Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kaijyuu]

Hooray for public shaming! When it comes to businesses, anyway.

[SalmonGod]

Just as our gained knowledge influences our decisions, our base response plays an equal part. Neither one is the full story, and neither one can be ignored. They both take part in every decision we make, in some quantity, some form. Furthermore, though our accumulated knowledge can grow and change quickly, our physiology and biochemistry do not change so much, as that is mostly ingrained into our DNA.

But what base responses are you referring to?  Can you point out to me what base responses, besides those tied directly to basic reproductive/survival instincts, are universally ingrained in our DNA and how they relate back to the original subjects of violence and societal structure? 

[Zangi]

Hooray for public shaming! When it comes to businesses, anyway.

Fun speculation:
If NY loses... know how much in libel the bank could possibly get?  Epic amounts.

[Lagslayer]

Oh, but reproductive and survival are the most important, and tie indirectly or directly into pretty much anything.

Greed? The desire and pursuit of more power/influence. Power/influence = better security = better survival/more mates (despite what fairy tales may say, someone who can provide the absolute best for their family is more likely to be chosen). This is the primary, primal force driving the economic and military infrastructure (read: EVERYTHING!). If we didn't want/need more stuff to sustain or improve living conditions, there would be no need for fighting. Even science, at it's core, is intended to be applied to more practical applications eventually. Practicality meaning better power/influence, and not just intellectual masturbation.

Our accumulated knowledge is to supplement the base instinct. An early cave man would get hungry, and go out to beat something to death with his fists. As they became smarter over generations, this became stabbing stuff to death for food. Then it became projectiles and trapping. Today we merely go to the store and buy a steak, but to do this, we need money. We earn money by doing specialized tasks not directly related to getting the food. The money is an intermediary step, intended to translate sweeping (or whatever you do) into food. By this point, it's come quite a long ways from beating stuff to death with your hands. Yes, very far indeed, so as to feel completely unnatural. Sweeping the floor = food? The brain's first response is "WTF does that mean?". Humans did not evolve to think such abstract things on such a large scale all the time. While we are generally very good at it, such all-encompassing abstract concepts and systems are suppressive to our base instincts.

Now, the "work for food" example may just be a small thing on it's own, but this applies to everything now. As technology has progressed, it has become increasingly detached from our instinctual response. You don't walk long distances anymore, you press some pedal attached to a machine that somehow makes the metal object you are in move. You don't fight a bully, you use some convoluted bureaucratic system so someone else can bring some abstract form of punishment upon him. Then there's...

The "become chaste" one is already partially in effect and has been for thousands of years. Sexual repression is a thing, and a nasty thing. The most sexually repressed areas have on average the highest rate of sex crime (rape, molestation, etc), and honestly? "Going against human nature" is an argument I'd actually be in agreement with to explain why.

And to top it all off, humans instinctually cling to small groups. We are tribal, caring primarily about those closest to us. However, there is strength in numbers. To survive in a modern world, you need to work with a lot of people you don't know or care about, and probably hate. Because if you don't and the other people do, then you get routed and suddenly have nothing. From this need to work with so many other people rises specialization, and all those abstract systems that suppress our natural instinct, the stuff we really want to be doing.

Culture grew out of instinct and knowledge, but it has grown into a form which, in many ways, causes the "will to survive" and "desire for comfort" to clash. Survival always wins.

I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but this is why I think technology needs to be taken into a new direction. Instead of replacing our natural actions, we should be trying to enhance them. Why drive a car if you can run 60 MPH? Why use a computer if we can increase brain power instead? Why eat synthesized food when we can make it grow faster, and on it's own? We are approaching the point where we can manipulate organic systems as well as we can mechanical ones, and I think we should start moving in that direction. (But no manipulating the human genome; we can't even call ourselves human anymore if we do that. Just my ethics there)

I think I touched all the bases here. Might post some more as it comes up.

[Heron TSG]

You don't walk long distances anymore, you press some pedal attached to a machine that somehow makes the metal object you are in move.

Weeellll... I run everywhere I need to go.  (Though going from one end of town to the other and back is only 6 miles.) I'll admit I don't know much about enhanced crops and cybernetics, but I do know about running. Cheetahs get to run 60 miles per hour because they have incredibly powerful legs, they are relatively light compared to their muscle mass, and their muscles are largely geared towards anaerobic sprinting. Cheetahs are fast, but can only keep their speed up for 10-15 seconds. Humans, on the other hand, have fairly weak legs and heavy upper bodies that don't add momentum. What we do have is efficiency. The Achilles' tendon combined with the arches of the feet grant us a springy stride that allows us to put some downward energy into the next stride. The long legs allow us to make strides less often - letting us use our more efficient slow-twitch muscles. Our upper bodies counter-rotate to put some of our upper body motion into the next stride. We have sweat glands and (usually) little body hair to prevent heat transfer. There are only two other animals on earth that can keep up with a human in a long-distance race: some horses, and some dogs. (Though dogs can only run as far when they're in a very cool climate like Alaska, otherwise they have to stop occasionally to pant and release heat and get more air.) Humans can beat horses in a marathon, and a horse stands no chance in a 500-mile race. (It's been tried.)

Now. To ship goods effectively with our current type of economy, 60mph is a pretty good speed. Humans can't carry as much as a truck. Legs get out-of-balance when a load isn't centered, and wheels do not. The most important factor: a steel bumper can take a hit into a brick wall a lot better than a ribcage. As for biology, we would need legs that are a lot stronger, and a lot more durable. A human leg gets pretty beat up after a marathon at 5-minute-mile pace due to the simple wear-and-tear of pounding your feet on the ground for a couple of hours.

