Intelligent Design?

[duendy]

Oh, but you have a choice: consume as little as possible. I wouldn't be able to withstand the tempation of using modern comforts, but you may be a stronger man than I am.

me::i'm not ascetic. not blieving in wall to wall consumerism dont mean you got live in a loin cloth with bread n water



You do understand that Fair Trade is promoting business, rather than denouncing it, do you? It aims to help entrepeneurs in disadvantageous regions to help them make a better future for themselves. So, it seems, you are not particulary against the principle of business, but rather specifically against Western ones? Or just really big ones? What are you actually against?

me::am against cut throat business which doesn't care about people and th environment which includes other species, including testing on animals...if you eant to learn about more human forms of sustainable business read Fritjof Capra, 'Ecoliteracy'



To speak up for a group persons, to assume you have their interests in mind, is a prerogative which should be earned either by credentials or elections.

me:no it aint. i as an individual can speak up for what i think is wrong and right!



No, I do not. Which is odd, because millions of children hardly go unnoticed.

me::millions of children are dying of starvation



Neither am I. That's one of the reasons I don't go about shouting at posters that they are hypocritical.

you do what you want. maybe you gooder than me huh?

 

[Raithere]

So why not let the government interfere and assist the company in question to deliver the pensions?

They are. United's pension fund is insured with the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government agency. The problem is that the PBGC insurance only covers around $6.6 billion and United has only $7 billion in it's pension fund (primarily due to failed investments) while it owes $16.8 billion so there's not enough for everyone to get all they're supposed to.

What people seem to forget (or simply don't realize) is that every investment is a gamble. The amount of risk you take typically determines the gain you can realize but no such venture is completely secure. So far there are no allegations that I'm aware of that United has misused or otherwise mismanaged the fund they simply did not get the return they were expecting.

The problem is a legal issue (federal regulations). Corporations and government agencies are allowed some leeway in reporting the economic forecast and tend to paint the picture as a best case scenario. This is not an isolated incident, the energy crisis in California, Enron, etc are all related incidents. Even when some acts were distinctly illicit the reason why they were not caught in time is because the damage can be hidden in the accounting.

The personal lesson to take away is never to ignore the downside. In fact, one should always count on a worst case scenario. There are no safe investments, not even the government. Just look at social security and bond returns. Prepare for the worst, hope and work for the best.

You are giving up on an ideology, because you are of the opinion that the instrument used to implement that ideology is flawed? Would it not be fair to study how to correct the instrument, or in our case the government, rather than to give up on it?

It's not just that the system is flawed. The ideal simply does not work except on a small scale. The larger the governing body the more room there is for corruption and the less chance of discovering it.

Is, in your opinion, this mismanagement an unavoidable part of a government?

Yes. Government and politics are about power. Period. Power attracts pathological personalities, people who will abuse it. The only remedy I have ever come up with is that power should only be given to those who don't want it. By those who have a true understanding of the scope of the responsibility and thus are reluctant to take the reigns into their own hands. How you might account for this accurately I have no idea.

And since I'm already paraphrasing Herbert:

"The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up from the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour of his life and depriving him of life there exists only a difference of degree; you have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains 'I feed on your energy." - Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"

How do you envision that happening?

Without completely restructuring societal values... I have no idea. Even then you're simply substituting one force for another. The only solution I have is to entreat people to look at everything skeptically. Not to trust anyone who wants you to hand your power to them.

I suppose we should look at the US, learn from her mistakes and see if we can do better.

Precisely. And the Soviet Union/Russia, China, India. All struggling with the same problems.

There should be some balance between the rights of the employees and the freedom of employers.

I agree. And there is. My opinion on the matter is that we need as many diverse factors participating as possible and we need to try to equalize the power as best we can so that no one entity can operate in exclusion of the others. We need the government and the corporate power-houses, we need the unions and the free agents.

Mostly we need to understand that every organization has the same flaw. That no organization can take into account the needs and desires of every individual.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

the status quo maintaines itself through the ages through sheer brutal exploitation

Bullshit. There is no status quo. All of history is the same story over and over and it has but a single theme; "power".

The powerful struggle to maintain their position, the downtrodden rise up only to become the oppressors, those who declare benevolent intent, those who confess hatred, those who seek to enforce the will of god or the good of humanity, it's all the same: people asserting their will upon another.

The only noble act in the world is the one proffered in recognition of another's need from your own hand.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

If you are allowed to say bullshit so am I.

Bullshit.

It takes a certain kind of personality to even want power. Most people are sheep.

 

[Raithere]

If you are allowed to say bullshit so am I.

Bullshit.

It takes a certain kind of personality to even want power. Most people are sheep.

Most certainly you can call bullshit.

The only problem is that you are wrong.

Everyone already has power. The only difference is what you choose to do with it.

Sheep hand it willing over to someone else.
The apathetic neglect theirs; typically it will be usurped by the greedy.
The free-man spends his discreetly and deliberately always aware of its use.
The greedy seek to usurp the power of others, gathering it for a purpose of their own.

Which are you?

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We are born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." - Nelson Mandela, originally written by Marianne Williamson

Sometimes wisdom does come in the guise of religion.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

And I would say you are wrong.

Many mothers do not crave for power. They just want to take care of their family. That's not because they are stupid or brought up this way. It's in their 'nature'. Hardwired into their biological constitution.

Mostly there is no choice. Unless you claim we can easily become what we are not. It would take hard work and training to change someone. Obviously Americans are indoctrinated with the holiness of greed from day one. But to take that as a natural state is erronous.

Therefore I found your reply not adequate.

 

[Raithere]

Many mothers do not crave for power. They just want to take care of their family. That's not because they are stupid or brought up this way. It's in their 'nature'. Hardwired into their biological constitution.

Mostly there is no choice. Unless you claim we can easily become what we are not. It would take hard work and training to change someone. Obviously Americans are indoctrinated with the holiness of greed from day one. But to take that as a natural state is erronous.

You're just not understanding me.

Greed is not power. Power seeking and power mongering is not power. These are attitudes towards power. Money is not power. Political influence is not power. These are methods of controlling power. Power is energy. As such every human has approximately the same amount of power (providing that they are in adequate health).

Bill Gates has no more power than any other individual unless someone is willing to trade their power for money. Money is not power, it's simply a medium for exchanging power. If no one would trade their power for money Bill Gates would be just like everyone else. Lenin, Kennedy, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar only ever had that power which was given to them by other people. They themselves had no more power than you or I.

If no one followed Hitler, if no one did his bidding his march on Poland wouldn't have been particularly effective:

"Hey look, it's that crazy Hitler guy."
"What's he doing now?"
"I don't know, he keeps running across the boarder with that funny flag screaming "bitzkrieg."

Hannibal would have hard a hard time defeating Rome coming over the Alps with one elephant, don't you think?

George Bush and Saddam Hussein would be standing on two sand dunes, tossing rocks at each other.

So what did/do they have to make them so powerful? They weren't bitten by radioactive spiders and they're not from Krypton. They had the willing participation of others, the people who put their power into the leader's hands. That's all there is to it.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I said most people were sheep.

 

[Raithere]

I said most people were sheep.

Okay, then what's the argument?

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Did you have one?

 

[Raithere]

Did you have one?

I had several. The most recent exchange was my reply to duendy's assertion that there is some status quo maintaining itself though history by sheer, brutal exploitation. To which I replied, "Bullshit".

Your reply to me was that my argument was bullshit. So are you stating that there is some status quo being maintained though history by sheer, brutal exploitation? If so, please elucidate it.

If not I maintain that history shows anything but a status quo, it is a constant succession of rebellions and upheavals where the power structure gets completely overturned, that the powerful have no power in the first place without the willing support of the people.

If we agree upon this we can go back to one of my earlier queries.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

My argument is that we are governed more by our biologal nature then we dare to admit. Most people are sheep (hardwired). Some are not.

The status quo concept isn't really touched by this since this concept relates to cultural change in my humble opinion.

 

[Raithere]

My argument is that we are governed more by our biologal nature then we dare to admit. Most people are sheep (hardwired). Some are not.

If this is indeed the case, what is the problem?

