Inequality, why aren't we beyond that?

@Holiday20310401,

Inequality is really one of those unfortunate effects of evolution.
Paramount is survival of the species. The definition of species in this respect being a nested, hierarchical one from the individual and the sexual through the family and village level up to the levels of state and race. Religious subdivisions are also part of this hierarchy of interests. They are all simply translations which our brain subconsciously makes of our biological preprogramming.
Should we ever encounter extraterrestrial life while still in our present immature state we would simply add another mondial level of discrimination to this hierarchy.
The closer the circle, the more is has to be protected and the more its opportunities to procreate have to be maximized.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

I think the main problem with establishing a basis of equality is the very fact that the concepts of justice, right/wrong, happiness, freedom all cannot be defined, and cannot be debated logically without inference to cultural examples. Of course on a more practical level, the feminism movement is still considerably young, baring in mind that women only got the vote in the last century. This occurred in one of the least religious states in the world with at the time on of the highest rates of prosperity, most of the highly religious states (bar the US) are also considerably impoverished, and hanging on to religious dogmatic fanaticism is one way of retaining a sense of cultural pride. I can't see any possible way of this changing of a universal level until the elimination of sovereign states, whether that will/should happen I don't know.

I would add however that citizens in China are reluctant to give birth to daughters because the government discourage it with brutality, as they want to forge a great army. God knows what they will be capable of in the future, it's a terrifying prospect.

1 Reply

@Nameless 23232,

I think the citizens not wanting women is due to a historic/cultural influence. The government doesn't discourage it. They banned doctors from telling the parents which gender it was they were getting, so if the parents wanted to know if it was a boy or girl, they'd have to leave China, or go somewhere a doctor would be willing to take whatever the risk is. There is already a disparity in schools between males and females in schools, I think the Chinese government would be wanting to fix that, even if the population doesn't need to get any higher.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;67212 wrote:

I think the citizens not wanting women is due to a historic/cultural influence. The government doesn't discourage it. They banned doctors from telling the parents which gender it was they were getting, so if the parents wanted to know if it was a boy or girl, they'd have to leave China, or go somewhere a doctor would be willing to take whatever the risk is. There is already a disparity in schools between males and females in schools, I think the Chinese government would be wanting to fix that, even if the population doesn't need to get any higher.

Oh really, is that why the government kills or forces adoption on all newborn baby girls? China has a strict one child per family policy in the urban areas and has done since 1979. They allow the rural areas to live as they wish but that's only because they are far more impoverished and not included in state welfare policy, hence they don't cost the government anything. Culture doesn't have anything to do with it, it's strictly practical, China is densely populated and this of course slows down the economic progression. China wants every family to have a baby son so it can grow up to be in the army, it's like Nazism all over again.

1 Reply

@Nameless 23232,

Have you even been to China to make such a claim? Based on my quick google research, it seems quite apparent the citizens are to blame for wanting a boy in the family rather than a girl. Think about it. China is a newly industrialized nation. Most families would have preferred a boy for the farm. And how do you suppose the culture adapts?

And it seems (how typically ofcourse) the culture has a lag to change. But if you have evidence of an army China is planning, let me know. I don't know why they'd be interested in infantry though. Seems stupid to me.

1 Reply

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;67226 wrote:

Have you even been to China to make such a claim? Based on my quick google research, it seems quite apparent the citizens are to blame for wanting a boy in the family rather than a girl. Think about it. China is a newly industrialized nation. Most families would have preferred a boy for the farm. And how do you suppose the culture adapts?

And it seems (how typically ofcourse) the culture has a lag to change. But if you have evidence of an army China is planning, let me know. I don't know why they'd be interested in infantry though. Seems stupid to me.

It's common knowledge that China has a one child per family policy so I don't think I need to visit. Whilst the policy doesn't extend to the rural areas so there's no question of families wanting a boy for helping out on the farm.
As for the army China already has the largest army in the world at 2.3 million active troops and is continuing to increase it and modernise it. The reason for this is like North Korea China is an autocratic neo-Communist state and relies on the army to quell dissent among other things, and is also extremely paranoid. As for it's industrialization this is still at a very early stage and is being carried out a mass level and progressing far quicker than any other industrialized nation, China gets most of it's energy for example from coal.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;27894 wrote:

People want to be superior. I seem to get the idea that equality is this great prospect, but I don't think its possible.

Yes, I agree. But not all people. When I was a child, the game was called King of the Hill. Everyone tries to bump off the person at the top, and become the new King of the Hill. It is just a game. But as we turn into adults, the game can turn into something for more deadly - but still a game. Among philosophers, it is called Who Holds the Truth. That person is King of the Hill, and as a consequence sells lots of books - e.g. Tolle, Chopra, etc. There are lots of survival aspects associated with being King of the Hill.

Some people however, don't really care. Bottom or top is fine.

Rich

0 Replies

@TickTockMan,

All of the examples you gave are expressions of tribalism and misogyny. Humans are tribal animals (family, ethnicity, 'race', nationality, etc.), and we're a patriarchal species so misogyny is an extension of that. These traits were useful for our evolutionary survival, but they are not conducive to a civil society. These characteristics are a part of human nature, but fortunately they can be changed by socio-cultural evolution. People are affected by their environment more than their genes.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

No one is born equal. However, I think people should definitely be treated equal. People mix up the two all the time.

I think that's why people still promote superiority of one thing over its opposite: because they see a biological difference, and they think they must act accordingly. But as we know this is an unwitting perpetuation of the naturalistic fallacy. Is-ought fallacy.

As time progresses, inequality seems to be evening out. I anticipate what might happen in the future.

0 Replies

@Holiday20310401,

By reading this thread, I am reminded of a television show I saw once...

It was about identical twin girls...

...who tried to kill each other.

They did everything together, synchronized.

Apparently, people hate being "equal" with another.

People crave Individuality; that is my opinion on these matters.

:a-thought:

1 Reply

@Violent Meme,

Violent Meme;73934 wrote:

By reading this thread, I am reminded of a television show I saw once...

It was about identical twin girls...

...who tried to kill each other.

They did everything together, synchronized.

Apparently, people hate being "equal" with another.

People crave Individuality; that is my opinion on these matters.

:a-thought:

I think your linking "Individuality" with "Equality" a little to Literally there. :nonooo:

2 Replies

@Joe,

We are all equal. We are all equally unique. It is our individuality that causes us to be so equally unique. When a person begins to consider himself special, then that person begins to devalue the uniqueness of others - this is discrimination.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Inequality is certainly NOT evening out, and it certainly can't. There are too many other social ills at work. In our little examples in America of places that have tried to hurry the process, City and State governments are bankrupt.
There are things that can be done to hasten the process and still maintain economic validity. Check these guys:
Illumination: the Secret Religion - The Plot to Kill God I've been reading that site since I found it, about a month ago. Every week or so, they add another page, linked at the bottom of the list on the left. Very interesting on that site is the link to "Meritocracy", where they discuss "The Greed Virus". Of course, that is exactly the biggest barrier to equality. They have posted a web site about their "Meritocracy Party":
The Meritocracy Party - Introduction which promotes some interesting ideas about meritocracy and equality.
The jury is still out, IMO, as to whether or not these guys are really the Illuminati, and whether or not I fully agree with everything they say. I was a lot more enthusiastic about them at first. Now it seems to me that they concentrate very heavily on the temporal order/plane, and very little on the spiritual, although they do assert that reincarnation is a fact.
Back on the main site; the latest post is about "God":
Illumination: the Secret Religion - God -a very compelling read.

0 Replies

@Joe,

Joe;73956 wrote:

I think your linking "Individuality" with "Equality" a little to Literally there. :nonooo:

Second this point!!!

0 Replies

@The Mad Physicst,

The Mad Physicst;27986 wrote:

Equality is not possible. Everyone has their own ideas of right/wrong, good/bad. Equality would require that guidelines be set and rules be followed. But there is the question of freedom and liberty vs laws and oppression. Even if we had all the laws that form a utopia, you still have the human heart and human emotion. As you said "People want to be superior."

People "want to be superior" in THIS system, not simply full stop. You have to look at that in context. They are born into an unedifying rat-race which promotes competition and contrast rather than cohesion and unity. From the word go, school, etc., they are taught to obey instead of question, and unfortunately, the majority of people don't have strong enough minds to break through that conditioning and question things. They simply gobble up their daily fixes of tabloid garbage (propagated by the rich in order to maintain ignorance, prevent questions and preserve their wealth), keep going to work and try to step on others to further their own sad, short-sighted, and largely futile agenda at the expense of everyone else. Divide and conquer.

On the other hand, were people born into a situation where people did not compete with each other, the thought of doing so would probably never cross their mind. It is more natural to want to help your fellow man rather than step on him. However, as that seems to entail equality, the rich want none of it.

1 Reply

@gojo1978,

Consider that during the G-8 conference, we found a few troublesome things. Pelosi came out throwing the term "useless eaters" around like it was a household expression. The Obama Science Czar talks about depopulation in terms of forced sterilization. Yes, "depopulation" is the operative word. Nothing warm and fuzzy about that. Depopulation means a reduction in the number of useless eaters in a short time. Obama spent 30 minutes or so speaking with the Pope about abortion. The Pope has never before been approachable on this subject. The depression and everything that goes with it is a million watt neon sign, telling us that the times they are a changin'.
By no means is equality even a consideration at this point. We are still very much in the period where Samuel Colt is the equalizer. Let us collectively hope that the survivors of this era will be able to take up this discussion again, when it has any meaning or relevancy.

0 Replies

Inequality, why aren't we beyond that?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know