Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by FishbellykanakaDude »

JCP wrote:People can be evil; nature can not.

How can a storm be evil? It's the behavior of man which can be categorized in those terms.
A storm can be evil if it's action fits the definition of "evil". That's what the "defined meaning" of a thing means.

My belief is that due to the "fallen nature" (which was achieved by the initial instantiation [and "grant"] of "free will") of the material world, any bit of "matter/energy" can participate in evil, as defined by my above specified definition of evil.

An asteroid that kills innocent people is evil, not because it was "directed" by an evil being (person), but because the nature of the classroom that we inhabit, aka the universe, is not constructed so as to prohibit the suffering of the innocent.
...

JCP

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by JCP »

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
JCP wrote:People can be evil; nature can not.

How can a storm be evil? It's the behavior of man which can be categorized in those terms.
A storm can be evil if it's action fits the definition of "evil". That's what the "defined meaning" of a thing means.

My belief is that due to the "fallen nature" (which was achieved by the initial instantiation [and "grant"] of "free will") of the material world, any bit of "matter/energy" can participate in evil, as defined by my above specified definition of evil.

An asteroid that kills innocent people is evil, not because it was "directed" by an evil being (person), but because the nature of the classroom that we inhabit, aka the universe, is not constructed so as to prohibit the suffering of the innocent.
...
That doesn't really hold water. Evil has to have intelligence behind it. Evil is done with intent--even if some say it's a 'necessary evil.'

John
Posts: 11484
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

** 21-May-2019 War and evil
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Hah HA...! I have LURED you into asking these "intriguing"
> questions...!!

> ..now to astound my tantalized prey...

> Evil requires an "innocent" on which to "unnecessarily" inflict
> itself.

> <insert profound pause here>

> So,.. find me an "evil" inflicting itself on an "innocent" in such
> a way as to be "unnecessary" in the cases of earthquakes,
> rainstorms and sunshine, and we've found us some evils.

> "Evils" are simply things from which to learn compassion and "how
> not to arrange things so as to promote evil inasmuch as that is
> possible".
JCP wrote: > People can be evil; nature can not.

> How can a storm be evil? It's the behavior of man which can be
> categorized in those terms.

> The Chinese communists are notoriously stupid, so I figure they
> will continue overplaying their hand until they are all dead.
> Taiwan and Japan are true democracies; they deserve to exist and
> most importantly, be protected against the unmitigated thuggery of
> the Chinese communists. If we let those countries be destroyed, we
> will be next. And what of American principles? We are supposed to
> stand for something.
From the point of view of generational theory, here's the issue that I
keep returning to:

The fact that earthquakes occur regularly cannot be a coincidence.
There must be a core reason, having to do with the structure
of tectonic plates, or whatever.

Some people claim that God causes earthquakes to punish cities that
have been sinful. Voltaire responded, referring to the devastating
earthquake in Lisbon in 1755:

Voltaire wrote: > Would you say, seeing this heap of victims,
> That God is avenged, that their death is payment for their crimes?
> What crimes, what bad things have been committed by these children,
> Lying on the breasts of their mothers, flattened and bloody?
> Lisbon is a city no longer. Did it have more vices
> Than London, than Paris, given to doubtful delights?


The point is that if God created the earth, then God is evil for
creating a world where earthquakes randomly kill people.

The fact that massive wars have occurred in every region on every
continent in every century for millennia cannot be a coincidence.
There must be a core reason.

Wars do have a purpose -- one and only one purpose. The purpose is
genocide -- to kill off enough people so that the survivors have
enough to eat.

The food supply (and the supply of other resources) grows at
a predictably constant exponential growth rate, with the
exception of a temporary blip. When there's a lot of food around,
women's hormones cause them to want more children, so the population
starts growing at an exponential growth rate faster than the
growth rate of the food supply. So the population has to grow
at exactly the same predictable exponential growth rate as
the food supply.

Here's a graph of China's population over a 2000 year period:

Image

The exponential growth line appears as a straight line because
of the logarithmic scale.

As this graph shows, every time the Chinese tried to grow their
population above the fixed exponential growth line, it fell again, to
below the same line. The major reasons for population falls are war,
disease and famine -- and earthquakes -- with war the most common
reason.

If God created the world, then he created a world where disease,
famine and earthquakes occur through no human fault. (If famine
occurs through human intention, it would be in the context of war.)

So if God created the world, then he created a world where wars,
particularly genocidal generational crisis wars, MUST occur, just like
earthquakes. If you want to blame humans for wars, then you should
blame women for wars, because women give in to their hormones and have
children.

Therefore, if God created the world then: If earthquakes are evil,
then it's God that is evil. If wars and genocide are evil, then it's
God that is evil. Humans are just doing what God has forced them to
do.


FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by FishbellykanakaDude »

JCP wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
JCP wrote:People can be evil; nature can not.

How can a storm be evil? It's the behavior of man which can be categorized in those terms.
A storm can be evil if it's action fits the definition of "evil". That's what the "defined meaning" of a thing means.

My belief is that due to the "fallen nature" (which was achieved by the initial instantiation [and "grant"] of "free will") of the material world, any bit of "matter/energy" can participate in evil, as defined by my above specified definition of evil.

An asteroid that kills innocent people is evil, not because it was "directed" by an evil being (person), but because the nature of the classroom that we inhabit, aka the universe, is not constructed so as to prohibit the suffering of the innocent.
...
That doesn't really hold water. Evil has to have intelligence behind it. Evil is done with intent--even if some say it's a 'necessary evil.'
Your opinion is noted. You'll have to explain further why it "doesn't hold water", as I don't see how you come to that conclusion other than via a simple assertion that "evil must always be created by intelligent beings".

The "intent" is supplied by the structure of the system. The "universe" (the aforementioned system) is "corrupted" (fallen) as a result of the "request" and "gift" of free will.

To allow for learning, there must be something to learn, which is what evil supplies.

In the "asteroid" example, a thing to be learned (among other things) is that astrophysics, the mechanical operation of the various "bits" of the universe, makes even your "mostly very safe home planet" unreliable as a (very very) long term base of operations.

All learning is the operation of identifying evils and "using" them productively.

The real question in all this is: Why is this "free will" thing of such importance, and is it REALLY worth the price (the existence of evil)?

There is simply no point to time, or the universe itself, if free will is not a part of it. In fact, I'm of the opinion that free will is the "spark" that changed the universe from "what it was" to "what it is".

FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by FishbellykanakaDude »

John wrote:** 21-May-2019 War and evil
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Hah HA...! I have LURED you into asking these "intriguing"
> questions...!!

> ..now to astound my tantalized prey...

> Evil requires an "innocent" on which to "unnecessarily" inflict
> itself.

> <insert profound pause here>

> So,.. find me an "evil" inflicting itself on an "innocent" in such
> a way as to be "unnecessary" in the cases of earthquakes,
> rainstorms and sunshine, and we've found us some evils.

> "Evils" are simply things from which to learn compassion and "how
> not to arrange things so as to promote evil inasmuch as that is
> possible".
JCP wrote: > People can be evil; nature can not.

> How can a storm be evil? It's the behavior of man which can be
> categorized in those terms.

> The Chinese communists are notoriously stupid, so I figure they
> will continue overplaying their hand until they are all dead.
> Taiwan and Japan are true democracies; they deserve to exist and
> most importantly, be protected against the unmitigated thuggery of
> the Chinese communists. If we let those countries be destroyed, we
> will be next. And what of American principles? We are supposed to
> stand for something.
From the point of view of generational theory, here's the issue that I
keep returning to:

The fact that earthquakes occur regularly cannot be a coincidence.
There must be a core reason, having to do with the structure
of tectonic plates, or whatever.

Some people claim that God causes earthquakes to punish cities that
have been sinful. Voltaire responded, referring to the devastating
earthquake in Lisbon in 1755:

Voltaire wrote: > Would you say, seeing this heap of victims,
> That God is avenged, that their death is payment for their crimes?
> What crimes, what bad things have been committed by these children,
> Lying on the breasts of their mothers, flattened and bloody?
> Lisbon is a city no longer. Did it have more vices
> Than London, than Paris, given to doubtful delights?


The point is that if God created the earth, then God is evil for
creating a world where earthquakes randomly kill people.
God created the conditions for the universe to exist. He didn't create the universe in ANY of it's time-specific "arrangements".

The "machine" is free to "grind away" as it will, according to the principles "guiding" it's "grinding".

Sometimes this "grinding" grinds up people. That is not God grinding up people. The is "the machine" doing what it does.

