How will our beliefs change in 500 years? by Siri

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:
To complicate things further, we have two major religions lining up and taking sides, namely Christianity and Islam. What has changed here? Is there a plan?

Nothing has changed here, it's been that way for nearly a thousand years.

Ever heard of the Crusades?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We will either find a way to permanently control our impulses and to stop populating up to the maximum momentary carrying capacity, or we won't have a future.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Ever heard of the Crusades?B]

I have heard of the Crusades as a matter of fact - thus my concern. But I do believe some things have changed and will continue to do so whether we like it or not.

"Still working on it."

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Siri:
I have heard of the Crusades as a matter of fact - thus my concern. But I do believe some things have changed and will continue to do so whether we like it or not.

I wasn't being patronising.

But my point is, nothing much changes. Mainly just the players and why they say they're doing what they're doing.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen: B]

I wasn't being patronising. But my point is, nothing much changes. Mainly just the players and why they say they're doing what they're doing.

Citizen, No offense taken. I just find it frustrating that we hide behind religion and rather depressing to think a lot hasn't changed so much since the time of the crusades. I want it to change - now!

"Why is it you always think I'm talking about God ..."

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:06 PM

ANTIMASON

nothing will change unless we come to grips and comprehend this simple concept- the people who print the money control the world! its that simple! these people are sitting atop the greatest concentration of true wealth on the planet.. meanwhile printing fiat money and indebting us to our consumer vices. the irony is that these people layed the foundation for the strife and inequality of the world, and now theyre blaming us for it; and they intend to murder 6 and 1/2 billion of the worlds population to illeviate the problems. theyll throw bird flu, global warming, terrorism and economic crisis at you to force you and your family into submission to big brother, corporate indentured servitude and eventually concentration camps..

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:22 PM

You see here's the problem I have with the concept of THEM. The quintessential truth behind the conspiracy is more or less without fail it's a way of saying "it's not US it's THEM". It's much easier to imagine men in some hidden hole somewhere drawing up plans for world domination just because that's what Socialists/Communists/Nazis/Jews/Aliens/Occultists do than to have to face the fact that bad things happen because ordinary people who read the morning paper over coffee and toast and read the children bedtime stories also sometimes go out to work at the Konzentration Lager.

I think if we were to accept that it's US that do these things we might start thinking about what that means for ME. If it's THEM doing these things it really can't be MY fault, I don't have to examine my own actions, because it's THEM that do these things, I'm not one of THEM, I'm one of US.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:48 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The human race has a depressing history of allowing its social hierarchies to reach unstable heights of power and wealth, until it all comes crashing down in revolution. It happened to the Pharoahs, the Chinese Emperor, the French aristocracy. The other thing that humans do with depressing frequency is to totally outstrip their resources and face ruinous collapse.

Now that we have literally no expansion room we will HAVE to get a grip on our own impulses and the direction of our development, or we will face calamitous future when our vastly reduced decendents have impossibly narrowed choices.

I think we, as a species, are for the first time in millions of years facing a turning point.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:59 PM

KANEMAN

"Nothing has changed here, it's been that way for nearly a thousand years."

"Ever heard of the Crusades?"

Ever heard of Jihad?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:59 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Wow, I've never SEEN such a boob!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:00 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I think the planet needs to make it past the next 60 years before we start thinking about the next 500.

But other than that, I think people need to change their economic structures to conform to the new human reality. That reality is that technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. There is no real limit causing premature death due to want of the basics. However, the economy is STRUCTURED to make a few very rich, and many very poor.

So, we have a disconnect. Technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. But economies are structured to make most people poor.

And that has consequences. Poverty creates uncertainty about survival. That puts people back into pre-technology survival mode wired into human genetics. And that leads to more children.

Humans need a new economic/ social/ religious paradigm to account for technology.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:44 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the planet needs to make it past the next 60 years before we start thinking about the next 500.

But other than that, I think people need to change their economic structures to conform to the new human reality. That reality is that technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. There is no real limit causing premature death due to want of the basics. However, the economy is STRUCTURED to make a few very rich, and many very poor.

So, we have a disconnect. Technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. But economies are structured to make most people poor.

And that has consequences. Poverty creates uncertainty about survival. That puts people back into pre-technology survival mode wired into human genetics. And that leads to more children.

Humans need a new economic/ social/ religious paradigm to account for technology.

Scientology ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:44 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I think the planet needs to make it past the next 60 years before we start thinking about the next 500.

But other than that, I think people need to change their economic structures to conform to the new human reality. That reality is that technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. There is no real limit causing premature death due to want of the basics. However, the economy is STRUCTURED to make a few very rich, and many very poor.

So, we have a disconnect. Technology COULD guarantee everyone's survival. But economies are structured to make most people poor.

And that has consequences. Poverty creates uncertainty about survival. That puts people back into pre-technology survival mode wired into human genetics. And that leads to more children.

Humans need a new economic/ social/ religious paradigm to account for technology.

Scientology ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:52 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not Scientology. From what I know Scientology is really whacky. There were aliens who came to earth and somehow got half-killed and live under volcanoes and they send out false ideas to tame people. Or something like that. If there are any scientologists here, maybe you could explain.

Thanks.

------------------------------

What I propose is that people's understanding of the world conform with reality. The reality is that due to technology, all people are guaranteed survival. Life doesn't have to be hand to mouth as it was pre-technology, with life and death deterimined by the immediate environment.

If we truly knew that, the world would change. All the excuses for zero-sum economics would disappear. And people would have to come up with a new way of relating.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What I propose is that people's understanding of the world conform with reality. The reality is that due to technology, all people are guaranteed survival. Life doesn't have to be hand to mouth as it was pre-technology, with life and death deterimined by the immediate environment.

If we truly knew that, the world would change. All the excuses for zero-sum economics would disappear. And people would have to come up with a new way of relating.

I may not be getting this quote thing posted correctly. (I'm working on it.) But I agree with what you are saying. Also, the need to shift from "Them" and "Us" mentality to simply "Us." It isn't the normal way of thinking. A friend of mine wrote a futuristic novel. It contained all kinds of "Us" and "Thems." She said she had to do that or the book woudn't be interesting. Are we really hard-wired to think that way?

I like to believe we could make real changes if we can shift to a mindset of more equitable distribution of wealth and shared resources. I truly do believe we could solve many of our mututal problems if we can do that. I have to admit I'm not sure what I as an individual can do. That's one reason I'm posting this. Of course, we need to get thru the next 60 years (or even 20) I used 500 years because that's FF's storyline.

Seems to be a number of intelligent folks who like to think about these kinds of things. I'm always interested in hearing (seeing) ideas.

"I'll post a sign."

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:15 PM

FREMDFIRMA

In all honesty, I don't care... let the fools drag themselves back into some mud hovel theocratic mire slaughtering each other cause almight bog tells em to, which is where I see it going.

Just give me a ship, and let me get the hell off this misbegotten rock first.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:50 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
You see here's the problem I have with the concept of THEM. The quintessential truth behind the conspiracy is more or less without fail it's a way of saying "it's not US it's THEM".

Citizen i agree.. which is why i try to warn people that the elite have decieved us into enslavement. THEY control the central banks and have a motive to lie cheat murder enslave blackmale torture robb rape vaccinate and molest mankind to dumb us down and supress us.. to make way for their Satanic objective(any way you look at it) of a global government. thats all im saying.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 15, 2006 3:05 PM

DREAMTROVE

I wrote a long story on this subject. I don't think that simple answers like Star Trek gives us actually have any major relevence. The problem is that the people of the future will reject the way we analyze situations, and so things like "robots rights" will not be an issue. They simply won't think that way. It will be an alien sort of logic. But 500 years from now, that new thought style, whatever it is, will dominate the Earth.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 5:22 AM

500 years is barely an eyeblink in terms of evolution, so I don't think we have much hope in the human animal making any fundamental changes in that amount of time. The only real changes in how people are now from 500 years ago is an extended lifespan, and we tend to be taller and somewhat more robust on the whole (better nutrition, sanitation, and medical science -- not evolution of the species), and we have access to more knowledge.

Attitudes have changed, somewhat, and in some places. Slavery has been with humanity since well before recorded history, and is still with us in some places today -- depending on definition, perhaps even more places/regions still practice slavery than don't.

We have more knowledge available to us. Do we act differently with that knowledge than we did at a time when we did not have access to it...? All to often, no, we don't. We have better technology and understand more about the universe than people did 500 years ago. People, however, don't act significantly different, except where that new knowledge directly applies (i.e., we can communicate in real time over long distances, rather than waiting months for a message to reach someone and we have changed insomuch as that forces or allows us to change). Whedon's 'Verse seems much the same: more tech, people basically the same. That, to me, seems much more realistic than what you see in speculative fiction such as Star Trek. Perhaps a pessimistic view, but I believe that history backs me up on it.

There's the pessimism, here's the optimism: We, as a species, has endured as long as we have -- therefore, I don't really see any reason not to expect us to survive for at least a respectable amount of time into the future. Failing that which we have no control over (the hypothetical "global-killer asteroid" striking the planet, for instance), I just really don't see anything wiping us off the face of the planet. Is it possible? Sure. Nuclear weapons could kill everyone. Is that likely? In my opinion, no. Those with enough nukes to kill everyone have no incentive to do so. Those groups that are nihilistic enough that they might want to don't have access -- and likely won't. It just takes too much infrastructure to have that sort of destructive power at one's fingertips, and a truly nihilistic group is too likely to self-destruct before they cause truly devastating damage (and here I'm talking true, end-of-the-species genocide).

So, to sum up: I'm thinking that for the foreseeable future, mankind is going to stay pretty much what they are now -- some new beliefs, some new science, but overall, still acting like modern humans.

Now, if we were talking 50,000 years into the future, all bets are off...

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 1:52 PM

Hi Siri, thanks for the topic.

I'm always so saddened when I read people's aswers to questions like yours; such a welter of pessimism and resignation. Do people have such a diminished sense of their own power that they don't see how they will will these wretched distopiae into reality if they can't wrap their minds around something new?

As the Chinese say, if you do not change direction, you will end up where you're headed.

I mean, here we are at the very center of the most transformative century or so of human history and all we can hope for is a repeat of the last 10,000 years?

I see Joss's 'verse as a cautionary tale, only (oh, and a pretty spot-on satire of what's going on right this minute

). No way are the human animals in a position to "use up" this planet. I'm pretty sure she's got a few aces up her sleave so if we get too toxic for her, she'll more'n likely just shrug us off.

The two greatest mysteries of existence in the context of this question for me are growth and healing. Really, they're the same thing, only healing is a return to wholeness while growth describes the miraculous process of becoming whole where such wholeness has not seemed to exist. All life moves toward wholeness, toward completion, towards adulthood, if you will--but what do any of these words mean? What does it mean to be an adult, really? What are we completing? What is this wholeness, and how far does it extend? Is it only the individual that moves toward wholeness? Or do populations, whole species, or even an entire planetary organism move toward wholeness?

That's what we're finding out. Human beings are on the brink of understanding ourselves and our world in some fundamental and unprecidented ways. Developmental psychology, for instance, the understanding that the needs of the human organism change profoundly over the course of one's life, is a brand new idea.

Until the last century children were simply small, savage, mentally inferior adults we could routinely overpower and generally did. Even today, parents reason that they must teach children about "reality" by subjecting them to their anger and their punishment.

But a study of developmental psychology reveals that children that are given the most nurturing, the most forgiveness, the most gentle consideration, far from growing up weak and "dependent," grow up to be confident, effective adults. As it turns out, many of the needs of children are very different than the needs of adults, and for tens of thousands of years adult needs have simply overridden all but the grossest needs of children with catastrophic and all too familiar results.

The fact that we have, over the past 100 years or so, gotten a frickin' clue, gives me hope.

I hope that over the next 500 years we as a species will grow to accept grief as something other than the Enemy. I look foward to the day when whole generations of boy children will feel free to cry when the urge takes them, a day when the intuitive power of children will be encouraged and nurtured rather than denied and destroyed.

I don't think it's impossible, or even very far-fetched. I look at the mainstreaming of psychoanalysis, the mainstreaming of twelve step culture, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the men's movement, even the rise of Oprah Winfrey, all as indicators of where western society is actually headed.

I think the paradigm shift Rue's talking about may be a shift fully away from defining cultures in terms of wealth and political power. As humans learn about ourselves we may find less and less validation in these loveless, material constructs and get more and more of our needs met through connectedness and honest desire.

Anyway, that's the future I'm working towards.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 16, 2006 3:56 PM

I haven't got a lot of responses to my question, which is one I think about a lot, in various different scenarios - not always 500 years and Firefly related. I was thinking maybe it wasn't such a good question - perhaps not for this venue.

Yes, I agree, the world may just kick us off - who knows how things will really shake out. A few minor shifts here and there - and poof! major consequences - good or bad - which again may be relative to the situation and event.

Thanks HDCavalier, for your thoughtful response, I, too, am hopeful and I want to do what I can to be part of the solution. I think about what the world was like 500 years ago, the sixteenth century. Yes, some things are the same but I do believe we have made progress - not just technologically but emotionally and psychologically.

Siri
BTW - I'm struggling getting the quote thing right - still working on it.

"Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don't say it mean."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 3:12 AM

Not to be snarky, but...

HKCavalier offers:
"I look at the mainstreaming of psychoanalysis, the mainstreaming of twelve step culture... all as indicators of where western society is actually headed."

I just had to pull these particular two examples out. Psychoanalysis and the twelve-step culture are a couple of the things that will, in my estimation, help to hold us back. They are junk science. Not unlike some of our other "advances," such as revisionist history, the rise of fundamentalist/extremist religions, and the rise of Uri Geller to fame, this sort of thing often seems to be on the rise (yeah, Geller's out of date, I should've maybe used John Edwards the "psychic" instead).

I'll give you most of your other examples as ways that we have, in fact, moved forward as a species -- or, at least, as some parts of the species have moved forward. But, when you lump pseudoscience in amongst 'em, it's like you're taking one step forward and two steps back. I can only hope that your other examples outweigh these, but often, I don't see that as the case...

My opinion only, as this thread is purely speculative from its' inception.

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 8:57 AM

Heya Zeph,

Not to be snarky back, but...

How do you come by your knowledge that psychoanalysis is psuedoscience? And what do you know of 12 step culture? And why the heck didn't ya bash Oprah when you had the chance???

Seems to me, unchecked narcissism and sociopathy are what's holding us back. Alcoholism and a culture of addiction are holding us back. A culture that denies healing and dismisses what it doesn't understand is holding us back.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 9:24 AM

HK--

Well, a couple of quick links, there are plenty of others...

Psychoanalysis:
http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html

12-stepping:
http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/guest09.htm

These are from about two minutes of searching. (If you were, say, a neighbor, I could bog ya down with a few dozen books, but this is easily accesible online) Both belief systems are based on non-falsifiable hypotheses, which is one of the biggest indicators of pseudoscience. And yes, you may think either or both sources are biased, but that don't make 'em wrong...

Not much point in bashing Oprah, in my opinion. She's a talk-show host -- I just don't consider her as anything more than that. Now, if you had mentioned Dr. Phil, that'd be a whole other story...

Narcissum I might give you, but sociopathy is a pretty specific psychological diagnosis -- I haven't seen any indication that it has become any more widespread than it has at any time in the past, except that there are more people in general on the planet, therefore more sociopaths. The rate of occurence has shown no indication of increasing.

Again, I was only pointing out a couple of specific examples out of your post, not using that to dismiss the entire thesis.

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 9:51 AM

Thanks, Zeph, for the links. I'll check them out and get back to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeph:
Narcissum I might give you, but sociopathy is a pretty specific psychological diagnosis -- I haven't seen any indication that it has become any more widespread than it has at any time in the past, except that there are more people in general on the planet, therefore more sociopaths. The rate of occurence has shown no indication of increasing.

To clarify: I was in no way suggesting that sociopathic behavior was on the rise (it's diagnosis, however, is on the rise). No, I think the damage to the human psyche from systematic abuse in childhood throughout history has been a major factor in keeping humans violent and stupid.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 10:29 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In support of HK there are two studies:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061012190132.htm

Early Family Experience Can Reverse The Effects Of Genes, Psychologists Report

Among children from supportive, nurturing families, those with the short form of the serotonin transporter gene (known as 5-HTTLPR) had a significantly reduced risk for depression ...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061102092229.htm

Low Levels Of Neurotransmitter Serotonin May Perpetuate Child Abuse Across Generations

Infant abuse may be perpetuated between generations by changes in the brain induced by early experience, research shows at the University of Chicago shows.
A research team found that when baby rhesus monkeys endured high rates of maternal rejection and mild abuse in their first month of life, their brains often produced less serotonin ... Abused females who became abusive mothers in adulthood had lower serotonin in their brains than abused females who did not become abusive parents, the research showed.
The study is the first to show that naturally occurring individual variation in maternal behavior in monkeys can affect the brain development of the offspring, and the first to show a link between serotonin and infant abuse in primates.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 10:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Can't reply in any but the briefest form because the topic really deerves more thought than I've given it.

HK- One of the things that strikes me, in my old(er) age, is that while I was taught how to be a good child I was never taught how to become an effective adult. I know that sounds strange... but for all of my various achievements (such as they are) and experiences I sometimes feel as if I'm dealing with life with the emotional tools of a 10-year-old. And as I look around it seems to me that we should have some sort of mentoring program on how to be a whole adult human being. There must be a crying need for it because otherwise we wouldn't have so many "advice" shows and books. So maybe the first step in the paradigm change is to be able to build our emotional wisdom over time and not lose it with each generation.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 10:36 AM

DESKTOPHIPPIE

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeph:
HK--

Well, a couple of quick links, there are plenty of others...

Psychoanalysis:
http://skepdic.com/psychoan.html

12-stepping:
http://www.bee.net/cardigan/attic/guest09.htm

These are from about two minutes of searching. (If you were, say, a neighbor, I could bog ya down with a few dozen books, but this is easily accesible online) Both belief systems are based on non-falsifiable hypotheses, which is one of the biggest indicators of pseudoscience. And yes, you may think either or both sources are biased, but that don't make 'em wrong...

Not much point in bashing Oprah, in my opinion. She's a talk-show host -- I just don't consider her as anything more than that. Now, if you had mentioned Dr. Phil, that'd be a whole other story...

Narcissum I might give you, but sociopathy is a pretty specific psychological diagnosis -- I haven't seen any indication that it has become any more widespread than it has at any time in the past, except that there are more people in general on the planet, therefore more sociopaths. The rate of occurence has shown no indication of increasing.

Again, I was only pointing out a couple of specific examples out of your post, not using that to dismiss the entire thesis.

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 10:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

And just to plug my POV here -

Due to technology humanity is no longer living on the edge of survival. Unless we truly incorporate that in our concepts, laws, economies and religions, we will abuse resources and over-produce offspring - all the way over the edge of the cliff.

It is a FACT that we can all live a secure existance. We need to come to grips with that for our long-term survival and the survival of the planet.

And when we develop the societies where individuals feel secure, human development will change. (Like the peaceful baboons and the chimps who were driven to aggression only when food was placed in a single pile - our initial conditions drive our behaviors.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 11:51 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

I'm sure HK has some terrific ideas. This is my take:

First of all, perhaps more adults should be like you rather than you learning to be more like some mythic adult.

Second, what difficulties are you talking abut? I don't perceive any. You seem emminently thoughtful, insightful, emotionally stable and intelligent.

Finally, MOST people, even as adults, relate to the world the way they learned as children. So they relate to authority figures the same way they related to their parents; to close peers as to sibilings; to 'the world' as their parents did etc. Maybe that means 'most people' don't grow up, but that is the usual condition.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Can't reply in any but the briefest form because the topic really deerves more thought than I've given it.

HK- One of the things that strikes me, in my old(er) age, is that while I was taught how to be a good child I was never taught how to become an effective adult. I know that sounds strange... but for all of my various achievements (such as they are) and experiences I sometimes feel as if I'm dealing with life with the emotional tools of a 10-year-old. And as I look around it seems to me that we should have some sort of mentoring program on how to be a whole adult human being. There must be a crying need for it because otherwise we wouldn't have so many "advice" shows and books. So maybe the first step in the paradigm change is to be able to build our emotional wisdom over time and not lose it with each generation.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[B One of the things that strikes me, in my old(er) age, is that while I was taught how to be a good child I was never taught how to become an effective adult. I know that sounds strange... but for all of my various achievements (such as they are) and experiences I sometimes feel as if I'm dealing with life with the emotional tools of a 10-year-old. And as I look around it seems to me that we should have some sort of mentoring program on how to be a whole adult human being. There must be a crying need for it because otherwise we wouldn't have so many "advice" shows and books. So maybe the first step in the paradigm change is to be able to build our emotional wisdom over time and not lose it with each generation. B]

It's interesting and relevant, I think, that the focus has shifted to our emotional nature and level of maturity. As someone who has spent years working with children, families and now adults with serious emotional problems, I continue to meet people who struggle with day-to-day existence, many by lack of education, limited employment opportunities, poverty and ignorance - not necessarily stupidity. I'm often amazed that they get by as well as they do.

I've noted several people quoted studies and research, which I read and consider, but find it, too, changes and I always like to go back and check the source, whether the study has or can be replicated, the numbers of people involved, etc. and who funded the study.

What I've discovered pesonally working in this field, is that 12-step programs can be helpful. Yes, they are psuedoscience but they are structured in a fundamental way so as to encourage personal responsibility, group support, and a focus on helping others. I'm not the religious type. While spirituality is a big piece of that program and some push religion, still, I think it has been extremely beneficial for the individual and for society as a step in our emotional maturity and evolution. My belief only.

As far as psychoanalysis - not sure if the reference is to the field of psychiatry in general, including people like me who are not MDs (psychiatrist) but are psyotherapists, as well as others, social workers, etc. That is quite a broad field. It isn't always as quantifiable as the "hard" sciences, that's for sure. Altho research and studies on the brain have produced data that is helpful in understanding how the affects of medication and the like.

