Are we mindless drones?

[Edric O]

Sure, enslaving people and working them to death might lower their apathy, but is it really worth it?

It sounds to me like curing the disease by killing the patient.

Good times will always cause apathy, and bad times will always cause revolutionary fervor. It just so happens that we're living in good times at the moment. That's where the apathy comes from.

Edit: By "we" I mean the residents of the rich western world. The majority of humanity is most certainly NOT living in good times right now...

[Dante]

Nobody's living in good times except the super-rich and even they have something to complain about...

[TMA_1]

dust, your a cool guy and know I have no problem with you, but I am curious. You take some extremely liberal opinions, very progressive ones, and I agree with some of em, but what I am wondering is this.

You express openly that you are somewhat nihilistic, that you really see no point in this universe, then why do you take such stands? maybe you do care afterall?

(if I am getting too nosey, just kick my ass or something.lol)

[Dante]

I don't know. Most of my ethical opinions stem from a hatred of stupidity and a firm belief in logic. The rest I have no opinions on.

I loathe discrimination not because I see it as 'wrong' (there is no 'wrong') but because the notion of treating someone differently for something they have no control over is so recklessly stupid. Why waste to much time, effort, money, potential friendships and positive results just because you dislike someone for being different? It makes no sense, is thus stupid, and is thus disliked.

I take my stands because I believe I'm right (I may not be, who knows?). This universe may be pointless and boring, but that doesn't mean it has to be stupid too.

That's as much as I've got really. I haven't figured me out yet either.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Nobody's living in good times except the super-rich and even they have something to complain about...

i am not super rich.. but my life is a field of roses....and i am sure  many people here arent rich and have great lives....... speak for yourself.

[Dante]

People who claim to be happy are either lying, actually happy at the expense of others, or viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses. I'm not sure which applies to you but it could be all three.

Incidentally...

go get in some time travel machine.... and then warp back in time to slavery days.... go up to some slave getting whipped with blood running down his back... and tell him that people are hurting your feelings by using the word gay as an insult....

Did I say anything about it hurting my feelings? Anything at all? I said,

If things are so peachy for minorities then how come you can still make sexist remarks in General? How come we hear all these reports of racism in the police force? How come religion is tearing countries apart and how come 'gay' is still used as an insult?

Nothing there about my feelings.

I was going to say that earlier but decided not to for some reason... It annoyed me for ages so there it is now.

[Edric O]

Anyway, to answer the original post of this topic:

Congratulations on re-discovering the notion of social classes, AK47! :) Your observations on the "sheep" and "shepards" are correct - and they are quite close to what Marxists have observed and studied. The "shepards" are the ruling class, while the "sheep" form the lower class(es). Of course, we Marxists define social classes in terms of their economic relationships, not in terms of intangible notions like "leadership" or "influence". You seem to be talking more about people's psychological characteristics (dominant vs. submissive) than about their social and economic position.

The thing about social classes, though, is the fact that the "drones" have more power than they think. You say they are sheep - yet these sheep are the ones who keep the world moving. All the power and wealth of the shepards ultimately comes from their sheep. What could Rockefeller or Bill Gates have done without their workers? What could Hitler or Napoleon or Lenin have done without their followers and their footsoldiers?

Leaders only become leaders because they have someone to lead.

And what if the sheep suddenly said to the shepards "we won't take orders from you any more"?

[Edric O]

[color=00dd00

For the rest... democracy breeds mindless drones.

You haven't been paying much attention to the past 200 years, have you?

Since we've implemented democracy, we've had more revolutions, social movements, mass protests and public involvement in politics than ever before. If anything, democracy has awoken the people. Don't let the apathy of the last 20 years fool you. It's only a temporary fluke.

If you want to see mindless drones, look at the huge mass of obedient peasants from before democracy was established.

[Acriku]

I don't see how people find democracy inherently stupid and breeding mindless drones. That's taken straight out of their asses. There's nothing in the definition of democracy that states that people have to be stupid. In a perfect democratic world, people are not stupid, they are well-educated in politics, economics, and underlying factors that affect their nation. Since this is reality, we must try to educate them as much as possible. What else can we do? Go into a dictatorship and have the people with no power in their own country? No. The citizens of every country should have a say in who leads them, what they do with that leadership, etc. Having the people in control also acts as a deterrent from politicians and people with power to do anything that would affect their chances of re-election. I think it's insane that I am having to defend democracy.

Also, we are not mindless drones for one reason: we are able to ask ourselves if we are mindless drones. But we do follow patterns. What worked twenty years ago in the past generation, we might as well do the same thing in present time, or we can make it better - which we have. There's a big difference between twenty years ago and now.

[GUNWOUNDS]

dustscout i didnt say i was happy 24/7

but i have just about everything i need or want and i dont share your "oh i am so bored lets destroy teh world"

attitude.

[GUNWOUNDS]

I don't know. Most of my ethical opinions stem from a hatred of stupidity and a firm belief in logic. The rest I have no opinions on.

I loathe discrimination not because I see it as 'wrong' (there is no 'wrong') but because the notion of treating someone differently for something they have no control over is so recklessly stupid. Why waste to much time, effort, money, potential friendships and positive results just because you dislike someone for being different? It makes no sense, is thus stupid, and is thus disliked.

I take my stands because I believe I'm right (I may not be, who knows?). This universe may be pointless and boring, but that doesn't mean it has to be stupid too.

That's as much as I've got really. I haven't figured me out yet either.

putting so much effort into this type of "compulsive worrying" is somewhat "stupid".  There will always be crap like this going on.... why concern yourself, raise your blood pressure, and die of a stroke over other people's idiocy?...

..trying to de-stupidize the world is pointless.

sit back crack open a cold one and say screw em....

the good ol' american way.....

[Wolf]

Edric, I don't think its so much a fluke. I think that much of Western culture, much of commercialism and the pleasure-seeking attitude has created a certain lack of respect for instiutions of government. By respect, I mean that people no longer take governments, politics, or their citizenship seriously. It is more a burden than anything else; people want others to think for them, so they can go out and have a good time. Why else would you have a government? By forcing people to be active in their citizenship, you make citizenship a chore. People must want to seek out active citizenship of their own volition for democracy to truly exist. However, we see less of this with each passing election. Perhaps it is the news media, with its inexorable, irritating, and inflexible view of the world. You would think that a bigger news media would get more people involved; not at all. It creates the impression that one voice has no power. Indeed, the American system of voting has also created that impression. If I vote for a party that is the minority of the state I voted in, that vote is essentially meaningless. All the state's electoral votes will go to whoever the majority voted for. Granted, this is only in the presidential election, but, remember, news media has created the impression that the president is the preeminent political branch.

[Acriku]

Before you know the results, the vote for the minority party is meaningful. Afterwards, when you find out that the party did not win, you see the vote as meaningless. But if everybody didn't vote because their vote didn't win, and thus "meaningless," half of the voters would stop voting. So, there has to be some meaning to the voting somewhere. I believe it is in the doings of democracy. Voting is practicing your ultimate power as a citizen. It may not have as much of an effect in national politics, but consider how many other people are voting alongside you. How in the world are you going to get your party elected into office if it is a minority party? It needs more votes than the majority party, and the other minority parties. So, it must take time and effort to form it into a majority party. But, then again the two major parties in the United States are so general, almost the exact antithesis of eachother on every issue, that there is no group of people that would have a minority party appeal to enough so to get a seat in power over the majority parties.

Also, you never know if your vote is "meaningless" beforehand, so there should be no reason that your voting is deterred because of this subjective reasoning.

[TMA_1]

most people who say democracy is wonderful see it through it's theoretical model, those who say it is horrible see it through all the horrible things democracy has done.

I dont know yet what democracy can offer. It is silly to say that it is either inherently evil or good, as it has been implimented in republics andwhatnot for only a few hundred years on a large scale. There has not yet been a true democracy either. So how can we judge yet what it is truly like?

If I could assume for a second, I would say it does just as much harm all around as any other government. Just in different ways that we cannot fully comprehend at the moment. I dont think technological and economic advancements can claim proof that our way of living is better than previous ways of living are.

Sure we might live longer, but could this breed a state of apathy?

sure we may make more money in comparison to other cultures, no longer being a subsistance culture in most cases. But could this cause mental and physical breakdown in humanity?

(for example in Dune, often times the easiest way out is the path to numbness and laziness, which breeds destruction and degradation).

sure we might have certain freedoms that older cultures had, but could this create a feeling of taking things for granted? could it create the mental pandemic of seeing things through altered eyes?

sure we are able to do things that other "undemocratic" governments cant do, but could this lead to a culture clash that would further divide our already divided world?

There are many things that are positive that come from the democratic spirit, but those things are a double edged sword. at least in my opinion.

[Acriku]

Sure we might live longer, but could this breed a state of apathy?

Obviously not, since elderly people are one of the most active groups in voting. As time goes on, you become more attuned to politics and the stability of your country, especially because elderly people often have a lot of time to devote to politics.

But could this cause mental and physical breakdown in humanity?

How is this caused by making more money? You're not making much sense in this post, TMA.

Many of your questions have nothing to do with what democracy is meant to do.

[TMA_1]

acriku, you miss the point! lol silly silly ::)

See, the point is, profit and a growth from subsistance, working almost all day to get what we want without much of a break gives a person a certain amount of constitution and suprisingly stability.

a culture that grows fat on it's earnings usually takes things for granted, and forgets important things. We worry about divorces, affairs, entertainment, diversions. We dont focus on important things. That is why I said we grow into a state of apathy. Read between the lines is all.

And where did the whole active voting population in elderly come from? what does that have to do with vitality in the elderly? They usually focus on things like that because when you get older you focus on the more important things. THat has been around forever.

look at america, we supposedly have world class health care (laughs) and a high living rate. How does this help though? we stick the elderly in homes, never take care of them. We dont respect elders and treat them right. Whenever things are easier on a people, usually those people take it for granted.

When you take things for granted you get sloppy, and lazy. This breeds weakness, just like Dune mentioned. Usually the easiest way out is the path to destruction, homogenization.

You brought up weird and kinda bizzare retorts, you understand what I am even getting at? lol

not trying to be a jerk, but I just geet the feeling that you arent connecting with what I am saying, or that you arent trying.

[Acriku]

Ok I can see what you're saying, but none of that is inherent in democracy, inherent in having worldclass healthcare, or inherent in having high standards of living. It's our culture-formed mindset, and human nature, that is the cause of your listed qualms. Which is why I don't understand what Dust has with democracy, since nothing is inherently wrong in democracy.

[Dante]

the good ol' american way.....

*Shudders*

Ok I can see what you're saying, but none of that is inherent in democracy, inherent in having worldclass healthcare, or inherent in having high standards of living. It's our culture-formed mindset, and human nature, that is the cause of your listed qualms. Which is why I don't understand what Dust has with democracy, since nothing is inherently wrong in democracy.

Inherant problems with democracy:

- In it's pure form (communism) it is fabulously easy to corrupt. And only slightly more difficult in any other form.

- It attracts bureaucracy like wasps to jam.

- It listens only to the majority when it claims to listen to everyone equally.

- Hypocracy is at the very core of democracy.

- It breeds mindless drones.

[Acriku]

- In it's pure form (communism) it is fabulously easy to corrupt. And only slightly more difficult in any other form.

- It attracts bureaucracy like wasps to jam.

- It listens only to the majority when it claims to listen to everyone equally.

- Hypocracy is at the very core of democracy.

- It breeds mindless drones.

- It brings up all sorts of problems. Overpopulation for a start.

Anything in its purest form that is on one end of the political spectrum is obviously not perfect, which is why America doesn't use the pure form of democracy.

Also, there is nothing wrong with bureaucracy - the people serving in the military are my favorite bureaucrats.

Nothing in democracy says that it doesn't listen to the minority. It is up to the people if they want to listen to the minority.

Perhaps you could elaborate on the hypocrisy.

Nothing in democracy's definition says anything about mindless drone breeding. In fact, it's the exact opposite. People coming together to involve themselves with their government's decisions, based on their ideals and beliefs.

Nothing in democracy inherently leads to overpopulation. This is only a consequence of many factors.

Your qualms with democracy are unfounded, not valid, and senseless.

[Dante]

America certainly doesn't use the pure form of democracy. Which is possibly why some people hesitate to call it a democracy at all...

There is something wrong with bureaucracy. It brings us extended court cases, convoluted financial rubbish, constricting legalities, legal loopholes, circumlocuted wording, local councils...

Yes, it is up to the people. And the people never listen to the minority. They're so busy taking care of themselves that they don't care about anyone else, especially not people with quieter political voices.

Hypocracy. Democracy claims to be fair by representing the people: It doesn't. It doesn't represent all of the people and those elected will always do something disliked by those they do represent. Fair. Psh.

Democracy claims to be good for the people: GOOD for us? With the rise of democracy has come the rise of all sorts of complaints. Bad immune systems for a start. Time was when people were working so hard at surviving that they didn't care about being happy or content...

Now contrast this with autocracy. It can be cruel, but it suffers from none of the above. It doesn't claim to be fair, it cannot be corrupted, and the occasional slaughter keeps people on their toes. And there is less bureaucracy. Stupid bits of paper...

Coming together to share in the government's decisions? The government only listens to the people as much as it has to and then sets about lining it's own pockets (hypocracy again). Besides, most of the people may know what they would like but they have not idea what would be good for them.

Democracy = will of the people = people don't want to be killed = overpopulation.

My qualms with democracy are my own and I have not yet come across any reason to abandon them.

[TMA_1]

actually I agree with you there acriku, that our culture has altered our mindset towards certain biases. So I see what you are saying, there is a certain point to whre I cant argue on these things without being a bit twisted by my culture, and the freedoms I have to say so.

[Dude_Doc]

Democracy = will of the people = people don't want to be killed = overpopulation.

And you are saying that it would be better to go back to the stone-ages and slaughter each other?

Like all governments in past and present history, none of them has ever been perfect. But some are better than others, and some are best in their own way (if everything would be perfect, communism, fascism and democracy would all work).

Yes, it is true that we do not have any real democracies today. Throughout history, someone or a group of people have always ruled over the others. Real democracy would be in the form of open democracy, I think there are in some countries. That is, I don't believe that the leaders really listen to the people.

Example: If I vote for a leader today, and he/she wins, they will rule as they see fit (unless they do something really drastic like all of a sudden attack it's neighbour or abolish all religious activity etc).

But, in open democracies, the people can vote if they want to get rid of religion, if it is worth attacking their neighbour and so on, of course, this also depends on how much information the people have at their disposal.

[Wolf]

Doc, I think that's exactly what Dust is saying. I mean, didn't he tell us that what the world needed now was just a little indiscriminate warfare? I guess Dust better be pretty pro-war, then.

On a side note, I pretty much agree with Acriku. Bureaucracy grows out of necessity; the military is the perfect example, as Acriku said.

Although, I agree with Dust that democracy has its inherent problems. A wise man once said that great men do not seek power, they have power thrust on them. In American democracy, one must seek power (campaigning) to gain power (to be elected). By that wise man's logic (wasn't he an American?), America cannot elect great men. Democracies as a whole -- including the UK, France, Germany, and Russia (havn't they been accused of fixing elections?) -- should not be able to elect great men based on this rationale.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Years upon years of constant insults have a way of affecting the mind. I take things personally now and there's nothing I can do about that. Blame the freaks at school who enjoy gratuitous psychological damage.

aah k.

[nemafakei]

Drones? Mindless, certainly.

"Time can be thought of as a train, where everyone faces whence we came.

We see where we are as we go faster, though only clearly when too far after.

But there are those who can turn their heads, to see for sure where we are being led.

Called fools and cowards, they are neither, for they alone see we have no driver."

We are all cogs. Herbert was wrong; there are no net givers, only net takers.

Any system has variation, some fight, some try to reform, but the varuation is absorbed by the effect of the mean. It simply continues until it falls apart, hopping forward occasionally, only to shuffle back here and there.

It is not even that things caanot be changed beacuse of, as per the maxim "Power corrupts", not even that "power attracts the corruptible", but that humanity is in of itself corrupt, and allowing power to any human is to leave it open to abuse or negligence.