Unless you propose to change human biology we are simply doing exactly what we're born to do. There's no more sense to decrying the immorality of it than there is to grieve when the cheetah kills the antelope or a cow eats a cornflower. Silly sentiment over nothing.

That is, if you are correct.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

it seems you apply the constant formula of calling other people's statement silly, bullshit and other belittling remarks in the hope that you might be right.

i'm leaving this boring exchange of empty statements.

 

[Raithere]

it seems you apply the constant formula of calling other people's statement silly, bullshit and other belittling remarks in the hope that you might be right.

i'm leaving this boring exchange of empty statements.

Sorry to offend. Let me put it another way. Why decry what is simply natural behavior?

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

You could decry it because the biology factor in this matter is being exploited. There is no biological or cultural need or reason to accept this exploitation. It is an artefact of our modern civilization. Because we have been ripped out of our original biological settings by our cultural evolution. This new situation brought new possibilities. Not all good.

Should we accept exploitation because it is so easily done?

There are no scientific arguments here to say yes or no i have to admit. But personally I don't see the necessity of acceptance of this situation.

Do you?

 

[Raithere]

You could decry it because the biology factor in this matter is being exploited. There is no biological or cultural need or reason to accept this exploitation. It is an artefact of our modern civilization. Because we have been ripped out of our original biological settings by our cultural evolution. This new situation brought new possibilities. Not all good.

Should we accept exploitation because it is so easily done?

There are no scientific arguments here to say yes or no i have to admit. But personally I don't see the necessity of acceptance of this situation.

Do you?

I don't get the argument. You're saying that some people are born to lead and take advantage while other people are born to be sheep and be victims, right? In which case, no matter what we do the condition will persist. So no, I don't understand how not accepting the situation will improve anything unless your proposing genetic modification.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

You could decry it because the biology factor in this matter is being exploited.

Please explain a scenario in which it is NOT exploited by someone? A sheep is exploited by his master in one way or another by the definition of the relationship.

There is no biological or cultural need or reason to accept this exploitation.

Are you ignoring the relationship you yourself established? Most people are sheep, waiting to follow something or someone. That is your biological/cultural need, isn't it?

It is an artefact of our modern civilization. Because we have been ripped out of our original biological settings by our cultural evolution. This new situation brought new possibilities. Not all good.

You mean it's an artefact of having departed the bush right?

Do you think that there's a reason we left the bush to begin with? I think that once we became reasonable conscious, we had no choice but to go in hopes of better, when really it's just the same thing except changed. Not all is good in the bush, obviously... which is why most of us left.

Further, if you want to discuss "good", wouldn't it be in terms of general comfort and life expectancy? I mean, in those categories, haven't we shown it's much better to evolve culturally? Sure there are ugly aspects of it that reflect the ugliness of the bush from which we spawned, but how are we to leave it behind by lamenting for it as you seem to be doing?

Regardless, we left the bush behind. There's no going back, so yes... accepting the reality of the human condition is imperative to comprehension. I would say however that functionally, some people's rejection thereof could actually advance us farther from the bush toward some ideal - even if it's completely unreasonable of them not to accept the reality of it.

Should we accept exploitation because it is so easily done?

If you're a sheep, how can you do anything but accept exploitation? What power do you have to overcome it? Or are you not a sheep? If not, then why are you complaining on behalf of the sheep? Do you think they aren't capable of complaining for themselves? If they aren't complaining, what's the problem? Even if they are, are they complaining about anything that's changeable? If so, is that change sustainable?

There are no scientific arguments here to say yes or no i have to admit. But personally I don't see the necessity of acceptance of this situation.

So you reject nature? Do you think that will help? Has your rejection thereof resulted in anything but your own misery?

Do you?

I do, yes. What is natural is non-rejectable.

Perhaps you're an un-reasonable agent of change however, in which case YOU are natural and un-rejectable. Maybe you're a free-radical of sorts, pushing toward some ideal in your head that doesn't necessarily have a basis in reality, but your vision pushes you toward it nonetheless.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

I think a problem here is that both of you have a simplistic view on nature.

 

[wesmorris]

Right. Surely it's not you. Neither could it be an honest disagreement.

Perhaps you can explain why your "more complicated" view is less problematic?