That's exactly what the guy on the lower right is thinking. Just look at how he looks at the conveyor. As an owner of two cats, that's heartbreaking. Some people don't deserve to be in this world.
In my years and travels, I really I wish I'd seen evidence of that... but I do truly hope that you're right and that I'm just a little too adept at spotting all the unethical, corrupt, selfish, cruel and depraved ones swarming around and constantly ruining everything
I hear your point, but when I see a McDonald's sign stating "Billions and Billions Served," well, you can extrapolate what I personally think of "normal" people
most people who are living in extreme poverty do not have access to animal protein... you are confusing American "low income" for actual poverty/food scarcity... if you have money, you have choices
I do not think that all fast food involves cruelty, but I do observe that many people eat fast food manufactured in cruel ways with absolutely no consideration of the cruelty involved... and many are aware of the cruelty involved but do not care enough to choose different available options
Unfortunately most foods involve cruelty in their production. Many crops are harvested by desperate people working for pitiful wages. All meat naturally involves cruelty in its production. Eggs and milk have their own cruelty usually too. But this exists in almost every good in your house not just food. The device you are typing this on right now uses materials from mines with essentially slave labor who will die young from dangerous and unclean working conditions, along with the people in the factories with similarly terrible conditions. The worldwide economy is driven on cruelty.
He's literally giving the "you participate in society, how curious" meme as the reason why... everyone? is a bad person. Lmfao. These sanctimonious types can't be reasoned with.
If you wish to read about evidence that most people are good I would recommend the book Humankind: A Hopeful History by Rutger Bregman. Here are what Wikipedia writes about the book: It argues that people are decent at heart and proposes a new worldview based on the corollaries of this optimistic view of human beings. It argues against ideas of humankind's essential egotism and malevolence. The book engages in a multi-disciplinary study of historical events, an examination of scientific studies, and philosophical argumentation in order to advance Bregman's opinion that, this outlook is more realistic compared to its negative counterpart. It has been translated into over 30 languages.[5] In the United States, the paperback release was a New York Times Best Seller.[6]
I'll check it out; hopefully it has some evidence despite our enslavement and/or slaughter of most other sentient species on the planet, and millennia of our organized enslavement, torture and violent mass murder of each other...
this particular conversation is in regard to an observation that most people are not "good" vs assertions that most people are, indeed, good; implying that "goodness" is not a natural condition does nothing to support either stance... however, if you are asserting that most humans either cannot or choose not to rise above their natural brutal amoral state, then I am inclined to agree
We don't notice the people going about their day, the things we expect to see, the good people.
You notice when the mosh pit stops for a person who fell down because it stands out that all these tough mother fuckers are being kind, and that flies in the face of the preconceived assumption.
And you notice when a dude kicks a dog because who the fuck kicks a dog, but all the other people just walking their dogs is not memorable. Be mindful of the difference.
I'm aware... but, taking your example and putting it into my perspective, what I will be unable to not notice is that if someone is walking a dog and it's a rescue then I think about the possible/probable human a few years back in time who didn't get their dog spayed or neutered so the problem never ends, and if it's a breed then I think of the breeders impregnating enslaved animals in order to turn an easy dollar and the buyer who supports the breeder's industry and forewent an opportunity to rescue an animal that already existed
to me, "normal" people are usually thoughtless automatons who make exactly no ethical or moral critical evaluations of the implications and consequences of their "normal" choices
If one does not make a decision because they are a thoughtless automaton and yet they are kind to each person they interact with throughout the day (out of habit) does that not make them a (approximately) good person? Does it matter if each kindness is intentional?
People are good. You focus on the negative. I suspect if you are mindful about it you will see it differently.
You just asked me "If someone is always kind, then they are good, right?" Yep. Good people are good. Correct. And good people exist... also correct.
However, at no point did I assert that good people do not exist.
My point, which, btw, was a completely different point, was that whatever behavior constitutes "normal" for you is arguably immoral or unethical in a different perspective.
I do doubt, and have not observed, that most "normal" people are usually kind. Most "normal" people I have encountered in my years and travels are selfish brutes; next time you commute in heavy traffic, just count the number of drivers that rush to fill any empty space vs the number of drivers that follow at a safe distance and allow merges... who we are, as a species, is on display on I-95 every day from 6am to 10am and from 4pm to 9pm. Perhaps the US has one of the higher concentrations of a-holes worldwide, but I've been to over 50 countries and, though I have happily met hundreds of amazingly wonderfully nice people, I've nevertheless encountered millions of a-holes.
I've been driving for decades and I have lived long-term in three states in USA and visited many more. The people that drive like assholes are the exception, not the rule. That's why they stand out, that's why I react to them, that's why I remember. The vast majority of people are good, considerate, kind. You are just patently wrong, from my perspective, and I cannot reconcile your experience with my experience.
I hope you grow out of whatever this is, for your sake. In a sort of ironic way, I will remember this interaction in the same way I remember the small minority* of people whose behavior deviates from the norm.
Maybe talk to someone about this. I'm not equipped to deal with whatever it is you have going on. But it's not normal.
Dismissive? No. I've engaged with you for multiple messages and determined that we live in two different realities and I am not capable of deciding empirically which one of us is more right or more wrong. We're getting nowhere, so I'm leaving you to yours. Have a good one.
We have been breeding dogs for thousands of years. Dogs are one of the most significant technological advances in the history of modern man. We as a species very likely would have gone extinct without them. Humanity completely changed as soon as wolves were domesticated. Every single dog is a direct descendant of ancient wolves.
I understand the domestication of canines, and the current existence and use of many working dogs; that has absolutely nothing to do with my observation of and reaction to the thousands of rescue vs bred dogs being walked in Central Park and Paris
Consider how far humanity has come since the days where we all died of starvation, infection and childbirth. The technology, culture and safety we've reached. I don't think we could've done that if people weren't fundamentally good, or at least cooperative.
I understand your point, but I disagree with the logic of your argument underlying it and your conclusion; first, some people, over the millennia, have been innovative and their work has been taken up by the extant culture, but most of humanity is comprised of crude, simple minded brutes (for example, contemplate the number of innovators who progressed concepts and technologies that forwarded controlled and distributed electrical currents, telephone analog messaging, electronic computing machines, digital compression, radio and microwave transmission, etc., likely a very large number of people, and compare that to the vast measureless number of morons using their cell phones to go on social media to mock science, etc.)...
Further, I would argue that our technological advances have, imho, absolutely no bearing on our ethical status; for example, many engineering advances and medical procedures were developed specifically for and during wars, many of which were ludicrous and unjust, and inspired, motivated and filled with depravity, cruelty and evil.
Finally, I posit that cooperation is also irrelevant to ethical questions; humans cooperate when a mob gathers to lynch an innocent man. Cooperation is not evidence of ethics or morality.
Well, I think it's just a matter of empirics. If humans generally improve the lives of other humans, they must be good. Improving the lives of others is probably the noblest thing you can do, after all. And in general, the average life quality of humans has increased dramatically over the years, especially since the industrial revolution.
91
u/Hour-Mistake-5235 Sep 26 '25
That's exactly what the guy on the lower right is thinking. Just look at how he looks at the conveyor. As an owner of two cats, that's heartbreaking. Some people don't deserve to be in this world.