Moreover, if one of my progeny were in Atlantis and refused to live up to Atlantis' values, I would seriously consider moving my family away from Atlantis.

I certainly agree with the last two paragraphs, Blarman, especially the brat's consistent underestimation of the value of nearly everything.

Our older daughter shares all of our values. My younger daughter shares many of them. The younger daughter works hard at her school work and some outside activities, but some of our values she does not share. On those values, I am concerned, but I am not going to force the issue. She will need to learn the wisdom of those values on her own.

I disagree with your first paragraph, however. I have seen many cases of parents who taught the basic virtues to their children, yet their children rejected them as too strict in favor of values taught outside the home.

And why does this happen? Because the parents forget the basic virtues that made them what they are. Or they willingly choose to abandon them.

A "brat" is usually someone who significantly underestimates the value of nearly everything, thereby taking it for granted. This usually happens because they are not made to work or contribute for what they are given (i.e. they are "spoiled"). The parents lose sight of the virtue of value and the children then acquire a warped (or nonexistent) view of true value themselves.

The most sure defense against an erosion in the perception of value is work - effort put forth in the obtaining of a goal. It is the single most effective principle in teaching value.

Building on my last point, we all know many producers whose children are entitled, spoiled brats.

Both MikeMarotta and Blarman make excellent points in "A Culture of Reality, Reason, and Freedom". The biggest problem with the long-term society built on reality, reason, and freedom is keeping the society from being polluted with values that contradict the foundational values. This can happen both externally via immigration without assimilation or internally through the voluntary rebellion of children born in the Gulch. Ayn Rand was very thoughtful about this point. Citizenship was via invitation only (well sort of for Dagny). While Ragnar D. and Kay Ludlow voluntarily chose to come to the Gulch, there wasn't much discussion about children. I do, however, remember one case where a woman did discuss how her children were going to learn proper Gulch values. AR did discuss the point, but she didn't dwell on it much. We probably could maintain a proper Gulch society by restricting voting rights, but how to restrict voting rights is a thorny issue that we debated when I first arrived in the Gulch several months ago.

I believe that in order to create a utopia that MIGHT withstand the ages, one has to start with principles that are 100% true. This means that if they are true now, they will remain true 10 generations from now or 100 generations from now. Those principles then become the basis for society.

Next, you have to have buy-in from everyone in society to abide by these principles (assuming you will preserve the idea of self). This is where a governmental body necessarily must be established to make laws reflecting these principles.

The next step is educating the populace regarding the principles themselves, why they are important, and helping each individual citizen commit to the principles and believe in them. This one becomes a bit sticky because you don't want people intentionally violating these principles just to verify that they are valid, so there is going to be a certain amount of "faith" exhibited.

Lastly, there must be provisions for not only promulgating the principles, but for promulgating society itself.

It seems fairly obvious to me that the basis for any society - let alone a utopian version - must necessarily start with a method of perpetuation (ie procreation). Further, it strikes me that the perpetuation of society forms an ideal framework from which to derive also the education of the next generation. Thus, it is no surprise to any conservative mind to derive that the family then becomes (and always has been) the fundamental unit of society that can simultaneously and most efficiently fulfill all these tenets at the same time.

It can also be derived from this that any force that seeks to undermine the family in this capacity will have the effect - unintended or not - of debilitating or even destroying the most efficient method of societal perpetuation and education.

So principle #1 would be recognition of self. Principle #2 would recognize the family as the basic unit of societal promulgation and education.
All other principles would necessarily spawn from these two.

Thanks for the considered reply. You offer a serious challenge. Deflecting it is easy enough. On the specific issue of a free market in banking, Hayek said that we cannot imagine the consequences: we can only work for the means and let the future evolve.

Christianity in the West is an example of a society (or societies) with a long-distance vision. One reason that astronomy advanced in the Middle Ages was their centuries-long expectation of a Second Coming that required the calculation of Easter into the future. Our own American republic was a direct consequence of the "City of God" or "City on a Hill" vision of the Pilgrims, Quakers, and others, who thought in terms of a long future.

Would you be willing to offer your own intentions?

For myself, all I have in mind is some kind of Heinlein-Asimov future of wondrous new inventions, long lives, travel to distant planets, and other trivia. I can envision only everything we have now from schools to parks to roads being as they are, but privately owned and run for profit. However, it is also required that the very privatization will change them in ways we cannot predict. What if we discovered that roads are never profitable?

So, again, do you have a vision of your own?

I see a lot of debate over means here, but not much about the "end" in mind. It seems only obvious to observers of humankind that humans are constantly at odds with themselves and as a result, others around them. I would posit that this stems first from imperfect knowledge of the reality around them and second that individuals in general don't structure their choices with any kind of long-term goal in mind. When one is focused solely on the short-term, one tends to make decisions that focus on short-term outcomes and there is no investment for the future. Maslow's Hierarchy of needs embodies this decision-making pyramid.

Take management pay, for example. Many CEO's and other high-ranking businesspeople get bonuses for improving the bottom line every year. As a result, they stress cost-cutting measures that for a few years increase the bottom line. The problem is that most of these cuts are from R&D or IT, where the value provided is long-term in nature rather than short-term. So what ends up happening is that the business makes huge gains for 2-3 years (during which time the CEO rakes in fortunes in stock options and bonuses), and then the company inevitably declines. The smart CEO's have figured out this system so they just bail out and look for "new opportunities" when they see the inevitable results of sacrificing long-term for short-term start to hit them. The next CEO then gets to clean up the mess.

If one is to create a long-term business or to craft a society or culture, one must start with the long-term in mind. For a society or culture, that means that long-term must equate to dozens of generations at a minimum.

One must also remember, however, that what one is actually setting up are standards. The standards we set up must match with the standards of reality in every measure, and this is where we ignorant humans falter. We do not necessarily have an unbiased vision of "perfection", and because we are subject to the minor little limitation called "death", we also must acknowledge that we can not control the long-term future of our creation. Thus any attempt to create a long-term society must include not only a societal vision and the means by which to carry it out in the short-term, but the means by which to promulgate this vision throughout the ages - i.e. the education and rearing of the next generation in such a way as to uphold our utopian vision.

Here are the challenges I see:
1) defining the ideals of a utopian society - especially if the members of society are to retain their own free will
2) implementing the society
3) reminding existing participants of the long-term goals and the short-term decisions that lead to the long-term goals
4) promulgating the vision of the society to future generations - including both the vision, its means, and the administration by which it can be perpetuated.

All one has to do is look down through history at all the proposed models for government and it is fairly easy to see that the largest dichotomy exists in a society that both retains free will AND must promulgate itself, due to the imperfect understanding or grasp of the vision itself! If the one(s) who design the vision in the first place aren't around to help disseminate the vision, correct oversights or errors, or provide guidance for hitherto unforeseen situations, society is more likely than not to diverge from the vision.

Instinct, examples and my definition-

When driving a car and wanting to turn left the driver turns the steering wheel (top) left. If wanting to turn tighter, more left, the wheel is turned more. This behavior is not inherited but learnt. The beginning driver is slow at steering as there is thinking to be done. With the experienced driver all this thinking is not done from effort, the body itself remembers and does what is needed. I define this phenomena of remembering in the body as 'instinct'. Technically it could be called distributed intelligence.
Now suppose the car is moving on unexpected ice. The car does not respond to a movement of the steering wheel. With a naive driver instinct takes over, the driver turns the wheel more. Whether from experience or training the driver learns how to detect and respond to the presence of an icy road by steering into the slide to regain control. This is a new instinctual response taking over, it has been learnt. This correct response can be derived from thinking and analysis or just from authority when obeying an experienced instructor. After repetition, the new response is called instinctive as it has been learnt by the body, the eyes and backside communicate directly to the arms and hands without recourse to the brain.
Dogs salivate in the presence of food. No leaning is involved. We call that reaction instinct. Pavlov found that with training, dogs would salivate to the sound of a bell, no food being needed. A new instinct had been learnt.
A person sees a big spider nearby. There may be responses such as flinching, moving away, or screaming. After thought the person may find a way to capture and remove it, both reaction and action come from the instinct of fear.
Animals feel pain, they seek to stop it, they withdraw from the source, they may try to destroy the source. When there is a recoil from pain we call it instinctive. The unpleasant sensation of pain is itself an instinct.

Definition- instinct is the cause of action (or reaction) in animals not derived from thought. Automatic, yes. An unerring source of knowledge, not at all as an instinctive response is not always correct. That is why thought and analysis are needed to overcome, or replace, the actions that would come from instinct alone where those actions are harmful or not desired.
Instincts that exist without being taught are inherited, they are the moving average of the experience of our past several million generations of ancestors. Instincts are stored in all the body not just the brain. In instincts, there is knowledge, wisdom maybe, that should not be ignored though it may not suit the immediate circumstances.

can you cite instances where animals refuse food when they are hungry to share?

answered above. I react violently when I see a tarantula. I want to run away from it. Instead I decide if I get the blow torch out, the spear gun or capture it and let it go in the desert....depends on the day it's and my mood oh, and what's in my best interest depending on what or whom else is around.

Lucky,
hmm, At first I thought this was MM's comment- James Bond>Zorba the Greek's father >dogs>"furphy">Einstein. What???
MM would assert, as do I, that Man does not have instincts. It is what separates humans from all other animals. So I'd like us to agree on a definition of "instincts."
Here's Galt's:
"An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."
Galt continues:
"The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness."

Hello MikeMarotta,
Yes, but I just dream of a world where reason rules over emotion a bit more.
Regards,
O.A.

Good points MM.
This ritual behavior in conflict described earlier, in your ref to Jaynes, has (I understand) been seen in various species. Whether they are alphas and betas only or have other types in the pack does not invalidate Jaynes' argument that mass slaughter is relatively recent.
Your example from 8000BCE is good, presumably no earlier examples have been found, but if so, does it mean that it did not happen? Or we have not found any evidence yet?

A counter example about dogs for what it is worth; dogs as individuals or in small groups attack sheep, the damage goes beyond satisfying hunger, bits of sheep bodies are bitten, chomped out and not necessarily eaten, we cannot say it is deliberate cruelty but if it were the effect would be the same.

Hi kh, thanks for the comment. I am not sure how to counter so the usual rambling.
From self analysis I am quite sure that I have instincts, I suspect all humans do, but there may a James Bond character or a Buddhist monk who does not. The same for reason. Thinking, analysis and use of reason are at my core. I have been accused of such by those who do not like the directions of my thinking, or maybe they do not like my predominant instincts of lust, greed, and such like while altruism is sparse. (Do I have to be serious at this time of night?). Again, I suspect that reason is inbuilt and cannot be avoided, tho' certainly the immediacy of some situations causes instinctual responses to override thought. A possible exception from fiction, the father of Zorba the Greek, a wholly emotional man.
Turning off thinking- yes by training in military type situations. Turning off instinct- yes training /self discipline can stop unthinking reaction in complex situations where there is time to think.
The balance between reason and instinct is fascinating. There is the problem of where to run to catch a ball thrown by hand, the mathematics is determinate but complex, dogs are better than humans at this game, fun to watch them, how is it done? Ok maybe the word 'instinct' is a furphy.
Oh and there have been psychology experiments on problem solving by men and women that concluded that holistic methods were superior to analysis. But what are holistic methods? , and is psychology a proper science?
'Above all, do not deny your humanity', Einstein

Reason is volitional. Man does not have instincts. Animals cannot act against their nature unless injured or diseased.

Lucky, social animals are not all entirely divided into Alphas (leaders) and Beta (followers). The Gammas move from one group to another offsetting in-breeding. Perhaps the most relevant ethologies are about chimpanzees and other simians where females stay on the edges in order to meet out-group males; or, if you have ever seen any movie with Johnny Depp: chicks like rogues. (Equally and oppositely, guys get in trouble with bad girls.)

We have leaders and followers here in the Gulch. It is not entirely a matter of ideology. At their conventions, the Libertarian Party arrays itself alphabetically by state. What kind of individualism is that?

In addition to Gammas - male and female - social specials also have Omegas who participate hardly at all. We label them along the "autism spectrum."

As for the "mass slaughters" they are not a matter of mere numbers - though those are marked. At the margin of this, say about 8000 BCE we do find "mass" graves of a few or a dozen, all killed the same way, apparently by execution, at the terminus ante quem where one group supplanted another.

Why Neanderthals died out is not entirely clear. Also not clear is the extent to which they and we interbred. See, also, here in the Gulch "You Can be a Denisovan" http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/a6....

MM's point-
The murderous behavior of Genghis Khan is well recorded but that would be classed as after the Ice Age. I have heard of but not read Jaynes, the idea is attractive but I cannot see how there could be much evidence one way or the other. When human population densities were low, what archaeological evidence could there be for or against 'mass slaughters' etc?
Was the extinction of the Neanderthals due to deliberate hostility by modern humans?

I acknowledge that animal behavior studies tend to support the proposition,
" ritualized conflict in which no one actually gets killed." at least in pack animals such as wolves and stags when fighting over mating and status. Or it could be a romanticization, the noble savage gets corrupted by a sense of self and us and of 'the other'.

Not sure how this relates to the design of systems of government that stay within bounds. Perhaps we have to recognize that humans are pack animals not individualists as some would prefer, more like dogs than cats, and that all animals have inherited characteristics, instincts, that can be overcome in only a minority by logic and in others only after many generations.

Robbie, first, I resent your debater's tricks. They are dishonest. You say that that I "want to believe" but that you "accept" the facts. The opposite is true: I cited facts - scientific debate; private security; the paleontology of mass violence. You restated your beliefs.

You do underscore a basic, radical difference between conservatives and objectivists. You claim that this is not about "original sin or whether people are basically good or evil." Then, you assert a contradiction comprised of the (baseless) claim that people have "instincts" which "some of us" can override with volition while others _volitionally give in to their instincts_ for aggression. That last is a contradiction within the contradiction. Your claim, "people are going to act as nature has programmed us to..." is only a secular version of original sin.

Moreover, we do, indeed, act as nature programmed us to: we cannot fly by flapping our arms. We cannot dive as deep or as long as whales. Those facts are not in dispute. What is being argued is whether or not people can choose to recognize reality, use reason, and live in a community where rights are respected. Obviously, we can and do.

How, when, and to what extent this becomes a global norm is the problem of creating a culture.

It is wonderful dream. :)

Here you will find the answer of how to form this culture.
http://www.TheSocietyProject.org