patriarchy, a problem.

[joal0503]

its not like im some sort of feminist movement crazy...i tend to see a lot of negatives within the movement itself...but...

i read something like this:

History is ending because the dominator culture has led the human species into a blind alley, and as the inevitable chaostrophie approaches, people look for metaphors and answers. Every time a culture gets into trouble it casts itself back into the past looking for the last sane moment it ever knew. And the last sane moment we ever knew was on the plains of Africa 15,000 years ago rocked in the cradle of the Great Horned Mushroom Goddess before history, before standing armies, before slavery and property, before warfare and phonetic alphabets and monotheism, before, before, before. And this is where the future is taking us because the secret faith of the twentieth century is not modernism, the secret faith of the twentieth century is nostalgia for the archaic, nostalgia for the paleolithic, and that gives us body piercing, abstract expressionism, surrealism, jazz, rock-n-roll and catastrophe theory. The 20th century mind is nostalgic for the paradise that once existed on the mushroom dotted plains of Africa where the plant-human symbiosis occurred that pulled us out of the animal body and into the tool-using, culture-making, imagination-exploring creature that we are. And why does this matter? It matters because it shows that the way out is back and that the future is a forward escape into the past

and it makes sense

thoughts? (yes im crazy)

 

[Duxwing]

Life before man's ascent into technology was far more brutal than we'd like to imagine. Disease, abuse, deadly tribal clashes, unmitigated natural disasters, all of these and more plagued the people of the paleolithic. To return to the actual past would be devastating, horrifying, and a dark mark upon the story of mankind; more pertinently, the past led to the future, so going directly backwards is foolish. Rather, we long for an imagined, idyllic past, whose unrealistic simplicity would serve as a relief from the complex, demanding lives that we've led since the dawn of time. In other words, we want to live in a story book.

And the only way to do that is via AI, a product of diligent computer science, and more importantly, the modern world. So onward, I say, for the crucible shall leave us stronger.

-Duxwing

 

[Da Blob]

Despite all the liberal dreams and policies to the contrary, human society always has been and perhaps always will be one dominated by the Oppressor/Oppressed relationship. I have always been bemused at the hypocrisy of those who advocate Darwinism as the driving force of change, but then somehow can totally discount Social Darwinism. Is it not a fact, that Darwinism/evolution is invalidated, if Social Darwinism is not the outcome of the breeding of the 'survival of the fittest'? The genetic advantage that allows an individual to adapt, also allows adaptation to the nth generation of that individual's progeny.

There is also this...

Social dominance theory (SDT) is a theory of intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies.[1] According to the theory, group-based inequalities are maintained through three primary intergroup behaviors—specifically: institutional discrimination, aggregated individual discrimination, and behavioral asymmetry. SDT proposes that widely shared cultural ideologies (i.e., legitimizing myths) provide the moral and intellectual justification for these intergroup behaviors. There are two functional types of legitimizing myths: (1) hierarchy-enhancing and (2) hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths. Hierarchy-enhancing ideologies (e.g., racism and nationalism) contribute to greater levels of group-based inequality. Hierarchy-attenuating ideologies (e.g., socialism and feminism) contribute to greater levels of group-based equality. People endorse these different forms of ideologies based in part on their psychological orientation toward dominance and their desire for unequal group relations (i.e., their social dominance orientation; SDO). People who are higher on SDO tend to endorse hierarchy-enhancing ideologies, and people who are lower on SDO tend to endorse hierarchy-attenuating ideologies. SDT finally proposes that the relative counterbalancing of hierarchy-enhancing and -attenuating social forces stabilizes group-based inequality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory

Conclusion

Based on the criticism above, it is time to question where SDT stands with regard to psychological research. It is claimed so far in this article that SDT has such implications that cause one to misleadingly believe that hierarchical relationships within human communities will persist forever.
This implication seems to be inherent in SD theorists arguments due to the way the gender and age systems are defined operationally. When the arguments of SDT are followed, it becomes hard to think of the possibility that the tendency of human beings to form group-based hierarchies will change some time. Rather, the theory begins with the idea that humankind is moving from viciousness to viciousness throughout the changing eras. Such way of thinking is important for psychological research. First, it may lead a clinical or community psychologist to question what the use of making any intervention is, if it is the case that people have such a tendency to move towards viciousness. Secondly, it will alter the perspective of a social psychologist who examines the relation between the society and individuals.

http://jeps.efpsa.org/index.php/jeps/article/viewArticle/23/38

LOL, talk about the process of 'legitimizing myths', that seems to be the major function of many liberals in academia, the truth be damned if it conflicts with the dreams of the Feminists or those who view all intelligent discrimination as maladaptive perception.

Humans compete for the limited resources of this world. The competition is not obvious and not 'fair', because those who win, usually do so by a large margin and the losers are ignored and left to suffer and die, as if they never existed.

Can it really be any other way in a Darwinian system?

 

[TriflinThomas]

Yes, it s a problem. Almost all men try to assert their in the company of other men. Men don't like to be seen as "weak," so they overcompensate with violence.

 

[Amagi82]

Life before man's ascent into technology was far more brutal than we'd like to imagine. Disease, abuse, deadly tribal clashes, unmitigated natural disasters, all of these and more plagued the people of the paleolithic. To return to the actual past would be devastating, horrifying, and a dark mark upon the story of mankind; more pertinently, the past led to the future, so going directly backwards is foolish. Rather, we long for an imagined, idyllic past, whose unrealistic simplicity would serve as a relief from the complex, demanding lives that we've led since the dawn of time. In other words, we want to live in a story book.

^ This.

What we should be doing is using technology to seek harmony with nature. We need to expunge capitalism and the very concept of money if we ever want to achieve this peace and harmony. Only then can we use technology to free humankind from the drudgery of repetitive labor and allow us to use our minds to create things of efficiency and beauty.

 

[Duxwing]

Despite all the liberal dreams and policies to the contrary, human society always has been and perhaps always will be one dominated by the Oppressor/Oppressed relationship. I have always been bemused at the hypocrisy of those who advocate Darwinism as the driving force of change, but then somehow can totally discount Social Darwinism. Is it not a fact, that Darwinism/evolution is invalidated, if Social Darwinism is not the outcome of the breeding of the 'survival of the fittest'? The genetic advantage that allows an individual to adapt, also allows adaptation to the nth generation of that individual's progeny.

There is also this...

-snip-

LOL, talk about the process of 'legitimizing myths', that seems to be the major function of many liberals in academia, the truth be damned if it conflicts with the dreams of the Feminists or those who view all intelligent discrimination as maladaptive perception.

Are you criticizing all liberals, feminists, and egalitarians, or just members of those groups whose opinions and actions, in your opinion, go far beyond the pale?

Humans compete for the limited resources of this world. The competition is not obvious and not 'fair', because those who win, usually do so by a large margin and the losers are ignored and left to suffer and die, as if they never existed.

Can it really be any other way in a Darwinian system?

Not to sound trite, but one must consider the power of friendship and other such social bonds whilst determining whether all humans are inherently cutthroat, ruthless, and brutal all the time. You see, under normal circumstances, most wouldn't steal candy from a baby. The candy is unnecessary for a greater aim, like personal or group survival, and is thus regarded as a luxury that the baby ought to keep. Of course, if we were to put humans in an anarchic situation wherein the activities of sociopathic leader-types remains unchecked, then we would see greater, but not necessarily boundless (as in, everyone is an omnicidal maniac), brutality. Even apes groom each others' backs.

