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.