Anarchy and the aim of evolution

[Pyrotex]

if you truly do not understand this concept, you may Google the word for insight. ''So, what is this "evil" stuff you speak of?''...are the posters here aware that there are many cultures...bent upon murder...how does this fit into the idea of a utopia?

Yes, we all know what "evil" is. Or what "evils" are, as there are many discrete definitions, examples, sets of banned behavior, etc.

And the existence of current pathological cultures is not germane to the discussion, IMO. Others may disagree.

 

Reminds me of a joke. The Ambassador of Arabia was at the United Nations building in New York city, and saw that there was to be a Star Trek convention. Gene Roddenbury was the guest of honor. The Ambassador got tickets, and with his influence, managed to meet mister Roddenbury, the creator of Star Trek. He said,

"Mister Roddenbury, it is such a privilege to meet you! My children are fourteen, thirteen and twelve, and they watch your show without fail every week. The eldest has begged me to pass on to you a question that purplexes him, and all his friends who also watch your show. On the Star Trek spaceship, the Enterprise, there are humans of every Earth culture. There are Russians, Americans, Chinese, Africans, French, you name it. But my children say they have never, NEVER seen an Arab on your show. Why is that?"

Gene Roddenbury chuckled and said, "Mister Ambassador, that is a very easy question to answer. You see, Star Trek takes place in the future..." :)

 

When discussing such esoteric ideas as utopias in the (admittedly far) future, it is important to remember that it IS the future we are discussing. Dysfunctional cultures and attitudes will all have their Darwinian Moments.

[InfiniteNow]

Weren't Hitler's intentions to form a utopia by killing off those who were impure? A slippery slope indeed.

 

 

 

 

I get a daily email, each day with a new word. Today's keeps coming into my mind as it applies to this thread:

 

This week's theme: words borrowed from German.

 

weltschmerz (VELT-shmerts) noun

 

World weariness; pessimism, apathy, or sadness felt at the difference between physical reality and the ideal state.

 

[From German Weltschmerz, from Welt (world) + Schmerz (pain).]

 

Today's word in Visual Thesaurus: http://visualthesaurus.com/?w1=weltschmerz

 

-Anu Garg (gargATwordsmith.org)

 

 

"I hate being told to have a good time! I'll feel the weltschmerz if I want to."

Mari Sasano; Things to Do Today; Edmonton Journal (Canada); Dec 3, 2005.

 

 

 

 

............................................................................

What information consumes is rather obvious: it consumes the attention of its recipients. Hence a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention, and a need to allocate that attention efficiently among the overabundance of information sources that might consume it. -Herbert Alexander Simon, economist, Nobel laureate (1916-2001)

 

Looking for word/quotation archives: http://wordsmith.org/awad/archives.html

Unsubscribe, change address, etc: http://wordsmith.org/awad/subscriber.html

 

Pronunciation:

http://wordsmith.org/words/weltschmerz.wav

http://wordsmith.org/words/weltschmerz.ram

 

[sanctus]

if you truly do not understand this concept, you may Google the word for insight.

''So, what is this "evil" stuff you speak of?''

 

are the posters here aware that there are many cultures in the world other than ours? and that many of these cultures are bent upon murder and mayhem? and the thought process is totally different? how does this fit into the idea of a utopia?

Well, to those cutlure it is not an utopia but to the humanity as a whole it is.

[Eclogite]

One of those utopias is that I believe the aim of human evolution should be anarchy. By anarchy I mean a society where there is no need for laws not one where they have been abolished.

I have visited this thread three or four times, attracted by the title, then omitted to post anything because the discussion seemed to have no relationship to it. Finally, I have felt compelled to make these two separate sets of observation.

 

One:Human evolution does not have an aim. Thus far, the bulk of human evolution, like all evolution, has been aimless. Evolution has no direction, other than the direction towards the tendency to preserve the more fit genes.

Attempts to give human evolution an aim smack of eugenics: not a popular road to go down.

If you mean evolution in a cultural rather than a biological sense, I suggest you are not going to be able to introduce a massive cultural shift without being fully cognisant of the biology.

 

Two:The anarchy you are speaking of is not a society without laws, but a society with very clear laws, which happen to be unwritten. Laws that are not only clear, but are universally adhered to, so that enforcement of those laws is unnecessary. If achieving such a state were to become an aim of humanity it would require dramatic changes in mankind's culture and biology. The scale of these changes, and the danger's associated with attempting to implement such changes, make it appear to me to be an unrealistic and probably undesireable goal.

[α CMa]

As you see in my signature I do believe in utopies.

One of those utopies is that I believe the aim of human evolution should be anarchy. By anarchy I mean a society where there is no need for laws not one where they have been abolished.

 

ALthough I'm aware that my grandchildren (if I'll have some) will be already long-time dead before the "ultimate society" exists, I still believe it os the thing we should try to work towards. What do you think?

 

I will agree with you that a country without an army is like a fish without a bike......lol.

But seriously , you know the human destiny, i.e. utopia i.e. where external control i.e. laws is not needed . People would have reached a level of maturity where they can govern their own actions responsibly. A time when people will not hurt others just because they know how wrong it is for every one.So people with that level of maturoty we dont really need laws like we have today.So people of the future will be true anarchists.

[α CMa]

Two:The anarchy you are speaking of is not a society without laws, but a society with very clear laws, which happen to be unwritten. Laws that are not only clear, but are universally adhered to, so that enforcement of those laws is unnecessary.

I agree with this part.

 

If achieving such a state were to become an aim of humanity it would require dramatic changes in mankind's culture and biology. The scale of these changes, and the danger's associated with attempting to implement such changes, make it appear to me to be an unrealistic and probably undesireable goal.

Culture I agree with but biology I dont agree with.For people who want to change it not an unrealistic or undesirable goal.It will be hard work and those afraid of hard work or too lazy to change things will not desire these changes.

[CraigD]

… I believe the aim of human evolution should be anarchy. By anarchy I mean a society where there is no need for laws not one where they have been abolished. …

There appear to be at least two assertions in sanctus’s statement

• The systems (especially biological) idea that evolution (especially human) tends toward anarchy
  
• The political idea that human individuals and/or society would be improved by anarchy
  

Both are, I think, in important senses, both correct and incorrect.

 

In systems terms, there appears to be a tendency for systems to evolve organizational schemes of increasingly large scales. For example, a very simplified overview of biological evolution holds that organic molecules became organized into simple cells, cells into cultures, and cultures integrated as tissues, organs, and organelles into increasingly larger organisms, the end result being complexly organized animals such as human beings. Each step of this evolution required increasingly sophisticated conventions for the smaller parts to interact to form the larger – the recognition of chemical and other signals between parts, and at some point, the consolidation of genetic information into typically only 2 genomes (somatic and mitochondrial).

 

Continuing the evolutionary analogy, many animals appear to have evolved conventions for communicating with one another and functioning as a social collective. Human beings, with our advanced, abstract language use, and complicated social systems, appear to hold the current terrestrial pinnacle for this, though some believe the difference between human social organization and that of other animals to be smaller than commonly believed.

 

These conventions, which allow increasingly larger scale organization, are, in essence, laws. Even human beings living in anarchistic societies have at least a few central laws, although in many such societies, they’re called “principles”, “values”, or, as in my personal favorite anarchistic society, the Rainbow Family, “raps”. Members of such societies – anarchists – generally believe that “anarchy” means, as the word origin implies, the lack of rulers (or more generally, authority), not the complete lack of social rules.

 

Since prehistory, human beings have sought political principles that would allow collective decisions to be made in a way beneficial to both individuals and the collective. My personal distillation of this gigantic body of knowledge amounts to 2 principles

• The principle of aristocracy is wrong – systems that designate certain individuals the inherently right to make decisions for the collective, whether by alleged appointment by God, heredity, or merit, are prone to abuse of the individual, and failure
  
• The principle of ”consent of the goverened” is right – societies in which individuals willingly, and with alternatives available, accept their government, though not free from abuses of the individual, are in an important sense legitimate, and, though subject to ongoing change, have the best likelihood of long term success
  

[motherengine]

i am only as political as i need to be to maintain relative comfort so the idea of an actual self governing society is like a cool breeze to my mind. though, unless a deliberate biological alteration occurs [i.e. dr. frankenstein], such a human world probably cannot exist. it seems to me that the main problem with humanity is diversity in thought. this is why the world is not what one makes of it. too many contrasting opinions.

[α CMa]

I would say every one has a right to their openions. but no one has a right to impose their openions on any one. people can make good decisions based on the info that they have. so evry person has the right to access to info for making the right decisions.in an anarchist society the access to info that affects peoples lives will be one of the basic human rights.

[Eclogite]

So, in this anarchist society, will it be acceptable for me to cut the heads off of cats and place them outside neighbours front doors?

 

If not, why not? Why is my right to achieve spiritual happiness by this practice to be inhibited.

 

If I am to permitted to carry out this practice, can you explain what you are going to do to protect my brother, who feels that cats are sacred and are to be unharmed under any and all circumstances?

 

Will it be acceptable for us to fight to the death over the issue in the main street?

[α CMa]

So, in this anarchist society, will it be acceptable for me to cut the heads off of cats and place them outside neighbours front doors?

 

If not, why not? Why is my right to achieve spiritual happiness by this practice to be inhibited.

