Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85
Is it possible to form a modern society that can function without external conflict?

From an evolutionary perspective, we are set up to form a bond with those around us for mutual protection and achievement. We are trained to work with each other by necessity, going to great lengths to "fit in" to our immediate social setting. Even today when our social connections with those around us are comparatively irrelevant to our safety and general well-being, we still turn to these basic instincts and introduce massive inefficiencies to the system as our immediate social setting becomes not so immediate in an urban setting. There is not just one group of people that you have to dance for - you have to do the dance a little differently for your friends, your family, your co-workers, and the people you see in the coffee shop every morning.

Many of these social dances could be easily thrown to the wayside by a rational decision from the individual - a whole series of them could be done away with by a single rational decision from the collective. The only possible cost would be psychological. Is that a valid argument against reducing the social strain on the group as a whole? As more and more social demands are contrived as our social networks are forced to grow, is there any choice other than to eventually artificially throw our genetic predispositions out?

It is of course difficult to maintain cohesion in large groups. That which holds together groups at the micro level can hardly work, at least equally as well, at the macro level. What does hold large groups together is a good foreign threat. If we do not reduce (or raise?) the requirements of membership in a modern order to rationality, what else can hold a group numbering in the millions or billions together? An iron fist? A real or perceived external threat is all that keeps us from eventually breaking into tribes, and even then the external problems have to outnumber the internal problems.

So my question is this:

Why are we not giving any thought to the problems presented by the intrinsic instincts that are adverse to uniting so many people under one flag and attending to those, instead looking for patchwork solutions to problems that stem from this basic inability to work in coherent groups numbering over 150*?

* or whatever number, 200, 250, whatever, it's a lot less than 7 billion.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why are we not giving any thought to the problems presented by the intrinsic instincts that are adverse to uniting so many people under one flag and attending to those, instead looking for patchwork solutions to problems that stem from this basic inability to work in coherent groups numbering over 150*?
One flag? You only see people wearing the same jump suit in movies set in the future and it looks very silly. Maybe it's a good way to defeat commercialism, but that is very anti-capitalistic to say the least.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why are we not giving any thought to the problems presented by the intrinsic instincts that are adverse to uniting so many people under one flag and attending to those, instead looking for patchwork solutions to problems that stem from this basic inability to work in coherent groups numbering over 150*?
One flag? You only see people wearing the same jump suit in movies set in the future and it looks very silly. Maybe it's a good way to defeat commercialism, but that is very anti-capitalistic to say the least.
One flag meaning any one country. Excluding Australia of course, you have what, like 120 people on that god-forsaken island? Well under Dunbar's number.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

One flag meaning any one country. Excluding Australia of course, you have what, like 120 people on that god-forsaken island? Well under Dunbar's number.
Plus we're girt by sea.

I'm trying to work out what social interactions you are opposed to. You just described them vaguely as "dances".

I can surmise your main point is that we need a common enemy to unite against, if we are to have any hope of existing in large numbers. One of the main theories on what will happen when (if) alien life makes contact do we throw down our own animosity between races and unite under a new perception of self?

Most likely would only happen should the alien be hostile, or we become hostile towards it.

The opposing theory of course is that we already have a common enemy, death, old age, poverty, etc and nothing much has changed. There has been no great unity of all nations to fight poverty, for example.

What the human race needs is a Deus Ex Machina.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-04-19 20:48:03)

https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

I'm trying to work out what social interactions you are opposed to. You just described them vaguely as "dances".
Anything you do for no reason other than social advancement. For a lulzily extreme example: friends.

AussieReaper wrote:

I can surmise your main point is that we need a common enemy to unite against, if we are to have any hope of existing in large numbers. One of the main theories on what will happen when (if) alien life makes contact do we throw down our own animosity between races and unite under a new perception of self?
Haha, you know I took external (but terrestrial) out of the first sentence.

My main point is a question. Do we need a common enemy, or can we develop a new perception of self conducive to a large workable society?

AussieReaper wrote:

The opposing theory of course is that we already have a common enemy, death, old age, poverty, etc and nothing much has changed. There has been no great unity of all nations to fight poverty, for example.
And because it is universal it is internal not external, and is no more unifying than the question of what we're going to have for dinner.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)
I feel a Lennon YouTube video coming on...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2009-04-19 20:50:39)

AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Haha, you know I took external (but terrestrial) out of the first sentence.

My main point is a question. Do we need a common enemy, or can we develop a new perception of self conducive to a large workable society?
We do. But it just doesn't always boil down to a common enemy. A common goal is what is needed. The "enemy" fills that need. Without a common goal the collective falls apart because it loses the need to stay together and in the scale and size you're talking about, staying together is difficult enough even with a common goal.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

The opposing theory of course is that we already have a common enemy, death, old age, poverty, etc and nothing much has changed. There has been no great unity of all nations to fight poverty, for example.
And because it is universal it is internal not external, and is no more unifying than the question of what we're going to have for dinner.
What the human race needs is a Deus Ex Machina, but without an "alien" for example, it isn't going to get one.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

because it is universal it is internal not external.
That's a non sequitur.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Haha, you know I took external (but terrestrial) out of the first sentence.

