[PUG] Possessions

[slant]

What value do we as a society put on possessions and why?

Is the acquisition of possessions an inherent sign of American greed and a culturally elevated sense of superiority and desire for such things?

Are those who choose to own less possessions necessarily banking on a more morally sound way of living or creating a paradox by pushing away the value of possessions by denying them when other cultures that have no availability of these resources that are being idealized might arguably take use and advantage of the resources, if only they had them?

What do we prize as our most valuable possessions, and why?

Can certain things actually be owned by mankind, such as the earth and planets in the solar system?

Are all objects in reach of mankind ours to acquire?

How should ownership of possessions be determined, and is there a valid way to own something?

Does owning things ultimately lead to conflict within mankind because of limited resources and thxe fact that not everyone can get what they want?

Should we instead live in a society free of possessions entirely? How would a society without possessions function, sink or swim?


Please share your detailed thoughts and well-thunk opinions about possessions.

 

[MikeA]

You are NOT taking my cigarettes away from me.
You are NOT taking my computer away from me.
You are NOT taking my clothes away from me.
You are NOT taking my food away from me.
You are NOT taking what I've worked hard to get.

I'll take yours. As payback.
First off, I will kidnap your children, because you value them as possessions.

 

[Barnabas]

Is thunk a word?

 

[MikeA]

Thunk was made popular by George Carlin in one of his acts.
It was misunderstood by a majority of thunkers.

 

[bickelz]

I think it's called Georgism when people own tings they trade but all the land is owned by the collective people (or owned by no one, depending on how you look at it). I kind of like that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Whenever I visit the U.S. I notice that Americans have, in general, a slightly different attitude to possessions than Australians generally have.

Americans seem either ashamed/deflated/embarrassed on account of lacking certain possessions - or standard/quality of possessions; or proud/inflated/haughty/etc of their valuable possessions. (Different people estimate value differently).

Australians generally seem to derive more utility from the possessions themselves, than their perceived social status implications. Australians will like a nice car because it is fast, drives well, is pleasing to the eye, etc.


It seems to me that Americans are generally quite concerned about what others think about them - and see possessions as one of the key criteria which people use in making character/status judgements. Australians don't seem to care very much about what others think about them.


The point is this: possessions serve different functions in different societies - or more basically - they serve different functions to different people.

 

[Siamese cat]

In my opinion, ownership of something comes with an inherent responsibility towards it which is greater and different than one we have towards someone else's possessions. If I own a house in a fancy neighbourhood and one day just decide to burn it down, though that house is mine to own, I should be responsible for what I do with it. Other people either disagree with me in this point, or they choose not to live by it, judging by their demeanour towards their possessions. This is also the reason why I think that we neither own this planet or any other for that matter, nor should we, until we are capable and willing to look after it properly.

I don't think that having a society based on possessions or the society based on not having possessions would be a solution to anything.

I'll elaborate more later.

 

[dukeofearl]

I think possessions need to serve a purpose. Having something just to let it sit unused doesnt make sense to me.