11.27.07
I wonder if any of todays music will still be heard and loved 300 years from now Im thinking about the works of
can’t make up its mind which nick to use lol morning pub
morning CB lol
hiya Publius the command in Iraq has announced that the troops with the “Carry” banner were just having fun and were taking it in that spirit … mighty decent of them
hahahhaha
lol Carry didn’t think it was funny. But we all know he can’t tell, or take, a joke
we do?
yep
how?
its pretty obvious
I think they should all be thrown in the brig! j/k
from what?
Kerry should carry around a little smiley face card, so he can punctuate his “jokes” with it so he won’t be misunderstood
I’ve not seen much evidence for or against any sense of humor on Kerry’s part, really
Timur that comment should should you
some on Bush’s part, but it’s usually sniggering
Racist or foul Language or Spam
yeah
ROFL lol
“what did I say?”
hehe sn|gg4rdly so there.
Letterman said that he was the only politician he knew who could lose an election he wasn’t even running for
I actually don’t really care much about him, since, like, he’s not even running for office.
well, he’s running for President again
did he declare?
what was she going to measure? I don’t think so yet
the drapes
she wants to cut them down to make a dress?
Timur well he was out there campaigning by slamming Bush, who is not running for any office. oc .. lol
except ..Bush is holding office.
so is Kerry
the Dems need to stop running against Bush. He is not going to run in 2008
but that’s not really relevant to whether or not, or to what extent he has a sense of humor, or why it really matters.
they already lost that election
true
what’s his name on the tonight show offered to coach him on “timing” for his new career as a comedian
Well the Dems have tossed him off the campaign bus and sent him back home to mama
eh, he’s wooden, but a sense of humor isn’t the single most important aspect of a pol, vs., say, policy stances and principles.
she will pat him on the ass and buy him a new botox treatment
my goodness … you’re so serious tonight
this morning well, I’m just trying to place things in perspective.
yes, it’s always best to put desperation in perspective Time Magazine keeps sending me issues for my waiting room
there’s quite enough desperation to go around, it’d seem
I wish the bipartisans were all desperate, but alas …
when it comes to *Carry* you have a lot to talk about with stances … but not with principals. He is all over the place for the former.
that’s fair. I’m not defending Kerry, I just don’t really care much about him. anyway, what I hope *not* to see, even in the event of a Democratic win, is a return to isolationism.
well, that’s understandable
that’s what I’m actually concerned about in terms of national policy
the Republicans don’t seem to care much about Foley, even though the Democrats seem to “care” a great deal about him
“Iraq didn’t turn out as quickly/well/easily as we thought, so we should pull everyone back to the maximum possible extent”
we all would like to minimize our embarassments
If the dems want to do well in this election, they have to hide all of their candidates, do not put forward what their real policies are, and let the NYT and CNN carry their water for them.
my concern is with the use of the word “we” in that context
we = ‘the majority of the American public”
for example, the Democrats are running an ad against the Republican Congressional incumbent here saying “He didn’t turn out as we thought he would”
ok, that’s an attempt on the part of the ad to have people identify as a common group against the candidate in question
although the purpose of their ad is obvious, if you parse the words and put them into context, then ask the question, “Whose expectations are we talking about here?” it becomes just partisan nonsense
which is fairly typical; thing is, I don’t necessarily think most Americans actually did think Iraq would be as difficult/intractable as it is
the Democrats found that their opponent didn’t behave like they hoped he would? He didn’t behave like a Democrat?
that sounds like a pretty accurate interpretation.. shoot, I gotta go to work. bbl! have a good day.
I don’t see large masses of people marching in the streets saying “Waaah, Iraq is lasting too long”
hmm US male has been missing
too busy comforting Mr. Kerry, I presume 
lol
“Borat” is a mockumentary about a Kazakh journalist in the United States. —– New word I just learned Mockuemntary ???
rond michael moore’s speciality hehehe ‘cept moore is trying to be serious lol
good point
Pelosi is hilarious
she won’t be so hilarious if she seizes power she will reveal her true colours as a traitorous troop-hating monster
#1 Raise Taxes
because she is a typical democrat
#2 Raise them some more #3 Impeach Bush #4 Raise taxes
Raise Taxes till Satan Condemns it
Raise taxes for more war
Well four democrats got busted in KCMO .. got indicted yesterday for turning in false voter registrations. Some group called ACORN which had AFL/CIO posters all over their office.
TimothyT yes figures democrats think satan has any authority ;p
Its good that they are actually going to prosecute for felonies .. sends a message.
Pelosi and the Democrats want to raise taxes until they’ve achieved their ultimate goal, 100% taxes, AKA Communism.
e-Hernick: nice troll, but unfortunately for you, you are truthful in that statement
lol
indeed
morning
viva la revolution! http://www.fairtax.org/
it’s cold…gr
nipply weather
I hear that Democrats kill tens of thousands of americans every year in traffic accidents
and women blame men for the invention of AC 
I heard that was Bush’s fault
yes, Bush has a weather control machine
Also, thousands of Democrats commit suicide every year, proving the fact that Democrats have no regard for human life, not even their own.
just like Sean Connery’s evil character in “The Avengers” e-Hernick: not surprising
Republicans have an above-average chance of being abducted by aliens
well it really is necessary for all those people to die, so that the dems can have some new voters to register
hahahah so true
I see a fairtax to be alittle like irrigation
why is it that most soldiers are Republicans and that most prisoners are Democrats? Because while Republicans are patriots, willing to die for their country, full of moral fiber, Democrats are pirates, thieves and drug abusers who are more likely than Republicans to end up in jail, because they are scum.
e-Hernick warning .. knock off the trolls
Sure, I have to go anyway… But you know the sad thing? It’s true. Most soldiers are Republicans. Most prisoners are Democrats. Anyway, bbl.
Why is it humans find it so easy to join left or right. Are most people either one or the other or are the moajority in the middle? bWhy is it humans find it so easy to join left or right. Are most people either one or the other or are the moajority in the middle?/b
e-hernick is a sexless no toll booth troll
the majority are outside of the false dichotomy even in the days when the Democrats were “liberal” and the Republicans were “conservative” there was no real range between them for people to be moderates between now that neither party stands for anything identifiable it’s even less possible to call anyone a moderate I might agree with the official Democratic Party Platform about one-third, and maybe the same for the Republican Party Platform, but it’s issue by issue and neither party really spends much effort actuating the planks of their platforms in the real world
OcDoc, it’d be pretty dangerous to do something real, cause they’d lose popularity.
I think most people these days think of the government as the only entity which can “fix problems” and don’t think they will actually fix any problems exactly and many just want “free stuff” and see the government as the entity which must be captured somehow in order to maximize their share of the “free stuff”
http://www.nera.com/image/PUB_BUPA_HC1455.pdf
most voters have a vague notion that their own party is safer and that we’re all in trouble when the other side is in charge and national security really is an issue about which there is some reason to believe that the person in the hot seat makes a difference, but little evidence that their party affiliation has anything to do with it
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004709&source=rss_news10 —- Interesting, Utube vs. YouTube suit filed
meh … back to bed for a while … Friday!
it all comes down to this quote… “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. “From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.” — Alexander Tyler so true and right now, we’re past the apathy stage right into the dependency stage need to get ready for work…laters
don’t show any dependency tendancies today iamking
try talking about stopping the ponzi scheme of social security.. lol
heh
lots of ppl depend on SS might help if the gov wasnt skimming money out of it
you are exactly right….but it was designed the way it is today….years ago
we have become a nation of dependency
and for the purpose of the feds to be able to skim if they needed to and worse than that….it was sold as an insurance, not a tax
we can turn that around, but that will require a change in the state of mind of a strong majority of Americans…and that simply won’t happen overnight
hell the dems at the time even consulted major insurance companies on how to set up the SS and the travlers group said we would not be able to run our insurance plans the way guys have this setup
heh, thats true
hiiiiiiiii
that’s why we need the FairTax
lots of ppl collecting SS can afford not to
If you paid in you should be able to collect affordability has nothin to do with it
but that’s simply not how it is set up
yeah, but the ppl in need should get the money
hi
unless you privatize a portion or all of it…which actually would be better…setting up private accounts
No compdoc that is not the base or root of the issue
but noooo…Democrats make the word “privatization” as if it were the boogey man privatization != cuss word but too bad we have a lot of ignorant asshats in the electorate too easily fooled into believing that
arr finally.. I was going nuts.. I had been playing castlevania DS, and it had this catchy tune which was obviously a ripoff of “dance of the sugar-plum fairy”.. and I was filled with the uncontrollable urge to hear the original version.. but I could not remember the name for all I tried! Fortunately, I thought.. I’ll go look up the track list for “Fantasia” and I’ll surely find it. And I did. Anyway, “Dance of the Sugar-plum fairy”, out of “The Nutcracker” is one of those unforgettable pieces of music. now that I have it playing in a loop, I can calm down.
My beef with privatization is one of two things are going to happen, lots of people will be able to invest the money themselves and some will fuck up and lose it all, or the govt. is going to invest for them, which is fucked up because it will allow the govt to falsely have the economic sway of millions of people (in otherwords they’d impact the market majorly)
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky = awesome
e-Hernick, yup.
P_O do you not think the markets have not already been affected by pulling so much money out of the money supply
anything that gone private tends to fall apart
rond, I have a beef with SS itself as well.
hell the great depression markets of the time were greatly affected by the new tax SS
Mainly that so much money gets taken out and I have no confidence in ever getting it back.
it made the depression last even longer Yeah P_O your in a bad position with SS you reallyare I am in a better position and I don’t *even* like mine
It’s a bad balance, because of course SS never takes out enough money for you to actually live decently in retirement, but at the same time it takes out enough to impact your life up to that point.
what was the earlier lockdown about?
I get a statement from SS every once in a while. says Im paid up. but even if I never get it, its not like Ive lost everything
it’s ahrd to lose everything
compdoc, the soft limit is what, 100k?
compdoc if you are younger than 45….more than likely you will not see a dime
P_O, not sure
rond is qualified to say that because he has time-travelled here from the year 2140
oax its math
you got my lotto pix, rite rond?
I wonder if any of today’s music will still be heard and loved 300 years from now. I’m thinking about the works of Bach, Mozart, Vivaldi, Pachebel, Handel, Beethoven… That will never fade away from public consciousness… These artists are the very best, the only ones whose music has survived and is still loved hundreds of years later. What songs made in this century will last that long?
rond, even simpler than math actually.
its not rocket science or prediction of the future
well, if we werent spending billions a month on the war, we could fix SS
rond it’s also very touchy politics. let’s see how far backwards politicans can bend for old folks who vote and are about to lose SS
Politicians can’t spend proper amounts to save their lives, and SS is one of the more untapped revenue wells.
maybe even get heath coverage
oax the current old folks are not in jeapordy of loosing any social security please inform yourself so others do not have to do so
the war is very inexpensive. 300 million americans, 300 billion for the war, trillions of dollars in debt.. the cost of the war is very small
rond there are old folks coming down the pipe, pal
yeah pal I am one of them
lol - well, toss me a few trillion then
rond so tell me what it’s going to look like when SS disappears and politicians try to sell that to their voters
Technically everyone is one of them.
its going to look like a mess because so many told them so
I mean, most of America’s warmaking capabilities are paid for one way or another.. They army already exists. Waging war doesn’t dramatically increase the cost of running the military, which operates no matter what.
but the taxpayer is paying for this stupid war
rond an on another note, don’t be a turd i’m not an idiot
^ishi^: the taxpayer isn’t paying much for the war. How much, I don’t know, maybe 5% of his taxes go to the war?
the debt will be paid for by a couple generations of ppl
oax then don’t act like one
the debt will be paid by robots.
i agree with you to a large degree. SS cannot logically continue to exist as it does now
tell me if the economy is doing so great why is the US is so much debt ?????
compdoc, you’re assuming that the same patern of spending more than you can won’t take place. *pattern
tell me if the economy is doing so great why is the US is in so much debt ?????
Tell me, what’s the point in using multiple question marks?????
^ishi^ those ren’t mutually explucive things.
sure it can. As technology gets more powerful, each person can produce more. With growing automation, America will be able to provide for the senior citizens without trouble.
becoz i wonder a lot the reason of so many ?????????
^ishi^ tho it is a lot better for the economy when the US isn’t in such debt. when the US isn’t gobling up investments, there is more to go around
maybe the money paid on interest is keeping the economy afloat
e-Hernick hey did you read accelerando
no
US govt paying high interest on t bills does not help capital investment e-Hernick it’s a sci fi hugo winner by charles stross. anyhow, he gives a picture of the future like you are describing. communism gets sold as a viable economic model in the book at the point where resources become totally unscarce
My position is that 1. The War on Iraq was a serious mistake; 2. You break it, you own it, therefore: 3. America owns Iraq and must restore it to a level of stability comparable to pre-invasion Well, one of the my favourite pieces of dystopian/utopian (it has both) speculative fiction that deals with abundance societies is Marshall Brain’s “Manna”
the govt doesn’t invest in profitable interests. just expensive shit like wars and overpriced drugs for dying old folks
It contrasts a repressive abundance society with one that shares equally, a form of communism I suppose.
e-Henrick you recommend it? i’m curious how a resource-abundant future can have dystopia
aloha
lets kill off the old folks - theyve only built the country with their blood and taxes. we can off em now
I strongly recommend it. http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm
i can imagine maybe those folks who are only happy when they have more than their neighbors might be displeased but i wouldn’t call that a dystopia
well, it speaks of a society where the abundance could easily provide for all citizens, but where it is instead concentrated in the hands of the few and since automation is ubiquitous, there is no need for manual labor, and millions of people end up in ultra-high-density housing with no opportunities to do anything
cant have robots do it - look at that movie i Robot, and the Matrix
e-Hernick heh that is the future where the people who get off on having more than their neighbors are in charge. i don’t think that’s stable
well, that’s the present so are we going to get communism?
e-Hernick yeah of course
even today there are people starving in the streets and society could easily provide for them
e-Hernick I meant to qualify that witht he implicit assumption that there was no more scarcity
well, there are levels of abundance
ah I see yeah stross had a world of total absolute and uncontrollable (i.e., by some greedy minority) abundance
I mean, unless you’re considering a post-singularity world
yeah exactly
then you can throw away all the rules
well you can ask that people don’t harm others. but at that point there would be no motive to do so other than sociopathic cruelty
people don’t fight merely because of scarcity oax people will self segrigate and commit violence reguardless of what is done
anyone hava a mirror of that nuclear device article that got taken down?
debauched anything beyond what was int he energy weapons archive? i didn’t hear about that
some say that in a world of abundance, there would be no combat where each individual doesn’t agree to take part in said confrontation; that with the needs of everybody already met, unchecked conflict would not be allowed, and innocents would not be, as a rule, involved in conflict they don’t want to be a part of in such a world of abundance, the basic needs of everybody, as well as most of their other non-basic desires, would be covered easily by the abundance. this implies automation on a scale currently unimaginable.
and/or some major biological changes like with stross, people existed largely outside of their “meat bodies”
same with Manna
rond is qualified to say that because he has time-travelled here from the year 2140 —-oax I find it odd that you started your comments to me this way now you are guesing about events much further out than what I was discussing
is there a disconnect there somewhere ????
yes, you are teh disconnect
rond I qualiefied my discussion by starting it with “and there was this sci fi book i was reading…”
My point remains the same lol that does not change anything
it changes EVERYTHING.
ok i figured you were talking about reality when you made your comment. fair enough asorry to assume
rond lives in a fantasy world set in the year 2140
it was on BBC radio earlier this orning, the US gov took dow some pages which had been put up to show how close the Iraqis under Saddam got to geting a nuclear sevice. the problem is that it may have given away methods to fabricate devices
you should know better than to think he’s talking about the present
lol and how is discussing a fantasy world who he he he
you, of course.
I doubt something like a news article type report would have sufficient detauls to do that
In rond’s fantasy world, both Democrats and Republicans have been replaced by sentient robots, strong artificial intelligences that rule over the United States with an iron fist. Indeed, human politicians are a dead breed; a central computer makes all decisions, and communicates them to “Governators”, anthropomorphic robots that patrol the streets and enforce the law.
debauched hmm. any clue as to the source of the pages that got taken down? US military? inspectors? iraqis?
sentient robots…iron fist - I get it!!
good question, BBC reported it and I wasnt paying attention to the whole report, having just risen and not yet druunk the first coffee of the day
mmm, coffee - now theres an idea its almost 6am
yeah… coffee..
any respectable sentient robot would be made of iron. that will also be their downfall when the dolphins attack from the salty waters of the sea and crush them with rust. rond told me this. it came from his 2140 history book
Lupine you were right about bringing up SS
hehe i want to hear lupine’s ss prediction i think it came before when I joined
rond also told me that the dolphins are highly-evolved beings (for that God has spoken to him and told him that evolution is true! what a surprise!) that can fly and destroy the robots. However, he also claims that the Democrats will rise again and reform the SS, as the Pelosi Schutzstaffel, and take over the USA once again when the robots fall.
US also took down the page where that guy gave a sciprt to print your own bording pass
I recall reading a mention in a ham radio magazine that some guy had aquired an atomic clock, to calibrate electronic devices with like frequencies of 10 GHz. Builduing your own nuclear device would make a great article for a ham radio magazine
circumventing one of the most pointless security checks invented by the boffins at TSA
inconveniencing americans at the airport makes them feel safer
e-Hernick why is rond so much more wise in what he tells us in secret than in what he tells us in the public channel?
time to use some ignore….there is nothing worth waisting ascii on here
yes, that was mentined on off the hook, the weekly 2600 radio show mentioned
e-Hernick abundance won’t omit violence
I guess you’re right. But I think that the number of innocent who die unwillingly, will be reduced to almost zero.
It is foolish to belive that conflict only because because of lac of resources/etc e-Hernick moronic
NPR had a really good report from 2 reporters who’d spent time in Iraq. They’re pretty much saying it’s a horrible situation, but could get worse.
future wars will be fought be robots
and they agreed with my assessment that more troops should’ve been used.
KoBushi you think a significant amount of violence is motivated by something other than scarcity?
oax 99.9% of it
KoBushi really. like what, passion?
oax idiocy people natrually segregate and form groups
KoBushi and that that passionate crime cound’t be headed off by someone with unlimited resources?
and attempt t assert dominance over other groups
KoBushi perhaps those groups would be stuck near each other if there was a scarcity of real estate…. but otherwise they can just let each other kiss off
oax no, they SEEK to dominate each other they WANT to be near each other, and push thier power onto others
KoBushi oh, assholes
and no, someone with unlimited resources stll can’t do shit about crimes of passion (even if unlimited resources was a possible thing) which it isn’t
yeah. well i guess it’s possible since this is fantasyland that we can imagine total abundance and also the existence of assholes i think it’s hard to discuss what things would be like in a world without scarcity
Kob; I think the idea (forgive me for jumping in) is to minimize such crimes.
but for me, it would also mean no scarcity of space between me and assholes
Timur- perhaps, but “scarcity of resources” wuld do little, if anything, to curb violence
“separation from others” is a resource in my book
well, if by that you mean ‘increasing’ scarcity, right. It’d exacerbate levels of violence.
If anything, it would promote violence, since “good” behavior would have no reward rather, m previous comment should have said that a lack of “scarcity of resources” would do little, if anything, to curb violence
KoBushi what is your model of morality? taught or innate? I beleive in innate morality. except in deficient individuals, there is no pressure to act immorally when personal ends can be achieved otherwise
it’s both.
oax violence and dominance IS the goal
KoBushi you think those are ends or means for obtaining power? i think that in the examination of human nature, you’ll see they are means but maybe the means are goals in themselves to organisms evolved in a world of scarcity
oax a little of both
but as means . (for obtaining power, which is pointless in this scenario), they are artifacts
but, in a fnatasy world of all other resources being equal, violence will become the ONLY tool to assert dominance
so yeah maybe some deficiencies / anachronisms of human nature would result in some artifacts of violence
they aren’t anarchronisms they have never gone away
but it’s reasonable to see how that could be an anomaly in a world where everyone who is willing to behave reasonably and enjoy their totaly abundance could get away from that
not really
KoBushi they would no longer have a purpose in a world on no scarcity KoBushi competition would be pointless
the overwhelming vast majority would SEEK to be involved in the power struggle competition IS the point
KoBushi so those natural drives would be anachronistic artifacts
oax so you imagine that human nature would just “change” because you wish things to be foo-foo pretty? You need to start looking at reality of the human creature and not what you wish it would be
perhaps in the world of abundance the first and last violent act would be to rid itself of those given to the ativism of violence
oax ALL are given to compete and assert dominance
sittin in the morning sun
KoBushi violence would be unstable in a world without scarcity. competition would be a pointless waste of time
i’ll be sitting when the evenin comes do do do
violence is as much symptomatic as casual, and as such it is also deeply set in human nature. causal *
oax competition IS THE ENTIRE POINT…. it doesn’t have to HAVE a point, it ISthe point
Timur- yeah i’m imagining it can be removed from human nature. like in the neighborhood i live in. we don’t ahve total abundance. for instance, my neighbor has a larger yard, but neither of us are killing each other. i can imagine a future in which nobody would be interested in killing anyone else
but you both have yards, and presumably, houses, food, and some income, and neither of you is impinging on the other; so those mitigate against violence between you. as such, it’s a highly imperfect analogy to most extant conflicts
Timur- that would be the cae for every single person in a world without scarcity. i know it’s a stretch of imagination but i think it would be interesting to agree on this point at least in this totally unplausible hypothetical case, so that we could maybe nail down the root of violence and other wuch problems as scarcity wuch/such you know. and i hope you see my point an rhetorical goal, even if you disagree with it
oax I just disagree that scarcity is a cause of violence… however I would agree that human dominance struggles are a cause of scarcity
TORONTO (CP) - Almost a million Canadians tuned in Tuesday night to watch Rick Mercer sleep over at Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s house - also known as 24 Sussex Drive. “The Rick Mercer Report” earned its highest ratings so far this season, with 945,000 tuning in on Halloween night to see Mercer frolic with the Harper children and then settle down in his flannel pyjamas to listen to Harper read him a bedtime story, the federal Accountability Act.
KoBushi i’d guess that violence / competition/etc come from our genetics as being products of evolving from a world of scarcity. eat or be eaten. dominate or starve. rape and pillage etc. make laws and form societies to stand up against barbarians who don’t do so, etc.
no, not so.
all of those motivating factors are fundamentally based in scarcity
scarcity is only one among many contributors to violence - a significant one, but not the only one, or even a necessary predicate. the Hutu weren’t really very much poorer than the Tutsi, nor the Serbs than the Albanians, etc.
oax ah but the PRIME factor is mating… and you cannot eliminate “scarcity” of ideal mates
yeah
oax unless you somehow make every man identical and every woman identical (especially physically)
i’m not saying particular cases of human behaviors are directly motivated by scarcity, just that the propensity in human nature to act so is motivated by scarcity through evolutionary biology KoBushi what makes a mate better or worse in a world where everybody can achieve everything desired, equally ?
oax looks primarily
WOW Rick Mercer just boosted Harper’s rating
i’m not putting a flower in my hair and saying follow me over the hill to this world, of course
probably atleast 3 points
physical attractiveness is still the primary variable in mating
it doesn’t exist KoBushi that’s just an indirect way of evaluating the fitness of a prosective mate
oax perhaps, but it is more ingrained than that
Kob; sure. I didn’t choose to approach the girl who’s now my gf because I overheard her discussing the merits of Kant, or the music of the Talking Heads.
it isn’t a mental proccess that one controls
nor, even
KoBushi yes i agree it is totally ingrained
it’s not just ingrained. It’s instinctual.
KoBushi but humans have done well to control animal urges in building societies. we do counter these pointless things ourselves
It takes the male brain less time to decide on a woman’s beauty than it takes to blink the eye that’s how innate the proccess is
even babies have differentiated responses to the appearance of others based on commonly accepted notions of beauty (symmetry, specific proportions, etc.)
yep well i think it’s a usual conservative point of view that people are responsible for their actions, not their biologies. so you expect people to overcome their urges to act like animals and behave in a civilized fashion. i think this can extend to the situation i am describing
people’s actions derive in large part from their biological drives.
yep
there are drives that are healthy and normal, in balance, and must be met (food when hungry, etc.)
and the fact that we aren’t all killing each other and raping everything in sight is due to our social drives the innate morality, i guess
to the extent those drives can be unhealthy/dangerous/etc., that’s when social convention comes in, in the form of laws, customs, etc., to set limits, and consequences in the case of disregard of the former. it’s not innate.
so anyhow, that innate morality is what allows humans to form societies and dominate the rest of the animal world. it’s pretty strong, for a good reason. i think it would win
or, to the extent it may be, it’s sporadic, inconsistent, and variable per individual and per situation. no, innate morality isn’t what allows it. Superior organization and cooperation, bolstered by morality, is what does.
right so say in the world without scarcity we just enact draconian law and kill anyone who harms or impinges on antoher’s well being
morality serves to further the goals of a more elaborated and sophisticated organization
organization and cooperation is only made possible by morlity. those things require trust, and trust is fundamentally the beliefe in the strength of another’s morality
but not all organizations, even fairly elaborated ones, share the same morality. that’s right, they’re predicated upon morality, but the morality upon which they’re based is to ane xtent varaible, except on certain core issues, and even then, the extent of their application is still variable.
an organization that can exist without trust is an exception. sure, but those haven’t existed. they are hard to imagine without contriving them
trust can be part of it, but if you look at totalitarian governments, the trust was certainly not assumed. It was ruthelessly enforced by enormous state police apparatii
*state intellgence
so anyhow we agree that humans have dominated this world. and that we do so by the ability to work together and organize. and that organization depends fundamentally on the expectation of morality of the participants
sure, as long as it’s understood that the morality is variable up to a point, in application and execution, and even to an extent in principle.
morality would be unnecessary if a single interest could hold power over the rest, yes. but that’s not stable or effective or practical, especially int he early ages of develpment and inefficient so much would be expended on monitoring and enforcing behavior an efficeint situation would be like a beehive, where individuals were totally incapable of acting in their own interest. they are programmed to tell the rest where the food is when they find it. no reason not to, they can’t reproduce
ok, Plato
so humans and chiumps and such are in a happy middle. they mostly behave morally to earn their place in the tribe and also for the betterment of their tribe. it keeps them safe from other animals and other tribes
