truthaction.org :: View topic - Idiot Defaces Georgia Guidestones

truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Idiot Defaces Georgia Guidestones
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Arcterus

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 701
Location: New York

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:30 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's assuming others don't know any more than he knows, and that is self-absorbed nonsense, which you are engaging in too with your own use of the royal "we" here. I on the other hand have considerable understanding satanism, having read quite a bit from it's most prominent proponents; Crowley, LeVey and a various assortment of others. I'd like to share that knowledge with you, and would appreciate it if you could please pull your heads out your asses and respect that.

Actually, it's not doing any of that. But no sense in telling you that. You've proven on numerous threads here already that you're not particularly interested in reality. I'm very, VERY good at reading people, even through something as bland as posts on the internet(just ask my friends; I've pretty much impoverished them in our poker games), and I can tell you're one of those people who likes to see what they want to see, and once your brain has registered it's decision on what it sees, it takes an exaggerated opposition to anything that gets in the way of that view. So I'm done with you for now. Have fun accusing people of being satanists instead of having the "reasonable discussion" you claim to be seeking. Have a nice day.
_________________
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

Rancho Truth

Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Washington, DC

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:32 am Post subject:

zombie bill hicks wrote:

For me its simple math. Or like charting a course; "If we keep going this direction at this speed..."

I'm sure estimates are possible. Thx for the links. I've been aware of postcarbon.org and have been of the impression they're sincere and doing good work. I briefly flipped thru the others. If there's an estimate of the Earth's human carrying capacity on these sites, i missed it.

zombie bill hicks wrote:

As long as we can produce enough food for a larger population, a larger population will be inevitable.

Bacteria populations grow as long as there's a food source, then die off- and they migrate as capable.

Do you dispute my point that human beings spontaneously lower their reproduction rate based on personal perceptions of prospects? From what I understand, the studies have found that this trend is similar across cultures, and it's not the result of socialization/education/govt programs, etc.- it's spontaneous.

zombie bill hicks wrote:

The problem is that the population is dependent on a waning resource .. and that no alternatives address food production or transportation sufficiently. Nor do they address the massive costs of rebuilding an energy infrastructure or the time involved especially as the financial system continues to collapse. The FDIC just went into the red.

I'm not disputing that oil/natural gas/coal are finite resources. Extraction and use degrades the environment locally and globally. Even if they weren't finite, we should move away from these resources for this reason. Because they're finite, they also contribute to conflict- still another reason to reduce/eliminate dependence on them.

I'm also not disputing that the Peak is looming/here and time is short, that current technology for renewables is not sufficient, that the cost of developing better technology and infrastructure isn't high, that the human race is largely unaware of these issues, and that the current economic order is a cancerous parasite eating itself.

However, I do sense that these pressures are increasing awareness and shifting paradigms. Both 'elites' and 'little people' are exploring and embracing alternatives. I don't know that it's all gonna be OK, and as I've said, I think we, the human race, should develop a just and sustainable society, and clean up and care for our Mother Earth.

I also find certain trends very interesting; current technology in renewables is not sufficient; but these models are not taking into account that it's improving at an exponential rate- and has been consistently. If the trend of exponential acceleration continues, solar alone will be able to supply the world's energy needs by [EDIT: 2028], if trends remain consistent:

Solar Power to Rule in 20 Years, Futurists Say
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080219-kurzweil-solar.html

A 'Moore's Law'-type trend is seen to be consistent across the original 5 computing sub-strates. (Molecular and quantum computing are not included- these are in the lab stage)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPTMooresLawai.jpg

Paradigm shifts: History of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ParadigmShiftsFrr15Events.svg

zombie bill hicks wrote:

In a post peak world, locality is the number one issue. Food will have to be produced where people eat it. A good example of this is the way in which Cuba adapted after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Cuba adapted. People don't need money to live, they need food, clothing, shelter- and community. Money was just a convenient medium for exchange. I don't see that anything is a question of enough 'money' or too much 'debt'; fuck the 'elite' scum that have created the problems; they should not be running anything. The issue is do We the People have the will, creativity and resources? I think yes. EDIT: Also, given that the trend of information, order and complexity increasing at an exponentially accelerating rate has been consistent since the 'Big Bang', i think it's reasonable to expect it to continue. Human brains are simply the currently most advanced vessel for consciousness- if this Universal trend continues, the human brain is not going to be the last or highest level of evolution. And developments in AI and robotics indicate the next level will have come into being thru us.

