Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
honolulufuturesalon · Honolulu Future Salon
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "se   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #18 of 37 |
Subject: Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "self"-reliance-sufficiency-interest)?
 
A new report suggests that an overdose of self-esteem in college 
students could mean a rough road ahead.
9:42 PM PST, February 26, 2007
 
No wonder YouTube is so popular.

All the effort to boost children's self-esteem may have backfired and 
produced a generation of college students who are more narcissistic 
than their Gen X (and Baby Boom?) predecessors , according to a new study led by a San 
Diego State University psychologist.
 
To all:
 
I found this new research on narcissism especially interesting in light of recent lectures at UH by Richard Dawkins (evolutionary biologist and author of books ranging from Selfish Gene 30 yrs ago to God Delusion last year).   
 
Among other questions I asked (eg did Dawkins think human "invention/discovery" of agriculture a truly free choice v no other choice due to pop growth resulting from our very success as hunter-gatherers? would humans still primarily be hunter-gatherers (HG) if Earth as big as Jupiter? if Darwin alive today, did Dawkins think he would be capitalist, communist, or neither? and what evol survival purpose served by human ability to invent and believe in gods and religions as well as ask questions such as why r we here and where did we come from?), I asked Dawkins about the future of altruism.
 
Dawkins and many others I think (as well as Sahlins, Diamond, etal who also think HG humans worked less than modern humans to meet basic survival needs) have argued that altruistic behavior is at least partly genetic in nature because such behavior had survival value from bio/evol perspective when humans were primarily HGs--which was the case for the vast majority of human history (until gradual develop of agrarian societies beginning approx. 10 to 11 thousand years ago)
 
I argued that any tendency of agrarian and then even more recent, rapid and over-lapping evolution of industrial and post-industrial societies to devalue bio/evol survival value of altruism/cooperative behavior probably still too recent to breed altruism out of our genome by "natural" selection, but all bets off with advent of what Dawkins called "mutational" selection (ie latest and possible future advances in genetic engineering).  Dawkins seemed to agree, but frankly I got the impression he hadn't thought much about this (except stem cell research) because even during his lecture on "future" of evolution, I thought he focused more on what would happen if we could go back in time and re-start "natural" selection again (interesting, but not really futuristic IMHO).      
 
I'm also surprised and impressed with Chris' recall of what I called Self-Sufficient Dwelling Units (SSDU) 20 years ago--preferably mobile and fully functional in multiple environments (eg on and under ground and water as well as within and outside of Earth or Earth-like atmosphere)--which would eventually be capable of max possible self-sufficient closed-cycle food, water, fuel and breathable air production (as long as all still necessary for survival) which we collectively would agree to make a universal birthright (at least upon reaching "adulthood"--however that might be defined in future) in 21st century or later version of new social contract. 
 
This was the most futuristic (at least in my mind at the time) end of a spectrum of policy* and tech advances that would eventually make some form of property ownership a universal birthright at some point in future that does not have to be earned in some way--but NOT based primarily or exclusively on "property" defined as "real estate"--and which might finally make the near total dependency of most people on some combo of wage, welfare, and/or charity and inheritance something closer to a truly free choice.  (*e.g. "baby bond" or "grubstake" accts which already exist in UK and Singapore, and Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) which have generated bipart interest in US congress, Peter Barnes "Skytrust" and similar proposals for generating new sources of universal income based on citizenship rather than need similar to Alaska's Permanent Fund, and universal stock ownership plans--because financial wealth, unlike real estate, can theoretically expand infinitely, thereby reducing need for more confiscatory type schemes eg land reform, etc).  Conceptually, these would be more like Lincoln's (largely unsuccessful) Homestead Act of 1862 and/or post-WW2 G.I. bill than New Deal or Great Society programs.
 
My interest in this was based on the "fact" (I think) that no human ever born has ever had anything close to "informed consent" regarding the actual or implied "social contract" one is born into at any time or any place in human history.  Most liken this to complaining about the law of gravity, but I think maybe not.  Nevertheless, nothing original about any of this (except perhaps my personal synthesis of some ideas)--even SSDU idea based in part on existing or possible tech advances already IDed by others.  But I also argued that true self-reliance/self-sufficiency might paradoxically increase truly voluntary altruistic and cooperative behavior in the future.  
 
So would be interested in what others think.  Based on my own current life situation, I'm increasingly feeling like a "mutant" in the sense that my sense of altruism still overrides my self-preservation instincts even if and when the latter is increasingly at risk. 
 
Finally, at risk of offending some with politically incorrect attempt at humor, I think this research on perceived increase in narcissism also may help to explain the "new" AIDS (American Idol Delusional Syndrome). :)  To "real" AIDS sufferers and advocates, no offense intended.  After stand-up comic with cerebral palsy won Last Comic Standing TV competition last yr--in part by making "cripple" jokes--I thought this might be more humorous than offensive. 
 
Tom Brandt
 
-----Original Message-----
From: jones@...
To: HRCFS-L@...
Sent: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: Gen Y Narcissism

Well, I would not be a good student of Dator and McLuhan if I didn't point out the dramatic effect and impact of new technology from an age-cohort perspective. I think cell phones and iPods and Materialism resonate on the hyper-individualism and narcissistic chord as Dator has noted (situational ethics). It will only accelerate as the middle classes grow in Asia, Latin America, and Africa and globalize. I think it was Dator who once said everyone should be/wanted to be a sovereign state, their own ideology. Why not?

I am still waiting for one of Tom's survival capsules, too. (Ancient listserv history.)


On Feb 28, 2007, at 2:54 PM, Frankus wrote:

interesting article.  however, i don't know if is so much of an overdose of self-esteem as a severe underdose of community and cooperative skills learning.  Our culture takes gleeful satisfaction at the failure of others...telling me i'm special is good; at the expense of others..well...
Well, let's see here.
I pretty much follow Strauss and Howe. My observation is that what are
being called Gen Y are NOT individualistic at all, but rather extremely
group-oriented. It is true they were all told how Special they were, and
they all played in games where there were rules, uniforms, coaches and
umpires with no one keeping score so that at the end everyone got an award
and had ice cream together.
They expect the world to play by the rules--they have never had one minute
of spare time, running from soccer to violin lessons to Mandarin practice
to No Child Left Alone schools.
And if there are no Rules for them to follow, and no one fairly enforcing
them (ie., the real world), then they turn to each other for guidance and
have little respect for Authorities and Experts who tell them what to do
outside of a consensual situation. That's what My Space and all the rest
are for, it seems to me.
Jim Dator



=

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


Sun Apr 1, 2007 11:39 am

tbhawaiiowan
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #18 of 37 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

Subject: Future/s of narcissism v altruism (as well as individuality and "self"-reliance-sufficiency-interest)? A new report suggests that an overdose of...
tbhawaiiowan@...
tbhawaiiowan
Offline Send Email
Apr 1, 2007
11:40 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help