I dunno, to me it seems like you would have to alter the human genome a bit to compensate for our lack of strength, acid buildup, and fragile bodies if you want to compete with cars or trains.

[SalmonGod]

Oh, but reproductive and survival are the most important, and tie indirectly or directly into pretty much anything.

Greed? The desire and pursuit of more power/influence. Power/influence = better security = better survival/more mates (despite what fairy tales may say, someone who can provide the absolute best for their family is more likely to be chosen). This is the primary, primal force driving the economic and military infrastructure (read: EVERYTHING!). If we didn't want/need more stuff to sustain or improve living conditions, there would be no need for fighting. Even science, at it's core, is intended to be applied to more practical applications eventually. Practicality meaning better power/influence, and not just intellectual masturbation.

For a long period of my teen years, I thought exactly like this.  I actually believed that sex drive was the subtle root of all evil; that all instances of people abusing each other was some abstract extended manifestation of reproductive competition.

But it just doesn't hold up to reality.  The majority of people don't actually want all that much.  They want a decent life, not fame, fortune, and power.  Some people want to own the world.  Most people couldn't care less about owning things that don't matter to them directly.  Some people want tons of sex partners and children.  Most people struggle to understand their own sexuality, and wonder why it only makes them depressed when they get good at landing one night stands.  Some bands make it big and thrive in the spotlight.  Most bands break apart when offered a big contract, because half the members suddenly realize they don't want to be stars.

It's confusing, though, because our media picks up on the minority of people who live to extremes that appeal to our base instincts.  They present those people as the definition of success - as the definition of what everyone is supposed to want.  However, if you pay attention to the people in your daily life, the scores of people who drop out of the races for sex and power, and the people who stay and win those races only to find that their life has become a nightmare to them, you realize that things are more complex than that. 

All that complexity did emerge from our basic animal origins.  That doesn't mean our entire sophisticated emotional and cultural make-up is uniformly dedicated to fulfilling them, and it doesn't mean society is forever chained to their short-sighted whims.  We evolved our sentience and complex intelligence/behavior because those are the set of features that reproduced successfully through the chaos of constant small, random mutations thrown into an objective environment.  That set of features just happened to be of an extremely emergent nature.  In other words, reproductive success as the criteria for natural selection is the set of circumstances that created us, but the complex social structure that continues to emerge does not need to resemble those origins anymore than ripples in beach sand (another emergent phenomena) need to resemble wind or water.


Edit:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The U.S. continues to participate in the remnants of South America's Dirty Wars, with full awareness of the humanitarian consequences of their actions.  Thank you Wikileaks and Bradley Manning.

[SalmonGod]

The surveillance state keeps growing and growing.  Thank you Anonymous and Wikileaks.

[darkrider2]

The surveillance state keeps growing and growing.  Thank you Anonymous and Wikileaks.

Hold on a second I remember this movie!

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[SalmonGod]

This is the first I've heard of this, and I don't know what to think of it yet...

The UK's new Natural Capital Committee.

[Heron TSG]

1. Goddamn surveillance! That's gotta break some laws, there. A secret camera system, really!?

2. It sounds like they're planning to appraise, parcel out, and sell nature. Somehow. What?

[Graknorke]

Well, you can say that the Conservatives are a bunch out out-of-touch old farts, but you can't really judge until you've been to their monthly red squirrel punting competitions.

And I think it's basically that they want companies to give them thus monies for being allowed to wreck a certain amount of the ecosystem. This is going to work about as well as carbon credits.

[Frumple]

Not so much the conservatives being out of touch as the rich in general -- which almost entirely composes the political leadership of the country. S'a problem endemic to the entire political spectrum right now; those who have the resources to assume positions of political leadership simply don't comprehend the lives, lifestyles, and problems of the people they're ostensibly representing. They've lived in what amounts to a near total social disconnect with the less fortunate, who comprise the absolute and vast majority of the country.

Until we find a way to bridge or shorten the gap -- lessen income disparity and the problems, especially social ones, involved with it -- then those who are able to govern in a democratic system (i.e. have the resources to run a campaign) will as a rule be out of touch, because they were never connected to begin with, nor did they really have reason or opportunity to connect.

It's not as bad on the local level when you're dealing with very small populations, but even in heavily rural areas you see that the most economically able individuals are almost entirely what comprises the governing positions -- and often, they simply don't understand the lives of the worst off in their community. They haven't been there, they haven't worked with the people that have, and -- conservative or not -- most of them simply don't have any sympathy, empathy, or understanding of the issues and problems most of the country's population are troubled by.

[SalmonGod]

The thing about this image is it addresses something that I don't think is acknowledged much.  It's not about the money.  It's about how that money translates into the time a person can afford to actually live their lives.  Life doesn't really seem worth living when 2/3 of it is spent acting as someone else's automaton.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[Leafsnail]

most of them simply don't have any sympathy, empathy, or understanding of the issues and problems most of the country's population are troubled by.

And that's why they join the Conservative party.

[Lagslayer]

The thing about this image is it addresses something that I don't think is acknowledged much.  It's not about the money.  It's about how that money translates into the time a person can afford to actually live their lives.  Life doesn't really seem worth living when 2/3 of it is spent acting as someone else's automaton.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The cost of living is mostly independent of relative earnings. In order for this to be effective, inflation must be made illegal. This would place all pricing in the hands of the government (and we know how great a job they do). Furthermore, if supplies grow slower than demand, rationing will be inevitable. Inflation already has a built-in mechanism for that, but the government would have to consciously keep adjusting prices.

Other problems need to be solved first before you tackle this one.