Why would one choose to be a soldier?

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by lookout123

ok, so you are in favor of a lifestyle from more than a century ago. if we agree to this do we need to keep women's rights or can i just drag my wife around by the hair as i see fit.... bla bla bla I'm not listening bla bla bla

This is nothing to do with the 'good old days' nor is it romanticized - just common sense. IF current methods were ecologically sound, that would be the right thing to do. I could reel off a list of websites with pollution statistics, ozone destruction, oil and natural resource depletion and so on. The fact is we do not know the true impact of our relentless Dyson-powered suction of all this planet has to offer. We use more than we need; that is not contestable. There is bound to be a payoff at some point.

I am not rejecting all human advances; in fact I think these things should continue. But does it make sense to use them when we do not know their impact? Maybe.

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

The problem inherent with this is that humans are flawed, and most humans are destructive rather than creative.

Precisely. Not all innovation is in the right direction. As a planet we have billions of dollars invested in munitions development (destruction) and substantially less in (creative) research institutions.

Originally Posted by tw

Now to muddy the waters. Rape and infidelity are such destructive events. And yet genetic research has demonstrated how rape and infidelity were also so helpful and necessary in the advancement of mankind; the 'mixing of the gene pool'. Why is one event so destructive from one perspective become so productive from another perspective? Please don't get hung up with the emotional baggage associate with 'immoral' sex. Deal with the overall concept.

Nice to see someone capable of seeing the bigger picture. But why is it such a struggle to maintain the status quo? Is it so good it warrants dying for? It strikes me as ironic that we die to fight for life. We don't need to fight for it, it's here already.

Originally Posted by Beestie

...you don't seem to be advancing a position. To be honest, what I have gotten from your posts in this thread is that everyone is parading around in an artificial reality with "conveniences" separating us from our true human nature and Emperor's clothes protecting us from the the cold reality of "the truth."

Yes, pretty much.

Originally Posted by Beestie

I'm not calling you a homeless bag lady but that's only a couple of degrees removed from homeless bag lady talk.

And what if she's right? The drunk you meet in a bar is wrong because he's drunk in a bar?

Originally Posted by Beestie

And to say that you're pessimistic because "no one understands me" is lame. So you can't be optimistic untill someone agrees with you?

No, I just feel like I'm hitting on something, slowly, and I want to advance it, but no one can help me because they don't appear to understand the first bit! You know, they don't get my hypothesis, so how can they further the experiment. That is frustrating - even if I turn out to be wrong, you must understand my apparent pessimism.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The thing about innovation that always fascinated me was that with almost every major invention in history, several people independently arrived at the same inspiration and were working on similar prototypes right around the same time, without ever communicating with one another. It's like mankind was "ready" for that new direction.

Finally, some awareness. Thank god. We do not need to 'do' anything to progress, it will come to us. People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow. There are no heroes or great innovators, nor do you need to destruct in order to create. It will happen of it's own accord. To assume you (or man) is in control of natural progress is insane.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

... You know, they don't get my hypothesis, so how can they further the experiment. That is frustrating - even if I turn out to be wrong, you must understand my apparent pessimism.

What experiment do you propose? I have not gotten a clear enough handle on your hypothesis to address the idea of an experiment to test it.

Originally Posted by Catwoman

... We do not need to 'do' anything to progress, it will come to us. People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow.

Progress comes through change and change comes about through force of will. The interconnectedness, I would say, comes from the commonality of our basic needs. We all need the same things so we all think the same way (at some level). However, similar does not necessarily mean connected - I would say it means "caused by the same thing."

Here are two links with some stuff about basic needs which may or may not help you add some clarity to your hypothesis:

http://www.envisionsoftware.com/arti...Hierarchy.html

http://www.EnvisionSoftware.com/Arti...RG_Theory.html

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Beestie

What experiment do you propose? I have not gotten a clear enough handle on your hypothesis to address the idea of an experiment to test it.

It was a metaphor. Besides, I think you have got my point:

Originally Posted by Beestie

...you don't seem to be advancing a position. To be honest, what I have gotten from your posts in this thread is that everyone is parading around in an artificial reality with "conveniences" separating us from our true human nature and Emperor's clothes protecting us from the the cold reality of "the truth."

