Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[Jester]

Communism is NOT altruism. I repeat, it is not altruism.

We've been treated to a great many loud, BOLDED UNDERLINED AND CAPS descriptions of what communism isn't.

I'm left more than a little curious as to what it is.

-Jester

[LennyLen]

We've been treated to a great many loud, BOLDED UNDERLINED AND CAPS descriptions of what communism isn't.

I'm left more than a little curious as to what it is.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm pretty sure u know what it is....I've defined what constitutes it many times before.

Why cherry pick one sentence out of my entire post? My point wasn't to define communism (I've done that long ago), but to explain to Taem why altruism is not the basis of my argument, or my broader views in general as he assumed it was.

[Jester]

I'm pretty sure u know what it is....I've defined what constitutes it many times before.

If you say so. It's always been pretty murky to me, a half-sketched New Jerusalem defined mostly by its negation of the ills of today. Perhaps you were more specific about the details in the past, and I've just missed it.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Nope. Didn't happen.

For Deebye: I believe you are mistaken. This forum frequently turns into a philosophy pissing contest.
Try to accept reality for what it is.

[FireIceTalon]

New Jerusalem
-Jester

Sounds more like a description of the typical Neoclassical Economics model

[Jester]

Sounds more like a description of the typical Neoclassical Economics model

So, that would be a "no, I'd rather change the topic back to critiquing what exists"?

-Jester

[eppie]

and as a species, I’d like to believe we are constantly evolving and becoming more intelligent with each passing generation.

I don't think this is true. At least in parts of the world. Intelligent people with good jobs tend to get fewer children.
We have a society that takes cares of the handicapped and lesser fortunate. We are not evolving so much anymore physically and intellectually.

In parts of the world (mostly the richer parts) you don't have to be inventive and on your toes all the time to find food and to reproduce. Turn of the electricity for a month and 50 % of the population is dead..... (well that is a bit over the top).

[kandrathe]

The irony here is that it is your thinking that is in fact "black and white" on this issue. The article you linked just furthers my point by proving how we've evolved our traits FROM these basic desires to survive and propagate. Let me ask you, why do you think you care even remotely about your offspring, that you feel emotions whatsoever?

More importantly, why do I care about my parents? Why do I care about total strangers?

Do you honestly think you are special in some way, that you care for your offspring more than anyone else? Think again! We have all, including most animals, evolved these traits as an important evolutionary step in propagation!

I also grew a brain that allows me to understand the difference between instinctual behavior, and choice.

Perhaps you think you "care" about things because this emotion comes from your god as written in the good book (i.e. all good things come from above)? If so, you are even more deluded with religious philosophy then I ever dreamed.

Perhaps you are exhibiting some bigoted, "holier than thou" attitudes that make me want to barf? How does this apply to your philosophical proposition?

No, we've evolved emotions to help us "care" for our offspring so we could thrive through nurturing and propagation. That's all we are designed for, and it encompasses everything we do as a species and all our thoughts.

And, yet, thousands of children are starved, beaten, neglected, murdered, raped and sold into slavery all the damn time.

This is why there is no true altruism because everything we do, we do for survival of us, or even of our species in those two example you cited.

And still, Greenpeace activists put themselves between harpoons and whales.

I'll reiterate, there is no true altruism in the pure sense of the word.

Your opinion is complicated by the truth that the most common sources of unethical behavior among potential moral agents is self-interest. Also, we must recognize the from the POV of self, our needs and wants are more strongly weighted as we cannot feel the needs and want of others, but only empathize with their plight (been there, done that etc.) Therefore, self interested behavior is prominent, and rationally expected, especially from those who are ignorant, or calloused to the suffering of other sentient beings among them.

This does not negate the occurrence of truly altruistic behavior (in the pure sense -- whatever that means).

[FireIceTalon]

Sounds more like a description of the typical Neoclassical Economics model

So, that would be a "no, I'd rather change the topic back to critiquing what exists"?

-Jester

Comrade, the purpose of Marxism is not to sit around and construct new worlds out of our heads based some perfect conception of how society should be, as even communists, like anyone else, have disagreements or different solutions to a particular problem. I know you are constantly told otherwise by our bourgeois institutions and media, but this was never Marxisms purpose, nor should it be. There is a damn good reason why Marx and Engels rejected and critiqued the utopian socialists that came before them, and the same reason why they never wrote a complete detailed outline as to how communism would exactly look. Because to do so would be entirely unscientific - no one can predict exact future material conditions as there are too many variables. So asking one to look into a crystal ball to see what a future society will look like down to the very smallest finite detail in itself is utopian, and quite a bit to ask for don't you think? This is why Neoclassical economics is nonsense - because it starts with a utopian model and then tries to make predictions or assumptions without taking real world models into account. It has gotten to a point where I trust weathermen more than I do economists nowadays.

