Looks inherently conservative. — Banno

Just had a sudden late thought. Why conservative?

You can't divorce the word 'politic' from its original Greek meaning because politics is a Greek word.
— Wheatley

I’m using politics as a form of interaction between people. “The affairs of the city” are the affairs of the people. First the people then the institutions.
5 hours ago — Brett

Some broader ideas on politics:

“ Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that "at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict",[27] while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of 'friend' from foe'.[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by the Irish author Michael Laver, who noted that "Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both." Wikipedia.

Would you refer to chimpanzees as political? — dex

Yes I think I would. Communal is such a nice word, it sounds idyllic, everything in its place, everyone fitting in. I don’t think I would choose that over political. I know I’m appropriating the word, but even if I think about Chimpanzees I see it as a political body with all the friction and jockeying of humanity. I think communal is fine to a point, but after that what? The violence, the challenging, the posturing, the killing, the underlying tensions; that’s political to me.

no arbitrary list of "pillars" is compelling — 180 Proof

Why arbitrary and what would you add or delete?

What I was getting at is that the “hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species” is similar to the process, I imagine, in creating tools: memory, recognition of things being repeated, etc. Very concrete acts and results. And then it’s transferred into observation of weather, the sun, etc. and given spiritual meaning or understanding, which is then acted on through rituals, chants, carvings, prayer or dance; back to poetry.

Inherently as in a basis in genetics? Like, would an island nation of 10 aborigines without knowledge of mass societies start engaging in machiavellianism? — dex

Maybe not Machiavellianism but most likely subjective awareness that leads to individualism, that leads to perceptions of difference, which leads to a dynamic on the island which I would call politics. Before that it was all instinct, basic survival skills.

Is that genetic? I don’t know how we could know.

The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, — dex

It occurs to me that it’s similar to tool making but it led to something like false inferences that throws it back into poetry.

The precursor was more likely hunter-gatherer pattern recognition, which gave a survival advantage over other species. The faculty, which evolved into a genetic propensity, caused false inferences to be made when human events coincided with unexplainable phenomena, an obvious example being tribal rain dances. — dex

That’s interesting. Thanks for the post.

Would you go along with the idea that humans are inherently political creatures? And that the political class, and the institutions, took ownership of it.

Do you think politics, as I define it, was part of her life. Tools can’t have been made in isolation. Even if she was part of only a family I still see politics as part of that dynamic.

Edit: if they’re making tools then they’ve entered a complex state.

I think I might have to add science as a pillar then.

Edit: but maybe science is an offshoot if poetry. From where and how did the idea to make stone tools originally spring from?

Edit: ignore my last comment. Obviously it’s the actions of memory, observation, etc.

You mean this is science.

It seems to me that actions come before words. Things are named. The word doesn’t create the thing.

Use an ordinary word, and then proceed to strip it of all its connotations. — Wheatley

If the Greeks had not named it do you think it would still exist.

That's just wrong. — Banno

How so?

You can't divorce the word 'politic' from its original Greek meaning because politics is a Greek word. — Wheatley

I’m using politics as a form of interaction between people. “The affairs of the city” are the affairs of the people. First the people then the institutions.

Auto-correct. Should have been ‘existence’ which I corrected.

Edit: and that should have been ‘existed’.

Tribes come before Greek culture.
— Brett
Exactly! Problem is, no all humanity has adopted Greek culture! Is your mind blow? — Wheatley

What I meant was that people existed as tribes or collective long before the development of Greek cultures. So in the sense I’m talking about politics, which is not related to the Greek meaning, which refers to politics as a game of rules, I mean that it existed far earlier than Greek culture. All they did was begin the ritualisation/institutionalising of it and give it a name.

You are thinking of tribal conflict. — Wheatley

Tribes come before Greek culture.

Economics is a social science; modern terminology. — Wheatley

It’s origins are in trading on an individual basis for necessities.

I say trading relates more to geography than individual tribes. Things get traded from places to places. — Wheatley

Based on what I just said I think that trading begins at an individual level.

'Economics' is simply the study of economy. — Wheatley

I don’t think studying something is the thing. The thing has to first exist.

They can. Well, not fully formed, no. More like an organic process. — Wheatley

Yes, so something initiated institutions, markets or business. Economics is behind business and markets, politics behind institutions.

No, it’s not about what we are now, it’s about our basic origins, what drives us and what feeds into other things. For instance politics comes before a community/tribe was formed. Economics is about trading. But at what point does trading appear, before a tribe is formed or after. And is economics just politics in action?

And what’s behind institutions, markets, business? They didn’t spring up overnight fully formed.

Poetry’s just my word for the expression of the unconscious mind, creativity is the result.

My feeling behind this OP is that politics is not about values. It’s originally a state of being, of viewing the world around one in terms of personal boundaries, what one has and doesn’t have, who has things and what they are, what’s happening around one and will they be affected by it and how to get what they want.

It’s a primitive state of being.

Politics became a ritualised game of rules played by professionals, like football is a ritualised game of war or battles.

Democracy let people back in through the vote.

Science is further down the track and developed from one of those pillars, or two, or a mutation. Religion is there because it’s an essential part of us. Whether God or Gods are real doesn’t matter, people have embraced it since they didn’t understand what the wind was, or why the sun rose every morning.

Economics and politics are separate. Economics was a way of playing out politics.

I was thinking about how humanity seems to keep on behaving in the same way throughout history. So I wanted to try and prioritise those things that drive us that way. And if those four pillars, as I call them, are the basic superstructure to our lives.

For instance it seems to me that society is politics, it’s the DNA of society. Which means we’re political animals, which is a bit different from social animals. If that’s true then the way we manage things and deal with them will never change. So I need to know exactly what political means.

And if economics comes after politics, is it the result of politics? So is my prioritising reasonable and are the four pillars correctly identified?

Edit: politics is regarded as something we do, but I’m suggesting it’s something we are.

So is overpopulation our biggest problem?

It is if people think it would take the destruction of the environment to feed them, or

You believe it’s the tool of Capitalism.

:up:

Does it matter if its intentional? — Wheatley

Can you clarify exactly what you mean here?

It makes all the difference in this OP.

Forced sterilization is used for population control. — Wheatley

None of those examples are for the sake of population control.

I did look it up. You do have a point about the health problems cause by the necessity of having an abortion because of the one child policy.

Yeah, if you can't even be bothered to type a phrase in google — StreetlightX

Nor you, even to prove yourself right.

As opposed to having two or three.

You want me to look for evidence to prove myself wrong. Really.

You made the statement about health, you come up with the evidence of having one child being a threat to womens’ health.

.

That's not what he's talking about by sterilization. :rofl: — Wheatley

Yes, your right.

Edit: but it is about limiting the spread of HIV. The effects on population are not the intention.

And not only is 'overpopulation' a totally bogus problem, — StreetlightX

This is the problem. Just what do we mean when we talk about the overpopulation problem?

Stopping the spread of HIV is about health. You can lump it in with population control if you want but that’s stretching it.

You had said that the population control measures in China were putting womens’ health second to population control, but I don’t see how having only one child is a threat to womens’ health.

But they’re not framed in terms of overpopulation, you just chose to do it that way.

Probably the most humane way to address overpopulation is simply honesty and truth. You start out with enough to survive, then are shown, the only way I can afford to bring in another kid is by hard work and education and will be there to ensure he is raised right. There is a safety net. For emergencies or severe misfortune. It is not a bed to take a nap on willy nilly. You contribute to society, you earn more. The more you do the more you get. Etc. — Outlander

It’s not very clear who you’re talking about here. Population numbers seem to be most dire in countries where people struggle to get through the day. There is no safety net, there’s very few prospects and very few choices.

Not much of this has anything to do with over population.

The abuses of population control show what can happen when women’s health is second to other, more powerful, agendas. China’s one-child policy, while somewhat relaxed, still strictly regulates and restricts fertility, particularly in cities.

That has nothing to do with womens’ health, it simply reduces child birth numbers.

In some states in India, two-child norms keep people with more than two kids from sitting on local governing boards or from receiving government benefits.

That is obviously about controlling the birth rate. Though not getting on local governing boards isn’t going to affect many. “Some states” doesn’t tell me much.

Romani women in Central Europe, and women living with HIV in parts of Africa and Latin America, undergo forced and coerced sterilizations.

That’s about health, not population.

A 2014 audit of California women’s prisons found that tubal ligations were performed for the purposes of sterilization, sometimes without the consent of the inmate. — StreetlightX

Again nothing to do with population numbers.

you can't decrease the population or it's rate of growth without significantly affecting capitalism itself. Capitalists relations (and thus capitalist profit) rest on the existence of a reserve army of unemployed workers. — sucking lollipops

I don’t know if I’d agree with that, nor do I think that Capitalism rests on the existence of a reserve army of unemployed. The whole Capitalism thing seems like an easy blame game in terms of over population.

There might be a lot of reasons in poorer countries for people having children or having what might be regarded as too many and adding to problems. Women might get pregnant against their will, adults might have children to help with what’s needed to survive. There was a time when men preferred to have boys because they were of more use to them in terms of working the land or whatever else was needed. So there may be all sorts of reasons for having children that we can’t comprehend.

I don’t think Capitalism is behind that. The so called reserve army of unemployed would consist of a lot of people with no skills at all, people who can’t even read and write. The profits you might be referring to come from a cheap labour force. In fact a population of healthy, educated people is the real benefit to Capitalists.

There's an overpopulation problem simply because most parents are shitty parents and they should have not procreated in the first place. — sucking lollipops

That’s not very reasonable either. You have to be clear about who you’re referring to. Most parents are good at what they do under many different and trying conditions.

If there is to be a solution, some real positive change, it seems to me it must come from the bottom up; — Janus

Yes, because they don’t want to be in the situation they’re in and they want their children to have a chance. That’s one thing you can assume Capitalism doesn’t want to take part in, they’d prefer the government to take that on. But that means it’s really coming from top down, only governments can address these issues, only they have the resources.

I suspect if the poor across the world were given real access to housing, health, education and work then the population levels might decline, but certainly not increase. But then there has to be work available so therefore Capitalism has to be a partner.

I see the yelling and bitching has already started. Just ignore it.

Getting the filthy rich to tone down their lifestyle", and getting them to agree, or forcing them, to redistribution of their wealth would seem to be one very necessary part of any solution. — Janus

I was following a train of thought on this. Let’s say it’s not ethical, let’s say we address it pragmatically, which is politically. Assume the money and the will is there to address hunger and poverty, to educate people. After addressing the issue of food we would need to address housing, then maybe health and then maybe education. Then comes jobs for the educated, then comes better health, then comes more children surviving childbirth or childhood diseases. That seems to suggest an increase in population. So what then?: we’re back to ethics I think.