interesting e-mail

[JEFF4i]

I want you to read a book.

"Shock Doctrine - The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein.

I'll snag that for sure.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Which is patently impossible, since the status quo has benefitted the wealthiest 1% quite nicely.

Just happens to be the 1% who took the chance on investing their fortunes in it to begin with. And don't be silly thinking EVERYBODY doesn't benefit from oil. Every minute you save by driving a car instead of walking, or traveling my other less-efficient, less-free means, is a gift of life from oil to you.

GOATSTER: Where in Upstate NY are you?

 

[Release]

You'll be a jolly fool if you believe there is much we could do to bring the gasoline price down to $2.00 per gallon!
We're talking about a limited supply of crude oil period and increase demand worldwide from the up and coming country of China and India to compete with the consumption of crude. Don't ask why so many over there would need to have a car, their infrastructure do not require personal automobile but a status symbol and a sense of fulfillment.
When you look back in a few years, you'll love the $4.00 per gallon gasoline price.
The solution and the only solution is to find alternative energy sources for transportation.

 

[Eracer]

Just happens to be the 1% who took the chance on investing their fortunes in it to begin with. And don't be silly thinking EVERYBODY doesn't benefit from oil. Every minute you save by driving a car instead of walking, or traveling my other less-efficient, less-free means, is a gift of life from oil to you.

GOATSTER: Where in Upstate NY are you?

Definitely makes me happy being stuck in traffic jams to get to a job that is using more and more of my time (three weeks vacation - woohoo!) to produce more and more for a society that consumes more and more. Living the dream like the other 99% of us. Our dependence on oil is a set of shackles that we conveniently ignore, because we are hypnotized by the illusion of material wealth.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Eracer, if material wealth is such a poison to society, why do you sully yourself with it? It's an extreme suggestion, but give all your stuff away if you honestly feel that way.

The philosophy of society is definitely becoming one of self-abnegation. Material wealth and desire for more is condemned. Consider the purpose of that material wealth. How much time do you save with your property? Could you do everything you do now without "material wealth"? Don't you like your home, your vehicle, your GOLF? Of course you do, and you damn well should.

Oil is a means by which we've extended our relative lifespan. In the time it would take us to walk 2 miles, we can travel 60. If our intent was to travel 60 miles, it'd take more than a day to walk it. Even if you could do it in 12 hours walking (unlikely), consider minimum wage x 12 hours.

(approximately) $5 x 12 = $60. What does it cost in gas to go that far, even with the biggest SUV on the market? Maybe 5 gallons of gas.

4$ x 5 = $20.

Saving time, AND money. Doing more for less. That's the point of technology. Now, in all fairness, technology which destroys the planet is not a good thing. But humans are part of the planet. Just because we don't live in trees and eat plants off the forest floor doesn't mean that what we do isn't natural. Gorillas have big arms, we've got big brains. Advancement is different, but natural nonetheless.

 

[Eracer]

Eracer, if material wealth is such a poison to society, why do you sully yourself with it? It's an extreme suggestion, but give all your stuff away if you honestly feel that way.

The philosophy of society is definitely becoming one of self-abnegation. Material wealth and desire for more is condemned. Consider the purpose of that material wealth. How much time do you save with your property? Could you do everything you do now without "material wealth"? Don't you like your home, your vehicle, your GOLF? Of course you do, and you damn well should.

Oil is a means by which we've extended our relative lifespan. In the time it would take us to walk 2 miles, we can travel 60. If our intent was to travel 60 miles, it'd take more than a day to walk it. Even if you could do it in 12 hours walking (unlikely), consider minimum wage x 12 hours.

(approximately) $5 x 12 = $60. What does it cost in gas to go that far, even with the biggest SUV on the market? Maybe 5 gallons of gas.

4$ x 5 = $20.

Saving time, AND money. Doing more for less. That's the point of technology. Now, in all fairness, technology which destroys the planet is not a good thing. But humans are part of the planet. Just because we don't live in trees and eat plants off the forest floor doesn't mean that what we do isn't natural. Gorillas have big arms, we've got big brains. Advancement is different, but natural nonetheless.

Our addiction to oil must be treated like any addiction - recognizing that we have a problem is the first step. Rationalizations only delay the inevitable.

Technology was supposed to free man to enjoy life. What it's doing is creating a world of dispossessed. "Have and Have Nots" is not a slogan. It's the natural result of a capitalist technocracy without conscience. A technocracy that uses up resources without concern for future generations. A world of "I, me, mine". I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd be deathly afraid for their grandchildren. Do you think that far ahead?

I am part of the problem. I made the choice long ago to "play the game". But I have no illusion that I've been programmed. The difference is, I'm beginning to understand that it's ultimately self-defeating to believe that the illusion of wealth is real.



"Greed is good"
-Gordon Gecko

 

[Topflite_D2]

Alright I know a solution that goes along with Rock's. I think we should end Nascar. What a waste of fuel and tires. I mean come on do we really need to was thousands of dollars worth of gas to race in circles. My answer is no. I don't remember which person it was on here but they had something quoted from either President or Vice President. People should drive to work in golf carts nothing is more fuel efficient. :laugh:
Glenn Beck for President 2008

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Our addiction to oil must be treated like any addiction - recognizing that we have a problem is the first step. Rationalizations only delay the inevitable.

Technology was supposed to free man to enjoy life. What it's doing is creating a world of dispossessed. "Have and Have Nots" is not a slogan. It's the natural result of a capitalist technocracy without conscience. A technocracy that uses up resources without concern for future generations. A world of "I, me, mine". I don't have kids, but if I did, I'd be deathly afraid for their grandchildren. Do you think that far ahead?

I am part of the problem. I made the choice long ago to "play the game". But I have no illusion that I've been programmed. The difference is, I'm beginning to understand that it's ultimately self-defeating to believe that the illusion of wealth is real.

"Greed is good"
-Gordon Gecko

We're addicted to oil, yes. We're also addicted to breathing, eating, and anything else that sustains out lives, compadre. "Have and Have-Nots" are a natural thing in every aspect of life. Not all plants are created equal, not all people are willing to work the same amount or achieve the same things. The 1% you mentioned before... the majority of them probably did a lot more than your "have-nots". I am a have-not, compared to that 1%. My family life is lousy at best and tragic otherwise.

Capitalism is about competition, and competition is healthy. The best, or most skilled, DO deserve to have the most "material wealth". They're the ones to CREATE material wealth. Based on your philosophy, it seems like the have-nots are the lucky ones; they're not tied to any "materialism".

Wealth isn't an illusion if you have a proper concept of value. I mean, what are you really denying the existence of? Are you saying there is no such thing as wealth? How do you figure?

 

[Eracer]

We're addicted to oil, yes. We're also addicted to breathing, eating, and anything else that sustains out lives, compadre. "Have and Have-Nots" are a natural thing in every aspect of life. Not all plants are created equal, not all people are willing to work the same amount or achieve the same things. The 1% you mentioned before... the majority of them probably did a lot more than your "have-nots". I am a have-not, compared to that 1%. My family life is lousy at best and tragic otherwise.

Capitalism is about competition, and competition is healthy. The best, or most skilled, DO deserve to have the most "material wealth". They're the ones to CREATE material wealth. Based on your philosophy, it seems like the have-nots are the lucky ones; they're not tied to any "materialism".

Wealth isn't an illusion if you have a proper concept of value. I mean, what are you really denying the existence of? Are you saying there is no such thing as wealth? How do you figure?

Wealth is an illusion. It is nothing more than a symbolic representation of an unnatural value system that has grown out of ancient territorial imperatives.

Competition is healthy only in evolutionary systems that are bound by the constraints of a species' position in the food chain. Top-level predators are by nature limited in population by available food supplies, and by corollary, low-level animals (food for the top predators) have larger populations. Man has broken the constraints imposed by evolution, due to his ability to impose technology on the natural order. In short, the only animal that "eats" man, is man himself. No other species practices callous genocide - always caused by the desire to gain wealth and power. Violence in our society is clearly a result of the artificial (and unnatural) superiority that the division of wealth imposes. How many millionaires could survive in an environment where money was meaningless? None. Evolutionary competition is a natural part of a non-technological world. It is a primitive and dangerous part of our world today.

Man's future will be determined by one of two things - his ability to evolve beyond competition into a truly cooperative species, or a wholesale erasure of the species through some natural process. Our current course of neurotic narcissism, fear, and greed, combined with overpopulation and diminishing resources, will set mankind on a path to self-destruction. If we can evolve into a "one-world" species, and grow out of the past paradigms, then we may have a chance to make it. I fear that we are instead going to hang on to the useless artifacts of our competitive ancestors, and become nothing more than another failed genetic experiment.

I don't have any illusions that mankind can abandon the sociopolitical chaos that drives us today. But we need to starting thinking ahead. Verbalizing a better world. Utopia may not be possible, but we can sure do a hell of a lot better than we are doing today.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

Wealth is an illusion. It is nothing more than a symbolic representation of an unnatural value system that has grown out of ancient territorial imperatives.

Competition is healthy only in evolutionary systems that are bound by the constraints of a species' position in the food chain. Top-level predators are by nature limited in population by available food supplies, and by corollary, low-level animals (food for the top predators) have larger populations. Man has broken the constraints imposed by evolution, due to his ability to impose technology on the natural order. In short, the only animal that "eats" man, is man himself. No other species practices callous genocide - always caused by the desire to gain wealth and power. Violence in our society is clearly a result of the artificial (and unnatural) superiority that the division of wealth imposes. How many millionaires could survive in an environment where money was meaningless? None. Evolutionary competition is a natural part of a non-technological world. It is a primitive and dangerous part of our world today.

Man's future will be determined by one of two things - his ability to evolve beyond competition into a truly cooperative species, or a wholesale erasure of the species through some natural process. Our current course of neurotic narcissism, fear, and greed, combined with overpopulation and diminishing resources, will set mankind on a path to self-destruction. If we can evolve into a "one-world" species, and grow out of the past paradigms, then we may have a chance to make it. I fear that we are instead going to hang on to the useless artifacts of our competitive ancestors, and become nothing more than another failed genetic experiment.

I don't have any illusions that mankind can abandon the sociopolitical chaos that drives us today. But we need to starting thinking ahead. Verbalizing a better world. Utopia may not be possible, but we can sure do a hell of a lot better than we are doing today.

Addressing wealth first:

The basis of wealth is money.

What is the basis of money? Green paper rectangles mean nothing inherently; they're a symbol of value, or as I like to call it "liquid trade." If I make shirts and you make pots, and I don't need pots but you need a shirt, money allows us to trade indirectly, though we don't need eachother's services.

What is the basis of trade? Trading, or specialization of labor, occurred as a result of people understanding the efficiency of being a master of one thing, versus a jack of all trades. To further use my analogy, if I had to make my own pots, AND my own shirts, I could not accumulate as much total product as if I focused on one trade.

Why be efficient? If I can produce the same amount of product (in terms of overall value) in less time, I can use that extra time as I see fit. Leisure activities barely existed before the industrial revolution, because there was not any time for it. Golf wouldn't exist without specialization of labor, trade, money, and WEALTH. So be careful as to the hand you're biting, sir.

The "Cooperative Society":
I don't kill other people. You probably don't kill other people. A cooperative society is not a welfare state. "The pursuit of happiness" does not guarantee happiness. It guarantees that no one will impede your freedoms to achieve it. If a person lacks the drive, skill, talent, diligence, or whatever else, that is not my problem, nor is it yours. Certainly there are situtations of plain old misfortune, say a friend of yours loses his house in a fire and cannot get an insurance claim based on some technicality. That is a tragedy, and in such circumstances I would GLADLY be charitable because I personally value that friend (assuming he's my friend). But the premise is that cooperative =/= self destructive. One man's need, or lack of planning, does not constitute a personal emergency for me. A lot of people are idiots, and MOST of the "have-nots" probably made a lot of obviously stupid decisions in their lives. You don't read about them in newspapers though.

Looking back:
Think about your life, and realize that if it were not for capitalism, it would be tragically different. It's not just a coincidence that every stretch of real communism in the world, or really any display of anti-self, ended in the deaths of millions (many of which were natives to that country, no less). The "American dream" is the idea that you can go from nothing to something if you make the right decisions, not if you fill out the right government subsidy paperwork. America was unlike anything that had ever been thought of; a country based on individual rights. The more we let those slip away, the weaker we become as a country. Look at us now.

* Keep in mind, individual rights are limited. There is no such thing as a "right to healthcare", because humans created healthcare. Rights of man are very basic: life, liberty, property. Trade and create as you wish, with respect to your rights, and those same rights for other people. Healthcare is a SERVICE, not a given.

It seems to me you're suggesting we go back to living in the forests, Eracer. But keep in mind that forest fires do happen naturally, too. Ice ages happen naturally. Nature is in perpetual change, sometimes chaotic change. Dinosaurs weren't driving escalades, but they still got wiped out.

That being said: I AM in favor of rational conservation. Like I stated, I appreciate the environment. Any rational thinker understands the importance of environment to the human way of life; if for nothing else than the need for clean air and oxygen. Wanting to live happily, with wealth, still includes the basic physical needs of clean air and water.

 

[Eracer]

Addressing wealth first:

The basis of wealth is money.

What is the basis of money? Green paper rectangles mean nothing inherently; they're a symbol of value, or as I like to call it "liquid trade." If I make shirts and you make pots, and I don't need pots but you need a shirt, money allows us to trade indirectly, though we don't need eachother's services.

What is the basis of trade? Trading, or specialization of labor, occurred as a result of people understanding the efficiency of being a master of one thing, versus a jack of all trades. To further use my analogy, if I had to make my own pots, AND my own shirts, I could not accumulate as much total product as if I focused on one trade.

Why be efficient? If I can produce the same amount of product (in terms of overall value) in less time, I can use that extra time as I see fit. Leisure activities barely existed before the industrial revolution, because there was not any time for it. Golf wouldn't exist without specialization of labor, trade, money, and WEALTH. So be careful as to the hand you're biting, sir.

The "Cooperative Society":
I don't kill other people. You probably don't kill other people. A cooperative society is not a welfare state. "The pursuit of happiness" does not guarantee happiness. It guarantees that no one will impede your freedoms to achieve it. If a person lacks the drive, skill, talent, diligence, or whatever else, that is not my problem, nor is it yours. Certainly there are situtations of plain old misfortune, say a friend of yours loses his house in a fire and cannot get an insurance claim based on some technicality. That is a tragedy, and in such circumstances I would GLADLY be charitable because I personally value that friend (assuming he's my friend). But the premise is that cooperative =/= self destructive. One man's need, or lack of planning, does not constitute a personal emergency for me. A lot of people are idiots, and MOST of the "have-nots" probably made a lot of obviously stupid decisions in their lives. You don't read about them in newspapers though.

Looking back:
Think about your life, and realize that if it were not for capitalism, it would be tragically different. It's not just a coincidence that every stretch of real communism in the world, or really any display of anti-self, ended in the deaths of millions (many of which were natives to that country, no less). The "American dream" is the idea that you can go from nothing to something if you make the right decisions, not if you fill out the right government subsidy paperwork. America was unlike anything that had ever been thought of; a country based on individual rights. The more we let those slip away, the weaker we become as a country. Look at us now.

* Keep in mind, individual rights are limited. There is no such thing as a "right to healthcare", because humans created healthcare. Rights of man are very basic: life, liberty, property. Trade and create as you wish, with respect to your rights, and those same rights for other people. Healthcare is a SERVICE, not a given.

It seems to me you're suggesting we go back to living in the forests, Eracer. But keep in mind that forest fires do happen naturally, too. Ice ages happen naturally. Nature is in perpetual change, sometimes chaotic change. Dinosaurs weren't driving escalades, but they still got wiped out.

That being said: I AM in favor of rational conservation. Like I stated, I appreciate the environment. Any rational thinker understands the importance of environment to the human way of life; if for nothing else than the need for clean air and oxygen. Wanting to live happily, with wealth, still includes the basic physical needs of clean air and water.

I appreciate the truth of much, if not most of what you say. Your logic is correct, within the framework of the current macrosystem. But to say something like "without capitalism, my life would be tragically different" is shallow.

-Please don't take offense at that - we are having a great discussion, and I don't want to ever give you the impression that I don't respect your opinion - even as I debate it).

By that I mean that capitalism, while a successful method for accumulating wealth, is by no means a workable model when the prerequisites for capitalism are missing. We are wasteful and greedy. Have been ever since man discovered ways to own things. Capitalism is an empty shell without the resources (raw materials, manpower, technology) to power it. Some day those things will be gone - some sooner than later. We must work as a species to think ahead - to plan for the death of the old ways of thinking. There is much that I could give up, if I had to. Golf is a luxury I afford myself because I have been reasonably successful at taking part in the parade of capitalism as we know it. And those who can't play golf, or indulge in the other luxuries I do, are not all people who made bad decisions. Or hangers-on, or idiots. The nature of capitalism (the pursuit of wealth, i.e. profiteering) is that there will be few who get wealthy, and many who exist primarily to produce wealth for others. Nature of the beast. Communism in its purest form (which has NEVER been attempted) spreads wealth evenly. Does it diminish the wealth available? No. Does it diminish the potential for one to get wealthy at the expense of another? Absolutely. But pure capitalism has never existed either. Where it has been tried, it has produced hugely disastrous results. Corporatism requires moderation to work. Taxes, fair trade regulations, labor unions - all these things are, to a degree, a socialist response to the inequities of capitalism.

What would be a perfect world?

An agrarian form of communal living, in which all assets, and all the labor need to produce those assets, is shared equally? And technology is shunned? The Amish have been doing that for centuries, and they would say it works pretty well, save for the fact they have to live as a subset of modern America.

Pure asceticism? There are monks throughout the world who would argue that their way of life is as close to perfection as can be achieved while still bound by mortal flesh.

A world in which machines serve man perfectly, and no one has to work? If we could all benefit equally from never needing to trade, or barter, or covet, then it might work. Neither capitalism nor communism would be necessary. All men would be free to pursue whatever spritual or intellectual things they valued.

Even these models have serious problems. The Amish are susceptible to genetic homogenization. Ascetics are by nature unconcerned with societal development. And an ideal technocracy would inevitably lead to decadence.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

My to-death defense of capitalism is based on the fact that people don't all deserve an equal share of profits. If I got plopped down into pure communism, I wouldn't lift a damn finger. If I get X amount whether I work my ass off or do absolutely nothing, why bother? Capitalism is the system of "do nothing, get nothing". You can also do something and get very little, but it depends on what you're worth.

As for capitalism being an empty shell, I think you have it backwards... Capitalism is an empty shell without the resources to power it? I think resources are worthless without the capitalism to give them value. Arab groups were walking around poking curiously at oil until capitalism came up with a way to make oil EXTREMELY useful. Without innovation (which you would not find in communism, since there would be no point in progress), things we value would be worthless. Nothing is inherently valuable- humans assign value appropriately. What can this do for me?

This is a good discussion, but you're living a completely contradictory life toward what you believe. I'm not telling you to give it all up. I'm asking you to stop thinking that you're evil for enjoying your life more than ManA and ManB, or making yourself a better life than either of them have.

Capitalism is the system in which men are counted as individuals. Everyone does NOT deserve a fair share of the wealth. Bums and astrophysicists? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You know that.

 

[Dusty90]

If someone posted something like this already... sorry, I just skimmed through all of the posts, (people write alot about this topic!)

Anyways, living in Canada, I would love for gas prices to be $2.98 a gallon, as that is far cheaper then it has been in many years here.

Currently the price in southern Ontario is about $1.10 a litre, and since there are 3.785 litres the gallon, that means we are currently paying $4.16/gallon. And then there is Vancouver, when I was there gas was $1.25/litre which works out to $4.73/gallon.

Wow, we are really getting ripped off.

 

[mddubya]

I drive a V8 F 150 Ford, but only because I have a 19ft ski boat that I pull in the summer. If I could find a V6 truck that didn't feel like it was about to spit it's guts out onto the highway on every hill I'd buy it. But I've tried pulling my boat with 6's and it just isn't practical. Are my boat and V8 truck neccassary? No, but am I going to keep them, yes. Will I take my boat to the lake as much this year as before if gas prices don't come down or drop? Probably not, but I'm not getting rid of them.

 

[Eracer]

My to-death defense of capitalism is based on the fact that people don't all deserve an equal share of profits. If I got plopped down into pure communism, I wouldn't lift a damn finger. If I get X amount whether I work my ass off or do absolutely nothing, why bother? Capitalism is the system of "do nothing, get nothing". You can also do something and get very little, but it depends on what you're worth.

As for capitalism being an empty shell, I think you have it backwards... Capitalism is an empty shell without the resources to power it? I think resources are worthless without the capitalism to give them value. Arab groups were walking around poking curiously at oil until capitalism came up with a way to make oil EXTREMELY useful. Without innovation (which you would not find in communism, since there would be no point in progress), things we value would be worthless. Nothing is inherently valuable- humans assign value appropriately. What can this do for me?

This is a good discussion, but you're living a completely contradictory life toward what you believe. I'm not telling you to give it all up. I'm asking you to stop thinking that you're evil for enjoying your life more than ManA and ManB, or making yourself a better life than either of them have.

Capitalism is the system in which men are counted as individuals. Everyone does NOT deserve a fair share of the wealth. Bums and astrophysicists? Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You know that.

What is the true nature of capitalism? All wealth for one man. That is the ideal. I love it when people equate capitalism with the pursuit of happiness, believing that it somehow gives everyone an equal chance at success. In a perfect capitalist model, there would be one happy man who owned everything. The rest of us would be allowed to have enough to motivate us to continue to produce and consume. As it is, that perfection is unattainable, so we have many corporations vying for the same prize - although all the mega-mergers lately are a frightening glimpse of a single corporate entity. Again - the goal of capitalism. I'm not living a contradictory life. You have some cognitive dissonance believing that it's wrong for me to to criticise the way of life that I enjoy. Of all the blessings that came out the past few hundred years, it's the ability to question that is the most precious.

You say that in a commune you wouldn't lift a finger. You wouldn't last long. There is no welfare in a commune, except for those physically unable. You contribute, or you're out. Do you honestly think there are any slackers in an Amish community? I'm willing to bet not. You argue that capitalism rewards hard work. Do you really believe that you've been adequately rewarded for all the money you've put into other people's pockets?

Look, I'm not railing against our system. I'm reasonable happy with it. I'm just looking into the future. I'm considering a world that is vastly different that the one we live in today - because it's coming, whether we believe it or not. I'm suggesting that we need to evolve. You stated earlier that I "wanted to return to the forest". I want to look ahead, beyond the biology that drives us to compete. To abandon the primitive urges that still drive us to covet, envy, hate, steal, and kill our fellow man - all in the name of some "green, square, piece of paper." Most of your arguments are very valid - today. But in the future, your way of thinking will necessarily become outmoded. I don't know what the future holds. No one does. But our choice is to hold on to the "way it is" and just let the future come (we DEAL WITH IT!),or, we begin to recognize that cooperation, not competition, is the next phase of our evolutionary destiny. It's what sets us apart. What makes us human. To have some control over our destiny. Or do you believe that's an illusion? You can revel in the fact that your cave is now made of stucco and aluminum. Enjoy the fact that you don't have to build your fire each day. Believe that it's progress that spears and arrows have become IPO's and hostile takeovers. But in the long run, when we run out of everything we so frantically desire, where will we be? Back in the forest, and unable to survive there, because we held on to the idea that the individual - alone and competitive - was what mattered.

I'll read your reply. And say again that it's been a thought-provoking discussion. You can have the last word. But I'll leave you with a song;

Part 1
"If you didn't care, what happened to me,"
"And I didn't care for you,"
"We would zigzag our way through the boredom and pain,"
"Occasionally glancing up through the rain,"
"Wondering which of the buggers to blame,"
"And watching - for pigs on the wing..."

Part 2
"Well you know that I care what happens to you,"
"And I know that you care for me too,"
"So I don't feel alone, or the weight of the stone,"
"Now that I've found somewhere safe to bury my bone,"
"And any fool knows a dog needs a home,"
"A shelter from pigs on the wing..."