Why non-interference should be the general consensus

[Ezra]

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.

 

[mippus]

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

 

[Totenkindly]

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.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

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

 

[Kiddo]

Human beings are all connected. Small, isolated problems have a tendency to transform into big, global problems if they aren't dealt with.

 

[zarc]

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.

 

[Athenian200]

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.

 

[SillySapienne]

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...

 

[Maverick]

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"

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[zarc]

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.

That reminds me of scientist Dr. Bruce Lipton who disagrees with Darwinism Survival of the Fitest as he believes we act as would groups of cells which interdependently, proactively function together in order to maintain the best effective outcome. When cells begin dying, the group falters and disease sets in. I'm in line with this thinking, though I've yet to read his books but so far only of his online material from his site.

 

[Grayscale]

every man for himself is a very ignorant, simplistic approach. look at anything successful and you'll find it often leverages cooperation of it's elements in a systematic approach...

for this reason, you can't look at any given element and take it for what it is, you have to look at the whether more can be gained back by the investment you make in it.

so really, it could go either way. if you're talking about countries, you have to consider whether that country could eventually contribute to the greater good in the sense that it gives back more than what it takes. anyways, countries are constructs of man and I think aid shouldnt be considered on such a generic level.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

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.

Your argument is...strange...but interesting. I would take it a step further and then object.

Step further: tampering with the welfare of a nation is similar to genetic engineering in that you are artificially affected that success rate of some genes over another. But I would argue that ALL human activity selects for some things over other things, it's just that you're not just selecting for genes. For example, if you decide to buy a t-shirt from a designer, you are contributing to the longevity of the designer who manufactures that shirt. We're always tampering with the success rates of certain things in our environment. Another example is buying oranges from a local farmer, or even whistling a song around people. To that extent, we can never avoid artificial selection, and people who object to GMFs because we're tampering with nature, yeah...it's a weak argument imo.

But this is ultimately really a strawman. The better argument is that the METHOD of artificially selecting is harmful. (I don't really care to argue this point here since it's not what I believe.) Not so with sending food to a starving country, where the effects are usually ameliorative. It's here that your argument falls apart as it's too broad.

 

[nemo]

I tend to have a problem with the proposition that "a state must be left to grow freely." I don't think "natural" is necessarily "moral", and the view that nation-states, which are social entities, should evolve unperturbed by outside intervention into some ideal Darwinian empire is a fantasy. In fact, it's not even known what's "natural" with regards to political structure. You hear this sort of argument from libertarians and objectivists about the economy, as well.

Naturalistic fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Ezra]

So the best we could do for civil war and famine struck states is to ignore them?

Yes. Who helped England through its Civil War from 1642-49? England did. Who helped Ireland through its potato famine? Ireland did. Who helped Russia through the revolution in 1917? Russia did.

What if you use a different model -- like a "friendship" one [...] even if a mentor/student or parent/child model might feel a little presumptuous to you?

I think a mentor/student relationship is quite different, and is based on something other than what you deem to be 'friendship'. It's for another discussion. However, with the parent/child case, consider that there is a kind of hierarchy, and that that which is lower or higher in the hierarchy is more nurturable than that which is higher or lower in the hierarchy respectively. That is, it is one's nature to nurture to some extent. Place the individual at the top of the hierarchy. The family comes next. Firstly, we help ourselves; because we are all, by definition, self-preservationist. Secondly, we help those closest to us; our family and close friends. Next comes those around us who we would consider to be friends or acquaintances. We may or may not help them, depending on how close we are with them.

Now, it could be said that from a socialist perspective, since the aim of it is to strengthen the bonds of community, we should all help one another regardless of intimacy. But from a natural perspective, humans act, I believe, according to the aforementioned hierarchy. Therefore a socialist act which you seem to be considering in your friendship example would be roaming beyond the confines of human nature. Thus, it all comes down to basic beliefs about how we should act. I'm essentially offering an analogy for how we should act based on how we do act. You're explaining that there is an alternative; that we could act differently to how we act.

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

Read my above arguemnt. I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding it.

every man for himself is a very ignorant, simplistic approach.

I'd call it an alternative point of view which certainly has some value and should be seriously considered.

look at anything successful and you'll find it often leverages cooperation of it's elements in a systematic approach...

But, essentially, it comes down to mutual benefit. And if these countries have nothing to offer, why should they be given help?

if you're talking about countries, you have to consider whether that country could eventually contribute to the greater good in the sense that it gives back more than what it takes.

Okay. This could work with what I've outlined.

Step further: tampering with the welfare of a nation is similar to genetic engineering in that you are artificially affected that success rate of some genes over another. But I would argue that ALL human activity selects for some things over other things, it's just that you're not just selecting for genes. For example, if you decide to buy a t-shirt from a designer, you are contributing to the longevity of the designer who manufactures that shirt. We're always tampering with the success rates of certain things in our environment. Another example is buying oranges from a local farmer, or even whistling a song around people. To that extent, we can never avoid artificial selection, and people who object to GMFs because we're tampering with nature, yeah...it's a weak argument imo.

So you believe that tampering with nature is okay?

Not so with sending food to a starving country, where the effects are usually ameliorative. It's here that your argument falls apart as it's too broad.

How is this dissimilar to selectivity?

I don't think "natural" is necessarily "moral"[...]

Who said anything about morality?

and the view that nation-states, which are social entities, should evolve unperturbed by outside intervention into some ideal Darwinian empire is a fantasy.

It is indeed a fantasy.

In fact, it's not even known what's "natural" with regards to political structure.

Which is why political scientists attempt to figure out what is.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

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.

Did you ever notice that on Star Trek, they seem to violate the Prime Directive all the time? I think you have some good points here in principal, but there has to be a happy medium between non-interference and getting involved. Finding that happy medium though can be extremely difficult.

 

[Owl]

Firstly, we help ourselves; because we are all, by definition, self-preservationist.

If the definition of man expresses the essence of manhood, then we are not, by definition, self-preservationist. The essence of a class of things is the set of qualities all members and only members of that class always have. Men do not always desire self-preservation, nor is self-preservation the end of all human action. (Masada is a striking example of how persons, and groups of persons, may act in a manner that is not consistent with their own self-preservation.)

If we must allow states to take a natural course because allowing a state to take a natural course is beneficial for that state, (and harmful otherwise), and what is natural for a being is for that being to act in accordance with what it is essentially, then what is beneficial for states does not necessarily promote mere self-preservation. (At least in the short term.)

So, just because interventionist policies may be contrary to self-preservation, (in the short term), that does not mean that they should not be pursued. It is possible that are unnatural states, and intervention may help those states become natural, flourishing, beneficial members of the world community.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

Who helped Ireland through its potato famine? Ireland did.

The Choktaw Indians did. The English were doing everything they could to make it worse.
The Great Hunger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who helped Russia through the revolution in 1917? Russia did.

The Allies did.
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a mentor/student relationship is quite different, and is based on something other than what you deem to be 'friendship'. It's for another discussion. However, with the parent/child case, consider that there is a kind of hierarchy, and that that which is lower or higher in the hierarchy is more nurturable than that which is higher or lower in the hierarchy respectively. That is, it is one's nature to nurture to some extent. Place the individual at the top of the hierarchy. The family comes next. Firstly, we help ourselves; because we are all, by definition, self-preservationist. Secondly, we help those closest to us; our family and close friends. Next comes those around us who we would consider to be friends or acquaintances. We may or may not help them, depending on how close we are with them.

Now, it could be said that from a socialist perspective, since the aim of it is to strengthen the bonds of community, we should all help one another regardless of intimacy. But from a natural perspective, humans act, I believe, according to the aforementioned hierarchy. Therefore a socialist act which you seem to be considering in your friendship example would be roaming beyond the confines of human nature. Thus, it all comes down to basic beliefs about how we should act. I'm essentially offering an analogy for how we should act based on how we do act. You're explaining that there is an alternative; that we could act differently to how we act.

I subscribe to a utilitarian form of socialism. As slums in cities breed crime poor nations become breeding grounds for terrorists, rebels and all sorts of unpleasantness. If everyone is safe, healthy, educated and living in a wealthy society then all the bad things are either eliminated or minimized. Their safety and stability contributes to our safety and stability.

It's not about how we feel about each other. We aren't individually helping individual people from other countries. The governments of wealthy nations send aid to the governments of poor nations. Your individual-family-friends model of caring doesn't even come into play.

 

[Ezra]

The Choktaw Indians did. The English were doing everything they could to make it worse.
The Great Hunger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Allies did.
Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These two examples are minor. It's like claiming that the reason William the Conqueror invaded England was because one of his advisors said it would be a very wise choice. No doubt one of his advisors made this claim, but it is almost impossible that this was the ultimate reason for William's attacking England. Likewise, the Russian revolution didn't progress the way it did solely due to Allied intervention in Russia; nor did the Irish make their way through turbulent times because a tribe of Indians sent $710 to the entire country.

I subscribe to a utilitarian form of socialism. As slums in cities breed crime poor nations become breeding grounds for terrorists, rebels and all sorts of unpleasantness. If everyone is safe, healthy, educated and living in a wealthy society then all the bad things are either eliminated or minimized. Their safety and stability contributes to our safety and stability.

So, ultimately you believe that individuals should work together, but together freely. Okay, so what happens when an individual's freedom dictates that they needn't help another; does the government have a right to impose on that individual's freedom in order to force them to help their fellow human beings?

It's not about how we feel about each other. We aren't individually helping individual people from other countries. The governments of wealthy nations send aid to the governments of poor nations.

But individuals make up a nation. The government is made up of individuals. And individuals have an affect on one another. As a utilitarian socialist, surely you understand this.