This is an opinion piece. It is an informed opinion, but it is opinion. Those with differing opinions or ideas, please chime in.
There are incessant wars. There is famine. There is suffering. There are those who cause suffering. There is religion. Superstition. Bigotry. Prejudice. Homophobia. Xenophobia. In sum, there are problems in our species. Always problems.
What's the real problem? We must protect ourselves from them. Who is 'them'? Who is the 'us' we like to talk about?
Okay, I've read more than I need of the comments in public media. I've listened to comments made on radio and television. I've heard comments on the streets of many different countries. All the comments have been banging on the tree and its branches, but no one has gone at the roots. The species homo goes back 3+ million years. During its rise from arboreal animal to the land creature it is today its thinking processes were being formed.
A long long time ago, the 'us and them' mindset was highly beneficial to the survival of the group. Early man existed in small groups of interdependent individuals. Each member needed the others for its survival, thus group thinking was formed early in our history. Only cohesive groups made up of cooperating individuals survived.
Out of our history was formed the notions of 'sovereignty' that we have today. The United States, Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. are overgrown clans and each of them views themselves in an existential struggle in opposition to all the others (admittedly generalized). There is no other reasonable way to explain borders. There is no other way to explain wars. There are the 'I want what you have' and the 'you can't have what we have' factions. The 'my god is better than your god' and the 'all other gods are false gods' groups. So it goes from group to group.
Nation states are themselves made up of smaller but still too large 'like-minded' groups (tribes) that quite naturally consider their collective whole as being in an existential battle with 'the others'. There is no other way to explain the conflict between religions, sects of the same religion, political parties, states, counties, cities, races, etc. other than a group think that we have carried over from a time when it was important into a time when it is a mill stone hanging from our collective neck.
Finally, we wind up realizing that this is a paradigm that has been rigidly set and that the problem is ALL of humanity -- not just one group or another. Further, each mind is its own world and it is not infrequent that that world is in trouble with itself. It is difficult to know what will bring any one mind to its ultimate tipping/breaking point when it acts out against perceived existential threats.
We desperately need to break the hold that tribal/group/clan thinking has on us if we are ever to solve anything. We need to do this before we kill our planet because of it. Before we kill our species -- the only known intelligence in our Universe. There may be others, but we can't rely on that. I am one who thinks this precious intelligence is worth preserving and perpetuating, but I am also reasonably certain that if this vicious paradigm is not broken, we will not survive.
We need to make that leap from small group thinking to species wide thinking. To accept all as members of the same group. To understand that the most detrimental thing to our advancement and ultimate survival is us operating in this current destructive paradigm.
Last sentence edited because of the observation made by @josephr that the original wording was self contradictory -- and it was. Shame on me.
4
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Respectfully, your opinion is naive in that it ignores the impact of economics. Follow the money, you know why something works. What we call civilization began as humans began to acquire surplus, ie crops. Nations formed because Lords and city-states were no longer able to gather enough resources to fight wars, which are always about money. Yes there is a lot of noise and complication, but understand the first-principle root cause.
Mitch07102
Level 8
June 16, 2018
0
There is some question about the original direction of humans. Nostic scriptures depict an equality not known in other religions. Sadly this was squashed and a decidedly male dominated structure took over. It is a power struggle with currancy at the basis and the male ruling everything. Women have worked hard in many countries to be more than second class citizens, I guess that's were I see hope but it sure has not been easy.
@Mitch07102 -- Economics is part of the paradigm that must be addressed. Far from naive here. It is important to know that the means of exchange is a result of our thinking and not a cause. That 'yours/mine -- us/them' paradigm is what brought the notion of exchange of value for value into being and the size of the community led to the more portable exchange units we call money. The idea of trade itself is a result of that 'yours/mine' process. There is a branch of cultural anthropology that might surprise you. It deals specifically with the economics in culture.
Individualism
For most of human history this was a evolutionary advantage
At this point, willfully ignoring the needs of the community,with 7 fucking billion people, is cutting off your nose to spite your face
WallyWorld
Level 5
June 15, 2018
2
I agree with much of what you stated, however, that we should do anything about it, I tend to disagree with. The species isn’t worth it. Can’t we all just stop reproducing and let the problem solve itself?
NothinnXpreVails
Level 8
June 15, 2018
0
When you have leaders that exploit the them v us position how is the leap to be made? A leader that would be so inclusion would be wonderful. How do we make the leap? In America the idea of immigrants assimilating works for the most part but in Europe assimilating is not desired, hundreds of years with generation after generation of barbers, butchers, bakers, tailors, etc. and the immigrant is not welcome.
Each group, religion, 'clan', etc. needs to find the leader that teaches inclusion of all peoples. Hate is a learned condition but as resources become scarce conflict may be inevitable.
Good post.
silverotter11
Level 9
June 15, 2018
1
@silverotter11 -- That is the quadrillion dollar question, isn't it? I don't know, but I do know that it is possible. I would like to think that the freethinkers of the world have the power to do it, but as in all things human, it won't be easy or quick. I think the best we can hope for is that it takes hold before we kill each other off.
Accurate depiction of where we're from, where we are, and what we need to become if we really want to continue the human journey and actually evolve into an advanced specie. The key phrase in all of this for me was "We need to make that leap from small group thinking to species wide thinking. To accept all as members of the same group."
What i don't understand is the apparent contradiction represented by the last sentence, "To understand that the most detrimental thing to our advancement and ultimate survival is us as a collective."
Since collective is generally defined as 1. done by people acting as a group. and 2. a cooperative enterprise.
The rest of the opinion piece seems to support a wholistic, collaborative, and cooperative approach, yet the last sentence says that collectivity, or collaboration is the most "detrimental thing" to what the author wants for our future.
I am confused about the apparent contradiction, so can anyone explain that to me?
josephr
Level 7
June 15, 2018
0
@josephr -- Unfortunate wording on my part. Sorry. Intent of that sentence was essentially that we have met the enemy and the enemy is us. We are our own worst enemy. We need to get past that.
@evidentialist Thanks for that. And i totally agree.
And then what? Kumbaya through eternity? There's still no ultimate point to any of it.
CallMeDave
Level 8
June 15, 2018
0
There is a grand point to it all. We have an entire galaxy to explore, questions to answer, and things to create. We have a future to build for our species. As for the kumbaya for eternity, my how cynical. First, there will probably never be a kumbaya because of all the diversity in our kind. Second, I would have liked to go physically to Mars in my lifetime, but I refuse to give up the struggle for others just because I didn't and now can't. I would have liked to have seen a real TOE during my lifetime. Now I'm on the verge of kicking off, but I won't give up hope that I may see it before then. In the meantime, this old guy intends to keep on keepin' on.
What kind of dude lets his woman throw the rocks? (-;
CallMeDave
Level 8
June 15, 2018
1
LOL. Hey, if she can throw straighter than he, why not? After all, the idea is survival.
I have seen a good deal of fatalism expressed here. The old, "That's the way it is." It doesn't take much thought to realize how faulty that notion is.
Skepticism I'll go along with. It just means one is taking a cautious stance on the issue. Pessimism is often mistaken for skepticism, but they are not necessarily the same. A person can be skeptical about something, but remain hopeful, positive, and strive for the ideal. The pessimist takes a negative position with little energy available to put into making something work. They might just as well be in the fatalist camp.
I've been on this planet a long time now and one would think I should at least be pessimistic, but I'm not. In spite of humanity's inhumanity and short sighted thinking, I think we are worth preserving as an intelligence in this Universe. I also maintain that we can do things, no matter how impossible they may seem, to make our civilization over into an overall constructive thing. We will always have our problems and our problem people, but we can solve the problems we can manipulate.
evidentialist
Level 8
June 15, 2018
1
@Stacey48 -- Didn't say anything of the kind. I admit to being guilty of omission. I made a comment two below this one wherein I fessed up to mattersauce about that. You might want to read it.
@mattersauce -- I have not ignored the progress we've been making, I just didn't mention it. Perhaps I should have. However, the progress we've been making is just using the same paradigm with twists. Each nation state is still going in with their prime goal being to protect their 'sovereignty' rather than establish a mutual working agreement that takes into account the entire world.
As for avoiding world wars, so far, so good. However, in that same period of time you mentioned (1945 going forward), there have been continuous states of war on the local and regional level, but the trend seems to be steadily moving toward a time when there may be extended periods of peace enjoyed in the world, but using the same thinking as before (business as usual), we will not eliminate the strife and tension among rivals. They will continue to be rivals and the potential for armed conflict will remain in place.
The point I am trying to make here is that we need to transcend the 'mine/yours' mentality. It is narrow thinking. It is limited thinking. It is self defeating. It is very much like that oft repeated saying, "Using the same thinking that created the problem will not solve the problem." We all live on a ball of dirt hurtling through space at incredible speed with a thin layer of life giving atmosphere that we appear bent on destroying. We have limited resources that we are apparently in a big hurry to use up. We have also established a have and have not system that is certainly not good for the have nots and will eventually be the downfall of the haves. I think it is time we realized that we are essentially the crew of a fragile spaceship traveling in dangerous territory and we should understand that each of us is a fellow human being and that we are no longer competing groups hunting for scarce game on the African savanna anymore.
It is easy when standing on the inside of the paradigm to say this is impossible, but one need not step too far outside of it to see that it is indeed possible.
evidentialist
Level 8
June 15, 2018
3
and like I said, you don't like the pace so you're ignoring the positive efforts we've made. It's difficult to make a case while ignoring the events that don't support your side but if you ignore them entirely then you really aren't addressing the whole issue.
@mattersauce -- I'm not ignoring them. They just haven't been aimed at the real problem. Sure, they've eased some of the nasty in the world, but without attacking the problem at its source, it's not leading us toward the solution. It has nothing at all to do with the pace. It's the direction.
@evidentialist At this point your opinion piece is showing less as "just an opinion" and more like your "force-fed viewpoint in complete denial of anything that doesn't support it".
Not only are you wrong about the events of history not going in the direction opposite your post, but on top of that you're acting as if you have a ground-breaking solution for the "real problem" that's more than simple idealism. You can tout kum-ba-ya all you'd like but your post is nothing more than fear-mongering pessimism devoid of any real value in the face of the problem you point out. It's the same tactic most people in power do to get their way and it doesn't make it any more noble or worthwhile that your issue is better for humanity. Simply put the method you've chosen to preach your opinion and deny anything opposite that opinion is vile because you aren't the end-all-be-all on this or any other topic. If you can't have an open and honest discussion about something then you may as well not bother bringing it up in the first place. The problem is valid but everything else you stated is worthless because you can't objectively look at the issue so you'll never arrive at any realistic solutions.
@mattersauce -- Suppose you enlighten me? What is the root I'm talking about and how am I missing the boat here?
@evidentialist I'm not sure I can enlighten you but I'll reiterate my thoughts in a more than likely vain attempt.
-
Your quote: "We need to make that leap from small group thinking to species wide thinking. To accept all as members of the same group. To understand that the most detrimental thing to our advancement and ultimate survival is us operating in this current destructive paradigm."
Your only solution is that everyone thinks the way that you do, something that has been tried repeatedly and never once happened. That's pure idealism lacking anything close to grounded reality. It's not an answer any more than "everyone stop eating McDonalds" is a solution to our obesity problem. It's small-minded and not even close to any actionable direction. -
Your quote: "I'm not ignoring them. They just haven't been aimed at the real problem. Sure, they've eased some of the nasty in the world, but without attacking the problem at its source, it's not leading us toward the solution. It has nothing at all to do with the pace. It's the direction."
What you don't seem to understand is that these events that I listed such as founding of the UN are the solution you can't accept exactly because it doesn't move that the pace you'd like. You are absolutely ignoring them because you like your idealistic solution better just like most cult leaders. The issue is that you have ZERO realistic solutions of your own while the things I listed ARE actually realistic because they are actually happening. There may be more that we can do but you won't be manning any of that progress.
I've shown you how your are idealistic devoid of realism using examples and analogies and I've shown you that you lack objectivity regarding your dilemma since you ignore the positive aspects of progress that doesn't support your preconceived notion. If you can't come to terms with both of those things you'll not only never help solve this species-wide issue you won't even be able to win a debate on the internet.
@mattersauce -- Uh-huh. Well, your ad hominem is noted, but unwarranted. What I have been driving at is the paradigm that has us locked in to a system of exchange that by its nature divides. It has nothing at all to do with thinking alike other than to revise our thinking processes that divide peoples in a negative sense on a value level.
@evidentialist First off I don't know you so why/how would I be attacking you directly? That is pretty clearly you getting defensive over your weak position.
Secondly, how do you actually type stuff like this?
"It has nothing at all to do with thinking alike OTHER THAN to revise our thinking processes that divide peoples in a negative sense on a value level."
All it would take is for the Earth to be attacked by aliens.
skado
Level 9
June 15, 2018
2
We've had essentially the same thing occur several times through our history and people do come together to defend against a common foe, but those alliances have always been temporary because we haven't stepped outside that primitive paradigm.
Very well stated, and I have no argument with it, but I have serious doubts as to whether it will or can be done.
Tomfoolery33
Level 9
June 15, 2018
3
Have you ever considered the case of Chimpanzee compared to Bonobo?
They both originated in exactly the same part of Africa, but became separated by geological upheaval into two territories, one in an area with ample resources and little danger, the other into a dangerous area with fewer resources. Chimps behave much as humans, divided into competing clans, the Bonobos instead became peaceful, and lovers of their fellow Bonobos, (especially where sex is concerned!)
So here is your answer in a nutshell.
Until resources, especially food, energy and non-saline water, are plentiful and available to all, man will never be peaceful. Nuclear fusion would certainly be a boon in that direction, as access to virtually infinite energy would allow reclamation of sea water and with it adequate water. However, there-in also lies a further problem. Populations would increase until availability of physical space would become the reason for strife.
Bonobos, although extremely active sexually at all times, are biologically infertile for long periods. Man would need mandatory contraception to avoid a population explosion.
Petter
Level 9
June 15, 2018
3
Ha.
Good luck.
All DARPA studies indicate "Tribe" is the optimal size of a group for anything. Tribal size, based on extended family membership, is usually maxed out at about 300 (4 platoons which equal a company).
Artifical groups larger than this tend to fragment over time, and are less efficent.
bigpawbullets
Level 9
June 15, 2018
1
You seem to have ignored the fact that we are doing that. The progress may not be to your liking but we are and have been making progress all throughout history up through today. The United Nations is a great example founded in 1945 in aim to prevent another World War after the second, and we haven't had another. These days there are international summits like never before in history where multiple nations are trying to address global threats as a united community rather than single entities. Nations routinely provide aid to other nations on a regular basis and more during times of struggle such as natural disasters.
You're looking at your lifetime and making a summary judgment on all of humanity without even addressing in the slightest our list of successes. Again it may not be at the pace you want or deem necessary by an unknown end date, but ignoring that progress simply makes me read your piece and give it the same due I do a man with a sandwich board on the corner.
mattersauce
Level 7
June 15, 2018
3
I agree with what you have stated, but my opinion is, this vicious paradigm will never be broken.
jlynn37
Level 8
June 15, 2018
2
Agree.
Killer Apes... we are what we are.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
2988 members
World Music
1327 members
Christopher Hitchens Fans
80 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.