What ails the world and how to fix it

"

faerwin wrote:

no, acquiring more than you need isn't greed, it's comfort.

It's acquiring more than you can use at the cost of someone else not getting what they need that's greed.

Every natural resource that is consumed, is consumed at the expense of someone else.

In a natural environment, animals will hunt at the expense of the competition. You don't see any "poverty" in the natural environment, because the ecosystem keeps itself in equilibrium (=evolution is allowed to happen): there are as many bears around, as there are fish to sustain them. If some day the number of fish would severely decrease, due to some external factor, the bears would ramp up competition and only the most "greedy" ones would survive.

"

Or in more modern terms, it would be acquiring what's owned by someone else because doing so is cheaper than increasing your own production.

That would be called stealing and we agreed that it's against the law to do that in modern society.

But even if you remove all the activity that is against the law, you'd still see what you call "greed". The reasons for that would be (thinking as I go):

1.) Humans are not satisfied with just surviving (as bears are), we want more and more stuff & knowledge. We are always pushing the limits (eg: space exploration - "wtf do we need that for"?)

2.) Human civilization is quite unpredictable and we have foresight. You never know when a war or economic collapse will kill you. By acquiring even more than you currently need, by safeguarding your home, family & country more, you maximize the potential of future survival more.

The bears would actually do the same, if they invented the refrigerator: they'd pack more fish than they need, just in case, at the expense of other bears who didn't invent a refrigerator.

"

morbo wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

no, acquiring more than you need isn't greed, it's comfort.

It's acquiring more than you can use at the cost of someone else not getting what they need that's greed.

Every natural resource that is consumed, is consumed at the expense of someone else.

In a natural environment, animals will hunt at the expense of the competition. You don't see any "poverty" in the natural environment, because the ecosystem keeps itself in equilibrium (=evolution is allowed to happen): there are as many bears around, as there are fish to sustain them. If some day the number of fish would severely decrease, due to some external factor, the bears would ramp up competition and only the most "greedy" ones would survive.

"

Or in more modern terms, it would be acquiring what's owned by someone else because doing so is cheaper than increasing your own production.

That would be called stealing and we agreed that it's against the law to do that in modern society.

But even if you remove all the activity that is against the law, you'd still see what you call "greed". The reasons for that would be (thinking as I go):

1.) Humans are not satisfied with just surviving (as bears are), we want more and more stuff & knowledge. We are always pushing the limits (eg: space exploration - "wtf do we need that for"?)

2.) Human civilization is quite unpredictable and we have foresight. You never know when a war or economic collapse will kill you. By acquiring even more than you currently need, by safeguarding your home, family & country more, you maximize the potential of future survival more.

The bears would actually do the same, if they invented the refrigerator: they'd pack more fish than they need, just in case, at the expense of other bears who didn't invent a refrigerator.

While humans are also animals, arguably we aren't like any other animal. You are talking about instinct and comparing humans with other species, but that is like ignoring too many aspects of humans.

We live in society, we have technology and above all we are able of rational thought. What you wrote gives the impression that greed is natural therefore acceptable, but fuck that. Seals rapes penguins, did you know that? It must be their instinct, so maybe human rapists and bestiality can be considered something natural?

Yes, if we look that way greed and rape are natural, but like I said, fuck that, it's not human stuff. What can be considered "human stuff" then? What our society chooses using rational thought. It might change over time, but that is what we are, ever changing, constantly evolving not only biologically but as a society.

Yes, I agree that our instincts help us to understand our impulses, and some of our decisions, but they shouldn't be a guideline.

For example, it's natural to feel fear, but fear is not always rational, the same way it's natural to feel greedy, but it's not always rational.

We should embrace what makes us strong, not what makes us like other animals.

And if anyone is wondering my definition of "greed", to me "greed" is when your ambition becomes destructive, to you, or to others. Like I said, we humans live in a society, and that is why I think greed has no value to us, ambition in other hand is welcomed. And unlike bears we can draw the distinction between greed and ambition.

"

soneka101 wrote:

It must be their instinct, so maybe human rapists and bestiality can be considered something natural?

Not sure how you define "rape" in this case, but the male forcing himself on the female is natural, even in humans. But like with stealing, we in the West have decided this is culturally not ok anymore, so we fight it. (but you can still legally force yourself on your wife, in some other cultures which the liberal left loves so much ;))

I have a problem with the world "greed", because most of the time it is used to describe people who we are envious about. We even use it to describe people who "work too much" (according to our arbitrary limits).

Is Bill Gates greedy? He obviously accumulated way more wealth he'll "ever need". But he did so legally. Or maybe sometimes he needed to "grease some wheels" with bribes in his career, dunno. Or destroy his competition "without scruples & mercy", because that's how the business world is.

I like your definition of greed better, but it still describes an instinct of "eliminating your competition" that is very much a part of our nature and even culture. Even outside of "high stakes business", eg: men would still (physically) fight over women == eliminate your competition to get to the best resources.

"

morbo wrote:

"

soneka101 wrote:

It must be their instinct, so maybe human rapists and bestiality can be considered something natural?

Not sure how you define "rape" in this case, but the male forcing himself on the female is natural, even in humans. But like with stealing, we in the West have decided this is culturally not ok anymore, so we fight it. (but you can still legally force yourself on your wife, in some other cultures which the liberal left loves so much ;))

My point is that although it might be natural one of the characteristics of humans is that we have this ability to not accept it even tho is natural, and as you said is at those times that culture comes into place. If we look in a way culture makes us less natural, but in my opinion it doesn't makes us less human, if you ask me it would be the contrary.

"

morbo wrote:

I have a problem with the world "greed", because most of the time it is used to describe people who we are envious about. We even use it to describe people who "work too much" (according to our arbitrary limits).

That is why I think it's important to draw the distinction between "greed" and "ambition". Someone that works too much because he has dreams and want a comfortable life is not the same as someone that bombs a small village for profit, and yet some people call both the same way, if we look at it, it's more of a problem with communication.

Sometimes I think that the only reason we got that far was because of our ability to transmit information through speech. We can teach our young and sometimes even change the way we see things. Hell, maybe if we didn't communicate in the complex way we do, many concepts that are normal to us today might have never been "invented", for example: would we think about "past" or "future" if we only communicated our emotions through facial expression? There would be history or fiction at all?

So when I think about it our ability to speak is really amazing, we are always labeling new stuff, and sometimes we find definitions/distinctions to things that we never thought about, but while it's amazing, as we can see with the word "greed" speech as a "human tool" is still flawed. It's still good, and today it might be at the best that has ever been before, but it seems that there is still room to improvement.

(Before you ask, I think it's nice to have a word for someone that changed genders, but I think should be intuitive and not forced upon others, just my opinion)

"

morbo wrote:

Is Bill Gates greedy? He obviously accumulated way more wealth he'll "ever need". But he did so legally. Or maybe sometimes he needed to "grease some wheels" with bribes in his career, dunno. Or destroy his competition "without scruples & mercy", because that's how the business world is.

I like your definition of greed better, but it still describes an instinct of "eliminating your competition" that is very much a part of our nature and even culture. Even outside of "high stakes business", eg: men would still (physically) fight over women == eliminate your competition to get to the best resources.

About Bill gates, I would consider him ambitious based on the little I know, but like I wrote above about language and communication, we have the ability to discuss stuff, so the way I view him might be subject to change and consequentially also the word I use to describe him. But the concept of "ambition" doesn't change, it's arguable if he was being greedy when he appeared to be ambitious or vice versa, but if we could know what is in his head we would know if it's greed or ambition.

Like I said, it's a concept, we may argue if someone falls on that concept or not, the concept itself doesn't change, sometimes the word to describe the concept do. I think the word greed is better suited to describe the concept of gathering resources in a compulsive way while having little regard for other things, I think it's better suited for that than ambition.

There are also other concepts that are similar to this one that I think it could also be described as greed, because like I said, the way we communicate is flawed, it fails to convey our understanding about stuff. It is at times like these that I value people with eloquence, they are like freaking sword masters to me.

Edit: We do have a tool that ties concepts to words, it's updated yearly I think and it's based on how people are using words around the world. I saw an interesting video about it few days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLgn3geod9Q

The problem is that not everyone uses it on the day to day life, and it seems that this tool is having trouble with keeping up with the advances with our means of communication, and with how fast our vocabulary changes.

"

killxo wrote:

I've learned a lot from listening to Terence McKenna over the past few years and this small 10 minute excerpt from a speech of his hits the nail on the head perfectly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbPqkNl4_-g

while he does not go into great detail on the mechanics of using the perspective he gives in order to change society with greater volition, it sets the stage of what is more or less obvious and to push back against those elements with the knowledge of centuries past and the present to solicit greater understanding of our place in the universe and what we can do about it then benefits us the most. I'm interested in knowing how many of you feel about what Terence has to say in the video.

Its empowerment for those who are curious.

Religion/psychology/governance.. is construct to make people stay in state of "normal" based on fear to have pension, to be somebody etc. so people are not able to get away from this kind of golden cages.

Progress is the addition of the artificial — that is, the man-made — to our lives in a way that makes our lives better. McKenna is a deeply regressive thinker who is too quick to label any, or perhaps even all, human achievement as more harm than good. His hedonism of debauchery and drug abuse is only made possible by the tireless work of those who have achieved something he fails to recognize. He, and those of the so-called progressive so-called left who share his hatred of human achievement, are what ails this world.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Progress is the addition of the artificial — that is, the man-made — to our lives in a way that makes our lives better. McKenna is a deeply regressive thinker who is too quick to label any, or perhaps even all, human achievement as more harm than good. His hedonism of debauchery and drug abuse is only made possible by the tireless work of those who have achieved something he fails to recognize. He, and all the others who deny or hate human achievement and knowledge and think their imposed solution will cure our ills those of the so-called progressive so-called left who share his hatred of human achievement, are what ails this world.

Fixed that for you.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Progress is the addition of the artificial — that is, the man-made — to our lives in a way that makes our lives better. McKenna is a deeply regressive thinker who is too quick to label any, or perhaps even all, human achievement as more harm than good. His hedonism of debauchery and drug abuse is only made possible by the tireless work of those who have achieved something he fails to recognize. He, and those of the so-called progressive so-called left who share his hatred of human achievement, are what ails this world.

After 2nd listen to that 10 min video I havent noticed anything from what you wrote.

There is no critics of achievement, no hedonism, no debauchery, no drug abuse, no fail recognize, no hate.... Its vice versa to what you wrote and much more.

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Progress is the addition of the artificial — that is, the man-made — to our lives in a way that makes our lives better. McKenna is a deeply regressive thinker who is too quick to label any, or perhaps even all, human achievement as more harm than good. His hedonism of debauchery and drug abuse is only made possible by the tireless work of those who have achieved something he fails to recognize. He, and those of the so-called progressive so-called left who share his hatred of human achievement, are what ails this world.

After 2nd listen to that 10 min video I havent noticed anything from what you wrote.

There is no critics of achievement, no hedonism, no debauchery, no drug abuse, no fail recognize, no hate.... Its vice versa to what you wrote and much more.

You weren't really listening then.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Rexeos wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Progress is the addition of the artificial — that is, the man-made — to our lives in a way that makes our lives better. McKenna is a deeply regressive thinker who is too quick to label any, or perhaps even all, human achievement as more harm than good. His hedonism of debauchery and drug abuse is only made possible by the tireless work of those who have achieved something he fails to recognize. He, and those of the so-called progressive so-called left who share his hatred of human achievement, are what ails this world.

After 2nd listen to that 10 min video I havent noticed anything from what you wrote.

There is no critics of achievement, no hedonism, no debauchery, no drug abuse, no fail recognize, no hate.... Its vice versa to what you wrote and much more.

You weren't really listening then.

Or you over listening.

gl hf