|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
You also seem to be implying that because Maslow placed his needs on a pyramid that it is hard to get people to go from one step to the next when actually he implied that when a person gets what he needs at one step he will automatically move to the next step.
For example when a person gets what they physiologically need and feels safe they will automatically start to socialize and seek social bonds including love. There is no natural resistance to taking these steps as Maslow indicates.
If that is not what you are arguing then it would probably mean that you are arguing that it is too hard to provide all of the needs for the majority of the people so we shouldn't even try. Let the subserviant mass remain unfulfilled with their needs while the elites continue to get more than what they need.
So it appears that you are either arguing in summary:
1. It is hard to get people to take the steps to the next level if their needs are met at the lower level. Something Maslow does not hint at.
2. It is too hard to provide all of the lower needs for the majority of the people.
http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_02_maslow.html
Please clarify.
Clarification:
Needs are not being met at a lower level. No amount of hand waving will fulfill them.
It is easier to deny resources than to grant them. Therefore, it is a far more difficult task to move a society as a whole up the heirarchy than down. As anarchy lacks the authority to compel complaince, it is a very difficult thing to happen. This would indicate a longer implementation time for anarchy than caste systems. In no way did I say it was impossible or was I suggesting that it shouldn't be tried. I just don't buy into all the claims of benefit that anarchy makes and I decline to be part of the movement. If you want to form a commune, I would encourage you to do so. I just decline to be part of it. I also do not agree that the current system is irrepairably broken.
The logistics for providing the lowest level of Maslow's Heirarchy to all members of society is mind-boggling. Only with complete willing societal complaince does anarchy become remotely possible. A caste system is easier to implement and, therefore, harder to displace. Since anarchy requires society as a whole to be at the top of the heirarchy, anarchy represents a Utopian society which has such a remote possibility of working on a large scale as to be absurd in 200 years or more. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 12:40:56 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
So what is to stop criminals from refusing to be bound by common law? This same "power" of individuals to refuse to be bound by anarchist concepts such as sharing wealth and communal help. Sociopaths refuse to be bound by societal norms now. What authority does the society have under anarchy to punish them. They choose not to be bound by their decision.
This is not what anarchy is as I have already mentioned. Anarchy doesn't mean everybody do whatever in the hell they feel like it. An individuals rights end once they infringe upon the rights of another. This is one of the key guiding principles of anarchism, that would extend to all groups no matter what the majority agrees. Maybe the foundations of a Bill of Rights for instance.quote:
Now you are imposing some form of authoritarian structure.
YES!!!! Anarchy does way with hierarchical authority, takes that authority and vests it with the people, where everyone has equal power.quote:
The Bill of Rights can be refused by members of the society who do not wish to be bound by it and there would be no recourse for the society against them.
No anarchy does have a justice system composed of all individuals of the commune they are associated with for those who infringe upon the rights of others.quote:
It is unenforceable without a central governing body,
I do not agree. I do not see how handing the power over to a small group of elites somehow makes something more enforceable than giving the power to everyone.
In a State:
1. Authority is vested in a small group of elites.
2. The elites enforce law and order over the majority.
In an anarchy:
1. Authority is vested horizontally in all of the people.
2. The people enforce law and order over themselves and everyone else.
Is either way perfect? No of course not. Both have limitations and drawbacks, but the anarchy way takes the power from the elites and puts it in the hands of the people thus increasing liberty and equality for all. This is not pie in the sky utopian dreaming. I realize there are difficulties in such a system, but there are difficulties in all such systems. I am simply offering anarchy as a possible alternative and so far I have yet to see anything to indicate it is impossible.quote:
And this is enforced.......how?
I have answered that above.quote:
Quite a conspiracy theory.
This theory agrees with numerous sociologists and criminologists who have studied social problems in numerous societies. The facts are documented that poverty and feelings of inferiority and hopelessness are at the root of numerous crimes. The theories documenting how caste systems bring this about are also well documented. I simply applied that explanation as to why the majority of people don't realize all of the plateaus of Maslow's hierarchy.quote:
Doesn't explain how members of the lower castes can obtain self-actualization plateau of Maslow's Heirarchy.
No, it explains why the majority of people cannot realize all of their lower needs leading to self-actualization.quote:
Esteem comes from family and collegues, not usually from elites.
Esteem comes from many sources including having a feeling of one's worth. In one is on the lower rungs of the caste system, one can either accept it and the lower esteem it offers, a form of Confucianism, or one can forever long to move up the ladder this always leaving a shortage of esteem.quote:
Elites hoard wealth. Wealth makes physiological needs to be met easier.
Yes.quote:
By what authority can anarchy compel this?
Again I have explained this above.quote:
One would have to organize communes and hope they catch on.
Yes I agree in some sense, or at least educate people and start them thinking in such a way. In fact I would prefer this method over say a revolution, a gradual catching on to the idea of a commune. We see this tendency going on today in every government as they become more and more socialistic and communistic.quote:
I still don't think that due to the factors I have stated that anarchy is particularly viable given a starting point of this society.
I don't know, this society with some setbacks here and there has already begun steps in that direction. Sadly "communist" USSR and China both caused backlashes and setbacks in these movements in this society. Europe, Canada and others on the other hand are far ahead of us in the regards.quote:
Society became larger and populations of unrelated peoples began mixing which gave rise to caste style governance.
I still do not see how larger decentralized diverse populations make anarchy impossible. I do not believe we have to order people into caste because of these reasons.quote:
Third part is unenforceable through the anarchistic model. It would take a switch to authoritarian state Communism to force complance and once rooted, Stalinism is difficult to uproot.
No again, authority to force this is available and thus enforceable. The authority lies with the people instead of any State.quote:
It is easier to deny resources than to gran |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 05:58:41 [Permalink]
|
I think first you'd have to show that the present system has efficacy at all. Most crimes are not reported, much less solved. People are largely put in prison, as if that solved anything, because they're poor and people of color. Real crime such as corporate and government crime and police corruption is not solved and in some cases not considered crimes at all. Yes, there are some dangerous people that are locked up for a while, but they're really only there to teach the less dangerous people how to be more dangerous.
Also, I think it has been shown that things like education reduces crime. I'll see if I can find something on that.
quote:
A lot of pie-in-the-sky statements about crime "naturally" being decreased by 90%. I'm very skeptical about that.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 07:15:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
So what is to stop criminals from refusing to be bound by common law? This same "power" of individuals to refuse to be bound by anarchist concepts such as sharing wealth and communal help. Sociopaths refuse to be bound by societal norms now. What authority does the society have under anarchy to punish them. They choose not to be bound by their decision.
This is not what anarchy is as I have already mentioned. Anarchy doesn't mean everybody do whatever in the hell they feel like it. An individuals rights end once they infringe upon the rights of another. This is one of the key guiding principles of anarchism, that would extend to all groups no matter what the majority agrees. Maybe the foundations of a Bill of Rights for instance.quote:
Now you are imposing some form of authoritarian structure.
YES!!!! Anarchy does way with hierarchical authority, takes that authority and vests it with the people, where everyone has equal power.quote:
The Bill of Rights can be refused by members of the society who do not wish to be bound by it and there would be no recourse for the society against them.
No anarchy does have a justice system composed of all individuals of the commune they are associated with for those who infringe upon the rights of others.quote:
It is unenforceable without a central governing body,
I do not agree. I do not see how handing the power over to a small group of elites somehow makes something more enforceable than giving the power to everyone.
In a State:
1. Authority is vested in a small group of elites.
2. The elites enforce law and order over the majority.
In an anarchy:
1. Authority is vested horizontally in all of the people.
2. The people enforce law and order over themselves and everyone else.
Is either way perfect? No of course not. Both have limitations and drawbacks, but the anarchy way takes the power from the elites and puts it in the hands of the people thus increasing liberty and equality for all. This is not pie in the sky utopian dreaming. I realize there are difficulties in such a system, but there are difficulties in all such systems. I am simply offering anarchy as a possible alternative and so far I have yet to see anything to indicate it is impossible.quote:
And this is enforced.......how?
I have answered that above.quote:
Quite a conspiracy theory.
This theory agrees with numerous sociologists and criminologists who have studied social problems in numerous societies. The facts are documented that poverty and feelings of inferiority and hopelessness are at the root of numerous crimes. The theories documenting how caste systems bring this about are also well documented. I simply applied that explanation as to why the majority of people don't realize all of the plateaus of Maslow's hierarchy.quote:
Doesn't explain how members of the lower castes can obtain self-actualization plateau of Maslow's Heirarchy.
