'Countries' - The Fences Of Division.

This manifests the naivete which many of us are referencing.

It doesn't matter that Man is "more sentient" than a baboon. What matters is that outside threats require measures of defense - and that's true of both Man and baboon.

 

Okay, let's take about your world then.

Define locally? And define 'nearly all'?

Should the rules of Texas be entirely different to those that exist in another US state?

Who would form those rules?

What part would the 'locals' play in forming the rules?

What happens if the rules of one state, being entirely stand alone in it's rule making, decided it was okay to lynch people without trial? Should the other states stand aside, or get involved, since, after all, it is not one of their rules and not in their locality?

 

Man often creates hierarches that create imaginary threats, or they provoke them.

Do Baboons have imaginary threats, that place the existance of their entire species at risk?

 

Apparently the ability to exercise extremism as well

Yes, we might as well rape and pillage, because a mention was made of an observation regarding the territorial nature of other species on the planet, in the course of a discussion regarding man and why he has territories he calls countries.

 

Holy Commie Crap, George Soros...

 

Excuse me, do you actually have something you would like to say, of merit?

Thanks

Jack

 

Either we use 'all other animals' as a template for humans, or we do not.

It is not consistant or fair to pick and choose, and deselect the parts that do not suit your arguement.

People were suggesting that we gravitate to territory, and killing over it, since it is in our very nature, as it is with all animals.

Some more than others, of course.

Therefore, if we can justify killing and fighting over that, how can we take the moral high ground over rape, incest, and paedophilia, which are also common in the animal kingdom? Esp primates.

It only makes sense if we accept that we cannot compare ourselves to any other species, only to our own.

 

I never quite understood the arguement for one world government forced on us. In fact, I believe it is already starting, in a way. I don't think we will ever truly be in a centralized global government, but let's look at how close we are coming to a type 1 planetary civilization.

-We have the internet, a global communications web
-We have English, becoming a very important global business language along with a few others, among them Chinese and French.
-We have globalized trade, trade blocs and even heavily integrated unions of nations, namely the EU.

Our borders are becoming increasingly faded. The parts in our cars are not all made in one country, but from companies and factories around the world, assembled in all sorts of places. The food we eat may have came from another continent.
I know it is strange to bring scientific theories such as the Kardashev scale into a political arguement, but it is already happening in a sense. If it's any hint to the future, space has become quite international and peaceful. With the possible exception of the scheming Chinese, space has not had a single weapon used in it. We have the international space station, bringing nations together in that sense.

I think it is quite clear that the future won't be a single world government, but a unified collection of governments tied together by economics and military agreements.

If there will be such a thing, we are quickly approaching it.

 

Nor me.

Just as well this is not what I was suggesting.

Why are we unable to escape this idea that we definitely would have evolved to still even what we call 'Gov's', in the sense that we have today?

I would argue that Gov's would literally not have existed in the sense of the term that we have grown used to.

What would have evolved to take it's place?

None of us can know.

Would it have been better?

None of us can know that either.

But isn't it good to wonder?

The wonderings of the human mind often bring much fruit.

It would never do if we all remained stagnant to one idea, and never wondered, 'what if?'.

Had we done that in our history, no invention would ever have been created, no mistake ever corrected, no dysfunctional idealogy challenged, and so on.

 

If they want them to be. The reason that Texas is a State, however, is because Texas agreed to subjugate some of its rule-making autonomy to the Country's mechanism: the Constitution.

One of the largest problems the US faces is that it has forgotten that those things not specifically enumerated in the Constitution for Federal control were supposed to be left to each State.

Including about as many rules as you can conjure - if the people so wish it.

State Legislatures, and enforced - and sometimes added to - at the Local level.

Voting.

That's a violation of the Constitution. If such an infraction took place with the complicity of that State's Government, the law could be enforced by other States, and/or Texas could secede from the Union - and/or others could fight to overthrow such a practice, either peaceably or by force.

As it should be.

 

Non-sequitur. I am - by definition - referencing the real threats. You'd have to make a case that all threats are imagined, in order to have a salient point.

Non-sequitur. The fact that Baboons hunt in packs is for the exact same reason that people form countries and defend borders.

 

Is this form of "black and white" thinking emblematic of the type of thinking you criticize Conservatives regarding?

There is a third choice: we learn what we can, and use that which is useful.

