People like Der Trihs bitch about capitalism and corporate America while people like me complain about socialism, but they are really the same complaint. Society is a complex network of systems that we all live in. The danger is that as we become more interconnected by those systems, there is an increasing pressure to conform to that system and to put the needs and desires of the system ahead of the needs and desires of the individual.
As you say, we do have a dark and selfish side. Well, when that collective selfishness is linked together through technology that both unifies people into a common goal and unknowingly disconnects them from the consequences, it can produce some horrifying results. For example, most people would probably choose not to torch a rainforest or invade another country for it’s oil. However, these things happen because of the economic pressure of millions of individually insignificant and seemingly harmless decisions to do things like drive to work or watch TV all day.
When people talk about “conspiracy theories” I tend to dismiss their accusations of an organized network - but acknowledge the truth behind the effect of collective desires.
Makes me want to dive back into Sartre for a while – there’s something about our finite material existence v. our ability to imagine (and occasionally experience flashes of) infinity that begs resolution.
Or perhaps it just prompts us to continue growing to new, albeit imperfect, solutions to the question of what to do with ourselves.
I’m telling you right now I am not reading the manifesto. Was Kaczynski really that materialistic in his argument? I can imagine that every invention that provided material happiness not only created an equal or greater measure of material or psychic despair among the rest of society (increasing cost of living, envy because of disparity in status/wealth). The prospect that our lives can be very long is balanced by the misery that is watching our bodies break down over the course of decades and the related material cost and the the near-constant worry associated with having too much (often conflicting, ever changing) information on how to live every day of your life in order to reach old age. Is this an adequate tradeoff for the (relative, ignorant) peace of mind our ancestors had in believing death was natural and not spectacular since life in general was probably held in less regard? Does it offset the comfort in their superstitions about what could protect them and what will await them in the afterlife?
Personally I think that regardless of what conditions you live in, you will be about as happy or sad as your genes or other chemicals allow. I can however imagine that the industrializing world may evolve a more neurotic sort of person. But I can also imagine the reverse. I imagine so many odd things.
Where in Irish recent history did it’s government treat women like garbage?
What I am saying is that perhaps in the course of history monotheism was a necessary step before secularism.
She as an indvidual couldn’t do much to affect socio-economic trends but she did what she could to help others.
I mean the Irish government not the IRA.
I don’t want a theocracy. However I do support a government that encourages morality through rewards and example (something like what Confucius advocated).
I didn’t specify the government. But the Magdalene Asylums come to mind.
I see no reason to believe that; I consider it a step backwards if anything. Monotheism is even more rigid and intolerant that polytheism. And much more devoted to widespread destruction; a bunch of polytheists aren’t likely to go to nearly as much trouble to systematically destroy cultures.
No, she didn’t; she exploited them for religious propaganda.
You sure sound like you do; you want to shove religious agendas down other people’s throats.
I read it at the time–or anyway, I read some of it. I think I might have read most of it. (Keep in mind, one afternoon last summer I read the health care bill, so I’ve been obsessed before. And I read fast.)
I just think it’s so great that you brought this discussion TO THE INTERNET. I mean, really. That’s splendid.
But that’s the rub of the whole society thing. You, Ted, and (allegedly) Der Trihs, have individual desires that conflict with everyone else, but you’ve all made the decision that the benefits of living with society outweigh the benefits of doing something else. And it’s not like bands of hunter-gatherers didn’t bend individuals to the will of the group, or that chimpanzees don’t have alpha males and social rules. Honestly, primitive cultures weren’t choosing a simpler, more natural life. They made rules and decisions in their world and we make ours in another. For example, if I really want to live in the year 1988 with all its characteristics, my desires align with most people for the year 1988, strip clubs and bowling alleys for the next ten or so years, and hipsters thereafter. But it’s not like the world was serving me in 88 and oppressing me in 08. Individuals were doing their thing then and they’re doing it now.
If Ted can convince a bunch of idiots to reject society and live like primitives, more power to him. But he doesn’t get to benefit from living in a society if he won’t abide by its rules.
She may have started out that way, but her religion blinded her to the problems she was aggravating by opposing condom use, viewing suffering as a virtue and aggressively spreading dogma when she should have been spreading medical care, and she stopped being “an individual” when she started taking donations in the millions and became a financial arm of the Catholic Church, building new missions for it.
So the government you propose has an official morality system, but is not theocratic. Would such a government reward a private citizen who opened up a church or similar house or worship? Would such a government punish a citizen who didn’t attend any church or house or worship? Why don’t you give us an example of this hypothetical government that distinguishes it from the current U.S. government.
Ted proposed an insane solution to what is a legitimate issue. Fear of technology or dehumanization as a result of technology has been a cultural phenomenon since around the time Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein. Probably long before.
Sure we all want the benefits of living in society. But that does not mean there are not problems in our society that should be addressed.
Ireland is probably only still pro-life because most people who want an abortion can fairly easily travel to the UK or elsewhere in Europe to get one. It’s hypocrisy on a national level, that just marginalises the poorest people who want to get an abortion.
You know what’s always been a bigger problem than technological dehumanization? Starvation and disease. And almost anything else. And nearly everyone agrees on this one and always has.
I can’t think of anything more dehumanizing, more degrading to my individuality and ability to self-actualize my potential and all that, than having to grub around the forest all day to dig up enough food to survive through the night, or having to chase some animal with a stone spear (that I spent all week chippiing) in the hope of getting something edible and a skin to wear.
Technology is good to have. The things Scylla thinks, in agreement with a paranoid schizophrenic serial murderer, are lost in a technological society couldn’t even exist without technology. Why is it even necessary to discuss it?
Dehumanizing and degrading? Yes, a bunch of ignorant subhuman savages, the whole lot of them. Doesn’t that seem a bit much? Many people who spend the majority of their life doing something they don’t enjoy choose to spend the few hours of free time they have “grubbing around” in the dirt or “chasing animals” in the forest. They find it makes them feel alive and they yearn for a retirement where they can do more of it. There are plenty of accounts of individuals who have lived with hunter gatherers who don’t describe their daily life as humanizing or degrading.
By the way, how does one self-actualize their potential?
