Unfortunately, I think that for the best idea to work it requires an enlightened society, and even then the prospects are dubious. Many current trends seem to be anti-enlightenment.

I just hope that's not true as I have to believe that we can do so much better, than our bloody history exemplifies. We have achieved incredible, ingenious, solutions to the terrible and terrifying dangers we faced from our environment and from each other, as we went through and left our jungle based beginnings. Despite all the wars, natural disasters and the actions of the nefarious amongst us, there are more people alive today, than there have ever been in the past 13.8 billion years. Over-population is now a problem, only because of who is in control of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

More advances in technology and automation would indeed help us become a united species and a united planet, where everyone can take their basic means of survival for granted, but only if such tech advances, are not controlled exclusively by a nefarious rich and powerful few.
I know you are more referring to AI surpassing humans and replacing us in the governance of us. I am for stopping that from happening.

I understand and you are correct, we need to all become more enlightened, but far too many of us are just not there yet, so as Ocean Colour Scene sang , "we gotta fight some more."

What's the alternative? Are you willing to now throw your hands up in jaded despair, and declare, We are all f*****, we don't deserve to exist, we have failed to be a net positive in this universe and we can NEVER achieve better. I just cannot and will not do that!!!! Can you? Will you?

A socialist grass roots movement, launched after an independent Scotland is realised? or a new grass roots socialist movement within the whole of Britain? — universeness

For best possible outcome, I would hope for the second.

I would start with something more simple like a national campaign to officially remove the 'Great' from 'Great Britain' or officially remove the name 'United KINGdom,' and the British Monarchy. — universeness

Save your campaign funds. You just lost a fair chunk, if the not the majority, of the working class. People don't like 'greatness' taken from their self-image. Not too sure they'd go along with abolishing the monarchy, either. Maybe in a couple of generations - but by then all the stalwart trade unionists will have died off, too.

As the USA 2024 election gets closer, I do get the impression from online American folks discussing such, that this is almost a civil war of words, that could really turn into violent insurrection. Perhaps the most important election ever held on the planet.
Would you agree with that? Do you think it's that bad? — universeness

The American civil war never really ended. The South has been nurturing the hope of rising again, has never concealed its smouldering resentment of the North or stopped displaying its defiant secessionist icons. Now, CW II is palpably close, it' very likely to break out. There are some interesting question associated with that prospect. However it turns out, it can only be bad for an awful lot of people and devastating for the country.

Are you willing to now throw your hands up in jaded despair, and declare, We are all f*****, we don't deserve to exist, we have failed to be a net positive in this universe and we can NEVER achieve better. — universeness

I didn't say any of that. Accepting that we're animals and unable to control ourselves isn't giving up. Stoicism is realizing that we have all but no control and doing what we can with the little control that we do have.

Speaking of socialism, this guy was in the news the other day for blatantly saying the quiet part out loud...


I guess people like this just want to be kings and fuck everyone else?

Well, I haven't been a humanist since Old World conquistadors and colonial settlers genocided New World peoples and built empires via the Atlantic slave trade and centuries of indentured seritude. I've also given up on utopias since the Stalinist purges, Mao's "Cultural Revolution" and the fall of "The Thousand Year Reich". And what has the "Greatest Generation" wrought with the "freedom" they have defended or won? Corporate globalism and its laissez-faire collapsing of the Holocene (aka "the Anthropocene" of accelerating catastrophic climate change, etc). The tragic mismatch of Stone Age brains – amplified by our primate glands and Bronze Age superstitions – with the current Information Age is undeniable: h. sapiens is, in the main, a delusional, tribalistic species

Perhaps, if our species continues long enough to be very lucky, 'networks' of local / micro, post-scarcity, economic democracies (e.g. self-sufficient space habitats / terrestrial arcologies) will be achieved — 180 Proof

If I had to bet on 'our future', I'd bet on the posthuman tribes of less than a few percentages of the teeming global population in the coming decades or centuries. Our synthetic children might be our genome's salvation.

Our synthetic children might be our genome's salvation. — 180 Proof

Unless the mutant ants take a dislike to them. Maybe it's time for another species to be dominant.

:up:

Save your campaign funds. You just lost a fair chunk, if the not the majority, of the working class. People don't like 'greatness' taken from their self-image. Not too sure they'd go along with abolishing the monarchy, either. Maybe in a couple of generations - but by then all the stalwart trade unionists will have died off, too. — Vera Mont

'Great' Britain originally just referred to an area that was bigger than that occupied by the ancient Britons/Celtic Britons. It was also a way to distinguish us from the French Bretons (sometimes called lesser Britain). My problem with it comes due to it's later connection with the British Empire as 'the greatest empire in history' and as an indication of military might. 'Great' used to indicate power rather than as a comparison to a lesser physical area. I would like to dilute the 'mighty' notion of empire that imo, acts as a barrier to Britain becoming a socialist nation. The empire legacy has to be 'dealt with'/accounted for/moved past, for us to grow up, and become something far better.

