Back to the Dark Ages?

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I realize that you may not agree with the viewpoint in this article.

I agree with it, but, I hope I'm wrong.

The way I see it, the very few who control and profit greatly from the system in its present form, are ready, willing,
and able, to destroy the future for all.

To me, they are the same ones who claim that human ingenuity can solve any and every problem - including whatever ones
they leave behind. I see that proposition as a bald-faced lie. I don't think the profiteers actually worry about the
future; as long as the money bags keep coming in, they feel satiated, and for them, that's all that matters. That's the
way psychopaths are. No matter how much destruction they do, they'll have enough money to insulate themselves from the
immediate consequences; and then, they'll be dead, so, why worry? In fact, their motto may be, "Destroy as much as you
can now, why should life continue once you're gone?".

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19782

[kryton9]

Dan, I cut back this week my time searching for the truth, I do feel happier. Although I love trying to really understand what is really going on as best as one can in the world, it is really easy to be overcome by sadness when the reality sort of starts sinking in of how things work. How kings of manipulation and human psychology know how to play the citizens of the world like a master musician his instrument. Do what I do, just take a break and focus on coding... nothing brings the internal sunshine out and hopefulness any quicker.

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I agree with you, Kent. I do the same thing sometimes, and I feel better. But, my obsession with the unpleasant world,
is strong right now. So, let me release it. :twisted:

It irritates me when people say, "Human ingenuity can solve any problem.". Usually, this statement is made by someone
who is profiting from the problem that is being made. Then, the statement is self-serving, by someone who is not really
worried whether human ingenuity will solve the problem (in time!), or not. So, from these people, the statement, is just,
B.S.

Humans are not any smarter now, than they were thousands of years ago. And, if they were always ingenious enough to
solve every problem that arises, then, there would not have been so many calamities throughout history.

So, in my opinion, there is no guarantee whatsoever, that, for instance, the world energy (peak oil - global warming -
pollution) problem, will be solved without billions dying first, from its effects. To me, those who are so brightly
optimistic about it, are, at best, "whistling past the graveyard".

I can think of one analogy from history, maybe not great, but, nothing better comes to my mind. In this case, human
ingenuity did not solve the problem, and 30% to 60% of the European population died as a result. In the years,
1348-1350: they called it the Black Death.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death

Maybe, in the long term, human ingenuity can solve almost every problem. But, apparently, not in the short term. Lack of
time, can make any problem impossible. Imagine that we have a big computer program, with a bug in it. Given enough time,
most likely, we can find the bug. But, as the allotted time decreases, so does the probability of us finding it. Most
things can be done, given enough time. Given five minutes, we can start naked, and fully dress ourselves. But, given one
minute, it becomes more difficult. Probably, given five seconds, it becomes impossible.

You might say, that my example of the Black Death is fundamentally different from the energy problem; one concerns a
pathogen, and the other concerns natural resources. I disagree. If a problem can kill a large percentage of humanity, it
doesn't matter what its cause is. If humans are so smart, then they should be able to solve every type of problem, with
time to spare.

You might say, 1350, was 660 years ago, you can't compare then to now. I reply, maybe in the year, 2670 (660 years from
now), people will be saying the same thing about the disasters that befell us.

(If humanity was so smart, then I guess that by now, it would have solved the problem of, war.)

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan

[kryton9]

War is just like the kid that is a bully at a school. The old phrases hold true, it takes one bad apple to destroy the bunch. So war won't end, until the masses that elect officials-- who are psychopaths, at some level, who start wars.

First Iraq War:
For example, Saddam Huseyin.... he didn't have to invade Kuwait, he had oil, plently of land... I know that they claim Kuwait belonged to them, but that is an excuse. Did you ever see the snuck out video of when he took over as leader in Iraq, he one by one called out individuals, many his dear friends and had them executed.... that tells you something right away.

Second Iraq War:
Here he had no weapons of mass destruction or he snuck them out... he had all praise and seen as a hero who stood up to the bad old US and survived.... there was no logical explanation for his denials that lead to the condemnation by the UN an later the invasion and his downfall. He lost everything for nothing.... not logical at all. Only explanation is that he saw things from a psychopaths view and acted in such.

So don't let it bother you, one of these days eventually we will know how to deal with such buggers before they come to such power...

Also, I think our government here in the USA has been running in a treasonous manner for over a hundred years. Once they started to move away from our great constitution and create these frauds against us and used psychological and manipulative skills in our institutions, media and culture that created a dazed and overwhelmed populous. We end up with what we have. Either it will get worse till the next revolution or hopefully people will use what is left of their common sense and elect people who swear to truly uphold the constitution and do away with the nonsense that has gone on too long.

Anyways, I am going back in my hole coding... vent away... I might not respond as I want to clear my mind of the frustrations these thoughts lead too :) Ignorance is Bliss!!

[LanceGary]

It seems to me that the original article doesn't have a good understanding of economics, and offers no viable alternative. If industrial production were to stop then the consequence would be the starvation of literally millions of people. It seems to me that - like so many commentaries that come from America - the author has litlle grasp that there is a world of people outside of America. Sure America is going through a recession - but Americans are vastly better off than Chinese people, and Chinese people are vastly better off than people in Ethiopia. No world in which billions of people are permanently confined to poverty can be a peaceful world - so America has simply got to allow other countries to become industrialised as well. A tenet of classical economics - comparative advantage - suggests that countries that exploit their own strengths and freely trade with others will be better off than countries that do not. The Chinese industrial revolution has meant cheap computers for the masses, for example. Without their cheaper labour most people could not be on the internet nor have mobile phones, not many other features of modern life. So we certainly have many problems - truly free trade is at present something of a chimera for example - and we need to find better methods of production and use more replaceable energy. But I think the world on average (remember there are more than a billion Chinese and more than a billion Indians) is actually a much better place than it used to be.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I hope you are right about the world being a better place than it previously was, Lance. And, I don't think that America
should prevent other countries from acquiring what it already has (and, think about the Western hypocrisy concerning
nuclear weapons). But, here, in America, for most people, I see negative progress. It could be, that the average for
the whole world, is rising. Anyway, I admit that I am angry about conditions in this country. So, here is my rant.

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan

I don't know much about economics, and, I don't have much respect for it, I guess I see it as rationalizing human greed.
But, it does seem to me, that everything is done backwards. The people at the bottom, will have cell phones, and the
Internet, while they are starving to death, or dying from disease. And, I do see that situation as being caused by the
capitalists at the top. It seems to me that, there is a much bigger profit margin, in technology. Fundamentally, I think
that capitalism is corrupt, it shows a benevolent face, and hides a ruthless nature. Basically, I don't believe that
everything should be controlled by profit.

Concerning big profit margins, consider automobiles. The commercials always brag about the latest super-technologies,
like navigation systems, back-up cameras, cars that park themselves. Most adults view any technology, like children
view candy, they find it irresistible. The auto makers know this. And, putting computer gizmos in cars, is cheap for
them to do. You will never hear a commercial about how an auto maker has developed an engine, that is guaranteed to last
for one million miles. What would be most beneficial to the consumer, would be an automobile that is reliable, say, for
at least 10 years of heavy driving. The poorest people certainly cannot afford to be spending $25,000 on a new
automobile every two years. The auto makers could build such a car, but it is the last thing they want to do. Like the
article says, capitalists have learned over time, that they profit more by making products that don't last long, that
must be replaced. In the United States, in my opinion, people have become slaves to automobiles. By design, there is
little public transportation, and in order to work, people must very often travel great distances. And, the cars they are
forced to buy, are basically, junk. And, a few years after someone buys a new car, he may find it difficult to get
replacement parts for it, also by design. The lifespan of vehicles, continually decreases, intentionally. So, the person
finds himself forced to borrow, in order to obtain another new car, which will have to be replaced in a few years.. Big
capitalism covertly confines most people to lives, of constant struggle for survival. It professes to be lifting
humanity, but, if it does so at all, that is only an unintentional side effect. I heard about the Tada automobile being
sold in India, I think, for $2500. Let me know when it is sold in the United States. I won't hold my breath.

People from other countries, seem to think that Americans have wonderful lives, at the expense of the rest of the world.
From my perspective, it's not that way. Most Americans struggle daily to survive, in a warped economy and culture. The
only reason the big capitalists, the corporations, would care at all if most Americans dropped dead, is because their
customer base would be diminished. And, here, in America, those with the money control everything. They buy the courts,
the politicians, and the media. The average citizen has the power of a serf in medieval Europe. How much difference is
there between a person who must constantly struggle to find/keep a job which barely permits survival, and a slave?
Slaves get free food and housing, yes or no?

And, in my opinion, most Americans do not want their country to be in a perpetual state of war, if even only for the
selfish reason of avoiding national bankruptcy. Believe me, most Americans could not come up with one good reason for
the continuing Iraq and Afghanistan wars (like I've said before, the biggest part of the reason that there are so many
wars, and each lasts so long, is because, there's profit there - look at this book, written in 1935, by Marine general,
Smedley Butler --> ).

http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277417504&sr=1-1

It seems to me, that America must be in decline. Here, up is down, black is white, in is out. "The king has no
clothes". But, if you dare say it, you will be ostracized, laughed at, and, maybe worse.

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I hope you are right about the world being a better place than it previously was, Lance.


I can't be sure but it does seem to me that people in Asia are living better than they used to. And there are an awful lot of them!



I don't know much about economics, and, I don't have much respect for it, I guess I see it as rationalizing human greed.


You get different schools of economics, including socialist economists.



But, it does seem to me, that everything is done backwards. The people at the bottom, will have cell phones, and the
Internet, while they are starving to death, or dying from disease.



I thought Obama was trying to get health care for the very poor? Cell phones are incredibly popular throughout the third world too. poor people wouldn't buy them so avidly if they didn't offer a real benefit.




Basically, I don't believe that everything should be controlled by profit.



Is it really the case that everything is controlled by profit?



Concerning big profit margins, consider automobiles. The commercials always brag about the latest super-technologies,
like navigation systems, back-up cameras, cars that park themselves. Most adults view any technology, like children
view candy, they find it irresistible. The auto makers know this. And, putting computer gizmos in cars, is cheap for
them to do. You will never hear a commercial about how an auto maker has developed an engine, that is guaranteed to last
for one million miles.



I'm pretty ignorant but my experience is that cars these days are much more reliable and last longer than they used to last. Service intervals seem to be much greater too. The cars my father drove were always breaking down. Punctures were common. In one of my father's old cars some hills could only be climbed in reverse. But modern cars are reliable.



What would be most beneficial to the consumer, would be an automobile that is reliable, say, for
at least 10 years of heavy driving. The poorest people certainly cannot afford to be spending $25,000 on a new
automobile every two years. The auto makers could build such a car, but it is the last thing they want to do.



I think Tata in India has produced such a very cheap car.




Like the article says, capitalists have learned over time, that they profit more by making products that don't last long, that
must be replaced. In the United States, in my opinion, people have become slaves to automobiles. By design, there is
little public transportation, and in order to work, people must very often travel great distances.



There certainly is good public transportation in Europe and Japan.



/snip/ Big capitalism covertly confines most people to lives, of constant struggle for survival. It professes to be lifting
humanity, but, if it does so at all, that is only an unintentional side effect. I heard about the Tada automobile being
sold in India, I think, for $2500. Let me know when it is sold in the United States. I won't hold my breath.



If there is a demand what is to stop the car being sold in America? Netbooks were designed to give computers to poor third world children but have been sold successfully in the States. Simpler technologies designed for the third world may well find a place in the developed world too.




People from other countries, seem to think that Americans have wonderful lives, at the expense of the rest of the world.



There is certainly some truth in that claim. Think of the amount of energy consumed per capita in America and compare it with the consumption in Ethiopia. I haven't looked it up but I think America consumes about a third of the world's energy.



From my perspective, it's not that way. Most Americans struggle daily to survive, in a warped economy and culture.



Tell me, do you think that poor Chinese and poor Indians do not struggle to survive? Who is worse off, who has the most hopeless struggle: The poor Indian in Kalkutta or the average American?




The only reason the big capitalists, the corporations, would care at all if most Americans dropped dead, is because their
customer base would be diminished. And, here, in America, those with the money control everything. They buy the courts,
the politicians, and the media. The average citizen has the power of a serf in medieval Europe. How much difference is
there between a person who must constantly struggle to find/keep a job which barely permits survival, and a slave?
Slaves get free food and housing, yes or no?



I think the worship of money is not a new feature of America. (I have only visited twice so I can't speak from experience). Read Thorstein Veblen on "conspicuous consumption" - and he was describing Chicago in the 1890s! The culture of money worship seems to have taken root in Russia and places like South Africa too.




And, in my opinion, most Americans do not want their country to be in a perpetual state of war, if even only for the
selfish reason of avoiding national bankruptcy.


Well I hope so too!




/snip/ It seems to me, that America must be in decline. Here, up is down, black is white, in is out. "The king has no
clothes". But, if you dare say it, you will be ostracized, laughed at, and, maybe worse.



It is an opinion that you often see in magazines and the like. But is also one that has been regularly expressed these last fifty years. America remains enormously wealthy and powerful even if some new powers are emerging to fill the void left by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think Noam Chomsky has written extensively about "the manufacture of consent" in America - and his example (and yours too) tells me that Americans are not all cowed and silent.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]My guess is that, unseen and illegal forces would prevent the Tata from being sold in America.

Here, believe me, most things are directly or indirectly controlled by profit.

America does consume a vastly disproportionate percentage of the world's energy. But, most of us here were born into the
situation. We had nothing to do with causing it. The society, is the way it is. Most people cannot just go and live in
the forest. And here, all of the forests are owned.

Absolutely, others in the world are much worse off than the average American. My point is that, previously there was a
large middle class in America. Now, it is shrinking daily. There are becoming two classes, a tiny one that has almost
absolute power, and a giant one that is almost powerless. The "face" of America, that the world sees, is that of the
tiny class. I know that farmers in India are committing suicide - because they are becoming unable to survive. I think it
is because of corporate farming - that was what I was trying to indicate. Also, just because others in the world have it
worse than we do, doesn't mean that many here are not suffering. If I get one arm amputated, someone can tell me that
other people have both arms amputated. But, I will still miss my arm.

Concerning automobiles, I think it would be easy to build them simpler, easier to fix, and much longer lasting, if that
was the goal. (And, when I say, "easier to fix", I am including being able to access the part that needs replacement,
without having to remove the entire engine).

I agree with you, here, money, is the dominant religion. And, to me, it is sickening.

I still think that help to the poor of the world is done backwards. My observation is that, in most cases,
technology comes before reliable sources of food and medicine.

Here is an article, with a viewpoint, similar to mine.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/contributors/3310

If, and when it happens to you, my guess is that, you will find it quite painful to fall out of the middle class -
through no fault of your own. And, you will not feel either chastened or consoled by being told, that others are much
worse off than you are. Especially, if those telling you, are not among those who are worse off.

The United States is composed of approximately three hundred million individuals; most of whom live their entire lives,
having approximately one three hundred millionth of the total influence, on it policies, either internal, or external.

You mentioned something about American health care.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65M0SU20100623

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan