Pathological Altruism

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

I think most here can understand that difference. Its the altruistic part that you are struggling with. I don't want the thread to get any wilder than it has, but the claim made by you is that altruistic plans were undertaken for altruistic reasons without taking into account known problems. Your issue is that you have not demonstrated that either asbestos or lead paint were mandated due to altruistic reasoning. Asbestos was a good working material and mesothelioma wasn't known about yet (so neither a foreseeable consequence or altruism) and paint, not lead paint was the accepted method to help prohibit contagion issues for interior wall surfaces in homes.

Without linking altruistic sources for the actions or a foreseeable harm, all you have are unintended consequences and a derail. But I guess that is how it derails, thread wise.

 

[ksen]

If anything was altruistic in this it was the mandate to take the lead out of paint that was altruistic . . . maybe.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If anything was altruistic in this it was the mandate to take the lead out of paint that was altruistic . . . maybe.

So, did you think Loren Pechtel thinks that removing lead from paint was a bad idea? Did we look before we leaped with that altruistic decision?

 

[ksen]

I don't think Loren thinks.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think most here can understand that difference. Its the altruistic part that you are struggling with. I don't want the thread to get any wilder than it has, but the claim made by you is that altruistic plans were undertaken for altruistic reasons without taking into account known problems. Your issue is that you have not demonstrated that either asbestos or lead paint were mandated due to altruistic reasoning. Asbestos was a good working material and mesothelioma wasn't known about yet (so neither a foreseeable consequence or altruism) and paint, not lead paint was the accepted method to help prohibit contagion issues for interior wall surfaces in homes.

Without linking altruistic sources for the actions or a foreseeable harm, all you have are unintended consequences and a derail. But I guess that is how it derails, thread wise.

Only because I experienced a moment of weakness and fell prey to your games. You've set up a scenario in which you've insisted that I must provide you examples that YOU accept, and that failure to provide examples that meet YOUR approval means that the entire concept is invalid. You've placed yourself int he role of arbiter on the entire concept, and you've dismissed the concept from consideration solely because I've been unable to provide an example that YOU will accept.

This scenario, however, is one in which too much is subjective, and you will always be able to reject any provided example on some infinitesimal grounds or other... which then allows you to effectively dismiss the idea out of hand.

Even though you have no good grounds for dismissing the abstract concept in and of itself.

In short, you're so busy playing word games and logic games, that you are being blind to the very idea itself.

 

[ksen]

Sometimes while criticizing others you are actually criticizing yourself.

 

[arkirk]

You and Loren assume we don't already have ANY knowledge.

Well, based on the flow of this discussion, I imagine you haven't already looked and that you jump just to do something, because that's actually what you've said. Perhaps you should review the pertinent exchanges?

All too often we see <solution A> proposed as a remedy for <problem B>. Unfortunately, an examination of A shows that it's worse than doing nothing, but there are far too many who say "We have to do something about <B>, <A> is the only solution on the table, we need to do it!" Opposing <A> is taken as saying that nothing should be done about <B> when in reality it's saying we should look for better answers.

And while we are doing all this looking....do nothing?

{emphasis mine}

You're making my point here!

Ever hear of the expression "jumping from the frying pan to the fire"--this is a scenario in which it's defined that you're doing exactly that and yet you still are arguing we should jump.

When the fire gets hot enough, you are going to want to jump out of it.

{emphasis mine}

You said we need to do something even when the only proposed approaches have been shown to be detrimental. Your reply here doesn't even touch on this.

You may enjoy the comfort of your frying pan. People who do enjoy it usually have a little human padding between themselves and the surface of the pan. They are riding the shoulders of those who have to stand on the hot surface. So far, the heat hasn't reached you yet. What is "detrimental" about getting out of the pan. Those most interested in leaving will lower those who choose to stay off their shoulders and down into the hot oil. It is kind of sad that you think things are really okay there.

