Mankind's method of survival is his ability to think abstractly to solve problems. He adapts to his environment, but more importantly he adapts his environment to him. His ability to imagine is a necessity to his survival. However, it is not beyond man to have an animalian brain. Many behaviors of less advanced primates are just as prevalent in man. His propensity to violence, the conflicts between haves and have nots(the haves want to keep what they have, the have nots want what the haves have) are all signs of animalian and subsequently violent behavior very alive in humans.

As man's technological developments continue to grow in complexity, we run the further risk of greater destruction when potentially dangerous technologies are put in the hands of more animalian human minds.

As an example, the Cuban Missle Crisis nearly started a third world war, which had the very real possibility of the annihilation of the human species. Will we be so lucky next time? As technologies continue to grow, more and more possibilities of self-destruction present itself.

I conclude that eventually the conditions will present themselves where human self-destruction will be the result. Technological changes supersede social changes, the former often inspires the latter. Therefore, if the social prophylactic is not yet developed before the technology is in place for special genocide, self-destruction can be the result.

I find man's dualistic nature of imagination and animalian brain even with safeguards of humanity to be self-destructive. Your views?

I don't know much about the subject, but I have to agree with you here. My opinion is just that the human race has evolved to a point where it can't exist on this planet anymore. We're too complex to be able to exist the way other animals do, because while it works for them if we didn't organize ourselves in some way our conflicting nature would result in complete chaos. But at the same time, societies can never really work for basically the same reason.

I'm not very good at explaining things, but... yeah, I agree with you, basically. Technology just makes things worse and politics do too, because we're basically giving ourselves more opportunities and easier ways to destroy ourselves (and possibly the entire planet). Technology is the only reason humanity has survived this long in the first place, because I don't think that we should have otherwise, but it's still a means to an end basically. We'll all kill each other off eventually. I just hope it's not in my lifetime...

It is in our nature to destroy eachother, it will be our downfall if we can not learn to get along. If the human race has any hope of surviving they must stop fighting amongst eachother and unite as one to solve the real problems like the holes in the ozone layer, paluting our planet and slowly killing the world off.

I guess I have some things to add to the discussion.

Sir Max:

QUOTE

"the haves want to keep what they have, the have nots want what the haves have"

Well there are only a couple ways to deal with this.. And there are two possible alignments on this question..

either
a) Society is such that a portion of the population has more (substantially more) than the other people in the society, measured in terms of money, freedom, health, time, possessions, etc..
-or-
b) Society is such that everyone has nearly the same worth of belongings, health, time, freedom, justice, education, everything combined.

Now, if the case is (b) there really is no problem. The major conflict you speak of, of essentially an inate jealousy or an inate greed in humanity that creates violent conflict, would be rendered obsolute. I mean, I guess people can go on being jealous or greedy all they want, but it's not going to get them very far if all of society has reached a state of equality.

Other problems may come up too, but a lot is resolved if the state of the world is (b).

(a) is a bad state for the world to be in, as long as we have our animalian minds.



antagony:

QUOTE

"Technology just makes things worse and politics do too, because we're basically giving ourselves more opportunities and easier ways to destroy ourselves"

Yea, if you consider technology is fire, and the wheel... without those, mankind may have gone extinct a long time ago. But that's about all man needs to get by darwin. any further technology just makes the whole equation more complicated (unbalanced, more likely to go off the tracks) in short order. sure, modern medicine, and mass production.. a cure for cancer and space travel may all help the standard of living.. but you can blow -everything- up real easy with that tech too, right?

so there's two sides to every issue. tech is good, tech is bad.

but don't be one sided against politics...
sure, you can look at the politics involved in the cold war, of capitalism vs communism, that nearly blew up the world. but religion and fundamentalism can fill that same niche of global destruction.. inequality and desperation fills a similar niche. greed and want for power does as well.

The deal is, religion can do a lot of good if the religion is based on compassion.. desperation can bring out heroics.. striving for a better life or for leadership ain't a bad thing either. and politics, meaning the running of government, can succeed tremendously on a global scale when using international diplomacy, fair trade, emergency assistance and general goodwill. It can bring out the greatest good when used well (that is to say, when it's not facism). On the whole, it's a very good thing.

