fence.

↪180 Proof :up: Is that the best icon we can muster for "Right on, Brother!" — Vera Mont

Apparently – *Raised FIST*, Sistah! :cool:

Absolutely not possible that a computer program can be more important to a child's learning than the teacher. — Athena

That really depends on so many factors. There are many bad teachers, impatient teachers, 'moody' teachers, authoritarian nutjobs, slightly psychotic teachers. I know, I have worked amongst such.
A child being taught via a high quality VR (virtual reality) or/and AR (augmented reality) system, can be far better for the pupil involved, than getting taught by a teacher of 'limited' or inconsistent ability.
Consistently good teachers are relatively rare imo. Those that exist should be the 'experts,' used to model electronic expert teaching. I agree with you that there is no current AI system that could replace a good teacher, but there are many which could aid a good teacher, and future AI based VR and AR systems, may well be able to replace a good teacher.

I am not worried about AI being anti-human. I am worried about us being anti-human — Athena

I think that is the main concern for now, yes, the abuse of AI by nasty humans, rather than a justified fear of AI becoming totally self-aware and conscious, any time soon.

universeness favors socialism and perhaps the two of you can agree on what it is and share that with me. — Athena

True democratic socialism has never been successfully implemented as a national governance, anywhere today or in history. Many attempts have been made but none have been successful so far.
To nurture people and not profit.
To prioritise cooperation and not competition.
To act as the political equivalent of secular humanism.
To control the means of production, distribution and exchange, for the benefit of all and not just elites.
To govern by the democratically obtained consent of all stakeholders, and to continuously consult the population you represent at all levels.
To govern openly and accept all established checks and balances.

What does 'be social' towards other people, mean to you?

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. — 0 thru 9

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?

I was pulling for Bernie Sanders, but I don’t think the country was ready for him, unfortunately. — 0 thru 9

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.

I know Bernie was not a millionaire all his life, but he is now reported as having a net worth of over $3 million. The idea of a very rich democratic socialist, does not sit well with me, But, if I was an American voter, I would still vote for him, in preference to any other candidate standing for president of America, as the best of a horrific bunch.

Is that the best icon we can muster for "Right on, Brother!" — Vera Mont

Apparently – *Raised FIST*, Sistah! — 180 Proof

You can post any emoticon you like on TPF, just post it using the 'image' feature, eg:

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).

:cool:

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).

If you are against us… prepare to be destroyed. :death:
(An odd conformist kind of individuality). — 0 thru 9

That's the most bizarre thing about this system. The Republicans, who yell loudest about Freeedooom!!! always line up in formation behind their candidate, however odious - at least since Reagan-Norquist because all the moderate or reasoning or dissonant ones have been ousted. The Democrats are at constant odds, as there are always young firebrands sprouting up among the old plodders. The second most bizarre aspect of American politics is that you always know what *nefarious* scheme the Republicans are hatching, because they accuse the Democrats of doing, having done or intending to do that very thing.

* * I hope universeness hasn't copyrighted it yet.

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?

We just watched - again - the STNG episode where the archeologist Galen discovered that all the humanoid life-forms in our galaxy are related, having been seeded by a long-extinct advanced culture.
It may be a lame attempt at explaining away the makeup artists' lack of imagination, but still...
The last two lines were
"Maybe one day..."
"Yes. One day."
What do you say we make that our secret password?

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.

@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.

It sounds good as a fable... Still, I have some reservations and quibbles, not the least of which is 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.

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:

But there’s nothing to act on there, — 0 thru 9

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.

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.

Sometimes I admire ants and bees for their seemingly high-functioning societies. — 0 thru 9

It's no accident that these are some of the longest-surviving species - ants go back 150+ million years, fundamentally unchanged, while constantly adapting to changed environments and conditions. Their organization works for creatures of their brain-size and requirements.
It wouldn't work for us in the same way, because of the big brain, but 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.

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.

For me, at the end of the day, the most important sentence was your final one.

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. — 0 thru 9

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?
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?

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:

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). — 0 thru 9

I want to respond before I forget what I want to say. :lol: Representatives from around the world are gathering to discuss the possibility of a nuclear war and if we might end that threat permanently. In a completely different forum I am told history shows that wars are unavoidable. The proof is there have always been wars. Okay, when I read history I get the impression that age 40 used to be old age, and not many lived that long. That in a male's 40 years, war was expected and many males spent their lifetime preparing for war and engaging in war. How is this different from living with the fear of a nuclear war? To live a lifetime expecting to die young from disease, an accident, famine, or war may be good for preparing for a good death, but how about preparing for a good life?

Our minds are among the most powerful things in the known universe. — 0 thru 9

I love that argument!

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.

But the pleasurable surge of power that was the reward for total domination didn’t need a college education to be experienced and enjoyed. — 0 thru 9

That is an interesting point, but the most successful would pass on their benefits and knowledge to their heirs and then follows the notion that these people are superior by birth, and then their status becomes a huge benefit. The idea that this superiority is about who has advantages and who does not is just beginning to enter our consciousness. This is potentially a point of consciousness transformation that is compatible with democracy.

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.

I don't think the difference between classes was that great when Abraham Lincoln left the family farm and moved to the city where he learned to be a lawyer, as the difference between classes today. At the end of WWII, the GI Bill gave the men who gave military service a huge advantage of a college education when that education almost guaranteed upward economic mobility and they were also given low-interest loans for homes. These benefits helped White Males more than women or people of color but it was a move in the direction of democracy and women and people of color are beginning to benefit from the principles of democracy, so we have increased the number of advantaged citizens but now the gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged is greater than it ever was.

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. — 0 thru 9

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

I am so sorry but I am out of time. Thank you for giving us so much to think about and to talk about.

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.

Ah-yup!

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: )

’ve probably stretched the metaphor to its breaking point — 0 thru 9

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.

You seem to be presenting human civilisation from from two very different viewpoints.

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 — 0 thru 9

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.

As you muse backwards in history, you seem to be offering a notion of a global human civilisation that did not exist. I do not think we can talk about human civilisation on a global scale, until effective communication between such can be demonstrated.

So, for me, that is at best, when something like radio was discovered. But, when we bring in the argument of 'effective communication,' we might need 'the internet' to be able to 'prove,' a time of the global reach of communication between any two humans alive anywhere on the planet.
So under the 'effective communication,' requirements, any notion of a global human civilisation is very recent indeed.
It is this notion of a 'global civilisation' of humans, that I am trying to 'pin down' in a more solid way than the far more disparate notion, (imo) your treatment of the issue has so far, presented.

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.
Allowing the establishment of divinely sanctioned leadership, was the first major mistake, early humans made imo. I think we would have created a better world if we had killed anyone, as soon as it was understood that they wanted to be King. I consider those who killed the vile Caesar, to have performed an act that favoured the rule of the people. I don't mean that I consider the Roman senate as socialist and it certainly was not secular or humanist but it was always better than rule by emperor.

There are earlier settlements, but an early city style human civilisation has a cut off population size, for it to be considered a 'civilisation.' — universeness

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.

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. — universeness

I don't think he cared how anybody chose to live. What he set out to conquer were actually more sophisticated civilizations than the Macedonian backwater. I think he just wanted, first to outdo his old man and smash the ascendancy of Greece, then dominion and tribute. Lots of lovely loot during the conquest itself and lots more from vassal states thereafter. Plus his name all over everything - like other megalomaniacs we've known.

Before Rome, all the civilizations were stratified and specialized, with strict legal codes, tithing and citizens', subject people's and slaves' obligations, but if the scattered writings are anything to go by, the religious beliefs and family relations of vassal states were not regulated by the conqueror. Even the Roman policy was tolerant of other cultures until Constantine's conversion. I think, though I haven't researched it so can't be sure, that one-god, one church, everything else must be destroyed BS is the Christian influence.

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

These 'low population' early hunter gatherer communities you cite, did not have reproductive directives that prevented their group growing significantly in population size. The land they occupied could become no longer tenable for their needs, for many reasons, from climate change to those stated increases in their population, A point is reached where they needed more than the land they were on provided. You see this demonstrated regularly in the animal kingdom. Massive herds of bison need to move to new territory to survive.

The problem is that the territory you want to move to may already be occupied. So, cooperation or war?
In early human groups, this happened regardless of having to also deal with nefarious characters such as Alexander the butcher. Humans when faced with problems, especially existential ones, try to find a better solution. Hence such inventions as agriculture and farming etc and 'cities' and 'civilisations.'

What are you suggesting could have been done, to prevent the nasty sides of human 'civilisation,' happening? How could we maintain small bands of nomadic tribes, who were all able to feed, water, clothe and provide secure warm shelter for everyone in each group, without encroaching on each others territory or resources? For me, I think the only way we could have played things differently is more cooperation and less bloody war, and better control over the nefarious amongst us, especially those who would be a king, a messiah or an aristo. I cannot see how not progressing from disparate groups of nomadic hunter gatherers into the first 'civilisations' or city states, would have produced a better human race than we have today. You would need to offer more details on how you think it could have worked, based on the environmental pressures and growing population and natural disasters, these early groups of humans faced.

I don't think he cared how anybody chose to live. What he set out to conquer were actually more sophisticated civilizations than the Macedonian backwater. I think he just wanted, first to outdo his old man and smash the ascendancy of Greece, then dominion and tribute. Lots of lovely loot during the conquest itself and lots more from vassal states thereafter. Plus his name all over everything - like other megalomaniacs we've known. — Vera Mont

Hah! Let's set the scene:
Being a tutor to the young Alexander favoured Aristotle greatly. The post was a high honor, and he would be able to continue his research with the powerful kings’ support and resources. Most importantly, he would be in a perfect position to shape the mind of a future ruler. As payment for his services, Philip ordered Aristotle’s home city of Stagira, which he had captured years earlier, to be rebuilt. Philip had arranged for Aristotle to teach Alexander in a remote village called Mieza, inside the Temple of the Nymphs. Before Alexander left for Mieza, Philip advised him not to imitate his faults and, above all, to work hard. Alexander responded to this by criticizing his father about his children by various women. Alexander was probably not concerned about morality but the inevitable rivalries for his father’s throne. Alexander’s desire for power must have started burning at an early age.

Later, we have such as:
Aristotle may have had his strongest influence on his student in the fields of politics and morality. Aristotle had written two books on both subjects, and his ideas must have fueled Alexander’s decisions later in life. The teacher not only urged the student to conquer eastern lands, but he also conveyed to Alexander that slavery was part of the natural order of things and that all non-Greeks were barbarians.
Via the horrible morality standards of Aristotle, Alex became a fascist, who believed that all other civilisations were inferior and barbaric in comparison to Greek civilisation. He was being well primed to become the despot butcher he became, and yes, he probably did want to become a more successful butcher that his butcher father.

the religious beliefs and family relations of vassal states were not regulated by the conqueror. Even the Roman policy was tolerant of other cultures until Constantine's conversion. — Vera Mont

I agree that many Kings/gangsters and their mob, do not care how they opiate the masses they control.
In days gone by, religion was one of the most powerful tools they had to make the masses comply, the flavour of religion did not matter. Refusing the masses education was another method and preventing them from having any significant control over the means of production, distribution and exchange and the ownership of land, was another main method used.

I think, though I haven't researched it so can't be sure, that one-god, one church, everything else must be destroyed BS is the Christian influence. — Vera Mont

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.

