Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

* * * * * 2 votes

On 'Sharing'

  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#16    paranormalguy


    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 527 posts
  • Joined:17 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:under your nose

Posted 10 November 2008 - 06:31 AM

I didn't have time to read the other posts but it could be that since humans were, like most animals, at one point somewhat rationed on supplies. Now that over-consumtion is such an issue although we have more than we need, due to either greed or simple insticts we want to keep it. It's a trait found in many animals, when there is little no one wants to share, but since people have gone from "barely getting along" to "swimming in posessions" in a very short time we find it is still naturally difficult to share.

#17    Max.L


    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 517 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Singapore

Posted 10 November 2008 - 06:12 PM

mklsgl on Nov 9 2008, 03:26 AM, said:

Then I ask: Is it for the better good of all that you have more and others have less?

The thing is , nobody pretty much cares about the greater good.
I do feel good sharing though .

Everyone has a right to be stupid but you my friend, are abusing it.

Fallaces Sunt Rerum Species

#18    mklsgl


    just me

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined:25 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Springdale, PA

  • They're selling postcards of the hanging
    They're painting the passports brown
    The beauty parlor's filled with sailors
    The circus is in town

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:01 PM

(SG)Max on Nov 10 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

The thing is , nobody pretty much cares about the greater good.
I do feel good sharing though .

Is that the actual problem--that nobody cares about the greater good?

Grateful Dead; July, 31, 1982 @ Manor Downs, Manor, TX
"Yes it's 'T' For Texas"
Be Here Now!

#19    Leonardo



  • Member
  • 17,909 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:32 PM

mklsgl on Nov 7 2008, 09:22 PM, said:

Why do so many find it foreign to human nature to share? Where does greed come from? How is it that we have to 'fight' for equality?

Please discuss and feel free to add your own questions that are of similar ilk.

MID on Nov 8 2008, 09:25 PM, said:

Interesting set of questions.
Although I'm not sure what fighting for equality has to do with greed.

First of all, I am not sure that it is foreign to human nature to share.  
While greed most certainly exists, on balance, I have abserved alot more giving and sharing than overt greed.
You will always have both, but I think that on balance, more people are inherently giving than greedy.

Good OP, mklsgl, and good response MID.

I agree with MID that sharing is in our nature, however, I would argue that even that is part of our selfishness.

Generally imo, although there are exceptions, people will share when they expect a quid pro quo. Now, I'm not necessarily talking of sharing out chocolates at work when it's your birthday, although that does carry the implication that, when it is others' birthdays, they will share something (like chocolates) as well.

I am probably talking more the 'doing a favour' form of sharing. Even greedy people share - they simply often share with those who have as much, or more, to offer as they do. In this way they hope to attain some sort of 'alpha' position by 'sharing' (trading favours etc) their way to the top of some perceived heirarchy. There might not be any overt sign of this selfishness, such sharing/trading can take place in a very convivial environment, but it is there.

We are social, but we are selfishly social. Unless driven by some external, and common, threat to give unselfishly, we generally operate in selfish mode.

My apologies if this all sounds rather bleak. We are funny creatures, and very simple really, although we hide that simplicity in very complex and ritualised behaviour and it is all part of the Great Game called survival - not just our survival, but that of our heredity.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#20    MID


    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 10 November 2008 - 10:43 PM

She-ra on Nov 9 2008, 07:47 PM, said:

Excellent thread. Thank you for your posts MID wub.gif, John and Magikal. Nice reading thumbsup.gif

You're welcome Sweetie!

#21    MID


    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,490 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2005
  • Gender:Male

  • ...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Posted 10 November 2008 - 11:58 PM

mklsgl on Nov 9 2008, 03:38 PM, said:

A lot more than 5-cents, indeed!

MID, I actually agree with you more than you probably think.

Yes, I think so....


I want to see the extremes at both ends of the socio-economic scale closer together, the disparity between 'have' and 'have-not' not so enormous, and the such (I am certain you know where I'm going with this). John Spera hit it spot-on when he said "we are all connected" and that we, as a culture, need to "realize this," because, in my opinion, it is for the better good of all if those extremes, that disparity, are not so enormous. How do we, as a global society, allow (or, better stated, reconcile) Exxon/Mobil, et al, to repeatedly earn record-setting profits while millions die of starvation?

I think , mklsgl, that it is better for all if the disparity is mitigated.  However, the difference perhaps between you and I is that we see the causality of that disparity differently, and perhaps the solutions to it.  I think that we do not reconcile the disparity between ExxonMobil and those in poverty in terms of one end making "record profits" and the other living in poverty.

A company is in business to do what?
Make profit.
That's not evil, that's important.  If a company doesn't succeed, the economy doesn't succeed.  If a company doesn't succeed, they do not expand, invest in their business, improve products and services, and increase sales, all of which provide more jobs for people, and provide opportunity for them to succeed.

82,000 people are employed by ExxonMobil Corporation.  If they don't succeed, that number falls.   If they succeed, those people succeed, and more jobs are available for others.

Allowing business to succeed, and not encumbering them with high taxes and overt restrictions (which we do encumber companies like ExxonMobil with, by the way), is the road to eliminating poverty.  Taxing them (he rich) to provide equiity promotes a welfare state and reduces opportunity.

Additionally, we tend to vilify profitable companies like ExxonMobil, by making statements like they are earning obscene profits (or something to that effect).

Are they?

Consider this:

Exxon Mobil produced record earnings from operations in the third quarter of 2008.
What's that mean?

It means they earned 13.38 billion dollars, on revenues of 137.7 billion dollars.
That also means that they earned...let's say "pocketed" 9.7 cents for every dollar they took in, or, stated otherwise--they have to spend 90.3 cents of every dollar they make to function.

They're operating at 90.3%.  In business, we call that, pretty darn good...especialy given the restrictions placed on the company, which are more ridiculous than in any other industry.  

Think of it this way...if you make $45,000 per year, and at the end of everything, you have banked $4400.00, you've done OK (actually, that's probably really good in that income bracket).

Exxon Mobil is doing that...save that their investing more than 25 billion dollars  in capital and exploration expense (growing the capabilities of the business).  This company is operating very well given the environment their forced to work in, and for the 82,000 employees of that firm, and their shareholders, that's a good thing.  

Add to that the almost 200 million dollars the company invests in charitable contributions, and you have a pretty good company out there...one of the many, who, if pernmitted to operate in the free market without overt government interference, provides the opportunity for people to obtain success in their own lives.

That's the key to mitigating the observed disparity.  

But to tax the "rich" serves only to increase the mindset that promotes the entitlement mentality, and thus, the poverty we see.  When you do that, not only do those who live off of welfare have little incentive to accomplish, but those who do accomplish have less and less incentive to provide products and services which create the opportunities for those who need them.  It's a vicious circle of regression in society.

Please don't vilify the oil companies.  They power the economy.

You think they make a huge profit?
Think of this:

For every gallon of gas you buy to put in your car, the gas companies are netting about 8 cents or so.  
They have to pay the government about 25 cents on that gallon.
In addition to that, you're paying your governments (state, local, and federal) between 50 and 75 cents per gallon you buy!).

The government makes 3 time the profit on gasoline that the oil companies do....for doing ...NOTHING!  

What are THEY doing with that money to alleviate poverty?

Nothing.  Not a thing.

Now, they want more from the oil companies...?

They'll further reduce their operating capabilities, and of course, we'll all pay for that ultimately at the pump.  So, the oil companies won't be providing any more jobs, and they, as well as we, shall pay the government more money, and there will still be lower income people and indeed poverty...

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users