Current state of the world(Why our species is flawed)

[Prometheus]

Any ideas about this one? There are so many flaws here, most of which likely resulted from natural selection(Sort of a tragedy of the commons situation in which nature encourages us to be greedy and kill off our rivals. Damn Epsilons. Kidding I love those slackjawed bastards).

I have several primary flaws to address. Which all basically lead to one inevitable concern. Can we change? Should be change? Will history continue as always(In a state of fluxuating chaos.) or will we finally learn to live in harmony with the universe and ourselves?(Create a utopia. Can such a thing truly exist? I know Moore wrote the book as a satire but I can't help thinking that such a thing can be done.)

Let me start off by talking about stressors. Stressors are what instigate adaptation, they typically come from the environment and other species within said environment. I'll give you an example. In mesopotamia at the dawn of civilization(Argueably. Not much is certain here.), agriculture and kingship emerged together. The two concepts sort of twine together as neither can really exist for very long without the other. You see, mesopotamia was a vibrant river valley at this time(I'm pretty sure it is Iraq and Iran now. I don't have new maps. Oddysseus' maps were propably newer than the ones I have. kidding lol.). A perfect place for civilization to spring up. The humans here eventaully started planting and harvesting crops and slowly small nations(Little more than tribal despotisms for a while) sprouted up. The reason given for this by experts is that kingship(An ordered and organized social system capable of commanding labor(For irrigation and later the building of city walls), organizing warfare(And weapons crafting. Mainly bronze at this point.), as well as redistributing the harvest.) arose out of neccessity. It was neccessary for survival/prosperity in this hostile area.(It seems obvious that the more organized groups displaced/assimilated the less organized groups eventually resulting in fairly populous kingdoms with a stratified social system.) So you can see that stressors(The need to organize and compete with neighboring peoples in this case) caused a positive change in the way we behave and our culture functions.((This is debatable. Many believe that small bands like those present in new guinea are better off/happier than us overworked, suicidal industrial/agriculteralists.) These "Happier" New Guineans are still lithic era for the most part(They have been affected greatly by exposure to industrial nations.) and have a leader who doesn't really wield the authority of a despot or king.)

So the change that we need(Whatever it may be) will likely be brought about by stressors not by the actions of farsighted individuals or groups. Exactly what needs to change is difficult to say but I believe it will take a near cataclysm for us to begin a positive cultural shift toward our goal.

Definately a more egalitarian system could be a step in the right direction.(One in which wealth is distributed based on the merits of ones labor I'd say. I don't really believe in hereditary wealth(I know this is hard to imagine in our capitalist economy. The problem I have with our system is that its stratified social structure still resembles that of a despotism, oligarchy, or monarchy. Those born with land and capital can use it to create profit without putting forth any real contribution to our society.(Other than risking the land and capital which I think should be communal property. Yes I'm a socialists. Too many people discard this type of government based on past failures. These failures were brought about because those in power(I'm thinking of the Soviet Union and Cuba) chose not to create an actual socialist state(One with equal rights/authority and wealth distribution) but instead to create a despotism/oligarchy which merely masquarades as a socialist state.) I envision a world in which everyone is born equal and the only distinctions are based on how hard we are willing to work(Ex. some still perform labor tasks. Some become engineers/etc and get more pay. The difference in wealth distribution between these two should only be enough to motivate enough people to want to become competent engineers/etc while allowing laborers to live comfortably on their wages.(I have an alternative solution if there is no longer much need for higher education or too many people seek it in place of labor positions. Each person spends some of their time at labor tasks and some at higher minded tasks.)). The system would also need to be egalitarian in regard to authority and political power. It's hard to create a system which satisfies this requirement. I'd say we'd need better technology first. A way for everyone to vote quikly on every issue(A true democracy, not the corrupt and near useless republic we live in.) as well as a police/military system in which oprression could not occur(I'm imagining something like a memory tap or surveilence feed here. If you have a complaint against an officer or soldier you could report it with clear, uncompromisable evidence and have the matter dealt with accordingly.).

The obvious flaw I think is of course that natural selection has encouraged us to be greedy/selfish/cowards(Brave people get killed). The fact that we're all individually cowards means that we only feel confortable acting as a group. And of course that group will make poor decisions(Like creating our current government/economic system). And as individuals we're definately not gonna rock the boat even though most americans will pretty well agree on things that they want done(Stop government corruption, end social stratification, etc.).

Might have a little more to say later just wantin to see what you guys think. I seem to reiterate things I've mentioned in other posts. Sorry about that my logic system doesn't make much sense in bits and pieces and I hate going off on tangents about one subject when I'm discussing another.

[VanReal]

While I think I understand what you are talking about here I am not sure how natural selection is involved.  It sounds like you have an issue with the way society has developed and the type of government and economic organizations we have created.  I don't really see any natural selection in this, as I reserve that for biological changes affecting the ability to survive/thrive rather than a result of societal decisions/functions.

The only part that I can say I agree with you regarding what you would like to see is that people working in unskilled labor positions should be able to live comfortably from that work.  I don't think people that work full-time should have to scrape by or seek government assistance to simply survive...working one full-time job should afford you the ability to thrive and provide for your family.  However, I do not think that people should not be able to own land, inherit property and capital, or earn a higher wage for skilled careers or market niches that afford them higher income.  I understand the idea behind socialism but I don't agree with it and think that capitalism provides for motivation to invent, create, work hard, educate, and so on.  It's keeps things progressing.  If I could earn a good wage, one close to all others, while grabbing carts in a parking lot or greeting shoppers rather than spending eight years of my life in medical school and then work grueling hours and have to continue education to keep up with my field, why would I want to exert all of that effort if it was only a little more than my greeter/cart grabber job where I could spend my free-time on hobbies or other personal interests?  I am not talking about persons that can not obtain higher education and/or careers because of any disability, medical or mental, but strictly people that could do either and do not have a genuine passion for something.  I know a lot of people who are generally lazy and content to just get by, and if I know many there are many out there that I don't know.  In order to believe that would work would be to assume that people, in general, are internally motivated.  (Reminds me of star trek where people work and study out of desire alone since there is no money.  Great idea, but only works in fantasy land.) Of course I am a capitalist and our views are in direct opposition so I am not expecting an agreement here.

Either way, whatever system of government and economy we choose I don't see how that relates to natural selection.  And developing a pure democracy in a country/state with the population we have in the US would be tantamount to a stand still in any progress or movement in our society.  Having everyone come out to vote on every item would not be efficient to say the least.  Not to mention we are to assume that everyone can make informed decisions on every topic to provide an accurate and valid vote?  I'm not even that self-absorbed to think I should be voting on everything, there are many things that I don't know enough about to provide a valuable vote on...I'm comfortable with representatives being voted in, that way I can cherry pick things of interest to me and don't have to worry about the others.

[Prometheus]

About the natural selection, I believe that cultural traits(Memes I've come to understand) are discarded/reinforced based on the same principles as genetic traits. If it is adventagious to not eat pork(Maybe the pork is full of pathogens and can kill if cooked improperly) the trait of not eating pork will become popular(As those without this trait would seem to die off).

I agree with your views regarding motivation to seek higher education and innovate. I made note of how a socialist system might motivate its citizens to do these things without creating the extremely unbalanced/unjust classes we see today. I'm not in favor of a purely socialist state. I dislike the idea of state owned property and of complete equality.

You bring up a good point about democracy. Especially about the presence of an informed public. I could see another problem where say 99 percent of a population  wanted something that favored them while greatly disfavoring the other 1 percent. Democracy is in its nature oppressive. I just dislike our current systems impotence. There are things that clearly should be changed(I believe the majority of Americans would be in agreement with these.). Government overspending, lack of trade regulation, lack of accountability(For political leaders etc. Think of when Reagan pardoned Nixon.), etc. But we are powerless to get these things done it seems.

[DIY 1138]

Deleted by poster

[VanReal]

About the natural selection, I believe that cultural traits(Memes I've come to understand) are discarded/reinforced based on the same principles as genetic traits. If it is adventagious to not eat pork(Maybe the pork is full of pathogens and can kill if cooked improperly) the trait of not eating pork will become popular(As those without this trait would seem to die off).

Makes perfect sense.

You bring up a good point about democracy. Especially about the presence of an informed public. I could see another problem where say 99 percent of a population  wanted something that favored them while greatly disfavoring the other 1 percent. Democracy is in its nature oppressive. I just dislike our current systems impotence. There are things that clearly should be changed(I believe the majority of Americans would be in agreement with these.). Government overspending, lack of trade regulation, lack of accountability(For political leaders etc. Think of when Reagan pardoned Nixon.), etc. But we are powerless to get these things done it seems.

Yes, it's frustrating but at the same time there are people that are perfectly happy with how things are going.  I see them everyday as I drive to work.  Because we are so diverse and what's good for the goose chokes the gander and vice versa we kind of flounder for a while until change can happen.  There are also so many issues to involve one's self with that it's impossible to keep up with it all.  Things slip through the cracks because our focus is off of one important issue and on another, and that's true of government, our involvement in it and quite frankly true all the way down to the family unit and personal level.  I sometimes have trouble keeping everything straight at home when all I have is school, work taking care of my son, paying bills, and taking care of my cats.  I missed my dentist appointment last month and now might end up with a cavity because I haven't had my teeth cleaned and haven't been flossing  :eek2:

[MattParsons]

Any ideas about this one? There are so many flaws here, most of which likely resulted from natural selection(Sort of a tragedy of the commons situation in which nature encourages us to be greedy and kill off our rivals. Damn Epsilons. Kidding I love those slackjawed bastards).

A tragedy of the commons only occurs on: commons.  So eliminating commons eliminates the tragedy.

I have several primary flaws to address. Which all basically lead to one inevitable concern. Can we change? Should be change? Will history continue as always(In a state of fluxuating chaos.) or will we finally learn to live in harmony with the universe and ourselves?(Create a utopia. Can such a thing truly exist? I know Moore wrote the book as a satire but I can't help thinking that such a thing can be done.)

Absolutely, we can change.  Human history has been just that...  Humans changing, and for the better for the most part ( The Dark Ages and the emergence of secular collectivism in the 19-20th centuries being the exception ).

Let me start off by talking about stressors. Stressors are what instigate adaptation, they typically come from the environment and other species within said environment. I'll give you an example. In mesopotamia at the dawn of civilization(Argueably. Not much is certain here.), agriculture and kingship emerged together. The two concepts sort of twine together as neither can really exist for very long without the other. You see, mesopotamia was a vibrant river valley at this time(I'm pretty sure it is Iraq and Iran now. I don't have new maps. Oddysseus' maps were propably newer than the ones I have. kidding lol.). A perfect place for civilization to spring up. The humans here eventaully started planting and harvesting crops and slowly small nations(Little more than tribal despotisms for a while) sprouted up. The reason given for this by experts is that kingship(An ordered and organized social system capable of commanding labor(For irrigation and later the building of city walls), organizing warfare(And weapons crafting. Mainly bronze at this point.), as well as redistributing the harvest.) arose out of neccessity. It was neccessary for survival/prosperity in this hostile area.(It seems obvious that the more organized groups displaced/assimilated the less organized groups eventually resulting in fairly populous kingdoms with a stratified social system.) So you can see that stressors(The need to organize and compete with neighboring peoples in this case) caused a positive change in the way we behave and our culture functions.((This is debatable. Many believe that small bands like those present in new guinea are better off/happier than us overworked, suicidal industrial/agriculteralists.) These "Happier" New Guineans are still lithic era for the most part(They have been affected greatly by exposure to industrial nations.) and have a leader who doesn't really wield the authority of a despot or king.)

I doubt that they're truly happier.  The modern world is by many means similar ( you have to invest a certain amount of time and labor to provide for your life ), but its also very different that the time required for basic survival is vastly smaller, and comforts and luxuries are extremely cheap to us, compared to their relative "cost" in time or labor.

Additionally, if living like that were really better than living in the society we have now, why wouldn't more people do it?

So the change that we need(Whatever it may be) will likely be brought about by stressors not by the actions of farsighted individuals or groups. Exactly what needs to change is difficult to say but I believe it will take a near cataclysm for us to begin a positive cultural shift toward our goal.

Without identifying what needs changing ( or even in what direction ), how can you suppose the degree of a stessor required?

Definately a more egalitarian system could be a step in the right direction.(One in which wealth is distributed based on the merits of ones labor I'd say. I don't really believe in hereditary wealth(I know this is hard to imagine in our capitalist economy.

Do you think it is wrong to give wealth away?  I'm assuming not, if so, why do you think it is wrong to give wealth to your children?  If I earn $100, it is my right to decide what to do with it:  be it save it, burn it, spend it, or give it to my children.

If you do think it is wrong to give wealth away... Well, you're more selfish than I  

The problem I have with our system is that its stratified social structure still resembles that of a despotism, oligarchy, or monarchy. Those born with land and capital can use it to create profit without putting forth any real contribution to our society.

Is this necessarily bad?  What is profit?  What does that money go to?  Generally when a rich person makes money, they reinvest it in the economy in the form of new jobs or expanded operations, or they spend it outright, which helps by increasing demand.  As long as there is no violation of rights going on, I don't see a problem with this.

(Other than risking the land and capital which I think should be communal property. Yes I'm a socialists. Too many people discard this type of government based on past failures. These failures were brought about because those in power(I'm thinking of the Soviet Union and Cuba) chose not to create an actual socialist state(One with equal rights/authority and wealth distribution) but instead to create a despotism/oligarchy which merely masquarades as a socialist state.)

Socialism requires a massive government.  There is no way to plan or manage an economy the size of a decent nation without it.  A massive government with the power to seize money and goods from anyone, is by its very nature going to generate corrupt rulers.

I envision a world in which everyone is born equal and the only distinctions are based on how hard we are willing to work

I agree completely, this is a great model for a utopian world.

(Ex. some still perform labor tasks. Some become engineers/etc and get more pay. The difference in wealth distribution between these two should only be enough to motivate enough people to want to become competent engineers/etc while allowing laborers to live comfortably on their wages.(I have an alternative solution if there is no longer much need for higher education or too many people seek it in place of labor positions. Each person spends some of their time at labor tasks and some at higher minded tasks.)).

In order to implement this, you need a few things:
1) Who decides how much wealth is worth being an engineer over a laborer?  By what standard?  
2) Who decides how much a laborer is worth?  By what standard?  Is a plumber worth more than an electrician?  How about a carpenter?  Ditch digger?  Foreman?  Are these all the same "payrate"?
3) Who decides who decides these things, and what are they paid?  How is this determined, and by who?

Additionally, your plan would have people like Einstein spending a certain amount of time ( how much?  why? ) doing labor ( what kind?  for who?  paid what? ) that they are vastly overqualified for ( ie wasting their time ), and people like your average Joe doing work they would never qualify for, and they would hardly produce good results ( ie wealth ).  It seems enormously inefficient to me, to attempt to plan out the labors of every person individually.  It would require a massive government, or other controlling force, exacting a huge amount of wealth to sustain itself, effectively to waste time and money.

The system would also need to be egalitarian in regard to authority and political power. It's hard to create a system which satisfies this requirement. I'd say we'd need better technology first. A way for everyone to vote quikly on every issue(A true democracy, not the corrupt and near useless republic we live in.)

True democracy is little more than chaos and mob rule.  While I do agree that our current republic has bloated well beyond its usefulness, I think that less people in general and more qualified people should be running things.  The ideal form of government is, after all, a completely benign dictatorship, wherein full free rights are allowed and no major crimes are committed against the people.  Of course, this is simply a fantasy, so a more accountable and realistic form of government needs to be created.

as well as a police/military system in which oprression could not occur(I'm imagining something like a memory tap or surveilence feed here. If you have a complaint against an officer or soldier you could report it with clear, uncompromisable evidence and have the matter dealt with accordingly.).

Very interesting, but I don't know how well that would work.  What if you had a dream where something like that happened?  Or a vivid imagination?  How could you prove that kind of information reliably, except by constantly monitoring and recording every single individual's thoughts and memories ( a HUGE rights violation if I've ever heard of one ).  Additionally, if oppression actually were to occur, it would probably be by the same organization that would be fielding the complaints, and they'd either be ignored or covered up.