Oh such a beautiful thought provoking video...

[Fluxkom]

[YOUTUBE="l7AWnfFRc7g"]Lovely stuff[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Saslou]

Wow .. That was excellent.

I'm up for an empathic civilisation. Enlightenment for the masses (maybe one day )

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Red Herring]

beautiful, thanks for posting!

 

[Fluffywolf]

Awesome video. Kinda reflects some of the thoughts I have had in the past all jumbled together in once great summary. Thanks for sharing.

The animation was annoying, distracted me a bit.

 

[Qre:us]

Fluxkom, you are the man! I have come across this video before, and it has always stayed with me, as this has pretty much been my philosophy of how the world could ideally progress.

Thanks for sharing it with the forum.

Down with tribalism - globalization and advent of rapid technological growth has given us one huge shake of reality. Borders of separation [us/them] are negligeable. Everything is connected. From one human, to another, to the animal in the woods, to the fish in the sea, to the weed growing in my own backyard. It's all contained within only one relevant border - our earth.

Preserve to persevere. Persevere to preserve.

It echoes the end of Carl Sagan's speech re: the photo of the Pale Blue Dot:

It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.

 

[uumlau]

Interesting thesis, with a couple of flaws.

Each step in the "universalization" of empathy that is given as a past example also included maintaining a sense of "otherness" along with a sense of "self" and "belonging." That this is me, this is us, that is them. I.e., no particular step lacks the "them" picture.

It is therefore not necessarily the case that the process ends with everyone as an extended family. As long as resources are limited and there is competition for resources, should any part of the "extended family" feel that they aren't getting their fair share, they will split off, create their own identity, and work against those with whom they originally identified. I don't believe it's possible to understand human history without understanding this "split off" process along with the "come together" process. The speaker doesn't consider it at all in his presentation, even in his religious examples, where such splitting and coming together happen all the time.

Technology allows the extended families to be "bigger," but it is a dynamic process of coming together in some ways and splitting apart in other ways, simultaneously.

Or, more succinctly, those you want to join you in your vision of togetherness in the world, your version of what is good for yourself and humanity as a whole, may actually have a different vision of what is good for oneself and the world and not want to join you in your efforts. Indeed, they may not merely be anarchists and rebels, or selfish people full of avarice and hatred: they may well have their own vision of which you don't approve, and wish to incorporate you into their version of universal kindness against your will.

 

[guesswho]

It was awesome.
Loved the animation.

 

[Qre:us]

Interesting thesis, with a couple of flaws.

Each step in the "universalization" of empathy that is given as a past example also included maintaining a sense of "otherness" along with a sense of "self" and "belonging." That this is me, this is us, that is them. I.e., no particular step lacks the "them" picture.

It is therefore not necessarily the case that the process ends with everyone as an extended family. As long as resources are limited and there is competition for resources, should any part of the "extended family" feel that they aren't getting their fair share, they will split off, create their own identity, and work against those with whom they originally identified. I don't believe it's possible to understand human history without understanding this "split off" process along with the "come together" process. The speaker doesn't consider it at all in his presentation, even in his religious examples, where such splitting and coming together happen all the time.

Technology allows the extended families to be "bigger," but it is a dynamic process of coming together in some ways and splitting apart in other ways, simultaneously.

Or, more succinctly, those you want to join you in your vision of togetherness in the world, your version of what is good for yourself and humanity as a whole, may actually have a different vision of what is good for oneself and the world and not want to join you in your efforts. Indeed, they may not merely be anarchists and rebels, or selfish people full of avarice and hatred: they may well have their own vision of which you don't approve, and wish to incorporate you into their version of universal kindness against your will.

This is all well and good. A valid point.

I agree that if it's an inherent dichotomy, us/them, then, for us to exist, we can never escapegoat a them.

However, I think you're (dis?)missing the primary direction this thought is supposed to provoke. A thought that provokes change.

My perspective/reaction to this video:

As some bald dude said one time, be the change you wanna see.

For me, when perceiving these kinda messages, I try to stay rational, yet, optimistic. Hopeful (?).

I don't get too caught up in always analyzing a conceptual system/a theoretical thought for why it won't work [there's always limitations, huge ones even]. However, at least, do something about it - move towards a direction you wanna see.

If you believe in the inherent message, the sentiment, this video is aiming to evoke/provoke - a call to action for the collective human condition/conscious (Fe? ) - if you agree that it's for a positive sum benefit towards preserving this earth, for as long as we can, why not do it?

Make an effort, in whatever sphere of one's own influence in their slice of earth, to portray the sentiment of this video into action.

Some core principle: don't be greedy. It unbalances, and then, chaos ensues to mass disorder, in order for balance to be restored once again. Cycle. So, in whatever sphere of control you have, be preventative, if you have foresight at your disposal. Exercise to preserve the balance.

Don't take more than your piece of this earth, more than you need. However, our archille's heel as humans is this urge to want.

We are shackled by our abstract cognition - we have, to such a degree [that no other life-forms do], a drive to want.

Supercedes need. Less primal. More calculated. Slippery slope - greediness. And, we often justify a want as "need", to ourselves. Or that we've got...."priviledged mind" sick...so thus we're justified. So if your mind is so priviledged, then don't abuse that priviledge.

In order to achieve this:

Us against Them -> You against me.

needs to become....

Us and Them -> You and me

I [Understand->empathize->respect] You.

Granted: Differences cannot exist without discord AND harmony. However, why not just up the odds towards harmony more*?

* At least, for as long as, we, the collective lifeforms on earth, can [i.e., barring natural disasters and such].

^ may sound hippie, but, again, why not?

To add: The title of this vid - "civilisation" - how ironical.

V Peguy: exactly! So let's all together see that it converges on a net positive front.

 

[Sniffles]

Down with tribalism - globalization and advent of rapid technological growth has given us one huge shake of reality. Borders of separation [us/them] are negligeable. Everything is connected. From one human, to another, to the animal in the woods, to the fish in the sea, to the weed growing in my own backyard. It's all contained within only one relevant border - our earth.

Except that "tribalism" and "globalism" thrive off each other actually.

 

[Lark]

*sarcasm* Awesome *sarcasm*

You know I watched that just felt the whole time like it was Engels' Family, Private Property and The State all over again with an adjustment in the narrative to keep apace with developments in neurology, attachment theory etc.

To be honest I shouldnt be annoyed, because this is cohering with some of my base line beliefs, particularly about primary and secondary drives, empathic sociability and being broadly critical of a lot of human nature conceptualisation which I consider to be ideologically driven such as capitalist rational calculators.

I cant be pleased though because I have a strong feeling that I've been in this position before, its the same narrative with a different spin, modernised and updated or reinfused with scientific optimism. I have to ask if we are naturally inclined in one way why does the artifice, whether its ideologically or culturally or whatever determined, endure and where did it come from? Where's the explanation which I'm sure the expulsion from the Garden of Eden is a good metaphor for? How did Lucifer sneak in the narratives about something which is counter intuitive, apparently?

Perhaps the crucial point is that we're soft wired for empathy, what if we're hard wired for antipathy? Antipathy towards the "other", especially if, even if its a fantasy, this antipathy is linked with the idea of survival and perhaps even survival in perpetuity?

I'm pretty sure when he was deactivating his primary, soft wired drive to empathy in order to sacrifice his neighbour to placate the seasons or ground shaking Gods that primitive man that a hard wired drive about survival, maybe even survival in an after life, was strongly in play.

Its a very good point about each of these changes in consciousness being connected to changes in technology, particularly productive technology, Marx suggested as much, and I think that leaps and bounds in compassion have had as much to do with the ruling classes relinquishing their grudges against their subordinates. Like someone else said in another thread about electricity and technology permitting everyone to live like kings whereas previous kings had been pretty jealous of their lifestyle and preserving it for none other than themselves.

I personally hold out hope that technology, if power problems can be resolves, could vastly improve and change things and perhaps allow empathic growth but I see a hell of a lot of cultural and ideological contradictions with it so much as developing. Not to mention the interest groups. I could really see power companies or branded firms loving the prospect of replicators for all like in Star Trek. It'd be like Turkeys voting for Christmas. Even if they wherent a problem there's going to a hell of a lot of people who couldnt or wouldnt want to adjust to a world in which anyone has a free ride, its the case already pretty much.

So far as citations about Haiti goes, well, there's been wrangles about Pakistan's floods already which appear to counter the old generalised empathy, despite the US and UK being the biggest donors its not enough and already there's people peddling the "anti-Crusader" hate message, when most of the neighbouring oil rich Arab nations for the sake of sacrificing a single days oil revenue could help out and avert the crisis happening again.

Likewise Peter Singer, a philosopher I dont really like if I'm honest, has written about how for a price of a good pair of shoes people in the affluent nations could each save the lives of those in the developing world/southern hemisphere, he's able to support his argument well but I dont see all of a sudden voluntary transfers of cash flying out of peoples accounts to unknown but needy others around the world.

What? I'd expect any socialist who knows the history of their own political ideology let alone the world to be skeptical, even cynical, when they encounter stuff like this.