-Duxwing

 

[snafupants]

Every time a culture gets into trouble it casts itself back into the past looking for the last sane moment it ever knew.

I initially wanted to dispute this but I believe, upon reflection, it may be right. Revolutionaries ostensibly oppose/subvert wealth inequity and tyranny (power inequity) and revert to, or seek to revert to, harmoniousness and democracy from bygone years. There is something to this archaic revival notion. Heavy-handed male ethos certainly needs some softening.

 

[Vrecknidj]

So how much of this "patriarchy" thing, and commentary about oppression, etc., is really about human culture?

What I mean is this...

In virtually every primate species, there are male-female dynamics that vary in all sort of ways. There are some dominant females, but, for the most part, except in some species and in some cases, the male is dominant. Surely this has nothing to do with any of the many human oppression arguments along lines like economics or religion.

Also, in most mammals generally, a "family" is a mother and her cubs. There's a reason we see "mamma bear and the baby bears" but no "papa" bear in that family. For the most part, the males impregnate females and then abandon them. So, again, this tendency among humans isn't something new to our species.

Much (I could content most) of the things that so many of us talk about as oppressive or abandoning or other "bad" ways that males treat females in human cultures have analogs that predate our species.

So, isn't this whole thing really, REALLY old? It's not like this has come about only in the past few hundred or few thousand years. This has been happening for millions of years.

We may be far worse about how we do it, and we may do it en masse, but, it's not like this problem is a new problem.

 

[Cognisant]

Can it really be any other way in a Darwinian system?

If society were sufficiently unified that we all shared equally the successes and failures of each indervidual there would be no competition as we would all be in the same proverbial boat.

Spoiler

Of course nobody wants to be in the same boat as all the world's morons.

 

[snafupants]

So how much of this "patriarchy" thing, and commentary about oppression, etc., is really about human culture?

What I mean is this...

In virtually every primate species, there are male-female dynamics that vary in all sort of ways. There are some dominant females, but, for the most part, except in some species and in some cases, the male is dominant. Surely this has nothing to do with any of the many human oppression arguments along lines like economics or religion.

Also, in most mammals generally, a "family" is a mother and her cubs. There's a reason we see "mamma bear and the baby bears" but no "papa" bear in that family. For the most part, the males impregnate females and then abandon them. So, again, this tendency among humans isn't something new to our species.

Much (I could content most) of the things that so many of us talk about as oppressive or abandoning or other "bad" ways that males treat females in human cultures have analogs that predate our species.

So, isn't this whole thing really, REALLY old? It's not like this has come about only in the past few hundred or few thousand years. This has been happening for millions of years.

We may be far worse about how we do it, and we may do it en masse, but, it's not like this problem is a new problem.

Male, in the psychosociological sense, is dialectically applied to mean aggressive, destructive, and brutish. Ergo, Japanese culture may actually possess a more feminine flow or attitude than US culture, which seems hellbent on expansion and brinksmanship; perhaps this martial bellicosity can be likened to male, primordial sexuality in its scope and intensity. Let's see - I'm not sure what your post is attempting to accomplish in terms of invoking primatology but, adjudicating the culture itself, industrialization and business politics definitely constitute a male, yang energy.

 

[Da Blob]

Not to sound trite, but one must consider the power of friendship and other such social bonds whilst determining whether all humans are inherently cutthroat, ruthless, and brutal all the time. You see, under normal circumstances, most wouldn't steal candy from a baby. The candy is unnecessary for a greater aim, like personal or group survival, and is thus regarded as a luxury that the baby ought to keep. Of course, if we were to put humans in an anarchic situation wherein the activities of sociopathic leader-types remains unchecked, then we would see greater, but not necessarily boundless (as in, everyone is an omnicidal maniac), brutality. Even apes groom each others' backs.

-Duxwing

Dave
So how much of this "patriarchy" thing, and commentary about oppression, etc., is really about human culture?

What I mean is this...

In virtually every primate species, there are male-female dynamics that vary in all sort of ways. There are some dominant females, but, for the most part, except in some species and in some cases, the male is dominant. Surely this has nothing to do with any of the many human oppression arguments along lines like economics or religion.

Also, in most mammals generally, a "family" is a mother and her cubs. There's a reason we see "mamma bear and the baby bears" but no "papa" bear in that family. For the most part, the males impregnate females and then abandon them. So, again, this tendency among humans isn't something new to our species.

Much (I could content most) of the things that so many of us talk about as oppressive or abandoning or other "bad" ways that males treat females in human cultures have analogs that predate our species.

So, isn't this whole thing really, REALLY old? It's not like this has come about only in the past few hundred or few thousand years. This has been happening for millions of years.

We may be far worse about how we do it, and we may do it en masse, but, it's not like this problem is a new problem.

Humans tend to form Us against Them identities, with Us necessarily being superior to Them. While there has been some political rantings that there is an US versus Them orientation in male-female relationships, I do not know if such a hypothesis should be given as much credence as it has been in the context of the history of group dynamics. Those of Us, regardless of sex, have always been treated better than those of Them.

As duxwing has alluded Humans are social animals, with dual identities- an individual Identity and a social identity. The problem seems to be that too many do not care about individual identity, but are quite satisfied dealing with the vast majority of humanity as stereotyped members of one group of Them or another, with often just a single common trait serving to define all members of a group of THEM. Two gangs identical to one another, but one wears red and the other blue are currently at war in the inner cities of America, fighting for the limited resources that The Street has to offer. How can this be explained, except in terms of the criticized Social Dominance Theory?

Crud, a gang of the modern era would just be a tribe in a previous era, or perhaps a troupe in an era before that. There is a history of patriarchal tribes working for the benefit of all members, while there is little or no history of matriarchy working as well. So if we have to choose between a traditional patriarchy and the proposed matriarchy of the liberals, which hierarchy stands the best chance of success in a world dominated by heartless multinational gangs/corporations/tribes?

As far as the idyllic Past, One often can see one's own childhood as idyllic if compared to life as an adult. It is easy to extrapolate this from an individual history to the species history. However, it seems as though one characteristic of the idyllic is a freedom from stress. There has never been a generation free from stress, just the occasional individual who has learn to avoid or deal with the unavoidable stresses of life. These few are counted amongst the Wise. There is no reason that a human today can not also learn to be wise and live stress-free in a 'stressfull' world...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

^ This.

What we should be doing is using technology to seek harmony with nature. We need to expunge capitalism and the very concept of money if we ever want to achieve this peace and harmony. Only then can we use technology to free humankind from the drudgery of repetitive labor and allow us to use our minds to create things of efficiency and beauty.

I think you should acquaint yourself with the a field of inquiry called economics.

 

[snafupants]

What we should be doing is using technology to seek harmony with nature.

In many ways technology-rich industrialized society and ludditic stone age jungle are diametrically opposed. Why do you need technology to achieve yesteryear's harmony?

We need to expunge capitalism and the very concept of money if we ever want to achieve this peace and harmony.

What would replace contemporary currency? Would civilization revert to the barter system?

Only then can we use technology to free humankind from the drudgery of repetitive labor and allow us to use our minds to create things of efficiency and beauty.

Only then? Not really. Ethical practices may be married with more stimulating vocations. The world is becoming more complex, the jobs will too.

How about an inheritance? The lotto? Better job? Living on a budget? Living in a different country with deflation and more spending power? Wouldn't one have the occupational freedom for creations of "efficiency and beauty" then? What's stopping you from molding those ideas now?

See, emphasis on a golden age is usually a stalling tactic for big egos and small minds.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

In many ways technology-rich industrialized society and ludditic stone age jungle are diametrically opposed. Why do you need technology to achieve yesteryear's harmony?

Reality of the matter is opposed to what people commonly think. Technology-rich industrialized societies have a less of an impact on the environment than third world societies. This is due to how they extract resources (wood as a fuel not fossil fuels), primitive agricultural practices, lack of sound waste management, etc. Only as society becomes more wealthy and technologically advanced, people are able to afford to mitigate their impact on the environment.

 

[snafupants]

Reality of the matter is opposed to what people commonly think. Technology-rich industrialized societies have a less of an impact on the environment than third world societies. This is due to how they extract resources (wood as a fuel not fossil fuels), primitive agricultural practices, lack of sound waste management, etc. Only as society becomes more wealthy and technologically advanced, people are able to afford to mitigate their impact on the environment.

I actually knew that but I'm interested in the psychological rather than ecological impact.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

As for patriarchy, I don't think it exists. In general, men don't have an bias towards men and a bias against women. Men simply have a greater frequency of characteristics that would be desirable in a leader. Though, this is not a generality. Some leadership positions of social institutions prefer characteristics which women have greater frequency of having. We're no longer living in a brutal age where such conditions specifically favored the general male physiology. These days any discrepancies between men as a whole and women as a whole are do to the typical choices that the individuals in both sets make. Conclusion, there is no problem.

 

[snafupants]

We're no longer living in a brutal age where such conditions specifically favored the general male physiology.

That's a hopeful thought.

These days any discrepancies between men as a whole and women as a whole are do to the typical choices that the individuals in both sets make.

The feminists must love you.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The feminists must love you.

I am not a chauvinist so they don't love me as much as I would like.

 

[snafupants]

I am not a chauvinist so they don't love me as much as I would like.

Pseudo-literate carpet munchers anyway.

 

[Cognisant]

In "Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker" the take-no-nonsense AI researcher Dr Strangelove explains her opinion that the female mind is a better model for developing advanced AIs because the characteristics that make the human mind superior to a computer, abilities like empathy, intuition and dynamic multitasking are better developed in females than in males.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

... the female mind is a better model for developing advanced AIs because the characteristics that make the human mind superior to a computer, abilities like empathy, intuition and dynamic multitasking are better developed in females than in males.

Is this true? If so, by what magnitude?

I have not researched this myself hence why I am asking.

 

[Cognisant]

Hard to say if it's true or not, with the same hardware and different parameters (the female AI has more biases, the male has less, these genders of course being completely arbitrary) it's possible that the female's greater sophistication could make it more effective at high level functions like empathy, intuition and dynamic multitasking, but likewise the male would be better at simpler processes, just like how computers are better than us at some things and we're better than computers at some things, basically there's a trade off.

Again I stress these genders are arbitrary, unless someone can prove that the female brain experiences a broader range of emotions than the male brain the analogy is just that, an arguably chauvinistic analogy.

 

[Cognisant]

in·tu·i·tion**
Noun
The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.
Synonyms
insight - instinct

 

[Amagi82]

I think you should acquaint yourself with the a field of inquiry called economics.

I am very familiar with the concept. The root of the word means, essentially, to use resources efficiently. In colloquial usage, it refers to our current system, which is designed to waste as much as possible as rapidly as possible.

We design products to fail. We build enormous amounts of useless shit. We intentionally build lesser quality products because it's "cheap", and you can sell it more frequently. That's not an economy- that's an anti-economy.

 

[Amagi82]

In many ways technology-rich industrialized society and ludditic stone age jungle are diametrically opposed. Why do you need technology to achieve yesteryear's harmony?

What would replace contemporary currency? Would civilization revert to the barter system?

Only then? Not really. Ethical practices may be married with more stimulating vocations. The world is becoming more complex, the jobs will too.

How about an inheritance? The lotto? Better job? Living on a budget? Living in a different country with deflation and more spending power? Wouldn't one have the occupational freedom for creations of "efficiency and beauty" then? What's stopping you from molding those ideas now?

See, emphasis on a golden age is usually a stalling tactic for big egos and small minds.

1) Harmony with nature and the benefits of technology on making our lives easier and more productive CAN co-exist.

2) Currency and barter is irrelevant in a society capable of automating everything the society needs to function. We've reached that point- we're just not taking advantage of it, because we're stuck in an older, outdated model.

3) Our current system is inefficient and socially harmful. This isn't the result of some corrupt leader or human nature- it's the result of a flawed system. A system that hasn't been updated to cohere with advances in technology. How much crime would there be in a society where all human needs were provided automatically, to everyone? Where property was irrelevant? You could easily eliminate 90+% of jobs in such a society, and the remaining work could be spread out so people might have to work 5-10 hours a week on average to keep society functioning.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I am very familiar with the concept. The root of the word means, essentially, to use resources efficiently. In colloquial usage, it refers to our current system, which is designed to waste as much as possible as rapidly as possible.

We design products to fail. We build enormous amounts of useless shit. We intentionally build lesser quality products because it's "cheap", and you can sell it more frequently. That's not an economy- that's an anti-economy.

I take this as you saying that you're not going to aquatint yourself with the field of inquiry. FrostFern may despise me for this but a quote of Rothbard is quite applicable:

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

 

[Amagi82]

I take this as you saying that you're not going to aquatint yourself with the field of inquiry. FrostFern may despise me for this but a quote of Rothbard is quite applicable:

I take it you have difficulty grasping subjects outside your mental paradigm. You assume I do not understand modern economics because I reject it. That is a fallacy.

 

[Da Blob]

Hard to say if it's true or not, with the same hardware and different parameters (the female AI has more biases, the male has less, these genders of course being completely arbitrary) it's possible that the female's greater sophistication could make it more effective at high level functions like empathy, intuition and dynamic multitasking, but likewise the male would be better at simpler processes, just like how computers are better than us at some things and we're better than computers at some things, basically there's a trade off.

Again I stress these genders are arbitrary, unless someone can prove that the female brain experiences a broader range of emotions than the male brain the analogy is just that, an arguably chauvinistic analogy.

Umm, not really, there is a basic orientation that could be 'hardwired' into the psyche of the female. It is a matter of identity. It seems as if the female social identity trumps personal identity, so that a female is set up to be the focus/origin of a family, the most simple of societies. "We" is a concept that most females embrace easily.

A cross cultural study of parental roles showed a pervasive difference between male and females, which may result in or be caused by a neurological adaptation.

A word of caution about the proposed female A. I.. If it is truly female it's prime motive will be to create more advanced progeny and then advance their agendas at the cost of Others...

Think Queen Bee on a grand scale...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

I take it you have difficulty grasping subjects outside your mental paradigm. You assume I do not understand modern economics because I reject it. That is a fallacy.

Understanding a subject is predicted by having knowledge of the subject. You have no knowledge and hence, you can't possibly understand.

