Canadian Politics Today
Beyond Politics => General Discussion => Topic started by: Michael Hardner on May 21, 2018, 04:56:22 pm
-
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/21/news/companies/campbell-soup-general-mills-hershey-pepsi/index.html
Large consumer goods brands lost market share to small competitors from 2011 to 2016 for the first time in 50 years, according to Jim Brennan, a senior partner at Boston Consulting Group.
We should have seen this coming when the small brand Republican and Democrats broke through in 2016.
-
The growth of retailers' cheaper private labels and discount stores like Dollar General, Dollar Tree and Germany's Aldi have limited big players' ability to raise prices.
The existence of these "private label" brands isn't new. We've had the "no name" yellow-label products at Superstore/Loblaws forever, and "President's Choice", and equivalents at other chains. What makes this suddenly a factor?
Mass-produced brands are not the only game in town anymore. Scale is less important in the digital age when an entrepreneur with a new idea can reach a huge audience online through a viral ad on YouTube or Facebook (FB).
"Amazon provides a valuable platform for small brands to gain traction," said Bill Duffy, an associate director at consulting firm Gartner L2. "Brands no longer have to coordinate with local grocers and large chains to get visibility in store."
This sounds like something I was talking about in this thread:
https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/bargain-culture/?message=12449
"The Amazon Effect" is a great leveler for smaller brands or new brands because it puts your product on the shelf right next to big name competitors, and they provide the shipping and logistics and promotion.
But I am not sure how many people do their grocery shopping on Amazon.
-k
-
The existence of these "private label" brands isn't new. We've had the "no name" yellow-label products at Superstore/Loblaws forever, and "President's Choice", and equivalents at other chains. What makes this suddenly a factor?
You mean why have they 'grown' ? Because people aren't inundated by TV ads anymore to think that Tide is better than Kirkland. It's not by the way.
This sounds like something I was talking about in this thread:
https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/bargain-culture/?message=12449
"The Amazon Effect" is a great leveler for smaller brands or new brands because it puts your product on the shelf right next to big name competitors, and they provide the shipping and logistics and promotion.
But I am not sure how many people do their grocery shopping on Amazon.
-k
I stayed in a town in Michigan that only had a Wal Mart. I have never been in a Wal Mart.
-
You mean why have they 'grown' ? Because people aren't inundated by TV ads anymore to think that Tide is better than Kirkland. It's not by the way.
I've never been worried about buying yellow-label products when I go grocery shopping. The lesbianic wheat squares breakfast cereal and so on. In most cases there's not much difference. Especially when it comes to products that just don't require a whole lot of thought. I often buy canned mushrooms... I don't think anybody can tell the difference between "no name" and "Money's" canned mushrooms. You can't screw up the recipe for mushrooms. Lots of other goods are similar. Rice, pasta, butter...
One product where I've tried "no name" versions and gone back to the brand name is Campbell's soup. I use mushroom soup in cooking, and find that "no name" versions are just too salty and don't taste as good. Campbell's is one of the brands mentioned in your article, but IMO they're one of the examples where it's worth paying the extra.
On the other hand, I really like many of the President's Choice products. I've been buying the PC "Blue Menu" frozen lunches lately, and they're very good. I prefer PC coffee and even "no name" coffee to Maxwell House and Folger's, and only buy the latter if they're on mega-discount. And Hills Brothers coffee... if a truck carrying a load of Hills Bros coffee crashed and there were cans of Hills Bros coffee all over the road, I wouldn't even cross the street to pick one up. Yuck.
I stayed in a town in Michigan that only had a Wal Mart. I have never been in a Wal Mart.
I generally steer clear myself... there are occasions when I need a number of things and I'm in the area and it's just more convenient to get everything in one stop. We could start a "Walmart Culture" thread for trashy videos about trashy things going on in Walmart.
-k
-
The lesbianic wheat squares breakfast cereal and so on. In most cases there's not much difference. Especially when it comes to products that just don't require a whole lot of thought. I often buy canned mushrooms... I don't think anybody can tell the difference between "no name" and "Money's" canned mushrooms. You can't screw up the recipe for mushrooms. Lots of other goods are similar. Rice, pasta, butter...
I am glad to buy it. I have heard people say that you can't serve that stuff for company however I do.
Campbell's is one of the brands mentioned in your article, but IMO they're one of the examples where it's worth paying the extra.
Oddly, I ALSO buy Campbells along with Wheat Squares.
I generally steer clear myself... there are occasions when I need a number of things and I'm in the area and it's just more convenient to get everything in one stop. We could start a "Walmart Culture" thread for trashy videos about trashy things going on in Walmart.
Never been in a Wal Mart. The system is a giant anti-trust machine. You can buy better food cheaper and that has been happening and will continue to happen.
-
I am not convinced "store brands" and "amazon" can be blamed for a shift in demographics: i.e. an older and more diverse population. Most of these companies already sell very different products in different countries but expect to be able the same product(s) to everyone within a single country. I don't think that is true anymore which makes room for specialty makers that target small markets and depend on the Internet to find their customer base.
-
i just want to eat good stuff cheaply.
Walmart "Great Value" store brand i generally steer clear of as it's very low quality unless it's something very hard to screw up, you'd think they'd market-test this stuff more before sending it out a gazillion stores worldwide. PC brand obviously has always been very good quality.
-
You can buy better food cheaper and that has been happening and will continue to happen.
Where? I go to No Frills and Dollarama and find similar prices, but not much any other place.
-
Where? I go to No Frills and Dollarama and find similar prices, but not much any other place.
Sorry - I wasn't thinking about the sentence structure. My comment about 'you can get it cheaper' referred to stores like Loblaws, who conspire with manufacturers to bilk you, not Wal Mart.
I love NF and Dollarama.
-
Sorry - I wasn't thinking about the sentence structure. My comment about 'you can get it cheaper' referred to stores like Loblaws, who conspire with manufacturers to bilk you, not Wal Mart.
I love NF and Dollarama.
NF = Loblaws
-
NF = Loblaws
NF is cheaper Loblaws
-
I wouldn’t be caught dead in a Walmart or a dollar store.
I buy organic fruits and veggies.
I only eat meat from local, ethical sources.
My coffee comes from a local organic roaster.
I catch my own fish.
Life is too short to eat shitty food and animals deserve to be treated without cruelty.
—————————
A drop in market share is not “failing”. The title of this thread is hyperbolic.
-
I wouldn’t be caught dead in a Walmart or a dollar store.
I buy organic fruits and veggies.
I only eat meat from local, ethical sources.
My coffee comes from a local organic roaster.
I catch my own fish.
Life is too short to eat shitty food and animals deserve to be treated without cruelty.
—————————
A drop in market share is not “failing”. The title of this thread is hyperbolic.
I am lucky enough to have a family run farm about a 20 minute drive from my house. The first time I stopped in there I came away with a couple of their free range chickens. I paid a little more than the grocery store but what a treat. When you brought it from the oven and sliced it, the skin was paper thin and crackly and the steam poured out filling the dining room with a lovely aroma, and what flavor! I go there often. But I can't speak about that without relaying a story from years ago. A work buddy of mine and I were heading back to our hometown after a weeks work at King City. North on the 400 hwy. takes you across the Holland Marsh. I said "hey let's stop in here and see what they've got" He agreed so we took the off ramp and roamed around and finally stopped at one farm and shopped. We had lovely carrots, potatoes, beets, various vegetables. When we went to pay the farmer took us into his office which was essentially a desk, chair, and a cash register in a cubby hole which was part of his barn. There were ducks wandering around. As he was toting up my bill I inquired as to whether he sold ducks as well. Yes he said I do. So I said OK can I have one and tack that on the bill. "Of course" he replied. I expected him to go to the large chest freezer that was nearby and pull out a frozen duck. But nope. He got up from his chair, grabbed one of those ducks, took it over to a large block of wood, and chopped it's head off. Then he put it in some hot water, pulled the feathers off it, bagged it and added I think it was 5 bucks on the bill. Well we got back on the highway heading north and Ron couldn't contain himself..."You are a duck murderer" "You conspired in the killing of an innocent duck" "I'm telling everybody at the hangar next week how uncaring you are toward ducks" He had fun, I put the pedal to the metal, and enjoyed a duck dinner on Saturday night.
-
I wouldn’t be caught dead in a Walmart or a dollar store.
I buy organic fruits and veggies.
I only eat meat from local, ethical sources.
My coffee comes from a local organic roaster.
I catch my own fish.
Life is too short to eat shitty food and animals deserve to be treated without cruelty.
—————————
A drop in market share is not “failing”. The title of this thread is hyperbolic.
It's a god damned travesty that those things come at a premium when they should be the standard practice.
-
It's a god damned travesty that those things come at a premium when they should be the standard practice.
Economics. Learn something about it. Organic farming is lower productivity which increases costs. Those costs have to be born by the consumer. The exact premium depends on the food.
https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2017/11/organic-farming-can-feed-the-world-until-you-read-the-small-print/
But the Mueller et al. paper carries another potentially even more fatal flaw, one that the authors do not sufficiently address. Most of the literature on which their model is based assumes the continued existence of what I call laundered nitrogen, which seriously biases existing assessments of organic vs. conventional crop yield gaps.
This happens because the vast majority of existing organic crops depend on imported nitrogen laundered from animal manures. This nitrogen is ultimately derived from artificial fertilizers used to grow crops to feed the animals on conventional farms. In a worldwide organic scenario envisioned by the researchers, this would not be possible, so the nitrogen scarcity would be critical.
This would lead to worldwide famine. In one of the few attempts to quantify this impact properly, Vaclav Smil concluded that only about half the current world population can be supported without the Haber-Bosch process for artificial nitrogen fixation. Mueller et al. do show a substantial nitrogen deficit for a 100 percent organic planet, but argue that this is a good thing because it reduces greenhouse gases and pollution of water systems.
-
Economics. Learn something about it.
Society. Learn something about it. Not only is classical liberal economics wrong (since there can be no self-regulating markets, not the least of which because there's no such thing as perfect information and there sure as **** isn't an interventionless market), but not everything should be subject to economic rationality. The way a society provisions for its people's subsistence should not be beholden to the radical myth of self-regulating free markets and the whims of futures investors who buy things not for their use value but for their future price values.
When I say organics SHOULD be the standard and should not cost a premium, I am making a value judgment about social organization and an economic system that does not concern itself with humanity or nature. An economic system that left on its own would annihilate us and the earth.
-
When I say organics SHOULD be the standard and should not cost a premium, I am making a value judgment about social organization and an economic system that does not concern itself with humanity or nature. An economic system that left on its own would annihilate us and the earth.
Economics is simply the study of the economy - something that is intrinsic to all human societies. At the simplest level it looks at the resources expended to produce a good and the value created by that good. If the good cannot recover the value of the resources consumed during its production then that good is not economic. That is why goods like organic farm produce that consume more resources than alternatives must cost more. Value judgements are irrelevant.
-
Economics is simply the study of the economy - something that is intrinsic to all human societies. At the simplest level it looks at the resources expended to produce a good and the value created by that good. If the good cannot recover the value of the resources consumed during its production then that good is not economic. That is why goods like organic farm produce that consume more resources than alternatives must cost more. Value judgements are irrelevant.
Listen, your insistence on pushing neo-classical liberal theories of economy as though this idea of a "self-regulating" economy isn't anything more than a myth has no sway with me. The "Market Society" that you're talking about was created through massive centralized bureaucratic organization and legislation throughout the 1800s. Agriculture is a part of that society that was created. However, my point, that either you refuse or are incapable of seeing, is that this entire social system (both politically and economically) is artificial and not the result of any "natural" processes. You want to talk about the value of resources as if there's something intrinsic about it and there isn't. I do not accept that perspective of economics.
More specifically, I do not believe that human activity and nature are commodities to be bought and sold on the market in the same way as manufactured goods. Human activity, that is labour, exists without markets, and so does nature. Land ownership is nothing more than the parceling up of nature. It exists without markets. Our use of the land, hunting, gathering, subsistence farming, would exist without markets. We rely on nature to survive. How we are socially organized ought to be predicated on the redistribution of resources to meet our basic needs; these are activities that predate market society by thousands of years. It is only since the 1800s that we've fallen into this destructive arrangement of the Market Society. Liberal economics was based on faulty assumptions about a particular period in time where society was transitioning from feudalism to pre-industrial capitalism. There is nothing natural about people competing to sell their human activity to another. There is nothing natural about needing to sell your body to an employer in order to afford the things you need to survive. There is nothing natural about "buying" land. This was crafted by state intervention from the Enclosures, to the pauperism that resulted from the Victorian Era Poor Laws (which undermined the need for the ownership class to actually pay a living wage), and was finally completed by the eradication of those same poor laws which left masses of landless people competing with one another for mere subsistence. The market economy for labour was a state fabrication that began in England and spread across the globe.
So when you talk about the "labour" needed for organic foods and how that's the reason that the prices are what they are, I contest the entire system that was created to make natural food a commodity to be sold at a premium. I contest the entire shift in agriculture that created the need for genetically modified foods and the chemicals used in production, without which there would be no "organic" distinction. I find it ludicrous that food, merely domesticated and grown naturally is actually a premium product when that's all we should have available to us. Just the fact that food is described as "organic" (not to mention bottled water) is a sign of the damage that our entire political economic system has caused and continues to cause to our humanity.
-
Listen, your insistence on pushing neo-classical liberal theories of economy as though this idea of a "self-regulating" economy isn't anything more than a myth has no sway with me.
10 people on an island. One person uses reeds to create nets, another uses those nets to catch fish. The remaining 8 choose to trade other goods for the fish. That is an economy. If the fisher cannot trade the fish for something equal to the cost of the nets and their time the fisher will have to stop fishing (or get more efficient). No human society can exist without economics influencing what goods get produced and for what cost.
-
Listen, your insistence on pushing neo-classical liberal theories of economy as though this idea of a "self-regulating" economy isn't anything more than a myth has no sway with me. The "Market Society" that you're talking about was created through massive centralized bureaucratic organization and legislation throughout the 1800s. Agriculture is a part of that society that was created. However, my point, that either you refuse or are incapable of seeing, is that this entire social system (both politically and economically) is artificial and not the result of any "natural" processes. You want to talk about the value of resources as if there's something intrinsic about it and there isn't. I do not accept that perspective of economics.
More specifically, I do not believe that human activity and nature are commodities to be bought and sold on the market in the same way as manufactured goods. Human activity, that is labour, exists without markets, and so does nature. Land ownership is nothing more than the parceling up of nature. It exists without markets. Our use of the land, hunting, gathering, subsistence farming, would exist without markets. We rely on nature to survive. How we are socially organized ought to be predicated on the redistribution of resources to meet our basic needs; these are activities that predate market society by thousands of years. It is only since the 1800s that we've fallen into this destructive arrangement of the Market Society. Liberal economics was based on faulty assumptions about a particular period in time where society was transitioning from feudalism to pre-industrial capitalism. There is nothing natural about people competing to sell their human activity to another. There is nothing natural about needing to sell your body to an employer in order to afford the things you need to survive. There is nothing natural about "buying" land. This was crafted by state intervention from the Enclosures, to the pauperism that resulted from the Victorian Era Poor Laws (which undermined the need for the ownership class to actually pay a living wage), and was finally completed by the eradication of those same poor laws which left masses of landless people competing with one another for mere subsistence. The market economy for labour was a state fabrication that began in England and spread across the globe.
So when you talk about the "labour" needed for organic foods and how that's the reason that the prices are what they are, I contest the entire system that was created to make natural food a commodity to be sold at a premium. I contest the entire shift in agriculture that created the need for genetically modified foods and the chemicals used in production, without which there would be no "organic" distinction. I find it ludicrous that food, merely domesticated and grown naturally is actually a premium product when that's all we should have available to us. Just the fact that food is described as "organic" (not to mention bottled water) is a sign of the damage that our entire political economic system has caused and continues to cause to our humanity.
Yep, I grew up on a farm and for the first ~14 years of my life everything I ate was organic and I hadn't even heard the term. (Well OK except for the odd bottle of Coca Cola) Then I moved into town and the grocery store wanted ~50% more for the same stuff we grew, ate and sold for all those years.
-
10 people on an island. One person uses reeds to create nets, another uses those nets to catch fish. The remaining 8 choose to trade other goods for the fish. That is an economy. If the fisher cannot trade the fish for something equal to the cost of the nets and their time the fisher will have to stop fishing (or get more efficient). No human society can exist without economics influencing what goods get produced and for what cost.
10 people on an island and they all work together to hunt, gather, build shelter, and protect one another. There is no market. Your example shows exactly why neo-classical liberal economics is a myth. They're not bartering with one another at all. They're working together to survive or distributing their goods based on reciprocity, not the competitive market that is assumed by our economy.
-
10 people on an island and they all work together to hunt, gather, build shelter, and protect one another. There is no market.
Sorry that is a myth. Humans societies succeed because people *specialize*. Once you have specialization there becomes a value associated with the goods produced by the labour which are exchanged for goods produced by others. What you call "reciprocity" is actually a market base exchanged of goods based on relative value. "Communes" are ideologically driven artificial creations that ignore human nature. That is why they are always small scale and rarely outlast the founders.
To illustrate: lets say one of the people liked to paint pictures on stones. Initially these stones might be of value but if the person continued they would in trouble because they are spending time producing things that have no value. The person would have to switch to an activities that produced economic value.
-
Sorry that is a myth. Humans societies succeed because people *specialize*. Once you have specialization there becomes a value associated with the goods produced by the labour which are exchanged for goods produced by others. What you call "reciprocity" is actually a market base exchanged of goods based on relative value. "Communes" are ideologically driven artificial creations that ignore human nature. That is why they are always small scale and rarely outlast the founders.
To illustrate: lets say one of the people liked to paint pictures on stones. Initially these stones might be of value but if the person continued they would in trouble because they are spending time producing things that have no value. The person would have to switch to an activities that produced economic value.
You don't think artwork has economic value? What planet are you from?
-
You don't think artwork has economic value?
Not what I said. On an island with 10 people the market for artwork would quickly become saturated and the value of new works would drop. Someone who already has 10 painted stones may not feel like sharing their fish that they spent a day catching in return for 1 more painted stone even though it was a fair trade when they did not have any painted stones. In a real world the stone painter would likely be simply told to spend time doing tasks that have economic value instead of wasting time on tasks with limited economic value.
-
Not what I said. On an island with 10 people the market for artwork would quickly become saturated and the value of new works would drop. Someone who already has 10 painted stones may not feel like sharing their fish that they spent a day catching in return for 1 more painted stone even though it was a fair trade when they did not have any painted stones. In a real world the stone painter would likely be simply told to spend time doing tasks that have economic value instead of wasting time on tasks with limited economic value.
Well your little 10 person on an island charade has no relation to the real world. I agree you can't eat artwork but of course it has economic value. Ever hear what people will pay for Van Gogh? In the real world people excel at various activities many of which have merits even if they don't directly put food on plates.
-
Well your little 10 person on an island charade has no relation to the real world. I agree you can't eat artwork but of course it has economic value. Ever hear what people will pay for Van Gogh? In the real world people excel at various activities many of which have merits even if they don't directly put food on plates.
Classic strawman. I never said art has no economic value. I said even in small societies people are compelled to pursue work that has economic value that exceeds the value of the inputs. The range of viable choices increases as population increases but the mechanism remains the same. Economics is fundamental to human society. If you don't understand how economics works you can't understand society.
-
Classic strawman. I never said art has no economic value. I said even in small societies people are compelled to pursue work that has economic value that exceeds the value of the inputs. The range of viable choices increases as population increases but the mechanism remains the same. Economics is fundamental to human society. If you don't understand how economics works you can't understand society.
The value required to be added to the sum of the value of the inputs is the cost of the work to assemble those inputs into a viable product. Beyond that it is simply profit. Nice but not fundamental to human society other than to quell the greed factor.
-
The value required to be added to the sum of the value of the inputs is the cost of the work to assemble those inputs into a viable product. Beyond that it is simply profit. Nice but not fundamental to human society other than to quell the greed factor.
More strawmen. Nothing in my argument depends on the concept of profit. Value is simply a measure of what something is worth to other people. Someone could spend a day catching 10 fish or painting 10 rocks. The relative value of the two activities will depend on how much demand there is for fish relative to painted rocks. If the value of fish or painted rocks is less that the inputs then people generally will not engage in that activity.
-
So when you talk about the "labour" needed for organic foods and how that's the reason that the prices are what they are, I contest the entire system that was created to make natural food a commodity to be sold at a premium. I contest the entire shift in agriculture that created the need for genetically modified foods and the chemicals used in production, without which there would be no "organic" distinction. I find it ludicrous that food, merely domesticated and grown naturally is actually a premium product when that's all we should have available to us. Just the fact that food is described as "organic" (not to mention bottled water) is a sign of the damage that our entire political economic system has caused and continues to cause to our humanity.
I don't like eating non-organic foods, I don't like that organic foods are more expensive, but that's inescapable from laws of physics and the basic realities of agriculture unfortunately. Non-organic foods are cheaper because GMOs and non-organic pesticides and fertilizers combine to create larger food yields, which means more food at the same cost. Everyone has the choice to buy organic foods if they want, but they just happen to be less efficient economically and so cost a bit more. The positives of non-organic foods is that people without a lot of money, especially in poor countries, can buy their food cheaper so have more money left over for other goods/services. For most people in Canada, it comes down to if you value organic foods enough to want to pay the extra cost, and for most people they choose to buy non-organic, which is their choice. If consumers didn't like non-organic foods they wouldn't buy them. The people have spoken, regardless of what you and I think of that.
-
10 people on an island and they all work together to hunt, gather, build shelter, and protect one another. There is no market. Your example shows exactly why neo-classical liberal economics is a myth. They're not bartering with one another at all. They're working together to survive or distributing their goods based on reciprocity, not the competitive market that is assumed by our economy.
A society where everyone works cooperatively for the benefit of each other only works in smaller societies like villages and communes. In a society like ours with millions of people where most people have never met each other people naturally care far less for people they never met compared to themselves & their families & friends. So then you get the problem of free-loaders.
Let's say in your more just society there's 10 million people working for the common good collectively. There's Ted who works very hard 10-12 hours a day and is super productive in those hours, then there's Larry on the other side of town who is legit just lazy and puts in 6-8 hours a day at minimum effort requires then goes home and smokes weed and plays video games. Larry doesn't give a crap about anyone else but Larry. Now Ted is PO'd. How is this fair to Ted? What incentive does Ted have to work as hard as he can? What incentive does Larry have to work harder if it's "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" and all his needs are met regardless?
The best answer we've come up with to answer this question is money. Ted is rewarded for his extra work through more pay, and Larry is punished. Social programs ensure Larry will never starve from his laziness, but he won't live the sweet life like Ted. If there's a better and fairer way I'd be all for it.
-
I don't like eating non-organic foods, I don't like that organic foods are more expensive, but that's inescapable from laws of physics and the basic realities of agriculture unfortunately. Non-organic foods are cheaper because GMOs and non-organic pesticides and fertilizers combine to create larger food yields, which means more food at the same cost. Everyone has the choice to buy organic foods if they want, but they just happen to be less efficient economically and so cost a bit more. The positives of non-organic foods is that people without a lot of money, especially in poor countries, can buy their food cheaper so have more money left over for other goods/services. For most people in Canada, it comes down to if you value organic foods enough to want to pay the extra cost, and for most people they choose to buy non-organic, which is their choice. If consumers didn't like non-organic foods they wouldn't buy them. The people have spoken, regardless of what you and I think of that.
I think if you do a little research you will find that organic is pretty much a waste of money. But it does support a niche market I guess.
-
I don't like that organic foods are more expensive, but that's inescapable from laws of physics and the basic realities of agriculture unfortunately
It's not inescapable. Like I already said, the only reason organic foods exist is because non-organic foods were created due to the way our economy and society values accumulation, rather than provision. The economic structure of our society was created by various government actions in Europe through the 18th and 19th centuries. Those "laws" of economics are not laws at all, but false assumptions about the nature of society.
-
How can you argue that industrialization and private enterprise have not provided more food at lower cost with less labour ?
I'm on board with lamenting the faults of our economic systems, but you have to argue in reality.
-
Those "laws" of economics are not laws at all, but false assumptions about the nature of society.
No matter how much you might wish otherwise, human beings are fundamentally selfish and driven only by a desire to look after themselves and their family. Humans are good at collaborating in groups but in any group individuals are expected to "do their share" which basically means the group assigns a price to the contribution of the individual and compares to the cost of supporting the individual. Individuals that fail to produce enough value will find that they are denied access to resources. The process of placing a value on the contribution of an individual is the core of economics. This is not an assumption but way to describe and explain the real world.
-
No matter how much you might wish otherwise, human beings are fundamentally selfish and driven only by a desire to look after themselves and their family.
Hyperbole. Humans balance self-interest and altruism, which is why the system we have reflects both human attributes.
-
Hyperbole. Humans balance self-interest and altruism, which is why the system we have reflects both human attributes.
A lot of the support for the social safety net comes from the desire/fear that an individual might need to depend on the same net in the future. I don't call that altruism. It is self interest. True altruism is very rare.
-
No matter how much you might wish otherwise, human beings are fundamentally selfish and driven only by a desire to look after themselves and their family. Humans are good at collaborating in groups but in any group individuals are expected to "do their share" which basically means the group assigns a price to the contribution of the individual and compares to the cost of supporting the individual. Individuals that fail to produce enough value will find that they are denied access to resources. The process of placing a value on the contribution of an individual is the core of economics. This is not an assumption but way to describe and explain the real world.
That's certainly not the real world I live in. Lets take socialized health care for instance. I have been contributing to that in various ways since the first day I went to work and I'll happily continue to do that until the day I drop and I'll be quite happy if I never have to use it until that day. (Full disclosure I was born in a hospital, had to have a cast put on a broken ankle once and was treated once for malaria) Even at that I'm sure I have contributed a lot more to the system than I have received from it, and will be happy to continue on that path. It's reassuring to know it's there and I bet most people in the real world of Canada prefer out system to that of the US where if you get sick you lose your house which seems to suit your world.
-
A lot of the support for the social safety net comes from the desire/fear that an individual might need to depend on the same net in the future. I don't call that altruism. It is self interest. True altruism is very rare.
Yes, but I have also seen you project your values onto others. Caring for others is natural, whether or not you feel it yourself.
-
No matter how much you might wish otherwise, human beings are fundamentally selfish and driven only by a desire to look after themselves and their family.
There are millions of examples daily proving you wrong, starting with cops, firemen and soldiers. Altruism is as much of a human attribute as is selfishness.
-
Go into any large corporation, and you will find Ted and Larry; and they are paid the same.
-
Yes, but I have also seen you project your values onto others. Caring for others is natural, whether or not you feel it yourself.
What does this have to do with my point? Lots of people care for others when it benefits them (or at least does not harm them). When it does not benefit them causes them harm they don't give a damn. You can find example over example of places where so called altruistic people screw over others when it suited them. That is why you can't claim that true altruism is common.
-
There are millions of examples daily proving you wrong, starting with cops, firemen and soldiers.
They are all paid to do a job. In the case of cops and firemen they are paid extremely well. Needing to risk their lives once and awhile is a obligation of the job that they sign up for. That is not altruism.
-
firemen they are paid extremely well
Depends on where you live
-
Depends on where you live
Paid well is relative to the job opportunities available to person given where they live. Pay also include any pension which can be extremely generous.
-
Paid well is relative to the job opportunities available to person given where they live. Pay also include any pension which can be extremely generous.
Here's another one for you. In my real world I don't have any kids, but I do help pay for the public education system which supports others children. And I don't jump up and down screaming humbug. I like having educated people in my neighborhood, even though I don't benefit personally. You seem to have a very downtrodden view of the world.
-
*** I like having educated people in my neighborhood, even though I don't benefit personally. ***
IOW, it benefits you because it improves your neighborhood. Now if you were happy to pay taxes for a school in China then that would be closer to altruism.
BTW - people love to disguise selfish motives as altruism because it is a great way to prevent others from calling them on their selfish motives.
-
IOW, it benefits you because it improves your neighborhood. Now if you were happy to pay taxes for a school in China then that would be closer to altruism.
BTW - people love to disguise selfish motives as altruism because it is a great way to prevent others from calling them on their selfish motives.
I supported a child for many years at a school in India. (Mary Anne Best) She now teaches there. I have never met her and she is a long ways from my neighborhood. Lets see how you try and twist that into selfishness.
-
Tim....step away from Atlas Shrugged and get a grip.
-
I supported a child for many years at a school in India. (Mary Anne Best) She now teaches there.
We are getting closer to something I would call altruism but 1) did you get a tax deduction? 2) How much did you try to enhance your social status by telling people what a wonderful person you are for sponsoring this child?
Lastly, there is a difference between a voluntary donation which comes from excess income and taxes which are compulsory.
-
We are getting closer to something I would call altruism but 1) did you get a tax deduction? 2) How much did you try to enhance your social status by telling people what a wonderful person you are for sponsoring this child?
Lastly, there is a difference between a voluntary donation which comes from excess income and taxes which are compulsory.
Wrong on all counts, as usual. As was recently suggested, "get a grip".
-
They are all paid to do a job. In the case of cops and firemen they are paid extremely well. Needing to risk their lives once and awhile is a obligation of the job that they sign up for. That is not altruism.
People "out for themselves" do not take jobs that put them in harm's way. Just ask Trump.
-
They are all paid to do a job. In the case of cops and firemen they are paid extremely well. Needing to risk their lives once and awhile is a obligation of the job that they sign up for. That is not altruism.
By the way:
The next time you see a responding fire truck, consider this astonishing fact: over 90 per cent of communities across Canada are protected by volunteer firefighters. That’s not a misprint. Outside of a few major cities, you’re safeguarded by these dedicated, highly trained unsung heroes should you eAxperience a roadside medical emergency, serious traffic collision or fire.
http://www.thestar.com/autos/2016/04/15/most-ontario-communities-are-protected-by-volunteer-firefighters.html
Search and Rescue:
SAR groups provide their service on a volunteer basis to the local police, BC Ambulance Service (BCAS), local regional disaster planning or as requested by EMBC to assist another group.
Altruism is common; if you don't see it, its because you are closed off to it.
-
most-ontario-communities-are-protected-by-volunteer-firefighters.html
People protecting their own community. Not really altruism. Humans cannot exist alone. It is in our self interest to invest in the community we live in because we depend on it. The issue comes when someone is asked to reach beyond the boundaries of the community they belong to. Making sacrifices so people who are not part of someone's self-defined community benefit are very rare. Look at how discussions on trade agreements are entirely based on what is good for the country - what is good for the trading partner is completely irrelevant.
FWIW, I starting to do more volunteer work for my community. I do it because I believe in investing in my community is in my self interest and it gets me away from a computer which is required for my job. I don't call it altruism.
Altruism is common; if you don't see it, its because you are closed off to it.
I simply don't feel the need to believe in things with are not true. Self-interest is what drives humans. This is neither good nor bad. It is simply a fact.
-
People protecting their own community. Not really altruism. Humans cannot exist alone. It is in our self interest to invest in the community we live in because we depend on it. The issue comes when someone is asked to reach beyond the boundaries of the community they belong to. Making sacrifices so people who are not part of someone's self-defined community benefit are very rare. Look at how discussions on trade agreements are entirely based on what is good for the country - what is good for the trading partner is completely irrelevant.
FWIW, I starting to do more volunteer work I do for my community. I do it because I believe in investing in my community is in my self interest and it gets me away from a computer which is required for my job. I don't call it altruism.
I simply don't feel the need to believe in things with are not true. Self-interest is what drives humans. This is neither good nor bad. It is simply a fact.
Yes of course a person goes to work to be able to support their families and themselves. You seem to have fallen into this narrow minded view that that is the only thing people have on their minds and the only way they wish to distribute the fruits of their labor. Luckily the reality is we see evidence to the contrary quite often.
-
What does this have to do with my point? Lots of people care for others when it benefits them (or at least does not harm them). When it does not benefit them causes them harm they don't give a damn. You can find example over example of places where so called altruistic people screw over others when it suited them. That is why you can't claim that true altruism is common.
Your lens is your own. I will say that my perspective is entirely different than yours.
I backed into a car and left a dent. Should I leave a note ?
-
I backed into a car and left a dent. Should I leave a note?
Sure, because by doing that you contribute to a society where it is expected that people do that which, in turn, benefits you. You can see the evolutionary basis for my argument in studies of other primates:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/
-
Sure, because by doing that you contribute to a society where it is expected that people do that which, in turn, benefits you. You can see the evolutionary basis for my argument in studies of other primates:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/
Ah no actually. Quite obviously the most beneficial way for the denter is to say "screw you" dentee, and drive away. We do the right thing because we have a conscience and we like to enjoy a good nights sleep.
-
It's not inescapable. Like I already said, the only reason organic foods exist is because non-organic foods were created due to the way our economy and society values accumulation, rather than provision. The economic structure of our society was created by various government actions in Europe through the 18th and 19th centuries. Those "laws" of economics are not laws at all, but false assumptions about the nature of society.
Our society values goods that are cheaper and more efficient to produce because it means more resources can be focused on other goods. Goods have a material worth before profit is even factored in based on the resources and labour needed to produce and distribute them. Even if we lived in a Marxist economy, non-organic foods would still be cheaper to produce than organic foods because of factors like yield sizes, insect damage etc. You're living in a fantasy land if you think organic foods would ever be cheaper than non-organic foods in any economic system, just like it will always be cheaper to produce cola compared to freshly squeezed juice. I wish such a system were possible, but it's utopian fantasy with no logical basis. Prove me wrong.
The good thing about capitalism is that if you want organic food or fresh juice, you're free to go buy it. If you want to save money and buy non-organic or cola, you're free to do that too.
-
Our society values goods that are cheaper and more efficient to produce because it means more resources can be focused on other goods. Goods have a material worth before profit is even factored in based on the resources and labour needed to produce and distribute them. Even if we lived in a Marxist economy, non-organic foods would still be cheaper to produce than organic foods because of factors like yield sizes, insect damage etc. You're living in a fantasy land if you think organic foods would ever be cheaper than non-organic foods in any economic system, just like it will always be cheaper to produce cola compared to freshly squeezed juice. I wish such a system were possible, but it's utopian fantasy with no logical basis. Prove me wrong.
The good thing about capitalism is that if you want organic food or fresh juice, you're free to go buy it. If you want to save money and buy non-organic or cola, you're free to do that too.
Organic for the most part is simply a marketing scheme. Exorbitant prices charged are often well over any extra production costs. And there seems to be little evidence of significant health benefits. Leafy vegetables might be worth the extra cost due to the fact they haven't had any pesticides applied which you therefore don't need to wash off. If it has a skin on it you peel before cooking, you're wasting money on organic.
-
Organic for the most part is simply a marketing scheme. Exorbitant prices charged are often well over any extra production costs. And there seems to be little evidence of significant health benefits. Leafy vegetables might be worth the extra cost due to the fact they haven't had any pesticides applied which you therefore don't need to wash off. If it has a skin on it you peel before cooking, you're wasting money on organic.
You could very well be right I don't really know much about the whole organic food labeling regime. But if you don't want a GMO with inorganic pesticides and fertilizers from local markets then go knock yourself out.
-
You could very well be right I don't really know much about the whole organic food labeling regime. But if you don't want a GMO with inorganic pesticides and fertilizers from local markets then go knock yourself out.
I pay half the price and just peel the skin off the potato before I cook it. Strawberries I may go the extra mile.
-
If it has a skin on it you peel before cooking, you're wasting money on organic.
Some plants absorb pesticides through the roots and it migrates into the tissues. For the most part however, peeling or simply scrubbing the surface with water will remove or eliminate any residue. You are right about leafy vegetables because they are hard to scrub, and rinsing alone is not as effective. If it is cabbage or iceberg lettuce, simply remove the outer leaves. If I were to buy organic produce I would focus on peaches, apples, strawberries, grapes, celery and kale as having the most benefit.
-
Some plants absorb pesticides through the roots and it migrates into the tissues. For the most part however, peeling or simply scrubbing the surface with water will remove or eliminate any residue. You are right about leafy vegetables because they are hard to scrub, and rinsing alone is not as effective. If it is cabbage or iceberg lettuce, simply remove the outer leaves. If I were to buy organic produce I would focus on peaches, apples, strawberries, grapes, celery and kale as having the most benefit.
I am lucky in the fact that even though I am a city dweller now I have in my back yard a cherry, two apple, a peach and a pear trees. They are showing signs of age but they still produce each year and I can guarantee you they've never had a squirt of any chemical on them. I gobble up the fresh stuff as it ripens, throw some into pies for the freezer come fall, and give away the rest. and speaking of strawberries, the local grocery store just had a serious sale on their organics. I have gone through about half so far and they are lovely. And yes I do follow that procedure of peeling the outside layer off of a cabbage or head lettuce.
-
I have in my back yard a cherry .... tree
I had a black cherry tree right beside my house/apartment (small building) many years ago, in fact many of the branches overhung the balcony. It was great to have, I could walk out the the kitchen door and pick a bowl without leaving the balcony. The only problem is it produced so much fruit that a lot fell right onto the balcony which was a ceramic surface and you were constantly taking the mop out to get rid of the stains.
-
I had a black cherry tree right beside my house/apartment (small building) many years ago, in fact many of the branches overhung the balcony. It was great to have, I could walk out the the kitchen door and pick a bowl without leaving the balcony. The only problem is it produced so much fruit that a lot fell right onto the balcony which was a ceramic surface and you were constantly taking the mop out to get rid of the stains.
Hah, now that was handy. Maybe I'll try to coax my cherry to grow in the laundry room window. It's not far to come.
-
Sure, because by doing that you contribute to a society where it is expected that people do that which, in turn, benefits you. You can see the evolutionary basis for my argument in studies of other primates:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/
These social behaviors aren't a result of rational thought or cost/benefit analysis. They're built into us. They're the result of natural selection. As you say, there is evolutionary reasoning for this. Humans are weak and slow and our survival as a species is a result of our ability to work cooperatively. And it goes further than that. Empathy is built into us. People who truly lack empathy are actually very rare... we call them psychopaths. In simpler times these were people whose offspring didn't survive, or who got exiled from their tribe and left to die alone. Once upon a time empathy was a natural selection trait, because your offspring were less likely to survive if you didn't know or didn't care that they were suffering. This isn't unique to humans either. Other mammals do the same thing, for the same reason. We've all seen videos of dogs plunging into the lake to pull swimming toddlers back to shore, or the elephant jumping into the river to rescue the man, or cats launching themselves into battle to protect crying toddlers from big dogs or scary vacuum cleaners. I posted a video about the humpback whale who played babysitter to a diver because there was a tiger-shark nearby... humpbacks have been observed to likewise protect seals from orcas.
This stuff is hardwired into us. And we can use our logical brains to figure out that in the big picture, these actions are logical because they made us stronger as a species, made our tribe more likely to survive, and this sort of thing. But empathy is an instinctual response, not a product of rational thought. Show someone an image or a video of something terrible happening, and it provokes an immediate sympathetic reaction, not a cost-benefit analysis.
-k
-
This stuff is hardwired into us. And we can use our logical brains to figure out that in the big picture, these actions are logical because they made us stronger as a species, made our tribe more likely to survive, and this sort of thing. But empathy is an instinctual response, not a product of rational thought. Show someone an image or a video of something terrible happening, and it provokes an immediate sympathetic reaction, not a cost-benefit analysis.
There are two instincts: empathy and the instinct to 'protect the tribe'. You will see lots of people engaging in superficially altruistic acts to 'protect the tribe'. I don't call those true altruism because 'protecting the tribe' is in the in the self interest of most humans and hard wired into our DNA. True altruism are acts of sacrifice so people outside the tribe benefits. Those kinds of acts are not only extremely rare - they are actively discouraged by human societies. Look at any debate over trade agreements or even the KM mess in BC. Good examples of humans working in groups to 'screw the people outside the tribe'.
-
There are two instincts: empathy and the instinct to 'protect the tribe'. You will see lots of people engaging in superficially altruistic acts to 'protect the tribe'. I don't call those true altruism because 'protecting the tribe' is in the in the self interest of most humans and hard wired into our DNA. True altruism are acts of sacrifice so people outside the tribe benefits. Those kinds of acts are not only extremely rare - they are actively discouraged by human societies. Look at any debate over trade agreements or even the KM mess in BC. Good examples of humans working in groups to 'screw the people outside the tribe'.
Your attempt to conflate the KM situation and altruism indicates you don't have a very good understanding of the concept. If I happen to have concerns about the environment it doesn't mean I can't be altruistic. The same can be said for those who would like to see the economy expand. Not abandoning your concerns to cede to someone else's has nothing to do with altruism. We negotiate those differences and hopefully arrive at an agreement that addresses both, and sometimes that takes time. Altruism is deeper more hard wired response which often happens spontaneously
-
If I happen to have concerns about the environment it doesn't mean I can't be altruistic.
Nonsense. Your concern about the environment is primarily driven by a desire to increase your social status within the tribe you belong to. In this case the tribe has chosen to fixate on K&M largely because the benefits are received by another tribe and are therefore not human not worthy of consideration which allows opponents to reject the pipeline without hurting their tribe. If the same pipeline was bringing in oil from Hope or the Okanagan you can bet that environmental concerns would be irrelevant to the majority of people protesting K&M today.
-
Nonsense. Your concern about the environment is primarily driven by a desire to increase your social status within the tribe you belong to. In this case the tribe has chosen to fixate on K&M largely because the benefits are received by another tribe and are therefore not human not worthy of consideration which allows opponents to reject the pipeline without hurting their tribe. If the same pipeline was bringing in oil from Hope or the Okanagan you can bet that environmental concerns would be irrelevant to the majority of people protesting K&M today.
Boy talk about wild assumptions! You're out front by a long way. I think this little tribal concept you're on is affecting your ability to reason. And of course in that narrow mindedness you ignored that I didn't profess to be against, or for any pipeline. I simply have concerns because they have demonstrated they have potential for environmental disaster.
-
I simply have concerns because they have demonstrated they have potential for environmental disaster.
I don't doubt your concerns. What I am pointing out is the reason people choose to make a big issue of this particular project is because of their tribal affiliations. If they saw the people who stand to benefit as "part of your tribe" they would not see this particular project as one to be opposed.
-
I don't doubt your concerns. What I am pointing out is the reason people choose to make a big issue of this particular project is because of their tribal affiliations. If they saw the people who stand to benefit as "part of your tribe" they would not see this particular project as one to be opposed.
So what you're saying is that noone has a valid concern unless it is welcomed by "the tribe". I'm glad I don't live in your tribe.
-
Sure, because by doing that you contribute to a society where it is expected that people do that which, in turn, benefits you. You can see the evolutionary basis for my argument in studies of other primates:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/like-humans-chimps-reward-cooperation-and-punish-freeloaders/
Humans aren't 100% self-serving, we have moral and value systems of "right" and "wrong". Often the only reward for doing good things for other strangers is that you feel good doing it, which is probably some kind of evolutionary adaptation to reward cooperation.
-
Humans aren't 100% self-serving, we have moral and value systems of "right" and "wrong". Often the only reward for doing good things for other strangers is that you feel good doing it, which is probably some kind of evolutionary adaptation to reward cooperation.
I think it is important to distinguish to between sharing excess resources and making real sacrifices for others. I agree that people with resources to spare will often share out of human empathy. When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
-
I think it is important to distinguish to between sharing excess resources and making real sacrifices for others. I agree that people with resources to spare will often share out of human empathy. When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
Those of us who do understand the actual meaning of altruism also understand that it is not based on sharing excesses, but reaching out however we can when we see the need.
-
I think it is important to distinguish to between sharing excess resources and making real sacrifices for others. I agree that people with resources to spare will often share out of human empathy. When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
You can't generalize, it all depends on the person and the situation etc.
-
I think it is important to distinguish to between sharing excess resources and making real sacrifices for others. I agree that people with resources to spare will often share out of human empathy. When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
How do you reconcile that belief with this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/21/voluntarysector.fundraising
-
How do you reconcile that belief with this: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/dec/21/voluntarysector.fundraising
People want to look after their community. The poor live in communities where there are people in need of assistance. The rich: no so much.
