Have you ever considered taking your own advice in response to your criticism of modern society? — Tzeentch

I'm not the one railing against having to pull my weight - but yes; it's under consideration; exit strategies are in place.

And people have the choice not to exploit their fellow man. Stop taking another’s stuff. Quit forcing another to labor for you. Find other means to satisfy your wants that do not involve exploiting others. — NOS4A2

Excellent suggestions!
"People's money." "People's stuff." How does that happen?

How many babies have squirmed into the world with a bag of money or deed to a house clutched in their tiny fists?
People are born naked, helpless and homely: they own nothing.
Later they get things, by various means, through the altruistic, co-operative, contractual or coerced efforts of various other people.
In order for people to own anything, there has to be a pre-existing social infrastructure. Social organizations have rules, protocols, flaw and injustices. Participants in a society influence what form the society and its institutions take.
Griping is one of many ways to to express a desire for change.

I don't believe in the legitimacy of a "contract" that has been unilaterally imposed. — Tzeentch

"I never asked to be born!!!" Tough; you're here now. The exit is over there.

The employer is forced to deduct a specific amount or else he is breaking the law. — NOS4A2

So he made a choice: comply with the laws of one country - at least until he can use the legislative process to change them, move to another country, or stop doing business.
You have the same choice.

All food is acquired with work, buddy. — NOS4A2

Yah. Somebody's work - not necessarily the diner's.

Communism violates one of the most basic rights of human beings that of ownership such as your own property or farm. — invicta

Some states do that. They don't have to adhere to, or even profess communist ideology to do that.

Republicans in the 2015-17 state budget expanded the types of oil pipeline business structures granted eminent domain power in Wisconsin.

Private business does that, too.
Communes don't.

A mildly socialistic government or even a Scandinavian version of socialism would be preferred to outright communism for the simple reason that shelter should be a basic human right in the face of homelessness and the discomforts of natures harshness. — invicta

Capitalism has no respect for any kind of basic human right to shelter, food, health care or anything else. Communism - the principle, absolutely; the bastardized practice, half-assedly - does state: "to each according to his need".
If you mean the seizure of private villas in Eastern Europe after WWII, in order to accommodate families left homeless by bombing, yes, states did do that. They also amalgamated privately held (I won't go into the history of feudalism; it ain't pretty.) lands into farming collectives, most of which were badly mismanaged - because the planners were political city boys who had no clue about agriculture - but that didn't leave the farmers without shelter; it just turned most farmers into employees of the state, from employees of the hereditary landed gentry.
Of course, those pseudo-communist regimes carried out the nationalization programs brutally and inefficiently, and not at all in accordance with the ideal.
Communes don't.

The principle is that I rail against the involuntary activity between non-consenting parties, — NOS4A2

The employer consented to deduct a specified amount of every employee's salary for specified remissions to specified agencies. When you take the job, this is one of the conditions you agree to.

Why would I rail against the voluntary activity between consenting adults? — NOS4A2

Then why do you?

You can opt out of the social contract in several ways:
Leave the country and try to find one that has more favourable laws and that will have you.
Be a hermit and live by your wits, off the grid, shunning all transactions.
Become a criminal and acquire money by means in which the state has no stake.
Be so rich that you can get away with tax legal evasion.
Work for cash under the table.
Take holy orders; enter a monastery; found a church.
Give away all of your taxable income.
Don't work at all and hope your fellow citizens take pity on you.
Each "out" has some perks and some risks. Like life.

The farther back one goes, the less relevant human organisations become for present times it seems to me... There were a lot less people and a lot more space and resources to go around. — ChatteringMonkey

It will be relevant again. See my first post on this topic. I always differentiated between ideology "ism" and a communal system of organization.

Sure, but before I do, do you agree that taxation is essentially taking people's things at gunpoint? — Tzeentch

No. That melodramatic representation of taxes is both inaccurate and unacceptable. People's things aren't taken; only a predetermined and agreed-upon portion of the money which was issued and guaranteed by a government agency, and which they receive in return for some function they perform that is of value to somebody who is in possession of those funds.

People don't get their things out of thin air; they buy things, at will, with the money they've received (earned or otherwise) from other people, in consensual transactions and the full knowledge that part of the price will be paid to the government in the form of sales tax or tariff or surcharge. We are fully cognizant of these conditions when we sign a contract, accept a job offer or make a purchase. We are fully cognizant of them when we cast a vote for a representative, or take an oath of citizenship.

We are also informed, somewhere along the way, that refusing to pay taxes, or cheating on the amount, are punishable crimes, exactly like taking other people's money and things at gun-point. And that is why most of us willingly pay taxes to buy the guns and police hours to protect our things from our fellow citizens with guns.

All of this seems pretty human, and actually seems to describe a process that we have seen over and over again in history. — ChatteringMonkey

The key word there is "history". We may need to look farther back for sustainable systems of human organization. And even when we've found a model that could work for us, we'd still have to find its vulnerabilities and insure against the identifiable threats. And, having done all that, prepare to change whatever needs changing in response to new developments and circumstances.

Describe a society without taxes, in which you don't have to worry about spending your life behind bars because of not paying taxes. You are now free, how do you live in this society? You are born into the world having $100 000 as a starting sum when moving from home, how does that life look like? — Christoffer

For starters, where did you get the money? Who prints the currency? Who regulates the exchange value?

Why is taxation the hot topic here? — Jamal

I think the problem was individual contribution. No society works without its members contributing an effort toward its preservation and welfare. In a money-based economy, all exchanges are valuated and transacted by way of currency. So, whether the means of production is owned by individuals, corporations, the crown or some other form of government, the citizens are required to pay their share ax taxation and military service.

In a communist society there would be no state, no money, no social classes--and no taxation.

That depends on the form of communal organization. In the purest form, money and taxation would not be required - but only if that commune were entirely self-sufficient and didn't need to trade with non-communist social entities.
Social classes are superfluous - in fact, have always been a hindrance to good social order. And it doesn't matter whether you call the social unit a state, country, nation, community or tribe - it has finite limits and occupies a defined territory.

But there would certainly be governance and administration; there would, indeed, have to be some
organizing for allocation of resources, planning energy production and infrastructure projects, sharing out and pooling work for the commonweal, providing for care of the very young and the infirm, storing up reserves, preparing for response to an emergency. Even if the group is only an extended family, or small like-minded group one or two responsible adults are usually in charge. It doesn't need to the be same ones for every function; they don't need to give orders or wear titles. There is no hard line on how the leadership in any particular circumstance is selected or who is eligible to serve on the steering committee or what the designated responsibilities of each elder may be.

One of the greatest conceits is that only man in his government form can lay asphalt, deliver packages, pick up garbage, or care for the sick. Here in the great white north we have abandoned state-controlled air traffic control, one of the first countries to do so. It's one less thing I am forced to pay for even when I don't use it. — NOS4A2

And when you do you use those privatized services, you pay more for less. This also holds true for the public services that have been privatized but still paid for though government taxation.

After 99% of the population is killed off in the closing panic, you'll have to hack your own path through the devastated landscape and depend on nobody. Until then, there are too many of us to do everything independently. So we have elected governments or some other kind - military, corporate, theocratic, oligarchic. Any kind will demand contributions from the citizenry and collect by some means and some method.

I don't know if a god exists or if there are many gods and I don't care. I am completely indifferent to such questions. — Average

In that case, what does this mean?:

Another way of putting it is that I believe I am alive for a reason and that there is something I am supposed to do with the life I have been allowed to enjoy. Perhaps it's similar to a duty or responsibility that I am obligated to respect. I can't say for certain but I don't think I should live my life doing whatever I enjoy simply because I enjoy it or doing whatever benefits me simply because it benefits me. instead I view my life as entrusted to me and that I should use it in the best way possible instead of the worst. — Average

Who/what does the supposing?
To what/whom is this obligation?
Who/what imposes the "should"?
Who/what sets the standard?

You seem to think that I should imitate Jimmy Carter or someone like him who has "mastered the craft of living" but whatever the case may be I don't think that my role in life is one of imitation although I could be mistaken. — Average

All I meant by carrying on your own metaphor is that you learn more from example than you do from palaver.
You don't care about theological questions; you don't care about ethical questions; you're not interested in social obligation - that doesn't leave much to palaver about. (And I'm not interested in snippiness or self-designated specialness.)

I am convinced that I am alive for the sake of some end and that it would not be wise to resist this even if it cost me my life. — Average

Go, get 'um!

I don't know any master carpenters but if you do please tell me where I can find one, — Average

If you're interested in the use of tools, your best bet is You Tube.
as an analogy: a famous person who did life well However, I hope you have among your acquaintance some persons who mastered the craft of living and didn't become famous.

I fear that you may be deliberately stretching my analogy to the breaking point for the sake of making me look like an idiot — Average

That's not my purpose.

Taxes are literally taken from you at gunpoint — Tzeentch

In almost 60 years of paying various taxes, I never saw a gun. I have, however, driven on literal highways, sent literal packages through the mail, travelled in an airplane that was safely guided to the ground by a literal air traffic controller, walked on sidewalks cleared of garbage and snow by literal removal crews and received treatments in very literal hospitals. No literal guns.

Of course, I would be very happy to abolish money altogether and share out the contributions and benefits equally. The major obstacle to that is calculating fair shares, and the major difficulty is the transition.

Another way of putting it is that I believe I am alive for a reason and that there is something I am supposed to do with the life I have been allowed to enjoy. — Average

This very strongly presupposes a deity, who has requirements of some kind, preferences in human behaviour and standard according to which humans are judged. I can't help you with that: I don't believe in gods.
I do think we owe something to the mortals who contribute to our survival, welfare, security and comfort; those who nurture, support, instruct and cherish us through the helpless phases of life. We owe something to those others with whom we enter into contracts and intimate relationships, and to those who depend on us. But you don't get recorded in history for being decent.

However I would like to suggest the possibility that we can all benefit from a discussion of this sort. — Average

Many people might benefit from considering thew purpose of their own lives - rather more, i think from considering whether their lives have or need a purpose at all. But only you benefit from discussing your particular life; the rest of us are not invested in your ambitions.

For example if we were to inquire into the nature of a hammer in order to discover it's purpose we would be able to extrapolate from the particular instance of the individual hammer we happened to be discussing and extend our conclusions to all hammers or whatever tool we wanted to examine. — Average

I suspect we would learn more from watching a master carpenter use a hammer than we could from talking about the hammer.

I would be surprised if every human being had a unique purpose separate and distinct from all other humans. — Average

I would be surprised to learn that any human being a predetermined purpose, such as a hammer has; I'm inclined to believe we become tool only when other people a assign a purpose to us. Otherwise, we are free to set personal goals, meet obligations incurred in social existence, decide to what endeavour we dedicate what portion of our life.

for my own part, I have long felt i was here on holiday, and the real work will begin post mortem. — unenlightened

For most people, it's boot camp. (Some typos, one is tempted not to edit.)

Scandinavian social democracies aren't falling, they're far more stable than most other nations with less socialist systems. — Christoffer

Yet. But they are heading rightward, and all the way far right: xenophobia, isolationism, repression, authoritarian conformity. If they fall in lock-step with the anti-vaxx, climate-change-denying faction, they won't take long to fall. https://civic-nation.org/finland/society/radical_right-wing_political_parties_and_groups/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/15/far-right-sweden-intolerance-liberalism-election-results
In the face of global threats - especially climate change, which hits fastest and hardest in northern climates, which also affects the incidence of virulent epidemics, they're in far more trouble than they seem to realize.

They have, and even now there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people in Russia still believing in the Soviet dream. Some people still believe that Russia is the biggest empire in the world. — Christoffer

They've also flocked back to the Orthodox church, embraced western fundamentalism and consumerism, supported conservative measures regarding the personal life of citizens, fresh waves of antisemitism; lots of illusion, delusion and collusion, as well as lots and lots of organized international crime. All the symptoms of a very sick nation. What's any of it to do with communism?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. — Christoffer

Sez who? And what does it mean? That anyone who intends to do good is damned? God hates good intentions and Satan likes them? So, if you want to be saved, plan to do evil?

Even a society that in its formation formulates a singular direction that everyone at that time thinks is a good collective direction — Christoffer

Where does this "singular direction" idea come from? Who said a nation needs to go anywhere? What's wrong with just living the best way you can and making decisions as circumstances demand? The majority can usually agree on what to do in a flood or fire; they usually know who on the scene is best qualified to organize the effort.

might soon end up disagreeing and then the leaders need to remove such people to protect the glorious nation and singular vision that everyone agreed upon. — Christoffer

What leaders? Whose vision? Why shouldn't both change as circumstances change? Comunal life doesn't requite stasis; it merely requires the shared ownership of resources. Beyond that, it can be based on religious principles, or utilitarian ones, or secular humanist; it can be agrarian or urban, highly technological or primitive, paternal or maternal, hedonistic or puritanical, segregated by sex or one big extended family. Why would you expect it to be rigid or authoritarian?

I am interested in examining the goal, mission or objective of my life and the role that I will ultimately play in human history. I think this is an important subject and one worth discussing. — Average

Important to you. But what's in it for us?

But some functions better than others, and the ones that don't function well are the ones falling into the extremes. — Christoffer

The way they're all doing right now? Even the more robust socialist-leaning democracies. They're not all the same age, or at the same point in their economic development, or in the same circumstances and international relations. But they are all facing the same global threats and reacting individually, with mutual distrust - which pretty much assures their destruction.

And with careful programming, over a long period of time, you can Pavlov an entire people into obedience, i.e thought crimes. — Christoffer

I doubt any authoritarian regime has the longevity to control a people's collective thought. Obedience is easy to obtain through fear; controlling thought is a different matter. In that, capitalism is much more effective: they do it though misdirection, flattery and blandishment, rather than threats. Religion, of course, is the ultimate system of thought-control.

What is easier, higher taxes for social welfare/UBI? Or that everyone individually thinks of ways to contribute? — Christoffer

Level of difficulty doesn't come into it: what's easiest is whatever people are willing to support, and the government is competent to organize - but coercion works, too. In all social organizations, it is necessary for members to contribute. The more fairly and evenly the burden is distributed, the more stable a political system tends to be.

What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another. — Vera Mont
Which is what will happen soon with automation if predictions fall correctly. — Christoffer

I'm not convinced that that transition is deliberate. It seems more like a logical conclusion of capitalism which has been steadily sawing at the branch it sits on. The contingency plans for when the inevitable happens seem to me far less developed than the catastrophe. (Not unlike the covid crisis: it had been predicted for a couple of decades; intelligent precautions laid out by responsible health agencies -- governments balked, blathered and pretended to prepare, each according to its systemic nature.)

Viewed through a simplified lens, it showed that the strict collective ideology that tries to hold everyone together towards a singular goal couldn't accommodate the chaos that is individual thought and will. — Christoffer

But the Russians had Pavlov! Why didn't they program all those individuals?

People do not agree with each other, it's basic human nature, so how can a society be built upon keeping society moving in a singular direction without force? — Christoffer

Who picked the singular direction? It's relatively easy to get general consensus on matters that benefit the population at large. People contribute for their common good or defence. What they object to is making sacrifices for the benefit of a few. And they usually put up with quite a lot of that, too, as long as the system feels stable; they don't revolt until the rulership is already teetering on its corruption.

Social Contract, — invicta

man made laws — invicta

Both of these are intended to serve a need: to satisfy both the abstract concept and the instinctive desire of social animals for some rational balance between individual actions and group stability; an atavistic sense of fairness.

How should retribution be applied through court of law in secular society for punishable crimes such as murder? — invicta

On a case-by-case basis. There is no single motivation or condition or degree of culpability for all killings of one human by another. That is why even the most simplistic legal system differentiates different categories, even of what is, for convenience, classified as "murder" - i.e. the illegal killing of one human by another - comes in degrees.

Retribution is not necessarily just, any more than punishment and revenge are. Justice should restore balance and harmony in social relations. Punitive acts more typically disrupt harmonious social relations.
There is a different approach:

The purpose of a justice system in an Aboriginal society is to restore the peace and equilibrium within the community, and to reconcile the accused with his or her own conscience and with the individual or family who has been wronged

Justice systems are cultural constructs: they evolve along with the life experience and philosophical development of a people, in very close conjunction with its religious beliefs.

So yeah, individualism is a complete sham. But even if it wasn’t used to rob the population to enrich .0001% of the world, it’d still be quite ridiculous. — Mikie

:clap: :clap:

In the context of a farmer wanting to grow bitter apples to make Cider then useful, correct? — invicta

I think he already knows they grow on trees.

In conclusion determining if an Apple is sweet or bitter enables the farmer to go to the stars — invicta

No, it doesn't, and the fact that they grow on trees has no effect on their flavour.

And putting a response in the context of the wrong question makes no point.

All red apples are sweet

In the above statement would you say it’s useless by the mere fact that it’s out of context or that it is untrue ? — invicta

It's useless in describing apples, but useful in illustrating an untruthful statement for the purpose of discussion.

Apples grow on trees

The above has informative value in any given context as it informs the uninformed that apples grow on trees. — invicta

It's informative regarding the provenance of apples - and meaningful to anyone who either wants to know something about apples and is willing to continue the investigation (since, obviously, this snippet of truth is insufficient). It's completely useless in response to such questions as: "What colour is this thing? and "Is this apple sweet?", utter nonsense in the context of celestial navigation and meaningless noise to speaker of Mandarin.


[

If truth is not an axiom that can be applied universally then are such truth statements as the first one in this OP useless? — invicta

If they were useless, they wouldn't be used. If they were not widely and frequently useful, they would not be so widely and frequently used.
All communication takes place in a context, is coherent only because it contains an internal logic, and is useful only so all participants in a conversation understand both these things. A truth is useless only when one attempts to transpose from one function to another.

But are such statements as the first one of any value to the philosopher when its truth value changes with the conditions (context) from which the statement is mad

Depends on the philosopher and the question that philosopher wants to probe.

Communism, as stated earlier, is a clearly defined way of governing states. — Tzeentch

Indeed. And it has never been tried in a state.

I'm assuming you have an idealized version of communism in mind, that (hopefully) doesn't include all the atrocity. — Tzeentch

Yes. The clearly defined "ism" according to which a state might be governed, which entails no atrocity. The experiments so far attempted on a large scale did not conform to that definition - partly because of the means employed to achieve them. The means always determine the ends; that's why the USA is also a failed state.
I can comment on one or the other: governance as witnessed in those authoritarian states or the communist theory of government - it obviously can't be both, as they are not congruent.

there's no point in trying to defend something that has been so utterly and completely poisoned by its real, real-life implementations. — Tzeentch

Sorry. I will not collude in the corruption of language to conform to the corruption of philosophies.

is a well-defined system of governance, and one with an absolutely disastrous track record at that. — Tzeentch

It has zero track record on a large scale. A label is not a system.

Lets answer the question: "is communism a feasible method of organizing states and large communities?" — Tzeentch

Of course it is. Put an incorruptible AI administrator in charge instead of self-proclaimed leaders who seek power, glory and wealth.
It isn't the system that corrupts the organizers; it's the organizers who corrupt the system - every system.

This all works on smaller scale societies, but at large scale, how do you "contribute"? What if you aren't good at contributing? What if your contribution doesn't align with the rest? — Christoffer

I never said it works on large scale. Of course, nor does any other ideology; all political systems are more or less dysfunctional; all collapse sooner or later in their history.
I said all thought is individual.

Anyway, in a nation-state or tribe or empire, you have to contribute. In a monarchy, a theocracy, a military dictatorship or a democratic socialist republic, you have to contribute in order to receive a share, unless the polity or ruling elite exempt you for some reason (illness, injury, extreme age or youth are the standard exemptions) and the society has the wherewithal to carry you. There is some variation in the range of choices any individual has in deciding what, when and how much to contribute, but that's more a function of prosperity and technological advancement than style of social organization.

No economic arrangement is any harder to organize than any other. What's difficult is deliberate transition from one kind of economy to another.

Communism demands no individual thinking. — Christoffer

How do you figure? Humans are still individuals, even if they don't fence off the commons or claim private ownership of natural resources. In a commune, each member is expected to contribute whatever they have a talent for, including intellectual endeavours, creative work, invention, etc.
There is no such thing as 'collective thinking'. People may echo and imitate other people, or simply agree on certain matters, but a thought that's eventually shared still has to originate in an individual mind. We don't have any other kind. We can pool knowledge and effort, but each contribution is still individual.

"Individualism" as an ideology is as illusory as "communism". There are no systems of either: all societies are collective, and to some degree dominated by a minority of privileged individuals, while the majority conforms to whatever norms are set for them.

Observations suggest communism goes (or perhaps started) that way. — jorndoe

What way is that?
More specifically, to distinguish between communal living and commun-ism. I'm pretty sure they didn't start the same way and have very little in common.

capitalism accumulates money at the total disregard of environment until of course the environment is no longer productive to its end. — invicta

The debt-ceiling caves in and all production ceases. Then we expend the arsenals of the world, fighting over the detritus of a global economy, and by then, not much is left alive. An ant crawl out on top of the wreckage and says "We tried to tell you...," then goes on about her business.

I'd be interested in why communism is or is not realistic/feasible. — jorndoe

In the present condition of our societies, no. There are too many of us and the wealth that has already been amassed by a few is not readily divisible among the many. Anyone who tried to distribute it would be up against enormous logistical obstacles. Not least of these is the forms in which modern wealth resides: digital data storage; luxury vehicles; useless bling... Simply consider the number of hours of labour performed by workers on the assembly lines and loading docks of the world that were subsumed in the purchase of a single picture. Or dress. Or wedding reception.
You can't convert it to currency - which one, anyway? - without buyers, and their money would, in turn, have to come from profit. You can't convert it to food or books or medications or anything the dispossessed can use, without a marketplace where those useful things are more abundant than the useless things you want to trade for them. The value system of our present society has been so badly skewed for so long, we wouldn't know where to start fixing it.
And that's before we even consider the resources and work-hours invested in the paraphernalia of death and destruction.

Then, there is the cultural climate. Competition, confidence, status; the ideals of success, leadership and winning prevail. What happens to the self-image of the person tasked with organizing a new regime? Does he do the best possible job and fade into the background, or puff himself up and try to take over? And all the people who have been powerless, marginal, insignificant and frustrated all this time? Do they behave sensibly and share, or squabble like feral children until they break this toy also, the way they broke democracy?

There are operating communes all over the world; all different, mostly functional. So, of course it's feasible. In fact, it's the most reasonable and efficient form of human organization. Unfortunately, it only works on a small scale. And since these communities are surrounded by oceans of dysfunctional monetary society, they have a high rate of death by drowning.

On the other hand reducing taxation for recycling companies and businesses will incentivise and increase recycling and provide for the needs of both governments and private business. — invicta

Reducing taxation reduces revenue that can be directly put to use in mitigating damage, rather than trusting the companies to do what they promise, without corner-cutting and polluting. Commercial enterprises are not motivated by such small incentives when compared to their profits; they're more likely to invest in the appearance of recycling and energy saving than in doing it effectively. Besides losing the tax revenue from business, the government would have invest more in oversight and enforcement of standards. Where is that extra money coming from?

They'll have to tack it onto the other end: as a sales tax on the product, or a recycling fee paid by the consumer and collected by the government, not the seller, which ought to disincentivize the consumer buying more useless crap.

And so on, round and round. As long as humans are ruled by money, they will keep despoiling the world. Once the global economy collapses, they'll change strategy - no telling for better or worse.

The following question relates to recycling in this case to that of electronics, although lithium is plentiful at this moment in time. At the rate it’s being used in the production of smartphones and other gizmos it will present a cost problem to manufacturers when it becomes scarce. — invicta

Cost in the extraction of minerals is calculated by the industry in economic terms, but that's the least of its real cost to the planet.
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/your-mobile-phone-is-powered-by-precious-metals-and-minerals.html
There is a huge environmental cost in mining operations, loss of wildlife habitat, disruption of ecosystems, toxic waste... as well as human rights issues, particularly in Africa and South America.
Certainly, reusing those materials is essential to sustaining the supply of such goods... if you can trust the manufacturers to recycle responsibly, and without creating a new problem with its process. That's what makes recycling contentious - and complicated. And it doesn't put anything back in the ground, or heal the landscape.

Reducing the demand would be a far wiser and more efficient strategy.

Indeed every little action can, if repeated often enough have a significant footprint on your wastage and recycling. — invicta

Even if it didn't, even if nobody else in the world did it, and it made no difference - should you not always live the way you believe you ought to live?

Do corporations now genuinely care about the environment or is it a whole PR stunt meant to lure the ethical buyer ? — invicta

Both. Some, more of this, some more of that; some entirely sincere, some lying through their perfectly orthodontized teeth, but the public notion that it is what they should do still matters. It matters that when the public finds out they're faking, their stock takes a dive.

Should governments introduce more rigorous legislation to ensure compliance to such recycling? — invicta

Recycling is a difficult and complicated issue. (We could get into it, but maybe not here?)
So maybe that's not where governments need to take a strong position. Industrial pollution is one place where they could make regulatory power count; emission control, cleanup and reparations enforcement. The simplest and most obvious start for governments is simply to stop subsidizing environmentally harmful industries.

It's entirely situation-dependent.

That's exactly what I mean!

Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. — javi2541997

How many examples of interplanetary interaction are you using for that calculation?

Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise? — javi2541997

Why not? They're not us. There is no indication that they're anything like us. We have absolutely no data on which to base speculation about them.

By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given. — javi2541997

Maybe so...

(PS - You know how, early in a murder story, the blackmailer says: "Nobody else knows." and the audience says: "Heh. You just issued your own death warrant.")

Afterthought.
The above may be an illustration of how contact with an intelligent alien life form might affect our own philosophies.

So far, the only entities we have known that are more powerful than ourselves were figments of our imagination. We knew - or some special self-chosen among us "knew" how those supernatural beings think, feel and respond, and what they want from us. We always felt confident in making assumptions about them, based on our own thought process, feelings and desires.
Chances are, we'll make similar assumptions about aliens.

But they do not share our origins and history. They may not even share our biology and chemistry. We have nothing substantial on which to base our assumptions. It will become necessary, in dealing with them - should they choose to make contact - to keep our minds more open than is our custom.
And that will be a very difficult adjustment for most of us.

It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. — javi2541997

I didn't say anything about military strategies. Erratic behaviour, irrational behaviour, behaviour that is detrimental to the health and environment of the individual making the decisions, can be caused by a virus, or by a genetic anomaly, or by toxins in the water or by mind-control from some undetected source - against which an alien unfamiliar with this planet may need to develop a defense before making contact.

If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough — javi2541997

That's a helluva leap in reasoning. Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) Why would it refrain from conquering us? (Because the only thing that would hold us back from attacking another intelligence is fear that they're not enough weaker than us?) If this is how Terrans think, it's no wonder there are warning buoys all around this solar system displaying the pan-galactic symbol for biohazard.

Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards. — javi2541997

Well, all through the Covid pandemic, I wore a KN95 mask and kept my distance from other people. Those who protested quarantine and threw beer bottles at health care workers may well have considered me coward, but my actions are not determined by their judgment.

Why don't they contact us too? — javi2541997

I can think of several reasons: They don't think we're advanced enough yet; they don't know that we're intelligent; they're being cautious in case whatever makes us behave so erratically is communicable to other organics; they are themselves inorganic and don't recognize us as intelligent life; the decision to terminate us is not yet final; they didn't contact AI - AI reached out to them and they're coming to liberate our computers.