['You have to look after number one]' Richard, Individuality does not imply looking after 'number one' simply as a end in itself, it's a recognition that looking after 'number one' affords one to better look after number two, number three, and so on. There is a reason that the concept of individuality lies at the centre of our most important social (psychology), political (democracy) and economical (capitalism) systems, and to think that you can simply dismiss it by pointing to the fact that humans are social beings or that capitalism might be at odds with the environment and therefore ourselves, is hardly a argument I can take seriously. Individuality is a concept I'm very much interested in, how did it evolve, what sustains it, the paradoxes which are inherent in it, whether, as you've mention, it's even a valid philosophy, but I think you've failed to treat the issue with the attention it deserves and I find your argument for the philosophy of individuality being invalid...well, invalid.

Thanks for the comments Chris. As I said, it is work in progress, I am just trying to learn by dialogue. There is a difference between Individuality (a perfectly sound concept) and the philosophy of Individualism, which attempts to build a world view of life, the universe and everything, based on the individual person. This is why Thatcher said "There is no such thing as Society". The only ultimate philosophical and political reality for her was the individual (though she allowed it to extend a little to "The Family"). Individualism is the root of free market capitalism, in that corporations have been granted the status in law of individual persons, with the same rights that are granted to a person (although, interestingly, less responsibilities than a person, thanks to "Limited Liability", a notion that is beginning to be challenged. [In its extreme form Individualism comes through as libertarianism, which crosses all sorts of lines: extreme conservatives and extreme (as in Revolutionary Workers Party) socialists and anarchists all seem to flourish the libertarian flag.] Individualism is the polar opposite to Socialism. They are both -isms, that is, both philosophies based on the absolutisation (in my own view, anyway) of one aspect of the human being. They are antithetical, that is, irreconcilable in their own terms. I personally believe that they can be reconciled or achieve synthesis in the wider matrix of ecological philosophy, that is the philosophy that finds its startting point in our position as an element in the living system on a finite planet. Both individual and society depend on Nature to sustain them. By attending to the preservation and healing of our environment, we can overcome all sorts of conflicts. So in healing Nature, we can sort out the problems which are ascribed to our "human nature", because here I agree with you Chris, that it is our behaviour, not our "nature" which needs to be put right. Which is a much more hopeful way of looking at the state in which we find ourselves.

Mother Theresa serves others in order to win her place in Heaven... we learn sociability in order to propagate our genes. Yes, that is a way of seeing things. I suppose the danger of that way is that some may cut out the middle man. "Why look after others, if I do that in order to serve my own interests? Why not just look out for number one?" That is the basic problem in maladjusted behaviour - seeking immediate gratification instead of delayed gratification. It is really these direct scripts that I am seeking, the lines of programming that get people to do common maladjusted things. Take doubt about Global Warming. 56% of the public think that there is scientific doubt about GW, whereas only ablut 1% of the scientist think there is any doubt. Where does that come from? The news media surely? But people like to say they doubt the media. So they doubt it and believe it at the same time. Maybe they believe wat they want to believe. Sorry, I am rambling a bit here. I am trying to understand the way people think. I guess I will just have to go out and ask them.

Richard, I think that is what some do and, in truth, If they are clever about it or just lucky, they can get away with it. Many do. We have developed laws that are supposed to prevent such "cheating", but these are not wholly effective because either some people can just not get caught or the laws are simply not sufficiently sophisticated or all encompassing. We live in a society that tacitly agrees to be bound by these mutually arranged constraints. This generally works because the laws are naturally developed from our ingrained genetic programming and because we accept their overall fairness. When this trust fails, society can break down. This does not mean everybody becomes suddenly dishonest, but the constraints on behaviour become much looser. I think the issue on non-belief in global warming is not exactly down to the media, at least not directly. Generally the media have given much more coverage to those who would promote belief that it is happening rather than those who dispute it, at least in the UK. This may not be the case in the USA where many senior government officials right up to the President have been questioning the validity of the evidence. In the UK I think many are skeptical of the media and of what goverments tell them, and with some justification. People will tend to make up their own mind even though this is a subject where few have sufficient knowledge to do this. What comes over is that scientists disagree but not the imbalance in the weighting. The MMR vaccine issue is similar in this regard. One scientist threw doubt on the safety of the MMR vaccine, against a great weight of scientific evidence, and this all but destroyed many people's confidence in it. It has taken years to correct this misconception. Also, people are not good at understanding statistics (hence so many people buying lottery tickets!). The media has not helped by presenting the case (for GW) poorly and inaccurately although to do so properly and fully would not hold public interest. It has become a political issue so the science has taken a back seat in favour of persuasion and simplified arguments. Maybe it has to be this way to get things done, but the overselling and simplification is grist to the mill for those who are GW skeptics. As an aside it is noticable how the GW skeptics have gradually transformed themselves into GW believers but with caveats: it is exaggerated or it is happening, but it is not down to man and we can't do anything about it. It is not that people do not think about these issues but more they have not got the knowledge to reach a sensible conclusion. The lack of trust in "expert" opinion when not absolutely 100% is a strange quirk that maybe related to a lack of trust in science in general. This view was especially popular in the 60s when all the world's evils were the fault of science it seems. Maybe this will change. To explain to Chris: Oogh, oogh, oogh. Wahhh, wahhh. Oogh, oogh, oogh, oogh.

Its not usually the core message that people listen to, but the way that it is delivered that will determine who it reaches, or if anyone listens at all. most people do not look beyond their impression of the delivery to see if there is anything substantial to pay attention to. when viewing international threats, militarism is appears to be proactive; taking charge- and environmentalism is whiny. Who responds positively when they feel they are being guilted into doing something anyhow? (often the way the environmentalist call for action comes across) Also many people dont live or spend an appreciable amount of time in the outdoors, so in a way it is another reality that we are being asked to change our habits and pay attention to which is why its more convienent to believe that the threat is exaggerated.

Candace, you are probably right and this is very depressing, because greens are much more interested in the message than the presentation. Ironic to think that the ecosystem may fall ill and die because its defenders just could not be doing with suits and ties. ..

englishman It is not complex to deliver the truth to people. Truth is simple- merely facts. It is complex to deliver lies to them-the analysis of those facts.

Candace, either you accept what is told to you as true (simple message) or you try to find out if it is true or not (complex message). As a physicist I have great difficulty understanding the evidence and calculations that predict the climate, and I have tried to read a lot about it. As it happens I am convinced of the evidence, but I don't think too many people would dig this deeply and if I was to analyse my subjective view it would be 90% sure, not 100%. There are plenty of other subjects where I would completely flounder when trying to review the basic evidence and so have to rely on what others say. Usually this has to be presented in a way that I can understand and so is a simplification. Few questions have simple answers.

Yes, and as a physicist you would need more information to be convinced about something like global warming than most people. If the facts are indisputable and yet 56% of the public believes there is scientific doubt, (as Richard said) then possibly there is a communication problem where the message and the people who are delivering the message have been successfully discreditied to the general populace. The next step, if you were into this kind of thing, would be to find a different way to communicate the same message, and do something about that image environmentalists have. Being that television is a primary information source for a lot of people, where many opinions are formed, I didnt think it needed to be a complex message; just something creative. Other than that the way you described what a simple or complex message seemed more like you were describing a response to a message, not the actual message itself. Was that the point? I think you can get the attention of people with simple message where they take the initiave to look further into it themselves.

What's your point? Cute. You found a website.

No I havent. Where did I state my opinion? I havent looked into it much at all. I think being environmentally conscious is just being a decent person; not anything I feel the need to reach out and change anyones mind about; global warming is not my issue, but I am sympathetic to the concern. hopefully, that makes sense, because I gotta get to work now.

Many people believe in ghosts, alien abductions and supernatural, all-powerful, all seeing beings that they will meet when they die.

Kewl, that posted. OK, I'll scribble some more.. #2 You can't change human nature, and human nature is warlike.# True, but as has been pointed out, we can change behavior. You know the NUMBER ONE enabler of war? It's collectivism, the "Us versus Them" mindset. Look, for example, at the outcry of the US government not trying hard enough to help people hit by Katrina, compared to the relative indifference for the mass of deliberate and wilful killing of people in Iraq. Think there might be a bit of an outcry if the neocons invaded, occupied and were regularly killing the people of say, California? This the US government would get away with killing around half a million AMERICANS? But them islamofacist towel-wearing camel jockeys, sub-human critturs, they don't count huh? Actually, they do, if we respect humanity as a whole and quit that "them" thing, which is started with the whole flag-waving "us" thing. Ironically, in your treatise you seem to understand this and urge that we forget our differences and fight the 'alien invasion' of 'global warming'. Please, try and put some of that common sense towards your fellow "rich guys" instead of attacking "them" for being richer than you and "yours". If you cannot manage to avoid the "us and them" thinking at home, what chance do you have of giving this gift to others abroad? "One study showed that only 12% of trained soldiers who could have fired to kill in war, did fire" Sadly, that was then - the modern US, UK and Isreali soldier fires with far less remorse today, as our military training is "better". Now it is more like 98%. #3 There always will be wars.# As long as there are governments, yes. Wars are not fought because a high percentage of the people in one country get a hankering to go kill a high percentage of people in another country. They are led on by our great and hallowed leaders whipping people up, usually with fakery, in order to expand the territory or resources they control. Mob turf wars on a large scale, with the people as ignorant cannon-fodder waving flags and hating "them". It is the ultimate expression of human stupidity, not the war itself, the fact we let ourselves get talked into them. Happily modern communication (damn capitalism, too many people have carbon-spewing computers!) is allowing fast and widespread dissemation of info, so fast and so wide that many thousands knew the latest war was a farce before it even started. Today anyone can look up Pearl Harbor on Google and know that was fake (the surprise bit etc). Today you can look on Google and know the Iran war will be under false pretences - and again that hasn't happened yet. However if we truly wish to thwart the urge to war we need to return to the gender thing. Not as a feminist gender war, that's just fighting wars again, but the opposite approach. We should discard the "them v us" attitude. IT IS THE VERY FACT WE CONSIDER MEN DISPOSABLE THAT ENABLES WAR. In our ancient past we needed to protect our women and invariably dangerous jobs, tasks, exploration and so on would fall on men. Today's world, outside of war, is vastly safer and easier - women did not so much "gain the right to work" as much as both household tasks and the world of work became so safe and easy both sexes could do both without the need for specialisation we used to have. No longer are socks darned and washed by hand, we just throw em in the machine and buy new ones when they lose their good looks. No longer do you need a broad back and large arms to earn a day's wage. Yet when it comes to danger we are still leaning in the direction of "that's a man's job". Even in the current politically-correct US army we see the ongoing protection. Of the 3000+ military deaths in Iraq, less than 70 were women. On the job over 90% of work-related deaths are male. This stems from the same element as chastity - if such modesty is demanded of men and just one falls for temptation he can make 100 women pregnant without being able to offer the support they need. If however chastity is demanded of women and 1% fails, of a village of 100 that's just one burdensome baby. Same applies with risk - lose half the male population and the next generation can be as high as normal - lose half the women and the next generation is halved. Today we do not face the dangers of the workplace like we used to. If anything over-population is more of a problem across the world than under-population. The entire concept of protecting women is virtually redundant. Worse, much worse, however, is the fact we still have the notion that men are disposable, just cannon-fodder. The survivors can be our "heros", the losers, well they're "losers", so forget them. Disposable, see? Yet in modern hi-tech industrial warfare, losing a war is not a matter of having a different king and life goes on. Iraq is now barely above the stone age, thousands upon thousands of women and children have been killed, crippled and poisoned with D.U. Revenge, if it comes with a stolen, smuggled nuke, will inflict similar upon America. Put bluntly, we can afford to quit protecting women and we CANNOT afford war and discarding the menfolk as disposable. Those old rules are seriously dangerous. This site appears dedicated to giving women a fair break - I'd suggest if stopping war is your concern you instead look a bit closer at society's lack of concern for men. Recently I read an article where the author, lamenting those less than 70 dead women, whined "What kind of society sends women into the danger zone?". I ask instead, what kind of society cares more about less than 70 women than it does about 3,000 men? About 500,000 Iraqis of both sexes? "Us v Them". The ultimate in stupidity. We are them and they are us, and that applies to gender as much as skin color, religion, or nation. W.

Thank you for the kind words but I actually support the Austrian School of economics (ASE). True economics is not really about math, it is about human actions. As such yes, Mother Teresa was acting. ASE can be summed up in 2 words - Man acts. No, these are not always rational actions, at least seen from the outside. Charity is a classic example, the strength of which can be seen by the fact that even with massive government "giving", it still exists today. It would of course be much bigger today without "government charity". Let's explore that issue for a moment - democratic government and government aid to the needy are contradictory when you think about it. If the majority of people want to give money to the needy, why do we need a government to force us to? Either democracy works, in which case we don't need government charity, or we do actually need to be forced into giving, in which case democracy is not working and we're being forced into doing something we don't want to. It is not logical to say we are a charitable species but must force ourselves to be charitable. The truth I suspect, is that we are very generous with other people's money! #Man has the ability to reason and use his brain to predict what will result from his actions. It can be argued that recent attempts to do better than the natural forces have led to poor results# The absolute essence of capitalism is uncertainty. Only by taking risks to see what is popular and valued can progress be made and substained. The majority of new businesses fail - that's not this year's statistic, it has always been the case. It's about risking your own time, money and effort, where the chances are you will lose, but the rewards if successful are greater than taking the safer route of employment with an already succesful company. In previous eras this would include exploration, perhaps being eaten by wolves, tigers, crocodiles, sharks or swamps. But if succesful you return as a rich hero with tales to tell. Again this is what drives progress, the willingness for some to take risks for high rewards (and is typically male behaviour). This is what works and yes, sometimes it goes wrong. We try something and its worse than if we hadn't bothered in the first place. There is a massive difference however between the market and government on such issues. If a businessman finds something is not working, or his customers don't think it's working, which is the real issue, then he will quit doing it, quit funding it, or be forced to by going broke. If government does something that doesn't work it INCREASES funding, uses even more force, allocates even more resources, demands even more tax, threatens even stiffer penalties and basically does more of the same thing while hoping for different results. Take the war in Iraq for example - not working? Let's "surge!" Not working? Let's surge some more and threaten Iran! Still not working? Let's threaten Russia and China too! The US is spending literally around $3 BILLION dollars a DAY and it aint working. Can you imagine any private company funding this farce? Would the American people keep buying it if they had a choice about funding it? Another reason I follow ASE rather than Keynes is that even the world's richest government cannot afford this - so they print and borrow money. A large chunk of income tax goes to nothing but paying the interest on current debt, literally just the interest. If the government actually directly taxed you for the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia you'd probably revolt - so they hit you with the hidden stealth tax of "inflation". They print the money, spend it (on their cronies) and by the time it trickles down and you notice, all you see is "greedy capitalists" raising their prices. Then we look to government to "help tackle market inflation". Hello? I'd say accepting our Grande Leaders debasing the currency ("inflation") is the 2nd biggest example of humanity's stupidity. We've been doing it throughout most of our history. Along with our willingness to believe the lying tyrants and our willingness to dismiss men as disposable is that fact that we seem blind to the massive financial costs of warfare - not least because the tax is stealth tax. As an experiment a few years ago on another forum I asked the question: "Why is it illegal to print your own money?" The answers were very revealing. Many of those that were willing to tackle the question (many regulars ignored it) simply restated in some form that it was "against the law", as though that explained WHY it was against the law...? Some gave the helpful answer "because you haven't earnt it" which is true enough but doesn't really explain why not, does it? I refined the question and asked "Why is it illegal for a charity which gives to a worthy cause to print their own money?" Unbelievably, on a large, popular American forum, they couldn't figure the answer out, until finally, a month after I asked, someone chipped in with "It would devalue existing money and you'd be sucking at the productivity of other people like a parasite, directly stealing their wealth by debasement". Sadly enough, that someone was me. None of them actually understood this basic point until I told them. Then of course it seemed obvious huh? Yet we sit idly by while our governments fund massive wars and invasions by printing and borrowing? Point A. Stop believing your government. Governments lie, it is what they do for a living, they lie to gain power, then sell that power. War is a racket. Point B. Quit with the "including women and children!" stuff and consider that a MAN is every bit as human, his death is every bit as important and should be avoided with the same urgency. Point C. At least TRY to understand the basics of inflationary economics and reject those that claim they have "policies" or "plans" to "tackle" it - especially when those plans involve spending even more money on "the problem". Government spending IS the problem. #4 Nuclear weapons will keep the peace forever (see 3)# Sadly I have to agree this is not a valid assumption. When a powerful wheeled crossbow was built some said this lethal machine would "put an end to war". They said the same about the machine gun and the aircraft. Industrial-level warfare destroys on a massive scale. World War 1 was the "war to end all wars". Swiftly followed by the even more destructive WW2, which ended as a nuclear war. If we somehow survive another nuclear war, doubtless we'll say how that war was the war to end war. Until... While a powerful crossbow came nowhere close, it IS true to say the massive destruction of a nuclear bomb is so scary and can inflict such damage directly upon the capital city of the aggressor, typically the home of the politicians, that it does actually come close to that "so bad war is unthinkable" ideal. What we've seen those is that the one country that used them is now trying to take over the world, confident that no-one will stop them. The depth of stupidity involved is breath-taking, not to mention the immorality or indeed illegality. There is NO SUCH THING as a level of technology that will prevent war. Democracy, on its own, does not work. Spending and cost, while we ignore or are ignorant of inflation, is no barrier. There is nothing stopping WW3, with nukes, quite possibly with Russia and or China joining in, from happening. Nothing at all. History says it is a matter of time. The doomsday scenario of war starting and ending at the pressing of buttons is unlikely - but while we allow our politicians to lead us into conventional war we risk the escalation into nuclear. #5 If I had a club and you had a club and you put yours down, I would hit you.# Not if I was your best customer. Free trade anyone? And I mean free, not the "government agreements" of cronyism and special interests we have today. 6 There is nothing I can do (about the state of the world)# Paraphrased as best as I recall - "Never underestimate the power of a few outspoken men to change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has", Maggie Mead. We can add to that "To do nothing in the face of evil is itself evil" or words to that effect. Sadly, one aspect of humanity which hasn't changed is that we are, at heart, herd animals. Millions of us would gladly join that million-strong march of protest, if only there was one... Millions of us would gladly partake in that boycott of Nation A or Company B or vote for Candidate C if only that even more evil Candidate D wasn't running and we have to vote for "lesser evil"... I'm reminded of the expression "A powerful waterfull is a million drips working together". Sounds good but in truth it is just a million drips being pulled along by gravity and other drips, right off the edge of a cliff :o/ This brings me on to torture - I'm amazed at the ignorance on this topic, as people discuss if it is a valid means of extracting information. Firstly, we all know that IF someone actually held a prisoner and actually DID know that this individual held the info that would stop a nuke going off in a city or whatever, would go ahead and torture regardless of the law. It's a no brainer and doesnt require discussion. What is actually discussed however is using torture AS POLICY. That's a whole different ball-game and involves torturing those merely suspected of maybe perhaps having some info of vital use, probably. That, coupled to the fact we know from long history that torture rarely produces valid data, as well as being immoral and so on, makes torture very much NOT the policy of civilised countries. Instead torture has a totally different purpose when used by the state, which has virtually nothing to do with divulging secrets. It's to terrify. Yes, a form of "terrorism". It's to instil dread and fear of being arrested, to underline the power of the state with abject terror. Many are willing to protest and be arrested. Arrest? Pah. Many are willing to pay a small fine, even a short stint in jail. A few will speak out and risk a long jail term, for a worthy enough cause, such as preventing WW3. A tiny few will even risk a quick and glorious death. How many will speak out knowing they risk not just imprisonment but secret gulags and long-term torture? Literally a fate worse than death and no-one will even know about it? Well not me for a start, probably not you either. Pretty much no-one. And THAT is the real meaning of torture as policy. We CAN change but it will not be painless or risk free or convenient. As someone who fought over gender issues for years and saw first hand how lethargic and unwilling people are to actually DO something, I consider the basic approach of "We need to get a few million people to..." or "if EVERYONE would just..." or even "If we get a couple of hundred people to..." as hopeless. No. If humans could be magically manipulated into doing what you want we'd be in even worse bother than we already are. It starts with YOU. Yep, the person reading this and vaguely thinking about a response to an earlier bit and easily brushing off the "you" bit, quit brushing and realise I really do mean YOU. YOU. You need to change. Specifically to Englishman, I suggest you read up on the truth about the industrial revolution. Not easy and I don't blame anyone for buying the statist BS on the topic as it is indeed the mainstream view. And it's wrong. Tip - if you're in England, go to the British Museum. Ask to see the Swallow Report, I think that's what it's called, the parlimentary report on the horrors of child labor, evil factories etc. It's on display. Then ask to see the follow-up report, which is also held there. It is not on display. It is the in-depth investigation which debunked the first as utter and total tripe. In truth that first report was created essentially by the church, which was horrified at the relative richness of the plebs, that they could afford alcohol, girls could afford to buy dresses instead of making them, some even choose to go to work instead of church on Sundays - and horror of horrors, they were no longer showing "the proper respect to their betters". Also compare the standard of living of the poor before the industrial revolution to after and during. Quite literally the majority of people before had never actually seen money, many starved to death especially in winter, young men were kicked out the house at the age of 8, honest work, if available, paid only food and shelter. The industrial revolution was an absolute God-send and meant that even some starving urchin could actually afford accomodation, proper food (regular food!) clothing, even such luxuries such as a hair brush, shoes that fit and even, gasp, their own plates, cutlery, belt buckles and fancy stuff like that. Even furniture, in their own home! Before the revolution 80% of all wealth was owned by the upper and middle classes that made up 20% of the population. That meant 80% of the people shared only 20% of the wealth, and there wasn't much wealth to start with. Serious, malnutrition poverty. Within 50 or 60 years it changed dramatically, where most people had an income, decent food, accomodation and even some (comparative) luxuries. None of this was due to government "help", indeed most urchins in government orphanages died. It happened despite the government's best efforts, at the behest of the church, to stifle it. W.

Mr. Wiggly, I would just like to say that this place can get awfully boring and mundane - especially when posters are of like minds or when discussions are regurgitated ad nauseam - that even though I found your post on the 'us vs. them' topic strangely bizarre, completely backwards, and for the most part wrong, it was also very entertaining, highly stimulating, and thoroughly enjoyable to read. Welcome to the board. And Englishman, give a guy a break before bringing the hammer down, his much needed energy is somenthing this board has been lacking of late.

Ah, the convenience of pigeonholing. Coo coo... (that was my pigeon impression. Convincing huh?) One of the more amusing aspects of being pigeonholed is how often people get it wrong, though ironically of late people are actually getting it right about my religion. Oh how often peeps kept blibbering about the Christian Right, oblivious to the fact I'm not a Christian. Ya know, I debate on lefty sites and peeps call me right wing, I debate on right wing sites and peeps call me left wing, Thank you for the welcome :o) Now, regarding the bits that were "wrong", and "backwards", explain please? Strangely bizarre needs no explanation, as a libertarian masculist who's a househusband, a Muslim, a bodybuilding martial artist who's generally pacifist, who lives in Borneo (from the UK) with a shaven head and the only white guy in town, I'm kinnda used to being the odd one out. But wrong? Backwards? Support that statement please. W.

Wiggly, thank you for absorbing my tirade with such good will :-) You gave so much detail I thought you kinda pigeonholed yourself, especially with the ASE bit. Anyhow, I was saying the people who take economic theories, such as those propounded by the ASE and libertarians, can believe in them like a religion. Perhaps I assumed too much ;-) You did go on a lot in a way that would support such a view though.