Dr lounatic first, theres all sorts of bits to comment on, so I cant be bothered snipping all the html tags and moving them etc: "Pick an animal and then yes, I will show you how it works with the planet. " Possibly I'm just bein picky, but whenever i find anyone saying this kind of thing, what i tend to think more of is an animal that knows what its doing. There must be a way to say this that expresses the way the animal fits into its niche. "I think the problem today largely revolves around the over the top nature of human rights. I think there needs to be some level of competition within the species and occassionally it must be violent and combative. " Ahh, well, see here we differ somewhat. You see, I recall reading of Rhino for example, which are big heavy things, have territories, and according to what i have read, dont actually fight very much, because doing so would leave even the winner at sub optimal ability to breed and live etc. Humanity since we invented weapons and most certainly within the last 1000 years, has had the ability to do so much damage to each other that its not worth fighting. In the medieval period, the bosses were in the battles (at least in the uK and much of Europe.) and of course got killed. Now isnt that a good way to carry on your bloodline? Of course not. Then we have WW2 and the cold war. I think thats enough to prove that violent combative stuff is self limiting and problematic in various ways. Now, obviously some competition is necessary in life, in order to work out where you are fit for. But it neednt be totally lethal to those concerned, and it must not lead to large numbers of others becoming involved and resources commited to it. Moreover, human rights is a different concept from what you are saying here. Or rather, it could be related, in that the "rights" hold back such competition. Except they neednt. Moreover, with changes occuring in society so fast these days, we need the variety that occurs anyway. 30 years ago strong muscled steel workers were needed in the west. Now we need smooth tongued telephone operators. Of course this is all negated if you claim that we should return to a primitive past. But you should still think about the problems of combat etc. I have no trouble with trying to evolve to a more cooperative form of competition, the sort of thing which makes it possible to have continent spanning wars which can be won or lost by organisation. "It needs to be a cycle of shifting power, an arms race. Clans need to be competing with eachother, occassionally cooperating for wars with other regions but in day to day life they need to have set territories that they need to earn and that others can take with force if they have the ability. It would ensure clan fitness, and thus make us a more streamlined and refined species as a whole." Well, no. It wouldnt. It would merely assure the fitness of humans who were good at fighting. romanticising the clans is fun, but a waste of time. They were ultimately ground down by the superior cooperation and organisation of their enemy, the english gvt. And see earlier about our ability to kill each other making war pointless. of course, if your talking about your ideal, platonic republic kind of thing, go ahead, but dont expect anyone to actually want to join you. I mean your a biologist, do you really expect there to be any work for a biologist in such a society, since all efforts would be put into fighting with other clans, not research into how squidgy things work? "We have violence today but its like its a byproduct of trying to hold it in. Rebelling against authority, like violence is wrong? I'll do it just to be wrong then!" I disagree entirely. There may well be the occaisional weirdo who goes postal. The rest of us "normal" people arent bothered. The violence we have today on the streets, or of children in school or their parents, (ive been talking to teachers, dont get me started.) comes from letting it all out, not holding it all in. Same with razor gangs of Glasgow in the 50's, or the inhabitants of Fallujah. "If we just followed and instincts and were violent when we saw fit there would naturally be a structure." Yes, probably somewhat like Genghis Khans life. No room for biologists in it. Bear in mind that our instincts are something like 200,000 years behind our social and physical and tool using situation. "Because thats just how it works. We are animals and have behavioural tendencies to make ensure our social structures function adequately." Indeed. Why do you think so many people prefer peace? "The things that were the reason the structure developed in the first place so what we have now is kind of like a pointless joke. A parody of our meaningful animal social structure which is now obsolete. " Could you explain a bit further please? "And yes there is also the issue of artistic value and aesthetics running seperate but parallel. Which is more hard to explain. But definately very apparent when looking back through history, even old buildings, some buildings are timeless, while the ones we build today inevitably become outdated and tacky in a few years." I'd roughly agree here. I think it has more to do with transcendent ideals and long term planning. "Now every culture is throwing up lame architecture, jumbled glass and steal and plastic and tacky colours." Indeed. But I would say its more to do with a slight switch in outlook. Instead of being so aware of our mortality, and thus thrown back on teh afterlife and our community so much, a lot of the people who put up such buildings do so simply for the money. Theres plenty of us out there looking for good buildings, but we dont have the money. The present society definitely has a more moneygrubbing outlook, but ill need to go away and have a think about exactly how and why etc. But I am fairly certain its not so much to do with religion, except in so far as the religious impulse has been reduced and realigned. Science and base materialism have too much of a foothold in everyones minds. Right, Hastein: "You assume everything has a hollow center and that respect was simply given to people out of 'posturing' rather than a genuine understanding. I hold doors open for people because it is for their general welfare and provides the satisfaction I get out of that duty. All customs have purpose, even if they are largely forgotten. " I dont assume everything was hollow, merely that it often ended up that way, moreover we have such things as ribald songs to remind us of that. Indeed, respect was certainly earnt and given, but it is easy to look back and think that it was all genuinely given and recieved. Records from old times show a fair bit of two facedness. And today, there are a lot of people who people give respect to, whether the cancer survivor whos always cheerful who lives 3 doors down, to the 5 times olympic gold medallist you see on TV. I wouldnt disagree that there is somewhat less respect than there used to be, but I think its important to be careful about when your talking about and not taking your comparisons too far. for example, the UK in the 1950's, there was a lot of positional respect give, eg to Dr's, people in uniform, and even your parents. Yet 150 years earlier, I have read of less such respect going about, because of various episodes of social turmoil. "As for opera being culture, I do indeed consider it a superior form of art. Most people don't have the attention span to listen to anything besides Lil Jon and the Eastside Boyz because it is easy to make and easy to get into. " Ok, thats "normal" enough, but dont confuse Culture with culture, I mean, you have the culture of a country to consider, or you have the culture of culture lovers, which consists say of opera or books or something. Sorry to sound so preachy.
No it doesn't know what its doing, it just naturally operates in a way that benefits the eco-sysystem as a whole. And we did too at one stage. Now we just aren't, and seeing as how we actually can see that we are not, we should do what we have to to make sure we are. And in fact become the first species to "know what its doing" when it comes to working with the planet. Very true. But we aren't rhinos, or anything like them. The reason the concept of inner specific conflict evolved in the animal kingdom does not apply to rhinocerus, being solitary herbivores who are naturally sparsely populated due to their breeding habits(of course they are today more sparsely populated than they should be thanks to man). But they do apply to us, perhaps more so than any other species. If we are to be compared to an animal, we have to settle somewhere between lions and chimpanzees. Lions in that we are social and aren't prey items, we rule over our range. Pretty much all social animals have conflict, even those that are heavily preyed upon(usually for breeding rights), but those that aren't heavily preyed upon tend to have violent territorial disputes as well as competitive violence for breeding rights. These territorial disputes are very important for the environments they occur in, and the state of the earth is in its current state blatantly because we stopped having these territorial disputes at the right times. Surviving is a good way to pass on your blood line. Not surviving is a good way to not pass on your blood line. Each activity is important, be you passing on your genes or not you are playing an equally important role in the evolution of the species. It should either be lethal to those who lose or somehow take away their right to breed. It just has to be I'm afraid. Thats how earth operates and has operated forever. You're right. Those involved should all be involved for a reason that is personal to them. I think a clan would consider another trying to take their territory to extend their own to be personal because they would lose their home and livelyhood. It never would have reached the kind of conflict seen in ww1 and 2 if we kept living by our animal social structure from the beginning. Competition is pointless unless someone truely wins and someone truely loses. No, it would ensure the tenure of an intelligent leader. Me a biologist? Ha! Say that to spurious monkey and check his reaction Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I figured my job in such a society could be keepers of the dogges, I patrol the estate with dogs at night and set them on intruders. During the day i wander around the estate drunk and screwing around with the jester, and ofcourse caring for the dogs. Jesters btw weren't just clowns that performed for kings. Their job was litterally to wander around the estate being a smartass and keeping the mood light. How