Selfishness vs. Selflessness

Today during the topic of selfishness came up while discussing the concept of Ayn Rand's Optimism. The same topic reveals itself in other threads as well. Folks always want to know how much to prepare. How many bags of rice, beans, guns, etc. They want to know what to do if others need help. Should they invite all those who need in to their homes? Should we stockpile ammo to keep the hoards away from our personal food caches? In any event, whether Y2K brings down the system or not, this idea of selfishness vs. selflessness is bound reappear again no matter what crises may occur. We need to discuss this thread further.

The Lakota Indians of the Northern Plains had a tradition where they would give away all their earthly belongings, even their clothes. Then they would set off into the wilderness, fashion a spear, catch and gather their food, make their clothes and eventually return to the village. It was a lesson in selflessness: be selfless and you will be sustained. The same lesson is apparent in Christianity.

It may sound unreasonable, but IMO, those that will survive a TEOTWAWKI-type Y2K crises are those who are selfless in their actions. This lesson is primary with the Lakota, other tribes, Christians and other religions.

I believe that it boils down to whether there is a God or not. If there is a God, selfless acts would help to stabilize the entire system. Selfish acts tend to polarize the system. Extremely polar systems tend to collapse on themselves, i.e. a particle and its antiparticle polar opposite will annihilate each other, or in literary terms: Romeo and Juliet, the spawn of polarized families, annihilated each other.

On the other hand, if there is no God, then selfishness is the way to go. Protect only yourself and your immediate group and you will survive, because there is no system-based reward for selflessness. Its your choice and your belief system. In the end of the Y2K event if it is TEOTWAKI-type, we will see which method worked.

IMO, this forum will become polarized along those two fronts: selfish vs. selfless. Selflessness will prevail.

I guess you could also look it from the Karma point of view, or as I put it above system-based rewards. If a system is inherently interconnected and interdependent, then feedback loops abound like in natures water cycle. If a lake within an ecosystem selflessly gives up its water to the air through evaporation, it will eventually receive that water back in the form of rain and runoff. If give and you shall receive works in the water cycle, it will work in our social system too.

I vote complete and utter selflessness.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999

Answers

Are you prepared?

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), November 26, 1999.

martyrdom by any other name......

and the nerve of that Noah, keeping all that boat space for just his family.....

While you still can, see if you can pick up a copy of David Chilton's

"Productive Christians in a Age of Guilt Manipulators"

It should be required reading for any Christian who has prepared to the hilt and feels even slightly guilty about it.

-- JIT (justintime@rightnow.net), November 26, 1999.

Yes, I'm prepared.

The question I struggle with is...How much is enough? At this point, I don't believe a cap exists. But when and if a panic occurs, It will probably be best to stop stockpiling and allow others to obtain foods and other necessities.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999.

zelenka,

Thank you that puts your post in perspective.

I will help as much as possible but stop short of giving it all away.

As the Father, husband and all round provider to this family, I would be abdicating my responsibility befor God if I did not provide for my family.

Now I realize that God is the ultimate provider and I do rely on His providence and am looking forward to see how He will supply His grace in the troubles ahead.

That being said if hostiles attempt to harm my family I will defend, with lethal force if necessary. I pray that God's providence does not require me to cross that bridge.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), November 26, 1999.

I plan to stockpile for our household and others who need...

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), November 26, 1999.

Futher thoughts:

Okay...so, if selflessness is impossible during the event of a crisis, does the most practical solution become to "islandize", hibernate, hole-up, or sack-out in your "Ark" during a critical period? I'm still unsure.

I don't want to cross the bridge either?

We will see.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999.

zelenka,

Completely unlikely situation.

You are helping out 12 neighbors. You have all pulled together and are keeping warm in your house. It's been a touch and go winter with short rations for all, and all are thinner than last fall.

You are sharing the work and getting ready for the spring planting.

A group of 5 armed men have killed the people in the house at the other end of the road and then took what they could find and set the house on fire. They are coming your way.

Is it selfless to give them everything and probably die? Is it selfless to fight even if you probably won't win?

Just some more questions.

-- LM (latemarch@usa.net), November 26, 1999.

LM,

That's easy... they've already killed innocent people which makes them criminals. I would get together with some of the other sharpshooters in the neighborhood, put a plan together with some snipers on the rooftops, and kill the bastards.

zelenka,

I love your philosophy of life, wish everyone could see it that way. God bless you.

-- Hawk (flyin@high.again), November 26, 1999.

Cool zelenka, now give me all your stuff! You'll get your reward somewhere else. But to be true to your idiotic idea, you HAVE to give it all up, now, to me.

Selflessness, and FORCED selflessness has caused most of the problems we're having right now. I look forward to the time when all you people have heeded your own words, and are dead.

Jolly

-- Jollyprez (jolly@prez.com), November 26, 1999.

I do not consider it selfish to prepare storage for your children and see to it that they are fed, kept warm and safe from mobs who would take from you.

I consider it doing your God given duty to care for and protect your family.

If you are "single" and want to give away all you have then be my guest. Yield your life as it is only your life you are giving.

You do not have the right to take the livelyhood (stored goods) and lives of your children away to help another live. God gave your children to you to care for and protect until they are old enough to care for themselves, that is your first responsibility.

You would be self serving "trying to gain brownie points" and making your children be sacrifices for the sake of YOUR "good Karma brownie points". That is a selfish act if ever I heard one so I would not count on any good Karma brownie points if you do that.

I help people when I can but not at the sake of my chld-- ever. I know my priorities and my child comes first before anyone else. I, being a single mom have not been able to store enough for us if it lasts long term. I am not going to give away what little I have to another, certainly not and I, firmly, do not believe I am being selfish at all!

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), November 26, 1999.

The entire act of sacrificing all that you have for your children is a selfless act.

Y2K was not created because of selflessness, it was possibly created because of SELFISHNESS. People couldn't look far enough into the future to protect their children from the crisis that may unfold. The future is what we give our children. Supplying them with a Y2K problem was very selfish. We wanted benefits only in the "now," and didn't look into the future. We profited by using double digit dates. That's not looking out for our kids.

I'm not saying that I won't end up doing selfish things during a crisis. It's inevitable. I am saying that I believe that if the the world was comprised of selfless people, we probably won't have another Y2K-type problem. Furthermore, I'm not saying that selflessness means give all your money to the government and have them be selfless for us. Having someone do your work for you is selfish indeed.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999.

I would suggest that you read Ayn Rand first before you make comments. Her thrust was OBJECTIVISM not optimism. She would have no problem with DWGI's and DGI's dying and that includes women, children or anyone else who didn't get it. They died left and right in "Atlas Shrugged". I would also suggest reading "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal".

She was not a mellow New Age person.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), November 26, 1999.

The entire act of sacrificing all that you have for your children is a selfless act.

Y2K was not created because of selflessness, and was most likely created because of SELFISHNESS. People couldn't look far enough into the future to protect their children from the crisis that may unfold. The future is what we give our children. Supplying them with a Y2K problem was very selfish. We wanted benefits only in the "now," and didn't look into the future. We profited by using double digit dates. That's not looking out for our kids.

I'm not saying that I won't end up doing selfish things during a crisis. It's inevitable. I am saying that I believe that if the world was comprised of selfless people, solutions may come less painfully. Furthermore, I'm not saying that selflessness means give all your money to the government and have them be selfless for us. Having someone do your work for you is selfish indeed. Natural systems tend toward order and balance all by themselves without a governement control. I believe the same goes for cultures and societies also: read A SIMPLE WAY by M. Wheatley. This natural order is only possible if the groups, families and individuals show a certain degree of selflessness to each other.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999.

Ooops...Objectivism. My argument still holds to the point.

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 26, 1999.

Look, Ayn Rand's thrust was that all the bad things which occured in society were only because people refuesd to use their MINDS. They refused to look objectively at the facts.

Those who refused to use their minds reinforced those who "felt". Things got worse and worse precisely because of this. Therefore, I believe that in her view, DWGI's and DGI's deserve exactly what they get. Under no circumstances would she help them. Starvation or whatever would be an acceptable outcome.

Again in her view, in the case of y2k, some GI some don't. Don't GI, tough luck. Die.

Todd

-- Todd Detzel (detzel@jps.net), November 26, 1999.

Hawk,

Does she have a philosophy or has she read books, taken a few words and little understanding from the books and is trying to pass it off as a philosophy. sounds like she is smoking too much to make any sense.

Z,

You are forcing me to do this but if we can agree on a transfer place i'll help you accomplish being selfless and take your water, ammo and guns. Can always find a use for them.

-- Mr. Pinochle (pinochledd@aol.com), November 26, 1999.

I was a combat medic, and more than once I left cover and went out into that deadly space to help one of my boys. And there were many more like me in every army in every war, and in civilian life, the firemen who go into burning buildings, the cop on the street, the EMT's the SAR volunteers.

Yes, I'm prepared, and yes if its real bad I'll be out there with my A Bag, and if I die, so be it. But I have never, nor will I ever ignore a cry for help.

And what if the Lord thought like some of you and said I'm not going up on the cross for these DGI's. Where would we b

-- Ditch Doctor (combat@medic.proud), November 26, 1999.

Ditch Doctor,

My Lord Jesus went to the cross for everyone but to the don't get it's of his message he says they will go to hell. So all the don't get it's don't get saved do they?

obo

-- Obo (susanwater@excite.com), November 26, 1999.

zelenka,

"I vote complete and utter selflessness."

A nice idea; noble, and all that, but, in today's society, it won't work. At least not at first. Eventually, the survivors will come to realize, probably out of desperation, that they had better be a lot more selfless than they had been. By that time, a lot of people will be dead.

You want one way to tell that selflessness is starting to replace selfishness? When you don't have to ask for volunteers to bury or otherwise dispose of the dead. You'll get volunteers when the stink gets so bad that they realize that they better pitch in and help, or join the rotting corpses because of the pestilence.

The trick is to not be one of those corpses.

Doc,

Thanks Doc, for being there. We called you guys Corpsmen, but, no difference, really. The ops will be a bit different this time. The logistic support will have to be creative. Watch your back.

-- hunter (way@up.north), November 27, 1999.

Doc,

Your're probably right that there will be a shift to selflessness. The hope will be to ride out the selfish wave. For a TEOTWAWKI-type disaster, I wonder how long one will need to be in hiding?

Zelenka

-- zelenka (zelenka@altavista.net), November 27, 1999.

How long to stay in hiding if y2k goes TEOTWAWKI?

Depends on who and how many you're with. If you're with a bunch that don't know what to do, you might be better off going it alone until you can find one that does.

Even one companion with survival smarts can make the difference between life and death.

-- hunter (way@up.north), November 27, 1999.