ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6619

FM, you got bullied a lot in school didn't you?
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|6736|Cambridge (UK)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:


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.
Yes, I understand that. It's the highlighted part where it's circular. Again, you're pre-loading your arguments with the assumption that groups working against each other are a necessity.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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?
I know.

My point is, that you won't find the answer by first asserting that the assumption is true!

This is one of those questions where smoking a few spliffs worth of good quality grass can really help to dissolve those in-built assumptions to allow one to see through the veil of ones own belief system.

But then, of course, remembering what the hell it was you were thinking about in the first place, becomes a little more difficult...
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|5964|Truthistan

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.
I really did not see the OP as suggesting anarchism but rather the building of a global identity where you would still have governmental functions like taxation and defense. To me the OP was asking if there was something more positive that coud replace external conflict. That could be individualism where the building of groups and tribes would be dispensed with and everyone would engage the national/global identity as individuals.

The OP is interesting because its the inherent problem of being human that can lead to our extinction. Groups form around like ideology and battle each other. As technology advances those battles become more dangerous for humanities survival and if an individual dissents to the chaos they get put back into place like the Japanese saying the nail that sticks out gets hammered. But its the violence of groups that leads to wars and inevitably to our end. That's why individualism might hold out some hope for us. But indiviualism can't get us there if groups form up to beat individual thought back.

I would see individualism as being a necessary step towards replacing external conflict. If the first steps could happen anywhere it could happen in the US because of the structure of the constitution and reasoning behind the founding of the nation, but I see alot of "group thought" in the US that I really don't think could be reconciled with the soveriegnty of the individual. Like I said, if it can't happen here it won't happen anywhere and one only has to look at the calls for secession in Texas to see that it not likely to happen anytime soon, in fact I have no doubt that certain groups would call steps towards individualism a hallmark of the anti-christ and a sign of the end time. So to get to a global identity through individualism you are going to have massive conflict.

I think it was the book Future Shock that talked about WW III being a fight between nation states and tribal peoples. If a nation state engaged in individualism I think it would have a stronger national identity that could transform into a global identity. But then again what happens if individualism sweeps the globe but there are a few hold out tribes that refuse to accept it.  What happens to them? and doesn't that external conflict have the potential to destroy us all?

Perhaps were all doomed and its the advancement of our technology that is acting like a countdown timer to our demise where smaller and smaller groups can have increasingly more devistating effects.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

tazz. wrote:

First of all, who's going to "form" this "modern society". The Government? You? Or is it hypothetical..,
hypothetical

tazz. wrote:

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.
Isn't this the very reason that we should deal away with as much social complexity as possible?

tazz. wrote:

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.
If we were fragmented into small groups, would it not be easier for people to be voluntarily or forcefully ostracized?

People work better (not necessarily well even still) in smaller groups, I don't know that this is really even a point of contention. I think this is a principle that should be considered, not practically spat on.

Braddock wrote:

You're living in fantasy land. Humans aren't consciously choosing to be rational or irrational, they are just being humans.
This is stupid. Rationality is intrinsic, and using that rationality is a choice. Rationality is not a roll of the fucking dice in application.

Seriously can some people not take a test? Do they not sit down with the answer sheet in front of them and turn their rationality on?

Braddock wrote:

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.
And now you agree that rationality is a choice, contradicting yourself before.

The exception can become the norm. It's not like it hasn't happened before.

Braddock wrote:

Society as a whole is not evolved enough to discard its social constructs, hence why it has not done so.
The fact that it can be conceived means it could be done. It has chosen not to.

Braddock wrote:

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.
I find this a poor argument as to why societies should not go against the grain...this conflict developed/was developed by the two major superpower societies and schools of thought for decades, the conflict bringing each side together against a common goal and was a direct influence on some of humanity's greatest achievements.

Varegg wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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

bait more please

Varegg wrote:

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 ...
An argument for rationality then.

ghettoperson wrote:

FM, you got bullied a lot in school didn't you?
tense

But yes I am bullied frequently, I feel that my intelligence makes me an outcast to my peers and I am very self-conscious of that fact, to the point that it makes me a target to those stupid, lesser beings. I dream of a world where those of merit are united under my banner to rule over those without anything of value in the new world order.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

My point is, that you won't find the answer by first asserting that the assumption is true!
I am asking the question, then giving some points to think about that can be twisted into for or against.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina
I propose a new number called Norway's number, and it amounts to 4.8 million people.

Why?  Because they are at the top of the HDI (Iceland really isn't at the top anymore when you consider their current economic status), and Norway would appear to represent most of what could be considered optimal living.

They have low crime, great education, great healthcare, competitive markets, and even have weathered this recession pretty well.

If the whole world's population separated into groups of about 5 million, we probably would live better on average.

Of course, we'd have about 1,400 countries.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I really did not see the OP as suggesting anarchism but rather the building of a global identity where you would still have governmental functions like taxation and defense. To me the OP was asking if there was something more positive that coud replace external conflict. That could be individualism where the building of groups and tribes would be dispensed with and everyone would engage the national/global identity as individuals.
My point was how can any large society be truly individualistic? If it was that individualistic, it wouldn't exist...what purpose would there be to a national identity?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

The OP is interesting because its the inherent problem of being human that can lead to our extinction. Groups form around like ideology and battle each other. As technology advances those battles become more dangerous for humanities survival and if an individual dissents to the chaos they get put back into place like the Japanese saying the nail that sticks out gets hammered. But its the violence of groups that leads to wars and inevitably to our end. That's why individualism might hold out some hope for us. But indiviualism can't get us there if groups form up to beat individual thought back.
The individuals would have to wage a war of insidious thought, not of conventional warfare.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I would see individualism as being a necessary step towards replacing external conflict. If the first steps could happen anywhere it could happen in the US because of the structure of the constitution and reasoning behind the founding of the nation, but I see alot of "group thought" in the US that I really don't think could be reconciled with the soveriegnty of the individual. Like I said, if it can't happen here it won't happen anywhere and one only has to look at the calls for secession in Texas to see that it not likely to happen anytime soon, in fact I have no doubt that certain groups would call steps towards individualism a hallmark of the anti-christ and a sign of the end time. So to get to a global identity through individualism you are going to have massive conflict.
If it was to happen tomorrow, yeah the best bet would be here. In the long term though, I don't think so.

We are so close to it already compared to the rest of the world that it would be comparatively difficult to have a revolution that changes things in such small degrees. Revolutions are performed by very pissed off people that have a very different idea of how things should be run. I don't know if there could be a revolution as we have experienced in the past that just nudges America in the right direction. This of course assumes America quits going the wrong fucking way as it has been for quite some time and gets back to its founding principles.

That is assuming a violent revolution. Perhaps the radically different society we're talking about demands a radically different, peaceful transition.

Diesel_dyk wrote:

I think it was the book Future Shock that talked about WW III being a fight between nation states and tribal peoples. If a nation state engaged in individualism I think it would have a stronger national identity that could transform into a global identity. But then again what happens if individualism sweeps the globe but there are a few hold out tribes that refuse to accept it.  What happens to them? and doesn't that external conflict have the potential to destroy us all?
Individualism would have to give way to collectivism in practice towards the goal of going back to the ideal society. Total rationality cannot prevail without a completely rational world, and there would have to at the very least be a closed system of those who choose to be a part of it, in mind and body. Setting up that closed system would require an unparalleled physical and philosophical effort, probably over the course of generations.

Even if all of that is assumed to be possible, how do you perform maintenance on such a society that will undoubtedly produce some "bad apples" as it perfects its philosophy and general education system?

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Perhaps were all doomed and its the advancement of our technology that is acting like a countdown timer to our demise where smaller and smaller groups can have increasingly more devistating effects.
I have always thought that if weapons technology develops faster than transportation technology there is little doubt we will become extinct. I do not think we will die from overpopulation directly.

Great read as a whole.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

If the whole world's population separated into groups of about 5 million, we probably would live better on average.
Is there any reason that this number should not be larger or smaller, besides the arbitrary population of a nation's success that could very well be a product of luck more than anything? Have they actually done something right that makes 5 million an appropriate number?
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You're living in fantasy land. Humans aren't consciously choosing to be rational or irrational, they are just being humans.
This is stupid. Rationality is intrinsic, and using that rationality is a choice. Rationality is not a roll of the fucking dice in application.

Seriously can some people not take a test? Do they not sit down with the answer sheet in front of them and turn their rationality on?
Rationality comes into play regularly on a daily basis in the same way that primal urges and subconscious drives do. The human mind operates on many complex levels on an ongoing basis, there are millions of psychology papers written on the issue. If you want a prime example of the social code trumping the rationality of the individual just look at the bystander effect. There have been some countless shocking cases over the years were dozens of bystanders have been seen to seemingly 'switch off' their rationality in the presence of a vicious attack out of some sort of fear of violating an unspoken social norm.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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.
And now you agree that rationality is a choice, contradicting yourself before.

The exception can become the norm. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Please show me where I have said rationality is not a choice... my argument is that humans operate on a number of cognitive levels in their daily decision making, some fully conscious and rational, some subconscious and instinctive. The social cohesion we as humans have springs from a primarily instinctive impulse, you could even tie it back to the evolutionary aspect of nature in that it is our ability to co-operate as a society that has got us to where we are now. You can't just switch that off, not on a mass level at least. There are too many variables on a big scale to simply put down all our weapons and unite in some sort of utopia, it also goes against the competitive instinct that is intrinsic to the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Society as a whole is not evolved enough to discard its social constructs, hence why it has not done so.
The fact that it can be conceived means it could be done. It has chosen not to.
You are living in fantasy land. You are saying world peace is possible just because it can be imagined? ...think of the logistics for God's sake. How are the Palestinians and Israelis going to welcome each other with open arms until the land issue in the Holy land is addressed, how are the Russians and the Chechens going to make peace with each other when the Russians demand an influence in the region and the Chechens demand autonomy, how are the US going to make peace with the developing world when it demands free trade while workers campaign for fair trade.

What you are talking about is possible on a very small level, once you extrapolate it to a bigger scenario and add in all the variables it becomes a logistical nightmare. Just look at Communism, one of the great ideological successes and practical failures of our times.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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.
I find this a poor argument as to why societies should not go against the grain...this conflict developed/was developed by the two major superpower societies and schools of thought for decades, the conflict bringing each side together against a common goal and was a direct influence on some of humanity's greatest achievements.
I'm not saying societies should not go against the grain, I'm saying they won't. Look, it's like this... if society wanted what you're talking about it would go out and achieve it in a natural, organic manner, but as it is there are not enough people that share your utopian mentality and instead they cling to their social constructs. What you're calling for would demand an end to racism, an end to sectarianism, an end to class systems and an end to extreme wealth disparity... aint gonna happen in this lifetime!
tazz.
oz.
+1,338|6144|Sydney | ♥

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Isn't this the very reason that we should deal away with as much social complexity as possible?
Tell me one possible solution to "Dealing away with" such a fine tweaked infrastructure such as western society. You have investors, in companies, organisations, stocks.. these are just some of my briefly noted variables. How is it possible for the world as we know it, to throw away all this, for a goal of "functioning without external conflict". It's just not going to happen.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we were fragmented into small groups, would it not be easier for people to be voluntarily or forcefully ostracized?
Smaller groups, Whom do what...?  And if you ostracize people, you no longer have groups. These groups may also make bigger groups, Like in war, you have an infantry group, inside this you have smaller groups, engineers, snipers etc. People make groups which make bigger groups, so just having a bunch of small groups everywhere is not possible.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People work better (not necessarily well even still) in smaller groups, I don't know that this is really even a point of contention. I think this is a principle that should be considered, not practically spat on.
I'm not really sure how smaller groups is going along the topic of "functioning without external conflict"

Overall, i think what you're saying is a light on a well developed and steady society, but is impossible to ever be accomplished.


------

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The exception can become the norm. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
I agree, but it depends highly on the topic and personality of the individuals. For example at school, people would un-tuck their shirt, undo top buttons, pull down their socks etc, to be a rebel. however once everyone started to follow the trend, it is no longer the exemption but the norm, and being a rebel by these means is no longer possible.


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Isn't this the very reason that we should deal away with as much social complexity as possible?
Tell me one possible solution to "Dealing away with" such a fine tweaked infrastructure such as western society. You have investors, in companies, organisations, stocks.. these are just some of my briefly noted variables. How is it possible for the world as we know it, to throw away all this, for a goal of "functioning without external conflict". It's just not going to happen.

Last edited by tazz. (2009-04-21 03:37:19)

everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6260|Éire
You must recognise the complexity and logistical difficulty of what you are advocating Flaming_Maniac?

Just look at my recent thread on gun control for example, I made a theoretical proposal about regulating firearms with some sort of user-specific ID system and a whole host of practical issues were raised... and that's just gun control, you're talking about some sort of world peace. You can't even get a general sense of agreement on this forum, try taking your theory out on the road and see how far you get.

Nothing in human history has suggested that we can all get along, I don't know what has led you to believe we can all of a sudden. The rationality of the individual has only a modicum of influence over the behaviour of the collective.
tazz.
oz.
+1,338|6144|Sydney | ♥

Braddock wrote:

You must recognise the complexity and logistical difficulty of what you are advocating Flaming_Maniac?

Just look at my recent thread on gun control for example, I made a theoretical proposal about regulating firearms with some sort of user-specific ID system and a whole host of practical issues were raised... and that's just gun control, you're talking about some sort of world peace. You can't even get a general sense of agreement on this forum, try taking your theory out on the road and see how far you get.

Nothing in human history has suggested that we can all get along, I don't know what has led you to believe we can all of a sudden. The rationality of the individual has only a modicum of influence over the behaviour of the collective.
Totally Agree.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Ultrafunkula
Hector: Ding, ding, ding, ding...
+1,975|6444|6 6 4 oh, I forget

Turquoise wrote:

I propose a new number called Norway's number, and it amounts to 4.8 million people.

Why?  Because they are at the top of the HDI (Iceland really isn't at the top anymore when you consider their current economic status), and Norway would appear to represent most of what could be considered optimal living.

They have low crime, great education, great healthcare, competitive markets, and even have weathered this recession pretty well.

If the whole world's population separated into groups of about 5 million, we probably would live better on average.

Of course, we'd have about 1,400 countries.
FIN=WIN
Population
-  2009 estimate 5,331,483
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6375|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If the whole world's population separated into groups of about 5 million, we probably would live better on average.
Is there any reason that this number should not be larger or smaller, besides the arbitrary population of a nation's success that could very well be a product of luck more than anything? Have they actually done something right that makes 5 million an appropriate number?
When looking at Norway, Finland, and many other nations that are of similar qualities of life, it would appear that 5 million is about the threshold of proper representation under one government.  Beyond that, lobbyists take control of the government away from the people.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You're living in fantasy land. Humans aren't consciously choosing to be rational or irrational, they are just being humans.
This is stupid. Rationality is intrinsic, and using that rationality is a choice. Rationality is not a roll of the fucking dice in application.

Seriously can some people not take a test? Do they not sit down with the answer sheet in front of them and turn their rationality on?
Rationality comes into play regularly on a daily basis in the same way that primal urges and subconscious drives do. The human mind operates on many complex levels on an ongoing basis, there are millions of psychology papers written on the issue. If you want a prime example of the social code trumping the rationality of the individual just look at the bystander effect. There have been some countless shocking cases over the years were dozens of bystanders have been seen to seemingly 'switch off' their rationality in the presence of a vicious attack out of some sort of fear of violating an unspoken social norm.
Except that this has nothing to do with rationality, it has to do with paralyzing fear and cowardice in a high-stress situation.

If anything rationality is exerting itself in recognizing that the consequences of not helping are less severe, knowing the blame is distributed equally between all the bystanders.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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.
And now you agree that rationality is a choice, contradicting yourself before.

The exception can become the norm. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
Please show me where I have said rationality is not a choice... my argument is that humans operate on a number of cognitive levels in their daily decision making, some fully conscious and rational, some subconscious and instinctive. The social cohesion we as humans have springs from a primarily instinctive impulse, you could even tie it back to the evolutionary aspect of nature in that it is our ability to co-operate as a society that has got us to where we are now. You can't just switch that off, not on a mass level at least. There are too many variables on a big scale to simply put down all our weapons and unite in some sort of utopia, it also goes against the competitive instinct that is intrinsic to the Darwinian theory of evolution.

Braddock wrote:

Humans aren't consciously choosing to be rational or irrational, they are just being humans.
The rational can override the instinctual, particularly in our cushy world of plenty.

Weapons do not need to be laid down, competition does not have to decrease. Competition could begin in earnest without petty bullshit getting in the way.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Society as a whole is not evolved enough to discard its social constructs, hence why it has not done so.
The fact that it can be conceived means it could be done. It has chosen not to.
You are living in fantasy land. You are saying world peace is possible just because it can be imagined? ...think of the logistics for God's sake. How are the Palestinians and Israelis going to welcome each other with open arms until the land issue in the Holy land is addressed, how are the Russians and the Chechens going to make peace with each other when the Russians demand an influence in the region and the Chechens demand autonomy, how are the US going to make peace with the developing world when it demands free trade while workers campaign for fair trade.
Duh? If nothing else by the elimination of everyone but a single faction. It would not be that difficult. It becomes difficult (not impossible) when people start imposing all sorts of ridiculous (holy shit sarcasm) constraints on the issue, like the sanctity of human life.

Those are not rational problems in any case. Replace the old generation with the right people and things could be worked out with simple treachery, cunning, and binding agreements.

Braddock wrote:

What you are talking about is possible on a very small level, once you extrapolate it to a bigger scenario and add in all the variables it becomes a logistical nightmare. Just look at Communism, one of the great ideological successes and practical failures of our times.
Communism demands the damnation of exactly what makes us human. Rationality demands the exact opposite.

Braddock wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Braddock wrote:

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.
I find this a poor argument as to why societies should not go against the grain...this conflict developed/was developed by the two major superpower societies and schools of thought for decades, the conflict bringing each side together against a common goal and was a direct influence on some of humanity's greatest achievements.
I'm not saying societies should not go against the grain, I'm saying they won't. Look, it's like this... if society wanted what you're talking about it would go out and achieve it in a natural, organic manner, but as it is there are not enough people that share your utopian mentality and instead they cling to their social constructs. What you're calling for would demand an end to racism, an end to sectarianism, an end to class systems and an end to extreme wealth disparity... aint gonna happen in this lifetime!
Oh my god how do you think all the other social revolutions happened in an organic manner?

Enlightenment -> America, is that radical or organic enough for you? Where did all those monarchs Europe had a few centuries ago go?

edit: meh there is a shitload of sarcasm in that post, I'm tired, apologies

Braddock wrote:

You must recognise the complexity and logistical difficulty of what you are advocating Flaming_Maniac?

Just look at my recent thread on gun control for example, I made a theoretical proposal about regulating firearms with some sort of user-specific ID system and a whole host of practical issues were raised... and that's just gun control, you're talking about some sort of world peace. You can't even get a general sense of agreement on this forum, try taking your theory out on the road and see how far you get.
Frankly I think I recognize the magnitude more clearly than most.

No offense to yourself, but since you brought it up, the biometrics on firearms was absurd. If you said that to any competent relevant engineer they probably would have laughed in your face. The feasibility issues are profound and widespread, including durability, usability, effectiveness, cost, and obviously the politics of the issue. If I remember correctly it wasn't even limited to say hunting rifles, which would make more sense from a mechanical (large stock with the space for the electronics and shock protection) and practical (not meant to be used in self-defense in the first place, only meant to be used in very controlled, low-risk situations), or even better just a trigger lock.

These issues are those of forcing fledgling technology on finely-honed technology, particularly when the benefits are at best marginal and at worst debatable. The issues here are those of human potential, in which case it's not a really matter of if - it's a matter of how and when.

Braddock wrote:

Nothing in human history has suggested that we can all get along, I don't know what has led you to believe we can all of a sudden. The rationality of the individual has only a modicum of influence over the behaviour of the collective.
300 years ago we didn't even have interchangeable parts.

You are extrapolating with practically zero data.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

tazz. wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Isn't this the very reason that we should deal away with as much social complexity as possible?
Tell me one possible solution to "Dealing away with" such a fine tweaked infrastructure such as western society. You have investors, in companies, organisations, stocks.. these are just some of my briefly noted variables. How is it possible for the world as we know it, to throw away all this, for a goal of "functioning without external conflict". It's just not going to happen.
Infrastructure? You are confusing me...I didn't say anything about getting rid of any of that.

tazz. wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If we were fragmented into small groups, would it not be easier for people to be voluntarily or forcefully ostracized?
Smaller groups, Whom do what...?  And if you ostracize people, you no longer have groups. These groups may also make bigger groups, Like in war, you have an infantry group, inside this you have smaller groups, engineers, snipers etc. People make groups which make bigger groups, so just having a bunch of small groups everywhere is not possible.
Okay, if you ostracize people, you definitely still have groups haha.

The title of the thread is Dunbar's number. What if society was based completely around the idea of a series of smaller societies, about 150 people in number?

tazz. wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

People work better (not necessarily well even still) in smaller groups, I don't know that this is really even a point of contention. I think this is a principle that should be considered, not practically spat on.
I'm not really sure how smaller groups is going along the topic of "functioning without external conflict"

Overall, i think what you're saying is a light on a well developed and steady society, but is impossible to ever be accomplished.
I believe the above applies here as well.

tazz. wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The exception can become the norm. It's not like it hasn't happened before.
I agree, but it depends highly on the topic and personality of the individuals. For example at school, people would un-tuck their shirt, undo top buttons, pull down their socks etc, to be a rebel. however once everyone started to follow the trend, it is no longer the exemption but the norm, and being a rebel by these means is no longer possible.
Being a rebel is not rational.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If the whole world's population separated into groups of about 5 million, we probably would live better on average.
Is there any reason that this number should not be larger or smaller, besides the arbitrary population of a nation's success that could very well be a product of luck more than anything? Have they actually done something right that makes 5 million an appropriate number?
When looking at Norway, Finland, and many other nations that are of similar qualities of life, it would appear that 5 million is about the threshold of proper representation under one government.  Beyond that, lobbyists take control of the government away from the people.
The argument for having 5 million, not less? Say...150?
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6123|what

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The title of the thread is Dunbar's number. What if society was based completely around the idea of a series of smaller societies, about 150 people in number?
That number comes from the largest community of hunter gatherers  before you would see break away groups form and migrate elsewhere.

The reason that number seems to be the threshold was any more than 150 or so and the human mind does not easily relate to them as friends.

150 people was the number you could interact and socialize with easily - back then. These days the world is known, communication between two people across the globe can be instant. The number has become outdated.

Breaking into smaller groups isn't going to solve any problems. I don't know why you think it would.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

AussieReaper wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The title of the thread is Dunbar's number. What if society was based completely around the idea of a series of smaller societies, about 150 people in number?
That number comes from the largest community of hunter gatherers  before you would see break away groups form and migrate elsewhere.

The reason that number seems to be the threshold was any more than 150 or so and the human mind does not easily relate to them as friends.

150 people was the number you could interact and socialize with easily - back then. These days the world is known, communication between two people across the globe can be instant. The number has become outdated.

Breaking into smaller groups isn't going to solve any problems. I don't know why you think it would.
I hope you have some sources to back up some of those claims.

The human mind evolved on the concept of a tribe and of maintaining relations with that tribe. The threshold of 150 is about how many people that not only do you relate to, but you understand their social standing with the other 150 people that you know. It's not which friends you have, it's which friends your friends have, which enemies your friends have, which enemies have enemies to possibly be your friend, etc. Just because we can talk to someone across the globe does not mean we understand any part of their complex social network.
tazz.
oz.
+1,338|6144|Sydney | ♥

Infrastructure, i was trying to say that there is already a bunch of smaller groups (or organisations) working together as a bigger group (industry) towards a common goal -> financial stability.
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6677|67.222.138.85

tazz. wrote:

Infrastructure, i was trying to say that there is already a bunch of smaller groups (or organisations) working together as a bigger group (industry) towards a common goal -> financial stability.
Which is still fine, so long as the need for these groups to be social as well as functional is killed off. Assuming you wanted to break society down that is.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard