leaves fall on your face; softly do they drift down.


As upright critical thinking creatures we deem ourselves important. We consider our technology superior. Yet it is in our nature to destroy ourselves.

Why then do we foolishly decieve ourselves into thinking (or not thinking of at all) how long our world can support us.



Scientists are already trying to see if there is another possible future home for our race.
this should be a sign.


Elaborate upon this and tell me what you have seen.

You've forgotten the option that is most likely to occur: we will assist in our destruction by disease.

Why is this in the philosophy section? This is NOT PHILOSOPHY. Try Free Thought or Science.

I concern myself not with the scientific aspect of these things. I am more interested in the reasoning behind this. It appears that you foolishly judge without understanding..

among shadows ...


As upright critical thinking creatures we deem ourselves important. We consider our technology superior. Yet it is in our nature to destroy ourselves.

Why then do we foolishly decieve ourselves into thinking (or not thinking of at all) how long our world can support us.

Well, to go by your line of thinking: Since it is "in our nature" to destroy ourselves, then we also must have something to destroy in the first place. So we build, so that we can tear down. The more we want to tear down, the more we must build.




Elaborate upon this and tell me what you have seen.

Misery.

I have no doubt we will face challenges soon, but I doubt very much that every last human on Earth will die anytime soon. Call me an optimist, but humans have survived just as difficult challenges when there was no technology or knowledge other than the most primitave need to food and shelter.

leaves fall on your face; softly do they drift down.


As upright critical thinking creatures we deem ourselves important. We consider our technology superior. Yet it is in our nature to destroy ourselves.

Why then do we foolishly decieve ourselves into thinking (or not thinking of at all) how long our world can support us.



Scientists are already trying to see if there is another possible future home for our race.
this should be a sign.


Elaborate upon this and tell me what you have seen.
First, may i say...i LOVE your intro very much. Beautiful.......

when we say 'we' 'humans' 'our species', i feel that is really very very wrong, and utterly ufair to all he many many generations of People of the Land who have been obliterated from the face of the Earth, as have thousands of other species, and still it continues. we really causes me personaly grat despair whn i really think and feel about it

So please lt us not confuse the WHOLE of human species wit A mindsetthat has brought us to this...prison planet, basically.

jeeesus, man poeple dont even know, or wont admit, they ARE oppressed. this is a pattern seen in all denials. take alcoholism. ONLY wen an alcoholic admits tey have a problem can healing begin,,,,eroin etc etc. Similarly wit our problem.

It is NOT a species thang. it is a MINDSET
tang. it is when the mindset cuts its head off from its body/Nature. THAT ISthe problem......

jeeesus, man poeple dont even know, or wont admit, they ARE oppressed. this is a pattern seen in all denials. take alcoholism. ONLY wen an alcoholic admits tey have a problem can healing begin,,,,eroin etc etc. Similarly wit our problem.

It is NOT a species thang. it is a MINDSET
tang. it is when the mindset cuts its head off from its body/Nature. THAT ISthe problem......

Well, Fromm has a theory that says that humans essentially want to escape freedom.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/fromm.html


Freedom is a difficult thing to have, and when we can we tend to flee from it.

Fromm describes three ways in which we escape from freedom:

1. Authoritarianism.
We seek to avoid freedom by fusing ourselves with others, by becoming a part of an authoritarian system like the society of the Middle Ages. There are two ways to approach this. One is to submit to the power of others, becoming passive and compliant. The other is to become an authority yourself, a person who applies structure to others. Either way, you escape your separate identity.

Fromm referred to the extreme version of authoritarianism as masochism and sadism, and points our that both feel compelled to play their separate roles, so that even the sadist, with all his apparent power over the masochist, is not free to choose his actions. But milder versions of authoritarianism are everywhere. In many classes, for example, there is an implicit contract between students and professors: Students demand structure, and the professor sticks to his notes. It seems innocuous and even natural, but this way the students avoid taking any responsibility for their learning, and the professor can avoid taking on the real issues of his field.

2. Destructiveness.
Authoritarians respond to a painful existence by, in a sense, eliminating themselves: If there is no me, how can anything hurt me? But others respond to pain by striking out against the world: If I destroy the world, how can it hurt me? It is this escape from freedom that accounts for much of the indiscriminate nastiness of life -- brutality, vandalism, humiliation, vandalism, crime, terrorism....

Fromm adds that, if a person's desire to destroy is blocked by circumstances, he or she may redirect it inward. The most obvious kind of self-destructiveness is, of course, suicide. But we can also include many illnesses, drug addiction, alcoholism, even the joys of passive entertainment. He turns Freud's death instinct upside down: Self-destructiveness is frustrated destructiveness, not the other way around.

3. Automaton conformity.
Authoritarians escape by hiding within an authoritarian hierarchy. But our society emphasizes equality! There is less hierarchy to hide in (though plenty remains for anyone who wants it, and some who don't). When we need to hide, we hide in our mass culture instead. When I get dressed in the morning, there are so many decisions! But I only need to look at what you are wearing, and my frustrations disappear. Or I can look at the television, which, like a horoscope, will tell me quickly and effectively what to do. If I look like, talk like, think like, feel like... everyone else in my society, then I disappear into the crowd, and I don't need to acknowledge my freedom or take responsibility. It is the horizontal counterpart to authoritarianism.

