> On Apr 16, 10:09 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/04/2012 6:39 AM, baldeagle wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 8:58 am, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 14/04/2012 7:23 PM, baldeagle wrote:
> > >>> .> So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of
> > >>> .> the third world should better be content with themselves rather
> > >>> .> than envy& emulate.
> > >>> If poor countries do not strive for excellence and be contented
> > >>> with life...they will remain poor forever.
> > >>> The pursuit of excellence led to great human achievements..
> > >>> Contentment and complacency led to the down fall of great
> > >>> empires.
> > >>> It is a very bad idea that third world nations should be
> > >>> contented.
> > >>> They should not emulate the rich countries..they will
> > >>> fail as they don't have capital nor power to do what
> > >>> rich countries are doing.
> > >>> It is better for them to find their own "way"..like what
> > >>> African countries are doing now.
> > >> But how can contentment be questioned in first place.
> > > Contentment breeds complacency, breeds decline,
> > > breeds hunger and finally death. It should be questioned.
> > > It is hunger for success, hunger for good life, hunger
> > > of the better things in life...hunger for a secured and
> > > better tomorrow ...HUNGRY people can never be
> > > contented.
> > >> Isn't that merely justification, or if you prefer Darwin is ultimately
> > >> right?
> > > Yes Darwin is right...hunger is one of most important
> > > factors responsible for man's success in the evolution-
> > > survival process so far.
> > > .> That it's not the right who wins, but the winner who's right?
> > > Evolution has nothing to do with the moral question of
> > > right and wrong...nor rewarding the party who is right.
> > > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
> > > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
> > > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
> > > nor the old..
> > If you think about it and this I readily admit rough and
> > "heart-wrenching" at least by modern Western standards (btw that's why
> > truth but not fantasy that so often "hurts") when I say it's precisely
> > the weak, the sick, the old, post-menopausal women etc have little to
> > contribute to _any_ society when precisely in evolutionary terms they're
> > dead-weights.
> In Chinese society, the old are honoured not because
> they are economically productive. There is no need
> for 'social security' in China...they are being taken care
> of by their children. For this reason, children are very
> important in Chinese culture.
> In evolution, it is like the bees feeding the Queen bees...
> it is the reward for bringing the bees into this world.
Whether the elderly America needed it or not, they have created a
powerful voting bloc among the seniors. Without the power to vote they
would be insignificant again. Now the elderly control the game.
> On Apr 16, 10:26 am, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/04/2012 8:10 PM, baldeagle wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 11:58 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> > > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Apr 15, 6:39 am, baldeagle<force....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > .> > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
> > > .> > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
> > > .> > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
> > > .> > nor the old..
> > > .> Which is why we should try to be civilized and be
> > > .> above animals.
> > > "To be civilized"...is not necessarily being above animals.
> > > The bees and the ants from their perspective are more
> > > civilized than us human. Eg. Ants greet each other when
> > > the meet ...they share the burden when the load is too
> > > heavy...they do not kill like human because of property
> > > or jealous or greed.
> .> Entomologist EO Wilson once famously remarked on Marxism:
> .>wonderful theory, wrong species. :)
> .> And that tells you why America can be more fitted to individualist
> .> vs, oh say, Japan or Germany, or perhaps Israel.
> Karl Marx was NOT an economist. He was a brilliant
> political philosopher.
> He was demonized and persecuted by the establishments
> in Europe and by religions because political philosophy.
> The philosophy of Marx is still being played out...even
> now... in the USA. The class struggle, the 99% vs the 1%
> launched by Obama..is an offshoot of Karl Marx idea.
> Too early to laugh at Marx...he may yet have the last laugh.
> > Who should go first, the most polluting or the weakest? The key
> > populations to ensure the survival of Western Civilization are found
> > in North America, Europe and Japan. The so-called developing countries
> > will have to be discarded before it's too late. How can they be so
> > dumb to be like us?
> The native peoples of africa, north america, and south america are
> stupid primitive people and have no place in a modern world. They
> don't have the intelligence to build and maintain a technologically
> advanced culture. They are parasites and will not be missed.
Then maybe they should choose another type of system that doesn't
require the rat race. Costa Rica's motto is "Pura Vida," which means
loosely "just chill."
But I bet you we are losing that race with China. We need a new motto
too.
<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 17, 5:46 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> > Yep - and I think we're seeing the beginnings of
> > that truth coming to the surface over in eurotopia.
> > The cultural and political incompatabilities have
> > now been joined by economic woes - and I see hints
> > that countries being bailed out think the ones doing
> > the bailing (OK, mostly just ONE doing the bailing)
> > is starting to get kinda pushy, telling everybody
> > how they're gonna act, do business, allocate funds ...
> > Europe has had one big war after another for 1500
> > years. What makes you think 1945 marked the last
> > of them ?
> It wouldn't be a war but absolute suicide. The last war
> was suicidal but it took a maniac to make it happen. People
> are not that stupid.
Yes, people ARE that stupid, again and again.
We were stupid to get involve in Vietnam.
We are stupid to get involve in Afghanistan.
We are stupid to get involve in Iraq.
We are stupid to get involve in Pakistan.
We are stupid to get involve in Iran,...
> > Often. Not always, but often. Don't forget though
> > that even the 'elites' are mere humans under the
> > tailored clothes.
> True, but their arrogance and gated communities insulates them from
> the real world. Their vision is distorted by short term gain as well.
> > Most primates automatically form a heirarchical
> > social order - with an 'alpha' male and female
> > and their close cohorts at the top of the pyramid.
> > They bark, everyone else jumps. This seems to be
> > the 'default' system for humans as well, be it
> > little tribes or gangs or vast powerful nations.
> True, but most people are barely aware of this fact and most alpha
> leaders have a short stay at the top. It means that the Mubaraks and
> Gaddhafis are being replaced by more flexible hierarchies.
> > When everything else goes to hell, this is where
> > we drift to automatically. Indeed it seems to
> > require constant energy to even keep the heirarchy
> > somewhat diluted, the pyramid short and easier
> > to climb.
> It ain't that easy to climb. It's just an illusion. If you kill the
> illusion, a mafia state may follow.
> > It's not opinion if you can back it up
> > with historical evidence and anthropological
> > observations.
> We just got to watch the world news. Nothing new in the jungle,
> depressing for the most part.
> On Apr 15, 9:59 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2012 10:19 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 8:43 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14/04/2012 8:55 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 13, 6:52 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2012 11:05 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 11:18 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2012 7:56 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 8:09 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 11:23 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an important part of our diet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One prof history emeritus by name of Harold Dorn once wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
>>>>>>>>>>>> biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
>>>>>>>>>>>> low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
>>>>>>>>>>>> of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite true.
>>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
>>>>>>>>>>>> notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
>>>>>>>>>>>> nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
>>>>>>>>>>>> posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which of course fundamentally threatens yet another variant of idealism:
>>>>>>>>>>>> another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not be one with nature?
>>>>>>>>>>> We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
>>>>>>>>>>> and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
>>>>>>>>>>> highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
>>>>>>>>>>> rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
>>>>>>>>>>> for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
>>>>>>>>>>> The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.
>>>>>>>>>>> The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
>>>>>>>>>>> crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
>>>>>>>>>>> within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
>>>>>>>>>>> rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
>>>>>>>>>>> transportation within healthy communities.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
>>>>>>>>>>> public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
>>>>>>>>>>> rich to be prosperous.
>>>>>>>>>> Look, you still have to make a choice. And some will be more valued than
>>>>>>>>>> others in zero-sum game.
>>>>>>>>>> Why fight Darwin?
>>>>>>>>>> Why deplore competition when it's selection process?
>>>>>>>>>> Why not accept some will be valued more than others by whatever perspective?
>>>>>>>>>> Again, why fight nature? And not learn from the "West's" mistakes?
>>>>>>>>> If you don't use the Xerox machine, then it makes sense. My concern is
>>>>>>>>> that consumption habits made in West are recklessly copied, and this
>>>>>>>>> adds to the doomsday scenario.
>>>>>>>>> For example the approaches followed by Taiwan (scooters) and Singapore
>>>>>>>>> (bullet trains) are praiseworthy given their reality not that of the
>>>>>>>>> West. And in turn this not the reality for Africa, where the humble
>>>>>>>>> bike could the vehicle of liberation. Adaption to the environment is a
>>>>>>>>> law of nature.
>>>>>>>> Then tell us how much more copying you can get if you parrot equality,
>>>>>>>> liberty, or democracy. When you "liberate" the rest of the 6 or 7
>>>>>>>> billion, how much worse will the world become?
>>>>>>>> Tell us.
>>>>>>> You are rather pessimist about the outcome but it can only be better
>>>>>>> than what it is. Liberation means not only democracy but liberation of
>>>>>>> Western patterns that are rather unhealthy and unreal. I can almost
>>>>>>> hear it: "I got to have a car to be happy." Oh c'mon, this is Africa,
>>>>>>> you better be happy with bicycles and bananas. Yes, the West has some
>>>>>>> mighty technology such as the Internet that we can take advantage of,
>>>>>>> but we all can be happier by roaming free, than by driving a car and
>>>>>>> eating McDonald's.
>>>>>>> Excuse my copy& paste now:
>>>>>>> Bananas and the Revolution
>>>>>>> By Peter Schata
>>>>>>> There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth
>>>>>>> most important food commodity in the world. They were one of the first
>>>>>>> products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this
>>>>>>> unmistakable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production,
>>>>>>> with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became
>>>>>>> known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big
>>>>>>> Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more
>>>>>>> clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of
>>>>>>> 'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What
>>>>>>> happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume
>>>>>>> the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.
>>>>>>> In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only
>>>>>>> need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise
>>>>>>> doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of
>>>>>>> language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot,
>>>>>>> need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas,
>>>>>>> new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!
>>>>>>> Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to
>>>>>>> shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global
>>>>>>> society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human
>>>>>>> beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>> So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of the third
>>>>>> world should better be content with themselves rather than envy& emulate.
>>>>>> Good advice, and I agree.
>>>>> Not content where they stand, but to choose a different path.
>>>> But still not content. Why not content. I even thought that's problem
>>>> contentment had with materialism anyway isn't it?
>>>> Wow!
>>>> Besides what different paths would these saints have choosen -
>>>> Materialism? Power?? Or even.... Bananas????
>>>> Serious?
>>> The Third World path to progress:
>>> Their elites go to study in America or the UK, go back with their well
>>> learned capitalist approach, bring back the SUVs and Gated Communities
>>> as well, and have the serfs work for them.
>>> Except that China is taking away all their jobs and whole industries
>>> are crumbling.
>> So you're now admitting contentment doesn't lead anywhere while modern
>> materialistic Chinese _not_ satisfied with themselves seek to emulate,
>> improve, and progress?
> There are many paths in the jungle, and there's more than one out of
> it. Some lead to the cliff though and you must be careful what you
> follow.
Yes - just look at America with its almost hysterical shrieks of diversity and democracy and look at how it's now always heading South America's direction.
> On Apr 15, 10:02 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2012 10:47 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>> On Apr 14, 8:43 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14/04/2012 8:55 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 13, 6:52 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/04/2012 11:05 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 11:18 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2012 7:56 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 8:09 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 11:23 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an important part of our diet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
>>>>>>>>>>>> One prof history emeritus by name of Harold Dorn once wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
>>>>>>>>>>>> biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
>>>>>>>>>>>> low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
>>>>>>>>>>>> of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite true.
>>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
>>>>>>>>>>>> notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
>>>>>>>>>>>> nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
>>>>>>>>>>>> posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>> more than others.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which of course fundamentally threatens yet another variant of idealism:
>>>>>>>>>>>> another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not be one with nature?
>>>>>>>>>>> We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
>>>>>>>>>>> and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
>>>>>>>>>>> highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
>>>>>>>>>>> rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
>>>>>>>>>>> for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
>>>>>>>>>>> The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.
>>>>>>>>>>> The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
>>>>>>>>>>> crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
>>>>>>>>>>> within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
>>>>>>>>>>> rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
>>>>>>>>>>> transportation within healthy communities.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
>>>>>>>>>>> public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
>>>>>>>>>>> rich to be prosperous.
>>>>>>>>>> Look, you still have to make a choice. And some will be more valued than
>>>>>>>>>> others in zero-sum game.
>>>>>>>>>> Why fight Darwin?
>>>>>>>>>> Why deplore competition when it's selection process?
>>>>>>>>>> Why not accept some will be valued more than others by whatever perspective?
>>>>>>>>>> Again, why fight nature? And not learn from the "West's" mistakes?
>>>>>>>>> If you don't use the Xerox machine, then it makes sense. My concern is
>>>>>>>>> that consumption habits made in West are recklessly copied, and this
>>>>>>>>> adds to the doomsday scenario.
>>>>>>>>> For example the approaches followed by Taiwan (scooters) and Singapore
>>>>>>>>> (bullet trains) are praiseworthy given their reality not that of the
>>>>>>>>> West. And in turn this not the reality for Africa, where the humble
>>>>>>>>> bike could the vehicle of liberation. Adaption to the environment is a
>>>>>>>>> law of nature.
>>>>>>>> Then tell us how much more copying you can get if you parrot equality,
>>>>>>>> liberty, or democracy. When you "liberate" the rest of the 6 or 7
>>>>>>>> billion, how much worse will the world become?
>>>>>>>> Tell us.
>>>>>>> You are rather pessimist about the outcome but it can only be better
>>>>>>> than what it is. Liberation means not only democracy but liberation of
>>>>>>> Western patterns that are rather unhealthy and unreal. I can almost
>>>>>>> hear it: "I got to have a car to be happy." Oh c'mon, this is Africa,
>>>>>>> you better be happy with bicycles and bananas. Yes, the West has some
>>>>>>> mighty technology such as the Internet that we can take advantage of,
>>>>>>> but we all can be happier by roaming free, than by driving a car and
>>>>>>> eating McDonald's.
>>>>>>> Excuse my copy& paste now:
>>>>>>> Bananas and the Revolution
>>>>>>> By Peter Schata
>>>>>>> There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth
>>>>>>> most important food commodity in the world. They were one of the first
>>>>>>> products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this
>>>>>>> unmistakable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production,
>>>>>>> with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became
>>>>>>> known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big
>>>>>>> Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more
>>>>>>> clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of
>>>>>>> 'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What
>>>>>>> happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume
>>>>>>> the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.
>>>>>>> In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only
>>>>>>> need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise
>>>>>>> doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of
>>>>>>> language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot,
>>>>>>> need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas,
>>>>>>> new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!
>>>>>>> Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to
>>>>>>> shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global
>>>>>>> society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human
>>>>>>> beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports
>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>> So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of the third
>>>>>> world should better be content with themselves rather than envy& emulate.
>>>>>> Good advice, and I agree.
>>>>> Not content where they stand, but to choose a different path.
>>>> But still not content. Why not content. I even thought that's problem
>>>> contentment had with materialism anyway isn't it?
>>>> Wow!
>>>> Besides what different paths would these saints have choosen -
>>>> Materialism? Power?? Or even.... Bananas????
>>>> Serious?
>>> Bananas just give you the right path to follow when managing an
>>> economy wisely. Here's a question:
>>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU GIVE A BUNCH OF BANANAS TO A BUNCH OF
>>> MONKEYS?
>>> Every possible political system is represented in the distribution of
>>> the bananas among the monkeys. Having a bureaucracy managing the
>>> bananas is socialism. The bureaucracy mismanaging the bananas is bad
>>> socialism. Marxism is one banana per monkey, except that some monkeys
>>> are better than others. Capitalism will make some some monkeys control
>>> the bananas while others go hungry. Then the WISE MONKEYS must learn
>>> to cooperate and groom each other. THERE'S BANANAS FOR ALL.
>>> But that's only my humble opinion.
>> What you're also saying is blood and soil (food supply being derivative
>> of course) is a prime driver - rather than blind utopian ideology.
>> So-called equality - "democracy" included - is actually true for the
>> dumb, false for the smart, useful for the
> On 15/04/2012 11:04 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 10:02 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 15/04/2012 10:47 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>> On Apr 14, 8:43 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 14/04/2012 8:55 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>> On Apr 13, 6:52 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 11/04/2012 11:05 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Apr 10, 11:18 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 09/04/2012 7:56 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 8:09 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 11:23 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> an important part of our diet.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> One prof history emeritus by name of Harold Dorn once wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
> >>>>>>>>>>>> biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Quite true.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
> >>>>>>>>>>>> notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
> >>>>>>>>>>>> nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
> >>>>>>>>>>>> posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
> >>>>>>>>>>>> more than others.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which of course fundamentally threatens yet another variant of idealism:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why not be one with nature?
> >>>>>>>>>>> We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
> >>>>>>>>>>> and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
> >>>>>>>>>>> highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
> >>>>>>>>>>> rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>> the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
> >>>>>>>>>>> for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.
> >>>>>>>>>>> The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
> >>>>>>>>>>> crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
> >>>>>>>>>>> within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
> >>>>>>>>>>> rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
> >>>>>>>>>>> transportation within healthy communities.
> >>>>>>>>>>> It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
> >>>>>>>>>>> public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> rich to be prosperous.
> >>>>>>>>>> Look, you still have to make a choice. And some will be more valued than
> >>>>>>>>>> others in zero-sum game.
> >>>>>>>>>> Why fight Darwin?
> >>>>>>>>>> Why deplore competition when it's selection process?
> >>>>>>>>>> Why not accept some will be valued more than others by whatever perspective?
> >>>>>>>>>> Again, why fight nature? And not learn from the "West's" mistakes?
> >>>>>>>>> If you don't use the Xerox machine, then it makes sense. My concern is
> >>>>>>>>> that consumption habits made in West are recklessly copied, and this
> >>>>>>>>> adds to the doomsday scenario.
> >>>>>>>>> For example the approaches followed by Taiwan (scooters) and Singapore
> >>>>>>>>> (bullet trains) are praiseworthy given their reality not that of the
> >>>>>>>>> West. And in turn this not the reality for Africa, where the humble
> >>>>>>>>> bike could the vehicle of liberation. Adaption to the environment is a
> >>>>>>>>> law of nature.
> >>>>>>>> Then tell us how much more copying you can get if you parrot equality,
> >>>>>>>> liberty, or democracy. When you "liberate" the rest of the 6 or 7
> >>>>>>>> billion, how much worse will the world become?
> >>>>>>>> Tell us.
> >>>>>>> You are rather pessimist about the outcome but it can only be better
> >>>>>>> than what it is. Liberation means not only democracy but liberation of
> >>>>>>> Western patterns that are rather unhealthy and unreal. I can almost
> >>>>>>> hear it: "I got to have a car to be happy." Oh c'mon, this is Africa,
> >>>>>>> you better be happy with bicycles and bananas. Yes, the West has some
> >>>>>>> mighty technology such as the Internet that we can take advantage of,
> >>>>>>> but we all can be happier by roaming free, than by driving a car and
> >>>>>>> eating McDonald's.
