Originally Posted by Eric the Green

What do you think is the root cause of human problems?

You left out assholes like you that think that they know what is best for everyone else.

In this respect there is no difference between the secular religion of the left and the so called Christians on the right.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The answer is (drum roll....)

unmindfulness, restless thoughts and passions

Most of us are walking around with a chatter going on all the time. We aren't even aware of what we're thinking, let alone feeling, sensing and intuiting.

If we aren't aware, we can't control or decide.

We are really walking cripples.

Buddha was the all time greatest psychologist. His diagnosis of human suffering was craving or attachment (the second noble truth); in other words, thoughts, passions and sensations that take over our consciousness and reality, and run us, instead of we running them.

The cure for this craving is mindfulness. We are not trained to be mindful in school. Instead, in reading class we are taught to talk to ourselves. But if we can speed read, as some people learn to do by not talking while reading, we can also speed think. We don't need the chatter, although it is deeply ingrained in most of us, at least from about 10 years old onward.

Many of these thoughts and feelings are internalized from society's demands on us. It is mostly because we are programmed to believe we have to justify our statements and opinions to other people. And the thoughts are just the huge first layer of the impulses that possess us. The others are evolutionary leftovers from the "panic button," the stage in which we had to depend on survival instincts like fear to respond to threats. As we become more conscious beings, we less and less need to rely on unconscious impulses like fear.

I don't think talk about a "transformation" means diddly-squat until it becomes standard in our culture to learn methods of concentration and meditation. It's been over 2500 years since we got the word on this from Siddartha Gautama. It's more than about time we learned to take the cure for our troubles. Imagine how life and society would improve if we were not sleepwalking all the time. We are robots, and we need to become human beings.

The other inner or psychological causes listed on the poll-- violent communication, selfishness, rebellion against old values or spirituality (which are also cultural), and greed (which is also economic)-- depend on this one. They are all forms of unmindfulness that allow uncontrolled thought and passion to govern us. If instead we have the power to choose, because we take back our own minds, so we are no longer possessed by our demons, we will choose correctly, because our nature is to seek the good.

I can't go with "egotism" as the root cause, because a degree of selfishness is essential. If we don't care about our own lives and agenda, of what use is living, and how can we care about others? Bad selfishness and greed are a matter of allowing our fears and indulgences to get the better of us.

Cultural and political/economic causes are very important to consider too. But ultimately, society is made up of people. The root causes for our misbehavior are found within us, and so are the cures and the virtues.

Boomer Award-worthy.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Galen

You left out assholes like you that think that they know what is best for everyone else.

In this respect there is no difference between the secular religion of the left and the so called Christians on the right.

Remember though I did mention "big government" in a post as a possible answer for you libertarians, though I didn't include it in the 10 answers in the poll. Thread-starter's perogative (see post #1)

I am so proud to know what is best for everyone
(yes I know, boomer trait and all that....)

Thanks for another great rainbow song, summer.

Of course, we all have a rainbow inside, and it's the 7 chakras.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Remember though I did mention "big government" in a post as a possible answer for you libertarians, though I didn't include it in the 10 answers in the poll. Thread-starter's perogative (see post #1)

I am so proud to know what is best for everyone
(yes I know, boomer trait and all that....)

Eric the Obtuse misses the point as usual. The crusaders from both the left and the right are the problem since their efforts to coerce people into something they deem acceptable have always resulted in more conflict.

To answer the question in another thread. You know the culture wars are over when the last Boomer has been planted into the ground.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Some people say Nature has these things too, to some extent. The romantics and transcendentalists like Ruskin and Wordsworth said so, and I somewhat agree.

Perhaps, but does it matter? At the end of the day we need to look at operative, significant causality, and as far as biology operates, survival of the fittest is enough basis from which to draw conclusions, for example about a few human species macro trends. Another big factor in human behavior is our herd instinct that on the one hand helps knitting community together, but on the other cements extremely dangerous patterns of group think, for example the moralistic blackmail of "political correctness" (basically folly), where we out of fear of being socially ostracized let socially acceptable opinion take precedence of logic, plausibility and fact, but I didn't even touch on that feature of human evolution.
I read The Stones of Venice and other writings by Ruskin many years ago. I don't feel qualified to say anything about his view of nature, however.

Living beings have the ability to help and cooperate within themselves, and with other species. Foresight may not be focused and articulated, but evolution consists of more than Darwinian natural selection, but also of the aspiration and motivation within life to develop, improve and become more conscious, leading eventually to ourselves and beyond. Although it's true most of this motivation among other species consists of the drive to survive, and the ability to adapt to changes (sometimes very fast and sudden ones).

What we above all share with other species is the pain and suffering caused by the Darwinian evolutionary reality in which we are forced to dwell. However, if we refuse to acknowledge how mating behavior and procreation works in human beings for example (as of my last message), we will have no means of understanding the irrationality of our collective behavior in regards to the environment and Earth's limited resources, and consequently no suitable way to deal with our predicament.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Remember though I did mention "big government" in a post as a possible answer for you libertarians, though I didn't include it in the 10 answers in the poll. Thread-starter's perogative (see post #1)

I am so proud to know what is best for everyone
(yes I know, boomer trait and all that....)

Counterculture New Leftism and "right wing", "government is the problem" Libertarianism is all the same. It's the pious teleological belief that Nature, if left to her own devices, will automatically "fix" everything for us.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Remember though I did mention "big government" in a post as a possible answer for you libertarians, though I didn't include it in the 10 answers in the poll. Thread-starter's perogative (see post #1)

I am so proud to know what is best for everyone
(yes I know, boomer trait and all that....)

The ironic thing is that the libertarian/anarchists also think they know what's best for everyone -- laissez-faire economics and the exaggerated importance of the individual as opposed to any kind of common purpose.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Counterculture New Leftism and "right wing", "government is the problem" Libertarianism is all the same. It's the pious teleological belief that Nature, if left to her own devices, will automatically "fix" everything for us.

BINGO!!! You win a cookie, Tuss!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

The ironic thing is that the libertarian/anarchists also think they know what's best for everyone -- laissez-faire economics and the exaggerated importance of the individual as opposed to any kind of common purpose.

Sometimes, it's worse than that. Some of the nominal adherents claim God's Will in the same breath with social Darwinism. Without commenting on the irony, the mixture is about as toxic as it gets. It's one thing to advocate a bad idea. Making it God's idea makes it unquestionable.

We have a lot of those folks in my neck of the woods. They believe that letting God run everything will create a new Garden of Eden, even though some bad things have to happen along the way to nirvana. Scary.

Originally Posted by Galen

To answer the question in another thread. You know the culture wars are over when the last Boomer has been planted into the ground.

Which won't be for another fifty years or so. By then, the next generation of Prophet Idealists will be in full voice.

Originally Posted by Odin

BINGO!!! You win a cookie, Tuss!

Ah, raspberry cookies, my favorite! Thanks Odin! It's nice we can agree about something for once!

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Which won't be for another fifty years or so. By then, the next generation of Prophet Idealists will be in full voice.

...which suggests criticizing them is another projection.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Ah, raspberry cookies, my favorite! Thanks Odin! It's nice we can agree about something for once!

You're welcome, that's at least 2 of us that agree that Rousseau's romantic notions have caused nothing but trouble.

Originally Posted by Galen

The crusaders from both the left and the right are the problem since their efforts to coerce people into something they deem acceptable have always resulted in more conflict.

To answer the question in another thread. You know the culture wars are over when the last Boomer has been planted into the ground.

The extinction of Boomers will go deep into the next Awakening era, when the next Boom-like generation challenges the Millennial-built world and the Boomer premises behind it.

The Culture Wars will be overmuch earlier -- when X and Millennial adults have decided which Boomer faction is appropriate for the moral and philosophical foundation of the post-Crisis era. So figure which Boomers are less likely to violate X pragmatism and Millennial rationality. Such is how it was in the last Crisis era, when Lost found parts of Missionary morality useful and GIs turned Missionary vision into tangible reality. The feminists, conservationists, child-protection interests, unions, and western Agrarians won; the Prohibitionists, Protestant fundamentalists, and eugenicists lost. I expect much the same this time.

Originally Posted by Galen

Eric the Obtuse misses the point as usual. The crusaders from both the left and the right are the problem since their efforts to coerce people into something they deem acceptable have always resulted in more conflict.

To answer the question in another thread. You know the culture wars are over when the last Boomer has been planted into the ground.

Since about 1 percent of the population lives to be 100 and a handful live to be 110, there will still be a few superold Boomers kicking around when the next crop of Prophets start raising hell around 2050.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Sin" is so much a portmanteau that it is meaningless.

The Bible is pretty specific about what sin is. Since that's what I was referring to, it's its own authority. Also, "sin" is not a portmanteau. "I do not think that word means what you think it means."

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The Bible is pretty specific about what sin is. Since that's what I was referring to, it's its own authority.

You have decided that it's the authority.

Originally Posted by Galen

Eric the Obtuse misses the point as usual. The crusaders from both the left and the right are the problem since their efforts to coerce people into something they deem acceptable have always resulted in more conflict.

To answer the question in another thread. You know the culture wars are over when the last Boomer has been planted into the ground.

By then there will be another generation of prophets coming of age to create the next new culture. Then the culture warriors will be back to resist it. The cycle repeats.

I think we should move toward consensus decision making, where there is no coercion involved. That may be an unrealistic ideal now, but it is more realistic than your libertarian solution, which is to tear down any government that uses coercion, end all attempts by people acting in concert to deal with mutual problems, and to allow events to be dictated by whoever happens to have the most money or the most guns.

It looks like pbrower assessed the situation perfectly above.

If we're going to talk about universal human problems rather than the specific ones we're facing at the moment, then we need to ask another question. Are we looking at this on an individual or a group level? On a group level, any solutions would require genetic modification, massive social engineering of a sort hard to envision, or (maybe) radical raising of the mana level. On an individual level, all major religions have solutions if one is able to understand them.

Eric, I recommend an alternate-history book by S.M. Stirling called Dies the Fire. It posits that in 1998, for reasons nobody understands, all advanced technology stopped working all over the world. No explosions, no electricity, no steam engines, no internal combustion. A lot of Stirling's other work is crap; in this and the series that followed he rose above his limitations.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Perhaps, but does it matter? At the end of the day we need to look at operative, significant causality, and as far as biology operates, survival of the fittest is enough basis from which to draw conclusions, for example about a few human species macro trends. Another big factor in human behavior is our herd instinct that on the one hand helps knitting community together, but on the other cements extremely dangerous patterns of group think, for example the moralistic blackmail of "political correctness" (basically folly), where we out of fear of being socially ostracized let socially acceptable opinion take precedence of logic, plausibility and fact, but I didn't even touch on that feature of human evolution....

What we above all share with other species is the pain and suffering caused by the Darwinian evolutionary reality in which we are forced to dwell. However, if we refuse to acknowledge how mating behavior and procreation works in human beings for example (as of my last message), we will have no means of understanding the irrationality of our collective behavior in regards to the environment and Earth's limited resources, and consequently no suitable way to deal with our predicament.

I would prefer to say that, yes, we have some left-over traits from early evolution, and we need to be aware of them. And we also need to know that we have consciousness and choice, if we are to rise above mere instinct to create intelligent action and realize some of our higher inspirations. A point of view that says we have to stay on the level of animal instinct will not serve us any better than one that says we can just ignore these instincts.

Counterculture New Leftism and "right wing", "government is the problem" Libertarianism is all the same. It's the pious teleological belief that Nature, if left to her own devices, will automatically "fix" everything for us.

Being on the Left, I flirted with that kind of "Counterculture New Leftism" back in the late 60s, but as of now I find that I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

So what is the Bible based on? On what basis do you determine that the Bible has the answer to root causes of human problems?

Or, for that matter, how does one determine if religious texts aren't a major cause of human problems? Perhaps lumping all negative human actions into a single category damages one's capacity for moral reasoning.

Originally Posted by Tussilago

Counterculture New Leftism and "right wing", "government is the problem" Libertarianism is all the same. It's the pious teleological belief that Nature, if left to her own devices, will automatically "fix" everything for us.

That's an interesting observation. I might modify it by saying that both believe there is a default "true nature" to human affairs that we would return to if only "those people" would stop inviting us to challenge it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It strikes me that the thread question needs better definition. Is it a temporal or an eternal question? That is to say: does it mean, what are the roots of the particular problems that the human species is facing now . . . ? Or does it mean, what are the roots of the problems that we, as human beings, always face, and always have since the beginning of our species?

I agree that this is a problem. I answered the question assuming the former (which I why I chose superstition as the primary problem). But if the latter, I'd probably go with the selfishness one -- although that doesn't perfectly capture my view. As I see it, the problem we always face is our limited capacity to have empathy for all people thus requiring social institutions that facilitate extending our empathy. This project is inherently difficult and will presumably go on forever, even if we invent technology that enhances our capacity for empathy.

But right here and now, the main problem is superstition -- the belief in ideas without evidence. One outgrowth of the acceptance of superstition is that we often consider pointing out someone's superstition to be an "attack" on that person, rather than an attempt to spread knowledge. If I point out that Creationism is totally unsupported by scientific evidence, some Christians will call this an "attack" on their faith. No, it's an attempt to spread knowledge. It's not my fault they chose to believe something fantastically silly -- and it's dangerous to give people a free pass for believing silly things as long as that silliness is part of their "faith."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If we're going to talk about universal human problems rather than the specific ones we're facing at the moment, then we need to ask another question. Are we looking at this on an individual or a group level? On a group level, any solutions would require genetic modification, massive social engineering of a sort hard to envision, or (maybe) radical raising of the mana level. On an individual level, all major religions have solutions if one is able to understand them.

I think religions as you speak of them are also a potential "group" cure, to the extent that large numbers of people actually practice the teachings, including techniques of realization like meditation. Admittedly that is a long-term cure, but I don't see any other-- certainly not genetic modification. In the meantime, practical political solutions (perhaps a bit short of "massive social engineering") are also needed, and would help us if not cure us, but at least in America today they seem as hard to come by as people truly following their religion-- partly because there are too many libertarians and trickle-downers around who are these-days resisting these quite-moderate solutions tooth and nail.

It would be nice if we could devise a genetic or brain operation or some sort of pill for mindfulness. I have an uneasy suspicion that evolution requires us to actually develop this skill.

Eric, I recommend an alternate-history book by S.M. Stirling called Dies the Fire. It posits that in 1998, for reasons nobody understands, all advanced technology stopped working all over the world. No explosions, no electricity, no steam engines, no internal combustion. A lot of Stirling's other work is crap; in this and the series that followed he rose above his limitations.

Y2K on steroids. Might be worth a look, although I'm sure that other talented writers could come up with alternative scenarios just as plausible as whatever his one is.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Or, for that matter, how does one determine if religious texts aren't a major cause of human problems? Perhaps lumping all negative human actions into a single category damages one's capacity for moral reasoning....
...I agree that this is a problem. I answered the question assuming the former (which I why I chose superstition as the primary problem). But if the latter, I'd probably go with the selfishness one -- although that doesn't perfectly capture my view. As I see it, the problem we always face is our limited capacity to have empathy for all people thus requiring social institutions that facilitate extending our empathy. This project is inherently difficult and will presumably go on forever, even if we invent technology that enhances our capacity for empathy.

But right here and now, the main problem is superstition -- the belief in ideas without evidence. One outgrowth of the acceptance of superstition is that we often consider pointing out someone's superstition to be an "attack" on that person, rather than an attempt to spread knowledge. If I point out that Creationism is totally unsupported by scientific evidence, some Christians will call this an "attack" on their faith. No, it's an attempt to spread knowledge. It's not my fault they chose to believe something fantastically silly -- and it's dangerous to give people a free pass for believing silly things as long as that silliness is part of their "faith."

Thanks for your analysis. Simple poll questions can't encompass the full situation, which is why the discussion is also good. Of course, materialism also has dogmatic problems, but that's another issue...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I think religions as you speak of them are also a potential "group" cure, to the extent that large numbers of people actually practice the teachings, including techniques of realization like meditation.

There I don't agree. At present mana levels, the percentage of the people who are able to practice meditation and similar mind-expanding exercises, and ultimately able to achieve enlightenment, is fixed. Also small. Apart from making these tools available to the limited number of people able to make use of them, religion accomplishes little except preaching, which does bugger-all.

So if you want that to work, we need to find a way either to identify the genetic component of enlightenment and modify those without it, or else raise the mana level. I have some ideas as to how to do the latter.

Stirling's scenario isn't remotely plausible and that's not why I recommend the book. I recommend it because, given the scenario, the consequences are chillingly well portrayed. It's a good cure for technophobia.