That idea is horribly naive at best. It is just plain stupid.
The criticisms are not really criticisms (on the website).
The amount of problems with the idea would take thousands of pages.
That idea is stupid until we have better robotics and AI technologies. Once we do have that (some say around 2025 2030), then, yes, we can get rid of money. But we will only have a utopia for 20 years.
Originally posted by Lord LucienI disagree with the sentiment; plus I thought it was an Irish accent.
Here's another question: Why do so many videos about either the NWO, intellectualism, or the solution to "___" or "____" involve a man with a condescending British accent?
Originally posted by dadudemonYou should watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM6dX_dwYk
That idea is horribly naive at best. It is just plain stupid.The criticisms are not really criticisms (on the website).
The amount of problems with the idea would take thousands of pages.
That idea is stupid until we have better robotics and AI technologies. Once we do have that (some say around 2025 2030), then, yes, we can get rid of money. But we will only have a utopia for 20 years.
Originally posted by RE: BlaxicanI think many people have their own definitions of freedom, Adam Curtis of the BBC (I don't know why most of my resources come from British guys), but he did a documentary called "The Trap: What happened to our dream of freedom?", the first part outlines the duality of the cold war, then expands on third way ideas by Clinton and numbers theory. He does another documentary called "All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace" which expands on ideas proposed by Ayn Rand and talks about human beings as machines, with, within and without.
Somewhat off-topic, but, why do so many define freedom as "being able to do what you want without any negative consequences happening"?That aside, I feel that human nature disallows us from existing in a society where people can live in a non-competitive manner.
As for your ideas on human nature, what the hell is human nature?
"it is virtually impossible to understand how biology works, outside the context of environment." -- Dr. Robert Sapolsky, currently professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology and Neurological Sciences and, by courtesy, Neurosurgery, at Stanford University. In addition, he is a research associate at the National Museums of Kenya.
sauce
"Genes are not just things that make us behave in a particular way regardless of our environment...genes give us different ways of responding to our environment" -- Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of social epidemiology at the University of Nottingham, also, researcher in social inequalities in health and the social determinants of health Sauce
Oh, the sauces are their backgrounds, if you want to know the actual quotes and more about human nature you could watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w 09:00 to 41:00
But I'd recommend researching some articles and books by those guys.
My take is human nature is based on environment. We all know people from a poor background live different lives to rich people. It isn't genetics any more than it is environment, and human nature, as well as free will is one of the biggest myths believed to man.
Humans are greedy by nature, The "haves" will always want more. People will always want things they really don't need like 30,000 square foot mansions, private jets, yachts, a fleet of 10 or 12 luxury vehicles or so. Plus the video is wrong about the earth having enough resources to support even what is considered a moderate western lifestyle for the entire human population.
I think we probably do have enough resources to maintain a decent and "comfortable" lifestyle for all 7 billion of us---but our inability to share equally on such a scale is what will prevent us from using them properly. I know for a fact that I couldn't support the "No Money" society. I like having the option and goal of attaining more than my peers, of holding more power and possessions over them. Greed and jealousy are the two greatest opponents to Communism and this "non-Communist" Free World.
Originally posted by The Dark CloudI do not understand this "human nature". Was owning slaves "human nature"? Because for a while the whole world believed in slaves.
Humans are greedy by nature, The "haves" will always want more. People will always want things they really don't need like 30,000 square foot mansions, private jets, yachts, a fleet of 10 or 12 luxury vehicles or so. Plus the video is wrong about the earth having enough resources to support even what is considered a moderate western lifestyle for the entire human population.
Originally posted by Lord Lucienwe got plenty of resources. Geothermal energy, solar power, wave power etc. these are very efficient, renewable and could definately power the world.
I think we probably do have enough resources to maintain a decent and "comfortable" lifestyle for all 7 billion of us---but our inability to share equally on such a scale is what will prevent us from using them properly. I know for a fact that I couldn't support the "No Money" society. I like having the option and goal of attaining more than my peers, of holding more power and possessions over them. Greed and jealousy are the two greatest opponents to Communism and this "non-Communist" Free World.
Plus, I don't see your logic when you say you want to attain more than your peers. What will that even achieve in a world of such high abundance?
Originally posted by lord xyz
My take is human nature is based on environment. We all know people from a poor background live different lives to rich people. It isn't genetics any more than it is environment, and human nature, as well as free will is one of the biggest myths believed to man.
Our earliest ancestors (human) have evidence of inter-tribal fighting such as embedded spear-tips in bones, "scars" on the bones indicative of blades, and so forth.
Originally posted by dadudemonOr, they've always lived in an environment that creates homicidal behaviour.
Humans have always been homicidal, meaning, it's not just environment.
Originally posted by dadudemonBecause they needed to to survive. We used to eat raw meat for years, we don't now. We used to hate the industrial revolution because many farmers were losing jobs, not anymore. I'm not saying violence can be eliminated, but environment is a huge cause of it. There are countless pacifists out there, and not just due to religious upbringing, it's due to living in an non-violent upbringing. Pacifist societies too such as the Amish.
Our earliest ancestors (human) have evidence of inter-tribal fighting such as embedded spear-tips in bones, "scares" on the bones indicative of blades, and so forth.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Or, they've always lived in an environment that creates homicidal behaviour.
Macroevolution dictates...nay...necessitates that the behavior is at the very least, partially due to genetics.
Meaning, it's not just something you no longer think about and it's gone. That takes many generations to "breed" out.
You're suggestion psychological evolution (meme) but it's definitely a more complex system than just changing minds. I think (not you, this is not your original idea, so don't take it as a direct criticism) that those generating these philosophies lack a significant understand of the human animal. They are taking a crap on anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Because they needed to to survive. We used to eat raw meat for years, we don't now. We used to hate the industrial revolution because many farmers were losing jobs, not anymore. I'm not saying violence can be eliminated, but environment is a huge cause of it. There are countless pacifists out there, and not just due to religious upbringing, it's due to living in an non-violent upbringing. Pacifist societies too such as the Amish.
Violence can be found at pretty much ever facet of human existence. Sure, there are those pockets of pseudo utopias, but those are literally extreme exceptions.
But, yeah, I'd like to see a group like "Jaihnists (Jainism)" or "hippies" lead the way.
It's not that I disagree with the idea, XYZ, I just disagree that it is currently impossible on a global scale.
Originally posted by dadudemonIt is partially due to it, but when a human organism lives in an environment that doesn't produce violence, it's incredibly likely violence won't occur. As I've stated with the pacifist societies, pacifist radical people and James Gilligan (in another thread) who has worked with violent people for about 35 years, violence only occurs if we need to for survival.
Macroevolution dictates...nay...necessitates that the behavior is at the very least, partially due to genetics.
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, that's not what I'm saying. I never mentioned anything about "breeding" out. When did the slave owner genes get "breeded" out?
Meaning, it's not just something you no longer think about and it's gone. That takes many generations to "breed" out.
Originally posted by dadudemonI keep telling you to stop making shit up.
You're suggestion psychological evolution (meme) but it's definitely a more complex system than just changing minds. I think (not you, this is not your original idea, so don't take it as a direct criticism) that those generating these philosophies lack a significant understand of the human animal. They are taking a crap on anthropology, psychology, and neuroscience.
Dr. James Gilligan, who I posted in another thread is a psychologist. Dr. Robert Sapolsky who I've posted in this thread is a neuroscientist, and the clip I posted has many other university professors talking about how environment plays a huge factor in shaping human behaviour, IE a non-violent environment would cause violence to an almost minimum, just like when America found out it could make money off of war instead of slaves.
Originally posted by dadudemonBecause they needed to to survive. There are countless pacifists out there, and not just due to religious upbringing, it's due to living in an non-violent upbringing. Pacifist societies too such as the Amish.
Violence can be found at pretty much ever facet of human existence. Sure, there are those pockets of pseudo utopias, but those are literally extreme exceptions.
Originally posted by dadudemonYou mean scientific opinion over the opinion of...you?
But, yeah, I'd like to see a group like "Jaihnists (Jainism)" or "hippies" lead the way.
Originally posted by dadudemonSure.
It's not that I disagree with the idea, XYZ,
Originally posted by dadudemonWell, I can't argue with that.
I just disagree that it is currently impossible on a global scale.
Originally posted by lord xyz
It is partially due to it, but when a human organism lives in an environment that doesn't produce violence, it's incredibly likely violence won't occur. As I've stated with the pacifist societies, pacifist radical people and James Gilligan (in another thread) who has worked with violent people for about 35 years, violence only occurs if we need to for survival.
this isn't true at all
criminal behaviour is a part of all societies
Originally posted by lord xyz
Some at a much lower rate than others. I think I was getting a bit carried away there.
fair enough
it is also worth pointing out that some people, based on genetics or even in some cases tumors, can behave violently for no reason other than their biology
for instance, many serial killers would be very difficult to pin down in terms of environmental influence (others would be much easier, though)
I wouldn't simplify the discussion of the roots of violence, or even of gene-environment interactions, in the way you are
Well there's even a case where mice bred without the gene for intelligence managed to overcome it in a more suitable environment.
Brain damage is of course an unusual case and only accounts for a small percentage of the species, but I would wager that all cases of adult violence is rooted in their upbringing.
Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, my belief is you change the environment, you change the man. Some cases could take years, of course, but I don't want to think there isn't a way to stop aberrant behaviour -- aberrant from the environment we live in.
then, ya, you are wrong
there are people that, no matter what interventions are used, will take any opportunity they can to be violent or exploit others, independent of their upbringing
adults who get a tumor in their amygdala, causing them to have violent urges, though the most extreme and rare example, would be the most specific example
like, what evidence do you have to suggest that there is an intervention one could make in the case of Ted Bundy of Jeffrey Dhamer? Something like psychopathy almost certainly has a biological root.
many serial killers are showing a proclivity toward violence at extremely young ages, and were raised in very much normal households. Sure, many of them were abused, but many were not. Its what makes serial killers such interesting case studies, because as much as psychologists like to look for triggers and patterns, there almost are none.
further, you are almost exactly like Skinner in this stance, as if to say, "control the environment, control the organism", but the problem is, children raised in identical environments can have extremely different outcomes. Most children from abusive homes are not themselves abusive, so to look at "childhood abuse" as a core cause of something is leaving out a huge portion of the actual causes. Further, the idea you could control someone's environment in a significant way is mythology.