4 ms·

I didn't say any previous time period was better than today; I said that our societies being created by the most ruthless is absurd, and it is. Humans at their

I didn't say any previous time period was better than today; I said that our societies being created by the most ruthless is absurd, and it is. Humans at their best work cooperatively and it happens all the time and has happened at all times. But when power structures can be subverted by the amoral, they will be, have been, are being. That does not mean that structures that facilitate such power grabs were created by the amoral. To suggest so is plainly illogical and ridiculous. We need to work in societies to prosper and survive, and cooperation is the best way to achieve that. Our failure is that, at larger scales, we have not applied the proper systems thinking to ensure that the ruthless and amoral cannot game the system for their own personal gain at the expense of the society and the Earth itself. Those with power will always promote competition because they have all the advantages; as well, they will denigrate cooperation because their excesses will be seen for the unnecessary drain on resources they are. Thus, we have the corporate lawyers and lobbyists making the laws and regulations that are supposed to rein them in.

malvosenior 7y ago
Can you give an example of a society you’re describing? One with power structures not “subverted by the amoral”? One that produced the positive vision of cooperation at scale that you say existed? I can’t think of any.
- OneWordSoln 7y ago
  We are currently at unprecedented scale, but it is illogical to think that society and the power structures inherent in them were devised solely by the amoral. How long have societies been too large to keep the amoral from corrupting them? I don't know but it seems to be thousands of years at this point. But that doesn't mean that individual communities throughout the ages haven't created compassion-based societies where the people they selected to make important decisions were actual public servants. Look at FDR's Four Freedoms and the various compassion-based programs he instituted. It does seem obvious that once a certain scale is achieved, humanity has failed to apply sufficient systems thinking to keep the amoral from subverting the system for their own gain and to the detriment of the whole. Part of the problem is that most people are just not that selfishly manipulative and, thus, have a difficult time anticipating the disasterous personalities, means and effects of the truly evil. I mean, look at all the literally poor (as in not wealthy) fools that support Trump and his obviously corrupt cadre of rich fucks. The fucker is about to roll back regulations that are designed to help prevent natural disasters from offshore oil drilling, and his tax cuts were an enormous boon for all for-profit corporations.
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    FDR seems like a very odd example of compassion based leadership. The US was literally killing millions of people under his watch and he setup the Manhattan project which culminated in dropping two atomic bombs. I won't even make a moral judgement on any of that, it just doesn't seem like an example of the a cooperative and peaceful society that you're talking about.
    - OneWordSoln 7y ago
      Only a fool thinks that America's participation in WWII was unnecessary. ETA: You're full of shit. You are saying that participating in WWII was not an act of compassion. What, are you a holocaust denier? Creating peace in the face of Nazis requires military action, you fool. ETA2: Of course you want to be done. You don't want to admit our participation in WWII was an act of compassion and that force must be used against the evil. Nor do you wish to admit that your entire premise of "all power structures were created by the amoral" is ridiculously illogical and that you have moved the goalposts. It is also compassion to call a fool a fool, especially when they think they're so intelligent. Read up on Dunning & Kruger, my friend.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        Yeah, you can stop calling me a fool. Like I said I'm not making any value judgments. If anything your example disproves your own point. The reality is that humans are not harmonious by nature at scale and the people in charge are always going to be powerful and practical ("amoral" in your terminology). If they weren't, the systems would collapse or be taken over by a competitor who is more effective. Edit: we're done here. You obviously can't have an intelligent and respectful discussion.

malvosenior 7y ago

Can you give an example of a society you’re describing? One with power structures not “subverted by the amoral”? One that produced the positive vision of cooperation at scale that you say existed? I can’t think of any.

OneWordSoln 7y ago
We are currently at unprecedented scale, but it is illogical to think that society and the power structures inherent in them were devised solely by the amoral. How long have societies been too large to keep the amoral from corrupting them? I don't know but it seems to be thousands of years at this point. But that doesn't mean that individual communities throughout the ages haven't created compassion-based societies where the people they selected to make important decisions were actual public servants. Look at FDR's Four Freedoms and the various compassion-based programs he instituted. It does seem obvious that once a certain scale is achieved, humanity has failed to apply sufficient systems thinking to keep the amoral from subverting the system for their own gain and to the detriment of the whole. Part of the problem is that most people are just not that selfishly manipulative and, thus, have a difficult time anticipating the disasterous personalities, means and effects of the truly evil. I mean, look at all the literally poor (as in not wealthy) fools that support Trump and his obviously corrupt cadre of rich fucks. The fucker is about to roll back regulations that are designed to help prevent natural disasters from offshore oil drilling, and his tax cuts were an enormous boon for all for-profit corporations.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  FDR seems like a very odd example of compassion based leadership. The US was literally killing millions of people under his watch and he setup the Manhattan project which culminated in dropping two atomic bombs. I won't even make a moral judgement on any of that, it just doesn't seem like an example of the a cooperative and peaceful society that you're talking about.
  - OneWordSoln 7y ago
    Only a fool thinks that America's participation in WWII was unnecessary. ETA: You're full of shit. You are saying that participating in WWII was not an act of compassion. What, are you a holocaust denier? Creating peace in the face of Nazis requires military action, you fool. ETA2: Of course you want to be done. You don't want to admit our participation in WWII was an act of compassion and that force must be used against the evil. Nor do you wish to admit that your entire premise of "all power structures were created by the amoral" is ridiculously illogical and that you have moved the goalposts. It is also compassion to call a fool a fool, especially when they think they're so intelligent. Read up on Dunning & Kruger, my friend.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      Yeah, you can stop calling me a fool. Like I said I'm not making any value judgments. If anything your example disproves your own point. The reality is that humans are not harmonious by nature at scale and the people in charge are always going to be powerful and practical ("amoral" in your terminology). If they weren't, the systems would collapse or be taken over by a competitor who is more effective. Edit: we're done here. You obviously can't have an intelligent and respectful discussion.