Natural selection as proposed by Darwin has no effect on non-life. — Possibility

What do you mean by ‘non-life’?

Consumerism seems to be a relationship that is completely natural to us. I don’t see any point in targeting Capitalism, hindering it or destroying, as a way of solving the problem we seem to have with consumerism. Consumerism exists because we embrace it. Without there being something in us that responds to possessing material objects it would not thrive. The fact that it may not be good for the world isn’t going to explain it away.

If, because of circumstances, the population agreed to reduce their consumption, or were compelled to, then once the problem that required that was alleviated I imagine we would return almost immediately to our old ways. The sustained reduction in consumerism could only be achieved by force through laws and punishment. But prohibition has never worked and leads to the black market and crime. So assume that consumerism is not going away.

A simpler life. Reverse things. That’s not going to happen in the short term. In the long term, when the environment imposes itself on us, when cultural habits are challenged, not by people but the hard facts of reality, then there might be change. But it’s in our nature also to avoid these collisions, to find ways to survive and then build things up again.

It’s a mistake to ignore who we are and believe we can be something different. I’ve said before that it’s Capitalism that might save us, and I know that sounds absurd, but that’s the reality. There’s no reason for it to go away, it can’t be destroyed because it part of who we are, this is what made us, gave us shelter, food, security, health. Is something that consequential really just greed? If that’s all it was then we wouldn’t have got this far, it would have destroyed itself.

I’m not justifying the actions of Capitalism that are detrimental to us, just don’t be so blinded by it that you think destroying it will solve our problems.

If it’s in the interests of business to do things differently from how they do things now you can be sure that things will change overnight. They follow the carrot just like everyone else.

For instance, money feeds consumerism. You need money to take part in it. Maybe people should have less money instead more of it. If they had less to spend then they wouldn’t be able to replace a sofa or refrigerator every two or three years because of the colour or style or that it broke down. Manufacturers would then have to produce a refrigerator that might last ten years or so because that’s the buying cycle. As a consequence manufacturing plants are smaller, less energy used in production, lower consumerism and fewer products thrown away.

From what I've seen of your posts you tend to lean towards relativism. Would that be fair?

I’m working towards a third option that incorporates both processes. It involves looking at it the other way around: a theory that natural selection evolved from creativity/intelligence. — Possibility

Can you indicate at what stage in time, in relation to the evolution of life, this happened.

Creativity/intelligence existed before evolution began, then at some point the process of evolution began. Is that how you see it?

Ok, I get that you are focusing on the process, but doesn't aren't the nature of the process and the nature of the contents intimately related? — Pantagruel

I’m now focusing on my OP in terms of memes. Using memes as a metaphor gives me something to work with. Up until now haven’t spent much time looking into memes, so there may be holes in what I think. So I’m not even sure which comes first, the process or the contents.

Once you truly understand that fears and desires are the driving force behind all our actions everything will understand. — ovdtogt

I don’t accept that for a minute. I know it makes sense if you believe that caring for someone, or loving them, is driven by some sort of desire. But I don’t.

It’s just this tiny percentage we call ‘life’ that took a chance to increase awareness, connection and collaboration beyond the level of a chemical reaction. — Possibility

‘That took a chance’ suggests some sort of consciousness. I’m not really convinced by this view of life and evolution. I understand where people are coming from, but I find levels of anthropomorphism present, even though you do not believe that. If you were able to convince me otherwise I’d consider it more. But I understand you’re position.

So I insist that you tell us what the unit measurement of complexity is, and how complex humans are in this measurement scale, and how complex are particular societies, football teams, and those damned hydroelectrics. — god must be atheist

Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist

If you’d like to give me the unit of measurement behind this statement then we could work from there.

Some are ignored, isolated or excluded by elements of their environment - — Possibility

That does suggest a sort of anthropomorphism of the environment, conscious acts carried out by the environment against life forms. But for what reason? Why would the environment act this way?

What has been termed ‘natural selection’ is not actually a process of selection: it is an explanation of how elements of the universe ignore, isolate and exclude each other - and the NEGATIVE impact this has on diversity. — Possibility

What do you mean by ‘negative impact’?

New York City? Civilization? Liverpool FC? Surely anything that is made up of humans is more complex than just humans? — ZhouBoTong

Why is this so? In what way is society more complex than humans?

If this idea that simplicity evolves into complexity is true then what explains the quite obvious fact that humans when engaged in creative acts can never produce something more complex than humans themselves? — TheMadFool

From this I’m guessing that you mean each evolving stage should be more complex than the last. That the next step makes the previous look simple. But it occurred to me that this could only happen once, simplicity then complexity, then that thing is set in motion. There is no more complexity for us or from us.

That’s very interesting. I’d agree with that. So where would that leave intelligence? Or do we think, or mistakingly believe, that the outcome of the barrage of possibilities is the result of intelligence? And I’m sure there’s a reason for that given our grasp of things.

Are you suggesting that a barrage of possibilities is just brute force?

Humans have created much more complex things than humans themselves are. — god must be atheist

Examples: hydroelectric dams, car factories, space research tools, aviation systems.[/quote]

They don't look like very good examples to me for obvious reasons.

There's nothing complex about that. But look what came out of it.

I suppose I’m talking about memes here. The question then is, where do memes spawn, why do they survive, why do they invade other cultures so easily and can we fight them?

Edit: one last thought. What if climate change is a meme?

As far as I am concerned the only core value is survival. — ovdtogt

That’s more of an objective. There are a lot of actions taken before that. It’s the core values that contribute to your survival. But I’d like to hear more from you about the core of my post.

. Essentially, we have become a monetized culture, drifting further and further away from the core values of life. — Pantagruel

What I was referring to wasn’t products of a monetised culture, even though America is that. I was making use of the term product to show how an idea can be packaged into something that can be consumed, and even the term consumed I’m only using to refer to how the idea is taken up, hence the term cultural packages. How these ‘ideas’, and I’m not even sure that’s an accurate term, get transferred is of interest to me, among other things, like why do we embrace them so quickly and passively? What do we get out of it? The media plays a big part, but the media only report on something that has already begun.

Brute force and numbers. What a combination.

The idea of getting rid of things we don’t like is appealing: get rid of money, get rid of the bosses, get rid of the government. Maybe you haven’t realised that we all have different things we don’t like. Some people you know may want to get rid of you, but you would disagree. So we compromise and make the best of it with ideas we apply as law. Not all of them work. Over time we modify them with new ones. You can’t escape this. You have what you have because of those that came before you and it enables you to think what you like. Maybe even influence things. That’s not so bad.

What matters more that a child be brought into a particular level of comfort and security or that they learn how to treat others with love and kindness? — Jack Foreman

I would support that because it’s that more than any evolutionary driving force that has brought us here today. Without that there would be nothing. It’s possible to argue against that, but that’s my belief. So it stands to reason we maintain what has been good for us.

Edit: licensing, as a demand, seems opposite to that.

Edit: sorry, I misread your post. Love and kindness counts most or comes first, anyway.

So we have a situation which is simply that blind chance
has managed, against all odds, to evolve creative and intelligent humans yet humans endowed with these advantages have failed to produce anything that approaches such complexity. — TheMadFool

Just wondering what ‘against all odds’ might mean here. Is there some objective truth to the idea of us being creative and intelligent humans? More than most animals, but more than whatever produced us? If we’ve failed to produce anything ‘that approaches such complexity’ then we're less than what produced us. Are we as complex as we imagine?

Bartrick’s post used the idea of licensing as a way to create a better world for everyone. I don’t disagree with that, just on how we do it. The objective is to have fewer people who are destructive, or obstructive, in that world. Smaller families might be a beginning but there is still the need for a particular quality, which I don’t think can be based on IQ or current circumstances.

