is it too naive for me to think that people might go into science not in spite of but because of the huge tangible good for humanity they are assured of doing? of course personal gain is a factor, but is it the only or even the main one?

Most of the scientists I have met (my father included) go into science because they truly love it. There is an incredible joy and fascination involved in the investigation of the world around us. If it helps humanity that's a nice byproduct, too. And hey, if they're gonna pay you for doing something that much fun... sure! Why not?

is it too naive for me to think that people might go into science not in spite of but because of the huge tangible good for humanity they are assured of doing? of course personal gain is a factor, but is it the only or even the main one?

but in any case indeed we know for a fact that 1) altruism can never be proven, and 2) basically everything can be motivated by positive and negative reinforcement.

self interest is good, it's the spiteful and perverse part of human nature that's more likely evil.

and our altruism might actually be irrelevant (or automatic per reiterative PD):

conventional economics usually says that if you play strictly towards maximizing personal gain (provided a competitive market and correction for externalities) humanity as a whole invariably benefits.

Many things are unethical but shouldn't be illegal. Most would agree that cheating on a spouse is unethical, but do we want to criminalize it?

If we reduce the power and control of government, then no one will be able use it to further their own ends. I don't want to see the wealthy doing that anymore that I want to see liberals doing it to play Robin Hood.

I'm sure that you feel that you know better how the wealthy can use their riches, the simple fact is that their money doesn't belong to you.

Money is a commodity that we use to give value to goods or services. If you buy a computer, you value that product above the money used to buy it. And that money typically represents time and effort spent making it. You created wealth by working and traded that wealth for the computer. If economics is not zero sum, then who gained and who lost in this transaction? Actually, both parties gained. You got a computer and the manufacturer got money. Hence, not zero sum.

In the US, where the government isn't defrauding it's people, people starve most often because of poor decisions. If you spend all your money on drugs, then you may go hungry. If you refuse to take advantage of a free education, then your opportunities will be limited. People who have more children than they can support will struggle.

People who are laid off or fall on hard times through no fault of their own typically rely on chritable services for a short time and are quickly back on their feet. It's hard to keep a good man down. Someone who is willing to work hard and make good choices doesn't starve.

Comparing assault and battery to legally and ethically making money is absurd.

I agree. However, I'm talking about conspicuous consumption while people around one are starving, not ethical behavior. The fact that this is legal reflects the willingness and ability of the wealthy to dishonestly influence government for their own benefit and use the legal system as a weapon against the rest of the population (see "RIAA" and "Microsoft") to promote their own perceived interests at the expense of said population. The only thing that prevents this is the willingness of the people to demand that the law be made to conform to ethics, and the suicidally stupid but alarmingly prevalent attitude that the law effectively defines ethics is one of the most effective barriers to improving society as a whole ever developed.

And economics is not a zero sum game. The money I have isn't taken away from someone else.

This is ridiculous on its face. The money supply is necessarily finite or else money would be have no value. Tangible resources like food and raw materials are even more obviously limited in quantity. And given that the supply of money (and other resources) is infinite, if some people continue to increase their holdings without bound, the remaining supply WILL be outstripped by the need of the remaining people.

Everyone can create wealth by making good choices and working hard. Not all of us will be rich, but no one has to starve.

And your explanation for the fact that a large number of people are in fact starving would be...?

I made mention of it at my blog, which you can read by clicking on my name above.

This has led to our severe global environmental problems, as competition drives corporations to externalize more of their costs to improve the bottom line. This should never have been allowed. It is criminal.

But consciousness is being raised, and we should have as a goal that production and wealth creation do not rely on methods which degrade the environment or impose undue costs on others.

Then as Curiosis said, we will understand that economics is not a zero-sum game.

A person's morality should never be defined by whether or not they choose to give away their wealth.

Comparing assault and battery to legally and ethically making money is absurd. And economics is not a zero sum game. The money I have isn't taken away from someone else.

Everyone can create wealth by making good choices and working hard. Not all of us will be rich, but no one has to starve.

Your attitude of "We'll let you keep the money you've earned so long as you do with it what we think is good" is the reason more people aren't liberals.