Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

yes ems...it is depressing. I think having a clear statement of what is right, moral, legal is the first step to achieving it. That damn creep in the wrong direction usually comes from some idea that sounds pretty good, and then another and another...then...what went wrong? And of course, what is right anyway? If everyone (or at least a large majority) thought violating individual rights is always wrong then we could have a stable and just system.

I hesitate to open another can of worms but here goes. Altruism is evil and causes much of the evil in the world. Seeing Christianity (the only religion I have any knowledge of...and I am no authority on any) is based on altruism, I am offending many good and well intentioned people. The premise that self interest is bad and morality is always putting others first logically leads to death and keeps you ashamed to help yourself throughout your life. Giving is a great thing that brings joy to both parties if freely given and not considered manditory by either side. I give to different things as I wish to do so (college endowments, library endowments, protecting land from development...things that I am pleased to support and not forced to support). That is not altruism whcih makes others problems claims on me and not voluntary. When the government gives, it gives that which it has extracted by force from others...that is wrong. Genuine pride comes from accomplishment and is not a sin. Taking care of your self and those you chose is selfish (which means 'for one self') but look how the very word is supposed to imply bad. Taking care of one self is selfish and is not bad. There are so many premises we have heard as absolute truths not to be questioned from birth. It is a powerful force. It shapes your values before you are old enough to evaluate them. Religious people are 99% the same religion as their parents...does that imply independent evaluation and choice? No, it implies indoctrination from birth and fixed dogma not to be challenged with logic or analysis. Can you challenge or analyze Islam? No, on pain of death. Have unquestioning faith and question not. There are those that have the same view of Christianity. Both will kill for their unquestioned beliefs (like killing doctors at abortion clinics) or destroying the world trade center. Well there is another big can of worms. You see there are many reasons that Objectivists are atheists. No objective facts to support a supreme being. Need to accept dogma without question. The altruism principle making selfish an evil when self interest is necessary to life (selfish only means for one self). So many imediately say well you may steal from me or kill me because you only think of your own selfish needs. That is part of the dogma and distortion of selfish meaning taking care of your self and your loved ones. No need to harm others in that pursuit.

ems the difference between philosophies is freedom or force. I only accept freedom. Within freedom you can believe, live, act anyway you want until you are harming others individual rights. I do not see a way to have freedom and individual rights in socialism, marxism, religious rule, what other system do you want to name?

I had to look up altruism. Copied from answers.com

al·tru·ism (ăl'trū-ĭz'əm)
n.
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
Zoology. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

Kindly, charitable interest in others: beneficence, benevolence, benignancy, benignity, charitableness, charity, goodwill, grace, kindheartedness, kindliness, kindness, philanthropy.

I guess a lot of those definitions sound good to me -- but maybe it was my upbringing.

And since I was there, I looked up avarice since I used it, someone challenged me and I realized I wasn't sure what it meant.

av·a·rice (ăv'ə-rĭs)
n.
Immoderate desire for wealth; cupidity.

Excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves: acquisitiveness, avariciousness, avidity, covetousness, cupidity, graspingness, greed. Informal grabbiness.

And I guess I was brought up to think that was bad.

That was funny..... even if it wasn't meant to be. I love sarcasm.

Dave what do you drive to and fro your commute?

I am thinking about building a diesel motorcycle;)

ok...back to our regularly scheduled programming

John Donne said, “No man is an island.” That is why selfless relationships lead to happiness, while a self-centered life leads to loneliness and alienation. As human beings, it is our nature to be part of a whole, to live in a context where personal relationships are supportive and close.

Dwelling on ourselves builds a wall between ourselves and others. Those who keep thinking about their needs, their wants, their plans, their ideas, cannot help becoming lonely and insecure.

The simple but effective technique I recommend is learning to put other people first – beginning within the circle of our family and friends and co-workers, where there is already a basis of love on which to build. When husband and wife try to put each other first, for example, they are not only moving closer to each other. They are also removing the barriers of their ego-prison, which deepens their relationships with everyone else as well.

It is important to remember here that putting others first does not mean making yourself a doormat, or saying yes to whatever others want. It means putting the other person’s welfare before your own personal desires. That is what love is: the other person’s welfare means more to you than your own. And love often requires you to say no.

When we put others first, we deepen our own security and dramatically enrich our relationships.

So what technology can you not live without all you Neo Malthusians??

Cornucopians.... what's your predictions for the future?

MF motorcycle good in California...bad in Michigan in winter anyway...ice has such bad slipping properties. I do get it; whatever is reasonably doable conservation...just a joke.

Look at the use of the term 'capitalism' in many of the posts above. Capitalism means barter without force. That is not what you are using for a definition. Russian capitalism (where the citizens are forced) and Chinese capitalism (where the citizens are forced); no way that is capitalism. Selling/buying/wealth accumulation using duress is not capitalism. No wonder you dispise capitalism with such an improper definition/understanding of what it is. Give 'barter without force' another name like motherhood and you should buy in. Or is barter without force wrong? Is there any better way?

Next comes the mass slaughter by capitalism(or free enterprise). Remember that capitalism has only been a significant force for 300 years. The wanton slaughter of one set of people by another runs a little further back. Also imperialism, war, stealing, murder, all the no-nos. Perhaps as far back as our species does. The anthropologists prefer to say that the fact that any species that 'competed' with us are extinct is because we 'outcompeted' them. How politically correct to not say we are the only species of developing intelligence that made it because we have always conquered the less powerful. The Aztecs were not victims of barter without force (capitalism). The slaughter of races and the taking of their lands have always been by ignoring individual rights and only acknowledging our clans rights to whatever we can grab. Unfortunately, socialism, nationalism, fasicism, all religions I know, and social engineering are always pointing to some poorly defined greater good (whether it be 'society', 'deity', 'good of ....') when they violate individual rights (often killing or enslaving for the good). Individual rights are not the rights of any set of people. Every person has them (Russian peasants, Chinese peasants, Navajo, Aztecs). All those that were conquered, slaughtered, enslaved. That is individual rights.

ems, your definitions have a built in prejudice... can you not see it?
The altruism in the definition is just kindness and generousity which are fine. There are problems only when it is defined as putting others before yourself at all times and it is defined that way in religeous teachings. It is if altruism is calling selfish action (action for oneself) as bad or immoral, then no way.

The avarice definition is more transparently biased. 'More than one needs or deserves' that implies someones opinion of how much that is. That is inappropriate and just plain wrong (ala Salem witch hunt...yell witch, witch...or he has too much, he has too much). So much better to say what you create as value is your to keep or give away purely at your discretion. Notice my philosophy is always not forcing anyone and not judging anyone, and not dictating to anyone...just as long as they respect other peoples rights.

It is an eye opener that we all have such different uses of words

My wife is doing graduate work and she did a study on propaganda and I learned a lot. Whenever a country anticipates war, they start dehumanizing the enemy even in childrens cartoons. The majority go for it every time! The enemy is pure evil, they have no rights, we should kill them all! This happens so quickly that it is shameful. Almost makes one think acting civilized is a very thin veneer for most people. The best propaganda tool is always fear, followed closely by our intolerance of anything different. Objectivism will sanction no force except in defense. In defense, force can be used without appology.

The question of whose land is it, is very difficult. Almost every tribe got their land by pushing some other tribe off the land back to the dawn of history. So the only mode mankind has ever know is might is right. You can point to the USA and how the settlers pushed the indians out that is only the last of many battles between the indians over territory. It seems that once your people have the land, then property rights might be upheld. How do you solve this? Stop doing it now. Can not fix the past, but we can stop now. Sorry to those that got wronged earlier.

Australia has the same history as the USA. Settler came and native people got run over. Often not even thought of as humans and certainly not people of equal rights (no individual rights again). See why I harp on individual rights?

MF I'm waiting for (bio)diesel plugin hybrids. Maybe just a plugin hybrid because I will probably get a new car sometime this year. Current one is 34MPG 2001 Mitsubishi Mirage (>200K) miles. Drove a Colt in college (187K miles) and was impressed by reliability. I had been wanting a Yamaha Majesty scooter, but I saw a guy buy the farm on a motorcycle on the way home from work one sunny afternoon and will probably not get one now.

The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference.

MF Again 'selfish' means for one self. Now you say selfisness leads to loneleness and unhappiness. But it is selfish to want to be happy, share love, enjoy friends, share and give to the extent it makes one happy (again for one self). So, anything you call selfish that leads to unhappiness is not selfish. It is selfish to compromise with wife, family, friends, business associates, because it will bring you happiness.

Distorting selfish to be bad has been a long time endeavor and very effective. The people here are smart enough to deprogram this misinformation.

It is selfish to be proud of your actions and conduct. It is selfish to want to share love. It is selfish to enjoy friendships and feel the joy of helping others. It is selfish to provide well for yourself, your family. It is selfish to want to do valuable things with your time. It is selfish to be honest and feel happy you are honest.

It is not selfish to be a liar and have no self worth. It is not selfish to break laws and end up in jail. It is not selfish to use friends and lose them. It is not selfish to truely sacrifice a value for a lesser value and feel bad about having to do so. And especially it is not selfish to consider only youself because it will not make you happy. Selfishness is all about making you happy.

Does that help anyone to see selfishness without its distorted/wrong connotation? I really want to know if this makes sense to anyone

Also destroying the environment is not selfish if you have guilt about it. In otherwords, people that have good values and are selfish will gain happiness without doing any bad and most likely bringing happiness to others...all for selfish reasons....not what you have been told all your life is it?

I drive a 2001 Echo w/ 180k. 36 mpg if I drove it like I stole it, 40 mpg if I granny it. The CBR1000F gets 36 mpg and I never do the speed limit unfortunately, but it does get me home 15 minutes faster What is hard to understand is that in 1988, I drove a Honda CRX (remember those little cars?) gas engine that got 53 mpg. There isn't a car on the market right now that gets more than 38 mpg???WTF????? It's like we've gone backwards with subcompacts.

I too have been following the hybrids, and the latest news is that the diesel hybrid has been scrapped in favor of petrol hybrid. The Prius will be at 90 mpg by Fall 2008. The Honda Fit will be Hybrid by Fall 2008-2009.

I'm researching what I need to do to build one of these

is the wagon wheel an essential part of the machine?

Doug no offense, I think you are working way too hard to convince yourself that it's ok to feel the way you do? I don't think it is that complicated. Selfishness is what it is, can't be twisted into any form to justify happiness or feelings of guilt or whatever. It's a state of consciousness that you are trying to achieve through Objectivism and that's all good if you feel so. I personally feel guilty driving a suburban or putting oil in my tank that I know my neighbor's kid is dying for in Iraq. And yes he died at the young age of 20. So I do feel a social responisibility to do my part to make this a better world by all and any means at my disposal. It is what motivates me to do the things I do.

In regard to technology, I'd be more than happy to give up my daily commute if I could be assured that in 20 years from now my property taxes wont increase and I could live on this little .40 acre plot in the world indefinately. I'd shut off the electricity, the water, sell the cars and bikes and quitely live a peaceful existence knowing that my impact on this earth was ereduced to zero. That is guilt free living.

I think you run many assumptions with some of your comments DB. Just because Christianity is based on Altruism does not mean that Altruism is linked to Christianity. It also does not mean that an Altruistic point of view runs the premise that self interest is bad.....

You are living on top of years of oppression of others yet stand solid in your right to not give back in anyway for the infrastructure that now supports your way of life.. If it was not for the taxes that you have begrudgingly had to pay you would not be able to drive your car out of your front gate because there would be no roads. Or the roads would be policed and tolled. I find the idea that you can sit back on your little piece of dirt, claiming that your setup ok now that you have the things you want and bugger every one else, just doesn’t sit right with me..

Getting back to the discussion in point “Neo Malthusians versus Cornucopians”. How do Cornucopians plan to continue on the path of expanding into space when it’s been shown that we really can’t support such things with our limited resources here on earth..

Ohh, read some info on the Prius recently : http://clubs.ccsu.edu/recorder/editoria ... NewsID=188

I wonder if we were all to embrace, and truely embrace two simple tenaments, if our lives and our approach to living and dealing with people would/could be different...

(1) Accept, embrace and truely belive that all people are born equal

(2) Do unto others as WE would have them do unto us

If we could just get that right I wonder what sort of difference it might make to humanity.....

Not sure where that leaves a system based on greed, avarice, self interest and applied force and coercian though LOL

Good question EB? We would have to find another "Earth" like planet that supported life I believe. We couldn't do it artificially unless there were a way to create a fully operational bioshpere in a contained dome on another planet.

Jayme...the wagon wheel I believe is the spare tire;) I'm still trying to figure out how to duct tape a plastic gas jug to the frame like the owner did. Looks a little too high tech...

This is just my opinion, but the idea of continuing life in space is ridiculous. We have a planet here which is not beyond repair, but "selfishness" as a negative, will lead to it being stuffed IMHO, within a generation or two. Although I do believe that the eart does have a certain amount of buffering capability.

I also firmly believe that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane are and will continue to be directly causing global warming. To drag a quote from Tim Flannery's book the Weather Makers, global warming as a term, implies comfort, wellbeing etc, no one really likes to be cold do they? (maybe you alaskans are used to it )

If we continue on the same road we are on now, it won't be long before stuff just plain and simple starts to die off. Well, in fact, the Great Barrier Reef is already dieing and I read the other day they expect it may be finished within 20 years as the oceans warm up and become more acid.

Anyone who chooses to sit on their plot, consume as we always have and pay no concerns to the future is being selfish, and that is a negative thing. There is no justification in my mind. Mind you, those people, and there are many many of them, IMHO the majority of the population, have that as their right, but what about looking at our time on earth as a priveledge? Should that way of thinking evolve to an acceptance that we are custodians of our individal little plots, we have to expand that to include our neighbours. Because the way we treat our little plot directly affects our neighbours, and I don't just mean the guy next door. Look at some of the cities in china where they can't crop because of the sulphur dust bi-product from burning dirty coal landing on their fields, and the kids running around wearing masks watching their old folk die because it is too late... Or the fact that they have now declared the Yangtzee River dolphin extinct as a result of the water becoming so foul, they couldn't survive... The Chinese and other developing nations have as much right to be a consuerism based society as we have, and they are doing hundred years of catch up ATM, but at what cost?

Take CFC's for example, it hasn't taken long for the ozone layer to repair itself since they were banned. I know, it's not definate, but there are signs that within 20 years, the ozone layer could be back to where is was pre 1970.
I don't know what category I fit into,. I don't believe we will continue life on another planet.
I do believe that we need to change our ways in order to save this one. It's not too late...yet. Much easier to find a way to save this planet that colonise another one? I believe so.
I also believe that you get what you give and if you give nothing, you will, in the end receive nothing. I used to be religious, but the logical side of my brain just says it doesn't make sense, but I do like to live by Christian principles of do unto others. I let people in on the road when they are merging or coming out of a shop etc...
I just wanna leave the smallest footprint possible whilst teaching my kids to do the same so that they in turn can teach theirs and maybe just maybe I may have great great grand kids (although I won't be around to worry about them LOL). My goals of self suficiency are just around the corner, I know there is stuff I will always have to buy, but when I don't have to shop for anything but butter and milk and flour etc, I will be truly happy, and no- I don't think it;s selfish to be happy, it's all about the way you go about creating that happiness