The person who uses automaton conformity is like a social chameleon: He takes on the coloring of his surroundings. Since he looks like a million other people, he no longer feels alone. He isn't alone, perhaps, but he's not himself either. The automaton conformist experiences a split between his genuine feelings and the colors he shows the world, very much along the lines of Horney's theory.

In fact, since humanity's "true nature" is freedom, any of these escapes from freedom alienates us from ourselves. Here's what Fromm had to say:

Man is born as a freak of nature, being within nature and yet transcending it. He has to find principles of action and decision making which replace the principles of instincts. he has to have a frame of orientation which permits him to organize a consistent picture of the world as a condition for consistent actions. He has to fight not only against the dangers of dying, starving, and being hurt, but also against another anger which is specifically human: that of becoming insane. In other words, he has to protect himself not only against the danger of losing his life but also against the danger of losing his mind. (Fromm, 1968, p. 61)

of course i see a lot of unacknowledged premises in what i've read of Fromme

he also seems to hae a strange notion of freedom. as togh the choices a given culture may 'give' makes the person 'free'--that's a premise i dont believe in

for if you take it seriousy it actually affects the perception/feelings of the believer in Fromme--philosophy. why you may srat lookin at the animal world as some kind of prison instead of your OWn trip, which you mistaknly believe is freedom

it could be argued that we in te moder--postmodern agre are as free as can be, but i really argue te opposite. i is more a concrete striaghtjacket courtesy of the pharma-shrink cartel. that any emotion deemed NOT ACCEPTABLE is deemed mentally ill. this social-shame/fear leads of course to self-censorship till you are NOT even free to feel what yo FEEL....! now go and look at the tiger in the jungle......what's left of it!

of course i see a lot of unacknowledged premises in what i've read of Fromme

he also seems to hae a strange notion of freedom. as togh the choices a given culture may 'give' makes the person 'free'--that's a premise i dont believe in

Where has Fromm stated such a thing?

well he seems to say that in the Middle Ages it was less 'free' than in the Renaissance etc where it was 'freeER'...havei got it wrong?

In my view the end of the world will be natural, such as the sun imploding, an asteroid or comet hitting, as for freedom its an illusion that exists...its a real thing, right in front of us, we can grab it, but we let ourselves be controlled by others, In my belief of life and death there is no god, and we have a limited time on earth to accomplish the things we want, they dont have meaning to anyone but ourselves really, we see them as important, and they are, because things are how you make them, in some aspects what others think doesnt matter since there is a limited time in life to make ourselves happy, not others

We will kill ourselves in a nuclear war or worse, for sure.

The reason I say it wont end like this is

1- The people with these weapons want power, if they use these weapons they may destroy the world and themselves, in which case there will be nothing to have power of, the weapons mainly are threats 'korea has nuclear weapons' but I doubt they will use them as anything other than a threat, or if they do it wont be in doses large enough to end the world, just greatly effect it

*sits back and lets his feelings wash over him*

I enjoy this. I am gladdened by kind words (Duendy) and bright eyes.
Although I seek certain people out, people that are willing to make the reach, I do not get to have my thoughts reviewed in quite this way.

Knowing that something I have said can be taken in by others, changed, and made more personal to the reader is a great feeling.

once again I have been reminded that not all hope is lost.

As sad as it may be, I do lose the correct perspective from time to time.

So what if there's no people in the future? It doesn't bother me at all. As a species we will live fast, die young, and leave interesting remains.

Erich Fromm was an idiot. Here we have a guy who takes Freudian analysis, uses it on an incorrect scale (cultural, when it was made clear by Freud himself that his work applies only to individuals...), and then mixes it into a misuse of Marxist dialectic. So, we end up with some teleological cultural doom-mindset. Wow. I'm amazed how fools can gather so many fans. (And this guy wasn't even a hip-hopster... :-) )

Among Shadows:

Welcome to SciForums, by the way.

Anyway, my two cents:

The ability to actually wipe the human species from this planet, at present, is really quite slim. Even in large-scale nuclear war, the chance for survival, and regeneration, is remarkably high, specifically for those in the most remote corners of the world, who would be all but untouched by the ill effects, save indirectly. That being said, we also have demonstrated the capacity to deal with our problems without making recourse to utterly suicidal notions, and that is precisely why MAD worked. We are destined to move onto other worlds not so much because we may litterally need to do so, but rather that we -desire- to do so. It is the nature of man to be enterprising, to seek out new things, and to explore what he does not know.

Erich Fromm was an idiot. Here we have a guy who takes Freudian analysis, uses it on an incorrect scale (cultural, when it was made clear by Freud himself that his work applies only to individuals...), and then mixes it into a misuse of Marxist dialectic. So, we end up with some teleological cultural doom-mindset. Wow. I'm amazed how fools can gather so many fans. (And this guy wasn't even a hip-hopster... :-) )

Trying to escape your freedom, you are ... :p

*smiles at what he has done*

Personally i think that if the human race can survive 60 odd years of Cold war, constantly on the brink of self destruction and live to tell the tale it has demonstrated that it has the potential ability of self restraint and discipline. These attributes will be sorely needed if we are to move into a new era intact as a species.

A Sci fi writer [ Isaac Asimov - I think] has written of how every sentiant race must pass through the trials of the technology era, if it is to succeed in surviving the post tech era.

The question is really about whether humanity is up to the challenge. I believe it is, but will take leadership with real vision. Something that has yet to emerge.
Suffice to say that the human race will be very different in 100 odd years to what we see today.

Quantum Quack:

Whilst different we will be, in manyways we shall also be the same. The humans of every generation are only disimiliar to their forebears and their successors in the demands of their time period.

With 6 billion people interacting in a unplanned chaotic fashion plague is inevitable even with sophistacated medicine being arrayed against it.

Genetically engineered plague sponsored by terrorists for any ideology, governments, organized racists or pharmaceutical corporations is also a strong possibility.

Nuclear war is likely but probably the five or six best armed nations will not use nuclear weapons on each other.

Even in the unlikely worst case scenario there is debate over what would happen if all nuclear weapons on earth were fired. Some people would probably survive. Nuclear power plants might also melt down when their opperators are dead and their wires melted from the nuclear bombs. The earth would be degraded as a environment for humans for 10,000 years but humans can survive in harsh environments.

Anarchy regardless of what caused the anarchy could destroy the economy and send people back to the stone age. Civilization has collapsed before. When you don't know how to feed yourself you steal. If the people who know how to feed themselves won't share you kill them and take thier food. People need to know more things and be smarter in order to survive in the stone age than they need to know to survive in the modern era. Now you can do one skill all day long year after year and then trade that skill for the right to take things from the super market. If anarchy pushed us back to the stone age (+ the left over modern stuff) most of us would quickly die.

Over-All I think it's off to the stars for humans at some point in time. We will have horrible serbacks but they won't stop us. A little more love and idealism in the next fifty years could set humans up for a very sweet time for thousands of years.

Whilst I don't realy wish to get into prophecy, a good example of possible social outcomes can be seen in the movie/book, The Postman.

Which describes the effect of a power vacuum after a nuclear wipe out.

How social units develope and strive to regain societal cohesion.

Communication [ The post ] being a sort of symbolic statement of hope.

Quantum Quack:

Whilst different we will be, in manyways we shall also be the same. The humans of every generation are only disimiliar to their forebears and their successors in the demands of their time period.
Prince, I think you are quite right. Humans will always be "human". Their knowledge base may get larger but still they will be as they always have been, just maybe a little more mature. [ emotionally ]

There is no doubt in my mind that there are pivotal times ahead of us. A culminant point in human destiny if you like...but we will remain essentially "human" regrdless. [ using your context Prince]

nirakar:

Genetically engineered plague sponsored by terrorists for any ideology, governments, organized racists or pharmaceutical corporations is also a strong possibility.

With modern medicine, even an epidemic is unlikely in the civilized world. Considering the barbarous conditions of the backwards third world, a plague there is likely, and potentially even beneficial - in the long term - for the population. It'd weed out the weak, bring to fore the strong, and produce surplus. Of course, it would come at the price of massive amounts of misery, but still.

Even in the unlikely worst case scenario there is debate over what would happen if all nuclear weapons on earth were fired. Some people would probably survive. Nuclear power plants might also melt down when their opperators are dead and their wires melted from the nuclear bombs. The earth would be degraded as a environment for humans for 10,000 years but humans can survive in harsh environments.

Nuclear winter conditions actually only last for 3 or so years, maximum. The natural filtering processes are very potent. MOreover, there are many areas which would be freed of the ill effects, specificallyt he most remote, and sheltered areas, such as Switzerland.

Anarchy regardless of what caused the anarchy could destroy the economy and send people back to the stone age. Civilization has collapsed before. When you don't know how to feed yourself you steal. If the people who know how to feed themselves won't share you kill them and take thier food. People need to know more things and be smarter in order to survive in the stone age than they need to know to survive in the modern era. Now you can do one skill all day long year after year and then trade that skill for the right to take things from the super market. If anarchy pushed us back to the stone age (+ the left over modern stuff) most of us would quickly die.

The problem with this, is that it generally requires something like an invasion, or horrific war, to start off with. This is unlikely to happen now a days. There are no Huns to ride from the Steppes against our Roman Empire. The closest we have is terrorism.

Quantum Quack:

Whilst I don't realy wish to get into prophecy, a good example of possible social outcomes can be seen in the movie/book, The Postman.

Good film.

Prince, I think you are quite right. Humans will always be "human". Their knowledge base may get larger but still they will be as they always have been, just maybe a little more mature. [ emotionally ]

There is no doubt in my mind that there are pivotal times ahead of us. A culminant point in human destiny if you like...but we will remain essentially "human" regrdless. [ using your context Prince]

I am quite glad you agree with my main premise! But define "pivotal" a bit? For whilst I agree that there will be changes and such things, the degree to which they shall be "pivotal" I question. That is, at least to those undergoing them.