the most superficial level, the global recession has shown just how easily baffled we are by the way things pan out. Foreign aid is another practice where intent and outcome rarely correspond. I’m often bothered by corporate charity/benevolence when I know perfectly well that it is funded by higher prices at the checkout – effectively a hidden tax, it has somehow become expected, as part of good corporate citizenship, that businesses will pick up a significant part of the nation’s welfare/recreation/arts bill. I dearly wish people would grasp that corporate and government entities are impersonal structures and stop treating them as though they have human qualities, rights or obligations.

For me, peace and freedom means fulfilling obligations and using time in a manner pleasing to myself. I have obligations to family, friends and state. These are largely obligations in the truest sense – things I have to do in order to expect the minimum fulfilment of “rights”. Some are internally imposed, some externally. Paying tax is an enforced obligation, but once I get over the discomfort of the payment, I can see that I am paying for infrastructure that I use each day. I can actually get quite bothered by the public expectation of state services far greater in quality and quantity than we appear prepared to pay for. The magical Gummint Munny Tree will fix it, the Gummint, of course, being a wholly distinct and independent entity apparently free from laws, natural, moral and economic, existing solely for the fulfilment of wishes.

To the point! I am most content when the people immediately around me are content. That includes all the businesses and agencies with whom I have daily contact. A vast realm of misery is avoided just by paying bills on time. In order to pay bills on time I have exercise a certain amount of financial responsibility. I have a choice in the compromises I make to have or not have certain things whilst still paying the bills on time. Being helpful and civil towards all people at all times eliminates another area of discontent. All of this, done within the constraints of my true nature. It is possible to maximise the experience of life in accordance with your true self.

Somewhere along the line it becomes necessary to do some sort of personal inventory. What have you got and what do you want? What are you willing to do to get what you want? Do you want because you want or because you think you should want? It’s important to look out for inadvertently acquired values – the media specialises in infecting people with irrelevant and inappropriate lusts and desires.

As I lay back to immerse myself in a 45 minute AVS session, I do sometimes have a twinge of guilt over the apparent hedonism and lack of productivity. But as a philosopher/inventor, is there any more appropriate pursuit than structuring my mind and dredging it for obscure connections? Da Vinci is hailed as one of the greatest inventors, yet he actually constructed almost nothing – he clearly grasped the concepts, was able to mentally model his inventions to the point where he could plainly see that they could not be successfully implemented with the technology available at the time, or that the cost of implementation was out of all proportion to the value of the finished product. We have been amply satisfied by his sketches – what output is necessary for your time to be meaningful? There’s many an example from history of great  individuals who DID almost nothing. There are very few who did a great deal who did not do at least as much harm as good.

I now have the general principle that it is better to do nothing than something unless doing nothing will result in a higher necessity to do something at a later date. Virtually everything we do has a price, be it immediate monetary cost, a consumption of resources, or sacrifice by others.

Enlightened self-interest is the term I apply to my basic living philosophy. I adopted it a long time back, long before I really understood its implications, or became even half decent at applying it. It is a reasonable interpretation of many “wise” words. Tread lightly in the world, take only what you are prepared to pay for (one way or another), be good to those who you wish to be good to you, be aware of the demands you place on others, question the premises on which you base your predictions for the future and when doing what must be done, be aware of why and for whom.

A sideline relevance to AVS is in the use of hypnosis/NLP – if you believe in the messages you are consuming and they are consistent with your true nature (and the mechanisms of the universe in general, which many suggestions/programs/techniques are not), it will work extremely well, and it may be all that is required to get past your particular inertia. If the actions/ideals being expressed by the hypnotist/NLP practitioner are not intrinsic to you anyway, it will all be a complete waste of time. We often speak of the desire to change – the big change I desire is from the fearful chameleon attempting to suit all situations, often at great personal discomfort, to the real me, packaged to deliver the most good for those I care about and the least harm everywhere else.

Fire up your AVS system and retreat from the world for an hour or so and consider your inner and outer worlds – where do you do the most good and harm?

Cheers,
Craig

I Don’t Know why we long for love, and ridicule sin.

I do know, if God is Love, then sin is any thing contrary to Love.

I am enjoying quietness of mind this morning.

Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus….he lives in the hearts and minds of each and every one of us. As a parent there is no better time of year than now to teach our children the true value and meaning of what the holidays are all about. It feels as with every passing year, the commercialism of this holiday grows and the true spirit behind it diminishes. We all feel it. The pressure to give more, give bigger, give better. Keeping up with the Joneses is no longer a concept but a reality for many. Commercials, shows, advertisements, will all have you believe that your child will simply not make it another year if they do not get the hottest, latest and greatest item on the lists.

I am not advocating to not celebrate Christmas or not buy your child what they ask for. After all there is a magic that comes with seeing the joy on their faces and the light in their eyes. I do advocate, however, in teaching our children the value of giving back and giving too those who may not be as fortunate as ourselves. Below are 5 simple things that you can do today, tomorrow or anytime before Christmas, to give you kids the ultimate gifts this year. The gifts of understanding, compassion and altruism. These truly embody the Spirit of Santa and teach our children what the holidays are about.

• Every city has a local Children’s Home, a place where primarily tweens and teens who are orphans live year round. Many of them are often forgotten during the holiday season because of their age. Call your local home and ask for the names of 1 or 2 kids there who are not going to receive a gift this year.   You will be amazed at how little these kids truly ask for. One year our ‘group’ asked only for socks, body spray and deodorant! Set aside $20 of your holiday money and get them so basics and maybe a little extra treat like a CD or a basket with lotions etc…. Your children and you will feel so good about brightening someone elses day.

• While out and about with your children take $3.00 and convert it into change. Tell them that their ‘mission’ today is to put all of their change into the donation baskets they will see around town. Make sure you get dimes, nickles, quarters etc…for a younger child this will seem like an awful lot of money and they will feel so good as they spread Christmas cheer throughout the day giving donations.  Use this opportunity to talk to them about the kettles, collections jars and let them know what these programs do for others.

• We all have them, old DVD, vidoes and children’s books sitting around our house. Did you know that the children’s ward of the hospital is ALWAYS looking for these items to restock their libraries?  Gather your kids and a box of your kid appropriate movies and books and make a trip to your local hospital. Get in the spirit and wear Santa hat’s as you play helper for the day while delivering your gifts. This is something that will be enjoyed year round and it does not cost you a penny to do!

• Have a Card making party this weekend with your child and their friends. Let them make cards not only for Christmas but for every day in general. Take a trip to a nursing home, a hospital or VA and deliver your Spirit of the Holiday messages. They can be distributed throughout the year and is a gift that costs only your time and the purchase of some crayons and paper.

• Give each child a $5.00 limit and take them to your local Walmart, Kmart etc… allow them to select one toy within their limit and purchase it themselves. Next take them to the closest Toys For Tots drop off box and allow your child to place the item in the box. They will feel so grown up and good about themselves for having given to someone else.

I absolutely love Jamie Cullum’s new album, The Pursuit. It’s a refreshing album that raises the bar in the music industry and is a great display of Jamie’s far-reaching jazz talents. He manages to cover Cole Porter, turn a pop dance hit into a suave jazz single and create unique, funky rhythmic beats that have hitherto been unheard of. From beginning to end, the album keeps you on your toes because it’s unpredictable and exciting. I reckon, It’s the gold standard of Jazz music at the moment.

When speaking about this album, Cullum says that the album is based on the fact that we’re all always pursuing something. He says: “Life is one long pursuit”. I spent a long time thinking that statement over, and to be honest, I can’t think of an example that might refute it. We are all, indeed, in pursuit of something. Lovers pursue each other. Children pursue better futures. Politicians pursue votes. And, philanthropists pursue the greater good.

Which made me wonder: is our tendency to pursue something an evolutionary device? A mechanism that keeps us moving forwards and upwards?

The functionalist approach in psychology suggests that emotions are transactional in that they enable us to achieve personally significant goals. The earlier proponents of this theory (Campos, Campos and Barrett) took the conventional view that emotions were simply internal personal experiences to link them with cognition and the outer world. Each emotion is underlined with a cognitive process and an external stimuli. Anger, for example, occurs when obstacles hinder us from pursuing our personal goals. All emotional beings are therefore in the pursuit of their personal goals.

Adler’s individual psychology is based around this concept: we strive to fulfill our potentials due to inevitable feelings of inferiority. He suggests we are wired to work towards ’self-actualization’. We strive to become the best we possibly can and in that sense, we are always pursuing perfection.

So, I guess we should stop kidding ourselves: no one is unselfish and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

As stated in one of my previous posts, my friends and I adopted a young college student. He is a very humble guy, and is eager to learn from others. We took him to Old Navy on Friday to get some clothes for him. B.M. picked him up, but did not tell him why they were going to Old Navy. My wife and I met them there. When they got there my wife explained why we were there, and he was so humble, and completely amazed. He is a very inquisitive young man. He asks questions about education and other things.

At the present he wears his clothes kind of baggy, and he made the statement that as you get older, you make changes. So, we bought him some jeans that weren’t so baggy, and he seemed to like them. There was a young man in the store who was older than D. and he was giving him some advice about clothes. Telling him that when you wear your clothes properly, and you change from the “hood” look to a more professional look, you feel better about yourself. So, we are going to try to work him up to that. But for now, less baggy jeans is a start.

I am happy that we were able to help him, and I wish we could do so much more. I plan to start a Christmas fund for him next year, and take him shopping to get some of the things that he needs. In the meantime, and between time, I will try to help him out during the year. He doesn’t only have needs at Christmas time. My wife and I were talking in the car after we left Old Navy; just talking about how many D.’s there are out there. It saddens me to even think about it. For now, we’ll help the one that we know, and try to reach more and more as we move along.

Get out and help someone.

Peace and blessings

Michelle

Recently, I was traveling across the US. As I was waiting at one of the gates, a man sat down next to me. To say he was ‘large’ would be a gross understatement. This man was grotesquely overweight, and nearly as wide as he was tall. As we waited for the plane to be refueled, he began to eat a cheeseburger, the sheer effort of which had him panting, wheezing, and sweating. It was, in short, a nauseating experience.

Of course, there are those who would object to my diatribe. One could argue “It’s the right of a person to choose his or her own weight or amount of consumption!”. Really? If there’s a man who is sitting next to me starving, is it my “right” to devour a steak dinner in front of him? When a child dies of starvation every five seconds, is it the right of a country to be suffering from obesity?

Yet the wealthy countries of the world continue to get fatter, and the poor countries stand in lines handfuls of rice. Sickening, isn’t it? The most obese state in America (Mississippi), is only 2,300 km from the second most impoverished country in the western hemisphere (Haiti). This is obesity we’re talking about- the result of constant binging on food- it’s not an epidemic, it’s not something that people cannot control. In a world where the vast majority of humanity lives in poverty and every year, fifteen million children die of starvation and malnutrition, this kind of egomaniacal indulgence is, as I’ve pointed out, sickening.

Of course, the companies selling the food aren’t exactly helping the situations. It is, after all, in the best interests of these corporations to exacerbate humanity’s propensity to gluttony. The more willing the public is to stuff food down their throats, the higher the demand, the greater profits for the food industry. As a result, the food industry will do all it can to convince you that your happiness hinges on your consumption or that food is a central part of tradition (just look at Christmas). They will attempt to sell the greatest amount of food to the greatest number of people for the lowest cost of production possible (and of course, cheap production tends to mean the food will be low in quality and nutrition). Everywhere you look, there are advertisements telling you to eat this or to drink that. Granted, the obesity level is due largely to individual choice, but at the same time, the food industry plays a significant role.

So what’s the relation of obesity in the West and other so-called “developed countries” to the starvation in others? Well, think of it this way. Aside from the now rare family-owned farm, we get our food from corporations. Since the purpose of Capitalism is capital (money), corporations will naturally attempt to maximize their profits by selling high-quality foods for exorbitant price and low-quality foods for next to nothing. Those who have little or no money to begin with (those who are, for example, living in areas that have been devastated by disease or drought) are of course, unable to purchase any food at all. This leads to the people of these areas to become dependent on charity- a solution which merely prolongs the suffering of the impoverished (exactly why charity doesn’t work is a topic for another day). Of course there are those who would claim that all these people need to do is begin farming in their own countries- conveniently forgetting that the materials and resources needed for farming are controlled by massive corporations. What possible reason would these companies have for simply donating material? Corporations usually don’t rise to the top of the economic food chain through altruism. Of course, when the majority becomes hungry enough, everything becomes a source of food- including the juicy, Capitalist pigs wallowing around at the top of the social spectrum.

Film:

The Blind Side, 2009

Starring Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Kathy Bates, and Quinton Aaron.

Synopsis:

The story of Michael Oher, an homeless and traumatized boy who became an All American football player and first round NFL draft pick with the help of a caring woman and her family.

My Thoughts:

What makes this movie so amazing is that it is based on a true story.  It is a story of what happens when people actually choose to live out their religious beliefs, when they take action. So often we see news of religious conflict, but it is really comforting to see when religion can be a source of inspiration for people to commit amazing acts of kindness and love beyond expectations.

This story began when a Christian private school was counseled to live up to the name Christian and help the struggling, homeless Michael Oher to attend.

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead  ~ James 2:14-17

Leigh Ann Touhy and her family took it to the next level when they took Michael Oher in, fed him, clothed him, and helped him to succeed. And in doing so they learned to better appreciate the luxury they had taken for granted, as well as time with each other as a family, which prior to meeting Michael they had not.

O SON OF MY HANDMAID! Guidance hath ever been given by words, and now it is given by deeds. Every one must show forth deeds that are pure and holy, for words are the property of all alike, whereas such deeds as these belong only to Our loved ones. Strive then with heart and soul to distinguish yourselves by your deeds. In this wise We counsel you in this holy and resplendent tablet. ~ Bahá’u’lláh

What Michael went through many more people in society go through then we would care to admit.  But unlike Michael often these people do not receive a helping hand.  Instead those in healthy, wealthy communities isolate themselves.  How can we as a society work to eradicate poverty, to provide opportunities for all?  How can we overcome our fears?  Especially when they are legitimate, like living in a place of violence.

