Jeremy wrote:
] Every thread eventually turns into a debate about selfishness
] and altruism. Here we are.

heh... And yet this time I've somehow managed to find myself on the other side of the coin...

] Are you saying we have too little time, or too little ability?

They are the same thing. If more of us had more ability, then each of us would need to do less, and therefore we would have more time.

] At some point, no one will be inclined to struggle for
] improvement in the real world we must share, because everyone
] will just escape into their own private, perfect, virtual
] world.

I can't say I can explain that away with sophistry. I don't know why people would prefer to live in the real world if a virtual one was accessible, but there are deep questions here about what we incent people to do. Why do smart people become wealthy by spamming?

] If you haven't seen "Born Rich", it's worth the hour. You may
] even be convinced that the life of leisure is not necessarily
] the most fulfilling possibility.

I would very much like to see it. We constantly hear stories about the lives of the wealthy in the past... People on the titanic... What about the lives of the weathy today... Is "cruel intentions" a reasonable perspective? Does this video offer a healthy cross section?

At the same time, I imagine that Paris Hilton is hardly considered a role model by her peers. My high school had its Paris Hiltons. While the community was wealthy, it wasn't "the kids will never have to work" wealthy. Some people became consumed by material things and have probably found life in adulthood a little hard. Others took advantage of their position to push themselves as far as they could. The community hasn't produced any famous people that I know of, but neither did it produce a bunch of mindless hedonists. It produced mostly productive people.

Its a matter of perspective and drive. People choose to be strong even if they don't really have to. I'd wager that weathy communities produce more productive people on average then poor ones, simply because the "leisure" that such a life offers is an opportunity to better yourself. People DO take that opportunity. The hardships of poverty eliminate opportunities. I don't think we should wish that on people. I think we should seek to eliminate that as much as possible. If scarcity is no longer a concern and everyone can live a life of leisure, we can cut over to competing on reputation instead of cash. The ones that really contribute will still win. In fact, maybe we'll incent people to do less spamming, and more teaching. I think that would be positive.

] How about collecting historical documents?

My living grandfather and two of my cousins have spent years doing this. I don't think their pursuit has been meaningless. They've given everyone who has roots in the small town my parents are from a very deep understanding of their heritige. They could have easily pissed that time away in front of the television instead.

RE: How to Spread the Word When the Word Is 'Grim'