But the researchers also found something else: differences in behavior among wealthy households, depending on the type of neighborhood they lived in. Wealthy people who lived in homogeneously affluent areas—areas where more than 40 percent of households earned at least $200,000 a year—were less generous than comparably wealthy people who lived in more socioeconomically diverse surroundings. It seems that insulation from people in need may dampen the charitable impulse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
IOW, this data reenforces my argument that altruism tends to be directed to people 'within the tribe'.
-
I don't see any evidence here that these folks are only charitable within their communities.
-
I don't see any evidence here that these folks are only charitable within their communities.
And there is no evidence in the article that their charity is spread outside their communities. The link I provided suggested that the composition of the community that the rich lived in had the most impact. It is kind of nonsensical to suggest that the rich would not then first try to help the people in their communities before donating money to help outsiders. There is no reason to believe the poor would not have the same bias towards local charities.
-
And there is no evidence in the article that their charity is spread outside their communities. The link I provided suggested that the composition of the community that the rich lived in had the most impact. It is kind of nonsensical to suggest that the rich would not then first try to help the people in their communities before donating money to help outsiders. There is no reason to believe the poor would not have the same bias towards local charities.
Maybe you should edify yourself a little by looking up what the Gates Foundation does.
-
And there is no evidence in the article that their charity is spread outside their communities. The link I provided suggested that the composition of the community that the rich lived in had the most impact. It is kind of nonsensical to suggest that the rich would not then first try to help the people in their communities before donating money to help outsiders. There is no reason to believe the poor would not have the same bias towards local charities.
I was responding to this:
I think it is important to distinguish to between sharing excess resources and making real sacrifices for others. I agree that people with resources to spare will often share out of human empathy. When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
To which I gave you a study that showed charity was more prominent among those whose "livelihoods are under threat" than those with "excess resources." Those with fewer resources gave a greater proportion of their resources than those with excess.
All your nonsense about where it is spent (within or outside communities) is completely irrelevant to your statement I was replying to. Those who are strapped for resources are more generous; this contradicts your argument. Now you're talking about where their generosity is spent, as if that matters to your original argument. It doesn't.
-
To which I gave you a study that showed charity was more prominent among those whose "livelihoods are under threat" than those with "excess resources." Those with fewer resources gave a greater proportion of their resources than those with excess.
So what? My argument in this thread also was that it is in everyone's self interest to spend money supporting their local community which makes it a different category of spending. You can't simply ignore that context because it is convenient.
-
So what? My argument in this thread also was that it is in everyone's self interest to spend money supporting their local community which makes it a different category of spending. You can't simply ignore that context because it is convenient.
You explicitly said that those with more resources are more charitable than those who struggle. That's wrong. It's a conclusion drawn from your belief that people are selfish. Now you're trying to talk about the spatial organization of charity which is irrelevant to your key point that people are selfish. If people with less resources are more generous, then your premises that people are selfish and only altruistic when they have excess is incorrect. In response, you're now arguing a different point about the location of charity, which has nothing to do with your faulty premises that led you to the conclusion that people are only charitable when they have excess.
-
You explicitly said that those with more resources are more charitable than those who struggle. That's wrong.
That is not what I said. I said:
When people feel their own livelihoods are under threat self preservation takes a dominate role.
No where did I say anything about the "poor". What I said is people who livelihoods are under threat will be dominated by self-preservation. None of your aggregate stats tell us anything about whether the poor felt their livelihood was under threat and how much of the charitable donations were actually self preservation by supporting local service which they might need. The latter is where my distinction between local giving and remote giving matters because local giving is inherently self-interest.
-
You explicitly said that those with more resources are more charitable than those who struggle. That's wrong. It's a conclusion drawn from your belief that people are selfish. Now you're trying to talk about the spatial organization of charity which is irrelevant to your key point that people are selfish. If people with less resources are more generous, then your premises that people are selfish and only altruistic when they have excess is incorrect. In response, you're now arguing a different point about the location of charity, which has nothing to do with your faulty premises that led you to the conclusion that people are only charitable when they have excess.
The contradictions are not hard to pick out for sure.
-
Ah yes. The poor who feel secure in their livelihoods. Get out of here with your nonsense, Tim.
-
It's a conclusion drawn from your belief that people are selfish.
So much about left/right is about different worldviews as to human nature.
How many artists, writers, laud the value of selfishness versus the values of selflessness ? Our culture - all cultures - may actually be about resolving the two opposing views creatively.
-
There are two instincts: empathy and the instinct to 'protect the tribe'. You will see lots of people engaging in superficially altruistic acts to 'protect the tribe'.
It seems like this notion of "tribe" is a vague concept that you can redefine at will to support your argument or reject counterexamples that don't fit your narrative.
-k
-
It seems like this notion of "tribe" is a vague concept that you can redefine at will to support your argument or reject counterexamples that don't fit your narrative.
It should be obvious that humans are part of multiple groups which influence their willingness to share. i.e. humans are much more likely to share with family than community. Similarly humans are more likely to share with community than country and more likely to share with country than the world. For the purposes of discussion I describe these tiers of groupings as 'tribes'. When it comes to family and community sharing is a clear act of self interest. Sharing with the country also self interest but there is a less direct connection. Sharing with the world is rarely self-interest.
-
So there is no human tribe ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAw0Ri4FSdM
-
So there is no human tribe?
Nope. Finite resources mean that groups will always form to ensure their members have access to what they need even if that is at the expense of other groups.
-
It seems like this notion of "tribe" is a vague concept that you can redefine at will to support your argument or reject counterexamples that don't fit your narrative.
-k
We are instinctively tribal. Jonathan Haidt talks a lot about that, and numerous studies have shown we prefer to be around, to live around, those who are 'like us'. The more like us they are the more kinship we feel towards them. And the reverse is also true. Why do we give a million dollars to the families of some hockey players whose bus hit a truck out west but completely ignore the families of 22 people who died in a bus crash in Uganda the other day, or the 27 people who died in a bus crash in India last month. I bet none of you have even heard about them. We see the ones in Humboldt as being 'like us' and see ourselves in them and that gives us more empathy.
-
Nope. Finite resources mean that groups will always form to ensure their members have access to what they need even if that is at the expense of other groups.
"Need" was defined by Maslow and not all needs are equal. If you have the bottom pieces of the pyramid you are very likely to help others reach higher levels.