Michael had developed a coping mechanism for dealing with living in an unsavory situation, full of drugs, addiction, violence, and crime.  He closed his eyes.  He closed his eyes and waited for the problem to dissipate so that when he opened them again the world would be bearable.

O MAN OF TWO VISIONS! Close one eye and open the other. Close one to the world and all that is therein, and open the other to the hallowed beauty of the Beloved. ~ Bahá’u’lláh

I think this is something we can all learn from.  All the bad things in life can be overwhelming, especially if we focus on them.  If instead we close our eyes to them, and instead open our eyes to the beauty in the world we can move from that darkness to light.  I am not saying we just ignore the bad, but instead try to transcend it and not let it bring us down.  Michael was able to do that.  He could have been to proud to accept the help of the Touhys but he wasn’t.  He opened his eyes to their love and chose it over the path he could have taken.

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. ~ 1 Corinthians 13

The bad news is that I continue to spend altogether too damn much time in my own head, but the good news is feels more like quality time.

Will be heading out shortly for a long-overdue haircut, but am finding myself compelled to jot down a few thoughts, so I do believe that I will run with that feeling. Since my daily writing duties for Tonic.com by themselves satisfy my urge to put thought to word, I have done precious little personal blogging. It’s not so much out of neglect or indifference, but more due to time and the simple fact that I’m mostly getting my need to write met in full, thank you ever so much.

But the lights are blinking this morning, and I’m opting to indulge myself in some extracurricular musing on what it means to be human.

While science news is my beat, I’m always on the lookout for items, articles and topics that engage interests that may not appear by quick glance at the surfaces to be overtly scientific. The arts, and music in particular, serve prime example. A couple of months ago I offered a piece that briefly discussed research into the matter of monkey drumming. Yes, monkey drumming. The findings indicate that our simian chums use rhythmic patterns quite deliberately, with purpose, for communication. The underlying suggestion is that behaviors that form the basis of what we now call music could very well be even older than our capacity for the spoken word.

As I write two pieces per day, six days a week, lather, rinse, repeat, it’s easy to forget what I’ve covered as the ongoing run of tomorrows offers up fresh news items and all manner of interesting stuff to review. I’d honestly forgotten all about my drumming monkeys until following a link to an outfit in the UK that was included on a recent post on Nick Heyward’s wonderful website. Nordoff Robbins. Music transforming lives. Absolutely wonderful. Of *course* music, and its therapeutic potential, should be used to enrich lives–the drive to express via music, to give and to absorb meaning,  is every bit as encoded in our DNA as is the drive to communicate through speech.

Add to this a couple of other shops whose stock in trade is the exploration of higher aspects of the human condition. There’s the National Institute for Play in Carmel and the Greater Good Science Center in Berkeley (and can I just say how amazing it is to live in California where such institutions are even possible?).

NIFP characterizes play as anything but frivolous: it’s an evolutionary birthright that rises from and feeds back into our big, rich, juicy brains as well as out of the fact that we are singularly social creatures. And the GGSC has only recently crossed my radar screen (and, yes, I wrote about those folks as well), impressing me greatly with their reclamation of the inaccurate and unfortunately perverted take on Darwin (i.e. ’survival of the fittest’) that has long held sway. We are, they are finding and reporting, evolutionarily and genetically predisposed for kindness.

It’s a big, bustling world. It is easy to react based on a perception of lack, or to give in to fear or greed. And, really, some people are just plain dicks. Still, I am, this morning, having a lovely time just chewing on this assemblage of aspects of the human condition that are irretrievably higher and better and more noble, and they reside within each of us, should we make the choice to call upon them as we move about out lives.

Posted via email from dmboisterous

It’s been a long while since I last updated this blog. Well lately I’m not in a pretty good mood at all. You see due to some things I decided to stop speaking to everyone. I only respond when there’s need to do so and when I do it is in a quite harsh way. I do not express any emotion either. No matter what somebody may say to me my face remains expressionless and emotionless.

The reason is because nobody really cares. No one cares if I’m feeling bad or something. Everyone wonders why I’m not happy – because most of the time I’m that happy-go-lucky guy with a bitchy-slutty attitude – but all they think is that I’m bored or that I haven’t slept enough or that I overdrunk. Never do they think that I might have a problem or something that troubles me.

And even if some realise or know that I’m feeling bad they just won’t take the time to care. And those “some” are supposed to be my best friends.

Well anyway. As I mentioned above, I don’t speak to anyone. Yet today a guy, a friend of mine let’s say, was not looking good. I approached him and asked him if he is alright. I smiled as I told him that he can always tell me what he has if he feels about it.

Yes I did that. Despite having my own problems, despite the fact that he, most probably, would never take the time to listen to me. Even though I decided not to speak and care about anyone I tried to help him. No I haven’t gone insane yet.

Why did I do that..? I wonder too. But I guess that the answer is pretty obvious to anyone who takes a look at the results of my psychology test I took on Monday. According to it I am an altruist. An egoistic one but still an altruist.

Yeah for some unknown reason I have that burning desire to help every unhappy person I meet. Even though they might never care. I’ll let them speak to me and I’ll take the time to consider their problems and help them out in every way possible.

And the most foolish thing is that people tend to think that I’m a victim. That I’m stupid or something. As I have mentioned before (in Mother Teresa Consults entry) I just can’t get it. Since when caring is considered bad and foolish? I am not a victim. Unfortunately for many, fortunately for me. I do not allow people to take advantage of me. Yet I’m an altruist.

You see, in my opinion at least,  altruism is one of the greatest aspects of a humane personality. To care and help people without expecting or demanding anything in return or expect so little or things, like I do at times, which have no real value. Like five minutes to listen to me.

I was not always like that. It was one day, three years ago in Christmas. I was in vacation in the capital of my country and I was waiting alone for some friends of mine to come in cafeteria. I was sad. For pretty much the same reasons I’m sad now. I was just writing some lyrics in my notebook when a guy sits next to me. He was sitting at the table in front of mine before with his girlfriend and a couple of friends. I did not know him. Neither did he. Yet he came and spoke to me. It made me feel great. For an hour, until my friends came, he was there listening to what I had to say. I never learnt his name. Neither did he. I did not want to ruin that. I just wanted to remember him as that guy who gave up his friends for me. That stranger who did so. Everyone in my place would feel great for sure.

Yet, in our society altruists are laughed at and abused. But thanks to those people, who are willing to sacriface their lives and their well-being for us, we are what we are right now. Apparently our society is corrupted. And by corrupted I mean that we do not respect what we really should do respect. We have turned money in the one and only “supreme” God and for everything we demand something back. Everything must have a price. Either if it is five minutes during which somebody will speak to us or a pair of Jimmy Choo’s heels. Either if it is our best friend who asks that or a complete stranger.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not say let’s bring down money. That’s impossible. But those simple things which you can give for free, like a smile, a hug or those five minutes, why do you decide not to give them? It wouldn’t be so hard to smile when you walk in the street. To someone this might mean a lot. To someone who is feeling unwell. It’s not that hard to hug the person you see crying. You don’t have to say anything. Just hug him. During that moment it will mean the world to him.

And I wonder why. Why can’t we ever do something for free? You take what you give they say and I could not agree more. You can’t always take, take and take and never give. Neither can anyone constantly give. You kill those people whose desire is to help you in every way they can with your actions. With your lack of respect. And despite the fact that somebody helped you when you were in need, you won’t do that if somebody’s in need.

Why? Why don’t you even try for once, when you see somebody crying, to approach him and ask him if he needs anything? Why don’t you stop to talk to that man who needs directions? Smile at him and try to help him? Why don’t you care when you hear somebody screaming for help?

Try to break through the walls you closed yourself behind. Try to care for a change.

You see, bringing happiness to others, helping them out makes you happy too. You don’t have to do anything great. You just need to care and stand next to them even when the rain starts to fall. Not only in the sunny days. Have you ever felt that feeling you get to feel when you see somebody smiling again after he was crying? When knowning that he smiles again because you helped him?

I doubt. But for me this is the best exchange I could ever ask for. That feeling that I made someone happy. Even for some mere moments. It’s greater than any amount of money. It’s priceless.

But with that attitude I doubt that most of you will ever have the chance to feel it..

Sometimes you hear this argument: Generosity, altruism, and self-giving are really just different forms of selfishness. Even if we are being truly generous, and making a real sacrifice in order to help someone else, the underlying motive will be one of the self-interest. Not because we are sly or manipulative, but simply because we are programmed to do what is ultimately in our best interests. This might include a degree of altruism, of caring for our family or friends, of going out of our way to help others. But deep down we are always thinking about what we will gain — even if that gain is the satisfaction of knowing that we are a noble person, or the pleasure of seeing other people given help.

There is some truth in this. It’s good to acknowledge that even when we do something for others, even when we are acting in a completely selfless manner, there is still an element of ‘myself’ involved. I am still choosing, freely, to do this deed. I am deciding, in some sense, that it is important to me, that I value what I’m doing. I can’t say ‘I don’t care about this’. The very fact that I want to give myself generously shows that I have an interest in giving myself — it matters to me. To this extent, there is no such thing as pure altruism. Put it another way: If I love someone, even by giving up everything for them, it is still because I love them. And if I choose to care for someone I do not love, it is still because I want to care for them.

But it’s not quite true to say that all self-giving is simply another form of selfishness — because it blurs some of the distinctions that we rightly make in ordinary life; distinctions that are crucial in moral thinking and in the choices we make about how to live. We come face to face with moments when we are called to be more generous than we have been, to put others first, to make a sacrifice that costs us some time or energy or personal satisfaction. Now and then we face a fork in the road, and we have to choose between selfishness or self-giving. We know they are not the same.

Yes, the self-giving needs to be a personal choice, it needs to be something I make a commitment to. In this sense it is still part of my own search for meaning and fulfilment. But it is nevertheless a kind of meaning and fulfilment radically different from the selfishness that seeks happiness locked up in one’s own introverted satisfactions. There is a selfishness which limits me and traps me; and there is another kind of self-concern that allows me to go beyond myself, that opens me up to others, and takes me beyond myself.

I mention all this because yesterday evening I was in Kilburn with the Missionaries of Charity, the Sisters of Mother Theresa. During Mass in their convent chapel, three of the sisters renewed their religious vows. As well as taking the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, the Missionaries of Charity take an additional fourth vow. It goes something like this (I’m writing from memory): ‘I promise to give myself in wholehearted and free service to the poorest of the poor’.

What promise to make! A promise to make of one’s life a pure gift, to give oneself completely to those in most need, to those who will probably be unable to pay anything back. A promise to live for others in love. Of course, this has a religious meaning — it’s to do with knowing the love of Christ, and wanting to share that love with others. But even on a purely human or ‘philosophical’ level, it is a wonderful example of how self-giving is possible for the human person. Not a generosity that denies our own needs, but one which allows us to find a deeper kind of fulfilment in giving our lives joyfully for others. It’s a model not just for religious sisters, but for all of us.

Murs once fulminated “hip-hop hippies” as being self-righteous, claiming that they made idealist claims that were seldom backed up. He summed up the tirade, saying “Master P has done more for the community then your punk-ass will ever do.” That being said (and agreed with), it’s encouraging to see that each stop on the Grouch’s How the Grinch Stole Christmas Tour, is going to to have bins for Toys-For-Tots.
Altruism aside, the tour looks pretty solid with Grouch (who’s one of the best hip-hop songwriters), the phenom-esque Fashawn with Exile in tow and Mistah Fab keeping in Gully.

Dec. 7 – San Diego, CA @ Belly Up
Dec. 8 – Santa Barbara, CA @ Velvet Jones
Dec. 9 – San Luis Opispo, CA @ Downtown Brew
Dec. 10 – San Francisco, CA @ Slim’s
Dec. 11 – San Jose, CA @ Avalon
Dec. 12 – Sacramento, CA @ Empire Events Center
Dec. 13 – Arcata, CA @ Humbrew
Dec. 14 – Eugene, OR @ WOW Hall
Dec. 15 – Portland, OR @ Backspace
Dec. 16 – Seattle, WA @ Nectar Lounge
Dec. 18 – Reno, NV @ The Underground
Dec. 19 – South Lake Tahoe @ Bar 24

Are humans selfish by nature? Yes. Are humans unselfish by nature? Yes. And that seems to be the answer(s) to one of the most ferocious debates in moral philosophy—at least among those who like quick and absolutist answers. A certain episode of Friends comes to mind—“The One Where Phoebe Hates PBS”—where even a decent human being like Phoebe ends up buying into the idea that “there are no good, selfless deeds.” But there are. And we don’t even have to disprove the silly notion that if an act of helping others makes you feel good, then you did it for selfish reasons. Because now new research shows  that toddlers  like to help, and they certainly don’t calculate beforehand whether helping will make them feel good, or whether it carries some reward:

The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.

When infants 18 months old see an unrelated adult whose hands are full and who needs assistance opening a door or picking up a dropped clothespin, they will immediately help, Michael Tomasello writes in “Why We Cooperate,” a book published in October. Dr. Tomasello, a developmental psychologist, is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The helping behavior seems to be innate because it appears so early and before many parents start teaching children the rules of polite behavior.

Furthermore, this behavior is cross-cultural—and only lasts until the child is around 3. Then he or she begins to understand that there may be an advantage to helping some rather than helping others:

As children grow older, they become more selective in their helpfulness. Starting around age 3, they will share more generously with a child who was previously nice to them. Another behavior that emerges at the same age is a sense of social norms. “Most social norms are about being nice to other people,” Dr. Tomasello said in an interview, “so children learn social norms because they want to be part of the group.”