The union of the crowns and the union of the parliaments were not democratic processes. This place became the UK, mostly via forced conquest and the collusions of vile familial dynastic nobility groups who were spawned from early tribes, from the early Celts / Germanic Saxons and Angles / Romans/ Vikings (who founded the Norman French) etc. We need to become a democratic union of peoples as we have never been a united kingdom. Either that or we become separate, independent nations and then hopefully join in 'federation.'

Our Monarchy is a legacy/spawn of all that is bad about how 'Great' Britain and our 'un-United KINGdom, came to be and we must first deal with all that, if we are ever to earn a worthwhile socialist/secular humanist better future. It just requires a grown up debate, a large amount of campaign funds would not be needed imo, just a lot of time investment from dedicated volunteers.

I didn't say any of that. Accepting that we're animals and unable to control ourselves isn't giving up. Stoicism is realizing that we have all but no control and doing what we can with the little control that we do have. — praxis

Good to know that you will do what you can to help.

Well, I haven't been a humanist since ....... — 180 Proof

I continue to keep putting a sticky label of doomster on you and then pulling it off again as many of your posts seem very socialist and secular to me. The glue on the label is now compromised. I am sure you see good in humans as well as bad.

Maybe it's time for another species to be dominant. — Vera Mont

↪Vera Mont :up: — 180 Proof

I knew you two would find common ground! :lol:

My problem with it comes due to it's later connection with the British Empire as 'the greatest empire in history' and as an indication of military might. — universeness

Your problem means nothing to the average working yob. Nor does the historical background. There are still old imperialists who take pride in past 'glory'. If you want to encourage a grass roots movement, you need in sync with grass roots sentiment.

I knew you two would find common ground! — universeness

Cassandras of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose that's not already lost.

Your problem means nothing to the average working yob. Nor does the historical background. There are still old imperialists who take pride in past 'glory'. If you want to encourage a grass roots movement, you need in sync with grass roots sentiment. — Vera Mont

Hey! I am down with da kids round about Glesga, Scotland, Britain and da world!!
Rather than strong unionists dying out naturally, (I think they reform just as strong, in each new generation) I think it's the old imperialists you mention, who are dying out (good riddance).
The grass roots movements I mentioned have started and have actually been around in Scotland since Thatcher's demise. I am in sync with them but I am not a direct part anymore because I am now so against party politics. I am still affiliated however.
Addition: Scottish Young Socialists!

Cassandras of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose that's not already lost. — Vera Mont

:lol: Hey @180 Proof does this ring true 'bout' you?
"Trojan priestess dedicated to the god Apollo and fated by him to utter true prophecies but never to be believed."

It was about how Americans regard individual freedom of action and what they're willing to sacrifice for it. — Vera Mont

Let me begin by telling you know how much I appreciate how your post pushed me to a new realization of a better way to explain the importance of education transmitting a culture.

What you said is a nice popular mythology. Let us check it out with a Sumerian story.

Gilgamesh, the best known of all ancient Mesopotamian heroes. Numerous tales in the Akkadian language have been told about Gilgamesh, and the whole collection has been described as an odyssey—the odyssey of a king who did not want to die.

Gilgamesh | Epic, Summary, & Facts - Britannica — Britannica

In this odyssey is a character from the back woods who is not civilized. He behaves more like an animal than a citizen of the city. This uncouth, backwoods person wants his freedom and will live or die for his freedom. Is this something to be proud of, to be like an animal rather than a civilized person who understands the reasoning of law and is willing to give up some of his freedom for the benefit of living in a civilization?

Uneducated people are not honorably defending freedom because they know nothing of the principles on which honor is built. They know what they want and like a dog will fight to have what they want. This is the mentality of Trump followers. They have permission to be so uncivilized from Neitzche, who they never read but thanks to colleges Neitzche has penetrated our shared consciousness. His Superman who is superior and does not have to follow the rules is very attractive to men like Trump, they have disdain for the civilized whimps. Their understanding of making America great again is contaminated by Neitzche or just raw backwoods mentality. "I want it so I will take it."

Please give me feedback so I can know if I am getting close to a good explanation or not. Thank you.

Is without purpose, if that's all you do! I did a lot of weekend pub/disco, adventure/indulgence etc but I worked hard during the rest of the week and managed to complete an apprenticeship, study at night schools, complete an honours degree course at uni, a postgrad in education and had a 30 year teaching career. I was never unfaithful to anyone in that time and only had two serious relationships in my life. I was engaged twice but both relationships failed. No kids, thank goodness. I am not against having kids but I agree that it's important to have as stable and as strong a support system established, as you can possibly achieve, before you do. Including contingency plans.

