GAS and Buddhism

[Roger Hicks]

I wonder what would happen if I considered having children along the same lines as people currently trade 'carbon credits'. That is, my lack of producing children should earn me something, because my progeny will never exist, and hence, will never consume earth's valuable resources.

Dear Bill,

Unfortunately for you (and me -- I have no children either) the same argument can be reversed. Because we have no children, to produce the goods we consume in our unproductive old age, we should be taxed higher, to support those who are selfless enough to breed. This is, in fact, what seems to have happened for the last 100 years or more.

Which demonstrates the dangers of over-simplifying arguments.

Cheers,

R.

 

[oscroft]

I am more of a neo-Objectivist. I have no opposition to religion, because I recognize that reason itself requires faith as well. I am Catholic.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that - "I have no opposition to religion" sounds like a bit of an understatement for a Catholic. Do you mean something like you are culturally Catholic but not a follower of Catholic religious beliefs? Or something else?

[PS: Excellent thread - I'm enjoying reading it]

 

[Nh3]

I differ from nihilists in many ways. You might want to look up the definition of 'nihilism'.

I take elements that interest me from philosophical systems such as Epicureanism, Objectivism, neo-Objectivism, Eclecticism, and so on. Furthermore, I am more interested in the classic branches of philosophy such as metaphysics, epistemology, and logic, less so in ethics. Not to say that ethics are not interesting or important, but to say that I find them difficult to read.

What I relish, my friend, is my life, which I strive to fill with pleasure - not pleasure at the expense of another's pain, but simply pleasure for its own sake. I have always failed to grasp the concept of self-enforced asceticism as a route to a 'better' happiness than the one I experience by indulging myself as and when I can.

I realize that the esteemed Roger Hicks feels I know little of Buddhism, but as I stated - I know more than he thinks I do. And I do know what nihilism is - I have exhibited none of its characteristics that I am aware of.

Unless, of course, you are using 'nihilist' as a pejorative, in which case, for shame. Nihilism is a perfectly acceptable philosophical system - just not one to which I adhere.

I usually use the word nihilism because its the best way to bring out those "pseudo philosopher" out of their shell and show that their opinion is merely regurgitation of someone else's thoughts and in the process let them throw around some philosophical jargon - and eventually reaffirm the old adage that, "little knowledge is dangerous". 🙂

Its not your fault, its those books that you have read...

 

[Rey]

A dictator is an absolute ruler who takes power, usually by force or subterfuge. A dictator is, usually, a brutal leader. There are very few benign dictators, if any. The Dali Lama is a leader of a theocracy. He was chosen at birth by other religous leaders who had no blood or economic ties to his family. I'm afraid Roger is right on this one, your rhetoric gets you in trouble.

 

[literiter]

GAS-Gear Acquisition Syndrome:

The most harm must come mostly to ourselves. (The term "hungry ghost" comes to mind. ) The reason we try to find joy in possessions may be because we find little joy in anything else. To possess becomes a spiritual quest in itself, in the place of what we cannot see.

The quest is endless because to possess is not really satisfying in itself, but this must be found out personally, in unique ways. Unique to us individually.

I think bmattock will come to this conclusion eventually (perhaps he has already). His postings are brilliant in many subtle ways, he can figure this out. Let him be.

 

[visiondr]

It'll be a bit of a bummer if the Buddhists turn out to be right and you keep getting reborn into a worse and worse world 😉

Damn, now that's funny!

 

[Rey]

Websters definition of "dictator" is: "a person ruling absolutely and often brutally and oppressively" Brutal and opressive are in the dictionary description because that what dictators usually are. "King" is described as a male soveriegn, there have been brutal kings, but the term is not loaded like "dictator". You can squirm all you want on sematics, you and the Communist Chinese Government are likely the only people on earth who think of the Dali Lama as a dictator.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Ah, but if we accept that argument, then we are back to consumerism being seen as a good thing.

Dear Bill,

No.

There is a difference between growing food and, let us say, making mobile telephones or designer trainers.

A body of people in work, who have not retired yet, is required to grow food, make shoes, cut and weave cotton. The old must necessarily either rely on the young (whom they must support until they reach their productive years, as well as breeding them in the first place) or work until they drop.

I'll go for the former, thanks all the same.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rey]

This is useless. Have fun in your little world of semantics. We all know your intent.

 

[Roger Hicks]

An absolute ruler is a dictator - what other word would you have me use?

Dear Bill,

There is a major difference between the theoretical powers that can be exercised by a monarch (and His Holiness is ex officio King of Tibet, though he was not happy with the title when I discussed this with him) and the powers that the monarch can exercise in accordance with a constitution.

It is you who are obfuscating and conflating, not I. You wish to define a monarch as a dictator. Have you ever looked at the theoretical powers of the British monarch? Would you therefore call Elizabeth II a dictator? Because if you did, you'd be a laughing stock.

The Dalai Lama has tried, and continues to try, to reduce the secular or temporal reliance others place in him (there's not a lot he can do about the spiritual reliance). To this end, he sponsored the constitution. Is this the action of a dictator? Or of a constitutional monarch?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Agrarian subsistence living? Where does photography come into play here? Shall we abandon our electrons and our chemical romances and retreat to the yurts?

I can appreciate those who choose such an existence, but I like McDonalds too much to give it up. And all that that implies.

Dear Bill,

You are cutting the ground from under your own feet.

The old rely on the young in a subsistence economy, and rely on them still more in a consumer economy.

The penalty for not having children should therefore be much more severe in a consumer economy than in a subsistence economy. The more rabid the consumerism, the higher the penalty must be. You may wish to be even more highly taxed in order to create more consumer rubbish; again, I prefer the other route.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Rey]

Funny, based on the quantity and quality of the contributors to this thread who have told you that you are wrong, I would assume that you are losing the "argument". You are alone here, when arguing this matter. Your malevolence is visible to us all, in spite of your sematics.

 

[oscroft]

I am a devout Catholic, and further, I am an active member of the Knights of Columbus, who dedicate themselves to charity.

I freely accept that my beliefs could be wrong - and I certainly don't have any desire to press them down upon others. Religion is based on faith and free will. Compelled faith is no faith at all.

So when I say I have 'no opposition to religion', I am saying that religion - all religion - is perfectly acceptable to me if a person claims it as their personal philosophy. Pure Objectivism finds religion to be false, based on lack of proof.

Ah, OK, thanks for the explanation

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Dalai Lama is not monarch, he is absolute leader.

Dear Bill,

He is not a monarch? Why not? Monarchs can succeed in many ways, including election or recognition as a reincarnation. The value of monarchs or the means of their succession is irrelevant to their status as monarchs.

Your understanding of his constitutional position is not the same as his, or mine, or of the Tibetan people, or of the vast majority of writers on Tibetan politics and history.

There are also absolute monarchs, I hasten to remind you. In fact, most monarchs start out that way; it's practically part of the job description.

Then, they are either forced to give up part of their power (from Magna Carta in 1215 to King Gyanendra in Nepal recently) OR they voluntarily relinquish some of those powers (Tenzing Gyatso, XIV Dalai Lama, springs for some reason to mind).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Rey]

Ah,

You have a Galileo complex, now I understand. Regarding your recent statment of support, many, including me, supported you when you legitimately argued for your right to GAS. Many others, me included, support you in your right not to have children. Now, regarding your promotion of the Dali Lama as a dictator. Any takers?

 

[oscroft]

Hi Rey,

Funny, based on the quantity and quality of the contributors to this thread who have told you that you are wrong, I would assume that you are losing the "argument". You are alone here, when arguing this matter. Your malevolence is visible to us all, in spite of your sematics

Philosophical discussion isn't about winning or losing, and not about who tells whom they are wrong. And I think it is unconstructive (no, downright rude) to dismiss another person's viewpoint as "malevolence". I personally disagree with much of what Mr Mattocks has said, but I'm grateful for his openness and honesty in sharing his opinions with us.

 

[Rey]

Funny, Had I said that the Pope was a dictator, I'm sure I would receive alot more negativity than Mr Mattocks has received. By the way, I did not say he was evil, but I do beleive that is views on the Dali lama are self evident

 

[Al Patterson]

Funny, based on the quantity and quality of the contributors to this thread who have told you that you are wrong, I would assume that you are losing the "argument". You are alone here, when arguing this matter. Your malevolence is visible to us all, in spite of your sematics.

I know where the malevolence resides, and it is NOT all coming from Bill. Most of it has been directed towards him. Just because he doesn't share your elitist view of the world, you must pound him into submission.

 

[Al Patterson]

I wonder what would happen if I considered having children along the same lines as people currently trade 'carbon credits'. That is, my lack of producing children should earn me something, because my progeny will never exist, and hence, will never consume earth's valuable resources. Like shutting down polluting factories in exchange for money that others would pay me for the right to pollute in my place.

If I presume I would have had four children (I come from a family of four children, and two of my three sisters had four children - one had two children AND I am Catholic), then by not reproducing, I have saved the world the consumption that at least four humans would inflict.

Furthermore, my gift keeps on giving exponentially. My sister's children are themselves producing children at this point. So I can presume that any children I might have had would likewise produce more than their fair share.

Four children having four children is 4+16 or 20 people in just the second generation. The third, in say 100 years, would be 16*4 or 64 + 16 + 4 or 84 humans!

I have saved the world of the consumption of 84 humans in the next 100 years. I am going to buy a new lens to celebrate. And some would say I have too many lenses.

Frankly, I think I'm giving back on an unprecedented scale, regardless of my level of consumption.

Well said! Funniest thing I've read in quite some time...

 

[Rey]

Ok,

I don't think that you are an evil person. Having a malevolent intent towards one thing or one idea does not make a person evil. If you believe that my intent was to cast you as an evil person, it was not, and I don't think you are. I have malevolent thoughts all of the time, especially concerning certain politicians in this country (USA). But I do not understand such intent towards a practicioner of peace.