way too many words to say very simple things. this will confuse people without such a broad vernacular.
good video though
we have nothing to do with global warming look up agenda 21 it's just to tax people and make our children corporate slaves and eventually establish ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
I agree with your idea that humans aren't the only valuable beings and market systems can't make Earth a great place to live. But I think Stef is all about personal freedom& evolution& has great ideas too. We need a coming together of ALL concerned and caring people to design a better future. We need side by side Cooperation not head to head Competition. Search "Zeitgeist Addendum" & The Venus Project this movement is totally "you" but takes a LOT of study to grasp. I'll help if U want Cheers!
While I agree with the points, I don't think the green party is going to offer any way forward. They exist as part of the establishment to channel any hostility to the system into the green party, which would in turn channel that back into the democratic party. The problem isn't industrialization, the problem is capitalism, and the only solution is the reorganization of society on a socialist basis. The working class is the only force capable of such a revolution. Marxism is materialism.
Well, I have a similar age as you; and I think I also have an extremely atheistic fase from 15 to 20. But after this fase I realized that may be is an anthropoligical need tho attribute sense to live by giving a ruling concept (may be a panteistic god community or a holistic vision of the earth and things), the helping concept of the mind that builds the Self of your live.
You say that the "savior" is not the state, but then you not only support but are also a member of the green party. Changing people's consciousness is a tall order, but I think the gun is a bad place to start. Aside from this point of contention.. good video BTW.
i agree with you that there is an ecological and pollution problem but whats your opinion on CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Im shocked that there has been such crusade against (without substantial proof) what seems to me to be a vital part of nature.
Hm I thought you said "the grand party" at beginning of this video, meaning grand old party. Almost spit out my drink.
There is a little something in our economic model, socio-commercial mores that facilitate a sort of unconscious attitude toward politics. A big part of that is a person living in debt due to easily available credit. It pretty much makes that person enslaved to their job and government which in some ways robs them of their voice to speak out on politics and issues.
You seem like a peaceful, reasonable person. I don't agree with all of your opinions, but at least you appear civilized, and seek to solve problems with reason rather than force. So, what are you doing in a political party?
When people live close together in large numbers, political organization of some sort is inevitable. I assume you're an anarchist, and I'm with you as far as government having less power. But people have collective will, and that will will find expression through political organization. We are individuals, but we are communities as well. Neither level can be said to come first, as our own sense of individuality is a cultural gift from our community.
I am indeed an anarchist. Mine is the radical standpoint that no human being can legitimately own another.
I ask because you seem capable of moral reasoning and appeals to reason and aesthetics. For you to wrestle among the common crowd for control of the gun seems... Somehow beneath you, and certainly beneath such a compassionate cause.
Panzer, I of course agree that no human being can legitimately own another, but I do not artificially separate my individuality from the community that acculturated me as an individual in the first place. We as individuals have no choice but to participate in civic life, though of course I think part of our civic duty is to assure the life, liberty, and happiness of every individual. But if we hope to solve our planetary ecological crisis, we need collective solutions.
You and I (along with every other earthling) share a stake in the fate of the planet. We cannot solve the problems created by industry and globalization as private individuals. We must realize our common interest in establishing a sustainable way of dwelling upon spaceship earth.
You contradict yourself. If I am an entity possessing complete self-ownership, then surely you recognize my legitimate freedom from regulation and taxation - recognize these as nothing more than vile and completely immoral attempts at domination, employed by the very lowest dregs of society. How can you reconcile my complete and inalienable self-ownership right, with the sort of violently enforced co-ownership that statism implies?
I didn't say I believe individuals possess complete self-ownership. I think that is an exaggeration. I said individuals have a right not to be owned by others. As I see it, human beings are primarily social creatures. You are not an individual in a vacuum; you gained and retain your sense of autonomy from your community. Autonomy must always be balanced by communion (and vice versa).
Just as your body is made of many trillions of smaller organisms, so is society a single organism made of many.
Don't let artificial, abstract concepts derived from 17th century political philosophy trump the organic realities of our earthly existence. Certainly, individuals have rights. But to assure these rights, communities must establish a system of democratic self-governance.
