Why don't we like people?

This is not a troll/bot/chatGPT post. I am genuinely asking this question: why do we only think of members of our own families as of those, who deserve aid/good treatment in life? Why don't we like everyone equally? Why is there no solidarity across all human beings? And why doesn't anyone see the issue with this?

>This is not a troll/bot/post I don't believe you. >why do we only think of members of our own families as of those, who deserve aid/good treatment in life? Because those are the people who give me aid/good treatment consistently/ who I trust to have predictable behavior in that sense. >Why don't we like everyone equally? Because they aren't me and I cannot trust them to behave in a way I find acceptable and predictable. >Why is there no solidarity across all human beings? Lack of space, resources, etc. >And why doesn't anyone see the issue with this? What are you talking about?

>>68647 And why do you think only those who give you aid deserve good treatment from you and the rest should be only used by you to obtain your goals (sometimes at their expense)?

Caring more for your own kin is an evolutionary prerogative. As an antithesis, consider that nearly every animal participates in killing his neighbors children; They are future competitors for space/resources. This is an evolutionary prerogative, where even the smallest advantage in any abstract way has generational benefits. Personality traits evolve most rapidly.

>>68650 Because I want to stay alive and be happy. Expending my resources on those who do not contribute to that would make that goal harder.

>>68645 the more foreign someone is the less you have in common and the less you are able to understand them. People you don't understand are unpredictable and thus dangerous. In other words "diversity is our strength" is a lie. Having different cultures is good for survival as a species because if one culture takes the wrong part another may continue to thrive but people work better in homogen groups.

>>68653 Yes, but why doesn't popular culture and human morality doesn't see the issue with this? They all popularize and normalize caring for your "own family" and being cold to strangers, wearing masks to obtain goals, using other people. Why don't we all strive for greater good so as to make the world a better place for everyone? Why don't we share our resources more equally?

>>68658 I would assume they don't care about a "greater good" the same way I don't care about a "greater good".

Imagine if people didn't have to form protest communities, create laws and punish those who do not adhere to them to get decent pay for their job? Imagine if you could just ask your employer to give you better work conditions, better salary etc, because you are unsatisfied with your current and he understood you? Imagine if your employer actually cared about the situation you are in and took every aspct of your character and history into consideration (down to your mental health). We only care about ourselves and people close to us because everyone else does the same, if it wasn't so then the would would be better?

>>68660 1. Why don't they? 2. Why shouldn't they? 3. Why nobody talks about it, normalizes the opposite and doesn't see issue here? Imagine if the world was a place where the relationships with other people aren't based on what you can potentially take from them and limits of that dictated by the law, fear of punishment? Wouldn't then you get everything you need from other people and contribute willingly?

>why do we only think of members of our own families as of those, who deserve aid/good treatment in life? I think that most people think that everyone deserves some basic level of good treatment, but you can't trust everyone. Family are the people who you can trust (or distrust) the most because you know them the most. That's about it.

>>68661 >1. Why don't they? Because they have their own matters to worry about. >2. Why shouldn't they? The same answer as above. >3. Why nobody talks about it, normalizes the opposite and doesn't see issue here? People do I'm sure, it just can't go beyond philosophizing. >Imagine if the world was a place where the relationships with other people aren't based on what you can potentially take from them and limits of that dictated by the law, fear of punishment? Wouldn't then you get everything you need from other people and contribute willingly? Sure if we lived in a world of complete overabundance beyond imagination and everyone's desires, needs, and their every whims were immediately catered to, and had every single trait the exact same down to the molecule. However, even slight differences will cause jealousy, resentment, violence, etc since we are living beings who know that there is only so much to go around. You know all of this already though, so are you jut asking this stuff to help you imagine a better world?

What are you 0 days old? Even been around people, dealt with people, trusted people? Go outside, leave the reddit and go actually interact with people and work with people and make business with people and then dome back and update us on your princippe of universal solidarity.

>>68668 I know it comes across as naive/banal/weird or straight up stupid if we dismiss the possibility of trolling, but has anybody actually give a definitive genuine answer to this? Hypothetically speaking, if people all were to adhere to rules of universal solidarity how would this impact general wellfare? But no, people have to create it with laws and punishment instead, which is like removing your leg and replacing it with a stick for me.

