Back when we were tribal (ie. lived in tribes) people were great to each other, within the tribe (not so much towards other tribes).
But when we moved everyone into cities in conjunction with industrialization, we basically destroyed the tribe (which in modern times prior to industrialization took the form of communities).
Without community, yes, the world is just basically selfish people all out for their own gain/survival with no social commitment to anyone else.
read it partly, but no idea where (ive read too much over the years, everything is just a big blob of facts now).
But basically all kinds of (arguably) bad shit has occurred due to moving the population into the cities. Some good things have happened as well, but less so than the bad stuff. Like the whole concept of working 9-5 is purely the result of industrialization. No one ever thought of work in this way prior.
Not to say this is bad, but one interesting thing they've found was that as people got pushed into crowded cities, the rates of homosexuality went up (btw, I don't consider homosexuality a bad thing). They found in studies that as you cram people into small spaces (ie. cities, or prisons for example) rates of homosexuality rise. Not sure why, but that's what they found.
Not to say this is bad, but one interesting thing they've found was that as people got pushed into crowded cities, the rates of homosexuality went up (btw, I don't consider homosexuality a bad thing). They found in studies that as you cram people into small spaces (ie. cities, or prisons for example) rates of homosexuality rise. Not sure why, but that's what they found.
Yes and No. I'll probably score some downvotes here for my filthy hippy worldview, but here goes...
I think we choose this life. Sure there's badness and all, but you cannot have light without shadows. Good loses its meaning without Evil. Yin and Yang and all that business.
We live to experience. There will never be world peace, because then there will be nothing "interesting" for humankind to experience.
I think the danger here is, that people can get too caught up in all the evil and horribleness, especially in places like this subreddit where its basically the only thing ever posted! It would do well to remember that good does exist, and there is lots of it.
If only the bad is shown to us than that's all we see and feel. That's how we define the world. Try not watching the news for a few days, or reading articles on google news or whatever other crap that only has CNN, MSNBC, BLOOMBERG and the like as sources. Wow, Im trailing off here, but good is everywhere, we just don't allow ourselves to see it.
I believe humans in thier 'current form/stage of development' are too infantile to manage themselves let alone large societies or the world. Yes we are too selfish, greedy, violent, immoral, childish but most of all we are too easily manipulated. We were not meant to live 70 years. Imagine living thousands of years... we wouldnt graduate from school for 50 years? 60? 100? Imagine having decades of learning and maturing before even entering the workforce.
Yeah, but it's the State who has infantilized the population and encouraged them to be dependent.
Not to be partisan and pick on a particular party (because they're all bad), but I noticed that it's particularly acute on the Progressive side of the spectrum. While the Republicans at least pay lip service to things like "independence" and "rugged individualism," the Democrats seem like a coalition of various groups they seek to infantilize. Like how they seem to create programs to keep African-Americans dependent (and foster initiatives that discourage fathers in the house). Like how they have their benefits cut if a man lives with them. Result? Couples don't get married so that the woman doesn't lose her benefits. This leads to single-parent homes, and boys who wind up in gangs [looking for father figures]. It also makes the women dependent on the State--as a sort of surrogate for the missing male breadwinner.
Likewise, I notice the theme carrying over to millennial college-age people, where they seem like superannuated adolescents (wearing backpacks well into adulthood, and living in their parents' home, playing video games, when previous generations were starting families at the same juncture.) In addition, they're encouraged to look to the State for their needs. "Run up all the debt you want by taking college courses you can't afford--for degrees that won't ever lead to a job. The State should pick up your debts!"
This promise of transferring other people's money to you fosters a sense of entitlement. The narrative seems to be "You're not responsible for your own actions. Others owe you."
You can follow this line of thinking to the gun-issue as well. Whenever a horrible crime happens with a gun, they never blame the gunman. They place the blame where it belongs--squarely on the inanimate object.
Once again: The person is never responsible for their own acts.
It's infantilization across the board.
A dumbed-down helpless population.
Segments of society that, if the State ever collapsed, are so dependent, they'd starve without government entitlements or assistance.
Totalitarians love weak, infantilized, dependent serfs.
What they fear most are strong, independent, self-reliant people. Free men and women. Because you can't control them. They look after themselves, think for themselves--and are utterly immune to centralized state control.
The reality is: This process of infantilization is incredibly new. And it didn't precede the State. It's the result of it.
Learned helplessness is a very old phenomenon and it always involves the powerful seeking to solidify power for themselves while removing it from the common man.
Good comment, very insightful but what the fuck is wrong with wearing backpacks?
There's nothing wrong with backpacks--if you're hiking, or in special forces.
But, out in the adult world, there used to be a clear demarcation between childhood and adulthood. Men carried briefcases. Children wore baseball caps and carried backpacks.
When you see a 32 year-old man (living in his parents' basement) and he's dressed identically to an 8 year-old child, something has gone off kilter.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the creation of "youth culture". It basically began at the start of the Baby Boom generation, when young people began to vastly outnumber the older generation. To capitalize on the market, advertisers created new terms--like teenager. It's hard for us to imagine a time when that concept wasn't around, but it's true. For 99.9% of human history, young people were being weaned to become adults. If you traveled to 1930, the children were like little men and women. There was no prolonged "teen" existence. (Nor even a conception of a "teen" period of existence.)
The point wasn't to be a victim of arrested development [anchored into your pre-pubescent pupal stage]. It was to age out of it, and scale up into adulthood. So all energy was projected in that direction.
But that deflection away from the traditional model (where the emphasis was taken off of growing up and placed on "youth") happened when advertisers wanted to isolate a market, and re-sculpt their target-population's conception of themselves.
What's odd now is that "teen culture" is at odds with the changing demographics. Instead of youths being this massive economic force [as they were in the 1960s, vastly outnumbering their parents], now (due to the availability of abortion and birth-control pills) the current generation is dwarfed by the older generation.
Yet the now-established youth culture persists--even when the market that was initially driving it dried up.
So now you have these superannuated adolescents [known colloquially as "grups"] clinging to this mutated version of "teen culture" as they age out into their 20s and 30s. Sometimes [sadly] even their 40s.
Well I don't play video games but I carry my groceries in a backpack and I think a briefcase simply would not suffice.
It is nice to know that there are people out there thinking I am a stunted manchild because of my backpack.
Despite your glaringly obvious post secondary enlightenment allowing you to make painfully superficial pronouncements about the appearances of people I more or less agree with your premise.
Times change and not all of us adults can or want to be a Don Draper clone.
I personally have never judged any adult for wearing a backpack by itself. If you look like a normal, functional adult and you happen to have your stuff in a sack, who cares?
The mental picture I had was of someone with all the accoutrements of childhood--a backpack PLUS a baseball cap, short pants, etc.
Hollywood has long had fun with the whole manboy character: From Charlie Chaplin to Martin Short's "Clifford" to Paul Reuben's Peewee Herman:
The audience wasn't looking up at the screen, saying, "Hey, I want to be the maladjusted guy, suffering from arrested development!"
He was just amusing to watch.
In today's society, people (who are the stars of their own lives) aren't even aspiring to be the competent, rugged individual. They're content to be the clown. The manchild. As I said in the initial post: I believe that this is encouraged by the power-structure. They want us [especially men] to be dependent, weak, domesticated.
Hell, I'm a manchild in a lot of aspects myself. (I can't fix a car, change out plumbing, or wrestle a lion with my bare hands.) Maybe that's why I'm conscious of the phenomenon: Because I'm a victim of it.
There's nothing wrong with backpacks--if you're hiking, or in special forces.
Your clarification is entirely valid so you might want to avoid such absolute statements like the above.
Don't be so touchy.
Ironically being told that makes me want to choke you.
I might be or not be "touchy" but being in a position where I am forced daily to deal with smug millennial smart asses trying so painfully hard to get their money's worth out their otherwise worthless "educations" it becomes woefully tiresome.
Your last sentence is striking as I am currently breaking from installing a new kitchen sink and the tedium of installing plumbing is turning me into an ornery cunt.
Good talk, your insights are valuable but you come off as bit of a smug prick and that tends to demote your position from didactic to pedantic.
I am glad there are articulate thinkers left in this sub as the "don't be an unbased white cuck" crowd seems to be taking over.
