Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

[Frame Dragger]

Interesting. Still at least 2000 calories per day, I hope? Where do you think this idea came from if it is such a generational trend, as you claim? I like a reasonably large breakfast, no lunch, and a reasonably large afternoon meal, personally.

Sadly no, in fact portion size as displayed on television, and in restaurants... and subsequent perception of a proper meal has RADICALLY increased. Where the idea "came from" is probably a complex mixture of basic human desires, and a the notion that people who believe a standard must be X+n (where n= needless waste leading to obesity) are likely to BUY more.

When you say that certain conveniences are "necessary," and there's no harm in it, it makes me suspect that there is some harm in it that you can't bear to consider because it would break your heart to think it was harming anyone. Gandhi wrote about "himsa," which is the inevitable violence done by all life and acts of living. The classical example is how we kill microbes just by breathing. The philosophical point is that harm can be reduced but never avoided completely. Christians actually regard the denial of sin as itself a sin. You don't have to subscribe to any of these religious views to comprehend the logic that when people are driven to define themselves and/or their actions as harmless, it's because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

It is difficult to avoid an infinitely reductionist approach to doing harm, but what I mean is that people will ALWAYS aspire to comfort, and for most that means having some a measure of luxury. That might be defined as the one chair in a village, which is used by a tribal leader, or it could be access to libraries and the internet. Certainly these are not necessary, but they generally provide social structures and means of education. The thornier end of this might be... how long do we keep X person on life support for the sake of the family "saying goodbye" after brain death has occurred? We're beyond apex predators... we're viral apex predators, and as such responsibility is about mitigating damage, not eliminating it. Only the dead feel no pain, and only the dead give back 100%... so to speak, as you say.

The only way for anyone to be able to totally stop harming anyone or anything else would be to die. But by dying, the person would be harming themselves and others as well. So the tricky thing is to become mindful of all the ways that harm occurs and attempt to reduce those for everyone involved as much as possible, including yourself. What makes it so tricky is that it's not possible to achieve complete peace and harmony, ever. In fact, often times I think that people who overemphasize peace and harmony are actually assaulting others by displacing blame for the inherent violence that everyone commits and should take responsibility for.

In practice, I'm a bit of a military hawk, in that I believe in following the lessons of history and human nature. If we're going to wage war, it should be swift, overwhelming, and brutal. Anything less invites these modern wars which linger and quietly smother whole nations. To me, this goes back to distribution of responsibility. "If I protest, I'm not culpable"... right. There is the question however, of what harm is acceptable? I don't particularly care that I kill microbes, but I do care that I kill ants. I don't claim that this is reasonable, but I'm bound by the scale I experience, and I'm not Gandhi, or anything like him. I simply work with what I have, which is empathy, and strong desires for comfort and safety for myself and those I love. I don't pretend to care about others as much as myself, and I can be VERY "old testament" sometimes in my reactions and views. I make no excuses, beyond that I'm not a saint, nor ever likely to be.

Granted, for me that doesn't mean I need to own a ton of crap, or eat absurd amounts. However, the impact of my daily life is not inconsiderable. That said, I already attempt to work at the limits of my self-control, and seek to improve that, and thereby my impact. I ASPIRE to do no harm, I don't expect to do no harm. I use HVAC, and I eat meat... I love animals, but I eat them and thereby kill them by proxy. Perhaps this is why I'm informed, but not happy. Perhaps I will be able to live my convictions someday, but inevitably I'll make my subterranean contribution, as we all will.

Finally, I said it before I think, but I'll say it again. Wealth and poverty are relative and go beyond the individual's personal possessions. Some people are wealthy because they have a secure job with a lifetime of benefits and salary before them. Others have no job but they have a government that guarantees them basic necessities and healthcare so they never have to lose peace-of-mind. Most of the damage done by money is caused by people doing things to try and get it. Giving it to them is only a temporary fix, because they or others will figure out new damage to do to get more as soon as they feel unsatisfied again.

You have a point, but many people are in no position to earn money, never mind seek peace of mind. Where there isn't peace, people cannot BEGIN to live their lives, which in civil unrest... what's the quote, are... ""solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes). We're NEVER returning to a "natural state", whatever that is, short of a cataclysmic event(s). Given the relativity of morality, and the state of mind found in people who are (or believe they are) desperate, we all exist in a kind of slowly escalating Mutually Assured Destruction as a species. We have little capacity to set limits without resorting to totalitarianism, and so, responsibility IS individual... and most individuals are not capable or willing to understand the full impact of their lives.

The thing that I believe creates the most economic peace and widespread well-being is when prices are going down relative to real wages. This occurs when economic abundance is growing and there is more to sell at a lower price to fund the same salaries or even increase jobs.

When people work efficiently, more can be produced with the same amount of labor and equipment. This means that more people can consume for the same total production cost, which translates into a lower cost per unit consumption. If people would better share the small amount of work needed to sustain everyone, each person would need to work relatively little to enjoy the same level of consumption, plus they would theoretically be able to afford it while working less because the price of consumption would decrease to match the amount of labor needed to produce it.

I agree, but for me this brings me back to... overpopulation. You seem to believe that people are capable of large-scale change that lasts for generations... in the absence of strict rule. Of course, the moment you institute that strict rule, you've already created an impossible asymmetry. If the total human population was... 2 billion... while our nature would not change, our impact would. This, I believe, is our inevitable fate. We live out of all balance with our environment, and we'll either master it by destroying it, or our perception of what is needful will propel us to wars that may be fought with weapons we cannot survive.

 

[brainstorm]

I agreed with most of your post until this point:

I agree, but for me this brings me back to... overpopulation. You seem to believe that people are capable of large-scale change that lasts for generations... in the absence of strict rule. Of course, the moment you institute that strict rule, you've already created an impossible asymmetry. If the total human population was... 2 billion... while our nature would not change, our impact would. This, I believe, is our inevitable fate. We live out of all balance with our environment, and we'll either master it by destroying it, or our perception of what is needful will propel us to wars that may be fought with weapons we cannot survive.

What you're basically saying in a fluffed-up way is that people don't change their culture without strict rule. I think that you ignore the fact that people only resist cultural innovation as long as they are insulated from doing so by having access to privileges that emotionally oblige to construe and protect an imagined status quo. You say no one will return to a state of nature, but it may be happening against people's will. Certainly many people would prefer any form of domination that benefits them to freedom that exposes them to the necessity of adaptation, but who says such domination is ever sustainable. Maybe the people with the greatest privileges are the ones at the front of the line for extinction.

Also, do you realize when you advocate a global population of 2 billion when current estimates are something like 6 billion implicitly prescribe the elimination of 4 billion people? That is 2/3. Can you imagine 2 out of every three people in your family dying or being killed? That's horrendous, especially when it is the alternative for cultural adaptation. Given the choice between giving up meat and sending 2 out of every 3 people of your family and friends to an elimination camp, you would choose the elimination camp? That's crazy. I enjoy luxuries too, but I would at least like to see people working in the direction of saving resources and lives by curbing cultural excesses. I don't think people should torture themselves or others, but if people would love each other more, I think it would be a lot easier to go without a lot of comfort consumption.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I agreed with most of your post until this point:



What you're basically saying in a fluffed-up way is that people don't change their culture without strict rule. I think that you ignore the fact that people only resist cultural innovation as long as they are insulated from doing so by having access to privileges that emotionally oblige to construe and protect an imagined status quo. You say no one will return to a state of nature, but it may be happening against people's will. Certainly many people would prefer any form of domination that benefits them to freedom that exposes them to the necessity of adaptation, but who says such domination is ever sustainable. Maybe the people with the greatest privileges are the ones at the front of the line for extinction.

I believe you have too much faith in humanity as a whole. History simply does not bear out your notion that this many people could make a conscious and conscientious choice. People could give up everything they have... here's a thought experiment: Everyone who works at middle-management and below in Pfizer, quits. Does Pfizer die, or do they hire different people? A large population = many options. As for people preferring domination to barbarism, history also would seem to indicate that people are willing to fight perceived tyranny at any cost, and that such fights take on lives of their own.

People with privilege may be first in line, but probably not. EVENTUALLY, someone ends on the guillotine, but it's not EVERY powerful generation, just the last one holding the reigns. Keep in mind why these things are "Revolutions", and how they tend to finally end. Right now, privilege = access to the best food, medicine, security, and ability to travel. Forgive me if I fail to see the inherent weakness in that position. Barring a cataclysms, the very-wealthy and well connected are going to be first in line for custom organs, novel treatments, etc. For now, in the absence of those treatments, we have people such as Michael Jackson, who clearly did NOT benefit from his privilege, but in fact partially died as a result. You or I would find it difficult to hire on our own anesthesia clinic...

That said, in a future of gene therapy, nanomedicine, and custom organs/prosthetics means that the rich, the talented, and the very valuable will have best access to a restricted resource. The same is true of Education. Some people have schools... others get missionaries with their own agendas. I challenge you to find historical examples of humans VOLUNTARILY "pulling back" from a pattern of irresponsible birth-rates, and conflict over real and perceived resources and ideals. There is a REASON why people such as Gandhi are so revered... they are exceptions to a rule. Then there is Nelson Mandela, who is doubtless a very great man, but what happens when he dies? We'll see.

Also, do you realize when you advocate a global population of 2 billion when current estimates are something like 6 billion implicitly prescribe the elimination of 4 billion people? That is 2/3. Can you imagine 2 out of every three people in your family dying or being killed? That's horrendous, especially when it is the alternative for cultural adaptation. Given the choice between giving up meat and sending 2 out of every 3 people of your family and friends to an elimination camp, you would choose the elimination camp? That's crazy. I enjoy luxuries too, but I would at least like to see people working in the direction of saving resources and lives by curbing cultural excesses. I don't think people should torture themselves or others, but if people would love each other more, I think it would be a lot easier to go without a lot of comfort consumption.

I don't advocate that, I simply recognize that we're going to do that to ourselves one way or another. We can reduce our population without KILLING people... right? Unless... we can't control people, or educate them to a point of individual responsibility such that they will not have 2+ kids? As for imagining 2 out of every three in my family dying or being killed, I don't need to IMAGINE, nor do most people who have been alive for any significant period of time. The majority of my family is dead, and died within my lifetime (which is not so long thus far).

You believe it is within the reach of CULTURE to change human nature... I believe that to be an optimistic absurdity. For every Gandhi there are uncounted others who will exploit and undermine that legacy. India is free of Imperial rule yes?... and free to pursue MAD with Pakistan. How did the Chinese "cultural revolution" go? From what I can see, it's led to a heartless gerontocracy, and for all of their attempt at control... their population continues to soar.

I'm not going so far as the hated, "Wenn ich Kultur höre, entsichere ich meinen Browning!", but I am saying that believing a cultural shift is possible for billions of people with vastly differing beliefs and desires is to engage in a pleasant delusion. People are limited by scale, and their access to information. The former has exceeded the human capacity to truly grasp, and the latter has been a tool of war and politics since Sumer and Akkad. I am arguing that humans are ANIMALS, like any other, not to demean us, but to understand that we are limited. We are viral in our expansion, and much of the damage we do is not a result of culture, but our nature.

Where we seem to agree, is the inevitable end of that path, which is destruction of the self, and of others. In the end, I truly BELIEVE that the only person who does no harm, is dead. You don't. I think you believe that there is value in human life... I don't. I simply respect others as I wish to be respected, because I also see no value in pretending that we're NOT social animals, and I know I can have a LOCAL impact. I don't pretend that anything short of main force can change 6 (soon to 9) billion people so profoundly that we would be immunized, even against sociopaths and truly heartless people.

I want to give up meat because I don't want to kill animals (by proxy or otherwise). I don't believe that such a choice represents the salvation of humanity. 6 billion Gandhis would still take an unsustainable toll on our ecosystem if we continued to expand our population. Do you believe that we're not subject to war, or more likely a plague or plagues? Do you REALLY think that if India decides to launch a land-war, that Pakistan won't respond immediately with a nuclear strike? Do you believe that any choice you or I make, will change the reality that Israel is likely to react to Iranian aggression with overwhelming force?

Do you believe, now that corporations in the USA have been given the rights of individuals, but are not held to a meaningful standard of responsibility, that we are anything but absolutely ****ing DEAD? It might not be now, it might not be in a 100 years, but eventually we'll go to war, a pathogen will get to us, a comet or asteroid will strike, our magnetic poles will flip, our climate will change, a super-volcano may erupt... and none of that matters for a damn if you live your life the best you can. If you live with the expectation that our fate as animals bound to a single planet is likely to be overcome, and if it, that it would be a sea-change of culture and awareness that causes it... you're going to be terribly disappointed. We are what we are, and the limits of our ability to change is profound as a group. We can take responsibility for ourselves, and should... no one should live as though the inevitable frees them from moral obligations. That doesn't change the end result however, and it doesn't change the fact that most people can't, or are not in a position to effect the kind of change you espouse.

"Alea iacta est."

 

[brainstorm]

6 billion Gandhis would still take an unsustainable toll on our ecosystem if we continued to expand our population.

If everyone would think as you do in this post, we would all be doomed by fate of self-fulfilling prophecy. If no comes up with a realistic solution that is win-win on both the macro-economic and micro-individual levels, harm at both levels will be inevitable.

I am a strong believer in idealism. Marx ridiculed idealists for believing that idealism could overcome materiality. Yet he failed to recognize that materialism becomes its own idealism that binds its own hands with faith in human powerlessness.

Materialists claim that idealists are people who think they can overcome gravity by believing that it doesn't exist. Well, guess what, it took science a long time but eventually they came up with a way to neutralize gravity by engaging in prolonged free fall, and eventually discovered that free fall could be sustained indefinitely by orbiting the planet.

Prior to the emergence of practical solutions, idealistic theories seem like dreams to people whose minds are hopelessly locked in the realism of the day. People who have faith in the unlimited creativity of human innovation are able to persevere through the semblance of impossibility into a future of new possibilities. Those who don't can't, and they drag themselves and others down as a result by expecting the worst and bearing witness to it as a result.

 

[SixNein]

If I own a shop then I need to make a profit or the shop will not last. I do not however need to make increasingly larger profits to have my shop and to make enough money to live on. The average business owner attempts primarily to maintain a steady profit to live on. In contrast a corporation must continue to increase profits just to maintain itself because it needs its investors.

Too many people seem to think that corporatist mentality is the core of capitalism. It is not. I often see people defining capitalism as if it were corporatism. It seems that people are brainwashed into believing that they are one and the same.

Every business owner is trying to expand his or her business. There may be a few odd balls that are happy with no raises, but most want more.

 

[SixNein]

I agreed with most of your post until this point:
What you're basically saying in a fluffed-up way is that people don't change their culture without strict rule. I think that you ignore the fact that people only resist cultural innovation as long as they are insulated from doing so by having access to privileges that emotionally oblige to construe and protect an imagined status quo. You say no one will return to a state of nature, but it may be happening against people's will. Certainly many people would prefer any form of domination that benefits them to freedom that exposes them to the necessity of adaptation, but who says such domination is ever sustainable. Maybe the people with the greatest privileges are the ones at the front of the line for extinction.

Also, do you realize when you advocate a global population of 2 billion when current estimates are something like 6 billion implicitly prescribe the elimination of 4 billion people? That is 2/3. Can you imagine 2 out of every three people in your family dying or being killed? That's horrendous, especially when it is the alternative for cultural adaptation. Given the choice between giving up meat and sending 2 out of every 3 people of your family and friends to an elimination camp, you would choose the elimination camp? That's crazy. I enjoy luxuries too, but I would at least like to see people working in the direction of saving resources and lives by curbing cultural excesses. I don't think people should torture themselves or others, but if people would love each other more, I think it would be a lot easier to go without a lot of comfort consumption.

I advocate a 2 billion population because we are over carrying capacity at the present time. The human population is not divine, and it will collapse just like rabbits when they overpopulate. A nazi style method is not the only way to decrease the population size. If we simply tax child production progressively, people will have less children, and population growth rates will go negative. In my opinion, we are either going to take responsibility for our technology and reproduction, or our population will collapse.

In addition, absolute poverty will certainly increase until we get our population under control.

 

[Frame Dragger]

If everyone would think as you do in this post, we would all be doomed by fate of self-fulfilling prophecy. If no comes up with a realistic solution that is win-win on both the macro-economic and micro-individual levels, harm at both levels will be inevitable.

I am a strong believer in idealism. Marx ridiculed idealists for believing that idealism could overcome materiality. Yet he failed to recognize that materialism becomes its own idealism that binds its own hands with faith in human powerlessness.

Materialists claim that idealists are people who think they can overcome gravity by believing that it doesn't exist. Well, guess what, it took science a long time but eventually they came up with a way to neutralize gravity by engaging in prolonged free fall, and eventually discovered that free fall could be sustained indefinitely by orbiting the planet.

Prior to the emergence of practical solutions, idealistic theories seem like dreams to people whose minds are hopelessly locked in the realism of the day. People who have faith in the unlimited creativity of human innovation are able to persevere through the semblance of impossibility into a future of new possibilities. Those who don't can't, and they drag themselves and others down as a result by expecting the worst and bearing witness to it as a result.

You assume that I think this way because it reflects an ideology, when in fact I think this way based on experience. The history of science leads me to believe that the unexplained is not necessarily inexplicable. The history of humanity leads me to believe that the solutions to fundamental problems such as overpopulation, does not come from people, but is served by nature. Have faith if you wish, but it won't stop an asteroid, a comet, a super-volcano, or a novel pathogen. My distress leads me to constantly re-examine my views in hope of a better outlook. Faith in "the unlimited creativity of human innovation" is a cop-out, much as any faith is. You have faith that "people" will suddenly change in the meaningful ways you hope for, rather than the predictable ways we have for recorded history. In essence, you can be comfortable with yourself, because you believe that you, or others have the capacity to apply sociology, philosophy, and technology to problems that truly require more drastic solutions.

I would say that idealists and ideologues are dangerous, whereas people such as myself, while no fun at all to talk to about these matters, are willing to accept the trajectory of our species, and don't take it on faith that we'll magically find a solution. I don't assume that people will change, but that doesn't mean I simply give up. Your thinking is extremely black&white, as SixNein has illustrated. You assume that a reduction of 4 billion people = 4 billion unnatural deaths... I certainly am not advocating mass slaughter. I don't believe that SixNein's solution is workable until we reach a genuine crisis point, but then I suspect that something like it will be implemented... assuming nature doesn't beat us to the punch.

You should rely less on your faith, and more on your brain, storm. That doesn't mean the future is doomed, it just means that you have to take responsibility for procreating, and frankly, the "pass" you're giving to people because you choose to believe that overpopulation is merely a media-induced hysteria. OverCROWDING is hysteria... overpopulation is not.

 

[brainstorm]

You assume that I think this way because it reflects an ideology, when in fact I think this way based on experience. The history of science leads me to believe that the unexplained is not necessarily inexplicable. The history of humanity leads me to believe that the solutions to fundamental problems such as overpopulation, does not come from people, but is served by nature. Have faith if you wish, but it won't stop an asteroid, a comet, a super-volcano, or a novel pathogen. My distress leads me to constantly re-examine my views in hope of a better outlook. Faith in "the unlimited creativity of human innovation" is a cop-out, much as any faith is. You have faith that "people" will suddenly change in the meaningful ways you hope for, rather than the predictable ways we have for recorded history. In essence, you can be comfortable with yourself, because you believe that you, or others have the capacity to apply sociology, philosophy, and technology to problems that truly require more drastic solutions.

I don't suppose you have any way of seeing that the knowledge and beliefs you hold about the "problems" you see through your macro-social crystal ball are driven by a subconscious desire for destructive action, probably because your daily life is relatively uneventful and boring? I do have faith that people can and will change, because I have experienced it myself, and it will also happen to you. You will reach a point where you become painfully aware of how this death-driven cynicism in your head poisons your heart and sets you will to the task of seeking and generating negativity instead of positive/constructive paths forward. When you realize that you are one person among many contributing to the destructiveness of the world you fear, you are going to wish that you had regarded others with love and hope and you wish to be regarded.

I would say that idealists and ideologues are dangerous, whereas people such as myself, while no fun at all to talk to about these matters, are willing to accept the trajectory of our species, and don't take it on faith that we'll magically find a solution. I don't assume that people will change, but that doesn't mean I simply give up. Your thinking is extremely black&white, as SixNein has illustrated. You assume that a reduction of 4 billion people = 4 billion unnatural deaths... I certainly am not advocating mass slaughter. I don't believe that SixNein's solution is workable until we reach a genuine crisis point, but then I suspect that something like it will be implemented... assuming nature doesn't beat us to the punch.

It doesn't really matter what you advocate or not, because what it comes down to is that every time you look at other human beings you see them not as individuals but as specimens of a "species," of which you view most as superfluous. You ignore the fact that each has a life as meaningful as yours, because your control-reflex causes your mind to reduce people to a level of simplicity that you won't have to ignore everything you see in order to focus on one individual life at a time, including your own.

You are operating under the spell of faith in authoritarian power. By that I mean that you seriously believe that some individuals have the power to control others. Have you ever stopped to imagine what you would do in any position of authority if you received it? Would you sit in the white house and talk with people about policies and make suggestions? If you were a military general, would you create orders that do anything other than cater to the expectations of others you work with? No one has any controlling power over anyone else. They try to influence each other's thoughts and actions with various speech and reference to institutions, but ultimately the closest they can get to controlling others is to torture them, which is happening all the time and is the reason for most of the misery that occurs, probably.

The only real hope there is for any of the problems you associate with population is for individuals to choose actions that contribute to more positive pattern-forming. As long as they don't, they will just continue to be subject to the traumas the result from human negativity and destruction. That the way it has always been and the way it will always be. Nothing really changes about that because of the population size or density of a given area. People may have to work harder to focus on their own lives and not get distracted by others around them, but life is in principle the same as in more sparse population areas.

If you really dislike population so much, why don't you just move to an area with very little population and imagine it to be the whole world. If you rely solely on local products, there's really no difference between that life and a life with 2 billion or 2 million people on Earth.

You should rely less on your faith, and more on your brain, storm. That doesn't mean the future is doomed, it just means that you have to take responsibility for procreating, and frankly, the "pass" you're giving to people because you choose to believe that overpopulation is merely a media-induced hysteria. OverCROWDING is hysteria... overpopulation is not.

I'm not giving anyone any "passes." I believe that individuals are responsible for their own choices and they have to think for themselves. They should be aware of how their desires and interests affect their thinking, and also be aware that their desire to be objective can cause them to second-guess their own desires to the point of self-repression. Living and making decisions as a sentient being is complex. It can be easier if you blindly accept the veracity of your knowledge, such as you seem to regarding "overpopulation." In reality, even the greatest scientist is just a subjective being playing with information. I love to reason and provide grounds and arguments for claimsmaking, but I am also aware that knowledge is constructed out of complex patterns of language and synthetic reasoning that are prone to lead in multiple, divergent directions. This does not mean that reality and truth are unreachable; just that discourse continues evolving to approach them in new ways with new results and effects.

Trust me, if you don't embrace a more life-affirming ideology toward human creativity and procreation, you're going to destroy yourself emotionally and you'll be the first casualty of your own anti-humanism.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Every business owner is trying to expand his or her business. There may be a few odd balls that are happy with no raises, but most want more.

I have known, and worked for, several small business owners. While they certainly want to make sure that they are as comfortable as possible I have never know any of them to want a company much larger than the one they have. It would require a whole lot more time and effort and they would much rather be able to relax and retire early than spend most of their hours every day trying to get new divisions of their business off the ground.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I don't suppose you have any way of seeing that the knowledge and beliefs you hold about the "problems" you see through your macro-social crystal ball are driven by a subconscious desire for destructive action, probably because your daily life is relatively uneventful and boring? I do have faith that people can and will change, because I have experienced it myself, and it will also happen to you. You will reach a point where you become painfully aware of how this death-driven cynicism in your head poisons your heart and sets you will to the task of seeking and generating negativity instead of positive/constructive paths forward. When you realize that you are one person among many contributing to the destructiveness of the world you fear, you are going to wish that you had regarded others with love and hope and you wish to be regarded.

You're making more assumptions again, and it's starting to get in the way of your reason in this case. Again, you're thinking in purely black & white terms here... I must desire destruction on some level to believe as I do, but someday I'll see the light and I will change in a deep and fundamental way. Of course, your wording isn't that of compassion is it, but rather the classic, "woe be unto you foolish sinner" that tends to emerge when people with strong faith become upset. I'm sure you believe you're simply describing an inevitable truth, but there is hostility behind it, much as when someone says that they "will pray for you."

For all of your hope and faith, you're willing to believe that I'm heartless and hopeless, because I'm capable of clinical detachment in an online discussion. How is it that you think people keep from clinging to faith, cynicism or optimism or other blinders? How does someone such as myself maintain Skepticism, sans Cynicism? I don't ACT or treat people as though "the end" were right around the corner, but rather I try to treat them as I've described: as I wish to be treated. Note also, that I am uncertain, whereas you are quite certain what I have experienced, and what I will experience. Forgive me, but you don't strike me as old or wise enough to see quite that far ahead in my life, when you leaped to the assumptions that I:
1.) Meant that 4 billion people should be KILLED, rather than a generational approach
2.) That I hadn't experienced loss on the scale of "2/3rds of my family".

Those are very VERY limited reactions, which reveal fundamental bias, and youth in #2.

It doesn't really matter what you advocate or not, because what it comes down to is that every time you look at other human beings you see them not as individuals but as specimens of a "species," of which you view most as superfluous. You ignore the fact that each has a life as meaningful as yours, because your control-reflex causes your mind to reduce people to a level of simplicity that you won't have to ignore everything you see in order to focus on one individual life at a time, including your own.

Wow... where are you getting this? In no way is this remotely how I perceive others. You're reducing people who don't share your ideology and idealism to borderline sociopaths.

You are operating under the spell of faith in authoritarian power. By that I mean that you seriously believe that some individuals have the power to control others.

I don't, but I believe that I can be made to choose between my life and those of others, and "obedience". See: Tienanmen Square, and countless other object lessons throughout history. This doesn't absolve one of the fundamental choice, or free-will, but it puts practical constraints on them. You have to be willing to risk more than your own life in service of your ideals to achieve that degree of freedom in more than your own head. Are you willing to make those choices FOR OTHERS?

Have you ever stopped to imagine what you would do in any position of authority if you received it? Would you sit in the white house and talk with people about policies and make suggestions? If you were a military general, would you create orders that do anything other than cater to the expectations of others you work with?

I have, and then I didn't need to. It turns out that I don't enjoy making the kinds of practical compromises inherent in such a position, and in fact, I don't. As for sitting in the white house, that, I haven't done, and hope to never do. As for what suggestions I would make in a military context, it would be dependant on the situation. Above all however, I would sue for peace at every opportunity, understanding that the only real alternative is conflict, over which control is a fleeting illusion. I've had the dubious privilege of being at both Fort Drum, and WRAMC, with a friend and mentor, as a civilian (he's a colonel). Given that he works specifically on TBI's, I've had the chance to see far nastier wounds than missing limbs, and ones that are less prone to effective treatment.

Given that, and given my beliefs (which I suspect have been tested more than yours, the more you type) I would far rather resign or be fired than give advice I didn't believe was the best I could. Of course, this is one reason why I'm unsuited for a career in politics.

No one has any controlling power over anyone else. They try to influence each other's thoughts and actions with various speech and reference to institutions, but ultimately the closest they can get to controlling others is to torture them, which is happening all the time and is the reason for most of the misery that occurs, probably.[/qupte]

Influence is more effective, insidious, and intractable than torture. Someone you torture is likely to either break utterly, or harden even further against you (although you may get the information you want), even as you lose some of yourself in the process. Your assumption that "control" is necessary is another reflection of B&W thinking, as is your conclusion that torture is a source of "most" misery. Poverty, in fact, is the cause of that, and reaches far more people than torture has through history. As for the rest... have you considered what a powerful tool influencing information + ideology is? You overestimate the capacity of some people to access information to counter MISinformation, an that is also a form of control.

The only real hope there is for any of the problems you associate with population is for individuals to choose actions that contribute to more positive pattern-forming. As long as they don't, they will just continue to be subject to the traumas the result from human negativity and destruction. That the way it has always been and the way it will always be. Nothing really changes about that because of the population size or density of a given area. People may have to work harder to focus on their own lives and not get distracted by others around them, but life is in principle the same as in more sparse population areas.

Now you've conflated "Overpopulation" with "Overcrowding" once again. The former is the notion that as a group, IDEALS aside, we ARE in fact wiping species off the face of the Earth at an alarming rate. The latter is a hysteria that we're running out of space. For example: We are producing too much trash, but not because we can't find space to bury it. Your stalwart certainty that human ills are within the control of humans, and that they are primarily caused by THOUGHTS, is a way of being free from the consequences of reality and your ACTIONS. If you truly believe that 6 going-on 9 billion people competing the way they ALWAYS have, is sustainable... *shrug*. It's your security blanket, and I don't see that it's based on anything but a desire to avoid the despair you seem to think is the only alternative.

Guess what, you can live in a world of greys, and not give up personal responsibility. By accepting that many people don't have your opportunities and capabilities places EXTRA responsiblity on you, and me, not less. Perhaps that is the truth of what you're trying to avoid?

If you really dislike population so much, why don't you just move to an area with very little population and imagine it to be the whole world. If you rely solely on local products, there's really no difference between that life and a life with 2 billion or 2 million people on Earth.

See above. This is sophistry, not a reflection of anything I've actually said. Unlike you, I don't want to see what a NATURAL population correction will look like. I prefer that people be educated, and "influenced" if need be, to avoid that. Better that we have 1 child per family than we DO see billions KILLED. That said, you've departed from this discussion it seems, and are now tilting at windmills.

I'm not giving anyone any "passes." I believe that individuals are responsible for their own choices and they have to think for themselves.

...Which is YOUR pass. After all, if people cannot be controlled, and influence from authority and torture are the only alternatives, we all must "save" ourselves... where does your obligation as an intelligent, and apparently well-educated individual fit in? I believe that people are social, and not fit to live in a vacuum... we need to learn somewhere. Your views give you latitude to write people off in ways your vision of me as a dehumanizing *** never could. You know things... fundamental truths about how my, and other's lives have and will play out (or you act as if you do), and again, this frees you from having to intervene or act.

They should be aware of how their desires and interests affect their thinking, and also be aware that their desire to be objective can cause them to second-guess their own desires to the point of self-repression. Living and making decisions as a sentient being is complex. It can be easier if you blindly accept the veracity of your knowledge, such as you seem to regarding "overpopulation."

Your arguments seem to come from a far more unyielding position than mine, and one based on faith in novel behaviour emerging from people. You are making assumptions about how I think, but you're actually demonstrating your own rigidity in this... an optimistic rigidity, but still monocular. Believing that human nature is unchanged doesn't free me from anything, but rather causes me to feel responsible for some of the people you would leave to their own devices.

In reality, even the greatest scientist is just a subjective being playing with information. I love to reason and provide grounds and arguments for claimsmaking, but I am also aware that knowledge is constructed out of complex patterns of language and synthetic reasoning that are prone to lead in multiple, divergent directions. This does not mean that reality and truth are unreachable; just that discourse continues evolving to approach them in new ways with new results and effects.

Another cop-out. 'It's all lost in translation, so why bother trying? People are all the masters of their fate anyway...' Very seductive, but deeply irresponsible, like living for an afterlife.

Trust me, if you don't embrace a more life-affirming ideology toward human creativity and procreation, you're going to destroy yourself emotionally and you'll be the first casualty of your own anti-humanism.

Nothing makes you treasure life, and those who share it like a keen appreciation of just how fleeting it is. You again, are making terrible and unfounded assumptions that are deeply clouded by your underlying ideology.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I have known, and worked for, several small business owners. While they certainly want to make sure that they are as comfortable as possible I have never know any of them to want a company much larger than the one they have. It would require a whole lot more time and effort and they would much rather be able to relax and retire early than spend most of their hours every day trying to get new divisions of their business off the ground.

I was, much to my chagrin watching CNN, and they were interviewing a Kansan who makes automatic hay-balers. He never even FELT the recession, because he followed precisely the model you describe. He said he could "double" his output and business, but it's more than he wants. He's incredibly successful (3 million per year in sales), and he doesn't even need to advertise.

HOWEVER, that is Capitalism, and we tend to be ruled by Corporatism, which DOES demand constant expansion for shareholders.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

HOWEVER, that is Capitalism, and we tend to be ruled by Corporatism, which DOES demand constant expansion for shareholders.

That was really my point originally.

 

[brainstorm]

I must desire destruction on some level to believe as I do, but someday I'll see the light and I will change in a deep and fundamental way. Of course, your wording isn't that of compassion is it, but rather the classic, "woe be unto you foolish sinner" that tends to emerge when people with strong faith become upset. I'm sure you believe you're simply describing an inevitable truth, but there is hostility behind it, much as when someone says that they "will pray for you."

If you see someone playing with a loaded gun, and the thought of the consequences make you nervous, doesn't your compassion for that person's life start to evolve into frustration and irritation that they won't be more careful with the gun? "Woe" indeed "be unto you foolish sinner." You don't have to judge the mindset of the person saying it; you just have to understand what it means. Then you can agree or disagree of your own reasoning. What you are decrying as "hostility" is just the emotion that someone is trying to overcome by offering to pray for you. Granted they may be praying for you about something that they've misassessed as a danger, and that's where you get into the problem of different interpretations of theology, which isn't ultimately a problem - but it does result in some confusion in communication.

Note also, that I am uncertain, whereas you are quite certain what I have experienced, and what I will experience. Forgive me, but you don't strike me as old or wise enough to see quite that far ahead in my life, when you leaped to the assumptions that I:
1.) Meant that 4 billion people should be KILLED, rather than a generational approach
2.) That I hadn't experienced loss on the scale of "2/3rds of my family".

Your taking both of those slightly out of context to make your point. The only reason I am certain is because I have experienced anguish thinking the way you do, and I realized at that time I was the one most hurt by my own thought-patterns - but I realized at the same time that negativity and fear are the emotions at the root of all violence, both as a response to other violence and as the initial emotional motivation that ultimately translates into violent actions or just a will to violence without acting on it personally.

Wow... where are you getting this? In no way is this remotely how I perceive others. You're reducing people who don't share your ideology and idealism to borderline sociopaths.

It's built into the concept "species" to view individual organisms according to traits attributed to group-identity instead of focusing on the individual's individuality first and any comparisons with other individuals second if at all. It's not an acute or uncommon form of sociopathy, but I think it is a conceptual framework that lends itself to social harm if mitigated irresponsibly, which you may or may not do - I don't know you that well. I just mention it because I think it's important to note.

I don't, but I believe that I can be made to choose between my life and those of others, and "obedience". See: Tienanmen Square, and countless other object lessons throughout history. This doesn't absolve one of the fundamental choice, or free-will, but it puts practical constraints on them. You have to be willing to risk more than your own life in service of your ideals to achieve that degree of freedom in more than your own head. Are you willing to make those choices FOR OTHERS?

One way of seducing people into a killer's mindset is to get them to accept the logic of "kill or be killed" as a necessity. Once people are in this mode, they can feel compelled to will death to others because they implicitly assume that if they don't it will mean their own death. In reality, killing and death of each individual is an isolated event that can only be logically related to other killings/deaths by association. The free will to choose not to will death is never lost, I think. Unfortunately, the death-drive does sometimes because strong enough that people become indifferent to life and will death for that reason, hopefully not acting on their will.

Given that, and given my beliefs (which I suspect have been tested more than yours, the more you type) I would far rather resign or be fired than give advice I didn't believe was the best I could. Of course, this is one reason why I'm unsuited for a career in politics.

Tested cynicism doesn't make a good foundation for politics. I share yours but I see politics as an instrument to affect hope out of cynicism. It's creating lift to counter descent.

Influence is more effective, insidious, and intractable than torture. Someone you torture is likely to either break utterly, or harden even further against you (although you may get the information you want), even as you lose some of yourself in the process. Your assumption that "control" is necessary is another reflection of B&W thinking, as is your conclusion that torture is a source of "most" misery. Poverty, in fact, is the cause of that, and reaches far more people than torture has through history. As for the rest... have you considered what a powerful tool influencing information + ideology is? You overestimate the capacity of some people to access information to counter MISinformation, an that is also a form of control.

Influence can also be experienced as torture, as you seem to. But I think that's because some people's will to domination/submission is so strong that they refuse to see influence as something they can resist. More so, I think they don't want to have to live a life where there are things they have to or should resist. They want a perfectly flowing system of power where resistance isn't necessary because the dictator is benevolent. That's scary if you realize that there are conflicting interests in any individual or society.

Now you've conflated "Overpopulation" with "Overcrowding" once again. The former is the notion that as a group, IDEALS aside, we ARE in fact wiping species off the face of the Earth at an alarming rate.

See, here's the ideology of species again? Why is biodiversity more important than the lives of individual organisms. In this logic of species-extinction is the implicit assumption that killing of individual organisms that doesn't destroy the species, or even promotes the collective good of a species is ok. I am an individualist. I don't believe that the point of individuals is to preserve species; I think the point is to reduce violence toward other individuals as much as possible, regardless of their species.

. If you truly believe that 6 going-on 9 billion people competing the way they ALWAYS have, is sustainable... *shrug*. It's your security blanket, and I don't see that it's based on anything but a desire to avoid the despair you seem to think is the only alternative.

I don't even believe that thinking about humans in multiplicity is a sustainable thought because once you apply a framework other than individuality of personhood, they become something other than individuals. This is why I advocate distinguishing between your mental images and concepts at the macro level and the empiricism of how individuals exist in their everyday life. This can be difficult, because macro-level thought is a factor that influences interactions at the individual level.

Guess what, you can live in a world of greys, and not give up personal responsibility. By accepting that many people don't have your opportunities and capabilities places EXTRA responsiblity on you, and me, not less. Perhaps that is the truth of what you're trying to avoid?

I dislike it when people use "responsibility" as some kind of abstract duty. Being responsible for actions means that the actions you commit have effects. The effects of actions are the consequences that the acting agent is responsible for. If more privileged people are responsible for more consequences, it is because the actions they are able to commit have more complex patterns of effects - mainly because the spheres of independency of each product they use are more intensive.

When you buy a car, for example, you are responsible for stimulating many more labor hours than when you buy a bike, which requires fewer to produce. When you say or write something, you are responsible for your intentions and will, but not what someone else chooses to believe or do in reacting to your speech. There are no involuntary chains of command, the same as there are no actions completely isolated from social influence in any form. All actions are the product of multiple powers and resistances.

See above. This is sophistry, not a reflection of anything I've actually said. Unlike you, I don't want to see what a NATURAL population correction will look like. I prefer that people be educated, and "influenced" if need be, to avoid that. Better that we have 1 child per family than we DO see billions KILLED. That said, you've departed from this discussion it seems, and are now tilting at windmills.

I don't like seeing destruction and suffering by any cause. I just think it's important for people to think for themselves as individuals and make their own choices instead of reacting to the impression that there are inevitable patterns that will result if mitigating action is not taken. Ironically, you were admonishing me for say, "woe be unto the foolish sinner," yet you are basically saying, "woe be unto the foolish sinner who fails to incorporate population fears into their reproductive planning."

...Which is YOUR pass. After all, if people cannot be controlled, and influence from authority and torture are the only alternatives, we all must "save" ourselves... where does your obligation as an intelligent, and apparently well-educated individual fit in?

No such thing as immunity from influence of authority and torture exists. There only only differing degrees of power and suffering. My obligation, and that of others, is imo to resist violence to the extent they are able and reduce the suffering of torture and terror of authority-submission as much as possible at any given moment. I don't think more than that is possible in the scope of human limitations/fallibility.

I believe that people are social, and not fit to live in a vacuum... we need to learn somewhere. Your views give you latitude to write people off in ways your vision of me as a dehumanizing *** never could. You know things... fundamental truths about how my, and other's lives have and will play out (or you act as if you do), and again, this frees you from having to intervene or act.

People are social, and individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves. Does that mean people don't and won't attempt to manipulate each other and escape blame? No, but does that legitimate that they do? Also no. Nothing "frees" anyone from having to intervene or act except the inalienable ability not to. Does that mean that people aren't helping something bad along when they choose not to intervene? No, inaction is a vote cast for the consequences of inaction.

Your arguments seem to come from a far more unyielding position than mine, and one based on faith in novel behaviour emerging from people. You are making assumptions about how I think, but you're actually demonstrating your own rigidity in this... an optimistic rigidity, but still monocular. Believing that human nature is unchanged doesn't free me from anything, but rather causes me to feel responsible for some of the people you would leave to their own devices.

I don't like to frame views in terms of positions that either "yield" or refuse to budge. I believe in reason and, imo, reason need not fear interaction. I wouldn't, nor would I expect anyone else to, simply "yield" for the sake of avoiding being called, "unyielding." These are the domination-submission games of social-docility and conformity and they are contrary to reason and individual free will.

What gives you the right to take responsiblity for anyone else's actions?

Nothing makes you treasure life, and those who share it like a keen appreciation of just how fleeting it is. You again, are making terrible and unfounded assumptions that are deeply clouded by your underlying ideology.

Some people treat life as abundance instead of scarce. You're tossing language around, like "treasuring" and "fleeting" that contains a specific ideology that you're not discussing.

 

[Frame Dragger]

If you see someone playing with a loaded gun, and the thought of the consequences make you nervous, doesn't your compassion for that person's life start to evolve into frustration and irritation that they won't be more careful with the gun? "Woe" indeed "be unto you foolish sinner." You don't have to judge the mindset of the person saying it; you just have to understand what it means. Then you can agree or disagree of your own reasoning. What you are decrying as "hostility" is just the emotion that someone is trying to overcome by offering to pray for you. Granted they may be praying for you about something that they've misassessed as a danger, and that's where you get into the problem of different interpretations of theology, which isn't ultimately a problem - but it does result in some confusion in communication.

Your taking both of those slightly out of context to make your point. The only reason I am certain is because I have experienced anguish thinking the way you do, and I realized at that time I was the one most hurt by my own thought-patterns - but I realized at the same time that negativity and fear are the emotions at the root of all violence, both as a response to other violence and as the initial emotional motivation that ultimately translates into violent actions or just a will to violence without acting on it personally.


It's built into the concept "species" to view individual organisms according to traits attributed to group-identity instead of focusing on the individual's individuality first and any comparisons with other individuals second if at all. It's not an acute or uncommon form of sociopathy, but I think it is a conceptual framework that lends itself to social harm if mitigated irresponsibly, which you may or may not do - I don't know you that well. I just mention it because I think it's important to note.


One way of seducing people into a killer's mindset is to get them to accept the logic of "kill or be killed" as a necessity. Once people are in this mode, they can feel compelled to will death to others because they implicitly assume that if they don't it will mean their own death. In reality, killing and death of each individual is an isolated event that can only be logically related to other killings/deaths by association. The free will to choose not to will death is never lost, I think. Unfortunately, the death-drive does sometimes because strong enough that people become indifferent to life and will death for that reason, hopefully not acting on their will.


Tested cynicism doesn't make a good foundation for politics. I share yours but I see politics as an instrument to affect hope out of cynicism. It's creating lift to counter descent.


Influence can also be experienced as torture, as you seem to. But I think that's because some people's will to domination/submission is so strong that they refuse to see influence as something they can resist. More so, I think they don't want to have to live a life where there are things they have to or should resist. They want a perfectly flowing system of power where resistance isn't necessary because the dictator is benevolent. That's scary if you realize that there are conflicting interests in any individual or society.


See, here's the ideology of species again? Why is biodiversity more important than the lives of individual organisms. In this logic of species-extinction is the implicit assumption that killing of individual organisms that doesn't destroy the species, or even promotes the collective good of a species is ok. I am an individualist. I don't believe that the point of individuals is to preserve species; I think the point is to reduce violence toward other individuals as much as possible, regardless of their species.


I don't even believe that thinking about humans in multiplicity is a sustainable thought because once you apply a framework other than individuality of personhood, they become something other than individuals. This is why I advocate distinguishing between your mental images and concepts at the macro level and the empiricism of how individuals exist in their everyday life. This can be difficult, because macro-level thought is a factor that influences interactions at the individual level.


I dislike it when people use "responsibility" as some kind of abstract duty. Being responsible for actions means that the actions you commit have effects. The effects of actions are the consequences that the acting agent is responsible for. If more privileged people are responsible for more consequences, it is because the actions they are able to commit have more complex patterns of effects - mainly because the spheres of independency of each product they use are more intensive.

When you buy a car, for example, you are responsible for stimulating many more labor hours than when you buy a bike, which requires fewer to produce. When you say or write something, you are responsible for your intentions and will, but not what someone else chooses to believe or do in reacting to your speech. There are no involuntary chains of command, the same as there are no actions completely isolated from social influence in any form. All actions are the product of multiple powers and resistances.


I don't like seeing destruction and suffering by any cause. I just think it's important for people to think for themselves as individuals and make their own choices instead of reacting to the impression that there are inevitable patterns that will result if mitigating action is not taken. Ironically, you were admonishing me for say, "woe be unto the foolish sinner," yet you are basically saying, "woe be unto the foolish sinner who fails to incorporate population fears into their reproductive planning."


No such thing as immunity from influence of authority and torture exists. There only only differing degrees of power and suffering. My obligation, and that of others, is imo to resist violence to the extent they are able and reduce the suffering of torture and terror of authority-submission as much as possible at any given moment. I don't think more than that is possible in the scope of human limitations/fallibility.


People are social, and individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves. Does that mean people don't and won't attempt to manipulate each other and escape blame? No, but does that legitimate that they do? Also no. Nothing "frees" anyone from having to intervene or act except the inalienable ability not to. Does that mean that people aren't helping something bad along when they choose not to intervene? No, inaction is a vote cast for the consequences of inaction.


I don't like to frame views in terms of positions that either "yield" or refuse to budge. I believe in reason and, imo, reason need not fear interaction. I wouldn't, nor would I expect anyone else to, simply "yield" for the sake of avoiding being called, "unyielding." These are the domination-submission games of social-docility and conformity and they are contrary to reason and individual free will.

What gives you the right to take responsiblity for anyone else's actions?


Some people treat life as abundance instead of scarce. You're tossing language around, like "treasuring" and "fleeting" that contains a specific ideology that you're not discussing.

When it comes down to it brainstorm, I simply reject the need for a single guiding ideology, beyond "big S" Skepticism. Your analogy of the loaded gun is a fine one, but we both know that I'm not talking about a sincere prayer or hope for one's safety... I'm talking about, "I will pray... for your SOUL [because as it stands now you're screwed]." I'm talking about the "I'll pray for you" that is bandied about as the *fundamentalist* Christian "**** you!". If you don't really know what I'm talking about, I can't help that. There is a difference between, "Pray for our miners" and "Pray for those who are blind to the truth we SEE." If you don't see THAT, it is a willful act of ignorance on your part.

As for the rest, I can only say that you sound like someone who has not been tested much in life, except by their own internal dialogue. I'm sorry that you suffered in that, and I'm glad that you've found a way to cope, but not everyone finds looking at reality as damaging as you seem to believe. For instance, your blase response to the destruction of biodiversity on this planet is a bit mad. We're not just talking about wiping out life, but also the damage to our ecosystem, which we are clearly not capable of accurately assessing. Talk about "playing" with loaded weapons!

I respect pacifists, but the problem is that there will always be those who do not. Therefore, I take a measured view of violence in human interaction, as something to be avoided at all costs, but not an absolute evil. That said, I believe you've begun to stray from the various "-isms" on offer here, and constructed an ideal of your own which requires near total participation by free-thinking individuals to work. At no point in history has such a policy led to a lasting peace, any more than wars have. You want people to NOT be in pain, but pain is part of life, and it doesn't have to be something which drives you to hate or fear.

You CAN rationally assess a threat, and determine a proper response without resorting to monstrosities. On the other hand, there are plenty of people in the world who would fundamentally disagree with what you consider a moral culture, and they would kill you for that. People desire freedom to act as they see fit, including acting on darker urges, in the absence of social constructs. As such constructs are fundamentally communal, and not individual, I see your view as lovely, but purely fantastic.

Finally, you may want to consider why people kill, because the reasons are VARIED. There is no one "killer's mindset", and I have the sense that you're talking about literally everyone who engages say, in a war. While many wars would have benefited from a voice of reason to prevent them, some were not helped by calls for peace. WWII springs to mind.

As for the right to make decision for others, there is no such right. That doesn't mitigate the necessity for that in a society however. You seem to believe that humans are capable of overcoming basic facts of life that apply to everything on this planet, except as you would have it, us. I am more of Six Nein's view, that we are no different from a rabbit population; it might be hawks, or a pathogen, or (less likely for us) starvation, but natural systems seek equilibrium. If we don't attempt to reach that on our own, we're going to be HIT with it at some point. It must be very liberating to eschew all sense of moral responsibility for others, but then, you can at least do so by setting an example you would have people follow. You believe that is an example of liberating the spirit and the mind... I believe it is through acceptance of reality, and working within those strictures.

Until we are no longer dependant on one planet, and one star for our continued existence as a species, our future HAS already been written in our history. The question of "when" is academic, and can free you to act abominably, or to act morally for the sake of doing so. My cynicism WAS tested, and it broke (as inevitably these things do) a long time ago. There is a reason I'm agnostic, and not an atheist... I don't subscribe to certainties anymore. I believe that our strength is adaptation, and mental adaptation comes first. I want to live in the real world, not an ideal I construct from hope and fantasy, but that doesn't mean I am willing to lay down and die.

There are functional views of the world that are not yours brainstorm, and some people can cope with more... dissonance, that others.

 

[skippy1729]

I find it difficult to separate socialism from Stalinism in the sense that socialism, which is a ideology and a vision of Utopia, has an internal pressure to become more authoritarian as its goal becomes more elusive. Stalin, Mao and Hitler are the most extreme examples, others may take much more time to get to self righteous State Terrorism. The flaw in all ideologies is that they truly believe that they exclusively have all the answers.

Skippy

PS Socialism = Trickle Up Poverty since you will always run out of rich people to steal from.

 

[brainstorm]

When it comes down to it brainstorm, I simply reject the need for a single guiding ideology, beyond "big S" Skepticism. Your analogy of the loaded gun is a fine one, but we both know that I'm not talking about a sincere prayer or hope for one's safety... I'm talking about, "I will pray... for your SOUL [because as it stands now you're screwed]." I'm talking about the "I'll pray for you" that is bandied about as the *fundamentalist* Christian "**** you!". If you don't really know what I'm talking about, I can't help that. There is a difference between, "Pray for our miners" and "Pray for those who are blind to the truth we SEE." If you don't see THAT, it is a willful act of ignorance on your part.

Unfortunately, I understand the feeling of seeing that people are blind to see how their "sins" are harming themselves and others, and even though I believe that the discovery of sin and redemption is unique according each individual's personal life experiences, I also see a general pattern of people who cultivate denial because they don't want to consider the possibility of truth that interferes with other interests. You may be right that some people are using prayer as a weapon, but from the quotes you use to illustrate, there's nothing inherent in the quotes that suggests that people are not just lamenting about the unwillingness of others to open their eyes, and feel they have no other way to help them than prayer. Talking with people doesn't always get through to them.

As for the rest, I can only say that you sound like someone who has not been tested much in life, except by their own internal dialogue. I'm sorry that you suffered in that, and I'm glad that you've found a way to cope, but not everyone finds looking at reality as damaging as you seem to believe.

I have been tested a lot unfortunately, and the only thing I've learned from it is that I have to work harder not to fall to my own cynicism, pessimism, or whatever other ideology would result from accepting negativity as an inevitable reality. I did that for a while, but I found it was unsustainable without some other practical level of consolation. In other words, I found that to avoid seeking solice in material comforts, it was necessary to work at pro-actively cultivating an ideology of hope.

For instance, your blase response to the destruction of biodiversity on this planet is a bit mad. We're not just talking about wiping out life, but also the damage to our ecosystem, which we are clearly not capable of accurately assessing. Talk about "playing" with loaded weapons!

The solution to destroying animals and their ecosystems is to support cultural ways of living that are less harmful. Like I've said in a previous post, I think about this every time I see roadkill on my bicycle.

I respect pacifists, but the problem is that there will always be those who do not. Therefore, I take a measured view of violence in human interaction, as something to be avoided at all costs, but not an absolute evil.

I'm not a pacifist and I don't respect it as much as I should possibly, because I discovered how being a pacifist myself was a violent reaction to the visibility of violence, which cannot ultimately be transcended but only reduced. Pacifism is an ideology of hate/violence toward hate/violence which reproduced violence by reacting to it.

That said, I believe you've begun to stray from the various "-isms" on offer here, and constructed an ideal of your own which requires near total participation by free-thinking individuals to work. At no point in history has such a policy led to a lasting peace, any more than wars have. You want people to NOT be in pain, but pain is part of life, and it doesn't have to be something which drives you to hate or fear.

The hard thing about individualism is that you have to come to accept that individuals are free to choose destructive paths, and that them doing so is what causes so much destruction. Lasting peace will never be achieved through attempts to control individuals, and ultimately such attempts promote other forms of destruction. Some Christians simply recognize that Satan dominates the world, and the only hope is for individuals to realize forgiveness and virtue in their own lives. I'm sorry if this sounds like preaching. I'm just giving an example of how one ideology deals with the realization that it's not possible to save the world through governance. Of course, I don't see anything wrong with expressing hope through politics and at least trying. It's just that I also realize that there's no such thing as a lasting solution to problems.

You CAN rationally assess a threat, and determine a proper response without resorting to monstrosities. On the other hand, there are plenty of people in the world who would fundamentally disagree with what you consider a moral culture, and they would kill you for that. People desire freedom to act as they see fit, including acting on darker urges, in the absence of social constructs. As such constructs are fundamentally communal, and not individual, I see your view as lovely, but purely fantastic.

You're assuming a lot. I don't think anything is fundamentally communal except the ideology of community, which is actually individual in practice. The "communal" dream is something I have experienced but I can no longer understand why people think anything positive comes out of communalism. Individuals can certainly live with an ethical interest in bettering others lives as they better their own - but this doesn't have to involve an ideology of community, and I think it actually works better when the community ideology is replaced with one of responsible individuality where individuals engage in cultural practices that are automatically beneficial to others than themselves. Vegetarianism is good for your health and leaves more land and water resources available for others to eat as well. The vegetarian individual is socially ethical without recognizing or participating in any defined "community."

Finally, you may want to consider why people kill, because the reasons are VARIED. There is no one "killer's mindset", and I have the sense that you're talking about literally everyone who engages say, in a war. While many wars would have benefited from a voice of reason to prevent them, some were not helped by calls for peace. WWII springs to mind.

Actually, if you understand the death-drive, according to Freudianism, it is a pretty general motivation for the spirit of killing and other destruction. It can occur relatively harmlessly, but it is never less than a potential spawn for escalation. It takes place constantly in the form of the desire for cessation of various things, whether those things are desired to cease because of their goodness or badness.

As for the right to make decision for others, there is no such right. That doesn't mitigate the necessity for that in a society however. You seem to believe that humans are capable of overcoming basic facts of life that apply to everything on this planet, except as you would have it, us. I am more of Six Nein's view, that we are no different from a rabbit population; it might be hawks, or a pathogen, or (less likely for us) starvation, but natural systems seek equilibrium. If we don't attempt to reach that on our own, we're going to be HIT with it at some point. It must be very liberating to eschew all sense of moral responsibility for others, but then, you can at least do so by setting an example you would have people follow. You believe that is an example of liberating the spirit and the mind... I believe it is through acceptance of reality, and working within those strictures.

"Acceptance of reality" is an ideology that relinquishes responsibility for reality. I do lead by example, in that I am my own leader and I expect others to be their own leaders as well. I do not hide by reasoning or beliefs of what is good for myself and others. I don't need any right to live well and share how I do it publicly, because I am not forcing anyone else to obey anything I suggest. Sometimes people call me a dictator because I simply state my opinion about how people should act. I have no desire for anyone's freedom to be curtailed unless there is a non-harmful way to do so that does not undermine their political right to argue their own position and reasons.

Until we are no longer dependant on one planet, and one star for our continued existence as a species, our future HAS already been written in our history.

Nonsense, history is a narrative image of patterns that can be explained in various ways. It is no easier to explain history than it is to explain social patterns in the present. When individuals' subjective field of possibilities is constrained by ideologies of historical patterns and trends, they are hindering their own freedom with their assumptions about the mechanics of historical procession.

The question of "when" is academic, and can free you to act abominably, or to act morally for the sake of doing so. My cynicism WAS tested, and it broke (as inevitably these things do) a long time ago. There is a reason I'm agnostic, and not an atheist... I don't subscribe to certainties anymore. I believe that our strength is adaptation, and mental adaptation comes first. I want to live in the real world, not an ideal I construct from hope and fantasy, but that doesn't mean I am willing to lay down and die.

If you are, in your mind, adapting to a reality you imagine to be beyond your control, you are in fact collaborating to create a social ideology of conformity instead of one in which social reality is the product of individual free will. If you see free will as a stumbling block for imperative realities, don't be surprised if your free will is treated by others as a stumbling block for their imperatives, such as procreation and population/economic growth, for example.

There are functional views of the world that are not yours brainstorm, and some people can cope with more... dissonance, that others.

I cope with the dissonance of individual free will and the fact that social realism is an ideology that conflicts with the realism of materiality beyond human consciousness. You seem to be the one that tries to reduce dissonance by "adapting" or conforming to social-ideologies of realism that impair your faith in individuals to freely vote on the future through the actions they choose. I view both history and the future as the product of a free market of individual actions, even when many individuals choose to exercise their free will for the purpose of accommodating or "adapting" to forces they imagine to be beyond their influence. I do not think that any individual has the power to control others, but I think that each has the power to exercise as much influence as they have at their disposal. If you waste your power on reacting to ideas of things you can't change, you are wasting the opportunity to channel those same energies into the things you can.

 

[Nusc]

Social inequality has been shown to be the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population all correlate with higher social inequality.[6]

Socialism.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Unfortunately, I understand the feeling of seeing that people are blind to see how their "sins" are harming themselves and others, and even though I believe that the discovery of sin and redemption is unique according each individual's personal life experiences, I also see a general pattern of people who cultivate denial because they don't want to consider the possibility of truth that interferes with other interests. You may be right that some people are using prayer as a weapon, but from the quotes you use to illustrate, there's nothing inherent in the quotes that suggests that people are not just lamenting about the unwillingness of others to open their eyes, and feel they have no other way to help them than prayer. Talking with people doesn't always get through to them.


I have been tested a lot unfortunately, and the only thing I've learned from it is that I have to work harder not to fall to my own cynicism, pessimism, or whatever other ideology would result from accepting negativity as an inevitable reality. I did that for a while, but I found it was unsustainable without some other practical level of consolation. In other words, I found that to avoid seeking solice in material comforts, it was necessary to work at pro-actively cultivating an ideology of hope.


The solution to destroying animals and their ecosystems is to support cultural ways of living that are less harmful. Like I've said in a previous post, I think about this every time I see roadkill on my bicycle.


I'm not a pacifist and I don't respect it as much as I should possibly, because I discovered how being a pacifist myself was a violent reaction to the visibility of violence, which cannot ultimately be transcended but only reduced. Pacifism is an ideology of hate/violence toward hate/violence which reproduced violence by reacting to it.


The hard thing about individualism is that you have to come to accept that individuals are free to choose destructive paths, and that them doing so is what causes so much destruction. Lasting peace will never be achieved through attempts to control individuals, and ultimately such attempts promote other forms of destruction. Some Christians simply recognize that Satan dominates the world, and the only hope is for individuals to realize forgiveness and virtue in their own lives. I'm sorry if this sounds like preaching. I'm just giving an example of how one ideology deals with the realization that it's not possible to save the world through governance. Of course, I don't see anything wrong with expressing hope through politics and at least trying. It's just that I also realize that there's no such thing as a lasting solution to problems.


You're assuming a lot. I don't think anything is fundamentally communal except the ideology of community, which is actually individual in practice. The "communal" dream is something I have experienced but I can no longer understand why people think anything positive comes out of communalism. Individuals can certainly live with an ethical interest in bettering others lives as they better their own - but this doesn't have to involve an ideology of community, and I think it actually works better when the community ideology is replaced with one of responsible individuality where individuals engage in cultural practices that are automatically beneficial to others than themselves. Vegetarianism is good for your health and leaves more land and water resources available for others to eat as well. The vegetarian individual is socially ethical without recognizing or participating in any defined "community."


Actually, if you understand the death-drive, according to Freudianism, it is a pretty general motivation for the spirit of killing and other destruction. It can occur relatively harmlessly, but it is never less than a potential spawn for escalation. It takes place constantly in the form of the desire for cessation of various things, whether those things are desired to cease because of their goodness or badness.


"Acceptance of reality" is an ideology that relinquishes responsibility for reality. I do lead by example, in that I am my own leader and I expect others to be their own leaders as well. I do not hide by reasoning or beliefs of what is good for myself and others. I don't need any right to live well and share how I do it publicly, because I am not forcing anyone else to obey anything I suggest. Sometimes people call me a dictator because I simply state my opinion about how people should act. I have no desire for anyone's freedom to be curtailed unless there is a non-harmful way to do so that does not undermine their political right to argue their own position and reasons.


Nonsense, history is a narrative image of patterns that can be explained in various ways. It is no easier to explain history than it is to explain social patterns in the present. When individuals' subjective field of possibilities is constrained by ideologies of historical patterns and trends, they are hindering their own freedom with their assumptions about the mechanics of historical procession.


If you are, in your mind, adapting to a reality you imagine to be beyond your control, you are in fact collaborating to create a social ideology of conformity instead of one in which social reality is the product of individual free will. If you see free will as a stumbling block for imperative realities, don't be surprised if your free will is treated by others as a stumbling block for their imperatives, such as procreation and population/economic growth, for example.


I cope with the dissonance of individual free will and the fact that social realism is an ideology that conflicts with the realism of materiality beyond human consciousness. You seem to be the one that tries to reduce dissonance by "adapting" or conforming to social-ideologies of realism that impair your faith in individuals to freely vote on the future through the actions they choose. I view both history and the future as the product of a free market of individual actions, even when many individuals choose to exercise their free will for the purpose of accommodating or "adapting" to forces they imagine to be beyond their influence. I do not think that any individual has the power to control others, but I think that each has the power to exercise as much influence as they have at their disposal. If you waste your power on reacting to ideas of things you can't change, you are wasting the opportunity to channel those same energies into the things you can.

Brainstorm, as much as this is, and probably could continue to be an interesting discussion, I don't think we're likely to agree on much beyond basic principles of how one should treat others (with love, kindness, and respect). I suspect that you're someone with deep faith (although I can't claim to peg you as particularly religious) and I am, above all, faithless. Frankly you WANT to be a better person that I even aspire to be, and you seem willing to sacrifice more in the pursuit of that than I am.

I do want to make one point clear: I take responsibility for my shortcomings, and I don't cheat. I don't cheat on people, I never cheated academically, and I won't cheat you in this by pretending to be more or better than I am. I know that I have the capacity to do far more good, but I simply do not care for others (who are not my immediate kith and kin) enough to extend myself in that fashion. You TRULY believe, as you said, in a hope that contradicts logic. I can respect that, and even understand it, but I don't share it.

I feel you've shared some personal aspects of who you are, so I'll do the same. I'm human, I'm not thanatophobic or thanatophilic beyond the average, and I try to takes Nietzsche's advice about monsters and the abyss. That said, we each react differently according to who we are. I can only say that I do not feel... tormented... in the way you described feeling in the past. I accept life on its own terms, and I have no ideology or religious conviction to elevate myself or others above other animals in my mind. I genuinely dislike a fair number of people, and my strategy for living is to cultivate a circle of people who not like-minded, but creative and adaptable.

Yes, one can adept in such a fashion as to become a metaphorical shark, and in doing harm to others you harm yourself. I believe that based on completely non-religious or spiritual grounds. People who hurt other people pay a price for that, but that isn't to say that such a price isn't worth paying sometimes. My hope, is that people, when pressed, will react to crises with more than fear and a desire to be dominated by a father-figure (see Bush+9/11). For every Bill O'Rielly there is a John Stewart, and just as it's inevitable that empires and civilizations rise and fall, that includes the people who bring them down, such as your example of Gandhi.

That said, history, which I believe to be an excellent predictor of future human interactions, teaches us lessons that cannot be ignored. Good people sometimes make a seemingly moral choice to withhold violence for their own sake, and the sake of others. Sometimes that is a terrible error. As the world we live in is morally grey in practice, we can choose to pursue a kind of unattainable self-perfection (which few people can, but some do), or we can pursue balance in ourselves. I try for the latter, not as a means of compromising principles I hold dear, but because I've learned from experience that people are hard to categorize. I may vent and say that "people are stupid", but I know that's just venting.

I try, very hard, to avoid ideology... I see it as a poison to individuality. One can have fluid views which adapt, alongside personal moral convictions which one will NOT break, and without submitting to an illusory authority or a false inevitability. My belief in, "doom" so to speak, does not result in a feeling of helplessness, or despair (usually). Rather, it makes me consider how one DOES move people at this scale. You look inward for a source of strength and conviction, whereas I turn outwards and prefer to exercise influence, often in a Machiavellian fashion. I'm not talking about accruing masses of power or money, but sometimes you need to manipulate people for their own good. It's not right, it simply IS. Have you ever scared someone so that they'll see a doctor, or a dentist? I don't mean that you lie to them, but that you confront them with the myriad consequences of their action or inaction. I have no right to do that, but then, rights are social constructs (in my view). Obviously if you believe in a divine mandate, that changes everything, and acting in accordance with that would be of utmost importance. I don't believe that however, and I think that basic difference... your belief in something more than us on a rock, and my complete lack of belief, is what is finally clashing.

In my experience, this is not something which can or should be solved. You have a life which seems to work for you, in which you strive to do the right thing, as you see it, and constantly re-examine your behaviour for inconsistencies with that ethic. I do the same, but our basic premise is different. The methodology still yields a more flexible and accepting individual however, and for that I respect you, even if our disagreements are profound and fundamental.

EDIT: btw, don't worry about the religion bit, I don't believe in them, but it doesn't mean I don't study them. Religion is a critical part history, and is too important to ignore. Judeo-Christian mythology is especially useful, given the sheer length of time it has persisted, and the number of people who ascribe to its basic ethics. Bhuddism, Hinduism, and others also match this I believe. I know some people who are scientifically inclined (such as myself) react badly to talk of religion, but I don't. I don't see it as a threat, and I can distinguish between you praying for me to see something you truly believe would make my life better, and some jackass launching a parting shot of "I'll pray for you!". People who don't care about others do not pursue these conversations with the conviction or vigor you have.

 

[brainstorm]

Social inequality has been shown to be the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population all correlate with higher social inequality.[6]

Socialism.

That's because redistributing money promotes spending and economic growth. The "reducing inequality" ideology is clever in that it takes criticism of capitalism, i.e. that it increases inequality, and utilizes it to motivate political policies to stimulate capitalism. Ultimately, the growth resulting from redistribution causes even greater inequalities, but socialists don't care because they just plan to keep redistributing and making more money until the infrastructure collapses and resources (natural and human) are used up.

Conservation is better than redistribution for dealing with lifestyle inequalities, but since it doesn't redistribute wealth and results in lower consumption standard for upper and middle classes, people prefer to advocate raising consumption standard for the poor and wasting even more resources and increasing long-term inequality.

 

[brainstorm]

EDIT: btw, don't worry about the religion bit, I don't believe in them, but it doesn't mean I don't study them. Religion is a critical part history, and is too important to ignore. Judeo-Christian mythology is especially useful, given the sheer length of time it has persisted, and the number of people who ascribe to its basic ethics. Bhuddism, Hinduism, and others also match this I believe. I know some people who are scientifically inclined (such as myself) react badly to talk of religion, but I don't. I don't see it as a threat, and I can distinguish between you praying for me to see something you truly believe would make my life better, and some jackass launching a parting shot of "I'll pray for you!". People who don't care about others do not pursue these conversations with the conviction or vigor you have.

The greatest insight I discovered when I began studying religion is that most of what I viewed as the evil of religion from a secular point of view turned out to be abuses of religious ideologies by those who fall just short of true faith. I am fascinated, for example, by the crusading "Christians" who felt the need to blame Jews for the crucifixion and take violent revenge despite Christ's beckoning to "forgive them they know not what they do." What's more, the same people absolve Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers even though Pilate "washed his hands," which means he denied his own sin, which is a big sin in Christianity if you understand it. Anyway, I'm not trying to spread religious dogma by giving these examples. I'm just pointing out how, like the people you say pray for you as a way of saying "F*** you," religion is always subject to misinterpretation and misapplication - not the least of which the cause is that the whole purpose of scripture is to interpret and apply it freely, according to "holy" sensibilities. It's a secular misinterpretation that the worst actions committed in the name of religion should be attributed to religion itself as the root cause. Secularism is simply unequipped to distinguish between uses and abuses of religion, because it it views all religion as monolithically in opposition to itself.

 

[Frame Dragger]

The greatest insight I discovered when I began studying religion is that most of what I viewed as the evil of religion from a secular point of view turned out to be abuses of religious ideologies by those who fall just short of true faith. I am fascinated, for example, by the crusading "Christians" who felt the need to blame Jews for the crucifixion and take violent revenge despite Christ's beckoning to "forgive them they know not what they do." What's more, the same people absolve Pontius Pilate and the Roman soldiers even though Pilate "washed his hands," which means he denied his own sin, which is a big sin in Christianity if you understand it. Anyway, I'm not trying to spread religious dogma by giving these examples. I'm just pointing out how, like the people you say pray for you as a way of saying "F*** you," religion is always subject to misinterpretation and misapplication - not the least of which the cause is that the whole purpose of scripture is to interpret and apply it freely, according to "holy" sensibilities. It's a secular misinterpretation that the worst actions committed in the name of religion should be attributed to religion itself as the root cause. Secularism is simply unequipped to distinguish between uses and abuses of religion, because it it views all religion as monolithically in opposition to itself.

I think many people are misinformed as to the actual content of their religion, and are too accepting of the interpretations of those with agendas. Others, simply see it as shelter from which to throw the first stone, ironic as that may be. I don't however, believe that it's an inherent evil of religion. Religion just happens to be at the core of many people's lives... family, friends, and notions of loyalty are often similarly perverted to serve a selfish or ignorant end. For those people, the change has to come from within. For people who have been genuinely mislead as to the content of their religion, can be educated. There's a reason why I study religions... you cannot understand most people if you don't.

For people who don't understand that religion can be used like a lever to move people, it's easier to demonize the religion. There are always some people who live up to the worst expectations of secular and religious individuals after all, but the error is in believing that ANY extreme is representative of the whole. It's easier to "hate Catholicism" than it is to hate the behaviour of some catholics in power. It's easier for Catholics to hate and blame homosexuality rather than confront what we all must: pedophiles will seek access to children, and that includes religious figures. It isn't "gay", and it isn't Catholic... it's pedophilic. People don't want to fear their neighbour or their wife/husband/mother/brother/cousin... even though THEY are most likely to commit violence against them. Blaming a gang is much easier on the mind... after all, "bad things happen to bad people" fits our view of what is "right", even if it isn't what usually happens.

As I'm sure you know, most murders, kidnappings, molestations, spousal abuse, is committed by people we know, and love. Is it any wonder that people hyper focus on external threats they feel are more controllable? Immigrants, terrorists, gangs... are terrifying, and they DO pose threats sometimes, but nothing compared to your own friends and family. Many people seem unable or unwilling to accept that however, and so by extension, it's easier to simplify conflict in the Middle East, or the various Crusades, in simplistic terms. It's easier to hate an enemy one has constructed from fantastic fears, than it is to be constantly wary, and still trust others.

To me, people who blame religion for the world's ills, are missing the point: Why do people believe what they do, picking and choosing from scriptures instead of trying to live by some very basic examples? Answer: It's hard, and a lot of people take the easy way out, and demonize what they don't understand, and fear.

 

[brainstorm]

I think many people are misinformed as to the actual content of their religion, and are too accepting of the interpretations of those with agendas. Others, simply see it as shelter from which to throw the first stone, ironic as that may be. I don't however, believe that it's an inherent evil of religion. Religion just happens to be at the core of many people's lives... family, friends, and notions of loyalty are often similarly perverted to serve a selfish or ignorant end. For those people, the change has to come from within. For people who have been genuinely mislead as to the content of their religion, can be educated. There's a reason why I study religions... you cannot understand most people if you don't.

For people who don't understand that religion can be used like a lever to move people, it's easier to demonize the religion. There are always some people who live up to the worst expectations of secular and religious individuals after all, but the error is in believing that ANY extreme is representative of the whole. It's easier to "hate Catholicism" than it is to hate the behaviour of some catholics in power. It's easier for Catholics to hate and blame homosexuality rather than confront what we all must: pedophiles will seek access to children, and that includes religious figures. It isn't "gay", and it isn't Catholic... it's pedophilic. People don't want to fear their neighbour or their wife/husband/mother/brother/cousin... even though THEY are most likely to commit violence against them. Blaming a gang is much easier on the mind... after all, "bad things happen to bad people" fits our view of what is "right", even if it isn't what usually happens.

As I'm sure you know, most murders, kidnappings, molestations, spousal abuse, is committed by people we know, and love. Is it any wonder that people hyper focus on external threats they feel are more controllable? Immigrants, terrorists, gangs... are terrifying, and they DO pose threats sometimes, but nothing compared to your own friends and family. Many people seem unable or unwilling to accept that however, and so by extension, it's easier to simplify conflict in the Middle East, or the various Crusades, in simplistic terms. It's easier to hate an enemy one has constructed from fantastic fears, than it is to be constantly wary, and still trust others.

To me, people who blame religion for the world's ills, are missing the point: Why do people believe what they do, picking and choosing from scriptures instead of trying to live by some very basic examples? Answer: It's hard, and a lot of people take the easy way out, and demonize what they don't understand, and fear.

I agree, and you explained it well. Humans are generally prone to ethical abuses, and its easier to focus on people you don't interact with regularly or intensively because then you don't have to reconcile the bad they do with the fact that you love them and see the good in them too. There's a belief that it's cognitive dissonance for good and bad to live within the same person. That's not cognitive dissonance, it's reality. But because people often hide the bad in themselves by portraying themselves as all good, the conformist tendency is to believe the image and assume there must be different people who are bad. Hence the projection onto less familiar others.

 

[Nusc]

That's because redistributing money promotes spending and economic growth. The "reducing inequality" ideology is clever in that it takes criticism of capitalism, i.e. that it increases inequality, and utilizes it to motivate political policies to stimulate capitalism. Ultimately, the growth resulting from redistribution causes even greater inequalities, but socialists don't care because they just plan to keep redistributing and making more money until the infrastructure collapses and resources (natural and human) are used up.

Conservation is better than redistribution for dealing with lifestyle inequalities, but since it doesn't redistribute wealth and results in lower consumption standard for upper and middle classes, people prefer to advocate raising consumption standard for the poor and wasting even more resources and increasing long-term inequality.

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

Canada is also a very small population in a large area compared to the USA, and is dependant on mutual security with the USA. Your lifestyle is predicated on who shares your borders. In short, you're a very homogeneous, and much smaller population spread over vast tracts of wildnerness. Comparing Canada to the USA is a bit like comparing Canada to saaaay, Denmark; Canada doesn't look so hot when compared to that standard of living either.

Don't confuse the ramblings of our politicians and media with the general views held by most. Given how dependant your security and economy is on the USA, and how very little the USA is dependant on Canada... I would enjoy the laughter before you feel the hook in the bait.

 

[russ_watters]

Social inequality has been shown to be the cause of many social problems. A comprehensive study of major world economies revealed that homicide, infant mortality, obesity, teenage pregnancies, emotional depression and prison population all correlate with higher social inequality.[6]

Socialism.

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.

 

[Sea Cow]

We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet all of those measures are improving.

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

 

[russ_watters]

Canada is also a very small population in a large area compared to the USA, and is dependant on mutual security with the USA. Your lifestyle is predicated on who shares your borders.

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

 

[russ_watters]

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

I've edited my post to say "most" instead of "all". Ie: most measures in most western countries are improving. Let's not miss the forest for the trees.

What is more likely is that those measures are corellated/caused by absolute poverty, not relative equality.

[edit] Caveat: And you're wrong about at least one of those. Teen pregnancy has dropped by a little more than 10% over the past 20 years in the UK and is at its lowest level in that time period (as of 2008): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8531227.stm

 

[brainstorm]

Is this a blunder?

Your country is a capitalist state. Look at the conditions compared to Canada.

We have regulated markets no collapse.
We have public healthcare.

We find it so ridiculous that you guys are fighting over basic healthcare - you guys didn't even pass a public option.

Most people live a pretty reasonable life up here even if you're poor.

Observing you guys is quite funny - the superficial eloquence. Many of you are so paranoid about your liberties - going to great depths to justify the means. (reminds me of that judge that sued those korean laundrymat owners for ~$60 million - is there no sense of compassion?)

Maybe if you're extremely wealthy and you don't give a **** about the poor but only yourself, then the reasons are just - it reflects your character.

Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda. I fell for such propaganda for a long time, until I realized that it's just marketing for another money game that generates a greater gap between overprivileged and underprivileged people. Socialists do with government institutions what capitalists do with business. The poor always get crumbs - although in socialism they get a little more but they pay for it with giving up a greater amount of control over their own lives.

Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist. Also don't generalize about people not caring about poverty, because many people do and they're doing a lot more about it than those that simply pay their taxes to a socialist government and then point the finger at the US when it is the US where their government invests its money to pay for their precious socialism.

You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue. Again, though, do you realize that the reason people are fighting so hard is because health care is probably the most profitable industry in a market where global investment, especially that which funds socialist systems, makes its money to take care of other people. The only reason any of "the American people" are arguing against cheap/socialized health care is because they are on the payrolls of companies that sustain the high-profit health-care industry as a means of investing and capitalizing on it.

This is why I am for reducing costs instead of mandating spending. If there would be no or little profit in health care to start with, it would be affordable for poor people. It would also leave socialist governments searching for some other source of revenue to fuel their post-industrial care economies. Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.

 

[Frame Dragger]

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

Fair enough, but I figured I shouldn't rub that in the face of someone who is clearly very nationalistic. Of course, now we see Europe trying to match GPS, with their own, because we also control a vast amount of information militaries require to function. Somehow, "Hey Candada, we have you by the balls!" just seems... gauche. That said, it's true.

Then again, how secure is any country when they inevitably are (at best) a SECOND priority of another nation? I suppose we're going to find out (albeit in the pacific, and not with Canada) in our future dealings with China.

 

[brainstorm]

In the UK, at least, inequality is increasing, and this increase has coincided with an increase in the prison population, increase in obesity, increase in teenage pregnancy, decrease in social mobility, and I would guess almost certainly an increase in the diagnosis of depression. I don't have the figures to hand, but I would suppose that infant mortality has decreased. Homicide has also decreased a little, I believe, but violent crime in general is on the up.

Which examples are you thinking of when you say 'most western countries', because at best the example of the UK is a mixed one.

I do believe that inequality stimulates these social problems, but I think people ignore the "how" and simplistically assume that redistribution would solve the problems.

Criminality, unhealthy lifestyles, teen pregnancy, failure to attain educational and career goals, and depression are all prompted by a sense of disempowerment in individuals. What causes that sense of disempowerment? My guess would be that it's caused by people looking at others and measuring themselves as less, when they should be looking at themselves, their own strengths, and what they can achieve. The ideology of "inequality" is a product and cause of looking outside ones own abilities.

In Marxism, it is called "alienation." Alienation is when people pursue goals for external rewards instead of out of a value of the goal itself. Working hard in school and work with an eye on social mobility doesn't work as well as doing so because you truly believe in what you're doing and love doing it. Unhealthy living, which causes obesity among other problems, is the result of people giving up on themselves, as is depression in many cases. Criminality is the same. People lose a sense that moral living is rewarding, because all they can see is how much wealth "the other half" has and how they deserve "a more equal share of the pie."

The people who are happiest, I believe, are those that feel a greater sense of reward from living poor instead of stealing, those who treasure their health and see it as an accomplishment of their lifestyle instead of as the result of health care, and those who pursue educational and career goals out of a sense of valuing their work and believing in what they do. These things are not always possible, depending on what opportunities are available, but greater equality of income doesn't solve any of them. If anything, the focus on equality contributes to them as much as it is caused by them.

 

[brainstorm]

Not very mutual. Canada decided decades ago that since they have a big brother around to protect them all the time, that they didn't need much in the way of a military to protect themselves. Most of the western world figured out the same thing, which is why they can afford to spend money that would otherwise be needed for defense on other social programs.

And that's really not a criticsm: those countries recognize the reality of the situation they are in and know that their defense money could better be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, this reality plays a role in their ability to support their socialistic policies.

Does it seem ironic to anyone besides me that socialists criticize the US for spending too much on military and "meddling" all over globally, and therefore not taking better care of people, yet then admit that it is US military might that allows so much economic resources to be diverted to social services for the governments that do supposedly take better care?

 

[Sea Cow]

[edit] Caveat: You're wrong about at least one. Teen pregnancy has dropped by a little more than 10% over the past 20 years in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8531227.stm

Yes, you're right on that one. Shows how you can be taken in by the propaganda – people constantly scream about teen pregnancy here.

 

[Sea Cow]

Does it seem ironic to anyone besides me that socialists criticize the US for spending too much on military and "meddling" all over globally, and therefore not taking better care of people, yet then admit that it is US military might that allows so much economic resources to be diverted to social services for the governments that do supposedly take better care?

I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

 

[Frame Dragger]

I reject the thesis entirely. I would dearly love it if the UK were to break with NATO entirely. We'd be a safer, more peaceful place.

Such is the thinking of many in Europe. Alas, the UK has gone too far down the road of "Airstrip One". So sorry, pip pip cheerio! All kidding aside, you would be safer NOW, but that ignores the past completely. It may be trite, but frankly without the security of NATO, the UK wouldn't exist anymore. Don't blame the tool for the use it's put to, when the people who wield it are truly at fault.

So, given the critical role that NATO has played, and partnership in espionage and has played in the lives of British and Americans... I'd dearly love to hear your justification for this. Remember, dropping an alliance until you need it AGAIN, is simply shirking one's responsibilities under a treaty. The USA and UK would be safer if NATO were more effective, and not used as a cover in ridiculous situations such as Iraq.

That said, when has putting down arms led to a peaceful solution in the LONG term? India is free from British occupation, and with that they've engaged in a nuclear standoff with Pakistan. Just because the battlefield in Europe is economic, for now, doesn't imply that it will remain so.