calbiterol Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 Here's a not so quick-to-answer question. What are the bare minimum requirements for a society/nation to survive? In other words, food, water, etc. What do you guys think? [Edit: Sorry if that's too vague. I don't quite know how else to pose the question. It might be a little less vague if I said, "what are the top ten most important things for a government to supplu its nation and its people," but I'm not necessarily looking for ten, and I'm not necessarily looking for government. What I mean is, throughout history, what are the things that a society/nation (as a whole) could not live without? Not just physical needs, like food, water, and shelter, but also psychological needs, like entertainment and order, and other things too - like law, domestic defense, etc. Hopefully, that helped clear things up.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newtonian Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Yes food and water,and a house.Maybe a little money as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Yes food and water,and a house.Maybe a little money as well. One house for the entire nation? The nation would have to total less than a million or so people for that to work. Your point is taken, however. I also consider the question to be a little vague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbiterol Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Does the edit help clear things up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 [b']What are the bare minimum requirements for a society/nation to survive?[/b] What type of society? If you want the society to be at all advanced, then there must be a calendar that enables members of the society to keep track of time. Modern society could not exist at all without keepers of time. If the keepers of time for a society were to disappear, the society could not maintain itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 He's asking for the minimum requirements of an arbitrary entity. Nebulous attributes such as "level of technology" are self-evidently not a factor. [edit] I should probably expand on that: The aforementioned attribute is a criterion for a method, not for the requirement that calls that method. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 He's asking for the minimum requirements[/b'] of an arbitrary entity. Nebulous attributes such as "level of technology" are self-evidently not a factor. It is certainly quite possible that you have a better understanding of what he is asking that I do. If he does not like my response, then he is certainly free to state so. I don't understand why you feel compelled to interpret the meaning of his somewhat vague question in such a manner that you must make a point of disregarding my response. If our society lost all of its time keepers, it would be altered to such a major degree that I think it would be a fair question to ask whether it or not the new condition would constitute survival of the old society. Furthermore, what does level of technology necessarily have to do with it? Without time keeping, even agriculture would never have developed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 It is certainly quite possible that you have a better understanding of what he is asking that I do. If he does not like my response, then he is certainly free to state so. I don't understand why you feel compelled to interpret the meaning of his somewhat vague question in such a manner that you must make a point of disregarding my response. I am not interpreting the meaning of his question. What I am doing is stating what he is asking for, because your response was not it. His question is vague, but that doesn't mean we should reinvent it for him as something else and then answer that instead, or ask questions that don't make sense in the context he is using. Furthermore, what does level of technology necessarily have to do with it? Without time keeping, even agriculture would never have developed. If this is the case (and I'm not saying I subscribe to that notion, since agriculture uses the calendar as a general notifier, not a means of synchronisation) then the appropriate response would be in the form "one minimum requirement is the ability to track time." Whether or not the society actually does fulfill that requirement does not matter to you or to me (not least of all because he's obviously considering a hypothetical society that will be based on the requirements.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbiterol Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 What type of society? If you want the society to be at all advanced, then there must be a calendar that enables members of the society to keep track of time. Modern society could not exist at all without keepers of time. If the keepers of time for a society were to disappear, the society could not maintain itself. I should have specified that I meant a modern society. However, this includes third-world countries, so technology may or may not be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I should have specified that I meant a modern[/i'] society. However, this includes third-world countries, so technology may or may not be an issue. There you go. Then I think that time keepers are certainly a minimum requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 I am not interpreting the meaning of his question. What I am doing is stating what he is asking for[/u'], because your response was not it. sayonara nakimushi sama, It seems to me that you are spending more effort complaining than contributing. Your comments contribute nothing to the topic of conversation at all. Your "appropriate" statement is different from mine only in wording, not in meaning. I wonder why it is that you want to quibble so over wording, even though it does not change the meaning or the intent. Why spend so much time sending this thread off topic, when you might use your time more appropriately by contributing to this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbiterol Posted February 11, 2005 Author Share Posted February 11, 2005 Cadmus, that was a little of the pot calling the kettle back. Now you're both at it. Why can't we all just get along? Seriously though, please stop flaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Why can't we all just get along? OK. I am the only one so far who has taken your question seriously. You seem to have ignored my response completely. You seem to prefer and support sayonara trying to stifle the only actual response that you have received so far. If no more responses are addressed to me, I will leave this thread alone for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted February 11, 2005 Share Posted February 11, 2005 Why can't we all just get along? Seriously though' date=' please stop flaming.[/quote'] That's the real key - there have got to be some rules on which the majority of members can agree. 1. Killing except in self-defense, is not allowed. 2. Stealing someone else's stuff is not allowed. 3. Stealing someone else's mate is not allowed. 4. You gotta take care of the old people - they may not be able to provide tangible assets, but they pass on knowledge and information. 5. Don't tell lies about other members of the group. 6. Don't try to "keep up with the Joneses" A lot of you may recognize these to be taken from the 10 commandments - I purposely left out the ones that refer to a deity. However - I think the very thing that binds a society together, so that people can work cooperatively, is a basic set of rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbiterol Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 Cadmus, sorry. I was just trying to stop the flaming. Your idea was a good one, and a very valid point. [Edit: 1. Killing except in self-defense' date=' is not allowed.[/quote] Absolutely. But, ideally, the self-defense part wouldn't be necessary, because ideally, everyone would accept that it is wrong to harm or kill another. But that requires a major shift of mindset, which would be very hard to do. I don't even think that that would be possible unless the entire society were raised as "one big happy family." In other words, maybe the ideal situation for a society is one big friendly community. 6. Don't try to "keep up with the Joneses" Uh... I'm sorry' date=' I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain? '] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadmus Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 That's the real key - there have got to be some rules on which the majority of members can agree. I agree that a set of rules for acceptable behavior is important. I do not necessarily agree with any of your specific rules as being necessary, as it seems that modern societies function reasonably well without any of them. I furthermore consider that a government is necessary to organize society, as well as to formalize and enforce rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Uh... I'm sorry' date=' I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain? '] Damn, I'm old!!! I don't even remember where the expression got started, whether it was a commercial or what - but it refers to the need to acquire "stuff" because your neighbor has it - "one-upmanship", neighborhood style. Since I was using some of the 10 Commandments as rules for living together, it was a parody on "Thy shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's." One thing's sure - I don't covet my neighbor's ass. Mine is quite substantial enough, thank you. These cartoons illustrate the point... http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/k/keeping_up_with_the_jones.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 KEEPING UP WITH THE JONES -- "According to his own account, cartoonist Arthur R. ("Pop") Momand lived in a community where many people tried to keep up with the Joneses. Momand and his wife resided in Cedarhurst, New York, one of Long Island's Five Towns, where the average income is still among America's highest. Living 'far beyond our means in our endeavor to keep up with the well-to-do class,' the Momands were wise enough to quit the scene and move to Manhattan, where they rented a cheap apartment and 'Pop' Momand used his Cedarhurst experience to create his once immensely popular 'Keeping Up with the Joneses' comic strip, launched in 1913. Momand first thought of calling the strip 'Keeping Up with the Smiths,' but 'finally decided on 'Keeping Up with the Joneses' as being more euphonious.' His creation ran in American newspapers for over 28 years and appeared in book, movie, and musical-comedy form, giving the expression 'keeping up with the Joneses' the wide currency that made it a part of everyday language." From "The Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins" by Robert Hendrickson (Facts on File, New York, 1997). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calbiterol Posted February 12, 2005 Author Share Posted February 12, 2005 Aha! So that's what that meant. It makes so much more sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 It seems to me that you are spending more effort complaining than contributing. Directing the thread in a way that keeps it on-topic is (a) not "complaining", and (b) part of my job. Why spend so much time sending this thread off topic, when you might use your time more appropriately by contributing to this conversation. It's funny you should ask that, because the majority of the posts I see you making ask irrelevant questions, or poke fun at the imprecise wording of posts. I suggest you stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted February 12, 2005 Share Posted February 12, 2005 Cadmus' date=' that was a little of the pot calling the kettle back. Now you're both at it.Why can't we all just get along? Seriously though, please stop flaming.[/quote'] I apologise for the disruption. Normal service will resume shortly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettina Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 Geez..... You guys are too cold. All you need is true love between a man and a women. Everything else is attainable. Bettina Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coral Rhedd Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 I think the agape type of love might achieve even better results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 All you need is true love between a man and a women. Everything else is attainable. I'm sorry, but I don't quite undstand what you are getting at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nevermore Posted February 13, 2005 Share Posted February 13, 2005 while love is essencial to survival (sorry my spelling is terrable) it is not the only need of a society, food, water, shelter, and laws are also needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now