Vertical farming for the future:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=vertical%20farming%20hydroponic&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn

zombie bill hicks wrote:

I think that a humane way to address population reduction first and foremost would be to be honest about the issues at hand and stress the need for adoption and birth control. Beyond that I just think that the entire human race should have a dialogue about how to address the issue. I wouldnt trust any decision regarding population reduction coming from a single entity, let alone a particular governmental institution. But its something that needs addressed. If it isnt, then I would be afraid that more war, famine, and disease will continue.

Absolutely, the discussion should be public- and it sounds like you're not advocating extermination. The human race does need to grow up, get over itself, and share our natural wealth, wisdom and love. Studies have found that happiness is not dependent on wealth, though people who are well off generally have better well-being than people in poverty- stress has a lot to do with it, as well as a sense of being fucked over by a system that rewards high crimes and victimizes children.
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

Pavlovian Dogcatcher

Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 216

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:55 am Post subject:

Rancho Truth wrote:

However, certain powerful interests are investing in maintaining this discredited socio-economic order, as it's the source of their wealth and power.

Exactly, and they are satanic son's of bitches, regardless of if they get into the voodoo mumbo-jumbo nonsense or if they only exalt themselves as gods among men in strictly the philosophical sense. That is why some pulled off 9/11, and is why some of them would like to reduce the population, because such cissies did/would serve to consolidate their power over the masses.

Arcterus wrote:

Actually, it's not doing any of that. But no sense in telling you that.

There is no sense in your argument, it's just textbook na-ah, bury your head in the sand and flap your feathers at me for not doing the same, falser nonsense. It's a wonder you aren't belligerently clinging to the OCT.

Arcterus wrote:

You've proven on numerous threads here already that you're not particularly interested in reality.

Sure, from my wopping 44 posts here, most of which arguing agaisnt people who can't come to terms with the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down my CD. Rolling Eyes

Arcterus wrote:

I'm very, VERY good at reading people, even through something as bland as posts on the internet(just ask my friends; I've pretty much impoverished them in our poker games), and I can tell you're one of those people who likes to see what they want to see, and once your brain has registered it's decision on what it sees, it takes an exaggerated opposition to anything that gets in the way of that view. So I'm done with you for now.

I'd prefer you stop stroking yourself in front of me anyway.

Arcterus wrote:

Have fun accusing people of being satanists instead of having the "reasonable discussion" you claim to be seeking.

Well fuck me for being forthright. Put simply, as one man who was particularly wise in such matters once did:

You belong to your father the devil, and you want to carry out the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and has never stood for truth, since there is no truth in him. Whenever he tells a lie he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies. But it is because I speak the truth that you do not believe me.

Last edited by Pavlovian Dogcatcher on Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:29 pm; edited 2 times in total

zombie bill hicks

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 417
Location: West Virginia

Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:10 pm Post subject:

Rancho, you make some excellent points and Im enjoying this conversation, but Im running low on free time today (already!) and I'll have to wait until later to continue. Hope your Thanksgiving goes well! _________________ there were a hell of a lot of them at 4:30 on a Sunday morning

Arcterus

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
Posts: 701
Location: New York

Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:30 pm Post subject:

I almost wonder if this guy's intentionally trying to prove my point. _________________ http://arcterus911.blogspot.com

zombie bill hicks

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 417
Location: West Virginia

Posted: Mon Nov 30, 2009 12:11 am Post subject:

Quote:

It's less about carrying capacity than sustainability. If there are no sufficient alternatives to oil, and food production is dependent on oil, and oil is supporting our gigantic population, and production is declining while population and thus demand is increasing ... where does that leave us?

Quote:

Do you dispute my point that human beings spontaneously lower their reproduction rate based on personal perceptions of prospects?

No, and I'm not really well versed on that issue either. But this is one of those things, if you wait too long to do something about and the wheels start to come off, no one knows exactly how that pans out.

Quote:

However, I do sense that these pressures are increasing awareness and shifting paradigms. Both 'elites' and 'little people' are exploring and embracing alternatives. I don't know that it's all gonna be OK, and as I've said, I think we, the human race, should develop a just and sustainable society, and clean up and care for our Mother Earth.

I also find certain trends very interesting; current technology in renewables is not sufficient; but these models are not taking into account that it's improving at an exponential rate- and has been consistently. If the trend of exponential acceleration continues, solar alone will be able to supply the world's energy needs by 2028.

I also sense that "awakening". I dont think the Wall Street Journal would have interviewed Mike Ruppert if that weren't true. I dont have the same shining optimism that you do about switching over to alternatives quickly, cheaply, and easily (if that's the case), however I'm holding out hope.

Quote:

Theres an excellent documentary on that subject here:

http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php

Its probably online somewhere, if you know where to look.
_________________
there were a hell of a lot of them at 4:30 on a Sunday morning

Rancho Truth

Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Washington, DC

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 5:04 am Post subject:

zombie bill hicks wrote:

Good, concise summary of the potentially horrific situation looming. I support establishing a just and sustainable society, now- I'm not advocating waiting. The consumer culture is an artificial construct, it's not an innate survival instinct; it was social-engineered post-WWII, as certain 'elites' realized they could make even more money by socializing people to work to continually buy new stuff. Environmental limits may force the human race to adapt to living with less, and in harmony with nature, but things could get really ugly, with a massive increase in suffering, conflict, death.

Otoh, imho, the historical trends in technology and the history of the universe are reason to be optimistic. I have more faith that AI's going to get 'smart' and help us solve our problems (if only out of a self-preservation interest in peace, stability and understanding its own origins, and not out of 'love') w/in the next decade or 2, than I do in a critical mass of human beings taking constructive action in the same time period, without the aid of technology.

The web has changed our environment and reality- I see the trend of information, communications, networks, etc. increasing individual's access to knowledge and power continuing- leveling the playing field despite the best efforts of those trying to keep the deck stacked. It may the best ideas and systems for creativity and sustainability will come out on top. Call me a dreamer. We live in interesting times.

Thanks for this link; inspiring:
http://www.powerofcommunity.org/cm/index.php
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

Scott N

Joined: 24 Jul 2007
Posts: 1525

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:45 am Post subject:

Quote:

For me its simple math. Or like charting a course; "If we keep going this direction at this speed..."

As long as we can produce enough food for a larger population, a larger population will be inevitable.

I’m not so sure about this. Have you read anything by Francis Moore Lappe?

I posted some passages from one her essays earlier. Example:

“Rapid population growth and hunger are endemic to societies where land ownership, jobs, education, health care, and old age security are beyond the reach of most people."

Michael Parenti referenced Lappe’s work in “Imperialism 101”:

Frances Moore Lappe and Rachel Schurman found that of seventy Third World countries, there were six--China, Sri Lanka, Colombia, Chile, Burma, and Cuba--and the state of Kerala in India that had managed to lower their birth rates by one third. They enjoyed neither dramatic industrial expansion nor high per capita incomes nor extensive family planning programs. The factors they had in common were public education and health care, a reduction of economic inequality, improvements in women's rights, food subsidies, and in some cases land reform. In other words, fertility rates were lowered not by capitalist investments and economic growth as such but by socio-economic betterment, even of a modest scale, accompanied by the emergence of women's rights.”

When Kissinger said that depopulation was the highest priority of the West with respect the “Third World”, he was clearly confused, or lying, or a hypocrite, or all three. If elites were really interested in curbing population growth they would support measures that lift people out of poverty. The problem with this solution is obvious: without poverty, you cannot have massive wealth in the hands of a few people.

The problem isn’t scarcity. At least not yet. Every day, 2.4 pounds of Grain, beans, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are produced for every person. That’s 50 per cent more food produced than is necessary to feed everyone. Yet capitalism is so wasteful and inefficient that much of this food ends up being exported or destroyed in the name of profit.

Overpopulation is desirable for elites for the same reason that moderate-to-high unemployment is desirable for elites: it creates a situation where workers will claw at each others throats for scraps, ie accept lower wages, poorer working conditions and so on.

The problem is that you can’t play this game forever. Excessive overpopulation combined with increased capitalist production in the “Third World” could eventually spell extinction. Despite what Alex Jones and company say, there is indeed a massive environmental crisis. Elites are well aware of this, but they’re caught in a Catch-22. The only way of solving their nightmare problem is through the nightmare solution of ending poverty, devolving power to the people, embracing true democracy and rendering themselves obsolete.

As far as a I can see, the only alternatives, from their vantage point, are famine, war, and disease (and any other measure that consolidates power). So we’re on the “right track”, so to speak.

Concerning diminishing resources, I think a lot of the models are misleading. They are presented as a “natural” phenomenon based on x number of people and x number of resources. The problem with this formula is that it doesn’t take into account the monumental waste of capitalist production. More often than not, these models isolate and decontextualize the environmental crisis. We hear apocalyptic forecasts combined with “solutions” (lifestyle choices, more taxes etc.) which completely ignore the actual source of the problem: capitalism and state capitalism. If we weren’t manufacturing mountains of junk every five minutes the problem would dwindle to insignificance.

I can't remember the actual figure, but it was surprisingly small -- something like 15% of all work currently being undertaken by humanity could be construed as "productive" ie satisfying our actual needs. That's an awful lot of wasted energy, both human and otherwise.

Bucky Fuller wrote brilliantly on this topic:

Quote:

Anybody who has been in Washington (and approximately everyone else everywhere today) is familiar with governmental budgeting and with the modes of developing public recognition of problems and of bringing about official determination to do something about solutions. In the
end, the problems are rarely solved, not because we don’t know how but because it is discovered either that it is said by those in authority that "it costs too much" or that when we identify the fundamental factors of the environmental problems‹and laws are enacted to cope incisively with those factors that there are no funds presently known to be available with which
to implement the law. There comes a money bill a year later for implementation and with it the political criteria of assessing wealth by which the previous year’s bill would now seemingly "cost too much." So compromises follow compromises. Frequently, nothing but political promises or under-budgeted solutions result. The original legislation partially stills the demands. The pressures on the politicians are lowered, and the lack of implementation is expeditiously shrugged off because of seemingly more pressing, seemingly higher priority, new demands for the money. The most pressing of those demands is for war, for which the politicians suddenly
accredit weaponry acquisitions and military tasks costing many times their previously asserted concepts of what we can afford.

Thus under lethal emergencies vast new magnitudes of wealth come mysteriously into effective operation. We don’t seem to be able to afford to do peacefully the logical things we say we ought to be doing to forestall warring-by producing enough to satisfy all the world needs. Under pressure we always find that we can afford to wage the wars brought about by
the vital struggle of "have-nots" to share or take over the bounty of the "haves." Simply because it had seemed, theretofore, to cost too much to provide vital support of those "have-nots." The "haves" are thus forced in self-defense suddenly to articulate and realize productive wealth capabilities worth many times the amounts of monetary units they had known
themselves to possess and, far more importantly, many times what it would have cost to give adequate economic support to the particular "have-nots" involved in the warring and, in fact, to all the world’s ’have-nots."

The adequately macro-comprehensive and micro-incisive solutions to any and all vital problems never cost too much. The production of heretofore nonexistent production tools and industrial networks of harnessed energy to do more work does not cost anything but human time which is refunded in time gained minutes after the inanimate machinery goes to work.
Nothing is spent. Potential wealth has become real wealth. As it is cliched "in the end" problem solutions always cost the least if paid for adequately at outset of the vital problem’s recognition.

Being vital, the problems are evolutionary, inexorable, and ultimately unavoidable by humanity. The constantly put-off or under-met costs and society’s official bumbling of them clearly prove \that man does not know at present what wealth is nor how much of whatever it may be is progressively available to him.

--

Because our wealth is continually multiplying in vast degree unbeknownst and unacknowledged formally by human society, our economic accounting systems are unrealistically identifying wealth only as matter and are entering know-how on the books only as salary liabilities; therefore, all that we are discovering mutually here regarding the true nature of wealth comes as a complete surprise to world society to both communism and to
capitalism alike. Both social co-operation and individual enterprise interact to produce increasing wealth, all unrecognized by ignorantly assumed lethally competitive systems. All our formal accounting is anti-synergetic, depreciative, and entropic mortgagization, meaning death
by inversally compounding interest. Wealth as anti-entropy developes compound interest through synergy, which growth is as yet entirely unaccounted anywhere around Earth in any of its political economic systems. We give an intrinsic value to the material. To this we add the

--

Now, I’m going to have a man in a shipwreck. He’s rated as a very rich man, worth over a billion dollars by all of society’s accredited conceptions of real wealth. He has taken with him on his voyage all his stocks and bonds, all his property deeds, all his checkbooks, and, to play it safe, has brought along a lot of diamonds and gold bullion. The ship burns and sinks, and there are no lifeboats, for they, too, have burned. If our billionaire holds on to his gold, he’s going to sink a little faster than the others. So I would say he hadn’t much left either of now or tomorrow in which to articulate his wealth, and since wealth cannot work backwardly his kind of
wealth is vitally powerless. It is really a worthless pile of chips of an arbitrary game which we are playing and does not correspond to the accounting processes of our real universe’s evolutionary transactions. Obviously the catastrophied billionaire’s kind of wealth has no control
over either yesterday, now, or tomorrow. He can’t extend his life with that kind of wealth unless he can persuade the one passenger who has a life-jacket to yield that only means of extending one life in exchange for one crazy moment’s sense of possession of all the billionaire’s
sovereign-powers-backed legal tender, all of which the catastrophy-disillusioned and only moments earlier "powerfully rich" and now desperately helpless man would thankfully trade for the physical means of extending the years of his life; or of his wife.

It is also worth remembering that the validity of what our reputedly rich man in the shipwreck had in those real estate equities went back only to the validity "in the eyes of God" of the original muscle, cunning, and weapons-established-sovereign-claimed lands and their subsequent legal re-deedings as "legal" properties protected by the moral-or-no, weapons- enforced laws of the sovereign nations and their subsequent abstraction into limited-liability-corporation equities printed on paper stocks and bonds. The procedure we are pursuing is that of true democracy. Semi-democracy accepts the dictatorship of a majority in establishing its arbitrary, ergo, unnatural, laws. True democracy discovers by patient experiment and
unanimous acknowledgement what the laws of nature or universe may be for the physical support and metaphysical satisfaction of the human intellect’s function in universe.

I now go on to speculate that I think that what we all really mean by wealth is as follows:

"Wealth is our organized capability to cope effectively with the environment in sustaining our healthy regeneration and decreasing both the physical and metaphysical restrictions of the forward days of our lives."

Is there any disagreement? Well, having first disposed of what wealth is not we now have produced a culled-out statement that roughly contains somewhere within it a precise definition of what wealth is. Now we can account wealth more precisely as the number of forward days
for a specific number of people we are physically prepared to sustain at a physically stated time and space liberating level of metabolic and metaphysical regeneration.

--

It is obvious that the real wealth of life aboard our planet is a forwardly-operative, metabolic, and intellectual regenerating system. Quite clearly we have vast amounts of income wealth as Sun radiation and Moon gravity to implement our forward success. Wherefore living only on our energy savings by burning up the fossil fuels which took billions of years to impound from the Sun or living on our capital by burning up our Earth’s atoms is lethally
ignorant and also utterly irresponsible to our coming generations and their forward days. Our children and their children are our future days. If we do not comprehend and realize our potential ability to support all life forever we are cosmicly bankrupt.

--

zombie bill hicks

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 417
Location: West Virginia

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:17 pm Post subject:

Danse, I havent had the time to read your reply thoroughly at this time, but I fully intend to.

However, I just thought I'd ask; have you ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn?

I'll get back to you when I get a free moment Smile

EDIT: For Rancho, et al

Wiki entry to Daniel Quinns' The Story of B:

Quote:

A continual theme through B’s teachings is that population growth is dependent upon food production, with increases in food production leading to increases in population.

Quinn's thinking here should not to be confused with the ideas of Thomas Malthus, who made the prediction that population would outrun food supply. In Quinn's own words, "Malthus's warning was about the inevitable failure of totalitarian agriculture. My warning is about its continued success."[1] Quinn characterizes the Malthusian problem as "How are we going to FEED all these people?" and contrasts this with his own: "How are we going to stop PRODUCING all these people?"[1]

ABCs of ecology

To better exemplify his ideas of food production and population control, Quinn introduces the ABCs of Ecology.

The first part of ecology (Part A) consists purely of food. Food is best described as all life forms.

The second part of ecology (Part B) consists of how populations are affected by the food supply. Part B is therefore dependent upon Part A. Quinn explains that populations are a function of produced food.

Helpful links here:

http://www.ishmael.org/Education/Science/

Russell Hopfenbergs Slide presentation:

http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/2007/10/20/hopfenberg-presentation-added/

Based on his peer reviewed paper here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u4x1r416w5671127
_________________
there were a hell of a lot of them at 4:30 on a Sunday morning

zombie bill hicks

Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 417
Location: West Virginia

Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 8:13 pm Post subject:

Danse, I agree for the most part what you posted, and thanks, I always enjoy reading Fuller.

Quote:

The problem isn’t scarcity. At least not yet. Every day, 2.4 pounds of Grain, beans, potatoes, fruit and vegetables are produced for every person. That’s 50 per cent more food produced than is necessary to feed everyone. Yet capitalism is so wasteful and inefficient that much of this food ends up being exported or destroyed in the name of profit.

That's kind of the point I'm making here. We produce more food than necessary, so we end up with a bigger population. It might not happen to be the same geographical area -- if Missouri produces more corn next year, it doesn't necessarily mean that Missouri's population is going to grow at that rate. But it does mean that somewhere on the globe, more food is available to more people, and somewhere a population will grow.
There are 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy in every calorie of food we consume.

As I quoted Quinn up above, "populations are a function of produced food", right?
_________________
there were a hell of a lot of them at 4:30 on a Sunday morning

Col. Jenny Sparks

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329

Posted: Wed Dec 02, 2009 11:45 pm Post subject:

Rancho Truth wrote:

zombie bill hicks wrote:

No I just don't believe that the world can continue to sustain 7+ billion people for much longer, and that the humane thing to do would be to adopt a plan to reduce the population to a more manageable number.

Last I heard, the human population was still growing, but the rate of growth had slowed. It's still on track to exceed 7 bil. I agree, human numbers have contributed to environmental degradation, depletion of resources and local, regional and global conflicts.

Jenny/ZBH, are there any sources you recommend?
You're saying the population needs to be reduced, or else Earth/human race is in trouble; is there science backing up that claim?
What humane ways are there of reducing the human population?

Did some one call? Razz

Sorry, been away a bit--holiday bollox, etc, etc. Dunno if there's any one comprehensive source, but there's a whole body of study. But in response to this--

"What humane ways are there of reducing the human population?"

the answer is obvious: reduce poverty(economic and land reform) and sex education.

Did you hear that sound? That's the right wing nutters trolls stampeding our way. There is a bewilderingly intensive disinformation attempt in the States to paint sex education and birth control as the source of all evils. This is not helped by blithering fools arguing that they have a right to abort up to the day before birth.(true argument I've heard. ) I suppose since technically the baby can survive at that point, technically that could be correct in a ridiculously literal sense, but trust me, this individual was clear that they had a right to kill the baby. Rolling Eyes

This was their response to my point that progressives need to talk about contraceptives, not abortions, if they want to win the birth control debate.
Winning being defined as changing public policy to reduce the amount of unwanted and abused children. Another prat more interested in being "right" instead of being effective...

Think of this population issue in terms of what greedy, lazy bastards want, with the least amount of work:

Loads of slaves(literal or otherwise) to do their shite for them--then it's obvious why the last thing they want is any reduction in the population.

Solution? Poison the population reduction debate with bollox like the idea all population reduction ideas come from a bizarre idea "they" want to kill off most of their slaves and soldiers.

Please. What would "they" do without us?

This is not to be confused with wanton and reckless disregard for human life the extreme rich and powerful have always had through history. And there is you hint that hysteria over these guide stones is pure bollox--
rich murderous bastards never needed a public works of art to give them a green light for genocide before--why would they need it now?

They're going to be bastards for the same reasons they've always been bastards--greed. Not someone's sculpture engraved with their ideas what solutions might make a better world.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Rancho Truth

Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Washington, DC

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:50 am Post subject:

this is a fascinating dialogue. The invention of agriculture greatly increased food supply and made permanent settlements and cities possible, and population grew enormously as a result, though many millions died from lack of nutritional diversity and new diseases. However, as has been pointed out, the way technology and human understanding has evolved, some civilizations with plenty of food have stable or declining populations- populations are growing the fastest in the third world- and the policies of the IMF and World Bank have often exploited these peoples instead of helping them. Limiting food supply could limit/reduce growth, but it wouldn't be humane. Sharing resources, knowledge and power, and improving quality of life for all would be humane, and could well stabilize the population. Wikipedia has a page on overpopulation, lots of links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Carrying_capacity as is often the case, there's interesting stuff on the discussion page. One person is arguing for privatization of everything, and making some good points. However, it seems things get fucked up when power's consolidated in the hands of a small group of unaccountable people- and this is true in both communist and capitalist systems. The role playing game StarPower is very revealing of human nature and power dynamics in societies- basic info at wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower_(game) Seems more localism, community, cooperation, more people having a stake, rewarding hard work, wisdom and creativity (not simply privilege, position and power) in things could solve some of humanity's problems. It's true the commons can be abused- but the Clean Air and Water Acts have prevented/corrected abuses- when they're enforced, as opposed to neutralized by 'regulatory capture'. I don't think privatizing the air and water is the way to go. wiki on the guidestones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones from the inscriptions I'm guessing this is probably some rich eccentric's ideal fantasy world- the inscriptions don't seem to match the world as it's being managed by globalists, who as Jenny and Danse have noted are benefiting from human population growth- more slaves, soldiers, consumers _________________ http://911reports.com/ http://www.historycommons.org

Col. Jenny Sparks

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329

Posted: Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:01 am Post subject:

Good points but a one question:

Rancho Truth wrote:

this is a fascinating dialogue. The invention of agriculture greatly increased food supply and made permanent settlements and cities possible, and population grew enormously as a result, though many millions died from lack of nutritional diversity and new diseases.

Do you mean agriculture as in monocrops? Or horticulture, which is a more accurate description of early plant domestication?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horticulture

This was very stable, and had relatively slow population growth. In wasn't until empires, with the values of greed and expansion that we've all come to know and loath, that intensive mono crop agriculture to support armies became the norm. Along with the need for slave farmers and soil depletion. This was one major difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. A republic can be stable--an empire never is. The dynamics of Empire trigger the poverty, overpopulation etc--in fact they encourage it to survive and twist the culture in anyway they can to make it happen.

Quote:

However, it seems things get fucked up when power's consolidated in the hands of a small group of unaccountable people- and this is true in both communist and capitalist systems.

True, though most examples use of "capitalist and communist systems" are neither.

What are considered the major Western capitalists, the UK and the US are crypto fascist empires, with a capitalist republic veneer. The major communists, the Soviet Union and modern China, are also crypto fascists, with a socialist republic veneer. Both systems do their best to centralize production and eliminate competition. This is not capitalism. Both groups also do their best to benefit the elites of their society at the expense of everyone else. This is not socialism.

The closest we have to the concept of communism as it is imagined by the idealists are the modern socialist democracies--and we're back to Germany, France, etc. They could also be described as the closest to capitalism in many ways. They're trying to do both and sorta making a go of it, but really being neither.

Much of the second and third world is little more than feudalism--economies propped up artificially as client states or worse.

Quote:

However, as has been pointed out, the way technology and human understanding has evolved, some civilizations with plenty of food have stable or declining populations- populations are growing the fastest in the third world- and the policies of the IMF and World Bank have often exploited these peoples instead of helping them. Limiting food supply could limit/reduce growth, but it wouldn't be humane.

It wouldn't be humane to let people starve. But it is supposed to work in another way--the wise ones of the tribe say "Our food is limited--we must produce less children or we will not survive." Then everyone figures out a sane way to do that .*cough* sex education, contraceptives*cough* And preferably like Germany, Sweden, NOT China. And really preferably NOT at the 11th hour.

Quote:

Sharing resources, knowledge and power, and improving quality of life for all would be humane, and could well stabilize the population.

That is the answer--otherwise known as land reform and education. And it's what the monied class in the States will fight to the death to keep from happening.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

Rancho Truth

Joined: 12 Jun 2007
Posts: 333
Location: Washington, DC

Posted: Fri Dec 04, 2009 4:13 am Post subject:

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

I was not aware of the distinction, or those facts- thanks!

Col. Jenny Sparks wrote:

Quote:

Sharing resources, knowledge and power, and improving quality of life for all would be humane, and could well stabilize the population.

That is the answer--otherwise known as land reform and education. And it's what the monied class in the States will fight to the death to keep from happening.

This 'fight to the death' to preserve inequality (which is perceived as preserving deserved privilege by those doing it) is what plays out again and again in the StarPower simulation; the game begins with a stacked deck, so to speak, in which some players have been blessed by chance with better 'resources'. As they are at an advantage in the next round of trading, they usually come out even further ahead, which gives them a greater advantage in the next round, and so on, including eventually being able to write new rules for trading. What almost always happens, according to the studies of groups playing this game, is that those writing the rules write them in their own favor and often openly lord it over the 'underclass'. Those in the underclass often wind up rebelling or refusing to play, and the game breaks down. The results are almost always the same, regardless of the race or real-life social standing of the game's players. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarPower

The game provides epiphanies for those willing to hear, but i haven't heard of it leading to land reform yet. It would be interesting to watch matches played with members of Congress, corporate captains, union leaders, laborers and homeless people. International matches, too.

What does StarPower teach?
http://www.stsintl.com/schools-charities/star_power.html
1. Each of us may be more vulnerable to the temptation to abuse power than we realize. Power can be amazingly seductive.

2. To change behavior, it may be necessary to change the system in which that behavior occurs.

3. Few people are likely to participate in an endeavor if they feel powerless.

4. If rules do not have legitimacy, they will not be obeyed.

5. What seems fair to those in power is not likely to seem fair to those who are out of power.

6. Persons who are promoted rarely remember those they leave behind.

7. Power is like fire, it can be used to help make the world a better place to live or it can be terribly destructive.

8. In any system, there needs to be checks on power. If there are no checks, power will almost certainly be abused.
_________________
http://911reports.com/
http://www.historycommons.org

Display posts from previous:

	truthaction.org Forum Index -> News and Discussion	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum