I have this theory (which probably means I read it somewhere and have forgotten where) which goes that *within nature the bigger the stable collective societal group the less independent and important to that group the individual becomes.*
e.g. The panther compared to an ant.

From an anthropological perspective it would seem that man was meant to be a comparatively small communal species (Family, tribe clan). Human societies that fall into these groups tend to be less stressed, conflicted and more content, each member having their place and purpose. As Pericles pointed out nature has endowed us with the ‘hardwired’ means to identify ‘our’ group.

The problem seems to come when definitions for ‘belonging’ and ‘unique place’ become more abstract, less consistently obvious. First comes colour then ethnicity, culture including religion and finally status.
Some would argue, therefore these divisions are normal/natural and shouldn’t be opposed but this is only true if one accepts that man shouldn’t/wasn’t supposed to live in huge ant like communities where the individual is comparatively unimportant to the whole.

It seems that our societies have evolved beyond their purpose of protection and survival yet we as species haven’t. Our modern world consists of instant gratification, instant facts in a culture of me first micro “families (?)” where everyone know the cost of every thing but the value of nothing.

It is this conflict between the two is central to most of our societal problems.
Is there still generally a relevant place for the extended family? e.g. where elders are more than part time baby sitters and child spoilers a place where they have a meaningful (traditional) role as keepers of wisdom?

The Amazonian jungle tribes are less virtually non-hierarchical and democratic yet elders although regarded as equals are respected as the source of wisdom and experience.

It is one thing to have knowledge but wisdom is knowing when, what and how to use that knowledge.

What do you think?

Interesting. People do often bitch about the Industrial Revolution which took us from clan to city, and I in part agree, I am proud of our scientific/artistic progress and various advancements but we seem to need a lot more adjusting time.

It is to fast, now we see every bit of pain and indulgence on the planet via internet.

It’s almost come full circle where it does come down to what one believes and the logic having the meaning over the evidence as evidence is now just mass produced by each side according to its needs.

It’s possible that with the upsizing from clan to city that the clan is now the larger cultural group, hence everyone defending their belief of what it is so strongly. This can range from their own races traditions to a belief in a mix of cultures as right.. It varies wildly, another reason it is all to fast.

They say in WW2 people didn’t have depression as much as the communal problems of fighting the enemy was all pervading and existential inner hurts had to take a back seat.

I believe it is location and culture/belief that people grapple for. I don’t think we can get back to small tribes though I do agree things were more stable and workable for people.

This coming recession or even depression may pulls us back to more realistic concerns as we drop the abstract in favour of a veg garden to survive.

In the past, humans have demonstrated great innovation when faced with a problem. Sometimes, humans may not be willing to identify or face these problems until too late and until the point of catastrophe (in some cases) but usually when the writing is on the wall we can be pretty creative and unselfish. Look at the way we band together in a crisis or after a natural disaster.

Perhaps the issue is that while our societies have evolved away from the idea of protection and survival in a primitive context, we are still biologically wired and no matter how advanced we become technologically, on an emotional level we still seek protection and survival.

The parameters have changed to the survival within a man-made economy, which, for some reason some see as a biological organism with a life of it's own and something that cannot be tampered with even if moderations might be made for mutual and societal benefit.

Sometimes it does take a disaster of some kind to make us realise that there is more than the 'self' and our survival depends on working together as a group. This is achievable without losing sight of the individual.

There was certainly security in the clan or tribe but there was also inbreeding and parochialism. Man does not seem destined to cope in large ant like communities as you say examinator, but there are advantages to a bigger collective.

Perhaps the answer as always lies somewhere in the middle. Groups of smaller cities within a habitat rather than one or two congested cities and with them the inherent problems of overcrowding, pollution and as Meredith mentioned, depression.

If social commentary is anything to go by, people by and large are fed up with the 'me me' society.

