In a message dated 12/11/99 9:01:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Cntryforce@aol.com writes:
> Subj: Re: MD Life Ain't Nothing but Money and Bitches
>
> So far no one here has presented a persuading argument as to why it is ok
to
> sit back and enjoy life while so many others are suffering and dying.
xcto:
Read some Ayn Rand and you will have a rather powerful argument. Not that I
agree with it, but it is very persuasive, logically consistent, and full of
value.
> This whole thing started with my outrage at volunteers asking for
donations
> to a high school baseball team. Not a single person, it seems, shares my
> outrage. A couple of people responded by saying essentially that baseball
> makes kids happy.
>
> Now I want to suggest that perhaps pursuit of happiness in this day and
age
> is immoral.
>
> Lots of things make kids happy. Maybe our kids shouldn't be happy in this
> day
> and age. Maybe if we started telling them how terrible the world is, our
> kids
> would sober up. It might make them better adults.
>
> If a child spends his entire childhood pursuing happiness, chances are
he'll
> continue to pursue happiness when he grows up. And there are too many
happy
> adults in the world.
>
> Not many people have the guts to say happiness is a bad thing. But is it
> really good to be happy in a world full of death and suffering? Just about
> everybody would have a violent knee-jerk reaction if somebody told them
they
> shouldn't be happy. But the truth is, we *shouldn't* be happy in today's
> world. At least, those who love humanity shouldn't be happy.
>
How can you have suffering without happiness? It's funny I have to say that
since most people talk about the converse of that statement. But it applies
Jon. I agree with your final sentiment, but this does not logically support
your argument. It's funny, but I don't think most parents really believe the
introduction of suffering is a necessary lesson that parent's have to teach -
they'll have enough of it themselves. But the child's reaction to suffering,
on the other hand, is a very important thing to teach (after teaching the
morality of Quality of course).
>
>There's lots of dying people in the world. Should we only care when it's a
> member of our family that is dying? Should we be oblivious to the pain of
> strangers?
>
xcto:
But it's also a survival technique of being human. People do become
non-functional when faced with suffering. We can't just cut that part out of
us either.
> I think humans will look back with revulsion on this period of history.
They
> will look back and say we put our happiness and our entertainment above
> helping others. All the people who currently say how great the world is,
how
> great the state of humanity is, will be remembered as being profoundly
wrong.
>
> And we in America, who had the potential to do the most good, did nothing
> but keep ourselves entertained. We made idols of movie stars and
billionaires.
> We wasted time trying to implement change by passing ridiculous laws.
Passing
> laws is not the way to change things. Change must come from within.
The downfall of the Libertarian, heh, heh (Just my shot at them, sorry, as a
social libber).
How does telling us the rules of how the world should be change the world?
It does come from within and your passion definitely stirs something in me to
make the world better. What is that? What is the power of motivational
speakers, of great books and other works of art to change our behavior? It's
dynamic Quality. But how does it affect the people who don't hear it? Of
course, it has no effect. But the same goes for those who don't experience
the suffering of other people. It's the stories that do it, a virtual
experience of suffering. To me, that's the MOQ angle.
>
> And our poor kids. Generation after generation we instill in them the
belief
> that their ability to make money is more important than anything else.
"You
> can start being a humanitarian after you've got a job making lots of
money;
> and even then, you better put your job first. Everybody has to fend for
> themselves in this world, son."
>
> Some may think the alternative I suggest it overwhelmingly bleak. But if
you
> think about it long enough, you will see that it is not bleak. It may
*feel*
> bleak at first, especially to the kids. No more spending money on movies
and
> baseball. No more ignoring the pain of others.
>
> Happiness would eventually return to the world. A more profound, more
moral
> happiness than we now experience. Today's happiness is built on a
foundation
> of death and suffering. We're all guilty.
>
> Maybe one day the average person will wake up and not think: "How am I
going
> to entertain myself today?" but think instead: "Who's suffering am I going
> to alleviate today? Who's life am I going to help save?"
>
> Would that be such a terrible world?
>
> Jon
I agree that the world would be better, but it's also a short-sighted view of
what's going on in the world. The change you hope for never comes from
telling other people a damn thing. It takes many decades to do anything like
that. Or perhaps a worldwide disaster. Or a fairytale...
Civil rights laws didn't change peoples attitudes, the spread of the
knowledge through new generations of people did. And it still hasn't
affected large populations of social groups throughout the United States.
But it will because they are true laws.
So my only point is really, you need to stick your change to a social
population that it can have an effect on. It may very well affect the
MOQ.ORG in a profound way. But that is a small group of people. The
diversity of the group could cause change in other groups, but only if the
members in turn have a desire to change others...
But if you try to affect a large social population, you must reach out to the
group that already accept your ideas as part of their Social program. Thus
you'd look to religious groups (and some political groups) as a resourse.
But then you'd be preaching to the choir.
It's funny, but in a lot of ways, this is my objection to unmodified
Libertarianism. You don't change people by making laws that are the most
logical and truthful representations of the most perfect government that
follows the U.S. Constitution. It's those series of baby steps that people
need to make the changes.
Out here in Southern California, the issue that made the most affect on
peoples' participation in government was phone number overlays. You know how
you have to dial more numbers when you dial long distance? Well, there was
this big uproar over the phone company's making people use more numbers when
dialing people locally. Four more numbers and people finally cause a fuss!
And with enough rich voters getting into it, the politicians got into it (i
guess i shouldn't use that adjective, 'rich'). Over dialing four damn
digits.
But then most don't care about the fighting in Russia...
What are we to do, Jon?
xcto
Dynamic Intellectual change is individual to individual primarily (well in
small group discussion too)...person to person, author to reader, lecturer to
listener (each one). Social power creates the ability to reach large
audiences. What do you think about that?
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:16 BST