1a2bcio8

That's good news and I'd be grateful if technological advancements could deter climate change but I don't think we should sit too easy just yet...

The following is an interesting article that requires a bit more effort but expands the context - that of Corporate power attempting to dominate our perceptions of anything that interferes with short-term profit - which the 'debate' on global warming should be considered alongside. This relates more specifically to America but which shapes our perceptions of Global Warming as well: "The ALEC Act mandates “balanced teaching” of climate science in K-12 classrooms. “Balanced teaching” is a code phrase that refers to teaching climate-change denial, to “balance” mainstream climate science. It is analogous to the “balanced teaching” advocated by creationists to enable the teaching of “creation science” in public schools. Legislation based on ALEC models has already been introduced in several states. Of course, all of this is dressed up in rhetoric about teaching critical thinking—a fine idea, no doubt, but it's easy to think up far better examples than an issue that threatens our survival and has been selected because of its importance in terms of corporate profits. Media reports commonly present a controversy between two sides on climate change. One side consists of the overwhelming majority of scientists, the world's major national academies of science, the professional science journals and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They agree that global warming is taking place, that there is a substantial human component, that the situation is serious and perhaps dire, and that very soon, maybe within decades, the world might reach a tipping point where the process will escalate sharply and will be irreversible, with severe social and economic effects. It is rare to find such consensus on complex scientific issues. The other side consists of sceptics including a few respected scientists who caution that much is unknown—which means that things might not be as bad as thought, or they might be worse. Omitted from the contrived debate is a much larger group of sceptics, highly regarded climate scientists who see the IPCC's regular reports as much too conservative. And these scientists have repeatedly been proven correct, unfortunately." http://inthesetimes.com/article/14684/can_civilization_survive_capitalism/

I'm assuming that it means the increase of 0.6 relates to the period prior to 1983, from the industrial era, and the increase of 5.1 in the last 30 years is an addition to that? In other words, the process is accelerating in relation to carbon emitting developments since then which makes sense given we're burning significantly more oil and have even less forests than before.

I appreciate your honesty even if I radically disagree with your attitude

As I understand it, yes. So expect, in the UK, in all likelihood, colder winters and wetter summers.

Furthermore, stating that the actions of other countries is a reason not to make any effort yourself is a total logical fallacy. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. How do you expect anyone else to change if you yourself are unwilling? If we never did anything different because everyone else was the same then life would become totally stuck yet the nature of life, given history, shows that everything is totally changeable and is so on a grand scale. It does, however, always begin with minorities and people who make the effort regardless of what the majority are doing. A change within, in particular, a powerful and wealthy nation could bring about momentum elsewhere. America has the greatest CO2 emissions per american but China outputs significantly less per person. In that sense, Europe generates more CO2 emissions. Overall we're pretty similar though.

Some nice easy reading based upon the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that contradicts your position: "The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate systemis unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gasesin the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels." "The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following: The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years isattributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7] If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions." - my emphasis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change It's interesting to note that the last effort to deny this science originated from those working within the oil industry... Also, since then the consensus has gradually concluded that estimates at the rate of change have usually been too conservative.

Cheers Adrian and Rusevelt

As ooo points out, ideas are where we begin and anyway, science goes beyond theory and usually tends to offer practical solutions to problems. Global warming is no longer a hypothesis but a tested theory that has withstood continued efforts to deny its accuracy. Just how quickly its effects will harm us or the extent of them is more debatable but the fact of it radically changing the world as we know is pretty much accepted. In terms of us just discussing matters this is the fundamental ground from which change follows. Without a discussion, an understanding, etc. nothing more could ever come. Actions always follow from intentions which are grounded in intentions that exist in a set of ideas and feelings. Without a specific shaping of those things appropriate actions would not follow.

The science underpinning the 'The Global Climate Swindle' has been massively debunked. Check out, as one example, the following: "The problem with The Great Global Warming Swindle, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media Mainstream scientific opinion has been unable to find a better explanation for the change in global temperature increase (through CO2 emissions) than man made causes. There will always be people that see things differently and rightly so but just because those people exist doesn't make them right. Most of you subscribe deeply to science - I know this from past debates on religion - so if the model on anthropogenic global warming (man made climate change) has survived falsification - for many decades - and for that reason is supported by a significant majority consensus within the scientific community then really you need to take it seriously. Unless you want to contradict yourself.

Recent article that highlights global warming events grounded in sound science: "But the more important point to remember is that never in the history of the planet have humans altered the atmosphere as radically as we are doing so now. And the climatic consequences for us are likely to be radical as well, on a time-scale far faster than humans have ever experienced." http://scienceblogs.com/significantfigures/index.php/2013/03/07/an-inevitable-headline-in-2014-planets-co2-level-reaches-400-ppm-for-first-time-in-human-existence/

I am living and my life has always become richer the more I've explored it and found that some behaviours I've engaged in weren't good for me. This includes behaviours I've been pushed into by society and others that I am, like everyone else, at risk of adopting regardless of what most of society is doing. Thinking about life - what you're doing, what's happening around you, etc. - is the basis for developing a saner, happier one rather than the inescapable foundation for having an unhappy one because you're bogged down by thought. Undoubtedly you risk thinking too much and I have been there in my teens but like everything in life you need balance. Thinking too much or too little are both detrimental. The fact that there is any debate, particularly one that comes with such emphasis from the scientific community, and contains the involvement of eminent scientists, studies in the most prestigious scientific journals, etc. warning us of the dangers of global warming should be enough to make you pause. Most of what's happening is not being debated. There is more carbon in the atmosphere and this is a greenhouse gas. It has been steadily increasing at faster and faster rates since the Industrial era (1800s). We've achieved an increase that usually happens over thousands of years in just a couple of hundred. Most of the debate is centred around precisely how this will affect us but science can make pretty accurate predictions about what will. It's important to consider the fact that much of the 'science' that denies global warming relates to or is funded by large energy companies with obvious vested interests. In their absence, there would undoubtedly be significantly less confusion about global warming. Furthermore, the situation of the NHS is completely grounded in fact. What is happening is contained within the policy changes to the NHS that allow for corporate buy outs, decreased transparency, etc. If you take the time research you will find the exact details within the policy. Most NHS staff are against the changes. We've already seen a massive loss of jobs within the NHS, the closing down of hospitals, specialised services, etc. all that have already cost lives and will continue to do so. These are just some examples of what's happening and will happen that's grounded in sound evidence and fact. I'd list more but undoubtedly you'd find some way of viewing what I've said that allows you to continue to ignore the problems we are all facing. One more thing though actually; in your every day experience every decision is made upon a probability. If you ignored any situation or information because it had some degree of probability you wouldn't do anything. A lot of things have a good probability though. It's just you choose to emphasis the condition of probability in those areas you don't want to deal with as though its a quality only contained there. Science is even probabilistic yet it functions pretty well in its dealings with the material world. If there's a good probability of a powerful storm would you sail? I don't think you'd say "oh well, 90% doesn't really mean much, I'd only listen if the chance was 100%." I think I'll probably end my involvement in this thread at this point as there seems little purpose to continuing.

But then did you miss what I said? You're saying the quality of your life would be interfered by thinking about what's happening too much but yet not thinking about things has the very real possibility of interfering with your quality of life in a significantly worse way. I can't see you arguing against things like drought, flooding, no NHS, etc. (which is kind of a minor list of the problems we're facing) as being better than 'thinking' about what's happening with yourself and the world around you. This is called burying your head in the sand which contains the delusion that hiding your attention about reality can somehow make what is not good about it go away. In other words, and the primary point I've been trying to make, there is a contradiction between what you say you want and what you are actually doing. Wanting a good quality of life requires thinking about life. There's no escaping that fact.

Why is that a problem? Properly ask yourself?

Or they're too blinkered to even consider an alternative way of looking at the world regardless of what that might mean to the quality of theirs and other peoples lives. Deep regret is inevitably what people will experience if we lose the NHS (two-tier system of rich and poor), experience droughts (potentially 2025 or sooner), flooding (already more common but set to increase), famine, etc. I suspect fear and an attempt to rationalise it away makes up a significant amount of most peoples responses in this thread. The fear of actually facing difficult realities, the fear of change and also the fear of having possibly been wrong. Apathy is a powerful tool for shutting down emotions that might otherwise cause distress but is achieved by deadening a part of yourself in the process; a part that can enrichen your life. It's somewhat akin to not seeing the doctor about a lump because of the possibility it might be cancer. No doubt that process has lots of denial and rationalising and it might help you feel better at present but it threatens to completely tear down those things you're trying to protect. No doubt most of you will read this and automatically dismiss it with annoyance, disinterest or something similar without really giving any thought to it - and then maybe you'll argue against it despite that. Perhaps take a moment to consider what your motivations are as you do though.

To be honest, Dave, part of being aware is knowing that you probably suffer from the same things as everyone around you. The foundation of a completely free awareness in the future, so to speak, is initially recognising your own short-falls that hinder that possibility. Everyone fails at a variety of junctures in understanding with the world although that's not to say you might not be aware of things that others aren't. For me you seem to recognise that things are amiss in the world, which is good, but you seem to too easily adopt explanations. I am guilty of this also sometimes but you must always see your understanding as a work in progress such that you remain open to criticisms that suggest the need to discard with explanations. People can suffer from the opposite and be too resistant to new ideas. A popular theme in history and the present is to assume that this social or cultural point is the end one - the apex of humanity or something similar - and our behaviours are totally valid and without need of question. Unfortunately though, the world is an ever changing place and its demands change with time. We can never just settle on a single set of ideas or principles to guide us through life but we must change them according to the specific time and all that it brings with it. If you don't it might be like trying to swim along what once was a river but's now a road - you either look silly or you might get run over where before there was no real concern for those things. Apologies about my tone at certain points within this thread. I have a tendency, particularly at the moment, to lose my temper quite easily. Regardless of this thread I've been pretty angry at points this week. Although I do find people's apathy frustrating for the reasons I've touched upon, I recognise that being unpleasant doesn't really serve much. Possibly not being assertive enough is just as bad but treading something in between can be difficult. How though do you communicate just how much current affairs demand our attention? If it's the case that the world could begin to radically change within just a matter of years, such than none of us will escape the consequences, that's the sort of thing to shout about I think? Much like you'd shout if someone was drifting out of a lane in the car without realising. I appreciate that's not a fair analogy but there are important similarities.

Nick, I couldn't initially decide whether to wait and talk to you on the ride today about this or post. Reading and talking to people about it is what we need at the moment - that is saying what we need to do presently. The basis of democracy and a government that can institute the necessary changes we need to deal with climate change other problems such as the economy, war, etc. is an informed people. In fact, without that, we're not living in a democracy. The three main parties are currently mostly representative of business interests. It's only by becoming aware of alternatives to the type of thinking that the current system encourages of us that we change it to be more representative of the majorities needs and in the long term. At present, our views are often shaped by media outlets that are not serving our interests. We are, I'm afraid, lazy about what happens in the world. The point is that this will not do. Even a basic understanding of history tells us that the pattern is minority groups trying exploit the majority for gains in power or wealth. These used to be monarchies, feudal systems, etc. which used to control with force. Due to the strivings of those before us that's less possible and instead those minority interests try to exploit us through, what we might call, 'manufacturing consent' which is the effort to manipulate our world view to distract us from what's actually happening. The current 'austerity' measures, for example, are advertised as necessary yet are counter-productive to an economy that serves most of us. An economy that has a high rate of unemployment tends to be very profitable to big business. People are less inclined to argue about what they are paid and what is expected of them in a job if that job is uncertain. Certain people in this world will do whatever they can to you in order to profit in some strange sense (extra zeros in the bank account that doesn't get spent) regardless of what it means for the rest of us. You can't just be passive to what's happening. It will, if it not already is, affect you. The difficulty you find getting a job, the two tier system that will arise in the NHS, global warming, etc. These people will keep pushing what they get away with for their own gain, even if it's insanely short-term, but can only do so to the extent that people are lazy about how they engage with the political world. Now, I understand the laziness because I suffer from it. Current affairs are often deliberately made confusing, in part to deter you and, in part, because they are complex - global warming certainly is - and, furthermore, we are constantly bombarded by forces that encourage us to shape our life around having a nice car, nice house, lots of money, status, this or that bit of technology, etc. Those latter things are appealing but they never exist separately from what else is happening. Through a worsening economy, war, global warming, etc. they might become inaccessible or meaningless. If you like the rewards of your present way of living it only makes sense to engage in what happens in the world. Calling people lazy and expressing this message with a lot of emphasis might seem rude or unjust but when the message is so important - I'd disagree it's anything like the message of faith associated with God based religion because it's grounded in substantial fact - because of what, in all probability, is happening. In essence, it's little different to shouting at someone that they are at threat from someone who is about to drive into a wall or is about to be attacked by someone. The difference is that what I'm talking about isn't as immediate. It requires imagination, not in a wishy washy sense, but in the sense of recognising what is happening, through the power of mind, beyond what you directly experience. Regarding about whether we can or cannot say for certain whether this is true or otherwise, it's unimportant if we can't be 100% confident. We shouldn't suspend judgement until we're a master or specialist otherwise we'd never make any important decisions. Life is always probabilistic and where there exists a good probability - such as a valid science, eminent scientists, etc. stating that there's a 90% likelihood of human cause in the rate of global warming - then, as layman, we need to seriously consider it as such. We also need to consider ideas such as disinformation in a world dominated by big business. There's much 'science' on global warming that is based upon studies sponsored by the oil industry. As a single correlative example, pharmaceutical companies often discard with drug testing that doesn't support the effectiveness of or, even, how dangerous a drug is. GlaxoSmithKline, probably the world's biggest pharmaceutical company, was found guilty of this a while back. This does make deciding on matters of science more complex but it does also suggest a trend of profit being selected over a concern for people. Specifically, I think GSK, in one instance, hid the fact that a certain anti-depressant increased the likelihood of suicide in people with depression. As a result, people died. Ben Goldacre writes about this sort of thing both in book and articles if anyone is interested. Regarding the third world, saying you can't comment on that until you fly out there is pretty ridiculous - no offence - when a significant amount of the problems relate to our interference. The basis of problems in Africa significantly relates to the history of Western colonialism. When we gave that up we divided Africa along artificial line - consider the shape African nations on a map - which caused all sorts of tribal conflicts. Then, furthermore, we've fuelled those wars by selling or giving arms to one or both sides. We've supported the toppling of democratically elected governments and supported dictators that allow access to resources. Through the World Bank and IMF we've leant money that funds minority African interests - governments - and do so on the basis of imposing austerity measures on the poor; channelling money away from basic infrastructure such as schools, energy production, water, etc. We subsidise our farming and flood their markets with food that cannot be competed with at a local level. This sort of thing, on a more general level, around the world in poorer countries forces people from the countryside into the cities and creates cheap, slave labour in factories and the like for large manufactures. In other words, these problems relate to the actions of the governments that supposedly represent us. We can change this situation without ever going to a third world country by being informed and selecting a saner, rational form of government rather than the fairly insane, murdering one we presently have. There's a lot more I could say but I have other stuff to do now.

I just want to add that I do not describe systems in some absolute sense. They are not perfectly 'greedy' but can be described generally in that way because of the convenience of doing so. Also my descriptions are necessarily superficial and surmising because I'm not willing to write like a proper essay. Again, pretty easy to find sources that relate to my viewpoints. And ones that even come from prestigious sources such as Oxford.

You're referring to fracking I take it in your first point? If so, I've mentioned that and it's been shown as extremely harmful to the environment. I'm pretty much worn out of this thread now but I'll give one last go at answering your points. I'll admit ignorance as to why we can't extract the methane from the ice. I did read someone saying the problem was that it existed within not large cavities but within minute, divided pockets within the ice. I'm not sure though. Regarding greed as an explanation, it's a pretty valid one I think. At least it's very fundamental. We don't have to consider it in terms of the fact that governments do very little in response to science's claim about global warming but you asked as to why they are ignoring this danger. What sort of terms were you thinking if not psychological as an explanation? The situation of greed is a complex one and the point is that it is also institutional which is to say that it is how systems of power function in the modern world. For instance, corporations are naturally greedy because they are legally obliged to maximise profits for their shareholders. If anyone tries to behave otherwise, by trying to redirect money toward charity or something similar, they will lose their job. So, in that sense, you can have relatively good people that have little choice but to do bad things if they want to operate in a certain work environment. Regarding government, if you consider the ties that the decision makers have to corporate interests then again we observe pressures to follow institutionalised greed. People in the higher echelons of government, who are usually quite wealthy, hold positions and shares in conglomerate companies and a presidential candidate can ONLY run with massive support from big business. If a candidate becomes president they clearly have an obligation toward those that have funded them. Then there's lobbyists... More broadly, we can also call the modern form of capitalism greedy by comparing it to the economic model that proceeded it when the Church dictated what happened. Previously the idea of profiting to your neighbours detriment was considered immoral. Everyone earned what they needed and that was fine. Now, the idea of profiting at the expense of your neighbour is just considered the way of things even if it harms them and even if it only relates to you adding to your wealth something you don't really need that much. This all gives you ample foundation for further research though. The scientific consensus, agrees with an extremely high probability, that the earth is warming and humans are responsible. Yet governments in the UK and America have talked about addressing this concern - it's formed a part of their election pledges - but they haven't acted upon it. They haven't corresponded their actions, to limit carbon emissions, with that scientists have said is required to reverse the damage. This is also despite the financial costs that are associated with leaving it that increase exponentially with time. It is significantly cheaper to resolve global warming now. You can easily go and research what I'm saying. I'm offering you significant ground from which to proceed. You can read the articles that support or refute what I'm saying and make up your own mind as I've done. What more can I say though? I don't necessarily remember links or exact statistics but that doesn't mean I haven't read them, found them convincing on reasoned grounds and therefore argue for them as important. Again, you can easily go and check what I'm saying with a bit of effort. There are statistics on global warming even in magazines such as New Scientist, The Lancet (probably the most prestigious medical journal in the world), university websites... I don't see what difference it makes if I make the effort to find them again or you do? I always mostly remember the underlying principles involved. I tend to forget the details but that doesn't mean I don't understand or I'm incorrect... You say you won't even try searching for information on global warming because it leads to weird, presumably invalid, places. Where do you find valid information then? Please tell me where valid sources are? Corporate News whose profits comes from advertising? I read academic books whose notions and facts I find correspond to some news reports and articles on internet. These reports and articles are often by professional journalists, academics and scientists. Please tell me why these sources on the internet are inevitably invalid? Again, tell me your underlying idea as to what constitutes a valid source and why the internet cannot offer that? No doubt there is always nonsense but that doesn't deny the possibility of sense. I missed what you said about Oxford being a valid source. Well, they're not any more valid than other universities really. Truth is truth and can be appropriately expressed by any academic at any university. However, a quick Google reveals articles and books on global warming by Oxford Uni and Oxford Uni Press. Your caricature of somebody who questions the mainstream view is pretty weak and pointless. It doesn't argue any point but tries to 'win' through defamation. That's a rather naive view of the correspondence between ones job role and the possibility that they will actually do what they are supposed to. Of course that happens but it doesn't have to. See above description of the structure relations of government.

Well then, according to my definition, that type of apathetic disinterest suggests a form of insanity. No doubt you won't care. You probably will if global warming comes to fruition in the near future but then you obviously lack the imagination to recognise that. If you'd read my previous statements you'd know I don't advocate a type of dogmatism and that reaching conclusions on these sorts of matters is a difficult process but because of their meaning eventually you need to take a leap of faith in one direction or the other. I've always spent time reading differing accounts and have, over the years, changed between differing viewpoints. However, there was a tipping point and I am much more inclined toward one side now as I have found the evidence more compelling. I am open to alternate viewpoints and I still read material that doesn't coincide with my viewpoints. Probably I'm not as open as I imagine but I like to think I do retain something of that quality. You've not really addressed any of my points though. In fact, you've made stuff up about my method of understanding that isn't true. And I never said everyone is out to screw you over.

Exactly, the sane thing to do is extend the period with which the environment fluctuates rather than shortening it. The superficial things I'm referring to is ones pursuit of owning technology, cars, achieving status against a concern for the course of humanity which is, undoubtedly, a deeper and saner concern. I'm not saying those things are bad within themselves but they are when they act to distract us from more pressing matters. I'm not advocating simply getting rid of technology or something like that but I do think it should exist within a balance of concern about other things. Those are just some examples of superficiality over survival and sanity.

The point at which it happens is not inevitable. We can either choose to become informed and change our behaviour, extending life and its quality or maintain our course obsessing about superficial bullshit and be less happy for it.

I can't believe you're seeing global warming as a conspiracy theory. You've totally missed the point. It's not about chemtrails which I wish I'd never mentioned now.

- Why isn't that methane being made use of? Because it's essentially trapped in the ice. When the ice melts due to global warming it releases and not, presumably, in a way that it can be captured. Methane has a global warming effect in multiples of 10 over CO2. This is a feedback process that will get faster and faster. The more methane that is released the more the ice melts and the more methane gets released and so on. - Why not mine it? Because it is trapped in the ice. - We can't, or is there no methane? I'm not sure what you mean? - Why would governments (which are bad and govern sheeple, like us) not be concerned about everyone dying soon, including them? Because our social system has been so shaped by greed and short-term gain that it's impossible for anyone to do anything less they risk their position within that system. Do not underestimate the power of greed and the type of denial it gives rise to. For instance, are you going to further investigate the points I've made? I may be talking nonsense but I may be indicating something important. Are you going to even take the small step to find out? In other words, if you're not doing anything about it in a small way do you expect those in power to do anything significant about it? Particularly when you consider the ties that people in government have to big business that profits from the 'dirty' energy sector. - Do PM's, presidents have no self preservation instinct? Again, the power of denial is effective when one has a greedy concern for the short-term. Consider the fact that the government has allowed for fracking (capturing gas stored in crystalline structures under the ground) within the UK. This process injects, I believe, over 100 chemicals into the ground and ruins water (flammable tap water anyone?) and eco-systems, kills animals and makes people very ill or die. This has already been happening in America yet politicians have allowed it to begin to happen across the UK. They are putting themselves at risk. To some extent they have probably been duped by the propaganda of the various American and Canadian companies who are benefiting from this process. - If they're just mad with power, what use is power when they run around in anti-gas masks and we're all dead? Greed makes you crazy. It can create an obsessive interest in certain things such as power, money or whatever. It creates fear at losing what you have and hatred at others who get in the way of what you want. These are hardly emotions that promote rationality I think you'd agree? Erich Fromm wrote in 'The Sane Society' how entire societies can be considered insane. Usually we define sanity according to what most people are doing and insane according to those in the fringes - who can't 'adjust' to societies demands - but sanity, if the term is properly used, refers to living in accord with your nature and promoting those parts of you that helps you see the world for how it is, feel content and doesn't interfere with those deep rooted human needs such as survival. I think it's the case that we are pretty insane. We're constantly waging and supporting wars, ignoring strong evidence about the perilous direction we're taking and generally distracting ourselves with various dead technologies that miss the more naturally important qualities found in human beings and our relations with them. Your last sentence sounds like an attempt to convince yourself rather than anything else.

Here's the thing though. When you properly feel love for those around you you act to protect them and that feeds back into your love. That shit feels good, dawg. It's just we have a culture of assuming the best pleasure is from gaining this or that 'thing' be it an object, status, etc. We're not very practised at gaining reward from compassion. I'm guilty of often finding my bike more interesting than other people but sometimes in relation to selflessness and my feelings for other people I get a different reward and it supersedes everything else.