Obviously one of those qualities would be caring. Only a caring society can raise caring children. Some caring children might come out of a dysfunctional society, but not enough to make a difference. Unless the society we want isn’t based on caring.

So education (what was the education?) leads to fewer children leads to economic stability leads to stable children.

My point about love and IQ was in relation to mothers, that they had many children because they loved children. You don’t need a high IQ to love someone. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of young women having multiple children by different fathers. I’m not sure what’s behind that. Is it a naive search for some sort of security, or just not caring.

I think it would be a reasonable plan to set up ‘limits’ for licenses after maybe the first or second child - so family sizes would be dictated by circumstances. — I like sushi

It’s an observation only, but it seems to me that larger families come from those who struggle financially. If it’s true, why is this? I think it’s too difficult to establish why people have children, but why they have so many is worth thinking about. I imagine financial stress is a big contributor to dysfunctional families. Love doesn’t require an IQ test.

Barking.

As I just said, the law is not about children breeding.

Edit: it’s about protecting the child.

Should children be allowed to breed? — Bartricks

To answer one of your questions. This law is not about children breeding. It’s a law that applies to people over the age of consent. The law is not about the child but the adult.

I suspect it wouldn’t take much to have you barking orders at others. You’re posts get more and more abusive.. I don’t know why. Is it because you disagree with me or you think I’m stupid?

Why don’t you address the rest of my post, not just eugenics? Why not address the potential problems of licensing?

But it is good eugenics. — Bartricks

Don’t you see the error in that statement?

What's your point? — Bartricks

The point is not the one sentence about eugenics. The point is the problem of authority over people, how complicated it is and the unknown knock-on effects. Because in your posts there’s no room for the sudden unexpected spark of brilliant life that comes to us randomly and unexpectedly.
It’s the randomness that’s behind the brilliance, not the ticking of boxes.

I can’t think of one moment in history that would suggest this sort of authoritarian management of life would be worth it.

A licence for procreation is really a license to have sex without fear of getting pregnant.

Pregnancy without a license is a crime.

Accidental pregnancy is a crime. The parents are criminals. The child is removed.

Sex is a natural drive in humans.

Those without a license will need to abstain from sex (as Catholics were required to do, which didn’t work) or take contraception.

If accidental pregnancies increase in number then those without a license are required to be on contraception. This is a form of eugenics.

To not be on contraception, even if a child isn’t produced, is equal to the crime of accidental pregnancy. Contraception becomes compulsory unless you have a licence. Contraception will be administered by the state. Policing will be necessary. Proof of actually taking contraception will be required.

Because the child born to parents classified as idiots or low IQ or undesirable will be detrimental to society the pregnancy must be terminated.

Naturally there will be a black market in licenses.

Illegals will be removed from parents, even if it’s a loving, supportive relationship. Unless you can make an appeal, unless you have the money. But you’ve already broken the law, so you have a criminal record, therefore you’re unfit to be a parent.

I think you're the reason I'm against licensing for procreation.

Don’t play games. You expect more than this from others. So, who are the prospective parents that will know their child will have a low IQ?

Assume they could as a thought experiment. Now, wouldn't it be better if they didn't procreate? Any child they have will be an idiot. — Bartricks

You can try and turn it into a thought experiment. Who is “they”?

and I think a couple who know that any child they have would have a very low IQ would also, if responsible, not procreate. — Bartricks

How could they know their child will have a low IQ?

So to refer back to my question, why do posts always refer to a Western capitalist economy and political system, as if that’s all there is?

So I'm afraid the Western capitalist economic and political system will have to be dramatically and indeed radically transformed to cope with what is coming. — Wayfarer

It’s interesting how everyone keeps pointing to the targeting of the Western capitalist economy as the solution. China has a Communist government and operates in a global economy and produces more co2 than any other nation is the world. Is there a reason for this focus?