crispybits wrote:Of course this doesn't work until we have a single human society
Lemme ask you, does putting all your eggs into one basket sound very wise to you?
Hahahaha!
There is nothing wrong at all with lots of societies. In fact, that is the ideal. It makes it easier for individuals to find their own niche in life and society. I can think of few things in the world that could be worse than having everyone the same. Variety, the spice of life.
crispybits wrote:I think there is an optimal (note: optimal, not perfect) society model. That is, one where based on everything we can demonstrate and measure the best possible life is given to everyone in that society.
What's the best possible life? That's not an objective thing, that's subjective. Good luck measuring that.
And what we can demonstrate and measure now is not necessarily true, or that is we still suffer from knowledge gaps. No matter what we do. DDT is a great example. It was the wonder pesticide, it was going to eliminate malaria. It was safe (so said all measurable data at the time), so safe that you could eat it.
In fact, I have a video of a scientist eating DDT in front of some ignorant tribesmen to show them that there was nothing to fear from the pesticide, that it would make their lives better. The tribesmen were not convinced.
We sprayed it on ourselves, our crops and had the UN mandate that the pesticide be used literally everywhere. Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Sure it kills bugs, but who could have figured that bug poison was also people poison? Except maybe a little common sense. Which apparently science couldn't determine until it was proved.
It always comes down to someone saying- "We've all got to do this because of this evidence says we should". That's all fine and dandy, but who does one really trust? Especially when sacrifice is called for from people who are not willing to sacrifice?
The best society is one that allows people to make their own decisions, for better or worse. Bad decisions are punished by fate and circumstance, good decisions are rewarded with fortune and favour. This instills a sense of individual responsibility. And there will always be plenty of bad luck to go around for everyone. But anytime we put one person above another we have problems.
But society does just that. Who makes the decision on who gets what? Who has a good life and who doesn't? Who deserves what and who deserves less or more?
It will be a human being deciding that. It is best if that human being is the individual deciding for himself.
Who knows better what an individual needs better than the individual himself?
Do you think you know what I need better than I know myself?
What about what I want?
Should you decide what I should have or have not?
You can take this line right on down all the issues, as I see where you are going with this.
Such as- everyone deserves medical care. Correct?
If so, then who is it that you say- "You must provide that medical to this person". Are you not forcing one to do something for another?
What if that medical care provider says- "Well, what do I get for doing this?" Well? What should he get? The person that needs treatment must get it, but what of the person giving the service? Have they not needs as well?
Or, "Everyone mus have quality food". Well, where does the food come from? Who are you going to force to grow, collect, raise that food and then give it to someone else?
Shouldn't the person who produces that food have a say in what compensation they get for their efforts?
Why not a free exchange between the two and you have nothing to do with it?
Free exchanges is better than a third party saying this or that must be done. Because the people actually involved in the exchange know better what it is that they each may want or need.
And we already have that. The whole basis of free exchange is the society that can accomplish what it is that you desire. A doctor can't grow all his own food, because he's too busy treating sick people. Farmers can't treat sick people, because they are too busy growing food. They can trade between each other the fruit of their labors and both get what they need or want.
It's nice to think of how things ought to be, and it's easy to say that a society should be based on what ought to be. But the Devil is in the details. Details which are all but ignored because people all think that they know what's best for everyone else.
The only thing any of us knows is, maybe, just maybe, what's best for themselves. And even that gets to be a stretch because a lot of people think they know what they need or want but often enough they find out differently.
But nothing is impossible. Maybe one day we'll figure a way to breed individuality out of human beings. Make everyone exactly the same. Obedient. We certainly seem to be trying to do just that. I'm not sure how ideal that kind of world would be, but with those circumstances it just may be possible to have a society you appear to dream of.
Of course, I'm more of the opinion that you really don't know what it is that you ask. Something that is common to virtually everyone on the planet.
Naw, every individual must find their own place within that society. It simply doesn't work to just say "You do this and you do that". Individuals must be free enough to figure things out for themselves. When we start saying everyone deserves this or that we start making promises that can't be kept. And that is not a very wise thing to do. Perhaps a scientific study can be done to measure what ill effects of broken promises do to societies.
And if everybody must find their own way through a society then those societies that thrive continue to thrive while those that are ill formed die out. A perfect progression where best practices are used. This cannot be mandated, determine before hand, it must be done as most things in life are done. Through trial and error.
It's a bitch sometimes, I'll give you that for sure. But making mistakes is the number one way we actually learn anything of any consequence.
Give people the freedom to starve, and you will be impressed out how quickly people work out ways to not starve. And a lot of those ways will be positive benefits for everyone. But there will be mistakes made as well. God bless us for our mistakes for it makes our success that much more beautiful.
Individualism will get society to where you want it, crispybits. Collectivism will never accomplish your lofty wishes. Collectivism just makes everyone equally miserable. Except for the rulers of course, there are never any worries for them, except for some troublesome individuals. You want transparency and less corruption? Well, the corrupt fear the individuals that don't buy into the bullshit. The corrupt have no fear of the obedient collective.