[Jack]

I follow your logic as you have presented it in this thread. I just don't see how you are acting in accordance with that logic by essentially helping other people (strangers, no less!) to survive.

There are three reasons.
1) It's in my best interest - i.e., maximum comfort and prosperity - to encourage 1st world nations, especially the U.S., to place their interests ahead of so-called humanitarian concerns. Since most users of this site live in first-world nations, it is to my benefit to help them realize the problem, and harden their resolve to survive. Strengthening this site works to that end.

2) Moderators generally need to view many posts. More information is good.

3) Moderators get to know posters. Individual networking may be quite useful in the days ahead.

Let me assure you that I have not tainted myself with foul altruism. Perish the thought!

[Jack]

In other words, you spent your day like a typical self-centered, materialistic yup. Big deal.

And you spent your day contemplating how I spent my day.

[emailking]

I spent my day watching three movies, working out, satisfying myself, peeking into peakoil.com on and off, watching the news, and taking a call about my child in Mali. I read some math too. I also have wondered what the hell Jack is doing on this site. Like how was it in his best interest to answer my question here: http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic20706.html

Under his worldview, it seems like a waste of time at best; and at worst it encourages me and others to buy silver and gold, thus increasing Jack's price.

In any case, I found his 3 excuses pretty lame. As far as number 1 goes, his time would be far better spent preparing himself than some tiny fraction of the entire nation. For number 2, anyone here can read all the posts they want. And networking?? Just how many people can Jackie meet here within a few miles? After all, that is going to be our general range once it all goes south, correct?

I think more likely he felt a general need to post, as any of us have, and at some point someone made him a moderator...and he saw no reason to turn down the additional power. That's my guess anyway.

Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.

[Concerned]

Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.

I agree.

The point has to be clearly made between immediate emergency assistance (floods, earthquake, Tsunami, droughts) and long term assistance aimed at sustainable living, housing and agriculture.

There are many historical examples of food being available and superior force keeping starving people away from sustinence.

The Irish Potato famine, The Ukraine famine engineered by Stalin, In India under British rule where food was exported during years of famine (hundreds of thousands of dead).

These are cases where the majority was clearly suffering and unable to revolt due to superior firepower and organisation of their opressor.

[skeptic]

These people need help. We can argue about how they got into this situation and whose fault it is, but they are there now and cannot be allowed to just suffer.

Why not?

And there speaks the psychopath living under the delusion that he exists outside of society. Remind me not to pull you out of the car wreck, or the flash flood when you're being washed away, Jack.

The answer to your question is empathy. It's a normal human reponse which is part of what binds us together enabling us to live in societies, which provide win-win benefits for all. I don't think non-social animals, such as cheetahs , will ever be able to produce high-technologies. To a lesser or greater extent empathy is seen in all social higher primates, especiallly the great apes.

A small portion of the human population does not possess this response (or posseses only a heavily 'flattened' version), and they are variously labelled psychopath, sociopath, or ASPD. Essentially they are predators pretending to be human (social primates) in order to survive in a social context. False flag operators who take but never give in return - cheaters on the social contract.

[sch_peakoiler]

I wonder if Heineken would comment on this. He let his real thoghts slip with that post about "brothers and sisters"


http://www.peakoil.com/gate.html?name=F ... e&p=315483

[Heineken]

Let's say there is no protective services within 200 miles, and the child is clearly dying of dehydration and needs the milk (or, if you're feeling especially stingy, just water) now or will die. Would you give it to him? Your earlier responses would indicate a resounding, inflexible "no." Or is there a shred of humanity in you after all?

No, I would not give him/her/it anything. Not milk. Not water. Not a 25 year old MRE in a distended pouch. Not even my attention. Is that clear enough?

The call to protective services would take the mess off my hands. Of course, if I were distracted, and simply didn't notice anything...

Or is there a shred of humanity in you after all?

Nah. I resigned from that outfit long ago.

In the scenario as presented, I suspect the law would require you to feed the infant rather than willfully and knowingly letting it die. That's why we have laws---to force the Jacks of the world to do the right thing whether they like it or not. Of course, the Jacks of the world often do the wrong thing anyway. That's why we have jails---and mental hospitals.

[Heineken]

And networking?? Just how many people can Jackie meet here within a few miles? After all, that is going to be our general range once it all goes south, correct?

Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.

Anyone who knew how pathologically selfish Jack is would not want to "network" with him, much less be his friend. In a pinch, he's not going to be there for you, he's going to be hiding in his cellar with his stacks of MREs.

I'm not "worked up," but as someone who has read widely in psychology and who minored in it in college, I admit I'm intrigued by Jack's abnormal views and mind. I've returned again and again to the scenario in which he says he would let the infant starve in his driveway because the extremity of this example clearly illustrates the depths of his derangement. I would guess that fewer than 1 person in 10,000 would willfully choose to let the infant starve.

I agree that there is no chance of "convincing" Jack---as I wrote earlier, you can't reason with mental illness. My goals have simply been to study Jack and to corner him so that the beast exposes its true fangs, and I've achieved both goals to my satisfaction.

I give Jack points for honesty regarding his tragically stunted heart, and he has my sympathy.

[skeptic]

I would guess that fewer than 1 person in 10,000 would willfully choose to let the infant starve.

Sadly, accordining to Canadian Dr. Robert Hare, the recognised world authority on the subject of psychopathy, its much more common than people think. More like 1 in a 100.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... /20060317/

[eric_b]

And networking?? Just how many people can Jackie meet here within a few miles? After all, that is going to be our general range once it all goes south, correct?

Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.

Anyone who knew how pathologically selfish Jack is would not want to "network" with him, much less be his friend. In a pinch, he's not going to be there for you, he's going to be hiding in his cellar with his stacks of MREs.

I'm not "worked up," but as someone who has read widely in psychology and who minored in it in college, I admit I'm intrigued by Jack's abnormal views and mind. I've returned again and again to the scenario in which he says he would let the infant starve in his driveway because the extremity of this example clearly illustrates the depths of his derangement. I would guess that fewer than 1 person in 10,000 would willfully choose to let the infant starve.

I agree that there is no chance of "convincing" Jack---as I wrote earlier, you can't reason with mental illness. My goals have simply been to study Jack and to corner him so that the beast exposes its true fangs, and I've achieved both goals to my satisfaction.

I give Jack points for honesty regarding his tragically stunted heart, and he has my sympathy.

Another interesting topic. Kind of a mess, but interesting.

Guess I'd have to side with OP (kevin) and Jack on this one.

Heineken, you certainly sound a little worked up reading some
of your posts here.

Jack is not 'abnormal' - his self-interest is quite normal.
He just has the guts to openly admit it. Fact is many people
have been brainwashed their entire life by these religious and
philosophical arguments regarding love, kindness and the human
condition. It's largely rubbish and it's largely responsible for
getting humanity into the mess it's currently in.

I also agree with the sentiment someone in this thread expressed
about people getting too emotional on this issue. It's kind of like
the population thread Monte's been running. Sometimes some ugliness
and nastiness is necessary and good.

The way I see it humanity is now far into overshoot. We've entered
a new and uncharted land. At the very least we can't keep
encouraging people to have babies - whether directly or indirectly. Just
a hard fact of the times. To do so is going to cause more suffering
in the long term, and greater privations for those currently
living.

Topics like this demonstrate why the coming dieoff will be a matter
of default and not choice. It will be ugly.

Never mind the red herring question regarding the feeding of starving
uncared for human larvae.

[Heineken]

(This post is in response to sceptic's at the bottom of the preceding page.)

There are different types and degrees of psychopaths (aka sociopaths). The type that would let an infant die in the hypothetical scenario is surely one of the rarer types.

[Heineken]

And networking?? Just how many people can Jackie meet here within a few miles? After all, that is going to be our general range once it all goes south, correct?

Anyway, I guess my advice to Heineken is maybe not get so worked up about this, as it seems like you are? I mean I completely understand and you can of course do whatever you want, but I sort of gave up countering point by point. It's not worht getting all worked up about, and there's probably not much hope in convincing these types anyway. Especially Jack.

Anyone who knew how pathologically selfish Jack is would not want to "network" with him, much less be his friend. In a pinch, he's not going to be there for you, he's going to be hiding in his cellar with his stacks of MREs.

I'm not "worked up," but as someone who has read widely in psychology and who minored in it in college, I admit I'm intrigued by Jack's abnormal views and mind. I've returned again and again to the scenario in which he says he would let the infant starve in his driveway because the extremity of this example clearly illustrates the depths of his derangement. I would guess that fewer than 1 person in 10,000 would willfully choose to let the infant starve.

I agree that there is no chance of "convincing" Jack---as I wrote earlier, you can't reason with mental illness. My goals have simply been to study Jack and to corner him so that the beast exposes its true fangs, and I've achieved both goals to my satisfaction.

I give Jack points for honesty regarding his tragically stunted heart, and he has my sympathy.

Another interesting topic. Kind of a mess, but interesting.

Guess I'd have to side with OP (kevin) and Jack on this one.

Heineken, you certainly sound a little worked up reading some
of your posts here.

Jack is not 'abnormal' - his self-interest is quite normal.
He just has the guts to openly admit it. Fact is many people
have been brainwashed their entire life by these religious and
philosophical arguments regarding love, kindness and the human
condition. It's largely rubbish and it's largely responsible for
getting humanity into the mess it's currently in.

I also agree with the sentiment someone in this thread expressed
about people getting too emotional on this issue. It's kind of like
the population thread Monte's been running. Sometimes some ugliness
and nastiness is necessary and good.

The way I see it humanity is now far into overshoot. We've entered
a new and uncharted land. At the very least we can't keep
encouraging people to have babies - whether directly or indirectly. Just
a hard fact of the times. To do so is going to cause more suffering
in the long term, and greater privations for those currently
living.

Topics like this demonstrate why the coming dieoff will be a matter
of default and not choice. It will be ugly.

Never mind the red herring question regarding the feeding of starving
uncared for human larvae.

Either you haven't read the many, many background posts carefully enough to know what you're commenting on---an immediate, real-life scenario as opposed to some sort of vague theory---or you're as sick as Jack. There is no third possibility.

Do you really think it is in one's "normal self-interest" to let a baby starve in your driveway when you have a refrigerator full of milk and are hundreds of miles away from the nearest node of social services? That's the scenario, bold and blunt. There is a difference between normal self-interest and abnormal self-interest. Jack doesn't know what that difference is, and possibly you don't either.

[Lighthouse]

...

Do you really think it is in one's "normal self-interest" to let a baby starve in your driveway when you have a refrigerator full of milk and are hundreds of miles away from the nearest node of social services?

...

Of course not.

But please don't be such a hypocrite. Instead discussing hypothetical moral questions lets go to a real life scenario:

Every day 16.000 Children die of malnutrition. Because most of them are not dying on your doorstep does not mean you do not have a humanitarian obligation.

Do you see the dilemma?

If Jack is an "arsehole" because he does not want to help one child, what makes this you not even trying to stop the death of 16.000 children every day, because you cant see them?

[Heineken]

There is nothing hypocritical about my position, because I would instantly save the infant. No other decision consistent with human decency is possible.

My "real-life" situation does not enable me to be in all places at all times. Like so many others, lighthouse, you're trying to blur this specific, concrete scenario into an abstraction. By your way of thinking, no individual would ever bother to take personal responsibility for solving a local problem just because that same problem is multiplied across the Earth.

In the scenario, you are not confronted by 16,000 starving infants, you are confronted by one starving infant on your doorstep, 200 miles from any outside help. Are you really joining with Jack in turning your back on the child and letting it die?

[Jack]

In the scenario, you are not confronted by 16,000 starving infants, you are confronted by one starving infant on your doorstep, 200 miles from any outside help. Are you really joining with Jack in turning your back on the child and letting it die?

Say, would I get extra beast points if I put up poll on how long it would take for the infant to die?

Jus' sayin'.

By the way, since you're so fond of starving children, I've included a picture for your amusement. You do realize - you, in your comfortable surroundings - that by doing nothing to relieve their plight, you are helping to consign them to death.



Breakfast was great, by the way. The place I go had complimentary fresh pastries today. Yum! I thought you might like to know that.

[sch_peakoiler]

There is nothing hypocritical about my position, because I would instantly save the infant. No other decision consistent with human decency is possible.

My "real-life" situation does not enable me to be in all places at all times. Like so many others, lighthouse, you're trying to blur this specific, concrete scenario into an abstraction. By your way of thinking, no individual would ever bother to take personal responsibility for solving a local problem just because that same problem is multiplied across the Earth.

In the scenario, you are not confronted by 16,000 starving infants, you are confronted by one starving infant on your doorstep, 200 miles from any outside help. Are you really joining with Jack in turning your back on the child and letting it die?

you cornered yourself Heineken, when you started to threaten with those "Brothers with baseball bats" coming. And still didnot comment on my post.

So you would help to be left alone, not to be beaten? I do think there is a third possibility. You try to feed all the starving, that is why if you see a starving person, you will help, because it makes your goal 1 person closer - so your way of action is consistent with your goal. Jack is sure we have to get rid of extra population. So his way of action - letting the person die, is consistent with his goals, it brings his goal closer. Which of both goals is more humane and moral - is an open question. Your goal lets immediate helpers look like angels ( cos they helped) but then will lead to criminality (you think this starving baby grows up to be a doctor or a programmer?), privation, large scale die off - and nobody would be responsible. Actually you will bear the responsibility but you will keep saying "I only wanted to help them". Jack's goal makes its immediate enforcers look like beasts but in long term will minimize the suffer.

People like Heineken can only understand what is in front of their eyes. Things like synergy and interworking of complicated social systems are a bit too challenging for them.

Heineken, whose goal is more humane?

[Jack]

In the scenario as presented, I suspect the law would require you to feed the infant rather than willfully and knowingly letting it die. That's why we have laws---to force the Jacks of the world to do the right thing whether they like it or not. Of course, the Jacks of the world often do the wrong thing anyway. That's why we have jails---and mental hospitals.

You'll notice that I mentioned not noticing anything. Alas, I was busy with other things...had the TV on...was in the back room....nope, nope, nope, didn't see or hear anything.

Such I tragedy the infant died. I would have done anything to save it, had I only known. No, really!

(Sniff) Oh, how (sniff) awful!



Want to see fangs? Gosh yes, I'll be more than glad to accomdate!

On a side note, I love the poor. Truly. Because it's cheaper to buy them. And, they're grateful. I got that line from a true patriot who taught me much. I taught him one or two things too.

[Heineken]

There is nothing hypocritical about my position, because I would instantly save the infant. No other decision consistent with human decency is possible.

My "real-life" situation does not enable me to be in all places at all times. Like so many others, lighthouse, you're trying to blur this specific, concrete scenario into an abstraction. By your way of thinking, no individual would ever bother to take personal responsibility for solving a local problem just because that same problem is multiplied across the Earth.

In the scenario, you are not confronted by 16,000 starving infants, you are confronted by one starving infant on your doorstep, 200 miles from any outside help. Are you really joining with Jack in turning your back on the child and letting it die?

you cornered yourself Heineken, when you started to threaten with those "Brothers with baseball bats" coming. And still didnot comment on my post.

So you would help to be left alone, not to be beaten? I do think there is a third possibility. You try to feed all the starving, that is why if you see a starving person, you will help, because it makes your goal 1 person closer - so your way of action is consistent with your goal. Jack is sure we have to get rid of extra population. So his way of action - letting the person die, is consistent with his goals, it brings his goal closer. Which of both goals is more humane and moral - is an open question. Your goal lets immediate helpers look like angels ( cos they helped) but then will lead to criminality (you think this starving baby grows up to be a doctor or a programmer?), privation, large scale die off - and nobody would be responsible. Actually you will bear the responsibility but you will keep saying "I only wanted to help them". Jack's goal makes its immediate enforcers look like beasts but in long term will minimize the suffer.

People like Heineken can only understand what is in front of their eyes. Things like synergy and interworking of complicated social systems are a bit too challenging for them.

Heineken, whose goal is more humane?

You miss the point---entirely. Beyond issues like empathy and the relief of suffering and pain (which profoundly matter to me, if not to certain emotionally sick others) is the fact that turning one's back on the world's woes may backfire on one. The problem only gets bigger and ultimately finds you in your hiding place. Thus the baseball bats etc. A policy of selfish isolation such as Jack espouses is not a rational response to a post-PO-type scenario. The people who survive will be those who both give and take; those who only want to take will perish.

Your comments about the bigger picture are also faulty. I do see the bigger picture and the connections and have long been a big supporter of rational, humane population control. But gross negligence and murder are not IMO rational means of population control and will only yield chaos.

The idea that Jack has any "humane goals" is simply silly, as any careful reading of his sociopathic posts will reveal. The only thing that matters in Jack's world is Jack.

[rwwff]

A policy of selfish isolation such as Jack espouses is not a rational response to a post-PO-type scenario. The people who survive will be those who both give and take; those who only want to take will perish.

Jack's not said he'd deny anyone aid, he said he'd deny aid to a stranger coming up to his house with a baby. Now, while I would likely provide some assistance if it would not have a negative impact upon my own extended family, I don't diminish Jack's take on this either; he's clearly thought it through and has decided that the potential risk of harm to him and his clan completely invalidates any rational support for such acts of compassion and mercy.

The only thing that matters in Jack's world is Jack.

And apparently his immediate family/clan/comrades.

[Jack]

You miss the point---entirely. Beyond issues like empathy and the relief of suffering and pain (which profoundly matter to me, if not to certain emotionally sick others) is the fact that turning one's back on the world's woes may backfire on one. The problem only gets bigger and ultimately finds you in your hiding place. Thus the baseball bats etc. A policy of selfish isolation such as Jack espouses is not a rational response to a post-PO-type scenario. The people who survive will be those who both give and take; those who only want to take will perish.

All of this is mere unsupported premise. Since peak oil is unprecedented, a supremely selfish approach may be optimal.

And, too, the problem gets bigger because certain individuals keep feeding it. Starve the problem and it shrinks.

By the way, I just know you'll enjoy another picture of starving children. Furthermore, I'm entirely confident that you'll live your beliefs and send every dime you have for the relief of the starving children. Because with the internet, you really don't have the excuse of not knowing, now do you?

So you will be sending a generous check today, won't you? For otherwise, I might be inclined to think you weren't sincere in wanting to alleviate suffering.



C'mon Heineken - you're a caring guy, right? Dig down deep and give!