> >>>>>>> Excuse my copy& paste now:
> >>>>>>> Bananas and the Revolution
> >>>>>>> By Peter Schata
> >>>>>>> There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth
> >>>>>>> most important food commodity in the world. They were one of the first
> >>>>>>> products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this
> >>>>>>> unmistakable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production,
> >>>>>>> with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became
> >>>>>>> known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big
> >>>>>>> Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more
> >>>>>>> clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of
> >>>>>>> 'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What
> >>>>>>> happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume
> >>>>>>> the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.
> >>>>>>> In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only
> >>>>>>> need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise
> >>>>>>> doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of
> >>>>>>> language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot,
> >>>>>>> need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas,
> >>>>>>> new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!
> >>>>>>> Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to
> >>>>>>> shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global
> >>>>>>> society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human
> >>>>>>> beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports
> >>>>>>> us.
> >>>>>> So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of the third
> >>>>>> world should better be content with themselves rather than envy& emulate.
> >>>>>> Good advice, and I agree.
> >>>>> Not content where they stand, but to choose a different path.
> >>>> But still not content. Why not content. I even thought that's problem
> >>>> contentment had with materialism anyway isn't it?
> >>>> Wow!
> >>>> Besides what different paths would these saints have choosen -
> >>>> Materialism? Power?? Or even.... Bananas????
> >>>> Serious?
> >>> Bananas just give you the right path to follow when managing an
> >>> economy wisely. Here's a question:
> >>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU GIVE A BUNCH OF BANANAS TO A BUNCH OF
> >>> MONKEYS?
> >>> Every possible political system is represented in the distribution of
> >>> the bananas among the monkeys. Having a bureaucracy managing the
> >>> bananas is socialism. The bureaucracy mismanaging the bananas is bad
> >>> socialism. Marxism is one banana per monkey, except that some monkeys
> >>> are better than others. Capitalism will make some some monkeys control
> >>> the bananas while others go hungry. Then the WISE MONKEYS must learn
> >>> to cooperate and groom each other. THERE'S BANANAS FOR ALL.
> >> >> >> > .> > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
> >> >> >> > .> > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
> >> >> >> > .> > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
> >> >> >> > .> > nor the old..
> >> >> >> > .> Which is why we should try to be civilized and be
> >> >> >> > .> above animals.
> >> >> >> > "To be civilized"...is not necessarily being above animals.
> >> >> >> > The bees and the ants from their perspective are more
> >> >> >> > civilized than us human. Eg. Ants greet each other when
> >> >> >> > the meet ...they share the burden when the load is too
> >> >> >> > heavy...they do not kill like human because of property
> >> >> >> > or jealous or greed.
> >> >> >> Entomologist EO Wilson once famously remarked on Marxism: wonderful
> >> >> >> theory, wrong species. :)
> >> >> >> And that tells you why America can be more fitted to individualist vs,
> >> >> >> oh say, Japan or Germany, or perhaps Israel.
> >> >> >He also said this:
> >> >> >"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
> >> >> >designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
> >> >> >obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
> >> >> >and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
> >> >> >among societies, rather than competition."
> >> >> Crack open the history books though and you'll see
> >> >> that the 'cooperation' only applies within a given
> >> >> society. When two societies meet, they tend to
> >> >> fight to the death.
> >> >> And in overly large and diverse societies, internal
> >> >> cooperation isn't even guarenteed unless the king
> >> >> points a spear at everyones bellies.
> >> >Interesting thought. So the whole idea of the European, the nations
> >> >working together and people moving freely is oppose to human nature.
> >> Yep - and I think we're seeing the beginnings of
> >> that truth coming to the surface over in eurotopia.
> >> The cultural and political incompatabilities have
> >> now been joined by economic woes - and I see hints
> >> that countries being bailed out think the ones doing
> >> the bailing (OK, mostly just ONE doing the bailing)
> >> is starting to get kinda pushy, telling everybody
> >> how they're gonna act, do business, allocate funds ...
> >> Europe has had one big war after another for 1500
> >> years. What makes you think 1945 marked the last
> >> of them ?
> >It wouldn't be a war but absolute suicide. The last war was suicidal
> >but it took a maniac to make it happen. People are not that stupid.
> >> >I think it is the ELITES that give these signals --cooperation or
> >> >aggression-- and the monkeys follow.
> >> Often. Not always, but often. Don't forget though
> >> that even the 'elites' are mere humans under the
> >> tailored clothes.
> >True, but their arrogance and gated communities insulates them from
> >the real world. Their vision is distorted by short term gain as well.
> >> >Forgive my expression of
> >> >"monkeys," but I strongly believe that human behavior is related to
> >> >animals and that it should be helped by studying animal behavior and
> >> >training.
> >> Most primates automatically form a heirarchical
> >> social order - with an 'alpha' male and female
> >> and their close cohorts at the top of the pyramid.
> >> They bark, everyone else jumps. This seems to be
> >> the 'default' system for humans as well, be it
> >> little tribes or gangs or vast powerful nations.
> >True, but most people are barely aware of this fact and most alpha
> >leaders have a short stay at the top. It means that the Mubaraks and
> >Gaddhafis are being replaced by more flexible hierarchies.
> A while back, I came across a list of Irish kings
> going back nearly 3000 years. Almost every single
> one bore the note "Killed by ..." - and the successors
> rarely lasted very long either.
> However the SYSTEM survived - every new king slipped
> smoothly into the same boots the previous king wore,
> the same govt structure. In short, only the faces
> change. (I suspect this will ultimately be the case
> in Egypt and such)
> >> When everything else goes to hell, this is where
> >> we drift to automatically. Indeed it seems to
> >> require constant energy to even keep the heirarchy
> >> somewhat diluted, the pyramid short and easier
> >> to climb.
> >It ain't that easy to climb.
> Ain't supposed to be. Even those with a little power
> want to keep it for themselves.
> >It's just an illusion. If you kill the
> >illusion, a mafia state may follow.
> They've been polishing the illusion since
> Machiavellis time at least ... doesn't
> seem likely there's gonna be any mass-
> enlightenment event.
> And even if there was ... go from the status-quo
> to WHAT exactly ? IMHO it'd wind up being the same
> old same old, just with a different color of paint.
> >> >But that's only my humble opinion.
> >> It's not opinion if you can back it up
> >> with historical evidence and anthropological
> >> observations.
> >We just got to watch the world news. Nothing new in the jungle,
> >depressing for the most part.
> People are people. They're wired-up pretty much the
> same, have pretty much the same needs and desires and
> weaknesses. Not unsuprising that there's not much real
> variety in political or economic structure through time.
> After ten or twelve thousand years of 'civilization',
> I suspect everything has been tried - and most systems
> proved lacking.
OK let's analyze a race that came from absolute brutality to absolute
civilization: THE SCANDINAVIANS. The Vikings, as we all know, didn't
take prisoners, not even the monks were spared. They terrorized Europe
--they may have been terrorists-- and would have given competition to
the Somali pirates. And now, what do we have now? We have some of the
most advanced countries on Earth, fully civilized, fully sustainable
countries. I mean, they are not only rich, but fully civilized. Sweden
aims for zero accidents on the road --rather Utopian just like zero
drugs in America-- but more worthwhile. There are many parameters by
which you may judge civilization, but TRAFFIC is my favorite. You go
from anarchy in America where might makes right, to a highly regulated
Autobahn system that works in Germany, to a place like Denmark that
makes sure that the Law of the Jungle takes its course when you ride a
bicycle. When you fail to protect the weak, everything falls apart and
civilization is just a joke.
> > > > > > > > Who should go first, the most polluting or the weakest? The key
> > > > > > > > populations to ensure the survival of Western Civilization are found
> > > > > > > > in North America, Europe and Japan. The so-called developing countries
> > > > > > > > will have to be discarded before it's too late. How can they be so
> > > > > > > > dumb to be like us?
> > > > > > > If it really bothers you, why don't you build greenhouses in Alaska,
> > > > > > > northern Canada, and Russia, and distribute the food to those who need
> > > > > > > it?
> > > > > > Yes, that's a possible windfall of Climate Change, growing potatoes in
> > > > > > Alaska.
> On Apr 17, 10:44 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 15/04/2012 11:04 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>> On Apr 15, 10:02 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 15/04/2012 10:47 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 14, 8:43 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14/04/2012 8:55 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Apr 13, 6:52 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/04/2012 11:05 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 10, 11:18 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 09/04/2012 7:56 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 9, 6:54 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 8:09 PM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 8, 5:35 pm, RichAsianKid<RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 08/04/2012 11:23 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an important part of our diet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One prof history emeritus by name of Harold Dorn once wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more than others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which of course fundamentally threatens yet another variant of idealism:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not be one with nature?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
>>>>>>>>>>>>> within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> transportation within healthy communities.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rich to be prosperous.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Look, you still have to make a choice. And some will be more valued than
>>>>>>>>>>>> others in zero-sum game.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why fight Darwin?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why deplore competition when it's selection process?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not accept some will be valued more than others by whatever perspective?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again, why fight nature? And not learn from the "West's" mistakes?
>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't use the Xerox machine, then it makes sense. My concern is
>>>>>>>>>>> that consumption habits made in West are recklessly copied, and this
>>>>>>>>>>> adds to the doomsday scenario.
>>>>>>>>>>> For example the approaches followed by Taiwan (scooters) and Singapore
>>>>>>>>>>> (bullet trains) are praiseworthy given their reality not that of the
>>>>>>>>>>> West. And in turn this not the reality for Africa, where the humble
>>>>>>>>>>> bike could the vehicle of liberation. Adaption to the environment is a
>>>>>>>>>>> law of nature.
>>>>>>>>>> Then tell us how much more copying you can get if you parrot equality,
>>>>>>>>>> liberty, or democracy. When you "liberate" the rest of the 6 or 7
>>>>>>>>>> billion, how much worse will the world become?
>>>>>>>>>> Tell us.
>>>>>>>>> You are rather pessimist about the outcome but it can only be better
>>>>>>>>> than what it is. Liberation means not only democracy but liberation of
>>>>>>>>> Western patterns that are rather unhealthy and unreal. I can almost
>>>>>>>>> hear it: "I got to have a car to be happy." Oh c'mon, this is Africa,
>>>>>>>>> you better be happy with bicycles and bananas. Yes, the West has some
>>>>>>>>> mighty technology such as the Internet that we can take advantage of,
>>>>>>>>> but we all can be happier by roaming free, than by driving a car and
>>>>>>>>> eating McDonald's.
>>>>>>>>> Excuse my copy& paste now:
>>>>>>>>> Bananas and the Revolution
>>>>>>>>> By Peter Schata
>>>>>>>>> There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth
>>>>>>>>> most important food commodity in the world. They were one of the first
>>>>>>>>> products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this
>>>>>>>>> unmistakable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production,
>>>>>>>>> with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became
>>>>>>>>> known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big
>>>>>>>>> Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more
>>>>>>>>> clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of
>>>>>>>>> 'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What
>>>>>>>>> happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume
>>>>>>>>> the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.
>>>>>>>>> In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only
>>>>>>>>> need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise
>>>>>>>>> doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of
>>>>>>>>> language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot,
>>>>>>>>> need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas,
>>>>>>>>> new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!
>>>>>>>>> Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to
>>>>>>>>> shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global
>>>>>>>>> society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human
>>>>>>>>> beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports
>>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>> So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of the third
>>>>>>>> world should better be content with themselves rather than envy& emulate.
>>>>>>>> Good advice, and I agree.
>>>>>>> Not content where they stand, but to choose a different path.
>>>>>> But still not content. Why not content. I even thought that's problem
>>>>>> contentment had with materialism anyway isn't it?
>>>>>> Wow!
>>>>>> Besides what different paths would these saints have choosen -
>>>>>> Materialism? Power?? Or even.... Bananas????
>>>>>> Serious?
>>>>> Bananas just give you the right path to follow when managing an
>>>>> economy wisely. Here's a question:
>>>>> WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU GIVE A BUNCH OF BANANAS TO A BUNCH OF
>>>>> MONKEYS?
>>>>> Every possible political system is represented in the distribution of
>>>>> the bananas among the monkeys. Having a bureaucracy managing the
>>>>> bananas is socialism. The bureaucracy mismanaging the bananas is bad
>>>>> socialism. Marxism is one banana per monkey, except that some monkeys
>>>>> are better than others. Capitalism will make some some monkeys control
>>>>> the bananas while others go hungry. Then the WISE
> On Apr 17, 3:45 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 17, 5:46 pm, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> > > Yep - and I think we're seeing the beginnings of
> > > that truth coming to the surface over in eurotopia.
> > > The cultural and political incompatabilities have
> > > now been joined by economic woes - and I see hints
> > > that countries being bailed out think the ones doing
> > > the bailing (OK, mostly just ONE doing the bailing)
> > > is starting to get kinda pushy, telling everybody
> > > how they're gonna act, do business, allocate funds ...
> > > Europe has had one big war after another for 1500
> > > years. What makes you think 1945 marked the last
> > > of them ?
> > It wouldn't be a war but absolute suicide. The last war
> > was suicidal but it took a maniac to make it happen. People
> > are not that stupid.
> Yes, people ARE that stupid, again and again.
> We were stupid to get involve in Vietnam.
> We are stupid to get involve in Afghanistan.
> We are stupid to get involve in Iraq.
> We are stupid to get involve in Pakistan.
> We are stupid to get involve in Iran,...
> > > Often. Not always, but often. Don't forget though
> > > that even the 'elites' are mere humans under the
> > > tailored clothes.
> > True, but their arrogance and gated communities insulates them from
> > the real world. Their vision is distorted by short term gain as well.
> > > Most primates automatically form a heirarchical
> > > social order - with an 'alpha' male and female
> > > and their close cohorts at the top of the pyramid.
> > > They bark, everyone else jumps. This seems to be
> > > the 'default' system for humans as well, be it
> > > little tribes or gangs or vast powerful nations.
> > True, but most people are barely aware of this fact and most alpha
> > leaders have a short stay at the top. It means that the Mubaraks and
> > Gaddhafis are being replaced by more flexible hierarchies.
> > > When everything else goes to hell, this is where
> > > we drift to automatically. Indeed it seems to
> > > require constant energy to even keep the heirarchy
> > > somewhat diluted, the pyramid short and easier
> > > to climb.
> > It ain't that easy to climb. It's just an illusion. If you kill the
> > illusion, a mafia state may follow.
> > > It's not opinion if you can back it up
> > > with historical evidence and anthropological
> > > observations.
> > We just got to watch the world news. Nothing new in the jungle,
> > depressing for the most part.
On Apr 18, 5:29 pm, RichAsianKid <RichAsian...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 11:12 AM, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher wrote:
> > The sheep elect the shepherd and he fleeces them.
> > Who's evil?
> Yes, and I've always maintained it's the sheep which are ultimately to
> blame. _Especially_ in "democracy" when demography is destiny.
Well, you can only blame the sheep in democracy. They are happy
choosing who to herd them, but never question the idea itself. In
tyranny dissatisfaction turns into rebellion sooner or later. The
elites have chosen democracy for a reason.
> >They terrorized Europe
> >--they may have been terrorists-- and would have given competition to
> >the Somali pirates.
> 'Terrifying' and 'terrorism' are two different
> things. 'Terrorism' is a special warfare tactic
> designed to undermine a strong existing govt
> from below - by destroying public confidence in
> that govts ability to protect the population,
> its valuable property and its important interests.
> The Vikings were just 'terrifying' - and it
> intimidated the people they attacked. It was
> not meant to overthrow governments, just to
> grab the loot more quickly. No larger political
> goal existed.
> Relative to Somalia, some similarties actually ...
> few resources or opportunity for upwards mobility
> motivated them to go 'viking' (raiding/stealing).
> They were in it for the money initially. Only later
> on did they focus on grabbing land. If you can't be
> a king at home, find a new home where you can be a
> king. They were such good fighters compared to the
> target populations that they could take what they
> wanted easily.
> But once they DID grab land, the paradigm shifted
> strongly towards an agrarian lifestyle and they
> tended to organize government in the local style.
Maybe the Somalis will go down that path too. Maybe they'll invest in
Wall Street.
> >And now, what do we have now? We have some of the
> >most advanced countries on Earth,
> Depends on how you define 'advanced', doesn't it ?
Advanced: technology particularly electronics, standard of living,
transportation, longevity, low crime, traffic...
> Technology moved along ... but absolute brutality
> kept popping up until the mid 1940s ... into the
> 1990s if you count eastern europe, Serbia etc..
> I have doubts things will remain peacable ...
> the EU is gonna fracture, and it may not be pretty.
> Also, is robbing the rich to enrich the do-nothings
> 'advanced', or just a reincarnation of the Viking
> raiders ?
The rich seem to be happy in Scandinavia. Not that they not should
trim down welfare.
> >fully civilized, fully sustainable countries.
> I have doubts ... and 'sustainable' looks to be
> the first one to go.
I don't think so. They don't tolerate LITTERING and are very active in
RECYCLING. Not a throw away society at all. Norway could choose to
sell cheap gas like Venezuela --the envy of America: 12 cents a
gallon-- but instead chooses to make prices high to promote frugality.
> >I mean, they are not only rich, but fully civilized. Sweden
> >aims for zero accidents on the road --rather Utopian just like zero
> >drugs in America-- but more worthwhile. There are many parameters by
> >which you may judge civilization, but TRAFFIC is my favorite. You go
> >from anarchy in America where might makes right, to a highly regulated
> >Autobahn system that works in Germany, to a place like Denmark that
> >makes sure that the Law of the Jungle takes its course when you ride a
> >bicycle. When you fail to protect the weak, everything falls apart and
> >civilization is just a joke.
> You seem to equate micro-managment from on-high as
> the mark of 'civilization'. I hear the echos of kings,
> tyrants, inquisitors ......
Yes, they may have some royalty but their freedoms are intact. Perhaps
because someone is overlooking the system, it works so well.
> It's not a safe way to live, too much power invested
> in the State apparatus. Hell, the UK has already become
> a surveillance state ... pretty much everything Orwell
> warned them about. Just wait until things go a little
> sour and you'll see the full power of these governments
> squeezing life and liberty from their citizens like
> juice from an orange.
The rich in America enjoy their surveillance state in the gated
communities. They don't make an issue about that because they want to
be safe.
> The 'wild' USA is still far more free, still far more
> authority vested in The People, ergo more 'civilized'
> in my opinion. Your 'civilization' ... a gilded cage.
Again, it depends how you define free. I like to say that freedom is
having safe, healthy communities, not gated communities. Also the
WORST POSSIBLE SOCIETY in terms of sustainability.
I just found the perfect species for the human species. It came to me
as was watching a nature program, something called "Twisted Tales."
Anyway the animal in question is THE RAT. Don't get squeamish about
it. In the Orient they are held in high regard and thus we have the
Year of the Rat. Anyway, the rat is the worst predator to mankind and
yet it can be tamed to be the perfect pet. Many psychological studies
are done on the rat since they share our brain biology. And we can
learn something unique about our two species: WE BOTH NEED THE WHEEL
to keep our physical and mental balance, which means we can not be
seating in a box and expected to be happy. No wonder people find the
bicycle to be the perfect tool for happiness and well being. And we
are social animals like rats, so we suffer from the same isolation. My
campaign "Monkey out of the Cage" reflects that need.
