Diogenes the Cynic

[Dan Rowden]

I think in a very real sense our every post and thought is oriented to this general thought, Nat. It's just that you've kind of locked yourself into a rather specific socio-economic model and debate with Victor that requires a nuanced response because not everyone agrees with the specific detail of that model - not to mention dealing with Victor's distortions of it.

To be honest, part of the reason for my lack of posting is a simple case of not knowing where and what to start with. However, I will deal with a few general, pivotal themes, shortly.

Edit: this is a debate about values as much as anything.

[Unidian]

Edit: this is a debate about values as much as anything.

More than anything, I think. One side is arguing in favor of property rights, and the other in favor of human rights. Of course, that isn't to say that the distinction is clearly understood or even acknowledged by all of the participants. Some seem to feel that property rights and human rights are identical. I strongly disagree, as did the abolitionists of the 1850's.

Of course, even if one recognizes the distinction I propose, there is still a debate over values in play. Do human rights trump property rights? Agreeing with the historical abolitionists once again, I think they do. My opponents, agreeing with Ayn Rand, her student Alan Greenspan, and other proponents of libertarian capitalism throughout modern history, apparently do not think that human rights trump property rights, or they attempt to make the issue go away by denying the distinction in various other devious ways.

I've been accused of theft or the equivalent by opponents of voluntary unemployment in the past. For a number of reasons, I reject the accusation on the grounds they propose, but in another sense, I do think of myself as something of a thief. While I'm not quite a full-fledged communist, I do have a lot of sympathy for the view that "property is theft," and to the extent that I have any (little as it may be), I'm always a bit morally uncomfortable.

Like many, I'd prefer a utopia where everything was freely given and no one went without. But in the real world, where private property is protected by force, I'm resigned to the sad reality that counteracting force must sometimes be employed to relieve the gross abuses perpetuated by the private property system - such as the consignment of certain individuals to the garbage heap of society by the self-righteous inaction of those who have the means to prevent it.

[yougetajob]

Hello to everyone. I'm you_get_a_job, YGAJ works fine. I've been lurking here for a while. Fantastic discussion. Do things always get this heated around here? Though I suppose that Mr Rowden is correct when he says that this is an absolutely fundamental issue that does seem to affect everything else. So maybe a few feelings will have to be hurt.

That said...

Pride is the enemy, admitting doubt is good, not bad! Don't be an asshole. Don't gloat, don't rub someone's face in their own mistakes. Help each other out. Value what is true more than how others may view you. I say this not out of authority or presupposition, but only with kindness.

Anywho, I get the sense that the gloves are about to drop, so I'll slowly back away before I get hit with a stray punch! :)


BTW, anyone who is interested in further exploring the issues surrounding work - whywork dot org may be of some benefit to you. The forums are a bit dead as of late and are inundated with spam, but the main site has a wealth of information.



Peace out!

[Unidian]

Hi YGAJ,

Thanks for dropping by. As you know, I'm a fan of your contributions at "Why Work," which is an amazing place despite the recent spam and inactivity. There are some really original thinkers there, as there are here at Genius.

Yes, things can get pretty heated at times. Some of what you're seeing in this thread goes back quite a while, though. There are some rather bitter disputes from other forums lurking below the surface. But life involves conflict, and nobody is going to totally flip, I hope... (Nat chants "Ommmmmm" repeatedly). As you know, it's a very touchy issue to begin with, because we're talking about fundamental values and beliefs as well as people's precious wallets. We're hitting where it hurts in both respects, and sometimes the gloves have to come off.

I hope you'll decide to participate as the discussion continues. Frankly, the anti-employment side is a bit outnumbered right now despite the generally favorable nature of the forum, although Dan's promise to participate more is an encouraging sign. In any case, we could definitely use you.

Either way, I'll see you around WhyWork. BTW, you think there's any chance we could get Broken Spirit in here? With him on board, it would be all over but the crying. That guy is a force of Nature. :)

[Philosophaster]

Yeah, it's always me that's "getting all worked up." Apparently nobody sees the two pages where he badmouthed me by name in every conceivable way before I engaged him. I was trying to avoid engaging him for this very reason. I end up being perceived as "getting all worked up" when he is provoking it by having fits of self-righteous hysteria over my position and nobody notices.

...

Yeah, ask me why I'm doing it. Good move. I guess you didn't see the two pages where he intentionally baited me by name and tried to smear my position in the full knowledge that if I responded, this is what I'd get for my trouble. Make sure not to ask him why he is still carrying on about it and blatantly trying to beat a dead horse. His position is fully argued in those threads I linked as well - but that isn't what he wants. He wants more public bloodletting, and as always, he's going to get it on a silver platter.

Have to jump in here...

I noticed this as well, Vic talking about "Unidian's position" and "Unidian's argument" (and how awful he thinks they are) in a bunch of posts while you stayed out of it for the most part. Odd how people's chief perception here seems to be of you getting all "worked up" about it.

[DHodges]

Doesn't matter to me. Any position short of "nobody should go hungry or homeless" is illegitimate in my eyes. I'm opposed to anyone who thinks that some people should be denied the necessities of life, no matter how they justify it or where they "draw the line." It's the equivalent of saying "some blacks can be considered people, but not the really dark-skinned ones."

Well, I'm curious as to what you think Americans owe Africans, for instance. There are plenty of Africans that are starving. Are Americans obligated to lower their standard of living until there are no starving Africans?

Or is your position limited to a particular country - Americans are only obligated to make sure other Americans don't go hungry? Why or why not?

[Katy]

Glad to hear you'd rather not have yourself killed, even though you are "weird" in your own opinion.

OK hold it, don't start picking on me. I'm supporting you here, remember? But dude, you have to admit that not working is weird. It's required for your argument that it will still only be a small number of people on welfare even if we make it easy to get on. It is weird to be willing to sit here well below the poverty line instead of getting a job.


Also, I did ask Vic why he's continuing this argument Both 2 days ago and last time this came up. The only reason I asked you publically and him privately is that you publically stated you were backing off this time. I understand why you can't though.

[ChochemV2]

I noticed this as well, Vic talking about "Unidian's position" and "Unidian's argument" (and how awful he thinks they are) in a bunch of posts while you stayed out of it for the most part. Odd how people's chief perception here seems to be of you getting all "worked up" about it.

I think there is a distinction to be made between the two "combatants" in this discussion. We all expect Vic to post and act in a certain way so when he does it no one is surprised and no one really reacts to it anymore. Nat, on the other hand, posts in a completely different way in every other topic so when this argument pops up, which it always does, and they both start taking shots at each other we all say "Oh, that's our Victor" and "Damn, Nat's pissed!" or some variation of the two.

[vicdan]

Just out of curiousity: Today is Vic-Just-Became-King day. What are you going to do about welfare, Vic? :)

Abolish current welfare, unemployment, and retirement schemes, in favor of NIT. This would amount to a basic income guarantee, with prorated incentives for work -- i.e. no matter how little you work, each extra earned dollar will have a net-positive impact on your income (NIT is structured so as to avoid poverty trap).

Unidian knows all this. He simply can't stand that I refuse to legitimize his claim of moral obligation. He wants not merely for welfare to exist, but for the free choice to live on welfare, at others' expense, to be morally legitimate and even superior.

[vicdan]

Yeah, I know. Principles before people.

No, Nat. Principles exist to benefit people -- the whole society -- in the long run. The real choice is between a myopic one-time benefit, and a social policy. Take your cheese sandwich example and extend it in time, where this guy threatens to kill himself each day unless you give him a new cheese sandwich -- and then apply Katy's "I would start to wonder" response to it.

The principle at play here is the principle of fairness, of reciprocation. In granting your moral argument, we would fundamentally corrupt the ethical principle of fairness and reciprocation which holds our very society together.

Freedom (supposedly the most valuable thing in your value system) for some at the cost of what equates to a cheese sandwich for most. Apart from "the principle of the thing," nobody is going to miss the small amount collected from them to give freedom to their fellow citizens.

But the principle matters. In giving in to your extortionist argument, we legitimize extortion and blackmail, which corruption of social mores will have a devastating long-term effect.

You just don't want to work while others escape that unfortunate fate scot-free.

As I said before, I have nothing against indolence. If you live off charity, or are independently wealthy, be indolent for all I care. I just have a problem with indolence at others' expense.

I do find it interesting how you keep trying to misrepresent that simple position so as to cast aspersions on me.

This attitude says a lot about the true nature of work, and none of it is good.

You accusing me of the attitude I don't hold, without any evidence or support, while blatantly misrepresenting my position, says far more about your stake in this argument.

Yeah, and while we're at it, why don't we ask Joe Six-Pack about the value of the art funded by the NEA.

No, why don't we ask his elected representatives? We have a representative democracy for a reason.