The argument still stands, of course, that "A God that would set up a machine that does evil is an evil God!"

But that ignores the function of evil. Evil is not "punishment". Evil is "opportunity" or "grist" from which to learn.

A universe without evil, without anything to discover or to learn, is meaningless.

I have no proof that this is true, or course. But I choose to believe that the unfolding of "meaning" is the ultimate goal of the universe,.. and that that learning is accomplished through this mechanism.

The fact that massive wars have occurred in every region on every
continent in every century for millennia cannot be a coincidence.
There must be a core reason.
Agreed. It's an integral part of the "human mechanism", and I personally would claim that it's part of the "negentropic mechanism" which "contains" the human mechanism.

Wars do have a purpose -- one and only one purpose. The purpose is
genocide -- to kill off enough people so that the survivors have
enough to eat.
Wars also have the purpose of intimidating "the opposition" into staying away from "our food", so as to avoid the full on GENOCIDAL war,.. and I think you make room for this in GD as the various "non-crisis war" periods.

The food supply (and the supply of other resources) grows at
a predictably constant exponential growth rate, with the
exception of a temporary blip. When there's a lot of food around,
women's hormones cause them to want more children, so (( insert Malthusian stuff here ))

If God created the world, then he created a world where disease,
famine and earthquakes occur through no human fault. (If famine
occurs through human intention, it would be in the context of war.)

So if God created the world, then he created a world where wars,
particularly genocidal generational crisis wars, MUST occur, just like
earthquakes. If you want to blame humans for wars, then you should
blame women for wars, because women give in to their hormones and have
children.

Therefore, if God created the world then: If earthquakes are evil,
then it's God that is evil. If wars and genocide are evil, then it's
God that is evil. Humans are just doing what God has forced them to
do.
Humans are weak little critters, and they will nearly always, especially when in numbers, take the "easy way out", and the path of least resistance is war, because of the "constitution" of humanity.

Human frailty is due to the difficulty humans have in learning some lessons that are presented to them, repeatedly.

That frailty is what causes war. There would be no war if there were no people. Is the cause of war people, or God?

Just as Mathematical Calculus was not "discovered" until very recently in the history of humanity, the "calculus" that "solves war" has only been discovered even more recently.

The calculus that solves for making metal aircraft that can throw supersonic bits of metal is relatively easy to believe and communicate and implement. The calculus that solves war (the "preference to do warring") is exceedingly difficult to believe and is (therefore) nearly impossible to communicate and implement.

We are here to learn. The fact that we don't learn "fast enough" does not mean God is evil for having "created" us as non-perfect beings.

"No suffering" is not the goal of the universe. The goal is to "be interesting" through time progressing toward "something".

I have no clue as to what that "something" is,.. but it will be interesting! :)

John
Posts: 11484
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

** 21-May-2019 The "calculus" that "solves war"
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Just as Mathematical Calculus was not "discovered" until very
> recently in the history of humanity, the "calculus" that "solves
> war" has only been discovered even more recently.
Huh??? You believe that it's possible for war to be "solved"??

Are we waiting for some exceedingly smart politician to come up
with the solution? Or maybe a college professor? Or perhaps
a journalist?

mps92
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:38 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by mps92 »

John wrote:** 21-May-2019 The "calculus" that "solves war"
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Just as Mathematical Calculus was not "discovered" until very
> recently in the history of humanity, the "calculus" that "solves
> war" has only been discovered even more recently.
Huh??? You believe that it's possible for war to be "solved"??
I had dinner with a friend just yesterday. He said he believes the world is "too big to fail." Everything is so interconnected and globalized and there are too many interests of rich people at stake, interests that would be ruined by a great war.

My father believes the same thing. He was born in the 50s, so he remembers when tensions were really high between the West and the Communists - far higher than they are today. I tried to explain to him that there is a difference; people in government during the Cold War had already experienced a devastating war, unlike the baby boomers that rule today. They were less inclined to make rash decisions, thus keeping the Cold War "cold."

I very much hope that they're right and we're wrong, but I still haven't heard a compelling argument that war has been "solved."

There's a point that many people miss. They argue that a war today would bring such great devastation that it would be too risky. If China loses the war, it would be flattened and impoverished. Too risky.

But the more you have to lose, the more you also have to win. If China wins the war, they will live like kings. China itself would likely expand through annexation of foreign territory. But more importantly, China would gain undisputed economic control of the world, making everyone a puppet to their empire. They would demand unfettered access to every natural resource in the world. The effect on the average Chinese person would be sensational. They would go from poverty to being wealthier than the average American.

This nation already appears weak. Trump has been magnificent, but it hasn't been enough. Our government is so incapable and dysfunctional that we can't even stop people from waltzing in through the southern border. Far-left socialists are calling for open borders and the immediate release of all illegal immigrants claiming asylum. This wouldn't have been an issue 10 years ago, much less 20 years ago.

Once China believes the US is too weak to win a war, while India simultaneously is not developed enough to contend with China, the Chinese would be very confident in their ability to defeat us both. And they'd have a lot to gain if they won.

FishbellykanakaDude
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:07 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by FishbellykanakaDude »

John wrote:** 21-May-2019 The "calculus" that "solves war"
FishbellykanakaDude wrote: > Just as Mathematical Calculus was not "discovered" until very
> recently in the history of humanity, the "calculus" that "solves
> war" has only been discovered even more recently.
Huh??? You believe that it's possible for war to be "solved"??

Are we waiting for some exceedingly smart politician to come up
with the solution? Or maybe a college professor? Or perhaps
a journalist?
If public sanitation can be solved, then the "really REALLY not good" parts of war can be solved.

..that doesn't mean that the "solution" to public sanitation doesn't require maintenance, and doesn't fail, or that the "solution" to war wouldn't be crazy-difficult to implement and would fail spectacularly much too regularly, but if you are at all convinced that GD Theory truly does illuminate (and somewhat explain) the causes of (at least) Genocidal War™, then we're "on our way" (rather by definition) to a calculus of war.

I'm certainly NOT a utopian, so I don't see this happening anytime soon, but what would a modern (well run) city look like to a tribe of folks living on the non-ice-covered Polish Plain circa 19,000ybp? (ybp=years before present)

..the arrow of time is there for a reason.

Politicians are followers, not leaders, so the impetus won't come from that quarter.

Professors and journalists! Uh,.. yeah, no. <chuckle!>



I've stated this several times in here: The cause of war is bad (short/faulty) institutional living-like memory, meaning: An absence of truly convincing lifelike accurate institutionalized personal memory of "that which must be remembered to counteract the impulse and preference for warlike behavior".

..as I said,.. ain't happenin' anytime soon.

John
Posts: 11484
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

** 21-May-2019 Making war illegal

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

From my book:

The Washington Naval Arms Limitation Conference (1921-22)

It was widely believed that an arms race had contributed to the
outbreak of World War I, and so a way should be found to prevent a new
or continuing arms race, especially in expensive naval ships such as
battleships and aircraft carriers. Despite its lack of participation
in the League of Nations, the United States was at the forefront of
extensive efforts at disarmament during the 1920s and 1930s especially
to restrict the growth of naval tonnage, considered to be a key
measure of military strength.

In the wake of World War I, leaders in the international community
also sought to prevent the possibility of another war. Rising Japanese
militarism and an international arms race heightened these concerns
and policymakers worked to reduce the threat.

In 1921 President Harding was elected on a platform which contained a
popular naval disarmament plank. Isolationists of the day believed
that prohibiting preparedness would promote peace. Republican Senator
Hiram Johnson of California, "War may be banished from the earth more
nearly by disarmament than by any other agency or in any other
manner." Just before the Washington Conference convened on Armistice
Day, 1921, several thousand women marched down Pennsylvania Avenue in
Washington, DC, carrying banners denouncing war. "Scrap the
battleship," their placards read, "and the Pacific problems will
settle themselves." For many Americans, the Washington Arms Limitation
Conference was supposed to be a substitute for the League, for
alliances, and for armaments.

There were many technical treaties concluded at the conference, but
for our purposes we focus on the Shangtung (Shandong) Treaty. This
treaty took Shandong province from Japan and returned it to China.
The intention was to reassure China that its territory would not be
further compromised by Japanese expansion.

As a footnote to all this, in 1929 the US led the world in signing the
Kellogg-Briand Pact, which outlawed war and made war illegal. Frank
Kellogg earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929 for his work on the Peace
Pact. Feel free to supply your own jokes.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests