Studies show the Rich are greedy, dishonest and cheat,which came 1st:greed or money?

There's a wealth of psychological research that correlates wealthy people in the real world with negative traits like
Rudeness (people driving fancier cars are less considerate of pedestrians and their likelihood of cutting off another driver is correlated to the cost of the driver's car)

Greed (rich people take more candies out of dishes set aside for kids than poor people);

Generalized unethical behavior; Cheating at games of chance; and overall stinginess.

One possible explanation for all this is that getting rich is easier if you're dishonest, lack empathy, and cheat whenever you think you can get away with it.

But consider that in a rigged Monopoly game,
players who won due to an obviously unfair advantage (being given twice as much starting money and twice as many dice-rolls) acted like dicks throughout the whole game, and then boasted about their "brilliant tactics, their finesse at the game of monopoly and their daring moves."

So maybe the causation goes the other way: maybe getting rich is mostly a matter of dumb luck, which we justify for ourselves by convincing ourselves of our superiority, which leads to us treating others as inferiors.

But why are they more likely to cheat, lie and to cut off pedestrians? And why are they less likely to give to charity?

It may be in part because they are cut off from the reality of poverty – living in an upper-class bubble. But primarily the researchers found that greed is actually viewed more favourably in upper-class communities.

“We reason that increased resources and independence from others cause people to prioritise self-interest over others’ welfare and perceive greed as positive and beneficial, which in turn gives rise to increased unethical behaviour,” the researchers concluded.

Attached: 1600px-Jan_Provoost_-_Death_and_the_Miser_-_WGA18447.jpg (1600x1146, 340.14K)

Other urls found in this thread:

something something corrupts, something something else corrupts absolutely…or something like that.

Rule of Acquisition #10:
Greed is eternal.

It probably doesn’t help that the penalties for shitty behavior seem to decrease as a person’s income level rises. It disinhibits, like anonymity on the internet.

Once a person realizes at any level of consciousness that the cost of hitting some schmuck with a car can be wiped away with a bit of money – and not enough money to make a dent in the driver’s wealth – then the schmucks are in trouble.

The place I used to work was owned by a millionaire. I heard stories about how he would go to lunch with upper management, and he would fill his pockets with sugar packets, jellies, anything not nailed down, pretty much. Maybe it was just him, or maybe it’s a common personality trait among the wealthy? Don’t pay for something if you don’t have to, and take everything you can.

Attached: e7952e0f7ec9f3a57814bd6dfa884877cd373bec.gif (480x360, 148.33K)

Greed drives the accumulation of wealth. Some greedy people are just really unlucky or not too bright so then they’re just regular jerks. There are also stories of winners of lotteries who end up broke in a year because they threw too many parties for their friends.

Attached: 3.gif (480x360, 280.87K)

So maybe the causation goes the other way: maybe getting rich is mostly a matter of dumb luck, which we justify for ourselves by convincing ourselves of our superiority, which leads to us treating others as inferiors.

Consider the following: A spooky organization offers a man a bike for free. He can choose one, he can choose several actually. You like these two bikes? How about another one and another one. But he is not allowed to sell them or to give them to another person he chooses. If he tries to do that, he's in big trouble. He can give them back to the organization whenever he pleases. The organization tells him that there are other people out there who would like to have another bike and some don't even have a single bike. The bikes he doesn't take will be offered to other people, priority being those with zero bikes. If he only takes one bike for himself or zero, he will not get money or even a thank-you note from somebody down the line who will have more choice because of his abstention from taking more. Still, does he have much incentive to hoard bikes? Let's say he's a very selfish person, what use does he have for a thousand bikes? Remember, selling or bartering of any sort is not allowed, only personal use.

The organization can also offer other free things, like coffee machines. Again, the caveat is: personal use only. How many coffee machines will he take? With free concrete things for personal use, there are definitely an upper limits. But suppose you get offered free money. Money is different. When money gets introduced to an allocation procedure, people start acting in a more aggressive way towards each other. (I'm not saying they are becoming more selfish than in the scenario with concrete things for personal usage. You can be the most selfish person in the world, when you are in a scenario with concrete things for personal use you just don't have much of a reason to hoard things.)

Greed is based on hedonism which came into existence when humanity turned against the natural order and started exploiting and destroying their ecosystem for short term gains, while ignoring long term consequences. The mental justification for ignoring common sense and going through with the crime is called hedonism.

gluttony and is the natural order though?
humans are the only known species able to appreciate the consequences

That's not what hedonism says and even the first hedonist philosophers were saying that.

inseperable. the only correct answer

Attached: alfred-sohn-rethel-intellectual-and-manual-labor-a-critique-of-epistemology1.jpg (496x768, 45.47K)

Yes, gluttony is a natural occurrence and is balanced by the natural order through the natural law "all actions have consequences", therefore all negative actions have negative consequences. Like for example eating all the food means starving to death.

Strike the term "appreciation" because that's a hedonistic stance of assuming what others like.

The correct term for your argument would be "comprehending", as in having a consciousness, but that's based on the human misinterpretation of linking the consciousness to our identity. That's incorrect, because that's a hedonistic assumption. in reality our consciousness is merely a highly sophisticated tool to comprehend our surroundings to help us do our job…being the stewards of this ecosystem and create in accordance to the natural law for the benefit of all, thereby benefiting ourselves in the process. Of course mankind did none of this, and is still getting punished for being parasites to their own host, but that's another story.

Anyway what I was trying to explain is that animals don't have to have a consciousness to react, because the natural laws are linked with their and our instincts. In that case common sense is represented in humans as well as animals, they just don't comprehend what it is, they just react instinctively to it to fulfill the natural order.

Those philosophers can kiss my ass. If you understand natural laws, then you can logically prove that humanity turning against nature is the starting point of hedonistic behavior.

doesn't follow from

By all means.
Enlighten us.

The natural order is first come first served, first mouse gets the cheese the second starves
doesn't exist, what does exist is the perception of mutual benefit for the party with resources sharing resources only social animals will recognise this iis even an option

Yes it does, because another natural law is "opposites must coexist" which is based on the most fundamental natural opposite "to be or not to be", which is the natural barrier all existence is operating under. The barriers for humans are called birth and death, which makes one positive and the other negative. Therefore a negative action towards death (falling for temptation) will have a negative consequence… being closer to death.

Later real life calls, but in the meantime you could do me the favor an tell me what you think are the most fundamental rules that governs our existence. I'm gonna respond to this later and go more in dept if you like.

That's a survival aspect based on ever changing circumstances, it's called the "law of the land". These are moral rules of behavior to secure the odds of survival by adapting. First come first serve doesn't apply in every situation, therefore it's not a fixed rule.

Yes it does. "the sum of all things" is the means of creation. Everything inside this ecosystem is needed for an individual part to create something. Making a baby requires not only the male and the female, but the air that they are breathing, the food in their bellies, the bed they sleep in, the workers that created that bed, the house the live in, the land it stands, the nation it resides in etc. Everything inside this ecosystem operates in accordance to natural law to sustain the entire system. If not, the rest must adapt to the situation, which has consequences for all.

Anyway, I'm gonna be back in a couple of hours so feel free to grill m and disprove me…if you can.

Nature is selfish brutal bitch, moral rules are a construct of a social animal and inherently derive only from positively weighted mutual benefit positions.

The laws of physics.

Dialectics is not an ontology and your natural law is nothing but a reification of abstractions that doesn't describe any real phenomena yet insists on abusing it to justify itself. Where do you get all this mental wankery from?
Why can't there be a thing without an opposite? Why do opposites have to coexist? Isn't it possible that when we talk about opposites we are actually describing two aspects of one thing? Why is birth and death a barrier when there is nothing beyond them? What makes one the origin of positivity and the other the origin of negativity rather than representations of those abstractions?
Why is 'falling for temptation' a negative action? What does it being a negative action mean? Why does performing one negative action necessarily mean another being performed (getting closer to death)?

Nature is everything. It operates in between positive and negative, under the law "that opposites must coexist" So it can't be just one sided. It's about balance, because existence is a constant test of survival and nature even has a fail safe build in to make sure that the participants never forget who makes the rules. That fail safe is called "chance"

Morality exist in nature, it's called the "law of the land". These are momentary rules based on adaptation to ever changing circumstances to balance out the survival odds, like a wolf pack accepting the strongest as the alpha and following his lead. Human morality on the other hand is based on a fixed set of laws, which is against natural law and therefore nothing but a big fat lie to get control over them. A human can call himself civil as much as he likes, but if you kill his family in front of him he will forget all about it instantaneously and switch right back to natural instincts.

Physics, mathematics, gravity etc. are more akin to explaining how everything works in detail. These are not what I would call fundamental (still natural laws tho). This is based on the difference between simplicity and complexity. Take math for example…simplicity ( as in the fundamentals) would be the question and the answer. That's two natural opposites. Complexity comes in when you explain in detail how you got from the question to the answer. That's the path of knowledge, that's what the sciences are about, but fundamentally what matters is only the question and the answers.

The reason why simplicity is so important is because the natural laws are instinctive, they are so simple that every life form can follow them by instinct. Complexity means danger, because it's a time waster, which natural survival can't afford.

A great example to use this principle in daily life is to watch where humans use complexity instead of simplicity…that's because they are trying to hide something or flat out lie. Politicians, Academics, Religions etc. Always avoiding simple answer and instead drowning information in complex drivel.

Except there is no balance in nature - there is change instead, often of an irreversible sort. One doesn't even have to resort to talking about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics. With an Epicurean understanding of the world, namely the understanding that particles to which laws of nature that allow for high degrees of freedom of motion apply may spontaneously organise into more complicated structures by chance, and the building of these new structures can accelerate if those structures facilitate their own reproduction. Those complicated structures themselves begin to form structures of even higher complexity and so on. These kinds of things may have been permitted by the laws of nature, but there is no reason to say that they have existed forever (not to be confused with the idea that there's something at the beginning of this chain of coming-into-being - i.e. a Prime Mover). This is an imbalance in the sense that some kind of thing was not there before. We can see these processes of transformation happening at their quickest and most radical within human thought (and yes, we humans are a part of nature too), and indeed it was Hegel's intention to use this dynamic in his dialectical reasoning.

Before 'greed' is brought up again, everyone in this thread should read this:

Case and point from my last post. Useless complexity, yet not even an attempt to disprove me. user, I have no problem taking flack, but only if you can disprove anything Is said.

I was sick and tired of running into human lies so I searched for a truth, for any truth on this earth the cannot be shaken. I found nature, and nature delivered fundamental laws and nearly infinite prove thereof.

Such as? I mean you thought up the question but didn't add an example?

Because one cannot have one without the other, they prove each others existence. It can only be positive if it's not negative and vice versa. And the most fundamental opposites in nature is "to be or not to be", which describes the rule of existence.

We are talking about opposites that already exist separately, but you could argue that what combines them is the ecosystem on small scale and the laws of nature on fundamental level. So if two opposites are combined under one law, does that make them two aspects of one thing in your sense of the question? Good question btw.

Because it's a barrier for everything that exists, but you're wrong about the beyond part. "The circle of life"…you live, you die, you dissolve into your core components, and you become part of the life around you. Therefore all death becomes part of all life, creating a circle. That doesn't really help us go beyond the barrier of our existence, but it's kinda good to know anyway…at least the worms don't starve.

Because nature shows use all the wonders and beauties of life at every opportunity and encourages us to learn from it. That is positive. Now death on the other hand scares the living shit out of us and represents the end of all the beauty, therefore it's the opposite. Negative. Why we can judge this is because we were given a compass to navigate between positive and negative actions…that is called common sense.

Because temptation itself always leads to negative outcomes. The worlds greatest temptation is the sun. It wakes up life, it revitalizes us, it also tempts us with warmth until it kills us with cancer creating death rays if we fall for the temptation.

The foundation of existence is "to be or not to be" therefore every negative action drives you closer to "not be" . Death, which is by itself constantly approaching to end existence.

Because "the sum of all things" are affected by every negative action. Take your own body as an example for an ecosystem. Now cut a finger off and the rest of the body has to adapt to the situation, which is always a negative because it's based a loss.The bigger the loss, the more the rest has to suffer until everything collapse and survival failed. The body is also a great example to explain the spread of corruption through poising, like when your lung fails thanks to smoking the rest of the body will steadily shut down. This is what happens to everything in our ecosystem, we just don't see it as the big picture (lack of knowledge) or we deliberately ignore it (hedonism).

Everything you're describing is operating in between a starting point and an end. That is called existence and the thing that links these two barriers together is time, which is a constant (until proven otherwise), therefore time is always running out for existence, which in combination with temptation means that the end demands to be avoided at all costs (survival). And since there is only one way to go (keep existing) one needs to struggle to keep the balance, the natural order. Also the opposite of struggle for life is taking the easy way of falling for temptation towards death.

Correct. Time is still a big mystery.

That is "the sum of all things", the basic behind creation, because everything inside the ecosystem takes part in creation, therefore it reproduces by itself. We can watch all this happening around us from creation to expansion, corruption, adaptation down to the the two smallest opposites starting it all.

Right, because you cannot create out of nothing. But we don't know about time…is it immemorial and has it an effect on creation? Like can an energy source through time split into a positive and negative component that started the creation process?

Who disagrees on that one?

Bullshit. If you take all the water of the world, all life dies and you have nothing to eat. If you take all the money in the word, nobody can use it, so it becomes worthless. If you take all the red M&M's, nobody will miss them because they don't exist anymore.

Hedonism will always first destroy others, then destroy you.

You talk a lot but say little, brevity is a virtue.
you claim to see balance yet ignore the constantly battling forces that make this a moving boundary.
there are no fixed morality laws unless imposed by social doctrine
Life is ruled by selfish desires, cooperation is an aberration and usually only occurs where mutual benefit is the goal.
read an ecology book

Well you don't get rich by being generous.

Attached: money trap.png (551x310, 135.23K)

That was not even what I was talking about. That things are transitory does not mean that the kinds of things that they are will die out. You could say the same of the kinds of things themselves, but the processes that do or could build them as well as wider kinds of things of which they are a subset do not necessarily disappear.
This is about where these two 'smallest opposites' are. Can you show them to me without talking about abstract concepts such as Being and Nothing, which we humans use to differentiate things and form new concepts? Can you actually be concrete about this?
This is not the point. I am saying that there is a direction to time, and that one doesn't even need to appeal to thermodynamics to affirm that. Asking about whether this or that happened at one moment or another is irrelevant regardless of whether it's about creation or not. All we need to understand is that there is a process of development in the first place - an asymmetry along time's arrow, to put it one way. Asking about whether something set it all off in motion - i.e. a Prime Mover - is a very different question which requires a different kind of evidence.
This is asinine. You think that we can't make or find more of any of those things, and that we're stuck with a certain amount therefore we shouldn't demand everything because that would amount to suicide? By saying this, you have essentially betrayed yourself as a reactionary - you assert or imply that for some reason we're stuck in a given state of affairs which we know all too well about yet can't do anything about when there is no reason to think this, and you proceed from there. Your points in question concern abstractions: 'all the water in the world' is not a fixed or potentially-diminishing, and if it was, then why would we have to settle for it? Do you mean all the water that we could ever possibly reach and create in the universe? Then you have to prove that there is a finite amount of that - and even then, it's a whopping great abstraction which has only a passing relevance to our position today. All the money in the world might codify for a fixed quantity of exchange value and actual value, yes, but can there not be more resources added to an economy through accumulation? And if I truly had all the money, that wouldn't stop others from trying to get it off me, or even setting up their own currency with which I could possibly trade my own for. And as for nobody missing red M&Ms, this is not only irrelevant because people could simply make more - no, what completely and utterly prevents someone from missing what's gone? Do people not get upset over extinct animals? Are you instead saying that they can't experience them? So what? We have imaginations, do we not? And we could surely replicate some of their aspects if not all of them if they're truly gone.

Simplicity speaks truth, complexity hides lies.

I didn't. You seem to think that balance is an achievable state. It isn't. Survival means adaptation.

And that's exactly what all human morals are. Case and point…civility. It only exist if order is enforced or "freedom" allows it.

Only a problem when you act out in hedonism, which all the other lifeforms seem to avoid instinctively, while mankind is busy making up justifications for their misdeeds.

The ecosystem sustaining our all existence is the mutual goal and once again everyone is doing their jobs to accomplish it, while humanity stands at the starting line endlessly contemplating about the meaning of life, while destroying the system in the process.

I did, but the copyright sign in the inlay made me question the authors intent to tell me truth.

I don't know how I feel about this analogy. If the company offered you a can of beans, wouldn't there also be no upper limit on how much you take? You only need one bike because you can reuse it, but the more cans of beans you have, the more you will benefit farther in the future.

My desire to secure resources along with a mate or mates and to raise as many children as I'm able, is not hedonism it's the implicit mechanism of evolution.
Those that follow these principles will always dominate the future of any species therefore they define morality.
Not stealing from your kids is technically a selfish emotion because it aids your own genetic continuation.

are you even a marxist at this point?

In this situation the incentive is not to hoard bikes though he'll take more than one bike and there is no incentive to return the bikes other than nuisance, he'll take only the best what remains will by definition not be the best bikes this process will gradually leave only the worst bikes but there is no incentive to provide the final bike picker with a decent bike.
also said bikes and coffee machines seem to have no modification clause so you could strip them for parts and make them not into a bike or coffee machine
or you could just make fortified walls out of a mountain of free bikes

To summarize – "the egoist gets on best"?…
Now where have I heard that before…

There is still a limit to how much you can realistically eat in a month and your life has a limit as well.

Well you could put that into the original scenario or instead use that as an excuse to stop thinking about it.

Everything that exists walks towards an end. It's only a question of time until it disappears forever or becomes part of something else.

Our knowledge is a the stage where we can trace almost everything back to the smallest parts. So if we follow this logic down the line we come to these two smallest opposites, which would be a positive and a negative energy. Knowing the laws of nature "opposites must coexist" we can define that the positive energy came first, because positive represents the starting point of existence, and negative the end. Out of that positive energy must naturally emerge a negative opposite. So where does it come from? Well, there is another entity existing that we can logically prove…time. So if time is immemorial it could've been the spark that ended positivity, thereby creating negativity and in the process created something new, because "all actions have consequences".

That would be my logical explanation using the laws of nature known to men. The big question mark is…what is time? Is it it's own? Is it bound to existence? How came it into existence? Will it also end or is it the ultimate death of all? And if that's the case… what's the natural opposite of time?

That's parasitical behavior and it's fully restricted to a host, in our case this ecosystem, which is finite. Meanwhile natural law dictates that the host will fight the parasite to death or shake it off to survive. Now, our ecosystem can't really shake us off and if we want to flee we need more knowledge, which we can only get if we live in accordance to natural law, which means not attacking our ecosystem, otherwise the consequences of our actions will prevent us from surviving. How can we learn from nature if we destroy it? Now your counter argument would be "but not in our lifetimes"…well, that's pure hedonism, it's grabbing the short term benefits, while ignoring the long term consequences, which is exactly how the shit all started.

Yes, our enclosed ecosystem, in which every part is necessary to sustain the whole system. If you take out one part, the rest must naturally adapt to it, which is a negative, because it's a loss. Multiply this by time and amount of loss and you'll soon see massive negative consequences, like, you know…look around you.

I don't know anyone who ever left this ecosystem, neither do you. What is the universe to us, other than hearsay? It's completely irrelevant, until proven otherwise.

Call me back when a human actually brings a bunch of real rocks from the moon, otherwise we are restricted to what we have and what we create out of it.

That's called adaptation, and you would use it too, which means you would use your wealth to stop them. That is creating conflict, not a conflict about natural survival, but one about hedonism (greed), which nature will punish with death. So then then you have war on your hands. not really the positive outcome you were looking for, but the negative consequence you ignored for so long and here comes the mob of peasants running towards you representing natural order.

How would they know about red M&M's if you already have all? Why would they make more knowing that you come and take them all from them like before? What is your obsession with reds? Are you a racist? Are M&M's are brown inside, user.

Consequences, user. These animals were food for other animals, who then become weaker, which makes them easier prey for predators. Nature will slowly adapt, but the negative consequences will catch up and effect everything over time. Now imagine crimes like these committed by billions of humans globally, some of them even doing it on industrialized scale…the consequences will come, we can already see them everywhere.

Natural temptation, leads to hedonism, which is self destructive.

A replica is never the original. And before you argue that…imagine a replica of yourself? Now defend that concept and tell me it has the same worth.

You selfishly describe your individual trait, while ignoring the global resources are a industrialized commodity. That has nothing to do with desire or natural accumulation, it's hedonism, a parasitical leeching of all resources until depleted while ignoring the consequences.

Doesn't exist. We all die. Bettering ourselves would mean producing the cleanest bloodlines, because that's all we can pass on with procreation. In reality we actively destroy our bloodlines and are merely adapting to all the negative consequences thereof in a desperate struggle to survive. The majority of humanity isn't even aware of this basic natural threat.

There is no future if you're not following the natural laws, it's just a bunch of hedonistic assholes who play king of the world for a moment, while sacrificing the future of their species for it.

Like I said, human morality is a means of control that is against natural laws, which means is self destructive. The ones controlling it doing it for short term gains, because of hedonism. Morals in nature demand constant adaptation, if you stick to a fixed law, predators will exploit you and you die.

That's a combination of enforced morality laws) and your own assumptions. There is no such thing as stealing in nature, you just take and face the consequences, which is not a problem as long as you keep the natural order, the balance. If you become greedy, you gonna get whacked.

Greed obviously. You can't get rich or more certainly stay rich being generous. A lot of formerly rich now broke people can tell you that much. In the greedy's defence, when you have somethong to be generous with, the greediest lazy broke motherfuckers will always be the first to find you. The actual people you should help are the poor broke people who are so good tbey would never ask for help even if they really need it. The one's that suffer in silence.

Dodging the point again - that does not mean that something else will come about due to its activity, and perhaps something of a similar sort.
First, you still haven't shown that you know what this 'positive and negative energy' is, or even that it exists. You haven't proved that we have isolated the most elementary things in the universe in our models of the universe; you have merely provided an ontology which speaks about there being an initial cause but does not isolate it in our circumstances themselves. It is one thing to say that a Prime Mover exists, and it is another to say that you've found it. Practically-speaking, there is no reason to give a shit about any Prime Mover as it faces our circumstances today even if there was one unless it or something of its sort is still in existence today and accesible to us, so until you isolate that or prove that we should believe that we can know it as something that could ever be within the horizons of our circumstances, don't bother making this kind of argument. There is something far more damning for your position, though: your 'opposites must coexist' is provably wrong regardless of this. Absolute opposites can and do conflict, with any change between the two given opposites taking place being the manifestation of this conflict. The processes of that conflict, i.e. that very change, can themselves be understood as things in their own right, and interactions between them and what was already known to be there before can be mapped out and themselves understood as processes that can be understood as new things. The categories that we taxonomise these things into might still exist together in our systems of thought, but the things themselves do not have to. If that is what you're pointing towards when you're repeating your mantra, then even if I were to accept your 'positive and negative energy' claim, I would still be able to note that you are fundamentally referring to abstractions (the categories) which you are taking to be concrete rather than the concrete things themselves. With the latter, you'll find plenty of situations where your 'opposites must coexist' mantra is slaughtered. Consider competition in a market - some parties will tend to accumulate more power over the market than others. There is no guarantee that it would be better for them to coexist within the framework of the market. See how easy it is? Worse, why the hell do we see relatively-few antiparticles in a world of so many particles if everything has to coexist? Are you going to claim that the antiparticles are somewhere else? If so, you require some kind of evidence or some kind of 'it would be more prudent to believe this'-style metaphysical argument regarding their existence. If you don't want to fall upon that hill, you could argue that this world is precisely so flawed due to imbalance and a lack of coexistence - whatever that means. Guess what? Coexistence as an absolute and perfected concept denotes a state of affairs where things exist and act alongside each other, but this is itself incompatible with whatever is not coexistence. Do you see how easy it is to play the same Hegelian game that you've tried to play with your laughable ontology which revolves around that one central and stupid mantra of yours and your treatment of taxonomisations of things that are possible rather than things themselves?

