I think we haven't been tested for a while so it's hard to say for sure. Things are not looking good, though. The primary problems right now are that whenever a scandal breaks, half the country inevitably thinks it's the other half of the country 'playing politics' and chooses not to believe it. The other half of the problem is that schools are aggressively teaching people not to have any loyalty to the machines of civil society other than the State. So yeah, I think the American spirit is still alive, but only because it takes a few generations for the oldsters to die off. The millennials are mostly just animals that will let the country fall apart. Correction, they are mostly just animals that are [i]hoping[/i] the country falls apart.
No. It is a physical impossibility.
Name one law that you can impose on others against their will without coercion?
That doesn’t bode well. Better leave this thread open for a while longer on the off chance someone bright might think of a solution.
You would have been better off striking through “say” instead of “had”.
Making a commitment to yourself is a physical impossibility?
You can’t. I’m not saying it’s possible. I’m just saying the current system we have seems to be the best option available. Like I said, I’m all for a system in which there is no coercion, but you haven’t explained how that’s even possible.
Gib, one must explain every and any little thing to you, my little son.
Okay.
-
The reasonably fair distribution of children. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”. Currently the distribution of children is absolutely unfair, and if it is right (and it is right - because fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth are correlated) that everyone wants to copy himself / herself, then it is fair that both the less-productive people and the more-productive people can do it. Currently the less-productive people merely produce children and nothing else, and for that they get money from the state, thus the taxpayers who have few or no children (so in the end there are merely less-productive people). Do you think that that is fair? If yes, then we can end our conversation. Do you think it will be alright if we will have merely less-productive people, so that the whole human population will be less-productive which actually means unproductive? If you say “yes”, then you have to say “yes” too when it comes to this question: Will machines completely replace all human beings?.
-
The reasonably fair distribution of children increases the wealth of the less-productive people - right, Gib - but of the more-productive people too. Both condition each other. If the less-productive people are poor and have more children than the more-productive people and have to be supported by the more-productive people (and that all is the case), then the trend is that the more-productive also become poor and less-productive. One has always to consider the time too, for example to differ in “short time”, “middle time”, and “long time”. What I am reffering to is mainly the middle and especially the long time because this “global society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of our children, as I already said (here).
-
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more peace because that distribution is reasonably fair. The invisible accent are the adverb „reasonably" and the adjective “fair”, Gib. The huge majority of people who are wealthy don’t want war, they just want wealth. Human beings are luxury beings, and if the luxury of the present time is reached, then they are - by the majority - satisfied (I am not speaking of the rulers, the upper class, which is a special case because of its power which has been increasing exponentilally, horribly). Normal people are mostly satisfied when they have reached the luxury which they think has to be reached at a time. They are peaceful. War is an issue of the upper class, not of the middle class, and of the lower class because of their poorness, envy, unhappiness, resentment.
-
The reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more competence because the reasonably fair distribution of children leads to more intelligence, Gib (for you I have edited it in my last post, see: 2.2.2.). It is proven that fertility, intelligence / competence, and wealth correlate with each other.
Aa) If you have no children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have much time for being a more-productive.
Ba) If you have many children and want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive.
Ab) If you have no children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you are not a more-productive.
Bb) If you have many children and do not want to be a more-productive, then the probability is high that you have less time for being a more-productive and that you are not a more-productive because you do not want to be a more-productive.
No - because they also add up.
Egoism is on both sides, Gib. You can’t eliminate egoism but merely extreme egoism, thus egomania.
The history of the Western societies shows how the trend will be for the other societies in the future, but there is one problem: it will not be the same but merely a similar devolopment because the other societies belong to other cultures, and if they know the history of the Western culture, then they also know what to do in order to become modern but not Western. They don’t want to live the Western way of life, they have a different tradtition. More and more of them resist the Western way of life.
You can have many children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. You can have no children and be a very egomanian pigheaded fellow. It depends on which culture you belong to, which mindset / mentality and feelings / affects you have.
The scapegoat is not always the typical Western middle class “bourgeois”, Gib.
Yes and no - because in that case the more-productive people have to pay less taxes, less charges, less surcharges etc… It is logical. So both the more-productive people and the less-productive people will become more wealthy, if those of the less-productive who have become part of the more-productiveare more that those of the more-productive people who have become part of the less-productive people. And that is the casethe case. So a solution of the demographical problem is necessary.
It seems the falling apart process has already begun, though. If it falls apart in the next century it will be because of mistakes already made by the oldsters, and not the fault of the millenials, animals though they may be.
Anyway, isn’t everybody an animal at that age?
Those so-called “Millenials” will make even more mistakes beacuse made mistakes lead to more mistakes, especially then, if a society is a modern society which means: velociferic, accelerated in any case, expanded in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ,… and so on, … and so on …, Uglypeoplefucking.
An animal … 
God help you if you write a book… leaving all loose ends to be tied together by the read.
Oh, you’re imagining a welfare system. That’s the missing element… but I was supposed to know that anyway.
You don’t need a one child/adult rule for that. Just eliminate welfare.
Well, if we’re talking about depending on welfare as a part of planned parenthood, then no it isn’t fair.
Well, now that I know you’re talking about eliminating the welfare state, it makes sense.
Sure, we’ll go with that.
It’s been proven, eh? What’s the explanation? That parents/teachers can afford to spend more one-on-one time with children?
The logic is dazzling.
Um… ok.
Never said it was.
Well, that’s clear now that you mentioned getting rid of the welfare state.
If the current system we have seems to be the best to you, why are you asking to change it?
What do you think I have been talking about … well, perhaps “think” wasn’t the right word.
Gib, the welfare state is not a new penomenon. If I showed you the welfare state of the 19th century (for example the German state during the time when Bismarck was Reichskanzler), you would have asked: that was a welfares state? Yes, it was, and Bismarck’s welfare state was the first and the best one. What I want to say is that we have to consider that this welfare state has changed and unfortunately become a huge monster. But my main point is not the welfare state allone but also and first of all the justice of generations (remember: demography is my theme here). The problem is that this modern “society” lives and thinks merely for a very short time, at the cost of the offspring, as I already said (here and here). This includes not only the debts but also the demographic disaster and the pollution of the whole planet Earth. So the pictures again:
The welfare state must not be eliminated but reduced. If we wanted to find back to a pure or nearly pure society of humans (and not to rush in a “society” of machines and half-machines and human slaves or even no humans), then the welfare state as a monster would not be needed anymore. But the most people want the contradiction, the oxymoron, because with the machines and more and more machines the welfare state will be needed more than ever before but eliminated. That’s a “good” outlook for our offspring, isn’t it, Gib?
Well, yeah. i was just getting at the fact that it’s not as if everything was going great until now, and the current generation (millenials or whatever you want to call them) are going to be the ones who fuck it all up. The point would be it’s already a shitshow - and the old are as much to blame as the young.
Not sure what’s funny, but i’m glad i can amuse.
The greatest single mistake that brought so much of this into the modern world was made in 1913. From that time to this, each generation only gets worse (and not by accident). What brought about the 1913 incident was spawned during the “enlightenment era” by specific theorists who decided to infect the world with their cure, of course without having the slightest clue as to how to verify it first.
But if you want to trace it back even further, it goes back around 10-12,000 years when man discovered how to use a “super-language”, a means to communicate that is above natural language so as to form an early version of the Ubermensch of that time (depicted as the “monolith” in the film 2001) and eventually led to what has been named “the original sin of Adam and Eve” (being inherited by each generation) about 6000 years ago. The “gods” (social engineers) had screwed things up almost as badly as they are now but eventually, some 4-6000 years later designed and formed “Ahdam”, a presumed solution and dam for the bullshit they had created. But we see how their “solutions” work out.
No offense to the “gods” of our day, but seriously, you guys need some very serious supervision.
Yes. That is why it is always becoming increasingly difficult for each generation to come out of that trap. That is no accident.
Because it’s not good enough.
James, I’m all open to suggestions, but you gotta help me understand how your vision works. You can think of me as stupid, or in need of a lot of hand holding if you like, but help me out here. So far, you seem to have suggested that we replace all our current laws with “personal” laws, if I may call it that (but of which I still don’t agree is a law), and I say all you’ll get out of that is warlords taking over the community through fear tactics. The ball’s now in your court–explain to me why I’m wrong.
Baseless assertions as far as I can tell.
Of course not. I never said it was. I just thought you were saying that your one child/adult rule alone would redistribute the wealth.
What is the “justice of generations”? Is that just your one child/adult rule?
The justice of generations means that any generation should not live under worse conditions than its former generation.
Again: Currently there is a crazy expropriation of all by all, of everyone by everyone, of anyone by anyone, and especially of the future generations by the current generations.
Debts and a polluted planet mean an extreme egoism, an egomania, a life at the cost of our offspring.
We live at the cost of our children, our grandchildren, …, in short: our offspring.
If a society lives at the cost of its future, then this society is in a suicidal mood. A suicide of a society means that there is no offspring anymore. And our society says: „We are a global society“. That’s lunatic.
So the justice of generations is very important.
At least a little bit beacuse I have had the following association:
- “hippie generation” (“make love not war”, “peace”): “pygmy chimpanzees” (“bonobos”);
- “post hippie generations”:
2.1) “post hippie generation 1”: “chimpanzees”;
2.2) “post hippie generation 2”: “orang-utans”;
2.3) “post hippie generation 3”: “gorillas”.
That’s why I laughed.
Do the humans really regress? If so, then it’s not funny.
Ah, then I agree wholeheartedly.
After twenty six pages, are we any close here in finding democracy?
I want somebody here to make me a believer.
Alas, we can’t give you what you want, LM, but I’m getting a hell of a good education from this thread.
Thanks.
Why can’t you?