Why is it that we measure our value in how much money we can accumulate? If a person doesn't make any money then that person isn't worth anything to others, can't have a home, can't have food and clothes etc. What other values are there to life than the monetary? Can a persons life have value to you even if it doesn't bring you material benefits? I definitely think so. So how can we make life better for those who have chosen a lifestyle that doesn't generate money? If a person wants to devote a life to art for example, or philosophy, or any other area that is not immediately commercial but brings that person a meaning to life and spiritual satisfaction and brings the same to other people, but doesn't make enough money to pay the rent, should that person then bow down to the harsh reality of capitalism and get a money paying job and waste a lifetime on concentrating on paying bills instead of what that person really wants to do? I definitely don't think so. How can we change this system so that everybody can do what they want and still live a comfortable life? Or do you like it the way it is?
How much I value a person is determined by how much or little they enrich my life. I value humor, intelligence, and, to a lesser extent, beauty. Yes. I definitely think so. First of all; I don't think I should be obligated to foot the bill for everyone else's Bohemian lifestyle. Second; I'd imagine that most people would rather spend their lives pursuing hobbies than working. If we allow everyone with a passion to drop out of the rat race and live off the taxpayers, there would soon be no taxpayers left to support them. We'd all be playing music, painting, writing poetry and eventually starving to death because nobody would be doing any work. It would be nice to live in a Star Trek world where replicators will just miracle us a steak dinner, a new cell phone or whatever we need, thus allowing us to basically live carefree lives. But that isn't the world we live in now, and we won't be living like that anytime soon. Until that technology exists, I say get a job, hippie.
Because it is a rating system that has been in place since the invention of currency came around. That person is no one. If they cannot provide for themselves, then they deserve no place in our society. It doesn't have to be material. It can be humor, love, sex, etc.
I was suggesting that you used this thought to broaden your view of what values should be supported in our society, but apparently you just like the way it is then. What would essentially be wrong with the idea that everybody could pursue their interests? Not everybody would paint, or is that what you think? That society would seize to exist because everybody would be painting?
If everybody spent their lives pursuing their interests, there would be few or no people to grow food, fix your plumbing when it broke, build houses, provide medical care for the sick, arrest criminals, etc. So yes, I do think society would basically cease to exist. All the things that keep society running would be ignored while everybody was busy smoking crack and playing the tambourine, or whatever it is that hippies do.
Apparently it's worth it for the few... those who don't like the system will usually try to help out in poorer countries, presumably to reduce the suffering of the poor. But still, is their eventual goal to raise those people up to a better monetary level? Charity still worships money.
Then again let us look at the Native Americans and how they existed. For thousands of years they had no currency, no poetry, no philosophers or song writers. They lived in peace and harmony with the natural world and got along as well as they could. They existed very well UNTIL the white man came along and told them THEY were wrong and THEY were heathens than must be destroyed. Who was wrong?..... Just a thought.
That is an unrealistic view of Native American society. They had possessions, which function as a currency. They had language, which is linked so closely with philosophy that you can't seperate them. They had songs, which must have been written by someone. Furthermore, they had a set of widespread political alliances and treaties between several disparate groups in North America, so they were even able to agree with each other about who would go where, and to work together for some kind of mutual interest. In any case, I was talking about the current state of things; those in power would like to stay in power, and are able to. Ideals aside, things will stay in their favour because they can keep them that way. "Worth" doesn't really come into the question, unless you can change things.
They had their things they needed in order to survive. They only had things that were necessary to keep them alive and whether or not they used those simple things to "buy" other things with I'm certain they would not give up valueable things without getting something of equal value in return or a barter. What would they need that they couldn't make for themselves? There's not many excavation sites that show one tribe had goods from other tribes that lived thousands of miles away. The Native Americans were totally free of writting because we cannot find any in their ruins. So where do you come off as saying they wrote anything and show where I can find this writing please. I'm just saying that they never polluted, made animals extinct, hunted for sport, had money, had poetry, or other various things which made their lives allot less complex and stressful.
Fine, they had songs which had to have been composed by someone and handed down orally. Their philosophy was a shared practice, probably because they couldn't afford to support a full-time philosopher. Since we're being precise, present anthropological studies - which I assume you're familiar with if you know they don't have written language - show strong evidence for the fact that the humans of North America hunted many species to extinction, including all of the North American horses. As for pollution, sport hunting, and poetry - well, since these weren't terribly affluent societies, they generally didn't have too much time or energy to spend on frivolous pastimes. Does that make them better people? No one deserves to get the beatdown from the invader, but that's not what I'm talking about. The idea that all Native Americans were just waifing around the forest taking "only what they needed and no more" and "being one with nature" and all that is some kind of fairy tale. They killed animals and they fought wars with each other and they painted pictures of themselves on rocks, and did everything that other human beings do. There was no golden age.
I don't know enough about the native americans to comment. But think about this, Porfiry runs this site without profit, so here we have slavery for one to ensure luxury for the masses. Should we support his work or should we just take advantage of his "stupidity" for doing something that doesn't generate money? My point is that many do other things than paint out of free will, out of kindness for others and with an aspiration to improve the life situation for many. So why should the greedy rule?
I don't see how expecting people to support themselves is slavery. In fact, I'd say that forcing me to support some hippie "artist" is far closer to involuntary servitude.
I appreciate Porfiry for allowing us to use this great message board, but this isn't slavery. I'm not an expert on rules and regulations for running web sites, but I'm pretty sure he isn't being forced to keep SciForums open. I'm a paying member of SciForums and have been for quite some time. Are you? Define "greedy". There is nothing noble about forcing me to pay your rent while you go on some social crusade. This is just insisting that your hobby become a paid position.
Well, they have to support your lifestyle, because the capitalist lifestyle is what this society is based on and in order to survive within it one has to support it, if one doesn't then it's the "highway". I'm not going to define greedy to you, if you're not familiar with the word, look it up in a dictionary. Who said anything about forcing you to pay my rent? Why should people pay rent in the first place? That's what's so strange. We have built this hightech society on peoples fear of what would happen to them if they don't comply and work for money. Money has become a goal in itself, that's the problem. Peoples lives should be worth more than money. Society should be construced around what people, all people, want to do with their lives, not what they must do to feed the machine. If society can't meet peoples needs, then it must be reconstructed to do that. If the majority of the people suffer, are not happy with their lives, feel worthless then a change must be done, or it will come by itself in a more agressive manner.
If we lived in a simpler, smaller society, where we relied on unlimited, unprocessed, natural resources, then every person could, in theory, according to their intelligence, strength and talent, make something that is needed by the rest of society and they could trade their products through a barter system. Trouble with that kind of society, being aware that any society works like a machine, is that for it to be able to function efficiently and consistently, its people would probably have to be forced into doing whatever it is they're doing... probably being born ito different castes and trades, otherwise, the society would just crumble, as i'm sure has happened in past, ancient societies. Money, as a barter system, works very efficiently and affords the individual more choices and a certain amount of freedom. That it is unevenly distributed is true, that it is unfairly manipulated by the corporations is also true, that people put too high an emphasis on it is again, true. That these are just manifestations of human nature and could never be eradicated is probably the biggest truth and the reason why barter type societies and communist type ideologies don't work.
