U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2008, 12:16 PM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by stycotlMultinationals like a McDonalds and such already represent a homogenous society.
People are herd animals and they will blindly follow the greatest majority; so if our youth already eats (the same) fast-food we will eventually destroy every other food source which is not used in the fast-food industry (in order to make more of the same fast-food).
So in the end we eventually will have a standardized global society; humanity as a society already is more homogeneous than a 100 a years ago.
i agree that we have more homogenization in our societies than we used to. but the key word in that phrase is *societies*. they are still unique organisms, however similar they might have been. i don't think that it would be possible for the natural evolution of our global psychology to create a one-society organism, not even with the most repressive and dominant of dictatorships. that would require the repression of human thought itself, of actual, chemical or physical brainwashing to the point that humans are mental vegetables, only capable of acting off of the mandates and thoughts that are put in their heads by their masters. as far as i see, there is still nothing in the way of current technology that allows such a thing.

i think what is happening is that we are arguing two different definitions of the word society.

i am talking about society in the sense that any social contract, even just between two people, is a society.

i think you are talking about a global government or social institution (correct me if i am wrong). even in the movie, the matrix, with the kind of sci-fi technology that i was saying would be required to dominate mankind, there were still the rebels, those that existed outside of the parameters of the global society, and followed the rules of their own society.

wow. how'd we get sidetracked? fun topic though.

to tie it back in, self reliance is great, so long as we realize that we are independently dependent. i think, for me, what it comes down to is the ability to choose upon which things we are dependent, and which we are not. if i were forced to depend upon government for food, shelter, etc, we could call that complete dependency. but if i have the ability to provide my own amenities, even if it is still within the context of the society and government that i live in, then we could call that independently dependent, because my lifestyle, as weighted as it is with personal choice and opportunity, still fits within the construct that is our society.

to say otherwise seems nonsensical to me, because the very definition of social contract says that we have given up some of our freedoms in exchange for the protection and social benefits that we would receive through the greater social organism. we are, therefore, dependent upon that society to grant unto us those protections and benefits that we have earned through the sacrificing of some of our natural rights.

aaron out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2008, 09:25 PM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by stycotl
Quote:
they are still unique organisms,
I disagree, we still need the same things (food, water, air, a home) yet still have no problem with polluting our environment.
Because of our 'formal' education we've only learned what to think instead of how to think.

Modern people are so far removed from death as a natural occurrence (read: some city children believe that hamburgers grow in trees) that it has affected the way we think; our society is so sterilised from death that we often are blind to the consequences of our actions.

Quote:
i don't think that it would be possible for the natural evolution of our global psychology to create a one-society organism, not even with the most repressive and dominant of dictatorships.
We have the entertainment industry to brainwash ( read: manipulate via propaganda) whole societies.
It is a fact that the entertainment industry is the perfect tool for propaganda.
Besidez, people who don't believe that they can be manipulated are the easiest to manipulate.

Quote:
to say otherwise seems nonsensical to me, because the very definition of social contract says that we have given up some of our freedoms in exchange for the protection and social benefits that we would receive through the greater social organism. we are, therefore, dependent upon that society to grant unto us those protections and benefits that we have earned through the sacrificing of some of our natural rights.
The problem with modern society is that we humans believe that we need a city to survive which results in our addiction to oil, because modern cities need modern technology which needs fuel.
We simply refuse to acknowledge that we humans are willing to sacrifice our humanity/environment and our young (read: the next generation) in order for fuel so a city can continue, which is the epitome of short-term thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 09:36 PM
 
2,682 posts, read 3,575,448 times
Reputation: 3088
I am a huge believer in being as responsible and hard-working as possible. However, we should help people who need help. It's a balance.

You see, the debate has been hijacked by wackjobs on the ends of the spectrum with the extreme right (TKamar) basically espouting social darwinism and extreme left espouting everyone sit on welfare. In the real world, people are responsible for themselves with help being something you apprecate when you get it.

The truth is we've become a lazy and infantile society and that is not good for our future. In the beginning, caring for one another sounds like a good idea. However, that has been preverted into believeing you're owed the moon and the stars.

Right now, I'm on SSI. Some would say I'm a bum. But I work at a physical job, I have a tech school diploma and I am active in my community. I am greatful for the help I get and I don't use my background as an excuse. That stands in very sharp contrast to my own family which believes that it's everyone elses responsibilty to take care of them. It isn't and it shouldn't.


No, most conservatives are not against help. Those who are are either social darwinists or cladistine bigots. I simply believe that capitalism is the best economic form for human development and that everyone should give things their best shot
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2008, 09:45 PM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,236 posts, read 40,279,788 times
Reputation: 10915
heh heh...a lot of conservatives think I'm liberal.

I'm neither.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 12:08 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by stycotl I disagree, we still need the same things (food, water, air, a home) yet still have no problem with polluting our environment.
Because of our 'formal' education we've only learned what to think instead of how to think.

Modern people are so far removed from death as a natural occurrence (read: some city children believe that hamburgers grow in trees) that it has affected the way we think; our society is so sterilised from death that we often are blind to the consequences of our actions.

We have the entertainment industry to brainwash ( read: manipulate via propaganda) whole societies.
It is a fact that the entertainment industry is the perfect tool for propaganda.
Besidez, people who don't believe that they can be manipulated are the easiest to manipulate.

