Anything Unselfish?

Question: do you believe that there is any activity we can do that is truly unselfish?

Nah ... I doubt it.

The polar pack ice has melted considerably in the last 20 years, sea levels are rising and are predicted to rise much further.

Someone recently leaked a draft copy of some report from some international committee of global climate change, or some such thing ... and apparently that organization has cut in half its "worst case scenario" over the next 100 years. I'm not so sure what we've read and heard about global change is entirely true. The doomsayer folks aren't acting unselfishly ... they have definite agendas.

That's pretty extreme to me, I don't believe that I need to brainwash myself to this level!

Okay. I don't see what's so extreme about it. I suspect also that your use of the word "brainwash" there is something less than complimentary. But that's okay.

... it all comes down to education

Funny, isn't it, that the more we educate ourselves (as a society) the less and less happy we seem to get. I think it was Leo Tolstoy -- I think -- who grew increasingly discontent with things until he essentially shirked everything and went "back to the earth" to live with simple peasants. As I understand the story, he learned that these simple folks, who he expected to be discontent with their lot in life, were in fact quite happy and quite caring for each other.

Ever see a mildly retarded child? They're often unbelievably happy, joyful and loving.

I wonder if there's an inverse relationship between intelligence and the ability to be content and caring for each other? The more we know, the more we know to be selfish and protective of our stuff? I don't know ... just a thought.

It's a dead giveaway of the prejudices that the original poster brings with him, does he believe in a true authority I wonder?

Because he cited Albert Einstein, or because he listed "Appeal to False Authority" as one of the logical fallacies? I don't know if "Appeal to False Authority" is a recognized logical fallacy. But if it is, then using Einstein as part of the humorous explanation of the fallacy is I think pretty clever. Einstein was a gifted mathematician and physicist. He might well have been a good logician as well. I really don't know. But most people pigeon-hole Einstein as a math/physics brainiac, so appealing to him as an "authority" on logical fallacies I think works as a bit of irony.

I think that the poster misses the mathematical point that logic can only be applied within a system of agreed axioms

Do you really think the poster misses that point? Or do you think you're applying too fine a magnifying glass to the thing?