Jump to content

Does second life need to be governed?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3342 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Tiffy Vella wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

I'd defend your position but you'd say I was being patronising so I'll just provide an example to support it:

The major difference between copying code, music, etc. and taking a bicycle, computer or other tangible item is exactly that - it is copied, not taken.  Therefore no-one is denied its use.  From a utilitarian view "the greatest good" is increased by copying and thus maximising the availability of such intangibles.

(I'll leave it to you to explain how the greater good is served by having starving programmers and composers hanging around making the place look untidy)

I was thinkinga bout this the other day .. Was thinking that making it so an item in SL couldnt be copied & shared was like an animal breeder only selling neutered animals 

If i acquire something in SL why shouldnt i be able to copy it & share it w/ others for free? Only because the person who made it is selfish & wants to be the only one who can distribute copies of it for profit .. thats why !! Code is readily replicable .. so why artificially make it difficult to replicate ?!? Only due to the greed of the scripter .. apparently .. This is just 1 example of capitalist pathology.. there are many more: planned obsolescence, non-interchangeability of components, brand redundancy, the engineering of faux need ........ & on & on .. Yet ppl defend this craziness as if their well-being depended on it !! Guess they've been indoctrinated to believe it does

Jeanne

 

Jeanne.jpg


WOW !! I'm flattered .. You went to all the trouble to do this in my honor .. Thank you Tiffy !! :heart:

I'll return the favor:

The idea of private ownership of stuff is a pathological aberation .. For hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution the idea didnt exist .. Hence, we aren't adapted for having our minds parasitized by the concept .. The pathology of accumulating stuff, calling it "mine" & refraining from sharing it is only a few thousand years old .. During the time that this pathological meme has propagated in Lamarckian fashion we have seen the ascendency of Father War god religion, the debasement of women & of nature, the rise of slavery, the dawn of agriculture characterized by overgrazing & consequent desertification, metabolic disease has become common due to malnutrition, the necessity for toil has arisen, increased population density leading to outbreaks of infectious disease has occurred .. Meanwhile, war has been waged against the natural environment resulting in ecosystem collapse and an ongoing mass extinction episode. Organized warfare has arisen ~after all, all our stuff must be defended !! ~ & this warfare has led to the Holocaust & nuclear bombardment of Japan .. Private ownership & unequitable distribution of wealth has become codified as capitalist socio-economic & political ideology .. Those with vested interest in perpetuating this abberant pathological ideology have gained control of the schooling of children & of the various propaganda organs we call media .. & have used these tools to infect the minds of children with pathological capitalist memeplexes & indeed .. have managed to program those oppressed by sociopathic capitalism so that they are compelled to vehemently defend the very pathology that infects their minds & oppresses them .. So compelled by their programming are they that they will resort to hatefulness, sarcasm & obsessive attacks on any & all who would dare challenge their pathological programming .. We can see examples of this very thing happening right here in this forum Tiffy .. Your post for example

SL, w/ its toy capitalist economy, is just another means by which the corporate oppressors program sheeple with capitalist ideology. It's a capitalist propaganda tool disguised as a game. Those of you who buy in2 the toy economy .. who obsess over "IP theft" & DCMA rules & copybotting & such .. have been successfully  indoctrinated .. You resent me for mocking the toy economy thats so important to you & for having a very good time in SL w/out spending a single penny on it .. Youre jealous of someone who has managed to evade the trap set by LL to take your real $$ & put it in their pockets .. You cant stand that someone dares to state the obvious about this pernicious scam: to whit, that youre being duped by capitalist greed hogs into transferring your wealth to them with nothing in return to show for it besides cartoons. The cartoons are pretty ~for sure !! ~ but they arent 'worth' anything .. Your entire inv, the "land" you claim to "own" LOL all the time & creativity youve invested in making images of stuff that isnt even real .. has all been nothing more than an exercise in making LL execs & shareholders rich @ your expense. How dare I tell the truth ?!?!

There Tiffy .. I hope I managed to fascinate & amuse you .. Blessed BE !!

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


JeanneAnne wrote:

...There Tiffy .. I hope I managed to fascinate & amuse you .. Blessed BE !!

