What say you — schopenhauer1
I'm going to define politics as trying to or actually achieving influence/control over a community of people. — schopenhauer1
The first act of control over us is being born in the first place. — schopenhauer1
De facto, being born throws more workers into the grist mill of the economic-political system. The first coercive act is throwing a new human into the labor force to be used as a source of labor. Socialist/communist societies are more transparent that this is what a person is in a sociological setting. Capitalism has a gloss of "individualism" that simply puts a thin veil over the fact that the individual is used as a source of labor with the principle of the "invisible hand". We were never born for ourselves, but always on the account of another. — schopenhauer1
In fact, it is an impossibility to live for oneself — schopenhauer1
People are de facto coerced into laboring. This I believe to be a harm to the individual. — schopenhauer1
People are not free- they are social factors, social products. The individual, first person point of view, matters not in the political sphere. — schopenhauer1
they think they cannot live without — Tzeentch
Status? The urge to maintain a high standard of living? Social pressures?
The value of these matters is all illusory in nature. — Tzeentch
Like food, shelter, clothing... stuff like that. — Bitter Crank
Status requires a jealous crowd. No crowd, no status. — Bitter Crank
A lot of homeless people have other sorts of chains. Drug addiction, alcohol addiction, psychological problems, to name a few. — Tzeentch
Our definition of "I" is also effected by the demands of "civilization"... again mostly through the authority issue. A lot of the Bible is about defining the "I" in terms of authority. Such concepts are generally quite foreign to more cooperative non authoritarian lifestyles.
In fact they are often described as insane. — Bloginton Blakley
I think there is still structural suffering in all human life and lifestyles. — schopenhauer1
Doesn't come up that way in small groups. For example the plains Indian viewed conflict between tribes as a part of nature... a way of keeping their group strong and weeding out weaknesses. Also as a way of producing genetic diversity as raids were often for "wives". The idea of struggling over territory was very unusual. Such struggles generally start with agriculture. — Bloginton Blakley
To have more people be born in order to labor in a society is a harm to the individual, but no political theory puts this in consideration. — schopenhauer1
So, humanity is some 200,000 years old. For the first 190,000 human population peaked at around 5-10 million. Then during the agricultural revolution populations grew to about 1 billion. Finally the industrial revolution we gained another 6 billion people or so.
So we can see across the three ages of human society that only in the last 10,000 years has labor even been an issue.
On the other hand, it is true that any individual born now can be expected to be used by society. The "civilized" world is incredibly harsh in terms of what humans were evolved to deal with. Which is why Zinn reports that over the course of the US Indian wars lots of civilized people joined Indian tribes to live as they do, while no Indian voluntarily gave up their birthright for civilization. Some Indians traveled... mostly as diplomats, but all if given a choice returned to live an "uncivilized" life.
Yes structural pain is a main component of our current politics. No this is not a requirement of the human experience.
Very interesting conversation.
Thanks. — Bloginton Blakley
choosing for someone to be born, is to bring someone who will try to enculturate and labor for society. — schopenhauer1
The exchange of work and rewards in mass society is just a lot more rococo than it is in simple societies, and it's harder to keep track of the simple details. Not working, and being a consumer of goods and services, is a real role in mass industrialized mature capitalism. Children fill that roll for at least 18 to 26 years, depending on how long they are in school. Everyone receiving support for old age and disabilities fits into that group. And of course, the idle rich parasites.
Consuming without working is an absolutely essential function. In a modern economy (like ours currently is) where consumption amounts to 72% of the GDP, buying stuff -- consuming -- is an essential task. Buying stuff is dirty work, but somebody has to do it. — Bitter Crank
Of course, if we consumed less some people would have to work less. — Bitter Crank
Suppose automation took over all work -- from raising food to high fashion. Would being born still be such a bad deal? E. M. Forster wrote a science fiction noel around a century ago, The Machine Stops. In it machines supplied everything we needed. Individuals lived in 6 sided cells (not prison cells, more like bee hive cells) where everything they needed was supplied by The Machine. The function of people was to produce and consume ideas. One had to apply to the directorate to be a parent. That was all fine and dandy for a long time, until The Machine started wearing out and eventually stopped. Bad things happened at that point. — Bitter Crank
Nature just wants us to keep laboring. :wink: — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.