The trouble with the main quote above, is that the 'god' label is so soiled with woo woo, and pernicious scriptures, that it's use in any paragraph, which is designed to make a moral statement or give moral advice to others, simply totally fails, imo.
I would reword the quote above as:
"A person of grace is a person of strength and humility. Human grace, is a definition of excellence, not a supernatural being, but a human potential. I believe we are healthier with a concept of grace, that brings out the best in us. This is possible without superstition. This possibility depends on knowing truth. Truth is in harmony with nature. Superstition is not."

The Greeks had their three charities/graces. Three goddess inventions. Wiki describes them.
Aglaia represented elegance, brightness and splendor
Thalia represented youth, beauty and good cheer
Euphrosyne represented mirth and or joyfulness

Education should utterly remove the need for such child like notions, imo.
Notions of Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Brahma etc, are absolutely no different to these three Greek metaphors, for desired human states/ predilections. — universeness

As usual, your post is so profound I am a bit overwhelmed. My thought seems very little compared to the concepts of your explanation however for the sake of discussion I will proceed with my peppercorn of a thought. :smile:

What is important here is the concept. Without a god/concept how do we think about our higher potential? How do we lift ourselves above the animal kingdom? :heart:

When I write of logos as "reason, the controlling force of the universe", I am cutting short the Webster Dictionary explanation of logos. The fuller explanation says, "made manifest in speech". I stop there because I want to avoid notions of the Creator (noun)while speaking of the creation (verb). But you kind of push me in a corner where the power of a concept must be explored. :heart:

I keep putting in hearts to convey I love it when I am forced to think about what I think. Does it exist before there is a concept of it, or does the concept come first? Was it made manifest when a god spoke? Do we manifest it when we become aware of the concept?

I think stories to explain our concepts are essential and perhaps we should be more tolerant of our human condition of having to learn so much because we are not born knowing it all. All the gods and goddesses are concepts and we learn of these concepts through stories. Rather than saying they do not exist, I would say they are real but this does not mean they are individual supernatural gods. A concept is not a being. A concept is of the mind. The separate concepts must be named before they can exist in our consciousness. :chin:

We need a god so we can project all our notions of goodness into the god. Their projection of goodness is what makes supernatural beings so real to those who believe in them, and their belief can work miracles. The concepts are real and can be effective. :grimace: Does any of this work for you?

What you said is a nice popular mythology. — Athena

I meant it as refutation of the nice popular mythology of the rugged individualist, Davy Crockett spirit of America: barely constrained personal freedom; unbounded national ambition.
Of course it was never true: of the 2.5 million American citizens, only adult white unindentured males had any freedom at all, and for most of those men, freedom was limited by economic and social constraints.

The notion of individual liberty was false then and is even more false now, but people keep waving flags and supporting antisocial policies in defense of the illusion.

It's nothing to do Gilgamesh or ancient Mesopotamia.

They know what they want and like a dog will fight to have what they want. This is the mentality of Trump followers. — Athena

They have no frickin idea what they want or why. They have a long-nurtured sense of grievance and want revenge, want their 'manhood', want things to be like the good old days that weren't, when they were masters over Africans, Indians and wimmin. Trump promised to make America "great again" - which means, make America theirs again.

It's nothing to do with dogs, a loyal species that will fight to the death not only for its own pack rights and offspring but for its human masters.

"I want it so I will take it." — Athena

That's the sociopath they follow, not the masses who are swayed by folksy rhetoric.

I meant it as refutation of the nice popular mythology of the rugged individualist, Davy Crockett spirit of America: barely constrained personal freedom; unbounded national ambition.
Of course it was never true: of the 2.5 million American citizens, only adult white unindentured males had any freedom at all, and for most of those men, freedom was limited by economic and social constraints.

The notion of individual liberty was false then and is even more false now, but people keep waving flags and supporting antisocial policies in defense of the illusion.

It's nothing to do Gilgamesh or ancient Mesopotamia. — Vera Mont

Gilgamesh and the present have something to do with human nature. We need to be careful about our understanding of freedom.

We have more agreement than disagreement. In early adulthood, I realized I knew nothing about economics and that knowing something about economics was essential to success. Our ignorance keeps us slaves to those who provide our labor and the bankers. The best reason I can think of for schools neglecting this important part of our education is we are not attracted to economics. High school students want economics classes as much as they want math classes. Sure some nerds want that information but not the average student.

