If compassion and empathy ROSE as one gained more power, the world would be a much better place.

9 days ago by TrackinDaKraken to c/showerthoughts

Not that the vast majority would be without empathy, just that power would raise it from where it sits currently. Thought I should clarify that.

TheReanuKeeves 33 points 9 days ago

You don't get to positions of power by being nice. You're either corrupt to begin with or you will become corrupt on the journey. It's like any other competitive situation without proper refs and rules. People without morals do things to "win" that people with morals wouldn't. This is why the shit floats to the top

save

path: 0 25226217, hotness: undefined, score: 33, children: 3

PRIMEcavitationfetishist 10 points 9 days ago

Oh my god are you THE reanukeeves? Who was in 'mhe tatrix'? Holy shit dude I love your work, but why did you shave your facial hair when you started getting old?

save

path: 0 25226217 25228796, hotness: undefined, score: 10, children: 2

TheReanuKeeves 17 points 9 days ago

Don't forget my roles in "Wohn Jick", "Boint Preak" and "Till and Bed". I actually don't shave, it's due to the testosterone blockers I've been taking because I feel that I am too manly and am setting an unrealistic goal for humanity.

save

path: 0 25226217 25228796 25228877, hotness: undefined, score: 17, children: 1

PRIMEcavitationfetishist 7 points 9 days ago

That's reasonable. Yes.

save

path: 0 25226217 25228796 25228877 25228997, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 0

Sanctus 15 points 9 days ago

Gotta build a world where compassion and empathy are rewarded and that will happen

save

path: 0 25230099, hotness: undefined, score: 15, children: 0

gaiussabinus 5 points 9 days ago

We are organised in such a way that authority and empathy exclude each other. Never forget that authority is an authority by collective agreement, even when enforced by violence. A king never rules alone. If you elevate basic morality as a prerequisite for your participation with said authority it has no choice but to do so. So reach out to people and have important talks about these things. It is very important that agreement is formed as broadly as possible.

save

path: 0 25226356, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0

DarkCloud 4 points 9 days ago

Between a third and a half of the world's wealth comes from inheritance. If your parents have savings you will likely become privileged when they die. You'll experience some small windfall, and may even move up a class. Will you keep your empathy and class politics? What will you do with the money? Or will you just hide and perpetuate the system?

save

path: 0 25228611, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0

idiomaddict 1 point 9 days ago

I think our inverse relationship between power and empathy is essentially a society-wide maladaptive response to trauma.

It is beneficial to a society in times of famine, war, and general disaster, to have a leader who is able to say that 12 year olds should be fed before 14 year olds. It is also beneficial to a society in those times for the majority of people to be more willing to do something if an authority figure tells them to than they are willing to decide to do something.

When a society is generally secure, this becomes hugely problematic, because some portion of us are predisposed to be both heartless and powerful (the causation is largely irrelevant, because there’s a definite correlation), and most of the rest of us will support them and carry out their wishes.

save

path: 0 25226245, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 6

Doc_Crankenstein 5 points 9 days ago

Highly recommend reading David Graeber's "Dawn of Everything", "Debt: the First 5000 Years", and "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology". It explains a lot about how humanity ended up this way.

And the causation between people being heartlessness and power of authority is incredibly important: the way we build society creates the incentive structure of how we behave within that society. We have created a society that rewards abandoning empathy and solidarity to gain power and authority (i.e. security and stability) Thus we have a society of people who have no empathy or solidarity.

save

path: 0 25226245 25231588, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 5

idiomaddict 2 points 9 days ago

I love David graeber, that’s always a good recommendation.

I think that causation would be important for dealing with the issue, but I also believe there is zero practical chance we do deal with it, so it’s realistically irrelevant. We’re in a self-reinforcing cycle and it’s not changing unless we actually change it. Only in the last few years, I’ve seen us hit a dozen of what would have seemed like breaking points in the nineties, and we’re not breaking.

save

path: 0 25226245 25231588 25232905, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4

Doc_Crankenstein 3 points 8 days ago

As Ursula K LeGuin put it

"We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings."

There is no such thing as "breaking points". Revolutions aren't this spontaneous thing that just happens all of a sudden. It is the result of years of deliberate and concerted effort by communities to change their way of life.

save

path: 0 25226245 25231588 25232905 25253165, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3

idiomaddict 2 points 8 days ago

I think you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not talking about capitalism or even anything created intentionally by humans.

I’m talking about much more fundamental aspects of humanity- that we become tribalist and like a strongman leader during tough times, that we want to protect children over the elderly in emergencies.

Those play well into capitalism, but they also play well into most systems people have created (because they’re fundamentally human). I don’t think they’re immutable, but I don’t think we’re anywhere near being able to change them right now.

Not because I think they’re as inevitable as monarchy, but because it would be pointless to fix those things first without figuring out a way to stop fighting wars with each other, because those tendencies will return immediately in response to war.

It’s like working with someone to help them with PTSD, then sending them immediately back to the environment that gave it to them. A) PTSD might have been protective, if it made them more sensitive to loud noises or hyperaware of any changes that might indicate a danger; and B) they’re just going to develop symptoms of PTSD again.

So yes, we could change these aspects of humanity, but it would be pointless unless we can figure out a way to coexist without developing them anew.

save

path: 0 25226245 25231588 25232905 25253165 25254760, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 2

Doc_Crankenstein 1 point 9 days ago

It would but unfortunately we have built a world where our systemic structures incentivize abandoning empathy and solidarity in order to get ahead of "the competition" (i.e. your fellow man)

Bad people always will exist to some extent, those people are irrelevant. The major problem is that we have a society that turns good people bad in order to survive.

save

path: 0 25231511, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0

db2 -1 points 9 days ago

I think it does, except for the kind of person who seeks and covets that power, they're already damaged goods.

save

path: 0 25225885, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0

Rules

Rules