Marxism is a tool for understanding the current social order and how it works, and by understanding its social interactions, it can also be used as a framework for how an alternative social order may be constructed (as well as the agency behind the social change), based on a diametrically opposite set of social interactions, but it would be frivolous and unrealistic to think that it can outline every little detail of it as I explained above. Thus defining communism as anything else besides or beyond a classless and stateless society (without markets or money) where the means of production are held in common is idealistic, and unscientific. Marx and Engels observed the structure and processes of capitalism that organically make it a volatile and exploitative system, and gave us a starting point to show that a better world is possible. But the rest is up to us. Even if a revolution is successful and capitalism is overthrown, we don't just wake up one day and say "we have communism" - it won't magically appear, it something that has to be built.

[kandrathe]

... it won't magically appear, it something that has to be built.

Buildings begin with requirements, and designs. They become plans. Sorry, but without any blue prints, it just seems to be a handful of angry disillusioned people in a perpetual anti-establishment philosophic whine.

If you've got a bridge, and you need a bridge, you don't begin by tearing down the old bridge. Right?

[Jester]

So, if I'm getting this straight... no, you have no idea how this is supposed to work. Indeed, it would be unscientific to have any idea.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

Honestly Jester, I think you would do well to look at some of the discussions at Revleft (the learning forum is probably the best place for this particular topic) - and as you will see, there is no single definitive vision of communism besides the parameters I mentioned previously. This isn't to say there are no ideas - there are lots of them, both at revleft and in the works of prominent socialist thinkers throughout history. I think there was even a "detailed vision of communism" thread somewhere there recently, I forget which forum it was in but it should still be on the first page. Hell, there are even some "market socialists" that inhabit the site, though admittedly very few.

Why not make an account and engage some of the friendly comrades? Most everyone there is nicer than I am One thing up front though - those who do not have revolutionary political views are welcome to the forum but are restricted to discussion in "the opposing ideologies" section (forum specifically for pro-capitalists, right-wingers, liberals, etc to debate with us) to keep the forum clean. You can still view the topics in the other forums, so if you are restricted but see a topic you want to take part in but cant, just make another topic in the IO. The one exception of course, are Fascists and their brethren (neo-Nazis, skinheads, white nationalists/separatists, etc), who are not welcome under any circumstances for obvious reasons - but I don't think this applies to you

[Taem]

…why do you think you care even remotely about your offspring, that you feel emotions whatsoever?

More importantly, why do I care about my parents? Why do I care about total strangers?

No, we've evolved emotions to help us "care" for our offspring so we could thrive through nurturing and propagation. That's all we are designed for, and it encompasses everything we do as a species and all our thoughts.

And, yet, thousands of children are starved, beaten, neglected, murdered, raped and sold into slavery all the damn time.

This is why there is no true altruism because everything we do, we do for survival of us, or even of our species in those two example you cited.

And still, Greenpeace activists put themselves between harpoons and whales.

I feel like I made a pretty good effort at explaining my points of view in my reply to FIT. It would be a great relief to me if you could take the time to gloss over that post before reading the rest of this one, so that we may understand one-another; if I do bring up topics I already covered in that post, I won’t be elaborating because the thoughts are already fleshed out in that post. Thank-you!

In regards to this topic, as I’ve stated in other posts, there are three known basic principles’ of all life forms created from RNA1: Gathering (usually food), Procreation, and Protectionism (of self, and offspring). Since evolving from these origins, we not only exemplify these principles in every aspect of our lives, but have grown to expand upon them, and even complicate them. A good analogy here of a lower life form would be how wolves forge a pack to protect one-another – just an evolved sense of protectionism. Our species has gradually learned to expand our emotions from these three principles to feel deep love, remorse, or even hate, all in an evolutional effort to not only survive, but surpass our last iteration, which I suppose is itself really just another form of variation/protectionism.

It’s true that most of us can “relate” to how others feel by placing ourselves in their shoes and when we see someone else or something else in danger or in a state of suffering, we often conflate these protectionism emotions we’ve evolved from protecting our young or ourselves into the urge to save others. My point here is that you cannot stop the origin of these emotions because they come from our evolved need to protect our offspring and ourselves meaning, while we always have freewill to make the “right” or “wrong” decision, we will always feel the urge to do deeds we perceive as right or moral not because of some god-driven need of morality, but because of the RNA in our system telling us it’s the right thing to do!

When we do what feels “right”, we are only following our gut instinct to follow the three basic principles I stated. This is why I make the claim that no matter how much we’ve evolved or continue to evolve, our basic emotions will always be based off these three things no matter how complex our brains have become or how well we’ve turned these three principles into a broad range of emotions in our minds. This is why any decision we make based off morality will always be predictably similar, thus no matter how much you want to believe your donation to the homeless was because you did the “right” thing, it does not change the fact that it only felt right to you because of our evolved survivalist nature regarding right and wrong, hence your actions were being influenced by selfishness all along.

True altruism can only come from the realization that any deed you do that makes you feel “good” is a selfish act to begin with; you are actually the beneficiary of the act because you’re the one who feels good by doing the act. If an act benefited others but made you feel “bad”, or you were disinterested, you would not commit to the act any longer because it would not be logical for you. A good analogy here would be giving a gift to a relative who never thanks you and perhaps even openly mocks you regarding your gifts; sure, you might continue giving a little longer in the hopes that things might turn around but once reality sunk in this relative was completely ungrateful, you would not continue to give them gifts thus proving your supposed act of kindness was nothing more than a selfish act of unfulfilled gluttony to begin with because unless your act made YOU feel good inside, you’d stop doing it. This analogy can be applied to all aspect of life.

So, to perpetuate an act of true altruism requires one to commit to actions that benefit others without any care of the end result for themselves or of their recipients… and that never happens. And the reason that never happens is because of the three principles I mentioned in my first paragraph, thus the influence of RNA on every aspect of our being, and the reality that even with freewill, we cannot escape our desires to follow our instincts. This is the reason there is no true altruism in this world!

"Life" can be considered to have emerged when RNA chains began to express the basic conditions necessary for natural selection to operate as conceived by Darwin: heritability, variation of type, and competition for limited resources.

1Links:
RNA World; shows how RNA can be made used as a building block for DNA and all life. Many studies have shown how RNA infused minerals behave in a manner similar to what we consider life:
What is RNA?; shows how RNA influences DNA as it’s messenger.
Spiegelman's Monster; shows an example of a Nobel Prize winner who created inorganic self-replicating RNA which exhibited the three signs of life:

Perhaps you think you "care" about things because this emotion comes from your god as written in the good book (i.e. all good things come from above)? If so, you are even more deluded with religious philosophy then I ever dreamed.

Perhaps you are exhibiting some bigoted, "holier than thou" attitudes that make me want to barf? How does this apply to your philosophical proposition?

Let me start by saying your intelligence on these boards is proven and much admired by many, and in all honestly here, has always been an inspiration to me over the years. When I was young, I always looked up to you, Pete, Occi, and Jester wondering if I’d ever measure up to the stature of posters such as yourselves, but with age comes wisdom. Regarding the comment of mine you quoted, I admit to unnecessary attacking you with that “delusional” comment and for that, I offer up a sincere apology. I didn’t have to write that to make a point, and I’m not sure why I did in that context, but it was unwarranted so I’m truly sorry I offended you.

So I suppose the better question is why do I come across as a religious bigot? On a personal level, I find it’s difficult to reason with deeply religious people. For example regarding evolution, you can show them empirical data, peer-reviewed and approved scientific journals, university studies, all proving the indisputable existence of the evolutionary process (including rather recently how the Russians breed wolves based on their temperament and got domesticated dogs and feral wolves from the mix, or how Hitler had soldiers breed the mastodon-type bull back into existence by breeding the most aggressive bulls), and the deeply-religious drumbeater will still explain how you are mistaken because “it is written…” I’ve shown the most cynical believer of their faith exactly how the bible came to be and how it was no more god influenced then a preschoolers krayola sketched notebook, but yet somehow even if they have the faintest sliver of “hope” in their brain they will surly find a way to block what was said and hear only what they want to hear.

In regards to altruism, I can show you what I believe in altruism, but since I was deeply Christian at one point in my life like yourself, I know you believe that all “good” comes from him above as it is written in the bible. To not believe this is to refute the philosophy of the bible and the very existence of the trinity itself (since God is incapable of seeing sin). I believe this is the main reason you have such difficulty accepting my point of view on this subject, which is also why I wrote that religious statement you quoted. I feel in conversations like these, it is your strong religious beliefs that hold you back from seeing what other people are actually saying. This is of course just my opinion.

[kandrathe]

I feel like I made a pretty good effort at explaining my points of view in my reply to FIT. It would be a great relief to me if you could take the time to gloss over that post before reading the rest of this one, so that we may understand one-another; if I do bring up topics I already covered in that post, I won’t be elaborating because the thoughts are already fleshed out in that post. Thank-you!

You've restated your position without addressing any challenges. I fully understand the concept. I was taught it in evolutionary biology courses I took in the 80's.

Our species has gradually learned to expand our emotions from these three principles to feel deep love, remorse, or even hate, all in an evolutionary effort to not only survive, but surpass our last iteration, which I suppose is itself really just another form of variation/protectionism.

If we were merely a jangle of emotional expression, you might have a decent argument. We are a mixed bag of emotions, and reason.

It’s true that most of us can “relate” to how others feel by placing ourselves in their shoes and when we see someone else or something else in danger or in a state of suffering, we often conflate these protectionism emotions we’ve evolved from protecting our young or ourselves into the urge to save others.

Childish anthropomorphism aside, I disagree. When the "save the whales" crowd risk their lives intentionally to stop whaling, you will not convince me that they've confused the whale with anything resembling offspring or are churning up deep emotional mat/paternal protection feelings. More likely it involves a more complex sense of justice, and not merely simple morality.

My point here is that you cannot stop the origin of these emotions because they come from our evolved need to protect our offspring and ourselves meaning, while we always have freewill to make the “right” or “wrong” decision, we will always feel the urge to do deeds we perceive as right or moral not because of some god-driven need of morality, but because of the RNA in our system telling us it’s the right thing to do!

In the whole nurture versus nature debate, this too is not clear. Nature provides humans the typical mammalian instincts for maternalism, early learning, and such things as suckling behaviors and maybe even swimming -- but complex social contracts (involving concepts, such as justice, and equality) are so obviously learned behaviors. So much so, that they are not a typical innate feature of anthropological observation in tribes. A 2009 study by MIT of identical twins found that any genetic inheritance of altruistic traits accounted for about 20% of the variation. My (well founded) assumption then would be that the other 80% of unselfishness is learned behavior.

True altruism can only come from the realization that any deed you do that makes you feel “good” is a selfish act to begin with; you are actually the beneficiary of the act because you’re the one who feels good by doing the act.

This is not the definition of altruism. What you are describing is the opposite, which is psychological egoism.

If an act benefited others but made you feel “bad”, or you were disinterested, you would not commit to the act any longer because it would not be logical for you. A good analogy here would be giving a gift to a relative who never thanks you and perhaps even openly mocks you regarding your gifts; sure, you might continue giving a little longer in the hopes that things might turn around but once reality sunk in this relative was completely ungrateful, you would not continue to give them gifts thus proving your supposed act of kindness was nothing more than a selfish act of unfulfilled gluttony to begin with because unless your act made YOU feel good inside, you’d stop doing it. This analogy can be applied to all aspect of life.

No, it cannot be applied to hardly any aspects of life.

You've describe a series of interactions without fully describing all of the assumptions. Like; was the gift needed? was the gift a "thoughtful" gift? Is there other emotional baggage, a psychological condition, or some psychosis preventing the receiver from appreciating the givers intentions. And... There may be converse "feelings" that the "ungrateful" recipient is unable to fully express, such as a sense of obligation to reciprocate, or that they are not ready to "be that close yet". I understand it, because this is a relationship I had with my father. We share our birthday (1 day apart), so every time it came around I'd spend time to know what he would like, and spend time to go get him something special. He'd send me a check, which I'd thank him for politely and never deposit. I expected more than a transaction.

So, to perpetuate an act of true altruism requires one to commit to actions that benefit others without any care of the end result for themselves or of their recipients…

Here is some of your confusion, since that is not the definition of altruism. Altruism is an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others. If it is in any way intentionally self serving, then it is not altruism. There are many examples that defy any self interest, such as, tending to the wounds and life saving of fallen enemies on the battlefield. Say what? In Afghanistan, it floored me to see after the fire fight that our medics not only tended our wounded, but all the wounded. Even though, it may very well be likely that these same individuals may come back to fight again, or cause other mayhem in the future.

...and that never happens. And the reason that never happens is because of the three principles I mentioned in my first paragraph, thus the influence of RNA on every aspect of our being, and the reality that even with freewill, we cannot escape our desires to follow our instincts. This is the reason there is no true altruism in this world!

You keep reaffirming your position, which I understand to be your position, but are unable to rationally defend how *real* selfless acts occur. So, I can only point you at research that reveals higher mammals to be more than bags of pre-programmed RNA, and "reptilian" amygdala driven autonomic reflex. Reason coupled with emotion in higher mammals is more complicated, while it is true the proto-brain features remain. Most of us have learned how to not fight or flee, when commanded by our low brains.

I didn’t have to write that to make a point, and I’m not sure why I did in that context, but it was unwarranted so I’m truly sorry I offended you.

No drama. It's already forgotten.

Why do I come across as a religious bigot?

I guess because of the way you tossed that assumption gasoline into the discussion. Like many people, I've lived a complicated life that is different than other people, and so like you, I would not want to be prejudicially stereotyped.

... and the deeply-religious drumbeater will still explain how you are mistaken because “it is written…” I’ve shown the most cynical believer of their faith exactly how the bible came to be and how it was no more god influenced then a preschoolers krayola sketched notebook, but yet somehow even if they have the faintest sliver of “hope” in their brain they will surly find a way to block what was said and hear only what they want to hear.

I know that you know that this is not me. However, because of how I believe, I feel all people are worthy of respect. Their ideas may not be. And... to me, it makes little sense to shout at closed minds. The reality in our country is that we live with majority rule, not the most enlightened rule. The blessing and curse of our particular form of government is that everyone's ideas are heard.

... I know you believe that all “good” comes from him above as it is written in the bible. To not believe this is to refute the philosophy of the bible and the very existence of the trinity itself (since God is incapable of seeing sin). I believe this is the main reason you have such difficulty accepting my point of view on this subject, which is also why I wrote that religious statement you quoted. I feel in conversations like these, it is your strong religious beliefs that hold you back from seeing what other people are actually saying. This is of course just my opinion.

And, it is assumptive, and unfounded. I could just as well tell you that I follow the Buddhist eight fold path. You really don't know that I am like you were, or really what I believe in regards to faith, because we don't really talk about it much, and I'm not really willing to publish my treatise on my beliefs. Its usually not relevant to our logical discussions, unless we delve into systematic theology, epistemology, existentialism, or meta-physics. But, in a short paragraph I'll try to suggest where I "come from"; The simplest description of my "belief system" is that I seek truth supported by evidence, wherever it leads. From a societal perspective, I prefer functional systems, to broken utopias. I can accept that societal changes are driven by the ideas and mores of the majority, which move at a glacial pace. Forcing change leads to discord, and ultimately harm. Instead, I usually work on teaching change, and rely on tenacity to eventually communicate what I see as truth. But, I also know when to cut bait. I tend to err on the side of seeking social harmony, but I truly believe in social justice. That's probably because I was the middle child who played that role in family dynamics, but its a life skill I've put to good use, and profit.

And, so to once again allay your misconceptions... I offer for consideration; Altruism and Volunteerism: The perceptions of altruism in four disciplines and their impact on the study of volunteerism by Dr. Debbie Haski-Leventhal, Macquarie University - Macquarie School of Management. While not a purely RNA based biological endeavor, it more reasonably approaches the topic in a truly multidisciplinary manner.

Let me jump to her conclusion, which is reflective of my opinion which was not as completely described in my prior posts;

"The approach of socio-biology to altruism is based on the notion that in the struggle for existence, people (and animals) would do anything to assure self-survival and the survival of close ones (mainly genetically). As such, socio-biology has explained altruism through the concepts of kin-selection and group-selection. Since the two concepts cannot count for all altruistic behavior, the concept of reciprocity-selection was offered, which also cannot explain why people sometimes help complete strangers while risking their own lives, when reciprocity is uncertain.

Therefore, it is clear that none of the four disciplines here studied can offer an inclusive theory of altruism, since they base most of their research on the perception of rational, economical and utilitarian man. It is time to more broadly acknowledge the possibility of a moral and alter-centered humanity, and to see that not all altruism demonstratively serves the helper. First, altruism can be perceived as a continuum and not as a dichotomy. Second, an alter-centric approach recognizes the impact of values, conscience and altruistic perspective on altruistic attitudes and behavior."