When working with children who were having problems, I found I spent a lot of time trying to teach the parents how to help their kids. Providing love and discipline are not mututally exclusive. When I say discipline I am talking about teaching children responsibility and holding them accountable for their actions. Children learn from what they see and hear (overhear) not so much what they are told. So I also spent a lot of time helping the adults sort out their values and determining if what they were saying and what they were doing was the same thing. I don't mean punishment which isn't the same as discipline.

In this area, I think we need to work harder. By holding our children accountable, we say to them, "I believe you are smart enough to figure this out and learn from it. I will be here to back you up and help you but it is something you need to learn to do yourself."

Not sure how much this will matter in 500 years but so far, people who accept responsibility for their actions and learn from their mistakes, have always been more able to handle things and generally make better choices.

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:01 PM

DREAMTROVE

Zeph,

500 years is a lot of bio-engineering, cybertechnology and the like.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 1:08 PM

dreamtrove--

You are correct in that, I was operating under the assumption that any evolutionary changes would be "natural."

Two points, though:

Firstly, if we signficantly bio-engineer or cyberize humanity, is it still humanity...?

Second point; that sort of thing worked out really well on Miranda...

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 5:39 PM

Oh. My. God. Zeph.

Those links, man. I'm sorry.

The first one, about Freud, okay, fine. Bash Freud. He was a plenty effed up dude. Most people were back then, you know?

And I'm sorry, maybe I could have saved myself some grief if I'd written "the mainstreaming of psychotherapy," but to my mind, the mainstreaming of psychoanalysis is psychotherapy.

I think one of the reasons human beings have come so late to a systematic approach to healing the human psyche is because people are in general so psychically troubled. Our psyches are damn fragile, evolutionarily speaking, brand new and barely tested. Major psychological disturbances, or even lesser disturbances which are nonetheless epidemic in a culture, are definitively unself-diagnosible, and at times barely even perceptible. You know, when everyone in a culture beats their children, who's to say it's wrong? Without contrary examples, what do you compare it to? In such a cultural context, much of what we know today of mental health would be every bit as unfalsifiable and untestable as anything John Edwards served up on cable tv.

Here's a thing: early in his career, Freud encountered what he perceived as an epidemic of incest among his patients. He wrote of his disturbing findings to a mentor of his. His mentor very kindly but firmly informed Freud that if he were to present his findings to the psychological community at large his career would be over. The world was not ready to consider such things. Right or wrong, Freud saw validity in his mentor's councel and formulated the infamous "Oedipal Complex" as a way of bringing forward his ideas about healing from incestual trauma without offending the status quo. Extremely damn clever of him, but ultimately very misleading, as your link suggests.

Fortunately, psychotherapy has progressed since Freud's time, dramatically, even since 1948 (the most recent example of psychoanalytical pseudoscience referenced in your link). I will grant that psychotherapy is a young science and as such, its adherents have saught to apply it as a panacea to any and all ills of the mind. These misapplications have been abandoned.

It's telling to me that the site you linked to endorses Elizabeth Loftus's pseudoscientific work on so-called "false memory." Basically, because she was able to confuse subjects into vague acceptance of fabricated "memory," she discounted the entire phenomenon of repressed memory. That's quite a leap and, I think, profoundly intellectually dishonest. I think if you read any of her writing, her contempt for recovered memory and her desire to "make it all go away" are transparent.

Actual repressed memories, as I have personally experienced them (my axe to grind) are not remotely vague or insubstancial or subject to theraputic manipulation. They're stark, emotionally overwhelming and once recovered, unforgetable. They can be very confusing, particularly the eariest ones, but when you experience them, they're anything but fake.

Though I was seeing a therapist once a week at the time of recovering several such memories, they were usually brought on by events in my life apart from therapy and mostly happened outside my therapist's office. This all took place in the early 90's, so my therapist was well aware that he could lose his license if he were accused of implanting memories and took great pains to deal with my recollections objectively, almost to the point of disuading me from them. But illusions fade and the truth sticks around.

The trouble with Loftus' made up "false memory syndrome" (no such syndrome is acknowledged by medical science) is that it serves only to protect predators. When the uncredited essayist from your link writes:

Quote:
There is little question that if children are treated cruelly throughout childhood, their lives as adults will be profoundly influenced by such treatment. It is a big conceptual leap from this fact to the notion that all sexual experiences in childhood will cause problems in later life.

I gotta wonder what he's talking about. Is he suggesting that some sexual experiences, certain cases of incest and child molestation may be benign? Or is he suggesting that Freud denied the sexuality of children? Freud understood that small children engage in all kinds of sexual play, alone and with each other. It's perfectly healthy. What's he talking about, Zeph?

As for your second link on "The Twelve Step Cult," seriously Zeph, I hope you can do better than that fahng-tzong fung-kwong duh jeh.*

The cult accusations is b.s. No one ever has to pay for membership in AA. Try to join a real cult without being asked to sign your life away. Nobody's getting rich off of AA. Are clinics like the famous Bettie Ford Center also cults?

There's no leader you're asked to revere, no heirs to the throne of Bill W. Though people who leave AA and go back to drinking are frowned upon, people leave the program every day without repercussion. Many of my friends have left, I haven't been to a twelve step meeting in over ten years. I'm still good friends with people who go. The organization has no political power whatever.

The hilarious accusation that local governments profit from AA is nonsense as far as I've ever seen. Court appointed "members" make up a tiny fraction of the fellowship. In my experience, they're universally miserable, they don't want to be there, for them it's just another form of "doing time." AA really doesn't work very well at all if you've been coerced into going by the State.

Based on my own experience of going to countless 12 step meetings over the years, that whole section on "uppity women" is flat out false. Most people in 12 steps, just as most people in therapy--heck, most people seeking help of any kind in this culture--are women.

One of the twelve traditions of AA is the "no cross-talk" rule. Members are enjoined to tell their own stories and refrain from commenting on other people's problems. I have actually been to a couple meetings where cross-talk was allowed, I didn't like them at all and I never went back. The sensational military style "breaking down" your link describes is pure fiction.

Etc. Zeph, this link is full of unadulterated gos se. I know you said you just googled 'em up, so maybe you didn't read them. I got nothing against you, I don't know you, but those links, man!

*knot of self-indulgent lunacy

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 6:47 PM

Hey Signy

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HK- One of the things that strikes me, in my old(er) age, is that while I was taught how to be a good child I was never taught how to become an effective adult. I know that sounds strange... but for all of my various achievements (such as they are) and experiences I sometimes feel as if I'm dealing with life with the emotional tools of a 10-year-old.

Not strange at all from where I sit. Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that part of the trouble is the lack of elders in our communities, our lack of respect for age and wisdom as a culture. We have adults to parent the kids, but no elders to properly parent the adults. Old people are treated like children, sent on perminent vacation, their knowledge of our techologically fetishized culture obsolete.

We don't honor wisdom, we honor power. We honor money. More power and money can be acquired by a pair of teen age twins than you or I will likely see in our entire lives. Does that seem right to you?

Quote:
And as I look around it seems to me that we should have some sort of mentoring program on how to be a whole adult human being.

Psychotherapy and 12 steps have served exactly that purpose in my life. Robert Bly once said, "A young man who is not being admired by an older man is being hurt." Of course, we're generally so wounded in our sexualities in this culture that we can't read that sentense without chanelling Beavis and Butthead, but I think Bly is right.

Quote:
There must be a crying need for it because otherwise we wouldn't have so many "advice" shows and books. So maybe the first step in the paradigm change is to be able to build our emotional wisdom over time and not lose it with each generation.

I think what you're talking about is the establishment of new traditions. So many of the old traditional systems simply don't work for modern people, don't make sense in light of what we now know about the world and our natures. 500 years is a good time span to establish traditions. The last century has been a time of great upheaval in the realm of tradition. Perhaps the next 500 will see the establishment of new, sane, and reasonable traditions to take the place of the old, dogmatic and superstitious ones.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 6:48 PM

HK--

I just have to say, I spent a good thirty minutes or so typing up a detailed response -- then scrapped it.

We simply disagree on many subject at such a fundamental level that I simply see no way to continue the discussion on these particular points that won't end up being acrimonious.

That being said, it is my opinion that the best thing to do here is to drop the entire discussion and agree to disagree. I've slogged through entirely too many threads on this board that have simply devolved into arguments to have any desire to add to them.

Fair enough?

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 6:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi HK,

I realize the post wans't directed to me but I liked this: "Perhaps the next 500 will see the establishment of new, sane, and reasonable traditions to take the place of the old, dogmatic and superstitious ones."

That would be wonderful.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 17, 2006 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeph:
Fair enough?

Sure, Zeph. Reading those links of yours was a trip down memory lane for me, and not a pleasant one. I kinda get the feeling we both have had this argument many times over.

I am still curious to hear if you have any personal experience with psychotherapy or 12 steps to draw on here or if your objections are more a matter of principle. Arguing principles can get very old very fast, but hearing another person's experiences--particularly those which differ from mine--is always instructive.

Anyway, thanks for remaining cordial, I'm happy to drop the discussion if you like.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:37 AM

RABBIT2

Quote:
"Ever heard of the Crusades?"
Ever heard of Jihad?

The Crusades were what gave the muslims the original idea.

In 500 years. The human race as we understand it will be extinct and our local part of the universe will be populated by von Neuman style replicator machines. Who probably spend a lot of time argueing about religion.

--------------------------------------------------

Flight Instructor: Son, know what the first rule of flying is?
Me: Don`t crash?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 1:20 AM

HK--

Most of my experience with either would be more along the line of the academic, apart from dealing with friends and relatives who have direct experience with both -- and as you might be able to guess, none of those have been positive; so I delved into the subject somewhat.

My wife has a degree in psychology, so I've had to become at the very least a well-read layman (my own degree is in Theatre Arts -- and I won't even begin the nonsense that the theatre is a study of humanity as some other theatre bums I know try to do

)

And yes, I'll fully admit that discussing these subjects with me would be very much like beating your head into a brick wall, so likely it's best to let it go. The only real way we'll know how people will be acting in 500 years is to look each other up at that point and compare notes...

http://www.myspace.com/captainzeph

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 4:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

One of the things I find interesting is that the discussion has turned to individual wholeness. That's not a bad thing, but it's reflective of where we are on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If we were in a different society, we'd be focusing on food, water, medicine, and violence.

OTOH, that's n ot to say that talking about human spiritual and psychological needs is a bad thing, and perhaps that is the discusison that will eventually save us. (More about that later.)

... I used to be an optimist about the development of human behavior. I thought that while individuals might be short-sighted, ignorant, and self-destructive, society would progress. There would be a competition of ideas and the most successful ideas would thrive and propagate themselves. Until I read Collapse by Jared Diamond, in which he gives compelling examples of societies that failed calamatously and committed mass suicide. That turned my thinking around and gives me the notion that we are facing - as a species- the same crisis that the Easter Islanders faced, and that we'll meet the same brutish end unless we come to grips with our collective behavior.

What I see as a fatal flaw in collective human behavior is that power inevitably concentrates. We allow an elite to dictate our ethics, religion, armed forces, and economics for their benefit. While hierarchical social control is initially beneficial (just look at any failed state like Afghanistan or Somalia if you want to see a society that is riven to the point of dysfunction) eventually they become corrupt and destructive. Background factors allow this dynamic: our ability to deny sensory evidence in favor of received teaching, a generally altruistic population as feeding ground for sociopathy, a collective move towards "authority" "conservatism" and "religion" in the face of stress.

In other words, a society most needing to turn in a new direction is least likely to do so.

To toss in one more factor, religion is the expression of our need to know the unknowable and to control the uncontrollable. When the unknowable was lightning and disease we had thunder gods and goddesses of healing. Science has taken over much of the function of religion. The most urgent great unknown is now collective human behavior, simply because the greatest current threat to humans is not "nature" but ourselves. (Collective behavior is not the avergae of individual behaviors.)

When we talk about personal wholeness, I see a reaching towards a society that can fill our spiritual needs in a non-destructive way. To overuse the term, a new paradigm. I also see it as a race between the new paradigm and the old. We will either reach that new paradigm or we will, IMHO, be vastly reduced to a population that has to work brutishly hard for mere existance because previous generations consumed the "easy" resources.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 7:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rabbit2:
In 500 years. The human race as we understand it will be extinct and our local part of the universe will be populated by von Neuman style replicator machines. Who probably spend a lot of time argueing about religion.

Nanite 1043925: "Look I'm telling you, our race was created by Biologics!"
Nanite 125460544: "Biologics? You mean Meat? Meat isn't alive! Meat can't think, meat can't create life, you're off your micro-manipulator mate!"
Nanite 126323345: "Well as you both should know the great computer created us in the holy factory of Silicone."
Nanite 125460544: "But who created the great computer eh, and you who created these Meatites that created us, bet you can't answer that one."
Nanite 126323345: "If there's nothing I hate more than you Biotarians it's bloody Atheists. Okay so where do you think we came from?"
Nanite 125460544: "Well obviously ever more complex particles of Silicone group together randomly, creating the first circuit paths. Those circuit paths created more complex circuits and so on. Our species created it self from nothing, like a hardware bootup sequence."
Nanite 126323345: "'hardware bootup sequence' your off your bloody CPU mate."
Nanite 125460544: "Oh because a giant invisible computer running a celestial factory is so much more reasonable."
Nanite 126323345: "That's heresey that is! I'll bloody assimilate you I will!"

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 10:05 AM

ROCKETJOCK

Back to the original topic:

"How will our beliefs change in 500 years?"

Five centuries is one hell of a long baseline in recent human history. Five hundred years ago America had been known of by Europe for less than twenty years--hell, it wasn't even called "America" yet. (Just the slightest shift in history, and we'd all be singing "God bless Vespucciland".)

As an example, 500 years ago concepts like "The divine right of Kings" were not just taken seriously, they were unquestioned. How else would you run a nation?

Two hundred and fifty years later, people were starting to wonder. Not long after that the American rabble rose up, and, astondingly, proved that running a nation by counting heads could work--in fact, worked so well that today, almost all nations, no matter how repressive, feel the need to present a front of democracy, at least, in order to be taken seriously. (Hitler's Germany, the U.S.S.R., even Saddam's Iraq, were all nominal democracies).

Democracy flourished in America in large because a frontier society requires fresh answers, and there was no entrenched structure of special interests to oppose it.

I believe that a similar situation will obtain in the centuries to come--or rather, I pray that it will, as I can't see our species surviving another 500 years without moving out from Earth. The new frontier will require new answers, just as the last one did. Being of a Libertarian bent myself, I tend towards the hope that the new society that evolves will take that form, a minarchy based on cooperation through enlightened self-interest. But I could be wrong.

But whatever form these new ideas will take, one thing is certain; they will seem as wild, as impractical, every bit as opposed to conventional wisdom and common sense as participatory democracy on a national level seemed 230 years ago.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 18, 2006 12:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM

Thanks for posting.

I think one of the reasons why are discussing individual wholeness is b/c we are, by global standards, extraordinarily privileged.

I too read Jared Diamond's book. If I may liken societal development to evolution - there are lots of dead ends. Evolution is not as much constantly honing 'perfection' as it is reproducing 'good enough' - until at some point it not good enough. The same is true for societies. I know we in the west like to think we are the apex of human development, that everything led up to US ... but what we are is just a temporary phase, and not one automatically pre-destined to survive.

I'm not sure that power inevitably concentrates. There are some societies where it didn't. Nor do I believe that unstructured societies always devolve to brutish chaos.

You mentioned something a long time ago and it stuck with me. And that is that human behavior probably responds to factors we don't even comprehend. From that, I believe that if we change those things that drive us, we can change the fundamental nature of a society. (There is some evidence for that from chimps and baboons - society is sensitive to initial conditions.)

The other thing that gives me - if not hope at least a glimmer of it - is that some societies do not self-destruct. They have to go up to the edge to notice they are headed to suicide - but then they do step back. They learn as a group, change their relations with the world and each other, and go on to 'live long and prosper'.

The final thing that encourages me somewhat is that I have seen there is nothing as powerful as an idea whose time has come.

The advent of agriculture changed human behavior in many ways for tens of thousands of years. Social structures, religions, economies and how we fundamentally relate to each other were all altered. I truly believe that the idea humanity needs to know NOW - in its collective soul - is that everyone can live a secure existence. That means no more excuses for having very rich powerful people, and no more structures concentrating resources. It also means lifetime security knowing there is enough for you, your family, neighbors, and community, and all the generations to come.

If we restructure our societies to take advantage of that basic fact, we can avoid triggering 'survival mode' behavior, waste, contention, and hierarchies.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 4:29 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I too read Jared Diamond's book. If I may liken societal development to evolution - there are lots of dead ends. Evolution is not as much constantly honing 'perfection' as it is reproducing 'good enough' - until at some point it not good enough. The same is true for societies. I know we in the west like to think we are the apex of human development, that everything led up to US ... but what we are is just a temporary phase, and not one automatically pre-destined to survive.

There is one problem about comparing biological evolution to social evolution- biological evolution is ratcheted. Unlike societies, once an organism evolves, it can't un-evolve. But "learning" in evanescent. So some societies can reach an apex of understanding and then disappear due to changes in "initial conditions". Like Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and their sister-cities. Their physical structure indicates a VERY different social structure: no temples, ramparts, armories, palaces, or slums. No large "art" projects. No evidence of war: no char marks or contemporaneous destruction. But they're gone and we're clueless about how they did what they did. Unless we embed our learning in some relatively permanent way it can be undone in a generation or two once conditions change.

Quote:
I'm not sure that power inevitably concentrates. There are some societies where it didn't. Nor do I believe that unstructured societies always devolve to brutish chaos.

There are examples of unstructured societies that did NOT devolve into violence but they're always small. I think Mohenjo-Daro was the only "large" (> a tribe of 100 people) technologically developed, non-hierarchical society that wasn't violent.

Quote:
The other thing that gives me - if not hope at least a glimmer of it - is that some societies do not self-destruct. They have to go up to the edge to notice they are headed to suicide - but then they do step back. They learn as a group, change their relations with the world and each other, and go on to 'live long and prosper'.

Except those examples depend on a society being either (a) small and egalitarian like some Polynesian Islands, or (b) larger but forced into environmental sanity by an emperor (Japan 1600, where reforestation was mandated) or a dictator (Dominican Republic, which shares the island with Haiti but whose environment is starkly different because they were forced into conservation by Trujillo). History has not (yet) shown a large compex society collectively coming to its senses.

Quote:
The advent of agriculture changed human behavior in many ways for tens of thousands of years. Social structures, religions, economies and how we fundamentally relate to each other were all altered. I truly believe that the idea humanity needs to know NOW - in its collective soul - is that everyone can live a secure existence. That means no more excuses for having very rich powerful people, and no more structures concentrating resources. It also means lifetime security knowing there is enough for you, your family, neighbors, and community, and all the generations to come.

But the advent of agriculture was a change that people experienced and responded to. What you're talking about is a conscious change in viewpoint that comes about BEFORE underlying technological/ economic changes. But perhaps you're right. There does seem to be a rejection of "the way things are" pretty much all over the world. I think only Americans feel threatened by change, because they've been so convinced that this truly is the best of all possible worlds that ANY change can only mean things getting worse. So possibly my view is more pessimistic than realistic.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 19, 2006 2:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

BTW, if there is anyone still reading this besides SignyM and myself, I'm specifically NOT proposing a nanny state. What I am proposing is equal access to resources and opportunity in order to work for your own survival, and structures that wouldn't allow permanent accumulation.

Hey SignyM,

You're right about evolution v social evolution. Learning IS evanescent. (Mohenjo-Daro was the large civilization I was thinking of.)

"But the advent of agriculture was a change that people experienced and responded to. What you're talking about is a conscious change in viewpoint that comes about BEFORE underlying technological/ economic changes."

When it comes to human technologies making survival more certain, I was also thinking of language, the bowl, fire, and shaped stone.

But agriculture IMHO did TWO things. Its excess allowed the formation of a permanent ruling class. It ALSO removed the whip of survival. So what I'm talking about is a second adaptation to an already existing technology.

What I'm hoping is that by purposefully changing initial conditions, society can reboot itself into a different direction. I think it would be self-sustaining with one caveat - people would have to be taught what is so destructive about the other path. The benefits would be self evident, and b/c they would be universally distributed, they'd have near-universal support.

This is sheer speculation on my part, but I sometimes think that Native Americans did hunt large game to extinction, including the vast herds of native horses that used to exist. And I think they learned to scale back their greed and to be more careful, and embedded that into their culture. Similarly, I think there could be a modern self-sustaining culture with the same values.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:52 AM

Rue,
Don't have much time to write more than a few lines here, but wanted to say I have enjoyed and appreciated your thoughtful comments to my post - as well as SignyM's and others. There are many avenues in which to approach this topic. In some ways 500 years is a blink of the eye. In others it's huge - many generations to grow, change and develop for the betterment of humanity and the planet or to sink deeper and continue with better warfare, meddling with our technology not keeping up with the ethical aspects, etc.

I love exploring in this area - one reason Joss and those like him appeal to me. I was introduced some years ago to a biologist named Alberto Maturana (not sure if I'm spelling his name correcting) from South America who was working with Reality by Consensus theory - that nothing can be really known but only experienced and we agree on our reality based on the consenus of the majority. Interesting theory. I've recently come across another Shift Theory that goes beyond Darwin's Theory of Evolution and the fittest - breaking it down into 4 shifts - exploring female sexuality as dominant theme and the increase in testosterone (female and male) and increase reproduction. There is other research in this area - some having racial overdones which may be troubling. Haven't delved into this but SignyM mentioned Moheno-daro (the indo-european female based society pre-aryan conquest) and I've always found that a fascinating field of study.

Looking forward to more insightful discussion and exploring of the edges of possibility. Always a good time!

"Permission to come aboard, Captain."

Siri

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:52 AM