Very far away or very long ago = Doesn't matter

[sv.elia]

Generally the focus will be on the immediate good, which won’t come from worrying about someone far away, but rather helping close relatives/community members. It’s not a bad thing though. If it’s not within your power to solve something, then worrying about it instead of focusing your energy on what you can do is pointless.

Because I'm in my early 30's and it has taken me this long to realise that half the people who I thought were good honest decent folk when I was growing up, are actually pure scum to heart.

I too am a disappointed idealist with a very abrupt introduction to the fact that selflessness doesn’t exist in the average person. But I concluded that people are not scum, they all just want to thrive. And if thriving looks the same way for two persons they can tie a partnership. If it doesn't, one will get stepped over. If it looks the same for more persons they can form a team or community. But they still actually want to thrive themselves. For example: if you’re happy with a hobby but your partner won’t see a benefit out of it, he/she won’t be for it. Pure altruism is a very utopic idea. People are good as long as there’s mutual gain and there are very few enlightened exceptions (Buddha, Jesus etc.).

^The above applies to distance problems as well. Humans, being wired to thrive for evolution purposes, think that what brings no return is unworthy of considering.

Personally I believe we’re all facets of the same one consciousness, so your pain is my pain. But we’re still, myself included, a long way from acting as One.

[Fluidic Kimbo]

Generally the focus will be on the immediate good, which won’t come from worrying about someone far away, but rather helping close relatives/community members. It’s not a bad thing though. If it’s not within your power to solve something then worrying about it, instead of focusing your energy on what you can do, is pointless.

You can order your printed circuit boards from a Chinese town which is known for child labour, or you can order them from 50 miles away and pay three times the price. You have a choice in that. And your choice has an effect on other people's lives.

I too am a disappointed idealist with a very abrupt introduction to the fact that selflessness doesn’t exist in the average person. But I concluded that people are not scum, they all just want to thrive.

While sometimes I like to say that some people are 'pure evil' -- such as my last employer who tried to fire 7 employees who signed a petition against the manager -- I know that no entity in the universe is either entirely good nor entirely evil (supernatural deities aside).

And if thriving looks the same way for two persons they can tie a partnership. If it doesn't, one will get stepped over. If it looks the same for more persons they can form a team or community. But they still actually want to thrive themselves.

I think it's a good to try hone your welbeing to the point of being happy to be just another brick in the wall. (Sort of like how I know my individual cornet part in my brass band sounds kinda shit by itself, but I'm part of a bigger nicer sound).

For example: if you’re happy with a hobby but your partner won’t see a benefit out of it, he/she won’t be for it. Pure altruism is a very utopic idea.

One of the most erotic things a woman ever said to me when I was trying to chat her up and showed her a photograph of how I sprayed my rollerblades bright green, she paused for a moment and simply said, "Hobby?".

I think it's very beneficial for a person to realise that all of their interests and tastes and hobbies are nothing more than personal preferences. Every one of us is nothing more than a genetic lottery and life experiences (which then leads to personalised tastes, styles, interests and hobbies).

So if my future wife rides quad skates (two wheels at the front, two wheels at the back), then instead of me constantly bashing her with my rationale on why inline skates are vastly superior, I can be glad that she has a hobby. I might even feign an interest in her shit hobby just for the sake of spending time together -- or even better if we can skate together in the kind of skates we like (me in inline, her in quads).

People are good as long as there’s mutual gain and there are very few enlightened exceptions (Buddha, Jesus etc.).

Now we're getting into supernatural deities.

The above applies to distance problems as well. Humans, being wired to thrive for evolution purposes, think that what brings no return is unworthy of considering.

Humans have habits in their behaviour but also in their thoughts too. I propose to you that your above assertion is nothing more more than a habit pattern of the mind, and can be changed. I mean people have been martyring themselves for millenia.

Personally I believe we’re all facets of the same one consciousness, so your pain is my pain. But we’re still, myself included, a long way from acting as One.

This is a nice thought, but in reality a person needs self-esteem and a sense of purpose in order to be happy and thrive. And while we have these ideas of self-esteem, identity, and belonging, we're always gonna offend each other now and again. It will be a very large step in the evolution of the human mind before we can truly live in peace. They say behavioural modernity began in humans about 50 to 60 thousand years ago, and so it might be another 50 millenia before we can truly be a peaceful species.