@@prosamis Monkey Understand Food Good. Food Needed. Share Food, More Good. Our problem is we invented things other than food. Like self-righteousness.
The reintroduction of wolves has done wonders for our national parks, perhaps they could have a similar balancing effect on other ecosystems; like Fortune 500 boardrooms or the homes of powerful individuals.
For real. It's incredibly refreshing to see a youtuber smart enough, but humble enough to acknowledge they do not have all the answers, between the sea of grifters and narcissists.
@@IAsimov In many videos, she repeatedly targets individuals rather than addressing their arguments. She should steer clear of political topics, as her evident bias undermines her credibility.
@@AA-lz4wqor maybe you should either find another channel or not take a channel called “the poopy show” so seriously and not whine about personal opinions
Yeah option 1 is the ABSOLUTE WORST option since its gonna boil down to, "I have a bigger gun or weapons than you!" which isn't a society anymore, it's Mad Max! and that's how you get the Thunderdome. Maybe Poopie wants to be a tyrant lord?
It's impressive how any argument about social issues in general, be it mental health or polotics, always grinds down to "anything would work better in the confines of a small community" and "you're sad and upset because you don't have a local community". I think you really hit the nail in the head with "one selfish person will always ruin it for everyone" and "there's a lack of accountability in very large groups". This is valid for whatever flavour political system you vouch for, and no matter of the way the law is enforced.
Ultimately, no matter the economic or political system, the absence of family and peers (your local community), which are the first social safety net, who provide compassion and advice, who disperse knowlege and mold us into better human beings, is dentiremental to the cohesion of any society.
"valid for whatever..." unless the political system is fundamentally built on that principle. You can either work with the realities as they are or force them to conform to an ideal society that demands altering the very fabric of reality.
That's called *Big. Brother.* Do not speak I'll of him or the state. He is ALWAYS.... WATCHING YOU..... 👁 👁 Yes. Even on the toilet. Let's try to pick a different option, thank you very much.
vibes dont turn into dependable income. they also dont tell any truth. especially if you are well off and are already conditioned to be a pure narcissist
That's a complicated issue. While it's impossible to stop all bad people from causing damage, it is entirely very possible to limit the scale of this damage. This one guy, was proposing setting a hard limit on how much money an individual can own. Same thing should be done with corporations, and with how politicians get money. There's also the monopolies problem. Google and Meta for example own most of the communications and news networking this side of the world, which is bad for societies and democracy. Personally, I've seen some kinds of info, even with documented UN data, be completely hidden away and censored, while other shamelessly fake narratives are repeated over and over in all mass media, to the point you wouldn't know anything else if you didn't live things yourself. There's also monopolies for weapons, medicines, food... Humanity has the material resources and logistical capacity to give everyone a good life, end hunger, poverty and war, move to renewable energies fully in at most 20 years, if we started today. It just isn't profitable.
_”While it's impossible to stop all bad people from causing damage, it is entirely very possible to limit the scale of this damage.”_ Can the person in charge of making rules to “limit damage” himself cause damage through the imposition of his rules? Is there someone who has the power to limit the damage that the Damage Limiter General can cause?
@@apocalyptosoldier5527 So what, are you saying we could have groups of people, maybe people we elect somehow, impose the rules under which we will live? Like some sort of representative democratic republic?
As a Pagan who noticed that species of wolves are forming friendships with species of crows for life, survival & fun, we should make our own clans & communities again, for with that discipline we can find freedom & prosperity.
Option D, learn that purism, of individualism or of collectivism, introduces its own inherent unintended and unresolvable consequences. And that therefore the solution is a hybrid system which acknowledges the value of, and seeks to optimally balance both. And that the task of optimization is continuous.
@@hollywoostars maybe that's a good term, I haven't heard it before. Basically I'm describing what we already have, although I don't think the balance is right. But it's never really "right" to everyone's satisfaction is it? It involves compromises.
@@crawkn Compromise most of the time results in status-quo or minor changes in political and diplomatic sides though. My idea would be more of a "you do what you do, aslong as you don't do something harmful to others" kind of thing. I mean, aslong as we let others live from the confines of their autonomy, nothing will go wrong. Every ideology backfires when it is imposed on others anyways. Democracy included, people don't care whether it is good or bad, they just don't like comformity.
@@gomicgamer1245 Status quo is one of an infinite number of potential compromises, and is not a fixed state, because all human systems are dynamic. Everyone wants whatever they want, and it often involves changes to which others object, so compromise is an inherent feature of human interactions. Some people simply prefer that all those who disagree with their ideology do all of the compromising, because they are right, and the others are wrong. Communism isn't illegal, it's just voluntary, and isn't allowed to confiscate property by force. Unregulated capitalism can exist in microcosm as well, but when it imposes harm on the general welfare, it has to conform to standards of responsibility. Even democracies must be carefully designed to mitigate the tyranny of the majority, and can only be partially successful. We can always do better at balancing disparate preferences, but there is no objective "best."
@@stonethemason12 I don't think of the original Ghost in the Shell (1995) as scary. But scary is super individual 😂. But is make me think, I guess I find it thought provoking. It clearly inspired many later movies that I also love. But the fan service is a little too much for me. I do still recommend it to people that like The Matrix, Psycho-Pass etc. "where does the new borne go from here?"
@@jarodgolgori3137 I have no idea I'd this was a joke but almost spit out the tea I was drinking 😂 Now that I've stopped laughing though I'm left wondering if I'm laughing with you or at you? We may never know 🤔
" we shouldn't try to change the system, the same thing will only happen again!" and that's what the system has thought me. I guess Papa Bezos will keep making billions of the amazon delivery people who can't even take piss breaks! That's what god really wanted for humanity!
@@Uwhwvwgwhit’s too late to change ourselves; the point is to help future generations liberate themselves from capitalism, and the damage to our psychi that comes from it.
@@Literally_a_Moth then whatever change you hope to make I promise you it be just as bad if you can't hope to be different why do you think the future generation will be any good its kinda selfish don't you think giving those future kids this responsibility to change themselves without a reference
@@Uwhwvwgwh the bloody reference is called their environment. The whole "nature vs nurture" thing? Apparently the regularly moderate positions people hold on that question goes out the window when somebody proposes that it's not just their immediate family that provides the right "nurture" but their entire society and systems which uphold it. Yeah, no shit if your economic system upholds extreme wealth inequality where the acquisition of a monetary resource is integral to one's survival and continuous thriving as you are capable of investing it further and passing it along to your descendants, then obtaining said resources will become the absolute priority for the individual, at the expense of potentially every other consideration, unless there are limits placed upon certain behaviors and ways of achieving such (which, granted, also go out the window because the way our justice system works, it's less of a "you do bad deeds and you get punished" but more of a "you get caught and you get punished").
Whatever our future system, I say if someone insists on being a sociopath hoarding wealth, we introduce them to the friend of the french revolution (✿^‿^)
@@Elsureelyes and? Every class will seek to act in it's benefit The ruling class the bourgeoisie will do everything in their power to stifle real lasting systemic change and expand their own wealth and power at the expense of the working class and poor at home and abroad if they are of a western imperialist nation
It is interesting to compare and study highly individualistic countries (like the U.S.A) and countries with higher collectivistic ideology (like China). Both countries in their own rights are considered highly successful yet this is not to say they are without problems. both sides struggle from the effects of their own extremes. This can be especially present in cases in their own academic ideologies where it often shows how it can both help and hurt a society with each extreme. (Sorry, that was a bit convoluted)
@@vilaioking Well the CCP and its current ideology in China is not really that old relatively, only being just short of 100 years old, whereas the U.S is well over 200 years old where it begins to become more individualistic. although, I don't know much about the history of China very much before the CCP and the civil war witch lead to its rise, so I cannot say with full certainty. What I do believe, is the people of China could be closer to being not as set in their ideas as the U.S, especially because the last big social reform in China was not too long ago being around 1950's when Mao really took hold of the government. (hopefully I got most of my facts right here)
I live in Europe and our history is complicated. Lots of smaller countries with sometimes opposing belief systems and extremely bad politics, like two world wars, the plague, dark ages, the empires.
Sisyphus55 talked about this a while ago and suggested the psychedelia of the 60s hippie movement as a starting point. The effect of psychedelics does something to erode the mental borders of the self. LSD probably wouldn’t solve poverty but it’s an interesting idea.
Ego is treated like a sense of self, but its primarily a false reality that people need to feel is real or else they are forced to comprehend their own insignificance. The person in the mirror isn't you.
in my lil naive brain , i have always wondered why we cant just like , share what we have to ensure everybody has enough , and to act as one part of a greater whole :
@@whalek i went and checked , and what you describe sounds fairly similar to an isocracy-style of governance (if im understanding your comment correctly , and that isnt a given cuz im a lil silly sometimes). correct me if im wrong tho obvs :3
Collectivism and individualism can co-exist if people are smart enough to play nice and not be selfish. Education and intellectualism is the closest thing to an answer.
A Person being smart doesn't mean that Person is or will be moral and won't be selfish. The idea that smart people are more kind and moral then uneducated people is one of the biggest problems we have right now.
@@Sp00kyGuy127 you can reason and deal with smart in a way that can bypass their immorality. Only time smart and immoral people are issues are when they outsmart the majority. The biggest problem are the dumb and immoral ones, they are a net negative.
It’s objectively true. A smart person will usually try to find a way to enter a situation that values the best of themselves and others (atleast those he finds important), resourcefulness of sorts. Yes you may have smart murderers and the inhospitable like that don’t give a damn about the world. But smartness is a collective good on the world and humanity to atleast progress.
@@gloriousblobber9647 Just because a person is smart does not mean they will be wise or moral, the idea that smart people are simply better is also incredibly elitist, some of the brightest people in the world have also caused some of its greatest travesties.
Can I just state how wonderful it is to finally hear such a clear and comprehensive exploration of the topic by a deceptively diminutive, yet powerfully prescient objective observer on a fecally founded film format that nevertheless negotiates natural needs while whimsically wondering when we will waste our own common collective consideration, choosing childishly, self destructively, simple deeds singularly due to their temporary temporal trade offs. All along, altogether undervaluing unusually useful alliterative adaptability. ❤️❤️❤️❤️
1:52 that's not the idea of cutting hands for stealing, it both symbolizes the fact you couldn't stop yourself from stealing *Without the need to* But mainly to repell people from doing it in the first place, you still have to do it(which is why it's hanged in public) to show others that you aren't joking you will do it And boom no one dares to do it in the first place because the punishment is not worth whatever you're stealing
Lol no. Selfishness would not be mitigated to any significant degree in a socialist system. Because for as many people who Would work into the system as intended. Just as many would be trying to extract resources from the system with out Actual Sufficient need. That's not to say there aren't ways or systems that Mitigate selfishness, but that's usually via highly communal ideas propagated via Religious conviction usually. And are usually entered in voluntarily.
@DJ-kp7mf I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. That people will try to extract resources from the system is a given. The difference between capitalism and socialism (depending on the specific implementation) is that with capitalism, extracting resources is the main goal of any enterprise that has any shareholders whatsoever, while under socialism, that's not built into the system in this way (unless you put one big guy at the top of the command chain who can just decide on its own to change that to his personal benefit, which they will pretty much inevitably do if given the opportunity). Under capitalism, the main goal of any economically sane enterprise is to generate profits. You can legitimately get sued if you don't maximize profits for your shareholders. Ethical behavior, workers rights and even compliance with regulations only matter as long as they serve the goal of generating shareholder value. Even if you don't get sued for not meeting your obligations towards shareholders, you will be playing the market competition game with handicap if you restrict yourself to legal and ethical behavior, and your enterprise might not survive. Any system that doesn't actively encourage this will already meaningfully mitigate selfishness by comparison.
Thank You 😕 People need all of this in terms that they can understand so we can share it with EVERYBODY. It's up to all of us to educate all of us. Thank you for looking out for the group 💜
Your video format makes me nostalgic for a children's cartoon that aired on Brazilian open TV in the 2000s. "De onde vem?" in free translation: "Where does it come from?". A show about a little girl who taught about how various things worked or were made. It was cool show.
My gut feeling is: 1. Take away the means by which others steal from the metaphorical pile and 2. Take away the methods by which the consequences of that action are alleviated or dodged.
You cannot take away the means by which others steal because the connection is needed to give people from the metaphorical pile to begin with and you cannot see who's taking what from the metaphorical pile unless you have complete knowledge of it, which at that point is mass surveillance which is something those controlling it can use to do anything creating a 1984 situation. You also cannot take away the methods by which the consequences of that action are alleviated or dodged because they usually are not covered by the rules of what counts as 'dodging' so you either bend the rules to make it count which means justice doesn't exist as allowing the rules to be bent however the power deems fit is just authoritarianism creating an authoritarian state. That's why these issues are hard to solve, the harder you try to solve them you just create conditions for those in power to abuse the extreme power they are given and regulating who is best to be in power is an issue in and of itself as power corrupts(or reveals true motivations).
@@Ali-cya First, I think it's worth making clear that the comments above were meant as a broad, theoretical and generally appliable framework, that's why the pile is "metaphorical". This is not grug-level cut their hands off so they cannot steal, it's simple in an inclusive not reductive sense. It's also not absolute, because I think it's a clear, ever-present truth that most things, especially of human causation, come in degrees. Second, I assume by the connection point you mean people require their bodily autonomy to produce wealth organically and add to the pile or to truly benefit from it, which then leads me to think you take "taking away the means" to mean literally to take away their power from doing things independently. While in actuality, what I meant is that there are discrepancies within society that allow people to work to its detriment beyond us not "looking hard enough". Primary among them is usury (income without labour corresponding to it, it encompasses interest rates, land rent, wages, patents etc.) which is the result of the discrepancy that is our current monetary and banking system. Something which wouldn't even be able to be used if we just switched to systems of demurrage currency and Mutualist Free Banking. As laid out by people like Silvio Gessell, Lysander Spooner, P.J. Proudhon, And W. B. Greene. The specific (but still quite broad) economic example aside, the point here is that it and many other issues could be made non-existent simply by changing this or that societal system, no surveillance needed. Third, to build upon the second point, many smaller issues are bolstered if not fully brought about by bigger ones. If you dismantled usury for example and gave to the worker the full product of his labour, the hoarding of wealth would greatly diminish and the general wealth of the average individual would rise. To add more unto this, the worker finding himself within a Mutualist market where-in productive labour is the only thing that is rewarded and not simple moving money around, is now encouraged by the knowledge that he is getting the full recompense of the use he provides to others and has less of a reason to feel the state of things to be unfair. Thus the ills of poverty and the feelings it creates which lead to all sorts of lesser crimes or detrimental actions is eradicated and when people go on to commit these crimes nonetheless out of this or that disorder they would now stick out like a sore thumb, society then needing much less if none professional surveillance. Fourth, to reply on the point about the methods of dodging, I'd say the State is actually first among them. To build upon the previous economic example, it is the State which recognizes the right of the Landlord to this or that land which he does not use. It is the State which enforces this or that, singular, mineral-backed or fiat currency. It is the State which enforces this or that Patent. As I see it, Nature itself sets the necessary para-meters for what man should or should not do, the State (In it's colloquial, governmental form) is one of the many ways Man seeks to regulate other Men beyond that which is actually necessary and beneficial. This is a legal/political issue, rather than an economic one but still, like the previous example, this is a matter of changing this or that part of a system, removing this or that cog. No surveillance needed, as any truly problematic Statist or State-like system would by necessity be singular in any given territory, as it needs society to take the brunt of its internal deficit. Any smaller attempt is taken care of by nature itself, like when someone who's really adamant about being able to fly tries to prove it by jumping off a cliff. As such, it's nothing to keep a police force for but rather something almost immediately clear to the general public. As a sub-section to the fourth point, I don't really understand what you mean by "the rules of what counts as 'dodging' ". The broader third point doesn't make much sense to me actually but I already wrote the one above and I still do think your third point stems from a misunderstanding of what my method is and the one above does a pretty good job at clearing that up. Overall, the OG comment could use more elaboration but the word "Gut Feeling" I think excuses me. As when I get specific, you get the mess before me. Your fourth point, I think is addressed again by my ones above. I will not be elaborating on the economic or political example's validity, as I do not have the will-power for that at the moment, I can however link books and articles. My back hurt, I'm gonna go drink water.
@@Ali-cya I think the disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of the method and its presentation. Which is understandable since I didn't really specify much but rather wrote something very quickly and didn't give it much thought. So I'll clarify and respond to some things here. Firstly, the gist I get from the reply is that you understood "Take Away" being from the perspective of some bureaucrat-lawgiver weighing what he must and must not ban and punish for. However what I meant is restructuring any problematic societal system in such a way that the specific problematic action (To clarify, taking from the pile is a metaphor for being detrimental to the prosperity of society, putting your own unsustainable prosperity over it through an anti-social non-mutual action. Such is the Problematic Action) isn't even possible or favourable to carry out. It isn't a matter of adding onto government but taking away from it. This I think is signified by "means", as the usual way I've seen acts visualised is Actor -> Mean -> Action, so taking away the Mean doesn't involve policing this or that specific individual, aka the Actor in the previous schema. A major example I'd give, which characterises most of human history, is Usury (A term which encompasses land-rent, interest rates, wages, patents etc. I'd even go as far as to include taxes but that's probably inaccurate). Usury is held up by Legal Structures, in an organic economy of self-regulating communities of producers it wouldn't be an issue. The State holds up the Property rights of Landlords despite them not using the land, the State holds up the current Centralised Banking system, the State holds up Mineral Backed or Fiat Monetary systems, the State enforces patents etc. It restricts the circulation of capital and aids its accumulation, standing in the way of Mutuality in Economic Relations. You'd go about combating usury then not by making it illegal and arresting as many people as possible that continue doing it (Like we do with tax avoidance) but by pulling away the State's hand from the matter, taking up community regulated Occupancy and Use Property Rights, Mutualist Free Banking, Demurrage Money backed by Labour, abolishing patents etc. More on this you can find from writers like Silvio Gessel, Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene. Kevin Carson too. The same goes for alleviating the consequences of an Anti-Social Anti-Natural actions, a prime example for this cases are the hedonistic and opulent lifestyles of elites, whether it be Dictators, Members of Parliament or whatever else. As instead of being punished financially and reputationally for their obviously disadvantageous actions they can throw as much tax or rent money in the gutter as they want and maintain or even improve their standing. You can also see something similar with people "Falling Upwards" in the entertainment industry, with programmers and animators getting the boot for flops rather than the people who had and greenlit the idea. Secondly, I just don't really understand some of these points? Especially the second one, "the rules of what counts as 'dodging'" part and how changing the rules is bad when done by some unspecified power. I think my response above covers it but I'm not certain. But that aside, I think the only Rules that really count are those of nature, most parameters set by Human hands just serve the needs of those who created them. It should be a scientific matter of reviewing the consequences of this or that action in relation to the Wills of the set of people the review is being made for. Thirdly, yeah I agree they are hard to solve but I think "Gut Feeling" excuses me here, it is just a poopie show video after all. That aside, i disagree that solving these requires any sort of dictatorial or generally largely concentrated power. The very act of analysing these issues works best as collaborative effort and by itself involves no imposition of power while putting the plans resulting from the analysis to use is very flexible and doesn't really require authoritarianism. Anyhow, back hurt, gonna go drink water. I re-wrote this after my internet fucking died and decided the message had to go to the void. Somehow it got even bigger than before.
@@Ali-cya I think the disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of the method and its presentation. Which is understandable since I didn't really specify much but rather wrote something very quickly and didn't give it much thought. So I'll clarify and respond to some things here. Firstly, the gist I get from the reply is that you understood "Take Away" being from the perspective of some bureaucrat-lawgiver weighing what he must and must not ban and punish for. However what I meant is restructuring any problematic societal system in such a way that the specific problematic action (To clarify, taking from the pile is a metaphor for being detrimental to the prosperity of society, putting your own unsustainable prosperity over it through an anti-social non-mutual action. Such is the Problematic Action) isn't even possible or favourable to carry out. It isn't a matter of adding onto government but taking away from it. This I think is signified by "means", as the usual way I've seen acts visualised is Actor -> Mean -> Action, so taking away the Mean doesn't involve policing this or that specific individual, aka the Actor in the previous schema. A major example I'd give, which characterises most of human history, is Usury (A term which encompasses land-rent, interest rates, wages, patents etc. I'd even go as far as to include taxes but that's probably inaccurate). Usury is held up by Legal Structures, in an organic economy of self-regulating communities of producers it wouldn't be an issue. The State holds up the Property rights of Landlords despite them not using the land, the State holds up the current Centralised Banking system, the State holds up Mineral Backed or Fiat Monetary systems, the State enforces patents etc. It restricts the circulation of capital and aids its accumulation, standing in the way of Mutuality in Economic Relations. You'd go about combating usury then not by making it illegal and arresting as many people as possible that continue doing it (Like we do with tax avoidance) but by pulling away the State's hand from the matter, taking up community regulated Occupancy and Use Property Rights, Mutualist Free Banking, Demurrage Money backed by Labour, abolishing patents etc. More on this you can find from writers like Silvio Gessel, Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene. Kevin Carson too. The same goes for alleviating the consequences of an Anti-Social Anti-Natural actions, a prime example for this cases are the hedonistic and opulent lifestyles of elites, whether it be Dictators, Members of Parliament or whatever else. As instead of being punished financially and reputationally for their obviously disadvantageous actions they can throw as much tax or rent money in the gutter as they want and maintain or even improve their standing. You can also see something similar with people "Falling Upwards" in the entertainment industry, with programmers and animators getting the boot for flops rather than the people who had and greenlit the idea. Secondly, I just don't really understand some of these points? Especially the second one, "the rules of what counts as 'dodging'" part and how changing the rules is bad when done by some unspecified power. I think my response above covers it but I'm not certain. But that aside, I think the only Rules that really count are those of nature, most parameters set by Human hands just serve the needs of those who created them. It should be a scientific matter of reviewing the consequences of this or that action in relation to the Wills of the set of people the review is being made for. Thirdly, yeah I agree they are hard to solve but I think "Gut Feeling" excuses me here, it is just a poopie show video after all. That aside, i disagree that solving these requires any sort of dictatorial or generally largely concentrated power. The very act of analysing these issues works best as collaborative effort and by itself involves no imposition of power while putting the plans resulting from the analysis to use is very flexible and doesn't really require authoritarianism. Anyhow, back hurt, gonna go drink water. I re-wrote this after my internet fucking died and decided the message had to go to the void. Somehow it got even bigger than before.
This video is a good sumerization of today situation. I saw from other video is that the brain wasn't made to consider big ammounts of people part of the group. Thist type of behavior amplified on Industrial Revolution, for better or for worse. But has gotten better, at least in my country. Comunist was the utopia of the exploited workers, but like every other utopia it did not work because it was badly managed. Other problem it had was lack of competition halted the growth of the technologies.
*WOW - YOUR CHANNEL HAS BLOWN UP....!!! CONGRATULATIONS* I joined at the medieval art video a year ago, a quick look 2,600 subs so you have got 76,000 subs in a year WOW
My day is better now, Poopie, thanks! Right when I was ready to give in and order something from Amazon it got overrun with bad Chinese white label goods, so no. So did Etsy but I'd still buy handmade items if I ever shop online. I still won't shop at Walmart. There are apps that can tell you about online products so that's helpful.
There is a big difference between communism, socialism, and the models of economies USSR and current China (capitalism but on paper communism) have adapted. People really need to learn more about this topic.
Most Americans in my experience become extremely closed off and irate the second they have to think about any other ism than the one they’re subjected to.
Okay, as someone who is in a culture where Vibe checked by society > Individualism, I gotta disagree. Sometimes, the vibe check that society does is bad. Like SUPPPPPEEERRRRR bad. For example, Misogyny. Racism, and every other prejudice on earth. The society basically punishes for who you are as a person and tries to conform according to what society deems as good, which actually isn't good. For example, before the rise of Individualism, we had half of the population (women) basically being slaves for millennia. Any woman who doesn't vibe with the patriarchal society faced gruesome consequences. Same for racism, casteism, classism, etc. If you don't fall in these arbitrary lines of what the society deems as not vibing with them, it's game over for having a good life. Also, thinking of the greater "good" for the society than our individual needs is very arbitrary. We need to define what is "good" of the society is first. And sometimes, prejudices and discrimination are deems as "good" for the society by the society themselves. Anyone not falling in line, are deemed as bad for the society. So, we need a system which goes above a system only based on vibe check of the society and doesn't strip away individual's freedom, by categorizing rightfully what things should be put in the box of vibes of society before individualism and what things should be put in the box of individualism before the society. TLDR; We shouldn't think that vibes of the society is always for the good of its people and can actually be used for discrimination, becos the collective "good" for everyone in the society can very much be a bad thing. Hence, a reason why individualism exists. So, we need a system which categorizes stuff which put society's vibes before individual's freedom to choose from stuff which puts individualism above society's vibes. Thanks for listening to my ted talk.
4:58 -- I will point out that, while you're not wrong, Capitalism *encourages* and *incentivizes* this behavior. While fixing the system isn't the WHOLE solution, it's certainly better than trying to fix people within a system that incentivizes people to be their worst selves.
This. Individualism incentivizes blaming individuals instead of focusing on systemic failures - see video title :) The system is okay, if the individuals would just buy the right products! Victim blaming and gaslighting through a perverted sense of personal responsibility are shaping the narrative. Let's rewrite it.
To be fair, like most brain stuff, everyone does that to some extent, its just worse if you got certain brain stuff. I don't think ruminating about past social stuff is a symptom of autism directly, but lacking confidence in your social skills combined with anxiety makes a pretty common experience in the neuro-divergent community.
One of the biggest things I've learned in life, you can't get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet. What's made today's times so difficult is that the more someone feels a certain way and is shamed publicly or socially and things are inflamed more and more with media, the more that person will go extreme. Less inflammation won't solve every problem, and that means also that certain flaws won't get called out, but smaller group mentality is beneficial to us lil stinkers, and there might be better counselling with a smaller and more well rounded support group. That's why my ultimate politics is just love others, I love you 🥺
Very entertaining and informative i will say. The gags, timing, and utilization of different styles really make it pop! And I'll admit, it's kinda because of us we can't seem to have nice things, because we want it OUR way, when it simply isn't possible. I never really thought much about this sentiment until recently and maybe this video too. But the way i see it, utopia is simply home. It's what you do and make of it that really makes it special. Of course, i can't put aside economics, and logic when also having a home. I'm not a huge expert in this field but yeah i have a feeling its a lot more complex. Still, i do personally believe that a utopia can work is not by making everyone happy, but finding happiness however you do, because trying to make everyone happy is impossible, and even if it was... will it be worth anything at all? I dunno but its something to think about... Anywho, good vid Poopie Keep up the good work!
@@BMALCINE364 we, as humans with the means to secure food and housing for everyone, deserve at the very least that. That, then, frees up time for us to use trying to improve humanity for the next generation. Craziest part is that this is mostly already possible, but it wouldn't produce private profit and that's why it is not done.
As a healthy Human, you and I only deserve what we need. That is clothes which are adequate for our environment, enough food to meet our nutrition needs, and a safe place to sleep. Everything else comes after as supplementary things to make life nicer.
THANK YOU! THIS IS THE KIND OF VIDEO THAT I NEED IN MY POCKET! There are so many people I want to shove this on their faces that it almost makes me want to make a hit list.
tbf with the mask example there's been so much information everywhere and in a realistic situation it wasn't doing much as it was usually being measured in groups that took several precautions vs groups that didn't. Along with the masks having other side-effects that could be described as harming the greater good as well such as stunting the mental development of youngers kids and the neurodivergent who didn't get to see that many facial expressions. It can also be argued using things like cloth masks could increase some risks due to them not being THAT useful and can provide a feeling of security that isn't there, and that you should use a N95... but at the same time if everyone grabs a N95 then there wont be any for the healthcare professionals who need them to not contact the virus they are being put in direct contact with a lot of the time. Not to mention there's the issue with toxic group dynamics... Like pure democracy being mob rule, a doctor harvesting someone for organs to save 5 other people, or cult mentalities where there can be no dissidents or individuality. What we need is a society where most individuals respect the group and the group respects the rights of individuals, and can deal with bad actors who try and disturb the peace. ESPECIALLY if the bad actors are the ones making the rules like the rules on deciding who gets to make the rules.
I would argue that option 1 would improve some lives while reducing the overall quality of life for the society while leading to certain groups gaining advantages over others be it geography or a more accepting "pack". from my stance, a capitalist system already perpetuates this by reinforcing class divisions, often preventing those in less fortunate groups (or lower socioeconomic classes) from acquiring more than the bare necessities with a greater amount of effort, while those more fortunate to have been born with those advantages are far more likely to thrive. Although I'll acknowledge my strong bias towards socialism, it would significantly improve my life and that of many others. However, considering your cake example, could the solution be to prevent those who would selfishly complicate others from benefiting while also accurately predicting cake consumption to ensure a fair redistribution that benefits everyone? Although some might argue that in this analogy, the cake ingredients are finite whether it’s resources or time to bake, what would be the solution? I would suggest finding ways to increase resources or adapting to the constraints. We don't necessarily need a form of law to enforce it either as in most cases (correct me if I'm wrong) people don't like feeling like a leach or a burden to those around them, nor do the people who feel like they are taken advantage of. Love the video, definitely got a subscription from me.
The Soviets have never really solved the cake problem, and the only more or less impactful proposal was to kell everyone and then some more whenever we caught someone having their unreasonable share of a cake. We can safely discard this method as even the subsequent Soviet leadership was traumatised and horrified so much by this that they were basically the epitome of inaction even when people having their unreasonable share were preparing to dismantle the whole system. I think the cake problem is the central problem in any utopian vision, but there’re also some practical challenges and solutions. Like how East Asian industrial states (ROC, SK, PRC, Singapore) have tried to “modify constraints”, like you said, to force unreasonable cake-eaters to still work for the betterment of the whole. Also I have warmed up recently to the anarchist discussions, because they also tackle this problem head on, but also very ambitious in their vision
Almost all current human problems come from what is perhaps our oldest idea & first social premise: property. It is very easy to misunderstand property as validation of identity, worse still it is very easy to abuse property leading to tyrannical hoarding & violent monopoly...... at some point people stopped understanding the idea of property and started believing in the mystique of property and believing a matter of etiquette is a immutable & fundamental aspect of the universe has lead to a LOT irrational behavior and avoidable human misery.
Sometimes what the government says is best isn't, and sometimes what the group says is moral and right isn't. We need radical individuals. The selfish problem is more damaging when it is from a group, government, or company almost always than when it is an individual.
glamorizing socialism is not as radical as you may think. Socialism as a form of economical organization simply empowers workers to have more control over their lives. During the industrial revolution, the awesome power of workers unions institutionalized protections for those workers that have, for the most part, stood the test of time; we're talking 40 hour work weeks, improvements to work safety, the right to assemble and form unions, a minimum wage, an end to child labor, health benefits provided by the employer, etc. The next logical step, which frankly no society has ever gotten to, is for these unions to work together to strike against their government to demand change; for instance by regulating the for profit housing market that ensures that the rich can easily own thousands of properties simultaneously renting all of them out above their mortgage obligations in order to buy more properties while the average worker is simply priced out of the market by large monied interests and is forced to rent indefinitely. And who do you think stands more to gain without these unionization efforts? It's the wealthy, the ruling class. They blamed the unions for the stock market crash in 2002 and empowered the companies to prioritize their profits above all else, they allowed companies to participate in legal bribery in order to participate in the system of legitimizing lawmakers in their vision, they played on the fear and desperation that many are feeling in order to roll back the workers rights that our unions fought so hard for. The wealth disparity in America is now worse than it was in America's Gilded Age, the top 1% of the population now collectively owning more wealth than the bottom 90%, and we STILL can't update our federally mandated minimum wage (bare minimum shit). There is simply no way for us to demand any kind of real, tangible, systemic change without addressing the big ass elephant in the room, that we ran away from populist socialism before in the past and in fact actively fought against it (Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, just some of America's greatest hits) and all of our lives have effectively been made worse as a result. Raising the minimum wage, addressing the housing market, medicare for all, quality education for our children are not "radical" policies that many Americans disagree on, but we cannot achieve these things by maintaining the status quo. You guys watched Bug's Life, right? Who do you think the Hoppers were supposed to be representing?
5:30 faith is what originally oriented people away from selfish actions, as god would punish them was a belief they were indoctrinate to hold. One could argue about it's effectiveness, but it is a form of cultural unifier. Individualism exists when a culture has no unifier, thus making people naturally only serve themselves or their interests first or only reach out to others in as much as it doesn't deprive themselves of too much to bare.
Start on the small scale, share among friends and teach eachother how to behave comunistically expand until the group is too big to maintain strong social bonds with everyone and split into smaller groups while maintaining friendly ties. Expand.
It is good to acknowledge we can't be a utopia, the human psyche is complicated. Poopie Your animation and video quality is getting better with each video. I hope you dominate the world by changing how do we look ourselves and doing more monkey shenanigans
Even if you manage to “leave” they’re will always be a one or a group of humans that wont leave you alone; even if you have no impact on them they just want what you have/want you dead, miserable or its just plain greed🤷♂️
3:21 - It's a misconception to believe that it would be in any way beneficial to preserve the weakest of society. That's the literal core of a luxurious expense.
Liked the video, appreciate the nuance it tries to show. I have some critiques for how socialism was criticized, namely the idea that 'changing the system is not fixing the problem', and the cake exercise. So with our current housing situation for example, the housing supply is kept below the amount that would truly satisfy demand so as to maximize profit per home built. This is because the system incentives maximizing profits over solving for this problem. If theoretically, developers were contracted by the government to build the required amount of homes, were taken over by the government to fill this function, or even the government starting development companies to build the homes, then they could be built without the profit margin being the main concern. This would shift the focus from making the most money per home, to producing as many quality homes as required to fulfill current and future needs. Now this is oversimplified, as housing prices have been the nest egg for many people in the West, but this is how changing the system fixes a problem (though not without its own issues.) With the cake exercise, it would be one thing if everyone chose what they were paid in a socialist society, but often times that was predetermined and divied out without much input. Instead of cutting your own slice, what I would say is a better example is that there would be a cake cutter that would portion out slices for everyone. Some may still get larger cuts than others, personal bias and interest combined with differing subjective views on what makes a slice of appropriate perimeters would all contribute. However if you looked at how it would be divided and distributed it would be much more evenly proportioned out when compared to an individualist form of cake cutting. This isn't to say that socialist societies can't still have problems with greed and selfishness, rather I think it is a deeper issue than this analogy considers (even if I recognize it was more to make a point than to be a truly correct statement.)
Free market capitalism takes advantage of individualism to create a knock-on effect to benefit the group. Too bad we haven't had that since around 1989.
@@NevisYsbryd maybe so. I see the final death of capitalism happening around the Clinton years when he made it legal for gigantic corps to own mass media which they immediately bought up and gave them marching orders to tell people to vote for politicians that would then give these companies preferential treatment which is socialism for rich companies. What had been a gentle decline before that turned into a drop off a cliff.
Utopias by definition are unattainable, even if they could be achieved, that would only change the paradigm, generating a new utopian meta, returning the current one achieved as a bad version of life in comparison. So instead of pursuing idealized common good it is better to focus on yourself, because the idea of looking out for everyone that you don't know and that you don't give a damn about is simply insane, putting that pressure on people who are individuals is wrong and worse even if you want to put it in a community. Of course, as a society you should set goals and improve systems and quality of life in every possible way, that's fine, but the problem arises when instead of pragmatism you look for ideologies and utopias, which are the equivalent of wanting to reach the goal without having to run the marathon
In the prehistory at least nine out of ten infants died within the first two years of life, you lived in constant fear of death from wild animals, had to fight off hunger as you desperately hunted and foraged for enough food to survive, and any infected wound was a death sentence because medicine was at its most rudimentary level. And disaparate groups and tribes would still go to war over territory and resources. That is not an utopia. The problems of the modern age are severe, but one should not romanticize living in caves as being superior to living with running water, electricity, sturdy shelter, developed medicine and relative easy access to food, clothing and hygiene. The grass may look greener for you in the prehistory, but the cavemen would also see the grass as being greener in the modern age. You do not need to go back to the stone age to connect with loved ones and support one another. Even with the difficulties of today, it is still possible to make personal connections now with friends and family.
@@OkashiiKisei sure have your world we’re your dopamine receptors are wringed dry and you are “happy”. As happy as you can be living as an animal in a big box doing your purpose as society dictates. But there’s something to extreme hardship that, every now and then, bring good times. Great times. A better time than our modernized brains could never imagine. I think, like every other creature that crawls on the earth, survival instincts lead to the most exciting and fun times of a persons life. There’s simply too many people and too much stimulus to create such a beautiful and intimate bond between each other.
@@ronantheronin3521there's still other forms of natural monopolies you don't consider which actually needs more regulation. And capitalism inherently breeds a system of selfishness and rewards it.
@@chester9585 Selfishness is irrelevant, I really think people should play in to humanity's greed, the only thing necessary is the NAP (non-aggression principle), aslong as people don't violate people's property rights and free trade/free market continues, there is no problem. Besides a monopoly that works for their greed is better than one that sits on ideas for a long time stifling progress.
@@ronantheronin3521 A monopoly will stifle progress by not innovating and being complacent because they have conplete control of the market and no one poor can replace them, replacing them isn't worth it. Keep bootlicking for capitalism and maybe you'll be rich enough to profir from the parasitization of the rest of society
At first, when you mentioned communism i was excited since as Mark Fisher once said "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". But unfortunately your reason to disprove the possibility of communism is rooted in the ill will ever present in capitalism. Of course people want to take more than they need and ruin everything for everyone else under capitalism, because not only is that how capitalism works, but it's also the only thing they've ever known. I choose to believe that a couple of generations where it's normalized to have solidarity, equality, and unity among everyone everywhere, will get rid of that, just how it's getting rid of other societal problems that currently ail humanity. I also believe, with reasonable proof, that the future is communist or there is no future. Why do i say this? Well, capitalists are destroying the world for profit. There's plenty of examples of this.
Human beings do not work that way, like all living Creatures Human beings are inherently selfish. Once you reach a certain population size in a community it becomes impossible to properly trust everyone in that community because you are incapable of knowing them all personally, Poopie said so very well. That is why Communism cannot work in the World we have now, where Humanity numbers in the Billions, you cannot rely on them providing for you so it is better to have a system where selfishness is what is expected.
Didn't this same individualism exist all the way back to prehistoric times? I do believe the march of time will change us but then the discussion becomes more about the changes that will lead to the new economic system rather than the system itself.
