Idealistic? Flawed? Yup, I said it was.

[Tymp]

Enderw23,

Did Nen suggest that the entire human population of half a billion should live in a single megalopolis, or that the entire population of however many billion could live in megalopolises of approximately half a billion? The former would certainly be ridiculous. It’s a damn good thing no one suggested that . . .except you.

[Nen]

Let’s keep to the point, please. This thread isn’t supposed to be devoted to the merits, or lack thereof, of my idea. This thread was initiated to address the behavior of individuals which is inappropriate in GD or not conducive to a debate.

Scylla, although I don’t want to continue to digress, I’ll quickly address your points. You are right in many aspects. Society does continue to improve along various avenues; however, it continues to cause damage in other areas. It most likely will continue to do so. I see a need for change. Is that change drastic? Yes, it is. Will my idea work? No, it won’t. Can modifications be made so it might work? I think so, hence, my request.

Enderw23, again, I don’t want to hijack this thread and discuss my idea, but I do feel it is necessary to address your points.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *

1. Government. Which is sometimes the only thing that stops violence from escalating.

“Sometimes” is the key word in that statement. I agreed with you that my idea doesn’t adequately account for such deviance. That much was obvious from the outset. Did you offer an alternative (ideally something between the extreme centralization of power with it’s inherent stratification and anarchy)? No.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
2) Money. Money is what gave us technology in the first place…He didn’t do it to better humanity, he did it for money. Look, money is just money. It’s a piece of paper. It doesn’t cause evil, it facilitates exchange between products that otherwise wouldn’t have been traded. I can use money to buy anything. Not everyone wants to trade pies for sports cars.

I really don’t see how one cannot fathom a society in which money is not exchanged. Many tribal systems exist which do not find require the use of it. Why do I want money now? Because I can’t buy food, shelter and amenities without it. If those things were to be provided and I could endeavor in loftier pursuits, such as develop some new technology, I wouldn’t want or need money.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
3) Religion. Face the facts. Economics only causes so much strife. The rest comes from religion. You MUST get rid of religion, or convert everyone to the same religion to end tensions.

Albeit an idealistic concept, cultural tolerance is an alternative.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
4) Nationalities, color, creed, race, etc. See number 3.

See the response to number 3.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
5) Hatred. If people hate each other, anarchy won’t work. It will only lead to more violence.

Agreed. How do we resolve that problem? I don’t recall seeing any assistance there.

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
But because I just snorted a eightball’s worth of crack, I’m going to grant you that we can get all of humanity under one religion and one nation and people are fair to each other and don’t cheat each other and don’t cause wars or kill each other in bar fights over a girl.

First of all, crack is snorted, it’s smoked. Secondly, “eightball’s worth” is redundant. Those points are just for your personal edification. But, if you will grant me the hypothetical peace/tolerance/warm fuzzies for a moment, how am I advocating:

*Originally posted by Enderw23 *
…either: 1)The end of all but 500 million people in a megalopolis or 2) The end of all but 1 million people who can live peacefully in little communes.

The whole idea is about supporting the existing population, allowing room for growth if it is desired, and doing so in a fashion which would facilitate harmony with the environment and amongst ourselves.

That said, would you care to address my previous response to you, or do you want to continue with ignoring me and the issue of this thread?

[Scylla]

Nen:

I still don’t see how the acknowledgement that society has flaws means that it should be abolished and rebuilt along new lines.

That seems to be the meat of your argument.

There are still problems, but there’ve been substantive improvements. If we restart there will be a whole new series of problems that we will have to figure out.

I think it would be a lot easier, practical and realistic to work on improving our current system.

So, I don’t see a lot to salvage from your idea. Sorry.

[Milossarian]

The universe is about to turn inside-out, then, because there’s a lot of black-holage out there.

To kow-tow to The Great Thinker, I will play the game once again by his rules.

He claimed I grossly exaggerated and was inaccurate in representing his opinions. He then challenged me to post cites to back up my claim that this was horseshit.

OK, Nen. Let’s go to the tape!

From the afore-linked Hunting Thread in GD.

(And I apologize people. I know some of Nen’s stuff makes Al Gore seem like Robin Williams on crystal meth.)

Nen said:

**From an anthropological perspective, the movement from band and tribe systems to cheifdom and state system has resulted in a change from hunter/gatherer base to an agricultural/pastoral base. The band and tribe types are inherently stable and establish an equilibrium with the environment whereas cheifdoms and state are inherently unstable and are in a state of dischord with the environment. **

and also:

**I am against farming. There isn’t much more to it than that, although I will elaborate. Consider a population of people approximately five hundred in number. They are able sustain themselves through hunting and gathering by establishing camps. As the population increases to one thousand they find that to keep the population intact, they must become sedentary and resort to agriculturalism and pastoralism. As the population continues to increase they must intensify their efforts toward economic production. On a societal level, stratification, nucleation and centralization ensue while the surrounding environment is altered to perpetuate the system without regard to the plant and animal inhabitants. There is no respect for other species in such a system; moreover, the system which is perpetuated (and of which agriculture is founded) is inherently unstable. **

To the argument that there is a problem in some locations where burgeoning wild animal populations are causing property damage and spreading disease and must be controlled, and hunting is invariably the only cost-effective means available, Nen said:

**It (the problem) is also addressed by diminishing food supply and ensuing increase in wolf populations over time (that is, if we haven’t wiped the local wolf populations for pastoral profit).

**

OK, everybody. Read that stuff. Re-read it. I know it’s hard. Just do it.

He then asked why I called him and his thoughts on the matter “out-of-touch,” to which I replied:

[quote]
*Do I really need to answer that?

You apparently advocate destruction of our cities, farms, and system of government; reverting back to tribalism; allowing wild animals to run amok everywhere as nature intended* [ :rolleyes: ]; *and rebuilding the wolf population for proper predation. (I guess I’d have to be much more careful stumbling home from a bar after 2 a.m.)

If this were talk radio, you’d be the Caller of the Week! *

OK, that last line was a bit of a shot for Great Debates. But did I grossly and without basis misrepresent his views?

Nen then went on to further elaborate on this Utopian, megalopolis society. As stated earlier, I was initially sarcastic, but in a way that was trying to help point out the flaws in this Utopian world he/she apparently pines for.

Said I:

Nen would like to be here to answer this thread, but he/she is busy out tending to his/her small, personal crop field and mini-livestock herd for his/her tribe.

I later tried to play along in a serious, Great Debatish fashion, then grew exasperated and moved on.

I was hardly alone in my view. Collounsbury (who I have disagreed with more than once) may have said it best when he/she said:

Well, I think I’ll hijack this thread since I don’t even think Nen’s inanities are worth responding to.

Nen, Mr. Black Hole here is just too far beneath you to understand your grand concepts for the betterment of society. When you become Grand Poobah of the Megalopolis, feel free to make me wear a dunce cap, or force me to toil in the fields or something.

In closing, I’d like to urge you to stick your head in a blender and hit ‘puree.’

I will now return to my preferred method of responding to your all-style, retarded-substance babble. Ignoring it.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**
Nen, Mr. Black Hole here is just too far beneath you to understand your grand concepts for the betterment of society. When you become Grand Poobah of the Megalopolis, feel free to make me wear a dunce cap, or force me to toil in the fields or something.
**

Haven’t you been paying attention you idiot? There are no Grand Poobahs in the anarchical, egalitarian, utopian megalopoli!

Sheesh! Get with the program.