The information on this Unselfish.org Web site was developed over many years from probably more than 100 different sources. It was originally started in 1990 by a father of five children who later adopted a sixth and had a seventh child. He felt uncomfortable with political correctness and took it upon himself to research reports and statistics surrounding social problems. Help and assistance was received from numerous sources including associations, federal and state statistics, reports from numerous sources, and other researchers and documents. One of the early situations that prompted action was the 1992 incident when Vice President Dan Quayle ignited a firestorm of controversy by chastising TV's fictional Murphy Brown for having a child out of wedlock and without any father in the picture. The liberal press criticized Quayle for his comment in spite of the fact that current publications coming from the government printing office (and hundreds of other places) supported Quayle's position that kids did better with traditional families and living with two biological parents.

This information seems to be continually advancing as new research comes to light and additional questions are answered. Rarely does a year go by without a new document being produced or an old document being updated. Historically and chronologically, this research can be divided into three different eras or plateaus.

Initial research went fairly quickly because there were hundreds of groups, organizations and government agencies researching and developing reports on social problems. In particular, numerous organizations dealing with specific problems such as marriage, family, divorce, children, abortion and religion were willing to share their research. In addition, many state and federal agencies were also working in this area and producing reports.

Three things kept coming up in the research as having a positive effect on reducing social problems. These were: 1) Traditional marriage, 2) Parental supervision of children, and 3) Church attendance. Many or most of the problems could be traced back to selfishness . . . a failure to work with other people or a lack of interest in doing what is best for society. Hence, the unselfish theme of this research which continues to today.

Some people were delighted with the revelation that modern research and computer statistics showed that we come out ahead when we work together for the good of society but we have problems when people become selfish. However, it did not take long to figure out that this idea had been around since the start of recorded history. Confucius is credited with saying "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Jesus Christ, when he founded Christianity, admonished his followers to "Love your neighbor." And in his inaugural speech, John F. Kennedy said " . . . and so my fellow Americans; ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." Each of them said the same thing in different words yet people still fail to listen.

It was at this time that a small book was produced titled Is Selfishness Killing America? While still accurate, much of that information was later expanded because of subsequent research. We still use that tile for recent documents.

Research remained at the original level for several years. One reason was that most of the organizations supporting marriage, family, religion and similar areas did not extend their research beyond their own specialized field. Eventually, research came in from additional areas that was somewhat mind boggling. It showed that the spread of selfishness, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude went well beyond social problems and permeated most of our decisions including ideal family size, marriage, and even how we vote.

Two major advances came out of this. The first was that there really are only two criteria for right and wrong. When faced with a decision or action that could affect other people we have two choices. We can make our decision based on what the person doing the action wants, or we can make our decision based on the impact of the action or decision on other people and society. Basing your decision of right and wrong on what the person doing the action wants can be called left, liberal, selfish, permissive or pro-choice. Basing your decision of right and wrong on the impact on others and society can be called right, conservative and unselfish.

The second new development was the fact that the selfishness, permissiveness and pro-choice attitude spread through our society by a process known as desensitization. When people are told that it is acceptable to be pro-choice and permissive, or when the see others being pro-choice and permissive, then they become more pro-choice and permissive themselves. Research and statistics reinforced the connection between many different pro-choice decisions.

Instead of having several social problems, it became obvious that we really had only one major social problem . . . the spread of selfishness, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude in our society. What we had been calling social problems were only separate manifestations of the primary social problem. Hence, groups working on specific social problems were dealing with the effect of the problem and not the cause. Our efforts here began to move in the direction of educating people on how selfish, permissive and pro-choice decisions are interconnected and are the actual cause of the problems.

At this point we began to see some gaps develop between various groups. In common with some other researchers, we knew that selfishness, permissiveness and the pro-choice attitude spread through society by desensitization. We were looking for the mechanism for how this actually worked and could be traced. While some of us were trying to turn this into a technology or science, others refused to acknowledge connections between different pro-choice decisions. One respected researcher indicated a lack of interest in talking about this area and possibly offending people because he had "a rice bowl to protect." We even gave up trying to work with some religious groups because they were afraid to talk about right and wrong for fear of offending someone who might put some money into the collection basket. For them, money was more important than morals.

The big question was: How does it work? Information on how people voted in the 2004 presidential election helped point us in the right direction. In spite of the fact that the basic criterion for right and wrong has only two alternatives, almost all people people actually make their decisions based on a version of what used to be called "cafeteria" morals. On simple and less important items, such as cheating on golf scores and telling "white lies," they are pro-choice and make their decision on what they want. Eventually, they reach a point where they no longer feel comfortable being pro-choice and convert to making decisions based on the impact on others and what is best for society.

This can visualized as a line from right to left. On the farthest right point, which might be given the number 100, are the super people who do everything right. On the far left side, which might be given number 0, are the people who think only of themselves and are pro-choice on everything including murder and genocide. Most of us are somewhere in between. Most every pro-choice decision ranging from theft to sex outside of marriage to abortion to euthanasia to murder is at a location along this line. Based on what we know so far, the locations are similar for most people but not necessarily exactly the same. As you move from right to left along this line you are faced with numerous decisions. Eventually you reach a decision where you refuse to be pro-choice and instead become pro-society. That then becomes your position on the line and your degree of desensitization or permissiveness.

Some researchers have said that they can ask you three or four questions and pinpoint your position on this line. Based on that, they say they will know your preference on most decisions, even some you have never thought about, and can also determine your ideal family size and who you will vote for in the next election. High accuracy is probably not possible with a single individual. However, this does become more accurate with larger groups, particularly when you are talking about voting and elections. Hence, both major political parties seem to be heavily involved working in this area.

On January 1, 2008 we updated the Unselfish.org Web site, disposed of some older material, and added the Pro-Life page and PDF file. At this point we have two primary areas of interest.

One area of interest is to try to define relative positions of various actions and decisions on that line from right to left. It has been possible to generally locate some of the actions and decisions that repeatedly show up in reports and statistics. For example we know that being pro-choice on cheating on golf scores, telling "white lies," and cheating on your diet are way up in the high numbers towards the right side of the line. Conversely, being pro-choice on abortion, euthanasia, murder and genocide are between the midpoint and the far left side of the line and are probably in that order. Based on statistics, the decision on being pro-choice on stay-at-home mothers and family wage is to the right of being pro-choice on marriage which in turn is to the right of being pro-choice on abortion. Statistically, people who are pro-choice on stay-at-home mothers and pro-choice on marriage and more likely to be pro-choice on abortion.

At this point we are looking for information and statistics so we can place various actions and decisions more accurately on this line.

Our second area of interest is in trying to reformat this research and information into more of a religious or Christian format for religious leaders and church people. So far we have met with minimal success. To some extent we feel like Galileo 400 years ago when he suggested a heliocentric (sun-at-the-center) view of the solar system instead of the popular geocentric (earth-at-the-center) view then held by many scientists and most church leaders.

Our society is still young and still very much in a learning process. It was only in 1840 that Oliver Wendell Holmes (the father of the famous Supreme Court Justice) did research on an epidemic of puerperal fever among women giving birth to children. The statistics made it clear that puerperal fever was contagious and was being spread by doctors and midwives. The situation was not helped by the fact that many of the doctors insisted on wearing old frock coats which had never been washed and whose disreputable condition and number of stains were a mark of tenure in the medical community. It took years for people to accept the fact that germs spread through our society even though we could not see them. Later, we learned how chemicals polluted our waterways and atmosphere. Now people are talking about how engine emissions are changing our world and causing global warming. As our society matures, we learn how different things spread through our world.

As always, your comments, observations and suggestions are welcome. We would welcome any additional statistics or research material in this area.
 
 

unselfish .org