În general, la metrou cam ştii programul dacă circuli câteva zile la ore diferite. Pe la 3 jumate - 4 dai nas în nas cu funcţionarii publici. Îi recunoşti uşor. Au genţi diplomat din-alea ca pe vremea lui Ceaşcă sau chiar de atunci, multe roase pe la colţuri de la atâta purtare. Recunoşti imediat şi feţele alea acre de pe la ghişeele primăriilor sau ale altor servicii de stat. Te întorci în urmă cu vreo douăzeci de ani. Garantat.

La 6 şi chiar cu un sfert de oră mai devreme rup uşa corporatiştii şi muncitorii de pe şantierele din cartierele de birouri. A, şi liceenii sau copiii care învaţă după-amiaza. E chiar mişto să vezi cum se amestecă fustele de Zara cu blugii de Europa, stropiţi trendy cu vopsea în toate culorile, pantofii Bata cu şlapii ori cizmele cu var uscat pe ele, asortate musai la nişte unghii colorate în nuanţe închise :D

Cel mai haios este pe la 7 când găseşti în metrou numai corporatişti obosiţi de la statul peste program, programatori în vervă care vorbesc despre World of Warcraft dar şi muncitorii drojdieri, obosiţi şi ei de la statul peste program la cârciuma de la metrou Pipera unde dimineaţa miroase a hamsii prăjiţi, probabil micul dejun al aceloraşi drojdieri.

Revenind, de ce zic că altruismul e o utopie? Pentru că în fiecare dintre noi, oricât de altruişti ne-am considera, seara, la metrou, părticica aia de egoism pe care nu o ştiam iese la suprafaţă şi se manifestă plenar. Seara, în metrou, la Pipera toţi sar să prindă locuri. Dacă mergi chiar şi 3 staţii şi nu vrei să fii călcat în picioare, cel mai bine este să te aşezi şi să vâri pantofii sub scaune.

Dacă ai norocul să ai un copil mic cu tine dar care poate sta în picioare, asta e. Nu se va ridica niciunul dintre sus-menţionaţii ca să îţi cedeze locul. Dacă eşti gravidă şi nu ai contracţiile naşterii, iarăşi poţi să îţi iei adio de la locurile speciale. De la nivelul scaunului nu se vede oricum până la nivel burţii unei gravide :) Babe sau moşi chiar nu am văzut după 6 seara în metrourile care vin dinspre capătul business al oraşului aşa că nu pot să spun dacă "altruismul" se manifestă la fel şi faţă de ei dar bănuiesc că nu ar avea de ce să fie altfel pentru că, deh, zicala "ia uite-l şi pe ăsta, îl caută moartea pe acasă şi el umblă" e valabilă oricând şi în orice mijloc de transport în comun.

De ce nu ne ridicăm în faţa gravidelor, a mamelor cu copii sau a celor bătrâni n-aş putea să vă spun. Ne dor picioarele, suntem poate prea obosiţi de la atâta muncă cu creierul, cărăm laptopuri prea grele în rucsaci, vrem să citim şi alea sunt singurele momente în care am putea-o face liniştiţi... Multe sunt motivele şi uneori chiar nu ne dăm seama că poate cineva de lângă noi are mai multă nevoie de scaunul ăla, de locul de lângă drojdierul care pute ca o distilerie ambulantă. Rareori îi vedem pe cei care stau în picioare. De ce? Pentru că nu ne lasă bucăţica aia de egoism izvorâtă din altruismul nostru mărginit. D'aia.

The concept of altruism (an unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others) echoes closely the principal of Selfless Service – one of the seven principals I’ve stated that I intend to live by.  The key word is: intend. Altruism is an admirable notion but one that I believe is ultimately unachievable.  It requires perfect purity of intent and deed.  Unfortunately, as imperfect human beings, I believe we are incapable of creating or doing anything perfect. 

As I stated above, a great many of my opinions were shaped by the Christian environment in which I was raised.  If my Dad said it once, he said a million times: Don’t ask for rewards when you do good deeds.  You will get your reward in Heaven.  He truly believed that and he did many good deeds in his short life.  He was an honest and decent man.  Mom said many times after he died that he should have been sainted.  Yet, even he was incapable of altruism.  He believed wholeheartedly in his God and that being a faithful servant of that God would earn him a place in Heaven.  It was his devotion to the approval of his God that drove him. 

I however have no afterlife, no Heaven to look forward to.  So, why then do I consistently choose to do good deeds and strive toward a goal (selfless service) I’ve stated that I honestly believe is unattainable?  Not because it’s what people expect of me, but because it’s what I demand of myself.  Is this Altruism or Self-Righteous Moral Superiority?  Neither.  I think, in all honesty it’s probably just fear.  I’m not too arrogant or egotistical to admit it.  I’m afraid and (as I discovered very young) fear is a powerful motivator.  But, afraid of what you might ask?  Certainly not God or the Devil, as an Atheist neither of those concepts pose any threat or motivation to me.  Not Jail or Prison - those who know me well have learned (if nothing else) that punishment is never an adequate deterrent.  What then do I fear?  My greatest fear in life is loosing my parents.  I know; they’re already dead.  However, what they left behind is what I still hold on to: A legacy of morality.

