User Tag List

12 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 19

  1. #1
    Luctor et emergo Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    534

    Default Why non-interference should be the general consensus

    I'm talking about this primarily on a state level. A lot of nations offer 'help' to lesser nations. This, in my opinion, is like genetically modifying a human being so that they grow in a certain way. If people agree with this, fair enough, there's no contradiction in one's believing in genetic modification of a human being and in modifying a state's natural process. But if one is against human GM, but for helping other states, there's a contradiction. Because a state must be left to grow freely. Why does the UK flourish? It received help from no state. Why do nations in Africa look like shit? Well, even if we give them aid it does nothing. In fact, it makes things worse most of the time.

  2. #2
    you are right mippus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    Intp
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    906

    Default

    That is very strange reasoning. So the best we could do for civil war and famine struck states is to ignore them?
    Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas

  3. #3
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    What if you use a different model -- like a "friendship" one (where the one who is standing, with resources, helps the other back to its feet) even if a mentor/student or parent/child model might feel a little presumptuous to you? (Although I think that model is appropriate and useful here in some ways too.)

    The "genetic scientist/subject" model seems to leave a lot to be desired.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    961

    Default

    Sounds like social darwinism among nations. Who cares about "nations?" We're all human, we should help each other out.

  5. #5
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Human beings are all connected. Small, isolated problems have a tendency to transform into big, global problems if they aren't dealt with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I'm talking about this primarily on a state level. A lot of nations offer 'help' to lesser nations. This, in my opinion, is like genetically modifying a human being so that they grow in a certain way. If people agree with this, fair enough, there's no contradiction in one's believing in genetic modification of a human being and in modifying a state's natural process. But if one is against human GM, but for helping other states, there's a contradiction. Because a state must be left to grow freely. Why does the UK flourish? It received help from no state. Why do nations in Africa look like shit? Well, even if we give them aid it does nothing. In fact, it makes things worse most of the time.
    Not all of Africa looks like shit. Don't generalise. Are you African? And even if so, have you been to every country or city (as some cities flourish while the poorer towns do not). Even some shitty looking town filled with huts is how these people may choose to live yet it's perceived by others outside as being poor and horribly lacking. That isn't to say it's all good but there are some who'll believe others in living beyond their means (as we truly are in 1st World Nations, for the most part)

    You cannot deny the problems caused by others who interferred with this continent due to religious or other reasonings. Are they, the descendents of the corruptors, who naively thought themselves helpful or deliberately sabotaged them, obligated in helping or giving aid? No. It's a choice people do as we are all interdependent.---and it's a choice in wanting to better others as it'll eventually help oneself as we all collectively prosper, share resources, invent together or save together.-- destroy together too--

    I largely agree that there should be limited help in terms of giving nutritional aid as it de-stabilizes the farmers/providers of the countries in question. There is also corruption within governments, not all though or not every person in gov't.

    The UK did not always flourish independently. And now with cross-cultural globalism, I'd say, no country is left uneffected by the attentions or the cultural impact of others (such as North America or NA being influenced by adopting fashions/customs of others but distort or filter through them for their own fashionable/self-suiting needs (not always bad but mostly misunderstood and misapplied or really...just commercialized).

    You also have countries, such as the US and others, whom use other countries whom are impovrished to store their toxic waste by paying them off or taking their oil or other natural resources and there is no intention of helping beyond giving them payment to their gov'ts, who may or may not do it selfishly, other than intentionally or ignorantly destroying the health of the peoples. -- and I don't speak of Africa only. Perhaps your backyard has a dump or two, and perhaps it was by your own neighbour. I know my city does it to the city two three doors down.

    The UK is as much connected and dependent on other countries/continents as every other one is. It's asking for help is not as apparent as others may be but this is where diplomatic importing and exporting comes in.

  7. #7
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I'm talking about this primarily on a state level. A lot of nations offer 'help' to lesser nations. This, in my opinion, is like genetically modifying a human being so that they grow in a certain way. If people agree with this, fair enough, there's no contradiction in one's believing in genetic modification of a human being and in modifying a state's natural process. But if one is against human GM, but for helping other states, there's a contradiction. Because a state must be left to grow freely. Why does the UK flourish? It received help from no state. Why do nations in Africa look like shit? Well, even if we give them aid it does nothing. In fact, it makes things worse most of the time.
    I don't have a problem with genetic modification, but I don't like the idea of giving aid to impoverished states in any case. It's simply because I think that in particular, my nation needs its resources for itself rather than to give them away to other nations. If we had them to spare, I'd say "sure, why not help them?" But we're in debt, and are teetering on the precipice of ruin... which is not a good time for charity in my opinion.

    I really don't think "interconnectedness" is an excuse to waste money on other nations and/or welfare systems, remain passive about large-scale intranational economic/political problems, and let everything fall apart the way everyone else seems to think it is.

    It's like they think we should throw ourselves into the gutter from our better position if we can't pull someone else out, just because we're "connected," and I don't like that.

  8. #8
    `~~Philosoflying~~` SillySapienne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    9,849

    Default

    Reading the OP led me to think of this....

    The relevance of it, however, I'm not quite sure...

    Human beings are animals, and like all living organisms, they exist as complex, dynamic active/energetic, i.e. "living", physical, relatively closed systems/domains, who act as part and parcel of their genes.

    All living organisms serve either two or three primary functions, the first function as that of being protective, albeit expendable, storage vessels that house their genes. The second function as that of being efficient genetic replication factories designed to produce multiple copies of their genes (and for asexual species, the biological buck stops here, i.e. they exist as self replicating copies/organisms that live to self replicate...), and lastly and perhaps most importantly, (for sexually reproducing species), the third function is that of being effective vehicles, and agents of genetic transfer and transformation, where successful gametic donations that unite and fertilize, result in their producing potentially viable offspring, i.e. genetic investments for future colonies.

    To quote Dawkins, more or less, all living things are in effect, "Gene machines". As such, they are concerned with securing their own survival so as to ensure/enhance their ability/access to potentially mate. They are motivated by finding a mate(s) and by mating, so as to enhance their chances to successfully procreate. And with mammals, and humans especially, if they successfully mate to produce offspring, they become concerned with protecting, defending, and nurturing their genetic offspring so as to enhance its survivability and therefore ultimately secure/enhance the potential proliferation of their genes amongst future populations.

    *This is my belief/understanding of life as a function, and product of its simplest unit.

    I do not entirely agree with this hypothesis, in fact I only kind of agree with it...
    `
    'Cause you can't handle me...

    "A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it." - David Stevens

    "That that is, is. That that is not, is not. Is that it? It is."

    Veritatem dies aperit

    Ride si sapis

    Intelligentle sparkles

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    880

    Default

    It's really a question of the type of help you're giving. If you give help that is genuinely needed and helps the nation be more independent, then you've achieved something substantial.

    "Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish and you have fed him for a lifetime"

  10. #10
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    give a man fire; he'll be warm for a day. set a man on fire; he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Similar Threads

  1. Why Mental Health Should Be Covered
    By prplchknz in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-26-2017, 10:29 AM
  2. What do You think should be the maximum tax rate for an individual?
    By UniqueMixture in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 100
    Last Post: 05-18-2012, 06:35 AM
  3. Why Typing Should be through the Tertiary-Opposite (The Point of Least Resistance)
    By InvisibleJim in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 101
    Last Post: 05-18-2011, 05:51 PM
  4. Why drug dealing should be legalized...
    By The Ü™ in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 02:21 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO