[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Discussion - non-free software removal



>>"Emile" == Emile van Bergen <emile-deb@evbergen.xs4all.nl> writes:

 Emile> Perhaps, but are you really always so sure of your motives?
 >> 
 >> This seems to imply you are not. Perhaps you should indulge
 >> yourself in some much needed introspections.
 >> 
 Emile> You'd be an exception with such unfaltering introspective
 Emile> abilities.
 >> 
 >> And I thank you again, kind sir.

 Emile> Just as you are sceptical to people who claim selfless
 Emile> altruism as their motive, am I sceptical of people who think
 Emile> that all the good they do comes from ulterior motives. I'm
 Emile> sorry if my scepticism was offensive.

	Very well, my presumptive freind. I was not going to respond
 expansively, since it is off topic, but I suppose I should. I
 generally try not to make assertions merely on whimsy; but on
 rational grounds.

	And there is a reason for being skeptical of people who
 profess altruism:  It goes against human nature. What? You
 exclaim. How is this more than mere opinion? The defense is: any
 organism that puts the welfare of other organisms above its own,
 especially those who do not share the same genes, would be at an
 disadvantage, and selected against, in favour of a purely selfish
 organism. Over time, selection pressure militate against purely
 altruistic behaviour, and, since we are the product of a log line of
 surviving competitive ancestors, human nature is _not_ being purely
 altruistic.

	I freely admit that recent studies indicate that things are
 different for closely related genes (there is an advantage in
 protecting offspring, for example), but that is not relevant
 here. Also, in a social grouping, especially when the group shares
 genetic characteristics, altruism may have an evolutionary role; but
 these effects are somwwhat limited in scope. 

	There fore my skepticism of pure altruism.

	Enlightened self interest, of course, is another story.

	Herein endeth the lesson.

 Emile> I think there's no conflict between helping yourself and
 Emile> helping users.  To paraphrase a bad advertising slogan: we're
 Emile> users too.
 >> 
 >> Quite so. But that is not what I was responding to: You said,
 >> and I quote:
 >> >> Amen. We've /got/ to realise that serving the users is in the end the
 >> >> only goal.
 >> 
 >> I _know_ there is no conflict; but to imply serving others is
 >> the only goal is stupendendously specious.

 Emile> Sorry, I don't think so. And again, I didn't say *others*, I
 Emile> said *users*. Inclusive.

	For me, I am sufficiently doifferent from these other people
 for me to know the distinction between M*, and OTHERS.

 Emile> There are common interests shared by people. There is no
 Emile> natural scarcity in knowledge, information or software. We
 Emile> don't have to compete for it. The single same bit of
 Emile> information is at the same time useful to you as to others.

	There is work involved, and the kind of work that is paid for
 handsomely. Time is short. Sleep deprivation is already an ossue. So
 yes, there is a scarce resource: skilled labour.

	The is a certain virtue in selfishness.

	manoj
-- 
 I'd like some JUNK FOOD ... and then I want to be ALONE --
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C



Reply to: