Selfishness

[kmich]

double post ...

[kmich]

I wanted to bring forward in the discussion of selfishness, there has to be a concept of the self, and the divide between the Christian and Buddhist viewpoints is the biggest one I can think of. Then you come into Western culture and give it a big ol' slug of materialism, and there's another spew to contend with...'>>.....

I do not know much about the Buddhist perspective. Obviously, self exists as an essential construct to distinguish social relations and to define accountability to others for ethical conduct. The problem of "self" I don't think is really about that though, at least not in our culture. It is more about coming to terms with the powerful presence of our individual, subjective, conscious experience.

In this culture, we are so externally directed and so internally impoverished that we tend to either believe we do not exist or we are such isolated beings that we require some external agent that intervenes on our ontological behalf. We have lost the mythic and devotional dimensions that make our subjective, experiential lives inseparable from the womb of life and of the cosmos that make the requirement of such options unnecessary.

In Jungian terms, there a masculine (animus) and feminine (anima) elements to the psyche. The feminine is the earth, agriculture, the womb from which life comes. The masculine is the will that acts upon life. We are a culture that is so dominated by the animus, the masculine, that our relationship to the feminine, to the earth, and to life has become corrupt and destructive. Our relationships to ourselves and to others have become isolated and empty. We haplessly try to disguise our spiritual hollowness through cynicism, glibness, and superficial reasoning. To paraphrase Jung, we live in boxes suspended by a string of our mortality, rather than in the open space of the heart and of the world from which we emerged and to which we owe everything.

I wish I knew how to remedy this. I don't see it solved intellectually, but through the cultivation of devotion, imagination, and the opening of the heart. How to find allies for such an enterprise in this culture, I do not know. Even the Buddhist groups I have seen in this country have been only sterile "mindfulness" therapeutics without the mythic and devotional elements I seek.

[Simple Minded]

Thanks to all who posted on this thread.

Always interesting to read the different opinions, including the vocabulary used, on these definitions that apply to so many areas of study and experience.

Religion, philosophy, psychology, social norms, ethics, politics, etc.

The human desire for both inclusion in the group (that one chooses to define) and a sense of personal uniqueness is a tough thing to resolve mentally.

And when the observer does not share the same image of Fred, that Fred wishes to project, or the same view of the world that Fred holds dear.......

just remember, when a woman asks "Does the self-image I wish to project make my ass look fat?" There is only one correct answer!

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

In this culture, we are so externally directed and so internally impoverished that we tend to either believe we do not exist or we are such isolated beings that we require some external agent that intervenes on our ontological behalf. We have lost the mythic and devotional dimensions that make our subjective, experiential lives inseparable from the womb of life and of the cosmos that make the requirement of such options unnecessary.

hmn..... my habit of thought has it that generally we live within our own heads so much so that the 'other', the external, has no independent existence outside of ourselves. That might mean I have that emotional flatness you just described. How then, do you relate to others when basically, they're figments of your imagination? Now I'm thinking...... this may be a mirage, a bout of unconscious tribalism due to "our relationships to ourselves and to others [becoming] isolated and empty." - (as you said).......

A work in progress..... still a work in progress...'.>........

[kmich]

hmn..... my habit of thought has it that generally we live within our own heads so much so that the 'other', the external, has no independent existence outside of ourselves. That might mean I have that emotional flatness you just described. How then, do you relate to others when basically, they're figments of your imagination? Now I'm thinking...... this may be a mirage, a bout of unconscious tribalism due to "our relationships to ourselves and to others [becoming] isolated and empty." - (as you said).......

A work in progress..... still a work in progress...'.>........

The figments of my imagination are my own production and can be formed by me to suit my desires and expectations. Other people sometimes defy my desires and periodically confound my expectations so they cannot be solely "figments of my imagination." Idealism fails on pragmatic grounds. The real illusions are those boxes of conceptions, convictions, and understandings we consciously and unconsciously place ourselves and others into.

Formulating alternative concepts, for example, that we are not ontologically distinct from the other is likely to be of little use. One concept, no matter how inspiring the conceit, simply replaces one box for the other and and cannot substitute for the direct, felt experience that can be genuinely convincing and trans-formative. This is a very challenging process that cannot be solved through reasoning alone, but, I believe, through an opening of mind and heart to experience. Only then can we meaningfully relate to the other.

