17 ms·

That wouldn't make them intelligent at all. This idea that there should always be fairness and equality in existence is very naive.

pwm 8y ago
What’s wrong with the idea of sharing?
- kingofhdds 8y ago
  Nothing, unless you force a dog which hunted its bone to share it with one who slept the whole day, and call it "equality".
  - ddalex 8y ago
    Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe.
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      Or I can eliminate that dog so I don't have to share my 5% of the kill every single time.
      - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
        Or the other dogs can pack together to eliminate you. Considering the number of times this has happened in human history, any ideas of kingly invincibility you may have are unlikely to be realistic.
        throwaway8879 8y ago
        That's completely fine. The problem with this entire thread is the thought that there is some kind of inherent value to human life. There isn't. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's the nature of any gamble, and life certainly is one.
    - bitL 8y ago
      Lazy dog is well-rested, can probably take more than 50% from a tired dog that hunted, if not even outright killing the hunter.
    - pxtail 8y ago
      > Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe. Then you'll get used to share your 5% , after some time he'll want to have 6.75% and you'll think- well , compared to 5% additional 1.75% is nothing for my safety! After some time other dogs will start to look with keen eyes on lazy dog lifestyle.
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      I agree, we can probably reduce tensions in society by some redistribution. But there's an important point to which too many people are blind: you cannot do it without limits. As more and more of the bone is taken away for "sharing", tensions start to grow again just from other side. And economic motivation is more, and more distorted leaving less bones for all.
  - pwm 8y ago
    That's fair and i don't delude myself that perfect equality exists in any meaningful sense. Continuously aspiring towards a kinder and fairer society however is a good thing.
  - jfsid 8y ago
    Sleeping the whole day is an interesting metaphor for living off of charity or being homeless, two demographics notorious for being unhappier than the working population on average. Did you choose it because spending whole days in bed is a classic symptom of depression,the illness that makes one unhappier than the average employee? I'm not sure transfering money from the later to the former would correct the inequality between their respective qualities of life, so I wouldn't call that equality, no.
    - kingofhdds 8y ago
      Having no ability to read your mind, I cannot tell of you are trying to invent an alternative meaning of my comment to beat a strawman, or you are really a great poet.
      - jfsid 8y ago
        I find my reply in the spirit of your comment. What's wrong with sharing is that sharing is inequality...
        kingofhdds 8y ago
        So you are not a great poet then, and it's strawman argument.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  I can't answer that until we establish what you mean by "wrong".
michaelmrose 8y ago
Support your position please.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  Sharing resources with other people has absolutely nothing to do with being intelligent.
  - throwaway77384 8y ago
    And not sharing them doesn't either. You still haven't made a point. Is the intelligent action the action that is most likely to benefit the group? Is a group of 20 fed dogs stronger than a group of 20 dogs where one goes hungry and becomes a weak or unstable element? Seems like you're just trying to somehow rally against equality and/or sharing, by associating them with naivité, like you have some knowledge others do not, because you don't like those words, rather than trying to actually discuss the concepts they represent, specifically in this context, properly.
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      I'm not trying to make a point or rallying against anything. I'm simply saying that I work hard to acquire resources for myself and will never give them away. We can all make moral/ethical/humane arguments about equality and fairness but I simply don't care. If that makes me unintelligent, then I suppose that's just something I'll have to accept.
      - bildung 8y ago
        Are you really working hard, or are you working in IT, in a first world country?
        michaelmrose 8y ago
        Probably working more intelligently but less hard than the average person at Walmart.
throwaway77384 8y ago
Okay, you are conflating fairness and equality, which are totally separate concepts. Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones. Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry? Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry? Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too? What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive? Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!). So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  The only "civilization" I care about is me. Is it really that difficult for you to understand and accept that there are people like me out there who only care about themselves and the resources they can acquire for themselves? The dog can die. It isn't my problem.
  - atq2119 8y ago
    Aside from the callousness of your remarks, you do realize that having 19 bones isn't an absolute, right? Once there are only 19 dogs left, the number of bones will simply be reduced to (slightly more than) 18, because the prevailing ideology is that there must be 5% unemployment. (This is greatly simplified, of course, but that's the gist of it.) Eventually you'll stop being lucky. And in any case, it's not always the same dog who gets unlucky. So yes, it is your problem, or at least it will be.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Then maybe you should move into the woods and see how many resources you can acquire for yourself without the help of others.
cc-d 8y ago
Or maybe they realize that the 20th dog, who receives no bone and has to watch the other 19 enjoy theirs, might become angry and start causing problems. The 19 dogs, realizing that group performance and cohesion is far more important than 1/19th of their individual bones, all donate a small portion (1/19) of their own bones. Conflict is adverted, and every dog continues to work together, as they all feel like participants in a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves as individuals, and the group as a whole.

pwm 8y ago

What’s wrong with the idea of sharing?

kingofhdds 8y ago
Nothing, unless you force a dog which hunted its bone to share it with one who slept the whole day, and call it "equality".
- ddalex 8y ago
  Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    Or I can eliminate that dog so I don't have to share my 5% of the kill every single time.
    - TheOtherHobbes 8y ago
      Or the other dogs can pack together to eliminate you. Considering the number of times this has happened in human history, any ideas of kingly invincibility you may have are unlikely to be realistic.
      - throwaway8879 8y ago
        That's completely fine. The problem with this entire thread is the thought that there is some kind of inherent value to human life. There isn't. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. It's the nature of any gamble, and life certainly is one.
  - bitL 8y ago
    Lazy dog is well-rested, can probably take more than 50% from a tired dog that hunted, if not even outright killing the hunter.
  - pxtail 8y ago
    > Or you can share 5% of your hunt to keep the lazy dog from attacking you while you sleep. Is it 'fair'? No. Is it a wise move? Maybe. Then you'll get used to share your 5% , after some time he'll want to have 6.75% and you'll think- well , compared to 5% additional 1.75% is nothing for my safety! After some time other dogs will start to look with keen eyes on lazy dog lifestyle.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    I agree, we can probably reduce tensions in society by some redistribution. But there's an important point to which too many people are blind: you cannot do it without limits. As more and more of the bone is taken away for "sharing", tensions start to grow again just from other side. And economic motivation is more, and more distorted leaving less bones for all.
- pwm 8y ago
  That's fair and i don't delude myself that perfect equality exists in any meaningful sense. Continuously aspiring towards a kinder and fairer society however is a good thing.
- jfsid 8y ago
  Sleeping the whole day is an interesting metaphor for living off of charity or being homeless, two demographics notorious for being unhappier than the working population on average. Did you choose it because spending whole days in bed is a classic symptom of depression,the illness that makes one unhappier than the average employee? I'm not sure transfering money from the later to the former would correct the inequality between their respective qualities of life, so I wouldn't call that equality, no.
  - kingofhdds 8y ago
    Having no ability to read your mind, I cannot tell of you are trying to invent an alternative meaning of my comment to beat a strawman, or you are really a great poet.
    - jfsid 8y ago
      I find my reply in the spirit of your comment. What's wrong with sharing is that sharing is inequality...
      - kingofhdds 8y ago
        So you are not a great poet then, and it's strawman argument.
throwaway8879 8y ago
I can't answer that until we establish what you mean by "wrong".

michaelmrose 8y ago

Support your position please.

throwaway8879 8y ago
Sharing resources with other people has absolutely nothing to do with being intelligent.
- throwaway77384 8y ago
  And not sharing them doesn't either. You still haven't made a point. Is the intelligent action the action that is most likely to benefit the group? Is a group of 20 fed dogs stronger than a group of 20 dogs where one goes hungry and becomes a weak or unstable element? Seems like you're just trying to somehow rally against equality and/or sharing, by associating them with naivité, like you have some knowledge others do not, because you don't like those words, rather than trying to actually discuss the concepts they represent, specifically in this context, properly.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    I'm not trying to make a point or rallying against anything. I'm simply saying that I work hard to acquire resources for myself and will never give them away. We can all make moral/ethical/humane arguments about equality and fairness but I simply don't care. If that makes me unintelligent, then I suppose that's just something I'll have to accept.
    - bildung 8y ago
      Are you really working hard, or are you working in IT, in a first world country?
      - michaelmrose 8y ago
        Probably working more intelligently but less hard than the average person at Walmart.

throwaway77384 8y ago

Okay, you are conflating fairness and equality, which are totally separate concepts. Let's assume you are talking about sharing, as that's what the original point was about. Specifically the sharing of 19 bones among 20 dogs, by dividing up the bones. Assumign by 'naive' you mean wrong, are you saying that it is simply a more optimal situation for one dog to go hungry? Does the one dog always go hungry, or does one dog (but a different one each time) go hungry? Do we just let the one dog go hungry each time intentionally, so that in future no dog goes hungry? What if then one day there are only 18 bones for 19 dogs? Do we let that dog die too? What if a group of 18 dogs is required to take down an animal that provides enough bones, but we let the two other dogs die because sharing is naive? Well, that pretty fundamentally calls into question rather a lot of all the principles civilisation is founded upon and which permeate nature, even (nature!). So you better provide some amazing scientifically backed proof of that statement. No, Atlas Shrugged is not scientific proof.

throwaway8879 8y ago
The only "civilization" I care about is me. Is it really that difficult for you to understand and accept that there are people like me out there who only care about themselves and the resources they can acquire for themselves? The dog can die. It isn't my problem.
- atq2119 8y ago
  Aside from the callousness of your remarks, you do realize that having 19 bones isn't an absolute, right? Once there are only 19 dogs left, the number of bones will simply be reduced to (slightly more than) 18, because the prevailing ideology is that there must be 5% unemployment. (This is greatly simplified, of course, but that's the gist of it.) Eventually you'll stop being lucky. And in any case, it's not always the same dog who gets unlucky. So yes, it is your problem, or at least it will be.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Then maybe you should move into the woods and see how many resources you can acquire for yourself without the help of others.

cc-d 8y ago

Or maybe they realize that the 20th dog, who receives no bone and has to watch the other 19 enjoy theirs, might become angry and start causing problems. The 19 dogs, realizing that group performance and cohesion is far more important than 1/19th of their individual bones, all donate a small portion (1/19) of their own bones. Conflict is adverted, and every dog continues to work together, as they all feel like participants in a mutually beneficial relationship between themselves as individuals, and the group as a whole.