The Sixth Extinction

[Multivital]

I do like the idea of the alleged 'strong survive' *law* of *evolution*.

It's almost like someone, or something, designed that into the basic blueprint of life.

[Yossarian]

Hey Slurm I read that Gurven/Kaplan 07 study when you posted it a while back. While it does highlight the difference in expectancy vs. span when discussing total expectancy now and in the past, I don't really agree with the premise that beyond childhood mortality, nothing much has changed. The study itself has an interesting mortality comparison (figure 7) which shows an over 10-fold increase in mortality hazards for hunter gatherers from ages 15-30, and what is still a fairly major difference through to 50-odd. The 0-15 figures are just so massive as to distort the scaling. So I think the idea that modern society has only really improved childhood survival odds is a bit off. Furthermore, making span comparisons brings in another issue. They calculate a range of 68-78, with a mode of 72. This is quite different to modern western soceity, where something around 90 is the figure I have seen. However, if you are to make a comparison to pre-industrial agrarian soceity, rural people in currently developing countries or even '1st world' countries pre-1900 then I think your point that lifespan has not changed that much stands (and in some cases the hunter gatherer span may be superior!).

One other minor issue I have is on the disease front. The Gurven/Kaplan study I think shows a % of total mortality due to disease of around 70% (Table 5). I can't imagine this is massively different to a modern breakdown. The % by age is a pretty similar breakdown, it does show a decrease with age though. So I don't think the notion of disease free hunter gatherer societies is correct. You are certainly right in suggesting that agricultural societies would see greater incidence of widespread viral disease. I am less convinced about bacterial and particularly parasitic diseases. Again, the issue of what comparison is made is critical. In terms of 20-21st century western society, I think a large amount of the difference in life span can be attributed to disease control. The spread and types of disease will definitely be very different, but I think overall disease burden causing death (critical distinction) is significantly less in modern western society.

I'm not really interested in making value judgements about which form of civilisation (or not as the case may be) is better. But I don't think it's appropriate to say that hunter gatherers led easier (or "better") lives than we do today. But of course, it depends on what/who/when you make the comparison to.

[Slurm]

You are right, its probably more than a bit off to make the claim.

I was trying to compare preconceived notions of pre-historic man as having a lifespan of 25 - 30 years with published studies concluding the spans where quite a lot higher. I was also trying to draw attention to the vast differences in timescale, and not just comparing modern man, but post agricultural man with pre-agricultural man.

I will concede to your point regarding disease. Certainly suggesting they were disease free was overstating the case.

The modern breakdown, obviously, differs greatly as to where the sample is from. I don't think its necessarily fair to draw comparisons from only 20-21st century, western society, as its a relatively small sample and limited timeframe when comparing to tens or hundreds of millennia. But neither is it fair to draw such wide, general conclusions regarding hunter/gatherer man from such a small number of archeological finds, from a fairly limited area.

I think it fair enough to consider the modern world as a whole, as the western cultures have relied significantly, if not totally, on economic resources from the whole world.

As you say, what comparison is made is indeed critical. I was deliberately rubbery with specifics to strengthen my case against a Hobbes doctrine, which provides little specifics at all.

As for the appropriateness of value judgements, this isn't a scientific paper. The thread was "Ridiculousness of Society" and I drew the long, primitivist bow to draw attention to the myths of the present in comparison to the myths of the past.

In a world where more than half the inhabitants barely get what they need, while the rest squander much of what they want, its a comparison that goes begging.

[Yossarian]

Yeah fair enough.

[nosaj D:]

Not sure if serious?

not trolling, but seeing the source i got it from, probably not to be taken seriously
just thought it interesting that its added to the water supply when its linked to organ damage and tooth decay

Who came up with the 500,000,000?

Malthus?

not a clue, got it from the illuminati/rothchild video i posted last page

[monkey]

I dont seem to have access to the Iran thread anymore, so anyway....

Yes. So option two in regards to the 'general' context in which I think it is not a good thing.

Yeah same here.

I get the whole deterrence M.A.D argument, spent most of my first few years at uni studying the cold war in my spare time (John Lewis Gaddis is a great historian on the cold war if you're interested, good to read unlike others).
Im just a little hesitant in another fundy having nukes. Its not guns, or ships, or fighter jets - its a nuke. In my mind it just means another state with the chance of fucking things up in the future.
That said, what else can keep the US and Israel in line? Do you know which international institutions are supposed to have this responsibility?
Iran dont have much choice, and being assholes themselves kinda leaves the sitch all fucked up.

But little of this is new, we've been in this catch22 since 1945....so it goes.

[nosaj D:]

That said, what else can keep the US and Israel in line? Do you know which international institutions are supposed to have this responsibility?

world police
no wait...

[monkey]

Its pretty obvious no-one has the power, but whose supposed to have the power to keep nations in line?

The UN? The international criminal court?

[Yossarian]

just thought it interesting that its added to the water supply when its linked to organ damage and tooth decay

Tooth decay? It's link to tooth decay is that it is preventative. Only extremely high levels of fluoride will see it promoting tooth decay. I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that links fluoride levels seen in artificially fluoridated water to 'organ damage'. I call bullshit on that. It is, however, easy to see where a lot of conspiracy theorists misinterpret evidence regarding fluoridated water. A great deal of developing countries, particularly China and India, that do not add fluoride to the water supply, have issues with very high natural levels of fluoride. There is a pretty clear link at these naturally occurring high levels to impaired development and bone strength (even though bone density increases). So if you take them out of context, it's easy to use them as evidence for a grand fluoride conspiracy. But when it comes to the levels of fluoride that are added to the water supply in much of the western world, the only real negative effect appears to be a low incidence of minor fluorosis.

[nosaj D:]

you're probably right, what i was reading seemed to be pointing towards it impacting kids developing organs or something. another was nervous system damage, but it didn't back that up clearly. i still dont really like the idea of it in there, but a water filter is cheap enough

[Slurm]

Plenty of anti-fluoridation fluff out there, even a couple of docos.

Mostly its been soundly debunked, or has grey-area importance.

The biggest objection, and one that several countries have taken note of, and stopped their programs, is its tantamount to unsupervised medication. Can't have that.

[The Biz]

tantamount

I learnt a new word today, thank you Mr Slurm.

[Slurm]

I learnt a new word today, thank you Mr Slurm.

Its my pleasure!

So is this:



Todmorden: A town where greenthumbs, not sticky fingers, prevail
The Daily Mail pays a visit to Todmorden, a quaint British town that’s littered with raised vegetable and herb gardens where residents can grow — and take — whatever they fancy.

The ethnically and economically diverse mill town of about 15,000 residents is home to Incredible Edible, an ambitious, agrarian-minded scheme that’s brought together an entire community under one common goal: to become completely self-sufficient in food by the year 2018.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic...y-fingers-prev

[Curare]

Fuck YES! big ups toTodmorden, and lets hope that they can have a more net-genic name by 2018!

[The Biz]

Todmorden reminds me of Todd Margaret way too much.

[Slurm]

Tod Johnston?

[The Biz]

Tod Johnston?

I met that dude way back in the day when I was on that C'mon Kids show with Kenny Kidna. I got to play that stupid Fly the Coop spinning wheel game, but only spun up a pissweak Coke pack. Anyway, I digress. My wafer thin point is that he's an even bigger tool in real life than on the telly and his band is gayer than Crave.

[Multivital]

[Slurm]

That.

Is amazing.

[Slurm]

[Curare]

dude needs to cycle those tanks a bit more.

[frogman]

Thats my problem with all of those "fish inside stuff" images you see.

How the hell do they keep the water clean?

[Slurm]

[Curare]

Thats my problem with all of those "fish inside stuff" images you see.

How the hell do they keep the water clean?

dude, don't let reality get in the way of fish-filled furniture! Sheesh!

[Slurm]

Activists deface Bank of America ATMs in San Francisco

Activists with the Rainforest Action Network recently devised a clever way of promoting their message: defacing Bank of America ATMs with non-adhesive stickers that look like the bank’s software interface, bearing some startling truths about the nation’s largest financial institution.