I am not evading anything. You are evading the question of privilege. You do not know "all the proposed approaches" and even if they have drawbacks, they are at least an acknowledgement of a real problem we are facing. In a democratic sense, those on the bottom getting their feet burnt should have some say in getting us out of the frying pan. If we fail to cooperate, we all go down. Wake up, Loren!

1) We aren't saying the frying pan is a good thing. We are saying to look before you jump to see if you're going to jump into the fire.

Aside from the fact that you very clearly and literally said that something should be done, even though that something is KNOWN to be worse than doing nothing (because that's the presented scenario)... The entirety of your argument rests on emotional appeals.

All this frying pan and fire stuff is not aimed at solving any problem. It is aimed at stalling on actions we already know we need to take. You both are ignoring the fact we do have measurements and tools to evaluate these measurements. We don't have to go back and re-measure. The data is already in our hands and being constantly updated. This is the age of science, not the Aristotelian age.

You and Loren are arguing thus: "Because I don't understand, you must cease all action till I give you permission to act." That is authoritarian and narcissistic. You have not made the effort to understand the problem and choose to take pot shots at the messenger. If you put half the effort into understanding the problem as you did into psychoanalyzing me and others who recommend action, YOU WOULD ALREADY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. As it is, you are implying we do not have data to support the need for change in our practices when we do.

Re-read your last post and understand it is all predicated on your opinion that I am ignorant and merely trying to stampede us off a cliff. In my opinion, that is what the frackers and mountain top removers are doing...pushing us out of the frying pan into the fire. Poisoning our water and air and virtually cooking us alive...on the basis of the notion that Dr. Hansen is a crack pot is foolhardy and also cruel to those most affected by environmental degradation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think most here can understand that difference. Its the altruistic part that you are struggling with. I don't want the thread to get any wilder than it has, but the claim made by you is that altruistic plans were undertaken for altruistic reasons without taking into account known problems. Your issue is that you have not demonstrated that either asbestos or lead paint were mandated due to altruistic reasoning. Asbestos was a good working material and mesothelioma wasn't known about yet (so neither a foreseeable consequence or altruism) and paint, not lead paint was the accepted method to help prohibit contagion issues for interior wall surfaces in homes.

Without linking altruistic sources for the actions or a foreseeable harm, all you have are unintended consequences and a derail. But I guess that is how it derails, thread wise.

Only because I experienced a moment of weakness and fell prey to your games.

Supporting your argument is now considered a trick?
Me: Your honor, I think that people that work in the insurance industry are sociopathic fucks!
Judge: Would you care to support that claim.
Me (Chico Marx accent): Oh no you don't, Judge. Ima nota fallin' for that game.

You've set up a scenario in which you've insisted that I must provide you examples that YOU accept, and that failure to provide examples that meet YOUR approval means that the entire concept is invalid.

Not really. It is a pretty simple test that must be gone through.

1) Was the product used for altruistic reasons?
2) Was the harm easily foreseeable?

Asbestos

1) Product was used because it was resiliant and didn't catch on fire well. Doesn't really pass the test, but it could be given a La Liga dive call.
2) Was Mesothelioma known? The product was used before cancer even had a name. So no.

Fail

Lead Paint

1) Interiors in home switched to paint instead of wallpaper due to contagion concerns. Lead Paint was specifically used because it looked better to painters and was much more durable. This fails the altruistic test. Paint was the soln to the interior surfaces, not necessarily lead paint.

2) Dangers of lead were pretty well understood at the time, but because of the durability of lead paint, it wasn't deemed a problem. They didn't discount that it would be a problem, but didn't understand the mechanisms down the road that would lead it to becoming a problem. This fails. You say the problem was foreseeable and they were ignored. They weren't ignored, they felt it wasn't going to be an issue because children didn't eat walls.

Fail

You've placed yourself int he role of arbiter on the entire concept, and you've dismissed the concept from consideration solely because I've been unable to provide an example that YOU will accept.

You've offered just two examples that they themselves have trouble meeting either of the standards!

removed filler

It'd been quicker for you to just respond, "Nuh uh!"

