Re: A New Vision of Humanity

Reading from news:talk.origins,
"Dr. Acula" <jerrydeon@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Apr 14, 12:52+AKA-pm, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
"Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@xxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Apr 13, 12:37+-AKA-pm, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
You can't just rip law and order out from under a society that has come so
dependent on it. +-AKA-You'd have to give them a nice segue. +-AKA-Gently roll back
laws as the world is improved to remove the conditions that cause people
to feel the need to become violent to bring a sense of fairness into their
lives.

Even in hunter-gatherer societies there is (or was) plenty of violence
without laws or government.

How often do you think that viewpoint is used as a justification for
continued violence, maybe believing that "those people are apes who cannot
be reasoned with"?

Thats not a viewpoint so much as a simple fact. Violence occurs in
societies with little stratification and with no real governing body,

Unless you consider money. Honestly, what society values as what is good
for payment is too limited. Think of how great the towns would look if
people could express themselves artfully around town of their own good
will without being arrested for vandalism. I'm talking about art /and/
graffiti. I like looking at the graffiti on passing trains. I just would
like to see what they could do with it if they knew it would be
appreciated by more people and not seen as trash.

I just think there are a lot of creative people in the world who could
really make the place look nice if they had the free materials to do it.
But materials for "large pieces of art" are hard to come by.

I'd love to see more buildings (everywhere) that look like this one. I
took a picture of this building about a year ago in Shreveport, LA. It's
amazing!

http://home.earthlink.net/+AH4-matthaeus/talk-origins/img/side-of-building-small.jpg

just as it occurs in societies with those things (often on a much
larger scale of course). As to your second point, people have been
trying to wipe out other people for as long as there have been people.

It used to be for moral reasons, if I recall. Someone invaded the Greeks
and told them that their pederastic ways were not Godly and they were, I
suppose, invaded because everyone thought they were fags.

Chimps also conduct warfare and cannibalize the infants of the
losers.

But we don't go to war with people, kill their men, abort their pregnant
women, and eat what comes out. But apparently some do like to have sex
with the children of those same men and women, so I suppose that's one
form of cannibalism if you want to see it that way. Do apes derive any
sort of sexual pleasure from its cannibalization of the infants of the
losing apes?

I'm not saying these things are good or right. I'm saying that
government itself is not the underlying cause of violence within
society. We are a violent species. Most violence is probably caused by
fighting over resources and access to resources. The elimination of
laws is not going to affect that to any large degree.

When money is removed as an object of impedence, desalinization plants
will provide water for as long as it's needed. Just don't let money stand
in the way of it. :(

If the world lives by that philosophy, we become a whole race trying to
see who can be the most powerful apes. +AKA-Fortunately we have the balance of
intelligent people who are against violence because more intelligent ways
can be constructed to make a system that is globally fair to everyone.

Or we become a race simply trying to feed and clothe ourselves and in
that pursuit end up doing horrible things. We do need to address
things like food production and how it has been affected by
globalization. I don't think that doing away with government is going
to fix anything.

What government does has to change. I think government should just be
handling transportation. Making sure we can still get from place to
place. Imagine all that money spent on defense instead spent on
transportation. We'd have super-smooth highways that stay that way for
decades instead of needing "patchwork" after the first or second year of
being "fixed up a little" with yet another coat of asphalt.

I remember a Phillips 66 commercial in the 80s when I was a kid. They
were talking about how they now had the technology to build highways that
would last for 20 years. And they showed workers building one. But I've
not seen a highway last for 20 years for all my life that doesn't start
falling apart. Maybe they tried and the technology didn't work. But I
assumed that they had tried something in the 60s that had lasted until the
80s. So I would have assumed a highway built in 1980 would last until at
least 2000, but they never built them around here. Why not? My guess is
economic concerns. They need people working so people can make money to
keep the economy going. So if they had technology so great that highways
would last 30-50 years without needing repairs, it would put too many
people out of work. So we get substandard roadways that wear out and need
repairs more often. Keeps us busy.

Well. Why not keep us busy decorating now that the old charade can no
longer continue with any sort of decent mindset. Let highways last for a
hundred years, and let people beautify instead of reconstruct.

For all we know, that might tie in with our happiness as a species, so
that our bodies, too, can do more beautification instead of
reconstruction.

Damaeus

.

Loading