Wealth and Responsibility

[Ryan Rudolph]

If one achieves wealth in this world, do they have a responsibility to serve humanity through the promotion of rationality? And how is that best achieved given our current circumstances?

Moreover, If there are any regular posters here that have succeeded in the material world financially, what do you do with your wealth to serve humanity?

To my mind, mainstream donators tend to give money to disease research, the developing world, hospitals and all the rest of it, which is okay, but perhaps there are more radical ways to use money to serve the future of humanity. Furthermore, money to me symbolizes energy from past labor, energy, which is power, energy that can be used to accomplish something in the present, according to ones own values. However, what is the best way to allocate wealth to the future generations of humans?

It seems to me that ones resources should be allocated in such a way to either make the lives of future generations of humans easier or to increase the degree of rationality in this world….

Any ideas?

[Pye]

Ryan: It seems to me that ones resources should be allocated in such a way to either make the lives of future generations of humans easier or to increase the degree of rationality in the world….

Andrew Carnegie comes to mind here, with all the attendant irony. Toward the end of his life he was quoted as saying, more or less, that there was no excuse for making alot of money unless you give it all away before you die.

Of course, public record illustrates clearly his mercenary attitude toward the backs of people upon whom he built his fortune - the Homestead labor riots in particular. All along the course of his life, he screwed whomever he could in the name of profit; he starved-out and rendered homeless a boatload of his workers.

But what we also know of Andrew Carnegie's endowment is that no single individual donated more money for the building of libraries (about 140 worldwide, if I'm not mistaken), and of course the educational institutions that bear his name; the arts institutions for same.

We could call this - concern for the lives of future generations in the efforts to increase their rationality.

But as the joke goes, those Carnegie libraries he left behind are the well-used daytime domiciles of the homeless - the living images of the people he squeezed out under the rules of profit.

I'd say that [financial] wealth is meaningless if it cannot be garnered in more than a master/slave sort of way. The future is built upon the back of the present. It can only be as strong . . . .


(oh, and, the way I go about my work in the world/my values, does not make room for financial wealth, so I couldn't answer to what else you're wondering about. Personal wealth will triumph over financial wealth everytime. The former, it is impossible to lose . . . )

[Kevin Solway]

If one achieves wealth in this world, do they have a responsibility to serve humanity through the promotion of rationality?

Responsibility is not inborn in everyone. If a person is not caused to be responsible there is no way they can be responsible.

We can certainly ask whether people should be responsible. But it is our task to cause them to be responsible, because they can't do it on their own.

And how is that best achieved given our current circumstances?

Unfortunately people only tend to learn by making huge mistakes. People aren't intelligent enough to learn from the mistakes of others ("learning from past lives").

A drug addict often won't learn responsibility till it's too late.

I like what Hitchens and co. are doing. They certainly make people think.

You could practice public speaking and organize public debates about the existence of God. I think that would have a positive effect. There are countless other things you could do of a similar nature.

To my mind, mainstream donators tend to give money to disease research

Yes, I notice that Bill Gates gives billions to medical research, but not a penny towards wisdom, that I am aware of.

However, what is the best way to allocate wealth to the future generations of humans?

I would like to see a "Freethinking TV" to compete with "God TV" and "The Islam Channel".

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

I would like to see a "Freethinking TV" to compete with "God TV" and "The Islam Channel".

Yes, a debate show would be very interesting and effective to the objective of spreading rational thought.

Another idea I had is to create a non-profit organization that works for the benefit of present and future rational thinkers. For instance: A huge concern I have with existence is that people are born into the world with nothing, as most families do not have the intelligence or the resources to plan for the future children coming into the world. My idea is to set up an organization with the specific objective to help out the small number of rational thinkers that may need financial aid in the world. For instance: suppose you were able to manage a portfolio of stocks that yielded 10% growth annually in dividends, well you could pay out regular dividend payments to shareholders who would qualify just by being rational, and in need of financial aid. And the organization could be run by a select number of rational thinkers that exist in the world at the time, and they would pass on that responsibility to the next generation.

Rich families pass on their wealth to their sons, so why not set up a system to allow rational people to pass on their wealth to their future sons? Do you follow? The English gentry used this system for a long time, and it functioned fairly well, despite the corruption. For instance: Suppose in your entire lifetime, as one person, you could invest $50, 000 in a fund for future rational thinkers. That would yield about $5000 per year or $416/month, which is 70% of what is needed for one person to live minimally in Canada, (with minimal rent, power, food and so on)

Now suppose five people came together with $50, 000, and invested $250,000 in a portfolio of stable, reliable, high yielding stocks, that gave about 10% annual dividend growth. That would yield $25,000/year or $2083/month. And their original $250,000 would remain untouched. And the directors that manage the organization could use the money for multiple projects simultaneously. For instance: you could use the $2083/month to pay for a safe way house for rational thinkers to live, and at the same time, the house could also be used as a meeting place to work on other projects, whether it be broadcasting radio debates shows, or whatever else that the group agree upon.

[Kevin Solway]

My idea is to set up an organization with the specific objective to help out the small number of rational thinkers that may need financial aid in the world. For instance: suppose you were able to manage a portfolio of stocks that yielded 10% growth annually in dividends . . .

Not such an easy thing to do. Many pension funds have lost money over the last couple of years, and they tend to invest in safe stocks! Many people are discovering that "safe as houses" is not so safe after all.

My own view is that we are entering a period, over the next hundred years, of extreme instability. I expect it will be a very rocky road for the stock market.

For instance: Suppose in your entire lifetime, as one person, you could invest $50, 000 in a fund for future rational thinkers.

If a thinker has $50,000, I think a priority for them would probably be getting a roof over their head, instead of having to live in sharehouses or damp basements.

I bought a cheap house five years ago, and it has increased in value several times since then. I plan on finding a thinker to leave the house to in my will.

I think that your idea is feasible, but I don't know too many thinkers who have a spare $50,000.

If I had a spare $50,000 I would probably put it towards something like a "Freethinkers.tv" project, to tell you the truth.

My recommendation for thinkers with little money is to get yourself a small house, or a block of land you can put a shed on. The climate, soil, and rainfall should be good, so you can grow food if necessary, and have fresh water.

I'd really like to believe that the economy, food and power supply will be as stable as we've all grown accustomed to, but the biologist in me is ringing alarm bells.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

If I had a spare $50,000 I would probably put it towards something like a "Freethinkers.tv" project, to tell you the truth.

So you are thinking something along the lines of a debate program on cable television, or the You Tube Channel (Men Of The Infinite) that Dan spoke of? There is also a third possibility of getting a radio contract with a company such as Sirius Satellite Radio or one of its major competitors. However, to get a television program or even a radio contract, you’d have to know someone in the industry or somehow get a reputation for shaking things up with mainstream thinkers in the public arena somewhere else.

This is how many of the current secularist atheist commentators got publicity. They wrote confrontational books, with extreme titles such as God is not Great, or the God Delusion.

My recommendation for thinkers with little money is to get yourself a small house, or a block of land you can put a shed on. The climate, soil, and rainfall should be good, so you can grow food if necessary, and have fresh water. I'd really like to believe that the economy, food and power supply will be as stable as we've all grown accustomed to, but the biologist in me is ringing alarm bells.

What warning signs do you see that tell you we could be heading for extreme economic/survival pressures?

[Carl G]

If one achieves wealth in this world, do they have a responsibility to serve humanity through the promotion of rationality?

I believe that one has a responsibility to serve humanity whether or not one has achieved material wealth in this world. And to do it through being sane, another way I suppose, of saying "through the promotion of rationality." However, most people are not capable of consistent sanity, and therefore serve the lower purpose of being grist for the mill, another worthwhile task to be sure.

And how is that best achieved given our current circumstances?

This is a difficult question, given our present dire straits, and one that can only be answered individually, for the individual.

Moreover, If there are any regular posters here that have succeeded in the material world financially, what do you do with your wealth to serve humanity?

Framed this way, it's really a pedestrian question, as wealth of the spirit is more important by far, and only through this -- in my opinion -- can wealth of material applicable in a true enlightened manner occur. Only through personal refinement of one's spirit can the fostering of the support of others' spirit -- or enlightenment -- flow, and it doesn't necessarily require money!

To my mind, mainstream donators tend to give money to disease research, the developing world, hospitals and all the rest of it, which is okay, but perhaps there are more radical ways to use money to serve the future of humanity.


Furthermore, money to me symbolizes energy from past labor, energy, which is power, energy that can be used to accomplish something in the present, according to ones own values. However, what is the best way to allocate wealth to the future generations of humans?

It seems to me that ones resources should be allocated in such a way to either make the lives of future generations of humans easier or to increase the degree of rationality in this world….

Any ideas?

Of course we can think of all the coulds and shoulds which would benefit mankind, from our point of view. Does this help anything, really? What makes this just a more philosophically correct form of the masturbatory dreaming of what would I buy if I won the lottery?

[Kevin Solway]

What warning signs do you see that tell you we could be heading for extreme economic/survival pressures?

Some of the things which concern me deeply:

1. The extreme complacency, greed, and removal from reality of most people in the developed world in particular. I'm thinking of children who don't know where milk comes from, or adults who don't understand how economies work (including politicians).

2. Reducing energy supply combined with increasing demand, combined with the large distances between food sources and populations.

3. Reducing fertility of soils, and loss of fertile soils to erosion, saltation, and other poisoning, and sea level rise.

4. Climate change.

5. The effects of pollutants and other chemicals on human biochemistry.

6. The social effects of overpopulation.

7. Fundamentalist Islam, and other crackpot religions.

8. All the above, combined with the human tendency to fly into a panic, en masse, which can send whole economies into a bottomless spiral, for little or no good reason.


Just to name a few.

[Carl G]

Kevin, how do you justify such great attachment to the maya? Isn't this God's work and as such it is what it is? Are you as concerned with the rest of Nature, outside this planet, outside the appearance of this plane of existence? All is One, and all is you, is it not? Are you running for Congress? How does this deep concern, this strong identification with these 'problems', square with logic? Is it not an emotional limitation to enlightenment? You sound proud of your concern, with an underlying layer of fear intimated, for a doomsday... of your dream? What is your plan for translating your concern into action? Of what use to you is your concern if not translated into direct action? Is it not cause for self-agitation and of what use it that?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Kevin,

Some of the things which concern me deeply:

1. The extreme complacency, greed, and removal from reality of most people in the developed world in particular. I'm thinking of children who don't know where milk comes from, or adults who don't understand how economies work (including politicians).

But hasn’t man’s understanding of things always been lacking? Isn’t it just more of the same here? Plus life has become much more complicated as far as economic complexity is concerned, while the human brain largely remains what it is, and what it has been.

2. Reducing energy supply combined with increasing demand, combined with the large distances between food sources and populations.

One thing that people don’t quite realize is that oil prices are largely affected by future economic spectators/investors, and so the present “high’ price of oil may not actually reflect a shortage in production, but rather an anticipation by wall street that a shortage is coming. So the ‘high’ prices may in fact only reflect what investors fear is coming, as India and China get a taste for fossil fuels.

3. Reducing fertility of soils, and loss of fertile soils to erosion, saltation, and other poisoning, and sea level rise.

This is indeed a problem, and organic farming, permaculture and forest farming have provided many solutions. However, as you say, as long as an overpopulated urban base is heavily dependent on a mechanized agriculture system, environmental degradation is bound to ensue. I’m also concerned with the pressures on the fisheries industry, which is probably irreversible, unless mankind drastically relies more heavily on fish farming, and less on robbing of the oceans.

4. Climate change.

Yes, but I’m still not quite certain how drastic this change will be, or even how much of this change is caused by man. It is difficult to know.

5. The effects of pollutants and other chemicals on human biochemistry.

The earth can recover from these pollutants if humans slow down a bit, and use safer chemicals, and recycle, or dispose of the dangerous ones that are necessary now. But yes, this does create quite a problem to various degrees depending on the region. I find developing regions tend to cause more damage to their local environment, while more developed countries tend to invest into more recycling, waste management, and proper deposal of harmful chemicals.

6. The social effects of overpopulation.

Overpopulation is a serious problem, I agree. Both for the environment, and the quality of life for each human being.

7. Fundamentalist Islam, and other crackpot religions.

These groups aren’t a major threat to humanities survival unless they get their hands on nuclear weapons, then they pose a much larger threat. However, if one of these crack pot religious groups does use a nuke, hoping for the return of their supernatural godhead, and it doesn’t happen, then hopefully this will prove to the rest that nuking the world isn’t going to bring about the end of the world.

8. All the above, combined with the human tendency to fly into a panic, en masse, which can send whole economies into a bottomless spiral, for little or no good reason.

This is why the role of the political leader is still so important as long as humanity remains emotional. The leader is supposed to give speeches designed to calm everyone the fuck down, and it works somewhat I believe. The right political leader (if he has any intelligence at all), can calm down an enemy or a crazed populous in turbulent times.

For instance: Today, George Bush gave a speech calling on the Russian And Georgian Armies to stand down from their conflict, and come to the negotiation table. This is what I’ve always liked about the role of the United States presidency on a global scale – is that the elected leaders are not afraid to speak out and attempt to be a rational voice on the world stage, even if that voice is somewhat hypocritical and biased itself.

Overall Kevin, I think your assessment of 100 years of rough times could be a little too long because if you analyze the history of most major recessions, they tend to only last a one or two decades at most. However, I agree that we are living in unique times, with unique environmental, economic and social pressures that could accelerate the degree of the pressures on humanity. However, a major counter-acting force is that acceleration of technology and science in the wake of all these problems, and I believe technological innovation is only intensified in tough times, as more investment goes into new novel ways of doing things.

For instance: The company GOOGLE has invested billions into solar research, while AMD and INTEL are competiting for the most energy efficient, and low temperature running processors. This is the sort of innovation the world needs.

[Nick]

Kevin, how do you justify such great attachment to the maya? Isn't this God's work and as such it is what it is? Are you as concerned with the rest of Nature, outside this planet, outside the appearance of this plane of existence? All is One, and all is you, is it not? Are you running for Congress? How does this deep concern, this strong identification with these 'problems', square with logic? Is it not an emotional limitation to enlightenment? You sound proud of your concern, with an underlying layer of fear intimated, for a doomsday... of your dream? What is your plan for translating your concern into action? Of what use to you is your concern if not translated into direct action? Is it not cause for self-agitation and of what use it that?

Carl, how do you justify being a complete fucking idiot?

[Nick]

Inflation and the collapse of paper currency is also a huge concern that is going to need to be addressed in the near future. Without the convenience of money being used to make transactions humanity may be forced to revert to a barter system, or worse the government will take the role of rationing out food and supplies to the masses.

The chances of another world war seem about 50/50 right now as well. And this time it wont just be the USA with nuclear weapons and other WMDs.

Here is a relevant video on over population and the increasing demand for oil.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nick,

Inflation and the collapse of paper currency is also a huge concern that is going to need to be addressed in the near future. Without the convenience of money being used to make transactions humanity may be forced to revert to a barter system, or worse the government will take the role of rationing out food and supplies to the masses.

Although, I don’t believe you will see paper money systems crumbling globally, as only certain monetary systems will collapse. For instance: America’s monetary system will probably collapse, while Canada’s will probably stay intact. It all depends on the behavior of individual governments. And a large superpower like America can bring everyone else down a bit economically, but with emerging powers making a stand in America’s place, this will give dependent developed countries another economic trading partner to lean on when America goes bust.

A superpower is expendable in that sense.

The chances of another world war seem about 50/50 right now as well.

Yes, if Israel decides to attack Iran’s nuclear plants, then the chain of affects of that will probably lead to another global conflict. Personally, I don’t believe in preemptive strikes unless there is overwhelming evidence that there is an irrational enemy about to attack, and Iran doesn’t seem that threatening at the moment.

The two best things that can happen in the middle-east to calm everyone down is for American troops to slowly start withdrawing from Iraq upon Barack Obama's election into presidency, and a diplomatic effort to stop expanding Jewish settlements further into Palestinian land. Moreover, it is difficult to make the argument that jews as a race are not greedy as hell when all their behavior suggests that they are greedy as hell. Some of the stereotypes seem present...

To me, there are too many Jewish politicians in power that believe it is their god given right to take land from force from the Palestinians. They seem to believe in biblical deeds to the land, rather than legal ones. It doesn't seem all that rational to me.

Moreover, if diplomatic figures could stop the Israeli expansion, then this may calm down the indignant Iranians who side heavily with the Palestinians, and have been known to totally demonize what they call the "Zionist's occupation".

[clyde]

Ryan;

To return to your question, I understand how donating to charities that provide food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, and shelter to the homeless relieves suffering; I also understand how donating to teachers who promote wise living benefits human beings; but how would setting up a fund to support ‘rational thinkers’ “make the lives of future generations of humans easier or to increase the degree of rationality in this world….”?

By the way, in addition to supporting charities and teachers, I also support and promote “do no harm”.

clyde

[Ryan Rudolph]

Clyde,

To return to your question, I understand how donating to charities that provide food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, and shelter to the homeless relieves suffering; I also understand how donating to teachers who promote wise living benefits human beings; but how would setting up a fund to support ‘rational thinkers’ “make the lives of future generations of humans easier or to increase the degree of rationality in this world….”?

Well, when I say future humans, I mean developed rational humans, and there are only a small number in the world. I only value irrational humans because they are necessary to keep the species going. However, in my opinion, there are far too many irrational humans, and not enough rational ones. So to make life easier for the rational ones by having a mutual fund set up for them may actually enable them to dedicate themselves more fully to spreading rationality, rather than putting all their energy into securing food, clothes and shelter.

[Carl G]

Carl, how do you justify being a complete fucking idiot?

Easy. I just keep telling myself, "It could be worse. You could be Nick Treklis."

*shivers at the thought*

[clyde]

Ryan;

Sorry, I mistook you for a humanitarian.

clyde

[Ryan Rudolph]

Clyde,

Mainstream humanitarians are usually not rational anyway, and that is why I would never define myself in those terms. These types are notorious for getting very emotional by protesting events, getting upset in public, screaming into cameras and looking for lots of attention so they can look "good" in the eyes of others, they tend to eventually get thrown in prison. In my opinion, these types usually don't have much subtlety of thought.

I consider myself a rationalist, which is a humanitarian to the next level. Humanitarians are usually also afraid to judge people in absolute terms and that is what separates them from the true philosopher.

[clyde]

Ryan;

OK, I understand that you are a rationalist, not a humanitarian.

Can a rationalist, while strictly maintaining rationalism, be financially successful?
And if so, are there rationalists who are financial successful?
Finally, what is the rationale for others (rationalists and/or non-rationalists?) donating money to support rationalists?

clyde

[Nick]

If I came into enough money I would build an institution/commune where philosophers of the caliber I'm looking for could stay for an indefinite period free of charge while working together to spread truth in the most efficient manner.

[Kelly Jones]

Carl asked Kevin how he could justify attachment to the world of illusion.

If I might add a thought.

Reality is not nothing at all, and it is responsible for memory and consciousness. It manifests as forms. So things are experienced, like hunger, thirst, cold, warmth, sleepiness, being energised. These finite things are real, yet they are really the formless.

A wise human can speak of the extinction of the human species, and point out that the case is probably hopeless, yet never think that there is anything but Nature's formless whimsy at play. He might say that we humans are like a rat plague in a granary. We eat and eat, multiply into the millions, and then as the food source runs out, and is replaced by inedible by-products of our metabolism, then the plague collapses, leaving only a few hardened, selfish, killer-rats who cannabalise on weaker rats, live off rusty nails, or have colonised a bleaker landscape. All these things are manifestations of the free-form, directionless nature of Reality.

I agree with Kevin that thinkers should try to find a more rational way of living. I think that cities in less than fifty years' time will be near-full of panic-stricken morons, who will not be receptive to reasoning. The majority of the more rational people will not have much money, so they won't be able to escape to extra-terrestrial colonies. Among these more rational persons, it is more rational to promote wisdom. The main issue I foresee is how those communities start. If they are founded on principles like keeping things simple, thinking, and being able to cope calmly with discomfort, then things should go better.

Another reason why thinkers should try to find a more rational way of living, is because it's not rational to challenge the will to live, as Kierkegaard did at the end of his life, if there is no one around who will benefit from that example. Civilisation has to be stable, and the leading philosophers complacent, to do something like that.

Tips on the resource wars.


KJ

[Carl G]

Kelly,

All those words to say, basically, that you foresee and support the idea of rational people forming communes in the years ahead?

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin, how do you justify such great attachment to the maya?

"Maya" is illusion, but the things I mentioned are not illusion, are they?

Isn't this God's work and as such it is what it is?

Yes, it is certainly "God's work" (the workings of the Totality). But it is also God's work that some people identify what is happening, and try to solve problems when they arise, and try to negotiate hurdles to their survival.

What is your plan for translating your concern into action? Of what use to you is your concern if not translated into direct action? Is it not cause for self-agitation and of what use it that?

I try to promote rationality and sensible behaviour to the best of my ability, without compromising my values.

As I see it, the primary problem is overpopulation, which comes from people wanting to have sex without contraception, and it is also greed, which demands growing economies, which in turn requires increasing populations. I don't believe that my becoming a politician will help to solve these problems.

My considerations don't cause me self-agitation to any significant degree. I look upon these matters as a biologist studying a colony of bacteria.

[Carl G]

Kevin wrote:

"Maya" is illusion, but the things I mentioned are not illusion, are they?

In that they are mere appearances, yes.

Yes, it is certainly "God's work" (the workings of the Totality). But it is also God's work that some people identify what is happening, and try to solve problems when they arise, and try to negotiate hurdles to their survival.

But I guess you are not one of them. You are simply "deeply concerned."

[Kelly Jones]

I don't think I would have mentioned communes, ie. insular, herd-minded, inbreeding-type groups.

My views are basically all about creating thinking as a culture. I'm not trying to create communities of people, but to stimulate thinking cultures in individuals wherever I can.

Some people are impenetrably idiotic. There's not much you can do about that. So reasoners will be somewhere else. Might as well give my thoughts on setting-up 'somewhere else'.

Take, for instance, Kevin's idea of freethinkers.tv

The individuals responsible for it, aren't members of a commune. They're individuals with similar values, who think for themselves, express their ideas, discuss how to create programs, and broadcast stuff. Maybe they never meet in person.

You, Carl, are you more interested in passing on your genes, or in passing on your ideas?