Future Important Thread (Maybe)

[ShowtekGER]

I strongly disagree with this. There are genes that are very strongly associated with these traits. I can see them in my own family and there are tonnes of academic studies looking at various aspects of this.

how do you 'see' them in your family? is what you mean to say that it seems to you that some of your family members are naturally egoistic, corrupt, or possess some other trait? well, that's, of course, subjective. my experience is the opposite. anyway, this genetic kind of thinking has pretty much been eradicated in the sciences. what seems to be the general consensus is that we are all born with genetic predispositions which are either activated or not activated by our environment. that goes for behavior, illnesses, personality, etc. we might differ in our predispositions but, still, virtually no gene predetermines, it only predisposes. which is why i think methods like eugenics are scientifically out-dated. you cannot form the perfect human being by mixing its genes in a favorable order.

BTW, this is another point of support in my debate with zef about nature and nurture, the internal and the external. they can't really be discerned. the one cannot exist without the other. and we can't really define what we are starting out with before we begin to be influenced by our environment. i personally believe that there is nothing which is not influenced by its environment. the internal and the external are in constant exchange with one another.

that's what my plan did.

no. your plan is to suppress behavior that stems from activated genes after it itself has activated them. genes become activated or stay inactive depending on social input. when the "corruption gene" is already full at work in courts and politics your security methods try to suppress that behavior, not deactivate the gene again, if that's even possible.

your difference from my plan is just that yours is less targeted...
you aren't removing traits from people either, just changing the environment so they dont get to use them.
Mine is better though because we know we can do it, and it wouldn't be nearly as hard to set up.

my society would not activate certain undesirable genetic predispositions which are constantly activated in our current societies. your argument that this is probably harder than what you want to implement is probably true. i would like to look at your ideas as short-term ideas while mine are long-term ideas.

this is just a semantic debate. your behaviour is obviously determined by the existance of your arms and the fact you are a human. That being said no matter what your genetics - an asteroid will still smash you into atoms if it hits you.

behavior is not predetermined. having two arms is very deeply embedded in my genes, yes, but how is my behavior predetermined by that? it is predisposed in the way that i can use my arms for certain things, of which i choose some and others not. yes, now this is a semantics debate but you turned it into one. let's just stay with behavior and personality for now.

everything has a cause.. so WHY?

i would suppose that you would have to look for the zeitgeist of these countries. how is the atmosphere? do people want more and more and more or are they satisfied? whether it's greed or satisfaction that dominates is probably partially dependent on equality/inequality, attached society values, advertisement and other brainwashing, focus on competition, pressure of conforming to standards of certain values, e.g. status, etc., etc. somewhere along these lines.

[ShowtekGER]

Have you guys heard about this ?

https://occupywallst.org/

Looks like the only media covering it is Aljazeera:
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/us...py-wall-street

One of the comments on the Aljazeera article:
"I'm an American that would like to say bless you Al Jazeera for providing truthful coverage about what's happening in America. We sure as hell can't count on the propaganda networks we call "news" stations in this country. Home of the free, eh? "

A response to that:
"Corporate zionist media in the US wont even cover the fact that thousands marched on Wall Street yesterday. They are owned by corporate america, they covered the freaking Sarah Palin rally that had a few hundred people in attendance though...do you see whats wrong with america. Mussolini said, when media, government and corporations work together its fascism...well isnt that what we have america? "

Looks like the world is going from Arab Spring ===>>> American Fall pun fully intended

definitely like the sentiment. i would like to know if i will be able to see some major change to the positive before i die.

[ScottieX]

how do you 'see' them in your family? is what you mean to say that it seems to you that some of your family members are naturally egoistic, corrupt, or possess some other trait?

that we share behavioural traits that are very subtle and specific and sometimes not present in the people who are between us in the family tree or by adopted members.
As it happens we aren't corrupt even the adopted ones! haha

anyway, this genetic kind of thinking has pretty much been eradicated in the sciences. what seems to be the general consensus is that we are all born with genetic predispositions which are either activated or not activated by our environment.

you arent disagreeing with me here....

which is why i think methods like eugenics are scientifically out-dated. you cannot form the perfect human being by mixing its genes in a favorable order.

this is like arguing you shouldnt eat healthily because food only matters in context of exercise and vitamin needs.

no. your plan is to suppress behavior that stems from activated genes after it itself has activated them. genes become activated or stay inactive depending on social input. when the "corruption gene" is already full at work in courts and politics your security methods try to suppress that behavior, not deactivate the gene again, if that's even possible.

society is more complex than that. after I establish the controls they will have wider implications regarding the general culture of society than just their enforcement. Note for example how the US constitution ideals are somewhat embedded in the US psyche for better or worse.

my society would not activate certain undesirable genetic predispositions which are constantly activated in our current societies.

how would it do that? except via my methodology?

Behavior is not predetermined. having two arms is very deeply embedded in my genes, yes, but how is my behavior predetermined by that?

have you ever picked anythign up with your left hand? well if you didnt have a left hand... Simply the set of things done with a left hand and the set done with no hands are different and that is relevant to issues like your likelyhood to play baseball.

i would suppose that you would have to look for the zeitgeist of these countries. how is the atmosphere? do people want more and more and more or are they satisfied? whether it's greed or satisfaction that dominates is probably partially dependent on equality/inequality, attached society values, advertisement and other brainwashing, focus on competition, pressure of conforming to standards of certain values, e.g. status, etc., etc. somewhere along these lines.

hmm you can always tweak the balance of rewards for these things as a state. Thats what I'd do.

