Posts by Lucy Stewart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
and the non existence now, of at 3 other human species...
I kind of don't want to know how they went extinct, because I have a strange suspicion it would just be fucking depressing. And involve a lot of flint axeheads.
-
He is one rather odd man but gotta love his work - wasn't he also in the Narnia TV series as a mudwiggle?
Yep, he was Puddleglum in the fantabulous BBC Narnia miniseries of The Silver Chair. I remember very vividly getting the video of that when I was four and being puzzled for *years* because in the blurb he was described as "Tom (Doctor Who) Baker" and I couldn't work out why someone would have Doctor Who as a middle name.
(The BBC adaptations are 300% better than the new movies, Y/Y?)
-
So will New Zealand stop supporting US military campaigns?
FWIW, we rather conspicuously refused to join the Alliance of the Willing, or whatever the hell Bush liked to call it (I'm honestly surprised he didn't just go with "The Good Guys".) Afghanistan is another kettle of fish, though, and I wouldn't expect a pullout there any time soon.
-
Small groups may come to a satisfactory existence that doesnt include these elements - but larger outside groups will be motivated to wipe them out (sets a bad example for 'ordinary humans' = 'those under our control.')
It's your basic ingroup-outgroup problem; humans aren't happy without an ingroup-outgroup system. And then someone will always decide to enforce said system via violence.
-
Humanity has demonstrated a near-total inability to operate societies larger than tiny villages without resorting to law-of-the-jungle, you-own-what-you-can-defend systems of "justice".
I seem to remember reading that most prehistorical archaeological digs - from a period when humanity did largely operate on a law-free basis - reveal a 1/3 death-by-violence rate for men (not sure what it was for women). That's just the ones with wounds that would have killed them, too, not the ones with serious wounds likely acquired from other humans that they healed from.
That's *really high*. And I have zero faith that, were society to revert to this sort of state, humanity would have moved beyond this.
-
I reckon most people live their lives without reference to laws, in communities, as human beings. Laws are an imposition that serve the interests of the ruling classes.
So if we got rid of them, how would we stop the sort of blood-feud based chaos that tends to emerge whereever an effective legal system is absent? If ingroup-based revenge is the only way to mediate crimes against the person - or the group - the ingroup quickly becomes the primary arbiter of justice, insomuch as it exists. It's generally not a lot of fun for anyone who doesn't belong to a powerful ingroup. And the human taste for vengeance spirals very quickly out of control.
And that's the thing; laws can and often do serve the interests of the powerful, but they also serve the interests of those who have no power and no allies. Without the police or the judiciary, you have no (semi) objective arbiters who can and do rule *against* the powerful. I've yet to see a good argument that the abolition of these systems would not just result in the powerful - groups as well as individuals - doing whatever the fuck they want to the powerless. Because there's never been a human society of any size where that *didn't* happen. It's not that individuals can't be good without law; it's that groups generally won't, especially groups of any size.
(As for civilisation inventing crime, if this includes imposing penalties for things like rape, then, um, I'm kinda down with that. You can critique the system, and god knows it needs it, but some stuff is non-negotiable.)
-
And they say there's no evidence of a higher level of existence?
Apart from the chance it could elevate you to one?
-
Because the latter is merely a subset of the former?
As long as he sticks to ACT supporters' brains, we're good.
The thing about benefits is: it's a bit like the court system. We accept - or I think we *should* accept - that the standard of reasonable doubt falls on the side of letting some guilty people go free rather than convicting the innocent. Similarly, I'd rather have my tax dollars supporting some people bludging who are off the state than some people in living in dire poverty because we're trying so hard to make sure every single person deserves every cent they're getting.
Because the cost to society of letting people fall through the cracks is *much* greater than the cost of supporting a few people who are lazy.
-
The phrase "just making it up" comes to mind.
I think that's part of the reason young people like the one Hilary describes upthread exist; because he's so willing to basically say whatever sounds good, they just assume that it must be a) true and b) said with forethought.
-
This is exactly the kind of diversification we ought to be considering if NZ is to grow to the point where young New Zealanders decide they can build a future here.
I hate to break it to her, but "in the future, you can grow up to be....miners!" is hardly the sort of inspirational call that will keep me in the country. Or, more to the point, most of the people I know with actual geology degrees.