Will mankind ever evolve past exploiting the less fortunate for gain, and profit?

Compared to other species that have flourished on earth for millions of years, humans have only been here for such a small time (like 200,000 years?) so it makes sense our behavior is so infantile and selfish.

I don’t have the answers, but I can only hope after we’re dead and gone, humans will become more and more progressive and really understand that we’re alone and have to do things together.

@Blackberry nice answer, wonder how many millions of years that will take?

Yeah, but its the same throughout the animal kingdom, alpha males fight to earn the right to fuck all the women. That’s just the way of things, survival of the fittest, the meek shall inherit bugger all!

@ucme So we are no better that our animal counterparts?
Crush the weak and less fortunate for whatever we can get type thing?
Boy we have come a long way, NOT!

@SQUEEKY2 Well, we moved on from rocks & leaves to quilted, velvety soft paper.
We have outstandingly clean arseholes as a result, progress enough :D

LOL @ucme I guess you have a point, that is enough progress for this million years.

Well can we start exploiting the more fortunate? The very poor and the very rich each take turns exploiting each other.

Humanity walks a fine line between altruism and selfishness and has since the beginning. We cannot expect it to change unless we change this behavior in ourselves.

Given that man is the only animal driven by ego and greed it is doubtful we will ever evolve past our current state of mind. As always their will be more enlightened individuals but until the collective consciousness rises above the egoic drive for “more” nothing will change. The “lesser” animals may defend territory and kill their rivals offspring at times, occasionally even go on a killing spree, a like the fox in the hen house or the Mountain Lion in the flock of sheep but these behaviors are not motivated by a need for “more” only self preservation and predatory instinct.
“More” is only a human construct, more power, more money, more stuff, more control, more, more, more, more….

Animals have no concept of greed, power, control, they have no concept of ownership, amassing stuff, no envy, no anger, all the things that spur humans into behaving their worst.

Are you asking when we will globally abolish capitalism, or are you asking about evolution? If evolution, I’m not sure I see the evolutionary pressures that will result in changes in human brain structure.

I think we can, but not anytime in the near future.

@Dutchess_III It would be nice to think mankind could rise above it, at anytime but I think human greed is a huge stumbling block.

It is. And it’s almost like an instinct.

No, the human race is beyond hope, beyond redemption.

The way it’s going I fear your probably right @ragingloli , but I would like to think not.

@ragingloli Are you on the Daleks side, or the Time Lords side.

Exterminate! Exterminate!

@ragingloli A German androgynous Dalek? Thank you for gracing us with your presence. I hope you find more of your kind for Christmas.

I’m reading a book at the moment by biologist E.O. Wilson. He makes an interesting case that within a given group, selfish individuals beat altruists, but altruistic groups beat selfish groups. This sets up a dynamic tension (called “multi-level selection”) that he conjectures may have been critical to our success as a species. Individual selection promotes strength (at the expense of virtue), while group selection promotes virtue (at the expense of strength). It may very well be, he thinks, that this dynamic tension is structurally necessary for human creativity.

No. To do so, first we would ALL have to try. And that has never happened. And there is not enough time left to us to start.

@kritiper it might be to late for any of us, but do you think mankind will ever do it?

@SQUEEKY2 Mankind, if they’re THAT lucky, has less than 250 years left. It’ll never happen!

Gain and profit is advantageous. To rise above that, there needs to be a greater advantage than the current. What is the greater advantage in evolving past gain and profit of the less fortunate? Moving past an existing advantage without there being a higher advantage sounds like an act of devolving. Or, what would be the advantage of evolving into a behavior that doesn’t act advantageously? Or, what is the advantage of self-sacrifice and why is it necessary? Or better yet, if it is advantageous, is it necessary for everyone? If not, then the topic is moot.

More specifically, as an example, I outsource some of my own private projects to less fortunate workers of other countries. Do to their dire circumstances, they’re willing to do work for me for the U.S equivalent of $5 an hour for a job that I would normally have to pay $30 an hour to someone who is more fortunate. The less fortunate get the opportunity to work and make some money while I get to save money and make a larger profit. What would my advantage be if paid the less fortunate workers $30 an hour instead of $5? What am I evolving to? What pressure requires me to evolve? It seems if I did that, I would be devolving.

Bill Gates v Donald Trump in a vast pit of ca$h, fighting to the death, each thrusting fistfuls of notes down one another’s throats while a baying mob of peasants look on.
The loser’s wealth to be distributed evenly at the behest of the victor…hoorah!

@thorninmud I love E.O. Wilson.

As a species, there are no signs that the predatory urges of individuals is in any way declining. It’s at the level in which we organize ourselves into societies that this less than admirable trait is recognized and efforts are made to both keep it in check and mitigate its consequences. Now in today’s world, the big winner for economic models is of course capitalism. And nothing ever dreamed of will exceed capitalism as a model of free for all exploitation. The more advanced societies in the world have come to recognize that rules and limits are necessary in this “free for all” in order to limit the extent of the horror show resulting otherwise. So I suppose it can be argued that as you shop the nations of the world, those countries most successful at suppressing the the negative aspects of predatory capitalism, are furthest along in the achievement of Squeeky’s goal.

@grac3alot outsourcing work over seas is great, and $5 there with their cost of living lower would be about what making $30 here would get you and your profits are so much higher, so everyone wins and you get to take your profits to the bank.
That is just wonderful, unless your sales targets are in North America now you just made more people unable to afford whatever you are selling,by outsourcing your labour over seas, and your sale targets are lower,because less and less people can afford to buy it, because their labour is being outsourced over seas.
Unless your target sales are in those countries your outsourcing the labour to, it might be more advantageous to keep the labour in North America, unless short term profit is your only goal, but then again I guess that is what real Capitalism truly is SHORT TERM PROFIT.

This is digital outsourcing, so sale targets are global, but I’m not targeting every income bracket. I don’t care about the masses because they wouldn’t be able to afford this service anyway. Does the guy who sell private jets and helicopters care if most people can’t afford his product? No. Same thing here. I’m only targeting the higher end of the income bracket. If I have a U.S client, I charge him the upper end of the rate. Where average is $30 an hour, I charge $70 an hour and outsource the work for $5.

If I used U.S labour, I would have to pay, at a minimum, $7.25 an hour and with all these strikes and pushes for increasing the minimum wage laws, I would have to pay $15 an hour at a minimum. The average rate in the U.S for this line of work is $30. Upper end is $70.

I’m not sure why you think this is short-term profit? I’m doing these side projects for 16 years now with this kind of setup. Think of it in the same lines of what construction contractors do. They take on a client, charge the full going rate, but outsource their work to a minimum waged mexican immigrant. Maybe even use illegal immigrants so they can pay less.

When the financial crisis happened. I hired a construction contractor for reconstruction for a price that was less than half of what he would normally charge in a stable market. He couldn’t find work for weeks, so he was pretty much kissing my feet for this job. So what is the advantage of paying him a full price instead of less than half? How do you evolve to a point where you want to pay more? Or evolve to a point that you don’t want to do what is advantageous for you?

it might be more advantageous

So what is the advantage of paying, at a minimum, $15 here in the U.S, instead of paying $5 overseas?

What is the greater advantage to Walmart, if they pay their employees $15 an hour instead of $7?

Paying labourers more money, usually means a few different things one they don’t need Government help to put food on the table at the end of a 40+ hour work week.maybe,just maybe reducing the the size of Government that people are screaming that is too big.
2 they have more disposable income to spend at Walmart thus helping Walmart’s profits grow helping their bottom line.
That is where it is advantageous.

Henry Ford, got it when he said we need to pay our workers enough, so they can afford to buy the cars they are making for me,thus increasing his output and profits.
(How come that concept has been lost through the years?) Now it’s max profits ,fuck the working man let the Government help put food on his table.
Again exploiting the less fortunate.

The concept hasn’t been lost. It’s either ignored or sneered at as “obsolete”. That money is desperately required at the top, so that’s where it’s going.

@stanleybmanly yeah and at the expense of the working slob, who in turn is blamed for everything wrong with both our Nations.

Yes, but as with most things regressive, we’re way out in front of you. Our congress recently saw fit to remove those troublesome restrictions on Wall st. banking casinos, so they can gamble their way to another taxpayer bailout when they lose. While they win, they pocket the gains.

Why would you need to pay the employee more if the government is willing to pick up the slack? That is an advantage.

If Walmart paid their employees more money, then that would contribute to an increase in their overhead costs. They would make less money. A disadvantage. The employees have disposable income and are already using it at Walmart. The biggest benefactors are low-income shoppers thanks to Walmart’s low prices.

Well @grac3alot Thanks for answering my question, I can see now that we will never rise above taking advantage of the less fortunate if we personally gain and profit from it.
So it’s fuck the working slob as long as we can ,and run to the bank with the profit we got doing it.
@stanleybmanly your 100% right Henry Ford’s concept isn’t lost ,it’s sneered, smashed and thrown in the trash,the only thing that matters in todays world is huge profits and crushing anyone who might stand in the way.
The working slob is a tool to be used and abused then thrown away when something cheaper comes along, did I get that right @grac3alot .
Some who read this will groan but I will have to say THANK GOD the Mrs’s and I chose NOT to bring kids into this fucked up planet.

@grac3alot So what you are saying is that the government is subsidizing Walmart. If the store is pocketing the money necessary for its employees to eat, and then in addition pockets the money taxpayers provide for them to spend on groceries, the store itself is VERY much on food stamps.

@SQUEEKY2 @stanleybmanly

Right.

@grac3alot Exploitation of anyone or anything is inherently wrong and greed driven. So the poor guy that was out of work is supposed to be grateful for getting paid much less than his actual worth? I think not. I believe in paying others well for their time and efforts.

If anything being out of work merits paying someone well not taking advantage of their vulnerabilities.

But @Coloma that is not the true capitalist way, you must pounce on their vulnerabilities and crush them,then of course after your done throw them away and never give them another thought.
AS long as you profit no one else matters,so they can’t afford food after a 40 work week,that is what Governments are for, as long as your profits are big that is all that matters,the working slob can go crawl back under whatever rock he came from until the next job.

@Coloma

Behaving disadvantageously is wrong too. Exploitation is the byproduct of humans behaving advantageously which is inherent.

The poor guy who was out of work should most certainly be grateful because some money is better than no money. I gave him the opportunity to work and make some money. It might not have been his best option, but its better than doing nothing and not making any money at all.

What would have been my advantage if I paid him what he is actually worth instead of paying him less than half?

@SQUEEKY2 Making a fair profit is one thing, greed and taking advantage of another is entirely different.

@grac3alot I disagree, some money is not better than no money when one is offering someone slave wages to perform duties that command a fair wage. It is insulting, demeaning, degrading and exploitive.
I have been on both sides of this fence, and guess what? I turned down many jobs and chose to skim out of my savings when I was insulted being offered a wage I was making 15 years ago for the same work. I’d rather spend my time looking for work that honored my abilities with a decent wage.

What would have been to your advantage would have been the gift of integrity, but integrity is not much of a motivator for many. Same concept as giving sloppy leftovers and hand me downs under the guise of some stupendous act of altruism. If you want quality, give quality.

Yes, but at some point (not you specifically) the savings account will be exhausted. The options become so narrow that you have to work a job and accept a low wage that you would not normally take. Might even have to work multiple jobs.

Integrity is nice, but not a practical advantage. There also seems to be a lot emphasis on the importance of the worker and not the employer. For example, I have two kids to put through college. To boot, these are very expensive universities and they’re not local so I have to pay for dorming. It would be a great disadvantage for me to pay him a lot more for something I can pay a lot less for.

@grac3alot I agree, to a degree, but putting your kids through college is not my responsibility, my responsibility is to command my worth in wages. ⅓rd of a pay cut may be necessary but not ⅔rds. I was one that was wiped out in the economic downturn in my early 50’s a few years ago and was insulted beyond words when I was offered a salary I was making 15 years ago. Yep, I did end up buying the farm, and am now working and living in a new, creative situation, but at least my self esteem is intact even if my bank account is mostly dry. I may be broke but I am not going to prostitute myself for others gain either.

That is my point. Putting my kids through college is my responsibility which means I have to make sure that I generate enough income to pay for their college and maintain the rest of my standard-of-living. If I were to spend more when I can spend a lot less and if I charge less when I can charge more, I would be generating a lot less revenue and I would be generating it at a much slower pace. My standard-of-living would drop. That is a huge disadvantage.

You’re right for commanding your worth in wages, but that doesn’t mean I can’t bargain and shop around for a better price. You do what is advantageous for you as I do for me. As you said, integrity is not a good motivator. I can’t pay for college tuition with integrity. For every person like you that won’t compromise, there are hundreds in line to replace you that will. There were so many contractors out of work that I could have probably gotten an even cheaper price than I originally paid. I mean, this is a lot of reconstruction/remodeling work. I saved tens of thousands from this exploitation. I was able to make a lot of use with the extra capital that I saved. Not doing so would be irresponsible.

You can’t expect people to do things that are not advantageous for them.

@grac3alot Then I guess you don’t have a problem when you take your vehicle into the dealership to be worked on, and pay $100+ an hour in labour,then to find out it was an apprentice making $15 an hour that actually worked on your vehicle while they charged you a $100 an hour for labour.
Nothing wrong with that right?
After all you charge $70 an hour to your top clients,that you pay $5 for.

I expect it. Even if I had a problem with it, what am I suppose to do about? All I can do is formulate a contract to protect me from stuff like that, but they won’t sign it because they won’t agree to the conditions. Hey, as long as it is fixed and works well enough that I don’t have to keep coming back, I can’t complain.

That is just the way the world works. What about spending $500 on a pair of Michael Jordan Nike sneakers that only cost a few bucks to make? The list is endless.

The contractor that I hired use to do that before the financial crisis put him out of work. He took a job, asked for the highest going rate, and put a bunch of mexican and polish immigrants to work. But when I caught him when he was desperate for work, it was him and his brothers that did the job for me.

Ya know @grac3alot I am glad you answered this and with your answers it shows me just how much unionized labour is still needed in North America.

Depends who you ask. Since 1936–2014, labour union approval declined from as high as 75% down to 53% approval.

The disapproval of labour union from 1936–2014 rose from as low as 14% up to 38% of disapproval.

The right-to-work law (protecting a worker’s right not to be required to join a labor union) are now passed in 24 states and have an 82% approval rating from the nation, up from 62% from 1954. Likewise, the disapproval rating from 1954 was 27% and now it’s down to 22%. source for more information.

The trend is showing that there is less of a need for unions.

Union membership rate by year

All dropping.

approval rating =/= need.
all it shows to me is that the american “people” got more and more corrupt and evil.

That is a pretty ironic thing to say because judging by your standards (not that I agree with this standard of judgment), the “people” of your country have also gotten more and more corrupt and evil. The prevalence of unions since 1980–2013 in your country have declined consistently per year from a rate of 31.2 down to 17.7. You germans are as corrupt and evil as your avatar.

First, I want to thank @grac3alot and @Coloma for maintaining a civil debate; I’ve enjoyed reading the back and forth; good points on both sides.

I can’t help thinking that the relative strength of each position is determined by the cyclical nature of the economy throughout the history of the U.S.. Thom Hartmann wrote a book where he argues… that the country’s past financial crashes—in 1770, in 1856, in 1929—offer valuable insight into how the wealthy have hijacked the government’s response to the most recent crash.

He contends that Congress responds to whomever serves them best. The pendulum swings between capitalists looking out for their monied self-interests, and the populists looking out for the rest of us, the average citizen.

In the most recent cycle, populists gained power after the Great Depression through the unions and social programs; taxes were very high on capitalists for a while. Since the fifties, union membership has been decreasing, and so have taxes on the wealthy, significantly so. Hartmann thinks we’re reaching the point where capitalists have pushed too far at the expense of the middle class, and that populists are ready to stand up and say, ‘enough already’. At this point in past cycles, the power pendulum began to swing toward populists after a major event like war, a depression, or both.

Hartmann is guessing that 2016 might be the year where the shit hits the fan. I don’t know enough to pinpoint it that precisely. But with the civil liberties issues we’re seeing, the stagnant wages of the middle class, the decline of our infra-structure, the decline of quality in public education, and the lack of jobs that will support a family, I think we’re getting real close to a major, societal shifting event of some sort.

Regardless of which side one leans toward, in just a few more years, one’s perception of grac3alot’s and Coloma’s points could be completely different.

Oh…to answer the original question, I think we’ll always have exploitation of the less fortunate.

All I can say is that I am 1000% happy to be union because if I wasn’t you and the large corporations would be thrilled to butt fuck me, then be shocked when I wasn’t happy about it.

@bossob great answer.thanks.

If we are always going to live in a world that we exploit the less fortunate for our own personal gain,then what is the true answer ?
Screw the lass fortunate for whatever you can, because they would do it to you in a heartbeat?After all it’s to your advantage.
Rise above that and pay the less fortunate a wage they can live on and raise a family?
But that cuts into the profit margin, and we can’t have that.
So I guess it’s just dog eat dog.( and people still wonder why we chose not to have kids)

The solution is that everyone would have to devolve into a behavior which acts by benefiting others before themselves. I don’t see that ever happening universally, but some people already behave this way. I think the Corporation called Costco pays a living wage.

Actually, evidence does show that when the unfortunate become more fortunate, they hate helping those that still remain unfortunate. link

@grac3alot So what does that mean screw everyone that you can, as long as it is to your advantage,after all,they would just do it to you given half the chance??

The wealthy are no better,after all if you pay someone a living wage it affects your profit margin,and we can’t have that,
I am surprised we have lasted this long with human greed and cruelty ruling the world.

What are you referring to by “that”? The study? If you meant the study, then yes, it means that as soon as someone unfortunate is given the chance, they will also screw someone who is less unfortunate than them. They behave in the same advantageous way as anyone else.

The behavior isn’t exclusive to specific groups, ethnicities, or classes.

remember kids, slavery is good, because it is advantageous to the slaver.

@ragingloli no kidding, well said.
And the human race has the balls to call itself civilized, what a croc of shit.

I agree with @eno @grac3alot. We should do away with capitalism. If it’s human nature to take advantage, we should devise an alternative that where we don’t allow this to happen. If the slaves would make slaves of the slave owners if given the opportunity, well then we should outlaw slavery. Wait – we did. Now, let’s get to work on our economic system…

@hominid we only outlawed slavery to a point, but there are a lot of people being treated like crap working for wages they can not live on, so in the end how far did we actually come??
And what about the economic system the right that now has the most power scream EVERYTHING is unsustainable ,that is except huge tax cuts to the wealthy and large military budgets , everything else is UNSUSTAINABLE.
So what do you suggest?

@hominid

A lot of people had to die before slavery was outlawed. We (the country) did not share the same aspirations. There was no “we” until one side won and dominated the other. The same holds true today with a national divide in economic aspirations. I’d imagine a lot of people would have to die again via another civil war for you and those who share your sentiment to be successful in getting rid of capitalism and work on a new economic system (assuming you win).

@grac3alot are you willing to fight to the death for Capitalism??

Depends. I’m not entirely close-minded. If a proposed alternative system is appealing and proven to be more beneficial for most people more than our current capitalist system, then I have no problem transitioning to something better. I think most people won’t have a problem. However, if it is unappealing, discredited, and not more beneficial for most people than our current system, then yes, I’m willing to fight to the death for capitalism.

So what greater alternatives are being of offered to replace capitalism?