The essence of the class war. by Fremdfirma

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The essence of the class war.

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Friday, March 25, 2011 04:26
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/iiVBFB
VIEWED: 7512
PAGE 2 of 2

Sunday, March 6, 2011 3:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:

Run out of puff with your logic and reduced to making silly and insulting claims. Where is your evidence?

I thought we were having a civil conversation. Of course you know I could post pictures of industrial pollution and desertification from anywhere, even Australia. It's not a sign of population, it's a sign of industry.

A hundred million people aren't destroying the rainforests by living in them. A few hundred international industrialists are, and overwhelmingly, they're not doing it for the trees, they're doing it because that's global policy. Tiny rewards given for destroying the world's forest cover. There's far more money in the medicine and foodstuffs that naturally grow in the forest, or the laborforce of the people being killed, than they are getting out of it.

TPTB hate life. And apparently forests, I think it's because you can't see those indians from the sky, and also, they aren't on any tax rolls, etc.

Much of the destruction of china is actually being done by hydroelectric power. an alternative would be nuclear. Another would be reducing power consumption. The population hasn't grown since they switched from bicycles to cars, so why the switch? Oh, right, global oil cartels. No one gets to work faster in a car in Beijing than they did on bike, because traffic doesn't move, and there's nowhere to park. Cars were sold as a status symbol, and the people bought.

This is not population growth, because there basically isn't any. You failed to address the whole 400 times more densely populated than australia. You know if we backtrack a century or so, it would only be 200, but there would be no industry, and you know that there would be no real destruction, save those places out in uyghur country where no one but remote tribes ever lived anywhere, because, like siberia, there was never any rainfall. In fact, the Uyghurs have underground tunnels for collecting water that they still use which were built by the Persians back when it was part of the Empire, which was a few thousand years ago.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 6, 2011 5:35 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

You seem to lack a basic understanding of the affect of supply and demand of the worlds population upon resources. It doesn't matter that it may be industrialists that are doing most of the exploiting, they are doing it to meet the material needs of the population.

i could post pretty pictures from anywhere in the world, it also wouldn't prove that there is a not an increasing demand for resources by an increasing population. it was a stupid way to frame an argument, and I was only doing it to counter your pictures. Studid as well. Neither proved anything.

when you say there hasn't been any population increase, are you referring to the decline in the growth rate? There still is and will continue to be growth in population.

World population estimates milestones Population
(in billions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Year 1804 1927 1960 1974 1987 1999 2011 2025-30 2045–50
Years elapsed 123 33 14 13 12 13 15-20 20–25

But population is only part of the problem. Consumption levels are at their highest in human history. Waste levels are at their highest.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 6, 2011 6:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

A little basic communication, oh, nevermind.

Magon, the world has seen many species before us, and will see many after us. We're not that major a species. Our demands on the world's resources are nominal, as is our carbon footprint, etc.

What we have is a very small, very destructive, problem element. That element, among other things, has been selling the idea that we are overpopulated for over a century now on those very grounds, and yet the majority of environmental destruction had already happened. Even modern industrial destruction of the US was done for flat out economic means of power players and had nothing to do with demand on resources. They went out and invented new demands for tobacco and cotton, just so they could create yield bearing land. Ditto for mining, etc.

That's the nature of land owning aristocracy:

Land is a limited quantity. The only thing which makes it not solid is that it is granted by fiat. Fiat is not stable, because rulers are not stable, they can be replaced. So, for the land based aristocracy to grow in wealth and also offset the possibility of losing their land, they must make a return on their land, so as to gain wealth power etc. So, they farm it. The problem with that model is that that are many many times more acres than there is a demand for food because there just aren't very many people in the world. So, they invent new crops, like coffee, or cocaine or opium, and then they control world markets through legislation that kicks up the price so they can get their yield.

It's not that there is an innate demand on resources attached with humans, that's absurd. We're seriously outmassed even by other species we compete with, such as mice and rats and ants and termites, to say nothing of prawns, who dwarf us.

There's nothing particularly unique about humans. We're a subspecies of fieldmouse, more or less, and we eat food, of which there is a basically limitless supply, we consume water which is so limiteless as to be infinite and ditto for the air we breathe. We don't really require anything else. Even our poorly managed resource economy for energy etc, has not made a debt in the world supply of energy, or minerals, etc etc etc.

It's just not the case. It's an argument put forth. It was put forth in 1880 when there were 1.5 billion of us or however many there were. By 1880, the US and Europe had already been deforested. Not because there was any need. Because there was a bad economic model afoot, and that model is spreading.

The population has no needs except those created by industrial and financial capitalists.

Fieldmice don't put a strain on the earth and there are roughly 18 trillion of them. They operate at 10 times our metabolic rate. That means they need to eat for 180 trillion. That's the equivalent of about 60 billion humans. The planet doesn't even seem to notice their presence.

There are a hundred species like this or more. Apply simple logic.

You misunderstood my response that there was no population growth, that was within the frame of the rise of the automobile in China, which has been just over the last 20 years. There has not really been population growth in China during that period. If you went back to a pre-industrial china, which would be not very long ago, when there was minimal industry in China, the population was very close to what it is today.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 6, 2011 6:03 PM

DREAMTROVE

Double Post.

This is getting us nowhere, and it's off topic. Can we please return to the topic, or, if you have nothing to say on the topic, just move on.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 6, 2011 7:32 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon, the world has seen many species before us, and will see many after us. We're not that major a species.

Agreed.
Quote:
Our demands on the world's resources are nominal, as is our carbon footprint, etc.
Disagree.

Ignoring your inevitable reference to the global conspiracists who rather illogically seek to reduce world population for their own nefarious ends, your discussion of field mice is an interesting one.

No species can grow beyond their capacity to be sustained by their food source, and despite what you keep claiming, food sources are finite. Any species that reaches the limits of their ability to sustain themselves with food, will begin to dwindle in numbers through starvation. In fact, competing for limited resources sometimes causes them to eat their own young a la Easter Island.

Overpopulation of any animal species can do enormous damage to the natural environment. Australia experienced this with the rabbit population mid 20th century. Of course it didn't help that they were an introduced species and natural predators had been limited by the reduction of dingos by the white man.

The major difference between man and field mice and any other species is that we are environment shapers, tool makers, technological beings. I can guess we have the capacity to foresee as well, which makes it difficult for some of us to sit back and not worry about overpopulation because, as per other animal species, it will just adjust itself, because that adjustment will involve mass starvation, war, pandemics and lots of human misery. Which is why some of us support population growth control for reasons other than a DESIRE TO RULE THE WORLD. *manically laughs and rubs hands together*

History has seen many examples of human beings reaching the capacity of their available resources, and the resulting misery that follows. That's often why civilisations fall. Jared Diamond outlines a number of them in his book Collapse, including of course, the Easter Islanders.

NB if you want this discussion to finish, do not reply. I'm happy to shoot the breeze about these kind of topics.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 7, 2011 5:40 AM

DREAMTROVE

Magon,

Yes, they're technically finite on the Earth, but they are not nearly as limited as TPTB want you to believe. The fact is, other populations are growing faster than theirs, because theirs is limited by their economic model. They can't abandon their economic model, because that's what gives them poweer, and so each one of them that does is no longer TPTB, but part of the peasantry.

So, what's the food limit of the Earth? Very very large. I did the calculations a number of times. If all currently tilled farmland were used to maximum efficiency, about a trillion (thousands billion) humans.

Long, long before we reach that number, one of two things will happen:

1) Humans will reach out into space, into a universe which is, according to the real scientific data re: the curvature of space, infinite. Even if it isn't, even if it's not, as data seems to indicate, larger than what we can see, what we can see is 10^23 stars. Our own star system, Earth represents not even 1% of resources, and all of this is assuming that resources cannot be renewed or recycles, which we know they can, so no, there there is not a practical limit

or

2) Long before the human race gets to a trillion, it is hit by some plague or other catastrophe that causes the population to collapse, which just means the longer we have before reaching 1) above.

IOW, it's not an issue. It's a manipulation, like global warming. Global Warming enthusiasts often say "The Earth will become like Venus" it's even been said more than once on this forum. That's utter nonsense. Half the world's non-mineral carbon is already co2. If you burned the entire planet, you would only double co2, and doubling co2 has no proven impact on temperature. The reason: Carbon has been locked in limestone because of generations of shellfish, and it ain't coming out short of hitting the Earth with a comet or asteroid. If that happens, then all of our other worries are not really an issue.

This is just the sort of thing that I created that "Problems that Don't Exist" thread for, at Rap's suggestion: We would do a lot better if we devoted our time and energy to problems with *do* exist than arguing about speculation on the ones which don't.

ETA: I want to continue the topical discussion of the thread, which I believe was entitled "The essence of the class war." and featured a little clip from a Bug's Life posted by Frem on the non-acceptance of dissent of worker ants by their grasshopper overlords.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:25 PM

DREAMTROVE

Okay, Necroposting this thread. I've just watched the film, and there's an element which is an important part which has to be taken into consideration:

(At 2 minuted in)

This is the crux of our problem. It resurfaces throughout the film. At first glance I mistook this for stupidity, but I don't think it is. It's fear, and fear of anything off of the beaten path leads to ritual. Stick to the path. The path has always worked. Leave the path and there will be chaos.

Wait! I don't know the path! Oh no! What will I do? Ah, some leader will come and show me the path... but this is just one instance of the overarching concept. The slightest sign of stormy weather and they flee back to the path.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 4:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

I've seen the film for ages. Must have another look.

I find your fundamental theory re eugenics flawed, simply because there is no evidence that world powers have policies to restrict population growth, but that a downturn in growth rate has kind of occured on its own. Actually, TPTB as you like to call them, like large populations, preferably with capital to spend. They are markets. Its one of the arguments used for the now largely ditched idea of Big Australia, to increase our population X3 because then we would have a competitive market, and have more chance of being a powerbroker in the region.

The way I see it, free market forces like big populations, they spend more, more money to be made, resources are more im demand. It's not TPTB that have led the discussions around [possible resources shortages, TPTB do everything they can to minimise it, to ignore it, just like they ignore all attempts other than punitive ones to reduce pollution. TPTB care about how much money they can make, how much power they can wield. Crapping up the future of the planet means nothing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:13 PM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've seen the film for ages. Must have another look.

It's worth a look. Silly and entertaining.

About the following I think you are incorrect, but I have neither the will nor energy to correct you. I'll just point them out. No slight intended, just for future reference, you might want to look into these.
Quote:
there is no evidence that world powers have policies to restrict population growth

Look into it.
Quote:
TPTB as you like to call them

As does the board... where do you think I got it from?
Quote:
TPTB care about how much money they can make

I am convinced they do not.

Just to explain the last, a little: The powers that be are people who own banks of issue. This means they own money. Not that they own a quantity of money, but rather the concept. This means the amount of money there is is the amount of money they say there is. The percent share that they have is whatever they say they have.

What would it serve any such power to do anything to increase their own money?

Skip the rhetoric, right to the chase: They want power. They fear being replaced or removed from power. Their power is vested in their economic system. I detailed it in pretty thorough detail in my first three or four rants in this very thread.

You can ignore the eugenics if you choose not to believe. Not everyone believes in threats. Rap believes in terrorism, I don't. That doesn't mean I don't believe it exists, just that I don't believe it's a threat.

But if you want to grasp what I'm saying about economics, note the points I make above, which make it, IMHO, painfully obvious that there is no conceivable gain for TPTB to "make money" so I must rule out this as a motivation.

To use a reverse analogy: Consider a church that sought to win the favor of God as an agenda. It would seem unlikely. It's more likely that they would seek to gain followers, or control over the followers they have, or to oust other churches, but probably not to directly please God.

Any power is no more likely to seek control over matters they already control in their entirety anymore than those completely beyond there control.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 9:55 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Well I guess we need to agree to disagree. I see the world order as needing population and in particular markets, you think they are trying to seed out opposition via population control. I think your ideas are pretty wacky, but there you have it. Can't really be arsed continuing this today.

I did want to make a comment about It's a Bugs Life, and the idea of propaganda. American movies tend to sell the mythology of America and this is a classic example, they sell the concept of the individual is better than the collective and that collective thinking turns you, literally into a drone. It's not a subversive movie at all, but one that reinforces the dominant way of thinking of most Americans. In fact, it's almost a mouth piece for TPTB.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:37 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In fact, it's almost a mouth piece for TPTB.

This is interesting. Everyone has a different idea of TPTB, who has the most power and control on this planet. Please correct me if my guesses are wrong.

Magon: The greedy money-makers who want to increase populations and markets and individualist selfishness in order to make more money

Siggy: Corporations that have stolen democratic government and collective decision making

DT: Banks who manipulate people into drudgery and the mysterious "noblemen" bank owners who have a eugenics agenda.

Frem: Sociopaths who want to crush empathy out of kids and create a sociopathic world where caring is villainous.

CTS: I honestly don't know who they are. At all. If "they" exist. I expect they have more money than they can count, and a direct line to most major govts. Owners of certain banks sound reasonable. Owners of certain corporations sound reasonable too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:40 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In fact, it's almost a mouth piece for TPTB.
This is interesting. Everyone has a different idea of TPTB, who has the most power and control on this planet. Please correct me if my guesses are wrong.

Magon: The greedy money-makers who want to increase populations and markets and individualist selfishness in order to make more money

Siggy: Corporations that have stolen democratic government and collective decision making

DT: Banks who manipulate people into drudgery and the mysterious "noblemen" bank owners who have a eugenics agenda.

Frem: Sociopaths who want to crush empathy out of kids and create a sociopathic world where caring is villainous.

CTS: I honestly don't know who they are. At all. If "they" exist. I expect they have more money than they can count, and a direct line to most major govts. Owners of certain banks sound reasonable. Owners of certain corporations sound reasonable too.

Or all of the above.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 2:45 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This is the crux of our problem. It resurfaces throughout the film. At first glance I mistook this for stupidity, but I don't think it is. It's fear, and fear of anything off of the beaten path leads to ritual. Stick to the path. The path has always worked. Leave the path and there will be chaos.

Wait! I don't know the path! Oh no! What will I do? Ah, some leader will come and show me the path... but this is just one instance of the overarching concept. The slightest sign of stormy weather and they flee back to the path.

I don't buy it.

You always have Heretics, folk who wander off the path because they want to KNOW, or who find a better way and forge a NEW path, always - for without them, then you have that problem, sure...
And as noted, most of our "education" involves trying to suppress or destroy that ability in order to maintain a status quo which benefits a few at the expense of the many, often with their unwitting and ignorant assistance.
Till some Heretic comes along and winds a bunch of them up...

I consider the ability and the will to commit Heresy to be one of the primary saving graces of mankind, just so you know.

-Frem
PS. I can name names, if you'd like CTS, my concept of "Them" is pretty specific so far as conduct goes.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 5:44 AM

DREAMTROVE

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

our "education" ... trying to suppress or destroy that ability in order to maintain a status quo

Yes, that was part of the point. The more trained they are to not look for their own way, the more likely they are to panic.

Someone posted a video here detailing three different mindsets: The smart, the incompetent and the morons.

The smart are those who know. You can't tell them anything, because they know. At some point, they learned, and now its in there, and nothing else is coming in.

The incompetent are perpetually out of their depth. This is how they learn, by never allowing themselves to be ahead of their peers.

The morons learn the path of least resistance is to learn which buttons to push to get the job done, and these guys will never leave the path.

Thing is, the powers that be didn't *create* human psychology, they just *exploit* it. But they can't exploit something that isn't there.

Humans become lazy because they are overwhelmed. An older person who thinks they know enough to get by encounters computers, and they panic. This is too much. Information overload. So, they cheat. They learn a simple series of steps, which things to click to do the tasks they need to do, without taking the time to fully comprehend the concept of computers. They've become the moron, and they cannot stray from the path. If something goes wrong, a leaf in the wind falls in their path, they panic.

TPTB didn't do this to them, the education system didn't force this one on them, they did it to themselves. Computers were just too much of a concept to take in, they felt overwhelmed, they didn't devote the time, and once they fell into this path, it was comfy, and they didn't want to leave it.

So, sure, TPTB,

in the workplace, the education system, in stories on the TV, they exploit this, but they didn't create it.

eg. Each election cycle, they can force you into information overload. It's easier for people to believe than to understand.

Quote:
I consider the ability and the will to commit Heresy to be one of the primary saving graces of mankind, just so you know.

That was a good line.

Yes, it is, but shaking those others from their path mentality is tricky. Flik had a bit of trouble with it himself.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 20, 2011 6:48 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I consider the ability and the will to commit Heresy to be one of the primary saving graces of mankind, just so you know.

Agreed. (Hey, I'm a bonafide heretic officially excommunicated for heresy and everything!

)

Though, heresy is not always healthy for the heretic, whatever else it does for mankind.

Quote:

PS. I can name names,

Oh please do! (Rubbing hands together.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:09 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I liked CTS's annalysis of how she thinks various people view the powers that be. Interesting observations CTS.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 25, 2011 4:26 AM

DREAMTROVE

We're still awaiting the Fremlist. And anyone else who cares to chirp up. We have PN's: Jewish MKULTRA Knights of the British Owl Molech

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE