The purpose of life and the goal of a perfect society

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

[1715569431]

1715569431

[1715569431]

1715569431

[1715569431]

1715569431

[1715569431]

1715569431

[1715569431]

1715569431

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

Well, tell you what: When the cells in my body ask my brain to free them, I promise to comply.

[asdf]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

[myrkul]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

[organofcorti]

not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.

I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.

[dree12]

Hmm... I think I'm being confusing. There's a difference between the individual and the society.

Not as such. Society is just a collection of individuals, and "society's" actions are just those of a group of individuals. So if each individual in that society seeks his or her own happiness without causing detriment to others' happiness, "society" seeks the most happiness for all.

But isn't an individual just a collection of brain cells and their slaves? Maybe each brain cell should seek their own satisfaction. And additionally, each molecule their own.

But, each brain cell does seek it's own satisfaction. It acts in it's own self interest and doesn't aggress against other cells. They're all happy and the brain is happy as a result of the cell's happiness. Start using centralised force against brain cells and I think you'll find the brain is allot less happy.

Apply the same principal to humans and society.

Nah, that's not how it works. The brain cells are without self-interest themselves, and work only because of chemical interactions. The analogy doesn't even apply.

In case you were wondering, I was joking.

Joke or not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

That's an interesting standpoint. Taking it a step further, do molecules have a tendency to not destroy others? In other words, are reactive compounds much rarer than inert ones?

I guess (from my limited chemical knowledge) that they are. But then wouldn't the universe become progressively more nonreactive? Maybe I should pay attention when I'm supposed to learn about entropy, because that sounds similar.

</thinking_out_loud>

Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?

[nimda]

Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).

[myrkul]

not, the analogy does apply. Brain cells are without rational self-interest, but as all living things, they "want" to continue living. killing the other cells would be a detriment to that, so cells that have a tendency to do that naturally don't reproduce.

Cells killing themselves and other cells is an important part of biology. Mutated cells without this function often present at cancers.

I'm not relating this back to the original argument. Just sayin'.

Except brain cells don't do that. Cell death is to prevent "over population", ie cancer, in cells that experience cell division.

[myrkul]

Either way, this is getting too deep. Let's take the analogy into the other direction: if we find other societies (e.g. aliens), is peace the best solution?

Most likely. However, war might contribute to overall happiness of our society in some way (see f.ex. the great depression).

That's a highly toxic position, nimda.

Yes, peace is universally the best solution (unless they disagree on that, in which case, defense from their aggression is) to meeting an alien civilization. If two individuals operate best when cooperating, so too would two societies.

[nimda]

Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?

[myrkul]

Hey man, when did we pull out of the Great Depression?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy

[nimda]

M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?

[myrkul]

M8, I'm saying that the Great Depression ended mostly because of WWII. Agree or disagree?

From the article you evidently neglected to read:

The argument can be made that war is a benefactor, since historically it often has focused the use of resources and triggered advances in technology and other areas while reducing unemployment. The increased production and employment associated with war often leads some to claim that "war is good for the economy." However, this belief is often given as an example of the broken window fallacy. The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas. The stimulus felt in one sector of the economy comes at a direct—but hidden—cost to other sectors.

[nimda]

M8, agree, or disagree. That is all. It's fine to cite the broken window fallacy, but WWII pulled us out of the Great Depression. Furthermore, the main argument seems to be "The money spent on the war effort, for example, is money that cannot be spent on food, clothing, health care, consumer electronics or other areas." Funny how we managed to CREATE jobs with WWII then, huh?

WWII was a net positive for America.

[myrkul]

WWII was a net positive for America.

Did we "create jobs", or "reduce surplus workforce"?

Net positive, huh? Tell that to the families of the 416,800 US troops killed.

To say nothing of the rest of the over 22,426,600 combined military casualties, and 37,585,300 to 55,883,000 civilians killed in the war.

And let's not forget the huge amounts of capital destroyed, either as materiel loss (destroyed ships, planes shot down), or as a direct result of it being used to make bombs.

Another quote from the article you didn't bother to read:

One example of the costs of war sometimes given is the many projects postponed or not started until after the end of World War II in the United States. The pent-up demand for roads, bridges, houses, cars, and even radios led to massive inflation in the late 1940s. The war delayed the commercial introduction of television, among other things, and the resources sent overseas to rebuild the rest of the world after the war were not available to the American people for their direct benefit; neither did the war enrich any of these other nations.

War is never a "net positive".

[nimda]

Yet somehow it brought hundreds of millions of people out of the Great Depression and into higher living standards.

[myrkul]

A third and final nail in the coffin of your sick and twisted position:

In addition, war destroys property and lives. The economic stimulus to one nation's defense sector is offset not only by immediate opportunity costs, but also by the costs of the damage and devastation of war to the country it attacks. This forms the basis of a second application of the broken window fallacy: rebuilding what war destroys stimulates the economy, particularly the construction sector. However, immense resources are spent merely to restore pre-war conditions. After a war, there is only a rebuilt city. Without a war, there are opportunities for the same resources to be applied to more fruitful purposes. Instead of rebuilding a destroyed city, the resources could have been used to improve and enlarge the city or build a second one.

[nimda]

And tying it back into aliens, not choosing peace might be beneficial for our society, though not the alien one.