Party is over/ what makes us civil?

[nutronjon]

I am picking a concern about civilization that was brought up in the "Economic History and the Future Crunch... " thread. For two hundred years we enjoyed amazing economic growth, because of the marriage of oil and technology. The industrial age plus the energy to move machines, resulted in a standard of living never imagined by past generations. All industrial economies are dependent on oil, and we are coming to end of cheap oil. That is an end to cheap energy that drives all our machines that gave us an abundance of material wealth and time to indugle our pleasures. Life without energy run machines, and private cars, is life without time for our pleasures, and huge reality slap in the face for many. Now we must ask, just how much can technology do for us, and what will happen to our civilization, and civilizations, around the world, when industrial economies collapse?

 

What makes us civil?

 

Warning, this is my soap box. Democracy is for me, what religion is for most others, and with every cell of my body, I hope we can discuss what are we to do from here?

[Zythryn]

You are making a conclusion that economies will collapse without cheap oil which I disagree with... somewhat.

If cheap oil disappeared entirely today, I agree many/most/all major economies would collapse. I suspect Europe would fare better than the US.

However, I don't believe oil will disappear overnight. It will become more and more scarce. The price will continue to rise and we will, as a race, seek other forms of energy. I believe this can be done quickly enough to avoid total collapse, although I also believe there will be a lot of foot dragging and economic pain.

 

To your question about what makes us Civil. I believe there are two main components.

1. A genetic tendancy towards cooperation.

2. Free time.

 

The more free time we have the more social structure can be built. The agricultural revolution allowed for larger tribes-- villages-- towns. The industrial revolution allowed more free time to allow for larger social structure.

 

This free time also allowed for people to mis-behave, but over all, I believe the good outweighed the bad;)

[nutronjon]

I think historically, the harder life is, the less civil we become, and women and children are treated worse, when life is hard. For example in poor industrial societies, children are sold by poor parents, as labor. This was true in the beginning of industry in England and it is still true in India. During the pioneer days in the US, women objected to the big fuss made over slavery, when their own terrible condition was ignored, because their enslavement was the result of marriage, rather then being sold, but there were few economic opportunities for them, and their parents didn't want to be burdened with them when it was hard to get food, especially not when they became sexually interested/interesting and could increase their burden with an unwanted child. Female powerlessness in such conditions, means things are bad for women and children.

 

Where people are doing so poorly, starving to death is common, females begin avoiding males, and unwanted pregnancies. If they are so unfortunate as to have children, they passively let them starve to death, when they are no longer strong enough to cry for milk. I am afraid, the bottom line to what we assume is good human behavior, is we require full bellies and social/economic opportunity.

 

When we experience recessions, crime and divorce rates climb. The stress on the family makes life very unpleasant, and if we are not psychologically prepared for this, and socially ready to help each other, we might not be so civilized while we go through an "economic adjustment".

[freeztar]

I think that our "civility" is merely a veneer. If the proverbial poo hits the fan, that civility will be tested and I can hardly imagine anything other than an increase in uncivility. Just look at what Hurricane Katrina did to civility. The French Revolution is another example.

 

If people are comfortable in life, they will act in accordance with civility (for the most part). If people are pressed, they can become barbaric to satisfy their basic needs. It draws a bit of a parallel to Maslow's heiracrhy of needs.

[Zythryn]

CAN is the significant term.

In hurricane Katrina there were incredible acts of bravery, heroism and just plain goodness.

There were also examples of how bad members of our species can get.

While I don't suggest seeing it if you are in any way depressed, the movie 'The Mist' was a great example of this. I believe the quote from the movie was something along the order of "take away our cell phones, power and light and see how quickly civilization disappears".

 

To clarify my own position, I agree that uncivil behavior is more likely to occur when times are tough, I don't in any way agree that everyone becomes less civil.

[freeztar]

To clarify my own position, I agree that uncivil behavior is more likely to occur when times are tough, I don't in any way agree that everyone becomes less civil.

 

I agree with your position. I was just trying to point out times in which we (as a species, generally) become more uncivil. I did not mean to discount the uprising of civility that occurs during these times of stress. Nonetheless, knowing what makes us uncivil helps to explain/define what makes us civil.

 

For some reason I keep thinking of an island overrun by pigs and boys. :hihi:

[nutronjon]

Well you all really got into the spirit of this thread. Now let's go a little deeper with our thoughts. This is really important folks, because we may be facing some seriously hard times. I could not believe how ugly things got during the 1970 recession, in Oregon, and I want to do all in my power to prevent things from getting that bad again. Understand this- honey, you and I have to be able to count on each other. How are we going to achieve this?

 

Consider the regions in both Africa and Arab countries, and some Asian countries, where tribes or gangs are indiscriminately killing. Our constitution says we band together to prevent this from happening. However.....

 

Reflecting back on Katrina, what went wrong? Seriously, have you all heard or experienced race riots? These events are the effect of something. Tell me, what is it that causes people to behave differently? Is there something we can do to get one behavior and not another?

[nutronjon]

I agree with your position. I was just trying to point out times in which we (as a species, generally) become more uncivil. I did not mean to discount the uprising of civility that occurs during these times of stress. Nonetheless, knowing what makes us uncivil helps to explain/define what makes us civil.

 

For some reason I keep thinking of an island overrun by pigs and boys. :evil:

 

Well this thread was going well, and suddenly died. Can we pick it up again?

The "Lord of the Flies" story to which you referred is relevant to the subject.

It is said this story is about German youth who eagerly followed Hitler and the Nazi Party. Germany had education for technology for military and industrial purpose, when the US had liberal education. The US has since replaced its liberal education with Germany's model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose and has become a militarily aggressive country, with its leadership using torture, and in other ways is developing a poor human rights record. The culture of the US being very different from what it was. Any comments?

[Tormod]

The "Lord of the Flies" story to which you referred is relevant to the subject.

It is said this story is about German youth who eagerly followed Hitler and the Nazi Party.

 

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but where did you get this from? I have never heard that about LOTF. I thought it was about "good vs evil" in general...but I'd be very interested in sources about a Nazi theme in the book.

[nutronjon]

Sorry if this is derailing the thread, but where did you get this from? I have never heard that about LOTF. I thought it was about "good vs evil" in general...but I'd be very interested in sources about a Nazi theme in the book.

 

Wow, you really made me work by asking that question, and it compliments the thread.. Thanks, I enjoyed googling, and the effort to find the reference that is only a vague memory for me. Of course I couldn't find the reference that put the Lord of the Flies and NAZIS together in my head, but here are two significant sites. It was his WWII experience that lead to the book. This line in the second link is the NAZIS connection. "The world Golding creates is representative of society as a whole as it demonstrates what happens when mankind fails to think logically and chooses to support ideas and the figures that present them, no matter how morally and legally wrong they are."

 

 

SparkNotes: Lord of the Flies

Golding’s experience in World War II had a profound effect on his view of humanity and the evils of which it was capable.

 

Simon as a Christ Figure in Lo essays

William Golding once believed in the idea that the educated, civilized people could do no wrong, but that is before the events of WWII forever changed his view of society (Spitz). In regards to that time, Golding once stated that, ?...anyone who moved through those years without understanding that man produces evil as a bee produces honey, must have been bind or wrong in the head...? (Spitz). With his new critical view of human nature, William Golding began work on the novel Lord of the Flies, with the intent ?to trace the defects of society back to human nature? (Baker). Incorporating his experience teaching in England, William Golding creates a society on a deserted island with young schoolboys to show the true, violent nature of people, no matter how educated or civilized they are. The world Golding creates is representative of society as a whole as it demonstrates what happens when mankind fails to think logically and chooses to support ideas and the figures that present them, no matter how morally and legally wrong they are. To complete the allegory, Golding includes a young boy named Simon to represent Jesus Christ as Simon is an omniscient figure in a world where truth, knowledge, and reason have little importance.

 

This is all great for this thread, because the Germans were intellectual, artist, congenial and dreamy people. The Prussians were the military mentality, and when they took control of Germany, they changed the character of Germany, as the character of the US has been changed. Democracy comes from Greek and Roman classics, but this is no longer what college students learn. They are more apt to be taught the German philosophers. As was so in Germany. Nietzsche has become one of the most popular philosophers, while it is the concepts of Socrates that are essential to democracy and he is no longer a popular philosopher. This change in popular philosophers, is a change in the flavor or our democracy, which is moving away from the original ideology. This is a change in morality. Knowing my next statement is very contraversial, I will say, we have become more barbaric. Please don't throw stones, but question this possibility.

[Zythryn]

Nietzsche has become one of the most popular philosophers, while ... Socrates ... is no longer a popular philosopher.

 

Could you tell us why you believe this is so?

As least as far as name recognition, I would be willing to bet that more people recognize the name Socrates than Nietzsche.

 

 

This change in popular philosophers, is a change in the flavor or our democracy, which is moving away from the original ideology.

 

I disagree with this conclusion as I also disagree with your premise.

I would agree with the observation that the flavor of our 'democracy' has changed since its inception. However I don't think it has anything to do with which philosopher is more popular.

 

This is a change in morality. Knowing my next statement is very contraversial, I will say, we have become more barbaric. Please don't throw stones, but question this possibility.

 

No stone throwing here;) I just disagree.

I did consider your position, but I disagree on most levels.

Women and children receive better treatment.

African's are treated better in this country.

I believe our judicial system is less barbaric than it was.

 

All of the above could still use improvement. I am not saying that they are perfect, but I would contend they are definately less barbaric than in 1776.

[nutronjon]

Could you tell us why you believe this is so?

As least as far as name recognition, I would be willing to bet that more people recognize the name Socrates than Nietzsche.

 

 

 

 

I disagree with this conclusion as I also disagree with your premise.

I would agree with the observation that the flavor of our 'democracy' has changed since its inception. However I don't think it has anything to do with which philosopher is more popular.

 

 

 

No stone throwing here;) I just disagree.

I did consider your position, but I disagree on most levels.

Women and children receive better treatment.

African's are treated better in this country.

I believe our judicial system is less barbaric than it was.

 

All of the above could still use improvement. I am not saying that they are perfect, but I would contend they are definately less barbaric than in 1776.

 

Fun, we have some good disagreements.

 

I must admit my opinion that Nietzsche is more popular than Socrates, is not empirical, but only my individual experience in speaking with others. I have gone to a philoosophy forum to inquire there, the opinion of which philosopher is the most popular, and am waiting for replies.

 

I don't think either of us know enough about philosophy to argue the effect of philosophers, but I know where to get this information, and it would make a hugely fascinating discussion. I think it is safe to argue, those philosophers who have encouraged greed and deceit in leadership, have been the most influential in our present time, and I would love to come back with more specific information about these philosophers and recent events, if others want to discuss this subject.

 

At this point would you say it is popular to believe citizens have a duty to the family and country?

 

How would say the flavor of our democracy has changed and why?

 

Truth is hidden in paradox. When the USSR liberated women, with a campaign saying the housewife is a non productive member of society, at first the economy boomed with women taking jobs. Then the divorce and abortion rates soared and increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty. Not only has this happened in the US, but the rate of women and children involved in crime and violence has increased. The greatest advance of civilization was to enable women to stay at home to care for the children. I don't think many believe this today, but the thought makes for a good debate. I think the lack of protection of women and children that is so today, is barbaric.

 

I also think treating children as adults in the court room, is barbaric! The human brain is not fully developed until at 25. A 17 years has a particularly hard time using his/her frontal cortex because it is not well developed and hormones are really making a mess of thinking. Regardless of how terrible the wrong of a child is, the child does not have a fully developed brain and this should be taken into consideration. And throwing our young who enlist with immature brains and for the adventure or education, into a war situation, is certainly barbaric.

 

Bombing Iran, because we made it impossible for Iraq to defend itself, and we want to withdraw without Iran taking over Iraq, is barbaric.

[charles brough]

Hello all,

 

I've been away.

 

So much comment on "democracy" . . . I've been researching in prehistory and I find that until about 5,000 BP (before present) there was no capitalism and no "democracy" because there was no such thing as organized government. People lived in communes. As agriculture improved, the communes grew so big there was no way they could be run. Democracy no longer worked. People could not all gather together in one place, discuss all issues and make decisions. So, society organized and elected representatives. These means they became the rulers and the people were no longer soverign. Constitutional replublics were eventually evolved. They have worked because it is too complicated and unwieldy for all the people to know what is going on and knowing who to elect to do what. The system worked well when the people vote in good rulers who are left alone to run things, but when the people insist on it anyway, the leaders still do what they want for themselves and for the country. The result is friction, dismay, hostility and "politics." We force our leaders into lying in order to get elected. We make them cynical.

 

charles

[Overdog]

It has been said that the Golden Rule (attributed to Jesus) pointed the way out of barbarity. Emmanual Kant also arrived at essentially the same rule, but through rational means in his moral philosophy.

 

Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

I believe it is the strength of our convictions in our moral and ethical beliefs, beliefs which we acquire after birth, which make us "civil". We are born un-civil, and Civility is a luxury which Civilization allows us.

 

Kant really should be better known than he is, as it is his moral philosophy which underlies much of modern ethics.

[questor]

IMHO civility comes from consensus of ideas or cultures. If people think alike on important issues there will be more civility. If you have one group trying to prosper at the expense of another, you get conflict. If you have one culture denigrating another , you get conflict. There are people who seem to be naturally civil, and there are those who seem to be continually dissatisfied with their lot in life, leading to conflict. I do not understand your comment on liberal education vs technical education, would you explain what you mean?

[InfiniteNow]

IMHO civility comes from consensus of ideas or cultures. If people think alike on important issues there will be more civility.

Not really, no. What if the consensus was that rape and murder were okay?

 

I'm not seeing a lot of civility there, despite the consensus. What you have here, questor, is a total non-sequitur. Your second point does not logically follow from the first.

[nutronjon]

Hello all,

 

I've been away.

 

So much comment on "democracy" . . . I've been researching in prehistory and I find that until about 5,000 BP (before present) there was no capitalism and no "democracy" because there was no such thing as organized government. People lived in communes. As agriculture improved, the communes grew so big there was no way they could be run. Democracy no longer worked. People could not all gather together in one place, discuss all issues and make decisions. So, society organized and elected representatives. These means they became the rulers and the people were no longer soverign. Constitutional replublics were eventually evolved. They have worked because it is too complicated and unwieldy for all the people to know what is going on and knowing who to elect to do what. The system worked well when the people vote in good rulers who are left alone to run things, but when the people insist on it anyway, the leaders still do what they want for themselves and for the country. The result is friction, dismay, hostility and "politics." We force our leaders into lying in order to get elected. We make them cynical.

 

charles

 

If we hadn't just had Bush and Cheney it would be difficult to point out the error of believing government is best when elected leaders are left on their own to do as they please, but I think Bush and Cheney make it very clear why this is not a good idea. They both should have been impeached to sent clear limits on the presidental and vice presidental offices. However, it is still possible they will face charges of war crimes. They forgot what rule by law means and thought they were above the law.

 

Democracy is rule by law, and this law is supposed to based on reason, and this is associated with a concept of the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. (For atheist, Nature's God is different from man made Gods).