I think the current governmental system (in the US) over-taxes and over-regulates. But some sort of system is necessary for civilization to exist.
"But to assure [my right to self-ownership], communities must establish a system of democratic self-governance." That is quite the extraordinary claim - one that is not backed by empiricism.
But before I even approach that: what if, at the end of the day, I disagree with you? If I forcefully defend myself against you or your lackeys when come to do me harm, when I have refused to obey your whims, or refused to appear in your court? Will you then have me shot, or thrown in prison and raped?
Not backed by empiricism? What society do you know of where individual rights were respected without some sort of governmental system? I realize that government can become oppressive, and I agree that the form government has taken in this country definitely is oppressive. But the solution is not to get rid of government. That isn't possible. Actual anarchy wouldn't last more than 5 minutes before people began organizing to establish a common rule of law and order.
If you don't want to be part of a civil community, I assure you I'd have no problem with you going off on your own to live in the woods. I prefer to have schools and roads and courts.
I do not yet care to discuss empirical data with you, nor to speculate on the future, and not even to divulge my particular preferences concerning education, transportation and law. Instead, I must insist that you answer my previous question.
Your reluctance to answer - inability to freely return even such a basic courtesy! - tells me all I will ever need to know about your moral character.
I will no longer entertain this farce that you call discussion, for it is a mere ruse: the powder-thin veneer of civility, behind which you conceal the gun. Indeed, in doing so for as long as I have, I have already granted you precious credibility that you do not deserve. Good day then, and good riddance.
Panzer, I answered you twice. I'll try again. In my ideal society, those who did not want to participate in communal life would be free to leave to strike out a life on their own without being shot or jailed.
We all obey laws be they the laws of man, nature, physics and so forth, it is inherent within most humans to be part of the community and work together as a whole all the while propelling ourselves forward, based on the ideas of individuals. Thus having the privilege to work with others, one might feel a sense of communion of a desire to do good and help others with your own individual perspectives and ideas. Do people take advantage? Of course, but our mistakes are our lessons.
The question I asked that person concerned my right to disagree with him, should he fail to sway me: "What if, at the end of the day,[...]" And so forth. I'm sure you can find it in the comments. I could clarify that at length if you wish, though I'm sure you could figure it out.
If I am to engage in a discussion, then I request to know up front whether the other person is capable of changing his mind according to rational criteria, or if he'll just force me to do what he says anyway.
Panzer, if you read my responses I trust you'll see that I did answer your question three times! I don't believe in forcing anyone to be part of a community who doesn't want to be.
The question was put in rhetorical way; I mean it's clear that ThouArtThat is not going to shut, prison, or/and rape you. He agreed with you that "the form government has taken in this country definitely is oppressive" and more. And it is a problem of power in general.
The power itself always seemed to me as a mystical thing. I tried to explain it for myself with the notion of the fractal universe.
I mean the processes in the world have self-similar properties. For example, the single cell organisms evolved to multi-cell ones and then the central nervous system developed. It was needed to survive. Similar process in society (single -> tribe -> government) seems to me as needed for evolution purpose.
"I request to know up front whether the other person is capable of changing his mind according to rational criteria"
First of all, we all change our minds, even if we do not admit that, and even there is no rational criteria (we are human beings). Couple of times people didn't want to listen to me, and then I found they changed their minds. They believed that found it themselves, of course, and that's fine with me: the goal was reached anyway.
I just started reading the online version of The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein and it looks like he has developed an interesting concept of spirtual transition.
I think that our biggest problem with regard to the raising of human consciousness is how theistic religions view not only the planet but all "creation". As long as humans think of themselves as "made in the image and likeness of God" and therefore superior life forms to all others, we will not progress much. We will continue to use all natural resources as what God has given us to be happy and fulfilled. This is our ignorant view of our place here.
Yeah, I'd agree. But I think this theistic anthopocentrism has carried over completely even to atheistic materialists, who view nature as a mere store of resources and other creatures as mere machines to be exploited for our own economic 'progress.'