This is also a particularly difficult enterprise in a culture that suffers from the tribalism you mention with its celebration of hollow exceptionalism in dutifully upholding the external values of wealth and power in self or collective worship. Our religious pretensions cannot disguise our spiritual poverty, however, and we cannot evade the fact that we have lost connection with the fundamental mythic and devotional dimensions that make any spiritual insight and vision possible. Perhaps we can reconnect is someway to our own visionary traditions - Dante, Milton, Swedenborg, Blake, Nietzsche, Jung, etc. I don't know. Most of those visionaries remain obscure outside of academic circles and oddballs like me. Maybe not Nietzsche though, although the last time I checked his grave he was spinning at 100 RPM in the face of the small minded narcissism of many who claim to be inspired by him. The "village of the motley cow on steroids" he might have envisioned it.

Anyway, all this is a work in progress as you say, FF, but I believe that this work requires a kind of road map derived from some tradition to bear fruit and make real relationship with ourselves, each other, and the world at all possible. Such traditions, however, must be living ones and not be inspired by the fear inspired reactionary forces of the culture.

(FYI, I am going to be tied up on duty and on call in the ER for the next few days, so my appearance on this forum will be unlikely during this time. Finishing breakfast in front of a staff lounge PC. Gotta run...)

[Mr. Perfect]

I doubt anyone will ever really know. George Price likely had many of his own demons that we will never know that compelled him to sever his carotid with a pair of nail scissors.

i think it is quite evident that it was because of a contradiction he saw between selfishness and selflessness.

However, David Hume was correct when he wrote in “Of Morals” in his Treatise, “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.”

Wow. We'll need some citations to confirm that.

Continuing with Hume, ethics such as “altruism” are derived through the felt experience of sympathetic relations and not through the machinations of reasoning. An intense attempt to apply reason using mathematical methods to such moral issues may have hollowed out and twisted Price's positive ethical inclinations into demonic, destructive obsessions. The need for scientific detachment may have collided with his passions, and his moral inclinations may have lost their proper experiential moorings. His passions may have turned on him with an intolerance of his very existence. Who knows?

What all this has to do with Ayn Rand, the Gospels, and “secular leftists,” I don't know.

They talk about it all the time, that's what it has to do with it.

I don’t consider people’s ethical character by what philosophical or religious positions they promote anyway, and I don’t trust righteous ideologues, religious or secular, "left" or "right."

Righteous ideologues are people. Don't be ideophobic.

[Parodite]

The intellect (and its attached self) may not be the door to an open heart and (re-)discovering meaning in the present and a truly felt connection with all-thee-other(s), but I like to see it as a pet that happens to have certain needs, skills and behaviors and best is allowed to be what it is. Live the full life that pet deserves to live, even if in captivity.

The intellect pretty much is a type of dog. Big variety in breeds, character and behavior but all are domesticated by human culture and its values. Yet still the primordial hunter, chaser, digger is still there. My intellect always feels like hunting after something. To bring back home prey ("understood fact"?), or just wanting to take a bite of something that smells or just appears tasty. There are some juicy philosophies and theories floating around that almost beg to be hunted, consumed and digested! Anything new on the menu today? Wait.. whats that... something moves over there... what is it?

Maybe it is all an illusion... but there is something perpetually new and unprecedented about the present moment. Dogs are never bored... at least when they are allowed to roam and sniff around, bring home some prey. Sometimes to devour and digest.. sometimes just to play and discard.. when the fun is over. Until they also get old and are happy enough to sleep most of the day... get on regular intervals something to eat.. and in between sleeping and eating know their Master is still there.. or will be home soon.

I observed that some of the anti-intellect (and anti-self) spiritual movements appear rather lifeless, where you are never sure if it really is a natural calmness and vivid empathic awareness.. or more like a fearfully anxious control of the self that wants to project the opposite of what it actually is. People who learned to hold their dog so tight on a rope that it resembles a Siamese twin choking on the same leash.

[kmich]

I doubt anyone will ever really know. George Price likely had many of his own demons that we will never know that compelled him to sever his carotid with a pair of nail scissors.

i think it is quite evident that it was because of a contradiction he saw between selfishness and selflessness.

It's a shame you were not there to clear that matter up for Mr. Price before he severed his carotid artery, Mr. Perfect.

However, David Hume was correct when he wrote in “Of Morals” in his Treatise, “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.”

Wow. We'll need some citations to confirm that.

Wow indeed. I did cite the book within the Treatise, but I guess that was insufficient. The full Hume citation is A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, Of Morals, Part I of Virtue and Vice in General, Section I, Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason, Paragraph 7. However, someone with the most rudimentary familiarity with Hume would hardly be surprised by his well known rejection of moral rationalism for the primacy of sense impressions.

I don’t consider people’s ethical character by what philosophical or religious positions they promote anyway, and I don’t trust righteous ideologues, religious or secular, "left" or "right."

Righteous ideologues are people. Don't be ideophobic.

Yes, they are people. I don't care to deal with them not because I am "phobic" or afraid of them, but because I find them insipid, boring, and predictable.

[Mr. Perfect]

It's a shame you were not there to clear that matter up for Mr. Price before he severed his carotid artery, Mr. Perfect.

Maybe. But the overall point of course is that many secular leftists paint a very errant cartoonish caricature of Christian selflessness. Which of course is the point of the thread, and has been borne out in the responses.

Wow indeed. I did cite the book within the Treatise, but I guess that was insufficient. The full Hume citation is A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III, Of Morals, Part I of Virtue and Vice in General, Section I, Moral Distinctions Not Derived from Reason, Paragraph 7. However, someone with the most rudimentary familiarity with Hume would hardly be surprised by his well known rejection of moral rationalism for the primacy of sense impressions.

No, I fully accept Hume said that. I do not accept that he was right. I think one would need to make a very lengthy case to demonstrate that there is no relationship between morals and reason.

Yes, they are people. I don't care to deal with them not because I am "phobic" or afraid of them, but because I find them insipid, boring, and predictable.

Liberals now believe that if you believe anything negative about a group of people it is a phobia.

Eg, in my life I've never met anyone who is "afraid" (ie hyperventilates, has anxiety, cries, shakes) of homosexuals and yet homophobia is common political slur. You have to stay current with times.

[kmich]

The intellect (and its attached self) may not be the door to an open heart and (re-)discovering meaning in the present and a truly felt connection with all-thee-other(s), but I like to see it as a pet that happens to have certain needs, skills and behaviors and best is allowed to be what it is. Live the full life that pet deserves to live, even if in captivity.

The intellect pretty much is a type of dog. Big variety in breeds, character and behavior but all are domesticated by human culture and its values. Yet still the primordial hunter, chaser, digger is still there. My intellect always feels like hunting after something. To bring back home prey ("understood fact"?), or just wanting to take a bite of something that smells or just appears tasty. There are some juicy philosophies and theories floating around that almost beg to be hunted, consumed and digested! Anything new on the menu today? Wait.. whats that... something moves over there... what is it?

Maybe it is all an illusion... but there is something perpetually new and unprecedented about the present moment. Dogs are never bored... at least when they are allowed to roam and sniff around, bring home some prey. Sometimes to devour and digest.. sometimes just to play and discard.. when the fun is over. Until they also get old and are happy enough to sleep most of the day... get on regular intervals something to eat.. and in between sleeping and eating know their Master is still there.. or will be home soon.

I observed that some of the anti-intellect (and anti-self) spiritual movements appear rather lifeless, where you are never sure if it really is a natural calmness and vivid empathic awareness.. or more like a fearfully anxious control of the self that wants to project the opposite of what it actually is. People who learned to hold their dog so tight on a rope that it resembles a Siamese twin choking on the same leash.

I like the dog analogy, Parodite. Following that analogy, who is the dog's master?

The intellect is an integral part of how we take our experiences, visions, and intuitions and give them form. It really is not separate and is an integral part of human experience. If we understand that the intellect serves the experience, the vision, the intuition, we understand that while it is essential, it is a secondary process. Experience remains the master it serves. We get into trouble if we mistake the intellectual form as primary rather than derivative.

