4 ms·

>does being born make you worthy of survival? Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no". Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, w

>does being born make you worthy of survival? Does the world owe you a living? Most would answer "no". Civilization is often in direct opposition to nature, which is cruel and unforgiving. A civilization in collapse will revert to natural selection, in which the fittest survive and reproduce. I believe that we are witnessing the breakdown of the social contract as the atomic unit of society shifts from the family to the individual. Atomized individuals are much more vulnerable, and replacing the family with the state will further alienate people. Entire novels have expounded on this idea.

logfromblammo 10y ago
The world does not owe me a living, but then again, it has no rules that I am bound to obey. Civilization does owe me a living, in exchange for my good conduct. If civilization cannot or will not provide me with my survival needs, I will instead break its laws and prey upon its people and systems to get not just what I need, but also what I want. If your system cannot reasonably accommodate everyone, you will have outlaws fighting it. You can build walls or commit genocides, but they are not going to play any game by the rules when the rules guarantee that they will lose it.
- BatFastard 10y ago
  Well said, Civilization is indeed a contract. However there are various ways to enforce the contract. In the middle ages in Europe is was enforced via religion. Behave or go to hell. In communist countries it was contribute or go to work camps. In capitalist societies so far it has been behave and reap upward mobility or go to jail. When there is no upward mobility, I am not sure if jail is enough to enforce the contract.
- loader 10y ago
  I reread this comment like 4 times. I really like the simplicity of it but how profound it is. I guess we can't be too upset when people don't obey our rules if we aren't providing for their basic survival.
- marchenko 10y ago
  True and succinctly stated.
- daliwali 10y ago
  Ok, what I said had nothing to do with violence though. Sounds like you are trying too hard to role-play as an outlaw or a revolutionary. Consider the homeless, they may be out of a job through no fault of their own, and most are non-violent. Even as a last resort, it is not justified for the homeless to hurt people. Violence as a first principle is the folly of ideologues.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    You mentioned civilization. What, exactly, do you think that is? For many thousands of years, the underlying principle of civilization has been "might makes right". The governments in it codify their laws such that the government itself becomes the regional monopoly on the justified use of force. Within the past few centuries, civilization has slowly been moving towards "the ends justify the means". While that is slightly better, as a fundamental organizing principle of civilization, it is still not ideal, in my opinion. For now, civilization largely consists of a mutual compact regarding when it is morally acceptable to employ violence. In exchange for obeying the rules, we are promised some of the benefits resulting from collectively standing down from a state of universal hypervigilance. A hungry and homeless person may perceive that he or she is not getting their fair share of society's mutual benefits. Civilization has not honored its end of the bargain, so they need not honor theirs. There is no moral reason for them to restrain themselves from committing any act considered a crime by civilization. They may still choose to remain within the law, for practical reasons, but it would not be because they are morally obligated to do so. They could rebel at any time. Many do not, and never will. Consider that if no one ever went outlaw, civilization would have little incentive to give its underclass anything. If you only need a million warm bodies to run the machines, you dump 3 Mcal down the feed chutes every day, and let the rabble argue among themselves over who gets to eat it. If no one is willing to fight the system, everyone is safe to ignore. Civilization would serve itself best by ensuring that its bounty is distributed evenly enough such that those at the bottom perceive that they would have something significant to lose by rebelling. Though it may also preemptively defend itself against such people by ensuring that they cannot present a significant criminal or military threat if they do turn. You can build shelters and bread lines, or you can build prisons and walls. Not coincidentally, those are the typical strategies of parties considered "left" or "right" politically, worldwide. If it truly is a last resort, a human with nothing is not ethically restrained in any way from doing anything at all. It might be breaking your car window and stealing something out of your back seat. It might be beating you to death and eating your liver. It might be to give you the sad, puppy-dog eyes, shake some change in a coffee cup, and sing the blues. A civilization that provides no benefits cannot reasonably expect conduct different from the savage, naked savannah-ape in the wild. They don't always kill each other, but they certainly don't worry about laws when they do.

logfromblammo 10y ago

The world does not owe me a living, but then again, it has no rules that I am bound to obey. Civilization does owe me a living, in exchange for my good conduct. If civilization cannot or will not provide me with my survival needs, I will instead break its laws and prey upon its people and systems to get not just what I need, but also what I want. If your system cannot reasonably accommodate everyone, you will have outlaws fighting it. You can build walls or commit genocides, but they are not going to play any game by the rules when the rules guarantee that they will lose it.

BatFastard 10y ago
Well said, Civilization is indeed a contract. However there are various ways to enforce the contract. In the middle ages in Europe is was enforced via religion. Behave or go to hell. In communist countries it was contribute or go to work camps. In capitalist societies so far it has been behave and reap upward mobility or go to jail. When there is no upward mobility, I am not sure if jail is enough to enforce the contract.
loader 10y ago
I reread this comment like 4 times. I really like the simplicity of it but how profound it is. I guess we can't be too upset when people don't obey our rules if we aren't providing for their basic survival.
marchenko 10y ago
True and succinctly stated.
daliwali 10y ago
Ok, what I said had nothing to do with violence though. Sounds like you are trying too hard to role-play as an outlaw or a revolutionary. Consider the homeless, they may be out of a job through no fault of their own, and most are non-violent. Even as a last resort, it is not justified for the homeless to hurt people. Violence as a first principle is the folly of ideologues.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  You mentioned civilization. What, exactly, do you think that is? For many thousands of years, the underlying principle of civilization has been "might makes right". The governments in it codify their laws such that the government itself becomes the regional monopoly on the justified use of force. Within the past few centuries, civilization has slowly been moving towards "the ends justify the means". While that is slightly better, as a fundamental organizing principle of civilization, it is still not ideal, in my opinion. For now, civilization largely consists of a mutual compact regarding when it is morally acceptable to employ violence. In exchange for obeying the rules, we are promised some of the benefits resulting from collectively standing down from a state of universal hypervigilance. A hungry and homeless person may perceive that he or she is not getting their fair share of society's mutual benefits. Civilization has not honored its end of the bargain, so they need not honor theirs. There is no moral reason for them to restrain themselves from committing any act considered a crime by civilization. They may still choose to remain within the law, for practical reasons, but it would not be because they are morally obligated to do so. They could rebel at any time. Many do not, and never will. Consider that if no one ever went outlaw, civilization would have little incentive to give its underclass anything. If you only need a million warm bodies to run the machines, you dump 3 Mcal down the feed chutes every day, and let the rabble argue among themselves over who gets to eat it. If no one is willing to fight the system, everyone is safe to ignore. Civilization would serve itself best by ensuring that its bounty is distributed evenly enough such that those at the bottom perceive that they would have something significant to lose by rebelling. Though it may also preemptively defend itself against such people by ensuring that they cannot present a significant criminal or military threat if they do turn. You can build shelters and bread lines, or you can build prisons and walls. Not coincidentally, those are the typical strategies of parties considered "left" or "right" politically, worldwide. If it truly is a last resort, a human with nothing is not ethically restrained in any way from doing anything at all. It might be breaking your car window and stealing something out of your back seat. It might be beating you to death and eating your liver. It might be to give you the sad, puppy-dog eyes, shake some change in a coffee cup, and sing the blues. A civilization that provides no benefits cannot reasonably expect conduct different from the savage, naked savannah-ape in the wild. They don't always kill each other, but they certainly don't worry about laws when they do.