Materialism as a cult

[RyuTech]

I know that by nature we fend for ourselves

Right and thats exactly what was replaced by money and things. You get told to get new things making you feel good instead of caring for yourself instead. People started sacrificing their needs and their individuality to function well which is needed to get those things that ultimately dont make you happy and just fill that hole temporary.

 

[WonkyOracle]

Disappointed in the end.

We get one of these '' Conspirituality '' documentaries every couple of years.

Zeitgeist, Eden project, Thrive, Earthlings and anything by Alex jones or David Icke are some of the previous offerings.

Sweeping generalizations, guilt tripping and finger pointing.

It'll die away with the others of its ilk.

Daphne Ellis talked a lot but said little.

 

[RyuTech]

Sweeping generalizations, guilt tripping and finger pointing.

I dont see any guilt in this situations. Of course the documentary stated that those at the top control everything etc and they are evil. But in the end they were just formed that way too. Finding the root of the problem would take years of detailed analization and wouldnt help anyone. We have to face the problem at hand and dont point fingers or anything. Rethinking and producing change and clarity is what is needed and no armed warfare to throw down the evil government.

 

[wolly.green]

"How did we transform from a group built on co-operation and partnership with nature into a gang of violent, money hungry individuals"

First, humans have ALWAYS been violent; the nature of war has not changed. Since the "dawn of humanity", we have fought over land, food, resources and reproductive opportunities. Second, we were never "in partnership" with nature. Nature does not care about us; its cold, cruel and deadly. It just so happens that we have overcome a lot of the dangers of nature by controlling it.

Anyway, I can't keep watching since the video is based on so many myths about: human history, culture and primitive Utopian-ism. Not only this, but the narrator systematically projects her own preferences onto me. She said we have all been tricked into "materialism". But who is the "we" she is talking about? She's not talking about me, or anyone else I know. In fact, I am minimalist to the core.

 

[Sono]

Watched most of it.

I think as a people there's no hope really, and we can't escape because the system has such a grip on the masses and they don't even know it and are unable to think clearly and analyse things nor do they care to. It's difficult enough for intelligent people who spend most of their time thinking about why society is the way it is and to think of a solution, let alone the general population who are clueless and can't perceive reality properly outside of what they see.

The documentary is right in the sense that we are lost as a culture, life is too complicated in how we have to go to work the majority of our life to earn money backed on nothing created out of thin air by private central banks, in order to afford shelter, can't grow our own food, buy things we don't need etc etc. but for people who already know all this it's kind of a pointless thing to keep watching which I find myself doing, it's like a comfort in knowing not only I think this whilst nothing will change.

I think the only possible solution is if humanity were to reset via some worldwide natural catastrophe and this time we don't fall into the hands of psychopaths who want to control everything.

 

[Soulfire]

I think the only possible solution is if humanity were to reset via some worldwide natural catastrophe and this time we don't fall into the hands of psychopaths who want to control everything.

This is where I keep getting stuck at.
I have the same idealistic dreams as you all do about society but not everyone thinks the same as we do.

Some people are actually psychopaths.
How would you deal with psychopaths in your ideal world?
Will there be a leader or will it be complete anarchy?

What about the sick, the elderly, the very lazy people, the murderers, rapists, thieves, the rule-abiding citizens, the hard workers, the dreamers, the thinkers, etc etc
How will these people get along?

You will always have over-achievers and people who will want to shine more than others, too.

Life itself is some twisted dog-eat-dog competition and I don't see human beings capable of agreeing that we are all equals.

I'm an optimist and a motivator (although it may not seem like it right now) but all I can say about this is to focus on your own role that you play in this lifetime and to try to influence the most people in a positive way.
You may not move mountains but your mindfulness about what's most important is definitely something this world needs more of.

We can only control our own actions and our own perspective.
Being angry at society and their materialism is not a very healthy path either..

So to me..personally..this seems like a proper question to ask ourselves...

So what can you individually do and think for humanity to be better as a whole?

 

[j654dgj7]

Materialism puts us in chains, it's not a cult.

 

[Sono]

This is where I keep getting stuck at.
I have the same idealistic dreams as you all do about society but not everyone thinks the same as we do.

Some people are actually psychopaths.
How would you deal with psychopaths in your ideal world?
Will there be a leader or will it be complete anarchy?

What about the sick, the elderly, the very lazy people, the murderers, rapists, thieves, the rule-abiding citizens, the hard workers, the dreamers, the thinkers, etc etc
How will these people get along?

You will always have over-achievers and people who will want to shine more than others, too.

Life itself is some twisted dog-eat-dog competition and I don't see human beings capable of agreeing that we are all equals.

I'm an optimist and a motivator (although it may not seem like it right now) but all I can say about this is to focus on your own role that you play in this lifetime and to try to influence the most people in a positive way.
You may not move mountains but your mindfulness about what's most important is definitely something this world needs more of.

We can only control our own actions and our own perspective.
Being angry at society and their materialism is not a very healthy path either..

So to me..personally..this seems like a proper question to ask ourselves...

So what can you individually do and think for humanity to be better as a whole?

In an ideal world I think you'd have a leader who is a leader not for their own ego but for the good of the people, but then gradually over time i'm sure there's bound to be corrupt individuals that eventually lead us to where we are today..but I think humans are like sheep, the most effective way is just to lead them correctly.

I need to research more into the history of humanity and different cultures i.e Native Americans, ancient cultures etc, and how they lived before I can give a good opinion on how it could and should be. But i'm pretty sure it won't be hard to come up with a system that's not as terrible as this one, it's terrible in a purposeful way more so than because humans are so dog-eat-dog, it's more like the emperor of Rome forcing us to fight each other in the Colosseum more than us actually wanting to, and showing us biased negativity on the news to fill our consciousness with fear to make us view reality as more negative than it actually is. It's like we're purposely trained to be negative, hate, fear and want, and rely on authority to think for us, rather than raised and taught to love, cooperate and live simply. If it were the latter, you'd still have bad in the world but I doubt we'd be on this forum discussing what could be done.. and if society were like this it'd have to have some sort of anticorruption/psycopath safeguard so that people are intelligent enough not to be fooled and not be passive enough to do nothing about it.

I agree, there's not much we can do but to help improve the mindset of the people around us but it's hard, it's like i'm a sort of mini advertisement/ small £10 ad on a newspaper for a certain way of thinking but i'm going against trillion £ advertisements for the opposite way of thinking aka society in all it's forms (media, news, childhood education etc), and the people who are already inclined to think like me will absorb it but the people who aren't won't because they're being brainwashed so much.

 

[Soulfire]

@Sono

I agree with a lot of your views.
I also lack the knowledge and statistics on how it was on earth many years ago...but...do you think it would just be a question of time before it reverted back to how things are right now? After everything isn't so shiny and new anymore.

 

[Krypton]

How to save the world? I am obsessed with this question but I am slowly but surely finding the answer. Although I still recycle my soda can deep down I know that this action will not save the world. Sure recycle responsibly, car pool and ride your bike to work but guess what? It won't help all that much. The Earth is still heading towards the final count down. The answer is in activism and unity. We need to put pressure on the big mega changes. We need to become citizens again and fight in a smart unified way. Only then can the changes really become meaningful.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi3w-SRxu3QAhWrAMAKHfJPAYQQFggmMAI&url=http://www.salon.com/2015/03/21/the_secret_to_saving_the_world_how_ordinary_people_actually_can_prevent_global_disaster/&usg=AFQjCNHcneZTGKO_OO3QZ6Qp7k0NGxCBlA

We have to become responsible citizens again. We have to find the courage to change the way we have been doing things.

What if, however paradoxical this may seem, the answer is more excess + population decline? With a smaller number of people, you need fewer resources to support them all. And developed countries are already a ways below the replacement rate, so that end can happen.

Without continued innovation, of course, this will drastically hurt standards of living across the globe (as there's just lower demand all around), but it might be possible to counterbalance that by enabling one person to do the work of like an entire assembly line today. Or hell, maybe even just 3-4 people today.

 

[wolly.green]

In an ideal world I think you'd have a leader who is a leader not for their own ego but for the good of the people, but then gradually over time i'm sure there's bound to be corrupt individuals that eventually lead us to where we are today..but I think humans are like sheep, the most effective way is just to lead them correctly.

I need to research more into the history of humanity and different cultures i.e Native Americans, ancient cultures etc, and how they lived before I can give a good opinion on how it could and should be. But i'm pretty sure it won't be hard to come up with a system that's not as terrible as this one, it's terrible in a purposeful way more so than because humans are so dog-eat-dog, it's more like the emperor of Rome forcing us to fight each other in the Colosseum more than us actually wanting to, and showing us biased negativity on the news to fill our consciousness with fear to make us view reality as more negative than it actually is. It's like we're purposely trained to be negative, hate, fear and want, and rely on authority to think for us, rather than raised and taught to love, cooperate and live simply. If it were the latter, you'd still have bad in the world but I doubt we'd be on this forum discussing what could be done.. and if society were like this it'd have to have some sort of anticorruption/psycopath safeguard so that people are intelligent enough not to be fooled and not be passive enough to do nothing about it.