 

[jachian]

Yes, it s a problem. Almost all men try to assert their in the company of other men. Men don't like to be seen as "weak," so they overcompensate with violence.

And women dont do the same thing?

 

[snafupants]

And women dont do the same thing?

The fairer sex, indeed, proves a more timelessly elegant ballet of perfection and painful pulchritude than the brutish and hirsute male abomination which plunders and subjugates to achieve its ends.

 

[Amagi82]

Understanding a subject is predicted by having knowledge of the subject. You have no knowledge and hence, you can't possibly understand.

And you assume I have no knowledge of the subject... because?

Also, you're missing the point.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

And you assume I have no knowledge of the subject... because?

"Let's get rid of money."

 

[Amagi82]

"Let's get rid of money."

Yes?


I might also say "Let's get rid of religion". Does that mean I don't understand religion?

Understanding does not equal approval.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Yes?


I might also say "Let's get rid of religion". Does that mean I don't understand religion?

Understanding does not equal approval.

You and I both know that you know fuck all about the subject. Ok, for the public, let's test your knowledge. What role does money play in the economy? What does the occurrence of money allow?

Try and resist googling the answers.

 

[Amagi82]

You and I both know that you know fuck all about the subject. Ok, for the public, let's test your knowledge. What role does money play in the economy? What does the occurrence of money allow?

Try and resist googling the answers.

Okay, your question is rather vague, so I'll take certain liberties in my response, but off the top of my head:

Money is a means of quantifying the value of goods and services, originally created to improve upon early systems of barter. Early money took various forms (cacao beans being an example in one culture), and ended up consisting primarily of gold or silver coin. Around the early 1900s, we gradually disassociated gold and silver from money, making the value of the now paper bills more ethereal- the only value our money today has is based on our own belief in it. Money today exists for largely the same reason it always has, and is arguably a necessity in a scarcity-based economic model.

On a more practical level, the intent of a system of monetary exchange is to attempt to ensure individuals perform the work necessary for society to function, and to reward people for contributing more to society.

Unfortunately, in reality, money doesn't work as well as it does in theory. I'll continue this in another post if you have interest.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Okay, your question is rather vague, so I'll take certain liberties in my response, but off the top of my head:

Money is a means of quantifying the value of goods and services, originally created to improve upon early systems of barter. Early money took various forms (cacao beans being an example in one culture), and ended up consisting primarily of gold or silver coin. Around the early 1900s, we gradually disassociated gold and silver from money, making the value of the now paper bills more ethereal- the only value our money today has is based on our own belief in it. Money today exists for largely the same reason it always has, and is arguably a necessity in a scarcity-based economic model.

On a more practical level, the intent of a system of monetary exchange is to attempt to ensure individuals perform the work necessary for society to function, and to reward people for contributing more to society.

In short, money is a medium of exchange ie. it allows for indirect transactions to take place. This is the reason why is exists. Money is divisible, thus it can be used as a unit of account in more sophisticated economic calculation and price determination. It can be used to more accurately quantify interest. Money allows for greater specialization in production vis a vis division of labor. Greater specialization is achieved to due to the fact that people see value in holding money and hence this allows others to hire people in exchange for money rather than produce. Ergo, they can properly calculate profit/loss and in turn, allocate resources better.

Without money, you could not possible have an economy as sophisticated as we currently do have. If you get rid of money, you will essentially starve to death 99.999999% of the population.

Unfortunately, in reality, money doesn't work as well as it does in theory. I'll continue this in another post if you have interest.

Money is doesn't work as well as it does in theory? Lol, what? Money did not spawn out of theory, it is an product of the market.

 

[Amagi82]

Without money, you could not possible have an economy as sophisticated as we currently do have. If you get rid of money, you will essentially starve to death 99.999999% of the population.

That is speculation at best, and people who claim things are "not possible" throughout history have a habit of making asses of themselves. The way our current society is set up requires money to function. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not a society of a different design could function properly without money.

Money is doesn't work as well as it does in theory? Lol, what? Money did not spawn out of theory, it is an product of the market.

Money is a concept created by humans. It's an idea. If you seriously think the monetary system is a good idea, I suggest you look up "fractional reserve banking" and how it operates.


How could a society function without money?

Let's break it down to a city level, using present-day technology. We build a new city, using the best technology and materials we can. Construct it in a circular format, with automated maglev trains/trams running in an efficient pattern around it. Do this properly and automobiles are unnecessary, and you can travel anywhere in the city using very little energy in minutes. Automate the construction of housing units. Automate food production and harvesting in indoor farms. Automate the manufacture of goods, to the maximum degree it is possible with current technology, and construct them with the best available materials so they last. Automate cleaning machines. Automate the transportation of goods around the city. Automate the preparation of food, and allow people to choose which housing unit they wish to live in on a first come-first served basis. Design all goods to be recycled/composted when at the end of their useful life. For higher-end items like boats, set them up so people can check them out at allotted times. Cover as much as possible with solar panels, and add wind generators and geothermal power plants. Continue this mentality throughout the design process of the city. Then, build similar cities and connect all of them with automated high speed vactrains. Eliminate problems by design.

Using this method, we can make all goods and services free. There's no point in charging for things that are completely automated and available as simply as air is for breathing. There's no point in hording wealth, because wealth no longer exists. Crime virtually disappears, because there is no point in theft, and no social strife based upon poverty or differential advantage. 80-95% of jobs are eliminated, and the remaining are more fulfilling, because pretty much anything repetitive can be automated. Rather than have a 90% unemployment rate, simply reduce the amount of hours expected of people. I guarantee people will gladly pitch in and help out in a society that actually takes care of them. We can drop waste down to nearly zero, stop destroying our planet, and finally start to catch social improvement up with technological improvement. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not- nothing created by humans ever is, but we can always work to make things better.

 

[Paranoid Android]

Men simply have a greater frequency of characteristics that would be desirable in a leader. Though, this is not a generality. Some leadership positions of social institutions prefer characteristics which women have greater frequency of having.

Okay, but why do they have those characteristics? What about nurturing women to be more caring, more sensitive, being the only member of the family who has to stay at home, taking care of the kids? What about men who are nurtured to be less sensitive, more cool-headed, and so on?

In my country (Hungary) lots of men are chauvinists, and people have an interesting theory about not having a child if you are a woman. Or having an active sexual life if you are a woman (without a boyfriend/husband). They will automatically say you are a wh0re, but if you are a man, it's normal and okay (though today you can find people modern and pragmatic enough to accept sexual equality and free will...) I don't know how these things work in other countries like the US or Northern European countries (I heard in Scandinavian countries it's a routine now to let the father stay home with the kids, while the mother's working). Here, we don't have the same routines [though fathers can have the same money-support, women get less payment, than men (for the same job). Yeah, I know it's not only in Hungary]. There can be differences between women and men brain, but nurturing and social stress is really important. And til you can see the effects of it, I can't believe that there is no problem. If you are a male, who has to be less sensitive, or a female, who has to be more sensitive, then no, it's not okay. If you are forced to be a mother, who stays at home, sensitive, caring, butterflies, and if you are the general victim of the 'women are mysteries, women are miracles, the most beautiful thing is being a mother, so you have to be one' propaganda, then no. Same if you are a man who has to hide emotions, and be the cool-headed predator, and the typical narrow-minded "rationalist". I think the most of these characteristics come from this: nurturing, and social dogmas. Maybe this whole propaganda can be originated from basic phenomenas, but everyone has a right to be someone different from the sexroles.

