What Should Humanity Strive For?

[Age]

to continue to play devil advocate:

this has to with capitalism, both on an individual level and a
collective level...

Individually, the old Gordon Gekko thing about how ''Greed is good""
and we must think about our individual selves and pursue the goals
of capitalism at all costs... or as many have said, the one who dies
with the most toys, wins... and millions upon millions, if not billions
believe this... why should we radically change our entire viewpoint for
some tree huggers to feel better about themselves....

and on a collective level, if we reduce our consumption as you have suggested,
and I agree with, that will collapse the entire capitalistic system, as we
know it today... capitalism, as a system must, must increase at all times..
it cannot survive if it reduces the amount of production it does...
as business cannot survive on status quo.. it must grow to just maintain
itself... as the prices of everything continues to increase, a business must
continue to increase profits to make up for these prices increase.. failure
to increase growth means that a business that holds to status quo quickly
falls behind... that is a mathematical certainty...

that is why businesses are so addicted to tax cuts.. it is a way to increase one's
business without actually doing anything.. you can remain at status quo and still
increase with big tax cuts... why struggle to make a profit when a huge tax cut
will do the same thing?

so, there are two reasons why we must remain addicted to consumerism...
individually, the more toys we buy, the bigger our win.. status wise...
and we must always increase the profits of big businesses or they
will fail...taking down capitalism with it....

Kropotkin

This one has to be absolutely joking here, right?

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the coming centuries, 2100, 2200, 2300, what ideals ought Humanity strive for?

What humanity [individuals and the collective] ought to do in the future is to strive for optimally [based in continual improvement of intelligence, critical thinking wisdom, rationality, ] toward an ideal perpetual peace grounded on well-being and flourishing within each individual[s] and the collective.

No individuals and groups in this case can maximize whatever positive where it could bring disharmonies to other groups, so there is a need to balance and optimize within the known constraints.

[Harbal]

Humanity should strive to create one global nation, where everyone is free to roam where they please, and to be who and what they feel is right for them. A world without borders, free from rules and stifling traditions.

Not this

I know, it would be a bloody disaster.

[Wizard22]

I wonder which of you desiring world peace and one-world-government...would accept such a possibility under the leadership of Vladimir Putin or Xijing Pi?

Aren't you just advocating, world peace....(as long as my Ethnic/Racial tribe is in full control???)

[Age]

I wonder which of you desiring world peace and one-world-government...would accept such a possibility under the leadership of Vladimir Putin or Xijing Pi?

Aren't you just advocating, world peace....(as long as my Ethnic/Racial tribe is in full control???)

Is absolutely any one here desiring one-world government?

I advocate for the exact opposite. Or, for the exact thing, but from the exact opposite of what you and others are imagining and assuming here.

[Wizard22]

Is absolutely any one here desiring one-world government?

Humanity should strive to create one global nation,

Does AgeGPT even pretend to read posts, anymore???

I miss Version 1.0, before its software was 'updated'...

[Age]

Is absolutely any one here desiring one-world government?

Humanity should strive to create one global nation,

Does AgeGPT even pretend to read posts, anymore???

So, allegedly one person has talked about 'one global nation'. Now,

1. Does this mean that this one person is desiring a 'one-world government'?

2. What a stupidly written question you asked here. All I did was just ask you a Truly OPEN clarifying question, which, by the way, 'we' are still waiting for an actual clarifying answer for.

So, does "harbal" actually desire a 'one-world goverment'?

Also, "harbal", from what I can tell, was talking about a 'one global nation' in regards to;
Where everyone is free to roam where they please, and to be who and what they feel is right for them.
A world without borders, free from rules and stifling traditions.

Only.

I do not see any talk nor mention about a 'one-world government', at all.

Also, I did not notice "harbal" talking about nor mentioning 'world peace', at all there neither.

So, just maybe you are not reading and not comprehending what is actually being said, written, and meant.

I, for one, will wait to 'see' what "harbal" has to say here.

I miss Version 1.0, before its software was 'updated'...

But with this one holding beliefs like this, there is no wonder why such stupidly CLOSED questions get asked.

Also, you wonder 'which of us' who is, supposedly, desiring world peace and one-world-government, but when asked if absolutely any one here is even desiring 'one-world government?', you provide the words, 'Humanity should strive to create one global nation', only.

So, why do you wonder 'which one of us' who is, supposedly, desiring 'world peace' and 'one-world government', when we are yet to even 'see' just one of 'us' desiring these two things?

Which is why I, specifically, asked you, if there is absolutely any one here who is even desiring a 'one-world government'.

And, again, 'we' wait.

[phyllo]

Humanity was far, far happier and content when they did not have 'human made things', or 'creature comforts' in other words.

I don't think that's necessarily true. There are diminishing returns. And some "comforts' are counterproductive, for example, making people fat, weak and sickly.

I don't think it's a good idea to get rid all human made things, but we ought to use them sparingly and wisely.

A house that's a good fit rather than oversized. A small car rather than an SUV. Or no car. Clothes that you wear rather than new clothes every year that just hang in a closet. Do you new upgraded electronics? Do you need a dishwasher?

Don't just automatically say "yeah I need that".

[Peter Kropotkin]

to continue to play devil advocate:

this has to with capitalism, both on an individual level and a
collective level...

Individually, the old Gordon Gekko thing about how ''Greed is good""
and we must think about our individual selves and pursue the goals
of capitalism at all costs... or as many have said, the one who dies
with the most toys, wins... and millions upon millions, if not billions
believe this... why should we radically change our entire viewpoint for
some tree huggers to feel better about themselves....

and on a collective level, if we reduce our consumption as you have suggested,
and I agree with, that will collapse the entire capitalistic system, as we
know it today... capitalism, as a system must, must increase at all times..
it cannot survive if it reduces the amount of production it does...
as business cannot survive on status quo.. it must grow to just maintain
itself... as the prices of everything continues to increase, a business must
continue to increase profits to make up for these prices increase.. failure
to increase growth means that a business that holds to status quo quickly
falls behind... that is a mathematical certainty...

that is why businesses are so addicted to tax cuts.. it is a way to increase one's
business without actually doing anything.. you can remain at status quo and still
increase with big tax cuts... why struggle to make a profit when a huge tax cut
will do the same thing?

so, there are two reasons why we must remain addicted to consumerism...
individually, the more toys we buy, the bigger our win.. status wise...
and we must always increase the profits of big businesses or they
will fail...taking down capitalism with it....

Kropotkin

This one has to be absolutely joking here, right?

K: you do see where in the very first line, I say, to continue to play
''devil's advocate'', right?
if you had only taken to the time to actually read my posts...
where in fact, I actually agreed with phyllo....


Kropotkin

[phyllo]

this has to with capitalism, both on an individual level and a
collective level...

Capitalism and other systems.

Individually, the old Gordon Gekko thing about how ''Greed is good""
and we must think about our individual selves and pursue the goals
of capitalism at all costs... or as many have said, the one who dies
with the most toys, wins... and millions upon millions, if not billions
believe this... why should we radically change our entire viewpoint for
some tree huggers to feel better about themselves....

That viewpoint would have to change.

And one can start my realizing that it's not about making treehuggers feel good.

and on a collective level, if we reduce our consumption as you have suggested,
and I agree with, that will collapse the entire capitalistic system, as we
know it today...

Capitalism would need to be changed and adapted. There would still be companies producing products. But the measure of success would not be growth at any cost.

so, there are two reasons why we must remain addicted to consumerism...
individually, the more toys we buy, the bigger our win.. status wise...

That's the main view that needs to change.

and we must always increase the profits of big businesses or they
will fail...

No, a business can stay in operation indefinitely as long as it is at net zero or above, on average. IOW, it doesn't need to keep increasing profits.
It's just that, currently, success is measured in terms of growth.

[Age]

Humanity was far, far happier and content when they did not have 'human made things', or 'creature comforts' in other words.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

With the very short-sighted perspectives and views you show and reveal below would not think what you did here.

When saw and read the words, 'when they did not have human made things', how far back in history did your thinking/imagining/seeing go, exactly?

There are diminishing returns. And some "comforts' are counterproductive, for example, making people fat, weak and sickly.

I don't think it's a good idea to get rid all human made things, but we ought to use them sparingly and wisely.

A house that's a good fit rather than oversized. A small car rather than an SUV. Or no car. Clothes that you wear rather than new clothes every year that just hang in a closet. Do you new upgraded electronics? Do you need a dishwasher?

Don't just automatically say "yeah I need that".

Was any of this meant to relate to the quoted part above?

If yes, then how, exactly?

[phyllo]

Humanity was far, far happier and content when they did not have 'human made things', or 'creature comforts' in other words.

I don't think that's necessarily true.

With the very short-sighted perspectives and views you show and reveal below would not think what you did here.

When saw and read the words, 'when they did not have human made things', how far back in history did your thinking/imagining/seeing go, exactly?

There are diminishing returns. And some "comforts' are counterproductive, for example, making people fat, weak and sickly.

I don't think it's a good idea to get rid all human made things, but we ought to use them sparingly and wisely.

A house that's a good fit rather than oversized. A small car rather than an SUV. Or no car. Clothes that you wear rather than new clothes every year that just hang in a closet. Do you new upgraded electronics? Do you need a dishwasher?

Don't just automatically say "yeah I need that".

Was any of this meant to relate to the quoted part above?

If yes, then how, exactly?

If you're going to be an arrogant insulting ass, then you can stick your posts.

[Age]

to continue to play devil advocate:

this has to with capitalism, both on an individual level and a
collective level...

Individually, the old Gordon Gekko thing about how ''Greed is good""
and we must think about our individual selves and pursue the goals
of capitalism at all costs... or as many have said, the one who dies
with the most toys, wins... and millions upon millions, if not billions
believe this... why should we radically change our entire viewpoint for
some tree huggers to feel better about themselves....

and on a collective level, if we reduce our consumption as you have suggested,
and I agree with, that will collapse the entire capitalistic system, as we
know it today... capitalism, as a system must, must increase at all times..
it cannot survive if it reduces the amount of production it does...
as business cannot survive on status quo.. it must grow to just maintain
itself... as the prices of everything continues to increase, a business must
continue to increase profits to make up for these prices increase.. failure
to increase growth means that a business that holds to status quo quickly
falls behind... that is a mathematical certainty...

that is why businesses are so addicted to tax cuts.. it is a way to increase one's
business without actually doing anything.. you can remain at status quo and still
increase with big tax cuts... why struggle to make a profit when a huge tax cut
will do the same thing?

so, there are two reasons why we must remain addicted to consumerism...
individually, the more toys we buy, the bigger our win.. status wise...
and we must always increase the profits of big businesses or they
will fail...taking down capitalism with it....

Kropotkin

This one has to be absolutely joking here, right?

K: you do see where in the very first line, I say, to continue to play
''devil's advocate'', right?
if you had only taken to the time to actually read my posts...
where in fact, I actually agreed with phyllo....


Kropotkin

And, you do understand that if anyone had the view that you were advocating here, then I would also ask them, 'you have to be joking here, right?'

you are aware that you, obviously, presented no actual argument nor reasoning for absolutely anything other beyond a joke, right?

In other words, you never 'advocated' nor argued for anything reasonable. So, there was absolutely nothing to argue against nor counter. you were actually presenting a case for the "other side", and this was self-explained by your own self-refutation here.

[Age]

I don't think that's necessarily true.

With the very short-sighted perspectives and views you show and reveal below would not think what you did here.

When saw and read the words, 'when they did not have human made things', how far back in history did your thinking/imagining/seeing go, exactly?

There are diminishing returns. And some "comforts' are counterproductive, for example, making people fat, weak and sickly.

I don't think it's a good idea to get rid all human made things, but we ought to use them sparingly and wisely.

A house that's a good fit rather than oversized. A small car rather than an SUV. Or no car. Clothes that you wear rather than new clothes every year that just hang in a closet. Do you new upgraded electronics? Do you need a dishwasher?

Don't just automatically say "yeah I need that".

Was any of this meant to relate to the quoted part above?

If yes, then how, exactly?

If you're going to be an arrogant insulting ass, then you can stick your posts.

But I am not being an 'arrogant insulting ass'. Why do you think that I was being a so-called 'arrogant insulting ass'?

I asked you a clarifying question about how far back you looked and saw when you read my words. Why did you not answer?

I also asked you whether the rest of what you wrote related to what you quoted above. you also did not answer.