However, as long as we had a wilderness to the west, we had real freedom. I think that is something we should be aware of when considering economic matters. We no longer have that wilderness and we might want to update our thinking with today's reality.

Almost daily, where I live, the homeless are in the news. When Reagan was our President he said we don't have homeless people, just bums. That was a lie and people loved it. Reason scapegoated the poor so he could slash domestic budgets and pour all resources into military spending. Today the pressure is to do something about the growing homeless problem. A totally different reality from Reagan's day.

We need to wake up to reality and I think that is as likely as high school students demanding a class in economics. But as things keep getting worse there is hope we will eventually want to understand our changing world and new realities.

High school students want economics classes as much as they want math classes. — Athena

At least the math is accurate and true. They can apply it to non-capitalist-propagandized economics later, should they be so inclined.

However, as long as we had a wilderness to the west, we had real freedom. — Athena

"We" - white protestant males - had freedom to kill and displace Indians, extirpate entire species of plant and animal, blast holes in mountains, clear-cut hillsides, drain swamps, divert and dam rivers, disrupt ecological balance, claim land and mineral rights. That's the kind of freedom still being touted to debt-slaves and wage-slaves, the disenfranchised and marginalized.
Even back then, the women and children, indentured and enslaved people were unfree as well as unsafe. The big commercial franchises with government patronage - mining, rail, mail, weapons - had a whole lot more freedom, plus the capability to exploit imported labour, who had none or very little freedom and no rights.

We need to wake up to reality and I think that is as likely as high school students demanding a class in economics. But as things keep getting worse there is hope we will eventually want to understand our changing world and new realities. — Athena

Sure... assuming there is an eventuality in store for any humans at all. I'm quite convinced there isn't one for the united states of America... unless, of course, it's reconfigured into several separate unions. The current arrangement isn't working and has never worked for more than a few decades at a time, and even in those periods, for only part of the population.

We need a god so we can project all our notions of goodness into the god. Their projection of goodness is what makes supernatural beings so real to those who believe in them, and their belief can work miracles. The concepts are real and can be effective. :grimace: Does any of this work for you? — Athena

It might have, hundreds of years ago, but not now. I understand your 'use' of the gods as folklore which has value in it's representations of human dilemma, human desires, human projections and even human politics and human morality, but, notice how often I used the word human and not god.
The basic disagreement between us is that you believe the god and goddess representations still have value for humans. One of my goals is to convince as many people as I can that we have progressed enough in the past 10,000 years of tears to rid ourselves of them. The Klingon advice and reasoning below, works very well for me.



I also loved the god representation and the dilemma's (depicted in the disagreement between Bashir and O'Brian) offered in this clip. We have plenty of modern stories we can make use of Athena. We don't need all those old ones that have been so soiled and twisted and manipulated into the pernicious affects organised religion, peddled as the real words of real gods have on the everyday lives of humans. We can't continue to be the knuckle dragging moronic god victims, depicted as the Jem'Hadar, in this clip.

"We" - white protestant males - had freedom to kill and displace Indians, extirpate entire species of plant and animal, blast holes in mountains, clear-cut hillsides, drain swamps, divert and dam rivers, disrupt ecological balance, claim land and mineral rights. — Vera Mont

Those bad things were not rights. They were a failure to know better. Greek philosophy, if it gets good results it is good/moral. If it gets bad results it is bad/immoral. When our understanding is limited to knowledge of ourselves, we can think everything that benefits us in the moment is good, however, if it harms another animal or human or the environment, then it is harmful and not good/immoral. We may be unaware of the harm we have done, but sooner or later it becomes a problem. It may take 3 generations before the problem is so bad we are made aware of it. For example, slavery benefitted a handful of people and they knew they were facing a problem but they did not end the wrong and now we are dealing with that wrong daily. This is the importance of understanding logos rather than believing in a god who punishes and rewards people depending on whether he is pleased or angered. That belief stands in the way of good reasoning.

Sure... assuming there is an eventuality in store for any humans at all. I'm quite convinced there isn't one for the united states of America... unless, of course, it's reconfigured into several separate unions. The current arrangement isn't working and has never worked for more than a few decades at a time, and even in those periods, for only part of the population. — Vera Mont

And this is why I argue so passionately! Immediately, we would see huge improvements if we replaced autocratic Industry with a democratic model and we had education for democracy preparing the future generations to be self-ruling no matter what happens. They could be reduced to a small band of people wandering the earth and sharing it with other nomadic tribes and they would know how to best organize for the best chances of surviving and maybe even thriving.

Those bad things were not rights. — Athena

They were rights under American law. You have no power to rescind them, and they continue to go unpunished. Indeed, many of the fortunes acquired then, by those methods, continue in the possession of similar people through inheritance and consolidation. The privilege accruing to those robber barons is still enjoyed by their descendants.

They were a failure to know better. — Athena

Horsefeathers! When you kill someone they end up dead - you can't fail to notice. You can't not know that someone chained up in the damp, dark, rat-infested cargo hold of a ship is unhappy. You don't whip them to make them feel better: you do it to hurt them.
People were not any dumber than we are. Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. And morality wasn't invented in 400BCE Athens: stone age people knew right and wrong. They also knew that what is detrimental to one person may benefit another, so as long as the benefit is to them and the harm - no matter how much or how grievous a harm - is to a designated scapegoat, it's fine.
People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line?
Much worse, they very often go out of their way to do harm when they have nothing to gain, out of hate, fear, resentment, to satisfy a lust, or simply for entertainment.

Immediately, we would see huge improvements if we replaced autocratic Industry with a democratic model and we had education for democracy preparing the future generations to be self-ruling no matter what happens. — Athena

That would have worked in 1270 or 900BCE or 1795 or 1928. Didn't happen then; doesn't happen now. Not because people didn't know it would be better for most of them, but because the ones with the power to bring about that change will exert every erg of that power to prevent it.

People were not any dumber than we are. — Vera Mont

But they did know a lot less about 'the big picture,' the planet they lived on and the universe they exist within. They had no notion of 'pale blue dot,' for example or the cosmic calendar scale.

Human brain capacity hasn't changed much since Neanderthal man. — Vera Mont

True, except the Neandertals were a different species to us. Related yes, but not the same species.
You might find this interesting:
Neanderthals had bigger brains than people today.
In any textbook on human evolution, you’ll find that fact, often accompanied by measurements of endocranial volume, the space inside a skull. On average, this value is about 1410 cm3 (~6 cups) for Neanderthals and 1350 cm3 (5.7 cups) for recent humans.
So does that quarter-cup of brain matter, matter? Were Neanderthals smarter than our kind?
While brain size is important, cognitive abilities are influenced by numerous factors including body size, neuron density and how particular brain regions are enlarged and connected. Some of these variables are unknowable for Neanderthals, as we only have their cranial bones and not their brains. But anthropologists have made the most of these hollow skulls, to learn what they can about the Neanderthal mind.

People then, just like the people now, just like the people in ancient times, knew what they were doing. They didn't care, just as they don't care now, what damage results from serving their short-term gains.
Who gives a damn what happens three generations down the line? — Vera Mont

True for the ones in control, not so true for those given the choice to kill/abuse those who their masters instructed them to, or face their own demise and the deliberate demise/starvation of their loved ones.
Depicted in Braveheart. Via the Bob the Bruce characterisation: "Men fight for me because if they don't then I will throw them off their lands and starve their wives and children."

because the ones with the power to bring about that change will exert every erg of that power to prevent it. — Vera Mont

Soooooo true in the case of the nefarious rich! That's why the battle against them is so hard and rate of progress so glacial. But nonetheless undeniable.

Addition: We even had the theists trying to appease their god invention by having the likes of Jesus, speaking to his trinity self with the words 'Forgive them father (of forgive them trinity), for they know not what they do"
The ESV translation of Luke 23:34 says, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” How's that for a get out of jail free card?

But they did know a lot less about 'the big picture,' the planet they lived on and the universe they exist within. They had no notion of 'pale blue dot,' for example or the cosmic calendar scale. — universeness

What's that to do with robbing, killing, dispossessing and enslaving other people, in the name of their own freedom?

True for the ones in control, not so true for those given the choice to kill/abuse those who their masters instructed them to, or face their own demise and the deliberate demise/starvation of their loved ones. — universeness

You mean most of the pillaging and killing was done under duress? An even bigger pile of horsefeathers! The ones in control wouldn't be in control without all the willing henchmen, lackeys and mercenaries who expect rewards for their service. Settlers wanted the land; the government sent the army to clear the Indians off it. Prospectors wanted gold; farmers wanted water; cattle ranchers wanted grazing rights; lumber barons wanted the redwoods. Thieves don't all steal for Fagin and drug dealers sell to kids, knowing it's bad for them. Neither ignorance nor coercion are acceptable excuses: they know what they're doing and why.

We even had the theists trying to appease their god invention by having the likes of Jesus, speaking to his trinity self with the words 'Forgive them father , for they know not what they do" — universeness

I always thought that was incredibly silly - not unlike your excuse for Custer.
Jesus was always meant to be a redeemer. He was created expressly to pay for the sins of that young couple who pissed off Jehovah by nicking one apple, literally before they knew any better. The cutest part is, they were cast out of Eden in order to keep them from taking also of the Tree of Life and becoming immortal. So, Jesus was to die as a human, to issue humans a ticket to heaven so they could live forever.
*(of forgive them trinity) The trinity wasn't invented until 400 years later.

