Monthly Archives: August 2013

Altruism* and charity

Spread the love

Image of Rider-Waite Tarot XX JudgementA repost from Deep DT’s reality cracking pages from 1998. Thinking about it, I’ve only just realised how deep this article is ~ I had no idea first time round. There are still copies of this article published and accessible.

Altruism* and charity

* – altruism, giving without any personal benefit.

In Britain, and quite possibly worldwide(?), students are actually taught at colleges and universities that altruism does not exist. It happened to me when I did my degree some time ago and it happened to a friend taking his degree last year. I think that it’s taught to new students before they are practiced at analysing an argument and before they are encouraged to have their own opinions and to argue with their lecturers. It is presented as accepted, objective fact without a real opportunity to disagree.

The argument goes like this. Social Psychology’s ‘reward theory’ states that for every act of giving, there is an equivalent ‘value’ received in return so there can never be altruism because the giver always receives something of equal value. Just search the net on altruism and I’m sure that you’ll see the argument. The trouble with the argument which seems lost on the academics is that it’s a totally ‘tautological’ or circular argument – you are within the argument – it can’t be disproved because of the way it’s stated. Now, if the argument was stated that altruism does exist, that there is never such a thing as an equal exchange – that could not ever be disproved either.

Let’s take an example. I’m on a crowded bus and I give up my seat to allow a pregnant woman to sit. Now according to ‘reward theory’, I didn’t do this because I am willing to help strangers when I’m able to and when it’s fairly easy to do so. No, I received from this ‘exchange’, good feelings for myself equal to the value of the effort expended. What nonsense, but the trouble is I’m within the argument which ASSUMES that a trade occurs and defines the reward in terms of that trade.

To disprove this theory, people are forced to find an example where there is obviously no reward for the ‘altruism’. The normal example is the anonymous kidney donor. Oh no, say the reward theorists, he receives a kidney’s-worth of good feelings. And any other example you think about, freeware, helping a blind person across the road, anything at all. The point is that the theory is based on the assumption that it’s innate for people to trade. It supports the dominant Capitalist ideology and states that you don’t and can’t do anything for nothing and that everything has it’s price.

Is there any hope for humanity if we teach and are taught that we cannot relate to each other than on this basis?. The implications are quite horrendous – that the concept of charity does not exist, that economic aid requires an economic return (which is often the case in practice) but I think the main point is that we are being taught to be fantastically selfish – worse than that – we are being taught that there is no other way except to be fantastically selfish, individualistic and self-centered.

By accepting this teaching we are transformed into individual consuming units. Individual consuming units are important because they mean greater demand for consumer products. However, they also mean loneliness, solitude and alienation from others. Can you really love someone on this basis? I think that it was Caesar who originally developed the theory of divide and conquer …

think about it

 

Continue ReadingAltruism* and charity

DDT2 George Monbiot on Neonicatinoid poisons

Spread the love
image of black bees
Black bees

George Monbiot has a very good article on Neonicatinoid poisoning being the nu DDT, our environment, government support support for such poisoning using discredited, flawed studies, etc. Strange that I missed it first time.

It’s the new DDT: a class of poisons licensed for widespread use before they had been properly tested, which are now ripping the natural world apart. And it’s another demonstration of the old truth that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.

It is only now, when neonicotinoids are already the world’s most widely deployed insecticides, that we are beginning to understand how extensive their impacts are. Just as the manufacturers did for DDT, the corporations which make these toxins claimed that they were harmless to species other than the pests they targeted. Just as they did for DDT, they have threatened people who have raised concerns, published misleading claims and done all they can to bamboozle the public. And, as if to ensure that the story sticks to the old script, some governments have collaborated in this effort. Among the most culpable is the government of the United Kingdom.

As Professor Dave Goulson shows in his review of the impacts of these pesticides, we still know almost nothing about how most lifeforms are affected. But as the evidence has begun to accumulate, scientists have started discovering impacts across a vast range of wildlife.

Slightly later edit: The article is well worth reading and I should have quoted this section. (and it should be Neonicotinoid in the title.)

