Did humans use to care more?

[Pa'li Makto]

Much of the "protecting ourselves" idea is outdated, especially since most of the dangerous animals are either culled or too far away to bother us. Think about it, were there any real animal/natural dangers that threatened Rome?
I don't think so..
So yes I agree with you about humans destroying/damaging nature for their own benefit but not on the protecting thing..
Actually, in the classical times and even now it isn't animals that we built shielding walls to protect us from: it was other humans from different provinces/tribes ect...

[auroraglacialis]

Yes - fences and large walls are usually built to keep away people. Better - to keep away people from "property" or "owned land", the latter two beeing the reason behind many wars. What humans did for a long time though is build shelters and houses to keep away dangers and the negative sides of natures balance. But I do not think, it is leading to a detachment as such. The detachment comes mostly with living surrounded only by human products. A city does not need a wall to be a city and still it will affect the people living in it towards an increased detachment from nature.

Oh and that part in the bible with Eve - that part is soooo full of symbolism and hidden references to what was still in the memories of people at that time that it is amazing. Like paradise beeing the pre-agricultural societies, the fruit beeing agriculture or civilization in general, Eve representing the matriarchalic early societies or the pre christian mother goddesses, ... and so on. Plenty of theories and many of them quite logically conclusive taking in account the pre-christian origin of this myth some thousand years ago.

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Yes - fences and large walls are usually built to keep away people. Better - to keep away people from "property" or "owned land", the latter two beeing the reason behind many wars. What humans did for a long time though is build shelters and houses to keep away dangers and the negative sides of natures balance. But I do not think, it is leading to a detachment as such. The detachment comes mostly with living surrounded only by human products. A city does not need a wall to be a city and still it will affect the people living in it towards an increased detachment from nature.

Oh and that part in the bible with Eve - that part is soooo full of symbolism and hidden references to what was still in the memories of people at that time that it is amazing. Like paradise beeing the pre-agricultural societies, the fruit beeing agriculture or civilization in general, Eve representing the matriarchalic early societies or the pre christian mother goddesses, ... and so on. Plenty of theories and many of them quite logically conclusive taking in account the pre-christian origin of this myth some thousand years ago.

The book of Genesis was written long before Christianity came along by the Jews, in fact the whole old testament is their Torah. As for tribal societies being Matriarchal those are few and in between. In the Amazon and most still existing non agricultural tribes are Patriarchal. And probably just like today some where peaceful while others were extremely hostile and downright cannibalistic.

I find it funny that people appraise Paganism so much when many rituals involved human sacrifice including that of children. The religion of Moloch is a prime example of this.

[auroraglacialis]

Yes - there is no record on how old that myth on Genesis is. Probably it was there long before the Torah also and was just recorded in that book for the first time. So it most definitely originated in ancient times when civilization as we know it was just starting.

And yes - matriarchy was probably just one model in a diversity. Today it is almost nonexistent however. Neo Paganism is interesting mostly because of the Neo - it is, like Neo Tribalism, something that takes the best of our current experiences and of ancient reports or ideas and merges them. Everyone who says otherwise is a fool as we have no way of knowing what ancient Paganism was like or how ancient tribal societies where like. But I do not deem it a bad thing, it is the way things go - going onward and act from what we desire instead of getting stuck in rigid and distorted structures. Just as todays Christians would not agree on many of the rules put forth in medieval times or even the old testament (like chopping peoples hands off), todays Pagans will not sacrifice children. (In both cases there are probably nutcase exceptions)

[Human No More]

I'm not too sure about the spiritual/god part, but I certainly think humans used to care more.
The truth is, humans kept developing, and for each problem they solved, they caused a new one. Humans became more isolated, and forgot what mad e them special, and that is where the problem is. Things get worse every generation as it's all the previous one have known, all they pass on

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by Cyan

Rewatching avatar again, made me realise, at some point in our early existence we must have been similar to them in some respects. Prehaps we were more inclinded to a spiritual being, and if you believe such things times were better because god could connect with us, as he stuggles to with us now. I dont know the details, but it sounds like at some point we were much more appreciative and connected with our surroundings.

In fact it is human nature , and we are the sum of the values we are and have lived ever since , materialism is probably the most important thing for the mass of mankind , sure there are people live different ,but if you are honest , the majority just doesn't care , because it's simply too easy to just let things happen .

Besides I wouldn't try to imply that your "god" (in what ever kind of god you believe) exists or is the one , some people with a different heritage might misunderstand that .

Finally , I personally don't belive that we were somewhen back then the supernature connected people , if mankind would have had to choose between the life we have now and the one they had , you can bet , the majority would vote for the way we life today , mankind has never been the good-doing samaritan you are trying to portray for yourself , you can see it disproved and the opposite happening everyday , in fact , humans tended to care even less .

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by fkeua vrrtep

Finally , I personally don't belive that we were somewhen back then the supernature connected people , if mankind would have had to choose between the life we have now and the one they had , you can bet , the majority would vote for the way we life today , mankind has never been the good-doing samaritan you are trying to portray for yourself , you can see it disproved and the opposite happening everyday , in fact , humans tended to care even less .

I think you are right with that many people would have chosen our life and many people in developing countries could not understand our critique. But I think it is partly because the life we have now is portraied as beeing possible and beneficial. But it is neither, as it is built on borrowed time and resources, the work of people in the developing countries and it is in fact harmful in many ways. Just all of this is not to be seen at first. It takes some time and critical thinking to realize this. Some of the remaining native tribes in our world have recognized that and that is probably the reason why they lived up into the 20th or even 21th century. Like the Sng'Oi from the book "Original Wisdom" who are closest to the Na'Vi as one can be on Earth, I think. They, like the Na'Vi told "civilized peole", that the have no need for their roads and food. They lived in their environment, dreaming and acting upon their dreams, doing what the day would bring and saw no need for working 10 hour days just to afford some crap that makes no one happy in the end. But of course others have fought wars or depleted whole islands of resources. There was a large diversity of lifestyles present in the past.

The key now is however, that the good-doing human is not a myth. It may not have applied to all ancient tribes, but it applied to a significant portion (to the point them staying alive until the last few decades). Moreover, it shows us that it is possible for humans to be the good doing samaritains. We have it in ourselves. And mybe this is what we will become, maybe it is the opposite. Maybe the good doers are a dying "race" or maybe they are the future, who knows - maybe it will all stay the same and balance between them will be kept, the good doers always putting up all their energy just to keep the others from making things even worse than they already do.

So overall - I think the proportion of "caring" people in the past versus people who do not care may have been higher. But those who do not care grew and expanded, mainly because they did not care.

Greetings,

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I think you are right with that many people would have chosen our life and many people in developing countries could not understand our critique. But I think it is partly because the life we have now is portraied as beeing possible and beneficial. But it is neither, as it is built on borrowed time and resources, the work of people in the developing countries and it is in fact harmful in many ways. Just all of this is not to be seen at first. It takes some time and critical thinking to realize this. Some of the remaining native tribes in our world have recognized that and that is probably the reason why they lived up into the 20th or even 21th century. Like the Sng'Oi from the book "Original Wisdom" who are closest to the Na'Vi as one can be on Earth, I think. They, like the Na'Vi told "civilized peole", that the have no need for their roads and food. They lived in their environment, dreaming and acting upon their dreams, doing what the day would bring and saw no need for working 10 hour days just to afford some crap that makes no one happy in the end. But of course others have fought wars or depleted whole islands of resources. There was a large diversity of lifestyles present in the past.

The key now is however, that the good-doing human is not a myth. It may not have applied to all ancient tribes, but it applied to a significant portion (to the point them staying alive until the last few decades). Moreover, it shows us that it is possible for humans to be the good doing samaritains. We have it in ourselves. And mybe this is what we will become, maybe it is the opposite. Maybe the good doers are a dying "race" or maybe they are the future, who knows - maybe it will all stay the same and balance between them will be kept, the good doers always putting up all their energy just to keep the others from making things even worse than they already do.

So overall - I think the proportion of "caring" people in the past versus people who do not care may have been higher. But those who do not care grew and expanded, mainly because they did not care.

Greetings,

The possibility goes nearly to 0 that the good-doing people will gain power and will be able to decide where mankind should go , since the already powerful won't drop the scepter of power just because some people suddenly got aware of that they actually have brains to use and a free will and a life in which they can decide which road to take .

Another aspect is that people are lazy , at least those in the western civilization , we rather let our lifes be decided by the media and by the mind-poinsoning that is poured into us since the last few decades which makes us think we should seriously be thinking about which Ed-Hardy T-Shirt we should buy next and to how we can bind ourselves closer to this rotting system which we call society , the majority doesn't care about their rights , nor about their freedom , nor about the rain forests dying every minute .

People rather let their minds be controlled than using it themselves , mankind is heading towards a dark future in which consumption and assimilation will be the top spots in society , old values will mostly get forgotten and will be replaced by shallowness , greed etc. , you can see the seed of descent growing and it stupidifies people more and more , with every day passing .

Sure , there are a few people who are different , but the "few" are not sitting in the office , industrials sit in offices , corrupted politicians sit in offices and people who don't care are the ones who decide where to go , I'm sorry , but we are living on planet earth , and mankind is taken by sum , not a samaritian-like species at all , we are more like a locust swarm grazing and consuming pretty much everything that we can use for our amusement , blinding and disillusionment .

[PunkMaister]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I think you are right with that many people would have chosen our life and many people in developing countries could not understand our critique. But I think it is partly because the life we have now is portraied as beeing possible and beneficial. But it is neither, as it is built on borrowed time and resources, the work of people in the developing countries and it is in fact harmful in many ways. Just all of this is not to be seen at first. It takes some time and critical thinking to realize this. Some of the remaining native tribes in our world have recognized that and that is probably the reason why they lived up into the 20th or even 21th century. Like the Sng'Oi from the book "Original Wisdom" who are closest to the Na'Vi as one can be on Earth, I think. They, like the Na'Vi told "civilized peole", that the have no need for their roads and food. They lived in their environment, dreaming and acting upon their dreams, doing what the day would bring and saw no need for working 10 hour days just to afford some crap that makes no one happy in the end. But of course others have fought wars or depleted whole islands of resources. There was a large diversity of lifestyles present in the past.

The key now is however, that the good-doing human is not a myth. It may not have applied to all ancient tribes, but it applied to a significant portion (to the point them staying alive until the last few decades). Moreover, it shows us that it is possible for humans to be the good doing samaritains. We have it in ourselves. And mybe this is what we will become, maybe it is the opposite. Maybe the good doers are a dying "race" or maybe they are the future, who knows - maybe it will all stay the same and balance between them will be kept, the good doers always putting up all their energy just to keep the others from making things even worse than they already do.

So overall - I think the proportion of "caring" people in the past versus people who do not care may have been higher. But those who do not care grew and expanded, mainly because they did not care.

Greetings,

Interesting assumptions, first of all the Senoi are nowhere as primitive as you descibe them here is a picture of a typical Senoi house

And guess what oh they do have Tea plantations as well! Hmm...

Here are more facts about this people

he Senoi tend to take dreams more seriously than we do. They discriminate between several sorts of dreams. Like people everywhere, Senoi do not respond directly to the world, but to the world as they categorize it. Therefore, understanding Senoi dream categories is prerequisite to understanding their dream theory. Senoi themselves must decide what sort of dream is involved before they can deal with it.
The Senoi use dream interpretation as an integral part of their lives, guiding and transforming them

The Senoi lived in long community houses, constructed of bamboo, rattan and thatch, and held away from the ground on poles. They grew among other things rice, bananas, bread-fruit trees and pumpkins. They were mainly vegetarians, but fish and certain forest animals were also on the menu.
That the Senoi did not suffer of neurosis or psychoses sounds unbelievable. But it is well researched and the results confirm this. The way they handle their dreams seems to be the key to this.

And here is the link to the article.

[auroraglacialis]

@fkeua vrrtep: I have to admit the possibilities are slim. Once in a while someone with some sense comes to power but that is a rare case. One thing I can imagine is some sort of failure and a reboot so to speak. If a system fails, options are open to change. If in such a case sensible thinking people will pick up the chance and have a majority behind them that saw the reasons for the failure, then change might happen. Sadly, often the result is quite the opposite as in Germany and Italy in the mid 20th century or a number of soviet states, in which not communism ruled, but a totalitarian system that has little to do with what Marx hoped for when he described post-capitalism.

And here comes the problem with people beeing lazy and not willing to think - if the opportunity arises, what will those people do? Keep on sitting?

@PunkMaister;25927]Interesting assumptions, first of all the Senoi are nowhere as primitive as you descibe them here is a picture of a typical Senoi house [...] Here are more facts about this people[/quote]

What is described in the article is probably merely the remnants of their culture. It was mentioned in "Original Wisdom" how they lived a semi nomadic life with simple huts that serve as a home for only months or maybe few years until they moved on. In the book, it was also mentioned, that some of the people have been influenced and live in fixed homes and local people liked to take advantage of them as workers for tea plantations (or in former times as slaves as was written in your linked article) but that this is not what the majority of these people wanted to do, it is what the tourist office says. The Sgn'Oi also got severely affected and decimated by illnesses that were brought by outsiders. I think the book describes them very well, especially since it was written by a local who lived with them for extended periods of time. Of course, these experiences are from over a decade ago (probably rather 3 or 4 decades, I have to check in the book)

But in that article, also some of the traits are mentioned. They are utterly peaceful, enjoy nature and are very mentally stable. The most amazing part is the way they handle dreams.

Probably they used to be not "ideal" people, but they definitely have been near the top of the list of people on this earth who qualify as beeing close to it.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

@fkeua vrrtep: I have to admit the possibilities are slim. Once in a while someone with some sense comes to power but that is a rare case. One thing I can imagine is some sort of failure and a reboot so to speak. If a system fails, options are open to change. If in such a case sensible thinking people will pick up the chance and have a majority behind them that saw the reasons for the failure, then change might happen. Sadly, often the result is quite the opposite as in Germany and Italy in the mid 20th century or a number of soviet states, in which not communism ruled, but a totalitarian system that has little to do with what Marx hoped for when he described post-capitalism.

Exactly , the time a bad system ends , it usually happens that an even worse one takes over , simply because the throne is empty at that time and unscrupulous people will take over and use the weak minds of their people for their own benefit , at that time people don't know where to go ,and if someone comes along and tells them where to go they are happy that someone does it but from them , it's simply the fact that people are too lazy .

But it's probably never gonna happen that "sensible" people will gain power in order to form a new sort of state or community , do you think that the few hundred who rule the world will let that happen , that their power is drained from them ? I bet not .

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by fkeua vrrtep

But it's probably never gonna happen that "sensible" people will gain power in order to form a new sort of state or community , do you think that the few hundred who rule the world will let that happen , that their power is drained from them ? I bet not .

Well - I am not sure. It is not so much a matter of people who rule the world giving up that rule, this may happen without their control (like if the monetary system should collapse, rich people loose quite a bit of their power). The problem is more one you mentioned earlier. The people who take action in times of crisis or collapse the usually not the nice ones. But at times they have good intentions (like I belive the first leaders of the soviet revolution really wanted to make a new egalitarian communist society, but they got overrun by people who used the moment to erect something completely different). So I guess, what people who think in ways that are caring and more centered on humans and the earth should do in such a situation would be to step up and for once in their lives fight. The people in such a situation like the collapse in the first part of the 20th century that lead to the NAZI regime are willing to drop the old ways and look out for new ones. Which way that new one is, depends on the form of collapse, the "vibes" that have been around before and most of all on the people that come up at that time and speak up. I can just hope that if something like that should happen again, more of the sensible people will have learned how to speak up.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Well - I am not sure. It is not so much a matter of people who rule the world giving up that rule, this may happen without their control (like if the monetary system should collapse, rich people loose quite a bit of their power). The problem is more one you mentioned earlier. The people who take action in times of crisis or collapse the usually not the nice ones. But at times they have good intentions (like I belive the first leaders of the soviet revolution really wanted to make a new egalitarian communist society, but they got overrun by people who used the moment to erect something completely different). So I guess, what people who think in ways that are caring and more centered on humans and the earth should do in such a situation would be to step up and for once in their lives fight. The people in such a situation like the collapse in the first part of the 20th century that lead to the NAZI regime are willing to drop the old ways and look out for new ones. Which way that new one is, depends on the form of collapse, the "vibes" that have been around before and most of all on the people that come up at that time and speak up. I can just hope that if something like that should happen again, more of the sensible people will have learned how to speak up.

I personally don't believe in "new" systems , only names of parties and ideologies change , the people behind the curtain are staying the same as with all the others before.

Our world is simply not made for a pieceful environment,society and people ,we are living after consumption which leads to greed , and greed leads to conflict , money is the main booster for this potential , as long as it exists there will be no change in systems , simply because it offers you a huge capability of gaining alot of power , kind of silly that mankind lost it's free mind and will to a piece of labeled paper that only suggests value.

[auroraglacialis]

Hah - we even lost the labelled paper to made-up numbers on computer systems. But I do not (and this is a new one) see things so pessimistic. Governments changed. We are not ruled by kings anymore, but by other kinds of rich people and recently by non human entities (corporations). Consumerism also is a new system - it was not present in the ways it is now two hundred years ago. Greed however is always present, that is sad. It is a result from people living in too large groups (cities, nations, countires) as well as from the invention of money and property. But imagine the collaps of the monetary system - can't you think, that something new might come after such a collapse? I still have not read the theories of the "Venus Project" on resource based economy, but it sounded promising from the first glance.

[fkeua vrrtep]

Governments did the best job in making their people (more likely slaves) believe they are free , there's a good goethe quote regarding that :

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free".

They technically only said , "Oh we suddenly decided to give you rights etc. , we were so wrong exploiting you for the last few hundreds of years , you are now free man and can decide what to do with your life" ... not , you are still bound to their system ,you still have to pay alot of taxes and they make more money out of you than ever before .

So , they just told people they have rights ,without any proof that the peoples will is transfered into action , lets see for example back in the 60s when the people revolted against the US Army going to Vietnam , more than 70% of the people of the US were AGAINST that war , still the government decided to go over , throw millions of tons of bombs and chemicals over the rainforests and the people living there , I don't think that comes even close to "having a choice" or "democracy" or "the peoples will shall be transfered into action" , democracy is a big joke , an excuse that is told to people in order to keep their dirty business up , it's all just a big scam ,you can see it prooved every day that the governments don't give a damn about the peoples oppinion , they are only like "hey , we see you don't want us to do/to not do that... well anyways , we don't give a damn , we'll do it anyways".

Democracy for the win ( be aware of irony)