I even sifted through pages to find a company's e-mail adress and got a call the next day for an interview because I'd heard they were looking for people.
How does your sifting through pages to find an email address result in you getting a call the next day? I am lost.
Yeah, the 35 million people in that live in the New York tri-state area are all criminals, and insane.
Some of us have family, friends, a career that doesn't easily move elsewhere, all in this area. What are we supposed to do? Give up a reasonably good job, pay hundreds of dollars to fly to visit family, and make new friends in the rural countryside?
I think THAT sounds crazy.
If I really was going to move far away to save money, I would move to Argentina. No immigrant invasion, beautiful women, inexpensive homes... You can get a townhouse in Buenos Aires for $200K US easily.
I hate to tell you this, but you live in a very cheap area.
$500K will barely get you a nice house anywhere in the NY metro area. In fact, the only 4 bedroom houses that cost that much are going to be either very far away, or in the ghetto. A nice, rundown townhouse in Crown Heights will go for about $500K.
get Alcohol 120%. It is way cool, and handles every copy protection scheme under the sun so you can backup all of your games. Doesn't do a straight DVD copy, but what software does?
Its also put out by those pesky Germans, so it must be good. Has a nice interface too, much more consistent with the windows motif.
People don't use SCSI cdroms for the speed, they use them for the bus mastering. There is no way you can run 8 DVD writers in a single machine using SATA or IDE. That is no problem with SCSI. You can get external cases with 16 drivebays, which you connect via external SCSI cable. People have them filled with CDRs or DVD writers. Imagine being able to copy a DVD to 8 drives all at the same time. Pretty cool eh?
I don't have to or want to pay for sex. Nuff said on that.
Yeah sure, you can walk into any damn bar you want, pick the most beautiful woman there, take her home, fuck her, and tell her to get out. Sure thing.
Anyone can get laid, but the question is at what cost and with how much effort, and with what result?
Good lucking getting that beautiful 19 year old french girl when you are like 35 or 40. Seducing a girl that young is also distasteful. I would rather pay a professional than actually mess with some young chick's heart.
I'm not disputing that men find women VISUALLY attractive. But some older women can be visually attractive as well, while lacking the annoying immature personalities that plague younger women. And not every older woman is jealous of younger women. Not the secure ones who are sure of their own beauty. Stereotypes and assumptions are bad.
This proves you are young. Yes, its pretty obvious young women have degenerate personalities. But the mistake you are making is that improves with age. Women who are still single when they are 30 definitely are more refined, but that is only because they have figured out what pisses men off after 14 years of trying. As soon as you are married, BAM the bitch is back in full swing. Now, I am just telling you this because you are naive, and you clearly haven't read stories from the past. I mean come on, this is a major part of Homer's writings.
Generally speaking the only women who do not feel a great sense of loss as their decling beauty are women who take their role as mothers very seriously. Those sort of women are not at your college, and in general aren't in the US. Even if the woman is a man hating lesbian on campus, that will change when she reaches a certain age.
Stereotypes are good. It is the greatest tool humans have for making sense of the world. The problem in our society today is they are selectively applied, especially in regards to women. Positive stereotypes regarding women are encouraged (they are civilized, caring, compassionate people). Their vices are unknown to those indoctrinated in colleges.
Conversely, men seemingly have no positive stereotypes. Classical positive stereotypes of men, the poet, the artist, the creator of civilization has now been reserved for homosexuals who are feminine men, even though women cannot be artists of any great measure (with a scarce few exceptions in history). No one would question the validity of the classic masculine vice, aggression.
It has been known throughout the ages that women are vain and have a natural predisposition to the acquisition of material goods (the root word of materialism is mater, or woman in latin). These are tendencies, which perhaps once had biological meaning. It doesn't mean they are a rule... but in our modern society of egalitarians, the belief is there IS no human nature. We have no innate behavioral tendencies. Everything is socialized.
Anyway... you will figure that all out eventually, and try not discard all the wisdom of your ancestors.
Have you completely missed the MILF phenomenon? Mothers I'd Like to Fuck?
Yes. That is just gross.
Are you going to be hunting for 25yr and younger girls for the rest of your life? How sad if so.
Thats like saying wanting to have a nice rare steak at Peter Luger's is sad, rather than wanting to eat a Sizzler.
Besides, who needs to deal with older chicks when you can go to Montreal, and get a beautiful french prostitute for $125US an hour? It would be nice if prostitution was legal in the US, outside of $2000 escorts and the occasional crackwhore... But the women in Montreal are far more attractive anyway.
We are talking about human nature here. It is perfectly normal for men to find younger women attractive. And besides, all women become angry bitches as they get older because they are jealous of younger girls. It doesn't matter if you have convinced yourself that aspect of humanity can be changed. Every time she sees a hot 22 year old, she will will be consumed with vice.
You make it sound like ethnic cleansing is inevitable in the third world. If I understand your point correctly, some crude Social Darwinism will eliminate these weak societies, totally discounting the ability of the people in those societies to reform their nation-states. Military force and power is essential to understanding international relations. But there are many other factors to consider.