An even bigger pile of horsefeathers! — Vera Mont

:grin: Not a term I am familiar with? The only horses I have heard of with feathers are mythical flying ones like Pegasus, but google explained it to me with:
Horsefeathers are not literal feathers that you see on birds. They are long, sometimes very thick hair that grows on a horse’s lower legs, fetlocks (ankles), and pasterns. Some breeds have more feathers than others. The feathers help protect the horse’s leg from water and hazards, such as rocks and prickly bushes.

So, I learned something new, and my brain has the capacity to learn that which for me is new information. Brain capacity has not got much to do with intelligence or wisdom. A relatively empty, high capacity, vessel could be a description of the brain of many humans, past and present.

What's that to do with robbing, killing, dispossessing and enslaving other people, in the name of their own freedom? — Vera Mont

It's got to do with the very large range of monotonic greys between your rather black and white treatment of the area. Do you think evil people are born or created via there own experiences?
I am sure you would agree, it's probably both but many many more are created than born, would be my bet.
Some folks are brutalised from day 1. I may slaughter innocents because my innocents were slaughtered and I was unable to understand that two wrongs don't make a right.
I think many more of us now accept that an eye for an eye makes everyone blind.

You mean most of the pillaging and killing was done under duress? — Vera Mont

No, but do you accept that some of it was?

The ones in control wouldn't be in control without all the willing henchmen, lackeys and mercenaries who expect rewards for their service. — Vera Mont

True, but that is just the main 'gang,' does that make every soldier who has ever fought in a battle, a gangster?

Settlers wanted the land — Vera Mont

Settlers wanted a better life for their family and for themselves. I agree that many of them knew exactly what was happening to the indigenous people and did not care, others were too dumb to know/understand, some excused themselves, by claiming that god chose them to run this land and some arrived way after the indigenous people had been removed, and assumed that the land was waiting for them, unoccupied or that the original owners left, because they wanted to.

Thieves don't all steal for Fagin and drug dealers sell to kids, knowing it's bad for them. — Vera Mont

No, some of them did it to survive, as at that time in their life, they could see no other way. If another way was offered to them, I am sure most would have taken it.

Neither ignorance nor coercion are acceptable excuses: they know what they're doing and why. — Vera Mont

So if I came after that which you loved most in this life and gained full control over it and I threatened to destroy it, if you did not comply with a task I insisted you perform. You would feel able to deal with that? and you feel all people should be able to deal with such situations?

not unlike your excuse for Custer. — Vera Mont

Any excuses I might offer, may come from detailed investigations into the lives of some of Custers soldiers, certainly not Custer.
I try to judge people on a case by case basis, rather than suggest something like all German, Japanese and Italian people, or even all members of the German, Japanese and Italian forces in WW II were evil, Nazi b*******. I am not suggesting you are doing that, but you do seem to be suggesting that every member of the 7th Cavalry who was killed at little big horn, was as bad and as guilty as Custer.

The trinity wasn't invented until 400 years later. — Vera Mont

Some new information can help folks become more enlightened and some sends them deeper into confusion and division with their fellows. Our big brain capacity is merely a potential. Becoming an enlightened human with a progressive moral compass was much harder to achieve in the past than it is now imo.

Not a term I am familiar with? — universeness

Okay. How about horsepuckies? It's less polite.

It's got to do with the very large range of monotonic greys between your rather black and white treatment of the area. — universeness

Athena claimed that Americans had true freedom as long as the western wilderness existed. I pointed out that the freedom was limited to few Americans at the expense of many others, both human and non.
Nothing to do with big pictures, space travel, Scottish independence or brain capacity. The white settlers and their government were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions and considered it within their right to do whatever it took to get what they wanted. It's not that complicated.

I am not suggesting you are doing that, but you do seem to be suggesting that every member of the 7th Cavalry who was killed at little big horn, was as bad and as guilty as Custer. — universeness

I wasn't allocating individual guilt. Only mentioned that Custer could not have forced any soldier to slaughter Indians if most of them were unwilling, any more than Custer himself was forced to accept the commission.
The fact is: the American polity wanted westward expansion. Settlers and prospectors were already in the territory, the Lakota, Arapaho and Cheyenne were in their way. So the government, rather than move the relatively few white people, chose to break its treaty and sent in the army to move the Natives. The Natives won that round and there followed a major military campaign to force them into reservations - where they still are, pale blue dot or no. Somebody takes; somebody dies. If that stark reality doesn't fit the grey spectrum or the American mythos of rugged individuals taming a wilderness, too bad.

Okay. How about horsepuckies? It's less polite. — Vera Mont

No, I have never heard of that term either, let's settle on horseshit, we will both have heard of that one, even though ( As George Bernard Shaw suggested) we are separated by a common language.

Athena claimed that Americans had true freedom as long as the western wilderness existed. I pointed out that the freedom was limited to few Americans at the expense of many others, both human and non.
Nothing to do with big pictures, space travel, Scottish independence or brain capacity. The white settlers and their government were perfectly aware of the consequences of their actions and considered it within their right to do whatever it took to get what they wanted. It's not that complicated. — Vera Mont

That was the very point I was trying to make to you Vera and to Athena, I don't agree with either of your notions of 'true freedom' on this mote of dust/pale blue dot. It's the 'big picture' that's far more important.
Do you not agree that our species is still in it's infancy? You are suggesting that those in history had the same ability as we have today, to make better decisions than they did. I agree with you that some did but there were far less enlightened and less educated people in the past, than there are now.
The entire knowledge base we have gathered, due to all historical efforts made to memorialise such, so far, is, imo, tiny, compared to what we don't know. That's true freedom for me! The freedom to seek that which we currently don't know.

I wasn't allocating individual guilt. The fact is: the American polity wanted westward expansion, and the Indians were in their way. So the government broke its treaty and sent in the army. The Indians won that round, so there followed a major military campaign to force them into reservations - where they still are, pale blue dot or no. Somebody takes; somebody dies. If that stark reality doesn't fit the grey spectrum or the American mythos of rugged individuals taming a wilderness, too bad. — Vera Mont

Your generalised historical description of those events are accurate and you know I fully agree that they cannot be justified. My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? I would also say to @Athena, that I think such improvements in general enlightenment, are happening, despite regressive god posit influences or old Greco/Roman fables. My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few.

I don't agree with either of your notions of 'true freedom' — universeness

On what what do you base your opinion of my notion of freedom when it was never mentioned - except by Athena in a misunderstanding. I was referring to the American myth: land of the free, home of the brave.

It's the 'big picture' that's far more important. — universeness

To what? Not a discussion of American history and education.
Why do you keep going off into space?

Do you not agree that our species is still in it's infancy? — universeness

No. I believe this is our dotage. Bucket list time. We stopped evolving some 40,000 years ago. Since then, it's been accelerating technological progress, but only one major change in social direction at around 7,000 BCE: from the first city states to the present, there has been no appreciable progress in our thinking. Everything the philosophers and political organizers and legal reformers have done since Ur was a repeat of some experiment that had already been tried somewhere, sometime for some duration.

You are suggesting that those in history had the same ability as we have today, to make better decisions than they did. — universeness

Of course they did. Same choices, same decision we're still making. "Better" and "worse" are a matter of perspective. Good for one, bad for another; winners and losers.

That's true freedom for me! The freedom to seek that which we currently don't know. — universeness

Commendable. Entirely off topic, but lovely.

My question to you then becomes. Do you think many more humans, all around the planet, now utterly condemn those events, than ever have in the past? — universeness

I doubt it. Everyone is nostalgic for the recent past (especially if they were on top) and disparaging of the distant past, when people didn't know any better. "So sorry for the massacre at Wounded Knee. Support our troops in Afghanistan."

If you agree, then does that not speak well for the progression of the general enlightenment of our species? — universeness

Not with all those missile silos and landmines, deep water oil rigs and container ships, it don't.

My main argument with you Vera , is, as you know, your at times, general disdain of your entire species, because of the vile actions of a nefarious few. — universeness

And my disdain comes from the vile actions of multitudes in the service of the nefarious few, whom vast crowds worship and obey.

On what what do you base your opinion of my notion of freedom when it was never mentioned - except by Athena in a misunderstanding. I was referring to the American myth: land of the free, home of the brave. — Vera Mont

A fair criticism. I perhaps did make some assumptions about your notions of 'true freedom,' by projection rather than by clear statement from you. You seem to me to be quite dismissive of the notion of the global unity of our species, due to our individual notions of personal freedom, but I accept that might just have been my misinterpretation. Am I wrong in my assumption that you think competition between humans will ultimately defeat the benefits of co-operation, even though your personal political stance is socialist?

To what? Not a discussion of American history and education.
Why do you keep going off into space? — Vera Mont

I think, because that's were I think our future lies and we can't allow our bloody past to continually delay that purpose. I hate that notions of territoriality, xenophobia, the money trick, BS religious fear, etc, keeps so many pinned on and to this little Earth.

Of course they did. Same choices, same decision we're still making. "Better" and "worse" are a matter of perspective. Good for one, bad for another; winners and losers. — Vera Mont

No, for me, that's just too rigid and not nuanced enough.

That's true freedom for me! The freedom to seek that which we currently don't know.
— universeness
Commendable. Entirely off topic, but lovely. — Vera Mont

Not imo, if the topic is 'culture is critical,' but I appreciate your encouragement.

I doubt it. Everyone is nostalgic for the recent past (especially if they were on top) and disparaging of the distant past, when people didn't know any better. "So sorry for the massacre at Wounded Knee. Support our troops in Afghanistan." — Vera Mont

Why do you not also type, 'There are many many Americans who were against the American invasion of Afghanistan. Would you say that today, most Americans consider wounded knee an atrocity?

Not with all those missile silos and landmines, deep water oil rigs and container ships, it don't. — Vera Mont

No attempt at balance? by at least mentioning the global movements trying to achieve global ecological protections, nuclear arms reductions, better and stronger welfare systems, better social care systems, improved political cooperation, cooperative space exploration and development, more cooperation between national science universities, improving attempts to feed, house and educate more of the poor, etc. I am not suggesting that we are in anyway doing enough, or easily winning the battle that co-operation and not competition is the only way forwards, but it seems to me that you are rather fixed on the negatives.
Did you not recently post here that many good folks are still fighting the good fight?

And my disdain comes from the vile actions of multitudes in the service of the nefarious few, whom vast crowds worship and obey. — Vera Mont

I then must assume (but again I admit I may be projecting again, as you have not actually stated this) that you think those who don't fit into your category above, are too few and too weak to defeat the group you disdain. Perhaps it is on that point, that we disagree most.

You seem to me to be quite dismissive of the notion of the global unity of our species, due to our individual notions of personal freedom, but I accept that might just have been my misinterpretation. — universeness

Right and wrong. I think global unity is a very good idea that will continue to fail - just as the EU is failing. But not because of any notions of personal freedom. Because of stupidity, gullibility and myopia.

My idea of freedom is quite different and way, way off topic here. Might be worth a thread of its own to see whether people's idea of freedom as varied as their idea of meaning.

I think, because that's were I think our future lies — universeness

Well, fine. You can fly off and contaminate other solar systems, but it's still not relevant to Athena's ambitions to reset US educational standards to pre WWII.

Why do you not also type, 'There are many many Americans who were against the American invasion of Afghanistan. Would you say that today, most Americans consider wounded knee an atrocity? — universeness

Many may be against invading Afghanistan, but the nation as whole supported it. Minorities don't make the crucial decisions - but still have to pay the costs. If you said "Wounded Knee" to them most Americans would stare at you like fish on ice at the market. If you said "atrocity" to them, most Americans would say "9-11... baaastaards!" But some might recognize Wounded Knee and say, "Well, they didn't know any better back then."

No attempt at balance? — universeness

What for? There is no balance. One nuke can take out two dozen of those wonderful improvements, just as one Christian mob took out the library at Alexandria. And there are lots and lots of nukes out there, pointed at all of them. Thing is, you can list all the progress you want, but it's been done before on some smaller scale, and it's all been destroyed before. As long as this scale of destruction is in the control of the least stable, least reliable, least nuanced and most self-assured people in the world, nothing is safe. The particulars change; the situation remains the same.

Did you not recently post here that many good folks are still fighting the good fight? — universeness

Yes, I'm aware of them. My heart goes out to them.

I then must assume (but again I admit I may be projecting again, as you have not actually stated this) that you think those who don't fit into your category above, are too few and too weak to defeat the group you disdain. — universeness

Yes.

Perhaps it is on that point, that we disagree most. — universeness

Yes. The difference is that, though I still have the same ideals, my illusions have been blown to ratshit. I preserved their remains in fiction, like Cinderella in the glass coffin. Who knows - maybe someday a prince will come and resurrect them.

My idea of freedom is quite different and way, way off topic here. Might be worth a thread of its own to see whether people's idea of freedom as varied as their idea of meaning. — Vera Mont

:up:

You can fly off and contaminate other solar systems — Vera Mont

That's a horrible view you have of what humans do. That comment/opinion reminded me of the character Agent Smith, from the matrix:

Yes. The difference is that, though I still have the same ideals, my illusions have been blown to ratshit. I preserved their remains in fiction, like Cinderella in the glass coffin. Who knows - maybe someday a prince will come and resurrect them. — Vera Mont

I hope you wont take this the wrong way Vera, but I do feel sad, perhaps even pity, for the burden you carry, as a socialist who has been so jaded and disappointed by those you sought to help and that which you sought to change. Feel free to tell me where to shove my sadness/pity.

:fire: :hearts:

Your youtube link suggests maybe I/we are persuading you that we're circling the drain of our own ten thousand year
making ... :smirk:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/805683