13 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettWhat would be the motivation to "break" Monsnato?
Drastically reform our agricultural practices for one. Break the back of Monsanto. For other suggestions, you can revisit my Pantheism thread in the spirituality forum.
Keep in mind that money and power motivate people when answering the question.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettI've often wondered if the powers that be think they way you do Rwingett. So what would be the best approach to stop it all? It's the economy stupid. Just crash the economies around the world, declare Marshall law, and set some sort of world wide economy as they herd us around like cattle. Through such an endevour you can steal unfathomed amounts of power and wealth as they pat themselves on the back saying that they are doing to to "save" mankind.
Money and power are going to ride us right into ecological armageddon.
I know you view the human race as a threat to nature and perhaps an enemy of nature, but just know that about 98% of the species that have existed on earth are now extinct, most of which died off with no help from mankind's activities. In fact, about every 30 million years a mass extinction occurs on earth, and we are due Rwingett.
The human race can no more "save" the planet than they can destroy it in my opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.
13 Dec 12
2 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI think you should read The Rhetoric of Reaction by (recently deceased) Albert O. Hirschman. He points to conservative rhetoric as including the following three traits, all of which are manifested in your writing:
I've often wondered if the powers that be think they way you do Rwingett. So what would be the best approach to stop it all? It's the economy stupid. Just crash the economies around the world, declare Marshall law, and set some sort of world wide economy as they herd us around like cattle. Through such an endevour you can steal unfathomed amounts of power the planet than they can destroy it in my opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature of the political, social, or economic order only serves to exacerbate the condition one wishes to remedy.
The futility thesis holds that attempts at social transformation will be unavailing, that they will simply fail to "make a dent."
Finally, the jeopardy thesis argues that the cost of the proposed change or reform is too high as it endangers some previous, precious accomplishment.
He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", that these do not further debate.
13 Dec 12
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI think you should read The Rhetoric of Reaction by (recently deceased) Albert J. Hirschmann. Your writing is characterised in particular by the second and third of the following characteristics:
Money and power are going to ride us right into ecological armageddon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
In the final chapter, Hirschman takes the opposite tack and discusses progressive narratives which are equally simplistic and flawed.
The Synergy Illusion – the idea that all reforms work together and reinforce each other, rather than being competing;
The Imminent Danger – urgent action is necessary to avoid imminent danger;
History Is on Our Side (Compare: “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice,” by Martin Luther King Jr.)
13 Dec 12
2 edits
I think we should all read The Rhetoric of Reaction by (recently deceased) Albert J. Hirschmann. He proposes the following sensible modes of debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
Hirschman advocates instead these "mature" bases for discussion:
There are dangers and risks in both action and inaction. The risks of both should be canvassed, assessed, and guarded against to the extent possible.
The baneful consequences of either action or inaction can never be known with certainty but our reaction to either is affected by the two types of alarm-sounding Cassandras with whom we have become acquainted.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeI don't think all reforms work together. See my thread on the Emasculation of Unions.
I think you should read The Rhetoric of Reaction by (recently deceased) Albert J. Hirschmann. Your writing is characterised in particular by the second and third of the following characteristics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
In the final chapter, Hirschman takes the opposite tack and discusses progressive narratives which ...[text shortened]... pare: “The arc of history is long, but it bends towards justice,” by Martin Luther King Jr.)
I think reforms come in two varieties. There are those which serve to make a bad system seem more palatable while leaving its inner workings in place, and there are those that seek to fundamentally alter the inner working of the system itself. The two ultimately do compete with one another.
I do, however, think that danger IS imminent. Record temperatures, vanishing glaciers and rising rates of extinction would seem to back me up. It is worth remembering that Cassandra was right about the things she foretold. She was unable to affect their outcome because no one would believe her.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by whodeyThere's a bit of pessimistic fatalism for you. The planet is going to die eventually anyway, so why not just go ahead and destroy everything now and get it over with? I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if it was the human species being driven toward extinction by some super virus. You know, we're all going to die anyway, so why bother to resist? Whether mankind can save the planet is open to debate. But I can assure you that they can destroy, if not all of it, then certainly a significant portion of it.
I've often wondered if the powers that be think they way you do Rwingett. So what would be the best approach to stop it all? It's the economy stupid. Just crash the economies around the world, declare Marshall law, and set some sort of world wide economy as they herd us around like cattle. Through such an endevour you can steal unfathomed amounts of power ...[text shortened]... the planet than they can destroy it in my opinion. To think otherwise is pure arrogance.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettAnd screw it up totally for whatever intelligence comes after mankind, no more coal, no more natural gas, no copper, etc.
There's a bit of pessimistic fatalism for you. The planet is going to die eventually anyway, so why not just go ahead and destroy everything now and get it over with? I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if it was the human species being driven toward extinction by some super virus. You know, we're all going to die anyway, so why bother to resist? Whethe ...[text shortened]... sure you that they can destroy, if not all of it, then certainly a significant portion of it.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by TeinosukeThe great right wingnut George Carlin says it better than I.
I think you should read The Rhetoric of Reaction by (recently deceased) Albert O. Hirschman. He points to conservative rhetoric as including the following three traits, all of which are manifested in your writing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rhetoric_of_Reaction
According to the perversity thesis, any purposive action to improve some feature ...[text shortened]... He argues that these are "rhetorics of intransigence", that these do not further debate.
13 Dec 12
Originally posted by rwingettI've heard a few on the left say that the human species is a virus. No doubt, you would agree.
There's a bit of pessimistic fatalism for you. The planet is going to die eventually anyway, so why not just go ahead and destroy everything now and get it over with? I wonder if you'd have the same opinion if it was the human species being driven toward extinction by some super virus. You know, we're all going to die anyway, so why bother to resist? Whethe ...[text shortened]... sure you that they can destroy, if not all of it, then certainly a significant portion of it.