User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 93

  1. #11
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    "From a logical standpoint, it is apparent that conflict is inevitable based on our need to compete for limited space and resources, and ultimately the most successful animals are those which form cohesive groups and acquire territory by force."
    Or defend territory in cohesive groups with the threat of retaliatory force. Cold War II is here. The new front is the former soviet bloc, Ukraine and Georgia in particular, and to some extent the Middle East.

    Watch Brazil. Brazil could emerge as the new Saudi Arabia. They have just confirmed discovery of a massive 13 billion brl oil reserve, potentially much more. But it is deep and will be costly to bring online. There was talk of a BRIC aliance. Brazil, Russia, India, China.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    it might be natural in small tribal settings.

    but our society is incredibly far removed from that. i think capitalism seems quite natural for societies of our size.


    commune like life seems incredibly inefficient for groups of people over a few million. (actually, probably much smaller)

    and property (the concept) seems incredibly natural -- why, from a natural selection standpoint, let someone take a resource you have? life is basically a giant battle for resources. those with the best resources pass their genes on most often.
    I've said this a million times on INTPc. Socialism/communism only works on a small scale, but fails when implemented on a large scale. People naturally resist the force required to implement it, conversely, on a small scale, you know (emotionally invested in) the other members of the tribe. People are more willing to give up resources to people they know than to faceless individuals they'll never meet. On a small scale, a communal lifestyle does not require the same type of force to be implemented.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #13
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    As I stated earlier, bonobos, since they are our closest hominid relatives, probably represent humans in their most primitive and natural state. They are egalitarian and matriarchal, and the closest political structure that would represent them is probably anarcho-communistic. Now I can't think of any animal that has a concept of property like humans do, so there is no basis to declare that that construct is "natural". Rather, "property" in the natural sense is territory and resources won by conquest. I submit that our population is inflated as a result of embracing the unnatural systems of capitalism, and especially those of a free market. The question now is how long our resources and space can sustain the unnatural systems that have allowed our population to boom. Eventually we will descend back to the natural course and resources and space will be won via force and coercion.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  4. #14
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    it might be natural in small tribal settings...
    Gah! No, don't do it, do not try and argue with his claim, it's not worth it. It is just not worth it, dammit! The claim is complete and utter codswallop! Hardly even made sense, nor was it relevent to much of anything really, because even if every word of it was true, why would anyone care? I think we are all quite uncomfortable enough with George Bush making political and ethical decisions, and he only looks like a chimpanzee! I, for one, am not inclined to let the real chimps lead by example, even if it would be more "natural", whatever that means.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #15
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    As I stated earlier, bonobos, since they are our closest hominid relatives, probably represent humans in their most primitive and natural state. They are egalitarian and matriarchal, and the closest political structure that would represent them is probably anarcho-communistic. Now I can't think of any animal that has a concept of property like humans do, so there is no basis to declare that that construct is "natural". Rather, "property" in the natural sense is territory and resources won by conquest. I submit that our population is inflated as a result of embracing the unnatural systems of capitalism, and especially those of a free market. The question now is how long our resources and space can sustain the unnatural systems that have allowed our population to boom. Eventually we will descend back to the natural course and resources and space will be won via force and coercion.
    i don't know what you mean by 'natural'.

    how can you compare bonobo society to our society? we each know maybe a couple thousand people at the most...out of 300 million. = at most 1/100000 people in our society. bonobos know every member of their tribe.

    it seems quite UNnatural that we would want to share our resources with the 99.999% of the population that we don't know.

    maybe you're gonna say that it's unnatural for us to even be in a society like this. but that argument has trouble, because where in human history did someone do the first "unnatural" thing? was the invention of agriculture unnatural? because it was basically the turning point of societal behavior.

    there's no way to revert back to what you deem a "natural" state without breaking society back down into small enough tribes for everyone to know eachother, which would be ludicrously inefficient...aka it would never happen.

    Now I can't think of any animal that has a concept of property like humans do, so there is no basis to declare that that construct is "natural".
    i also can't think of any animal that lives in a society spread across thousands of miles with hundreds of million or even a billion members.

  6. #16
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    Watch Brazil. Brazil could emerge as the new Saudi Arabia. They have just confirmed discovery of a massive 13 billion brl oil reserve, potentially much more. But it is deep and will be costly to bring online. There was talk of a BRIC aliance. Brazil, Russia, India, China.
    3 out of 4 are G-40 countries of importance. There's a good possibility that in another 50 to 100 years the balance of power in the world could look quite different than today!

    Re: Natural State of Humans-

    It seems that the natural state in which humans have lived since they moved to the cities was a strange state of cooperation and inequality. You realize that you need others to survive, but it still doesn't mean that you don't want to feel that you're special and better than most.

    Who really gives a fuck about the natural state though- just because cancer naturally occurs doesn't mean that it's a good thing to have and shouldn't be altered/gotten rid of. Looking at what would be the best would be more important I would think than looking at what's most natural.

    *whatever suddenly remembers her sister's neighbors who beleive that bathing is unnatural *
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

  7. #17
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    i don't know what you mean by 'natural'.

    how can you compare bonobo society to our society? we each know maybe a couple thousand people at the most...out of 300 million. = at most 1/100000 people in our society. bonobos know every member of their tribe.
    Not every bonobo in the world knows every other bonobo in the world. There is more than one bonobo tribe, just as there is more than one human tribe.

    it seems quite UNnatural that we would want to share our resources with the 99.999% of the population that we don't know.
    I never said I want to share resources with the 99.999% of the population I don't know.

    maybe you're gonna say that it's unnatural for us to even be in a society like this. but that argument has trouble, because where in human history did someone do the first "unnatural" thing? was the invention of agriculture unnatural? because it was basically the turning point of societal behavior.
    Even ants have agriculture.

    there's no way to revert back to what you deem a "natural" state without breaking society back down into small enough tribes for everyone to know eachother, which would be ludicrously inefficient...aka it would never happen.
    Yeah, family structure could never happen.

    i also can't think of any animal that lives in a society spread across thousands of miles with hundreds of million or even a billion members.
    Even the limit to a human tribe is around 200 members. That is an anthropological fact. As I said earlier, humans have artificially inflated their population utilizing these theological concepts to the point that resources and space will make it necessary for them to once again break down into smaller tribes and by coercion and force, compete for those resources and territory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  8. #18
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiddo View Post
    As I said earlier, humans have artificially inflated their population utilizing these theological concepts to the point that resources and space will make it necessary for them to once again break down into smaller tribes and by coercion and force, compete for those resources and territory.
    ??

    you think capitalism is the reason our population is so big?

    our population is so big because of technology. it used to be that some square unit of space could only support x humans. with agriculture, it could support like 10x humans. with all the technology we have today compared to tribal days, that unit of land can support hundreds of thousands times x.

    also, medical technology has drastically increased lifespan.

    human population has increased because of human innovation. our society looks nothing like bonobo society because the way we interact with other members is completely completely different.

    to assume that a tendency that holds for groups of 200 will hold for groups of 300000000 is kinda weird...

    or are you saying we should break back down into self-sustaining groups of 200? that's logistically impossible and also thousands of times less energy efficient. since it's less efficient, many people would have to die until each group would have enough resources to survive. probably 90% of the population would have to die, at least. so that seems like a bad option, too.

  9. #19
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dissonance View Post
    ??

    you think capitalism is the reason our population is so big?
    I think theological concepts such as capitalism are the main contributing factor to why our population is so big. Included in that is marriage.

    our population is so big because of technology. it used to be that some square unit of space could only support x humans. with agriculture, it could support like 10x humans. with all the technology we have today compared to tribal days, that unit of land can support hundreds of thousands times x.
    I don't think that ecologically true. Technology has yet to expand how much a square unit of space can support human life. To the contrary, technological advances have resulted in loss of biodiversity which has ultimately reduced the capacity of land to support human life. Now if you are talking about fertilizers, irrigation, pesticides, and transport of resources, those "technological" advances in agriculture have been mastered by animals as primitive as insects for millions of years.

    also, medical technology has drastically increased lifespan.
    Indeed medicine has. But if you ask any free market loving libertarian, they will inform you that those developments are only the result of capitalistic endeavors.

    human population has increased because of human innovation. our society looks nothing like bonobo society because the way we interact with other members is completely completely different.
    I agree. We have theological concepts that rule our behavior. However, theological concepts are not our natural disposition. If we did not have those concepts, then we probably would behave like bonobos.

    to assume that a tendency that holds for groups of 200 will hold for groups of 300000000 is kinda weird...

    or are you saying we should break back down into self-sustaining groups of 200? that's logistically impossible and also thousands of times less energy efficient. since it's less efficient, many people would have to die until each group would have enough resources to survive. probably 90% of the population would have to die, at least. so that seems like a bad option, too.
    I think what you are failing to understand is my statements are purely observational. I have not made any argument that humans should act like bonobos, or that humans shouldn't act on theological principles. In fact, I find it hilarious that by simply making the claim that capitalism is unnatural that you have jumped to the assumption that I am declaring humans should abandon it.

    The point I am making is a simple pattern of human existence. We start off as little cohesive tribes that come together under certain theological principles. This allows us to share our resources and to exponentially expand on our population. Then we reach a point where the resources and space can no longer support our population and other smaller groups may begin to attack us and our group eventually falls apart. There is a massive die off, and new small tribes form in order to compete with other tribes. Then those small tribes once again come together and the whole process starts over.

    This pattern has been repeated through every great empire, from the Mayans, to the Roman, and eventually to the American empire. Unless technology can somehow miraculously begin expanding upon this planet's capacity to support human life, then we can expect an exceptional human die off and plunge into anarchy on the global scale.

    However, there is no capitalistic incentive to find a way to obtain unlimited resources and space, therefore the solution will probably be that humans will become the parasites of the universe, and fly from planet to planet in an endless cycle rather than finding ways to live sustainably.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  10. #20
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,128

    Default

    Once again- why does it matter where we came from socially- shouldn't the future count more?


    Sorry- I just thought that was a relevant point that was being completely ignored in an INFJ-INFJ argument
    “Oh, we're always alright. You remember that. We happen to other people.” -Terry Pratchett

Similar Threads

  1. Pew Research: The World's Muslims: Religion, Politics and Society
    By Olm the Water King in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-26-2015, 10:04 PM
  2. Types and Religion.
    By RealityDeviantPride in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 12-02-2007, 09:54 PM
  3. [NF] NFs and religion
    By Cordiform in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-01-2007, 02:15 PM
  4. The Australian Election and Religion
    By darlets in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 11-13-2007, 05:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO