I don’t mean better for you or me but better in general. Do you believe our species will ever reach some form of enlightenment or will we destroy ourselves?

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Do you believe our species will ever reach some form of enlightenment”

    If there is anything history has taught me is that we repeat the same basic behavior over and over and have done so as far back as we can see. We are essentially very intelligent monkeys, obsessed with social status, manipulation, altruism and cooperation mixed with hostility and exploitation. I think the basic sociology of humans is baked into our DNA and the very nature of animal life. People have always imagined they can create some utopia on earth but it always ends up a failure because of the very nature of man and the impossibility of even defining a utopia for everyone.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      The basic DNA of humans is that our ideas form from our Material Conditions, and the driver of this is the mode of production.

      What “Utopias” are you referring to, here? The old, Utopian socialist of Owen’s kind, or the modern, Marxist form of Socialism (which rejects the term “utopian”)?

  • comfy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Do you think things will get better?

    Yes.

    A lot of the problems we face are systematic, to do with how our society is organised rather than any human limit. They are solvable problems, and many have already been solved already in some countries. The reason they’re aren’t solved isn’t because we can’t, but because the few most powerful people are powerful because of this rigged system, and have a self-interest in keeping it that way by any means necessary.

    History has shown us clearly that even kings, dictators and other broken systems can be overthrown AND stopped from coming back, provided the people doing it are politically educated and organized. That’s the key. If we just get angry without a plan, we will end up like the pitiful Jan 6 riot. But if we educate ourselves with lessons from history and work to create a mass movement, we can finally move forward beyond this frightening present situation.

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah. At least until his yes-men high five him and slap him on the back on his way to board the deep space or deep sea vessel that he designed himself.

  • tupalos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    I guess it depends on what you mean by destroy. Like literally population 0, I doubt it’ll ever get there. But losing 75% of population, I can see some nuclear war breaking out

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      But losing 75% of population, I can see some nuclear war breaking out

      Seems pretty likely (eventually). I take hope that I’ll be in the direct blast radius, and not a mutilated horribly scarred survivor.

      I choose not to think about this one much because it’s well outside my circle of influence.

      • tupalos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Ya everyday another corrupt superpower is getting that much closer to weapons of mass destruction. I’m sure there’s bio weapons already out there that would destroy huge chunks of the population. But nuclear would also be up there though probably much more difficult to hide

  • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think in one moment, when the capitalist world failed so hard that half of the world or more died because of it. The humanity will start to change to a better future. Like one solarpunk or such.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Eventually, the contradictions necessarily created by Capitalism, ie decentralized markets leading to centralized monopolist syndicates, will result in said syndicates being pulled from under the feet of the Bourgeoisie. Marx has remained correct in his predictions thus far. I don’t think it will take half the world dying either for the US Empire to fall. This better future will be Socialist in nature, Solarpunk is more of an aesthetic than an ideology but this Socialist future will most likely heavily rely on solar power among other renewables.

      I made a Read Theory, Darn it! introduction to Marxism reading list if you want to check it out.

      • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        I think solarpunk is more than a ahestetic, its a way to live without wasting more than you produce. Living in a more slow way and conscious.

        I go to read your article, thogh!

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Thanks for checking it out!

          As for Solarpunk, I think it’s certainly useful, but like any aesthetic-based movement it can be easily co-opted without a strong emphasis on theory. Namely:

          1. Why do we need Solarpunk?
          2. Who can push for Solarpunk?
          3. What is Solarpunk?
          4. How can we transition from our present conditions to Solarpunk?
          5. When can we transition to Solarpunk?

          Those are a few questions (among others) that need to be consistent across the board for any real change to occur, simply having an image of a “good society” is Utopianism, and thus prone to failure like all previous Utopian movements.

            • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I skimmed the article, but I find it unsatisfactory. It focuses very much on imagining a better future, and that by doing so, we can accept and work towards it. This is fundamentally Utopian and Idealist, it doesn’t emphasize a materialist foundation for how to get there beyond hoping and trying to modify the Superstructure deliberately so that the Base forms based on it. The problem with that mode of thinking is that the Base is constantly reinforcing the Superstructure projected from it, and thus the changes to the Superstructure you propose are going to be modified and even coopted by the Class in power, ie the Bourgeoisie, with little effort.

              • Nexy@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                I like all the data and info you are telling here! Now I can think in a more structured way and logic about society structure. But you don’t think that being able to imagine a better and sustainable future is not superstructure and all the solar-energy base, and solarpunk prompts of the literature, imagining other ways of production more anarchic and horizontal interactions between people and slow only with the necessary is not a base? It talks about means of production and relationship of production. It’s already proven that better and more technology don’t make us life better, but more fast and contaminated.

                I know, I’m probably too idealistic, and I have to think in a more pragmatic way, but really learn about solarpunk what the first thing that let me hope in a better future in this word that is easier to think about the end of the word than the end of capitalism and I think that’s important.

                • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 day ago

                  An imagined, hypothetical base is not a real, existing base, and thus it can’t project the superstructure but be a part of an existing superstructure. That’s why the existing base helps distort it and even coopt it.

  • d00phy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    At this point, it could still go either way. Make no mistake, we’ve already done, and will continue to do, profound damage to the environment and global climate that will take generations to reverse (if that’s even possible). That said, I think it’s going to need to get seriously worse before the world’s largest polluters have no choice but to go against the monied interests in fossil fuels and plastics. Like many very wealthy people are going to have to be directly affected by this is always that can’t be disingenuously explained away.

  • That_Devil_Girl@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    I think the general population of humans struggle to recognize, understand, and address large scale threats.

    There’s the scientific community that’ll try to explain these issues to the general public in simplistic term. But they’re often overruled by dumb idiots in charge who store snowballs in their freezer as proof that climate change isn’t real.

    There’s a belief that humanity needs to be brought to the edge of extinction to realize how bad things really are and to get their shit together. I don’t believe humanity would be willing to save itself from extinction as it’s just not profitable to do so.

  • S13Ni@lemmy.studio
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Eventually but I think society might need to collapse and rebuild in between, and that supporting this level of complex civilization isn’t gonna be possible, nor IMO desirable.

    This is not to say we would go back to being cavemen, just that society has less tech and energy at its disposal and less people.

    I guess we could get there without collapse, but I have zero faith in any kind of degrowth moment despite agreeing with it ideologically. This would help us avoid much death and suffering but it doesn’t seem to be priority for anyone in power.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      Progression to Socialism is the alternative. We shouldn’t advocate for collapse, but public ownership and central planning, which can facilitate green initiatives divorced from the profit motive.

      All collapse will do is reset the clock, we will eventually run into the problems of late-stage Capitalism again once humanity runs the course of history again in hundreds or thousands of years.

      • S13Ni@lemmy.studio
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Name one socialist/communist nation that hasn’t been growth based industrialist economy? I think anything growth based is not gonna happen much longer, due to energy shortage, habitat loss, climate change, running out of critical minerals etc.

        Sure I’m open for some degrowth socialism but don’t really believe that’s the way things gonna work out.

        • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          AES states historically plan production based on fulfilling needs, not profits. Profit is driven by consumption, so there is always an incentive to overproduce. Combined with a focus on green energy and efficient planning, Socialism is a necessity, and again, returning to earlier production methods will only result in repeating the historical development in Mode of Production.

  • UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    18 hours ago

    I survive not to cope with hope of a better tomorrow. I survive out of spite so I may get the chance to witness very very bad things happening to very very bad people.

  • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    No we won’t (enlightenment). We’re in a global idiocracy that just goes downhill, the US showing us all our future. Sooner or later.

    Said that 30yrs before, decided for no kids due to that, and just hoped i was wrong. But here we are, worse than i ever imagined. We as a species, i mean.

  • fool@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    22 hours ago

    We survived the Cold War. We survived that mild awkward moment where there were just 10,000 humans or something. We survived the Paleolithic by throwing and walking kinda good despite having super-mediocre body builds compared to the lithe apex competition.

    Sure, a United Statesian might not know what price elasticity means when they go pro-tariffs, and shoot their foot on a national scale. Sure, “Eastern” youths might stretch themselves systemically thin to leap through an education colander into a limited, demanding job seat. Sure, there’s a whole terror cloister awkwardly just below South Korea, a crap ton of eyes on the Ukraine, and the new context of exponentially advancing tech compared to the last kabillion years.

    But I believe in the human spirit. Call me a fool. We don’t even need to be enlightened to not destroy ourselves. We just need to be what we always fuckin been, what we always fuckin will be.

    Stupid endurant.

    in all three senses of the shit.

  • Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Im both amazed and terrified at the fact we haven’t killed ourselves into extinction.
    Cause it becomes easier by the decade every time.