I’m pro-choice, by the way, in case that wasn’t clear and it matters at all, and I wasn’t arguing for or against abortion because that wasn’t the point.

"Hope springs eternal."
Alexander Pope in An Essay on Man (1732)

Humorous sidenote: Pope is an interesting second name.

There is a Glasgow story about a fight/scuffle, started in a Glasgow 'orange hall,' (orangemen were/are anti-catholic. They are called orangemen, after their main hero 'King Billy' or the dutchman 'William Of Orange.') Anyway, the story goes that an American group visiting Glasgow, entered an orange club and it was explained to them that the club was 'members only.' After some discussion the management said they would 'sign them in.' There were 4 of them. An argument and a scuffle then broke out after the Americans signed the visitors book. Only after they showed their ID/passports, did the 'scuffle' end.
One of the Americans was genuinely called IRA POPE! and that's why he wrote that in the visitors book. :lol: :rofl:
I can explain why I find that story so hilarious, if you don't understand it, but, the more interesting 'cultural' fallout, is perhaps expressed in a question such as, are the implications of names, culturally critical? Are all 'Macs' always Scottish, no matter where the person lives or ended up due to the movement of diaspora? Does a Kelly always belong to the Irish? is 'Ben' always Jewish? Is a Pope always Catholic? Does IRA always for some, stand for the Irish Republican Army and is 'Alexander,' always Macedonian Greek? How come Alexander is still valid for naming a child in the UK or USA, but naming your child Jesus, or even Plato or Aristotle is unlikely to ever be in vogue? :chin: I know some 'cultures' will use such names but most parents wont.

Sorry @Amity,@Jamal et al, my mind does jump a lot, but as I said 'culture is critical,' is imo, a wide casting of a net. At least my mind jumps, helps keep some threads alive and kicking.

Sorry Amity, — universeness

Why are you apologising to me?

In recognition of the possibility, that it was mostly my mind jumps, rather than the contributions of @Vera Mont or @Athena that caused what you considered a thread worthy of maintaining its position as a mainline thread, getting sent to the lounge, where other TPF members have opined, is the place threads go to die. Which at least, has been shown, is not always true.
Perhaps my 'sorry' was more of a recognition of a possibility that 'influenced' @Jamal's action, rather than an aspect of my thought processes that I sometimes regret. I consider my 'butterfly mind,' a great asset in the main.

No. My concern has more to do with the transfer of discussions to The Lounge without apparent notification or reason given at the time. Also, related to the descriptions of TPF categories and correct placements of topics. But I've said all this before.

I can explain why I find that story so hilarious, if you don't understand it, but, the more interesting 'cultural' fallout, is perhaps expressed in a question such as, are the implications of names, culturally critical? — universeness

I doubt we really needed all that background info. I went to highschool back when they were still teaching history, and in a recent ex-colony, where heavy emphasis was placed on British history.
Surnames are passed down largely unchanged, long after the original meaning of the word, the place or occupation it denotes is forgotten. Some names are easy to transplant from one language into another; some are very difficult, either because they have a different meaning or because of some ideological association in the other culture - these, people usually abbreviate or change altogether. Your particular example is even more ironic

Pope is a Scottish surname meaning father

As for given names, it's a matter of tradition (naming children after parents, grandparents or godparents) and fashion. An actor or athlete or general becomes famous and has lots and lots of babies of a generation named after him. There are periodic waves of Biblical names or literary names, or even names from popular movies and songs. The English have generally eschewed direct Christ references, perhaps regarding it as sacrilege; other nations embrace it as homage. 19th century Americans were quite enamoured of Old Testament prophets and heroines, whose names still turn up from time to time, and the apostles are ever popular.
Each nation has its historical and legendary figures whose names come into vogue in little waves of national pride. Aristotle and Alexander have never been in shortage in Greece, as well as the perennial Peter and Christopher. Every second generation in Hungary yields a crop of Attilas and Csabas; the French and English have their kings.
Naming may have been indicative of what was considered significant in a culture, back before global networking. Now African children may be named after American fictional detectives, while Austrian children may bear the name of some legendary figure in what the parents fancy as their Mideastern roots. And of course, for a mercifully short time, we had a crop of babies called things like Moon Orchid and Indigo River.

I’m pro-choice, by the way, in case that wasn’t clear and it matters at all, and I wasn’t arguing for or against abortion because that wasn’t the point. — praxis

What was the point?

Athena said

I think, when it comes to abortion we might want to ask what does "liberty" mean? For darn sure a woman with a child, in her belly or her arms, does not have liberty. If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good.

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.

PS How about privacy? I think privacy is very important and what we do with our bodies including not only abortion but also the right to die with dignity, is between ourselves and God. There are some things that are public and others that are private. Government and our neighbors should stay out of what is private.

and you responded

Unwilling parents have been known to rise to the occasion and a child add much to their lives, so the overall effect could turn out to be good in many cases, in which case your cause-and-effect moral theory doesn't pan-out so well.

Which had no relation to her argument that other people should not be dictating what an individual does with their own body. You then seemed to be arguing that, yes, they did, because you can imagine a situation wherein an individual might change their mind if they accepted society's dictate. In this instance, I agree with Athena: Government and our neighbours should stay out of what is private.
But I'll add that it would make a better a society and easier personal choices if government and our neighbours were more supportive of the individual's needs.

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.

Ah yes… education. A definite necessity. But the details… what kind of education? — 0 thru 9

Yeah, I think that's what @Athena has been stating since the beginning of this thread, even in her OP.

The education for democracy is for rule by reason and it opposes authority over the people. It does not support authority over the people and make them dependent on authority as the God of Abraham religions do.

Please, contemplate the serious difference between preparing the young to be as children to the king or preparing them to govern themselves and to eventually participate in governing a nation ruled by reason, not authority over the people. A nation that argues reasoning with logic and not guns. — Athena

Where Athena and I disagree with each other, is along the lines of what I stated and have underlined below:

. 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

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.

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.

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.

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.
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. — 0 thru 9

This is partly why the exchange I had with @Athena and @Vera Mont took a more political direction.
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. All historical civilisations have failed. We need to teach why, not just teach the dates and what events occurred on those dates.
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.
I further advocate for no more party politics. Vote for a person, not a party, not at a local, national, international or global level.

All historical civilisations have failed. — universeness

And the bigger empires grew the faster they collapsed.
My contention is that civilizations fail because they attempt to eradicate tribalism, in order to subsume the members of the tribes they conquer into a unified whole. It's never worked, so far. People do not want to be relived of their group identity and loyalty. They fight onto the death to liberate their tribe from the domination of a larger, more powerful civilization - even if that civilization is by all of its own standards superior to their own. Children assimilate more easily - which was the original idea behind the residential school system: the benevolent and beautiful white people were going to capture young savages in the wilderness and civilize them. It didn't go according to plan.

We need to teach why, — universeness

Unfortunately, we believe and/or profess very different versions of that "why".

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. — universeness

I agree with that vision, except in one particular: let the global union be a federation of self-defined tribes, because that is the level of organization at which human societies have been cohesive and stable for the longest periods. The global government needs do nothing more than arbitrate inter-tribal contention, oversee equitable resource distribution and make pooled knowledge available to all.

And the bigger empires grew the faster they collapsed.
My contention is that civilizations fail because they attempt to eradicate tribalism, in order to subsume the members of the tribes they conquer into a unified whole. It's never worked, so far. People do not want to be relived of their group identity and loyalty. They fight onto the death to liberate their tribe from the domination of a larger, more powerful civilization - even if that civilization is by all of its own standards superior to their own. Children assimilate more easily - which was the original idea behind the residential school system: the benevolent and beautiful white people were going to capture young savages in the wilderness and civilize them. It didn't go according to plan. — Vera Mont

I think the difference is that I advocate unison via consent and not force. Your paragraph above describes a history of conquest and not cooperation through reason. I advocate for unison through argument that cooperation, rather than competition in the better way. Imo, traditional tribalism, learned in a rather shallow and narrow scope, will naturally fade over time, due to the wider scope on offer, with more cooperation.
Those who enjoy their traditional foods, for example, often find that their lives are enhanced when they can access the traditional foods of other tribes as well. I know tastes in food and the way a tribe traditionally treats it's women, are not really comparable but, such differences have always been hard to negotiate but it can be and has been achieved.

Unfortunately, we believe and/or profess very different versions of that "why". — Vera Mont

There is good and bad about that. The bad happens if we cannot find any common ground at all, ever.
The good comes from the fact that opposing positions creates choice and choice is always better than no choice.

I agree with that vision, — Vera Mont

See, common ground! If only I could find as much common ground with MAGA Trump supporters, as I can with you.

let the global union be a federation of self-defined tribes, because that is the level of organization at which human societies have been cohesive and stable for the longest periods. The global government needs do nothing more than arbitrate inter-tribal contention, oversee equitable resource distribution and make pooled knowledge available to all. — Vera Mont

A good comfortable piece of common ground within which useful and fruitful negotiation, action planning and trial projects can be agreed upon and can begin.

“It's easier to fool people than it is to convince them that they have been fooled.” ~Mark Twain

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ~Upton Sinclair

"It's easier to imagine the end of ]the world than the end of capitalism." ~Mark Fisher

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

Short of total armageddon – in this scarcity-driven global civilization, my friend – how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" (from Glasgow to Guangzhou, Brooklyn to Benin, Tel Aviv to Tazmania) by a 24/7 global, virtual menagerie of various hedonic treadmills schemes from cradle to grave? :chin:

Imo, traditional tribalism, learned in a rather shallow and narrow scope, will naturally fade over time, due to the wider scope on offer, with more cooperation. — universeness

What do you mean by "learned in a shallow and narrow scope"? Ethnic identity tends to go quite deep and encompass culture that was centuries or millennia in the making. There is no reason tribes have to compete instead of cooperating. There have been alliances and federations since long before history, and intertribal trade and social gatherings to exchange information and mates go back to Neanderthal clan structure. Cooperation doesn't require homogenization.

The good comes from the fact that opposing positions creates choice and choice is always better than no choice. — universeness

In education, choosing among different versions of history does not lead to resolution, but to conflict. And we have no objective source, because the computer has been fed its information by humans. The best we can do is supply teachers with all possible facts and encourage discussion in the classroom.

See, common ground! If only I could find as much common ground with MAGA Trump supporters, as I can with you. — universeness

You and I live in the same universe. They don't.

Short of total armageddon – in this scarcity-driven global civilization, my friend – how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" — 180 Proof

There is no way. Armageddon begins with a couple of wars and climate crises, proceeds to multiple displaced populations carrying overlapping plagues, and somewhere in there, the economic system collapses, never to rise again. Human society resumes - if it does - after a long interval, with much reduced numbers and resources. But at least the more provident and farsighted among us have already laid up caches of knowledge, seed and DNA for their use.

Good quotes. But we can always find quotes to support one view or another. JFK said:
We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win
Here are some more I got by searching for: "positive quotes about the future of the human race."

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi in 1925 in Practical Idealism predicted: "The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today's races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice."
H. G. Wells said: "Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race."
Stephen Hawking said: "I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as it could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonizing other planets."

Mr Fisher also proposed:
Capitalists maintain their power not through violence or force, but by creating a pervasive sense that the Capitalist system is all there is. They maintain this view by dominating most social and cultural institutions. Fisher proposes that within a capitalist framework there is no space to conceive of alternative forms of social structures, adding that younger generations are not even concerned with recognizing alternatives.
I think he was completely wrong in suggesting this situation cannot be changed. His own personal struggles, resulted in his own suicide. My statements here are only based on my brief searches on Mr Fisher, who I had not heard of prior to reading your post. So, I fully admit that my comments here are not in any way based on an in-depth knowledge of Mr Fishers work.

how do you propose to get the "nefarious few" to relinquish "control over a divided and ill-informed global mass of people" who are, for the most part, "money tricked" — 180 Proof

Via the needs, demands, and the protestations of the many, and via the political representatives and the political systems, a better informed populous will vote for, in the future.
Information systems like the internet can be used for the good, as well as the bad. Just like a bad idea can be spread across the internet like wildfire, so can a good idea. With all new tech, humans tend to take it down many blind and quite destructive alleys, but we eventually find ways to use it for the better. Even the threat of m.a.d from nuclear weapons, has been somewhat useful.

:up:

Okay, but back on Earth One, how will the well-organized/resourced "nefarious few" (most of whom are anonymous, even secretive) be "removed" – not replaced – by the hyper-divided-n-controlled, scarcity-wired, "many"?

What do you mean by "learned in a shallow and narrow scope"? — Vera Mont

Limited land boundary. Limited knowledge base. Living under a hierarchical authority system, often with a single leader at the top. A small tribe on a big planet.

There is no reason tribes have to compete instead of cooperating. There have been alliances and federations since long before history, and intertribal trade and social gatherings to exchange information and mates go back to Neanderthal clan structure. Cooperation doesn't require homogenization. — Vera Mont

I broadly agree. It's a pity that many decided that competitive conquest of the neighbours was a more efficient solution, than trying to negotiate and cooperate with them. All the ideas that you mentioned, 'alliance,' 'federation,' 'trade,' 'cooperation,' 'social gathering,' sound good to me. We should keep and nurture all of those and get rid of as many aspect as possible, related to 'autocracy,' 'dictatorship,' 'survival of the fittest,' 'war,' etc. I am quite happy to go with a global united people, made up of smaller sub-groups of separate flavours of human.

You and I live in the same universe. They don't. — Vera Mont

Yeah but they don't live in a different universe, or even on a different planet, or for many, even a different country, city or town. So, we have to get through to them.

Do you agree that any excessively rich and powerful individual can be, identified and scrutinised, whenever a popular focus, lands on them? There have been many examples of rich and powerful horrors being brought down, almost overnight. even some who were hitherto, complete unknowns to the majority of the global population.

If you do, then I think this reveals one way, that what you are asking about, could be 'progressed toward,' or actually achieved.
We could legislate, that if you become rich and powerful, then your day to day life will become far more open to the 'monitoring' of the checks and balances system that I would advocate for.
I can offer many details on how such a system would function, if you want me to.
I think anyone who holds a position of trusted authority should come into the domain of 'checks and balances.' I think anyone who is excessively wealthy must be scrutinised by that domain. That is my version of 'big brother is watching you.' Big brother would become a label for the mass of the population of the planet. This is the way a good 'big brother,' was always supposed to be, in a human family. A guy who helped protect the family from nefarious b*******.

Limited land boundary. — universeness

That also applies to the globe. If you wanted to preserve some remnant of nature, humans would have to be limited ion what land they can occupy and exploit.

Limited knowledge base. — universeness

Why? Won't they all have internet access, once the economy and governance is technology based?

Living under a hierarchical authority system, often with a single leader at the top. — universeness

Who says? Tribal systems are organized in a great variety of ways, most of them far more egalitarian than what we now, with a bitter laugh, call democracies.

A small tribe on a big planet. — universeness

Many small tribes on a big planet beats all hell out of one ginormous tribe on a small planet.

Yeah but they don't live in a different universe, — universeness

Theirs is a self-created reality-bubble that they want to impose on the real world, which has already had a number of dystopian alternate realities imposed upon it.

That also applies to the globe. If you wanted to preserve some remnant of nature, humans would have to be limited ion what land they can occupy and exploit. — Vera Mont

They would still have such as freedom of travel.

Why? Won't they all have internet access, once the economy and governance is technology based? — Vera Mont

Yes, I was referring to older tribal systems.

Who says? Tribal systems are organized in a great variety of ways, most of them far more egalitarian than what we now, with a bitter laugh, call democracies. — Vera Mont

I say. Most tribal systems are similar and there is not a 'great variety' in the ways they operated. There is some variety yes, but not 'great variety.'

Many small tribes on a big planet beats all hell out of one ginormous tribe on a small planet. — Vera Mont

Do many individual bricks, beat the hell out of a wall or a home? Do many individual quarks and electrons, beat the hell out of atoms? Does a universe beat the hell out of one big multi-verse?

They would still have such as freedom of travel. — universeness

And why would members of tribes in a federation, not be more free to travel than citizens or nations are now?

Yes, I was referring to older tribal systems. — universeness

Even they were not restricted in knowledge. They travelled all the time - on explorations, personal quests, for trade and education. They exchanged skills, craft items, seeds, tools, geographical information and stories, as well as sons and daughters.

There is some variety yes, but not 'great variety.' — universeness

Read more.

Do many individual bricks, beat the hell out of a wall or a home? — universeness

Yes, if that home is built on a sinkhole. Besides, bricks are a lousy construction material. Not as bad a concrete, but pretty bad.

Does a universe beat the hell out of one big multi-verse? — universeness

How should I know? I haven't see either.

Read more. — Vera Mont

Right back at you! and watch more docs on old tribes!

Yes, if that home is built on a sinkhole — Vera Mont

Do people deliberately do that? :roll:

Do people deliberately do that? — universeness

No, they did it through a series of disastrous blunders. So no we're all sinking.

What was the point? — Vera Mont

This...

I think the bottom line here is that sapiens are not rational beings and therefore suggesting that morality is essentially rational, that it "is a matter of cause & effect" is false and misguided. Morality involves personal and shared values, identity, and intuitions that we may not even be consciously aware of. — praxis

I think anyone who is excessively wealthy must be scrutinised by that domain. That is my version of 'big brother is watching you.' Big brother would become a label for the mass of the population of the planet. This is the way a good 'big brother,' was always supposed to be, in a human family. A guy who helped protect the family from nefarious b*******. — universeness

I think if Orwell could have imagined an artificial general intelligence in 1949 his book 1984 would have been a bit different. Can you imagine the power of media manipulation and surveillance it could have? We appear to be rapidly approaching AGI and those who develop it, the excessively wealthy, will be in control.

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… ) — 0 thru 9

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?

One thing I am relatively sure of is the importance of education and I do not think education for technology and leaving moral training to the church is the best education for a civilization. Coming from Socrates and Plato I think good moral judgment is a vital part of education. And here I agree with Nietzsche. A pagan zeal for excellence may serve us better than being humble and passively enduring inequality and injustice.

I think if Orwell could have imagined an artificial general intelligence in 1949 his book 1984 would have been a bit different. Can you imagine the power of media manipulation and surveillance it could have? We appear to be rapidly approaching AGI and those who develop it, the excessively wealthy, will be in control. — praxis

I think we should consider that possibility.

Have you seen the British show "Humans"? It is pretty heavy as it pushes us to take another look at our values. Not everyone you see in this clip is a human. Some are programmed robots. A few of them have self-awareness. Do you want one?