by Artemis » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:52 am
A: Not in and of itself, no. In fact, the ability to prioritise the needs of others above one's own needs is a necessary function of human thought (as well as other social animals). Indeed, the degree to which we may individually be considered worthwhile people is dependant on our acknowledgement and respect for the individuality of others, and our own place in a social framework that extends beyond ourselves. Concrete individuality - that is, individuality as a positive trait, according to our system of morals - cannot exist unless the individual denies their individuality, so far as it impacts negatively on the wellbeing of others.
As for caring about others, Heinlein argued persuasively that compassion is an elevation of survival behaviour above the level of the individual bloodline, and can therefore be considered the basis of any functioning system of morality. The necessity of evolution grants us the ability to quickly and mostly accurately assess situations with regard to our own survival, and the genetic imperative combined with non-genetic 'social evolution' extends this to the survival of our offspring, in that an individual or group that does not value its offspring will, all other factors being equal, be out-survived by the descendants of an individual or group that does.
The social evolution proceeds in stages - loyalty and sacrifice to one's own bloodline is fairly instinctual due to genetic imperative, and values inculcated during childhood. Loyalty and sacrifice to one's immediate social circle - the tribe (or these days, with less positive qualities, the gang) - is often developed as a result of shared circumstances, camaraderie, and external perceived-hostile factors that incline the individual to seek the superior survival value of a group. In more benign situations, shared interests and perceptions of mutual understanding can achieve the same, e.g. friendships. Loyalty and sacrifice to one's wider social group - religion, race, or nation-state - is widespread, as the millennia-long history of inter-societal struggle have created similar circumstances on a 'national' level as those which originally resulted in the rise of tribal behaviour. The ultimate evolution of the survival instinct, according to our present understanding of the universe, would be to hold the needs of life in any form as a goal worth sacrifice on the individual level (though it seems likely, given past experience, that an intermediate stage would be loyalty to Earth, in the event that any extra-terrestrial life is discovered - loyalty in the face of the 'other' is a recurring theme, and one which is difficult to surmount).
Of course, prioritisation of the needs of others doesn't negate one's own needs, and to care more about others than oneself without cause can be a negative in the individual sense, with the potential for negative impacts on others in one's social sphere. However, simplifying morality to a basic 'good/bad' equation, such behaviour would in most circumstances be considered a minor negative at most, and one which could be managed healthily. Understanding that all people have negative qualities, it would be irrational to deem one 'bad' on this basis alone.
So no, it doesn't really make you a bad person that you care more about others than you do yourself. The fact that you've got a gravitic cannon in your basement, and you plan to crash the moon into the Earth and rule the subsequently-arising techno-dark-age as a savage warlord, makes you a bad person. But I wouldn't worry, no-one's perfect.
Q: Who intented clouds, and what did people use previously to make the sky look fancy?
toned?
Before that, they would just toss up blops of marshmallow and what ever stuck, stuck. They got tired of getting buried in the blops that would unstick from the sky, mostly because by then it was a viscous mixture of marshmallow and bird poop. So they fluffed it up a bit to make it light and airy and floaty-like. Voila, you got yer basic clouds.
