The world I would love to live in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

I'm very interested in the things that are stopping you from taking that wilderness life? US is quite sparsely populated and as far as I can tell that lifestyle is available, if not emigration to Canada is quite simple for a US citizen and there are even more opportunities for isolated and self-sufficient life. And there are other places in the world which offer the same possibilities.

As far as judgement by character and actions, I'd say you're idealizing the past - if anything people back then were far more prejudiced based on superficial and external criteria than nowadays. Pretty much every book that has survived the test of time contains testimony to this.

---

kids and a medical condition are whats stopping me now , when there older Alaska is the goal .. And my family and country supersede my wants and will keep me from any other country .. And i was in a little piece of my world before the kids came ! not to mention the trade isnt as good as it was then( in my perfect world) ...lol..
The judge of character and actions is concerned .. my point there was that the tribes( or whoever it maybe) and others in what ever area i would be in( in my perfect world of the past) i feel would share similarities to and also respect for the land to be able to trade , cause i would only use what i needed .. maybe it was worded wrong in my original post , but hey this is my perfect world scenario ..lol..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gugi

As far as judgement by character and actions, I'd say you're idealizing the past - if anything people back then were far more prejudiced based on superficial and external criteria than nowadays. Pretty much every book that has survived the test of time contains testimony to this.

---

my theory on the judgement issue is that it is worse today !! the difference being that voicing your opinion publicly is frowned upon (on certain issues), and someone will wine about it or create a stir or even have a law broke because they or the majority dont agree ..

Yeah, high infant mortality is definitely a marked characteristic of the rugged self-sufficient life. The solution was to just make more children. My grandparents were 6-10 children in their families from 3-4 different mothers (those tended to die relatively easy too) and some more children didn't survive.

It's true that the native americans don't have much written history, but I think there is substantial evidence that many of them weren't exactly peaceful. The famous ones in the south, the aztecs, were notorious for regular human sacrifice, which they supplied from weaker tribes.

I'd also take being frowned upon for my opinion rather than being put in jail, tortured, or even killed for it or for getting sick or just looking a bit differently :)

Whenever some past era is offered for "the world I would love to live in," I suggest that the speaker imagine that he could be reborn in that era, but with no guarantees about what race, sex, or economic status he will be born into. These will be completely randomized. That being so, do you still want to go? Is it still "the world you want to live in"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deepweeds

Whenever some past era is offered for "the world I would love to live in," I suggest that the speaker imagine that he could be reborn in that era, but with no guarantees about what race, sex, or economic status he will be born into. These will be completely randomized. That being so, do you still want to go? Is it still "the world you want to live in"?

---

Romanticizing the past, is exactly that, romanticizing...here's a quote that always made me laugh:

“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Now who said this?








Socrates, who bought the farm in the sky in 339 B.C

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose - the more things change, the more they stay the same.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deepweeds

Whenever some past era is offered for "the world I would love to live in," I suggest that the speaker imagine that he could be reborn in that era, but with no guarantees about what race, sex, or economic status he will be born into. These will be completely randomized. That being so, do you still want to go? Is it still "the world you want to live in"?

---

yes i would .. we have no control of this now , just choices and ways to improve our lives or make them worse for the most part .... of course im coming from a young white male on this now , but i would like to hope that no matter what the out come would have been my ethics , morals , or ideas would still stay the same !! the thing about this topic is that we can pretty much all think about how we would want it to be but in reality none of us will ever have it our way or our "perfect world " ..lol.. but in my opinion it is fun to think about , wonder about , or plan on how close we can get to it, sure every one of these post could be torn apart or have the downside brought into them , but sometimes the escape from reality is fun to play with !! ...

i figured i would go the more peaceful route in my make believe scenario , cause im sure if i went with a modernized opinion this thread would be shut down from the politics , justice system rants , and who knows what else that would be involved..lol

Now, seriously (after few beers): i've never that serious thought about living in a perfect world for ME, but rather going towards the better world for everyone.
What would be best world for me, myself and i would be a nightmare or lot to improve to someone else. That is why we have a thing called society with it's rules and regulations. It's called politics and it all depends on our cultures, history, international pacts and agreements and all. As said, world is no perfect but i see it getting better (and some ways worse) in time.

If i could or wanted to live free from society and all people, it would be easy to imagine a perfect world.
But even if no society, at the moment i have to deal wih any other person, be it friend, wife or child, we have to agree about common terms used between us. At the same moment someones perfect world collapses.
It's all about giving up some to gain some. To stick with the the that agreed or change them by common decision.

Can't no really compare to history. Slavery became illegal here in ad 1200 or so but i can easily imagine those slaves thinking as their position as justice, as long as they were given food, shelter and tools to work with. Perfect world for those who didn't need more that life in safety.

Now when i was young we had those folks living in a desert or wilderness, away from civilization.
They were called as 'horizon painters' for reason i do not know. They were mostly vets that just couldn't settle back on normal life. They lived mostly on hunting and occasionally working whenever someone offered a short time job. My grandfather did as he knew from a war time hell.
Those dudes were maybe 'free' from society and personal relationships but tome their life loked like life of an animal. I was sorry for them.

Human Beings are wired to live as they did millions of years ago in small clans with everyone related by blood. Humans looked with suspicion and fear on any outsiders. The appearance of strangers usually meant battle. As the population increased things had to change. Towns and cities and the laws to force folks to live together without killing each other en masse.

So we all live in an artificial environment bound by the laws designed to allow us to live together. However what we are has not changed one bit. We still view one another the same way we did when we were living in caves. The only exception is the universal threat so like a herd of Cape Buffalo we band together to face the threat until it's gone.

That's why some folks have this idea if only they could leave society and go to some deserted island somewhere and live by themselves all alone and just live off the land. It's just that primitive part of the brain trying to come out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by honedright

From reading your post it appears you've either misread or misunderstood by posts. My belief on taxation has nothing to do with whether or not I, or anyone else, agrees with a service. In other words you think I'm saying, 'it's OK to take my wallet if you're going to feed your kids, but not OK if you're just going to buy booze for yourself' as though there are acceptable and unacceptable conditions for taking my wallet! That is a completely bogus argument. You've twisted the emphasis away from the wrong, the taking of the wallet, and placed the emphasis on what the wallet would be used for. That was not my argument at all!

My argument is that a theft is a theft is a theft regardless of how the proceeds of the theft are used. You seem unable to recognize what theft is, and have learned to rationalize and justify theft, just so long as YOU agree with the the reasoning for the theft. You are the one arguing that agreeing, or disagreeing, is the issue. You make an argument that thieves should be able to keep stolen property as long as the property is spent wisely ("I'd be the first to say that not all tax dollars are spent wisely. EBT, food stamps, Affordable Care Act subsidization, Medicaid, etc however can actually be considered a service regardless of your personal usage."). Therefore, had John Dillinger decided to wisely redistribute the proceeds from his bank robberies, and give back the money to those he deemed needful in his community, he should have been considered a hero and not a criminal. Your argument seems to support this. As long as a majority consensus agrees (votes) that under certain circumstances it's OK to take other peoples property (theft) and give it away to other people (redistribute) then hey, it's no longer theft, it's wise spending! What a bunch of sophist hogwash!

You then argue a either or "lesser of two evils" rational of 'you better let us pick your pockets, or worse things will happen!' As though being held hostage under threat is an acceptable alternative to finding solutions that involve no corruption. And this you call "progress."

---

Wow. Pretzel logic in it's purest form. You've made a lot of assumptions about what I do and do not understand, what I do and don't believe etc. Even though I've not once stated my specific beliefs on any subject you've labeled me with what you think I believe. All I've done is ask questions and pose theoretical propositions.

Let me ask a simple question. Do you believe tax collection by the government to be lawful or unlawful (stealing)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gooser

the world I would want to live in was the Midwest-west around 1800 ...hunt , trap , fish , grow , and trade for everything I need .. walk endless with the only fear I have is a big bear , and the only shave that would bother me would be a scalping ..lol.. prospecting for gold that would be plentiful , discovering prehistoric finds , no politics or restrictions , no judgment by looks but by character and actions , just living off the land as a loner , family or group , no drama , no phones , no time to worry about other then seasons ....just so much to see that is untouched or ruined by the modern day

---

You may actually be right but not for any romanticized reason. The planet was a very different place back then. Civilizations survived daily on the sustainable energy generated by the four classical elements. In 1848 James Young's discovery of refining crude oil changed everything. This single act set the world on a new course resulting in uncontrolled population growth fueled by a plentiful but unfortunately non renewable energy source. This trend continues today without abatement. Ultimately this will lead to our extinction.