As part of a campaign they’re calling “Bankrupting America,” the activists claim to have visited 85 ATM locations, turning the “automated teller machines” into “automated truth machines.”


Their sticker asks users to “select your transaction,” with options like: “invest in coal-fired power plants,” “foreclose on America’s homes,” “bankroll climate change” and “fund executive bonuses.”


“Communities everywhere are fed up with Bank of America for putting profits before people and that’s what this new blog is all about,” Rainforest Action Network activist Amanda Starbuck explained in a media advisory. “Whether it’s the fact that the company bankrolls climate change through coal investments or forecloses on America’s homeowners while paying top executives millions in bonuses, these are all symptoms of the bank’s lack of morality.”


The campaign was also being sponsored by activist network The New Bottom Line (NBL), a collection of progressive groups from across the country.


“Bank of America is one of the prime movers behind the housing crisis and the economic collapse of this country,” NBL co-director Tracy Van Slyke added. “From being the biggest forecloser in the country to avoiding paying their fair share of taxes to financing payday lenders, they are draining the 99% to pad their own bottom line. It’s time we have a new bottom line-where Bank of America contributes to the economy, and stops bankrupting it.”


Bank of America was the recipient of a $97 billion stop-loss bailout from U.S. taxpayers, meant to protect the bank’s assets from losses under its merger with Merrill Lynch. The bank gave CEO Brian T. Moynihan a $9.05 million executive bonus at the beginning of 2011, after his first year on the job. Similarly, Bank of America COO Thomas K. Montag recieved a bonus totaling over $15 million in 2011, mostly in restricted stock.

[monkey]

...sLuRm...

Theres an idea that language and symbolism shapes our perceptions, and therefore our view of reality. Logically then, language and symbolism are a form of coercion to one view of reality that precludes others. Without symbolism, which is again a fairly recent addition, there is little or no concept of time, for example. Time forms a fundamental physical constant for our perception of the universe. So yes, pre-symbolism man likely thought very, very differently to his modern counterpart.

I agree with this notion re the effects of symbolism and language on our perceptions.
I've been really interested the last few years in the idea that our concept of time separates us from nature and negatively effects our perception of reality. Any good books/articles you recommend?

He has been building complex technologies for a lot longer than he has been in possession of symbolism though.

What kind of complex technologies are you referring to? I know early records of the wheel and much of the tool age technology go back between around 10000 years. We have cave paintings in France that are 10,000 years old, and Aboriginal art that is estimated to be 40,000 years old (this has not been confirmed).

Does this make him a different species? Biologically speaking, I don't think so.

Thats right, thats why I said almost (just making sure you understood me). I agree, biologically they are almost the same.

I think the sharp decline in health of agricultural culture was due to a vastly reduced diversity of diet, not an increase in meat. Coercion to work in new ways, and in a far more rigorous and prolonged manner is thought to have had massive impact on skeletal and muscular development and health.

Heres some info on that. I think you're right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoli...health_effects

Increased population densities and permanent habitations introduce all kinds of issues man hadn't evolved with, and new bacteria and virus previously of little threat.
The psychological impact of forced, arbitrary social stratification, division of labour, slavery, drudgery, toil, the break up of family groups and leisure time must have been huge initially, lasting generations at least.

I agree with all of this.

I don't know about an increase of brain size being attributed to eating meat. I'll have to add it to the list.

Yeah I think its BS. I always think of that lamb add with Sam Neill and the 'we like to boogie' song that states red meat has made us smarter.
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Jarrad Diamond talks about his experiences with native hunters and their stories of only succeeding in large animal hunts a few times in their lifetime, and this was with relatively modern tool-age technology compared to their ancesters. This suggested the amount of meat digested pre-animal domestication and agriculture would have been little, and the notion our brains have grown significantly since this time is been widely disputed.

...as was the case with almost all western philosophers.

So perhaps their assertions shouldn't really enter the argument other than to illustrate how such widely held misconceptions and outright falsehoods can somehow be so intrinsically linked to our understanding of the past.

Sorry but we cant drop western philosophy out of the argument even if we wanted to. So many of our arguments and how we see the world have been directly rooted in their debates of the past and we dont even realise. The notions of human nature, the role of the state, and the meaning of things in general have been argued for millennia on a FAR more sophisticated levels then what we have been doing. To do so would drop Socreates, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Kant, Nietzsche and Marx to name just a few.

No, his assertion was that there was no society at all, not that societies were or were not peaceful. Of course there was societies. Long-term and persistent family relationships.
Hobbes was a bit of a tool. Makes for interesting reading, but its not science, and for philosophy contains much argument that is not cogent.

Have you studied Hobbes? Or social contract theory? Your comments suggest you disregard most western philosophy.

Agression and violence is very rare or non-existant in gatherer/hunter life. Archeological and anthropological studies both strongly support this.

Who do you suggest I read in relation to this, I would like to learn more. I think its safe to suggest we have read different books and had different teachers on this.

I dont understand how you can just ignore the seemingly cruel and brutal laws of nature and the animal world, and then say that doesnt apply to humans, and any aggressiveness is manufactured or created by bad culture, and has nothing to do with our survival instinct - our primary psychological driver.

Because I just don't agree with the assertion that nature is cruel and brutal. There is very, very little cruelty in nature. Brutal, perhaps, depending on your definition, but its not based on malice or rancour. I would be very interested in hearing about examples, because it would upset much of my premise.

Examples?
A group of male adolecent sharks chase a female shark for kilometres until she submits. They then gang rape her for hours while biting her to hold her in place, then leave her barely alive and drifting.

A group of buffaloes are being pursued by a group of hyenas for weeks. One of these buffaloes gores another buffalo (that its been competing with over females) so it cannot run, leaving it to be eaten alive. (Buffalos usually protect their own)

A male alpha chimpanze annoyed by the attention a new baby chimp receives from the female chimps kills it.

A lioness waits for the pride to leave for hunting before killing the another lioness's cubs and hiding them at another location so their death can blamed on another animal.

A wolf kills another because it wondered into its territory.

My understanding that male dominance in nature is far from widespread, let alone present in a majority of species. Even in Homo sapiens universal male dominance is still an unsettled argument. The aggressive nature of some primate species should not be taken as representative, especially as they are a singular order, with significant diversity of biologies and characteristics.

Seriously, ever watched a nature show? How often does the female play the dominant alpha role in groups/relationships?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_hierarchy - (sorry bout the wiki liinks, its just quicker due to the long answers - obviously not perfect references).
To be fair, regarding humans this link says it is not known how much of dominance hierarchy is due to biology/evolution, and how much is due to cultural.
But IMO, I would assume since the vast majority of mammal species are male dominated, and the vast majority of ape species are male dominated, and human history across the board in different cultures and races in the vast majority of examples is male dominated, it would be safe to assume the probability of the human species being male dominated due to biology would be quite high.
Maybe we should ask a women....meh, maybe not.

You cant blame 'the man' for everything.

I think I make cogent arguments pointing out each of the problems I lay blame upon "the man". It certainly isn't "everything".

When I said this I was referring to your continual efforts to point out social stratification, land ownership, the division of labour, and dominating hierarchies, (im sure there are others), as being at the core of the problems we have today.
These all refer to the abuse of power by authority - or 'the man'.

As I said last time, this is where I think we continue to disagree.

You think the problem is cultural, and I think its biological first, then cultural.

I point out its in our nature to be be violent(and peaceful, depending on the human) and to create dominative hierarchies.

You say we're not violent by nature, and point to our pre agricultural times, and that "Agression and violence is very rare or non-existant in gatherer/hunter life" (Im still not convinced with this), and that 'some bright spark' started agriculture and this started trends of oppression and dominance that have spread and lasted until today.

I point out that the agricultural rev. and the industrial rev. are just the evolution of technology (or power). This power (resources and influence) bought greater ability to both help or harm others - and with this more responsibility. As the power of the individual was increased, so was their ability to dominate/enforce their will over more people.

You disagree and say its 'the man/authority/culture'.

I disagree, and say 'the man' is a natural part of our species and has always been there.

Where to now?

[monkey]

ugh...continued....

"We" don't fuck things up. Social stratification, division of labour, slavery, drudgery, coercion, domination and violence from the power-structures of authority fuck things up.

Have you got any examples of any groups of humans larger than small communities/settlements that dont end up developing at least three of the above patterns of control?

I don't think that they are possible. Gather/hunter groups can't and therefore won't grow beyond a certain size. Agriculture and domestication and the necessary adjustments to society and biology can quite clearly be seen as forms of control.

Well then this suggests you think these patterns occur naturally in groups larger than small/medium sized communities. If thats the case then we shouldnt be surprised when they happen, and all we can do is try and manage them, or develop a system that minimises their development.

I have to also point out that these are not my theories. I am a layman making discussion and arguing premises based on research and conclusions belonging to others.

Same here, we've just had different experiences.

I know the difference between life expectancy and life span.

I know. I posted the wiki link because it had info on life span, but your info ended up better, then yossarian put his take on it.

Again, the argument is that they (poverty, ongoing violence, violent death) were not a general aspect of pre-agricultural life. So, yes, I can lay this blame. I think the conclusion well supported.

See above.

No, I'm referring to the logical disconnect that a species that characteristically kills itself through dominance, slavery, murder and theft of resources lives for several million years in a relatively unchanging biological and social situation.

I dont think its illogical at all. Greed, jealously, hunger, fear, anger, hate - all natural experiences of the human condition. Given the wrong individual experiences enough of these (or is born a sociopath), and combine it with a comparatively greater share of power than those around it, there is a good chance the things you mentioned could occur.

History is riddled with tyrants. The US is no different - apart from the fact they have better technology (power), and can apply the things you mentioned more efficiently.

These are relatively new characteristics, and have taken a very short time to force the species to a crisis point.

Technology developed quickly, we became too smart for our own good, and in a mad rush we've fucked up.

Violence as an anthropocentric definition, opposed to biocentric may be causing some confusion here.
There is violence inherent in killing something and eating it. I don't dispute that that forms a fundamental aspect of life on Earth and its evolution. But to logically advance that violence to be inherently aggressive and/or dominating beyond simple survival doesn't work with me.

Yeah I think it is too (im learning new words here, but after looking them up I see I'm on the right track - this is essentially the same cultural vs biological argument).

As I argue above, the nature of survival, pre+post agriculture, included some amount of violence (to which we disagree on the extent - you say minimal, I say moderate). I believe violence became ingrained in our nature (eg - flight vs.fight) through experiences to survive and procreate (struggle and competition).

Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life. Might-is-Right. Dog-eat-dog. Only the strong survive.

Perhaps.

Arent these are just laws of nature? While there are exceptions and chance, these generally rule, dont they? If you disagree, I'd be interested to understand your perspective.
In wasn't until we became more intelligent and we started developing tools (technology), reason and logic, that these rules started to weaken and began to not apply to us (or at least they still did, but to a lesser and lesser degree)

But cruelty and brutality does not automatically or logically follow

The animal scenarios I outlined above seem brutal and cruel to me. Any animal tearing another apart to survive, have sex, or protect its territory seems brutal and cruel to me.
And if you add greed, jealously, hunger, fear, anger or hate to a species (and the opposites), cruelty and brutality are no longer a possibility, they're a certainty imo.
Then add a sociopath/psychopath as a naturally occurring phenominom and the ramifications spread throughout a community of hunter gatherers or any other.

This is ingrained into our psychology from thousands of years of struggle to survive.

Again, given my above premise, no. Certainly not.

So your premise is that pre-agriculture we were non-violent/rarely violent - and then post-agriculture we became violent through "Social stratification, division of labour, slavery, drudgery, coercion, domination and violence from the power-structures of authority". Well weren't the players who became 'authorities' apart of our communities before agriculture?
If they were apart of our communities, were they violent then?
If they werent violent then, what made them violent?
Was it any of the following - greed, jealously, hunger, fear, anger or hate?
Or was it once they had more power they became conservative and would do anything to protect it? - like empires?
This would be the world of political realism that prick Machiavelli and that tool Hobbes talk about.

[monkey]

The timescale is millions of years, not thousands. Homo sp. is such an amazingly successful species because it had to struggle less. He had few and then fewer predators, abundant and plentiful food and a stable society.

I would take it back another step and say we were successful because by chance we developed higher intelligence, which allowed us to adapt and innovate, and then we struggled less. The agricultural revolution was just the next step in this process. Sorry if Im pointing out the obvious.

I think what is ingrained in our psychology is a violent rejection of enforced slavery and all its trappings. We haven't had long enough to evolve a biological adaption to it.

Absolutely. If we believe slavery is painful we'll reject it - Freud's Pain/Pleasure principle we spoke about.

This is why I study politics, history, and psychology - if we are to improve society, we need to fine-tune the ideology/system we live under, both economical and social, in order to harness the energy and nature of humans and improve our rate of evolution and knowledge of reality.

We are out of time.

I disagree. I rather not agree with Jensen on the 'prepare for the collapse' scenario - we can deal with the collapse if it comes, until then we should do everything to avoid it.
Yes ecosystems are collapsing and wars have raged for decades (or centuries depending on your view), and yes we'll probably have a major population correction some time in the next few decades where a large portion of the population will die - that doesnt mean we stop trying to develop a better system to help us evolve more efficiently.
I think a lot of us feel its hopeless, but however naive and pointless our actions feel we still do it - just like the Occupy movement. Do you support it? If you do then I suggest you dont think we're out of time (Im making a few assumption here)

Violence is the major tool. Religion becomes just an excuse to exercise it. The market economy is an excuse to exercise it. Skin colour or concocted information about supposed superiorities and inferiorities is an excuse to exercise it. Sex and gender is an excuse to exercise it.

I see your point, you're probably right.
I see religion as an incredibly efficient weapon to control people because its just an idea - violence/effort/physical power isnt even required. The threat of hell (eternal violence) is enough to keep people quiet and in line - then when they step out of line violence is used to maintain order.

This is why I get pissed off with fucktards that defend the major [Abrahamic] religions - the idea that a omnipotent, everpresent, all-knowing being that can read your thoughts and damn you to eternal suffereing and pain, can only breed a culture of fear and oppression, and stunt human progress.

This is why I get pissed off at people that defend industrial culture and its dominant economic model of capitalism. The idea that a finite system can support infinite growth while depending on a malleable and willing slave population, can only breed a culture of fear and oppression, etc.

OK, we went through economic systems weeks ago. You know I said the system is ridiculous, and there are inherent flaws that need to be corrected, and anything based on ever-increasing growth will not work.
That said, I dont want to tear the whole system down and start from scratch (I'm not saying you do) - that would be an incredible waste, will massively stunt progress, and in my mind is WAY too idealistic for loads of reasons.
I think a corner store(those that are left) who wants to sell fruit and veg, fish and chips, phone credit and mixed lollies should be able to. I think a tradesman/women should be able to offer his/her craft for a fee. I think a meritocracy where those with greater skills in their field should be rewarded so, within reason (eg - financial engineer on 5 million a year, wtf?). I think there can be a balance between the left/right economic spectrum with regulations that can be managed that supports the lower and middle socio-economic demographics.

So why do I keep arguing this point of view with you?
The reason why I hold back a bit on the whole 'blame the US', 'blame capitalism', 'blame the jews' or 'blame the church' themes is because I think its bigger, but simpler than the that - I think its a human problem - we cant deal with great power.

I spent ages 15-25 with the 'America is the problem, anti-capitalist' mentality - and I still believe more-or-less today these are the driving forces of the world problems atm, but now I think its simpler. I got a lot of the anti-US view from the anti-globalisation movement from the mid 90s until it died after 911 (it should have been called anti-corruption or anti-corporate imo, globalisation is inevitable). This prompted me to study politics and international relations at uni. Around 26 I started reading history before 1900ad, and realised the American empire is just another empire in a long line of violent and corrupt regimes/states (I knew this before but didnt understand to what extent). The major difference I see this time is that by chance the US have come to power in an era of incredible technological advancement. This makes their power far greater than those of empires before them.

But it could have just as easily been Germany if DDay failed, or Hitler didnt send his troops into the Russian winter, or Japan didnt bomb Pearl Harbour bringing the US into the war - or it could have been China if Mao died earlier preventing the Cultural Rev - or Britain if they weren't crippled by Germany - or the USSR if they had won the cold war - or any number of scenarios just like these hypotheticals which were very plausible outcomes in times of total-war when there were multiple dominant powers - and thats just post-1900. If I had my choice 70 years ago which one would go on to be today's superpower again, I'd choose the US every day of the week, as the lesser of evils, and then be doing the same thing sitting here hating corporate and government corruption.

So if its just by chance the US ends up in power, and we see other states with records just as bad, if not worse on corruption and war, the problem is not the US, the problem is not capitalism - the problem is the corruption of power, both governmental and corporate, in any ideology, BY PEOPLE. Its a human problem - we just dont deal with power (resources and influence) well, we are easily corrupted. If this isnt fixed, the powerful, no matter what nation, no matter what economic or social system, will always dominate, divide, enslave and control the masses.
(Hopefully new technologies will open up new ways for us to deal with this, but thats another thread).

So then the question stops being 'how do we stop X superpower?', and starts being, 'what system/ideology/laws/regulations can be implemented that minimises the corruption of power around the world?'. It would be interesting to see if the occupy movement actually came up with anything original that could be practically applied to a global capitalist economy. While I like to think so, I doubt it.

This question is also very idealistic - but I dont see what the alternative is. There's always going to be natural disasters and resource shortages, but war and corruption is man-made and can often be averted.

So it becomes a thought-experiment, like John Rawls 'Original Position', or Hobbes, Locke's and Rousseau's social contracts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

So, lets just say, a breakout of bird flu cripples the world killing hundreds of millions of people. The US is hit bad, shifting the balance of power away from the US to China (will happen in the next 15-20 years anyway, which is probably why the US wants into Iran ATM ASAP). I would put money on within 10 years of the epidemic, we would be having this same discussion about another country trying to invade either Iran, Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia for oil (Britain, Israel, France, Germany, Russia, China come to mind).

Anyway, I've written enough. Will be interesting to see if the GRANDWIZRD wants to crack another chubby and call me a liar again - he's a smart guy, but dead wrong. When I smash this stuff out quickly its not always coherent/articulately structured. I dont intend to disrepect if I do, so take it with a gain of salt, eh?

If you're done with writing responses to my rants, its all good, I get it. You're probably over hearing this view said in 50 different ways. It would be good to get some views from Yossarian, Frogman and the GRANDWIZRD himself - I dont know if the others would be interested given the topic.
Anyway, cheers dude.

Peace.




edit: When I said I'd choose the US 'everyday of the week', I should have said 'reluctantly', because in my mind the other choices were USSR, China, and Britain, who all had worse records than the US at the end of WW2 - hence the lesser-evil comment.

[nosaj D:]

also relevance. can you tell im a fan?

[Slurm]

Polyculture perennials.

Its the only future that makes sense.

[Hoser]

Fucken hell Monkey you should be a novelist.

You're good value but.

[monkey]

Fucken hell Monkey you should be a novelist.

cheers, its hard not to be when debating with slurm....but you gotta tell me to shutup sometimes.

[Slurm]

[Lyris]

that is awesome! I want

[Slurm]

German Village Produces 321% More Energy Than It Needs.

Ok, those Germans are just showing off now. Not only has the nation announced plans to shut down all of its nuclear power plants and started the construction of 2,800 miles of transmission lines for its new renewable energy initiative, but now the village of Wildpoldsried is producing 321% more energy than it needs! The small agricultural village in the state of Bavaria is generating an impressive $5.7 million in annual revenue from renewable energy.

The village’s green initiative first started in 1997 when the village council decided that it should build new industries, keep initiatives local, bring in new revenue, and create no debt. Over the past 14 years, the community has equipped nine new community buildings with solar panels, built four biogas digesters (with a fifth in construction now) and installed seven windmills with two more on the way.

--

So we are the richest nation in the world now. Whats our excuse?

[frogman]

Modern day coolgardie safe. Neato.

[Slurm]

that is awesome! I want

I have vowed to build one!

I mean, its not so different from the Coolgardie (oh, theres a nice pun in there) safe my mum grew up with.

You could use grey water as well!

[Lyris]

nice! if it's not too hard you should start a little business on the side.. I will commission one!

[Psyche]

Link to online petition to stop the Belo Monte Dam in the Amazon:

http://amazonwatch.org/take-action/s...te-monster-dam

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...s-pandora-dam/

[Slurm]

nice! if it's not too hard you should start a little business on the side.. I will commission one!

Haha on the side of what?

Going to speak to my dad about materials tonight. He knows stuff.

[Lyris]

of your cleaning and gardening and whatever else you get up to!

yeah dads are great

[Slurm]

Haha but they are on the side too!

No matter, its just a figure of speech I think is amusing, as in, its a marginal activity compared to "what you do". Not meant as an attack on you.

Dads are great. I often wonder just how I can get through life having a fraction of the skills he has, and what the younger generation, who will have even less.

Electronics has removed a mechanically-minded person's ability to fix stuff. I love the technology of the above device due to its simplicity and lack of unfixable, waste components.

[Psyche]

Haha on the side of what?

Going to speak to my dad about materials tonight. He knows stuff.

Great pic Slurm. What size are you looking at?

[Lyris]

I was talking with the plumber who came over yesterday.. he replaced our hoses from under the sinks which were already rusting away and are only a few years old.. we get lots of claims at work where these pipes have burst causing a huge amount of damage and a lot of the time it is new houses with new plumbing. the parts are just really bad quality but there is no other option! it just seems ridiculous that this kind of thing goes on, and in all industries no doubt.

anyway.. I don't really know what my point is.. but I agree it's really nice to be able to make functional quality items yourself

[Slurm]

Link to online petition to stop the Belo Monte Dam in the Amazon:

http://amazonwatch.org/take-action/s...te-monster-dam

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...s-pandora-dam/

Signed. Thanks for that!

[Slurm]

Great pic Slurm. What size are you looking at?

Well, we don't have all that much need for refrigeration beyond keeping fruit and vegetables cooler for a little bit longer.

(I HOPE we can learn to do without a freezer one day)

I figure the more surface area to volume of the internal tank, the greater the thermal potential. So I envisage 60L or so, surrounded by material, I guess, similar to air conditioner fins to maximise surface area contact with the evaporative medium, recycled wool and charcoal I'm thinking.

[Slurm]

I was talking with the plumber who came over yesterday.. he replaced our hoses from under the sinks which were already rusting away and are only a few years old.. we get lots of claims at work where these pipes have burst causing a huge amount of damage and a lot of the time it is new houses with new plumbing. the parts are just really bad quality but there is no other option! it just seems ridiculous that this kind of thing goes on, and in all industries no doubt.

anyway.. I don't really know what my point is.. but I agree it's really nice to be able to make functional quality items yourself

It allows all these people to have jobs, and creates a market for cheap shit, and overly-priced "boutique" versions, and everything in between, rather than just stuff made to last, with sustainable, responsible materials.

Its the driving force of our economy. Consuming goods. This includes your plumbing I guess.

I can't help but thinking there must be a better way.

[Psyche]

Signed. Thanks for that!

No worries. Someone brought it up in my Portuguese class. I hadn't heard about it.
Shocking that this is allowed to happen.

[Slurm]

[Psyche]

Well, we don't have all that much need for refrigeration beyond keeping fruit and vegetables cooler for a little bit longer.

(I HOPE we can learn to do without a freezer one day)

I figure the more surface area to volume of the internal tank, the greater the thermal potential. So I envisage 60L or so, surrounded by material, I guess, similar to air conditioner fins to maximise surface area contact with the evaporative medium, recycled wool and charcoal I'm thinking.

Nice one. Any luck talking to your Dad? Mine is a retired boilermaker. Might flick him the pic to see if he wants a project to keep him busy.