[Zefelius]

Have you guys heard about this ?

https://occupywallst.org/

Looks like the only media covering it is Aljazeera:
http://stream.aljazeera.com/story/us...py-wall-street

One of the comments on the Aljazeera article:
"I'm an American that would like to say bless you Al Jazeera for providing truthful coverage about what's happening in America. We sure as hell can't count on the propaganda networks we call "news" stations in this country. Home of the free, eh? "

A response to that:
"Corporate zionist media in the US wont even cover the fact that thousands marched on Wall Street yesterday. They are owned by corporate america, they covered the freaking Sarah Palin rally that had a few hundred people in attendance though...do you see whats wrong with america. Mussolini said, when media, government and corporations work together its fascism...well isnt that what we have america? "

Looks like the world is going from Arab Spring ===>>> American Fall pun fully intended

You're a nutty liberal Zso_Zso!! First, I did hear about this via mainstream USA media. Second, Mussolini's statement is vague. Third, truth and freedom are overrated.

[ScottieX]

definitely like the sentiment. i would like to know if i will be able to see some major change to the positive before i die.

You'd have to be pretty old not to see CHinese hegemony and some major change I think..
for the better.. well hard to tell...

[Zefelius]

apart from the practical difficulty of appointing the people who are more politically informed than others (and designing a neutral institution for this purpose), i disagree with the sentiment. if we want a more informed populace, why not work towards installing societal structures that inform them more? i don't see why we always have to split each other up into groups, ignoring that everything that seems to distinguish ourselves from each other is constructed by humans. i think this backwards kind of thinking defines a lot of what keeps the world in its miserable status quo. the idea of essentialist characteristics of groups of humans belongs to the dark ages.

1. There's no difficulty as we do this all the time in the sciences and academia: there are standards of truth. If there weren't, all of civilization would fall apart. But of course we've debated this many times.

2. Splitting ourselves into groups has been happening since the dawn of humanity, which makes it seem irrudicible to constructivism.

3. My view isn't totally essentialist, since anyone who decides for themselves that they wish to learn more about history and civics will thereby gain more of a voice. If they can accomplish this task, they will be rewarded.

[Zefelius]

I don't believe anyone wants peace, love, and solidarity. The OccupyWallSt group speaks with one voice in the name of freedom and group consensus, but one of the fundamental drives of all organic life is destruction. Freud, as you guys know, named this the death instinct. There is simply no way to eradicate this primordial impulse. And if we could demolish it, we would cease to live.

[ScottieX]

You're a nutty liberal Zso_Zso!! First, I did hear about this via mainstream USA media. Second, Mussolini's statement is vague. Third, truth and freedom are overrated.

Fascism is underrated. Or rather we draw connections and transfer value judgements between coorporitism in theory and the actual behaviour of the nazis (who some might actually deny were proper Fascists).

It is a bit like associating communism with the north koreans and Stalin or anarchism with the governments with the least government - like Somalia. So I think they guys argument via association is a very poor one.

[ShowtekGER]

it's depressing to see so many educated and intelligent people here speak out for fascism and dictatorship, 20th century views on human nature and genetics, and all this with a tone of cynicism and bitterness. how are we ever going to accomplish anything when we can't even reach some fundamental agreements?

[ShowtekGER]

how would it do that? except via my methodology?

i have already mentioned the psychopath example. the capitalist system and western ideology breeds these. you can probably say this about any disorder as collectivist societies such as those in eastern asia have other disorders than we don't have and often there is a difference in prevalence between the two cultures in regard to disorders.

a human being that is brought up being loved and receiving specific input all through and dependent on its developmental stages as a fetus, infant, toddler child, teenager, etc. will be a fairly altrusitic, reasonable person at least. the upbringing is in part done by parents and by society and the parents are, again, influenced by society. so for example, we might establish better conditions for parents to raise their children, we might encourage people to educate themselves on educational science, we might enhance the quality of kindergartens and schools, we should under all circumstances avert suffering of children, poverty, and lack of all the afore-mentioned things. if we cannot offer this and we give them the feeling of nobody wanting to improve their situation, engaging in our values of conspicuous consumption and looking down on the poor, then we will create parents who don't look after their kids very well and certain undesirable behaviors might be switched on in terms of associated genes.

[ShowtekGER]

1. There's no difficulty as we do this all the time in the sciences and academia: there are standards of truth. If there weren't, all of civilization would fall apart. But of course we've debated this many times.

i'm not sure what you are trying to say here. sounds like a tyranny. people should conform with some specific standard of knowledge? a standard which is made by other people, probably those who are already advantaged in society. what about creativity and innovation? who judges that?

2. Splitting ourselves into groups has been happening since the dawn of humanity, which makes it seem irrudicible to constructivism.

irrudicible? awesome.

we might create groups of empathy and solidarity someday. how about that? the differences between groups and endless hierarchies would vanish. in fact, in more equal societies groups are less different from each other. also, arguing that it has always been this way (which you can't know) doesn't make it human nature. that's a typical logical fallacy. comparable to scientists stating that science will someday provide all the answers because it has proved to be able to answer many of our questions for now.

3. My view isn't totally essentialist, since anyone who decides for themselves that they wish to learn more about history and civics will thereby gain more of a voice. If they can accomplish this task, they will be rewarded.

it's funny that this sounds exactly like the society we have now. the illusion that effort will legitimately be rewarded, everyone being equally able to benefit from this reward. sadly, there are more powerful forces in society that significantly impede the possibility of working oneself to the top as we see in our societies.

[ShowtekGER]

I don't believe anyone wants peace, love, and solidarity. The OccupyWallSt group speaks with one voice in the name of freedom and group consensus, but one of the fundamental drives of all organic life is destruction. Freud, as you guys know, named this the death instinct. There is simply no way to eradicate this primordial impulse. And if we could demolish it, we would cease to live.

you would have to support this thesis with some backup because as it is know it doesn't make sense at all from a common sense perspective IMO. why would one pursue death and destruction? i don't really read freud because modern psychology is largely positivist (and so am i) and modern psychoanalysts seem to make up a little society for themselves alongside mainstream psychologists.

[Zefelius]

you would have to support this thesis with some backup because as it is know it doesn't make sense at all from a common sense perspective IMO. why would one pursue death and destruction? i don't really read freud because modern psychology is largely positivist (and so am i) and modern psychoanalysts seem to make up a little society for themselves alongside mainstream psychologists.

It seems like the history of the earth proves this. I do think that peace and love are important, but must be considered in relation to other drives and motives. It's hard for me to think of a single living creature that doesn't in some way particpate in the continual violence and destruction of life. I myself murder other creatures every day of my life. All of my friends are murderers too, unless you think that other organic life forms don't count as living. But that seems rather anthropocentric, which is itself a form of sublimated violence. What I see happening around me day after day of my life is a constant orgy of morbid, cruel violence and devastation toward other animals, humans, and the ecological system as a whole.

We can say that can change, but certainly 100s of millions of years of empirical verification is worth something.

[Zso_Zso]

It seems like the history of the earth proves this. I do think that peace and love are important, but must be considered in relation to other drives and motives. It's hard for me to think of a single living creature that doesn't in some way particpate in the continual violence and destruction of life. I myself murder other creatures every day of my life. All of my friends are murderers too, unless you think that other organic life forms don't count as living. But that seems rather anthropocentric, which is itself a form of sublimated violence. What I see happening around me day after day of my life is a constant orgy of morbid, cruel violence and devastation toward other animals, humans, and the ecological system as a whole.

We can say that can change, but certainly 100s of millions of years of empirical verification is worth something.

baby steps, my friend, slow progress...

the way I see it thousands of years ago it was normal element of war between tribes to rape and enslave the population of villages taken over by the victors of a war. Murder and genocide were accepted as moral as long as it was done to a different group of people.

our morale has been slowly improving, humane rules have been introduced to wars (Geneva convention), genocide is frowned upon, civilians are not supposed to be harmed in war etc.

We are trying to eliminate racial discrimination, gender discrimination, but it has not yet been fully achieved and it takes time (generations) to become part of "human nature" to think of other races and genders equal. You can witness this clearly in societies with mixed ethnic backgrounds such as in Canada, where you have immigrant families where the parents were raised in a different country with homogeneous ethnic setup but their kids are born and raised here in Canada interacting with other kids from different ethnic background. The parents will behave with tolerance towards the other ethnic groups, but it is not "natural" to them and they tend to make friends and socialize more with "their kind". But the kids make friends and feel completely natural among the other kids with different ethnic background.

So I can envision / imagine that once we (as humanity) achieve complete equality and our morale level is improving, we start focusing on the suffering of animals more and more -- in fact it is already happening as you can see the animal right activists and various laws protecting animals from abuse etc. I expect these tendencies to continue and get extended to "lesser" life forms. Maybe oneday humanity will achieve transcendence, live as pure energy and thus will no more need to feed on plants either

[ScottieX]

it's depressing to see so many educated and intelligent people here speak out for fascism and dictatorship, 20th century views on human nature and genetics, and all this with a tone of cynicism and bitterness. how are we ever going to accomplish anything when we can't even reach some fundamental agreements?

Its depressing to see people make completely illogical political arguments like "that sounds vaguely like communism - so its bad" or "that sounds vaguely like fascism or despotism - so its bad" Such arguments should be challenged at every possible opportunity.

[ScottieX]

so for example, we might establish better conditions for parents to raise their children, we might encourage people to educate themselves on educational science, we might enhance the quality of kindergartens and schools, we should under all circumstances avert suffering of children, poverty, and lack of all the afore-mentioned things.

For the most part I support these, you don't really need to make an argument for that education is important, the soviets, Chinese and Nazis knew that too.

So if I was king - I guess, in addition to the anti corruption measures, I'd increase funding for education, and restructure the current education system so it was more targeted in what it taught. I suppose I'd do pretty much every thing you said there although I think that one of course needs to balance the policies so they are sustainable in the very long term.

The difference between how we would do it I guess would be that I would be willing to use government structures to make things happen and so could probably do it much faster than you.

BTW I'm not so sure western society "breeds" psychopaths, I don't know any personally.

[Zefelius]

i'm not sure what you are trying to say here. sounds like a tyranny. people should conform with some specific standard of knowledge? a standard which is made by other people, probably those who are already advantaged in society. what about creativity and innovation? who judges that?

People might be smarter in your country than mine... all I know is that here in America there are some very ignorant folks. Many of them doubt Obama was born in America, think that HPV causes mental retardation, and have absolutely no idea that France had its own Vietnam war before we did---and that we supported the French in that war. A country that votes based on knowledge rather than ignorance should be stronger for it, don't you think? And it is precisely that knowledge that would help combat the tyranny you fear, the tyranny of false knowledge that already guides my nation in a thousand different ways.

Sure there are questions in history and political science with no absolute answers, but there would be no reason to use those questions on these exams. We do this all the time in history and economics classes all the time. But if you think that education is inherently biased, corrupted, elitist, and tyrannical, then it seems that you should be in favor of dismantling schools and universities across the world. On the other hand, if you have some faith in education, then there's no reason to be esepcially skeptical of exams testing our knowledge on the same subjects taught in high schools and colleges in both of our countries.

[ScottieX]

But if you think that education is inherently biased, corrupted, elitist, and tyrannical, then it seems that you should be in favor of dismantling schools and universities across the world. On the other hand, if you have some faith in education, then there's no reason to be esepcially skeptical of exams testing our knowledge on the same subjects taught in high schools and colleges in both of our countries.

Yeah I was thinking along these lines also. that ShowtekGER was effectively arguing for what many anarchists might call brainwashing of kids into being altruistic etc - whilst presumably being opposed to both the structures and the methods required to do so..a

We on the other hand are I presume ok with a little 'brainwashing" and hte structures and methods required to do so, when done properly - hehe

--
anyway yeah there are ignorant people everywhere, just in the US the ignorance seems to take qeven more of a political tone. (or maybe that is just an outsiders perspective)

[Zefelius]

we might create groups of empathy and solidarity someday. how about that? the differences between groups and endless hierarchies would vanish. in fact, in more equal societies groups are less different from each other. also, arguing that it has always been this way (which you can't know) doesn't make it human nature. that's a typical logical fallacy. comparable to scientists stating that science will someday provide all the answers because it has proved to be able to answer many of our questions for now.

You're exactly right to point out the is/ought distinction. That's why I have a metaphysical proof in the back of my mind when I make these assertions. I'm not 100% positive about this proof, but maybe 70-80%. It's something I've been thinking about lately as I've been reading Jacques Ranciere's work. He's a popular French philosopher who defends equality in the way you do, and who disagrees that there are masters of knowledge. My counter-proof goes something like this: 1) There is an infinite continuity of existence which pervades all of us, 2) we cannot reduce this reality to any given set of temporal conditions or values, 3) as we affirm our own conditional values we necessarily do so in a finite way, 4) by definition then these finite values embraced by us cannot include all values as that would reduce to finitude the very infinity of reality which exceeds all finite actions and values, 5) thus every affirmation of a conditional group value excludes some other set of values, and finally 6) this exclusion is necessarily hierarchical since by defintion we value that which we affirm more so than that which we exclude.

So like you I believe in group solidarity and empathy, but where we disagree is that I also think that whenever we affirm one set of group dynamics we necessarily do so in a way which privileges our way of life over that of others.

[Zefelius]

just in the US the ignorance seems to take qeven more of a political tone. (or maybe that is just an outsiders perspective)

I think that's an accurate observation!!

[ShowtekGER]

It seems like the history of the earth proves this. I do think that peace and love are important, but must be considered in relation to other drives and motives. It's hard for me to think of a single living creature that doesn't in some way particpate in the continual violence and destruction of life. I myself murder other creatures every day of my life. All of my friends are murderers too, unless you think that other organic life forms don't count as living. But that seems rather anthropocentric, which is itself a form of sublimated violence. What I see happening around me day after day of my life is a constant orgy of morbid, cruel violence and devastation toward other animals, humans, and the ecological system as a whole.

We can say that can change, but certainly 100s of millions of years of empirical verification is worth something.

so it's rather a killing instinct? "death instinct" made me think of people who would act in ways which moved them closer to their own death.

i wouldn't expect the killing of any creatures except for humans as murder. anyway, i think you're speaking of our habit of consuming animals? seeing that as violence and destruction is relative. in western societies i would absolutely agree with you. the methods we use in order to satisfy western mass consumption are not only violent, destructive, and disgustingly sick but also hazardous to human health. though, some native american tribes are said to have had a very spiritually intact relationship to the animals they killed, thanking them for whatever they provided them with, using up all of the animal, etc. i don't see this kind of killing as destructive, violent perhaps in a physical manner, but not psychologically, spiritually. but also these days our mass slaughter and animal abuse is all for our own assumed good, or is it not? the best term would perhaps be "survival instinct" which makes a lot of (common) sense.

millions of years of empirical verification? i'm getting tired of this. there have been numerous groups of people throughout time that have rejected violent and destructive lifestyles and instead adopted other ways of life (e.g., veganism). and as zso point out, this tendency has ever increased up until now. more and more people choose sane and beautiful lifestyles. so this cannot be human nature. we can be different. it's only about establishing the right conditions, providing people with the freedom to actually choose a different way of life.

[ShowtekGER]

For the most part I support these, you don't really need to make an argument for that education is important, the soviets, Chinese and Nazis knew that too.

So if I was king - I guess, in addition to the anti corruption measures, I'd increase funding for education, and restructure the current education system so it was more targeted in what it taught. I suppose I'd do pretty much every thing you said there although I think that one of course needs to balance the policies so they are sustainable in the very long term.

The difference between how we would do it I guess would be that I would be willing to use government structures to make things happen and so could probably do it much faster than you.

so we agree creating a happier society creates less corruption and other undesirable behavior?

i'm not sure if you're actually serious about your "king". the difference between me and you is perhaps that i would want everyone to decide what should happen societally. a king or another form of totalitarian leader can't possibly always make the right decisions for all of the people even if his intentions are perfectly pure. moreover, intentions like that virtually don't exist.

it's funny that you actually use the age-old argument against democracy that fascists used when the concept was still new. useless discussions and debates in a democracy make decision processes arduously long while totalitarian structures decide much faster. perhaps, but totalitarian decisions are also a lot worse.

BTW I'm not so sure western society "breeds" psychopaths, I don't know any personally.

how would you know? but it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't develop close contact to any of them as they are quite rare. and if you're not trained in the matter you probably wouldn't discover the psychopathy before you develop close contact.

the psychopath is the bad incarnation of western values. he does not experience empathy, remorse, or guilt, instrumentalizes other humans, has a hard time delaying gratification, etc. this is all endorsed by the west. the positive incarnation you can see in self-help books which pursue the exact same type of human being. you shall not feel guilty, you shall not conform, you shall do what's good for you, etc.

[ScottieX]

I struggle to see the use of Freudian analysis.
It seems to be loaded with lots of words that have strong connotations but few specifics so its hard to see if it is actually making any sense in any specific context or it can make multiple totally different "sense"s. Its like pop psychology by Dr Phil just without the feel good factor.

[ShowtekGER]

People might be smarter in your country than mine... all I know is that here in America there are some very ignorant folks. Many of them doubt Obama was born in America, think that HPV causes mental retardation, and have absolutely no idea that France had its own Vietnam war before we did---and that we supported the French in that war. A country that votes based on knowledge rather than ignorance should be stronger for it, don't you think? And it is precisely that knowledge that would help combat the tyranny you fear, the tyranny of false knowledge that already guides my nation in a thousand different ways.

as you probably know i agree with you on americans and ignorance, but why are they ignorant? because they carry the ignorance gene? you have to agree that it is not an internal mechanism that makes them ignorant. they are genetic europeans after all, most of them. so why the hell do we not instead enhance education and decrease governmental and corporate brainwashing? the reason for less ignorance in, say, denmark is because danes are more educated and less brainwashed. that way we would create a society that votes on the basis of knowledge rather than ignorance. you don't have to design another elitist system. i really think this is all closely connected to the US being the superpower.

Sure there are questions in history and political science with no absolute answers, but there would be no reason to use those questions on these exams. We do this all the time in history and economics classes all the time. But if you think that education is inherently biased, corrupted, elitist, and tyrannical, then it seems that you should be in favor of dismantling schools and universities across the world. On the other hand, if you have some faith in education, then there's no reason to be esepcially skeptical of exams testing our knowledge on the same subjects taught in high schools and colleges in both of our countries.

my argument is that the elite in your society would abuse its power to set standards in its favor. because it will obviously be them who would define the standards. since these standards are philosophically relative, as we both agree on, they will be able to justify the standards in a way that suits them.

and we're sliding into a debate about education itself. yea, i'm not a fan of exams and "testing knowledge" in general. and, yes, i would suppose that in a genuine society there wouldn't be any education system akin to our current ones. i could argue that exams don't really test knowledge. i could argue that our education system doesn't actually motivate students to learn. it just creates neurotics.

[ScottieX]

so we agree creating a happier society creates less corruption and other undesirable behavior?

no.. well - I supposed more often than not - depending on context. but a happier society is desirable in itself in fact it is the main desirable thing.

i'm not sure if you're actually serious about your "king". the difference between me and you is perhaps that i would want everyone to decide what should happen societally.

so your theory is premised on the idea that people already want what you want? or are you going to change their minds then give them what they want? in case you missed it that is a key aspect of what zef and I are doing too.

i a king or another form of totalitarian leader can't possibly always make the right decisions for all of the people even if his intentions are perfectly pure. moreover, intentions like that virtually don't exist.

nothing can make the right decision all the time. And a 'king' always has the option of not exercising power - or surrendering power in a specific area in which his decisions are not adding value if he is altruistic.
hey I only require 1 person to be altruistic you require everyone to be altruistic - so i think your task is still far harder!

it's funny that you actually use the age-old argument against democracy that fascists used when the concept was still new. useless discussions and debates in a democracy make decision processes arduously long while totalitarian structures decide much faster. perhaps, but totalitarian decisions are also a lot worse.

This is a current debate not an outdated one -
So China's decisions are much worse than Indonesia's and India's?

Besides - I'm actually contrasting a system that would be democratic using government structures with one that would be anarchistic. No country takes anarchy seriously, so you aren't looking very good in terms of the appeal to the modern state of the debate.

how would you know? but it wouldn't surprise me if you didn't develop close contact to any of them as they are quite rare. and if you're not trained in the matter you probably wouldn't discover the psychopathy before you develop close contact.

I think in general hidden psychopathy is lessened psychopathy. If you were in papua new guinnea they would probably just show you straight away.

the psychopath is the bad incarnation of western values. he does not experience empathy, remorse, or guilt, instrumentalizes other humans, has a hard time delaying gratification, etc. this is all endorsed by the west.

I dont know what school you went to!

the positive incarnation you can see in self-help books which pursue the exact same type of human being. you shall not feel guilty, you shall not conform, you shall do what's good for you, etc.

I'm dubious about whether most self help books actually help anything. they seem top mostly be about making money for the author.

[ShowtekGER]

Yeah I was thinking along these lines also. that ShowtekGER was effectively arguing for what many anarchists might call brainwashing of kids into being altruistic etc - whilst presumably being opposed to both the structures and the methods required to do so..a

i would never want to brainwash anyone. of course, from a relativistic viewpoint, you could call any form for education and upbringing brainwashing. but it would be my goal that people would be brought up both by family and society as freely as possible. for example, as a father i wouldn't tell my child not to use drugs, not to have sex, and similar stuff. i would only tell it my subjective views on the dangers of it and perhaps why i and others are worried. all of society could function like this. guiding, not dictating and trying to persuade people in adopting stupid values and behaviors.

[ShowtekGER]

You're exactly right to point out the is/ought distinction. That's why I have a metaphysical proof in the back of my mind when I make these assertions. I'm not 100% positive about this proof, but maybe 70-80%. It's something I've been thinking about lately as I've been reading Jacques Ranciere's work. He's a popular French philosopher who defends equality in the way you do, and who disagrees that there are masters of knowledge. My counter-proof goes something like this: 1) There is an infinite continuity of existence which pervades all of us, 2) we cannot reduce this reality to any given set of temporal conditions or values, 3) as we affirm our own conditional values we necessarily do so in a finite way, 4) by definition then these finite values embraced by us cannot include all values as that would reduce to finitude the very infinity of reality which exceeds all finite actions and values, 5) thus every affirmation of a conditional group value excludes some other set of values, and finally 6) this exclusion is necessarily hierarchical since by defintion we value that which we affirm more so than that which we exclude.

So like you I believe in group solidarity and empathy, but where we disagree is that I also think that whenever we affirm one set of group dynamics we necessarily do so in a way which privileges our way of life over that of others.

your first two points really seem to be faith, almost in a religious way. thus, your other logical steps to me seem to be based on your personal belief.

i'm not sure if i understand your concept of finitude and infinity. but i do not believe that by adhering to one value system we must necessarily exclude others or act hostile towards them. people with different beliefs can more than peacefully coexist. they can learn from each other and become richer persons. i am friends with many neoliberals and i do see where they are coming from. i often acknowledge that there is some deeper truth in their views. i'm sure i could see the same truth in all kinds of religions, practices, etc. and as i said before, there are more equal societies than the US. there aren't that huge general conflicts of opinion in the societies that i know quite well, that is northern europe, including germany, france, the UK, the benelux states, austria, switzerland, ireland, and skandinavia.

[ScottieX]

i would never want to brainwash anyone. of course, from a relativistic viewpoint, you could call any form for education and upbringing brainwashing. but it would be my goal that people would be brought up both by family and society as freely as possible. for example, as a father i wouldn't tell my child not to use drugs, not to have sex, and similar stuff. i would only tell it my subjective views on the dangers of it and perhaps why i and others are worried. all of society could function like this. guiding, not dictating and trying to persuade people in adopting stupid values and behaviors.

Yes that is the sort of control I'd also favour. I think with sufficiently good analysis of the data and control of at least quite a few key leavers you could pretty effectively ensure people did what you want via tweaking very subtle things*. And of course that would be preferable to having to use obvious force (why work harder when you can work smarter?).

that being said as a father I might not have the ability to analiyse the data and come up with a subtle way to indicate to my kids that they should not for example poke each other in the eyes with a toy.....

so I might have to use the naughty step or somthing...

Similarly I might need to put a person in jail (or apply some other such strategy) because they are a sociopath.

* as long as what you want to achieve is not totally unstable or against their nature.. unfortunately - like anarchism.

[Zefelius]

I struggle to see the use of Freudian analysis.
It seems to be loaded with lots of words that have strong connotations but few specifics so its hard to see if it is actually making any sense in any specific context or it can make multiple totally different "sense"s. Its like pop psychology by Dr Phil just without the feel good factor.

The specifics are quite difficult and complex. I took one graduate course on Psychoanalysis and it was one of the most difficult courses I've ever taken---certainly more difficult than either the physics or economics classes I took in college. But personally I refrain from delving into the specifics in the forum since that would be rather long-winded of me---and wouldn't be very helpful to those who haven't read the literature. But I do think some of it is quite genius even if there's a questionable aspect to other parts of the theory. That's of course the same with other great thinkers from Smith and Darwin to Russell and Wittgenstein: none of their ideas can be properly debated or fully elaborated without an intimate engagement with their respective texts.

[Zefelius]

i don't see this kind of killing as destructive, violent perhaps in a physical manner, but not psychologically, spiritually. but also these days our mass slaughter and animal abuse is all for our own assumed good, or is it not? the best term would perhaps be "survival instinct" which makes a lot of (common) sense.

It looks like our definitions of violence are at loggerheads (since I view even "peaceful" consumption of other creatures as violent), which may mean that we will never agree on this issue. I look at violence as the disintegration of any life force. In that sense, the results of even an earthquake can be defined as violent, albeit not murderous. Murder, to me, is intentional violence. In that regard, from my view, even the consumption of a carrot is murder!! But even if you don't agree that violence enacted against other species and life forms are necessarily murderous, but only insofar as it is directed toward fellow humans, I would say that we will never eradicate sublimated violence---which is the kind of violence perpetrated indirectly against others. Every time we identify with one form of symbolic life as opposed to another we necessarily privilege that life at the expense of another: by this definition even if most of us aren't murderers in the most obvious sense, we are still embracing various modes of living which indirectly put others closer to death than ourselves.

Some would argue that this is merely an unfortunate and unwished for consequence, and that if we could protect and save all other life forms then surely we would, given that we are sane and rational. My metaphysical counter-argument, which I outlined above, is that in the very act of affirming and embracing a finite set of values and existence---by directly and immediately affirming the intimate reality to which you're attached---you thereby actively and simultaneously affirm the violent death of others. To pretend otherwise is similar to the person who pretends to only eat the meat of fellow creatures on this planet reluctantly---he who eats the other does so not merely in some sort of detached, peaceful, or spiritual manner---but actually enjoys the taste of death. I don't mean to single out meat-eating, but it seems like a decent example to make a larger point about the inherent aggression of all life, whether sublimated or directly physical.

[ShowtekGER]

so your theory is premised on the idea that people already want what you want? or are you going to change their minds then give them what they want? in case you missed it that is a key aspect of what zef and I are doing too.

i am not a fascist. i don't imagine myself as the king of people in these scenarios like you do. decisions would only be made by the collective. i would present my ideas and explain why i'm convinced they will increase average happiness. but if that doesn't convince anybody else and the collective decides the opposite, then i wouldn't force them to do anything.

This is a current debate not an outdated one -
So China's decisions are much worse than Indonesia's and India's?

it's not a current debate in the west, perhaps within a few sub-societies, most of which would be the kind of fascists that consists of neonazis and other socially ill people.

apart from the fact that i don't believe that indonesia and india are genuine societies, i do think that the lack of freedom in china can only be tolerated as long as china thrives under economic enhancement which won't be forever. anti-government protests are already widespread in china and are brutally suppressed as well as any kind of intellectual dissent which you probably know. moreover, i really doubt that the chinese economic upturn has much to do with its totalitarian structures but mainly with its economic structures which on an international level are state capitalist. that could also be combined with a democracy. when it comes to other decisions i don't think that china is much different from western democracies. there's an elite that decides, that's all.

I think in general hidden psychopathy is lessened psychopathy. If you were in papua new guinnea they would probably just show you straight away.

there are many forms of psychopathy. the stereotypical form would be someone who charmingly manipulates you into liking him. the psychopath will have copied the superficial traits of human emotions and display them very convincingly so "hidden psychopathy" is actually stereotypical psychopathy. of course, there are also those who are explosive and violent. when it comes to other cultures such as papua new guinea, i would doubt that the term "psychpathy" even applies. if it does it would still describe a phenomenon that is very different from the western psychopath.

I dont know what school you went to!

who learns this at school? the fact that these are typical western/liberal/capitalist values is obvious, isn't it? and traits of the psychopath and how they might be possibly linked to societal values i learn at the university.

[ShowtekGER]

Yes that is the sort of control I'd also favour. I think with sufficiently good analysis of the data and control of at least quite a few key leavers you could pretty effectively ensure people did what you want via tweaking very subtle things*. And of course that would be preferable to having to use obvious force (why work harder when you can work smarter?).

that being said as a father I might not have the ability to analiyse the data and come up with a subtle way to indicate to my kids that they should not for example poke each other in the eyes with a toy.....

so I might have to use the naughty step or somthing...

Similarly I might need to put a person in jail (or apply some other such strategy) because they are a sociopath.