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

How big a problem is that and does it rise to a level of a social pathology?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

How big a problem is that and does it rise to a level of a social pathology?

Emily isn't arguing it is a pathology. Just that she thinks there are cases, such as asbestos and lead paint where people were told altruistically to use these great products to prevent disease, despite knowing that they caused cancer and brain developmental issues.

 

[Emily Lake]

All this frying pan and fire stuff is not aimed at solving any problem. It is aimed at stalling on actions we already know we need to take. You both are ignoring the fact we do have measurements and tools to evaluate these measurements. We don't have to go back and re-measure. The data is already in our hands and being constantly updated. This is the age of science, not the Aristotelian age.

You and Loren are arguing thus: "Because I don't understand, you must cease all action till I give you permission to act." That is authoritarian and narcissistic. You have not made the effort to understand the problem and choose to take pot shots at the messenger. If you put half the effort into understanding the problem as you did into psychoanalyzing me and others who recommend action, YOU WOULD ALREADY UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. As it is, you are implying we do not have data to support the need for change in our practices when we do.

Re-read your last post and understand it is all predicated on your opinion that I am ignorant and merely trying to stampede us off a cliff. In my opinion, that is what the frackers and mountain top removers are doing...pushing us out of the frying pan into the fire. Poisoning our water and air and virtually cooking us alive...on the basis of the notion that Dr. Hansen is a crack pot is foolhardy and also cruel to those most affected by environmental degradation.

akirk, you're simply out of line.

First, I haven't argued against any and all action. Second, I put in the effort to understand the situation as best I am able. I have no difficulty understanding the problems.

What you are obviously missing is that Loren presented you with a specific scenario - one in which the suggested action is KNOWN to be worse than doing nothing. Go read his initiating post again. Everything else flows from the fact that he presented you a scenario in which {taking action} is KNOWN to be worse than {doing nothing}.

The remainder of your posts are wildly presumptive and have no basis in anything that I've said. Whether they represent something that Loren has said in the past is another issue, but they most certainly don't represent my views, and I'll thank you to keep your reactionary rants in check.

 

[Emily Lake]

Only because I experienced a moment of weakness and fell prey to your games.

Supporting your argument is now considered a trick?
Me: Your honor, I think that people that work in the insurance industry are sociopathic fucks!
Judge: Would you care to support that claim.
Me (Chico Marx accent): Oh no you don't, Judge. Ima nota fallin' for that game.

Please provide the quote demonstrating the claim that I made.

You've set up a scenario in which you've insisted that I must provide you examples that YOU accept, and that failure to provide examples that meet YOUR approval means that the entire concept is invalid.

Not really. It is a pretty simple test that must be gone through.

1) Was the product used for altruistic reasons?
2) Was the harm easily foreseeable?

Yes, that's where there's a problem. You can simply decide that it's not altruistic... and since it's a question of motivation, there's no possible way to demonstrate that it is or is not. There will always be a plausible argument that something was NOT altruistic - especially if the outcome was bad. In any case with a negative outcome, you, as the self-appointed arbiter of altruism, can simply declare it "no real altruism" and close the book. It's a stacked deck.

Asbestos

1) Product was used because it was resiliant and didn't catch on fire well. Doesn't really pass the test, but it could be given a La Liga dive call.
2) Was Mesothelioma known? The product was used before cancer even had a name. So no.

Fail

1) A desire to reduce fire risk could be argued to be a beneficial goal.
2) Whether the cancer had a name or not is irrelevant.

• For some time, it was not known that asbestos caused illness. During this period it was all good.
• For a following period, it was known that asbestos caused illness, but it continued to be used because the risk of illness was downplayed and dismissed as an overreaction, and the benefits of fire-retardation were considered to outweigh the health risks.
• Finally, the health risks became unavoidable, and finally, the government stepped in and banned its use.

It's that second period in there, where the desire to continue having fire-retardant products outweighed the easily foreseeable and known health risks, that I consider a problem.

