UKC

So 5 times in the past week I have ended up in heated conversation with people I previously saw as my friends but after hearing their opinion I realized that I am unable to continue friendship with people I believe to epitomize everything that is fundamentally wrong with the human race.
In each example a flagrant disregard for the suffering of others and the actual statement of it is not my problem was used when talking about some of the atrocities that are occurring in the world such as Tibet, the ruthless enslavement of underage underpaid minorities for the advancement of the western way of life and the fact that the Human species is the single most detrimental thing to ever happen to the planet.
I am not saying that I am Gandhi reincarnate but I do recognize that any person has the ability to change the world for better or worse.

Are we not all guilty of manslaughter, cruelty to animals and the destruction of the planet? I have actually just be listening to a previously good friend of mine say, and I quote? "you've f*cked it you, why do you care? I'm going to have a nice happy life me its not my problem"

I thought that in the 21st century we had long passed the time when the strongest ravage all those weaker than themselves with little conscience.

I've also succumbed to being utterly ashamed of being part of this and strongly believe that as a species we are evil, in the sense that we fully understand what we are doing is wrong and yet we continue do it for completely selfish gain.
Bit of a rant I know but I feel strongly about it and have been thoroughly wound up by my poor choice of friends as much as anything.
Thoughts anyone?

In reply to Jackspratt:


With that extreme and ideological stance you're going to have to break off a lot of friendships in your life.

In reply to Coel Hellier:
I would argue that it is not extreme and more just objective if you were an outsider looking down would you disagree? And there is no point having core values if you are ready to compromise on them so easily.

In reply to Coel Hellier:


There is a fundamental problem with human beings as being (uniquely) intelligent animals, but that does not make us intrinsically evil. We can be anything from very good to very evil. That's what the whole symbol of the 'Tree of Knowledge (of good and evil)' is about. As a general rule in life I would recommend trying to see the good in people; I think it's true to say that the proportion of people who are genuinely 'evil' is very small indeed.

In reply to Jackspratt:

So, apart from ditching your friends, what exactly are YOU doing about all these problems?

What have YOU done today to make the world a better place?

I'm not religious, but I do like the sentiment behind this

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

In reply to Jackspratt:


Looking down is interesting, I think you are looking down on people a bit.

In reply to marsbar:

I have done nothing but try and help change peoples mindsets because as one person a voice is small but many voices are much louder.

Apart from that not a lot at all and in fairness I never pretended to have done anything.

Plus I like the sentiment except for its presumption that the issues at hand are out of our control. We can change these things. Primarily though i found myself more than a little disappointed by the acceptance of what my friends have said. Plus I'm not ditching them just very aware of how selfish they are leading me to believe they would do anything to further themselves including stepping on me.

In reply to marsbar:

I am also looking down at myself lets not forget which techncally levels the playing field I have in no way tried to exempt myself from blame I am as much a part from it as anyone I just strongly disagree with their mindset towards it all.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Some things are in our control, some are not. Changing minds is one thing, making real practical changes is another.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Its good that you are thinking about these things, just try not to get it out of all proportion and and up with no friends because its not the main thing on their mind at the moment.

In reply to marsbar:

I understand what everyone is saying but it is a sad state of affairs that with all the intelligence and technology we (countries and big businesses) have we can't bring ourselves to spend a bit more money ensuring things are done sustainably.
On a personal level I am sure everyone of you when using the natural environment for personal gain as in climbing, mountaineering etc strives to ensure you aren't simultaneously destroying it by picking up litter and in many places actively improving the area by footpath control or not climbing in nesting season etc. I just wish it was an ethos taken on by the bigger picture.

In reply to Jackspratt:
'The path of least resistance' is a term which springs to mind.

Maybe talk about things which bother you, accept that not everybody is the same, and focus on what you're doing to make changes?

Remember that people can change over time...

