I've got a bone to pick with capitalism...

[heaven's chimney]

Catman, I agree with what you say about community. However, I must reiterate my point: outside of theory, there is no difference between functional capitalism and functional communism.

Community really can only work on a small scale.

That's the way it's supposed to be. But good articulation.

I guess the only way it can work worldwide is if we saw the pictures of the factory workers in the 3rd world every night on TV, and even then, we'd switch the channel.

Check out Jensen, brawtha! He spends 800 pages elaborating on what you're saying (with Endgame Volumes 1 and 2 - the tentative subtitle was The Collapse of Civilization and the Rebirth of Community)

[=^-..-^=]

Explain some more on what he says: How can we possibly start acting more as a worldwide 'community'? Is it just more utopian thought?

[The Hand of Poo]

I didn't really want to answer it because people can't handle it yet, but the answer is: no economy.

More please?

[heaven's chimney]

Explain some more on what he says: How can we possibly start acting more as a worldwide 'community'? Is it just more utopian thought?

No, he writes in agreeance. The phrase he often uses at speeches: Dismantle globally, rebuild locally.


And to an extent, there's a bit of utopian thought in there - but that's because civilization is so f'n horrible that once it stops, things will get better (not for the few affluent people at the top of the pyramid scheme though).

(Quinn talks about the autonomy of indigenous cultures. You couldn't just go live in other people's lands, there were implicit boundaries - whether or not that's true, I'm not sure. I haven't read enough anthro.)

More please?

Any talk of economy is really based on the presupposition of (micro)economics. That's a lot to presuppose. If you were to be stranded on an island with a couple other people, would you call it an economy if you worked together to survive? Well, it really depends on the complexity it eventually assumed. Walking around an apple orchard and picking an apple wouldn't be called "an economic system."

I'm being pretty loose with the definition of economy, though. There's a book called Stone Age Economics, so i guess someone would call it "economics." But still, in no way that I can foresee is it possible to sustain an economic system as we know it. Is it an economic system if you crawl around on your hands and knees tearing up concrete to find roots? If it is, then i'm just being a semantic pedant.


(it's also possible for some people in the future after the fall of industrial civilization to maintain a bonafied civilized economic system. people in rural areas could potentially use slaves or animals to make agricultural surpluses. but then that can't sustain either - agriculture debases the land. <-- Implicitly i was trying to show that people in cities will be f'd.)


(this is the trump card against capitalism. i was trying not to even play it, but instead deal with the facade that The Man uses against us)

[=^-..-^=]

I guess I don't see the intrinsic value or 'rightness' of returning to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle, since hunter-gatherer culture can only support a tenth of the population that agriculture can. There is nothing moral or magical in taking such a great leap backward, where humans are victims of nature rather than manipulators. Community okay. . . .

I kinda like my indoor plumbing, my mp3 player, and my infant mortality rate being down at around 1 in 1000, rather than 10-50% under hunter-gatherer.

[heaven's chimney]

I guess I don't see the intrinsic value or 'rightness' of returning to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle

Way to up the smug ante.

since hunter-gatherer culture can only support a tenth of the population that agriculture can. There is nothing moral or magical in taking such a great leap backward, where humans are victims of nature rather than manipulators.

numba 1: hunter-gatherer culture can only support a lot less than a tenth of the population that agriculture can.

numba 2: there is no such thing as a "great leap backward" - you would have to have one silly, silly-silly-silly view of progress to think that we'd be going "backward." Ridiculous. Smug, ridiculous, and ridiculous.

Imagine if someone kept shooting you with a blowgun. You'd be like "Stop." Guy would respond, "That's deevolution, can't." It's THAT ridiculous.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROGRESS.

and if there is, we sure as flippity flunk flop aren't the progressed ones. the logic you're using is the logic of failure: maintain course because anything else is un-progressive.


numba 3: It's not about morals or magic. I dont appreciate you twisting my argument in the direction you have and belittling it - you could do that if you actually understood my argument. I have no qualms with Antithesis - but at least get it right.

There is no sustainable economics (as of yet) outside of tame agriculture and hunting/gathering. We've managed to squander in 10,000 years what humans kept jiggy for 3 million. For those more number interested:

10,000
vs
3,000,000

In less than one percent of man's life on the planet, civilization has pushed us into unknown grounds that leave no hope for our progeny.

Our economical system is violent and when it's not directly violent, it still uses starvation, exploitation, etc. You talk about the mortality rate, but you're not looking at anything outside of upper-class civilizations. Last I checked, the "mortality rate" was different for poor people.

I kinda like my indoor plumbing, my mp3 player, and my infant mortality rate being down at around 1 in 1000, rather than 10-50% under hunter-gatherer.

Thank you for saying it so clearly:

For all your pseudo-compassion for people, all your love of democracy, all your attacks on the unfairness of the system, it really boils down to this:

you DO NOT CARE if:
1) women and men are getting cancer assembling your ipod
2) people in poorer areas of the country are drinking sh*t water
3) species extinction completely denudes the base we live on *
4) our children's children have a world devoid of the interspecies community we've necessarily had for three million years
5) poor people of other countries can't have a sustainable economy because they produce goods for you. by the way, just so there's no grey area, if they can't have a sustainable economy, they starve to death. So all of your sh*t about "mortality rates" is as moot as it can get.
6) it takes violent dictatorships to ensure that your chubby ass gets your special toys
7) it takes a violent system of repression to ensure your overall affluence



Thank you for admitting how unfathomably selfish you are. This position exposes how ridiculous "politics" are. For all the sh*t we espouse about democracy, love, community, concern, etc, we really only care about ensuring our own middle class luxuries (qualifier: middle class luxuries are shared by some poor, working class people too, as this is America. but there are definitely a lot of poor, working class people who are legitimately poor). You'd rather have all your lavish luxuries than have a planet that people could live on.


You are a piece of work, brotha. You can have your selfishness and callous disregard for human life and the community of life. That's fine. That's the norm. But I'll be go'dammed if you can walk away from this discussion thinking that you are a good person because of it. Ultimately, you only care about yourself. Do the math - it's there, I promise. Just remember that every time you tell your students to rock the vote. Just remember that every time you have satisfaction pretending that you've made a difference. Just think: Ultimately, I dont care if people live or die, or if my lifestyle causes other people to not be able to feed their children.

What matters even more than your ipod is your ability to pretend that you are a good person. Under that illusion, other people's suffering is palatable.


It's all fun and games until your self-justifications are called out.



*in pretty simple terms: "the environment" is more important than human life. it's more important because without "the environment," there will be no humans. you can call me extreme, radical, a stupid environmentalist who cares more about snails than humans, whatever, but without fungi, soil, clean water, an ecological system, etc, WE WILL NOT BE ON THE PLANET. there isn't some sort of f'n magical discovery that's waiting for us to find it so that we can survive without the planet. there is no going to another planet. there is no god who will save us from our fate. We are left to our own fate. pragmatism doesn't mean a faith in some silly alternative to the fact that without that which sustains us, we will not be sustained. nothing nothing NOTHING changes that. (you'd think it'd be pretty simple) To paraphrase Jensen: to survive, you have to give back more than you get. Pretty simple concept of sustainability, right?

[=^-..-^=]

[quote="heaven's chimney"]
numba 1: hunter-gatherer culture can only support a lot less than a tenth of the population that agriculture can.[quote]

So if we all suddenly walk away from our toys, and become hunter-gatherers, the world suddenly becomes a better place as natural selection trims the population to sustainable numbers? Will you help me bury the bodies?

[quote] numba 2: there is no such thing as a "great leap backward" - you would have to have one silly, silly-silly-silly view of progress to think that we'd be going "backward." Ridiculous. Smug, ridiculous, and ridiculous.

Imagine if someone kept shooting you with a blowgun. You'd be like "Stop." Guy would respond, "That's deevolution, can't." It's THAT ridiculous.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PROGRESS.

and if there is, we sure as flippity flunk flop aren't the progressed ones. the logic you're using is the logic of failure: maintain course because anything else is un-progressive.[quote]

No such thing as progress? Okay, now you've shown your religious-like bias. The US will now kindly tell the 3rd world there will be no more miracle drugs for their kids, no more tsunami relief dropped in from our evil helicopters, no more grain shipments from the midwest to relieve their starvation. There will be no more economic opportunity to triple their income and reduce their working hours from the farms they willingly flee to work in the cities. We're going back to the woods, and they need to do so as well.


[quote]numba 3: It's not about morals or magic. I dont appreciate you twisting my argument in the direction you have and belittling it - you could do that if you actually understood my argument. I have no qualms with Antithesis - but at least get it right.[quote]

My Aunty Thesis used to tell funny stories before she wet herself and fell asleep. . .



[quote]In less than one percent of man's life on the planet, civilization has pushed us into unknown grounds that leave no hope for our progeny.[quote]

So go back to the woods and let lightning strike your butt when you could just as easily be equipped with a lightning rod - but that is progress/non-progress

[quote]Our economical system is violent and when it's not directly violent, it still uses starvation, exploitation, etc. You talk about the mortality rate, but you're not looking at anything outside of upper-class civilizations. Last I checked, the "mortality rate" was different for poor people.[quote]

And us being poor too won't help those suffering masses one bit. We'll all be poor together, and watch our infants die in equal numbers, but at least we'll think it's more fair.

[quote]you DO NOT CARE if:
1) women and men are getting cancer assembling your ipod
2) people in poorer areas of the country are drinking sh*t water
3) species extinction completely denudes the base we live on *
4) our children's children have a world devoid of the interspecies community we've necessarily had for three million years
5) poor people of other countries can't have a sustainable economy because they produce goods for you. by the way, just so there's no grey area, if they can't have a sustainable economy, they starve to death. So all of your sh*t about "mortality rates" is as moot as it can get.
6) it takes violent dictatorships to ensure that your chubby ass gets your special toys
7) it takes a violent system of repression to ensure your overall affluence[quote]

I see people in the third world trying to leave their farms and emulate our flawed system, not the other way around. The situation in the 3rd world is the same as life in cities in the US in the late 1800's. We didn't stay there; we unionized, we demanded more of our government, once we got money in our pockets. Last time I checked, gas is expensive because a growing MIDDLE CLASS in oppressive China is competing with us for it. Things change. Economic freedom leads to political freedom. To observe it, it's painfully slow; but chucking all our imports will not help those people out of their poverty one bit - especially when they see it as opportunity



[quote]Thank you for admitting how unfathomably selfish you are. This position exposes how ridiculous "politics" are. For all the sh*t we espouse about democracy, love, community, concern, etc, we really only care about ensuring our own middle class luxuries (qualifier: middle class luxuries are shared by some poor, working class people too, as this is America. but there are definitely a lot of poor, working class people who are legitimately poor). You'd rather have all your lavish luxuries than have a planet that people could live on.[quote]

So ditch your evil computer, go live in the woods. This is the last post I expect to see from you. And don't let me catch you living on land stolen from the Native Americans, either.


[quote]You are a piece of work, brotha.[quote] Yes I am.


[quote]It's all fun and games until your self-justifications are called out.[quote]

It's all fun and games until your self-righteous quasi-religious environmental stance is called out.

[quote]*in pretty simple terms: "the environment" is more important than human life.[quote]

Bzzzzt - wrong answer. BIas revealed. I have eveolved a brain larger than an ant. If I step on it by accident and it has not evolved a defense against my shoe, I guess beautiful natural selection has worked its wonders another day. If we are merely one part of nature, then our existence is a terrible evolutionary aberration that will soon correct itself when we do finally destroy our habitat and kill ourselves. There won't be anyone to mourn, because it is just nature working.

[WBOB]

Is there any doubt to anyone
that Jo Jo has returned in a fiery
blaze of glory???

[=^-..-^=]

Is there any doubt to anyone
that Jo Jo has returned in a fiery
blaze of glory???

We've had our suspicions after that last post.

