Are you afraid of the future?

[Bagnu]

6 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Before we had the concept of currency and relied on the barter system it was probably a lot harder to hoard wealth since if you were, for example, a farmer with a field full of turnips you can really only eat so many of them and watch the rest of them rot, or share them with others who were in need of turnips (or whatever other resource you had an excess of).

The barter system requires an exchange of goods. The extra turnips would be exchanged for other goods, not simply shared. The turnips were a form of currency.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Bagnu

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

12 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

That was my point. Without the ability to amass wealth in some form, that is impossible.

You don't need to amass wealth in order to perform a charitable act.  My mothers family were far from wealthy and mostly worked on farms, etc. but since they lived in a very rural close-knit community when they had more of something than they needed they would share it with their neighbours, and their neighbours would do the same in return.

[Bagnu]

3 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

You don't need to amass wealth in order to perform a charitable act.  My mothers family were far from wealthy and mostly worked on farms, etc. but since they lived in a very rural close-knit community when they had more of something than they needed they would share it with their neighbours, and their neighbours would do the same in return.

The wasn't a charitable act. It was way for both parties to ensure their mutual survival. Because they cared about each other.

Edited January 18, 2022 by Bagnu

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

You don't need to amass wealth in order to perform a charitable act.  My mothers family were far from wealthy and mostly worked on farms, etc. but since they lived in a very rural close-knit community when they had more of something than they needed they would share it with their neighbours, and their neighbours would do the same in return.

So still some reciprocity. It is when freeloaders get into the picture that the charity starts not feeling so good.

[StarlanderGoods]

I love it when people bring up the deaths caused by communist revolutions. I wonder how are they keeping tally of the deaths caused by capitalism.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

3 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

The barter system requires an exchange of goods. The extra turnips would be exchanged for other goods, not simply shared. The turnips were a form of currency.

Yes, I'm aware of the difference between bartering and charity, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make?

1 minute ago, Bagnu said:

The wasn't a charitable act. It was way for both parties to ensure their mutual survival.

No, at any point they could have gone to their local store or market and purchased the same items, but since someone had an excess and it would have gone to waste they simply shared it rather than wasting it.

[Rolig Loon]

2 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

You don't need to amass wealth in order to perform a charitable act.  My mothers family were far from wealthy and mostly worked on farms, etc. but since they lived in a very rural close-knit community when they had more of something than they needed they would share it with their neighbours, and their neighbours would do the same in return.

That sort of communal sharing is sadly quite rare. It's hard to find charity these days that doesn't involve reciprocation, even if it is just implied.

      "You are welcome to my turnips, but I want you to help me harvest them."

      "Here, have a turnip but stay away from my daughter."

      "Eat as many turnips as you like, but stop sleeping in my doorway."

      "Your country may have one billion tons of our turnips if you agree to protect our turnip fields from my enemy."

This is why so many people who could benefit from charity don't get it, or actually refuse it.  As soon as strings are attached, charity becomes an implied trade again.  "My property in exchange for something that you value."

[Bagnu]

3 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

I love it when people bring up the deaths caused by communist revolutions. I wonder how are they keeping tally of the deaths caused by capitalism.

I am well aware that capitalism is not perfect. I bring it up because communism has caused a great deal of suffering for my family. I am more keenly aware of that. 

[Bagnu]

13 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, I'm aware of the difference between bartering and charity, I'm just not sure what point you're trying to make?

No, at any point they could have gone to their local store or market and purchased the same items, but since someone had an excess and it would have gone to waste they simply shared it rather than wasting it.

Yes, because both parties wanted to help each other. They cared about each other.

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

2 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That sort of communal sharing is sadly quite rare. It's hard to find charity these days that doesn't involve reciprocation, even if it is just implied.

      "You are welcome to my turnips, but I want you to help me harvest them."

      "Here, have a turnip but stay away from my daughter."

      "Eat as many turnips as you like, but stop sleeping in my doorway."

      "Your country may have one billion tons of our turnips if you agree to protect our turnip fields from my enemy."

This is why so many people who could benefit from charity don't get it, or actually refuse it.  As soon as strings are attached, charity becomes an implied trade again.  "My property in exchange for something that you value."

