Cassie
Junior Member
Happy to be here
Posts: 181 
|
Post by Cassie on Aug 28, 2013 4:46:49 GMT -11
From BBC News Is it possible to create a radically different society? One where material possessions are unnecessary, where buildings are created in factories, where mundane jobs are automated?Would you want to live in a city where the main aim of daily life is to improve personal knowledge, enjoy hobbies, or solve problems that could be common to all people in order to improve the standard of living for everyone?Some may think it is idealistic, but 97-year old architect Jacque Fresco is convinced his vision of the future is far better than how we live todaylink to article with CGI video. This is an optimistic view of how future cities and future society could be. It includes some nice CGI of how things might look in an ideal world... Or is it ideal? What do you think?
|
|
Memnoch
Moderators 
Whoda Thunkit?
Posts: 204 
|
Post by Memnoch on Sept 2, 2013 13:43:26 GMT -11
I think it is a wonderful ideal...but I believe it goes against human nature. People want material possessions. More to the point people are greedy. There have been numerous studies where people base their quality of life on their neighbor's quality of life. Furthermore you would need people who create the machines that build things, you need people to troubleshoot and fix the machines when they go down, you need people to do the things that automated machines can't do as well, or at all...how do you decide who does that? How do you think those who have to work would feel about those who do not, how long until they revolt? Furthermore, if each is provided based on his needs to paraphrase the ideal, and you have a small percentage working, lets say Joe and Bob are both techs who work on the machines...let's say Joe is a slacker, he is always calling off, and when he is at work he isn't much more help...do you think Bob will continue working at 100% efficiency?
|
|
Graphite
Moderators
The Big Bad
Trimming fat
Posts: 453
|
Post by Graphite on Sept 2, 2013 23:43:35 GMT -11
I think it is a wonderful ideal...but I believe it goes against human nature. People want material possessions. More to the point people are greedy. There have been numerous studies where people base their quality of life on their neighbor's quality of life. Furthermore you would need people who create the machines that build things, you need people to troubleshoot and fix the machines when they go down, you need people to do the things that automated machines can't do as well, or at all...how do you decide who does that? How do you think those who have to work would feel about those who do not, how long until they revolt? Furthermore, if each is provided based on his needs to paraphrase the ideal, and you have a small percentage working, lets say Joe and Bob are both techs who work on the machines...let's say Joe is a slacker, he is always calling off, and when he is at work he isn't much more help...do you think Bob will continue working at 100% efficiency? I would have to disagree with the claim that the want for material possessions is human nature, as well as monetary and material greed. Material possessions is a part of Western everyday life. We need these things to do what we feel we are supposed to do to fit in, and fitting in is a part of human nature. What do most people feel is the ultimate holiday? Someplace remote where they can disconnect. No mobiles, to laptops, no TV. People like to work, but they are less productive if they are overpaid. There are people who would love to work with troubleshooting machines while others write poetry. There are people who genuinely have these things as a hobby. When things stops being a pissing contest about who has the biggest banking account or who has the biggest TV and people compete to help solve problems, perfecting themselves and their hobbies and learning... where do you see Joe slacking off? That is the point of this world. You study what you WANT to study because you want to study it, not because it gives you monetary advantages, but because it is your passion. Joe would not work on machines if he did not want to. Thus both Joe and Bob will delight in what they do, or Joe would be doing something else... perhaps paint, or sculpt... or maybe carpentry. A world like that would be good. You forget that this mess of material greed we have now is not the natural state for humans. When the Aboriginal Australians were first discovered they had no concept of ownership of any kind. They did not own land, or possessions. Tools were temporary, useful things. If a camp burnt down it burnt down. You could always make another one. Individuals give up this material greed treadmill we are on everyday. They join convents, temples and give vows of poverty. We need material things because we do not "function" in society without these things. You need this or that to get this or that job, keep these friends. People have friends they do not like because it is expected of them, and all the money in the world is not helping them feel better. Drug abuse, therapists and eating disorder. We have gotten to the point where young children in our "civilized" societies are so stressed they are getting ulcers, eating disorders, they are self mutilating and need medication to handle their day to day life. Does that sound like this is all human nature to you? Yes, this is the ideal world. A technological communal, equal world where resources are shared equal, everyone is truly equal and as such you would not need to war over resources, power, land or ocean. It is the Federation with a much more pacifistic twist. |
|
Graphite
Moderators
The Big Bad
Trimming fat
Posts: 453
|
Post by Graphite on Sept 2, 2013 23:46:29 GMT -11
And... as an addition. The circular cities? Hell yes! Love that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Flaire-FireStar on Sept 3, 2013 14:30:26 GMT -11
And... as an addition. The circular cities? Hell yes! Love that. This! (Especially no stupid traffic lights.) As well as the notion that there is greenery everywhere. It's what bothers me about the city here. Sure, there are a couple of scraggly trees along the street where I live. And the complex where I work has some trees planted at set intervals along the length of the complex as well as a couple of shrubberies. But to me, that's not greenery. That's someone trying to create "green space" in the middle of a concrete jungle, someone made it that way...not natural. Not nature. |
|
|
|
Post by InfiniteGrey on Sept 9, 2013 15:25:54 GMT -11
Considering one of the prime motivators of human nature, that is universal across all human cultures include: A desire for social standing - a society free of a greed and a need to accumulate material possessions is more than possible. The current paradigm in the western world particular, holds material possessions, wealth, influence and fame as the currencies for social standing among extended tribes. It hasn't always been this way, even in the west. There is no reasonable reason to consider it to be an axiom that it will remain this way.
|
|
elessar
New Member
trying to find a way to be free and happy
Posts: 11
|
Post by elessar on Mar 9, 2014 0:05:22 GMT -11
i believe that the next century mankind will have to change it's ways. We are depleting the world, weather is going wild and i see people either remaining in big cities (majority) and the rest will try to live in small villages.
People living in the cities will have very underpaid jobs but will have a very high-tech living. High-tech gadgets will be everywhere and homes will be like those "houses of tomorrow" everything electronic, food will be mass produced ( GMF or insects) and e-money will be the main currency. Resources will be pulled from the countryside ( courts,clinics,post offices, power and probably basic sanitation) and centralized. People will be addicted to electronic gadgets and reading will be a thing of the past.
Those (few) who will try to live in the countryside will have a tough life, surviving nature, growing their food and having to live without help from the cities. I see it being hard but as time passes by people will adapt and start a new way of life,simple and more nature friendly.
|
|
|
|
Post by pawnman on Mar 17, 2014 0:55:38 GMT -11
I think it is a wonderful ideal...but I believe it goes against human nature. People want material possessions. More to the point people are greedy. There have been numerous studies where people base their quality of life on their neighbor's quality of life. Furthermore you would need people who create the machines that build things, you need people to troubleshoot and fix the machines when they go down, you need people to do the things that automated machines can't do as well, or at all...how do you decide who does that? How do you think those who have to work would feel about those who do not, how long until they revolt? Furthermore, if each is provided based on his needs to paraphrase the ideal, and you have a small percentage working, lets say Joe and Bob are both techs who work on the machines...let's say Joe is a slacker, he is always calling off, and when he is at work he isn't much more help...do you think Bob will continue working at 100% efficiency? I would have to disagree with the claim that the want for material possessions is human nature, as well as monetary and material greed. Material possessions is a part of Western everyday life. We need these things to do what we feel we are supposed to do to fit in, and fitting in is a part of human nature. What do most people feel is the ultimate holiday? Someplace remote where they can disconnect. No mobiles, to laptops, no TV. People like to work, but they are less productive if they are overpaid. There are people who would love to work with troubleshooting machines while others write poetry. There are people who genuinely have these things as a hobby. When things stops being a pissing contest about who has the biggest banking account or who has the biggest TV and people compete to help solve problems, perfecting themselves and their hobbies and learning... where do you see Joe slacking off? That is the point of this world. You study what you WANT to study because you want to study it, not because it gives you monetary advantages, but because it is your passion. Joe would not work on machines if he did not want to. Thus both Joe and Bob will delight in what they do, or Joe would be doing something else... perhaps paint, or sculpt... or maybe carpentry. A world like that would be good. You forget that this mess of material greed we have now is not the natural state for humans. When the Aboriginal Australians were first discovered they had no concept of ownership of any kind. They did not own land, or possessions. Tools were temporary, useful things. If a camp burnt down it burnt down. You could always make another one. Individuals give up this material greed treadmill we are on everyday. They join convents, temples and give vows of poverty. We need material things because we do not "function" in society without these things. You need this or that to get this or that job, keep these friends. People have friends they do not like because it is expected of them, and all the money in the world is not helping them feel better. Drug abuse, therapists and eating disorder. We have gotten to the point where young children in our "civilized" societies are so stressed they are getting ulcers, eating disorders, they are self mutilating and need medication to handle their day to day life. Does that sound like this is all human nature to you? Yes, this is the ideal world. A technological communal, equal world where resources are shared equal, everyone is truly equal and as such you would not need to war over resources, power, land or ocean. It is the Federation with a much more pacifistic twist. It's part of our evolutionary make-up. It's hard-wired in. Some cultures do a better job than others at suppressing it, but even the Aboriginal Australians substituted something for material wealth, whether it was "best hunter", "most wives", or "leadership position". Further, we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Our young children are stressed because, frankly, their parents won't allow them to solve their own problems and experience low-level stress, so that any level of stress becomes overwhelming due to the lack of coping mechanisms. |
|
Graphite
Moderators
The Big Bad
Trimming fat
Posts: 453
|
Post by Graphite on Mar 21, 2014 3:37:10 GMT -11
It's part of our evolutionary make-up. It's hard-wired in. Some cultures do a better job than others at suppressing it, but even the Aboriginal Australians substituted something for material wealth, whether it was "best hunter", "most wives", or "leadership position". Further, we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Our young children are stressed because, frankly, their parents won't allow them to solve their own problems and experience low-level stress, so that any level of stress becomes overwhelming due to the lack of coping mechanisms. Substituted? I see.. your argument is that we all, regardless of culture, work on material wealth because that is your culture? Meaning that anything unlike yours is a substitute for yours, correct? Meaning that anything, despite OLDER than your culture is instead of your culture? I also think you have a very deep lack of understanding of Aboriginal Australian culture. But hey... I may be wrong... have many encounters with the culture, have we? Young children are stressed because we are placing the most amount of pressure on them than ever before. Technology, politics, early grading... you think ulcers come from giving them a lack of coping mechanisms? No. Stress is stress, it may be emotional or it may be physical... it has the same physical consequences. You think MORE knowledge more widely available equals less stress? Yeah... that makes sense! |
|
|
|
Post by pawnman on Mar 21, 2014 18:50:28 GMT -11
It's part of our evolutionary make-up. It's hard-wired in. Some cultures do a better job than others at suppressing it, but even the Aboriginal Australians substituted something for material wealth, whether it was "best hunter", "most wives", or "leadership position". Further, we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. Our young children are stressed because, frankly, their parents won't allow them to solve their own problems and experience low-level stress, so that any level of stress becomes overwhelming due to the lack of coping mechanisms. Substituted? I see.. your argument is that we all, regardless of culture, work on material wealth because that is your culture? Meaning that anything unlike yours is a substitute for yours, correct? Meaning that anything, despite OLDER than your culture is instead of your culture? I also think you have a very deep lack of understanding of Aboriginal Australian culture. But hey... I may be wrong... have many encounters with the culture, have we? Young children are stressed because we are placing the most amount of pressure on them than ever before. Technology, politics, early grading... you think ulcers come from giving them a lack of coping mechanisms? No. Stress is stress, it may be emotional or it may be physical... it has the same physical consequences. You think MORE knowledge more widely available equals less stress? Yeah... that makes sense! Meaning, I was responding to your idea that there are utopian societies free of competition. In the industrialized world, our primary form of competition is material wealth. We attempt to gather more than the people around us. The same goes for any scarce resource and any group of living beings. You are right...I don't have a great deal of first-hand knowledge about Aboriginal Australian culture...but somehow I don't think that they are the one subset of living beings that has managed to escape a genetic drive to compete within the group, whatever form that competition takes. Further, I again scoff at the idea that children are "stressed" because we are placing more pressure on them. If anything, it is the lack of pressure that we have placed on them by creating a society where it is acceptable for parents to solve every problem in order to prevent little Jimmy from ever failing at any task and building some resilience. In the late 80's we went off the deep end with "self-esteem". What we should have been focusing on is "self-respect", that part that you build by working at something and accomplishing goals, rather than "self-esteem" that is built by everyone telling you that you are a special snowflake, just like the other 7 billion people on earth. Finally, I'm not sure I said anything about "more knowledge" making things less stressful, although I do know life is much harder if you are stupid. I, for one, never stress about how I'm going to get somewhere...my phone will give me turn-by-turn directions, even if I don't know the address when I leave the house I can Google it on the way. But I said the most PEACEFUL, and I stand by that. We also have more leisure time, at least in most Western countries, than we have at any time in our history. We have machines to wash our clothes, cook our meals in 90 seconds, we have vacuums instead of brooms, cars instead of horses, and we live in climate-controlled houses where the temperature is always in our comfort zone. We have NO survival stress. None. Not one person on this message board lives day to day wondering if a rival tribe will raid the village, if the Vikings will come with the spring thaw, whether they will be attacked by an animal, or what will happen if they don't come back with meat. We like to tell ourselves that our lives are stressful, but it's only because so few of us have ever been exposed to truly stressful circumstances. |
|
