>>9125071This is the explanation wikipeida gives, is it inaccurate? - "the term conspicuous compassion, the deliberate use of charitable donations of money in order to enhance the social prestige of the donor, with a display of superior socio-economic status." Admittedly it is a bit different from my initial assumption, similar though.
You say yourself nobody is free from their genetic imperative, yet you focus in on some of the possible consequences of one strategy while exalting another. There are pros and cons to each, if that weren't the case then we wouldn't have evolved this way. Not that the two strategies are mutually exclusive either, obviously.
I do agree that conspicuous consumption is probably a better strategy overall, wearing nice clothes and driving a nice car is probably going to pull more women than making a large donation to #teamtrees, but I feel like donations like that largely miss the point of the 'nice guy' reproductive strategy. It's more like the kind of thing a psychopathic CEO would do to increase PR.
Again I'm gonna quote
>"conspicuous charity" is opposed to genetic interest since it saves the weak from their failure...It also helps the oppressed rise from their oppression. Semantics maybe, but certainly a more positive outlook on helping people. I agree that we shouldn't reward or facilitate incompetence though.
>...and makes rivals out of them where no rivals existed beforeIt also makes allies where no allies existed before. This is getting into the second part of what I was saying in my earlier reply, cooperation is valuable. Society would crumble if we didn't fundamentally work together, and working together often means doing things in the name of the greater good. This elevates everyone.
