I just watched Capitalisam.A love story....Why the fuck don't you do something about it?

[Cain_Zeros]

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

I dunno, Jim seems more trustworthy to me.

 

[wilsontheterrible]

You know, one good thing about the times we live in is I dont have to think up a reply to posts like this; I can just say, look around. Bam. There you have the reason why capitalism is a flawed system and should be avoided, not at all costs, but when possible. The pillars of capitalism is private interest and regulation that is kept at a minimum. Once its controlled, its not capitalism anymore, because a free market no longer exists. You say capitalism is the pinnacle when done right, and I would agree. Its just that it is impossible to uphold that pinnacle for longer than 10 or 20 years, and the consequences that follow those 1, 2 or 3 decades are very dire.

Such as what? Our failed school system, corrupt prison system, or is it the failed regulators that would rather make power plays than act like reasonable adults? Every problem we've had can be traced to governmental or regulatory mismanagement.

Investors are, by nature, risk averse. They don't like risk but will tolerate it so long as the pay off is likely. But with the rock bottom interest rates provided by a central bank like the FED the risk becomes less and less making investors more likely to make risky investments like CDOs and bad mortgages that they'd never ever make under ordinary market conditions.

The dire consequences like the forgotten depression of 1919, great depression, and the current economic crisis all started as normal downturns in the economic cycle but were made exponentially worse by government intervention. Meanwhile true capitalistic havens like Hong Kong have thrived with their standard of living increasing every year, I've been there friend and I suggest you go there too. If you want to see what real capitalism looks like save some money and take a trip, it's beautiful.

 

[Kair]

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

Collective intellect. *chuckle* I can't imagine the last time my input meant anything truly meaningful to anyone. Apparently, it's easier to ignore everyone else and yell louder than it is to reason with them.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

Never been sure why, but it has always sounded pretentious to me for one to proclaim them self as a "free thinker". Call it a flaw of mine.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

They don't work towards it because Communism doesn't provide them assured security.

So long as there are individuals, even within a collective, there exists the potential for competing wills, and thus the potential for conflict. With the potential for conflict, there is doubt and the need for security, and that means someone will inevitably place their needs above that of everyone else to acquire that security.

Communism failed immediately because its structure contradicts this known logic. Unless you can find a way to forcibly rewire the human brain, (or rather, the individual), to place the collective's needs above his/her own at every time, Communism will always begin to fail at the macroscale, and eventually crumble.

Lenin and later Stalin's regimes proved this to great effect; the instant they came into power, they created a new hierarchy and the problems began again.
Stalin in particular betrayed any notion of security by publicly exiling and murdering millions over the course of his reign. Yet objectively, it's easy to see why he did that (brutal and inhuman as it was); he was cultivating his population into one that would (he thought) eventually adopt that social collective.

China had a similar program in place for decades, and it failed to accomplish much; once they switched to capitalism, they rapidly grew and now occupy the spot as #1 world power (through strictly unethical means, no less).

It is a system that cannot ever work because we are trapped by an endless cycle of necessity to compete with each other (instead of cooperation);by our very nature we can never trust each other. Even if the cycle began to close, someone could (and inevitably would) come along and manipulate it for their own ends just as others have done before and resetting the whole cycle again.

I hate pithy quotes but I recall my grandfather (in summary) "Trust is the second greatest commodity we have, only behind intellect, and it's always at a premium."

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse.

Actually, people did stand up to the church. And things changed. Some for the better, some for worse.
Their intentions were purely selfish in any case (whether justified or not, is a matter of personal interpretation). Regardless, human history suggests that our societies are greatly influenced by the intentions (and genius) of a few; the many were simply there for the show.
It's one of the great ironies that pro-communists attribute and quote the work of so few when their emphasis is always on the many.

They assume that a collective consciousness will result in everyone's lives being better and more efficient. Yet the social consciousness has historically been shown to be largely inept, uncreative, fearful and hateful on its own.

All the ad hominum aside:

Firstly, I point to a society without a shared consciousness, so why do you include it in your reply? That was my reason for using the word hivemind.

Secondly, you seem so certain when you say that people will always set aside the needs of others to satisfy their own needs. There is no certainty that people will always be so stupid to not realize that to ensure everyone's greatest satisfaction of needs is the same as ensuring your just satisfaction of needs. This is only logical, you can not deny it.
And what are you to speak of security in a world of corruption and conflict? Is the chance to achieve material security at the expense of others' material security worth the inevitable insecurity of conflict?
To assume that people will always be instinctive brutes is on the line with previously assuming that a person would never step on the moon.

You are hindering Humanity just by saying that Humanity can never progress. If there is even the slightest chance to improve Humanity, we must take it. Any improvement we make will last thousands of years (if not, it was not a true improvement). This is what separates me and you. I look and hypothesize thousands of years into the future, you barely look beyond your own retina.

Edit: And if you are wondering why I keep up with humanity and this argument when the humans spit in my eye (the fact that people like you oppose me are a dent in my argument for humanity itself), I do it because the madman does not deserve to be mad. The criminal does not deserve to be a criminal. Children with disabilities do not deserve to be disabled because they are disabled. You must understand the point by now.

 

[karamazovnew]

And we don't live in a true Capitalist state. By your logic, there's no room to claim that Capitalism is wrong, if there's no room to complain that Communism is wrong.

If by communism you mean "what happened in Russia", then no, both Communism and Captialism are wrong and doomed to failure. But I was referring to the ideology itself:
Wikipedia definition: "Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless and stateless society structured upon common ownership of the means of production, free access to articles of consumption, and the end of wage labour and private property in the means of production and real estate."
Compare that to: "Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets."

Capitalism is just an evolution of the old King>Nobles>Peasants formula, sustained by the fall of Church domination of every day life and the quite death of lineage and blue blood being a factor in determining your chances in life. The only thing that has changed is that a few wise-guys can get to the top by various means as long as they make money. The fact that you're now wasting time on your PC reading this instead of banging your hoes means that you'll never be one of those wise guys so what't the point in defending this system?

That's kinda interesting, considering that Marx and Engels never described how the ultimate communist society would look like.
The original tale of communism ends at the establishment of a ruling "worker's party of equals" after the "ruling class" has been driven out - peacefully or not.
Everything that came after that was left to the people themselves, and regardless of whether you like the ending they found or not, they were all communist tales from start to finish.

Well, Marx and Engels couldn't have envisioned the technological or scientific breakthrough or the world wars which have changed the meaning of imperialism. Maybe I shouldn't have used a Star Trek reference, as I've just recently seen the series. Living in an ex-communist state I have a pretty good idea of what went wrong there, but the rampant corruption that describes Romania these days and seeing it slowly but surely decade over 20 years have made me almost nostalgic. The evils of Communism are best described in Dostoevsky's book "The Possessed". 1984 is also an extreme version of Dostoevsky's vision. But we no longer in that "innocent" world. What changed me the most was watching the last two Zeitgeist movies. I did start to ask myself "could a world without currency work?". And then I saw Star Trek. What makes Star Trek's society work is the Replicator. Zeitgeist's idea of sharing a minimal but sufficient pool of things is as close as we can get to having a Replicator. When anyone can drive a Ferrari once a month or take pictures with a 10000 euro photo camera, when personal property only consists of achievement rewards for consistent work or contributions to society, people then are truly born with equal chances and maintain that chance throughout their lives. It's a perfect Communist state.

The ruling class then becomes just a bunch of responsible people working out of passion and based on their long time talent and work. It's kind of like the difference between a music celebrity making insane amounts of money for crap and a Youtube artist. Day by day, gadget by gadget, revolution by revolution we get closer and closer to a fork in the road. One leads to capitalist chaos, the other to a Zeitgeist-like utopia.

 

[Atmos Duality]

All the ad hominum aside:

It was meant as a musing, not a personal insult. "Free thinker" always sets of warnings when I see it now; courtesy of several years of dealing with self entitled pricks in real life who used the same title.

It's a personal bias of mine, and one that is hard to shake. I apologize if I offended you.

Firstly, I point to a society without a shared consciousness, so why do you include it in your reply? That was my reason for using the word hivemind.

I'm stating that even in an ideal communist environment, the human mind is and always will be an individual barring extreme (and probable genetic) changes in the long run. From the invention of Bartering, there are always those who feel insecure and thus inspires them to take advantage of others.

Secondly, you seem so certain when you say that people will always set aside the needs of others to satisfy their own needs.

The satisfaction you receive for assisting others is in itself a selfish reward mechanism.
It's less selfish than the alternatives, but still ultimately selfish.

You assume it could be bred out of human nature. Yet tell me, have you ever seen a child?
In the extreme long run, it's possible, but improbable.
Currently, their default modus-operandi is to be selfish even in the face of an entire childhood of experiences that teaches them to share for the greater good.

There is no certainty that people will always be so stupid to not realize that to ensure everyone's greatest satisfaction of needs is the same as ensuring your just satisfaction of needs. This is only logical, you can not deny it.

It is not logical to make any such assumptions of the future. As a meteorologist, I can tell you how uncertain the future can be just on a day-to-day basis.

And what are you to speak of security in a world of corruption and conflict? Is the chance to achieve material security at the expense of others' material security worth the inevitable insecurity of conflict?

My statement of capitalism's merits were simply that; a pragmatic statement. I never claimed them to be ideal (or even my ideal). I *wish* for a fair, objective, ethical world but that doesn't mean it will happen; especially while the status quo remains.

To assume that people will always be instinctive brutes is on the line with previously assuming that a person would never step on the moon.

I have thousands of years of history as my proof; you have nothing but assumptions of the future. This doesn't mean you will necessarily be wrong, but I find it hard to believe as realistic.

You are hindering Humanity just by saying that Humanity can never progress. If there is even the slightest chance to improve Humanity, we must take it. Any improvement we make will last thousands of years (if not, it was not a true improvement).

"Hindering Humanity"

Have you ever considered how many different forms of "Ideal" or "Evolution" (to borrow an overused term) are out there? Which particular flavor of Paradise do you wish for? How is it guaranteed to be "right"?

I've now seen many different flavors of "ideal". While I have my own, I also suspect that despite my best efforts it could be someone else's personal Hell simply by statistical law alone.

I state what is, not what I wished it was; Long since have I passed the line in believing that what I say or do means anything to anyone either now or later.

This is what separates me and you. I look and hypothesize thousands of years into the future, you barely look beyond your own retina.

Now you call me short-sighted, and by an extension of simple logic, perhaps imply that I'm stupid?
Eh, it doesn't matter.

I worry about what I can do today to effect tomorrow in whatever small or even insignificant capacity; not just what I wished tomorrow would be.
However, I never assume it will work out as I intend it to (reality is ever so quick to assert itself there as the last four years have proved); adjustments must always be made.

 

[IncredibleTurnip]

Is he still allowed to call his movies "documentaries"? It seems like in a world where Pringles got sued for calling their product "chips" he wouldn't be allowed to call his movies "documentaries".

 

[Kair]

There is no certainty that people will always be so stupid to not realize that to ensure everyone's greatest satisfaction of needs is the same as ensuring your just satisfaction of needs. This is only logical, you can not deny it.

It is not logical to make any such assumptions of the future. As a meteorologist, I can tell you how uncertain the future can be just on a day-to-day basis.

This is the most apparent fault in your logic. You say that you can not make assumptions of the future, and yet you make the assumption that humans can never progress to be rational and cooperative. What I was saying was that you should not be certain that today will be forever.

 

[Atmos Duality]

This is the most apparent fault in your logic. You say that you can not make assumptions of the future, and yet you make the assumption that humans can never progress to be rational and cooperative. What I was saying was that you should not be certain that today will be forever.

Humans can be rational and uncooperative; such is the design of our current state in capitalism. People use and betray others to get ahead, and they do profit greatly for this, while the whole in general fails.

In light of that evidence, my logic is quite firmly rooted in reality; I accept the possibility of humans changing to become more cooperative, but I do not accept it as inevitable nor as concrete "progress" (being unable to think for myself without reprieve sounds like Hell to me); especially with proofs that rely upon assumptions of the far future.

Until proof comes along that will change that, I cannot logically assume that what you say will happen, and so by logic the status-quo must remain. Projecting your prediction thousands of years into the future isn't proof in itself, it's merely wishful thinking. I on the other hand, have the proof of both recorded human history and the present.

However, I do acknowledge that my own prediction of the future isn't certain either. (you keep assuming that I am certain of the future; nothing in the future is certain, it's probable at best). It just has more objective evidence in its favor than yours.

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

I dunno, Jim seems more trustworthy to me.

I'll admit, this made me laugh.

How shitty does your show have to be when the best praise for it is "Well, at least you aren't Michael Moore"?

 

[Kair]

This is the most apparent fault in your logic. You say that you can not make assumptions of the future, and yet you make the assumption that humans can never progress to be rational and cooperative. What I was saying was that you should not be certain that today will be forever.

Humans can be rational and uncooperative; such is the design of our current state in capitalism. People use and betray others to get ahead, and they do profit greatly for this, while the whole in general fails.

In light of that evidence, my logic is quite firmly rooted in reality; I accept the possibility of humans changing to become more cooperative, but I do not accept it as inevitable nor as concrete "progress" (being unable to think for myself without reprieve sounds like Hell to me); especially with proofs that rely upon assumptions of the far future.

Until proof comes along that will change that, I cannot logically assume that what you say will happen, and so by logic the status-quo must remain. Projecting your prediction thousands of years into the future isn't proof in itself, it's merely wishful thinking. I on the other hand, have the proof of both recorded human history and the present.

However, I do acknowledge that my own prediction of the future isn't certain either. (you keep assuming that I am certain of the future; nothing in the future is certain, it's probable at best). It just has more objective evidence in its favor than yours.

The biggest difference between my argument and yours is that you believe your coherence with the scientific model makes your argument more valid. I on the other hand in my hypothesis do not treat humans as static objects in a scientific study, therefore any evidence of past human behaviour is not the standard for future human behaviour.

If you believe I am stupid for not assuming humans to be scientific objects, you might be wrong because I agree that today they are. All my focus lies in removing the humans from this state, effectively turning them Human.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The biggest difference between my argument and yours is that you believe your coherence with the scientific model makes your argument more valid.

Logic says what is and reality follows some sort of logic; we just cannot always see or process all the relevant variables in a timely manner. We are not omniscient after all.

That said, the rational prediction is always more valid than the irrational prediction; only entropy ("scientific chaos") prevents the rational prediction from beating the irrational prediction each and every time.
That is fact.

My argument *is* more valid; but I still accept it only as a possibility, not fact.

 

[oktalist]

However, another proven fact is that heterogeneous societies (meaning societies made up of several races and diverse socio-economic classes) are inherently unstable. This fact is also shown when looked at Europe. France is one of the most socially unstable nations in western Europe - if not in terms of crime and murder (although that is among the highest in Europe), than in terms of violent protests and other forms of extreme social movements. Germany, on the other hand, is one of the most stable, with a booming economy, a strong military, and a very patriotic population. the difference? France's population is among the most heterogeneous in Europe, where as Germany basically outlawed all immigration to purposefully stay homogeneous.

That may be your perception or intuition, but perception and intuition are fallible and if you say something is a proven fact you better have some proof that can stand up to scientific scrutiny, something better than the anecdotal evidence you have provided.

Your assertion that France has one of the highest crime rates in Europe is way off, according to this EU study [http://www.europeansafetyobservatory.eu/downloads/EUICS%20-%20The%20Burden%20of%20Crime%20in%20the%20EU.pdf]. France has a slightly lower crime rate than Germany, but both are below the average. France spends more on its military than Germany, at $61bn versus Germany's $47bn (source [http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/080424-chao-europeandefense.pdf]). Germany's GDP per capita is only 1.7% higher than France's (source [http://www.geohive.com/charts/ec_gdppc.aspx]). You can't prove a point just by pointing to one example like that when there are hundreds of other variables and possible causes and effects to consider.

When you say Germany has outlawed immigration, what you really mean is that the German government has outlawed immigration. This Dutch study [http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=81704] says there is very little correlation between government immigration policy and the attitude of the people to different cultures. "Considerable changes in immigration policy were not accompanied by a preceding, concurrent, or consequent change in public support for multiculturalism."

Historically, Germany was just as multicultural as France, if not moreso, as it was created from a federation of smaller distinct states circa 1870, whereas France has existed in more or less the same shape since the 1600s.

I have collected some data on U.S. states here [https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AshGoqCV5Z5AdExpX1c0Q092UWk0QUtXc2lVQUtXbEE] (because data on U.S. states is more widely available) comparing GDP, crime rates, multiculturalism, ancestry, immigration, race relations and suchlike indicators, which appear to show that there is no significant correlation between socio-economic stability and homogeneity of culture. (Sources: US Census [http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DatasetMainPageServlet?_program=ACS], US Revenue [http://usgovernmentrevenue.com/state_rev_summary.php?chart=Z0&year=2009] and FBI [http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009])

Also, I don't believe Canada is any less culturally diverse than the USA.

Then you have America, which is the most ethnically diverse nation in the world. It's not just a story of browns, blacks, and whites - irish, germans, and greeks all have cultural differences too. Even if you were to outlaw guns in the US, you'd likely only marginally effect the murder rate meanwhile domestic violence rates would skyrocket (the marginal lowering of murder being taken and added to a marginal increase in domestic violence).

You can't use the word skyrocket to describe a marginal increase.

For the record, I am supportive of responsible gun ownership, within reason.

I will end with a couple of gems from this paper [http://journals.sfu.ca/tesl/index.php/tesl/article/viewFile/431/262] that I found, from a Canadian teachers' journal:

[small]The notion that if people would just get to know each other they would be friends and all would be well is as dangerous as it is sentimental. The fact is that we must learn to get along with people who are different culturally, physically, and in their patterns of behaviour, for they are likely to stay that way for a long time. In short, we must learn to get along with them whether we like them or not. It is not enough to know that people are different, but rather we much understand why those differences are there.

Bigotry is one of those sadly degraded and misunderstood words in the English language. To be a bigot describes someone who adheres to one idea to the exclusion of all others. In the teaching profession we have bigots who believe "open areas" are superior to "closed classrooms"; "x" reading system is superior to "y"; "corporal punishment" is the be preferred over "psychological control". Bigots live in a black and white world and belief in one thing forever excludes others. Their way is right so why should not other people be forced to conform? This is a most human reaction to any question or problem.[/small]

 

[Kair]

The biggest difference between my argument and yours is that you believe your coherence with the scientific model makes your argument more valid.

Logic says what is and reality follows some sort of logic; we just cannot always see or process all the relevant variables in a timely manner. We are not omniscient after all.

That said, the rational prediction is always more valid than the irrational prediction; only entropy ("scientific chaos") prevents the rational prediction from beating the irrational prediction each and every time.
That is fact.

My argument *is* more valid; but I still accept it only as a possibility, not fact.

Humanists constantly argue that Humans override all possibility in favour of will.

 

[Olikunmissile]

Michael Moore is about as legitimate a documentary maker as an amnesiac chinchilla named Jim.

His brother Joe though. Man his stuff brings tears to my eyes.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Humanists constantly argue that Humans override all possibility in favour of will.

Humanists can argue against reality all they want; reality always wins.

 

[Kair]

Humanists constantly argue that Humans override all possibility in favour of will.

Humanists can argue against reality all they want; reality always wins.

And by your logic that we are not sentient enough to enforce will, your view of reality is an irrelevant illusion.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Snip

Listen to me.
Most kids in America do absolutely nothing. They don't do homework, practice an instrument, read or anything else - they hang out with their friends.
I had the same thing in Israel and I did community service.

It was glorious.

I must tell you that I would have never known about the veterans club that I had in the neighborhood. I spent hours there, even after I've done my community service.
I've also joined a group unlike scouts, where you travel Israel, learn about it and then guide other smaller students in various trips. Spectacular.
You're wrong. When you force your kid to do homework, you are taking away his freedom!
You see that? You could apply it to everything on parenting. Children NEED this badly, the current youth in america is rotten. I learned it from a few friends I keep that live in Florida, N. York and California.

I didn't say anything on about forcing children to do homework is taking away their freedom. Taking normal school work home as homework is just fine, because that is expected because is for general education. Now making children perform community services is not right. Community service is a charitable act (Helping at a shelter, a soup kitchen, or spending time with the elderly, etc. etc.). If children are given an ultimatum to do these things, that they can't graduate from high school if they don't participate in it, it is wrong because it is forced charity. Charity is something that should be given of free will, if my future kids wants to just go home and live their lives and spend their time how they want and care just about themselves and immediate family and friends, then they should be able to do that, without the government coming in and slapping their wrists and saying that what they are doing is somehow bad social behavior.

I guarantee that if Obama get's his way with the forced community service for graduation and it become federal law, there will be quite a few if not most states that will be enacting state laws that override and suspend it so that it doesn't apply to them.

The whole rotten youth thing is always blown out of proportion. The friends that you keep in touch with must be blind on some things, and can't possibly take a full account because they definitely don't know what every single kid in their states do.

I have friends that have much younger siblings and from what I gather, there isn't much of a change in standards of what students were like in my day in high school and now.

First off there will always be certain groups in schooling(high school):


There will be a group of kids that don't do homework and eventually just disappear off the radar and end up with minimum wage jobs if they can get them, somebody has to do those jobs.

There are the jocks that get away with everything and skate by with minimal grades while playing sports, some do go to college some how and makes something of themselves, some end up minimum wagers, and some possibly become professional athletes.

There are the ditzy clicks of girls that get by on their looks, some go off to make something of themselves some don't.

There are the nerds that are the brains of the school and will get perfect grades for the most part and go off to the good colleges if they have the money or some kind of college if they don't.

There are the middle of the line people(like I was), that are good at some things bad at others and some go to college and some don't. Some, like me don't, know what the heck they really want to do until they are at college and they truly get to explore what kind of classes and paths they can take.

--------------
Side note: One thing that high school teachers did when I was in high school, and I hear that they still do it now, they constantly threaten students when students complain about work loads, by saying that college is ten times worse. College is worse, college is worse. I willing to bet that has scared some students away from attempting to go to college.

The reason that high school teachers need to stop doing that is because it is false. From my college experience, it was much easier than high school. In college, I had fewer class hours and days in the week, and I had half as much sometimes less school work in college than I did in high school.
--------------

But to wrap this up, as much as people feel certain things have to be done to "save" the children and set them straight, no amount of forcing and poking them into doing things is going to help all of them. There will always be a certain amount that don't succeed, and if the government starts wrongfully enforcing and adding things to the school curriculum, there is more of a chance of the new requirements screwing up and turning off children, then it will help them. It is just too much of a risk to be taken. Besides as I have pointed out, community service has no place in the school curriculum. It will bloat up an already over bloated school schedule and life schedule for students.

The problem with schools in the US is that the solution to kids not doing well in school is "more".

Bad test scores, more tests, and more test preparing. Kids not doing well in Math, more homework an English, more homework and classwork in English. That happens as well with each other subject, and since there is always be one subject that some students aren't doing as well in, the cycle repeats and more is added without taking anything away and seeing what is the real problem.

Oh no, the kids are getting fat, more Physical Education. We need more class time for kids, so lets start making recesses or brakes in between classes smaller. Oh no, kids again not getting enough exercise again(they don't realize this is because of the shorter or removed recess), let's add more P.E.

What school need to do is learn the phrase, less is more. If they just looked at the quality of the work that is being taught and managed it to only the concepts that will truly be needed, then things would be much better.

Edit: The trend that was going on when I was in high school and I betting it has continued now, the work load is increasing. What they don't see is the reason that students are completing their homework less and less, is that they have so much homework that not everyone of them has the capacity in them to deal with that much each night.

I know when I was in high school there was some work that didn't get done because I would end up on close to most nights with homework in every subject and each subject's work to at least two hours to complete.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

It is not logical to make any such assumptions of the future. As a meteorologist, I can tell you how uncertain the future can be just on a day-to-day basis.

This is the most apparent fault in your logic. You say that you can not make assumptions of the future, and yet you make the assumption that humans can never progress to be rational and cooperative. What I was saying was that you should not be certain that today will be forever.

And by your logic that we are not sentient enough to enforce will, your view of reality is an irrelevant illusion.

There is a big side picture in what you are trying to rationalize in your conversation, and it shoots down your comments.

The better assumption, though it is really more a truth of humans, is that humans will never progress to be 100% rational and cooperative.

The reason: There are too many variables in what each person is going to be like, personality and such.

I like to think we are sentient enough that we know that we shouldn't enforce will upon the people.

In order to get a world where everybody is 100% rational(but what really is rational) and cooperative, the governing body would have to enforce everything with a zero tolerance policy for any offense even if it isn't a criminal act and just an act that goes against the norm of "accepted" behavior. Plus, since in even such a society there would still be dissenters and revolutions, in order to remove that, the people in power would have to run a genetic program where every person is genetically programed with like-mindedness to everybody else to be 100% cooperative.

The thing is, such forcing of will is wrong. If a people don't do anything that is truly criminal and as such aren't breaking any proper laws, those people should be able to live their lives how they want and not have to answer to the/a government for anything or forced to do something if the government deems it needed because it is "for the good of the whole of society". If people just want to live their lives and not contribute anything really helpful to society, then that is their prerogative and the/a government has no right to force those people to do stuff to better society.

 

[android88]

Watch Inside Job. It's much better.

 

[Kair]

It is not logical to make any such assumptions of the future. As a meteorologist, I can tell you how uncertain the future can be just on a day-to-day basis.

This is the most apparent fault in your logic. You say that you can not make assumptions of the future, and yet you make the assumption that humans can never progress to be rational and cooperative. What I was saying was that you should not be certain that today will be forever.

And by your logic that we are not sentient enough to enforce will, your view of reality is an irrelevant illusion.

There is a big side picture in what you are trying to rationalize in your conversation, and it shoots down your comments.

The better assumption, though it is really more a truth of humans, is that humans will never progress to be 100% rational and cooperative.

The reason: There are too many variables in what each person is going to be like, personality and such.

I like to think we are sentient enough that we know that we shouldn't enforce will upon the people.

In order to get a world where everybody is 100% rational(but what really is rational) and cooperative, the governing body would have to enforce everything with a zero tolerance policy for any offense even if it isn't a criminal act and just an act that goes against the norm of "accepted" behavior. Plus, since in even such a society there would still be dissenters and revolutions, in order to remove that, the people in power would have to run a genetic program where every person is genetically programed with like-mindedness to everybody else to be 100% cooperative.

The thing is, such forcing of will is wrong. If a people don't do anything that is truly criminal and as such aren't breaking any proper laws, those people should be able to live their lives how they want and not have to answer to the/a government for anything or forced to do something if the government deems it needed because it is "for the good of the whole of society". If people just want to live their lives and not contribute anything really helpful to society, then that is their prerogative and the/a government has no right to force those people to do stuff to better society.

You will find that accepted behaviour among enlightened individuals is far more inclusive than what you imagine a cooperative society to be.

The chained society you think Communism is, is ironically what your society has lead you to believe. While you lash out against Communism because you think it is a social prison, it is in fact the social prison that has lead you to believe that.

 

[Gearran]

I know that I am not an animal after years of reflection, so I assume as much for everyone else that they can also learn not to be an animal.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You are an animal, as is every other human being. Hundreds of years of science has proved that.

So, fortunately, even your 'enlightened' communism will never happen.

1) If we are all animals, all morality and thought is void. Believing you are an animal turns you into an animal. Trying hard enough to be a Human turns you into a Human. We distinguish between sentient and non-sentient for a reason.

2) The suggested impotence of Humanity is not fortunate. I know you are influenced by popular opinion to say such things, but I still know I must correct you on it in case it might help.

Being an animal and being nonsentient are not the same things. "Animal" is a classification that means "we aren't plants or rocks." We are "sentient" because we are capable of forming high-level brain functions like complex emotions, logic, and abstract thought, not because we aren't "animals."
After reading your definition of communism, I'm afraid to say that, without significant artificial modification of human behavior (like wide-spread lobotomy), such a social construct will never come to pass (and, in my humble opinion, good riddance). Your argument hinges around the concept of "enlightenment," which you say means treating humans as peers and all working toward a common goal. You also point out that this is not a hivemind.

This is incorrect.

The classic definition of hive mind is a society/group in which all members work toward a common ideal with no competition, variation, or individuality, for the good of "the whole." Human behavior is distinctly anathema to this construct (and, by your own definition, to Communism) because, while we do form societies, we are also individuals within a group. Each person follows his or her own goals, needs, desires, and fears, which (almost invariably) may work against another person's goals, needs, etc. This means we are a fractious, conflict-prone species, but it also means that we will continue to advance as individuals and as a people. Thankfully, there are no hiveminds in existence today (with the possible exception of North Korea). Your "enlightenment" seems to be a destruction of the "self" in humanity, tying all individuals into a cohesive whole while destroying their individuality (at the risk of being sensationalist, you want us to become the Borg). And while the end of conflict may be a nice dream to reach for, the price that you're asking is far too high. I'll pass and keep being, as you put it, an "animal."

OT: I can honestly say I'm not interested in seeing what Michael Moore has to say because, while he was successful once, he's let that fame and popularity go to his head and fuel his own personal delusions. While he may have a point, I'm not going to waste my time sifting through his latest tangle of propaganda, shock-hunting, and inconsistencies to find that little nugget of truth. I'd rather use my own brain and deal with issues I can perceive and combat, instead of succumbing to the sensationalism and reactionary fear/outrage that he craves.

I use classical views on Human and Animal for this discussion.
Hivemind has an emphasis on the 'mind' part. It makes more sense to assume it is a collective mind. If you do not wish to define it this way, we should find a better word to use.

And it makes me frustrated when you say that to produce enlightened Humans you need lobotomy. It did not require lobotomy to enlighten me, nor the thousands of free thinkers before me.

In truth, one of the more important reasons we can't progress towards Communism now is because people keep inventing new reasons not to. It's like I am constantly telling people to go get the mail but they say things like "No, it might rain outside", "My roommate/spouse/family member won't do it, so why should I?" and "I'll let someone else do it.", which are all stupid reasons to people who see things objectively. Yes, it is this ridiculous how people will not work towards the future of Humanity.

What people should instead be realizing is "By saying these stupid things I am creating a self-fulfilling loop of impotence.". It is that important, by saying stupid things you make the lives of millions of people yet to be born a lot worse. Just like people 100 years before you made your life worse by not standing up to the church.

The Classical Animal/Human view is considered to be obsolete and outdated.

Hive mind and collective mind are the same thing; both are used to describe a single ruling mind controlling several semi-autonomous physical entities. It'd be nice to find a "better" word, but I think this still fits what you're trying to describe.

I was being admittedly sensationalist when I used wide-spread lobotomy as an example, but it does illustrate my point. To get the sort of selfless dedication to a greater cause that you champion, you have to enact a wide-reaching and extensive alteration of the basic fundamentals of human nature to create the effect you want. Perhaps this view I've taken is because you haven't really explained what your "Enlightenment" means, what such a thought structure is, or how to gain such a status.

The big problem with your argument about people inventing reasons not to become Communist (aside from the fact that Communism is like quantum physics; it only works on a very small scale) is that what you're talking about isn't getting one or two people to "get the mail" or "take out the trash," it's getting an entire nation of millions of people - or an entire SPECIES of BILLIONS - to agree. Have you ever tried to get six people in a car to agree on where to get lunch? Much less even a small town to agree on anything without hours/days of argument, counterargument, and the occasional drunken fistfight. All in all, it swings back around to my "changing human nature" point earlier.