Main reason that society still exists?

[Kyriakos]

In the final story by Kafka i had to translate, there is a minor discussion on this. Apparently the conclusion offered is bifold, namely that society is the next stage of a previous condition which is impossible to return to, and moreover that if something exists it won't die easily but will fight to the end so as to keep existing, regardless of possible inherent traits that make it non viable in the long run.

I tend to agree. As an introverted person i rarely see much connection between people. Biological urges can and do connect, yet it seems that the overall structure is loosely constructed, and gaps can appear if one has the intention to look into it or stare for too long.

Apart from that, the progression of life can seem pointless; thousands of years of civilization and still the same crap (wars; both on a massive scale, and an interpersonal one).

I tend to agree with Kafka's narrator in that story (who happens to be... a dog ), that, at any rate, if something already is in existence it will not go away easily, it will fight to the end, in whatever manner, and lack of interest in noting the pointlessness is itself a way of fighting; perhaps even the most common one.

Btw, my evidently cheerful mood is not related to much of a specific new trigger, though i am still waiting to be paid for the translation

 

[civver_764]

That's kind of a meaningless question. It exists because it does. Why wouldn't it exist?

 

[Kyriakos]

That's kind of a meaningless question. It exists because it does. Why wouldn't it exist?

I don't mean "why it came to existence", but why it continues to exist. As in "despite so many issues like war and other nastiness" etc.

 

[warpus]

It continues to exist because once we figured out farming and civilization got started, there was really no return back to pre-civilization times, unless we destroy the whole thing with nuclear weapons or worse. That hasn't happened yet, and the Earth hasn't been destroyed by a meteor or whatever, so human society continues rolling forwards.

 

[Zelig]

Because for the most part stuff is awesome.

 

[Gigaz]

According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as subjectively not existing. If you think that the initial odds of society surviving to this day are extremely low, then that explains why we are apparently still around.

 

[Narz]

Because it hasn't collasped yet. Give it a few decades. If we're lucky we won't go extinct.

 

[civver_764]

Because it hasn't collasped yet. Give it a few decades. If we're lucky we won't go extinct.

Oh c'mon, they were probably saying that a few decades ago.

 

[Narz]

Oh c'mon, they were probably saying that a few decades ago.

Yes and environmental degradation has only increased since then. All empires eventually crumble. Every decade we're creating new dependencies. Shoot if the Internet went down completely for even a few months there would be global chaos and millions of people dead. If the electric grid were disrupted on a national level chaos would happen within days.

Every day I wake up and society and it's wonders still exists I am grateful but when it falls apart I won't be surprised. I hope I have at least another decade to prepare.

 

[warpus]

A couple decades ago we had half the number of people on the planet than we do now. Our civilization is growing exponentially and it is not sustainable.

 

[Kyriakos]

According to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, there is no such thing as subjectively not existing. If you think that the initial odds of society surviving to this day are extremely low, then that explains why we are apparently still around.

It is curious in the way that (afaik) no guinea pig can commit suicide, so in that respect they won't destroy the experiment by their own will. Doesn't matter where the experiment is set to lead (if it is an experiment; if it it set to lead somewhere).
The instinct of self-preservation reveals its massive power if one tries to end his/her life.

That said, my own question was from a point of view fixed on humans, and not having to be about what 'really' our world/life is in the first place. Maybe human misery is a very good battery for some hundred-headed sentient mushroom or something ^^

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Because it hasn't collasped yet. Give it a few decades. If we're lucky we won't go extinct.

There are rhinos living in India whose species is said to be 14 million years old. If a rhino manages such a feat, I am not worried about the survival of the human race for the next decades

Yes and environmental degradation has only increased since then. All empires eventually crumble. Every decade we're creating new dependencies. Shoot if the Internet went down completely for even a few months there would be global chaos and millions of people dead. If the electric grid were disrupted on a national level chaos would happen within days.
.

Sure there would be some chaos and death, but regardless of our dependencies we are also the most adaptable we have ever been.

A couple decades ago we had half the number of people on the planet than we do now. Our civilization is growing exponentially and it is not sustainable.

I thought it was widely known by now that population growth is on a steady decline.

 

[SelfSustain]

Society exists so that we can help each other to continue the species. So it's a mix of altruism/biology I guess. No man is his own island. We all need each other.

 

[warpus]

There are rhinos living in India whose species is said to be 14 million years old. If a rhino manages such a feat, I am not worried about the survival of the human race for the next decades

Humans surviving is not so hard, there's so many of us all over the planet. It would take a lot to kill all of us and wipe us all out. You'd need some sort of an event that destroys most life on the planet most likely.. seeing as how some of us can go hiding in bunkers and so on.

But the current human society we have to survive is another question altogether. That's a lot easier to destroy

 

[Zelig]

A couple decades ago we had half the number of people on the planet than we do now. Our civilization is growing exponentially and it is not sustainable.

Most projections show world population peaking at 10-11 billion.

 

[Lexicus]

If a rhino manages such a feat, I am not worried about the survival of the human race for the next decades

Ah, but the simple rhino has something which eludes humans, equilibrium with the surrounding environment.

 

[warpus]

How does that population growth stop, though? Via a plague, some sort of a mass military conflict, or.. how else do you get most of the world to stop reproducing so much?

 

[Synobun]

How does that population growth stop, though? Via a plague, some sort of a mass military conflict, or.. how else do you get most of the world to stop reproducing so much?

Modernization limits the drive/need to reproduce. Our lifestyles discourage having a lot of kids.

 

[warpus]

Modernization limits the drive/need to reproduce. Our lifestyles discourage having a lot of kids.

Yeah, in the west people are not reproducing. But we make up a small % of the whole population of the planet. We might not lead sustainable lives here in the west, but at least our reproduction rates are negative, for the most part anyway.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Humans surviving is not so hard, there's so many of us all over the planet. It would take a lot to kill all of us and wipe us all out. You'd need some sort of an event that destroys most life on the planet most likely.. seeing as how some of us can go hiding in bunkers and so on.

Fully agreed. I think a good rule of thumb is, that if any kind of mammal makes it, so will some humans.

But the current human society we have to survive is another question altogether. That's a lot easier to destroy

True. But IMO still pretty hard. Sure there may be more or less political integration, more or less socialistic elements, more or less authoritarianism and so on, but in the end, I don't see a plausible threat even lurking beyond the horizon that would, I don't know, throw country after country in anarchy or establish a radical new order of things.
The most radical thing I can see happening is a free basic income. The philosopher Richard David Precht insists that in a few decades it will be an unavoidable step because of the 4th economic revolution, the digital revolution, which in contrast to previous revolutions, allegedly, will not replace lost jobs with new jobs, to which a basic income was the only remedy.