X-Message-Number: 28123 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:29:32 -0600 From: "Anthony ." <> Subject: Re: poverty and progress > Message #28105 > From: "John de Rivaz" <> > Subject: economics > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:45:22 +0100 > > Anthony is not going to convert most cryonet readers to his ideas or > visa-versa. I'm not really out to convert anyone, thoguh agreement usually makes one feel good. But better to have disagreement and learn something about other views and other cryonicists. I appreciate the reponses I've received from everyone involved - thanks. > As far as I can gather he did not read > http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tonyparsons/tm_column_date=23062003-name_index.html > It makes the case for a free economy far better than I could. I did, but he seems to have been criticising the idea of raising the super-tax from 40% rather than making a case for the Free Market. He makes a good point - the super-rich can always leave if you start taking too much. This kind of taxation is only one way of trying to redistribute wealth better spent elsewhere. Of course, "better spent" is a matter of opinion, which is why I clung to the (admittedly empty) mantra of education, and why we're discussing this. So I do hope that there are converts to concepts like "green capitalism", and I hope that the people currently weilding great power and wealth will be even more charitable, more politically aware, and more interested in cryonics and scientific progress. > I think it a > shame that the subject generates anger, but it is also inevitable when > compulsion, theft etc are being proposed. It is understandable to feel angry when people are dying on the streets while others have much more than they need. Regardless of who deserves what, it is retarded to allow people to die because they are poor. I'm also going to feel angry if you insist on aligning me with some sort of Soviet brand of socialism. Remember that the bloody revolutions of history did not always come from the extreme left - Weimer Germany is the perfect example of a bloody revolution from the right which lead to the rise of the Nazis. > I cannot imagine such anger when > people are discussing for example what is their favourite book or film. The > reason is simple -- such discussions don't usually propose the use of force. Again, unless you consider tax force, I didn't propose it. I think my original post set the tone though - it was angry, and coloured all of the responses I received. > Message #28107 > From: "egg plant" <> > Subject: RE: CryoNet #28070 - #28078 > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:55:06 +0000 > It is indeed easier to trade with China now than when it was communist > nation in deed and not just for ceremonial purposes as it is today. And > you're right, China does indeed violate human rights, not nearly as > flagrantly as it did under Mao but pretty damn flagrantly. Fair point. > When China promoted the same sort of economic principles you advocate Once again, the principles you referred to were popped-into my mouth rather than came from them. I have not recommended forceable dissolution of the upper-classes anywhere. > After China really > started embracing capitalistic principles 800 million are still poor, but > 600 million are not. This is well and good but misses the point. I would like the rich and super-rich to be more aware of envrionmental issues, to quit being so short-sighted, and to treat their workers (especially in distant countries) with more thought and compassion. If you think that business is currently operating optimally with regards to worker-rights and environmental sustainability, I would say you are wrong and write length posts which explain why. When you fail to respond to some of my fundamental points, I will assume you are considering my position, or conveniently ignoring it. > Message #28110 > From: > Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2006 14:32:46 EDT > Subject: Consumption vs. Investment > > In my clumsy fashion I fell short of clarity in previous rejoinders to > Anthony's main contention, viz., that the extremely rich (and presumably, by > extension, to some degree, the merely rich) are exploiting the poor--and indeed I > recall he actually said killing and enslaving them. Yes, the killing is a like manslaughter - an unintended consequences of ones lack of care. A rich man walks past a homeless man and offers nothing. The homeless man only needs a few dollars to pay for a hostel room. That night, the homeless man dies of exposure. Would you say that the rich man is to some degree accountable for this? I realise that the rich cannot help everyone, but my complaint is that enough is not being done. As a society we are too complacent, wasteful, and unaware of the forces that drive our consumption. > His main error is the failure to distinguish between consumption and > investment. Fair point. > What would be extravagant consumption? Maybe building a mansion on a > palatial estate. Maybe buying and operating a yacht. Maybe throwing a huge Bar > Mitzvah including a safari to India with 100 elephants and mahouts and beaters and > a tiger hunt (endangered tigers, of course). Yes Robert, they're all endangered. Does it not move you to think that we are slowly grinding up all of the other life on the planet? > But do these rich splurgers > actually consume or destroy much? Most of the money spent goes to their > employees and suppliers, and in turn (yes, trickle-down theory) to the next level of > employees and suppliers, etc. Fine, fine, but is it enough? Are they environmentally conscientious? I understand your pessimism and cynicism about doing much about this (especially through education), but without NGO, journalist, academic, and state-sponsored educational outreach, many worker related and environmental problems would not be well known and you can be sure that big biz would continue to flout human rights and sustainability issues if they didn't get their wrists publically slapped. > Message #28111 > From: > Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2006 00:16:30 EDT > Subject: Re: CryoNet #28092 - #28104 > ___ This is a fault with democracies, that the electorate may make wrong > decisions. Dynasties occur because people recognize names. Dyanities occur becomes centralised wealth and power creates increased centralisation of wealth and power. People don't vote in a name they merely recognise - the name has to have the money and influence to actually be a choice in the first place. Yes, democracy is not perfect, but that doesn't mean it cannot improve. > > > It has been observed that a democracy lasts exactly as long as it takes > > > the bottom 51% to figure out they can vote to steal the wealth of the top > > > 49%. > > Are you referring to historical events? > __This is a common old truism; I am not sure of the origin. Truism? You mean "platitude". There is nothing true in these figures. > With the exception of fossil fuels, the depletion of natural resources is a > foolish idea of people with a poor grasp of science. I suppose soil erosion, shrinking forests, animal extinction & water pollution is not depletion? We may be able to solve or reverse these problems, but at present we are only making them worse. > ---Animal species are not "natural resources". Tell that to a hunter who uses every part of his kill to make food, clothes, grease weapons, sell tusks/horns/talons/skulls/teeth etc. etc. The reason why so many animals die is because they are a natural resource. You can discuss this idea with your burger. > > The definition of pollution is that of an element which is out of > > place. Petrol in your car is not pollution, petrol in your food is. > > Simply saying that we've just shuffled things around, that certain > > chemical changes are irrelevant, is hopelessly naive and not > > scientific. > > __The stuff is still there and could be mined at reasonable cost. The > aluminum foil, steel, wood, paper, even food (archeologists dig in dumps to > analyze the lifestyles of the 1950's and find sausages that dogs can still eat.), > all are still there. There is little deterioration and few chemical changes; > it's an anerobic environment. Tell that to the people whose houses have been built above landfills that leak poisnous gas into their homes due to decay. > I cut down 99 trees in a wood of 100 trees. I burn the wood. Was the > wood depleted (along with soil erosion, ecosystem destruction, loss of > wild-life, etc.), or is it still around, floating in the ash (along > with the soil and dead animals)? > > __ Note that I said "with the exception of fosssile fuels." Fuels are things > we burn, and of course that depletes them. So you accept that the 2nd law of thermodynamics is a bit of a problem then? (without invoking some fanciful "in the future we can reverse heat-death" bullshit) Wood is not a fossil fuel. Ancient wood (coal, peat) is. > But then few people in the West burn wood anyway, and besides wood is a crop > like wheat. I cut down the wheat and eat it, Oh horrors! By the way, there > is more standing timber in the USA than in 1850, because so many poor New > England farms have gone back to nature. This sounds like one of Eggplant's "factoids" where he cites London air pollution being less in 1950 than it was in the previous century, yet in 1952 thousands of people were killed by the "killer smog". I'm not denying that the reversal of some negative trends occur, but these drops in the ocean aren't enough. But how do I know? May be they are. I suppose I'm more cautious. > > As for energy, remember we have a big nuclear explosion we're floating > > around. > > So what!? Until we actually use these resources in ways which doesn't > > give us cancer, it doesn't matter. > > ___ Nuclear energy is infinitely less cancer-promoting, if it causes cancer > at all, that the old ways of burning wood and coal. My remark was a flippant reference to skin-cancer from the sun and cancer from nuclear waste. Sure, nuclear power has advantages, but still seems wrong-headed when you consider the green alternatives. > > ___ The poor are frequently wasteful. A cocaine addict will soon be poor > > even if he starts rich. I see healthy young beggars every day, with their hand > > out for money for "food" while a >cigarrette dangles from their mouth. How dare the poor indulge in such small pleasures! Sure, everyone is wasteful, but I'm looking at the vast spectrum of waste between one beggars lips and a corporate bottom line. > Did they send you a postcard? "We the 1.3 billion Chinese people wish > you were here. We are expecting the Singularity like you are, and we > all now have an iPod" > > __A friend who visited there remarked on their happiness and optimism as a > wonderful thing, and it is frequently in the news. Then I'll trust is one person's opinion and whatever news channel you pay homage to. Let's not forget that the Chinese government are well known for their openness and honesty about how happy people are. i believe that country also proclaimed everyone happy under Communism. > >.... wealth had increased greatly > > .... The same is true of the > > Africans and others who practice other systems than honest capitalism -- they > > should change from corruption and kleptocracy. Are you seriously suggesting that capitalism is free from corruption and compulsive grabbing of resources? > I know of > no *abject* poverty in the US -- one can always be fed at a homeless shelter > and usually get a bed there. Are you sure that being homeless and having to be fed in a shelter is not abject? What low standards you have, no-wonder you are content! Also, you are seriously misinformed that the homeless can always find a bed and food. If they could, why do so many die in heat-waves and cold-snaps? How could there be enough beds and food when the exact numbers of homeless are not known? Are you saying that there are in fact excess beds and food going to waste? > And our very poor people are normally that way > only through their own doing. What about the millions born into poverty? I can hardly take you seriously at this point. > They prefer to beg and use the money for drink > and drugs instead of food and shelter. Do you understand that for many people a chemical escape is much more comforting that the food and shelter that (according to you) is available on every street corner? > If they had a few hefty checks it would > probably kill them because they would overdose. Not only are you regurgitating the bullshit that "you deserve and have brought your economic status upon yourself", but also that the homeless are stupid, lazy, worthless addicts. > For those who actually > cannot work, there are welfare or Social Security payments of $500- 1000/ month, > which is far from abject poverty. I lived on less as a student and did not > feel I was in poverty. As it was so good, do you live that way now? Do you think this pittance is enough to have a stable life? As a student, living on so little was obviously your choice, as you could have worked before or during to build funds. People without homes or job prospects don't have the luxury of choice you had. > ___Columbus worked for the King of Spain and has nothing to do with the USA. Run that by me again: "Columbus has nothing to do with the USA"!? This is besides the point - look at the history of oppression. > The USA was not involved in African colonialism, nor in African slavery > although we did buy slaves there two centuries ago. A contradiction in the same sentence. > Elsewhere we dabbled, only a > little and usually benevolently, in colonialism, so places like Puerto Rico > now vote to continue to be territories of the USA -- we can't get rid of them. You have a narrow view of colonialism and the history of US foreign policy, which is typically aggressively interventionist (Pick any South American country and chances are the US has installed some puppet dictator there at some point in time). > The "illigitimate" debts are legitimate all right -- we stupidly leant the > money. Of course you'd say that, because in your version of history, everywhere else is going to hell because they aren't imitating the prosperous white-man. > Look at Zimbabwe ... It got self rule in the form of Mobutu. He insanely drove out the only > productive farmers and robbed everyone else. Now large parts of the population are > dying of starvation and the remains of the economy are fast collapsing. European countries have been in similiar situations when tyrants gained power. > Is > the problem soil errosion, repressive international laws, or is it the > system? All of the above. > *Was* Zimbabwe -- and most of Africa -- ready for self rule? Was the West ready for Zimbabwe's self-rule? > Being a > liberal means never acknowledging you were wrong, and always blaming the US and > always demanding more foreign aid. Foreign aid is just a band-aid, much like the charity work of billionaires. The more fundamental problems are not addressed by these measures, and as you'll be quick to point out, corrupt governments often steal aid from the people anyway. > Zimbabwe needs a new government and its > plight is its own fault, not mine. I'm sure you're free of all guilt because you're a good little hard-worker, saving his pennies for a fast car or holiday in the sun. Anthony Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28123