Well you did it for her and so it's only her that matters but personally I thought it wasn't one of your best.  I prefer the ones where you advocate things rather than just do polemic.  Would you care to explain your theory of value, for example (Deltango should like that too, as an economist).  You said "The cartoons are pretty ~for sure !! ~ but they arent 'worth' anything" which implies that you accept the concept of 'worth' (and I don't think they're "worth" anything either, but then I don't think much is).

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>..but personally I thought it wasn't one of your best.<<

Agreed .. Wasa streamuv consciousness kinda thing .. Still .. it summed things up fairly succinctly

>>Would you care to explain your theory of value<<

'k Nature has intrinsic value .. Anything that harms nature diminishes value .. Human enterprise is entropic .. Human activity almost always results in net reduction of value ..

Life is intrinsically valuable .. Yet organisms must consume resources in order to survive .. The highest value .. the greatest good .. consists of maintaining quality of life for every living thing .. This is best accomplished via the preservation of healthy, diverse, functioning ecosystems .. Human activity degrades ecosystems & often completely destroys them .. Hence, doing less .. doing only that which is absolutely necessariy .. contributes to the greatest good ..

SL requires resources ~ coal, methane, copper ...~ & the mining, processing, oxidation .. of these resources harms ecosystems ... Yet !! its my belief that SL performs a net good .. by keeping ppl home & @ their computers .. rather than driving to clubs or concerts or stores or wherever ~in RL .. Hence ~to my mind~ SL has value  Value also accrues by contributing to happiness .. If SL makes ppl feel happy then it has value .. is good .. ALL too often tho .. as we see in these fora .. SL causes frustration, conflict, ill will, heartbreak .... Still tho .. I believe that SL provides net value .. Maybe I only want to believe that ..

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

 

... The best poets & musicians & artists of all sorts have always shared their work freely ..

Jeanne

???

Cervantes never shared "The Quixote" freely.

Calderón de la Barca, Quevedo, Lópe de Vega, Góngora, Camilo José Cela, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Velázquez, Murillo, Dalí, Picasso, (please add maaaaaaaaany more spanish artists) never shared ther work freely.

As seen, all were a filthy capitalist :)

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

>>..but personally I thought it wasn't one of your best.<<

Agreed .. Wasa streamuv consciousness kinda thing .. Still .. it summed things up fairly succinctly


This is an off-the-top-of-my-head response too.  That's ok, not every song has to be a hit :-)

The rest was interesting particularly because I was thinking of the 'value' (if any) that we place on entertainment.  I'm not interested in gambling, for instance, but many people are ok with the fact they'll lose x amount just because, in return, they are entertained by the evening of spending it.

In modern societies far, far, more people are stupidly over-rewarded for being entertainers than bankers, politicians, etc.  Professional footballers (whatever shape the 'football' is, lol), singers, actors, TV presenters, etc. whose fame and achievements are forgotten within a few years, at most.  Then there are the industries that bring that entertainment to the masses; the record-label executives and media lovies who all think they're doing something oh so important or clever.  Ultimately there's the third-hand entertainer, the DJ.  Someone who becomes famous not for making music or even making records of other people's music but for playing other people's records of other people's music.

Presumably any person's theory of value must be influenced by their personal needs.  On any heirarchy of needs it appears that the pinnacle is not self-realisation, advanced learning or achievement.  More people have always preferred indolence and being entertained by someone else.

Just chucking some stuff out there, I'm not going anywhere (that I know of) with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:


Irene Muni wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:

 

... The best poets & musicians & artists of all sorts have always shared their work freely ..

Jeanne

???

Cervantes never shared "The Quixote" freely.

Calderón de la Barca, Quevedo, Lópe de Vega, Góngora, Camilo José Cela, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Velázquez, Murillo, Dalí, Picasso, (please add maaaaaaaaany more spanish artists) never shared ther work freely.

As
seen,
all were
a
filthy
capitalist
:)

Chingao !!

Quizás usted debe salir de España y trasladarse a Costa Rica.

Jeanne

When you have no arguments you use the insult?

Is that your Free and Brotherhood society?

Any problem with Spain? Any problem with Costa Rica?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Irene Muni wrote:


JeanneAnne wrote:

 

... The best poets & musicians & artists of all sorts have always shared their work freely ..

Jeanne

???

Cervantes never shared "The Quixote" freely.

Calderón de la Barca, Quevedo, Lópe de Vega, Góngora, Camilo José Cela, Juan Ramón Jiménez, Velázquez, Murillo, Dalí, Picasso, (please add maaaaaaaaany more spanish artists) never shared ther work freely.

As
seen,
all were
a
filthy
capitalist
:)

Irene, I too am utterly unable to name anyone who has created anything remarkable throughout history who did not need to be paid for their efforts. All the great people, and closer-to-normal ones who do more routine work, all needed to provide for their material needs. Greedy greedy them.

In my experience, the only ones on this planet who expect everything for free, actually never have anything to provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us all just admit that JeanneAnne is better than us all, in that she has managed by her own superior intellect and consciousness to escape the traps set by greedy capitalist pigs with their pernicious mind control to force her to spend the money that she earns from a job working for greedy capitalists that she despises her self for doing.

Bra-vo, JeanneAnne. You are a beacon of hope for future generations that will look to you for guidance when the human brain has evolved to your own level of extraordinary awareness.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

Let us all just admit that JeanneAnne is better than us all, in that she has managed by her own superior intellect and consciousness to escape the traps set by greedy capitalist pigs with their pernicious mind control to force her to spend the money that she earns from a job working for greedy capitalists that she despises her self for doing.

Bra-vo, JeanneAnne. You are a beacon of hope for future generations that will look to you for guidance when the human brain has evolved to your own level of extraordinary awareness.

Honestly, I'd love the world to be the Nirvana Jean describes.  A world where no need goes unmet. 

But that is not the way the world works.  Not even in nature.  Even animals defend their turf. 

She appears to want to pick and choose which property rights are legitimate and which aren't as it is convenient to her.  In other words, according to  her selfish desires. 

Where is the benefit to the song writer / musician when she illegally downloads their music?

Are they supposed to 'eat' her appreciation or buy new guitar strings with it?

Hey, I'm horny tonight and I think she is the one who can satisfy my need.  What if she doesn't feel like it?  Oooops.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."       Thomas Jefferson

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>I'm not interested in gambling, for instance, but many people are ok with the fact they'll lose x amount just because, in return, they are entertained by the evening of spending it.<<

I dont buy this .. No1 is ok w/ losing $$ gambling .. they gamble cuz they believe they may win .. If they understood prob & stats theyd know better ..

>>In modern societies far, far, more people are stupidly over-rewarded for being entertainers than bankers, politicians, etc.<<

Not sure this is true .. Prolly is literally true but whole cadres of ppl need to be included in the 'bankers, politicians, etc.' category .. Straw boss managers, execs that boss ppl around w/out producing anything .. etc. .. Mid level parasites are also stupidly over-rewarded

>>Professional footballers .. singers, actors, TV presenters, etc. whose fame and achievements are forgotten within a few years, at most<<

Yeah .. this is just an overtly perverse example of pervasive capitalist pathology tho .. & doesnt bother me much .. Whats FAR worse is the common wage earner who destroys productions of nature on the behest of his overlords in their pursuit of proft un2 themselves .. Bimbo 'entertainers' selling a gadzillion cds 2 mindless acolytes w/ no taste .. or some trog kicking a ball in2 some arbitrary goal 2 the adulation of idiot fans .. is just laughable .. The real villians are the everday guys on the tractors & backhoes tearing up nature in order to build stuff so that ever more ppl can do the same .. Its a termites mentality & its sick .. on 2nd thot .. ~sorry to insult termites~ its the mentality of the cancer cell & its destroying all thats wholesome & good

>>On any heirarchy of needs it appears that the pinnacle is not self-realisation, advanced learning or achievement.<<

Maslow's thinking .. I dont buy this mindset either .. its alla bout striving .. Dont strive i say .. thers nothing that any1 truly needs that must be strived for .. Or wasnt .. until greedy aquisitive thinking gained ascendency .. Just be .. just do what comes natural .. & need wont be an issue ,, The Ocean Planet's profuse bounty is sufficent for all .. so long as a population lives w/in carrying capacity .. Uv course .. humans dont .. so theres hell to pay

>>More people have always preferred indolence and being entertained..<<

& why shouldnt they ??

Jeanne

 

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

...>>More people have always preferred indolence and being entertained..<<

& why shouldnt they ??

Jeanne

 

Oh dear :-(

 

Bhudda: Second Noble Truth "There is the origin of suffering, which is attachment to desire"Shakespeare: Much Ado About Nothing 1:1 "What need the bridge much broader than the flood"Anonymous: Luke 12:27 "Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin"

Human nature is to blame.  This was always Marx's mistake I thought - he had some nice ideas that unfortunately were completely irrelevant to people.  Since Communism can't change to fit people it has been forcing people to fit it ever since, making Stalin and Mao the biggest mass-murderers in history.

Link to post
Share on other sites


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

JeanneAnne wrote:

...>>More people have always preferred indolence and being entertained..<<

& why shouldnt they ??

Jeanne

 

Oh dear :-(

 
Bhudda: Second Noble Truth "There is the origin of suffering, which is attachment to desire"Shakespeare: Much Ado About Nothing 1:1 "What need the bridge much broader than the flood"Anonymous: Luke 12:27 "Consider the lilies, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin"

Human nature is to blame.  This was always Marx's mistake I thought - he had some nice ideas that unfortunately were completely irrelevant to people.  Since Communism can't change to fit people it has been forcing people to fit it ever since, making Stalin and Mao the biggest mass-murderers in history.

Neither the Soviet Union or Maoist China were Communist societies. The USSR didnt even claim to be. Both were authoritarian dictatorships. Its partuv the capitalist propaganda to condition ppl to point to the USSR & China & say: "See? Communism doesnt work." Dont fall for these lies.

Much closer to the Marxist ideal are modern Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway.. People elect their leaders, are heavily taxed, and never have to worry about being homeless or not able to afford health care or a good education. 

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Marx was just fundamentally wrong.  Violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat are necessary parts of the Communist manifesto.  The fault of Communism does not lie in what a good society looks like but in how to go about getting it.  All the countries you mentioned are capitalist democracies proving that THE central tenet of Communist theory - that Capitalism and Democracy can never redefine themselves to support the proletariat - is wrong.  That being wrong the need for revolution and dictatorship is wrong.  Revolution and dictatorship being wrong the totalitarian policies that result are wrong.  The policies being wrong Communists kill and impoverish millions of their own people.

But surely you think that's a good thing anyway, since humans and human nature are the problem? (Don't bother answering that, I'm kidding-ish).  You did not consider (in another post in some other thread) that an education was any education at all unless it was in the hard sciences, and that therefore my politics and philosophy degrees did not count for anything.  I also have batchelor's and master's degress in computing so can do the logic.  Nevertheless, I'll rely on 7 years of studying how states control their own populations for this one :-)

What is arguable is the degree to which any system scales.  The Scandinavian countries are all reasonably small all have low populations by first-world standards, being mainly around 5 million (Sweden 9 million).  In contrast the two principal countries to try Communism are the worlds largest and most populous.  Communism has been tried and has failed at all scales.  Sorry yours maths qualification has led you to a nice theory that is utterly impractical.  “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.”  Einstein.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>No, Marx was just fundamentally wrong.<<

Marx was wrong about certain things ~as was Darwin~ That doesn't make him "fundamentally" wrong. He failed to anticipate the rise of a middle class, for instance. I contend that he wasn't even "wrong" about this .. He just failed to anticipate that cheap reduced carbon resources would allow the bourgeoisie to buy off the proletariat thus reducing the incentive of the exploited class to foment Revolution. Cheap reduced carbon resources are running out & the middle class is in decline. Hence, Revolution has merely been delayed, not permanently forestalled. As austerity is forced on the People by the evil central banksters & their lackeys in government .. Revolution will happen .. The PIIGS could well go up in flames this summer.

>>..proving that THE central tenet of Communist theory - that Capitalism and Democracy can never redefine themselves to support the proletariat - is wrong.<<

I don't think so. Human population exceeds the carrying capacity of the biosphere by an order & a half of magnitude. This is unprecedented in evolutionary history for any large vertebrate & has only been accomplished by means of the clever ape trick of extracting reduced carbon from the crust & oxidizing it. Global petroleum production peaked in 2005 ~altho the peak month was July of '07~ Humanity has entered upon the backslope of Hubbert's peak & as reduced carbon resources become increasingly depleted agro-industrial enterprise will no longer be capable of supporting such an obscenely bloated population. Famine on a wholly unprecedented scale will ensue followed by precipitant population collapse. You can bet your booty that Revolution will be one result of fuel unaffordablitiy / unavailability. But it will be too late by then. Capitalist propaganda & the buying off of the proletariat will have deferred Revolution leading to equitable distribution of wealth until collapse towards extinction has become the inevitable outcome.

