HikerGuy83
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2021
- Messages
- 7,279
- Reaction score
- 2,934
- Location
- Arizona
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Society exists to allow human cooperation, which is the reason we aren't living in caves and wondering if the bison will show up this season.
As far as I'm concerned the goal of a society is to protect it's women and children. Men are expendable. A large nation can lose hundreds of thousands of men in a war but the society goes on.
Women are pregnant for 9 months. For the final trimester they must be careful and guarded. Once the child is born it can't care for itself for over a decade. The investment of a society in its women and children is huge. Protect the women and children and the society continues. Put women and children are in harm's way and the society dissipates.
I mean, a "society" is just an inevitable byproduct of us being a social species. A society is pretty much any social relation, even between a very small number of individuals. Say, a small tribe would still constitute a society. As to what the goals of society should be; one would hope the prime axiomatic goal would be the betterment of that society. People will obviously disagree about what makes a society better, but fundamentally that should be the main focus.
From starvation, at least... alimony and state support institutions, etc. exist in most countries of the world.But..protect them from what ?
You’d think so, but that’s generally not the case.My contention is that if you can get agreement on objectives (i.e. what society should exist for....the hows are pretty easy).
Recognizing the fact that the human species is not "A" society, but a great many societies,...
The primary goal of a society is its' survival.
It is groups of people or more correctly groups of human communities living together due to circumstance or choice and attempting to do so to some sort of end.
What should be the goals of a society? That depends on the society of which you are a part and your willingness to make the effort to change that society in order to nudge it in certain directions which you feel it needs to go.
This is a great philosophical discussion and a topic that will bring a thousand different opinions. Society is not an entity. It is a collection of humans living on a section of land and its rules and laws are based on protecting their "society" from being extinguished as the primary evolutionary mandate. Some societies have failed and succeeded over the centuries in surviving. Those that have survived have people in power that game the societal system so that they can gain power and money with the idea that themselves and their family and friends will live longer and more prosperous. This is happening in the United States right now with the politicians becoming extremely wealthy and powerful in office through insider trading and being able to wield their power to get bribes and favors called campaign donations. We really haven't graduated from centuries ago when warlords had the power to torture and kill their opponents. We just call those entities the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and Presidents.Societie’s exist for a reason. It would seem we’ve forgotten what it is we are about.
As I listen to the extreme language of today, I have to wonder how people living the same communities can see the world so differently. A host of other questions comes to mind just about everytime I see two people on TV or the internet throwing verbal jabs and uppercuts at each other in an effort to somehow make a case for whatever their cause is. Often by degrading the opposing point of view.
I see this same adversarial approach amongst the various members of society in their day-to-day conversation.
In all this, I keep trying to draw out the answer to a question I don’t believe we ask or address near enough. What are our collective goals as a society.
Now, the converstion quickly turns to “What constitutes a society” ?
One definition is:
A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same spatial or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
Which raises interesting questions about how we talk about our goals.
I believe that a discussion of those goals will engender a discussion around where they apply (i.e. a county law vs. a state law) and what other norms can be expected to be honored.
Far to often, issues are discussed in a vacuum.
What are your thoughts on what is a society what are it's (specific group's) goals and objectives.
I want to discuss this, but I'd also like to challenge some of the thought to ensure whatever is being discussed is it workable or even optimal.
Such an example might be healthcare at the national level.
Another vein might be the way we yell at each other and how that renders so many things unworkable.
And yet another might be the place of the extremist's (the loudest) voices and how they play into the conversation.
Looking forward to a "Lofty" discussion.
There's a lot to unpack in your post, and much of it is simply wrong, but if there's something we can probably agree on, it is that we have to take the money out of our politics. In this point alone, the right, the left, and the center should find common ground.This is a great philosophical discussion and a topic that will bring a thousand different opinions. Society is not an entity. It is a collection of humans living on a section of land and its rules and laws are based on protecting their "society" from being extinguished as the primary evolutionary mandate. Some societies have failed and succeeded over the centuries in surviving. Those that have survived have people in power that game the societal system so that they can gain power and money with the idea that themselves and their family and friends will live longer and more prosperous. This is happening in the United States right now with the politicians becoming extremely wealthy and powerful in office through insider trading and being able to wield their power to get bribes and favors called campaign donations. We really haven't graduated from centuries ago when warlords had the power to torture and kill their opponents. We just call those entities the DOJ, FBI, CIA, and Presidents.
You mentioned free healthcare as being important. We used to have "county" or state medical for those who didn't work. Now, many humans are clamoring for everyone and anyone to be treated for free for whatever it is they want. If more members of society are convinced this is a good thing it will be mandated and at a tremendous cost and the government will have to ration healthcare and get doctors who accept less pay and they will be from other countries. Soon, medical care will be a shell of its former self.
Society should be where people have to struggle and suffer pain in order to get what they want. Society should have people in office who are there for the public good only and no campaign contributions from any corporations, unions, or lobbyists. Society should encourage personal responsibility as the best means for the individual to prosper. Society should harshly punish those that harm others physically, mentally, or financially and give the swift death penalty to anyone that intentionally takes another's life. America has lost its way. It used to be as I described. Unfortunately, I see the demise of America in the next 30-50 years. We cannot take on the world population and make everything "OK" for them. We must let the countries the other societies live in correct their own misdeeds instead of taking them in because when we do, there is no penalty for those countries and they continue their ruthless oppressions of their own societies.
It is a given that a staunch conservative and Progressive would disagree on many things and that is why your thread is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. The primary question is what system of government is best for humans. I submit one that severely punishes criminals and rewards the achievers is the best for flourishing humanity. I submit that a progressive is just the opposite and given time a society that does not do this will perish. To debate those issues would be like debating religion and whether or not a "god' exists. IOW, questions that those on opposite ends of the spectrum will never agree on.There's a lot to unpack in your post, and much of it is simply wrong, but if there's something we can probably agree on, it is that we have to take the money out of our politics. In this point alone, the right, the left, and the center should find common ground.
I'll be happy to revisit this later - perhaps even today - when I have more time to rebut it. But for the time being, I'm happy acknowledge that you seem to also be in favor of taking money out of our politics, and if that's true, then we can certainly agree on that point.It is a given that a staunch conservative and Progressive would disagree on many things and that is why your thread is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else. The primary question is what system of government is best for humans. I submit one that severely punishes criminals and rewards the achievers is the best for flourishing humanity. I submit that a progressive is just the opposite and given time a society that does not do this will perish. To debate those issues would be like debating religion and whether or not a "god' exists. IOW, questions that those on opposite ends of the spectrum will never agree on.
Yes. A discussion of what type of government is best for the full flourishing of humanity would be a great debate with those who do not get upset over disagreements and do not allow their emotions to get in the way. regarding taking the money out of politics, one of the worst SC decisions ever was that corporations were citizens of the United States. You don't see either side rushing for a constitutional amendment because both sides loved that decision.I'll be happy to revisit this later - perhaps even today - when I have more time to rebut it. But for the time being, I'm happy acknowledge that you seem to also be in favor of taking money out of our politics, and if that's true, then we can certainly agree on that point.
Any "goals" you can think of ?
Human cooperation can take many forms.
Just wondering if you had any thoughts on what goals you think we should have (i.e. universal health care) ?
Bingo! Synergy.Society exists to allow human cooperation, which is the reason we aren't living in caves and wondering if the bison will show up this season.
Societie’s exist for a reason. It would seem we’ve forgotten what it is we are about.
As I listen to the extreme language of today, I have to wonder how people living the same communities can see the world so differently. A host of other questions comes to mind just about everytime I see two people on TV or the internet throwing verbal jabs and uppercuts at each other in an effort to somehow make a case for whatever their cause is. Often by degrading the opposing point of view.
I see this same adversarial approach amongst the various members of society in their day-to-day conversation.
In all this, I keep trying to draw out the answer to a question I don’t believe we ask or address near enough. What are our collective goals as a society.
Now, the converstion quickly turns to “What constitutes a society” ?
One definition is:
A society is a group of individuals involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social group sharing the same spatial or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations.
Which raises interesting questions about how we talk about our goals.
I believe that a discussion of those goals will engender a discussion around where they apply (i.e. a county law vs. a state law) and what other norms can be expected to be honored.
Far to often, issues are discussed in a vacuum.
What are your thoughts on what is a society what are it's (specific group's) goals and objectives.
I want to discuss this, but I'd also like to challenge some of the thought to ensure whatever is being discussed is it workable or even optimal.
Such an example might be healthcare at the national level.
Another vein might be the way we yell at each other and how that renders so many things unworkable.
And yet another might be the place of the extremist's (the loudest) voices and how they play into the conversation.
Looking forward to a "Lofty" discussion.
@Hamish HowlBingo! Synergy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?