Are we as a species incapable of an equitable social system?

[jpgray]

It seems no matter what sort of system or laws we create, the few always seem to be able to manipulate it into the familiar form: the haves and the have nots. Part of the problem is that some are so ambitious they will not stand for equality with those who are less ambitious, and those who are less ambitious are too sanguine about giving up their rights and property to authority figures. Is there a social system that can trump this seemingly natural tendency of humans to divide into the meek and the exploitative? Or is this tendency simply the result of cultural indoctrination and inertia resulting from a long history of inequitable systems?

And yes, this thread can stand in for a Sophomore dormitory. :D

[Kanary]

1. Species?? Or do you mean society??

[jpgray]

2. I mean as a species. (nt)

[Kanary]

4. ???????????????

So, your thesis is that NOBODY in the whole, wide world is capable of a just and equitable society?

That's interesting.

Have you read anything about the Scandinavian countries?

Are you familiar with the ancient Goddess societies?

Have you ever heard of the Senoi of SE Asia, or many of the Native American groups right here in the USA?

The "SPECIES" is quite capable, and has, at times, done very admirably.

This society, however, is a different story.

Kanary

[jpgray]

5. No, now you are putting words in my mouth

This thread was only made to ask the questions, not provide the answers.

[T Town Jake]

58. Get used to it from...

...those whom seem to think that the whole world is responsible for their own particular, personal plight...

[leftofthedial]

48. I'm not sure that any of these are wholly just and equitable

I don't know the Senoi.

Native American societies were not utopias of social justice. The basis of merit was not usually wealth, but there still was a heirarchy and the weak seldom survived.

The Scandinavian countries do somewhat better at it than their European counterparts today, but have a long aristocratic heritage too.

I'm not so sure that primates are capable of sustained societies based on social justice and equality.

[arcos]

57. Scandinavia is a bad example...

they are the best in socialdemocracy, which in turn is the best way to make capitalism more fair. However, they are far from being absolutely "just and equitable".

[opihimoimoi]

3. We are ripe for it. Its been suppressed for eons but now...its coming baby

its coming. The Fundies and other selfinterest Forces will kill to stop the movement but its too late...it has been started already .

The DU is only one of many movements that will inevitably lead to what you refer. Trust me...its ongoing and the WAVE will crest at awesome heights even the Pubs will be speechless... unless its Rush babbling incoherently.

[jpgray]

7. It's interesting--IrateCitizen put up a thread on agriculture

And its eventual effects on society being possibly detrimental to the human condition. The examples Kanary gives above for good societies are either non-modern societies, or modern societies that thrive in part because inequality is so rampant in the rest of the world. I too believe sometimes that we are working toward the goal, and all we need it determination and time, but sometimes I think we're like worker ants talking about how eventually we'll get rid of the queen, but to outsiders it would look like we've had essentially the same system for all our existence.

[undergroundpanther]

23. Heh

isn't rush already babbling?

Anyways I think one part of an equitable society is people that can hold the two concepts people are different and do things differently and have different self identities in mind while they understand we are equal.
People do allot of talk about equality but get into power struggles in relationships sometimes at they moment because they are defensive they feel less than equal to the person manipulating the,
One thing people need desperately is an education on what manipulation is,how it works and how it effects people.Also people need to notice when it comes to trauma only the person who has been hurt is capable of saying whether abuses hurt be it verbal ,sexual or otherwise.People who have traumatized have boundary issues.People with unsure boundaries will tolerate treatment from others that hurts them,and the person harming them tends to blame the confused yet trusting person they are hurting for being hurt and saying so or calling the person wrong for taking advantage.People who take advantage have an obvious lack of empathy with the people whom they say and do things to hurt or dominate them .I hope it can be observed more often by non bullying types ,that bullies are not just limited to the schoolyard variety.Some people build a social career and seek to build a tolerant bounbdaryless culture around them to act out their pathological manipulation and domination of others. Look at Rush,he speaks like a bully .
He gets away with demagoguery because some people because they do not draw boundaries,tolerate those whom take advantage of the concept of free speech and use ideals like this in a sick way as an extension of an entitlement to abuse others verbally.When you say a person talks like a bully and they call you a fascist for saying NO you don't talk to me or human beings liker that,they are trying to take advantage of an ethical and interpersonal boundary confusion.You don't have to end free speech to stop a verbal bully you just have to make the group personally uncomfortable or hostile to this bully if he is speaking out of sadism.People need to be aware of what verbal abuse is,and understand why it is important to be unwilling to tolerate others being abused. This pattern applies to many facets in this culture from school to workplace and home.

