Thursday, January 7, 2010

Thinking in principles

Some people only look at short term actions without relation to the ideas behind them to decide if they should trust somebody or not and if such action is good or not - and they get screwed.

One example is government financing. People think that because the government offers them free money - to finance their house, mortgage, education, healthcare (coming up - let's hope not) that the government is good and trustworthy. However, this is what the pig thinks too about the farmer that feeds it - and will continue to think it until the day it gets slaughtered. "I wake up today, he brings me food. I wake up tomorrow he brings me food - what could be wrong?".

Without long term vision, without thinking in principle and seeing what such actions mean in principle (in case of government financing: loss of freedom and individual rights) we are all like a pig led to the slaughter, led by the blindness of pigs who can see nothing beyond the immediate free cash they are getting at somebody else's expense.


  1. Good. Right. I liked the example pf a pig :) Most of the people in the world are no better than those pigs :P

  2. Well, judging by your other post, you see human nature as such as evil, and you judge what is evil or not by a non-objective standard.

    In your view someone is evil if they are living for their own happiness instead of serving mother earth. By your standard the only way to be good is to seek self-annihilation, seclusion, minimal existence - to serve, suffer and die. Well, who would ever be good by this standard? Not any of the normal people who are happy with their lives and go to work every day, watch T.V. enjoy a ride in their car and other luxuries.

  3. I hope you take my posts as constructive criticism even though I know you'd probably see them as harsh - but these environmental ideas are enemy to human life - an enemy to my life and the life of people dear to me - this is the only response I can and will give them.

  4. In your view someone is evil if they are living for their own happiness instead of serving mother earth.
    It's not serving mother Earth. You live in your house. Keep it clean. Not pollute it. If you do that it will harm your health. So, by keeping your house in good health and shape is not "serving" your house. It's serving your own self! I like partying and all, which masses up my house with food pieces and drinks spread around. I hate cleaning... I keep living like that only. Will I will healthy then?

    You think thinking about Earth is against human life. It's only against your indiscipline. It's actually, saving human life, bringing discipline to it. If you had studied science you would know it. World doesn't only work on "philosophy"...

  5. I think that the following comment shows that you you care primarily about the planet and secondarily about humans:

    "The planet is naturally designed to accomodate only about a billion human beings. Until last 200-300 years the human population has never exceeded a billion. That's enough of an evidence (millions of years, you see) that nature intended human population to be about that much. But after the advent of medical inventions and all today our population is increasing by leaps and bounds."

    Here you are coming out against medicine and against saving lives because it over crowds earth.

    Then on another post where I said:
    "Why should we care about natural resources apart from what they can give us humans?" You replied: (Wow!!) implying strong disagreement.

    Obviously, you don't think that we should only care for the environment to get the best out of it for ourselves, but you think we should care about it for its own sake. Am I mistaken?

  6. No you are not mistaken. I am absolutely done commenting on your blog. Though I am still your reader. Happy blogging!

    If possible, for me, please DO NOT fail to watch The 11th Hour, and An Inconvenient Truth. Even if you find them trashy, try watching them with the doors of your head open, for a change.

    Good luck with your happiness :)

  7. My mind is always open for facts, but not for *anything* - not for things I know are wrong. I take as much time as I need to reach a conclusion, but when I do I am certain of it and I will no longer "keep an open mind" to opposite ideas, just like it is stupid to "keep an open mind" about the observation that 2+2=4. I am not a skeptic.

    If a whole movie is based on wrong premises, on the idea that earth comes before human beings, that we should be concerned about earth separately from human lives - then there is no point watching it.

    You are still welcome to comment on my blog, of course.

  8. Incidentally, I have had disagreements with Darshan on similar issues. :)

    But to my pleasant suprise, Darshan for the first time offered this reason that concern for the environment would improve our own lives, and not just the Earth. I personally, do not think of nature or the Earth as a sentient or intention-driven entity (doing so would actually just believing in God), but I also feel we need to be judicious in how we use the resources. We need to try to develop technologies, which would harm the environment less, and still fulfill our purposes. One of the things environmentalists have never concentrated on is trying to control population. Living in jungles is hardly the 'solution' to current/future crises, but trying to restrict our population is. This issue of population-control attains much greater significance in a country like India, where the population density is very high and individual share of resources is very low. Another problem unrelated to environmental harm that a huge population creates is of disguised unemployment.

  9. Nobody has the right to restrict the freedom of others or to take away their right to life in the name of "future generations" or in the name of anything else. Population control has absolutely no justification. No one has the right to demand the execution of someone else (or to prevent them from having children) so that they or their grandchildren may "have more room".

    When considering the subject of rights one must always keep in mind AN INDIVIDUAL - not a group of men. What takes away the freedom of one man can never be in the interest of a society.

    As for pollution... I think that when one can prove by physical evidence that a factory's pollution is harming one's health then one has a case to go to court with. Otherwise there is no place for government intervention in regulating how factories operate. Currently, the government is regulating businesses in order to "protect the environment" - to protect fish, not people - and that is wrong. Putting a fish before a human being is wrong - it is against our nature and against the requirements of our lives.


Do not post links which are not relevant to the subject. Such links will be deleted.

How can the organs of an organism cooperate so well?

I had an interesting thought about living things. We tend to think of living things as a single entity composed of "parts", each ...