Jump to content

Social Evolution Vs. Population


Guest end3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Here is what I see. I believe society is moving towards some moral end, some moral maturity....."fullness" if you wish. Society seems self-correcting towards this end. I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity. If the growing population doesn't understand the necessity to participate in societal wellbeing, the "theology" of the society, then the society is unable to walk it's soughtafter path due to the lack of participation of the population, those essentially a parasite on society. What follows is blame of the leadership and those who perhaps do understand the concept of the greater whole to carry the excess burden. I don't think this is necessarily the fault of the population but a function OF the population, particularly success of the population, without the necessary connection to the morality of the society. As pockets of atrophy develop, it is a difficult road to making the society healthy again......exercising one's body being an excellent example. I'm certainly not aiming at any individual group, disabled, etc, rather than placing us all with responsibility. I think this mirrors the "taxing" of those "with" in order to hopefully fulfill the moral burden promised.......those "with" now in an apathetic attitude towards regulation of their prosperity.

 

I think we are well into the blaming stage at this point.

 

Human nature doesn't lend itself to willfully participating in the greater good via morality.

 

Not that these are profound thoughts, but there are numerous Biblical principles that support this understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a measure of personal responsiblity must be added to our health care system otherwise the obesity problem is just going to continue to grow. The problem is finding a way to reward responsible behavior without giving pathways for others to game the system. I'd love to hear any answers you have on this subject. Don't pretend either that health care is the only social safety net our productive society has come up with. Most of them work wonderfully well. Don't allow the fearmongers to let you believe that fraud is the norm. I probably shouldn't have even posted because I don't have the bandwidth today to get into a formal debate, I just wanted to share some passing thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that a measure of personal responsiblity must be added to our health care system otherwise the obesity problem is just going to continue to grow. The problem is finding a way to reward responsible behavior without giving pathways for others to game the system. I'd love to hear any answers you have on this subject. Don't pretend either that health care is the only social safety net our productive society has come up with. Most of them work wonderfully well. Don't allow the fearmongers to let you believe that fraud is the norm. I probably shouldn't have even posted because I don't have the bandwidth today to get into a formal debate, I just wanted to share some passing thoughts.

 

Thanks for the post Free. My conclusion is that there is NOT a good ending until the pedulum swings back the other way. The population that is "obese" is of an age that doesn't comprehend the responsibility to remain healthy. I guess what I am trying to say is because of the prosperity bubble, the growth of responsibility doesn't mirror the growth in population. Speculating here, but in the old days, there was work for every person born due to necessity. Now, we have more necessities than is needed, and a fraction of the population isn't required to move. This, I think, is compounded by the moral deviations through the last 60 to 80 years..... I think the "heartburn" will come when the generation of "luxury" is forced to move. IMO, it's gonna hurt badly because the training is not there despite the training in place at the moment.....which is a good effort, don't get me wrong, but costly.

 

Training and education are keys to changing things, yet they are costly, and until the parents are pressured enough, there will be no change of the following generations. Kind of like the recent budget deal........ok, they fixed it again.....back to status quo. No one is hurting enough yet for things to change.

 

Edit: Then it comes down to training frequency. Churchgoers get "training" once a week reminding them of some morality vs less frequent organized sessions elsewhere. Just an opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you ask yourself who is the "head" of this society. I think we would answer Obama at the moment. But you listen to Obama and many past presidents invoking good ole American values......"We're Americans" say Obama. Certainly what he is invoking is the good ole days America that derive morality through a subscription to the Christian God as well as the population thing I mentioned in my previous post. No one likes doom and gloom, but what I see describes reality pretty well IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: Then it comes down to training frequency. Churchgoers get "training" once a week reminding them of some morality vs less frequent organized sessions elsewhere. Just an opinion.

 

And we see how that turns out in the prison statistics...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you ask yourself who is the "head" of this society. I think we would answer Obama at the moment. But you listen to Obama and many past presidents invoking good ole American values......"We're Americans" say Obama. Certainly what he is invoking is the good ole days America that derive morality through a subscription to the Christian God as well as the population thing I mentioned in my previous post. No one likes doom and gloom, but what I see describes reality pretty well IMO.

 

It describes your version of reality.

that's all it can ever be so from that POV, I, Ramen, B.O and several others with differing views and opinions see a our own version of reality.

Unfortunately without testing no one knows who's is more accurate to the real thing.

Note carefully that I said "more accurate' as it is relative to the other views since no one can get a true view of reality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3, every generation alive is obese. It seems you think once the boomers are gone the problem will be solved. If that's what you're saying I disagree. Also you said education is expensive. While true it is cheaper than medical care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

End3, every generation alive is obese. It seems you think once the boomers are gone the problem will be solved. If that's what you're saying I disagree. Also you said education is expensive. While true it is cheaper than medical care.

 

Initially, I wouldn't call the WWII generation obese as a whole. I think the primary basis of my idea is that the immature population vastly outweighs the mature. The fact that "God is dead" crowd is currently in charge, regardless of their own maturity, just aggrevates the issue(s). Regardless of whether it is secular education or a theological one, the "works" are not there in enough numbers to overcome the obesity. In other words, the head and the heart would wish to dole out the fix, but the hands, feet, arms, etc. are not in the game. Take your average teen.....take my own....offering her 10 bucks an hour to clean the house....and she won't do it because there is no necessity for her to do so. There is no necessity of the less mature population to do anything. The shelves at the store are stocked, the music is fed into their ears, they don't even have to talk to have a conversation....and on and on. If the boomers leave and die, no, surely not, will the problem get fixed. And again, there is such a vast number of this population, who really knows what will happen.

 

To your question, I haven't given much thought to the medical care issue. What is trending in my mind is our culture doesn't really lean toward in home elderly care. We like our freedom too much, as do the elderly. So I confess to ignorance. Wish I had some background to facilitate a discussion. Soilent Greens? (A bad joke). Thanks for the comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Necessities of life, for examples, love and society, are what it takes to maintain the economic balance we are looking for at the moment. Again, it seems like prosperity has pushed aside the understanding and necessary adherence to these concepts to a point of very difficult return. I think it safe to say this concepts are found in Christ's message.

 

I think the moral deviation that brought us to this mess is best summed up here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what I see. I believe society is moving towards some moral end, some moral maturity....."fullness" if you wish. Society seems self-correcting towards this end. I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity. If the growing population doesn't understand the necessity to participate in societal wellbeing, the "theology" of the society, then the society is unable to walk it's soughtafter path due to the lack of participation of the population, those essentially a parasite on society. What follows is blame of the leadership and those who perhaps do understand the concept of the greater whole to carry the excess burden. I don't think this is necessarily the fault of the population but a function OF the population, particularly success of the population, without the necessary connection to the morality of the society. As pockets of atrophy develop, it is a difficult road to making the society healthy again......exercising one's body being an excellent example. I'm certainly not aiming at any individual group, disabled, etc, rather than placing us all with responsibility. I think this mirrors the "taxing" of those "with" in order to hopefully fulfill the moral burden promised.......those "with" now in an apathetic attitude towards regulation of their prosperity.

 

If everyone in the world were to participate in the "theology" of our society, the Earth itself would not have enough resources to support the high standard of living you and I enjoy. Here is a graph of the United States' ecological footprint versus its biocapacity. We are using way over our biocapacity, and thriving, which means we are eating into the resources of other nations.

 

According to the calculator, if everyone lived like me, it would take 4 planet Earth's to sustain us, and my lifestyle is way less resource-intensive than most people who are part of our affluent legal U.S. system.

 

A friend of mine in the sociology field was talking about the definition of human security expanding beyond physical aggression to things like having enough water, access to education, shelter, etc. I only half-jokingly asked her, "Does it include access to cable tv?" ("Not yet.")

 

Edit: meant to add that I do think we want to put out more than we have to sustain ourselves and others, but that is maintaining our current standard of living, which is way beyond the realistic capacity of Earth were everyone to acquire our standard of living through mechanisms you find acceptable. So, we must not give out more than we take in, lest we become victims ourselves, but must also realize that a fair world where everyone lives in a humane way must mean that our standard of living in the wealthy part of the world must be lower.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: meant to add that I do think we want to put out more than we have to sustain ourselves and others, but that is maintaining our current standard of living, which is way beyond the realistic capacity of Earth were everyone to acquire our standard of living through mechanisms you find acceptable. So, we must not give out more than we take in, lest we become victims ourselves, but must also realize that a fair world where everyone lives in a humane way must mean that our standard of living in the wealthy part of the world must be lower.

 

All good in theory P. Just don't see it surviving through human nature......mind you, without some learned are adhered to necessity to do so. Which brings me back to my argument.....

 

Let me offer this up as I was but a mere "yout" in the "60's":

 

Who was "The Man" and what was it in theory that the culture rebeled against? I would like to disregard racial equality, because I think that is a given and don't know that was specifically related to "The Man" other than it later used to represent white men and repression.

 

Let 'er rip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Necessities of life, for examples, love and society, are what it takes to maintain the economic balance we are looking for at the moment. Again, it seems like prosperity has pushed aside the understanding and necessary adherence to these concepts to a point of very difficult return. I think it safe to say this concepts are found in Christ's message.

 

I think the moral deviation that brought us to this mess is best summed up here:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE

 

I think this is more suitable:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: meant to add that I do think we want to put out more than we have to sustain ourselves and others, but that is maintaining our current standard of living, which is way beyond the realistic capacity of Earth were everyone to acquire our standard of living through mechanisms you find acceptable. So, we must not give out more than we take in, lest we become victims ourselves, but must also realize that a fair world where everyone lives in a humane way must mean that our standard of living in the wealthy part of the world must be lower.

 

All good in theory P. Just don't see it surviving through human nature......mind you, without some learned are adhered to necessity to do so. Which brings me back to my argument.....

 

Oh, I don't think it will survive human nature, either. I meant it as an illustration of why just buying into the american system is not the answer. It would create an unsustainable world hive and then more wars. So, if we can't lower our standard of living, then one thing that might help is to better control population, which means we do NOT encourage "go forth and multiply". Instead, we help people manage/prevent procreation through a variety of measures (education, birth control distribution, removing government incentives for procreation, etc.).

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

education is key to finding a solution for humanity's climax point and some sort of method for evening out the population growth to aviod unwanted tension and violence in te future.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator
War is apart of life. All the whining about it won't stop it. Until we can expand beyond our own planet and go to other planets, we will never escape it and all the high minded talk is just hot air. Just get used to it.

War as a way of life is something I don't want to get used to. I'm not a Viking. So far, that war is a part of life has proven to be true. As long as people insist their way of doing things, their system of government, or their religious beliefs are the only proper way and all others must comply, there will be war. Still, we do evolve as a culture and the more wisdom we embrace the more war is seen to be counterproductive. Normal, well adjusted people do not thrive on conflict. The goal of working toward peace is a worthy one, and I can't accept that the inescapable nature of Man is that of a warrior. Also, I can't see how moving to other planets would automatically change human nature.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity.

??

 

If we have tremendous prosperity, how does that make it harder to help those in need? Seems to me it would make it easier.

 

Expressed in one or two sentences, end, what is your point? I'm finding it hard to extract from your original post. Something about a lack of personal responsibility in society, but it's mixed up with the need to help others and society being self-regulating but I'm not sure where you're actually trying to go with it.

 

Maybe I'm just dense this morning, it's entirely possible ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

War is apart of life. All the whining about it won't stop it. Until we can expand beyond our own planet and go to other planets, we will never escape it and all the high minded talk is just hot air. Just get used to it.

War as a way of life is something I don't want to get used to. I'm not a Viking. So far, that war is a part of life has proven to be true. As long as people insist their way of doing things, their system of government, or their religious beliefs are the only proper way and all others must comply, there will be war. Still, we do evolve as a culture and the more wisdom we embrace the more war is seen to be counterproductive. Normal, well adjusted people do not thrive on conflict. The goal of working toward peace is a worthy one, and I can't accept that the inescapable nature of Man is that of a warrior. Also, I can't see how moving to other planets would automatically change human nature.

Agreed.

 

I also don't see getting out into space as solving the problem. We would presumably just have wars out there, presumably between planets rather than nations. In other words our footprint might get bigger and our concept of territoriality might get bigger, such that on an individual world (Earth, say) it might seem we are getting more enlightened because the number of political entities would decrease and the differences between them would be less, but fundamentally, I don't see war disappearing because we have a larger stage to play on. Reminds me, too, of Hitler's concept of "living-space" to justify the invasion of other countries.

 

Besides, there will always be spot scarcities even on a larger, interplanetary stage. One could imagine Martian settlements fighting among themselves for scarce resources, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity.

??

 

If we have tremendous prosperity, how does that make it harder to help those in need? Seems to me it would make it easier.

 

Expressed in one or two sentences, end, what is your point? I'm finding it hard to extract from your original post. Something about a lack of personal responsibility in society, but it's mixed up with the need to help others and society being self-regulating but I'm not sure where you're actually trying to go with it.

 

Maybe I'm just dense this morning, it's entirely possible ...

 

My poor writing is legendary Mr. Bob. Basically, too much prosperity leads to a lazy generation. Then the older, more mature within the society are left with being the chiefs with no idians to do the job of helping in this case. Basically, I am saying it's a function of prosperity rather than anyone's morals or ideology being out of balance. We are now arguing the merits of ideology, and blaming each other for what just a little "hard work" would probably cure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity.

??

 

If we have tremendous prosperity, how does that make it harder to help those in need? Seems to me it would make it easier.

 

Expressed in one or two sentences, end, what is your point? I'm finding it hard to extract from your original post. Something about a lack of personal responsibility in society, but it's mixed up with the need to help others and society being self-regulating but I'm not sure where you're actually trying to go with it.

 

Maybe I'm just dense this morning, it's entirely possible ...

 

My poor writing is legendary Mr. Bob. Basically, too much prosperity leads to a lazy generation. Then the older, more mature within the society are left with being the chiefs with no idians to do the job of helping in this case. Basically, I am saying it's a function of prosperity rather than anyone's morals or ideology being out of balance. We are now arguing the merits of ideology, and blaming each other for what just a little "hard work" would probably cure.

 

I have to disagree. Ironically enough, the harder we work and more advanced we become the worse our problem will get. Marshall Brain has a talk on YouTube about this. Technology has improved so much that fewer people are needed to do the work. We will reach a point when there just won't be enough jobs for the people who are willing and able to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are hearing things like "this group needs help" and "that group needs help" to a point where our moral obligation to provide these groups with help exceeds our ability to do so because of population and excessive prosperity.

??

 

If we have tremendous prosperity, how does that make it harder to help those in need? Seems to me it would make it easier.

 

Expressed in one or two sentences, end, what is your point? I'm finding it hard to extract from your original post. Something about a lack of personal responsibility in society, but it's mixed up with the need to help others and society being self-regulating but I'm not sure where you're actually trying to go with it.

 

Maybe I'm just dense this morning, it's entirely possible ...

 

My poor writing is legendary Mr. Bob. Basically, too much prosperity leads to a lazy generation. Then the older, more mature within the society are left with being the chiefs with no idians to do the job of helping in this case. Basically, I am saying it's a function of prosperity rather than anyone's morals or ideology being out of balance. We are now arguing the merits of ideology, and blaming each other for what just a little "hard work" would probably cure.

 

I have to disagree. Ironically enough, the harder we work and more advanced we become the worse our problem will get. Marshall Brain has a talk on YouTube about this. Technology has improved so much that fewer people are needed to do the work. We will reach a point when there just won't be enough jobs for the people who are willing and able to work.

 

 

I am with you, but think sheer population also plays a role. The pockets of inactivity, and atrophy, and then apathy grow larger over time......and I think it is very easy to join in with the group. Again, I think just sheer numbers of people play a large role in this hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My poor writing is legendary Mr. Bob. Basically, too much prosperity leads to a lazy generation. Then the older, more mature within the society are left with being the chiefs with no idians to do the job of helping in this case. Basically, I am saying it's a function of prosperity rather than anyone's morals or ideology being out of balance. We are now arguing the merits of ideology, and blaming each other for what just a little "hard work" would probably cure.

I think that prosperity presents its own challenges and potential for misuse or squandering, but I would not want to suggest that prosperity inevitably harms people's work ethic or necessarily results in people not valuing things they should. I don't agree with the unqualified statement, "too much prosperity leads to a lazy generation". I don't think there's such a thing as "too much" prosperity, at least not inherently.

 

I suppose it comes down to whether your default stance is that absent something to force them to do the right thing, people will do the wrong thing. That force might be the threat of punishment, or in this case, some form of want or adversity. I don't buy that. I believe that most people, most of the time, will in the end rise to the occasion, provided that they are for the most part dealing in reality. It's when people live in some form of fantasy world that all bets are off.

 

Sometimes I see things on TV or read about things that remind me that my day to day concerns, such as which foreign country I will visit on my next vacation, are pretty far removed from the nitty-gritty concerns of a lot of people on this planet, such as how do I feed my family today while avoiding some machete-wielding mob of hooligans and coping with my dysentery. However, just because I'm further up the hierarchy of needs than that, because I have the luxury of turning my awareness towards stuff like philosophical concerns or starting a new business venture, doesn't mean I'm uncaring or lazy or have a moral defect or don't very much appreciate that I am basically healthy and don't have huge worries about providing for myself or my loved ones. And even if it did, I'm dubious that this should be remedied by a little bankruptcy or starvation. I don't see how that ever helps in and of itself. If it would help at all it would be by putting things in perspective, but you can do that in ten seconds right now in between your ears, without having to experience any hardship at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.