The problem with modern society is that we humans believe that we need a city to survive which results in our addiction to oil, because modern cities need modern technology which needs fuel.
We simply refuse to acknowledge that we humans are willing to sacrifice our humanity/environment and our young (read: the next generation) in order for fuel so a city can continue, which is the epitome of short-term thinking.
i'm not sure what part you are disagreeing with, since what you mentioned in the first part has nothing to do with multiple or single societies--formal education sucks (you already know i agree with you there, but that doesn't change the dynamics of social contract).

the second part about hamburgers and trees also doesn't relate to social contract. it relates to ignorance of our communities, and yes, that affects us in the long run, but i don't see how that breaks the possibilities for us to remain individuals within individual societies.

the third part gets into the social contract idea, but still doesn't give me any evidence that media or government could completely homogenize the world. media is powerful, but it is not omnipotent, and in fact, with the continued progress of information communication, i would bet that the ability of the media to focus on only one political or philosophical perspective will deteriorate. the influence of the media will continue to grow, i believe, but the bias of the media as a whole will be neutralized because of the capability that all parties will have to be heard.

and the fourth part, about ignorance and short-term thinking again. yeah, i agree. it is sad. it is completely avoidable if we would just pull our collective heads out of the sand. but i don't see what your point is as far as individual identity, or the complete homogenization of every society in existence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 12:20 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by stycotl
Quote:
formal education sucks (you already know i agree with you there, but that doesn't change the dynamics of social contract).
My point is that there are people who believe that they don't need a social contract, simply because they believe to not need a (human) society.

Quote:
the second part about hamburgers and trees also doesn't relate to social contract.
People who believe that meat grows on trees have no notion how life (read: nature) actually works.
A social contract without a true understanding of how nature (thus not only human society) works only makes itself irrelevant.
It is my opinion that modern man is too egocentric to notice the Natural world around him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 12:45 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
People who believe that meat grows on trees have no notion how life (read: nature) actually works.
A social contract without a true understanding of how nature (thus not only human society) works only makes itself irrelevant.
It is my opinion that modern man is too egocentric to notice the Natural world around him.
ok, i can see where you are going with this. i agree to a certain extent. i don't believe that ecological understanding is necessary for sociological success, though certainly, the more knowledge we receive in any form will help. but as far as social contract, yes, knowledge of the natural laws that we would be obeying without the society which we formed, is necessary.

natural laws say that anything i do for the increase of my growth/procreation/success is justified. war, murder, intrigue, any and all levels of violence and terror.

society demands that we give up some of those natural tendancies in order to achieve greater successes as a community. synergy.

but if i dont' know what choices and abilities it is that i am sacrificing by living in a society, it is certainly arguable that i will therefore udnerstand and appreciate less the greater abilities that i have within the social ties of a community.

Quote:
My point is that there are people who believe that they don't need a social contract, simply because they believe to not need a (human) society.
and my point is that they are lying to themselves if they truly think that they don't need it. either that, or they are too scared or undecided to actually try it. but again, they will never be able to prove it one way or the other while living within the realms of the rest of humanity. there is no way that you can live apart from humanity while living within it. it is similar to the observer effect in science; you can't observe without affecting the subject.

i am not arguing that there aren't survivors or mountain men out there that can subsist on nature alone. i am however arguing that physical sustenance is not everything, and that their psychology and physiology as human beings is not meant for a lone existence. they would not last long.

human instinct and physical capability have been bred for two things that do not exist within the individual themselves: technology, and society. without them, we wouldn't be at the top of any food chain; we'd just be soft, slow, weak homids, the cattle of the natural world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 12:52 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by stycotl
Quote:
human instinct and physical capability have been bred for two things that do not exist within the individual themselves: technology, and society.
I don't see why technology can't be invented by the individual.

Granted, each individual has to 'reinvent the wheel'.

Quote:
without them, we wouldn't be at the top of any food chain
The food chain is a circle, so there is no top.
For example: by eliminating the bee we might, in the long run, have eliminated ourselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 12:55 AM
 
Location: southern california
55,237 posts, read 72,427,088 times
Reputation: 47455
i did it your way. but a lot of them are not as strong as you or me.
they will fold in a jiffy. god does not like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-10-2008, 01:16 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,631 posts, read 4,832,743 times
Reputation: 1300
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by stycotl I don't see why technology can't be invented by the individual.
but note that technology was only one of the outside necessities. without association, you cease to be human. only problem with that is that your psychology can't survive such a loss.

Quote:
Granted, each individual has to 'reinvent the wheel'.

The food chain is a circle, so there is no top.
For example: by eliminating the bee we might, in the long run, have eliminated ourselves.
now you are arguing semantics. obviously the food chain is a cycle, but are you truly arguing that mankind is not the most successful, complex creature on the planet? yes, i am aware of the proliferation of viruses, bugs, and mice. but none of them wrote beethoven's 9th symphony, sent satellites to outer space, or differentiated between the id and the ego.

and i agree that our indifference to the ecology around us is harming us, but that isn't the issue. the issue is man's ability to survive on his own. environmental issues don't come into play in whether or not i can survive without the association of others of my kind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top