Poll: Who are the most important members of society?

[Muspelheim]

All of them, basically. None of them are useless. Of course, balance, interaction and restriction between them all is key. It all needs to lock together.

Civilization is a team effort, yo. We need everyone.

 

[otakon17]

Where are the builders? Where are the workers? We wouldn't have SHIT without the foundation that they set.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

This may well be a dick choice, but none of the above. I don't believe that anyone is more important than anyone else in society- except children. I suppose by that measure I should be going with educators (if I have to pick) as they're preparing our children for the future.

 

[New Frontiersman]

There really should be an "other" option, because I would say the most important members of any society are the people who make or gather the food, you know the stuff we need to live. This holds true from every type of society from sedentary, communal, hunter-gatherer, tribal, or "modern." Everything in your list is pretty much optional, without food though we all die.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Can political leaders really do all these things?

Yes

They make science possible?

Yes

Are they gods or men?

Men, why would you even think otherwise?

Did a politician tell Faraday to invent the electric motor, or did he do it on his own?

Nope and nope, he used the collected intellectual work of dozens of inventors prior to him like Allessandro Volta, Hans Christian Oersted, William Sturgeon. People don't sit down and then just magically come up with entire inventions on their own. Stop living in a cartoon world. Also Moritz Jacobi invented the first electric motor so uh.....

If your question is did he give a valuable contribution to the creation of said motor then sure. As did all the other scientists. As did the baker who lived down the street and made Faraday's bread. As did the leader.

The leader(s) who founded and put a government mandate on the East India Company that ensured a lot of the British wealth that drove down prices that put bread on Faraday's table that allowed him to buy lab equipment that got oil and allowed him to discover benzine. The leaders that provided the economic impetus to create libraries to research from. The leaders that inducted him into the Royal society that gave him a network of information and colleagues to aid in his research.

They can build galleries or is that the construction worker?

On their own? No. Construction workers have never just stood around and been like LETS MAKE A BUILDING. They are commissioned by private enterprise or public institution. Usually in the case of a gallery, public. They then bring in a person called an architect and another called an engineer. These are usually people taught their craft by public institutions, usually with financial assistance from the government, and do extra research in public libraries. All set up and fostered by the government, effected most heavily by whatever leader is in charge.

And would the artists not paint without being told to do so?

Plenty of them don't in countries like North Korea for fear of reprisals from the leaders of that country. Plenty of them don't in Iraq for fear of reprisals because the leaders can't secure their safety. That's why Acrassicauda got the hell out of there.

Are humanitarians not harassed by the lower classes as well?

No I'm pretty sure the lower classes don't ever hire a few dozen cossacks and send them to burn down parts of Leo Tolstoy's estate to prevent themselves(the lower classes) from being educated. That makes no sense. And no, I'm pretty sure I've never heard of the lower classes becoming agent provocateurs to break up peaceful protests. Again, that makes no sense, no one is going to throw themselves in jail and ruin their own fucking lives to effect a minor intellectual victory.

Can the soldiers not protect the nation without being specifically directed to do so?

Soldiers don't protect nations, they protect governments. And ignoring that, no they really absolutely suck on their own. The Iraqi 'soldiers' who aren't led by an overarching single command structure kill, like... a single American soldier for every five thousand or so they lose.

Is it really the leader that makes all these things possible

More than anyone else. Yes.

Thus making them, the most important. They are the lynchpin that holds everything together.

The mongolian's didn't conquer the second largest swath of land in history because they had the best soldiers. They didn't siege and destroy cities because of their great engineers. They didn't have free religion because the priests were great. They had all of that because their leaders recognized and fostered the exact things they needed to succeed. Chingis Khan set them on the path to freedom of religion. Chingis saw the value of the engineers, brought them into his military force, used them to train his men. Chingis led those extremely few soldiers he had in battles of indirect warfare because he was smart enough to win by not engaging directly. Qubilai saw the value of banking systems and made paper money an actual widely used thing. Qubilai liked poetry, and under the Yuan Dynasty it flourished.

When the Nazis invaded the rest of Europe they didn't have an innate sense of superiority. It was fostered by Adolf Hitler and a few other German leaders. They didn't have massive weapons manufacturing because their workers sat down and said, hey lets just build a bunch of guns. They did so because the leaders told them to do so. The Kristallnacht was not spontaneously done by the SA, it happened because a few leaders planned and executed the whole event. Art didn't become all about racial superiority and the German right to rule the world at random, leaders executed artists who said any differently. They didn't have the best science in the world because scientists randomly found money and laboratories lying around in the streets, they were hired by the leaders.

The right leader can make or break a country. They can found NASA, hire all the scientists and put a man on the moon inspiring generations of children to learn physics and math. They can order the Great Leap Forward and get tens of millions killed and destroy some of the intellectual heritage of their own artists.

Their decisions don't just affect scientists. They don't just affect artists. They affect every single group in profound ways.

 

[Mazza35]

I believe when you boil down a civilisation to it's basic needs and I guess step back to a basic one place v the world.
The soldiers are the ones who create a wall around everyone else, allowing them to proceed with whatever, from doctors treating people to scientist inventing shit

 

[Vegosiux]

Okay since this is a gaming forum, let me put it thusly:

Which is the most important part of your computer? The CPU? The GPU? The motherboard? The PSU? The hard drive? The memory?

You're likely going to answer whichever would cause you most inconvenience if it malfunctioned. But take any of those out, and you're left with an expensive paperweight.

Same with the society, really.

 

[Frission]

/snip

This is subjective. Many man can lead, but they still need good followers. I wouldn't use Nazi Germany either if I was you. It's a very fascist point of view to attribute all progress to a big brother entity.

EDIT: Leaders can also be little mayors and councilman. You're giving the example of only the greatest leaders. The greatest artist can inspire revolution and topple regimes or inspire generations of human beings. The greatest scientist can create a great leap forward in human understanding. Great soldiers break empires and great teachers continue to spread their knowledge long after their death.

OT: This is from some comic called saturday morning breakfast cereal. It illustrates how pointless is to say who has the most important role.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130415.gif

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

This is subjective. Many man can lead, but they still need good followers.

And the best leaders are the ones who are good at ferreting out talent and promoting it. Another leadership skill.

I wouldn't use Nazi Germany either if I was you. It's a very fascist point of view to attribute all progress to a big brother entity.

You're not me. And who cares what's fascist or not. Debate merits, not definitions.

No one is attributing everything to one person. It's a question of who is most important to society.

EDIT: Leaders can also be little mayors and councilman.

"The world leaders."

Are mayors world leaders? Then they aren't relevant to the OP discussion.

You're giving the example of only the greatest leaders.

Extreme examples bring clarity.

The greatest artist can inspire revolution and topple regimes or inspire generations of human beings.

What artist toppled a regime? Ever.

I have literally never heard of any revolution where people went "oh man did you see that guys sculpture? lets overthrow the government." Unless you're counting Savonarola thinking art in general sucked so hard that he just had to burn it. And that's more bible inspired than artist by far.

The greatest scientist can create a great leap forward in human understanding.

Again, dictators and presidents make it even possible.

Do you think that Africa is just full of idiots who can't create anything or advance science at all? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe the warlords everywhere fighting, none strong enough to take control, have something to do with it? And those that do take control become hugely corrupt and sell their people down the river. Do you think that the leaders who sign different documents causing medicine to be available in Africa have something to do with it? Do you think that the failure of their leaders to reinvest into technology and education that allows their people to learn and become great scientists has something to do with it?

Leaders foster countries and create everything necessary for those scientists to do anything. Shitty leaders ram their countries into the ground and all the brilliant people die of aids, machetes, and no food.

Great soldiers break empires

Great soldiers are promoted and placed in charge by the great leaders. Subutai didn't stumble his way into becoming a general. Did Caesar just randomly appoint Agrippa? When the US Civil War broke out Lincoln and Davis both came to Robert E Lee and offered him the high command. But when Lincoln failed to get the man he wanted he appointed McClellan to the task, a man singularly unsuited. Was it McClellan's failure to break the south because he wasn't a good general? Or was it Lincoln's as a leader because he didn't pick a good general.

great teachers continue to spread their knowledge long after their death.

Sure, like in the library of Alexandria, created by commission of Ptolemy. And later destroyed by Caesar.

OT: This is from some comic called saturday morning breakfast cereal. It illustrates how pointless is to say who has the most important role.

That isn't OT at all. "random shit" is not a member of society. Is there a person named random shit? Or is it a club you're talking about?

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I would put workers in there, without people that hash everything out, do all the work, fix all the stuff, and generally lay the groundwork for EVERYONE ELSE, you simple do not have a society.

Everyone from loggers, to plumbers, to electricians, to fucking anyone who does work required for things to keep going, they are the people who gain the most respect from me.

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

The most important people are industrial and agricultural laborers.

 

[Salus]

I want to interject that I didn't make this thread because I believe that one group is more important than the other.

On the contrary, the basis for the thread is how strange (to me) the varying levels of respect we give to people in society.

I understand how you can like what someone does, but there's a BIG gulf between agreeing with someone's politics and treating them like a demigod. Like, if you spill ketchup on the President's shirt, you are always going to be known as "the guy who spilled ketchup on the President's shirt," or if you say that ANY contemporary musician is/was better than Mozart, people just stop listening to you, even people who know next to nothing about Mozart.

In the same vein, why does a person feel different in the following scenario: There is a fancy dinner, with people of all callings and races gathered around, giving speeches on their profession. The people at table A are: a doctor, an engineer, an Oscar-winning actor, a champion pro gamer, the president of France, a cook, a sultan, and you.

Now, you CANNOT tell me that the power dynamics of this table aren't governed by arbitrary rules set up by society. Do we value the people that contribute the most? The job of an actor is to be an awesome pretender. By that mark, the cook should get "more respect," but it's harder to be a doctor, so that honor goes to him, but oops, Sultan gets that one, even though he didn't do sh** to be a Sultan other than be born into the right family. That doesn't stop you from stifling your laugh at his fart. The person you're most likely to go out for a beer with later is, usually, the person you're brave enough to ask, likely not the Oscar-winning actor.

Just curious about these things.

 

[Lorpo]

The most important people are industrial and agricultural laborers.

I'm going to go with this view, long before any of the others existed there were farmers and labourers. The world would keep turning without the others, sure we might all die a lot earlier and be a lot dumber though.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

While there are many important, even vital groups that contribute to society, none of them would be capable of doing their jobs unless someone taught them to do it in the first place. Educators are the most important, without people who pass their knowledge on to the next generations this society wouldn't get very far.

 

[Drathnoxis]

Are they gods or men?

Men, why would you even think otherwise?

It's just to be the ones who make science possible they would have to be gods and have written the laws of the universe

Did a politician tell Faraday to invent the electric motor, or did he do it on his own?

Nope and nope, he used the collected intellectual work of dozens of inventors prior to him like Allessandro Volta, Hans Christian Oersted, William Sturgeon. People don't sit down and then just magically come up with entire inventions on their own. Stop living in a cartoon world. Also Moritz Jacobi invented the first electric motor so uh.....

If your question is did he give a valuable contribution to the creation of said motor then sure. As did all the other scientists. As did the baker who lived down the street and made Faraday's bread. As did the leader.

The leader(s) who founded and put a government mandate on the East India Company that ensured a lot of the British wealth that drove down prices that put bread on Faraday's table that allowed him to buy lab equipment that got oil and allowed him to discover benzine. The leaders that provided the economic impetus to create libraries to research from. The leaders that inducted him into the Royal society that gave him a network of information and colleagues to aid in his research.

I never implied that Faraday just suddenly came up with the idea for an electric motor (which he invent [http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfaraday.htm]) on his own without all of the research and cumulative work of past scientists, just that he didn't spend years and years on his work because of a government mandate, nor did many of the other inventors of ground breaking technology.

I think I may have gotten a little carried away with the rhetorical questions though. My point was that a leader cannot do anything on their own, they glean their importance off of the countless individuals that make up the country that they run. A leader cannot actually do any of the things that you stated, they can only demand that things be done, but whether or not these things are actually done and in what quality is up to the people who actually do the work. If you were to suddenly poof the president of the United States out of existence that wouldn't mean the end of the country. In fact, for the majority of the population life would simply continue on as usual. A leader cannot exist without it's people but the people can very well exist without their leader, so who is really the most important? (Dammit, another rhetorical question!)

However, as others stated this question is pointless because for society to run efficiently requires all it's components to be working together and begins to fall apart when one part is removed. I'm just saying that if you remove the top of a pyramid the destruction will not be nearly as complete as if you had removed the middle or bottom; it may not be exactly a pyramid anymore, but it's still standing.

 

[Frission]

/snip

I do hate it when people cut posts like this. It's not good debating since it sometimes focuses on key points instead of the whole argument, but very well.

The problem is that I could say that a good leader is worth nothing if he's on deserted island and it would be just as intellectually honest as stating that nothing would have been done without world leaders, as if they were the ones who built all infrastructure instead of just being someone on the rudder.
Your whole argument rests on the assumption that since leaders can cause the most damage, they're the most important.
This assumption is flawed, since the logical conclusion is that if the farmer was bad at his job everyone would starve and that would the end of society. Or that without parents there are no more kids and thus no new generation.

We're not speaking of a single individual having influence, but a group.
There are no members of society more important than others. That is my argument.

In fact, the whole categorization of world leader is ignorant since leaders aren't just something that happen on the very top. Leadership is a process that happens at all levels of organizations. Even making a separate distinction of "world leader" is fundamentally flawed.

__________

Why do you also bring out random historical "facts" then try to jam them into your specific argument?

You're deliberately ridiculing all forms of culture. Think for a moment.

I could use the extreme example of the whole enlightenment or the very idea of equality and human rights. How many revolutions or wars do you think those caused? Or the fact that culture define people and they're what give society identity. It's an extreme example, but I find it odd that so many people here seem to ignore the arts.

The problems in Africa can be attributed to factors, like rampant poverty, poor infrastructure, disease and starvation partly due to drought and political instability. What point did you want to make with Africa? That it's not the best system for scientists? Of course it isn't. It's not the most conductive place for anything but warlords and they're certainly not improving the situation are they? If anything this would be an example against strong leaders being the most useful. Are you arguing instead that leaders are the most important because they can cause the most damage?

( In fact the best people in Africa are the humanitarians).

Where did I even say that Africa were full of idiots? Some of the best members of my field are African.

Caesar also got into power via a bloody coup and I recall the "world leader panel" stating something about dictators. You're rhetorical questions about the civil war and who is to blame means nothing. In this case the better general lost, but it has more to do with the North being richer and having a greater industrial capacity, than anything about who was leading at the time.

The whole point about Alexandria does not mean anything. I could say that is was in a library built by a bunch of workers with plans designed by architects and stones cut by masons. Ptolemy was no more vital than the worker.
What was the other point about Caesar? That paper burns and knowledge is lost in brutality? Pythagoras was killed by a roman soldier and that didn't make his contributions any less important. Alot of the Egyptian kingdom is gone, but the findings of Pythagoras remain.

On the final topic of the picture, I'll ask if you're seeing the trees without seeing the forest. The point is not a literal interpretation of a group called "random shit". It shows how pointless it is to try to attribute events to people in history. The greatest for history here is "random shit". Chaos, luck, uncontrollable circumstances or random events if you want a better more elegant term.

EDIT: An added part of humor of is that both boxes keep on yelling "I'm the most important", because at the end of the day, that's what the argument boils down to.

EDIT EDIT: Your viewpoint works too. However I wanted to point out that your justifications for why leaders are better are just as shaky as for other members of society.

 

[Frission]

I want to interject that I didn't make this thread because I believe that one group is more important than the other.

Than put an option for the worker or the no one is more important option. Here's a easy way to fix any grievances with your poll.

EDIT: I don't mean to come out as aggressive, but the question is too subjective. There are no clear answers and perhaps a change of wording to "who do you think is the most important member of society" instead of "who are the most important member of society" would get better results.

 

[ThreeName]

Plumbers and other tradies. That doctor ain't gonna build your house or fit your pipes for sanitation.

BLUE COLLAR DOES EVERYTHING

 

[Frission]

Plumbers and other tradies. That doctor ain't gonna build your house or fit your pipes for sanitation.

BLUE COLLAR DOES EVERYTHING

What about the internal plumbing?

Actually I remember seeing this before.

<youtube=uTuK79rgrjY>

Sorry for being crass.


I guess this solves the question about doctors vs plumbers.

 

[Salus]

I want to interject that I didn't make this thread because I believe that one group is more important than the other.

Than put an option for the worker or the no one is more important option. Here's a easy way to fix any grievances with your poll.

EDIT: I don't mean to come out as aggressive, but the question is too subjective. There are no clear answers and perhaps a change of wording to "who do you think is the most important member of society" instead of "who are the most important member of society" would get better results.

There are only 8 slots in the poll, I had to cut a lot of options already.

Honestly I knew how many ways the question could be taken before I posted the thread, perhaps it was a mistake, seeing as things are heating up. I was more curious as to the "aura" that society puts on certain people than an actual "determination" of who's "best." If you know me you'd know I'm completely disinterested in such subjective labeling.