|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
This warrants a thread of its own. The following are not quotes but a paraphrased précis of some of the original thoughts:
"We should realise we are a global community"
"All it takes is for each of us (presumably including unknown people) to affirm it"
To me the thoughts are reasonable but disregard human nature.
Someone always wants to be in charge and order other peole around.
Someone has a religion that excludes others
Someone is a member of a "tribe" that has a historical hatred of another "tribe"
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TygerBoiSammy
|
 |
Toe is in the water |
Registered: January 1970
Messages: 57
|
|
|
But Timmy..... aren't we a tribe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
A global community....
It all sounds so..... so..... Star Trekish.....
But...
Which soverign nation should be the default leader?
Will all the other nations yield to the administration of just one?
Should an entire new world order be formed?
How can this be accomplished?
Who will stand up and say "I am their leader" when the planet Gaaboi from the other side of the galaxy comes to visit?
Shall this be a democracy? Monarchy? Dictatorship? Or some new system not yet thought of?
Perhaps in the spirit of oneness we should have brain implants that connect all of our consciousness together into one huge thinking organism?
So many choices..... so little time.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
In so many ways "we" are. But what is a tribe?
When humankind first started a tribe was simply the group of people most genetically simialr toeach other, related by procreation, living in the same small geographic area.
They had no idea they were a tribe until they met neighbouring tribes, and the close neighbours were almost certainly related by procreation, but had split away several generations ago.
Tribes generally were both afraid of and antagonistic towards other tribes, though tribes learned how to trade with other tribes as time passed. Even so a tribe usually engendered fierce loyalty, for the tribe tended to protect its own, probably instinctively.
As time passed a tribe diverged from its neighbours in physical characteristics. Imagine one tribe with big noses and the neoighbours with big ears, for example. We already know that we are generally attracted to similar people to oursleves, so one can see how noses might grow in size in the bignoses and ears in the bigears.
Tribes each know themselves to be superior to everyother tribe they know. After all, as a bignose, I know how wonderful big noses are. and I despise any person with a small nose. They are inferior to me. I may even fear them enough to attack them, or I may covet their greener pastures and want to graze my cattle there. So I kill them. Apart from those I leave alive, of course, who later try to kill me.
Now we have a feud, leading to war between two tribes.
The final obvious relics of this we see in Africa where it is public knowledge that tribal warfare is endemic.
Now are we a tribe becaue we are white, for example? For I am white and so are you.
The answer is we are each members of a tribe, but not the same tribe. My ancestry is veyr mixed. Viennese jew (race not exactly religion) and English rose. The probability that either of my parents were members of the same tribes (many) that either of your parents were members of is remote but posisble. However we have widened "white" to encompass in generla White Brits and White Americans, probably because your nation is composed of migrants from our and other shores.
Where do scandewegians fit in this? Does the migrant nature of the USA mean theyand the white brits are now the same tribe? Or did that happen when Norsemen invaded the british isles?
Now what of the French. Many are olive skinned. They are a different tribal genetic makeup from (eg) a white brit, but they are nonetheless white. Of course Normandy is more complex because the Normans were Norse Men
How are we doing for complexity?
If the French are the same tribe as the Brits, why do we each hate the other?
In the middle east it might be argued that jew and arab come form the same tribal stock. Why can they not geton?
In Northern Ireland catholics and protestants are congregated into cultural tribes. Why can they not get on?
There is a great deal to be solved before we can be one world. Peol have attempted it. In Bosnia Marshall Tito artificlally integrated Serbs and Croats. These are peoples who are incompatible with each other, in general. When Yugoslavia reformed into sovereign nations Bosnia had huge issues with tribal warfare and so called "ethnic cleansing". Had Tito not forcibly sought to integrate those peoples what would have happened instead?
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, why are genes and heritage the discriminating association in your opinion, Timmy? Just because it once was, does not automatically mean it still is. And as you yourself state, many "tribes" of the same heritage do not get along at all.
