Evolution of perception

[Osborn F Enready]

I am starting this thread to address one thing in specific, that most don't seem to understand about my views, and I want to see what others views are in relation to it.


My argument is this:

Since man came to be on this earth, mankind, as well as the earth have undergone great change. We as a people try to make sense of what happened before, in the quest to understanding the creation of life.

I do think however, that as with all things, we all approach this issue differently based on our belief structure and our individual intrests. In other words, our attempts to understand our origins, are limited by the individual lens we use to view our history.

Here is my best theory, as an observer, trying to be as NON-biased as possible.


Man, as far back as we can tell, was a hunter-gatherer. Over time, man started to develop logic, through trial and error. Logic, is the fundamental tool for technology creation and understanding.

Once man started to apply logic to his life, his life became partially under his own control, especially in relation to eating and hunting. Logic gave man the power to find ways to save labor, therefore he could "better his life" by saving unnecessary labor, as time to be spent doing productive things originating in desire, as opposed to necessity.

Man makes the evolution from hunter gatherer, to agricultural societies, by using his newfound logic to balance the "average" harsh periods of nature with extra production in the good months of production. As the first farmers must have discovered, there is a cycle to our seasons, and predicting it became a pattern of logic based on averages of production vs consumption. As people from all times, I am sure early man took discomfort to those things which he could not explain. Perhaps, this is the basis of religion, where man takes the "unexplainable" and attributes it to the supernatural, but perhaps not. Either way, it seems clear early man tried to make sense of his world through what he knew, and that which he didn't know, he tried to cover in some form of "logic" for explanation.

As agriculture societies grew, so did population, and with population growth comes "a muddying of the waters of social ties". I tend to believe that this growing social disorder, and discontent among the collective, was the reason for creation of religion. It was a way of "feeling safe" by knowing who was "like you" and who was "not". Beleivers huddled together, non-believers flocked away, or were driven away. I think religion was created to reinforce the ties that bound early collectives, hence the different religions of similar theories from the same times seems to put the "collective" as superior to others in all religions, as a classism.

(I think it is important to point out now, that all societies from hunter-gatherers, to modern societies, are class based. That is all we know from natures examples, so our view is limited to that until necessity dictates otherwise.)

I think that over time, religion paved the way to socialism and capitalism indirectly.

Why do I think this? Because, man is forced to view mankind through one of two views. The individual, and the collective. Both are MAJOR parts of every life, at different times.
As a species that has "famillies", we are born into a social collective which is the family. Nature has provided us instincts to survive, and there are two parts of that "natures way" of survival. That is reproduction, and sustinence. Our species being family based, is instintually programmed to care for our young, and teach them to survive, using logic, that we have learned over time to make that chore easier in both cases.

Therefore, the family is indeed a social collective, where the needs of the individual are often sacrificed naturally, to insure that "others of your kind" are left to live on. This collective is strong, based on roots in natural instinct or our species, as well as the "feelings" we have come to experience as "family" ties, or blood ties.

However, once a person reaches a certain age and ability, they must find their own place in life or society, and become not the dependents, but the provider. (role reversal) This is another natural instinct that calls from within, though a little differently due to "conditioned" society experiences and logic learned, that are passed down. Usually societal classism here, stems from physical ability. (to hunt and provide, or to conceive and birth children.) Historically, as society has become more educated, the diffference between abilities between genders becomes more clouded EXCEPT in physical ability. ( the fact still remains that no matter how women of today train, think or act, they are still less "fit" for physical labor than men based on our physical makeup and types of muscles/attachments, hormones, growth and durability.)

Back to topic. Once man created society with weak social ties, and higher education, it gave birth to the individual as a natural evolution of logic. This serves to destroy the collective, yet it is ENTIRELY natural, and instinctual, given the fact that man has ALWAYS been a product of his enviroment, and limited to working in that enviroment he knows as the physical world. It only makes sense that once man used logic to become more productive, he would try to best manage that logic to suit HIS needs, since that is what drove the DISCOVERY of logic, was HIS desire to save LABOR for himself.

