Empathy declining.....

There’s some confusing language in this thread, I want make sure it’s said: We’re animals, literally.

Morality is a product of man, and man is natural, thus morality is natural.

Morality is a measure of good / bad in relation to objectives / values / priorities.

Whether a set of objectives / values / priorities truly reflects the interests of the individual and/or of the community is another matter.

As we all act for our own self interest, this rationally ought be the measure. Oneself.

We are more powerful than other animals (that we’re aware of), thus our potential scope of actions is wider than other animals. This means we can do worse shit, and better shit.

We’re still children, and give power to ignorant children, they’re bound to fuck up. Thus, to look back on our acts, there’s gonna be lots of bad shit. However, we learn from our mistakes, and can do better in the present / future.

As our species matures, the balance between doing bad to doing good (in relation to our interests) will shift from the prior to the latter.

By the fact that our actions upset us, means they’re undermining something we value. This is real. Your feelings are real.

Thus, we can learn from these feelings, and start to act differently. We need not hurt each other and ourselves.

We protect ourselves, but it’s for a better day. A day where we don’t need to guard our hearts. To pace oneself, is not to say the goal is fading. We are frail beings, and we’ll break under too much pressure.

R,S,B

Ah, so there is some unique things to human beings compared to all other animals where an artificially simulated and matrix like organization as an enclosed anomaly isn’t so far fetched.

Thanks for playing.

Did that hurt when you pulled that out of your butt?
What does that have to do with what I have been saying?

Apparently you’re unable to follow point.

No surprise there.

Follow point? Are you a Pointer? I know the canine breed, I did not know humans were Pointer like as well…

Your unique human behavior, actions are just evolved complex natural behavior. Mental control over herd or pack is natural for leaders to do. Humanity just makes it more complex, not artificial. Your matrix is a natural behavior. Religion is natural.
Herds believe their leader is the biggest bad ass of the herd. They don’t know for sure, they just believe the bluster and noise the leader makes. Humans do this with religion and leaders. The bluster, noise and violence which is only more complex and evolved than animal.

There is a difference between innate and natural behaviours , and those behaviours that are modified by learning and culture.
You need to read back my post above, as I do not think you get what I am saying here.

This comes from the rather insulting remark you made above;

I think you need to take a chill pill and step back on what you were thinking here.
Morality is a cultural phenomenon, like other socially defines characteristics of humans, it distinguishes us from animals as such things as morality, politics, literature, science, and so on are extra-somatic abstractions that have defined rules, and concepts that go beyond the gross animal instincts.
That is why it is plug stupid to call an animal cruel as animals do not have the moral landscape that culture gives us. You might as well say that horses have a Prime Minister, that they enjoy a good read, or experiment to find the next best grazing (to follow the list above).

Your remarks are becoming more and more unhinged.
Religion is not Natural.
You are not in a position to say that the “herd” thinks - if indeed it thinks at all about its “leader”.
You are committing what is called the naturalistic fallacy. Maybe you should look it up?

Perhaps you should study it more. Perhaps you should read slowly and without bias.
Your post declares that animals have no individuality or thought. This is dead wrong. Even the tiny Lovebird has individuality in it’s flock. It will have preferences and behaviors that give it individuality. The larger animals will have more visible differences.
If a herd animal did not think to some degree then it could not be individual. A leader of the herd must convince the herd of its dominance, it must have followers. Its not a complex thing, it is a simple survival thought pattern an instinct that alters in each leaders technique. Belief in leaders is a natural species survival instinct. Humans as sentient animals just make that instinct more complex . Religion is a technique to create or get followers. It is a natural evolution of simple animal instinctual survival belief.

Does anyone even care if empathy is declining?

Majority rules, right?

Empathy declines in masses. In less populated areas its still a staple.
Do I care if a million people in one metropolis do not care about each other? No. And it is the cities that are declining.

I not saying anything of the kind; i’ve not even implied that animals lack thought or individuality. You are just going down a cheap straw man route. And no part of your post supports what you have said. Individuality and thought are not morality. You are just confused.

I am telling you that morality is human, and so you cannot accuse an lion of cruelty, it does not have a system whereby its actions are judged by god or by law. Morality is not instinctual. Every child who pulls the legs off a spider one-by one to see how it reacts has to ‘learn’ that it is cruel.
The cruelty you see is anthropomorphic, and animals are innocent of your sense of right and wrong.

If a herd animal lacked any thought of herd then it would keep the herd from food, from shelter, from water. A basic herd morality exists in animals. Cripes do more studying and less searching for what suits your beliefs.

There is no evidence that animals conceptualise in abstract ways. The “herd” is an idea that no herd animals has to have to do what humans like to call herd behaviour. A sheep does not have a reason to follow other sheep, it does it as part of its behaviour - its not a conscious choice in the sense that it understands why it does it. Bees do the same, as do ants.
Morality is not the same as behaviour. You are just applying a childish anthropomorphisation. Ducks are not like Donald; Mice are not like Mickey; and rabbits are not like Bugs Bunny.

You last sentence is arrogant bollocks. I’d not trade my lifetime’s thinking, studies and qualification for yours to save my own life.

Waste of skin and brains.

A natural behavior is basic.
A basic natural behavior to herd, flock, is species protection and individual protection. B A S I C = B A S E o r B E G I N N I NG. H u m a n m o r a l i t y s t e m s f r o m t h e b a s i c h e r d b e h a v i o r.

Is that slow and basic enough for your brain to handle?

Little things please little minds.
In the real world there are complexities.
Your mummy should have told you that.
Just because you can put it in your mouth, does not make it food.
And just because a pussy cat makes a noise, that does not make it a sentence.
And just because animals are pretty, it does not mean you can marry one have have its babies.
Animals are not the same as humans.

Oh so humans just magically appeared on this planet. We share no DNA, no common physical organs, blood, nutritional needs etc.

naturalheightgrowth.com/wp-c … etuses.png

Obviously we all have DNA.
Are you trying to make a point?
Morals are not in the DNA, they are in culture.
If you take a baby out of a Muslim family and raise it in a Buddhist one, the baby is not Muslim; and thus is taught the moral lesson of Buddhists and not the moral lessons of Islam.
Try and use your brain.

The genetic potential for empathy remains constant. If the application of empathy is declining, it is due to changes in the moral landscape, the culture and the learning process.
You can see the drop in empathy since 1980 when the right-wing and economistically obsessed political groups got control of western thinking. Since that time empathy has declined and the cult of the individual has increased. People think more of themselves and less about their community.
This cannot be explained by genetics in ANY WAY.
If you think it can then it is clear you have precious little understanding of evolution and genetic determinism.

I am going to do both of us a favor. You are going on my ignore list. You ignore what is actually written anyway and I am about to describe you in ways that would get me banned, Good day.

The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history and megacity history.

Globally the cities are rising, not declinig, not yet. In the year 2007 the global city poulation reached the mark of 50% (for comparison: 1950 it was 30%, and 2050 it will probably be 70%). But most cities of the Occidental culture are declining.

That is is very depressing. The future looks bleak.

Well done. Run away! Run away from the truth, and run away from your own confusion.