Baltimorei

[JaneV2.0]

But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?

Not to a social Darwinist.

[jp1]

But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?

True. Hence the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons.

[Alan]

True. Hence the reason Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Do you think they want them for defensive reasons or offensive reasons? The Saudi's are betting on offensive and now want nukes of their own.

[kib]

But if a way of life is incapable of defending itself against cultural corruption or brute force from competing systems (European colonizer, Aztec or Turk), can it really be a superior alternative?

It depends on how you define superior. I get it, from the simple fact "who won", you have to concede military superiority to the winner.

But consider: the fact that more people buy plastic $1 american cheese and it's a bigger industry than $25 french camembert doesn't make the american cheese superior, and if the american cheese won out economically to the point where all the makers of camembert were put out of business, where no one remembered how to make gourmet cheese, that would not be a win for humanity. Majority rule is not the only criteria for a good life. IMHO, we would be culturally poorer for the loss, and in the same way, I think we're culturally poorer for the loss of indigenous social and environmental knowledge and options held by original tribes.

[Gregg]

Maybe the problem is that we are using the rules from an economic system to define everything about us, including the parts that don't need to be economic. Or tangently, the problem might be that our economy has become the only thing that we actually are concerned with.

[kib]

Yes, you hit it.

[LDAHL]

Not to a social Darwinist.

How about to a realist? As it's been famously said, if men were angels any system would work. But if we take it as a reasonable premise that all men are not angels, isn't it reasonable to assume any social model that can't defend itself culturally or physically is basically a failed design?

[kib]

Interesting, that's exactly the issue that was going through my mind. You make it a foundational premise that there will always be a human element fighting blindly for control of everything within its potential grasp, even if winning that battle means destroying what is being grabbed in the process, like a dog snapping at soap bubbles. Are we really that stupid?

I mean ... that's rhetorical, it appears that we are. But is there no way to get beyond it?

[LDAHL]

It depends on how you define superior. I get it, from the simple fact "who won", you have to concede military superiority to the winner.

Not so much "who won" as "who survived".

I think it's the first duty of any polity to keep it's people safe and free. And it's not necessarily a military issue. i think there's a cultural dimension too, especially now. Indigenous societies (probably a poor term to use, considering what an invasive species we are) are probably in more danger from the seduction of a better material life than they are from guns and bombs.

It may very well be that the world is losing a lot of cultural richness with the passing of various tribes or cultures. But unless a people can defend themselves against competing ideas and armies, their cultural richness will end up in other peoples' museums. We can wish that it was otherwise, but that's all we can do.

[LDAHL]

Maybe the problem is that we are using the rules from an economic system to define everything about us, including the parts that don't need to be economic. Or tangently, the problem might be that our economy has become the only thing that we actually are concerned with.

I don't think that's really true. What is the YMOYL ideal but to become a successful enough capitalist that you can spend your life in ways "consistent with your values"? Capitalism is merely a value-neutral means toward whatever ends we wish to pursue.