The biggest flaw of every ideology

[Basman]

Videos like these highlight what's great about the internet. Distilling information in easy and accessible means. 

Another channel worth checking out I think, like Elephant in the Room.

 

[enchanted]

Cool! Always like to get a new YouTube video recommendation 

[Basman]

Fascism -has to continously manufacture enemies, both internal and external, in order to justify itself politically.

Feminism -keeps moving the goalpost since biological reality doesn't support a 50/50 outcome relative to equality.

Liberalism -invites chaos, instability and fragmentation by loosening of restrictions.

Conservatism -maintaining its version of order at any cost leads to oppression and tyranny. 

Communism -requires that every single human being is altruistic, all the time. Which is impossible. Humans desire improvement of their lot in life.

Socialism -it's impossible to adequately predict peoples demand for goods and services in a centralized fashion. The market changes too fast to keep up with for a single organization.

Libertarianism -can't adequately provide public goods, regulate harmful business practices and neglects the social underclass (sick, elderly, etc.)

Anarchism -without law and order humans will organize into tribes and gangs. Combating the violence and chaos of inter-tribal conflict itself leads to the formation of government.

Environmentalism -values the environment more than humanity at its most extreme. Ends justify the means. 

Edited yesterday at 12:16 AM by Basman

[trenton]

It sounds like environmentalism is the most defensible so long as we don't start a genocide against the entirety of humanity.

I remember there used to be "let it burn" policies for forest fires. It raises the question of what is natural. is genocide natural? Maybe if someone views the world as an interconnected environment, then from that perspective humanity is a data point in the environment rather than the most important thing in the universe. This can create a morally detached position in which humans are just animals with rationality, barely more important other animals if at all.

I guess if I were truly detached, then there is no need to save the world either. The idea of saving the world taken to extreme is what destroys the world.

[Basman]

17 hours ago, trenton said:

It sounds like environmentalism is the most defensible so long as we don't start a genocide against the entirety of humanity.

No ideology in its pure form is really good nor do they exist in reality. Instead we cherry pick the best parts. Pure environmentalism would let a plague go on a rampage unabated, calling it natural. 

[trenton]

5 hours ago, Basman said:

No ideology in its pure form is really good nor do they exist in reality. Instead we cherry pick the best parts. Pure environmentalism would let a plague go on a rampage unabated, calling it natural. 

The problem is the duality of natural versus artificial. If humans are living creatures, then we have an instinct to survive. The tools available to this end is our rationality. Rationality itself is a result of natural processes. Human systems stemming from our higher order thoughts would therefore be the result of us trying to survive as a species which is still natural. Man made objects are still part of nature just like an ant hill being made by ants.

I'm also curious. If you wanted to invent your own ideology, what would you come up with? How close to perfect could an ideology possibly be? Currently, I don't know what ideology I would invent. I have many different frameworks which ultimate tie back to helping me understand reality. I think of them more as theories or positions within limited domains which get refined over time. Many of them are connected to my survival in some way.

That said, maybe a meta ideology about lenses through which understand ideologies would be a better ideology than most while still being able to deconstruct itself.

[Basman]

4 hours ago, trenton said:

The problem is the duality of natural versus artificial. If humans are living creatures, then we have an instinct to survive. The tools available to this end is our rationality. Rationality itself is a result of natural processes. Human systems stemming from our higher order thoughts would therefore be the result of us trying to survive as a species which is still natural. Man made objects are still part of nature just like an ant hill being made by ants.

I'm also curious. If you wanted to invent your own ideology, what would you come up with? How close to perfect could an ideology possibly be? Currently, I don't know what ideology I would invent. I have many different frameworks which ultimate tie back to helping me understand reality. I think of them more as theories or positions within limited domains which get refined over time. Many of them are connected to my survival in some way.

That said, maybe a meta ideology about lenses through which understand ideologies would be a better ideology than most while still being able to deconstruct itself.

Pure environmentalism values the environment over humanity and wants humans to depopulate. It doesn't actually matter much how that is framed.

You shouldn't really subscribe to any one ideology in my opinion. There's a reason why theword  "ideologue" is prejorative. Because they are crazy people. Just cherry pick the best parts.