I agree with you on general terms but I also feel that here in the US many corporations, most especially energy companies, are controlled by christian religious people who believe that humans are the highest of god's creation and "has dominion over all". I actually know such people where I have to admit, I've never met an atheist who wants to strip our resources for the sake of a dollar.
I'd have to wager that the vast majority of corporate executives who aren't Christian are Randian Objectivists whose understanding of the relationship between humanity and the earth is no better, if not far more anthropocentric. The problem is not religion, in my opinion, but the basic assumptions underlying Western philosophy concerning mind/matter dualism (which leads to nature/culture dualism).
Strangely enough many early iron age religions, including Judaism, seemed to me to be dualistic in their philosophy, being the man/god division. It's only later in Greek thought where we discover Plato's allegory in the cave, which definitely had a huge influence on early christianity in terms of dualism. Thanks for your responses.
The collapse is what will bring about the necessary change of the human mindset.
Language provides superior connectivity to the human organisms, so that whenever a large scale system emerges beyond the tribal level it outpaces the adaptive capacity of the environment - all empires fail due to unsustainability.
The survivors of the comming collapse of techno-civilization will have the sustainability meme imprinted and will care to avoid any short term growth feedbacks in their societies.
I'm wondering, what do you think of the notion that as cybernetic technology advances, eventually all or most life will be integrated with artificial technology, so the global eco-system & global economy will be one & the same?
Speaking of which, maybe I missed it if you've ever talked about this, but this also touches on the issue of making the transition to a Type I Civilization; so would you think of that as a desirable goal?
All of life is already integrated. The human being is trying to integrate life with the noosphere (with self-reflective collective consciousness). So far, we've been sucking way too much energy from the earth during the construction and development of our psychic/cultural envelope around it.
I don't really agree with a model that gauges the advancement of a civilization based on how much energy it can suck from its planet or sun, but on how playful and celebratory its existence is.
Very well said. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn on the individual, microcosmic level also, in that our over-reliance on thought processes and constructs is often to the detriment of the whole organism; they can be deeply energy sapping when not used sparingly and wisely. Perhaps we as a species need to have the largest group meditation session in the planet's history...
Well, I'm not against it per say. I just think the only realistic way for global corporate structure and industry to change is if individual people transform their values. Trying to legislate the earth back to health won't work. People need to intrinsically value a healthy and vibrant earth community before anything will change.
"We need transformation on an individual level" (2:47)
Agree with you 100% because all attempts on the governmental level fail, no matter what political/religious formation we have. State sets wrong goals based on values of individuals.
This is a very important and problematic theme to be discussed much more, not just mention it.
Do you see a realistic way to transform individual people's values?
This has been flagged as spam show
Come baby Asian ladies #lushfmlk.info#
jeniferwedi 1 year ago
way too many words to say very simple things. this will confuse people without such a broad vernacular.
good video though
we have nothing to do with global warming look up agenda 21 it's just to tax people and make our children corporate slaves and eventually establish ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT.
msbadhabbits 1 year ago
I agree with your idea that humans aren't the only valuable beings and market systems can't make Earth a great place to live. But I think Stef is all about personal freedom& evolution& has great ideas too. We need a coming together of ALL concerned and caring people to design a better future. We need side by side Cooperation not head to head Competition. Search "Zeitgeist Addendum" & The Venus Project this movement is totally "you" but takes a LOT of study to grasp. I'll help if U want Cheers!
kingofthebrittains 2 years ago
While I agree with the points, I don't think the green party is going to offer any way forward. They exist as part of the establishment to channel any hostility to the system into the green party, which would in turn channel that back into the democratic party. The problem isn't industrialization, the problem is capitalism, and the only solution is the reorganization of society on a socialist basis. The working class is the only force capable of such a revolution. Marxism is materialism.
mellowmaromi1 2 years ago
i love you. youre amazing. thank you.
lovethyplanet 2 years ago
Well, I have a similar age as you; and I think I also have an extremely atheistic fase from 15 to 20. But after this fase I realized that may be is an anthropoligical need tho attribute sense to live by giving a ruling concept (may be a panteistic god community or a holistic vision of the earth and things), the helping concept of the mind that builds the Self of your live.
HIPERDEMOCRACY 2 years ago
are you retarded? We can't destroy the planet with our technologies. We can destroy ourselves maybe but not the Earth.
ocelot814 2 years ago
You say that the "savior" is not the state, but then you not only support but are also a member of the green party. Changing people's consciousness is a tall order, but I think the gun is a bad place to start. Aside from this point of contention.. good video BTW.
ADPathos 2 years ago
i think that a strict marxism operates from this flatland view of world as resource.
connecthedot 2 years ago
Important points.
Very cute too ;)
vikingaprinsessan 2 years ago
i agree with you that there is an ecological and pollution problem but whats your opinion on CO2 being a greenhouse gas? Im shocked that there has been such crusade against (without substantial proof) what seems to me to be a vital part of nature.
HighVoltage135 2 years ago
Hm I thought you said "the grand party" at beginning of this video, meaning grand old party. Almost spit out my drink.
There is a little something in our economic model, socio-commercial mores that facilitate a sort of unconscious attitude toward politics. A big part of that is a person living in debt due to easily available credit. It pretty much makes that person enslaved to their job and government which in some ways robs them of their voice to speak out on politics and issues.
regemo 2 years ago
@0ThouArtThat0:
You seem like a peaceful, reasonable person. I don't agree with all of your opinions, but at least you appear civilized, and seek to solve problems with reason rather than force. So, what are you doing in a political party?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
When people live close together in large numbers, political organization of some sort is inevitable. I assume you're an anarchist, and I'm with you as far as government having less power. But people have collective will, and that will will find expression through political organization. We are individuals, but we are communities as well. Neither level can be said to come first, as our own sense of individuality is a cultural gift from our community.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
perhaps I assume wrong. Why do you ask what I am doing in a political party?
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Comment removed
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
I am indeed an anarchist. Mine is the radical standpoint that no human being can legitimately own another.
I ask because you seem capable of moral reasoning and appeals to reason and aesthetics. For you to wrestle among the common crowd for control of the gun seems... Somehow beneath you, and certainly beneath such a compassionate cause.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Panzer, I of course agree that no human being can legitimately own another, but I do not artificially separate my individuality from the community that acculturated me as an individual in the first place. We as individuals have no choice but to participate in civic life, though of course I think part of our civic duty is to assure the life, liberty, and happiness of every individual. But if we hope to solve our planetary ecological crisis, we need collective solutions.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
You and I (along with every other earthling) share a stake in the fate of the planet. We cannot solve the problems created by industry and globalization as private individuals. We must realize our common interest in establishing a sustainable way of dwelling upon spaceship earth.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
You contradict yourself. If I am an entity possessing complete self-ownership, then surely you recognize my legitimate freedom from regulation and taxation - recognize these as nothing more than vile and completely immoral attempts at domination, employed by the very lowest dregs of society. How can you reconcile my complete and inalienable self-ownership right, with the sort of violently enforced co-ownership that statism implies?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
I didn't say I believe individuals possess complete self-ownership. I think that is an exaggeration. I said individuals have a right not to be owned by others. As I see it, human beings are primarily social creatures. You are not an individual in a vacuum; you gained and retain your sense of autonomy from your community. Autonomy must always be balanced by communion (and vice versa).
Just as your body is made of many trillions of smaller organisms, so is society a single organism made of many.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Don't let artificial, abstract concepts derived from 17th century political philosophy trump the organic realities of our earthly existence. Certainly, individuals have rights. But to assure these rights, communities must establish a system of democratic self-governance.
I think the current governmental system (in the US) over-taxes and over-regulates. But some sort of system is necessary for civilization to exist.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
"But to assure [my right to self-ownership], communities must establish a system of democratic self-governance." That is quite the extraordinary claim - one that is not backed by empiricism.
But before I even approach that: what if, at the end of the day, I disagree with you? If I forcefully defend myself against you or your lackeys when come to do me harm, when I have refused to obey your whims, or refused to appear in your court? Will you then have me shot, or thrown in prison and raped?
