Money should be discontinued.

[Apeiron]

You may as well say "if one third of us crapped food, one third of us crapped water and one third of us crapped housing, we'd have no need of money" it would be just as plausible as expecting all people to do their part.

Spoken like a true basic animal.
Projecting onto others what you truly don't believe yourself capable of...
Confusing physical impossibilities with mental social intervention. In an attempt to sound funny to yourself...

 

[Apeiron]

Us vs them, again.

Describe your demographic and perspective.

 

[Apeiron]

It's not natural for humans to hoard resources. It's only natural for humans to compete for resources in a world of perceived threats or want to live comfortably, free of excess with the knowledge of true safety, due, thanks in majority, to transparency.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I discussed my perspective in another of your posts - we are just carriers of ideologies. Do not target the people, do not group them or you will be prolonging what you already despise, the "us vrs them" paradigm.

I'm a white male, lucky enough to get grants for education. Don't play the race card...

Don't be so naive about human nature. There is no such thing as unnatural. We are humans and as such we are natural. There are no people that I know of with chips in their brain being controlled by an illogical or random function.

We hoard resources for safety - paranoia induced - form the media, from you, from me, we created that culture and that ability to do so.

This topic has been derailed and is going into other topics, so I'll stop posting in here.

 

[Apeiron]

They tell us what we want and sell us what we want.

 

[IJesusChrist]

Thats your perspective. Mine?

Thousands of people trying to make money - their idea is that we are consumers that want things, so they try to sell things that consumers want. What is hot today? What do people like?

The idea of forced perception, or forced into liking something is propoganda. It is still around - everywhere - but the smart companies aren't telling. Their listening. They are becoming 'us'. I saw a video on how cokeacola and other <BIG> big names out there aren't using propoganda anymore, they are smarter than that.

They talk to you - to me - to everyone. They do polls. They cater to us. They are big enough and have enough money to be able to analyze the consumer.

HAHA I'm using Us and They.

In the end it is just US and WE. There is no 'them'. We are all the same, but we all hide different wants, morals, and values from each other. Whether we're conscious of them ourselves? Not always.

 

[Apeiron]

Thats your perspective. Mine?

Thousands of people trying to make money - their idea is that we are consumers that want things, so they try to sell things that consumers want. What is hot today? What do people like?

The idea of forced perception, or forced into liking something is propoganda. It is still around - everywhere - but the smart companies aren't telling. Their listening. They are becoming 'us'. I saw a video on how cokeacola and other <BIG> big names out there aren't using propoganda anymore, they are smarter than that.

They talk to you - to me - to everyone. They do polls. They cater to us. They are big enough and have enough money to be able to analyze the consumer.

HAHA I'm using Us and They.

In the end it is just US and WE. There is no 'them'. We are all the same, but we all hide different wants, morals, and values from each other. Whether we're conscious of them ourselves? Not always.

All "we" see are the price tags and the paychecks worth money "we" don't print in our basements. "we" need to inform "ourselves" of the true expense of things. Since "they" either dont exist or refuse to inform "us" of our naïveté/ignorance of "their" tresspasses.. But then again, if "they" don't exist, that means we are our own opposition.

 

[IJesusChrist]

we are.

 

[Crimzen]

ever hear the expression
"i am my own worst enemy"
?

coz its definately true
sun tzu says "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?"
i think that says it all really

 

[Apeiron]

I agree. To an extent we are.

 

[Sprax]

Money doesn't breed greed. We want money because we are greedy. Take money away and we'll want whatever else we can use as a currency.

 

[Apeiron]

Human nature is not violent or greedy or even competitive. Human nature is simply Reactive... To whatever is put before us, money included.

Everything throughout history, including "bad blood" between races is derived from situations between Individuals. The generalizations took a life of their own.

Money didn't evolve from greed. It evolved out of necessity, just as the stick for the Ant hill. From a tool of barter it evolved to a tool of control.

The only way to survive is to react to the knowledge of our imminent demise.

 

[ararat]

:!:

 

[ophiuchus]

Money didn't evolve from greed. It evolved out of necessity

Human nature is not violent or greedy or even competitive. Human nature is simply Reactive... To whatever is put before us, money included.

to say that they (money & greed) did not arise simultaneously is extraordinarily limited.

so then who put money in front of humans? ... human nature is more than reactive, it is creative at the same time.

 

[Apeiron]

to say that they (money & greed) did not arise simultaneously is extraordinarily limited.

so then who put money in front of humans? ... human nature is more than reactive, it is creative at the same time.

There are many degrees of money. I'm talking the first silver earing traded for a vase of olives. "legal tender" with a tyrants head on it is another matter.

Creativity is relative. A reaction to leisure or necessity with means and ideas already in existence, excellerated by society..
You could say being Social is inherent but it's also a reaction to communication.
Communication being a reaction to stimuli.

Who put money as we recognize it in place? The ancestor of whoever has the most is my best guess

 

[ophiuchus]

you're using "money" on the fringe of the modern consensus of the word; expect responses as such.

also, i don't mean creative, as in creativity, i mean creative as in creative force, production. creative force and reactive force go hand in hand in a "chicken and egg" fashion if you get me.

Human nature is not violent or greedy or even competitive

then why do we do it? i personally find this to be rhetoric..

Voir la pièce jointe 5655

Voir la pièce jointe 5656

violence, greed, competition, defensiveness, these are all inherent reactive forces, and inherent animal traits. our consciousness may allow us to move beyond this, but this is still very much a challenge we still face.

 

[Apeiron]

you're using "money" on the fringe of the modern consensus of the word; expect responses as such.

Yes.

also, i don't mean creative, as in creativity, i mean creative as in creative force, production. creative force and reactive force go hand in hand in a "chicken and egg" fashion if you get me.

Humanity is only unique in its Capacity to create, not in its ability to create, alone.

then why do we do it? i personally find this to be rhetoric..

Vanity from the belief they will only live once. Rewards.

 

[Mescaline]

I don't think there is a "human nature", except for our nature to exist, or being existence. All other human traits and behaviours are only accidental. They evolve due to circumstances in the environment. Or more genereally they have their existence in the relation to our enviroment. Greed has in my opinion come into being due to the limited availability of any given kind of object. From this limited availability a sense of posession arises, and consequently one will not simply give away what one posesses but will ask something in return. Eventually a kind of money will be used to trade, obviously for the sake of convenience. But it is not our nature to be greedy, but simply a reaction to the environment. Of course from a reaction something may be created, and then "we" would react again to the created thing, but this is just saying that some reactions can take on the form of a creation.
Maybe you have a different sense of the word nature, but to me it would refer to something that would come about in humans no matter what the circumstances during our evolution/history would be. I would not even be completely sure if I would call our "reactivity" human nature, because it only exists in relation [s:11qm7gf2]any kind[/s:11qm7gf2] to some sort of environment as well... Hmm, I guess this would eventually turn into the question of whether humans can only exist in relation to an environment
Anyway, imagine we could turn back time to when "modern" humans emerged, or alternatively imagine the human race getting wiped out, save for a lucky few. The kind of society that would evolve from these ancient modern humans, or this future human race, could be extremely different from our own, having different standards, different values, etc, in general, just a completely different way of living, as long as the circumstances are not roughly, if not exactly, the same as during our own actual human history. They wouldn't even have to resemble our way of living and thinking about the world.
The very reason why we could actually overcome greed and the use of money is because it is not in our nature..

--corrected a messed up sentence

 

[Apeiron]

I couldn't agree w/ you more, Mesc.

Greed could perhaps be a form of histeria.

I only used "human nature" in relation to the subject. I agree that reaction is a trait of most complex organisms.

 

[ophiuchus]

[quote:30nbmoyl]also, i don't mean creative, as in creativity, i mean creative as in creative force, production. creative force and reactive force go hand in hand in a "chicken and egg" fashion if you get me.

Humanity is only unique in its Capacity to create, not in its ability to create, alone.
[/quote:30nbmoyl]
i agree. that is why i stated that we may be able to move beyond our instincts of violence, and why i've stated that human nature is both creative and reactive...

I would not even be completely sure if I would call our "reactivity" human nature, because it only exists in relation any kind to some sort of environment as well... Hmm, I guess this would eventually turn into the question of whether humans can only exist in relation to an environment

anything and everything only exist in relation to something else . the chicken does not exist without the egg and the egg doesn't exist without the chicken. reactivity is human nature because we are doing it right now! humans are a part of nature!

The very reason why we could actually overcome greed and the use of money is because it is not in our nature..

i personally would say instead: "...because it does not have to be our nature.." because it clearly is in our nature right now!