A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Materialism and Tools

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Jan 22nd 2:47 PM
Perhaps this should be two topics, but they're two things that have got me thinking recently, and they seem to be kind of connected, so what the hey...

'Fight Club' has got me thinking about Materialism. Particularly the lines: 'We work all day in jobs we hate to buy things we don't need' and 'Eventually, the things you own own you'. I have so much stuff that I do not need, and I do hate my job. If I'd saved all the money I've spent on CDs, Stuff for my computer, etc, I could probably afford to quit my job and go on a course to get the skills to get a better one. I know this, and yet I still have trouble with the idea of giving up my connection to the consumerism of our society.

Also, it seems to me that the tools which are supposed to be labour-saving and comfort-enhancing devices can in fact handicap us. I doubt I could start a fire with two bits of wood. I certainly couldn't tell the time and my location by the sun and stars. I have just found out that one of the first known philosophers, Thales, calculated the height of one of the pyramids by measuring its shadow at the exact time of day that the length of his own shadow was equal to his height. Pure genius and yet common sense, but I wouldn't have thought of it because we have machines to do that. Do the things which make us comfortable and make our lives easier, make us too comfortable and make life too easy?

Min
User ID: 0074284 Jan 23rd 7:55 AM
The things which make us comfortable make us lethargic. And less inventive. As you said: There's to think of calculating the time by the sun and stars if there's a clock. How many of us would survive if left alone in the wilderness?

But as with all things, there are two sides. If humankind had not found ways to observe the skies, we would never have had the idea to go and explore. If no planes would have been invented, we would not have thought to search the universe. If we hadn't discovered the stars, we would never have reached for them.

There are two conflicting souls in humanskind: The one to lean beack and make things easier, the other to go out and explore, to develop and get ahead. Tools serve for both.

Materialism is, as you already said, fit for another topic. My Mum (and she's a wise one :-)) sais that the older she gets, the more _things_ loose their importance. She actually has very few things, and even few tools to make her life easier. The only thing our house is packed with is books (which, as I may remark, we would not have if had printing not been invented). Books in every room, thousands of them. Apart from that, she came to throw things away more and more, for she began to see them as a burden more than a utility. She sais it's a question of age, too, but I have learned some things from her already.

The question of tools and materialism is not easy (but interesting to discuss, thanks, Spinx): Would we have to make fire with two sticks, we would be more inventive at keeping ourselves warm. We would think of ways. But on the other hand, we would probably have no time to think about other questions, such as materialism and tools - we would be occupied by the task of not freezing in winter. Two sides again.

Perhaps it comes down to ourselves again. To what we make of it. CHOICE, sphinx. I prefer to write this in capital letters, for the word deserves it. A situation where there is no choice does not exist, though people sometimes like to pretend there is. It is our choice to use our tools or to be strangled by them.
Which comes down to?
Well, for example: If you hate your job, quit it. Dare to jump above your own surface. Dare to explore your own abyss. CHOICE.

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 23rd 8:46 AM
Min , that choice is not always available. It is easy to say if you dont like you job, quit it. But there are certain thing society has done to make it nearly impossible to survive without money.

Humans are pretty greedy creatures, who like to be comftorable. Its all about survival, and prelonged dis-comfort = death. No naturaly we improve our way of life in order to make it all easier. But you can live without all that comfort and prephase free yourself from the "burdens of society". Anarchy would be the best way to go about thi. Everyman rules himself. I't doesnt have to be a horrible thing, anarchy. In our soceity its used as a description for out of control maniacs. Just because a man isnt living within certain boundry of laws doesnt mean he turns into a bloodthirsty savage.

Thats what Fight CLub was saying, Brad Pit said something like "I'd like to hunt elf in the ruins of Rockerfeller Center"

He just wishes he could do something "meaningful", hunting for food, growing crops, making a shelter for your family, defending the village. Frankley I would like to see that as well.

Min
User ID: 0074284 Jan 23rd 10:18 AM
I agree and disagree, Relic. :-)
You are right about anarchy, perhaps, the problem is: It doesn't work. Why? How'd you put it? "Humans are pretty greedy creatures". That's why. Do you think Anarchy would work other than in a small group (talking about a farm out west :-))? I don't.

But I admid: "Quit your job" was a kind of provocation. I know it's not that easy. Heavens know I know. :-) What I really wanted to say was: There always is _a_ choice. Not necessarily the perfect choice, but a choice nevertheless. We are not ruled by instincts (though we should not underestimate the parts of us that are), but we can add logic and emotion to it. And there it is again: Choice. Decision. In a situation we are not happy with, in any situation in fact, we have to decide which to follow. Which of the three, to be precise. And I know this is not easy. But we _can_ decide. Always.

And this is where materialism and tools join the game again. Choice. Saying we are slaves of our material belongings takes away the choice. We are not. We can choose, and we need not necessarily choose all or nothing. The wonderful - and terrible - thing about life is that we have to choose over and over again. Each day anew.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 23rd 1:22 PM
Would we have greater freedom if we gave up consumerism, and 'hunted elk in the ruins of Rockefeller Center'?

Were the people in the pre-modern time more free than us? They still had to eat, get housing for the family, clothes, etc.etc. Most people were dependent on farm land - without that, they had nothing to earn their upkeep elsewise. A few could
exploit their skills in certain crafts. Both were tied down - the former to his land, which he had to till night and day.

The other could travel a bit more, but he was generally tied to the cities, where markets could be found for his craftsmanship. Both had little enough spare time.
They ate more or less the same things every day - and did the same things every day.

Nowadays, land is hardly a prerequisite for making a living (note - I'm talking from a Westernized PoV) - we more and more can depend on our skills - so called 'human capital'. We have (in general) much more spare time, can travel all over the world if we so choose, develop our minds, taste all sorts of foods, read, discuss, make love...it's a long list of things we can do as they could not before, or not to such an extent.

I think we suffer from a widespread 'the grass is greener on the other side of the fence' syndrome - people believe as a rule that things were better before, that others have it better now, etc.
If we so choose, we can generally live the way they lived before. Few enough seem to think that is an OK life to live, tho.

There is little doubt in my mind that we are better off now than before - not necessarily 'free', but '_more_ free'.

Min
User ID: 0074284 Jan 23rd 4:16 PM
Freedom. Choice. Sorry, I had to do it again. :-)

We're only free if we can choose. And this depends on ourselves.

You are right in one thing, though. We have more possibilities of choice nowadays. A hundred years ago, I wouldn't have had the choice where to live, or which job to take (I most likely wouldn't have one) and not even what man to live with. I have all these choices now. That makes it, well, better of course, ut are we more free? That depends only on this: Do we take the choices we're offered?

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 24th 4:02 AM
Min;

All right. When can we _not_ choose?

You have to have _awareness_ of opportunity to choose, at the very least.
And you have to (in my mind) not be tied to responsibilities that leaves you unable to choose a different course.

Both of these have very little to do with consumerism. Was that your point?

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 24th 4:51 AM
Min , anarchy working or not working isnt really the point. Every human being should be able to make his own decisions. If they dont want to live in a city and make money they shouldnt have to. If they dont want to partake in government event(read-taxes), they shouldnt have to. If they want to smoke a plant, any kind of plant , they should be allowed. Basically no matter what we think of anarchy today shouldnt take away from the fact that its the only fair way of doing things. No rules, no regulations. No control.

KAH- i didnt mean for the post to sound the way it did. Most civilizations of past years have had it alot worse than we. MOST. What i was saying is that what WE do today as humans is almost unnatural. Humans are animals and I believe that our "natural" way of life is living of land. Seeing the stars in the skies and breathing fresh air.

