CHILLman on 21/4/2002 at 22:37
luny:
Yeah, it's outta control, but without it, we'd have to petition for the removal of the forum - don't hate, appreciate... or somethin'. ;)
Dragon:
>They are not the ones that cry for helping the poor, but the whole middle class is it, that is actually PAYING for the social aid. Most people I know, whom I'd count to middle-class, are calling for hard testing of the social aid-recievers. They certainly ARE discontent, but I think you may be mistaking the direction they want it to change.<
Oh yes, most definately. Welfare, as weak as it's become here, is still very unpopular (and the more conservative half would rather be done with it entirely). What you (Anarkos) call for is the very epitome of welfare! A bonified welfare-state. How can you possibly reason that an increase of what people don't want would make it more popular?
tguy on 22/4/2002 at 06:22
Well. This ties in nicely with one of my own social-economic theories.
Marx believed that the class battle takes place between rich people and poor people. I, however,think that the real conflict takes place between the smart people(visionaries) and stupid people(masses). Capitalism and Democracy are just means of turning poor smart people into rich smart people and controlling the masses for our own purposes.
So why is this a bad thing? It's better to have someone controlling the world than leaving all to chaos.
Capitalism works because it relys on people's greed. Socialism doesn't because it relys on peoples want to be equal and willingness to share.
ICEBreaker on 22/4/2002 at 12:00
Interesting and I believe quite true. I am glad you used the word "smart" and not "intelligent", because there are not very many rich scientists. Quite unfair really.
faetal on 22/4/2002 at 18:53
I think this debate could be nullified by just stating that humankind _won't_ make it. We were intelligent enough to start the machine working but
damned if we have the intelligence to stop or even control it. [disclaimer] This is only my own viewpoint and I don't speak for anyone else at all [/disclaimer]. I think that humans were a fatal step in evolution that will trigger a defence mechanism inherently built into nature in that we will destroy ourselves (and indeed, most of that which surrounds us). We are (mostly) only consumed by our own greed and comfort and though we speak of morals, we rarely put as much vigor into our actions as we do our thoughts. We keep telling ourselves that consumerism / capitalism are fine because they just make lives easier but think about it: to get products cheaper and quicker than competitors, the employees are the ones worrking harder, for less under more pressure so that the people at the top of the tower can rake in more cash. Think about majority voting for instance: say that there are 4 different political powers in a campaign, 35% vote for Mr A., 25% vote for Mr B. 15% Vote for Mr C. and 25% vote for Ms D. (just to be PC). Mr A. wins by 'Majority vote' yet it is considerably less than half of the people who voted so in effect, the majority are dissatisfied. Add to this the fact that at least 50% of the people that vote for Mr D. will disagree with at least some of their agenda and at least another 25% will have voted for them because they liked his sounbites/image/media coverage. Now this is a completely theoretical model but does it really sound so far-fetched? For Christ's sake, if it were a good system then how the h*** (only my own viewpoint, don't disseminate too much as I don't claim 'proven' credibility) did Bush end up in power!?! What I am trying to say is that practically every viewpoint discussed can be refuted and rebuffed because we are a deeply flawed species, destined to destroy itself (unless some kind of 'divine' incident occurs) because we cannot do anything about our love of money and posession over the preservation of the stability of our species.
Sorry if I offend all of the straight lace types (who will no doubt refer to any alternative way of thinking as 'plumb crazy') but last I heard, freedom of speech was still at least partially allowed (even if regulated and dragged through legal proceedings afterwards).
This probably explains why I spend most of the time I am not at work either watching movies, playing puter games or reading books.
Escapism, that's my belief.
p.s. This makes interesting reading - (
http://www.pushhamburger.com/corporat.htm)
tguy on 23/4/2002 at 06:11
Someone famous once said something like this:
"Democracy isn't a very good system, but it's the best system we have.
The same might go for capitalism...
ICEBreaker on 23/4/2002 at 06:32
I agree with your views about the political issues as well as your cynicism towards the definition of majority. So no arguments from me there.
However I have a problem with your idea that we will destroy ourselves, and especially disagree completely with your thinking that "humans were a fatal step in evolution that will trigger a defence mechanism inherently built into nature in that we will destroy ourselves". May I remind you that all our negative traits are a direct product of nature and is seen amplified many folds in the wild. Sentient life is a natural development of evolution and so to consider it a fatal step is absurd. To think that nature has some self-defence mechanism to eliminate us is also scientifically unsound. As with any systems in development, there are stages of stability and stages of volatility. We are at a stage where we have developed our technology and hence power but not yet our ethics. This temporary imbalance will increase the likelihood of an internal breakdown of the system, but it is by no means some predefined destiny that has to occur. It may seem more advantageous to have better moral capabilities before having great technological capabilities, but that imbalance too will cause other problems, although I cannot say which set of problems are better.
At the moment, humanity as a whole is progressing on both aspects. We live in a more ethical society than ever before. I am sick of people who always think the old days were better. In short, I believe what is happening now to be a normal cycle in the development of any civilisation and is the normal course of nature, especially when you consider that we are a product of nature and are governed by the instincts bestowed upon by nature itself.
ICEBreaker on 23/4/2002 at 06:56
Quote:
Originally posted by tguy Someone famous once said something like this: "Democracy isn't a very good system, but it's the best system we have. The same might go for capitalism... I cannot agree with you more and I would like to expand on why I agree with you. I do not think capitalism is the best system, but out of all the things we have tried, this seems to work the best
at this stage of human development. I think we have a long way to go with this system to fine tune and improve it, as well as give other countries time adopt and adapt the system (
when they are ready to, and if they wish to - Capitalism is not suitable for all countries). Later we can slowly change the system to better serve our changing needs as well as our future ethical standing.
faetal on 24/4/2002 at 00:17
I agree with your views about the political issues as well as your cynicism towards the definition of majority. So no arguments from me there.
So far so good.
However I have a problem with your idea that we will destroy ourselves, and especially disagree completely with your thinking that "humans were a fatal step in evolution that will trigger a defence mechanism inherently built into nature in that we will destroy ourselves". May I remind you that all our negative traits are a direct product of nature and is seen amplified many folds in the wild. Sentient life is a natural development of evolution and so to consider it a fatal step is absurd.
Why? Saying something is absurd means nothing until you say why. Nature works differently. Nature only wipes out other species if it is in direct competition for food source (or similar vital function). No other part of nature destroys it's own environment, poisons itself (think drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, fast food), knows full well it is doing so but just says, nah, it's not such a biggy, everyone's doing it. Another way that nature works where we don't is in predator/prey relationships. Situation: population of foxes and rabbits live in isolated area, fox population has plenty of rabbits so fox population grows. Fox population consumes more rabbits thus reducing rabbit population, thus causing food shortfall for foxes thus reducing fox population thus increasing rabbit.... and so on. We use something until it is finished and if we can't find anymore nearby, we take someone elses or just abandon and move on. We are the _only_ species that is so blatantly destructive _and_ aware of it. We created the atom bomb, we have the means to wipe ourselves and a great deal of nature out and I can't see too easily how a species when it reaches this point can progress without all of the avarice, greed and selfishness and apathy causing someone sooner or later pushing that red button. Think of the fanatics like Bin Laden. Think of the Machiavellian politicians like Bush and his 'inside agents'. Think how much power a single person can have. If people are allowed to have that level of power in a world where image/media and catchy soundbites win, what is to say that one day, the lunatic will surface in government (not necessarily in the West but somewhere) and unleash hell on earth (metaphorically, just in case you think I'm going down the 'Christian' route). I am sorry, i am not convinced that you are refuting what i have said based on factual evidence or deep study and theorising. I believe most people just believe what they want to (myself included, this could just be a delusion for all I know). One of the golden rules I like to stick to is,"Never have 100% faith in someone else's belief system, or your own for that matter - your reality is solely based on your perception.".
To think that nature has some self-defence mechanism to eliminate us is also scientifically unsound.
So was the world being spherical some years ago. The argument 'scientifically unsound' cannot apply until humans have definite proof that they know everything without question.
As with any systems in development, there are stages of stability and stages of volatility. We are at a stage where we have developed our technology and hence power but not yet our ethics. This temporary imbalance will increase the likelihood of an internal breakdown of the system, but it is by no means some predefined destiny that has to occur.
Based on assumption methinks. (of course so are my points but I'm just levelling out the debate).
It may seem more advantageous to have better moral capabilities before having great technological capabilities, but that imbalance too will cause other problems, although I cannot say which set of problems are better.
I don't think you are alone there.
At the moment, humanity as a whole is progressing on both aspects. We live in a more ethical society than ever before.
Money before people. I like to think of Western society as a big bunch of statistics pasted onto a chart so that companies can predict what they need to persuade people to buy. Also, Bush starting wars for no other reason thatn 'He wants more oil' is quite scary coming from the Worlds largest and most potent Superpower.
I am sick of people who always think the old days were better.
Nice sweeping generalisation.
In short, I believe what is happening now to be a normal cycle in the development of any civilisation and is the normal course of nature, especially when you consider that we are a product of nature and are governed by the instincts bestowed upon by nature itself.
Can't argue with that.
I'm not after rattling anyone's cage at all as I am quite enjoying all of the banter in this thread. I enjoy philosophy/Theology and it's really interesting hearing what other people think. Just because I'm rebutting your points, doesn't mean I think you're wrong.
Regards,
fætal.
ICEBreaker on 24/4/2002 at 03:06
Quote:
Originally posted by faetal I have two major issues with your argument about how nature is different from human. First of all you are only considering ecology, which is only one aspect of nature. Nature in the broadest sense is the physical and abstract mathematical laws of the universe. Evolution and ecology are just the biological expressions of these laws. Sentient life is another expression of those very same laws. So unless one could change, say, the gravitational constant, everything is progressing just as nature would have predicted. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about the destructive phase we are going through. Unfortunately we do not have alien species with which to compare history or else we can verify that most sentient life go through a destructive phase early in their development. Secondly your comparisons between human and animals seem to ignore the fact that the only difference is capability. There is no evidence whatsoever which would suggest that if other species gained our level of intelligence, they would act differently. In fact we regularly label negative human traits as "uncivilised" and "barbaric", in reference to our primitive pasts, when our mental capabilities were much closer with those of animals. The apathy you attach to human is consistent with selfish traits as well as short-sighted agendas and a lack of long term planning, the very same traits that animals possess. What you have failed to address in your reply is that all those unconstructive human qualities you have described stem directly from our primal instincts, which is shared by nearly all animals. So we are no different from other terrestrial species, seeing as we share the same lineage not so long ago. We just have a greater ability to influence. My main problem with your post is that you have provided little in the way of trying to convince us why human are destined to be extinct by some unexplained force of nature.
I enjoy philosophy/TheologyEdit: Large section deleted for fear of a long debate about the validity of philosophy. In short, I will not talk about philosophy and will ignore regurgitated generic philosophical rebukes.
faetal on 24/4/2002 at 19:20
Ok.
I'll agree to disagree. You seem like a 'by the books' type thinker to me so I'm not going to draw this out in a forum dedicated to Deus Ex tips. If you want to continue to discuss, I suggest it is done elsewhere.
