Future systems must be destroyed

[Pekka]

So I've been thinking about the future... why do we keep making the same mistakes, are we destined for war, famine, etc? It seems like an easy answer to state that the human nature is greedy and so that's the reason why progress will never be made. I'm not sure human nature as such even exists. To say we are animals, yes, perhaps I can agree to that. But why does societies look like the do? What could be our true potential? It is now under the umbrella of our current systems, be it capitalism, socialism, what have we. Closely tied to our cultures, religions, and so forth. All of these things shape what we think and know. So our knowledge is, in other words, limited to boundaries.

So what do I suggest we should do? I think we should destroy all these systems so we can gain new knowledge. Is it better knowledge? I don't know. But if we want to break the chain of what I consider a series of same mistakes, we must change our way of thinking and create more space in the sphere of knowledge. Therefore, we must create new space for the future. Maybe then the only way to do it is to experiment first... Realistically we cannot destroy all the systems nor would it make sense, why try to replace old institutions with... new institutions? The whole point is to see the potential of what we can have outside what we now have, what we can know and do. How can we experiment? We should have a new society. Sound like a cult? OBVIOUSLY LSD is a big part of the experiment.

Also, still alive, a bit depressed so I've been avoiding most of my daily things and just kind of... not doing much, except reading books and exercise. That's my own medicine for bouncing back.

[Bereta_Eder]

there's a great book that i read, it's called straw dogs

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Straw-Dogs-Thoughts-Humans-Animals/dp/1862075964

it is pessimistic or is it realistic?
There are some hard proclamations in it, namely that for all the technological advances, people still suffer.
Basically it attacks the enlightment principle by inserting animalistic based behavior into the human equation.
According to him, it is amptly clear that there is a definite limitation to human advancement as is demonstrated by the pain and suffering of the world.
he says our "fate" is either a dictatorial regime with much of our freedoms curtailed but with stability and central planning etc
or what we have now, a chaos with some freedoms respected while there are people with insane amounts of money and others with not enough to eat.
he says that's the best human race can hope to achieve.

it is very pessimistic although the writer just says he wrote that so that people would relax and don't try to really change anything because nothing really changes due to the animalistic aspect of humans which simply creates such difference of wealth monstrocities, wars, injustices etc.

now way i see it, you can try to change the world or take a nice trip to the countryside with your girlfriend.
probably both.
but that attack on enlightment made by that book was very sinister and the most "succesful" I've read so far

[OneFootInTheGrave]

It can always be worse... but it can be better as well.

Take a country like Switzerland.

On a lot of social questions, they seem to have the right answer.

• Neutrality - ie no wars
• High level of decentralization (ie a confederation)
• Direct democracy

Resulting in:

• Excellent education
• Low taxes
• Excellent Healthcare
• One of the highest standards of living
• Very low unemployment
• Very low poverty level ~3.3% (at Swiss levels, defined as making less than $30k per year for a single person or $60k a year for a couple with two kids)

What else is important, if you can work, which brings you enough for a good living, ie enabling you to make informed choices in your life, participate in your local social/political setup directly, and not only via electing the "leaders" who may represent who knows whom, while as a default national position you do not get involved in starting wars or overthrowing other regimes... Overall it is rather good, yet most of the rest of the "free" world is not even close to going in the same direction as the Swiss did.

It's a shame, but even today we have some who do it significantly better than the others.

[Bereta_Eder]

one of course can say that swisszerland is simply the safehouse for the world's rich elite to hoarde the ill gained plunder of the people. So it is artificially made to be stable because noone wants a riot where he keeps his money.
but i agree there are some examples to be made of it.
the examples you wrote are very interesting
the book was talking on a world scale rather than in indivindual countries though and their specific and maybe lucky or unlucky circumstances.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Well they became the safehouse, due to the specific nature of their setup, but even without the banking Swiss would still be well off (just not so far out from the rest like now), and they would still be pretty organized too.

Banks are only about 6-7% of Swiss GDP, so while not "nothing", their wealth is due to overall setup, where banking is just one sector benefiting from their system.

There is also "nothing" like luck, if the US was not so "progressive" after the great depression and after WWII, the world would be a lot worse off in the aftermath, but starting with 1950's and taking a definite turn in the 70's they moved to where they are today, and the world as a result is moving in that direction too, which is not exactly "forward" on many points.

The system is what it is, but it can be better, if not - we would still be using clubs to beat the bears of the caves, which likely is a worse state of development that the one we are in right now for most of the worlds population.

While I have not read the book, but may even get it , there must be decent counter arguments in favour of possibility of development. IMO Swiss setup is a pretty open direction for most of the world (wouldn't it be great if EU was more like it)

[C0ckney]

an interesting thread.

onefoot: the swiss system is certainly good, although it is the result of hundreds of years of development in a particular context, and for that reason would be very difficult to emulate elsewhere. i think your point about localism is an important one though, if ordinary people have a voice, and vitally, a vote on local issues, then they will become engaged in politics, discuss problems with their friends and neighbours and work towards solutions. if people feel that all decisions come down from on high, and that there is nothing they can to affect them, then they disengage and no longer even try to participate.

[Sava]

OBVIOUSLY LSD is a big part of the experiment.

Also, still alive

[Lorizael]

It sounds like you're ready to join my cult, Pekka.

[Pekka]

It sounds like you're ready to join my cult, Pekka.

Please tell me more about your cult, Lori...

Bereta_Eder, thanks for the book tip, I like getting book tips because I'm always searching for new stuff, especially new stuff that is not in the genealogy of my current favourite authors, series or trilogies. I enjoy them for sure, but the best things come out of fresh, something I've never stumbled upon or would not have on my own so thanks once again

I guess it was a fancy way of statign that it would be interesting to see what would happen if we (the world) start from a blank canvas with no preconceptions. What would it look like? Not the world itself necesssarily but our thoughts. In other words, what is the true potential of us? I don't know, I am unable to think such thoughts, for such knowledge does and at the moment cannot exist. This is why we need to destroy systems, not literally, but break free. Perhaps mind altering drugs can help us? Not that I need them, I get plenty of drugs as it is, and none of them alter my mind though and they suck from recreational POV. SO, we should get new drugs, better drugs, more drugs! In no way am I advocating drug abuse, just the proper use of them.

[Bereta_Eder]

aaah
no pekka don't get that book. It is sinister I was ill for a couple of days after reading it and my GF calls it "the evil book"

Instead get this

http://www.amazon.com/The-Nordic-Model-Scandinavia-Contemporary/dp/1861893663

how scandinavia (Finland included) transformed itself from some poor small populated backwater to a remarkable egalitarian society with high standard of living
that is an ego booster

(for drugs I refer you to sava)

edit: although straw dogs is easy to swallow, like eating a hamburger. the nordic example is pendantically academic like eating vegetables. so you have been warned

[Kidlicious]

So I've been thinking about the future... why do we keep making the same mistakes, are we destined for war, famine, etc? It seems like an easy answer to state that the human nature is greedy and so that's the reason why progress will never be made. I'm not sure human nature as such even exists. To say we are animals, yes, perhaps I can agree to that. But why does societies look like the do? What could be our true potential? It is now under the umbrella of our current systems, be it capitalism, socialism, what have we. Closely tied to our cultures, religions, and so forth. All of these things shape what we think and know. So our knowledge is, in other words, limited to boundaries.

So what do I suggest we should do? I think we should destroy all these systems so we can gain new knowledge. Is it better knowledge? I don't know. But if we want to break the chain of what I consider a series of same mistakes, we must change our way of thinking and create more space in the sphere of knowledge. Therefore, we must create new space for the future. Maybe then the only way to do it is to experiment first... Realistically we cannot destroy all the systems nor would it make sense, why try to replace old institutions with... new institutions? The whole point is to see the potential of what we can have outside what we now have, what we can know and do. How can we experiment? We should have a new society. Sound like a cult? OBVIOUSLY LSD is a big part of the experiment.

Also, still alive, a bit depressed so I've been avoiding most of my daily things and just kind of... not doing much, except reading books and exercise. That's my own medicine for bouncing back.

All extremism will result in a loss of freedom. Trying to achieve such change requires creating enemies of moderates. When you lose the moderates you lose freedom and get war.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

an interesting thread.

onefoot: the swiss system is certainly good, although it is the result of hundreds of years of development in a particular context, and for that reason would be very difficult to emulate elsewhere. i think your point about localism is an important one though, if ordinary people have a voice, and vitally, a vote on local issues, then they will become engaged in politics, discuss problems with their friends and neighbours and work towards solutions. if people feel that all decisions come down from on high, and that there is nothing they can to affect them, then they disengage and no longer even try to participate.

While difficult - the issue is that most leaders are not interested to implement what works socially, but what works for them individually.

There will come a time where something along those lines will be taken up elsewhere, and hopefully we will not need WWIII to get there.

