Comments
fitzroy95 t1_j29qejz wrote
Problem 2: being able to discuss them honestly without being drowned out and silenced by propaganda and misinformation from the rich and powerful, who are far more interested in amassing more wealth and power than actually addressing any issues.
Padhome t1_j2d28m4 wrote
It's so strange to me, even with a fraction of their wealth they would still be living in the same quality of luxury. The only reason they want wealth is for its own sake, or they want absolute power, both of which are fundamentally evil, shortsighted, and inevitably self-destructive.
These are addicts, except the damage they cause is global.
Feline_Diabetes t1_j2d3byn wrote
Yeah it's weird isn't it.
I personally can't imagine caring about more money past a certain amount, but I think the process of becoming that wealthy weeds out people like us who don't want it enough.
Thus, the very richest are always, by a process of elimination, people for whom no amount is sufficient.
Or that's my theory anyway.
Padhome t1_j2d3gfx wrote
I just call it for what it is, an addiction. One who's victims are in the hundreds of millions if not billions, and they are the number one enemy to the world.
Sylvurphlame t1_j2dw3ec wrote
> I personally can’t imagine caring about more money past a certain amount, but I think the process of becoming that wealthy weeds out people like us who don’t want it enough.
I’ve known a couple guys who had way more money than you’d think, based on their apparent standard of living. Like, he had a nice car, but you don’t get the first hints until you realize his car has every last bell an whistle and then some custom stuff too.
And then you notice his suits when he’s not wearing random anime and band t-shirts… but you had to be paying attention. Nothing about his attitude or everyday demeanor screamed “independently wealthy for several lifetimes.”
So those people do exist, but yeah I think there’s some sort of critical moral inflection point that 99% of the ultra-rich fail along the way.
bildramer t1_j2d8gnv wrote
If you own 51% of a company, and that company ends up making billions, and the stock is then valued as such, the media will call you "billionaire" - but that money isn't real as long as you don't sell a fraction your ownership.
eric_trump_laptop03 t1_j2d5vrn wrote
No rich man ever got to where they are by being ethical. Sure some inherit the money, but do they really count?
Padhome t1_j2d9gm8 wrote
Just because you inherit wealth doesn't mean you aren't responsible for what you do with it. Take 99% of billionaires for example.
eric_trump_laptop03 t1_j2da2ou wrote
I guess the Koch Brothers and Walmart family factor into thiS
Padhome t1_j2da737 wrote
Along with many others
Sylvurphlame t1_j2duli1 wrote
> These are addicts, except the damage they cause is global.
That’s probably a pretty damn accurate assessment. At a certain point, the drive that some people have to “accomplish more” just become a drive to “have more.” There’s never a point that’s “enough.” It’s a vicious cycle
zjustice11 t1_j2digfk wrote
“ and I would trade it all, for just a little more” Monty Burns
[deleted] t1_j2dhzp7 wrote
[deleted]
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2a88wr wrote
It's not only the rich and powerful that are strong on propaganda and misinformation, though.
fitzroy95 t1_j2a9cvo wrote
agreed, however they are also the ones who own the media and platforms that enable others to push similar agenda.
and, in a number of nations, they own the politicians who are also pushing similar agenda
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2a9vcz wrote
The rich and powerful aren't a single bloc all pushing the same perspectives. That sounds a bit too much like conspiracy theories for my taste.
fitzroy95 t1_j2aavlm wrote
to an extent they are.
They tend to have a common interest in increasing their own wealth and power. How they choose to do those things certainly varies massively between them, however the common factors are that they have zero interest in helping the rest of the population, and will willingly kneecap public initiatives if they can't profit off it.
It doesn't need any kind of conspiracy, it just requires people with influence and greed who are manipulating society in their own interests, at the expense of everyone else
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2ac0y6 wrote
As I said elsewhere, capitalism requires a market. Making more and more people poor removes a significant proportion of that market. Bill Gates can't get rich unless people are buying computer software. Bezos can't get rich if people can't afford to use Amazon. Lower down the chain, Ronald McDonald needs people to buy burgers. And so on. It's far from obvious that the guys at the top don't care about us - they rely on us. Obviously there's a limit to how far they're willing to go, but it's not as black and white as you seem to suggest.
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2al1x7 wrote
This is what is commonly know as contradiction of capitalism (one of many). It’s actually one of the reasons why there are frequent “crises” in the market. These crises were explained in detail by anti capitalists over a century ago, and it was shown that they are actually very predictable. Capitalists don’t care.
Padhome t1_j2d2dqv wrote
It invariably promotes short-term goals over long-term viability. Basically, "I got mine so who cares?"
VitriolicViolet t1_j2fnk98 wrote
and? short term thinking plagues humanity, from election cycles to 70% people eating enough to be overweight to drug dealers killing their customers by cutting products (hell major corporation do it ffs, just slower)
these people are just humans in the end, they want more money tomorrow and so do their investors (not to mention half will be dead by the time it gets bad anyway).
they are not uniquely smart or skilled, every society in human history has had a class like this and every single time they have chosen short term profit (be that financial or power/control based) to the point of destroying the society they are in.
what is happening now is what happened to every major society in history, those with power have enough to run us into the ground trying to get more and so they will.
_Moregasmic_ t1_j2cctt3 wrote
It sounds too much like the iconic men in a dark room smoking cigars planning the demise of anything that stands between them and global domination, I agree... That said, I think that iconic picture is a tool to distract from the fact that the power structures of human civilization have always been inherently conspiratorial... Obviously there's not some single monolithic group conspiring, there are many different people vying for power, and they either work against each other, or together, depending on how they believe it will serve their own agenda best... But "conspiracy theories" is a term that was demonstrably created as a strategy to diminish dissent.
That_one_guy_u-know t1_j2cjjyd wrote
They don't need to all be working together. To bring it down to reality a bit, companies in the US need to be solely dedicated to their shareholders. ->Lobbying is a thing and companies engage in it because it helps them make more money than it costs them. Ladida companies give the government a cut for permission to make more money off of the general population.
Then take this to every other industry. Some of the big ones being Food, Pharma, and Tech. 0 conspiracy theories in this
VitriolicViolet t1_j2fn638 wrote
class solidarity.
no conspiracy needed at all. like how most people on welfare vote for higher payments and most of the middle class vote for tax cuts most of the wealthy 'donate' to both parties for favorable treatment (where do you think Trump got his billion or Biden got his 950 million for their respective campaigns?)
taken in aggregate it means that as a class the wealthy do indeed form what is effectively a single bloc on certain issues ie lower taxes, more corporate rights and power, more subsidies, access to captive markets like healthcare, energy, housing etc.
the easiest way to make more money as a billionaire is not innovation or invention its bribing both parties for favorable treatment (its why the list of the people who own 50% of global wealth gets shorter every year, they fight each other but they tag-team the people).
there is no conspiracy, these people are not friends or a cabal they just have massive power and influence and at that level the easiest ways to get more happen to be pretty much the same.
smurficus103 t1_j2b2ky8 wrote
Single most important issue is energy production. We need more powa and we need to not kill what's left of the natural world.
With boundless energy, you could do silly shit, like farm underground with temperature and humidity control
ShalmaneserIII t1_j2bi3qm wrote
Iirc, you can track a civilization pretty well just by measuring the amount of power available to it. We have the modern world because we've been able to heavily use fossil fuels since the 1830s or so.
Without those, or a replacement, everybody goes back to raising horses and plowing a lot.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2b327x wrote
I presume you're aware that not everyone will agree with you on this.
smurficus103 t1_j2b3jsy wrote
Then the tribe wars have begun
Erlian t1_j2crib3 wrote
Yeah I already think we're using too much power senselessly. I think power should be more expensive in a tiered fashion, and especially when it gets expensive in realtime. Wanna blast your AC in your entire 10,000sqft mansion in LA when it's 108F out and people are dying? The cost of that should accelerate, and go towards heat shelters, climate remediation, carbon taxes, projects to eliminate/ reduce effects of urban heat islands. That way maybe people will start to feel more of a hole in their wallet and only cool the 2-3 rooms they're using and shut off the rest of the house on days like those..
I think gas should cost more, the more of it you use. Wanna own a big truck you don't even need for actual work / hauling, a van, an ATV, etc? OK, gas costs more the more of it you use beyond what the typical person needs.
Wanna guzzle 80% of the limited supply of fresh water your community uses, so you can farm cash crops, then blame the public and tell them to let their lawns die / have to ask for water at a restaurant, which maybe contributes 2% at best? OK sure, just make sure that whatever you're doing is actually worth all the resources you're using, and give it back to the community.. wait, it's not worth it and the costs are untenable at competitive market rates for fresh water? Ok then, maybe stop growing so much alfalfa in a goddamn desert.
Wanna eat steak and beef burger for dinner every single night, even though that meat has drastic environmental impact in terms of water, land, and energy use? Sure thing, it will just cost you twice as much, compounding, per night of the week you eat it, and the tax money will go towards water remediation, carbon offsets, etc.
I think the expectation that everyone gets a single family home and yard etc within commuting distance to work, parking space etc is untenable. We need public housing that is affordable, yet efficient and comfortable (not much for low income folks), with mass transit nearby. We need to redline the NIMBY homeowners and pave the way for a future where more people can have a better life instead of a handful of elites who happened to get some nice hand-me-downs dating back to when FDR carved out SFH zoning across all of America's cities.
We vastly overconsume as it is. More power will just beget more consumption and more inequality + inefficiency in the allocation of that power.
Does all that sound socialist / utilitarian? If yes, then good, bc that aligns with my personal philosophies.
smurficus103 t1_j2ctz30 wrote
Excellent points.
As far as making water and electricity cost moar, removing subsidies might go a long way.
I'm really hopeful we can produce more locally with 3d printing and solar panels and such. Re-use old panels and old EV batteries to drop off the grid as much as possible.
My orig point tho... we need more power. Power is light in the dark, heat in the winter, food, clean water, whatever people need.
But, you're absolutely right to be concerned with the distribution of that power... right now subsidies take from the average, while large corporations feast on that infrastructure
Mafinde t1_j2ctgtl wrote
I agree. We are way too accustomed to convenience at huge energy expense. Do not see that changing tho lol
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2cxp1y wrote
Perhaps worth mentioning how US-centric this response is to a world issue.
ShalmaneserIII t1_j2bhq1d wrote
When your problem is my solution and vice versa, this discussion is not going to go well.
Teddy_Icewater t1_j2cofuo wrote
Well that's easy, just ask reddit!
probability_of_meme t1_j29zed9 wrote
Not just agreement on which problems, but polar opposition on what is a problem and what isn't. I don't think it's completely surprising to imagine the wealthiest would see eliminating world hunger (in any humane way) as detrimental to their power and influence. They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.
coke_and_coffee t1_j2aawhh wrote
> They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.
This is reductive nonsense. You don’t need these kind of cynical conspiracy theories to explain why wealthy people want to keep their wealth. Ask yourself, why don’t you give all your wealth away to starving kids in Africa? It’s the same dynamic at play.
LinearOperator t1_j2buu2n wrote
This is more than a bit of a strawman. If I lose 99% of my wealth, I can't get to work, I can't have a roof over my head, and I go to join the starving because I won't be able to afford food. If we take away 99% of the wealth of a person with a single billion, they still have 10 million dollars. Think about it like this: if you made 100,000$ (which most people even in the US would consider a very good income) every year for 100 years (which would most probably cover the entire period of cradle to grave), that's 10 million dollars. That's what would be left if we took away 99% of the wealth of a person worth a single billion and there are well over 500 of these individuals in the US not to mention many who are worth tens or even HUNDREDS of billions. And these are the same people who fight tooth and nail any measure to increase taxes even the slightest. Thanks to "Citizens United", we have no idea how these people influence federal elections not to mention those like Rupert Murdock who own multinational media empires.
I don't think the rich want "starving people" around. But I'm sure they want anyone outside of their influence to have as little power as possible and people who are worried about things like food and shelter have far fewer resources to oppose them.
coke_and_coffee t1_j2c7g0r wrote
I’m sure you can afford $1 a day to keep a starving kid alive. Yet I’m pretty sure you don’t do that…
PaxNova t1_j2b1yxg wrote
They might give more away if it didn't entail giving away control of their company.
probability_of_meme t1_j2avbbe wrote
> It’s the same dynamic at play.
talk about reductive nonsense
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2a84jx wrote
A bit simplistic. If someone or some corporation gets rich through (for instance) selling fried chicken, they're gonna want as many people as possible to have enough money to buy their product. Starving people don't drive capitalism forward.
EldritchAnimation t1_j2b1cpi wrote
>They know very well they're better off with lots of starving people around.
How, precisely, is this the case?
StarKiller2626 t1_j2aybno wrote
That's literally the opposite of the truth. Starving people I'm just gonna say Africa for ease of analogy would be a huge market. Provide them with food and you're several billions of dollars per year richer. The problem is to provide them with food you have to make the nation's they're in safe enough, and stop the corruption to allow it to work. Which would require military intervention or insane politicking. You'd also have to make them wealthy enough to buy the food because otherwise it's just slave labor because someone has to be paid for all the work producing it which would also require dealing with the local corruption and violence.
Bottom line corporations would LOVE if everyone was well fed, well off and could buy whatever they wanted. Because it all goes into their pockets. But local govts make that practically impossible. Govts like people hungry, poor and unsecured. Because those people rely on the govts kindness and help just to survive which gives them power. Politicians are the enemy of progress, not business owners.
Amaranth_devil t1_j2d3nsl wrote
No, that's problem 2, problem 1 is 'Greed'.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j2d5vmd wrote
..proving my point.
Amaranth_devil t1_j2d8um3 wrote
Irony is not lost
The59Sownd t1_j292osj wrote
Rising above our tribal instincts? I feel like we were moving in that direction, now we seem to be doubling down on these instincts.
Zolomite44 t1_j296g4r wrote
Humans definitely have the "my team vs your team" mentality. Studies show that having a rival or hatred towards another group (political party, sports team, etc) it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain one would have when they achieve something purposeful in their lives.
So basically people have a slight feeling of fulfillment whenever they get to lash out or take jabs at their "opponent" so to speak. Kind of a wild phenomena, actually somewhat explains the hostility of the internet even since the 90s, we can feel satisfied telling our "enemies" they suck while never facing physical repercussions of getting punched in the mouth.
Also dig the username, Gaslight Anthem?
The59Sownd t1_j298t3q wrote
Makes complete sense, and as you said, the invention of the internet has absolutely exposed this part of human nature, perhaps more than ever before.
You got it! New album next year. Super psyched!
JugDogDaddy t1_j2bsrr2 wrote
Absolutely, we are hard wired to create in groups and out groups. It’s just herd mentality as part of being a mammal, so it’s a very old (on the evolutionary timeline) and deeply rooted part of being human. The sense of fulfillment really comes from feeling a part of a group that is better than another group in some way. Makes sense evolutionarily but it’s difficult to bypass in modern times when it’s no longer necessary to survive.
VitriolicViolet t1_j2fo9vh wrote
>Humans definitely have the "my team vs your team" mentality. Studies show that having a rival or hatred towards another group (political party, sports team, etc) it actually stimulates the same parts of the brain one would have when they achieve something purposeful in their lives.
urgh i have noticed this.
try pointing out that on economic issues both parties in most western nations are near-identical (pro-corporate neo-liberals) and you see it immediately.
Wedge38 t1_j2a547t wrote
It's the problem of scarcity IMO. The human brain isn't built to compute the scale of our world. We've built an economic model not designed to handle shocks to the system due to people over buying resources out of fear.
The59Sownd t1_j2ben3k wrote
Our brains are designed to work effectively for 20,000 years ago. It has been unable to keep up with what we've created.
Stokkolm t1_j2bgdin wrote
It's paradoxical how people look down on tribalism as some primitive mindset that we should get rid of, but at the same time they value highly democracy and freedom of opinion.
The whole point of democracy is that we can't have a sole political stance that everyone agrees on, it's inevitable that different groups will form each with it's own opinion on which is the optimal path forward for society.
LinearOperator t1_j2bqxmr wrote
A fundamental idea in Democracy is that in any decision process, opposing viewpoints should be argued and the decision makers (voters) ultimately make their decisions based on the relative merits of the arguments as well as their personal interests and values. This isn't (necessarily) the same thing as tribalism. In tribalism, the decision process is short circuited so that arguments, value systems, and even one's own self-interest aren't taken into consideration. After a decision-maker has aligned themselves with a particular tribe, the arguments and relative merits of policies may no longer be looked at because they just care that whatever positions "their" tribe has made "win". In fact, they may not have any notion of how their tribe even came to their decision in the first place or any idea how that decision will ultimately effect them.
dysfunctus t1_j2bz76z wrote
Very well stated and helpful contrast. This sentence is sooo good:
" In tribalism, the decision process is short circuited so that arguments, value systems, and even one's own self-interest aren't taken into consideration."
The price of tribal membership is steep indeed.
coachfortner t1_j2bqkng wrote
Having differing political views does not mean that tribalism has a place in the government. Though I absolutely agree with the necessity of a plethora of viewpoints & societal practices to have a healthy democracy, that should not infer sociopathic partisanship has a role in those discussions. In the States, one particular sect (mostly, Republicans) believes denigrating your opposition while making wild and atrocious unsubstantiated claims is now normal behavior.
The fact this picture & this illustration exist while actively reflecting a significant portion of the electorate’s perspective of those they label “liberals” (US Democrats are not politically liberal with respect to European politics). When you consider a foreign government as corrupt & bereft of integrity as Putin’s Russian Federation to be better company than your own countrymen, you have passed the threshold of tolerance and factionalism.
VitriolicViolet t1_j2foiwx wrote
>he whole point of democracy is that we can't have a sole political stance that everyone agrees on, it's inevitable that different groups will form each with it's own opinion on which is the optimal path forward for society.
tell that to people who support one of the majors.
from what ive seen Democracy seems to devolve into 2 barely different parties who do everything they can to prevent other parties from ever gaining power and their supporters are rabid and believe anyone who opposes their party is the enemy.
its why ive never had a 'side' none of them represent me or even close to it (i have no interest in social issues, want poverty eradicated by redistributing wealth via a return to keynesianism and the eventual replacement of the current capitalist model with something new not something as old as electricty. too bad none of those are a priority for anyone)
Just-Call-7362 t1_j2bjrdr wrote
We now live in a world of endless technlogical miracles, and the result is greater amounts of the population retreating into magical conspiratorial thinking and religious delusion. Truly disappointing.
wandering_white_hat t1_j29qgcl wrote
Sometimes things have to get worse before they get better. Hope that is the case now.
SuperSaiyan2589 t1_j2bdb8z wrote
I’d say it refers to our evolutionary instinct
postart777 t1_j29ct6e wrote
The tiny tribe of 2,666 billionaires override any good faith intentions of all the rest of us.
xStayCurious t1_j2a0r54 wrote
Very true, not sure why you got downvoted. Someone must have misunderstood you
MysticalMagicorn t1_j2a2123 wrote
Time to feast
PSlanez t1_j29jgnq wrote
Most people look towards billionaire entrepreneurs to lead us to solving the worlds problems when their very existence is the biggest problem itself
ZeroFries t1_j29xoex wrote
If a genie offered me the choice between eradicating all billionaires, and curing all disease, I know which I'd choose.
bildramer t1_j2d8p0p wrote
Curing all disease, because you're not an incomprehensibly evil moral monster, right? Or at least, you'd spend at least one hour, or perhaps ten minutes, looking up the wikipedia article on what a billionaire is. Right?
PSlanez t1_j2a7417 wrote
Curing all disease would likely result in the extinction of 99% of life on earth due to over population. So obviously the first option is better. Plus if the money is fairly distributed, the economy would begin thriving again
[deleted] t1_j2afzsv wrote
[removed]
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2ar7qf wrote
The characterization of “tribal instincts” as being antisocial is an extremely biased starting point. Hundreds of thousands of native tribes all over the earth lived just fine with each for most of human history. Human beings with different social grouping of a wide diversity can live just fine with each other. The social and economic constructs that portray “tribalism” as strictly antisocial are also the main causes behind the major problems we want to overcome. To put it clearly, the issue is not tribalism; it’s capitalism, colonialism, and the state.
AureaLumia t1_j2b8hwd wrote
I completely agree. Even just the profit motive is a more definable, more accurate, and more broadly applicable problem than “tribalism.” Native Americans weren’t harmed by tribalism, they were harmed by bourgeoise property owners who employed racism/colonialism to secure wealth and political power. The systems of capitalism, colonialism and racism that Are the modern state are what’s to blame here.
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2bm51p wrote
I’m glad you understand what I was trying to say! Not just that it’s offensive language, but that it’s a flawed concept. I can be in one tribe and you can be in another, and there is nothing about this “instinct” of close community that says you or I will not help each other’s tribes when the other is in need, that it must always mean conflict and greed. It’s just as likely, or more likely without capitalism, that one tribe would help to feed another. This idea of a negative kind of “tribalism” being the true human nature is pure propaganda.
redditaccount003 t1_j2bm6y3 wrote
Precolonial societies weren’t exactly peaceful, though. They had ethnic conflicts, wars, and massacres just like everyone else. There were even empires like the Aztecs.
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2bn8z5 wrote
That’s missing the point. I wasn’t just speaking on pre-colonial peoples, but on all human beings. The point is not that pre-colonial peoples lived in some kind of utopia where there was no conflict. The point is that two different groups of close knit communities are, in reality, just as likely to help each other than to engage in conflict. This negative idea of “tribalism” is just another way of phrasing the “human nature” argument which is literally just capitalist colonialist propaganda.
VitriolicViolet t1_j2fposa wrote
this, cant have people realise its a lack of being willing to share thats the problem, its different people!
the promotion of hyper-individualism is the entire problem here, that only you matter and the rest are just in your lifes way as obstacles to overcome or use.
the fact that you are heavily encouraged to screw over pretty much anyone in your path and minimize any and all social and financial obligations coupled with media worship of the people that do is destroying us.
Grizzleyt t1_j2bnzxr wrote
Agreed. "Tribal Instincts" seems like an obfuscating term at best to refer to global human systems that are not only social but political and economic as well.
If only people, communities, companies, and countries would stop pursuing their own self-interests all at once! If the was fundamentally different than it is, and we all behaved differently, we could achieve a different outcome. Gee, what a concept.
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2bq95c wrote
If I put ten people in a room with only enough food for eight people to survive, and forced them to fight over it, meanwhile I am sitting there with enough food to feed everyone on earth, claiming it as my “private property” which I control, then you would have to be some kind of an asshole to believe that this situation really portrays the same universal “self-interests” of everyone involved.
And there are very certain things the ten people in the room can do to change the outcome of this situation, but they don’t end well for me who is hoarding the wealth.
VitriolicViolet t1_j2fq10a wrote
its a shame that in a such a small scale scenario the problem would never even develop (gonna have a hell of a time convincing those 10 people that you somehow dont have all the food once they all start talking) yet once you hit a large enough population you have enough abstraction that the man with 90% of everything can just convince half the population that other half have taken it all.
people decry China's media as being controlled and dominated but how is US media being owned by 3 people who are wealthier than entire nations any better?
SabotageGoodActually t1_j2fs1mq wrote
100% that’s exactly what private ownership is, an abstraction. What does it mean to own something? How can someone claim to own the land, or the food that grows on the land, or the things that were made by someone else’s labor? People in our society are raised to take these questions for granted, like the laws of physics, when in reality it is just an ideology.
OpeningOnion7248 t1_j2978ly wrote
I forgot who said this, it might have been Wilson, I’m paraphrasing: we have primitive and reptilian emotional states; Medieval institutions; and god-like high tech like travel to Mars and science shit we can’t comprehend.
And yet we coalesce into tribes to solve problems.
Dezzillion t1_j2au7qr wrote
It is impossible to live in a post scarcity society with capitalism, because it requires growth.
We could have had a fully post scarcity society in the 1880s.
PaxNova t1_j2b3e0h wrote
Citation needed?
didntstopgotitgotit t1_j2d5kgw wrote
One of the biggest problems in the world is the bias civilization dwellers have against "tribal instincts". Maybe if we followed our tribal instincts a little closer and created tightly knit small social structures we wouldn't have all the problems that we have, which in my mind are the results of the unnatural character of civilization. Our tribal instincts worked well to preserve us and our mental health for hundreds of thousands of years, but when they do not comport to the demands of civilization, it's our tribal instincts that are the root of our problem?
FaufiffonFec t1_j29zj1l wrote
> so long as we can rise above our tribal instincts
So. We don't have all the resources we need to solve the world's greatest problems then.
Gawkhimm t1_j2acltx wrote
so whats the priority, who gets to determine resource allocation, and which population group benefits and suffers?.
Its also a matter of trust in intentional institutions, transparency, corruption and corporate influence.
Alexstarfire t1_j2aytxw wrote
We haven't done that in our entire existence. It's not going to suddenly happen in my lifetime.
gaius49 t1_j2bd0s0 wrote
If people were fundamentally different, and agreed on truth construction frameworks, and aligned on core values, then there would be far less disagreement and conflict.
CulHndLuke99 t1_j2c0v7z wrote
They mean, so long as we are wiling to enslave ourselves to others.
Teddy_Icewater t1_j2coef2 wrote
The same has been true throughout history.
didntstopgotitgotit t1_j2d64sp wrote
But interestingly, not pre-history (pre-civilization).
MsGump t1_j2dotpf wrote
Problem 1: organized religion Problem 2: People not being able to admit they are wrong or made an error and can’t get over themselves.
distortionwarrior t1_j2e3p8z wrote
Problem 3: Thinking that because there is a problem, it must be fixed. What is a problem for one is a solution for another, and the bold who take action will be better off than their inactive counterparts.
rushmc1 t1_j29lqoa wrote
But do we have the resources to rise above our tribal instincts?
321-Blast_Off t1_j29qu5k wrote
There is only one tribal side that won't make nice because the other tribe is supposed to be a danger to them. I will say many of the issues can be fixed by science. But things like global warming aren't as cut and dry as people want to believe. The best thing we can do to reduce global warming is to raise up the global poverty rate significantly to where people everywhere live better lives.
Titouan_Charles t1_j29ys74 wrote
This isn't really true of Humans as is the individuals, but ideally Humans as the brain of brains, the entity composed of the people that has it's own volition. And that I don't think we can fundamentally change in any meaningful way.
BernardJOrtcutt t1_j2a09q1 wrote
Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:
> Read the Post Before You Reply
> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
Alphamoonman t1_j2a49ha wrote
You'd be surprised what people can do when they come together and just do something. I say you'd be surprised because it's utterly uncommon near-completely to find nowadays. That's what makes psychology so interesting; you begin to understand the behind-the-scenes of the human condition of each and every walk of life. You know why something does or doesn't happen, and you know why it will continue to happen or not happen.
While nobody likes the idea of being slave to their instincts as we put a lot of money on independence and uniqueness, denial of that fact, and the comfort such denial provides, is ironically an instinct many humans immediately default to. Another irony is that the faulty humans known often as misanthropes are the best at getting past their instincts, and not enjoying seeing human instincts and their detrimental effects on societal outcome from outside the box of influence.
[deleted] t1_j2aj5zn wrote
[removed]
Strottl0n t1_j2aybw9 wrote
As a mankind we always had only two main goal to which we should always focus on. To improve and survive improvement. We weren't born to send rockets to each other's but to send 'em all together in the abyss of cosmic void. If we couldn't been able to manage that thought we'd never be able to reach for the stars
gentlemannosh t1_j2blvuy wrote
There seems to be some hard limit on co-operation.
It’s easy to find a team of 10 that all co-operate. You can even have a team of a couple of hundred co-operate to say… build software. You can even have a team of a couple of thousand get together to build aircraft.
But once you get above that number, it seems that humans cannot agree on an outcome and co-operate.
It breaks down at the lower level with violent crime and antisocial actions, and it breaks down at the top levels with corruption and massive greed.
MetaJonez t1_j2bpwfl wrote
Wouldn't that make our inability to rise above tribal instincts our 'greatest problem'?
cre8ivjay t1_j2bzexk wrote
It's more than tribal instincts. It's the rich getting a whole lot richer and not wanting to do anything to change that (and having the power to control it).
Lahm0123 t1_j2c2civ wrote
I don’t think humanity will ever unite.
If there are no natural enemies, we create them from ourselves.
It’s how we are wired. Maybe it will change someday but I doubt it.
frogandbanjo t1_j2c41xs wrote
I suppose you might characterize the empathy deficit as the other side of that same coin. If so, then sure, that's a strong candidate to place at or near the very top of the pile. Unfortunately, the solution becomes even harder to discuss once you add said other side of that coin to the mix. How do you craft a sustainable substitute to literally feeling the pain of eight billion people, all at once, all the time, such that you genuinely care about what happens to them?
The other missing piece of the puzzle is an intellectual deficit. Humans are very bad at dealing with anything that's much bigger or much smaller than they are in part because they have trouble intellectually grasping it. That includes timespans that aren't even necessarily longer than a single human life. We also don't deal well with proper risk analysis for probabilistic harms on large scales, which may or may not be part of that same issue.
Provincialism in the broadest sense, then? Locality bias? Collectively, we have achieved so much that we've blown past our individual capabilities. Does that mean that, in some perverse sense, it was actually cooperation that killed us?
[deleted] t1_j2cjhcs wrote
[deleted]
TrekRelic1701 t1_j2cprnj wrote
Good luck with all that
Awildnoraappears t1_j2cra1k wrote
Definitely going to watch this but my thoughts on the title and first few minutes: It seems so idealistic. Unless we reach a point where AI rules our civilizations, tribalism is embedded into our very core. However, I do tend to take a more cynical approach to my views of human nature. Maybe I am wrong. Definitely giving this a watch. Thank you for sharing.
jb4bertram t1_j2csduu wrote
The problem is that when it comes down to it we are all guilty and none of us will stop. Just check the horrors in the Congo with Cobalt mining…none of us are going to stop using mobile phones or driving electric vehicles.
ceelogreenicanth t1_j2cueyo wrote
As long as systems of power aren't the prevailing structure of society... Good luck buddy
didntstopgotitgotit t1_j2d6f5y wrote
I have a working hypothesis that civilization increases the alleles in the human population that are factors in the development of sociopathy and psychopathy in individuals, and tribal societies attenuate such alleles.
If I'm right then it's the abandonment of tribalism that is at the root of our problems, the exact opposite of the assertion of the OP.
[deleted] t1_j2dfnfu wrote
[removed]
rafikievergreen t1_j2diorj wrote
Lol. "Tribal instincts" aka Corporate Capitalism
browntown84 t1_j2do71m wrote
Anarchism had the answer.
DestruXion1 t1_j2dsvmw wrote
I'm pretty sure imperialism and neoliberalism caused most of our modern problems, not "tribal instincts."
TheUnweeber t1_j2du1rx wrote
Read: rise above the tendency to control the government and law to reflect your version of 'right', and settle for the bits that are either universally agreeable. Then work with others to provide the services you wish to see in the world, without forcing them down others' throats.
natural_bk t1_j2f1trn wrote
I think it's exactly our departure from our tribal instincts that's causing a majority of our issues
fluxxom t1_j2f9jzk wrote
This title does a couple things that irk me.. It seems to lay at our feet that tribalism is something automatically negative and that it is somehow our greatest obstacle... as though the training wheels that we've used throughout history and evolution are somehow the only thing holding us back from solving all of our problems. Tribalism, if you like, is a kind of team-work. Our greatest danger, i would say, is our tendency to believe anything that is palatable and upholds what we already believe.
54_actual t1_j299x1t wrote
i doubt we can loose the bonds of our instincts, which have been with us since we drew on cave walls. we're tribal, territorial and aggressive by nature. men are unfaithful because they're meant to "go forth and multiply", to spread their dna far and wide, to propagate the species. societal demands such as marriage and fidelity go against our genetic grain.
we've been at war since forever, we're our own worst enemy. yes, we can solve the problems of the world, and yet, we can't.
IAI_Admin OP t1_j290l41 wrote
Human rights activist Peter Tatchell examines the tribal nature of morality, with barrister and founder of Effective Giving UK Natalie Cargill, and political theorist David Miller. The panel unpick the binaries of tribal vs. universal morality, and moral psychology vs. ethics, to put forward their understanding of where society is at the moment, and what scope there is for social progress through better employment of our moral sense.
whodo-i-thinkiam t1_j291zzs wrote
What is "universal morality?"
PHONES_RODIA t1_j29jqlx wrote
Another tribe's values.
AllanfromWales1 t1_j298oyu wrote
Problem 1: Agreeing what the 'world's greatest problems' are.