cool is that? I'm not saying all focus would be on fighting other clans, its just that you would sooner fight another clan than let it move in on your territory. We would be living off our territory and it could only sustain so many so we would defend it and fight for it. Not 24 hours a day just when we needed to. Most combat would be avoided with the formiddable reputations of estates. But if a communal estate seemed weak another group could try and take their territory. See how it is similar to animals? This is how animals are in harmony with nature, and how we are not. We could be, and we wouldn't need to take our clothes off and start cracking nuts opens with rocks while grunting. The reason I mention shakespeare specifically is because shakespearian times are not seen as barbarian or primitive necesarrily, but people functioned like animals in the important ways. It just goes to show we can remain dignified humans in the ways that make us proud, whilst still being animals at the fundamental level and in harmony with nature. "We have violence today but its like its a byproduct of trying to hold it in. Rebelling against authority, like violence is wrong? I'll do it just to be wrong then!" I'm not a biologist, and would in fact want to take part in the combat within my proposed society but even for those that didn't. As long as they provided something that helped their communal estate function they would be defended by the estates army. Because they fear death, period. It is not because it is good for human beings or anything like that. A little combat is good for human beings. As long as it is meaningful in the way i describe. Holding down a territory that you live off of. Good for human beings and the planet. If we need the ecosystem to survive we'll take care of it. Combat would just be a natural byproduct of this. Its why combat exists in fact. Which makes it kind of funny when you think of recent wars. Its like people are satisfying their combative instinct but on meaningless arbitrary causes. Once we had structure and everything made sense. Heh, kind of wish you didn't ask that, its complicated. But its similar to what I said above. Its like we are satisfying all our instincts with a society similar to our natural one. But somewhere it got derailed, and just like we keep fighting even though it has lost its meaning, we keep having a society even though it too has lost its meaning. The reasons the structure exists are ecological. Thats why it is crafted as it is. But it is no longer effective in keeping an ecoloigcal balance. We have houses and yards in a region because we find it satisfying to our instincts. Those instincts though are the way they are to make us want to have a territory that we will live off and we put up fences to keep others out but we are instinctually trying to keep out 'poachers' even though there's nothing to poach. See how its kind of ironic? Modern human society is based on our instinctual animal social structure. The ways it differs are inherently wrong, not better. They differences are pointless and we might as well have changed it completely because all the little things we do were only useful when accompanying our true natural social structure. It is complicated, but you'll find I have a point.
"Now we just aren't, and seeing as how we actually can see that we are not, we should do what we have to to make sure we are. And in fact become the first species to "know what its doing" when it comes to working with the planet." Agreed. Except I think we would disagree about the exact changes needed. "These territorial disputes are very important for the environments they occur in, and the state of the earth is in its current state blatantly because we stopped having these territorial disputes at the right times." But also, I think you are overstating the territorial disputes outcomes. They arent always fights to the death. And blatantly the current problems with the earth are that we keep having territorial disputes. (well, one of the troubles anyway.) Most of the wars of the past few thousand years can be put down to aggressive desires to expand territory, not to live in it successfully. "Surviving is a good way to pass on your blood line. Not surviving is a good way to not pass on your blood line. Each activity is important, be you passing on your genes or not you are playing an equally important role in the evolution of the species. " d'oh. What i'm actually suggesting is that what has happened is that lots of people have been killed before they could pass on their genes. Thus this leaves all the more peaceful people behind. Moreover, culturally, it can be seen that engaging in warfare openly is expensive and wasteful, thus encouraging a more roundabout way of doing things. "It should either be lethal to those who lose or somehow take away their right to breed. It just has to be I'm afraid. Thats how earth operates and has operated forever." Ahh, no your getting a bit silly here. Humans are waaayyy past a stage where we can survive with that logic. Perhaps if we voluntarily went back to the stone age, that would be a good way of doing things. But now, theres so many variables, bits of chance, other forces acting, that I am fairly certain genes selected for wouldnt be any more successful, or indeed different. or something. "You're right. Those involved should all be involved for a reason that is personal to them. I think a clan would consider another trying to take their territory to extend their own to be personal because they would lose their home and livelyhood. It never would have reached the kind of conflict seen in ww1 and 2 if we kept living by our animal social structure from the beginning." except of course, all that happens in animal societies right? Do Chimps take over each others territories? Moreover, the actual clan wars seen were in effect invasions of territories and often led to extinction of that clan, and WW2 was merely a natural continuance of that tendency. "No, it would ensure the tenure of an intelligent leader. " No, it would ensure the tenure of an effective leader. They might not be very intelligent, but if they have a good temper and some native cunning, theyll be pretty effective. Same goes for some sort of demented priest, or any other kinds of rulers. Theres been scores of more or less successful rulers through history, who were more or less intelligent, but intelligence isnt all. Just dont go confusing intelligence with effectiveness, we've all known very intelligent people who were useless at common sense. Moreover, its perefectly possible to be a good ruler and yet still lead your society/ clan into a dead end because of how your decisions interact with exterior factors. Finally, you seem to be taking the good old line of trying to apply darwinist thougth to things its not quite suitable for. Look at some history instead. Why did we have so many heritable kings? And wars? "The reason I mention shakespeare specifically is because shakespearian times are not seen as barbarian or primitive necesarrily, but people functioned like animals in the important ways. It just goes to show we can remain dignified humans in the ways that make us proud, whilst still being animals at the fundamental level and in harmony with nature." Well, no, you havnt shown how in Shakespeaeres time people werent much different from animal behaviour. And you cant, because every strand of behaviour you can identify, I can show how it still exists, merely in a more subdued fashion in some cases, or more active in others. Humans are animals and therefore function as animals, the fact is also that we have an interesting concatenation of abilities and paradoxs, as well as our intelligence. "We would be living off our territory and it could only sustain so many so we would defend it and fight for it. Not 24 hours a day just when we needed to. Most combat would be avoided with the formiddable reputations of estates. But if a communal estate seemed weak another group could try and take their territory. See how it is similar to animals? This is how animals are in harmony with nature, and how we are not. " Thats almost exactly how we still live. except for the territory thing, except now the globe is our territory. Last time we could do that was about 200 years ago. But everything else wasnt that much different. "I'm not a biologist, and would in fact want to take part in the combat within my proposed society but even for those that didn't. As long as they provided something that helped their communal estate function they would be defended by the estates army. " Aye, plenty of people might say that. Have you got the balls to do it? If your ever in the UK I could arrange to meet you with some nasty and painful weapons, and introduce you to how to use them. And how they feel from the wrong end. (ok, what are you then? You try and speak like a biologist, even if your knowledge is only a smidgen deeper than mine.) "Its like people are satisfying their combative instinct but on meaningless arbitrary causes. Once we had structure and everything made sense. " Well, no, the previous wars have had their own sensible structure, the point is that large masses of people didnt buy into them. to your average 15th century peasant the wars of the roses were meaningless abitrary causes. that didnt lessen their annoyance or anything. "we keep having a society even though it too has lost its meaning." No it hasnt. Societies function is to keep as many people breeding and living as well as they can. Thats what it does, its why it evolved. Most people carry on their lives as normal. And as you tacitly admit with your grand scheme, we need society to survive well. You just happen to have romanticised a previous smaller version of it, which had its good and bad sides. Moreover, you are trying to deal with the same forces that have led us to such a society as we have today. You don think it was willed out of nothing? You cannot enforce some kind of stasis. you can make a better try of it by creating an eaerth with few natural resources like tin and bronze, and iron, thus enforcing a low technology level, but ultimately, you cant stop things changing. Which is what you appear to want to do.
I think what I was trying to get at with culture was not so much esthetics but the values themselves. There is a need today for community ties and responsibilities. It is much too lax. Materialism itself isn't bad, since it is one of the pillars of our existence. But without values behind that materialism there is no control. People put up buildings to make money rather than make a symbolic statement or appeal to anyone's senses.
There was most definitly a hierarchical structure in England and all of Europe during this time period. If there was no hierarchy, there would be no order. People needed to be ruled. The way it worked was this At the top of the Medieval food chain was the Catholic Church Tribal leaders then swore allegiance to the church in return for money and land. These leaders became "kings." People then swore their allegiance to the kings for protection, land, and money, not necessarily in that order. These were the Dukes and higher nobility. This went on down the line through the lower nobility all the way down to the peasants and serfs. These people swore fealty in return for the nobles protection, then they paid for that protection through feudal dues and services. As for Shakespeare's historical accuracy...he wrote what he could get away with during the time period. My best example is Richard III. Though historically Richard III was a fair and relatively well liked king Shakespeare makes him out to be a disfigured, homicidal madman. Taken in context Shakespeare was writing during the reign of queen Elizabeth I. If he had written truthfully about Richard III he would have made the reign of Elizabeth I that of a usurper as her grandfather was the man who had Richard III killed at bosworth field and took the crown. It's all about context.
"At the top of the Medieval food chain was the Catholic Church Tribal leaders then swore allegiance to the church in return for money and land. These leaders became "kings." People then swore their allegiance to the kings for protection, land, and money, not necessarily in that order. These were the Dukes and higher nobility. This went on down the line through the lower nobility all the way down to the peasants and serfs. These people swore fealty in return for the nobles protection, then they paid for that protection through feudal dues and services. " Umm, not quite. The tribal leaders, ie kings, did not swear allegiance to teh catholic church and get land. They got land, then said "oh, everyone carry on worshippping in the established church" and then it didnt give them any trouble. For all the hassle about stuff like the donation of Constantine ( a forgery) the catholic church wasnt that powerful. The Dukes were usually actual blood members of the royal family, eg the kings younger brothers. "Materialism itself isn't bad, since it is one of the pillars of our existence. But without values behind that materialism there is no control. People put up buildings to make money rather than make a symbolic statement or appeal to anyone's senses. " I thinkw e need to sepaparte "Materialism" and that you actually need material stiff to live. MAterialism is an ideal/ philosophy etc that says all there is is material, no afterlife, and all that matters is you and your stuff you collect. roughly. I'm no philosohper. Thus when you have Materialism in control, you do get only mopnetary considerations. When its a secondary part of life, then its kept properly in check and doesnt cause so many problems.
Concerning Shakespeare- how dare you think he was only elegant? He was just as crass and filthy as the 'modern' man but you only think of him as refined becuae of the difference in languge. "Sirrah" "Knave" "cur" and "bloodsucking kite" would be Old English for "asshole". Its very atavistic of you. "A pox o' your throat, you bawling blasphemous incharatible dog!"- Sebastian to Caliban in The Tempest Translation: I'll fucking strangle you, you fat ass piece of miserable shit. Now, on you wondering where our animal primitivism ran off to, your answer: Nietzche calls this suppression of instinctual drive as the 'internalization of man' or misuderstanding of the body where instincts are not destroyed, for they cannot be, but modifyed and ......kina curled inwards ya know? Anway, to put it better- Oswald Spengler was, in gendanken's opinion, a brilliant German intellctual who belived in the life after death, the death being that of the barabarism that is our rightful inheritance as animals and the life afterwards being what he call Civilization. We can only expericence it by suicide. Freude believed this as well, but he's loopy. Courtesy of his "The Hour of Decision": "Something of the barbarism of past ages must still be present in the blood ... to save and to conquer. Barbarism is that which I call strong race, the eternal warlike in the beast-of-prey man.... 'The primeval barbarism which has lain hidden and bound for centuries under the form-rigour of a ripe Culture, is awake again......: that warlike, healthy joy in one's own strength which scorns the literature-ridden age of Rationalist thought, that unbroken race-instinct, which desires a different life, from one spent under the weight of books and bookist ideals. In the Western European peasantry this spirit still abounds, as also on the American prairies and away in the great plains of northern Asia, where world-conquerors are born. ... Their forefathers in the time of the Great Migration and the Crusades were different. They condemned such an attitude as cowardly. It is from this cowardice in the face of life that Buddhism and its offshoots arose in the Indian Culture at the corresponding stage in time. These cults are now becoming fashionable with us. It is possible that a Late religion of the West is in process of formation - whether under the guise of Christianity or not none can tell, but at any rate the religious "revival" which succeeds Rationalism as a world philosophy does hold quite special possibilities of new religions emerging. People with tired, cowardly, senile souls seek refuge ..."
I wouldn't say that Shakespeare is historically accurate. He's about as accurate as James Cameron was with the movie Titanic. What we have him doing is basing a story, and a plot, around past events. We’re reading a dead man’s perspective on past topics, which include murder, betrayal, and sex. Shakespeare made up lines and characters. He was a writer. Is Mark Anthony's speech historically accurate? I don't know, but I won't let a playwright tell me history; I'll leave that to the teachers, because ya know, playwrights tend to have wild imaginations. Gendaken I would have to agree with you. Shakespeare is Old English rap. All that ‘fuck this bitch’, ‘kill this whore’, and ‘a plague upon your house’ business. Way back in high school I argued that Romeo was a horn dog and Juliet a dumb bitch. Teenagers only live in the moment, they never think about the future, that's why they both ended up dead. At least that's what I got from it. Shakespeare was screwy, not elegant. Everyone else... Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut touches on this subject a bit; it's a book written by an actual man (Vonnegut), but is written from the perspective of a fake character, who is a playwright and is bias in nature. The character recounts events, and quite possibly changes them to defend his position. He's an ex-Nazi who served under Hitler but was from America, and everyone is out to get him. So why not change the story a bit to get people on your side? For all we know the entire book was a lie. The same goes for The Catcher in the Rye. Do you think Holden was telling the truth the whole way through? Or did he lie like how he did to that lady on the train? "Yeah, your Son is really cool". Holden lied his ass off just to get a laugh out of the situation, he could of lied the whole way through the book. The last deleted line that Sallinger probably left out was "Hehe, I wonder if they believed the whole thing?" Holden was a son of a bitch, a liar, and a coward. I'll be damned if I believe every word he said.
Just to clarify, this thread was never about shakespeare, shakespeare just inspired it because I realised that the social structure of those times was closer to a normal animal social structure than what we have today. I suck at naming threads. My bad.
Counselor: And he's also the perfect prototype for the spoonfed and babyfaced with no clue where to vent their stylish 'frustrations'. They're everywhere- like right on top of this post for example, his name starts with Dr...... Dr.Lou: The social structure of Shakespeare's time was provincial and imperial. They walked around in ruffles, frocks, and muslin. Men were far more obsequious and literary, far more obsessed with lordships than we are now so please tell me how it is you see the exaggerated pomp of Shakespeare and Marlowe's time as closer to the 'animal' social structure than now. Becuase they had no light bulbs?
To put it simply- a clearly defined heirarchy belonging to a territory. If you read the rest of the thread you'll see the point I am making is behaving like animals does not mean we need to "behave like animals".
Aaahhh..... Then in that case, the answer seems... a bit simpler. What happend to shatter this ideal you have would be captialism and Western englightenemnt. Laissez faire. Free entereprise. Overpopulation exacerbates this as does the blending of cutures down to a nameless entitity belonging to no one. And by it belonging to no one, the bussiness world can easily trademark this loss of identity and sell it to its consumers as One Face, One Voice, One Mind if only to make it simpler to control with the slave's own 'political correctness". This way greatness or distinction are no longer as easy to see since its become common practice to camaflouge it, and with all the slaves being duped into thinkng they are in their own control they lose the respect of their neighor slaves since each slave has has been told they are both equal and entitled to the same things. "Back then", there was no such mentality.
gendaken, Indeed. Holden was rich and surrounded by girls that liked him; so what the fuck was his problem? He couldn't get over the stupid "I'm original, and there's no one else like me," teenage phase. People who can't get over themselves should be shot. -- The Grand Dragon Gizzard
Coffee: No.Fucking.Shit. *puts hand on tortured forehead* Oh, the world is a quagmire....I'm lost, no one gets me........its all gone to shit, the children are hungry, there is war everywhere oh woe be me that the lepers are lonely......and what about AIDS? Gasp. I just saw a kitten run over today...what a world, what a world, no one gets my stylish compelxities....suffer *fainting* And then the bell rings and its time for the little snot to go have lunch in the cafeteria. Wynona Ryder in "Girl Interrupted" is another one. Shoot her.