Following on from meredith's last paragraph, I read somewhere recently that there have been enormous increase in the sale of vegetable and other edibles (seeds and plants), suggesting that people are willing to make changes when needed and perhaps get back to the basics and a desire to know where our food comes from.

examinator wrote: “From an anthropological perspective it would seem that man was meant to be a comparatively small communal species (Family, tribe clan). Human societies that fall into these groups tend to be less stressed, conflicted and more content, each member having their place and purpose.”

Any empirical evidence that any of this was true of such societies? This thinking has shades of the ‘noble savage’ to me. In fact in many of these more primitive human societies, life was short, difficult and brutal, often involving servitude to the more powerful. There has never really been a time in human society when might wasn’t right. Although, there is arguably less of it now than there ever was.

As to the ‘instant gratification’ that is indeed quite a new factor among much of society. However, it was very common among the elite centuries ago. It is more pronounced now because more of human society has an opportunity to indulge. The increasing prosperity of the middle classes has brought indulgence within reach of many more. I am not sure whether that is a good thing or not. Are we better with a society where only those at the top are allowed to indulge their whims or one where that is spread more evenly?

to all three,
Terrific responses. I definately need more time to consider and respond but again interesting thanks and not one insult I am a happy little examinator ant.
:-)

When a society substitutes

-pornograpy and lust for love and compassion..
-'get away with it if you can' for 'ethics, honesty and respect.
-'greed and obscene wealth accumulation for frugal and generous living...
-When men and women exchange natural relations for un-natural...
-When 'tolerance' is used as a weapon of intolerance...
-When anti-racism is used to promote that very thing...
-When Discrimination is condemned by those who doing just that
-When the tail wags the dog...

Then.. yes.. we have lost ....the plot.

And be assured.. we will reap exactly what we have sown.

"within nature the bigger the stable collective societal group the less independent and important to that group the individual becomes'
All individuals want to be independent, the question is if they can live as independent, how big will be the cost for individual's independance. If today we have so many single persons, so many single mothers, if the young can leave their parents early is because the conditions allow them to live as indpendent.
We have independent individuals in advanced societies, where human rights are respected and protected or in undeveloped countries, where the societies can not protect their members and individuals have no other choice than to act as independent, the migration from the poor countries is a decision, an act of independent individuals.
The importance of an individual depends on the values and the developed stage of a society. In civilized countries each individual is important, in undeveloped countries an individual is importand in the group if the group needs the individual, if the group is at risk, invasion threats etc.
For me the big question is where start and where finish the colective, group's rights, interests and of cause where start and where finish the individuals rights, interests.
I BELIEVE THAT A SOCIETY IS ADVANCED WHEN THE INTERESTS BETWEEN GROUP (SOCIETY)AND INDIVIDUALS ARE MORE COMMON (LESS DIFFERENTS)
HAPPY INDIVIDUALS CREATE STRONG SOCIETIES.
ANTONIOS AYMEONAKIS
ADELAIDE

Dear examinator,

Don't take any notice of any insults.
Totally ignore them.
If someone has to stoop to that level they've lost
the argument in any discussion. Besides personal
insults usually come from poor old sods who
have delusions of adequacy. :)

Now to the topic of your thread...

Have we lost the plot? Gosh I hope not. I wouldn't want to
go back to looking for bugs under rocks, or ploughing
fields by horse, or not having flushing toilets, or any of
the other mods and cons that our modern society provides.

Seriously though, the truth of the matter is that today
we have the potential to be the best educated and
most privileged society in human history. Sure there are
many problems, (but there always have been) and we've solved
them in the past. Poverty, disease, overpopulation, injustice,
oppression, the devastation of our environment ... all
challenges I agree.

However, we now have the capabilities to divert
unprecedented energy and resources to
solving these problems.

Through collective action, ordinary
people with few resources other than their own determination
can achieve a great deal.
How? By getting those in power to make the right decisions.
Once people no longer take their world for granted, but
instead understand the social authorship of their lives
and futures, they become an irresistible force in history.

FOXY! The plot will only be lost for those without meaning. This is where the too many rats in a box comes into it. Human Overpopulation is the main threat, and the basket is too full of, I can do it crap. WHO CAN DO THE JOB? Answer is! All of us! If the world said tomorrow, lets go back too our corners and sort our domestic problems, " all round " this is the place to start.

The fact is you all wont wind back, and this planet has just started its new turnaround and the reality is compounded by the fact of what we done to this planet. Small in comparison to the fact, we are all on borrowed time, and as you all know, NO species lasts for ever!

Three hundred years its, as we know it, coming with forces we can not stop, so there only one option Left.

Reduce, save and repair and stop breeding. In my calculations, our sadness is in our own hands, so now you know! What are you all going to do about it?

EVO

"Don't take any notice of any insults." Foxy I supposed you reffered to me. You have RIGHT. The truth is that I tried to translate the text on the net but it was meaningless, my dictionary for the word plot was not helpfull.it is seemed i wrote something unrealeted with the thread ALWAYS I TAKE THE RISK TO WRITE SOMETHING NON RELEATED OR TO USE THE WRONG WORDS BUT I HAV TO CHOICE BETWEEN TO WRITE, EVEN WITH MISTAKES OR TO BE SILENT. A big part of Australians can not write enouph good eglish WE CAN NOT BE SILENT, WE HAVETHE SAME RIGHTS AND SAME NEEDS WITH ALL THE OTHERS. SORY, IF FOR ANY INSULT
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

It's an anthropological truism that humans have evolved far more quickly culturally than we have biologically. This explains many of our societal an inter-ethnic woes, but it doesn't necessarily mean that people are incapable of working together collectively to overcome the dissonance that occurs between base biological imperatives and the vicissitudes of social harmony in our increasingly global 'villages'.

Its a good question

personally, I feel we all struggle with issues, just like our forebearers.

What changes are the issues, not the people, my grand parents facing WWI, my parents facing WWII and me, I suppose the (now receding) risk of nuclear extinction and for my children, world population issues.

The ony part of the people which change are

1 the state of that individuals development.

The skills I have now in my 50's better equip me than the ones I possessed in my 20's.

2 I most folk have higher expectations of 'someone' or something, maybe even themselves, being in greater control of their environment than before.

Higher expectations, not supported with actual processes to satisfy them.

So Have we lost the plot in modern society?

No.

Compared to our forebearers, we are little different, except for changed expectations.

And thats a good thing, 'expectations' are some of the things which help drive the inner self to achieve and excel.

However, It is interesting, we go into an economic recession and our expectations adjust, keeping a job replaces career development as a work goal.

Getting by replaces overseas holidays....

Alot of folk place huge expectations in Obama, I wonder how their expectations will shift over the next 4 years, I wonder how the peoples expectatins shifted through Clinton's Presidency and how expectations changed from before 9/11 to after 9/11?

I wonder if people held similar ground shifting 'expectations' out for Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelts Presidencies OR were they just too busy trying to survive?

'most folk have higher expectations of 'someone' or something, maybe even themselves, being in greater control of their environment than before.

Higher expectations, not supported with actual processes to satisfy them.'

That's pretty good col.

Perhaps the problem people have these days is they think they have so much more information. Information was supposed to be empowering but it has been found wanting.

We're flooded with so much information that there is no way to process it in a useful way, and even if we could the issue of bias, misinformation, propaganda is ever present.

Dear Antonios,

No, No, No. I was not referring to you at all
concerning insults. No apology is necessary.

I was merely talking in generalities to examinator,
who seemed put out. I was not referring to any person.
It was my attempt at humour.

Agronomist,
I too was originally concerned about the ‘noble savage’ link but on closer consideration I decided it was all in the definition of terms and objectivity.
I grew up amongst these ‘primitive’ (a relative term) people (PNG in the late 1950/60…Keep in mind that Clans were being still ‘discovered’. (The cannibal/head hunting Kuku kukus was one such clan/nation. They simply walked out of the bush to investigate these colourless people, terrifying the local natives but completely stunning anthropologists.)
In fact the PNG societies/cultures (plural) I experienced were quite sophisticated in that they had incorporated hard scientific facts into an indivisible culture. (At one stage my parents feared I was going ‘native’, one of the reasons I was sent to boarding school)
A complex set of Taboos
• Allow for breeding times of food animals/birds in specific areas at appropriate times.
• And a series of events that almost preclude in breeding etc.
Notwithstanding their lives are/were short disease ridden and from OUR perspective brutish. (No I don’t lust after their pre-white life)

I have read anthropological studies that argue that much of the individuals ‘acceptance’ their place in their world order (contentment?) is based on ignorance of alternatives and cultural parameters. It all comes down to objectivity.

Objectively it is highly problematic to claim that the PNG (nation/clans) are better off now than before white intrusion (the missionaries and colonialists have a lot to answer for) considering their systematic destruction of their cultural structures and all that entails.

Recent studies show the increasing down sides of 21st century life, Rascols (gang) crime, family violence, stress, diabetes unsustainable birth rates, alienation and negative atheism et al. Even health/ life expectancy figures are patchy particularly in tribal areas. Many tribal areas have the added problem of loss of sustainability because of corruption and unfair cross cultural/commercial exploitism.
BTW it is 21st century bias that sees only two options Status Quo and pre-industrial feudalism.
It is the search for alternatives that motivates/d me and this topic not to convince anyone of anything.

I think just accept each ourselves for what we are would be the most realistic foundation for bettering ourselves. … we do have greed, we do go to war, etc, no science, philosophy, politics, social movement or religion has ever *cured* us of those *social sins*.

I think the constant effort to not be ourselves is badly wasting our energy. All that energy could be better spent with harm minimisation (such as the needle exchange and safe sex programs that have made Australia one of the HIV prevention leaders world wide)

This may also be applied to warfare, just get it to the least amount of casualties/damage we can, efficient etc. Let people get it over and let there actually be a winner too, this way it is ended. The constant halting of wars only prolongs them as we know, they won’t stop.

I think the least amount of intrusion into peoples social structures, (save for cops when needed and the basic laws don’t kill steal etc) But also while I mentioned not taking politics and religion to seriously I don’t mean to cut them either.. They are so important to peoples inner worlds too, but like all crazy kinks.. How about we keep them more in the bedroom and out of each others faces.

I’d be looking at ways to live that basically stop us morally and socially intruding on or controlling others to much,and one way is to keep our beliefs to ourselves more.

Also I see the big question as… which is do we globalize and become one big world wide community or do we retain the individual countries.

I don’t think we can have both.

Houellebecq “Perhaps the problem people have these days is they think they have so much more information. Information was supposed to be empowering but it has been found wanting.”

That might be one of the issues, through devices like TV and radio, supported by satellite and cable communications and to a lesser extent the internet, we are exposed to more data about more things around the world than our grandparents could have comprehended.

I think it is said (and forgive me if this is wavers from the absolute accurate), a 10 year old today has absorbed more raw data than our grand parents got to view in their entire life time.

TV brought the Vietnam war, in colour, into the family lounge. WWI was presented by black and white silent movies and newspaper illustrations, mostly sanitized.

I have used the term data distinct from information. ‘Data’ is what we receive/ are exposed to. “Information” is that minority part which we can actually benefit from or respond to, having first filtered from all the data.

Hence your comment really addresses the volumes of ‘data’ we are bombarded with.

And I agree, no wonder it is non-empowering, there is just too much which does not affect us or for which we have no direct responsibility or response.

Deciding on what is important to me as an individual is the first step, maintaining my focus in deciding to deliberately ignore the majority of diversions presented in the “data” is what I work at to overcome and stay in a state of what I think might be something like sanity.

