It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Social Parasites Engineer Their Own Downfall!

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I can see what the original poster is basing his conclusions on, but there is a tremendous difference between the Macro and Micro worlds. Bacterial interactions, although extremely facinating to me, do little to support the argument that commonality is shared between such varying groups. This could possibly be due to my background, but I still find the issue intriguing to a certain degree. The Prokaryotic Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, that is being studied lends a bit of credence to my thoughts on this as Humans are composed primarily of Eukaryotic cells, which react to different stimuli than that of the Prokaryotes. The external and internal stimuli that interact with these particular cells is where I see the deviation between the Macro and Micro worlds I mentioned before. Without going into a deep discussion of the Biological and scientific reasoning behind this, which I always tend to do, I will say that the characterization of these types of cells makes all the difference to me.




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzerman
 


Thanks again jazzerman,
your post was excellent and informative, as usual


Would you say that this has relevence to the macro (human) environment, bearing in mnd the OP?

Dare I take a leap and apply it to people as well, perhaps to entire government structures based on the isms socialismm, where the state taking care of all actually encourages cheatiing at the expense of the real producers..the individual.

And if so, how and why?
The reverse also applies to my question





posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Would you say that this has relevence to the macro (human) environment, bearing in mind the OP?...

And if so, how and why?
The reverse also applies to my question


I believe there are a couple of different ideas being presented here. The organization of bacteriological colonies of Prokaryotic cells seems a far stretch away from an organized group of humans by my thinking. However, comparisons can be drawn in some instances, such as colony organization of microbes. It's a long read, but if your willing, here is a good article on bacterial complexity:

Bacterial Complexity

Now, I can make no assumptions about human interaction because I am not a Sociologist, but at the Molecular and Cellular levels the comparisons seem to stop in many ways. I base this on the evidence I see, which shows that although things may often appear similar on different levels their is an intrinsic and inherant difference in the way Microorganisms behave when compared to their Macro counterparts. Namely, I am unconvinced with much of the evidence that their is an actual "social" order to microbial life forms.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Excellent post, couldn't have come at a better time.

On the point of contention regarding social parasites, I couldn't agree more.

I'd love to post more intensively, but I am absolutely drained from a study cram session, and I've pretty much summed up the jist of anything I would further elaborate on.

*hasty exit due to sheer exhaustion*



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzerman
 


I can give you an overview on simple sociological interactions, but it's a very complex subject, so it may be best to keep it limited.

I'm interested in trying to understand if there are similarities between the different types of interaction, in other words, similarities between the micro and macro environments.

By environments I mean the surrounding conditions which affect how interactions occur, and why they occur, which in the macro environment has psychological implications, because of how we are built.

I'll read the paper tomorrow, although I probably won't understand much of it




posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Very interesting Budski, and I'd be intrigued to know more when you have the time. Perhaps my lack of knowledge about the social structures present in the Macro environment are evading the issue at hand. Kind of funny when you think about it...how I have a background in viral and bacterial organization and structure, but lack knowledge about human social structure.

Anyhow, if you or anyone have questions about the document I presented don't hesitate to ask questions.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Jazzerman
 


From a perspective of business application of understanding basic needs,this may be worth a read - it's very rough, but may give you an idea of motivation - although it doesn't address programming
i.e. why do we aspire, why do we have needs.

The link has a very basic model, and unless you explore further, extrapolation is required.
The later expanded models are perhaps more relevant.

What I'm trying to get at, is the programming - genetic programming, and the similarities between organisms in a socially programmed context - whether we regard it as primitive or not.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


I gave you a flag and a star based on the understanding that authentically disabled people ARE NOT the target of your barb. If you intend the the contrary, you are a bit deranged. I gladly support the notion that we are responsible for the care of injured, ill and elderly. And temporarily, the unemployed.

I read your thesis as refering to tax collectors, illuminati, many politicians, thieves; bankers and all forms of userers, war-mongers and price gougers such as Big Pharma. And their ilk.

If you are disabled, you should not get sucked into defending yourselves. Find freedom in dismissing the past, ignoring the accusers and struggle onward. Give up self-loathing, blame and resentment. Help others.

As for the social parasites engineering their own destruction... well, men are not bacteria. But the thought is appealing. Maybe Cheney will perish from one of his own cabalistic plots.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 11:03 AM
link   
As I understand it, certain terms that are used in 'Biology' such as 'fittest', 'cheating', do not have the same connotation in social systems.

Fittest, as in 'Survival of...', as most know means 'able to pass the genes to the next generation', it doesn't mean 'physical fitness', per se.

Likewise the bacterial 'cheating' is different than 'cheating the welfare system'.

As far as that goes, I'm in a similar situation as Budski, in that I was injured at work but -fortunately- I was able to retire before the injury became debilitating. I've not gone back into the workforce because a) I don't need to and b) it would be difficult with my injury. (sciatica).

So, since I'm being supported by the State Retirement System, I'm not a parasite as such because I paid into it and became 'vested'.

However if the other peeps weren't working and paying into it, I wouldn't get my check for long. (same thing for Social Security).

IMO, people on medical and retirement and other sanctioned systems are not cheating.

An example of cheating, IMO, would be the 'Welfare Mom', who either keeps on having kids to get another check or one who takes in or adopts kids from the system to get the check that brings. Then the 'bad' welfare mom neglects the kids or misuses the funds. Those are cheaters.

Yep, it's that nice little old lady down the street who never told the State that her husband died. So, she keeps cashing his checks, while he's mummified in the basement chest freezer.



PS Because the injury was a work accident and their fault, I could have made a Worker's Compensation Claim and gotten a fat check each month, but I elected not to do that.

In fact a 'Social Parasite' might be defined as a 'Paris Hilton'. She doesn't take 'money' from the system (except through inheritance), but she is a parasite in the sense that she exploits the system without substantially contributing to it. As we've seen she -did- engineer her own downfall through her behavior!




[edit on 31-8-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I think the important thing for all people receiving social services is that they do all they can to work. If people are immobile, work over the internet or phone, there are all sorts of options to work if they want. Just because something is tough doesn't mean you are exempt from having a job. Most people, including disabled people, should be able to earn an income in some capacity. People need to do their best to support themselves.


Originally posted by marg6043
I believe in free interprise and capitalism but also believe that the fortunate should care for the less fortunate and that it doesn't have to become full blown socialism.


Not sure what you mean by fortunate and less fortunate, but in the case of disabled vs. abled that is true as long as they do all they can to work. What bugs me is the thought that somehow "rich" people need to help everyone else out because they are so lucky. Right now I wouldn't classify myself as very monetarily fortunate. That's why I'm going to college and going into a profession that will make me financially secure. I'm working very hard to get to where I want to be and it isn't right to have a slacker peer of mine, for example, to drop out of college and get wasted every night, then expect me to pay his SSI, or medical bills when he needs a liver transplant (all because I'm so lucky
) If people don't have the foresight to make good decisions, tough luck I say. Buy insurance and hope for the best.
Also, I'm not directing this to any of the members here so please don't respond with why you need them, that's something that really can't be debated.




Originally posted by budski
reply to post by marg6043
 


Personally, I think the disappearance of the middle classes (in the victorian sense) is a good thing.


How is the disappearance of the middle class "in the victorian sense", a good thing? I don't understand that at all.



[edit on 31-8-2007 by ghaleon128]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon128
 


Do a bit of research about the rise of the middle classes - they were pretty much a victorian invention, and are responsible for much of the social problems and snobbery that goes on even today.

The middle classes were working class people who became affluent, and then rejected their working class roots in a bid to be accepted by the aristocracy (which failed miserably) - they are responsible for the prudish nature and faux manners still favoured by middle classes today - and of course it's all rubbish, as are the middle class accents you still hear in the UK, except now it's ingrained.
They were equally deplored by the working classes and the aristocracy.



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


I understand that badge - what I was trying to so was make the point in a reasonable way before somebody looked, got the wrong idea and took offense.
Although there are parallels with survival of the fittest, I take it to mean those animals or organisms best suited to excel in a particular environment will be most successful in passing on their genes, rather than the theory of social darwinism which can be used to express survival of the fittest in a different way. And the same applies to the cheat theory as well.





posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Victorian middle class was wealthier than the lower class from what I understand. In modern day terms, the middle class in America needs to strengthen and enlarged.





[edit on 31-8-2007 by ghaleon128]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ghaleon128
 


I'd refute that - we don't need class systems, we need a populace who work together for the common good, rather than senseless divisions based on wealth and an illusion of being better than others, because you have more money.

That's a major problem with capitalist societies - people are under the illusion that more money makes them better people.



[edit on 31/8/2007 by budski]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I knew from the onset of this post that many would identify with the productive bacteria, and that others by virtue of a physical disability would somehow feel offended as being stereotyped or targeted as parasites. I was hoping that we could draw lessons on what happens to an overworked system. Just what is a contributor in our system ?One obviously thinks of at first glance is the working man,paying his share, replicating offspring that do the same, in a social order that assures a maximum amount of freedom to continue doing the same. Is that to say that someone who is a quadraplegic, taking a portion of anothers contribution a parasite? Some might from an accountants point of view, say yes..I would say no, and it has nothing to do about offending or being politically correct, as I have been insulted and insulted many in a wheel chair. What if that paraplegic, or blind or deaf person affected told short stories to a child, not even his/her let us suppose, and that by virtue of that exchange that child was enthused to go on in school, and become a great scientist, or doctor or other areas of measurable contributions. Has that disabled person made a contribution or not? could one continue to argue then that he is a parasite?
I would argue that the social collective can assure itself of survival by providing mechanisms for so called welfare recipients to work in schools, cleanups, daycares, a myriad of places and that would loosen resources for those truly unable. And be quick to thrash those that argue that a certain occupation is work that nobody wants..the latter in itself should be a redflag that something is not quite right in that sytem.

I know of the swans that mate forever, I know of the geese that fly in great numbers, the head bird, falling behind, and allowing another to fly in its place, and if one falls, another will come down and stay with it until it can fly again. Nature has many things to teach, including sacrifice. Even if you do not subscribe to a Creator, the processes are there, from microbe to macrobe, for us to discern the best and worst of what we can and should be . When we by arrogance separate our selves from the "lower" in terms of certain behaviour then surely we are on the road to extinction.


SyS





[edit on 31-8-2007 by Sys_Config]



posted on Aug, 31 2007 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Excellent post.
There's no doubt that the OP can be interpreted in many different ways - personally, I try to err on the side of caution when discussing such emotive subjects.
However, it also has to be said that human interactions and societies are far more complex than bacterial ones - and as a consequence are open to many different interpretations and discussions.

It's particularly difficult when writing about it - over 70% of human communication and interaction is non verbal on a face to face level - how much more difficult is it to understand a POV when the body languge, scent and sociological factors are removed? and you're replying only in a virtual manner, without external stimuli to help?





posted on Sep, 6 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Hmm over 1000 views and only 3 flags..If you enjoy this please flag it..if not its ok. It helps encourage me continue to search for interesting news or items of interest for everyone. Kind of like the teacher's pet polishing a nice shiny red apple.

SyS



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


Ever hear of a quid pro quo




posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Budski!!! hahaha that was good..dang..I was in a terrible mood too when I just logged on..but you put a smile on my face..and perfect timing as well..I was thinking about those shareware programmers and the p2p sites that give these downloads for "free" and or rely on donations..and call anyone drawing or not sending a contributions a leech..unless they upload something for the network to grow or software to survive somewhat like the article. Take and giveback..but I have no idea how well these groups are prospering..except perhaps..apple..which is a pay as you go..they seem to be doing better. The former would seem to me to be overwhelmed by leechers..and therefore stand a good chance of failing..


anyway
Thanx

SyS



posted on Sep, 7 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sys_Config
 


all groups are doing very
and planning rebellion
mwaH H h HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Thanks for asking

I'll go back to stroking my white cat now, if you don't mind



[edit on 7/9/2007 by budski]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join