Quote from: 420 on August 10, 2012, 10:40:54 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on August 09, 2012, 03:24:33 PM

Quote from: cbeast on August 09, 2012, 03:17:47 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on August 09, 2012, 03:13:15 PM

Quote from: cbeast on August 09, 2012, 03:03:54 PM

Quote from: bitcoinbitcoin113 on August 09, 2012, 02:58:23 PM

Quote

To answer your scholastic question about the needs of human nature I'll refer to Maslow since he is the simplest to argue. As long as physiological, safety, interpersonal, and esteem needs are met, people will thrive. It should be our goal to create a community that fosters these to the best of our ability. The rewards for doing so will be ever improving technology.

It takes more than this. Without the right attitude most people will just party or do what everyone else does to get by rather than work towards improving themselves and their environment . Do the methods used to provide for peoples basic needs encourage them to be curious and productive? If not, then it may not be worth it.

Scientifically disproven argument. Besides, I didn't posit a method. Read a few books about experimental psychology.

Well then the science disagrees with what I observe in my every day life. Also, I didn't say you did posit a method, I was just putting the issue forth as something to be considered. Dismissing what I said because it has been "scientifically disproven" would be unwise.

"Science" is wrong more than right. I have a degree in psych, I think it is mostly people arguing about various opinions (slightly better than "philosophy"). The field is valuable in that it provides phenomena to be explained by the more "bottom-up" approaches, but I wouldn't take the aspects of it that make it into pop culture that seriously. Using the psych literature as the basis for public policy is foolish. Sure, use the information, but don't treat it as some kind of infallible truth.

OK then real life examples. Most great inventors, artists, authors, etc. in history lived on a pension of some sort. They were supported by family wealth or at the amusement of an aristocrat. People struggling to survive don't think grand thoughts. Speaking of which, I must now bow to my master for a few hours.

I would agree. I would just change the original wording from "[if needs are met] people will thrive" to "the ability of people to thrive is facilitated by having their basic needs met". In other words, having basic needs met is necessary but not sufficient for thriving.

The entire right column of that is not "needs". Those are Internet resources that do nothing more than waste time that could go to proper socialization.