The science of politics, says a random dictionary, is about maintaining the peace, safety, and prosperity of its governing nation against all enemies.. the external threats, but also the internal, self-destructive threats to the nation.

And when you take the idea of politics up a step, from simply a national entity to an international entity, you get the UN. And the UN is pretty much the the most important non-technological advance of the last century.

Right now, the UN needs the ability to do more, and can't just be tossed aside as it was last year. I feel strongly that without -it-, that global anhilation that's been spoken of would have already occurred. It's a huge mistake, in the face of these new technological complications, to disregard the tremendously beneficial organization that the UN is.

-cm

The latter does not exist. Nor in all practicality can it exist. As humans require organization, that organization as a sociological law oligarchizes. The oligarchs have more power. They become the haves, a minority by principle. This creates power tension between the minority haves and the majority have nots. The other form of tension intrinsic to human society is not socio-political as just stated, but economic. The haves of money are always the minority, has been ever since economies have existed. Modern society requires political hierarchy, the rule of majority is an unrealizable goal, as there is always a need and always a natural leaning to a political class. The econimic side, while levelable, is only eliminated through communism, a failure in itself. The only way to minisculize these conflicts is in a primitive society, the only place where communism can sort of work. The socio-political conflict will always exist, but is minimized through primitivization.The UN is a weak, pitiful attempt at globalization. The future is more likely to be blocs, like the EU, SEATO, and NAFTAA. Right now the UN is just a place where people kick and scream and nothing gets done. It is a place for beaurocrats who care nothing of other nations and only want to hold on to their own sovreignty. Why? Because humans aren't very good cooperators on such a grand scale. Can the UN eventually create an international government? Maybe, I don't rule it out as the Romans thought their empire would never fall, but it did, and this could succeed. Will it be too little too late? I think so.Err, how? What major earth-shattering disaster has the UN prevented?

Of course I got us a little off topic.. but anyways..

I disagree with your form of argument..
1. You're saying that certain things must be and that other things are impossible.. but the reasoning behind what you're saying isn't evident.

You say: "The latter [an equal society] does not exist. Nor in all practicality can it exist."
I say: er.. why can't it?
You say: Because organization requires oligarchs intrinsically, and people having more money than other people is intrinsic too, and it's also intrinsic for there to be social-political classes.
and I say: er what? you're just saying that certain things are the way that you say they are because that's the way they are and the way they have to be and they will never change either...

arguing that something has to be true because it is "intrinsic", or that you're right because you're just stating "common sense", etc, doesn't hold a lot of water.

Either way, you must have misunderstood me, though i thought i was clear in my definition by use of the word "nearly". I'm certainly not saying that every person in society B must have exactly 17,269 dollars and 38 cents in order to be equal. I'm not saying that every single person has to be Mayor for-a-day, or their own CEO in order to be equal. There must be give and take--on the whole I'm talking about an equable society, one that's fair, without the extremes seen in countries and the world today. Equal on the whole doesn't mean "exactly the same in every respect".

The point is, if the people of the world are compassionate, and the state of the world is equal enough for them to be content with their place in it, war becomes obsolete. And if the people are educated enough and forward thinking enough, they can take care of the planet and will not run out of resources... there won't be global warming catastrophes or nukes going off. Society B isn't the sole answer to a threat of global anihilation, but it is a very important stablizing factor.


2. "...only eliminated through communism, a failure in itself."

Sorry, again i'm pointing to the intrinsic thing. you're stating that communism is, by it's nature, wrong. you're dismissing it out of hand. then you state in the next sentences that mankind could go back to a primitive style society as a solution to the equality question. but communism you say, no, that's impossible, it's inherently a failure.

that plain doesn't hold.


3. I agree to the degree that the UN needs more power to fulfill its assumed responsibilities.. Weak? well, it is as powerful as the reigning superpower and the other permanent security council members will allow it to be. it's that powerful when it comes to the big issues that get the notice. And unless there can be unanimity, it'll be severely restricted by that one security council member that "has the most to lose".

That's the nature of the veto. But the UN does so much behind the scenes, in humanitarian work, in diplomacy, and sometimes in the big things that the major powers are actually cajoled to agree to do.

