The Roman republic lasted around 500 yrs, give or take.
TimB: “The Roman republic lasted around 500 yrs, give or take.”
You are right about the timeline, but I think we would not want to repeat that history, even if it seems like we already are.
From Wikipedia: “Whilst there were elections each year, the Republic was not a democracy, but an oligarchy, as a small number of large families (called gentes) monopolised the main magistracies” … “Unlike the Pax Romana of the Roman Empire, the Republic was in a state of quasi-perpetual war throughout its existence.” … “At home, the Republic similarly experienced a long streak of social and political crises, which ended in several violent civil wars.” … “Mass slavery also caused three Servile Wars; the last of them was led by Spartacus, a skillful gladiator who ravaged Italy and left Rome powerless until his defeat in 71 BC. In this context, the last decades of the Republic were marked by the rise of great generals, who exploited their military conquests and the factional situation in Rome to gain control of the political system.”
We understand that all governments exist only through the consent or acquiescence of the governed. I suspect that most, if not all, of the “great” civilizations were more of an oligarchy than is commonly taught. Powerful (rich) families have always had a consent-and-be-protected relationship with leaders. That seems to be true today.
Lausten, are you saying it is sad that we haven’t conquered our nature? It is what it is. I think we will not evolve beyond our nature. I’m not so sure we should try to suppress our nature, at least not beyond what satisfies our innate sense of right and wrong.
Bob, you don’t know what our nature is, nor does anyone. You say we are basically bad but capable of good. I say we are basically good but capable of bad.
Bob, you don’t know what our nature is, nor does anyone. You say we are basically bad but capable of good. I say we are basically good but capable of bad.At this point science has a good understanding of human nature and it is fairly selfish. People are capable of extreme good and extreme bad and most people are OK most of the time, but the progressive viewpoint is a bit too idealistic.
Oh yeah, the physical reality “derail” — it’s not like we ought to think about our biosphere and what it means for our ability to survive and thrive.
We got avarice and aggression and tendency to vandalize to defend.
This world desperately needs progressives and their ideals, EXACTLY because of the human tendencies to be selfish, and therefore screw things up for everyone. I’m not sure, Oneguy, why people are okay with our self-destructive tendencies, and also look down on those who want to counteract that self-destruction.
People who deny climate change are NOT “okay most of the time”, BECAUSE they perpetually and relentlessly deny it and thereby block any resolution attempts. And there are A LOT of those people, still. Including a certain orange douchebag that claims global warming is a conspiracy theory initiated by the Chinese.
Lausten: “Bob, you don’t know what our nature is, nor does anyone. You say we are basically bad but capable of good. I say we are basically good but capable of bad.”
Show me where I said we are basically bad. You cannot because I did not say that.
What I’ve seen (OMG, personal experience again!) is that people act in their own interest most of the time. We tend to share from what we perceive as our excess; the less we think we have the less we tend to share. Of course there are exceptions. Our perception of what is excess for ourselves seems to depend on what we think others have. To quote Hannibal Lecter “We covet only what we know.” Thus the 10th commandment and the danger of income disparity.
The topic of good and bad is too subjective for me. Roger Ebert on comparing HAL 9000 with Lecter: “He is a dispassionate, brilliant machine, superb at logic, deficient in emotions.” “[Both] behave according to their natures, and they are misunderstood. Nothing that these monsters do is “evil” in any conventional moral sense, because they lack any moral sense. They are hard-wired to do what they do. They have no choice. In the areas where they do have choice, they try to do the right thing.” Those who can bear to finish Crime and Punishment may see our nature a bit more clearly.
bob-- Show me where I said we are basically bad.First of all, don’t do this challenging crap. Why are you even here? To pick a fight or to engage in dialog?
I already quoted this
Throughout history the resources for generating incomes have been owned by the few. Only revolution and disaster have turned that around and only for brief periods. Wealth, by definition, only happens when those resources are consolidated in the hands of the few. The cycles continue.Then you said this
10,000 years of civilization and we haven’t conquered our nature. Don’t you find it interesting that all the so called “great” civilizations were kingships of one kind or another?What did you mean?
And above
We tend to share from what we perceive as our excess; the less we think we have the less we tend to share.Well, that’s not what I see. I see sacrifice every day. I see people living in communities. Of course I see evil, I'm not blind, but I see the overarching trend toward containing it and preventing it.
I am not as consistently optimistic about our alleged “better angels”, due to the current status and growth of a “post truth” society. The forces of the dark side seem to be growing mighty.
This world desperately needs progressives and their ideals, EXACTLY because of the human tendencies to be selfish, and therefore screw things up for everyone. I’m not sure, Oneguy, why people are okay with our self-destructive tendencies, and also look down on those who want to counteract that self-destruction.Human tendencies aren't particularly self-destructive overall. The truth is progressives are too idealistic and are committed to a theoretical world that will never exist.
People who deny climate change are NOT “okay most of the time”, BECAUSE they perpetually and relentlessly deny it and thereby block any resolution attempts. And there are A LOT of those people, still. Including a certain orange douchebag that claims global warming is a conspiracy theory initiated by the Chinese.You're focusing on climate change but I was talking about humans in general. Most people are not really good or really bad most of the time, just average, which probably works the best evolution-wise.
why people are okay with our self-destructive tendencies, and also look down on those who want to counteract that self-destruction.The best brainwashing money can buy.
Most people are intellectually lazy, they like someone spelling things out for them.
Understanding climate science and Earth’s biosphere and evolution, things that provide the background to seriously understand what’s happening upon our planet requires a bunch of homework and time spent seriously thinking and learning about it. Soothing soundbites are so much easier to swallow.
If only Evolution were sexy or like a football game, but alas.
Oneguy says,
“Human tendencies aren’t particularly self-destructive overall. The truth is progressives are too idealistic and are committed to a theoretical world that will never exist… Most people are not really good or really bad most of the time, just average, which probably works the best evolution-wise.”
TimB replies,
???Idealism is bad because it strives for some goals that will never be reached??? I don’t think so. Striving to reach a more perfect condition is often NECESSARY in order to progress or even in order to avoid regression.
Most people are just average? Thanks for the truism. In any population of just about anything, most of the things are just average. It’s called a bell curve.
The problem is that the outliers can sometimes get too much control, and the masses of average people complacently follow along.
I don’t think there are any angels (better ones or worse ones) that are going to magically come to our rescue, when the worst people get too much control and most of the average ones complacently follow along.
Every time I see or hear the fat impostor in the White House, I say to myself “thanks a lot Hillary” you could’ve saved us all from this national ignominy but instead you played it safe. I voted for you Hillary and if the contest were repeated would do so again.
It was Hillary’s to lose and that’s what she did. Did anyone hear a single passionate or even convincing endorsement for green energy from Mrs Clinton? I didn’t. Why is it that she never campaigned in the important state of Michigan? Could it be that Bill (who I voted for twice) told her not to bother because minority voters would show up in droves to support her? “Don’t you remember honey? They called me the first black president?” How persuasive was it to hear her explanation for voting to authorize an utter incompetent and reckless George Bush to go to war in Iraq by saying it was just a “mistake”? A mistake is when you take the wrong exit of the turnpike, a mistake is when you forget to sign the check paying your electric bill. A vote giving the likes of George Bush a pass on waging war is not a mistake. It’s a serous breach of judgement that proved catastrophic. Does anyone recall that Oval office photograph when Hillary and now war criminal George Bush gave each other a warm and extended hug in the White House, a photograph suggesting to anyone who sees it that there’s no difference between the two respective heads of the Republican and Democratic parties? Does any one remember what her first response was as she heard the news that Khadaffi Libya’s long ruling dictator had just been slaughtered? I do. Verbatim it was “We came, He saw, He died, Ha Ha.” She said this while the cameras were rolling knowing it would be heard by all. Everyone did hear it including the North Korean dictator that now proves so threatening and intransigent.
No we don’t need Hillary to run again. The time has come for this nation to elect enlightened and progressive liberals to administer government policies. Hillary Clinton isn’t one of them.
This thread title is possibly the most ridiculous of any on the Forums.
HRC will not be President.
Everyone take a deep breath and repeat after me. HRC will not be President.
On a side note. A 3 yr T rump DOJ investigation of HRC just reported their findings of all of her alleged infractions. They found zip, nada, nothing, zero. But the propaganda of the right did its job, because HRC will not EVER be President. And that’s fine.
If anyone hadn’t noticed, the current target for made up crap is Joe Biden and his son. The salient question, therefore, is “will 20th Century Joe Biden be President”?
In response to citizenchallenge,
You’ve described the problem succinctly. Most people are intellectually lazy and simply don’t want to be challenged to think in new ways. I listen to Cspan every morning during their call in segment and it’s often very depressing. Though I believe the program is biased in favor of brain dead conservatives, it still reflects a strong national tendency in this country to blindly ignore the mounting evidence of what will prove to be the most devastating environmental collapse in human history. As far as climate change or more accurately rapid global warming is concerned; it’s too late. It’s simply too late. Does anyone with more than 50 or 60 working brain cells actually think we can double the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere and not be affected by such a radical change? When huge parts of the U.S. looks like Australia every summer maybe those millions of dumb Americans will finally get the connection.
Here’s another little sweet surprise the climate tooth fairy is about to leave under our pillow; waiting in the wings for the right time and that time is almost here is the awesome and irresistible power of microbial life. Microbes own this world not vertebrates though our eyes may lead us to think otherwise. This nascent force is now awakening and will express itself in the 21st century through the emergence of super plagues that will kill hundreds of millions. If anyone thinks that medical science will be enough to protect humanity from this coming threat they simply don’t understand the deadly power of microbial life. A warmer and wetter world favors the smallest forms of life on planet earth and they won’t be shy in teaching humanity a harsh lesson.
It’s simply too late, but who cares? As long as there’s another football game to watch or another episode of “America’s got Talent” and besides we won’t be around to witness the apocalypse, so I guess we can all gas up the two and a half ton SUV and have fun.
Eee gads. I hate to imagine the self-flagellation of watching C-Span for more than a minute at a time.
Here is a purportedly least biased news Network, called NEWSY.
I suppose you could be right about the challenge of new plagues. When the permafrost melts, who knows what might be released along with scary amounts of methane. Ancient microorganisms of death? But maybe something good could be released, also? Ancient micro-organisms that support life? Even Pandora’s Box had hope in it.