Your argument suffers from a fundamental flaw, namely that of the underlying misapprehension that all societies will move from a 'primitive' to an 'advanced' state.
How pray tell did I make such an assertion? If anything, it should be quite clear from my post that the there is one thing of which I am certain: inferior races will never advance and thus should be contained and moved to reservations where their population can be limited by natural means such as removing access to all advanced technology.
Once you make the transition from moving around to settling in a permanent location you require a different set of tools (pots to store things, permanent housing to live in etc) and this is impetus for technological innovations which helped found our societies.
Yes, and those tools can be used to build weapons, and those farms can be used to feed armies.
Sedentary is an inappropriate word.
Incidentally this stuff started not in Asia Minor, not Europe.
Yes, well, times do change.
Some things about African society may surprise you. For instance, Africans were producing carbon steel approximately 800 years before Europeans had mastered the skill of doing so.
Are you referring to the continent we now call Africa? Perhaps, I am not familiar with the history of carbon steel.
If you are referring to Negroes, then I will of course have to demand a reference or at least a summary of what you have read. I have a hard time believing that people who cannot build houses or roads would ever think of a need for steel, let alone invent the means to make it.
The fertile land encouraged agriculture which made the peoples more sedentary in nature, and thus more likely to become advanced.
I think this right here indicates the flaw in your argument.
Since Europe is he only truly advanced civilization, from which all other primitive civilizations have gained their knowledge, one should assume that Europe was a peaceful place full of sedentary people.
History proves quite the opposite. In fact, the more war and conflict that was going on in Europe, the faster the rate of technological advancement. Indeed, the sedentary people of the rest of the world seem to lazy to accomplish anything besides having sex. That's why they are chronically unable to sustain their population growth.
We have but to go to countries like India, where the people are quite sedentary. I mean, Great Britain was able to occupy the country with a mere 100,000 troops, at a time they had 300-400 million people.
Despite their sedentary nature, we find that the vast majority of Indian people are living in communities far less advanced that the average town in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
Then of course there is Africa, where the vast majority of people live in mud huts which are less advanced than the common beaver dam which is at least water proof and can only be entered from under water.
The Koala, for instance, bases its entire survival strategy on being fat and lazy.
We are not discussing other species, it is quite clear what ideal human existence entails. All other species, from the standpoint of analyzing behavior, are irrelevant.
Since there is no way to predict this, it would be foolish to start reducing the genetic diversity of the species artificially in order to create a supposedly more "fit" population.
Of course there is a way to predict it.
You have but to look at the very races and ethnicities, whose close breeding over many thousands of years produced the variety of people we have on this earth. Some are clearly inferior, and some are not.
The issue here is you are unable, or unwilling, to let go of your egalitarian notions which tell you that all people are inherently equal.
Further, you are expressing the sickness of nihilism which is inherent in all liberals. Your inability to identify which human traits are ideal and which are not is clouding your judgment on this matter.
The simple fact is man has proven that in due course, selective breeding can produce superior lines of animals. We do it with plants all the time. We have done it with many breeds of dogs, some of which are a mere century or two old.
The most obvious case however is the slave trade, whereby only strong African negroes were brought to the Americas and selectively bred over time. Even with relatively few generations, the initial selection process in Africa produced a human specimen with greater strength and endurance than his less fortunate relatives in Africa for whom nature has been most unkind.
Indeed, the American Negro dominates every sport and athletic game to which he applies his considerable talents.
Outside of behavioral traits, which are certainly quite important for the stability and continued progress of our civilization, there is the aesthetic standpoint.
The sad reality is the vast majority of humans on this planet are incredibly ugly. I cringe every time I see a fat trollish Puerto Rican, or some buck toothed Chinaman, or the hordes of sub 5' brown masses which reproduce at an extraordinarily rapid rate.
Their right to reproduce should simply be restricted on the grounds they are ugly.
Eugenics is absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race.
Your first mistake is assuming anyone has a right to exist. There is no such right. All you have is your ability to fight and resist. Thus the most organized group which can repel all other attacking life forms, whether man, wolf, or bacteria, will prevail and they can decide who belongs to their tribe simply based on the standards which served them in the past and which will serve them in the future. Civilization was not built by fat, lazy fools who do nothing but indulge in their beastial desires ad infitum.
A sociopath is by definition an antisocial person who cannot function in a group. In nature, such a man would not survive a day and would certainly not contribute to the next generation (by means of procreation).
Thus, sociopaths by definition should die.
Re:What else can you do with a failed state?
on
For Sale: Lycos.com
·
· Score: 1
This is unfortunately a major problem in the world.
All things ultimately cater to base forms of humanity when they cater to the majority.
The majority of humans care only about satisfying their primal appetites and nothing more.
The only question is, with the spectacular failure of the internet for the reasons you mention, how do we still have people who champion democracy and egalitarianism?
You would think geeks everywhere would realize the masses should not be allowed on the internet, let alone be allowed to have a say in government and ultimately the future direction of humanity itself.
I'd love to know which library you are going to, because all the public libraries I have gone to besides the central libraries are rather quaint, but are either filled with homeless who smell like shit or they cater to children.
As much as I love the main branch of the NY public library, its a research library and its pretty far from my apartment.
Who cares if you can access the internet if you have to endure the smell of piss and vomit? or the screaming of small children?
Even if all the people were okay -- which they might well be in the US, but not in poorer countries, I guarantee it -- the economic impact would be staggering.
Why would it be staggering?
The number of poor people is so shockingly high... People in the third world literally live, and more importantly reproduce, like animals.
In reality, global warming on the scale that will destroy coastal habitation is probably a good thing. I would much prefer sterilization and a eugenics program, but that isn't really an option in the more barbaric parts of the world where the billions of poor reside.
This is nature's revenge for the incredible explosion of human growth in the 20th century.
I think the world's economy will be so much better once our population declines to about 1-2 billion. There will be so much more land available for everyone, our natural resources will be sufficient to provide everyone a greater quality life...
The economic benefits will be staggering, but in the sense it will be the greatest bounty since the colonization of the New World.
People have been saying that forever. Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. When was civilization better (in the past)? And for what reason was it better? Surely it was just different, some things better, some things worse. People who say civilization is declining are usually the types of people who can't listen to their children's music - at least in my experience. That somehow the kool-aid of their youth was "better".
That is why Nietzsche refers to it as a primitive morality. You are absolutely right, the problem is the proponents of Free Trade are using what amounts to a very basic moral justification for their beliefs.
I think it may be more accurate to say that civilization isn't getting morally worse or better.
You might be right, but clearly a huge number of people don't agree with you.
But there are things that have gotten better over time... for example, the court systems have largely replaced the older system of vengence, and led to a decline in the murder rate.
I don't think Nietzsche would agree that is necessarily an improvement. Clearly, a major problem in this world is there isn't enough killing, enough war. Billions of people are going to have to die, either through ecological collapse, or warfare. Death is a natural part of life, and it is simplistic to say that a decline in death valuable... in the case of our modern world it is destorying it. Maybe 6 billion isn't to many, but soon it will be 10, then 20... In the next 100 years we WILL get to a critical mass where competition for natural resources will result in combat. This happens with all animals, including the invading organisms in your body right now.
Personally, I think combat should be renewed as a legitimate means of dispute resolution. I cringe every time I watch some court drama.
By destroying itself, do you mean Armageddon? Do you mean a hell on earth biblical style? Why is it a requirement to understand everything perfectly to not annihilate oneself? Don't forget that that would require [in part] understanding _your_ culture perfectly, which involves your city, and the street in which you live... etc... and since you're part of your culture, and can change it, then you are talking about the sort of self-description that leads to impossible recursion. If you don't think you're important in the "big-equation", remember what chaos maths has taught us.
Well, I would encourage you to read some of Nietzsche's works. Also, as I said... Nietzsche isn't too concerned with death per se, so that is not the kind of destruction he is talking about. He is talking about spiritual destruction. You seem to have a very Christian ethic (whether or not you are a Christian), so be careful to apply that here since that is something Nietzsche is directly attacking throughout his writings.
We certainly don't need some super theory of culture that will save us from ourselves... perhaps it's enough for world cultures to just evolve spontaneously. This doesn't mean that we'll all have a fairy-tale future... but it certainly doesn't mean that we're going to destroy ourselves, nor does it mean that our culture will regress.
Are you sure about that? I don't know where you are, but a quick walk through 19th century neighborhoods shows a much greater spiritual clarity amongst people in the past. We used to build houses with character, beautiful parks, construct statues to artists, composers, poets... I could spend a great deal of time discussing HOW culture is being destroyed, but I don't have the time. Read the book I quote, it is one aphorism of hundreds.
Private morality, world morality. Since man no longer believes that a God is guiding the destinies of the world as a whole, or that, despite all apparent twists, the path of mankind is leading somewhere glorious, men must set themselves ecumenical goals, embracing the whole earth. The older morality, namely Kant's [categorical imperative], demands from the individual those actions that one desires from all men - a nice, naive idea, as if everyone without further ado would know which manner of action would benefit the whole of mankind, that is, which actions were desirable at all. It is a theory like free trade, which assumes that a general harmony would have to result of itself, according to innate laws of melioration. Perhaps a future survey of the needs of mankind will reveal it to be thoroughly undesirable that al men act identically; rather, in the interest of ecumenical goals, for whole stretches of human time special tasks, perhaps in some circumstances even evil tasks, will have to be set.
In any event, if mankind is to keep from destroying itself by such a conscious overall government, we must discover first a knowledge of the conditions of culture, a knowledge surpassing all previous knowledge, as a scientific standard for ecumenical goals. This is the enormous task of the great minds of the next century.
my comments
Sadly, Nietzsche naively believed this problem would be solved in the next century... Yet, people still focus on the simple aspect of free trade not realizing how small an issue it is in the grand scheme of human progress. Nietzsche wrote that nearly 140 years ago, and ultimately the same simplistic morality still reigns. "Everything will work out in the end" they say, all the while ignoring how rapidly our civilization is declining.
A lot of parents, children, educators, administrators, and politicians do not take education seriously. For these parents its an requirement and a day care. For the kids its a requirement and social event. For the educators and adminstrators it is a paycheck with guaranteed employment. For the politician it is a jobs program the gets votes.
I think that this statement is not at all limited to education, but is an accurate description of the ultimate flaw of democratic societies.
When people feel they have no duty to the state, and ultimately to the future citizens of that state, you get this result.
Do you really think any politicians in any democratic style care about anything other than getting elected? The last thing they want is to raise children with any sense of duty, honor, and loyality otherwise they will be quite aware of how corrupt their entire nation has become.
Accountability is the first step. Until you change the those who lord over the kids nothing else will be done
And Freud was, for all intents and purposes a fraud.
His theories were also falsely assumed that typical Jewish neuroses were applicable to the entire human race, thus is rather perverse infatuation with sexuality.
You can be planning a murder, and the operator just has to relay the messages back and forth. It's a condition of legal privilege similar to those of spouses, doctors, lawyers, and the Secret Service.
Do you really believe our justice system would require the level of moral depravity you are discussing?
I've got news for you, I don't give a shit what your job is, but if you reasonably believe someone is planning to commit a serious felony such as murder, you are required to report it to the authorities. This is true for all professions, even with lawyers in many instances. If your client tells you he is going to kill someone you have to report it. Not only could you be disbarred, but you could be imprisoned for obstruction of justice. If a patient tells his psychiatrist he is going to kill someone... same thing.
As for the technology needing to be foolproof before it can be set loose on the road what about all the accidents and deaths caused by 'foolproof' drivers not paying sufficient attention or doing dumb things like speeding and insane overtaking manouvers.
I do agree with your sentiments, and I find it outrageous we entrust the equivalent of 1 stick of dynamite to some of the most inferior humans to walk the earth since the first cro-magnons walked the earth, I think the idea is a person can be imprisoned, executed, whatever... whereas a computer is not motivated by punishment.
What makes you think I'm not already wrinkled and old?
Because you are posting on slashdot.
You make being old sound like a bad thing.
For women such as yourself it is. I see hordes of them every day, wondering aimlessly on the streets. Looking for any opportunity to have a moment of social content with a young man, no doubt dreading the return to the imaginary world where their cats are people. The insane games they can play in a fucking grocery store just to get some attention. Female flirting declines to a pathetic level in old age.
You also sound like you have no idea what it means to be content with whoever you are and whatever you are.
Yes, I understand those are FEMALE traits. You have merely to look at how FAT women are compared to men. Females are ultimately decadent creatures who want nothing more than to indulge their desires endlessly. Masculinity is about NEVER being content. It is about imaging a better world, and creating it through art or science, or destorying that corrupt world in battle so that the phoenix may rise again.
Lastly you seem to think that I'll find growing old and potentially being unfuckable an insult.
Its not an insult, but it is the truth. It is the vice of femininity.
you go way off base and assume that I've put some sort of value on my snatch just because you're well acquainted with the price of hookers
You obviously place some value on your fucking snatch because you have told me in several points I need to A) Find a woman and B) I either have never had sex or that I should have sex.
In either case, you as a female have nothing of substance I could want. As I have said, in the drunken instances when I feel like fucking one of you, I am more than willing to pay for it.
Sounds like you need to learn to read, get a real woman (or man as the case may be),
You still don't get it. Why did this entire conversation begin? You proposed the solution to my criticisms of our decadent society was to find a woman. And here we are returning to that same ridiculous statement.
Once again, I make the statement that no man of greatness has ever let his virility be sucked dry by a 5'6" leech. Once again, I ask what you or any female could possibly offer any man driven by purpose besides sexual gratification? Endless bickering such as you are doing now? Inability to recognize your own insults?
What you will realize as you get older is that it is women who desire men far more than men desire women.
Further, your suggestion I read is the most ridiculous statement of them all. I could name 50 books that deal with this very concept, but I will name the most basic: Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, which directly deal with how women impair a man's desire to live a life of adventure and purpose.
stop pawning off your own (and quite obvious) insecurities on others.
I am insecure? I am not the one who suggests indulging in animal instincts are a solution to any of lifes problems.
It all goes back to the contentment issue I mentioned before.
Well you're wrong on all counts, mate.
So many books have been written in the last few thousand years which contradict you. As I have said, you are clearly young and naive. You live in a fantasy world. In time, you will realize I am right.
And when you are one of those old women, pray you meet a man such as myself because the other scoundrels will show you know kindness. Only those of us who understand human nature can truly comprehend the regret in their hearts.
My masculinity disappeared the day my chromosomes turned up xx instead of xy. I have nothing against homosexuality, but I have yet to sleep with a woman. Seems like this may be something we have in common. Cheers!:)
A female on slashdot, hmm... perhaps you are one of them xxy folks.
Pray tell, how or why any man would be unable to fuck a bitch if he wanted to? You think I can't afford $150 for your typical slut?
You overestimate the value of your pussy. Enjoy it while you can, because in ten years you will be but another old hag.
It still stands that civilizations and societies are not built by leaders alone.
I never said otherwise.
The issue is from where does power and direction come? From the masses? from majority rule? Or from the direction of more enlightened fellows? One man cannot stand alone. Nor can a herd of egotistic democratic animals convince each other to act together towards a common good. Unity must be enforced.
Democracy may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than anything else we have.
Too bad democracy hasn't existed since 404 BC when the Peloponessian War ended.
I imagine you are not that old.
The issue here is why do people such as yourself believe democracy exists? The answer is easy: because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is so.
Every government is an oligarchy, the only is by what right do the few rule the many? In our depraved society, people such as yourself are tricked into believing the leaders have been chosen by the people.
In the system of government I advocate, and the one presented in Plato's Republic, leaders rule by right of virtue. The leaders rule by right of their superiority.
Myself, I'm an anarchist; live and let live, I say.
A very bourgeoise sentiment, and also one which you can only enjoy within the confines of a stable society. You think I believe a leader acts alone, but you believe that you can act alone?
When the time comes you must defend yourself, how will you fight? Alone? against an army? Or will you abandon your sentiments and rally your own army?
It is this sentiment that is at the core of our entire degraded society. Live in your house, have the freedom to choose from a variety of material goods, and live within the illusion that you can take care of yourself.
You can, within that system. But as soon as that system collapses, will you be able to fight to survive? Will you be able to exploit the land? Relish in your enemy's blood? More importantly, will you be able to function within the confines of a community in order to survive?
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument suffers from a fundamental flaw, namely that of the underlying misapprehension that all societies will move from a 'primitive' to an 'advanced' state.
How pray tell did I make such an assertion? If anything, it should be quite clear from my post that the there is one thing of which I am certain: inferior races will never advance and thus should be contained and moved to reservations where their population can be limited by natural means such as removing access to all advanced technology.
Once you make the transition from moving around to settling in a permanent location you require a different set of tools (pots to store things, permanent housing to live in etc) and this is impetus for technological innovations which helped found our societies.
Yes, and those tools can be used to build weapons, and those farms can be used to feed armies.
Sedentary is an inappropriate word.
Incidentally this stuff started not in Asia Minor, not Europe.
Yes, well, times do change.
Some things about African society may surprise you. For instance, Africans were producing carbon steel approximately 800 years before Europeans had mastered the skill of doing so.
Are you referring to the continent we now call Africa? Perhaps, I am not familiar with the history of carbon steel.
If you are referring to Negroes, then I will of course have to demand a reference or at least a summary of what you have read. I have a hard time believing that people who cannot build houses or roads would ever think of a need for steel, let alone invent the means to make it.
The fertile land encouraged agriculture which made the peoples more sedentary in nature, and thus more likely to become advanced.
I think this right here indicates the flaw in your argument.
Since Europe is he only truly advanced civilization, from which all other primitive civilizations have gained their knowledge, one should assume that Europe was a peaceful place full of sedentary people.
History proves quite the opposite. In fact, the more war and conflict that was going on in Europe, the faster the rate of technological advancement. Indeed, the sedentary people of the rest of the world seem to lazy to accomplish anything besides having sex. That's why they are chronically unable to sustain their population growth.
We have but to go to countries like India, where the people are quite sedentary. I mean, Great Britain was able to occupy the country with a mere 100,000 troops, at a time they had 300-400 million people.
Despite their sedentary nature, we find that the vast majority of Indian people are living in communities far less advanced that the average town in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago.
Then of course there is Africa, where the vast majority of people live in mud huts which are less advanced than the common beaver dam which is at least water proof and can only be entered from under water.
The Koala, for instance, bases its entire survival strategy on being fat and lazy.
We are not discussing other species, it is quite clear what ideal human existence entails. All other species, from the standpoint of analyzing behavior, are irrelevant.
Since there is no way to predict this, it would be foolish to start reducing the genetic diversity of the species artificially in order to create a supposedly more "fit" population.
Of course there is a way to predict it.
You have but to look at the very races and ethnicities, whose close breeding over many thousands of years produced the variety of people we have on this earth. Some are clearly inferior, and some are not.
The issue here is you are unable, or unwilling, to let go of your egalitarian notions which tell you that all people are inherently equal.
Further, you are expressing the sickness of nihilism which is inherent in all liberals. Your inability to identify which human traits are ideal and which are not is clouding your judgment on this matter.
The simple fact is man has proven that in due course, selective breeding can produce superior lines of animals. We do it with plants all the time. We have done it with many breeds of dogs, some of which are a mere century or two old.
The most obvious case however is the slave trade, whereby only strong African negroes were brought to the Americas and selectively bred over time. Even with relatively few generations, the initial selection process in Africa produced a human specimen with greater strength and endurance than his less fortunate relatives in Africa for whom nature has been most unkind.
Indeed, the American Negro dominates every sport and athletic game to which he applies his considerable talents.
Outside of behavioral traits, which are certainly quite important for the stability and continued progress of our civilization, there is the aesthetic standpoint.
The sad reality is the vast majority of humans on this planet are incredibly ugly. I cringe every time I see a fat trollish Puerto Rican, or some buck toothed Chinaman, or the hordes of sub 5' brown masses which reproduce at an extraordinarily rapid rate.
Their right to reproduce should simply be restricted on the grounds they are ugly.
You obviously haven't read Plato's Republic.
Eugenics is absolutely necessary to the survival of the human race.
Your first mistake is assuming anyone has a right to exist. There is no such right. All you have is your ability to fight and resist. Thus the most organized group which can repel all other attacking life forms, whether man, wolf, or bacteria, will prevail and they can decide who belongs to their tribe simply based on the standards which served them in the past and which will serve them in the future. Civilization was not built by fat, lazy fools who do nothing but indulge in their beastial desires ad infitum.
A sociopath is by definition an antisocial person who cannot function in a group. In nature, such a man would not survive a day and would certainly not contribute to the next generation (by means of procreation).
Thus, sociopaths by definition should die.
This is unfortunately a major problem in the world.
All things ultimately cater to base forms of humanity when they cater to the majority.
The majority of humans care only about satisfying their primal appetites and nothing more.
The only question is, with the spectacular failure of the internet for the reasons you mention, how do we still have people who champion democracy and egalitarianism?
You would think geeks everywhere would realize the masses should not be allowed on the internet, let alone be allowed to have a say in government and ultimately the future direction of humanity itself.
I really have no idea and have not heard the term before. Thanks!
So true. The BMW SUV looks so ridiculous with that grill stamped on the front. It has the same sort of look as the golf carts with the BMW hood.
I'd love to know which library you are going to, because all the public libraries I have gone to besides the central libraries are rather quaint, but are either filled with homeless who smell like shit or they cater to children.
As much as I love the main branch of the NY public library, its a research library and its pretty far from my apartment.
Who cares if you can access the internet if you have to endure the smell of piss and vomit? or the screaming of small children?
the only reason English is an official language there is because it was an American colony for 60 years.
More interestingly, Spanish is spoken by few people there (although they have spanish names often) even though Spain ruled the area for 400 years.
I think that IBM doesn't consider emulation a very realistic goal.
Remember, they tried this with OS/2.
Even if all the people were okay -- which they might well be in the US, but not in poorer countries, I guarantee it -- the economic impact would be staggering.
Why would it be staggering?
The number of poor people is so shockingly high... People in the third world literally live, and more importantly reproduce, like animals.
In reality, global warming on the scale that will destroy coastal habitation is probably a good thing. I would much prefer sterilization and a eugenics program, but that isn't really an option in the more barbaric parts of the world where the billions of poor reside.
This is nature's revenge for the incredible explosion of human growth in the 20th century.
I think the world's economy will be so much better once our population declines to about 1-2 billion. There will be so much more land available for everyone, our natural resources will be sufficient to provide everyone a greater quality life...
The economic benefits will be staggering, but in the sense it will be the greatest bounty since the colonization of the New World.
Why didn't you buy an air conditioner and put it in the window?
Those are like $100
People have been saying that forever. Wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. When was civilization better (in the past)? And for what reason was it better? Surely it was just different, some things better, some things worse. People who say civilization is declining are usually the types of people who can't listen to their children's music - at least in my experience. That somehow the kool-aid of their youth was "better".
That is why Nietzsche refers to it as a primitive morality. You are absolutely right, the problem is the proponents of Free Trade are using what amounts to a very basic moral justification for their beliefs.
I think it may be more accurate to say that civilization isn't getting morally worse or better.
You might be right, but clearly a huge number of people don't agree with you.
But there are things that have gotten better over time... for example, the court systems have largely replaced the older system of vengence, and led to a decline in the murder rate.
I don't think Nietzsche would agree that is necessarily an improvement. Clearly, a major problem in this world is there isn't enough killing, enough war. Billions of people are going to have to die, either through ecological collapse, or warfare. Death is a natural part of life, and it is simplistic to say that a decline in death valuable... in the case of our modern world it is destorying it. Maybe 6 billion isn't to many, but soon it will be 10, then 20... In the next 100 years we WILL get to a critical mass where competition for natural resources will result in combat. This happens with all animals, including the invading organisms in your body right now.
Personally, I think combat should be renewed as a legitimate means of dispute resolution. I cringe every time I watch some court drama.
By destroying itself, do you mean Armageddon? Do you mean a hell on earth biblical style? Why is it a requirement to understand everything perfectly to not annihilate oneself? Don't forget that that would require [in part] understanding _your_ culture perfectly, which involves your city, and the street in which you live... etc... and since you're part of your culture, and can change it, then you are talking about the sort of self-description that leads to impossible recursion. If you don't think you're important in the "big-equation", remember what chaos maths has taught us.
Well, I would encourage you to read some of Nietzsche's works. Also, as I said... Nietzsche isn't too concerned with death per se, so that is not the kind of destruction he is talking about. He is talking about spiritual destruction. You seem to have a very Christian ethic (whether or not you are a Christian), so be careful to apply that here since that is something Nietzsche is directly attacking throughout his writings.
We certainly don't need some super theory of culture that will save us from ourselves... perhaps it's enough for world cultures to just evolve spontaneously. This doesn't mean that we'll all have a fairy-tale future... but it certainly doesn't mean that we're going to destroy ourselves, nor does it mean that our culture will regress.
Are you sure about that? I don't know where you are, but a quick walk through 19th century neighborhoods shows a much greater spiritual clarity amongst people in the past. We used to build houses with character, beautiful parks, construct statues to artists, composers, poets... I could spend a great deal of time discussing HOW culture is being destroyed, but I don't have the time. Read the book I quote, it is one aphorism of hundreds.
Private morality, world morality. Since man no longer believes that a God is guiding the destinies of the world as a whole, or that, despite all apparent twists, the path of mankind is leading somewhere glorious, men must set themselves ecumenical goals, embracing the whole earth. The older morality, namely Kant's [categorical imperative], demands from the individual those actions that one desires from all men - a nice, naive idea, as if everyone without further ado would know which manner of action would benefit the whole of mankind, that is, which actions were desirable at all. It is a theory like free trade, which assumes that a general harmony would have to result of itself, according to innate laws of melioration. Perhaps a future survey of the needs of mankind will reveal it to be thoroughly undesirable that al men act identically; rather, in the interest of ecumenical goals, for whole stretches of human time special tasks, perhaps in some circumstances even evil tasks, will have to be set.
In any event, if mankind is to keep from destroying itself by such a conscious overall government, we must discover first a knowledge of the conditions of culture, a knowledge surpassing all previous knowledge, as a scientific standard for ecumenical goals. This is the enormous task of the great minds of the next century.
my comments
Sadly, Nietzsche naively believed this problem would be solved in the next century... Yet, people still focus on the simple aspect of free trade not realizing how small an issue it is in the grand scheme of human progress. Nietzsche wrote that nearly 140 years ago, and ultimately the same simplistic morality still reigns. "Everything will work out in the end" they say, all the while ignoring how rapidly our civilization is declining.
A lot of parents, children, educators, administrators, and politicians do not take education seriously. For these parents its an requirement and a day care. For the kids its a requirement and social event. For the educators and adminstrators it is a paycheck with guaranteed employment. For the politician it is a jobs program the gets votes.
I think that this statement is not at all limited to education, but is an accurate description of the ultimate flaw of democratic societies.
When people feel they have no duty to the state, and ultimately to the future citizens of that state, you get this result.
Do you really think any politicians in any democratic style care about anything other than getting elected? The last thing they want is to raise children with any sense of duty, honor, and loyality otherwise they will be quite aware of how corrupt their entire nation has become.
Accountability is the first step. Until you change the those who lord over the kids nothing else will be done
This will require a revolution.
I don't believe it.
What does she do with her life?
And Freud was, for all intents and purposes a fraud.
His theories were also falsely assumed that typical Jewish neuroses were applicable to the entire human race, thus is rather perverse infatuation with sexuality.
The reason people use mirrors is so you can see every last grain of powder.
When you are spending large sums of money on drugs, every little bit counts.
ahh cocaine...
I have the original nForce motherboard with an Athlon XP 1800+, and it has been rock solid since the day I got it.
Oh, I also have an audigy platinum and an all in wonder 9700 Pro. no problems what so ever.
You can be planning a murder, and the operator just has to relay the messages back and forth. It's a condition of legal privilege similar to those of spouses, doctors, lawyers, and the Secret Service.
Do you really believe our justice system would require the level of moral depravity you are discussing?
I've got news for you, I don't give a shit what your job is, but if you reasonably believe someone is planning to commit a serious felony such as murder, you are required to report it to the authorities. This is true for all professions, even with lawyers in many instances. If your client tells you he is going to kill someone you have to report it. Not only could you be disbarred, but you could be imprisoned for obstruction of justice. If a patient tells his psychiatrist he is going to kill someone... same thing.
Your conception of freedom is disturbing.
RTFA
they will be adding that ability as a pay for use feature, as well as stuff like voicemail. PC to PC calls will always remain free however.
As for the technology needing to be foolproof before it can be set loose on the road what about all the accidents and deaths caused by 'foolproof' drivers not paying sufficient attention or doing dumb things like speeding and insane overtaking manouvers.
I do agree with your sentiments, and I find it outrageous we entrust the equivalent of 1 stick of dynamite to some of the most inferior humans to walk the earth since the first cro-magnons walked the earth, I think the idea is a person can be imprisoned, executed, whatever... whereas a computer is not motivated by punishment.
What makes you think I'm not already wrinkled and old?
Because you are posting on slashdot.
You make being old sound like a bad thing.
For women such as yourself it is. I see hordes of them every day, wondering aimlessly on the streets. Looking for any opportunity to have a moment of social content with a young man, no doubt dreading the return to the imaginary world where their cats are people. The insane games they can play in a fucking grocery store just to get some attention. Female flirting declines to a pathetic level in old age.
You also sound like you have no idea what it means to be content with whoever you are and whatever you are.
Yes, I understand those are FEMALE traits. You have merely to look at how FAT women are compared to men. Females are ultimately decadent creatures who want nothing more than to indulge their desires endlessly. Masculinity is about NEVER being content. It is about imaging a better world, and creating it through art or science, or destorying that corrupt world in battle so that the phoenix may rise again.
Lastly you seem to think that I'll find growing old and potentially being unfuckable an insult.
Its not an insult, but it is the truth. It is the vice of femininity.
you go way off base and assume that I've put some sort of value on my snatch just because you're well acquainted with the price of hookers
You obviously place some value on your fucking snatch because you have told me in several points I need to A) Find a woman and B) I either have never had sex or that I should have sex.
In either case, you as a female have nothing of substance I could want. As I have said, in the drunken instances when I feel like fucking one of you, I am more than willing to pay for it.
Sounds like you need to learn to read, get a real woman (or man as the case may be),
You still don't get it. Why did this entire conversation begin? You proposed the solution to my criticisms of our decadent society was to find a woman. And here we are returning to that same ridiculous statement.
Once again, I make the statement that no man of greatness has ever let his virility be sucked dry by a 5'6" leech. Once again, I ask what you or any female could possibly offer any man driven by purpose besides sexual gratification? Endless bickering such as you are doing now? Inability to recognize your own insults?
What you will realize as you get older is that it is women who desire men far more than men desire women.
Further, your suggestion I read is the most ridiculous statement of them all. I could name 50 books that deal with this very concept, but I will name the most basic: Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, which directly deal with how women impair a man's desire to live a life of adventure and purpose.
stop pawning off your own (and quite obvious) insecurities on others.
I am insecure? I am not the one who suggests indulging in animal instincts are a solution to any of lifes problems.
It all goes back to the contentment issue I mentioned before.
Well you're wrong on all counts, mate.
So many books have been written in the last few thousand years which contradict you. As I have said, you are clearly young and naive. You live in a fantasy world. In time, you will realize I am right.
And when you are one of those old women, pray you meet a man such as myself because the other scoundrels will show you know kindness. Only those of us who understand human nature can truly comprehend the regret in their hearts.
My masculinity disappeared the day my chromosomes turned up xx instead of xy. I have nothing against homosexuality, but I have yet to sleep with a woman. Seems like this may be something we have in common. Cheers! :)
A female on slashdot, hmm... perhaps you are one of them xxy folks.
Pray tell, how or why any man would be unable to fuck a bitch if he wanted to? You think I can't afford $150 for your typical slut?
You overestimate the value of your pussy. Enjoy it while you can, because in ten years you will be but another old hag.
It still stands that civilizations and societies are not built by leaders alone.
I never said otherwise.
The issue is from where does power and direction come? From the masses? from majority rule? Or from the direction of more enlightened fellows? One man cannot stand alone. Nor can a herd of egotistic democratic animals convince each other to act together towards a common good. Unity must be enforced.
Democracy may not be perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than anything else we have.
Too bad democracy hasn't existed since 404 BC when the Peloponessian War ended.
I imagine you are not that old.
The issue here is why do people such as yourself believe democracy exists? The answer is easy: because you have been indoctrinated to believe it is so.
Every government is an oligarchy, the only is by what right do the few rule the many? In our depraved society, people such as yourself are tricked into believing the leaders have been chosen by the people.
In the system of government I advocate, and the one presented in Plato's Republic, leaders rule by right of virtue. The leaders rule by right of their superiority.
Myself, I'm an anarchist; live and let live, I say.
A very bourgeoise sentiment, and also one which you can only enjoy within the confines of a stable society. You think I believe a leader acts alone, but you believe that you can act alone?
When the time comes you must defend yourself, how will you fight? Alone? against an army? Or will you abandon your sentiments and rally your own army?
It is this sentiment that is at the core of our entire degraded society. Live in your house, have the freedom to choose from a variety of material goods, and live within the illusion that you can take care of yourself.
You can, within that system. But as soon as that system collapses, will you be able to fight to survive? Will you be able to exploit the land? Relish in your enemy's blood? More importantly, will you be able to function within the confines of a community in order to survive?