Merediths comment “I think the constant effort to not be ourselves is badly wasting our energy.”

Absolutely right. That is what I feel every time I hear the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commissioner tell me, through TV interview, that male only clubs (the Melbourne etc) are evil and we (she and me), as a society, need to ban them.

That conflicts with my personal values which support “ live and let live” yet my taxes are expropriated to pay for that moron preaching the opposite.

Interesting topic, examinator.

Not long ago, I spent a few days in a village. The village was divided into four groups, each of about 800 people.
I spoke to one young man, who said that he knew about 90% of the people from his group. He had about 40 family members in this group and the rest he had known growing up. The village was equipped with a primary school and then they went to a middle school that wasn't far away.

Although the environment was far from idyllic, the feeling of a tightly knit community was certainly present. I asked the man whether he would come back to live here (he was one of the few travelling away) and his answer was 'of course.'

So yes, as societies become more prosperous I believe they do become more atomised. That being said, I wouldn't trade places to live there, so I guess it's a price we pay willingly.

Part of the issue is cultural - the nuclear family trend which goes back half a century is undoubtedly a chief culprit. I do believe that cultural models which have an extended family raising a child are more effective. I tend to think that we evolved in village scenarios where aunts, siblings, grandparents and uncles were available to assist parents. It's no wonder we have stress about child-raising when we're attempting to have just two people, sometimes one, doing it alone.

I think this is the first contributor to this atomisation. The second is prosperity, and the drive to focus on the accumulation of wealth.
This is a tougher issue to consider - our lives become more comfortable, indeed, aside from raw happiness and togetherness, all the yardsticks by which we can measure the quality of life spring forth from this drive to succeed, not only on an individual level but on a societal level.
As always, it comes back to seeking the right balance.
Of course career and the drive to succeed is important, but it must be seen as the means to an end and not the end itself.

One can see this trend starting at primary school where everyone in class knows everyone else because everyone's equal. This situation largely remains until people leave high school and join the big wide world of university or work.

It's at about this time that people discover what they have to do that's in their best interest career-wise. They also learn that not everthing is for them and that too many people doing the same thing doesn't differentiate themselves sufficiently to warrant a better salary (or to forge their own identity). On top of that, people discover they are really quite different from the people they went to school with. They then start pairing up with people that are more like them.

Providing there is the opportunity to expand (which Western scociety provides in abundance), people fill the possible universe of activities. As I see it, all the above factors lead toward atomisation.

However, too much of anything is bad, ranging from excessive atomisation to a paucity of opportunity.

Solution to the modern world's problems: The West donates some of its excess opportunity to the developing world and, in the process, redresses some of the big imbalances that make the world operate dysfunctionally and/or asymmetrically. At least that's the ideal.

I am not as well versed as others on this forum but it would seem to me that we have lost the plot. I lead what I would describe as a fairly minimalistic lifestyle in as much as I have what I need.
The economic structures we have built up around ourselves coupled with clever and subliminal advertising forces many to become materialistic and rampant consumers.
We and our children are told that we must have the latest car, ipod,plasma screen,lounge suite,computer,etc,etc!!and if we dont have them we are not living in the real world!!
What is wrong with a $300 second hand lounge suite as opposed to a $3000 dollar one brought on a credit card,you are only meant to sit on it not live in it!

BOAZ_David posted:

“-pornograpy and lust [substituted] for love and compassion..”

Song for a Pornograph Record

The red rose breathes of passion
And the white rose breathes of love
For the red rose is a falcon
And the white rose is a dove.
So let me send you a cream white rose
With a flush at its petaled tips.
Even the purest and sweetest of loves
Bears the blush of desire on its lips.

Love and lust are intertwined. I have greatly appreciated women who have returned my lust even though it may have been compassion rather than love on their part. Come to think of it they might have lusted also. The above poem sometimes helped set the mood.

He also posted:

“-When men and women exchange natural relations for un-natural...”

