Gyroscopic Investing

Lowe wrote: @ OP
...
However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument

OP here. I don't know that I agree with that, but in any case I didn't cite human nature. Also, I am not religious.

 

Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

Funny thing about wars and violence - it does not require unanimous participation or even approval.
And until everyone is fully satisfied, we won't know if it's beside the point or if it is the point.

dualstow wrote:

Lowe wrote: @ OP
...
However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument

OP here. I don't know that I agree with that, but in any case I didn't cite human nature. Also, I am not religious.

 

Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

Funny thing about wars and violence - it does not require unanimous participation or even approval.
And until everyone is fully satisfied, we won't know if it's beside the point or if it is the point.

Sorry if that was confusing.  I meant to address the OP, but also a common misconception about violence, that it is part of human nature.  I think this was mentioned or alluded to by multiple posters after the OP.

Human nature is not much of anything other than things like eating, sleeping, and going through puberty.  Since it can't be pinned down beyond basics like these, it's a rhetorical way to avoid the question.  Say someone asks why the sea is blue.  Someone says "god made it that way."  That is not an answer, but a non-answer.  Same with human nature.  Why do people fight?  Because human nature.  Non-answer.

In a sense, religion is an ideology which serves to provide such rhetorical flourishes.  It was probably developed by older male tribal members, to avoid being murdered by the younger males, once the older males had weakened physically.  Don't kill me and take my women, or else the big daddy will get you!  The rhetorical flourishes protect the self-serving social arrangement.  Why not kill old man?  Big Daddy.  Non-answer.

...

Regarding dissatisfied people possibly forming roving gangs, my point is that dissatisfied people do not do this.  I mean this universally, not just in some cases.  I did not make that clear in my original statement.  Dissatisfaction with life is not enough to become violent, at least as I understand it.  If you look into the life stories of violent criminals, you'll find high rates of childhood sexual abuse and physical abuse.  You'll also find high rates of religiosity in their families.  With few exceptions, violent people are made through a painstaking process of exposure to beatings, humiliation, and fatuous self-serving lies.

Thanks, Lowe. I have a better understanding of what you're saying now.

If you look into the life stories of violent criminals, you'll find high rates of childhood sexual abuse and physical abuse.

It's hard to imagine there will ever be a world free of deviants. And, as has been suggested, humans might be just plain bored if completely materially satsified. But, a lot of domestic abuse seems to come from money problems, so I'd like to think there will be some trickle down: no money problems --> less child-beating and wife-beating --> fewer violent criminals. No money problems --> less petty crime --> fewer stints in jail --> fewer people radicalized --> less terrorism.

dualstow wrote: It's hard to imagine there will ever be a world free of deviants. And, as has been suggested, humans might be just plain bored if completely materially satsified. But, a lot of domestic abuse seems to come from money problems, so I'd like to think there will be some trickle down: no money problems --> less child-beating and wife-beating --> fewer violent criminals. No money problems --> less petty crime --> fewer stints in jail --> fewer people radicalized --> less terrorism.

Three cheers for the Citizen's Dividend?  Huzzah!

Pointedstick wrote:

Kbg wrote:

Lowe wrote: @ OP

War is not a usable strategy for free market businesses.  Without the religious obedience of the people, and the consequent ability to tithe them, an organization cannot wage wars.  That is, only the state can wage wars.

Organized killing has gotten less frequent since the stone age.  I see no reason the trend won't continue, till there is no organized killing to speak of.  If you see a reason, let me know.  However, citing bad human nature is a religious appeal, not an argument.  Also the idea that people are never fully satisfied is beside the point.  Even if that were true, plenty of people go through life generally unhappy, and they don't form roving gangs.

So inaccurate on so many levels...pretty much every statement in it.

Your objection surprises me; I would be interested to hear it.

I don't object per se but it's almost all wrong. The correction made on localized violence vs. war was a good one and I agree with it as modified. It's quite right now. Private commercial wars have been fought since at least the 1500s and if you believe in some of the reporting out of Africa they persisted into at least the 1960s and may be still continuing today. If we exclude legally incorporated companies...yo what do you call all that is going on in Mexico? Religion and wars, really??? Absolutely they've caused many but there are at least as many (and in reality far more) that had nothing to do with religion.

With regard to evil being a religious concept? Seriously? Bad, 0, awful, horrible, negative pick any word you want and their meaning is derived from the socio-cultural context which generated the word. As for me I'm going to define people who kidnap 200 school girls, systematically rape them and for fun cut off heads and post them on the internet as evil and I doubt my religious background has much to do with my choice of the word evil.

@ Kbg

At whatever scale, war is socially sanctioned violence.  It can't be engaged in, or even paid for, unless the society has an ideological framework that grants moral license for it.  These frameworks are universally religious.  If you look at them, you find they are made up from nothing, unverifiable or falsifiable, and taken seriously only because of the mass indoctrination of children.  If you prefer you could call them cults instead.

Evil is a broader concept than war, or localized tribal violence, if you prefer to distinguish that from war.  Religions always do define evil somehow, because moral authority is pretty much the most powerful social authority.  So why not imbue your religion with it?  However, before just now I was not talking about evil broadly.  Just gang violence.

Lowe wrote: @ Kbg

At whatever scale, war is socially sanctioned violence.  It can't be engaged in, or even paid for, unless the society has an ideological framework that grants moral license for it.  These frameworks are universally religious.  If you look at them, you find they are made up from nothing, unverifiable or falsifiable, and taken seriously only because of the mass indoctrination of children.  If you prefer you could call them cults instead.

Evil is a broader concept than war, or localized tribal violence, if you prefer to distinguish that from war.  Religions always do define evil somehow, because moral authority is pretty much the most powerful social authority.  So why not imbue your religion with it?  However, before just now I was not talking about evil broadly.  Just gang violence.

Me thinks you have an interesting definition of religion. I'll go with the standard one that religion is connected with a belief in a superhuman controlling power. You appear to be defining religion as moral beliefs or simply beliefs which of course do come from society (beliefs that is). Children can be mass indoctrinated without religion and without being in a cult...of course now we have to define what we mean by "cult." Additionally, as generally defined and construed, socially sanctioned violence is not war. War can be socially sanctioned violence, but it does not follow that socially sanctioned violence is war. A minimum definitional requirement for war is political purpose and to reiterate in a different way, political purpose categorically does not require religious purpose. If you are trying to say that politicians use religion as a motivating force/justification for war...yep, you will get no argument from me. However, that is not the same as saying religion is required for war or causes it.

I REALLY need to stick to the investing part of this website. 

Kbg wrote: Me thinks you have an interesting definition of religion. I'll go with the standard one that religion is connected with a belief in a superhuman controlling power. You appear to be defining religion as moral beliefs or simply beliefs which of course do come from society (beliefs that is). Children can be mass indoctrinated without religion and without being in a cult...of course now we have to define what we mean by "cult." Additionally, as generally defined and construed, socially sanctioned violence is not war. War can be socially sanctioned violence, but it does not follow that socially sanctioned violence is war. A minimum definitional requirement for war is political purpose and to reiterate in a different way, political purpose categorically does not require religious purpose. If you are trying to say that politicians use religion as a motivating force/justification for war...yep, you will get no argument from me. However, that is not the same as saying religion is required for war or causes it.

I think the word he is looking for is "metaphysical".  But that is a universal damnation as we're all beings operating on metaphysics, not rationalists.

It's no fun if you just stick to the investing part!