All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2023 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
34:55
ALTRUISM VS SURVIVAL
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Alright, some harsh stuff incoming.
I, of course, will ask for listener questions at freedomain.locals.com and got a great question.
Is reciprocal altruism the highest form of human interaction?
Is humanity capable of true selflessness?
Kantian 101, right?
Is reciprocal altruism the highest form of human interaction?
Is humanity capable of true selflessness?
What a question.
I mean, this is a huge ethical question.
Selfishness versus altruism, egoism versus self-sacrifice, and so on.
So, I'm going to tell you my thoughts about this.
And I view this as...
An absolutely essential question for life happiness and actually downright survival.
Now, the Kantian argument goes something like this.
If you give to a beggar because you want to feel good about giving to a beggar, you want to feel good about helping him, you want to feel like a good person, it's not a moral action.
Morality occurs when you don't gain anything from the interaction.
Superior morality occurs when you lose something from the interaction.
And if you think this is abstract, it's really not.
It's really not.
When people ask you to act without consideration for benefit of yourself...
When people ask you to act without consideration or against the benefit of yourself, the self-sacrifice, this selflessness and so on, is your highest moral ideal, they are setting you up for mental slavery unto death.
They're setting you up for mental slavery and to death.
So when you think of all living organisms, do they act for their own benefit or the benefit of their children?
Do they act for their own benefit or the benefit of their children?
Or their offspring or their genetics or whatever it is that you want to say?
And are they willing to sacrifice the interests of other creatures in order to pursue their own interests?
We are alive because our ancestors fought for their own interests and our interests as their offspring, as their lineage, as their descendants, and often sacrificed other peoples Survival or prospects or happiness or achievement in order to provide for us.
If you have an attractive mother, a mother who was attractive when she was younger, your father got her to breed with him.
Against the wishes of most of the other males in the vicinity, right?
The sort of traditional example from high school of the football head.
I don't think you play football.
The captain of the football team traditionally takes out the head cheerleader or that sort of the cliche.
How many of The boys in the high school want to take out the head cheerleader.
Well, I would assume virtually all of them.
This could be 500 boys, could be 1,000 boys, really depends on the size of the school.
So, let's say it's 500, so one guy asks out the head cheerleader, or whoever's considered the most attractive girl, and he goes against the wishes of, you know, subtract the gay guys, 400 and whatever, odd.
Other heterosexuals who want to take out the cheerleader.
Or I guess you could add in the lesbians.
So, yeah, about 500 people he's acting against their wishes.
They want to ask out the cheerleader.
He does get to ask the cheerleader out.
She goes out with him. Everybody else is disappointed and upset.
The fact that your ancestors passed over Less intelligent pre-human hominids in favor of more intelligent pre-human hominids is why we have the brains we have.
So, you know, the less intelligent pre-human hominids wanted to breed, but people wouldn't breed with them.
They went for the smarter pre-human hominids, which eventually evolved into us and our brain capacities.
The lion It takes the zebra from the zebra herd, eats it, and also chases off the jackals who also want to eat the dead zebra.
The local tribes will often steal the lion's kill or the cheetah's kill and shake them off with sticks and so on.
Winning at the expense of others is foundational to why we're here.
Now, I understand that's not a moral argument.
I'm just talking about a factual argument.
If you want to go against everything that is the foundation of why we exist, why we have intelligence, why we have language, art, culture, science, technology, medicine, if you want to go against all of that, you just need to acknowledge it.
I don't mind radical re-evaluations of everything that came before.
That's the foundation of philosophy.
But you really need to acknowledge it, otherwise it's dishonest.
Even the technology that we use to communicate all of this has arisen out of a significant meritocracy.
The engineers, the programmers, the managers were all better at something in order to dominate the space and so on.
It's like the guy who invented Ethernet.
Network standard. I mentioned this story years ago.
He was a teacher, professor, I think.
He had a bunch of his grad students come over to his beautiful house and one of his grad students was like, oh man, I wish I'd invented Ethernet and I have a house like this.
Maybe he was also looking at the guy's wife, I don't know.
And the guy said, what are you, crazy?
I didn't get this house because I invented Ethernet.
There were like 20 different network standards around.
I have this house. A, because I invented Ethernet, and B, because I spent years and years traveling to every trade show known to man, publishing articles, making speeches, talking to nine people in a room to try and push this standard.
That's why I have this house.
