5 ms·
All of the boogeymen you mentioned are strands of a singular issue, a singular phenomenon.
by daseiner1 8mo ago
All of the boogeymen you mentioned are strands of a singular issue, a singular phenomenon.
- nickez 8mo agolosing the gold standard 1971?
- daseiner1 8mo agowhen the ruling principles are growth, consumption, and profit, the ability to invent money tends to be quite appealing.
- cosmic_quanta 8mo agoWhat is that singular phenomenon? What can result in blaming both capitalism and socialism, for example?
- enemyz0r 8mo agoDisplacing God as the center of life.
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoMan, what does that say about the human race if we're only able to be happy under the dubious eye of a supranatural daddy?
- leflambeur 8mo agoWhat if it's true that this daddy exists?
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoDoes it matter? Based upon the poster I responded to, it appears to be only the belief that's important, not the being.
- leflambeur 8mo agoIf such being does exist, then how could it possibly not matter? If there's an architect and we are the architect's creation, then how could our belief alone be the important thing?
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoThat's immaterial to the discussion. The comment I replied to simply stated: "Displacing God as the center of life." They aren't arguing that god matters, it's our displacement of them. So, on the existence of god, we have two possiblities: God does exist, god doesn't exist. 1. If god doesn't exist, then we're unhappy because we're displacing a false god as the center of life. 2. If god does exist, then we're unhappy because we're displacing a real god as the center of life. In that discussion, god's existence in fact doesn't matter, it leads to the same outcome.
- leflambeur 8mo agoThat is very much not immaterial. If God does exist and is our creator, then we're designed to recognize him (at least to strive to, or have some innate need to); failing to do so or radically abdicating from this need would lead to disaster. In other words, in the God-exists scenario, we are not merely observers of a phenomenon who can be detached from it.
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoBut that framing only really works if we assume a Abrahamic world view. Other cultures don't and didn't relate to their deities in the same way. Do we then have to assume they all suffered lower life satisfaction than a 11th century German peasant because of their detachment from a singular god the creator? Why didn't they strive for the relationship you're describing? Trying to put God with a capital G at the center of our lives as some innate need doesn't make sense from a historical context.
- daseiner1 8mo ago[flagged]
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo ago"Midwit"? Rude.
- akramachamarei 8mo agoI think it says we need more time in the evolutionary oven. With how fast tech and education have accelerated we're running Ubuntu 24 on the Enigma machine.
- SketchySeaBeast 8mo agoYeah, that seems to be a better conclusion - that we're not built with enough sophistication to deal with everything we're currently dealing with. But I think that's also due to the fact that the things we're dealing with are intentionally built to take advantage of our weaknesses. You can't out evolve technology.