Children not only feel they should obey these rules themselves, but also that they should make others in the group do the same. Even 3-year-olds are willing to enforce social norms. If they are shown how to play a game, and a puppet then joins in with its own idea of the rules, the children will object, some of them vociferously.

Dr. Tomasello explains this as a result of “shared intentionality” which is specific for humans; while apes may have a basic “theory of mind,” an understanding that other apes and humans have consciousness, it is in the human mind that curiosity about what goes on in the other minds becomes a vital part of the culture.

The shared intentionality lies at the basis of human society, Dr. Tomasello argues. From it flow ideas of norms, of punishing those who violate the norms and of shame and guilt for punishing oneself. Shared intentionality evolved very early in the human lineage, he believes, and its probable purpose was for cooperation in gathering food.

This study is only one of many these days, from neuroscience to evolutionary psychology, to animal behaviorism, to experimental philosophy, as a new generation of thinkers and scientists is finding its voice and shaping a new picture of human nature: the growing consensus is that of course we humans are partly selfish—otherwise we wouldn’t survive. But our very well-developed sense of fairness reaches both ways—to ensure fair treatment for ourselves, but also in clear recognition of the common humanity of the Other who is in the same boat. It makes us feel good to be social and sociable. We are at the same time altruistic and selfish, and one behavioral aspect can’t be reduced to the other. Reality is far more interesting than the classical reductivist attempts to boil human nature down to one basic behavioral aspect. Let’s see if the false dichotomy of selfish/unselfish can finally be phased out of the ethical debate in the 21^st century.

Imagine investing in community improvement – while your money stays put in your bank account! That’s what you’re doing when you stash your cash in a community development financial institution (CDFI).

A CDFI is a financial institution whose primary mission is to provide credit, capital and financial services to individuals and businesses in underserved communities. Nationwide, there are more than 1,000 CDFIs that operate as banks, credit unions, loan funds or venture capital companies. You can find them in every state, serving both rural and urban communities.

In 2007 alone, CDFIs have*

• Leveraged $621 million with private investments.
• Opened more than 800 accounts for the previously unbanked.
• Financed the construction or rehabilitation of more than 4,000 affordable housing units.
• Financed businesses that created or maintained nearly 30,000 full-time equivalent jobs.

While CDFIs have been around for many years, they’re needed now more than ever to enable growth in communities that would otherwise not have access to financial services. Some of the many success stories CDFIs have brought their communities include:

• Micro enterprise development loans in rural Arizona.  
• Credit union access for remote Mississippi communities.
• Boston business start-up and job creation through venture capital financing.
• Working capital funds for women’s transitional housing in New York City.

If you’re considering a CDFI for a personal or business account, you can search by state or “impact sector,” such as small business or housing, at communityinvestingcenterdb.org. It’s a good idea to check bankrate.com’s Safe & Sound ratings to ensure the CDFI you choose merits at least three stars.

*Source: www.cdfifund.gov

- LuAnne Speeter

*New York Times* (Tuesday, Dec 1) includes an article: “We
May Be Born With an Urge to Help” by Nicholas Wade.

Here are some excerpts:

[begin excerpts]

What is the essence of human nature?

Flawed, say many theologians.

Vicious and addicted to warfare, wrote Hobbes.

Selfish and in need of considerable improvement, think many parents.

But biologists are beginning to form a generally sunnier view of humankind.

<snip>

The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is
that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others.

Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive.

But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.

When infants 18 months old see an unrelated adult whose hands are full
and who needs assistance opening a door or picking up a dropped
clothespin, they will immediately help, Michael Tomasello writes in “Why
We Cooperate,” a book published in October.

Dr. Tomasello, a developmental psychologist, is co-director of the Max
Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The helping behavior seems to be innate because it appears so early and
before many parents start teaching children the rules of polite behavior.

“It’s probably safe to assume that they haven’t been explicitly and
directly taught to do this,” said Elizabeth Spelke, a developmental
psychologist at Harvard.

“On the other hand, they’ve had lots of opportunities to experience acts
of helping by others. I think the jury is out on the innateness question.”

But Dr. Tomasello finds the helping is not enhanced by rewards,
suggesting that it is not influenced by training.

It seems to occur across cultures that have different timetables for
teaching social rules.

And helping behavior can even be seen in infant chimpanzees under the
right experimental conditions.

For all these reasons, Dr. Tomasello concludes that helping is a natural
inclination, not something imposed by parents or culture.

Infants will help with information, as well as in practical ways.

From the age of 12 months they will point at objects that an adult
pretends to have lost.

<snip>

For parents who may think their children somehow skipped the cooperative
phase, Dr. Tomasello offers the reassuring advice that children are
often more cooperative outside the home, which is why parents may be
surprised to hear from a teacher or coach how nice their child is.

“In families, the competitive element is in ascendancy,” he said.

As children grow older, they become more selective in their helpfulness.

Starting around age 3, they will share more generously with a child who
was previously nice to them.

Another behavior that emerges at the same age is a sense of social norms.

“Most social norms are about being nice to other people,” Dr. Tomasello
said in an interview, “so children learn social norms because they want
to be part of the group.”

Children not only feel they should obey these rules themselves, but also
that they should make others in the group do the same.

Even 3-year-olds are willing to enforce social norms.

If they are shown how to play a game, and a puppet then joins in with
its own idea of the rules, the children will object, some of them
vociferously.

Where do they get this idea of group rules, the sense of “we who do it
this way”?

Dr. Tomasello believes children develop what he calls “shared
intentionality,” a notion of what others expect to happen and hence a
sense of a group “we.”

It is from this shared intentionality that children derive their sense
of norms and of expecting others to obey them.

<snip>

“Humans putting their heads together in shared cooperative activities
are thus the originators of human culture,” Dr. Tomasello writes.

A similar conclusion has been reached independently by Hillard S.
Kaplan, an anthropologist at the University of New Mexico.

Modern humans have lived for most of their existence as hunter
gatherers, so much of human nature has presumably been shaped for
survival in such conditions.

From study of existing hunter gatherer peoples, Dr. Kaplan has found
evidence of cooperation woven into many levels of human activity.

The division of labor between men and women — men gather 68 percent of
the calories in foraging societies — requires cooperation between the sexes.

Young people in these societies consume more than they produce until age
20, which in turn requires cooperation between the generations.

This long period of dependency was needed to develop the special skills
required for the hunter gatherer way of life.

<snip>

Much the same conclusion is reached by Frans de Waal in another book
published in October, “The Age of Empathy.”

Dr. de Waal, a primatologist, has long studied the cooperative side of
primate behavior and believes that aggression, which he has also
studied, is often overrated as a human motivation.

“We’re preprogrammed to reach out,” Dr. de Waal writes.

“Empathy is an automated response over which we have limited control.”

The only people emotionally immune to another’s situation, he notes, are
psychopaths.

<snip>

The roots of human cooperation may lie in human aggression.

We are selfish by nature, yet also follow rules requiring us to be nice
to others.

“That’s why we have moral dilemmas,” Dr. Tomasello said, “because we are
both selfish and altruistic at the same time.”

[end excerpts]

The article is online at:
<http://bit.ly/7rB0z1>

Clipping courtesy of Ken Pope

Talk about racism moves like a veld fire. It flares up, is spread by strong winds, then hunkers down until the next spark ignites. It would be best to stop feeding it, but mostly we keep on producing more wind. Why?

It feels like intransigence, as if people have dug in their heels, refusing to yield unless the other side meets some impossible demand. A deadlock. Couldn’t that indicate a secret longing for something alive, and open? Something unconditional, something that could surrender itself without shame. Something fearless. Something like love, or ubuntu, although these words grow more unusable by the day.

This intransigence locks us inside our skins (our culture, our side), like they were our very essence. In some sense, of course they are. But if this is the only truth, or the highest truth, then we have nothing ahead of us but the endless war of all against all.

We try to manage these conflicts of interest, but that only damps the fire down. It doesn’t bring peace. What is needed is a counter-logic, another understanding of our humanness.

It’s not going to be simply what we have in common. Finding commonality with others is lovely, but our differences are not going to disappear. This is not a bad thing – quite the contrary. Blaming difference for our troubles leads directly to dreams of totality, of “one big happy us”. If there is anything we should know from history, it is that this is a seriously bad idea. Our differences matter.

It’s not going to come from willpower, as if we could (and should) simply decide to get over ourselves, as if we could (and should) shed our own skins, if only we had the right intention. Nevertheless, intention – like identity and community – matters.

It can’t be through idealism. We must find this logic already operating in our lives, equally as evident and imperative as the logic of our desire for self-preservation and identification with self-same others – and yet contradicting it entirely.

And of course it exists. Two millennia ago, Rabbi Hillel framed it as elegantly as anyone has: If I am not for myself, who will be for me? When I am for myself alone, what am I? The first appeals to the reason of self-interest. The second is to the reason of ethics and justice, of finding oneself responsible for the lives of others.

It’s difficult to speak of this. One can’t praise one’s own humbleness or preach it to others without running into what philosophers like to call a “performative contradiction”. Nevertheless, it’s all around us. Even something as simple as letting a stranger go ahead of you in traffic can refute the myth of almighty self-centredness.

If we started to notice this essential goodness of human being, if we didn’t dismiss it, but accepted its reality as unquestioningly as we accept our instinct for striving and self-defence, what then would become possible?

And if not now, then when?