Why ? Why? WHY???

by rune 160 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  SixofNine

  :And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I see the world staying the same as it always has been
  
  

  Whatever the world *is*, now, is most certainly not what it "always has been".
• 

  frenchbabyface

  hummmm ... very interesting :

  You know what Rune I agree with you ... Nothing will never be perfect : that's UTOPIC of course. But lots of things can be way, way, way better ...

  Six : Whatever the world *is*, now, is most certainly not what it "always has been".

  Remember when people got burned alive because they didn't believe ? ... Remember the appartheid ? ... and and and ... well
  We did evolutate ... People got enough at some point ... and our kids are way more mature, informed and aware than we where ourselves (good for us cause we do rely on them somehow)
  
  Things take time ... Also we can't fight all our troubles all together (I just feel like our society allow to much crap to happen - and that the vast majority who are victims first or second hand victimes do not fight enough against a few who brings too much troubles in this world - we are 90 % against 10 % in this matter), even then we still have worked on lots of things to make this world a better world already ... and of course looking for perfection would be just too much to ask as we are not perfect and will never be.

  • 1789 we had a revolution here (just because people got enough, enough, enough) what happen ? ... well things got more fair for the majority ... it have been a big step

  ok sorry have to go right now, will come back maybe tonight to go further on this
  and again maybe you or somebody understood what I've tried to say and can go further on it meanwhile ... or find arguments against it ...
• 

  rune

  SixofNine:

  Whatever the world *is*, now, is most certainly not what it "always has been".

  Actually it's not a great idea to quote only parts of sentences when it takes the meaning of the whole sentence away from it.

  What I said was:

  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I see the world staying the same as it always has been - the strong rule, the weak suffer.

  You're saying it hasn't always been this way? Please explain.

  frenchbabyface: Surely you are right...I mean, just because things can't be perfect doesn't mean we can't try. I just think holding visions of 'paradise' in one's heart is foolish...but working to improve things for everyone isn't bad. What I was saying earlier was more to stress that despite any efforts made to improve things, there are so many people out there unwilling to steer their lives with the same sentiments as these noble ones that we cannot expect to see anything close to this utopian idea (not perfect) in our lifetimes. Even so, one step at a time I guess...just because we can't have it now doesn't mean we can't try, I suppose. Then there is the little matter of only thinking, and doing.

  Those who can make the biggest effect by nurturing these sentiments are those with the wealth / the power. People who are working 9-to-5 jobs, barely making ends meet and have families to raise really don't have a choice but to look out for their own, at least not without devoting all their free time to some cause (and who knows if that will do any good). But those who have wealth/power get quite comfortable with it I would imagine...the problem doesn't exist for them - they are on the smaller, beneficiary side of the scale. It is a tricky problem to deal with, since those who could help are the ones benefitting from the problems existing. Not all rich/powerful people are like this, but it is easy to see why one wouldn't want to disrupt their own life of splendour to help some people they never met. For many, altruism above and beyond the call of duty is not desired.

  I don't want to rip the silver lining from any clouds by this line of thinking. I realize some think it is pessimistic, but I don't really see it that way at all. Coming to grips with a real problem that is hard to solve is the first step in thinking of a really effective solution (hopefully). That is why I prefer using the term realism rather than pessimism. Optimistic views are great for motivating oneself and for energy to do what needs to be done, but they are almost a flight of fancy - without someone to consider the real grit and consequences/reaction to an action an optimist may find themselves sorely disappointed. Since people don't have to work alone, no one has to abandon optimism if they like it. They should just work with realists... Vague, I know... I am speaking about banding together to take some kind of action. But what action? What would be most effective? To address which part of the problem? This takes a lot of consideration...
• 

  rune

  rune (yes I'm talking to myself):

  You won't get this boring gray utopian paradise of love you dream of.

  It's funny how this sounds compared to what I've been saying lately. Communism is a bleak prospect in some ways. Everyone gets the same things, the same 'opportunities'. No one is favored over another...at least to the best that society can operate. So I ask you all...

  Would a world without danger, chance, tragedy & sadness be worth living in?

  Perhaps the phrase 'everything is as it should be' has more to it than just rhetoric...
• 

  SixofNine

  Don't lecture me little man... I was already carrying a microphone when you were still in diapers! *ruffles rune's hair and swats back of head*

  lol, now then, where were we? "You're saying it hasn't always been this way? Please explain. "

  Well, it's pretty self explanatory. Even in regards the thought "the strong rule, the weak suffer", the world is a VERY different place than it was even 200 years ago. Better, by far. I see many cases in fact, where the strong rule, and the weak benefit.

  Then again, we have an America version 2004, where the weak are ruling and everyone suffers, but that is altogether another discussion, although I gaurantee that within the dialogue that type of discussion brings forth, you'd find the essence of the mind of the believer.
• 

  Narkissos

  The "best possible world"? Maybe. But this would have to include everything: language, culture, religion, art, poetry, philosophy, utopy, power struggle, individual and collective revolt, suicide, terrorism, war, catastrophes -- everything that changes the world as much as it is part of it.
• 

  frenchbabyface

  People who are working 9-to-5 jobs, barely making ends meet and have families to raise really don't have a choice but to look out for their own, not without devoting all their free time to some cause

  ok that's from what I'd like to go further ... cause it is one of the cause of our trouble and of course it is very understandable, and actually I would say most don't really have the choice the way things are now

  The good part of it is that we are the majority to be in this situation (90 % for real), and that we actually have the power, but not in acting ourself : IT'S A JOB !!! we can't be everywhere ourselve

  To help myself : I would go on strike / I would Enquiering / I would follow a trial / I would build a computing application / I would WHATEVER ... but somebody can do it for me and more over if he is very good if not the best at it (or a bunch of people who are good/bests at it) ... That is what the rich people are doing (they don't use their own hands ) ...

  We have the means to pay our lets say our soldiers (I'm not talking about war) we do pay there's !!!! and we even can protect those soldiers in raising A SYSTEM WITH NO HEAD ! MEANS when what's leading is the best idea and not the best man/woman (at the right moment) and NEVER GIVE THE POWER TO ANYONE (A state in a state but actually non existant)

  And as I've mentionned earlyer in this topic ... this is the first time in the history that we can communicate nationwilde and also worldwild ... this also can change a lot of things on a universal issues and terms. but We would still have to proceed little by little ... and it should began by the indivudual

  Of course from that you might think that we should need to build an organisation to do that and have benevolant to work on it ... well we don't ... It's A BUSINESS ! (even a bunch of people in free lance) and a worthy service deserved to be paid (if we want the bests and want them to work for us, and for the best results) Also there are lots of ways to find and use/motivate the bests ... And we can mutualise personnal assistance services - just in having a common virtual "bank" to pay when needed and a efficent (very economic either) control processes to organise, rate and pay the service (Example : Same trouble for a bunch = only 2 or why not more layers BUT common trouble or not, always in concurrence to give us the best solution and to work on it = wage related to the result = Fair enough) also now if somebody knows that you are affiliate to a system that will protect your rights without you to be bothered ... they will think twice before to bother you ! (it becomes preventive) that's also how it works with the rich people ...

  But now if I go further I give a big part of my concept away, I don't really care, because I just want this service to come out ! I'll pay for it !!! cause it'll save my time, my energy ... But to be understood for good ... I would have to go into more details for people to understand how it could be very effective even on a little scale and how some processes just lead to a NO CHEATING POSSIBLE (at least never on the long run - and which makes everybody responsible and detectable as soon as they acted).

  And moreover this system can lead to a system that could make you WIN or SAVE MONEY(that can actually pay the service) very easely and fairly (a very economic MARKETING SYSTEM) ...

  Actually our problem is economical ... BUT AS CITIZENS and CONSUMMERS ... REMEMBER THAT WE PAY ALL THE BILLS (social and economical) ... Why should we pay the bills of those who are stilling us and not those that can help us to not being screewed in knowing that we have a way to pay it, without money in taking over with a new marketing system (just get a clue of what our society is wasting on marketing - to a plus just nothing sure about the information no garantie about the good and the bad) ... WE CAN WORK ON THAT in many ways ... in a very individual way ... just in having a VIRTUAL PERSONNAL ASSISTANT/ASSISTANCE !

  We can get into revolution but just strategic ... we don't have to go on any battlefield (for 10 % who use US to only serve and protect there bums)...
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Actually it's about being CAPITALIST in USING COMMUNISME !!! (to resume somehow) but with strategic processes

  edited to add : in STAYING INDIVIDUALISTE !!!
• 

  kitties_and_horses_oh_my!

  Rune, As usual, it's late at night when I'm replying to your posts, so we'll see how it goes! lol

  kitties_and_horses_oh_my!: Naw, I only said I wasn't expecting any kind of response that would satisfy me (that is, where I would go: "hmm ok that sounds right, thanks I'm done").

  Well good, b/c if that ever happens you're going to unleash your army of benevolent robot warriors on the world for the will of the greater good and I really am not ready for that! Seriously, though, do you think we ever achieve that response in anything in life? How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go? I don't think it ends until you decide it does, at which point you have stopped questioning and wondering and hence stopped growing.

  Perhaps then our selfishness roots from survival instincts that are a part of us. You definitely don't want to find a way to make humans not have survival instincts - an altruistic race would doubtless be problematic (however maybe not as problematic as the way humanity sounds.)

  Perhaps we needed that base selfishness to survive at one point, but do we still? Let's go back to the infant. An infant is not only selfish b/c that's all it knows but b/c it is relatively helpess - if it cries and screams and even smiles just so its mom will react lovingly towards it - it does those things b/c it has to in order to survive. It's not consciously thinking that, of course, but the pre-programming kicks in and survival of the fittest says that the infants that screamed and cooed and made a fuss in general got more attn and survived. As adults, we don't have to throw temper tantrums to survive. We can help ourselves and slowly let go of the selfishness that we once had to have to survive. Perhaps society is similar. We started out infantile, having to live in a base manner to survive. Now, however, we don't have to live that way to survive. I believe an altruistic race is where we are headed if we hope to continue as a race. You could say that is selfish, becoming altruistic so humans can survive. But I truly feel that as time goes on we will either collapse as a society and a race or we will start to see the beauty of living for something other than hedonistic pleasure all of the time, at least at the expense of others - and by others I mean not only humans but all creatures. I can't quite seem to say this right...hmm...grow or die is what it comes back to for me. And I won't give up hope that just as we develop a stronger moral code (not stricter rules but more intelligent reasoning that looks beyond our personal best interests) as we age and mature individually, we will do the same as a species.

  To step back for a minute to the other bold text here about survival instincts making us selfish, this is one of the few guesses I have about why we are selfish and why we cannot just all 'change'. For some it may be next to impossible just because of the experiences of their life and the chemical configuration of their brain. If this is not a totalitarian change, what do we do with the people who wouldn't participate in our (well, me, frenchbabyface & maybe Marx's) utopian society? Imprison them, evict them from their homes to live in some isolated place, or kill them? Naturally if one's concern is that of fairness for all, there are only two ways of looking at it: The 'greater' good (or evil), or the view of neutrality.

  Maybe we don't all agree on what changes should be made and who the heck gets to say?? Growth cannot be forced. Force just pushes the forced back into helplessness and then the cycle of selfishness in order to survive starts all over again. Education is a start: let others truly understand what people are going through in the Sudan (for example) and let people get to know the victims as individuals and not just as nameless masses and I think people will be willing to forego some personal benefits to help. You can't force growth, love, goodwill or morality. Force it and it looses all meaning.

  with more than you to snub you and make you feel bad, no one under you to curse you for being so filthy rich. This is not a good example of the benefit (or even the point) of utopia, but you get what I mean. But the utopia can't work without everyone participating willfully.

  Okay, so we agree on the willful participation part totally. But does everyone have to have exactly the same to be happy? I don't know. I don't curse those who have more than me. I don't look down on those who have less. But I don't think total equality in material things is the true key to a utopian society. I think if we move towards concern for the greater good money will become a moot point.

  To put it bluntly, everyone would have to willingly adopt frenchbabyface's optimism and energy for this utopian future to even be possible. But if not everyone will stop being selfish - not everyone will look for a common good - then this is likely to be impossible. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I see the world staying the same as it always has been - the strong rule, the weak suffer. Class and denominational 'warfare' (both literally and metaphorically) will persist. My hope is not extinguished however. Here's what it would take:

  I wish I could believe everyone would adopt the desire to help others and do what's best for the world and not personal ends. I don't have the answers to create that, obviously. But health care and education are a major start, along with research: research to determine what is going on in the minds of people; health care for the small part of the mentally ill who treat others terribly (i'm thinking truly borderline personality disordered people, also sexual predators and those who seem to have no conscience); and education b/c I think the average person is good and will respond selflessly if given the information and opportunity to do so.

  - inhumanly servient soldiers using non-ethal debilitating force; this would require robots or genetically modified beings to enact
  - a leader or central mind free of corruption - since a human cannot be trusted for this (and humans die), the natural choice is a leader crafted in a shell of metal and electronics that only fulfills its programming, wanting nothing more because it was built only to do a certain thing.
  - someone with enough power, money and conviction in this system to actually attempt something like this
  - the victory of these soldiers over the governments of the world
  - possibly, the brainwashing of people who persistently resist (or form resistance cells with the misguided belief the old system was better)

  Rune, you know I generally respect and often even agree with your opinions, but the above freaking scares me. I look forward to your next posts. Kitties
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Reading me back, I can understand that what I've said seems to be WEIRD and maybe a bit off topic (not to me for some reasons) cause it's about using our humans faillures in the best way. (individualisme = we can't escape it / capitalisme = it is a motivation for most = but I would say not really capitalisme but CONFORT and SECURITY and for now we think that only money can bring that / communisme = 90 % of us need it to take over the biggest troubles)

  but what might look even more difficult to believe in (when it's not = again it's strategic) is :

  How can we finance that ! Well strategically it is way more economical than our current system ... even on a little scale ...

  How we can be sure that we won't be cheated on : that's when technology and strategy (again) takes place for one part and individualisme and the need for the best to be recognised as the best or to do the best in there area (who cares what the reason is as far as we got the good result) when in concurrence (anonymous if needed in the process) can lead ...