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. — universeness

Thanks for your input. :up:

I would agree that capitalism (as a general worldview) at its core is destructive in reaching its aims.
The Earth is its raw material, and the Market is its battleground.

I would quibble with the subtle possible implications of your statement about “in the wilds, living under raw Darwinian rules”.
As far as I can tell, war and conquest are human inventions.
I don’t see human war as a purely natural thing, like a wolf eating a snake who ate a mouse who ate the grain growing in the field…
Animals are not at war with each other; each has a role to play.
They exist in a balance, with the grazers and the predators and the scavengers forming a system with the land and seas.
Nature is bloody, but no more bloody than a person eating a steak.
If we really and truly followed the natural way of the animals there would be less catastrophic problems, even with us living in cities.

Humans are the only animal who wants the whole world.
Our intelligence and unique abilities (joined with some ignorance) got us into this predicament.
Will we use our boundless intelligence and inventiveness for a solution now?

But we are stuck with civilization and its ups and downs, like it or not.
We are trying to live in it and fix it, which may feel like trying to repair a car while driving it!

I had a hard time wrapping my mind around "memes". That is a complete abstract. They can not exist without the humans infected by them. I could not grasp a firm boundary for the word. However, I totally get the importance of the "story". We have shared stories and private ones. Joseph Campbell said mythology is very important and when we do not have a shared mythology we will make up our own, using the people in our lives and the characters for our private mythology. — Athena

Thanks for your reply. :up:
Yes, ‘memes’ are a deep and interesting topic, and I understand them as little as their physical counterpart ‘genes’ lol.
Using the word ‘stories’ is fine by me… has a traditional ring to it!
Joseph Campbell understood myths from the inside and out, he warned against taking myths literally, while missing the deeper symbolic and universal meanings and implications.
I believe he would have been a critic of the fundamentalist movements happening.
Cambell joked that “mythology is other peoples’ religion”.

The problem isn’t someone’s particular spiritual or religious belief so much as the psychological stability of the person, and their empathy and the ability to see outside of their own ‘bubble’ (as the link you provided refers to).

We are surrounded by organizations trying to become a political and economic giants by turning its followers into weapons and forcing its preferences and traditions upon everyone.
‘Pick a side, and fight like hell against the evil enemies’ seems to be the common ‘meme’.
Which leads to dehumanizing everyone and falling prey to propaganda, conformism, and mind control.

I claim the change in education, in 1958 has led to the violence we are seeing today and a very serious cultural clash. A cultural clash results from people holding different stories. — Athena

Why was 1958 so pivotal?

And so, very quickly (over a short period as prehistoric time is reckoned), the urban people were alienated from the land and the rural people became the enemies of nature. That's the day humanity lost its innocence, fell from grace, or however you word it: the parable of Eden. — Vera Mont

Daniel Quinn take on the parable of Eden is different than any others I’ve heard…



Here’s a summary and analysis of that chapter.

I warmly recommend this book The Dawn of Everything. Very well researched, packed with information and pleasant to read. — Vera Mont

Thanks! I started to read it earlier this year. Didn’t finish it then, but now I’m tempted to try again, maybe with an audiobook version from the library.

I had this reaction from the first part of the book, in another thread

Excellent reading suggestion, thanks! :up: I’m part way through it now. Might have to renew the e-book a few more times. A long book isn’t a problem when it’s interesting... and digital books don’t weigh 20 lbs, lol.

Early in the book, the authors make a striking (to me) claim: that European contact with Native Americans heavily influenced, if not outright caused, the European Age of Enlightenment. Specifically, the interactions of English-speaking Natives and European settlers which were transcribed. In a nutshell, the fluent Natives proved to be so rational and intelligent, and most importantly, devastatingly critical of the European way of life (both in America and in Europe), that it influenced many who read it. And it spread from there. Some Natives visited Europe, of course, where they got a first hand view that repelled them. They thought the Europeans to be savages!

The authors also theorize that modern Westerners might actually be closer overall in thought to the Natives, with their ideas of freedom (equality is a more complicated thing, which the authors dwell on later). The rigid hierarchical society of Europe would seem stifling and bizarre to us (if I’m understanding their position).

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

:up: It seems like something went askew with civilization at some early juncture.
It probably was inevitable that humans started clumping together in larger and larger cities.
How can we do that sustainably and not have to be selling out future generations, “robbing Peter to pay Paul”?

There were so very many benefits from having so many creative people in close proximity in these early cities.
The evidence is all around us. So much knowledge started or was refined there.
This knowledge can (and must) be updated and applied to the ‘fly in the ointment’ which are the hidden imbalances in civilization that are now not so hidden.
The best of Civilizational knowledge joined with the core of Indigenous knowledge might be the general direction to proceed.

The Earth seems to be in autoimmune disease mode… is it sending us a message?
Can we discover a way to go along with the ways of nature AND have continue to have large cities?
If we don’t adjust, the Earth just might act as if we are a virus. :mask: :monkey:

:hearts: Wow, thanks for the response and the agreement!
(Getting both is a nice experience, because of its rarity lol).

When I was younger and hearing of the discipline of philosophy for the first time, I thought it was about the actual ideas that directly affected our culture as a whole… laid out in an intelligible way.
It may be that way in some manner, but I was naively looking for some ‘owners manual’ for our civilization, or for life itself.

Upon maturity, it is easy to see it was asking for a lot, maybe asking for easy answers.
I imagine that maybe some power brokers wouldn’t want to show their cards.
It might reflect badly on them, or give their opponents / victims an advantage.
Or maybe the concept to too difficult to pin down?
Or maybe it is just a ‘work in progress’?

What is our philosophical modus operendi? (Or PMO, for short).

I guess I was unaware of Structuralism at the time and Big History was not yet ‘a thing’. :nerd:

@Vera Mont @Athena

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. — universeness

Good question… thanks. :up:

How about using words for groups people, in an increasing scale:

Cultures (small to medium sized)…
Civilization (large with cities, division of labor etc)…
Global Civilization (the whole ball of wax).

The notion of a Global Civilization could be somewhat arguable, since someone may see
parts of it that that are in complete opposition to each other.

What i was trying to describe was our Civilization, looked at two points in time.
Looking at it now, I call it ‘Civilization’.
Looked at when it was just beginning thousands of years ago, I call it ‘culture’.

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. — universeness

Early human states had purposes? Yes, of course!
I meant this is a comparison to the Civilization that became the one we live in now.

The distinguishing characteristic of our Civilization according to my view that that
it promotes and chooses expansion of population, land, and means of production
over nearly every other possible characteristic, not the least of which are
stability or sustainability).

@Athena @universeness

Yeah... I was referring human civilization. There have been lots of plans and schemes and strategies and agendas, but always short term - a couple of decades, max. The overall tendency of all city-states have been to subsume their neighbours and become nation-states, and from there, empires, bigger and bigger empires, as transport and weapon technology advanced. I don't think anyone in the steering elite of Athens or Kashi or Zanzibar sat down and worked out a timetable of imperialism - it's just that the pressures of growing population and the prospect of increasing wealth tend to escalate aggressive trade to open intimidation and finally conquest.
Power goes to men's heads; it's addictive; as long as they're successful, they can't stop. And their people - the peasants and artisans whose sons are pressed into the armies, have little say in the matter. If the emperor is savvy, he actively promotes his adventuring as "the glory of Rome" or wherever and persuade the population that his success is their success; his power over another nation is their individual power over the men of that nation. People who are perfectly competent to design a barn or calculate the number of horseshoes they can make from a 10 lira load of iron turn their brains off and start waving flags. Women, too, when the fever spreads wide enough. The very people called upon to make the greatest sacrifices take pride in their nation, their empire (I'm sure there are still a few old Brits who indulge in that nostalgia), their mighty sovereign.
Now, it's done mostly with money, but the troops still troop dutifully off to foreign lands. — Vera Mont

Thanks for your reply!

This makes me think of George Carlin’s comedy routine about ‘stuff’.


We all have stuff. We all need stuff. We all make stuff…
Heck, we ARE stuff… at least our bodies are.
(Our thoughts and ideas aren’t stuff exactly, though our opinions may be stuffy).
But seriously though… :grin:

We obviously need things and material goods.
A well-made product or tool is a thing of wonder and beauty.

Even if indigenous people sometimes found colonial ‘visitors’ to be odd or
oppressive, they almost always appreciated a metal axe or a glass bottle.
Things they didn’t make themselves and maybe never had seen before, but were
undoubtedly ’good stuff’.

In any society’s growth, I’d imagine that at least two factors are critical for long term existence.

One aspect is social: the overall balance and equilibrium of the culture and people.
The other aspect is physical: the overall balance and equilibrium of the culture with the natural environment and its overall physical structure.

If the first aspect is unbalanced, there’s disorganization and strife.
It either falls apart through neglect or is ripped apart by fighting and battles for control.

If the second aspect is unbalanced, the society runs out of physical necessities, toxifies the area, or both.

As you noted, many civilizations have used slavery to quicken its growth and expansion.
This would seem like it makes the civilization unbalanced in BOTH the aspects mentioned above.

Concerning societal imbalance, a revolt by those enslaved is almost an eventual certainty.
Concerning environmental and structural issues, if the masses are revolting there is going to be a stoppage in growth and a disruption in even ordinary maintenance.
If all those enslaved escaped, they would have to be replaced by others if the civilization were to continue.
And if those ‘others’ happened to be the ordinary citizens themselves, the rulers probably wouldn’t object.

So slavery is not only morally wrong, disgusting, dehumanizing… it’s inherently unstable and unsustainable on multiple levels.
As if the moral reasons weren’t persuasive enough to avoid it.
But the the temptation of quick growth and the power to dominate others and the environment are seductive, even if there’s a curse or terrible price to eventually pay.
Like steroid use on a civilizational level, a deal with the devil or Rumplestiltskin that seemed like a good idea at the time, but…

Just one of many examples of how our Civilization (as great as its achievements have been) is unstable on both a societal level and a physical structural level.
(Which most people would probably agree with, though the causes and solutions offered would be different).

@universeness @Vera Mont
(this post might be relevant to our conversations)

So our Civilization imprints each of its members with the ‘gameplan’ or the ‘program’.
— 0 thru 9

How is this imprinting done? Warning, the laboring class and the professional class raise their children differently. The laboring class is focused on obeying while the professional class will focus more on leadership roles. — Athena

Thanks very much for your comments! :smile:

I think that our culture (being a culture, as well as being a civilization, as well as being/becoming a global civilization) shares with smaller societies the the drive to spread its ideas and memes among its members, and even to spread its beliefs beyond its borders.
This informational imprinting on a child starts right after birth.
As noted above, the ever-present and ever-growing media presence is a powerful teacher, perhaps equal to (or surpassing) parental and family ‘teaching’.

These, combined with the eventual more formal education, instill in the child a general picture of the world and what goals are considered most important.
Whatever ’level’ or ‘class’ one may happen to identify with doesn’t alter the overall story that the child is told.

I think the word ‘story’ or ‘mythology’ is appropriate here, even if the culture in question were to be scientifically sophisticated and advanced (as ours is), and absolutely without any religious beliefs (as ours is not).
For me, any teaching about meaning, purpose, destiny, etc is in the realm of story, myth, and shared wisdom.
I use these terms neutrally and without any negative connotations (ie myth = untrue).

For sure adversity can destroy the human spirit if that is all a growing child knows because then the growing child will be focused on avoiding pain rather than on improving his/her life. That means your next sentence is not true! Especially not females and people of color when reality marginalized them.

But most likely, the foundational message will be remarkably similar: “go along with the civilizational program, and you will be rewarded!”
— 0 thru 9 — Athena

I’d say that my sentence was accurate, but incomplete.
A more complete wording might be “go along with the civilizational program, and you will be rewarded. Some people are rewarded more than others. And the reward of some is simply to be allowed to exist in substandard conditions”.

Turn absolutely all the Earth into humans. This land is our land, for it belongs to us.
Who else is going to claim it? Squirrels? Giraffes? Honeybees?
— 0 thru 9

The cockroaches. — Athena

The meek shall inherit the earth. Or make that the ‘hard to eradicate’ will survive, waiting for their moment in the spotlight. Oh wait… cockroaches don’t like the light… :chin:

I think it's more like a huge, mindless, parasitic fungus that is driven to replicate and grow, unaware of destroying its host. — Vera Mont

Upon further reflection, this metaphor doesn’t quite seem so hopeless a situation as when I first read it.
If the parasite is killed, the host will be free.
Maybe the ‘parasite’ is hidden deep in everyone’s brain releasing chemicals to ensure cooperation and passivity, thus discouraging action against the parasite, who act like a puppeteer to the host.

(I’ve probably stretched the metaphor to its breaking point :yum: )

enhanced communication among the workers should certainly help us figure out what does work. Horizontal communication, not having the same big mouth at the top dictate what everyone should think. — Vera Mont

“Same big mouth…” haha, yes definitely!
There’s too much absolute hierarchy, by which I mean ‘completely vertical’ (like scaling a sheer cliff) with little chance of promotion, glass ceilings everywhere, managers and executives who know nothing about the practicalities of the actual work the company does, workers who are virtual wage slaves.
And absolute hierarchies exist elsewhere in the stratification of society.
Westerners criticize the Indian caste system, yet… here we are with our own variety.

“Horizontal communication”… is lacking in most systems I can think of, and thus is sorely needed.

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? — universeness

No, it’s not a reference to all humans alive today.
I worded that rather vaguely, which I’ll now try to correct below…

It was an elliptical sentence preceded by:

Other cultures were more passive in a way, saying ‘here’s the best our cultural knowledge, do what you think best”.
If the member of this hypothetical culture rejected the ‘program’ from the get-go, or learned it thoroughly yet did something very unexpected with it, that wasn’t such a big deal.
It was all rather open, evolving, and experimental in a way, because no culture had a definite goal in mind… — 0 thru 9

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 (which previously was called Western Civilization, but has expanded enough to warrant the name, I think).

I should have worded it “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.”

Hope that is worded at least a little more clearly. :smile:

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? — universeness

No, that is a reference to the beginnings, rather than the current state of our civilization.
And such is not directly referencing a possibly emerging part of our civilization, as reflected by that hopeful last sentence.

I guess if I tried now (upon seeing your interesting question) to relate or connect the ‘beginning of our civilization’ and ‘a hopeful future goal’… I’d say that if our civilization could keep all (or most) of what it’s learned and built, while dropping the destructive, anthrocentric, and imperialist tendencies* that seem to be hard to ignore or live with anymore… then we might for the first time start to have a civilization that works for people, as well as it produces products.

* For lack of a better way to describe the problem

Basically, I’m starting with the common viewpoint that something is drastically wrong with our civilization, despite the countless wonders all around us that have been produced by it.

So I’m working backwards in time, trying to imagine how our civilization started,
and how things came to be this way, in a speculative and very general manner.

Does that help clear up the vague wording?

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. — universeness

Thanks for reading and for your comments.
As you probably guessed, I’ve borrowed some of these ideas.
The arrangement and wording is mostly my own, because I find I understand ideas better when I organize and combine the particular concepts in different ways… put them in my own words.

That said, a significant percentage of these ideas originated from Daniel Quinn’s writings.
My post barely functions as a summary of his ideas, which may need many pages to fully lay out.
Quinn’s ideas benefited from his excellent writing style, which made the vague seem clear.

Charles Eisenstein is currently writing on similar topics, and adds many ideas which I’m still trying to digest.

The Tao Te Ching is (hopefully) in there in spirit.

Thanks again for your time and effort! :nerd:

I've always found the 'two truths' doctrine compelling, since I first encountered it in T R V Murti The Central Philosophy of Buddhism. One of the footnotes to the Medium essay can be found in the Wikipedia link you provided: — Wayfarer

Thanks! :smile: :up:

Only, you've already said what the action needs to be: connect up all the nodes. We're half-way there with the interweb; stick Universeness' AI in the center, acting as a global thalamus or relay junction, and you've got a fully functioning species-brain. I should imagine, as we, individual humans, are mostly harmless, because we can suppress our destructive impulses, the body sapient will be able to halt its destructive members. — Vera Mont

Interesting metaphor, thank you. :smile:
There’s some sort of group-mind mass psychology thing that happens in every culture or civilization, I imagine.

This is in itself neither good nor bad.
But the results can be good or bad for some or all the people in the group.

I need to study more about mass psychology, especially positive examples of it.
For negative examples, Nazi Germany is probably the classic example.
Sometimes I admire ants and bees for their seemingly high-functioning societies.

It sounds good as a fable... — Vera Mont

Thanks for your reply! Much appreciated. :smile:

Yes. My post is not history, not anthropology, not psychology, nor pure fiction either.
Maybe some combination of those or something… in an attempt to imagine what could have happened to drive our beloved civilization both to the highest of its triumphs (and there have been many, many, many) and the to depths of its nightmares (also very many).

Pure historical writing is rather neutral and dry, as it should be.
Pure history doesn’t look for meaning, thought processes, and possibilities, but that’s what the situation seems to require IMHO.
Much of the time span I was referring to occurred in early history, or prehistory even.
So an educated guess is all I have, not being a psychic time-traveler unfortunately lol.
Something else seems to me to be needed at this point, your guess is as good as anyone’s.

crediting civilization with something akin to volition and the ability to plan. I think it's more like a huge, mindless, parasitic fungus that is driven to replicate and grow, unaware of destroying its host. If it started evolving little brain-nodes that eventually connect up to a neural network, it could be controlled and directed by intelligence. — Vera Mont

If I personified Civilization too much, that may need some tweaking perhaps. Not sure…
But I’m certain about your reference to ‘brain-nodes’… they were there before and are still here.
We are the brain-nodes! What else could it be?
Although no one person can control it, our culture comes from trillions of choices from billions of people.
And any changes will come because of us.

it's more like a huge, mindless, parasitic fungus that is driven to replicate and grow, unaware of destroying its host. — Vera Mont

I’ve considered that perspective, and it seems like a dead-end to me, an invitation to surrender.
Never surrender! (I procrastinate enough in real life already :wink: )
Your statement may indeed more accurate, but there’s nothing to act on there, as far as I can see.
But correct me if I’m mistaken.

And I welcome further feedback and comments, of course. Thanks again. :flower:

@Athena @Vera Mont @180 Proof @universeness

(Would love to hear feedback from you on this post. And from anyone else too.
Apologies for the long post. Drinking strong coffee while writing is dangerous lol.
And please excuse my experiments in ‘text formatting’. I’m trying for something more
readable, less ‘big block of text’ looking. Feedback on this is also welcome.
I may edit this text for clarity and grammar.
Thanks for reading! :flower: :blush: :sparkle: )

What follows is a description of a possible intersection of our Culture and the Individual, especially when looking for a ‘monkey wrench’ so to speak (that gut feeling that something in our way of life is somewhat out of order).
(At least, this is how I see it… that is, an extremely simplified overview lol).


The amazing and infinite human mind…

Our minds are among the most powerful things in the known universe.
They are immensely deep and contain not only all of our memories, but the ‘memories’ of past humans, primates, mammals, down to protozoa stored in our DNA.
Our ordinary consciousness and computing intellect is only the tip of an iceberg unfathomably large.
You undoubtedly could add countless excellent examples of the incredible fruits of the human mind.


The equally amazing World Civilization…

Like individual organisms and creatures, Civilization was ever so slowly (but steadily) growing.
It was evolving along, mutating this way and that looking to be more successful, much like Darwin wrote about evolving species.
Then in its quest for life, Civilization (driven by the powerful human mind) discovered by trial-and-error (or fateful chance perhaps) a way to be extremely powerful… almost godlike.
Dominant over all! (And who wouldn’t want to be all powerful? Even to just ‘try it on for size’?)

Humans had reached a point where they could leverage the Earth itself, not to simply survive like other mammals and creatures do, but to dominate, conquer, and rule.
They could rule over the Earth, the animals, as well as over other people that wouldn’t go along with this powerful plan.
For much land, resources, and human effort would be needed to make this idea a reality.

The plan was deceptively simple, and apparently fool-proof.
Just do everything they had already been doing, but do it to the max!
Not just gardening or agriculture, but a totalitarian and unforgiving plowing under of the land, clearing the forests, and killing of ‘pests’ that nibbled our corn and ate our sheep.
The lives of the parasitic pests were of no importance compared to humans.
Turn absolutely all the Earth into humans. This land is our land, for it belongs to us.
Who else is going to claim it? Squirrels? Giraffes? Honeybees?

And so it went, and spread. From either one point or several of like mind, it spread.
Or rather, it conquered and assimilated the losers.
Now, there had been fighting and battles since… well since forever.
But this was uniquely different, because of the all-encompassing scope of the plan.
Maybe most of the participants didn’t fully understand the plan of Civilization and its effects.
But the pleasurable surge of power that was the reward for total domination didn’t need a college education to be experienced and enjoyed.

Now, it so happened for one reason or another that the people eventually started to believe that the Earth was very young.
This is not so hard to imagine since the Earth was quite a beautiful sight in those days.
She was young, vibrant, and beautiful… sexy even.
Our ancestors can be forgiven if they didn’t guess that the gorgeous Earth was in fact many billions of years old.
They didn’t know that humanity itself in its various forms was millions of years old.
They can be forgiven because ‘millions and billions’ are quite difficult to imagine, even for us educated moderns.

So call them ‘creationists’ or ‘the innocently forgetful’, but the result was that they believed humans to have been born into existence at roughly the same time as the Earth, which was relatively recently.
And those first humans were eager to get busy building a civilization, so they believed.

This was generally accepted until a few hundred years ago, a relatively short amount of time considering the eons of existence.
When evidence began coming in during the 1800s that the Earth and universe were inconceivably old, and that Humans are in some way related to apes, squirrels, and honey bees… well some editing had to be done to the official story of Civilization.
But though the beginning details were altered, the ending and the moral of the story stayed the same.

And so it spread and spread to the present day, where it is the dominant culture.
It is our culture… Civilization itself.
Anything and anyone else are just some leftovers from the past, soon to be assimilated.
Or destroyed.


The intersection of the Mind and Civilization

All of the preceding statements about Civilization are of course debatable, and could have been worded differently.
My statements are an imaginative general overall picture or story of a long, long period of time and vast space, that hopefully has at least some general accuracy.

As mentioned above and other posts, our Civilization is quite an ‘all or nothing’ affair.
It requires complete teamwork and dedication.
Or complete submission and obedience, critics may say.

Civilization requires its people be all be on the same page, all to be of like mind at the most basic level.
Much individuality and eccentricity is tolerated, as long as the person is helping the main goal
of Civilization, which is seen as the ultimate or divine goal of complete domination of the Earth.
As for the ‘divinity’ part of the goal, this eventually became optional, and an atheist viewpoint was no longer punished.
(This to me is a side note to the story, as I favor neither an atheist nor religious view regarding these matters, for what that may be worth).

So our Civilization imprints each of its members with the ‘gameplan’ or the ‘program’.
This programming starts almost right from birth, with the parents naturally and lovingly wanting their child to fit it to society and be successful and prosperous.
What loving and attentive parent would want anything else for their child?
For the child, the parent(s) sacrifice their own independence and often their freedom and pleasure.

This civilizational education continues with school.
But not before the entertainment media (comprised of movies, shows, videos, songs, news, and advertisements) gives its own ‘lesson’ to the child.
Of course, there are going to be inconsistencies in all these different sources, from the parents, the media and educational.
But most likely, the foundational message will be remarkably similar: “go along with the civilizational program, and you will be rewarded!”

Some objections…
Someone may object and say that ALL civilizations and cultures do exactly this same thing, that is, imprint its members with a ‘program’ of some type.
Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a civilization… it would be just a bunch of disparate people living in proximity to each other.
Yes, that’s true. It is a fair point. You get 10 extra credit points.

The important difference I would argue is that other cultures promoted individual thinking, especially if it helped the culture as a whole.
Other cultures were more passive in a way, saying ‘here’s the best our cultural knowledge, do what you think best”.
If the member of this hypothetical culture rejected the ‘program’ from the get-go, or learned it thoroughly yet did something very unexpected with it, that wasn’t such a big deal.
It was all rather open, evolving, and experimental in a way, because no culture had a definite goal in mind…

…Until our particular civilization, that is.
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.
No innovation is necessary on a foundational level.
Everything is fixed, the coordinates are set.
One may invent and innovate things and ideas which go along with the overall flow.
But those who question it or impede its progress are denied rewards, ignored, or even punished.

This Civilizational program (after being installed in a person’s unconscious) is so comprehensive and complete that it inhibits creativity and the complete use of one’s mind.
Studies have demonstrated that a person will resist only so long doing something they consider wrong or useless, when given negative feedback like pain or disapproval.
We are not machines after all, though sometimes we desperately try to be.

Our Civilization wants to completely monopolize our minds and bodies.
If that means that a particular person will only use 3% of the brain, and 9% of the body, and only achieve 5% of possible happiness… well, so be it.
It’s all for the greater good. It you want to make an omelet, you have to break some legs.

Some good news maybe?

Our minds and our internal guidance system are not broken, they are just buried alive under the imposed program installed in our minds.
We have been hacked, in other words.
But though we should be very concerned, we need not despair.
We can stopped being further hacked and controlled.

Civilization is like a ancient king or queen being carried around by their servants.
They enjoy the ride, but if the servants all agree to disobey orders and go where they think best,
then the King becomes mere luggage.

We have the power… if we dare look for it.
Resistance isn’t futile. It’s inevitable.

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.

Hi everyone- I am listening to the public broadcast channel discussion of nuclear weapons and I am highly emotional right now. The best way I can think of to deal with this is to say I love humanity and I thank you all for coming to our discussion and working so hard on how to make our world a better place and hopefully, a safer place no longer threatened by wars. Kim just said we need the courage to fight for peace. Can we do that? — Athena

Thank you for all you do! This is a very interesting and informative conversation indeed.
Yes… love all people (animal persons too like the baby cardinals at my bird feeder
and even the nimble little chipmunk who stuffs all the food in his fat cheeks lol).

Working for peace is one of the strongest and highest things we can do.
I think the ingredients of peace are wisdom, compassion, and freedom.
Bake all the ingredients in a pie, and share with everyone! :yum:
Then no one will be hungry.

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? — universeness

A quick glance at the link seems like it’d be worth investigating. Thanks!
But the main change in procedure the two parties are interested in is redistricting and dividing the territory to better suit themselves.

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. — universeness

Yes. “Commie” and “pinko” are old slurs, but still around.
Even Socialism is seen as giving up the highest American virtue: individuality. :cool:
And ‘if you aren’t with us, you’re against us’. :angry:
If you are against us… prepare to be destroyed. :death:
(An odd conformist kind of individuality).

There is no functional democracy in the United States. — Vera Mont

Well yes, unfortunately. The USA is like some rich or noble family with a long history, who has had turmoil and corruption and infighting and are trying their best to appear as noble as ever.
Some are at least still trying. Others may be tired of the facade, and just get drunk at every gathering, whispering and shouting their disappointment for all to cringe or laugh at.

A representative and relatively uncorrupted democracy tends toward socialism, simply by the power of numbers: given the chance, most people want and would vote for what's good for them, until you end up with a government that acts in the interests of most people most of the time. This is why, in America, you get this sort of thing a tour de force in misdirection.
Too Much Democracy Is Killing Democracy
And of course, socialism cannot exist in a non-democratic society, regardless of the label it sticks on its facade. That's why so many autocratic regimes go through the charade of elections. — Vera Mont

Yes, I agree. Well said. :clap:

It's a very modest proposition in the circumstances. And I doubt it's possible in the circumstances. No reform seems to be possible - until Premier Dumph abolishes the present form of government and stick all his detractors' heads on the spikes of the White House fence. — Vera Mont

For the parasite living in someone’s brain, things are going swimmingly!
(The person in question feels otherwise). :scream:

That is why i have a particular contempt for Herr Chump.
(In addition to his attempts to ignite a civil war) His pose as an outsider, a man of the people, braving slings and arrows to drain the swamp in order to build a clean new society that is exactly like America circa 1950 (with internet and tech gadgets)… is so grossly manufactured and phony that an average dog could tell you it smells like crap.

The Democratic party is not spared my contempt either, for their phony progressive stance bullshit. (The house is on fire, and the DNC wants to sit on the couch because there’s pizza and a good movie on).

Thanks very much for the effort of creating this essay and for sharing it here with us. :smile: :flower:
(and for making it accessible without a Medium.com membership… but I really must join soon).

Question / invitation for expanding on the essay:

If I’m understanding the gist, your essay centers on idealism / physicalism and the
noumenal / phenomenal (beyond the mind / perspectival).

(As if that’s not already enough to juggle and discuss lol… )
Building upon what you have written, how would you compare (or integrate?) the Buddhist doctrine of the Two Truths? (whichever version of the doctrine you may prefer)
(Two Truths Wikipedia article and SEP entry)

Thanks again!

What arguments in the OP? Some mild ranting with a few questions at the end.
The innocuous-sounding term “color-blindness”, which if was ever well-intentioned, is now distinctly ‘old hat’.
I take it you are not of African descent, nor have you been pulled over by the police or had your door kicked in by authorities for no reason.
So what Blacks say and write about their situation (CRT) doesn’t really directly concern you.