This creates reification fallacies in what Alfred North Whitehead described as "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality. The other problem with making the intellect, the reason, primary is the loss of appreciation of the incomplete nature of thought forms, again, in Whitehead's words, "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.” A culture that revels in concepts and intellectual forms that has lost connection to its mythic, experiential heritage would indeed be prone to such confusions.

I cannot conceive of any meditative or contemplative tradition as being viable by rejecting or being "anti" anything, intellect, self, or otherwise. Such conflicts would not create serenity but would sow only confusion. As Milton wrote in Paradise Lost, "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." It would seem that confronting the heavens and hells we create in our minds for ourselves would be an essential part of any spiritual journey. That would take courage, devotion, faith, and balance for such a journey to take place from what I can tell. All would be in the game and nothing could be rejected.

[Mr. Perfect]

"There are no whole truths;"

Except this one, right?

[kmich]

"There are no whole truths;"

Except this one, right?

No. It is an isolated quote I offered to make a simple point. If you are actually interested in the intricate subtleties of Whitehead's arguments, I would refer you to Whitehead's "Process and Reality."

[Parodite]

The intellect is an integral part of how we take our experiences, visions, and intuitions and give them form. It really is not separate and is an integral part of human experience. If we understand that the intellect serves the experience, the vision, the intuition, we understand that while it is essential, it is a secondary process. Experience remains the master it serves. We get into trouble if we mistake the intellectual form as primary rather than derivative.

The job description of the intellect has also been elevated over the years. Not only is it able to humbly serve its master with as accurate as possible subtitles of for instance sensory experience or an occasional suggestion of how to rationally plan a next long term move... while never asking much back in return. It now also developed tools, skills and powers to manipulate its Master, feeding it back with images, suggestions, possibilities, stories and visions.. like rabbits emerging from a magic hat. And make master laugh or cry.. because master can't distinguish so well between what's real and something projected on a movie screen.

This creates reification fallacies in what Alfred North Whitehead described as "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness" when one mistakes an abstract belief, opinion or concept about the way things are for a physical or "concrete" reality. The other problem with making the intellect, the reason, primary is the loss of appreciation of the incomplete nature of thought forms, again, in Whitehead's words, "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.” A culture that revels in concepts and intellectual forms that has lost connection to its mythic, experiential heritage would indeed be prone to such confusions.

Our frontal lobes can indeed be very demanding and domineering. However: "Better a bottle in front of me, than a frontal lobotomy".

I cannot conceive of any meditative or contemplative tradition as being viable by rejecting or being "anti" anything, intellect, self, or otherwise. Such conflicts would not create serenity but would sow only confusion.

Very true.

As Milton wrote in Paradise Lost, "The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven." It would seem that confronting the heavens and hells we create in our minds for ourselves would be an essential part of any spiritual journey. That would take courage, devotion, faith, and balance for such a journey to take place from what I can tell. All would be in the game and nothing could be rejected.

From a rational point of view creating hells and heavens in our minds, in the form of entirely fabricated stories and/or some sort of ongoing commentary in the background that is half spoken-whispered, is a bit of a waste of time and energy. But stories are very powerful and have always been a force and presence in human cultures.

jkqb6uDRNQs

[kmich]

The job description of the intellect has also been elevated over the years. Not only is it able to humbly serve its master with as accurate as possible subtitles of for instance sensory experience or an occasional suggestion of how to rationally plan a next long term move... while never asking much back in return. It now also developed tools, skills and powers to manipulate its Master, feeding it back with images, suggestions, possibilities, stories and visions.. like rabbits emerging from a magic hat. And make master laugh or cry.. because master can't distinguish so well between what's real and something projected on a movie screen....

Our frontal lobes can indeed be very demanding and domineering...

There are some subtle distinctions that perhaps need to be made. The frontal lobes are a good place to start. The neuropsychological research demonstrates that intact frontal lobes are required for the ability to select stimuli and possible behaviors from an array without distraction or confusion, as well as the ability to alter problem solving sets in the face of new challenges. These however are functions. Functions are directed by intentions which are intertwined with subjective experience. There are neuroimaging studies that correlate subject reports of intention with brain process, but there is no current evidence that intention is caused or directed by the brain. In addition, brain lesion studies in clinical practice demonstrate significant variability in functional correlations, so even such studies, while helpful and intriguing, remain far from complete. In the 19th century, physicians believed that the outside shape of the skull correlated with function and personality with some evidence, but this was all subsequently debunked and what was called "Phrenology" became a pseudoscience. While I do not believe that current brain science is in the same primitive league as that, the story of phrenology remains a cautionary tale.

I don't believe that function can dominate intention, but it is clear that intention can manipulate function, perceiving what it wishes to perceive. This is consistent with many years of study on human perception and cognition. We see what we intend to see and we often manipulate brain functions to accomplish that. The job description of the intellect has been elevated over the years because we have increasingly sought to support our belief that the world can be understood and controlled and we can best secure our safety through the functions of reason. This intention to promote reason proceeded in spite of the cautions of the greatest philosophers of the age, Kant and Hume, who warned against not taking reason's limitations into account. In The Critique of Pure Reason, Kant broke with the rationalists by coming to the conclusion that, in the search for truth, reason only has the modest, but critical function of guarding against error. Reason, rationality are essential for coherence of thought, behavior, and perception, and, if applied appropriately, can guard against error. It remains, however, a tool, a function, that we are responsible for understanding and for using properly.

From a rational point of view creating hells and heavens in our minds, in the form of entirely fabricated stories and/or some sort of ongoing commentary in the background that is half spoken-whispered, is a bit of a waste of time and energy. But stories are very powerful and have always been a force and presence in human cultures.

Following up on the above. Rationality is a function. How can it have a point of view unless we intend to identify with it, and, by doing so falsely perceive it as the source of our intention? And why would we intend such an identification?

I always appreciated Stephen Jay Gould's "Nonoverlapping Magisteria". There is no conflict between science and religion, but conflict arises when these respective "magisteria" move outside their respective domains in a cycle of reaction and counter-reaction. There is truth that is derived through scientific, objective methodology that is made persuasive through the conventions of science. Then there is also truth derived from the subjective experience of meaning whose truth as measured by value and ethic. Both are essential for a balanced life. The latter is the realm of the story, the myth, that articulates our experience of meaning and value in life. Susan Conley, in the video you posted, is teaching how to develop this and showing how it supports resiliency and connection through the articulation of meaning. Sometimes of heavens and sometimes of hells.

Here is a story. We emerge out of the universe composed of atoms forged in stars. We are, as Carl Sagan once put it, "star stuff looking at star stuff." We grew out of the cosmos for the cosmos to experience and reflect upon itself, to tell its story around its own stellar campfires.

This is done certainly through the applied methods of reasoning through science revealing its functions and relations. The mythological function, the function of experiencing and articulating our visions is just as important, if not more so. We have become far too dismissive of that, and we are losing much and paying a price by doing so.

[manolo]

Ayn Rand came along and wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness" which leftists also did not read and so falsely attribute ideas to her she didn't say. It's a whole book, so I recommend you reading it, but one of the summaries is that if you give away all your stuff because that is what you believe and it makes you feel good then you are acting selfishly. And she is right, so I'm glad she wrote that book.

Mr P,

Yes, I think you are right that Ayn Rand was interested in selfishness as copy.

However, it's not all bad. She was also a strong believer in government programmes such as Social Security and Medicare for those in need of such assistance.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/06/a ... stance.htm

Alex.

[noddy]

come on rhap, enough theory, cut to the chase.

what is the justification for you steenky workaholic germanics to be so selfish when their is southern euros who need investment, how much tax are you prepared to spend and for how long.

how can you live with yourself when your country is lacking in basic human compassion, surely you should be happy and greatful to work harder and longer knowing you are doing a wonderful thing.

[Parodite]

come on rhap, enough theory, cut to the chase.

what is the justification for you steenky workaholic germanics to be so selfish when their is southern euros who need investment, how much tax are you prepared to spend and for how long.

how can you live with yourself when your country is lacking in basic human compassion, surely you should be happy and greatful to work harder and longer knowing you are doing a wonderful thing.

Whuhu.. I don't care much about the Southerners. No taxes for any of them. Basic income only for my fellow nationals.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr P,

Yes, I think you are right that Ayn Rand was interested in selfishness as copy.

Much like Christ.

However, it's not all bad. She was also a strong believer in government programmes such as Social Security and Medicare for those in need of such assistance.

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/06/a ... stance.htm

Alex.

If you pay into a program why wouldn't you withdraw from it.

Most leftists who have the money invest in equities (shares). I have a very long list of such folks if you need it. barack obama, john kerry and HRC all use jetliners to set records traveling the world to discuss the evils of carbon emissions. It would take hundreds of your lifetimes riding a bicycle to offset their carbon.

I hope you get the point.

[manolo]

Most leftists who have the money invest in equities (shares). I have a very long list of such folks if you need it.

Mr P,

I sold my own share portfolio a few years ago, but not for political reasons.

Alex.

[Mr. Perfect]

Too bad. Under obama only shares have done well, creating the largest wealth disparity in our history. Under obama.

[Endovelico]

come on rhap, enough theory, cut to the chase.

what is the justification for you steenky workaholic germanics to be so selfish when their is southern euros who need investment, how much tax are you prepared to spend and for how long.

how can you live with yourself when your country is lacking in basic human compassion, surely you should be happy and greatful to work harder and longer knowing you are doing a wonderful thing.

Whuhu.. I don't care much about the Southerners. No taxes for any of them. Basic income only for my fellow nationals.

It's alright. We can wait until you all die of heart attacks, stress, overeating and drinking, or swamped over by Moroccans...

[manolo]

Too bad. Under obama only shares have done well, creating the largest wealth disparity in our history. Under obama.

Mr P,

It was my retirement. I remember you advising me (many moons ago and on a different forum beginning with S.) to come out of equities in retirement and invest for reliable income.

I think it was good advice.

Alex.

[Parodite]

Whuhu.. I don't care much about the Southerners. No taxes for any of them. Basic income only for my fellow nationals.

It's alright. We can wait until you all die of heart attacks, stress, overeating and drinking, or swamped over by Moroccans...

Alright, maybe we can work out a compromise. I'm willing to pay taxes (no repayments required, no interest... just a gift, a boost, a charity... from a friend who wants to help you out) if and only if Portugal decides to choose what me myself and I believe is the winning formula for Portugal to overcome its current economic predicament. I guarantee you that if you follow my formula / medication... within 10 years Portugal will be blossoming as never before and even able to afford a very reasonable and civilized basic income for every Portugese adult citizen. You can't refuse that offer!

[Mr. Perfect]

Alright, maybe we can work out a compromise. I'm willing to pay taxes (no repayments required, no interest... just a gift, a boost, a charity... from a friend who wants to help you out) if and only if Portugal decides to choose what me myself and I believe is the winning formula for Portugal to overcome its current economic predicament. I guarantee you that if you follow my formula / medication... within 10 years Portugal will be blossoming as never before and even able to afford a very reasonable and civilized basic income for every Portugese adult citizen. You can't refuse that offer!

A very reasonable request.

It is however why centralization will never work, people can never agree on the best way forward through a central process. It always breaks down.

Centralization is anti-diversity.

[Parodite]

Alright, maybe we can work out a compromise. I'm willing to pay taxes (no repayments required, no interest... just a gift, a boost, a charity... from a friend who wants to help you out) if and only if Portugal decides to choose what me myself and I believe is the winning formula for Portugal to overcome its current economic predicament. I guarantee you that if you follow my formula / medication... within 10 years Portugal will be blossoming as never before and even able to afford a very reasonable and civilized basic income for every Portugese adult citizen. You can't refuse that offer!

A very reasonable request.

It is however why centralization will never work, people can never agree on the best way forward through a central process. It always breaks down.

Centralization is anti-diversity.

Every "center" is relative... but yea I know what you mean. We need a diversity of competing monopolies and at the same time try to avoid devastating plagues. I like any central government to focus on pest prevention and pest control. A pest can be anything.