Empathy is just the state of being able to understand somebody else's condition and state of being. it doesn't have to be someone's pain or detriment - it can be their happiness. so surely there can be empathy in heaven. On the whole though great talk
I may be biased but this idea of encouraging compassion and actively serving others without seeking any reward is what the Ten Guru's of Sikhism built up. Sikh Gurdwaras today give out millions of free meals daily to all and anyway and the work is done for free by Sikhs. Its called Seva..amazing!
I would add one item to the video's presentation, and that would be that we seem to enjoy sharing happy events and experiences too. The video goes out of its way to describe empathy as being the sharing of negative experience, and that there is no such sharing when things are good or happy. If we didn't share the happy stuff (and I do mean in a mentally imagined way such as is meant by empathy (which may indeed be defined as sharing the bad stuff (I'm just saying we share the good stuff too))); then there would be no birthday parties, no bachelor parties, no "our songs", no baby showers, no anniversaries, no living vicariously, no Facebook, no virtual utopia, no football fans in the United States, nor soccer hooligans in Great Britain, etc. And I believe that this vicarious sharing of good stuff is good glue too, helps us identify with each other, to hold each other in higher regard, to bond and to love one another! It is significant and that is why I am stressing it.
RYSE Thank you! And you are welcome! I checked-out your channel too, and subscribed! But I would advise one thing. That you not overdo the gamers' attitude of taking "head-shots" all of the time, not take them quite so literally, LOL! But the videos do look pretty good as far as the production values go. Sooo, keep on working on them! Looks like you will have a promising future!
RYSE Oh and I watched this video presentation again and now realize the guy was stressing the negative values of empathy for a reason. Perhaps it was that he wanted to encourage the viewpoint that we can work together as humans, even under negative situations, so that the idea of unifying the world would get across. The positive empathy is still there, and he does talk about it. But he does go way overboard stressing the value of the negative empathy being useful to bring us together. Perhaps from that viewpoint he is right. But I still believe that the positive empathy helps that way too. We share happiness as well as grief. Peace Yo! And good luck on your presentation!
***** Yes I think you're right on that. I'm basically doing the same thing tomorrow, only I'm stressing the positive aspects a bit more because I'm going to speak about the effects of empathy on human interaction. Thanks again for the tip. :)
I personally think this is exactly why Psychology is going to be soooo much more respeccted in the future. People nowadays don't even know the difference between a shrink, a psychologist, a psychotherapist and a psychanlist. I believe that in 100 years from now, psychology is going to be key in society.
Joan Laine I strongly agree with you! Videos like this give kids something to watch to keep their eyes interested, while presenting ideas and concepts that encourage critical thinking outside the classroom.
Many of us come here knowing that we have lived here many, many times before and aren't particularly worried about being 'recycled'; it's little more taxing than changing clothes. I can empathize with almost anything except the belief that life is a "one and only" experience! TNX for the video!
I think this is among one of the most important videos ever created on UA-cam. Should be shown in the "Moral and Ethics" -subject on all schooles all over the world.
This is so true and a great video! Thanks so much for posting it. Our true nature is be loving and empathic and when we are not, it is abnormal, not normal.
I totally agree with this video. I've been saying it for years: Once you learn to put yourself into another one's shoes, you'll learn to understand a person's situation and possibly see the world from his or her point of view. As a side note, it is important to point out that mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosome Adam were separated by thousands of years, and were not partners, as is vaguely implied in the video.
Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides? See also Avadhuta Clown society Contrary (social role) Divine madness (religion) Foolishness for Christ Pueblo clown The Fool (tarot card) Trickster ----- also the indian BIRD GOD Horus the bird... ..... ua-cam.com/video/cy7a4Gkoh-E/v-deo.html =================== 400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny... .
I love this talk, unfortunately I think it also shows precisely the problem with the idea. At 4:35 when it mentions Utopia it explains why there is no empathy in Utopia: Empathy is built where there is an understanding of suffering. Economic elites live in a near-utopian world. Everything is accessible, achievable, obtainable without struggle. It is rare that these people who dictate so much of life on this planet have empathy (though when they do, for example in the case of Bill Gates, they do an extraordinary amount of good). I would love nothing more than the Star Trek vision of harmony and resource sharing in the future, but how do we overcome this human flaw that is rooted at the very base of our short mortal lives. Humans have proven time and again they aren't good enough for it.
+Chris Rogers Not with this mentality. Now regard the mentality of say the civil rights movement in the USA, the ending of slavery before it, and say we aren't good enough. Furthermore, our disposition towards violence has changed significantly through the centuries and even decades. Even including the last World Wars, the rate of human aggression and violence has plummeted. Human culture is improving, even if there remains a lot to be done. This is why we mustn't be fatalistic like you seem to propose. That is unproductive and factually unrealistic.
+Brngsh I'm afraid I disagree entirely. My original statement marks a problem, not a fatalistic attitude. In fact I finish with an open question. The problem consists in the fact that in all of human history we have embraced tribal structures. There are powerful people at the top and arguably not so important people at the bottom. What I said is that if the people at the top have no empathy then this idea of an empathic civilization doesn't work and that I don't believe we can just hope those people will magically gain empathy. It won't happen. Democracy was a great first step to empower the people at the bottom, but if we're honest, we have built a new type of feudalism today. Not based on royal blood lines but based on money. Companies buy the opinions of the decision makers on the basis of profit, not people, and as such this system doesn't work. You're right, humanity is improving but look at the age of your examples! I believe that since the 1970's we have regressed because we are all to comfortable to empathize and also too comfortable to care about doing the right thing. We need to build a new market democracy, we need to get the money out of politics, we need to make sure that corporations pay their taxes where they do business, and we need to understand that when the little guy needs help he deserves to get some. We have to make helping people cool instead of sneering at those less fortunate and hoping that someday the people at the top will care. These are things that need to happen from the bottom up, not the top down.
+Chris Rogers Not sure what is happening in our discussion, as I agree with everything you say here. Although I see no relevance in the age of my examples; we're talking about human advancement and you even mention Star Trek but suddenly a few decades is too much. There's most definitely a tiny 'upper layer' of powerful selfish people, and you are right: they will not just gain empathy. This needs to be cultivated, as recent science proves. There are actually very effective methods for doing so. And we should, as they will make a huge improvement in how we handle problems like climate change, income disparity, discrimination and so on.
I'm floored! There's only one way to describe this man's rationing: genius. There's also only one way to describe the presentation: creative. Is it a coincidence genius and creativity overlaps? People always say this is madness or genius, but what they're really saying is: this is creative madness or mad genius. There can be no creativity or genius without risk, and there can be no risk without the presence of madness. Genius, then, is the controlled creativity of madness.
I think the best advice anyone can live by is to focus on your qualities. In some that is more empathic, in others there is a bias to self-interest. But either way, by focusing on your natural qualities it helps others, either directly with kindness and charity, or indirectly by showing others the benefits of enhancing those qualities, it always inspires, even when it is occasionally and inevidably wrong.
@@adriannguyen116 Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides? See also Avadhuta Clown society Contrary (social role) Divine madness (religion) Foolishness for Christ Pueblo clown The Fool (tarot card) Trickster ----- also the indian BIRD GOD Horus the bird... ..... ua-cam.com/video/rjpaeeLqo8M/v-deo.html =================== 400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny... .
So beautifully said. He nailed it. Put so simply and honestly. I hope many many people will watch and share this. It can really be such a wonderful world! This brought me the hope I needed for the earth and all its living creations!
The biggest obstacle is that we still haven't completely gotten rid of 'racial ties' and 'religious ties'. Before we try to get rid of national identiites, we need to get rid of those first.
This is what is needed if we are to overcome, as a human race, the huge adverse social and environmental consequences of CLIMATE CHANGE. Global governance is required for this task and empathy should be an important core value of this governing body.
This video has given me a mental framework for understanding and explaining my connection with the planet. Many younger people seem to think all older people selfishly indulge in ecologically unsound activities because we don't give a damn because we know we don't have need for a life sustaining planet that much longer. I so hate being judged based on others' wrong assumptions and stereotyping. I struggle to have others understand that most of my waking day is influenced by my awareness of the nature around me. I have to be able to see out the window. I have to be able to walk over uneven terrain on a forest path or beach. When I swim in a lake the physical contact with the water is an affirmation of my connection to it all. The natural sounds all around me deepen the privilege of being alive. Even when a coyote carries off my pet dog I experience it as the natural way of life and death. When I inadvertently allow a bag of spinach to die in my fridge, my remorse isn't for the dollars I paid, or the guilt I feel about people starving elsewhere - I ache at realising that the environmental harm done to produce that bag of spinach for me, and all the steps taken to get it from the field to me - the miles travelled, the gas consumed, the plastic it was packaged in; was for naught - I failed to respect the price the earth has paid to produce that spinach for me and so my harm is multiplied. So THANK you for this video I'm sharing it in the hopes that understanding is infectious.
+Michael Westfall Yeah, I never got what he meaned with soft-wired. Is it like learned behaviour? Then it's like he is saying empathy is not fundamental in human nature.
+Optimus6128 soft wired means like "default" setting. Another way of thinking about it might be cerebris parabis, or "all things being equal." I'll show you what I mean. At 2:02 he uses the word soft wired a second time. In his scenario, if all things are equal, we will understand and empathize with the other individual. We'll feel their "Anger, joy, sense of frustration, joy." Now imagine that things aren't equal. Imagine that the persons "joy" comes from stealing from you, or physically abusing you. Do you think it'd be possible for you to empathize with their joy in that case...? I hope that explains it.
+Loi Tran Not really going to comment on it, but "cerebris parabis", whatever that is, isn't what you're looking for. "All things being equal" is "ceteris paribus".
Nothing compares to the feeling of empathy, whether I give it or receive it. It fuels connection, and gives me life! Here's to a civilization built on the ground work of empathy. ;)
This takes a complex topic and unveils it in a very cool way. Redefining "we", and the importance of extending our empathic nature to the entire biosphere is a critical factor for the future of our species. Whether you use quantum mechanics or psychology, "we" are all linked. We need to incorporate that realization in our family, social, business and political lives so our planet can continue to thrive. Well done.
I am not sure if empathy is so inbound. One thing that is said in the video, the need to belong (or as I say the need to be appreciated, to be liked, and also the avoidance of acts that will make you be disliked) is something I really believe is very primary and can explain a lot of things about the human condition. Now, empathy I think can be selective. It's hard to imagine it universal. I for example can't feel any empathy for poor people in the street, not that I believe they deserve it (that would be a lazy rationalization) but because I haven't been in that condition, no matter if logically I wouldn't want to be. At the same time, I am very empathic for other kinds of people because they mirror my own experience, like I would get angry and annoyed or sad when people getting bullied, if I had the same experiences at school. Or other experiences which are in my list of fears, would make me feel bad about some people's misfortunes. In the same way, I wouldn't blink about the Haiti earthquakes, it's far away, I haven't been in an earthquake, it's not the kind of misfortunes I am afraid or makes me sad. But here is the thing, many people twitted hopeful messages and such about the victims? I believe, a lot of them did under social mirroring because everyone else does and why am I out? Or the thought that "If I show I care about these people, I will be appreciated". I think there is a social current that feeds our need to be appreciated or be liked, or our fear of being disliked (for example the thought "if I don't send a tweet like my friends, people will think I am not caring, maybe a psycho or egoist"). I have this theory that liking/disliking urges really push humans, and not all behaviours can be explained as empathic, but a lot of things are more egoistic (without this being necessary bad, it's just our nature) than we would like them to be, because if we accept that fact it's gonna paint our selves as more egoistic people than we'd like to imagine ourselves. I also believe people will get mean when they get the green light from society, if society tells them that one person deserves to be treated badly, they switch and do or say nasty stuff. Because then the majority won't dislike them but may even say they did the right thing. I could write examples, but youtube these days doesn't keep carriage return, and this is a big paragraph so I'll stop here for now.
This is exactly what I always think. Good to finally see someone else saying it like it is. People like us (realistic people) are often suppressed by others when we say those things because "we shouldn't point out or admit the ugly egoistic core of those messages, because that would be bad for their image". (thats not a quote from anyone, its just to point out that i often clearly see that people know damn, i say damn well that they only say those 'kind' things because of their ego)
I know you guys commented over a year ago- but if you are at all interested in the science behind this stuff- Stanford University has posted some amazing lectures on Human Behavior Biology- ua-cam.com/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/v-deo.html . He covers everything from the evolutionary and environmental influences, the endocrine/hormonal/genetic factors, right down to the effect that the randomness of Brownian motion has in cell division on the development of our brains and personalities. The TLDW summary could be simplified to 'IF/THEN'...if i was born into your body with your genetic makeup and i experienced every single sensory input that has been experienced by you up until this point- then my brain would make me type the exact comment you did...hahaha...Our ability to feel empathy and handle stress, and so many other things- are beginning to be formulated from the moment we are conceived...our mother's hormones/stress levels/nutrition while we were baking in the womb all affect how we see and feel about the world today. He talks about when and how a child's 'theory of self' is formed (this video calls it 'selfhood'), and how and why we need to learn to avoid 'categorical thinking'. Probably the most rewarding lectures i have ever watched. Your comment about 'EGO' and society 'getting mean' is explained in the lectures- and check out info on Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) for some mind-blowing stuff on the origins of 'controlling the masses'. Hope you check those vids out man....they are long (i ripped them onto my phone and listen in the car) but i think you'll learn a lot about yourself (i know i did)- and hopefully have a deeper understanding of 'empathy'.
Prepare the groundwork for an "Empathic Civilization". Yes. Continue the growth of "Caring". I try to imagine what such a Human Civilization would be like.
If it's true that empathy make the same neurons work in different individuals that are just watching an action, does it mean that who doesn't feel empathy don't have that capability 100% due to "imposed social conventions" or there are also other reasons? Can "empathy" be directly related to "intelligence"?
it depends on what kind of intelligence you are referring too. The classic definition of intelligence (IQ) only shows your logical skill (ruffly). But today we see that there are different independent intelligence. Math, language, social, musical etc. etc. Persons with different mental issues were there is a lack of empathy (sociopaths etc) can still act somewhat normal because of a high intelligence and understanding of socializing. The human mind is very complex which makes it very hard to draw any straight conclusions. An explanation that is true about one person can be totally wrong about an other
FlyingLotus actually the most common reason is due to upbringing, not total lack of empathy though, for that there would be, as you say some sort of mental disorder
***** so youre tellin me you can see radio waves, micro waves, infared, gamma rays, ultraviolet and x-rays? damn professor xavier just got a new student in his school
I find this video engaging because we never see this kind of multi-media in movies or on tv. RSA Animate should Win some type of Hollywood Award for today's entertainment on the web. Thank you for reminding us. That if we believe, and we want it back enough, nothing is impossible.
Jeremy Rifkin argues that our brains are wired _primarily_ for *empathy* and sociability, not *aggression* and narcism. The human condition (or 'repression of emphathy') by dictates (or fear and social structures) determines our mode or character. ...so _'bring out sociability, to rethink the intstitutions and prepare for an _*_empathic civilisation_*_.'_ he says. Educational and clever Animation!
why do they cram this talk into a highspeed, "please don't blink you'll miss it" 10 minutes?!?!?!?!?! Why does the reader sound like he's on LSD or speed? it's a really beautiful video and a VERY important message.... so why don't you just TAKE YOUR TIME to tell us?
RSA videos are sped up from the actual lecture to become shorts. If you want to listen to the actual lecture, I'm sure you could search for it and listen to him as he does take his time.
trying to get a point across to a fast pace world of people that can't spare more than ten mins... I usually watch them a few times. or as +Eleni mentioned an even better idea :)
I think the concept of detribalization covered in this video largely contributed to the deconstruction of patriotism (at least in the U.S.) in younger generations… because we are expanding our empathic connection to others through social media and technology. More than ever before, I can understand the experiences of people across the world from me, with completely different identities from me. I think that is an amazing thing :)
To extend empathy, some ideals need to be forgotten, and this does not just include Government and corporate influence. Religion is at the core of human oppression and has been regressive in creating a utopia. The narrator says that everyone can keep their same beliefs and just extend them, but what about the luddites that do not want to embrace technology and the biosphere as their family? At what point does humanity have to abolish these ideals for the greater good? I like the point he makes about empathy being unnecessary in a utopia; that was eye opening. Maybe one day when our consciousness evolves to that point aliens (inter-dimensional possibly?) will let us contact them
That's MUCH better! Well done! I agree with you, we should completely re-organise the way our world is run. I'm sure that a few intelligent and caring people could make a better world for everyone. Thanks GaiaisOurMother!
***** haha, you haven't been involved in scientific researches, that's obvious. You would be amazed how many things were discovered by accident, but of course, not many scientist would admit to that... so I can't blame you. And just so you know, it wasn't the humans brain they scanned... If you didn't listen to video I will text it for you: The monkey was in the MRI eating nuts, then saw the human OUTSIDE the MRI also eating nuts. The scan showed the same results from the monkey when he was eating the nuts and when he was watching someone else (the human) eating nuts.
I think Jake is pointing out that if you take out the buzz words, liberal propaganda, you find a severe lack of intellectual content. From the third minute in, you find that the slithers of respectable material are replaced by the liberal consciousness. Hell the guy even has the gumption to "Guarantee" what heaven is like.
Ran Viz True enough, but I think It was pointed out pretty clearly that it was a subjective theory based on what was said earlier, and that is how most theories are presented. And of course the theory part is definitely up for discussion, but Jake questioned the beginning of the clip based upon something that wasn't even in it...
***** No. He said that the same areas of the brain in the monkey lit up when he was trying to open the nut as well as when he was observing the human being. It has nothing to do with the scientist or his brain.
***** I can understand why you might respond in that way- try listening to his other talks. I'm fairly annoyed by hokey word vomit as well, but he means specific, real things when he says the words you quoted. "Complex energy communications revolutions that annihilate time and space" is referring to very real revolutions that have happened multiple times in human history and which Jeremy speaks about in most of his talks. One example was the industrial revolution- it was an energy-communications revolution, because we began to use new forms of energy as well as having new methods of communication. This mix of energy and communication possibilities (the telephone primarily, though also aircraft and others) worked together to create a brand new kind of infrastructure and a brand new kind of consciousness, since we now had the ability to speak much more easily to many more people- it changed the way we viewed others. Each time such a revolution happened in human society, our circle of empathy widened. These events annihilated the time and space between ourselves and other humans on this planet. The internet has just done this yet again- you're in the middle of it. I'm empathizing with you right now because of it.
Going from tribe to religion to nation happened for not only the reason that we could reach those people (as mentioned in the video), but also because there was a common enemy. When we get in a war with alien creatures, the world-wide empathic civilization will form as the speaker intended.
The psychopaths,the tortures, the sadists, the bullies, the emotional manipulators - they all have empathy: this is what makes their abusive behaviour so effective - they KNOW exactly how you feel. Lack of empathy is not the problem. For instance,what good is empathy without compassion? Jeremy Rifkin needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.
No, just, no. That's so stupid. Empathy means you can feel someone's pain and also understand how they feel, a psychopath is literally someone incapable of feeling others pain. You have no clue what you're talking about.
MuslimGoku I know it sounds stupid but Empathy = the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I'm sure pychos know what pain they put you through - they just don't care. I
XKaffe Intellectual understanding =/= empathy If you don't FEEL the pain, even if you understand it on an intellectual level, you're not practicing empathy.
The adam and eve thing is very misleading in this video, especially when he adds "the bible got this one right". They would have never met. Their gene markers are common to all of us but that doesn't mean what you may think from watching this video that they made the branch of humans that is all of us.
Exactly, the evidence shows that we come form a very small group of human beings, which is really not that surprising considering we came close to extinction several times. It doesn't point to anything like the bible, especially in terms of the time spans at hand, AND in terms of the origin of those few ancectors of our.
+Han Zhang Yes, I totally agree. Very misleading indeed, simply incorrect. Either dishonest or stupid. There was never just one human couple who spawned everybody. It's not even proven that they are as claimed to be.
Empathy is what creates a Utopia (Heaven) where good will, comfort, pleasure, and harmony are naturally shared. Apathy is what creates a dystopia where ill will, discomfort, pain, and chaos are unnaturally diseased in humanity. Sympathy is what is needed for apathy to make its way back to Empathy so that humanity is eased back to bliss!
Just fluff. Speculative, aspirational, neither here nor there. Fluff. - Here's a better idea: The tribes, the religions, the nations, shall struggle to dominate our world; and through struggle, through competition, we get stronger, smarter, more advanced. Either there is an ultimate and eternal winner, and we have the unity you describe (not through obliteration of the self but through obliteration of all others), or else we can compete forever and improve forever. - When you are running in a race, you have empathy for the other runners. That's no reason to ignore the starting gun. He who doesn't run, loses. In this world struggle, we can appreciate that our rivals are in the same position as are we, without seeing fit to throw down arms or to kneel. - Empathy is very real. But it's a tool to be used so that we can more effectively compete, not a guiding principle or an end in itself. If we are to succeed as a species, we must rationally limit our empathy's effect on our actions to the level of the appropriate group for whatever concern is at hand. This should be the smallest group practicable, because then our share of the spoils is greater. - The point is this: Universal empathy is a losing strategy. If we adopt it, then we will be destroyed by those who don't.
Our current system is harmful to all life in earth except to a small number of people but even they are dead inside because they are trapped in materialistic thinking. If we compete against each other then we are not civilized. We just act civilized because we have technology but that doesn't make us civilized. Resource based economy will work because when all people are taken care off there is no need to "cheat" the system because that is just stupid to even think about that when you understand that all people are taken care off not just those with money. Finally if you are still not impressed then you must be aware that the world economy is about to collapse and even if it doesn't collapse soon we will still destroy all life on earth if we continue raping this planet like we do right now just to make profit. We must design a system that is based on PEOPLE and their well being not MONEY and ignore those who don't have enough money. Money is really worthless. Resources are worth most and we destroy them just to make worthless money.
Fingamer™ You aren't making any sort of coherent point. Where did I advocate for materialism? Loyalty, faith and patriotism aren't materialistic values. How is competition uncivilised? It's the greatest civilising force of all. Post-scarcity is impossible - even if all our physical wants are provided for, there are still social, emotional, psychological, moral drives, and between people these are mutually incompatible; so there will still be an impetus to compete. Your view, by the way, that meeting people's material needs will make them happy, is utterly materialistic. We need a system based not on people or on money but on reality. That means struggle. Your comment about resources is astoundingly ignorant. Resources are "worth most" because they are practically useful. It's precisely because of this value that we take them, sell them, and consume them. And given that money allows for the purchase of useful resources, how can it be worthless?
WiggaMachiavelli Money allows the purchase of resources because we have decided that. I don't agree that we have a drive to compete. When we change the system and education then people especially those who born in to a new kind of society realize that competing against other people and nature is pointless when we all can work together. We have to do this or else we will go extinct because of this pointless game. In sports it makes sense to compete but why would we need to compete in life?
Fingamer™ It only takes one to make a competition. As long as one person or group is competing, the choice not to compete is really a choice to lose. Those individuals and groups who decline to compete are precisely the ones who go extinct.
Jeremy Rifkin evidently lived a comfortable sheltered life. His premise that life is short and tough is true. Life is struggle. Ergo, men ARE aggressive, violent, self-interested, utilitarian, AND empathetic. That's how we survive. Men will always fight to secure resources and dominate other men so as to impress women. Individuals will always make different life choices. Different cultures will always have conflicting standards and interests. This is the human condition that never changes.
We need a balance of both. Someone who does not consider themselves is always running on empty and is not efficient enough to help others to the best of their ability. Someone who does not consider others and does not have some sense of duty, tends not to like themselves very much, unless they are sociopathic, and no matter how rich they become they will have a void inside that they futily try to fill with all manner of indulgence. The right blend of both is needed.
2:40 If we weren't wired for aggression, violence, self-interest and utilitarianism, we wouldn't do aggressive, violent, self-interested and utilitarian things. Human nature is what humans do: we literally can't do something against human nature while continuing to be human. Thus empathy and unempathetic behaviour are *both* human nature, because our behaviour doesn't have to be logically consistent. Saying that we are *exclusively* self interested is wrong. Saying that we are *exclusively* altruistic is wrong. Because most people are both altruistic and self-interested. People can be both amazingly generous and brutally sadistic. And that aside, even if it was our biological nature to be exclusively one or the other, we wouldn't be able to say that we *ought* to be exclusively one or the other. Just because we can be altruistic doesn't mean we ought to be, just like the fact that we can be unempathetic doesn't mean we ought to be. We establish arbitrary values and place them on things like empathy, prosperity, happiness, life, survival, etc..., but it's important to remember that they are *arbitrary*, whether biologically based or not. Natural selection made us embrace both pro-social and anti-social behaviour, but natural selection is ultimately a system of arbitration: it doesn't tell us what's favourable, only what works at self-replicating in certain settings. You can arbitrarily say that empathy is a valuable trait, but somebody else can say that self-interest is a valuable trait with exactly as much validity. Tl;dr: "Why don't we expand our 'extended family'?" "Why should we?" 2nihilistic4life
Your looking at this too pragmatically, human nature and human ability are different things, we have the ability to do many things and act upon them, this does not directly mean these things are directly connected to our hard-wired nature, if you had to cut your hand off that's not a underlining trait of humanity. Human nature includes the collective nature and patterns which humans exert as a species and differentiates culturally and demographically. I believe he's trying to destroy the stigma that its okay to be aggressive to one another, and narcissistic because were humans and is an innate characteristic in our nature, when with effort and focus on communal empathy (not total personality override) that we do not have to bring suffering to our fellow human and empathy could be the main factor of human nature. One could argue natural selection ended a long time ago because anti-social behaviour would have weeded you out very quickly in early human history, natural selection is now obsolete for most developed countries, and so negligible.
Connor Laforge "Your looking at this too pragmatically, human nature and human ability are different things, we have the ability to do many things and act upon them, this does not directly mean these things are directly connected to our hard-wired nature, if you had to cut your hand off that's not a underlining trait of humanity." If an individual cuts off his hand of his own free will, it's in that individual's nature to cut off his hand. It's in most people's nature to avoid doing stuff like that when they can. "Human nature includes the collective nature and patterns which humans exert as a species and differentiates culturally and demographically." Well, when dealing with ethical questions and forming ethical systems, you pretty much have to deal with it on an individual level. It's the individuals who make the ethical decisions, after all. Sure, you can talk about human nature as the broad underlying patterns of behaviour in human society, but the individual might behave very differently to the norm while staying within his individual nature. " I believe he's trying to destroy the stigma that its okay to be aggressive to one another, and narcissistic because were humans and is an innate characteristic in our nature, when with effort and focus on communal empathy (not total personality override) that we do not have to bring suffering to our fellow human and empathy could be the main factor of human nature." He's trying to destroy the stigma that we don't have to be selfish by nature and replace it with the stigma that we have to be selfless by nature. Both are false; both groups and individuals are selfish and selfless at the same time, by nature. " One could argue natural selection ended a long time ago because anti-social behaviour would have weeded you out very quickly in early human history, natural selection is now obsolete for most developed countries, and so negligible. " Natural selection isn't about anti-social behaviour. Natural selection can select altruistic individuals for reproduction and continue to be natural selection. It's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most likely to reproduce". "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is a good read on how natural selection can favour altruistic individuals.
Crispy Slick "Science suggests the human mind gives prefalence to the empathic gene, as generousity is the most valuable trait in human attractiveness. Time shows this trait seems to be most likely to reproduce coming generations." Which is fine and good. But again, natural selection does not favour the "good" or the "bad". It favours the more likely to reproduce. "Shane Coleman, by your writings I assume you're philosophic interested as well, I noticed you wrote down '2nihilistic4life.' Im interested, have you ever been depressed? Ever thought about suicide? Is nihilism to you the meaning of life?" I occasionally get spells of depression-esque apathy lasting up to several weeks, but not often. Suicide is kind of a personal topic. Nihilism is the absence of a meaning of life. "A nihilistic viewpoint (assuming life holds no meaning) is biased. It's no more different than believing in a deity (God or FSM) or being a gnostic atheist. It is in itself, a logical error. We just don't know yet." If there is no reason to believe there is a meaning of life, assuming there isn't one is fine. Absence of evidence is, while not evidence of absence, good enough reason to assume absence. Don't believe in things that you have no reason to believe in. Assuming there is a meaning of life is closer to religion than nihilism. I'm not really seeing how it would be possible for life to have meaning, bearing in mind what life is. We are, essentially, complex computers given the illusion of free will. Outside of the quantum level, we basically life in a deterministic "clockwork" universe, and it's *really* unlikely that we have some influence over the quantum level that grants us some sort of significance. There is no reason to believe that we are anything other than complex biological computers with the capacity for constructing other complex biological computers. Even if there was a deity of some sort, their "objective" purpose would really only be their subjective purpose. God wants you to do this. Cool. So what? "The human mind and it's experience is what can be considered as truth. It's a fact as in line of it what we know is falsifiable." Human sensory experience usually isn't reflective of objective reality. We only see a part of the spectrum of light. Did you know you can never actually "touch" anything, but once atoms get close enough together their repulsive forces become so strong that it feels like touching solid mass. Most of everything around you, and you yourself, is empty space. Even our sensory understanding of time is flawed when compared to most models of the larger universe. The human senses do not accurately reflect reality. They create a model based on input and abstraction in the brain in order to further our survival and reproductive capacity. "As far as I'm concerned, the meaning of life is it's evolution. The flourishing of the triumphant intelligent, sensitive human mind in a ever lifeholding expanding universe, continuing to learn and experience, overcoming our ego." And why do you think this? How come it's an assumption to presume there is no meaning of life, since there is no evidence of a meaning of life, but it's not an assumption to believe this? "For the coming centuries, our increasing human empathy and logic is this evolution, freeing ourself from suffering by leaving behind our logistical errors. Life might lead to something greater then, I would like to experience that. I'm thrilled of the string-theory and the about-to-be-uncovered theory of everything. This is something to look on too, in my opinion." Yeah, I look forward to seeing how much we learn in the short life I've been granted. "Also, stop saying 'ethics' and 'morality.' It is also a human logical error." When dealing with other people's philosophical systems, I will refer to ethics and morality. Because I really don't see how else to deal with them. That'd be like speaking Arabic to a Japanese speaker. Bear in mind I am highly critical of the notion of objective morality. I subscribe to a sort of Stirnerite egoism. "Our human intelligence and empathy (mind) will in time show us. " Our intelligence will show us what is. Our feelings will show us what we want. "There is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong,' only individual human experience. Empathy will bring us to that. There is nothing 'wrong' with being intelligent and sensitive. We might only be true right or wrong in the sense of someone else's, which we cannot yet experience. It is the common brain-in-a-tub theory. " It's relativism, or ethical nihilism, and I completely agree.
Shane, it's evolution!! We aren't the finished item, nowhere near it, that is why we only use a fraction of our brain power. As the speaker so correctly states, if we do not evolve in this way, we are fucked. Can't see how you can argue against that salient fact.
David Yates I'll be dead long before humanity evolves to such a degree, so I don't see why I'm obligated to care about whether or not we'll be fucked in the future (although I do care, to some extent). The human race might not be the "finished product", but I am the most finished product I am ever going to be. The human race might achieve a fully empathetic society, it might achieve amazing things, or it might wipe itself out completely. But realistically, I'll be long dead before most significant changes come around. So I strive to protect my happiness and the happiness of my loved ones above the happiness of others, although I compromise as often as I can because of empathy. I wasn't saying that we shouldn't be empathetic; I was saying that yes, we are hardwired for empathy, but we are also hardwired for egoism. Human nature doesn't have to be logically consistent, and empathy is completely compatible with genuine egoism. I was also saying that even if it was our nature to be empathetic, that wouldn't mean we *ought* to be empathetic. Dismantling the dogma of "egoism is our nature, be egoistic" and replacing it with "empathy is our nature, be empathetic" is kind of lazy. Neither empathy not egoism have intrinsic value, and any value assigned to them or their results is just that; assigned, arationally and arbitrarily.
Hey Lokeal, could you specify what he says that you think is nonsense and why you think so? I'm really interested in your thought-processes, and to see you explain your thinking would really help me out. Thanks!
DeeAreDee For one, speaking of a fictional place as if a real place, for another, stating that empathy is the opposite of utopia as if absolute fact (Ignoring Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs and the matter of actions that sabotage unity beyond reason being of poor choice). If a concept of utopia had absolutely no suffering what so ever, then it's not the least bit realistic as we are biologically programed for pain (For example growing pains, women on their periods, and the occasional yet pretty much inevitable). If we lose pain completely then we lose much of our basis for appreciating pleasures. The concept of utopia is a philosophical concept and as such it is free to be progressed as a concept for such is an important nature of philosophy. Since the concept of utopia is in fact a philosophical one, then it is simply that much more understandable to say that it is philosophy that we must advance to create such and that philosophy would likely need to be intertwined in the societal structure/culture. If going on Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs as to help dictate the details and form of the societal structure created while popularizing friendly forms of debate and a concept one could call heightened civility to be held within such in the same way that sports today are popularized, then advancement of thought would flow and correct problems as they'd arise with greater ease. If societal structure is built to fully compatible with Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs (And not the modern corporate twist to it that ignores our roots), then importance of unity will take the place of where greed is now (As far as how many hold such within them and are driven by such). For a concept of utopia to be philosophically acceptable then it must prove being worthwhile as a thought construct, after all what philosophy translates to it the love of wisdom and so the truest of philosophical constructs is that of the pragmatic sort, however it is indeed of logic to understand that everything must begin somewhere and therefore leaving room for some theoretical considerations is acceptable so long as room is left for being proven wrong.
Lokeal Votaro I have to be honest with you and state that I have a strong feeling you might be talking about something really irrelevant to the ideas Rifkin is attempting to explain. Can I request that you repeat your objections in different words, in case I am simply misunderstanding you? One confusion of mine is why you brought up Maslow at all- I just don't see it's relevance to Rifkin's thesis, except that it is true that we all have needs and an empathic civilization would be one in which we all have empathy for each other's needs. Thanks a bunch.
DeeAreDee You'd have to first understand how integrating Maslow's Hierarchy Of Human Needs into societal structure would be greatly beneficial as the deficiency needs should be deemed as human rights and treated as such through the shape society takes on. Further more, Spiral Dynamics is another important factor to consider regarding things such as humility, realism, civility, self control, perspectives, and consideration.... This man's words get flawed around 5:00 because he has not done enough research to separate much of fact from fiction and his words go to show such as he goes to mention heaven. Furthermore, he claims that Empathy is the opposite of Utopia and fails to understand the spirit of the word Utopia. The evolution of human consciousness can be explained via Spiral Dynamics, his area of thought is poorly covered.
+Lazar Otasevic That's pretty harsh draconian judgement but I kind of agree with you even though "deserve" has nothing to do with reality. I think our over-population has caused us to devolve in some ways.
+An Evolving if you read again what I said - i expressed a hope of society evolving in which case nobody needs to die. Over population caused nothing to devolve, it just amplified the shitty state of mind that we are currently in. and that could actually speed up evolution.
Lazar Otasevic I believe empathy is a biological trait that some people are missing because of deformed brains which does not allow the front lobes to develop it, or they might have otherwise healthy brains but were raised in an abusive home resulting in a me against the world viewpoint which retards empathy.
+An Evolving Ape Empathy has nothing to do with biological traits, they're controlled by external factors. When you have your whole family slaughtered by someone, you have no empathy in your heart and the person who has inflicted great harm to you doesn't deserve to live.
You'll always be you. That should be enough. As long as you're able to live the way you want, you should appreciate everyone and anything else for every reason that you can.
Most of this, especially what is stated at the end is idiotic gabage, anyone with some intelligence (which the author does not have) knows it's BS. So many fallacies you either know them or do not - for example empathy can easily be a problem for the species. But the start is sound and the main point that humans have high degrees of empathy and that makes us distinct and civilised, should be remembered. Aggression, is JUST as important as empathy, but it takes empathy to know when and how to use it: if we were merely empathetic beings we would have been devoured or destroyed thousands of years ago. Evolution has honed us pretty damn well. Movie assumes we all have the same levels and types of empathy, which is probably the authors sinister agenda (i.e. we are all the same) - we're individuals and we're actually born with different levels of empathy, some have almost none.
I don't think he's trying to show that we're "all the same". Neither is he denying that aggression and narcissism aren't a part of our internal drives. He's arguing based on empirically corroborated psychological theories that it's empathy and a desire for connection that is at our core, and that it is the deprivation of human connection that negative drives arise (to deal with a harsh natural environment, from an evo viewpoint, in all prob). He's not saying we're all the same, he's just pointing to the fact that if anything, we are capable of empathising with the rest of the human race. This is assuming that we actually have some vague empathy for humanity in the first place, and it's circular. Yet I think this discussion is rooted in the assumption that we intellectually desire goodness for humanity, but our emotional commitment to achieving this end is not sufficiently infused with empathy; at least not enough for us to act actively and urgently upon it. Of course he knows that we're still pretty fucked; saturation, spectacle, and a continued distance sits between us as a species. We are also limited by our basic needs and our more complex desires, which consist of both the real and the artificial. The problem, I would add, is that we are no longer able to separate real from artificial or trivial problems; he gives "parenting, education, business practices and government" as the causes of the distorted sense of reality, but there are of course, others. The solution he gives is for us to consciously educate ourselves and widen our perspectives, with the implication that we should somehow act on it. The problem really is that a majority of people need to be convinced of these truths, or at the very least those in power. Of course we all know that these requirements run into major issues. To end it off I really don't see how he's been bullshitting or fallacious in anyway. I do think you should give the benefit of doubt to someone who's done extensive research and be more critical of your own biases and preconceptions first and foremost. Cheers
One major problem: even in a "utopia", it's feasible that we would empathize with the positive experiences of others in a way that created additional beauty, despite having no basis of "unhappiness" against which to compare that beauty. We could at least conceive of a world wherein beauty would simply be infinite, and feedback loops that demonstrate its diversity would be valuable to people as experience, without creating any resentment or envy or jealousy or what-have-you. I'm not saying that such an ideal is possibly achievable, but I am suggesting that it is at least conceivable within the imagination. In other words, empathy is not necessarily dependent on an understanding of death. Positive empathy has been observed in very young toddlers who don't yet realize that creatures die.
I agree with the underlying message here. I believe that if our species is to survive then we must feed and cultivate our natural ability for empathy. I have a caveat though. The author states that "When we increase Selfhood, we increase empathetic development". I believe that these two must be done in conjunction with each other in order to be effective. I'm afraid we might over focus on the empathy side to our own peril. In other words, we have so many "shoulds" around how we're supposed to be. We're supposed to be good, to empathize with others, ect... Often what happens is that we pretend to be good because of self image and social pressure to conform. This has nothing to do with empathy. We must honor all levels of consciousness if we are to promote growth in consciousness. It's like the old saying, good fences make good neighbors. If we squash our emotions in order to "be good", then we get a lot of shadow behavior and resentment. I believe this is part of what we are seeing in our societies now. We need to learn to be individuals and to have healthy boundaries as well. The questions becomes, How to we support people to feel their emotions along their developmental path as they are growing in consciousness in a way that promotes empathy, trust, and connection?
This is not about religous differences, it's about understanding that we're all connected (in many ways). He is asking us to imagine our similarities as a whole, because we are now capable of a collective conciousness. If we collectively do not accept the diffrences we all share, we will continue to find excuses (like religous views) for meaningless wars. Maybe even a war that destroys everyone..
Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides? See also Avadhuta Clown society Contrary (social role) Divine madness (religion) Foolishness for Christ Pueblo clown The Fool (tarot card) Trickster ----- also the indian BIRD GOD Horus the bird... ..... ua-cam.com/video/cy7a4Gkoh-E/v-deo.html =================== 400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny... .
Future progress of the human species can only be achieved through the understanding of the empathic thread that binds us all and everything else to the subjectivity of our own conscience. The building of an empathic civilisation shouldn't be an option but the norm to further develop ourselves and live at ease with our own world. It may not be the solution to everything, but would surely point us in the right direction.
If only everything could be taught this way. I understand and retain more information from these videos than I ever did sitting in a classroom. These videos should be presented to high school kids to help them realize early on these things that all adults should be more aware of. I know I think about these kinds of things all the time and i wish more people would. Through RSA more people can.
''Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good'' - Thomas Paine.
The best development of a more empathetic humanity is the way individuals become more empathetic, by having children. Humanity has to bring artificial life into being to become wiser, so that in time our hyper-intelligent progeny will help us become less biased.
So civilisation is already built on empathy ... in the proper sense, and including the dark side of empathy. What we need is a civilisation built on compassion.
Nietzsche said this many years ago as a point of fact for the task of Becoming: "A thousand goals have there been so far, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the YOKE for the thousand necks is still lacking. The ONE goal is still lacking. As yet humanity has no goal. but tell me, my brothers, if the goal of Humanity is still lacking, is there not also lacking--- Humanity itself?---". The man had the profoundest gift for aphoristic perfection. His paradigm was one of flux.
Nanao Sakakai said, "it is not necessary to survive". Buddha said a human cannot be happy without serving the happiness of others. Until we learn to be risky enough that we are willing to risk our own life/money/well being/shelter/etc. for others (and other beings far beyond human beings, i thrill to the hummingbirds and bushtits that feed on our arbutus and wild lilac flowers.) When we die into the lifeblood of others (the meaning of "sympathetic joy") like a nurse log we are realized.
You need empathy to get yourself out of being killed or preventing someone such as a loved one from killing themselves. The ability allows you to choose the most poignant words to convince the person not go on with an action that could otherwise emotionally or physically harm you. Empathy prevents wars and general fights by allowing people to understand one another and compromise in disagreements. Empathy in a way created and spread philosophies such as your belief in god.
This might just be the most under-rated argument against religion I have ever seen... If we don't believe in any version of an afterlife; then life becomes much more fragile and finite; which would surely leave us with a greater empathic drive?...right?
Whenever I feel down about humanity, this video always makes me feel more optimistic.
Empathy is just the state of being able to understand somebody else's condition and state of being. it doesn't have to be someone's pain or detriment - it can be their happiness. so surely there can be empathy in heaven.
On the whole though great talk
Small problem... There is no heaven. Just saying.
@@tgjorna Not for you. Just saying.
I may be biased but this idea of encouraging compassion and actively serving others without seeking any reward is what the Ten Guru's of Sikhism built up. Sikh Gurdwaras today give out millions of free meals daily to all and anyway and the work is done for free by Sikhs. Its called Seva..amazing!
I would add one item to the video's presentation, and that would be that we seem to enjoy sharing happy events and experiences too. The video goes out of its way to describe empathy as being the sharing of negative experience, and that there is no such sharing when things are good or happy. If we didn't share the happy stuff (and I do mean in a mentally imagined way such as is meant by empathy (which may indeed be defined as sharing the bad stuff (I'm just saying we share the good stuff too))); then there would be no birthday parties, no bachelor parties, no "our songs", no baby showers, no anniversaries, no living vicariously, no Facebook, no virtual utopia, no football fans in the United States, nor soccer hooligans in Great Britain, etc. And I believe that this vicarious sharing of good stuff is good glue too, helps us identify with each other, to hold each other in higher regard, to bond and to love one another! It is significant and that is why I am stressing it.
***** Thanks! I have a presentation tomorrow fos school and I am definitely using this!
RYSE
Thank you! And you are welcome! I checked-out your channel too, and subscribed! But I would advise one thing. That you not overdo the gamers' attitude of taking "head-shots" all of the time, not take them quite so literally, LOL! But the videos do look pretty good as far as the production values go. Sooo, keep on working on them! Looks like you will have a promising future!
RYSE
Oh and I watched this video presentation again and now realize the guy was stressing the negative values of empathy for a reason. Perhaps it was that he wanted to encourage the viewpoint that we can work together as humans, even under negative situations, so that the idea of unifying the world would get across. The positive empathy is still there, and he does talk about it. But he does go way overboard stressing the value of the negative empathy being useful to bring us together. Perhaps from that viewpoint he is right. But I still believe that the positive empathy helps that way too. We share happiness as well as grief. Peace Yo! And good luck on your presentation!
***** Yes I think you're right on that. I'm basically doing the same thing tomorrow, only I'm stressing the positive aspects a bit more because I'm going to speak about the effects of empathy on human interaction.
Thanks again for the tip. :)
Oh and I'll take that head-shot thing under consideration, i see what you mean. Thanks for the tip and the sub! You seem like a nice person :)
RSA is usually amazing
yoooo it's lily!! :DDDD
Imagine finding LilyPichu here lmao.
@@raayandhar6195 Grug?
@@raayandhar6195 pog
@@raayandhar6195 simp
This is beatiful. A tear came out of my eye.
Reminders from Humanities 205! Thank you for showing your styles!
I personally think this is exactly why Psychology is going to be soooo much more respeccted in the future. People nowadays don't even know the difference between a shrink, a psychologist, a psychotherapist and a psychanlist. I believe that in 100 years from now, psychology is going to be key in society.
I love these animated video's that offer a different way of seeing things.
Excellent.
They should use these in schools John Parker don't you think?
I agree, they are so much more interesting and palatable in this format. I love the humour and wish i could make video's like this.
Joan Laine I strongly agree with you! Videos like this give kids something to watch to keep their eyes interested, while presenting ideas and concepts that encourage critical thinking outside the classroom.
Many of us come here knowing that we have lived here many, many times before and aren't particularly worried about being 'recycled'; it's little more taxing than changing clothes. I can empathize with almost anything except the belief that life is a "one and only" experience! TNX for the video!
I think this is among one of the most important videos ever created on UA-cam. Should be shown in the "Moral and Ethics" -subject on all schooles all over the world.
ODTÜ'den gelenlere selam olsun
selamlar hocam
This is so true and a great video! Thanks so much for posting it. Our true nature is be loving and empathic and when we are not, it is abnormal, not normal.
At about 4:06 he says "Every moment is precious".. I was scratching my balls..
"we need to broaden our sense of identity" amen. The core of it all
I totally agree with this video. I've been saying it for years: Once you learn to put yourself into another one's shoes, you'll learn to understand a person's situation and possibly see the world from his or her point of view.
As a side note, it is important to point out that mitochondrial Eve and y-chromosome Adam were separated by thousands of years, and were not partners, as is vaguely implied in the video.
10 years after...lovely and utopic, go joker go!!!!
Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and
middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides?
See also
Avadhuta
Clown society
Contrary (social role)
Divine madness (religion)
Foolishness for Christ
Pueblo clown
The Fool (tarot card)
Trickster
-----
also the indian BIRD GOD
Horus the bird...
.....
ua-cam.com/video/cy7a4Gkoh-E/v-deo.html
===================
400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny...
.
I love this talk, unfortunately I think it also shows precisely the problem with the idea. At 4:35 when it mentions Utopia it explains why there is no empathy in Utopia: Empathy is built where there is an understanding of suffering.
Economic elites live in a near-utopian world. Everything is accessible, achievable, obtainable without struggle. It is rare that these people who dictate so much of life on this planet have empathy (though when they do, for example in the case of Bill Gates, they do an extraordinary amount of good).
I would love nothing more than the Star Trek vision of harmony and resource sharing in the future, but how do we overcome this human flaw that is rooted at the very base of our short mortal lives. Humans have proven time and again they aren't good enough for it.
Well said.
+Chris Rogers Not with this mentality. Now regard the mentality of say the civil rights movement in the USA, the ending of slavery before it, and say we aren't good enough.
Furthermore, our disposition towards violence has changed significantly through the centuries and even decades. Even including the last World Wars, the rate of human aggression and violence has plummeted. Human culture is improving, even if there remains a lot to be done.
This is why we mustn't be fatalistic like you seem to propose. That is unproductive and factually unrealistic.
+Brngsh I'm afraid I disagree entirely. My original statement marks a problem, not a fatalistic attitude. In fact I finish with an open question.
The problem consists in the fact that in all of human history we have embraced tribal structures. There are powerful people at the top and arguably not so important people at the bottom. What I said is that if the people at the top have no empathy then this idea of an empathic civilization doesn't work and that I don't believe we can just hope those people will magically gain empathy. It won't happen.
Democracy was a great first step to empower the people at the bottom, but if we're honest, we have built a new type of feudalism today. Not based on royal blood lines but based on money. Companies buy the opinions of the decision makers on the basis of profit, not people, and as such this system doesn't work.
You're right, humanity is improving but look at the age of your examples! I believe that since the 1970's we have regressed because we are all to comfortable to empathize and also too comfortable to care about doing the right thing.
We need to build a new market democracy, we need to get the money out of politics, we need to make sure that corporations pay their taxes where they do business, and we need to understand that when the little guy needs help he deserves to get some. We have to make helping people cool instead of sneering at those less fortunate and hoping that someday the people at the top will care.
These are things that need to happen from the bottom up, not the top down.
+Chris Rogers Not sure what is happening in our discussion, as I agree with everything you say here.
Although I see no relevance in the age of my examples; we're talking about human advancement and you even mention Star Trek but suddenly a few decades is too much.
There's most definitely a tiny 'upper layer' of powerful selfish people, and you are right: they will not just gain empathy. This needs to be cultivated, as recent science proves. There are actually very effective methods for doing so. And we should, as they will make a huge improvement in how we handle problems like climate change, income disparity, discrimination and so on.
+Brngsh Ha! In a way I think you and I are agreeing on everything. :)
I'm floored! There's only one way to describe this man's rationing: genius. There's also only one way to describe the presentation: creative. Is it a coincidence genius and creativity overlaps?
People always say this is madness or genius, but what they're really saying is: this is creative madness or mad genius. There can be no creativity or genius without risk, and there can be no risk without the presence of madness. Genius, then, is the controlled creativity of madness.
I think the best advice anyone can live by is to focus on your qualities. In some that is more empathic, in others there is a bias to self-interest. But either way, by focusing on your natural qualities it helps others, either directly with kindness and charity, or indirectly by showing others the benefits of enhancing those qualities, it always inspires, even when it is occasionally and inevidably wrong.
Gotta show this to some Ayne Rand fans I know. This challenges most everything she thought was true.
A.G.
I hope they don’t laugh at you for spelling her name wrong
@@imbuffysummers I hope they do. We always need more evidence that they put way too much focus on petty mistakes while missing the big ones.
A.G.
This is my CCSF's class homework tonight. I'm loving this assignment
I appreciate your teacher very much for this
And we are now learning this at CCSF too!
@@adriannguyen116
Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and
middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides?
See also
Avadhuta
Clown society
Contrary (social role)
Divine madness (religion)
Foolishness for Christ
Pueblo clown
The Fool (tarot card)
Trickster
-----
also the indian BIRD GOD
Horus the bird...
.....
ua-cam.com/video/rjpaeeLqo8M/v-deo.html
===================
400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny...
.
So beautifully said. He nailed it. Put so simply and honestly. I hope many many people will watch and share this. It can really be such a wonderful world! This brought me the hope I needed for the earth and all its living creations!
Truer than ever as we see democracy destroyed by populism to deliver greed. I vote for a better future!
The biggest obstacle is that we still haven't completely gotten rid of 'racial ties' and 'religious ties'. Before we try to get rid of national identiites, we need to get rid of those first.
True. Empathy is the foundation of morality. Amazing philosophy!!
By the way, the artist/cartoonist deserves an award.
This is what is needed if we are to overcome, as a human race, the huge adverse social and environmental consequences of CLIMATE CHANGE. Global governance is required for this task and empathy should be an important core value of this governing body.
This video has given me a mental framework for understanding and explaining my connection with the planet. Many younger people seem to think all older people selfishly indulge in ecologically unsound activities because we don't give a damn because we know we don't have need for a life sustaining planet that much longer. I so hate being judged based on others' wrong assumptions and stereotyping.
I struggle to have others understand that most of my waking day is influenced by my awareness of the nature around me. I have to be able to see out the window. I have to be able to walk over uneven terrain on a forest path or beach. When I swim in a lake the physical contact with the water is an affirmation of my connection to it all. The natural sounds all around me deepen the privilege of being alive. Even when a coyote carries off my pet dog I experience it as the natural way of life and death.
When I inadvertently allow a bag of spinach to die in my fridge, my remorse isn't for the dollars I paid, or the guilt I feel about people starving elsewhere - I ache at realising that the environmental harm done to produce that bag of spinach for me, and all the steps taken to get it from the field to me - the miles travelled, the gas consumed, the plastic it was packaged in; was for naught - I failed to respect the price the earth has paid to produce that spinach for me and so my harm is multiplied.
So THANK you for this video I'm sharing it in the hopes that understanding is infectious.
How arrogant to say we are not hardwired for behaviors like aggression, when our survival has depended on it for so long.
+notorius cp The video stated soft-wired, not hard wired.
+Michael Westfall A term which is pretty much bullshit.
+Michael Westfall Yeah, I never got what he meaned with soft-wired. Is it like learned behaviour? Then it's like he is saying empathy is not fundamental in human nature.
+Optimus6128 soft wired means like "default" setting. Another way of thinking about it might be cerebris parabis, or "all things being equal."
I'll show you what I mean. At 2:02 he uses the word soft wired a second time. In his scenario, if all things are equal, we will understand and empathize with the other individual. We'll feel their "Anger, joy, sense of frustration, joy."
Now imagine that things aren't equal. Imagine that the persons "joy" comes from stealing from you, or physically abusing you. Do you think it'd be possible for you to empathize with their joy in that case...?
I hope that explains it.
+Loi Tran Not really going to comment on it, but "cerebris parabis", whatever that is, isn't what you're looking for. "All things being equal" is "ceteris paribus".
I'd love to see how this would ever work
Nothing compares to the feeling of empathy, whether I give it or receive it. It fuels connection, and gives me life! Here's to a civilization built on the ground work of empathy. ;)
This takes a complex topic and unveils it in a very cool way. Redefining "we", and the importance of extending our empathic nature to the entire biosphere is a critical factor for the future of our species. Whether you use quantum mechanics or psychology, "we" are all linked. We need to incorporate that realization in our family, social, business and political lives so our planet can continue to thrive. Well done.
I'd love to see the drawing zoomed out.
I am not sure if empathy is so inbound. One thing that is said in the video, the need to belong (or as I say the need to be appreciated, to be liked, and also the avoidance of acts that will make you be disliked) is something I really believe is very primary and can explain a lot of things about the human condition. Now, empathy I think can be selective. It's hard to imagine it universal. I for example can't feel any empathy for poor people in the street, not that I believe they deserve it (that would be a lazy rationalization) but because I haven't been in that condition, no matter if logically I wouldn't want to be. At the same time, I am very empathic for other kinds of people because they mirror my own experience, like I would get angry and annoyed or sad when people getting bullied, if I had the same experiences at school. Or other experiences which are in my list of fears, would make me feel bad about some people's misfortunes. In the same way, I wouldn't blink about the Haiti earthquakes, it's far away, I haven't been in an earthquake, it's not the kind of misfortunes I am afraid or makes me sad. But here is the thing, many people twitted hopeful messages and such about the victims? I believe, a lot of them did under social mirroring because everyone else does and why am I out? Or the thought that "If I show I care about these people, I will be appreciated". I think there is a social current that feeds our need to be appreciated or be liked, or our fear of being disliked (for example the thought "if I don't send a tweet like my friends, people will think I am not caring, maybe a psycho or egoist"). I have this theory that liking/disliking urges really push humans, and not all behaviours can be explained as empathic, but a lot of things are more egoistic (without this being necessary bad, it's just our nature) than we would like them to be, because if we accept that fact it's gonna paint our selves as more egoistic people than we'd like to imagine ourselves. I also believe people will get mean when they get the green light from society, if society tells them that one person deserves to be treated badly, they switch and do or say nasty stuff. Because then the majority won't dislike them but may even say they did the right thing. I could write examples, but youtube these days doesn't keep carriage return, and this is a big paragraph so I'll stop here for now.
This is exactly what I always think. Good to finally see someone else saying it like it is. People like us (realistic people) are often suppressed by others when we say those things because "we shouldn't point out or admit the ugly egoistic core of those messages, because that would be bad for their image". (thats not a quote from anyone, its just to point out that i often clearly see that people know damn, i say damn well that they only say those 'kind' things because of their ego)
I know you guys commented over a year ago- but if you are at all interested in the science behind this stuff- Stanford University has posted some amazing lectures on Human Behavior Biology- ua-cam.com/video/NNnIGh9g6fA/v-deo.html . He covers everything from the evolutionary and environmental influences, the endocrine/hormonal/genetic factors, right down to the effect that the randomness of Brownian motion has in cell division on the development of our brains and personalities. The TLDW summary could be simplified to 'IF/THEN'...if i was born into your body with your genetic makeup and i experienced every single sensory input that has been experienced by you up until this point- then my brain would make me type the exact comment you did...hahaha...Our ability to feel empathy and handle stress, and so many other things- are beginning to be formulated from the moment we are conceived...our mother's hormones/stress levels/nutrition while we were baking in the womb all affect how we see and feel about the world today. He talks about when and how a child's 'theory of self' is formed (this video calls it 'selfhood'), and how and why we need to learn to avoid 'categorical thinking'. Probably the most rewarding lectures i have ever watched. Your comment about 'EGO' and society 'getting mean' is explained in the lectures- and check out info on Edward Bernays (Sigmund Freud's nephew) for some mind-blowing stuff on the origins of 'controlling the masses'. Hope you check those vids out man....they are long (i ripped them onto my phone and listen in the car) but i think you'll learn a lot about yourself (i know i did)- and hopefully have a deeper understanding of 'empathy'.
Thank you for drawing his lecture out! Bravo!!
Prepare the groundwork for an "Empathic Civilization". Yes. Continue the growth of "Caring". I try to imagine what such a Human Civilization would be like.
If it's true that empathy make the same neurons work in different individuals that are just watching an action, does it mean that who doesn't feel empathy don't have that capability 100% due to "imposed social conventions" or there are also other reasons? Can "empathy" be directly related to "intelligence"?
it depends on what kind of intelligence you are referring too.
The classic definition of intelligence (IQ) only shows your logical skill (ruffly).
But today we see that there are different independent intelligence. Math, language, social, musical etc. etc.
Persons with different mental issues were there is a lack of empathy (sociopaths etc) can still act somewhat normal because of a high intelligence and understanding of socializing. The human mind is very complex which makes it very hard to draw any straight conclusions.
An explanation that is true about one person can be totally wrong about an other
FlyingLotus actually the most common reason is due to upbringing, not total lack of empathy though, for that there would be, as you say some sort of mental disorder
sirspikey that's what i meant by "It doesn't necessarily have much to do with intelligence, mostly just what you are exposed to in your lifetime"
These ideas are amazing. #PREACH!
You don't need ideas in science because everything must be tested. That's why we must design a new society around science not around making profit.
amongthunder how can mirrors be real if our eyes arent real
***** so youre tellin me you can see radio waves, micro waves, infared, gamma rays, ultraviolet and x-rays? damn professor xavier just got a new student in his school
MR QUEEM what drugs were you on when you wrote that comment?
I find this video engaging because we never see this kind of multi-media in movies or on tv. RSA Animate should Win some type of Hollywood Award for today's entertainment on the web. Thank you for reminding us. That if we believe, and we want it back enough, nothing is impossible.
Next big step for mankind is the small step to connect with each other and with the world in which we may live
♡Oh I so love this Art♡
Yes!
The animation does nothing but detract from an important and thoughtful presentation.
Jeremy Rifkin argues that our brains are wired _primarily_ for *empathy* and sociability, not *aggression* and narcism. The human condition (or 'repression of emphathy') by dictates (or fear and social structures) determines our mode or character. ...so _'bring out sociability, to rethink the intstitutions and prepare for an _*_empathic civilisation_*_.'_ he says. Educational and clever Animation!
Is there a transcript of this video?
why do they cram this talk into a highspeed, "please don't blink you'll miss it" 10 minutes?!?!?!?!?! Why does the reader sound like he's on LSD or speed? it's a really beautiful video and a VERY important message.... so why don't you just TAKE YOUR TIME to tell us?
RSA videos are sped up from the actual lecture to become shorts. If you want to listen to the actual lecture, I'm sure you could search for it and listen to him as he does take his time.
trying to get a point across to a fast pace world of people that can't spare more than ten mins... I usually watch them a few times. or as +Eleni mentioned an even better idea :)
every human being should watch this
I think the concept of detribalization covered in this video largely contributed to the deconstruction of patriotism (at least in the U.S.) in younger generations… because we are expanding our empathic connection to others through social media and technology. More than ever before, I can understand the experiences of people across the world from me, with completely different identities from me. I think that is an amazing thing :)
Great take
400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny...
To extend empathy, some ideals need to be forgotten, and this does not just include Government and corporate influence. Religion is at the core of human oppression and has been regressive in creating a utopia. The narrator says that everyone can keep their same beliefs and just extend them, but what about the luddites that do not want to embrace technology and the biosphere as their family? At what point does humanity have to abolish these ideals for the greater good? I like the point he makes about empathy being unnecessary in a utopia; that was eye opening. Maybe one day when our consciousness evolves to that point aliens (inter-dimensional possibly?) will let us contact them
doesn't apply to psychopaths
And honestly, getting hung up on that detail just gets in the way of the message-- we need to see the whole planet as one tribe.
That's MUCH better! Well done! I agree with you, we should completely re-organise the way our world is run. I'm sure that a few intelligent and caring people could make a better world for everyone. Thanks GaiaisOurMother!
Kim nossal has large eyebrows
lmao
Deadass look like giant caterpillars
321 people didn't understand... Not really anything here to like or dislike, either you get what they talk about or you don't...
***** haha, you haven't been involved in scientific researches, that's obvious. You would be amazed how many things were discovered by accident, but of course, not many scientist would admit to that... so I can't blame you.
And just so you know, it wasn't the humans brain they scanned...
If you didn't listen to video I will text it for you:
The monkey was in the MRI eating nuts, then saw the human OUTSIDE the MRI also eating nuts. The scan showed the same results from the monkey when he was eating the nuts and when he was watching someone else (the human) eating nuts.
I think Jake is pointing out that if you take out the buzz words, liberal propaganda, you find a severe lack of intellectual content. From the third minute in, you find that the slithers of respectable material are replaced by the liberal consciousness. Hell the guy even has the gumption to "Guarantee" what heaven is like.
Ran Viz True enough, but I think It was pointed out pretty clearly that it was a subjective theory based on what was said earlier, and that is how most theories are presented. And of course the theory part is definitely up for discussion, but Jake questioned the beginning of the clip based upon something that wasn't even in it...
***** No. He said that the same areas of the brain in the monkey lit up when he was trying to open the nut as well as when he was observing the human being. It has nothing to do with the scientist or his brain.
***** I can understand why you might respond in that way- try listening to his other talks. I'm fairly annoyed by hokey word vomit as well, but he means specific, real things when he says the words you quoted. "Complex energy communications revolutions that annihilate time and space" is referring to very real revolutions that have happened multiple times in human history and which Jeremy speaks about in most of his talks. One example was the industrial revolution- it was an energy-communications revolution, because we began to use new forms of energy as well as having new methods of communication. This mix of energy and communication possibilities (the telephone primarily, though also aircraft and others) worked together to create a brand new kind of infrastructure and a brand new kind of consciousness, since we now had the ability to speak much more easily to many more people- it changed the way we viewed others.
Each time such a revolution happened in human society, our circle of empathy widened. These events annihilated the time and space between ourselves and other humans on this planet. The internet has just done this yet again- you're in the middle of it. I'm empathizing with you right now because of it.
Going from tribe to religion to nation happened for not only the reason that we could reach those people (as mentioned in the video), but also because there was a common enemy. When we get in a war with alien creatures, the world-wide empathic civilization will form as the speaker intended.
This video should have 6.8 billion views.
The psychopaths,the tortures, the sadists, the bullies, the emotional manipulators - they all have empathy: this is what makes their abusive behaviour so effective - they KNOW exactly how you feel. Lack of empathy is not the problem. For instance,what good is empathy without compassion? Jeremy Rifkin needs to go back to the drawing board on this one.
No, just, no. That's so stupid. Empathy means you can feel someone's pain and also understand how they feel, a psychopath is literally someone incapable of feeling others pain. You have no clue what you're talking about.
MuslimGoku I know it sounds stupid but Empathy = the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I'm sure pychos know what pain they put you through - they just don't care. I
XKaffe Intellectual understanding =/= empathy
If you don't FEEL the pain, even if you understand it on an intellectual level, you're not practicing empathy.
The adam and eve thing is very misleading in this video, especially when he adds "the bible got this one right". They would have never met. Their gene markers are common to all of us but that doesn't mean what you may think from watching this video that they made the branch of humans that is all of us.
I think he stated it like this so it would be easier for religious fnatics to embrace the core of his research.
Exactly, the evidence shows that we come form a very small group of human beings, which is really not that surprising considering we came close to extinction several times. It doesn't point to anything like the bible, especially in terms of the time spans at hand, AND in terms of the origin of those few ancectors of our.
you understand the meaning but not the sense.
+Han Zhang Yes, I totally agree. Very misleading indeed, simply incorrect. Either dishonest or stupid. There was never just one human couple who spawned everybody.
It's not even proven that they are as claimed to be.
i think it was just a tongue-in-cheek reference to the allegorical myth structure...not a confirmation of The Bible as literal fact...
Empathy is what creates a Utopia (Heaven) where good will, comfort, pleasure, and harmony are naturally shared.
Apathy is what creates a dystopia where ill will, discomfort, pain, and chaos are unnaturally diseased in humanity.
Sympathy is what is needed for apathy to make its way back to Empathy so that humanity is eased back to bliss!
this is really got me thinking Im going to show this to my sociology teacher for discussion omg
102 için gelenlere selam olsun
Just fluff. Speculative, aspirational, neither here nor there. Fluff.
-
Here's a better idea: The tribes, the religions, the nations, shall struggle to dominate our world; and through struggle, through competition, we get stronger, smarter, more advanced. Either there is an ultimate and eternal winner, and we have the unity you describe (not through obliteration of the self but through obliteration of all others), or else we can compete forever and improve forever.
-
When you are running in a race, you have empathy for the other runners. That's no reason to ignore the starting gun. He who doesn't run, loses. In this world struggle, we can appreciate that our rivals are in the same position as are we, without seeing fit to throw down arms or to kneel.
-
Empathy is very real. But it's a tool to be used so that we can more effectively compete, not a guiding principle or an end in itself. If we are to succeed as a species, we must rationally limit our empathy's effect on our actions to the level of the appropriate group for whatever concern is at hand. This should be the smallest group practicable, because then our share of the spoils is greater.
-
The point is this: Universal empathy is a losing strategy. If we adopt it, then we will be destroyed by those who don't.
Our current system is harmful to all life in earth except to a small number of people but even they are dead inside because they are trapped in materialistic thinking. If we compete against each other then we are not civilized. We just act civilized because we have technology but that doesn't make us civilized. Resource based economy will work because when all people are taken care off there is no need to "cheat" the system because that is just stupid to even think about that when you understand that all people are taken care off not just those with money. Finally if you are still not impressed then you must be aware that the world economy is about to collapse and even if it doesn't collapse soon we will still destroy all life on earth if we continue raping this planet like we do right now just to make profit. We must design a system that is based on PEOPLE and their well being not MONEY and ignore those who don't have enough money. Money is really worthless. Resources are worth most and we destroy them just to make worthless money.
Fingamer™ You aren't making any sort of coherent point.
Where did I advocate for materialism? Loyalty, faith and patriotism aren't materialistic values.
How is competition uncivilised? It's the greatest civilising force of all.
Post-scarcity is impossible - even if all our physical wants are provided for, there are still social, emotional, psychological, moral drives, and between people these are mutually incompatible; so there will still be an impetus to compete. Your view, by the way, that meeting people's material needs will make them happy, is utterly materialistic.
We need a system based not on people or on money but on reality. That means struggle.
Your comment about resources is astoundingly ignorant. Resources are "worth most" because they are practically useful. It's precisely because of this value that we take them, sell them, and consume them. And given that money allows for the purchase of useful resources, how can it be worthless?
WiggaMachiavelli Money allows the purchase of resources because we have decided that. I don't agree that we have a drive to compete. When we change the system and education then people especially those who born in to a new kind of society realize that competing against other people and nature is pointless when we all can work together. We have to do this or else we will go extinct because of this pointless game. In sports it makes sense to compete but why would we need to compete in life?
Fingamer™ It only takes one to make a competition. As long as one person or group is competing, the choice not to compete is really a choice to lose. Those individuals and groups who decline to compete are precisely the ones who go extinct.
WiggaMachiavelli But if the system is designed well enough then there is no benefit for competing against each other
Jeremy Rifkin evidently lived a comfortable sheltered life.
His premise that life is short and tough is true. Life is struggle. Ergo, men ARE aggressive, violent, self-interested, utilitarian, AND empathetic. That's how we survive.
Men will always fight to secure resources and dominate other men so as to impress women. Individuals will always make different life choices. Different cultures will always have conflicting standards and interests. This is the human condition that never changes.
We need a balance of both. Someone who does not consider themselves is always running on empty and is not efficient enough to help others to the best of their ability. Someone who does not consider others and does not have some sense of duty, tends not to like themselves very much, unless they are sociopathic, and no matter how rich they become they will have a void inside that they futily try to fill with all manner of indulgence. The right blend of both is needed.
405 psychopaths disliked this video
2:40 If we weren't wired for aggression, violence, self-interest and utilitarianism, we wouldn't do aggressive, violent, self-interested and utilitarian things. Human nature is what humans do: we literally can't do something against human nature while continuing to be human. Thus empathy and unempathetic behaviour are *both* human nature, because our behaviour doesn't have to be logically consistent. Saying that we are *exclusively* self interested is wrong. Saying that we are *exclusively* altruistic is wrong. Because most people are both altruistic and self-interested. People can be both amazingly generous and brutally sadistic.
And that aside, even if it was our biological nature to be exclusively one or the other, we wouldn't be able to say that we *ought* to be exclusively one or the other. Just because we can be altruistic doesn't mean we ought to be, just like the fact that we can be unempathetic doesn't mean we ought to be. We establish arbitrary values and place them on things like empathy, prosperity, happiness, life, survival, etc..., but it's important to remember that they are *arbitrary*, whether biologically based or not. Natural selection made us embrace both pro-social and anti-social behaviour, but natural selection is ultimately a system of arbitration: it doesn't tell us what's favourable, only what works at self-replicating in certain settings. You can arbitrarily say that empathy is a valuable trait, but somebody else can say that self-interest is a valuable trait with exactly as much validity.
Tl;dr:
"Why don't we expand our 'extended family'?"
"Why should we?"
2nihilistic4life
Your looking at this too pragmatically, human nature and human ability are different things, we have the ability to do many things and act upon them, this does not directly mean these things are directly connected to our hard-wired nature, if you had to cut your hand off that's not a underlining trait of humanity. Human nature includes the collective nature and patterns which humans exert as a species and differentiates culturally and demographically. I believe he's trying to destroy the stigma that its okay to be aggressive to one another, and narcissistic because were humans and is an innate characteristic in our nature, when with effort and focus on communal empathy (not total personality override) that we do not have to bring suffering to our fellow human and empathy could be the main factor of human nature. One could argue natural selection ended a long time ago because anti-social behaviour would have weeded you out very quickly in early human history, natural selection is now obsolete for most developed countries, and so negligible.
Connor Laforge "Your looking at this too pragmatically, human nature and human ability are different things, we have the ability to do many things and act upon them, this does not directly mean these things are directly connected to our hard-wired nature, if you had to cut your hand off that's not a underlining trait of humanity."
If an individual cuts off his hand of his own free will, it's in that individual's nature to cut off his hand. It's in most people's nature to avoid doing stuff like that when they can.
"Human nature includes the collective nature and patterns which humans exert as a species and differentiates culturally and demographically."
Well, when dealing with ethical questions and forming ethical systems, you pretty much have to deal with it on an individual level. It's the individuals who make the ethical decisions, after all. Sure, you can talk about human nature as the broad underlying patterns of behaviour in human society, but the individual might behave very differently to the norm while staying within his individual nature.
" I believe he's trying to destroy the stigma that its okay to be aggressive to one another, and narcissistic because were humans and is an innate characteristic in our nature, when with effort and focus on communal empathy (not total personality override) that we do not have to bring suffering to our fellow human and empathy could be the main factor of human nature."
He's trying to destroy the stigma that we don't have to be selfish by nature and replace it with the stigma that we have to be selfless by nature. Both are false; both groups and individuals are selfish and selfless at the same time, by nature.
" One could argue natural selection ended a long time ago because anti-social behaviour would have weeded you out very quickly in early human history, natural selection is now obsolete for most developed countries, and so negligible. "
Natural selection isn't about anti-social behaviour. Natural selection can select altruistic individuals for reproduction and continue to be natural selection. It's not "survival of the fittest", it's "survival of the most likely to reproduce". "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins is a good read on how natural selection can favour altruistic individuals.
Crispy Slick "Science suggests the human mind gives prefalence to the empathic gene, as generousity is the most valuable trait in human attractiveness. Time shows this trait seems to be most likely to reproduce coming generations."
Which is fine and good. But again, natural selection does not favour the "good" or the "bad". It favours the more likely to reproduce.
"Shane Coleman, by your writings I assume you're philosophic interested as well, I noticed you wrote down '2nihilistic4life.' Im interested, have you ever been depressed? Ever thought about suicide? Is nihilism to you the meaning of life?"
I occasionally get spells of depression-esque apathy lasting up to several weeks, but not often. Suicide is kind of a personal topic. Nihilism is the absence of a meaning of life.
"A nihilistic viewpoint (assuming life holds no meaning) is biased. It's no more different than believing in a deity (God or FSM) or being a gnostic atheist. It is in itself, a logical error. We just don't know yet."
If there is no reason to believe there is a meaning of life, assuming there isn't one is fine. Absence of evidence is, while not evidence of absence, good enough reason to assume absence. Don't believe in things that you have no reason to believe in. Assuming there is a meaning of life is closer to religion than nihilism.
I'm not really seeing how it would be possible for life to have meaning, bearing in mind what life is. We are, essentially, complex computers given the illusion of free will. Outside of the quantum level, we basically life in a deterministic "clockwork" universe, and it's *really* unlikely that we have some influence over the quantum level that grants us some sort of significance. There is no reason to believe that we are anything other than complex biological computers with the capacity for constructing other complex biological computers. Even if there was a deity of some sort, their "objective" purpose would really only be their subjective purpose. God wants you to do this. Cool. So what?
"The human mind and it's experience is what can be considered as truth. It's a fact as in line of it what we know is falsifiable."
Human sensory experience usually isn't reflective of objective reality. We only see a part of the spectrum of light. Did you know you can never actually "touch" anything, but once atoms get close enough together their repulsive forces become so strong that it feels like touching solid mass. Most of everything around you, and you yourself, is empty space. Even our sensory understanding of time is flawed when compared to most models of the larger universe. The human senses do not accurately reflect reality. They create a model based on input and abstraction in the brain in order to further our survival and reproductive capacity.
"As far as I'm concerned, the meaning of life is it's evolution. The flourishing of the triumphant intelligent, sensitive human mind in a ever lifeholding expanding universe, continuing to learn and experience, overcoming our ego."
And why do you think this?
How come it's an assumption to presume there is no meaning of life, since there is no evidence of a meaning of life, but it's not an assumption to believe this?
"For the coming centuries, our increasing human empathy and logic is this evolution, freeing ourself from suffering by leaving behind our logistical errors.
Life might lead to something greater then, I would like to experience that. I'm thrilled of the string-theory and the about-to-be-uncovered theory of everything. This is something to look on too, in my opinion."
Yeah, I look forward to seeing how much we learn in the short life I've been granted.
"Also, stop saying 'ethics' and 'morality.' It is also a human logical error."
When dealing with other people's philosophical systems, I will refer to ethics and morality. Because I really don't see how else to deal with them. That'd be like speaking Arabic to a Japanese speaker. Bear in mind I am highly critical of the notion of objective morality. I subscribe to a sort of Stirnerite egoism.
"Our human intelligence and empathy (mind) will in time show us. "
Our intelligence will show us what is. Our feelings will show us what we want.
"There is no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong,' only individual human experience. Empathy will bring us to that. There is nothing 'wrong' with being intelligent and sensitive. We might only be true right or wrong in the sense of someone else's, which we cannot yet experience. It is the common brain-in-a-tub theory. "
It's relativism, or ethical nihilism, and I completely agree.
Shane, it's evolution!! We aren't the finished item, nowhere near it, that is why we only use a fraction of our brain power. As the speaker so correctly states, if we do not evolve in this way, we are fucked. Can't see how you can argue against that salient fact.
David Yates I'll be dead long before humanity evolves to such a degree, so I don't see why I'm obligated to care about whether or not we'll be fucked in the future (although I do care, to some extent). The human race might not be the "finished product", but I am the most finished product I am ever going to be. The human race might achieve a fully empathetic society, it might achieve amazing things, or it might wipe itself out completely. But realistically, I'll be long dead before most significant changes come around. So I strive to protect my happiness and the happiness of my loved ones above the happiness of others, although I compromise as often as I can because of empathy.
I wasn't saying that we shouldn't be empathetic; I was saying that yes, we are hardwired for empathy, but we are also hardwired for egoism. Human nature doesn't have to be logically consistent, and empathy is completely compatible with genuine egoism. I was also saying that even if it was our nature to be empathetic, that wouldn't mean we *ought* to be empathetic. Dismantling the dogma of "egoism is our nature, be egoistic" and replacing it with "empathy is our nature, be empathetic" is kind of lazy. Neither empathy not egoism have intrinsic value, and any value assigned to them or their results is just that; assigned, arationally and arbitrarily.
Learned more through this video then a a whole year at school.
This makes way more sense to me than anything I've ever heard, ever.
He starts talking nonsense around 5:00
Hey Lokeal, could you specify what he says that you think is nonsense and why you think so? I'm really interested in your thought-processes, and to see you explain your thinking would really help me out. Thanks!
DeeAreDee For one, speaking of a fictional place as if a real place, for another, stating that empathy is the opposite of utopia as if absolute fact (Ignoring Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs and the matter of actions that sabotage unity beyond reason being of poor choice). If a concept of utopia had absolutely no suffering what so ever, then it's not the least bit realistic as we are biologically programed for pain (For example growing pains, women on their periods, and the occasional yet pretty much inevitable). If we lose pain completely then we lose much of our basis for appreciating pleasures. The concept of utopia is a philosophical concept and as such it is free to be progressed as a concept for such is an important nature of philosophy. Since the concept of utopia is in fact a philosophical one, then it is simply that much more understandable to say that it is philosophy that we must advance to create such and that philosophy would likely need to be intertwined in the societal structure/culture. If going on Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs as to help dictate the details and form of the societal structure created while popularizing friendly forms of debate and a concept one could call heightened civility to be held within such in the same way that sports today are popularized, then advancement of thought would flow and correct problems as they'd arise with greater ease. If societal structure is built to fully compatible with Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs (And not the modern corporate twist to it that ignores our roots), then importance of unity will take the place of where greed is now (As far as how many hold such within them and are driven by such). For a concept of utopia to be philosophically acceptable then it must prove being worthwhile as a thought construct, after all what philosophy translates to it the love of wisdom and so the truest of philosophical constructs is that of the pragmatic sort, however it is indeed of logic to understand that everything must begin somewhere and therefore leaving room for some theoretical considerations is acceptable so long as room is left for being proven wrong.
Lokeal Votaro
I have to be honest with you and state that I have a strong feeling you might be talking about something really irrelevant to the ideas Rifkin is attempting to explain. Can I request that you repeat your objections in different words, in case I am simply misunderstanding you? One confusion of mine is why you brought up Maslow at all- I just don't see it's relevance to Rifkin's thesis, except that it is true that we all have needs and an empathic civilization would be one in which we all have empathy for each other's needs.
Thanks a bunch.
DeeAreDee You'd have to first understand how integrating Maslow's Hierarchy Of Human Needs into societal structure would be greatly beneficial as the deficiency needs should be deemed as human rights and treated as such through the shape society takes on. Further more, Spiral Dynamics is another important factor to consider regarding things such as humility, realism, civility, self control, perspectives, and consideration.... This man's words get flawed around 5:00 because he has not done enough research to separate much of fact from fiction and his words go to show such as he goes to mention heaven. Furthermore, he claims that Empathy is the opposite of Utopia and fails to understand the spirit of the word Utopia. The evolution of human consciousness can be explained via Spiral Dynamics, his area of thought is poorly covered.
Bullshit begins earlier, actually.
Some people in this world don't deserve empathy. They deserve death.
+Flaring totally true, lets hope they will evolve in couple of x1000 years, otherwise currently 90% deserve to die
+Lazar Otasevic That's pretty harsh draconian judgement but I kind of agree with you even though "deserve" has nothing to do with reality. I think our over-population has caused us to devolve in some ways.
+An Evolving if you read again what I said - i expressed a hope of society evolving in which case nobody needs to die. Over population caused nothing to devolve, it just amplified the shitty state of mind that we are currently in. and that could actually speed up evolution.
Lazar Otasevic
I believe empathy is a biological trait that some people are missing because of deformed brains which does not allow the front lobes to develop it, or they might have otherwise healthy brains but were raised in an abusive home resulting in a me against the world viewpoint which retards empathy.
+An Evolving Ape Empathy has nothing to do with biological traits, they're controlled by external factors. When you have your whole family slaughtered by someone, you have no empathy in your heart and the person who has inflicted great harm to you doesn't deserve to live.
@CityLoch I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking about this too. It's pretty incredible.
You'll always be you. That should be enough. As long as you're able to live the way you want, you should appreciate everyone and anything else for every reason that you can.
Rothschild should watch this video
Most of this, especially what is stated at the end is idiotic gabage, anyone with some intelligence (which the author does not have) knows it's BS. So many fallacies you either know them or do not - for example empathy can easily be a problem for the species. But the start is sound and the main point that humans have high degrees of empathy and that makes us distinct and civilised, should be remembered. Aggression, is JUST as important as empathy, but it takes empathy to know when and how to use it: if we were merely empathetic beings we would have been devoured or destroyed thousands of years ago. Evolution has honed us pretty damn well. Movie assumes we all have the same levels and types of empathy, which is probably the authors sinister agenda (i.e. we are all the same) - we're individuals and we're actually born with different levels of empathy, some have almost none.
Just the sociopaths and psychopaths that possibly have none, but maybe, just maybe it's deep down inside and unconscious
Some psychopaths have been known to love animals etc, no?
So perhaps some level of empathy is in all of us?
Well that's what I said above, isn't it.
I don't think he's trying to show that we're "all the same". Neither is he denying that aggression and narcissism aren't a part of our internal drives. He's arguing based on empirically corroborated psychological theories that it's empathy and a desire for connection that is at our core, and that it is the deprivation of human connection that negative drives arise (to deal with a harsh natural environment, from an evo viewpoint, in all prob).
He's not saying we're all the same, he's just pointing to the fact that if anything, we are capable of empathising with the rest of the human race. This is assuming that we actually have some vague empathy for humanity in the first place, and it's circular. Yet I think this discussion is rooted in the assumption that we intellectually desire goodness for humanity, but our emotional commitment to achieving this end is not sufficiently infused with empathy; at least not enough for us to act actively and urgently upon it.
Of course he knows that we're still pretty fucked; saturation, spectacle, and a continued distance sits between us as a species. We are also limited by our basic needs and our more complex desires, which consist of both the real and the artificial. The problem, I would add, is that we are no longer able to separate real from artificial or trivial problems; he gives "parenting, education, business practices and government" as the causes of the distorted sense of reality, but there are of course, others. The solution he gives is for us to consciously educate ourselves and widen our perspectives, with the implication that we should somehow act on it. The problem really is that a majority of people need to be convinced of these truths, or at the very least those in power. Of course we all know that these requirements run into major issues.
To end it off I really don't see how he's been bullshitting or fallacious in anyway. I do think you should give the benefit of doubt to someone who's done extensive research and be more critical of your own biases and preconceptions first and foremost.
Cheers
1000 times watching it and it's still bring tears into my eyes. So close, but so far...
One major problem: even in a "utopia", it's feasible that we would empathize with the positive experiences of others in a way that created additional beauty, despite having no basis of "unhappiness" against which to compare that beauty. We could at least conceive of a world wherein beauty would simply be infinite, and feedback loops that demonstrate its diversity would be valuable to people as experience, without creating any resentment or envy or jealousy or what-have-you. I'm not saying that such an ideal is possibly achievable, but I am suggesting that it is at least conceivable within the imagination. In other words, empathy is not necessarily dependent on an understanding of death. Positive empathy has been observed in very young toddlers who don't yet realize that creatures die.
Trump is really a step back in this regard
Pidols so are you for mentioning it
And he knows, now that Americans Know! Think logically.
The more you think about this stupid game called our society the more insane it becomes
Bet you play checkers
I play Chess! Sheep no more 🐑 baaahhhhh
I agree with the underlying message here. I believe that if our species is to survive then we must feed and cultivate our natural ability for empathy. I have a caveat though. The author states that "When we increase Selfhood, we increase empathetic development". I believe that these two must be done in conjunction with each other in order to be effective. I'm afraid we might over focus on the empathy side to our own peril.
In other words, we have so many "shoulds" around how we're supposed to be. We're supposed to be good, to empathize with others, ect... Often what happens is that we pretend to be good because of self image and social pressure to conform. This has nothing to do with empathy. We must honor all levels of consciousness if we are to promote growth in consciousness. It's like the old saying, good fences make good neighbors. If we squash our emotions in order to "be good", then we get a lot of shadow behavior and resentment. I believe this is part of what we are seeing in our societies now. We need to learn to be individuals and to have healthy boundaries as well. The questions becomes, How to we support people to feel their emotions along their developmental path as they are growing in consciousness in a way that promotes empathy, trust, and connection?
This is not about religous differences, it's about understanding that we're all connected (in many ways). He is asking us to imagine our similarities as a whole, because we are now capable of a collective conciousness. If we collectively do not accept the diffrences we all share, we will continue to find excuses (like religous views) for meaningless wars. Maybe even a war that destroys everyone..
You lost me when you said the Bible got this one right. You just contradicted your religious tribalism thing by negating other religions. SMDH
Heyoka - 3 basic types / good (Empath) , bad (Narcissists) , and
middle of the road / sacastic-demoing both sides?
See also
Avadhuta
Clown society
Contrary (social role)
Divine madness (religion)
Foolishness for Christ
Pueblo clown
The Fool (tarot card)
Trickster
-----
also the indian BIRD GOD
Horus the bird...
.....
ua-cam.com/video/cy7a4Gkoh-E/v-deo.html
===================
400 yrs ...UK and Queen FAIL , crimes against humanities ... tyranny...
.
This guy's ideas have holes, fundamental holes, you could drive a car through.
+Jeremy Mine Care to extrapolate on this?
Encuentro Should have asked me when I posted. Unwilling to re-watch.
Jeremy Mine Right, my guess - you have absolutely nothing to say on this matter.
Encuentro Bad guess, I'd guess.
Encuentro Now kindly fuck off.
Future progress of the human species can only be achieved through the understanding of the empathic thread that binds us all and everything else to the subjectivity of our own conscience. The building of an empathic civilisation shouldn't be an option but the norm to further develop ourselves and live at ease with our own world. It may not be the solution to everything, but would surely point us in the right direction.
If only everything could be taught this way. I understand and retain more information from these videos than I ever did sitting in a classroom. These videos should be presented to high school kids to help them realize early on these things that all adults should be more aware of. I know I think about these kinds of things all the time and i wish more people would. Through RSA more people can.
This is being shown in college classes now at least, that's why I'm here.
''Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good'' - Thomas Paine.
The best development of a more empathetic humanity is the way individuals become more empathetic, by having children. Humanity has to bring artificial life into being to become wiser, so that in time our hyper-intelligent progeny will help us become less biased.
I wish it zoomed out at the end and we got to see everything he drew
So civilisation is already built on empathy ... in the proper sense, and including the dark side of empathy. What we need is a civilisation built on compassion.
They need to do lessons in school like this.
everybody in the world needs to see this video
Nietzsche said this many years ago as a point of fact for the task of Becoming: "A thousand goals have there been so far, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the YOKE for the thousand necks is still lacking. The ONE goal is still lacking. As yet humanity has no goal.
but tell me, my brothers, if the goal of Humanity is still lacking, is there not also lacking--- Humanity itself?---". The man had the profoundest gift for aphoristic perfection. His paradigm was one of flux.
Nanao Sakakai said, "it is not necessary to survive". Buddha said a human cannot be happy without serving the happiness of others. Until we learn to be risky enough that we are willing to risk our own life/money/well being/shelter/etc. for others (and other beings far beyond human beings, i thrill to the hummingbirds and bushtits that feed on our arbutus and wild lilac flowers.) When we die into the lifeblood of others (the meaning of "sympathetic joy") like a nurse log we are realized.
You need empathy to get yourself out of being killed or preventing someone such as a loved one from killing themselves. The ability allows you to choose the most poignant words to convince the person not go on with an action that could otherwise emotionally or physically harm you.
Empathy prevents wars and general fights by allowing people to understand one another and compromise in disagreements. Empathy in a way created and spread philosophies such as your belief in god.
Yes, lets prepare the groundwork for an empathic global civilisation.
My absolutely FAVORITE video.
This might just be the most under-rated argument against religion I have ever seen...
If we don't believe in any version of an afterlife; then life becomes much more fragile and finite; which would surely leave us with a greater empathic drive?...right?
Holy.....the brilliance of this video.
This has opened my eyes to what needs to happen
It makes me think. Could this universe just have popped out from nothing. This world is amazing.
Love it...we are all humans..leaves of one tree, drops of one ocean...citizens of mankind...:-) brilliant work..