Now, I mean, there were 20 other guys who had great networking standards.
Maybe some of them were even better, but they just didn't do the grind and the hustle.
And yeah, I have a pretty good show, but...
I just knew about the grind and the hustle from my days in the software entrepreneurial space doing sales and marketing.
I was the chief technical officer and a director of marketing, so I know a little bit about this stuff.
And you've just got to do the grind, work, hustle.
And everyone, I mean, like MC Hammer way back, was it in the 80s?
He had his single that he wanted to get onto the radio, so what did he do?
You couldn't just broadcast it back then.
There was no internet, really.
No internet in the 80s, really.
So what he did was he just went to nightclubs.
He paid for the pressing of the vinyl albums himself.
He went to nightclubs, and he just...
He's cajoled and maybe bribed.
I don't know what he did, but he wooed the DJs into playing his song and then people are like, oh, this is a great song.
Where's it from? And he just generated demand and buzz that way and then, you know, someone's at the dance who's running a radio station and they play that song on the radio.
People like it and it sort of flows its way upwards and he ended up with an album deal.
So people say, wow, I wish I'd written a song like that.
It's like, it's not the writing of the song.
Obviously, that's necessary but not sufficient.
It's all of the hustle. So...
We exist and we have the characteristics that we have because of self-interest.
I mean, this is the old Adam Smith argument.
It's not from the benevolence of the baker that you get your bread from a relentless regard that he has for his own self-interest.
People who make this moral argument want you to accept this moral argument and reject all others.
They believe this moral argument is true.
They want to spread this moral argument to you and for you to reject the other arguments.
In other words, they have a personal stake, maybe even a material stake, in convincing you to sacrifice to them.
Usually the people who are telling you to sacrifice are the ones collecting, but they have a self-interest in pursuing this moral goal.
So, it's one of these arguments, it's often applied to material things, but when you apply it to morality, it completely falls apart.
The person says, that which goes against your interests is the most moral, and then he tries to spread a moral argument.
And so we would have to say, spreading this moral argument must go against what you value as moral, otherwise it's not moral.
So you must be spreading evil arguments, because that's the opposite of what you want to do in spreading moral arguments.
So by your own logic...
Telling me to sacrifice myself and go against my self-interest, you could only be telling me that if you were going against your own self-interest, which is the desire to spread morality, and therefore you'd be spreading immorality.
I don't know. It's wild to me.
I don't honestly understand why this stuff is so tough.
Like, I just communicated this in 20 seconds, a rebuttal to the whole nonsense, right?
I mean, I can do it again, it's real, right?
It's moral if it goes against your interests.
I want to spread virtue. Therefore, it would go against my interest to spread immorality.
Therefore, if I believe this stuff, the moral arguments I spread must be immoral.
How is this complicated? Like this nonsense, this detritus, this garbage, this refuse, this awful, this sewage water continues to pump through the brain veins of the species despite the fact that you can literally rebut it in about 10 seconds.
I don't know where these 10 seconds have been over the course of human history.
I honestly don't. I mean, when it comes to some creativity, analogies, and insights, yeah, I think I'm pretty smart.
But when it comes to this stuff, it's just, okay, well, let's take your argument and apply it to you.
It's only moral if it goes against your interest.
Okay, so you telling me that must be an evil doctrine because you want to spread virtue, therefore you have to spread virtues that go against your interest, therefore you have to be spreading immoral virtues or evil edicts.
How is that complicated? A child can understand.
This is what's so weird to me about philosophy, just sort of by the by.
I mean, yeah, I guess there's some complicated aspects to sort of wisdom and so on, balancing self and other and all of that.
But as far as just logical propositions go, how on earth is this tough to sort out?
Oh, and take your moral argument and apply it to what you're saying.
You're saying this is the good, let's see what you're doing.
And honestly, it's no more complicated than Then you pick up a book on dieting and exercise and you turn it over and there's a fat guy smoking in his picture, right?
You probably wouldn't buy that book, right?
So, oh, you say this is the good.
Let's see how it applies to what you're doing and what you're saying.
It's not... I don't know.
It doesn't seem that... I was reading some of Plato's dialogues to my daughter and we had to stop a lot to explain sort of what was going on.
This isn't complicated.
And I... I mean, I get it serves power and this, that, and the other, but my gosh, you can make this argument throughout almost all of human history without ending up with a fresh serving of steaming hot hemlock.
I don't know. Anyway, so the people who are telling you to sacrifice yourself and to have negative self-interest are saying that because it benefits them to spread that argument, even though it goes against the morality of what they're saying.
So what benefit are they anticipating by spreading that argument?
Well, there's three ways to get resources in this world.
The first is you create them.
The second is you steal them.
The third is you convince others to give them to you.
That's it. That's three. You create them, you steal them, or you convince others to give them to you.
You beg, in a way.
Now, Creating resources, like creating a meal by going to hunt a deer or get a fish or grow crops or whatever it is.
Creating resources is tough and time-consuming and sometimes the brain is built at the expense of the body and therefore the people who are the best with language are often not the most physically robust specimens in the world.
So going out and hunting and doing the incredibly hard work of Growing crops and farming and all of that.
Not often great for the pencil neck guys with the giant foreheads.
I mean, one of the reasons that I work out so much is that I want to make sure that I do not grow my brain at the expense of my body because I view we are one and united and we are the same.
Having a strong mind in a weak body is one of the things that makes you the most prone to corruption because you don't feel the confidence to actually go out and win your own resources and because you have a good brain you have a great facility with language usually and therefore you're Temptation to sophistry is enormous.
One of the ways that you avoid sophistry and manipulation is to have a strong body and then you have the confidence of moving through the world knowing that you can create resources.
I mean, I've done years of manual labor over the course of my life.
If it came to that, I could do it again.
I'm fine with that. The people who tell you that you should have negative self-interest, that should harm you to do the good, what are they trying to do?
Well, are they trying to create resources?
Nope. Are they stealing?
No, because stealing comes with great risk.
You can get caught and killed.
You get put in the stocks, you get hung.
We don't view stealing as that bad anymore.
But stealing was life or death for the entire community back in the day.
Like, a farmer wouldn't grow crops if they would get stolen.
So, I mean, there's the scene in Lord of the Rings where Merry and Pippin are running from Farmer Maggot and he's got the scythe in the movie and he's sort of shaking it and he wants to chase them off his land because they're stealing his crops.
A very serious business.
If you have given up hunter-gatherer and you've settled into farming, and people steal the farmers' crops, everybody dies.
Or, like, they either die from hunger, or they get so weak they can't hunt, or they get so weak that they can't fight against anybody who comes in to take them over, invades them.
What are these altruists, these people who promote altruism, what are they doing?
Well, they want resources.
Are they creating them? They are not.
Are they stealing them? No, because that's risky.
And sophists are generally quite fearful people, and they're fearful because, psychological reasons for sure, but they're fearful in general because their physical bodies are weak.
It's hard to know whether you're a coward or you're just physically weak.
I mean, we know this sort of scientific fact that people, particularly with increased upper body strength, people who are physically strong, feel competent in the world, move confidently and competently through the world, and they experience less anxiety and fear.
And of course, people tend to move towards smaller government, more independence when they work out, when they become physically strong.
This is what I mean. I don't know if somebody is on the left or just doesn't lift.
I mean, so it's hard to sort of say.
So, the strength required to create materials or to create items, the cunning and courage required to steal, immoral, though it is, right?
Cunning and courage. You have to be willing to accept the consequences.
For people who are physically weak but mentally strong, they would much rather lecture people about how virtuous it is to give to others and then be on the receiving end of those guilted gifts.
I love the way that these...
To me, it's wild the way these sentences come out.
It's like... To me, it's like throwing a bunch of paints into the jet stream of a 747 and having the Mona Lisa end up on the canvas.
It's just wild to me. That's why it's so much fun to do these shows.
So, they are asking, in a sense, for goods.
Now... Charity is an unstable business.
I talked about this many years in the show.
Charity is a dangerous and unstable business.
Yes, you do want to help people who, through relatively no fault of their own, have come upon hard times and need help and so on.
On the other hand, the more people you help, the fewer people will work.
And the more You backfill other people's bad decisions with free resources.
The more you subsidize bad decisions, the more bad decisions you get.
So charity is a really, really tough game to play.
We want to help others, but of course, it's a guaranteed fact.
I'll tell you, the people who are just like, oh, just have this government program, just do this, do that.
They for sure have never actually tried to help someone in their own life.
This is why I never believe anybody about that kind of stuff.
For absolutely sure, they have never ever tried to help anyone in their own life.
Because helping people is really tough.
If you've ever really dug in and tried to help people, it's really difficult to do You come up against a lot of resistance, there's a lot of manipulation, there's subterfuge, there's backlash.
Now, occasionally it will happen that you really do help people over time, but it's a long process and it's a fraught process.
It's a high-conflict process and it's also a dangerous process.
When someone is down and you try to help them, it's dangerous for you because their impulse will often be to drag you down.
Like somebody who's depressed, you try and cheer them up.
I mean, 50-50, you're going to feel worse after interacting with them, right?
So it is a dangerous, dangerous business to help people.
I mean, it's very rewarding, and I think it's a good thing to do, but it's very tricky, and it's very fraught, and the idea that you can just offload it to some giant money-printing force festival like the state is incomprehensible, and all it does is it tells me That people have never actually tried to help others in their own life.
Like, they've never dug in and really tried to help out a friend who's going through tough stuff.
I mean, maybe they've lent a bit of money or whatever, but never really dug in and tried to help someone who's going through really difficult challenges in their life.
Because, you know, like the guy who's single, right?
I mean, usually, and I guess it's more common now, but everyone has their friend who's single, right?
And... You know, complains and so on.
And I had a friend for many years who was single, and I would talk to him about dating, and he would be like, well, you're a tall, good-looking, blue-eyed, blonde guy, so what do you know?
You know, he was 5'8", or something like that, or 5'7".
And he would quote me these sort of endless Studies about, you know, a guy has to be a thoracic heart surgeon if he's 5'6 to make up for the 6'2 guy who can be a plumber.
Or he would say, I remember him saying once, it became a meme later, probably not his though, that Fiona will literally choose an ogre over a short guy because the short guy is a terrible guy, right?
So... Did I fill him with hope and inspire him to get out into the dating world?
I did not. And I eventually had to give up the topic because it was just bringing me down.
Every time, right? And I would point out famous short people who got into relationships, who got married, and he would say, yes, but they're multimillionaires, and they're very talented, and they're charismatic, and they have all of this stuff, you know.
So, I mean, what can I say, right?
You can only do a certain amount of trying to convince people to lose weight, to date, to get out of a rut, to cheer up, to any of these things, right?
And you're trying to, everyone thinks that you're reaching down and trying to pull people up who want to be pulled up.
It's like, nope. 99 times out of 100, you're reaching down to try and help people, pull them up, but they're trying to pull you down.
And you're in a more unstable place because you're reaching over.
You think of sort of reaching over to grab somebody caught down a shallow well.
You're leaning over and they're standing on firm ground, like they're standing on the historical ground of their unhappiness.
And it's easier for them to pull you down than it is for you to pull them up.
They have to be really dedicated to that.
So, yeah, it's really tough.
So, charity is a tough business because you'll get charity from people, but not forever.
The most stable scenario...
is to convince other people to give you stuff, that it's a virtue, that it's a moral good to give you stuff.
So, if you are going to work to create, well, hunters can't find game, they miss, they sprain their ankles running, they trip, they get kicked in the head, a boar gores them or something like that.
So, yeah, going out to create resources, it's kind of risky, and you're going to run out of steam towards the end of your life, because when you're past the age of physical labor, it's a big problem.
That sophistry tries to solve in its own macabre way.
Or if you're a farmer, well, you could get no rain.
You could get too much rain.
You could get way too many birds.
You could get blights. You could get insects.
You could get, like, crop failure.
You could get any number.
People could steal your stuff. It's very uncertain.
If you're a thief, well, people are going to figure out that you're a thief.
They're going to watch what they...
We're going to watch their goods around you, put their hand on their wallet when you pass by, or you might get caught and punished.
So, yeah, stealing is...
And you've also usually... Historically, stealing means you'd have to be a nomad.
Like, you'd have to be a Roman and the Gloman kind of guy because, you know, in a village of 200 people, you can't really steal from people for too long because they're going to figure it out.
Like, what are you going to do unless you're just stealing food?
Like, you steal someone's ring.
What are you going to do? Wear a ring that is clearly somebody else's that everybody knows about?
No. So that's not particularly great.
And to just ask for charity, at some point people are going to say, dude, I've given you enough.
You're not my charity case for the rest of my life.
Maybe I'll bring you some food if you sprain your ankle, but at some point your ankle's going to get better, and then maybe I'll sprain my ankle and you've got to help me.
So that's no good if you just want resources.
But if you can convince people That it is moral for them to give you stuff, then you are, and particularly when you can train them as children, then you are in a pretty secure place.
Because what people perceive as the moral, they will almost inevitably do, or feel guilty about not doing, and therefore they will pay you off to take away their guilt.
Right? I mean, except for the sociopaths who are generally on the morality giving side of things, as you can...
Listen to from my History of Philosophers series.
You can get it at freedomain.locals.com.
Get it for free. Just use a promo code, all caps, UPP2022, and check it out for free.
It's a great series. So, yeah, it's tough.
It's tough to create stuff.
It's dangerous to steal stuff.
Charity is short-term, but if you can convince other people to give to you, that it's moral to give to you, then they will give to you and then they'll start to resent it.
So you have to have an answer for that.
They'll start to feel exploited and ripped off that there's something wrong and there's something bad.
And you say, all you do is you say, well, the worse you feel, the more moral it is.
You see? The worse you feel, the more moral it is.
And then they get caught in this vicious cycle of perpetual, quote, gifting.
I mean, you're holding their happiness hostage and you're releasing the hostages bit by bit and taking more as long as they keep giving you money.
So, they get resentful at having to give you stuff, and then you say, ah, the more resentful you feel, you see, the more moral it is.
And people believe that, and then they just grit their teeth and double down and give you more because they want to be moral, they want to be good, and so you use their desire for virtue to exploit them And it's an absolutely brutal scenario.
It's really the biggest thing that's going on in the world right now that you're just not allowed to have any self-interest.
You're not allowed to say, no, how does this benefit me?
You're not allowed to say any of that stuff.
If you do, you're just a terrible person and you've just got to give, give, give.
So the other thing too, of course, is that if someone wants something from you, According to the philosophy of altruism, if somebody wants something from you, let's say somebody says, I want you to give me a hundred bucks, somebody wants something from you, then you can ask them, will you benefit from what I give you?
And if they say yes, then they say, well, I can't give it to you.
Because if you benefit from what I give you, that's immoral, because anything you benefit from is immoral.
And the more desperately you need what I have and the more desperately you want me to give it to you, the more it's moral for me not to give it to you.
I want to give you the hundred dollars.
You desperately want the hundred dollars, which means we both benefit from me giving you the hundred dollars.
Therefore, I cannot give you the hundred dollars.
That which hurts the most is the most beneficial.
That which goes against your self-interest is the most moral.
So out of respect for this philosophy, I absolutely cannot give you the hundred dollars because you want it.
And to act on your self-interest, even to ask me for the hundred dollars is immoral because you want the hundred dollars to act On self-interest is immoral, and therefore I can't enable your immorality by giving you the hundred dollars that will benefit you.
Again, not rocket science, not Hyperion's jet fuel stages.
This is simple stuff.
So why is this, like how on earth is this philosophy still cooking?
How is it still continuing?
It's an absolutely bizarre thing to me.
I don't want to sound like, I don't know, orbiting Mars autistic or something like that, but if you apply the philosophy, then no resource transfers should ever occur, yet this philosophy is used to justify the transfer of trillions of dollars of resources.
Well, I don't want to have my taxes used to prop up authoritarian governments in the third world.
Well, but they really need your money.
And so you should sacrifice your interest in order to, quote, help these foreign countries or whatever.
And it's like, well, no, but their interest is served in getting my money, so they should also sacrifice their interest by not asking me for the money.
See, it's always only one way.
It's claimed to be a universal value, but it's always one person pays and the other person receives.
And the person who receives wants to receive.
The person who pays doesn't want to pay, but it's bad for them to act on their self-interest.
But the person who receives wants to receive, and it's somehow moral for them to act on their self-interest.
It's so obvious.
God, it drives me crazy.
It drives me crazy.
Literally, I'm not kidding you, a five-year-old A five-year-old could understand this.
I mean, I know. I've talked to my daughter about this stuff when she was very young.
And I mean, yeah, she's smart, but not that smart.
I mean, so yeah, I mean, nobody is that smart that you have to be a five-year-old genius to understand this stuff.
Super genius. So yeah, it just blows my mind how this nonsense replicates.
It's just, it's so easy to repudiate.
It's so easy to reject.
It's so easy to turn back upon those who...
Right, so again, somebody says to you, you should have no self-interest.
It's like, do you have any self-interest in me believing that?
Would you be better off or would the world be better?
No, I have absolutely no self-interest in promulgating...
This doctrine is like, well, then why are you doing it?
Well, I just want you to be good.
Oh, so you want something, right?
You want to spread this virtue you want, right?
So why are you doing it? Why are you doing it?
Oh, I don't have any desire to do it.
I don't have any preferences.
It's like, well, then you have chosen one action out of many.
You can do an infinity of actions, and if you choose one, you have to have a preference for it.
But that's not even biology.
That's not even philosophy. That's just basic reality.
If you have an infinity of choices, then if you choose to do something, then it must be of high value to you in one way or another.
Otherwise, how on earth would you choose to do anything if everything was of equal value or opportunity?
Then there would be no way to prioritize anything.
Well, you know, you should have, the more difficult it is for you, the better it should be.
The better it is. Okay, so then it would be difficult for you to promote immorality, and therefore you should do that.
I mean, well, you should give me $100, and the more it hurts, the better it is.
Oh, well, it hurts you to not get the $100, therefore the moral thing is to not get the $100, so I'll keep my money.
Like, it's all just so simple.
And I don't think I'm oversimplifying things.
I mean, the logic seems airtight.
So, yeah, I mean, this idea of can we ever be selfless?
It is a wish that you become a robot.
It's a wish that you become a machine on automaton.
Right? Like the original...
Machinery was morality, right?
So now we become wealthy by having machines and robots and automation and so on.
That's how we become wealthy.
But to turn other people into NPCs was the very first industrial revolution that occurred for tens of thousands of years.
Before the Industrial Revolution, I actually genuinely believed that we developed sophisticated language because it was better to program NPCs with more sophisticated concepts so they get lost in a mirror maze of their own confusion.
So we actually developed language and philosophy and morality in order to baffle and confuse people and turn them into slaves for the most part.
And we're still trying to wrestle the weapon from the enemy, so to speak, is what this show has always been about.
But... The original machinery that was used to provide resources was not the steam engine or the piston or the lathe or the lever or anything like that or the plow.
The original machinery that was used to gain resources was hijacking other people's sense of universality and morality in order to have them continually hand you stuff and The more they disliked handing you stuff, the more stuff you would get.
It was a perfect thing, because it's inevitable that you're going to resent somebody who's exploiting you, but if you say your resentment means that giving me stuff makes you more moral, then you're sort of trying to short-circuit or bypass that stuff, at least until society collapses, or you get a generation that grows up with extreme cynicism, right? I mean, the nihilism that we're seeing in the world today, the cynicism that we're seeing in the world today, is the inevitable byproduct of altruism, because it Pretty hard to ignore the fact that the people always calling for sacrifices are those benefiting from the sacrifice.
Where's your sacrifice?
Again, that's from the prince in Shrek.
Basically, you will have to go to war.
You all will have to go to war, but that's a sacrifice I'm prepared to make, right?
So that's everybody who talks about Helping people and others.
It's always abstract. There's always other people who have to pay the bills and so on, right?
So you get this cynicism, which is basically nature's survival mechanism.
Like, believing in morality is suicidal.
And it is genuinely suicidal to believe in this selfless altruism.
Because it means that every instinct that you have that got you to be a living organism is the exact opposite.
And if you do the opposite of that which you need to survive, it's suicidal.
I mean, you need to eat. If you stop eating, that's suicidal.
You need to drink. If you stop drinking, that's suicidal.
You need to move.
If you stop moving, you will die.
You'll get bed sores or whatever, right?
So doing the opposite of that, which you need to survive, is suicidal.
And you need to have self-interest in order to survive.
The only reason you're here is because your ancestors had self-interest.
And so to say to not have self-interest is to not be alive.
To not have self-interest is to be a mental slave programmed to endlessly provide resources to other people who would never in a million years live by the values that they inflict upon you.
So yeah, don't be a cog in the machinery of providing resources.
Resources to liars and to hypocrites.
Because then what happens is people go up and say, well, geez, I mean, people have been following these ethics for hundreds of years or thousands of years, and our society is a complete disaster.
So I'm going to stop believing in ethics.
As a method of survival. And then you get the will to power.
And the return of Darwinian war of all against all.
Which is, you know, because of what we're seeing.
So I hope this helps.
Freedomain.com forward slash donate to help out the show.
I'd really, really, really appreciate it.
And it is kind of necessary at the moment.
Freedomain.com forward slash donate.
Thanks everyone so much. Talk to you soon.
▲
Export Selection