>>But surely you think that's a good thing anyway, since humans and human nature are the problem? (Don't bother answering that, I'm kidding-ish).<<

I'll respond anyway. Human population collapse & potential extinction on the time scale of decades to a few centuries, at most, isn't about "good" or "bad." Populations that exceed the carrying capacity of the environment that supplies them with the necessities of life collapse ~period. It is neither a good or bad thing .. it's just the inevitable consequence of outbreeding the resource base. When humans are extinct the biogeochemical equilibrium of the Ocean Planet will be reestablished and biodiversity will slowly recover. "Bad," perhaps, for humans but "good" in the long run for the natural productions of the biosphere.

>> You did not consider (in another post in some other thread) that an education was any education at all unless it was in the hard sciences, and that therefore my politics and philosophy degrees did not count for anything.<<

True. You may know far more than me about politics & sociology, etc. But you are rather clueless regarding the larger picture. That isn't surprising. Few are cognizant, for a variety of reasons. Foremost being that most people lack the background in physics, biology, & ecology necessary for perceiving the larger picture, and lack the mathematical ability for grasping these subjects in fullness. Also, vested capitalist interests work to ensure that the larger picture remains obscure to the proletariat.

>>The Scandinavian countries are all reasonably small all have low populations by first-world standards..<<

Kudos to you for recognizing that population is the primary issue. By virtue of having relative small populations, the Scandinavian countries are able to operate as relatively benign & equitable Socialist democracies far better than more overly populated nations such as the US & China.

>>In contrast the two principal countries to try Communism are the worlds largest and most populous.<<

India is ~and was even during the heyday of the USSR~ far more populous than the Soviet Union. You may have an inkling of population issues but not a very good one or you wouldn't post such basic factual misstatements.

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


JeanneAnne wrote:

By virtue of having relative small populations, the Scandinavian countries are able to operate as relatively benign & equitable Socialist democracies far better than more overly populated nations such as the US & China.

>>In contrast the two principal countries to try Communism are the worlds largest and most populous.<<

India is ~and was even during the heyday of the USSR~ far more populous than the Soviet Union.
You may have an inkling of population issues but not a very good one or you wouldn't post such basic factual misstatements.

Jeanne

The metric of interest (as you mention carrying capacity) is probably population/arable land. Of 233 countries, the Scandinavians, Norway(133), Sweden(166) and Denmark(193) are all more "overly populated" than the US(205).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marx, revolution and all that:  Nah, sorry, Marx, Engels and every Communist that followed them said lots of very specific class things would cause the collapse of the existing capitalist societies.  They were wrong.  That the existing post-industrial societies will one day collapse, as every other society has, ever, for different reasons does not make them right.

In particular Communism was a response to spreading industrialisation, based on the use of hydrocarbons (mainly coal).  Far from failing to anticipate their importance Marx specifically said they would be used as a tool of greater opression, not bribery.  It was exactly because Capitalists could never change themselves to buy off the proletariat that Communist revolution was inevitable.  As your statement and history shows, he was exactly wrong.

Your economic and Matlhusian arguments are a completely different subject.  Your anti-humanism is notably optimistic though.  (It's a moot point since we can't know now and won't be around to find out then but you seem convinced that only humanity has had or will ever have an unbalanced effect on the planet.  It could just as easily be said that green plants were devastating, creating the oxygen-rich mono-culture that they did).

I have no idea what 'larger picture' you mean since you've never mentioned it before.  With your repeated emphasis on the requirements of mathematical ability I assume it is Platonic (ignore that, it's a Philosophy joke).

Can I point out again that Communist theory is wrong.  Not only was it wrong about the countries where it wasn't tried but it was tried in countries of all sizes, not just the principal ones, and has failed everywhere.  [incidentally, I don't count Cuba since it's impossible to disentangle events there from the continual USA intrusion]  I would also point out that the USA is uniquely malign and single-minded in its consumerism, if not its capitalism.  Modern Germany (80 million) does rather well.

I meant to say that Russia was the world's largest country and China was the world's most populous.  If you wish to debate at all please give me enough respect to realise that leaving out the word 'respectively' is at worst a grammatical error and not a 'basic factual misstatement'.  I really think I have more than an 'inkling' of population issues too.  In fact I'd go as far as to claim I have an entire inkle.

Link to post
Share on other sites


PeterCanessa Oh wrote:

Those that are not of a delicate disposition may see many inkles here: 

I don't know if the loom is still up in my attic, but I do have a few bookmarks I made with it, circa 1980.

Here's one...

Inkle.jpg

Whether the unseen bit is actually inside the book or not I can't say for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Marx ... said lots of very specific class things would cause the collapse of the existing capitalist societies... That the existing post-industrial societies will one day collapse, as every other society has, ever, for different reasons does not make them right.<<

Marx wasn't prescient and couldn't foresee all the details that would bring capitalist societies to their knees along with regional ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. He wasn't an ecologist or biogeochemist altho he had read Darwin and almost certainly had read Malthus. If he over-emphasized class issues and under-emphasized environmental factors it was because, like you, he was basically educated in the social "sciences" and lived in the 19th century when environmental catastrophe didnt loom imminent. The point that he may have been wrong about precipitant causes for the collapse of capitalism is rather moot compared to his being right about the fact that they do bring about their own collape, whether by means of class warfare or environmental devestation.

>> Far from failing to anticipate their importance Marx specifically said they would be used as a tool of greater opression, not bribery.<<

Fossil fuels serve as both. They serve as tools of greater oppression in that the ruling class makes the working class dependant on them while controling their distribution, and they serve as bribes in that if you submit to ruling class oppression you, too, can share in the energetic benefits their combustion provides.

>>Your economic and Matlhusian arguments are a completely different subject.<<

The point is that greed driven resource consumption and consequent depletion of resources coupled with overpopulation and rampant environmental devestation are driving humanity towards a collision with planetary limits, population collapse and potential extinction. Marx realized this and offered an alternative to the pathological class stratification, unequitable distribution of wealth, materialism and aquisitivness that ensure demise. "From all according to ability, to all according to need," was his solution to a situation he saw as being dire and is much more dire today. This may be nieve and it may be too little too late.. but it was a sincere and good-hearted attempt to rectify the situation. It constitutes right-thought and right-livelihood whether it would prove sufficient if actually put into practice, or not. It's a damnsite better way to run a society than the dog-eat-dog capitalism we suffer under as is.

>>Your anti-humanism is notably optimistic though.<<

I'm not anti-humanist. Humanism is a step in the right direction but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Anthropocentric emphasis must give way to biocentrism as the next step. And once that step has been taken, biocentrism must give way to ecocentrism. Mine is a thoroly ecocentric worldview. You may have arrived at  humanism or anthropocentrism Peter, but most people ~ especially those thoroly indoctrinated with capitalist memes & memeplexes~ haven't even made it that far. The knee-jerk defense of the very greed based constructs that oppress them made by many posters in these fora attest to this fact.

>>..you seem convinced that only humanity has had or will ever have an unbalanced effect on the planet.  It could just as easily be said that green plants were devastating, creating the oxygen-rich mono-culture that they did).<<

Did I not specifically say that the human populational overburden staggering the biosphere is unprecidented in evolutionary history by any large vertebrate? Are cyanobacteria or green plants large vertebrates? Yeah.. the accumulation of free O2 in the atmosphere as the biproduct of photosynthesis was probably the greatest environmental crisis ~of biotic etiology~ ever to befall the Ocean Planet's biosphere. Yet it was gradual and probably didn't precipitate a mass extinction episode. Rather, obligate anerobes were forced to evolve faciltative aerobic metabolisms or retreat exclusively into anoxic environments. All previous great mass extinction episodes have had abiotic causes ~ most notably extraterrestrial bolide impacts. The currently ongoing anthropogenic extinction is the first great mass extinction pulse in the history of life to be caused by biotic processes.

>>I have no idea what 'larger picture' you mean since you've never mentioned it before.  With your repeated emphasis on the requirements of mathematical ability I assume it is Platonic.. <<

The 'larger picture' I refer to transcends the socio-political considerations that are apparently your forte.. and includes planetary processes and even solar system dynamics: from how ecosystem functioning is being compromised by acquisitive human activity.. to how atmospheric and surface ocean chemistry is being poisoned.. to how the biogeochemical cycling dynamics of nutrient elements is being perturbated and uncoupled.. to the Milankovitch cycles, climatic forcing and bolide impacts. Successfully complete a 4 hr. graduate level class in biogeochemistry with P-chem as a prerequisite and then maybe we can communicate productively.

>>[Incidentally, I don't count Cuba since it's impossible to disentangle events there from the continual USA intrusion] <<

Did not the US spend exorbitantly on a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union that either nation could ill afford? Has not the CIA and US military meddled in the internal affairs of every nation that has even provisionally attempted to implement a Communist socio-economic paradigm ~from Korea to Viet Nam to Nicaragua? Why are you only willing to exclude Cuba from the list of nations with "failed" Communist governance due to what you believe are flaws intrinsic or fundamental to Communism? How do you know that Communism wouldn't have flourished in other nations sans interference by the US and other Western capitalist nations on behalf of the greedy corporate special interests that control these governments?

>>I would also point out that the USA is uniquely malign and single-minded in its consumerism, if not its capitalism.<<

I often see it argued that capitalism, per se, isn't evil; but only the particularly vile Fascist corporatism that infects the US with such venal consumerism. I contend that vile Fascist corporatism and venal consumerism are inherent to capitalism and will arise inevitably given the slightest opportunity. Germany may not be as bad as the US in this respect today but my! what a short historical memory you have Peter!

>>I meant to say that Russia was the world's largest country and China was the world's most populous.  If you wish to debate at all please give me enough respect to realise that...<<

I can't read your mind Peter. I can only respond to what you say.. not what you mean to say.

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:



The metric of interest (as you mention carrying capacity) is probably
. Of 233 countries, the Scandinavians, Norway(133), Sweden(166) and Denmark(193) are all more "overly populated" than the US(205).

That's a good point Madelaine. The Scandinavian nations, along with other resource constrained maritime nations such as Japan, have historically compensated for limited arable territory with pelagic fishing fleets. With the ongoing collapse of pelagic fisheries worldwide, this is rapidly becoming an inviable option. Hence, such nations must increasingly become net food importers. This is still possible but you may want to google the "Export Land Model" to see why it won't be much longer.

Jeanne

Link to post
Share on other sites


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Usually, libertarian types - the ones who want extreme liberty,
want it for temselves.


Not so.  That statement is so full of prejudiced.  *shakes head*   Libertarians want liberty for everyone!  

 

 


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Such liberty comes
only from downpressing others.
"Liberty" to do whatever you want results in power for the powerful and enslavement for everyone else.


Wow.  You have so little faith in your fellow mankind.  Such liberty does not come from "downpressing others".  What an offensive and ignorant statement.

 


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Very rarely will they approach it from "what am I willing to give up, so that another can have the same benefits as me?"


Giving up stuff, does not create, equality Pussycat.  

 

 


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

A system needs equality, and the structures of checks, balances, and enforcement to ensure that equality - to keep the 'liberated' from excercising the freedom to destroy those under them.


Equality does not mean government control.  Nor, does not mean taking things away from some people..to give to others.   Libertarian philosophy and views do not support anyone "excercising the freedom to destroy those under them".

Where does such a twisted view of people come from? 

Nor, does Libertarian philosophy advocate or support the concept of "those under them"...which you seem to think is a viable way to look at society.  Libertarians view ALL people are equals and extend the same equality to all.   You have an entrenched "classism" mentality.

 


Pussycat Catnap wrote:

Its why we (the USA) have things like the Civil Rights Act -
something strongly opposed by LIbertarians
,
because it gets in the way of the liberty of the opporessor class.


Pussycat, you write the most offensive statements.  

Libertarians oppose any legislation that separates and creates a government ordained class system.  Which is what the Civil Rights Act did. 

What Libertarians want is to see the US Constitution and Bill of Rights actually used, and enforced, to ensure that all people have equal protection.   There is no need for special laws written for artificially created groups of people. 

ALL people in the US fall under the same protection, and Libertarians want a government that has enough backbone, to enforce the equality already outlined in the Bill of Rights and the further Amendments to the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html

Here is the Libertarian Platform, for those that are interested:  http://www.lp.org/platform

I am quite sick of the propaganda that is put forth by certain people on this forum regarding Libertarians and like-minded people.   Such bile comes from a dark place inside them...of which, I cannot fathom. 

(Pussycat, I may forgive you, for the time you replied to me to say that Libertarians were equal to murderers, but I shall not ever forget it.)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3342 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...