Is Abuse Natural?

[Moatilliatta]

Let's not get all domestic here...I'm talking about abuse in the most definitive sense of the word: improper and excessive use that changes the inherent purpose of something. For most men (though most men live as if they themselves are the 16th century earth juxtaposed to the sun), indulgence and casual abuse of fortunate gain are unavoidable, even for the most honest and well-intentioned thinkers among us. This leads to the question of whether or not this impulse is unavoidable innately. It could be argued that intrinsic selfishness dictates a required amount of even restrained abuse of whatever resources (of any composition...material, spiritual, etc.) we have an abundance of.

Through money and various systems of value and labor, we have built skyscrapers and statues. The money, however pertinent in this specific case, did not build these structures. We did. Mankind alone took what we had and systematically used it exactly as it was needed to achieve the desired outcome. It should then appear that money, or at least value in general, is what balances the production of a goal while ensuring it is completed without superfluous means.

So imagine a situation in which money never was. Man still retains the potential to build the skyscraper or erect the statue, but its resources have no means of being distributed evenly enough. Inevitably, there will be an abuse of balance between what needs to be done to complete a goal. If one morning, everyone went to work and about their business just as they had since the day they were born, but spent no money and simply took what they needed (realizing the necessity of balance and the uselessness of impulse and excess) things would (or should I say...could) work smoothly, just as they always had. Of course, things would most certainly not work out this way at all. This is because people would eventually abuse the trust everyone else has agreed to respect in regard to personal limits and proportion. This is not to say some would see the value in their own participation in a bargainless trust-world, but those with the awareness to understand this value should not be shortsighted enough to trust in its success. In a way, it is somewhat of a paradoxal situation...and in many events, a natural occurance can be the causation of a paradox.

So, that having been said, is abuse natural? Are all men inclined to seek as much personal value out of something larger than themselves without consideration for the balance of the whole, or is it just the weak and unenlightened? Can abuse of what can be abused be abolished from our psyche? I say no.

Opinions? Comments? Disagreements?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

..I'm talking about abuse in the most definitive sense of the word: improper and excessive use that changes the inherent purpose of something

How do you arrive at the inherent purpose of something? So every time you conclude something is abuse, a defined 'inherent purpose' is already there? This smells like creating your own questions out of thin air.

[Cory Duchesne]

So, that having been said, is abuse natural? Are all men inclined to seek as much personal value out of something larger than themselves without consideration for the balance of the whole, or is it just the weak and unenlightened? Can abuse of what can be abused be abolished from our psyche? I say no.

The abusive, exploitative and plunderdering are chiefly those who don't know how to produce their own food without exploitating, abusing, and plundering the earth.

If you understand how to grow your own food in a way that isnt abusive and insidious, you will naturally not be an abusive person. It is only those who are alienated from nature who become abusive, neurotic and exploitative.

[Moatilliatta]

..I'm talking about abuse in the most definitive sense of the word: improper and excessive use that changes the inherent purpose of something

How do you arrive at the inherent purpose of something? So every time you conclude something is abuse, a defined 'inherent purpose' is already there? This smells like creating your own questions out of thin air.

The inherent purpose of something is generally obvious, because if it is a creation...this is the purpose for which it was created. Any skew from this purpose would be considered abuse. If something does not have an obvious purpose, it is usually evident at least what is not its natural intentions, and what its true purpose is can be inferred by something far different that how it is being abused. An example...a cigarette's purpose is to be smoked. Taken sparingly, on occasion, it can relax a person. This is its purpose assigned by us. Abuse of a cigarette is smoking too much, producing too much, and advertising without shame. Of course tobacco alone does not hold one purpose. The tabacco plant is arguably abused by us when we make cigarettes in a manner that was not intended by nature. Any plant's true purpose should hardly ever be what we use it for, especially for mass production of goods. I don't feel like arguing semantics much here. Sometimes it is pertinent, but that sentence was aimed to simply define abuse as it was defined in the dictionary. If you still have a problem, try contacting Webster...and they might be able to help you out.

[Moatilliatta]

So, that having been said, is abuse natural? Are all men inclined to seek as much personal value out of something larger than themselves without consideration for the balance of the whole, or is it just the weak and unenlightened? Can abuse of what can be abused be abolished from our psyche? I say no.

The abusive, exploitative and plunderdering are chiefly those who don't know how to produce their own food without exploitating, abusing, and plundering the earth.

If you understand how to grow your own food in a way that isnt abusive and insidious, you will naturally not be an abusive person. It is only those who are alienated from nature who become abusive, neurotic and exploitative.

So then man's tendency to abuse stems from the lack of understanding of how resources are produced due to inexperience and inability? It seems that a world in which each man can produce his own food is too ideal to be practical. This has not happened, nor do I see it on the horizon. Before you denounce the idea that abuse is natural, first ask if it is within all of us to be able to produce our own food. True, I'm sure we all posess the capability, but laziness is quite a prevalent trait of the modern man. It seems that even in this perfect world of shared abundance, there would be an opportunity to abuse something somehow. If at least one man takes advantage of this opportunity, then it is natural.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The inherent purpose of something is generally obvious, because if it is a creation...this is the purpose for which it was created.

That looks like a weak definition to me. Purpose is given to something at the moment some intended interaction finds place. This intention creates or at least is an important part of the purpose, not the object 'existence' itself. This way purposes can easily shift depending on circumstances.

Any skew from this purpose would be considered abuse.

But when a purpose is changed and a new one is applied? I can pick up this chair and smash the window. That's not automatically abuse, I could have decided the chair has a new purpose, venting my anger, or creating an escape route for escaping a fire! One might of course discuss about how more rational one purpose is compared to another.

If something does not have an obvious purpose, it is usually evident at least what is not its natural intentions, and what its true purpose is can be inferred by something far different that how it is being abused

Words like 'obvious', 'natural' and 'true' or 'inherent' are very tricky in philosophy. Better not build your argument around them without more clarity on what you mean. Most people have very warped ideas about these misleading terms.

I don't feel like arguing semantics much here.

Questioning semantics and definitions is really needed if you want to get anywhere while discussing philosophy and logic. Its purpose is to expose the contradictions in our mental world.

[Cory Duchesne]

Moatilliatta,

I thought about things a bit deeper, and have found myself somewhat in agreement with you.

M: So then man's tendency to abuse stems from the lack of understanding of how resources are produced due to inexperience and inability?

CP: Man’s tendency to abuse is rooted in his ignorance and denial of the implications of his actions and the inevitability that awaits him. Man is by nature ignorant, willful, emotional and reluctant to face the whole truth. Man is by nature un-virtuous, yet by nature desires the good. He, for the most part, confuses the bad with the good, and the bad could be defined simply as abuse.

M: It seems that a world in which each man can produce his own food is too ideal to be practical.

It is not good to be idealistic.

I am not an idealistic person. I see the practicality and usefulness of something and I do it. People who do not share my values call me too idealistic. I am not being idealistic; I am simply doing what makes sense to me. Practicality is what I value, and that’s about it.

M: This (public interest in agriculture on smaller scale) has not happened, nor do I see it on the horizon.

Well, I can tell you, it ‘is’ happening and will continue to happen. Not on a massive scale, but there is definitely a revolution in agriculture happening.

Ever use ‘wikipedia’? (a search engine) Do a search on Bill Mollison, David Holmgren, Masanobu Fukuoka, Emilia Hazelip, Jim Bones, Ruth Stout, Scott Nearing, Sir Albert Howard

Humans may indeed be bad by nature, but if they are to be good, well then they are going to have to understand nature and learn to work with her rather than against her. Agriculture as we traditionally know it is abusive and exploitative.

Before you denounce the idea that abuse is natural, first ask if it is within all of us to be able to produce our own food.

I'm sure we all posess the capability, but laziness is quite a prevalent trait of the modern man. It seems that even in this perfect world of shared abundance, there would be an opportunity to abuse something somehow. If at least one man takes advantage of this opportunity, then it is natural.

Yes, I agree with your point. The masses are smug. But I don’t care about what they do. I just do what is practical and makes sense to me.

Overall, now that I thought it over, I agree with you.

Goodness lies with a small minority, however, if that minority grows large enough, there very well may be some sort of sudden saturation. The minority may become so concentrated, that there may be a catalytic effect, saturating the masses with at least an improved receptivity to good sense. But only time will tell

[Monolith]

Of course the word abuse implies that there is some other intended purpose for that which is to be abused. What of this other intended purpose. Is it not the other side of the same coin. Being tossed into a constant battle of odds. Why is there dominance of one outcome over another. Why is dominance expressed through the destruction and assimilation of parts. It's intrinsicaly brutal. Ahh but these things are only relative points of transient view. We wonder why focus on the self is filled with such battles of dominance. As it is that there can be only One. A fools errand to chase after illusions of significance. To be continued.