The same friend of mine who once said he'd not spend money in charity shops or give to charities because of how he had to struggle, a year later commented on it being wrong to buy things from charity shops just to sell on ebay for a profit because it stopped people who genuinely wanted/needed them and were struggling for money from being able to enjoy having them.

A lot of people might say it's not their problem because it's too grim for them to think about the problems of the world too deeply, rather than because they don't care.

I once mentioned to a brother how (in my opinion) the spin and pretexts over the invasion of Iraq was enough to make you angry, and he replied 'Only if you think about it too much'. He is a principled person, and honest, and bothered about problems in the world and things, he just didn't want to get too depressed.

See the best in peeps... ()

In reply to Jackspratt:
I sometimes think people can be helpful in different ways, some might not know much about world issues and problems (or really like to think about them much), but they might be very warm and loving or friendly as individuals and make any people around them feel good, which is something of value in itself.

In reply to Jackspratt:
It's not like you can send e petitions to people, if talking to them to try and change their minds or make them care doesn't seem to work.

You can sometimes 'chip away' at people, and it's an unconfrontational way of letting people know about stuff.

'Can't send'

In reply to Jackspratt:

Fixed.

In reply to Jackspratt:

I think you're going to need to explain a few things in more detail to be taken more seriously. For starters, how about the following:


Simply, wtf?


Is it? Since they are a comparatively recent evolution I suspect this is a long way from the truth.


As others have said, what have you done to change it?


Again, simply wtf?


Again, wtf? Who are the 'strongest' ravaging 'all those weaker'?


'Doing' what? As a species we are neither 'evil' nor 'good'. Individuals, or groups, may be either of those things but to tarnish everyone is lazy and inaccurate. Are you excluding yourself from this 'evil' assessment?

In reply to Jackspratt:

All you can realistically do is work on yourself.
Trying vehemently to convert others to your viewpoint just gets their back up.People love to debate,and often miss the point of what you say in the first place.The more shouting the less understanding.
I agree,humans are very destructive as a species.
Maybe join Greenpeace,Friends of the Earth or the Green party.
They all take a conservationist stance.

Maybe you could also volunteer to work in Oxfam,Shelter,or any charity that you feel you can support.

As I often say,the only achievable revolution is private,for yourself.
Kindness comes first.

Indifference to suffering is unfortunately a human characteristic.
The carapace can be very thick.Just witness some of the crass comments on this site at times.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Very good post.

In reply to Edradour:

I think you will find it is you that is being lazy as if you actually read What I had said you will see I do not exclude myself from it in fact I have actually said I DO NOT EXCLUDE MYSELF.

Point one; The people you seem so eager to forget work in the sweat shops providing cheap labour abroad for our gizmo's gadgets and clothes often without the proper ppe and it is there only way of earning money and considering the profit made on the items they deserve more

point two: name another thing that has consciously exploited the resources to the extent of people polluting along the way.

point three: I've already answered that but as I had already said I don't exclude myself (It pays to read as you look foolish when you don't)

point four: your WTFing means (I presume)that you don't believe that supporting governments and corporations that expend human life cheaply is vicariously supporting their actions and therefore wrong?

Point five: Any wealthy country exploiting the cheap labor in the poorer countries, Or in this example the inexcusable way we treat animals such as testing harmful products on them or battery hens or veal etc.

You obviously took this all as only being as deep as the words on the page but if you are going to criticize my opinion please attempt to be less lazy and string together something more that WTF.

In reply to paul mitchell:

Thank you I'm glad you offered me options to curb and channel my frustrations (seriously) not just criticized me for it. I am after all still young and hot headed. I do actually do a chunk of charity and non-profit work as well as promoting sustainable practice in my work place (amongst the staff and clients).
Thanks because after all I didn't want my argument picked apart and attacked by people not willing to put their own ideologies on the line (glass houses and stones and all that jazz)

In reply to stroppygob:

I think if you look its other peoples rights I am concerned with and I never said I was better than these people. As for whining I'll remind you of that next time it is your rights being violated its easy to dismiss it from a country of privilege. And P.S it is often my mates that start the debates. So i guess in short what I'm saying is STFU you bell!

In reply to Jackspratt:

Fixed that for you as well, no need to thank me.

BTW; carry on like this and you'll fail your GCSE sociology/vicimhood studies.

In reply to Jackspratt:

F*cking hell, you need to stop whatever you're taking and calm down!!!

In reply to Lusk:

but the point of doing this on the internet is so if you don't want to listen you can tune out. plus we all like to vent every once in a while.
plus google says i picked the right place

forum
ˈfɔːrəm/
noun
noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora

1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

In reply to Jackspratt:

I happened to be browsing UKC and saw this thread and thought I'd 'exchange' my view on this topic on this medium.
I've known extremely angry people a bit like you seem to be, it'll do you no good in the long run.

In reply to Lusk:

that is fine but probably the anger will only last a while but it sure is stress relieving to have a good rant every once in a while. Most people probably find that as well as getting carried away every once in a while. pent up frustration is worse than venting it to strangers!

In reply to Jackspratt:

I replied asking you to expand on a number of huge sweeping statements that you made in your OP so that I could take your position a little more seriously.

You have proved either unable or unwilling to do this and instead have replied to me, and others, with either a defensive 'you tell me', accusations based on wild (and incorrect) assumptions or, worst of all, 'STFU you bell' to someone who disagrees with you.

For what it's worth my 'wtf' could have been shortened to just a question mark. Stating 'are we not all guilty of manslaughter' is not the same as disagreeing with corporations using cheap labour, for example.

There is no point debating with someone like you so I'll do something more useful with my time thanks.

In reply to Jackspratt:

You're only young but hopefully you'll learn the gentle art of don't let the bastards wind you up. Worked for me so far, at 54!

In reply to Lusk:
Thanks, I know I definitely need to mellow out. To be honest I think I like to rant at the moment because I'm fed up of having to reference every word I write and sitting quietly in the library for days on end is enough to fill anyone with explosive rage especially for a usually active person.

peace out and thanks for the sport UKC

In reply to Jackspratt:

This your role model Jackspratt?

youtube.com/watch?v=zmvaZEz2GgU&

In reply to stroppygob:

ha surprisingly accurate of my last two days actually!

In reply to Jackspratt:

Well at least you've kept your sense of humour then.

In reply to Jackspratt:

“I wanted to change the world. But I have found that the only thing one can be sure of changing is oneself.”
¯ Aldous Huxley

In reply to Jackspratt:



I really, really understand you and your feelings and actions. And despite what many posters have said above, at least you are acting on your principles, I think so many people don't do that (including me, no doubt).

Regarding your friend saying "its not my problem", I really wonder, are a lot of people more upset by their laptop breaking down than by a bomb killing 25 in the next country?

The Times or some such newspaper once published a graph saying that care/ empathy decreased with distance from the person, something like "a lamp post falling over in my street = a car crash in the next street = 2 die in car crash in London = earthquake kills 500 in Chile".

In reply to Jackspratt:

Before you get too tree hugging hippy like:

1. Have the clothes you are wearing been made by a child in Asia? Or at least people working far in excess of the internationally agreed working conditions? Or have you gone out of your way to know the source of your clothing.

2. Has the fruit and veg that you eat been picked by immigrants even if it's in the UK being exploited in other ways to pay them less than minimum wage.

3. Do you drive a car, and if so do you use it for recreation? Hundreds die or get seriously injured on the road each day yet the majority of us don't really care and will happily drive a ton of metal around for our own selfish recreational purposes.

4. Have you ever been on holiday on a flight. How much pollution was caused again for your own selfish reasons?

Maybe you are one of the few 'genuine' ones who does consider everything. In my experience though 99% of these socialist/ideologists are just massive hypocrites completely blind to their own ways!

I live in the real world, yes I drive a polluting car, I wear clothes probably made in some Asian sweatshop, I buy fruit/veg without any concern that some Eastern European might have put his back out just to get it on Tesco's shelves. At the end of the day my apparent 'disregard for the world' as you probably see it does keep a lot of people employed around the world, maybe not in the best circumstances but they are better off surely than if all that work was taken away. Does that make me a bad person?

In reply to Jackspratt:

Thinks the rest of the human race is evil.

Thinks he's superior and the only one seeing the light.

Alienates those around him.

Sounds like the Westboro Baptist Church! :p

Just kidding, seriously though don't ruin friendships because you have differing political viewpoints, very rarely a friendships built on politics. My best friend of 23 years has over the last few years become more conservative in his political views to the point I'd consider them selfish but he's still my best friend and a very generous person to those around him, why would I throw away a great friendship over politics?

In reply to Jackspratt:

Maybe try not to focus on others, instead, it might be worth looking into the concept of self compassion.

Perhaps, being hard on yourself, the 'others' on the planet can seem less than perfect.

All of us display the human failings of inconsistency and hypocrisy. The game of being alive doesn't allow otherwise.
Finding refuge from this in the natural world, or in the reading of hagiographies, is just that. A refuge.
But few people live for extended peeriods in a refuge, tempting though it may be.

I find this sort of thing helps:
http://www.moderntoss.com/

In reply to Jackspratt:

yeh, look at that guy who just posted-
he spelt 'period' with two e's!!
wtf!

and now he's using extra electricity for the trivial purpose of posting this!

I despair.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Very quickly because i can't be bothered to engage to much. Do you know why a lot of the factories paying tiny wages have no problem finding staff?

Its because its still a better life than the village they came from....

In reply to barrow_matt:




Is the choice as black and white as that?

In reply to Jackspratt:
By the way, when it comes to Tibet, I looked into it a year ago, and did enough google searching and reading about what's happening to make me pretty depressed.

China will only change what it's doing if it thinks it has something to gain, if there was enough international pressure maybe, but how likely does that seem?

All China has to do is talk about things in Tibet being internal affairs, and listen politely to other countries about human rights there before carrying on as before. China is too useful and needed by other countries for anything serious to be done about the situation there.

Currently, if a Tibetan sets themselves on fire as a form of protest, the whole village is going to be held responsible by the Chinese, and punished.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Maybe you could make a start by taking a more balanced view of your diet? Evidence increasingly shows that a high protein diet isn't healthy and whilst refined sugars need to be restricted, a sensible amount of fat won't do you any harm and can open up a world of culinary pleasure...

In reply to Jackspratt:
The Chinese establishment are basically just waiting for the Dalai Lama to die, after which they believe 'the Tibet problem' will be finished, as I saw it called in an internal memo online a few years ago.

My Dad is a lapsed Buddhist, which I think is what started me looking into things. I know it's 'a fashionable cause', but that's not really the point.

In reply to Jackspratt:


I don't know about evil, but we're certainly pretty destructive and we've done well to f*ck the world up.

This is why, when I become overlord of the world, most of the world's population will be removed. And then 90% of the earth will be one big nature reserve! Tribes that live in harmony will be able to stay though of course (eg. Aborigines and American Indians etc)

But in the mean time I shall to continue to enjoy the pleasured afforded by modern life.

In reply to crayefish:


One shouldn't mythologise the past. The American Indians were a very war-like culture, with frequent clashes between tribes. If they didn't do as much ecological damage as the later whites that was simply owing to their far fewer numbers. Most aboriginal tribes were similar. As just one example, there used to be 14 species of flightless birds in New Zealand. 12 were driven to extinction before whites turned up, 1 was driven to extinction since then (the moa) and there is 1 left (the kiwi).

And Chief Seattle's speech was a much later invention by whites!

In reply to Jackspratt:

I seriously suspect this is a troll, albeit a very good one, are you really serious that your choice of friends has been that bad until this moment of enlightenment?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


Yep, but they can wipe each other out if they like I have no problem with that. As long as they don't f*ck the ecosystem.

Yeah there has been extinctions when humans have moved to a location for the first time, but once a tribal civilization is established, generally they live more harmoniously with the local environment.

In reply to Al Evans:

You do wonder. Falling out irrevocably with five friends in one week is going some!

In reply to Jackspratt:


I think I would rather agree with your mate, life's to short to give this sort of thing too much contemplation. You will just end up bitter, alone and hating humanity.


Every species does this in some form and it is part of basic evolution aka survival of the fittest. Under this statement is it wrong for a lion to kill an antelope? or to defend its territory against other prides because that is what is in its nature?

In reply to Coel Hellier:


One way to avoid mythologizing is to insist on getting your facts right - a thing you have spectacularly failed to do here.

There remain at least 10 species of flightless birds in NZ (and, depending on your definition of NZ territory, perhaps as many as 17).

In reply to Al Evans:

and the pieces of the puzzle slot nicely into place. As much as I was venting the actual debate I'd been having with my friends (still friends btw) was how a simple radicalization of words used in an argument can obscure a message. We had all worked as a group on an assignment and written primarily consistent albeit separate individual reports after and in lieu of our task and all but one of us received similar marks the other was marked down because he had used a loaded lexis that was too powerful for purpose. The issue we had was did that matter and did the message remain the same or was it altered. Examples in this, I experimented with very strong lexis such as ruthless, Manslaughter and destruction etc
I do believe that we are detrimental to the environment but I'd challenge anyone to realistically believe I hate being human and could possibly have been so hypocritical with any shred of sincerity.

I'd like to apologize but also state that I wasn't preying on your feeling more interested in the results. But I hope you will find the premise of this quite interesting and hopefully harmless, maybe a little thought provoking. (I know may of you will now doubt this is the truth though)

Please feel free to slate me now for kicking up this fuss but it did help a friend of mine not make a fool of himself by formally asking for a remark on the grounds of personal bias.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Is that not very obvious?

In reply to Jackspratt:

Interesting.

In reply to Jackspratt:

Troll - and a very good one 10/10.

However, if by some chance you are not a Troll, then with your ideology, I hope you are living as a hermit, in a cave on Lundy, wearing clothing made of grass and driftwood, and eating nothing more than sand and gravel.

You should also think very seriously about the 'gadget' you are currently using to access and post on this site - the chances are it's been made by a very poorly paid, and exploited person.

In reply to Goucho:

''As much as I was venting the actual debate I'd been having with my friends (still friends btw) was how a simple radicalization of words used in an argument can obscure a message. We had all worked as a group on an assignment and written primarily consistent albeit separate individual reports after and in lieu of our task and all but one of us received similar marks the other was marked down because he had used a loaded lexis that was too powerful for purpose. The issue we had was did that matter and did the message remain the same or was it altered. Examples in this, I experimented with very strong lexis such as ruthless, Manslaughter and destruction etc
I do believe that we are detrimental to the environment but I'd challenge anyone to realistically believe I hate being human and could possibly have been so hypocritical with any shred of sincerity.

I'd like to apologize but also state that I wasn't preying on your feeling more interested in the results. But I hope you will find the premise of this quite interesting and hopefully harmless, maybe a little thought provoking. (I know may of you will now doubt this is the truth though)''

In reply to Timmd:

I don't quite understand the context of your reply to my post?

Was it meant to be a reply to someone else?

If it was meant for me, then the only reply I can give is:-

"My Hovercraft is full of eels!"

In reply to Goucho:

That was a bit cryptic I guess...I think he was just seeing what happened if he phrased things in a certain way.

Are the eels how the skirt achieves it's volume?

In reply to Timmd:


It's an old Monty Python sketch about a very poor translation book

In reply to Goucho:

Ah, I remember watching Monty Python videos with my friend during the 90's in my teens, but I don't remember the eels.

In reply to Timmd:

youtube.com/watch?v=G6D1YI-41ao&