User blog comment:Nults McKagan/The Irrelevant and Unnecessary Philosophical Conundrums of Nults McKagan/@comment-3112181-20130525045057

1. Seeing as primates such as orangutans and chimps are kept in captivity for the public to view, and our prehistoric ancestors weren't much different than these primates, I could very well see them as exhibits in a zoo.

2. I don't think "society" is the right word in that question. Remember, even the Native Americans formed their own societies, even though they weren't as technologically-advanced as, say, the parallel Western societies. The opposite of a society of humans would simply be each human living in complete isolation from one another, and I don't think that could go far, as humans need to interact with each other to not order survive but reproduce. So in short, no, if we abandoned all society, we wouldn't last long. Society is good. Even though the people within your own society can be stupid sometimes.

3. Heavens, no. Besides religion, profit and property are the two main reasons most wars or started or people in general are killed. Why was WWII started? No, contrary to popular belief, it was not because of the Holocaust. It was due to Germany's thirst to conquer more lands (i.e., property). Why did the European powers carve up Africa, Asia, and the Americas as their colonies, resulting in such enlightening ideas such as slavery and other negative effects of colonialism? They wanted territory and money (i.e., property and profit). The fact of the matter is, both profit and property generate greed, which (along with religion and race) creates a massive fissure in the human race. The capitalist system many countries operate off of today only endorses this greed. That isn't to say citizens shouldn't be allowed to have money or own property; but, in a socialist society, profit and property can be regulated by the government, so all citizens are equal in wealth and how much land they own, obliterating the killing factour of greed. Granted, the only reason this hasn't worked in history (and is therefore frowned upon in many societies) is due to the corruption that most often entails in a socialist nation. However, a socialist society that appoints (or gives the opportunity to appoint) a single head-of-state who, by human nature, will eventually assume complete control, only occurs in a radical form of socialism, often called communism. Combining the economic ideas of socialism and the anti-totalitarian ideas of a democratic society would result in democratic socialism: the perfect hybrid of economy and government. We'd be without poverty whilst maintaining a healthy government. Profit and property could continue to exist, under strict regulation from the government, whilst allowing the citizens to have their own rights and representation. This eliminates any greed whilst also maintaining freedom.

4. Since the first civilisations of Sumer and Babylon, fighting has occurred non-stop in the Middle East for 5,000 years. Not to be a pessimist, but I highly doubt it will ever cease, at least in our life-time. You figure the extreme conservative values of several Islamic nations and their unwillingness to tolerate a Jewish nation within the neighbourhood such as Israel, would result in a riff where no side wins. Add to the fire the fact that the more developed nations (such as the US) continuously "intervenes in corrupt governments" for the purpose of reaping the nations' oil. Internal conflict + external conflict = eternal conflict.

5. Answering this question would be paradoxical, seeing everything we possibly know right now has been taught to us by the society we live in: for most of us, these socieites are Western. Like all complex matters, both good and evil exists in these societies. A good analogy here would be Hegel's pendulum theory: we have the extremes in our society (extreme good and extreme evil) and we have the central point that is just right for society. Perhaps we haven't found this central point yet (that is to say the pendulum has not yet stopped swinging) and perhaps we never will. Technology, politics, economy, and other matters we have produced from our current society are both beneficial and corrupting: we just need to know which is which so we'll therefore know what to avoid.

6. Being a legalist, I endorse the saying "eye for an eye". Depending on how serious a crime committed is, should decide what the punishment is. I don't support the death penalty but I don't oppose it.

7. Copyright laws can be good, but are often used too extensively, especially for identical ideas.

8. Sure. People can watch what they want to watch. As long as viewer descretion warnings are issued. I think the current system when it comes to public television is ideal.

9. What I'm about to say is going to upset a lot of people. I believe the "War on Terror" is the biggest piece of bullcrap in modern history. As I said, it's an attempt for these supposed "liberators of terrorism" e.g., NATO nations, to get their hands on oil and territory. I'm not saying terrorism doesn't exist; it certainly does. But, let's be honest: the US and several other nations are not in Afghanistan right now to put down a gang of jihadists hiding in a cave. If that was their main purpose, they would have easily gotten them years (perhaps even decades) ago and would no longer be there. Afghanistan's government is extremely weak, and is already practically a puppet of NATO. These countries, namely the US, are just looking to expand the "American Empire", assert their influence in the already-crumbling Afghani government, use the puppet state to rival Iran (which, non-coincidentally, is right next to Afghanistan), and get their hands on some coveted Middle Eastern oil. Once again, here we go with the profit and property concepts. "Terrorism" itself has been exaggerated big time through the media. Consider this quote: "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." That sounds like Bush's policy on detaining terrorism, right? Wrong. The speaker of that quote was Adolf Hitler. Terrorism has become the scapegoat the US has used to gain access into the Middle East, and therefore further increase their influence in such a vital region of the world. Also consider these statistics: since 9/11, the US has spent $1.18 trillion to fight terrorism. How many American citizens since 9/11 have actually been killed from domestic and foreign terrorism? 116 (not counting military personnel, which is about 6,000). Now, consider this: over the past decade the US has spent $90 billion into research to find a cure for cancer. In the past decade, approximately 5,586,440 Americans have died from cancer. It doesn't make sense; the money is being spent on fighting the wrong killer.

10. My views on feminism stand like this. Women and men are equal today. Feminism was very productive when women obviously weren't equal to men, but that isn't an issue today. Therefore, feminism is pretty much irrelevant.

11. As far as the American school system goes, I've noticed many American students are too black-and-white and lack certain appreciations. Look at Finland, the most educationally successful nation on Earth. Rarely do they give "homework" or "tests". Rather than focusing on critical thinking skills, though, Finland tends to put the focus on creative building skills, and not being so concrete in their curriculum. Students therefore develop an appreciate for knowledge, and the critical thinking results from that. I believe all nations should develop this model.