Individualism vs Collectivism

Thanks. I enjoy discussions with anyone willing to accept they still have things to learn. As a teacher I often learn as much from teaching as my students do. Speaking of teaching, You have the wrong idea about teaching, From my point of view. 1. "No matter how much information, Tips, And techniques you teach your students, It is up to them to do it. " You have a point here. There always is effort required, But the job of a teacher is to break down complex topics into bits that are easily processed. If you understand your subject well enough to teach it, You must be able to explain things in the simplest terms. The easiest way to tell if someone has no idea what they're talking about is if they cannot explain it to you simply. Nothing is all that complicated in the end. Paving the road to the initial knowledge is hard, But the knowledge itself is easy. If it is not, We don't have a full understanding of the subject. A bare minimum effort is required, And in fact it can be fairly effortless if I have done my job well enough. I have 3 year olds with difficulty concentrating. They can still learn. This is what every human in a collective has access to, Or will, As time progresses, If we aren't swayed to selfish individualism. 2. "A simple person that is a function of the group is still weak. " As intelligent individuals, We must accept that there are some people out there who are not capable of grand feats. There are people who don't define their lives on their individuality, But who they are in a group. There are, In general, More Indians than Chiefs. It takes a strong individual to surround himself with the right people to establish a strong collective, But the collective should take care of all of its members. One that does not is not a true collective. 3. "Of course, But who is selfless? " With a well-thought moral system, One does not require God to be selfless. In fact, The most selfish individuals of our society, Or even psychopaths can be swayed with some discussion to accepting this, If they are able to follow logic and accept it. This could be fully fleshed out in another debate, But I'll be succinct. If you are an individual who stumbles across a man in need of help and you give him that help you have now potentially formed a group of two people. With two people, Basic economics begins to work. Comparative advantage comes into play. You can accomplish much more than 2x your own work with two people once you understand who is good at what. In more populated groups, This becomes a much more difficult task, Hence the current state of our world. Going deeper. It is only when the basic needs of the people are met that they can be selfless. How can a hungry man offer food to those they do not know? It happens, Believe it or not, But this is a damaging level of selflessness. However, What harm is it to a person who has no worries about where their next meal will come from to feed another? In markets where scarcity has been eliminated, To not do so is to actively harm your own potential. In the US, Millions of people are food insecure. [1] In these circumstances, Violence will occur. Who would not steal in order to live? True saints. Who would not steal to feed their children? The world currently produces more food than it needs to feed everyone on Earth. [2] Violence that is committed for these reasons is entirely avoidable. When we allow humans to die from hunger, We are stopping them from potentially creating inventions that the rest of the world would benefit from. And we throw away food and lock people out of dumpsters where we throw away good food because we're worried about being sued. We allow fruit to perish in fields because it is "ugly" to American consumers. It takes thought, But it is not hard to see how being "selfless" in these scenarios would improve our own lives. Millions have to focus on their next meal rather than inventing solutions and being members of our collective. The US has no excuse. A main limiting factor for us is politicians who limit and take away food stamps from people. Or stomp other solutions before they can be implemented, Or even suggested. Take a good look at an example from India. [3] The worst part? This is only one issue among many where humans are forced to focus on basic needs rather than being able to use their energies to invent. Would Gates and Jobs have got anywhere if they were focused on where their next drink of water or bit of food would come from? Would Newton? Selfishness is a strange concept, Because it is best served when you help other people up. 4. You yourself perhaps are not as "individualistic" or "selfish" as you may think. If you had a scenario where you could choose, What would you pick? Your death, Or the death of another human? Easy. In my case probably me. What about two humans? Three? What is the number where you would lay down your life? Would you never do so? Perhaps the answer will shed some light on how selfish you actually are. I have to throw your scenario back at you. I would help a random man who needed it who I have no connections to because I know that he will be grateful and help me in return. You say that you would not. That you would protect yourself first and grow, And then you can worry about the man who labors in the distance. But when, Might I ask, Is the point you have determined that you have grown enough and are protected enough to help that stranger? There are billionaires in our society who pay millions to avoid paying millions more in taxes. They pay to have their company's taxes reduced, To dump toxic material into rivers to save themselves money disposing of it, Actively harming society at large, Causing cancer in many. [4] Have these people grown enough? Are they protected enough? They consider themselves individuals, That all of the humans they destroy are beneath them. Companies factor lawsuits and human damage into their bottom line. [5] Humanity is lost by focusing so much on trying to find ourselves that we lose sight of others in the process. As my above argument, When you focus on yourself above all others, You are actively working against themselves. Did those companies factor in that their reputations would be destroyed if it was known they poisoned everyone? Probably. It is among the evils of capitalism and individualism that people will kill others for their own profit, To the possible detriment of themselves. Alternatively, Would you prefer to be middle class in the US or the top 1% in Syria, Or an African country? The answer is probably middle class in the US. What good is being in the top 1% of a country when its citizens can't pay for your products? When your life may be threatened with violence by those whom you have ignored on your quest to achieve that status? If all the basic needs of humanity are met, What violence is left but real petty crimes? What does acting as an individual get you? You will be able to feed yourself. Perhaps clothe yourself. Drink water. Maybe survive sickness on your own. Maybe stay warm. Your energies will be focused on these things. What does acting as a member of a collective get you? Benefit the collective by specializing in whatever you'd like. As long as you can get paid and live off of it. What benefit would members of a collective have were they selfishly selfless? The basic needs of all would be met, And the entire might of the human race would be harnessed in inventing and discovering our reality. I am a member, First and foremost, Of the Human Collective. I have determined that my well-being is raised if the well-being of my peers are. Individualism cannot sprout until freed of basic needs. Basic needs cannot be solved without the collective. -Sources in Comments.