I imagine that you’d maybe like to trigger some libs to get your points across, but I’m done.
I’ve said all I have to say. Good bye and good luck to you.

Is anyone else sick of the cry of ‘YOU’LL SPLIT THE VOTE!!!’ every frickin time any 3rd party candidate sticks their head out of the ground in the USA? :vomit:

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.

For instance, Bernie’s imaginary son Bernie Sanders Jr runs for POTUS as an independent or socialist party. He states that if he’s NOT elected, his votes would swing to the Democratic nominee.

That way, we could see who people really want, not who they are afraid of not voting for because they are the lesser of two evils… or something.

Is this idea crazy? Even possible?

Thanks for your response. :smile:

More and more, I’m leaning towards democratic socialism.
I was pulling for Bernie Sanders, but I don’t think the country was ready for him, unfortunately.
Seems to me the two (democracy and socialism) go together like peanut butter and jelly.
But one without the other leads to some kind of imbalance.

I’m no expert in political science, so I’m probably over-simplifying this…

Socialism without democratic representation seems like it’d slide into Soviet abuses of power.
Democracy without socialism is kind of the status quo in the USA.

I suppose technically the USA is a constitutional democratic federal republic.
What is most important (politically and metaphysically) is not so much what we ARE,
but what we WANT to be, and CAN be, and CHOOSE to be right now.

But… (and there’s always a big ‘but… ‘).
Big Money needs the government to make the laws favorable for maximum profits.
Government officials need Big Money for money lol.
The only losers are the pesky citizens who keep claiming they have rights.

By the time state-sanctioned Capitalism has its way with us, we are like the character in the fairy tale who sold his cow for some magic beans. (for example, ‘health care’ = you pay us now for insurance, then later we perform unnecessary surgery and tests and give you toxic drugs in order to maximize both our profits and the profits of our cronies).

From Wikipedia:

Democratic socialism is a left-wing[1] political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy,[2] with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers' self-management[3] within a market socialist economy or an alternative form of a decentralised planned socialist economy.[4] Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality, and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.[5] Although most democratic socialists seek a gradual transition to socialism,[6] democratic socialism can support revolutionary or reformist politics to establish socialism.[7] Democratic socialism was popularised by socialists who opposed the backsliding towards a one-party state in the Soviet Union and other nations during the 20th century.[8]

:up: Well that is good news! And only a fool would argue with good news.

Thus, Let me begin my arguments… :wink:

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

:up: Exactly, not with the way most jobs are now. Although our culture agrees that nobody should have a job… they should have two or three jobs if they want the lights to stay on.
A savings account? What’s that? Let me google it…

If we could make work as fun and as casual as possible, like an Amish barn-raising… people would be falling over themselves to work. But we don’t have the sense of community as a family.
Where is the love? :love:

My head is screaming we must replace autocratic industry with a democratic model. All the workers need to feel appreciated and we need to respect the whole person by empowering the individual to say what would improve the working conditions and therefore manifest a better outcome for everyone.

I attended workshops teaching the democratic model for supervisors and was blown away by realizing how the democratic model of Industry would greatly improve the quality of our families because the democratic model treats everyone very well and the worker who learns how to treat others well will bring this home to the family. — Athena

Thanks for your input. :halo:

What you are saying here appears to be close to democratic socialism perhaps?
Which is quite fine in my book. Just wanted to get your feedback on that.
Now for a country like the USA to get a TRUE democracy joined with a TRUE socialism is the difficult part.
It’s difficult because the Elite (rhymes with excrete) the 1% and their servants and wannabes are pulling with all their mighty might in the opposite direction.
(Sorry, if it’s been covered already in this long thread. If so, point me to it).

What you just said is fundamentally the same as what universeness said. — Athena

Oh no! I take it all back then! (just kidding :blush: )

But the big feed pipe is blocked by big lumps of utter bullshit. These blocks need clearing. — universeness

I’m trying to visualize/think about whether there are ANY ‘pipes’ (flow of material, energy, information etc) that are NOT blocked. Maybe some that are only partially blocked… :confused:

:flower: :grin: :up:

On my part, it's not a case of dismissing tribal cultures, but rather of differentiating tribal cultures from urban ones. What people usually consider 'civilized' begins with city states with a hierarchical social structure, work specialization, standing armies, currency and written laws. These civilizations have a pressure to accommodate growing populations and material consumption through aggressive expansion. — Vera Mont

:up: Thanks very much for your reply! :smile:

That makes perfect sense. Urban cultures definitely have unique features to them.
Our entire world seems to be urban now, for better or worse.

The Mayan civilization started as tribal, grew to a large urban population.
Then when factors were no longer favorable for large cities, many people left to return to smaller communities.
The Spanish conquest closed the deal, as I understand it.

If ‘pre-modern’ peoples are not dismissed as quaint, bloodthirsty, ignorant, or impossibly saintly, then there exists a chance that their way of life will be studied and taken seriously.
What things did they know that could help us?
For starters: how to survive and grow and live sustainably for over 1 million years (or 2 million if counting Homo Habilis).

We would have to adapt the knowledge to our circumstances, of course.
Our wonderful imaginations would be of immense usefulness.
We could ask ourselves “what are the most important things in life, and how could we keep them and not selfishly treat the earth like our own personal cookie jar”.
We could drop our aggressiveness towards anyone or anything that gets in the way of our ‘progress’.
Maybe they are giving us a message we’d best listen to, like “slow down, what is the hurry?”

The existing tribal cultures are not yesterday’s news, they are tomorrow’s hope.

If it's a substantial enough population to keep its own traditions alive, it remains an unsightly lump under the carpet for the rest of the empire's life. — Vera Mont

Agreed! (And nice catchy metaphor, too).

Imperialism, like capitalism, demands continuous growth. This always ends in internal corruption, schism and overreach. That alone may result in the collapse of an empire, but the collapse is usually hastened by the advent of the next empire forming at its flanks, waiting for an opportunity.

What happened to US politics is not in any sense tribal. A political faction, a bunch of yahoos united by nothing more than license to oppress another group, a deluded minority of underachievers dreaming of reclaimed privilege, those with actual privilege too jealous to share - these are not tribes. — Vera Mont

Yes… unfortunately yes. The Dominator Culture theory mentioned before lives on unimpeded.
As a whole, we seem to be reaching some sort of wall or limit, on multiple levels.
We can run the outdated old playbook of domination: against the planet, animals, women, minorities, the poor, the ‘primitive’, etc etc until the Earth resembles a zombie movie.

Or we can emerge from our cocoon with wisdom and live freely, allowing others to do the same… because they are our future friends, and friends are much more interesting than victims.

Thank you. I can remember that question from my childhood as my mother could only work for low women's wages and was paid less than a man hired to do the same job. Back in the day, our economic structure favored men. I was somewhat confused as I thought poverty was shameful but we all had an opportunity to get an education. On the other hand, that did not include equality at the college and career level. I was totally unaware of any assistance programs and wondered, how caring was our society? As an adult, I have heard other nations are doing much better. I have not experienced other nations so I am not sure but I still wonder about what are the possibilities.

Growing up in constant insecurity and feeling like a less-valued member of society left me wounded and in my old age I wonder about these things even more because now I can look back and see how the condition of a child's life shapes the child and the problems are passed on generation to generation. Christianity has not made a big difference. In fact, governments intentionally used it to make some people believe poverty is tolerable and even virtuous. So is there something better? — Athena

:up: Thanks for your reply! :smile:

I was going to respond by saying something like “this (situation you described) is completely unacceptable in an affluent First-World country… ”.
But that sounds a bit hollow and callous to my ears for some reason…
Would it be acceptable anywhere? Why?

Our Mother Culture’s* answer: “It is difficult to accept, and so very tragic [wipes away a tear].
But we must face Reality, and see how the sausage gets made. However, such suffering is inevitable for those on the primative low rung. Only the strong can stomach the harsh reality.
(We didn’t make the rules! Darwin did). But wait! There is an upside! If only those (natural but backward) people join us in our technological journey to the heavens, then they too will get a delicious piece of the pie!” (A tiny piece, mostly crust lol).

But what are the consequences of following such thinking?
(For it is meant to be followed, and definitely not just theoretical).

Unfortunately, I’m still trying to rinse my brain clear of the persistence of our cultural propaganda, an indoctrination that’s even deeper than party politics. (Deeper because it is uncontested by both parties, and even by most of the ‘fringe’).
There’s an ignorant (and thus quite insistent and loud) though unwanted voice that lingers in my mind, which tells me that those people in distant lands living in makeshift huts are actually just squatters on the property of Civilization.
Not unlike the squirrels living in an apple orchard: tolerated as long as they don’t get in the way of progress.

Then I realize that I may not agree with every persistent thought that pops up in my head.
I think I have more brain rinsing to do, to hopefully get rid of the brainwashing…
(it’s a work in progress).

* ‘Mother Culture’ being a term I find useful, one used by Daniel Quinn to personify the cultural indoctrination that lives in our unconscious and carries immense influence.

I advocate for working towards the further dilution of all tribalism, all notions of creed and all notions of national identity and traditional/classical presentations of what constitutes a successful civilisation/society. — universeness

Thanks for your reply! :smile:

As for the identities you mention are deeply ingrained in our bodies and minds, so it’d be difficult to actively dilute or dissolve.
And it would be met with the immediate resistance of a cornered animal.

However, I’d agree that this aspect of identity tribalism and politics has become overly large.
We are more than our nationality, color, etc.
And simplifying everything politically to Red vs Blue (in the USA for example) is so boring basic and dumbed-down, it’s difficult to even know how to interact with the ‘other side’.
One has a better chance of having a conversation about the history of art with a person in the stands during a football game / match.

All historical civilisations have failed. We need to teach why, not just teach the dates and what events occurred on those dates. — universeness

This may be quibbling over definitions, but I’d say that not all civilizations prior to the current global civilization (aka Western Civilization II: The Takeover) have failed.
Firstly, simply ceasing to exist doesn’t exactly equate with failure, not completely. (Might be a whole other topic).

But more importantly, some extant tribal cultures have been going for several thousand years.
Some may hastily dismiss these as ‘not examples of a civilization’, but I think that is too narrow a definition.
Just because these cultures may not have become colonizers and taken over large swathes of territory doesn’t diminish their feat of continuing survival.
These cultures, as different as they are from ours, may have something we can learn about survival… even if the people were in an ‘oral culture’, not a written one.

In fact, their existence may show the limits of ‘imperial overreach’.
Although current world power is clever and has deviously improved upon the old imperial game plan.
The new plan: don’t take over smaller countries (that’s too costly), just go in with tanks / bribes / propaganda and take whatever you want secure the needed resources for your country.

I advocate for a united species, no more nations, one planet, global governance with a resource based global economy that has automation at its core and good stewardship of this planet, as one of it's prime directives. The removal of money as a means of exchange and the removal of the money trick and religion, as the main means by which a nefarious few, can gain control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people. — universeness

That sounds good, a huge improvement over ‘poverty with a sugar-coating of bling’ lol.
But… the devil is in the details. (Actually the Devil, if you read the Alt-Right’s literal demonization of everything 6 inches to the left of them).

As you are aware, there’s a long-standing suspicion of anything that smells of ‘one-world government’ amongst many people, most (but not all) on the right-wing.
Until it was abundantly clear that any talk of ‘global unity’ wasn’t the wolf in sheep’s clothing of world authoritarianism, even progressives and new-agers will be skeptical.

But to live in a world like the one described in the song ‘Imagine’ by John Lennon? Sure! :victory:

I know several former caring teachers who were totally burnt out by the system.
— 0 thru 9
I am an example of such a teacher, who took early retirement at 55, because I was burnt out because of the education system in Scotland. — universeness

:up: Thanks for your reply!

Sorry to hear that this is an international crisis. Sounds like you were on the front lines and did all you could.

Much of this thread, is a discussion about how educational curricula should be constructed and what it should focus on, and how critical, national/tribal culture is, to that process. — universeness

Students today (in the USA if not elsewhere) are in a battlefield. Both literally with gun attacks, and figuratively with the war over book bannings (burnings?) and ‘Don’t stay gay… or race… ‘ or anything else not approved by self-righteous propagandists.

If they can somehow manage to graduate high school and get accepted into college, they will sail into a bright future of a rewarding and well-paying job. Or at least 10% will.
Did we mention the crippling debt for getting that college education?

In terms of education, this thread could be named ‘Culture is in critical condition’.
The exact curriculum is an extremely important question, of course.
But deep foundational structures lay beneath it, and the foundation is cracking.

A culture as a whole is like a huge ocean-going vessel.
The young (and their education and health) are metaphorically at the front of the ship.
The front of our cultural ship has hit an iceberg.

What could a solution be? It strains my imagination to even think of some.
As the culture goes, so goes its components such as education. And conversely so.
If the individual organs are diseased, the body will suffer. And vice verse.
When money dictates the rules and sets the pace, everything becomes a facade, a front.
Our culture is a drug addict, and the drug is money. All other concerns are given lip service or forgotten.

Such melodramatic analogies are imprecise and don’t solve anything. But that seems to be roughly the situation in general as I see it.

That is not easy, no one pays attention to what I have to say about logos, education, or democracy
— Athena
That's just not true. I very much agree with Education! Education! Education! I just don't see much value in any emphasis on Greek/Athenian values or on the musings of ancient thinkers such as Plato or Aristotle. I prefer more contemporary musings. — universeness

Ah yes… education. A definite necessity. But the details… what kind of education?

In the USA, the public schools do an excellent job of getting the kids ready for the mindless machine of entering the work force (or work farce) and dealing with hypocrisy and oppression.

Overall for the public schools, it seems to be a game of spending as little money as possible while cramming in as many kids as possible. (Despite millions of dollars coming in from lotteries and taxes). All while keeping up a positive chatter about Science! and The Future! etc.
I know several former caring teachers who were totally burnt out by the system.

I was talking about my response to your topic. What the hell has FrancisRay to do with it?
That's totally crazy. — Alkis Piskas

This side conversation could be fascinating, but I’ll try to steer the discussion back to the OP (which is giving examples of bad logic and informal fallacies, and then explaining).

Find why Zeno's Achilles and the Tortoise is such a pseudo paradox ... — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I have no answer for this yet. You may ask everyone again, or give the answer if you’d like.

Why do you think that computer is our best hope?
— 0 thru 9

Humans have so far proved incapable of rational resource management. — Vera Mont

Ok, won’t argue with that point!

But the computer would have to be given authority to make important decisions with many nuanced circumstances and possible consequences.
As of now, AI is having trouble driving a car without doing something bafflingly dangerous.
Also, Elon Musk would probably own the world-ruling quantum computer.
So that’s gotta be a strike against it.

But seriously though, as a tool to help guide those truly interested in helping the world at large (instead of their own bank account, if there are any such people) then sure… let’s eventually give it a try. :nerd:

How does society look at mothers who need help supporting a child? Is she honored almost as much as the Great Earth Mother or is she shamed and marginalized? Will her child be welcomed by the community and be valued by this community? It is not just the mother and child we need to consider but also the community the child is being born into. — Athena

This is a crucial question.

And because it seems difficult to not think it sounds like a naïve question or adopt a jaded, cynical, or pessimistic attitude towards it, may illustrate how low our expectations have slid.

A culture that can’t cover such a basic need is in trouble. (Probably not breaking news to anyone… )

These people don't desire war, or mass shootings or terrorism or genocide; those are just some of the means to get things done. They just want to own more stuff, so they promote and support men who get things done . And because we humans are tribal, we always follow men who get things done. Except, of course, they don't: we do. The 'leaders' are absolutely sure of what is wrong, who is to blame and how it must be fixed. They are very good at communicating their certainty - and we are so thirsty for certainty, we'll follow them anywhere for just another drop. In pursuit of certainty, we are eager to take direction from them, take instruction, take orders, take up arms and leave our individual selves behind, just to have a meaning in their cause.

Of course, when it comes time to charge, the modern leader is usually in a tent or bunker or dining room far behind the lines. And his invisible, anonymous backers are farther back still, ready to abandon any 'leader' who falters, loses his grip on the peons or is defeated by some other leader. — Vera Mont

:up: Thanks for your reply!
If our civilization as a whole were a car, it would be one being held together by duct tape and wire with a frame so rusted that hitting a pothole could cause collapse.
We are like the children in the backseat fearing for our lives.
Daddy driving the car is a penny pincher who thinks he can squeeze more mileage out of it.
And he doesn’t want the kids to mess up his other car, a Lambo.

A giant quantum computer overseen by workers in dark robes?
— 0 thru 9

White lab coats. That computer is our best hope of redemption, because the aliens are not coming. — Vera Mont

Interesting. Why do you think that computer is our best hope?
(Besides the nonexistent aliens who are not coming, not surprisingly :yum: )

You invited people to participate to your discussion.
Basic courtesy demands that you reply to someone who has responded. Even with just a "Thanks" ... — Alkis Piskas

Umm, thanks? :wink:
I was following your conversation with @FrancisRay. I was just trying to make sense of what was being said, and how to possibly respond. Was drawing a blank. But carry on…
Thanks!

What is the thinking and belief system that fosters warfare?
— 0 thru 9

Follow-the-leader. — Vera Mont

Sometimes I wonder who (or what) the top leader is. Who’s giving the orders?
Presidents, ministers, corporations? Banks?
Little pieces of cloth-paper with numbers on it, with pictures of royalty or dead presidents?
A giant quantum computer overseen by workers in dark robes?
A fallen angel misleading humanity to skip church and dress as the opposite sex?

And then sometimes I think there’s nobody there…
that it’s the ideas and dreams (or nightmares) in our mind that we follow… or don’t.