* as long as what you want to achieve is not totally unstable or against their nature.. unfortunately - like anarchism.

you still sound like a fascist. your central question seems to be: how can i cheat people into doing what i want them to do while giving them the illusion of this not being the case? likewise, i'd say your "naughty step" would be denounced by most pedagogues as such methods make use of instilling feelings of shame and guilt in a child in order to form it after the conceptions of the parent.

i think you should read up on anarchism. the human nature argument is one of the most obvious ones so you might guess that several counter-arguments exist.

[ShowtekGER]

I would say that we will never eradicate sublimated violence---which is the kind of violence perpetrated indirectly against others. Every time we identify with one form of symbolic life as opposed to another we necessarily privilege that life at the expense of another: by this definition even if most of us aren't murderers in the most obvious sense, we are still embracing various modes of living which indirectly put others closer to death than ourselves.

example? i don't understand this. if i decide to identify as a social democrat how is this threatening the lives of people who identify as liberal conservatives?

he who eats the other does so not merely in some sort of detached, peaceful, or spiritual manner---but actually enjoys the taste of death.

i find this incredibly subjective. this is your personal view. i mean there's nothing obvious about the idea that people who are eating meat are symbolically enjoying death.

[ScottieX]

i am not a fascist. i don't imagine myself as the king of people in these scenarios like you do.

I dont think that is facism per se. that is despotism.
Facism is where the route to exersising power is via cooporitism - or in other words groupings of people in similar professions (or i suppose of similar kinds in any other way). so for mussolini's quote media business and beurocracy might be 3 of those groups - meeting and debating policy in government via representatives, presumably labour was there also via unions.

That the only reason I used the word king is that I required the ability to make the changes happen, the king replaces the beurocracy that might otherwise have prevented action. But exactly what those changes are are determined by what people want/need. So the aim is pretty much that of your collective (although I suspect your collective may not want to have anarchism). Effectively the collective would still exist and still be able to say what it wants.

apart from the fact that i don't believe that indonesia and india are genuine societies, i do think that the lack of freedom in china can only be tolerated as long as china thrives under economic enhancement which won't be forever. anti-government protests are already widespread in china and are brutally suppressed as well as any kind of intellectual dissent which you probably know.

but talk to chinese people or go to a site like foolsmountain and see what the chinese actually think about how their country is governed. The government seems to have pretty high approval ratings and there isnt really that much of a demand for democracy except by a minority. I suspect that Democracy is not so much of a natural force as you think it is - the US and other countries have been pushing democracy in other countries for a long time and expending a lot of money and effort to do so. (even if sometimes they havent been 100% aligned with pure democracy). I suspect the tide is turning with the decline of the USA.

moreover, i really doubt that the chinese economic upturn has much to do with vits totalitarian structures but mainly with its economic structures which on an international level are state capitalist. that could also be combined with a democracy.

they are all related.

so "hidden psychopathy" is actually stereotypical psychopathy..

in the west - sure which is great! I like it when my psychopaths hate me but dont actually hurt me.

who learns this at school? the fact that these are typical western/liberal/capitalist values is obvious, isn't it? and traits of the psychopath and how they might be possibly linked to societal values i learn at the university.

no not really. less so than most societies I guess. Every TV show every teacher etc was constantly telling me about sharing and caring etc. It's hard to imagine that other cultures can pummel you more with that message.

[ScottieX]

you still sound like a fascist. your central question seems to be: how can i cheat people into doing what i want them to do while giving them the illusion of this not being the case?

I still dont see the difference between that and what you are doing except you added useless/meaningless words like "cheat" (and in this case "want") into your description of mine.

This is pretty common in political debates - one can just load up the other person's poition with words with negitive connotations and ones own with words with good connotations - that way both sides can have a debate that lasts forever and both sides think they ae decicively winning

likewise, i'd say your "naughty step" would be denounced by most pedagogues as such methods make use of instilling feelings of shame and guilt in a child in order to form it after the conceptions of the parent.

well duh! I'd rather not have to do that sort of thing. the question is what is the better methodology! (ie that i can in the moment determine to effectively prevent the 'eye poking' occuring in the future). If one has a better methodology it automatically replaces the worse one but I dont refuse to apply the current method just because it might have a bad side effect because not taking any action may have an even worse side effect (such as eye poking).

you should read up on anarchism. the human nature argument is one of the most obvious ones so you might guess that several counter-arguments exist.

I dont think this is that I havent read about anarchist theory I've talked to people and read things.
I suppose I could write some little proofs against theories of anarchism along the lines of random variations causing instability in the structures of anarchism or whatever that is probably where this would lead if I was to go down that route - but I suspect I would soon loose your attention, since anarchism is a very wide net - its like a catchall for things that arent ever going to happen.

[Zefelius]

example? i don't understand this. if i decide to identify as a social democrat how is this threatening the lives of people who identify as liberal conservatives?

In a way it's too easy and yet very difficult to come up with examples, since my point is more metaphysical and phenomenological than empirical. So I can point to every form of symbolic life as an example, but if my deeper point remains obscure you won't be convinced by my examples as you'll understand and filter them through a different lens.

I suppose it boils down to a simple yet opaque argument: 1) life is change, 2) every moment we live we thus affirm change, 3) change involves creation as well as destruction, 4) we thus affirm both creation and destruction, 5) but since we are necessarily attached to that which constitutes our (finite) living force, whether that living force be individual or social, we naturally direct some of that destructive energy outward.

Conversely, total peace would put an end to destructive energy. That would imply that we are all attached to one universal social essence, within which the inidividual loses himself, and whereby there would no longer be any friction. Since even liberals don't believe that's achievable, they usually argue that we must fight for that peace to the best of our abilities, notwithstanding the fact that there will of course be inevitable problems. History should be the history of progress, in other words.

But if you compare the two paragraphs above, you might begin to see where I see a problem. In the middle paragrah I suggested that destructive energy is naturally diverted outward (many people in the humanities call this scapegoating), and that we do this willingly. In the third paragraph I noted that the rational liberal acknowledges inevitable setbacks, but nevertheless believes we should pursue the ideal to the best of our capacities. The problem with that goal, then, is that it denies how we willingly and gladly prefer certain life forces at the expense of others.

Your counter-point will have to be that we don't have to do this at all. In other words, you will disagree with paragraph 2's line of reasoning. My rebuttal to that, then, is that you would be ignoring paragrah 3! It is already admitted by most reasonable progressives that their ideals may never be realized. But if they aren't realized in concrete practice, then we can't ignore the insight in paragraph 2 which is basically that as long as we haven't reached a permanent ideal, we necessarily live in a world of change within which there is both creation and destruction. In that real world of change we can only affirm finite values, which means that we protect those values at the expense of others. But why, the rational liberal asks, can't we protect ALL well-intentioned values? Because we've already granted in paragraph 3 that we can't in this world ever embrace a system of universal values which connects all of us into a complete living unit.

[Zefelius]

Maybe oneday humanity will achieve transcendence, live as pure energy and thus will no more need to feed on plants either

If that day ever arises we will by definition cease to exist as living individuals. That's one reason I'm against Buddhism and Christianity: they both fight against the pain of life and thereby wish to stop living. But as long as we live in the real world I think there will always be pain and suffering---and to embrace pain and suffering is to say Yes to life.

[ShowtekGER]

Facism is where the route to exersising power is via cooporitism - or in other words groupings of people in similar professions (or i suppose of similar kinds in any other way). so for mussolini's quote media business and beurocracy might be 3 of those groups - meeting and debating policy in government via representatives, presumably labour was there also via unions.

that is not what wikipedia says.

but talk to chinese people or go to a site like foolsmountain and see what the chinese actually think about how their country is governed. The government seems to have pretty high approval ratings and there isnt really that much of a demand for democracy except by a minority. I suspect that Democracy is not so much of a natural force as you think it is - the US and other countries have been pushing democracy in other countries for a long time and expending a lot of money and effort to do so. (even if sometimes they havent been 100% aligned with pure democracy). I suspect the tide is turning with the decline of the USA.

yes, as i said, "i do think that the lack of freedom in china can only be tolerated as long as china thrives under economic enhancement". the chinese population is extremely satisfied with their government in general and compared to other countries but that doesn't have much to do with totalitarianism but with economic upturn. the economic upturn, again, is not dependent on totalitarian structures either but on the effective state capitalism of china.

the same probably goes for democracies. when economic times are good, people won't complain. but when they're bad they can use their rights of protest, overthrow their government, and they still have a marginally meaningful vote! it could practically be a very meaningful vote if people simply voted for a radically different party. that's what will be missing when the chinese economy stops booming and it will some time. i expect the government to be overthrown at some point and to be replaced with some kind of democratic structure. if you asked the chinese people now, i bet that, even though they are satisfied with their government overall, they would favor democratic structures instead. it definitely wouldn't worsen the economy but it would make the chinese people freer.

in the west - sure which is great! I like it when my psychopaths hate me but dont actually hurt me.

they, of course, will at some point. mostly psychologically.

[ShowtekGER]

I still dont see the difference between that and what you are doing except you added useless/meaningless words like "cheat" (and in this case "want") into your description of mine.

as i have described a few times now, the difference is that i would not try to cheat people. i would try to convince them of my beliefs with fair education. now, if they still aren't convinced afterwards, i would still not force them to do anything while this seems to be what you would do.

'cheating' is an accurate description of the activities you would pursue. indoctrinating people with your beliefs without them recognizing it and perhaps against their will? cheating people into doing this is just another way of saying it.

I suppose I could write some little proofs against theories of anarchism along the lines of random variations causing instability in the structures of anarchism or whatever that is probably where this would lead if I was to go down that route - but I suspect I would soon loose your attention, since anarchism is a very wide net - its like a catchall for things that arent ever going to happen.

is that because various anarchist societies have existed across history and do still exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...st_communities? or what exactly is your point? that you're basically the same as the slave from ancient egypt that thought equal treatment of people would never happen and that democracy is a utopia? because that's exactly who you are. the term "utopia" or the sentence "it's never going to happen" are so meaningless as it can always be directly equalized with a bias of normality--it's too different from the current so it's impossible.

[ShowtekGER]

I suppose it boils down to a simple yet opaque argument: 1) life is change, 2) every moment we live we thus affirm change, 3) change involves creation as well as destruction, 4) we thus affirm both creation and destruction, 5) but since we are necessarily attached to that which constitutes our (finite) living force, whether that living force be individual or social, we naturally direct some of that destructive energy outward.

now, this is religious belief to me. life is change? to the extent that this sentence is even meaningful, i could believe the exact opposite. life is eternal and essentially unchanging. in fact, that is what many religions seem to believe. yet, none of the two views have anything to do with knowledge. it's faith.

and isn't belief in some metaphysical idea always faith? for a long time i thought i was a physicalist until i discovered that i cannot know whether reality really consists only of the physical. i still often argue from a physicalist perspective, though, because some part of me believes in it. reality sometimes seems physicalist to me. it's emotional belief, not cognitive knowledge.

otherwise i still find your overall point confusing. but i do agree with you that some kind of conflict is virtually intrinsic to reality. but i could imagine conflict in more spiritually developed societies to be more of an inner conflict. other problems will exist, not these that we have now. i doubt that humanity, if it reaches the year 3000, will still fight wars over resources. i think we do stuff like that because we split each other up in arbitrary groups and this splitting up is not natural, contrary to what you believe. we are able to perceive ourselves as part of a group, as we do all the time in religions and countries. i religiously believe that humanity is able to identify as humanity at one point and not turn against each other but to other challenges. when it does that, wars and conflicts of our times will cease to exist. other conflicts, existential ones for example, might arise and others might still exist. like murders caused by emotional injury.