Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!mccolm
From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A non-sexist society and so on...(more LONG puppies)
Message-ID: <6801@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 8-Sep-85 20:01:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.6801
Posted: Sun Sep  8 20:01:20 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Sep-85 10:04:13 EDT
References: <6733@ucla-cs.ARPA> <2680@randvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 53
Keywords: humanist utopia
Summary: 

In article <2680@randvax.UUCP> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes:
> Eric McColm has given his description of a ``humanist'' society.
> As a humanist, I'd like to state for the record that this is his
> own concept of a humanistic society and not necessarily anyone
> elses.  In fact, there are humanists that would blanch at some
> of the totalitarian implications of:
>
> >3)  Domination of one group by another group is impossible.
> >
> >4)  The concept of "ownership" is radically different from that at present.
> >
> >6)  The systems and structures of governments and economies are starkly
> >    different from most such organizations at present.

Yes, Ed, this is my own pet definition of a "humanist" society.  Someone
already mentioned that I should have used a different name to avoid the
collision.  So call it "sentiist" if it makes any difference.

BUT, the three points mentioned are an integral part of the societal view.
And, I should point out, not because of any institution that prevents
domination or possessiveness.  My implied thought included the idea that
the society has these traits because the *people* in the society wanted
them.  They evolved, instead of being inflicted.

Follow it thusly:  our society is a far cry from even being non-sexist.
By the time enough social change had occurred to bring about a non-sexist
society with the remaining points of "sentiism" (i.e., all those in the
original list, except for these three) popular consensus would swing to
the belief that our current economic and political structures were unfair,
and that there was room for improvement.  And the systems would *slowly*
adapt to the will of their customers.  In the end, the current structures
for decision-making and the mobilization of resources would have to conform
to the newly-developed but socially home-grown ethics of the people of
the time.  It would be painfully slow, but that is historically safer.

The three points would be true, not because some agency decided to enforce
them, but because the general public sees them as desirable.  I make no
claim about how our society can attain the state in question.

DISCLAIMER:  I claim not to be humanist, sentiist, feminist, masculist,
animalist, vegetist, fungist, or Enlightened by the Goddess.  I am who I
am, and if I have to wear a label, I'd rather that it was my name.
And there is no way in Cleveland this college agrees with me.
--fini--

Eric McColm
UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless
UUCP:  ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm
ARPA:  mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
Quotes on the Nature of Existence:
   "To be, or not to be..."    -Hamlet  (Wm. Shakespeare)
   "I think, therefore I am."  -R. Descartes
   ""                  -Gleep   (Robt. Asprin)