That really depends on so many factors. There are many bad teachers, impatient teachers, 'moody' teachers, authoritarian nutjobs, slightly psychotic teachers. — universeness

:lol: That is very true. I was traumatized by a couple of them. My mother attempted to get me out of a class where I clashed with the teacher and the school said students are expected to learn how to get along with their teachers. Fine, I refused to do any assignments and had to repeat the class during summer school. I am sure everyone has such a story and so it is being a human. What really hurt was my time volunteering in a school and witnessing a couple of boys treated very badly! That led to one of them getting the extra help he needed, but nothing was done about the other boy and I was dismissed and lost my position in the organization that sponsored volunteers.

Oh dear, I thought of another terrible story involving my granddaughter and today I would take that one to court. I am sure many low-income people are less likely to pursue the legal means they have. And on to that granddaughter's son, my great-grandson, his life is being ruined as he struggles to do online classes with no help other than what an online teacher can give him. This is back to my point. Computers can be a useful tool but they can not replace a teacher.

True democratic socialism has never been successfully implemented as a national governance, anywhere today or in history. Many attempts have been made but none have been successful so far.
To nurture people and not profit.
To prioritise cooperation and not competition.
To act as the political equivalent of secular humanism.
To control the means of production, distribution and exchange, for the benefit of all and not just elites.
To govern by the democratically obtained consent of all stakeholders, and to continuously consult the population you represent at all levels.
To govern openly and accept all established checks and balances. — universeness

That is all about culture and never in the history of humanity have we been able to do so much for so many people. Never in the history of humanity have so many people lived so long and this is a game changer! Human consciousness at age 70 is totally different from what it is in our younger years. The need for universal medicine greatly increases but we need to work on the understanding that medical care is for everyone because it is very likely everyone will live long enough to need it. The service jobs have greatly increased with older people needing help. I think it is a hard shift from an Industrial economy to a service economy increasing numbers of long-lived people are pushing that shift and I am not sure if that can work.

We have great wealth but not the experience of living with it. We need to increase our understanding of economics to make good decisions about economics. Is supporting the war Industry better for than economy than say truly affordable housing with services for older people and excellent child care for all children?

What does 'be social' towards other people, mean to you?

It means all children are nurtured and live in security so that they grow up to be confident and excited about what they can do in life because of their developed interests and talents. That was the goal of public education before education for technology completely dominated education decisions. We added to that goal housing assistance but then failed to adequately fund that housing. We added food assistance and free lunches in schools and I think we are doing a fair job of this. Oregon scores high on medical care but our medical system may be breaking down because the for prophet system has some serious problems and I think we could do a thread on just this.

And my love, I must run and am late--- I am breaking down as too much is demanded of me. I hope you all carry on and know I don't mean to ignore any of this great community we are developing. :heart:

These 'low population' early hunter gatherer communities you cite, did not have reproductive directives that prevented their group growing significantly in population size. — universeness

I didn't cite early hunter-gatherers. I specifically referred to mixed economy cultures. They certainly had some reproductive regulation, but nature mostly prevented overpopulation; one severe winter could take a third of the tribe.

The land they occupied could become no longer tenable for their needs, for many reasons, — universeness

There was no evidence of this in North Amerca when the white settlers began to "tame" all that vast empty wilderness in which the native peoples were spread quite thinly.

A point is reached where they needed more than the land they were on provided.

There was occasional expansion of territory and clashes between neighbouring tribes, but for the most part, nobody 'provided' anybody with land; the people moved about freely from summer to winter settlements or seasonal hunting grounds.

Humans when faced with problems, especially existential ones, try to find a better solution. Hence such inventions as agriculture and farming etc and 'cities' and 'civilisations.' — universeness

Yes, that experiment was very successfully tried by several societies, resulting in the big, unhappy, unhealthy, oppressive, self-congratulatory and aggressive nation-states.

What are you suggesting could have been done, to prevent the nasty sides of human 'civilisation,' happening? — universeness

Nothing, obviously. It happened.

How could we maintain small bands of nomadic tribes, who were all able to feed, water, clothe and provide secure warm shelter for everyone in each group, without encroaching on each others territory or resources?

Next time? If there are human survivors, with the lessons learned from the past and the technology we preserve from the present.

@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: