Humans are bastards. But so is all life on Earth, so that's OK

Which is still quite within the realm of possibility, and will be so until reliable anti-missile systems are up and running.

And then the world war will come back without the looming specter of nuclear weaponry to keep it leashed and in its cage.

The progress of humanity is built on an interlocking series of increasingly terrible, horrible things that together negate each other and allow our continued existence. As these things individually fail—the so-called "cracks in the surface"—we see more and more how flimsy the systems we rely upon really are.

Which would kinda bring us full circle, back to socialism and post-scarcity.

Perhaps. But socialism is ultimately an untenable thing, due to the aforementioned quality of human selfishness. It is in the interests of those who operate the system to dismantle it in favor of one that rewards selfishness, and any attempt at decentralization will by necessity stymie human growth and technological development, and thus defeat itself.

The only system which really will work for any period of time is a mixed economy (social) democracy, and as noted, it is always in the interests of those in power to shift said social democracy towards capitalism for their own gain.

Earth will always have its share of good and hts share of terrible in, more or less, equal proportions. Nothing will ever change that.

Indeed. The ratio of scumbags to saints basically stays constant either way. It just happens that technology and our own broken system makes it easy for a single scumbag to stand against ten times as many saints and still cause a net loss in damage to the already strained societal systems.

Compounded with how advancing technology makes it easier for scumbags to operate effectively (and easier for us to destroy ourselves), and human progress continually conspires to undue itself.

...

Holy shit these are some awesome posts for 4:30 in the morning.

Are they awesome for 4:30 in the morning, or are they awesome because 4:30 in the morning?

I don't know, DG, but I think that when I'm in college me and my other fellow sociology students will have fucking awe-inspiring parties. Drunk, early in the wee hours, and talking about the fate of humanity. Aren't we awesome?

Is there data to back this up, or is this just cynicism talking? From a purely scientific perspective, it's impossible to make these claims until post-scarcity socialism has been directly observed.

Well, post-scarcity renders most attempts at prediction the equivalent of playing darts blindfolded while throwing your darts backwards through your legs.

However, in terms of mixed-market scarcity-based economies, I can point to Europe, where the continent is current collapsing on itself thanks to incompetent Right-wing governments all around and a short-sighted, selfish population in Germany.

...

And then Octo came and this discussion becomes ridiculously awesome(r).

Just a second.

So you're not in college yet? So you cannot have taken a tertiary education in sociology, let alone have completed one. Furthermore, this also means you won't have had access to the requisite research materials to make the claims you're making.

I thought something was amiss when you originally altered my post-scarcity scenario to include the struggle that would be requisite of getting there, but now your words carry much less weight. Before, I was prepared to take you on your word, but now I'll need to see studies, statistics or otherwise reputable sources to support your perspective.

This is nothing personal, but you're making extremely broad claims that cannot be made with intellectual honesty without strong, broad-ranging sources that observe a wide array of geographic locations and time periods. If you wish to claim sociology as a point of authority, you'll have to also provide sources for your information.

~shrug~

I never said I was an authority on sociology. This is an internet debate on a forum for a fiction analysis and dissection site. If you honestly expected to be debating with experts, this probably isn't the place you're looking for.

Edit: That said, that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Nor does it mean I'm right. Ultimately, everything I (and you, presumably) say is opinion based on my understanding of socioeconomics and politics. We have no real idea what a post-scarcity world would look like. If the debacle with politics and piracy is any indicator, getting there and staying there won't be pretty. What happens when we can do it for physical objects, however, could and probably will be a wholly different ballgame.

edited 28th Dec '11 2:40:13 AM by Flyboy

I took the first quote to mean that you were currently undergoing a sociology education, or had completed undergraduate studies. Now the second one has me taken aback; while I never took sociology as a major, I did units of both sociology and psychology at university. Not nearly enough to speak on either with expertise, mind, but enough to gain perspective and draw some skill for analysis.

Remember that you are talking about science when you're talking about sociology. Science requires observation and then unbiased analysis of that observation. What you have been posting in this this is not science and, therefore, not sociology. I suggest, in the future, you don't speak in such a way that implies you have a functional education on the matter, be that through tone or choice of words. If you were to speak on this in such a way and someone were an expert or at least had considerable education in the area, you'd make yourself look quite the fool.

If you want to become a sociologist, the first thing you have to do is eliminate scientifically unsound conduct when speaking of science.

I have a basic education in sociology, (edit:) and eventually, will minor in it. It's not as if I'm talking out of my ass. At the end of the day, this entire discussion has been two people with two opinions on how the world works, based on their own interpretations of facts. Neither one of us has brought in anything in the way of data, statistics, or studies. It has simply been "I think this, and you think this, and I think you're wrong because X, Y, Z, and you think I'm wrong because A, B, C." I, obviously, don't think your understanding of societal realities is correct. You, obviously, do not think my understanding is correct. Neither of us can really prove anything, unless you've got a stack of good studies to show that you haven't bothered with, in which case, by all means, share, I'd love to be wrong.

At its most basic, we're laymen acting like we know anything about the world.

edited 28th Dec '11 2:49:10 AM by Flyboy

Ah, sociology. Comes close behind sports science and media studies in the list of degrees that are really just pointless money sinks.

Life exists to live. That is all. Humans have the capacity not to be bastards. As such, it is our responsibility to ourselves and everything else to be the best we can be.

Alas, humans seem to need a strong authority figure to force them not to be bastards, and how does one climb to be in a position of authority in a world full of bastards without being the biggest bastard of the lot?

As to the matter of selfishness, I feel compelled to mention that the selfishness that brings misery to our own kind is the same selfishness that makes us rise from dust (or apes or fish or whatever).

Yes, humans exist to live. But after individual survival has been taken care of, we do need something to do with our free time, don't we?

edited 28th Dec '11 2:58:20 AM by Kraken

@IJ,

Such is why I want to minor in it.

@Kraken,

Such is why I postulated the idea that human progress is ultimately self-defeating.

^^^^ It's a bit different. I was a layman bringing considerations to the fore I thought you'd be well read on after your implication that you had a degree of education on the subject worth considering.

In any case, I've long since lost my sources. You might want to check out the history of Soviet Russia between the end of WW 1 and the end of Stalin's coup, though. It should be educational in describing how the efficient use of industrial power can empower a nation in a way that it cannot when used for capitalistic purposes. Socialist Chile is also worth a look.

Remember that socialism isn't just about political, social and moral values, but a means of economic production as well. Socialist industrialism doesn't aim to provide for capitalistic gain, but for requirement. As an example, imagine you're at a store. You want to buy a toaster. There are a lot of choices from a lot of different brands. Most of those toasters will never be bought, and plenty only exist to provide competition to other toasters. These are produced on a huge scale, even though a minority will ever get bought and used.

Socialist economy would not have that scenario. Toasters would probably be uniform within a particular region, and produced at a slight surplus. Since these toasters are not competing for cash, the production of toasters for competition purposes can be stopped entirely. This saves huge amounts of steel, plastic and electronic devices. Furthermore, it frees up industrial complexes for other purposes.

This is essentially what post-WW 1 Russia did. Then Stalin had his coup and it all went to shit. Was working until then, though.

edited 28th Dec '11 2:58:42 AM by MadassAlex

I received a degree in sociology. :D Then someone turned the sociology knob down. :[

Well, if it makes you feel any better, I didn't intend for that, and I probably have a roughly similar level of formal education on the matter with you, as I finish up a college-level basic sociology course and begin a college-level basic psychology course next semester.

Anyhow, all I really know about the history of the Russian Revolution anymore (I've forgotten much of it) is that Lenin took over, got into a pissing match with all the other groups in Russia, killed a fuckton of people for no good reason, fucked everything up, died, and then Stalin took it all over and, to borrow phrase from someone else, dragged Russia kicking and screaming into the 20th Century at the cost of some 20 million of his own people.

The problem with any centrally-planned, communist-socialist economy is the lack of competition drives down quality and productivity. To continue with your toaster analogy, if I only need to make one brand of toaster to fulfill the needs of all the people in my given administrative sector and will be paid so long as I fill the quota, I'm probably going to find the least costly, least time-consuming method of doing it regardless of what kind of quality you get for those toasters, because I, as a hypothetical everyman, am a lazy bastard who gets paid either way. Without competition—and therefore, options for the consumer—the producer is free to peddle any third-rate shit he pleases because he's got a government-guaranteed monopoly.

Of course, in a mixed economy, this issue is addressed, but then you've got the moral hazard of the people in power benefiting from more capitalistic "reforms" which simultaneously shaft the lower and middle class.

And with that, I take my leave for the... morning.

Indeed, the problem with eliminating selfishness from the equation is that there's no more selfishness to improve the product.

That said, I respectfully request that we remove all mention of morality and bastardry in this conversation. Use instead words such as "self-interest" and "selfishness" and "lack of altruism."

^^ For that to be valid, it has to be proven that competition improves the quality of products.

Have an example close to my heart from a time long before capitalism.

It's Scandinavia, around the 10th century. Here exist the finest swords in the world. They're resource-intensive and Scandinavia doesn't have much iron. All the same, they especially fine, able to hold fine edges are they're not prone to breaking. The process of making such a sword is counted in weeks, and each one is worth a dozen cattle or thereabouts.

Yet there is small competition. There is no globalised system of trade, and smiths of requisite skill are few and far between. All the same, these blades continue to be made at incredible levels of quality.

So why would such good swords be made if swordsmiths could charge what they liked for any kind of quality output? Your guess is as good as mine, but the fact remains that these were made with little, if any, competition at world standard.

edited 28th Dec '11 3:23:14 AM by MadassAlex

It wasn't one swordsmith, was it? It was a community of them.

They competed amongst themselves.

Thread hop: my response to Humans Are Bastards will hopefully always be "I'm human, and I'm not that bad." It took me a long time to get to the state where I could understand that I wasn't that bad—that minor flaws don't make me a fundamentally evil individual—and I will not easily let go of that level of self-acceptance. At the same time, I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm unique, so there must be other people who aren't bastards.

edited 28th Dec '11 4:24:59 AM by feotakahari

If my parents were not married and I am a human, are humans bastards?

This is precisely why I want to leave the word "bastard" out of this.

Because illegitimate children have little to do in this discussion.

edited 28th Dec '11 4:30:54 AM by Kraken