I agree that on average people in positions of power are usually more calculating and self-interested than the average person due to a variety of criterias. Should that then discredit people who choose lower paying, less prestigious occupations out of any sense of altruism from humanity's overall judgment?
Most people follow trends and unconsciously group-think: that's why propaganda works. The dragons are more akin to a natural disaster than a geopolitical threat. I doubt anyone sane on either path would make an argument to side with dragons by eating their neighbors or capturing people to offer them or themselves up as dragon snacks. It is the responsibility and duty of altruistic leaders to find and implement ways to convince the majority of the populace to engage in gradually yet increasingly escalating prosocial behaviors. Would the American Revolution have occurred if Thomas Paine's Common Sense did not convince the colonists that separation was in their personal, individual best interests? Would the American Civil War have evolved to encompass freeing the slaves if not for the actions of and reports about John Brown? Would the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s have succeeded as much as they did (if at all) without the oratory skills and organizations of Martin Luther King Jr.?
The people who choose lower paying, less prestigious occupations out of altruism and desire to make grassroots change do not have the social clout to make real change in society beyond influencing their immediate circle, and that kind of change never lasts because generations come and go and the more people turn altruistic, the more social space is created for narcissism, manipulation and sociopathy because generally speaking benevolent and altruistic traits correlate highly with being a vulnerable and valuable target for others to manipulate and take advantage of. If there are more saints, there will be more monsters.
Change comes from the top of the social status ladder, not the bottom, and the higher up that ladder, the less altruistic people tend to be as a general trend because the traits that help one climb it are very self-serving ones. It is not just about chancing into benevolent leaders either. No one rules alone. Even if, hypothetically, you had a moral saint at the helm of every single society in the world, it would scarce make a dent because the the upper echelon of every society consists mostly of people ambitious and confident beyond their station and of an intellect not exceptional near enough to match their position, because those are simply the vast majority of people who will aspire to and attempt to fill those positions. A moral, benevolent, altruistic person scarce ever wants to be a leader of significant influence because they as a rule do not feel comfortable shouldering such a heavy moral responsibility (one which worse people will simply not care about in their pursuit of power), just as a woman rarely aspires to be an engineer and a man rarely chooses to be a nurse or psychologist, even in scandinavian countries that have tried their hardest to systematically eradicate any and all social pressures related to gender identity.
Yes, sometimes leaders can arise and inspire entire nations to momentary heroism (or horrible things) at their behest, and sometimes this can lead to systemic changes that have lasting impact, but my point is this - why are you assuming that the military dictators of a deathworld that doubtless served as killers for hire and worse in their missions prior to assuming the post and came from effective nobility with zero regard for the common civilian, are benevolent moral saints?
Being a genius is not enough to bring about lasting social improvements. We have to sincerely convince the peoples of the 7th path and the human path that cooperation will not only save their lives but improve them in the long run too. That is why I would like to follow up on how the trade between 7th path clans originated in the hopes of replicating its (presumably) pacifying effects on all of the residents at the conclave with human delegations.
We can certainly try to paint a convincing mutually beneficial goal to make people cooperate, sure.
To clarify my stance on humanity as a whole: I believe people's dispositions follow a rough bell curve with monsters on one end and saints on the other. Average people can be swayed to acts of barbarity or benevolence by charismatic leaders and social pressures leading to either holocausts or heroics. For altruism to triumph over accumulating yet overall damaging acts of self interest altruistic leaders must find ways to inspire their constituents and find morally acceptable means of leading (not giving) their people to better lives. For those changes to stay and endure the people need not to be indoctrinated but to receive educations: they need to learn and adapt to changing environs not follow dogmatic, static beliefs while persecuting one another for not following today's writ of the deified, untouchable historical supreme leader precisely.
No disagreements here.
Self interest is inherently neutral: people doing what is best for themselves in a vacuum is only logical. Where those acts become selfish occurs when a person knowingly engages in an act that will harm another person or people without any compensation for or permission from the victim(s). Finding ways to align any person's self interest with a righteous cause is the only way to move beyond the limitations charity. Are there any polls regarding people engaging in acts that, while inconsequential or marginally beneficial to them, would improve the quality of life of a stranger however briefly?
It is not about people not wanting to help others when it is easy, because they do, mostly because it makes them feel good, and people like feeling good. No, it is about people almost never wanting to help others at their own expense when they have nothing to gain from the exchange.
Perhaps one of the greatest failings of our time is the generally held unspoken assumption that acts of good must always require at least moderate effort and be completely selfless to truly count as Good?
Because perhaps they must? If one truly wants to posit a nebulous concept of objective "Good", in the first place, then relative sacrifice and intentions that one attempts to honestly act upon are literally
all that matters, not the outcome of those actions. A person whose account balance does not even change from donating a few milions to charity has done no Good, they have merely done a small part of their due out of convenience. With greater status comes greater responsibility and I refuse to judge a person of great means who makes a paltry sacrifice that is inconsequential to them but just so happens to have an end result of helping others despite being made solely in the name of moral catharsis and seeking outside validation, as one of greater moral virtue than someone genuinely good and benevolent but of low means, however great that help may be. Good is Good, Evil is Evil, people are neither, both and in-between at various points in their lives.
It is in my self interest to convince as many MfD voters to agree with my plans for Hazou and his band of misfits so those plans will come to fruition. Assuming you, like most people, receive a small hit of dopamine from seeing one of your posts gaining a 'like' I have probably directly made your day just a tiny bit better by only pressing a button on my end. Do I have an ulterior motive to pressing that button, an act that took me maybe 2 seconds? Yes, yet I hope by explaining what I would like to achieve with a real world example helps to elucidate my points. I'll even go a bit further by truthfully saying that I enjoy in depth responses to my posts since it is easier to interact with and address concerns about them that are more clearly displayed. It is another one of my hopes that you continue to be as thorough and thoughtful in your posts in this thread as it is to the benefit of everyone who participates in MfD. Selfless acts are almost always laudable and fleeting whereas mutually beneficial acts can reinforce themselves through repetition. Please enjoy your positive feedback and, if/when you feel magnanimous enough, spread that positivity to a third party to brighten up their day too.
I am not against plans for the quest per se, I was by and large merely replying to the optimistic wider notion concerning human nature and I'm afraid I'll have to dispel the faulty assumption, because I in fact derive no dopamine from internet points whatsoever. The contents of your post, however, were thought provoking, and I do like myself a little thinking, hence I certainly enjoyed reading and replying to you