I guess that sounds about right. Generally speaking "ethnic cleansing" implies a massive organized attempt to relocate certain people involving concentration camps and what not. I don't think it will happen quite that way, usually such expansions are much more subtle. Such as Rome. People think that visigoths sort of swooped into Rome from modern day Germany and sacked the city. German tribes were already living in north Italy by the early 400's. It took 200 years for American Indians to really be forced onto indian reservations. Most ethnic cleansing is much more deliberate, such as it was first used by the British against the Dutch and German settlers in South Africa in 1902. Of course, there was Germany, and the US with the Japanese... I don't if it will happen along those lines.
As far as Africa, I wouldn't be surprised if Arab states try to expand into South Saharan africa. Most of Arabia is tremendously overpopulated. I also think its likely China will try to expand north into Russia.
Most expansion is really occuring like non-whites moving into formerlly white nations. In 50 years, it is likely 2 of the 5 largest white nations will be no longer be majority white (US and France) Most will have substantial non-white populations. Is there a planned system of ethnic cleansing? Not really, but white people will still be fewer than 1% of the world's population in that time.
My response merely cites examples where previous eliminationist tendencies were *stopped* rather than encouraged by an outside power. And that outside power is the U.S. which has a history of having idealistic foreign policy. (Obviously balanced by realist and other schools of thought.)
I see your point, I was referring more to population growth out of necessity. The US is still not overpopulated to the extent say Germany is, or China, or India. The US was becoming involved in those issues for political reasons.
Obviously. When I say "Green Revolution" , I refer to the "process of technological development of agricultural techniques that began in Mexico in 1944 and has since spread throughout the world." Basically, it's disproved Malthus. (Or pushed off his deadline farther into the future, depending on your point of view.) I am NOT refering to the Green Party.
Interesting stuff, I hadn't heard about it. Most fertilizers and advanced forms of wheat were developed in Germany in the 19th century however, and this WAS down out of necessity as Germany has not been able to produce enough food since the 1870's. Even the hearty red wheat grown in much of the midwest was brought to the US from the Germans expelled from the Ukraine who eventually settled in the Dakotas. Also, need was the
It sounds like a typical Rockefeller foundation plan though, they have always been concerned about overpopulation.
I was pointing out the Green Revolution, a massive advance for humanity, was not in itself a response to suffering.
If you are talking about the motivations of the Rockefeller foundation, I would say you are right. They were always concerned with third world overpopulation, especially in Mexico which could result in hordes of Mexicans coming into the US. Of course that happened anyway.
The technology they used however created as a result of need, starvation, and want.
OK, i admit it's not the greatest example. What about the arts or pure math, where people advance frontiers b/c they enjoy it. It's about fun, not suffering.
Your right, this is much better. Its a tough question, I would read Nietzsche to get a
You still misunderstand the concept of force as a means to an end (the initiation of force) vs. voluntary association as a means to an end. If the government initiates an attack on the Amish, and the Amish invoke force in self-defense, then the government is the initiator of force (the immoral party) and the Amish are still moral and just.
Forget the self-defense angle, I forgot you were a randroid and not the green... I get your point.
So, when the American government initiates force against the inferior native americans, clearing them from the land so the Amish can live there, thats ok?
I guess the natural order of things would have been to let the Saddam Hussein's Sunnis to displace the Kurds (and Kuwaitis), the North Vietnamese to displace the South Vietnamese, the Soviet Union to displace the Third Worlders in Western Europe in 1945. Oh wait, the superior American civilization stopped them all (except for Vietnam).
your point?
What sort of adversity brought about the Green Revolution in 20th century agriculture that raised more people out of subsistence farming and complete poverty in 50 years than the entire rest of human history?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is pretty common knowledge that by every measure, most third world areas are far worse off today than in 1890. I can tell you that much of the Green Party ideology was first implimented in Germany under National Socialism. It shouldn't be a surprise that both parties also fight International Finance, except today they use the term "globalism". As far as environmental programs, the necessity in Germany was overpopulation and the needs to prevent industrialization from destroying the countryside.
Do you mean to say that adversity was somehow "necessary" for the technological and social conditions that led to the Green Revolution?
Now you are putting words in my mouth. There is nothing truly unique to the Green Party ideology. If you are talking about environmentalism, yes the adversity was impending ecological disaster. I would call that a potentially major problem.
Unfortunately, democracies throughout history have a tendency to corrupt themselves through military and imperial overreaching.
Why is that a corruption? Maybe its just the cycle of life. And why is it unique to democracies? I don't know of any society that hasn't tried to expand. Thats what happens when people have sex and have children, then their children have children... They have to go somewhere.
Persuasion is not an initiation of force. So no, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the initiation of force. So which one is it? Are you talking about socialism or free enterprise? There's your answer.
This has nothing to do with economics and materialist distribution of wealth.
If there is, I'd certainly like to know about it. Every government since the beginning of time has abused its power over the people, empowering and enriching the elite few at the expense of individual freedom. This "method" you speak of -- which ensures that our rulers are "wise" -- is still theory, no?
That is only a problem if you believe individual freedom matters. The US has lots of individual freedom, but is culturally dead. There was correspondingly little individual freedom in Florence or Venice during the early Renaissance, but far more culture.
Is the freedom to say whatever you want all that important if you have work at a job you hate and which offers you no direct expression of your human soul? Do you believe you have freedom of speech even though you can do nothing more than whimper? Are you truly free if you can't even raise 3 children, enough to replace yourselfand your mate? Are you free if you can't devote your life to the perfection of a craft, and are instead made obsolete by technological advancements?
No, I think you don't know what freedom is. Bullshitting on slashodt is not freedom. Being able to choose a major of study in college is not freedom. Working 80 hours a week and putting your single child in day care is not freedom. Having to work in Wal Mart when you are 55 because you can't afford to go back to school to become a doctor is not freedom.
Is this a joke? Statisically, the US is one of the most dangerous "first world" countries to live in.
Yeah, you have a.0005% chance of being murdered in Chicago, and a 0.000073375% chance of being murdered in New York. There were 587 murders in New York in 2002. Out of a city of 8 million. Crime in the US, despite being higher than moster western countries, is hardly on the scale of a major war.
The US also has the largest number of non-white people in first world countries. There is a direct relationship between cultural disunity and crime. The more homogeneous your society, the lower your crime rate.
Crime is virtually unknown in Japan, and is much lower in Ireland than say France or England where many members of other races have immigrated. This is a bigger issue in Europe right now because many cities went from being crime free to crime ridden in just the past 10 years. Of course, the Japanese just laugh.
This is not to say that any particular race is prone to crime, only that different races have a hard time coexisting, for whatever reason.
In a pinch, your theory has already been disproved by (for example) the Amish.
Firstly the Amish are NOT pacifists. They don't believe in organized militaries, but they do own guns and they will defend themselves. They also live in the middle of nowhere, and keep to themselves. In congressional hearings regarding the draft, they have said that if they were required to defend their immediate homeland in the event of an invasion, they would. As far as initiating force, they haven't gotten to a point where it is necessary. Mostly this is due to them living within the borders of the nation's largest superpower. They are already having trouble procuring more land today, so I don't think they will be growing that much more.
Let us not forget as well that the Amish are living on land that was conquered from the Native Americans. The Amish directly benefit from others who made that land available to them. In fact, pretty much every American except for those on the eastern seaboard, are directly benefitting as a result of some idiots not following your ethic.
Peaceful anarchy is not only possible -- it is quite logically the ultimate social achievement
Only if you consider peace desirable. Some people lament the advent of modern warfare, battle is when men feel most alive. In a sense, technological advancement has robbed us of an essential component of our humanity.
They do this because they realize that voluntary interaction benefits them more than forceful interaction would.
That may be the case now, but when a substantial minority of the population no longer feels that system is benefiting them, they will no longer abide by it. This was the situation in France prior to the French Revolution. Desperate people do desperate things.
I do not deny people live by your code in times of peace and when circumstances allow it, but eventually the population of the world will exceed what our earth can support. Modern technology will not provide an infinite bounty. When that happens, competition for scarce resources will be decided in battle. It has happened, and it will happen again.
Force is how criminals survive. I survive through voluntary association, and I suspect that you do too.
Of course, I can't address that on a personal level. But chances are, you are living on land right now that was taken, by force, from someone else against their will. You may not be a criminal directly, but I would say you are by proxy.
Now, you may ask "So what!?". Well, your gilded vision of a glorious roman empire is a bit off. The romans were a miltitant, slavetrading, genocidial bunch who didn't have a lot of tolerance for dissent.
Its not off. It sounds like a great place to me.
Yes, some Romans moved in to replace those who were slaughtered or traded as slaves. Cities that surrendered quitely were allowed to be integrated into the Empire without a fuss and were allowed freedoms as long as they payed tax to the Emperor.
Now that sounds like a great system. They had to pay a lot less taxes than I do, and they got all the benefits of being in the empire. Protection, secured trade, new markets... Why would anyone want to resist? Of course, its good to have a nice motivator.
Get in our way, and we will bomb you into oblivion.
It's so rare to see people openly avowing fascist ideals these days.
Not really. You think everyone reads Plato's Republic and thinks its just a fantasy? It wouldn't be a great book if it wasn't slightly persuasive.
Maybe its not popular, but if you think the Athens vs Sparta debate ended in 1945, you are very mistaken. Democracy has been an abject failure in the post war world, it is time for pendallum to swing back again, as it has for the last 2500 years.
You look at the popularity of eastern culture in the western world, the endless desire for materialistic fashions, the hedonism... People are desperate for some ideal to live for, something to give to their children and their grandchildren. How will we as a people be remembered in 1000 years?
Let me guess: This "goal" you speak of is something that YOU personally value and consider worthy?
Yes, thats right. Of course, if I can pursuade enough people to follow me then it won't be just me now will it? You got a problem with that randroid?
Government is nothing but a collection of "individualist pricks" just like you, me, the corporations, and everyone else on this planet.
Ever read Plato's Republic? Some real philosophy instead of Atlas Shrugged??? There is a very easy way to ensure that Government is only made up of the best and wisest people. Such people would not be individualist pricks, but would instead realize that disunity is suicide.