When Socrates encountered a man in Athens who claimed to be able to discern people's character from their facial features, he looked at the philosopher and said, "Judging by your features, you are a shallow and crude individual, given to poor judgment and sensual preoccupations."
Whereupon Socrates said, "You, sir, know me well."
I echo that here now.
You called me a smug prick. My reflexive impulse is to deny it, to argue with you. But at the last moment (before I gather myself together to launch a spirited defense) the words die on my lips as a hated honesty constrains me.
Guilty as charged.
"You, sir, know me well."
(Here. Have an upvote. If I knew you in real life I'd let you have a kick at my balls--just as recompense for my dickish behavior.) I concede here now: You are my superior. Any man who can put a kitchen together has my admiration and respect.
We become great friends and eat all the grass together? :)
I do believe that humans are naturally born to kindness but some other 5th or 6th dimensional force has other ideas. Not trying to let evil people off the hook but if the world was created evil in the first place then it sure does explain why shits so fucked up. The gnostics were on to something to say the least.
You're very optimistic, I appreciate/respect that. I'm a realist though, and have seen much. Nature and people. There is nothing wrong with nature, the thing that is wrong is how we perceive it. We laugh at cat pics, but don't go into the fact that those same cuddly creatures will feast off us first, if we die. Dogs come second, which is why I hate cats, dogs are more loyal ( I love my dog ). Think about that for a second..... Kind of morbid, but deserves a discussion in this realm.
I accept your critique, it is not easy being an optimist, but I think it's my duty. And I definitely respect the realist point of view! We have control over a percentage of our reality so might as well inject as much positivity into that percent as possible. Paradoxically I also view it as my duty to ingest the hard ships of the world and hopefully draw attention to them and enlighten the collective consciousness on the wrong doings, so i'm no stranger to the fucked up shit mankind can do. I have two cats and they would eat me in a heartbeat lol.
I would agree. I also seem to get inspiration from knowledge (i'm an artist) so my research and understanding of the world isn't completely selfless. I just think that if there is an eternal consciousness that we are all a part of and all contribute to then I want to at least do my part.
What if I told you, that was your part? Understanding this concept, of nature? We are the Creator, for the Creator created us all.. There is beauty in chaos.... Check out a sunrise, in the wilderness. At the same, time, somewhere off in the woods, a predator is eating lunch ;). Still beauty in what you see before you....
Nature must operate in a selfish way. Either individual or group level.
You don't think mankind survived all the way throwing themselves at hungry bears, do you.
Just modern group dynamics don't allow us to be altruistic ( which we would be in a tribal setting since it feeds teh ego too ), so we resort to an atomic social model ( everyone for himself ).
Human nature is a desire for cooperation and comfort.
People say humans are warlike creatures but that is not our nature it is the nature of a subspecies within humanity known as the psychopath.
Some posit that six to ten percent of humanity are genetic psychopaths but their influence as "men of decisive action" aka people who act without empathy or concern for consequence spreads among the normal population and seeds itself as an unnatural norm.
33 comments
7 joekerr37 2016-03-09
yes and no.
Back when we were tribal (ie. lived in tribes) people were great to each other, within the tribe (not so much towards other tribes).
But when we moved everyone into cities in conjunction with industrialization, we basically destroyed the tribe (which in modern times prior to industrialization took the form of communities).
Without community, yes, the world is just basically selfish people all out for their own gain/survival with no social commitment to anyone else.
1 TheUniverseIsALie 2016-03-09
This is very interesting. Where did you read this? Or did you come up with that on your own?
1 joekerr37 2016-03-09
read it partly, but no idea where (ive read too much over the years, everything is just a big blob of facts now).
But basically all kinds of (arguably) bad shit has occurred due to moving the population into the cities. Some good things have happened as well, but less so than the bad stuff. Like the whole concept of working 9-5 is purely the result of industrialization. No one ever thought of work in this way prior.
Not to say this is bad, but one interesting thing they've found was that as people got pushed into crowded cities, the rates of homosexuality went up (btw, I don't consider homosexuality a bad thing). They found in studies that as you cram people into small spaces (ie. cities, or prisons for example) rates of homosexuality rise. Not sure why, but that's what they found.
2 TheUniverseIsALie 2016-03-09
Where did you read that? Can you link the source?
1 joekerr37 2016-03-09
I'll do a google search later. All I remember was it was a function over crowding, not just cities themselves.
4 stubkan 2016-03-09
Yes and No. I'll probably score some downvotes here for my filthy hippy worldview, but here goes...
I think we choose this life. Sure there's badness and all, but you cannot have light without shadows. Good loses its meaning without Evil. Yin and Yang and all that business.
We live to experience. There will never be world peace, because then there will be nothing "interesting" for humankind to experience.
I think the danger here is, that people can get too caught up in all the evil and horribleness, especially in places like this subreddit where its basically the only thing ever posted! It would do well to remember that good does exist, and there is lots of it.
Here you go; just in case you need it : http://thenicestplaceontheinter.net/
1 oshbear 2016-03-09
If only the bad is shown to us than that's all we see and feel. That's how we define the world. Try not watching the news for a few days, or reading articles on google news or whatever other crap that only has CNN, MSNBC, BLOOMBERG and the like as sources. Wow, Im trailing off here, but good is everywhere, we just don't allow ourselves to see it.
3 soul-love 2016-03-09
I think that's what modern society has become.
3 make_mind_free2go 2016-03-09
not naturally evil but self-centered greedy people make it that way.
2 Dude_wtf_seriously 2016-03-09
I believe humans in thier 'current form/stage of development' are too infantile to manage themselves let alone large societies or the world. Yes we are too selfish, greedy, violent, immoral, childish but most of all we are too easily manipulated. We were not meant to live 70 years. Imagine living thousands of years... we wouldnt graduate from school for 50 years? 60? 100? Imagine having decades of learning and maturing before even entering the workforce.
4 Drooperdoo 2016-03-09
Yeah, but it's the State who has infantilized the population and encouraged them to be dependent.
Not to be partisan and pick on a particular party (because they're all bad), but I noticed that it's particularly acute on the Progressive side of the spectrum. While the Republicans at least pay lip service to things like "independence" and "rugged individualism," the Democrats seem like a coalition of various groups they seek to infantilize. Like how they seem to create programs to keep African-Americans dependent (and foster initiatives that discourage fathers in the house). Like how they have their benefits cut if a man lives with them. Result? Couples don't get married so that the woman doesn't lose her benefits. This leads to single-parent homes, and boys who wind up in gangs [looking for father figures]. It also makes the women dependent on the State--as a sort of surrogate for the missing male breadwinner.
Likewise, I notice the theme carrying over to millennial college-age people, where they seem like superannuated adolescents (wearing backpacks well into adulthood, and living in their parents' home, playing video games, when previous generations were starting families at the same juncture.) In addition, they're encouraged to look to the State for their needs. "Run up all the debt you want by taking college courses you can't afford--for degrees that won't ever lead to a job. The State should pick up your debts!"
This promise of transferring other people's money to you fosters a sense of entitlement. The narrative seems to be "You're not responsible for your own actions. Others owe you."
You can follow this line of thinking to the gun-issue as well. Whenever a horrible crime happens with a gun, they never blame the gunman. They place the blame where it belongs--squarely on the inanimate object.
Once again: The person is never responsible for their own acts.
It's infantilization across the board.
A dumbed-down helpless population.
Segments of society that, if the State ever collapsed, are so dependent, they'd starve without government entitlements or assistance.
Totalitarians love weak, infantilized, dependent serfs.
What they fear most are strong, independent, self-reliant people. Free men and women. Because you can't control them. They look after themselves, think for themselves--and are utterly immune to centralized state control.
The reality is: This process of infantilization is incredibly new. And it didn't precede the State. It's the result of it.
2 oshbear 2016-03-09
The way you explained this system is spot on. I couldn't have explained it any better myself.
1 [deleted] 2016-03-09
Learned helplessness is a very old phenomenon and it always involves the powerful seeking to solidify power for themselves while removing it from the common man.
Good comment, very insightful but what the fuck is wrong with wearing backpacks?
1 Drooperdoo 2016-03-09
There's nothing wrong with backpacks--if you're hiking, or in special forces.
But, out in the adult world, there used to be a clear demarcation between childhood and adulthood. Men carried briefcases. Children wore baseball caps and carried backpacks.
When you see a 32 year-old man (living in his parents' basement) and he's dressed identically to an 8 year-old child, something has gone off kilter.
A lot of ink has been spilled on the creation of "youth culture". It basically began at the start of the Baby Boom generation, when young people began to vastly outnumber the older generation. To capitalize on the market, advertisers created new terms--like teenager. It's hard for us to imagine a time when that concept wasn't around, but it's true. For 99.9% of human history, young people were being weaned to become adults. If you traveled to 1930, the children were like little men and women. There was no prolonged "teen" existence. (Nor even a conception of a "teen" period of existence.)
The point wasn't to be a victim of arrested development [anchored into your pre-pubescent pupal stage]. It was to age out of it, and scale up into adulthood. So all energy was projected in that direction.
But that deflection away from the traditional model (where the emphasis was taken off of growing up and placed on "youth") happened when advertisers wanted to isolate a market, and re-sculpt their target-population's conception of themselves.
What's odd now is that "teen culture" is at odds with the changing demographics. Instead of youths being this massive economic force [as they were in the 1960s, vastly outnumbering their parents], now (due to the availability of abortion and birth-control pills) the current generation is dwarfed by the older generation.
Yet the now-established youth culture persists--even when the market that was initially driving it dried up.
So now you have these superannuated adolescents [known colloquially as "grups"] clinging to this mutated version of "teen culture" as they age out into their 20s and 30s. Sometimes [sadly] even their 40s.
http://www.fathervision.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/grow_up_bro2.jpg
1 [deleted] 2016-03-09
Well I don't play video games but I carry my groceries in a backpack and I think a briefcase simply would not suffice.
It is nice to know that there are people out there thinking I am a stunted manchild because of my backpack.
Despite your glaringly obvious post secondary enlightenment allowing you to make painfully superficial pronouncements about the appearances of people I more or less agree with your premise. Times change and not all of us adults can or want to be a Don Draper clone.
1 Drooperdoo 2016-03-09
Don't be so touchy.
I personally have never judged any adult for wearing a backpack by itself. If you look like a normal, functional adult and you happen to have your stuff in a sack, who cares?
The mental picture I had was of someone with all the accoutrements of childhood--a backpack PLUS a baseball cap, short pants, etc.
Hollywood has long had fun with the whole manboy character: From Charlie Chaplin to Martin Short's "Clifford" to Paul Reuben's Peewee Herman:
http://cdn3-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/2014/12/peeweemovienetflix.jpg
The only difference between then and now was the fact that the manboy character was always the butt of the joke. He was the foil to the manly-man. http://chaplin.bfi.org.uk/images/720/bfi-00n-kcm.jpg
The audience wasn't looking up at the screen, saying, "Hey, I want to be the maladjusted guy, suffering from arrested development!"
He was just amusing to watch.
In today's society, people (who are the stars of their own lives) aren't even aspiring to be the competent, rugged individual. They're content to be the clown. The manchild. As I said in the initial post: I believe that this is encouraged by the power-structure. They want us [especially men] to be dependent, weak, domesticated.
Hell, I'm a manchild in a lot of aspects myself. (I can't fix a car, change out plumbing, or wrestle a lion with my bare hands.) Maybe that's why I'm conscious of the phenomenon: Because I'm a victim of it.
2 [deleted] 2016-03-09
Your clarification is entirely valid so you might want to avoid such absolute statements like the above.
Ironically being told that makes me want to choke you. I might be or not be "touchy" but being in a position where I am forced daily to deal with smug millennial smart asses trying so painfully hard to get their money's worth out their otherwise worthless "educations" it becomes woefully tiresome.
Your last sentence is striking as I am currently breaking from installing a new kitchen sink and the tedium of installing plumbing is turning me into an ornery cunt.
Good talk, your insights are valuable but you come off as bit of a smug prick and that tends to demote your position from didactic to pedantic. I am glad there are articulate thinkers left in this sub as the "don't be an unbased white cuck" crowd seems to be taking over.
1 Drooperdoo 2016-03-09
When Socrates encountered a man in Athens who claimed to be able to discern people's character from their facial features, he looked at the philosopher and said, "Judging by your features, you are a shallow and crude individual, given to poor judgment and sensual preoccupations."
Whereupon Socrates said, "You, sir, know me well."
I echo that here now.
You called me a smug prick. My reflexive impulse is to deny it, to argue with you. But at the last moment (before I gather myself together to launch a spirited defense) the words die on my lips as a hated honesty constrains me.
Guilty as charged.
"You, sir, know me well."
(Here. Have an upvote. If I knew you in real life I'd let you have a kick at my balls--just as recompense for my dickish behavior.) I concede here now: You are my superior. Any man who can put a kitchen together has my admiration and respect.
2 JumpingJazzJam 2016-03-09
The teachers tell us evil exists but can be ended.
1 Putin_loves_cats 2016-03-09
Yes.
3 giantfrogfish 2016-03-09
On account of the demiurge
2 Putin_loves_cats 2016-03-09
I'm a wolf and you're an elk. My pack is hungry (I'm the alpha), shwaaaaat happens?
5 giantfrogfish 2016-03-09
We become great friends and eat all the grass together? :)
I do believe that humans are naturally born to kindness but some other 5th or 6th dimensional force has other ideas. Not trying to let evil people off the hook but if the world was created evil in the first place then it sure does explain why shits so fucked up. The gnostics were on to something to say the least.
2 Putin_loves_cats 2016-03-09
You're very optimistic, I appreciate/respect that. I'm a realist though, and have seen much. Nature and people. There is nothing wrong with nature, the thing that is wrong is how we perceive it. We laugh at cat pics, but don't go into the fact that those same cuddly creatures will feast off us first, if we die. Dogs come second, which is why I hate cats, dogs are more loyal ( I love my dog ). Think about that for a second..... Kind of morbid, but deserves a discussion in this realm.
4 giantfrogfish 2016-03-09
I accept your critique, it is not easy being an optimist, but I think it's my duty. And I definitely respect the realist point of view! We have control over a percentage of our reality so might as well inject as much positivity into that percent as possible. Paradoxically I also view it as my duty to ingest the hard ships of the world and hopefully draw attention to them and enlighten the collective consciousness on the wrong doings, so i'm no stranger to the fucked up shit mankind can do. I have two cats and they would eat me in a heartbeat lol.
4 Putin_loves_cats 2016-03-09
What if I told you, this journey was about you, and you alone.?
3 giantfrogfish 2016-03-09
I would agree. I also seem to get inspiration from knowledge (i'm an artist) so my research and understanding of the world isn't completely selfless. I just think that if there is an eternal consciousness that we are all a part of and all contribute to then I want to at least do my part.
3 Putin_loves_cats 2016-03-09
What if I told you, that was your part? Understanding this concept, of nature? We are the Creator, for the Creator created us all.. There is beauty in chaos.... Check out a sunrise, in the wilderness. At the same, time, somewhere off in the woods, a predator is eating lunch ;). Still beauty in what you see before you....
2 giantfrogfish 2016-03-09
Then i'm on the right track it seems!
2 whipnil 2016-03-09
There will be a point where the lamb can lay down with the lion.
1 Icaria25 2016-03-09
Nature must operate in a selfish way. Either individual or group level.
You don't think mankind survived all the way throwing themselves at hungry bears, do you.
Just modern group dynamics don't allow us to be altruistic ( which we would be in a tribal setting since it feeds teh ego too ), so we resort to an atomic social model ( everyone for himself ).
1 no1113 2016-03-09
Yes. Absolutely.
It is also naturally a benevolent, giving, and good place as well, however.
All depends upon which aspects of the yin or the yang you gravitate toward and imbue.
1 [deleted] 2016-03-09
Human nature is a desire for cooperation and comfort.
People say humans are warlike creatures but that is not our nature it is the nature of a subspecies within humanity known as the psychopath.
Some posit that six to ten percent of humanity are genetic psychopaths but their influence as "men of decisive action" aka people who act without empathy or concern for consequence spreads among the normal population and seeds itself as an unnatural norm.
The process is called ponerization.
I highly recommend a book called
" Political Ponerology " by Andrew Lobaczewski.
It could go a long way toward resolving your query.