|
An interesting article about the non-election of George Bush.
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,137218-1-9,00.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990902/1999090222.html
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/7738125ef7c2ca9bc1256c4b00470a79?OpenDocument
http://abc.net.au/news/2002/11/item20021127185951_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/4227466.htm
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/palestine/index14.htm
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/4227466.htm
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/04/News/News.44530.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/148/05_3.html
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020926/afp/020926130246top.html
And from the United Nations:
1
2
3
4
A history of Ariel Sharon.
Yes, the source is biased, but it's also accurate.
Well, I just posted here a bunch of my OLD essays. Some of those I haven't seen in a few years. I may have to read them again thoroughly, see if I made any sense or not. Feel free to disagree with any or all of it.
Violence in itself is not good or bad. It is merely force, the motion of matter. There can be no inherent moral value to such a thing. The only moral value is what we attach to the force ourselves, and what we attach to that force is based on our own thoughts, our purposes and such.
So what are the things we attach to such force? Positive and negative emotions. What determines which emotions are attached to violence? Our evolution, our biology. We humans don't have claws, natural armour, fangs, or anything like that. We have groups and intellect/sentience. Our ancestors survived by living in groups. To remain intact, those groups had to develop common behavioural standards. Obviously a group could not survive as a group if its members would hurt each other. Violence was always something one used to get food, to defend against other groups, to defend against dangerous animals, et cetera. Violence can thus be considered "good" if it is for the defence of your self or your group. And of course "bad" if used against your own group, as it threatens the survival of group members and the stability of the group.
Violence is a force. It only has moral/emotional value of any kind when interpreted based on the subjective opinions of the perpetrators, victims, and observers. Generally violence is seen as 'good" if used for defence, and 'bad" when used for harming people who do not need to be harmed for any reason.
HOWEVER...
An advanced species should be capable of settling disputes without resorting to violence. If not required for immediate action, resorting to violence indicates that the mind is too weak to solve a problem. An advanced, sentient species should always be able to solve its disputes with rational thought and discussion, but should retain the ability to employ violence if required.
MY OWN VIEW
Violence can be good. It can be the best thing in the world. If someone incapable of defending himself/herself is being attacked, violence is a very acceptable response in defending that person. It accomplishes what words might not, and can immediately ensure the victim's safety. That is what professional soldiers are all about. They are there to apply force to defend those who can't defend themselves, and are thus the most effective and expeditious force a nation can muster (as opposed to a nation's political, economic, and cultural forces, et cetera).
What I don't like is people who use violence on others for their own gratification. Whether it's a holy war, punching people out over a football game, rape, or whatever, they are all the same thing: people trying to get some form of gratification (psychological, sexual, egotistical, religious, whatever) by forcing it down someone else's throat. And since these people have clearly given up on the civilisation thing and elected to simply use unnecessary violence, and words will not stop them from doing so, it is fair and reasonable to use immediate violence against them to protect others. And any amount or degree of violence as may be necessary to totally neutralise any threat from such people is acceptable.
Why don't I like people using force against others for their own gratification? Because it is weakness. Apart from such basics as water, food, and in some places warmth, all other things are unnecessary. All other things are gravy, cream on top, the good stuff. As such, those other things which are unnecessary for life should obviously be good, comfortable, fun, et cetera. Introducing conflict or negative emotions into that gravy, that whole world of extra topping on life, is absolutely counter-productive and can only be bad for both the person who does it and the person they do it to. There is simply no reason to do bad things to people. Life beyond basic survival is all gravy, icing on the cake. It exists to be enjoyed. Unless someone is screwing you over, there is nothing in life which can't be enjoyed or ignored. You enjoy the stuff you like, and ignore the rest. Thus there is nothing in life which requires unecessary violence or such (meaning it may still be required for survival, such as if you need to killa fish to eat or whatever). The course of a life, like electricity, water, or any other thing, is in its most natural state when following the path of least resistence; that being the path already described. So to do unnecessary violence against anyone is to go completely against the natural way of life.
END NOTE
I'm not even sure if I believe any of that. I'm still trying to figure out what I believe. But I suspect I'm on a good track there. Anyone who believes any philosophy absolutely is probably dangerous anyway. Or selling something.
The longest journey begins with a single step, right? And any journey end with a single step. And there are steps between the beginning and the end. When discussing philosophical matters, what do the steps represent? Obviously the journey itself represents change from one situation to another. Physical aspects of such a journey are simply an outward manifestation which may be required to achieve a new opinion, attitude, thought, et cetera.
The first step represents the realisation that a change is reiquired or desired, and the decision to do something about it. The question regarding the first step is whether that realisation and decision more important than actually achieving the desired or required result.
After the first step comes the journey itself. The journey is all about trying, about leaving the old self behind and searching for the new state of being. It could be said that a decision to make a journey is absolutely worthless without the journey, that unless the journey is actually attempted, the decision to make it is nothing but wishful thinking.
The final step of course is reaching the destination, achieving the desired state. The materialistic view may very well be that any journey is just a waste of time and effort if it doesn't result in something. And clearly the real world requires results from good intentions, else no problems would ever be solved. For the lives of those currently with us and those yet to be born, results are obviously important in creating the world around us. A better world is not made by people with good intentions and wishful thinking. Nor is it made by people who set out to achieve something but never do. Improvements are made by those who are able to take that last step and make the dream real. But then nightmares are made by the same people, by those who want destruction and are able to make it happen.
A complete lack of first steps would mean there would never be any journeys, and never any destinations. Without journeys, first steps are nothing. And without final steps, intentions and efforts never come to fruition. But of course there would be no journeys or final steps without the first steps.
It seems to me that each is as important as the others in abstract philosophy, but in reality the world is changed one way or another by those who can take the final step and make things happen.
There are many who consider Humans physically weak, defenceless, even pathetic. Such people have blindly ignored evolution and human history, and also they have ignored the Human animal as it is today. So, here and now, I will attempt to enlighten those of you who see Humans as a rather unimpressive species.
First, let's look at the supposed reasons some people point to as evidence of Human inferiority. Such people say Humans have no claws nor fangs of a length suitable for predators, nor have they the ability to jump like a flea or fly like a hawk, nor test chemical traces in the air and sea like wolves and sharks respectively, nor have Humans the armour of the turtle or cockroach. These things are all true. However, Humans have a natural protection far greater than all these things, and all others like them, combined???
Technology.
Since first Humanity's distant ancestor, a low primate, picked up a rock or a stick and used it to hit another such primate (just a supposition based on other examples in nature, known primate behaviour patterns, and of course logical deduction), Humans have wielded the greatest claw in the universe. Those ancient primates came to rely more and more upon the tool, and thus with forelegs occupied they began to rely more and more on their hind legs alone for travelling. And, over more than six million years (the famous ancestor remains known as Lucy date that far back, and one more recent find in the line of descent dates back further), the primates leading to Humanity evolved with the tools of survival in hand. The body developed to work with those tools.
While most other creatures in competition with Humans (and natural selection is, after all, a competition, a trial of survival) would simply leap upon their food and maul it, or eat it off the vast prairies, Humans had to be more cunning, specifically because of their lack of armour, claws, and those other advantages seen in the competition. A great cat might hide on a high rock or tree, wait for some large slow herbivore to pass beneath, and jump onto it and kill it. A shark would simply detect food, and eat food. A family of early primates of the Human line might wait in high positions, in safety, and throw gathered stones at some beast below to kill it, working together from their defensive position to kill a predator which, until moments ago, had been intent on eating them. Later, while the competition was still simply leaping on prey and biting the neck, more recent ancestors of Humanity would dig pits, fill them with spikes, cover them with branches and leaves, and possibly lay on the ground pretending to be injured to lure the competition over the pit, all the while clutching a sharp stone or stick just in case the trap failed.
There are, of course, other creatures capable of using deceit and tools. Otters can be seen floating on their backs, shellfish or yabbies on their bellies as though on a table, while they crack open the shells with a stone clutched in the forward foot/hand. Eagles drop turtles from great heights onto rocks to crack the shells. There is even an octopus which uses stones to crack open crustacean shells. The tapping spider will tap the web of other spiders in patterns designed to mimic the vibrations of a trapped fly or other bug, and when the resident spider comes out to investigate, the tapping spider will attack an eat it. Ducks and many other birds will feign injury to lure predators away from their helpless offspring. As for communication, elephants can signal each other through low frequency vibrations over vast distances, more than fifty kilometres, by simply stamping their feet on the ground in certain patterns. Whales sing to each other, in a song which changes every year, and that change occurs all over the world at roughly the same time, so that all the whales will take up the new song.
So with all these remarkable abilities, what makes the Human so special? Well, the Human can do all those tricks, all those evolutionary survival tricks, far better than the creatures who first used them. For millions of years, unable to fly, unarmoured, without claws, Humanity has survived only through cunning, intelligence, and an ever-growing affinity with technology.
In every food chain on Earth, a highly-developed form of life rules. In most salt-water bodies it is sharks. In many fresh-water bodies it is crocodiles, alligators, or the hefty hippopotamus. On land it is the wolf, the tiger, the lion, or another such king of the wild. All great predators, powerful creatures with strong jaws or claws, acute senses, and more. In every food-chain on Earth it is the same. Yet Humans are Earth's dominant species.
Necessity and evolution gave Humanity the greatest claw of all, and Humans evolved (as you would expect, logically enough) to use that claw. Technology is as much a part of Humanity as blood and bone, the disproportionately large brain, or any other factor. Early evolution left Humans with a great gap in their arsenal, and technology filled that gap, and became a part of the Human animal.
In all of observed nature, such a thing has never before happened. Humans are a unique species, uniquely adept with technology, uniquely cunning and capable. Any attempt to reduce by words the Human animal to something weak and unimpressive is nothing but uninformed gibberish, and totally ignores all evolutionary, biological, and current physical evidence.
REPRODUCTION
When observing reproductive cycles, we must first identify that there exist, in this context, three types of reproduction, or three types of life with specific cycles of reproduction. To understand the nature of Human reproduction, we must first identify these three types.
First we have those which constantly reproduce, or at least will continually reproduce while there is sufficient nourishment available. Such things as viruses, bacteria, fungi, certain rodents, and so on. Such forms of life reproduce as a matter of course, taking in nourishment, releasing certain waste products, and multiplying all the while.
Second there are those which reproduce in cycles governed by environmental conditions. Whether based on seasonal abundancies of nourishment, seasonal wet and dry cycles, annual high or low tides, or simple warmth from Spring and Summer, this type breeds by necessity during those periods. For them it is a function of life, an evolutionary urge to release spores at a certain time in certain conditions. Nearly every higher form of life so far observed reproduces in this way.
Third, there are (and these should probably be considered a sub-group of the second type) those creatures who breed by cycles as those in the second group, but will postpone conception and gestation until adequate environmental conditions are met. Such as kangaroos and lions, which will attempt procreation by their normal cycles but will not produce any offspring until the environment is capable of supporting them.
Then there are Humans and a very few others, in yet another group. The members of this group include only those creatures with disproportionately large brains, such as Humans and dolphins and such. The members of this group achieve an abnormally high level of physical pleasure from sexual intercourse. While it is true that laboratory experiments (involving firing electrical stimuli into animal brains through electrodes to produce an experience similar to sex) have shown that many higher creatures attain physical pleasure from sex (this measured by changing hormone levels, changing brainwave patterns, and simple observation of the subject), none attain such pleasure at the levels associated with Humans and the few others in this group.
Why is this the case among Humans? As stated in the section dealing with evolution, Humans have been at a disadvantage from the beginning when it comes to purely biological survival measures. Humans do not reproduce quickly, nor in litters. For the majority of Human evolution, there was no technology to protect the young and see them into adulthood, nor was there any armour or claws or thick fur. Reproducing in accordance with seasonal cycles or other environmental conditions would surely mean the extinction of Humanity, since such a slow-breeding species with so little biological defensive capability could simply not win such a war of attrition against the competition. It was necessary for Humans to breed at any opportune time, regardless of climate or competition. Thus evolution deigned that Humans should attain an abnormally high level of physical pleasure from reproduction, as an incentive to make up for other shortcomings. It was needed for survival of the species, so it became part of the Human animal.
The others in this group, such as dolphins and porpoises, seem to have a similar desire for sexual intercourse, as anyone who has worked with dolphins could tell you. They tend to see any vaguely communicative creature, regardless of species, as an opportunity to achieve some measure of physical pleasure. Possibly for the same reasons, too, as dolphins and porpoises breed slowly and have very little in the way of natural weaponry or armour (ramming with the snout is about as tough as they get).
And so we have Humans, a species in desperate need of constant reproduction simply to avoid extinction. Only very recently, since the last great ice age, have Humans developed sufficient technology to survive without such hectic breeding. So what does that leave? Millions of years of evolution telling Humans they must procreate for pleasure, in the end, many cases, without actually reproducing.
SELECTION FOR REPRODUCTION
Every animal species which reproduces by the interaction of two participants will select for reproduction a partner which offers the best chance for survival of their particular DNA. This concept is common, a standard aspect of evolution, and of course was the primary motivation for selection for Human reproduction until that time (after the last great ice age) when Humans became technologically advanced enough to safeguard their own lives and the lives of their offspring from a hostile environment. But what, precisely, were the criteria for selection?
For a start, a prospective mate was best free of disease. Also, they must be free of such obvious physical disadvantages as weak hips, humped backs, blind eyes or weak ears, or any other physical limitation which would produce offspring with less chance for survival. Clear skin was a good indication of superior health. Sturdy, healthy teeth indicated the ability to maintain appropriate nourishment over a long life.
Males tended to aim for virgins because it guaranteed survival of his own genes, and not any genes which might some day be in competition with his own offspring for the available food and other resources. The female should be young, for several reasons: first, younger females were more likely to be virgins; second, it gave them a longer span of productivity; third, a young, healthy female was more likely to deliver live offspring. A British study in the late 1990s involved showing carefully drawn silhouettes of female bodies to hundreds of male test subjects, to see which they preferred; the undeniable conclusion was that the preferred body shape involved a waist which was seven-tenths as wide as the hips. Breast size was less important, as were the separate dimensions of waist and hip. It was that specific proportion of waist and hip which proved the most popular. Large breasts have always been seen as a sign of fertility, as a sign that the female can produce more milk for the offspring.
But what did the females want? For the most part, the exact same things. Clear skin and good teeth, no physical deformities, and the usual package of good genes to be passed down to her offspring. However, whereas males preferred young virgins, females tended to prefer older males with a history of siring many offspring. The reasons for this are simple. If a male was old, it was an irrefutable fact that the male was capable of survival. If the male had sired many offspring, and a large proportion of those offspring were still alive, it showed that the male was capable of producing offspring which could survive to carry on the female's genes.
A MEDIOCRE SOCIETY
Since the last great ice age, natural selection has played an increasingly insignificant role in human evolution. Gone are the pressures of competition with other animals, gone is the desperate search for wild grain and berries, gone is the need for the hunt. Technology has become Humanity's great claw, but it became so effective that even natural selection was no longer a threat. The weakest and least cunning can survive as easily as any other. There is no pressure which might produce the best Humanity has to offer. There is no impetus for excellence in the way of all nature. What that leaves us with is a society where the mediocre, the largest portion by far, can survive and reproduce as easily as the healthiest and most cunning.
Some would say that the best cure for such a society might be a large-scale war, to thin the ranks and provide, once again, a situation in which only the best survivors could survive. But what is the point of natural selection and evolution, for a race which has achieved some measure of self-awareness, if not to reach a state in which such a war is unnecessary? The entire point of survival, evolution, and natural selection is to produce a creature capable of surviving its environment without danger, totally intact throughout a long and healthy life. A bloodline, of any type of creature, evolves through its sturdiest members toward a state in which it can not be harmed by its environment.
This would seem to indicate, then, that through millions of years of cunningly outsmarting natural selection and using technology as the greatest claw of all, Humanity is finally heading toward that state which is, hopefully, the natural goal of evolution itself.
In a world in which a small few possess the majority of all material wealth, it is only to be expected that among those without the wealth there will be some who claim that excessive material wealth is not such a good thing, that material wealth of any extent is not to be sought above mental pursuits. Of course such people generally have enough food to eat each day, clean water, and a nice comfortable bed to sleep in each night.
But is material wealth actually worth anything? Of course it is. The more material wealth you have, the more you can affect the world. Of course, material wealth is not the ultimate way to affect the world. A simple knife, or a slug of metal moving at two thousand feet per second, can end the wealthiest person's efforts at affecting the world. The fact is that a very wealthy person (or an assassin) has much greater influence over the current and future world than does someone who is materially poor. It is extremely rare that someone with little or no material wealth has any great and lasting effect on the world. Nearly every turn in the course of world affairs is caused by the wealthy and materially powerful. The desire to have such a capacity to guide the future is not shallow; on the contrary, it is far more relevent and important than any attempts to prove one's spirituality by divesting one's self of material wealth.
But short of being capable of working such changes on the world, is there any value to material wealth? Straight away I can see two reasons to acquire it. First, it can be used to secure a better future for one's offspring, to buy their way into better education and a safer than average home environment. Second, material wealth often brings physical comfort, and there's nothing wrong with physical comfort.
Some might say that the bad side of material wealth then is when that wealth is acquired or kept at the expense of others, and to the detriment of others. This seems the only case in which material wealth can be considered bad, but of course even then the material wealth itself is not bad; rather it is the use of that wealth which can cause problems. If two men are facing a tiger, and only one man has a spear, the armed man has a better chance of surviving because he has the material wealth. The one with the spear may decide to protect only himself, let the tiger feed, and go on his way safe and happy. Until the next tiger comes along. Of course the armed man could assist the unarmed man, fight off the tiger, and they could then work at creating another spear, in which case they would have a much better chance of surviving an encounter with any future tigers.
