Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Wed May 27 10:40:41 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / China lied 2
Mon May 04 12:33:35
Mon May 04 12:37:10

Oh come on. Surely I don't have to explain the idea of military assets being redeployable in case of a European conflict. It handily beats not having them at all.

German military capabilities have long been known to suck. NATO has simply called for them to suck less.

You are simply raising arguments for the purpose of being able to have a gripe with the US position.
Mon May 04 12:38:57
For most of the time spent as hunter gatherers, it was easier to move than to fight. There was literally room to avoid the bloody resolution of the competition. That is kicking the can down the road until all land has been claimed, which we did. Even so it was a savage time.

It isn't exclusive to familial kinship, but tribal/social. I accept you into the tribe, but we still war with this other tribe.

I don't mean that we do not have inherent capabilities to cooperate, we do. But in this hierarchy of different states of social systems the most base and simplest form that we can always revert back provided the environmental context, is a selfish one.

It's a very real problem about how to best administrate and govern, it is not metaphysical. The natural state is violated every second of every day, it is the foundation of our civilization, it is within our capabilities, then perhaps the delivery SYSTEM is fucked. Put good people in a bad system and the system always wins.
Mon May 04 12:39:45

I specifically said my point of view was not from a metaphysical exploration and said that would be an unnatural state for humanity.

Sanctity of property seems to be a personal issue for you rather than me. I specifically included genetics and human development. If it wasn't understood is that a fault of mine or yours? You needn't answer. Playing the so called game I see.

I don't identify with your labeling.
Mon May 04 12:43:51

I couldn't agree more, but that doesn't negate natural state unless we are defining it differently and I don't believe we are.
large member
Mon May 04 12:54:02
We were not even our main competition. Our imaginations embodied nature to help and/or harm us.

I am not saying that conflict did not occur. Of course it did. But in ritualized form and limited format. Driven by cultural and even biological needs much more than economic ones.

It is in our nature to be conflict adverse and boy oh boy are we hardwired not to kill other humans.

We find it tremendously difficult and traumatizing to do that.

I think the troubles you have identified relate to wealth accumulation and how the fuck to deal with it.

We don't have a clue biologically speaking. So invent all kinds of crazy ideas to make it work - sort of.

Selfish is a coping mechanism to deal with the fuck ups that followed from agriculture and the wealth accumulation that followed.
large member
Mon May 04 13:04:50
Some of us really hate sharing food off our plate with our similarly aged loved ones.

That about covers the extent of hardwired "mine". Not the animal carcass, but only the haunch we were about to put into our mouths.

Anything beyond that is an abstraction that causes endless fuck ups as we try to create systems we are not biologically adapted to understand.
large member
Mon May 04 13:15:40
Everything natural state is basically just repurposing pretty reptilian stuff.

Imprinting -> bonding -> patriotism -> dying stupidily in some brawl about soccer.

The further along the chain, the less natural state it is. We are just trying shit out to see if we can juryrig something or another.
Mon May 04 16:22:58
Perhaps it is best define "natural state" as not the natural state, but a natural state. That state depends on the environment. We adapt and play the game differently, but also the game and rules change.

Ultimately whether one believes it to be a natural default state, say pending uncertainty, is not so important to the point I want to make. Let's call it an undesirable form of competition that has formed societies for a very long time.

>>I think the troubles you have identified relate to wealth accumulation and how the fuck to deal with it.<<

This is the outcome of a poorly constructed game. Accumulating like a cancer tumor. I don't believe it is the cause, I don't believe treating this symptom will save the system.
large member
Mon May 04 16:53:27
Our natural default state is to take what we have and adapt it to what we think will work.

Its adhoc as hell and is on a fast forward button way to quick for us to match. For like forever.

Magpies may be on a correct timeline, but we were screwed from the moment dinosaurs died and we thought "look, free eggs".

But it is that adaptability that is cause for optimism. We can adapt and dump with equal ease.

Conversely, citing biology to explain stuff only explains why the game sucks. We did not really put much thought into making the game, we just tried to screw something together that worked when suddenly we had to juryrig imprinting to the point where things that are obviously not us, somehow became us (or an extention of self for the libertarians out there).

Like I said, it may be slightly hardwired. We seem to intuitively know "mine" when it is something concrete, directly in front of us, and small enough to put in our mouths.

Everything beyond that are constructs.

Right now we are figuring out that the current paradigm is really stupid. So we need a new one. The only required saving grace is that we do not know it is as stupid as the one it replaces.
Tue May 05 11:08:42
"German military capabilities have long been known to suck. NATO has simply called for them to suck less. "

Or... Russia will try to conquer all of Europe? Unlikely given a nuclear deterrent.
Tue May 05 12:43:38
Nim and jergul:

I was going to let this thread continue without additional input, but my reasoning has compelled, wise or unwise.

