That sounds very much as if adobe villages showed no 'progress' since a crow's nest and collapsible tipis were no improvement on the first octopus carrying a coconut shell to hide under, while a concrete high-rise were vastly superior to all of them. — Vera Mont

Not at all. An adobe village is better than cave dwelling or living in a tent. A high rise with full access to services such as light, heat, water and good waste disposal systems are better than an adobe village, a crows nest or living under coconut shells. Aesthetically? A high rise? Meh!

I could be persuaded that building human communities that looked more like Hobbiton or Rivendell, would be nice and more ecologically balanced, but only if such could accommodate a population such as Tokyo or New Delhi. I do also like the city layout suggested by the Venus project.

And anyway, ↪universeness doesn't consider the lifestyle of humans before European colonization worthy of notice, except with scorn. — Vera Mont

Now it's you who are misinterpreted me. Quote where I suggested this. I do not scorn such, but I do think we have progressed since then, in most areas but not all. We have not progressed in our relationship with primal fear and the notion of competition and religion to the extent we could have, if we had rejected such notions as 'elites' and 'gods,' far earlier in our history.

Why? If you don't survive, you sure can't thrive, evolve or progress. — Vera Mont

Sure, so you agree then that we need to do all of the above, yes?

Progress means to move in a designated direction. Choose the wrong direction and progress leads to a horrific demise. I think our forebears choose the wrong direction. — Vera Mont

So, you and I both advocate for 'changes for the better,' we are simply debating the form and focus that those changes need to take. So far so good!

What god made it for your exclusive use? — Vera Mont

No god has contacted me, protesting the idea, how about you?

Their own. Yours. What for? — Vera Mont

For such as this:
We embarked on our cosmic voyage with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. - Carl Sagan.

I feel it is unnecessary for you to keep 'interpreting' my statements for me , as I usually know what I mean when I type them. * — Vera Mont

I have no choice but to interpret your meaning if I find it unclear or ambiguous. I am sure you will continue to clarify your position, If you think I am misinterpreting you. I will do the same.

I didn't say we should be more like them. I said: — Vera Mont

I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow, — Vera Mont

If you suggest that your personal level of enlightenment has no more value than that demonstrated by an octopus or a crow, then yes, I do find that to be a very low bar. I see an enormous range of enlightenment;ightenment between different humans. I see no such range from crow to crow or octopus to octopus. I am not an expert in observing the individual 'enlightenment' demonstrations between individual crows etc, and I am willing to be corrected by experts in that particular field, if you have any source of such. I have 59 years of experience of observing the differences in demonstrated enlightenment levels between human and imo, they have far more value than that demonstrated by the crows and octopi I have personally watched or observed via TV docs. If you disagree then that's ok. I assume you remain open to discussing your position?

And all other construction, including the ones that keep falling on heads when the wind blows, when our lovely fellow hominids lob bombs or whole airplanes at them, when the earth shakes, when a river floods, when fracking creates a sinkhole under them, evolved from those early, safe and durable structures - because some of us keep wanting bigger, instead of more sensible. — Vera Mont

Are woodrat homes, impervious to such as is underlined in your quote, or a myriad of other happenings?
I think our main disagreement here is that you think we could learn so much more than we have demonstrated we understand about how certain fauna and some indigenous tribes of humans can live more in harmony with our planets ecological balance. I do not dispute that, but I disagree that the general direction and desire for human progress, is destructive and malevolent. Only the nefarious amongst us, those who worship personal profit or religious prophets, cause such imbalances, imo.

Meaningless objects? Dinosaurs and the solar system just a bunch of insignificant junk? — 0 thru 9

I did not use the term junk, but you are welcome to offer your opinion on what, say Mercury or Mars is for? Do you think humans could give such objects more 'purpose' and/or meaning than they seem to have at present or do you think that some presence or current existent in the universe has a prior claim or a cunning plan for such that we are just not currently aware of?

You may be engaging in a polemic and are taking an extreme position for argument sake maybe, but I need some more evidence.
Please don’t equate skepticism with hopelessness. — 0 thru 9

No, just offering my own rationale. I am a fan of skepticism but not surrender monkey pessimism.

But the powerful human minds, brilliant science, astounding technology are currently under the heel of authoritarian power that will not let anything exist which threatens its hegemony.
This is daunting and depressing, but it is the status quo that I’m generally observing. — 0 thru 9

As long as you vote against and/or speak out against and/or protest against and/or actively campaign against those who perpetrate the circumstance you quote above. Then this highlights that you are at least doing what you can to help change the status quo for the better.

no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes
— universeness

This is another sweeping statement. — 0 thru 9

So give me examples of any theism from any group, past or present that you consider progressive. Please don't cite those who merely use a term such as 'progressive christian.' Identify what you consider a fundamental shift in doctrine that helped improve the human condition of all humans on this planet. For me, allowing such as female bishops or the popes recent comment that he 'might' allow some gay weddings to be performed by a priest, is not much progress in > 2000 years of religion. The variety of theism you suggest exists today or in the past within indigenous tribes is part of the problem, not part of the solution, imo. Part of the reason why I am an atheist is that I agree with Hitchens. "Religion is pernicious."

If you want cities and civilization, how about the Mayans? The Hohokam built an irrigation system that they abandoned, but was later used by settlers.
As a general rule, members of the tribes had a knowledge of flora, fauna, and environment that modern scientists would rightly envy.
Scientists today are working with tribes in the Amazon trying to catalog (and perhaps preserve) the immense number of plant species there before they are wiped out. — 0 thru 9

Perhaps you have misunderstood me, somewhere in my exchanges here. Where did I suggest that science or tech or knowledge from any indigenous people was in some way inferior or not worth investigating?

designed, built and programmed by techies. — Vera Mont

Like most tools you probably find very useful to employ, every day of your life. But your year in a cave, could give you new opportunity to experience, first hand, the way of the Luddite.

Why would it need to? — Vera Mont

I thought I already told you! To do more from gen to gen than just exist and survive.
Humans can progress in ways that no other species in history has demonstrated. Our solar system currently contains nothing more than meaningless objects that function much the same or with even less significance than the dinos did. Humans have the potential to change that, and bring fantastic new purpose, to this currently lifeless domain. But you suggest that the Octopus and the Crow have no such goals, so we should be more like them and stay in our caves, teepees or mud huts for fear that our Miami apartments may fall on our heads. :yikes: I say no, no, no, no, no chicken licken/little!