Albert Pine wrote:  What we do for ourselves dies with us.  What we do for others and world remains and is immortal.  Never was that quote more true than when applied to my parents.  My parent’s deeds (regardless of their misguided religious motivation) do live on in this world.  Their immortality is in the lessons and morality they instilled in me before they died.  To maintain their immortality and keep them in my heart, I must continue to live by their example.  I know there is no Heaven waiting for me.  All that remains is what I leave behind.  So, I perpetuate their legacy.  Clearly, it’s a decidedly less than Altruistic attitude.  However, if I leave my corner of the world a better place than I found it, my parents will be in the good (positive energy) that remains.

I am also so excited I get to be in the advance group.  I've always wanted to be advanced at anything but never had the guts to try something advanced.  I tell you, as you grow older in years and you learn more about yourself, some of your inhibitions seem to fade or you just don't care because you're growing old anyhow.  What do you have to lose right?  Well, I think I'm generalizing this important issue.  So I will speak from personal experience.  If someone were to ask me during a life interview, (not a job interview but a life interview), "How do you feel about your life at this moment in time?"  First I would ask, what the hell is a life interview?  Well, a life interview, if you so desire to know, is an assessment of your current life stage.  You can either self evaluate or be totally imaginative and imagine having an imaginary interviewer to ask you that simple but daring question, "How do you feel about your life at this moment in time?"  I know both scenarious are sort of awkward but I prefer to have an imaginary interviewer ask me that question.  Although i like to talk to myself out loud I still prefer someone who is not there asking me a question.

I would say, "Well...hmmm...that is a difficult question to answer.  Actually not really.  It's a simple question but the answer is difficult to conceive."

My interviewer asks, "Are you happy?"

"Yes, for the most part.  I am very happy with some aspects of my life.  Not entirely.  But I am.  I'm sort of frustrated about which career path to take or lack thereof.  I don't know what to do in that department.  But I am looking into going back to school; film school since I've always liked doing videos anyhow.  In fact I have already registered for the winter semester."

Interviewer interjects, "Ah you see.  That's very good.  You have moved a step closer to whatever it is you want to achieve."

"Yeah I have.  Before I never thought to do something about it.  Hmmm...that's funny.  i kind of like this doing something to achieve something thing.  It makes me feel like I'm doing something.  Which I am."

"How else do you feel about your life?"

I thought about it for a second, I mean really thought  about it.  I even turned my head to the side and made that thinking look appear on my face.  "You know what else that is different about me?"

"What?"

"I feel more confident these days.  Like I can achieve anything I set my mind to.  Like this morning.  I had to wake up at 6 am for training but my alarm clock did not go off and so I woke up 10 minutes before 7 which is the time training starts.  The old me would have gone back to bed and make excuses and not show up for training.  Instead I got up, washed my face, put on a hat because my hair is just too wild, even though I think I'm losing more hair than a shaggy dog, drank coffee, put my shoes on, ate cereal all within 5 minutes.  Then I left home for the tracks.  Albeit 5 minutes late but I showed up," giggling a little.  "I showed up!"  I said it so proudly.

"Good for you for showing up.  I know a little about the old Arvin myself."  I was surprised the interviewer knew something if even a little about me.  "The old you, would have never told anyone about anything.  You were afraid to tell anyone about your aspirations and dreams and passions.  You were afraid because you would think people will call on the things that you did not achieve."  I kept quiet.  During life transitions or evolutions you also know how to be patient and to approach situations through dialogue and not by confrontations.  Confrontations solve nothing.  I'm big on dialogue these days.

So I said to my life interviewer the same thing that Nico sang in that song titled These Days, "Please don't confront me with my failures.  I had not forgotten them."  Yes I had not forgotten any of them.  Whatever dreams and goals I have lurking in the back of my mind I can still achieve them.  And I will.  And the more I tackle them the more my mind is strip of thoughts of failure.  That's the beauty of being alive.  You can still do something.

To be continued...

Please visit my donation page to contribute.  Thank you!

These students are part of a unique economic rewards-based incentive program designed by Pittsburgh-based Apangea Learning to motivate students to want to learn math. As students learn math through Apangea Learning’s supplemental math program, they accrue points for their efforts. Many students redeem these points for gift cards to their favorite retailer, BUT these students chose an altruistic option: donate the dollar value of their points towards a cause they believe in: The Humane Society.

“We are thrilled to accept this generous donation from these caring students,” says Lee Nesler, Executive Director of the WPA Humane Society.  “The money will be used to care for the thousands of animals that come to the shelter each month.”

Yet, it is not so that people necessarily consume themselves, but egotism does, and therefore a system which is founded on its principles is doomed to crash. On the other hand, it is difficult to conceive how a species of mankind's advancement, driven by altruism so that the good of others serve as incitement for each, would destroy themselves in such a disgraceful fashion. That is, altruism achieves the goals of the egotist, who fails in the same -- and in this, the evil is truly the fool.

And certainly, they have nothing but problems, since they think of nothing else, conceive of nothing else, yet if they knew that their problems were really the conceptions themselves, they would not be in distress. However, realizing that their problems is nothing can be done most easily through interesting oneself in the difficulties of others, wherefore it is as a result seldom managed.

Yet, were the stockbrooker to understand the difficulties of the starving children of the world, he would not torment himself over the rise and fall of stocks, and were the vain to know the suffering of the terminally ill of the world, they would no longer fret about looking good, and were the proud to know of the perseverance of those who have been given nothing, they would not be arrogant etc. But this should not seem strange, for in expanding the mind to conceive of difficulties that make one's own problems seem like nothing, one makes one's own problems into nothing, i.e., one is relieved of them, for they are no longer conceived as difficulties, but the absence of difficulties, wherefore those who interest themselves in others and help others before themselves will indeed be happier and more content than ever those who live in a mental fortresses.

Pure materialism rejects the existence of anything beyond matter and its interaction. When all events in the universe are reduced to the colliding of atoms, there’s no room for good or bad. These interactions are purposeless and irrational.

Though it may be without purpose, it is far from being irrational. The interactions of matter are consistent. If one is rational, it means their opinions are consistent with and logically derived from established facts and observations. The interactions of matter are determined by the properties inherent to the matter itself. Matter never deviates from its own nature, and never reaches irrational conclusions. The material world never actually reaches any conclusions, nor does matter apply reason to anything because matter is not aware of facts and it doesn't make observations. Matter has no need to derive truth from itself, because the properties of matter, and energy, dictate what truth is.

Because of this reductionism of everything, materialists argue that humans are the same as animals, thus taking away the dignity humans have.

I'm not so insecure that I think my worthiness of esteem and respect is somehow robbed if I'm not the product of divine inspiration. Dignity is only lost if your standard for dignity requires that the entirety of the universe revolves around our tiny little lives. Besides, why should truth conform to the whims of our discontentions. Reality need not think you speacial in order to remain real.

This line of thinking is severe and deadly. Let’s consider whether it is evil or not to kill an animal. If it is evil to indiscriminately kill an animal, then it is also evil to indiscriminately kill humans. However, the unfortunate side effect of this is that we must stop washing anything, because killing bacteria – animals – is just like killing people.

The other option is that indiscriminately killing animals is not evil, but then killing humans indiscriminately isn’t evil either. So the worst atrocities of human history are nothing more than just washing your hands.

In either case, the final issue is that the Holocaust becomes morally equivalent to cleaning a dirty bathroom.

This is a very simplistic view of morality because it does not take into account the reasons why we consider killing in some circumstances wrong and not in others. The killing itself is not inherently wrong and, for most people, the moral implications of the act are based on other factors such as necessity and sentience.

Then things such as altruism are only believed to be “good” because they benefit the species and forward our evolution. However, altruism and self sacrifice are actually a detriment to our progress. If the weak are procreating, they only pollute the gene pool and ultimately damage the species. If Dawkins is right about memes and morality developing in an evolutionary way, then all forms of altruism will quickly exterminate themselves, since it is disadvantageous evolutionarily.

Altruism need not be applied only to the weak and, as a social species, our certain weaknesses can be more tolerated in the population. When a parent cares for her children or her relatives, he/she is helping to ensure that members of the species sharing at least some of his or genome are more likely to survive. While altruism might perpetuate certain weaknesses, such as strength, it selects for intelligence and strengthens the group by cultivating problem solving skills. Altruistic behavior is even present at the cellular level. In multicellular organisms, a process of cell destruction called apoptosis occurs. Apoptosis can be mediated by the organism, or by the cell to be destroyed. In one case we see murder, but in the other we see self-directed cellular suicide. When the cell poses a threat to the organism, it quite literally takes one for the team. I'm fairly certain Dawkins discusses social evolution in more than a few of his books, and he addresses this very concern. If Humphery read Dawkins work at all, he might have been aware of that.

Furthermore, this type of thinking on morality can lead some to justify atrocities. If we take Dawkins at his word about the evolution of morality, then for the sake of the species almost every corner of the world has found it acceptable to enslave, exterminate and sterilize humans at some point.

The behavioral parameters we have are not absolute, because our circumstances are not absolute. Many societies have also deemed slavery not acceptable. Why should we assume that one circumstance is inherently implied while the other is not? Evolutionary pros and cons exist for societies advocating slavery and those not advocating slavery. Ultimately, slavery is less beneficial. Freedom allows for the persistence of genetic diversity and increases the likelihood that a beneficial characteristic will be have a chance to enter the population. Freedom is potentially beneficial for every member of our species, while slavery only favors the few. Humphery also seems to think that those who use slavery are so capable because they are superior. Slave drivers usually have a weapon, something their genetics know nothing about. Technology has changed the course of evolution. Almost anyone, regardless of their genetic "inferiority", can pull a trigger.

It was once legal and morally acceptable to own slaves, yet Western civilization considers freedom to be an inalienable right. But from Dawkins’ point of view, it could be prudent for our species to enslave the weak for survival of the strong.

Slavery does not favor the strong. With a weapon, even a child is potentially deadly. Also, if I were to advocate slavery, I would have to acknowledge the potential that I might be enslaved. Not only is it in the best interest of our species to remain free, but it is in the best interests of the individual.

These conclusions, once illuminated for what they are, morally corrupt – lose their creditabilty. They are simply a gross oversimplification of the human condition. We are more than biological programs.

This reasoning is completely circular. Humphery correctly implies that certain atrocities such as slavery are neither morally right or wrong, but then arbitrarily decides that such a a conclusion is unacceptable. In other words, he’s assuming the existence of absolute moral truths, and using them as evidence that moral relativism is irrational. Humphery deems the implications of moral relativism unacceptable by applying them to his as yet unjustified absolute moral standards. Humphery's argument establishes nothing, it requires that moral absolutes already exist. His argument is as follows:

Slavery is wrong, moral relativism implies otherwise, therefore moral relativism is wrong.

That Slavery is absolutely wrong, or that moral absolutes even exist, is never established and the assumption never actually justified.

God gave us stewardship over creation not to exploit, but to tend it as a servant tends his master’s vineyard.

I may have spoken to soon. It seems Humphery feels that servitude is morally acceptable. How ironic...

-Chalmer

The 4,000 word story has touched hundreds of thousands of readers across the world for decades. Translations into many languages and numerous reprints are testimony to its enduring popularity.

Why do people find the story so compelling? The shepherd’s life offers a simple lesson: Persistence is rewarded. If we patiently—and positively—do good things, success will come. Furthermore, when we build the future one good deed at a time, the people who follow us will benefit because of our efforts and example.

CHAMPS plant what others will reap.

I hope everyone is having a great year so far, filled with laughter and good health.  Well it is October now so the year is almost coming to a close.  I can't believe it myself.

As you all may have been aware, back in December 2006, I completed the Honolulu Marathon.  It was the first marathon I have ever completed in my life.  Not only was it the first marathon but also the first biggest altruistic action I've ever done and accomplished.  I mean I am one of those people who drops a few coins into those red metal cans during the holidays as most of you probably do.  And I'm one of those people who contributed a dollar to cancer when cashiers from Pavilions ask me to.  We all do it when there is actually change in our pockets or a dollar we can spare.   Because I believe that WE all have that sense of belonging and community.  After all we are all human beings.  And we all have that innate characteristics to care, to nurture, to empathize and all those other human feelings we feel in ourselves and for each other as people of the earth.

A couple years ago I saw a Frontline documentary about the Age of AIDS.  Most of you have probably read my blog before so I won't bore you with details about how I felt compelled to do something which I eventually did.  I signed up for this great cause the day after I saw that documentary.   I trained with the National Aids Marathon Training program for 6 months and all the while raising over $4000 for HIV/AIDS through AIDS Project Los Angeles better known as APLA.  I could not have done it without your support.  And now, I am asking for your help once more.  Deja vu isn't it?

I will be running the LA Marathon to raise money for AIDS Project Los Angeles.  I've completed the LA Marathon back in 2007 but not for APLA but for myself.  But this time I will be running 26.2 miles for a very good cause.  I feel very fortunate for the things I have in my life; friends, family, a roof over my head and a job to pay my bills.  But the feeling of wanting to do something for my fellow human beings has never been far away.  So here I am again asking for your help once more.  Not to worry, I will probably be asking you for donations next year.

Please, won't you come and join me with this great cause?  Together we can change our reality and the world and I am not even speaking metaphorically.  I am speaking because I am alive and you are alive.  And metaphorically speaking this time, we as people can move mountains.

My first training day was this past Saturday.  I signed up for the advanced training program.  Let me tell you, I'm going to be pushed to my physical limits.  But in the end I hope to have a six pack or a cute boyfriend or both.  I know, I know.  I've been wanting one forever but it's never too late to wish for one if you don't already have it.  But as a reminder, just donate money and you will feel like you have both; a cute boyfriend and a six pack.

Besides having a six pack you will be treated to a blog of my training.  I've chronicled my trials and tribulations during the 2006 Honolulu Marathon on my own website.  Unfortunately that site is no longer in existence.  But fortunately it will be up and running again through Wordpress.org.  In the next few days I will be working on updating my own blog.  That way you will be involved with my training progress or lack thereof.  I will keep you updated.  And you can see pictures during the 2006 Honolulu Marathon.  I tell you that was the most enlightened event of my life.  I had my friends there, my family and most importantly I had all of your support.  So watch out for updates.

Please visit my AIDS Marathon Training site to donate your hard earned cash.  Your contribution is tax deductible.  Hopefully America will send you some money back your way when you contribute.  But even if you don't, at least you will have the privileged to say, "I have contributed to the well being of my fellow human beings."

Thank you all very much!

Arvin P Hernandez

Please visit my donation page to contribute.  Thank you!

And, if we're are all expressions of an original consciousness, a prime mover, then there can be no such thing as selflessness. If we are truly one, then we are always acting in our self-interest.

Another study shows that exercising, specifically jogging, while listening to music can increase endurance by up to 15%. The trick is to match your pace to the beat, and this increased the subjects endurance on a treadmill. 

And, not surprisingly, it has been established that people who regularly upload material to the internet are not doing it for the collective good, but are, in fact, just seeking attention. And I will not comment on the obvious irony of this being posted on a regularly updated internet blog....ehm....

While this raises the age-old question of altruism v. self-interest, that ol' Socrates v. Glaucon from Book II of Republic, we at Tracking Katie posit without further elaboration that the internet is no Ring of Gyges for Kate.

1. Human nature (a) is selfish (b)

2. Human nature (a) ought to be the basis for society (c)

3. Capitalism (d) encourages selfishness (b)

4. Therefore capitalism (d) reflects human nature (a) and is thus a good basis for society (c)

Or rather

1. Item (a) possesses quality (b)

2. Item (a) is best solution for (c)

3. System (d) allows encourages quality (b)

4. Therefore System (d) allows Item (a) and thus fulfils solution for (c)

This is a simple deductive equation. This means that I cannot reject the conclusion (point 4) if I accept the premises (points 1-3). In order to show the argument as a fallacy I must show how at least one of the premises is mistaken.

I will focus primarily upon premise 1, since this is the premise that I dispute. I will first ask whether human beings are indeed selfish and then pre-empt the reply, which from experience turns to a Social Darwinist stance.

I have heard it said many times that socialists are deluded to think that humans can be selfless and co-operative. These people say that human beings are just naturally selfish and feign an air of realism. I do not dispute that human beings are naturally selfish, rather I say that we are also naturally altruistic beings, and that our nature is malleable to suit certain environments.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt (2008)  (http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2008/09/jonathan_haidt.html) in a TED lecture talks about human beings possessing five basic "moral" tendencies from birth (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, in group loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity) which are then malleable to experience later on. He goes on to explain that those with liberal or left wing ideologies base their morality on the former two tendencies, while conservatives tend to base their morality on the latter three.

Now, the realist school of thought which I am dealing with is not conservative in quite the same sense although both ultimately come to the same conclusion. The realist school is not based upon desires for in group loyalty, respect for authority or a desire for purity, but attempts to base itself upon objective facts. It is true that capitalism bases itself upon our selfish nature, our very powerful desires to take for ourselves, and the more we look in this direction, the more it seems that "we're just like this, so we may as well just accept it." The problem is that such an approach actually blinds us to another truth, human beings are also social creatures, co-operative creatures, creatures that look after others. This is not just wishful thinking, the evidence is overwhelming, perhaps not among those in the London Stock Exchange, but among ordinary people. These claims I'm making are empirical; I have experienced a lot of cruelty at the hands of other people, and so I can not deny that human beings can be cruel, selfish and thoughtless for others, but I have also experienced a lot of kindness, selflessness as well as day to day co-operation. The claim that "we're just selfish, get over it" as realistic as it may sound, is actually just quite simply not true.

Some might say then that capitalism ought to be supported because it is akin to natural selection. One of the finest works of conceptual biology in the twentieth century, The Selfish Gene (Dawkins 1976), has a different look at natural selection which better allows for the fact of altruistic behaviour arising among species. The Selfish Gene looks at evolution as the selection of some genes over others rather than the selection of individual creatures or groups over others. Let's say a gene arises that gives a land mammal the beginnings of webbed hands and feet, this gene does not give any specific disability to the individual and remains in the gene pool. Now let's imagine that the sea levels start to rise on the island until eventually creatures have to swim across channels to get food more frequently, the gene for webbed hands and feet will spread around the gene pool until all individuals possessing the non-webbed allele of the gene has been killed off by marine reptiles. Ultimately it is the gene that is selected for. This allows for two things, the first is that it is the metaphorical selfishness of our genes (i.e. being good for their own survival, not necessarily ours) which is selected for, not necessarily the behaviour of individuals or groups being selfish, there are many behavioural traits in individuals and groups which will allow genes to continue to replicate which aren't selfish, a mother putting her young before herself, or tribal bonding. The second is that because it is our genes that 'act' selfishly and not necessarily the individual, then Darwinian natural selection as a theory about how we came to exist, does not justify any form of human behaviour. Darwin himself, although the inspiration for his theory was the brutal Malthusian economics, only saw it as a logical inspiration and not a moral one.

I'm conflicted about these so-called "socks".

I mean, I understand that peoples marinate them all day long in a shoe and then abandon them in the closet basket so that I'll have something interesting to find and put in my mouth in between meals and carrot cleanings. Obvs. I get that.

But I feel kinda bad for the poor rubes - what's in it for them?

The answer is "nothing." And that's why, after a lot of sole searching, I've decided to give back in kind; from now on, if I step in a dead thing, or some street juice, or even a puddle of Lionel's Own, I'm going to share. By putting my foot in J or Ms. P's mouth while they're sleeping.

Surprise! Is there any better way to wake up than via the subtle bouquet of paw on tongue? If there is, I can't think of one. But what I can think about - what I will think about - are the smiles I'm going to bring to their faces, and the holes I'm going to put in their socks.

The following letter belongs to “the Pavement”which is  a free monthly publication dedicated to the homeless in London, Issue 34, September 2008.

Dear Editor,

I have lived on the streets of London and made my way off the streets and into my own flat. The circumstances that landed me on the street could happen to anyone; indeed, the economic climate is probably finding more people onthe street then in recent times.

            After much thought and deliberation, I have developed stronger views on the issues surrounding the homeless and the current ways and philosophies in which society is administering help to the homeless.

            I am in favour of shutting down all avenues to feeding the homeless in day centres or on the streets such as soup runs and all church-run events. Even though I was, indeed, helped by these resources – I was fed and bathed, my clothes were washed and i was given shelter in the winter – and I can not express how grateful I am for these kind of acts, I believe these methods should change.

            And this is way: it isn’t helping and it isn’t working. People are not leaving the street – it is becoming a lifestyle for many, one that our society, in general, does not accept. The reason they are there really doesn’t matter; the fact they are there is the issue. What comes next is what needs to change in order for the reduction in homelessness to occur.

            Let’s be honest: there will always be homeless people. Some manage to get off and move on, while more will end up there. As Maslow’s law explains, individuals must obtain five levels of security before they can reach a space in which they can enjoy the full benefits of spiritual experience, growth and pleasure. In general, we accept that we must have our basic needs of food, shelter, clothing, cleanliness and social interaction before we can, as humans, focus our minds onto obtaining and engaging in higher spiritual endeavours. Isn’t that what we want for everyone, no exception?

            The present way of doing things is hurting individuals, not helping them. The churches and charities are enabling the homeless. From my experiences of living on the street, I have learned that all beggars are not hungry – they know where to get fed and find food thrown out by businesses. They beg to get money to buy drugs or alcohol. Hostels and day centres do not care if you have an addiction, mental health issue or other, they will shelter you and feed you.

            The workers will listen to you and become your part-time friend, but not a real one, as you will never be allowed direct acces to their life. In fact, the real reason they are there is for self-satisfaction: they enjoy helping someone less fortunate than themselves. They pity the homeless and cannot watch anyone suffer, so they give and give and give.

            The result is learned helplessness. The homeless then enjoy the freedom of no responsibility and enjoy a life on the streets where they know where to go to get all their needs met. A network of individuals who help each other and live amongst each other really need a lot more care and compassion then that.

            The tax-payer is paying for their addiction, buying their druggs, alcohol and even purchasinggambling habits, and that isn’t fair or right. The homeless use the resources they get from the government to engage in these activities and then go to the day centres and churches to be fed, clothed, washed and get part-time shelter. Human behavior must have consequences before it is motivated to change, because change is difficult.

            The natural consequence of misspending your benefits  needs to be no food, shelter or clothing. If you do not want to take responsibilities for your own welfare, you need to go without, and taking away this consequence is inhuman. In exchange for hope, a home, food, clothing, cleanliness, treatment and social interaction, the homeless individual must agree to participate in and co-operate with the appropiate extended reform service. No, no one can force anyone, not even to help themselves, if they do not want to. So if they choose not to go along with the treatment worked out for them, then the natural consequence would be, once again, homelessness. No food, clothing or shelter.

            Churches and charities need to get out of the way to allow this to happen, or they need to adopt a new philosophie that allows the individual to suffer the consequences of their actions. A hard line needs to be taken to not help these individuals by means of legislation. No benefits and no material means acces to reform resources and education always, but no hand-outs of food, clothing or money. We must send a message to the homeless that we care enough to want more for them, that we believe they are not helpless, that they can learn to help themselves again. Do-gooders need to grow a backbone and say it isn’t good enough that we feed you in the streets and offer you temporary solutions, they need to get strong enough to watch suffering happen with an eye open to better returns on their charity. By all means give to the causes, but stop all activity that lends to enabling and crippling the homeless.

            I will show you a home, with hope, with food, shelter and clothing where you can help yourself by partaking of what is offered, slowly growing back to learning to help yourself. I will never give you pity or accept you cannot do it or help you defeat yourself by feeding, clothing and offering you temporary shelter. The choice is yours. If you choose to leave, you are on your own, but if, in time and when your turn returns, as many others are waiting for their chance for help, you may try again.

Anon.

The Pavement (print) ISSN 1757-0476

The Pavement (online) ISSN 1757-0484

www.thepavement.org.uk

Aside from this record, what is most memorable about Paul Newman to me is that he refused to join the empty world of successful Hollywoodites in Hollywood. Early on, he left the movie capitol of fun and frolic, and took up permanent residence in Connecticut, far from that madding crowd. He was empowered by his commitment to contribute and distribute the great wealth he amassed as an actor and from his business to where it would do the most good.

His example, I am sure, has influenced some of our finest younger actors. Prime examples are Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt who live most of their time abroad. Angelina has promoted humanitarian causes , notably for the United Nations, throughout the world, especially for refugees. She and Brad Pitt have three children of their own and three adopted children.

cafeaua are la baza si un profund sentiment de altruism - ii ajuta pe ceilalti sa scape cu viata pe parcursul zilei.... te ajuta si pe tine sa scapi cu nervii intacti.

 asemenea prietenii la catarama ai cafelei sunt canile speciale, cani starbucks, pentru ca astea sunt sigurele din ce am gasit je care se inchid ermetic si care te ajuta foarte tare ca atunci cand ajungi pe plantatie sa nu si arati ca un sclav.

cafeaua merge cu tigara, ceea ce o face de treispe mii de ori mai buna decat deja este -  mai putin cand incerci sa le raresti sau cand incerci sa te lasi, sa-mi fut una ce greu e, mai ales ca nu vrei de fapt.

cafeaua te face un om mai bun clar.

dependenta dulce dependenta

Also sprache Zarathustra - the bestowing virtue.

He describes a powerful altruism originating from... selfishness. Not at all the selfishness that says 'Me first, all for myself!', but a much more elevated form, the soul that gathers riches until satiation, so as to become itself a source of richness for others. I find this a more valuable, more appealing - perhaps even more natural -  idea of altruism than the traditional 'Don't think about yourself, let your attention be on behalf of the others'-kind-of-altruism. 

'Traditional altruism' can be irritating too: what if everyone was really altruist? Wouldn't it be insufferable when everyone's mind would be invariably focused on the others' needs?

So, have a try! Pick up the treasures you find, become overflooded, and be as sprankling and beaming as the bestowing virtue, to the well-being of your environment!'

'Elevated is then your body, and raised up; with its delight, enraptureth it the spirit; so that it becometh creator, and valuer, and lover, and everything's benefactor.'

edit: Derrick Nantz wrote a nice thesis paper about Nietzsche's approach to ethics: click

I have been trying to give a natural answer to this question for a while, and for a while I was convinced that I didn't have enough evidence or observations to really anwer either way. Why or why not. The exposure of a typical high school graduate to life, real, unadulterated, painful life, can be shockingly limited. An answer to such a question demands a certain responsibility that I wasn't ready to assume yet.

But recently, I've been thinking, and realizing, coming to a tentative conclusion that I really want to go into medicine because of how much access you gain into peoples' lives, even if for a brief, tragic moment. You are privileged enough to have people share their most intimate moments with you. When I was younger (and still now), I read books to gain unadulterated access to people other's lives and minds, out of curiosity at the private, mental lives of others. Still now, in my volunteer work, my favourite part of my job is getting to listen and to hear other peoples' stories. As a doctor, your job is to listen to the patient's story and know what they are saying, and aren't saying.

My images and expectations of medicine are constantly changing and being updated with new experiences, but this seems to be the most coherent thread I've discovered so far. I can live with this answer.

It's always struck me that the most dedicated doctors ... or dedicated professionals of any career, have a self-destructive streak in them. Altruism, extreme altruism, always has tones of self-destruction and annihilation. Surrendering yourself to a greater cause inevitably means losing part of yourself, and I wonder if altruists do it, partly, out of an restless self-hatred.

• Help Feed Hungry Children via Danny Fisher
• Help Save Kids via Three Sons and a Princess
• Seeking $1.5 million to feed malnourished children via Bearing Drift
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project, via The Colombo Times News Blog
• Altruism - For Whose Sake? via Jakartass
• Cast a Vote, Help Save a Child via The Blog That Ate Manhattan Goes to Italy
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Here There and Everywhere
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Samotalis
• International Medical Corps responds to the food crisis with emergency nutrition programs food relief aid agricultural assistance and training via Fight to Stop Violence
• Calling All American Express Card Members via All 4 My Gals
• Russia using cluster bombs and humanitarian efforts for children… via Glass City Jungle
• I've got this via E-Mail To Publish on this site, For the sake of children via The Triple Gem!
• In This Election, The Winners are the Children via The Blog That Ate Manhattan
• International Medical Corps via Christefideles
• saving malnourished children via Lotusinthemud
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children With International Medical Corps via Myrtus
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Ontario
• International Medical Corps via Sakshum...cultivating dreams
• International Medical Corps via Jumping Monkeys
• Banner on Site via Nerds Eye View
• Fabulicious Friday #26 via cookienotes
• Sharing Saturday - AmEx and Int’l Medical Corps via My Life as a Hot Professional
• Cause Everyone Needs to Eat via Grassroots Activism
• International Medical Corps via Yoga and Judaism Center
• Radyo Inteligentaindigena-09-20-2008 via Inteligentaindigena Novajoservo
• Help IMC save the lives of malnourished children in Africa! via A Romanian in Africa
• Fighting Deadly Malnutrition: This Time, A Morally Imperative Rescue via The Cogitamus Blog
• Fighting Deadly Malnutrition: This Time, A Morally Imperative Rescue via litbrit
• Do the right thing via Bloody Brilliant
• Let None Go Hungry via Pipecleaner Dreams
• Click to Help Malnourished Children! via A Red Thread Connection
• Tweet via Bloggapalooza
• Here's Something Cool via Cool Mom Picks
• A Different Vote: Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Sexy Spanish Club in Buenos Aires
• Saving Lives for Malnourished Children via Connorcolesmom
• This won't take a minute. via Miss Cellania
• People Watching in Lipscani via Writers Bloc
• A Good Deed via My Boyfriend is a twat
• Corporate do-gooding: Vote for the best ideas that American Express is sifting through via Religion Blog: Dallas News
• Please consider voting via Living in shkoder Albania
• Banner via Andres V
• Help Save the Lives of Malnourished Children via Progressive U.org
• International Medical Corp via Jaden's Journal
• We Get Stuff via Winds of Change
• International Medical Corps, Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Art of the Possible Online
• Banner via Postcards From Across the Pond
• Another AmEx Submission... via Fat Doctor
• Up to 5 million children a year die of malnutrition - with one mouse click, you can help via Shakesville
• Help International Medical Corp Save Starving Child With Just One Click via William K. Wolfrum
• International Medical Corps Needs Your Vote via The Rotten Word
• Give 'em a vote via Army of Mom
• Int’l Child Relief NGO Needs Our Votes…1.5Million At Stake via The Democratic Daily
• Members Project by AmEx is amazing. Vote to send their money to help children here. via Craphammer
• Reaching Out in the Love of Christ via The Day of the Lord
• Do you Hear the Cry? via Christs Redeeming Passion
• Compassion that makes a Difference. via Passion that Redeems
• The Greatest Gift is Love via About the Father's Business
• Making a Difference via Redeemed by the Passion of Christ
• Be a Light that Makes a Difference via Life in Christ
• Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via What's a Delmer Look Like
• banner via The Legless Blog
• Contribution to a Noble Cause via Aa..Ha [Thinking Inside The Blog!]
• Help International Medical Corps Earn $1.5M via Turning Left
• Help International Medical Corps Earn $1.5M via eNews Park Forest
• They Need Your Vote … via Freaked Out Fathers
• posted widget via Albtranslator
• Please check this out via Braveheart Does the Maghreb
• Saving the lives of malnourished children via Tongue and Cheek
• American Express' Members Project International Medical Corps via Sugar and Spice
• International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children via Budget Nomad - US Ex - Pat on the Move
• Vote for International MedicalCorps to Help Children in Need. via humorgrafe
• Voting for International Medical Corps via Tall Skinny Kiwi

Also, please let me know if I missed your post in the Chris Abraham comment area -- and if you want to post about the contest and the issue, please feel free and pop the URL into the Chris Abraham comment section and I will add you and thanks in advance!

If you need more information, please check out our informational page, International Medical Corps Matched With Top 25 American Express Members Project, "Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children"

We can identify with the needs of others because we can see ourselves in their place and what we would like to have done to us in their place; the golden rule. Do to others what you would have them do to you.

Compassion is a particularly strong emotion when we see need in the young of other living creatures, but this is not unique to Homo sapiens as this incredible footage shows, when a Leopard almost seems to regret killing a baboon.

At the same time, despite my derision, are those people totally wrong?

I can't help but think of Hegel's Philosophy of Right during some of our debates. I was thinking of Hegel's relationship between producer and consumer. I'm going on my moldy memory from two years back, but from what I remember, Hegel basically proved that producers acting on their selfish interests (making money) actually made them altruistic and selfless and that it was very good for people and society. The producer, in order to sell stuff, needs to know what the consumer wants, needs, and desires in order to be a good producer and make money. Thus, the producer can only achieve his selfish desires (money) by fulfilling the selfish desires (whatever crap like Furbies that they want to buy) of the population.

It is thus better for all if producers do what they want, because in a way, what they want is to garner to our needs.

They make money from making people happy. 

Aww...don't we live in such a magical Carebear world?

The Capitalist Carebear philosophy.

Our country is at war, what do we do?

SHOP!

Oh no, I am all alone and no one loves me because I have no personality and I am a terrible person, but I still want love, what do I do?

You're a great consumer, don't change yourself. You can buy anything you want!

SHOP!

Gosh, why would we ever want to get into relationships? They're icky and have the potentional for ouchies! Cheap beer and boyfriend pillows! Oh, I always knew I could buy love! Thanks America for all your wonderful values!

The Museum’s Library and Archives include a draft by Charles Darwin for part of the chapter on ‘Instinct’ in his Origin of Species (chapter VII). According to the online catalogue, MS. DAR A 1 comprises five leaves and corresponds to text on pp. 210-214 of the original edition. (Editions of On the Origin of Species, and various other publications associated with Darwin, are available online.)

Pages 210-214 include discussion of the ability of animals to perform actions for the good of another animal, as illustrated by the willingness of aphids to give up a sweet excretion to ants when they are touched on the abdomen by the ant’s antennae. Darwin speculated that this could be in the aphid’s interest as well. Subsequent research has shown that ants find ways of exploiting the symbiotic relationship to the detriment of the aphids. An article on this subject appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society in October 2007, referred to in a news release from Imperial College London, Royal Holloway University of London and the University of Reading (‘Herding aphids – how ‘farmer’ ants keep control of their food’).

The symbiosis between aphids and ants raises interesting questions for the study of altruism and the manipulation of one animal by another in conjunction with altruistic behaviour. The moral injunction to imitate the ant as a model of industriousness (Proverbs 6:6) doubtless operates on the basis of observation of ants in a pre-scientific age, and could not reasonably be taken to imply that one should imitate the ant in all respects – an example of the limited scope allowable to injunctions in the biblical writings.

I study, sleep occasionally, cram a sandwich and a bowl of soup in somewhere among the hours spent destructing my mind, and study some more. I really tried to socialize last night for the first time since medical school began, and damned if I could not. The world outside of my lecture hall and gross anatomy lab is foreign to me--the newspapers, social phenomena, cultural events, movies are nonexistents. And so what can I speak of but medicine. I want to relate to my old friends the idea behind a bone saw, the neurological puzzle of the brachial plexus, the way you can poke your median nerve and make your digits twitch. But they remain unmoved, bored. Even when they ask a medical question, a couple of words distilled to the vernacular is explanation enough, and I quickly see the apathetic pallor that glazes over their eyes as I continue on; before I know it, and without even realizing it, I'm using more Latin than English, and trying to describe an artery or muscle or nerve to a wall--unmoved, unreceptive, and wholly static. And I have nothing else to say. It is not they who have changed, but I wonder what has happened (is happening) to me.

I commented to a third-year medical student friend on this change--and among the tatters of his jaded self, he related. Related to me, but was not surprised, curious. If anything, he was wholly underwhelmed--waiting, in fact, for this very moment to cast its shadow on my mind. We discussed the destructive process that medical school initially enacts--the way they break you down, beat you to a malleable pulp--and I mentioned that, as a medical student, I was losing a part of myself that laypeople will never lose. Losing. Myself. It was then that my friend corrected me; I was not losing a part of myself, but giving it away. And therein lies the most profound distinction, and the idea that placed my ambition and resolve back into the proper context. Yes, a part of myself dies (is dying), but I have killed it. And what of my scruples, what of my desire to help others, if I should consider it only in the selfish context of the parts of myself gained and lost. Altruism is not so much about others; it is more about giving up yourself.

Then here is myself. I am naked in the void, waiting to fill the mold of something greater, wiser, and closer to an impossible and curious ideal. And make no mistake, but that I have brought this weight to bear upon myself, for I have created the impossible ideal for myself. Likewise, I ensure that I shall never be finished, shall never be satisfied, shall never be done until death forces me to fold.

You speak of altruism, as if it is holding open a door, or organizing a free healthcare clinic. And I tell you that altruism is not transitive, is not an act done to others, for others. Altruism is reflexive. It is forgetting yourself--and giving it away for something you hope will be greater.