As I said, there, of course was still structural pain.

To have more people be born in order to labor in a society is a harm to the individual, but no political theory puts this in consideration. — schopenhauer1

Sounds like the Malthusian trap. And again this rendering is pretty much from the POV of the agricultural dynamic. Takes lots of energy to grow crops. This energy originally came from human labor... and the sun of course. This gave a positive social incentive to population growth. An incentive that hadn't existed before.

So, humanity is some 200,000 years old. For the first 190,000 human population peaked at around 5-10 million. Then during the agricultural revolution populations grew to about 1 billion. Finally the industrial revolution we gained another 6 billion people or so.

So we can see across the three ages of human society that only in the last 10,000 years has labor even been an issue.

On the other hand, it is true that any individual born now can be expected to be used by society. The "civilized" world is incredibly harsh in terms of what humans were evolved to deal with. Which is why Zinn reports that over the course of the US Indian wars lots of civilized people joined Indian tribes to live as they do, while no Indian voluntarily gave up their birthright for civilization. Some Indians traveled... mostly as diplomats, but all if given a choice returned to live an "uncivilized" life.

Yes structural pain is a main component of our current politics. No this is not a requirement of the human experience.

Very interesting conversation.

Thanks.

I think there is still structural suffering in all human life and lifestyles. — schopenhauer1

We evolved to live in groups of 50-150. The manifestations of structure in these condition are different in quality and kind. This has nothing at all to do with the noble savage trope, and everything to do with the assumption that political life now is essentially the same as it always has been.

There are major differences in how hunter-gatherers viewed the world. Speaking generally, while acknowledging the vast range of different lifestyles and strategies such group were capable of.

One of the most pertinent to this discussion is the idea of authority. In small groups you don't get leaders of leaders. You get alliances within a larger cooperative and leadership shifts depending on the circumstances. The in nomadic groups the structure you are talking about shifts in a much more adaptive way, and the individual within the group isn't "I" centered in the same way you and I are.

So the structural misery you are talking about in most cases doesn't even arise, because the structure isn't set but adaptive. We see similar things in primate groups. What it means to be a leader is something different. A lot of this has to do with the fact that small group leaders are intimately connected both in terms of interest and social feedback, in way that our "leaders" are not.

This disconnection between the led and the leader results in the structural pain you are describing, but again this is not necessarily universally the case with each and every civilization. These types of problem are stuff we deal with in our civilization because our civilization makes particular demands on human character. Like stressing greed and competition.

The hunter-gatherer lifestyle allows for a different set of demands on human character.

This has nothing to do with noble savage myths and everything to do with the fact that the fundamental demands of a particular lifestyle challenges human character in a particular way. Different lifestyles have different focus for their politics. Our focus is a violent commitment to ideology because this serves to build large group sizes. Which then become available for labor and defense.

Doesn't come up that way in small groups. For example the plains Indian viewed conflict between tribes as a part of nature... a way of keeping their group strong and weeding out weaknesses. Also as a way of producing genetic diversity as raids were often for "wives". The idea of struggling over territory was very unusual. Such struggles generally start with agriculture.

Not to say there was no structural pain in hunter-gatherer societies... but it was different and created different politics within and between groups... and due to the lifestyle these miseries were shared across the population.

.

The actual thing that is there is not any of these perceptions..nor it is the sum of them. — Nobody

How do you know that? Maybe the tree is exactly as it appears to be and your sense of it not being as perceived is inaccurate. If I use a telescope to look at a house 100 miles away. I will not know what the house feels like... because I'm not using the proper instrument to detect touch. Doesn't mean that the house doesn't have touch characteristics, just that I'm not perceiving the house with my sense of touch at that time.

And if there are elements of the tree that I cannot perceive with my senses, why would that necessarily mean that the tree is a dream... Maybe someday I'll invent a microscope and see elements of "Treeness" that were always there but that I could not experience. In fact this is what we perceive to have happened.

Why is it any less possible that the tree causes the tree than a dream causing a dream... It seems like you've just moved the problem.

Seem to me that there are somethings that have to be addressed: Is the tree there when a dreamer isn't perceiving it? If I take a log from that tree and use it to beat a person with no sensual connection to this world we call real...

Will they bleed? Even though they can't sense the bit of tree beating them? And much more interesting. What happens if the insensate man recovers his senses after such a beating. He wasn't in the shared dream during the beating. When he wakes will he suddenly experience pain and trauma from a wound I simply dreamed he suffered?

Are you the only dreamer?

I think this all comes down to this: Just because we don't perceive something in all of it's detail doesn't mean that the stuff we do perceive isn't accurate.

Let me put it differently just because the sense of touching a tree is different than the actual tree and doesn't encompass every aspect of the tree, doesn't mean we aren't getting accurate data concerning what it's like to feel a tree. Nor does it mean that the tree isn't real just because we can't see it's cells without a microscope.

Finally if I can dream things, why can't I just dream up a cheeseburger or a Dodge Viper? When I actually dream I can do these things. When I'm not dreaming I can't

This would seem to be a difference between dreaming and experiencing that something different than dreams we call reality.

"Reality " and "us" are one giant hallucination inside of a hallucination forever. It's like a simulation inside a simulation forever without a simulator. — Nobody

Why is it important to see things that way? Not being a dick, I'm just wondering.

How does it make anything difference if the data we receive is contrived instead of actual sensor data coming from a place that can be sensed?

Do you mean we are dreaming reality or reality is dreaming us?

All chess games exist in an entangled state until observed... at which point the probability wave collapses and one possible game emerges. /jk

Other lifestyles produce different societies... and therefore different politics. Your analysis is from the perspective of "civilization" and from that perspective seems more or less accurate minus a few quibbles.

But it is an analysis that only looks at one mode of living.

We are all essentially domesticated into this society, and since it is the ocean we swim through it is difficult for us to see how that ocean shapes us.

As a specific example of what I mean from your article:

Part of what you are discussing seems to me to be the authoritarian nature of our systems. This authoritarianism is very new in terms of the life of the human species. For the vast majority of our existence humanity didn't have these large systems of authority that you describe. The systems developed as a means to protect property.... farms, cities, resources.

So the authoritarian and violent nature of our system does much to shape the politics you define, and this is my main objection to your definition of politics as gaining control...

This is not always the case in general terms, but does fairly accurately describe the last 10,000 years or so... among "civilized" peoples. You'll find politics is much different for most indigenous peoples. There is a lot less "I" and a lot more "We"... as a rule.

Our definition of "I" is also effected by the demands of "civilization"... again mostly through the authority issue. A lot of the Bible is about defining the "I" in terms of authority. Such concepts are generally quite foreign to more cooperative non authoritarian lifestyles.

In fact they are often described as insane.

You have shown no interest in discussion, only in lecturing others, hectoring them with questions and ignoring the questions they ask you. — andrewk

The discussion is about the unprofitably of business. This is easy to confirm from the title.

You are unwilling to discuss the topic and have attempted to derail the discussion onto a path you proposed. Now your butt is hurt because I wanted to talk about the topic of the article I wrote.

Next time if you don't want to discuss the article being presented... maybe you should just find some other article to comment on?

Where does the energy come from andrew... that is why you are bugging out... to avoid that question.

Judaka

What is unearned income? — Judaka

Poorly figured profit. I already told you.

Did you know that you can search for definitions using the internet. It's pretty awesome. Let me know if you need some help figuring this process out.

And unprofitable from who's perspective? — Judaka

From the perspective of all the costs of doing business.

It could be about trading property to maintain life. An alleged surplus might be relative to what one needs or wants. — Nils Loc

This isn't really saying anything other than a surplus is extra in some way.

Yup. that's right... a surplus is extra.

And it is the goal of business to produce a surplus... Generally we call it a profit... same thing.

Of course I'm not sure, and I am assuming nothing! That's why I said 'it appears', and then directly asked you to confirm or correct the hypothesis — andrewk

But I didn't make the hypothesis... you did. Can't figure out why I'm supposed to correct your assumptions?

The point of this article is that business is not profitable once you figure all the costs.

Is there some reason you don't want to discuss the article and instead want to discuss your proposed return to hunter-gatherer lifestyles?

Mostly from households. People using energy to keep their houses warm, cook, heat water for baths etc. — andrewk

Oh I see, so you are claiming that the governments of the world are giving people money to buy fossil fuels to keep their houses warm, cook and heat water. To the tune of 5.3 trillion...

Hmm. why aren't I receiving a check for my energy bills if that's the case?

Could you also explain how people get the actual energy? I mean where does it come from? I'm not digging oil wells in my yard. I don't have a power plant in my bedroom.

So where is the energy coming from, andrew?

I started reading a book some time ago called 'Against the Grain' which makes the claim that people had to be forced into an agrarian lifestyle, and that they were much happier, healthier, had much more free time, and were generally better off as hunter-gatherers. — praxis

I'm not making any claims at all about the hunter gatherer lifestyle except that that lifestyle was obviously more sustainable than the agrarian model.

Not sure why everyone then assumes that I think we can support 7.5 billion people using the hunter gatherer lifestyle.

I'm simply pointing out that business itself is not actually profitable once you figure all the costs of doing business, and that agriculture set up a bunch of demands that led to the dead end we are in now... and the destruction that comes with this dead end is caused by the activity of business.

How do you define "profitable"? — Judaka

Unearned income remaining after an incomplete set of costs are figured.

No, just the fact of sexual reproduction alone is enough to account for population growth. If we just got rid of men there might be less problems you ascribe to business. (This is silly) — Nils Loc

No sexual reproduction is not enough to account for population growth. People can have lots of babies but if there is no food the population will not grow.

You really weren't aware of this?

"That is not pointing to business."

Then where is the 5.3 trillion in damage coming from?

You might also address the actual point of my article... that business isn't profitable. You seem to be running away from that idea by propping up a series of strawmen.

From the rest of your post it appears you would like to see agriculture abolished, and humans to revert to a hunter-gatherer existence. — andrewk

I would? Are you sure? Would you mind quoting me... or admit that you are making a huge assumption?

It could have just as well been the needs of men that created our large human population. Maybe testicles are actually responsible for the human population. — Nils Loc

This is a bit silly. Humanity is 200,000 years old... as far as I know men have had testicles the entire time. In the first 190,000 years of human history human population grew to around 5-10 million. Since we adopted an agrarian lifestyle human population has sky rocketed.

10 million in the first 190,000 years... 7 plus billion in the last 10,000 years.

Are you positing a dramatic increase in testicle size and/or sperm production to account for this population growth?

Business is the action of creating and trading property usually for the purpose of generating an alleged surplus. But if you don't like that definition quote one you like better.

"Please tell us."

How many people are you?

"Most business in the world is small business - farmers managing small, rural lots, streetside fruit and vegetable sellers, cafe and corner shop operators. Without that business, most people would starve to death."

Most businesses are small businesses... So what? Business is driving climate change... does it matter if it's Boeing or a lot of smaller businesses?

Business owners need people to do their work for them. Labor needs have always driven business. So you are putting the cart before the horse. The needs of business created the large human population we have. And business could care less about feeding the world... Business cares about profit.

If the goal of business was to feed the world then food providers wouldn't be demanding a profit... that profit could be used to feed more people.

Right?

So don't get it twisted.

Agriculture is the reason we have such large populations. Before agriculture human population doubled every ten thousand years. In the last ten thousand years, since the adoption of an agrarian lifestyle, human population has gone from 5-10 million to over 7 billion. This ridiculous growth rate is the result of adopting an unsustainable way of life.

Agriculture.

And the evidence for this is literally all around you.

Business grew from the adoption of agriculture. Business demands growth, and bigger human populations for labor, needing more and more cropland...

And these demands that businesses make and do not pay for are driving climate change, war, inequality, etc.

How is business better than surviving... even if surviving means wandering around looking for nuts...

I'd much rather do that, than die... wouldn't you?

You've linked to an article that criticises governments for not charging for greenhouse gas emissions. — andrewk

The article also points to business, my friend.

"IMF says energy subsidized by $5.3 trillion worldwide"

So you can say it's government's fault for not charging business for the damage business does, but that does NOT address the fact that it is business that is actually doing that damage not the government.

Why is it that business people always forget the part business people play in influencing and setting up governments? It's like they think we don't understand that businesses buy off government officials... or that government itself was set up to create a stable business environment... at least here in the USA.

I didn't say business is bad, I said it's not profitable.

Why are you so defensive, are you a business owner or something?

Being in denial is not making an argument my friend. I've given data... your response...

"Nuh-uh"

Sorry but it's not convincing.

business is a tool and, like most tools, it can be used for good or evil. — andrewk

You keep missing the point. Any good that business does has to be weighed against the consequences of doing business.

In the case I'm presenting the main driving consequence is climate change.

How is business good if it destroys the ecosystem?

You aren't a human caused climate change denier are you?

You'll likely find a much more sympathetic audience. — andrewk

Are you the judge of audiences or something? Gosh no one told me.

The ultimate balance is against business, which is what I was pointing out. Are you avoiding the actual substance of the article for a reason>?

You don't address the article at all, instead you take flight in fancy.

Business people are by nature greedy and unconcerned with the consequences of their actions. These actions have resulted in climate change, endless war, and the notion that all the world belongs to business people.

I'm guessing you don't have any available defense for these behaviors and are simply posing a ridiculous straw man as a way of avoiding that fact.

Wayfarer,

None of that is really my point.

My point is that I have no reason to treat the god idea any differently than I do FSM idea.

And once those things were proven to exist, we knew they existed... That's how it works. First you come up with an idea and then you check it against reality. But if you notice, scientists didn't just say, "Hey, there is this thing called an atom!" and then walk away. They proved there was such a thing as an atom.

This is why you don't find the Loch Ness monster or Bigfoot in the scientific record.

You are just playing with ideas. This idea, that idea... there is no reason to suspect that the god idea is in any way different than any other myth. The unicorn stuff doesn't follow because until we find a unicorn there is no reason to believe one exists. Same with God.

Your arguments all begin with the assumption of knowing God does not exist — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Does not neither. ;) You are just expecting me to treat the idea of god differently than the idea of unicorns and fairies... Why should I... until God shows up?

The narrative is usually God making commands of his creation, — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Of course that is the narrative how is a priest gonna have any credibility if he tells everyone that he made up god to give himself authority?

"Unicorns and fairies are factitious ideas "

So are gods.

If you meant fictitious, and not the very ironic factitious...

:)

"Does saying God only exists in the realm of ideas not imply that he has no existence separate from our idea of him."

Nope, I'm simply not just assuming god exists anywhere other than where I know god exists. Just because I can dream up farting Popsicles, does that mean that everyone should assume they exist in reality?

Just because people have dreamed up a god, why should I think that idea exists any differently than any other idea?

My response wasn't petty. I was demonstrating how ridiculous it is to pretend that ideas are real.

Your honest response makes my point quite nicely. No idealism, just a silly idea pie in the face... and you did not respond with idealism but as if you were being made light of.

No one argues the reality of a fist in the face, not even idealists.

Pretty good argument to be made that god always does what some dude tells god to do... at least in organized religions. If we are talking superstition, then we are proceeding from ignorance, not reason; therefore it makes no sense to try and reason a superstition into actual existence.. Instead it should remain in the realm of ideas to be used to shape human behavior.

Should the human allow it.

I did not say god doesn't exist. I said God exists only in the realm of ideas.

Unicorns exist the fairies told me so.

Okay, tell god to punch me in the face.

So, my first response to the question:

What other real thing do you need to ask that question about? — Bloginton Blakley

The point here is that no one questions the reality of a fist in the face.

We often do question ideas.

God exists only in the realm of ideas. There is no fist in the face from the idea of god, just a lot of arguments and belief.

Imagine this:

I get to use only ideas. All I can do is stand there and think...you get to use your fists.

Wanna trade sides?

You are mixing two people's responses. I asked if you think numbers are real. Numbers are ideas just like God.

lol this is my point exactly. I never said numbers were real, or not real. That I 'believe' or 'don't believe'. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Neither did I. I asked. So,I'm not sure what point you think you've made. Would you mind clarifying.

"numbers.."

Are you saying numbers are real?

Those aren't real...

"Is God real?

What other real thing do you need to ask that question about?

Borders are stupid... unless you are the farmer.

Probably won't be a problem since Canadians are mostly white...