The Meatrix

[GNEP]

I go by one simple assumption in discussions like this: my life is worth no less than any other on this planet, and therefore no more if I expect others to make the same assumption I make. I can't make myself disagree with that assumption (much as I'd like to sometimes) and once made, there are a somewhat cut-down number of conclusions to draw about world poverty, global populations and more...

[az]

GNEP.

I find it hard to find non-offensive words when confronted with this kind of fundamental arrogance (and idiocy). Thank you for some words of wisdom in this thread. (And yes, I'm kinda in a bad mood tonight)

AZ

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by az
I'd rather have the 50 million FITTEST people surcice, or the 50 million most intelligent, or the 49,999,999 most beautiful women and me, or a healthy mixture of all people (for genetical diversity). But how would you ensure they do less well than we have done so far, and are not at 6 billion again in a few thousand years? Etc. etc.

Of course the sheer mass of humans right now is more than the planet and most humans can bear, still what you said makes me furious. Really I don't know if what you wrote here or what KvH writes regularly is worse.

AZ

Aha! What do I write regularly that is so awful, or untrue? And who decides who these fittest people are or by what criteria they are judged? Sounds like the eugenics ideas proposed by the nazis, there, Az.

Honestly, such ideas come out because we have circumvented natural selection. Natural selection now works as Duke put forth in such a tongue-in-cheek way. While we may deny it, women still look for money as the #1 criteria in selecting a husband and father to their children. This is a practical matter, and things have always been this way, but as I said, the values in this society are so screwed up that some of the worst people wind up rich and the best wind up poor. In that "Meatrix" blurb, for example.. it's very true that corporate profit has become the only important thing in this society, overriding every other sort of value system. You haters of Christianity who are legion here are one of the primary causes in the freeing of these people from any moral constraint. You focus on all the few bad preachers like money-grubbing TV evangelists and sex-starved Catholic priests who can't resist copping a feel here and there and BOOM! Christianity is a sham.. it's EVIL. You are all just dupes of the media that has fed you this tripe. Yes, there are things in the church that need reform, but that is why someone like Martin Luther was so great. He attacked the people who were defaming the church without attacking the good that is done by religion. You destroy the very idea of God and then expect society to remain moral? You are fools if you think this can be so.

[az]

Nowhere did I state I have any criteria of who would be the fittest, nor did I say I would want to be involved in this genocide, which would dwarf the Nazis' "euthanasia" and holocaust by far. I just tried to say that money, of all things, would really be a very very poor criterion to find the 50 million "best" people to stay alive. Anger led my pen, so I wasn't (and still am not) making much sense, sorry.

You asked what it was that you wrote that was so awful and untrue. Your constant "whites are superior" drivel, that's what.

Actually, although I'm an agnostic, I tend to agree to your views about societal values going down the drain. I don't think we should need something like a church or a religion though. I agree with many christian values, and I think more attention should be paid to them - this doesn't mean I need to agree with the thought that there's a god, or whatever else christianity stands for.

AZ

[KvHagedorn]

The problem with intelligent people is that they think they can deny their own basic needs as a social animal. You are quite wrong, Az.. we need religion as a way to define our moral goals as a society. And we need this whether we, in our heart of hearts, believe there to be a God or not. If we let society as a whole become moral, it will begin to seem more and more as if there were a God after all, because people would begin to act out of the goodness of their hearts, without fear of being slammed as being some sort of fool for doing so, because it is not immediately profitable to them in some material way.

I don't have a constant "whites are superior" drivel. You and other alarmists seem to want to turn it into that, to defame anything I say, but it isn't my point of view, and you know it. It is really this sort of shouting down that I am opposed to, and the damage it does to society. As I said above, we all have our needs as social animals, and part of this is to have a commonality of shared beliefs and understandings among our neighbors. This is a basic need in every person's psyche, whether young, naive liberals want to admit it or not. This is why I am so against the foolish ideas of "open borders" and unlimited immigration that has been prevalent in the West over the past 50 years. The basis for it is not some humanistic drivel, but a cold-blooded capitalistic ploy to get cheap labor so the rich can get richer and punt the poor native workers into the street. To slap a swastika on my forehead and label me something I am not for this position in itself puts my detractors in the role of one of the nazi judges, shouting down all opposition in a flurry of emotion. I am not a kid anymore.. I have lived and experienced and observed. Nothing I have said is really a regurgitation of some "extremist" belief, and you should really know better than to accuse it of being such.

[az]

I'm quite tired, so this will be short and probably nonot very well formulated.

On religion: I agree that society needs a basic set of morals to act by. I agree that we need a new popular philosophy. And I agree that the bible and christianity (NOT the church) have been a good source for both of that for the last 2000 years. But I think it's time to part philosophy/morals/basic rules of living in a society on the one hand and religion on the other hand. I am not opposed to religion, I am just opposed to the idea of religion itself being tied with society (and/or the government etc.). The moral set of christianity is a good one, but it's equally good without the religion.

These are the kinds of discussions with you I enjoy. We can disagree without shouting at one another for having different positions, and we're both intelligent people.

But sometimes, you show you think lowly of other races - and I don't say you do to leverage my position and you know it. In fact, this here was the first time I ever commented on this attitude, because quite frankly I think it's idiotic. But I never used it in an argument to shout down what you're saying (I know how it is when that happens to you - it's still not easy to criticise israel or any jew here).

If this does not reflect your views I apologize and suggest you word your postings more clearly, because we both know I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Good night I hope you'll sleep better than I do (when it's finally time to sleep where you live).

AZ

[TransformX]

Az,

You should understand one thing about KvH: He isn't Anti Semitic/ Arab/Nigger/Russian or whatever. He's simply Xenophobic.
He's against anyone who's unlike him, and by him I mean culturally.
As blunt he might be, I do understand his goal.

[DukeP]

Az, I did not choose the 50 million richest people as a kind of selection.
I chose the 50 million richest people simply because its easier to kill/persuade/neuter the poor.

If I had to select the 50 million, I would choose a nice even mixture of every human "race". As a biologist, I also like variety.

Choosing the 50 million will include a bit of everything, but some will be left out; I dont think theres too many rich eskimo's or amazoon indians etc.


What I AM saying, is that the overall goodness amongst men would prob. improve if there where fever of us.
The added benefit is that we would all be able to live more or less in concert with the globe, instead of this rabid and festering infestation we are now.

~~DukeP~~

[TransformX]

Originally posted by DukeP
What I AM saying, is that the overall goodness amongst men would prob. improve if there where fever of us.
The added benefit is that we would all be able to live more or less in concert with the globe, instead of this rabid and festering infestation we are now.

~~DukeP~~

That's because you're thinking rom a biologist's point of view...
You'll be very surprised.

[DukeP]

I would really love to be surprised, TransformerX. Really.

I do enjoy people, I cultivate a large following of friends, both new and old. I have done a lot of volunteer work.

This does not change my overall opinion about Man. We are too many. Its not good for us, its not good for the globe.

I know the problem will more or less solve itself. I just dont think this wil be in any way that will include "great happiness". Disease, war, ecological disaster.

Id rather have a (enforced?) descision to just stop having this many children. In one generation flat, we could reach the goal of prosperity for all.

Ah well. I AM allowed to dream?

~~DukeP~~

[KvHagedorn]

Duke, if you picked the 50 million richest people, you would be sure to get the most amoral people among us, who would be absolutely worthless as members of the whole. There would be no farmers to grow the food, no teachers to teach the kids.. no clergy to ease our troubles. There would be a lot of drug dealers and pimps and ruthless prick millionaires.. basketball players with no brains and no real world worthwhile skills to offer.. shallow pointless movie stars who would be pretty much useless for the most part. Do you see where I'm going?

About your idea to enforce not having children.. what's happening now is that the most responsible people take this path, and don't have children. What does this get us? When only the irresponsible people breed we will have absolute chaos. If you wanna play God, you need to think things through pretty thoroughly.

[Umfriend]

[?]Originally posted by DukeP[/I]Have you ever been there??

Have you seen how the "natives" have completedly shattered the ecosystem of the Sahel area? Mostly by being lazy and neglient?

Im certain this is a flaw originating in their culture (originally nomadic).

African agricultural industy has been shattered by Europe (i.e. the European Union) to a large extent. With the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), established in 1958, the EU imposed a subsidizing system on the EU Agricultural industry which incentivied the farmers to produce as much as they could by guaranteeing minimum (but way to high) prices for their produce. This caused the farmers to invest past way the optimal levels. EU simply dumped the excess on the world market, a lot of which wnet to Africa. For the farmers over there, there was really no way to invest in education, equipment and land.

I believe the main purpose of the CAP was to ensure that the EU would be able to feed its population in case the USSR would put up a blockade disabling US (food)aid in case of a war (i.e. the USSR invading the EU).

Originally posted by KvHagedornThe Africans who breed like roaches even though they can't feed themselves? Let them learn the hard way. We did.

Who is "we"? And when did "they" starve because of outside interference like the CAP above? I wonder whether Africa suffered famines like they have since the late 60's before, say, WWII?

Originally posted by KvHagedornSounds like the eugenics ideas proposed by the nazis, there, Az

I do not think the Nazis had a monopoly on this. In fact, I think in the US it was somewhat popular in the beginning of the 20th century (when "nazis" did not yet exist).

Originally posted by KvHagedornWhile we may deny it, women still look for money as the #1 criteria in selecting a husband and father to their children.

Pshycological studies show men and woman to (mostly) select partners on an "equality" basis, i.e. try to find partners that they deem to have equal qualities overall (So indeed, very beautiful poor men may find ugly old rich woman as the balance out overall).

[Umfriend]

To be sure, not all of the African troubles can be blamed on Europe, not at all. Zimbabwe is solely the UK's fault

[DukeP]

Umfriend, Im quite certain that most of the African populations current problems, stem from "outside" interferrence.

I do not agree on your source, tho.

The largest problem for the africans, is the influx of new medicine.
They [the africans] have been given the proverbial fountain of youth. What they really needed, was the fountain of wisdom [lovingly borrowed from Murcer Sig].

Instead they had good health and still gave birth to double digits children. This caused them to either spread out or die. This again caused them to inhabit areas that was not at all like what they where used to.
They then had two opportunities: Adapt or grow steadily poorer.

They havent adapted yet.

Ask yourself: If YOU lived 20 kilometers from a stream/well/waterhole, how many days would YOU carry a bucket of water from this hole to your home?

I know that I would start digging a kanal - not so the africans.
In my experience (i had a class about the subject) africans lack the ability to truly adapt. They have been used to living in a garden of eden - now trust out of this garden by the god of civilazation - they are without the ability to take care of themselves.
When interviwed about why they had just cut down the last fruitbearing tree in the area, they responded - because we need the wood for our fire. We know that we will now never get another of these trees to grow on our own, but someone should come and helps us. Someone MUST come and help us.

After seing THAT interview, I kind of gave up in them.

I see MUCh more sense amongst the native gorillas. At least THEY dont destroy their own lands (they leave that to the native humans).

~~DukeP~~

[Umfriend]

DukeP, yes I do agree that the medical aid caused nasty side effects (reminds me of the proverb: "The pathway to hell is paved with good intentions"). I do maintain though that the CAP severly limited their ability to start taking care of themselves.

On digging canals, I'll have to think about that. It holds true I think, and leads me to the question why "we" in the Nethelrands for instance have been able to organise efforts to control water and land at least from the late middle ages and probably before. I *think* it has to do with the concepts like "land ownership" and serfdom. I doubt you would start digging a canal if there was not a way for you to rely on you being able to reap the fruits of that endeavour.