Hating The Good Part III

This Page: "How Many Be Out To Git Me?" "What's A Girl To Do?"

This Homo Sapien’s Thoughts

Even if you’re non-religious, agnostic, atheist, or non-theist, it’s not difficult to imagine (or even conclude) that —

Envy is a sin; possibly the worst of all sins.

It may well be fundamental to all other sins such as theft, rape, and murder, and it’s applicable to every society and culture since the Stone Age.

ENVY is the desire to cause or "enjoy" —

Another human’s loss of an existing or potential value.

And, of course, the highest possible value is the existence of one’s own life.
Everything else is subordinate.

At the Core

Central to envy is social comparison. When a person of envy compares abilities, achievements, or possessions with another — and comes away with a sense of utter inadequacy — it brings forth a whole universe of negative and self-destructive emotions.

Anger — anxiety — doubt — fear — spite — hate — resentment

To name but a few.

From plentiful evidence and plain common sense one may easily and confidently conclude:

Envy is a net subtraction from the sum of human existence.

What About Jealousy?

Jealousy is often confused with envy, but it’s slightly different.

Jealousy is an emotion experienced when a person is threatened by the loss of an important relationship (still a likely value) with another person — not by the resentment of anyone having "stuff".

While jealousy often leads to hard-core envy, it is the lesser evil.

The murders that O.J. Simpson committed probably began as jealousy and then deteriorated into the worst kind of envy.

He murdered two people just so "no one could have Nicole".

Then, a mindless jury refused to find him guilty because they, as racists, "didn’t want Whitey Justice" to prevail. They — the jury — refused to live in objective reality. They preferred to lead lives of psychological denial, ignorance, and stupidity — until they die. Talk about self-destruction!

Fortunately for the scales of justice, the civil trial found him guilty.

Think about it — O.J. Simpson murdered two people just so no other human could have a relationship with his former wife. He knew his relationship with Nicole was over.

And, as far as he is concerned, it’s irrelevant that he also murdered Mr. Goldberg; a totally innocent man who had the misfortune of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

If there’s a Hell, may he — and all others committing murder — forever be a resident; naked, smoldering, and sizzling in an infinite kettle of sulfuric acid.

"How Many Be Out to Git Me?"

In researching envy, I discovered an extremely interesting study by two professors that shocked and stunned me to the core. It has to do with the question of whether or not people will give up their own treasure just to exercise envy.

They will.

And, the astoundingly high percentage of people who will sacrifice in this way simply boggles the mind.

For those who relish going to the fountainhead, Google search this on the Internet or go directly to Professor Andrew Oswald's site for the paper:

Zizzo, D.J. & Oswald, A., 2000. "Are People Willing to Pay to Reduce Others' Incomes?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 568, University of Warwick, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]

Abstract

This paper studies utility interdependence in the laboratory. We design an experiment where subjects can reduce ("burn") other subjects’ money. Those who burn the money of others have to give up some of their own cash to do so.

Despite this cost, and contrary to the assumptions of economics textbooks, the majority of our subjects choose to destroy at least part of others’ money holdings.

We vary experimentally the amount that subjects have to pay to reduce other people’s cash. The implied price elasticity of burning is calculated; it is mostly less than unity. There is a strong correlation between wealth, or rank, and the amounts by which subjects are burnt.

In making their decisions, many burners, especially disadvantaged ones, seem to care about whether another person ‘deserves’ the money he has. Desert is not simply a matter of relative payoff.

Now, I guessed the percentage of people who would actually sacrifice their own treasure — and stuff — would be at most 10% - 15%.

"C’mon, it’s one thing to feel resentment, hatred, and anger as an envier, but to actually spend your own booty doing it?"

Folks, hang on to your sanity because this study shows the percentage of envious people willing to do just that will freeze-dry you where you sit.

The percentage is almost 66% — nearly two thirds! That percentage can only be described as HUGE!

That’s right; nearly two thirds of all the enviers you encounter are willing to "whack you good" — even if it drains their swamp.

Once again, consider the self-destructive behavior of news anchor Dan Ra^ther.

As this information wends its way about your synapses; the staggering implications and ramifications will likely make your knees go all wobbly. Let your mind soar. Think how drastically this may effect your world, your work, and your relationships.

I suggest these human predilections carry profound implications all the way from one-to-one relationships to interactions between nations. And, everywhere in between.

En guarde!

Defense

What’s a Girl to Do?

This is a very difficult question. It's about the actions required to neutralize and defend against those who reek with envy; the people who hate the good for being the good.

Standing on the shoulders of other authors, it’s been fairly easy to describe and define envy. And, while it’s seldom identified or named, this destructive behavior is well known throughout all cultures. However, very few have thought deeply and seriously about it.

So, what makes it so hard to create defenses, shields, antidotes, and insulators against this destructive human behavior?

Well, let’s drop-kick ourselves back about 50,000 years to learn a little more about the problem.

Back to the epoch when man lived in caves and congregated in tribes numbering from a few to a hundred or so.

Early Man lived as hunters and gatherers. They coalesced into families and tribes, which means they had "social proximity".

And, before they acquired higher intelligence, humans may have had real benefits from envy. It mitigated the possibility that an individual would get too far ahead in terms of resource competition.

If a particular individual had a lot more "stuff" than others, there was danger of monopolizing mating opportunities. Other individuals would have fewer opportunities to mate and thereby the entire family or tribe could suffer.

Was this the first time in human history when the phrase

"I never had sexual relations with that woman!" wafted about the Serengeti —

forever drifting until it sailed into the mind of ex-President Bill Clinton,
the world-class sociopath with a phenomenal memory?

When an individual was deemed to have too many resources, the others would seek to damage the overachiever by taking the resources, inflicting injury, or at least, shun the person.

This tended to keep the order of the group intact and the mating opportunities in balance.

(Remember this was not the White House and the tribes were small.)

Limiting the disproportionate success of an individual was merited when resources were scarce because more equitably distributed resources enhanced the survivability of the entire family or tribe.

This was a world of superstition and belief in the supernatural; long before the existence of efficient processes, philosophy, technology, and science — especially philosophy and science.

This epoch was the genesis of altruism and its socialist and collectivist spawn.

OK, you say, what about today?

Indeed, it’s a very long way from the epoch of Early Man to the 21^st century. A large book could be written about how envy was a fellow traveler that effected everything.

Compressing time, I will say this about our world of today and tomorrow.

Biologically, our brains are little different than 50,000 years ago. We still carry the same genetically imprinted thinking of the caveman era with all the attending superstitious, supernatural, and mystical belief systems.
It’s now somewhat understood that the irreducible component of a family, tribe, state, or nation is the individual.

We live in a world of philosophy, technology, and science and will continue to do so.
Science generates a constant increase in the rate-of-change in technology.

(A profound statement that may have more impact on your life than anything!)

Folks, this is HUGE! Let’s explore how it relates to envy.

Ray Kurzweil [ www.kurzweilai.net ] and many others call it "The Singularity".

Here are some of his thoughts:

"The paradigm shift rate (i.e., the overall rate of technical progress) is currently doubling (approximately) every decade; that is, paradigm shift times are halving every decade (and the rate of acceleration is itself growing exponentially).

So, the technological progress in the twenty-first century will be equivalent to what would require (in the linear view) on the order of 200 centuries.

In contrast, the twentieth century saw only about 20 years of progress (again at today's rate of progress) since we have been speeding up to current rates.

So the twenty-first century will see about a thousand times greater technological change than its predecessor."

From the Singularity Institute, a more complete definition:

"The Singularity is the technological creation of smarter-than-human intelligence.

There are several technologies that are often mentioned as heading in this direction. The most commonly mentioned is probably Artificial Intelligence, but there are others: direct brain-computer interfaces, biological augmentation of the brain, genetic engineering, ultra-high-resolution scans of the brain followed by computer emulation.

Some of these technologies seem likely to arrive much earlier than the others, but there are nonetheless several independent technologies all heading in the direction of the Singularity - several different technologies, which, if they reached a threshold level of sophistication, would enable the creation of smarter-than-human intelligence.

A future that contains smarter-than-human minds is genuinely different in a way that goes beyond the usual visions of a future filled with bigger and better gadgets.

Vernor Vinge originally coined the term "Singularity" in observing that, just as our model of physics breaks down when it tries to model the singularity at the center of a black hole, our model of the world breaks down when it tries to model a future that contains entities smarter than human.

Human intelligence is the foundation of human technology; all technology is ultimately the product of intelligence.

If technology can turn around and enhance intelligence, this closes the loop, creating a positive feedback effect.

Combine faster intelligence, smarter intelligence, and recursively self-improving intelligence, and the result is an event so huge that there are no metaphors left. There's nothing remaining to compare it to.

The Singularity is beyond huge, but it can begin with something small. If one smarter-than-human intelligence exists, that mind will find it easier to create still smarter minds. In this respect the dynamic of the Singularity resembles other cases where small causes can have large effects; toppling the first domino in a chain, starting an avalanche with a pebble, perturbing an upright object balanced on its tip.

(Human technological civilization occupies a metastable state in which the Singularity is an attractor; once the system starts to flip over to the new state, the flip accelerates.)

All it takes is one technology - Artificial Intelligence, brain-computer interfaces, or perhaps something unforeseen - that advances to the point of creating smarter-than-human minds.

That ONE technological advance is the equivalent of the

first self-replicating chemical that gave rise to life on Earth."

My Definition

"A future coordinate in the time-space continuum —

beyond which nothing intelligent can be said".

Although always a moving target, thoughtful people have suggested sometime around 2030.

So, HERE WE ARE.

Billions of living naked-apes carrying around brains left over from the caveman epoch — with only a few trying to make sense of the inevitable arrival of smarter-than-human intelligence.

Now hear this; the unprecedented radical change brought about by the Singularity will impact mankind beyond anyone’s imagination.

However, there’s still hope; all is not lost.

What does envy have to do with this Brave New World?

Think about the monumental flood of envy that will be released as this Singularity Dam breaks.

Imagine the vile, spiteful, and envious acrimony that will be unleashed against all those who create, design, and implement this future.

The people who understand Extropian Principles.

"I hate the fact a total cure for cancer will be found. I don’t want people to live extended lifetimes."

"I resent the fact that power grids will become obsolete and stand-alone hydrogen-fueled (or other) generators will power homes and businesses. I want everyone to sweat salt in the summer and freeze-dry their hides in the winter."

"Above all, I can’t stand the fact that the common cold will be eliminated. I love to suffer a snotty nose and want everyone to join me in my "stuffed-up node" deliriums!"

What I’m about to say will sound spectacularly wild and idiotic — but I’m going to say it anyway.

It’s how the Singularity offers clear reason for hope.

Before the middle of the 21^st Century,

I think science will be able to physically alter our brains to mitigate,

and perhaps even eliminate, the behavior we call envy —

to say nothing of other negative human traits.

Hello, Synthetic Biology!

Between now and then, however, we’ll certainly be gaining new understandings of the word "Transition".

Will YOU be able to cope with this
Brave New World?

Think you might need some help?

Here's a good place to start:

CHANGE

Envy is often pulled along by a mule named

"TRANSITION"

Pitiful sight.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality.

To change something, build a new model that

makes the existing model obsolete.”

--Buckminster Fuller