But don't worry, he won't contribute any more to environmental degradation and planetary ruin by using electricity generated by fossil fuels, and the plastics, metals, and leads of his polluting, evil computer to post on here any more. He is going to live in the woods.

[heaven's chimney]

So if we all suddenly walk away from our toys, and become hunter-gatherers, the world suddenly becomes a better place as natural selection trims the population to sustainable numbers? Will you help me bury the bodies?

News flash, genius: there's already a lot of bodies. Want to help me bury those? That's starvation alone.

Also want to help me bury the victims of 10,000 year's worth of genocide due to "economic expansion"?

Also want to help me bury all the people from car deaths? (Around 80,000 per year or something)

How about the people who die from civilized diseases (cancer, the HIV myth, tuberculosis, etc)?

No such thing as progress? Okay, now you've shown your religious-like bias.

Oh, I would've called it "an education on the concept of Progress" - which, going by your standards, you're athiest on.

No Progress backer-uppers:
1) Stephen Jay Gould's Full House
2) John Zerzan's Running on Emptiness
3) Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, The Story of B, My Ishmael, Beyond Civilization
4) Derrick Jensen's A Language Older than Words, The Culture of Make Believe, Endgame Volumes 1 and 2
5) Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution

The US will now kindly tell the 3rd world there will be no more miracle drugs for their kids

1) Their kids wouldn't need the drugs if it wasn't for colonialism. Hurry up and read Guns Germs and Steel so you have an iota of a clue.

2) The destruction of local communities follows in the wake of colonialism. Not only would the kids not be sick, but if they did, they'd be better off before colonialism.

3) Civilization has no monopoly on medicine.

no more tsunami relief dropped in from our evil helicopters

How many people are made ill from the extraction and production of iron and steel? What does that do to local communities? What about oil - the politics and environmnental aspects? The production of these helicopters does more harm than good; you wouldn't know though, because you only focus on the pseudo-political drama of the united states. It has to do with self-justification: you will be damned before you acknowledge the direct affect you have on the destitution of millions of people's lives. You would say: no no no, it's all political. they haven't reached the political apogee necessary to sustain themselves. or you would pretend that they'd be f'd no matter what due to whatever reasons. but that's not true. but it's a lot easier to face yourself in the mirror when you dont have to acknowledge the atrocities you commit.

no more grain shipments from the midwest to relieve their starvation.

Population is a FUNCTION of food production.

There will be no more economic opportunity to triple their income and reduce their working hours from the farms they willingly flee to work in the cities.

These so-called economic opportunities are what are starving them to begin with. For instance India: the places they used to produce their own food with are now used for dog food for europe.

We're going back to the woods, and they need to do so as well.

I like how it's easy to make environmentalist jokes, but it's not easy to insult the dominate culture. I wonder why that is?

And us being poor too won't help those suffering masses one bit. We'll all be poor together, and watch our infants die in equal numbers, but at least we'll think it's more fair.

Time for a break down since you have never read anything on population and food production:

0) The more food you produce, the more people you get. Food production goes up, population goes up. There's no other way about it.

1) In 10,000 years, civilization has never been sustainable. Chances are good that it's not going to in the next 100.

2) What this means for us is: The more food that we produce to feed the starving masses, the more that the starving masses will breed and make more starving masses. The more we give, the more they'll die - in proportion.

3) There is a limit to the amount of food we can produce. I know, catguy, I know that you thought that the world was infinite in resources. I know the rhetoric that Economics is based on the allocation of so-called scarce resources, and that we pretend this isn't true. But it's true. There's only so much food we can produce.

4) So long as these starving masses depend completely on us, we completely completely control them.

I see people in the third world trying to leave their farms and emulate our flawed system, not the other way around.

1) And you also see dictatorships popping up there.

2) Just because they believe the rhetoric of open markets doesn't mean that it's true. Poor catman, he just doesn't understand basic logic.

So ditch your evil computer, go live in the woods. This is the last post I expect to see from you. And don't let me catch you living on land stolen from the Native Americans, either.

Wow, original and poignant. Seriously, do you realize how many people say that exact thing to everyone who ever brings up a critique against civilization (of course you do, you are a reactionary bureaucrat for civilization; you get all of your ready-made counter-points given to you)? Know you shame? God, I'd be so embarassed.


By simply boycotting civilization, things will not change. I can understand why YOU'D think that - you have a laughably limited knowledge of history. Boycotting stuff works sometimes, but the Indians couldn't boycott their way out of genocide. Rhinos can't boycot their way out of extinction.

The only way to stop the irreversible and absolute destruction is to stop it at its core: end industrialization/production/civilization.

It's all fun and games until your self-righteous quasi-religious environmental stance is called out.

Dude. That was so f'n clever. You said what I said to you, and then flipped it around to aim at me! And instead of making a real point, you (try to) call ME religious (the christian calling the ultra-killa religious?) and pigeonhole my "stance."

Bzzzzt - wrong answer. BIas revealed. I have eveolved a brain larger than an ant.

1) There's no bias. I explained it. Oh you didn't understand it? Maybe ask one of your teachers from college.

2) As far as I'm concerned, you're below an ant. You dont know how to live sustainably like an ant does. You may be able to do human things, but you can't do ant things. And because of that, you are not smart. You're especially not smart by my standards - and I'd hate to play the card, but you couldn't even tread water in the academic world - ironic?

If we are merely one part of nature, then our existence is a terrible evolutionary aberration that will soon correct itself when we do finally destroy our habitat and kill ourselves.

What're you forking allergic to books?!?! JESUS CHRIST MAN!

WE ARE NOT HUMANITY. what does that mean? That means that WE ARE NOT AN ABERRATION - OUR CULTURE IS.


READ A (GOOD) BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



but seriously, call me an environmentalist all you want, but it still doesn't change the fact that you wouldn't give up an ounce of your convenient life to save a colored person's - the colored people of the world are bearing the brunt of the brutality of civilization. you can't really change that no matter how many times you hurl cliches (that you've never critically examined) at me.

[Myrddin]

Academics and stats and bickering aside.....

If you want an eye opener into the greed and indolence of American society, come over here to Iraq. These people survive on little, in some of the worst conditions, and with threat from constant war all around them.

Wanna "do something" about it. Join the Red Cross and come over to this part of the world and help the suffering. Or join the Army and fight for the "freedoms" you take for granted, every day of your life.

[heaven's chimney]

Wanna "do something" about it. Join the Red Cross and come over to this part of the world and help the suffering. Or join the Army and fight for the "freedoms" you take for granted, every day of your life.

hahahahahahaha thanks for breaking the tension with your awesome/preposterous joke.

[Myrddin]

I understand, it's easier to wax philosophical, then to actually do something about it. Besides you probably couldn't even pass the physical, spending all that time studying and sitting on your lazy ass.

[heaven's chimney]

when you assume, you make an ASS out of you. when you're a soldier who assumes, you make an ASS out of USA.

not that it's really necessary to divulge trade secrets, but i try to exercise as much as i read.


i dont wax philosophical, i wax praxisical.


besides, i'd rather NOT BE THE DUMB b*tch-SLAP OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.


seriously, how does it feel to oppress and kill people? is it anything like a metallica concert?! OOORAH!

[Myrddin]

I believe it was you who posted and I quote:

"Wow, original and poignant. Seriously, do you realize how many people say that exact thing to everyone who ever brings up a critique against civilization [or should we say the Army] (of course you do, you are a reactionary bureaucrat for civilization; you get all of your ready-made counter-points given to you)? Know you shame? God, I'd be so embarassed."

Do you want free love too Man?

Glass houses my friend.

If you must know I am a combat medic that saves lives. I haven't fired a shoot in anger since I've been here. I have helped save multiple lives though.

Oppress people? Are you getting that from you leftist handbook? Actually the Iraqi's have more freedoms now then they've had in the past thirty years. Maybe you can come talk to Doctor Ali and he will help enlighten you on this point. Oh wait.....

As for not being the "THE DUMB b*tch-SLAP OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT".....well I say to you.....
"The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mills.

And it's Hooah. Ooorah is the Marines. Get it right if you plan to criticize.