Clarification of terms provide understanding, hopefully of my position. There is that all unknowing outcome resting on hope. It is a constant state to expect disagreement, go figure.

The nature of man.
The natural state.

Certainly covering philosophy of two of the renowned thinkers of their time would take volumes and not suitable for such a place as UP so I'm cutting to the chase of my thinking and reasoning.

Hobbes left the world in 1679.
Locke left the world in 1704.

Too many renowned thinkers to include in this place and all deviate in thought and reason.

Hobbes held a negative conception of the state of nature. Locke reasoned that the state of nature does not necessarily mean a state of war as Hobbes did.

The constant state of man is to think and reason therefore it should be reasonable that the natural state and the nature of man is to think and reason. We arrive at constructs of differing thought and reasoning, a constant in our natural state.

Time, place, experience, environment, education and teaching changes our thinking and reason, Dare I conclude that evolutionary thinking and reason are in a constant state? Thought and reason is most productive when at rest.

Everything male/female has done or does do in the future will have been accomplished through thought and reasoning. It doesn't matter whether primitive or sophisticate.

Sophisticate meaning forward, accepted, hopefully as improvement, from a reasoned process. Quality and quantity of thought and reason aren't equal within humanity obviously and understandingly so for the reasons previously listed.

This post constitutes what I consider the "natural state". It doesn't matter that you are from another part of the world or when you did or didn't exist. Everyone has thought and reasoned from varying levels.
Tue May 05 12:52:39
"Its adhoc as hell"

"citing biology to explain stuff only explains why the game sucks."

"we just tried to screw something together that worked when suddenly we had to juryrig imprinting to the point where things that are obviously not us, somehow became us"

"right now we are figuring out that the current paradigm is really stupid. So we need a new one. "

You pretty much summarized my own reasoning and thinking. I just think I see the cracks in the wall, but we can probably solve it by creating a better game, before what I believe is the inevitable collapse of this "paradigm". I am like you optimistic, we are good at solving problems.

large member
Tue May 05 14:14:02
That is Decartes. Profoundly influenced by his experiences in the 30 years war (the birthplace of Westphalian sovereignity principles). The whole reasoning behind cognito ergo sum is worth reviewing if not memorable off-hand (imagine an evil genus...).

I rather thought we were on a similar tangent :-).
Tue May 05 15:58:10

Every post made is an assertion of self.
We are eons from the first thoughts. When you think about it, hope, always demonstrates doubt. We hope what comes next turns out better. Doubt about something is not doubt about everything.

If you think, you should know you are only what you think. Have you been persuaded, if so, where have you been duped?

There are influences from every renowned thinker that has been studied. Even when not, those influences are throughout societies. The greatest majority probably haven't a clue that is the case. Do you doubt?

It has been a long time since I've reviewed philosopher's. Am I rusty? No doubt! I can still think for myself. One day in the future we will be viewed as primitive.

I'm confident enough to say that my beliefs are rational and I do my best to live a life of reason with equanimity. I'm also intelligent enough to know that there are many that far exceed me. Shutting that door would be irrational and self defeat. :)
Tue May 05 16:16:50
"Or... Russia will try to conquer all of Europe? Unlikely given a nuclear deterrent."

Wouldn't that be interesting? France lobbing the first nukes, in defense of Germany of all nations?
Wed May 06 01:09:32
That was alot of thought. We are not changing our nature anytime soon, but there is alot in our nature. It is all about the environmental incentives, we have the ability to create those environments. But as Jergul said and I sign under, this system was not designed and crafted with the kind of intention it requires. It was organized organically, cobbled together with spit and chewing gum out of necessity. Impressive as it is, it is full of stupid legacy features and game defeating bugs, bad incentives that creates rivalry. It is ultimately self-defeating. This system was thus never intended to serve everyone, but to temper our differences so we don’t start killing each other and at its’ core that is still the purpose.

Anyone who has solve any sufficiently complex problem can testify, you rarely get it right the first time, you almost always build in stupid things that while solving a first order problem inevitably will create future problems you did not forsee. And you look at the piece of shit and go, ”if I ever redo this I will do xyz different”. That is where we are, I think.
Wed May 06 08:29:41

You are overlooking the first nature in your equation. Your X appears to be faulty from my perspective. I laid out your major difficulty. The 2nd nature will correct itself whether the first is or not. The thought flowed like water over a fall.

" Shutting that door would be irrational and self defeat." That is where I am, I think.

I totally agree with "We are not changing our nature anytime soon" You might want to add an s.
large member
Wed May 06 11:24:46
A virus latching on to a host cell is an act of self assertion.

I am self evidently more than what I think. A glance in the mirror tells me that.

Why wait for a day in the future? We can easily be viewed as primitive right now.

In fact, I am arguing that we are. We are juryrigging stuff worse than a novice destillerer might set up his outdoor still.

Magpies, perhaps racoons, seem to be on a correct timeline.

Cognito ergo dumb if all we are going to do is fuck around with things we don't understand.
large member
Wed May 06 11:37:29
The solutions are anti-dogmatic and emperical. Since we know we are just fucking around and that anything we do is poorely concieved by definition, then all we need to look at is the effects.

Lots of poor people?
Destroying world?
Unable to deal with crisis?

Mkay, lets do stuff different.
Wed May 06 11:53:09

"Why wait for a day in the future? We can easily be viewed as primitive right now."

I kind of did. :)

The game analogy is a good one. Two players having a winner and a loser with a rare tie in some games. But what if the game is played where a tie is impossible? The game may not have a bug after all.

Anyway it has entertained me. Good luck with your alterations. I'm not in need of convincing. I really don't view it a game, but the idea explains your points well. Lets hope you allow a tie in your game or not. Shrug

An aged closest to losing. One nature is usually stronger than the other.

"I am self evidently more than what I think. A glance in the mirror tells me that."

Looking in the mirror was discovery. You became more that you originally thought is a good thing. ok, :).
Thu May 07 01:55:04
I don't Believe there is a first, second or third "nature". I am not sure what we both mean by the Word anymore. DNA? We have inherent behavior that is triggered by environmental Incentives. We have largely created those Environment by slowly terra forming the planet to suit our needs.

The resulting systems are not optimized for cooperation.

Our specie and every other specie are the result of what you could call an arms race, a low intensity conflict that has gone on for 100's of millions of years. Surviving the elements, other species and ourselves, despite that the genetic level cooperation is still as old as the first symbiotic relationship. How old is the mitrocondial infusion into the cell? Ancient.
Thu May 07 15:56:53

You can define it as you choose. You can even call it Nimatzo. It won't change the content.

1)The nature(Nimatzo) of man is a complexity of emotional and intellectual attributes that determine an individual characteristic with mixed actions and reactions. We consider ourselves as exceptional on this planet because of our abilities. The strongest instinct has always been survival. It is in every nature on the planet, as well within the planet itself.

It was and is the driving force for everything past and present, it will also be in the very distant future speaking from historic experience. Survival creates a constant state of evolving conflict in all life, each in its own environment. That's not to say all conflict is a bad thing.

The strongest still survive in our all encompassing natures/nature. Strong meaning most intelligent of no particular specie. It is safe to say our human nature is immature and something all thinkers of the subject realize. There is no going back, only the present alters the past. Good and bad have equal opportunity.

2)is the planet, Earth.

The two are in conflict for survival not that they must, but because of human immaturity as a whole.

You don't believe in multiple natures? I get it, nature has always been taught as all life, primarily convenient, but not true in a dissected sense. All life within its capability and environment has always had survival as a foundation.

No nature remains stagnate if it chooses survival. All species naturally destroy in order to survive and it isn't only against a threat, but humanity does have the capability to do otherwise.

The single life can easily be viewed as a nanosecond in the over all natural process. That process will continue with and without an individual because of what we've learned and taught in our lifetime. Nanosecond relates to nano-movement for descriptive purpose. What you leave behind are multiple nano charges even though you are one influence. That influence is compounded.

Hope is doubt, but survival is actually a fight for peace. Sounds contradictory doesn't it, but is really isn't. Don't hope, but do your part by sending your nanosecond charge to the positive pole. It won't be a disappointment for you or others.

It is impossible for an ant to transplant the rocky mountains in a lifetime for clarity.

It's not that I am disagreeing with what you and jergul have said. We are simply viewing from different perspectives and detail.

The inherent nature of man is believed to produce constant improvement. The instinct of all life is survival. They naturally conflict. Changing that is probably one of the most difficult tasks to accomplish. Continue sending a positive charge.

It is impossible to learn importance without vulnerability and it is essential to maintain an open mind. I've purposely made myself vulnerable in an attempt of creating positive charges in my nanosecond.

Education doesn't begin in a public or private school nor does it end in one.

If you don't like the nourishment don't consume, but I know that everyone will continue to be educators. We all are to those who can be persuaded in the insanity of it all. I also know that what the two of you do consume does matter in the ultimate goal that is only possible on a personal level. It is the example that counts most. The goal is lofty, and often seems meaningless, but it isn't impossible to be obtained in a nanosecond.

To paraphrase a well known quote with a twist:

Out of chaos, comes order, and that isn't accomplished in an instant.

Apparently, I need to get out of the boundaries of property, :). It is now my 52 day of isolation. I've had to change my exercising routine and reading is taking toll on my eyes.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share