Overpopulation, books, and the environment

[Shanti418]

Perhaps all the **** and name calling wasn't needed, but "Overpopulation: What's up with that?" and/or "Effects of the Individualism of Modernity on Morality Construction and Social Movements" are the kind of *** you can get on this board that you can't get at any other website with an omniscient Optimus Prime in the corner.

Do people really have a right to have as many kids as they want? Diamond, in Collapse, doesn't say it outright as Weisman does, but it's clear that the successful societies he talks about have, indeed, forced population restriction.

I also remember reading an article about Chinese women who would take their bikes across town every day so their kid could play with his/her (usually his, given the disposal of Chinese girls) cousin.

So why not expand that and create a social experiment: brothers and sisters with spouses living together, having less kids but raising cousins as brothers and sisters.

I think that this model needs to replace the old nuclear family. What better way to learn that "it takes a village" and what better way to reduce overpopulation but still get the brother/sister benefits, aside from adoption? I can imagine that it would be terribly hard to get used to at first, especially since, you know, it's my sister and we would fight, and we would be accommodating four adults with all their idiosyncracies.

But perhaps that is part of this culture of entitlement that has led us to **** the world anyway? No other culture until the Victorians glorified this idea that a middle-class existed and deserved a nice house in the suburbs.

Thoughts? Expressed in careful words?

First off, speaking off the top of my head in broad terms with no links to fancy "empirical" facts because like SprunkBumbPrime, I too am buried in academia eternally, most Western countries are at or below replacement levels in terms of births, and many third world countries are the ones with crazy birth rates, due in part to the more agrarian nature of some of these countries along with infant mortality rates. But really, the point I want to make is this: in terms of creating regulations/laws to limit how many kids you have, the countries that would most "need" this are probably the ones least equipped with a strong central government and the legal/judicial/criminal will to carry out such encompassing legislation.

As an aside, there's actually a line of thought in the current US Catholic church that basically sees this whole overpopulation situation as a bunch of Muslims being bred by God to attack the good Christian nations of the West for their godlessness and lack of reproduction, a la Assyria and Israel. OK, fine, I tracked down a link for this: http://blog.adw.org/2010/02/what-is-the ... e-upon-us/

Now there have been plenty of studies done on this: kids need NEED nurturing (as Yaya argued), but there's no specific social form this nurturing needs to come in (as EmVee argued). So if we could snap our fingers and change society, yes, communal living and communal parenting would help the situation drastically. Honestly though, I don't see that happening without on the ground circumstances absolutely demanding it, ie we're all living in a dystopian future with limited resources and vastly shrunken social spheres. Even though it's a long process, I believe the only lasting way to attack overpopulation is to raise the standard of living in those countries with high birth rates, for as I understand, one of the clear patterns in history is that as countries become and/or pass through being industrialized, their birthrates go down. There are many reasons for this that I could go into if prodded.

So, to sum: successful societies have had forced population restriction, but due to contraception, the birth rate depression of industrial societies, and a lack of strong central political structures in the third world/intense individualization in the West, I'm not sure this will work now. China did it, but this was the unique circumstance of a primarily agrarian society under a strong central government (due to communism). I think communal parenting/living is a great idea, worked great in the past, good luck getting people on that bandwagon. And on the last point: yes, we're spoiled. Very much so, especially here in America. That's why, despite himself, I could at least understand on some level where Yaya was coming from.

One last point, getting back to the whole "no one cares about anyone in this godless wasteland" vs. "I'm making a difference, and I'm not alone, and God has nothing to do with it" thing: Ulrich Beck, Risk Society Awesome book that explains how both viewpoints are coming from the same wellspring of stimuli, the individualism of modernity, a concept I've made passing reference to above.

[bumblemusprime]

As an aside, there's actually a line of thought in the current US Catholic church that basically sees this whole overpopulation situation as a bunch of Muslims being bred by God to attack the good Christian nations of the West for their godlessness and lack of reproduction, a la Assyria and Israel.