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Not backed by empiricism? What society do you know of where individual rights were respected without some sort of governmental system? I realize that government can become oppressive, and I agree that the form government has taken in this country definitely is oppressive. But the solution is not to get rid of government. That isn't possible. Actual anarchy wouldn't last more than 5 minutes before people began organizing to establish a common rule of law and order.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
If you don't want to be part of a civil community, I assure you I'd have no problem with you going off on your own to live in the woods. I prefer to have schools and roads and courts.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
I do not yet care to discuss empirical data with you, nor to speculate on the future, and not even to divulge my particular preferences concerning education, transportation and law. Instead, I must insist that you answer my previous question.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
I answered. If you don't want to belong to a community, I wouldn't try to prevent you from living like Thoreau on Walden Pond.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Your reluctance to answer - inability to freely return even such a basic courtesy! - tells me all I will ever need to know about your moral character.
I will no longer entertain this farce that you call discussion, for it is a mere ruse: the powder-thin veneer of civility, behind which you conceal the gun. Indeed, in doing so for as long as I have, I have already granted you precious credibility that you do not deserve. Good day then, and good riddance.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Panzer, I answered you twice. I'll try again. In my ideal society, those who did not want to participate in communal life would be free to leave to strike out a life on their own without being shot or jailed.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all obey laws be they the laws of man, nature, physics and so forth, it is inherent within most humans to be part of the community and work together as a whole all the while propelling ourselves forward, based on the ideas of individuals. Thus having the privilege to work with others, one might feel a sense of communion of a desire to do good and help others with your own individual perspectives and ideas. Do people take advantage? Of course, but our mistakes are our lessons.
ArjunaMysterytramp 2 years ago 3
Hello, PanzerDivisionBom:
There was a misunderstanding, I think. From my experience, the youtube format somehow forces to answer only the last question.
Honestly, I got confused: what was the 'previous' question; there were a few.
I like your thoughts and wanted to discuss some of them; it would be sad if you quit without trying to re-formulate the question.
wholethinker 2 years ago
The question I asked that person concerned my right to disagree with him, should he fail to sway me: "What if, at the end of the day,[...]" And so forth. I'm sure you can find it in the comments. I could clarify that at length if you wish, though I'm sure you could figure it out.
If I am to engage in a discussion, then I request to know up front whether the other person is capable of changing his mind according to rational criteria, or if he'll just force me to do what he says anyway.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 years ago
Panzer, if you read my responses I trust you'll see that I did answer your question three times! I don't believe in forcing anyone to be part of a community who doesn't want to be.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
PanzerDivisionBOM:
"What if, at the end of the day. . ."
The question was put in rhetorical way; I mean it's clear that ThouArtThat is not going to shut, prison, or/and rape you. He agreed with you that "the form government has taken in this country definitely is oppressive" and more. And it is a problem of power in general.
The power itself always seemed to me as a mystical thing. I tried to explain it for myself with the notion of the fractal universe.
wholethinker 2 years ago
I mean the processes in the world have self-similar properties. For example, the single cell organisms evolved to multi-cell ones and then the central nervous system developed. It was needed to survive. Similar process in society (single -> tribe -> government) seems to me as needed for evolution purpose.
wholethinker 2 years ago
PanzerDivisionBOM:
"I request to know up front whether the other person is capable of changing his mind according to rational criteria"
First of all, we all change our minds, even if we do not admit that, and even there is no rational criteria (we are human beings). Couple of times people didn't want to listen to me, and then I found they changed their minds. They believed that found it themselves, of course, and that's fine with me: the goal was reached anyway.
wholethinker 2 years ago
PanzerDivisionBOM:
"he'll just force me to do what he says"
I'm sure you have strong mind for not to afraid of such things. An idea has no power on you until it became yours.
wholethinker 2 years ago
Comment removed
ArjunaMysterytramp 2 years ago
I just started reading the online version of The Ascent of Humanity by Charles Eisenstein and it looks like he has developed an interesting concept of spirtual transition.
ruralbornvoteagainer 2 years ago
I think that our biggest problem with regard to the raising of human consciousness is how theistic religions view not only the planet but all "creation". As long as humans think of themselves as "made in the image and likeness of God" and therefore superior life forms to all others, we will not progress much. We will continue to use all natural resources as what God has given us to be happy and fulfilled. This is our ignorant view of our place here.
tonygem 2 years ago 2
Yeah, I'd agree. But I think this theistic anthopocentrism has carried over completely even to atheistic materialists, who view nature as a mere store of resources and other creatures as mere machines to be exploited for our own economic 'progress.'
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
I agree with you on general terms but I also feel that here in the US many corporations, most especially energy companies, are controlled by christian religious people who believe that humans are the highest of god's creation and "has dominion over all". I actually know such people where I have to admit, I've never met an atheist who wants to strip our resources for the sake of a dollar.
tonygem 2 years ago
I'd have to wager that the vast majority of corporate executives who aren't Christian are Randian Objectivists whose understanding of the relationship between humanity and the earth is no better, if not far more anthropocentric. The problem is not religion, in my opinion, but the basic assumptions underlying Western philosophy concerning mind/matter dualism (which leads to nature/culture dualism).
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Strangely enough many early iron age religions, including Judaism, seemed to me to be dualistic in their philosophy, being the man/god division. It's only later in Greek thought where we discover Plato's allegory in the cave, which definitely had a huge influence on early christianity in terms of dualism. Thanks for your responses.
tonygem 2 years ago
The collapse is what will bring about the necessary change of the human mindset.
Language provides superior connectivity to the human organisms, so that whenever a large scale system emerges beyond the tribal level it outpaces the adaptive capacity of the environment - all empires fail due to unsustainability.
The survivors of the comming collapse of techno-civilization will have the sustainability meme imprinted and will care to avoid any short term growth feedbacks in their societies.
ruralbornvoteagainer 2 years ago
It is good to hear you talk about political matters, it is a change from all that spiritual consciousness stuff that you usually go on about.
pythagoras9 2 years ago
I'm wondering, what do you think of the notion that as cybernetic technology advances, eventually all or most life will be integrated with artificial technology, so the global eco-system & global economy will be one & the same?
Speaking of which, maybe I missed it if you've ever talked about this, but this also touches on the issue of making the transition to a Type I Civilization; so would you think of that as a desirable goal?
DixyHair 2 years ago
All of life is already integrated. The human being is trying to integrate life with the noosphere (with self-reflective collective consciousness). So far, we've been sucking way too much energy from the earth during the construction and development of our psychic/cultural envelope around it.
I don't really agree with a model that gauges the advancement of a civilization based on how much energy it can suck from its planet or sun, but on how playful and celebratory its existence is.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Very well said. Perhaps a parallel can be drawn on the individual, microcosmic level also, in that our over-reliance on thought processes and constructs is often to the detriment of the whole organism; they can be deeply energy sapping when not used sparingly and wisely. Perhaps we as a species need to have the largest group meditation session in the planet's history...
RobSydneyUK 2 years ago
RobSydneyUK, you are so spot on! We need a global "harmonic convergence."
AlaskanSky 2 years ago
Love the fact that you're basically against the UN's Agenda 21 program.
1PostPoMoMaN1 2 years ago
Well, I'm not against it per say. I just think the only realistic way for global corporate structure and industry to change is if individual people transform their values. Trying to legislate the earth back to health won't work. People need to intrinsically value a healthy and vibrant earth community before anything will change.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago
Agreed. Agenda 21 seems to be too vague on the values part.
1PostPoMoMaN1 2 years ago
"We need transformation on an individual level" (2:47)
Agree with you 100% because all attempts on the governmental level fail, no matter what political/religious formation we have. State sets wrong goals based on values of individuals.
This is a very important and problematic theme to be discussed much more, not just mention it.
Do you see a realistic way to transform individual people's values?
wholethinker 2 years ago
ThouArtThat 2016-2020!!!
hofisito 2 years ago
The philosophy you are describing is Permaculture.
TheNewRenaissance 2 years ago
that would be largely correct.
0ThouArtThat0 2 years ago