"But all who are not lunatics are agreed about certain things: That it is
better to be alive than dead, better to be adequatly fed than starved,
better to be free than a slave. Many people desire these things only for
themselves and their friends; they are quite content that their enemies
should suffer. These people can be refuted by science: Mankind has become
so much one family that we cannot insure our own prosperity except by
insuring that of everyone else. If you wish to be happy yourself, you
must resign to seeing others also happy."

Bertrand Russel: The Science to Save Us from Science

On Jun 18, 6:53 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

Pretty good argument but who decides what suffuring and prosperity is,
I mean how much of it? What is the situation that is just getting
ready to become suffering, is it the lowest possible prosperity and
what should be the allowable differentiation between classes of
properity once the defined suffuring is eliminated?

On Jun 18, 6:41 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:41:39 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

In the world today I think we can start with food and drinkable water.
This is not what we might term 'prosperity' but it is a sure start.

No one can answer this, really, things, like you suggest, being so
relative. This is a sketched out ideal after all. However, things become
less ambiguous and relative when the prosperity of one depends on the
suffering or exploitation of another.

Really though, I can not take it much further than what the quote says in
terms of pragmatics without getting into some utopian design but for now,
like I said, food and water might be a good place to begin.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:20:39 -0700, kevirwin wrote:

I KNEW there was a catch to this somewhere!! Dooh!!

anyway with your (possibly) healthy cynicism noted, here is something
also..

If it were not a problem there would be no real growth or adaption need.
There always IS a need for adaption but here (yet another) element comes
into play and it is (yet again) unique in a way.

His argument is sound. Arguments that inspire universal harmony usually
are. I think that the closer the worlds people become, by choice or not,
this adaptation will take place, by choice or no.

I say, keep beating it if you see fit. Viewing human nature as hopelessly
flawed and doomed to be doomed, for me, is good to read. It forces a
lucid counter-position.

On Jun 19, 9:43 am, ZerkonX X.net> wrote:

On Jun 18, 7:20 pm, kevirwin comcast.net> wrote:

On Jun 19, 7:11 pm, Immortalist yahoo.com> wrote:

Today, I write:
If your response was to my comment on "caring about each other", I
posit that it makes a huge difference if the answer is "we should and
we shall"...Miniscule roadblocks to the enactment of human fulfillment
would fall away like leaves in autumn. If the answer was, “we don’t
have to care”, well, then you get **this** miserable sphere…..

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:11:13 -0700, Immortalist wrote:

their agreement is besides the point. The fact that there is an attempt
is the point. If they both agree to try, it is agreement enough to start.

http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/lang/eng.htm

Not one person in 1000 needs to agree with this. The vision alone marks a
positive human tangible even if flawed and unworkable. The attempt is
it's own justification.

The 'righteous' struggle is in the fact that there are no absolute
answers to your questions. No seeming simplicity, it 'seems' so because
change is always on the march. What are many confusing options today
might become clear by simple necessity tomorrow. This is what Russel was
saying, as I see it.

The socialist vs libertarian is an excellent example, really. While they
sit and debate difference, most move on with real need that can only be
serviced by cooperation. This is what has always happened, what is
happening now.