Is it everyman for himself? Why do anything?

[htirwin]

It's not foolish to factor in preventable man made disasters into your outlook, but to be concerning yourself with the destruction of civilization due to an asteroid is not healthy and accomplishes nothing; unless you are working on technology to prevent it or something.

But the other things you mentioned are not an apocalypse, and certainly not something you should obsess yourself with.

In just 50 years humans tore a hole in the ozone layer bad enough to melt the polar ice caps more than they have ever been in 1000s of years and let more radiation into the earth:

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html

That link doesn't feature the word polar, ice, or caps in it anywhere. And the only solid information I have found indicates that the hole in the Ozone layer over the Antarctic is actually reducing the melting.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/08-05-2008/105128-ozone_hole-0/

http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-12/study-finds-ozone-hole-repair-contributes-global-warming-sea-level-rise?dom=PSC&loc=recent&lnk=4&con=study-finds-ozone-hole-repair-contributes-to-global-warming-sea-ice-melt

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_melting_of_the_polar_ice_caps_cause#slide=1

This just goes to show that you are looking excessively, and with too much gullibility for things to worry about. It is likely that you are subconsciously looking for these types of things as a way of coping with your own real life frustrations. It probably only fuels them though.

If you want something to worry about, let it be how you are going to provide for yourself in the meantime while the Earth is still viable and you are not yet a slave, or dead. And since your not dead or a slave and the Earth is viable, you might as well take advantage and concern yourself with living, and look forward.

[DeXecipher]

Is there a way to be as charitable if you are making $7.25/hr vs $20.00/hr? I think there is a difference between greed and ambition. If the average American had a choice they would better their situation. If you are in a position to better yourself, why not? But if it is at the expense of others, that's the problem with society. There are extreme couponers who exploit the system much like a hacker exploits security holes in software. Is there a real difference, yes, if one is legal and one is not. An extreme couponer may amass 16k in profits (goods) in a few months, donate it to "charity", but never go to jail. Did they steal or did they find a hole in the system? This is the dilemma, there will always be inequality, but there can be a choice to get out of the inequality.

[htirwin]

No. The only real sure way to make a big difference is to make a lot of money and give back, or exert your influence. So if you really care about the well being of Earth, you will make as much money as possible so that you have the means to make a difference.

[htirwin]

Look at it like this.

The setting is per-industrialization. The people are gathering food and resources to trade because those are what people need; those are things that are valuable to them.

Meanwhile, you tell someone that you are thinking about heading out to the ocean on a canoe to fish. Someone says, that is good, lots of people need fish, and you are likely to get a lot of fish. People will want to buy them and you will do well trading.

Then someone else decides, well, I don't fish for trade, I fish for enjoyment, so I will only catch enough fish for myself to eat, or I will just catch and release. Then I will go and spend my days painting rocks.

And maybe he will be happier sport fishing and rock painting.

So why should the sport fishing rock painter be looked upon as of higher morality or nobility than the trading fisherman?

[DeXecipher]

No. The only real sure way to make a big difference is to make a lot of money and give back, or exert your influence. So if you really care about the well being of Earth, you will make as much money as possible so that you have the means to make a difference.

Thats my point. I want to do that.

Look at it like this.

The setting is per-industrialization. The people are gathering food and resources to trade because those are what people need; those are things that are valuable to them.

Meanwhile, you tell someone that you are thinking about heading out to the ocean on a canoe to fish. Someone says, that is good, lots of people need fish, and you are likely to get a lot of fish. People will want to buy them and you will do well trading.

Then someone else decides, well, I don't fish for trade, I fish for enjoyment, so I will only catch enough fish for myself to eat, or I will just catch and release. Then I will go and spend my days painting rocks.

And maybe he will be happier sport fishing and rock painting.

So why should the sport fishing rock painter be looked upon as of higher morality or nobility than the trading fisherman?

While I get what you are saying, there is no reason why the tradesman can't enjoy fishing and still produce enough fish to meet the demand. If he could meet more demand, the better, but it will still take more than one fisherman to meet the demand of a world. Corporations may or may not see it that way, "I'm creating jobs...etc". But they can also drive out mom and pop businesses, and become too big that they can afford to raise the price of their fish arbitrarily high. Or so in demand as a profession that they can hire and fire at will, and pay their workers in 1 fish per week (people get), instead of 1 fish per day (people need).

So I say I'd rather the fisherman who enjoys his profession without the money involved be the most successful, because they should be happy AND sustained in living regardless.

EDIT:
And if the tradesman just wants to feed himself. Whats the problem with it if he his not greedy and leaves plenty of fish for each person? Its just the point where he keeps all the fish to himself where others are affected becomes the moral issue imo.

If everyone was a sport fishing rock painter, and the supply of fish was enough for all future sporting fishing rock painters, then not only would everyone be able to eat, but they would all be happy and live fulfilling lives (enjoying creation; the earth).

Maybe I am a little too idealistic, but idealistic does not equal impossible.

[DeXecipher]

These people clearly don't work for noble causes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeNZAzRxIXk

[htirwin]

You have a point, but you shouldn't let it affect you too much. What can you do? The best is probably just to take care of yourself and try and be successful. One more well intentioned person to help balance it out.

The worlds is far from perfect, but it's what we have to work with. Just make the best of it and hope that man kind gets their stuff together sooner than later.

[Disch]

BHX wrote:

Those who never want kids don't realize the joy they can bring to your life because they always focus on the negative things they see in family members around them.

The reason I focus on the negative things is because it's a tradeoff. Yes there may be some benefits, but do they outweigh the costs?

I could rattle off a list of downsides and/or reasons why having a kid would change my life (not necessarily for the better). I'll refrain from doing that because I don't want to be too depressing.

I haven't heard how having a kid could improve my life, other than vague cliches about love and family.

Could the same joy be found elsewhere without all the sacrifices? I certainly have no shortage of joy in my life now.


But I'm glad not everyone thinks like me. I'm glad some people are committed to having kids. If everyone was like me, the species would be extinct in 50 years.

[Mats]

Those who never want kids don't realize the joy they can bring to your life because they always focus on the negative things they see in family members around them.

People who don't learn to play piano well don't understand the joy it can bring to their lives, but they always focus on the negative things, like taking time from their lives to practice or the hassle and/or cost of acquiring a piano or keyboard to practice on. People eh? Always focusing on the negatives.

But I'm glad not everyone thinks like me. I'm glad some people are committed to having kids. If everyone was like me, the species would be extinct in 50 years.

Is that really such a bad thing?

[Disch]

Is that really such a bad thing?

Yes. =P

I'm not that big of a nihilist.