So, no progress, then? — Vera Mont

I think you already know this one quite well and need no examples to support my position. No, no progress at all in the theism of indigenous American tribes or modern religions. This 'no progress' status quo is another reason why theism is so pernicious and why we should never restrict ourselves to disparate, cultural, shallow existences. I am all for respecting and allowing folks to practice and live within what they covet as traditional and cultural imperatives, as long as their freedom to do so, does not compromise the freedom of anyone else and does not impact anyone's human rights to food, water, shelter, bodily autonomy, economic parity, etc, etc. For me, your status as an Earthling will always be far more important than your status as an American, a Scot, a Russian, a Ukrainian, a Palestinian or an Israeli.

I'm not persuaded (but maybe your panglossalalia is right). — 180 Proof

Come join we optimists, we miss you and Vera, we need you both with us!
The solar system will remain insignificant, if we optimists are too small in number and too low in volume to be heard above the din of despair.

No. I don't think my personal enlightenment is different in value from that of an octopus or crow. I know things they don't and they know things I don't. I have learned what I need to live my life. That's a happenstance, not a virtue. — Vera Mont

Really??? Can a crow or an octopus demonstrate its ability to create meaning in the way you can? can either write a book like you can/have? Can they memorialise like you can? I find your quote above compassionate but very inaccurate. But, as you say, that's ok.

How is that different from an apartment in Miami? — Vera Mont

You live in a cave, teepee or mud hut for a year and I will live in a nice apartment in Miami.
Then we can compare notes and experiences. :up:

Compare the religiosity of primitive Native Americans to advanced European - then, or now. — Vera Mont

Both seem quite bad to me!

I would advocate now the same arrangement I advocated all along: discreet, peacefully coexisting tribal units, with a global police force that they all support. We can't co-operate without being aware that we're the same species, but I would quite emphatically prefer we were less anthropocentric in our world-view.
But I won't be around to advocate anything, as it can't happen until long after the collapse of this civilization. — Vera Mont

Yeah, I think we will do much better than this and much quicker than you suggest, but thanks for making your position on this clear.

Or we could try my own sock-puppet as an arbiter. Too bad I don't have one. — Vera Mont

No, as it would not be independent, you would have autocratic control over such.

But it really makes no impression on me that you have like-minded allies: I'll just have to disagree with them, too, even the robots. — Vera Mont

I was not going for an ad populum argument, Chat GPT is an expert knowledge databased system, not an emotive human. Although, I am not suggesting that an emotive human is inferior.

You mixed up genus and species. — Vera Mont

So I typed species instead of genus :scream: :roll: :
Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are not the same species. They are two different species of the Homo genus that existed at different times in history. Homo erectus is an extinct speciesof human that lived between 1.9 million and 70,000 years ago 1. On the other hand, Homo sapiens is the only surviving species of the genus Homo and is the only extant member of the subtribe Hominina. It is believed that Homo sapiens [b]evolved from Homo erectus in Africa around 300,000 years ago[/b]

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line. — universeness

The words I have emboldened and underlined made my points very clear.

no, I don't agree that any of the hominids 'achieved' anything more remarkable than species that reached environmental equilibrium and thus assured themselves of a long, stable existence. — Vera Mont

Again, let's try Chat GPT as an arbiter:
My question was: Did homo erectus achieve more than the dinosaurs?

Chat GPT's reply:

Homo erectus, an extinct species of hominin that lived approximately 1.9 million to 143,000 years ago, achieved much more than dinosaurs in terms of technological advancements, social organization, and cultural development. It's important to note that Homo erectus and dinosaurs existed at very different times in Earth's history, with dinosaurs going extinct around 65 million years ago.

Here are some key achievements of Homo erectus:

Tool Use and Manufacture: Homo erectus is credited with being one of the earliest hominin species to consistently use and create tools. They crafted tools from stone and other materials, which helped them hunt, butcher, and process food, as well as shape their environment.

Control of Fire: There is evidence to suggest that Homo erectus was able to control and use fire. This ability not only provided warmth and protection but also allowed for cooking, which made food more digestible and nutrient-rich.

Long-Distance Travel: Homo erectus is thought to have been the first hominin species to expand beyond Africa. They migrated to other parts of the world, including Asia and Europe, demonstrating an ability to adapt to diverse environments and climates.

Social Structures: Homo erectus likely lived in social groups, which may have facilitated cooperation, communication, and the sharing of knowledge and resources. This social structure could have contributed to their success as a species.

Cultural Developments: While evidence of artistic expression is limited, Homo erectus left behind more sophisticated tools and artifacts than any previous hominin species. This suggests a degree of cultural development and the transmission of knowledge from one generation to the next.

In contrast, dinosaurs were a diverse group of reptiles that lived for millions of years, but they did not exhibit the same level of cultural and technological achievements as Homo erectus. Dinosaurs are known primarily for their diversity in body size, shape, and ecological niches. They were part of Earth's history for a much longer period than Homo erectus but did not develop the kinds of complex societies and technological advancements that characterized human evolution.

So, in terms of achievements and impact on their environment, Homo erectus achieved more than dinosaurs by developing a range of technological, social, and cultural adaptations that allowed them to thrive and spread across the world.

I specified H. sapiens. If it's any consolation, some estimates of its presence stretch to 300,000 years. — Vera Mont

I know, that's why I tried to correct you. Do you not agree that such as homo erectus, achieved more than the dinos?

while disagreeing with the basic tenet that technology is the only valid measure of a species' success. — Vera Mont

Not all scientific advances are technological. Would you call personal advances in personal enlightenment or at least your personal width and breadth of knowledge, a technological advancement?
After > 150 million years of existence, the dinos were no more enlightened at their end than they were at their beginning. Without progressive knowledge, our species would still be living in caves, worshiping the big lights in the sky and fearing all the noises coming from outside the caves at night.
I wonder if Jesus would still have turned up at some point? Immaculately/magically conceived in a cave somewhere in the Levant. Would homo sapiens who decided to reject scientific/ technological progression and had remained in their small, disparate, tribal, nomadic communities, living in caves, teepees, or perhaps even mud huts, have more or less need of theism, in your opinion. Is the fact that theism is under pressure today, almost everywhere, due to the scientific progress we have made?

What do you suggest the long-term goals of these disparate, groups of humans would/could/should be? You do suggest that these disparate groups would be better than a single globally united species, yes?
I am unsure whether or not you advocate for a political, economic, social global unity of culturally disparate and physically separated 'tribal' sized or 'nation' sized groups or you advocate for disparate but cooperative (rather than warring) groups of human settlements who have no sense of a global identity or sense of 'human race,' as of greater importance than their own 'tribal' or 'national' cultural identity.
Do you think, being a 'Virginian,' should be more important than being an American,' for example?

Did you gloss over the bit where

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement
— 180 Proof

They throve and sustained their ecosystem, then were killed by an unpreventable cosmic event. This overachieving H. sapiens, in a mere 200,000 years has trashed its environment, destroyed much of its fauna and flora and put itself in an existential crisis? — Vera Mont

Did you not read my response? you must have, as you quoted the end of the sentence I posted!

The Earth has existed for over 4 billion years, the universe, for almost 14 billion, do you consider these facts to be achievements in themselves as well? Mere existence and survival is not enough imo. — universeness

The species 'homo' is actually closer to 3 million years old and we are directly descended from that line.
Even that early group achieved more than the dinos. Their use of base tools and fire are two valid examples.

You will get no argument from me about our bad record of the stewardship of the flora and fauna of this planet, but the example of the dinos, demonstrates that without scientific progress/advancement, A dominant species will likely go extinct anyway, via natural happenstance.

Well, why did the dinosaurs not make use of those technologies? — Vera Mont

What??? Is that some attempt at humour that I am missing?

They deserved to die! — Vera Mont

What??? Is that some attempt at humour that I am missing?

Now, you just need to invent a deflector shield for human insanity. — Vera Mont

It already exists, it's called human sanity, reason and enlightenment. Many of us employ it every day. You do to ..... well, mostly. Now, that's humour!

They existed (flourished profusely) for "between 165 and 177 million years"! That's quite an achievement — 180 Proof

The Earth has existed for over 4 billion years, the universe, for almost 14 billion, do you consider these facts to be achievements in themselves as well? Mere existence and survival is not enough imo.

Against a meteor strike, I very much doubt even the cleverest humans have an adequate defence, however the movies like to mess around with the idea of long-range nuclear missiles. — Vera Mont

If Shoemaker-Levy 9 had hit Earth in '94 instead of Jupiter, no doubt, like the dinos, we would be here – wherever we are – having this discussion. We wouldn't have been able to stop it then even if we saw it coming; today, I still don't think we have that capability despite what scifi / Hollywood tells us. — 180 Proof

Use this to give yourselves hope:
It is unlikely that Earth would be hit by a very large asteroid capable of harming all life on the planet because:
1. As the universe expands, stars and space rocks move farther apart, reducing the chance of a collision with Earth.
2. Asteroids and comets that can cause global damage are extremely rare, impacting Earth once every 100,000 to 500,000 years.
3. The probability of such an event is very low, around 0.1% per year.

and

Yes, it is possible to stop an asteroid from hitting Earth and causing destruction. There are several methods that can be used to deflect an asteroid’s trajectory. These include:

Gravity Tractor: A spacecraft can be used to hover near the asteroid and use its gravitational pull to slowly change the asteroid’s trajectory.

Kinetic Impactor: A spacecraft can be sent to collide with the asteroid at high speed, changing its trajectory.
(The Double Asteroid Redirection Test (DART) mission successfully changed the trajectory of the asteroid Dimorphos when the NASA spacecraft intentionally slammed into the space rock on September 26, 2022. The DART mission was a full-scale demonstration of deflection technology and the world’s first conducted on behalf of planetary defense. The asteroid was not a threat to Earth)

Nuclear Detonation: A nuclear explosion can be used to deflect the asteroid’s trajectory.
Laser Ablation: A high-powered laser can be used to vaporize a small portion of the asteroid, creating a jet that will push the asteroid off course.
NASA and other space agencies are actively researching and developing these methods to protect Earth from potential asteroid impacts. However, detecting and tracking asteroids is also important in order to have enough time to prepare for a potential impact. The Planetary Society has launched a campaign called “Planetary Defense” which aims to raise awareness about the threat of asteroids and comets and promote research into planetary defense strategies.

Perhaps you both have been taking the words of Fraser from dads army, too much to heart:

I'm trying to imagine energy (the ability to do work) in the complete absence of matter, which I'm not sure makes much sense. This would imply a completely non-material world where whatever constitutes a form of energy is sufficient in-itself for a kind of existence. Though if matter is really just a form of energy, it's all energy dude (and this is not profound). Our ability to understand energy requires everything that informs the understanding (energy as properties of organized matter). — Nils Loc

I think this is correct. Science has no complete definition of exactly what energy is, but I think the concept of data, fits better as a 'poor' description or alternate placeholder for the word 'energy' or as a description of what energy is, at a fundamental level, compared to using the word information. In Computing science, information is data with an associated meaning. Many choose to use this as a way of 'sneaking in' a god of the gaps argument or a dualism argument about human consciousness. I think all such attempts are invalid, no matter if they come from philosophical musings, musings about metaphysics or bizarre projections of real physics.
The 'absolute' best answer currently available to humans regarding the exact mechanisms and source of human consciousness is 'we don't know.' For me, the best evidence we currently have, suggests that it is a process of the human brain alone. The word energy is merely a placeholder for 'that which is required to do work.' To bring in god/a first cause mind with intent/dualism/a deterministic substance, etc etc is just pure speculation, nothing more. Fun and entertaining but not science and certainly not a good reason for accepting any religious, theistic or theosophist proposals, including @Gnomon's enformationism.

Okay, if you want to call every form of conflict "war". My definition of war is less comprehensive. — Vera Mont

We can ask an independent source. Chat GPT?

Do animals war with each other?

ChatGPT:

Yes, some animals engage in behaviors that could be described as a form of warfare or intergroup conflict. These conflicts often arise from competition for resources, territory, or mates. Here are a few examples:

Ants: Ant colonies sometimes engage in territorial warfare with neighboring colonies. They may engage in aggressive behaviors, such as raids on rival colonies, to protect their territory and resources. Some ant species are even known to enslave members of other ant species.

Lions: Male lions may engage in territorial conflicts with rival males to establish or defend their territory and access to a pride of females. These conflicts can be quite fierce and sometimes result in injuries or fatalities.

Chimpanzees: Chimpanzees, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, engage in aggressive behaviors, including territorial disputes and intergroup conflicts. These conflicts can involve physical violence, such as attacks on rival chimpanzee groups.

Elephants: Male elephants, known as bulls, may engage in aggressive encounters with each other, especially during mating seasons when competition for access to females is high. These conflicts can result in injuries or even death.

Birds: Some bird species engage in territorial disputes, with males defending their breeding territories from intruders. These disputes can involve vocalizations, displays, and physical confrontations.

Insects: Various insect species engage in aggressive interactions, including battles between rival males for access to mates, territory, or resources. Examples include male stag beetles competing for mating sites or male butterflies fighting over territory.

It's important to note that while these behaviors may resemble warfare or conflict, they are typically instinctual responses to competition for survival and reproductive success. They are not driven by the same complex motivations and strategies as human warfare. Additionally, not all animal species engage in such behaviors, and the level of aggression and conflict varies widely among different species.

