Originally posted by feanor
That is unfortunate...For there is no other system out there that can truly compare to America, even in England which most of our democracy is somewhat base on their ideals and principals. Even though it isn't always perfect would you rather it were say...Russia? or even in part if not all in the Middle East? We may yet one day achieve the perfect society where all parties are happy and content but at what price do we pay for such a society? Without the individual a society cannot exist and vice a versa. In order to work towards a common goal the individual has to work within the society where the society then repays that individual to live in peace and harmony with so many other individuals. Society in of itself is not a bad thing whether it's a poor neighbourhood or if it's rich, it's the individual that lives within in that more or less decides how that society becomes whether working with others or alone.
The American government is corrupt. Period. It was a nice idea, but it's starting to crumble. You know what I've been thinking about, people have such a hard time realizing why the great ancient civilizations--the Greeks, Romans, Mayans, etc fell. It was, generally, because they became TOO powerful--they had too much territory, too many citizens to take care of, or they became corrupt. Sound familiar?
Omega---> the US is a form of democracy... It's somewhere in between a true democracy and a republic, I think. Also, you bring an interesting point about the guy who was arrested and killed for what he thought about the stars. Though I would use Socrates as an example--he was killed for trying to make people think.
😄 With his usual sensibility BF actually says something which is worth considering.
All dictates on what I’m SUPPOSED to feel aside, no. 1 in the world is ME. I care most about myself. THAT is simply a survival instinct. Saying anything else, I think, is deluding ourselves.
That doesn’t mean I do NOT care about other people. My husband, family, friends and colleagues matter to me, too. Because they provide me with love, social interactions etc.
Homo sapiens IS a social creature, and in the animal kingdom we know plenty of social animals that live in groups.
Then there are people like BF, who’s perfectly fine in his own sphere. I know people like that. Heck, I even feel like that from time to time. Some people are simply not that social, and usually finds plenty of things to do on their own.
I support Amnesty, 3rd-World import, a child in India etc. Now, here's the tricky question for people who do the same: Do we really truly care?? Please, understand the question in its right context.
I support these organisations because I can intellectually and emotionally perceive a better world. But am I truly capable of "caring" for people I don't know and have never met???
Darth> History is full of people who were killed or prosecuted by society, not because they were actually lying or criminals, but because their ideas conflicted with the main-ideas of society at THAT time. “A society” is a very conservative entity in a way. The individual can be lightyears ahead of society.
Of course, we need our societies to be stable for them to function. That makes them rather “heavy”.
Let’s say someone invented the Star Trek replicator – tomorrow. It would be cheap, as you could just replicate it, and you just needed to plug it into the wall, to replicate everything your need.
Now – imagine the impact on society – worldwide. Should we allow this? The replicator?
I would say yes.... all the major food industry companies'd say no.
For the same reason, some time ago, when Tesla did his research on electricity and radio waves he discovered that he could send electricity through radio waves eliminating the need for wiring..
However, upon finding out, the electrical companies that were behind him, suddenly cut his funding. Therefore, it is clear that people care more about themselves than about anything else. The big-bosses at the electrical companies could have allowed Tesla to complete his research, but they faced bankruptcy, so they just cut his funding, thus denying a great advance to society.
nah dexx, I am a socialist now, before I got envolved with politics on a larger scale I thought like BF.
Omega I think there are very few ppl who generaly care, I think if you care about everything that happens in the world you will become very unhappy. But as you said you dont need to care for these ppl to help them, and when it matters most I am pretty confident (as confident as someone can be about something like this in advance) that I would sacrifice myself for the greater good, but dont ask me to sacrifice someone else I love cause that would be very hard.
Originally posted by Dexx
umm..no..the individual CAN be independent. It hasn't always been in this evolved social system....people were killing to survive just like any other predator. 😊
Yeah, but one individual couldn't possibly kill a single beast by himself. Especially an animal like a mamoth as an example. It took many individuals to achieve the hunting to be succesful. Sure nowadays all you need is a sniper rifle, and the hunt is over. In earlier days of civilazation man needed a community (in this case a society) to survive.
What is used to be a known as hunting to survive can be translated to a "social contract". Meaning that as a community we try to work with others in order to survive.
society is a disease with no known cure aside from total anhilation. Man cannot work together as a whole outside of a small group. Within a larger framework, competition sets in aside from food, shelter, etc. When too many live within a large group there is the likelyhood of envy, jealousy and the desire to have what the other has. If you set one person above all others, say as a leader then that person has the ability to abuse said power if there are no one there to assure that he doesn't. Because we are by nature a social creature, we subconsciously follow in that order of animals that are led without question and should we question it we are otherwise persecuted to no end if it should prove a bane for those that lead. Given the nature of man vs. society; one cannot function without the other, however too large it then becomes dysfunctional no matter the good intent of a few individuals
Originally posted by SilverFighter
Yeah, but one individual couldn't possibly kill a single beast by himself. Especially an animal like a mamoth as an example. It took many individuals to achieve the hunting to be succesful. Sure nowadays all you need is a sniper rifle, and the hunt is over. In earlier days of civilazation man needed a community (in this case a society) to survive.
What is used to be a known as hunting to survive can be translated to a "social contract". Meaning that as a community we try to work with others in order to survive.
hence me saying communitu of 65 (at most).
There are species hunting in packs today also...but that's a sign of mental superiority. nothing wrong with that..