Wow, you must hate employment as much as I do to assume that huge numbers would quit work in exchange for a meager income. It apparently doesn't occur to you that most people choose to work because they want stuff.

Apparently it doesn't occur to you that the percentage of people who could very easily do with a lot less -- like me -- is quite a bit higher than 6%.

But, for the record, if it somehow came down to a choice between supporting criminals or supporting the voluntarily unemployed, I can tell you which group society would be better off without.

Yes, I know, you would ditch prisoners. The fact that we imprisoned them never enters your considerations. The notions of choice and responsibility, and thus of fairness, simply don't exist in your world.

That most people would disagree with me here, choosing criminals over the voluntarily unemployed, says a lot. Barrabas, anyone?

Dear Pan, you just compared yourself to Jesus Christ! Wow. I knew you had a persecution complex and delusions of grandeur, but this takes the cake.

Don't be so sure. Societal values have a lot to do with forming viewpoints and beliefs. I can envision societies in which I might find myself strongly motivated to do economic work. But ours is not one of them. Materialism and consumerism fail to motivate me to fart, much less become employed.

Right, it's the society's fault that you are a moocher. As I said, utter lack of choice and responsibility.

Doesn't matter to me. Any position short of "nobody should go hungry or homeless" is illegitimate in my eyes.

Excellent. Then here is my "nobody should go hungry or homeless" position: we take those who simply will not work, put them in labor camps, and force them to earn their living at gunpoint. This way, nobody has to go hungry or homeless.

What? You don't find palatable the notion of being forced to support yourself? Color me surprised...

He also doesn't need any help or apologetics from our side of the fence. Keep in mind that when you attempt to "correct" me on things like this, you're going to bat for a man who thinks some of your friends ought to be homeless and starving.

I don't think anyone ought to be homeless or starving; but if you choose homelessness or starvation over work, it's your choice, not my normative proclamation.

Nice of you to keep removing one's own choice from the equation though.

[vicdan]

Victor argues only for the purpose of belitting others and bolstering his massive ego. For all his intellect and education, his motivations are precisely those of the kid who pulls the wings off of flies. Everyone used to know this

Many people 'used to know this' when they were on the opposite side of an argument from me, and used to praise me to high heaven when they were on the same side; yourself included.

Yeah, ask me why I'm doing it. Good move. I guess you didn't see the two pages where he intentionally baited me by name and tried to smear my position in the full knowledge that if I responded, this is what I'd get for my trouble.

Just FYI, dude, she asked me over AIM way before she asked you here in post.

Make sure not to ask him why he is still carrying on about it and blatantly trying to beat a dead horse.

Your narcissism knows no bounds.

I'll disown people over this, if need be.

You are also getting too big for your britches. Disown people? Wow. Goes hand in hand with narcissism, I suppose.

Losing isn't a factor for guys like him, they are going to win whichever way they go.

Yeah, I am a regular superman.

I am amazed you don't drown in self-pity. Other allies of yours, like Dan, at least have the grace not to whine like little petulant children.

People of character understand that the way to deal with bullies is to hit back, even if you have to get hurt in the process.

People of character don't force the society to pay for their choices. That is what people of character do -- they take responsibility.

it also concerns the meal tickets of perhaps thousands of potentially talented thinkers who are currently wasting away against their will in McDonald's or Wal-Mart because of compulsory employment.

The truly talented thinkers cannot be prevented from thinking by the place of their employment. For that matter, the truly talented thinkers don't usually get stuck working a McJob. You just use this whine to justify, excuse, and even glorify your own intellectual mediocrity. You are narcissism on parade.

[Unidian]

Victor,

Abolish current welfare, unemployment, and retirement schemes, in favor of NIT. This would amount to a basic income guarantee, with prorated incentives for work -- i.e. no matter how little you work, each extra earned dollar will have a net-positive impact on your income (NIT is structured so as to avoid poverty trap).

I actually agree with that plan and with NIT.

Unidian knows all this. He simply can't stand that I refuse to legitimize his claim of moral obligation. He wants not merely for welfare to exist, but for the free choice to live on welfare, at others' expense, to be morally legitimate and even superior.

Wrong. I actually don't give a crap whether you "legitimize my claim" (as if you actually could, oh presumptuous one). It just bothers me that you want to exclude anyone from the necessities of life. Whether or not you agree that I am morally superior for advocating universal entitlement is rather irrelevant, since I feel quite certain that I am regardless of your view on the matter, just as you feel quite certain you are morally superior to me for opposing voluntary unemployment. For the umpteenth time, it's a matter of differing values.

No, Nat. Principles exist to benefit people -- the whole society -- in the long run. The real choice is between a myopic one-time benefit, and a social policy. Take your cheese sandwich example and extend it in time, where this guy threatens to kill himself each day unless you give him a new cheese sandwich -- and then apply Katy's "I would start to wonder" response to it.

Dumb response. Freedom from compulsory work is not a "myopic one-time benefit" any more than the abolition of chattel slavery was such. The South could have used you in 1860, dude.

Every day you get 12 cheese sandwiches. You can give up one of them to support the voluntarily unemployed, or you can keep all twelve and let those people starve, spouting various political platitudes to justify it. That's the real choice and the real point of the analogy.

The principle at play here is the principle of fairness, of reciprocation. In granting your moral argument, we would fundamentally corrupt the ethical principle of fairness and reciprocation which holds our very society together.

No, what we would "fundamentally corrupt" is the basic assumption at the core of all manner of evils and abuses throughout history - the idea that some people are "less human" and "less deserving" than others. It's possible that in so doing we might eventually corrupt much of the current exploitative economic edifice, but good riddance.

But the principle matters. In giving in to your extortionist argument, we legitimize extortion and blackmail, which corruption of social mores will have a devastating long-term effect.

What you call "extortion" and "blackmail" is already "legitimized" in regard to every kind of publicly-funded program other than voluntary unemployment. Various (largely specious and misleading) moral arguments are routinely proposed to explain why you should be relieved of your money to support war, corporate welfare, and all sorts of other things. Like so many conservatives and even some "mainstream liberals," you accept all of these without raising an eyebrow, but draw the line at "mooching."

As I said before, I have nothing against indolence. If you live off charity, or are independently wealthy, be indolent for all I care. I just have a problem with indolence at others' expense.

I am not indolent, you bigoted fool. In fact, I am working right now. This is not a game for my sadistic amusement, as it is for you. Rather, it is work carried out both for my own personal growth and the potential benefit of society. As small as that contribution may be, you can't wish it away. You've already admitted to me and others that you feel no responsibility to contribute to society intellectually beyond what you might do just for kicks. But not everyone is as intellectually indolent as you are.

You accusing me of the attitude I don't hold, without any evidence or support, while blatantly misrepresenting my position, says far more about your stake in this argument.

You admitted to me once that you don't like having to work and are "lazy" by nature. Maybe you forgot this admission, but I didn't.

Nat: Wow, you must hate employment as much as I do to assume that huge numbers would quit work in exchange for a meager income. It apparently doesn't occur to you that most people choose to work because they want stuff.

Victor: Apparently it doesn't occur to you that the percentage of people who could very easily do with a lot less -- like me -- is quite a bit higher than 6%.

Yeah, easy to say you could do with a lot less when you're doing with a lot more. Try living on less than $600 a month for about 5 years (like I have) and get back to me. And don't tell me about the $2 an hour job again, it's not the same. You had visions of getting ahead at that time, while I know that $600 a month is a permanent condition for me, most likely until they nail down the coffin lid. That makes a big difference.

Yes, I know, you would ditch prisoners. The fact that we imprisoned them never enters your considerations. The notions of choice and responsibility, and thus of fairness, simply don't exist in your world.

No, if it came down to an unavoidable choice between prisoners and the voluntarily unemployed, I would ditch prisoners because they are criminals. The voluntarily unemployed are not. How do you have the nerve to lecture me on "fairness" when you would rather ditch innocent people than convicted criminals?

Nat: That most people would disagree with me here, choosing criminals over the voluntarily unemployed, says a lot. Barrabas, anyone?

Victor: Dear Pan, you just compared yourself to Jesus Christ! Wow. I knew you had a persecution complex and delusions of grandeur, but this takes the cake.

LOL. Not myself, personally, you ninny. The voluntarily unemployed as a class. It's a perfectly valid metaphor.

Nat: Don't be so sure. Societal values have a lot to do with forming viewpoints and beliefs. I can envision societies in which I might find myself strongly motivated to do economic work. But ours is not one of them. Materialism and consumerism fail to motivate me to fart, much less become employed.

Victor: Right, it's the society's fault that you are a moocher. As I said, utter lack of choice and responsibility.

Ah, I see you are Hannitizing us once more with the "everything most be blamed on the individual" gospel. I think it's pretty funny that you actually used "it's all society's fault" in a sarcastic tone, as if it were a ridiculous idea that society has an enormous impact on an individual's psychological development. Hannity couldn't have dismissed it better himself.

Excellent. Then here is my "nobody should go hungry or homeless" position: we take those who simply will not work, put them in labor camps, and force them to earn their living at gunpoint. This way, nobody has to go hungry or homeless.

Idiotic and you know it. The whole point of my position is to remove what I see as an oppressive factor in certain people's lives. Yeah, sure, let's replace it with an even more oppressive factor. Really relevant to my argument... not.

What? You don't find palatable the notion of being forced to support yourself? Color me surprised...

I don't "find palatable the notion" of anybody being forced to spend the majority of their waking life doing anything dictated by someone else's values.

And no, paying a few dollars to support the voluntarily unemployed doesn't qualify. Earning those few dollars does not take up the majority of your waking life.

I don't think anyone ought to be homeless or starving; but if you choose homelessness or starvation over work, it's your choice, not my normative proclamation.

Nice of you to keep removing one's own choice from the equation though.

You boob. Choice is what this all about. Giving people a genuine choice in what they will do with the majority of their waking lives - the most meaningful choice they will ever be given.

[Katy]

and then apply Katy's "I would start to wonder" response to it.

OK time out here - I would not agree to withholding the sandwich at any point in the future. While I'd wonder why my sandwhich, if that's what it took to keep someone alive, it is. And I think there are legitimate reasons for not working, many of which aren't legally recognized as such. But reason I personally like or no, I'll keep them alive. My curiosity would not prevent me from keeping someone alive in any case.

It costs me $1 to pay the portion of 1,000 people's income that winds up falling to me for 50 years. On the other hand, each person in the US is spending $8 every day to support the actions in Iraq. If we'd stop killing people for a day, we could have 8,000 people living at the income level that Nat and I live at for 50 years with no additional taxes. Which is ignoring the fact that the money we'd pay in welfare stays in this country and benefits us economically rather than being removed.

Remember the multiplier effect? Say I give someone voluntarily unemployed $500 a month. He then turns around and buys, food, clothing, new shoes, whatever he buys. Now that $500 is back in the economy and even if we assume WalMart keeps 10% profit, that's $450 that goes to some kids working a $7 an hour job. Someone working at $7/hr isn't likely saving much so now there's another $400 in the economy that has gone to pay his tuition for a class at his university. Continue ad-finitum. So far we're at $1,850 that's been put into the American economy, never mind the fact that WalMart likely invests, or pays the big-wigs with the rest of that money which also feeds into our economy repeatedly.

On the other hand, we could dump that $500 into killing someone in Iraq and never see it again.



And when you say a lot of people could live on significantly less - how many of those people would be willing to live on less than $6000 a year for the rest of their lives. "significantly less" is different than "I wish I wasn't choosing between two medications I'm supposed to be taking"

[Unidian]

Bloated One,

Nat: Victor argues only for the purpose of belitting others and bolstering his massive ego. For all his intellect and education, his motivations are precisely those of the kid who pulls the wings off of flies. Everyone used to know this

Victor: Many people 'used to know this' when they were on the opposite side of an argument from me, and used to praise me to high heaven when they were on the same side; yourself included.

Indeed, but some people do eventually wise up.

Your narcissism knows no bounds.

Coming from you, that is incredibly funny.

Nat: I'll disown people over this, if need be.

Victor: You are also getting too big for your britches. Disown people? Wow. Goes hand in hand with narcissism, I suppose.

There's nothing unusual about it. Happens every day in all sorts of personal relationships.

Nat: Losing isn't a factor for guys like him, they are going to win whichever way they go.

Victor: Yeah, I am a regular superman.

I am amazed you don't drown in self-pity. Other allies of yours, like Dan, at least have the grace not to whine like little petulant children.

You mistake disgust for self-pity. Yes, in terms of raw intellect, you are a superman. The disgust issues from the fact that you use your intellect to bait, troll, provoke, and abuse others for your own amusement and ego-gratification. Nature, in its not-so-infinite wisdom, has given a howitzer to the adult equivalent of the kid who liked to torture the neighborhood cats with spitballs.

As I said elsewhere in a private thread where you are being abused by me in return, you are the worst kind of nerd. You are the nerd who grows up and compensates for your feelings of inferiority by becoming the bullying tyrant, lording your enormous overcompensating ego over others for the same kind of sadistic amusement kids get from burning ants with magnifying glasses.

People of character don't force the society to pay for their choices. That is what people of character do -- they take responsibility.

Hannitized again with The Gospel of Personal Responsibility!â„¢ Don't quit now, you're on a roll. An AM radio talk show may be in your future.

The truly talented thinkers cannot be prevented from thinking by the place of their employment.

Perhaps not, but they can certainly have 8 hours of their day wasted. I'm sorry you have so little regard for thought that you give it second priority to the Almighty Dollar, but that's your problem.

For that matter, the truly talented thinkers don't usually get stuck working a McJob.

Yeah, right. Another exquisitely Republican sentiment, and so blatantly expressed. Why don't you visit Philo on his job at Target and tell it to him? I'm sure he'd be fascinated.

You just use this whine to justify, excuse, and even glorify your own intellectual mediocrity.

LOL. I'll be in Wikipedia long before you will, my condescending friend. Oh wait, my stuff is already in Wikipedia. My bad. Everywhere else, too. Where is your stuff? On some university website nobody ever looks at? Yep, I think so.

You are narcissism on parade.

If I'm narcissism on parade, you are narcissism on methamphetamines, steroids, and public display in the Smithsonian. You are the Exxon Valdez calling the kettle black.

[vicdan]

Bloated One

Oh my, we are back to that, Unidoodoo?..

Coming from you, that is incredibly funny.

Less funny than you think. I don't hide what I am, and I don't try to justify myself with circuitous arguments.

You mistake disgust for self-pity. Yes, in terms of raw intellect, you are a superman.

don't forget that I am enlightened, too.

The disgust issues from the fact that you use your intellect to bait, troll, provoke, and abuse others for your own amusement and ego-gratification.

No, Nat, I use my intellect do write things like that little blog entry about reality stratification. What I do here hardly takes any intellect at all.

As I said elsewhere in a private thread where you are being abused by me in return, you are the worst kind of nerd. You are the nerd who grows up and compensates for your feelings of inferiority by becoming the bullying tyrant

I compensated for my nerdness in 6th grade, when I learned judo and then nearly broke a bully's arm. I wasn't bothered by bullies much after that. This, BTW, is also what 'people of character' do -- they try to take control of their lives, and to solve their problems.

LOL. I'll be in Wikipedia long before you will, my condescending friend. Oh wait, my stuff is already in Wikipedia. My bad. Everywhere else, too. Where is your stuff? On some university website nobody ever looks at? Yep, I think so.

And you don't see how this is the very point?

Whatever I write, I write simply because I need to express it. I could fill my blog with clever, angry, crowd-drawing crap -- you certainly know I am capable of it. I just have no interest in that. You, on the other hand -- your actions are completely controlled by vanity, you so desperately want to be intellectually relevant, and you don't even have the self-awareness to realize this!

I am vain too, but I know it, which is why I deliberately refuse to go out and indulge my desire for acclaim.

After all this time, you still haven't a clue what I am about.

[sschaula]

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so boring.

[Unidian]

Victorious Danilchenko Baggins,

No, Nat, I use my intellect do write things like that little blog entry about reality stratification. What I do here hardly takes any intellect at all.

Yeah, you used your intellect for 20 minutes or whatever to make that interesting post, and the rest of your time to make egotistical poo-poo pellets in here. Way to go.

I compensated for my nerdness in 6th grade, when I learned judo and then nearly broke a bully's arm. I wasn't bothered by bullies much after that. This, BTW, is also what 'people of character' do -- they try to take control of their lives, and to solve their problems.

Yeah, I know. Why do you think I never run away from you and your abuse?

Whatever I write, I write simply because I need to express it. I could fill my blog with clever, angry, crowd-drawing crap -- you certainly know I am capable of it. I just have no interest in that. You, on the other hand -- your actions are completely controlled by vanity, you so desperately want to be intellectually relevant, and you don't even have the self-awareness to realize this!

Whatever you write, you write because you are interested in amusing yourself. Fine, but I'm interested in more than that. Yes, I'm interested in trying to do my small bit for the greater good and all that smarmy shit. It's called having a conscience and a sense of responsibility and duty, and all those good things you insist I don't have. All things you lack yourself, BTW.

I am vain too, but I know it, which is why I deliberately refuse to go out and indulge my desire for acclaim.

Rubbish. You post *only* for acclaim 90% of the time. You relish having people fawn over you and favor you, and you gloat over having allegedly "pwned" people and such.

Tell it to somebody who doesn't know you.

After all this time, you still haven't a clue what I am about.

Selfishness, pure and simple. Knowledge for the sake of personal satisfaction, rather than compassion and service to the world. Interaction with your self-perceived "lessers" for the sake of abusing them, rather than edifying or helping them.

I have a pretty good clue what you're about, and so does everybody else (yep, even those who agree with you).

[vicdan]

OK, dude, you can have your last word, since you have given up on the topic.

[Unidian]

You wish.

Nice try, though. But you're not getting out of this while simultaneously trying to create the public perception that I folded.

If you want out, quit the thread. Otherwise, you can eat some more shoe-leather.

[Cory Duchesne]

Doesn't matter to me. Any position short of "nobody should go hungry or homeless" is illegitimate in my eyes. I'm opposed to anyone who thinks that some people should be denied the necessities of life, no matter how they justify it or where they "draw the line." It's the equivalent of saying "some blacks can be considered people, but not the really dark-skinned ones."

Well, I'm curious as to what you think Americans owe Africans, for instance. There are plenty of Africans that are starving. Are Americans obligated to lower their standard of living until there are no starving Africans?

I think this is an example of the futility of 'one-dimensional charity'. Simply sending over food I don't think is really going to do much. Isnt it true that population will always exceed foodsupply? Isn't starvation and widespread famine simply the consequence of a population that has increased past its means to subsistence? Arent we merely postponing starvation and even allowing populations to multiply even further?

OR - are undeveloped populations starving because they are being expoited by the developing nations?

I hear that a large majority of Africans aren't allowed to grow their own food. Instead they have to grow cotton and tobacco for 'developed' nations, and get paid ridiculously scarce wages, and perhaps this is more significant culprit responsible for widespread starvation - as opposed to the more Malthusian outlook.

I emphasized the sorts of things inthis article in the past, but I can't emphasize it enough. And for those who find Fukuoka a bit too simple, Bill Mollison, Geoff Lawton and David Holmgren are more technical. Essentially their message is the same, just a different way of going about it.

here's an excerpt from the Fukuoka interview:

Masanobu Fukuoka: I think it is better to send seeds to people in Somalia and Ethiopia, rather than sending milk and flour, but there isn't any way to send them. People in Ethiopia and Somalia can sow seeds, even children can do that. But the African governments, the United States, Italy, France, they don't send seeds, they only send immediate food and clothing. The African government is discouraging home gardens and small farming. During the last 100 years, garden seed has become scarce.

Diane: Why do these governments do this?

Masanobu: The African governments and the United States government want people to grow coffee, tea, cotton, peanuts, sugar - only five or six varieties to export and make money. Vegetables are just food, they don't bring in any money. They say they will provide corn and grain, so people don't have to grow their own vegetables.

So the problem is unbridled economic expansion. Is it simply a delusion to believe that indefinite econimic growth is a good thing? I would say so. It makes no sense to destroy our planet. But that is the paradigm that is driving us, the world is becoming increasingly unstable because of it. If a place like America is largely an irrational momentum of stupidity - - then how much good can be achieved by merely feeding other irrational starving people simply for the sake of prolonging their inevitable death? They are going to die anyway, so what's the difference if they live until the age of 10 compared to the age of 60? IF they could grow into wise adults then I would see a point in feeding them - - but if we are feeding the undeveloped world simply so that these kids can grow into envious ambitious monsters for material goods and superficial dominance, then I see no point to encouraging the human race.

However, I do believe in the sort of charity that involves working with people overseas directly and helping them learn to grow their own food and consciously realize the dangers of population growth and unlimited economic explansion.

But we in the west can hardly handle this! We are not farming in a wise way. We are not limiting our economic growth for the sake of preserving our ecological balance and diversity, we don't eat healthy, we are depressed and on medication to stay happy, and we want to feed other populations so they can experienced the joy of living? Are people generally even happy, or just desperately trying to be?

Evaluating the 'American (or simply 'western-modern') standard of living and determining if it is really something to be satisfied with or worth establishing for underdeveloping countries like Africa should be the priority. Because a large bulk of 'developed' living is based on an arms race for consumer goods, I would say we serve as an unsatisfactory example to these underdeveloped countries of what good living is.

Take reduction of emissions as an example. The Bush Administration has undone much of the ecology-preserving restrictions that were so hard fought and won many years ago. In the meantime, we are trying to encourage aggressive up and comer's like China to censor its emissions, but there is no way they are going to subject themselves to rules that a country like America is not adhereing to. It is quite evident that people would rather self destruct then live tethered to a system of inequality and double-standards. (Jesus is a good example of this) Unlike the up and comers, America in particular has enjoyed many decades of hedonism and unrestrained economic growth, I don't think they are happier for it, and so really, America is in the best position to start restricting its economic growth and serving as an example of what good living is. The excess of American consumerism in contrast to having basic needs met is quite drastic.

My point is, if you start being charitable to underdeveloped countries, while in the meantime maintain a culture that is largely superficial, exploitative, materialistic and irrational, then what hope is there for the underdeveloped world if the developed world can't behave?

Or is your position limited to a particular country - Americans are only obligated to make sure other Americans don't go hungry? Why or why not?

American's should get their house in order. Charity will take on a completely new meaning if that happens. It won't be considered charity, it would simply be regarded as living, cooperating, being wise.

[Cory Duchesne]

American's should get their house in order. Charity will take on a completely new meaning if that happens. It won't be considered charity, it would simply be regarded as living, cooperating, being wise.

Ok, not just American's - but developed nations in general. But some are doing better than others.

And as for what 'getting the house in order' means, well of course that's subjective. Everyone has a different idea of what that means, or often, no idea at all.

[vicdan]

I think this is an example of the futility of 'one-dimensional charity'. Simply sending over food I don't think is really going to do much. Isnt it true that population will always exceed foodsupply?

No.

Isn't starvation and widespread famine simply the consequence of a population that has increased past its means to subsistence?

No.

OR - are undeveloped populations starving because they are being expoited by the developing nations?

Yes.

I hear that a large majority of Africans aren't allowed to grow their own food. Instead they have to grow cotton and tobacco for 'developed' nations, and get paid ridiculously scarce wages, and perhaps this is more significant culprit responsible for widespread starvation

Indeed. This is the WB and IMF policies in action -- the spearhead of occidental economic imperialism. These countries get IMF and WB funds only on the condition that they grow cash crops for export, and nobody cares about local sustainability.

So the problem is unbridled economic expansion.

No, the problem is economic imperialism, deliberate geopolitical manipulation to benefit some at the expense of others. Economic expansion itself is not the problem.

Is it simply a delusion to believe that indefinite econimic growth is a good thing? I would say so. It makes no sense to destroy our planet.

Why would indefinite (not infinite) economic expansion destroy our planet? Think of when the fusion power becomes commercially feasible. Imagine huge enclosed self-sufficient manufacturing facilities somewhere in a desert -- Sahara, or Antarctica -- which simply synthesize goods, using fusion power plants on the spot; hell, imagine production plants in orbit, using asteroids as raw material! No pollution, no environmental destruction... Why would such economic expansion be a bad thing?

However, I do believe in the sort of charity that involves working with people overseas directly and helping them learn to grow their own food and consciously realize the dangers of population growth and unlimited economic explansion.

You are right about the real charity, but utterly, devastatingly wrong about the cause of the problem.

Malthus thought the same way you do 2 centuries ago. Malthusian armageddon has been predicted multiple times, and yet -- guess what? We are now ~6bn, and we have the technological capacity to sustain a population of ~10bn!

American's should get their house in order.

Indeed; but not by cutting economic growth -- by restructuring it. First and foremost, we have to give up on economic imperialism.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Malthusian armageddon has been predicted multiple times, and yet -- guess what? We are now ~6bn, and we have the technological capacity to sustain a population of ~10bn!

The need for this technology could be seen as an example that Malthusian armageddon has happened and is still occuring at this very moment.

[vicdan]

But technology was always needed. Even horticulture has tech requirements. Even most hunting lifestyles do!

Without technology, our 'natural' max population would be a couple of million worldwide.

No, what you are doing is arbitrarily deciding what sort of technology is acceptable, and what sort of icky.

[DHodges]

I hear that a large majority of Africans aren't allowed to grow their own food. Instead they have to grow cotton and tobacco for 'developed' nations, and get paid ridiculously scarce wages, and perhaps this is more significant culprit responsible for widespread starvation

Indeed. This is the WB and IMF policies in action -- the spearhead of occidental economic imperialism. These countries get IMF and WB funds only on the condition that they grow cash crops for export, and nobody cares about local sustainability.

Wow, I wasn't really aware of that. Once again, I feel like I should move out of the US.