<Snipped quote>
I'm sorry but you seem to have the wrong misconception that if in the start there is anarchy, it will go on as so. But as seen by human history all the way from the beginning, they always have someone in the lead, a leader. Now, I was hypothesizing how that leader got into a position of power and I said the most likely scenario was using hired guns, armed personnel to get every common folk in order under him. And that's the most primitive way, gain the leadership through a showcasing of your powers and capabilities. But now, that leader could as well be a tyrant. So in the end, anarchy will never stay, there will always from governing systems.
<Snipped quote>
I'm not confusing anything. Governing systems would definitely form. And most of them would be tyranny, one ultimate leader. Isn't that the way of nature? The strongest rises above all others?
<Snipped quote>
My bad, I can't seem to stick with only using the words for their dictionary meaning. We are animals but we are above every other creature on the planet and as so you can't compare how they live to how we live and the systems we have developed.
My point with this was to make clear that evolution through natural selection is old, primitive, takes a lot of time. Evolution through science on the other hand, freely being able to change the traits that you leave to the next generation is the next step. Even just focusing on cybernetic enhancements to improve the human as a whole is a better way compared to the age long process of evolution through natural selection. And how would it benefit the species long term? As far as we have gone, as humans, it is not just about surviving or procreating anymore, it is about improvement and exploration of the unknown. You type about a world where surviving and evolution through natural selection are all humans need like some common non sentient animal with only those prime directives forged into its DNA.
<Snipped quote>
Yeah, small scale wars between formed communities and clans. Great way of killing off most of the population. You don't know the shit that people would start a war about, especially when it's between families in a place where there is no governing system to set matters straight. That other person also has people, it is a never ending cycle unless you kill all of their clan to end it.
<Snipped quote>
I entirely agree with that. I, again, didn't express myself correctly. What I meant to say was that, for the current generation, for those people who aren't suffering the blunt end of this phenomena, like you(i presume?) and me, how does it drastically affect our daily lives? For city folk, how does it affect their daily job, when they meet with friends, when they go to a movie? Why should they care if it doesn't affect them when they obviously don't care about the next generation? The earth is suffering, humanity as a whole is suffering but most individuals who aren't, don't give a rat's arse. That's what I meant by "current generation".
<Snipped quote>
What's the point of establishing that it doesn't exist? It makes transaction of objects between people easier. If everything has a fixed value, even if that value is abstract and doesn't exist, it makes trading a lot more efficient. And even without it, if you were to trade without currency, the comparison of values between 2 objects for trade would be subjective. So in the end it is the same but with currency that object has a price tag on it showing exactly how much the owner values it out front. However you look at it, currency is the most practical solution.
<Snipped quote>
In anarchy no, there isn't. An autistic person who is extraordinary on a certain field of science, that person has no place in anarchy.
And you can't argue that research on every single field whatever it may be would be severely hindered. People are divided into numerous small factions. In a nation, you have the greatest minds come together to research that field, how would that work in anarchy?
<Snipped quote>
I didn't ignore it. I just said that nature itself would be irrelevant if we reach a certain point in our evolution through science. Basically "cheating nature" to skip a step.
And if we happen to go extinct by our own hands, then we probably wouldn't deserve to exist at all. No matter how you look at it, if people would want to change something, you can forget the laws and governing systems, they would get that change. But the most you get are some people gathered in a protest while the others basically don't give 2 shits about the future.
You might say"why should humanity, the good part of it, the talented people, suffer because of most humans not caring and being mindless?"
"Well why should humanity be saved just because of that small percentage of people when most are brainless baboons?"
- So you start out completely incorrect. In my original comment, I specifically stated "Holds no restrictions on the formation of new forms of government within it, allowing for a workable society to form as necessary" as one of the benefits. How you can claim that I somehow believe that anarchy will remain such is beyond my understanding. You're trying to make a non-point. Like I said, trying to argue against anarchy because governments will form is not a point against anarchy, it is a condemnation of anything and everything else.
- No, it's not. That's a common misconception. The strongest aren't the ones in power, the most adaptable are. The way of nature is adaptation, not strength.
Film Theory did a wonderful job explaining why your assumption is incorrect, though taking it to a massive extreme due to the context, so I'll leave it to that instead of trying to say it in a less effective way. The kind of people who would want to be tyrants are the type of people who cannot survive, let alone thrive and gain power, without social systems to manipulate. The people who have that sort of predisposition need a foothold that simply doesn't exist in anarchy in order to get power.
- That's also incorrect. The only differences between us and the next placers, wolves, bears, and apes, are our limb structure, communication systems, and lack of object-oriented thought processes. There are birds that can use smartphones, primates that can communicate through sign language, wolves have built a more stable and peaceful social structure than we have, and bears are able to quickly devise survival mechanisms for completely foreign environments. We seem superior because we are looking at our species from within it. It would take only a few simple changes for any other species to be in our place. We're lucky, not better.
You also seem to have this idea that we are somehow above our genes. Everything we do, this very conversation, is dictated by how our genes have made us respond to the stimuli we have experienced and random chance. And while guided genetic alteration would be preferable to the natural genetic drift, it does not solve the problems of our species. I didn't mention natural selection only in reference to genetics; the effect that the loss of our current systems would have and the effect that a daily fight for survival would have is the more beneficial factor. It's
because we no longer are affected by natural selection that we have gotten to the point where we have thoroughly corrupted every social system that has been created to date. That separation is beneficial to the individual human, if they are lucky in terms of where they are born, but it is harmful to the species and its future.
- Exactly. The philosophical "circle of hatred" is the point. Either there will be people who can end that chain, therefor better than those before them, or those groups will wipe each other out and lackluster people will be removed from the whole. This is a benefit, not a problem. To point to a wonderful example in fiction, the Uchihas in Naruto fit. The only way the group survived at all is that there were three who became better than the others. If they had all continued to be violent and self-destructive, then they would have died out and with them would die the conflict and poisonous factors that made them the way they were. It's very much an issue of adapt or die, simply on a scale of multiple organisms.
- Why should it matter what the current generation thinks? Like you said, it doesn't care about the future generations. That is a factor that should be removed, and would be affected by the return of natural selection. When humans once again have to risk their own lives for the sake of their offspring, rather than simply invest time if even that in them, care for coming generations will increase. I see no reason why the current generation should receive special treatment over any other.
- The purpose of showing that it does not exist is to show that it is an unnecessary and in fact harmful factor in transactions. What dictates how much of a currency something is worth? The same thing that dictates what object would be comparative for it. Simply take the fact that multiple currencies exist in mind. The "value" of a currency changes constantly. A bottle of water costs more now than twenty years ago, but the subjective value that someone would place on that bottle of water has not changed. The same person in the same situation would value it the same regardless of what monetary value others placed on it. The problem with currency is that it has neither value nor
use. Trading in rocks would be an improvement, because at least rocks can be used. There is a placeholder for value on it. If tomorrow the world's currency finally crashed, the fact that it is imaginary would no longer be some vague thing to not worry about. The more currency you had, the higher your loss would be when the species realized that it has no use and therefor no reason to assign their subjective worths to it. If you and I both had ten gallons of drinkable water, and you sold yours for 1000 dollars via check, and I sold mine for 1000 dollars in cash, we would be losing something with use for something without use, in my case, and for something that flat out doesn't exist in your case. This is why "the gold standard" is wrong, because the only use gold has is in relatively advanced technology, which the average person cannot use it for. Trade boils down to the subjective value of survival necessities: food, drink, shelter materials, and time. Currency removes that subjective value and replaces it with an unenforceable assumption that you have something of equal subjective value. It is simply a hope, and hope has no subjective value. This is a roundabout way of saying it, but the short of it is simply that using currency makes everything valueless, rather than keeping everything valued at what it can do for an individual.
- How do you think that society formed? Do you believe that humans grew to use and further develop tools without the greatest local minds working together for a common interest? Mutual survival is what drives advancement the fastest, not economic development nor the simple pursuit of knowledge, however much we may wish otherwise.
- Just like any other species, humans should not be simply allowed to go extinct. That is why I advocate returning natural selection. It is the best chance at long term survival for the species. To poison the body to kill the cancer and allow the damaged body to slowly recover. Even if the majority will die out, the majority are horrible regardless. The good will die out too, but those to come later will have a higher chance of being good, and this will only expound. If it fails to do so, then humanity will die out as a whole, but at least then it wouldn't be taking out all the rest of the species on the planet with it, and at least it would have a chance rather than simply suffocating itself out of its own stupidity.
Kimberly
The World
TruckKun
Scarifar
Threads of Fate
Dark Cloud
Tribs
Taku
XoXKieroBombXoX