Well, if we're calling "genius" the capacity to formulate an elegant idea, maybe, but realistically, it just takes a little observation and reasoning.
Don't get bogged down in a particular detail:
Spoil all my fun! What else do we have to talk about? We're only comparing notes and perceptions in a respectful manner, we're not actually debating anything other than some of the minor details. :)
- but cannot eradicate the ideas.
You can if you eradicate the population, or so much of the population that as you describe later in your post, things are so tough that current ideas are forgotten for pragmatic survival. It's just unfortunate that it requires such extreme situations.
And yet, and yet... there are those who persist, persuade, encourage and chivvy, work and sacrifice to get good things done.
Yes, that's what I meant by "alphas".
But like I said earlier, this is a fairly specific scenario. It can't be a extinction event, nor a near extinction event, for there's still too much infrastructure and "leadership" around.
I don't think so. The fatheads in the big chairs may be as ruthless and more powerful as their empire-building forebears, but their competence and intelligence is declining. As they resort to nepotism and cronyism for their inner circle, they also lack the intelligent evil of viziers like Cheney. They're more like the last emperors of Rome with every election, and every election pivots on fewer issues, or even a single idiotic notion/slogan/conceit.
Yes and no. Yes, there certainly seems to be a lot of similarities between our society and the last years of the Roman Empire, whereby the ruling elite became so self-indulgent that they paid no attention to governance. But nepotism and cronyism are age old. And as far as intelligence and competence, politicians aren't leaders, they're lackeys...the true leaders are people we never hear of or see publicly, except those few of us that are interested to look. They are "old money", like the Du Ponts and Rockerfellers, or Rothschilds. They are the string-pullers for their puppets that we see and hear. Old money remains behind the scenes, as they desire no publicity, for publicity means accountability, and that's untenable. It's also why "old money" doesn't like "new money", as new money has a habit of being somewhat flamboyant in enjoying its new found wealth, thus drawing attention upon itself. Old money doesn't like attention at all and so doesn't like the possibility of coming under scrutiny accidentally because of that new money flamboyance.
Does anyone know what Brexit is actually about? Everything I've read is less than illuminating and places all the focus on the politicians, not the issue.
Personally, I speculate that there are at least two main issues, and I'm sure many more, but these are the two that I've been able to find some credence in:
For whatever reason, I couldn't get this picture to transfer, so here's the link to it...
http://www.zimbio.com/photos/Prince+Cha ... RothschildThe guy being poked in the chest (Prince Charles), his family is worth an estimated $245 Trillion. The guy doing the poking (Evelyn Rothschild), his family is worth an estimated $370 Trillion. Their business interests are extensive and diverse, so it's difficult to work out where their difference lies, but what
is obvious is that their business interests instead of being aligned, are now competing. That photo was taken before Brexit reared its head. However, I do tend to speculate that their business differences may have something to do with the second issue I find credence in;
Impending war. There hasn't been a century where there hasn't been major war between competing empires. Last century was WWI and WWII, the Napoleonic wars (amongst many others) of the 19th Century, etc. For the last 65 years since WWII, we have been taking lollipops from children...we pick our skirmishes with nations that have not the industrial, economic, military or technological strength to compete with us. We do this for resources, geopolitical positioning against other large empires, and for our own technological and economic development. The other large empires have been doing similarly.
However the time is fast looming whereby our large empires have become
so large, that we are going to have to directly compete with each other, as we all need the same resources and there's just not enough to go around. Someone has to be beaten into submission, so that the other may control the resources. So instead of taking lollipops from children, we'll be fighting other big boys with big boy's toys, for those lollipops. And the children with the lollipops won't be supportive of us, as we stole their lollipops, while China has bought them....China has been romping around the planet buying-up, so they do things for oil like offer a decent market price and add the sweetener of a choice of one of three options; the building a of a new school, a new hospital or a new port for free. Strangely, many have liked doing business that way instead of having 3 battleships parked at the entrance to their port with the USA saying, "give it to us, or else," or putting into place puppet dictators subjugating the population. So no-one is going to support the Western Empire, we're hated rather intensely. Meanwhile Russia with friendly business relations with China, will pick up the much of the crumbs...Vlad also owns the leases on the Syrian ports, preventing the US from getting its ill-gotten oil to the European markets, that he has a 15% share of...regardless what you think of him as an individual, he's a shrewd operator.
So quite possibly, the British royal family and the Rosthchilds are competing for the same markets, as both finance war and the tools of war. I know that Prince William is the "pin-up boy" for some arms factories in the UK, for example.
Then there's the fact that the UK is an island nation that has never perceived itself as a part of the European continent. And if there is the kind of war that I'm speculating, then they would perceive themselves as being able to cut a different deal than the Europeans, if only because they are an island nation, and perhaps keep some sovereignty, as it's unlikely that the Western Empire will win this war. The Asian Empire will be new bully on the block.
Sorry I've digressed a great deal, but it's a very big picture that I'm trying to paint in a few paragraphs.
Could be. Just my personal vision.
Oh, granted, as is mine. And very plausible, as I said. In fact, it's probably quite inevitable, I just think we'll have war first. But then, a meteor could strike tonight, the San Andreas Fault could drop the US West Coast into the ocean tomorrow, or something could trigger a massive and fast climate change in the next few days, who knows? I'm no scientist, so although I can see some of the writing on the wall, I can't decipher much of it other than it bodes poorly for our collective future. I can't put a time-frame on it, so I avoid attempting to do so. I personally find it much easier to put approximate time-frames on human behavior.
But here's the problem...the only way you can get rid of the idea of money, is that money must disappear for a generation or two, so there's no memory of it and how it functions.
They can remember it, in the post-apocalypse world I envision, but the support structure is missing. No banks, no mint, no mechanism for setting a value on any currency. When they trade with neighbouring enclaves, they'll be reduced to barter. Eggs, screws, pumpkin seeds, beer - whatever they have for whatever they need.
How they set up the new economy won't be left to the moron who wants cars he can't fuel: for quite a long time, there will be little of the familiar left; life will be too difficult to indulge in comforting fictions. The leaders will be hard-headed pragmatists with forceful personalities. Crichton, not Loam
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050100/As i said, I'm convinced they'll mess it up again - but only 99% convinced.
Yes, I appreciate all that. My issue is that currency shouldn't become a system
ever again, for the cycle then only returns, and we end up destroying ourselves, warring over our resources and being divisive yet again, or destroying the entire planet along with ourselves. Therefore the idea of currency and the subsequent materialism that accompanies it, must die. You're as bad as me for using films to demonstrate a concept...good! lol
But whether it's loose or rigid, its lower classes are invariably reduced by civilization as compared to primitive organizations.
Not quite. You're ignoring the variance in the human condition. Large numbers of people living in close proximity only highlights this variance, but is not the cause of it.
We don't actually need government, which isn't to say we don't need a few basic laws, but society doesn't need to be ruled over to function, it just needs a little direction and/or true leadership.
Under a population of 3000, I agree. When you get into large numbers, we have more kinds of things to regulate than most of the citizens have time or knowledge to cope with.
That's under systems of currency. Most of the laws we have today are based on the protection of property or financial interests. If there's no such thing as money, then suddenly the kind of bureaucracy required is minimal.
I would suggest that it is money that makes the masses servile, in conjunction with being sheeple.
Okay, but didn't you tell me a couple of posts ago that money is a fundamental adjunct of civilization? Isn't the institution of money a function of the civilized administration?
I don't believe so. You may have interpreted something I said as meaning that though...I'd have to see the exact wording to know for sure...lol....my dotage.
It's lethal to everyone else when we are wasting resources for the accumulation of wealth and using consumerism. Remove those things, and currency, and I believe we would see a different picture.
Well, sure! But civilizations have two more facets besides expanding economy: the other two pillar of power: religion and military. they, too, seek to extend and enlarge their purview.
I'm about to defend religion, but I first need to let you know that I'm not religious, but ignostic. The issue you've identified with the military and religion is this...they have become political entities. If religion didn't exist, some other form of political entity would replace it, as humans like being members of clubs of like-minded people, as we're gregarious by nature. This has been key to human survival through the ages. We don't have long sharp claws or fangs, we're slow and weak for our size, but what we
are good at is a level of co-operation for survival, which allows us to both plan and work together as a team. That's how we survived against the wild world before we became "civilized". Point being, if there's no religion, there's something else in its place.
I wasn't talking about houses and barns, but monetary economies. After a local collapse, the financial structure is rebuilt in order to re-integrate that failed or damaged nation into the world economy. When the world economy collapses, there is no agency left to reconstitute the currencies.
Ah, I see. You would need a near extinction level event for that to happen, so that there's no electrical grid anywhere at all, nor the hope to re-establish one, as well as the institutions being destroyed. BTW, there is no world economy. There's the Western Economy, the Asian Economy and the Russian Economy...Russia and China don't involve themselves too much in our economy, as they have no desire to be victims of the IMF or World Bank, which is part of the reason we regard them as the "enemy", apart from the fact they are competing with us for limited resources. (I switch terms from "economies" to "empires" and visa versa, frequently, depending on the context of the discussion).
But again, remove money from the equation, then suddenly there's no real issue with organized religion. People are going to believe what they believe regardless, but money is the heart and soul of corruption.
No, I think it goes far deeper. And the motives of the spiritual manipulators are sinister and convoluted than simple greed. The lust for power is utterly seduced and ensorcelled by the prospect of controlling other people from the inside. That goes directly o the heart of Darkness.
Well, I think you're describing the individual misuse of power, rather than any basic tenet of a religion. The human problem is quite simple to identify, but impossible to solve. We function emotionally. This produces greed, lust, lust for power, prestige, position, favor, you name it. And that's whether or not money exists, and before we get to the variances of people and their individual motivations for anything or their aptitude to achieve their "goals". The only answer is for us to all become Vulcans overnight, which ain't about to happen. The only way resolve the human condition, is to not be human. And don't think for a second that cloning could be an answer, as "sameness" is an illusory notion and doesn't account for the programming that occurs by the experience of living, creating the very differences that "sameness" would be attempting to eliminate. In a way. we could say that we are doomed to be human, and as such, being human we are doomed.