JKJ,

>all the knowledge, morality and resources - society already has.<

And how did society come to this amenable situation, if not from provision by governments of or for most of the necessary tools - education, public infrastructure, welfare for the weak and disabled, clean air and water and environmental preservation, and the regulation of working conditions, construction, industry and mining, and the provision of affordable superannuation and healthcare, etc?

Or, freedom to make you own way, if you have the innate abilities and strong family support - and let the devil take the hindmost?

Dear Saltpetre,

<<and let the devil take the hindmost?>>

Why then not let God take the hindmost?

Having agreed that humans are resourceful, the question remains "what motivates us?".

Whatever motivates us, comes down in the final analysis to two sources: love or fear.

The state is structured on fear. The assumption behind the state is that people are bad in nature, that if left to their own devices they will harm rather than care for each other. The state exists to coerce people into complying and 'do good instead'. It is impossible, counter to natural and logical law to do good under coercion, yet this is what the state attempts.

Support of the state is a statement of non-confidence in love, thereby non-confidence in God, thereby confidence in the devil.

A milder excuse for having the state is that although people are good in nature, they are childish fools that need direction. That could perhaps have been justified by a benevolent and wise parent-figure heading the [nanny-]state, but that argument falls in democracy: if indeed we are childish fools, then we should not be allowed to vote, for what possibly could a majority of a bunch of childish fools vote for?

Personal and spiritual progress consists of making choices, at the bottom line, freely choosing love over fear. When the state 'does good on our behalf', without allowing us to progress through making the relevant choices ourselves, we are DENIED PROGRESS.

Admittedly, there may be tangible physical results: schools, hospitals, dams, construction, environment, etc., but none of those can change the rate of material progress:

While man can affect the rate of spiritual progress, no matter what man does, the rate of material progress will remain exactly one second per second, one minute per minute, one hour per hour and one day per day.

The hindmost should not selfishly ask for material support for no return, not even a 'thank-you', but should in exchange support the spiritual progress of those in front. One day they too will be in front and they too wouldn't like their spiritual efforts hindered.

Below are 10 quotes sourced from a piece by Andrew Kirrel who challenged his readers to determine which of them addressed interracial or gay unions. All are taken from either laws, politicians, court judgements or large NGOs. I will admit to only getting 6 out of the 10 right.

1. "They cannot possibly have any progeny, and such a fact sufficiently justifies" not allowing their marriage.

2. This relationship "is not only unnatural, but is always productive of deplorable results ... [Their children turn out] generally effeminate ... [their relationship is] productive of evil."

3. State legislators spoke out against such an "abominable" type of relationship, warning that it will eventually "pollute" America.

4. “It not only is a complete undermining of ... the hope of future generations, but it completely begins to see our society break down ... It literally is a threat to the nation’s survival in the long run.”

5. This type of marriage is not allowed "because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong."

6. This type of marriage is "regarded as unnatural and immoral."

7. This type of relationship is "distasteful to our people, and unfit to produce." Such marriages would lead to "a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us."

8. "Although there is no verse in the Bible that dogmatically says [this marriage should not occur], the whole plan of God as He has dealt with [humanity] down through the ages indicates that [this] marriage is not best for man."

9. "A little-reported fact is that [these types of relationships] are far more violent than are [insert single-race or heterosexual] households."

10. "I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose [this type of relationship] as 'prejudiced' is in itself a prejudice," a psychologist submitted to the court. "Nothing of any significance is gained by such a marriage."

There may well be some here who don't think the abolition of laws against interracial marriage was a progressive move. So be it but I think the vast majority of us would disagree.

Yuyutsu, sorry old chap, you've got that wrong. What motivates people is the desire to eat. First & foremost, this is our most driving need. Love hate only come along when we have food, shelter, & access to more food.

I spent a bit of time at an atoll that had only had one visitor in the 3 years since the plantation owner died. That was another yacht, without much to give or trade with them. They could not be bothered with making copra, so no trade boat came any more.

What did they want. Well mostly they wanted fish hooks, & some new line would be nice, but no use without hooks.

They would really like some rice. Rice was an easy meal, taro had to be dug & fetched.

Next they wanted batteries for their transistor radios & tape players.

Some petrol for their outboards would be nice, but only if I could make most of them go again.

Some cloth would be a nice replacement for coconut fond woven skirts, [no suitable grass to make grass skirts] but the only other things they wanted were tools to replace those lost. Axes, machetes & knives were the most wanted.

So sorry mate, other things become more important, once we don't have a government proving for the lazy & incompetent. A couple of boxes of fish hooks would have bought you every woman on the island, if you were that way inclined.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<What motivates people is the desire to eat. First & foremost, this is our most driving need.>>

This is why I wrote explicitly:

"Whatever motivates us, comes down IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS to two sources: love or fear."

One desires to eat either because they love eating, because they enjoy that sensation, or because they are afraid of the sensation of hunger and ultimately of dying.

That must be why no one pays any attention in academic research. Too much bull.