You can say no to being abused psychologically without passing laws. How you do it is you create boundaries of conduct you can stand ,and you stick to them and when you are in a group maintain the kind of expectations that your boundaries will not be crossed personally by anyone.

It's OK to say no and to say that someone is wrong and manipulating others to others.In fact not doing this has let the bullies dominate our civic life.. It's OK to call a bully on being an ass and you don't have to tolerate anyone's cruelty or lying whom you discover refuse to conduct themselves in a way you find can be harmonious to the group you are with...

Likewise in this system it requires that to become a CEO a person has to choose to destroy a part of his own soul and compassion inside for the business,to be able to fire people who in reality are like himself ,with families,friends, mortgages.
Once he can dehumanize his employees enough to fire at will for maximizing his own profit or keeping his boss satiated how far will this process go in dismantling his human connection to others? Remember those CEO glorified in the 80's -90's for their mean lean business ruthlessness that made their company competitive? All those cuts and trimming fat meant people lost jobs.Lost their homes.
And our market dominated and controlled culture has conditioned us to believe this is OK. But it is NOT OK,. in fact it hurts people.

The abusive soldiers at Abu Gharib were deliberately abused,trained by dehumanizing to obey,soon they were dehumanizing prisoners to the point they were treated as less than human ,treated at things to hate and kick,rape and use,Rums feld thinks the American public is expendable,His Strauss based philosophical beliefs are every bit as sick as mien kamph or machivelli..We say this kind of conduct is unacceptable,yet bosses do it,kids are taught to do it to get ahead ,parents ,any authority figure or bully does this..So when the culture the social environment because it has no boundaries shirks responsibility for the social atmosphere and goes into bystander mode and no one steps up and risks their neck to stop the abuses that benefit the same types of personalities .Our culture identifies with abusers more than it's own humanness..

Some of the statements made by Bush and his kind are dehumanizing to gays to the poor and others.Dehumanizing the "weak" or ''deviant' is how right wing governments psychologically carve father figure kinds of social niches for themselves in places of power and create the kind of aggressive insecure culture that has no interpersonal boundaries.It is better to draw your own boundaries instead of waiting for a "strong leader" to draw them for you. People have trouble discerning boundaries when they are used to being exploited and being unable to confront or even detect the sources.This is What American culture does to us it is steeped in coercion and authority,threats of deprivation and dehumanization. So the public has boundaries drawn in favor undeservedly so of tolerating exploitations and those who benefit from it.

It's up to each one of us to have the kind of self and other respecting civil boundaries and standards of conduct and enforce them in our interpersonal relationships. If we tolerate abuse and let the exploiters define what hurts us and what is right or wrong while they cannot empathize with anyone but themselves we will never throw the sociopath mindset out of society or even begin to see it to be able to restrain it..

[opihimoimoi]

51. A very eloquent post, thank you

Lemme buy you drinks and eats all night, smoked ribs.salmon, wine, lobsters and king crab too

[undergroundpanther]

52. YUM!!!

But...Can I take the leftovers to my kitties? Rustle would lose it If he got a bit of salmon,vinnie would be estatic over the lobster,and I know my little sparkle would like to try both.
Can I spilt my plate with Kanary and my partner?
Good stuff needs to go around more when there ain't much of it.

[opihimoimoi]

53. Take all the leftovers you want...except for a small portion for my

Poody Cat, a female Siamese who has us trained to feed and bath her. She adopted us only 2 months ago and she loves lobsters/crabs/and fish.

Come, we light the fires.

[undergroundpanther]

61. You pyro :)

Hey,I'm prepared, I got me a lighter with a copper wire running through it,so it makes a green flame.

[opihimoimoi]

64. Bring the lighter, I got only 1 match left..... just in case....

and tell me if I am wrong...green flames make the lobsters grow in size as they get cooked?

[Eric J in MN]

6. Most developed countries have more even wealth distribution than the US nt

nt

[jpgray]

8. But those countries often depend on poor nations with repressive societies

So there is still that dichotomy there.

[Kanary]

9. Then obviously you had the answer you wanted us to give.

We're definitely doomed.

DOOMED, I TELLS YA

:)

[jpgray]

10. No--I don't have the answer

But if I disagree with an answer, I'll say so. To me, if a modern society depends in large part on slave labor and poor nations, then it can't be said that an equitable system exists. If you disagree with that, feel free to post and tell me so. And I don't think we're doomed, but I want to hear what other people think. :)

[Kanary]

12. I'm sure it would come as a huge surprise to Sweden

that they depend on slave labor.

But, whatever suits your thesis for today.

Before being too sure of that, though, you might want to talk to a few Swedes about it.

The rest of the world isn't as craven as the US.

Kanary

[jpgray]

14. So what they buy is manufactured in rich countries with full labor rights?

No, much of the so-called 'modern world' depends on the labor of poor nations, on the resources of poor nations, and on the general economic enslavement of people in third world countries. Again, how is this an equitable system?

[Kanary]

15. They manufacture and sell SAAB to pitifully poor countries.....

:crazy:

Ya know, you started off asking such a brief question, that it was very difficult to detect what you were actualy asking.

Now, you don't like any reply except that which supports your thesis, which is becoming increasingly clear.

If you had stated it at the beginning, it would have been a better conversation.

But, maybe that isn't what you wanted?

In any case, whatever...... yeah, our species is depraved.

Give up, it's futile.

Kanary

[jpgray]

18. If I disagree with a reply, I will say so

I don't have a thesis on this, I only have questions, because I do not know the answer. I can throw out replies that have obvious logical flaws, such as your assertion that Sweden is an example of an equitable society. Take this, for example--is this the hallmark of an equitable system?:

http://www.trade.uktradeinvest.gov.uk/business/sweden2/profile/overview.shtml

"Due to high costs, labour intensive manufacturing such as sewing started to decline about thirty five years ago and is today virtually non existent in Sweden. Swedish buyers of products for the consumer market have therefore a long tradition of purchasing in low cost countries."

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

35. I'm just asking you questions, but you refuse to answer them

This isn't about setting people up to shoot them down, but if an answer doesn't make sense to me, I reserve the right to ask questions about it. You are unwilling to answer my questions about your assertion that Sweden is an equitable society. Do you believe that I am wrong to disagree with you when you can't be bothered to defend your theory with answers to a few questions? I don't see why you're upset.

[troublemaker]

11. Yes, our inborn nature abhors equality

Some people are born winners or losers and we are pre-programmed for pyramidal stratification. The best social systems acknowledge those facts of life and try to protect the losers without restraining the winners too much.

Every human society upon forming agricultural cultures (and thus the ability to concentrate/store wealth) goes through a long phase of near total monopolization of wealth and women by a remarkably small number of men followed by a long process of pressure from the less fortunate of impeding that natural order in ways that better distribute food and women. (Monogamy is the most progressive of all taxes)

The process has, until recently, been largely male-driven because the plight of a man having no wife at all is worse than that of a woman who is one of a wealthy man's wives. (Compared to being a farm-wife in the ancient world, being part of a harem isn't a bad deal in terms of a woman's material well-being and the prospects in life for her children.)

[Kanary]

13. The Indian pueblos of the SW US wouldn't recognize themselves

in your contention.

[Selwynn]

20. Did they have a strong spiritual life?

This is not a loaded question, and I don't know the answer - but see my post below for clarification if this seems like a bizarre thing to ask.

[Kanary]

26. bye

.

[jpgray]

27. I've asked you several times

How is a rich society that thrives on the poverty of other societies an equitable society? Please don't mock me down here when you refuse to answer me above.

[Kanary]

32. I wasn't replying to you.

Thanks.

Bye.

[troublemaker]

21. Nor would contemporary Norwegians.

Pueblo Indians are contemporary people. They don't live like they lived 5,000 years ago any more than anyone else does. (Or even 500 years)

The modern Pueblo people's Chaco Canyon fore bearers would have ben just like Ancient Egyptians, Chinese, Mesopotemians and Mexicans if their resource base had allowed for a larger civilization. As it was, the Chaco Canyon peoples couldn't even get enough firewood to maintain their civilization.

[Kanary]

22. bye

.

[Toucano]

28. I think it means

that you're referring to their ancient society which is a society that was destroyed by another society.

The number one requirement for the society to meet the definition of successful is they need to survive.

That's what I gathered from the post, and of course I could be wrong.

[Kanary]

34. bye

.

[troublemaker]

44. I should have said that after agriculture

makes settling in one place and accumulation of wealth possible that civilizations spring up in those places that can support a big civilizations, and they follow a certain path.

I was speaking about the large ancient civilizations that modern society evolved from. Since almost everyone ends up in the sphere of influence of a large civilization it ends up about the same, except in instances where smaller societies are, for whatever reason, insulated enough to manage to maintain their individual identity.

I was assuming that the original poster was thinking in terms of whether a large modern society could be equitable, so my thoughts were of large societies, not of every possible human society. If the numbers are small enough (or resources scare enough) there's a lot of variety. But the big ancient civilizations were all astonishingly inequitable; so inequitable that our natural first draft of civilization (independently repeated around the globe) couldn't survive in that form, indicating a predisposition toward stratification. (We try gross inequality first and move away from it of necessity)

[jpgray]

45. Yes, I was thinking in terms of large, modern societies

Sorry for not making that clear. We may learn a great deal from primitive societies though, in that they seem to have more of an ability (and more of a need) to maintain an equitable system compared to modern societies.

[Toucano]

16. All animal societies are stratified

to one extent or another. Ants, bees, wolves, chimps, birds, lions, elephants, whales. I am not aware of a single society where one individual or group of individuals is not distinct from the others in rank, labor, resouce allocation or responsibility.

I'm not suggesting there's a consciousness to this, rather I am just observing the "natural model" of other animal societies.

Absolute equality is not natural and probably not achievable through a political endeavor.

Interestingly, the alpha male in animal societies usually has a duty to the others in the pack to use his talents for the benefit of the pack because his survival is just as dependent on the survival of the pack as each other member's is.

Would you say that the alpha males in our society are using their talents to the benefit of society at large?

I'd say our current alpha male doesn't have any talent and didn't rightly earn the alpha male status through some sort of competition (selection 2000). He could care less about what happens to the rest of the pack because he is not the true alpha male, but rather a poser.

[undergroundpanther]

29. Alpha fe/males

Who are unworthy of thier places of power but really like the perks of power and like what he can get away with at the expense of others work overtime making deals and hegemonies ,to create illusions about themselvesand what is in thier hearts and mottives through lies,confusion,delimmas, manipulating other people's psychology, ,contrived appearances,threats and brute force to keep thier ugly truths hidden lest they be discovered a destroyer of society and betrayer of trust.Alpha males that assume they are 'born'leaders in thier own minds will work overtime convince others they are someone they are not.They use a mask of sanity to cover up thierown deviances and moral bankruptcy and they SEEK power to use it for themselves. So they do alot of talk about compassion for others(the mask),but behind closed doors where they are less likely to be caught they act in ways that only feed themselves.Sociopaths are not given power becase of thier skillfulness as leaders ,they assume they are entitled to it.They are defensive so they steal power, and use it to supress and distort the voices of all competitors,expecially those wuho can see under their mask of sanity..

[Toucano]

33. Were that a shoe

I'd say it fits the boy king! :hi:

[maggrwaggr]

17. I think it's only possible in a tribal situation

certainly not in any kind of "civilization"

[Selwynn]

19. Here's the unpopular answer.

I don't even know why I'm posting this, cause I know nothing good will come of it, but oh well....

The problem with every system we create is that the human heart is not taken into account. No system, no matter how perfect will succeed long term without radical heart change in the lives of the majority of persons living in that society.

As long as power lust and greed dominate human drives, any structure is doomed to corruption, and therefore to demise.

The only answer I believer there is, is a spiritual one. Without a re-membering, a re-making of the human heart in the image of compassion and relational concern, there is no system that can remain equitable. This is why despite all the abuses and problems associated with institutional religion, I feel nothing is more needed than a personal, deep seeded awakening of human hearts to the lure and love of God.

Like I said, my opinion will not be popular. But just because I believe that doesn't mean I don't want to be committed to strive for the best possible system we can, even if the lack of right heartedness and right mindedness in so many human beings may doom it to less than what it could be.

[troublemaker]

24. Don't take this wrong, because my intention is not insult

but this is the heart of neo-conservatism; that human societies cannot function well without a spiritual basis.

I personally reject it, not because I am sure it isn't the right answer, but because it is based on falsehoods and thus should remain a last resort until every honest method has been exhausted.

In a society with a large proportion of heart-changed individuals those who don't get it would be like wolves among sheep and the society would have to oppress them horribly just to survive. IMO.

[jpgray]

25. But many appeals to 'religion' are simply a means to acquire power

The neocons are a perfect example--I don't believe for an instant that they subscribe to the teachings of Christ. Christians, however, are a useful tool for achieving their goals. I don't believe the Catholic Church is wholly Christian either, but that's a whole other thread. In my view, if religion did not exist to be used to further the agenda of those who seek power, it would be something else.

[Selwynn]

36. just because it is at the heart, doesn't mean its wrong...

..it means that their practical explanation for what the spirit filled life would look like is not congruent with mine.

There is a massive difference between institutionalized dogmatic fundamentalism and personal "piety." Basically, until the majority of human beings in a society are moved and motivated by compassion and relational concern above exploiting individualism and power lust, nothing can ever get better.

Establishing a "Christian" nation is not the answer. Enhancing religious institutionalization is not the answer. Inward awakening toward those aims listed above is. Coming to a place where we can say with Tillich, "Being religious means asking passionately the questions of the meaning of existence and being willing to receive answers even when they hurt" is a start. Being able to say with Russel, author of "why I am not a Christian" and skeptic (though clearly someone who would embrace Tillich's concept without calling it "religion), "three passionate govern my life - the longing for love, the thirst for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind." When we, regardless of what our personal thoughts on spirituality might be can say, "O lord, if there is a lord - save my soul, if I have a soul" - when we can say that caretaking of my neighbor is as much part of my own personal wellbeing as caretaking of myself - then we can look to a real flicker of hope, for a better world.

[Kanary]

37. bye

.

[jpgray]

38. You were just asked basic questions

You asserted Sweden was an equitable society. I asked you if a system wherein rich countries prosper off the poverty of poor countries was equitable. First your refused to respond, now you accuse me of shouting you down? If you want to defend your arguments, just answer my questions, or tell me why answering the questions is unnecessary, or tell me why my questions are meaningless--no one is shouting you down here, you are free to do whatever you want.

If you are looking for a place where no one dares to challenge your ideas, I'm afraid that this isn't it. I always seek to challenge ideas to see how they hold up, either mine or those of another. I will not stand for you accusing me of shouting you down, however.

[Kanary]

42. bye

.

[jpgray]

43. Then stop accusing me of shouting you down

I have a right to respond to those allegations. If you did not make them, I would have no reason to respond.

[Jose Diablo]

59. Selwynn, ah contrare

"...my opinion will not be popular."

Your observation is right on the mark. You have nailed the 'core' problem and why all solutions are doomed, unless there is a "awakening of human hearts".

Want to know why these various systems of organizations we devise come to nothing? We need only look in a mirror. WE...are the problem. The solution too.

As for a solution? Keep trying, because that is the solution, never give-up. Nihilism is the destructive force that paves the way for the next solution by destroying the 'old', to make way for the 'new'. Over and over, into the future. A "Night Ride Across the Caucasus".

A time to build,
A time to destroy,
....
There is a time for everything under the sun.

Birth, growth, decline, death. A never ending cycle of life.

[Swede]

30. The will to power always seems to be in individuals that lack empathy.

A leader that has NO problem letting someone else die is common. Look at Bush as govenor,I bet he didn't lose one moments rest over the appeals of death row inmates.
History has benevolent and malovent leaders.

[oscar111]

40. tribal societies often equilitarian

Not sure what fraction of tribals are equalitarian, but many are.

They are a possible window on how Man the species has lived for most of his existence.

Current inequality is a blip in the long sweep of history, not anyhthing genetic.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

41. A truly classless system

Where no strata of haves and have-nots exist. In this system, no ruling class would exist that profits off the poverty and subjugation of a poorer class.

[troublemaker]

46. It would be interesting to see the effects of

removing any ability to pass wealth to off-spring. Since working for future generations of our blood relations is the starting point of all altruism I don't know how far we can stray from that original formula.

An insane level of nationalism might be required to make a classless society work because everyone would have to think of everyone else as family. It would be lovely if that was a global perception, but it has to start somewhere, and that somewhere has tended to be nationalistic so far.

[undergroundpanther]

47. Define abuse it?

My question is how can ANY system be kept anywhere near equitable if there are people who lie and create a false image just to maneuver themselves into positions of authority and power to DESTROY the equity of a system and diversity in a culture.

Can fascists co exist with diversity?
Can bullies get along with people they think they are superior to without being supervised by an authority bigger than they are to make sure they behave decently to the people they would scapegoat?
Can a theocracy dominionist seeking to evangelize everything he sees ever learn to live and let live to the point he can resist harassing,proselytizing, and fearing other religions enough to get along with a law abiding satanist next door without being tempted to change him into a "Christian" or warn the neighborhood of how evil he is not?

Can any authoritarian personality function in a society that is not authority based that caters to their carrot and stick mentality they thrive in because it is full of strife?

I venture I'd say say no. Abusers of systems abuse people to destroy egalitarian systems they can't conduct themselves in..
Authoritarians ,narcissists,bullies and sociopaths will not peacefully co-exist and empathize in a society that sees their claims of superiority as an "empty noise"and sees through their machinations for more than they would have by their own efforts and kindness.
Some kinds of personalities and beliefs when acted out,are truly destructive to diversity and sanity,and are incompatible with concepts like ethics,community,all people are equal,diversity,trust, justice and freedom.


Some people cannot feel emotions and lack compassion enough to see another person's plight and care. They are aware of how their callousness hurts others,and they do not care others hurt,they are bullies at heart so they see no problem with taking advantage crushing others,abusing and corrupting the mechanisms of freedom ,society and prosperity to dominate it and warp it into something they can exploit.

[Kanary]

50. Hi, underground panther!

Right on target, as usual.

Oppressing those who are in touch with their emotions is a hallmark of US society.

Kanary

[Senior citizen]

49. If we could identify as a species, we could be equitable.

Unfortunately, we identify on the basis of nationality, religion, sex, ethnicity, class, and all sorts of other divisiveness.

Were we to think of ourselves in terms of our common humanity, rather than our above-named-groupings, we would be able to act for the common good and for survival. We only act against our own best interests because we think of ourselves in terms of what we are told we are, rather than what we actually are.

We are not free--not even in Scandinavia. We are the product of thousands of years of warfare, captivity and enslavement, and of the survival necessity of having to rear our children in accordance with the wishes of our captors. Part of our enslavement is our inability to be a viable species--something we were to begin with but are no more. We cannot control our reproduction in accordance with available resources because those who reproduce, that is, the young, are neither fully aware of what resources are available, nor powerful enough to control their own lives.

Hierarchy is not necessary or inevitable to humanity. It came about through violence and is perpetuated through violence and the threat of violence. There are realities like diplomacy, philosophy, and other nonviolent ways of interacting. Those who are evil, who have no respect for life (how can they claim to respect the Creator if they do not respect the created?), use violence to thwart egalitarianism.

I personally believe that this all came about because early egalitarian societies had so much respect for life that they lacked a death penalty. I believe that it is not necessary to have a death penalty only if, like the Scandinavian countries, you can quarantine sociopaths to ensure that they don't link up with other sociopaths to build violent power bases. If your society, like our own, is incapable of isolating violent individuals, it cannot become egalitarian.

[undergroundpanther]

54. The problem

Is based in two things that interact together that permeate society on personal levels so nuch it effects culture.One side I think is from
Traumatized people.People who have been raped(like 1in 4 american women ) Abused at home,school,on the job..get confused boundaries concerning exploitation and abuse. They are unable to see thier fragile boundaries are shifty and easy for a bully to exploit and manipulate. Cognitive dissonence, the stockholm syndrome,denial too are part of the many psychological mechanisms of trauma aftereffects and the human brain abusers exploit and use to maneuver.
Porn makers seek out people with confused boudaries and sense of self .Ironically a disproportionate number of victims of incest are often recruited by the porn industry. Why? because people that are confused over these boundary issues of what is abuse or not and trayuma issues are people who would be more willing to accept blatent exploitation of thier vunerability because they don't understand how they are being exploitred because in thier life certain kinds of boundaries did not exist,or were not respected so they lack a frame of reference about what is abusive consiously ,so instead they develop anxiety ,depression and fears seek to work out thier boundaries and traumas and end up getting hurt manipulated and exploited until they are able to see thier lack of boundaries open them up to sociopaths and predatory people..

On the other side of this equation we have narcissists ,sociopaths and bullies,abusers liars and manipulators,con men and control freaks who insist everyone must play thier way,be like them,and shut up .
These kind of people cause strife and they seek out a culture where boundaries on what is tolerable conduct are laxed .confused or just able to be manipulated and exploited so they can make a mniche and get people to obey and fall in line..

This is a personality problem that is a flaw in the human mind,dead empathy interacting with people who have been abused cocerced,dehumanizzed and margibnalized by empathy dead people.

If society could accurately detect these people who through life abuse others and fake compassion and wear a mask of sanity and charisma and if more people could see through thier masks and lies,and reject thier ploys for acceptance tolerance and power and quarenine them or even kill them..Eventually if there was no culture that tolerated being abused dehumanized,boundaries violated or exploited,maybe it may make life easier for people who are not predatory and unable or unwilling to feel the results of thier behavior on others.

Empathy is a vital human survvival trait .Cooperation is absolutely nessary if any kind of freedom,diversity and equality is to happen.You can't cooperate with a bully or control freak. Genuine Compassion through truly feeling for others is needed in more people if social inequalities are going to be challenged and changed.The predatory people are going to have to stop abusing, change thier toxic conmduct or be quarintined by force away from people they want to prey upon..
If a person is unwilling to accept his words or actions hurt after he just has hurt someone or after he has been called on being abusive,dioes eveything he can to cover himself including the familiar cry of "thin skin" twords the person enforcing a conduct boundary they hold out ofd simple self respect, ,(Bully logic says if the victim was simoply emotionally daed and tough skinned they would not complain about the bullies impositions and would not ruin the bullies cruelty sport)

If we could as a culture admit there is something dangerously amiss in this charming,glib yet predatory person's personality that keeps them from desiring to refrain from inflicting pain and domination on others..we could get away from the kind of society these sociopaths create.We'd refuse to give them cultural control.

[AlienGirl]

55. Probably not, but we must never stop trying

Humans are primates, and all primates have status hierarchies. In any primate society the weak are going to be used by the strong, and the advantaged are going to gang up on the disadvantaged.

But, unlike the vast majority of primates, we can imagine what that just and fair world might look like, and we must never stop trying to reach it. If anything can be said to be divinely inspired, it's that urge: to protect the weak against the strong, to find ways of being good to each other; to keep trying, no matter how futile it may be, to make this ideal of humanity a reality.

Tucker

[undergroundpanther]

62. Well are we chimps or a different species than chimps?

Chimps don't have the internet hooked up to their arboreal homes in the trees last time I looked, so why should we be bound by THEIR culture and be stuck in chimp society just because they may be our relatives in the animal kingdom??
How come when people say we can choose something other than the hierarchy system someone always says we gotta keep a the stupid and destructive mode of society hierarchy because we are still bound by the inner chimp? Simian manifest destiny is still manifest destiny.So for me any manifest destiny something tries to impose on me for whatever rationale is bullshit coercion.

It's funny when we get talking about "progress" in a material sense it's all about how unchimplike we are,but bring up changing our behavior and ways of thinking or relating to each other and we go right back up the trees to tell everyone how impossible it is to choose a different way of behaving. I dunno about you deciding to shut my mouth instead of being rude to someone else ,or not lying to them and refusing to steal from them even if no one is looking or cares is a lot easier than decoding my own DNA or building a skyscraper.

So we are going to stay chimps when it comes to growing into some emotional maturity and a better way of life? But we are such evolved gods because we can build bombs and TV's? Can't have it both ways and be chimp gods ,not without wiping ourselves off the planet for want of dominating what we never owned..

Maybe that's why some of our technology is so self destructive to us.Are we THAT scared to evolve out of our illusions and mind games that we refuse to grow into something better? Looks like we got minds we create wonders except interpersonally we are doomed forever to act like chimps? What's up with that? Did people once think we were doomed to live in caves forever too?

Seems we are chicken of our own evolution if it means taking responsibility for how we choose to behave to each other.. Whatta cop out! But oh do not decry the wonders of evolution's effects on us if it is based in production,war making or making objects to sell.
What a self destructive cowardice!

[gottaB]

56. Of all the apes, humans are most capable

most capable of fashioning their own social world, for better or worse.

I don't think it's reasonable to recognize the human capacity for extreme injustice while denying the capacity for justice.

[wildeyed]

60. Progress not perfection.

Some people use the argument that an equitable social is unachievable to justify not even trying. I think it is crazy to expect perfection or anything even close. I try to have reasonable expectations, work hard and not be too attached to any particular outcome.

[CaTeacher]

63. I would like for society to be as equitable

as possible. Perhaps we could never attain the goal of all people being truly equal--but we could always strive toward that....couldn't we?

[clu]

65. drive-by

a benevolent dictatorship might fit the bill. someone is always going to get screwed a little bit, but the question is... for what ends?