This brings on the individual view. Man was once forced for the first time to ask himself skeptical questions of why he chose to be with others, when he could survive himself, or with only those he truly felt STRONG SOCIAL TIES TO? This led to the downfall of the social collective as man of the time knew it, yet at the same time created a whole new concept of logic of the individual.

That logic of the individual is quite basal, and simple. Why should I let others choose how I should live, when I am well capable of living and existing on my own? This created a new dynamic. Before, man could only survive HIS ENTIRE LIFE AS HE KNEW IT, by working with others toward a common goal. Now, man had the knowledge to literally live of his own ability, choices and intrests once an adult, and he could "venture to create his OWN colective" based on the family, in a small unit to a collctive of blood ties outside of the mate. This was the idea of liberty, that threatened the social collectives existence, therefore those who "denied" the modern ways of liberty, sought to "hold sacred" those ties that previously bound the collective, and one tool to do this was religion combined with a value of "culture, history and tradition".

The idea of the "sheltered" collective still lives on today, in the guise of socialism.
The idea of true individual liberty lives on today, in the guise of capitalism.

All governments that entertwine both, have failed, or are failing. That amounts TO ALL GOVERNMENTS on EARTH. Why is this?

Because man, as individuals, and collective, can not see the sensible place where collectivism and individualism interact, and codepend on each other.

Capitalism WILL NEVER SUCCEED as long as socialism exists.
Socialism WILL NEVER SUCCEED as long as capitalism exists.

Neither will ever succeed, because until man makes the next leap of evolutionary logic that isolates both principles to their place, respectively, we will be locked in this box of misunderstanding.

So how do we make this "jump of logic" that will evolve us?

WE all, as humans, not nationalists, need to understand that we all are equal in the same senses we are different. We all depend on the collective to raise us (family) and we all seek individualism with out new learned technology (logic) which leaves us in a constant struggle against one another, when it is nature who we should be focused on figuring out, to carry on the life of man beyond this realm we now know.

WE need to focus on the basic rights of all men, before any collective can be at peace and be truly successful without war to mar the image of man.

How do we do this? A tough question to analyze OUTSIDE of personal prejudice and belief.

Perhaps we should have two economies? One economy for collectives (famillies) that is bound together through social ties of common goals, and one economy for individuals (singles wanting to create a family, or live as they are from birth to death, single.) that is free to live without social or societal burden outside their basic rights and respect of others rights?

Also, perhaps we as people, allow our pride of culture and tradition to limit our perspectives? I can understand keeping culture alive through words and song, books and verse. But what does it say of man when he refuses to adapt, due to his love of the "status quo" based non pride? Is this not man fighting nature, by fighting other men who side with the changes that nature brings on?

I am perplexed here, and looking for other angles.


Feel free to add if you want to debate, and not start a "this vs that" tantrum or insults.

This has NOTHING to do with partisanship, religion or any other thing I mentioned except to make it easier to understand the "human dynamics" as we know them from their labels.

I look forward to thoughts and comments.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Osborn F Enready truly fascinating perspective. The groups would need expanding for those whom are social dependant but without a family, is that so? And a radically seperate comune for those who are to lazy to either support a family/society or themselves. Would we divide each country into the ghettos of elitism?

I very much like the concept

[tman_ndsu08]

Interesting ideas, Osborn.


I think without a doubt humans are vectoring away from collectivism toward individualism, as that is the most efficient way to divide scarce resources.

[Osborn F Enready]

Arawn Ap Hywel said: Osborn F Enready truly fascinating perspective.

I say:
Thank you.

Arawn Ap Hywel said: The groups would need expanding for those whom are social dependant but without a family, is that so?

I say:
I would say that anyone that is dependent, or wishes to contribute of good will to those who are dependent, or who has dependents and seeks a "social safety net" could simply subscribe to one of two economics systems choices.

The other choice would be for those who do not seek social safety nets, or services associated with them. (collective funded schooling, collective funded healthcare, collective funded retirement, etc.) This option would include citizen choice and funding for all choices in all things, at the discretion and time the citizen so chooses.

Both systems however, would take into account the FULL choice of the individual, and provide the same rights, with the exception to "contractual" agreements on economics and the above entailed services for those that "opted" to belong to the "social aid collective".

So all people, of both systems, have equal rights in ALL RESPECTS, until they sign away their "specified" rights by contract, of free will, to join a collective ecnomics system they support.



This is not my idea, it is just ONE suggestion to deal with the issues at hand.

All people of the world, should have equal rights in the eyes of the law, as well as the individual freedom to live as they see fit, with respect to the equal rights of others.

As individuals, they may sign away any rights they so choose, individually, to become a member of a co-op. However, all people start in the same place in the eyes of the law with regards to social, political and economic freedom, and market access for sales and purchase and trade.

This would be an attempt to stabilize labor costs around the world, removing the harm being done to the free market by nations that exploit their citizens through manipulative wages, which are dictated by profit margin at the national level.

I think all free market nations, should in unison force all non-free market nations (China, Cuba, etc) to either pay tariffs to equal the labor discrepancies they are abusing, or be forced to recognize and put in law the rights of the citizens they claim to represent.

If the peoples rights are guaranteed and enforced by government, and they still choose to work for substandard wages, then that is at least THEIR choice, and not their nations exploitation of their labor.

[Osborn F Enready]

T-Man said: Interesting ideas, Osborn.

I say:
Thanks man.

I would tend to agree that more people around the world, are starting to trend towards individualism, but I think as of late it is large part due to direct moves by their systems of government to REMOVE individualism, and they are embracing the wave of counter-culture that is coming with it.

Hard to say for sure what the drivers are, but as long as the people wake up, I don't care what drives them.

[tman_ndsu08]

The government tries to enforce at least partical collectivism by default.

It's the only way they can stay viable.

[Osborn F Enready]

Another bump, in hopes of more spirited debate with our newer (and senior for that matter)members.

[Zhavric]

I found it hard to get through as I disagree with one of your opening assertions. You've mistaken "logic" for problem solving skills. Superstition predates religion and religion predates logic. Predating all these things is our incredible intelligence and instinctive fear / dislike of unknowns. Humans beings evolved to equate unknown with apprehension & danger... which is an incredibly useful trait.

As I stated before, religion came as an institutionalization of superstition not from any social disorder. Consider that archeologists have found VERY early human remains of buried dead who've been tied posthumously into uncomfortable fetal positions... because the people who buried them were scared they'd get up and start walking around.

Religion isn't something we decided to invent later on in our existence. It's something we've had for as long as we've been huddling in caves.


As a completely off-topic note... too bad about Tman...

[xyzer]

IMNSHO we cannot represent decision making as always logical? Humankind has the ability to rationalize rather than just react instinctively to that which occurs. It does not always make decisions based on logic?

Thus human adaptation to events was different than that of other species. I would agree that natural events, those that humans couldn't control or explain, probably gave them the first vestiages of religion. But, at the same time as agricultural pursuits replaced the hunter gatherer life a need for social controls grew. Thus religion and law became intertwined. As society grouped, other aspects of economic advantage grew. As you point out a socialized approach (share the produce) to living was tried along with a capitalistic approach and vestiges of those approaches still remain in the various societies of the world.
Here I begin to differ. I don't believe we can say that neither economic approach. captitalism or socialism..will ever succeed because of the other? There is no one world society... instead we are fractionated by location and climate into all sorts of societal locations. Some enjoying each system or a mix of the best of the two!

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Osborn Another bump, in hopes of more spirited debate with our newer (and senior for that matter)members.

Mind if I take a stab at?

I read the whole thing, but I'm going to do some piecemeal quoting in order to make sure I understand what you're trying to convey...

I'm going to start with what I perceived as the "first" paragraph of the OP...

Quote by: Os Man, as far back as we can tell, was a hunter-gatherer. Over time, man started to develop logic, through trial and error. Logic, is the fundamental tool for technology creation and understanding.

Agreed. With the development of better cognitive skills regarding cause and effect... or should I say being able to actually remember the effects from certain causes... man was able to apply those experiences to deduce conclusions without having to actually try something.

Something akin to, "How can I keep the wind from blowing in my cave?"
Then, "Last week when I hid behind the rocks, I did not feel the wind."
So the primitive man figured, "If I put rocks in front of my cave, the wind will not blow in."

Logical reasoning developed, then, as memory developed to remember causes and effects.

2nd Paragraph
Agreed. Rationalized ways to save time and effort in doing work. Nearly the textbook definition of tools and machines.

3rd Paragraph
Agreed. More free time gave early man the time needed to actually observe his surroundings instead of work to survive. With those observations and the developing memory and logic came understandings like seasons and such.

4th Paragraph
Agreed. Also interesting to note is where did the initial concept of the supernatural come from?

Belief in the supernatural is not natural. We aren't born believing in God. We are taught it. But where did the first God come from? When early man was struggling with eating in the winter time when food wouldn't grow, where did the first idea of God come from?

This is one of those interesting things... some people insist that the idea of God is taught to us... but if it's taught, then where did it come from first? Who was the "Patient Zero"?

6th, 7th, 8th Paragraph
I agree with your assessment of the development of the first type of moral responsibility... the family. But while you prefaced these paragraphs with how religion is a cause of socialism and capitalism, you don't really tie it in to these concepts.

9th Paragraph
Makes sense. As new concepts are discovered, it would be a tendency to apply it to yourself and your own life first, then expand it outward into the farthest level of social responsibility you practice.

10th, 11th, 12th Paragraph
Interesting process to watch you go through, and for the purposes of the point you are making it appears about right.

The rest...
I'm going to base my comments on how you've established the points you are making. While I might disagree on matters of definition, I think I see where you're going with this.

I agree that as long as you try to promote individual prosperity (capitalism) you lessen communal prosperity (socialism) and vice versa.

You've demonstrated that the two cannot co-exist.

But do you think it possible for them to exist if perfectly balanced?

I would answer no. As you pointed out, they are concepts that societies attempt to implement but fail to do effectively.

I'm going to try to put this in my own words, briefly, to see if I understand...

The problem is implementing economic systems based on social responsibility. While you have a tough time forcing levels of responsibility on a person, you are doing just that when you force them to live in a certain economic system.

This wouldn't be so bad, but when it's a system derived from opposing concepts, you have issues.

A person with no moral ethic beyond themselves would hate a socialist economy. A person with a higher moral ethic beyond family would hate a capitalist economy.

Economically speaking, the problem is one of systems.

On one side, you have an individual who designates himself as an entity.

On the other, you have a family that designates itself as an entity.

Regardless of the economic philosophy you have to follow, it's nothing more than income going to an entity, the entity deciding how best to spend that money to benefit itself, then money going out.

A family as an entity has to benefit the whole family, not just a member, for example.

The conflict with economic systems is that capitalism is set up to favor entities that are individuals.

Socialism is set up to favor entities that are more than one person.

I don't want to say it, but it appears that a capitalist economy is more detrimental to society as a whole because there are few successful individuals that fit the mould capitalism seeks.

In relation to perception and, in particular, pride, I see the problem as being one where we pride ourselves on the hard-work capitalist traditional American values (at least in America) and we perceive anything else as weakness.

Another way to say this, and one that is much broader, is that our pride in the smallest moral ethic is preventing us from accepting a system that will beneift a higher moral ethic.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Mind if I take a stab at? I read the whole thing, but I'm going to do some piecemeal quoting in order to make sure I understand what you're trying to convey...

Very well thought out, and well pointed reply Fonce, and I thank you for the time and intrest as well as the respect for my views in your answer.

Fonceai said: I agree that as long as you try to promote individual prosperity (capitalism) you lessen communal prosperity (socialism) and vice versa. You've demonstrated that the two cannot co-exist. But do you think it possible for them to exist if perfectly balanced?

I think human nature prevents any perfect balance of about any given system, theory or series of actions and reactions. We are far to diverse individually to ever be a fully perfect system as a collective.

I think there is a reasonable balance, and I believe that the pivot point of balance must be in respect to the individual, since that is our highest point of comprehension to almost any situation, in universal acceptance.

For example....

Individualists can agree to draw the line at government intrusion at inherant rights. Collectivists cannot. HOWEVER, collectivists can benefit equally to individuals if the system that governs them is formed around individualism, since it allows both types of lifestyle to its extremes. Collectivism does NOT allow the individual to reach his full potential, while individualism does allow both collectives and individuals to fully form, in their own voluntary method.

To me, the perfect balance is a system that fully protects inherant rights, since it allows all people, individualist to collectivist to fully practice and prosper from their endeavors in life, hinged only on two things....rights and free will.

In other posts I showed how the capitalist system in the U.S. allowed a fully functioning, private, free-will oriented socialist system to operate and function on its own. The project was in New Harmony, Indiana, and it failed miserably on its own accord. (but, they had the freedom to do this to its full extent within the capitalist system, which shows that the two can operate under one national system.)

To me, it seems apparent that we have already had the perfect system, and allowed progressives and authoritarians to ruin it from the inside by unconstituional laws and "legal" right infringement by refusing to examine certain laws, precedent setting cases for their constitutionality. In other words, we allowed democracy to pervert our republic on the behest of a minute majority publicly, and overt majority acting as representatives beyond their limitations in law making power.

Fonceai said: The problem is implementing economic systems based on social responsibility. While you have a tough time forcing levels of responsibility on a person, you are doing just that when you force them to live in a certain economic system.

The true capitalist system, before its perversion by taxation and federal and state legal over-reach, allowed for all forms of experimentation by the people themselves, of free will. Within the United States you could literally have several areas within several states that were "voluntary collectives" operated as socialist entities, as long as it was entirely a free will collective.

Fonceai said: The conflict with economic systems is that capitalism is set up to favor entities that are individuals.

Socialism is set up to favor entities that are more than one person.

I disagree here. Socialism is based on theory, one in particular of human nature, that in practice has never been realized to its "proposed" extent. Capitalism is based on theory and human nature that is observable in every living thing on earth, and has been shown to work beyond its intended goals, which created new threats such as monopolism, corporatism, which are basicly ruling using economic force, as opposed to political force or actual individual acts of lethal physical force.

Capitalism allows for socialism, while socialism does not allow for capitalism.
One is clearly dependent on the "removal" of the other (socialism) while capitalism allows for free-will of the individual as well as voluntary based collectives.

Its been shown that without the support of the individuals that make up a collective, the collective is doomed to fail. It has also been shown that individuals often form voluntary collectives when beneficial, and tend to leave them once they become more burden than fruit. For this reason, state, national and even larger collectives (like the UN) are doomed to fail if they lose sight of the necessity, and importance of the individual. This is why I think capitalism is by far the best answer from what we have that has ever been shown to work, since it allows both the collective and individual to operate without undue infringement, and both can propser equally of free-will.

Fonceai said: I don't want to say it, but it appears that a capitalist economy is more detrimental to society as a whole because there are few successful individuals that fit the mould capitalism seeks.

I disagree here. The list of individual contributions to societal collectives is to immense to measure I think, and I also would bet that the technology we have today, we wouldn't have today if it weren't for the individual incentive to prosper from labor and education. Even the most successful societies today that remain "socialist" in large part are only successful to the point they are by robbing intellectual property, and patents for copy and illegal reproduction. (russia, china mainly).

What is the benefit for production and betterment without individual compensation for labor and effort?

Fonceai said: In relation to perception and, in particular, pride, I see the problem as being one where we pride ourselves on the hard-work capitalist traditional American values (at least in America) and we perceive anything else as weakness. Another way to say this, and one that is much broader, is that our pride in the smallest moral ethic is preventing us from accepting a system that will beneift a higher moral ethic.

Ouch... here I have to differ entirely.

I think our biggest fault is a failure to learn from history, in all nations, in all people. Technology has made learning easier than ever, overall, though with it has come new hurdles to access information of factual validity. With the ability we have to learn with the internet, from other nations and their peoples, we collectively should be working toward a basic understanding that we all value each other equally based on our common threads, as opposed to our multitudes of differences creating two sides where there should be one. The sooner all the worlds peoples rights are equalized, the sooner we can stabilize international labor wages, and check government and collectivist abuse, as well as individual abuse, the sooner we could focus governments on working for their people, as opposed to abusing their people with propaganda and war for national gain that is built on false pretense.

I think the biggest problem is that people don't connect the basic dots of what we all hold of equal value, which is our own life and our inherant abilities.
We alone, can make or break societies. The sooner all societies value life equally, the sooner wars will become an end to national lies.

Based on this, I think it is natural for rights to exist, and rights are that which are inherant, by birth. One of those is inherantly property, therefore I feel it necessity that property be a basic, neccessary right.

Socialism, does not allow for that, and every measure of it is built around "lessening" the value of that right.


I hope I have been equally respectful in my reply, and look forward to yours.

[Fonceai]

Yeah, you've been respectful.

I understand what you're saying.

I think the best response I have is that I tend, in discussions, to consider the ideal forms of, in this case, capitalism and socialism as opposed to how they currently exist. And I also consider them only in their relation to economics.

Also, the big reason why it is probably true that people want socialism to work best but capitalism rings truer is because... and I want to make sure I convey this correctly...

Socialism (economically) is better for a perfect Communism (government) populated by citizens where each and every one of them has more moral and social responsibility towards their fellow man than they have themselves.

Capitalism (economically) is better for a perfect Democracy (government) populated by citizens where each and every one of them votes based on a moral and social responsibility towards themselves before others.

We perceive the former as nobler, loftier, and a greater aspiration.

But the truth is that what makes us human is that we prefer that latter... and we dislike that aspect of ourselves.

And here is how this relates to your comments...

I think that one of the many reasons this country struggles is because politicians have tried to force us to accept a system that is based on that selfless moral / social responsibility while still trying to maintain aspects of the individual moral / social responsibility.

Foremost on my mind is the problem with monopolies.

A monopoly represents the ultimate in Capitalist achievement, and that entity which holds the monopoly knows that it cannot gouge prices, or else they will no longer provide that service.

When monopolies were established (in America, at least), instead of letting the public control the market themselves, which is a natural consequence of a "greedy" monopoly, the government intervened in market affairs.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: I think that one of the many reasons this country struggles is because politicians have tried to force us to accept a system that is based on that selfless moral / social responsibility while still trying to maintain aspects of the individual moral / social responsibility.

I think the entire problem lies in the force issue, and I entirely agree.
The people have lost their way in combatting this problem, which is as old as government and society itself.

Fonceai said: Foremost on my mind is the problem with monopolies. A monopoly represents the ultimate in Capitalist achievement,

I disagree with that.

Capitalism is all about competition and market determination based on that competititon. The only reason that competititon is being lost is due to the technology of travel making other nations with lower workers rights and standards tipping the table of the market to its favor, for cheap labor. This is the fuel for labor monopolies. The economic monopoly is occuring due to taxation, and rampant corporate money swallowing politics through lobbying. Anymore, it doesn't matter if you can compete in the market, if you can't defend yourself at the lobby table against your competitors.

This all comes about from an "acceptance" of lack of responsibility by the citizens of this nation.

We didn't hold the politicians accountable, we didn't hold the courts accountable, so why would the businessmen possibly think we would hold them accountable for fraud, coercion, and dishonest business practices......... the very currency that current American politics is built on.

Fonceai said: and that entity which holds the monopoly knows that it cannot gouge prices, or else they will no longer provide that service.

The entire computer market is built around price gouging, but the gouge comes from exploiting cheap labor in other countries with unequal rights, and avoiding taxation through foreign ownership or tax shelters. It is government approved disenfranchisement.

Fonceai said: When monopolies were established (in America, at least), instead of letting the public control the market themselves, which is a natural consequence of a "greedy" monopoly, the government intervened in market affairs.

Agreed, and this intervention caused a seperation from the corporation and the labor/market base, in essence, REMOVING as opposed to doing the claimed IMPOSING of responsibility.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I am starting this thread to address one thing in specific, that most don't seem to understand about my views, and I want to see what others views are in relation to it. The idea of the "sheltered" collective still lives on today, in the guise of socialism. The idea of true individual liberty lives on today, in the guise of capitalism. All governments that entertwine both, have failed, or are failing. That amounts TO ALL GOVERNMENTS on EARTH. Why is this? Because man, as individuals, and collective, can not see the sensible place where collectivism and individualism interact, and codepend on each other. Capitalism WILL NEVER SUCCEED as long as socialism exists. Socialism WILL NEVER SUCCEED as long as capitalism exists.

A little too simplistic in generalizations. The historical evidence shows that Capitalism and Socialism evolved with other economic and social systems intertwined like communalism and various forms of heirarchial feudal economics and social systems. These economic systems historically coexist on different levels with human specialization.

Neither will ever succeed, because until man makes the next leap of evolutionary logic that isolates both principles to their place, respectively, we will be locked in this box of misunderstanding.

Needs, Supply and demand, and opportunities likely dictate the ecomomic system that is applied

So how do we make this "jump of logic" that will evolve us?

WE all, as humans, not nationalists, need to understand that we all are equal in the same senses we are different. We all depend on the collective to raise us (family) and we all seek individualism with out new learned technology (logic) which leaves us in a constant struggle against one another, when it is nature who we should be focused on figuring out, to carry on the life of man beyond this realm we now know.

Probably most important advance of this new age if humans are to survive, but diversity and unity must coexist in religious, social and economic systems.

WE need to focus on the basic rights of all men, before any collective can be at peace and be truly successful without war to mar the image of man.

Basic rights and collective consciousness must evovle together to meet the needs of a diverse society striving to resolve conflicts that make peace unlikely.

How do we do this? A tough question to analyze OUTSIDE of personal prejudice and belief. Perhaps we should have two economies? One economy for collectives (famillies) that is bound together through social ties of common goals, and one economy for individuals (singles wanting to create a family, or live as they are from birth to death, single.) that is free to live without social or societal burden outside their basic rights and respect of others rights? Also, perhaps we as people, allow our pride of culture and tradition to limit our perspectives? I can understand keeping culture alive through words and song, books and verse. But what does it say of man when he refuses to adapt, due to his love of the "status quo" based non pride? Is this not man fighting nature, by fighting other men who side with the changes that nature brings on? I am perplexed here, and looking for other angles. Feel free to add if you want to debate, and not start a "this vs that" tantrum or insults. This has NOTHING to do with partisanship, religion or any other thing I mentioned except to make it easier to understand the "human dynamics" as we know them from their labels. I look forward to thoughts and comments.

social, economic and religious systems have two distinct aspects, sense of community (spiritual, ethnic and racial identity), and a balence control and cooperation. The broader the sense of community is and the more cooperation is emphasised. The goal for world peace and stability will necessitate the development of an integrated community that in some way is defined as humanity as a whole, and not neglect the spiritual aspect where most people on the globe

[Osborn F Enready]

shunydragon said: Needs, Supply and demand, and opportunities likely dictate the ecomomic system that is applied So how do we make this "jump of logic" that will evolve us?

Quite simply.....

All the nations of the world need to equalize citizens rights to the same level, the level of human inherant rights.

Both systems exploit workers when and where acceptable to control profit margin, and sustainability. Remove the option to ignore citizens rights (or pay a severe price by dealing with an angry, armed populace) and you have an equal playing field across the world of economics.

Not an easy task, but surely all people of the world are capable of recognizing common threads that bind us with the veil of nationalism and propaganda removed.

All people benefit if we (the people) can make collectives of free will, yet operate under a capitalist type system that is based on property and inherant rights.