Most people who read this newspaper will be aware by now of the evidence fingering neonicotinoids as a major cause of the decline of bees and other pollinators. These pesticides can be applied to the seeds of crops, and they remain in the plant as it grows, killing the insects which eat it. The quantities required to destroy insect life are astonishingly small: by volume these poisons are 10,000 times as powerful as DDT. When honeybees are exposed to just 5 nanogrammes of neonicotinoids, half of them will die. As bees, hoverflies, butterflies, moths, beetles and other pollinators feed from the flowers of treated crops, they are, it seems, able to absorb enough of the pesticide to compromise their survival.

Continue ReadingDDT2 George Monbiot on Neonicatinoid poisons

New tack

Spread the love

GREENPEACE SHIP RAINBOW WARRIOR SAILING FROM CAPE TOWN TO DURBAN!

Some of you – a select few – will be aware that I have very recently made some good progress researching the events of London during the early reign of the Blairs – Tonee and Ian that is. I’m making progress on the unofficial narrative of events.

I want to get it correct and well documented so it will likely take some months. In the process, I’m also addressing the causes of some other issues like rambling nonsense postings and changing tack.

Continue ReadingNew tack

ATOS DWP appeal :: The appeal hearing

Spread the love

This is the third and final article in the ATOS DWP appeal series. Earlier articles were ATOS DWP appeal :: How it works and ATOS DWP appeal :: How to appeal.

My client was successful at appeal and was awarded 15 points and a recommendation to DWP that she is not reassessed for 2 years. This appeal hearing may well be very different to others since it was clear beyond any doubt that my client has serious mobility and other issues. In any case where it was marginal or where there was a need to argue the case I would be looking at case law for application of the descriptors.

The appeal tribunal was composed of a judge and a doctor. I was told by the clerk that there is hardly ever a presenting officer present.

The appeal panel had absolutely no interest in either the ATOS WCA medical report or the Decision Maker’s submission. I was also surprised that they were also not that concerned about the descriptors and their precise definition. They were interested in whether my client was sufficiently disabled to merit ESA looking at the whole picture. Once they had established that, they awarded points so that she would get the ESA award.

My client was questioned at a very fast pace by both panel members. They seemed to follow my client’s appeal request so this and further submitted evidence are important. There were ‘opaque’ questions. I suspect that it’s likely that the opaque questions derive from the appeal tribunals: the Decision Maker and the Work Capabilities Assesment’s HCP will follow the appeal tribunal’s lead.

Driving a manual car is about being fit enough to walk. Going to the supermarket is about being fit enough to walk, reach for and carry quite heavy packages if you do it without assistance. Keeping a cat is about reaching low for feeding and watering. Wearing a t-shirt is about reaching over your head. One that I really haven’t understood and that they’re really keen on is watching television. It suggests that you can stay still for a while but it’s only a suggestion. That you have time to watch television because the rest of your life is settled? I think that watching television is about wasting time but how is it interpreted?

[03/08/13 (UK notation)

Watching television is a vast subject that the tribunal panel would want to investigate in depth.

If you do nothing except watch television, I think that the panel will have little sympathy for you and even suspect illnesses to be self inflicted i.e. idleness, laziness and no exercise or interaction cause illnesses. Although superficially the tribunal panel and the whole concept of the Work Capabilities Assessment shouldn’t be concerned with causes, it will be.

Following a soap opera suggests that you’re able to keep appointments and function mentally fairly well at that low standard needed for soaps i.e. you’re able to understand, remember and follow a simple narrative.

Owning but not watching a television supports a claim of depression i.e. having no interest in anything through depressed emotional state. I suppose that only watching serious news-type programmes would also support a claim to depression.

The panel will be interested in the times that television is watched. If it’s late in the evening and early morning they may conclude laziness and idleness.

etc … ]

Although I was representing my client I said very little during the hearing. At the end of the hearing I tried to make some points. The panel were totally uninterested in my input to the point of being rude and shouting me down. This made me aware of the pressure that my client had been under: the pressure to conform.

The panel may have had no interest in anything I had to say because they had already decided and had time constraints. It’s a quick process that took us about an hour in total.

Continue ReadingATOS DWP appeal :: The appeal hearing