Better Way To Live?

[Theresa Tennyson]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What did he propose in its place?

Rousseau was of the opinion that the "natural" state of humanity was ideal and attempting to subject it to rules was the cause of the problems of society.

(Note: His concepts, not mine.)

[Theresa Tennyson]

14 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But a tribe, a smaller social organization, is aware of and in contact with all members of its organization, and so might be more able to take care of all appropriately.

And more willing to take advantage of outsiders to do it.

You seem to be using the terms "civilization" and "The United States of America" interchangeably.

They aren't.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson
Adjective != adverb

[Luna Bliss]

13 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Start with an intellectual mess and it usually gets messier.

 

So… what did the writer mean by “civilization” and “tribe”. The writing implies they are different but defines neither. A style of writing most common with propagandists. It leaves everyone arguing about their concept of the two and never bothering to clean things up to enable reaching a civilized consensus.

I think Quinn just started with a little story to get us thinking on our own, but he will get into the details as the book evolves. This technique has nothing to do with propaganda.  You might ask why I did it too as the beginning of a thread -- I did it for the same reason so that we all might think broad and wide and entertain all concepts floating around in our brains which might apply instead of defending against something stated as truth.   I also started the thread that way because I too am just exploring -- I have no answers -- no declaration of truth to begin with.

 

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

But a tribe, a smaller social organization, is aware of and in contact with all members of its organization, and so might be more able to take care of all appropriately.

And more willing to take advantage of outsiders to do it.

You seem to be using the terms "civilization" and "The United States of America" interchangeable.

They aren't.

I don't know that a tribe would be more willing to take advantage of outsiders than a civilization. A civilization has much more power and influence and so can inflict greater harm, and we, as a civilization, have certainly pillaged our way around the globe to take care of ourselves.

I perceive the U.S. as part of Western Civilization.

[Luna Bliss]

13 hours ago, Nalates Urriah said:

If you think one might have more freedom inside or outside of a civilized society, you definitely haven't picked up the meaning of being civilized.

There's nothing that causes me to question more what "being civilized" means than when I read what those who fancied themselves as civilized human beings did to the so-called "savage" Aboriginal peoples they conquered.
The "civilized" conquerors of Natives in the following description and poem about the aboriginal woman named Truganinny had a practice of stuffing and mounting the Natives, much as we still do to animals when we shoot and place them on a wall. Paul Coe described the procedure done to a woman named Truganinny, and a Native American activist, Wendy Rose, wrote a poem about it:

Truganinny

    "Truganinny, the last of the Tasmanians,
    has seen the stuffed and mounted body of
    her husband and it was her dying wish that
    she be buried in the outback or at sea for
    she did not wish her body to be subjected to
    the same indignities. Upon her death she
    was nevertheless stuff and mounted and
    put on display for over eighty years."
    ----------------Paul Coe, Australian Aborigine
    Activist, 1972
~~~~

    Truganinny, by Wendy Rose

You need
to come closer
for little is left
of this tongue
and what I am saying
is important.

I am the last one.

I whose nipples wept
white mist
and saw so many
daughters dead
their mouths empty and round
their breathing stopped
their eyes gone gray.

Take my hand
black into black
as yellow clay
is a slow melt
to grass gold
of earth
and I am melting
back to the Dream.

Do no leave me
for I would speak,
I would sing
one more song.

They will take me.
Already they come
even as I breathe
they are waiting
for me to finish
my dying.
We old ones
take such
a long time.

Please
take my body
to the source of night,
to the great black desert
where Dreaming was born.
Put me under the bulk
of a mountain or in
the distant sea;

put me where
they will not
find me.

[Theresa Tennyson]

3 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know that a tribe would be more willing to take advantage of outsiders than a civilization. A civilization has much more power and influence and so can inflict greater harm, and we, as a civilization, have certainly pillaged our way around the globe to take care of ourselves.

I perceive the U.S. as part of Western Civilization.

I feel the only way to reduce the harm inflicted on others is to create a philosophy that there are no outsiders and causing harm to anyone is causing harm to a member of the "group."

And tribalism is going in exactly the opposite direction.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

6 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know that a tribe would be more willing to take advantage of outsiders than a civilization. A civilization has much more power and influence and so can inflict greater harm, and we, as a civilization, have certainly pillaged our way around the globe to take care of ourselves.

I perceive the U.S. as part of Western Civilization.

I feel the only way to reduce the harm inflicted on others is to create a philosophy that there are no outsiders and causing harm to anyone is causing harm to a member of the "group."

And tribalism is going in exactly the opposite direction.

Well that is Yoga philosophy 101, and what I believe, but achieving that type of consciousness is not easy, and I don't think humankind is ready for it.

Many need to see, to touch and feel, to have people in our presence...in order to care.

It doesn't do any good to exist in what should be -- better to exist in what is.

[Theresa Tennyson]

54 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well that is Yoga philosophy 101, and what I believe, but achieving that type of consciousness is not easy, and I don't think humankind is ready for it.

Many need to see, to touch and feel, to have people in our presence...in order to care.

It doesn't do any good to exist in what should be -- better to exist in what is.

It does even less good to try to go to where we should be by walking away from it.

[Arielle Popstar]

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

It's not necessarily the hierarchy per se that's the problem -- it's how those with the most power treat those with lesser power. For example, there's a hierarchy in my home when my grandson visits my house and the cats within. I'm the boss and have more power, and both he and I control the cats -- but we consider their needs and don't decide that we get to enjoy having all the food, warmth, sleeping space, and medical care while they get none.

So you can use your example of the cats to emphasize with those in society who are the rich and successful as in relation to your cats, you are the same. Now consider your supposed benign dictatorship over your cats where you assume you are doing what is best for them but are you really from their perspective? Can they go out any time they want? Do they have the quality food they would like live instead of yucky tinned food? Can they climb the curtains or lay on what furniture they want? Is the house heated to the level they would like or what you oh dictator prefer? Are you somewhat prone to a degree of favouritism to one over the other fawning more love and attention on one vs the other?

Quote

Our patriarchal society, creating levels of power between people, allows too much to go to the top. There's a general cult of individuality in Western Civilization and we don't want to interfere with individuals at the top because, after all, we're all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will be at the top soon, right? It requires that we keep people on the bottom levels that the rich can suck off of, be it with low wages or structured according to our culture's decision on who the bad people are that deserve the bottom status (brown people, for sure).  In keeping the bottom levels active it simply insures that the top gets MORE -- they feel they deserve it.

No doubt massive books could be written about power and poverty in our society but one thing that I rarely see mentioned by you in these sort of posts is the simple fact of money management. Poor people by and large have little to no money management skills whereas those that do have money, have learned to some degree how. I say that as someone who has been on both sides of that equation and though still nowhere near as good as I could be, learning to manage my monies and disciplining my shopping habits has helped me come a long way for a greater degree of financial autonomy.

Statistically a lack of money management skills shows that even giving a large percentage of people more money will actually sink them deeper into the hole as they get increasingly overconfident in their ability to support the costlier lifestyle that comes as a result. If we were to zero everyone to a level playing field, in one generation the rich would be rich again and the poor again in poverty and looking for handouts.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

There's nothing that causes me to question more what "being civilized" means than when I read what those who fancied themselves as civilized human beings did to the so-called "savage" Aboriginal peoples they conquered.
The "civilized" conquerors of Natives in the following description and poem about the aboriginal woman named Truganinny had a practice of stuffing and mounting the Natives, much as we still do to animals when we shoot and place them on a wall. Paul Coe described the procedure done to a woman named Truganinny, and a Native American activist, Wendy Rose, wrote a poem about it:

Truganinny

    "Truganinny, the last of the Tasmanians,
    has seen the stuffed and mounted body of
    her husband and it was her dying wish that
    she be buried in the outback or at sea for
    she did not wish her body to be subjected to
    the same indignities. Upon her death she
    was nevertheless stuff and mounted and
    put on display for over eighty years."
    ----------------Paul Coe, Australian Aborigine
    Activist, 1972
~~~~

    Truganinny, by Wendy Rose

You need
to come closer
for little is left
of this tongue
and what I am saying
is important.

I am the last one.

I whose nipples wept
white mist
and saw so many
daughters dead
their mouths empty and round
their breathing stopped
their eyes gone gray.

Take my hand
black into black
as yellow clay
is a slow melt
to grass gold
of earth
and I am melting
back to the Dream.

Do no leave me
for I would speak,
I would sing
one more song.

They will take me.
Already they come
even as I breathe
they are waiting
for me to finish
my dying.
We old ones
take such
a long time.

Please
take my body
to the source of night,
to the great black desert
where Dreaming was born.
Put me under the bulk
of a mountain or in
the distant sea;

put me where
they will not
find me.

What your example shows is that the civilization was much more capable of defending both itself as well as its individual members to a greater degree then those gathered in tribes. Injustices happened but that is a result of people not in how they gathered themselves. Obviously the greater the group, the more power for injustices but lets face it, just being in a small group is not some magic formula for eradicating injustice.

[BelindaN]

Human nature undermines the whole idea of civilisation. 

Our leaders represent only themselves. They are greedy for power, influence & wealth, and they tend to be expansionist, ruthlessly chasing assets such as oil and precious metals. Democracies also try to impose this ideology on others, which is not always culturally acceptable. We moved beyond colonialism, but is the world a better place? I don't think so. Technology, which usually evolves into weapons, is more threatening today than ever. The world is effectively a tribal basket case.

[Theresa Tennyson]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know that a tribe would be more willing to take advantage of outsiders than a civilization. A civilization has much more power and influence and so can inflict greater harm, and we, as a civilization, have certainly pillaged our way around the globe to take care of ourselves.

At one point that may have been true; however, the genie has long been out of the bottle and small groups and individuals today have a remarkable ability to do disproportionate amounts of harm if they're motivated to.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well that is Yoga philosophy 101, and what I believe, but achieving that type of consciousness is not easy, and I don't think humankind is ready for it.

Many need to see, to touch and feel, to have people in our presence...in order to care.

It doesn't do any good to exist in what should be -- better to exist in what is.

It does even less good to try to go to where we should be by walking away from it.

That's why I challenge those on this very forum who attempt to scapegoat or 'other' people who are different and attempt to oust them from existence here. I catch a lot of flack by it from those who don't like their hateful aggression and need to have the group as they deem it should be thwarted or restricted in any way. There is such a need in society overall, stronger in some than others, to remove what is confusing or too different from ourselves. We tend to distrust something we don't understand.

And I don't see everyone backing away from doing anything about reducing the 'othering' so destructive to the world. So many groups are challenging it and trying to improve society in healthy ways.  Again, not all groups are bad. We should do what we can to increase love and justice for all right now no matter what the future brings, be it with our individual efforts or with those in a group.

However, we do have to read the room and be practical in assessing what can be done. Is it really possible anytime soon to sing the song 'Imagine' by John Lennon all together?  I'm not convinced it's going to happen in my lifetime at least. My best guess is that, as we run short of energy as climate change increases and ruins livable habitat and ability to grow food, all hell is going to break lose, there will be resource wars, the population will decrease dramatically, and what will remain is a few tribes scattered here and there, trying to eke out a new life sans complex technology.

It's funny, I know quite a few spiritual and new-age people who look at this critical time period we're in as some sort of sign for the great change that is to come, where humanity will leave its old ways and the new world will be ushered in, full of light and love. It's very similar to the rapture notion in Christianity. Who knows, they may be right -- I hope they are. But I'm afraid I'm doubtful for this happening in the near future. I more like to make fun of what I see as deception and so delusional that it prevents preparation for what is really to come.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

2 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

I don't know that a tribe would be more willing to take advantage of outsiders than a civilization. A civilization has much more power and influence and so can inflict greater harm, and we, as a civilization, have certainly pillaged our way around the globe to take care of ourselves.

At one point that may have been true; however, the genie has long been out of the bottle and small groups and individuals today have a remarkable ability to do disproportionate amounts of harm if they're motivated to.

I agree, they have the potential to do great harm, as we see the U.S. descend into proto-fascism due to their antics I have no doubt.
But interestingly, an analysis I read recently proposed that the reason they joined together (so easily due to social media) is because they were able to be part of a tribe again, something lost to a great degree in our alienated, over-individualized Western Civilization.
So the cause of this destructive tribe, according to their analysis, is the lack of constructive ones.

Here's an article that helped me consider the meaning and necessity of tribes:

WHAT IS A TRIBE?
   Human culture as we know it is still defined by the power of collective identity, the people we seek out to call our own

 "BEFORE THERE WAS a self, there was the tribe.

True, “tribe” is a troublesome word, bearing the weight of decades of anthropological study that privileged Western civilization over all other traditions. But let us rescue it here, pare it down to its simplest meaning, as a name for the first human communities that formed beyond the primal bonds of kinship — the beginnings of the great experiment we call society, which taught us to be human.

Before there was a self, there was the tribe.

Our earliest ancestors did not stand alone; they banded together to survive. For vast stretches of history, our consciousness was shaped by our connections to the people in closest proximity to us. Identity was like a complicated address, at the intersection of birthplace and blood, the things we chose to worship and the ways we kept ourselves alive, in a finite landscape we knew as both home and world. We were defined not by our hidden interior life but by our outward gestures, the rituals and markings we shared, the tributes we paid to common ideals of goodness and beauty — not by what made us different but by what made us the same.
  
But how do we square this with the ethos of individualism that has dominated Western life for the past four centuries? The very idea of the individual (from the Latin for “indivisible”: that which cannot be separated from itself) is a late construct, specific to time and place. While some historians trace its origins as far back as 12th-century Europe, it was not fully embraced until the 17th century, at the start of the Age of Enlightenment, coinciding with the rise of the nation-state, which superseded and subsumed tribal allegiances into a single destiny. Becoming a citizen, part of an amorphous, disparate, geographically wide-ranging group — many of whose members you would likely never meet — was inextricably linked to becoming an individual, no longer beholden to the tribe that once claimed you, and free (at least theoretically) to decide for yourself who you are or want to be.

The primacy of the individual is still resisted by many cultures, particularly in much of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. For if you enshrine the self above all, there’s the danger of dead-ending in solipsism, disavowing the responsibilities of public life in pursuit of a perfected solitude, as if being in the world and being true to oneself are at odds. The early 20th-century German philosopher Martin Heidegger thought otherwise: that to be human is to be in the world. We come alive in the presence of others. The self is not a fixed goal but a flux, ever in progress, generated and modified by each encounter, in the space and sometimes the tension between what is expected of us — by family, society, cosmology — and what we might actually want. Even before we thought of ourselves as individuals, we had private desires, arising in response to the dictates of our context; as the American-Canadian historian Natalie Zemon Davis has written of the premodern era, being embedded in a circumscribed social sphere “did not preclude self-discovery, but rather prompted it.”

IT’S WHEN THAT context grows too large, beyond the human capacity to grasp, that we may become unmoored: Our confidence in who we are starts to fray. In this age of globalization and corporate homogenization, when it appears that the generic is triumphing over the particular, there is a hunger to stand out, to resist the broader narrative. At the same time, the erosion of local institutions and neighborhood life has left a void: Some of us fear we no longer have a place to call home, in the deepest sense of the word, a place that is ours and can never be taken from us. In “Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change” (1975), the American political scientist Harold R. Isaacs likened this alienation to the literal and spiritual displacement of immigrants “transported across great physical and cultural distances”; group identity is “the ark they carry with them, the temple of whatever rules one’s forebears lived by … whatever form of creed or belief in a given set of answers to the unanswerables.” To be part of a tribe is at once a refuge and a declaration of faith. It is to be anchored, to be certain that we have a role in the world".

more....
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/13/t-magazine/tribe-meaning.html

[Luna Bliss]

21 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

22 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

There's nothing that causes me to question more what "being civilized" means than when I read what those who fancied themselves as civilized human beings did to the so-called "savage" Aboriginal peoples they conquered.
The "civilized" conquerors of Natives in the following description and poem about the aboriginal woman named Truganinny had a practice of stuffing and mounting the Natives, much as we still do to animals when we shoot and place them on a wall. Paul Coe described the procedure done to a woman named Truganinny, and a Native American activist, Wendy Rose, wrote a poem about it:

Truganinny

    "Truganinny, the last of the Tasmanians,
    has seen the stuffed and mounted body of
    her husband and it was her dying wish that
    she be buried in the outback or at sea for
    she did not wish her body to be subjected to
    the same indignities. Upon her death she
    was nevertheless stuff and mounted and
    put on display for over eighty years."
    ----------------Paul Coe, Australian Aborigine
    Activist, 1972
~~~~

    Truganinny, by Wendy Rose

You need
to come closer
for little is left
of this tongue
and what I am saying
is important.

I am the last one.

I whose nipples wept
white mist
and saw so many
daughters dead
their mouths empty and round
their breathing stopped
their eyes gone gray.

Take my hand
black into black
as yellow clay
is a slow melt
to grass gold
of earth
and I am melting
back to the Dream.

Do no leave me
for I would speak,
I would sing
one more song.

They will take me.
Already they come
even as I breathe
they are waiting
for me to finish
my dying.
We old ones
take such
a long time.

Please
take my body
to the source of night,
to the great black desert
where Dreaming was born.
Put me under the bulk
of a mountain or in
the distant sea;

put me where
they will not
find me.

Expand  

What your example shows is that the civilization was much more capable of defending both itself as well as its individual members to a greater degree then those gathered in tribes. Injustices happened but that is a result of people not in how they gathered themselves. Obviously the greater the group, the more power for injustices but lets face it, just being in a small group is not some magic formula for eradicating injustice.

Well first of all I'm not saying I believe we should abandon civilization altogether and break down into smaller tribes. I simply think this will likely happen as Western Civilization collapses due to energy shortages and climate change. Everything will become local once again.

But I do think if we had remained in smaller units of social organization (tribes) that the situation we find ourselves in with climate change and other problems contributing to our collapse might have been averted. Indeed, smaller group size is not "some magical formula for eradicating injustice", as you say, but I think it could have prevented a lot of it.

The reason I believe this is because of how empathy operates in human beings, and how empathy diminishes in large social organizations when we are out of contact with all members living in a large civilization.  We have trouble caring for, and so tending to the needs of, those not in our immediate experience -- those who seem more real to us via our ways of experiencing the world with sound, sight, taste, and touch. Those humans far away don't seem as real to many people -- they're more of an abstraction that exists only in our thought. We may know intellectually they do indeed exist, but we don't feel it, and so it's easy to dismiss or ignore harm done to them, especially when using them brings great benefit to ourselves -- benefits that seem very real to our personal selves.

There's a reason why the ads on TV asking for donations to help abused and homeless animals show the suffering of animals quite graphically, engaging our senses of sight and sound -- so that the situation feels more real. I doubt reading a paragraph on TV or in a book about how animals have no homes and suffer would garner as much sympathy and desired donations.

It's not like smaller units of social organization is all it would take to create a better world, and in fact I think the nuclear family is a disaster and has been shown to be a failure. Half of the murders committed by men against women are done by intimate partners within that small social unit -- So the social unit needs to be a bit larger with others around who can keep track of abuses and prevent them.

Psychopaths, who lack empathy, arise in all communities. The phenomenon appears to be an aberration in the brain combined with environmental influence. Which is to say, psychopaths manifest in tribes too. I've read that such people in past Native tribes were ousted from the group when efforts to change them went unheeded. Not having the support of the group in times past was usually tantamount to death.
But in our modern society these psychopaths, unchecked, rise to the positions of leaders. Studies show there is a disproportionate level of psychopaths and narcissists in high positions of authority in the Western world -- there was nothing to stop them from rising to power, and in many cases these traits inherent in psychopathy are good for competition in business -- ruthlessness, winning at all costs, lack of regard for anything that does not benefit oneself directly.

[Luna Bliss]

[Luna Bliss]

21 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

On 11/2/2021 at 3:14 PM, Luna Bliss said:

It's not necessarily the hierarchy per se that's the problem -- it's how those with the most power treat those with lesser power. For example, there's a hierarchy in my home when my grandson visits my house and the cats within. I'm the boss and have more power, and both he and I control the cats -- but we consider their needs and don't decide that we get to enjoy having all the food, warmth, sleeping space, and medical care while they get none.

So you can use your example of the cats to emphasize with those in society who are the rich and successful as in relation to your cats, you are the same. Now consider your supposed benign dictatorship over your cats where you assume you are doing what is best for them but are you really from their perspective? Can they go out any time they want? Do they have the quality food they would like live instead of yucky tinned food? Can they climb the curtains or lay on what furniture they want? Is the house heated to the level they would like or what you oh dictator prefer? Are you somewhat prone to a degree of favouritism to one over the other fawning more love and attention on one vs the other?

You seem to be implying something here, but I just don't know what....   ??  Care to explain more?

[Luna Bliss]

21 hours ago, BelindaN said:

Human nature undermines the whole idea of civilisation. 

Our leaders represent only themselves. They are greedy for power, influence & wealth, and they tend to be expansionist, ruthlessly chasing assets such as oil and precious metals. Democracies also try to impose this ideology on others, which is not always culturally acceptable. We moved beyond colonialism, but is the world a better place? I don't think so. Technology, which usually evolves into weapons, is more threatening today than ever. The world is effectively a tribal basket case.

Well I'm looking into the idea that it might not be human nature per se that is the problem, but rather a certain group of people (Western Civilization, to be exact) took a wrong turn somewhere and structured society in destructive ways.

[Theresa Tennyson]

17 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Well I'm looking into the idea that it might not be human nature per se that is the problem, but rather a certain group of people (Western Civilization, to be exact) took a wrong turn somewhere and structured society in destructive ways.

Have you looked into the idea that non-Western civilizations/societies had similar problems and dynamics and you're just romanticizing the "other"? As far as Native Americans go, there were many peoples living their lives in widely different ways. The Niimiipuu/Nez Perce were probably one of the most admirable peoples on the continent, including the Europeans. I really doubt that you'd want to build society around the behavior of the Salish or the Kiowa though.

[Nick0678]

Ahhh.. yes the western civilization is horrible and malicious, we need to abandon it and live according to natural selection.

In simple words that means "Survival of the fittest."

[Garnet Psaltery]

21 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

My best guess is that, as we run short of energy as climate change increases and ruins livable habitat and ability to grow food, all hell is going to break lose, there will be resource wars, the population will decrease dramatically, and what will remain is a few tribes scattered here and there, trying to eke out a new life sans complex technology.

It's funny, I know quite a few spiritual and new-age people who look at this critical time period we're in as some sort of sign for the great change that is to come, where humanity will leave its old ways and the new world will be ushered in, full of light and love. It's very similar to the rapture notion in Christianity. Who knows, they may be right -- I hope they are. But I'm afraid I'm doubtful for this happening in the near future. I more like to make fun of what I see as deception and so delusional that it prevents preparation for what is really to come.

Just a point of clarification.  The Rapture (about which I'm not convinced) is where the saved are taken out of the world because it's about to get very nasty for a while (possibly 7 years) so "all hell is going to break loose" could be correct.

[Ceka Cianci]

Just nobody blow it like James Franco did and get dropped back down.. hehehe

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Nick0678 said:

Ahhh.. yes the western civilization is horrible and malicious, we need to abandon it and live according to natural selection.

In simple words that means "Survival of the fittest."

What is a country that allows its citizens to die from diabetes due to their inability to pay for insulin -- insulin that is jacked up in price compared to other countries I might add, by Big Pharma. What is a country that allows children to go to bed hungry because their parents can't afford adequate food? 
I would liken that country to that lion who takes what he needs simply because he can, and doesn't much concern himself with anybody else around him. Indeed, the survival of the fittest pervades America, and its only getting worse.

[Luna Bliss]

 “Readers of Ishmael often assume that I must be a great lover of nature.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.
    I’m a great lover of the world, which is something quite different.
    Nature is a figment of the Romantic imagination, and a very insidious figment at that.

    There simply is no such thing as nature –
    in the sense of a realm of being from which humans can distinguish themselves.
    It just doesn’t exist.”

                        Daniel Quinn

[Luna Bliss]

On 11/3/2021 at 9:10 AM, Arielle Popstar said:

Quote

Our patriarchal society, creating levels of power between people, allows too much to go to the top. There's a general cult of individuality in Western Civilization and we don't want to interfere with individuals at the top because, after all, we're all just temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will be at the top soon, right? It requires that we keep people on the bottom levels that the rich can suck off of, be it with low wages or structured according to our culture's decision on who the bad people are that deserve the bottom status (brown people, for sure).  In keeping the bottom levels active it simply insures that the top gets MORE -- they feel they deserve it.

No doubt massive books could be written about power and poverty in our society but one thing that I rarely see mentioned by you in these sort of posts is the simple fact of money management. Poor people by and large have little to no money management skills whereas those that do have money, have learned to some degree how. I say that as someone who has been on both sides of that equation and though still nowhere near as good as I could be, learning to manage my monies and disciplining my shopping habits has helped me come a long way for a greater degree of financial autonomy.

Statistically a lack of money management skills shows that even giving a large percentage of people more money will actually sink them deeper into the hole as they get increasingly overconfident in their ability to support the costlier lifestyle that comes as a result. If we were to zero everyone to a level playing field, in one generation the rich would be rich again and the poor again in poverty and looking for handouts.

Yes those massive books have already been written

I'm not sure your own experience with money is something to apply to the entire world though. Our personal experience in anything is but one data point to use when evaluating matters -- it's important but creates skewed results when we don't consider a larger picture. I'm happy you developed money management skills and curtailed your bad shopping habits though.

Apparently you revel in blaming those who are financially poor for bad choices and poor money-management skills instead of recognizing the very real problems inherent in the structure of society where money far too easily flows to the top. You see no structural problems within society itself that works to keep people down?
Honestly, I don't know how you can ignore all the factors that benefits those with power and that create poverty in those who have less power. Our society is structured in a way that squeezes the most that it can from those at the bottom -- wages have not kept up with inflation so that the wealthy can direct more of the money derived from people's efforts to themselves.

I'm not denying the need for personal responsibility in all this -- everyone should get up and do the very best they can with any day. But there are complex factors to consider. I mean, I could surely eat only beans for half the month because I might run out of money in retirement, but then I might die before I'd need that money, and so should I deny myself now? I could have worked more hours and neglected my child even if that would mean she wasn't as psychologically healthy in the future through such neglect.
Those examples are to say that people sometimes have to make hard choices, and we shouldn't forget that in our judgement of them.
There are mentally ill people, physically ill people, people who aren't so intelligent, people with PTSD, people who were victims of devastating abuse, people with bad parental role models -- all of these conditions make it very hard to hold the types of jobs necessary to accrue wealth. You don't see this reality though, and blame it all on irresponsible people who can't manage their money?

Realizing the problems which cause poverty doesn't take away from the hard work that SOME wealthy people engaged in to get where they are, and it doesn't take away the fact that you were able to improve your lot in life to a degree through your own efforts. But when we examine the reasons for obtaining wealth, especially extreme wealth, we often find the main cause is simply luck -- the wealthy were often born with high intelligence, for example, or had exceptional parenting that fostered the ability to learn, and the money needed to obtain the best education.  Much of wealth is inherited, and has nothing to do with merit -- it's simply passed on from generation to generation.

Poverty is a complex problem and can't be reduced to only a lack of personal responsibility. Your analysis is too simplistic -- I wouldn't mind so much except it's an analysis that blames and degrades others, and so I get upset and must confront. Again, this kind of analysis is abusive to others, and this is why I tend to get upset with your views. It is a worldview most often displayed by those who are threatened by the fact that there are forces outside their control, forces that can't be defined in the black & white terms needed to control it easily, if its existence is admitted to at all. But your need to control, your denial of reality, harms others.
I wish you would stop and think how this kind of analysis might feel to someone who is trying the best they can yet suffering, and as they suffer due to circumstances beyond their control they get the double whammy of blaming them for that very suffering. Blaming the victim is an egregious dynamic, a kind of gaslighting mindfork nobody should have to endure.

Poverty is not a simple matter -- there is no single cause of poverty. Rather, there are multiple causes that are linked and compounding. Poverty can strike during an unexpected crisis: a serious health problem, job loss, or divorce. These crises can be particularly debilitating when compounded by other risk factors such as low education, limited skills training, lack of savings, or lack of family supports. Poverty can result from personal struggle – physical, mental, or emotional – and many people experiencing poverty are faced with a lack of emotional, psychological or financial support. Poverty also exists because of bigger systems: changing market demand for skills or labor, gaps in social safety nets, the high costs of education and health, or because of systemic discrimination. Poverty exists for all these interlocking reasons and is compounded by the interaction of causes and effects.