The loss of ideals

[Proletar]

Hey all.


The world is a shitty place. The humans of today are conditioned to care only for themselves, either by greed or survival instinct. Meanwhile, the natural resources of the world are being harvested and ruined. The air is polluted. Our waters are being polluted. Our artificial foods are loaded with chemicals. We are getting sicker, and in younger ages. Our living-space is getting smaller. Our overall standard of living is decreasing. And oh, wherever you go you have to piss in a mug.

No one knows where to go or what to do. It's as if people are afraid of ideals, even. Believing in utopia is dangerous, sure, but isn't this apathy a greater evil? Can we find a place in history where things got better when the general public just stopped caring? I mean come on. There are solutions out there. Why must we silently succumb?


Or perhaps... This is for the best? Tragedies have ensued many times in the past when people got too hot. Wars. Genocides. The crusades. Should we perhaps just snack on our trans-fats and wait until the gene pool is dominated by people who can stand them? Is getting pollution and toxin-resistant the next step in human evolution? What exactly is going on and where does it lead us?


What do you think? Let's discuss.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The world is a shitty place. The humans of today are conditioned to care only for themselves, either by greed or survival instinct.

Yes, I believe you're condition to only care about yourself. The world is worse off for it.

Meanwhile, the natural resources of the world are being harvested and ruined.

Harvested? Yes. Ruined? No. We have access to all of these great consumer and capital goods that allow us to live a life not defined by poverty, disease and death. The transformation of nature given resources has benefited us. Ergo, natural given resources have not been ruined.

The air is polluted.

In typically poorer countries which do not have the wealth to ensure proper treatment of exhaust or enforcement is lacking. Electrostatic precipitators, catalytic converters, filters, etc. all cost a pretty penny. Perhaps you can buy them some of this equipment.

I live in city of half a million people. There're the same number of cars. There is heavy industry. The sky is clear and particulates low.

Our waters are being polluted.

The waste water treatment plants around here treat sewage to such an extent that the water would be safe to drink. The acceptable loss standard from drinking the water is 1 in 1000000. As for civil works, they must have erosion and sediment control plans. In some cases their own water treatment facilities if the civil works is large enough.

Our artificial foods are loaded with chemicals.

Yes. Yes, they are. To ensure food does not taint in short periods of time. This helps to avoid food poisoning.

We are getting sicker, and in younger ages.

Parents aren't letting their kids get dirty. Prevents their immune systems from developing.

Apart from that, we have the benefits of modern medical science. Infections that would once kill people eg. TB, syphilis, pox, etc. are curable.

Our living-space is getting smaller.

Rents are high in metropolitan areas. So what? Don't like it? Don't live in such an area.

Our overall standard of living is decreasing.

Yes, government intervention in the economy does that. I was speaking to a software entrepreneur a few days ago. In a few of his systems developed for themeparks there is code especially their to ask government agencies permission to sell each and every ticket. They also need to ask government agencies permission to conduct promotions such as half price tickets. God forbid if they have to void a ticket due a clerk's mistake. That is a huge fine. Absolutely insanity and bizarre rules like this are legion. Then there is the whole government-banking monetary system cartel... Sigh, the recipes for wealth destruction...

And oh, wherever you go you have to piss in a mug.

You piss in mugs? That explains everything.

No one knows where to go or what to do. It's as if people are afraid of ideals, even.

Speak for yourself. Some of us out here are not hapless and are quite resourceful.

Believing in utopia is dangerous, sure, but isn't this apathy a greater evil? Can we find a place in history where things got better when the general public just stopped caring? I mean come on. There are solutions out there. Why must we silently succumb?

Have you tried doing anything about your grievance rather than just ranting on INTPf? As an example, if you believe there should be more aid for disabled people, you can go aid disabled people. Donate your time and expertise to a charity.

Or perhaps... This is for the best? Tragedies have ensued many times in the past when people got too hot. Wars. Genocides. The crusades. Should we perhaps just snack on our trans-fats and wait until the gene pool is dominated by people who can stand them? Is getting pollution and toxin-resistant the next step in human evolution? What exactly is going on and where does it lead us?

What do you think? Let's discuss.

Are you going to complain that you have to work to sustain your existence next? Just wondering, is all.

 

[Rook]

The rate with witch we destroy our planet is too fast for any evolution to catch up. We will simply be forced to take drastic measures, such as forced industrial downscaling or mass genocide, if we do not take less radical but equally effective measures right now.

One factor in all of this is the one ideal humanity is sharing more and more: Capitalism. The corporations want money, the government needs money. Thus the ideal of attaining money at all costs seeps into the population, trumping perceived morals, religion, science and all other idealisms.

We have not lost ideals, we have rather clung to an irritaional ideal that may bring about the desctruction of our planet and ourselves.
We have constructed an economic infrastructure that is not sustainable, and we follow it like rambling heretics. How many crimes have been commited, how many wars started, how many families torn asunder, for that human construct of money? Too many!

If humanity wishes to progress, it must realise the simple truth: This ideal of greed, the suicide of a race, is unacceptable.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

... for that human construct of money?

Why stop at money? Why not advocate for the elimination of other human constructs? Post-modernist literature is pretty damn awful, it can be done away with. Tables and chairs are too restrictive. They're human constructs too. They can be done away with. What about clothes? Clothes hide our true form and create social boundaries. So many things needing to be done away with.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

The loss of ideals is a mark of progress in the sense that chaos isn't the problem, what chaos is reacting to is the problem.

What are the reasons behind those ideals, and are they valid?

It's not... not caring, it's a natural process of priority reassessment. Society should expect to be bombarded from all directions with mis/information (hypermodernism?), experience mass confusion, and then undergo a rapid and violent correction. Punctuated equilibrium.

 

[Rook]

@Ra
Money creates conflict and subjegates lives, even whole countries. Not all human constructs are conflicting with our survival, thus they can exist as a subjective choice. Money, though, is not a choice. It is thrust upon us by powers 'greater' than we, and no matter if we say yay or nay, we are still forced to use it.
This human construct resembles greed and subjegation, and it is those traits that cripple our survival and our expansion.

 

[Pinion]

Ideals are alive and well. It's just that many of them are terrible and counter-productive when applied to reality, such as the obsession with sweeping negative emotions under the nearest rug and cramming artificial positivity down the individual's throat. Watch child abuse victims, adults in particular, try to seek help sometime. It'll make you want to cry and vomit at the same time (Unless you're part of the problem, then you'll just feel pompously clever for solving their emotional processing dilemma with a simple, "You need to accept what happened." A+ on empathy!).

Take calculated steps to improve the world and give yourself permission to kick back, eat a McRib, and do nothing once in awhile without guilting yourself. Anything else is just going to kill you and you won't even leave behind a dent as your legacy, because the enemy isn't a thing you can destroy or someone you can lock up in a cell - it's human nature.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

@Ra
Money creates conflict and subjegates lives, even whole countries. Not all human constructs are conflicting with our survival, thus they can exist as a subjective choice. Money, though, is not a choice. It is thrust upon us by powers 'greater' than we, and no matter if we say yay or nay, we are still forced to use it.
This human construct resembles greed and subjegation, and it is those traits that cripple our survival and our expansion.

You do know that money makes economic calculation and organisation magnitudes more efficient, right?

 

[Pyropyro]

You really need to go outside. Besides, your general ideas are all faulty and have no backing in reality.

I've worked with people with even shittier conditions than you ever expect yet they fought for decades to improve their lives.

Seriously, I hate "First World Problems"

 

[Rook]

You do know that money makes economic calculation and organisation magnitudes more efficient, right?

The problem lies in the manner with witch money is circulated. Money is not a means to an end, it has rather become a definition of our lives. Lives are lost and lives are saved due to money. Do we wish to base our freedom on such a system, or have our freedom independantly?

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The problem lies in the manner with witch money is circulated.

A hypothetical: I do work for someone, that person gives me money in exchange and then I use money to exchange for other goods and/or services. What exactly is bad about this?

Money is not a means to an end, it has rather become a definition of our lives. Lives are lost and lives are saved due to money.

Money certainly is a means to and end. It allows for more complex transactions than barter, differ exchange, store of value, unit of account, etc. It makes life easier.

Do we wish to base our freedom on such a system, or have our freedom independantly?

You still have not explained why the advent of money leads to the curtailment of freedom. From my perspective it makes life easier and society more wealthy (in terms of allowing for the production of goods that people demand). Some people may live their lives for the pursuit of money but alas, I don't really care about them. It is their lives, who I am to order them to do otherwise?

 

[Proletar]

The loss of ideals is a mark of progress in the sense that chaos isn't the problem, what chaos is reacting to is the problem.

What are the reasons behind those ideals, and are they valid?

It's not... not caring, it's a natural process of priority reassessment. Society should expect to be bombarded from all directions with mis/information (hypermodernism?), experience mass confusion, and then undergo a rapid and violent correction. Punctuated equilibrium.

So you mean we're all in a big melting pot, just waiting for the right ideas to appear?

 

[Proletar]

You really need to go outside. Besides, your general ideas are all faulty and have no backing in reality.

I've worked with people with even shittier conditions than you ever expect yet they fought for decades to improve their lives.

Seriously, I hate "First World Problems"

Is that a smile on my face? I think so.

Please tell me of this reality of yours.

 

[Proletar]

Yes, I believe you're condition to only care about yourself. The world is worse off for it.

What?

Harvested? Yes. Ruined? No. We have access to all of these great consumer and capital goods that allow us to live a life not defined by poverty, disease and death. The transformation of nature given resources has benefited us. Ergo, natural given resources have not been ruined.

The devastation of the amazonas and all those oil spills were all just filthy liberal propaganda then.

In typically poorer countries which do not have the wealth to ensure proper treatment of exhaust or enforcement is lacking. Electrostatic precipitators, catalytic converters, filters, etc. all cost a pretty penny. Perhaps you can buy them some of this equipment.

Or we could institute laws for pollution and make sure to enforce them while funding research for environmentally friendly alternatives rather than just making the planet a free-for-all. Either way.

The waste water treatment plants around here treat sewage to such an extent that the water would be safe to drink. The acceptable loss standard from drinking the water is 1 in 1000000. As for civil works, they must have erosion and sediment control plans. In some cases their own water treatment facilities if the civil works is large enough.

Meaning?

Yes. Yes, they are. To ensure food does not taint in short periods of time. This helps to avoid food poisoning.

Do we really need 300 different chemicals for that?

Parents aren't letting their kids get dirty. Prevents their immune systems from developing.

Yeah. Hygiene is dumb.

Apart from that, we have the benefits of modern medical science. Infections that would once kill people eg. TB, syphilis, pox, etc. are curable.

Curing sickness in not the same thing as achieving health. Again, the mortality of many diseases is down, but the diseases themselves are becoming more common. Diabetes, cancer, heart-disease, affecting more and more people. Unless of course that's just more filthy liberal propaganda.

Here's an article on the sales of insulin:
http://clinical.diabetesjournals.org/content/30/4/138.full

Rents are high in metropolitan areas. So what? Don't like it? Don't live in such an area.

What?

Yes, government intervention in the economy does that. I was speaking to a software entrepreneur a few days ago. In a few of his systems developed for themeparks there is code especially their to ask government agencies permission to sell each and every ticket. They also need to ask government agencies permission to conduct promotions such as half price tickets. God forbid if they have to void a ticket due a clerk's mistake. That is a huge fine. Absolutely insanity and bizarre rules like this are legion. Then there is the whole government-banking monetary system cartel... Sigh, the recipes for wealth destruction...

You are right. Let's just tear down all regulations and let people run their business alone. What evil could internetional corporations possibly do to anyone?

You piss in mugs? That explains everything.

You don't agree that urine-tests are becoming more common?

Speak for yourself. Some of us out here are not hapless and are quite resourceful.

You know nothing.

Have you tried doing anything about your grievance rather than just ranting on INTPf? As an example, if you believe there should be more aid for disabled people, you can go aid disabled people. Donate your time and expertise to a charity.

I have been into politics, yes. Quite a lot. It's a lot of hard work and in my case it gave zero payout. We still get screwed to this day. We don't have a hospital anymore, and I organized demonstrations to keep it. Yes, there are resourceful people out there. They also happen to be complete bastards.

If I understand you correctly, you mean that there is nothing wrong in the world except for governments giving amusement-parks trouble.

 

[WALKYRIA]

... We need a revolution if we do not want to perish; I think it's time for humanity to switch paradigm. The period we are in(pseudo- crisis) is the best moment for change... INTERNET is the trigger of revolution.

I think we INT* have to take charge and work hard, hands in hands, towards finding a solution for our humanity(perhaps a special schooling for INT*s), and find/imagine/theorize a new paradigm...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

I seriously cannot understand how people(and especially INTP's) can accept the way our society and more specifically our economical system works, It is rotten from the beginning/basis( and there is always a way to improve things btw ,so never accept things as they are, unless you an INTJ !).. Problem is that our young humanity is based on weak foundations. Imagine you'd want to build a home with bad bricks or refresh ruins... It would collapse soon or later... and it is soon before it collapses. So the solution is to rebuilds a new home(paradigm) for the next millennium.
My idea is that great ideas/intellectuality/concepts has emerged in humanity at a moment where culture and tradition were more preponderant... so We'd go along accepting the faulty concepts and logic(religion, family, economic system, political system,..Etc) because of it's traditionality (ya know, all our society is based on traditional/ cultural bias and historical mistakes... so you cannot change it radically, alone !)




Actually, the funniest and maybe the saddest is that- If you think fast forward- you'll realize that a society without inequities is doomed to die either.... Imagine a world where everybody lives 200 years, have extended knowledge, has ability to reach top jobs and make money,... imagine if Africa became suddenly economically competitive... Well now, imagine the competitivity and the harschness of our world and multiply it by ten... lol.
Life is unfair, from the get go...lol
The best solution is to expand, and find new lovable/livable planets or moons... or for example create new/artificial planets out there...

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

The devastation of the amazonas and all those oil spills were all just filthy liberal propaganda then.

We use resources to produce goods that we consume. It betters our existence. To use these resources they need to be harvested.

Or we could institute laws for pollution and make sure to enforce them while funding research for environmentally friendly alternatives rather than just making the planet a free-for-all. Either way.

Yes, laws and industry standards already exist governing how waste should be treated and stored or disposed. There is also tort, case and common law governing such things.

Meaning?

In affluent countries, such as the one I live in, waste is treated before disposal. This minimises the risk of creating harm for people, property and the surrounding ecosystem.

Do we really need 300 different chemicals for that?

Yes, we do. Otherwise they would not be used.

Curing sickness in not the same thing as achieving health. Again, the mortality of many diseases is down, but the diseases themselves are becoming more common. Diabetes, cancer, heart-disease, affecting more and more people. Unless of course that's just more filthy liberal propaganda.

We are living lifestyles magnitudes better than our ancestors ie. life expectancy has moved from the mid twenties to the late seventies or eighties. How was this achieved? Modern medicine, abundance of food and energy, refrigeration and preservation of food, production geographically separated from habitation, climate control, technology relieving the burden of back braking labor, etc., etc., etc.

What?

The desire to live in metropolitan areas is high. The supply of land in said areas in scarce. This leads to high rents. People can not afford high rents. Allotment sizes decrease to increase supply and reduce rents.

You are right. Let's just tear down all regulations and let people run their business alone. What evil could internetional corporations possibly do to anyone?

You don't get the point. There're laws and regulations which allow markets to exist (ie. private property rights) and there're laws and regulations which are detrimental. These detrimental laws ans regulations facilitate wealth destruction.

You know nothing.

This is something that filthy leftists are prone to doing. If someone disagrees with them, they state the person is "ignorant".

I have been into politics, yes. Quite a lot. It's a lot of hard work and in my case it gave zero payout. We still get screwed to this day. We don't have a hospital anymore, and I organized demonstrations to keep it. Yes, there are resourceful people out there. They also happen to be complete bastards.

Ahh yes, life's vicissitudes. Endeavors don't always pay off.

If I understand you correctly, you mean that there is nothing wrong in the world except for governments giving amusement-parks trouble.

I am here just to a school you. You know? Otherwise you would just be preaching to the choir.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

So you mean we're all in a big melting pot, just waiting for the right ideas to appear?

The ideas have already appeared and have arguably always been present, but their implementation depends on their ability to outcompete their peers (which is predicated on man's ability to use logic ), and on external catalysts. So mainly external catalysts.

I believe that ultimately, the best one can do is watch history unfold.

 

[WALKYRIA]

we need integrators(INT*).... an integrated approach.

Problem is that the equation is like real-time morphing jigsaw( think about the HIV virus who morphs all the time; so no way to find effective treatment..)...Sp, everytime we come close to a solution... the equation has already morphed( demography, political or cultural environment, conflicts,...Etc).
harsh..

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

we need integrators(INT*).... an integrated approach.

Problem is that the equation is like real-time morphing jigsaw( think about the HIV virus who morphs all the time; so no way to find effective treatment..)...Sp, everytime we come close to a solution... the equation has already morphed( demography, political or cultural environment, conflicts,...Etc).
harsh..

Integration is useless without some good old convincing rhetoric. NT's make up... what, 12.5% of the population?

Otherwise you're describing the whack-a-mole clusterfuck that is a complex dynamical system.

 

[RaBind]

One of the reasons for the apathy in today's society about many problems is the division of labor. It is obviously very important for progression, but has it's down sides. As THD mentioned earlier there has been a shift in what people view as crucial and all else that comes secondary. I think the division of labor adds to this because raising and initiating to solve concerns has become more of a "job" for a select group of people to do, rather than a responsibility for everyone to try and uphold. There is an institution for most of all concerns, and these institutions, as well as the people that work there, specialize in solving the individual problems. Outside of these institutions you'll find that people may empathize with the concerns, however they will not show as much initiative to provide aid as you'd expect. It's a sort of "I'll help society in my own way, by doing well at work" thing. People pay taxes through their hard earned pay to the state, expecting the state to come up with solutions and initiate on solving problems. This has it's flaws. For example a state full of politicians who are more concerned about their careers than the problems at hand will not work effectively. Even if the state has a problem within itself people may still feel apathy, because in their eyes this is still something that needs to be dealt with by other people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVZ_lLUIIyU
A lot of these problems seem and most of the time are out of our reach to solve, this is largely affected by whether we believe we can change the situation in the first place though.

It's very similar to the protestant work ethic but it's a matter of the rewards, rather than being received after death, happen while the person is alive by improving society. This doesn't really work though because it's not enough to simply put in effort, you've got to put in the effort at the right place. And that is whats wrong. People don't want to reexamine their foundations, they don't want to see if they've got their priorities right.

 

[Proletar]

We use resources to produce goods that we consume. It betters our existence. To use these resources they need to be harvested. Laws and industry standards already exist governing how waste should be treated and stored or disposed. There is also tort, case and common law governing such things. In affluent countries, such as the one I live in, waste is treated before disposal. This minimises the risk of creating harm for people, property and the surrounding ecosystem.

Do you think what we are doing today is enough? I don't think so.

Yes, we do. Otherwise they would not be used.

I for one think these things are toxic. If not while isolated, then together when you mix them. Here in the EU there are about 320 approved chemicals, and they are approved not only for conservation. It's also there for flavour, colouring and aroma, amongst other things. We're lucky though, because we actually get to see what's in our food. Not like the US.

We are living lifestyles magnitudes better than our ancestors ie. life expectancy has moved from the mid twenties to the late seventies or eighties. How was this achieved? Modern medicine, abundance of food and energy, refrigeration and preservation of food, production geographically separated from habitation, climate control, technology relieving the burden of back braking labor, etc., etc., etc.

Just because good things have happened in the 1900s doesn't mean there are no problems. The 1900s gave us tremendous technology and infrastructure. My grandfather once told me about when the banana was new here in sweden, and that blew my mind. We now get food from allover the world, anywhere in the world. It's amazing. But we are ruining it.

The desire to live in metropolitan areas is high. The supply of land in said areas in scarce. This leads to high rents. People can not afford high rents. Allotment sizes decrease to increase supply and reduce rents.

Getting further from the city means a loss of standard regardless.

You don't get the point. There're laws and regulations which allow markets to exist (ie. private property rights) and there're laws and regulations which are detrimental. These detrimental laws ans regulations facilitate wealth destruction.

That's a whole different discussion entirely. Also, I think we have been through this before. Another time.

This is something that filthy leftists are prone to doing. If someone disagrees with them, they state the person is "ignorant".

You were implying things about me. You know little about me.

Ahh yes, life's vicissitudes. Endeavors don't always pay off.

10-90/90-10 depending on what which side you are on.

I am here just to a school you. You know? Otherwise you would just be preaching to the choir.

You are not schooling me. You are expressing your opinion.

 

[Brontosaurie]

the ideals of loss:

coming to terms with the ephemeral nature of existence

 

[Proletar]

The ideas have already appeared and have arguably always been present, but their implementation depends on their ability to outcompete their peers (which is predicated on man's ability to use logic ), and on external catalysts. So mainly external catalysts.

I believe that ultimately, the best one can do is watch history unfold.

That's an awesome thought.

Life imitates art. First there is an idea, and then the opportunity for its implementation arises. Think of all the philosophers/politicians waiting around for their moment. And think of how many of them are crazy nazis or something.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

Do you think what we are doing today is enough? I don't think so.

As treatment, storage and disposal technologies develop, we will have better waste management.

I for one think these things are toxic. If not while isolated, then together when you mix them. Here in the EU there are about 320 approved chemicals, and they are approved not only for conservation. It's also there for flavour, colouring and aroma, amongst other things. We're lucky though, because we actually get to see what's in our food. Not like the US.

Many chemicals that we consume have the potential of being of being toxic. What matters is the concentration and quantity of chemicals consumed that will achieve toxicity. Standards are created to ensure the production of safe goods.

Just because good things have happened in the 1900s doesn't mean there are no problems. The 1900s gave us tremendous technology and infrastructure. My grandfather once told me about when the banana was new here in sweden, and that blew my mind. We now get food from allover the world, anywhere in the world. It's amazing. But we are ruining it.

You're off-topic. The fact of the matter is that we're living better and healthier lives than our ancestors.

Getting further from the city means a loss of standard regardless.

Or depending on what you value, it could be an improvement.

That's a whole different discussion entirely. Also, I think we have been through this before. Another time.

You stated that our standards of living have been decreasing. This is true but not for the reasons you have stated. The reasons are political-economic.

You were implying things about me. You know little about me.

Through our discussions I have learned a great deal about you. The way in which you convey your beliefs and your beliefs state a lot about you.

You are not schooling me. You are expressing your opinion.

No, I am most definitely schooling you.

 

[Proletar]

As treatment, storage and disposal technologies develop, we will have better waste management.

That sounds a lot like hope and little like actual ideas.

Many chemicals that we consume have the potential of being of being toxic. What matters is the concentration and quantity of chemicals consumed that will achieve toxicity. Standards are created to ensure the production of safe goods.

Show me a study of rats or something with ALL the recommended doses in them at once.

You're off-topic. The fact of the matter is that we're living better and healthier lives than our ancestors.

You have stated that many times but you have not backed it up with anything. Longer lives, sure, but not healthier lives.

Or depending on what you value, it could be an improvement.

It's not small. It's cozy.

You know, suicide could be an improvement depending on what you value.

You stated that our standards of living have been decreasing. This is true but not for the reasons you have stated. The reasons are political-economic.

Interesting. Care for a lecture?

Through our discussions I have learned a great deal about you. The way in which you convey your beliefs and your beliefs state a lot about you.

Nope. You are reading in lots of stuff into my beliefs based on your own assumptions. Some would call it a form of ignorance.

No, I am most definitely schooling you.

 

[Pyropyro]

Is that a smile on my face? I think so.

Please tell me of this reality of yours.

It's useless to work with people who seek affirmation rather than learning.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

That sounds a lot like hope and little like actual ideas.

It was simple inductive reasoning. If you want ideas, go liaise with an engineering firm which designs the treatments, storage and disposal systems.

Show me a study of rats or something with ALL the recommended doses in them at once.

Can't you do that on your own?

You have stated that many times but you have not backed it up with anything. Longer lives, sure, but not healthier lives.

Right ... because the increase in the average age of death by fifties years is totally not indicative of people of modern times living healthier than their ancestors.

Interesting. Care for a lecture?

My lectures on economics don't start until next semester. That would be the middle of February.

Nope. You are reading in lots of stuff into my beliefs based on your own assumptions. Some would call it a form of ignorance.

So all of those negative traits (eg. self-loathing) associated with your person are not true? You could have fooled me.

 

[Grayman]

"You need to accept what happened." A+ on empathy!).

That's my signature. Acceptance is dealing.

 

[Proletar]

It was simple inductive reasoning. If you want ideas, go liaise with an engineering firm which designs the treatments, storage and disposal systems.

You have no idea. Gotcha.

Can't you do that on your own?

I have already proven that people are getting sicker.

Right ... because the increase in the average age of death by fifties years is totally not indicative of people of modern times living healthier than their ancestors.

Still an increase in disease and an increased reliance on medications in the general public.

My lectures on economics don't start until next semester. That would be the middle of February.

So the standard of living is getting lower because of reasons you can't explain.

So all of those negative traits (eg. self-loathing) associated with your person are not true? You could have fooled me.

Once again: Yes. What do you mean by 'associated' exactly?

 

[Pinion]

That's my signature. Acceptance is dealing.

In context it's step 500, not step 1 as people would like for it to be.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

You have no idea. Gotcha.

Is the best you can do is state that people don't further develop technology? Rightio...

I have already proven that people are getting sicker.

You asserted it. You didn't prove anything.

So the standard of living is getting lower because of reasons you can't explain.

I put forward some explanation in this thread already. In other threads I know have already discussed with you at great lengths about business cycles and the detrimental effects that government intervention in the economy has. I know you decline to understand economics. People like you, well, do that.

Once again: Yes. What do you mean by 'associated' exactly?

The reason being is that I have met legion individuals espousing the same beliefs as you, in the same way and all of them were quite unpleasant. Yes, you do come across as one of those individuals who hates the success of others, pessimistic, petty, etc.

 

[Kuu]

Goddamn Jesus in a pink thong, Proxy, could you put your arrogance on a leash and for once not derail a thread that is not about economic systems into yet another of those fruitless "discussions"?

Man...


The funny thing is you are actually highlighting the OP's original post; that humans today have abandoned ideals. Too stuck in concrete things. Too stuck in the day to day struggle. Too stuck in thinking things are as they are because that's how they have always been and shall forever remain so.

Why must we silently succumb? Why indeed?

Perhaps he put it best:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

—Nietzsche, The Gay Science

We really are living in an age with a severe crisis / conflict of values. Whether you blame class war or just human idiocy... who knows?

Why don't we dream anymore? No more space colonizations, no dream of intelligent lives, or even artificial ones. No possibility of companionships without silly restrictions or social contracts. A better socio-economic system? Laughable.

Perhaps we are too fearful of each other, in the insanity of our modern hyper-competitive individualism, to dream of anything else other than respite and satisfying base desires. Maslow's hierarchy comes to mind.

I think a lot has to do with the immense impact of electronic means of communication on global culture. Humans are social animals and tend to believe things if enough others believe them. A single falsehood or misconception can spread memetically and become "authority" through sheer omnipresence. People self-defeat because news are always negative. Because they read that someone said somewhere that that was dumb, or not possible. Because that's not how the TV stereotype shows reality to be...

Some groups have longed for freedom, for justice, for equality. Where is the line where people are more united under an idea than divided by their differences? Must the pressure cooker continue to press on us longer?

What does humanity, collectively, long for these days? Do nations have a direction? Should they? Are all our goals short-term?

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

It's useless to work with people who seek affirmation rather than learning.

Seriously, I hate "First World Problems"

Please tell me of this reality of yours.

This is one of those "kids, stop fighting" posts.

There's a certain relativistic aspect to this stuff. Yes, the first world has some pretty fluffy problems compared to other regions, but what can a first world occupant actually do for those other regions? How is effort best allocated?

There is no one size fits all solution; it's going to be the sum of many small things, with different solutions addressing different problems in different areas and at different scales.

A large part of solving the problems of developing nations is preventing the first world from causing them.

Spoiler

Kiss and make up. NAO!!!

One of the reasons for the apathy in today's society about many problems is the division of labor. It is obviously very important for progression, but has it's down sides. As THD mentioned earlier there has been a shift in what people view as crucial and all else that comes secondary. I think the division of labor adds to this because raising and initiating to solve concerns has become more of a "job" for a select group of people to do, rather than a responsibility for everyone to try and uphold.

You're right, but your labels are wrong. The problem isn't the division of labor, it's the lack of division of structure. Most people understand that there's no blanket solution, but it's more difficult to understand that there's also no blanket structure.

Consensus is hard. Once it's achieved, it's golden, but's it's so difficult to get there, and the more individuals are involved, the more difficult it becomes; the more issues on the table, the more difficult it becomes. This is why the occupy movement fizzled out.

Division of labor and structure offer shortcuts to cross the consensus barrier. Decisions made by a smaller group of specialists, assuming group membership is based on achieved authority (not ascribed authority) are far more efficient.

The downfall of this is the "anti-omniscience bias" effect. Specialized groups tend to be unable to see the forest for the trees and thus advocate for their own special interests.

There's a happy place somewhere inbetween; correct size, structure, method, and organization. Goldilocks would be proud.

Increased communication and involvement only increases the hypermodernism problem: bombardment with mis/information. This doesn't actually result in better implementation.

The change you should be advocating is the replacement of ascribed authority with achieved authority, with the understanding that interdisciplinary merit trumps authority within a single discipline.

 

[Grayman]

In context it's step 500, not step 1 as people would like for it to be.

Agreed, it is the last step after nothing else is an option.

 

[Pinion]

Agreed, it is the last step after nothing else is an option.

I think it's more that the options of things like peace, forgiveness, and a new relationship with the abusers only become available after the rest has been processed and occasionally only if life allows. They're the final phase of an ideal path to recovery. Unfortunately, many neither know how nor want to deal with negative emotions because they've been brainwashed to believe that they're always unhealthy, and must be converted immediately into more positive feelings and expressions. In reality, a negative emotion is in itself an expression of something that is unhealthy.

Such an ideal would have someone who still believes they deserve what happened to them and who views themselves as a broken human being have a loving relationship with a parent who's still making all their old mistakes. Such an ideal believes you can sum up all the processing, realignment, breaking down and rebuilding in a simple sentence pulled off of a motivational poster in the office. Such an ideal believes that giving someone a single word gives them the power to alter years or decades of nurture and the brain wiring itself to function in a particular way, because they were obviously asking for that and not for help naming the nameless and organizing the mess.

"Thanks! Here I thought I was supposed to beat my head against this desk while chanting the opening theme to Pokemon until my problems resolved. I'm so glad I have you here to keep me on the right track."

That's flat-out stupid to anyone who knows a thing about human beings, but that's the treatment people are getting because this society is rife with social and emotional dysfunction.

I can't even describe my feelings when I see this treatment given to children and teens. It's bad enough to treat a grown man or woman that way. Children denied parental love and safety will often seek it out in other forms or from other people, and they may be in a position to be spared some of the damage from a toxic environment and given early coping tools for a toxic mindset. I would only hope to someday be the kind of person they seek out and in a position to offer real help, so they don't need to ask these comical asshats.

 

[WALKYRIA]

I hate debates of this sort... everybody is right, but not in the right way lol

 

[ZenRaiden]

What really bothers me is that there are 7 000 000 000 ilon people and we can not even do as much as our predecessors. Too many people and no problems solved. Building skyscrapers is lame. Look at egypt. There they build the pyramids. Shit like that counts. Its ideal. It was crazy. In middle of nowhere they build cities and civilization on the sweaty back of lowly human. I guess the problem is that today we do not aspire to sacrifice our own good for the greater GOOD. Yet this is exactly what haunts people. People do not want to be trapped slaves of ideals. They want to be free of them so they invent new ideals perishing the old ones. We need ideals o yeah, but what kind of ideals we need?

 

[WALKYRIA]

Problem is not the quantity, but the quality of people and the opportunities we give to the people...

-7 billion people
-1 billion gets correct education
- 2-5% of them have enough intellect to do something intellectually -- not only superior-- but decisive and significant for the world.
-majority of the intelligent are gonna be uncreative(the sensors as we like to call them !) but dedicated people who will seek power and money, live a rich, secure, comfortable and normal life, occupying High paid jobs and strive to keep things as they are( doctors, CEO, engineers, lawyers, politicians,..Etc).
-Now think about the people who are intelligent but mentally ill/ lazy/ unbalanced/ under-performers/ unmotivated to change anything( those who become artists, bloggers, IT, videogames dvelpmt, ..geeks who think a lot but do nothing !)
- remain only 1 million people who are intelligent, creative, balanced and motivated enough to bring significant change to this world.
- Actually you should also think about people who don't have the right environment/ social entourage/ social abilities/friends/ mentors/ time to help them grow their potential and influence to the rest of the world... Indeed, you might have the greatest ideas, greatest insights, if you don't share them effectively and if you cannot implement your ideas correctly... than nothing can be done.
-In conclusion, less than 0,01 % of population out there can do the job... it is very few.( and note that it is not only because of intellectual limitations..)


Thus, you see, the quantity doesn't mean anything since many are like sheep following rules and craving for normalcy and validation,money/power/fame accepting the world the way it is(and not as it should ideally become !) and incapable or too afraid of challenging the status-quo( Why should they do that either?)...

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Hey all.


The world is a shitty place. The humans of today are conditioned to care only for themselves, either by greed or survival instinct. Meanwhile, the natural resources of the world are being harvested and ruined. The air is polluted. Our waters are being polluted. Our artificial foods are loaded with chemicals. We are getting sicker, and in younger ages. Our living-space is getting smaller. Our overall standard of living is decreasing. And oh, wherever you go you have to piss in a mug.

No one knows where to go or what to do. It's as if people are afraid of ideals, even. Believing in utopia is dangerous, sure, but isn't this apathy a greater evil? Can we find a place in history where things got better when the general public just stopped caring? I mean come on. There are solutions out there. Why must we silently succumb?


Or perhaps... This is for the best? Tragedies have ensued many times in the past when people got too hot. Wars. Genocides. The crusades. Should we perhaps just snack on our trans-fats and wait until the gene pool is dominated by people who can stand them? Is getting pollution and toxin-resistant the next step in human evolution? What exactly is going on and where does it lead us?


What do you think? Let's discuss.

On the future:
There's a bunch of whacky utopianists out there who call themselves the transhumanist movement.
They have some creepy ideas in store for all of us.
Since there is no opposition to them yet,
(there might be an opposition in the future, that is when terrans will fight cosmists),
it is very likely that they will have no problem in pushing their agenda through.


Yes, we are in a phase of stagnation at the moment,
i believe that is the phase prior to a decline.
Plato has introduced the concept of anacyclosis
and i think democracy is going to be finished anytime soon.

 

[RaBind]

You're right, but your labels are wrong. The problem isn't the division of labor, it's the lack of division of structure. Most people understand that there's no blanket solution, but it's more difficult to understand that there's also no blanket structure.

Consensus is hard. Once it's achieved, it's golden, but's it's so difficult to get there, and the more individuals are involved, the more difficult it becomes; the more issues on the table, the more difficult it becomes. This is why the occupy movement fizzled out.

Division of labor and structure offer shortcuts to cross the consensus barrier. Decisions made by a smaller group of specialists, assuming group membership is based on achieved authority (not ascribed authority) are far more efficient.

The downfall of this is the "anti-omniscience bias" effect. Specialized groups tend to be unable to see the forest for the trees and thus advocate for their own special interests.

There's a happy place somewhere inbetween; correct size, structure, method, and organization. Goldilocks would be proud.

Increased communication and involvement only increases the hypermodernism problem: bombardment with mis/information. This doesn't actually result in better implementation.

The change you should be advocating is the replacement of ascribed authority with achieved authority, with the understanding that interdisciplinary merit trumps authority within a single discipline.

Good point. It seems so much of society's culture and structure was never really given serious thought to. As if there was a unanimous decision to improvise these things. Although for most of history it's been the authority deciding what the authority to come after would be like. Even in a democracy you can still make the case that it never was really in the hands of the common man to decide what society and culture would be like.

 

[~~~]

I find your posts interesting @ProxyAmenRa.