My main point is a question. Do we need a common enemy, or can we develop a new perception of self conducive to a large workable society?
We do. But it just doesn't always boil down to a common enemy. A common goal is what is needed. The "enemy" fills that need. Without a common goal the collective falls apart because it loses the need to stay together and in the scale and size you're talking about, staying together is difficult enough even with a common goal.
An enemy is a goal true, but it is the only kind of goal that has great enough urgency and high enough stakes to be effective.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

because it is universal it is internal not external.
That's a non sequitur.
lawl, maybe it came out that way, it was more of a paradox in my head.

Because it applies to everyone, it does not draw the lines that are so necessary for groups to form in order to work against each other, but instead are worked out by each group in their own way within the lines.
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

because it is universal it is internal not external.
That's a non sequitur.
lawl, maybe it came out that way, it was more of a paradox in my head.

Because it applies to everyone, it does not draw the lines that are so necessary for groups to form in order to work against each other, but instead are worked out by each group in their own way within the lines.
And that's a circular argument - "it doesn't force us into groups that work against each other because it unites us".

I think you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity for a functioning society.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

That's a non sequitur.
lawl, maybe it came out that way, it was more of a paradox in my head.

Because it applies to everyone, it does not draw the lines that are so necessary for groups to form in order to work against each other, but instead are worked out by each group in their own way within the lines.
And that's a circular argument - "it doesn't force us into groups that work against each other because it unites us".
Something that every group does does not unite us - it is just a necessity. They are not always the same thing.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

I think you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity for a functioning society.
That is the whole point of the thread. Is that assumption true or not?
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5965|Truthistan
The whole psychology of "the other" is interesting. We segment ourselves by nation, by race, by religion, by tribal or tribal like affiliation, by families and friends. Then those groups make alliances like Greeks did to fight the Persians.

Its interesting because we can create the image of the other, eg cold war soviet union, and then you meet some people from Russia, become friends and compare notes on what your general perceptions or stereotypes were of each other and come to realize people are people.

I guess one instinctive reason for creation of the other is the "greedy gene." We want our offspring to thrive and flourish so we gather resources and nest. that requires the exclusion of others, so we form familial bonds and alliances etc etc. I think that by not knowing other people personally, it makes it easy to gather the stuff we need without concern that someone else might die. We just don't make that connection and so its out of sight and out of mind.

The only thing that pulls us out of that is when there is a larger perceived threat like in WW II. But as soon as that threat diminishes we return to out more basic tribal affiliations.

I would propose that the American model of sovereignty vested in the individual is part of the solution. The individual must be empowered first, then the individual engages in a direct relationship with the national authority. Unfortunately for the US its a work in progress with groups divided on racial, religious and even state lines and where power brokers are usurping power from individuals under the guise of speaking for "family values" amongst other things. It seems antithetical that to build a global identity would require stripping people back to their individuality, but I don't see how it could be achieved on the basis of groups forming alliances where those alliances are basically formed for a common defense and not for any positive aspirational function.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire
Humans are animals. We will divide up into groups/tribes/nations on a needs be basis and kill and slaughter our perceived enemies in the name of our own interests for many more years to come sadly. We are not highly evolved enough to do away with our many social constructs, they have developed and adapted organically within our societies since the days of the neanderthals and they are there for a reason, we can't simply flick a switch and get rid of them.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I would propose that the American model of sovereignty vested in the individual is part of the solution. The individual must be empowered first, then the individual engages in a direct relationship with the national authority. Unfortunately for the US its a work in progress with groups divided on racial, religious and even state lines and where power brokers are usurping power from individuals under the guise of speaking for "family values" amongst other things. It seems antithetical that to build a global identity would require stripping people back to their individuality, but I don't see how it could be achieved on the basis of groups forming alliances where those alliances are basically formed for a common defense and not for any positive aspirational function.
I agree with your first sentence in general, but how do you justify practices like taxation and national defense? Of course this makes sense in context of all the other "tribes" we share the world with, but how can those principles serve to empower the individual when they are the solutions to the problems of the whole?

Unless every country takes a step back to the individual simultaneously, I don't see how any nation that is truly a nation of individuals could exist. It is a method of thinking mutually exclusive to our current method.

Braddock wrote:

Humans are animals. We will divide up into groups/tribes/nations on a needs be basis and kill and slaughter our perceived enemies in the name of our own interests for many more years to come sadly. We are not highly evolved enough to do away with our many social constructs, they have developed and adapted organically within our societies since the days of the neanderthals and they are there for a reason, we can't simply flick a switch and get rid of them.
Humans can be rational.