Chimpanzees are the only animals I know that fight their own species for resources. — Vera Mont

All animals fight their own species over food, territory etc. A lion pride will war with another lion pride trying to enter their territory, or steal their kills. same with wolf packs to groups of meerkats. They will also fight, even to the death, over such as exclusive access to females etc, just like early humans and even some modern ones.

Predatory ants attacking a termite colony does not constitute a war: they're hunting for food, not fighting over contested territory. — Vera Mont

Wrong!
Ants and termites fight because they combat for resources like shelter and nutrition. These deadly enemies can attack the opponent’s larvae and queen to get rid of territorial competition. Moreover, ants eat termites and obtain nutrients from protein-rich meat. A predator-prey relationship exists between ants and termites that leads to the death of any one of them. Furthermore, fire ants, black ants, and Argentine ants quickly kill the termites.

Here's another example: Why do wasps kill bees?
Wasps are predatorial insects and need food for themselves and their young.
Wasps use honey bee colonies as hosts for their larva.
Wasps are after the honey or protein (the brood).

Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
— 0 thru 9
I wholly agree with this. — Vera Mont

So do I, but for different reasons. Humans are the only species we know of, that can create more purpose/meaning/significance for planet Earth, beyond that of acting as a mere container for lifeforms, that imo, don't do much and especially, don't do much, or any, science. The dinos had between 165 and 177 million years of existence on the Earth. What did they achieve? They also had no chance at all of preventing their own extinction. I would suggest we have more chance of preventing our own extinction, compared to any other species that has ever existed on this planet, so far.

The question is prejudicial, implying that information is only "processed data". — Gnomon

No, it was factual, not prejudicial. Chat GPT pointed out that the 'importance' of processed and interpreted data, allows us to generate meaning. It, like you, protested about the importance of information. It accepted that it was processed data.

In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights. — universeness

Information is produced via process, so, imo is human consciousness. It is a product of brain process alone. Even the panpsychists don't claim that a rock is conscious or that energy can 'feel,' or demonstrate intent.
Electrons have mass, photons don't. Neuroscientists have no current idea about the difference mass and massless have, on how human thought is produced and interpreted in a brain. Do you know of a peer-reviewed, published paper that contradicts this?

In computing, photons and electrons can be used to represent data, but at the low level of data transfer, they have no individual meaning. A light pulse/packet/photon/field excitation or an electron voltage that falls in a preset analogue range, is either present at the receiving computer, during a single clock pulse, and is 'registered' as a 1, or such is not present, during a single clock pulse and is registered as a received 0. Before that moment, no information has been created, it's just mass or massless energy, flowing down cables, or through the air.

As far as I can tell, war and conquest are human inventions. — 0 thru 9

Do animal groups not war with each other to gain control over an area of land/resources?
Have you ever watched a program about how insect colonies war with each other? Ants and termites for example?

From a Computing Science standpoint, information is not fundamental, it is an output, a result of data processing. Data is the fundamental and data has no inherent meaning. 23 has no meaning. Age of human: 23 or number of apples: 23 has meaning and is information as it is processed data.
Photons are used in fiber optic cables to 'represent' data, traveling from a source to a destination.
This is energy representing data but not energy that is data and no information with meaning/intent exists at that lowest level of data transmission.

I asked the following question of chat GPT:
How can information be fundamental when it is processed data?

ChatGPT's response:
The concept of information being fundamental relates to its significance in various fields of science, philosophy, and information theory. While information often involves processed data, its fundamental nature lies in its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and play a crucial role in understanding the universe and our place in it. Here are some key points to consider:

Information as a Concept: Information is not limited to data or raw facts. It encompasses the interpretation and organization of data to create knowledge and meaning. In essence, information is the result of processing data to extract meaning or insights.

Information Theory: Information theory, developed by Claude Shannon, provides a framework for understanding the fundamental aspects of information. It quantifies information in terms of bits and defines concepts like entropy, which measures uncertainty and information content.

Communication and Cognition: Information is essential for communication between individuals, species, and even between machines. It underlies our ability to convey ideas, transmit knowledge, and make decisions. It's also fundamental to cognition and how we perceive and understand the world.

Emergent Properties: Information can exhibit emergent properties, meaning that the way information is processed and combined can lead to new insights and knowledge. This is evident in fields like artificial intelligence, where complex algorithms can generate novel solutions based on the information they process.

Fundamental Role in Science: In various scientific disciplines, such as physics and biology, information plays a fundamental role in understanding the universe. For example, in quantum physics, information is a key concept in describing the behavior of particles and the nature of the universe at the smallest scales.

Philosophical Considerations: Philosophers have debated the nature of information and its relationship to reality. Some argue that information is a fundamental aspect of reality itself, akin to energy and matter.

In summary, while information often involves the processing of data, its fundamental nature arises from its ability to convey meaning, reduce uncertainty, and serve as a cornerstone for communication, knowledge, and understanding across various fields of study. Information is not merely processed data; it represents the essence of how we make sense of the world and the universe.

Really you’re asking a more general question unrelated to the book: if I’m more disturbed by the idea of being a perpetrator of (fictional or otherwise) violence, or the victim. I suppose I’d have to say the perpetrator. Being the victim is just something horrific you’d want to avoid, but being the perpetrator makes you wonder if there are circumstances that could make me do it, which is more unsettling. — Jamal

I agree, considering myself as a perpetrator of terror, disturbs me more than being a victim, but yet I do experience feelings of hatred. Would I choose to torture a nazi like Hitler? or criminal that raped and murdered a loved one, etc? I suppose none of us really know until we are faced with such. I would like to think I would just shoot them in the head, mere execution, rather than prolonged torture.
I always put myself in the shoes of the characters depicted, in anything I watch or read. I have done so since I was a child. When I first saw the exorcist, I wondered if I could be so easily overwhelmed by the demonic invader depicted. It always annoyed me, that Regan, was unable to reject the possession herself. I did consider myself naively indestructible at 18. :yikes:
I am not a fan of Jordan Peterson but I did find some common ground with him, when he challenged his own sense of morality in trying to perceive himself, as a nazi guard in a death camp, who enjoyed his work, or at least had found ways to justify such horrific compliance with the tasks assigned.

A scene that I found very disturbing was Doctor Lecter in Hannibal. A scene between Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) and the late Ray Liotta (who was manipulated, to eat a small part of his own brain, at a dinner table). I found it so disturbing, due to the depiction of the high intelligence of Lecter, revealed as no defense against acting like a depraved madman.

I should point out that what is depicted in the book does not happen in real life. — Jamal

I am sure you agree, real life events are often worse, than the horrors depicted in fiction. I think, sadly, fictional horror, often informs the sick human mind or the nefarious human mind on new ways to inflict terror/impose complete control over others.

No, I would not watch something like that. — Jamal

Yeah, well, imo, you are definitely not missing out on anything by making that choice.

Depravity under jungle rules is nothing compared to the depravity of American slavery and the Nazi death camps, so no to that. On the other hand, there is a special—and also fascinating and stimulating—horror for me in folk horror films like the Wicker Man, and religious horror like the Exorcist. When I first watched the Wicker Man I didn’t know anything about it, and I sympathised with the pagan islanders whose behaviour was so shocking to Edward Woodward’s austere Wee Free Christian fundamentalist—until their barbarity became apparent. So there’s something to be said for your idea: what is disturbing in these films is, maybe, the idea of ancient unalloyed evil that hasn’t gone away. — Jamal

This is a very interesting paragraph to me, for many reasons.
I see so many comparables between the actions of animals in the wild and the actions of human slavers or nazis. The animals have the excuse?? at least, from our moral point of view, that they don't communicate a need for, or a goal of, a standard of moral behavior, that could be comparable, with what humans might label 'civilised,' and when humans don't meet such a perceived standard as 'civilised,' then they are often labeled, 'animals!' which I always recall, when I hear someone exclaim, with deep feelings of empathy and appreciation of natures diversity, how much they love animals. It's an interesting juxtaposition.

Two examples often come to my recall when I think of the kind of depraved torture/terror employed by human slavers or nazis, from the angle of human inhumanity towards other humans.

A group of chimpanzee, very short on resources, very hungry. One of the females suddenly grabs the young of another and throws it from a high tree, to its death. The screams from all involved were very loud indeed. Many of the group then descend to the corpse, and to my utter shock, start to tear it apart and consume it. Its mother runs after those with a bit of its dead offspring, switching its focus from one to the other. Eventually, the mother sits by herself in despair, with a pallor that I can only compare with a tortured human or resident of a nazi death camp. Incredibly, one of the chimps that was just eating a portion of her young, comes over to the mother and puts its arm around her, in an almost apologetic embrace. :scream:

I will spare you my second example for now, unless you see any value in such a second example.

I remember watching all three films in the 'hostel' series. Have you watched them? I found them quite stomach-churning, even though, horror movies tend not to bother me much, as I tend to always envisage the camera people having their lunch and socialising with each other, in between takes, and the director calling for more butcher meat and fake blood.

The human horror and terror depicted in the Hostel films, again reminded me of scenes I had watched from nature series.

Animals certainly do experience fear.
In your opinion, does a novel like Crash, disturb you more, when you imagine yourself as a victim or as a perpetrator of such acts?

Is the notion of total terror, merely part of the survival instinct of fight or flight, which evolved naturally, or do you feel that there is more involved?

I ask these questions, as I believe such ruminations in the human mind, (perhaps best exemplified in Frued's notion of 'id',) is imo, where human notions and creations of 'hell' originate.

Another question I would like to ask you is, do such novels as 'crash,' make you crave more, for a society where the chances of such depicted human behavior happening to you, or because of you, is reduced to as near zero as we can make it?
It sounds like a very simple question, to which the answer 'yes, of course it does,' would seem expected. But, my problem with such a seemingly rational, obvious answer, is that it leaves me wondering why our species seems currently, so f***** up?

That seems to come with our cultural heritage and was made worse with religion and entering wars believing that is God's will. — Athena

Yep, The good the bad and the ugly, all claim to be working in accordance with the will of their chosen god or gods. :roll: From good folks like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, to bad influencers like shamen, witch doctors, druids, popes, priests, imams and rabbis. all the way to ugly horrors like Hitler and Jack the ripper.

:up:

When you muse on notions such as human depravity as depicted by human authors in dystopian novels? Do you ever get flashes in your mind of scenes from David Attenborough or other nature series you may have watched in the past? Scenes from two, always come to me, 'Animal Cannibal,' and 'Disappearing River.' I wonder if such novels disturb many of us, because they remind us of the 'depraved' ways our ancestors had to be to survive, under jungle rules.
Instinct/survival imperative versus the human goal of 'civilised behavior.'
Many humans have chosen depravity as a way to win 'jungle-style' competition.
Is that what really disturbs any human mind that considers itself civilised?
If you want to restrict this thread, to discussion on the works of Ballard and similar works @Jamal, then I will post no more on this particular 'branch off.'

That's how I've been calling it, too, when I say civilization was where the human race went drastically wrong. But, in fact, the previous, low-density cultures were not quite so haphazard as you depict them here. Many were settled in one place, or migrated back and forth between winter and summer residences, had a mixed economy of hunting, fishing and farming, had complex language and folklore, advanced handicrafts, knowledge of their environment and resources and extensive networks of commerce and social interaction, alliances and treaties, as well as border disputes, with other tribes. — Vera Mont

These 'low population' early hunter gatherer communities you cite, did not have reproductive directives that prevented their group growing significantly in population size. The land they occupied could become no longer tenable for their needs, for many reasons, from climate change to those stated increases in their population, A point is reached where they needed more than the land they were on provided. You see this demonstrated regularly in the animal kingdom. Massive herds of bison need to move to new territory to survive.

The problem is that the territory you want to move to may already be occupied. So, cooperation or war?
In early human groups, this happened regardless of having to also deal with nefarious characters such as Alexander the butcher. Humans when faced with problems, especially existential ones, try to find a better solution. Hence such inventions as agriculture and farming etc and 'cities' and 'civilisations.'

What are you suggesting could have been done, to prevent the nasty sides of human 'civilisation,' happening? How could we maintain small bands of nomadic tribes, who were all able to feed, water, clothe and provide secure warm shelter for everyone in each group, without encroaching on each others territory or resources? For me, I think the only way we could have played things differently is more cooperation and less bloody war, and better control over the nefarious amongst us, especially those who would be a king, a messiah or an aristo. I cannot see how not progressing from disparate groups of nomadic hunter gatherers into the first 'civilisations' or city states, would have produced a better human race than we have today. You would need to offer more details on how you think it could have worked, based on the environmental pressures and growing population and natural disasters, these early groups of humans faced.

I don't think he cared how anybody chose to live. What he set out to conquer were actually more sophisticated civilizations than the Macedonian backwater. I think he just wanted, first to outdo his old man and smash the ascendancy of Greece, then dominion and tribute. Lots of lovely loot during the conquest itself and lots more from vassal states thereafter. Plus his name all over everything - like other megalomaniacs we've known. — Vera Mont

Hah! Let's set the scene:
Being a tutor to the young Alexander favoured Aristotle greatly. The post was a high honor, and he would be able to continue his research with the powerful kings’ support and resources. Most importantly, he would be in a perfect position to shape the mind of a future ruler. As payment for his services, Philip ordered Aristotle’s home city of Stagira, which he had captured years earlier, to be rebuilt. Philip had arranged for Aristotle to teach Alexander in a remote village called Mieza, inside the Temple of the Nymphs. Before Alexander left for Mieza, Philip advised him not to imitate his faults and, above all, to work hard. Alexander responded to this by criticizing his father about his children by various women. Alexander was probably not concerned about morality but the inevitable rivalries for his father’s throne. Alexander’s desire for power must have started burning at an early age.

