University Suckers

Thursday, April 27, 2006

Guy Who Hates Technology Lectures Through Loud-Speaker

ULS-sponsored author to speak on anarchy - News

----------

"Anarchy descends upon USF's Tampa campus this evening when the Alliance of Concerned Students and the University Lecture Series co-sponsor the appearance of author John Zerzan. Well known throughout the anarchist community, Zerzan works as an editor for Green Anarchy magazine and hosts an Anarchist radio program in Oregon."

-So USF is paying him? So, he's taking money from an establishment and using it; he can't be serious.

"Zerzan has stayed in contact with Kaczynski since his arrest, as cited in an interview from www.primitivism.com.

"In my visits with Ted, I found him polite, friendly, very sharp and possessing a sense of humor," Zerzan said in an interview with primitivism.com. "He certainly put on no airs whatsoever and has seemed a very patient and self-disciplined person. Lawyer Tony Serra and I agree: Ted is not crazy.""

-I love how he doesn't make it known that this man killed innocent people. "I found him polite, friendly, very sharp and possessing a sense of humor", is that relevant to him not being crazy? Someone being kind has nothing to do with their mental state; it just shows what kind of shabby logic Zerzan uses. It just shows how he draws conclusions, seemingly about everything, that are completely fictional because of his false premises, and innumerable fallacies.

"Zerzan was also involved in the World Trade Organization protests that caused damage to chain stores Starbucks and the Gap."

-Is that suppose to be an admirable action on his part? For him to willfully destroy someone elses property? Maybe it's me, but it sounds more like a crime.

"Zerzan has been lecturing around the country, promoting his idea of anarcho-primitivism. Anarcho-primitivism, according to a University Lecture Series pamphlet, "proposes that we should use prehistoric societies as models of how a free society should be constructed."

-"Proposes that we should use prehistoric societies as models of how a free society should be constructed" means the exact opposite of a free society. Anarchy is more similar to a monarchy than one would think; there's always someone in charge. Without individual rights, freedom, and independence, a free society cannot exist. Please tell me what's so "free" about an exponential growth in infant morality ratings? What's so "free" about not being able to get surgery, from lack of equipment & skill, when one needs it? What's so "free" about having to kill a bear with your barehands to get fed? What's so "free" about cavemen...LIVING IN CAVES? Zerzan is talking about a human race that built man up from mud-huts to the moon, and he's trying to convince the world that it's a horrible thing for man to become productive. "Zerzan has been lecturing around the country, promoting his idea of anarcho-primitivism.", let's see: Since he travels the country, I'm going to assume that he uses some form of travel, I'll go with the airplane option. While in the airport, he may grab something to eat at the concession stand. From the airport he gets in a car, and arrives at USF to tell the world of the "positive sides" of anarchy. It didn't dawn on him that man made the plane that he flew in, man made the food that he ate (and made it safe so he could eat it), and man made the car that he rode in; if I were to get into detail, I could name literally millions of things that were man-made that he engaged in from the airport to USF, from handrails to concrete. So he's using the things that he's against to convey the message of anarchism? What did he write his notes with for his lecture? Since Im sure that he wrote them with paper and pen, this man is a walking contradiction.

"I would say Anarchism is the attempt to eradicate all forms of domination," Zerzan said. "This includes not only such obvious forms such as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism (and) homophobia."

-All forms of domination? He apparently forgot the form of domination where someone else from another cave has a bigger stick and can tell him what to do through force and force only. Corporations make things happen; they save millions of lives, they make life easier, they promote wealth and make the world go around. Is it "institutionalized irresponsibility" that drove a company to produce Zerzan's book, Against Civilization: A Reader? While we're asking questions, what's going to keep someone from killing another person only because of race or sexual preference in Zerzan's "perfect" society? I'll answer it for you; absolutely nothing. The only way that the problems Zerzan specifically named ("...such as the nation-state, with its routine use of violence and the force of law, and the corporation, with its institutionalized irresponsibility, but also such internalized forms as patriarchy, racism (and) homophobia.") can be completely eradicated is through unregulated capitalism; which happens to be in direct contrast with everything that Zerzan stands for.

posted by Anon. at Thursday, April 27, 2006

15 Comments:

  • If you actually did real research on "primitive" societies (I prefer to call them indigenous societies), you'll soon find that many of the problems we need technology to fix today simply did not exist.

