Try to Look at Us This Way

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Krumple
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 07:02 am
@Aemun,
Aemun;120996 wrote:
Even given our huge potential for knowledge we still choose capitalism as our political system.


That knowledge must have evaded you because capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic system, which is not political, or well it shouldn't be. But through the lack of education, people presume that government is required for you to have an economic system. That is grossly incorrect and you don't need a government to make capitalism work. In fact capitalism has been demonized by the US government so that it could apply more control and money for itself. The government caused capitalism to fail, not the other way around.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 08:00 am
@Aemun,
Aemun;120996 wrote:
Does anyone else feel our place within the ecosphere or Gaia as it is commonly known, is as a cancer?

We reproduce out of control and consume everything we can, destroying the ecosphere and most of the things in it.

Even given our huge potential for knowledge we still choose capitalism as our political system. A Darwinian ideology which says everyone for themselves - a rat race.

Potentially we will wipe ourselves out in the next century and I can't help but think 'no great loss'.


I've felt this way and can definitely identify with your sentiments. Yes, I often think Agent Smith had a point there euphemistically. But we are a product of nature, how we act and what we do could be viewed as cancerous (and indeed it often is), but that doesn't change what we are.

I'm deeply ashamed of the damage we do to ourselves, our surroundings and other creatures; all in the name of consumption (as if this is a good thing). Yea, I think there's a good chance we'll wipe ourselves out too, and I too feel that if this ends up being the case, it's no-big-loss; not in the larger scheme of things.[INDENT] I look upon our species' desire to mass produce and mass consume kind of like a long, heavy train running down a hill; yes, it can be stopped before we destroy ourselves, it's just not every likely. 1) There's not much desire to do so -and- 2) Even if everyone did want to change, there's a large chance we couldn't stop it in time.
[/INDENT]The point of this thread is: Given our intelligence and ability to evaluate conditions, we have the potential to be the 'only voice' for life; rather than spend our time looking for more efficient ways to consume and destroy it. This being the case, do we have a moral obligation (as part of a community) as well as motivated-self interest to be that "Advocate"? The more we look at ourselves as being a part of this community, the more one is likely to see value in conserving and renewing.

... but this is old hash, we've talked this issue a thousand times; it's a horse kicked around nearly as much as god-existence. So, apologies for beating the dead horse here guys.

Thanks
 
Aemun
 
Reply Tue 19 Jan, 2010 09:21 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;120998 wrote:
That knowledge must have evaded you because capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic system, which is not political, or well it shouldn't be. But through the lack of education, people presume that government is required for you to have an economic system. That is grossly incorrect and you don't need a government to make capitalism work. In fact capitalism has been demonized by the US government so that it could apply more control and money for itself. The government caused capitalism to fail, not the other way around.


I was thinking of writing economic but I chose political given the dialectic between governments and the economy and the intention of the post. I admit technically I was wrong in this. Thank you for pulling me up on this detail, a very worthwhile cause, no doubt.
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 03:39 pm
@Khethil,
Are we talking Gaia hypothesis here? Are we looking upon mankind as an organism in the body of life and climate we call nature, with certain functions to perform on behalf of the whole ecosphere we call Mother Earth?

Samm
 
Khethil
 
Reply Mon 1 Feb, 2010 04:20 pm
@SammDickens,
Samm;124204 wrote:
Are we talking Gaia hypothesis here? Are we looking upon mankind as an organism in the body of life and climate we call nature, with certain functions to perform on behalf of the whole ecosphere we call Mother Earth?


Perhaps... if one sees our "function" to perform such a thing.

Do we have an obligation, as the only member of a community with the ability to 1) Destroy the entire entire community -and- 2) Intelligently rationalize, with known consequences for our actions, to be responsible for said atmospheric community?

i.e., Because we can speak for 'nature' do we therefore have an obligation to protect it?

One could well make a good argument that such is in our best interests - purely self-motivated interests - anyway. But aside from praising ourselves, fondling our own xenomorphic attitudes, do we out "the rest of the family" such a duty?
 
xris
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 06:02 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;120998 wrote:
That knowledge must have evaded you because capitalism is not a political system. It is an economic system, which is not political, or well it shouldn't be. But through the lack of education, people presume that government is required for you to have an economic system. That is grossly incorrect and you don't need a government to make capitalism work. In fact capitalism has been demonized by the US government so that it could apply more control and money for itself. The government caused capitalism to fail, not the other way around.
The government that supported capitalism created the excesses of its ideology. Constant growth is our enemy, it consumes governments and societies with its avarice dogma.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 09:18 am
@xris,
xris;124315 wrote:
The government that supported capitalism created the excesses of its ideology. Constant growth is our enemy, it consumes governments and societies with its avarice dogma.


Wow for two sentences, it took me about a dozen reads to get what you were saying here. I disagree though.

