Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Social stratification and religion in a healthy society

What role would religion play in a future society? I believe we are wired to believe in superstition, and further we are wired to take on the beliefs of those around us. The last 5,000 years have further solidified that in our biology through selectively favoring those who bought into theocracy, and exiling/executing those that didn't. Religion will have to be manipulated by the aware and likely atheist elites in a way to control the majority, as best I can tell. This has likely been the reality all along for the heads of religion. Any idea of eliminating religion is probably just as unrealistic as the beliefs themselves.

What type of class system would be best? Would there be a way for excellence that comes from a lower class to rise in standing, and likewise, a way for supposedly "noble" blood that exhibits averageness sink down to their appropriate level? I get the feeling a lot of us here buy into "nobility" a little too much.

Nobility = people who are raised in an environment where a lot of community responsibility is laid at their feet.  You live a life where from a young age you know that the world's problems are your problems and no one will be hurt more by strife than you.  Power is all around them as a child, so they do not gourge themselves on it once it is given to them.  

A lot of people, in opposition to nobility, will point at all of history's worst examples of nobles (what handful they can find between all the great civilizations of the world) and assume that the exception disproves the rule.  Bad kings happen.  Bad barons happen, but none of them would ever fragment society as horribly as we find now.  Order is in their best interest.

I believe we are wired to believe in superstition, and further we are wired to take on the beliefs of those around us. The last 5,000 years have further solidified that in our biology through selectively favoring those who bought into theocracy, and exiling/executing those that didn't.

I think so too. But I also think the idea of nobility vs. commoners, in practice, works more often than not simply because of what Sammaellofi pointed out - people in each category are brought up that way from birth, over multiple generations. There is no kind of training that can supercede that which you get for your entire life, and further reinforced by numbers of entire lives preceding yours. This is without even having to make acommodations for genetic inheritance of traits relevant to one's social station, which yes, might be a factor ,but very well might not.

I'd bet that it is.   That nobility line in Sweden went way far back, farther than Tacitus.  That's at least 2000 years.  There must have been some kind of micro-evolution going on.

I would bet the same, but because I have no proof of it, I prefer to not rely on it too heavily when forming an argument. The point was that even if it turns out to NOT be factor, it doesn't matter due to the other factors in play. Of course, if it IS a factor it only reinforces those other ones.

Sammaellofi, would you rarther us return to a monarch system?

Thinks seemed a lot better in America when just male white property owner could vote. I don't know if we should execute democracy based on its modern form.

Sammaellofi, would you rarther us return to a monarch system?

Thinks seemed a lot better in America when just male white property owner could vote.

Yes I would.  Don''t let the the monarchs of the 1400s-1700s fool you.  They were just emperors calling themselves kings, with constantly changing blood lines and fights over power.  The older gerrmanic kings rarely interfered with the lives of it's subjects, unless they brought a dispute to their attention, and their only true responsibility was gathering together an army when the need for a campaign arose or when defense was neccesary.  The King was top man, but the local nobles were who you answered too, and they were mostly worried about making sure the harvest came in and planning for resources for the year.  The system has it's flaws, but it is a natural order and I rarely stand in judgement of nature that close to the bone.

What is the advantage of a monarch vs the advantage of elected officials by property owners?

Elections raise to power liars who pander to masses of voters, whose love can only be one by attacking the current social order and turning it upside down and causing discontent to fester.  These men come from the lowest levels of life, for the most part.  If they have power they are only a few generations into nobilitiy, if that.  Because of this, the order of the country shifts back and forth as term limits end, knocking down bridge after bridge for no reason other than to gain a little control over your fellow man.  How could these men possibly have their county's best intention in mind?  The system rewards lying and grants power to those who are hungry enough to take it.

Also: property owners are a lesser, yet still reasonable substitute for nobiliity.  Those who have the most to lose and are the most productive decide what happens.  I like that.

No doubt, but if we had a healthy society and a qualified group of voters, wouldn't that be a control against such behavior? How about a constitution that protects the social order, sort of a vaccine against future sickness?

If we could show our founding fathers in America a 30 minute video of society 2010, a few minor tweeks to the constitution would all it would take to prevent the massive fall of dominoes that led us to where we are today.

I disagree.   Everything that is wrong with the country now comes from a complete lack of understanding of the consitution as it was written and the times it was written.  America was allowed to stand or fall when in colonial times, as England had no interest in funding an overseas kingsom like France was, and because of that, the Americans became strong and able to fend for themselves with their own style of economy.  The war was just an official statement of an independence that was there all along.  This country was doing just fine on those grounds until the 1930s scared everyone into thinking that throwing away freedom for protection from the government was the ideal and military industrial complexes were the best way to fuel an economy.

If they have power they are only a few generations into nobilitiy, if that.  Because of this, the order of the country shifts back and forth as term limits end, knocking down bridge after bridge for no reason other than to gain a little control over your fellow man.  How could these men possibly have their county's best intention in mind?  The system rewards lying and grants power to those who are hungry enough to take it.
You've touched upon something I hadn't really considered before. You mentioned it in an earlier post already, but it's only just now that it really hit me - the difference between power that is acquired, and power that is given. Or, if you like, the seeking of power vs. already having power. It's not at all difficult to see how voluntarily rewarding one's search for power (as occurs in voting, vs. conquest which is involuntary) would lead to a downward spiralling of social structure.

I disagree.   Everything that is wrong with the country now comes from a complete lack of understanding of the consitution as it was written and the times it was written.
I disagree. I find the current values to be little more than a refinement of the blatant humanist element that runs rampant throughout the Constitution. It's a very flawed document.

The humanism was left over from the enlightenment, and I don't like the reliance on federal power in the document, whether it be the protection or the authority.  I still think sticking to the original formula would solve a lot of modern problems.

I disagree.   Everything that is wrong with the country now comes from a complete lack of understanding of the consitution as it was written and the times it was written.  America was allowed to stand or fall when in colonial times, as England had no interest in funding an overseas kingsom like France was, and because of that, the Americans became strong and able to fend for themselves with their own style of economy.  The war was just an official statement of an independence that was there all along.  This country was doing just fine on those grounds until the 1930s scared everyone into thinking that throwing away freedom for protection from the government was the ideal and military industrial complexes were the best way to fuel an economy.

I should have been a little more clear. You don't disagree with me at all. The minor tweeks to the constitution would specifically block the changes in the 1900s, and prevent the constitution from becoming the Bible, where every subsequent generation modifies and changes the meaning to fit whatever world view they have at present.

Is your point that no modifications to the original constitution could prevent what happened?

Oh surely they probably could.  I was just saying it wasn't the documents fault, but rather an ignoring of it.