The future of Humanity

Considering two questions below, which is personally and generally more important for the future of humanity:-1. Wealth and materialism?2. Integrity and responsibility?On a personal level I would say the two questions should be considered together because, like most things, they cannot be isolated. However, I perceive there is far more attention given to wealth and materialism. I’m interested in feedback to either alter or confirm my perception of both questions.In terms of importance I argue that integrity and responsibility should be uppermost. Why? For the simple reason that we, in view of our undeniable impact on the planet, have personal and collective responsibility to maintain the balance required to sustain all life forms. There is genuine concern that we are exhausting the planet’s renewable resources (although concern is not consensual). There appears to be more emphasis on materialism and wealth creation, with scant regard to integrity in the deeds of many highly placed ”servants of the people’ world-wide. Okay, we’re imperfect creatures in an imperfect world. Should we at least strive for higher ideals individually?In general terms I think my perceptions form the tip of an iceberg, so to speak. To make my point I quote from an essay made in 1928 by the economist, John Maynard Keynes:-“Perhaps it is no accident that the race which did most to bring the promise of immortality into the heart and essence of our religions has also done most for the principle of compound interest and particularly loves this most purposive of human institutions. I see us free, therefore, to return to some of the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue - that avarice is vice, that the exaction of usury is a misdemeanour, and the love of money is detestable, that those walk most truly in the paths of virtue and sane wisdom who take least thought of the morrow.“We shall once more value ends above means and prefer the good to the useful. We shall honour those who can teach us how to pluck the hour and the day virtuously and well, the delightful people who are capable of taking direct enjoyment in things, the lilies of the field who toil not, neither do they spin. But Beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.”There is only twelve years left in his forecast of a century. Can anyone convince me that we are gradually returning to the virtues Keynes mentioned? If not, will there be an end to usury and avarice; to exploitation of anything and everything for financial profit? And, if so, when?Should we generally aspire to higher ideals for ourselves and for the protection of the planet as well?© 2006, Malachi IIThis message has been edited by Malachi-II, 04-27-2006 01:34 PM

Hi, Malachi. These are good and simple questions. Since you want to open a philosophy thread, I will help you get this one going in the coffee house.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Lets examine your questions, Malachi. Obviously, integrity and responsibility are more important traits for an individual, a national leader, or a nation to have than mere wealth and materialism.Think about it for a moment, though. In practical terms, the United States needs access to wealth in order to continue our standard of living. Soon, China and India will also seek wealth and material goods to fuel their economies.(They already are, but will have greater needs in the future)I guess that one question would be that should a nation have integrity over national interests? If a great power is starving for oil, does integrity go out the window in defense of establishing connections to feed the economic engine that is starving?Spiritually, materialism is a mindless pursuit and we all should love the world, right?Practically, however, everyone in a wealthy nation has grown accustomed to the standards of living which we would not easily give up just to help the less fortuanate people of the world rise to our level.That is why there are wars and debates on immigration reform, among other things.

Malachi-IIThis is a case of the simples rearing its ugly head.Wealth and materialism is not necessarily seperate from integrity and responsibilty. Perhaps before I start off half-cocked it would be good of you to try to delineate futher the root arguement concerning wealth and materialism, integrity and responsibilty and why you seem to pigeonhole them as though they were without common ground.

I thought about it. How long do you think the US can maintain our standard of living? Why is our standard of living more important than the rest of the world's or the planet, for that matter? Think of this; is the 'economic engine' the only motor driving human existence, or the continuing existence of the planet? Would you dig into the bowels of your mother (earth) for gold and oil until she dies? That certainly does not even begin to reflect my mind. With our voracious appetite, yes, we should love the world rather than destroy it! And that attitude, my friend, is the root of all evil.

Sidelined. Read my post again. I clearly recognize the common ground.

Speaking as AdminPhat, I first want to warn you Malachi to not edit a post after I have promoted it. I would much prefer that you discuss the issues as they unfold. As an example, sidelined and I were in chat when I brought your post up to him. He merely wanted to challenge you to be more concise and to recognize that the four issues were not mutually exclusive.You answered him by asking him to read the O.P. again....which you edited! The next time you do that I will close the post! OK?
----------------------------------------------------------------------Now...speaking as Phat, I want to address your expanded post.
We DO have personal and collective responsibility. When I say WE I am speaking globally, yet the human interactions are not based on national interests or global interests so much as they are based on personal interests. (Or collective personal interests...the wealthy 5% have more to gain by cooperating with each other...to the disregard of the rest of us) Yes. To me, this is a spiritual question. Now, however, we are faced with many religions and no consensus. Keynes is optimistic, I suppose. I need to read up on him again to get a feel for his beliefs. Keynes is a realist, however, when he says Keynes is not a prophet in the strict definition of the word. A prophet foreknows or foresees some event, and some Christians believe that true prophets are not fueled by their own imaginations but by Gods Spirit.Keynes was, however, remarkably perceptive, and in answer to your question---No we are not yet returning to sane values. Look at the widespread casino gambling across the U.S. and tell me what our gods currently are. Look at the arguments against immigration and tell me that we are not still looking out for ourselves at the expense of the rest of the world!Whether or not humanity can save itself or not, I do not know. I agree with you that we should try, however!This message has been edited by Phat, 04-27-2006 04:20 PM

Sorry, Phat.'I'm feeling my way,' said the Vicar.'Be gentle. This is my first time', said the Virgin.

If the debate was centred on Individualism versus Collectivism then this might de-emphasize implied judgements on individual morality.-----Hard Collectivism has failed when it has been transformed into a societal structure based of the will of a single individual (e.g. Stalin). In short, Collectivism can be morphed by human nature into a gross form of Feudalism.Hard Individualism also has the clear potential to slide into Feudalism, as wealth and therefore power accumulate in fewer and fewer hands.Depressing though it may seem, Feudalism seems to exist as a default into which society will slide if preventative egalitarian measures (a combination of Soft Collectivism and Individualism) aren't taken.This message has been edited by RickJB, 04-28-2006 04:14 AM

Hi Phat. What happens in the Coffee House? Is it cream puffs at 20 paces, bear claws at close quarters, or strong coffee that keeps one awake all night?

Yes, in politics the middle way is the best.

---

God does not "exist."---Paul Tillich, Christian theologian

You are up when many of us are sleeping. I personally work from 3pm to midnite Denver (Mountain) time, so I am rarely up to engage in banter when you are....Lets discuss the philosophies involved in the future of humanity a bit more, however! Individualism is a hallmark of Western Societies. Collectivism has been more of a Third World trademark...both culturally and by necessity.The Western economic monopoly is about to be severely comprimised, and I think that the wealthy people have long known that this was ineveitable---so they have been preparing to survive the revolution and position themselves in the role of "Feudal Lords" for quite some time now.They abandoned the middle class to compete with the rest of the world, in other words.

So what will happen when the middle class finally wises up and abandons them and the facsist political party that defends their interests ?

You just made a statement of fact out of thin air!! Who told you that? Individualism began, like a few hundred thousand years before societies existed, western, eastern, northern, or southern, y’all. Individualism began when the first prehistoric ancestor of our species departed from the herd mentality, that helped protect them from other predators, and set out on his own to explore the great beyond. You know, the herd mentality that still holds us by the balls? You’ll have to explain that statement because I fail to understand where you’re coming from. Collectivism (whatever that means) sounds like a synonym of Herd. You know, like a large group of mammals living and feeding together? Doesn’t that accurately describe the many faceted and diverse world-wide cultures? Can many seriously claim they have left the herd instinct behind and evolved into REALLY and TRULY enlightened and intelligent human beings? Can anyone identify more than a few hundred such advanced souls? I say emphatically, NO!!!!!We are arrogant, self-centered, self-seeking, nihilistic, scum bags of a superior order. We think our unparalleled powers of destruction guarantees our dominance over everything visible when, if fact, those clearly demonstrated powers reveal utter weakness of mind and spirit. We are shit scared of competition. We are shit scared that some other ”herd’ might develop similar WMDs to our own. So, hey, let’s wipe the SOBs off the planet to make sure the world knows that we are the ONLY Top Dogs. We are the greatest consumers of ALL!
We have the BEST standard of death - pardon, I meant living - than anybody on the planet.Do you know that in our great Western Societies obesity, drugs, depression and crime are out of control? Did you know that? And what do you think is the cause of all the despair that is recorded and reluctantly admitted? Does it have anything at all to do with ”Individualism’ or ”Collectivism’? Get REAL, for Christ’s sake!!! 30,000 children die every day in Africa. How many thousands are slaughtered every day by fucking war lords and other assholes who will happily destroy the planet to protect their patch of shit!!Available evidence indicates that the biggest consumers are full of shit and hot air.With six billion plus people on this exhausted planet does anyone seriously think abstracts like Individualism and Collectivism have the remotest significance in their daily lives?I am trying to debate the widening gap between wealth and materialism on the one hand, and integrity and responsibility on the other. Is it necessary to be more specific? Is there a problem of semantics?