[RD] Why is there so much suffering in the world?

Loosely equating an ancient imperial agricultural based trade and barter economy with our modern capitalist highly speculative stock market infused systems and a main argument resting on an egoistic power symbol constructed from dirt, stone, slave- and forced labour. You are a better than me at this.

 

I'd rather say that we're programmed to feel suffering in most cases so to be sure to be driven to the optimal ones.

And why isn't it applicable to the universe without the need of an intermediate creator ?

 

If wealth concentrates within "an ancient imperial agricultural based trade and barter economy" (and the evidence for this in the photograph is irrefutable), then the phenomenon clearly runs deeper than the modern economy.

Lazily declaring that capitalism causes wealth concentration will lead you to propose alternative economic systems that lack understanding of human beings or money. Despite good intentions, it may result in greater wealth concentration than a capitalist system, and other very serious problems, when implemented in the real world. The 19th and 20th centuries' real world experiments with collectivism, and the resulting world wars and genocides, testify to that.

What causes wealth to concentrate? The short answer would be "everything." It is a function of space, matter, and time. Hari Seldon might be able to be more specific.

 

Yes, just because other things can cause something doesn't mean that others cannot as well. Saying "the problem exists elsewhere" is a bit of a red herring.

Lightning causes forest first. But please still be careful with your cigarette while hiking.

 

Buy Skoal!

 

Not sure this is a very satisfying response because it would be more like a situation where as long as we have cigarettes, there is no lightning, and you’ve got a bunch of people trying to prevent wildfires by banning cigarettes and switching to lightning. You’re saying system A has some bad consequence, he’s saying systems B-Z have the same bad consequence, but switching to any of those will be even worse (Eg not only will we have wildfires, we’ll also have people getting struck by lighting!). However, that’s not super relevant anyway because from your posting history, I’m pretty sure you don’t support “dismantling capitalism” either. Point being, it looks like he’s trying to defend capitalism from destruction, so ultimately, he’s kind of arguing with Owen, not you. And is responding as if your posts are intended to support Owen, when I don’t think they are.

Another thing is he’s being evasive about this “effective” issue, though as an onlooker, I’m having a hard time telling why that really matters. His first post and subsequent ones seem correct to me, even if a bit hand-wavy with the terminology. Does his public/private goods argument fall apart if he doesn’t give us the right definition of “effective”?

 

Some people just think they're better than others and should have more stuff because of that.

 

Are many forest fires there due to arson? Eg when the forest is to be preserved, but if it is burned it can then become a forest of concrete apartments.

 

You don't even disagree with this, do you? Is anyone ever more talented, competent, or productive than anyone else? Does differential ability never justify differential compensation? Sure, I'm not taking "better" to mean "of greater worth in a cosmic sense", but I don't see the use in interpreting it that way anyway.

 

Being a pantheist, the only option I see is that life is never, has never, and won't ever be separated from god. Being kinder is the best and most accessible option for how to behave and create a better world. More can be done, but kindness is a place anyone can start.

 

Of course I don't disagree. I'm just saying it's the source of suffering. Especially when it's done by those that aren't more talented, competent, or productive.

 

He's using economics overall, so using an unclear word like 'effective' when economics has rather precise usages of the words "efficient" and "increases productivity" means that we're talking at a lower level than we need to.

Imagine a discussion about eggs and someone's talking about how eggs "increase the good things in your blood". You cannot tell what they're talking about. If you think they do actually have more information, but are talking at a lower level for their audience, then the clarifying question is "what good things are increased?". If they don't answer, it's hard to say the position is informed.

Anyway, I'm not denying the problems in B-Z, I'm discussing a potential failure in A. We have enough people that deny that this failure position exists, which means that it's hard to protect the good while protecting yourself from the bad.

 

Because you posited being Created with Free Will as a cause of suffering.

But, to paraphrase the CFC Alumnus: "the illusion of free will is so strong, we might as well pretend it exists".

 

Bozo Erectus lives on in our memories.

 

Ahhh, predestination reincarnated.

I do so like shaking the cage every now and then, it rarely is disappointing. Hope you don't mind!

 

Predestination? Not likely; define your terms young man. Nice word choice though.

 

The free will or lack thereof bit. Determinism or whatever, I think of it loosely in terms of Calvinists.

 

That would be a mistake as I see things. Calvinistic predestination has no place in pantheism. My thinking on free runs along those of Bozo: "The illusion of free will is so complete that it might as well be real."

 

Determinism addresses the ball in the same way as Calvinism, it just wore different shorts to the range. Shrugging one's shoulders at it isn't quite the same as shrugging it off, but near enough?

 

It's hard to see how determinism and predestination are different, though I think there's a hair that can be split there. "Predestination" implies (maybe?) that some entity could or has predicted the outcome. I'm certainly a weak deterministic, in that I think that all actions result from previous inputs.