Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the root of the solution lays in the ancient Eastern religions - the subduing of the ego. Until recently much of modern psychotherapy seemed to support this but I've seen a switch to a more "selfish" trend in that also.
Should people want to take care of their enemies more than themselves? Those who see you as selfish for wanting the most you can get out of life are usually your enemies, and won't be satisfied unless they are getting more out of life than you.
All biological organisms must be selfish to some degree. That tendency enhances the likelihood of survival and passing on one's genetic legacy: or, natural selection. Of course, many types of non-selfish behavior serve the same function, although often more indirectly. The key is to strike that perfect balance between the two. Thus, selfishness is not the problem. Excessive selfishness is the problem. But then, so is a complete lack of selfishness.
Where is that balance? That's a matter of opinion. Organisms, including humans, fall on a spectrum of behavior. Much of civilization entails rules meant to circumvent or overcome natural tendencies that worked well for the species when we lived in small bands scratching out an existence on a near-individual basis, but are problematic in modern states entailing complex interdependency and ideas of inviolate rights. A complicating factor is the ability of intelligent beings to game the system.
Neither Don't be selfish! nor Be unselfish! is a solution.
The balance is a work in progress, and probably always will be as much. That may be an unsatisfying answer, but that's life. Literally.
What could be labeled narcissism, sociopathic or Machiavelian is more of what I'm talking about when I'm talking about the extreme selfishness that seems so common. It is or should be considered pathological yet it so common. Mostly people are completely indifferent to the plight of everyone else, but often the selfishness is so strong it is at levels of malevolence and even sadism. That most people are completely indifferent toward others is bad enough, but it often is more extreme.
Should people want to take care of their enemies more than themselves? Those who see you as selfish for wanting the most you can get out of life are usually your enemies, and won't be satisfied unless they are getting more out of life than you.
Seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm saying that society is treating each other as enemies out of selfishness. Reel in the extreme selfishness and we all won't be enemies. I would argue "the most you can get out of life" would include living in a society where people are more decent and fair to each other, and not at best indifferent and often malevolent to each other. Extreme selfishness seems to be at a root of all kinds of dark and destructive actions.
Selfishness comes from a perceived need to be selfish to protect oneself and one's family. It rarely comes from truly evil, inhumane, malicious greed.
There is a new standard, and it is ever-evolving, ever-constricting:
- Dual income households
- Dual income households with no kids
- Dual income households with no kids, plus inheritance - Dual income households with no kids, plus inheritance, plus living contributions from generous family
This is where the A-players are at today. And we have so darn many of them, that they are the market force, not your seemingly middle-of-the-road household with half of these "advantages". But now, there are no more advantages. Only disadvantages. If you do not have ALL of the above, you are operating with a handicap.
Home prices, rents, food, cars, everything is priced this way. But it's not just affecting consumers.
Commercial rents and property cost as if the seller is assuming that the buyer will be a Starbucks, Panera, or Chipotle. Well guess what, if there's already one on your block, or your mall already has an Apple store, it probably won't be that, and you'll be dealing with a company w/ a smaller budget.
This is a disillusion, and a grand one. We vote, make decisions, and cast judgement as if we are already part of the 1% and our customers and acquaintances are, too. What is the probability of that being the case? The math has already been done for you.
I have wondered if selfishness is the root to most crime, disorders, abuse ect.
Stealing-taking something at someone else's expense.
Cheating-putting yourself above others.
Abuse- lack of concern for the other's experience.
That's what I'm proposing that selfishness is the root to not just greedy or unempathetic behavior but even criminal and malevolent and sadistic behavior.
I think most of all that's wrong or bad in society, is that so many people are so selfish. I think when you get to a level of so many selfish people, the ones that would normally not be so much get burned by the selfish so often that it kills off all unselfishness.
Selfishness comes from a perceived need to be selfish to protect oneself and one's family. It rarely comes from truly evil, inhumane, malicious greed.
There is a new standard, and it is ever-evolving, ever-constricting:
- Dual income households
- Dual income households with no kids
- Dual income households with no kids, plus inheritance - Dual income households with no kids, plus inheritance, plus living contributions from generous family
This is where the A-players are at today. And we have so darn many of them, that they are the market force, not your seemingly middle-of-the-road household with half of these "advantages". But now, there are no more advantages. Only disadvantages. If you do not have ALL of the above, you are operating with a handicap.
Home prices, rents, food, cars, everything is priced this way. But it's not just affecting consumers.
Commercial rents and property cost as if the seller is assuming that the buyer will be a Starbucks, Panera, or Chipotle. Well guess what, if there's already one on your block, or your mall already has an Apple store, it probably won't be that, and you'll be dealing with a company w/ a smaller budget.
This is a disillusion, and a grand one. We vote, make decisions, and cast judgement as if we are already part of the 1% and our customers and acquaintances are, too. What is the probability of that being the case? The math has already been done for you.
I agree. I'm not saying evil, inhumane and malicious greed begets selfishness. I'm saying extreme but common selfishness leads to evil, inhumanity and malicious greed.
As I touched on earlier in the thread, what you are calling the well-to-do A-players, are people who benefited from the cooperation and generosity of their family or ingroup, but also benefit from the selfishness from outgroups. Out of selfishness, everyone wants to attach themselves to a winner and will show favor to a winner hoping it will bring them a greater return. At the same time most everyone loathes those who are not winning and will neglect them and even work to keep them down as they resent the non-winner as being needy. There's more jealousy toward the non-winner and more admiration toward the winner based in selfishness. Kissing up to the winner might gain something, but being benevolent to a non-winner is no gain to the selfish person.
I agree. I'm not saying evil, inhumane and malicious greed begets selfishness. I'm saying extreme but common selfishness leads to evil, inhumanity and malicious greed.
As I touched on earlier in the thread, what you are calling the well-to-do A-players, are people who benefited from the cooperation and generosity of their family or ingroup, but also benefit from the selfishness from outgroups. Out of selfishness, everyone wants to attach themselves to a winner and will show favor to a winner hoping it will bring them a greater return. At the same time most everyone loathes those who are not winning and will neglect them and even work to keep them down as they resent the non-winner as being needy. There's more jealousy toward the non-winner and more admiration toward the winner based in selfishness. Kissing up to the winner might gain something, but being benevolent to a non-winner is no gain to the selfish person.
I think that as a non AAA player (I know, my term is changing as I go, don't think there's any formal word for this, so I'll let my imagination run wild) the way I "create" advantages for myself is picking lower-demand, lower-CoL areas for housing, while still being a commutable distance from a big city. This doesn't always have to be an hour each way. Sometimes it takes working an alternate shift, sometimes you can get by with the "nice neighborhood in the bad school district" discount if you are either childless or you home school / private school your kids anyway.
The best we can do, if not part of such group, is to reduce costs in times when we cannot immediately increase income. Income is a long game and is filled with delayed gratification / ROI and some very nasty pitfalls if your plan doesn't turn out as expected. Don't get left holding the bag if one of your plans doesn't turn out. Low overhead is the name of the game.
Right now our financial plan is 20% pre-tax into 401(k) + 6% employer match, along with 10% into cash savings UNTIL we reach 2 years of top-line income. ($300,000) after which, we will shift the 10% from cash into some other tax-advantaged account.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