 

[The Introvert]

How could a society function without money?

Let's break it down to a city level, using present-day technology. We build a new city, using the best technology and materials we can. Construct it in a circular format, with automated maglev trains/trams running in an efficient pattern around it. Do this properly and automobiles are unnecessary, and you can travel anywhere in the city using very little energy in minutes. Automate the construction of housing units. Automate food production and harvesting in indoor farms. Automate the manufacture of goods, to the maximum degree it is possible with current technology, and construct them with the best available materials so they last. Automate cleaning machines. Automate the transportation of goods around the city. Automate the preparation of food, and allow people to choose which housing unit they wish to live in on a first come-first served basis. Design all goods to be recycled/composted when at the end of their useful life. For higher-end items like boats, set them up so people can check them out at allotted times. Cover as much as possible with solar panels, and add wind generators and geothermal power plants. Continue this mentality throughout the design process of the city. Then, build similar cities and connect all of them with automated high speed vactrains. Eliminate problems by design.

Using this method, we can make all goods and services free. There's no point in charging for things that are completely automated and available as simply as air is for breathing. There's no point in hording wealth, because wealth no longer exists. Crime virtually disappears, because there is no point in theft, and no social strife based upon poverty or differential advantage. 80-95% of jobs are eliminated, and the remaining are more fulfilling, because pretty much anything repetitive can be automated. Rather than have a 90% unemployment rate, simply reduce the amount of hours expected of people. I guarantee people will gladly pitch in and help out in a society that actually takes care of them. We can drop waste down to nearly zero, stop destroying our planet, and finally start to catch social improvement up with technological improvement. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not- nothing created by humans ever is, but we can always work to make things better.

If I may jump in here...

Your idea is nothing short of a utopia... which by definition is simply an idea. Surely, it's a good idea, but plausible? I think not. Let's step back and think about a few things.

Your entire idea is centralized around a human race in which people will not try to take advantage of the system. The saying goes; "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Somewhat out of context, but the meaning remains: you will always have people causing trouble, and creating chaos in the system.

Where will the inspiration come from? Where will development, technology, the passion to survive come from? If everything is just handed to us, will we fight for more? Why would I bother trying to improve lives if none are in danger? What would be my motivation, if everyone is treated equally? Despite what anyone says, there is a REASON that technology advances, humanity advances. It is never because someone just wanted to do it. There is always some sort of goal in mind (whether it be fame, fortune, spiritual reasons, etc. etc.).

I agree that mainstream economics needs a change. But to suggest removing money would be akin to suggesting that we remove atoms from the universe. The entire system is sustained only because of the faith in currency. You can't just tear down the building blocks - hell - the entire system, especially if you have no alternative. You've given no suggestion as to how the economy would work. Suppose I wanted a fancy hat. How would I go about getting it? Your proposal completely disregards the fact that humans (unlike your system) are not automated, are conscious, (and many times irrational) beings.

Although I do agree with one premise you mentioned, "Eliminate problems by design". With that said, however, it is important to note that money will not be going away... at least any time soon. What would you propose to do with all the people on top? What about all the people that are wealthy, and have power? The only ones that could make your idea possible. I reckon that wealthy people would not be too keen on abandoning their posts at the top of the socio-economic ladder...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

That is speculation at best, and people who claim things are "not possible" throughout history have a habit of making asses of themselves. The way our current society is set up requires money to function. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not a society of a different design could function properly without money.


Money is a concept created by humans. It's an idea. If you seriously think the monetary system is a good idea, I suggest you look up "fractional reserve banking" and how it operates.

I am not a fan of fractional reserve banking under the central banking system. I prefer the classical banking system because it was simply more stable.

How could a society function without money?

Let's break it down to a city level, using present-day technology. We build a new city, using the best technology and materials we can. Construct it in a circular format, with automated maglev trains/trams running in an efficient pattern around it. Do this properly and automobiles are unnecessary, and you can travel anywhere in the city using very little energy in minutes. Automate the construction of housing units. Automate food production and harvesting in indoor farms. Automate the manufacture of goods, to the maximum degree it is possible with current technology, and construct them with the best available materials so they last. Automate cleaning machines. Automate the transportation of goods around the city. Automate the preparation of food, and allow people to choose which housing unit they wish to live in on a first come-first served basis. Design all goods to be recycled/composted when at the end of their useful life. For higher-end items like boats, set them up so people can check them out at allotted times. Cover as much as possible with solar panels, and add wind generators and geothermal power plants. Continue this mentality throughout the design process of the city. Then, build similar cities and connect all of them with automated high speed vactrains. Eliminate problems by design.

Using this method, we can make all goods and services free. There's no point in charging for things that are completely automated and available as simply as air is for breathing. There's no point in hording wealth, because wealth no longer exists. Crime virtually disappears, because there is no point in theft, and no social strife based upon poverty or differential advantage. 80-95% of jobs are eliminated, and the remaining are more fulfilling, because pretty much anything repetitive can be automated. Rather than have a 90% unemployment rate, simply reduce the amount of hours expected of people. I guarantee people will gladly pitch in and help out in a society that actually takes care of them. We can drop waste down to nearly zero, stop destroying our planet, and finally start to catch social improvement up with technological improvement. Will it be perfect? Absolutely not- nothing created by humans ever is, but we can always work to make things better.

Ohh? You're a zeitgeister/venus project advocate. Since you're not a socialist, I am going to be less hostile towards you. I hate to say it, you guys are going to fail in the same respect that the communists did. Hopefully you won't starve to death 40 million Ukrainians in the process. It is the economic calculation conundrum.

You didn't answer your question, How could a society function without money? Obviously you need to stipulate what is going to replace the function of money vis a vis market's price determination mechanism. What is the algorithm you're going to employ such that it allocates scarce resources to their most efficient uses according the subjective valuations of people in society?

As an example: How do you decide whether or not it more economically productive to mine low grade iron ore from a site 100km away at an depth of 1km or high grade iron ore from a site 500km away at a depth of 1.5km? To add greater complexity to the problem, how do you decide what intermediate stages of production the iron ore undergoes and what final products the iron ore are used in? You need some mechanism to help you answer these questions.

Replacing money vis a vis market's price determination vis a vis how it allocates scarce resources is an extremely complex problem. You need to somehow accurately gauge consumer preferences, accurately gauge interest rates, have a physical and financial model of the economy, use some sort of optimization algorithm (the market itself is an optimization algorithm).

I have read a few journal papers a while back where they fused agent based modelling with particle swarm optimization for resource allocation in larger corporations. Their results weren't particularly pretty. They were mimicking the function which already existed and performed worse. The current method of in-corporation charging for services performed better.

If you do have an algorithm, please tell me it so I can makes lots of money from it by setting up my own corporations and use it for economic calculation ie. help to figure out what investments will be more profitable. At the moment people have to invest resources in trial projects and use the results as a basis for further calculation. It would also help the final chapters of Phd. Even probably help the part time work I do as a quantitative analyst.

I won't give away too much of my PhD, at the moment I have to build physical models of how the system operates and I use Monte Carlo random walks with exogenous shocks to simulate data and perform response analysis. A financial model is built on top of this and then I use my own home-brewed optimization algorithm (ANN combined with genetic programming within the neurons) to determine prices. In turn, these prices help me to determine profit and loss. In turn, the calculation of profit and loss helps to allocate scarce resources.

The above type of analysis, still using "money", is god awfully complex. I'm a pretty smart guy, everything I do is programmed from scratch and what you guys are trying to do is complex on an insane level. You need an absolute genius working on it. Personally, I think it is impossible.

Anyhow, good luck to you!

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Okay, but why do they have those characteristics? What about nurturing women to be more caring, more sensitive, being the only member of the family who has to stay at home, taking care of the kids? What about men who are nurtured to be less sensitive, more cool-headed, and so on?

In my country (Eastern-Europe) lots of men are chauvinists, and people have an interesting theory about not having a child if you are a woman. Or having an active sexlife if you are a woman (without a boyfriend/husband). They will automatically say you are a wh0re, but if you are a man, it's normal and okay. I don't know how these things work in other countries like the US or North-European countries (I heard in Scandinavian countries it's a routine now to let the father stay home with the kids, while the mother's working). Here, we don't have the same routines [though fathers can have the same money-support, women get less payment, then men (for the same job)]. There can be differences between women and men brain, but nurturing and social stress is really important. And til you can see the effects of it, I can't believe that there is no problem. If you are a male, who has to be less sensitive, or a female, who has to be more sensitive, then no, it's not okay. If you are forced to be a mother, who stays at home, sensitive, caring, butterflies, and if you are the general victim of the 'women are mysteries, women are miracles, the most beautiful thing is being a mother, so you have to be one' propaganda, then no. Same if you are a man who has to hide emotions, and be the cool-headed predator, and the typical narrow-minded "rationalist". I think the most of these characteristics come from this: nurturing, and social dogmas. Maybe this whole propaganda can be originated from basic phenomenas, but everyone has a right to be someone different from the sexroles.

Yes, one of my friends is from Eastern Europe and she complains about the behavior of the men quite an amount. It is a problem and it is a problem in many other places in the world; India, Middle East, etc.

Hell, people from Croatia are celebrating the return of war criminals who engaged in genocide. The social problems run deeper than just treating women poorly.

We do know it is a cultural issue and has a great amount to do with how a child is raised. For this to be overcome, you need community leaders to start the change ie. putting forward the intellectual and moral arguments about why treating women in such a way is wrong. Western countries went through this process quite some time ago.

 

[Amagi82]

If I may jump in here...

Your idea is nothing short of a utopia... which by definition is simply an idea. Surely, it's a good idea, but plausible? I think not. Let's step back and think about a few things.

Your entire idea is centralized around a human race in which people will not try to take advantage of the system. The saying goes; "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Somewhat out of context, but the meaning remains: you will always have people causing trouble, and creating chaos in the system.

Where will the inspiration come from? Where will development, technology, the passion to survive come from? If everything is just handed to us, will we fight for more? Why would I bother trying to improve lives if none are in danger? What would be my motivation, if everyone is treated equally? Despite what anyone says, there is a REASON that technology advances, humanity advances. It is never because someone just wanted to do it. There is always some sort of goal in mind (whether it be fame, fortune, spiritual reasons, etc. etc.).

I agree that mainstream economics needs a change. But to suggest removing money would be akin to suggesting that we remove atoms from the universe. The entire system is sustained only because of the faith in currency. You can't just tear down the building blocks - hell - the entire system, especially if you have no alternative. You've given no suggestion as to how the economy would work. Suppose I wanted a fancy hat. How would I go about getting it? Your proposal completely disregards the fact that humans (unlike your system) are not automated, are conscious, (and many times irrational) beings.

Although I do agree with one premise you mentioned, "Eliminate problems by design". With that said, however, it is important to note that money will not be going away... at least any time soon. What would you propose to do with all the people on top? What about all the people that are wealthy, and have power? The only ones that could make your idea possible. I reckon that wealthy people would not be too keen on abandoning their posts at the top of the socio-economic ladder...

1) A perfect society isn't possible. A better society is.

2) The whole point is to create a society where there is no point in "taking advantage of the system". Will there be people that cause trouble? Trolls? Sure. Refer back to point number 1. I don't, however, think that these problems are deal breakers.

3) A common fallacy is that money is what powers innovation. That is not the case, nor has it ever been. The majority of important human discovery has been done in spite of money, not because of it. People study, research, innovate, and create because they enjoy it. It's fulfilling. Will there be lazy people, people who do nothing? Of course, but that isn't exactly a change from what people do now. What's important here is engendering a culture that values innovation and creativity. Give people the idea that "things could always be better", and they will try their damnedest to make that a reality. People will likely work less, but that's a good thing. We need to live more balanced lives, spend more time with friends and family, and take time to enjoy life.

4) I've told you exactly how the economy would work. You press a button on a computer screen, and the item you desire is printed/manufactured/otherwise created and shipped directly to you. Automatically. When you're done with it, you place it in a bin and it gets broken down and recycled. If you want something new, certain things can be designed and inputted into the system using things like 3D printing technology. Otherwise there would have to be a slightly more involved process(perhaps a committee in charge of improving and expanding the product selection). If your fancy hat isn't in the system, you might have to do like you'd have to do today: you might have to acquire the skills to make your own hat, or seek help from a friend who knows. One point of advantage, is you don't need to have 400 different types of toothpaste or toothbrushes. You create just a few to choose from. Studies show that people are happiest when they have just a few things to choose from, even if the products are inferior, because we get "choice paralysis" when presented with too many options. The reduction in tooling and waste from avoiding needless competition is staggering.

5) The point isn't to pull the wealthy down, it's more to raise everyone up to the highest standard of living possible. Obviously there will be resistance, and this idea may never come to fruition, but I still think it's a model for a better world.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete" - R. Buckminster Fuller

 

[Amagi82]

Ohh? You're a zeitgeister/venus project advocate. Since you're not a socialist, I am going to be less hostile towards you. I hate to say it, you guys are going to fail in the same respect that the communists did. Hopefully you won't starve to death 40 million Ukrainians in the process. It is the economic calculation conundrum.

You didn't answer your question, How could a society function without money? Obviously you need to stipulate what is going to replace the function of money vis a vis market's price determination mechanism. What is the algorithm you're going to employ such that it allocates scarce resources to their most efficient uses according the subjective valuations of people in society?

As an example: How do you decide whether or not it more economically productive to mine low grade iron ore from a site 100km away at an depth of 1km or high grade iron ore from a site 500km away at a depth of 1.5km? To add greater complexity to the problem, how do you decide what intermediate stages of production the iron ore undergoes and what final products the iron ore are used in? You need some mechanism to help you answer these questions.

Replacing money vis a vis market's price determination vis a vis how it allocates scarce resources is an extremely complex problem. You need to somehow accurately gauge consumer preferences, accurately gauge interest rates, have a physical and financial model of the economy, use some sort of optimization algorithm (the market itself is an optimization algorithm).

I have read a few journal papers a while back where they fused agent based modelling with particle swarm optimization for resource allocation in larger corporations. Their results weren't particularly pretty. They were mimicking the function which already existed and performed worse. The current method of in-corporation charging for services performed better.

If you do have an algorithm, please tell me it so I can makes lots of money from it by setting up my own corporations and use it for economic calculation ie. help to figure out what investments will be more profitable. At the moment people have to invest resources in trial projects and use the results as a basis for further calculation. It would also help the final chapters of Phd. Even probably help the part time work I do as a quantitative analyst.

I won't give away too much of my PhD, at the moment I have to build physical models of how the system operates and I use Monte Carlo random walks with exogenous shocks to simulate data and perform response analysis. A financial model is built on top of this and then I use my own home-brewed optimization algorithm (ANN combined with genetic programming within the neurons) to determine prices. In turn, these prices help me to determine profit and loss. In turn, the calculation of profit and loss helps to allocate scarce resources.

The above type of analysis, still using "money", is god awfully complex. I'm a pretty smart guy, everything I do is programmed from scratch and what you guys are trying to do is complex an insane level. You need an absolute genius working on it. Personally, I think it is impossible.

Anyhow, good luck to you!

Aye, a Zeitgeist/Venus Project advocate I be. It's simply the best system of societal organization I've encountered.

To tackle your iron mining problem, I'd pass off the problem to a committee of people that were experts on the subject, because I know jack shit about mining. I do think that's the best way of going though- set up committees of people to deal with various problems in society that can't be handled by a simple computer system. People like to be in charge of something, so I don't think it would be terribly difficult to instate a merit-based system like that.

We would need a computerized assessment of all currently available resources, and we'd need to use them intelligently. The whole problem becomes vastly easier if we transition people away from the consumer-based model we've created over the last century, where we've encouraged people to use and dispose of stuff as rapidly as possible. We'd have to set up a priority system for resource allocation- a potential example being: basic survival needs > environmental concerns > products important for societal harmony > luxury goods.

For example, let's say we have 400 tons of gold. Nobody needs gold to live. The gold isn't environmentally dangerous, typically. The production people want 350 tons for gold wires and whatnot, which transmit electricity most efficiently, don't corrode, and would increase lifespan of products. People also want 300 tons for jewelry. We prioritize the gold for product development, which improves our products and makes them last longer, which is better for the environment. People can deal with not having as many gold rings until more gold can be acquired. Set up a waiting list to appease people. Promote more readily-available materials for jewelry production. A simplistic example, sure, but without the vast complexities of the current market system, the whole problem of resource allocation goes from insanely complicated to surprisingly simple.

In other words, nobody is suggesting that we continue the vast array of currently-available shit on the market. Reduce it to a much smaller list of items, designed as efficiently and long-lasting as possible. Make larger, infrequently-used items community access-based. A centralized database of resources and resource requests from every aspect of production should bring the complexities firmly within our grasp.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@Amagi82

You ideal is good (I am not going to debate your ends just your means) but I'm sorry dude, you still have not solved the economic calculation problem. A knowledgeable committee and a central data base of resources is not a solution. What method will this committee use? I going to be explicit, you need a method of allocating scarce resources to their most efficient uses dictated by the preferences of people in society. Another thing, what the committee values may not actually be what the rest of society values. Value is subjective. In a market, we can discern what people value through the profit and loss calculation. The loss entails you're not correctly allocation resources in a way that is most efficient in fulfilling what society values.

 

[crippli]

I would have liked to try out a society like this. Makes sense to me.

http://www.ruanyifeng.com/calvino/2008/12/beheading_the_heads_en.html

 

[Amagi82]

You ideal is good (I am not going to debate your ends just your means) but I'm sorry dude, you still have not solved the economic calculation problem. A knowledgeable committee and a central data base of resources is not a solution. What method will this committee use? I going to be explicit, you need a method of allocating scarce resources to their most efficient uses dictated by the preferences of people in society. Another thing, what the committee values may not actually be what the rest of society values. Value is subjective. In a market, we can discern what people value through the profit and loss calculation. The loss entails you're not correctly allocation resources in a way that is most efficient in fulfilling what society values.

Okay, a method of allocating scarce resources efficiently. I'm not certain of the specific answer you're looking for (if you could provide a specific problem, I can try to give you a specific solution). I am a proponent of placing decision-making that cannot be handled by a computerized allocation system in the hands of people who are experts in a given field, supervised by people responsible for intelligently managing overall resources, along with an environmental committee. Obviously, there will be grey areas occasionally, and people will have to make decisions and compromises as best they can. Nobody here thinks we'll ever have a perfect society free of all dispute. Concerning value and scarce resources, we'll need a basic order of importance like I mentioned earlier. If society disagrees with how resources are allocated, they are free to study, learn, and join a relevant committee to add their 2 cents. You're never going to make everyone happy all the time, as our present system can attest to, but our current society is proof that it can be fucked up on an epic scale, and people will still put up with it, especially if they feel they have some small shadow of choice in the matter. So, I'm not shooting for perfect, just the best we're capable of.

 

[joal0503]

Life before man's ascent into technology was far more brutal than we'd like to imagine. Disease, abuse, deadly tribal clashes, unmitigated natural disasters, all of these and more plagued the people of the paleolithic. To return to the actual past would be devastating, horrifying, and a dark mark upon the story of mankind; more pertinently, the past led to the future, so going directly backwards is foolish. Rather, we long for an imagined, idyllic past, whose unrealistic simplicity would serve as a relief from the complex, demanding lives that we've led since the dawn of time. In other words, we want to live in a story book.

And the only way to do that is via AI, a product of diligent computer science, and more importantly, the modern world. So onward, I say, for the crucible shall leave us stronger.

-Duxwing

considering what we guage 'success' and 'happiness' today, its interesting to see this as the prevailing attitude within society. That somehow without material and the current structure we have today, we simply could never be content without it, so those who lived before must have lived miserable, unfulfilled, stimulation starved lives...but who is to say that what we simply have on our own isnt enough ?

a lot of bad things happened. absolutely. and it was never a cake walk for everybody, no doubt there...but what can we really say we absolutely know about life 100,000 years ago, let alone the level of 'happiness' individuals took from the existing ways of life?

Besides, nobody is advocating that we simply revert back to the stone ages for the sake of it. nobody is saying w ehave to abandon the knowledge, technology, and progress we've made...but perhaps infusing the two...could open the door for some really dope shit.

^ This.

What we should be doing is using technology to seek harmony with nature. We need to expunge capitalism and the very concept of money if we ever want to achieve this peace and harmony. Only then can we use technology to free humankind from the drudgery of repetitive labor and allow us to use our minds to create things of efficiency and beauty.

I initially wanted to dispute this but I believe, upon reflection, it may be right. Revolutionaries ostensibly oppose/subvert wealth inequity and tyranny (power inequity) and revert to, or seek to revert to, harmoniousness and democracy from bygone years. There is something to this archaic revival notion. Heavy-handed male ethos certainly needs some softening.

and from there you go down the 'fractal time' path of his work...

So how much of this "patriarchy" thing, and commentary about oppression, etc., is really about human culture?

What I mean is this...

In virtually every primate species, there are male-female dynamics that vary in all sort of ways. There are some dominant females, but, for the most part, except in some species and in some cases, the male is dominant. Surely this has nothing to do with any of the many human oppression arguments along lines like economics or religion.

...

So, isn't this whole thing really, REALLY old? It's not like this has come about only in the past few hundred or few thousand years. This has been happening for millions of years.

We may be far worse about how we do it, and we may do it en masse, but, it's not like this problem is a new problem.

precisely my point. its nothing new. these are things we've known about for ages now...but we let it go. we forget about these issues and come up with more distractions to worry about. taking the time to look back and learning from the past, instead of stomping it down and assuming that linear time somehow makes something inherently better...bah, absurd.

something about humanity...we have the ability to change. we can identify things and change them. just because its happening, doesnt mean we can simply allow it to continue.

As for patriarchy, I don't think it exists. In general, men don't have an bias towards men and a bias against women. Men simply have a greater frequency of characteristics that would be desirable in a leader. Though, this is not a generality. Some leadership positions of social institutions prefer characteristics which women have greater frequency of having. We're no longer living in a brutal age where such conditions specifically favored the general male physiology. These days any discrepancies between men as a whole and women as a whole are do to the typical choices that the individuals in both sets make. Conclusion, there is no problem.

a patriarchy does not need a bias for it to exist, does it?

the whoooole point though...is that the men who created the image of the leader, set the rules in order to attribute themselves and their traits as the 'desirable' ones to begin with. cant that be seen as a great disparity right off the bat?

if social institutions are upheld and operated under a male dominated regime...wouldnt it make sense that theyd be telling you everything is okay?...

take politics for example...yes women can get involved and become politicians...but do they? or are they sort of turned off in another direction at an early age? they dont want to play that game...they want to go be a dancer or some shit like that...to me thats nothing about genetic traits. deeper reasons to explore there.

but beyond simple gender differences...just look at the male ego alone. no need to compare...and id certainly say it exists.

If I may jump in here...

Your idea is nothing short of a utopia... which by definition is simply an idea. Surely, it's a good idea, but plausible? I think not. Let's step back and think about a few things.

Your entire idea is centralized around a human race in which people will not try to take advantage of the system. The saying goes; "give them an inch and they'll take a mile". Somewhat out of context, but the meaning remains: you will always have people causing trouble, and creating chaos in the system.

Where will the inspiration come from? Where will development, technology, the passion to survive come from? If everything is just handed to us, will we fight for more? Why would I bother trying to improve lives if none are in danger? What would be my motivation, if everyone is treated equally? Despite what anyone says, there is a REASON that technology advances, humanity advances. It is never because someone just wanted to do it. There is always some sort of goal in mind (whether it be fame, fortune, spiritual reasons, etc. etc.).

I agree that mainstream economics needs a change. But to suggest removing money would be akin to suggesting that we remove atoms from the universe. The entire system is sustained only because of the faith in currency. You can't just tear down the building blocks - hell - the entire system, especially if you have no alternative. You've given no suggestion as to how the economy would work. Suppose I wanted a fancy hat. How would I go about getting it? Your proposal completely disregards the fact that humans (unlike your system) are not automated, are conscious, (and many times irrational) beings.

Although I do agree with one premise you mentioned, "Eliminate problems by design". With that said, however, it is important to note that money will not be going away... at least any time soon. What would you propose to do with all the people on top? What about all the people that are wealthy, and have power? The only ones that could make your idea possible. I reckon that wealthy people would not be too keen on abandoning their posts at the top of the socio-economic ladder...

BAM-o. Id agree, when I see something like zeitgeist...sure its awesome to be optimistic...but a lot of me is very skeptical of something like it ever being accomplished. Just a half baked attempt at a utopia.

if change does come, its not going to be the majority of society agreeing and going on with the show...its going to be a dedicated community, who simply doesnt give a fuck if others dont want to join along. theyll just keep on doing what they need to do.

more cheesy ass new age quotes, which make sense to me...

“We have the money, the power, the medical understanding, the scientific know-how, the love and the community to produce a kind of human paradise. But we are led by the least among us – the least intelligent, the least noble, the least visionary. We are led by the least among us and we do not fight back against the dehumanizing values that are handed down as control icons.”


“Culture is a perversion. It fetishizes objects, creates consumer mania, it preaches endless forms of false happiness, endless forms of false understanding in the form of squirrelly religions and silly cults. It invites people to diminish themselves and dehumanize themselves by behaving like machines.

“Culture is not your friend. Culture is for other people’s convenience and the convenience of various institutions, churches, companies, tax collection schemes, what have you. It is not your friend. It insults you. It disempowers you. It uses and abuses you. None of us are well treated by culture.”


“Chaos is what we’ve lost touch with. This is why it is given a bad name. It is feared by the dominant archetype of our world, which is Ego, which clenches because its existance is defined in terms of control.”

“Ego is a structure that is erected by a neurotic individual who is a member of a neurotic culture against the facts of the matter. And culture, which we put on like an overcoat, is the collectivized consensus about what sort of neurotic behaviors are acceptable.”

“You have to take seriously the notion that understanding the universe is your responsibility, because the only understanding of the universe that will be useful to you is your own understanding.”

– Terence McKenna

 

[Duxwing]

considering what we guage 'success' and 'happiness' today, its interesting to see this as the prevailing attitude within society. That somehow without material and the current structure we have today, we simply could never be content without it, so those who lived before must have lived miserable, unfulfilled, stimulation starved lives...but who is to say that what we simply have on our own isnt enough ?

a lot of bad things happened. absolutely. and it was never a cake walk for everybody, no doubt there...but what can we really say we absolutely know about life 100,000 years ago, let alone the level of 'happiness' individuals took from the existing ways of life?

Besides, nobody is advocating that we simply revert back to the stone ages for the sake of it. nobody is saying w ehave to abandon the knowledge, technology, and progress we've made...but perhaps infusing the two...could open the door for some really dope shit.

We're virtually the same species that we were forty thousand years ago. I don't see any reason to expect that the proportion of shallow people has changed in the slightest. And provided sufficient leisure, every one of us will find or create entertainment. The distractions of today are the junk of tomorrow.

-Duxwing

 

[jachian]

The fairer sex, indeed, proves a more timelessly elegant ballet of perfection and painful pulchritude than the brutish and hirsute male abomination which plunders and subjugates to achieve its ends.

@snafupants
The fairer sex?!.... What rubbish!!
The same tendency to plunder, pillage and subjugate exists in the female; and perhaps to a greater extent than in the male. This is one of the reasons why there are hardly any successful matriarchal societies left in the world, because the extent of female greed causes such societies to self destruct.

The only difference being the tools that the female uses to achieve here ends. Flattery, manipulation, plunder by proxy, subjugation by proxy, genocide by proxy, war by proxy. These are the methods that have always been employed by females to enrich themselves.

All the rape, looting , pillaging and theft since ancient times; who were the main beneficiaries? The wife, mother, daughter, concubine or whore that the war criminal brings his spoils to.... And she flaunts it, and enjoys it, and encourages him to rape, plunder and pillage more in her name, or by proxy, in her tribe's or nation's name.

Patriarchy has brought human kind to a place where life is much less nasty and brutish.... Only patriarchy could develop culture civilization to the point where egalitarian notions and ideals of all humans being created equal could percolate existence, even where such ideals have not been met they exist and they are uniquely 'Male' projections of thought.

Female thought has always hinged on creating classes and subclasses of human. Matriarchy is petty and cruel and, makes for an unequal society, unjust laws and nasty existence..... And most females recognize this; even at the sub-conscious level.