There is not one person here who, if faced with a situation where it was either themselves and their family starve to death, or survive by taking someone else's food, would not do so.

And anyone who denies that is deluding themselves.

diamondgeezer wrote: Or split it and save both families.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Or split it and save both families.

There is not one person here who, if faced with a situation where it was either themselves and their family starve to death, or survive by taking someone else's food, would not do so.

And anyone who denies that is deluding themselves.

There is not one person here who, if faced with a situation where it was either themselves and their family starve to death, or survive by taking someone else's food, would not do so.

And anyone who denies that is deluding themselves.

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
I'm sure the people I was giving out food parcels to over Christmas would love the opportunity of a ride on a boat or plane.

It's certainly true that in comparative terms in the West there is an overall far higher standard of living than many parts of the world. However, relative inequality engenders an acute perception oif those that exist within one's immediate environment. And somebody living in a grimy Salvation Army hostel in the North West - the kind of people I spend a lot of time around - don't give a fuck about your jaunts abroad.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Maybe. Though you also get accounts of people behaving astonishingly selflessly in extreme circumstances.
But how people may behave in life or death situations isn't IMO a good baseline for how society should be organised.

A culture where people feel it's normal to help people out is IMO better than one where it's normal to regard others as competitors. To us, it's 'normal' that people starve or even in this country go hungry while massive quantities of food are chucked away. In the UK houses lie boarded up and empty while people live on the streets. The world continued producing exactly the same amount of stuff but overnight suddenly nobody could afford anything because some numbers changed on computer screens. People going on with themselves on the internet will change jack shit, but I find it difficult to see how anyone can think about the world for long and not see the systems that control it as totally fucking barking mad and at least console themselves by thinking of something better.

And ultimately all of the systems we live by are the product of our imagination. Innumerable cultures have existed over time to whom our way of thinking is fundamentally alien.

diamondgeezer wrote:
Precisely why you remove such a situation from ever happening.

dogsmilk wrote:
Agreed with all that for sure.

But we are still ultimately subject to the laws of nature, so not entirely.

We can't get around that fundamental fact, that however advanced and civilised and cultured etc we might consider ourselves to have become in 'easy times'....nature can take us back down to savagery *just like that* (snaps fingers).

andyh wrote:
And how do we do that?

Again, a question of our puny technology v nature...dream on..

You'll never get rid of people who are nuts.
You can however remove both motive for almost all crime and also remove the insane system that drives people to it in most cases.
You can try to understand core root issues that lead to most of the worlds ills and do something about it.
The tech is available, the know how, there's just not the will yet but it'll come eventually. Perhaps not even in my lifetime but I see it as being inevitable.
They'll look back at us in the future as being primitives and rightly so tbh.

The only thing stopping abundance is the profit motive and the profit motive creates the crime we see. Pretty basic stuff tbh and obvious as fuck but thats the extent of the wool thats pulled over isn't it?

If I fancied the idea of building a hospital then I'd join in. Chances are I'd prefer the idea of running a farm or maybe driving a truck or maybe flying a plane, whatever floats my boat. If people can literally do whatever they want then they'll queue up to get the training and enjoy it, money wouldn't be in the way anymore, no doleys, no benefits system, no daily wail, no divide and conquer, no chavs, the list just goes on and on and on.
It has to be scientifically proven to work though, there has to be proof of concept for people to be convinced in decent numbers and thats inevitably going to take money as its going to start a part of this system.

Then you work to minimize the chances.

andyh wrote:
Wait, so how can you get rid of all the chavs you guys speak of? dress code change?

Of course....thats what we strive for.
What I am saying is that nature and its laws will always prevail. And that includes our human nature too.....however much you would like to see otherwise, there will always be cruelty and malice and selfishness in Man, always.

Until we evolve into something above nature, which is very unlikely...

I mentioned William Golding's book The Inheritors earlier in the thread, re the nature of human nature.

Golding made a very poignant and relevant comment about his other great work, The Lord of the Flies.

He said, ''In the end, Ralph & the other children were saved, and that was very well for them.....but who is going to save the adults?''

True wild nature knows no better humans do. As we are we are at rock bottom.