To me, the phrase itself, "The United Nations" is inspiring. A Bloc is not. Blocs may be a stepping stone toward some sort of new, eventual global all-encompassing organization, but until then they are just blocs competing against other blocs. That isn't world unity, that is not an organization that has the peace and prosperity of all mankind in mind.

The UN has done so much good in the world through their peacekeeping efforts, humanitarian assistance, diplomacy in international disputes, in arranging treaties on political, economic, social, and environmental issues... you can claim all you like that it's just nickels and dimes, but they all add up to a tremendous sum.

And who knows, one day the planet may be hit by one of those major earth-shattering disaster causing asteroids, and the UNs efforts were, in the end, for naught. But I personally feel that, over the decades until then, we've avoided a nuclear world war or two due to efforts for peace by the UN.

-cm

Because that is how they are. Examples you may want? Political parties are designed to group voters together to be more effective. Now most members do not actively participate in the parties to greta degree, the leaders do, hence oligarchy. The communist international, an organization supposed to be democratic in the extreme, is deeply oligarchized. Every government ever, has been oligarchy in one degree or another. Even in the Athenian democracy, not everyone was a leader. Most human societies have been oligarchies, with community leaders at the top. Even revolutionary movements, which in theory are supposed to be the moving wave of the people, are carried out by a small portion of a population and even a smaller number pulls the strings. Organization on a mass scale requires oligarchy, as not everyone can lead. Antipathy, or simple inability, are the things that cause oligarchy and make it necessary.Nor did I. Note I said it is levelable, but can only be eliminated through communism. I did not attribute your statement to communism, just made the point.In a world where everyone is compassionate, intelligent, not greedy...It's a hope we shouldn;t lose. However I doubt it can happen, call me pessimistic, but I don't think humans will be ready for that for quite a long time if ever, just my opinion.Firstly, communism in a primitive society is a failure, as it is not truly communist. However it is as close as possible due to co-dependancy of people due to lack of technology. As for why it is a failure totally? To be breif. Forms of communism have been tried on four continents, all bitter failures. Now I'll be the first one to say that none of these forces have truly been communist, they weren't. Why? Because Marx's version is too out there to be applicable. The reason why he was so angry at the revisionist socialists? They were gaining real ground, as opposed to angry kicking and screaming. He called it selling out. It was the only thing they could do. Marx believed in a worldwide revolution of the oppressed masses, which would then settle under a dictatorship of the proletariat until the proper social engineering had taken place to eliminate the people of the me and mine in favor of the us and ours. Then the dictatorship would voluntarily give up power. Get real Marx. Very, VERY rarely do governments give up power, even less so in a totalitarian dictatorship. Marx is flawed in the fact that the DoP would never give up power, and in the fact that he wasn't very familiar with the human mind. Humans under their crust of a primate brain have a mammalian and below that a reptilian in the metaphorical sense. The reptilian brain holds incredible influence within the mind. Reptiles are selfish beings. Man is a selfsih being. Some less so then others. Some are selfless saints. But look at man as a whole, could all of humanity become like that? I contend not. As for the communist forces that took power, their problems with success were the same as Marx's, just amplified. For these reasons, communism is an intrinsic failure. However if we are to continue a discussion on communism, there is another thread for it.How many nations in the UN are willing to sacrifice some of their own national sovreignty for the sake of globalization. Not too many. The US surely doesn't, along with most of the other big countries. And the little ones are no better. I don't blame the US for giving the UN the finger. Why should we let a bunch of squabbling beaurocrats yell at us just because it increases their anti-american sentiment to help their own positions of power. Any nation not devoted to what the UN wants, globalization, should leave. I feel the US should leave. How can we expect an international government when these fools can't solve their problems at home? Sure, the UN can be a great thing, once its member nations are ready for it. Now, they sure as hell are not.

I'll keep it simple (not that I could get complex anyway *shrug*).

Yes, humanity is self - destructive. It's in our nature to be so. Where as other mammals either adapt to their surroundings or die out - we adapt surroundings to ourselves until we can batter them no more. If nothing else we're tenacious!!


We will learn our lesson when we've near as dammit destroyed this world and by then it will be too late.

Coconut, your version of the world, in which equality reigns and humanity is neither self-distructive nor humans distructive one to the other is beautiful, and it would be wonderful to acheive. However, idealism is idealism. In--what?--60, 000 years of human history, these conditions have yet to be achieved. Now, I ask you, if I run headfirst into a wall, and the next day do it again, and next week yet again, can I expect five years later for the wall to be any less solid? Some things we must learn from experience, accept, and adapt to. Perhaps there are other ways to stop humanity from its own total distruction. However, idealising what humanity as a whole is capable of doing will not change anything.

Humans are given to self-interest. It is an unfortunate and undeniable fact of nature. We may be persuaded to have compassion, but ultimately if it comes to Us vs. Them, we will infallibly choose Us. This is not evil; it is simply a facet of human nature drilled into our instict by thousands of years of evolution. However, its effect can be contrued as 'evil'. Either way, you cannot ignore the existance of instinct. Even if it means biting the hands that feeds us, or killing someone 'if it's the last thing you do', humans seem to do what will acheive their short-term goal. Even if it means, say, nuking the middle east in an act of war and getting the last laugh as nuclear winter kills us all off.

Another interesting question concerns human nature. Are humans Reusseau's 'noble savages', affected adversely by the evils of society, but ultimately capable of complete and noble good if unaffected? Or, left to ourselves, are we naturally given to primal instincts of survival and destruction? I think that while the society a person is raised in can certainly affect their nature, Society as a whole--humanity--is inclined against Reasseau's theory. How else would thousands of isolated societies seperately develope ruthless, bloody traditions of war, and as Sir Maxerpopple said, oligarchy?

I would like to have faith in the human race. Nobody likes a pessimist. But howevermuch the facts of history are cruel and ugly, it's foolish to ignore them. We are a species surviving on cro-magnon insticts and very, very, very large pointy rocks.

Forgot to comment on this piece.This is hardly something that stopped nuclear war. The people they are helping aren't exactly in a position of global power anyway.

Humanity... self-destructive...? well, me for example, I would like to see the human race dead for its atrocities against itself, animals and generally the natural environment. My personal opinion. I do not want to execute this particular theory myself because I have people I love on this planet and there is good out there, but making life far too complex is what buries us all in the end. All technology is natural because we are natural and everything we create can only be created from natural elements. the universe is natural. SO everything is natural... and with that theory the whole world is entirely chaotic. You can have a controlled society but control can always been overwritten. The world is in chaos, every human really wants to just survive but the fact that things are more complicated now and we are greedy for more than just survival, there has to be a bi-product of this happiness - Genocide. (Sir Stephen Kelly) : They`ll be a mass breed of psycho-samaritans! a group of small preachers that uphold their iron justice with chainsaw-shotguns!!! Thats why turtles don`t speak!

Max, I don't know where you're getting this oligarchy idea from.

People with strong opinions on issues are not oligarchs. People who seek to influence the opinions of their fellow citizens are not oligarchs. Influence can help get what you want, but it's only indirect power. Simply having influence does not make you an oligarch. If the government in question is a true democracy, there can be no oligarchy. Taking a leading role in getting done what the people want (vote) is not being an oligarch.

anyway

...

okay yea, i think bringing the word "communism" into the debate was a mistake. nobody can get by its historical baggage and all the personal spin that its various proponents over the years have put into it. we can call my position coconutmonkeyism from now on, and so, there's no reason to drag marx into it.

...

The UN is useful. A world at peace is not as likely to blow itself up. A world with people so down and out that they've got nothing to lose.. well desperation in the face of that may not end well. An olive branch and helping hand is a good thing..

without it, what recourse is there.. countries consider selling their WMDs to the highest bidder to make ends meet? that's a bad situation, eh?

and maybe, for Untitled's sake, a human race able to show the kind of good will required would be worth saving, and not gone extinct.

-cm

Yeh humanity will distroy itself eventully if it gose on like this. humans have the basic primtive nature you talked about in the have and have nots but they also have hatred wich is a lot worse and a problem which spreads. this will eventually distroy humanity. think about back in the holocost where hitler killed people using that well eventually someone with more power and a hatred of more then just jews will gain power and just distroy all. you know it will happen becouse if someone fires a nuke everyone else who has them will fire them which even ifyour not hit by one the nuklear winter wich will be created by the effects of all these nukes going off will kill all life on the planit kind of like back in (1960 I think) where there was a year withought summer in eroup and junk which was caused by a volcano eruption that had so much dirt in the atmosphear that it blocked out the sun and rained the ashes (black snow as it was knowen) well this will be a few thousand times worse. then if oyu get even more technology humanity will do something even worse. but yeh so no matter what humans are going to distroy themselfs and probly everything else as well becouse humans will not die off unless there is no chance of survivle left on the planet.

Not saying they are.No, those are demagogues.And where or when has that government ever existed?

Oligarchy is by definition rule by the few. All republics are borderline oligarchies, since power is shared between the elected and the electorate. This can lean either towards oligarchy or democracy, it is a bridge between the two. What makes republics(arguably the most democratic of oligarchies) oligarchical is the fact that the majority of the electorate is either ignorant, misled, antipathetic, or a combination of them. Less than half of America voted in the 2000 election for example. Antipathy and ignorance are universal, not just limited to the US. A nation of a competent electorate and a servile elected body has never really existed, nor does today. Just consult history, the examples are everywhere. Lack of voting, ignorance, and being misled by propaganda campaigns, the electorate unfortunately turns into drones of the demagogues who want power at the top. In theory the people have the power. In reality they are puppets of the demagogues. This is not to say that there are not intelligent and capable voters, but I am talking about the majority of any electorate.

And how has the UN stopped nuclear war? Humanitarian aid? The biggest budget internationally on average of nations? Military.And the UN was so successful at stopping that.

Just because something never existed doesn't mean it can't.

Is humanity self-destructive? In a nutshell: DUUUUHH.

Of course not. But if true democracy has human nature against it, the likelihood is incredibly rare.

It is safe to say that the more advanced the human race becomes the more self-destructive it becomes, and this factor will be our downfall.

max:

QUOTE

And where or when has that government ever existed?

And where or when has the annihilation of the human species ever existed?
It's never occured before, who says it will.

Clearly mankind has some sort of survival instinct, or resilience, or somethin, considering those times we avoided the total annihilation thing already.

So, when it comes to annihilation, I'm gonna say the likelihood is incredibly rare.

You know, it is perhaps as likely as, say, mankind forming a true democracy.. Mankind continuing it's gradual development from anarchy into despotism and theocracy and monarchy and feudalism and aristocracy and a republic and eventually a true democracy.

I guess the though of it, it's kinda "out there", eh?

So maybe I'm an optimist.. I'm hopeful about a lot of things, so I'd guess some of them would be somewhat Out There. Maybe one day we'll even land on the moon.

.. But I spose the likelihood of that can't be very high.

-cm

The difference however is quite clear. True democracy is in defiance with human nature, modern sociology tells us this. Self-destruction is completely within the bounds of human nature, as I have provided my reasons for thinking such. I have also provided reasons for why true democracy is so unreasonable. You have provided no reasons stating that self-destruction is not.This governmental timeline is not historically accurate. Monarchy and despotism were one in the same, theocracy was often one in the same with the others. Feudalism began in Japan and Europe at about the same time, after the fall of the Roman Empire. Aristocracy was alive throughout the entirety of civilization, the noble class always had special priveledges. Republicanism came alive with the American and French revolutions, but previos to them governments had remained the same since Mesopotamia. The eventuality of democracy is not an impossibility, just such an extreme unlikelihood due to human nature. Even republics are not immune to them.

Alright, we have to get mathematical?

Ok, so we go with the idea in 'human nature' called "Might Equals Right".

--If you disagree this is an aspect of human nature, or animal nature, you'd better just stop reading now and I wasted my time.-- Otherwise, go on.

You know, the idea that the individual or group with the most power will control the group that has less power. Might equals right. So there must be a certain balancing point in a society whereby the fewer but powerful elite can just barely control their numerous subjects, OR teeter teeter, the masses can combine their efforts and manage to overwhelm the elite to bring some kind of revolution. Sometime it's sudden, sometimes it's violent.. sometimes is gradual.. sometimes it's called an election.

And it's happened time and time again, but that's not the point.

The point is, there has been a trend away from the rule of despots (as well as monarchs, which are not the same thing) and away from the rule of the few powerful, or the few wealthy, or the few religious.. into a quite recent era of representative government.. Of republics and quasidemocracies (more than just representative elections but direct referendums and recall elections are in there too, nowadays). The trend has the power out of the hands of the elite minority into the majority.

So why does this trend have to stop?

Well it's not. As you pointed out, around the world it has accelerated over the past two-three centuries. And this is exactly where it ties in with your other topic of discussion, the one about the need for human rights. So long as the universal human rights continue to expand.. so long as people continue the trend of increasing compassion and understanding and working together to protect ourselves and protect all the various minority groups.. so long as we can get the basic human rights to medical care for every ill person regardless of wealth, and the right to social assistance in times of need, and the right to an education regardless of upbringing, and the right to old-age pensions that will actually be there when i'm 60, and on.. So long as we keep that trend going, building a truly compassionate and informed society, true democracy will follow. And it's already on its way.

So.

QED?


-cm


Of course it can go off the tracks and we blow the planet up. I'm not at all arguing that we can't do that. I'm only arguing that it's quite possible we won't.

QUOTE

Coconut Monkey - May 1 2004, 11:12 PM
The point is, if the people of the world are compassionate, and the state of the world is equal enough for them to be content with their place in it, war becomes obsolete. And if the people are educated enough and forward thinking enough, they can take care of the planet and will not run out of resources... there won't be global warming catastrophes or nukes going off. Society B isn't the sole answer to a threat of global annihilation, but it is a very important stablizing factor.

- Edit -
Course the point of this debate (preventing annihilation) isn't true democracy.. And I never said it was the only solution or the keystone part. And I wasn't talking about absolutes like communism or true democracy until you turned the debate that way.. I've been pretty consistent in saying "nearly equal, on the whole" and "equal enough to be content" and so forth.

But my words above still hold, that striving for that equality and compassion and freedom and knowledge / forward thinking is important, and could be the factor that gets humanity through whatever crisises come up. getting to the absolutes is bound to take too long, we'll have to hope that the intermediate steps are good enough to hold us together.

Precisely. And if you think human nature can be stopped, discontinue reading. Human nature is an unstoppable force that has been kept alive throughout human history. There have been progressions, the west seems to have led them. Yet not one hundred years ago mass genocides occured twice upon the lands of Europe. Less than 100 years! In the last fifty years, things have stabilized and moderation has taken control in history once again, so it's easy to think positively, that we finally have the way to go, that we are just on the cusp of a new beginning. How many times have we just been on that cusp? The renaissance, the enlightenment, the end of the world wars, the end of the cold war...they all thought they were on the cusp, have things drastically changed? I think not. Look around you. Violence and disorder permeates even western culture, only the trends have changed. We still watch violence on television. Alot of it. We go to wars with nations that don't concern us. We exploit and abuse. Sure, things have gotten better from primordial man, but has human nature been quelled in favor of rationalism? No. And why? Because we are man the animal, destroying such a basic part of psyche would take tens, hundreds of thousands of years, millions even.How many revolutions have been of the masses? The American, French, and Russian revolutions, the English civil war, the communist revolutions elsewhere, none of these have been of the masses, rather small groups. And even if the masses do take control, guess what emerges shortly afterward? If you guessed oligarchy, you'd be correct. Rule by the masses is quite transient, it happens in bursts and leaves as such. Oligarchy always triumphs.Rule by tyranny, or rule by tyranny, while not exactly the same, they are homologues.Really? Do you know the amount of corporate power within the US congress?How so? Voter apathy and ignorance, manipulation and propaganda...Is it rule by the majority, or influence over them?It doesn't, but likelihood? Very rare. Reasons have already been given. All governments have been oligarchies, and there is a strong likelihood that this will remain. 6000 years of civilization teaches us something you know, it doesn't all change in the last 300 years.That is not my point AT ALL. I find them to be useless and disorderly, without a proper origin.Yeah, until there is a crisis and people return to what they know, the old ways of doing things. It's called an age of optimism buddy, easy to think that way now, they thought the same thing in 1815. Guess what came along, industrialization, the labor revolts, and WWI.Not familir with that term.