Is a new world order really possible?

[Dysgwr]

Hi all

I was recently talking with friends about the economic crisis that is still hanging over much of Europe and further afield. One of the conclusions that we came up with is that no political system can ever really prevent a re-occurrence.

Communism failed, much as Orwell predicted, capitalism is failing, and anarchy seems only to provide theory. But the underlying reason for this failing we agreed to be human nature. Most things fail because of greed and envy.

We continuously see cases where even the wealthiest, people with no real needs in life, are still greedy for more money, power and possessions.

That brought me around to thinking as to how or if “greed” can ever truly be eradicated in order for us to live in a peaceful, utopical world.

My initial thoughts being that after x000 years of “civilised” society it is not possible to eradicate such a widely held subjective point of view which states there are always others who get more for doing less.

If we extrapolate this personal view to a national view we also see it forms the basis of most if not all wars.

I would like to ask your opinions as to how (or if) it is be possible to reinvent human nature to provide a more sustainable world for all.

Blessings
Terry

[mark the compost elf]

I honestly think that it is. We had x000's of years of life prior to our invention of money. Trading skill for skill, food for skill, trust for trust and care for care.

I agree that it is difficult to see happening in the next few years, but..... it think it will still happen.

As for human nature, greed is only representative of the human/ tribe who see resources as limited, if people see things as unlimited, or not scarce, then sharing happens more often than not.

I can see two ways of this happening-

- a major event or threat to the race as not seen before, reducing our numbers down to a level where greed is no longer seen as a survival tactic and is replaced with trust.

- the greedy become aware that they are hindering their own profitable potential ( and that of their offspring) by using the system as it is and use their own avariciously motivated means to an end to promote a more utopian like society.

I say 'utopian like' as the concept of utopia is almost paradoxial. A sustainable society, resplendent in it's sharing is the closest we will likely get. As it is human nature to kill occasionally, to steal/ covet and to 'take' without permission - although a lot of this could be said to be 'out of the norm' human behaviour and more often than not is neural or circumstantial...

[DJ Droood]

Seems to me that the weakness in our nature that has led to our most serious problems isn't greed but laziness and apathy...we enjoy driving instead of walking, eating Walmart food instead of feeding ourselves, allowing a small group of elites to control us, consuming crap pop art instead of creating art...we have been trained over generations to be helpless and submissive...burn it down and start over is the only answer I can think of...

[Dysgwr]

Seems to me that the weakness in our nature that has led to our most serious problems isn't greed but laziness and apathy...

But couldnt that also be a symptom of the greed society? The less time I travel, the less time I spend feeding myself the more time I have to make more money.

I do agree that laziness is a big influence and one that also brings about envy. Why should I work 12 hours a day, which then gets taxed, when Xxx sits at home and gets state hand-outs which are tax exempt. I realise that this is a dramatic over simplification but humans are very quick to associate and link ideas which become part of their core beliefs.

I honestly think that it is. We had x000's of years of life prior to our invention of money. Trading skill for skill, food for skill, trust for trust and care for care.

There is a part of me that really buys into the idea of a money free society... part of the financial crisis has been brought about by those dealing with money and financial practises that I can not fathom out.

You could be right about the scenarios to bring about change but we are also faced with massive over-population and a lack of resources that could bring about a scenario that you forsee within a forseeable future.

I'm not so sure that the greedy will just see the error of their ways how do you think this could come about when the "hoarding mentality" is so ingrained.

Thanks for your reponses!

[kukl]

I wonder if greed is product of natural selection. The greedy and power hungry seem to do better in society and are then more likely to thrive. That would make a more egalitarian and peaceful society seem unlikely.
I also wonder how change would happen. The politicians and economists aren't going to promote change, even though they know the truth that thier frantic efforts to create economic growth through consumerism at the expense of the environment is short termism madness.
James Lovelocks' Gaia Hypothesis suggest the earth regulates herself. Mankind is a problem to be solved.
" I'm not a misanthropist but..." can't help thinking that the world would be better off with a fraction of the current human population. Maybe we'll get it right next time. Oh no! Just turned over the page on my 2012 Mayan calendar.

[treegod]

Seems to me that the weakness in our nature that has led to our most serious problems isn't greed but laziness and apathy...we enjoy driving instead of walking, eating Walmart food instead of feeding ourselves, allowing a small group of elites to control us, consuming crap pop art instead of creating art...we have been trained over generations to be helpless and submissive...

I agree with that. Greedy people are a minority. Most people just want convenience, which then leaves them at the mercy of the greedy* minority (or whatever quality happens to dominate the powerful). Education is the key, I think, to "immunise" ourselves and future generations against apathy and manipulation.

[RidgeDruid]

Very, very complicated subject, but for me I try and stay focused on what I can do with myself and within my local community (druid and civilian). My own belief is that society is going to slowly change into something different and unknown because all the natural resources we've squandered will just not be there. Climate change is real and probably way past the tipping point and a global economic system that is going to run out of cheap energy and implode mean huge changes down the road, but who knows what they will be. I highly recommend that folks take a look at some of JM Greer's work, such as the http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/. Lots of interesting ideas get tossed around there.

[Aphritha]

I really enjoyed JM Greer's book, The Long Descent, dealing with the topics of what could happen when we run out of fuel. Very good and interesting read.

[Dysgwr]

I highly recommend that folks take a look at some of JM Greer's work, such as the http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/. Lots of interesting ideas get tossed around there.

Definately very though provoking and ties in with a lot of the things that were brought up when I was originally talking about this subject.

But is flawed Real Democracy the best we can come up with after x000 years? I admit that the article has it right when it says its much better than the rest but when the ruling classes take no heed of the people can that still be called "real democracy"?

[DJ Droood]

But is flawed Real Democracy the best we can come up with after x000 years? I admit that the article has it right when it says its much better than the rest but when the ruling classes take no heed of the people can that still be called "real democracy"?

Real democracy is a mob(s) roaming the streets...not pretty, but hard to ignore.

[thebadpoet]

I remember reading a book called (I think) An Introduction to Political Philosophy. My conclusion was that the only system that works is either a benign dicatorship or true democracy the latter of which others have mentioned. In the case of true democracy it only seems to work with smaller groups of people (in the same way communism does), but it also relies on same access levels to information and a certain education level with which to understand that information and its impacts.

As individuals we are fine, but I do think that the more of us are grouped together the more we just develop a herd mentality where information starts to become restricted or distorted to what you hear from everyone else around you whilst outside sources start to feel less reliable or disruptive of that comfortable state of status quo. The obvious solution to mankind's crisis which is often offered is a drastic reduction in population - something that sounds horrid and would involve so much misery it is difficult to comprehend. Also it would unlikely to be a permanent solution as future generations forget the lessons that their ancestors learned or choose not to heed them because they cannot relate to the situation. Take the very positive feeling towards a unified Europe in the UK a mere 3 or 4 decades ago which was based of a shared sense of 'never again' following the War yet that same feeling has changed dramatically nowadays as the War becomes a distant memory and those that fought it are dieing off.

I have little hope in a genuine and successful ever lasting solution to society, but I do know that we as a species are hugely adaptable so whilst our story of existence is filled with pain and suffering it is also filled with wonder and greatness at what we are able to achieve when circumstances force us in a particular direction. I would say that we of a like mind can band together and form our own country, but then even if we were of that same like mind, our children and their children will soon start to disagree

[Dysgwr]

I would say that we of a like mind can band together and form our own country

That remind's me that once the idea was (back in the early 90s) to form a Europe of regions. The idea was similar in retrospect to Commuism but within a Democratic framework. Each region would be a centre for production for the crops/services that were ideally suited to it.

So if you want to grow grapes you grow them in regions that are ideally suited to their growth and dont need vast ammounts of water being pumped from other areas. That would mean uprooting some industries and moving them to sites that are more suited to their needs, thus also reducing transport costs and growing local infrasructure and dependency. It seemed, at least on paper, a good solution.

Of course the nation-states never took up the idea of releasing control over parts of their territory and rationalisation of industry is still far away...

I agree that in small groups humans are more able to collaborate effectively.. maybe the Celtic Kith group ideas is not far of the ideal, except for the constant inter-tribal warfare

[Twyrch]

To achieve this, humans would have to care more about their fellow man, than themselves. Money would have to be done away with and everyone would have to help provide for the common good.

This reminds me of a scene in Star Trek: TNG (Time's Arrow: Part 2)

CLEMENS: Well, that's the problem I see here. All this technology it only serves to take away life's simple pleasures. You don't even let a man open the door for a lady.
TROI: I think what we've gained far outweighs anything that might have been lost.
CLEMENS: Oh? Well, I'm not so impressed with this future. Huge starships, and weapons that can no doubt destroy entire cities, and military conquest as a way of life?
TROI: Is that what you see here?
CLEMENS: Well, I know what you say, that this is a vessel of exploration and that your mission is to discover new worlds.
(a Bolian comes out of the turbolift as they get in)

[Turbolift]

CLEMENS: That's what the Spanish said.
TROI: Deck thirty six.
CLEMENS: And the Dutch and the Portuguese. It's what all conquerors say. I'm sure that's what you told that blue-skinned fellow I just saw, before you brought him here to serve you.
TROI: He's one of the thousands of species that we've encountered. We live in a peaceful Federation with most of them. The people you see are here by choice.
CLEMENS: So there're a privileged few who serve on these ships, living in luxury and wanting for nothing. But what about everyone else? What about the poor? You ignore them.
TROI: Poverty was eliminated on Earth a long time ago, and a lot of other things disappeared with it. Hopelessness, despair, cruelty.
CLEMENS: Young lady, I come from a time when men achieve power and wealth by standing on the backs of the poor, where prejudice and intolerance are commonplace and power is an end unto itself. And you're telling me that isn't how it is anymore?
TROI: That's right.

[Fox]

Poverty was eliminated on Earth a long time ago, and a lot of other things disappeared with it. Hopelessness, despair, cruelty.

There you go, now that was easy, wasn't it, because poverty is the cause of all those things, isn't it? And rich people are always happy, never despair and are never cruel... (Someone no doubt waved a magic wand to distribute all wealth and resources equally...)

I'm with the Long Descent crowd, and no I don't think greed, corruption, violence and war is going to disappear from the human landscape any time soon. If ever.

[Michael C. Page]

I would like to ask your opinions as to how (or if) it is be possible to reinvent human nature to provide a more sustainable world for all.

Blessings
Terry

I think that the world is already sustaining us all, but we silly humans just refuse to acknowledge it....and that leads to all sorts of problems, which we alone make for ourselves.

[treegod]

Before a new-world-order the old-world-order has to be seen to be useless, dysfunctional or too dangerous to carry on.

If the old-world-order is still useful, or at least appears useful, won't change. Thing still work, don't they? So why bother with a new-world-order when the same old same old works, right?

I believe that a new world order is not only possible, it is also very necessary. The old world order may have worked but now it's not IMHO. New qualities need to be developed, new ways of thinking (not just new thoughts), new ethics.

If a new world order is possible in one human being it is possible* in other human beings, so it's possible throughout the world.

*doesn't mean it will happen, but it is possible.

[Dysgwr]

I think that the world is already sustaining us all, but we silly humans just refuse to acknowledge it....and that leads to all sorts of problems, which we alone make for ourselves.

If a new world order is possible in one human being it is possible* in other human beings, so it's possible throughout the world.

Michael and treegod, you seem to have summed up my thoughts, but that still leaves me pondering on what would be the "detonator" (no pune intended) that would change the human collective conscuiousness

[treegod]

Michael and treegod, you seem to have summed up my thoughts, but that still leaves me pondering on what would be the "detonator" (no pune intended) that would change the human collective conscuiousness

Individual human consciousness.

Each individual makes the choice to change.

The more people that do this the easier it is for others to choose, exponentially. And the easier it is to sustain that choice too.

But it starts with it building blocks: you, me and t'other.

That's my 5c anyway.