Oh, that's why Yaya argues with us.

KIDDING! KIDDING! I AM ******* KIDDING!

Honestly though, I don't see that happening without on the ground circumstances absolutely demanding it, ie we're all living in a dystopian future with limited resources and vastly shrunken social spheres.

But that is also part of the problem, isn't it? We should be living like that already. Locally sustaining economies reduce waste and oil use and create a better environment without the often blind "look at the cool toys; never mind what we're doing to the workers in China" acts of supercorporations. Yes, I am talking about Hasbro, the bunch of brilliant bastards. It's a love-hate relationship.

Greater local recognition of local artists, more dependence on local farms, and greater urbanization around local shops would all maintain resources. There is only so much farmland and so much easily extractable oil. Where I live in Bellingham, Washington there is a strong movement towards local interaction, but outside of Bellingham I see a lot of suburbanizing communities who want the kind of resources available to say, suburban Seattle, where one is never far from a lovely chain like REI, Starbucks or Fred Meyer. This is why local businesses charge more and congregate in touristy downtowns and only a strong social consciousness keeps Bellinghamsters patronizing their local businesses and farms.

Problem is, I have no way to convince people to go commune without an appeal to unselfishness, which is not going to change anyone's lifestyle unless they are already living urban, like we are. And I like autonomy. Chrissy and I want to live our own way in our own place and we would not agree completely with my sister and brother-in-law enough to share a place.

[Shanti418]

Oh yeah, living locally would definitely help the environment in all sorts of ways. And not just that: The point has been made, I believe most famously by Malcolm Gladwell, that the optimum community size for humans is 150. Above 150, we're no longer able to maintain interpersonal relationships, and this (partly) leads to the selfishness and alienation from fellow man. There are a number of ancient and modern tribes who, when they reached around that number, would then split in two to maintain the balance. But the march of civilization and deification of "progress" have made us prefer city states over communities, nation states over city states, and now, I would hasten to guess that most people believe that if the nation state paradigm falls, it would be to a larger global society, not to a regressive, smaller social structure. That is, unless circumstances don't intervene first that force us into the aforementioned dystopian future.

It's like, you shouldn't have to appeal to unselfishness. Man is a social animal. Both evolutionary psychology and sociology say this. (See: Randall Collins's Interaction Ritual Chains and/or Violence)We need each other. People know this. That's why they sacrifice for their families, or love the feeling they get as part of a big group in church. The problem is that in modern society, we're all alienated from each other, which withers our capacity for empathy. Even talking about your suburb or school: the population is too big for you to care about everyone. We must be selective. And this selectivity leads to selfishness. And this is even worse in America, because of our individualistic, meritocratic ideology. Obviously this doesn't happen with everyone, and a corollary phenomena in the individualized society can lead to a greater global awareness, like the awesome work EmVee is doing.

[Yaya]

Oh yeah, living locally would definitely help the environment in all sorts of ways. And not just that: The point has been made, I believe most famously by Malcolm Gladwell, that the optimum community size for humans is 150. Above 150, we're no longer able to maintain interpersonal relationships, and this (partly) leads to the selfishness and alienation from fellow man.

Isn't 150 a bit low?

I grew up in a town of a few thousand people, geographically hemmed in by the moutains, isolated from the rest of humanity. The closest city was an hour and a half away. The closest airport was two hours away. So it was quite remote. And things actually seemed too personal. Everyone was in everyone else's business. A rumor would start between two people and within a week, everyone knew it.

People though were very polite and friendly, did favors for each other. Life there was very simple. People were quite ignorant, but they were nice.

But I do see what you are saying, and I agree with it. Overpopulation does seem to contribute to a selfish society.