>why do we only think of members of our own families as of those, who deserve aid/good treatment in life? Family? What's that? Nothing fills me with more joy than indiscriminately helping as many as possible. What else is there to spend time doing? The more people you help the more fun you can have together.

>>68684 how far does universal solidarity extend. If we include the germans, why not the dogs ? if we include the dogs, why not the pygmies, if the pygmies, why not the great apes, if the great apes why not the bantu ? eventually you start including slugs and scoripions and even the swiss! Many 'people' are dumb, quite possibly too dumb to cooperate intelligently. But even more than this, there arise many situations where defection may seriously benefit the defector. Once you all sign your pan racial treaty of harmonious solidarity, what happens when one single fellow realizes that by defecting he can probably get ahead ? Even fairly small cooperative groups frequently struggle with this sort of thing. Nevertheless, lets entertain the hypothetical. Honestly I'm not even sure what this would look like, what is the 'general wellfare', what does it look like ? Massive voluntary eugenics, demilitarization, huge sporting programmes, IDK. I think a big problem will be that many people are dumb, difficult to work with even if they're 'cooperative', general wellfare stands to benefit from their swift removal, maybe in this hypercooperative they just kill themselves for the greater good ? I imagine you'd still have a market as even with zero defection it will be difficult to ascertain what is needed at any time, but without deception things will be different. On the other hand, what happens when I realize that (for the greater good) my product must be widely consumed, but that perhaps others dont agree with me ? Perhaps I begin to lie for other's benefit ? Perhaps there's quite a few people who come to such conclusions deemed disagreeable to the greater community and begin to try to force them on, through trickery if practical, but perhaps it isn't always so, and therefore for the general wellfare they raise from among themselves armies and establish territories and try to force their ways. Perhaps some of the less intelligent have a difficult time conceiving of the general wellfare and have a quite egocentric worldview, they confuse the people at large with themselves and begin working to advance simply their own interests, perhaps some of them murder and steal without realizing their defection. Perhaps we already live in this world...

>>68690 Well, it sure does sound like a problem that is difficult to solve, however think of the ways of the past (like obtaining confessions through torture and "eye for eye, tooth for tooth principle" {for any given 'crime' [whatever people defined it as and thought it to be] same amount pain as on the victim should be inflicted upon the offender}) that people thought were natural part of our being and impossible to change. >animal rights and including beings based on their intelligence Its a whole another discussion that perhaps requires a separate thread, lets keep this out of the main question. Lets just imagine if we could tick a switch and make all human beings solidary to each other by nature. Say, your relationships with the employer aren't based on him trying to use you as much as possible while simultaneously trying to not get fined for treating you too badly and yours with him/her aren't based on you trying to get as much money from him/her as possible. You understand eachothers goals and try to cooperate in the most efficient way possible to satisfy both of eachothers needs (why do people always require a superior power over them to be able to not fall completely to just goals of oneself)? Lets, for now, just leave the question "how" out and concentrate our effort on modeling how it would look like. You strive to find the most perfect balance between the needs of you both. >most people are stupid and thus hard to cooperate with Well, I am sure there is a better solution to this issue than simply killing them. Perhaps Counterintuitive one.

>>68645 because many bad people exist, thus there is the desire not to be taken advantage of by them. and people don't want to admit that the bad people are in their own families.

>>68697 > Lets, for now, just leave the question "how" out and concentrate our effort on modeling how it would look like Did you read my post ? most of it is considering how it would look like, and contemplating the problems of people who think they know better than you. Arguably a lot of the i.e. vaccination mandate and corona madness in general was people attempting benevolent cooperation, its just that many rubes don't understand what is good for them and need it to be forced upon them. I think there's a fair few wars justified in similar fashion throughout at least recent history. I think the problem of defining what a 'human' is is also a fairly important one, but sure, its fair to gloss over.

>>68697 >think of the ways of the past; eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. There is not and never has been a good reason to think that these punishments are fundamentally human and natural. They needed to be written down to declare them and standardize them, and the fact of their writing is almost proof of their novelty. But given crime, its reasonable to impose punishments, and these punishments, perhaps, are reasonable. You might even argue that in a 100% cooperative 0% defection world you would still theoretically have these punishments (or harsher!) but simply no one ever merits them. >Suppose your relationships with the employer aren't based on him trying to use you as much as possible while simultaneously trying to not get fined for treating you too badly and yours with him/her aren't based on you trying to get as much money from him/her as possible. fuarrrk dude where do you work. Ive never had a relationship that was like this. >Suppose that you and everyone else: 1)understand eachothers goals ok, maybe this is easy, 2)try to cooperate in the most efficient way possible difficult to know the most efficient way possible, but ok we can *try* 3) satisfy both of eachothers needs you just changed from goals to needs. These aren't synonyms you know, very different words. I feel that you're presupposing compatible goals. Maybe everyone wants a happy life with as many children as possible and a pleasant estate with rolling hills and fertile feilds and challenges to conquer, ehh, but what happens when there's clearly not too much space for pleasant estates with rolling hills and fertile feilds ? What happens when your plentiful children find that there's four male heirs to the pleasant estate (and after their generation, yet more) and it can't just be subdivided without being a most unpleasant series of rowhouses instead? Competition arises, very naturally. And furthermore, what happens when your neighbor realizes that you personally would be better of if a road went through your estate to improve the nearby town. You might not like it, you might complain about the noise and the spoiled view and the travelers asking you for lodging, but his perhaps misguided impression of your goals/needs is different, and his efforts to cooperate only do you inconvenience, at best. >why do people always require a superior power over them to be able to not fall completely to just goals of oneself? the best people don't need this. remove all police and Im pretty sure most people won't flip a switch and become murdering theives. Its the murdering theives who require the superior power. >Well, I am sure there is a better solution to this issue than simply killing them. Perhaps Counterintuitive one. exactly; they could kill themselves. Suppose youve got a person who is a pure parasite. You might say well surely someone loves him, but what if there isn't or anyway you can quantify these things and his positive contribution for all it is is triffling, his demands on the other hand are significant. He's a cripple, cannot work, and though honest and cooperative he is by nature coarse and vulgar and all precisely no one likes him. He is ugly, and his health troubles require significant resources to manage, but nevertheless he can be kept alive for a very long time. Does it support the 'general wellfare' that he be kept alive, or would everyone be better off with him dead?

>>68645 The answer to that is simple: social darwinism. No philosopher ever said we should do things like that, but the goup of people who do take adventage over the groups of people don't. Go ahead, disperse your ressources all over the world while I invest heavily in my kids. Guess which one will get a better position in life? As a result, the future belong to the people who make a lot of sacrifice, life in needed for your close family, less for your distant family, less for the people you share close cultural and ethical ties with and none for the others.

>>68697 >Say, your relationships with the employer aren't based on him trying to use you as much as possible while simultaneously trying to not get fined for treating you too badly and yours with him/her aren't based on you trying to get as much money from him/her as possible. Let's continue with this thought experiment and pretend 99.9% of people act like this. The 0.1% will garner absolute power as their greed flourishes into incorporated masses of conglomerated, centralized control... Exactly what we already have in most first world countries. Not necessarily a bad thing - Ambition and greed are the exact same avarice. If it wasn't for crony bullshit the system would be exceptionally intuitive per development; What we ended up with are stagnant pools of nepotism. Lots of development, too. AI already has the power to completely dominate investment. After that, we'll make everyone buy into a new currency. It's gunna be great.

>>68703 >The 0.1% will garner absolute power as their greed flourishes what if alternatively the 99.9 percent realize itll be for everyone's benefit if that one in a thousand person meets an untimely end, and thereby eugenically purges society of non cooperants.

