(09-11-2018, 02:21 PM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: While I agree that technically the three Laws of Ethics subsume sovereignty, without those Laws, society could not function, as psychopaths did as They choose, and pandemonium would result.  The positive thing here, and why I do not consider the Laws as truly being oppressive to sovereignty, is that most of Us live within these Laws naturally.  We all know that hurting or killing the flesh of anOther, without fully informed consent, is wrong.  We know that taking or damaging things, without fully informed consent, that do not belong to Us alone is wrong.  We know it's wrong to defraud Others.  And in a system that is based on social currency, accounted for in Our hearts and minds, to be sure, breaking these Laws will cost LOTS of social currency.

Well, that right there is one of the major differences between our philosophies - I believe "society" to be a vastly overrated thing, something that was invented by psychopaths to control others with. It's why I live in the woods and generally avoid society as much as I can. If I ever decide I need someone else to tell me what to do or how to think, I'll give them a permission slip to do so.

I will just assume that, in your envisioned society, some other person trying to damage me constitutes "fully informed consent" for me to clean their clock, and we could agree on that point. Another point you raise, taking or damaging things that don't belong to us alone, raises another question. In this society you envision, how is "ownership" to be determined? How do I know objectively that something belongs to me alone, so that I might move it to a corner or burn it to the ground if I so choose?

As far as "social currency" goes, if I shun society as I do, then I've not got very much social currency, and therefore not much to lose. How am I supposed to pay up to society if I'm not part of their currency system?

Quote:What We have today is Some being given authority over Others.  In what I propose, We ALL have authority over only Those who choose to behave unEthically, but no One is "in charge," making rules for Others to follow.  Anarchy means no rulers, NOT no rules.  There are three We need to maintain a healthy society.

This is another point I have a problem with - how can "we ALL" have authority over anyone else without a collective? I, individually, have any authority I care to exercise, and you, individually, have any authority you care to exercise. When "we ALL" have authority, that is pretty much the definition of a collective, is it not? How does it differ from what we have now?

In any human society, there are strong folk, and there are weak folk. Inevitably, because of human nature, some of those strong folk will take from the weaker victim sort of folk. Since they are not strong, they cannot defend themselves, and someone else will have to step in and defend them if they are to be defended at all. Who does that in your envisioned society? Anyone? If that greedy strong person is not a threat to me, but only a threat to his weak neighbor, from whence do I derive the right to step in? Or do we just let the greedy strong eat the weak, so long as they are not threatening us personally?

Quote:The Laws of Ethics are well defined.  We can't "redefine" these - like...  "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another...unless You're super pissed."  This is not to say that in Self defense One cannot kill anOther bent on hurting/killing Oneself.

Who defined those laws of Ethics? I didn't get to vote on them - does that mean they don't apply to me, since I did not give explicit, informed consent?

Quote:It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge.  I loathe the whole idea of "collective."

As do I. I spent a few years fighting fairly vigorously against Collectives, only to watch my own nation get turned into one - which is why I dropped out of society to begin with. The problem with autonomous individuals is that we are all... autonomous. We feel no compelling need to adhere to any Laws, or social currency, ethical or otherwise, and as individuals, we all think differently. We have different ideas of how our lives ought to be run, and some have decidedly inimical (to others) ideas. I'm just not grasping how your envisioned society differs from (idealized) Communism.

Communism, always and without fail, in every place it has ever been tried, devolves into Oligarchy. That happens because the inimical sort of Strong folk will without fail prey on the Weak folk, and there is no one to stop them. "Society says..." you know?

Quote:As for Ethics...  They are clearly and concisely defined in the three Laws.  So in this jungle, it's ok if someOne is killing People for fun (being a psychopath) as long as They are not trying to kill You?

Yes. It's none of my business if I'm not directly involved, and none of my family (blood or extended) is, either. I spent way too much time fighting for other folks "freedom", only to have them give it up anyhow, and turn their backs on us (by "us" I mean myself and much better men than me, some of whom did not live nearly long enough to see what had become of what they fought for) and what they had been given, trample it under foot... turning silk purses into sows ears somehow... so they are no longer my problem.

Nowadays, I would not piss in their mouths if their teeth were on fire. They can take care of their own problems - after all, they created 'em.

.

I don't have too much to add, other than to say that rightly or wrongly, society exists.
We can distance ourselves from it or immerse ourselves in it, that's entirely up to the individual.

On the topic of ethical behaviours etc... I quite like the observations of Chris Kyle's dad from the movie American Sniper.
He said something along the lines of:

There are 3 kinds of people;
The Sheep
The Wolves
and The SheepDogs.

The Sheep do what they are told, they are weak and vulnerable and they get preyed upon by the Wolves.
The SheepDogs are strong and they can protect the Sheep from the Wolves.
I didn't bring you up to be sheep and you better not be damned wolves....

G

I still feel this is just another form of religion based on Christianity

(09-11-2018, 08:02 PM)Wallfire Wrote: I chose not to, and I hope you will come to understand that putting words in to my mouth or trying to bate me does not work. Respect is my leaving point 

Was not putting words in Your mouth.  [shrug]  Nor was I bating.  Sorry You interpreted it as such.  I am perfectly happy to let it go.  [smile]

(09-12-2018, 07:11 AM)Ninurta Wrote:

(09-11-2018, 02:21 PM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: While I agree that technically the three Laws of Ethics subsume sovereignty, without those Laws, society could not function, as psychopaths did as They choose, and pandemonium would result.  The positive thing here, and why I do not consider the Laws as truly being oppressive to sovereignty, is that most of Us live within these Laws naturally.  We all know that hurting or killing the flesh of anOther, without fully informed consent, is wrong.  We know that taking or damaging things, without fully informed consent, that do not belong to Us alone is wrong.  We know it's wrong to defraud Others.  And in a system that is based on social currency, accounted for in Our hearts and minds, to be sure, breaking these Laws will cost LOTS of social currency.

Well, that right there is one of the major differences between our philosophies - I believe "society" to be a vastly overrated thing, something that was invented by psychopaths to control others with. It's why I live in the woods and generally avoid society as much as I can. If I ever decide I need someone else to tell me what to do or how to think, I'll give them a permission slip to do so.

Well, I see many who socialize and work together, live together, and otherwise enjoy the company of Others.  Just because You have a society does NOT equate to rulers...  Ethical anarchy has no rulers, and only three rules.

Quote:I will just assume that, in your envisioned society, some other person trying to damage me constitutes "fully informed consent" for me to clean their clock, and we could agree on that point. Another point you raise, taking or damaging things that don't belong to us alone, raises another question. In this society you envision, how is "ownership" to be determined? How do I know objectively that something belongs to me alone, so that I might move it to a corner or burn it to the ground if I so choose?

Absolutely!



Ownership is actually less of an issue...  When One can have what One needs and most of what One wants, Few will have motive to take something anOther lays claim to.  And ownership is pretty intuitive.  "I found this on the beach 5 years ago and I love it!"  Pretty clear whose it is.  The ownership of land One does not live on is moot.  With nothing to collect as "rent," and with plenty of room for all of Us...  Who needs to "own" that apartment building where One does not live?  I doubt You will have issues knowing what is Yours to do with as You choose.

Quote:As far as "social currency" goes, if I shun society as I do, then I've not got very much social currency, and therefore not much to lose. How am I supposed to pay up to society if I'm not part of their currency system?

LOL!  There is NO expectation that any One has to "to pay up to society."  You can live as a hermit, and no One will know Your name or even of You, if You work it right.  BUT...  People who care, and who a problem is affecting, will move to solve for problems, enjoying the thanks and such They get for helping solve for a problem.  People will experiment and share results for the fame and such They get.  People will create art and music and crafts and plays and movies and...  For the appreciation and lauds...  Just because You have no currency does not mean You are "poor."  You can live as richly as You choose.

Quote:

Quote:What We have today is Some being given authority over Others.  In what I propose, We ALL have authority over only Those who choose to behave unEthically, but no One is "in charge," making rules for Others to follow.  Anarchy means no rulers, NOT no rules.  There are three We need to maintain a healthy society.

This is another point I have a problem with - how can "we ALL" have authority over anyone else without a collective? I, individually, have any authority I care to exercise, and you, individually, have any authority you care to exercise. When "we ALL" have authority, that is pretty much the definition of a collective, is it not? How does it differ from what we have now?

Do You grasp stigmergy?  It was discovered initially in insects, but it applies across all societies in nature.  It is a system of governance within all societies, based on the exchange of information between autonomous Individuals.  All of life has infolded seed parameters - in insects, it may be the drone parameters, or the nursery parameters, etc.  In higher life forms the seed parameters may include being submissive to the alpha, or to be an alpha...  But in all of these the individual chooses behaviors based on the data it receives.

For example, if an ant is out foraging for food and encounters some number of others out doing the same in a certain length of time, it will head back to the colony to see if other work needs to be done, establishing that there is enough out looking for meals.

This stigmergy is what I base the system on.  We each have the authority to arrest One who chooses unEthical behavior.  But no other authority over Others.  And as I have said, with no poverty, no desperation, no useless ELiters, all equal, there is scant motive to choose to break the three Laws.

Quote:In any human society, there are strong folk, and there are weak folk. Inevitably, because of human nature, some of those strong folk will take from the weaker victim sort of folk. Since they are not strong, they cannot defend themselves, and someone else will have to step in and defend them if they are to be defended at all. Who does that in your envisioned society? Anyone? If that greedy strong person is not a threat to me, but only a threat to his weak neighbor, from whence do I derive the right to step in? Or do we just let the greedy strong eat the weak, so long as they are not threatening us personally?

While it is true that there are weaker Ones and stronger Ones, what would be the motive to take from anyOne?  Order the same on the web and it's Yours.  And if I take from You, You report it as a problem on the website, Others come to help sort the problem out, and They/You may arrest Me if the evidence shows I did indeed take from You.  Same is true for any breach of Ethics.  What happens to Me is anything Ethics chosen.  And I will gain negative social currency, to boot.  Disdain, lost friendships, and such.

And You "derive the right to step in" because You have a foundational right to arrest anyOne who is choosing/has chosen unEthical behavior.  It matters not whether that behavior was directed at You...  

Quote:

Quote:The Laws of Ethics are well defined.  We can't "redefine" these - like...  "Do not willfully and without fully informed consent hurt or kill the flesh of another...unless You're super pissed."  This is not to say that in Self defense One cannot kill anOther bent on hurting/killing Oneself.

Who defined those laws of Ethics? I didn't get to vote on them - does that mean they don't apply to me, since I did not give explicit, informed consent?

I am not sure who it was who "defined" them.  That was done in ancient times.  Though not called the "Laws of Ethics," nonetheless, it is unEthical to break them.  They just have been called the three Laws.  And they are the foundational rules a healthy society, stigmergically functioning, needs to function.  It's not a matter of "voting" on them, so much as they have been self-evident and were verbalized.

Quote:

Quote:It is not a "collective" but a stigmergic system of autonomous Individuals that will emerge.  I loathe the whole idea of "collective."

As do I. I spent a few years fighting fairly vigorously against Collectives, only to watch my own nation get turned into one - which is why I dropped out of society to begin with. The problem with autonomous individuals is that we are all... autonomous. We feel no compelling need to adhere to any Laws, or social currency, ethical or otherwise, and as individuals, we all think differently. We have different ideas of how our lives ought to be run, and some have decidedly inimical (to others) ideas. I'm just not grasping how your envisioned society differs from (idealized) Communism.

I fully disagree.  I have a deep caring for Others.  All My friends do to.  The idea of breaking of the Laws of Ethics sickens Me - and My friends.  I don't know ANYONE personally, who would willfully hurt or kill the flesh of another.  Nor would We take or damage Others' stuff without permission.  Nor would We defraud.  Maybe YOU don't feel any compelling need to "adhere," but I feel a compelling respect for Others such that I would never break these Laws.

