Activism

[Libre]

As a society, we are continually confronted by - bombarded is the word - by stong advocates - as well as opponants - of contoversial social policies.

Whether it is abortion, gay marriage, smoking in bars, capital punishment, illegal immigration ... WHATEVER, these "activists" want to advance their agenda and persuade you of the total correctness of THEIR views and the complete FOULNESS and EVIL of the other side. From Ann Coulter on the (extreme) RIGHT, to Bill Maher on the (extreme) LEFT, and even the moderates (can't think of any, but there must be a few).

It has occurred to me that they are mostly ALL wrong. Every issue that is worth discussing has points on both sides. Any workable solution is at best a trade off, and the least of the evils.

It has also occurred to me that practically nobody that strongly advocates a policy, is offering a personal sacrifice. For example, those that are violently opposed to legitimizing illegal immigrants are, by and large, those that are safe in their homes and would not have to pack up and leave themselves. Those that are against gay marriage are mostly trying to prevent OTHERS from being recognized. Against a tax? That's because they would have to pay it and not get a direct benefit. FOR a tax? That's because they would benefit directly, and they want others to pay in also, who would not benefit. Against abortion? Certainly not an unwed woman with 3 children that she can't afford as it is. Anyone that is against abortion doesn't need one. Anyone against smoking in bars is a non smoker.

I know I'm generalizing, but I think that what I am saying is by-and-large true.

The bottom line is, while these activists might seem to have a social concience, it is really themselves who they are out for.

Like all the rest of us.

 

[veggiedog]

Everyone can't get what they want. The entire concept of majority rule (or the rule of the rich, whatever way you look at it) centers around one group winning and one group losing. In reality, there is very little compromise. There is no way that everyone can be satisfied. We have to settle for the most people satisfied. It is very sad to think that many more important humanitarian issues than abortion and same-sex marriage are ignored by the public (such as the Darfur crisis, women's rights in the Middle East, etc.) and that nobody cares because there is no way that America can benefit from helping these people. America has developed an 'either you're with us or you're against us" policy, which I absolutely abhor. I do not 'support our troops'. However, I do not want our troops to be blasted to pieces either, which is the automatic inference made my many people. The United Nations has virtually no power. It has become every nation for itself.

However, for some issues, there is no argument. How does one justify the raping of millions of women in Sudan? Or selling children as sex slaves in Uganda? Anyone who respects human rights (and for that matter, anyone who has a heart) cannot argue that these are serious issues that need to be addressed. But of course, if there is no Western-used oil in Sudan, why bother? If there is nothing to gain, what is the point?

Everyone is out to better themselves. It has been that way since the dawn of man, and I doubt it will ever change. Humans consider themselves to be above all other lifeforms, but when you look at some species of the animal world, and see how they help each other, it sometimes becomes hard to argue that point. Very few people can actually boast committing a completely selfless deed and once they have boasted, it is no longer selfless. "Don't judge a man (or woman) until you have walked two moons in his (or her) moccasins." As much as I hear that saying, I wish people would abide by it.

 

[Libre]

dog-
I agree with much of what you wrote.
But...
I'm not talking about condemning slaugher and rape and inhuman acts. It's easy enough to condemn that stuff - as you said anyone with a heart would - and there is little I can do about it personally, except maybe send money. I'm talking about the rules and programs that we pass or reject as a society. There often CAN be a compromise (smoking section, gay union, abortion in first or second trimester, documented workers, etc) but nobody is satisfied anyway.
I'm just fed up with the THEY approach.
THEY should build more prisons (but not here);
THEY should lower taxes (but not services);
THEY should find non-polluting energy sources (but I still want my air conditioners and car);
THEY should protect me from terrorists (but don't inconvenience me);
THEY shouldn't test chemicals on animals (but GOD FORBID they market a product that gives 1 out a million people a pimple on their butt and that person is me).
Everyone wants solutions, and nobody really has any.

Oh - also, I agree that people can be pretty horrible to each other, but I'm not aware of other animals really "helping" each other. Not in the way we do, anyway. People ARE the best species. And the worst.

 

[novella]

I disagree. While there are many activists (and politicians and business owners and investors) who stand to gain a direct benefit from the policies they advocate, there are also many, especially at the grassroots level, who don't. And the benefits that many others might have also extend to the population at large.

For instance, many of the most avid environmental activists will probably gain no direct benefit from their actions and advocacy. Sure, their water might be marginally safer in twenty years, but I do believe many are more concerned with the fate of the world beyond their lifetimes.

Aside from that, I don't equate self-interest with moral bankruptcy.

For instance, I don't personally want lower taxes. Sure, I would love someone to dump a bucket of dollars into my bank acount, but I think it's more important to protect old people and poor people and sick people from lives of destitution. If I happen to be one of them someday, maybe I'll benefit, but that's really not why I support government anti-poverty programs.

The powerful will always work to hold onto power. The powerless will always struggle to get some. Aside from that, there are myriad local issues that affect the quality of life for everyone. I can benefit from something, but also believe that it's right. Universal health care is a good example.

Anecdotally, I will say that I stopped being a land-use activist because I did not want to be a hypocrite and I found myself advocating for land-use patterns that I would not want to live in myself.

 

[Libre]

I don't equate self-interest with moral bankruptcy

I'm saying that most of these avid activists are self interested and narrow minded, not morally bankrupt.

Again, I'm generalizing, I admit it. Maybe that makes my point of view invalid at the get-go. There are some people that are truly altruistic, but they are very few in number and also just as big pain in the butts as the ones I'm complaining about.

Avid environmentalists illustrate my point very well. True, they may not directly benefit by pushing their ideas. But their ideas are worthless, by and large. Sure, I'd like a pristine world, with no pollution, plenty of polar bears and alligators (in the right places), clean air, clean water, an intact ecosystem, a thriving rainforest, all these are worth fighting for.
OK, having said that, the avid environmentalists demand all this with zero impact to their life style. They don't want to give up the trappings of civilzation, their cell phones, their creature comforts, their livelyhoods, or their 401K's. Sure, make MacDonalds stop cutting down the Amazon and stop raising cattle, so the trees can thrive, and screw everyone who's jobs depend on MacDonalds. And while we're at it, screw the poorer families that eat there because they can't afford a real restaurant.
Furthermore, most of these so called avid environmentalists are in the upper classes, if not outright celebrities, who have no more interest in making real personal sacrifices than anybody else.

 

[novella]

I'm saying that most of these avid activists are self interested and narrow minded, not morally bankrupt.

Again, I'm generalizing, I admit it. Maybe that makes my point of view invalid at the get-go. There are some people that are truly altruistic, but they are very few in number and also just as big pain in the butts as the ones I'm complaining about.

Avid environmentalists illustrate my point very well. True, they may not directly benefit by pushing their ideas. But their ideas are worthless, by and large. Sure, I'd like a pristine world, with no pollution, plenty of polar bears and alligators (in the right places), clean air, clean water, an intact ecosystem, a thriving rainforest, all these are worth fighting for.
OK, having said that, the avid environmentalists demand all this with zero impact to their life style. They don't want to give up the trappings of civilzation, their cell phones, their creature comforts, their livelyhoods, or their 401K's.

I don't agree with this at all. Let's take where I live, which I know quite well.

The Hudson River was literally on fire in the 1960s because of all the chemicals dumped into it. The fish and reptile population was extremely low and poison to eat because of sewage and PCBs being dumped directly into the river. Thanks to environmentalists (Clearwater, Scenic Hudson, and loads of ordinary individuals behind them), the river is now clean enough to swim in, has an edible, healthy fish population, and there are water treatment plants up and down the river to ensure that it doesn't happen again. Effluent is monitored constantly. I don't see how anyone could complain about that. What are you talking about?

Making huge generalizations about cell phones and McDonald's and 401Ks is nonsense.

 

[Shade]

Agreed, novella. Libre, I hardly know where to begin in explaining why the following is so wildly wrong-headed. But I will give it a go.

Avid environmentalists illustrate my point very well. True, they may not directly benefit by pushing their ideas. But their ideas are worthless, by and large.

What, the ideas that they would like to prevent further damage to the environment? Anyway, you then go on to say that their ideas "are worth fighting for" so you clearly don't believe these ideas are worthless at all.

OK, having said that, the avid environmentalists demand all this with zero impact to their life style. They don't want to give up the trappings of civilzation, their cell phones, their creature comforts, their livelyhoods, or their 401K's.

Libre, this is the worst sort of way to make your argument. Who are you talking about? Can we have names? When people read something like this, with no evidence to back it up and no examples of real people who are avid environmentalists and don't want to give up their cellphones (though I'm not sure cellphones are the most urgent threat to the ecosystem), they think, this guy has nothing to back up his argument. It's not even an argument, it's just hot air.

Sure, make MacDonalds stop cutting down the Amazon and stop raising cattle, so the trees can thrive, and screw everyone who's jobs depend on MacDonalds. And while we're at it, screw the poorer families that eat there because they can't afford a real restaurant.

Well I'm pretty sure that McDonalds doesn't cut down the Amazon (rainforests), nor does anyone else, because they're protected, largely due to the campaigning of these supposedly hypocritical 'avid environmentalists.' How would that affect jobs anyway if McDonalds had to source their cattle elsewhere? And people don't eat at McDonalds because it's cheap. It's cheaper to buy the raw ingredients and cook it yourself. People eat at McDonalds because it's convenient - or if you prefer it more avidly, because they're lazy.

Furthermore, most of these so called avid environmentalists are in the upper classes, if not outright celebrities, who have no more interest in making real personal sacrifices than anybody else.

Another entirely baseless suggestion! "Most" are upper class? You mean like that avid environmentalist Lord Archer of Weston-super-mare? Or the Prince of Wales? Frankly if a celebrity gets involved in an worthwhile issue, I welcome it, because it gives attention and publicity to that issue that would be much harder to achieve otherwise. And as far as activism generally goes, the lesson of history is that very little happens unless there is a pressure group there to push it along.

And what's the downside of gay marriage exactly?

 

[Libre]

novella-
Hudson River is a good example of your point - well taken. It's true there have been major improvements due to activism - the food industry is another.
Shade-
you want me to name names?
Al Gore, while compaigning on a platform of environmentalism, had a zinc mine on his own property. Or, that's what I heard. And read. I still wish he had won the election though.

So, both of you are telling me you are unfamiliar with the THEY SHOULD mentality. Strikes me as odd, because I run into it all the time. I don't want to give you the names of my friends and co-workers, though. Don't see why you'd want them.

I maintain that ANY social issue that's worth discussing has points on both sides of the coin.

 

[Shade]

I don't really have anything to add to this. My main point is simply saying 'avid environmentalists do XXX' is worthless unless you can be certain that literally all 'avid environmentalists' do it, and is only going to make people go against you if you can't back it up.

I know I'm generalizing

Yes.

but I think that what I am saying is by-and-large true.

No.

 

[Libre]

I don't really have anything to add to this. My main point is simply saying 'avid environmentalists do XXX' is worthless unless you can be certain that literally all 'avid environmentalists' do it, and is only going to make people go against you if you can't back it up.

Oh really. Do you mean literally all people? Can you name names? Or, are you generalizing.

 

[novella]

Libre, I appreciate your cynicism. I mean that. But it seems very deep and pervasive. I agree with you that some types of 'activists' are nothing more than middle-class agitators who are bored. The so-called anarchists who disrupt world trade meetings are a good example. They tarred legitimate union activists with their awful behavior in Seattle back when.

Similarly, I think nuts who run about freeing lab animals only to have them starve and get killed in the suburbs of England are misguided and have some very strange ideas and priorities.

But I prefer to look at each case and judge it on its merits. I stand with people who object to offensive polluting and random unplanned landscape degradation. I think every species on earth has enough value to warrant protection.

On the other hand, I don't need some hypocrite spoiled brat from Westchester telling me meat is murder or driving a car to work is wrong, and I don't need some muslin-wrapped harpy complaining about deer hunting. But let's be specific. Some people actually ARE generous and altruistic. Some people are genuinely upset by poverty and need in the face of so much waste and greed.

Philanthropy is uniquely strong and built into the culture in America, for all sorts of reasons. It may sometimes be self-serving, but it also does a lot of good.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

Very few people can actually boast committing a completely selfless deed and once they have boasted, it is no longer selfless. "Don't judge a man (or woman) until you have walked two moons in his (or her) moccasins." As much as I hear that saying, I wish people would abide by it.

What you're commenting on is an altruistic act, something which does not appear in its purest form in the human world nor in the animal world. Although I agree with what you were saying, I thought that I might point out the flaw in that example

 

[veggiedog]

What you're commenting on is an altruistic act, something which does not appear in its purest form in the human world nor in the animal world. Although I agree with what you were saying, I thought that I might point out the flaw in that example

I understand where you are coming from. I was just making a point that more often in the animal world than in the human world, the individuals are willing to make sacrifices for the sake of the group.

I'm a little afraid to get involved in this debate without getting political...

Acting in self-interest is naturally human. I am sure none of us would be willing to donate our livelihood even for what we view as a good cause. But it seems to me that some forms of activism has become a war of what is wrong about them rather than than how our plan can do these good things more efficiently and avoid these bad things better. Most of the loudest 'activists' who behave in the former way are those who seek to gain something (i.e. political office/campaign funds).

But 80 percent of donations in the United States come from the middle class or below. Many these people cannot expect to gain much if there are a few tons less of air pollution, or if same-sex marriage is legalized. Most people aren't even affected by these issues. How much of the population is homosexual? Maybe 2 percent? There are many people who are truly generous with their time and money. These aren't so much the 'activists' but just regular people, doing what they think is right without making a scene.

 

[ylris611203]

What you're commenting on is an altruistic act, something which does not appear in its purest form in the human world nor in the animal world. Although I agree with what you were saying, I thought that I might point out the flaw in that example

But then there may also be a flaw in the above example; if that person does not believe in the Golden Rule.

 

[novella]

I'm a little afraid to get involved in this debate without getting political...

There are many people who are truly generous with their time and money. These aren't so much the 'activists' but just regular people, doing what they think is right without making a scene.

Oh, have no fear, veggiedog. Libre, Shade, and I are always up for wideranging meaningful discussion!

Also, I agree with your statement here. And, further, I think that matching your passionate interests with worthy causes is healthy and fun. Is that self-interest? Yes, perhaps, but of a happier kind than greed and ambition.

 

[MonkeyCatcher]

But then there may also be a flaw in the above example; if that person does not believe in the Golden Rule.

I wasn't aware that I was using an example Please do enlighten me both on the "example" I was using and what exactly the Golden Rule is!

 

[novella]

Re the 'purest form' of altruism--I don't get why this concept matters. Philosophically, altruism is unique to man, whether it is pure or not.

I think Libre's original point made a completely negative assessment of all so-called activists. Whereas it's easy to find a motive in a person's actions (we all have them, even if it is merely to assuage some vestige of guilt from a childhood incident), we don't have to completely condemn voluntarism-activism-philanthropy just because motive exists.

The reality of neighbors helping neighbors is really tangible if you live in rural America. (Coming from NYC, it's something I notice all the time.) Without volunteer firefighters and EMS, meals on wheels, neighbors who plow old people's driveways for nothing, and pancake breakfasts for medicine for kids with cancer, a lot of people would suffer. Sure it's pathetic to live in a society where people have to depend on this sort of thing, but that's another story.

 

[StillILearn]

I just found this thread and would love to further discuss examples of altruism. I recently heard on the radio about a study regarding the natural tendencies of human infants towards altruism. My understanding is that the researchers were careful not to show encouragement or emotion of any kind while they dropped things or otherwise appeared to be in need of 'help'.

here we go

My suspicion (oh, I'll go on ahead and call it a belief) is that human nature is basically one of kindly curiousity unless or until it is somehow warped.

 

[Libre]

nov-
I wasn't talking about people helping people. Not at all. I was talking about several things but not that. I was talking about extremists and how they tend to dismiss the validity in the other side's position, and there always is some. One of my favorite sayings: "If you think someone's position has no merit, you don't understand what they are saying."
And I was talking about how even moderate people tend to support the programs that benefit them.
Altruism is a fantasy. There are selfish motives for everything. I don't mean to say that people are all morally bankrupt because of this - I just think it is what makes our clocks tick - what makes the world go round. Do you get a good feeling when you do something magnanimous? That is your reward.
I'm not condemning society for this - it's just how we are. But I am annoyed with those that want "THEM" to fix everything for them. We demand that our elected officials solve problems that defy solution. If they are honest to us, we crucify them. When we find them lying to us, we crucify them even higher. When they are campaigning, they promise solutions that they can't deliver, and we elect the candidate who fools us more than the other. If they actually gave us the real score, they would be tarred and feathered, so they whitewash the facts. Then we are dissappointed when they can't deliver the fantasy we subscibed to. Incumbants take the the credit for their predecessors successes (like economic trends that take years to manefest) and downplay their failures with meaningless platitudes ("spreading democracy is HARD WORK but it is worth it"..."I'm bring the fight to THEM so they don't bring it over HERE"..."I won't withdraw from EVIL"...etc).
Yes, I'm cynical.

 

[ylris611203]

So who would be the more generous, the Rock star who does a free concert which is broadcast all over the world and the money raised from the concert runs into millions, but then they benefits because their album sales rise, or the little old lady who gives a few pounds to charity?