There is nothing more illogical than this theory that "freedom from force" is ever possible.
If humans do not use "force" to establish order and unity, they will fall apart. Other animals do not follow your stupid ethic. A single man by himself can't survive in nature, he will be eaten or he will starve.
See, this is the whole problem with Randroids. They can only imagine the world as it is RIGHT NOW, where safety is virtually guaranteed and organized societies cover the entire planet. Their little fantasy world where no one can initiate force is DEPENDENT upon a vast police force ready and willing to impliment such a system. What reason do they have to protect you? Just your stupid little ethic?
Force is how nature survives. All life must kill another living think directly or by proxy to survive. Imagine a small tribe of humans that allows its members to do whatever they want, not learn to throw a spear, not tend the crops for the winter, not take care of their children. In our modern world, randroids don't post much of a threat, just an annoyance. Even 150 years ago however, such people were DANGEROUS. One person shirking their duties could mean death for everyone, or a child having a fucked up future or none at all...
In nature, there are no rights. Only survival. Everything else, is a manufactured system that is not indepdently meaningful. If it ceases to benefit the people, it is of no value.
What exactly are the benefits to going to the moon, again?
1. It is a human achievement, a great human achievement. It is the sort that makes life meaningful. It is as important as building a great monument or a great battle. It is the stuff of legends.
2. It is the first step in finding a way off this rock so egalitarians like you can live on your own. It will be much easier to have a realistic ethic and government when we are on another planet.
There are so many better (read: different) goals that would lead to new progress instead of retreading the same old ground.
Yes yes, help all those poor people in third world countries. Gues what. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THEM. I would rather sterilize all the people in third world countries so we could move in and utilize their wasted natural resources, but that won't happen any time soon. Civilization will have to leave this planet so egalitarians like you can destroy it without destroying humanity in its entirety. To me, leaving this planet is the only realistic option, with war being a less desirable path.
P.S.- the Roman empire FELL TO PIECES. That's a GREAT model to emulate! SPQR!
And you think any civilization will last forever? America's current government is only 214 years old, yet its culture is completely destroyed, and civil war seem imminent. Not to mention the shere decadence of the American people, they are far worse than Rome ever was.
Also, the Roman Empire hardly fell to pieces... Its legacy lives on in the European nations, most of whom have the same borders as when they were Roman provinces (in the west at least, before the slavic invasions)
WTF are you talking about. The Romans had millions of slaves, could they leave? In those times you had to be a rich guy to travel more than 100 miles (unless, of course, you signed up for the 25-year military service).
Slavery in the past was not quite how you think. Back then civilization was the exception, not the rule. If you wanted to, you could escape. It wasn't like slaves were chained or locked in cages all the time (with some exceptions I am sure). Most chose to stay.
People did not have to be rich to travel those distances either. Who do you think was settling in the newly created towns? Immigrants from other parts of the Empire. It was encouraged.
Six years of peace is hardly anything special in human history.
The Romans had over 100 years of no major wars. That means that by the time the next major war came, no one alive even remember what it was like. Try and imagine that. You probably can't considering it hasn't happened since then.
Have you heard of the "broken window fallacy"? The basic idea is that employing thousands of people to accomplish very little of use isn't a good idea, that it's not necessarily productive to society.
First of all, I didn't make a real logical argument so there wasn't any fallacy. Further, your post is indicative of the an argument ad populum fallacy. Your are assuming that which benefits the most number of people on earth must be good. I hold no such view. In fact, I don't even advocate space flight because it will be productive for society. I am arguing that it will be great, it will be remembered for all time to come, and it will advance humanity on a spiritual level. Human advancement should not be a popularity contst.
I dunno about you, but it seems to me that "the people" might need, or at least want, any one of those a bit more.
Your right, you don't know about me. When I say "the people" I am referring to MY people, not any other people. I don't care about people in third world countries, in fact they will be displaced eventually just as America displaced the Indians, Rome displaced the Carthaginians, and the Germans displaced Rome. A civilization that cannot provide for itself will always be displaced by one which is expanding. It is the natural order. There is a finite amount of resources on this earth, and as we approach 10 billion bodies here, technology and civilized society is a necessity. People who cannot adapt for the future will not survive.
Further, I think there is way too much human life on this planet. Developing more cures for diseases will simply enhance the problem. A cured female will simply give birth to 5 children who will contract some new disease. What we need is MORE death, or at least eugenics. I also don't care about materialistic wants, such as food or shelter, or salvation from suffering. This is what an animal wants. A human should CRAVE death that comes from adventure, exploration, or battle.
I think your value systems are simply a reflection of your corrupt society. Dream a little more, realize humans are more than animals, and that life should not be about contentment. It is through adversity that we grow, it great suffering that has lead to every human ehancement thus far. We can already see how ease of life is so corrupting, or are you ignoring it?
Slashdot Mirror
I even sifted through pages to find a company's e-mail adress and got a call the next day for an interview because I'd heard they were looking for people.
How does your sifting through pages to find an email address result in you getting a call the next day? I am lost.
*scoove*
pardon me, what does that word mean?
You think because you just make this statement, we are supposed to believe it?
Yeah, the 35 million people in that live in the New York tri-state area are all criminals, and insane.
Some of us have family, friends, a career that doesn't easily move elsewhere, all in this area. What are we supposed to do? Give up a reasonably good job, pay hundreds of dollars to fly to visit family, and make new friends in the rural countryside?
I think THAT sounds crazy.
If I really was going to move far away to save money, I would move to Argentina. No immigrant invasion, beautiful women, inexpensive homes... You can get a townhouse in Buenos Aires for $200K US easily.
I hate to tell you this, but you live in a very cheap area.
$500K will barely get you a nice house anywhere in the NY metro area. In fact, the only 4 bedroom houses that cost that much are going to be either very far away, or in the ghetto. A nice, rundown townhouse in Crown Heights will go for about $500K.
get Alcohol 120%. It is way cool, and handles every copy protection scheme under the sun so you can backup all of your games. Doesn't do a straight DVD copy, but what software does?
Its also put out by those pesky Germans, so it must be good. Has a nice interface too, much more consistent with the windows motif.
People don't use SCSI cdroms for the speed, they use them for the bus mastering. There is no way you can run 8 DVD writers in a single machine using SATA or IDE. That is no problem with SCSI. You can get external cases with 16 drivebays, which you connect via external SCSI cable. People have them filled with CDRs or DVD writers. Imagine being able to copy a DVD to 8 drives all at the same time. Pretty cool eh?
I don't have to or want to pay for sex. Nuff said on that.
Yeah sure, you can walk into any damn bar you want, pick the most beautiful woman there, take her home, fuck her, and tell her to get out. Sure thing.
Anyone can get laid, but the question is at what cost and with how much effort, and with what result?
Good lucking getting that beautiful 19 year old french girl when you are like 35 or 40. Seducing a girl that young is also distasteful. I would rather pay a professional than actually mess with some young chick's heart.
I'm not disputing that men find women VISUALLY attractive. But some older women can be visually attractive as well, while lacking the annoying immature personalities that plague younger women. And not every older woman is jealous of younger women. Not the secure ones who are sure of their own beauty. Stereotypes and assumptions are bad.
This proves you are young. Yes, its pretty obvious young women have degenerate personalities. But the mistake you are making is that improves with age. Women who are still single when they are 30 definitely are more refined, but that is only because they have figured out what pisses men off after 14 years of trying. As soon as you are married, BAM the bitch is back in full swing. Now, I am just telling you this because you are naive, and you clearly haven't read stories from the past. I mean come on, this is a major part of Homer's writings.
Generally speaking the only women who do not feel a great sense of loss as their decling beauty are women who take their role as mothers very seriously. Those sort of women are not at your college, and in general aren't in the US. Even if the woman is a man hating lesbian on campus, that will change when she reaches a certain age.
Stereotypes are good. It is the greatest tool humans have for making sense of the world. The problem in our society today is they are selectively applied, especially in regards to women. Positive stereotypes regarding women are encouraged (they are civilized, caring, compassionate people). Their vices are unknown to those indoctrinated in colleges.
Conversely, men seemingly have no positive stereotypes. Classical positive stereotypes of men, the poet, the artist, the creator of civilization has now been reserved for homosexuals who are feminine men, even though women cannot be artists of any great measure (with a scarce few exceptions in history). No one would question the validity of the classic masculine vice, aggression.
It has been known throughout the ages that women are vain and have a natural predisposition to the acquisition of material goods (the root word of materialism is mater, or woman in latin). These are tendencies, which perhaps once had biological meaning. It doesn't mean they are a rule... but in our modern society of egalitarians, the belief is there IS no human nature. We have no innate behavioral tendencies. Everything is socialized.
Anyway... you will figure that all out eventually, and try not discard all the wisdom of your ancestors.
Have you completely missed the MILF phenomenon? Mothers I'd Like to Fuck?
Yes. That is just gross.
Are you going to be hunting for 25yr and younger girls for the rest of your life? How sad if so.
Thats like saying wanting to have a nice rare steak at Peter Luger's is sad, rather than wanting to eat a Sizzler.
Besides, who needs to deal with older chicks when you can go to Montreal, and get a beautiful french prostitute for $125US an hour? It would be nice if prostitution was legal in the US, outside of $2000 escorts and the occasional crackwhore... But the women in Montreal are far more attractive anyway.
We are talking about human nature here. It is perfectly normal for men to find younger women attractive. And besides, all women become angry bitches as they get older because they are jealous of younger girls. It doesn't matter if you have convinced yourself that aspect of humanity can be changed. Every time she sees a hot 22 year old, she will will be consumed with vice.
She sounds like a real bitch. Good riddance.
I don't remember 9800, but I am only 25 and I used to have a 16,800 HST courier, which I remember upgrading to 21.6 and feeling so elite!
I just hope I get a nice genetically engineered human substitute female sex slave, who can't speak but can follow orders.
You make it sound like ethnic cleansing is inevitable in the third world. If I understand your point correctly, some crude Social Darwinism will eliminate these weak societies, totally discounting the ability of the people in those societies to reform their nation-states. Military force and power is essential to understanding international relations. But there are many other factors to consider.
I guess that sounds about right. Generally speaking "ethnic cleansing" implies a massive organized attempt to relocate certain people involving concentration camps and what not. I don't think it will happen quite that way, usually such expansions are much more subtle. Such as Rome. People think that visigoths sort of swooped into Rome from modern day Germany and sacked the city. German tribes were already living in north Italy by the early 400's. It took 200 years for American Indians to really be forced onto indian reservations. Most ethnic cleansing is much more deliberate, such as it was first used by the British against the Dutch and German settlers in South Africa in 1902. Of course, there was Germany, and the US with the Japanese... I don't if it will happen along those lines.
As far as Africa, I wouldn't be surprised if Arab states try to expand into South Saharan africa. Most of Arabia is tremendously overpopulated. I also think its likely China will try to expand north into Russia.
Most expansion is really occuring like non-whites moving into formerlly white nations. In 50 years, it is likely 2 of the 5 largest white nations will be no longer be majority white (US and France) Most will have substantial non-white populations. Is there a planned system of ethnic cleansing? Not really, but white people will still be fewer than 1% of the world's population in that time.
My response merely cites examples where previous eliminationist tendencies were *stopped* rather than encouraged by an outside power. And that outside power is the U.S. which has a history of having idealistic foreign policy. (Obviously balanced by realist and other schools of thought.)
I see your point, I was referring more to population growth out of necessity. The US is still not overpopulated to the extent say Germany is, or China, or India. The US was becoming involved in those issues for political reasons.
Obviously. When I say "Green Revolution" , I refer to the "process of technological development of agricultural techniques that began in Mexico in 1944 and has since spread throughout the world." Basically, it's disproved Malthus. (Or pushed off his deadline farther into the future, depending on your point of view.) I am NOT refering to the Green Party.
Interesting stuff, I hadn't heard about it. Most fertilizers and advanced forms of wheat were developed in Germany in the 19th century however, and this WAS down out of necessity as Germany has not been able to produce enough food since the 1870's. Even the hearty red wheat grown in much of the midwest was brought to the US from the Germans expelled from the Ukraine who eventually settled in the Dakotas. Also, need was the
It sounds like a typical Rockefeller foundation plan though, they have always been concerned about overpopulation.
I was pointing out the Green Revolution, a massive advance for humanity, was not in itself a response to suffering.
If you are talking about the motivations of the Rockefeller foundation, I would say you are right. They were always concerned with third world overpopulation, especially in Mexico which could result in hordes of Mexicans coming into the US. Of course that happened anyway.
The technology they used however created as a result of need, starvation, and want.
OK, i admit it's not the greatest example. What about the arts or pure math, where people advance frontiers b/c they enjoy it. It's about fun, not suffering.
Your right, this is much better. Its a tough question, I would read Nietzsche to get a
You still misunderstand the concept of force as a means to an end (the initiation of force) vs. voluntary association as a means to an end. If the government initiates an attack on the Amish, and the Amish invoke force in self-defense, then the government is the initiator of force (the immoral party) and the Amish are still moral and just.
Forget the self-defense angle, I forgot you were a randroid and not the green... I get your point.
So, when the American government initiates force against the inferior native americans, clearing them from the land so the Amish can live there, thats ok?
I guess the natural order of things would have been to let the Saddam Hussein's Sunnis to displace the Kurds (and Kuwaitis), the North Vietnamese to displace the South Vietnamese, the Soviet Union to displace the Third Worlders in Western Europe in 1945. Oh wait, the superior American civilization stopped them all (except for Vietnam).
your point?
What sort of adversity brought about the Green Revolution in 20th century agriculture that raised more people out of subsistence farming and complete poverty in 50 years than the entire rest of human history?
I have no idea what you are talking about. It is pretty common knowledge that by every measure, most third world areas are far worse off today than in 1890. I can tell you that much of the Green Party ideology was first implimented in Germany under National Socialism. It shouldn't be a surprise that both parties also fight International Finance, except today they use the term "globalism". As far as environmental programs, the necessity in Germany was overpopulation and the needs to prevent industrialization from destroying the countryside.
Do you mean to say that adversity was somehow "necessary" for the technological and social conditions that led to the Green Revolution?
Now you are putting words in my mouth. There is nothing truly unique to the Green Party ideology. If you are talking about environmentalism, yes the adversity was impending ecological disaster. I would call that a potentially major problem.
Unfortunately, democracies throughout history have a tendency to corrupt themselves through military and imperial overreaching.
Why is that a corruption? Maybe its just the cycle of life. And why is it unique to democracies? I don't know of any society that hasn't tried to expand. Thats what happens when people have sex and have children, then their children have children... They have to go somewhere.
Persuasion is not an initiation of force. So no, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the initiation of force. So which one is it? Are you talking about socialism or free enterprise? There's your answer.
This has nothing to do with economics and materialist distribution of wealth.
If there is, I'd certainly like to know about it. Every government since the beginning of time has abused its power over the people, empowering and enriching the elite few at the expense of individual freedom. This "method" you speak of -- which ensures that our rulers are "wise" -- is still theory, no?
That is only a problem if you believe individual freedom matters. The US has lots of individual freedom, but is culturally dead. There was correspondingly little individual freedom in Florence or Venice during the early Renaissance, but far more culture.
Is the freedom to say whatever you want all that important if you have work at a job you hate and which offers you no direct expression of your human soul? Do you believe you have freedom of speech even though you can do nothing more than whimper? Are you truly free if you can't even raise 3 children, enough to replace yourselfand your mate? Are you free if you can't devote your life to the perfection of a craft, and are instead made obsolete by technological advancements?
No, I think you don't know what freedom is. Bullshitting on slashodt is not freedom. Being able to choose a major of study in college is not freedom. Working 80 hours a week and putting your single child in day care is not freedom. Having to work in Wal Mart when you are 55 because you can't afford to go back to school to become a doctor is not freedom.
You are living in a fantasy world.
Is this a joke? Statisically, the US is one of the most dangerous "first world" countries to live in.
.0005% chance of being murdered in Chicago, and a 0.000073375% chance of being murdered in New York. There were 587 murders in New York in 2002. Out of a city of 8 million. Crime in the US, despite being higher than moster western countries, is hardly on the scale of a major war.
Yeah, you have a
The US also has the largest number of non-white people in first world countries. There is a direct relationship between cultural disunity and crime. The more homogeneous your society, the lower your crime rate.
Crime is virtually unknown in Japan, and is much lower in Ireland than say France or England where many members of other races have immigrated. This is a bigger issue in Europe right now because many cities went from being crime free to crime ridden in just the past 10 years. Of course, the Japanese just laugh.
This is not to say that any particular race is prone to crime, only that different races have a hard time coexisting, for whatever reason.
In a pinch, your theory has already been disproved by (for example) the Amish.
Firstly the Amish are NOT pacifists. They don't believe in organized militaries, but they do own guns and they will defend themselves. They also live in the middle of nowhere, and keep to themselves. In congressional hearings regarding the draft, they have said that if they were required to defend their immediate homeland in the event of an invasion, they would. As far as initiating force, they haven't gotten to a point where it is necessary. Mostly this is due to them living within the borders of the nation's largest superpower. They are already having trouble procuring more land today, so I don't think they will be growing that much more.
Let us not forget as well that the Amish are living on land that was conquered from the Native Americans. The Amish directly benefit from others who made that land available to them. In fact, pretty much every American except for those on the eastern seaboard, are directly benefitting as a result of some idiots not following your ethic.
Peaceful anarchy is not only possible -- it is quite logically the ultimate social achievement
Only if you consider peace desirable. Some people lament the advent of modern warfare, battle is when men feel most alive. In a sense, technological advancement has robbed us of an essential component of our humanity.
They do this because they realize that voluntary interaction benefits them more than forceful interaction would.
That may be the case now, but when a substantial minority of the population no longer feels that system is benefiting them, they will no longer abide by it. This was the situation in France prior to the French Revolution. Desperate people do desperate things.
I do not deny people live by your code in times of peace and when circumstances allow it, but eventually the population of the world will exceed what our earth can support. Modern technology will not provide an infinite bounty. When that happens, competition for scarce resources will be decided in battle. It has happened, and it will happen again.
Force is how criminals survive. I survive through voluntary association, and I suspect that you do too.
Of course, I can't address that on a personal level. But chances are, you are living on land right now that was taken, by force, from someone else against their will. You may not be a criminal directly, but I would say you are by proxy.
Now, you may ask "So what!?". Well, your gilded vision of a glorious roman empire is a bit off. The romans were a miltitant, slavetrading, genocidial bunch who didn't have a lot of tolerance for dissent.
Its not off. It sounds like a great place to me.
Yes, some Romans moved in to replace those who were slaughtered or traded as slaves. Cities that surrendered quitely were allowed to be integrated into the Empire without a fuss and were allowed freedoms as long as they payed tax to the Emperor.
Now that sounds like a great system. They had to pay a lot less taxes than I do, and they got all the benefits of being in the empire. Protection, secured trade, new markets... Why would anyone want to resist? Of course, its good to have a nice motivator.
Get in our way, and we will bomb you into oblivion.
I think slavery is much more humane.
It's so rare to see people openly avowing fascist ideals these days.
Not really. You think everyone reads Plato's Republic and thinks its just a fantasy? It wouldn't be a great book if it wasn't slightly persuasive.
Maybe its not popular, but if you think the Athens vs Sparta debate ended in 1945, you are very mistaken. Democracy has been an abject failure in the post war world, it is time for pendallum to swing back again, as it has for the last 2500 years.
You look at the popularity of eastern culture in the western world, the endless desire for materialistic fashions, the hedonism... People are desperate for some ideal to live for, something to give to their children and their grandchildren. How will we as a people be remembered in 1000 years?
Let me guess: This "goal" you speak of is something that YOU personally value and consider worthy?
Yes, thats right. Of course, if I can pursuade enough people to follow me then it won't be just me now will it? You got a problem with that randroid?
Government is nothing but a collection of "individualist pricks" just like you, me, the corporations, and everyone else on this planet.
Ever read Plato's Republic? Some real philosophy instead of Atlas Shrugged??? There is a very easy way to ensure that Government is only made up of the best and wisest people. Such people would not be individualist pricks, but would instead realize that disunity is suicide.
Another ridiculous randroid...
There is nothing more illogical than this theory that "freedom from force" is ever possible.
If humans do not use "force" to establish order and unity, they will fall apart. Other animals do not follow your stupid ethic. A single man by himself can't survive in nature, he will be eaten or he will starve.
See, this is the whole problem with Randroids. They can only imagine the world as it is RIGHT NOW, where safety is virtually guaranteed and organized societies cover the entire planet. Their little fantasy world where no one can initiate force is DEPENDENT upon a vast police force ready and willing to impliment such a system. What reason do they have to protect you? Just your stupid little ethic?
Force is how nature survives. All life must kill another living think directly or by proxy to survive. Imagine a small tribe of humans that allows its members to do whatever they want, not learn to throw a spear, not tend the crops for the winter, not take care of their children. In our modern world, randroids don't post much of a threat, just an annoyance. Even 150 years ago however, such people were DANGEROUS. One person shirking their duties could mean death for everyone, or a child having a fucked up future or none at all...
In nature, there are no rights. Only survival. Everything else, is a manufactured system that is not indepdently meaningful. If it ceases to benefit the people, it is of no value.
What exactly are the benefits to going to the moon, again?
1. It is a human achievement, a great human achievement. It is the sort that makes life meaningful. It is as important as building a great monument or a great battle. It is the stuff of legends.
2. It is the first step in finding a way off this rock so egalitarians like you can live on your own. It will be much easier to have a realistic ethic and government when we are on another planet.
There are so many better (read: different) goals that would lead to new progress instead of retreading the same old ground.
Yes yes, help all those poor people in third world countries. Gues what. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THEM. I would rather sterilize all the people in third world countries so we could move in and utilize their wasted natural resources, but that won't happen any time soon. Civilization will have to leave this planet so egalitarians like you can destroy it without destroying humanity in its entirety. To me, leaving this planet is the only realistic option, with war being a less desirable path.
P.S.- the Roman empire FELL TO PIECES. That's a GREAT model to emulate! SPQR!
And you think any civilization will last forever? America's current government is only 214 years old, yet its culture is completely destroyed, and civil war seem imminent. Not to mention the shere decadence of the American people, they are far worse than Rome ever was.
Also, the Roman Empire hardly fell to pieces... Its legacy lives on in the European nations, most of whom have the same borders as when they were Roman provinces (in the west at least, before the slavic invasions)
WTF are you talking about. The Romans had millions of slaves, could they leave? In those times you had to be a rich guy to travel more than 100 miles (unless, of course, you signed up for the 25-year military service).
Slavery in the past was not quite how you think. Back then civilization was the exception, not the rule. If you wanted to, you could escape. It wasn't like slaves were chained or locked in cages all the time (with some exceptions I am sure). Most chose to stay.
People did not have to be rich to travel those distances either. Who do you think was settling in the newly created towns? Immigrants from other parts of the Empire. It was encouraged.
Six years of peace is hardly anything special in human history.
The Romans had over 100 years of no major wars. That means that by the time the next major war came, no one alive even remember what it was like. Try and imagine that. You probably can't considering it hasn't happened since then.
Have you heard of the "broken window fallacy"? The basic idea is that employing thousands of people to accomplish very little of use isn't a good idea, that it's not necessarily productive to society.
First of all, I didn't make a real logical argument so there wasn't any fallacy. Further, your post is indicative of the an argument ad populum fallacy. Your are assuming that which benefits the most number of people on earth must be good. I hold no such view. In fact, I don't even advocate space flight because it will be productive for society. I am arguing that it will be great, it will be remembered for all time to come, and it will advance humanity on a spiritual level. Human advancement should not be a popularity contst.
I dunno about you, but it seems to me that "the people" might need, or at least want, any one of those a bit more.
Your right, you don't know about me. When I say "the people" I am referring to MY people, not any other people. I don't care about people in third world countries, in fact they will be displaced eventually just as America displaced the Indians, Rome displaced the Carthaginians, and the Germans displaced Rome. A civilization that cannot provide for itself will always be displaced by one which is expanding. It is the natural order. There is a finite amount of resources on this earth, and as we approach 10 billion bodies here, technology and civilized society is a necessity. People who cannot adapt for the future will not survive.
Further, I think there is way too much human life on this planet. Developing more cures for diseases will simply enhance the problem. A cured female will simply give birth to 5 children who will contract some new disease. What we need is MORE death, or at least eugenics. I also don't care about materialistic wants, such as food or shelter, or salvation from suffering. This is what an animal wants. A human should CRAVE death that comes from adventure, exploration, or battle.
I think your value systems are simply a reflection of your corrupt society. Dream a little more, realize humans are more than animals, and that life should not be about contentment. It is through adversity that we grow, it great suffering that has lead to every human ehancement thus far. We can already see how ease of life is so corrupting, or are you ignoring it?