On good versus evil
On the scale from good to evil, I think that most people feel that they are either good or mostly good.
As for the exceptions: I'm starting to think that most of them would say that thinking in terms of good and evil is for suckers. The real scale is power versus powerlessness or winners versus losers. And, like us, they think of themselves as winners or mostly winners.
I heard somewhere that elections shouldn't be covered like horse races, with up-to-the-minute updates on who's in the lead; reporters should be looking at the actual issues. I have to agree for so many reasons. Looking at who has the most supporters or the most money or the most market share is not looking at what matters.
I used to wonder how someone could be they guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. Now I think I know: it was someone who knew they deserved that last tree. All those people not cutting it were losers.
I hereby posit that the winner/loser spectrum is getting way too much attention.
Economics
We were taught in school that a market system isn't perfect, but it's better than an centrally controlled economic system in providing what people need. But it requires some modifications. One is competition--companies are always working to provide better and better things to consumers. But all the "winners" can stay winners longer if there's less competition. And so they are getting laws passed that make competition more difficult or even illegal. And they are buying up and merging with the competition. And now look at our internet speeds, for example.
You also need some ways to deal with the externalities, the tragedy of the commons. Ideally, you require everyone to meet certain minimum standards. That way you don't have people gaining profit by cutting those corners: wrecking the environment, treating their workers badly, etc. Again, the "winners" don't like these rules, even though they shouldn't put them at a disadvantage. Of course they break the rules (sneakily) whenever it helps their profit. But they also try to break or prevent these rules from happening.
Another important modification is safety nets for when businesses fail. Those nets are supposed to be for people, so we have unemployment compensation and bankruptcy laws (that eliminate debtors' prisons). The protections are not supposed to be for companies (hello, too-big-to-fail).
Politics
And when our politicians do a terrible job, or refuse to do their jobs at all, our protection is that we can fire them by voting them out of office. But we don't. Because for some reason people feel loyalty to a party, and focus on party differences, rather than looking at whether people are getting us into wars for profit, gerrymandering, harassing people who aren't like them, etc.
Rationalizations
Since we're pretending to be a democratic republic and a market economy, these "winners" have to make up reasons for their shenanigans that sound good. And if we're all busy working 60-hour work-weeks, we won't have time to look behind the claims.
I know you can be mostly good and mostly a winner at the same time. And I know that for some issues, there are conflicting ideas of what it means to be "good." But I wish we would look at that more. Look at what's good globally instead of what makes someone look better.
Me
And what about me? I think I'm basically good. I even have the gall to think I might be above average. I mean, I donate to charities and give blood and let people in front of me when I'm driving.
But I am mean to all kinds of beings. I kill insects, just because they are bothering me or squick me out. And I don't have the ability to perform photosynthesis, so I kill other living beings for energy. And not just plants, but also animals (which leads to the death of a lot more plants than a vegetarian diet would). And I tend to look at price when I buy things, which means I encourage companies to cut corners. The more I learn about the stories behind my way of life, the more I feel like those people on Elysium in the movie--not only is my existence at the expense of others, but I don't even have to do my own dirty work.
That is sickening. I want to be less evil and more polite. But I'm also spoiled and want everything I want. I want electricity and gas that ruins the planet. I want computers with ill-gotten components. I want to not spend all my days researching the backgrounds of things. I want to do fun things, not activist things. (The whole reason I quit grad school with just the masters is that I don't want to do the interesting and important sociology work that involves icky extrovert things like talking to strangers. Plus I am not generally a persuasive person; charisma is not what I'm good at.)
And so I am settling for making small changes to become better than my baseline, though still without making any real changes to my way of life (except taking an hour to go through my e-mails every day because of all the petitions). I try to buy used or recycled (or nothing) when I can and I donate or recycle my used stuff when possible to pillage less from the earth. I buy more things sans growth hormones, fair trade, free-range, rainforest certified, sustainably caught (seafood), etc., to be nicer to ecosystems and workers. I'm looking for new vegetarian recipes that I like, and look for ways to use less meat in my meaty recipes, to reduce the killing done on my behalf.
The first step to getting better with those kinds of strategies is knowing how you're accidentally being evil, which is depressing. But then you can also sometimes share your wealth. So I donate blood and funds. I sign petitions. I say "well, actually..." sometimes when I see people making hurtful generalizations.
You
What are some of your favorite strategies for being good?
As for the exceptions: I'm starting to think that most of them would say that thinking in terms of good and evil is for suckers. The real scale is power versus powerlessness or winners versus losers. And, like us, they think of themselves as winners or mostly winners.
I heard somewhere that elections shouldn't be covered like horse races, with up-to-the-minute updates on who's in the lead; reporters should be looking at the actual issues. I have to agree for so many reasons. Looking at who has the most supporters or the most money or the most market share is not looking at what matters.
I used to wonder how someone could be they guy who cut down the last tree on Easter Island. Now I think I know: it was someone who knew they deserved that last tree. All those people not cutting it were losers.
I hereby posit that the winner/loser spectrum is getting way too much attention.
Economics
We were taught in school that a market system isn't perfect, but it's better than an centrally controlled economic system in providing what people need. But it requires some modifications. One is competition--companies are always working to provide better and better things to consumers. But all the "winners" can stay winners longer if there's less competition. And so they are getting laws passed that make competition more difficult or even illegal. And they are buying up and merging with the competition. And now look at our internet speeds, for example.
You also need some ways to deal with the externalities, the tragedy of the commons. Ideally, you require everyone to meet certain minimum standards. That way you don't have people gaining profit by cutting those corners: wrecking the environment, treating their workers badly, etc. Again, the "winners" don't like these rules, even though they shouldn't put them at a disadvantage. Of course they break the rules (sneakily) whenever it helps their profit. But they also try to break or prevent these rules from happening.
Another important modification is safety nets for when businesses fail. Those nets are supposed to be for people, so we have unemployment compensation and bankruptcy laws (that eliminate debtors' prisons). The protections are not supposed to be for companies (hello, too-big-to-fail).
Politics
And when our politicians do a terrible job, or refuse to do their jobs at all, our protection is that we can fire them by voting them out of office. But we don't. Because for some reason people feel loyalty to a party, and focus on party differences, rather than looking at whether people are getting us into wars for profit, gerrymandering, harassing people who aren't like them, etc.
Rationalizations
Since we're pretending to be a democratic republic and a market economy, these "winners" have to make up reasons for their shenanigans that sound good. And if we're all busy working 60-hour work-weeks, we won't have time to look behind the claims.
I know you can be mostly good and mostly a winner at the same time. And I know that for some issues, there are conflicting ideas of what it means to be "good." But I wish we would look at that more. Look at what's good globally instead of what makes someone look better.
Me
And what about me? I think I'm basically good. I even have the gall to think I might be above average. I mean, I donate to charities and give blood and let people in front of me when I'm driving.
But I am mean to all kinds of beings. I kill insects, just because they are bothering me or squick me out. And I don't have the ability to perform photosynthesis, so I kill other living beings for energy. And not just plants, but also animals (which leads to the death of a lot more plants than a vegetarian diet would). And I tend to look at price when I buy things, which means I encourage companies to cut corners. The more I learn about the stories behind my way of life, the more I feel like those people on Elysium in the movie--not only is my existence at the expense of others, but I don't even have to do my own dirty work.
That is sickening. I want to be less evil and more polite. But I'm also spoiled and want everything I want. I want electricity and gas that ruins the planet. I want computers with ill-gotten components. I want to not spend all my days researching the backgrounds of things. I want to do fun things, not activist things. (The whole reason I quit grad school with just the masters is that I don't want to do the interesting and important sociology work that involves icky extrovert things like talking to strangers. Plus I am not generally a persuasive person; charisma is not what I'm good at.)
And so I am settling for making small changes to become better than my baseline, though still without making any real changes to my way of life (except taking an hour to go through my e-mails every day because of all the petitions). I try to buy used or recycled (or nothing) when I can and I donate or recycle my used stuff when possible to pillage less from the earth. I buy more things sans growth hormones, fair trade, free-range, rainforest certified, sustainably caught (seafood), etc., to be nicer to ecosystems and workers. I'm looking for new vegetarian recipes that I like, and look for ways to use less meat in my meaty recipes, to reduce the killing done on my behalf.
The first step to getting better with those kinds of strategies is knowing how you're accidentally being evil, which is depressing. But then you can also sometimes share your wealth. So I donate blood and funds. I sign petitions. I say "well, actually..." sometimes when I see people making hurtful generalizations.
You
What are some of your favorite strategies for being good?