RE: On the Goodness of Greed on Steemit
"humans are built for sharing, not greed". According to who? It may sound good but I don't see supporting evidences for that in history, archaeology, biology or even basic self-interest.
Greed is natural part of the human experience, what is important is how do we make sure that the greed of one actually benefit the other. Anyone who proclaims that we should do away with it has some dangerous totalitarian streak in their personality. Humans can't be molded like play dough and if you try, you'll have to use the power of the gun or the treat of violence.
Sharing is not always a virtue, if it's not reciprocal, you can actually incentivize dependency and decentivize self-reliance. You can also share something harmful with someone like drugs, a cigarette or bad habits for that matter.
"Greed is natural part of the human experience" according to who? Humans are built for sharing because every economy outside of the west is a sharing economy. Money is a false, abstract concept that was CREATED by man to control resources and monetize other people. Before the invention of money, people shared. This is widely accepted. Greed is not a natural part of the human existence. I live every day without feeling greed. I buy only what I need, I consume only what I need, I drink/eat/wear only what I need. I am aware of what greed feels like, but I haven't felt or indulged in that feeling since I was a child/teenager.
Your comment that
Loaded with incorrect assumptions. Firstly, I'm the last thing from a totalitarian. So in that you are already incorrect. I live my life by natural law and have no trouble allowing others to do and be themselves while still maintaining my integrity. Secondly, humans are rational creatures, there is no need for violence to convince people that greed is bad. When you look at the state of the economy and the local environment it should be obvious that greed is a horrible thing that has no place in a civilized society, just like violence has no place in a civilized society.
You agree that 'the law of the jungle' should not prevail despite humanities long history of violence, yet you do not question the premise that greed should be allowed despite its very short run in societies. Remember 99% of known human history was hunter gatherer. You cannot be very greedy in a society like that because everyone knows who you are and knows your contribution. If you don't share in both the work and rewards you get cut off=you starve.
So no, I do not think your post follows, it is not historically accurate that greed has always been present nor does the evidence support the notion that greed is all pervasive and needs to be 'managed'. It is the management of greed that allows it to grow to proportions that are not commensurate with its value as an emotive response.
A few things:
Please define what a sharing economy is in your mind and how/why they exist apparently only in the West?
What exactly is "false" about the concept of money?
Sure people shared before the "invention" of money. Have they not shared afterwards? Was there not both greed AND sharing before, during, and after the creation of money?
Where can I find a successful implementation of your ideal (or near-ideal) sharing economy today?
A sharing economy is any economy in which there exists no monetary form of exchange, and the people trade necessary goods and services based on common goodwill, sometimes barter. For example, a group of hunters will go and hunt for everyone sharing the results of the kill with nonhunter females and male and female children/elderly.
Money is not real. It does not exist. This was true in the past but is even more so now, since 99% of all money is just keystrokes on a central banks computer. Money was invented as a tool of slavery and control, nothing more. When food grows out of the ground, and water falls from the sky, why would you need money?
In general people do not share in this day and age. Everything has been 'monetized'. In many countries, even using a bathroom costs something. Greed before the creation of money certainly 'existed' because it exists now and it cannot be said that money created an emotion that didn't exist in the past. However, greed was highly disadvantageous to an individual because without money, there is no way to be truly greedy.
Sure you can eat the last banana out of greed, but you can't eat ALL THE BANANAS out of greed, because your stomach has finite space, and your body a finite appetite. But with money you can BUY ALL THE BANANAS and let them rot just to spite others and prevent them from eating. This is a level and aspect of greed that was not present in the past.
You can find a successful implementation of the ideal/non-ideal sharing economy in any non-western tribal society, hunter-gatherer society and any group of people who live together and survive/thrive without the use of money. There are much more than you realize.
Greed is a tool nothing more, it's like guns or religion, neither have a positive or negative value attached unless WE attached such said value to it. Positive and negative don't exist outside the human mind, they are 100% subjective.
All I'm saying is you can argue the point on both sides of almost any debate. Was hitler bad? I don't know let's say out of people who he killed one was actually going to start his own war and would kill the majority of people in the world. Hitler inadvertently killed him and now because of that the world didn't go threw some crazy times.
So was hitler ultimately bad in this scenario or does the greater good cancel out his actions? Was hitler still bad but what happened was actually now a good thing because of the future lives now saved? Or are they both tragedies and there's no good to be found? Sounds subjective to me ;-).
Awesome post btw I really enjoyed the early morning read, I to was exceptionally excited when I saw the payouts starting last night, I am not disappointed one bit!