Is the solution to a poisonous society to chnage the psyche and values so that all the heros are people live a giving life ?

These were definetly the best of times, but if the problems of the present are overcome then are the best of times still possible in the future - yes. Will that happen ? Well in his book Sapiens Yual Noah Harari talks about a hunter gatherer having a shorter but more stress free life and how every time we developed civilisation to the next level of integration we give up some of our happiness. While I dispute that being killed by everything and anything more often is a small price to pain for a stress free life (I think its quite a big deal), I wonder where AI and automation takes us. Thomas Hardy's accounts of rural life in Dorset only 125? years ago seems grim and barbaric even, so rose tinted glasses come to mind, but in an AI driven future where resource conservation and eco concerns dominate can we go back to a life where the commute is no longer necessary. social media gives us human contact from our own home, and exercise is something we do by choice ? I think we already got there. Without overcrowding and the peer pressure for materialism, isn't someone who steps off the treadmill going to get the best of all lives right now - and better tomorrow and tomorrow ? Is it that society has to drop the need for competition and self advancement and adopt a new norm of self improvement and mutual support. The world still has many problems to solve but do most of those go away if everyone starts to value a "normal life" more and greed, ego, and competition become things of the past ? Is it our own competitive nature that makes society poisonous ? Now we can do so much more and are leaning more quickly than ever how to do even more isn’t it time to say to the population of the world, live in your own space, and do away with the whole concept that the goal in life is to be n Elon Musk (and who wants to) by chasing the rules so personnel success is capped at a certain level and the thing that brings fame is good deeds and no one is allowed to keep a fortune above a certain level but are instead bound by society to put it to good works. I'm not saying you cant have richer and poor, Im saying the rich have more of a duty to spend their fortune helping others because they can and therefore should and there reward should be acknowledgement and their punishment should be exposure ? So when the Forbes rich list comes out - the people at the top of it are vilified and criticised for not doing good deeds instead of being deified ? Is this not exactly what the man form Galilee said in his beatitudes ?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SomeMichGuy · M

If we had a duty to the truth in our oaths of office, well-defined ways of monitoring, and automatic enforcement, we'd be better off.

But embracing the Golden Rule and the parable of the Good Samaritan would help.

Fixing money in politics would be another key thing.

Captain · 61-69, M

@SomeMichGuy Yep - I am a great believer in the principles of the French constitution which was adopted by the US. Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité. Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood. Equality has been patined as a dirty word. Rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the poor. Why is that ? How as that happened. Its myth buidling isnt it. The right wing governments of the west habe built this myth that we are all rich and none of us should pay taxes. No we are not rich and its the squeezed middle that are taxed the most ensuring that unless they are footballers, CEOs or politicians they will never get rich. The rich are allowed to avoid taxes because "its a good thing otherwise they would leave the country". What ? I'm not a communist although equality is surely a commnuist ideal and its ironic that its right there in the French constitution. The hardest working and most successful should have their rewards, but the brotherhood bit says they should be using this wealth (this life debt) to help others. The US in particular has embraced the idea of freedom and dropped the ides of equlity of opportinity and of social care, even though they are in the French constitution. Two thirds of what the idealists believed in is discredited and rejected by modern Western democracies. Two thirds ! "Its worng to have a national health service free at piont of use to all if I have to pay more tax". "I shjould be allowed ot be be rich and its up to me whether I give money to charity or not". By the principals of the French revolution these are wrong - unconstitutional and wrong. Society needs to go into a big rethink here. ealth hoarind gneeds to become a thing that is despised - not adored and worshipped as Doanld Trump and Elon Musk are. I like my statement. Its not a sin to get on the Frobes rich list, as long as you are working really hard ot get off it again.