'sall good. we tend to be on the same pages if not the same paragraphs in these matters. Here, I think we're looking at the path to classical liberalism of the 18thC with me adding commentary about what's between it and medieval feudalism-i.e.: government by consent vs absolutism, along with the necessity of regulation (in this case, related to trade/commerce) vs. caveat emptor. basically the foundations of social contract.
Exactly. I may have taken off on a tangent to which I thought RickDeckard was going. Either way, I think we both agree that it takes more than hard work to rise above one’s circumstances.
As I said previously, there are three types of people. One small group has the ambition and intelligence to rise above their circumstance. One small group will accept their circumstances and adapt. One small group will accept their circumstances and say “fuck it. Nothing I can do”. There overlap in the middle that makes it appear the middle group is larger. For example you may have someone with intelligence but no ambition. Someone with ambition, but not the intelligence. I’m certain there’s as much overlap between libertarianism and fatalism - someone accepting their lot in life, but doesn’t care if their life is better or not. IOW, a fatalist (this is my life, there’s nothing I can do about it) who “demands” a hand out would be a small subsection of an already small group.
I dunno... my reasons for being as far "left" as I am boil down to cost effectiveness. Personally, I cna be any of those three depending on the time and place. Big shit, like public health or education, for instance. Both have long shownto be cheaper and creating better outcomes while at the same time being preventative of other ills. Likewise, the non profit org I work for houses and provides care for those who'd otherwise not have the means or ability to provide for themselves be that individually or as members of a family. It's cheaper (and more practical) for them to keep someone like me with a necessary set of aptitudes/lived experiences well trained then it would be to teach the aptitudes to somebody with an education but no personal context. Not even sure if the latter is possible, let alone ideal.
Right! And, Determinism, Libertarianism, and Fatalism are still only a very small part in where and individual may find themself. One may well have ambition and intelligence, but may look at society and say “I think my skills would be better suited to helping society than myself”. There are so many different factors in why one succeeds and another fails - or falls somewhere in the middle. Another issue is that not everyone agrees on “what success looks like”. One of the biggest contributors, in my opinion, to poor mental health these days is that those who do not / are not / will not reduce their lives to “how much money can I make” are constantly told they are not successful. In my opinion, that’s like someone studying for a science test failing a language test and thinking it’s their fault. Is it the fault of the individual for studying for the wrong test? Or is it the fault of society for providing the wrong test?
The collective pragmatism argument leads to forcing people to live in stacked cubes and use public transit exclusively in "15 minute cities. " Piss on that.
Well. Yes. Obviously. My comments were on a philosophical level. That’s part of the issue. In our current existence, we live in a wold that requires us to behave in a certain way - go to work, make a dollar, pay for your necessities and possibly some luxuries. However, humans are capable of so much more. Capitalism does not allow for humans to become what we can be because we spend our entire lives working to buy things that help us work to buy more things.
wow... those are some really uninformed accusations... not even gonna bother to address them other than to point out that "stacked cubes" are the nature of most urban housing. you'd rather health costs be double and provide less for the average payer by privatizing insurance (itself, a "collective" endeavour)? or worse, millions of "home schooled" people running things... sorry to tell ya, but the 1800s aren't coming back.
Homeschooling is sounding increasingly better than the indoctrination camps public schools are running. And my preference is that individuals retain the choice, regardless of whether it is most expedient for the collective. Maybe YOU'RE eager to serve that master, but I am not. Before some chucklefuck chimes in, NO. I have a choice of where to work and how to spend my money. That's not remotely similar to serving some central authority.
What evidence are you supplying, and how do you think it should persuade? I'm not disputing your collectivist expedience. I'm declining to submit to your collective for that or any other reason.
I would have homeschooled both my children had I the opportunity. Not because I think they're indoctrinating, but because they teach to the least capable student. US public schools aren't designed to help children thrive, they're designed for "one size fits all" kind of thinking. Fortunately, though, I was not going to let my children feel as though they couldn't learn more.
Humanity is headed a little further back than that. Think "Permian Extinction." Or in SETI terms, the great filter approaches.
Because we are destroying the environment in which we live, presumably. This kind of scenario is not exactly the one predicted by mainstream scientists but it's certainly not inconcievable given the path that we're on. It is shocking how complacent almost everyone is about this.
If the oceans reach a point of heating and/or acidification which causes a mass phytoplankton die off . . . Which certainly seems like it’s coming . . . Then that’s game over.
Well According to a well known christian in my community God won't let that happen and celebrating earth day is a sin.
Bees are also disappearing - probably due to pesticides. Anyway, while volcanos can and do do massive destruction, I’m thinking no bees or phytoplankton would be real cause of the demise of the human race.
