Should we have concern about the welfare of strangers? Why?

Post Reply New Topic

I really don't believe much in Ayn Rand's notion of "enlightened self-interest."

I would think it would be especially bad for us (autistics) if people didn't care about the welfare of strangers, because the NTs would cope better with their friends and social alliances than we would without them (on average.) We are strangers to more people than they are.

It's a mythology, this Horatio Alger thing----but it's an inspiring mythology.

For the record, I don't think that we should start telling billionaires "You need to be more generous!" They know what they are and they don't care. They are filth. They treat us like cattle and they enjoy every second of it. They are beyond "saving".

Instead, we need grassroots action. Look for videos of Noam Chomsky on YouTube. Share them with as many people as possible. That's Phase One. Once we've done that, we shall take back the Democratic Party with the help of Bernie Sanders and the Justice Democrats.

It's time for the Democratic Party to live up to its name for once. We will never be truly democratic as long as the wealthy can buy extra political influence. They will do this as long as they can do this.

The wealthy no longer need to control us with whips because they have a propaganda machine instead. When you control the mass media, you can brainwash everyone, create confusion, and invent a fake conflict between organizations that have actually been in cahoots this entire time. That's why I only trust news outlets that are crowdfunded.

It's time to break through the propaganda machine and take the American government back. Once America is transformed, the other Western powers will fall like dominoes.

There are always going to be people who for whatever reason cannot function successfully in society. They cannot be elevated, they must be managed. I don't want to see these people starving on the street, it brings everybody down, so for the benefit of society, it is necessary to support them.

For the vast majority they've been programmed over millions of years to have empathy, a necessity of pack animals. A pack is a small power structure, usually less than 20 animals, if just one passes or leaves that's a large chunk of production eliminated for the pack. Pack animals tend to take care of each other because each member of the pack is valuable to the whole-- the pack can't lose too many pieces at once and still survive. This is why researchers have noted that when two small packs of wolves interact it usually doesn't lead to warfare but mutualism (they'll combine packs to boost the harvest as a whole as opposed to fight for the resources and possibly lose members or perhaps even the prey).

That said, we're no longer pack animals, society is a hive game and hive rules come into play. A hive produces more members than it actually needs, assuming it will lose a fair amount. Hive creatures generally don't have empathy, there's no need since individuals in the hive are easily replaceable and not that valuable to the whole on their own. A member in a hive is expendable, something a pack can't afford.

Humans are pack animals living in a hive. For the most part empathy will be taken advantage of by the hive, used as a free resource to manipulate labor, but it will never reciprocate since it doesn't need to. So should we have concern for the welfare of strangers? Every pack instinct in my body screams yes but my brain knows we're not in a pack, rather a hive and the hive views any compassion as a weakness to exploit, thus my brain says no.

Like naked mole rats?