The problem is that in modern society, we're all alienated from each other, which withers our capacity for empathy. Even talking about your suburb or school: the population is too big for you to care about everyone. We must be selective. And this selectivity leads to selfishness. And this is even worse in America, because of our individualistic, meritocratic ideology.

Nicely said and something I hadn't considered that is quite logical. But what scares me most is the selfishness within families themselves. That seems to be something that can't really be accounted for by the above reasoning. Why are parents neglecting their children? Why are they casting their responsibility onto schools and the Internet? This is the trend that's most disturbing to me. For example, bullying is a fact of life. Kids bully other kids. But the haven of the bullied is the home, or at least should be. But according to my sister, who works in normal public schools as a counselor, the bullying starts at school, and either continues at home or simply fails to get addressed by parents who are too selfish to care. How sad.

She told me one story where she talked to the class in a very direct manner about bullying. By the end of the class, all the kids, ages 8-12, were crying. They got up at the end and started apologizing to each other for bullying. A few kids actually got up and explained why they bully. The ones who admitted to it said they did it because when they got home, they themselves were abused, and so when they came to school, they released their anger and frustration on other kids. Imagine. A 12-year old having such insight into the source of his actions, then explaining, intelligently and eloquently, why he does what he does. Kids are amazing. In reality, they are far superior in intelligence than adults. They simply lack one thing, the one thing that makes a child a child. Experience of life.

The logic in what you say above is almost understood by a booming populace. A New Yorker isn't going to expect a fellow New Yorker to be considerate or selfless. But a child should expect his mother or father to have his or her interest squarely in mind, and I see less and less of this.

[Best First]

This is the trend that's most disturbing to me.

i think one of the things people take umbridge at in terms of your posts mate, are comments like this.

Despite earlier challenges in the thread you just merrily assert that there is a trend of increased selfishness in parents, and then we are back to the myth of the golden age of the family.

You don't provide any compelling evidence or arguements to back this up, you just blithley state this is a trend and seem to hope people will accept it.

But it's nonsense isn't it? In terms of the selfishness of parents;
- child labour has been rife through recorded history
- infanticide has been rife through redorded history (and fetted by certain religions as being a great reflection on how much someone loves that kind ol fella in the sky)
- marrying your kids off for money and or power has been rife through recorded history

i'd say if anything a lot of these things are trending down, at keast in the West

And in more recent terms, despite the press circle jerk over peadophiles the reality suggested by stats from any number of countries is that;
- kids are more likley to be abused by relatives
- kids are more likley to be killed by relatives
Yay family!

Not to mention it's only really in the last 50 years or so people have even started to reflect that maybe violence isn't the best way to discepline kids.

Is this to say that there aren't sh*t parents out threre? No, but what is this position we are supposedly descending from? What is the point in time you are trying to get back to?

It's classic empty rhetoric i'm afraid.

[Yaya]

This is the trend that's most disturbing to me.

i think one of the things people take umbridge at in terms of your posts mate, are comments like this.

Despite earlier challenges in the thread you just merrily assert that there is a trend of increased selfishness in parents, and then we are back to the myth of the golden age of the family.

You don't provide any compelling evidence or arguements to back this up, you just blithley state this is a trend and seem to hope people will accept it.

But it's nonsense isn't it? In terms of the selfishness of parents;
- child labour has been rife through recorded history
- infanticide has been rife through redorded history (and fetted by certain religions as being a great reflection on how much someone loves that kind ol fella in the sky)
- marrying your kids off for money and or power has been rife through recorded history

i'd say if anything a lot of these things are trending down, at keast in the West

And in more recent terms, despite the press circle jerk over peadophiles the reality suggested by stats from any number of countries is that;
- kids are more likley to be abused by relatives
- kids are more likley to be killed by relatives
Yay family!

Not to mention it's only really in the last 50 years or so people have even started to reflect that maybe violence isn't the best way to discepline kids.

Is this to say that there aren't sh*t parents out threre? No, but what is this position we are supposedly descending from? What is the point in time you are trying to get back to?

It's classic empty rhetoric i'm afraid.

What you say certainly is true. Things have been worse. History is a great teacher and it's best to take heed of it.

One thing I'd like to clarify is that I'm not denying that life is circular, or that trends never reverse. Humanity goes through cycles.

But these cycles seem to span the period of hundreds of years or more. My concern comes from the rapidity of change, for the worse, that I've seen in my lifespan here in America. The period of time I go back is about twenty to thirty years ago. Here in the U.S., people actually cared for one another. You knew your neighbor and they knew you. You left the doors of your house unlocked at night. Now, you would be a crazy man to think of doing such a thing. Where does this change come from? What's it's source?

The primary basis of my concern are the discussions with my sister. She has worked in both public and private school settings. Five year-olds are talking about sexually explicit things that they have no business knowing about. About a month ago, some kids poored gasoline on another kid, and set fire to him. Maybe I had my head in the clouds during my childhood, but such things just didn't seem to happen in mainstream America. These are not inner city events, mind you. These are average middle class American events.

You ask what's my source, and the barometer is simply my personal observation and discussions with both the elderly and my sister. Not that this proves a point, but some things statistics don't capture. Take it for what you will.

Maybe it's a trickle-down effect. The world loved America twenty years ago, now their 'approval rating' is ****. Maybe there's a good reason for that. After all, if the citizens of a nation do not speak up against their government when they are being unjust, maybe we should look deeper into the psyche of America and be less critical about the government.

Perhaps there is a relationship between our reputation as a nation in the world and what's going on within it.

[bumblemusprime]

The dark side of that "friendly neighborhood" ideal of the 50s was an utter homogenization. No one was black in your friendly neighborhood, or else everyone was black. God forbid if you were homosexual, Jewish in middle America, Muslim, or just off the beaten path.

If I lived only among the other Mormons with whom I attend church, I would leave my doors unlocked, too. I would also never vent my political opinions, swear, or drink coffee because I would feel too visible to that homogeneous community.

Ignorance has always been a willful state, but it has never been more so than now, when information is more widely available. I teach for an online college and many of my students are in their 50s and cannot put a sentence together. They work grave-shift jobs or live off a pittance for disability and run to the library every couple of days to do their schoolwork.

These are people who, in the 30s, would never have had a chance at a college education. In the 40s and 50s, they would have needed the GI Bill. Now they can hop on a computer. All the research they need to do for their papers is right there on that computer.

Because of this, we live in a world where the governing principle is no longer that your neighbor believes in your religion or country, but that you respect your neighbor's beliefs and practices as long as they conform to a universal set of ethics that is very simple: do not hurt other people unless your own life is threatened, and do not hurt children. We live in this world because of the information that is available to all of us on demand. Otherwise the ethics would be: "Get em all for Jesus!" like they were in the 50s.

We also live in a world where the poor are poorer and thus more violent, the US is paying for years of manipulating Middle East dictators, and drugs are widespread. Those things are all the fault of the ruling class--those same homogenized white middle-class neighborhoods that gave rise to the super-rich Reaganism of the 80s.

It is not the classy old neighborhood that we need back. It is the classy old neighborhood that caused the problem.

[Guest]

Trends are only as accurate as the data their are based from.

For example, if the crime rate statistics show a fall in reported crime, does that mean there is less crime being committed, or that more of that crime goes unreported?

Conversely, an increase in the awareness of an activity or situation does not necessarily mean an increase in the number of instances of it.

Modern media reaches a far greater audience than in the past, so when anything that's even the slightest bit newsworthy is published/broadcast, there is a greater awareness of it, and therefore it receives greater attention than it otherwise would have.

[Jack Cade]

There's a good solid discussion going on somewhere here but it's kind of getting drowned out in ire.

Trends: Yaya - it seems to me everyone starts talking about how things have 'got worse' at some point in their life. But based on what? It's completely down to you what you pay attention to - maybe you just start honing on on the bad things the older you get.