No, it explains why the majority of people cannot realize all of their lower needs leading to self-actualization.quote:
Esteem comes from family and collegues, not usually from elites.
Esteem comes from many sources including having a feeling of one's worth. In one is on the lower rungs of the caste system, one can either accept it and the lower esteem it offers, a form of Confucianism, or one can forever long to move up the ladder this always leaving a shortage of esteem.quote:
Elites hoard wealth. Wealth makes physiological needs to be met easier.
Yes.quote:
By what authority can anarchy compel this?
Again I have explained this above.quote:
One would have to organize communes and hope they catch on.
Yes I agree in some sense, or at least educate people and start them thinking in such a way. In fact I would prefer this method over say a revolution, a gradual catching on to the idea of a commune. We see this tendency going on today in every government as they become more and more socialistic and communistic.quote:
I still don't think that due to the factors I have stated that anarchy is particularly viable given a starting point of this society.
I don't know, this society with some setbacks here and there has already begun steps in that direction. Sadly "communist" USSR and China both caused backlashes and setbacks in these movements in this society. Europe, Canada and others on the other hand are far ahead of us in the regards.quote:
Society became larger and populations of unrelated peoples began mixing which gave rise to caste style governance.
I still do not see how larger decentralized diverse populations make anarchy impossible. I do not believe we have to order people into caste because of these reasons.quote:
Third part is unenforceable through the anarchistic model. It would take a switch to authoritarian state Communism to force complance and once rooted, Stalinism is difficult to uproot.
No again, authority to force this is available and thus enforceable. The authority lies with the people instead of any State. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 08:16:00 [Permalink]
|
This is of course the way that capitalism works at all. Large countries that are established loot other countries and those that do manage to have an economy that works have one because of a large government which protects its small industries and works to help larger companies exploit other countries as well as its own workers.
quote:
In both of the cases you cite where anarchism tried to take root, it was destroyed by a more powerful heirarchal caste system. Again, isolation is a requirement for anarchy to take root and survive. The only way it could possibly survive outside isolation would be a simultaneous fundamental change of heart over the entire population. This cannot be forced on a population.
Have a good weekend.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 08:20:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I think first you'd have to show that the present system has efficacy at all. Most crimes are not reported, much less solved. People are largely put in prison, as if that solved anything, because they're poor and people of color. Real crime such as corporate and government crime and police corruption is not solved and in some cases not considered crimes at all. Yes, there are some dangerous people that are locked up for a while, but they're really only there to teach the less dangerous people how to be more dangerous.
Also, I think it has been shown that things like education reduces crime. I'll see if I can find something on that.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A lot of pie-in-the-sky statements about crime "naturally" being decreased by 90%. I'm very skeptical about that.
[/quote]
I suppose I'm a little spoiled here in Illinois where governmental and police crime is investigated and prosecuted. Silver Shovel and Safe Roads has really cracked down on government corruption. It has put and continues to put elected officials in prison. There's also police officers who are caught and turned in by other police officers and the public for abuses of power and trust. Hillard has been very effective in rooting out police corruption.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/gg00117.pdf
Page 19.
People with lesser education were more likely to be sentanced to jail time or committed offenses which had jail time minimums.
39.2% had less than a high school diploma.
31.2% had a GED
15.5% had a high school diploma
13.3% had more than a high school education.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/digest2001/tables/dt009.asp
Table 9.
Educational level of US society as a whole.
16.9% less than high school
32.8% high school or GED
50.3% above high school
Lack of education limits opportunity and increases hopeless situations which may be a major factor in actual perpetrators who get jail time. That factor being that they lack the power to commit white collar, non-violent crimes.
Unfortunately, there are not statistics which include convictions for white collar felonies (which rarely carry a prison sentance due to the non-violent nature of the offense) in educational level. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 09:31:25 [Permalink]
|
Thanks. Well, sure, this stuff is investigated. Penalties against corporate crime, for instance, are largely taken as a cost of doing business, and crimes such as say, paying someone minimum wage, are not thought of as crimes at all.
Sure, police corruption is something that is investigated, but police are largely given the benefit of the doubt. Which they should be under present circumstances, I suppose.
The point is, yes, there are ways to improve things under the current system, but capitalism creates these things. War is not some flaw in which you can keep the system but work on minor flaws in the system, for instance, war IS capitalism. Capitalism is war. Capitalism creates crime. Capitalism creates poverty. That is why it exists and the meat on which it survives. That is not to say that some other system won't ever have flaws. As we've said here, capitalism really doesn't exist in its pure form, and whatever we change to will probably some kind of mixed economy/political system. Want to make this system more democratic and more peaceful, etc? Fine, I'm not against that. But whenever some other system is brought up people act like the current system is some kind of utopia then call me a utopian. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 10:03:34 [Permalink]
|
Just a couple of thoughts.
It's my opinion that any failure in representational government falls squarely on the people. The people have a responsibility to vote out anyone who isn't serving them. And instead, over and over again they have given their power away by supporting such things as term limits. They give their power away by not demanding meaningful campaign reform. They give their power away by not insisting on the removal of perks to our representatives by special interests lobbying groups. The list goes on.
I am a strong supporter of representational government. It makes perfect sense to me that a community should be able to elect citizen experts to represent their interests, from local to national government and all things in-between. If our representatives fail to serve us, it is our responsibility to throw the bums out. Both representational government and anarchism depend on the peoples active involvement in the governing process.
I think the initiative process has demonstrated the danger in assuming a populace educated and responsible enough to govern. One vote, one person, bad laws. That is why we "hire" experts.
It is also my opinion that no pure economic or social system will work. A blending of systems has the best chance of surviving, and therefor serving the most people. Experimenting with a kibbutz like system (egalitarian) for those who are willing to work for the greater good of a small community, which in turn serves the greater good of the larger community might be worth a try. I am all for experimenting within the existing framework.
I dunno. I just know it comes down to people being educated and responsible for whatever system is set in place. If the people will not assume responsibility for those they elect to serve them, why should I have confidence in their ability to govern themselves directly?
Many things must change before we can declare our present form of government an unbridled success. But I think that improving the system we have is the shortest road to getting something that will work for the most people. (Nothing will work for everyone. I think that is a given.) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 10:59:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Thanks. Well, sure, this stuff is investigated. Penalties against corporate crime, for instance, are largely taken as a cost of doing business, and crimes such as say, paying someone minimum wage, are not thought of as crimes at all.
Sure, police corruption is something that is investigated, but police are largely given the benefit of the doubt. Which they should be under present circumstances, I suppose.
The point is, yes, there are ways to improve things under the current system, but capitalism creates these things. War is not some flaw in which you can keep the system but work on minor flaws in the system, for instance, war IS capitalism. Capitalism is war. Capitalism creates crime. Capitalism creates poverty. That is why it exists and the meat on which it survives. That is not to say that some other system won't ever have flaws. As we've said here, capitalism really doesn't exist in its pure form, and whatever we change to will probably some kind of mixed economy/political system. Want to make this system more democratic and more peaceful, etc? Fine, I'm not against that. But whenever some other system is brought up people act like the current system is some kind of utopia then call me a utopian.
At what point did I say the current system is utopian or even perfect. I believe that the current system can be saved from the imperfections and abuses it currently has. (<---- indicates system has problems but not unfixable) Nor did I suggest that a fully capitalistic society is warranted nor desirable. Some controls do need to be on businesses.
True Anarchy seems to be only possible under a Utopian set of conditions. Contions which are so foreign to modern society that it becomes extremely difficult to society towards it. Bottom line, I cannot reasonably see true anarchy become prevalent for first world global community residents. I am not saying that with time it is impossible. I am saying it is extremely unlikely unless a major failure occurs. A major failure that I do not see happening in the near or forseeable future.
We definately don't live in a Utopian system. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/15/2003 : 11:17:38 [Permalink]
|
Sure it's our responsibility to straighten it out, but who teaches us? That's the problem.
Hiring experts is the best way I can think of as well, and with consititutional limitations on those experts. No question.
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Just a couple of thoughts.
It's my opinion that any failure in representational government falls squarely on the people. The people have a responsibility to vote out anyone who isn't serving them.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2003 : 14:25:30 [Permalink]
|
Hi all,
Sorry for being gone so long, but projects at work kicked into high gear and landscaping at home as well. So anyway maybe we can rekindle this discussion as it still perks my interest. Also it gave me some time to read some Bakunin in the evenings :>
On civil cases:
I would argue that there does not need to be a system of hierarchical authority to manage such issues, an egalitarian system will work just fine. Mechanisms exist in such societies that allow for such issues to be managed and enforced. If a group or individual becomes belligerent they are removed from the "commune". Such mechanisms in a modern anarchist society would include syndicates and confederations amongst syndicates. Note in such a society all capital (land, factories, etc.) is owned by all of society and that is appropriated to syndicates and individuals via pure democracy. There is no capitalism nor private ownership of such capital and thus there is less motive to cheat another syndicate (business) since they are all cooperating.
Anarchism redefines the goals of businesses from:
1. Make a small group of private owners/public stock holders and a few chief executives/directors extremely wealthy
to
Primarily:
1. Provide a livelihood for all the workers equally.
and Secondarily:
2. Help the community that they are in improve.
From the FAQ:
The community determines the social and ecological framework for production while the workforce makes the day-to-day decisions about what to produce and how to do it.
Note also because of these changes in goals, the workers only have to work as much as they need to provide for themselves instead of trying to maximize profits, thus ideas such as 20 hour work weeks are within the grasps of an anarchist society leaving much more time for the individual worker for his family, his community, and himself (and herself too :>).
This would temp also to curb capitalistic tendencies since it would be very hard for a capitalistic business to recruit workers who have the following benefits:
1. True egalitarian status in their business with an equal say in how it is ran.
2. All needs provided for.
3. A short work week that allows them to truly live a rich life.
I know this has went a little off target, but still interesting points.
On crime:
There is nothing saying the community cannot (and they most definitely will) establish laws (e.g. no killing unless in self defense or to protect another might be one) and the community as a whole would make sure such laws were enforced. Hospitalization and treatment under confined conditions definitely would be the first choice for most offenders, those who continue would be locked up, maybe for the rest of their lives.
Again from the FAQ
These courts would function on two levels. Firstly, if the parties involved could agree to hand their case to a third party, then the "court" in question would be the arrangements made by those parties. Secondly, if the parties could not agree (or if the victim was dead), the issue could be raised at a communal assembly and a "court" appointed to look into the issue. These "courts" would be independent from the commune, their independence strengthened by popular election instead of executive appointment of judges, by protecting the jury system of selection of random citizens by lot, and by informing jurors of their right to judge the law itself, according to their conscience, as well as the facts of a case. As Malatesta pointed out, "when differences were to arise between men [sic!], would not arbitration voluntarily accepted, or pressure of public opinion, be perhaps more likely to establish where the right lies than through an irresponsible magistrature which has the right to adjudicate on everything and everybody and is inevitably incompetent and therefore unjust?" [Anarchy, p. 43]
In the case of a "police force," this would not exist as either a public or private specialised body or company. If a local community did consider that public safety required a body of people who could be called upon for help, we imagine that a new system would be created. This system would be based around a voluntary militia system, in which all members of the community could serve if they so desired. Those who served would not constitute a professional body; instead the service would be made up of local people who would join for short periods of time and be replaced if they abused their position. Hence the likelihood that a communal militia would become corrupted by power, like the current police force or a private security firm exercising a policing function, would be vastly reduced.
Also I would point that the majority of all crime is related to poverty and social problems. Percentage wise there are very few sociopaths.
quote:
Humans are an inherently aggressive species.
I argue this point. Humans like most animals can be aggressive, but to say we are inherently so, ignores much evidence to the contrary (certain individuals might be, but not all humans or even a majority).
quote:
Sex is an aggressive act.
Huh?
Actually our earliest tools turned out to be so we could break open bones of already dead animals. Tools for hunting didn't appear to much later. Even then it appears that violence was not rampant suggesting some innate bestiality.
quote:
In both of the cases you cite where anarchism tried to take root, it was destroyed by a more powerful hierarchical caste system. Again, isolation is a requirement for anarchy to take root and survive. The only way it could possibly survive outside isolation would be a simultaneous fundamental change of heart over the entire population. This cannot be forced on a population.
I agree with allot of this, although I think that it could be established if enough people were educated in the matter and decided to take it up. Anarchist communes exist today across the U.S. so they can survive maybe even survive inside a capitalistic society.
I have some more ideas I will try to form into cohesive words early next week.
Until then adios |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 07:59:21 [Permalink]
|
I would argue that people can overcome this natural tendency to be aggressive. It was our aggressiveness as a species which drove us to dominate our habitat.
King, Ghandi, and Menonites are noted for their aversion to violent means to an end. They can still be and were aggressive in their persuit of goals.
Aggressiveness in the way I am using it indicates drive to dominate ones social path or environment. Not perpensity for violence.
As for 20 hour work weeks, not practical for agriculture. I grew up in farm country. To make your farm prosper, you had to put in a lot of time into it. Planting, harvesting, weed and pest control all take a lot more time than 20 hours per week. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 10:17:21 [Permalink]
|
As for the aggressiveness of our specie, it's only natural, isn't it? After all, in the evolutionary past, those who were more aggressive tended to have more sex, which led to more children, which resulted in the spread of aggression genes throughout the whole population. Those who were meek had much less sex, with corresponingly fewer offspring, which tended to limit the spread of non-aggression genes in the population. Nothing could be more simple.
But I do agree with Valiant Dancer that we can overcome this natural tendency to aggression, and hopefully soon, since we really don't need it anymore. |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
| Edited by - walt fristoe on 09/02/2003 10:19:31 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2003 : 11:44:38 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
It would seem that we did not start to dominate our environment until we invented agriculture and began to establish caste systems and even this is not a universal. Many agrarian societies lived and still live without dominating their environment (or at least in the ways you are mentioning). We like all animals (or any living thing for that matter) of course modify our environment and always have, but only with the invention of agriculture and then the establishment of caste systems did we begin to aggressively dominate it and even then not universally.
I would argue that our aggressive domination of our environment is a trait that is heavily influenced by our culture and especially by caste cultures where the elite castes set up systems of such domination to make themselves more wealthy.
Yes I agree that humans can be aggressive in pursuit of their goals, but also humans are very social, and this does seem to be a very strong natural (biological) trait as is our altruistic nature towards other humans. I think that caste and capitalistic systems tend to suppress that nature creating more of a me vs. everyone persona. Anarchism on the other hand reverses that tendency and enhances altruistic tendencies.
I grew up in a farm culture as well and am aware of its time constraints, and in such cases more workers would work the communal farm thus with more workers sharing the workload, working weeks could still be decreased. Of course in such a situation this would require more subsidizing (more than even today) from the commune(s) the farm serves, However if a society is working to allow everyone to live comfortably and to improve living conditions (advance society, etc.) instead of trying to make a few individuals of an elite caste extremely wealthy then there will be plenty of resources to go around.
For example:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/inequal/2003/0801gap.htm
The 13,000 richest families in the U.S. now have almost as much income as the 20 million poorest.
and
In their 1992 campaign for the White House, Bill Clinton and Al Gore liked to point out that the top 1 percent of Americans owned 40 percent of the country's wealth. They also said that if you eliminated home ownership and only counted businesses, factories and offices, then the top 1 percent owned 90 per cent of all wealth. And the top 10 percent, they said, owned 99 percent!
This difference in thinking is quite profound. For instance name me the primary goal of any single capitalistic business? Of course to make the few owners rich. In fact a quick look back into the not so distant past shows what the owners did to the workers to make them rich. Exploit the hell out of them of course. Now anarchism on the other hand proposes that socialist business exist for the primary goal of providing for all of the workers a livelihood and secondarily improving society. (Note: I am aware that capitalistic businesses have secondary goals as well, but these too often are treated more as tertiary or lower goals compared to the primary goal, where profit and the bottom dollar drive the business - e.g. witness the mass lay offs anytime a business starts to loose profits).
Taking that 99% of wealth out of the hands of the 10% and distributing it evenly to the rest should allow for positions at labor intensive jobs such as farming, manufacturing, etc. to be over staffed allowing these people to work 20 hour weeks as I proposed above.
Thanks for the feedback |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
