Humanity needs to grow up!

[Neverwonagame3]

Human beings in general are a lot more childish than they realise, and given modern circumstances are unable to break out of it. Let me outline.

First, it is childish to be dependent on another, rather than able to support oneself. However, as most people realise on some level but ignore, we are all dependent upon Society. Almost none of us could survive with no aid from others whatsoever. Therefore we are childish.

Being unable to think for oneself is childish. Yet however much most of us are hypocritical with regard to ourselves, nobody disputes that the great mass of people are conformist. This is true far more than most of us realise, of course.

Finally, it is childish to be naive. Yet, due to our lack of time to scrutinise the media, even if we in the upper and middle classes know to scrutinise the overwhelming majority of people don't. Hence why the media is still powerful.

All these are problems caused by the existence of a Society.

Redefining childish here is simply dodging the issue. Humanity is childish. Childish is a bad thing. Unless you want our entire race to become manchildren and womenchildren (yes, I'm as bad as most 21-year olds on this), Society needs to be abolished.

At the moment, however, Society cannot be escaped. The obvious solution, fleeing to some forest, still leaves me under the jurisdiction of the laws, at risk of being rescued far too much to break out of a cycle of dependence on society, and leaves the naïveté problem and a lot of society's influence still in place. Society also provides benefits. Therefore, the question should be reforming Society, if possible, to escape these problems.

Any thoughts?

 

[dusters]

Every word can have positive and negative connotation.

To me, being labeled adult-ish is an insult.

Adults are too focused on job, career, politics, they don't know how to have fun. How to do silly things and laugh. Their fun is parties/dancing and getting drunk. That's plainly stupid. Any child can tell you that most alcohol tastes bad. why would anyone drink it?

Parties happen when people should sleep, that's another confusing thing. If children make a party it happens during sunshine, so children can go outside if they want and come back inside to eat if they want.

/my post is not to be taken too serious

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Do you at least concede that the traits I mentioned are childish, and that humanity is far more childish than most people realise?

 

[dusters]

i do agree that humanity is more or less as you described. Labeling it childish is an unfortunate use of word, i'd say.

I could agree if you said - humanity thinks of itself too highly, it forgets all technology and networks it is dependant upon.

 

[Cutlass]

The belief that every person could stand all by themselves is far more childish than anything listed in the OP.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

I am well aware of practical problems in implementing any solution. What I am attempting here is to at least persuade people this is a bad thing and trying to start speculation on a means of solution.

 

[Cutlass]

Growing up includes the acceptance that life is a team sport. It is childish to think that humanity can all live as 'rugged individuals'. Your argument is, in effect, that people should abandon maturity in favor of some childish ideal.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Not so. Culturally, even if the hypothetical individual who succeeds in actuall living on their own is seen as absurd they aren't seen by most as childish.

By contrast, children who remain dependent on their parents are told to grow up and "look after themselves". Hardly compatible with your claim that life is a team sport.

 

[H4run]

Human beings in general are a lot more childish than they realise, and given modern circumstances are unable to break out of it. Let me outline.

First, it is childish to be dependent on another, rather than able to support oneself. However, as most people realise on some level but ignore, we are all dependent upon Society. Almost none of us could survive with no aid from others whatsoever. Therefore we are childish.

Being unable to think for oneself is childish. Yet however much most of us are hypocritical with regard to ourselves, nobody disputes that the great mass of people are conformist. This is true far more than most of us realise, of course.

Finally, it is childish to be naive. Yet, due to our lack of time to scrutinise the media, even if we in the upper and middle classes know to scrutinise the overwhelming majority of people don't. Hence why the media is still powerful.

All these are problems caused by the existence of a Society.

Redefining childish here is simply dodging the issue. Humanity is childish. Childish is a bad thing. Unless you want our entire race to become manchildren and womenchildren (yes, I'm as bad as most 21-year olds on this), Society needs to be abolished.

At the moment, however, Society cannot be escaped. The obvious solution, fleeing to some forest, still leaves me under the jurisdiction of the laws, at risk of being rescued far too much to break out of a cycle of dependence on society, and leaves the naïveté problem and a lot of society's influence still in place. Society also provides benefits. Therefore, the question should be reforming Society, if possible, to escape these problems.

Any thoughts?

The clothes that you wear, the food that you eat, the computer that you used, the chair that you sit, the hair style that you had right now, and every single detail things that make you what you are right now is a result of society. Even you able to think and hold up utter libertarianism principle right now it also an effect by possibly other peoples that post in the forum or books that is written by someone.

I don't want to abuse someone in the internet forum by calling them childish, but I think the way you think make you look very ungrateful to the society that feed you and raise to be who you are today. Human are both social and asocial creature, they must set balance regarding their privacy sphere and socio sphere, and the existence of totalitarian individualist who less care about their surrounding society, it is depressing for me.

You should said thanks to all the poor workers around the world that provided you with all that you have today, poor workers in China, Indonesia, Philippine, who been exploited by greedy multi millioner individual and corporation that living in luxury and totally boasting how they achieve all of those achievement by their own effort, while forgetting all of the struggle of little poor peoples that elevate them with their sweat and tears.

I have no sympathy for this ranting.

 

[Synobun]

"No man is an island" is a popular saying for a reason. We were not designed (evolved) with singular sustainability in mind and psychologically a lot of what we are is reliant upon the existence and stimulus of other human beings.

Suggesting to throw that out the window all willy-nilly is probably a sign that you're a psychopath. Or just 'edgy'.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

haroon- That makes me pathetic. That makes all of us pathetic.

Remember, of course, that "Society" is a construct of individual human firstly, and secondly that I was coerced into it. Third, I never made any sort of deal with society, or any of the people you mention, that I would have to honour it.

The sort of Society you speak of is comparable to, if not quite as bad as, the Borg. If you force everyone to work for the common good all their lives, what makes them better than drones in a hive?

Besides, you have not refuted my original argument.

Synsensa- I am trying to take morality to its logical conclusion. You have already seen my reasoning.

 

[Lord of Elves]

So did you read Atlas Shrugged before writing the OP?

 

[Neverwonagame3]

No, actually. My view is that Rand solves none of the problems I discuss.

 

[Lord of Elves]

No, actually. My view is that Rand solves none of the problems I discuss.

Thoreau? Emerson? Nietszche?

Who can we thank for indoctrinating you to this myopic, self-aggrandizing school of thought?

 

[Synobun]

Synsensa- I am trying to take morality to its logical conclusion. You have already seen my reasoning.

>morality
>logical conclusion
>reasoning

"This is bad, and I'm going to indicate it's bad by calling it childish. I have no proof that it's bad, but I think it's bad therefore it's bad. We should get rid of bad thing by becoming lone wanderers."

I'd say there's a distinct lack of reasoning happening here. You're attaching the label of childish to genetic human traits in some effort to convince everyone that everyone and their brother should be their own ubermensch with their own land, own territory, and little to no interaction with other human beings. Beyond the fact that this would make reproduction impossible, it very clearly ignores the basic human need for communication and human contact that every human has.

If you are so adamant to be a lone wanderer there is plenty of unspoiled land in the great Canadian north. Surely you have the skills to be fully on your own and thrive there? I mean, what with you being 'forced' into being a civilized human being and all. I'm certain the rabbits and squirrels have a place for you in their homes without some super mean humans being there forcing you to have education and opportunities and all those terrible things.

You're right, that is pretty childish. Everyone should go back to being feral, it's the true way to live.

 

[Neverwonagame3]

Lord of Elves- Please actually argue, rather than going ad hominem.

Sysena- That childish is bad is a premise I assumed everyone would agree with, even if nothing else. Morality is part of human intuitions, not the cosmos, after all.

As for the north, I would still be living under the law. That's part of the problem.

 

[Dralix]

I think this thread is childish.

 

[Hygro]

NWG3,

You are rehashing someone else's philosophy written by people who were parroting other people further, which is childish by your definition, which is bad by your definition, and naive by your definition.

And you're telling other people they need to change, and need to change their society.

 

[Lord of Elves]

If NWAG hasn't read Rand -- or I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, one of the Transcendentalist authors -- before writing his Totally Not Objectivist Manifesto I'd be very surprised. That said, I can see why the ego-feeding of anti-social, primitivist thought could be appealing if you had absolutely no experience with other people, or were incapable of human intimacy. Between those two extremes, "here be dragons"

 

[Synobun]

If NWAG hasn't read Rand -- or I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, one of the Transcendentalist authors -- before writing his Totally Not Objectivist Manifesto I'd be very surprised. That said, I can see why the ego-feeding of anti-social, primitivist thought could be appealing if you had absolutely no experience with other people, or were incapable of human intimacy. Between those two extremes, "here be dragons"

That's why I specified psychopath in my post above. In order for him to get his wish of not being dependent on other human beings he would need to see human interaction in the same way as a psychopath. In other words, manipulate and use for personal gain rather than be intimate, trusting, and having a rock in your life that you can rely upon. Everything apparently needs to be feral survival of the fittest, otherwise you're childish.