Also, the generalisation of 'things are getting worse' is far too broad to be any use to anything. Some things are getting worse, some better. If you don't step up and talk about which is which, you throw the baby out with the bathwater. For instance, it's depressing how so many people in the UK are whipped up about all the things the current government has undeniably done wrong whilst being completely ignorant to all the little things that have been done right - the ban on adoption agencies refusing to consider same-sex couples, for instance.

There's a serious battle going on to drag the world in a positive direction - away from mean prejudices, selfish conservative mentalities, morally abhorrent dogma, fear of the 'other', the crippling need to live vicariously through a fantasy ideal of one's national or religious strength - and the 'everything's got worse' line of argument plays to the wrong side of the fence. It's the language used by people who want the gays back in the correction centres, the women back in the kitchen, abusiveness back under the rug, violence back in the home, the poor quick to their graves, the wealthy out of harm's way, the flag back up the erection and God to come back and cushion them from their fear of the unknown.

People like you, who don't stand for this, need to beat a drum that rings as different as the underlying driving motives are.

Family: I dislike this as a buzzword intensely because it is so often used as code for 'heterosexual two-parent married Christian family'. A mother with a child is a family. Two gay men with children are a family. An unmarried couple with a child are a family. But all these are excluded when the loaded term 'family' is tossed around as a reason for social decay. If this isn't what you mean, then I think you need to try a different term, because hundreds of ardent right-wingers have poisoned the word.

By the way, I have a friend whose been to more countries than both of you (independently wealthy) and I don't think he has a better grasp of the situation than I do, stuck in London pondering things. I don't deny there's a value to experience but it's really about what you do with it. Plenty of people seem to live exciting lives for six decades and still talk crap.

And the world is going to be fine for our children. Why? Because all of us are pretty wealthy and comfortable, really. The kids'll probably have to deal with a lot of crap, sure, but they're odds on to survive it and eke a pretty rich existence out of what you give them, which is more than we can say for most of the poor sods in the developing world.

Climate change - I don't think it can be stopped. I don't believe people are mature enough to actually 'do something' about it. That's not to say you shouldn't recycle, save water etc - but the real answers are going to lie in how we adapt to the shitstorm. Really, the collective efforts of all the world's governments thus far have amounted to very slightly easing their foot off the accelerator as they career towards a cliff edge. Heck, maybe not even that - maybe just promising each other not to press down on the accelerator too much harder. No one's gone anywhere near a brake.

[Jack Cade]

The dark side of that "friendly neighborhood" ideal of the 50s was an utter homogenization.

Don't forget spousal/child abuse being tolerated because it was none of your business.

[Yaya]

The dark side of that "friendly neighborhood" ideal of the 50s was an utter homogenization. No one was black in your friendly neighborhood, or else everyone was black. God forbid if you were homosexual, Jewish in middle America, Muslim, or just off the beaten path.

A very good point, bumblebeemus, one I hadn't really considered. Would those same people have been as accommodating had the person not been of their race, color, or religion back then? Probably not. However, my parents are of different ethnicities, and lived in a very homogenous community where all seemed well. Hard to say though, when you're just a kid.

Because of this, we live in a world where the governing principle is no longer that your neighbor believes in your religion or country, but that you respect your neighbor's beliefs and practices as long as they conform to a universal set of ethics that is very simple: do not hurt other people unless your own life is threatened, and do not hurt children.

See, I think greed in the US is undermining these two principles. Or maybe what I'm calling greed is in actuality a response to economic pressures leading to a sort of "get while the gettings good" mentality. I think people don't care as much anymore that other people get hurt, as long as they benefit, particularly in the financial sense. For example, how many frivolous law suits do you think are out there now where a car accident happens, and the 'victim' tries to capitalize on it by claiming false injury? We see it often as physicians, and we just roll our eyes. We get called into courtrooms so damn often for this kind of crap, it's very frustrating. Pays like **** too.

Incidently, don't know if you've ever watched Bill Mahr. Some of you guys would love him. He hates all religion, is atheist to the core, is all for sexual liberation in any form or fashion, and yet I find myself agreeing with him, despite my being Muslim, about the souring condition of the nation and the direction we are headed. Sometimes the guy sees things exactly how I see them, which I think strange given our polar opposite value sets.

Anyhoo.

We also live in a world where the poor are poorer and thus more violent, the US is paying for years of manipulating Middle East dictators, and drugs are widespread. Those things are all the fault of the ruling class--those same homogenized white middle-class neighborhoods that gave rise to the super-rich Reaganism of the 80s.

You mean Republicans.

For example, if the crime rate statistics show a fall in reported crime, does that mean there is less crime being committed, or that more of that crime goes unreported?

Also a good point. Statistics can lie, depending on sampling. Which is why I don't go through the effort of hunting down figures to prove a point. I'd rather just ballpark it, just be generic, just get a feel for things.

Probably not the best way to win an argument, but hey, what can I say?

yes, sometimes I'm just a lazy little ****.

Trends: Yaya - it seems to me everyone starts talking about how things have 'got worse' at some point in their life. But based on what? It's completely down to you what you pay attention to - maybe you just start honing on on the bad things the older you get

Damn. You guys gotta stop making good points, really. You really don't get this on other TF message boards.

Maybe most people do feel things get worse with time, and I'm just perceiving reality with a biased view. But I'm more inclined to believe I'm right about this one. When children don't have the support they need at home, in terms of family (in whatsoever terms one defines the word), the future is bleak.

Also, the generalisation of 'things are getting worse' is far too broad to be any use to anything. Some things are getting worse, some better. If you don't step up and talk about which is which, you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Yes, but I would say some things carry more weight in determining the health of a people. Like the sense of community. Seems to have just upped and vanished here in America, and I've lived in four different cities in four different states in the past ten years. Or the sense of charity. With the passage of the new health bill and the reaction to it, I have seen a very ugly side to America. Primarily from those people of whom Bumblebeemus is speaking, which makes up a huge percentage of the nation. Is it really important that, for example, the Internet is faster or that cell phones have greater range, or even that a nation is wealthier, if the basic elements of what makes a unified society stable and possible are in jeopardy?

There's a serious battle going on to drag the world in a positive direction - away from mean prejudices, selfish conservative mentalities, morally abhorrent dogma, fear of the 'other', the crippling need to live vicariously through a fantasy ideal of one's national or religious strength - and the 'everything's got worse' line of argument plays to the wrong side of the fence.

My observations are merely that. Observations. From my vantage point, it's hard to be positive when the topic of children comes up. Some might say that's because I'm a Muslim in America, which isn't the easiest thing to be at this point in time. That fact almost certainly factors into it in some form or fashion, no doubt. I can't deny who or what I am, or what I want.

But I have lived and served among people who do not share my beliefs my entire life and been part of a very small minority, and yet found it very easy to contribute and feel good about my place in this country. And now, I have never found things to be more bleak. This is my home, after all, and I want what's best for it.

[bumblemusprime]

Here's an interesting thing.

Despite Yaya subscribing to Islam as a belief system, which posits some ideas we might describe in 21st century terms as conservative,

Yaya tends to sympathize with liberal political action.

Or am I getting you all wrong?

You mean Republicans.

Nah, Plato's overrated.

[Yaya]

Here's an interesting thing.

Despite Yaya subscribing to Islam as a belief system, which posits some ideas we might describe in 21st century terms as conservative,

Yaya tends to sympathize with liberal political action.

Or am I getting you all wrong?

I would say in most instances, this is true, but I don't really consider myself "liberal" or "conservative". I don't really fall soley into either category.

But I find myself agreeing with and having more in common with liberals.

The main problem I have with conservatives is the hypocrisy they so often display. They are often supremist and elitist in their thinking, and critical of others when they themselves are guilty of the very things they condemn. So often, they try to convince others they are taking the moral high ground, and time after time, reveal themselves to be the ugly hypocritical bastards they truly are. They use religion as a tool to attain wealth and power by playing on the emotional tendencies of the ignorant. Not only that, but often they go so far as to reveal themselves to be far more evil then the very people they call their enemies. Conservatives scare me.

Liberals, on the other hand, tend to be truer to self. I may not agree with their stance on an issue, but more often than not, what you see is what you get. They are far less likely to be judgmental of others, or prey upon the shortcomings or flaws in others to boost their own position or stature.

Islam is very conservative in its ideology and doctrines. It holds that one way is the best way. So from a liberal standpoint, it might be as rigid as it gets. But the difference is that judgement is left to God. There is no room for a holier-than-though attitude because Muslims will also be meted out punishment based on their actions in the Hereafter should it be warranted. Actions are based on intentions, not outward appearances. There is no free pass, and as such, a Muslim who understands his or her faith cannot truly become elitist or supremist in their thought process. They can say "my way is the best way" but not "you're going to Hell and I'm not" . I think this aspect makes a huge difference in terms of how others are dealt with who do not share your belief system.

But if you look at the ideology itself, it is very different from modern American conservatism. I don't see modern conservatism really being backed up by the Christian principles many identify it with. I see modern conservatism being backed by elitist thinking and the dollar.

[bumblemusprime]

There is no room for a holier-than-thou

Technically no room for it in Jesus' doctrine either, but what Jesus preached wasn't what we think of as Christianity. Also, Muslims themselves aren't proof against the attitude, though most American Muslims I've met were models of tolerance and love, possibly because of the many contradictory forces between their culture and their religion.

I think the above paragraph is the greatest justification of why I consider myself liberal pretty much ever. I don't believe that there is a Golden Age or a Magic Standard or an Ideal Family. I believe that basic human goodness happens every day and we must take it for what it is instead of being blinded by a love affair with a past that never really happened.

[Shanti418]

Speaking in terms of American liberalism/conservatism, there are two key ideas I think that conceptualize their differences.

One, generally speaking, liberals want government to stay out of society and government to be involved in economy. Government shouldn't tell us who we can't marry or if we can have abortions and they want laws on sex/race only in so much as they defend individual rights, but government should heavily regulate and be involved in economic matters. Conversely, conservatives want government to be involved in society and government to stay out of economy. We have a collective morality that can/should be enforced, and the free market already ensures equality, so government should stay out of it.

Two, imagine the social world as a series of increasingly larger circles. At the center, we have the individual. At the largest, we have the "global society". These are the two social circles liberals concern themselves with. Individual rights and expression (minority rights, identity politics) and global concerns (global warming/pollution, inequality and poverty). Conservatives concern themselves with everything in between. Family, church, defense of implicit groups created by sex, gender, race, or sexual orientation, nationalism. This leads to their exclusionary nature, perception of a shared morality, perception of a "Golden Age" past for heterosexual white patriarchs, and hawkish foreign policy.

Still though, both of these concepts show that being a liberal/conservative is just a matter of where you place your priorities. Both of them can be ridiculous when taken to their extremes.

[Guest]

Speaking in terms of American liberalism/conservatism, there are two key ideas I think that conceptualize their differences.

One, generally speaking, liberals want government to stay out of society and government to be involved in economy. Government shouldn't tell us who we can't marry or if we can have abortions and they want laws on sex/race only in so much as they defend individual rights, but government should heavily regulate and be involved in economic matters. Conversely, conservatives want government to be involved in society and government to stay out of economy. We have a collective morality that can/should be enforced, and the free market already ensures equality, so government should stay out of it.

Two, imagine the social world as a series of increasingly larger circles. At the center, we have the individual. At the largest, we have the "global society". These are the two social circles liberals concern themselves with. Individual rights and expression (minority rights, identity politics) and global concerns (global warming/pollution, inequality and poverty). Conservatives concern themselves with everything in between. Family, church, defense of implicit groups created by sex, gender, race, or sexual orientation, nationalism. This leads to their exclusionary nature, perception of a shared morality, perception of a "Golden Age" past for heterosexual white patriarchs, and hawkish foreign policy.

Still though, both of these concepts show that being a liberal/conservative is just a matter of where you place your priorities. Both of them can be ridiculous when taken to their extremes.

You've just described the majority of models of the political spectrum to a tee, with American politics appearing to be polarised between two diametric opposites.

No wonder there's hardly any talk of third parties (from an international standpoint).

[Jack Cade]

One, generally speaking, liberals want government to stay out of society and government to be involved in economy. Government shouldn't tell us who we can't marry or if we can have abortions and they want laws on sex/race only in so much as they defend individual rights, but government should heavily regulate and be involved in economic matters. Conversely, conservatives want government to be involved in society and government to stay out of economy. We have a collective morality that can/should be enforced, and the free market already ensures equality, so government should stay out of it.

Two, imagine the social world as a series of increasingly larger circles. At the center, we have the individual. At the largest, we have the "global society". These are the two social circles liberals concern themselves with. Individual rights and expression (minority rights, identity politics) and global concerns (global warming/pollution, inequality and poverty). Conservatives concern themselves with everything in between. Family, church, defense of implicit groups created by sex, gender, race, or sexual orientation, nationalism. This leads to their exclusionary nature, perception of a shared morality, perception of a "Golden Age" past for heterosexual white patriarchs, and hawkish foreign policy.

It's a neat way of looking at it, but I just can't, with all the goodness in the world, accept that summing up of conservatism.

"We have a collective morality that can/should be enforced ..." It's more like: "I'd feel safer and more comfortable and self-satisfied if everything was more simple and if nothing were permitted to exist out of that which I'm used to dealing with, so the government should lock away the freaks."

"... the free market already ensures equality, so government should stay out of it". It's more like: "I want to make lots of money, so government should stay out of it".

Both terms are catch-calls for an array of views but liberalism moreso, since liberalism begins with a far broader perspective, just like atheism begins with a far more blunt and open acknowledgment of ignorance than any kind of theism. Anyone who refuses to define themselves as a conservative is pretty much a liberal in a conservative's eyes but not everyone who wishes to avoid defining themselves as a liberal is a conservative in a liberal's eyes. Yaya is not a conservative just because he tells us he doesn't want to be known as a liberal, but you can be damned sure that the majority of conservatives would call him a lefty.

I feel quite strongly about this, since I think the whole liberal/conservative dichotomy is something clung onto by a relatively small number of petty-minded individuals because it suggests a balance and equality of thought that doesn't exist. The dichotomy that really exists is excessive conservatism, fueled by selfishness, versus a lack of it.

[bumblemusprime]

Another great article about the myth of the magic past:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ ... ibertarian

The reason why I find the conservative position in Shanti's analogy repulsive is that, in closer-knit tribal cultures, the good of the individual and the good of society encompassed everything in-between. The tribal authorities were usually religious authorities and thus cultural resources. Agriculture and trade were usually encompassed within a personal sphere; even if the guy who traded you copper was from another village, he was someone you saw at a yearly fair.

And yet conservatives refuse to believe that in our rapidly globalized society we must think about a global village. They would rather stay isolated in their subculture but reap the benefits of workers halfway around the world and factory farms and military troops. They are living in a fantasy that they can keep their own little pocket of ideas without sacrificing their non-globalized lifestyle. The liberals in my beloved Pacific Northwest are responsible for a "Go Local!" movement. Oh, the irony.