What should we aim for as a society?
Discussion
What type of society do we want and what do we think is important in life?
It seems to be assumed that we should live a certain type of life: study long and hard at school to get good qualifications, get a job and work long hours every week for most of our life (with the end date for work being pushed ever further out by increasing pension age). Be grateful for what time we get off and the diversions from work we are allowed.
Your value to society is best measured by your salary. If we can’t monetise it, it doesn’t count.
You hear people say that what really matters is human relationships and that in the end financial success is often an illusion and doesn’t bring people happiness.
You also hear that living in a society with huge disparates in wealth and income is toxic for all involved as it generates envy in the poor and paranoia in the rich. Yet we promote such societies.
Research shows that some of the most happiest people are those that live in less developed societies but in strong, small communities where everyone knows and supports each other.
We all seem trapped in the current capitalist model and suffering from Stockholm syndrome, supporting without question the system that uses us.
What would your ideal society look like? And do you think it possible for one country to make a change without there being a global change?
It seems to be assumed that we should live a certain type of life: study long and hard at school to get good qualifications, get a job and work long hours every week for most of our life (with the end date for work being pushed ever further out by increasing pension age). Be grateful for what time we get off and the diversions from work we are allowed.
Your value to society is best measured by your salary. If we can’t monetise it, it doesn’t count.
You hear people say that what really matters is human relationships and that in the end financial success is often an illusion and doesn’t bring people happiness.
You also hear that living in a society with huge disparates in wealth and income is toxic for all involved as it generates envy in the poor and paranoia in the rich. Yet we promote such societies.
Research shows that some of the most happiest people are those that live in less developed societies but in strong, small communities where everyone knows and supports each other.
We all seem trapped in the current capitalist model and suffering from Stockholm syndrome, supporting without question the system that uses us.
What would your ideal society look like? And do you think it possible for one country to make a change without there being a global change?
its an unanswerable quandary:
ideally Id want a country where the government interreference was minimal. yes there has to be laws to protect each other, but do I want CCTV / a surveillance state? No I don't.
I'd like to work less hours and spend more free time doing the things I enjoy, having enough money to not worry about if I can afford to buy those latte's and chocolate cakes without needing a bank loan due to the increased cost of goods. How would this be achievable? I don't know. Do we really "need" to work 38 hours every week to achieve satisfactory output or could we condense those hours into 30?
I'd like to turn on the Tv without seeing yet another terrorist attack or gang related death. Id like to be able to afford a reliable new car without having to put 8k down followed by 5 years of eye watering monthlies and a balloon payment.
the person who can work all this out is far smarter than anyone who is in power currently
ideally Id want a country where the government interreference was minimal. yes there has to be laws to protect each other, but do I want CCTV / a surveillance state? No I don't.
I'd like to work less hours and spend more free time doing the things I enjoy, having enough money to not worry about if I can afford to buy those latte's and chocolate cakes without needing a bank loan due to the increased cost of goods. How would this be achievable? I don't know. Do we really "need" to work 38 hours every week to achieve satisfactory output or could we condense those hours into 30?
I'd like to turn on the Tv without seeing yet another terrorist attack or gang related death. Id like to be able to afford a reliable new car without having to put 8k down followed by 5 years of eye watering monthlies and a balloon payment.
the person who can work all this out is far smarter than anyone who is in power currently
I would like to live in a society where we (all of us as individuals) can decide and influence how our society operates.
I would not like to live in a society where we expect that to be decided by and done for us by 'government' - that sounds like tyranny to me.
Collectivity we want government to manage the things we decide we need and that can not be done efficiently individually - we need strict controls on government to stop it becoming too big or controlling - ie effective democracy.
I think capitalism meaning individual ownership/property and markets has been a powerful motivator resulting in dramatic improvements in living standards worldwide. Incentives/competition matters and drives progress. There may be a better more equitable way, but we haven't found one yet that hasn't ended in utter disaster and tragedy.
I would also like to live in a society where the leadership of our government are not imbeciles and I would like a unicorn that s
ts gold. Sadly in both cases I have always been a dreamer.
I would not like to live in a society where we expect that to be decided by and done for us by 'government' - that sounds like tyranny to me.
Collectivity we want government to manage the things we decide we need and that can not be done efficiently individually - we need strict controls on government to stop it becoming too big or controlling - ie effective democracy.
I think capitalism meaning individual ownership/property and markets has been a powerful motivator resulting in dramatic improvements in living standards worldwide. Incentives/competition matters and drives progress. There may be a better more equitable way, but we haven't found one yet that hasn't ended in utter disaster and tragedy.
I would also like to live in a society where the leadership of our government are not imbeciles and I would like a unicorn that s
ts gold. Sadly in both cases I have always been a dreamer.Skeptisk said:
Your value to society is best measured by your salary. If we can’t monetise it, it doesn’t count.
What society values and what is of value to society are two very different things.I'm not sure a youtube star offers much value to society by filming themselves playing Minecraft, but they earn considerably more than the paramedic that saves your life.
To turn the question around somewhat....when we look around the world who would we say has the "best" society and what makes it the best? Where are people most happy?
The overarching problem is that people are selfish and hypocritical (to varying degrees). We want what is best for US regardless of how it impacts others - so we pick and choose which rules we want to obey. Anything we don't like we blame an overbearing interfering Government and anything we DO want we call people "Council" for not agreeing to fit in.
The overarching problem is that people are selfish and hypocritical (to varying degrees). We want what is best for US regardless of how it impacts others - so we pick and choose which rules we want to obey. Anything we don't like we blame an overbearing interfering Government and anything we DO want we call people "Council" for not agreeing to fit in.
Simplification of tax. It is too complicated for anyone but tax specialists to understand.
Less tax. Too many things have tax on them.
No 'wokeness' or teaching of extracurricular matter in schools, where we end up with kids identifying as cats and school providing classroom litter trays, and the like.
Sensible energy costs, with independence from other countries so UK is self sufficient.
Banning of Black Audi S3s and their drivers who cannot follow UK rules.
A bigger Police force.
More respect between people, but not going over the top to accommodate silliness.
Deportation of anyone protesting for Just Stop Oil or antagonising anyone going about their daily lives.
Less tax. Too many things have tax on them.
No 'wokeness' or teaching of extracurricular matter in schools, where we end up with kids identifying as cats and school providing classroom litter trays, and the like.
Sensible energy costs, with independence from other countries so UK is self sufficient.
Banning of Black Audi S3s and their drivers who cannot follow UK rules.
A bigger Police force.
More respect between people, but not going over the top to accommodate silliness.
Deportation of anyone protesting for Just Stop Oil or antagonising anyone going about their daily lives.
Are you asking what we can realistically change to improve things, or are you asking how we should completely rebuild and remodel society?
Because the first answer is very short (i.e. nothing), and the second one very long.
In simple terms, society would be better if people gave more than they took. I consider myself a right-leaning conservative libertarian, but there is something about Marx* "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" which appeals. The problem is it doesn't work in practice, what with pesky human nature and free will.
Anyway, it's all academic as in the next decade or so our new AI overlords will sort it all out for us, one way or another.
* I know he didn't come up with it, he just popularised it
Because the first answer is very short (i.e. nothing), and the second one very long.
In simple terms, society would be better if people gave more than they took. I consider myself a right-leaning conservative libertarian, but there is something about Marx* "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" which appeals. The problem is it doesn't work in practice, what with pesky human nature and free will.
Anyway, it's all academic as in the next decade or so our new AI overlords will sort it all out for us, one way or another.
* I know he didn't come up with it, he just popularised it
You’ll never change human nature of greed, you can teach self discipline to control this but 90% of humans are incapable or unwilling to use this self control.
Communism attempts to control this but history proves how this works out.
Nothing will change the course of the human race until a larger intervention, the pandemic scared the ste out of most people as it showed how easily we can be taken out, there’ll be other events in our future that will be equally impactful at putting us in our place.
Its so egotistical and typical of humans to think we can do anything to stop our path of self destruction, if there were less of us? maybe..
The inconvenient truth? Thanos had it right
Communism attempts to control this but history proves how this works out.
Nothing will change the course of the human race until a larger intervention, the pandemic scared the s
te out of most people as it showed how easily we can be taken out, there’ll be other events in our future that will be equally impactful at putting us in our place.Its so egotistical and typical of humans to think we can do anything to stop our path of self destruction, if there were less of us? maybe..
The inconvenient truth? Thanos had it right
Kerniki said:
, if there were less of us? maybe..
This makes a huge difference to how we act. I remember reading that the ideal number of relationships we can maintain is around 30, and many primates still group themselves in this way. Any more than that and internal politics becomes an issue, and then the group splits off into two factions, which then grows again to around 30. I think when we lived a hunter-gatherer, semi pastoral lifestyle we probably worked in a similar way. The problem with our modern lives is that we interact with so many people on a daily basis, we don't view them all as 'one of our tribe'. The term 'NPC' is popular today (similar to prole or pleb was when I was growing up), and it demonstrates our disconnect from wider society. I think that is one reason we are so keen to close ranks and focus on looking after our immediate family and friends, our 30 or so tribe members, and why we don't really care (no matter how much virtue signalling we do) what happens to anyone outside our tribe. Note I don't mean tribe in any racial or religious sense, purely our closest contacts.
As always, Tim Urban has some great accessible writing on this kind of thing.
LimaDelta said:
Kerniki said:
, if there were less of us? maybe..
This makes a huge difference to how we act. I remember reading that the ideal number of relationships we can maintain is around 30, and many primates still group themselves in this way. Any more than that and internal politics becomes an issue, and then the group splits off into two factions, which then grows again to around 30. I think when we lived a hunter-gatherer, semi pastoral lifestyle we probably worked in a similar way. The problem with our modern lives is that we interact with so many people on a daily basis, we don't view them all as 'one of our tribe'. The term 'NPC' is popular today (similar to prole or pleb was when I was growing up), and it demonstrates our disconnect from wider society. I think that is one reason we are so keen to close ranks and focus on looking after our immediate family and friends, our 30 or so tribe members, and why we don't really care (no matter how much virtue signalling we do) what happens to anyone outside our tribe. Note I don't mean tribe in any racial or religious sense, purely our closest contacts.
As always, Tim Urban has some great accessible writing on this kind of thing.
They have a set size environment for them with everything they need to live, water, food, sleep areas etc
Then introduce more rats in certain numbers at certain time intervals over a 1 year period, with the amount of additional introduced increasing with each addition and the time between the new introductions being reduced each time.
They carried on doing this and monitoring the behavioural changes each time, it was all very interesting but the most revealing is the ending whereupon they got so violent with each other they just started eating each other, this wasnt because they were hungry as the food levels were adjusted for the numbers to sustain themselves.
It was to reduce the numbers to make the environment liveable, they ate the weakest first of course,.
Moral of the story?
Powerfully built directors will be fine
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff