Poll: Can one generation raise the next generation to be more peaceful and selfless?

[armyowalgreens]

Poll question: Poll: Can one generation raise the next generation to be more peaceful and selfless?

On the subject of selfishness and the human condition, I have been in philosophical debates lasting for hours upon hours.

It seems to be popular to hold the belief that humans are naturally selfish, and therefore it's okay to be greedy assholes (I think Ayn Rand helped make this popular). I personally think that humans have a base instinct for survival, but that does not necessarily mean that we are "selfish creatures". And it certainly does not mean that we cannot act selfless.

It has also been my argument that even though society seems to be horrifically selfish now, we can raise a next generation to be more selfless than the last. And if this process is done over and over again, the future of humanity will be in a much better position than we are today. But again, I've often been countered with the belief that there is nothing we can do to "change" the nature of humanity. They think any attempt, even if it were to work, is a drop of water in a vast ocean. I think that position is simply ridiculous. We are logical beings. We have the capacity to learn behavior. That argument seems to be no different than the argument that one person cannot help stop global warming because one person has such a small influence. It seems very apathetic and dark.

My parents have always taught me that, in tough times, no one will give a damn about you. So you might as well only give a damn about yourself. But that position is self-defeating. It sets up an inevitable conclusion.

If we have the capacity to be selfless, and we do, I hardly see it as impossible for us to teach a future generation to be more peaceful and selfless.

But what do you guys think?

[BlooInBloo]

1. Read the Geneaology Of Morals.

[armyowalgreens]

2. Reading Nietzsche makes my head hurt. But I'll have to try harder.

I've read a very small portion of it. But I can't get more than a few pages without stopping. The way he writes causes my brain to overheat.

[BlooInBloo]

5. Rood ruck. I doubt there's any better writing on precisely this topic in existence.

[armyowalgreens]

6. Well I will undoubtedly be reading him in my philosophy classes.

Hopefully I can receive help understanding his writing.

[omega minimo]

16. Read Alice Miller -- The Drama of the Gifted Child and others

interesting take on Nietzsche

[omega minimo]

15. Read

[napoleon_in_rags]

3. The problem is that we are sucking resources FROM future generations.

And we presume to "teach them to be less greedy"?

[ContinentalOp]

4. No, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try. Just think of the people you immediately effect...

rather than thinking in terms of "generations."

I say no, not because I think that mankind is inherently selfish or violent, but for a whole host of other reasons. You may be teaching your child one thing and across the world (or the street) somebody is teaching their children exactly the opposite. Or we may all teach our children to be peaceful and selfless and an entire generation decides to rebel just for the hell of it. Or somebody comes along with a seductive philosophy that becomes wildly popular and undermines everything you've worked toward.

Didn't Christianity presumably begin with the idea of teaching the next generation of be peaceful and selfless? Look how that worked out over the past centuries.

[Chemisse]

7. It would have to be a concerted effort

There could be no tv shows with opposing messages, no bullies allowed to run rampant in the school playground, no random uncle with stories of violence and hate.

And even if that all worked out, there would still be a limit to how selfless a society could be, thanks to our human nature.

It could be better, but it could never be idyllic.

[armyowalgreens]

12. I never said it would be idyllic.

[Chemisse]

26. I never said you said it would be idyllic

I was just making a point that it could improve only so much, in my opinion.

[BurtWorm]

8. The underlying assumption is you can get one generation of humans to agree

that it's desirable to "change the nature of humanity," or to agree on what kind of change is desirable. That is a false assumption.

[armyowalgreens]

11. Religion has been very successful at getting entire populations of people to agree.

[BurtWorm]

20. You mean like Sunnis and Shiites? And Catholics and Protestants?

And Baptists and Quakers?

[armyowalgreens]

21. Sunnis and Shiites believe in almost the same exact thing.

The conflict stems from a difference of opinion on past leadership. Which is childish and irrelevant.


But I'm not really speaking about the maturity of religious people. I'm speaking about the ability of the church to influence a massive amount of people.

[BurtWorm]

23. They called that period the Dark Ages.

The problem, I think, isn't the people so much as it is the powerful. Solve the problem of why power corrupts and maybe you'll get the kind of world you'd like to see.

[vadawg]

24. people are going to always be people, you are going to have the sheep and the wolves

there will always be people who will prey on other people unless you weed them out at birth or before, its human nature to be competitive and to be tribal and i dont think any sort of education etc can change that, might make an interesting reality show though..

[armyowalgreens]

25. Does power corrupt? Or do the corrupt seek power?

I can't remember who said it, but someone said that those who should lead don't want to.

[ControlledDemolition]

29. That made me think a little. Thank you!

People who strive for power shouldn't lead others. People who have power thrust upon them by the people, are probably a safer bet.

[Soylent Brice]

9. Other.

we'll phase ourselves out before we get a chance.

[Voice for Peace]

10. I sometimes think the human race is evolving into two subspecies, one of which is

losing the ability to respond to the innate conscience.

The very best teacher is inside each person already. Conscience is a true guide -- but few know how to trust their own selves. In fact we are intentionally taught -- even by those who love us -- to trust others more, and to seek answers from others.

Beware of dogma in all its forms! When we are programmed to be "selfless" the underlying message is (often): "I don't matter, my needs don't matter, I am nothing, serving others is my duty, sacrificing myself is good, caring for myself bad unless it helps somebody else."

Some people are obsessively "selfless" but it doesn't really help anybody. It burns them out, causes resentments, backfires long-term. If you believe you must be "selfless" -- you're inviting guilt and confusion into your life.

In my view, people ARE naturally selfish -- ie, oriented towards feeling happy & fulfilled. Many people get pleasure from helping others, and that's why they do it. If it made them feel horrible, many would stop.

The potential to be a loving human being is something every person is born with. But it is potential -- just as all of us have the potential to become awful destructive people. If people lose touch with the ability to feel, and to learn from what is within them, it's a good bet that "selfish" negative behaviors will seem normal -- and be modeled, passed on to offspring.

The reverse is true as well. I never taught my kids to be selfless. There is a guide within them. I have encouraged them always to pay attention to their own conscience. To notice how it feels when they hurt someone. To pay attention to the consequences of their choices. They have grown up to be generous loving wise people, without ever being told that's how they should be. It came naturally because of what is within them.

[armyowalgreens]

13. You misunderstand the word "selflish"...

It does not mean someone who is interested in their wellbeing. It means that someone indulges their own interests at the cost or without regard to others interests.

[Voice for Peace]

19. thanks.. but the concept of selflessness is widely interpreted, so indulge me.

I think my points are valid.
If an act is at the expense of another (without their glad consent) I agree it's selfish.

[ControlledDemolition]

30. Extremely wise words. n/t

[omega minimo]

14. .

[omega minimo]

17. Yes. The way is to provide them with a connection to Nature.

[vadawg]

18. nope never happen due to the nature of our species

we are hard wired for certain stuff like protecting our selves and families first and your not going to change that without some major tampering.

[redqueen]

22. I think so. Did you see this?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327151.500-winning-the-ultimate-battle-how-humans-could-end-war.html?page=1

[ismnotwasm]

27. Yes

In my view, people are both better and worse than they think. Some tend to be "naturally" altruistic, others apparently predisposed to self absorption. Perhaps both have a genetic component as well as being adaptive behaviors. Whatever. What matters most is having a society with progressive, healthy behavior. Is war progressive? Fuck no. Is greed healthy? (Using your example of Rand, I'm talking about the kind of Ann Rand I-gots-mine-so-fuck-you-and-by-the-way-having-it-means-I-deserve-it greed, not the desire for "stuff")

Again, Fuck no.


I disagree with your parents. In tough times, there are people willing to help, whatever the personal motivation, a selfish ego booster or the not as rare as you'd think true altruistic soul who simply loves to do a good turn, it doesn't matter, they're there, and they always have been.

Kids mirror adult behavior, when people say an adult is 'acting like a child' I often think; No, they're acting like a sad sorry adult. (All armchair psychology aside) I'll take a bratty kid any day.

Anyway, they capacity for selfless contribution is there, has always been there. The actuality is there, and has always been there. We just don't see it advertised much. Too many people want to be seen as some sort of hard ass with middle class street cred, I guess.

As a young girl, I was on the 'real' street. Even there, maybe especially there, despite all the horror I ever saw or experienced, examples of loving concern existed. Of everything I took away, every scar both physical and emotional, those loving examples were what stuck with me. (Now, I obviously had the capacity still for them to affect me, many of my young peers didn't) Perhaps they ultimately saved my life, who knows?

[Johonny]

28. I think GenX and baby boomers clearly shows you can

The baby boomers of the civil rights era clearly raise kids to be less racially minded than they were raise. The difference in race relations from the parents of baby boomers to baby boomers to now Gen X is frankly amazing to me.

[armyowalgreens]

31. That's an excellent point.

[proteus_lives]

32. Too many factors.

Utopias are a naive fantasy. Indeed we have become more intelligent and less violent but a hundred years from now? Who knows what wars will be fought, what economic systems will be used, what religions will rise and fall, the environmental changes, cultural shifts and probably a million more factors I forgot to mention. You can teach a society to be a "shining city on the hill" but put together the right ingredients and it's Mad Max time.

Look my generation, what if the cold war hadn't ended? What if Gore won? What if all the oil had run out by now? These factors go from the race level down to the individual level. "My parents have always taught me that, in tough times, no one will give a damn about you. So you might as well only give a damn about yourself." What if your parents taught you the opposite? What would your post be?

I'm rambling because it's 5am but the point is we can teach our kids but a million other factors will effect whither they are peaceful or selfless and what they become.