That's called an analogy, ladies and gentlemen, and I believe it clearly illustrates a very obvious and logical point. There's nothing wrong with material wealth. A spear can be very useful. But a spear is even more useful if everyone has one.
First, keep in mind there is a difference between Capitalism and a token economy. Capitalism is a token economy system. A token economy is not necessarily capitalism. What defines capitalism alone in comparison to other token economies is the lending of capital for interest (Not that I'm a Christian, but it's funny how their stories say Jesus Christ was against usuary, yet Christianity's major bastions are capitalist nations.). Nothing wrong with that idea really, loaning people goods or money and getting back more than you gave.
However...
Whether people start with different advantages or start on a level playing field, and regardless of how it happens, in any society which allows individuals to gain fair or unfair advantage through hard work, cheating and stealing, genius, or whatever, you will eventually have people with different resources. Some will have more influence, money, goods, or whatever, than others. Those with the advantage generally try to maintain it. Why? Well, I know I want my kids to grow up in as safe an environment as possible, with good education. A bit of biology and evolution there. My genes are more important than yours, so I'll keep whatever advantage I can get. So gaining such advantages is natural, whether you live in a capitalist society, some other token economy, or something completely different.
Unfortunately, this leads to something else. Business and services and such are all different. If a private health care fund or a school is better than its competition, it costs more. Fair enough. So only those with the money can afford it. The wealthier people can get their hands on better education, health care, legal assistance, and more. This can apply over many generations. This leads to what Marx I think called Class Polarisation, which we see very clearly in the USA, Australia, and many other places today. Put simply: the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
Whether it involves any individuals or groups having nasty intentions to their fellow man or not, this class polarisation is an integral part of any system which places value on material wealth for the individual (not JUST capitalism). Whether the majority get poorer, unhealthier, less educated, and have shorter lifespans due to intent from the wealthier portion of society or they just happen to be the unfortunate roadkill of a socio-economic system which holds no malice toward them at all, the result is the same.
So is capitalism bad? Should it be abandoned? Well, until we reach some stage of development at which we can all have whatever we want by clicking our fingers, capitalism is useful for driving growth and expansion. Lending not for equal returns but for interest drives the borrower to grow and expand in order to satisfy the interest.
The problem? This system is now working on a global scale. This quest to expand, and to repay interest, is global, in a world with limited space and resources. With such a pervasive presence, such a system can only really cause more class polarisation while cutting back on returns from growth and expansion, which is now sorely limited. We're at a point of diminishing returns. More space and resources are needed if this system can keep its returns in order with its negative effects. Perhaps getting out among the stars? New worlds, new industries? But there's a problem. That costs money. Those who might invest the money want interest. And such expansion carries no guarantee of interest.
GLOBALISATION
Globalisation is the label given to the process of exapnding trade and seeking equilibrium of labour bases throughout the world. It has good points and bad points, but of course only the bad points have received any publicity recently, mainly because of the violet protests of students who don't actually know why the term means or involves.
I'll list here some of the factors of globalisation:
1) Foreign trade. Nations who can not trade for each other's required or desired resources have been going to war with each other for thousands of years. The way they avoid such wars is by trading with each other, swapping the raw materials and luxuries they want, buying them off each other. The more nations are involved in some internetaional standard of economic co-operation, the few chances there are of wars for resources being fought. That is a very simple concept.
2) Unions drive up labour costs, thus labour in areas/nations without unions is generally cheaper.
3) Larger companies which can afford to relocte their labour bases ten to want the cheapest efficient labour combined with the lowest transport costs for moving the products from that labour base to the market.
4) Relocation of labour to poorer nations where unions are less likely to be organised, if they exist at all, stimulates the local economy, providing jobs in that new region. And of course any economic stimulation is a good thing, as it allows for better health care and education, which in turn through increased expertise further stimulates the economy.
5) Relocation of labour away from more industrialised places of course costs jobs in those places, and results in the first world nations gradually becoming nations of consumers with minimal production capabilties of their own.
In brief, the major points are:
- Foreign trade stops wars.
- Unions drive up labour costs in more developed nations.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for business.
- Relocation of labour to less developed nations is good for those nations.
- Relocation of labour costs jobs in first world nations and turns them into pure consumers.
There is no doubt in my mind, however, that relocation of the labour base to less developed nations is not done by large companies for the purposes of helping those countries. They do it to save money, to increase the profit margin. Unfortunately, because those nations don't have unions, the workers are employed in conditions which would be illegal in nations with effective unions. The result is that, while in the long term the relocated economic activity is good for the less developed nations and their people, in the short term those people will most likely be screwed for some time.
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|