05 Jan 11
Originally posted by Hand of HecateWhat should he have done with his life?
Christopher McCandless was an idiot and squandered his life. Hell, the boy died in a bus a short walk from a major road. He was, at the very least, mentally ill and most certainly a foolish child. He died badly.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by mlpriorHe started down an interesting path, got cocky and died poorly. He should have stayed alive and continued his journey. He's not exactly lighting the world on fire now is he?
Like?
Get a job?
Pay some bills?
I think that was what he was trying to evade by disappearing.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by Hand of HecateHere is a link for anyone who does not know the story:
He started down an interesting path, got cocky and died poorly. He should have stayed alive and continued his journey. He's not exactly lighting the world on fire now is he?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by mlpriorIt's capitalism.
I thought I would spew some recents thoughts out to the RHP masses.
Why do people always talk about "progress" in terms of selling more cars, building more houses, obtaining more market share, making and selling more things? I don't understand why this is considered progress to our society?
The dictionary defines progress as:
"advance of human soci ...[text shortened]... rld is trying to progress faster than the others and for what? What does the winner get?
Capitalism doesn't know "stability". i.e. stability within capitalism is called "stagnation".
So progress is now measured in materialistic growth (and profitability) rather than true progress (like creating computers so that people have more free time to evolve in other areas, not work related).
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by Great Big SteesI thought it had already been done. It used to be called the British Empire but nowadays we call it the Commonwealth so as to not upset the natives.
I'm saving my money to be able to get a bargain basement price on the very large mass of land that is Canada. Anyone else want to join my quest?
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by shavixmirNo, stability within capitalism is called a "steady growth rate".
It's capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't know "stability". i.e. stability within capitalism is called "stagnation".
So progress is now measured in materialistic growth (and profitability) rather than true progress (like creating computers so that people have more free time to evolve in other areas, not work related).
0% growth in a world which features continuously improving technology means unemployment is rising, factories are closing and other not so nice things. This is why growth is an important part and features in the news so often.
That doesn't mean progress is measured in growth.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by PalynkaUtter rubbish.
No, stability within capitalism is called a "steady growth rate".
0% growth in a world which features continuously improving technology means unemployment is rising, factories are closing and other not so nice things. This is why growth is an important part and features in the news so often.
That doesn't mean progress is measured in growth.
A steady growth rate says nothing about unemployment figures.
Factories closing says nothing about the growth rate of the economy.
A steady growth rate means nothing more than that some people are getting richer... steadily.
If everyone is employed and all the factories are producing enough to keep everyone happy and nobody is hungry... then capitalism is stagnating.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by shavixmirCan you read? Address the argument.
Utter rubbish.
A steady growth rate says nothing about unemployment figures.
Factories closing says nothing about the growth rate of the economy.
A steady growth rate means nothing more than that some people are getting richer... steadily.
If everyone is employed and all the factories are producing enough to keep everyone happy and nobody is hungry... then capitalism is stagnating.
Innovation means more can be produced with the same inputs. If there is no total growth, then inputs must be decreasing, therefore employment is falling or factories closing, etc. Simple.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by shavixmirCapitalism exists on supply and demand and sustainability, it can only stagnate if the supply or demand disappears.
Utter rubbish.
A steady growth rate says nothing about unemployment figures.
Factories closing says nothing about the growth rate of the economy.
A steady growth rate means nothing more than that some people are getting richer... steadily.
If everyone is employed and all the factories are producing enough to keep everyone happy and nobody is hungry... then capitalism is stagnating.
With the exponential growth of humanity, stagnation might be a little way off.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by PalynkaCan you read?
Can you read? Address the argument.
Innovation means more can be produced with the same inputs. If there is no total growth, then inputs must be decreasing, therefore employment is falling or factories closing, etc. Simple.
Innovation has nothing to do with a steady growth rate.