>society is a joke >that'll never change because it's too easy for people to be selfish >it's impossible to become rich without taking advantage of others (usually the poor) >if you don't, others will do that to you to get themselves richer >you can't be a good person because people will take advantage of you >you can't be a bad person because you'll go to prison >or you'll at least be ostracised by people, or maybe even both >everyone's more focused on attaining money, rather than attaining the things that they would want to buy with that money >nobody can see that money is just a means of making people do work and feel like they're getting some for it >even the governments themselves are caught up in this
>but, it's still not money that makes the world go around >it's the work that people do for money that makes the world go around >money acts as a leveled playing-field for people to exchange goods and services >this creates a view that you shouldn't do something unless you're being paid for it >everyone wants an immediate pay-off for their work. They want it to be direct and instant >they can't just, for example, go help their neighbour change their car's flat-tyre so they aren't late to work, and help them for free >if more people were willing to do more work for free, more work would be getting done in society >more work being done means that public facilities and commercial workplaces could run more efficiently >this would mean that businesses could justify selling their goods and services for cheaper, and attract more customers at the same time >the businesses that refused to lower their prices would be forced to, in order to compete with the ones that did >gradually, it would all level out, but there would be a net decrease in the cost of goods and services >eventually, everything, or at least most things, would become cheaper >then everyone would win
But that'll never happen, because people are too impatient to not want an instant reward for their work.
This doesn't just apply to New Zealand. It applies to a lot of countries really.
>nigga being good and being gullible is not the same thing you know that right Here user. Have this story.
>be me a few years ago >driving in my car in middle of nowhere at night >see another car parked on side of road >car is on a jack so I guessed they had a flat tyre >I knew I had a spare in the trunk, and enough money to just go buy another >pull over and get out of my car >get spare tyre out of trunk >start walking towards their car carrying spare >hear noise behind me >before I can turn around something hits me in the back of my head >suddenly wake up on ground >realise I'd been knocked out >mfw they raided my car and took all my valuables >mfw was probably a trap and they probably weren't even actually broken down >mfw was just trying to help
You don't have to be gullible to be taken advantage of.
Yeah but no offence, you were kinda gullible. Going to talk to the guys before getting a whole tire out of the car is common sense
Carter Myers
well yeah that sucks but you can't let one anecdote rule your life that's retarded I've lived on both sides of the looking glass and honestly when it comes down to it I'd rather keep doing all the minor good shit I do and fuck up once in a while rather than do nothing at all Look at it this way: even if bad shit happens to you, nobody will remember once you're dead. If you never do any good shit, or you only do good shit for yourself, nobody will remember either. The only thing to really leave behind is the good shit you do for other people
What happened to bad people being ostracised or imprisoned? Wouldn't that take away the problem of people using force to obtain something instead of coercion
Aiden Turner
That's just what happens when good people run into bad people. It's why you don't readily see more people like yourself: they're just being cautious. They certainly exist, but they know they need to be careful because you can't trust just anybody.
But real talk tho. What you say is wrong for two main reasons.
The first is that people are more than willing to give free benefits and help others. Doing favors is a very common thing. But do you know where your reasoning is wrong? Scale. You seem to consider that this tendency happens no matter what, no matter the scale of the social structure, be it a family, a group of friends, or an entire country. And this is where things go haywire for your idea: people only do favors if there is a certain probability, or more likely, a certainty they will be paid back eventually. However, such promises cannot be held if you are outside of a certain social range of a person: if it is a person you just met, the likelihood of them paying you back are very slim, because you share too few social links.
Which brings me to my second point: the world may have changed a lot since the early days of humanity, but our mentality has not. Think of a tribe of a couple dozen people: these people have to live together in harmony, or the whole group risks of falling apart. In this context, rubbing someone off by not paying back a favor will permanently damage your relations with that person, and by proxy, the entire tribe. So you will be less likely to receive favors on the other hand. So you don't act like a cunt. And people don't act like a cunt to you for the same reasons. But this is only true within the confines of the tribe: if someone from another tribe comes in, you have no certainty you'll ever see him again, so even if you do act like a cunt, the repercussions are much lower. The same process happens today. Only now the tribe has become your family and your friends, those which who you share lots of time. Your boss, the random Joe on the street, and no one else in effect, is a part of your tribe. So they have no repercussions to act like a cunt. This is the reason why we have money: favors are not enough, and we demand immediate compensation so as not to get rubbed off.
Josiah Morris
>You forget that humans are dynamic,spontaneous That's what I meant when I said that it's too easy for people to be selfish.
No. Communism is retarded. I just believe that people should be more giving, and that doing work for others when you know you're able to shouldn't be exempt from that. Even if it's just volunteering somewhere.
Their car was already on a jack and there were people standing around it looking like they didn't know what to do. I thought if I went up and asked them if they already had a spare that they'd say something like "well, we wouldn't be standing here staring at the car if we did", ergo I thought not grabbing it to begin with would be a waste of time.
>well yeah that sucks but you can't let one anecdote rule your life that's retarded That's a good point, and I can't really argue against it, so I'll give you that. In fact, I can't really argue against anything you've said there. based user
Bad people are ostracised and/or imprisoned. But only when they get caught out. If you're careful, you can do something bad as a one-off and may be able to get away with it. But if you do that consistently, eventually people who disagree with it will find out and either shun you, or contact the authorities.
That somewhat ties into my original post. Not really, but a little bit. You wouldn't have to worry about helping others and in doing so, potentially bringing harm to yourself, if everyone was a good person; if everyone was trying to help others succeed. But you're right: you can't tell who's a good person and who's a bad person.
Yes, except that we only lived in these "tribes", as you put it, up until ~12,000 - 10,000 years ago. It was around that time that people stopped being nomadic and started forming permanent settlements which would become more populated over time and eventually becomes cities and towns like we have today.
A lot of genetic changes can happen in 10,000 years. >the world may have changed a lot since the early days of humanity, but our mentality has not But we already can see evidence that our mentality has changed a bit. Not a lot, but a little. For example, it's believed that a lot of the copulation that has occurred throughout human history happened in the form of rape. This would explain why so many people today have it in them to rape other people. But, the ancient greeks were one of the first (more than 2 thousand years ago) societies to condemn rape and make it illegal. Over time, people have been forced to consider the ethical violations of rape, and in doing so, it's led to children being brought up to believe that rape is wrong. Certain genes that would make that child want to rape when they become an adult would be turned off, as their biology would see those genes as potentially a drawback when it comes to producing offspring, and so they'd have no inclination to rape when they get older.
If you know about epigenetics, you'll know that not all of genes actually do something; some genes are turned "on", while the rest are turned "off". Your environment determines which are on and which are off. So then, what if people are brought up to believe that they'll be paid money for the work that they do? It's likely that certain genes will be turned on and others turned off, so that they grow up with a genuine mentality for wanting to be paid for their work, and more importantly, not paid with the thing that they want, but being paid with a medium to attain what it is that they want. And that distinction is important.
Zachary Perry
There are dolphins that have been documented trading rocks for sex. These rocks don't do anything for them, but they can act as a kind of currency. The dolphins can hide these rocks and go back to them when they want to trade them for something, although it's usually sex. Over time, dolphins would be brought up to believe that they can get plenty of free sex, as long as they "work" to get these rocks. So, certain genes need to be turned on in their DNA to give them that inclination. Instead of trying to convince these other dolphins to have sex with them, as long as they have these genes turned on, they'll know that they can circumvent the courting process and go straight to the sex as long as they "work" to find these rocks/money. Why would it be any different in humans?
Mason Rivera
>Yes, except that we only lived in these "tribes", as you put it, up until ~12,000 - 10,000 years ago. It was around that time that people stopped being nomadic and started forming permanent settlements which would become more populated over time and eventually becomes cities and towns like we have today. Where's the evidence of this? There literally is none, you were just exposed to this story why young and easily-influenced and now you accept it as fact. No evidence though.
Adam Clark
>Yes, except that we only lived in these "tribes", as you put it, up until ~12,000 - 10,000 years ago 10000 years ago to be more precise, if you talk about Eurasia. For mesoamerica, it's closer to 4500 years ago.
>But we already can see evidence that our mentality has changed a bit. Another big mistake on your part. You seem to mistake law and culture as mentality. One is a social construct, built by society as to govern the behavior of people. The other is innate and still governs our interactions. Studies still show the same kind of behavior in people. Good and bad is a social construct that is only sanctioned by law. Remove the pressure of the social contract binding us all, and there is no reason for an unknown individually to act as what you would consider "good". Genetics have nothing to do with this.
Both of these citations state that humans started settling down around 10,000 years ago. The wikipedia article states that the earliest known settlement was made 9000 years ago but that's still pretty close.
Law influences culture, which influences mentality, which influences law. You're right that law is a social construct, but it's embedded into our culture now. Money, as a part of culture, has also become embedded into our cultural mentality and therefore also our laws.
>Another big mistake on your part. You seem to mistake law and culture as mentality. As I said above, the culture and laws of a group of people will determine the mentality of each individual, which in turn will determine how the culture and laws of that group develops. So, in essence, they're not the same, but they are ingrained within one another. If something influences the culture of a group of people, it will influence their laws and the mentalities of each individual. We see examples of this a lot. See next post (because this post is already too long).
Grayson Howard
Before good-quality cameras were common on phones, to take a decent photo, you needed a decent camera. But now, pretty much everyone has access to a camera that's at least somewhat good quality. That's influenced the cultures that have access to these phones/cameras significantly; now, we have a generation of young people that take far more "selfies" and photos of their food for instagram, for instance, than any previous generation. Putting cameras on phones has, therefore, influenced contemporary culture. Very few young people own an actual camera, because they see it as unnecessary because their phone has one. That means this cultural shift has changed the mentality of the individuals involved. Finally, it's also now illegal in a lot of places to whip out your phone, such as in a sauna (why you'd want to take your phone into such a high-humidity environment, I have no idea, but people still do it) because you could film someone whose towel has accidentally fallen down and put their naked body on the internet.
Bentley Flores
stop overthinking asshole.
While it may seem great, theres something called a utopia. while it may seem great on paper, it could never actually happen because human beings dont act that way. hell; even you can't act that way you fucking idiot.
While a utopia might make the world a better place; it takes away human emotion and shit like that or something
also, stop being a peice of shit and just do something with your life instead of foruming about how society is bad on Jow Forums.
Angel Cook
You're very, very optimistic about a lot of things it seems. Do you know what the first thing a law teacher ever told me? >"Law doesn't exist outside the walls of a tribunal" And she couldn't have been more right: because people don't care about law unless it benefits them. So it is inconsistent without the application of a sanction and surveillance. Which is why, in settings where such authority isn't enforced, humans refer back to the ingrained laws I mentioned in my earlier posts, to our primitive mentality, which calculates costs and benefits on a totally different scale, using different parameters. Law is in culture but does not permeate into mentality, because mentality is ingrained on another level. Perhaps you don't share the same vocable, so you mistake mentality for behavior, zeitgeist or belief systems. But don't get me wrong: what I mean by mentality is precisely these remnants that exist outside the law and the realm of civilized culture.
Lincoln Watson
>"Law doesn't exist outside the walls of a tribunal" Well, yeah. Of course they don't. But you still have cultural faux pas that act as a kind of law-system that everyone in a tribe, or today, a city/country, will follow, because they face social alienation if they don't follow them.
You're right that the law-system that forms from these cultural faux pas, and the generally accepted code of ethics that we base our laws on today don't necessarily co-align. But both of them are law systems; the former is a naturally constructed one, while the latter is a socially constructed. Both are subject to being influenced by contemporary culture, just as contemporary culture can influence them back.
It's like how homosexuality used to be illegal in a lot of countries as recently as 50 years ago, while in those same countries today, homosexuality is now legal, due to a rapid cultural shift in view of homosexuality. Or like how you used to be able to buy as much pseudoephedrine as you wanted. But enough people did that for the purpose of making meth that it created a cultural view that buying lots of pseudoephedrine means you must be making meth, which in turn meant laws were passed to make it so people can now only buy small amounts at a time. Even if you're not planning to make meth with it; because they can't tell whether you will or not.
Owen Gonzalez
So I see you understand what I mean by that regard. But you still lack a piece of the puzzle: you seem to assume that what you call "cultural faux pas" apply equally to the tribe and the country. And this is where, I think, you misunderstood my original post. The city, the country, the nation, all these are not tribes. They are at a level above, where law is the defining norm. But cultural faux pas do not apply at that level. As for my reasoning why, refer back to my first point at
Henry Hill
Once a whore Youre nothing more Im sorry that'll never change And about forgiveness were both supposed to have exchanged Im sorry honey but ill pass it up Now KOT this way!!