    Native Americans who once lived all over North America, for example, had no concept of ownership. Their "wars" never resulted in mass killing and eradication (i.e. genocide) of another tribe. Usually it was a simple warning that each tribe should stick to their territory, much like many animal groups do in the wild.

    Native Americans also would never have to fight a bear with their hands to get enough food. Before civilization destroyed most of the world, food was extremely plentiful. Just taking a stroll in the woods would find berries and vegetables capable of feeding their entire tribe. Remember - before colonial Americans killed all of them off in an effort to starve the Native Americans (who really is the "civilized" society here?), buffalo were extremely plentiful in the midwest

    Most disease that exists today didn't exist then. Mental illness definitely wasn't as common as it is today, simply because people didn't feel like something was missing in their lives (how about an actual community they feel a part of?).

    Anthropologists have done countless studies and have discovered that hunter-gatherer societies work an average of 20 hours a week to survive, the rest of the time they lounge and play. You try feeding yourself and sheltering yourself in our society with working just 20 hours a week...

    I suggest you read the novel "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn - that's usually the book that changes people's way of thinking about these things. You're uninformed of the actual life of indigenous peoples.. they had a much better and fulfilling life than anyone here really has access to.

    By Blogger Laura, at 12:15 PM  

  • "If you actually did real research on "primitive" societies (I prefer to call them indigenous societies), you'll soon find that many of the problems we need technology to fix today simply did not exist."

    I'm going to assume that the 'did' at the end of your paragraph was suppose to be a 'do'. Without these technological advances, infant mortality rates were about 50%; a coin flip away. By the way, do you realize that you're using a computer to talk bad about technology?

    "Native Americans who once lived all over North America, for example, had no concept of ownership. Their "wars" never resulted in mass killing and eradication (i.e. genocide) of another tribe. Usually it was a simple warning that each tribe should stick to their territory, much like many animal groups do in the wild."

    I hope you see the inherent contradiction. According to fact, as well as yourself, these tribes had no concept of ownership. However, two sentences later you say that the attack was justified because "it was a simple warning that each tribe should stick to their territory"[bold added]. But this is the issue; They have no concept of ownership and in turn OWN NO PROPERTY. How are rival tribes suppose to discern between what land belongs to whom? I'll answer it for you; they aren't. I know that these tribes had no concept of ownership, that's one of the many reasons why I refer to them as primitive (because they were).

    "Native Americans also would never have to fight a bear with their hands to get enough food. Before civilization destroyed most of the world, food was extremely plentiful. Just taking a stroll in the woods would find berries and vegetables capable of feeding their entire tribe. Remember - before colonial Americans killed all of them off in an effort to starve the Native Americans (who really is the "civilized" society here?), buffalo were extremely plentiful in the midwest"

    Civilization destroyed the world? Food is more plentiful, safer, and better now than it was back then because of civilized advancements/technology. "Colonial Americans" killed off all of the buffalo? You better check your time line. Colonial Americans weren't prevalent in the Midwest; what were they suppose to hunt with, blunderbusses? General William Sherman killed a lot of the buffalo (around 1865) almost 100 years after other individuals were termed "Colonial Americans".

    "Most disease that exists today didn't exist then. Mental illness definitely wasn't as common as it is today, simply because people didn't feel like something was missing in their lives (how about an actual community they feel a part of?)."

    I'm not sure if this is true, but I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. This may be because around 50% of the population back then died shortly after being born, including the mother giving birth. While I'm not sure if it's a disease, mental illness is more prevalent because more people have the ability to exist (thankfully) now - by a large margin - than back then.

    "Anthropologists have done countless studies and have discovered that hunter-gatherer societies work an average of 20 hours a week to survive, the rest of the time they lounge and play. You try feeding yourself and sheltering yourself in our society with working just 20 hours a week..."

    This is horseshit. Is it 20 hours of just gathering food? Does it count keeping watch for wild animal attacks? Hunting? Skinning the animals? Preserving the meat? Drying it? Making clothes? Cooking? Because they didn't produce food, but only stripped the land of it, they had to move all the time; does this 20 hours a week account for that?

    Why is it suddenly an admirable trait to be lazy (having a 20 hour work week, even though it's untrue)? People refer to Americans as lazy all the time, while businessmen pump out 40-60 hour weeks producing food and drink, not scavenging for berries, bark, and bear/moose/deer/raccoon/-piss contaminated stream water.

    "I suggest you read the novel "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn - that's usually the book that changes people's way of thinking about these things. You're uninformed of the actual life of indigenous peoples.. they had a much better and fulfilling life than anyone here really has access to."

    I suggest you read "Economics for Dummies".

    By Blogger Anon., at 7:30 PM  

  • Just because I'm defending some of the views of John Zerzan doesn't mean I wholly agree with him. I am well aware of the contradiction of using the internet to talk about the downsides of technology - but hey, I was born into this culture and unfortunately am used to using the internet as a means of communication.

    Infant mortality rates were 50% greater then, and did you notice that then we did not have a horrible overpopulation problem?

    So the concept of ownership is somehow a more advanced way of thinking? I seriously doubt that. Converting everything on the planet into money even if it's at the expense of destroying our species and every other species n this planet at the same time to me doesn't seem very advanced at all. Just destructive.

    Food is more plentiful. But there are starving masses. How does that work? Because people would rather dump food into the ocean than give it to a starving population - because of a horrible economic system based on abstractions rather than real life. And genetically modified, pesticide and poison-ridden food is better than naturally-grown food? Definitely not.

    I never said that colonial Americans killed the bears. If you read correctly, I said they killed buffalo. I used the wrong terminology, and apologize, but my statement is still the same.. in our country's delusion of "Manifest Destiny" - we destroyed their culture and food supplies.

    Water was cleaner than then it ever will be again - we pump poisons into the air and water, most of our groundwater is now contaminated and unfit for consumption. And yes - the 20 hours includes all of those "hardships" because those people figured out how to live along with the world - to live within the ecosystem LIKE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO.

    It's not an admirable trait to be lazy. I pointed that out to show that hunter-gatherers actually have an easier life than most perceive. It's not some horrible survival-of-the-fittest scenario, because they had evolved for millions of years and knew their surroundings and were in touch with the systems around them. How do you think human tribes still exist in the Amazon rain forest when people of our culture would not last a day? They're in touch with their world. They're not dying of famine or disease. Their streams are not contaminated with any animal's excrement. The only dangers they face are the people of our culture who decided that the trees were here for us to exploit into "money."

    I don't need to read "Economics for Dummies" - it has no relevance. Economics isn't REAL. It's a bunch of abstractions made up by our culture to fuel the exploitation machine. What's real is the earth and sky and living things and how we are connected to it all.

    People should really fucking start realizing that we are part of a community that we depend on absolutely, and the more we destroy it the closer we become to destroying ourselves.

    By Blogger Laura, at 7:44 PM  

  • "Infant mortality rates were 50% greater then, and did you notice that then we did not have a horrible overpopulation problem?"

    Would you be willing to kill 50% of the children in order to curb the "overpopulation problem"? There's no such thing as overpopulation.

    "So the concept of ownership is somehow a more advanced way of thinking? I seriously doubt that. Converting everything on the planet into money even if it's at the expense of destroying our species and every other species n this planet at the same time to me doesn't seem very advanced at all. Just destructive."

    Just ask the citizens of Soviet Russia how well no ownership worked out for them. Or China. Seeing as how killing a few million people for the sake of stopping the international problem of "overpopulation" is right up your alley, you'd probably give the whole no ownership thing the thumbs up. And If Buffalo were worth money, they'd still be physically abundant for you to worship or whatever you do concerning them.

    "Food is more plentiful. But there are starving masses. How does that work? Because people would rather dump food into the ocean than give it to a starving population - because of a horrible economic system based on abstractions rather than real life. And genetically modified, pesticide and poison-ridden food is better than naturally-grown food? Definitely not."

    I'm not sure how it works, especially since "ECONOMICS ISN'T REAL." No wonder you can't explain how it works. Economics is very real and the starving masses, sadly, pay for it because of people like you and their denial of reality. What is considered "Naturally grown" food? Food that isn't washed? Isn't rinsed with filtered water? Food that isn't picked by machine? Food that doesn't get packaged? I think I know the answer; food that isn't produced, food that's "just there".

    "I never said that colonial Americans killed the bears. If you read correctly, I said they killed buffalo. I used the wrong terminology, and apologize, but my statement is still the same.. in our country's delusion of "Manifest Destiny" - we destroyed their culture and food supplies."

    There you go again with that "their". There is no "their". They owned nothing, produced nothing, and in turn deserved nothing. You can find their culture in museums.

    "Water was cleaner than then it ever will be again - we pump poisons into the air and water, most of our groundwater is now contaminated and unfit for consumption. And yes - the 20 hours includes all of those "hardships" because those people figured out how to live along with the world - to live within the ecosystem LIKE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO."

    According to whom? Where are the rules laid down that claim "we are suppose" to lay down and let nature conquer our lives? The rules of reality - in fact - specify the opposite. Because of technological advancements we can filter water, have water plants, or buy clean water. Man has to conquer nature in order to survive. Deal with it, it's inescapable. Even if you chose to live in a cave (if you haven't already done so) you will still need to conquer nature in order to survive there. And that 20 hour statistic is still a lie.

    "It's not an admirable trait to be lazy. I pointed that out to show that hunter-gatherers actually have an easier life than most perceive. It's not some horrible survival-of-the-fittest scenario, because they had evolved for millions of years and knew their surroundings and were in touch with the systems around them. How do you think human tribes still exist in the Amazon rain forest when people of our culture would not last a day? They're in touch with their world. They're not dying of famine or disease. Their streams are not contaminated with any animal's excrement. The only dangers they face are the people of our culture who decided that the trees were here for us to exploit into "money.""

    "In touch with their systems"? What does that even mean? Like hell they aren't dying of famine/lack of modern medicine. Trees are there for the person who owns the land and are to be disposed of however they see fit.

    "I don't need to read "Economics for Dummies" - it has no relevance. Economics isn't REAL. It's a bunch of abstractions made up by our culture to fuel the exploitation machine. What's real is the earth and sky and living things and how we are connected to it all."

    Economics isn't real? Tell that to the 61 MILLION DEAD during the USSR's reign. It's very real, and when it's improperly applied in reality, consequences happen. I'll continue by advising you, out of respect for the dead who experienced the wrath of communism, to watch what you say.

    "People should really fucking start realizing that we are part of a community that we depend on absolutely, and the more we destroy it the closer we become to destroying ourselves."

    What community?

    The bottom line is this: if you wish to live in a cave, eat "natural food", worship nature while it simultaneously does it's best to kill you, do it. Just don't attempt to force me to go with you. And before you move in, you better own that cave.

    By Blogger Anon., at 11:01 PM  

  • Ahhh.. I see your problem. You believe that humans exist to conquer nature. Well, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking, and until you change that, everything I say will simply make you angry or confused.

    The simple truth is that humans came into existence and existed for millions of years living along with nature.. that is how ecosystems work. Every being comes into existence because it always gives back what it takes from its environment. Just ask any ecologist. When we act like nature is our enemy, we destroy it. Systematically destroying ourselves in the process.

    By Blogger Laura, at 11:09 PM  

  • "Ahhh.. I see your problem. You believe that humans exist to conquer nature. Well, that's the fundamental flaw in your thinking, and until you change that, everything I say will simply make you angry or confused.

    The simple truth is that humans came into existence and existed for millions of years living along with nature.. that is how ecosystems work. Every being comes into existence because it always gives back what it takes from its environment. Just ask any ecologist. When we act like nature is our enemy, we destroy it. Systematically destroying ourselves in the process."

    And for millions of years man has been at the bottom of mother nature's gutter; constantly eaten by other animals, flooded by terrible storms, frozen to death by unmerciful winters, etc. If nature is all you need don't go grocery shopping (food), pay the mortgage on your house (shelter) or call the Culligan man (water). Since nature "provides" all of those "freely", you should have no problem obtaining them.

    By Blogger Anon., at 11:20 PM  

  • Not when this culture systematically destroys all the ways in which to obtain free and clean water, shelter, and food. There's still a few places, like the Amazon, like the Bushmen in Africa, who are able to do it and cling to their way of life as their environment is destroyed around them by our culture that thinks we can exploit whatever resources necessary to "progress." A culture based on such an unsustainable foundation can only eventually crash, and sorry to say, the cracks are already showing.

    By Blogger Laura, at 7:13 AM  

  • "Not when this culture systematically destroys all the ways in which to obtain free and clean water, shelter, and food. There's still a few places, like the Amazon, like the Bushmen in Africa, who are able to do it and cling to their way of life as their environment is destroyed around them by our culture that thinks we can exploit whatever resources necessary to "progress." A culture based on such an unsustainable foundation can only eventually crash, and sorry to say, the cracks are already showing."

    If you admire their way of life so much, why aren't you over there? It's because you're a hypocrite. You hate technological progress, yet you use a computer. You hate food that isn't "natural" yet you go grocery shopping. You'd prefer water from a stream yet you still drink it filtered. You spend countless time defending and praising these "utopian" societies yet you do not live there. You fail to realize that there is absolutely NO ONE around to prevent you from moving to Africa, or the Amazon. There is NO ONE stopping you from seeking out that cave or building that mud hut. If it's such a better way of life, MOVE. Hell, bring your children, I'm sure they'd enjoy themselves.

    In other words, put your money where your mouth is or just stop being such a blatant hypocrite.

    By Blogger Anon., at 11:40 AM  

  • No, I'm not a hypocrite. I am an activist trying to change THIS culture. Because believe it or not, this culture is destroying all the other cultures that make you feel like a human being. So I'm gonna keep fighting and acting to bring this terrible system down until I completely fail. Then, and only then, will I leave.

    By Blogger Laura, at 8:49 AM  

  • "No, I'm not a hypocrite. I am an activist trying to change THIS culture."

    So it's OK for YOU to use technological advances because you'll use them to fight what you previous called the "Exploitation Machine", while the rest of us will just use them to ease and expand our lives? More importantly, how do you propose this change? Do you intend on using force? You probably do, because people will never (including yourself as I pointed out earlier) freely go back to what life was like back then. You remind me of that woman from PETA who needed surgery and the medicines used on her were all tested on animals. Of course she had the surgery. Her excuse ran along the line of "I needed the medicine and surgery so I could continue the fight against animal cruelty."

    "Because believe it or not, this culture is destroying all the other cultures that make you feel like a human being."

    No it isn't. Does this mean that Indians are the prime example of what typifies a human being? If it is, you're way off base. Those people could barely be considered human. While using their minds for survival (which every individual has to do), they didn't use their minds for much else. Barely scraping by with mental effort doesn't "make me feel more like a human being." What makes me feel like a human being is using my mind, which is something that the Indians rarely did.

    "So I'm gonna keep fighting and acting to bring this terrible system down until I completely fail."

    Again, are you going to use force to bring this "system" down? What system are you referring to?

    You've already failed.

    On a side note, I don't think that you've answered any questions I've posed yet.

    P.S. You're still a hypocrite.

    By Blogger Anon., at 11:10 AM  

  • Those people could barely be considered human.

    WOW. I'd rather not have any further discussion with someone who thinks that "primitive" peoples can barely be considered human. That is arrogant and the sign of a fucking narrow-minded prick.

    By Blogger Laura, at 9:03 AM  

  • "WOW. I'd rather not have any further discussion with someone who thinks that "primitive" peoples can barely be considered human. That is arrogant and the sign of a fucking narrow-minded prick."

    Ad hominem. I am narrow minded towards the facts.

    I'd rather be considered a "prick" by a woman who wants to curve the "overpopulation" problem by killing 50% of infants; who knows what you'd consider a "hero". At least I'm not a hypocrite, which is something that I cannot say about you.

    By Blogger Anon., at 9:35 AM  

  • I never said I wanted to kill 50% of infants. Now you're just twisting my words. I just want to STOP PRODUCING SO MUCH FOOD. If you feed a population the same amount of food every day and every year, the population stabilizes. This is general ecology here. You can try it with a family of mice, do a scientific experiment, it's been done. Obviously our population problem stems from the fact that we feel the need to produce more and more food all the time to feed the starving masses that funnily enough are never fed. If we stopped totalitarian agriculture and grew food for survival, not the sake of production, our population would be stable, not growing out of control like bacteria in a dish. There are limits. There always have been. We can't survive if we keep breaking the rules of general ecology. Everything we do is leading more and more to the crash. Malthus is right. Why do most people choose to ignore it when all the evidence points to this?

    And the fact that production is placed above everything, even the survival of our species, is a product of our civilization and culture that isolates us from the world around us.

    I consider you less human than Native Americans, or any indigenous culture if you think that nature is your enemy. Nature is the reason there is life.

    By Blogger Laura, at 11:00 AM  

  • "I never said I wanted to kill 50% of infants. Now you're just twisting my words."

    I asked if you endorsed this and you gave me no answer; what else am I suppose to think?

    "I just want to STOP PRODUCING SO MUCH FOOD. If you feed a population the same amount of food every day and every year, the population stabilizes. This is general ecology here. You can try it with a family of mice, do a scientific experiment, it's been done."

    Does it "stabilize" because people are starved to death? Since when does amount of reproduction depend on how much food exists? How do you propose that people stop producing food? Do you intend on forcing them (i.e. getting the government involved in your "crusade") to do so? Do you intend on allocating food by some arbitrary standard? What is your plan? People aren't mice.

    "Obviously our population problem stems from the fact that we feel the need to produce more and more food all the time to feed the starving masses that funnily enough are never fed."

    Have you ever asked yourself why they aren't fed (probably not since you said earlier that "economics isn't REAL")? It is from government intervention. The governments across the world keep prices artificially high (price floors) which in turn produces a surplus. In order to make sure the market doesn't correct itself - to keep the price artificially high - the government throws the excess food away. Inversely, the government also implements price ceilings, where they regulate the prices of a specific market (for example, food) again by pricing it lower than market value. This action creates shortages of food. Governments also limit imports/exports. Governments also tax. No matter how you look at it, the government destroys free commerce, which in turn allows people to starve.

    "If we stopped totalitarian agriculture and grew food for survival, not the sake of production, our population would be stable, not growing out of control like bacteria in a dish."

    You mean stripping the land clean? By not producing anything, that will be the result. Land that you won't be owning by the way.

    "We can't survive if we keep breaking the rules of general ecology. Everything we do is leading more and more to the crash."

    We can't survive?! We've been surviving 50% more than before because of technological advancements/increased production. Not only counting the exponential decrease in infant mortality rates, but we now live longer, easier lives than before. As I said before, no one is stopping you, so go live in the woods by yourself.

    "Malthus is right."

    Malthus was very wrong. Because this topic was already covered elsewhere*, I'll post what the correct view on Malthusianism is:

    "The origin of apocalyptic overpopulation theory

    In his 1798 Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Malthus argued that the growth in the food supply is linear, whereas the growth in the population rate is exponential. Whenever the population exceeds the food supply, social turmoil erupts until drastic checks such as famines, wars, and epidemics lowered populations down to sustainable levels. The only way to avoid periodic disaster is to implement strict population controls, which have historically included both voluntary restraints, as well as coercive measures such as limits on family size and mass sterilization of “undesirable groups.”

    Malthus was wrong

    Malthus predicted a population crash by the middle of the 19th century. In reality, living standards have increased over sixty times since 1820 despite a tripling of the European population in the 18th century.1 Meanwhile, family sizes fell naturally without the need for coercive measures.
    Nevertheless, modern Malthusians perpetually extend the date of the inevitable apocalypse to the near future. Faced with the astounding growth of agricultural yields which virtually eliminated hunger in the West, environmentalists are continually discovering new resources to run out of, whether fossil fuels, metals, land, or water. The discrepancy is explained by two errors in the Malthusian model: the population growth rate is not exponential, while the potential growth in human productivity is.

    Family size is subject to individual cost/benefit analysis

    The reason for the natural decline in population growth rates is that children are much more expensive in industrial countries. Increasing productivity levels in the developed world mean higher standards of living, lower child mortality, and a higher opportunity cost of having children. Child labor is no longer necessary for families to survive, and children have become expensive in terms of both direct expenses and lost economic opportunities for parents. Rather than working in farms or factories to keep younger siblings alive, a smaller number of kids can take care of parents in old age. Welfare programs for seniors have actually tipped the balance below equilibrium levels in most developed nations.

    Capitalism allows unlimited productivity improvements

    Malthusian scenarios assume that the resources available to meet human needs are fixed — that each new human being requires a fixed amount of land, metal, and fossil fuels to live. But human values are ever-shifting, and so are the means to provide those values. Each baby born not only creates new demand for the products of civilization, but also provides new resources and insight for meeting those needs.

    Our living standards are rising because we are finding more efficient ways to harvest existing resources, and improving the technology to produce the goods we consume. We are also exploiting new resources to create those goods. Whale oil, rubber trees, and native forests for paper and fuel have been replaced by petroleum, plastics, tree farms, and coal. This is possible because a free society allows a growing capital and knowledge base to be multiplied by entrepreneurs who find new methods to improve human life, resulting an exponential growth in wealth.

    Malthus’s model applies to animals and collectivists

    The Malthusian population model is not entirely without merit. Charles Darwin realized that it applies to the animal kingdom because animals lack the capacity to volitionally control reproductive rates, and their productivity is fixed by biology. Whereas humans adopt to environmental changes, animal populations can crash rapidly when the carrying capacity of their environment changes.

    Human society experiences the same pattern in preindustrial and totalitarian societies. Whether it is the crushing mold of tradition or stagnant socialist states, when the potential of human beings to apply their mind to improve their quality of life is stifled, humans are reduced to survival on the animal level, and suffer similar cycles of periodic famines."

    "And the fact that production is placed above everything, even the survival of our species, is a product of our civilization and culture that isolates us from the world around us."

    Production is how we survive. I could care less about "the world around us"; what does that even mean? If you wish to continue, you may want to start defining exactly what you mean.

    "I consider you less human than Native Americans, or any indigenous culture if you think that nature is your enemy. Nature is the reason there is life."

    Good. As I said before, I'd be more offended to be labeled a "hero" by your barbaric, contradictory, and foolish view of existence.

    *http://oneminute.rationalmind.net/overpopulation/

    By Blogger Anon., at 5:38 PM  

  • Wow this guy that wrote this is a true shithead.!! Three years later how is the current phase of 'too big to fail' capitalism working out for you, asswipe? Rising sea levels, an economic collapse propped up by some bullshit bailouts, bp fucking up the gulf, etc. If the 'primitive' are 'barely human' as you so eloquently stated, you have a very narrowly defined humanity. Answer me this dickhead: what is the goal of the 'progress' that you believe in so strongly? Remember, to paraphrase some shithead US statesman, the west did not triumph because of the moral superiority of its ideals. Rather, its superior military technology. We tend to forget that. Those on the receiving end of our economic and foreign policy do not. On a side note, i can only hope that the author of this blog watched the mutual funds that his parents set aside for him shrink to nothing. After all, the beauty of capitalism is watching those who are facing adversity pull themselves up through hard work and perserverence. Y'know, like post colonial africa and stuff.

    By Blogger monarchy, at 10:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home