- Messages
- 11,087
Okay, you're just not a serious person. I'm out.Sounds like a global society control structure!
Which is apparently bad!
Okay, you're just not a serious person. I'm out.Sounds like a global society control structure!
Which is apparently bad!
My point was that they all vehemently respected the Earth. They felt they were one with it and all that lived on this planet. As far as I know, this was throughout the cultures of the thousands of tribes. They did not over consume, they found ways to use all that the land offered them, and took no more than what they needed. I think we as a culture in America and most of the world are beyond that. However, the point was, you asked for an example of a society that followed any of the Guidestones principles that did not devolve into a hell, and I gave you one. Drew provided a few more. But you are not willing to accept that such societies/people could have ever existed.Right, so that Native American culture thing isn't really true in the first place. You're relying on a heavily romanticised interpretation of how they lived their lives. And, there certainly were hellish aspects of their society; except we're not just talking about one society. That's a myth too. The Native Americans were a collective of hundreds of different localised cultures and traditions. Grouping it all together seems wrong to me.
Please explain why that is not serious. In one sentence, you claim the new technologies need to be controlled by the right people. A couple of sentences later, you are claiming that giving centralized control to groups of people makes things problematic. I do want to know the serious logic in such presumptions. Best I can tell, you gots to pick one.Okay, you're just not a serious person. I'm out.
That’s too absolute to be historically accurate.My point was that they all vehemently respected the Earth. They felt they were one with it and all that lived on this planet. As far as I know, this was throughout the cultures of the thousands of tribes. They did not over consume, they found ways to use all that the land offered them, and took no more than what they needed. I think we as a culture in America and most of the world are beyond that. However, the point was, you asked for an example of a society that followed any of the Guidestones principles that did not devolve into a hell, and I gave you one. Drew provided a few more. But you are not willing to accept that such societies/people could have ever existed.
I'm arguing for distributed, accountable systems vs centralised, top-down authority; which is what the stones argue for.Please explain why that is not serious. In one sentence, you claim the new technologies need to be controlled by the right people. A couple of sentences later, you are claiming that giving centralized control to groups of people makes things problematic. I do want to know the serious logic in such presumptions. Best I can tell, you gots to pick one.
Perfect. So I am using elements of the Guidestones to debate 5 of the points that it makes. And you are dismissing them because you don't agree (nor do I) with the other five. Seems quite daft IMO!To answer your question, we do exactly what we do already - we engage in debate to win positions over policy that slowly shift the societal overton window (to use a metaphor) while at the same time investing time, money, resources, and energy into finding solutions. We already have a process for this. We debate. We argue. We test ideas against reality.
Perhaps. I am all ears and eyes if it is untrue and you have evidence to support such a claim.That’s too absolute to be historically accurate.
And you studies should have taught you by now that ALL systems with humans involved, when they get large enough, begin to fall apart. So you can distribute and hold "accountable" whoever you think you can, but control by a group of humans will eventually devolve into them who have the control, taking advantage of that control for their own benefit. To quote you:I'm arguing for distributed, accountable systems vs centralised, top-down authority; which is what the stones argue for.
You're far too emotionally invested in this topic for me to be arsed continuing. Have a good night!
So whether it is distributed or centralized, we have the same problem and that is dealing with humans running it. Accountable is a great slogan to try and live by. Good luck making that happen!Actually making it happen means pragmatically dealing with enforcement, corruption, and power imbalances.
There's actually lots of evidence of them having an impact on nature; through their land burnings, deforestation, mass landscape engineering, potential extinction events, overhunting and resource depletion, beaver and fur exploitation. Dances With Wolves lied to you.I am all ears and eyes if it is untrue and you have evidence to support such a claim.
I'm afraid not good sir.so are you and your statements throughout this debate have shown as much.
My bigger point was in regard to Orvie’s response about having kids and showing two sides of a coin as it related to the discussion of a future civilization; while we both grew up in shitty situations, “human is gonna human” did not apply to both us. And that’s not to say Drew is a bad person for having kids and I’m awesome, we had different experiences growing up, but despite the similar metrics/shared shitty experience, different paths were taken in the long run in how we moved forward with our own lives.
And if ya grew up where I did, chances are your parents wouldn’t have let you hang out with me due to where I lived and my stepdad’s name being in the police log every other month.