If you can do it it’s not unnatural. As long as the acts are between consenting adults and nobody suffers physical injury it’s nobody else’s business what people do with each other during orifice hours. What business is it of yours?

BOAZ_David, you weren’t always an old fogy. I believe that at some earlier date you must have been a young fogy.

Dear david f,

The poem works for me...
Tenderness is the rarest of qualities in a man.

Speaking as a female, I can almost guarantee
that all of your lady 'loves' felt much more
than compassion towards you.

I suppost plot means, goal, direction, a plan to reach the goal.(my dictionary does not help me)
Which plan, which goal, which direction, every person, every man, every woman. every young, every old person has diferent plan, different goals, different directions.
The governments, the leaders do not promote, realise equaly the plot from each individual BUT ONLY THE PLOT FROM THE VERY STRONG PERSONS OF THE SOCIETY, THE SO CALLED ELITE OF A SOCIETY.
For the mass majorioty of individuals, their plot have ignored from the society, and it exists only as a dream, only as a hope, only as a sweet pain and nothing else.
If the role for a worker, for a migrant for a woman, for a muslim, for a child or for a retired person in their society is under the zero then under the zero is the plot of these groups in their society. If a huge part of our society have ignored from the governmend and the elite of a society and if the public opinion have created from the persons who control the mass media, then even on the election day we vote what they say us to vote, and ALWAYS THEY SAY US THAT THEIR BENEFITS ARE BENEFITS FOR THE WHOLE SOCIETY AND FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SEPARATE'
OUR DEMOCRACY IS VERY WEAK, OUR ROLE IN OUR SOCIETY IS EXTREMELY WEAK. THERE IS NOT PLOT FOR THE MOST PEOPLE, WE ARE BLIND FOLLOWERS!!
It is an other story if we want to change it and how to change it.

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios Symeonakis,

You have a compassionate attitude. Dostoyevskii judged a society by the way they treat people at the bottom. So do you.

Many ignore the people on the bottom. If they don't ignore them they find reasons to justify them being there. The 2,000,000 population of US prisons are at the bottom. The US has a much higher ratio of its people in prison than any other developed country. Somehow I can’t believe that the US has a more depraved population than other countries. Hopefully, that is one of the problems that Obama will tackle.

Plato postulated governments into aristocracy (rule by the best), timarchy (rule by honour), oligarchy (rule by the few), democracy (rule by the people) and tyranny . The children of the aristocracy would control by force and have a sense of honour. Then a few would gather the wealth and power to form an oligarchy. People would feel oppressed by the oligarchy and would revolt to form a democracy. Inevitably a demagogue would appear and become a tyrant. That has happened in the past.

My belief is that in the current world there is really nothing but oligarchy. Political structures are too big and complex for one person to control so even if there is a dictator he must rely on a party and its bureaucracy. In the democracies we have the class of professional politicians. In theocracies we have the ecclesiastical hierarchies. In military dictatorships we have the high commands etc. The difference between the oligarchies consists of the methods of selecting its members. The most stable oligarchies are those that manage to convince the public that they really are democracies.

They could consider those at the bottom but rarely do.

Dear examinator,

I recently came across this website:

http://www.australiansall.com.au/australias-dangerous-fantasy/

It's by Eva Sallis, called "Australia's Dangerous Fantasy."

It deals with racism, and the kind of society we want to
have in Australia. It was first published in, The New York
Times, Dec. 2005, updated Nov. 2006. I think it's still
relevant today. As Sallis sums up:

"...A volatile part of our community is living in deep
alienation, unable to belong, and another volatile part is living
back in the irretrievable past with a fantasy of an all-white
Australia. If contemporary Australians are to live at ease with
ourselves, we need more education, less fear mongering and, not
least, greater honesty about the culture of racism that is so
damaging us."

To all who stuck to the point your opinions were both appreciated and interesting a good round discussion. Thanks

Foxy,
Very true,Good post not a bad site either I like her lecture.
examinator