6 ms·

>Humans in general are pretty shitty, driven mostly by self-interest. Water takes the path of least resistance, Humans take the path of least expected effort

>Humans in general are pretty shitty, driven mostly by self-interest. Water takes the path of least resistance, Humans take the path of least expected effort expenditure to accomplish their desires Both are just doing as nature does, being themselves. Why be sad that every person will do the least amount of work to satisfy their desires, when it is an inevitability, but your sadness is not.

kempbellt 8y ago
I have to say, this is the best way I've seen this explained. And it takes no sides. Good comment
- ozzyman700 8y ago
  Thank you for your kind words. My words were mildly plagiarized from Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty. He is where the idea of people fulfilling their desires with the minimum exertion came from in my comment. I also love myself some stoic reading which ties in nicely with Mr. George's theory of minimum effort. Progress and Poverty is a great book and I am constantly stopping and thinking how well supported his ideas are.
falcolas 8y ago
Not all humans. That’s the big kicker for me. A lot of the shit is being generated by a minority, and there is another minority who are genuinely good people That, IMO, makes it harder to accept the fact those who do generate the shit are also “a natural part of humankind”.
agumonkey 8y ago
Except we're supposed to be intelligent. Early on in my life I felt something, I never get angry at nature, no matter harmful, but disappointment by other beings hurts deeply. Nature doesn't pretend to choose, it just is. That made me a lot more at ease with objects than people.
- MarsAscendant 8y ago
  > Except we're supposed to be intelligent. I don't think we are. We sure as hell can be. Seeing bright minds at work is a special kind of inspiration, and its own mental turn-on for me. People aspiring to do well by their desires and talents – that's quite a picture. But it only happens when effort is put forth to surround ourselves – and others around us – with the kind of attitude we seek to promote. Imagine punishing a child for not seeing things the way you do, from the height of the years of experience and the education you'd received. Imagine promoting literacy when you're yet to read a book meaningfully. Imagine moving others to start exercising more, while you're raiding the kitchen every couple of hours for another snack or two. I don't think we're supposed to be intelligent. I think it's in our best interests to be, but I also see the effort to put forth if you seek to improve someone's livelihood. Not against their will, obviously: this much you can't do even if you try really hard – but encouraging them through the natural flow of things, setting an example, or even writing better guides. Perhaps we don't choose, either. For all I know, we might as well be only semi-autonomous, or have no free will to speak of. Maybe we just are.
  - tabtab 8y ago
    Being capable of intelligence and being intelligent are not necessarily the same thing. Humans are social animals first, and logical or rational animals second. Our decisions are influenced heavily by (perceived) social factors and self pride/ego such that office politics and pride often end up overriding objective logic. The Dilbert comic strip is close to a documentary in my observation; only slightly exaggerated.
    - MarsAscendant 8y ago
      > Being capable of intelligence and being intelligent are not necessarily the same thing. My argument was against what I saw as a notion that human beings must always express the intelligence we all undoubtably possess, simply because we do. I don't think that's the case. It's not about using straight logic, either: it's about empathy, and the emotions that influence (or even underline) our decisions, and the bigger picture, and whether being angry right now is worth our time... I think we all can be like that. I think we're not encouraged enough to act that way. There are certainly selfish motives to every single one of us – and yet, some of us are superb at overriding those motives for the sake of a better act, some struggle to the point of giving up, and others yet barely even tap into the altruistic motives. I think it all has to do, in half, with the environment we're in. Generally speaking, fear promotes fear, and empathy promotes empathy. There's about 40 to 60% to do with genetics (the number I've seen was 55%), but that much we can't control. We can control our environments, to an extent.
ip26 8y ago
Water doesn't have the capacity for cruelty. The world is also a much nicer place to live for everyone when people behave in pro-social ways, whether or not that is our nature.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  It may not have the volition for cruelty. It certainly has the capacity.

kempbellt 8y ago

I have to say, this is the best way I've seen this explained. And it takes no sides. Good comment

ozzyman700 8y ago
Thank you for your kind words. My words were mildly plagiarized from Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty. He is where the idea of people fulfilling their desires with the minimum exertion came from in my comment. I also love myself some stoic reading which ties in nicely with Mr. George's theory of minimum effort. Progress and Poverty is a great book and I am constantly stopping and thinking how well supported his ideas are.

falcolas 8y ago

Not all humans. That’s the big kicker for me. A lot of the shit is being generated by a minority, and there is another minority who are genuinely good people That, IMO, makes it harder to accept the fact those who do generate the shit are also “a natural part of humankind”.

agumonkey 8y ago

Except we're supposed to be intelligent. Early on in my life I felt something, I never get angry at nature, no matter harmful, but disappointment by other beings hurts deeply. Nature doesn't pretend to choose, it just is. That made me a lot more at ease with objects than people.

MarsAscendant 8y ago
> Except we're supposed to be intelligent. I don't think we are. We sure as hell can be. Seeing bright minds at work is a special kind of inspiration, and its own mental turn-on for me. People aspiring to do well by their desires and talents – that's quite a picture. But it only happens when effort is put forth to surround ourselves – and others around us – with the kind of attitude we seek to promote. Imagine punishing a child for not seeing things the way you do, from the height of the years of experience and the education you'd received. Imagine promoting literacy when you're yet to read a book meaningfully. Imagine moving others to start exercising more, while you're raiding the kitchen every couple of hours for another snack or two. I don't think we're supposed to be intelligent. I think it's in our best interests to be, but I also see the effort to put forth if you seek to improve someone's livelihood. Not against their will, obviously: this much you can't do even if you try really hard – but encouraging them through the natural flow of things, setting an example, or even writing better guides. Perhaps we don't choose, either. For all I know, we might as well be only semi-autonomous, or have no free will to speak of. Maybe we just are.
- tabtab 8y ago
  Being capable of intelligence and being intelligent are not necessarily the same thing. Humans are social animals first, and logical or rational animals second. Our decisions are influenced heavily by (perceived) social factors and self pride/ego such that office politics and pride often end up overriding objective logic. The Dilbert comic strip is close to a documentary in my observation; only slightly exaggerated.
  - MarsAscendant 8y ago
    > Being capable of intelligence and being intelligent are not necessarily the same thing. My argument was against what I saw as a notion that human beings must always express the intelligence we all undoubtably possess, simply because we do. I don't think that's the case. It's not about using straight logic, either: it's about empathy, and the emotions that influence (or even underline) our decisions, and the bigger picture, and whether being angry right now is worth our time... I think we all can be like that. I think we're not encouraged enough to act that way. There are certainly selfish motives to every single one of us – and yet, some of us are superb at overriding those motives for the sake of a better act, some struggle to the point of giving up, and others yet barely even tap into the altruistic motives. I think it all has to do, in half, with the environment we're in. Generally speaking, fear promotes fear, and empathy promotes empathy. There's about 40 to 60% to do with genetics (the number I've seen was 55%), but that much we can't control. We can control our environments, to an extent.

ip26 8y ago

Water doesn't have the capacity for cruelty. The world is also a much nicer place to live for everyone when people behave in pro-social ways, whether or not that is our nature.

dredmorbius 8y ago
It may not have the volition for cruelty. It certainly has the capacity.