I think you are over-optimistic about human goodness. If you had to deconvert at all it is possible you are from a culture where Christian morals still go strong amongst atheists. (Comparison: I do not remember any family members with a personal belief, I do remember some great-grandmas who went to church because it was a social expectation, but I think they never really felt entitled to form a personal belief or deny it, it was more obedience in observation than faith.) These kinds of habits don’t die too quickly, in fact they can take centuries - there is the hypothesis that the individualism of capitalism came from the Protestant focus on individual salvation.
My point is that this “goodness” is probably more culturally focused than genetic. While it may be possible that if people are really careful they can keep it on and on within an atheistic culture forever, it can break down pretty easily. Christianity tends to push a certain universalism—without that, if no effort is made to stop it, things probably regress to the tribal level. We cannot really maintain universalism without effort—it can be an atheist effort, but it must be a very conscious one.
As my life experience is the opposite—to me religious faith is really exotic—it seems to me that the difference is that religious folks and perhaps post-religious atheists for a generation or two keep moral things real—talk about right and wrong as if it was something as tangible as money. But in my experience it washes out after a few generations and then only money, power, status stay as real things, because they receive social feedback but right and wrong doesn’t.
To put it differently—religions form communities. Atheists often just hang out. So there is a tendency to form looser, not so tightly knit social interactions. In a tight community, right and wrong gets feedback, people judge each other. When interaction becomes looser, it is more like why give a damn what some random guy thinks about what I did t was right or wrong? But things like power, status, money still work even in loose interactions, so people become more machiavellian. At least that is my experience. I am not claiming this universalistic goodness cannot be maintained in atheistic cultures, I am just claiming it requires a special, conscious effort, it does not flow from human nature.
I also think you typically get this “goodness” culture if you participate in a culture who thinks of themselves as high-status winners, on an international comparison. Sharing is a way to show this status, this surplus. It requires a certain lack of bitterness. If you feel like your group was maltreated by greater powers, or invaders etc. you will probably stick to the group. Thus sharing still happens in less winner cultures but more on a personal level, family, friends, not with strangers.
This over-optimism about goodness is a typical feature of LW and the Rationality book, so I guess you will feel more at home here than I do. To me it comes accross as mistaking the culture of the US as human nature.
I have not formulated this exactly, but I think there is such a thing as a “winner bias”. It is very easy for someone from the Silicon Valley to think the behaviors there are universal, precisely because being powerful and succesful gives on the “privilege” to ignore everything you don’t like to see. The most extreme form is a dictator thinking everybody agrees because nobody dares not to, but it also exists in a moderate form, that the voices of more succesful people and cultures being louder, hence coming accross as more popular, more universal unless you know the alternatives first-hand. However they are pretty sure not universal—if they were the whole world would be as succesful as SV. Well, or at least closer.
For example, a typical “winner bias” may be reading interviews with succesful CEOs and thinking this is how all CEOs think. No—but the mediocre ones don’t get interviewed. So it is more of an availability heuristic. The availability heuristic forms a winner bias making first-worlders think everybody thinks like first-worlders, because voices that are not propped up by success are not heard accross oceans. The other way around is not true, of course.
However I think this “winner bias” is more than just an availability heuristic. Probably it has also something to do with not having egos hurt from other groups having higher status.
I agree that “goodness” is luxury; only people who do not have serious problems (at least for the given moment) can afford it; or those who have cultivated it in the past and now they keep it by the power of habit. On the other hand, I believe that it is universal in the sense that if a culture can afford it, sooner or later some forms of “goodness” will appear in that culture. There will be a lot of intertia, so if a culture gains a lot of resources today, they will not change their behavior immediately. The culture may even have some destructive mechanisms that will cause it to waste the resources before the “goodness” has a chance to develop.
Sorry for not being more specific here, but I have a feeling that we are talking about something that exists only in a few lucky places, but keeps reappearing in different places at different times. It is not universal as in “everyone has it”, but as in “everyone has a potential to have it under the right circumstances”.
Not just surplus, there are empirical records of poor people in rich soceties donating more to charity than rich people in rich soceties. I think there is also something going on with the whole of society as such, not just people’s personal feelings of surplus or not.
First, I should say that I didn’t mean to assert that some goodness could be found in everyone. I personally guess it is, but that wasn’t what this post was about. I just meant that happiness and goodness are the only two things that seem like ultimate motivators for people. Not that everyone has both, just that all actions are motivated by one and/or the other.
Anyway...
My point is that this “goodness” is probably more culturally focused than genetic.
I guess we don’t really know :( I like the idea of it being more genetic than cultural, but you could just as well be right. I did the cursory google search of “is altruism genetic” and found some cool studies, but studies only tell us that genes contribute somewhat not how much they contribute relative to culture. But culture is human-driven too. Even something like vegetarianism’s growing popularity, which is a bit more global and has nothing to do with religion, could show that some people are generally becoming less self-centered? Or what about the decrease in imperialism? The budding effective altruism movement?
Anyway, I get what you’re saying. I think I came up with this idea to convince myself that humanity would get along just fine without religion. So I’m biased in favor of the idea that goodness is largely genetic, and still on the upswing, since that’s a nice and comforting thought, but I guess that since don’t know the exact ratio of how much genetics contributes relative to culture, we’re safer off assuming that it’s mostly cultural. If we decide we still like this product of our culture and don’t want to lose it, then we should definitely put conscious effort into keeping some idea of “goodness” alive in society.
You can, of course, make “happiness” a sufficiently large blanket to cover everything, but then you lose any meaning in the term.
(shrug) Yeah, I consider it a huge blanket. I didn’t really mean to share some grand revelation or anything, just the realization that all our thoughtful decisions (as opposed to those influenced by addiction, inertia, etc) seem to be made either to lead us, as individuals, to our optimal mind-states, and/or to benefit others.
If it’s so huge, why did you choose to separate out “goodness”? It fits under the blanket quite well—people who help others get happiness (or get into the desired mind-state) from helping others.
Good question!! Introspectively asking myself the same thing is what led to my confusion, which led me to analyze everything and come up with what I wrote about.
So personally, when I donate to effective charities like AMF, I do get some benefits. I like my self-image more, I feel a little bit warm and fuzzy, I feel less guilty about having been born into such a good life. Helping others in this way does improve my mind-state. Yet, if all I wanted to do were increase my own happiness, there would be more efficient ways to go about it. Let’s say I donate 15% of my income to AMF. The opportunity cost of that donation could be a month long vacation to visit my friends in Guatemala, a trip home to see my family in Wisconsin, ski trips, or random acts of kindness like leaving huge restaurant tips. If my only goal is achieving my optimal mind-state, after much introspection, I’m 99% sure I would be better off donating a bit less to charity (but still enough to maintain my self-image) and visiting my family and friends a bit more. So why do I still want to donate the amount I do? This really confused me. Was my donation irrational? You might say it was motivated by guilt, that I would feel guilty for not donating. And I’d say yeah, to some extent, but not quite enough to justify what I’m giving up.
This is my personal example, the one that sparked this post, but it’s definitely not the best example. The best example of goodness is sacrificial death. I suppose you could still claim that even someone who knowingly dies to rescue a stranger would have felt soo guilty if he hadn’t done it, that he was acting to stop his mind-state from dipping into the negatives, or something. Or he imagined great honor after his death, and that short-lived happy expectation motivated the action. Honestly, you could be right, and again, my doubt isn’t based on anything more than guessing at subconscious motivation, but I’m just guessing that goodness is the motivation here, not happiness. Just like I’m guessing that goodness is what motivates me to donate to effective charities, not deeply subconscious guilt. I don’t know the true motivation, but goodness seems like a better guess to me than even huge-blanket-happiness.
That is true for all non-optimal ways of increasing your own happiness.
Yes, but practically every other time I recognize myself non-optimally increasing my own happiness (usually due to inertia), I want to fix it and achieve optimal happiness. But not this time.
So, suicide bombers? X-/
I’m guessing here, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that they truly believe they’re doing God’s will. They truly believe God’s will is, by definition, good. So maybe they’re acting out of their own twisted idea of goodness, or perhaps more likely, they’re just acting in a way that they believe will increase their happiness once they receive eternal rewards.
May I suggest internalized social pressure as a motivation? :-)
You certainly may… it’s like the tragedy of group selectionism...When we observe species who cannibalize their young, it’s a bit harder to imagine an isolated human mother ever sacrificing herself to save her child. But could such a “altruism emotion” gene have evolved? I think the evolution behind it makes sense, and that there are some studies that show this, but I’m far from being an expert on the topic.
I think that “social pressure” motivations are closely related to “guilt” motivations and still fall under the huge-blanket category of happiness. I think they can be a huge factor behind seemingly altruistic decisions, but I don’t think they tell the whole story...
I guess we don’t really know :( I like the idea of it being more genetic than cultural, but you could just as well be right. I did the cursory google search of “is altruism genetic” and found some cool studies, but studies only tell us that genes contribute somewhat not how much they contribute relative to culture.
How about reading some history, or better yet things written by cultures other then your own. If you read really old cultures, e.g., Homer, you can get glimpses of the observation that it never seems to have occurred to these cultures that there is anything wrong with killing people who aren’t members of one’s tribe.
Now look at the way the rioters in Baltimore are behaving right now.
Again, the point of this post was not to argue that goodness exists. I understand that people are mostly selfish, and that even the ones who seem altruistic could be mostly motivated by warm fuzzies and avoiding feelings of guilt, or fitting in with their cultures. So I’m not saying we can find goodness in every action, or even most actions… but I am saying we can find it as the ultimate motivator in at least a few actions.
We live in the most peaceful time in history. Is this current peace and decrease in imperialism part of a positive trend, or just a high point on a crazy zigzag line? Have there been other long periods of (relative) peacefulness back in history?
You disliked my comment. Why? Are you saying goodness is not genetic at all? Or that history makes it soo obvious that culture is the only significant factor, that I should shrug off any studies that show goodness seems partially genetic and not allow them increase my optimism in any way?
Oh, yeah.… thanks for answering (embarrassed blush for not using Google and not remembering about that even though I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it before)
Um. You are forgetting the various wars of the Ottoman Empire. And the Russian Empire. And the French revolution with associated aftershocks. And the Germans (e.g. the Austro-Prussian war). And once we get out of Europe, there were wars aplenty in the Western hemisphere, extremely bloody rebellions in China (the Taiping Rebellion) and India (the Indian Rebellion of 1857), etc. etc.
I’m assuming those minor wars don’t count here for the same reason els isn’t counting things like the Korean and Vietnam wars, the various wars in the Middle East, or the civil wars associated with the War on Drugs.
Edit: Oh yes, also the various de/post-colonial wars, the wars in the Congo, etc.
What do you mean by goodness? If by goodness you mean what els (or more generarly your culture considers “good” then yes, goodness has a large cultural component.
On the other hand, as in this thread, you mean a willingness to sacrifice for what one believes to be a good cause, then yes it probably has a large generic component. Except, “what one believes to be a good cause” has a large cultural component.
For example, as Lumifer mensioned suicide bombers blowing themselves up to spread the true faith. Or the Nazis, who as the tide of war turned against them, diverted resources from the war effort to making sure future generations of Europeans will have fewer Jews corrupting their culture, even if they’re rulled by those ungrateful Allies.
In the modern world, goodness is generally understood as wanting others to be happy and not suffer. Sounds like the Golden Rule, as most people want to be happy and not suffer themselves, and goodness is understood as wishing the same for others. To be fair, it does look like a little bit of a narrow view, I remember Roger Scruton remarking that if your philosophy is equally suitable for humans and swine then you may need to rethink something (i.e. happy as a pig in the mud cannot really be the only terminal value, wishing it for everybody cannot be the only terminal goodness), but this is the social consensus today.
Except, “what one believes to be a good cause” has a large cultural component.
This is true. Sometimes people think they know what’s best for society and are wrong.
Anyway, I don’t know how much of our culture’s seeming to care about others is cultural vs. genetic. I think it’s unlikely to be 100% vs. 0%, but I’m not making any further claims than that. If you say that goodness doesn’t exist at all, ever, that no one really naturally cares about anyone other than themselves, I’ll disagree, but I have no evidence to back this up; as far as I know, both of us would just be guessing at what subconsciously motivates people...
I think that’s probably a good point. You would say that genetics has more to do with caring for those close to us, and culture has more to do with caring for strangers we’ll never meet, right?
Anyway, I got back from listening to this podcast and would recommend it if you’re interested! I liked it and learned some things. Here’s the blurb, as you can see it’s relevant to this whole discussion:
“Compassion is a universal virtue, but is it innate or taught? Have we lost touch with it? Can we be better at it? In this hour, TED speakers explore compassion: its roots, its meaning and its future.”
I think you are over-optimistic about human goodness. If you had to deconvert at all it is possible you are from a culture where Christian morals still go strong amongst atheists. (Comparison: I do not remember any family members with a personal belief, I do remember some great-grandmas who went to church because it was a social expectation, but I think they never really felt entitled to form a personal belief or deny it, it was more obedience in observation than faith.) These kinds of habits don’t die too quickly, in fact they can take centuries - there is the hypothesis that the individualism of capitalism came from the Protestant focus on individual salvation.
My point is that this “goodness” is probably more culturally focused than genetic. While it may be possible that if people are really careful they can keep it on and on within an atheistic culture forever, it can break down pretty easily. Christianity tends to push a certain universalism—without that, if no effort is made to stop it, things probably regress to the tribal level. We cannot really maintain universalism without effort—it can be an atheist effort, but it must be a very conscious one.
As my life experience is the opposite—to me religious faith is really exotic—it seems to me that the difference is that religious folks and perhaps post-religious atheists for a generation or two keep moral things real—talk about right and wrong as if it was something as tangible as money. But in my experience it washes out after a few generations and then only money, power, status stay as real things, because they receive social feedback but right and wrong doesn’t.
To put it differently—religions form communities. Atheists often just hang out. So there is a tendency to form looser, not so tightly knit social interactions. In a tight community, right and wrong gets feedback, people judge each other. When interaction becomes looser, it is more like why give a damn what some random guy thinks about what I did t was right or wrong? But things like power, status, money still work even in loose interactions, so people become more machiavellian. At least that is my experience. I am not claiming this universalistic goodness cannot be maintained in atheistic cultures, I am just claiming it requires a special, conscious effort, it does not flow from human nature.
I also think you typically get this “goodness” culture if you participate in a culture who thinks of themselves as high-status winners, on an international comparison. Sharing is a way to show this status, this surplus. It requires a certain lack of bitterness. If you feel like your group was maltreated by greater powers, or invaders etc. you will probably stick to the group. Thus sharing still happens in less winner cultures but more on a personal level, family, friends, not with strangers.
This over-optimism about goodness is a typical feature of LW and the Rationality book, so I guess you will feel more at home here than I do. To me it comes accross as mistaking the culture of the US as human nature.
I have not formulated this exactly, but I think there is such a thing as a “winner bias”. It is very easy for someone from the Silicon Valley to think the behaviors there are universal, precisely because being powerful and succesful gives on the “privilege” to ignore everything you don’t like to see. The most extreme form is a dictator thinking everybody agrees because nobody dares not to, but it also exists in a moderate form, that the voices of more succesful people and cultures being louder, hence coming accross as more popular, more universal unless you know the alternatives first-hand. However they are pretty sure not universal—if they were the whole world would be as succesful as SV. Well, or at least closer.
For example, a typical “winner bias” may be reading interviews with succesful CEOs and thinking this is how all CEOs think. No—but the mediocre ones don’t get interviewed. So it is more of an availability heuristic. The availability heuristic forms a winner bias making first-worlders think everybody thinks like first-worlders, because voices that are not propped up by success are not heard accross oceans. The other way around is not true, of course.
However I think this “winner bias” is more than just an availability heuristic. Probably it has also something to do with not having egos hurt from other groups having higher status.
I agree that “goodness” is luxury; only people who do not have serious problems (at least for the given moment) can afford it; or those who have cultivated it in the past and now they keep it by the power of habit. On the other hand, I believe that it is universal in the sense that if a culture can afford it, sooner or later some forms of “goodness” will appear in that culture. There will be a lot of intertia, so if a culture gains a lot of resources today, they will not change their behavior immediately. The culture may even have some destructive mechanisms that will cause it to waste the resources before the “goodness” has a chance to develop.
Sorry for not being more specific here, but I have a feeling that we are talking about something that exists only in a few lucky places, but keeps reappearing in different places at different times. It is not universal as in “everyone has it”, but as in “everyone has a potential to have it under the right circumstances”.
Not just surplus, there are empirical records of poor people in rich soceties donating more to charity than rich people in rich soceties. I think there is also something going on with the whole of society as such, not just people’s personal feelings of surplus or not.
First, I should say that I didn’t mean to assert that some goodness could be found in everyone. I personally guess it is, but that wasn’t what this post was about. I just meant that happiness and goodness are the only two things that seem like ultimate motivators for people. Not that everyone has both, just that all actions are motivated by one and/or the other.
Anyway...
I guess we don’t really know :( I like the idea of it being more genetic than cultural, but you could just as well be right. I did the cursory google search of “is altruism genetic” and found some cool studies, but studies only tell us that genes contribute somewhat not how much they contribute relative to culture. But culture is human-driven too. Even something like vegetarianism’s growing popularity, which is a bit more global and has nothing to do with religion, could show that some people are generally becoming less self-centered? Or what about the decrease in imperialism? The budding effective altruism movement?
Anyway, I get what you’re saying. I think I came up with this idea to convince myself that humanity would get along just fine without religion. So I’m biased in favor of the idea that goodness is largely genetic, and still on the upswing, since that’s a nice and comforting thought, but I guess that since don’t know the exact ratio of how much genetics contributes relative to culture, we’re safer off assuming that it’s mostly cultural. If we decide we still like this product of our culture and don’t want to lose it, then we should definitely put conscious effort into keeping some idea of “goodness” alive in society.
Um… survival? sex? power? curiosity?
You can, of course, make “happiness” a sufficiently large blanket to cover everything, but then you lose any meaning in the term.
(shrug) Yeah, I consider it a huge blanket. I didn’t really mean to share some grand revelation or anything, just the realization that all our thoughtful decisions (as opposed to those influenced by addiction, inertia, etc) seem to be made either to lead us, as individuals, to our optimal mind-states, and/or to benefit others.
If it’s so huge, why did you choose to separate out “goodness”? It fits under the blanket quite well—people who help others get happiness (or get into the desired mind-state) from helping others.
Good question!! Introspectively asking myself the same thing is what led to my confusion, which led me to analyze everything and come up with what I wrote about.
So personally, when I donate to effective charities like AMF, I do get some benefits. I like my self-image more, I feel a little bit warm and fuzzy, I feel less guilty about having been born into such a good life. Helping others in this way does improve my mind-state. Yet, if all I wanted to do were increase my own happiness, there would be more efficient ways to go about it. Let’s say I donate 15% of my income to AMF. The opportunity cost of that donation could be a month long vacation to visit my friends in Guatemala, a trip home to see my family in Wisconsin, ski trips, or random acts of kindness like leaving huge restaurant tips. If my only goal is achieving my optimal mind-state, after much introspection, I’m 99% sure I would be better off donating a bit less to charity (but still enough to maintain my self-image) and visiting my family and friends a bit more. So why do I still want to donate the amount I do? This really confused me. Was my donation irrational? You might say it was motivated by guilt, that I would feel guilty for not donating. And I’d say yeah, to some extent, but not quite enough to justify what I’m giving up.
This is my personal example, the one that sparked this post, but it’s definitely not the best example. The best example of goodness is sacrificial death. I suppose you could still claim that even someone who knowingly dies to rescue a stranger would have felt soo guilty if he hadn’t done it, that he was acting to stop his mind-state from dipping into the negatives, or something. Or he imagined great honor after his death, and that short-lived happy expectation motivated the action. Honestly, you could be right, and again, my doubt isn’t based on anything more than guessing at subconscious motivation, but I’m just guessing that goodness is the motivation here, not happiness. Just like I’m guessing that goodness is what motivates me to donate to effective charities, not deeply subconscious guilt. I don’t know the true motivation, but goodness seems like a better guess to me than even huge-blanket-happiness.
That is true for all non-optimal ways of increasing your own happiness.
So, suicide bombers? X-/
May I suggest internalized social pressure as a motivation? :-)
Yes, but practically every other time I recognize myself non-optimally increasing my own happiness (usually due to inertia), I want to fix it and achieve optimal happiness. But not this time.
I’m guessing here, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I think that they truly believe they’re doing God’s will. They truly believe God’s will is, by definition, good. So maybe they’re acting out of their own twisted idea of goodness, or perhaps more likely, they’re just acting in a way that they believe will increase their happiness once they receive eternal rewards.
You certainly may… it’s like the tragedy of group selectionism...When we observe species who cannibalize their young, it’s a bit harder to imagine an isolated human mother ever sacrificing herself to save her child. But could such a “altruism emotion” gene have evolved? I think the evolution behind it makes sense, and that there are some studies that show this, but I’m far from being an expert on the topic.
I think that “social pressure” motivations are closely related to “guilt” motivations and still fall under the huge-blanket category of happiness. I think they can be a huge factor behind seemingly altruistic decisions, but I don’t think they tell the whole story...
How about reading some history, or better yet things written by cultures other then your own. If you read really old cultures, e.g., Homer, you can get glimpses of the observation that it never seems to have occurred to these cultures that there is anything wrong with killing people who aren’t members of one’s tribe.
Now look at the way the rioters in Baltimore are behaving right now.
Again, the point of this post was not to argue that goodness exists. I understand that people are mostly selfish, and that even the ones who seem altruistic could be mostly motivated by warm fuzzies and avoiding feelings of guilt, or fitting in with their cultures. So I’m not saying we can find goodness in every action, or even most actions… but I am saying we can find it as the ultimate motivator in at least a few actions.
We live in the most peaceful time in history. Is this current peace and decrease in imperialism part of a positive trend, or just a high point on a crazy zigzag line? Have there been other long periods of (relative) peacefulness back in history?
You disliked my comment. Why? Are you saying goodness is not genetic at all? Or that history makes it soo obvious that culture is the only significant factor, that I should shrug off any studies that show goodness seems partially genetic and not allow them increase my optimism in any way?
Yes.
Oh, yeah.… thanks for answering (embarrassed blush for not using Google and not remembering about that even though I’m pretty sure I’ve heard it before)
Or more reacently, the period between the Congress of Vienna and WWI.
Um. You are forgetting the various wars of the Ottoman Empire. And the Russian Empire. And the French revolution with associated aftershocks. And the Germans (e.g. the Austro-Prussian war). And once we get out of Europe, there were wars aplenty in the Western hemisphere, extremely bloody rebellions in China (the Taiping Rebellion) and India (the Indian Rebellion of 1857), etc. etc.
I’m assuming those minor wars don’t count here for the same reason els isn’t counting things like the Korean and Vietnam wars, the various wars in the Middle East, or the civil wars associated with the War on Drugs.
Edit: Oh yes, also the various de/post-colonial wars, the wars in the Congo, etc.
I think you’re confusing “it was a peaceful and VERY successful century for Great Britain” with “it was the time of peace in the world”.
It was about as peaceful as the current time.
What do you mean by goodness? If by goodness you mean what els (or more generarly your culture considers “good” then yes, goodness has a large cultural component.
On the other hand, as in this thread, you mean a willingness to sacrifice for what one believes to be a good cause, then yes it probably has a large generic component. Except, “what one believes to be a good cause” has a large cultural component.
For example, as Lumifer mensioned suicide bombers blowing themselves up to spread the true faith. Or the Nazis, who as the tide of war turned against them, diverted resources from the war effort to making sure future generations of Europeans will have fewer Jews corrupting their culture, even if they’re rulled by those ungrateful Allies.
In the modern world, goodness is generally understood as wanting others to be happy and not suffer. Sounds like the Golden Rule, as most people want to be happy and not suffer themselves, and goodness is understood as wishing the same for others. To be fair, it does look like a little bit of a narrow view, I remember Roger Scruton remarking that if your philosophy is equally suitable for humans and swine then you may need to rethink something (i.e. happy as a pig in the mud cannot really be the only terminal value, wishing it for everybody cannot be the only terminal goodness), but this is the social consensus today.
Ah, then you might like “Град обреченный” (The doomed city) by A&B Strugatsky:)
This is true. Sometimes people think they know what’s best for society and are wrong.
Anyway, I don’t know how much of our culture’s seeming to care about others is cultural vs. genetic. I think it’s unlikely to be 100% vs. 0%, but I’m not making any further claims than that. If you say that goodness doesn’t exist at all, ever, that no one really naturally cares about anyone other than themselves, I’ll disagree, but I have no evidence to back this up; as far as I know, both of us would just be guessing at what subconsciously motivates people...
Depends on which ‘others’.
I think that’s probably a good point. You would say that genetics has more to do with caring for those close to us, and culture has more to do with caring for strangers we’ll never meet, right?
Anyway, I got back from listening to this podcast and would recommend it if you’re interested! I liked it and learned some things. Here’s the blurb, as you can see it’s relevant to this whole discussion:
“Compassion is a universal virtue, but is it innate or taught? Have we lost touch with it? Can we be better at it? In this hour, TED speakers explore compassion: its roots, its meaning and its future.”