None of us were born out of personal choice. Yet, as soon as we come into the world, we're immersed in a system that precedes us and has expectations of us which we never willingly signed up for. Why do we have to pay to live on the planet we were born on?
That's one way to look at it. Another way is this: The system that precedes us also made it possible for us to be born. It includes science, medicine, education, cooperation, compassion, and sometimes love. It also includes a long list of bad stuff created by humans. "The system" that precedes us is humanity's attempt at "civilization" thus far. There are various ways of leaving the system. Most of us just try to work within it enjoying the advantages of civilization and fighting, where possible, the disadvantages. Can you explain your thoughts further, organic ant?
I'm not sure that I agree that we're here thanks to the system. We're here thanks primarily to a biological process and secondly due to the support of our families and communities. All the things you mention, such as science and education, etc, are not inherent to the economic system we have. I mean there must be a way of meeting all of the needs of humans while still evolving in all aspects of human endeavour, without having to have an economic system which puts a monetary value on what a person must produce in order to survive. Agreed. And more and more I feel this is by no means the pinnacle of what we can achieve as a technological civilization. I measure this (and this whole topic came to mind) by how happy people around me are. I have lost count of how many people I know work jobs they don't like in order to survive. It's a sort of economic slavery where money is the leverage to keep people in a 9-6pm occupation doing non-fulfilling tasks that drives them to depression. You could argue that people are free to change professions to do whatever they like but what if what they like isn't economically viable? The economic system has decided what things are and aren't valuable and therefore people must gravitate towards things that pay rather than those things they enjoy doing. I have had conversations with several work colleagues and friends who are incredibly unhappy with life (some on anti-depressants) but can't put the finger on why. They all agree that they feel subjugated to live in a way that doesn't full fill them but they don't know how to change while still meeting the financial expectations the system has of them. Hence my question and mental exercise came up, why must we have to work to exist? Is this not a form of slavery? And how could we change "humanity's attempt at civilization" to provide for human happiness and fulfilment instead of financial capital?"The system" that precedes us is humanity's attempt at "civilization" thus far.
This isn't a crisis or modernity. People have been unhappy since the dawn of time. Successive technological advances have all been (at least ostensibly) attempts to alleviate our collective privation and penury. Even though middle class people in the developed world pretty much are free of starvation, happiness still evades most people. I think this is more a fact that people view happiness as a thing to be achieved rather than one emotion among many. Life is a process, and there is no end game. Of course none of us chose to be born, but we each have the choice whether to keep living. The fact that so few of us choose so is a testament to life not being all that bad, no? At least, it seems to be the lesser of the two evils, so to speak.
Do you mean that people are responsible for their own (un)happiness and it's not the system's fault or responsibility to cater for that? Are you suggesting suicide as a solution to unhappiness with a lifestyle you didn't choose and don't know how to change?!This isn't a crisis or modernity. People have been unhappy since the dawn of time.
Of course none of us chose to be born, but we each have the choice whether to keep living.
I mean people mistake modernity as the cause of unhappiness, and if you pay attention to history, it's easy to see that unhappiness predates modernity by millenia. Therefore, modernity (or capitalism) is not the primary cause of our shared despair. No. I'm saying it's obviously the better choice for most people to learn to cope with life. There's a lot one can get out of living, and complaining isn't a great help in our struggle.Do you mean that people are responsible for their own (un)happiness and it's not the system's fault or responsibility to cater for that?
Are you suggesting suicide as a solution to unhappiness with a lifestyle you didn't choose and don't know how to change?!
I'm not sure that the kind of unhappiness of the past, when we struggled for basic needs, can be compared with today's unhappiness with the modern consumerist lifestyle which is long past the state of survival. What would you attribute our shared despair to? A pre-deterministic human "nature"? What would you suggest that people who are unhappy do to help in our struggle?I mean people mistake modernity as the cause of unhappiness, and if you pay attention to history, it's easy to see that unhappiness predates modernity by millenia.
Therefore, modernity (or capitalism) is not the primary cause of our shared despair.
There's a lot one can get out of living, and complaining isn't a great help in our struggle.
That's quite a guess. Can you not conceive of more than one (the current) social order that would be able to provide for human needs? I never said that all the systems are problematic. I'm questioning the ultimate incentive and goals of the current system, which is in the end an abstraction of reality in the form of (almost always) profit.
There are many, but none yet have been as efficient, or lead to nearly as good as our current one. The goal of the current system (in theory) is not to lead to the most profit, but to lead to the most competition and making everyone do the best thing for other's through them chasing the goal of profit. Government sets the goals, the environments, etc, to cause this to happen, and free actors will help others on their own time and with their own goals in mind.Can you not conceive of more than one (the current) social order that would be able to provide for human needs?
I'm questioning the ultimate incentive and goals of the current system, which is in the end an abstraction of reality in the form of (almost always) profit.
I am of the opinion that we can't have the changes necessary to improve society until an earth-wide catastrophe takes place. The pre-existing framework we're talking about has divided people along pretty trivial lines that we as individuals refuse to overcome for whatever reason. Trying to impose the changes that'd approach benefiting more rather than the few gets you baby steps in certain areas of the larger construct. Even history shows that positive change has a habit of being preceded by a "physical" event (war, protests, natural disasters, etc.) It seems that humanity, as a majority, is still unwilling to accept each other as equals.
I have to depressingly agree.I am of the opinion that we can't have the changes necessary to improve society until an earth-wide catastrophe takes place. [...] It seems that humanity, as a majority, is still unwilling to accept each other as equals.
I think you are both excessively optimistic. It's pretty rare that catastrophe results in a better society (you specify earth-wide but if you look at history earth wide didn't have to be all that big to be everything a society knew). Sure now and then things go a bit better after something terrible (WWII, The fall of the Assyrian Empire) but for the most part it's just despots and starvation.
Can you expand on what these ways are? There are various ways of leaving the system.
organicAnt - you are asking many good questions, including this one: 1. Ways of leaving the system - yes, suicide was one thing I had in mind. There are people who live without money. Watch the trailer for this video. Ultimately, it depends on how you define "the system" and what parts of the system you want to leave. Do you want to leave libraries? Do you want to leave the world wide web? These are all parts of the system, created by people in jobs who pay taxes. It might be a good idea to figure out which parts of the system you think are brilliant and which are oppressive. Part of you is a consciousness vibrating from ear to ear. How much control do you even have over that? It is subject to hormonal changes, caloric intake and so on. No one knows the answers to the questions you ask. Large-scale change in the direction of goodness is so glacially slow. Some changes seem to create more widespread happiness (various movements towards greater human rights and democracy); some changes seem to create more grief, some do both at once (the industrial revolution leading to environmental degradation, wage-slavery, and shit jobs but also labour-saving innovations that free up time for creativity.) What can any of us do? I think the Occupy movement was on the right track. Please immediately stop whatever you are doing and read this list of goals of the occupy movement. It is called This is our one demand. I think it will show you that many many people are thinking about the question, "what can any of us do?"Unhappiness predates modernity by millenia
thanks for that b_b - that thought made me giggle.What would you suggest that people who are unhappy do to help in our struggle?
and the previous two questions in response to b_b. These questions deserve long form answers and I'll put them in the queue. As for short answers:
Thanks lil I appreciate the constructive reply. Suicide wouldn't even cross my mind as a suggestion for those who suffer from depression due to feeling subjugated. It feels incredibly brutal and heartless. Is the social order so rigid and are we so excluding that we can't come up with a compromise order that supports everyone instead of creating divide, inequality and showing the door to those who just don't fit in? I've been aware of the moneyless man, Mark Boyle for a while. Thanks for reminding me. I like his way of thinking and perhaps this is the plunge that one must take to be free of the pressures of the modern economic society. In his year without money, he does become a sort of outcast though. Living in a little caravan on someone else's land and out of the goodwill of many people. Again, I was hoping more for a systemic change that is supportive instead of exploitative and excluding as soon as you can't handle it. Of course we need all the social services and technological advances. I have never hinted to renouncing where we're at today. As I mentioned to someone else already, I'm simply questioning the methods and incentives of the system. Absolutely, if there were straight answers I don't think this thread would have started : ) But once in while, I think it's healthy to stop and question why are we doing the things we do. If we had the opportunity to start a civilization from scratch is this the setup we'd come up with? Is this the best there could ever be? This is what I'm interest in, because from looking around me it feels like the monetary system is great at creating wealth for a few at the expense of grief for many. And this surely can't be the best that we can come up with. I agree. I followed this closely and watched it being crushed with police brutality. This is how unhappy people are treated, you either shut up and play ball or you get crushed. No wonder people fall in despair and depression when they see what happens to alternative ideas. Thanks for the link. I read this is our one demand. Definitely a good starting point even if some of the demands are a bit vague on how they could be achieved. The fact that people are thinking and searching for answers is encouraging. Perhaps this is what's needed, an official Ministry of Change to address the concerns of the disillusioned and overtime come with legislation to integrate them? I'm sure many will let me know with many examples of why this is a silly idea. I welcome any other inclusive suggestions. Thank you for engaging.Ultimately, it depends on how you define "the system" and what parts of the system you want to leave. Do you want to leave libraries? Do you want to leave the world wide web? These are all parts of the system, created by people in jobs who pay taxes.
No one knows the answers to the questions you ask. Large-scale change in the direction of goodness is so glacially slow.
I think the Occupy movement was on the right track.
Sometimes it takes 100 years for ideas to gain popular appeal. For example, Seneca Falls: 1848 - women made a declaration of "sentiments" and "resolutions." In other words, grievances and demands. It took well over 100 years, but all of the resolutions have been made into law. It is important to realize that their work then, their writing and fighting, led to the current freedoms women enjoy here and now. I just quoted from my blog if that sounds familiar.But once in while, I think it's healthy to stop and question why are we doing the things we do. If we had the opportunity to start a civilization from scratch is this the setup we'd come up with? Is this the best there could ever be?
This is not working out too well for many people. People have an amazing capacity for happiness though and will find it even in a shit system. There is a lot of potential for a new system to arise and inspire masses of people. It's happened before.
Do I sense disdain and a hint of sarcasm? This was a perfectly legitimate question. If you are happy with your life and don't see anything wrong with how things are set-up around you or where they're heading then you won't get much out of this thread.
Food takes work to produce In order to get food, you must gather it. Instead, we choose to do work for a farmer, such as making a product, and that farmer makes us food in return. Nobody is making you pay to live, your are doing that. If you would like to not have to pay, than stop needing to eat, or stop needing to have food, shelter, etc. What I don't understand is why people seem to think anyone deserves anything in the first place. Nobody deserves anything, nobody earns anything, nobody gets what is fair or what is right. The world does not, and never will work like that.
Where did I say that anyone should get anything for free or without effort? I'm simply questioning the method and the incentive, there's no question that work must be done in order to get anything. Said this, even the idea of work will be questioned in the not too very distant future as technology forces mass unemployment, but this is a conversation for another topic.
I agree that as time passes we are going to have to shift to an economy that focuses on the base ideal that people will work and innovate without having jobs or needing money to survive. However, that operates on the assumption that we will do so. If we will not, than we can't just give things away free, because the system would fall apart very rapidly. there's no question that work must be done in order to get anything. Said this, even the idea of work will be questioned in the not too very distant future as technology forces mass unemployment,
You could just run off into the woods and see what happens at any point.
That's provided that you find woods that are not private or that the owner allows you to settle on them for free. This is what I mean, to renounce the system that we're born into without a choice is to put our very existence at risk. Hence why people feel trapped within it because by the time they realise they're in a trap they also realise that they're not equipped to deal with a survival or self-sufficiency type lifestyle.You could just run off into the woods and see what happens at any point.
Not true. Don't you think that by running away but continuing to obey the rules of society, you haven't run away from society? See the article that OftenBen linked. Read about Grizzly Man (Timothy Treadwell). Read that article that was just posted the other day about the guy that "Into The Wild" is based on. Why continue to follow the laws of society if you are trying to escape it? Why would breaking rules such as -living in 'public' forests (which effectively don't exist; you have to pay to officially camp in like, every state/national forest I'm aware of) and -obtaining the permission of people who 'own' land matter to someone who doesn't want to be a part of, and in fact is attempting to escape, the society that created those rules? It's like...Hmmm. Maybe that system is there to ensure our existence and that's why defying it risks itto renounce the system that we're born into without a choice is to put our very existence at risk
You should. It's of primary importance within the study of political science and government. Your social contract answer may be the right one -- with modifications, I agree with you -- but it's not so certainly right that you can afford to be dismissive.
I'm dismissive because I find it impossible to relate to the impetus behind the question. It doesn't bother me that I am "forced to pay for" the world I "didn't ask to be born into." No one asks to be born and it is impossible to ask someone if they want to be born. So basically I feel like a big hullabaloo is being made over a matter whose significance is lost on me and some of it feels very petty indeed; by which I mean the part about "not asking to be born," really. If you really didn't want to be born I agree with bb and the others in this thread. There's a solution for that. If your problem is just society, there are also solutions for that. They may not be comfortable but that is what you get in return for deciding to eschew the structures that are established in part to provide us comfort, at the cost of demanding some conformity - more depending on where you live. Also it doesn't seem to me like OP is listening to the discussion with both ears open - but that may be because i can't emotionally relate and therefore empathize with his position.
It's harder than you think. Likely he's heard a lot of these arguments (Or similar) before, and has found them lacking. I know that feeling, I bet most of us do. To give a personal example, I know a lot of well educated people who find relief from existential anguish from a very literal interpretation of heaven or some other sort of pleasant afterlife. I can intellectually appreciate why they feel that way, but deep down it's not a satisfactory answer for me. I can't understand how they derive satisfaction from such answers, but they do.Also it doesn't seem to me like OP is listening to the discussion with both ears open
You can't be serious that you would honestly tell to someone who feels disillusioned with the system to go and die. To have 3 people in this thread suggesting this it's not just further depressing it's down right outrageous. Perhaps, just perhaps these people are a symptom that something is radically wrong with the direction we're going and that we should stop for a while and give it a thought. It's great to hear that your life is heading in a direction that makes you happy. The point of this thread is to address those who sadly for some reason just don't share your view, that all is great and fair. Do you have any constructive advice to offer to those, other than just telling them to go kill themselves? Care to share those solutions? It's disappointing that you can't conceive of an improved order that would cater for everyone's needs instead demanding conformity as a need. Keep thinking like that and you would make a great dictator.If you really didn't want to be born I agree with bb and the others in this thread.
It doesn't bother me that I am "forced to pay for" the world I "didn't ask to be born into."
If your problem is just society, there are also solutions for that.
They may not be comfortable but that is what you get in return for deciding to eschew the structures that are established in part to provide us comfort, at the cost of demanding some conformity - more depending on where you live.
You clearly aren't interested in actually listening to dissenting points. You're flying off the handle - "great dictator" really? I think is have to express some desire to rule for that to qualify - and no. I don't have to agree to post. I can post my opinion which is what you're going to get when you ask hubski something. My constructive criticism is that you should try appreciating the gift of life instead of resenting it. In other words grow up and get over yourself. It's funny for all your dislike of the system I don't see you considering how to change it once in this thread.
I'm sorry but to even suggest, to someone who's depressed or disillusioned, to commit suicide is insensitive, disturbing, very upsetting and not helpful. I hope that you never have to deal with any close ones in that situation... for their own sake. If I knew how, there would be no need for this thread in the first place.It's funny for all your dislike of the system I don't see you considering how to change it once in this thread.
I only do because I recognize the place he's at. Psychedelics and meditation got me out of it. There's a very important idea in lay-Buddhism that highlights the problem well I think. A decent phrasing would be 'When someone is offensive to you (This counts), remember that something terrible must have happened that would make them into a person that would do the offensive thing.'
This makes it sound like we are prisoners to a system (and yeah, we are) but that opting out would be a one-time choice. This is too narrow a view. Let's say you develop enough skill to opt out -- you move to unclaimed territory and feed yourself based on the local flora and fauna. You get your pound of nutrients and gallon of water that you need. You are out. ...but we're social animals. We don't deal well with "out". You'll get to discover this after a while -- or if you have a medical condition, rather dang quickly. We have easily pierced skin, no carapace, crap for hair (which is only helpful if you live along the shore and swim to get food), burn easily, get horny all the time, and really only thrive when we can cook our food and use the waste to make soap. Humans are pack animals. To stay in the pack and not be eaten by malaria, we contribute back. We may have lost track of the scale for giving back, but we'd go nuts without it. I have tinnitus. I can't even deal with a single minute without noise or I'll hear those high pitched whines. I have to turn on a fan in winter or I can't sleep. You weren't born a slave -- you were born into a society. Your natural state had to be invented, but it involves concrete and a dental plan. I mentioned before that this isn't a one-time choice. It's a lot like AA and what aerowid said: each morning you wake up and choose not to flee. Should you flee, you are 99.5% genetically likely to come back -- even if it's just to avoid roaming charges. If you don't come back, you're out of the gene pool and more of us suckers will be born.
Semi social actually, which is important. Edit: Also, most people who crave solitude probably don't get much of it. They may not want to interact with as many people as they do, but they have to regardless, and grudging interaction is still interaction.Humans are pack animals.
Look at a herd, of pretty much anything that comes in a herd. Or a school of fish. The entire life cycle of these animals occurs in the group. That's full social. A fish doesn't need 'alone time.' Neither does a cow. Contrasted with solitary animals, such as bears, or certain species of sharks. These animals come together pretty much only to mate, though they may tolerate adults of their species in 'their space,' depending on species. Humans are somewhere in the middle, depending on your temperament. We need a certain amount of social interaction to stay healthy and happy, but that doesn't mean huge groups. This is where we diverge from biology and get into psychology quite a bit. Biologically speaking, humans are semi-social because reproduction primarily, as well as other important stuff, takes place in private, or relative private, and if you keep a big group of us penned up with food, water, sanitation, but nowhere to be alone, we get crazy also. Both perfect solitude and full herd behavior are anathema to the human animal. Psychologically speaking we could go for years (And have been) On the actual difference between introversion, extroversion, and related topics. All that we've been able to clearly establish is that some people love periodically (Periodicity also being a variable) being in massive groups with other people, and others prefer occasional interaction with a few people (Again with number and periodicity being variable). All of that falling on a spectrum with extremes and outliers at both ends, but with most people falling under the meat of the bell curve. A cool idea in this area of study is Dunbar's Number which is basically the idea that you can only have meaningful (different degrees of meaningful here too) relationships with a set number of people. The proposed range is somewhere between 100-250 individuals.
It's a legit question, although the tone of it kind of gives an air of entitlement rather than philosophical inquiry. I guess first question is, why would you expect not to pay? What's the alternative? The historical examples haven't born much fruit yet (e.g. Marxism and the like). Come to think of it, even in non-capitalist systems, you're still expected to pay your way. Only difference being that you're also expected to pay the way of others as well. Any more palatable? flagamuffin already mentioned social contract somewhat in passing. That gets to the heart of it, at least on a political note. There are a couple 101 texts you could read that gnaw at the wherefore of the social contract. First one: Locke's Second Treatise on Civil Government. That digs around a little bit, esp at the beginning, at the question of why we pay for stuff and why we agree to provide services and accept services and generally help each other out. It's a fair amount of artifice for the sake of later points, but given that it helped inform the formation of our current society, it's got good social propaganda value and should be read just for that. Then you should consider the prospect of life without social contract. For that, Hobbes' Leviathan. Chock full of mad quotable blurbs. Paints a pretty dire picture of life in the absence of social contract. Then you could consider alternatives- already mentioned Marx, but also check out Plato's Republic, in which Socrates attempts to lay out the social/political foundations of an imaginary "perfect" society, mainly in order to illustrate its impossibility, and reason to default to a more imperfect political agreement. I'm sure people could pipe in re. the economics of paying for stuff, but I never got past 101 on that so I'm unqualified to write about it. Scarcity? There are a lot of econ buffs around here from all sides of the political spectrum, wouldn't mind hearing their take.
You're talking about socialism, institutional governments, etc. organic_ant is thinking about left libertarianism, mutualism, stuff like that (I think). I could say a lot more on all of the above but I'm kinda busy today. [Locke and Hobbes are great starting points for governmental theory but they aren't two sides of a bipolar coin.] organicAnt, like fuffle notes, I think this question is much more interesting and would yield better results when couched in terms of the rights of man, inherent ownership of property, the ethics of choice, etc -- rather than phraseology about birthright, which is a nebulous idea and has utterly derailed this thread.Come to think of it, even in non-capitalist systems, you're still expected to pay your way. Only difference being that you're also expected to pay the way of others as well. Any more palatable?
Yeah, didn't mean to present Hobbes and Locke as polar opposites. I just think Hobbes does a particularly good job underscoring the violent pitfalls presented in the absence of social contract, whereas Locke doesn't really dwell on that aspect because it does nothing for his argument. They both arrive at similar places, but Locke does it through an appeal to reason, Hobbes through fear. Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though. I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
I am neither, but I know a few. Currently reading this monster, which is their bible. It's longer than the actual bible by a lot, and less poetic. However I read both for the same reason, which is to understand the insidious arguments presented within. Mutualists hold that everyone should own a portion of the factors of production and profit according only to their labor. The reason I mention it is that as a theory it's sort of a compromise between anarchism and communal government -- sort of! (The idea being, you come into this world responsible only for yourself and beholden -- economically -- to no one else, which seems somewhat to be what Mr. Ant is saying.) I would hazard a guess that Locke and Hobbes are both far removed from the reality Antman would like to see in the world, but such speculation is probably meaningless. (That is, he asks "why do we have a social contract" and you say "here are the two primary ways by which the social contract was derived during the Age of Reason" -- which begs out on the deeper question.)I know nothing about mutualism, little to nothing about left libertarianism. Wouldn't mind learning alongside organicAnt if you've got some jumping-off points...
Both approaches are valuable in addressing organicAnt's question, though.
Insidious indeed. The problem with that philosophy is that it doesn't on its face leave much room for compassion. Which is ironic, if you're going to give it a name like "mutualism." Maybe that concern's addressed in the specifics. But on its face, seems like a wholly unappetizing philosophy. Alright, I'm gonna see how far through this text I can get without wanting to kill myself. See you on the other side. EDIT: Actually, from the intro it least it seems like the bigger problem is that this philosophy is totally unworkable outside of the theoretical vacuum.