Gendaken, That's why the Easter Bunny invented suicide; so that people don't have to deal with the Holden's of the world. I hold the opinion that Holden was supposed to off himself. -- The Grand Dragon Gizzard
Coffee: No, it was a born again slut named Augustine who invented suicide. Or maybe rape little Pheobe with a soap crayon and get off instead. Something mighty incentous in that ~relationship~, yes? Can't you see, though? One will always put up with these "tortured artists" and "burnt, sensitive souls" (as if) simply because they are too pussy for suicide. We either gather them all and blow them up with M80's or suffer their annoying existence forever.
Hypewaders: Perdon- in hinsight that should read condemned suicide. http://ashbusstop.org/Biblesuicide.html Augustine worked on his weak assumptions of the 6th commandment- Thou Shallest Not Killeth, so watchu talkin' bout Willith? Kidding, I'm in a light mood, enough. In any case, years before Jesus we had Samson committing suicide and all throughout the old Testament do we have about 7 mentions (read the article) of people committing suicide- Saul, who killed himself post battle, Zimri, an usurpur, who having failed burned a castle down around him. Interesting shit. But way before Jesus we have Socrates- in short, thousands and hundreds of thousands- millions even- of martyrs and morons killing themselves off on both fronts- millitary and personal. Don't tell me you think there were only depressed, hungry diseased people vying to kill themselves off only after Jesus, do you? How Christian.
Aha! After watching the (incredibly dissappointing) godfather 2 last night I realise the mafia is an awesome example of what I'm talking about. At least as portrayed in the film. See how the family lives in a compound (or estate) and when something goes wrong they go around 'policing' with the boat and spotlight and releasing of the hounds. Also near the end when they're talking politics and that guy is saying the japs are saps for risking their lives for someone they don't even know and the main guy says 'no way, they're fighting for their country' and he says your country isn't your blood, and so on. IMO that is how the human animal is supposed to be. The mafia is like a glimpse into history because tradition has held up through the gay-ifying of society. I think the whole world should consist of "mafias" only. Owning territory and fighting over it when necessarry. Having a level of decency but not necessarrily applying it to every single fucking human on earth. Its very animal like, and so were elizabethan times, and so were many if not most social structures through history. I think there has been some mistakes, some misplacements of tribal instincts. The urge to be democratic for example might have only ever been intended to apply to leaders of a group with eachother. But its as though humans just jumbled up all the natural instincts and now its a mess and meaningless and consequently is degrading everything, not only the planet but quality of (in the true sense, not just comfort levels) and quality of individual human beings. As a naturalist its wierd to see the people in the godfather and shakespearian plays behaving as though they have studied animal behaviour and particularly social mammals and figured out a healthy social system. But the truth is thats just how humans, as animals are supposed to be. Its funny to see people saying we are above animals today and thats why the planet is overrun by us, in truth we are just bad at being animals. Now granted the mafia were in many ways bad animals as well, but only it seems due to outside influence. For a long time while some humans have been being good little animals some have been living alongside them being poor animals and being a bad influence on the good animals. You would have to go way back, yes probably to prehistoric cavemen to find when all humans were being correct homo-sapiens. But that doesn't mean we'd have to live like cavemen to be good animals today. There's a happy balance somewhere. I'm thinking its between elizabethan and cave people, with a modern twist and current knowledge making sure it doesn't swerve off the track. First call of order is killing 5 billion people. Who's with me?
What you think the world should be like, what it is like, and how you are going to prevent what you want it to be like turning back into what you dont want it to be like, is the problem. PLus, in a society where your breeding rights depend upon "competition" and "success", that means an external agency controlling breeding, which in all the cases ive ever read about in history goes hideously wrong. Ends up as a controlling aristocracy, and so on. If you give me your address I'll come round and kill you. You want the population reduced, its up to you to die first. (note: this should not be taken as a personal threat against Dr lounatic, merely a rhetorical tool to demonstrate the problems associated with what he is suggesting.)