Lead Paint

1) Interiors in home switched to paint instead of wallpaper due to contagion concerns. Lead Paint was specifically used because it looked better to painters and was much more durable. This fails the altruistic test. Paint was the soln to the interior surfaces, not necessarily lead paint.

2) Dangers of lead were pretty well understood at the time, but because of the durability of lead paint, it wasn't deemed a problem. They didn't discount that it would be a problem, but didn't understand the mechanisms down the road that would lead it to becoming a problem. This fails. You say the problem was foreseeable and they were ignored. They weren't ignored, they felt it wasn't going to be an issue because children didn't eat walls.

Fail

What do you mean "they didn't understand the mechanism? They understood it quite well! Lead toxicity had been known since the Roman era, and disorders in children specifically from ingestion of paint was documented and known since 1914! They knew full well that it was dangerous... but they discounted the danger because they believed the benefit of painted walls to outweigh the health risks, despite the health risks being clearly documented and well known! Their desire to have a solution for something different led them to discount the worries about lead toxicity. Federal and State governments often specified lead paint for use in public housing. Your dismissal of this as if they "just didn't know any better" is part of the problem, as if ignorance of an easily foreseeable negative consequence makes it acceptable!

- - - Updated - - -

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

How big a problem is that and does it rise to a level of a social pathology?

I think it's a very big problem if it intersects with policy-making.

I've already said that I cannot opine on whether the term "pathology" is appropriate. I'm not a psychiatrist, or psychologist, or whichever psych-related-ist diagnoses those sorts of things.

- - - Updated - - -

Emily isn't arguing it is a pathology. Just that she thinks there are cases, such as asbestos and lead paint where people were told altruistically to use these great products t<o prevent disease, despite knowing that they caused cancer and brain developmental issues.

Edited for violation of TOU>

 

[ksen]

lol that it's being srs argued that businesses doing something to generate a profit has anything whatsoever to with altruism.

Maybe they really meant pathological capitalism?

 

[arkirk]

How big a problem is that and does it rise to a level of a social pathology?

Emily isn't arguing it is a pathology. Just that she thinks there are cases, such as asbestos and lead paint where people were told altruistically to use these great products to prevent disease, despite knowing that they caused cancer and brain developmental issues.

Since when is it altruistic to recommend a product you know causes cancer or brain developmental issues because you desire the proceeds from selling it? That is just plain old dishonesty. If the purchaser was kept in the dark about the realities of the product the producer already knew then altruism has nothing to do with it. It is a matter of the buyer thinking the seller was altruistic possibly, but then that is a false assumption. If all parties are ignorant of the consequences of using the stuff, then I suppose some people could altruistically make some recommendations based on lies of others, but not once the data is clear. After that, it reverts to lies, obfuscation and stalling till the inventories are sold out. These practices are well known to people the advertising industry and they practice lying constantly...lies of commission and omission. A lie is a lie. A stall is a stall.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Supporting your argument is now considered a trick?
Me: Your honor, I think that people that work in the insurance industry are sociopathic fucks!
Judge: Would you care to support that claim.
Me (Chico Marx accent): Oh no you don't, Judge. Ima nota fallin' for that game.

Please provide the quote demonstrating the claim that I made.

Speak about playing word games.

You've set up a scenario in which you've insisted that I must provide you examples that YOU accept, and that failure to provide examples that meet YOUR approval means that the entire concept is invalid.

Not really. It is a pretty simple test that must be gone through.

1) Was the product used for altruistic reasons?
2) Was the harm easily foreseeable?

Yes, that's where there's a problem. You can simply decide that it's not altruistic...

This really isn't a subjective call. It is pretty objective.

Asbestos

1) Product was used because it was resiliant and didn't catch on fire well. Doesn't really pass the test, but it could be given a La Liga dive call.
2) Was Mesothelioma known? The product was used before cancer even had a name. So no.

Fail

1) A desire to reduce fire risk could be argued to be a beneficial goal.

It is a beneficial product for structural and material properties.

2) Whether the cancer had a name or not is irrelevant.

• For some time, it was not known that asbestos caused illness. During this period it was all good.

• We have reached an agreement.

Lead Paint

1) Interiors in home switched to paint instead of wallpaper due to contagion concerns. Lead Paint was specifically used because it looked better to painters and was much more durable. This fails the altruistic test. Paint was the soln to the interior surfaces, not necessarily lead paint.

2) Dangers of lead were pretty well understood at the time, but because of the durability of lead paint, it wasn't deemed a problem. They didn't discount that it would be a problem, but didn't understand the mechanisms down the road that would lead it to becoming a problem. This fails. You say the problem was foreseeable and they were ignored. They weren't ignored, they felt it wasn't going to be an issue because children didn't eat walls.

Fail

What do you mean "they didn't understand the mechanism?

Children don't eat walls. So why would they ingest it?

They knew full well that it was dangerous... but they discounted the danger because they believed the benefit of painted walls to outweigh the health risks, despite the health risks being clearly documented and well known!

No... lead paints looked nicer, so painters preferred using it. Any paint would prevent the issues that wallpaper raised.

Emily isn't arguing it is a pathology. Just that she thinks there are cases, such as asbestos and lead paint where people were told altruistically to use these great products to prevent disease, despite knowing that they caused cancer and brain developmental issues.

<edited for violation of TOU>.

Maybe, but I've never been banned at IIDB/FRDB/TF. So I can't be that bad.

 

[arkirk]

lol that it's being srs argued that businesses doing something to generate a profit has anything whatsoever to with altruism.

Maybe they really meant pathological capitalism?

By George, I think you've got it. I was tempted to start a new thread about that very thing. Anything taken to an extreme can become pathological. Humans do seem to have a tendency to compete with each other. Things like sports were supposed to be a release of the tensions of competitiveness. We seem unable to avoid struggling with each other for the alpha position. Unfortunately, when we have problems that require cooperation we just don't seem able to stop this quest for alphahood. That in the end is what threatens our species...short sighted cutthroat competition all the time and on every issue.

 

[RavenSky]

. That still isn't "pathological altruism" though.

Fine. I still maintain that your objection is to the terminology not to the concept, but I honestly don't care enough to press it further.

You have failed to describe or support any concept either, so you are probably right not to press it any further.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm still trying to figure out how manufacturing paint is an altruistic endeavor.

Manufacturing "lead" paint, that is. For home interiors, paint itself was preferred and altruistically decided upon as being better due to wallpaper being able to be a source for contagions.

Some people just don't understand the difference between altruistic blindness (something that is quite rare as usually those promoting it lack any power to push it ahead) and unintended consequences (something human history is rife with).

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

and some people don't understand what the word "pathological" means...


... or the word "altruistic" for that matter

 

[RavenSky]

Some people don't understand the difference between honest unintended consequences, and consequences that could easily have been avoided if the actor in question weren't so caught up in their pet project that they couldn't be bothered to think ahead and consider the potential outcomes...

How big a problem is that and does it rise to a level of a social pathology?

Geeze Athena... you are stuck on the terminology just like I am. Emily isn't discussing the terminology of, your know, the actual OP topic. Emily is discussing CONCEPTS that have nothing whatsoever to do with "pathological altruism"...

... or, in other words, derailing the fuck out of the thread

 

[thebeave]

I wonder if the opposition to nuclear power, GMOs and vaccinations might be considered pathological altruism. The anti nuke, GMO & vaccine crowd seem to genuinely believe that all three technologies are harmful to our way of life and probably feel they are being altruistic to their fellow man by trying to rid the world of nuclear power, GMOs and vaccines. Yet, the science indicates that it is the "anti crowd" themselves who are putting the health and way of life of the modern world at greater risk by rejecting these technologies. Their altruism, while well intentioned in their mind I'm sure, is obviously pathological.