fungal_net wrote>
This sounds like a sexual fetish. "Unintentional desire". A psychoanalyst may have a party dealing with this one. I am not trying to play with words, I admit I have an extreme aversion with the word desire when discussing politics/philosophy. Some people bless this word as holly, "human desire", and that it has to be respected. Respected by an individual for the next? Or respected collectively? There is a difference, a child molester and an animal molester may respect each other's "desires" and accept them. Collectively we tend to see them as abusive and will not tolerate them. Unintentional sounds even more scary when it comes to desire. The desire deep inside the psyche of the individual is something we tend to either not see or be able to do anything about. The desire that materializes has direct ramifications to either people, animals, or the environment around those materializing desires. This becomes a material problem when it materializes. The desire to have, control, dictated, occupy, more than your fair share, is something that CAN be collectively harnessed. Otherwise some Bezos can really swallow the entire earth up.
I lol'ed at the first part. Well, I'm not determinist enough to say that every desire must materialize to prove that it exists. Nor do I think of that word as holy.
The word collective doesnt apply universally to all earths population of creatures with human brains, perhaps you mean the majority by that word? Some group somewhere collectively wants every abusive&intolerable thing going on on earth to continue its existence.
Most countries/groups try to design written laws to limit material problems because it is impossible to limit their source within the human brain, core,psyche without something immeasurable interfering. Otherwize the strongest, most talented, most capable will dominate/rule those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities. The US, imo, has the best design to maximize freedom& voluntarism but this is changing because of the neglect in voluntarily taking care of those those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities.
We cannot force people to take care of each other. The systems that are prevolent basically force people, at threat of jail or some penalty, to pool funds that are then distributed by some group of people who of course cannot distribute properly because of human liabily to err& be biased toward self-interest&nepotism.
fungal_net wrote
....it is chaotic rule of individualism. This system breeds competition on humans for survival. Each and every one has to individually survive, which is contrary to human tradition. Humans survived as communities in the past, in almost all cultures and corners of the earth. It is the only known and commonly acceptable part of human nature we know. .... One of the ways it achieves this is to promote false sense of unity under false characteristics, religion, ethnicity, gender, race, sexual orientation, sports, ... and by doing this it eliminates class barriers. Meanwhile, to survive within this mass chaotic society you must compete....all work has hierarchies/bureaucracies ..... Your access to shelter and food, medical care, education, is a commodity that is not equally shared, but you have to compete for it.
Human existence comes with problems without human solution. There are only tradeoffs. In collectivist ways, not everyone takes a part in the distribution of what should be equally shared. Inevitably there will be issues with the representatives of the collective, who are chosen to distribute equal shares, eventually ruling because everyone will be looking to these for access to their equal part.
I don't like the individualism which neglects voluntarism in looking out for one's neighbors. I think we could find middle ground to somewhat agree there.It's a complex problem because any access that has be provided by someones services such as doctor, teacher, etc. requires the person to volunteer for those who cannot pay or have someone voluntarily donate to cover the costs those require.
When it comes to food I liked the idea of gleaning societies where farmers where required to give those in need access to their farms& those with access were allowed to pick produce for a days meal only for their family. For shelter, better land distribution could be done& all country groups have failed in this without exception, unless you can inform me of one that I can reconsider.
fungal_net wroteHence cannibalism, class cannibalism that is. You don't fight with your boss as much as you are with your co-worker. You are at each other's throat about getting a promotion. Not all workers together get a promotion. Instead of questioning the promoter, you question those who are promoted instead of you. The sliest fallacy is that if we all work harder and smarter, and produce more and more, we will "all" benefit and be "advanced". So the rats keep spinning the wheels faster and faster wanting to be the ONLY rat that gets the cheese.
Ideally people should work in order move toward a self-sustaining existence. However, because people have allowed themselves to be programmed to be constant consumers& fill feelings of emptiness with material gains, so many see no escape from having to constantly work for someone instead of seeing that as trasitory towards working for themselves& their group only.
fungal_net wrote
I am sorry, I can't give a brief reference to the entire field of anthropology, but this is very contrary to scientific findings and I will not dispute them to agree with your perception on human history. Some may even argue that there are very very few communities of native tribes hidden in some jungle corners where valuable resources haven't been identified, and are still contradicting what you are saying. Chief Seattle once said that earth owns us, we can not own earth. This is black/white difference between the philosophy of those people and the European invaders/rapists/murderers. The "civil"ized being invaded by the "uncivil"ized. The uncivilized always win this war.
The zapatistas since day 1 (1-1-1994) have said we want everything for everyone, nothing for ourselves.
> I bet people generally were ........ This has always had .........
We must have read very different books on history and human development. Because our understandings are very very contradictory. Based on two very different datasets with contradictory data, how can we discuss much?
Well, what is constant& what is varying or variable about human thought&action throughout human population history?
I tend to be uniformitarian when it comes to human though&action in this world just as some tend to be uniformitariam when it comes to plate tectonics for example. Uniformitarian, meaning the constants sensed&documented for some recent time period inform us of how it must have always been.
The strongest, most talented, most capable will dominate/rule those with less strength,less talent& less capabilities, unless limitations are set- is generally a rule that is validated by my dataset.
Maybe it is easier to be fond of the past societies that seemed to get along well for long time periods before eventually collapsing or being conquered because we could not see all the problems they had internally living as they were. Also, we cannot see the problems the "uncivilized" have now, but perhaps it is enviable that they seem to live unsullied by many developed &even undeveloped country group problems.
fungal_net wrote
Here is some first solid ground we can agree on. So, let us talk about discussion in specific. Equals can discuss things, and keep discussing things till they come to a mutual understanding and possibly an agreement. ....... it takes an AUTHORITY to END a discsussion, to disregard a discussion or its agreements.
Now imagine a community, having an urgent meeting to discuss about the existence of god, and whether she is good or evil. I simply would rather discuss the septic system and choose to skip this meeting and the almighty goddess.
True, I'm quite practical myself so I would be for fixing a sewer system. I agree there would be no solutions, only tradeoffs & I would be for any that would work based on durability/ longevity. I tend to think that the answer to a problem that lasts the longest is the best.
The existence of deity is part of the quest for the "eternal fountain of youth." Some think the aformentioned quest can be completed only by technological advancement, but you may not be interested in finding eternal youth if all you're concerned about it what is measurable, and also are convinced that measurable longevity is all that can exist.
fungal_net wrote we can admit that my arguments are not enough to convince you, and yours are not enough to convince me, and we just give up mutually understanding that we are incapable of defending two hypotheses adequately. This is very different than saying that two contradicting arguments can both be correct.
I do not say the two contradictory arguments can both be correct, I rather defer to a wait and see approach because I bet the truth will be clear in the end. While it is not clear in the present for many people, maybe including me, for various reasons. If there is no truth to be clear to all in the end,but rather only oblivion, then I will have lost my gamble and have advocated for something that has no longevity.
fungal_net wrote There is not a spec of evidence that some being not made of matter and energy ever existed and created anything or affected anything.. Hence it can't be a scientific object. Fungi on the other hand may be as close as a life form to what we call god.
The human brain&form and more should not exist statistically-scientifically but it does. So there is rational room for gambling against what should&shouldn't be scientifically possible i bet.
fungal_net wrote
Equality as in equal respect for each other, equality as a tendency to share rather than prohibiting access to resources, equality in participating in discussion and decision about what we have in common, this I believe is order and it is humanly achievable. Chaos and inequality is disorder, it is a source of conflict, violence, competition, and eventually loss of life of those defeated. If we were to say that chaos and inequality is "natural" then let us see if it is possible for humans to attain equality if they were to pursue it.
Thank you for the clarification, I laud your advocacy& pursuit of this equality. I wonder what percentage of the human population would be required to also pursue this to guarantee success of it from your perspective?
fungal_net wrote
We know so much about what we do being so wrong that we must be mentally retarded to continue, and we do.
Yes, for various reasons that only the Immeasurable can fully quantify. The anguish that goes on because humans in general don't use their best judgement is inexpressible.