Later, we have such as:
Aristotle may have had his strongest influence on his student in the fields of politics and morality. Aristotle had written two books on both subjects, and his ideas must have fueled Alexander’s decisions later in life. The teacher not only urged the student to conquer eastern lands, but he also conveyed to Alexander that slavery was part of the natural order of things and that all non-Greeks were barbarians.
Via the horrible morality standards of Aristotle, Alex became a fascist, who believed that all other civilisations were inferior and barbaric in comparison to Greek civilisation. He was being well primed to become the despot butcher he became, and yes, he probably did want to become a more successful butcher that his butcher father.

the religious beliefs and family relations of vassal states were not regulated by the conqueror. Even the Roman policy was tolerant of other cultures until Constantine's conversion. — Vera Mont

I agree that many Kings/gangsters and their mob, do not care how they opiate the masses they control.
In days gone by, religion was one of the most powerful tools they had to make the masses comply, the flavour of religion did not matter. Refusing the masses education was another method and preventing them from having any significant control over the means of production, distribution and exchange and the ownership of land, was another main method used.

I think, though I haven't researched it so can't be sure, that one-god, one church, everything else must be destroyed BS is the Christian influence. — Vera Mont

I think this goal existed long before we invented gods to justify such. This is straight from our experiences of the rules of surviving in the wilds. Be the best predator in existence and destroy all competitors. The competitive capitalist is it's direct inheritor. That's our greatest shame, imo, that so many of us, have so far, been unable to stop acting like we are still in the wilds, living under raw Darwinian rules.
It's not the concept of human civilisation that's wrong, it's that fact that our attempts to form a human community that is totally civilised has so far, in all the historical and current examples we have, failed.
But we are still here, and there are 8 billion of us and we are not extinct yet, so we can do better as long as time still ticks for us.

You seem to be presenting human civilisation from from two very different viewpoints.

The previous paragraph had a general depiction of other cultures previous to the one particular culture which about roughly 10,000 years ago began its transformation into our present day Worldwide Civilization — 0 thru 9

There are no significant settlements of highly organised humans, that we have evidence for, that pre-date early settlements such as Jericho . There are earlier settlements, but an early city style human civilisation has a cut off population size, for it to be considered a 'civilisation.' Perhaps an estimate of at least 10,000 residents. The first recorded human civilisation is argued, but we are not talking about roving bands of aboriginal hunter gatherers, when we employ the term 'human civilisation.'
When do you think the notion of a global population of humans was first considered by living humans?

If we take a character like Alexander the butcher. He, it seems, wanted to 'conquer the world' and impose the Macedonian/Greek notion of what civilisation was and create a human world that lived the way dictated by Alex and his cronies. Of course, the entire world as we know it today was not accessible for Alex and his mob.

As you muse backwards in history, you seem to be offering a notion of a global human civilisation that did not exist. I do not think we can talk about human civilisation on a global scale, until effective communication between such can be demonstrated.

So, for me, that is at best, when something like radio was discovered. But, when we bring in the argument of 'effective communication,' we might need 'the internet' to be able to 'prove,' a time of the global reach of communication between any two humans alive anywhere on the planet.
So under the 'effective communication,' requirements, any notion of a global human civilisation is very recent indeed.
It is this notion of a 'global civilisation' of humans, that I am trying to 'pin down' in a more solid way than the far more disparate notion, (imo) your treatment of the issue has so far, presented.

No culture seemed to have a definite purpose or goal …Until the emergence of our particular Civilization about 10,000 years ago. Our Civilization has the beginning, the middle, and the ending all mapped out for our convenience. It has the teachings, the means of production and implementation, and the goal. — 0 thru 9

I don't understand this. The early human city states had very definite purposes and goals imo.
These goals were all about keeping/protecting what they had built, the moral code/laws/culture of every day behaviours they had initiated and the notions of expansion they held.
They differed greatly in exactly what these acceptable every day behaviours were, and what hierarchical structure of authority would/should be imposed.
Allowing the establishment of divinely sanctioned leadership, was the first major mistake, early humans made imo. I think we would have created a better world if we had killed anyone, as soon as it was understood that they wanted to be King. I consider those who killed the vile Caesar, to have performed an act that favoured the rule of the people. I don't mean that I consider the Roman senate as socialist and it certainly was not secular or humanist but it was always better than rule by emperor.

Your analysis of human attempts at 'civilisation,' was fun to read, and its ok as a brief summary of the human notion of 'civilisation,' as described through your own musings and findings, based on your own personal life experiences, your own learning and the main viewpoints you have on the current status quo, considered locally, nationally, internationally and globally.

For me, at the end of the day, the most important sentence was your final one.

A civilization closer to the one of our dreams is possible for all of us…
and exactly because of the efforts of all of us. — 0 thru 9

But firstly, I am unsure what you mean by:

…Until our particular civilization, that is. — 0 thru 9

Is this a reference to all humans alive today?
You seem to perceive a notion, of an already existent, significant commonality of cause and purpose, that exists today, amongst enough of the global human population of the Earth, to invoke the idea, that the foundations of a human global civilisation is already established or there is significant evidence that such is 'emerging'. Is that a true statement about what you are referring to, when the words 'Until our particular civilisation,' are connected with your last sentence, quoted above?

Is that the best icon we can muster for "Right on, Brother!" — Vera Mont

Apparently – *Raised FIST*, Sistah! — 180 Proof

You can post any emoticon you like on TPF, just post it using the 'image' feature, eg:

Well, here’s an idea… make a law that a candidate may delegate their votes to another party, if they themselves don’t win. They would have to be clear and upfront about it, of course. — 0 thru 9

Do you think. a system such as the Additional-member system, used to elect the government of Scotland, would be a big step forward, if it were used in America to elect its government?

I was pulling for Bernie Sanders, but I don’t think the country was ready for him, unfortunately. — 0 thru 9

I would of course, prefer to see someone like Bernie Sanders elected in the USA, but the American notion of what a socialist is, is certainly rather different to what I would call a socialist. Socialism is not well understood by most Americans I have ever spoken to about it, (which is not that many). Most seem to think its a one party, autocratic led, state dictatorship and their mindset, cannot separate it from China under Mao or Russia under Stalin.

I know Bernie was not a millionaire all his life, but he is now reported as having a net worth of over $3 million. The idea of a very rich democratic socialist, does not sit well with me, But, if I was an American voter, I would still vote for him, in preference to any other candidate standing for president of America, as the best of a horrific bunch.

Absolutely not possible that a computer program can be more important to a child's learning than the teacher. — Athena

That really depends on so many factors. There are many bad teachers, impatient teachers, 'moody' teachers, authoritarian nutjobs, slightly psychotic teachers. I know, I have worked amongst such.
A child being taught via a high quality VR (virtual reality) or/and AR (augmented reality) system, can be far better for the pupil involved, than getting taught by a teacher of 'limited' or inconsistent ability.
Consistently good teachers are relatively rare imo. Those that exist should be the 'experts,' used to model electronic expert teaching. I agree with you that there is no current AI system that could replace a good teacher, but there are many which could aid a good teacher, and future AI based VR and AR systems, may well be able to replace a good teacher.

I am not worried about AI being anti-human. I am worried about us being anti-human — Athena

I think that is the main concern for now, yes, the abuse of AI by nasty humans, rather than a justified fear of AI becoming totally self-aware and conscious, any time soon.

universeness favors socialism and perhaps the two of you can agree on what it is and share that with me. — Athena

True democratic socialism has never been successfully implemented as a national governance, anywhere today or in history. Many attempts have been made but none have been successful so far.
To nurture people and not profit.
To prioritise cooperation and not competition.
To act as the political equivalent of secular humanism.
To control the means of production, distribution and exchange, for the benefit of all and not just elites.
To govern by the democratically obtained consent of all stakeholders, and to continuously consult the population you represent at all levels.
To govern openly and accept all established checks and balances.

What does 'be social' towards other people, mean to you?

I am connected, Dog help me!, — Vera Mont

You still have 'us'!!!

And I still hold out hope for the species. It's the civilization that is doomed. — Vera Mont

There are many aspect of our current global civilisation that I hope are absolutely doomed! So, we both think our species will survive all of the threats it currently faces. That's quite optimistic of you, all past posts considered. :party:

Damn real! I liked Jesus - at least in the pictures where his heart wasn't exposed (*shudder!*) until I read the NT. So there he is, this hero with super powers, and how does he use them? He smites a fig tree because it's not the season of fruit, and then throws a herd of innocent pigs off a cliff. At 12, I had very strong sense of justice. I've tempered it with some forbearance since then - a feat the Judeo-Christian-Muslim god couldn't manage.
No, that's not fair! He was actually doing a little better in the ecumenical 1960's, except he did nothing about the child molesting - too busy scoring football goals in Brazil? Then got hijacked by white southern Baptist preachers in pursuit of fast bucks and political clout. "So it goes.... " — Vera Mont

A great paragraph that I hope many theists read.

Thanks, I do understand. I am taking off for the beach today. It is not a great day for the beach but the recreation center bus goes today and I have a great raincoat. This is a rare event because I have clients 5 days a week and don't usually take time off for me. — Athena

Hope you have a brilliant time!

And this chatting is what got us in the lounge. At least here we are free to be full humans and I think that is very important to everything else. Human relationships strongly impact everything. How we understand each other, strongly impacts what we think of someone and what we think that person thinks of us. — Athena

That sound like good philosophy to me! The personal philosophy people use and live by every f****** day! Surely has a place on TPF. If that place is the lounge, then so be it. I hope we can each sit on a nice comfortable lounge recliner, and discuss the individual philosophy we each have amassed, that influences the way we live and the actions we might take, day to day.
As I have already stated, a thread title such as 'Culture is critical,' casts a wide net imo.

. Such as teachers should work miracles despite the lack of support and parents should help their children despite not having the preparation that teachers have. All these demands without concern for the bottom line- how do we feel. — Athena

You remind me of the response I got from the 5 parents, who caused such a brilliant fuss when I told them the truth, about why their kids were not doing so well in that class. Two of them almost whispered to me, that they intended to take what I had told them further, but they would say to the headmaster that the information did not come from me, but from their child. This shows how familiar they were with the kind of bullshit consequences 'whistleblowers' can face and they wanted to try to protect me from such. These are good people. But I told them I was happy for senior management to know I was the source. The senior management team was treating this class like this, purely to save money. Its much cheaper to try to cover a class internally due to an absent member of staff than it is to find a replacement outside subject specialist. The system is called 'please takes.' Any teacher in the school, can be asked to take the class of an absent teacher for a period. The PT of the department is expected to set work for the class and the 'please take' teacher would simply babysit it. BUT, this was a higher computing class. The result could mean entry or non-entry into a desired university degree course. This class was getting 'please take' teachers for 3 out of the 4 periods they had in a week. This is within the rules but will totally 'f*** up,' their chances of completing the course successfully. Totally unacceptable, imo. My report to those 5 parents forced those senior management idiots to pester the region to fork out for a temporary replacement subject specialist.
This is only one of the many tedious battles I had with my line managers to try to get the pupils in front of me, what they needed. Again I am not saying that my line managers were all f***wits that did not care about the pupils but I do say that too often, they would not fight for the pupils, if it meant going up against their own line managers.

We absolutely must end autocratic order that leaves those on the frontline powerless and failure unavoidable. — Athena

:100: I am a democratic socialist and a secular humanist.

Your favoring of AI terrifies me because it can make the problem worse. Can you see the possibility of our reliance on AI becoming a total nightmare? We must empower the people, not take another step towards destroying their power. — Athena

I have spent my career in Computing science and AI can be a fantastic assist to humanity, in all the problems they face, on a day to day basis, both individually and as a community.
In my experience, 'expert systems,' have helped our children's education, advance, more than (or at least as much as) direct interaction with people/teachers/school systems.
Absolutely yes, yes, yes! Athena, AI can be used to spread fake news and AI can be used to deceive and manipulate. But please remember, that is only currently done via nefarious humans, not nefarious mecha. I don't know if a future AGI/ASI would become anti-biological life, such as anti-human life. That has been a long time discussion on TPF and is currently a main discussion happening on-line and in the global media today. So far, the only evidence I have encountered that suggests projected mecha might turn against us, is in sci-fi productions.
The warnings recently stated by those in the field of AI, regarding projected AI advances, seem to me, to be currently concerned more about how some nefarious humans might manipulate AI advances, rather than how AI might become independently malevolent towards us. Do You agree?

:up: and such comes :100: from the human mind and I get sooooooo annoyed when some folks give credit for such moral standards, completely, to the god that they believe in, but have no evidence for its existence.
That's one of my biggest issues with theists. All good that humans ever achieve, either individually or collectively is credited, by theists to their particular god, and all bad performed by individual or groups of humans is blamed on human free will alone. You cant get more unjust than that!

I think I am doing all I can do with my present commitments and that I don't have the energy to do anymore. — Athena

who is going to put in the effort to make that happen and how can such a dreamer activate the community? — Athena

You do what you can Athena, as will I. I would rather be too busy, than be too bored.
My work in education burnt me out but since my early retirement, I now have quite a pleasant, 'fight for what I think is right' / chill out, have some whisky, beer and good cheers, paint, write, play computer games, etc, balance. Getting the balance to a stage that suits you, is what is needed. You cant help others, if you are 'messed up' yourself.

Like breathing or a beating heart, defiance – striving – is involuntary. Conatus, will to power / amor fati, revolt. — 180 Proof

To me, that describes what true spirituality is, when it is directed against injustice.

Of course I do — 180 Proof

That's all that matters to me. As even though you are prepared for, or perhaps even expect the worse, you will continue to strive for the best, why is that? Is it more than mere forlorn hope?
What do you think of this.

If you are falling from a tall building, you may as well flap your arms, you have nothing to lose!
(I think the idea here is, you might catch a a grip on a flagpole or such, on your way down.)

Is the fight you have in you still, more, less or equal to this? For me, of course it is much much more than this.

Then I think the imagery and invocations involved in an emotive but accurate statement, such as 'we/they/I will be back and we/they/I will be millions/billions, encompasses both of us.
Such thoughts, help me maintain that 'optimism,' that you and @180 Proof find so naive.
Do you not feel connected to those in the past that fought/died/failed/succeeded to do what they could to change peoples lives for the better? Or do you think they should not have bothered trying as our species is doomed anyway?

It wasn't a comment on your proposal; it was on your view of achieved and achievable progress. — Vera Mont

But I don't put a time limit on my proposals of what would be a better way to live as human beings.
I do insist that we will get there however. Even if it take another million years. In the cosmic calendar, 1 hour is more than 1.5 million years.

I have often also accepted that we may well drive down many more horrific dead ends first.
As I stated, we will keep getting it wrong until we get it right.
I accept that you think our species will have to experience an almost, close to extinction event, before we learn how to 'get it right.' Would that be an accurate summary of your position?
I remain confident that it wont get as bad as that. I think that's the only main difference between us, or do you see more important differences in our viewpoint compared to that one?

From Wiki:
Pollyanna is a 1913 novel by American author Eleanor H. Porter, considered a classic of children's literature. The book's success led to Porter soon writing a sequel, Pollyanna Grows Up (1915). Eleven more Pollyanna sequels, known as "Glad Books", were later published, most of them written by Elizabeth Borton or Harriet Lummis Smith. Further sequels followed, including Pollyanna Plays the Game by Colleen L. Reece, published in 1997. Due to the book's fame, "Pollyanna" has become a byword for someone who, like the title character, has an unfailingly optimistic outlook.

I reject the comparison. The actions I propose and the improvement they would bring are imo, very plausible, possible, practical and progressive. We keep getting it wrong until we get it right, yes?. The fact that the human race still has to 'get it right,' but is capable of doing so, is not an optimism, that is comparable with a child character such as polyanna. I don't think it would be accurate to compare your position, to that of the character chicken licken, would it?

But my SO was a software architect who would talk back to managers with their own career agendas about their counterproductive decisions, and was labelled "not a team player" — Vera Mont

Yep, sounds familiar, but I think a grievance procedure could be established that allowed better balance to exist between the authority of line managers and the wishes/wants/needs/concerns of workers.
There is a fairly decent grievance procedure within the Scottish teaching system, that allows a teacher to take out a grievance against a line manager. But it often results, at best, in an apology if the grievance is upheld, rather than a reversal of any decision made. So, mush tweaking is required. But at least a half-decent system already exists, at least within the Scottish Education system.

Nobody should have a job. Jobs destroy integrity, self-respect, family, community and democracy. As long as humankind is divided into employers and employed, masters and minions, democracy cannot flourish. — Vera Mont

Well, I would certainly prefer it if people could contribute to society by doing what they love doing most, and I think that should always be the goal but we should all share in the crappy jobs as well, until they can be fully automated.

all of you Pollies — Vera Mont

What are Pollies?

In my early career, I had good relations with line management and senior management, all the way up to local authority level. As the years went by and I understood a lot more about those who wielded authority within our education system, I became far braver and argumentative at our weekly departmental meetings.

I would describe what pupil A, or B needed or what class A or B required, to reach the educational standard the course I was delivering, was supposed to be offering, to each child in front of me, in the classroom.
I would be listened to, complimented for my insight and suggestions, and then (more often than not,) be told why they could not provide what I asked, but they could offer this or that (normally something far short of what was needed).

So I would try to compensate for the shortfalls and succeed or fail to a greater degree, depending on how much of my own, reserves of time, energy and ingenuity I could muster.
I am not fully blaming every member of management I ever dealt with, as I know they had finite resources and timetable, staff and curricular considerations they could do little about, but there were many, who were more interested in their own career than they were in the educational progress of every child in the school. So they would not 'rock the boat' of those who were senior in authority to them for the sake of the pupils. My promotion prospects were quickly destroyed, due to my 'honest' interactions with parents during parents evenings.

Senior management became more and more concerned regarding what I would tell parents, because they would have to face the fallout. I remember once, when I told a parent why their daughter was not doing so well in the Higher computing class that I only took 1 period a week. I explained that it was because that class was getting supply teachers for most of the time, instead of a subject specialist, and my one period a week with them was not enough to make up the slack. I said that to the 5 parents who had the same concerns regarding their child, in that class. All 5 went to see the deputy head master or the head master, to complain.
One turned out to be a well established lawyer, who I think was able to scare the headmaster significantly. By the end of that week, a fully qualified computing teacher was found to take that class for all 4 of its weekly periods, until the absent member of staff (who was going to be absent for 4 months) returned. The pupil work in that class improved dramatically as a result, but I had to endure yet another meeting with the deputy and the headmaster, whereby they tried, yet again, to explain to me, how what I was doing at parents evenings was not helpful to them and that I did not appreciate the toxicity that existed at the local authority level, that they had to deal with.

What can we build into our culture that might prevent that? — Athena

I think the answer lies somewhere between more help for those on the front line, from AI based expert systems and the establishment of more robust grievance procedures when you don't agree with the actions or decisions of your line managers. I think this would apply to all service based employment.

What's that? "Doomster speak!" No, just one latter-day primate all-too-soberly gesticulating this old blues to another — 180 Proof

We might surprise you yet, ya auld doomster, pessimist, curmudgeon. :joke: