And the winner is...
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
Lerxst
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
I posted this on that other site that shall not be mentioned, where people spew useless social commentary on every little detail.
"For all my Democrat friends out there - You shouldn't delude yourselves into thinking Obama is actually a "Liberal" and that we won anything this election.
Just think, if every Obama vote went towards the actual "Liberal" party in this country.... every pipe dream (you know, the ones EVERY OTHER developed nation has as a reality) would be in our near future. Universal Healthcare, no more oil drilling, alternative energy plans, withdrawal from every war, education reform, student loan forgiveness, etc.
Instead, Obama won and we get 4 more years of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Honestly, Conservatives like Ike, Teddy and Lincoln were more Progressive then he is, but everyone on both sides thinks Obama's a 'damn liberal hippie communist!'"
"For all my Democrat friends out there - You shouldn't delude yourselves into thinking Obama is actually a "Liberal" and that we won anything this election.
Just think, if every Obama vote went towards the actual "Liberal" party in this country.... every pipe dream (you know, the ones EVERY OTHER developed nation has as a reality) would be in our near future. Universal Healthcare, no more oil drilling, alternative energy plans, withdrawal from every war, education reform, student loan forgiveness, etc.
Instead, Obama won and we get 4 more years of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Honestly, Conservatives like Ike, Teddy and Lincoln were more Progressive then he is, but everyone on both sides thinks Obama's a 'damn liberal hippie communist!'"
There is some truth to this, but isn't this also true for most of the world? Talk to someone in a third world country and I am sure they would gladly take what you have mentioned to at least feel like their vote counts. Does that make it right? Nope. Now that you have cleverly pointed out the problem, what is the solution? What I hate most during election time, is that everybody seems to love to take this opportunity to complain about corruption but instead of just pointing out the problem, provide a solution. It's easy to complain, it's much harder to actually do something that matters and that fixes the issues.
Lerxst
Well-known member
- MBTI
- INFJ
Does any one know the results for 3rd-party candidates? Looks like Johnson didn't get his 5%.
Stein dropped to .5%
- MBTI
- INFP...
- Enneagram
- the coolest one
@jimtaylor , I think that the solution would be to abolish monetary system, ultimately.. Money is the roots of all evil. As soon as hunters & gatherers created agrarian societies with accumulation of wealth came into being the modern warfare and politics.
The minor changes could be: implementing the option "Against All Candidates." At least abolish the Electoral Votes by States.. It's not fair to let the country be lead by only one out of two individuals from two separate parties.. No other democracy in the world is dualistic to such extent.
But there's really no easy way out. The machine is strong and powerful and has many layers.. It all comes to the majority. If the majority decides that this is not right and tries to implement the change - there's some hope.. But the problem lays in the set up of capitalism and Western Civilization. The roots are deep. . I am not even talking about the 3rd World Countries.
Revolution a la Cuba is not an option as a long term solution. From what we know historically all a revolution does is switches the ruling top. Any sort of progressive and beneficial change within the system has to be developed over a long period of time. Even Carl Marx agreed to it, too bad that his writings were often interpreted in a way only suitable to the interpreters and didn't reflect the whole depth of his thoughts.
The only long term suggestion I have is to increase the level of education within the society. Make Philosophy a necessary and not an optional subject at schools. Well read people with a wide range of knowledge would have a better understanding of the situation and less likely to become swayed by lies. The problem is that such population is dangerous for any regime and the knowledge/understanding of such sort is not welcome.
The minor changes could be: implementing the option "Against All Candidates." At least abolish the Electoral Votes by States.. It's not fair to let the country be lead by only one out of two individuals from two separate parties.. No other democracy in the world is dualistic to such extent.
But there's really no easy way out. The machine is strong and powerful and has many layers.. It all comes to the majority. If the majority decides that this is not right and tries to implement the change - there's some hope.. But the problem lays in the set up of capitalism and Western Civilization. The roots are deep. . I am not even talking about the 3rd World Countries.
Revolution a la Cuba is not an option as a long term solution. From what we know historically all a revolution does is switches the ruling top. Any sort of progressive and beneficial change within the system has to be developed over a long period of time. Even Carl Marx agreed to it, too bad that his writings were often interpreted in a way only suitable to the interpreters and didn't reflect the whole depth of his thoughts.
The only long term suggestion I have is to increase the level of education within the society. Make Philosophy a necessary and not an optional subject at schools. Well read people with a wide range of knowledge would have a better understanding of the situation and less likely to become swayed by lies. The problem is that such population is dangerous for any regime and the knowledge/understanding of such sort is not welcome.
Last edited:
[MENTION=1796]AhSver[/MENTION]
I do not disagree with anything you say but like a lot of things, it sounds great but is it practical? If you study true communism and Marxian Economics, it is all the foundation of what you are discussing. Everybody working to the betterment of the whole and everybody equally gaining.
The monetary system also is not necessarily evil as it just another form of bartering which is what helped society expand because without it, we would still be hunters and gatherers. Without the monetary system and bartering we would still be limited to what we can make with our own hands. The whole point of a system like this is to allow people to specify their various skill sets and make it so people can become even more specific in their knowledge.
Without the monetary system, physics’ would not exist, teachers would not exist, schools would not exist, etc… We would all be hunters and gatherers because our lives would depend on it. There would be no ability to pursue arts or higher levels of knowledge because there would be no time to do so. Money itself is a tool and no more evil than a hammer. It is greed that is the root of that evil.
Marx also says that capitalism itself is not evil but the “fake” value of capitalism is. The way in which price is determined should not be from something like marketing but from the actual intrinsic value of that good. A box of Fruit Loops should not cost any more or any less depending on what brand it is assuming all other things are equal about them.
True capitalism; which the United States does not have, like true communism are idealistic principles that we struggle to achieve because of the human condition. Communism and what Marx argues for cannot be achieved for the same reason capitalism continues to struggle. You will always have one individual or group of individuals that are not ok with having the same as everybody else. They will believe they deserve or need more. You can take away the monetary system and that drive will still be there.
Now I agree with Electoral College because it is the remainder of a voting system created in the heat of slavery. It was created in the fear that slave states would lose out to the much more populated northern free states on all important decisions including slavery, considering at the time slaves were not considered a whole person.
Increasing education does next to nothing because all it does is set essentially a new higher bar. Look, for the last 200 years education has expanded exponentially, as well as earning in the United States but at the cost of third world developing countries. A hundred years ago, a high school education was good enough to get a good job and end up middle class. Now you need a college degree, perhaps even a masters or doctorate to get to the same level.
I agree education is key to a lot of things but it depends on the type of education and to what purpose. When all the brightest minds in the world are going into business, instead of the arts and sciences, you have disconnect and that can only be solved by making it worth it for college graduates like myself to not pursue a career in business.
It is not just about people knowing better, it is about giving them reason to want to change.... I have more to write but I have to run but I do love talking about this stuff.
I do not disagree with anything you say but like a lot of things, it sounds great but is it practical? If you study true communism and Marxian Economics, it is all the foundation of what you are discussing. Everybody working to the betterment of the whole and everybody equally gaining.
The monetary system also is not necessarily evil as it just another form of bartering which is what helped society expand because without it, we would still be hunters and gatherers. Without the monetary system and bartering we would still be limited to what we can make with our own hands. The whole point of a system like this is to allow people to specify their various skill sets and make it so people can become even more specific in their knowledge.
Without the monetary system, physics’ would not exist, teachers would not exist, schools would not exist, etc… We would all be hunters and gatherers because our lives would depend on it. There would be no ability to pursue arts or higher levels of knowledge because there would be no time to do so. Money itself is a tool and no more evil than a hammer. It is greed that is the root of that evil.
Marx also says that capitalism itself is not evil but the “fake” value of capitalism is. The way in which price is determined should not be from something like marketing but from the actual intrinsic value of that good. A box of Fruit Loops should not cost any more or any less depending on what brand it is assuming all other things are equal about them.
True capitalism; which the United States does not have, like true communism are idealistic principles that we struggle to achieve because of the human condition. Communism and what Marx argues for cannot be achieved for the same reason capitalism continues to struggle. You will always have one individual or group of individuals that are not ok with having the same as everybody else. They will believe they deserve or need more. You can take away the monetary system and that drive will still be there.
Now I agree with Electoral College because it is the remainder of a voting system created in the heat of slavery. It was created in the fear that slave states would lose out to the much more populated northern free states on all important decisions including slavery, considering at the time slaves were not considered a whole person.
Increasing education does next to nothing because all it does is set essentially a new higher bar. Look, for the last 200 years education has expanded exponentially, as well as earning in the United States but at the cost of third world developing countries. A hundred years ago, a high school education was good enough to get a good job and end up middle class. Now you need a college degree, perhaps even a masters or doctorate to get to the same level.
I agree education is key to a lot of things but it depends on the type of education and to what purpose. When all the brightest minds in the world are going into business, instead of the arts and sciences, you have disconnect and that can only be solved by making it worth it for college graduates like myself to not pursue a career in business.
It is not just about people knowing better, it is about giving them reason to want to change.... I have more to write but I have to run but I do love talking about this stuff.
- MBTI
- INFP...
- Enneagram
- the coolest one
@jimtaylor , I generally agree with your thoughts and glad to see another person on the boards who read Marx, Descartes and other philosophers.. Good job 
I do, however, have a couple of remarks.. Even though money is a powerful force and it shaped our modern state of existence I don't think it's accurate to say that we wouldn't have science / teachers / universities without money. For example druids and shamans of the old rarely made a bank pursuing their professions.. How many writers / painters became acclaimed only sometime after their death? Ultimately, the creative force within a human drives the being. When there's a clear monetary reward for engaging in some sort of activity it could be a driving force (that would result in MTV
) but in reality shouldn't make that much of a difference.
It is hard to tell how things would be if this and that wouldn't happen. . According to our beloved Marx, any utopian (or close to it) society should be built on the per-existing well working infrastructure and can't be done from scratch.. Just look at the October Revolution in Russia and the consequences. Moneys on their own as symbols or wealth are theoretically indeed a very convenient commodity. However, it happens that Money becomes a symbol so important that people are willing to wage wars and kill each other in order to get a hold of more of these abstract embodiments of power. I think that this is wrong..
Plus, it's not always Moneys that drive progressive research towards the betterment of all. Just looking at how much is spent over a year to find cures / treatments for male boldness and erectile dysfunction. If these kinds of resources are instead put to fight hunger or malaria, supply medications to the struggling countries there would be so much more benefit done in general..
Another problem with money I see vs. trading / crafting is that in order to be able to create an item for a trade certain skills need to be in place. Time and efforts spent. . In Capitalism the sums of earned money by the middle-class society are very rarely can be seen the actual parallels to the efforts people spent earning them. Most of the people are employed by corporations, governmental or not, and like any corporation the accumulation of wealth happens at the top by "milking" everything that is bellow. In Capitalism the whole point is to utilize cheaper labor, pay as little as possible to get buy for the growth of the elite to continue. Mind you, modern Scandinavian Socialism I can tolerate much more than the U.S. pseudo-capitalistic democracy. But the historical background, size of the population, religious background et cetera make it clear why the U.S. is not a Socialistic state. Even though it may seem that I am quite negative towards the U.S. System, I am also quite negative towards the Russian System, the state of affairs in the Middle East. . and a whole lot of other issues in the world.
In terms of the society lead by hunters and gatherers. . Just a fact, before Agriculture became the main source of calories people were more slender, stronger, taller and had better teeth. Just because most of the agricultural calories are carbohydrates that we as human beings are still not quite used to, thus diabetes, obesity and other ills that go hand in had with cheaper food. . Perhaps, we as a Human Race could be happier, healthier on average people, maintaining a sustainable existence not unlike the Northern Native Americans before the colonial period. Perhaps, as hunters and gatherers we wouldn't have microprocessors and atomic energy. But that would not necessary make this branch of social and cultural evolution worse in comparison. We would still be able to develop arts, music, languages and philosophy, literature - don't forget long winter days when all a person could do was to keep the fire and share the stories, groom the young, paint the walls, engage in crafts.. At least in the Northern Regions of the world. Southern Regions had their own unique ways to develop as well..
We could be closer with the nature, leading nomadic lifestyles that wouldn't allow genocides and warfare happen on the same scale as what happened during the 20th Century. It is likely that we wouldn't live as long of a life. A long life, though, does not necessary mean a better life, these days it is all about being able to be in control of the material possessions for longer. If we wouldn't develop hard sciences we, probably, wouldn't be able to leave the planet when the Sun gets too cold or a random Black Hole could pass by. Having the beginning and the end of human civilization is nothing wrong in my opinion. Otherwise, the mankind could turn into a Celestial Virus..
Happier / more quality / more in tune with the nature existence could be as valuable on the grand scheme of things and maybe even less torturous and disillusioned than the world we are building now. A quick example, the String Theory, which is supposedly a modern day concept has its roots in Hindu believes and Viking Mythology.. Even though the people of that age couldn't describe what they felt and saw with the precision that is available for us know, it doesn't mean that they lacked any understanding if they lacked ability to express concepts mathematically.
Heh, took me some time before I could attempt to put my thoughts on the subjects above in some more or less connected way.. I probably did fail but at least, I hope, that you are able to see my point of view a little tiny bit better
Cheers!
I do, however, have a couple of remarks.. Even though money is a powerful force and it shaped our modern state of existence I don't think it's accurate to say that we wouldn't have science / teachers / universities without money. For example druids and shamans of the old rarely made a bank pursuing their professions.. How many writers / painters became acclaimed only sometime after their death? Ultimately, the creative force within a human drives the being. When there's a clear monetary reward for engaging in some sort of activity it could be a driving force (that would result in MTV
) but in reality shouldn't make that much of a difference.It is hard to tell how things would be if this and that wouldn't happen. . According to our beloved Marx, any utopian (or close to it) society should be built on the per-existing well working infrastructure and can't be done from scratch.. Just look at the October Revolution in Russia and the consequences. Moneys on their own as symbols or wealth are theoretically indeed a very convenient commodity. However, it happens that Money becomes a symbol so important that people are willing to wage wars and kill each other in order to get a hold of more of these abstract embodiments of power. I think that this is wrong..
Plus, it's not always Moneys that drive progressive research towards the betterment of all. Just looking at how much is spent over a year to find cures / treatments for male boldness and erectile dysfunction. If these kinds of resources are instead put to fight hunger or malaria, supply medications to the struggling countries there would be so much more benefit done in general..
Another problem with money I see vs. trading / crafting is that in order to be able to create an item for a trade certain skills need to be in place. Time and efforts spent. . In Capitalism the sums of earned money by the middle-class society are very rarely can be seen the actual parallels to the efforts people spent earning them. Most of the people are employed by corporations, governmental or not, and like any corporation the accumulation of wealth happens at the top by "milking" everything that is bellow. In Capitalism the whole point is to utilize cheaper labor, pay as little as possible to get buy for the growth of the elite to continue. Mind you, modern Scandinavian Socialism I can tolerate much more than the U.S. pseudo-capitalistic democracy. But the historical background, size of the population, religious background et cetera make it clear why the U.S. is not a Socialistic state. Even though it may seem that I am quite negative towards the U.S. System, I am also quite negative towards the Russian System, the state of affairs in the Middle East. . and a whole lot of other issues in the world.
In terms of the society lead by hunters and gatherers. . Just a fact, before Agriculture became the main source of calories people were more slender, stronger, taller and had better teeth. Just because most of the agricultural calories are carbohydrates that we as human beings are still not quite used to, thus diabetes, obesity and other ills that go hand in had with cheaper food. . Perhaps, we as a Human Race could be happier, healthier on average people, maintaining a sustainable existence not unlike the Northern Native Americans before the colonial period. Perhaps, as hunters and gatherers we wouldn't have microprocessors and atomic energy. But that would not necessary make this branch of social and cultural evolution worse in comparison. We would still be able to develop arts, music, languages and philosophy, literature - don't forget long winter days when all a person could do was to keep the fire and share the stories, groom the young, paint the walls, engage in crafts.. At least in the Northern Regions of the world. Southern Regions had their own unique ways to develop as well..
We could be closer with the nature, leading nomadic lifestyles that wouldn't allow genocides and warfare happen on the same scale as what happened during the 20th Century. It is likely that we wouldn't live as long of a life. A long life, though, does not necessary mean a better life, these days it is all about being able to be in control of the material possessions for longer. If we wouldn't develop hard sciences we, probably, wouldn't be able to leave the planet when the Sun gets too cold or a random Black Hole could pass by. Having the beginning and the end of human civilization is nothing wrong in my opinion. Otherwise, the mankind could turn into a Celestial Virus..
Happier / more quality / more in tune with the nature existence could be as valuable on the grand scheme of things and maybe even less torturous and disillusioned than the world we are building now. A quick example, the String Theory, which is supposedly a modern day concept has its roots in Hindu believes and Viking Mythology.. Even though the people of that age couldn't describe what they felt and saw with the precision that is available for us know, it doesn't mean that they lacked any understanding if they lacked ability to express concepts mathematically.
Heh, took me some time before I could attempt to put my thoughts on the subjects above in some more or less connected way.. I probably did fail but at least, I hope, that you are able to see my point of view a little tiny bit better
Cheers!
Last edited:
[MENTION=1796]AhSver[/MENTION]
I want to read what you wrote but the current block style is hard on the eyes. Please break it up but I read it anyway. In response to your first point, you are misunderstanding what I am getting at. It is not them getting wealthy that makes it possible for society to expand and have art. It is that men like Da Vinci would not exist without a monetary system because they would be out hunting and gathering and would not have the time to focus on their interests. Yes, Shamans existed and primitive art has been a part of humanities past but culture did not expand until a monetary system evolved.
Look at it this way. If you take out the monetary system, how are you going to get your food? You will have to grow it, kill it, cook it and then eat it. That takes a very large amount of time dedication and at the end, do you think you will have time to paint a masterpiece when you know in the morning you have to wake up and do the exact same thing? This is where a monetary system comes into play. Because I can focus my attention on art, science, etc… I can exchange those services for the physical goods I need to survive. Without a monetary system, I would have to provide for myself which would leave me no time to pursue those things.
Again, Marx stresses the evil about Capitalism is not in money itself, as money is just a medium of exchange, it is in the hoarding of money that Capitalism becomes evil. Capitalism could be stronger if society did not place value in money that it does not have. A dollar bill is only worth as much as society deems it to be worth and nothing more. Your examples again prove this, which money itself is not evil but the hording of it and the greed or desire of it is. Wars have been raged since the beginning of mankind, long before a monetary system. Rome, Persia, Greece, etc… did not conquer the world for their conquered nations “money”, they did so for their wealth. Two very distinct differences. That wealth came from physical goods like horses, spices, precious metals, farm land, etc… Money did not drive those things, wealth did.
Wealth exists with or without a monetary system as Marx says so himself. Shaman’s and other religious leaders didn’t have to go out and hunt without a monetary system because of their “wealth”. This wealth wasn’t physical money but instead spiritual, intellectual, etc… wealth. They were the 1% that now exists because of physical wealth. The 1% has always existed, in nearly every single society. Even with hunters and gathers, nomads and wandering tribes. Whenever humanity has gathered in society, the whole of that society has been controlled by a minority power, with or without a monetary system. It is part of our natural instinct as pack animals to end up this way.
I understand what you are saying by going to a more simplistic existence. It is the essence of such societies as the Amish, Native Americans, Buddhists, etc… My point is that at this point in humanities existence this is not possible because the whole world isn’t one of these cultures. We all come from different backgrounds, upbringings and belief systems, so naturally conflict will arise as a result.
One of the key’s to building a sustainable future in which humanity is not always on the verge of destroying itself requires humanity to work with each other. Drastic changes like the ones you have proposed would most likely result in the destruction that such ideas seek to avoid because in the process of achieving such an existence, that drastic revolution will have to happen. It happens every time a group feels subjugated and pushed into a belief that is not of their own.
Though such a simplistic existence sounds in many ways Utopian, one has to realize that to abruptly force society towards that direction will only result in further opposition. The downfall of every society in history has resulted because of something similar to this. Alexander the Great’s Empire fell apart after his death because his predecessors could not handle the logistics of so many different cultures and they placed Greece as the elite. Rome fell apart for the same reasons. The United States exists solely for the reason that they felt that the British were unfairly taxing them and placing rules upon them that they felt they shouldn’t have to obey.
Humanities existence from the start has been war because one society tries to tell another, their beliefs have a greater value and for them to achieve “happiness” everyone has to think as they do, everyone has to do as they do. Everyone has to be a capitalist, everyone has to be minimalist, everyone has to be Christian, Muslim, etc… Try convincing that rich individual who has whatever they desire, that your idea is a better life and you will quickly find violence.
See my personal belief is that we should commit a lot more wealth to space programs and the sciences. As you said, so much wealth should not be spent on what makes money but instead on what helps society grow. The problem is, until humanity learns the basic principle of accepting others and working towards common goals, it will not happen. Very few Americans are willing to give up their two cars and three floor house to share their wealth with the world. The same goes for Europeans who are flipping out over the fact that they feel some nations are dragging down the EU.
Until we learn the basic skill of accepting one another, society will continue to repeat the cycle. Even in a world like the one you propose, the issue would not be resolved, the impact would just be less. The issue is that all of humanity looks at those different than us with fear and hate. Your idea of happiness is a perfect example of this. Why should your happiness require that everybody become like you? Just do it. If you do not wish to partake in the evil in this world, than remove yourself from it. There are plenty of places you could go to that you would be free of all the systems in the world, what is holding you back? A lot of the time, the problem is, people get upset and their ego bruised whenever someone doesn’t agree with their idea.
I want to read what you wrote but the current block style is hard on the eyes. Please break it up but I read it anyway. In response to your first point, you are misunderstanding what I am getting at. It is not them getting wealthy that makes it possible for society to expand and have art. It is that men like Da Vinci would not exist without a monetary system because they would be out hunting and gathering and would not have the time to focus on their interests. Yes, Shamans existed and primitive art has been a part of humanities past but culture did not expand until a monetary system evolved.
Look at it this way. If you take out the monetary system, how are you going to get your food? You will have to grow it, kill it, cook it and then eat it. That takes a very large amount of time dedication and at the end, do you think you will have time to paint a masterpiece when you know in the morning you have to wake up and do the exact same thing? This is where a monetary system comes into play. Because I can focus my attention on art, science, etc… I can exchange those services for the physical goods I need to survive. Without a monetary system, I would have to provide for myself which would leave me no time to pursue those things.
Again, Marx stresses the evil about Capitalism is not in money itself, as money is just a medium of exchange, it is in the hoarding of money that Capitalism becomes evil. Capitalism could be stronger if society did not place value in money that it does not have. A dollar bill is only worth as much as society deems it to be worth and nothing more. Your examples again prove this, which money itself is not evil but the hording of it and the greed or desire of it is. Wars have been raged since the beginning of mankind, long before a monetary system. Rome, Persia, Greece, etc… did not conquer the world for their conquered nations “money”, they did so for their wealth. Two very distinct differences. That wealth came from physical goods like horses, spices, precious metals, farm land, etc… Money did not drive those things, wealth did.
Wealth exists with or without a monetary system as Marx says so himself. Shaman’s and other religious leaders didn’t have to go out and hunt without a monetary system because of their “wealth”. This wealth wasn’t physical money but instead spiritual, intellectual, etc… wealth. They were the 1% that now exists because of physical wealth. The 1% has always existed, in nearly every single society. Even with hunters and gathers, nomads and wandering tribes. Whenever humanity has gathered in society, the whole of that society has been controlled by a minority power, with or without a monetary system. It is part of our natural instinct as pack animals to end up this way.
I understand what you are saying by going to a more simplistic existence. It is the essence of such societies as the Amish, Native Americans, Buddhists, etc… My point is that at this point in humanities existence this is not possible because the whole world isn’t one of these cultures. We all come from different backgrounds, upbringings and belief systems, so naturally conflict will arise as a result.
One of the key’s to building a sustainable future in which humanity is not always on the verge of destroying itself requires humanity to work with each other. Drastic changes like the ones you have proposed would most likely result in the destruction that such ideas seek to avoid because in the process of achieving such an existence, that drastic revolution will have to happen. It happens every time a group feels subjugated and pushed into a belief that is not of their own.
Though such a simplistic existence sounds in many ways Utopian, one has to realize that to abruptly force society towards that direction will only result in further opposition. The downfall of every society in history has resulted because of something similar to this. Alexander the Great’s Empire fell apart after his death because his predecessors could not handle the logistics of so many different cultures and they placed Greece as the elite. Rome fell apart for the same reasons. The United States exists solely for the reason that they felt that the British were unfairly taxing them and placing rules upon them that they felt they shouldn’t have to obey.
Humanities existence from the start has been war because one society tries to tell another, their beliefs have a greater value and for them to achieve “happiness” everyone has to think as they do, everyone has to do as they do. Everyone has to be a capitalist, everyone has to be minimalist, everyone has to be Christian, Muslim, etc… Try convincing that rich individual who has whatever they desire, that your idea is a better life and you will quickly find violence.
See my personal belief is that we should commit a lot more wealth to space programs and the sciences. As you said, so much wealth should not be spent on what makes money but instead on what helps society grow. The problem is, until humanity learns the basic principle of accepting others and working towards common goals, it will not happen. Very few Americans are willing to give up their two cars and three floor house to share their wealth with the world. The same goes for Europeans who are flipping out over the fact that they feel some nations are dragging down the EU.
Until we learn the basic skill of accepting one another, society will continue to repeat the cycle. Even in a world like the one you propose, the issue would not be resolved, the impact would just be less. The issue is that all of humanity looks at those different than us with fear and hate. Your idea of happiness is a perfect example of this. Why should your happiness require that everybody become like you? Just do it. If you do not wish to partake in the evil in this world, than remove yourself from it. There are plenty of places you could go to that you would be free of all the systems in the world, what is holding you back? A lot of the time, the problem is, people get upset and their ego bruised whenever someone doesn’t agree with their idea.
[MENTION=1796]AhSver[/MENTION]
To put it very simply, I don’t believe there is any system that is inherently evil. There will also never be a perfect system because any system humanity tries to adopt will be corrupted by the fact that we are not perfect which is why I argue the only way humanity will avoid the destruction so many believe is coming, is by learning to accept one another’s differences and compromise. Our hopes, dreams and goals shouldn’t be dependent upon others listening and following what we choose to do.
To put it very simply, I don’t believe there is any system that is inherently evil. There will also never be a perfect system because any system humanity tries to adopt will be corrupted by the fact that we are not perfect which is why I argue the only way humanity will avoid the destruction so many believe is coming, is by learning to accept one another’s differences and compromise. Our hopes, dreams and goals shouldn’t be dependent upon others listening and following what we choose to do.
- MBTI
- INFP...
- Enneagram
- the coolest one
@jimtaylor ... No, I wasn't thinking of Capitalism as an inherently evil system.. Few things are inherently evil but even then whether something is "evil" or "good" largely depends on an individual's perspective.
At this point it would be wrong to encourage to abolish the modern ways and go back into past to pursue this lifestyle.. I agree that this is a little too late now and would be disastrous to pursue rapidly. I don't exclude a chance that perhaps there will be Anarchy in the world where people would just want to help each other because of the belonging, love and not for material gain of any sort.. I do understand that Anarchy is hard to see as a perfect state of the world. However, I do have a hope that at some point in time when people love each other, respect each other and don't want to hurt each other the state of Anarchy could be achieved... Which I understand is extremely wishful thinking but I would rather have this kind of image on my mind then other alternatives
And going back to the beginnings of the discussion, to me it is still seems that better education, higher grade of literacy, would be the key of bringing people together for a better society, at least one of the first steps that needs to be made in that direction.
Thank you for your time Mr. It was a pleasure reading your responses.
At this point it would be wrong to encourage to abolish the modern ways and go back into past to pursue this lifestyle.. I agree that this is a little too late now and would be disastrous to pursue rapidly. I don't exclude a chance that perhaps there will be Anarchy in the world where people would just want to help each other because of the belonging, love and not for material gain of any sort.. I do understand that Anarchy is hard to see as a perfect state of the world. However, I do have a hope that at some point in time when people love each other, respect each other and don't want to hurt each other the state of Anarchy could be achieved... Which I understand is extremely wishful thinking but I would rather have this kind of image on my mind then other alternatives
And going back to the beginnings of the discussion, to me it is still seems that better education, higher grade of literacy, would be the key of bringing people together for a better society, at least one of the first steps that needs to be made in that direction.
Thank you for your time Mr. It was a pleasure reading your responses.
