Constant help of others in order to progress the continuation of human society is a hive mentality that rarely works for humans due to our natural separation from all others due to our need for individuality. Under a constant sign we can find that alone most of us can survive for a long time. Most people fear death, and so they proceed to live alone. Legacies are also important to the human mind. We like to leave something behind which makes us begin to work to build ourselves up or just to have kids depending on how big your need spreads. You want every human to care for one another as best they can every day? Make it a need. Wire everyone up to something and say there is at least 80 people whom you share a mind with. You may think differently but believe me when one of you dies you all will. I will not tell you who exactly is connected to you but they may live right next to you or on the other side of the earth. But if I were you I would make sure everyone you know lives as long as possible. Suddenly that hive mentality becomes a human natural order because truly no one would want to work against anyone when the knowledge that if you end up killing someone it may get you. Though then again that plan is completely insane, but then again to most so is the thought that people can work together in such a way. So yeah that's as much as I can think up.

While I agree with your points, I do find it a little hypocritical that you seem to be attacking free speech a little bit because it lets people be assholes, while supporting it in the religious thread, and attacking third world countries because people are being punished for doing something that is definitly assholish. Maybe a clarification of exactly where you stand is in order.

Now now this is not the place to ask how a person may think. As far as you know he may be playing devil's advocate in either place. Just take the opinion as it is and do not judge it like he is running for president or something. You say you agree then do not question the speaker.

People can speak freely all they want. But if you want people to be polite and courties to one another, then you need to actually hold people to that standard. Leave speech open and free for sure, anybody can say and think whatever they like. But instead of glorifiying the mysogynist, drug-dealing gangsters or whatever else have you why not put intellectuals, poets, artists, etc on the pedistal? Gangstas are still free to act and speak as they please, but children aren't seeing them as role models any more.
Additionally, you can say the same thing but phrase it differently. That may smack of censorship, but it'd be self censorship - no enforcement. I think we can all agree that "I disagree with you, and here's why" is more conducive to civil discourse than "FUUUUUUUUCK YOU!" We do this kind of thing in our own heads all the time.
That is an incredibly dangerous position to hold.

If only you were a woman, hot, my age, single, were interested in and lived near me, I would help you make all the babies you could ever want... What?! I'm not crazy!

More to the point though, is the fact that freedom of speech has nothing to do with the respect and common decency you should show your fellows. Just in the time I have been an active member of the public I have seen a massive degradation in people giving a shit about how what they do affects others, or even themselves. Much of the idiotic assholic issues we have could be simply solved by people stopping, thinking and having the decency to admit that they were wrong, or just back down for the common good. In the same way, people who do stop, think and sometimes back down shouldn't be looked down upon, called pussies and run over.

EDIT: I also see no attack on freedom of speech. What he is saying is that people should have the decency to be aware of how their fame affects those that idolize them and act accordingly.

Heh it is simple when on the most simple of places. And when I think online forum dedicated to a comic such as this. I find it quite a simple place(note I am not saying anyone is tupid just the smallness in comparison to the whole). I will question when it affects me but down here I tend to think why people should make such a big deal over it. Though yeah if I was like that everywhere I probobly would have had a position of who I was behind in the main canidates last year.

I have no idea what that means, please spellcheck, read it out loud, edit it and then tell me what the heck that has to do with our current discussion.

Most of the things you cite have a lot to do with modern society, weakening the idea that it's an instinctual matter...

Inevitably? That seems like a strong claim. Can you back it, or at least give me an example of what you're talking about?

This seems to make sense. As social animals, though, it would make sense that we also have a strong instinct to help others. So, okay, people aren't totally selfless. To what extent are they selfless, to basically paraphrase the original question? Or would you say they're totally selfish?

Maybe after a followup. Namely: perished how? In and of themselves, or due to outside influence, conquered militarily or economically? The former says something; the latter is almost to be expected...

I'd like to think that this is true. But, do you have any information that will support this idea? Or, is this an impossible question...?

Yeah, pretty much.

This isn't really what I mean... A good way to think of it, perhaps, is like it's being a volunteer. You're not necessarily giving out material things to specific people, just being serviceful towards others in general without reward. Now, if you actually produce something physical which you sell for money (like if you're a farmer, for instance), then you're using an appropriate mindset.

Well, you're still thinking in terms of modern society. The incentive to do better, for example, is to help others out more. I think that's possible. Look at early Maoist China. Those farmers worked their asses off, because they thought they were helping their country. That's basically the kind of motivation I'm talking about, though less limited. And you hit the recognition nail on the head yourself: judging by output, not input. If you're more productive towards society than others, you can feel proud of yourself for it, and others will probably admire you too.

Sure, there'd be technological improvements. Technology is there largely to make things easier to do and/or less impossible. Why wouldn't people want to make it easier to be contributive?

With regards to gratification, I guess I have to clarify. If it's not clear from what I've written in this post already, I was talking about tangible rewards, not mental ones.

I suspect that's more a matter of what you happen to be seeing catching up with what actually is.

I mean, I'm pretty sure they didn't just invent being a jerk.

Yeeeeah here's a news flash? You don't get to dictate how people here think. This thing you have going on about insinuating how because this is a sprite comics forum it means people aren't allowed to be intelligent, or whatever you're on about, is really getting obnoxious. If you can't be bothered to respect this forum and its community then you're entirely welcome to get the fuck off of it.

Heh sorry that was meant to Mannix. I just have this tendacy to avoid the quote button. You can ignore it if you like. It has no real purpose to you.