Alex
User ID: 9892733 Jan 24th 2:32 PM
Relic, no rules,no regulations, no control also means no responsibilities for one's action inforced. Anyways, anarchy would never materialize (nor did it ever), because it is not a stable social structure. There are many famous historian and philosophers who studied various forms of government and arrived to this idea. (For ex. "Leviathan" would be one great book about it). People always worked out some form of goverment among themselves because it is the natural thing to do. Living of the land and seeing stars in the skies is beautifull, but somewhat naive approach to our existance. Many utopias had been attempted, and all failed. I would suggest that instead of anarchy, those who interested in persuing the more free living arrangements, to become existentialists - same logic, but includes taking responsibility for your acts. Anyway, if someone believes in better way of living under stars and of the land, it is actually easier to do now, then in old times, so who is to stop them? Go and live off the land, people, and do not forget that natural childbirth practice (under the stars with buskets of boiled water) and some rusty knives if cesarian will be nesessary - that will certainly add flavor to such life (the child mortality rates were roughly 40 times higher back then)

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 24th 5:35 PM
Hmmm...sarcasm Alex? Just because humans havent done it doesnt mean it CANNOT be done. Also anarchy does not mean no responsibilities. People can be aware, caring and all that jazz while still making their own rules.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Jan 24th 6:06 PM
What was that old saying - I can't remember exactly how it goes but it's something like 'if you have one person on a desert island, you have x, two people you have y... i seem to remember that at three people you have jealousy, five you have prejudice, six you have war...' it doesn't sound too good with me making a hash of it, but maybe someone will get the gist or be reminded of the actual saying.

I wasn't trying to romanticise a more basic, primitive life, I know there are loads of disadvantages to giving it all up, but nevertheless, I do feel trapped. Min, choices have repercussions; consequences.

Relic, I'm afraid that, as per the saying above, whilst I'm generally an optimist, I'm a pessimist about humanity in general. We're NEVER going to get it right. For what you're suggesting to happen, each and every person has to say 'I could take certain actions now which would result in great personal gain, but I won't because if everyone did such things, we'd all lose out in the long run.' Sure, some people will do that, but a huge chunk of humanity would just take take take.

Alex
User ID: 0296604 Jan 24th 7:36 PM
Not just a huge chunk, all of them. It is natural. Relic, I apologize for sarcasm, I do respect your views and opinions. It is just, I have not heard the "come back to nature and our roots" slogan for a very long time, and it is so ...refreshing... I could not resist. However, because it has never been done, it means that in CANNOT be done. We are talking not about inventions and such, but actually coming a few stages down in mankind's development - would not work, as it did not work when we did not have indoor plumbing and lived of the land. Do you belive in progress? Evolution? Also, it is quite possible to respect nature and be close to it, without refusing the technical advantages of our age, don't you think?

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 24th 8:41 PM
Sphinx;

It's not about getting it right.

It's about getting it _better_. :o)

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 24th 9:46 PM
Alex saying that it CANNOT happen because it did not is like saying humans have tried EVERYTHING. ALl it takes in my opinion is removing the notion of life after death, accepting a finite life, and you would see how many people would stop caring about material possesions. I know we need our medical advances and scientific explanations but it all can be done, a) not destroying your planet and b) learning to live as one with all other lifeforms on this chunk of soil floating around eternity that we call Earth.

Alex
User ID: 9892733 Jan 25th 8:31 AM
It is all the matter of opinions, of course. I personnaly thing that we tried every known form of government and/or social structure (note the word "known"). Anarchy is a "known" way of social structure, which (especially at the beginning of 20th century) had supporters far more educated and eloquent than your humble opponent, yet it was not accepted. As far as the attempt to remove the notions of life afer death is concerned, it was tried too, on a very professional level in all the communist countries, to which I was personnaly a witness. Believe me, it can only bring out the worst in human nature, when done on a mass scale. On the personal level, I accept the possibility of a finite life(being an atheist), but it makes no difference to me whatsoever, as far as my material and other possesions go.

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 25th 10:22 AM
Alex;

Well, not that I'm an all out anarchist or anything, but you should consider that those in power had (and still have) a vested interest in associating anarchism with 'chaos', 'unstability', etc.

Small wonder if a privileged man was sceptical to a view that would, if implemented, take away his privileges and power.

Alex
User ID: 9892733 Jan 25th 1:57 PM
Yes, of course. But it goes deeper than this, to the very origins of social organization and government. The thing is, we all have a vested interest in having an organized government (of sorts, actual types vary), voluntary limiting our freedom up to a point. There are many explanations as to why do we have that vested interest, provided by infamous sociologists and historians of 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (and I have completely forgotten names and most of the basic explanations, although all of them are very sharp), but the fact is undeniable - we do have that interest in organazed society (read -government) and always did. The degree of limits to our personal freedom (and, for ex. US Constitution is a limitation of sourts, not to mentions criminal laws, etc)may vary, the governments may be good or evil, etc., but they will always be there, as well as different counties and societies, contrary to what Marx and Engles thought (when they were not drunk, that is). Therefore, there will never be anarchy, which is a "utopic" concept anyway.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Jan 25th 5:12 PM
Sorry I saw this discussion late. Its a good one.

I really agree with Min's point about choices. And also with Kay-Arne's point about "the grass being greener". Go back to the middle ages, or even earlier hunter-gatherer times. No medicine, abysmal life expectancy, high child mortality, at the mercy of the seasons, disease, etc. Brad Pitt wants to hunt elk? Or was it elf? Sounds really neat, but what do you do if the herd is diseased, or driven away by bad weather, or some other tribe decides to attack yours and take the elk that you killed? Maybe these are "real" obstacles to be overcome, but I hardly think that the folk back then relished the opportunity to struggle to live from day to day.

Min's books -- the only way we can possibly read them is because of the leisure time created by increased productivity. We sit here and "talk" to each other across the world. I'd never have met any of you if not for the demon "technology"

We've ended up where we are because of the choices made by our very human ancestors, who decided it would be better to grow crops in one place than follow herds of animals. Who decided that living in cities gave them additional companionship and security. Who decided that bing able to have light at night was a good thing. The world didn't just happen to come out the way it is now. It ended up this way because individuals made choices as to what they preferred.

The anarchy angle has me a little confused. Are we talking about what is sometimes referred to as libertarianism or are we talking true anarchy? True anarchy isn't minimal government -- its _no_ government at all. No police, no military, no roads, no courts, no judges, no laws. Without laws, the only way to resolve disputes is by force. No contracts, because there's nobody to enforce them. No private property, because there's no mechanism for protecting property rights. Most importantly, there's no means to control those who would use violence or force to achieve their ends.

In fact, I think pure anarchy is impossible. Suppose you set up a society with no government. Inevitably, some folk will band together to impose their will on others. This gang will have a leader, who may style himself king, lord, boss, whatever. He'll appoint henchmen to collect "taxes" from people under his control and establish rules for those who live within the domain of his power. That's one form of government, and the pure anarchic society no longer exists. And if the victims band together to defend themselves and select a leader to lead (which inevitably includes commnading) them, they've created a government of their own.

Relic, you say everyone human being should be allowed to make his or her own choices. Ok, suppose I "choose" to kill my neighbor, rape his wife, and take his house for my own. There have to be limits on choices, and I don't think that anarchism recognizes that.

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 25th 6:36 PM
Jeff, why would you make a choice like that? See saying shit like that is really what makes it all impossible. Its like people just wont accept freedom. What do you need control for? Nothing. But its a comfort zone your brain wont let go of. Sure there are a few bad apples that might want to to nasty shit to other people. But a)sooner or later they are going to have thier lives ended my violence and b)the longer people live in an archy like envoronment the more they would get used to it and yes my friends, even thrive in it.

Shagga
User ID: 9022063 Jan 25th 11:38 PM
Whoever said that death is not a part of life??

Utopia is a dream, well meaning but in effect impossible.

We look at society today as if death is not a reality.

i work at a newspaper and if ya dont mind my sayin all of these things you talk of as being bad... like rapin your next door neighbor's wife or stealing from people happens every day. People starve to death. the number one killer among children is a condition known as diahrrea. The world is horrible.....

Next 20 Messages Newest Messages

Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Jan 22nd 2:47 PM Perhaps this should be two topics, but they're two things that have got me thinking recently, and they seem to be kind of connected, so what the hey... 'Fight Club' has got me thinking about Materialism. Particularly the lines: 'We work all day in jobs we hate to buy things we don't need' and 'Eventually, the things you own own you'. I have so much stuff that I do not need, and I do hate my job. If I'd saved all the money I've spent on CDs, Stuff for my computer, etc, I could probably afford to quit my job and go on a course to get the skills to get a better one. I know this, and yet I still have trouble with the idea of giving up my connection to the consumerism of our society. Also, it seems to me that the tools which are supposed to be labour-saving and comfort-enhancing devices can in fact handicap us. I doubt I could start a fire with two bits of wood. I certainly couldn't tell the time and my location by the sun and stars. I have just found out that one of the first known philosophers, Thales, calculated the height of one of the pyramids by measuring its shadow at the exact time of day that the length of his own shadow was equal to his height. Pure genius and yet common sense, but I wouldn't have thought of it because we have machines to do that. Do the things which make us comfortable and make our lives easier, make us too comfortable and make life too easy?
Min User ID: 0074284	Jan 23rd 7:55 AM The things which make us comfortable make us lethargic. And less inventive. As you said: There's to think of calculating the time by the sun and stars if there's a clock. How many of us would survive if left alone in the wilderness? But as with all things, there are two sides. If humankind had not found ways to observe the skies, we would never have had the idea to go and explore. If no planes would have been invented, we would not have thought to search the universe. If we hadn't discovered the stars, we would never have reached for them. There are two conflicting souls in humanskind: The one to lean beack and make things easier, the other to go out and explore, to develop and get ahead. Tools serve for both. Materialism is, as you already said, fit for another topic. My Mum (and she's a wise one :-)) sais that the older she gets, the more _things_ loose their importance. She actually has very few things, and even few tools to make her life easier. The only thing our house is packed with is books (which, as I may remark, we would not have if had printing not been invented). Books in every room, thousands of them. Apart from that, she came to throw things away more and more, for she began to see them as a burden more than a utility. She sais it's a question of age, too, but I have learned some things from her already. The question of tools and materialism is not easy (but interesting to discuss, thanks, Spinx): Would we have to make fire with two sticks, we would be more inventive at keeping ourselves warm. We would think of ways. But on the other hand, we would probably have no time to think about other questions, such as materialism and tools - we would be occupied by the task of not freezing in winter. Two sides again. Perhaps it comes down to ourselves again. To what we make of it. CHOICE, sphinx. I prefer to write this in capital letters, for the word deserves it. A situation where there is no choice does not exist, though people sometimes like to pretend there is. It is our choice to use our tools or to be strangled by them. Which comes down to? Well, for example: If you hate your job, quit it. Dare to jump above your own surface. Dare to explore your own abyss. CHOICE.
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jan 23rd 8:46 AM Min , that choice is not always available. It is easy to say if you dont like you job, quit it. But there are certain thing society has done to make it nearly impossible to survive without money. Humans are pretty greedy creatures, who like to be comftorable. Its all about survival, and prelonged dis-comfort = death. No naturaly we improve our way of life in order to make it all easier. But you can live without all that comfort and prephase free yourself from the "burdens of society". Anarchy would be the best way to go about thi. Everyman rules himself. I't doesnt have to be a horrible thing, anarchy. In our soceity its used as a description for out of control maniacs. Just because a man isnt living within certain boundry of laws doesnt mean he turns into a bloodthirsty savage. Thats what Fight CLub was saying, Brad Pit said something like "I'd like to hunt elf in the ruins of Rockerfeller Center" He just wishes he could do something "meaningful", hunting for food, growing crops, making a shelter for your family, defending the village. Frankley I would like to see that as well.
Min User ID: 0074284	Jan 23rd 10:18 AM I agree and disagree, Relic. :-) You are right about anarchy, perhaps, the problem is: It doesn't work. Why? How'd you put it? "Humans are pretty greedy creatures". That's why. Do you think Anarchy would work other than in a small group (talking about a farm out west :-))? I don't. But I admid: "Quit your job" was a kind of provocation. I know it's not that easy. Heavens know I know. :-) What I really wanted to say was: There always is _a_ choice. Not necessarily the perfect choice, but a choice nevertheless. We are not ruled by instincts (though we should not underestimate the parts of us that are), but we can add logic and emotion to it. And there it is again: Choice. Decision. In a situation we are not happy with, in any situation in fact, we have to decide which to follow. Which of the three, to be precise. And I know this is not easy. But we _can_ decide. Always. And this is where materialism and tools join the game again. Choice. Saying we are slaves of our material belongings takes away the choice. We are not. We can choose, and we need not necessarily choose all or nothing. The wonderful - and terrible - thing about life is that we have to choose over and over again. Each day anew.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 23rd 1:22 PM Would we have greater freedom if we gave up consumerism, and 'hunted elk in the ruins of Rockefeller Center'? Were the people in the pre-modern time more free than us? They still had to eat, get housing for the family, clothes, etc.etc. Most people were dependent on farm land - without that, they had nothing to earn their upkeep elsewise. A few could exploit their skills in certain crafts. Both were tied down - the former to his land, which he had to till night and day. The other could travel a bit more, but he was generally tied to the cities, where markets could be found for his craftsmanship. Both had little enough spare time. They ate more or less the same things every day - and did the same things every day. Nowadays, land is hardly a prerequisite for making a living (note - I'm talking from a Westernized PoV) - we more and more can depend on our skills - so called 'human capital'. We have (in general) much more spare time, can travel all over the world if we so choose, develop our minds, taste all sorts of foods, read, discuss, make love...it's a long list of things we can do as they could not before, or not to such an extent. I think we suffer from a widespread 'the grass is greener on the other side of the fence' syndrome - people believe as a rule that things were better before, that others have it better now, etc. If we so choose, we can generally live the way they lived before. Few enough seem to think that is an OK life to live, tho. There is little doubt in my mind that we are better off now than before - not necessarily 'free', but '_more_ free'.
Min User ID: 0074284	Jan 23rd 4:16 PM Freedom. Choice. Sorry, I had to do it again. :-) We're only free if we can choose. And this depends on ourselves. You are right in one thing, though. We have more possibilities of choice nowadays. A hundred years ago, I wouldn't have had the choice where to live, or which job to take (I most likely wouldn't have one) and not even what man to live with. I have all these choices now. That makes it, well, better of course, ut are we more free? That depends only on this: Do we take the choices we're offered?
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 24th 4:02 AM Min; All right. When can we _not_ choose? You have to have _awareness_ of opportunity to choose, at the very least. And you have to (in my mind) not be tied to responsibilities that leaves you unable to choose a different course. Both of these have very little to do with consumerism. Was that your point?
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jan 24th 4:51 AM Min , anarchy working or not working isnt really the point. Every human being should be able to make his own decisions. If they dont want to live in a city and make money they shouldnt have to. If they dont want to partake in government event(read-taxes), they shouldnt have to. If they want to smoke a plant, any kind of plant , they should be allowed. Basically no matter what we think of anarchy today shouldnt take away from the fact that its the only fair way of doing things. No rules, no regulations. No control. KAH- i didnt mean for the post to sound the way it did. Most civilizations of past years have had it alot worse than we. MOST. What i was saying is that what WE do today as humans is almost unnatural. Humans are animals and I believe that our "natural" way of life is living of land. Seeing the stars in the skies and breathing fresh air.
Alex User ID: 9892733	Jan 24th 2:32 PM Relic, no rules,no regulations, no control also means no responsibilities for one's action inforced. Anyways, anarchy would never materialize (nor did it ever), because it is not a stable social structure. There are many famous historian and philosophers who studied various forms of government and arrived to this idea. (For ex. "Leviathan" would be one great book about it). People always worked out some form of goverment among themselves because it is the natural thing to do. Living of the land and seeing stars in the skies is beautifull, but somewhat naive approach to our existance. Many utopias had been attempted, and all failed. I would suggest that instead of anarchy, those who interested in persuing the more free living arrangements, to become existentialists - same logic, but includes taking responsibility for your acts. Anyway, if someone believes in better way of living under stars and of the land, it is actually easier to do now, then in old times, so who is to stop them? Go and live off the land, people, and do not forget that natural childbirth practice (under the stars with buskets of boiled water) and some rusty knives if cesarian will be nesessary - that will certainly add flavor to such life (the child mortality rates were roughly 40 times higher back then)
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jan 24th 5:35 PM Hmmm...sarcasm Alex? Just because humans havent done it doesnt mean it CANNOT be done. Also anarchy does not mean no responsibilities. People can be aware, caring and all that jazz while still making their own rules.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Jan 24th 6:06 PM What was that old saying - I can't remember exactly how it goes but it's something like 'if you have one person on a desert island, you have x, two people you have y... i seem to remember that at three people you have jealousy, five you have prejudice, six you have war...' it doesn't sound too good with me making a hash of it, but maybe someone will get the gist or be reminded of the actual saying. I wasn't trying to romanticise a more basic, primitive life, I know there are loads of disadvantages to giving it all up, but nevertheless, I do feel trapped. Min, choices have repercussions; consequences. Relic, I'm afraid that, as per the saying above, whilst I'm generally an optimist, I'm a pessimist about humanity in general. We're NEVER going to get it right. For what you're suggesting to happen, each and every person has to say 'I could take certain actions now which would result in great personal gain, but I won't because if everyone did such things, we'd all lose out in the long run.' Sure, some people will do that, but a huge chunk of humanity would just take take take.
Alex User ID: 0296604	Jan 24th 7:36 PM Not just a huge chunk, all of them. It is natural. Relic, I apologize for sarcasm, I do respect your views and opinions. It is just, I have not heard the "come back to nature and our roots" slogan for a very long time, and it is so ...refreshing... I could not resist. However, because it has never been done, it means that in CANNOT be done. We are talking not about inventions and such, but actually coming a few stages down in mankind's development - would not work, as it did not work when we did not have indoor plumbing and lived of the land. Do you belive in progress? Evolution? Also, it is quite possible to respect nature and be close to it, without refusing the technical advantages of our age, don't you think?
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 24th 8:41 PM Sphinx; It's not about getting it right. It's about getting it _better_. :o)
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jan 24th 9:46 PM Alex saying that it CANNOT happen because it did not is like saying humans have tried EVERYTHING. ALl it takes in my opinion is removing the notion of life after death, accepting a finite life, and you would see how many people would stop caring about material possesions. I know we need our medical advances and scientific explanations but it all can be done, a) not destroying your planet and b) learning to live as one with all other lifeforms on this chunk of soil floating around eternity that we call Earth.
Alex User ID: 9892733	Jan 25th 8:31 AM It is all the matter of opinions, of course. I personnaly thing that we tried every known form of government and/or social structure (note the word "known"). Anarchy is a "known" way of social structure, which (especially at the beginning of 20th century) had supporters far more educated and eloquent than your humble opponent, yet it was not accepted. As far as the attempt to remove the notions of life afer death is concerned, it was tried too, on a very professional level in all the communist countries, to which I was personnaly a witness. Believe me, it can only bring out the worst in human nature, when done on a mass scale. On the personal level, I accept the possibility of a finite life(being an atheist), but it makes no difference to me whatsoever, as far as my material and other possesions go.
KAH User ID: 0541004	Jan 25th 10:22 AM Alex; Well, not that I'm an all out anarchist or anything, but you should consider that those in power had (and still have) a vested interest in associating anarchism with 'chaos', 'unstability', etc. Small wonder if a privileged man was sceptical to a view that would, if implemented, take away his privileges and power.
Alex User ID: 9892733	Jan 25th 1:57 PM Yes, of course. But it goes deeper than this, to the very origins of social organization and government. The thing is, we all have a vested interest in having an organized government (of sorts, actual types vary), voluntary limiting our freedom up to a point. There are many explanations as to why do we have that vested interest, provided by infamous sociologists and historians of 18th, 19th and 20th centuries (and I have completely forgotten names and most of the basic explanations, although all of them are very sharp), but the fact is undeniable - we do have that interest in organazed society (read -government) and always did. The degree of limits to our personal freedom (and, for ex. US Constitution is a limitation of sourts, not to mentions criminal laws, etc)may vary, the governments may be good or evil, etc., but they will always be there, as well as different counties and societies, contrary to what Marx and Engles thought (when they were not drunk, that is). Therefore, there will never be anarchy, which is a "utopic" concept anyway.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Jan 25th 5:12 PM Sorry I saw this discussion late. Its a good one. I really agree with Min's point about choices. And also with Kay-Arne's point about "the grass being greener". Go back to the middle ages, or even earlier hunter-gatherer times. No medicine, abysmal life expectancy, high child mortality, at the mercy of the seasons, disease, etc. Brad Pitt wants to hunt elk? Or was it elf? Sounds really neat, but what do you do if the herd is diseased, or driven away by bad weather, or some other tribe decides to attack yours and take the elk that you killed? Maybe these are "real" obstacles to be overcome, but I hardly think that the folk back then relished the opportunity to struggle to live from day to day. Min's books -- the only way we can possibly read them is because of the leisure time created by increased productivity. We sit here and "talk" to each other across the world. I'd never have met any of you if not for the demon "technology" We've ended up where we are because of the choices made by our very human ancestors, who decided it would be better to grow crops in one place than follow herds of animals. Who decided that living in cities gave them additional companionship and security. Who decided that bing able to have light at night was a good thing. The world didn't just happen to come out the way it is now. It ended up this way because individuals made choices as to what they preferred. The anarchy angle has me a little confused. Are we talking about what is sometimes referred to as libertarianism or are we talking true anarchy? True anarchy isn't minimal government -- its _no_ government at all. No police, no military, no roads, no courts, no judges, no laws. Without laws, the only way to resolve disputes is by force. No contracts, because there's nobody to enforce them. No private property, because there's no mechanism for protecting property rights. Most importantly, there's no means to control those who would use violence or force to achieve their ends. In fact, I think pure anarchy is impossible. Suppose you set up a society with no government. Inevitably, some folk will band together to impose their will on others. This gang will have a leader, who may style himself king, lord, boss, whatever. He'll appoint henchmen to collect "taxes" from people under his control and establish rules for those who live within the domain of his power. That's one form of government, and the pure anarchic society no longer exists. And if the victims band together to defend themselves and select a leader to lead (which inevitably includes commnading) them, they've created a government of their own. Relic, you say everyone human being should be allowed to make his or her own choices. Ok, suppose I "choose" to kill my neighbor, rape his wife, and take his house for my own. There have to be limits on choices, and I don't think that anarchism recognizes that.
Relic User ID: 9328513	Jan 25th 6:36 PM Jeff, why would you make a choice like that? See saying shit like that is really what makes it all impossible. Its like people just wont accept freedom. What do you need control for? Nothing. But its a comfort zone your brain wont let go of. Sure there are a few bad apples that might want to to nasty shit to other people. But a)sooner or later they are going to have thier lives ended my violence and b)the longer people live in an archy like envoronment the more they would get used to it and yes my friends, even thrive in it.
Shagga User ID: 9022063	Jan 25th 11:38 PM Whoever said that death is not a part of life?? Utopia is a dream, well meaning but in effect impossible. We look at society today as if death is not a reality. i work at a newspaper and if ya dont mind my sayin all of these things you talk of as being bad... like rapin your next door neighbor's wife or stealing from people happens every day. People starve to death. the number one killer among children is a condition known as diahrrea. The world is horrible.....