Without addressing specifics, it certainly is. Animals have some things in common with us, and some things which are not commonalities. You have to pick and choose which suits what.

People are suggesting that because it is true. Not all animals are territorial; just some are. Some are nomadic.

Because we have developed a sense of right and wrong. That doesn't protect us from others who choose to ignore that developed sense, however.

It does allow us to administer justice, however.

Thinking people can compare and contrast - and recognize the differences for what they are.

 

Are you really saying that you don't believe elites to literally create, overstate, and provoke threats, which would not otherwise exist if they did not do precisely that?

What your are told is 'human nature', is often not typical of all people at all, the extreme greed, the extreme wish to dominate, the extreme apathy to human life, that, at least to me, is not the nature of men and women I meet, but it IS the nature of the elites.

The same one's that benefit most from cranking up NATIONalism.

Ever noticed how the most NATIONAList of countries, usually end up being among the most culpable of mass killing?

 

Are we going to stick with the animals do it, therefore, humans do it thing, or not?

Up to you.

 

No we haven't.

That is just not true, is it?

If it were, the daily murder of civilians, by nation states, would not take place, often with the blessing of our Gov's, media,and those that rely on that media.

If we have done as you claim, how is it this is right under our nose, and not everyone is speaking out against it, and forcing their Gov's and international courts to act?

We have developed a selective sense of right and wrong, that is entirely bogus.

 

No; I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the opportunity for "elites" do to such a thing exists specifically because there are real threats which cannot be ignored, and those threats necessitated the structuring of borders and countries with which to begin.

Then you do not understand human nature. Human nature is not a characteristic of only some humans.

This rant of yours is pointless.

Causation/Correlation fallacy. That's about as rationally equivalent to saying that it is more crowded where the most people are.

 

Well, if you believe that, what does it say for you to waste time on that which you deem to be 'pointless'?

Wouldn't it be more logical to go create a thread that you deemed to have 'a point'?

Btw -I am not 'ranting'.

Thanks

Jack

 

We wonder. Wonder is good. Not wondering is bad. Countries are bad.

I guess it's all rather simple.

 

Sometimes, as a species, we are fond of over complicating some things, and over simplifying others.

For instance, often in our day to day life, we will overcomplicate our minds with 'clutter', be that insecurities, or pre conceived notions that are inaccurate. On the other hand, we, our at least the writers of early religion, they were ill equipped, due to lack of knowlege and education,to explain the answers to many things, because the questions were too complex for them. So, to counter that, they created a simple way to explain ... everything. An entity called 'god' was responsible.

 

That's part of it. There's also cost of living and currency differences.

If we developed a single global currency, that would be rather disastrous for the wealthiest countries involved.

Over time, the world has industrialized at different paces, and partially because of that, borders are necessary.

 

Well, genetics would be one of the biggest factors. Intelligence/perception variability in humans is pretty wide.

Then, there's differences in class and culture. The more money you have, the easier it is for you to grow up in an environment conducive to success and freethought.

Some cultures stress intelligence and freethinking more than others as well.

 

Lemme get this straight: you're posting that Man has not developed a sense of right and wrong?

I'm not going to read the rest of your posts. This position is indefensible, so it ends here.

You so easily conflate concepts. That Man has developed a sense of right and wrong is not to say that Man avoids all wrong.

 

Why do you keep saying my posts are 'pointless' and declaring you are not going to read them, before going on to read them, and asking me a question which would require further reading? One might consider such methodology as rather silly, no?

As to your 'question', my position was made clear when I stated;



'If it were, the daily murder of civilians, by nation states, would not take place, often with the blessing of our Gov's, media,and those that rely on that media.

If we have done as you claim, how is it this is right under our nose, and not everyone is speaking out against it, and forcing their Gov's and international courts to act?

We have developed a selective sense of right and wrong, that is entirely bogus.'

 

So Jack...did this created entity of the primitives create the territorial nature of the other animals on the planet, or did they develop with purpose, as has been put forth?

Fond? Which definition of fond?...and why no fondness for over oversimplifying? Just curious.

Back on track. You are saying are minds are cluttered because we overcomplicate, and that is why we have countries, because we have over thought the necessity of them, or, the necessity of them is no longer of worth, and that cluttering over complicational thinking, is basically stifling our further evolving to borderless, soveirngless, nationless, countrieless.,.which you believe to be a superior step on humanities path.