Doram's Hyper-Intelligent Discussion Corner

[Doram]

This post by Doram was thumbed up by:

Killswitch (October 10th, 2013, 11:52 am)

[Doram]

First topic, finishing a discussion on apathy and it's effects on the overall evolution of human societies...

From what I see, your parents are pressuring you to do this, to do that. And like me, you are probably someone who doesn't know how to say "no" or "stop". And that is okay. In fact, that is great. But because of this, we let people walk all over us. And you know how we feel, because you feel it. We fell like the ♥♥♥♥ they turn us into.

You need to tell your parents to stop. Tell them you can live your own life.

Do you truly consider that as the best option? It seems as if it leads to endless conflicts in which victory is unattainable. You are nearly a year older than I, but I will nevertheless point out the following intuition - much as they try, external influences are ultimately unable to change any one of your beliefs without a personal choice of compliance.

That is essentially to reiterate what you already said - your parents and similar entities lack the ability to modify your opinions.

Hence where I have derived my aforementioned statement of the futility of attempting to combat their advances.

I have found through experience that a much simpler strategy is simple ignorance of their ideological demands. Admittedly, this requires some level of emotional detachment, but if your family is indeed as frustrating as you claim, this should have already occurred.

A more challenging but more rewarding strategy to be used in concert with the above is to always perform the physical instructions given by them. Those are things like chores, getting something, e.t.c. The reason for this is that, most of the time, commands of that nature will not conflict with your ideological beliefs and are very simple. It may seem demeaning or infringing on your personal value, but obeying action commands without question will remove a massive source of contention.

By simply obeying their commands and ignoring all other forms of advice, you will isolate yourself psychologically from them, removing their status as a mentor. This will leave them, for the most part, unable to emotionally harm you whilst freeing up a great deal of your time and intellectual ability for more worthwhile pursuits.

Of course, this method places pacification above all - the idea is to avoid all conflict. The premise behind this is that fighting them is simply not worth it. As already stated, they cannot change your beliefs, and their action commands are very rarely substantial enough to justify conflict. Thus, almost all points of conflict with family members can be ignored.

None of this works unless emotional detachment has occurred between you and them. If you feel they have an inherent right to be a large (to the point of dominant) aspect of your life, attempting to establish yourself as an individual capable of self-governance is a fruitless endeavor.

darthbrowser, while I agree that the psychological distance resulting from a dissolution of the mentoring aspect of parental relations is key to a number of possible solutions to the given conundrum (and a path that I have experimented with, I must admit), in advice that I have given in the past, I have not encouraged such actions in an effort to eliminate a number of socially and morally ineffective and potentially damaging side effects resulting from the development of relational apathy (mostly because I have found apathy of all kinds to be at the root of a great number of socio-political and interpersonal failures). In a more holistic appraisal of the situation, while sharing many similarities in both physical action and outward appearance, the analysis and acceptance of the offending parties while simultaneously boosting the ego of the abused in non-abusive ways, in an effort to normalize the self esteem, allows for a more stable adjustment to the active psychology of the subject, resulting in an increased ability to consciously craft interactions in a beneficial direction, as well as leaving open further avenues of development for relations with the offending parties.

Moreover, I have also found, through much trial and error, that in most cases, facets of general societal failure, specifically those concerning the generational transfer of knowledge and understanding, much less wisdom, prevent the proper development of an appreciation for the benefits of advanced education (amongst numerous other deleterious effects), and this has furthermore reduced the linguistic abilities of the average person to quite shockingly low levels. In a number of societies, this has been expressed as a general slandering of intellectual pursuits as elitist and arrogant, as if a general disgusted horror at the rest of humanity is the only result of education. Thankfully, this attitude is waning, but serious and lasting damage has already been done to the fabric of societies the world over (in horrifyingly subtle and well hidden ways, the perceiving of which requires quite the advanced analysis of global societal structure through the lens of an elusive amalgam of religious, historical, and psychological studies of humanity). In a truly sad twist, the pattern is self-reinforcing, making the act of breaking the cycle of degradation and abuse intensely difficult, but I digress. Taking this into account, and eschewing all overtones of superiority, one must attempt at all costs to reduce the required messages to the lowest common denominator, if there is any hope of getting said message out to the number of people necessary to effect real change. As such, I have endeavored at every opportunity to at once simplify and crystallize lessons meant for the positive and generally beneficial adjustment of the average psyche in as simple of terms as possible, maximizing the utility of the sayings at the same time as broadening their accessibility as much as possible. My other topic, "To anyone who needs help." is the ultimate result of 15 years of personal work and several years of exploration on this site, using these means for said ends. I have found that cliches, while generally derided, are potent tools for encoding important ideas into transferable language, and as all previously constructed archetypes of human communication, they can be a tool of uncommon ability to bring goodness and happiness to the world, if used correctly. This has resulted in my development of the words and phrases used in my other topic as mnemonics for embedding the appropriate attitudes and perspectives on life into the psyche at all levels, encouraging responsible, compassionate, empowered, and resilient thinking for anyone willing to assimilate the lessons. Unfortunately, this method does eliminate the vast majority of a large vocabulary as uncommon enough to prevent common acceptance, and this in turn makes crafting the language all the harder (requiring amazing ability to wheedle the concise nature that appropriate uncommon words can provide from their more common cousins). Believe you me, every single word of that lengthy post was agonized over, for a couple of months, and is there for very specific and deliberate reasons. Finally, there is also the present audience to keep in mind. This being an international arena, keeping the verbiage simple also avoids misunderstandings brought about from translation, and the general low age of the average user also precludes their ability to have had the opportunity to acquire a large vocabulary.

Doram, I certainly appreciate your semi-critique, but I nevertheless shall maintain my recommendations.

Based on several details in your post, I gather then you are involved in some sort of field which deals specially with this situation, and that you are at least twice as old as I. Those factors stated, it becomes seemingly apparent that I should defer to you in this issue, save the fact that I only presented my recommendations as my personal choices based on experiences of the same nature - with the appropriate justifications to allow their forwarding as suggestions for application to someone else's unique situation.

That being said, I feel obliged to partially explain my thought process. You'll quickly find that I fall into the same characterization of apathy which you (correctly) identify as a main source of the present human condition - the main differences being that my reasons are (debatably, at least) more complex then mere self-defeating cultural influences.

For the purposes of illustrating my thoughts, I shall classify those steeped in social apathy as either intellectual apathetics or simple apathetics, the difference being that intellectual apathetics have arrived at their social apathy from a formerly conscious state via "deeper" reasoning then simple apathetics, who may be characterized as stereotypical youth, arriving at their apathy because of simplistic, emotional reactions or mere social influences. Of course, the end behavior of both is about the same. Here, I shall explain the thought process of an example of the former - myself.

1.) I shall began with the most apparent reason behind the apathy of those who are otherwise intellectuals, the fact that such apathy is, indeed, a vicious cycle. By intuition, progress in any group requires at least prominent group cohesion.

The fact that we exist in a state where most people are either already apathetic or hopelessly subdivided in terms of prominent goals will naturally give rise to apathy in anyone who considers the situation holistically. Consider the idea that, in America, a vote for an independent candidate is considered a wasted, or, at the most, symbolic vote, for the obvious reason that such candidates remain a minority opinion.
The obvious counterargument is that, in theory, if everyone who wanted said independent candidate to win voted for him or her, the candidate would succeed. After all, 40% of Americans identify as independent. In reply, I would bring up the fact that anyone inclined to vote for such a candidate for ideological reasons is aware of their own beliefs enough to turn from the major parties - this implies that their beliefs are well-developed, and, in turn, specific. If an electing majority followed the same pattern, they could indeed go and vote, and the situation would remain unchanged - hundreds of candidates, each catering to a certain, evolved viewpoint, would have emerged, once again allowing no winner for the intellectuals. After all, the term "independent" covers every opinion not defined along the lines of major parties - and that includes quite a bit.

The idea here is a reply to the most common argument against intellectual apathetics: if said individuals united, they could surely represent the required percentage of individuals needed to bring about change. Since massive change is often brought about by a small majority, this argument seems to have weight. However, the percentage of such intellectuals is so low to bring that idea into question - consider the demographics of this very forum, for example. In my four years of lurking, I would say you, MoD, and perhaps Stoneheart would be the only ones willing to have or seriously follow a discussion of this nature. That is quite a bit away from the 40% figure. Furthermore, even if that number was higher, few of us would agree on any one course of any given action - consider the fact that I am disagreeing with you at this very moment.

If those factors aren't daunting enough, let us now introduce the context of mass social change - a goal which, unlike other social-political upheavals, benefits a super majority more than any minority, no matter how convincing and motivated they may be. Even if united, we would be attempting to literally undue everything - starting with a deep-set prejudice against intellectuals amongst the masses, naturally reinforced by basic human power complexes at every turn. The plight of intellectual apathetics is not self-induced - if everyone was such an individual, this reason would subside and make negotiation the most logical idea - rather, it remains in the hands of the massive majorities of simple apathetics and the intellectual proletariat in general. We are, quite simply, hopelessly outnumbered.

2.) The existence of the above situation as a natural state of the human race provides a deep reflection of the evolution of human society - and seems to imply any attempt to change the order of things as not only doomed, but perhaps even misanthropic.

You can generalize the argument in point one as just an exercise in nihilism, but a deeper question is to be found in humanity itself. Social patterns are the product of evolution - which brings our ideals into question if they challenges those patterns. How can we claim to be acting in the best interests of the human species - ignoring what we see as obvious benefits - if our reforms would modify the very nature of humanity? This idea arises from the fact that human ideals are often circular. Consider the example of beauty - as defined universally, in terms of facial and body symmetry. Such symmetry indicates accurately reproduced genes, thus, we consider those who adhere most to an already established human genotype as the most desirable. This works directly against genetic variation, does it not? Humans are not selected for revolutionary physical traits. For another example, consider what is deemed universally socially desirable - stability. I don't mean political or even ideological stability - I mean that every social goal somehow attempts to bring about greater stability, be that by uniting human groups, protecting the "common good," e.t.c. Is stability not a basic prerequisite for maintenance of an established system? If so, and human social ideals are inherently self-preserving, are we truly in the right by proposing any change so radically idealist as to disrupt the basic premises of human interaction?

With the status of intellectuals as a minority seemingly validated, it seems fruitless to challenge such situations. Any change which is so idealist/intellectual so as to require a majority doesn't really seem to be in humanity's best interest, regardless of how intuitive that conclusion may otherwise be, because what is ideal is defined in accordance of what already exists.

I'm getting far too long-winded, so I'l end my list of reasons with those two.

The thoughts I described discount change, but the ability to bring about change is a basic reinforcement of fundamental human power complexes. If one can't bring about change, the rest of life becomes depressing quickly. The point is that the conclusion of these trains of thought is, at worst, nihilism, and, at best, individualism.

If Ayrayen's parents were willing to negotiate with him in a reasonable manner, I would recommend he take them on the offer. From what I understand, they are not. With my predisposition to note the pointlessness of the entire situation, I cannot bring myself to advise him to waste time and effort on a futile endeavor.

Ayrayen, sever emotional, and eventually, all other ties with your parents and seek more fertile pastures.

I have some ideas for a response, but I need a bit of time to get it written down. I will be back later with my full response.

[Doram]

Ack! Sorry!!! Life got way too busy for a bit there... (Ouch! Two months! Sorrysorrysorry!!!!)

Considering that this is breaking off from Arayen's discussion, I would like to set that aspect of this aside for the time being, and discuss some philosophical underpinnings first. Once this is out of the way, I am more than willing to get back to what this means for that. Also, I will address a few other things at that time. Also sorry this took so long. I also wanted to give this proper attention (like the following week of massaging this for logic, flow, and making sure it represents my philosophy properly - maybe I am taking too long...)(Umm, at two months, I think I can call this too long...).

---

Now. Taking a step back from the socio-political and historical aspects of the conversation for a moment, let's consider the human nature side of the discussion - first the ideal of the correct perspective, and then the flaws of the current situation. Evolution, as a biological imperative, is driven by well documented patterns, derived both by a species' ability to thrive in existing situations as well as adapt to new situations. These drives manifest in a desire, and efforts to enact such desire, to preserve and encourage the thriving growth of a population in a stable environment, and to find new ways to survive in a changing environment (with a related secondary drive to create and maintain stability).

Extrapolated into a systemic description of the effect, however, it becomes clear that evolution as an ontology is automatically self destructive. Which came first? The chicken or the egg? The correct answer, from this perspective, is the egg, since what laid the egg WAS NOT a chicken, and due to the necessary genetic mutation, what hatched from the egg WAS a chicken. Striving for human evolution while worrying about if the result will still be human is a logical fallacy, since by definition, the evolved creature must not be human to be considered to have evolved.

This being said, the sentiment behind your objection does have merit. What is it that we consider uniquely defines us as human that is valuable enough to preserve in the next biological iteration, while allowing less important factors to change? If we were to consciously control the process, what would we consider a "positive" result to changing what it means to be human?

Well, let's start with where we are now. We humans have a unique place in nature in that we have evolved beyond most natural limits to our growth. We can adapt to just about every type of environment on the face of the Earth with our technology. We are technically apex predators in every food chain. The only things that can bring us down at all is disease and corruption (corruption mentioned here in a VERY broad sense), and technically disease is usually conquered in time as well. As a result of the interaction with the natural world being removed as driving forces of evolution for humans, what is left? Well, what is left is what we have in our environment that is not strictly controlled - each other. Our current evolutionary pressures are stress at work, finding an acceptable mate, paying our bills, dealing with our parents, dealing with our children - ultimately dealing with life on every level that we apply our abilities to: emotional, mental, and physical. THESE are our current evolutionary pressures, and they are already changing us. Autism is, from this perspective, a biological response to generations of neglect and abuse. It is the mental version of a flight response (as versus fight) stuck on. Similarly, ADD is a biological response to the desire to do more and do more at once. (I could go further with this train of thought, but in some ways it descends into the abhorrently offensive, as they are the kinds of justifications the ignorant have used for persecution, ignoring the more pressing philosophical meaning we discuss currently.) And in a semi-conscious way, we are also evolving in response to our evolutions - modern medicine trying to heal the disabled, for example. We are already evolving, and we are evolving in response to the only pressure great enough to affect us - each other.

Taking a step back from the reality of the situation this presents us with, we must ask ourselves a question. If we are the ones doing this to ourselves, and indeed the only force in this world capable of doing so, then should this not be something that SHOULD be done consciously and responsibly? Are we not abdicating our genetic evolutionary responsibility by not making personal evolution a conscious personal choice? If our nature as living beings, even absent any concept of divinity, demands a constant battle for evolution, then are we not denying ourselves our rightful place on the Earth by NOT trying to evolve? We therefore have a responsibility to honor all the evolution that got us here by using every tool that evolution gave us to advance the cause of evolution - including our consciousness.

And so the question of a conscious and intentional search for evolution then turns to what to change. What is unique? What is valuable? What serves? What is it that we are, that we want to hold on to? What is it that is not working any more that needs to be let go? Well, as most studies of human culture and psychology divide the human experience into the emotional, the physical, and the mental, let's take them one at a time.

One can certainly posit that the nobler side of the emotions illustrates a picture of what is valuable to the human world. Love, happiness, altruism, and cooperation are all considered better than hatred, anger, aggression, and abuse, right? But who loves life more than those who have been near death? Who appreciates happiness more than those who have known abuse and loss? What of righteous fury and fighting for what you believe in? One might as well ask what is light without the dark. Besides which, emotions cannot be controlled directly (without manipulation, which is inherently negative...). No. Emotions cannot be where we draw the line. Unless we abandon the concept of emotion entirely, we cannot choose any one emotion as vital over any other. Though it does serve as a defining characteristic of humanity, the emotional realm needs be left sacrosanct else it ceases to function properly at all, and therefore is not something that should be considered for evolutionary culling of any sort.

Then physical. Doing something. Not doing anything. Is one better than the other? No. Each has its uses. Then doing what? That is so huge a concept as to be beyond the scope of the current discussion. Deciding what to do, that requires... I think we're looking at the wrong end of the equation in this case. That leaves...

Mental. Now this has some potential. As a defining characteristic, the intellectual task of curiosity is something that has defined us even before we became human, as our primate ancestors/cousins continue to demonstrate. Furthermore, the concept of self-awareness is often cited as a major defining characteristic of our species. So, with the mental realm identified as possibly evolution's most potent and obvious gift, let us consider it as a primary tool of our continuing evolution.

Now, what changes to our mental state, and indeed what mental states in general, would be beneficial for the processes of evolution? Evolution as a reaction to the environment requires one to be aware of the environment, so attentiveness becomes a key state. Making choices about what physical actions to undertake to ensure survival is also part of the process, so being both physically active and actively mentally engaged are also key; let's call that involved. Analyzing the possibilities in order to make said choices requires examining all factors and following the situational logic to whatever conclusion best fits, which could technically come from anywhere, so let's add open-minded to the list (I'm passing over logical for that one, since pure logic excludes the talent of intuition from the argument, and being logical is also a factor that varies per individual according to their talents - IQ and otherwise).

So, the ideal response to the challenge of evolution is remaining attentive, active, engaged, and open-minded. All these are hallmarks of excellent scientists, which to a certain extent exemplify the pinnacle of humanity in the arena of maximizing human potential in this day and age, in the mind of the public at large. I posit that this ideal is a pattern that serves well in many more arenas of life than just the laboratory, but we can come back to this later. Now, let us turn to the flaws of the current situation.

Humanity, from a human nature perspective, is currently on auto pilot in many ways, not to mention seemingly caught in a nasty downward spiral. We are distracted by our technology, focusing on things with the randomness of the average commercial break. We seek to be entertained with minimal control over the content of the entertainment, and when not being entertained, we seek blind oblivion and escape. The tools of that escape take the form of drinking, drugs, addiction, and worse, and even when the activity is benign, it is taken to dangerous ends. People have died from playing too much video games. Really. We are so intent on ignoring the world in front of us that it is falling apart, and nobody seems to WANT to do anything to save it (much less know what to do...). With culture unconsciously stumbling on, pure frustration drives people to hunt each other in any of a bewildering variety of ways: backstabbing to climb the corporate ladder, swindling individuals or whole segments of the population out of their money through means both legal and illegal, manipulating the law and the government to suit their whims, much less the more obvious examples of prosecuted theft, murder, and fraud that make up the bulk of the recognized flaws of society. It is so overwhelming, in fact, that most tune it all out in an act of pure self-preservation. Clearly, this is a situation that is not sustainable in any way, and the more intelligent of us, whether cognizant or accepting of their intelligence or not, have a growing and nagging feeling that this is all going to culminate in something nasty and violent and unfortunately likely to be quite final for us and our planet...

And considering that this much has taken 2 months, the rest will have to wait.

---

Next up, what I believe that this means, what can be done about it, and how it affects more superficial concerns. At this point, you can certainly respond to what you see here. Also, I never had a problem with anybody adding to this in between my posts. Later considerations, grassroots movements, and also the long game...

[Ridder]

I feel like I just walked into a debate comprised of essays












So much reading

[Harmless]

Um, interesting Doram...

What are your thoughts on Gun Control? Should it be allowed, or should people be forced to bring a knife to a gunfight for self defense?

[Doram]

Um, interesting Doram...

What are your thoughts on Gun Control? Should it be allowed, or should people be forced to bring a knife to a gunfight for self defense?

First you fix the educational system, then you put everyone to work using their greatest talents, thus our productivity eliminates lack. This will reduce the burden of responsibility to the point that everyone can be happy and engaged in their lives without restraint or limitations, and this will eliminate strife of all kinds. Thus in a happy and fulfilled world, we wouldn't want to shoot each other.

Wait. Oh, yeah reality.

Well, laws are made to force people to do the right thing because they can't be trusted to do it by themselves. Thus we need gun laws to tell people not to shoot each other, because killing's bad, mmkay? I would adore it if everyone in the world suddenly became reasonable and responsible adults, but apparently that seems impossible. In the mean time, let's jut do what we can to put a damper on the chaos and hope we all survive the night. [/pessimism]

Really, I try to be a good person, and encourage all those around me to be good people, and hope that none of us have to run afoul of an imperfect system trying to manage (poorly) an imperfect world. I'll watch what happens, and be saddened and frustrated, and then let it all go because it isn't my responsibility to fix what I can't touch, just try to fix what I can touch. I learn from my mistakes and from the mistakes of everyone else that I see, and try to figure out how to live a better kind of life, and if that turns out to be a big help to the rest of humanity, great, and if not, I've lived a good life myself, and still succeeded.

Gun laws are important for people trying to force those around them to be responsible. We have told some people that this is their job, and they are trying to do the best they can. I will try to be a good person, and deal with my life properly so that I can avoid putting myself in a situation where someone else has to tell me to be responsible. Society is failing right now because we are so focused on each other doing the right thing that we are not paying attention to whether or not WE are doing the right thing. If we all focus on being the best people we can be, then everything else will figure itself out.

The law will always have limited success because, as humans, we have the ability to accomplish anything we put our minds to, including hurting each other. You will never eliminate crime until you eliminate the necessity of crime. People steal when they cannot get things any other way. If we all supported each other instead of competing against each other, then we could all have everything we want whenever we want it, eliminating the necessity of relying on crime to get it. We have the technology to grow crops in the desert, construct fantastic machineries and structures both tiny and huge, power ourselves from the air and the sun, and countless other wonders of modern knowledge. For no reason, we restrict those abilities to a precious few, and force the rest of us to fight each other for nothing but scraps. Until we eliminate elitism and scarcity consciousness, we will have imbalance in our societies. Crime is born of those imbalances. As long as we are not all equal, some will fight to regain that balance, and sometimes that fight will take the form of crime.

The problem is that society is broken, not that we don't have the right laws. We fight each other for food and money and Black Friday Deals. We are taught that we are not good enough. We need to be skinnier, taller, more fashionable, and it's never enough. We are also told that everyone else is out to get us, and that we need to take what we can when we get the chance, otherwise we will never have anything at all. We are isolated, belittled, restricted, and downright tortured in countless ways, both obvious and insidiously subtle. We turn each other against each other, and manipulate and violate and try to control each other. We are all enjoying the dubious benefits of all that is negative in humanity, and then we wonder why life sucks. It's because we are making it suck. We were taught to make it suck, encouraged to keep it sucking, and shown nothing but suck everywhere we turn.

If laws are the only way that we as a group can figure out how to fix the world we live in, then yes, they are good and right, but the situation is more complicated than that, and the ultimate solutions lie in completely different realms than the rule of law.

i

tl;dr I am saddened that gun control laws are necessary, and further saddened that my fellow human beings are driven to crime for their needs, much less their wants. I wish that the world was nicer, safer, fairer, and wiser. I try to spread that goodness as much as I can to the people and situations I come in contact with. I hope that enough of us can figure out how to live better that we can all live in a better world tomorrow and breathe a little bit easier. Until that point, I applaud my fellow humanity's attempts to figure out that path, and I hope that it will help those that have not found personal balance and benevolence as I have. I do not claim to have all the answers, but my life has little of that chaos and suffering, and I can only assume that my current peace means that I am doing something right. I wish that peace for all, and offer any help I can in providing it. I encourage everyone else to do the same. In other words, you are asking the wrong question, my friend.

[Harmless]

Now hold on. I think you misinterpreted my question a bit...

I am aware on the social stratification in America and possibly other parts of the world, and indeed a good portion of what you have said make sense. But my question was more geared towards the second amendment and self-defense firearms, not heavy rifles or other heavy/automatic weaponry, or guns that would otherwise be automatically considered illegal.

[Doram]

Nono. I understood you perfectly. What I said is you are asking the wrong question. In order to answer the question of should someone have something, you have to answer other questions like what are the benefits versus the drawbacks, what is involved in the process, is it necessary or just desired, and other things. If you want to know if people should have guns, you need to find out if people can be trusted with guns, and do guns actually make your life better in some measurable way, and so forth.

If you agree that people cannot be trusted with guns (because some will choose to use them to commit crimes, regardless of the type of gun), and you agree that guns are a beneficial part of life (in that they can be used for defense of self and country, amongst other things), and you agree that laws successfully provide the framework whereby people are forced to act responsibly (by threatening punishment for wrong action), then you MUST agree that laws to control gun use are necessary. To do otherwise is illogical and counterproductive, at best.

The real debate comes in the form of other related questions. Can people be trusted with gun use? Are guns really universally beneficial? Are laws the best way to maintain civilized existence? I have seen many an argument against one or all of those, most of them pretty sound, in my opinion.

---

Hell, taking another step back, the whole rule of law crumbles under reasonable logic. You can do whatever you put your mind to as a human being (and ultimately nothing can stop you - proof: all of the exemplary aspects of the whole of human history: every hero, savior, inventor, and general revolutionary ever born). Some people choose to violate the rights of others (thus the existence of crime). Since you can do whatever you want and succeed, and nobody can stop you, and some people choose to commit crime, therefore nobody can stop people from committing crime (proof: the complete failure through the entirety of human history, of any society, to eliminate crime). The only possible way to technically stop someone is to kill them, and sometimes that still does not stop their ideas and ideals (proof: neo-nazis). In fact, most crimes boil down to an attempt to force someone else to do what you want them to do (I want you to give me your money. I want you to have sex with me. I want you to die. Think about it.) So, if nobody can stop other people from committing crime, and any attempts to force someone else to do something is a crime, then all such attempts by any person or society to stop others from committing crimes are at once impossible to succeed, and inherently criminal.

Am I an anarchist? No. But they do make one hell of an argument.

Now if you are looking at the problem from way back like this, that paints a pretty grim picture for humanity. Thankfully, that is not the whole picture. Ultimately, that mostly talks about what you CANNOT do. The other half of this is what you CAN do. You can control your own actions. You can choose to do good. You can choose to work with others. You can choose to create or destroy for the benefit of all instead of for the ruination of all. I believe in consensus reality and personal responsibility. I believe that we are all capable of getting together and agreeing that we should always try to do the right thing, and then go home and live that agreement by always trying to do the right thing. I furthermore believe that if we all agree to do the right thing together, we will have created a good world, one worth living in, one that will always succeed in everything it attempts, one that will support me and my efforts as I support it. That is community. That is valuable and right. That is the good and power that comes from the very same situation I proposed in the previous section. You cannot ever force others to do good, but you can always choose to good with your own life.

If I could get everybody in the world to focus on doing the right thing in their life, instead of trying to force other people to be good and then failing to force them, I'm pretty sure the world would be an awesome place. Problem is, I can't force them.

[Venexis]

I love everything about this topic. It's an insightful read, it seems like a great way to communicate ideas, and it's awesome practice for dat critical thinking.

Usually I'd be content to let the thread go and just read, but something caught my attention:

First you fix the educational system...

I've had my fair share of issues with the current education system but I'm curious your actual thoughts on the matter are, given that you've likely watched it unfold longer than anyone here.

Also, since this seems to be generating some pretty intimidating responses, it may be worthwhile to create a table of contents for various notable posts in order to quickly and easily navigate pages of text. Not a big issue now but this is likely to be novel length before the postcount hits 20 :p

[Doram]

Well, I'll let Harmless rebut before we move on, and yes, I will get an index going soon.