A tribe (the term has unwanted connotations, among other things to ancient culture and heritage, which makes it hard to use properly here), or rather, a society, is a group of individuals who have some common goal. They want the same thing, so they organise to easier achieve it. To narrow it even further, for people to organise into a society they must need to. There must be a stimulus that will make them.
As for wars and killing eachother - a common enemy is great for uniting people. Whther that enemy is imaginary or real doesn't matter, as has been IMHO demonstrated by history.
BTW: Hope this isn't seen as a dissertation.
BTW2: I am a forum lurker who has "unburrowed". Pleased to meet you all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Silfer wrote:
> Well, why are genes and heritage the discriminating association in your opinion, Timmy? Just because it once was, does not automatically mean it still is. And as you yourself state, many "tribes" of the same heritage do not get along at all.
My thoughts were really to set "a" scene. To discuss something one needs a base point, and that base point need not even be correct. But it is a start.
To answer your question I think we have simply the difference between instinctive matters (somehow inbuilt) and intellectual mnatters (learned and often very much more advanced than instinct [and sometimes much less advanced!]). It needs a great deal of time before instinctcan catch up with intellect. Simply wanting it to happen is not enough.
>
> A tribe (the term has unwanted connotations, among other things to ancient culture and heritage, which makes it hard to use properly here), or rather, a society, is a group of individuals who have some common goal. They want the same thing, so they organise to easier achieve it. To narrow it even further, for people to organise into a society they must need to. There must be a stimulus that will make them.
I disagree with yoiu that "tribe" is not a useful term here. But choose another with pleasure. But a tribe is no more than a subset of a society. A special case is where the entire society is composed of only one tribe.
Hoever not every individual in that tribe, let alone in that society, wants the same thing. Probably the sole common goal is that each member wishes to survive.
In general adversity where I need your help to survive and you need mine will unite us better than anything else.
>
> As for wars and killing eachother - a common enemy is great for uniting people. Whther that enemy is imaginary or real doesn't matter, as has been IMHO demonstrated by history.
It may unite. But does it justify killing of others?
>
> BTW: Hope this isn't seen as a dissertation.
And if it is? Do we mind that?
>
> BTW2: I am a forum lurker who has "unburrowed". Pleased to meet you all.
Welcome home 
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> My thoughts were really to set "a" scene. To discuss something one needs a base point, and that base point need not even be correct. But it is a start.
Agreed.
>
> To answer your question I think we have simply the difference between instinctive matters (somehow inbuilt) and intellectual mnatters (learned and often very much more advanced than instinct [and sometimes much less advanced!]). It needs a great deal of time before instinctcan catch up with intellect. Simply wanting it to happen is not enough.
Well, yes, but consider if people initially group with people of same heritage becuase that's the people close by, so to speak. They do not, however, group BECAUSE of heritage. If we assume that, it becomes clear that heritage and "race" are not determinant for grouping, and then we have "hope" for a better world and so on and so forth.
Of course, one can also argue that we have an instinct for grouping with people of the same heritage - however, humans are different from the rest of the animal kingdom by their ability to supress instincts.
>
> I disagree with yoiu that "tribe" is not a useful term here. But choose another with pleasure. But a tribe is no more than a subset of a society. A special case is where the entire society is composed of only one tribe.
>
> Hoever not every individual in that tribe, let alone in that society, wants the same thing. Probably the sole common goal is that each member wishes to survive.
>
> In general adversity where I need your help to survive and you need mine will unite us better than anything else.
Well, sure. I said "a goal", not necessarily many. Also, survival can mean different things in diofferent contexts. Peacetime survival warrants a different type of tribe or society than does wartime, for instance.
>
> It may unite. But does it justify killing of others?
>
In most cases not, of course. I was just offering an explanation for tribal wars where it is not a war for spoils, but simply "kill the other tribe".
> And if it is? Do we mind that?
>
Well, it seemed so just below in the flood topic.
> Welcome home
Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
The jump off point for the classification of dissertation begins when one has to scroll down 2 pages to read a whole post.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Silfer wrote:
> timmy wrote:
> > To answer your question I think we have simply the difference between instinctive matters (somehow inbuilt) and intellectual mnatters (learned and often very much more advanced than instinct [and sometimes much less advanced!]). It needs a great deal of time before instinctcan catch up with intellect. Simply wanting it to happen is not enough.
>
> Well, yes, but consider if people initially group with people of same heritage becuase that's the people close by, so to speak. They do not, however, group BECAUSE of heritage. If we assume that, it becomes clear that heritage and "race" are not determinant for grouping, and then we have "hope" for a better world and so on and so forth.
>
> Of course, one can also argue that we have an instinct for grouping with people of the same heritage - however, humans are different from the rest of the animal kingdom by their ability to supress instincts.
If one grpoups together because one is currently present (in history) one is likely to have been born there and have the same or very close genetic makeup. Certainly in historic times heritage and location and grouping were so closely entiwined as to be indistinguishable
> > In general adversity where I need your help to survive and you need mine will unite us better than anything else.
>
> Well, sure. I said "a goal", not necessarily many. Also, survival can mean different things in diofferent contexts. Peacetime survival warrants a different type of tribe or society than does wartime, for instance.
In either case the basic needs for food, drink, shelter and safety are there. War simply creates additional danger form whihc one needs to keep safe.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
 |
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I don't deny that bringing people together into a global community would not be a complex indevor.
But hey lets just try and get people behind a general concept before we start talking about detail.
Now I don't have all the answers, that's why as many people as posable need to have a voice and what time in the history of humankind have we had had a greater opportunity to do so? I mean the one resources we do have among the many dwindling in this day and age is the abitility to express ideas to a very wide audience.
OK this, I believe, outdated concepts of leaders who act in deference to there own speical intrest is not to our benifit, would it not behove us to do just what they are doing but on a much broader level. Hey I don't know if such a thing can be done but if we don't try we will not know. Guys this world is too small for us to be split into tribes anymore and I think we can erase the lines without the loss of individual or cultural identity.
Lets start with the common ground like respecting the (needs) that we all share, I realize even that is going to be a hard pill to swallow being from the land of conspicuous consumption.
We need to move on folks and think as we never have before. The wake up calls are all around us!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
But if we all become one huge community of humankind there is no point in my taking Kevin to europe for his graduation....... it would be just like going down the street.....
I just have to believe that the cultural identity of the various ethnic and geographicly diverse peoples this vast huge big world has to offer would deminish the spirit of humanity as a species if we were to digress into a single entity of culture.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
I agree with you whole heartedly our cultural diversity is part of the richness of who we are as a species.
But is there no way for us to realize that our cultural philosophes are not the end all and be all for us all, can we not maintain it to some extent? I mean I look at the US and see the attempt of the distruction of multipul tribale cultures and it failure, not only failure but a resugance of that cultural diversity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another voice wrote:
> I agree with you whole heartedly our cultural diversity is part of the richness of who we are as a species.
> But is there no way for us to realize that our cultural philosophes are not the end all and be all for us all, can we not maintain it to some extent? I mean I look at the US and see the attempt of the distruction of multipul tribale cultures and it failure, not only failure but a resugance of that cultural diversity.
It can be argued that humans need something to hang on to, some sense of "tribe", "family" or "society", in short a group to belong too (and note how all these group types are exclusive - it's "us, and you are not part of us"), especially in this rapidly changing world of today. That does not mean it should be that way, and especially it should not lead to hostility. However, I have no faith in humanity, especially as a pack (or flock of sheep, sometimes a better analogy). Humans as a pack revert to animals, if you wish. I do, however, have faith in the power of one and individuals who do not fall back to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
another voice wrote:
> I agree with you whole heartedly our cultural diversity is part of the richness of who we are as a species.
> But is there no way for us to realize that our cultural philosophes are not the end all and be all for us all, can we not maintain it to some extent? I mean I look at the US and see the attempt of the distruction of multipul tribale cultures and it failure, not only failure but a resugance of that cultural diversity.
As I see it.... Cultural identity brings many advantages..... In the people of any significant culture group (by that I mean a group with structure, customs, economy and also maybe religous beliefs) they tend to find solace in the knowledge that the group as an entity will survive them after death.... this goes beyond familiar ties and filial history... but carried with it a sense of stability that goes deep to the very core of each individuals being.....
To alter such inbred socialogical costoms and mores would leave the general population of these unique groups with a feeling of loss or even remorse.... An alternate system would only reinforce their resolve to remain at the status quo.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Think about where in this current world in which we live there is socialogical strife due to the infusuin of foreigh beliefs or customs????
How do these cultures press back against interference?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
Silfer wrote:
"It can be argued that humans need something to hang on to, some sense of "tribe", "family" or "society", in short a group to belong too (and note how all these group types are exclusive - it's "us, and you are not part of us"), especially in this rapidly changing world of today. That does not mean it should be that way, and especially it should not lead to hostility. However, I have no faith in humanity, especially as a pack (or flock of sheep, sometimes a better analogy). Humans as a pack revert to animals, if you wish. I do, however, have faith in the power of one and individuals who do not fall back to that."
I think I have a little more faith - or perhaps just hope - than Silfer, but he hits the nail on the head. Most humans have a deep-seated need to 'belong' - the 'us and them' instinct surfaces in children as soon as they learn to communicate with their peers. It's the glue which holds minority communities together - but the same glue underlies gang warfare, race riots and any number of other undesirable groupings.
If the instinct can be channelled into pride in heritage, it's probably a positive influence; I suspect this may be because you don't NEED a leader in that kind of tribal grouping.
The problem is that leaders tend to emerge - seeking power is another human
instict! So we end up - for example - with 'ancestral homeland' arguments. Wales has been united with England for 700 years, but demands for independance have become strident in the last half-century. History is certainly unfair, but how far back do we seek to unpick it? The Jewish Nation inhabited modern Israel two millennia ago, but (ignoring the purely political dimension) is there any logical reason why they should reclaim it today? If there is, then by the same token the Welsh would be entitled to reclaim England, since they are the genetic descendants of the original British population displaced by the Anglo-Saxons. OK, this is a simplistic argument, but it illustrates the deep-seated nature of the tribal instinct.
Yes, we do need to move closer together to ensure the survival of humanity, but I guess that Utopia is still a long way away. I agree that great oaks arise from little acorns, and any effort is worthwhile - but I doubt we'll see much progress in our lifetime.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If it's directed to me, I don't quite understand what you mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I rarely post to anyone directly..... so don't take it personally.....
I know sometimes it may seem or feel as if I am being pointedly direct and to be honest I am.... but thats just my nature......
Now...... What I mean is ...... Who at the present time is directly affected by foreign influence?
What measures do the societies imposed upon take to rebuff the imposition...
What I am getting at here is the notion that societies do not generally accept the foreign infusion of extra-cultural ideas. This being the case, what are the direct causses and effects of such imposition.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I love going to ethnic festivals...
What I think I like best is the overall feeling of commonality within the microsocial units that make up this area.
It seems that between Cleveland, Toledo and Columbus Ohio as well as Detroit there is such vast richness of ethnic neighborhoods that almost the entire globe is represented.
In as much as they are all joined by the common aspect of being residents (I refrain from saying citizen) of this country they still enjoy their cultural uniqueness. I have to believe that it is that uniqueness that binds these groups together.
Now, what would happen to the cultural ricness of these many groups if they were ammalgamated into a solatary social unit?
Would their cultural identity fade away?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
> I think I have a little more faith - or perhaps just hope - than Silfer, but he hits the nail on the head. Most humans have a deep-seated need to 'belong' - the 'us and them' instinct surfaces in children as soon as they learn to communicate with their peers. It's the glue which holds minority communities together - but the same glue underlies gang warfare, race riots and any number of other undesirable groupings.
>
(snip)
>
> Yes, we do need to move closer together to ensure the survival of humanity, but I guess that Utopia is still a long way away. I agree that great oaks arise from little acorns, and any effort is worthwhile - but I doubt we'll see much progress in our lifetime.
Actually, I feel that there are some grounds for cautious optimism. Maybe it's possible for the feelings of belonging and tribal solidarity to work *for* the development of a common humanity, rather than against it.
Increasingly, we are no longer just part of one local community. When I was growing up, in a small hamlet in the Cotswolds, I pretty much only belonged to one community - school, friends, church, all interlinked. Since I've lived in London, I'm a member of a number of communities - the community at work, the community of my friends, the religious, political and charitable activites I undertake ... and the internet has obviously added a number of other virtual but very real communities (especially a gay circle, and a couple of international professional groups).Between them, members of these groups or communities cover virtually a very wide range of sexuality, age, gender, ethnicity, income, political persuasion, country of residence, first language ... .
I think the same kind of thing is true for many people. And the really good thing about this is that it helps me realise that there is usually some point of contact, of common humanity, to be found with nearly everyone. I'm not saying it's not a struggle to always appreciate the humanity of others, or that I or anyone can always succeed. But I do think that the possibilities are looking better now than they've ever done.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I think its more of a matter of opportunity.....
In these modern times we have the chance to cross paths with so many people from so many backgrounds that we become accustomed to and with the diversity that surrounds us.
We become comfortable with those (whom in other times we feared) due to the exotic differences between each our cultures.
If the world is going to evolve into a "global community" I think it will have to be because we meerly become truly comfortable with the things that make each of us different.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: March 2012
Messages: 2344
|
|
|
This is the kind of thing I am getting at. We have some much wisdom around us that may not be unique to any one culture but is expressed so eloquently within that diversity that we can now easly see and so, breaks bariers. I know my life as NW's has been inriched form the diversity I have come in contact with.
Timmy I am sorry to say that that a young man being disowned by his family is one of those details that may take a little longer. Learning to live in tolerance is going to be a big one and a hard one, but again we have a lot of hard things to face collectively. And if we don't?
It has to have a start somewhere!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I don't mind a poast "at me", the issue was that I didn't understand it.
But almost everybody is affected novadays, don't you find? Most countries accept refugees and are open for immigration by other means. (Altho in Norway, the general public seems most worried about refugees and polish workers, go figure) And well, problems arise when things that are culture conflict with very stong social/cultural norms. Consider religious practices, male and female circumcision (dunno if the word is used of female actually, but you know what I mean), and so on. Sameway, the fact that we are gay conflcits with certain religions, and it isnt a laughable matter - IF you truly believe being "nice" to gays will damn you forever, it's quite given that you won't be nice to them.
The dilemma is: When are we right in saying "this cultural/religious belief is not above tolerance/*insert similar thing here*"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Not a hope in hell. "Global Community"? Not a chance. Regrettably the evidence of the anarchy following the New Orleans hurricane shows that there will always be people who want to take what others have, and who will kill to get it.
My view? Forget the primrose tinted idea.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... even when it isn't matched by expectation.
NW makes the valid point that the diverse racial mix in London - and for that matter in Western Europe - brings us into contact with members of many other 'tribes', and creates 'sub-tribes' of mixed composition. I agree with this wholeheartedly, and it's a very positive influence, though at grass-roots level only a small percentage of the population is effectively exposed to it.
However, I think that there are several distinct factors which we are confusing here. I'll stay off my soapbox (perish the thought that I'm accused of posting another dissertation!) but human beings are diverse and far from perfect. If we are to move towards Utopia, how do we deal with:
- Criminal elements with no discernable morality and no objective other than fulfilling their own interests? They are evident in New Orleans today, as Timmy points out.
- Self-seekers whose only objective is to increase their own wealth and/or influence? They are to be found across the board from Corporate America to third world dictatorships like Zimbabwe.
- Posturers for political or religious correctness, who will do anything to deflect attention from the broad picture to the nit-picking detail which obsesses them, and who will even unpick history, given half a chance. This of course includes any Southern Baptist firebreathers not caught by the previous category!
As I see it, this is an almost insurmountable challenge, because these three groups hold most of the real power in our world.
How do YOU think we overcome the problem?
Answers on a postcard, please - and only SHORT dissertations are permitted!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
(snip)
>If we are to move towards Utopia, how do we deal with:
>
> - Criminal elements with no discernable morality and no objective other than fulfilling their own interests? They are evident in New Orleans today, as Timmy points out.
>
> - Self-seekers whose only objective is to increase their own wealth and/or influence? They are to be found across the board from Corporate America to third world dictatorships like Zimbabwe.
>
> - Posturers for political or religious correctness, who will do anything to deflect attention from the broad picture to the nit-picking detail which obsesses them, and who will even unpick history, given half a chance. This of course includes any Southern Baptist firebreathers not caught by the previous category!
>
> As I see it, this is an almost insurmountable challenge, because these three groups hold most of the real power in our world.
>
> How do YOU think we overcome the problem?
>
> Answers on a postcard, please - and only SHORT dissertations are permitted!
Lacking others gift for precis, any answer I might hazard on this complex question can't be short. Even so, I'll try to avoid the disjointed ramblings common in my hippy past and the european anarcho-syndicalist school of thought (tho those influences will be obvious).
I take it as read that a more equitable distribution of resources is implied and required (inequitable distribution promotes jealousy, hatred ... Utopia realises the needs of all humans as being valid). This implies that Utopia is an artificial state liable to (hopefully shortlived and purely local) breakdown in extreme conditions such as New Orleans, or the Tsunami, etc - it would be foolish to prestend otherwise.
That element of criminality which is driven by material need is likely to be reduced considerably (most theft, for example). Extreme need will ALWAYS provoke an extreme reponse (yes - I would steal, although I hope not become violent, if necessary to keep my loved ones alive. I'm not proud of it, but I recognise the truth).
That element of criminality which relates to an impulsive or premeditated disregard of the humanity of others (violence, racism, sexism, homophobia, murder etc) I would expect to become much less common - a lot of this kind of stuff is perpetrated by those who feel *themselves* under threat: as they can feel more accepted they may be more willing to accept the difference of others. But such crimes can never be completely eliminated, and just have to be treated as an invitable "given" - like the weather, or traffic accidents.
Crimes committed for intellectual challenge (eg "hacking"), and those people bent on self-aggrandisement are in many ways similar. There is a fine line between testing one's own capabilities and limits and taking pride in one's achievements, and seeking to "prove" this by being "demonstrably better" that other people. At present our fiercely competitive society encourages the latter - it will require a major cultural shift to change this. But it IS possible, although it may take a century to achieve, and will inevitably not be a smooth progress. But I have some hopes that it will eventually be a common perception that to declare oneself the 'best' at anything implies disrespecting others as 'less good', which would to some extent imply a lack of acceptance of the whole person as they actually are ... a snowball effect may just come into play. And increasing well-founded self-esteem in an accepting society may reduce the perceived need for external/competitive validation of ones abilities. In short, I expect the need to 'excel', to 'lead', and to 'follow' to be increasingly seen as aberrant.
And that perhaps is the clue to the final category of "Posturers for political or religious correctness". I do actually believe that needing to impose one's views on others (IMHO, instead of accepting that humans are limited, and "truth" is bigger than any one of us can know) is a sign of basic insecurity ... reduction of this insecurity may help reduce the number of adherents to "correctness", but I think there could be a general shift to accepting that others have a right to their own views, and the only given is the liberal paradox (ie, the only thing it is morally permissible to force on others is that they do not force their views on others!). I see this as minimising both the numbers of, and the influence of, those adhering to dogmatic viewpoints.
I don't expect to get there in my lifetime, or this century (I may have hippy roots, but I have not done any of that stuff for a few decades now). But it is the path I think we must / should / can travel.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Dissertations only count if they make sense.
And where do we send the postcard.....
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie wrote:
//snip
> - Criminal elements with no discernable morality and no objective other than fulfilling their own interests? They are evident in New Orleans today, as Timmy points out.
>
> - Self-seekers whose only objective is to increase their own wealth and/or influence? They are to be found across the board from Corporate America to third world dictatorships like Zimbabwe.
>
> - Posturers for political or religious correctness, who will do anything to deflect attention from the broad picture to the nit-picking detail which obsesses them, and who will even unpick history, given half a chance. This of course includes any Southern Baptist firebreathers not caught by the previous category!
>
> As I see it, this is an almost insurmountable challenge, because these three groups hold most of the real power in our world.
>
> How do YOU think we overcome the problem?
>
> Answers on a postcard, please - and only SHORT dissertations are permitted!
Well, IMHO most of these behaviours are not individual human but pack human - see my post about not having faith in humans as a pack.
Criminal elements with no morality: Their gangs, packs reinforce it. You'd be surprised at the gang's internal honor codes and the like, I think. And when you gain honor and esteem from others by crimes and not by being a good human being (as we would see it), that may very well be what you do.
Same with corporations and self-seekers. If you are in a tribe/pack/society that rewards and honors you for seeking to earn money for the company, that becomes "legal" in terms of morality. It takes strong, INDIVIDUAL human beings to go against it and become "whistle-blowers", for instance.
Same goes for the firebreathers. Fair enough; they have a belief in God that permits and makes it right to do as they do - however, when the community around them, their persons of authority etc. honor them for it, it will take a strong person to rethink and doubt his beliefs.
*steps off the soapbox* Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silfer wrote:
> Well, IMHO most of these behaviours are not individual human but pack human - see my post about not having faith in humans as a pack.
>
Very much agree with you about that - my limited optimism stems solely from the possibility/probability that humans will increasingly regard themselves as members of a number of different packs, each of which will have different norms and behaviours, so lessening the grip of any single standard.
NW
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
Packs are peculiar. Note office internal politics. Note the imbeciles that rise to the top while genuinely intelligent people are passed over fro promotions. Note the backstabbing to prevent better people rising to the top. Not just pack activity but individual actions to create a pecking order.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
I refer you to the book, "the Peter Principle" by Dr. Laurence J. Peters
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... for some thoughtful and perceptive responses.
Nothing at all I'd quarrel with there (Is this a first? I hear you say!)
Marc - sorry I omitted the address; postcards go to G. W. Bush, The White House, Washington, DC - or alternatively to your local refuse dump, where the impact they achieve will be much the same!
I agree with NW that if Utopia is achievable it's a long way down the road. Just to chuck another two cents in, would you agree that the swing to 'human rights' in the last few decades has been counter-productive within the framework of Western Society? The basic principles are fine - in fact they are essential if we are to have a civilised society, but what about the related applications? For example -
-In the UK over the past century and a half education has become available to all (before 1870, public education was a hit-and-miss affair, largely dependent upon charity and philanthropy). But, following a political agenda, the emphasis over the last forty years has moved from the pursuit of equality of opportunity to the mere pursuit of equality. In many areas ability is no longer nurtured as it once was.
-Provision for the disabled (which I strongly support in principle) is enforced to a degree which places enormous financial burdens on businesses which rarely if ever deal with disabled people.
-Parental rights are accorded far more weight than was the case half a century ago, and public funding of accommodation and support for single parents has reached astronomical levels - as indeed has the number of single parents. Of course, I exclude from this provision for physically abused victims of broken partnerships, but might there be a case for arguing that young children of parents who are constantly in trouble for antisocial behaviour would be better off with adoptive parents?
These are random examples, and dozens more could be quoted. Would (or should?) progress towards Utopia involve a significant shift in the balance between liberties and responsibilities?
Postcard answers this time to A. Blair, 10 Downing Street, London, England - or, of course, to your local refuse dump!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
|
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
You are right......
It really does little other than drain your pocket of the cost for a stamp when you petition politicians.
I would add to your list that leaders should be subjected to a system of accountability for their mistakes... or shall I dare to say incompetency?
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13796
|
|
|
I find that email lobbying is a useful element, though
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
a Global Community 
Re: a Global Community 