You have ignored that we are able to reproduce natural things too rather than simply destroy all of them. I did not say that we have to destroy the natural world, that would indeed be a fatal practical error. I am saying that we have to change it to suit our needs. Is that not what it means to 'demand everything'? You speak of parasitism, but what stops it from being a transformational symbiosis? Did you know that the 'laws of nature' permit that? Are you next going to claim that the fruit that grows on a tree is a parasite of that tree because its seeds will grow into a different tree that may develop alongside and interact with the original tree? This is why I call your reasoning asinine. You see untouched Nature being ravaged by us ghastly human devils, reducing every interaction that we make with that Nature to a form of parasitism - and the best possible argument you could make is that we are making unwilled processes irreversibly subjected to our will. However, it makes no difference whether a process is unwilled by us or not as far as that process could ultimately 'be concerned'. It still exists, and given the right provisions, it can still reproduce its characteristics. Sometimes we might want it to do so more than it would've done without our interventions - an example of this is agriculture. If other things have to lose out in terms of what they have to reproduce with, what would have stopped them from doing so anyway in a different matter? And why would that stop make a difference as it concerns us human beings? If we didn't exist and the dodos still died out anyway, so much the worse for the dodos, but we wouldn't be around to give a shit beyond reasons which are not contained within having to face the circumstances of the dodos going extinct in that imaginary universe that we've just modelled in our minds. Whatever goes on there doesn't concern us in the same way as the circumstances that we face in this universe even though it might concern us in other ways such by way of being analogous to some other set of events in our world.
Wrong. This 'enclosed ecosystem' isn't fixed, it is changing, even the boundaries of its enclosure - by way of its own activity alongside the motions of what is beyond it. Of course, there are always attempts keep things fixed in a certain way, but that does not mean that such a way changes. Given that you too are a dialectical wizard, it is shocking that you don't apply this principle to the world in which we live whatsoever (while you happily do so with a bunch of taxonomisations involving what's possible when it comes to your neat little creation theory). But okay, if you took out a part of a sustained ecosystem, could you prove that the rest of the ecosystem would not grow even more than it once did? What would you say about the proposition that 'if humans were to remove their expansionist drives, the rest of the universe would get on better'? Human expansionism is very much a part of the ecosystem within which it is supposedly best that things coexist, even if human expansionism does not happen to be a species but is instead a kind of behaviour (a loosely-defined one at that, too, unless we focus solely on immediate expansion rather than things like delayed and alternatively-organised expansion). And yet here you are wanting to remove it, which by your reasoning would be a loss! If I look around myself, I can only note that the environment in which we live is being haphazardly destroyed by way of human incompetence rather than something inherent to us, because we simply do not have to treat it that way even if we want to expand ruthlessly. In fact, it would be rather smart to do so given that we have ample things that we can learn from it. That does not mean that we 'leave it be' and learn to settle for a place within our supposedly-closed world which we do not need to keep.

If you are willing to make 'this ecosystem' stretch far enough, then of course we will always be in it, so saying this would be meaningless. If you merely included all living things in your definition, then this would be laughable because we can clearly interact with things that are not living even here. Of course, you're most likely referring to the surface of Earth, but you should note that members of our species have already been off the surface of the planet. If you are one of the conspiracy theorists who say that we haven't actually done that, this is not the place to deal with that - for even if that's true, you would still need to prove that we cannot or should not send some people far above the surface of the planet. Even with what amounts to a dismissal of perhaps all of astronomy and space exploration, you still haven't made your case to get out there.
You're changing the subject entirely. You said that money would become worthless if I (or more generally, one person) had all of it, and now you're not even arguing against this. Even if I had all money of all kinds, you now agree that assuming that it meant anything at all, I would have a war on my hands because others would want that, but now you are saying that this is a form of conflict and it backs your 'natural laws'. Okay, then. You pronounce that 'nature will punish with death', which is stupid. If I had all the money and others would fight me for it, that does not necessitate that there will be deaths. The ways in which they could fight me for it might be psychological - they might con me, or even appeal to my sense of guilt and get me to cooperate. If you're just trying in your own very special way to give me the tautology that sustained coexistence and fighting-to-the-death conflict are opposites, then why bother talking about all of this when you are presupposing that any of this has to happen in your sterile thought experiment (which is not the same as describing what is most likely to happen and what would be best)? And what separates struggles for natural survival with greed in the way that you are insinuating? Both can involve high degrees of cooperation through obtaining better outcomes through the use of organisation. In fact, greed taken to extremes explodes into things which function in the same way as altrustic actions, if not altruism itself. Why stop at caring exclusively for one's own immediate actions? You would have figured this shit out by now if you had read the polemic that I had given a link to, but nope, you're too busy floating around in Abstractionland.

Are you here for the sole purpose of derailment, questioning some obsession of mine that you've conjured up as part of your thought experiment? First, if I have all the red M&Ms in the world, it does not mean that others don't know what they look like. Concretely, if I were to do this, I would need to snatch all existing red M&Ms and make sure that any future ones which are made go directly to me. That would do nothing to stop people from knowing what they are. Let's say, then, that I have also purged everyone else of their memories of what red M&Ms are. What prevents me from showing others what they are and demonstrating how they can be made, so that more can be made? What stops me from going even further and saying: 'hey, you know what, you take those sweets, I don't give a shit any more'? No, you want me to take the maximum number that could ever possibly exist in the universe (or 'the ecosystem'). That would surely stop the production of more of them, sure. But you have not demonstrated that there can be a maximum number. All that you have ultimately said is that 'we should act as if there is one'.
Did you even understand the context in which I used those words? I said that people would not necessarily forget about something that's gone, and what you're saying now has nothing to do with that. Again, I shall address this new point of yours anyway: again you presuppose that these are 'negative consequences'. If you are referring to them negatively affecting the proliferation of the entire ecosystem, then as I have already demonstrated, this does not need to be the case whatsoever. A change in an ecosystem does not end up destroying it as a process - only the exact form of that ecosystem is destroyed, and that destruction happens with every single movement and change in state of every single thing within it. Removing a part of an ecosystem might actually help it to balloon, and you too are suggesting this when you direct your fire at humans for being so evil and expansionist. When it's about 'greed', it's just Nature doing its thing. Why the double standard? What allows you to keep that two-tier understanding? Considering how often you speak of unwilled processes as if they are some kind of divine force ('nature will do this, nature will do that, nature is the judge…'), perhaps you are just defending something religious.

Hark! The priest's words reverberate across the board. Never mind those words, because this was about greed, not this 'hedonism' that you're bringing up (unless you are conflating the two). I have already answered you regarding how bad greed is.
Another example of you completely missing the point. I said:

Unless you are the quote-mining retard or a similarly-dishonest reactionary, literally read Rafiq.

nice analogy
money is unique because you can get everything with it
abolish money!