Current Average life in England Insane ?

[MookJong]

Aww bless the OP - he's done that travelling thing and has found himself, the meaning of life and the answers to all the problems of the world. Good for you OP. Tell me, though, would you love the Laotian way of life if there was no wealthy developed country that you could return to on an aeroplane every year (or if you ever get seriously ill) to earn in a few months a few years of Laotian wages with which to fund your life of drinking and not much else? What about after 10 years? I wonder if your 'girlfriend' doesn't just see you as a ticket into the western society you are criticising so strongly (despite utterly depending on it)?

A lot of poeple in this thread need to realise that living in a Western society doesn't automatically make one an enslaved zombie living only to work and consume. A vast many, myself included, genuinely 'work to live'. I realise the most important thing is not wealth, but spending time with my wife and family, and take time to do that; I am not enslaved by advertising to desire nothing but the latest consumer goods; although my career inevitably 'makes someone else richer', I also appreciate that it makes me richer, allows me to provide for my family, I enjoy it, it betters me and I am making a small contribution to society; I'm glad of the freedom from hunger, education, opportunity, standard of healthcare that my Western society provides because people work.

I can understand why some people take such a bitter and cynical view - people who really view their job as depressing and dead-end, people who dont take time to appreciate family (because they choose to spend their free timing consuming Eastenders/X-factor instead, for example), people who read too much conspiracy theory nonsense, etc, etc. But the solution for these is not to moan about society, they need to get off their butts and better themselves, be it study or whatever to get a less depressing job, spend more time with family, or simply realise just how lucky we really are in our Western society compared to the vast majority of people in the world and just get on with it. Or if Western society just isn't for you, do a Radox and move to Laos?

I guess that last point is a wider issue. There will always be people of different dispositions. Some are happy to work hard to better themselves and their society and their position within it, and want to live in a society that supports that. Other people want to live as simply as possible and do as little work as possible. The problem then is that you don't choose the country you're born in. Lot's of people in poor countries would love the opportunity to live in a developed society in which they can work hard to better themselves, and lot's of people in developed countries, it would seem from this thread, would rather go and live in the third world 'free' from the complications and obligations of the West.

So my great solution is to round up everybody in the world, then redistribute them according to their ideals . People who want to live in developped society and work for its and their own betterment can do so, and poeple who want to live in a hut in Africa (or Laos) can also do so. The catch is all those people moaning about the evils of Western society who think they want to live without it, so that they can't be accused of being massive hypocrites, really have to live without it. So that's no internet, no cars, no planes to fly you back to visit your old Western home, no healthcare (other than witch doctors, spiritual healers, etc etc of course - that's allowed), no technology at all in fact. Sound fair? Good.

/World fixed

Well done on totally missing the point of the debate...

 

[RDM]

I'm not for one second suggesting as a country we should switch over to an untested method, but as a global society we should set aside a few small test colonies to see which ones work better - so we have evidence.

There are some pretty serious ethical concerns about such experiments wouldn't you think? Not to mention the problems of scale. It is very easy to have an egalitarian society on a small scale, it tends to fall over the larger scale you go.

Doing what causes the least amount of suffering is not exactly traditionally authoritarian, besides the "government" would not get into the business of people who didn't cause harm - allowing greater freedoms.

As you are effectively in opposition to a Capitalist society then you are already in a position of imposing fiscal authoritarianism (either by controlling what people can spend money on or abolishing money all together). You alluded to "doing what benefits the majority" which means forcing said changes on the minority. Not to mention the very difficult task of determining what is and isn't harm.

What do you call a system which exploits the majority to benefit the minority?, do you really think that's preferable?.

But does our current system actually do that or does it just not give out the benefits evenly?

Also, call me cynical but I'm fairly certain we already live in an authoritarian state - because I can be arrested without trail & my "rights" are temporary.

It is certainly more authoritarian than I would like but I would not describe the UK2012 as "authoritarian". Especially when compared against the other nations of the world and true authoritarian states.

If I had to choose between an benevolent authoritarian society & our current one - I'd know which one I would pick.

Which suggests that a benevolent authoritarian society can exist.

Of course the main problem is that we don't really have any details of how your ideal society would actually work. It is very easy to criticise something where you can easily see it's failings but much harder to argue against terms like "benevolent authoritarian society" and "technocracy". Without the flesh on the bones as to how they would work then there is little of substance to argue against.

 

[Dr.EM]

Of course I can see the point of the OP, if you don't enjoy your work but then spend most of your life working then it does feel a bit futile. The recompense being that you can afford to buy things which you probably don't need.

The ideal solution is probably to work in something you genuinely enjoy, but this is easier said than done! I'd like to work building things, electronics and speakers, as a very small company. That to me would barely seem like work, all the stupid paperwork that comes with trying to run a small company would be though

 

[Liampope]

No.

Edit - It's not worth my time to debate with somebody who starts along the rocky road of "if you don't like this country then you can get out" - as they clearly fail to grasp even the basics of the subject at hand.

Well done on totally missing the point of the debate...

Apologies for not participating in your 'debate'. Dont take me too seriously - it was a semi-light-hearted post. This is GD, after all - not SC . Also it was a reply to the OP rather than your posts - as I'm a slave to capitalism, I'm at work and actually started that reply ages ago and missed a couple of pages of intervening replies. If I hadn't I might have commented on such hilarious ideas as 'trial colonies' to test different methods of government - LOL .

And for what it's worth you've missed my general point completely. It isn't 'if you dont like this country, then get out', it's rather that the 'system' in this country/Western society really isn't that badly 'broken' and malign at all, imo. I find the idea expressed in the OP and other posts that our 'system' and way of life is insanely ****** up, and we all mindless slaves, to be ridiculous. Cynical and paranoid to the point of absurdity.

 

[Skeptic]

"Hey man, this post-modernity is just a re imagining of post-neo Marxism with Weberian ideals and Durkheimien underpinning. What you don't understand is it's the system.

What you need is some antidisestablishmentarianism philosophical underclasses to begin an uprising so that the man on the street isn't forced to live in this drudgery of 'existence'; just open your eyes, fella. There's a world out there, just just gotta live."

ITT: Sociology - big words to describe very little of use.

 

[Lima]

Apologies for not participating in your 'debate'. Dont take me too seriously - it was a semi-light-hearted post. This is GD, after all - not SC . Also it was a reply to the OP rather than your posts - as I'm a slave to capitalism, I'm at work and actually started that reply ages ago and missed a couple of pages of intervening replies. If I hadn't I might have commented on such hilarious ideas as 'trial colonies' to test different methods of government - LOL .

And for what it's worth you've missed my general point completely. It isn't 'if you dont like this country, then get out', it's rather that the 'system' in this country/Western society really isn't that badly 'broken' and malign at all, imo. I find the idea expressed in the OP and other posts that our 'system' and way of life is insanely ****** up, and we all mindless slaves, to be ridiculous. Cynical and paranoid to the point of absurdity.

This + your original post x 1000.

The current system we have is near perfect. However as someone previously said I think the standard of living (work/life balance) would be a lot better if the standard working week was 4 days instead of 5 or working till noon on Friday and starting work at noon on a Monday.

 

[elmarko]

Of course the main problem is that we don't really have any details of how your ideal society would actually work. It is very easy to criticise something where you can easily see it's failings but much harder to argue against terms like "benevolent authoritarian society" and "technocracy". Without the flesh on the bones as to how they would work then there is little of substance to argue against.

Exactly why studies are required to make these decisions, so people (like you & me) are not just discussing theory & have some evidence to backup either side.

If it turns out worse then it's still progress as we know what methods don't work (without dismissing them without evidence), but if we (as a society) are too afraid to try anything different then we will never really progress beyond the boundaries of the current capitalist system.

I highly doubt capitalism will be the "be all end all" of human development.

 

[panthro]

So basically you sit around all day drinking alcohol with your in-laws whilst your girlfriend goes to work and her mum does the cleaning and cooking?
Sounds like you're turning into a typical working class Laotian male.

 

[Jono8]

OP=

 

[elmarko]

Apologies for not participating in your 'debate'. Dont take me too seriously - it was a semi-light-hearted post. This is GD, after all - not SC . Also it was a reply to the OP rather than your posts - as I'm a slave to capitalism, I'm at work and actually started that reply ages ago and missed a couple of pages of intervening replies. If I hadn't I might have commented on such hilarious ideas as 'trial colonies' to test different methods of government - LOL .

And for what it's worth you've missed my general point completely. It isn't 'if you dont like this country, then get out', it's rather that the 'system' in this country/Western society really isn't that badly 'broken' and malign at all, imo. I find the idea expressed in the OP and other posts that our 'system' and way of life is insanely ****** up, and we all mindless slaves, to be ridiculous. Cynical and paranoid to the point of absurdity.

I find it amusing that you think that testing & research is an absurd concept.

How exactly do you propose we solve the problems of modern western capitalism (as if you have not noticed it's currently all falling apart) - or let me guess - are you judging it by your own personal bias experience & ignoring the wider population (fine for me, so it's fine for everybody type mentality).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but let's hear a bit of this insightful wisdom.

I'm not asking you agree with anything I say, just that you provide a well thought out response.

 

[RDM]

Exactly why studies are required to make these decisions, so people (like you & me) are not just discussing theory & have some evidence to backup either side.

