You are referring to forms, I was referring to substance/essence of the inherent propensity within humans to share and co-operate which is not changing.
For example while humans will practice different ways of producing and consuming food over its history, the digestive system of humans to get nutrients as essence is not changing.
Shared community values is an impossibility in today’s world.
You are confining your point to a fixed period of time, i.e. today, present, now, whereas what I have presented is there is a existing potential and positive trend towards greater sharing of values among people towards the future.
This trend of sharing values is progressing as evidenced by greater sense of co-operation between people and Nations, e.g. ISS and many other global projects.
Why do you state “impossibility” when sharing of community values are already happening?
Examples of an impossibility is like the existence of a square-circle, an absolutely perfect God [as argued],
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474
We’re having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn’t cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn’t to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn’t once exist, it did, it just hasn’t existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.
When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.
How would you envision a shared-values community living day to day during technological times?
Yes, if there is coercion, it cannot be co-operation in this intended sense of shared-value.
Note the natural effect of synergy, i.e. the total effect is greater than the sums of its parts.
It is this natural principle that drive co-operation and has nothing to do with coercion.
Because it is a natural principle it has always existed since human were made aware of it as justified with evidence that support this principle.
The potential towards the future is what is most critical, what is present and past is relevant as guidance only for the future.
This is why it is critical we recognize the inherent potential towards morality [which has justified evolutionary grounds] and expedite a greater realization of this inherent potential to prevent, reduce or eliminate evils.
I don’t, stratification and specialization makes it impossible.
If you have faith in the future I would say you’re sorely going to be disappointed along with all the other hopefuls. The agricultural revolution destroyed natural cooperation by my perspective.
Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?
And if those were magically eliminated?
How did agricultural revolution destroyed and eliminate the Principles of Synergy in general? Are you implying all humans should stop co-operating in all forms and turn to be selfish individual[s] from now on and the future?
There is nothing new to be learned from your narrow and shallow basis of philosophy. I’ll will thank you if you had brought something new to add to my knowledge database.
We would return to a natural state of cooperation like existence was before the agricultural revolution. I just don’t see it happening without some sort of destructive global collapse.
I like your word usage of magically eliminated, doesn’t inspire a lot of faith or confidence on your part.
Technological innovation in the creation of class stratification and occupational specialization. Once you let the genie out of the bottle there is no going back without a global massive destructive event. There will always be selfish individuals, some more than others.
Well, the feeling is mutual yet here we are.
I had stated humans like other animals evolved initially with instincts to be ‘selfish’ to facilitate basic survival.
If you study the brain and psychology, you will note such basis instinct of selfishness is embedded in the lower brain which is present in all animals.
The point is there is evolution and humans has evolved to be higher animals as represented by the "higher’ cortical parts of the brain which house the neural circuits that promote co-operation and other more sophisticated faculties.
Humans cannot get rid of its selfish instincts, but humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal ‘selfish’ tendencies.
Humans are NOT “evolving”, but rather are being designed, modified, and bred.
Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had “evolving” ancestors?
Yes, human beings are evolving alright from spears to guns, guns to atomic bombs, and finally biological weapons with weaponized diseases. Then of course there is the future introduction of automation with artificial intelligence. Empathy, or morality? Not so much.
You envision a future where everybody is holding hands in brotherly solidarity, I can’t say I hold the same enthusiasm.
I would have to ask which one is evolving. And can I go meet and perhaps video this guy?
lol, you mean fake right wingers. Their policies are not much different than that of democrats if you look at the legislation that they produce with a few exceptions, abortion being the best I can think of right now.
No, there cannot be shared community values because that is a form of collectivism. Collectivism is based on altruistic philosophy (utilitarianism) and altruism is irrational and utilitarianism is self defeating because if you run a cost/benefit analysis on utilitarianism itself, you will find that it is more destructive than it is beneficial due to its altruistic nature. Altruism does not exist and cannot exist. Everything that the individual does, the individual does so because he believes that it will make him/her better of by doing so be it directly or indirectly. Let’s take your case for example. You believe that if you instill these values socially, it will make your life better by making the nation a better place to live. If you didn’t gain any personal benefit out of the nation being a better place and/or you didn’t believe that if everyone shared your values it would make the nation a better place, what reason would you have for acting?
Furthermore, it goes without saying that not everybody is going to share your values. What you are attempting to do here is impose your values on other people against their will using government force since school is mandatory. That is a violation of those people’s individual rights. Nobody is qualified to say what is in the individual’s best interest than the individual. Also, we all own our own bodies. Would you agree with this statement?
Agreed there. I say this all the time.