>>68645 >Why is there no solidarity across all human beings? Because creating it is a monumental task that we have thus far failed to complete. >And why doesn't anyone see the issue with this? They do, clearly. Many religions and ideological movements have this as a core idea in some way. People have pointed out some of the reasons we have failed. Lack of desire to cooperate. Limited capacity to cooperate. Difficulty agreeing on what kind of life we might strive to provide for each other. Finite resources. Game theory. Here's another one: increasing complexity of a system made of increasingly many minds all thinking different thoughts. It is difficult to imagine these being overcome and they have been with us for our whole history. We have achieved systems that hold together cooperation on a scale of billions, though these are pragmatic and do not fulfill ideals of empathy or universal love, and in some ways make life worse for everyone. Have we not thought of clever enough systems? Are humans incapable of a society founded on mutual caring? We are probably incapable of true empathy for billions, as we evolved to hold only small groups in our minds emotionally. Spiritual experiences of universal empathy are brief and abstract and largely inactionable. I think the ultimate solution will involve creating successors who are better than human, and accepting that our time is over. The alternative is probably worse than extinction.

>>68705 And if any group of people, small or big don't do it while the rest of the world does, they will end up controlling the world and deciding how to shift the culture. Religions seem like a good answer. Give a common thing to people and organize solidarity withing it.

>>68645 Very simple answer. Society has raised us that way. If it doesn't include yourself (unlikely), then at least the overwhelming majority of society was raised that way (including myself). It doesn't have to be direct education, it can be norms, imitation (after all if everyone doesn't care about others including yourself, why would you care about them), etc. That and the total division of the people in ideologies (intentional), politic beliefs, community labels, it serves as an excuse to not care about those different than you (and to be frank i'm not necessarily being judgemental, i'm like that also). And I think we also can thank what the Internet became after the smartphones, ranging from a previously nerd-y activity only a small percentage of the population used to hang in (where real interactions could be made), to the entirety of the population. Ultimately, although it connects everyone, ironically it also disconnects, decentizes, and divides them and erects a virtual wall. People just become a comment, a random username, an uninteresting shell of a person online that you'll forget in a matter of minutes after you stop looking at their online presence (i.e if you switch to another activity that doesn't have a trace of themselves). The Internet shapes real people to sum up. If the Internet is a place of degeneracy and retardedness, you can bet people IRL are the same since they frequent that place. I probably don't make a lot of sense but to be honest i could care less, i wonder why i don't just lurk sometimes.

>>68665 I think this kind of attitude of "since people aren't perfect, it is impossible to improve society" is exactly the kind of race to the bottom that civilization itself exists to avoid. The way things are right now aren't the best they could ever be.

>>68645 > why do we only think of members of our own families as of those, who deserve aid/good treatment in life? Because tribalism runs deep in our evolutionary psychology. We're wired to prioritize those we share genetic ties with for survival and propagation. > Why don't we like everyone equally? Why is there no solidarity across all human beings? Solidarity across all human beings? Idealistic crap. Our brains are wired for in-group favoritism, it's how societies have functioned for ages. > And why doesn't anyone see the issue with this? Oh, people see it, but they either accept it as a fundamental part of human nature or they're too busy dealing with their own soykaf to care about abstract notions of universal solidarity.

>>68645 Human wellbeing is mostly arbitrary. There is no "greater good." Humanity is ephemeral and not an end unto itself. All this is totally pointless. Its the pathologies of a hypermoralist who is too oversocialized to even be able to grasp why someone wouldn't care.

To be honest I was raised in a pretty racially homogenous place with liberal attitudes and grew up very strongly valuing every random human approximately equally as best I could. When I travelled I quickly discovered that foreigners were actually, to my surprise, rather foreign, and began to value family more. The implication in appeals to i.e. save the starving african is that he's just like you but in a tough spot. The reality is that he's not like you and never will be. >>68706 I very much don't think this is the case, it requires at minimum some level of craftyness and determination to succeed like this. You don't realize how dumb the dumbest people are, how lazy the lasziest people are. 99% of defections will just be people figuring out ways to do less work themselves. >>68708 I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle, the assumption that the natural position is universal solidarity and love and that these various things have been invented to avoid it. On the contrary I'm pretty sure things like nationalism were invented precisely to expand it, by giving people some solidarity with a huge number of people with whom they'll never meet. Absent any ideology, why *should* I care about some random people on Tasmania, an island which could disappear tomorrow and give my life basically zero change?

There is no we here. I don't like my family. I don't like anyone. I will drop people on a whim if they cross me in any way. I don't hold anyone dear and will just drop them arbitrarily, and I might even just cut them off because I'm sick of them, or just to spite the world. fuarrrk people.