I agree, there's not much we can do but to help improve the mindset of the people around us but it's hard, it's like i'm a sort of mini advertisement/ small £10 ad on a newspaper for a certain way of thinking but i'm going against trillion £ advertisements for the opposite way of thinking aka society in all it's forms (media, news, childhood education etc), and the people who are already inclined to think like me will absorb it but the people who aren't won't because they're being brainwashed so much.

There are four assumptions here that I want to challenge you on. First the assumption that humans have ever experienced a golden age where everything was as good it can possibly get. Second, that our way of life is the result of corruption. Third, that an ideal way of life even exists. And fourth that a way of life that is good for you must necessarily be good for all humans.

The idea of a "golden age" of mankind -- a garden of eden from where the progenitors of all men descended -- is an old one. It has many forms, and falls into a category of myths called historicism. The first Greek to introduce an historicist philosophy was Hesoid. Karl Popper said "He believed that mankind, in their development down from the Golden Age, are destined to degenerate, both physically and morally" [1]. But of course history shows that humans have always been plagued by violence and destruction. In fact, Steven Pinker wrote a book dedicated to showing exactly this and the fact that we are now living in the most peaceful time in human history. Pinker goes to great pains to show that not only is violence at an all time low, but also disparages the shortsightedness of "dooms day" prophesiers by saying "most people often forget our most recent improvements in morality as well. The Rights Revolutions too have given us ideals that educated people today take for granted but that are virtually unprecedented in human history, such as that people of all races and creeds have equal rights, that women should be free from all forms of coercion, that children should never, ever be spanked, that students should be protected from bullying, and that there’s nothing wrong with being gay. I don’t find it at all implausible that these are gifts, in part, of a refined and widening application of reason.” [2]

Ill finish this writing this latter. Sorry about not completing.

[1] Karl Popper, The Open Society and its Enemies
[2] Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature.

 

[wolly.green]

Oh damn I can't edit. Ah well.

 

[Zen]

What if, however paradoxical this may seem, the answer is more excess + population decline? With a smaller number of people, you need fewer resources to support them all. And developed countries are already a ways below the replacement rate, so that end can happen.

Without continued innovation, of course, this will drastically hurt standards of living across the globe (as there's just lower demand all around), but it might be possible to counterbalance that by enabling one person to do the work of like an entire assembly line today. Or hell, maybe even just 3-4 people today.

What if, however paradoxical this may seem, the answer is more excess + population decline?

Population decline will greatly help. The latest numbers from the UN put the world population at 7.2 billion. While the UN forecasts the global population will reach 10.9 billion in 2100, Deutsche Bank believes it will be only 8 billion. After 2100 the population will start to decline because woman around the world are having less babies. This will reduce the strain we are putting on our natural ressources but this will take time.

Excess is most certainly not the answer. It has been estimated that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain the population. This calculation has been debated and maybe it only takes 2.5 Earths but guess what? We only have one Earth for everyone to share. We can start looking for another planet or even find ways to colonise Mars but again it will take time. I'm also very hopeful that technological advances will help us out a great deal and maybe we will find a new energy source. That would be great. But until this happens we have to collectively minimize the damage for the sake of future generations.

I have made sacrifices to reduce my consumption but it has to be a collective effort. Only then can we make a significant difference. And even that is just a small beginning to the huge challenge facing us. We are all in it together and the stakes are very,very high.

Try the footprint calulator. It is an eye opener.

http://www.earthday.org/take-action/footprint-calculator/

 

[Soulfire]

In fact, Steven Pinker wrote a book dedicated to showing exactly this and the fact that we are now living in the most peaceful time in human history

I knew you'd show up and list out all of the facts I was secretly hoping you would...because I can't rationalize my thoughts about this as well as you can.

I'm in agreement that we are indeed living in a very peaceful time in human history...there are no world-wide wars for the moment (as in every imaginable country being at war). The entire world could be in conflict and blasting away with us all living in fear and trying to find food. My travels have been an extreme eye-opener about how good we have it in my country...Just having your basic needs covered is one hell of a good thing.

It could be worse. A lot worse.

 

[wolly.green]

I knew you'd show up and list out all of the facts I was secretly hoping you would...because I can't rationalize my thoughts about this as well as you can.

I'm in agreement that we are indeed living in a very peaceful time in human history...there are no world-wide wars for the moment (as in every imaginable country being at war). The entire world could be in conflict and blasting away with us all living in fear and trying to find food. My travels have been an extreme eye-opener about how good we have it in my country...Just having your basic needs covered is one hell of a good thing.

It could be worse. A lot worse.

Indeed. Anyway, my understanding is that INFP's value the environment in a way that is difficult for me to comprehend. Is this true?

 

[Soulfire]

Indeed. Anyway, my understanding is that INFP's value the environment in a way that is difficult for me to comprehend. Is this true?

To be honest i believe our stances on enviornment is not based on our MBTI...either that or im more INTP when it comes to the environment.

I think it's setting ourselves for disappointment if we think we can save the earth...i believe more in the fact that we can have a small positive impact on slowing down the earth's inevitable..um...expiration.



People will hate me for saying that ..not expecting a like for this post

 

[wolly.green]

To be honest i believe our stances on enviornment is not based on our MBTI...either that or im more INTP when it comes to the environment.

I think it's setting ourselves for disappointment if we think we can save the earth...i believe more in the fact that we can have a small positive impact on slowing down the earth's inevitable..um...expiration.



People will hate me for saying that ..not expecting a like for this post

Haha I liked it for you!

Maybe. I had a discussion about this subject with a friend, and we both agreed that technology could be used not only to enhance our connection with the environment, but also to keep the earth alive. Remember technology doesn't have to look like wood, metal and brick. Living in a concrete jungle is not the only way to live in overcrowded populations. There is also hope that the "intellectual" community might one day discover a morality that mandates the protection of our environments. Since I believe morality is objective, this may just be a truth we have yet to discover.

 

[Krypton]

What if, however paradoxical this may seem, the answer is more excess + population decline?

Population decline will greatly help. The latest numbers from the UN put the world population at 7.2 billion. While the UN forecasts the global population will reach 10.9 billion in 2100, Deutsche Bank believes it will be only 8 billion. After 2100 the population will start to decline because woman around the world are having less babies. This will reduce the strain we are putting on our natural ressources but this will take time.

Excess is most certainly not the answer. It has been estimated that if everyone on the planet consumed as much as the average US citizen, four Earths would be needed to sustain the population. This calculation has been debated and maybe it only takes 2.5 Earths but guess what? We only have one Earth for everyone to share. We can start looking for another planet or even find ways to colonise Mars but again it will take time. I'm also very hopeful that technological advances will help us out a great deal and maybe we will find a new energy source. That would be great. But until this happens we have to collectively minimize the damage for the sake of future generations.

I have made sacrifices to reduce my consumption but it has to be a collective effort. Only then can we make a significant difference. And even that is just a small beginning to the huge challenge facing us. We are all in it together and the stakes are very,very high.

Try the footprint calulator. It is an eye opener.

http://www.earthday.org/take-action/footprint-calculator/

I tried it. I think I got something like 3.7 earths for my lifestyle, almost entirely due to energy consumption.

I don't mind reducing my consumption a bit (fuck living in a crowded area, but once I have a house of my own, I can make sure it's made of environmentally-friendly materials, use geothermal, etc.), but if everyone did it to too large an extent, the economy grinds to a halt--and of course, the third world benefits greatly from consuming at our level. I wonder, therefore, whether reducing consumption even makes sense as an endgame.

Can we do what you're suggesting? Or should we go ahead and figure out something else?

 

[Zen]

I tried it. I think I got something like 3.7 earths for my lifestyle, almost entirely due to energy consumption.

I don't mind reducing my consumption a bit (fuck living in a crowded area, but once I have a house of my own, I can make sure it's made of environmentally-friendly materials, use geothermal, etc.), but if everyone did it to too large an extent, the economy grinds to a halt--and of course, the third world benefits greatly from consuming at our level. I wonder, therefore, whether reducing consumption even makes sense as an endgame.

Can we do what you're suggesting? Or should we go ahead and figure out something else?

First of all thank you for taking the test and posting your results. I myself have scored 1.5 earths at one point in time and now I am up to 1.9 earths because I want to see the world a little more. If you have a family of 5 you cannot score low and that's OK. The goal of the test is to make you aware of what it is going to take for humanity to bring it back in control. By taking these types of test it has simply made me more aware of the profound challenges we all face.

I've started to practice minimilism. To be less dependent on material goods.Something comes into the house something has to go out. My next purchase will be an electric car. So I need to charge this car conveniently. I have found that there is only one station that can let me charge my electric car rapidly where I live and travel short distances. That's not enough. We need more of these stations. Maybe for me that is my next goal to make the world a better place.I have to find like minded people who will put presssure on the government. The changes come slowly but they will come. To be an activist is to be a warrior. I pick up my sword (in this case my pen) and write to my congressmen, find a rally that is happening in my area and participate to make a difference.

I can't change the world alone but together we will.

 

[Ryso89]

Materialism is not a cult.

But, do you take things or experiences with you to the grave?

Obviously, one of the two is far more important.