Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    Well, some people have called the '80s the "Me Generation", and
    I'd say that it is a perfect breeding ground for the condition that
    you're describing.
    
    The worse thing is that this problem breeds on itself.  It's hard
    to respect (and be kind to) someone who attempts to put his own
    concerns first, and this eventually causes another person to start
    looking out for himself first.
    
    Rich

    Hold it.  Relax, and take a deeeeeeeeeeeeeep breathe.  Rainy days
    are very rare in Arizona.  I am sure tomorrow will be a nice and 
    sunny day.
    
    (Sorry, just couldn't resist :-) :-) :-) )
    
    Eugene

    The human race has a real problem with certain concept: empathy,
    understanding, xenophobia, self righteousness, to name a few.
    
    Although we like to think of ourselves as autonomous beings, we are, in
    fact very herd-like in alot of ways.  And recently we, as a group, have
    begun a stampede, perhaps out of panic over losing our individuality,
    towards a "me-ness" which excludes consideration of our actions
    and their effect on others around us.
    
    Take a look around.  All the "glue" which at one time helped make
    society close and made an individual his brother's keeper has
    disappeared.  We can now survive with minimal human contact; our
    paychecks get depositted for us, we can extract money without saying
    "Hello" (unless you're sick enough to think of keying in your ID number
    as human interaction), we can get fed by placing a request at a remote
    booth without leaving our car, we watch the world and can get
    overwhelmed by information by tuning in through a glass tube, we can
    attend a concert naked in our own home by tuning into a remote station
    broadcasting out of Prague. 
    
    When we look and see others caught up in their own 9 to 5 scramble, we
    don't see individuals with individual dreams and hopes and likes and
    dislikes and passions and aspirations.  We see competition.  We
    see other bodies but not the minds which inhabit them.  By sheer
    number, we, as caring as we believe we are, are forced into lumping
    the group into an entity which (as has been pointed out) we call
    "Them".
    
    The solution?  Haven't got one.  But I think slowing down one's life
    and taking the time to appreciate the diversity that this existance
    holds for us, remembering the facinating complexity of each and every
    human being on this planet, would be as good a place to start as any.
    It's awesome.  Reality, I mean and we only get one chance to see it. In
    a hundred years our impressions and petty selfishness will have faded
    into background noise.  By the time Mr. Spock beams down to Talos IV
    our (yours and mine) contribution to the background noise will be a
    whisper in a wind storm. 
    
    Someday, it will be realized that there is merit in caring. Courtesy,
    respect and kindness are, after all, their own rewards. 

    
    	I think no where is the ultimate result of this problem more
    prevalent than on the Roads and Highways...But we already have a
    note on that!
    
    	I was thinking of the TV program on Chaos the other night, where
    thay explained that very small differences in the "initial conditions"
    of a chaotic system can lead to very big behavorial changes in time.
    This is the reason why chaotic systems are so inherantly unpredictable. 
    
    	Driving (around here) being somewhat chaotic, I've extended
    this idea to the case where a small "incident", such as cutting
    someone off and causing them to hit their brakes, can eventually 
    lead to a "jammed" condition. (This is much different than the 
    theory proposed earlier that our actions are "lost in the noise") 
    Sure, you gained 1/2 a second for *yourself*, but that just might boil
    up into a 1/2 hour wait for the 153 people that happen to be travelling
    15 minutes behind you!
    
    	Of course, no let me say _I guarantee_, no one thinks of the
    result of their actions and choices in these terms. It's only Me,
    Me, ME, F*** them; they can wait for all I care! 
    
    	This is the general attitude that we live within. I'm sure it
    can be extended to other social realms besides driving. Trouble
    is, it rubs off on other people, and is thus self perpetuating.
    To stop it would take a massive effort of collective consciousness.
    I'm sure we all know the consciousness level of the masses...
    
    	Joe Jas

   We simply cannot have it both ways.   We either see ourselves as
    part of a whole--the *human* community--or we see ourselves as the
    center of our universe, and others as lesser satellites.
    
   We cannot separate ourselves from the larger community---strangers,
    casual/nodding acquaintances, service personnel---and believe that
    we have no responsibility towards them.  We *do our own thing* and
    because we are not *hurting* someone literally, we assume that our
    neglect to be civil and courteous is not hurtful to another's
    self.
    
    On the issue of cars---In 6 years, I have put over 120,000 miles
    on a car most of it long distance driving---I believe that the
    American's love of his car is identical to the westerner's love
    of his horse.   One horse=one car.  
    
    In a car, you are in a self-contained world.  In that world, you
    are master of your universe.   And on the road, you find yourself
    in the midst of aliens who insist on doing things you think are
    deliberately done to frustrate you.  The speed-limit driver is a
    pest; that old person who won't move over; that punk who comes upon
    you at what seems like 90 miles an hour flashing his lights...
    ...and you lose all perspective of your place in this dangerous
    dance, and courtesy and civility can easily be ignored when you
    are among strangers whom you will never have any personal contact
    with.
    
    One of the ways in which I try to be civil to others is to take
    the questions posed in this notes file and give serious thought
    to them.   I firmly believe that this was a serious question asked
    to elicit some serious responses.
    
    Marilyn
    
    

    There are situations around being number 1 and using the example
    of driving that there has to be balance.  In Boston being courteous
    is difficult and although it can be done it must not be overdone.
    One has to look out for #1 in order to move about the city.
    
    The same is true in life...a balance is necessary.  It is not wrong
    to consider the impact of an action on yourself first, the wrongness
    comes when that action has a negative impact on someone else.  
    
    I find this means I must be more thoughtful about my actions...and
    in a world where the ready response is required and expected we
    have another problem.

    
    < Note 684.0 by SSDEVO::GALLUP "Arizona #1 -- C ya in the Final 4!" >
                               -< �Numero Uno? >-

       
>     	 What ever happened to the philosophy of "Do unto others as you
>	 would have them do unto you"?
    
    It was replaced by "Do unto others before they do unto you.".. ;')
    
    Seriously, Numero uno is a concept characteristic of an capitalistic
    society.. It's the "American way", every man for himself, it's been
    that way for as long as I can remember...
    
    Brian

>    Seriously, Numero uno is a concept characteristic of an capitalistic
>    society.. It's the "American way", every man for himself, it's been
>    that way for as long as I can remember...

	 maybe I live in the wrong country...or maybe on the wrong
	 planet?

	 kath

re: .9

Well, Brian, things are changing but it won't be overnight....*all* of us
have to start with the 'man in the Mirror' 
Just reading these replies it really reminds us we could be alittle more
positive and less filled with 'poor lil me' (self-pity).

peace,

Mikki

>	 Respect.
>	 Face value.
>	 First impressions.
>	 Deceit.
>	 Gossip.
>	 Close/open-mindedness.
>	 Lack of communication.
>
>	 I look around our world today, and I am truly amazed at the
>	 way people treat each other.

I am truly amazed at the true amazement of the base noter. If you
look at the world we live in, you will immediately discover a simple
scientific law: 

	In any closed system occupied by Homo sapiens, positive
	interaction is inversely proportional to the number of
	specimens occupying the system.

In other words, the more people you have in one place, the more "me,
me, me" you will hear.

So, is this a 'me generation'? Of course, it is. What's more, the 
longer you wait, the more 'me' it will become.

When I was a little boy, this globe was occupied by about two
billion people (shows you my age, it does). Since then, we have
progressed quite a bit. We have learned to preserve life and now
number eleven or twelve billions (yes, we have managed to have MORE
people as the result of an explosion :-) ). Of course, as our number
has increased, so 'positiveness' of our interaction has decreased. 

As an example, take a small 'system', where 20,000 people resided 20
years ago, where everyone knew everybody else and where your barn
would be rebuilt by your neighbors if it burned down. 

Now, pretend something happened and due to immigration from without,
1/3 million people reside in the same 'system'. What happens? Now,
no one would even say "excuse me" if they stepped on your toe. 

But if you think The Springs is getting gruesome, take a look at
New-York, Chicago, San Francisco and even Boston. Savour it all you
can, because it's gonna be 'much worser' tomorrow. 

-- Ron

>In other words, the more people you have in one place, the more "me,
>me, me" you will hear.

Ron Ron, to quote a wise man......

            Life is what *you* make it.

That man was my father.

Mik

         I think you misunderstand me a little, Ron... My concern is
         with dealing with each other on an individual basis, not the
         global issue.  I'm talking about the lack of kindness and
         consideration for the other individuals we deal with each
         day... the way "acquaintances and friends" treat each
         other... 

	 kath

    I find that kindness breeds kindness.  *You* take the time to
    bring a smile to the face of everyone you can, to be kind to
    them, to see them as people.  You'll be amazed at the difference
    it can make in your life.  Even one person can make that 
    difference. 
    
    --Louise
    

    
    Hi,
    
    	I'm new here, and I hope to be around for a while if the topics
    	you discuss are so well explained as this one.
    
    
    	I like to live in this type of world, I wouldn't like to live
    where everybody knows me, where every step I take will be share
    by a community, not always in the positive way. I know this is a
    jungle, so let's be an animal when "others" are asking for it. 
    Don't take my words as I'm going to byte any one that cross my way,
    no. I think you can be a "number one" everytime you have what you
    figth for (as a kid how many times you figth for an ice cream? did
    it make you feel "number one" when you got it?).
    
    You talked about being the "number one" on the road. Some people
    need it. They don't get anything else. Not just the speedy guys,
    but also those cranky people that drive 55 on the left lane, aren't
    they also trying to be "number one"?, doing the things the way they
    want before thinking the world is made of a bunch of different people.
    This is what make's possible we are here exchanging opinions. 
    
    We are all different, thank God!!!
    
    Respect the other, s/he just trying to be number one in his/her
    own way. Your time will come.
    
    
    Rui
          
    
    

    
    RE. 16
    we are all different??????
    boy, and i thought we were all the same....we are all human 
    beings.  Guess i was wrong.
    What did Martin Luther King say, "We can live together as human
    beings or we can die as fools."
    
    i find great comfort in the fact that we live in a society where
    a person can starve to death at the door of a super market crammed
    with food.....that if you were getting beaten to death you could
    count on your fellow citizen to see you in trouble and turn their
    back....that people are so insecure and full of doubt that they
    need to do things that give them the illusion that they *are*
    number one...
    my mother always said, "it is a small person that needs to belittle
    others to make themselves feel big."
    
    

RE: .13

>Ron Ron, to quote a wise man......
>
>            Life is what *you* make it.

Your wise dad spoke the truth. Life is, indeed, what you make of it.
But the way other people treat you is not. I realize this is not a
popular view (we all like to think we are holding the reins).
Doesn't make it any less the truth, though. 


RE: .14

>         I think you misunderstand me a little, Ron... My concern is
>         with dealing with each other on an individual basis, not the
>         global issue.

I **was** referring to the day to day, person to person interaction
you describe. My point was that it **is** affected by global forces 
and not by you or I.

The "lack of kindness and consideration for the other individuals we
deal with each day..." is forced upon us by our environment. My
point was that us humans tend to degrade out own environment
(emotional, as well as physical) and that the more of us there is,
the more we degrade it for each other. 

I can quite easily see how this notion is not going to win any
popularity contest. Nonetheless, do think about it for a moment
before discarding it. Come on, admit it, you are sometimes guilty
yourself, aren't you? - I know **I** am  :-). 

-- Ron

    Re: .0
    
    >Why do people feel that what they believe is always 'right'?
    
    Would you waste your time believing something you think is wrong?
    
    Re: .17 
    
    >we are all different??????
    >boy, and i thought we were all the same....we are all human beings
    
    True, but we are hardly clones of each other.  For instance, we
    don't have the same writing style.  We don't have the same likes,
    dislikes, priorities, values or needs.  We might have some things
    in common, but that is similarity, not sameness.

     
    RE. 19
    paraphrase -- "we all have different likes, dislikes, etc"
    that's getting away from the core issue.
    i'd liken this to looking at two quarters, and saying, "well, yes
    they are both quarters, but this one has a nick on its nose and
    this one doesn't, this one has a smudge in the corner and this one
    doesn't..." and on and on...
    you can look for all the differences you want, and maybe come up
    with a thousand cosmetic differences, but the basic fact is they
    are both quarters.
    
    

	 RE: .18

	 Of COURSE we all do it... I'm definately not saying I, nor
	 anyone else, is innocent.  I do feel, though, there are some
	 people who actually enjoy this attitude and enjoy
	 manipulating others.  And then there are people (in which
	 category, IMHO, I am a part of), who make an effort to think
	 about the other person, and don't maliciously try to get
	 ahead while stomping on others.

	 None of us are guilt free...that's a fact, but there are
	 definately varying levels of accountable guilt.

	 k

    
    re: .17
    
    	When I said "we are all different" I was not talking about race
    or colors. What I ment is that the way we act and think gives us
    our personality, and it can be close personalities, but you'll never
    find two equal human beings (ok, if they are twins there's a change
    of being 100% equal, but that is the exception to the rule). Sorry
    if you understand my note as being a racist note, it was and never
    will be my way of dealing with other races. We all look alike, we
    all make the same mistakes, we all have the same heart!
  
<        i find great comfort in the fact that we live in a society where>
<    a person can starve to death at the door of a super market crammed  >
<    with food.....that if you were getting beaten to death you could    >
   
    I think the society try to solve those problems. I think you should
    say "I pay a lot of taxes and there is people starving to death,
    why don't they do something?" But I think this would be a subject
    for other note. I continue my figth to be "number one" ..... in
    whatever I want to be without going over my fellows human beings.
    
    Rui
    Rui

    
    	Re .15 - That's the ticket!
    
    	Re .18 - You claim that it's a human characteristic to trash
    or "degrade" the environment? I think it's merely an attitude problem.
    Sure, I'll admit to it - I owned a dirt bike as a teenager. Think
    I cared for the impact of 25 horsepower being coupled to the ground
    via my rear wheel? Some places have yet to recover, 15 years later!
    Point is, _all_ that environmental degradation was a matter of the
    attitude I carried at that time - I simply couldnt have cared less!
    
    	Now, I might trailer the bike to a designated area to ride,
    and do things like "ask permission", "show respect", etc. I get
    along better with the environment because my attitude has changed
    toward it. From the time when I was only half my present age...
    
    	Extending this to your statement: "the more of us there is, the
    more we degrade it for each other" I'd say something like: "The
    more of us who carry a negative attitude that there are, the worse
    off the common environment becomes for everyone". 
    
    	If this attitude is "forced upon us by the environment" , then
    it's a "chicken or the egg" argument; which came first, the poor
    attitude or the poor environment? I'd say the attitude, with a
    reinforcing environment developing around it.
    
    	How does one change the mass attitude of the 80's from "the
    ME-ME-ME - hope_YOU_just_go_away generation"? Via the media, of
    course. But, considering that cash sales drives what you see and
    hear, you'll have to figure out a way to make money off people with
    a positive attitude. Most people, from what I've seen, spend their
    money when they're feeling the most negative about themselves and
    everything else. I believe that advertizing subtly supports this
    "addictive" cycle - you *need* this 'n that to be happy! See?!?
    A shiny new car! A new Bedroom Set! Vanna White!
    
    	Those currently in control of the media, do not want to see
    anything like "higher consciousness" or "positive attitude" in the
    masses. It's bad business...wont make you any money. Therefore,
    I believe the general negative attitude comes from society itself,
    and how it is structured around Capitolism. Capitolism can foster a
    negative attitude in people, if it is allowed to use any psychological
    device for the sake of making money. The other side of the coin,
    so to speak. Obviously, to those making the money, it's far more
    important to continue doing so than it is to foster an environment
    where people are kind and considerate, via an inate sense of self,
    held in positive context. 
    
    	Joe Jas

    Kath--
    
    I share the same kind of frustration you do about this.  The way
    I choose to deal with it may sound pretty corny, but it works for
    me.  Ever hear that old song, "Brighten the Corner Where You Are"?
    I try my best to stay positive each day, and try to treat those
    around me well.  
    
    I'll admit that some days aren't easy;  yesterday
    as a matter of fact I spent precious time grumping about a person
    whose attitude I have a problem with.  But, I'm human, and I'm bound
    to fall on my face from time to time.  The point is that I do try
    to stay "up", and try to make a positive difference wherever I am.
    
    As another noter said earlier, you'd be surprised at the difference
    one person's smile can make.  
    
    Don't let it get you;  we're all in this together.
    
    Jane

RE: .21

>	 None of us are guilt free...that's a fact, but there are
>	 definitely varying levels of accountable guilt.

This is not a question of guilt.

In the base note, you pointed at a phenomenon. In my reply, I have
endeavored to explain its causes. As was to be expected, since the
explanation is not particularly complimentary to any of us, people
address marginal issues, special cases, or their own frustration at
the pure cussedness of things - but not the global phenomenon
itself. 

To reiterate: the 'problem' (is it really a problem? Only from our
limited, highly subjective point of view) you describe, stems from
an innate human feature, inbred and enforced in us by the presence
of other humans. It seems to grow in proportion to the human mass in
society. 

I am not passing judgment. I am not even saying it's wrong. I am
certainly not accusing. I am simply offering my view of the physical
reality. If you wish to disagree with my perception (perhaps, show
an example to rebuff it's validity), I will be happy to discuss -
simply, because this is one of my own favorite peeves. But,
observing that you (or some other specific person or group) is
different, or is not guilty, is irrelevant. 


RE: .23
    
>    You claim that it's a human characteristic to trash
>    or "degrade" the environment? I think it's merely an attitude
>    problem.

Yes, that 'attitude' describes the inbred 'human attribute' I
mentioned. 

In your response, you address your own development, as regards your
use of a dirt bike. Very interesting, but it has nothing to do with
the case. The subject phenomenon stems from a **global** attribute
of Homo sapiens. It is observable across cultures, continents and
centuries. The behaviour of a handful of humans to the contrary
(yours, Kathy's and/or mine included) does not change that global
fact. 

    
>    Extending this to your statement: "the more of us there is, the
>    more we degrade it for each other" I'd say something like: "The
>    more of us who carry a negative attitude that there are, the worse
>    off the common environment becomes for everyone".

You're assuming a fact not in evidence, namely that said 'attitude',
which I call 'human attribute' is totally acquired through
environmental influence. I tend to believe that it's mostly innate.
Thus, we easily accept it, as forced upon us by the presence of the
same attribute in all (oops... most) other humans surrounding us. 

    
>    ....

The rest of your arguments go to show that there is little --if
any-- hope for a reversal of the 'me' phenomenon. I quite agree with
you, except when you lay the 'blame' (here's that word, again) at
Capitalism's door, completely ignoring this same phenomenon as
observed under Socialism, Communism, as well as any other Economics
system I can think of. 

Perhaps you meant to argue that the 'blame' lies with Materialism,
rather than Capitalism? Indeed, the 'me' attitude is not as
prevalent in societies that down play material values. (Japanese
culture, highly religious groups, communes, etc.). 

One's only hope of living in another (better?) atmosphere is to find
a small social circle, comprised of people that are similarly
inclined, and restrict interaction to that chosen group. Such
solutions have been proposed and implemented. They have NOT been
entirely successful. 

By the way, a very interesting book by Ira Levin dealt with this
issue in a SF setting. So interesting, in fact, that I am no longer
sure of it's name :-). 

-- Ron

    Re: .20
    
    >you can look for all the differences you want, and maybe come up
    >with a thousand cosmetic differences
    
    Therein lies a difference between us.  I see the differences as
    fundamental, not cosmetic.  I suppose you could say I'm thinking
    of persons, while you're thinking of human beings.  Your approach
    is a bit like saying all flowers are plants.  True, but how much
    meaning does that statement hold and how much information does it
    obscure or exclude?  How much information does that statement give
    you to help you deal with flowers of all kinds?

    	Now I am really stumped. I see the world as getting better all
    the time. I see fewer people starving, relative peace, proliferation
    of charitable deeds and organizations. I see the environment slowly
    but surely getting cleaned up, and more importantly, people becoming
    more and more aware of what's around us. I see more kindness, and
    less selfishness in the people around me. Yes, there is a certain
    level of separation between the people, but perhaps it's because
    we LIKE it that way? Yeah, there are all these conveniences for
    us to use, so we can be separate - so what?! I see us as having
    more choice, not less. If one wants to feel part of the "community",
    there are all the opportunities in the world. If one wants to be
    different - that's welcome too. Make no mistake, peer pressure and
    cultural stereotypes are also manifestations of "closeness", "us",
    "sharing"...
    	Sure, there are people in hardship - but fewer than before.
    Is there less happiness? How does one measure that? In any case,
    this country and maybe one other are the only ones I've seen in
    the world where people really care about their co-citizens, rather
    than try to survive at any cost.
    	I guess I am just confused by the implicit pessimistic assumptions
    in the base note - sort of like "have you stopped beating your wife".
    
    DG

    
      Not too much has changed over the centuries. It's still people
    vs. people, nation against nation. BUt I guess if you look at it
    in the short term, i.e. the 40's thru to the 80's. Just compare
    the way the movies and tv shows have changed. There's a BIG
    difference!  ( i.e, a popular 40's movie= It's a Wonderfull Life,
     a popular 80's movie= Revenge of the Nerds )  Enough said.
    

    
    	Re .25
    
    	Cool. Maybe there's room for the belief that this "attitude" 
    *is* an inate function, but somehow I find it easier to believe that
    it's a learned one. And therefore can be un-learned and a better
    world is, at least, within the realm of possibility.
    
    	As far as Capitolism is concerned, perhaps Materialism would
    have been a better choice. I like to point out things somethimes,
    and when I get a chance - in context - to do so, I will. I realize
    that it's not the "fault" of Capitolism, but I also realize that
    Capitolism takes advantage where it can for "increased cash flow".
    If that somehow leads to a common negativity in attitude among the
    general populace, that's apparently "OK" with everyone. Most are
    willing to "put up with it", if not become part of it.
    
    	Someone mentioned, in DEJAVU, a relationship between the power 
    of influence a group of people has and their number; their claim being 
    that the relative power goes up as the square of the number of 
    individuals in the group. Perhaps this would allow "positive attitude"
    to grow geometrically among the population, if we could get a "seed"
    group of a good number of individuals with positive attitude together
    for this purpose.
    
    	But, it's early and maybe I'm still dreaming :')
    
    	Joe Jas 

    The list in .0 is nothing new.  It goes way back, to the beginning...
    
    It's interesting that this simple topic EVEN becomes another "me,
    me, me," arguement as I read where someone expresses "his/her" opinion,
    and yet someone else comes along and say's, "No.  You're mistaken."
    
    Kathy and Ron's conversation, for example....
    
    We all have to be the best that "we" can be.  Period.  We can't
    make the whole world a temple.  We may, however, pull a few bodies
    into "our" club....
    
    Dwight

    
<        Is there less happiness? How does one measure that? In any case,>
<    this country and maybe one other are the only ones I've seen in     >
<    the world where people really care about their co-citizens, rather  >
<    than try to survive at any cost.                                    >
    
    I guess you haven't see to much of the world. 
    I would say "where people don't really care about their co-citizens"
    In all of the european country's the homeless problem doesn't have
    the proportions as in the US, and you know why? because there is
    a family. I smile when politics say the family is the base of the
    american society, maybe decades ago, not anymore. It would be nice
    to know from you guys that live elsewhere how your societies are
    dealing with the homeless problem. Aren't they a result of someone
    who wants to be "number one"?
    
    Rui

        I too see the world the way that Kathy does, but I feel that
    we can change it.  I feel that our our current social fabric, our
    economic system, and our religious environment tend to promote the
    suspicion of differences and leads us not to trust others.  But
    I feel that we can change our environment without significantly
    changing the social, economic and religous systems that we live
    under.
    
        I think that if you look at the past the best environments are
    those where the people have a common goal.  Look at the way people
    put aside their differences and work together under pressure.  For
    example look at what happens when natural disasters strike.  I just
    people would realize that we can work together that way all the
    time if we choose to.
    
        I tend to agree with those that think that our own positive
    attitudes and interactions have an effect at changing the world.
    I'm not always good at following that idea, but I do believe in it.

        One person quoted his father in saying that "Life is what you make
    of it."  Another responded that the way other people treat you is not.
    However the way you react to their responses is up to you.  There is
    a quote by a victim of the German concentration camps about how there
    were people in the camps, few as they were, who would walk around the
    camps and giving up the last of their bread and comforting others.
    His point was that no matter what the circumstances, we have the
    ultimate choice of how we want to react.  We may have to choose death
    as opposed to acting in a "civil" manner, but it is our choice.

    re: .12

>	In any closed system occupied by Homo sapiens, positive
>	interaction is inversely proportional to the number of
>	specimens occupying the system.

        I have to disagree with your "theory".  I don't discount the
    importance of population, but I think that you have placed too much
    emphasis on it.  Take for example the interactions of people in
    gold rush area and era of California.   People were shooting each
    other for land, charging outrageous prices for the simple items
    necessary for living and generally were very "ME" oriented.  This
    occurred in a system with low population.

        Now think of the positive interactions in relation to the population
    of Japan in the 1800's. The population density, the number of specimens
    occupying the system, was much higher, yet these people had a much higher
    level of positive interactions per capita.  In fact, we don't even need
    to Japan to show a situation that breaks your rule, just look at most
    other places in the U.S. at the time of the gold rush, I think you
    wouldn't have too many problems finding much larger populations with
    much lower levels of negative interactions.

        Also your world population figures are a bit off, you put forth
    that the world had eleven or twelve billion people.  It hit 5 billion
    either last year or the year before.

re: .18

>    The "lack of kindness and consideration for the other individuals we
>    deal with each day..." is forced upon us by our environment.

        I'm afraid that I disagree, we choose to react the way that we
    do.  I think that our society has provided us the models of interaction
    that tend to encourage us to put our needs before those of others,
    but we ultimately choose to behave as we do.  Don't get me wrong,
    I'm not saying that it's easy to get rid of the baggage we have
    as a result of social programming, but it is possible.

>    My point was that us humans tend to degrade out own environment
>    (emotional, as well as physical) and that the more of us there is,
>    the more we degrade it for each other. 

        There were tribes in the Amazon jungle and the African wilds
    that were able to live without adversely affecting their physical
    environment.  The American Indians were able to get by for the
    most part without spoiling their environment.  Of course their
    philosophies held their environment as limited and important, so
    of course they treated it well.  I don't believe that it is an
    innate characteristic of humans to foul their environment.

    re: .27

>    I see the environment slowly but surely getting cleaned up

         I'll agree that the industrial nations are starting to pay more
    attention to their own back yard.  But the situations in third world
    countries is getting worse and worse.  Environmental considerations
    are rarely considered when industrial sites are set up and put to
    work.  And we, the industrial nations, are partially responsible for
    the additional pollution, because we are financing the projects.
 
>    	Sure, there are people in hardship - but fewer than before.

        You needn't look further than our own borders to disprove this
    notion.  We are experiencing the highest rate of homelessness (thats
    a per capita figure, not a simple number of homeless figure).  There
    is a higher per capita number of people living below the poverty
    level.  Here in California the number of people who can pursue the
    American dream of home ownership is quickly shrinking.  Things are
    getting worse, not better.

    re: .28

        You compared the popularity of "It's a Wonderful Life" to that
    of "Revenge of The Nerds" to contrast the difference between the 40's
    and the 80's.  The most popular movie of all time, judged by revenue
    from theatre rentals, is "E.T." a movie of the 80's, and far more
    representative of the country's tastes than "Revenge ...".

Re: .32 (which was Re: .28)


>        You compared the popularity of "It's a Wonderful Life" to that
>    of "Revenge of The Nerds" to contrast the difference between the 40's
>    and the 80's.  The most popular movie of all time, judged by revenue
>    from theatre rentals, is "E.T." a movie of the 80's, and far more
>    representative of the country's tastes than "Revenge ...".

It is also instructive to note that "It's a Wonderful Life" was NOT popular
when it was first introduced.  It has only become an institution in the last
decade or so.  Does this tell us anything?  (No, I didn't think so either...)

				Steve

RE: .27    Nice reply, thanks for sharing that.

Reading all the replies makes me think of a very important difference -

Is the glass half empty OR half full?  See, *you* decide what kind of world
you want to live in; a world that's caring and loving or a world that is ME
First !  Than you go and create it.  Obvious from these replies we can see
whom is doing what

Meredith

>I **was** referring to the day to day, person to person interaction
>you describe. My point was that it **is** affected by global forces 
>and not by you or I.

>The "lack of kindness and consideration for the other individuals we
>deal with each day..." is forced upon us by our environment. My
>point was that us humans tend to degrade out own environment
>(emotional, as well as physical) and that the more of us there is,
>the more we degrade it for each other. 
 
    If you hold this belief as truth, then it will become truth... i.e.,
    since it removes you from having any responsibility for the condition
    of the world, then you have made yourself powerless to change it.
                                               
    The belief (and it is a *belief* in a theory... not a *fact*...)
    becomes a self-justification for behaving in exactly the way the
    base noter questions.
    
    Thankfully more people seem to be at least beginning to think
    differently, so maybe there's a chance to help your co-believers
    to stop depleting the rain forest, and the ozone layer, etc., etc.
    
    If humanity persists in being the problem, nature *will* have the
    cure.
    
    R.
    
       

    	Actually, I think I didn't reply as much to .0 in .27, as to
    some of my own thoughts. The base note deals with the one-on-one
    interactions, friend-friend, you-stranger, etc., etc. However, I
    can't see things getting that much worse (if at all) in that realm
    either. If anything, our freedom to be aloof surely limits the gossip,
    and the backbiting. Look at it this way - is there more gossip in
    a small village, where everyone lives together, interacts daily,
    and there is no place to hide? Or is there more gossip in the environ-
    ment where you barely know your neighbor, have no idea what they
    do at night or at work, and can move anytime you want to?
    	Sure, friendship suffers because of our independence and mobility,
    but personal comfort and privacy improve. To each his own. I think
    we learn to compensate for lost interaction by delving deeper inward,
    and by choosing our friends more consciously. I don't think that's
    bad, just different from the "traditional" ways. If anything, as
    I get older I notice more kindness in people around me, more warmth
    in my friendships, more reason in my parents. Perhaps I am learning
    to understand the motives behind their hurts and pleasures...
    	Now, to the state of the world. First of all, I have lived abroad
    extensively, am a world affairs junkie, and try to look beyond the
    surface. At least, I believe in my comparisons of various societies.
    	I do think people in the USA are kinder and gentler than either
    the Europeans or, in fact people from all over the world. Now, this
    isn't always true in individual cases, but rather is a cumulative
    personal experience. There is less emphasis on pure survival here
    in day-to-day affairs and attitudes. Maybe because life is easier,
    maybe because tolerance is an official creed. I don't know why,
    just feel the result. As far as homelessness - there is less of
    it than in many other societies, and there is less of a stigma attached
    to it than, say, in Europe. In many parts of this world homelessness
    is a punishable offense - think about it. Besides, is it such a
    great evil as to judge the whole society by it?
    	Environment is certainly in danger. However, if you look at
    the history of the Industrialized nations, you'll see the same
    disregard for enveronmental issues in the past, as you notice today
    in the Third World. Environmental protection is damned expensive,
    and until the average person is well fed and educated, environment
    can't compete with personal survival. Many countries are going through
    the fragile period where industry is growing, but people are still
    hungry. They too will come around to the position of the rich countries
    once they can afford it.
    	Things aren't all rosy, of course. For one thing, the international
    relations climate is worse now than ever before. Not in the sense
    of war threats, but in the sense of excessive pragmatism. I think
    even before WWII countries could afford "moral", even if not
    advantageous policies. That is no longer true, and all the countries
    have dirtied their hands for self-interest.
    
    DG

Please bear with me, while I reiterate my position, which has been 
scattered through several previous replies:

1. The attributes of egotism, selfishness and being self-centered,
   (the 'me' attitude) is innate to human beings. 

2. It is reinforced in individuals by society (meaning, other 
   individuals).

3. Positive interaction is inversely proportional to population 
   density in an enclosed system.


In .32, WEA::PURMAL attempts to disprove the impact of population
density by showing that the low-population gold rush era exhibited a
high incidence of 'me' mentality while the high population of 1800's
Japan displayed positive interactions. 

I question the wisdom of comparing apples and mangoes. The argument
would have worked, if WEA::PURMAL had been able to compare low and
high population modes in either the gold rush era or in Japan of the
1880. Comparing different population densities in two widely
differing cultures, signifies nothing. To take care of that type of 
argument, my 'scientific law' specified a closed system.

.32> I don't believe that it is an innate characteristic of humans
.32> to foul their environment.

You are quite free to believe that the sun rises in the West, but
simple observation of the universe around you should convince you
otherwise. Citing tribes in the Amazon jungles or the American
Indians (extremely small samples of short duration) doesn't refute
the overwhelming evidence all over this globe.

BTW, the American Indians would be a good example of population
density effect on the 'me' attitude.


In .35, PMROAD::WEBB argues that expressing a negative view of the
world acts as a self fulfilling prophecy: "If you hold this belief
as truth, then it will become truth...".

This argument is valid; however, what is the alternative? Never
accurately describe the world as it is perceived, for fear that it
will reinforce negative attitudes in others? 


.35> The belief (and it is a *belief* in a theory... not a
.35> *fact*...)

My *belief* is based on logical, non-heuristic reasoning, which I
*believe* to be sound. I also *believe* that my reasoning points at
facts, not at some obscure theory.

Out of the goodness of my heart, and in the interest of saving disk
space on QUARK, I have refrained from boring HR noters with the
numerous details of the reasoning that leads to this belief :-).


Finally: thanks to Alan USEM::ROSS, who came up with the title of
the book I referred to before. This book describes a world run by
computers, where all humans (except for the select few, "the
programmers") are kept sickeningly good, polite, outgoing and
totally non-selfish, by weekly injections. 

Come to think of it, this book arrives at the same conclusions
I did, though by an entirely different route. Still, I highly
recommend it as excellent SF reading, if nothing else. 

It's "This Perfect Day" by Ira Levin.

-- Ron 

    RE .0:
    
    It's sad but true.....everyone is basically out for themselves (with
    very few exceptions).  I don't find this completely bad though.
    If everyone does do this, we make sure that everyone gets what they
    want to make of themselves.  One thing that should be remembered
    is that by helping (and not stepping on) others helps the individual
    who is doing the helping.  The love and respect of ones fellow man(
    and woman) will give far more rewards than any other thing imaginable.
    As long as the respect comes from the heart and it is not planned
    just so that things will be easier for the person giving the respect.
 
    
    Bill

  Reading this note and its replies brings to mind a phrase I heard       
  several years ago - "If you look for the bad in a person, then surely   
  you will find it."  For as many selfish acts you will come across,      
  I believe you will find as many selfless ones.  Unfortunately, we       
  don't always hear about the wonderful deeds which occur - just the      
  bad ones.                                                               
                                                                          
                                                                          
  Re: .33                                                                 
                                                                          
  I feel that the popularity of _It's A Wonderful Life_ does say something.
  Society has changed so much in the past 40 years - now people walk with 
  their eyes downcast; so afraid to make contact with the people around   
  them.  It is a shame that we fear reaching out.  Perhaps we each need to 
  realize that we DO MAKE A DIFFERENCE (for the better, that is); whether 
  it be bringing a smile to someone's face, helping lighten the burden of  
  another, or bringing joy and love to a person's life.  Many people believe
  that if what they do doesn't affect a large number of people, then what 
  difference does it make.  I disagree....if it affects one (even ourselves), 
  then we do make a difference.  We are all George Bailey in our own way. 
                                                  
  Is it really THAT IMPORTANT to be Numero Uno?  I guess it is if that is
  one's goal in life.  Personally, I'd rather be Number 10,000 conversing
  and laughing with Number 9,999 and 10,001.  Maybe we get so caught up in
  it all that we forget the basics.  Could be my imagination but it seems we 
  get farther when we're a group than when we're individuals.  
                                                                 
  Regards,                                        
                                                  
  Kris                                            
                                                  
                                                  
    
        
  
    
                                                                       
     
                                                                      
                                                                          
                                                                    
    
    
    
       

>    In .35, PMROAD::WEBB argues that expressing a negative view of the
>world acts as a self fulfilling prophecy: "If you hold this belief
>as truth, then it will become truth...".

>This argument is valid; however, what is the alternative? Never
>accurately describe the world as it is perceived, for fear that it
>will reinforce negative attitudes in others? 
 
    What is "accurate?"
    
    I'm less concerned about what you reinforce in others -- we are
    all free to arrive at our own conclusions based on our own perceptions.
    What I question is your insistence that your perception is carved
    in the stone of *fact* and *accuracy*, and that by implication any
    other conclusion is wrong.  I would suggest to you the possibility
    that it is this kind of attitude and stance that causes more of
    the problems than sheer numbers -- though I do agree that the
    Malthusian dilemna is a very real one.
    

>.35> The belief (and it is a *belief* in a theory... not a
>.35> *fact*...)

>My *belief* is based on logical, non-heuristic reasoning, which I
>*believe* to be sound. I also *believe* that my reasoning points at
>facts, not at some obscure theory.
 
    Given what we have learned from physics about the impact of the
    stance of the experimenter on the results of the experiment, what
    is a *fact*?
    
    You make assertions, which are derivative and ultimately based on
    some declaration of a *truth* with which you agree.  Then you argue
    that anyone who does not share your agreement is wrong, illogical,
    etc. etc.  In debating technique that's called "poisoning the well."
    
    That numbers impact the way we as humans are, often in negative
    ways in direct proportion, cannot be completely discounted.  In
    terms of supportable biomass alone, the continuing increase of humanity
    cannot help but reach a self-limiting point because of the negative
    consequences of destroying other life on the planet.
    
    What I question is that by holding the view as an absolute becomes
    pessimistically self-limiting; and I would suggest that things are
    hardly so hopeless.

I have a dark suspicion that this is heading into a deep, deep
rat hole. However, I will give it one more shot. 

.40> >    In .35, PMROAD::WEBB argues that expressing a negative view of the
.40> > world acts as a self fulfilling prophecy: "If you hold this belief
.40> > as truth, then it will become truth...".
.40> 
.40> > This argument is valid; however, what is the alternative? Never
.40> > accurately describe the world as it is perceived, for fear that it 
.40> > will reinforce negative attitudes in others? 
.40>  
.40>     What is "accurate?"

If you look a couple of lines above, you will find your answer. I
was referring to an accurate description of my perception of the 
world. I sincerely thought that was entirely self explanatory...

As to the subject matter itself: it's true that pointing at negative
attributes of an issue may cause some 'copycat' dolts to act out
these negative arguments. But, you now seem to argue that discussing
a negative, actually causes it to be and therefore, we should
refrain from mentioning it. 

If that's your point, I strongly disagree, since selfishness in
modern society must have existed some time before I mentioned it
here. After all, .0 was entered way before my first reply and no one
has yet refuted .0's observations. 


.40> What I question is your insistence that your perception is carved
.40> in the stone of *fact* and *accuracy*, and that by implication any
.40> other conclusion is wrong.

I am not sure what you are objecting to here. Would you feel more 
comfortable discussing issues with someone who maintained that his 
position was all wrong, and --by implication-- anyone who disagrees 
is automatically right? Don't **you** insist that your position is 
correct?


.40> I would suggest to you the possibility
.40> that it is this kind of attitude and stance that causes more of
.40> the problems than sheer numbers -- though I do agree that the
.40> Malthusian dilemna is a very real one.

Your argument leads to interesting conclusions. If the 'me'
mentality causes discussions of its negative facets, (a good
example is this very note) and if such discussions increase the
incidence of this mentality (your own argument, with which I
concur), which promotes even more selfishness with even more
discussions, then it directly follows that: 

	1. Selfishness is forever increasing.

	2. The more people around (to discuss it), the more it will
	   increase. 

Which is exactly what I have been saying in the first place.


.40> Given what we have learned from physics about the impact of the
.40> stance of the experimenter on the results of the experiment, what
.40> is a *fact*?

I wonder what this has to do with the case. We are not dealing with an 
experiment here, but with observations that each of us makes.

    
.40> You make assertions, which are derivative and ultimately based on
.40> some declaration of a *truth* with which you agree.

But, certainly. Do you know of any other way by which one may arrive 
at conclusions and opinions?

The question of "What is fact?" can be taken ad absurdum. For
example, I look out the window at night and see darkness. You look
out the same window and see the sun...

How can I 'prove' to you that it's really night? I cannot. By the
same token, you cannot 'prove' to me that it's day time. This means
that we have to agree on validity of the very basic observations;
otherwise, discussions are futile. 


.40> Then you argue
.40> that anyone who does not share your agreement is wrong, illogical,
.40> etc. etc.

I'll be thrilled if you point me to where I called anyone illogical,
ignorant or whatever, because I will be quick to apologize. I sure 
hope I never did. On the contrary: I argued that you (or someone
else, can't recall) is free to believe in whatever you choose, even
if it refutes the physical evidence, the way **I** perceive it. 

On the other hand, you are right in that --until I have been
convinced that my conclusions are wrong-- I will argue that opposing
views are incorrect. You can convince me if you show an error in the
basic observations or point to a flaw in my reasoning. You have done
neither. 


.40> What I question is that by holding the view as an absolute becomes
.40> pessimistically self-limiting; and I would suggest that things are
.40> hardly so hopeless.

I think you are saying that you refuse to accept a view that leads
to absolute, negative conclusions, because it is unpalatable. You
'suggest' that things are not hopeless, but have not been able to
advance one single argument to support that suggestion.

If it makes you feel any better (I doubt it will, but what the 
heck... :-) ), I will agree with you that locally (in a small 
'system') and short term (one's lifetime) it is quite possible to 
reverse the trend and see selfishness regress. For example: certain 
monasteries, Kibbutz communes in Israel and several groups in 
Digital :-).

-- Ron

         [Ahem]....
         
         Intermediary  is such a foreign role to me...but
         here goes anyway....[grin]....IMMHO....shield on full,
	 fox-hole in sight, ready to turn tail and run...[grin]
         
         Might I suggest that this conversation is suffering
         from classic mis-communication syndrome? We are trying
	 to discuss apples, rutabegas, and oranges all at the
	 same time without benefit of the term "fruit"...

         First, there is the conversation as it relates to the intrinsic 
	 nature of the human beast...[or any social animal..per years
         of psychological research documented ad nasuem...]...
         to react to population stress [crowding] with
         predictable self-preservation [selfish] behavior
         patterns....Lemmings get to the point where they
         go crashing off into the sea in mass suicide....some animals
	 go around eating off-spring, others stop reproducing,
	 man has similar although not so effective [purely 
	 speaking] reaction patterns. [Man's tendancy to get himself
	 all balled up with religious belief patterns dilutes
	 any action that he might take by eliminating certain
	 options....we punish people for drowning off-spring...]

         Another conversation appears to be discussing the emotional/
	 interactive effects of such actions....[also documented ad nasuem
         in the social sciences curricula]....that people
         become distrustful and interaction becomes paranoid
         and people become depressed that such is the case.
         And seek to find ways to off-set this reaction. Some small groups
	 even appear to succeed at this for short periods of time, but
	 the determining factor...[according to the social texts I have
	 read anyway....]...seems to be the ability of the "group"	
	 to identify itself as a "smaller" part of a whole, which
	 allows it to define itself outside of the population
	 pressured group....in other words, its done with mirrors. The stress
	 however *is* real and well documented and needs to be
	 addressed.

         And then we have another conversation discussing the relative
         causative factors of certain types of soci-economic
         systems on the above....[also documented in economic
         studies...sigh]....which is pretty much accepted by the authors
	 of said works to be a SYMPTOMATIC response not a CAUSATIVE one
	 but of merit to the topic anyway.
         
         I don't really think any of you are disagreeing...you are
         carrying on two or three rather mutually exclusive conversations.
         None of it really disagrees with the others, but
         the terminology is pretty disparite...yes?
         
         Just a thought...FWIT...
         
         Melinda