Government is about control. Leaders love having control, they get to set the rules. The more control a government has, means the more power the leaders have to set the rules. Capitalism doesn't lead to this unless you allow for money to dictate control, which we have done by allowing corporations to protest congress to enact laws to help corporations do things they were not allowed to do before. Buying the laws, or in other words buying control from those who are selling it, the leaders.

This is not the fault of capitalism, it is a byproduct that should have been addressed but wasn't and now we are paying for it. (pun intended)

The US is a fascist state. You got the money, you can buy some control.
 
SammDickens
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 11:02 am
@Khethil,
So the cold war was a conflict between various national governments for control of the world's dominant economic system, capitalism versus communism. But the governments themselves are democratic (republics?), socialist, totalitarian, etc.? Is this about as you see it, Krumple?

Samm
 
Magnus phil
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 04:03 pm
@Three dog,
Three_dog;120035 wrote:
Nature could still be self-aware, but unable to act.


Unwilling to act?

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

Krumple;124360 wrote:
Wow for two sentences, it took me about a dozen reads to get what you were saying here. I disagree though.

Government is about control. Leaders love having control, they get to set the rules. The more control a government has, means the more power the leaders have to set the rules. Capitalism doesn't lead to this unless you allow for money to dictate control, which we have done by allowing corporations to protest congress to enact laws to help corporations do things they were not allowed to do before. Buying the laws, or in other words buying control from those who are selling it, the leaders.

This is not the fault of capitalism, it is a byproduct that should have been addressed but wasn't and now we are paying for it. (pun intended)

The US is a fascist state. You got the money, you can buy some control.


Can we live without leaders? I don't think so. We are social animals.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 2 Feb, 2010 04:42 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;124360 wrote:


The US is a fascist state. You got the money, you can buy some control.


Have you ever lived in a fascist state? I suppose not, for if you had written what you just wrote about it, you would not have lived at all. The tern "fascism" does not mean what you decide it means. It has a meaning. And it is not up to you what it means.
 
1CellOfMany
 
Reply Sun 7 Feb, 2010 08:22 pm
@xris,
xris;120135 wrote:
We are most definitely a product of nature so we must be the voice of nature. If nature has others ways of expressing itself is in its determination. We are the vocal announcement , without the ability to fully understand our purpose. Nature procured us, nurtured us and by its determination created us.

I quite agree. We and every other organism on earth are related through our DNA and the history of life. One could even say that we, that is all of the individual organisms on earth, are part of the same super-organism, if you will, which some refer to as Gaia. But, if we are like the thinking and aware part of Gaia, then we are presently like a teenager's brain. Like a kid who thinks he knows everything, but still hasn't figured out what's good for himself and doesn't know what to do with his life.

So, what will it take for this kid to grow up and get some wisdom?

---------- Post added 02-07-2010 at 09:34 PM ----------

Aemun;120996 wrote:
Does anyone else feel our place within the ecosphere or Gaia as it is commonly known, is as a cancer?

We reproduce out of control and consume everything we can, destroying the ecosphere and most of the things in it.

Even given our huge potential for knowledge we still choose capitalism as our political system. A Darwinian ideology which says everyone for themselves - a rat race.

Potentially we will wipe ourselves out in the next century and I can't help but think 'no great loss'.

Well, we humans certainly have been making a mess of things. Kind of like an alcoholic who ruins his body because his thoughts and habits keep leading him back to alcohol. But we seem to be becoming aware of our folly, so I have hope that we can stop this bender, straiten up, and get down to accomplishing something that will be good for us and the rest of the planet.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 04:32 pm
@Khethil,
Khethil;120001 wrote:
Subject: Humanity and it's "place"
On this planet, there is one species that brings self-aware consciousness to the table, in the community of life.
Thanks


I have a hard time getting my head around this 'assumption'
If anyone can point me in a direction where this assumption is documented in any form, I'm all about enlightening myself.
Although I'm fully aware of that long held 'assumption', my own dealings with the world at large have always brought me to question - or deny - that assumption.
I consider it equally as likely that in fact we are the LEAST evolved species and that only because of a genetic error which saddled us with a large brain to the detriment of our other senses that we become locked into internal dialog that we choose to call "self awareness".

Curious..........

GS
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:04 am
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;126249 wrote:
Although I'm fully aware of that long held 'assumption', my own dealings with the world at large have always brought me to question - or deny - that assumption.


To which 'assumption' are you referring? The one that says humans are 'conscious' or that we're 'self-aware'?

groundedspirit;126249 wrote:
I consider it equally as likely that in fact we are the LEAST evolved species...


Me too, which is why nothing has been said about being the 'most' or 'least' evolved; not the point and has nothing to do with the question. Being 'self-aware' or 'conscious' is an attribute; and may or may not have anything to do with the extent to which anything is or isn't evolved.

Awesome!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:13 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:

Me too, which is why nothing has been said about being the 'most' or 'least' evolved; not the point and has nothing to do with the question. Being 'self-aware' or 'conscious' is an attribute; and may or may not have anything to do with the extent to which anything is or isn't evolved.


Well, I would imagine that this theoretical measure of evolutionary prowess would place those species which have adapted to their environment and gained control of their environment and other species, higher. And that's us! So our self-awareness, among other things like our intelligence, which make that adaptation and control possible, would attribute to us being on the more evolved side.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 09:28 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;126436 wrote:
Well, I would imagine that this theoretical measure of evolutionary prowess would place those species which have adapted to their environment and gained control of their environment and other species, higher. And that's us! So our self-awareness, among other things like our intelligence, which make that adaptation and control possible, would attribute to us being on the more evolved side.


Sure, one could look at it that way and be on relatively-firm ground. Again, more or less evolved isn't the point of the thread and wasn't stated or implied in the original posted question.

I think someone thought it was :detective:
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 11:31 am
@Khethil,
Khethil;126432 wrote:
To which 'assumption' are you referring? The one that says humans are 'conscious' or that we're 'self-aware'?
Awesome!


I was refering to this line....
Quote:
On this planet, there is one species that brings self-aware consciousness to the table, in the community of life.


So to be more specific - the 'self aware' part.
I struggle with accepting that, but it needs definition to even get into that discussion.

GS
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 9 Feb, 2010 03:37 pm
@groundedspirit,
groundedspirit;126470 wrote:
So to be more specific - the 'self aware' part.


... that humans - as a species - are capable of self-aware consciousness. Exactly what line of specificity are you unable to grasp here?

I'd like to help you understand, but I'm unsure precisely where you're floundering. Is it "self awareness" that's befuddling you or "consciousness"? There are many reference sources that could help you with them.

Good luck!
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 02:19 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;120015 wrote:
If nature had a voice, it couldn't say anything because it isn't capable of it. If nature was self aware I suppose it wouldn't want to be destroyed, maybe it would decide to make there be more apple trees, I don't know, because it isn't self aware...


We really don't know the extent of communication happening between, let's say, large underground networks of fungi in the pacific northwest, or, again, consider, blue whales.
We don't understand their language yet. Let that sink in for a moment.
We don't know what blue whales are saying to each other...

To what extent are cats self-aware? They practice good hygiene, have incredible balance, can seemingly react to their human counterparts in intimate situations...
How do you qualify consciousness?

I would give benefit of the doubt to a person making the argument that networks of electrons can have consciousness within our brains or possibly even within a thunder cloud or even in space between planets.

The amount that we simply have yet to learn about consciousness kind of puts me off of having these debates though, because we're really trying to talk about something we don't understand.
 
Krumple
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:36 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;124477 wrote:
Have you ever lived in a fascist state? I suppose not, for if you had written what you just wrote about it, you would not have lived at all. The tern "fascism" does not mean what you decide it means. It has a meaning. And it is not up to you what it means.


Alright, well lets do some defining.

"Fascists believe that a nation requires strong leadership, collective identity, and the will and ability to commit violence and wage war in order to keep the nation strong."

War in Iraq and Afghanistan, in my opinion were heavily brought about through political lies. Weapons of mass destruction and yellow cake were complete lies. To stir up anxiety into the American people who would then support the governments decision to invade. We know that the leaders at that time, had invested interests into the defense contractors who were designated to help supply and rebuild Iraq. Why would the leaders have corporate ties to defense contractors and create false information to go to war under false pretenses unless we are doing it to "keep the nation strong"?

"Fascists advocate the creation of a single party state."


It is my opinion that the democrats and the republicans are essentially the same party. I can not tell the difference between their political actions. The policies that George W. Bush enacted during his presidency are continuously carried out by Obama. Not a single policy has changed. Obama said he was going to pull out of Iraq during his campaign. Yeah but I guess he didn't mention the part about wanting to move them over to Afghanistan. Basically we are still there. Obama also mentions the illegially detained prisioners of war in Gwantanimo would be released. They are still held without due process. Show me one thing that Obama has done differently than GWB.

"Fascists blame capitalism and liberal democracy for it's creation."

"They believe that their economic system is better than rampant industrialism and unrestraint capitalism. They seek to establish significant government control over businesses and labour."

For the first time in US history, the government has bailed out big corporations and banks. This is just a new trend however the US government has been in control of many businesses for a long time. Like media, and pharmesutical companies as well as banks. One of the largest growing sectors in the work force of the US is within the governmental sector. I could go on, but you get the point.
 
groundedspirit
 
Reply Mon 22 Feb, 2010 03:43 pm
@Mentally Ill,
Mentally Ill;131118 wrote:

The amount that we simply have yet to learn about consciousness kind of puts me off of having these debates though, because we're really trying to talk about something we don't understand.


Yes, and philosophers have been doing exactly that for thousands of years. LOL
Thus we occasionally open minds and make discoveries.

But I agree - especially with your observation of the cat (and mine). I can see and feel distinct consciousness and I frequently question which is the truly more "evolved" species. Have we in fact been slowed & hindered by our large brain ? I wonder.....

GS
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 03:29:03