h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>The most fundamental point that i disagree with you on is the inherent selfishness of humanity. I believe that we are social animals whose successful evolution was centered on our ability to communicate and co-operate as much as compete.

In small groups that's true. Informal sanctions will generally keep things running nicely. When you're in a society where you don't who you're hurting, there's nothing to keep you from doing things that harm others without formal rules. At an emotional level, we don't care about people we don't know.

I won't even address the nonsense about the election.

>If as you say, they have the best intentions why would they TRY to lead people to opression and destitution. The point I'd make here is that communism remains an unworkable idea that has never really been done in practice. The notion of 'sharing' is, as you say later, fine in small groups but fails in larger societies. I wonder if that is a result of power becoming concentrated in too few hands?

I think it's a result of human nature. Power will concentrate. I suspect that communist leaders are about the same as any other hopeful dictators. They want to concentrate power in their hands.

If there are sincere communists, then without realizing it they would still be leading their people to destruction. Even though you'd try to create a workers paradise, power would inevitbly fall into the hands of a few. A sincere communist may not realize that he's just feeding power to the ruthless communists.

>You don't mean that really, do you sweetie? Doesn't your own concsience and circumstance affect your behaviour more that written laws do?

What I want is a peacful and prosperous society. Communism would threaten that if they had any real hope of obtaining power. If circumstance indicated that they might obtain power, then I would not raise a finger to help them.

>I know that the best way to get what I want (a national government with libertarian ideals) is to work with the system.

>Cool. Me too (ish) But I'd like an international goverment with libertarian ideals, direct democracy and a minimal social safety net to meet the basic needs - health, education, access to clean water and suchlike - for everyone in the world.

I don't think you can have all that. I suspect, that wuold devolve into socialism or anarchy in a week. An international government would surely concetrate power at the highest level. Particullarly if it was a direct democaracy. The first vote would be the Sino-Indian block voting to take away the wealth of the Americas and Europe. Part of what our founding fathers feared was direct democracy, or mob rule. That's why we don't have it at the national level.

I'm not sure liberatians would really support the idea of government sponsored education either. Their presidential canidate, Harry Browne, supports the sepration of school and state.

I think part of our success as a nationl has to with the divided levels of power. In theory, we keep most of our power close to home. That way it's not concentrated at the federal level. We also have a greater chance of influencing it if we can go down the street and speak with our locoal representative.

For instance, our criminal laws are mostly handled at the state level. If I want to change something, it wouldn't be a problem for me to go meet with my state representative. I might even influence him to do something about it. He lives and works in the same town I do. Every single vote counts for him too.

If I want to talk to my Senator because he keeps holding up the President's judicial nominations, I'll probably have to travel to Washington. Where he may or may not see me. If he doesn't care for what I have to say, he has 13 million other voters that he can draw on.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." I'll keep my government very close thank you very much.

Hello, I came over here at PJ's invitation. I think all current political systems are suboptimal. I do not even want to debate the virtues of socialism/communism against capitalism or libertarianism or what have you. They all suck. As intermediate systems I guess they will hold us for a few years more until we can find better systems.

As for people being selfish, there may be a tendency for humans to be selfish, but it does not necessarily need to end in people becoming selfish. Not all people are selfish. There are many people in the world who are not selfish, who will not be jealous of the prosperity of other people, who will be satisfied if their own basic needs are met and not want much more than that, leaving enough for other people to have too. The selfishness of some people today is related to a particular philosophy. Teach people a different philosophy and they will not be selfish. Educate people right and they will care a great deal about the welfare of every other human being everywhere in the world, or the universe. I contend that anybody can be educated like this, and it will not be a forced thing, if a person is only properly guided and encouraged he or she will automatically head in that direction. If people can learn how to talk they can also learn how to care. If the entirety of humanity can be educated like this the entire world will change forever, for the better, irrespective of politics or economics.

It is possible for any person in the world to realise that we have a duty to future generations, and to accept this duty. The problem at the moment is that people are taught lots of bad things, and they believe these things, they stare themselves blind against trivialities and cannot see the big picture. Teach people to view things from a bigger perspective and they will think differently and act differently.

So we're not intoctrinating people correctly?

I would be highly suspicious of a society dedicated to making sure that its people thought the correct thoughts, and reeducated those that don't think properly.

If we enocourage everyone to be happy with what they have, then what do we have to inspire greatness? Are these contented people going to invent the microship. The transistor did just fine before. Why bother? I suppose we could let war be the prime mover in technology. It's always been effective in the past.

I agree that we should be responsible for our actions as a society. We should keep in mind the nation or world that we are leaving to our decsendents.

You don't tell people which thoughts to think. You teach them how to think. Exactly like teaching them how to talk. People don't learn how to talk on their own, they need to be taught by example. That's also a kind of indoctrination, but one that people cannot do without in human society. Currently we don't teach people how to think, we just assume they know how to do it. Usually they don't though, and only a lucky few figure it out, almost by accident. Any kind of thinking-teaching, even a kind that is not as good as it possibly can be, would be better than that.

If people know about the way their minds work, they will automatically use their minds much better than most people do today. We don't know everything about how the mind works yet, but what we know is already very useful.

How do you inspire greatness? If people are satisfied with what they have, they can still be dissatisfied with what other people have, and try to improve that. You still don't 'get' this unselfishness, do you?

I am at least encouraged by your statement that you recognize the responsibility to future generations. But just leave out 'the nation'. America does not stand apart from anything else - we need to consider
the entire world, or better yet, the universe.

I understand unselfishness to an extent. For instance, my wife and I only make $70 a year. We like what we do, and we think it helps society in general. I'm not sure I would want a whole nation of people like that. I think we need people to drive our economy and our technology forward. I'm not going to do that. I'm a public servant. I just like writing tickets and carrying people to jail. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate all the guys who live in the gated communities that are expanding our economy, making us all richer, and paying my salary.

I'm concerend about the world, but it's secondary. We need to manage our problems. I don't see it as our responsibility to muck around in the affairs of other nations. If you want us to take responsibility for that, you're going to have to surrender power to us. I'm kind of cool towards the idea of a an American Empire. I guess we can do it if that's what you want.

I dont think that the issue is about the US taking on responsibilty for the rest of the world "managing our problems", but i do think its a fact that the states has the most power and access to resources. You must be aware about the statistics of consumption per capita in the US vs the rest of the world, specifically the 'third world.' And when you take into account the ownership of large mining concerns, the big brand production units in Free Trade areas in developing nations (eg Nike factories in the Phillipines), the most usage of power, fossil fuels, etc etc etc... I think that you can see how the states *does* have responsibilty because it certainly *does* have influence.

I'm surprised by your admiration for the 'gated wealth generators' given your question in peer review 'what do people in suits do?'
That economy is nothing but a construct, with no basis in reality. Do your think that if we stopped the world markets and tried to apportion stocks & shares to factories and mines it would make any sense whatsoever??

Favourite examples of mine of this bulls**t economy include currency speculation and the futures market. Here people in suits transfer paper / electronic cash across the globe on whims and wild rumour. Its entirely unrelated to the real economy of cash as exhange for labour / goods. If they guess the tide quicker than others they make money. If they are too slow on the uptake they don't. If they are Alan Greenspan or George Soros, they have enough clout to turn the market in thier direction.

These abstract transactions are largely untaxed and unregulated and yet can have massively severe impact on peoples' lives - eg the crashing 'tiger ecomomies' a couple of years back. People becoming unemployed and homeless due to what? Just s**t in suits raking in cash...

Hope you don't ming my inviting pillowcase along to this thread, I'm sure you will have noticed him b4 at h2g2. He and I both want to stop looking to old idealogies and start thinking in new ways. There are so many options available to society, so may new ways of looking at things are possible. Networks vs Heirachy, Meme theory, Gaia theory and evolving ideas are just a few biggies that spring to mind.

An idea that intrigues me is that of 'technological adoloescence' in humanity. We have the tools and potential to do great, awesome and terrifying things like provide enough food for all though improved agriculture, or blow up the whole world with our clever big weapons. Like a gangly teenageer we have the physical equipment but not the mind yet to handle it.

I really do feel that a step change in humanitys outlook is needed over the next century - on that is more inclusive, libertarian, sustainable and positive, otherwise i suspect my future grandkids will have a grim time...



rant over. its much more fun disagreeing with someone like you than agreeing with people constantly! And you seem like a chap up for a banter. Bring it on baby!!

jenny

I'm here to play with ideas. The more the better. It would be nice to have a real conservative around here though. I'm a libertarian.

I don't know what people in suits do. I'm just pleased to live in a country where they can do it. Seeing as the security cards will let me wander through those the communites, I love to cruise through there and have a look at what is possible.

On occasion, I think about finding out what they do, and trying it myself.

I don't pretend to understand the financial markets at all. Stocks, bonds, and mutual funds are pretty simple to understand. All that other stuff is vogon to me. I have two money market accounts. Don't have a clue what they are, but they give a steady reliable return.

BTW, don't try to explain any of that stuff to me either.

I don't particularlly have a problem with us consuming more than anyone else. I think we contribute more than anyone else.

Two Bit...

Socialism and Communsim are not the same things...

Socialism is founded in providing social support for the workers and allowing the working classes to have a fair say in the governing of the state. Socialism is a fundamentally democratic system.

In Communism, as far as I understand, everything is owned by the people and run for the people.

As you say, Society is selfish, and this is why Communsim does not work... not because Communism itself is evil (anyhow, how can a political system be evil, even dictatorships can be good for the people as long as one has a benevolent dictator...)

In an Ideal, utopian, non-selfish society, Communsim would work fine, but a Communist system has absolutely no tolerance for coruption or selfishness of any kind, where as modern democracies (Europe, US, etc) have a great deal of tolerance for corruption, in fact it would be fair to say that they THRIVE on corruption (i.e. backroom deals, certain presidents having certain brothers in certain places to throw serious doubt about the fairness of an election... ).

It is society that killed Communism and not the other way round.

PS...

> I don't particularlly have a problem with us consuming more than anyone else. I think we contribute more than
> anyone else.

You certaintly do contribute more than anyone else...How can we forget the wonderful contributions of the US to the global CO2 bank... we really appreiciate you possessing about 4.5% of the population of the planet and yet providing 25% of the worlds CO2, thanks awfully, thats real nice of you....

Also... Your fine and upstanding Multi-nationals, they're a real hoot...

...your human rights record sucks too.

Okay, I'm done...

I don't really want to criticize Americans. I just want to say that I don't think people are that selfish, and if Americans seem to be selfish in general, then maybe they don't represent the average human being. But even if the average human being on earth is selfish, maybe it might still be possible that us humans can become less selfish if we try in a determined way to do that. I think social responsibility has to be a part of a good political and economical system. There are many different interpretations of communism and socialism. We can look at some others apart from those that have failed in practice, regardless of the actual reasons why those systems failed.

The Unmentionable....

Absolutely agree with you mate, but It's a matter of getting the average human to be less selfish...

The central tenet of survival is to be selfish, to think of #1 and #1 only... however, I would like to think that Homo Sapiens has evolved beyond survival of the individual and should now be thinking "how can I benefit society as a whole".

This would be a lovely thought, and I think that it's something that we SHOULD try and strive for, but there's a major obstacle to this...

At the moment society is still wealth-based, we exist in a tertiary economy, where service and profit are paramount...

Some scientists and economists now believe we are entering the quaternary economy, where the money is no longer the major factor, and knowledge and intellectual property is the new currency.
A Knowledge-based society would be better placed to thrive in a socialist (or at least, left-of-centre) pollitical system, so that the knowledge producing industries can benefit and increase the knowledge ouput of a society. Capitalism will force knowledge producers (Universities, Research driven industries such as Biotech..) to prevent others obtaining their newfound secrets, in order to gain an advantage.

This would mean that the society at large would not gain from the new knowledge.

In an Ideal quaternary economy, knowledge and intellectual property could pass freely, allowing all to benefit from new discoveries...

Makes sense, huh?

HI all, hope yous are well

>In an Ideal quaternary economy, knowledge and intellectual property could pass freely, allowing all to benefit from new discoveries...

very much so makes sense, i think.

Regarding...

>The central tenet of survival is to be selfish, to think of #1 and #1 only

... I'm really not certain this is the case. I've been reading some theories lately that suggest that co-operation has been as much of a part of evolution as competition - on a cellular to societal to planetary scale. Didn't ancient men and women hunt and live in groups?

pj

pj

Yeah, you've got me there...
You're right... at a basic level, bacteria aid each others survival by passing genes that allow them to be resistant to certain anitbiotics (arficial or natural..)
They're crafty little bug**rs...

Pack hunting is indeed a co-operative event, but after the kill, who gets first dibs on the grub?... the Alpha Male.
IT does benefit everyone, as the weaker hunters still get a slice of the cake, albiet a pretty measly slice.

But still, co-operation does enhance the chance of survival...

Pitty it doesn't happen as much as we'd like in our society....

The ultimate form of co-operation is the human mind. Imagine what would happen if every braincell suddenly decided that it would do its own thing and completely disregard the others. Do you think that if that happened you would be able to think? I don't think. Do you? If you think, you know about co-operation. Do you think a single braincell could do much on its own?

The more we start in practice to depend on each other, to help each other and to make use of each others help - in other words, the more interdependent we become - the more we will achieve and the less selfish we would tend to be.

Hmmmmm....

Co-operation of single cells towards the survival of a large multi-celular organism is fundamental to life.. but that's kinda straying from the originial point.

What I was getting towards saying, is that it's a lot easier for us (at least with current social values) to think of ourselves than it is to this about others...

Case and Point... this morining on the tube, there was a girl on crutches, and she actually had to ask someone to give her a seat... I have to say, that if it wasn't for the fact that I was already standing, I think I'd have offered her my seat... but the majority of people will try and look the other way and hope someone else does something about it.
(I reallise that could be thought of as a "hollier-than-thou" type comment, I didn't mean it.. it just came out that way... sorry)

Apathy is going to be the Death of a Moral Society

Nevermind, eh?