We can flick the switch if we choose to.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Humans are animals. We will divide up into groups/tribes/nations on a needs be basis and kill and slaughter our perceived enemies in the name of our own interests for many more years to come sadly. We are not highly evolved enough to do away with our many social constructs, they have developed and adapted organically within our societies since the days of the neanderthals and they are there for a reason, we can't simply flick a switch and get rid of them.
Humans can be rational.

We can flick the switch if we choose to.
Well then why haven't we?
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Humans are animals. We will divide up into groups/tribes/nations on a needs be basis and kill and slaughter our perceived enemies in the name of our own interests for many more years to come sadly. We are not highly evolved enough to do away with our many social constructs, they have developed and adapted organically within our societies since the days of the neanderthals and they are there for a reason, we can't simply flick a switch and get rid of them.
Humans can be rational.

We can flick the switch if we choose to.
Well then why haven't we?
Because we aren't being rational.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

The human mind isn't constructed for rational thoughts, it will always demand competition and to excel in a group ... a group of people with the exact same opinions and thoughts would quickly die out over the group that experiences conflicts and are divided ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
tazz.
oz.
+1,338|6145|Sydney | ♥

Im not completely sure what the concept of this topic is, as it seems to be scattered and changing...

Is it possible to form a modern society that can function without external conflict?
First of all, who's going to "form" this "modern society". The Government? You? Or is it hypothetical...


All "modern societies" are today tightly bound on so many variables, that the system as a whole, is an unstable balance. We can see this with the "financial crisis" cycle. For a society to work, it doesn't need simply "Personal Relations" for people to open up and take people whole heatedly, but a layered infrastructure that pushes the country as a whole group into greater heights of financial stability.

If we observer native tribes, we can see "Personal Relations" as touched on by Diesel. We can see how these simply work, you have small families, hunters, cooks, the fundamental needs of the community.

Keeping on "Personal Relations", your going to have personality clashes, there is people in the world that you are just not going to get along with, and this will cause a major problem towards your concept of a "Common Goal".

People from different religions, countries/flags, all have been brought up and nurtured differently, shaping their perspectives on different global concepts.


Although Ive been brief, i hope you understand where im coming from.

Last edited by tazz. (2009-04-20 06:13:18)

everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


Humans can be rational.

We can flick the switch if we choose to.
Well then why haven't we?
Because we aren't being rational.
You're living in fantasy land. Humans aren't consciously choosing to be rational or irrational, they are just being humans. You are talking like a philosopher who has spent their whole life ruminating in a cafe but has never opened their eyes to look at the world around them. Individuals can "flick the switch" and swim against the stream if they choose to but they become the exception, not the norm. Society as a whole is not evolved enough to discard its social constructs, hence why it has not done so.

Even when large sections of the global population decide to go against the grain they inevitably encounter an equally sizable population who will try to vilify them for doing so... just look at Communism versus Capitalism.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Varegg wrote:

The human mind isn't constructed for rational thoughts
Explain anything we have ever accomplished then plz.

Varegg wrote:

it will always demand competition and to excel in a group ... a group of people with the exact same opinions and thoughts would quickly die out over the group that experiences conflicts and are divided ...
Aussie already pointed out that there can be goals from within, problems can be found in health, distribution of wealth, etc. Do we need an external threat to hold us together?

ohhh now this is getting fun, fantasy lands and whatnot. Fucking school QQ.
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

Braddock wrote:

... just look at Communism versus Capitalism.
You mean how they have both proven to not work in their purest form???

Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6780|Nårvei

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

The human mind isn't constructed for rational thoughts
Explain anything we have ever accomplished then plz.
That would be the very few, the masses follow the very few ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Varegg wrote:

it will always demand competition and to excel in a group ... a group of people with the exact same opinions and thoughts would quickly die out over the group that experiences conflicts and are divided ...
Aussie already pointed out that there can be goals from within, problems can be found in health, distribution of wealth, etc. Do we need an external threat to hold us together?
Maybe ... I'm not sure even an alien invasion would do that tbh ...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

ohhh now this is getting fun, fantasy lands and whatnot. Fucking school QQ.
Sure is ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
tazz.
oz.
+1,338|6145|Sydney | ♥

how do you unite people with different languages....
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6261|Éire

tazz. wrote:

how do you unite people with different languages....
Make them speak English I'm guessing!
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6635|NT, like Mick Dundee

Braddock wrote:

tazz. wrote:

how do you unite people with different languages....
Make them speak English I'm guessing!
Nah bro with the way things are going the only languages you really need are Mandarin Chinese and one of the major Indian ones. English and Spanish are useful too.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard