NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't say I've ever really thought about this, despite one of my modules for the last semester being partially about the British public. Anyway, in my exam today, I actually thought about it for the first time, and came up with the following sentence to end the essay:
True to form, in a decade when trade unions played a major part in the downfall of three governments, when inflation reached the highest levels in Britain in the twentieth century, when unemployment rose from quarter of a million to over two million, and when the global economy's 'Golden Age' came to a dramatic end, the British public were more concerned with the continuation of the comparatively luxurious lifestyle they had grown accustomed to during the 1960s.

Now, am I just being cynical here, or are people really like this? Is their only interest 'number 1'? Opinions? Counter-arguments? Random jabberings?

No doubt there!

Evolution alone is quite sufficient to ensure that a succesful human being is one who is tightly focussed on looking out for number one.

Mind you, I don't think it's nice.

No more than rape is nice.

It just happens to be a survival-mechanism.

Well, you can look at them that way. Its rather depressing though.

Anyhow, that's a pretty good conclusion.

You actually believe in what you write about in school? You can wright stuff you don't think. Its totally cool, don't feel guilty. They make you do the writing anyhow.

I don't think so. Morality and selflessness is, despite what some people think, a completely natural part of human instinct. It's due to evolution - people who are willing to sometimes work for the group and not themselves are more likely to be successful than individualists who insist on only looking out for themselves. Sure, SOME people are very selfish and born that way, but it's certainly not the case for many, and a lot depends on how you were brought up.

I know my principal concern is, and always will be, me. However, I would be somewhat reticent to exhibit myself as the average Britian, since I am considerably better than the average Britain.:)

It might actually be that society itself has become too large for us to actually comprehend in any real way.

There is anthropological evidence that suggests that we are hardwired at best to only be able to consider in any real sense about 150 people and anything beyond that becomes more or less an abstract, and idea rather than a society of actual people and individuals that can effect your life in any tangable way.

If this is true, and there is debate like most things, than attempts to govern or manage societies larger than 150 are doomed to a degree of failure inherently because of that disconnection. The larger the population under one umbrella the larger washes of people that are lost in the abstract, easily dismissed.

Why shouldn't people just look out for themselves, you're born being owed anything by world and you owe nothing to the world. Its pretty pointless system and nothing much really matters. Sure we've been brought up in a culture that (in words more than deeds) says it is good and moral to not be self serving and to look out for others, but you good deeper into that philosophy and it gets you no where. How many people should you help? What are the standards of living to be so that we know when they are no longer in nee? Can you justify any luxries for your self while there are those in the world who lack even the most basic necessities of life? And what of those who've died because of the unfair circumstances of life, once all the living enjoy life without lacking anything they need, do we put all our efforts into time travel research to help those in the past who got shafted by life?

Maybe if I believed in god or karma or some sort of meaning or reason why humanity or life is something special I could justify trying to do something. But I don't. I don't get it. Life is unfair, its always been unfair, just be greatful and count yourself lucky that you got born into the upside of unfair ladder.

Out of curiosity... why the need to justify things?

People are self-centered because it maximizes their own chance of survival and improvement relative to others, and provides a drive for them to maximize their own talents and abilities. Self-interest is the backbone of capitalism, after all.

However, it isn't the same thing as selfishness (which seems to be what you describe); selfishness is the irrational application of self-interest, with the result being that people will overlook things that could prove to be disasterous or at least damaging to their rational self-interest and that of others.

That's easy to follow, I guess. :p

Out of curiosity... why the need to justify things?

Humanism:)

Humanism:)


Oh dear...
*feels even more out of touch*

i firmly believe that society works best when we all advocate for our own best interests. why should someone else's interests be more important than mine to ME?

if "the British public were more concerned with the continuation of the comparatively luxurious lifestyle they had grown accustomed to during the 1960s" then cant they be motivated to do the things necessary to regain that position? at least they understand what they want what they dont understand is how to get there.

and were the '60s really more luxurious than today?

I can't say I've ever really thought about this, despite one of my modules for the last semester being partially about the British public. Anyway, in my exam today, I actually thought about it for the first time, and came up with the following sentence to end the essay:

Now, am I just being cynical here, or are people really like this? Is their only interest 'number 1'? Opinions? Counter-arguments? Random jabberings?
All things being equal, people will elect to retain the status quo, and the more comfortable they are with it, the more they will strive to retain it. The exceptions are notable though. Things like the subordination of economic self-interest during WWII springs to mind.

I think the bottom line is that most people make a decision as to which is better under the given circumstances: to fight to maintain the status quo, or to subordinate their personal comfort to a larger cause.

No doubt there!

Evolution alone is quite sufficient to ensure that a succesful human being is one who is tightly focussed on looking out for number one.

Mind you, I don't think it's nice.

No more than rape is nice.

It just happens to be a survival-mechanism.
I think we've evolved to help eachother out. The reason we're all about oneself now is because the corporation has taken advantage of the instict to preserve oneself and tried to make it override the altruistic mechanism because people consume more when they're only concerned about what they have as an individual

I think we've evolved to help eachother out. The reason we're all about oneself now is because the corporation has taken advantage of the instict to preserve oneself and tried to make it override the altruistic mechanism because people consume more when they're only concerned about what they have as an individual

We may cooperate. Typically at the expense of someone else.

People are self-centered because it maximizes their own chance of survival and improvement relative to others, and provides a drive for them to maximize their own talents and abilities. Self-interest is the backbone of capitalism, after all.

However, it isn't the same thing as selfishness (which seems to be what you describe); selfishness is the irrational application of self-interest, with the result being that people will overlook things that could prove to be disasterous or at least damaging to their rational self-interest and that of others.

That's easy to follow, I guess. :p

thats very subjective. people arent naturally self centered. although there is an artificial repression of natural sentiments of solidarity and sympathy these days within teh framework of capitalism (which is an ideology NOT an actual expression of inherent human nature).

What do you mean by self interest? Wouldnt it be in ones interest to help another person thereby making them a better person? So shouldnt we be more concerned with making a real concerted effort to resolve economic and political imbalances that exist between first world and developing nations so that million of people can be spared from suffering, instead of just passing it away in our comfortable homes among our possessions? People are becoming increasingly atomized and are subscribing to this process because its the culture which they are born into. Its not natural to be purely focused on ones self advancement in the context of oneself. Helping others is selfless but also selfish. And through that dichotomy it transcends these categories pertaining to the self.

Y3h 1 g0t w0rdy on J00! YUH!