 

If I am to permitted to carry out this practice, can you explain what you are going to do to protect my brother, who feels that cats are sacred and are to be unharmed under any and all circumstances?

 

Will it be acceptable for us to fight to the death over the issue in the main street?

:girl_hug: i love cats and i respect all forms pf life including germs. but any one of those wants to kill me or harm :thumbs_up me ,i have the right to defend myself.i am talking about self defen.

in a true anarchist society the anarchist would know very well how psychology and biology works, remember they will have full access to info that affects their lives , so according to psychology people who are sadist need help to not be harmful to others. so i would say that a sadist will be helped in an anarchist society.

[Eclogite]

But this anarchist society is meant to be free or rules, and therefore judgements. In your anarchist society sadists are thought to be bad. That is a judgement. It implies there are unwritten rules of behaviour, rules that are decided by the majority, or by a vocal minority.

 

I am still left with restrictions imposed upon me the society. In these circumstances I do not see how you can characterise such a society as anarchist.

 

[by the way, my cat tells me it objects to use of its fellows as an example. It insists, that if I continue the discussion, I should change the decapitations to dogs.]

[anglepose]

i believe there is no goal in humanitie but we will keep seeking a goal

[IDMclean]

The Meanings of a Word

by Gloria Naylor

 

I highly suggest it as a reference. I first read it, along with a number of other brilliant essays in a book called "Models for Writers".

[IDMclean]

Alright I am just going to put this up with as little talking as I can, as it would seem at the moment I am under unfavorable, biased, light. Therefore subject to Ad hominem.

 

Anarchism

Noam Chomsky

"Notes on Anarchism" in For Reasons of State

Noam Chomsky, 1970

Anarchy Archives

 

Anarchism is the name for both a political philosophy and manner of organizing society, derived from the Greek ἀναρχία ("without archons" or "without chiefs"). Thus "anarchism," in its most general meaning, is the belief that all forms of rulership are undesirable and should be abolished. Anarchism also refers to related philosophies and social movements that advocate the elimination of coercive institutions. Although it has been traditionally and popularly described as anti-capitalist[1], the latter 20th century saw a contentious, free market formulation called anarcho-capitalism. The word "anarchy", as most anarchists use it, does not imply chaos, nihilism, or anomie, but rather a harmonious anti-authoritarian society that is based on voluntary association of free individuals in autonomous communities, mutual aid, and self-governance.

 

Anti-Civilationization Anarchy, Not my thing but hey just so you know it's out there.

 

Practicle Anarchy, Sounds more like my kind, I will need to read through this myself.

 

“Anarchism… stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.” — Emma Goldman

 

The word ‘anarchy’ comes from the ancient Greek αναρχία in which αν meant ‘without’ and αρχία meant first a military ‘leader’ and then ‘ruler’. So an anarchist society is one ‘without rulers’: a classless, non-hierarchical society. The history of attempts to create such a society in the modern era is the history of anarchism.

 

Aussie Anarchy, Coolness.

 

I hope that is enough to be informative and to get some people in the curious zone of things, and somewhat out of the Authoritive zone of things.

[Kriminal99]

I don't know about the idea of a lawless society. The reason being is that as I have outlined in other posts I think that if someone thinks they are completely capable of getting away with a selfish act, they will not consider it to be wrong.

 

On the other hand, if everyone was completely aware of this, and everyone agreed on how morality should be reflected throughout all aspects of society (ie it was completely agreed upon by everyone what selfish acts were and were not, as opposed to say people arguing over things like whether or not it is immoral to speed in a motor vehicle), AND the society was militaristic like ancient sparta and everyone was prepared and able to exert force if necessary then I suppose it is a possibility.

 

I definitely think the weakest link in this model is everyone agreeing on exactly what is moral and immoral. Short of this, an anarchist society just becomes might makes right.

[DarkColoredLight]

I don't know about the idea of a lawless society. The reason being is that as I have outlined in other posts I think that if someone thinks they are completely capable of getting away with a selfish act, they will not consider it to be wrong.

 

On the other hand, if everyone was completely aware of this, and everyone agreed on how morality should be reflected throughout all aspects of society (ie it was completely agreed upon by everyone what selfish acts were and were not, as opposed to say people arguing over things like whether or not it is immoral to speed in a motor vehicle), AND the society was militaristic like ancient sparta and everyone was prepared and able to exert force if necessary then I suppose it is a possibility.

 

I definitely think the weakest link in this model is everyone agreeing on exactly what is moral and immoral. Short of this, an anarchist society just becomes might makes right.

 

Eventually coming full circle, and then some, to a revised version of what had happened in the past?

 

Irrifutably agreeing with other nations, to disagree could be a baby step. But, definatly not towards anarchy. United Nations of Earth, I would rock that flag for many moons.