Originally Posted by Beestie

Progress comes through change and change comes about through force of will.

No, change is not related to will. I can will something to happen but it will not change. And change can happen without my knowing or doing anything about it. Stop thinking you're in control.

Your articles suggest there is an order and timeframe to 'self-actualisation'. No. It happens when you stop thinking and just be. Then all unresolved needs or wants are met in the moment, even if you're starving or dissatisfied

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

This is nothing to do with the 'good old days' nor is it romanticized - just common sense. IF current methods were ecologically sound, that would be the right thing to do. I could reel off a list of websites with pollution statistics, ozone destruction, oil and natural resource depletion and so on. The fact is we do not know the true impact of our relentless Dyson-powered suction of all this planet has to offer. We use more than we need; that is not contestable. There is bound to be a payoff at some point.

People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow.

I agree with this last sentiment, and I believe that the connections are psychobiological.

Jacquelita has a dog who is quite different from my dogs. I was scritching behind his ears the other day. I found that if I scritched in the same way I sometimes scritch one of my dogs, he had the EXACT same reaction, first making happy sounds that seem like he's enjoying it, and then at some point giving a little tiny yelp as if he didn't like it any more.

I was surprised that this new dog's behavior was 100% identical to my one dog in every way. Even though this dog is otherwise quite different from my dogs and has lived an extremely different life.

Are the dogs connected. They HAVE met! But no, their response is "built in" genetically. Humans have similar reactions, but our response is filtered through consciousness and so we don't recognize where our reactions are coming from. More of our behaviors are instinctual than we like to let on.

Inherent in the human condition is predicting the End Times; and along with it is usually some form of blame. It's the notion that if we don't change our behavior, Something is going to get us all.

The Something changes, but it appears to be common through recorded history. Of course we see the Apocalypse story in almost all religions. But when religion doesn't serve any longer, we need new Apocalypses to focus on. In the last two generations it was nuclear holocaust, which was then extended to nuclear "winter", the notion that even if mutually assured destruction (how apocalyptic is that!) was not successful, the resulting climate change could cool the environment and freeze us all.

Maybe it's hopefully instructional to see the competing versions of Apocalypse. They should get together; if global warming is bad, just set off a few bombs and start nuclear winter, eh?

So is the new Apocalypse environmental dysfunction?

One of the advantages of being on this big blue marble for a few decades is that the patterns start to become recognizable. I recognize this general type of alarm. I remember sitting home from school sick, watching daytime TV in 1975. A group of very serious wonks came on to talk about dwindling resources and how it was certain that if we didn't change how we operated and become conservationists we would be out of oil in 30 years.

Well we didn't change how we operated. We still use more oil than ever. And it's 30 years later right now, and gasoline is still cheaper than 1975 prices after adjusting for inflation. (Price is the universal signal of shortage, an extremely strong market force.)

There are still a few people saying that the Saudis are low on oil -- but the number of wonks on daytime TV claiming the Apocalypse will be running out of resources, is significantly lower. The number of wonks has not changed, the prediction of Apocalypse is still there, but its source is different. The proof remains mysterious and pseudo-scientific, and the idea requires a lot of evangelism to remain in the public mind.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

It happens when you stop thinking and just be. Then all unresolved needs or wants are met in the moment, even if you're starving or dissatisfied

Gah, hippies.

If you are content you have no reason to innovate. ipso facto

[Undertoad]

We do not need to 'do' anything to progress, it will come to us. People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow. There are no heroes or great innovators, nor do you need to destruct in order to create. It will happen of it's own accord. To assume you (or man) is in control of natural progress is insane.

This was what I was getting at when I suggested that one of your "givens" is that nations become powerful by chance or worse.

Why did the west become so rich and powerful? Why is its status now challenged by the new economies of the east?

In the east we have a hint: identical peoples living right next to each other and one set of them is unbelieveably rich whilst the other is unbelieveably poor. Why is South Korea hundreds of times richer than North Korea? Why is South Korea a source of a huge amount of innovation while North Korea's innovations are on the order of how to keep a people alive by encouraging them to eat grass?

In the mideast we see another: Israel surrounded by unproductive neighbors. A bunch of nations so unproductive that the only export they have is oil, where Israel with no such natural resources has become even wealthier only by having a driven people and rules that maximize productivity.

It's not just chance. It's through establishing a set of rules that encourages people to be innovative and to work together well and be productive, maximizing human activity.

Sometimes the rule changes are easy to see. You look at graphs of measured human activity and see how the rules affect it. Sometimes they are not so clear; in fact part of the problem is having too many rules. Human behavior is complex. But if a nation has certain properties it is very likely to be more productive than its neighbors. Amongst these properties: a tax structure that encourages productivity; a strong work ethic; and the lack of subjugation of women, which reduces the possible productive and innovative workforce by half.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

No, change is not related to will.

I see. Is your point is that the human condition never changes? Are you saying that all the stuff that passes for change (knowledge, technology, etc.) has a net impact of zero on the human condition?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

We do not need to 'do' anything to progress, it will come to us. People think in very similar ways - makes you think it is all interconnected somehow. There are no heroes or great innovators, nor do you need to destruct in order to create. It will happen of it's own accord. To assume you (or man) is in control of natural progress is insane.

Did you just say that in order to advance we don't have to do anything?

That is absolutely insane.

Innovation happens because humans engage in a basically never-ending quest to discover more about themselves, and their environment, and to manipulate it. If we stopped when we were satisifed, we'd be picking ants out of an anthill with a stick rather than communicating on a world-wide computer network right now.

I don't like ants that much.

They're even worse than pickles.

(If I missed some attempt at sarcasm on your part, please be more clear by using fake BBCODE tags in future. I sincerely hope that I missed some attempt at sarcasm, because even if I don't often agree with you, I have thought you to be at least reasonably sentient.)

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

No, change is not related to will. I can will something to happen but it will not change. And change can happen without my knowing or doing anything about it. Stop thinking you're in control.

Will alone does not bring about change.

Will becoming action brings about change.

If wishes were horses we'd be cleaning up a hell of a lot more horseshit.

[Catwoman]

Horseshit. How appropriate.

Originally Posted by wolf

Did you just say that in order to advance we don't have to do anything?

That is absolutely insane.

Innovation happens because humans engage in a basically never-ending quest to discover more about themselves, and their environment, and to manipulate it. If we stopped when we were satisifed, we'd be picking ants out of an anthill with a stick rather than communicating on a world-wide computer network right now.

I am concerned with the initial thought formation that, once advanced, becomes our drive to action. We do not innovate because we ponder and poke at life - I'm sure you know yourself inspiration can often come at the most unlikely times, or in moments of great boredom. The point is you do not have to be actively or consciously seeking progress for it to occur as a thought pattern. Where do ideas come from?

I would suggest there is a 'network' not unlike the one we are accessing right now that is available to anyone who chooses to login. Just that not many people know it is there and some people are still resisting it (just like the internet!) This network is the common thought process of mankind, hence change or innovation does not originate in one persons brain but as a result of picking up on a collective consciousness which you cannot access through will but through receptivity.

Said minus sardony, just for you wolf.

[Undertoad]

When you say you "would suggest" do you mean to say you ARE suggesting?

Can you access this network?

Can North Korea?

[Catwoman]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

When you say you "would suggest" do you mean to say you ARE suggesting?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can you access this network?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Can North Korea?

Yes. Although lines go down when they think they want to go to South Korea.

[wolf]

So the only way that people can tap into the collective unconscious and come up with society advancing ideas is not to move forward at all?

If that's the case, all innovation should be coming out of the welfare rolls (I don't think that JK Rowling is proof of this) rather than people who take an active part in creation?

Or I'm really missing your point.

[Catwoman]

The latter.

Originally Posted by wolf

So the only way that people can tap into the collective unconscious and come up with society advancing ideas is not to move forward at all?

The moving forward comes later after the thought formation. You can do anything! Attempt to move forward or just sit still (these are m.e.t.a.p.h.o.r.s) and the thought will come (or not) regardless. You know when you're struggling to remember something and it's really annoying? As soon as you forget about it you remember. In the same way ideas can occur without expressly 'doing' something. They don't JUST come when you're idle, but they CAN come without movement.

I hope this explains it.

[wolf]

Sorta. But I still disagree.