Morals, Game Theory, and Asimov's Psychohistory

In a game of statistical chance, one would naturally assume that a player with the highest IQ would be aware of all the best possible choices, & actually have the sense (!) to act on them each & every time, with little deviation, except for the changing dynamics of the game.

However, there is a missing element here: Pure, cold, almost inhuman (as in ‘Vulcan’) logic. If logic does not come into play, then great intellect will not save even canniest player.

Unfortunately, no matter their IQ (or morals) most humans do not often display this type of logic.

To make it even more interesting, add a huge number of these individuals into a game of statistical chance (like the ones you mention), or, on a much wider scale, worldwide economics, such as the stock market, (or the brinkmanship of a worldwide war). Then you get something very, very close to what Isaac Asimov called ‘psychohistory’ in his Foundation Series, where individual actions count for little, when compared to the larger group. In his series, Asimov proposed that the statistical data from psychohistory could be used to predict and ultimately guide human history itself.

Individually, such choices as one might find in any game that utilizes Nash equilibria (such as the Hawk-Dove game, or just two people walking down the street trying to decide if they should veer left or right to avoid running into each other), such choices & statistics don’t count for much.

However, on a world-wide economic, or planetary scale, they pretty much amount to nothing less than the tide of human history itself (&, of course, the fluctuations of the stock market, which can bring global collapse, as we have seen.)

Side note: A good example of a game utilizing the concepts of the Nash Equilibrium is the game ‘Strategema’ from episode ‘Peak Performance’ of Star Trek: The Next Generation. (Yes, unfortunately, I am a Star Trek fan!) When two opponents are too well matched, a path of continual balance leading to a draw (as opposed to seeking to win) is best route to a victory of sorts – for both players. The same could be said for a good game of chess.

Figuring all this stuff out (& the consequences thereof) is what game theory, statistics, & even Asimov’s psychohistory are all about. As such, IQ, morals, & even random choice are best pushed aside for pure logic, something we humans come by only by great difficulty individually, if at all, & NEVER in large groups! 

The Last Tribunal

Adolf Hitler death by suicide, April 30, 1945

In his quest to create a Third Reich (‘empire’ or ‘regime’), Hitler drew on many sources and resources: military, cultural, extraterrestrial (if some theories are to be believed) and, of course, mythological.

Why he would draw on such a diverse range of esoteric resources belies what he believed his sacred task to be, nothing less than the creation of a Third Reich, a third world-spanning empire. This third empire was to assume the historic mantle lost by the first two, the First Reich being the Holy Roman Empire, and the Second Reich, the Germanic Empire, which lasted roughly from the early 1870s until almost 1920.

(This Second Reich culminated in end of WWI and the beginning of the ‘Weimar Republic’ in German history, perhaps best known (to non-history buffs) as the rich setting for the film musical ‘Cabaret’.)

As portrayed in two of the Indiana Jones movies, (Raiders of the Lost Ark, and The Last Crusade) Hitler and his minions (including Heinrich Himmler and Josef Goebbels) were obsessed with the Occult. They were also obsessed with the hunting down and claiming as many religious and mythological artifacts as they could, from as many cultures as they saw fit to pillage, (along with other valuable works of art).

They hoped these supposedly powerful relics would contain some type of mystical energy to fuel what they believed to be Germany’s right to empire, and thus prove it was preordained all along by some higher authority.

Those relics included the Spear of Destiny, also known as the ‘Holy Lance’ (which was supposed to have been used to pierce Christ’s side during the crucifixion), the Holy Grail, thought to have been used at the Last Supper, and the Ark of the Covenant (this final relic is debatable as to whether the Nazis actually searched for it, or not.). The Nazis also consulted the prophecies of Nostradamus, looking for justification for their conquests. (Hitler was well aware of the quatrains in those ancient predictions that seemed to refer to him.)

He was also aware of the philosophies of occultists like Madame Petrovna Blavatsky, and her (once)

Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky

well-known writings Isis Unveiled and The Secret Doctrine, and the growing pseudoscience of eugenics, which presumably provided scientific proof of a superior, perfect human being of pure blood. (Hitler was an admirer of ‘Madame’ Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and her work. Some of her writings influenced Hitler’s views on race and destiny.)

Surprisingly (to many), this false ‘science’ (eugenics) actually started in the very heart of the U. S., and later migrated to Germany. Its practices included the medical abuses of the infirm and mentally handicapped, unwanted sterilizations, medical torture in the name of science, and a growing idea that some human beings were more ‘human’ than others.

In addition, the entire eugenics movement may have been sparked or inadvertently influenced by the work of Charles Darwin. In fact, the first person to coin the phrase, ‘eugenics’ and the philosophy behind it, was a distant cousin of Darwin’s named Francis Galton, a scientist in his own right.

The Nazis also searched for artifacts of other cultures, religions and belief systems, spending an inordinate amount of time, money and military resources in their vain quests. The eventual loss of these valuable resources most likely contributed to their losing the war.

Also of great significance to Hitler’s need for justification for his unborn Reich was finding definite proof of the existence of the mythical Aryan race and culture.

Of course, such a race, as conjured up by the Nazis for their own benefit, never actually existed. Even more oddly, once they ‘made up’ the Aryans, they spent an inordinate amount of time and money trying vainly to find their fictional race of ancestors.

‘Aryan’ is at most a blanket term that could be used to describe several races and peoples, real or imagined, from the mountain ranges of India to various parts of the Asian and Eastern European continent. The Nazi idea of the ‘ideal’ Aryan (oddly for culture obsessed with racial purity), was an almost bastardized mixture of ALL of these non-European peoples, very few (if any) of them blue-eyed or with blond hair, but, instead, more Hindu and (east) Indian.

Hitler also looked to music for inspiration for his empire. For this task, there was no better choice than Richard Wagner.

Richard Wagner

Wagner and Hitler were a good fit culturally, though the composer had been dead for many years before Hitler’s rise to power. Richard Wagner (1813 – 1883) was virulently racist and anti-Semitic. He especially despised his contemporary Jewish composers such as Mendelssohn (1809 - 1847), and was loath to conduct their music. (Paradoxically, he also admired Heinrich Heine, and had Jewish patrons and admirers. In this, he was also like Hitler, whom, it was rumored, hid Jewish ancestry in his family tree.)

On the other hand, his own music was thrilling, bombastic, heroic, and soul stirring, almost offensively steeped in a nationalistic machismo, a self-serving almost bloated mythology, which not only attracted Hitler, but inspired him as well, from a very young age. (Hitler was so taken with the visions of heroic jingoism in Wagner’s music he had it played in concentration camps for the ‘benefit’ of the Jewish prisoners, as if hearing it would purge them of their ‘unfortunate’ Semitic tendencies.)

Even today, Wagner’s music has an oddly larger-than-life, heroic power that stirs even the most sedate and civilized audience with images of adventure, sacrifice, and glorious battle. Wagner’s own idea of his cult of personality is ingrained the music, which has also woven its way into the fabric of modern opera itself. The figure of the Valkyrie Brünnhilde, with her horns, furs and breastplates, spear and shield, has become a caricature and de facto symbol of modern opera, at least to the general public.

In fact, Wagner’s music is so powerful that Hollywood has used many of his musical conventions and motifs in soundtracks for years. (From a more personal perspective, it is also extremely electrifying to actually perform this music.)

It’s more than coincidence that Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings cycle, based on the Tolkien trilogy, uses ‘Wagnerian’ musical phrases to portray the inherent evil of the ‘one ring’, its power, and any who wields it.

This draws on a long-standing argument among fans of Wagner and Tolkien whether their two Ring cycles are related, or, at least, drawn from the same Germanic folkloric sources. Even Tolkien himself has denied this; though his cycle is almost exclusively about races of beings, some of which are ostensibly ‘superior’ to others, and the contention over a ring of power that would confer even more status on the wielder (along with their eminent downfall.)

Richard Wagner: loved, hated, reviled, and respected, composed the soundtrack for a failed empire that would rise and fall more than sixty years after his death, ending as ‘un-heroically’ and unceremoniously as it had begun, with capsules of steel and cyanide in a cramped, garishly over-furnished, poorly illuminated bunker.

Practical Magic

Practical Magic & The Great Philosophical Debates of Science

Practical Magic: Magic that accomplishes useful objectives.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (the third of his Three Laws.)

Of the great debates of science, seven in particular are as long-lived as they are indeterminable:

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design (a.k.a. ‘Creationism’)

Nature vs. Nurture

Practical vs. Theoretical

Applied vs. Basic (Research)

God (or Religion) vs. Science

Natural (‘Organic’) vs. Artificial

Philosophy vs. Sophistry

(Honorable mentions go to Truth vs. Justice and Wisdom vs. Knowledge. These are not strictly ‘scientific’, and are debatable only when one half of each argument is expected to be in complete alignment with the other yet it is not, OR when each of the two is erroneously thought to be closely enough aligned in ideologies to make them almost indistinguishable from each other to the uninformed.)

Because this short essay is concerned only with just one of these, I will dispense with the others in summary fashion:

ü  Evolution vs. Intelligent Design: It could be that the vehicle for achieving ‘intelligent design’ is evolution itself, implemented by an Unseen Creator’s hand (divine or not) on a scale of time (and level of technology) outside of the scope of mere human comprehension.

ü  God (or Religion) vs. Science: In the same vein, science, as we understand it, may be the remaining evidence of the work of some power or level of intelligence far beyond anything we know, i.e. ‘God’. What we know as science is merely how we slowly learn to discover and explain the myriad intricacies of the forces behind Divine Creation in microcosm.

ü  Nature vs. Nurture: It could be argued that these are one and the same, and that Nature itself is the very first ‘nurturer’, while parental nurturing is actually defined by the nature of the parent(s), whom, in a never-ending cycle were the products of their own nurturing by Nature, or natural (biological) forces.

ü  Philosophy vs. Sophistry: Granted, this one was never a serious debate in ancient times, nor is it now. However, if anyone still knows the meaning of the word ‘sophistry’ (please feel free to Google it), then they would soon discover that this very essay may be an example of that long-lost art, or on other hand, it may not.

That leaves only two, Applied vs. Basic (Research) and Practical vs. Theoretical. Because these are essentially the same thing, I will immediately dismiss the former for the latter. Further, I will attempt to explain why I consider myself a pragmatist (and of the Practical School) and not a theoretician, although I have dabbled in it sometimes. I will start by explaining why my preference is not to play chess much.

The reasons are simple, but first I would like to point out that I actually do like chess, a great deal. I am not the best player that I could be (or the worst), but I do get by, with the occasional flash of dare I say, extremely good play. After the advent of computer chess, I have preferred to play against my PC, or my Android phone, because an opponent is always ready when I am so I don’t have to dig one up or find one online, and I can stop and resume the game whenever I want. (Also, my electronic opponents do not offer up ‘trash talk’ when they are winning or losing!)

Chess, played well, takes a considerable amount of time, energy, creativity, innovation, and thought, and, when you are done (whether you have won or lost) you have gained (or earned or created or discovered) not much in the way of practical value. To my mind, it ultimately is a waste of ‘my mind’, my time, and all the other adjectives from the previous sentence. Chess is theoretical and not practical. (In addition, it could explain why top chess champions are often suicidal or depressed and morose; they have put ‘it all’ on the line for absolutely nothing outside a few accolades from their peers, whether they win or lose.)

I feel the same way about Mensa-style puzzles and brain-twisters. They are amusing, baffling, infuriating, and challenging, but solving them yields nothing of any use to anybody. (In the past, I have prescribed them to people who want to improve their problem-solving skills on websites like Quora.) However, ultimately, after all that head scratching, nothing useful or concrete will have come of the entire exercise.

It is for these reasons that I do not play chess as often as I used to, nor spend as much time as I used to doing puzzles. (I still have long bouts of doing each, usually in the summer, as a mental workout. These ‘spurts’ of mental aerobics can last weeks, if not the entire summer, but eventually I lose interest in each.)

No, as I said in my ’Thirty Postulates for Problem-Solving’, my vote is solidly cast for practical, pragmatic, real-world problem solving for use in real applications. (Note: I am all for theoretical work if it is precursor of some practical, real-world break-thru or discovery. Theoretical for its own sake is only slightly interesting on an intellectual level, and not much else.)

If I had to pick a current trend more in line with my strong desire to tinker, fuss, fix, and create, it would have to be the ‘maker culture’. Making, tinkering, building: call it what you will, it is practical, and often (but not always) leads to real world, practical things.

Even possibly the greatest genius to ever live, William James Sidis, had no use for mathematics, (theoretical or otherwise) as a child until his parents could demonstrate it also had a practical, useful application. (For a good book on his tragic, fascinating life and the astonishing level of his genius, check out The Prodigy, by Amy Wallace.)

To put it slightly more bluntly (and more colorfully) theory without practical application is like an incantation without the rabbit at the end. I think for the typical person, the practical application of science (or any field) is much more impressive than pure theory. Moreover, sometimes, the awe it can create is nothing short of amazing, seeming almost miraculous and very much like magic. The sensation of encountering technology bordering on something truly magical is familiar to anyone who has been alive for the past century. Anyone who recalls the first time they saw color TV, watched a photograph develop before their very eyes, saw the first animated web page suddenly come to life, heard the first cell phone call, or recalls the very first time (civilian) GPS was used, knows that technology and magic can sometimes be one.

Einstein’s work may seemed to have been mostly theoretical (especially the annus mirabilis papers, of which portions are freely downloadable from the Internet) but it was the practical proof and application of his arcane work that made him the world’s first celebrity theoretical physicist back when most people had no idea what a ‘physicist’ actually did. The same could be said for his contemporary, Nicola Tesla, whose dazzling experiments (and brilliantly bizarre personality) made him a modern-day Merlin to many.

Mark Dean

History is filled with brilliant men and women whose practical work in the sciences bedazzled their generation, and brought new, usable applications to their time, and beyond. Johann Gutenberg, Madame Marie Curie, Edwin H. Land (Polaroid instant photography), Jack Tramiel, creator of the Commodore 64, the best-selling computer in history, and its miraculous follow-up, the Commodore Amiga. In the world of modern super-computing, there is Seymour Cray, whose name is now synonymous with the super-computing industry, Mark Dean, who helped develop or invented many of the supporting PC technologies in use today, and Tim Berners-Lee, who invented the World Wide Web.

All these individuals, wizards in their own right; have made the world a better place and more interesting place with the creation of their particular brand of ‘practical’ magic.

It appears that Mr. Clarke was correct.

What Is Culture?

What Is Culture?

(Note: The following piece was written responding to story that was published on https://www.NPR.com about dropping population numbers in Japan, with fewer and fewer younger couples choosing to having children at home, while others traveled abroad, such as to the US, to have careers and start families. The question raised in the comments that followed was ‘What happens to a culture when its people are gone?’)

Japan is a top-tier ‘first world’ society. It now enjoys a strong presence in the capitalistic sphere equal to the United States in many respects. As such, Japan has a considerable influence on the world’s economy at large through dozens of its technology sectors and companies.

However, the current population fluctuations and downturns make it potentially quite fragile. Therefore, what would happen if the worst were to occur, and its numbers dwindled to a point of virtual ‘no return’ (or, at the least ‘non-viability’), one which would make it impossible for any such country to continue to function as nation, and a people? (Sorry, Japan! This short essay is merely speculation and conjecture on my part, and an intellectual exercise, using current population trends as a platform for conjecture.)

Well, as much as we like to think sashimi, Manga, (or tacos) define a culture, they do not. Those types of ‘relics’ are just the physical manifestations of culture, symbolic representations of it. Without a living, thriving society behind them, they are nothing. (Consider Taco Bell is not in the business of selling ‘culture’ after all, only Americanized ‘cuisine copies’ of the artifacts of a culture, and not very accurate ones at that.)

It is easy to confuse the artifacts or physical manifestations of a culture with the culture itself. Manga and sashimi are just physical manifestations or outward expressions of the unique culture of a people, with Manga being an intellectual expression (articulated as an art form), and sashimi being a dietary one, expressing the importance of a food staple endemic and indigenous to a particular region. (The last classification is the most important.)

Therefore, these outwardly manifested expressions are nothing by themselves, which explains why it is so easy to export them to fast-food restaurants and other mass markets, which offer the cuisine (or the art reproductions, or other by-products of a culture), but cannot offer the intangible essence or the finite qualitative experience of that culture.

‘Culture’ is the impetus behind these artifacts, but it is not a physical thing itself, and they are not the sole expression of what constitutes that culture. Those artifacts merely present an outward facet of that culture, in essence, a physical representation of a nonphysical, even spiritual phenomenon.

Culture, instead, may be described thus: “Culture is the living expression of a people’s ongoing history of survival and adaptation through all the rigors of their native environment, including its resources, or the lack thereof. The outwardly manifested ‘cultural artifacts’ (national art, style and mode of clothing, literature, cuisine, religious practices) are, therefore, defined by how their ancestors (from most ancient to most recent) met, engaged, and overcame (or, conversely, were overcome by) that environment. ” (Quote and quotation marks are mine.)

The shaping forces of a culture can also be external and invasive, such as a people who may have spent many years under the oppressive rule and foreign culture of another nation. This occurred in China during the last great dynasty, the Ming, which ruled as foreign invaders for almost three hundred years. Human cultures of disparate peoples often co-mingle and cross-contaminate, creating hybrid cultures and alternative methods of survival (which also become a part of that culture).

Nearly all aspects of culture, from religion, to native cuisine, to even (counter reactionary?) responses to extant political systems, are the stepchildren of a onetime and long-ago struggle for survival in an environment that was once, more likely than not, very harsh or demanding, whether those difficulties were manufactured or natural, internal or external.

In this sense, cultures are like families in macrocosm. Individual (human) families have certain tastes, rituals, preferred foods, and practices that stem directly from how they, as a group of people, tried to grow and tried to learn how to live with each other, and within the limits of the resources available to them. Hence, a rich family would have a decidedly different culture from a poor family’s, with their various group tastes dictated largely by that predefined state of existence, and the resources available to them. The artifacts of their culture (like favorite recipes or treasured family items of special significance to the group) could certainly be passed to another family, but in many cases not the emotional history or the story behind them.

Cultural artifacts only exemplify a culture; they represent the outward expression of it, and, at best, only simulate the meaning of its existence OUTSIDE of its native environment. However, once a people are gone, their culture dies with them, though the artifacts may linger, for a time.

The Ineffable

(Being a Semi-Well Thought Out Response to Unspeakable Things.)

SO, the ineffable cannot be described or conveyed subjectively. NOR can it be quantified objectively. It can only be hinted at, or semi-described with a series of inadequate phrases (or entire belief systems) expressed verbally as vague, nevertheless, grandiose ideas or philosophies. (Like the Japanese idea of bushido, which is drawn directly from Taoism/Daoism as in ‘bu-shi-do = wu-shi-tao’.)

The ineffable is the closest we human beings will come to experiencing quantum phenomenon in our day-to-day existence, experiences that transcend our mental-physical ability to fully understand, and that can only be fully engaged within the confines of pure human thought-concepts (or conjectural ideations or belief systems) with no easily accessible parallel in our physical world.

A quantum phenomenon (of this uniquely human nature) can perhaps best be describe as a concept, experience, or idea that never escapes the ‘black hole’ of pure thought, because it has no parallel in the real or physical universe, e.g., like the color red and the idea of the color red.

One (the idea of red) fills in universally for what we have all agreed the color red must be. (Interesting paradox: Could it be that colorblind people, on some subconscious physiological level, have not agreed that the color red is actually red, hence, their inability to see what the rest of us see?)

Some concepts fall into a category that have no parallel or representative in the collective human experience (meaning ones on which we can all agree universally), so they are ineffable, and, on some level, intensely personal (like religious experiences or epiphanies).

Attempting to describe these indescribable aspects of their nature verbally, such as ‘position’ (or where/how they exist) and ‘momentum’ (how these experiences apparently move through our lives and are felt) could be seen as being directly at odds with (a variation of?) the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

This principle states that it is impossible to measure the position and momentum of anything (usually sub-atomic particles, but technically any body of mass) simultaneously with any degree of acceptable accuracy for either.

If so, then we, or some part of us, exists at the quantum level of some vast other part of our known universe OR dimension.

We (or some part of our minds) are quantum phenomena.

IQ Tests as Part of the Application/Interview Process

IQ Tests as Part of the Application/Interview Process

Some companies are attempting to find more and more ways to filter and gauge prospective employees. One of the ways they are using is IQ testing. (These types of testing, if improperly implemented, could be considered illegal.)

The real question, (whether legal, moral, or ethical), is if they really help. It all depends on how such tests are administered, and towards what end.

I had two such tests, one online at home, and a 'surprise' one, sprung on me and other applicants without warning at an unannounced group interview. From what I understand, each of these tests 'could' be considered illegal:

***

1. The first test was for a security guard position. The application process was long (more than an hour), with the IQ portion (which was EXTENSIVE) making it even longer. That portion of the test was a full-blown IQ exam, almost none of which had anything to do with the position being offered. I completed the test, 'aced' it, and, in the feedback section, commented about how in appropriate it was.

Because it was an online test completed at home, I also pointed out that I could have 'Googled' all my answers, which I, of course, did not. During a subsequent onsite interview, I was treated like a smartass for pointing that out. (Suffice it to say, no job!)

2. The second incident was more sinister. I was herded into an 'unannounced' group interview, with several other surprised, ill-prepared, and dare I say 'frightened' people (well some of them, anyway), and passed small, sharpened pencils (no erasers!) and a test booklet. This point in the process, after we had all been seated and introductions had been made all around, is where the trap was sprung.

We were given a lengthy IQ exam (math, logic, pattern matching, etc) that may or may not have had anything to do with the job in question (at least not the job I had applied for), and told it was to be timed, as in 'pencils UP, pencils DOWN) for each segment. (It is important to note that each of us had applied for different positions, yet all of us had been given the exact same IQ exam, a possible legal issue.)

Before we began we were informed by the proctor that after the exam we would be individually retrieved for the interview process (or asked to leave) by the order of our exam scores.

Some people walked out immediately, the rest of us took the exam, which lasted about twenty-five minutes to thirty minutes before we heard ‘pencils down’.

I was retrieved first (because of my score, I guess), but while we waited, we took occasion to complain to each about the entire affair, because each of us had been led to think our interviews would be conducted individually, and at no point had such an exam been mentioned.

My interview consisted of talk about my score, and why I had been ‘fooling around’ applying for the position I had chosen, instead of something considered more in line with my placement scoring. (She wanted to place me into a position I for which I had not applied.) I was summarily shown the door by my ‘confused’ interviewer when I did not acquiesce.

***

I came away from each interview feeling slightly abused, tricked, and even insulted, and wary of all such tests foisted unsuspectingly on interviewees without warning or notice.

Epidemic, Pandemic, and Isolationism

(The following comments are observations on the current Ebola outbreak in Africa and the growing calls for American isolationism.)

Try as I might, I will never grow to resent the fact that the world looks to the US to help resolve problems too big for them to handle on their own. That response is emotionally selfish, childish, elitist, racist, and xenophobic in the extreme. Worst of all, it is illogical and ultimately self-destructive on both personal and national levels.

 America is not an independent entity self-sufficient unto itself, but a member of a much bigger community, much more interconnected and INTERDEPENDENT than we like to admit. We also have not attained this position on our own, as our nation a ‘composite’ community based on and built upon immigrant citizens and national economies of the larger community (the rest of the world) around it.

If we let the other members of the worldwide community fall to poverty, disease, famine, and even their own wars of stupidity, we would only be fomenting the seeds of our own eventual destruction. If in all instances, we choose to stand alone, as an island blindly indifferent to the rest of the world, how long before we ourselves fall prey to those same conditions, whether they be war, disease, famine, poverty, or natural disaster?

***

'Altruism' is an interesting choice of words, because it is not merely an idea, or a vague, unattainable ideal, but, instead, a most dire necessity for our survival as species.

Altruism is one of things that have made us the dominant life form on the planet. Altruism and diversity; in our local communities, the world at large, and even within our individual biological makeup, has placed us at the top of the food chain, and made it possible for us to proliferate all over the planet, in all climates, and against a not inconsiderable array of natural and biological attacks.

Altruism and diversity are both successful mechanisms for species survival that have proved themselves repeatedly. (In almost all plagues and epidemics, some survive, while many do not. It is the biological diversity within our species that makes this possible, and ensures our survival.)

However, we are now at a stage in our development (as a highly advanced nation) to either embrace these facts, or denying them and turning our backs on the rest of the world, effectively isolating ourselves from humanity at large. If we were to do that, how long before some agent of nature, whether biological, or catastrophic (as in weather or Earth changes) capitalizes on that self-imposed austerity, and deals us a calamitous blow which we would not be able to recover from on our own?

Would we still expect 'the world' to come to our aid, after we have effectively turned our backs on it?

Altruism is a means of survival for all of us, or none of us, and it is a decision that each of us, nations and individuals alike, are called on to make almost every day, for our own good, or to our own detriment.

One point more: We may be able to hide from an epidemic for a while until our own inactivity allows it to become a pandemic. To whom will we turn, at that time, once the world has succumbed, and the infectious plague has finally crossed our borders? A person who refuses to help neighbors while their houses are burning down all around will soon find that their own house is the only one left to face the inevitable flames, and then, who will be there to offer help and assistance?