@@RillianGrant No. If you go very far back you will find what Marx described as Primitive Communism. Tribes and cooperation and that. As we have technologically advanced to the point where senseless production is destroying the world and causing a mass extinction event, it's time to rid ourselves of the sinful thinking of capitalism and admit that we're all in this together, and it's in the best interests of humanity for that senseless production to cease.
I think we are getting better and better at treating everyone as ''family'' so to speak. We didnt have the internet 100 years ago its only natural we are having some trouble adapting. But most people did wear masks (when the W.H.O wasnt straight up making fun of us because aparently they discovered masks werent needed that week), if someone falls in a river most people help, not stay using their phones. I think we are sort of overreacting, but at the same time this overreacting is what allows us to correct our course, we pretend most people are A-holes and then we overcorrect, when in reality most people are nice and, at least my gut tells me, in avarage people are getting nicer, its just hard to see sometimes because of negativity bias
god this hit hard when she said "arguing with teenagers on reddit", like, if you haven't tried it, I don't think you can have a valid argument.......also, love the content lol
Nice video poopie. Your chocolate cake analogy was funny, but it doesn't relate to the mode of production of a society, which is what capitalism and communism (or socialism, call it however you want) are about. As you said the person doing that would be vibe-checked. It doesn't always benefit the individual stealing to be individualist: Imagine two hunters, each only caring about themselves. Together they can hunt more and bigger pray, so if one gets ill or injured, it is still in the best interest for the other one to help them recover. If one stole the group would ostracize him. I really recommend the prologue I mention at the end for this. "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough" You can't base human nature upon an economic system that is roughly about ONLY 400 years old, and human nature is not a static or an unchangeable construct but rather strongly influenced by the material conditions of a society. *Historically:* No matter how far in history do we go, *'human nature' was always collectively cooperative and not individualistic.* That's literally the big thing, found even in other primates. Primitive, pre-Homo Sapiens hunter-gatherers already cooperated and had division of labour designed to help every member of the group. Throughout Ancient History, settlements and first city-states were born out of need to cooperate. Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Germanic people and Northmen would help members of their communities and villages. A fact that when we see someone in distress and feel pity is precisely because literally by our biology, humans are a social and cooperative species. Not being able to feel empathy is a mental illness, part of what makes people into psychopaths and sociopaths (as our understanding of mental illnesses evolves, it might no be considered one anymore, but for now it is). Capitalism and its "every man for themselves" is inherently against the very nature of our species. *Even if humans are individualists:* Even if people are 'inherently individualistic and greedy' why would you want to live in a society that promotes and reinforces that behavior? Under a communist organization of the economy people can still be greedy if they want to, they just don't have the means to, or have limited means to enact on their greedy nature and cause exploitation/capital accumulation. To me there is no a priori, essential human nature I believe, neither under capitalism nor under communism. People can both be greedy and at the same time caring and egalitarian. As I said higher, I think material conditions influence our nature, that is also Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony. To learn more I would recommend the short prologue of Chris Harman's 'A people’s history of the world', available for free on the internet.
Three things: 1. I belive the quality of charity (ie. selflessness, love for others, kindness, lack of prejudice, unconditional love) is the best solution for selfish behavior. If people had more charity, most problems in society would not exsist. 2. Forcing people to be selfless against their will always backfire. People have to choose to be selfless, otherwise you wind up with resentment and/or rebellion. That's what happened with Covid. I think if people weren't required to lockdown and wear masks, but instead encouraged with legitimate reseasons to do so, COVID would have been much less dangerous. 3. I won't deny the flaws and follies of religion, but it has historically helped a lot of people be less selfish. I think more people should give it a chance.
I think about this every few months. It makes me sad we could never have an ideal society because it relies entirely on an honor system, assuming everyone is going to be fair and kind to one another.
The problem is we currently have a system that rewards selfish individuals. While selfish individuals will always exist that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the shenanigans they can get up to. The survival of our species or in the least the wellbeing of ourselves or the people we care about probably even depends on it.
Poopie, while I normally enjoy your videos I think this one fell flat. Mainly because of the underlying bias that you accidentally included at the end: capitalist realism. Capitalist realism is the idea that individualism, greed, and self-interest are not just a part of human nature, but is so fundamental that any system which seeks to discourage any of those three are doomed to fail. And because of this, until we fix human nature itself, our current system (Capitalism) is the best we have. This is identical to what you said in the latter part of the video. Sure, these things are innate, but also is altruism (the stuff you described at the start). And I honestly enjoyed the video's great explanation of the conflict between the individual and the collective. It's really that you jumped the shark at the end. Other economic systems, such as socialism, are not going to collapse because someone chose to be greedy. Socialism is simply a system of economics that chooses to prioritise altruism over greed. It can account for human greed. It's kinda like saying that Capitalism can't work because the moment someone decides to share it's all over. Anyways, it's more that your conclusion is a bit doomer. "There is nothing we can do about this, so we shouldn't try to stop it"-tier energy, it's really not worthwhile going down that road.
for me, this really is a kind of depressing dead-end discussion. I come from a post soviet country, and I've heard truly horrible things that came from the abuse of the system. I also think true altruism does not exist, which is also kind of depressing. I truly believe the only thing that can possibly fix things is us evolving to be more emotionally intelligent, I kind of said it in jest, but egoism being left behind in future humans is something realistic I hope for even if it might seem far fetched.
@@thepoopieshow Well I hope that one day you can have much more hope in humanity than you do now! I can certainly understand the lack of faith coming from a post-soviet country, though I hope you are aware that what most socialists are pushing for in the western world is nothing like those 20th century regimes were like.
techno-anarchist utopia, not for any particular reason except that its the closest i think we can achieve to the opposite of being ruled by gross mushrooms
@@LURLINE_ Yeah, yeah, yeah. 20th century attempts at socialism sucked. Doesn't mean Marx wasn't on to something. Fundamentally - many of the issues with the current system stem from the way we deal with ownership. It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws with a system where the vast majority of economic power is concentrated into the hands of a small group of extremely privileged, self-interested, and socially isolated people. It just simply isn't a good idea to let a tiny sliver of the human population own and control massive swathes of social infrastructure. From the enormous Agro-corps who control where and how millions get their food, to oil companies who have a stranglehold on where society's energy comes from - none of it is healthy for us.
I'm a very idealistic person, not as in 'social justice warrior' but in 'working towards / beliving in the greater good for everyone' kinda style. All what you said plus some extra stuff is what made me fall into years of crippling depression, but it was always a bit hard to explain everything... turns out, poopie can do that in about 5 minutes. Thanks
Socialism is usually meant to define just.. letting people who do the work get the pay, kinda like how you were defining communism. Nazis calling themselves socialists doesn’t mean they were. I’m glad the natural consensus is the fact that as long as the people who gain corruption from gained power are not kept in check, any sort of system will fall victim to the corruption of people in power
oh I'm not defending communism, I'm giving it as an example of how something that sounds good on paper and should benefit the group-- can still b exploited and ruined by individuals
I don’t think I’ve had a video I agree with more… like even down to the fungi taking over. That stuff is terrifying. In addition, I’ve taken arms to helping those around me. I recently helped jump someone’s car, and they requested my information. I gave it to them saying “if you ever need something, feel free to reach out”. Man has tried giving me money 3 times. While it’s so rewarding to have someone feel the need to repay me; I don’t want money… I just want to know that I helped someone who was having a bad day. For a while he was wary because people don’t do things like that anymore; everyone has some personal agenda and couldn’t care less about everyone else. That single interaction cost me 5 minutes of my time. They had their car stolen and just spent several hours looking for legal documents, had someone they knew try to jump their car, and had been outside for over an hour. All was remedied by a 5 minute interaction, and I now have someone who sees me as a heavenly figure. Main point I’m trying to prove is it’s ok to help strangers. It may backfire a few times, but when you do help someone it makes everything worth it and more.
If i can’t afford to live in a house by the age of 40, I might have to dig a hole and steal stuff and horde my stuff in the hole
You and me both, sister
Didn't think I'd find you here beanbag. Small world!
if i can't afford a house by then i'll go into the woods and become a hermit swordsman
goblin mode
36 and still can't afford a house. I'll keep the goblin hole warm for ya.
Most of poopies politics are portrayed as food metaphors and that is very relatable.
The basics of society is resource management so it's quite effective
@@prosamis Monkey Understand Food Good. Food Needed. Share Food, More Good. Our problem is we invented things other than food. Like self-righteousness.
Homer simpson be like:Mmmmm, autarky.
The reintroduction of wolves has done wonders for our national parks, perhaps they could have a similar balancing effect on other ecosystems; like Fortune 500 boardrooms or the homes of powerful individuals.
🥺🌺I like your idea!,
It sounds like a good balance patch for the cheating problem in this unfortunate game we all have to play.
Especially if they install cameras in those rooms. *something something apocrypha* "The revolution will be televised"
Didn't the Yellowstone wolves perform perhaps even _too_ well, causing excessive oredation and pushing coyotes out?
Thats it if the good people befriend all the animals the bad people dont have a chance
Like having a single wolf or wolves on Wall Street? You could even make a movie about it. C/Maybe we could call it 'The Wolf of Wall Street'.
The real utopia was the friends we made along the way
Somebody cooked here.
I thought of that, said nah this does not fit the video, and then YOU
that's unironically a really good way of putting it
That's why it's so sad I no longer have friends.
That is... ironically very true, insightful, and profound. In spite of being a meme.
Kinda small thing to pick up on but I appreciate the "I don't know"
Super important to have some humility on these topics lol
For real. It's incredibly refreshing to see a youtuber smart enough, but humble enough to acknowledge they do not have all the answers, between the sea of grifters and narcissists.
@@IAsimov Amen lol
@@IAsimov In many videos, she repeatedly targets individuals rather than addressing their arguments. She should steer clear of political topics, as her evident bias undermines her credibility.
@@AA-lz4wqor maybe you should either find another channel or not take a channel called “the poopy show” so seriously and not whine about personal opinions
Option 1 is currently happening, but it sucks because there's a mind set of "You don't think like me? You must be the ENEMY!!"
Yeah option 1 is the ABSOLUTE WORST option since its gonna boil down to, "I have a bigger gun or weapons than you!" which isn't a society anymore, it's Mad Max! and that's how you get the Thunderdome. Maybe Poopie wants to be a tyrant lord?
@@лавхейт I agree with Kxnny2, it is indeed very gay
Tribalism? Hell yeah
I don't care how you think just how you look. My enemy is not an ideology it is a race.
Inner frat boy!
I've owned cats that 100% recognised themselves in a mirror
My cat hates all other cats, gets upset at videos of other cats, but is completely neutral with her reflection.
She. Knows.
Cats and narcissism
I recognize cats in the mirror like 70/30
They figure it out eventually
I've known humans who regularly get spooked by their own reflection in the mirror.
Operation: dog cosplay to fungi takeover has now commenced 🗿
now that's utopia
I'm picturing Mycelial Furry Planet of the Apes, and I'm honestly ok with it
Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas Pleas
@@thepoopieshow🌬️💨🌊🏭🌱🍄🟫
@@thepoopieshowIf you see this comment and your'e interested there's this youtuber called AZFK that Is searching voice actors for his animated series
It's impressive how any argument about social issues in general, be it mental health or polotics, always grinds down to "anything would work better in the confines of a small community" and "you're sad and upset because you don't have a local community".
I think you really hit the nail in the head with "one selfish person will always ruin it for everyone" and "there's a lack of accountability in very large groups". This is valid for whatever flavour political system you vouch for, and no matter of the way the law is enforced.
Ultimately, no matter the economic or political system, the absence of family and peers (your local community), which are the first social safety net, who provide compassion and advice, who disperse knowlege and mold us into better human beings, is dentiremental to the cohesion of any society.
"valid for whatever..." unless the political system is fundamentally built on that principle. You can either work with the realities as they are or force them to conform to an ideal society that demands altering the very fabric of reality.
We need a vibe-checkinator 2000 to mass vibe check everyone for the sake of the economy
That's called a technocratic police state. 😂
That's called *Big. Brother.*
Do not speak I'll of him or the state. He is ALWAYS.... WATCHING YOU..... 👁 👁 Yes. Even on the toilet.
Let's try to pick a different option, thank you very much.
That would be either mass surveillance or eugenics, both of which are less than ideal 😬
vibes dont turn into dependable income. they also dont tell any truth. especially if you are well off and are already conditioned to be a pure narcissist
@@saturationstation1446 So what you're saying is we need a machine that turns good vibes into money.
That's a complicated issue.
While it's impossible to stop all bad people from causing damage, it is entirely very possible to limit the scale of this damage.
This one guy, was proposing setting a hard limit on how much money an individual can own. Same thing should be done with corporations, and with how politicians get money.
There's also the monopolies problem. Google and Meta for example own most of the communications and news networking this side of the world, which is bad for societies and democracy. Personally, I've seen some kinds of info, even with documented UN data, be completely hidden away and censored, while other shamelessly fake narratives are repeated over and over in all mass media, to the point you wouldn't know anything else if you didn't live things yourself.
There's also monopolies for weapons, medicines, food... Humanity has the material resources and logistical capacity to give everyone a good life, end hunger, poverty and war, move to renewable energies fully in at most 20 years, if we started today. It just isn't profitable.
_”While it's impossible to stop all bad people from causing damage, it is entirely very possible to limit the scale of this damage.”_
Can the person in charge of making rules to “limit damage” himself cause damage through the imposition of his rules? Is there someone who has the power to limit the damage that the Damage Limiter General can cause?
@@billbadson7598 Who says there has to be a single person to impose all the rules?
@@apocalyptosoldier5527Consensus?
@@apocalyptosoldier5527 So what, are you saying we could have groups of people, maybe people we elect somehow, impose the rules under which we will live? Like some sort of representative democratic republic?
@@billbadson7598 Yeah, it would be real nice if we lived in an actually functional democracy where wealth can't buy politicians.
As a dog I agree we should form packs and join our brother and sisters in doghood
Smart dog to learn to type with no fingers
As a Pagan who noticed that species of wolves are forming friendships with species of crows for life, survival & fun, we should make our own clans & communities again, for with that discipline we can find freedom & prosperity.
Ah the classic "So what do we do? I dunno..."
Option D, learn that purism, of individualism or of collectivism, introduces its own inherent unintended and unresolvable consequences. And that therefore the solution is a hybrid system which acknowledges the value of, and seeks to optimally balance both. And that the task of optimization is continuous.
Interdependent individualism?
@@hollywoostars maybe that's a good term, I haven't heard it before. Basically I'm describing what we already have, although I don't think the balance is right. But it's never really "right" to everyone's satisfaction is it? It involves compromises.
@@crawkn Compromise most of the time results in status-quo or minor changes in political and diplomatic sides though. My idea would be more of a "you do what you do, aslong as you don't do something harmful to others" kind of thing. I mean, aslong as we let others live from the confines of their autonomy, nothing will go wrong. Every ideology backfires when it is imposed on others anyways. Democracy included, people don't care whether it is good or bad, they just don't like comformity.
@@gomicgamer1245 Status quo is one of an infinite number of potential compromises, and is not a fixed state, because all human systems are dynamic. Everyone wants whatever they want, and it often involves changes to which others object, so compromise is an inherent feature of human interactions. Some people simply prefer that all those who disagree with their ideology do all of the compromising, because they are right, and the others are wrong. Communism isn't illegal, it's just voluntary, and isn't allowed to confiscate property by force. Unregulated capitalism can exist in microcosm as well, but when it imposes harm on the general welfare, it has to conform to standards of responsibility. Even democracies must be carefully designed to mitigate the tyranny of the majority, and can only be partially successful. We can always do better at balancing disparate preferences, but there is no objective "best."
@@crawkn You are right on that and that was partially what I said though. I guess we have different meanings for "compromise".
3:08
" selfish individualism for us has just become something synonymous with freedom"
-The Poopie Show 2024
Become the fungus
Return to shrooms
Already am
Return to the spore
James Joyce would agree.
If we become fungus based, do we turn into a giant interconnected individual, or into Orks from Warhammer 40k?
We join into a hive-mind.
A mushroom hive-mind!
@@triplewave5214 The mycelial mind if you would
neon genesis evangelion
ghost in the shell
❤
@@Petch85ghost in the shell was kinda freakin scary if i recall
@@stonethemason12 I don't think of the original Ghost in the Shell (1995) as scary. But scary is super individual 😂. But is make me think, I guess I find it thought provoking. It clearly inspired many later movies that I also love. But the fan service is a little too much for me.
I do still recommend it to people that like The Matrix, Psycho-Pass etc.
"where does the new borne go from here?"
That comic from Shen is his cross to bear forever. Like the dude with the cylindrical object stuck in a very unfortunate body part.
it is IMPERATIVE that the CYLINDER remains UNHARMED
The American mind cannot fathom the idea of a social wellfare state
no, we know, and its gay
@@jarodgolgori3137 I have no idea I'd this was a joke but almost spit out the tea I was drinking 😂
Now that I've stopped laughing though I'm left wondering if I'm laughing with you or at you? We may never know 🤔
We very much can fathom the idea, and we reject it
So China?
sure blud, its totally "you" whos rejecting it keep up the cope @Elsureel
" we shouldn't try to change the system, the same thing will only happen again!"
and that's what the system has thought me. I guess Papa Bezos will keep making billions of the amazon delivery people who can't even take piss breaks! That's what god really wanted for humanity!
She didn't mean that what she meant is if we don't Chang ourselves and our look on individual freedom where not gonna change .
@@Uwhwvwgwhit’s too late to change ourselves; the point is to help future generations liberate themselves from capitalism, and the damage to our psychi that comes from it.
@@Literally_a_Moth then whatever change you hope to make I promise you it be just as bad if you can't hope to be different why do you think the future generation will be any good its kinda selfish don't you think giving those future kids this responsibility to change themselves without a reference
@@Uwhwvwgwh the bloody reference is called their environment. The whole "nature vs nurture" thing? Apparently the regularly moderate positions people hold on that question goes out the window when somebody proposes that it's not just their immediate family that provides the right "nurture" but their entire society and systems which uphold it.
Yeah, no shit if your economic system upholds extreme wealth inequality where the acquisition of a monetary resource is integral to one's survival and continuous thriving as you are capable of investing it further and passing it along to your descendants, then obtaining said resources will become the absolute priority for the individual, at the expense of potentially every other consideration, unless there are limits placed upon certain behaviors and ways of achieving such (which, granted, also go out the window because the way our justice system works, it's less of a "you do bad deeds and you get punished" but more of a "you get caught and you get punished").
@@thosebloodybadgers8499 good point sir but don't give up Hope on yourself
Whatever our future system, I say if someone insists on being a sociopath hoarding wealth, we introduce them to the friend of the french revolution (✿^‿^)
😗👍 sounds alright to me!.
Sounds like something the poors say
Like that business women in Vietnam that got executed for something to do with banks and scamming people.
@@Elsureelyes and? Every class will seek to act in it's benefit
The ruling class the bourgeoisie will do everything in their power to stifle real lasting systemic change and expand their own wealth and power at the expense of the working class and poor at home and abroad if they are of a western imperialist nation
Nah just make them watch us having fun playing Xbox when all they have is a stick
It is interesting to compare and study highly individualistic countries (like the U.S.A) and countries with higher collectivistic ideology (like China). Both countries in their own rights are considered highly successful yet this is not to say they are without problems. both sides struggle from the effects of their own extremes. This can be especially present in cases in their own academic ideologies where it often shows how it can both help and hurt a society with each extreme. (Sorry, that was a bit convoluted)
You almost had me thinking it was gpt slop for a sec
No no, u make sense. I spos the ideal is a balance between the two. Only problem is, everyone is set in their ways. Some for hundreds of yrs longer
@@sleep3417 yea, If I went into any real detail I figured I would be too convoluted
@@vilaioking Well the CCP and its current ideology in China is not really that old relatively, only being just short of 100 years old, whereas the U.S is well over 200 years old where it begins to become more individualistic. although, I don't know much about the history of China very much before the CCP and the civil war witch lead to its rise, so I cannot say with full certainty. What I do believe, is the people of China could be closer to being not as set in their ideas as the U.S, especially because the last big social reform in China was not too long ago being around 1950's when Mao really took hold of the government. (hopefully I got most of my facts right here)
I live in Europe and our history is complicated. Lots of smaller countries with sometimes opposing belief systems and extremely bad politics, like two world wars, the plague, dark ages, the empires.
Option 1? Forming packs like dogs????
I’m on board, woof woof
Or a mix between 1 and 2
Socialist dogs
I mean, that's basically just families.
Sisyphus55 talked about this a while ago and suggested the psychedelia of the 60s hippie movement as a starting point. The effect of psychedelics does something to erode the mental borders of the self. LSD probably wouldn’t solve poverty but it’s an interesting idea.
Bro just trying to get high, lmao.
The borders of the self are shiftable in every healthy individual. Your family, your children, your neighbourhood, your city, your country etc.
I have managed to change from neonazi to liberal centrist in less than five years, so no drugs are needed.
Sounds good, you go ahead and try that out; I’ll focus on being productive and making money in the meantime.
@@AA-lz4wq LSD doesn't affect productivity and is not addictive.
Thanks for reminding me I’m engaging with teenagers and those who are really proud of not being teenagers while online.
Ego is treated like a sense of self, but its primarily a false reality that people need to feel is real or else they are forced to comprehend their own insignificance.
The person in the mirror isn't you.
Almost like real individualism is lost under capitalism
Your ego is you, and it isn't what's in the mirror, I don't get how ego is being used here.
im sorry but the line "the person in the mirror isn't you" is sticking like glue to my conscious rn. thank you for that /pos/gen
4:57 that guy's design is actually amazing, please bring him back in a future anything you do.
in my lil naive brain , i have always wondered why we cant just like , share what we have to ensure everybody has enough , and to act as one part of a greater whole :
Sadly then we would have to get rid of selfish people and selfish people also has most of the power
@@YuriMomoiro true :< , stupid evolution having no way to correct for selfish behavior being encouraged in the modern age
@@YuriMomoiro :
@@whalek i went and checked , and what you describe sounds fairly similar to an isocracy-style of governance (if im understanding your comment correctly , and that isnt a given cuz im a lil silly sometimes). correct me if im wrong tho obvs :3
You first? No one is stoppimg you really...
Collectivism and individualism can co-exist if people are smart enough to play nice and not be selfish. Education and intellectualism is the closest thing to an answer.
A Person being smart doesn't mean that Person is or will be moral and won't be selfish. The idea that smart people are more kind and moral then uneducated people is one of the biggest problems we have right now.
@@Sp00kyGuy127 you can reason and deal with smart in a way that can bypass their immorality. Only time smart and immoral people are issues are when they outsmart the majority. The biggest problem are the dumb and immoral ones, they are a net negative.
It’s objectively true. A smart person will usually try to find a way to enter a situation that values the best of themselves and others (atleast those he finds important), resourcefulness of sorts.
Yes you may have smart murderers and the inhospitable like that don’t give a damn about the world. But smartness is a collective good on the world and humanity to atleast progress.
@@gloriousblobber9647 Just because a person is smart does not mean they will be wise or moral, the idea that smart people are simply better is also incredibly elitist, some of the brightest people in the world have also caused some of its greatest travesties.
"and not be selfish"
Yeah they'll never coexist lmao
Can I just state how wonderful it is to finally hear such a clear and comprehensive exploration of the topic by a deceptively diminutive, yet powerfully prescient objective observer on a fecally founded film format that nevertheless negotiates natural needs while whimsically wondering when we will waste our own common collective consideration, choosing childishly, self destructively, simple deeds singularly due to their temporary temporal trade offs.
All along, altogether undervaluing unusually useful alliterative adaptability.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
This was a well constructed video but holy PUP jumpscare at 5:11 (I love that band so much)
SAME, I screamed with joy, lol
1:52 that's not the idea of cutting hands for stealing, it both symbolizes the fact you couldn't stop yourself from stealing *Without the need to*
But mainly to repell people from doing it in the first place, you still have to do it(which is why it's hanged in public) to show others that you aren't joking you will do it
And boom no one dares to do it in the first place because the punishment is not worth whatever you're stealing
Selfishness won't go away, but it will highly decrease in a society that doesn't actively encourage it, like socialism.
Funny you should say that as China is the most selfish country on the planet and you wouldnt believe what they identify as.
Lol no. Selfishness would not be mitigated to any significant degree in a socialist system.
Because for as many people who Would work into the system as intended. Just as many would be trying to extract resources from the system with out Actual Sufficient need.
That's not to say there aren't ways or systems that Mitigate selfishness, but that's usually via highly communal ideas propagated via Religious conviction usually.
And are usually entered in voluntarily.
@DJ-kp7mf I don't think you understand the point I'm trying to make. That people will try to extract resources from the system is a given. The difference between capitalism and socialism (depending on the specific implementation) is that with capitalism, extracting resources is the main goal of any enterprise that has any shareholders whatsoever, while under socialism, that's not built into the system in this way (unless you put one big guy at the top of the command chain who can just decide on its own to change that to his personal benefit, which they will pretty much inevitably do if given the opportunity).
Under capitalism, the main goal of any economically sane enterprise is to generate profits. You can legitimately get sued if you don't maximize profits for your shareholders. Ethical behavior, workers rights and even compliance with regulations only matter as long as they serve the goal of generating shareholder value. Even if you don't get sued for not meeting your obligations towards shareholders, you will be playing the market competition game with handicap if you restrict yourself to legal and ethical behavior, and your enterprise might not survive. Any system that doesn't actively encourage this will already meaningfully mitigate selfishness by comparison.
This channel deserves like 100 times the views and subscribers it has
I choose fungus. We are mostly zombies at this point anyway.
Thank You 😕 People need all of this in terms that they can understand so we can share it with EVERYBODY. It's up to all of us to educate all of us.
Thank you for looking out for the group 💜
Your video format makes me nostalgic for a children's cartoon that aired on Brazilian open TV in the 2000s. "De onde vem?" in free translation: "Where does it come from?". A show about a little girl who taught about how various things worked or were made. It was cool show.
Finally, someone who gets the double edge of individualism
My gut feeling is: 1. Take away the means by which others steal from the metaphorical pile and 2. Take away the methods by which the consequences of that action are alleviated or dodged.
oh and enforce it in Localistic, Confederalistic manner so enforcement is far more manageable.
You cannot take away the means by which others steal because the connection is needed to give people from the metaphorical pile to begin with and you cannot see who's taking what from the metaphorical pile unless you have complete knowledge of it, which at that point is mass surveillance which is something those controlling it can use to do anything creating a 1984 situation.
You also cannot take away the methods by which the consequences of that action are alleviated or dodged because they usually are not covered by the rules of what counts as 'dodging' so you either bend the rules to make it count which means justice doesn't exist as allowing the rules to be bent however the power deems fit is just authoritarianism creating an authoritarian state.
That's why these issues are hard to solve, the harder you try to solve them you just create conditions for those in power to abuse the extreme power they are given and regulating who is best to be in power is an issue in and of itself as power corrupts(or reveals true motivations).
@@Ali-cya First, I think it's worth making clear that the comments above were meant as a broad, theoretical and generally appliable framework, that's why the pile is "metaphorical". This is not grug-level cut their hands off so they cannot steal, it's simple in an inclusive not reductive sense. It's also not absolute, because I think it's a clear, ever-present truth that most things, especially of human causation, come in degrees.
Second, I assume by the connection point you mean people require their bodily autonomy to produce wealth organically and add to the pile or to truly benefit from it, which then leads me to think you take "taking away the means" to mean literally to take away their power from doing things independently. While in actuality, what I meant is that there are discrepancies within society that allow people to work to its detriment beyond us not "looking hard enough". Primary among them is usury (income without labour corresponding to it, it encompasses interest rates, land rent, wages, patents etc.) which is the result of the discrepancy that is our current monetary and banking system. Something which wouldn't even be able to be used if we just switched to systems of demurrage currency and Mutualist Free Banking. As laid out by people like Silvio Gessell, Lysander Spooner, P.J. Proudhon, And W. B. Greene. The specific (but still quite broad) economic example aside, the point here is that it and many other issues could be made non-existent simply by changing this or that societal system, no surveillance needed.
Third, to build upon the second point, many smaller issues are bolstered if not fully brought about by bigger ones. If you dismantled usury for example and gave to the worker the full product of his labour, the hoarding of wealth would greatly diminish and the general wealth of the average individual would rise. To add more unto this, the worker finding himself within a Mutualist market where-in productive labour is the only thing that is rewarded and not simple moving money around, is now encouraged by the knowledge that he is getting the full recompense of the use he provides to others and has less of a reason to feel the state of things to be unfair. Thus the ills of poverty and the feelings it creates which lead to all sorts of lesser crimes or detrimental actions is eradicated and when people go on to commit these crimes nonetheless out of this or that disorder they would now stick out like a sore thumb, society then needing much less if none professional surveillance.
Fourth, to reply on the point about the methods of dodging, I'd say the State is actually first among them. To build upon the previous economic example, it is the State which recognizes the right of the Landlord to this or that land which he does not use. It is the State which enforces this or that, singular, mineral-backed or fiat currency. It is the State which enforces this or that Patent. As I see it, Nature itself sets the necessary para-meters for what man should or should not do, the State (In it's colloquial, governmental form) is one of the many ways Man seeks to regulate other Men beyond that which is actually necessary and beneficial. This is a legal/political issue, rather than an economic one but still, like the previous example, this is a matter of changing this or that part of a system, removing this or that cog. No surveillance needed, as any truly problematic Statist or State-like system would by necessity be singular in any given territory, as it needs society to take the brunt of its internal deficit. Any smaller attempt is taken care of by nature itself, like when someone who's really adamant about being able to fly tries to prove it by jumping off a cliff. As such, it's nothing to keep a police force for but rather something almost immediately clear to the general public.
As a sub-section to the fourth point, I don't really understand what you mean by "the rules of what counts as 'dodging' ". The broader third point doesn't make much sense to me actually but I already wrote the one above and I still do think your third point stems from a misunderstanding of what my method is and the one above does a pretty good job at clearing that up.
Overall, the OG comment could use more elaboration but the word "Gut Feeling" I think excuses me. As when I get specific, you get the mess before me. Your fourth point, I think is addressed again by my ones above. I will not be elaborating on the economic or political example's validity, as I do not have the will-power for that at the moment, I can however link books and articles.
My back hurt, I'm gonna go drink water.
@@Ali-cya I think the disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of the method and its presentation. Which is understandable since I didn't really specify much but rather wrote something very quickly and didn't give it much thought. So I'll clarify and respond to some things here.
Firstly, the gist I get from the reply is that you understood "Take Away" being from the perspective of some bureaucrat-lawgiver weighing what he must and must not ban and punish for. However what I meant is restructuring any problematic societal system in such a way that the specific problematic action (To clarify, taking from the pile is a metaphor for being detrimental to the prosperity of society, putting your own unsustainable prosperity over it through an anti-social non-mutual action. Such is the Problematic Action) isn't even possible or favourable to carry out. It isn't a matter of adding onto government but taking away from it. This I think is signified by "means", as the usual way I've seen acts visualised is Actor -> Mean -> Action, so taking away the Mean doesn't involve policing this or that specific individual, aka the Actor in the previous schema.
A major example I'd give, which characterises most of human history, is Usury (A term which encompasses land-rent, interest rates, wages, patents etc. I'd even go as far as to include taxes but that's probably inaccurate). Usury is held up by Legal Structures, in an organic economy of self-regulating communities of producers it wouldn't be an issue. The State holds up the Property rights of Landlords despite them not using the land, the State holds up the current Centralised Banking system, the State holds up Mineral Backed or Fiat Monetary systems, the State enforces patents etc. It restricts the circulation of capital and aids its accumulation, standing in the way of Mutuality in Economic Relations. You'd go about combating usury then not by making it illegal and arresting as many people as possible that continue doing it (Like we do with tax avoidance) but by pulling away the State's hand from the matter, taking up community regulated Occupancy and Use Property Rights, Mutualist Free Banking, Demurrage Money backed by Labour, abolishing patents etc. More on this you can find from writers like Silvio Gessel, Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene. Kevin Carson too.
The same goes for alleviating the consequences of an Anti-Social Anti-Natural actions, a prime example for this cases are the hedonistic and opulent lifestyles of elites, whether it be Dictators, Members of Parliament or whatever else. As instead of being punished financially and reputationally for their obviously disadvantageous actions they can throw as much tax or rent money in the gutter as they want and maintain or even improve their standing. You can also see something similar with people "Falling Upwards" in the entertainment industry, with programmers and animators getting the boot for flops rather than the people who had and greenlit the idea.
Secondly, I just don't really understand some of these points? Especially the second one, "the rules of what counts as 'dodging'" part and how changing the rules is bad when done by some unspecified power. I think my response above covers it but I'm not certain. But that aside, I think the only Rules that really count are those of nature, most parameters set by Human hands just serve the needs of those who created them. It should be a scientific matter of reviewing the consequences of this or that action in relation to the Wills of the set of people the review is being made for.
Thirdly, yeah I agree they are hard to solve but I think "Gut Feeling" excuses me here, it is just a poopie show video after all. That aside, i disagree that solving these requires any sort of dictatorial or generally largely concentrated power. The very act of analysing these issues works best as collaborative effort and by itself involves no imposition of power while putting the plans resulting from the analysis to use is very flexible and doesn't really require authoritarianism.
Anyhow, back hurt, gonna go drink water. I re-wrote this after my internet fucking died and decided the message had to go to the void. Somehow it got even bigger than before.
@@Ali-cya I think the disagreement here stems from a misunderstanding of the method and its presentation. Which is understandable since I didn't really specify much but rather wrote something very quickly and didn't give it much thought. So I'll clarify and respond to some things here.
Firstly, the gist I get from the reply is that you understood "Take Away" being from the perspective of some bureaucrat-lawgiver weighing what he must and must not ban and punish for. However what I meant is restructuring any problematic societal system in such a way that the specific problematic action (To clarify, taking from the pile is a metaphor for being detrimental to the prosperity of society, putting your own unsustainable prosperity over it through an anti-social non-mutual action. Such is the Problematic Action) isn't even possible or favourable to carry out. It isn't a matter of adding onto government but taking away from it. This I think is signified by "means", as the usual way I've seen acts visualised is Actor -> Mean -> Action, so taking away the Mean doesn't involve policing this or that specific individual, aka the Actor in the previous schema.
A major example I'd give, which characterises most of human history, is Usury (A term which encompasses land-rent, interest rates, wages, patents etc. I'd even go as far as to include taxes but that's probably inaccurate). Usury is held up by Legal Structures, in an organic economy of self-regulating communities of producers it wouldn't be an issue. The State holds up the Property rights of Landlords despite them not using the land, the State holds up the current Centralised Banking system, the State holds up Mineral Backed or Fiat Monetary systems, the State enforces patents etc. It restricts the circulation of capital and aids its accumulation, standing in the way of Mutuality in Economic Relations. You'd go about combating usury then not by making it illegal and arresting as many people as possible that continue doing it (Like we do with tax avoidance) but by pulling away the State's hand from the matter, taking up community regulated Occupancy and Use Property Rights, Mutualist Free Banking, Demurrage Money backed by Labour, abolishing patents etc. More on this you can find from writers like Silvio Gessel, Proudhon, Lysander Spooner, William B. Greene. Kevin Carson too.
The same goes for alleviating the consequences of an Anti-Social Anti-Natural actions, a prime example for this cases are the hedonistic and opulent lifestyles of elites, whether it be Dictators, Members of Parliament or whatever else. As instead of being punished financially and reputationally for their obviously disadvantageous actions they can throw as much tax or rent money in the gutter as they want and maintain or even improve their standing. You can also see something similar with people "Falling Upwards" in the entertainment industry, with programmers and animators getting the boot for flops rather than the people who had and greenlit the idea.
Secondly, I just don't really understand some of these points? Especially the second one, "the rules of what counts as 'dodging'" part and how changing the rules is bad when done by some unspecified power. I think my response above covers it but I'm not certain. But that aside, I think the only Rules that really count are those of nature, most parameters set by Human hands just serve the needs of those who created them. It should be a scientific matter of reviewing the consequences of this or that action in relation to the Wills of the set of people the review is being made for.
Thirdly, yeah I agree they are hard to solve but I think "Gut Feeling" excuses me here, it is just a poopie show video after all. That aside, i disagree that solving these requires any sort of dictatorial or generally largely concentrated power. The very act of analysing these issues works best as collaborative effort and by itself involves no imposition of power while putting the plans resulting from the analysis to use is very flexible and doesn't really require authoritarianism.
Anyhow, back hurt, gonna go drink water. I re-wrote this after my internet fucking died and decided the message had to go to the void. Somehow it got even bigger than before.
This video is a good sumerization of today situation.
I saw from other video is that the brain wasn't made to consider big ammounts of people part of the group.
Thist type of behavior amplified on Industrial Revolution, for better or for worse. But has gotten better, at least in my country.
Comunist was the utopia of the exploited workers, but like every other utopia it did not work because it was badly managed. Other problem it had was lack of competition halted the growth of the technologies.
Trading freedom for security will result in neither and yet most people seem to be fine with it.
Beyond anything I love when someone makes something that perfectly summarizes my feelings without me having to
*WOW - YOUR CHANNEL HAS BLOWN UP....!!! CONGRATULATIONS* I joined at the medieval art video a year ago, a quick look 2,600 subs so you have got 76,000 subs in a year WOW
I didn’t understand anything but I like the idea of being a dog
Ever hear of a dude named Diogenes?
My day is better now, Poopie, thanks!
Right when I was ready to give in and order something from Amazon it got overrun with bad Chinese white label goods, so no. So did Etsy but I'd still buy handmade items if I ever shop online. I still won't shop at Walmart.
There are apps that can tell you about online products so that's helpful.
Individualism is like a flowing river. We must simply shape our society as a watermill
There is a big difference between communism, socialism, and the models of economies USSR and current China (capitalism but on paper communism) have adapted. People really need to learn more about this topic.
ah yes, the "but real communism hasn't been tried" argument, hmm yes, because it can't work if humans have any selfishness or greed which they do.
That the neat thing - they won't
It sure is a mystery why this kind of thing isn't taught in schools; it's almost like the system was designed to perpetuate a particular narrative
Red scare propaganda will never allow people to learn. Anarchism is at least slightly less vilified, but even tankies hate us too
Most Americans in my experience become extremely closed off and irate the second they have to think about any other ism than the one they’re subjected to.
I like the pack option the most. The effects of the agricultural revolution have been a disaster for the human species.
Okay, as someone who is in a culture where Vibe checked by society > Individualism, I gotta disagree.
Sometimes, the vibe check that society does is bad. Like SUPPPPPEEERRRRR bad. For example, Misogyny. Racism, and every other prejudice on earth. The society basically punishes for who you are as a person and tries to conform according to what society deems as good, which actually isn't good.
For example, before the rise of Individualism, we had half of the population (women) basically being slaves for millennia. Any woman who doesn't vibe with the patriarchal society faced gruesome consequences. Same for racism, casteism, classism, etc. If you don't fall in these arbitrary lines of what the society deems as not vibing with them, it's game over for having a good life.
Also, thinking of the greater "good" for the society than our individual needs is very arbitrary. We need to define what is "good" of the society is first. And sometimes, prejudices and discrimination are deems as "good" for the society by the society themselves. Anyone not falling in line, are deemed as bad for the society.
So, we need a system which goes above a system only based on vibe check of the society and doesn't strip away individual's freedom, by categorizing rightfully what things should be put in the box of vibes of society before individualism and what things should be put in the box of individualism before the society.
TLDR; We shouldn't think that vibes of the society is always for the good of its people and can actually be used for discrimination, becos the collective "good" for everyone in the society can very much be a bad thing. Hence, a reason why individualism exists. So, we need a system which categorizes stuff which put society's vibes before individual's freedom to choose from stuff which puts individualism above society's vibes.
Thanks for listening to my ted talk.
The problem is that right now collectivist bad societies (islamic ones) are outbreeding and outfighting the individualistic good ones.
Okay but the cake analogy for "it's not the system" is brilliant.
4:58 -- I will point out that, while you're not wrong, Capitalism *encourages* and *incentivizes* this behavior. While fixing the system isn't the WHOLE solution, it's certainly better than trying to fix people within a system that incentivizes people to be their worst selves.
This. Individualism incentivizes blaming individuals instead of focusing on systemic failures - see video title :) The system is okay, if the individuals would just buy the right products! Victim blaming and gaslighting through a perverted sense of personal responsibility are shaping the narrative. Let's rewrite it.
Chicken/egg situation. Capitalism uses these innate desires to build a feedback loop to drive things forwards.
woah, the vibe-check sound bite from that one video with the cat and the dogs, I never thought I'd hear it again! What delicious nostalgia
0:46 Do you ever- AUTISM
Exactly what i was thinking
To be fair, like most brain stuff, everyone does that to some extent, its just worse if you got certain brain stuff.
I don't think ruminating about past social stuff is a symptom of autism directly, but lacking confidence in your social skills combined with anxiety makes a pretty common experience in the neuro-divergent community.
@@Steve-xo5pq "neurodivergency" isnt a community
It just exists.
@@stonethemason12well, now it is
@@stonethemason12when a bunch of people band together under a specific term or concept. Its a community
One of the biggest things I've learned in life, you can't get everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet. What's made today's times so difficult is that the more someone feels a certain way and is shamed publicly or socially and things are inflamed more and more with media, the more that person will go extreme. Less inflammation won't solve every problem, and that means also that certain flaws won't get called out, but smaller group mentality is beneficial to us lil stinkers, and there might be better counselling with a smaller and more well rounded support group. That's why my ultimate politics is just love others, I love you 🥺
Very entertaining and informative i will say. The gags, timing, and utilization of different styles really make it pop!
And I'll admit, it's kinda because of us we can't seem to have nice things, because we want it OUR way, when it simply isn't possible. I never really thought much about this sentiment until recently and maybe this video too.
But the way i see it, utopia is simply home. It's what you do and make of it that really makes it special. Of course, i can't put aside economics, and logic when also having a home. I'm not a huge expert in this field but yeah i have a feeling its a lot more complex. Still, i do personally believe that a utopia can work is not by making everyone happy, but finding happiness however you do, because trying to make everyone happy is impossible, and even if it was... will it be worth anything at all? I dunno but its something to think about...
Anywho, good vid Poopie
Keep up the good work!
@@BMALCINE364 we, as humans with the means to secure food and housing for everyone, deserve at the very least that. That, then, frees up time for us to use trying to improve humanity for the next generation. Craziest part is that this is mostly already possible, but it wouldn't produce private profit and that's why it is not done.
As a healthy Human, you and I only deserve what we need. That is clothes which are adequate for our environment, enough food to meet our nutrition needs, and a safe place to sleep. Everything else comes after as supplementary things to make life nicer.
THANK YOU! THIS IS THE KIND OF VIDEO THAT I NEED IN MY POCKET!
There are so many people I want to shove this on their faces that it almost makes me want to make a hit list.
I really love the old format, but the irl is kinda good too.
tbf with the mask example there's been so much information everywhere and in a realistic situation it wasn't doing much as it was usually being measured in groups that took several precautions vs groups that didn't. Along with the masks having other side-effects that could be described as harming the greater good as well such as stunting the mental development of youngers kids and the neurodivergent who didn't get to see that many facial expressions. It can also be argued using things like cloth masks could increase some risks due to them not being THAT useful and can provide a feeling of security that isn't there, and that you should use a N95... but at the same time if everyone grabs a N95 then there wont be any for the healthcare professionals who need them to not contact the virus they are being put in direct contact with a lot of the time.
Not to mention there's the issue with toxic group dynamics... Like pure democracy being mob rule, a doctor harvesting someone for organs to save 5 other people, or cult mentalities where there can be no dissidents or individuality. What we need is a society where most individuals respect the group and the group respects the rights of individuals, and can deal with bad actors who try and disturb the peace. ESPECIALLY if the bad actors are the ones making the rules like the rules on deciding who gets to make the rules.
I would argue that option 1 would improve some lives while reducing the overall quality of life for the society while leading to certain groups gaining advantages over others be it geography or a more accepting "pack". from my stance, a capitalist system already perpetuates this by reinforcing class divisions, often preventing those in less fortunate groups (or lower socioeconomic classes) from acquiring more than the bare necessities with a greater amount of effort, while those more fortunate to have been born with those advantages are far more likely to thrive.
Although I'll acknowledge my strong bias towards socialism, it would significantly improve my life and that of many others. However, considering your cake example, could the solution be to prevent those who would selfishly complicate others from benefiting while also accurately predicting cake consumption to ensure a fair redistribution that benefits everyone? Although some might argue that in this analogy, the cake ingredients are finite whether it’s resources or time to bake, what would be the solution?
I would suggest finding ways to increase resources or adapting to the constraints. We don't necessarily need a form of law to enforce it either as in most cases (correct me if I'm wrong) people don't like feeling like a leach or a burden to those around them, nor do the people who feel like they are taken advantage of. Love the video, definitely got a subscription from me.
The Soviets have never really solved the cake problem, and the only more or less impactful proposal was to kell everyone and then some more whenever we caught someone having their unreasonable share of a cake. We can safely discard this method as even the subsequent Soviet leadership was traumatised and horrified so much by this that they were basically the epitome of inaction even when people having their unreasonable share were preparing to dismantle the whole system.
I think the cake problem is the central problem in any utopian vision, but there’re also some practical challenges and solutions. Like how East Asian industrial states (ROC, SK, PRC, Singapore) have tried to “modify constraints”, like you said, to force unreasonable cake-eaters to still work for the betterment of the whole.
Also I have warmed up recently to the anarchist discussions, because they also tackle this problem head on, but also very ambitious in their vision
Almost all current human problems come from what is perhaps our oldest idea & first social premise: property.
It is very easy to misunderstand property as validation of identity,
worse still it is very easy to abuse property leading to tyrannical hoarding & violent monopoly...... at some point people stopped understanding the idea of property and started believing in the mystique of property and believing a matter of etiquette is a immutable & fundamental aspect of the universe has lead to a LOT irrational behavior and avoidable human misery.
Sometimes what the government says is best isn't, and sometimes what the group says is moral and right isn't. We need radical individuals. The selfish problem is more damaging when it is from a group, government, or company almost always than when it is an individual.
glamorizing socialism is not as radical as you may think. Socialism as a form of economical organization simply empowers workers to have more control over their lives. During the industrial revolution, the awesome power of workers unions institutionalized protections for those workers that have, for the most part, stood the test of time; we're talking 40 hour work weeks, improvements to work safety, the right to assemble and form unions, a minimum wage, an end to child labor, health benefits provided by the employer, etc. The next logical step, which frankly no society has ever gotten to, is for these unions to work together to strike against their government to demand change; for instance by regulating the for profit housing market that ensures that the rich can easily own thousands of properties simultaneously renting all of them out above their mortgage obligations in order to buy more properties while the average worker is simply priced out of the market by large monied interests and is forced to rent indefinitely. And who do you think stands more to gain without these unionization efforts? It's the wealthy, the ruling class. They blamed the unions for the stock market crash in 2002 and empowered the companies to prioritize their profits above all else, they allowed companies to participate in legal bribery in order to participate in the system of legitimizing lawmakers in their vision, they played on the fear and desperation that many are feeling in order to roll back the workers rights that our unions fought so hard for. The wealth disparity in America is now worse than it was in America's Gilded Age, the top 1% of the population now collectively owning more wealth than the bottom 90%, and we STILL can't update our federally mandated minimum wage (bare minimum shit). There is simply no way for us to demand any kind of real, tangible, systemic change without addressing the big ass elephant in the room, that we ran away from populist socialism before in the past and in fact actively fought against it (Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, Korea, Vietnam, just some of America's greatest hits) and all of our lives have effectively been made worse as a result. Raising the minimum wage, addressing the housing market, medicare for all, quality education for our children are not "radical" policies that many Americans disagree on, but we cannot achieve these things by maintaining the status quo.
You guys watched Bug's Life, right? Who do you think the Hoppers were supposed to be representing?
I’m blessed to have found the poopie show. it is my favorite show.
5:30 faith is what originally oriented people away from selfish actions, as god would punish them was a belief they were indoctrinate to hold.
One could argue about it's effectiveness, but it is a form of cultural unifier. Individualism exists when a culture has no unifier, thus making people naturally only serve themselves or their interests first or only reach out to others in as much as it doesn't deprive themselves of too much to bare.
Start on the small scale, share among friends and teach eachother how to behave comunistically expand until the group is too big to maintain strong social bonds with everyone and split into smaller groups while maintaining friendly ties. Expand.
0:38 I just wanna be part of your symphonyyyyyyyy, will you hold me tight and not let go, symphonyyyyyYYYYYYYY
0:30 “wotahr”
"Twouw advanced owmost"
It is good to acknowledge we can't be a utopia, the human psyche is complicated. Poopie Your animation and video quality is getting better with each video. I hope you dominate the world by changing how do we look ourselves and doing more monkey shenanigans
I too eagerly wait for the fungi brain worms to take over 🤓👍
Even if you manage to “leave” they’re will always be a one or a group of humans that wont leave you alone; even if you have no impact on them they just want what you have/want you dead, miserable or its just plain greed🤷♂️
Irl example the humans tribes in jungles getting their homes taken apart for paper that just gets wasted later😅
I'd say we should advocate for a poopie society
4:30 It's true, you're just changing whose in power from "asshole corporations but also sometimes the governement" into "always the government"
3:21 - It's a misconception to believe that it would be in any way beneficial to preserve the weakest of society. That's the literal core of a luxurious expense.
Liked the video, appreciate the nuance it tries to show. I have some critiques for how socialism was criticized, namely the idea that 'changing the system is not fixing the problem', and the cake exercise.
So with our current housing situation for example, the housing supply is kept below the amount that would truly satisfy demand so as to maximize profit per home built. This is because the system incentives maximizing profits over solving for this problem. If theoretically, developers were contracted by the government to build the required amount of homes, were taken over by the government to fill this function, or even the government starting development companies to build the homes, then they could be built without the profit margin being the main concern. This would shift the focus from making the most money per home, to producing as many quality homes as required to fulfill current and future needs. Now this is oversimplified, as housing prices have been the nest egg for many people in the West, but this is how changing the system fixes a problem (though not without its own issues.)
With the cake exercise, it would be one thing if everyone chose what they were paid in a socialist society, but often times that was predetermined and divied out without much input. Instead of cutting your own slice, what I would say is a better example is that there would be a cake cutter that would portion out slices for everyone. Some may still get larger cuts than others, personal bias and interest combined with differing subjective views on what makes a slice of appropriate perimeters would all contribute. However if you looked at how it would be divided and distributed it would be much more evenly proportioned out when compared to an individualist form of cake cutting. This isn't to say that socialist societies can't still have problems with greed and selfishness, rather I think it is a deeper issue than this analogy considers (even if I recognize it was more to make a point than to be a truly correct statement.)
Free market capitalism takes advantage of individualism to create a knock-on effect to benefit the group. Too bad we haven't had that since around 1989.
Since 1913, at the very latest.
@@NevisYsbryd maybe so. I see the final death of capitalism happening around the Clinton years when he made it legal for gigantic corps to own mass media which they immediately bought up and gave them marching orders to tell people to vote for politicians that would then give these companies preferential treatment which is socialism for rich companies. What had been a gentle decline before that turned into a drop off a cliff.
Libertarians are like a deluded doomsday cult
Utopias by definition are unattainable, even if they could be achieved, that would only change the paradigm, generating a new utopian meta, returning the current one achieved as a bad version of life in comparison. So instead of pursuing idealized common good it is better to focus on yourself, because the idea of looking out for everyone that you don't know and that you don't give a damn about is simply insane, putting that pressure on people who are individuals is wrong and worse even if you want to put it in a community. Of course, as a society you should set goals and improve systems and quality of life in every possible way, that's fine, but the problem arises when instead of pragmatism you look for ideologies and utopias, which are the equivalent of wanting to reach the goal without having to run the marathon
A utopia is living in a cave with your family and friends. Hunting, singing, and dancing. That’s what we were made to do.
In the prehistory at least nine out of ten infants died within the first two years of life, you lived in constant fear of death from wild animals, had to fight off hunger as you desperately hunted and foraged for enough food to survive, and any infected wound was a death sentence because medicine was at its most rudimentary level. And disaparate groups and tribes would still go to war over territory and resources. That is not an utopia. The problems of the modern age are severe, but one should not romanticize living in caves as being superior to living with running water, electricity, sturdy shelter, developed medicine and relative easy access to food, clothing and hygiene. The grass may look greener for you in the prehistory, but the cavemen would also see the grass as being greener in the modern age.
You do not need to go back to the stone age to connect with loved ones and support one another. Even with the difficulties of today, it is still possible to make personal connections now with friends and family.
@@OkashiiKisei sure have your world we’re your dopamine receptors are wringed dry and you are “happy”. As happy as you can be living as an animal in a big box doing your purpose as society dictates. But there’s something to extreme hardship that, every now and then, bring good times. Great times. A better time than our modernized brains could never imagine. I think, like every other creature that crawls on the earth, survival instincts lead to the most exciting and fun times of a persons life. There’s simply too many people and too much stimulus to create such a beautiful and intimate bond between each other.
Utopia cannot come before the Utopian - Sofia Lamb
"there's something incredibly bad with the global capitalist world but DON'T try to change the economic system, that just creates more problems!!"
Global capitalismis great, just need to get rid of copyright and patents to get rid of unnatural monopolies
@@ronantheronin3521there's still other forms of natural monopolies you don't consider which actually needs more regulation. And capitalism inherently breeds a system of selfishness and rewards it.
@@chester9585 Selfishness is irrelevant, I really think people should play in to humanity's greed, the only thing necessary is the NAP (non-aggression principle), aslong as people don't violate people's property rights and free trade/free market continues, there is no problem. Besides a monopoly that works for their greed is better than one that sits on ideas for a long time stifling progress.
CHINA
@@ronantheronin3521 A monopoly will stifle progress by not innovating and being complacent because they have conplete control of the market and no one poor can replace them, replacing them isn't worth it.
Keep bootlicking for capitalism and maybe you'll be rich enough to profir from the parasitization of the rest of society
Your videos flow so well, no matter what you're talking about im locked in
At first, when you mentioned communism i was excited since as Mark Fisher once said "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism". But unfortunately your reason to disprove the possibility of communism is rooted in the ill will ever present in capitalism. Of course people want to take more than they need and ruin everything for everyone else under capitalism, because not only is that how capitalism works, but it's also the only thing they've ever known.
I choose to believe that a couple of generations where it's normalized to have solidarity, equality, and unity among everyone everywhere, will get rid of that, just how it's getting rid of other societal problems that currently ail humanity. I also believe, with reasonable proof, that the future is communist or there is no future. Why do i say this? Well, capitalists are destroying the world for profit. There's plenty of examples of this.
Human beings do not work that way, like all living Creatures Human beings are inherently selfish. Once you reach a certain population size in a community it becomes impossible to properly trust everyone in that community because you are incapable of knowing them all personally, Poopie said so very well. That is why Communism cannot work in the World we have now, where Humanity numbers in the Billions, you cannot rely on them providing for you so it is better to have a system where selfishness is what is expected.
Do you have any evidence that that'll happen under new communism or just personal belief? We've always seen corruption in communist states
Didn't this same individualism exist all the way back to prehistoric times? I do believe the march of time will change us but then the discussion becomes more about the changes that will lead to the new economic system rather than the system itself.
@@RillianGrant No. If you go very far back you will find what Marx described as Primitive Communism. Tribes and cooperation and that.
As we have technologically advanced to the point where senseless production is destroying the world and causing a mass extinction event, it's time to rid ourselves of the sinful thinking of capitalism and admit that we're all in this together, and it's in the best interests of humanity for that senseless production to cease.
“Trust me guys, it will work THIS time, I’m sure of it.”
damn it, this video has been haunting my subconscious since i watched it. well done poopie, well done. one man wolf pack here
I say let the fungi take over already ; we had our chance.
Yo, the pup album reference goes so hard 😂
I think we are getting better and better at treating everyone as ''family'' so to speak. We didnt have the internet 100 years ago its only natural we are having some trouble adapting. But most people did wear masks (when the W.H.O wasnt straight up making fun of us because aparently they discovered masks werent needed that week), if someone falls in a river most people help, not stay using their phones.
I think we are sort of overreacting, but at the same time this overreacting is what allows us to correct our course, we pretend most people are A-holes and then we overcorrect, when in reality most people are nice and, at least my gut tells me, in avarage people are getting nicer, its just hard to see sometimes because of negativity bias
god this hit hard when she said "arguing with teenagers on reddit", like, if you haven't tried it, I don't think you can have a valid argument.......also, love the content lol
Turn every Corporation into a Cooperative, every worker needs a trade union, unorganized labor needs to be paid for. Like being a domestic parent. Etc
You want to be paid to be a parent? You want money whenever you have to take a dump as well?
@@AthosZ92 don't you want this for yourself tho?
Nice video poopie. Your chocolate cake analogy was funny, but it doesn't relate to the mode of production of a society, which is what capitalism and communism (or socialism, call it however you want) are about.
As you said the person doing that would be vibe-checked. It doesn't always benefit the individual stealing to be individualist: Imagine two hunters, each only caring about themselves. Together they can hunt more and bigger pray, so if one gets ill or injured, it is still in the best interest for the other one to help them recover. If one stole the group would ostracize him. I really recommend the prologue I mention at the end for this.
"To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism, is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough"
You can't base human nature upon an economic system that is roughly about ONLY 400 years old, and human nature is not a static or an unchangeable construct but rather strongly influenced by the material conditions of a society.
*Historically:*
No matter how far in history do we go, *'human nature' was always collectively cooperative and not individualistic.* That's literally the big thing, found even in other primates. Primitive, pre-Homo Sapiens hunter-gatherers already cooperated and had division of labour designed to help every member of the group.
Throughout Ancient History, settlements and first city-states were born out of need to cooperate. Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Germanic people and Northmen would help members of their communities and villages.
A fact that when we see someone in distress and feel pity is precisely because literally by our biology, humans are a social and cooperative species. Not being able to feel empathy is a mental illness, part of what makes people into psychopaths and sociopaths (as our understanding of mental illnesses evolves, it might no be considered one anymore, but for now it is).
Capitalism and its "every man for themselves" is inherently against the very nature of our species.
*Even if humans are individualists:*
Even if people are 'inherently individualistic and greedy' why would you want to live in a society that promotes and reinforces that behavior? Under a communist organization of the economy people can still be greedy if they want to, they just don't have the means to, or have limited means to enact on their greedy nature and cause exploitation/capital accumulation.
To me there is no a priori, essential human nature I believe, neither under capitalism nor under communism. People can both be greedy and at the same time caring and egalitarian. As I said higher, I think material conditions influence our nature, that is also Gramsci's concept of cultural hegemony.
To learn more I would recommend the short prologue of Chris Harman's 'A people’s history of the world', available for free on the internet.
Three things:
1. I belive the quality of charity (ie. selflessness, love for others, kindness, lack of prejudice, unconditional love) is the best solution for selfish behavior. If people had more charity, most problems in society would not exsist.
2. Forcing people to be selfless against their will always backfire. People have to choose to be selfless, otherwise you wind up with resentment and/or rebellion. That's what happened with Covid. I think if people weren't required to lockdown and wear masks, but instead encouraged with legitimate reseasons to do so, COVID would have been much less dangerous.
3. I won't deny the flaws and follies of religion, but it has historically helped a lot of people be less selfish. I think more people should give it a chance.
You know that Christ guy was alright, maybe we should look more into what he had to say
I think about this every few months. It makes me sad we could never have an ideal society because it relies entirely on an honor system, assuming everyone is going to be fair and kind to one another.
TURN BACK TWISTED TRILINE
is my solution
The problem is we currently have a system that rewards selfish individuals. While selfish individuals will always exist that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to limit the shenanigans they can get up to. The survival of our species or in the least the wellbeing of ourselves or the people we care about probably even depends on it.
Poopie, while I normally enjoy your videos I think this one fell flat. Mainly because of the underlying bias that you accidentally included at the end: capitalist realism.
Capitalist realism is the idea that individualism, greed, and self-interest are not just a part of human nature, but is so fundamental that any system which seeks to discourage any of those three are doomed to fail. And because of this, until we fix human nature itself, our current system (Capitalism) is the best we have.
This is identical to what you said in the latter part of the video. Sure, these things are innate, but also is altruism (the stuff you described at the start). And I honestly enjoyed the video's great explanation of the conflict between the individual and the collective. It's really that you jumped the shark at the end.
Other economic systems, such as socialism, are not going to collapse because someone chose to be greedy. Socialism is simply a system of economics that chooses to prioritise altruism over greed. It can account for human greed. It's kinda like saying that Capitalism can't work because the moment someone decides to share it's all over.
Anyways, it's more that your conclusion is a bit doomer. "There is nothing we can do about this, so we shouldn't try to stop it"-tier energy, it's really not worthwhile going down that road.
for me, this really is a kind of depressing dead-end discussion. I come from a post soviet country, and I've heard truly horrible things that came from the abuse of the system.
I also think true altruism does not exist, which is also kind of depressing.
I truly believe the only thing that can possibly fix things is us evolving to be more emotionally intelligent, I kind of said it in jest, but egoism being left behind in future humans is something realistic I hope for even if it might seem far fetched.
@@thepoopieshow Well I hope that one day you can have much more hope in humanity than you do now! I can certainly understand the lack of faith coming from a post-soviet country, though I hope you are aware that what most socialists are pushing for in the western world is nothing like those 20th century regimes were like.
The red tailed hawk will always be voicing over for our derpy-sounding freedom chickens. 😢
techno-anarchist utopia, not for any particular reason except that its the closest i think we can achieve to the opposite of being ruled by gross mushrooms
As the great Jonti Picking wrote "Badgers badgers badgers badgers badgers, badgers badgers badgers badgers, badgers, badgers, mushroom. Mushroom."
Maybe we're already in the utopia and it will only get worse from here😃
Hah, as if. The future is communist or there is no future.
Late stage capitalism as a Utopia. Sure, lol.
@JuniperF just be glad if we're not in early stage mad maxism lol
@@LURLINE_ is that what comes after capitalism? That seems a little abrupt.
@@LURLINE_ Yeah, yeah, yeah. 20th century attempts at socialism sucked. Doesn't mean Marx wasn't on to something. Fundamentally - many of the issues with the current system stem from the way we deal with ownership. It doesn't take a genius to see the flaws with a system where the vast majority of economic power is concentrated into the hands of a small group of extremely privileged, self-interested, and socially isolated people. It just simply isn't a good idea to let a tiny sliver of the human population own and control massive swathes of social infrastructure. From the enormous Agro-corps who control where and how millions get their food, to oil companies who have a stranglehold on where society's energy comes from - none of it is healthy for us.
I'm a very idealistic person, not as in 'social justice warrior' but in 'working towards / beliving in the greater good for everyone' kinda style. All what you said plus some extra stuff is what made me fall into years of crippling depression, but it was always a bit hard to explain everything... turns out, poopie can do that in about 5 minutes. Thanks
Socialism is usually meant to define just.. letting people who do the work get the pay, kinda like how you were defining communism. Nazis calling themselves socialists doesn’t mean they were. I’m glad the natural consensus is the fact that as long as the people who gain corruption from gained power are not kept in check, any sort of system will fall victim to the corruption of people in power
oh I'm not defending communism, I'm giving it as an example of how something that sounds good on paper and should benefit the group-- can still b exploited and ruined by individuals
@@thepoopieshowI meant defining not defending sorry>~
I don’t think I’ve had a video I agree with more… like even down to the fungi taking over. That stuff is terrifying.
In addition, I’ve taken arms to helping those around me. I recently helped jump someone’s car, and they requested my information. I gave it to them saying “if you ever need something, feel free to reach out”. Man has tried giving me money 3 times. While it’s so rewarding to have someone feel the need to repay me; I don’t want money… I just want to know that I helped someone who was having a bad day. For a while he was wary because people don’t do things like that anymore; everyone has some personal agenda and couldn’t care less about everyone else.
That single interaction cost me 5 minutes of my time. They had their car stolen and just spent several hours looking for legal documents, had someone they knew try to jump their car, and had been outside for over an hour. All was remedied by a 5 minute interaction, and I now have someone who sees me as a heavenly figure.
Main point I’m trying to prove is it’s ok to help strangers. It may backfire a few times, but when you do help someone it makes everything worth it and more.