Wrong. This is human ego talking. Competition is the very essence of growth. Think about working out. When you lift weights, your muscles are competing against environmental factors. This is what allows them to get stronger. When you remove that competition, your muscles get weak and atrophy. This is what mankind, society, and all of nature does without competition. Not really. Because even today, every society is made up of numerous smaller groups, often with competing interests. Look at this forum. Conflicting political tribes everywhere as far as the eye can see. And they're not getting any closer together. They're becoming more and more hostile toward one another. Man is always in a perpetual state of competition. If with nothing else, against time and his environment. Again, a quick cursory look around this forum will show you that we're not as advanced in that regard as we'd like to believe we are either. They are also the purest example of humanity in many ways. Because they are uncorrupted by social influences like guilt, shame, and culture. Unlike the average adult. Who lies to himself constantly about a great many things and by age 21 has mastered the art of mental gymnastics to appease his own conscience. But that is exactly how evolution has always operated. Which is why we are not all gimpy little creatures today. Because weaker genes that were deemed useless to the species were bred out of existence. It's the same reason why people with no social skills today often have a hard time finding a mate. Because nature has deemed them genetically inferior. Ah, but don't you see what you're doing? You're proving my point. All of those were instances of competition. And who got stronger as a result? The victors, correct?
Yes, but at issue is an environment where competition is no longer necessary. Look at it like this. I have some widget that you like. In the caveman days, you just whack me over the head and take the widget. Today, you get a job or start a business, and buy one for yourself (if it's a common widget), or perhaps buy it from me if it's rare (generally, EVERYTHING has a price). But in the not too distant future, you're going to be able to go to a 3D Printer (which, if you're familiar with it, is simply an early prototype of Star Trek's replicators), feed it the blueprint and raw materials, and boom, you have your widget. Matter cannot be created or destroyed, so the raw materials will have to be input, but what do you suppose the pure raw materials cost is for manufactured things like iPads, electronics, even cars. Certainly, possibly with some exceptions, <5% of the street price of the finished goods. Now, the IP (the blueprints) used to make stuff MAY be valuable, but my guess is the "Open Source Community" will kill that. Why give Apple $300 for an iPad "blueprint" (single use), when, no doubt, there will be a freeware competitor that is, if not AS capable as an iPad, is at least 80-90%, and costs nothing.
Which will never happen because it is not in the best interest of the species for competition to disappear. Competition is healthy. The human ego and its desire for perfection is the problem. Not competition. Which is all quite fascinating but doesn't really disprove my point.
Do away with money? Maybe. I remember a futurist that said that. Here is an example of what he came up with. Just for argument's sake, say that the government buys 10,000 self programming self replicating robots. Then the government hires an army of programmers. They tell the programmers to program the robots with a single mission. To produce goods and services that people need free of charge. The robots will then look like a bee hive. Working up a storm producing stuff and then giving it away. When ever robots need more workers they just produce more robots because they are self replicating. These selfless robots will run businesses out of business because they will not be able to sell stuff. I don't agree with this scenario because it is much to radical. My example of income redistribution is a more likely. Because it is basically what his happening now. More and more people will be permanently unemployed unable to find work. At some point, people will realize that we have reached the tipping point were robots are doing more and more work. People will be permanently unemployed. Those unemployment checks will be their only means of support. The masses of unemployed people will elect politicians that will turn unemployment checks into a living wage. Maybe rename the program from unemployment checks to guaranteed income checks. Unemployment will continue to climb from 25% to 50%, 75% to 90% unemployment. There will be some people working. No one wants to watch sports done by robots. Or robot stand up comedians. But that vast majority will be out of work.
"Collectivism" has no real meaning in today's world. The current system certainly isn't individualist, it only looks after the rights of a few select individuals. Neither is the current system collectivist since it isn't designed to benifit society as a whole. Any truly individualist system must be collectivist, just as any collectivist system must be individualist.
Well, it's gonna happen in phases. At some point survival basics (food, water, air, clothing, shelter) will be 100% provided by automation. In a manner in which it's literally impossible for anyone to go without, unless they choose to. And then luxuries will start to be abundant. Want an iPad? Print one on your 3D printer. A diamond ring? Put in 5 ounces of carbon and half an ounce of gold, and let the printer do it's magic. There will need to be rationing, and I have NO idea how to accomplish that, but when people can live, say, an upper-middle-class existence provided gratis by automation, and couldn't get a paying job if they tried, what's to complain about?
Human ego is mostly replaced by our socialised self and this is why we are able to function in big groups . You can learn a lot by observing chimps , bonobos and then compare their social behaviour with ours . I understand that you have not spent any time reading evolutionary history of man , in few words what we are is pack hunters with the buff of long distance running . Oh come on , you can never refute this . If it was your way we would still live in small family size groups meeting once a year to trade women and pelts . The advancing complexity of the human societies will never undermine the foundations of it . Because i was online in 2001 you were all "god bless America" and other funny slogans where did your hostility hide then ? Competition among humans is not natural . Ok i get it you don't have free time to study history but social stratification was created for the purpose of administrating big groups of people. When our ancestors switched from hunting to farming and start accepting cattle herders there should be someone to organise activities so few were selected. Later those selected thought that it was a good idea to secure their positions and this is how organised religion and aristocracy came into existence . Competition was not a factor, never. If this was the case there would be like 200 people getting banned everyday for not following forum's rules or not being civil enough , what again is civility other than to be able to coexist under mutually accepted rules ? and by accepting those rules you are cooperating "Purest example of humans" at the age of 5 are less intelligent than chimps when it comes to some activities . Humans learn by copying behaviours while chimps will try to improvise , now i can go to several other examples like why women live after menopause , why "pure" 10 year olds are not allowed to participate in purely human activities like sex and so on but the fact remains : children have no fully developed brains and this is why they are considered intelligent when they are able to complete the simplest task an adult can do. Wrong again . There are no strong and weak genes there is only adaptability and even this is diversified ( check out Andean bodies in comparison to Tibetian to see how two 100% different models make both races successful in high altitude environment ) . I will not use the unfortunate for your post "social skills" expression to destroy your argument but i will tell you this : baby sharks compete each other to death even when inside their mother's body and baby hyenas kill their weaker sisters while we do not , which species evolved the most during the last 10m years? Actually i am disproving your point , my English must be really bad What brought those nations down was their inability to cooperate in large groups, they were not "competed out" but assimilated (well at least the European / Berber ones) into larger more flexible groups. Again you need to read history to understand it , in several cases losing a war is far more beneficial from winning it , if you like i can give you examples . In many cases winning a war means nothing really , the Mongols occupied half the planet yet they had to return back to fight each other every time their Khan died , Athenians only felt guilty of what they did after winning the war against Milos , how do you feel about winning the war with Iraq , stronger ? To make it simple for you think this : 100.000 modern people with all the technological gadgets are send to colonise Mars , their survival will depend on competing or on cooperating ?
No significant challenge = evolutionary stagnation. This manifests itself in things like people getting bored when everything is taken care of. The natural state of man is struggle. When there is nothing to overcome, man does one of two things; he either atrophies (i.e. 40 year old virgin living at home with parents syndrome) or begins to act up and create problems (i.e. rich kid syndrome). When there is no carrot for man to chase to better himself, he becomes destructive and useless. This utopian vision is ideological. Its beauty stems from a lack of real world understanding of how man actually responds to "perfect" circumstances. It is never what it appears. In fact, it is often worse than the current status quo. In other words, the poor person cannot fathom why the rock star is suicidal. Until he becomes a rock star, himself. And suddenly the old adage about money not solving all your problems makes a lot more sense. Focus is the key to success or failure in life. What is on your personal radar. What you have ultimately has no bearing on the quality of your life. It is only the perception of what you have that matters. Wise people recognize this. Most people never do.
And I can tell that you are not very well versed in the human brain. Since you don't seem to have a very clinical understanding of what the ego is. You are misusing that term here. And that's kind of what we do now. Do we not still live in families? Do we not still have quarrels with our neighbors? You're missing the entire point here. People will always seek to subdivide themselves into groups based on X criteria. It is human nature. And those groups will inevitably have conflicting interests. Because that's how our species works. To believe this will ever not be the case betrays a profound lack of observational ability and acceptance of the obvious. Look around you. Why do we have cities? Why do we have sports teams? Why do we have different genres of music? Why do we have different industries? Why do we have competing technologies? Why do we have different religions? Why so many various differences? Because we are tribal creatures. And will likely remain so. Because that is what we have been since our genesis. The fact that we now have the internet and people know about (*)(*)(*)(*) on the other side of the world does not change this. At the most, all it stands to do is once again re-draw those lines that determine where we divide ourselves. But the tribal behavior continues on ad infinitum. Oh really? So we all just share wives then? Is that how it works? There's no such thing as alpha males that have higher breeding potential and beta males that fight over what's left? Get real, man. You don't pay enough attention to your environment. Everything gets stronger by being tested. The whole purpose of competition is providing that test for whoever wants to step up and take it. So that they can level up and further the reproduction of their gene pool. That's really all it boils down to. That's our whole purpose for being here. To survive and reproduce. Those of us that are the strongest leave the most behind for future generations to benefit from so that they can, what? Survive and reproduce. Exactly. Competition is everywhere, mutmekep. In fact, do you see what we're doing right this second? We're engaging in that very same timeless dance as we speak. You and I are verbally sparring right now, both on a mission to prove that he is right and that the other is wrong. But only one of us can be the victor. It's everywhere around us. Competition, my friend. The essence of life. People get banned here all the time. I just got a warning the other day. And I'm usually pretty level-headed on here. If you want more proof, just turn on your tv and watch the news. How many bonehead stories to you see every single night of people doing dumb ass things they knew better than to do, but they did anyway because they had no control over their emotions? It's endless. Every murderer, every thief, every rapist. An id-driven dumbass. In fact, liberal politics largely professes self-restraint to be "oppressive" and longs for a society where people are "free" of having to restrain themselves from their wanton emotional whims. So the days of people voluntarily restraining themselves from their emotions on a mass cultural level in the west today are quite numbered. As leftward politics are on the rise. You are ignoring the fact that children are largely more honest in their actions than adults. Which is why they won't hesitate to fart freely and laugh about it whereas adults will deliberately hold in a fart for fear of being judged despite the fact that it is a completely natural bodily function (this is a product of the ego I spoke of at the beginning of this post). Do you fart freely when you have to? If not, guess what? You're socially programmed. You can call it "manners" if it makes you feel better, but that is a learned social response that you have been taught because there was in a time in your life when you would not have thought twice about just letting one fly. Some people still do that into adulthood. Interestingly, if you judge them for being crude, you are actually only acting through your own ego. This is an example of the brain rationalizing that someone else is more free than I am and that in order to feel better about myself, I must take them down a peg in my head in order to feel superior about the limitations I have subscribed to for years and never consciously chose to pick up. Think of this in terms of speech. Think of this in terms of action. Think of this in terms of everything you do. Social conditioning robs you of freedom. The freedom to be natural. Who is more free and more honest? The child who naturally asked the obvious question to the cripple, "Why are you in a wheel chair?" or the conditioned "polite" adult who tries to pretend they are as normal as everyone else? Dude, just stop. I haven't been wrong one time yet in this conversation, and the intellectual part of you knows that. Strong and weak genes are largely determined by the will of the creature that is carrying them. For instance, the nerdy little 90 lb. weakling that decides to step up and become a boss becomes the stronger set of genes by virtue of his actions. Because his actions have proven his genes worthy - as per nature's criteria - of reproducing. The strongest set of genes always survives. And the weakest dies out. That which is desirable continues. That which is not ends. However you want to word it. This is simply nature doing what it does. Or if you want a more mundane example, eventually the good teams win and the bad ones lose. The Yankees might lose a world series here and there, but they have 27 championships. And I hate the Yankees, just to show you how objective I'm being here. They're simply baseball's alpha male. You're making excuses to try to rationalize away the existence of competition. Had there been no competition, then there would have been no rival culture for those cultures to be conquered by. Being assimilated into a large group is losing one's own identity in the competitive war for dominance. Notice how the larger, more flexible group did not assimilate into the other group. It happened specifically in one direction. Dress it up all you want, this is competition at work. As for your Mars scenario, I could address this a few ways. For instance, one, there is no guarantee that all of those people need one another to survive on Mars. Thus cooperation is not a given. 100,000 people is a lot of people. If you believe they will not divide themselves up into smaller groups that will then develop opposing interests, you are being naive. Or say just for argument's sake that for the first time in human history, 100,000 people could actually get along. They are still combating the elements and time for their survival. It never goes away. You learned about the three basic types of conflict back in school, right? Man vs. man, man vs. nature, and man vs. himself? At any given time, at least one of those is going on with everyone. Possibly more. Possibly even all three. Again, the natural state of man is struggle. You can fight it or you can accept it. But ironically, by fighting it, what are you doing? Exactly! You're struggling. Point proven. - - - Updated - - - There's no convincing you of all the things that are wrong with your perspective here, so I'm not even going to waste the energy trying.
Thank you for the reply , i appreciate the converstation Hey i have that much free time and psychology is not among my interests , i post what i remember from the two classes i had in college and Ego is what dictates our reasoning , me me me is not anywhere close to that . You are correct in the part where people want to belong to groups but you are wrong on the why . You think that it will be possible for people of the 1920's to participate massively in forums like facebook or reddit ? of course not because their brains could not handle the traffic , 20 years ago my grandfather used to spend Sunday morning reading his newspaper , i can read 20 online newspapers on Sunday morning ,comment on the articles and remember details months or even years later. So here is my point : the increasing complexity of human societies forces human brains to expand their capacity for storage and analysis. Our current brain can not process everything and this is why people far outside our understanding are called "terrorists" , "radicals" and "antisocial, 200 years ago going late to the church would get you that label today it is not that case. We still have families but we are expanding our circle , to friends , reading teams, sports club fan orgs and even this forum , when you get in the bus every morning you expect from others a certain behaviour and that none will club you on the head to take your sit , this is why we have cities because we can function in large groups. I don't know why you brought human creativity and need to experiment and understand nature into this , metal music is not competing with ethnic it is just another expression , in the past religion were all shamanistic then it split to paganism, pantheism and animism and as i posted earlier agriculture and rise in human populations brought organised religions and now with the internet people are comparing their dogmas and this is why atheism is on the rise everywhere . Since our 1st day what humans search is their utopia , their heaven , different people propose different paths to it and there is no competition who will get there first but an effort to walk the distance . Actually the highest potential for breeding lied with older men because men hunt and hunting is not about strength (or personality) but about experience , an older man could (still can in some primitive societies) bring more food in the table thus make more kids and keep them alive . Older hunters are still much more preferable choices for young women in areas like Borneo , the Amazonas and Africa . Actually this lead to tons of kids , mothers having to gather food for extensive hours and this is how women came to survive after menopause , for the purpose of taking care of the kids while their parents were out. I think you are over inflating the competition among men , you know body wise we look identical to the cave men of 10.000 years ago , psychologically we ain't much different either (the non metrosexuals i mean) ! those who have change a lot are women so the "alpha male" thing has little to do with chances to procreate ; women look to secure themselves and their offspring under the protection of a man , alpha males get too much into trouble not to mention how they are attracting other females ( if you have a better explanation for the rise of the metrosexuals please share ) I don't think we are competing , we have different ideas on how to reach our heaven and the more paths are proposed the better for all. Of course neither me or you are completely right or wrong otherwise heaven would be very near . People are banned because they are antisocial ( if we accept that this forum is a society) and cannot follow the rules , you and i are strangers that live half a planet away and we are both following (well mostly) the rules , see what i mean ? understanding , working things out. As i posted previously what we gain with evolution is increased ability to control our emotions , controlling emotions is not at all restraining because this would lead to behavioural uniformity and this is not the case , just look the first part of your post! Now we have the ability to express different things in revolutionary ways , make new proposals or bring up old ones without getting the label of the antisocial or getting a visit by the Spanish Inquisition and Senior Torquemada himself The Republicans like you are the best kind of people for the left , the real left but this is for another thread. On the fart part you obviously never had dinner with French people. Yes socialisation is a big part of ourselves but this give us the ability to work in big groups . Other primates work like this making friends and enemies , alliances and even going into war campaigns but their groups are at most as big as a small human village , why? because our brains can handle social logistics better ( there must be an explanation for this , probably because living on the ground is way more dangerous than living on trees ) . As we had discussed earlier there is expected behaviour , take this expected behaviour as a universal constitution : you don't shoot someone over a parking lot , you don't (*)(*)(*)(*) your pants and no this is not about honesty but about following a ruleset in order to function inside a group . The ruleset is just the constitution stabilising relations between strangers where "state laws" are the norms commanding the relations between you and your family / friends / work colleagues . Children spend their first 15-16 years copying behaviour in order to understand and acquire both the constitution and the state lws. You know that someone is in a wheelchair because he can not walk , you have seen it before and you don't need an answer because you don't have to ask . There are also a variety of ways to deal with cripples: "can you get a hard on?" "no" "you are so lucky" . Social conditioning does not rob you of any freedom , it tickles your creativity and provides the minimum "acceptable" base to build your beliefs and personality upon . Schizophrenia would have never be treated as a mental disease if those unlucky suffering from it never broke the barrier of minimum social acceptability . Haha the Yankees have a better team, this means that their group works better than others , team sports are about team play. Passing your genes means that well you have passed your genes not that they are stronger and in any case if you compare us with the Cro Magnons ( stronger and probably smarter than us) under your model alpha males died out and all we do is spawning weaklings. Selective breeding has very limited effect in humans and i guess you already know that modern women prefer compassionate, cooperative , understanding and emotionally secure men over brutal primitive ones . In difference to Marx i don't believe thesis and antithesis are as important as synthesis (composition) and aposynthesis (decomposition) , the Romans came to be , flourish and decompose being replaced by something else while everyone maintained the knowledge of the variables that determined the Roman circle . The Romans occupied us yet they get more Greek than we got Latin , Crusaders ultimately lost but soldiers returning brought new ideas , dishes , clothing and lifestyle with them to the west . Cultures don't really rival each other , they only get injections of new stuff to keep them going , you didn't created your own script , you didn't invented a new type of government , we didn't invented cinema , Sumerians created the first code of laws but all those are now heritage of everyone because they were injected to other cultures not via competition but via interaction . I used a large number to make it easier because 40 people obviously have to cooperate. "Competition" on personal level can only take place after survival is secured and when not talking about lunatics within the boundaries of safety , i mean that competition can never put survival (achieved through cooperation) in danger . I am not saying that there will all get along or have no disputes over policies but those disputes will be caused by failure to cooperate not from some gene forcing them to compete. If we were members of this Mars colony we could talk things out , think and weight the proposals or we could go full competition divide the colonists into two groups and start hostilities that will decrease our gene pool , you call the second option natural , i call it madness, we disagree. This is our inner struggle to better ourselves , explain and understand the world around us and find solutions for our problems , yes life is a struggle and this is why we should be united to face what's ahead.
Capitalism will never go away. It will simply evolve. With robots doing most of the manual labor, most people will have free time to pursue their hobbies and pet projects. It could become a socialist paradise for the lazy folk, but there will be a wealth of opportunity for those willing to work in this system. The hardest part about this future is the TRANSITION to this economy. As long as people are still expected to work typical 9-5 jobs to support themselves while jobs are being demolished, unemployment will probably raise and linger around 30% until a solution is worked out for the jobless.
Money exists for one purpose. It exists to facilitate what, under the covers, is a barter economy. If a guy raises chickens, and needs me to work on his computer, but I have no need for chickens, his ability to sell the chickens (or eggs) to someone who does have that need in exchange for money means he can use those chickens to compensate me for the computer work despite my lack of need for chickens. When the underlying need to have a barter economy goes away, because machines and technology are doing 99% of the work required for society to exist, the need for money also goes away. Though, there is still a need for rationing at least of some things (for example, not everybody can have a 3ct diamond ring, there simply aren't that many 3ct diamonds in existence). How you accomplish that rationing in a moneyless society I know not.