And once the society has the abundance of Our planet flowing to all of Us, We can live Our lives as We choose as long as We are not breaking the three Laws.  That's one hell of a lot of leeway.  We will see what I call social superconductance.  None of Us will have to spend any time with Ones We don't like.  With the ability to travel as We please, the ability to find Others We resonate with - be it on religious, ideological, industry of interest, sexual, whatever - and co-create things, Our interactions will tend towards positive.  Or We can find a cave and hunker down away from Others.  We are the captains of Our own lives.  With leisure and industry of interest.

"What Human does not deserve leisure and industry of interest, if (S)He chooses all behavior Ethically?"

Quote:Communism, always and without fail, in every place it has ever been tried, devolves into Oligarchy. That happens because the inimical sort of Strong folk will without fail prey on the Weak folk, and there is no one to stop them. "Society says..." you know?

About that communism thing...  

Quote:

Quote:As for Ethics...  They are clearly and concisely defined in the three Laws.  So in this jungle, it's ok if someOne is killing People for fun (being a psychopath) as long as They are not trying to kill You?

Yes. It's none of my business if I'm not directly involved, and none of my family (blood or extended) is, either. I spent way too much time fighting for other folks "freedom", only to have them give it up anyhow, and turn their backs on us (by "us" I mean myself and much better men than me, some of whom did not live nearly long enough to see what had become of what they fought for) and what they had been given, trample it under foot... turning silk purses into sows ears somehow... so they are no longer my problem.

Nowadays, I would not piss in their mouths if their teeth were on fire. They can take care of their own problems - after all, they created 'em.
.

Well, You have no obligation to get involved.  It's not like anything compulsory to You is going on.  But I tell You what, sir, I care very deeply, and I would use My right of arrest to help anOther out.  And My friends...?  They would too.  We all have quite strong Betterment Ethics, and caring hearts.  An' it harm no One, do what Thou wilt.

(09-12-2018, 09:21 AM)gordi Wrote: I don't have too much to add, other than to say that rightly or wrongly, society exists.
We can distance ourselves from it or immerse ourselves in it, that's entirely up to the individual.

On the topic of ethical behaviours etc... I quite like the observations of Chris Kyle's dad from the movie American Sniper.
He said something along the lines of:

There are 3 kinds of people;
The Sheep
The Wolves
and The SheepDogs.

The Sheep do what they are told, they are weak and vulnerable and they get preyed upon by the Wolves.
The SheepDogs are strong and they can protect the Sheep from the Wolves.
I didn't bring you up to be sheep and you better not be damned wolves....

G

When We grasp that all of history has been in scarcity, and that the systems were developed to handle things in scarcity - scarcity of Human energy to get things done that needed to be done but no One WANTED to do led to the energy accounting, expecting Each to add Their "fair share."  Very different behaviors are to be expected in an abundance paradigm.  What We see today is the result of psychopaths gaining control of things here, with secondary psychopathy emerging.  Through indoctrination, lies, and propaganda, We have been channeled into Their mold.  And truly, it is an ill-fitting one.

Sheep, dogs, and wolves will co-exist with scant motive and no right to break three Laws.  Laws that define behavior statistically none of Us would think was ok to be done to Us.

Once again another good video 
I tried something with the massage in the video, I compared it to the massage of the Christian church.

Do I have the betterment Ethic, No.

Not many others do either.

Was raised and educated and worked in just such a society. Their Propaganda Forced and Taught to the People was All For the Betterment Of China and the Children.
Of-Course people were worked to death in the Crop Fields and on Construction Sites and Killed because they did not Produce in the way that The Betterment Squads or Local leaders thought or killed because they disagreed or were to Educated. 

If something is invented by another to better your life in someway, they are only looking at the Profitability of that Marketed Product or Service.

Just Our Humble Opinion

I wish you well in your endeavor. It will not work among humans, as we are not stigmergistic insects (and as a matter of fact, even insects aren't for they have leaders and hierarchies in their colonies), but it's good to have a dream.

I've observed humans for a very long time, and this will never happen among them. If there were only two humans left on earth, this society you envision would not exist or come to pass. There are too many flaws in it when compared with human nature, and it's details are not fleshed out enough to even begin to try to make the mechanics of it work.

You would have to start by killing all the "psychopaths", of which there are many more than you seem to realize, simply for being psychopaths and doing as they do... and that would break the very first "law" of the three. If you didn't kill them, in the interest of keeping those three "laws", it would not be 3 years before they ruled over you again.

But best of luck to you!


.

I agree with "woods runner", but how does one define who is a psychopath?, its not as easy as it seem as all humans have a little psychopath in them, it helps keep us alive. So does it turn in to a system " if you dont agree with me you are a psychopath".
People might think this extreme, but look at what is happing today, if you dont agree with what our leaders want you are called "far right"

There seems to be comfort in categorising people under certain headings, which ironically is contradictory
to appreciating diverse practices.

A father stealing medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is still a thief, just as a father stealing
medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is a father. Semantics is a minefield and most of us have
size-12 shoes!

People do things.

(09-14-2018, 09:32 AM)BIAD Wrote: There seems to be comfort in categorising people under certain headings, which ironically is contradictory
to appreciating diverse practices.

A father stealing medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is still a thief, just as a father stealing
medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is a father. Semantics is a minefield and most of us have
size-12 shoes!

People do things.

Good point , but if one cannot categorize things , how does one understand them?.
What we see can not be changed, but how we understand and explain and express it can be controlled. Its called PC.

(09-14-2018, 10:24 AM)Wallfire Wrote: Good point , but if one cannot categorize things , how does one understand them?.
What we see can not be changed, but how we understand and explain and express it can be controlled. Its called PC.

That's right, but the generalised headings that society has agreed to use covers what the functions that
we need as a society. Sub-headings and new titles are always available, but somehow -in broad terms,
we're able to walk the path we choose.

Caveat* When I say 'agree', I mean that through improving the social and 'real' environment we live in
and that is around us, we've accepted a structure that benefits the majority and a small section of
the immediate-world we live in involves titling certain... 'things'!

Our individual path is determined by everything that outside of one's control unless we deem it appropriate
to gain some control of the external world. Ethically, we are governing our space in this existence and the effects
and extent are always going to be debatable.

The use of 'I' will dissolve when looking on interactions within a group, although each individual of that group
is a 'stand-alone' integral part. As a species, we function better as a group and through centuries-old teachings,
we have learned the general rules, taboos and goals that will improve the lives of the one and the whole.

This isn't about being a 'tribal-member' or perceiving one's goals as merely benefiting others only, You can
choose to live outside of the group, but the rewards of being closer or in the group are left to the individual
to decide if beneficial to oneself.

We choose when the option is available and again, this availability is effected by choices of others around us.

Take the recent EU Article 13 for example. A Copyright Directive that will financially effect anyone wishing to
link certain items to another place in order to promote it's information content.

The EU chose and Big Tech will have to respond.

(09-13-2018, 06:10 PM)guohua Wrote: Do I have the betterment Ethic, No.

Not many others do either.

Was raised and educated and worked in just such a society. Their Propaganda Forced and Taught to the People was All For the Betterment Of China and the Children.
Of-Course people were worked to death in the Crop Fields and on Construction Sites and Killed because they did not Produce in the way that The Betterment Squads or Local leaders thought or killed because they disagreed or were to Educated. 

If something is invented by another to better your life in someway, they are only looking at the Profitability of that Marketed Product or Service.

Just Our Humble Opinion

I disagree that "Not many others do either..."  Else no One would be donating to GoFundMe and PayPal for People who need help.  These are Ones who, not having the freedom to help directly (make better), did so by slave token proxy.  And perhaps You mistake some perceived obligation to the state with what the Betterment Ethic truly is.  The Betterment Ethic is helping Others, solving problems where One can, making Others feel better with a smile or kind word.  Not something One is bullied into for some state that gives artificial authority to order followers to do the bullying.

And if there is no money, and something is invented by anOther to better Our lives in someway, it will be because They profit in reputation, thanks, appreciation, attention, lauds, fame, bragging rights, and Self satisfaction.  The application of scarcity paradigm expectations in an abundance paradigm is likely to deliver invalid conclusions.

(09-14-2018, 05:18 AM)Ninurta Wrote: I wish you well in your endeavor. It will not work among humans, as we are not stigmergistic insects (and as a matter of fact, even insects aren't for they have leaders and hierarchies in their colonies), but it's good to have a dream.

In this You are missing the point that stigmergy is in ALL societies. Not just insects. That was merely where stigmergy was first discovered. Our Human stigmergy is extremely shackled by a group that would control information flow. Without a free flow of information, stigmergy creates an unbalanced end result. And with psychopaths in control, secondary psychopathy emerges, and lends credence to the assessment of Humanity as being a failed race.

As to leaders, yes, all societies have leaders, but in many the leaders are for problem-solving, emerging for that purpose, and not Ones "voted on" to have "authority" over All in making arbitrary "laws" and delegating the enFORCEment of them to (paid) order-followers.

In fact, Human society is VERY unnatural as it is now. And the issues We see have everything to do with this artificial construct forced upon Us.

And it is not a "dream" I have, but a goal, to lead enough of Humanity to free Themselves from the systems imposed by psychopaths.

Quote:I've observed humans for a very long time, and this will never happen among them. If there were only two humans left on earth, this society you envision would not exist or come to pass. There are too many flaws in it when compared with human nature, and it's details are not fleshed out enough to even begin to try to make the mechanics of it work.

You have observed Humans in a scarcity paradigm, enslaved to Others, artificially governed by psychopaths who control information, with secondary psychopathy promoted. Your view of "Human nature" is skewed both by these facts and by the fact that the psychopaths in control do ghastly things and in Their media blame "Human nature." The result of the two Humans left would depend fully on whether one or both were psychopaths.

Quote:You would have to start by killing all the "psychopaths", of which there are many more than you seem to realize, simply for being psychopaths and doing as they do... and that would break the very first "law" of the three. If you didn't kill them, in the interest of keeping those three "laws", it would not be 3 years before they ruled over you again.

There is no need to kill anyOne. Remove the tool and systems that promote psychopaths to power to wreak all this havoc in Human society. When They have no more or less power than the next One, They can be handled. 1% of Us are primary psychopaths, genetically incapable of love, caring, or empathy for Others. Another 5% are secondary psychopaths. I say 94% of Us can handle Individuals who choose unEthically. Especially when They have so very little motive to do so.

And "killing" psychopaths requires a witch hunt, something quite unEthical.

(09-14-2018, 09:19 AM)Wallfire Wrote: I agree with "woods runner", but how does one define who is a psychopath?, its not as easy as it seem as all humans have a little psychopath in them, it helps keep us alive. So does it turn in to a system " if you dont agree with me you are a psychopath".
People might think this extreme, but look at what is happing today, if you dont agree with what our leaders want you are called "far right"

No, not all Humans have "a little psychopath in" Them.  In this society that promotes secondary psychopathy, it may SEEM like it, though, especially with the "news" blaming Humanity for the ugly things the psychopaths in control are doing.  It is NOT psychopathy that "helps keep Us alive," but that learning how to shut off Our emotions for Others (secondary psychopathy) works in the oppressive systems We keep consenting to in enough numbers to maintain them.

What I propose does not measure psychopathy at all.  One can be the most psychopathic of psychopaths, but as long as One is choosing One's behavior within Ethical expectations, there is no problem.

And yes, the oppressive psychopathic systems, with psychopaths at the top, are moving to destroy Those who do not agree with what They want.  Those who would be free on a planet that belongs to Them (it belongs to ALL born here) but was stolen centuries ago, by psychopaths, through the Unum Sanctum "trust" and the Cestui Que Vie "trusts," where We all were declared "incompetent."

Clearly it is the problem of these psychopaths being in control I would Ethically solve for.  Witch hunts and killing are VERY unEthical.

(09-14-2018, 09:32 AM)BIAD Wrote: There seems to be comfort in categorising people under certain headings, which ironically is contradictory
to appreciating diverse practices.

A father stealing medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is still a thief, just as a father stealing
medication from a closed drug-store for his sick kid is a father. Semantics is a minefield and most of us have
size-12 shoes!

People do things.

Can You elaborate on what You mean in saying categorizing People under certain headings which ironically is contradictory to appreciating diverse practices?  Not sure I follow that.

As for the example You gave, father stealing from a closed drug store to help His child, firstly, that would not happen in what I work towards.  Needed medicines will be freely available at all times.  Secondly, if We presume there is a medicine hoarder and somehow (S)He is the only supply of a vital medicine, and the father steals it, the case will be examined by Those who care and the father dealt with any Ethical way Those who care choose.  Maybe They will grasp the life/death issue, the love for the child, the desperation, and such, and decide there is no benefit to creating "punishment."

Yes, People do things - but in virtually ALL cases, They have a MOTIVATION to do them.

(09-16-2018, 03:17 PM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: You have observed Humans in a scarcity paradigm, enslaved to Others, artificially governed by psychopaths who control information, with secondary psychopathy promoted.  Your view of "Human nature" is skewed both by these facts and by the fact that the psychopaths in control do ghastly things and in Their media blame "Human nature."  The result of the two Humans left would depend fully on whether one or both were psychopaths.

Can you expound upon how you would bring this "abundance paradigm" about, and cite an example of it at any time in human history? By "any time in human history", I mean from the old paleolithic onwards, when humans first walked their world, Say, for example, from the Acheulian upwards to now.

Quote:There is no need to kill anyOne.  Remove the tool and systems that promote psychopaths to power to wreak all this havoc in Human society.  When They have no more or less power than the next One, They can be handled.  1% of Us are primary psychopaths, genetically incapable of love, caring, or empathy for Others.  Another 5% are secondary psychopaths.  I say 94% of Us can handle Individuals who choose unEthically.  Especially when They have so very little motive to do so.

And "killing" psychopaths requires a witch hunt, something quite unEthical.

This may be revisited once the answer to the above question is attended to.


.

(09-16-2018, 03:47 PM)Amaterasu Solar Wrote: Can You elaborate on what You mean in saying categorizing People under certain
headings which ironically is contradictory to appreciating diverse practices? 
Not sure I follow that...

Yeah, and remember, my opinion isn't aimed at any actual individual, it's merely something I observe
and propose as true. I mean no insult in my remarks and offer no offence.

I meant that by personally -or collectively, when a group decides to 'brand' another, usually-opposite
-in-their-conduct group, it's assumed that all the members of the opposite group will behave and think
in a particular way and usually deemed a negative type of behavior.

An example might be that a soldier in a War may become terrified and decide to desert, whilst a soldier
in the opposing side may do the same. They are the same and different in the eye of an observer.
Both might be classed as cowards and yet, they're on opposing sides.

Between them, one is white, one is black. One is delusional and one is practical. One of them hates what
is perceived as evil and the other sees the world in a moral-flux.
Is it relevant which qualities belong to which?

Categorising individuals is difficult because of the 'add-ons' that comes with placing them under a title that
generically describes the group.
I hope that makes sense?

Quote:...As for the example You gave, father stealing from a closed drug store to help His child,
firstly, that would not happen in what I work towards.  Needed medicines will be freely
available at all times. 

Secondly, if We presume there is a medicine hoarder and somehow (S)He is the only supply
of a vital medicine, and the father steals it, the case will be examined by Those who care
and the father dealt with any Ethical way Those who care choose.

Maybe They will grasp the life/death issue, the love for the child, the desperation, and such,
and decide there is no benefit to creating "punishment."

Yes, People do things - but in virtually ALL cases, They have a MOTIVATION to do them.

The guy-drug-store example was offered to provide a morality conundrum, the age-old agreed rules
of a group were being broken by an individual in a cause that the majority of that group would condone.

I understand the noble proposal that medication would be freely available and I'd be alarmed to believe
that current life-saving drugs were held back for reasons of cruelty or maliciousness.

There are many reasons that don't involve emotional decision-making and I -too, would like to see a
world where everyone looks to a higher standard. Things just sometimes happen!

I don't have the answers or even think I'm anywhere near resolving how this ball works, it took me
almost sixty-years to realise that! But the one-thing I did learn is that people are different and hold
their own agendas, all we can do is steer our own ship and watch for collisions.

Oh... and that money is the God of choice for many.