EU for example is a good concept, which seriously lacks in execution. The problem is that the way the process of integration is setup - just not in the interest of the many, but in the interest of the few and that is breaking a lot of potential good in it. However from time to time a genuinely good and capable leader comes along who manages to make "the system" better for current and future generations to come. I guess at this time we are just in a waiting period.

[C0ckney]

i don't believe that 'great men' will save us from our current predicament. the future will be determined by the historical, economic and social context in which it occurs, and it's only through mass collective action that ordinary people can hope to influence that.

There will come a time where something along those lines will be taken up elsewhere, and hopefully we will not need WWIII to get there.

well, if we look at three of switzerland's neighbours: france, italy and germany, the historical trend has been exactly the reverse: centralisation, the homogenisation of culture and the suppression of local identities. of course there are many counter-examples, of say smaller states breaking away from larger ones, or devolution, in a UK context. however, it seems to me that these movements are based on nationalism, rather than localism, and this distinction is important (although of course i accept that the lines between the two are sometimes blurred). it's certainly difficult to see signs of the swiss model being adopted elsewhere.

as well as the historical development of national identities, there are other powerful forces pushing us away from local decision making. for all the fine words in EU treaties about subsidiarity, the trend always has been and is towards centralisation, the moving of important decisions away from the people, and from even the pretence of democratic accountability that national parliaments provide.

[Bereta_Eder]

actually that about having a competent leader that onefoot said in another thread made an impression.
after the yugoslavian war (or during?), onefoot said that croatia had a very good leader and the country did see improvement, whereas when at the helm was a mediocre leader the results were not that impressive.

i agree with cockney's assertion that change can come only in the form of massive popular demand (not a request but neccessity), no indivindual or fragmented "crusade" can bring results.
looking past at greece's (modern) history I think what happens is a corellation of both these approaches.
if enough people subscribe to an idea (be that of more social justice or whatever) then even with outside negative pressures, or with inside obstacles, a leader that can rise to the task may be produced. and that is when things can advance forward.

in today's age of clerks, not leaders, more and more things are left being run undemocratically with many people being willingly shut off from decision making processes.

in the EU this was called "silent consent" principle and it meant that political/administrative entities would keep the process going forward because a "silent consent" of the people was assumed to exist.
this principle lost much of its appeal after the first referendum rejection of the maastricht treaty. (in ireland? but i may be wrong).

however national governments in the EU remain paramount. nearly every decision can be blocked by a corellation of national governments.
where the structure starts to shake a bit is when the EU is being demoted from a law based sui generis entity to a "lender - borrower" relationship and many laws are bypassed and a new "lawless" structure immerges that rests on financial dealings

[OneFootInTheGrave]

i don't believe that 'great men' will save us from our current predicament. the future will be determined by the historical, economic and social context in which it occurs, and it's only through mass collective action that ordinary people can hope to influence that.



well, if we look at three of switzerland's neighbours: france, italy and germany, the historical trend has been exactly the reverse: centralisation, the homogenisation of culture and the suppression of local identities. of course there are many counter-examples, of say smaller states breaking away from larger ones, or devolution, in a UK context. however, it seems to me that these movements are based on nationalism, rather than localism, and this distinction is important (although of course i accept that the lines between the two are sometimes blurred). it's certainly difficult to see signs of the swiss model being adopted elsewhere.

as well as the historical development of national identities, there are other powerful forces pushing us away from local decision making. for all the fine words in EU treaties about subsidiarity, the trend always has been and is towards centralisation, the moving of important decisions away from the people, and from even the pretence of democratic accountability that national parliaments provide.

Nothing without great (wo)men in the correct situation, and I agree it is difficult to see signs of Swiss model being adopted elsewhere, however there is more information spread these days than ever, and if future generations will ask themselves "what can we do better" this is a clear example to go towards to, which already exists.

Current trends, including EU (which is a great shame), are towards centralization, but IMO it is the wrong direction and we need more localization. In that sense the whole UK "get out of EU" drive is a good one, as EU is growing into a centralized mess.

So while the drive is "to" centralization, I hope that eventually there will be a critical mass in the population which will allow for more decentralization and power devolving to the local centres where it will be utilized with greater efficiency, likewise less waste will by default spread out to cover more citizens.

Current trends are not very good, but if we get lucky, the direction could change during our lifetimes, and hopefully without some great catastrophe in the middle (even though, it does look likely that we are going towards it with the rhetoric in the public space on so many levels).