DividedQuantum said:
Hunter S. Thompson wrote of "the death of the American Dream" in the 1970s, which he blamed on Richard Nixon. I'm frankly not so sure it was ever alive, but I think it's safe to say that now, forty years after Dr. Thompson's original diagnosis, it has without a doubt been fully cremated.
What are some of your thoughts on the "American Dream"? Is it or was it real? Do we still live in the land of opportunity, or is it more like the land of dysfunction at this point?
Not being a huge fan of Thompson's works (although I am a fan of how he chose to live his life, despite those he may have hurt along the way), i'm not familiar with his definition of "The American Dream."
If in fact he does clearly define this, would you mind posting his definition as a general reference and to clarify your OP? Thanks
Every person lives in a land of opportunity. It all depends on how they perceive the conditions they live in, in conjunction with their own independent/personal goals. Certainly, some localities/municipalities/governments are more oppressive than others, but that doesn't mean there isn't a way for one to do what they want; it does mean the cost of being exposed as such varies.
my idea of the "American Dream" is not having any external authority controlling or influencing, in any way, any aspect of my life. however, this is not possible. even if i didn't drive, or didn't earn an income, there are still people, externally, who are polluting the air and water i ingest. since this is not possible, i choose not to believe in my own idea(l) "Dream" but do the best i can with what i have, making choices that minimizes my impact on the land and other organisms as much as possible. that being said, i drive a truck, i run a chain saw, and unfortunately this year will be buying much of my food (as opposed to years passed where i or myself and a few others grew the majority if not all of our food.)
the "Dream", like many idea(l)s, is best left maleable as opposed to rigid. nothing in this experience is static besides death.
Khancious said:
Although I do admire those that live "off-grid",
and in harmony with nature with no dependency on
anything but the environment.
very, very few, especially in any first- or second- world country, despite living "off-grid" are completely self-sustaining. very few people have the means to forge the basic tools needed for even small-scale agriculture. very few are able to use native soil to raise starts, and thus are dependent on commercial "potting 'soil'" to even begin raising food. most have to purchase scion-wood from commercial facilities which are often tied in a number of ways to "the system." And so on and so forth. do you wear glasses? do you brush your teeth? maybe you don't brush, but you oil pull/rinse. okay. and on and on and on and on and on.
DividedQuantum said:
Hugely interesting. "Happiness was just one possession away." Really sick stuff. Unfortunately, it's the reality for probably well over a hundred million American citizens. One of the speakers in the video described 'relative deprivation' as a major psychological component of the American psyche. He was describing people who feel that $5 or $10 million is not enough, and don't even think of themselves as rich if that's what they've got.
We live in an utterly twisted society.
5-10 million dollars is nothing when one is fully vested. one's worth may be 5-10 million, but is irrelevant if one's debts (oddly, credit in this sense may be a form of debt) is also 5-10 million. i personally know lots of people who may seem "rich" monetarily or in possessions, but they are either even or over their heads with what they owe compared to what they have.
their "richness" often stems from, as khancious touches on, that they aren't enslaved by anyone. they choose how to spend their time. i'm almost 30 and consider myself retired, even though i'm generally dangling above being broke, because i spend my time doing what i want. fortunately, what i want to do is a way for me to make a living. if i don't want to work a specific job that day, i don't. what i do for a living, i also do for pleasure at my own place (note, i don't "OWN" or hold any title to my place, 120 acres total, with an active area of about 3-5 acres and 115-117 acres of playground, but i have been given liberty by the owner to do as i wish.)
Quote:
Ultimately, the engine fueling this whole debacle is the fabrication of wants, and you've laid out some very exact evidence in this thread for precisely that. There's been nothing like it in the history of the world; this shit makes Rome look like a monastery.
i disagree. i'm not 100% certain, but i believe it was the Aztecs who farmed themselves out of existence. more specifically, they monocropped themselves out of existence. they went from a culture of plenty to a culture of excess to a non-existent culture which then dispersed across the land. they completely degraded the health of the soil, leading to mass erosion, all in the name of what we would call "profit." through trade, they obtained non-vital possessions, metals for tools, metals for ornaments, cloth for clothing beyond what they needed. wealth and status are the two driving factors for one to produce beyond what one needs for sustenance. the "law of supply and demand" is not a natural law. it is one of a culture that has exceeded their base needs and still isn't satisfied.
sudly said:
The 'American Dream' died when the wage gap began to grow and money found a way to influence politicians in the 1970's.
Money has always influenced American politics, all the way back to Washington/Adams/Jefferson/etc. The elite/politicians held financial ties to England, and other countries, with the colonies functioning, essentially, as companies by extension. one could venture out to say that the American Dream of the northern colonies was to exploit the southern colonies for as long as possible. owever, being dependent on the agricultural commodities, the northern colonies chose unwisely to not recognize this fact and continued to exploit/oppress the southern colonies until well.....we all know the rest of the story.
DividedQuantum said:
nooneman said:
Maybe it never existed. Maybe it exists only as much as we believe that it exists. It's just an idea at the end of the day, and different people have different versions of what the idea means.
Can the average person realistically expect a house, two cars, 2.5 kids, a wife, a white picket fence, a job for life, and a good retirement in America today? Fuck no. But even back in the 50s, that kind of shit was actually really rare. Most people were still getting fucked just as hard as they're getting fucked today.
During the depression, they had posters and murals depicting the american dream literally directly above breadlines. Even while the average person was starving, homeless, and jobless at the peak of the great depression, this idea of the american dream was still being propagated.
It's always been just an idea, and that idea is what we make of it. To some people, the American dream is just about being able to achieve more than their parents. To others its about opening a business and becoming financially successful. Who are you or I to tell someone that their idea about the dream is wrong?
We can make the American dream into anything we want. It's just an idea. If you want to say that the American dream is living in an apartment and working your ass off 50+ hours a week at minimum wage, who am I to tell you that you're wrong? How would you even define "wrong" when you're talking about a subjective idea to begin with?
You're right, there's a lot of subjectivity to it, and it's not well defined. It could be different things to different people. I tend to think of it in the broadest sense as being about becoming rich and/or famous = being happy. Clearly, many people wouldn't agree with that. But I think a lot of people do, and I think that is a major factor in what keeps this carousel turning. When the punishments start to outweigh the rewards, things have a tendency to change. Not necessarily for the better.
Down to the detail, yes, each person's idea or interpretation of "the Dream" is different and their own. however, i think any non-hunting/gathering societal member has the same basic "Dream": 1) ample sustenance (food/water), clothing, and shelter, 2) a space to claim as their own, even if they don't hold title to it, and 3) some portion of time, daily/weekly/monthly, where they are "free" to choose how it is spent.
LunarEclipse said:
The demographics of home ownership in this country are horrible. Too many baby boomers needing to downsize at some point. Maybe they have a second retirement house and sell their main house. When their kids have to move out of the basement then, it will only add to the rental market. Most millenials are flat effing broke, in student loan debt, car debt, credit card debt. No way they are buying a house.
.
IME, the cost of renting a house or apartment is often as much or more than what a house payment costs for the average person/house. The main factors keeping people from home ownership is either their own desire to not be tied down in one place for the long-term or credit lenders who deem someone as unable to make the inflated payments they are requiring.
Quote:
I don't need society, but society sure seems to need to control me.
you stated earlier you missed a payment on your house, meaning you have/had a mortgage. do you have health insurance? auto insurance? home insurance? do you buy any amount of your food, which is subsequently subsidized? i think you might 'need' society more than you want to admit, as all of those things are based on a large sampling of the population for you to obtain them and to obtain them at the comparatively inexpensive rates they might otherwise cost.
Quote:
Figures lie, and liars figure.
klhouse said:
laughingdog said:
klhouse said:
You ain't seen nothin' yet.
... this is coming and it is going to be painful for the vast majority.
interesting video
yup automation is a game changer
also under reported is CRISPR which
will also be a huge game changer before long
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=CRISPR
combined with global warming and recent politics, etc.
things are about to get very hairy for the next generation
Well stated. Throw in radicalized religion and a growing movement of anti-intellectualism...
which radicalized religion? christianity? catholicism? islam? mormonism? scientology? all the above? anti-intellectualism isn't a movement, it's the norm known as the public (and often private)school system, including college/university. i was forced to attend a highly regarded, fundamentalist-christian school for 11 years; the "critical thinking" questions asked in all classes outside of sciences (which had christian under- and over-tones) were not actual critical thinking questions but emotion-based questions (ex. 'how did you feel'.....? or 'how would you react'; not logic-, step-based questions/solutions.) a people who can't connect 'a' to 'b' to 'c' to result in 'd' or 'e' are people less likely to stand in opposition to the desires of the authorities.
XpandedMind said:
Your statements and arguements thus far have been highly contradictory. Which suggests confusion on your part. Im finding this a bit counter productive so I am going to politely excuse myself from this conversation. I will leave you with a quote. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."-Margaret Mead.
you saying 'the collective' encompasses the whole, ALL participants of a system. Your quote actually proves the opposite of what you state. Small fractions of individuals are more likely to affect change, or as LE said, 'the more one moves with the herd the less things get done.' Herd and Collective are interchangable terms here. The only exception to this is when physical force against another's will is involved (i.e. militarily). As the Herd is broken up into smaller groups, more ideas spring forth. 50 individuals growing 50 different varieties of apples on 50 seperate acres, respectively, will result in a more colorful and flavorful fruit-set compared to 50 individuals all growing the same variety of apple on a contiguous 50 acre orchard; and due to pest issues on the contiguous 50 acres of one variety, the 50 individuals are more likely to have a higher overall yield.
--------------------
channel your inner Larry David
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
demiu5 
zzripz 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
Shroomism
1 2 3 4 5 all )
Kiafi
shr00m
Ego Death
Learyfan
exclusive58
SkorpivoMusterion