Author
|
Topic: virus: Greens was Oscar contenders (Read 1034 times) |
|
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender: 
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.68
Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
  
|
 |
virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« on: 2006-03-13 17:08:06 » |
 |
At 01:37 AM 3/14/2006 +0200, Blunderov wrote:
>[Blunderov]I have become convinced that the entire enquiry is improper.
>Marxism and Capitalism are economic systems and I do not think it can be
>properly said that economic systems kill people.
If you consider where "economic systems" came from, originally the
ecosystem was most of it (hunter gatherer times).
Typically human populations grew until the ecosystem could no longer feed
them and then they either died of starvation or in wars with neighbors over
the resource base--game and berries. So in that sense the original
economic system did kill people, directly or indirectly.
>Political systems on the
>other hand, can and do. There does not seem to be any monopoly on deadly
>political systems by socialism though
Political systems from a hunter gather band up are there so your turf (and
food supplies) are not taken by hungry neighbors. One function of
political systems--and you might say the only really critical one--is to be
ready to fight either invading someone else's territory or defending
against an invasion.
>In the course of my enquiries I came across the concept of "Green" politics.
>(Don't know how I missed it before but I have a new enthusiasm now.) The
>premise of green politics is that both systems, Communism and Capitalism are
>essentially the same. They are both industrialist. They both assume that the
>Earth has unlimited resources and both hold untrammelled economic growth to
>be the holy grail of "progress".
If you don't want wars, you don't want to activate the behavioral switch
that leads to wars. That requires that income per capita be climbing or at
least steady. I wonder what the Greens say about how they are going to
control population growth? One thing capitalist systems have done is
increase wealth in most places enough to keep the war mode switched off.
>The Greens claim to transcend left/right politics which they claim, with
>some justice IMV, to be irrelevant. Fascinatingly, and Jonathan may be
>interested in this if it is not old news already, the movement has it's
>origins in conservative philosophy. It has evolved into a fusion of
>socialist and free market thought though, and proceeds on the premise that
>the resources of the planet are not unlimited and need to be managed
>accordingly.
>
> From what I can judge on new acquaintance, the movement seems very relevant
>to the actual problems confronting us all.
It would be interesting to get a gage on what Greens say about evolutionary
psychology. I suspect most of the come from the SSSM.
Keith Henson
>This seems to be the future. Time, as the Hermit has remarked, (I think?) to
>move beyond the stultified politics of the Cold War.
>
>Best regards.
>
>
>---
>To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
><http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.63
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
RE: virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« Reply #1 on: 2006-03-16 01:29:06 » |
|
[Blunderov] Keith, yes; the population issue is crucial. And it may be
intractable too. I found this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4585920.stm
<snip>
Solving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its
human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.
Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six
billion is unsustainably high.
Writing for the BBC News website, he says population is the "Cinderella"
issue of the environmental movement.
But unless it is addressed, the welfare and quality of life of future
generations will suffer, he adds.
Professor Rapley's comments come in the first of a new series of
environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green
Room. </snip>
1:
Keith Henson
Sent: 14 March 2006 00:08
<snip>
If you don't want wars, you don't want to activate the behavioral switch
that leads to wars. That requires that income per capita be climbing or at
least steady. I wonder what the Greens say about how they are going to
control population growth? One thing capitalist systems have done is
increase wealth in most places enough to keep the war mode switched off.
>The Greens claim to transcend left/right politics which they claim, with
>some justice IMV, to be irrelevant. Fascinatingly, and Jonathan may be
>interested in this if it is not old news already, the movement has it's
>origins in conservative philosophy. It has evolved into a fusion of
>socialist and free market thought though, and proceeds on the premise that
>the resources of the planet are not unlimited and need to be managed
>accordingly.
>
> From what I can judge on new acquaintance, the movement seems very
relevant
>to the actual problems confronting us all.
It would be interesting to get a gage on what Greens say about evolutionary
psychology. I suspect most of them come from the SSSM. </snip>
[Bl.] OK I give up. What is SSSM please? (I think I feel a 'doh' moment
coming on...)
2:
From: owner-virus@lucifer.com [mailto:owner-virus@lucifer.com]
Kharin
Sent: 13 March 2006 20:54
Subject: Re: virus: Oscar contenders take a left turn
>[Blunderov]I have become convinced that the entire enquiry is improper.
>Marxism and Capitalism are economic systems and I do not think it can be
>properly said that economic systems kill people.
I do think comparing fascism and communism as forms of political ideology is
easier, certainly and no, I don't think the economics are relevant in the
sense you address (though comparisons are valid on any other number of
areas). Not entirely sure I accept communism as only being an economic
system - by definition it has to have political control over the entire
economy, with consequent implications for areas ( e.g. the state acquires
the need to increase productivity and loses any incentive to protect
worker's rights).
[Bl.] I confess I can't escape this wriggly feeling I have about my own
position here. The Rhino made reference in a recent post to chess moves
which are made 'on principle' even though they are against the player's
better judgment. Something like that.
>In the course of my enquiries I came across the concept of "Green"
politics.
I did wonder if this was where you were going, which was why I cited Jared
Diamond. Here's a sample (please note that this is a contested subject )
[Bl.] Thanks for refreshing my memory about Easter Island. It surprises me
that you cite the account of it as contested. Seems fairly open and shut, at
least in broad outline, to me.
I didn't realise that I was going here with this. It just happened that the
Greens popped up. I'm glad that it happened.
Bon Chance.
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« Reply #2 on: 2006-03-15 02:07:17 » |
|
[Bl.] Thanks for refreshing my memory about Easter Island. It surprises me
that you cite the account of it as contested. Seems fairly open and shut, at
least in broad outline, to me.
[Hermit] Look here: http://savageminds.org/2005/09/11/easter-island-genocide-or-ecocide/
[Hermit] The case is far from closed. I suggest that you pay particular attention to:
Quote:But what is most disturbing is the extent to which Diamond seems determined to avoid looking at the actual genocidal violence of the colonial encounter. The striking lack of research into actual European atrocities contrasts noticeably with the fixation of most researchers on hypothesised 'ecological suicide' which is squarely blamed on the self-destructive actions of the natives themselves. As a result, our knowledge about the exact number, gravity and detrimental consequences of the more than 50 European incursions on Easter Island during the 19th century remains extremely incomplete. We don't even know whether the island's population before it crashed in the 1860s and 70s stood at 3,000, 5,000 or as high as 20,000, a dubiously high estimate provided by A.A. Salmon who was the first to take a population census in 1886 (Thomson, 1891:460).
What is undisputed, however, is that as a result of the series of slave raids, the subsequent small pox pandemics and numerous population transfers of the 1860s and 70s, the population was chopped down to a mere 100-odd survivors in 1877.
It seems strange that Diamond would overlook a story of guns, germs, and steel, but I suppose a different book title needs different kinds of evidence.
Hermit bows |
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.29
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re: virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« Reply #3 on: 2006-03-15 12:41:54 » |
|
>It surprises me
>that you cite the account of it as contested. Seems fairly open and shut,
at
>least in broad outline, to me.
Two other factors are commonly cited: the introduction of the Polynesian ra=
t
(through it eating palm tress seeds, leading to deforestation) and European
settlers:
"While tribal warfare likely reduced the population of Easter Islanders,
Hunt suggests that most of the decline probably was resulted from early
18th-century Dutch traders, who brought diseases and took slaves from the
island. Research elsewhere indicates that "first contact" diseases=97like
typhus, influenza and smallpox=97carry extremely high mortality rates, ofte=
n
exceeding 90%. The first traders to reach the island likely carried such
diseases which would have rapidly spread among the islanders and decimated
the population."
http://savageminds.org/index.php?s=3Ddiamond&submit=3DSearch
attached: index.html
|
|
|
|
|
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
Gender:
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.68
Rate hkhenson@rogers...
back after a long time
|
|
RE: virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« Reply #4 on: 2006-03-15 18:11:42 » |
|
At 08:29 AM 3/16/2006 +0200, you wrote:
>[Blunderov] Keith, yes; the population issue is crucial. And it may be
>intractable too. I found this:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4585920.stm
><snip>
>Solving the Earth's environmental problems means addressing the size of its
>human population, says the head of the UK's Antarctic research agency.
>
>Professor Chris Rapley argues that the current global population of six
>billion is unsustainably high.
He isn't exactly wrong, but he really should state his assumptions to reach
this conclusion. The earth *could* support a considerably larger
population than it currently has, in style, and with far less ecological
damage. The solar system could support several orders of magnitude more
people than the earth. I depends on the technology available. If current
technology goes no further, we are *far* beyond what can be sustained.
>Writing for the BBC News website, he says population is the "Cinderella"
>issue of the environmental movement.
>
>But unless it is addressed, the welfare and quality of life of future
>generations will suffer, he adds.
He is wrong here I think. It isn't future generations that are going to
suffer, it is the present one unless there are major technological advances.
>Professor Rapley's comments come in the first of a new series of
>environmental opinion pieces on the BBC News website entitled The Green
>Room. </snip>
>
>1:
>Keith Henson
>Sent: 14 March 2006 00:08
><snip>
>If you don't want wars, you don't want to activate the behavioral switch
>that leads to wars. That requires that income per capita be climbing or at
>least steady. I wonder what the Greens say about how they are going to
>control population growth? One thing capitalist systems have done is
>increase wealth in most places enough to keep the war mode switched off.
>
> >The Greens claim to transcend left/right politics which they claim, with
> >some justice IMV, to be irrelevant. Fascinatingly, and Jonathan may be
> >interested in this if it is not old news already, the movement has it's
> >origins in conservative philosophy. It has evolved into a fusion of
> >socialist and free market thought though, and proceeds on the premise that
> >the resources of the planet are not unlimited and need to be managed
> >accordingly.
> >
> > From what I can judge on new acquaintance, the movement seems very
>relevant
> >to the actual problems confronting us all.
>
>It would be interesting to get a gage on what Greens say about evolutionary
>psychology. I suspect most of them come from the SSSM. </snip>
>
>[Bl.] OK I give up. What is SSSM please? (I think I feel a 'doh' moment
>coming on...)
Standard Social Science Model
Results 1 - 10 of about 759 for SSSM evolutionary psychology
Here is an interview of someone who bailed from the SSSM to EP
http://www.fathom.com/feature/35533/
If you ask I can send you a copy of my related paper on EP, memes and war.
Keith Henson
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.churchofvirus.org/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4289
Reputation: 8.78
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:virus: Greens was Oscar contenders
« Reply #5 on: 2006-03-16 16:25:43 » |
|
[Hermit] While I completely agree that the Earth could easily support much larger populations in vastly more comfort than we have now, I suggest that the challenges to achieving this are primarily political, not technological, financial or even resource dominated. It seems to me that for a multitude of complex reasons, we simply lack the political will to implement the necessary preliminaries to effecting such improvements.
[Hermit] Being familiar with the Club of Rome and later "Chicken Little" like predictions of immediate catastrophe, I admit to a great deal of skepticism towards all of the "immediate resource constraint" catastrophe type claims. I am less skeptical towards concerns about marine stock depletion (I have personally observed marine "desertification" off the East Coast of Africa) and rapid climate changes (as recent cores have shown, an ice age can develop in just 10 to 100 years, no time at all in a geological sense).
[Hermit] What kind of issues were you thinking needed urgent addressing by "major technological advances".
[Hermit] As a small caveat, my perception is that I never yet met a situation where EP supporters (like advocates for and opponents of theories of climatic change) could not come up with at least six mutually contradictory, reasonable sounding, yet apparently untestable theories before breakfast, all of which are (according to their proposers) "obviously" the only possible explanation. Whereafter all six explanations apparently will be clewed to by various advocates of EP to the great detriment of any inconvenient contradictory indications which might surface.
[Hermit] Which is not to say that I, and I'm sure others here, would not be interested in reading your paper. May I suggest that a good repository may be on the wiki (hint log-in on the BBS first in order to enable editing).
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