Yes, which brings us neatly back to that very unlikely dramatic shift in ideology in which every member of society is provided for, everybody stops wanting more than they need and aid is offered freely to anyone in need of it so that nobody feels compelled to demand compensation or recompense.  As I said before it's really the only circumstance in which I can see society abandoning the concept of currency in favor of altruism.

[Bagnu]

1 minute ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, which brings us neatly back to that very unlikely dramatic shift in ideology in which every member of society is provided for, everybody stops wanting more than they need and aid is offered freely to anyone in need of it so that nobody feels compelled to demand compensation or recompense.  As I said before it's really the only circumstance in which I can see society abandoning the concept of currency in favor of altruism.

This is where I disagree. Altruism is only possible AFTER our own needs have been met. Human nature may not be immutable, but we have our own survival needs. Otherwise, as I said before, we become a community of ants.

[Bagnu]

16 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

That sort of communal sharing is sadly quite rare. It's hard to find charity these days that doesn't involve reciprocation, even if it is just implied.

      "You are welcome to my turnips, but I want you to help me harvest them."

      "Here, have a turnip but stay away from my daughter."

      "Eat as many turnips as you like, but stop sleeping in my doorway."

      "Your country may have one billion tons of our turnips if you agree to protect our turnip fields from my enemy."

This is why so many people who could benefit from charity don't get it, or actually refuse it.  As soon as strings are attached, charity becomes an implied trade again.  "My property in exchange for something that you value."

The only thing is, in a close community, without reciprocation, the parties involved stop helping each other.

[StarlanderGoods]

3 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

This is where I disagree. Altruism is only possible AFTER our own needs have been met. Human nature may not be immutable, but we have our own survival needs. Otherwise, as I said before, we become a community of ants.

This is your personal opinion, and I respect it.

However, you shouldnt state it as a fact without a mountain of evidence.

[Bagnu]

7 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

This is your personal opinion, and I respect it.

However, you shouldnt state it as a fact without a mountain of evidence.

Very true. This is my personal opinion. To reverse the situation, do you have a mountain of evidence against it?

Edited January 18, 2022 by Bagnu

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

Yes, which brings us neatly back to that very unlikely dramatic shift in ideology in which every member of society is provided for, everybody stops wanting more than they need and aid is offered freely to anyone in need of it so that nobody feels compelled to demand compensation or recompense.  As I said before it's really the only circumstance in which I can see society abandoning the concept of currency in favor of altruism.

I agree completely. Those of us who remember the 60s recall the idealism that led young people to start communes where everyone shared in the work of the community and shared in its benefits. It was a great ideal and it worked well in many places, at least for a while. In the county where I live there is still the remnant of one of those communes. They now sell their own surplus crops and woven baskets in the local farmers market, so they are not completely apart from the world of trade, but the spirit lives on.  Where communal ownership of assets has been successful, it is a great model.  When it starts to break down, it often does so because the sense of shared ownership is not matched by a sense of shared responsibility or because charity is not truly altruistic. 

 

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

5 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

This is where I disagree. Altruism is only possible AFTER our own needs have been met. Human nature may not be immutable, but we have our own survival needs.

The point being that EVERYONES needs would be met by the collective

(sorry, after all this talk of Star Trek I couldn't resist).

8 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Otherwise, as I said before, we become a community of ants.

You really should stop hating on ants, they have feelings too you know! 😜

[StarlanderGoods]

9 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Very true. This is my personal opinion. To reverse the situation, do you have a mountain of evidence against it?

I dont need a mountain of evidence, because I am not making wild sweeping claims about the "true nature" of humankind.

[Rolig Loon]

7 minutes ago, Fluffy Sharkfin said:

(sorry, after all this talk of Star Trek I couldn't resist).

Heh, it's hard not to let your mind drift to the dark side of communal living, isn't it? Without drifting as far as Star Trek, we can think of many contemporary examples of societies that are nominally based on communal sharing but are sad failures.  As Monty Python once said, as Dennis Moore, "This redistribution of wealth is harder than it looks".

Edited January 18, 2022 by Rolig Loon
typos. as always.

[Bagnu]

8 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

I dont need a mountain of evidence, because I am not making wild sweeping claims about the "true nature" of humankind.

I did overstep my bounds. But can you provide a "grain" of evidence to refute what I wrote?

Edited January 18, 2022 by Bagnu

[Fluffy Sharkfin]

3 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

Heh, it's hard not to let your mind drift to the dark side of communal living, isn't it? Without drifting as far as Star Trek, we can think of may contemporary examples of societies that are nominally based on communal sharing but are sad failures.  As Monty Python once said, as Dennis Moore, "This redistribution of wealth is harder than it looks".

Yes, science fiction seems to be full of cautionary tales if we didn't already have enough from our own history.  Personally I make a point of always saying "Please!" and "Thank you!" to my amazon echo devices since my parents always taught me it costs nothing to be polite and on the off-chance we do all end up in the matrix maybe Alexa will remember and give me a pod with a view?! 😅

[Doris Johnsky]

To answer the OP:

The future is unknown and speculation is senseless and a waste of time.  

 

As to roaming the stars, Not until we can beat the speed of light.  The Galaxy is (as you noted in a later post) so big that travel to the stars AT the speed of light (C in science) will take centuries to travel the stars.  Example: the stars that scientist THINK may have a viable "goldilocks zone"   are 2,700 to 5600 light years from Earth. At C that is 2700 to 5600 YEARS to reach these stars. 

Einstein says we can't go C.  We turn into light itself at that point. 

So, what to do?  Nothing.  Despite, Science Fiction (which I read a lot) there is no technology that can bypass C.   There are theories that are no where near being viable.  Mainly for lack of power. 

 

dissertation over.

Am I scared of the future?  No.  I refuse to be frightened of something I can't predict.  

Edited January 18, 2022 by Doris Johnsky

[Rolig Loon]

32 minutes ago, Bagnu said:

Altruism is only possible AFTER our own needs have been met. Human nature may not be immutable, but we have our own survival needs. Otherwise, as I said before, we become a community of ants.

I am not a churchy person, but since Sidney Poitier died very recently I can't help thinking of Matthew 6:28 (I'll pause while you rush to find a copy .. ). That's where Fluffy and I have been wandering, philosophically, and it is what has encouraged men and women to join monasteries and convents, or set up soup kitchens, or to take on any number of other roles that involve giving up personal assets and even some basic necessities for the good of others. Altruism is extremely rare, I believe, and is never destined to be popular. Still, it's valuable as an aspiration.

[StarlanderGoods]

4 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I am not a churchy person, but since Sidney Poitier died very recently I can't help thinking of Matthew 6:28 (I'll pause while you rush to find a copy .. ). That's where Fluffy and I have been wandering, philosophically, and it is what has encouraged men and women to join monasteries and convents, or set up soup kitchens, or to take on any number of other roles that involve giving up personal assets and even some basic necessities for the good of others. Altruism is extremely rare, I believe, and is never destined to be popular. Still, it's valuable as an aspiration.

Im really torn on the subject. On one side, there are a lot of people who need inmediate aid and that one can help, like you said, starting or joining soup kitches and such.

On the other side, charity is like trying to block the sun with your hands, there are deep, systemic changes needed (globally) to support the dispossessed, and our efforts are maybe better spent trying to change our societies so they care for the ones in need, instead of trying the fill the gaps of absent governments.

[Bagnu]

15 minutes ago, Rolig Loon said:

I am not a churchy person, but since Sidney Poitier died very recently I can't help thinking of Matthew 6:28 (I'll pause while you rush to find a copy .. ). That's where Fluffy and I have been wandering, philosophically, and it is what has encouraged men and women to join monasteries and convents, or set up soup kitchens, or to take on any number of other roles that involve giving up personal assets and even some basic necessities for the good of others. Altruism is extremely rare, I believe, and is never destined to be popular. Still, it's valuable as an aspiration.

Yes, I agree. But there personal needs have been met. The monastaries and convents provide for their personal needs. They wouldn't be able to provide for others unless their needs have been met first. But there is the concept of why anyone does those things. Is it to make themselves feel good about doing those things, or actual altruism? I can't answer that question. That is another philosophical concept. Or is altruism such as that meant to ensure our survival as a species? Again I can't answer that question.

[Silent Mistwalker]

Holy hell. Did I start this dumpster fire? I am so sorry!