Classical story is that people always have emotions and they can't exist without them in psychological sense and standard policy is that we need them to be us.
This is something that is not disputable.
But the topic is not black and white as people who debate it say/argue sometime, there is actually a hole in this kind of debate(s) so I am asking?
My question is: Do we need so much emotions in life?
The problem is not that there are emotions the problem is how much emotions there are.
Here is something that is written by one other forum member and person will probably recognize its work. But this is aimed to all forum members not just that one.
a) It creates a bond between people which allows society to exist at all
b) It allows for empathy which makes people care about one another, hence again ensuring that society will take care of the people that are part of it
c) Ever seen the matrix? The robots have a 'society' without emotions and work together only for a common goal. And many are sacrificed in the process. Not to mention that they have no ethical filter on their cold logic.
I don't agree with this. Feeling is not nearly as important as people think it is for function of a society. Most of those feelings create a fluffiness and compassion between people but this does not mean that different society can't function.
The thing is that people don't understand that T is capable of replacing many things that are in F domain simply because it is logical and a person still has enough F to care about success of people around.
What in practical sense means that you don't need to be touched by problems of people, to do something about it.
Another thing is that empathy is appreciated so much that this same empathy is the one that is doing harm.
Here is one example of this is:
It is normal that you support aid to sub-Saharan countries but I can’t understand the mechanism how that can be right thing to do. .
You are providing some aid, but there is more and more people living there every day since birth rate is out of control and you can't raise them over the poverty line since that would require huge amount of material and energy.
That would be like you are trying to build an entire infrastructure of US and EU is a few years. Building such an infrastructure would be the biggest job in history. Not to mention that the biosphere can't even support civilization as it is.
So in the end this means that you will just feed them and aid them until you will not be able to do so any more since there is too many of them. Also the aid I am talking about must not be food in can be cloths and equipment.
On the other hand there are people that have problems with cruelly toward animals and what is interesting is that in many cases those are the same people that support aid to sub-Saharan Africa.
Since you are aiding there is more and more people who need more food then you are aiding since population is in expansion.
Tech-level, transportation system and climate provide environment that is not good to organize huge farming system.
So the only thing those people can do is to turn to their own ecosystems for food.
Because of this we are loosing huge number of species all the time since those people are consuming the entire system by consuming animals, destroying ecological balance what destroys organisms that survive.
Also they are chopping the forests for fire wood, house construction and local crop production.
What will happen when they spend their finite supplies? Guess.
By doing things like this they are permanently destroying the system that is piece of the puzzle of a greater system that keeps world as it is.
This region of the world has population of about 750 million.
What means that you need huge amount of vegetables and proteins to support so much people even in so poor state such as this.
In the last 50 years the population has tripled and is growing faster and faster since there are more potential mothers. What means that you must send a lot of aid or they will turn to their environment and destroy it. (Or both)
Someone could say “fu** environment” but that does not change anything since the process is still going in the direction of catastrophe.
Odds that you will stop the increase of population is even lower because even if everyone will have only one child, that is still 50% increase. Since parents are still alive and older generations are smaller in number. Right now three children per mother are minimums there,
(This is simplified example)
Not to mention that in this case you will be attacked by people that will accuse you that you want to kill/abort innocent children in third world countries as a part of an Anti-Christ plan.
This was just to show that empathy/helpfulness and everything that comes with it can cause some serious problems for the civilization and that they are not a good choice in some situations.
This has nothing to do with hate or lack of tolerance it has to do with the fact that people don't think straight. Since this way you are only creating more people to die in the end.
What is quite cruel even if entire thing look like a good idea.
One more thing..
Is feeling bad in some situations a form of masochism?
In a way it is, but that does not mean that person can do something about it.
If you cry in that situation since you can't help yourself you in a way have a problem but if you cry and value emotion you are masochist.
There are plenty of situations when person enjoys being hurt and in a way like it in a perverse way.
One of my greatest personal strengths is my emotional stability which is linked with my strong T. What allows me to live without stress and depression while am still capable of humor and functioning normal. In many ways even better then other people.
(by their standards).
I am not saying that everybody should be like me but I think that the world be a better place if the most emotional people are somewhere around 20%T.
Also I understand that people can't change them self so this is just a comment.
I could say much more but I don't want to make too big OP.