In which case we are back to the old "Capitalism is bad!" argument beloved of socialists the world over. Which is frankly a bit dull. We already know that capitalism has its failings, it is still however the least bad system we have managed to come up with so far.

If it turns out worse then it's still progress as we know what methods don't work (without dismissing them without evidence), but if we (as a society) are too afraid to try anything different then we will never really progress beyond the boundaries of the current capitalist system.

I highly doubt capitalism will be the "be all end all" of human development.

Probably not but, unless something radical happens, I see it trundling along for quite a while to come yet. Especially as we don't seem to have anyone offering anything close yet to a credible alternative.

 

[RDM]

I find it amusing that you think that testing & research is an absurd concept.

To be fair, large scale testing of alternative socio-economic models is fraught with difficulties and has massive ethical concerns. How on earth would you run any reasonable sort of trial into an alternative model?

 

[Liampope]

I find it amusing that you think that testing & research is an absurd concept.

How exactly do you propose we solve the problems of modern western capitalism (as if you have not noticed it's currently all falling apart) - or let me guess - are you judging it by your own personal bias experience & ignoring the wider population (fine for me, so it's fine for everybody type mentality).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but let's hear a bit of this insightful wisdom.

I'm not asking you agree with anything I say, just that you provide a well thought out response.

As someone who's spent over 5 years actually working in testing and research, no, I dont find it an absurd concept - only your idea of testing governmental/economical models on small 'trial colonies'. RDM pointed out the major flaw in that idea - do you seriously think you can extrapolate the results of such a trial to the workings of an entire nation within the global economy? Seriously?

There will unlikely ever be a radical overnight change in the 'system' of any developed country. The best we can do is try to develop and improve what we have. The current finacial crisis is hardly capitalism 'falling apart'. In my opinion greater regualtion and supervision is required, but I'm not qualified for any serious discussion on politics/economics, and with respect you don't sound like you are either . All I really cared to comment on was the silly view of our current 'system' - 'we're all slaves to the elite, maaan' - that rubish.

 

[elmarko]

To be fair, large scale testing of alternative socio-economic models is fraught with difficulties and has massive ethical concerns. How on earth would you run any reasonable sort of trial into an alternative model?

It's not like people would be able to start up colonies in which the first born is eaten or anything stupid like that.

It would be based on a number of current theories which have been knocking around for the last 20 years, a technocracy, a RBE etc.

All of which would have to pass scientific & ethical vetting to ensure the people involved are not open to suffering & the plug would be pulled if it started to go pear shaped.

Just because they are different systems it's not like they would have to be unethical, definitely not any-more so than the current systems we have around the globe.

You only seem to be considering the negative prospects, if it turns out that we can find a way to motivate people (without the use of money) - which believe or not all scientific studies already agree with isn't the best motivator then it could be worthwhile.

Taking into account we have no data, I could argue with equal weight it could be a utopia (I don't think it would be, but you get my point).

If we find a better ways of managing criminal behaviour, inequality/inequity, motivation, depression, personal advancement & achievement these lessons should be brought into the wider society (As evidence should trump ideology).

 

[elmarko]

The current finacial crisis is hardly capitalism 'falling apart'. In my opinion greater regualtion and supervision is required, but I'm not qualified for any serious discussion on politics/economics,

True, so if as you say you are not qualified for serious discussion how do you know the viewpoint you hold on it "not falling apart" is worth anything?.

I'm well aware of how much data is required to make statistically significant findings from (as I work in statistics & predictive modelling).

If you can give a specific number as to what "small colony" means to justify that then go ahead.

The numbers would have to be calculated at the time - I'm not saying I'm personally going to start a number of colonies & have all of the data at hand - just that to determine which method of governance is the best - we need the data, to obtain the data we need to run trails with control groups.

RDM hasn't presented any arguments against the implementation of these tests, just some well thought out valid concerns which would need to be addressed beforehand if it was ever to be tested.

 

[davethe11]

OP, have you been listening to Time by Pink Floyd?

For me, work is the lowest common denominator. Not necessarily work as in a job, but just expenditure of energy kind of work. You want something? You gotta work for it. Some lucky folk for a variety of different reasons can put in minimal work and get a lot back. Others put in maximum work and get minimal returns. What we want is always changing, from stuff we own to the relationships we have with people, and so a lot of the work we have invested previously seems redundant at best, and a waste at worst.

But I believe we need to work for works sake - it's hard wired into us. Everyone probably knows someone who doesn't work, sits around all day doing nothing. But I can't believe even that person doesn't feel better after doing something that requires a little work. On the scale of our society, we have a system where on average the amount of work people put in gives an acceptable return, otherwise there would quickly be revolution. Imho, the acceptable return is defined as what we see those around us receiving from their work - we work because if we didn't, we would never have survived as a species, and we are reasonably content as a society because we are getting the going rate on our work (generally speaking).

But here is the problem for me - our expectations of what we should have are always increasing, so we need things to be cheaper, and so we import it all. Now we don't make as much stuff any more. I would love to see severe restrictions on imports. We wouldn't have so much cheap stuff anymore, but we would probably spend our money more wisely on those things that we really need. It's probably a naive dream, but imagine seeing a large proportion of things in the shops with 'made in the UK' printed on it, where we actually make things again. This is the only way I see unemployment ever reducing significantly, having a majority of people coming out of school enthusiastic about the range of apprenticeships they could pursue, where schooling actually seeks out and highlights every students strengths instead of testing their ability to remember useless information, where the older generations experience and skill last them a lifetime and is valued by the new generations. In my simplistic view of the world, I think the solution is to stop importing all this cheap stuff, start making things ourselves again, and have a healthier society for it. And only the government can make this change happen.

 

[RDM]

It's not like people would be able to start up colonies in which the first born is eaten or anything stupid like that.

It would be based on a number of current theories which have been knocking around for the last 20 years, a technocracy, a RBE etc.

All of which would have to pass scientific & ethical vetting to ensure the people involved are not open to suffering & the plug would be pulled if it started to go pear shaped.

Who said anything about eating the first born? The very fact that you would need a long term trial which could significantly disadvantage people is a huge ethical hurdle. Consider just the impact of a poor educaitonal model, the length of time it would take to determine that it doesn't work and the damage done to those in it during that period? Significant damage could be done long before it was noticed that it had gone pear shaped.

Just because they are different systems it's not like they would have to be unethical, definitely not any-more so than the current systems we have around the globe.

No, but deliberately exposing people to a system that could have significant negative impacts, especially without full consent, it fraught with ethical difficulties.

You only seem to be considering the negative prospects, if it turns out that we can find a way to motivate people (without the use of money) - which believe or not all scientific studies already agree with isn't the best motivator then it could be worthwhile.

You seem to be somewhat blind to the negative prospects...

Taking into account we have no data, I could argue with equal weight it could be a utopia (I don't think it would be, but you get my point).

If we find a better ways of managing criminal behaviour, inequality/inequity, motivation, depression, personal advancement & achievement these lessons should be brought into the wider society (As evidence should trump ideology).

Which assumes the trails would work. What about those that fail? Is it just "tough luck" such is the price of progress?

 

[dod]

All of which would have to pass scientific & ethical vetting to ensure the people involved are not open to suffering & the plug would be pulled if it started to go pear shaped.

Do you mean vetting of the participants to make sure they're suitable/representative/appropriate before they're allowed to take part?

 

[elmarko]

Who said anything about eating the first born? The very fact that you would need a long term trial which could significantly disadvantage people is a huge ethical hurdle. Consider just the impact of a poor educaitonal model, the length of time it would take to determine that it doesn't work and the damage done to those in it during that period? Significant damage could be done long before it was noticed that it had gone pear shaped.

How exactly would these people be at such a disadvantage & they live a life which is unethical - do you have any more unfounded assertions of the subject you wish to make.

Taking into the account the only theories which would be given the green light would be ones which (by all scientific evidence) would yield LESS suffering (not more) - I fail to see exactly how it would turn into Mad Max 2 after a couple of weeks.

No, but deliberately exposing people to a system that could have significant negative impacts, especially without full consent, it fraught with ethical difficulties.

Who said they would't have consent? - again, do you have any-more of these fictional gems?.

You seem to be somewhat blind to the negative prospects...

No, I'm discussion the potential benefits, I'm well aware of POSSIBLE (key word) - which is why measures would need to be put into place to ensure the people involved are protected.

I fail to see what reason you have for assuming that tests done to find BETTER ways of running a society would yield gross suffering or anything worse than our current system.

Which assumes the trails would work. What about those that fail? Is it just "tough luck" such is the price of progress?

I said "IF".

Those that fail,

Firstly people would volunteer, so consent would already be given.

Secondly the purpose is to find out ways to IMPROVE society (not just randomly change things) - so how you get to "terrible suffering" by altering various aspects of our society to match our scientific understand on how to REDUCE suffering is something I find quite unusual.

Thirdly the changes would be based on scientific evidence, not some random crackpots ideas on running a cult.

 

[elmarko]

Do you mean vetting of the participants to make sure they're suitable/representative/appropriate before they're allowed to take part?

To ensure they would not be exposed to any GREATER suffering that in the current system.

As the entire purpose of the exercise would be to reduce total human suffering/resolve social problems - I can't fathom as to why it would suddenly become worse than our current system (which is inherently unequal & does little to reduce human suffering).