As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

1192022242540

Posts

  • NeoflyNeofly Registered User regular
    Hey rayofash.

    You should explain to us why you believe that business should be able to discriminate people based on their race.

  • chocoboliciouschocobolicious Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So hey, where do I go to get a lobotomy so I can properly take part in this movement?

    Sarcasm aside! Want to know why I think the concept is so terrible?

    I give you: Occupy Wall Street. There is your attempted libertarian socialist movement in action.

    Man, look at all the great things they did and how they never disagreed and their tent communities were a bastion of peace and loving humanity.

    I mean aside from the theft, rape, fighting, horrible living conditions and putrid human waste.

    Utopia!

    chocobolicious on
    steam_sig.png
  • CaptainNemoCaptainNemo Registered User regular
    Occupy Wall Street, while it had the best of intentions, always seemed more masturbatory then the Kony 2012 founder.

    PSN:CaptainNemo1138
    Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.

    So, I'm reading this book, 'City of Quartz'. Did you actually read this book before recommending it?

    I mean, the first thing that should be said is that Davis wanted to use this manuscript as a thesis to get a PhD, but it was rejected in peer review. In otherwords, some of the information in here is being misrepresented or is outright wrong; I'm not sure what, of course - I'd have to go digging, and I don't have the time tonight.


    In any case, Davis uses the Llano Del Rio commune as a cautionary example of how things can go wrong. It was not a 'society' - it was a small town of just over a thousand people living in the middle of the desert, led by a man who had just lost an election race. It was not a pleasant place and Davis's account of it corroborates what many critics of isolationist & decentralized communities speculate will happen: the town split into a few factions & gangs, with the town's founders maintaining control via the use of force & bribery.

    The commune exhausted the local resources and was fucking abandoned. Today it's just a ruin.

    The state did not 'intervene' with regards to the dam (which was probably a bad idea in the first place; redirecting rivers can have really terrible long-term consequences if it's done frivolously); they said they would not pay for it. They applied for subsidy, and the state told them, "No, that's okay. If you want a dam you can buy the materials & labour yourself."

    EDIT: This is the actual word-for-word quote:
    Your people do not seem to have the necessary amount of experience and maybe the sums of money it will involve

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I give you: Occupy Wall Street. There is your attempted libertarian socialist movement in action.

    Man, look at all the great things they did and how they never disagreed and their tent communities were a bastion of peace and loving humanity.

    I mean aside from the theft, rape, fighting, horrible living conditions and putrid human waste.

    Um, no. OWS was a protest against the sort of ideals generally held by Libertarians. If it's fizzled-out, that's largely because people prefer to sit at home and whine rather than get off of their ass and do something.

    Yes, crime happened within the gatherings. I thought you were one of those non-idealists who 'lived in the real world' where things are messy and not everyone plays nice?


    In any case, it's not an example of libertarian or socialist anything. It's an example that even an extremely docile public can eventually get pushed past a breaking point.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I give you: Occupy Wall Street. There is your attempted libertarian socialist movement in action.

    Man, look at all the great things they did and how they never disagreed and their tent communities were a bastion of peace and loving humanity.

    I mean aside from the theft, rape, fighting, horrible living conditions and putrid human waste.

    Um, no. OWS was a protest against the sort of ideals generally held by Libertarians. If it's fizzled-out, that's largely because people prefer to sit at home and whine rather than get off of their ass and do something.

    Yes, crime happened within the gatherings. I thought you were one of those non-idealists who 'lived in the real world' where things are messy and not everyone plays nice?


    In any case, it's not an example of libertarian or socialist anything. It's an example that even an extremely docile public can eventually get pushed past a breaking point.

    I think you'll find that OWS fizzled because people preferred to sit on their ass in parks and whine over doing anything. They never coalesced into a message because they were too busy trying to his consensus and be inclusive. The way the camps were run is fairly similar to the way libertarians would run their community, particularly this socialist libertarian thing that RayofAsh is describing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    They never coalesced into a message because they were too busy trying to his consensus and be inclusive.

    There was no 'message' to deliver. I mean, perhaps you could boil it down to, "Fuck this shit," or "Fuck Goldmann Sachs and their associates,"

    OWS provided valuable insight in any case, in my opinion, simply by gauging how the state reacted: with incredible violence. The King's Court is to be protected at all costs and all of the lovely liberties that represent the best of the United States are immediately forfeit for anyone found to be trespassing.

    DHS now apparently considers them a threat to national security, which is very interesting to me.

    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    8->

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Well, whatever. Goldman stole your money and walked away laughing. No arrests were made, no charges laid, nothing.

    Protesters show up in Zucotti park and elsewhere, and immediately the police are out in force, using weapons, throwing protesters into walls / windows, running down protesters with vehicles, etc.


    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

    OWS would be impossible in a libertarian (right-anarchist) country because everywhere in the country would be owned by someone, and protest would only be possible in a place where the property owner permitted it, i.e. nowhere. Property rights, FTW!

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

    OWS would be impossible in a libertarian (right-anarchist) country because everywhere in the country would be owned by someone, and protest would only be possible in a place where the property owner permitted it, i.e. nowhere. Property rights, FTW!

    In a libertarian country, OWS would likely be a straight up peasant-revolt. Wall St would be a fortified bunker by now, presuming they figured out what was happening fast enough to make it one before a bunch of angry 20-somethings set fire to the ground floor and let banking executives, secretaries, contractors and janitors choose between testing out fire-proofing and figuring out how to fly.

    Where's the fire department you might ask?

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Let me explain Libertarianism to you. It was around 1920-ish, and moral panic was at it's height. Circumcision was entering common practice, prohibition was creeping up the horizon, and prostitution was being dragged from the brothel to the gutter while fascists spewed their filth on the air, in the news-ledgers, and right next door. Sane, right-thinking men and women believed that they beheld the end of America.

    Aleister Crowley came up with what he thought was a solution. "Don't try to regulate morality because it ends up with someone disapproving of your shit, just illegalize acts where one party harms another without their consent." This was corrupted in the same way that "Maybe we should elect intelligent, qualified people." became "DEMOCRACY IS UNSCIENTIFIC DIPLOMA MILLS AND DIET PILLS."

    Rayofash is basically a teenage anarchist who dreams of living in a freetown, but who doesn't understand that freetowns/freeburgs/autonomist enclaves can only develop as trendypoor neighborhoods inside of cities, because otherwise they devolve into coercion of the most terrifying sort. The problem with autonomy is that if you succeed, failure will follow.

    Edith Upwards on
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I have a few questions. Someone please actually read it.


    1) What do anarchists/socialist libertarians/{RoA and that other dude in this thread} actually want? Are they just debating purely abstract concepts? Or do they want to see their ideals of societies implemented? Is this something meant for 4 centuries ahead, or next month?

    2) If they do want to see a socialist libertarian (or whatever name) society, how big they expect/want it to be? An isolated survivalist community far up a montain/isle/desert, something like those last few uncontacted native tribes in Brasil? Maybe they want to see the entire USA become their dream? North America? Or the entire world?

    3) Considering the magnitude of this desired new society as questioned above, how would they see it being implemented? The isolated few people is easy to see. But what about an entire country, or continent, or the world?


    I make those questions because the purely theoretical debate is like a puppy chasing its tail, as another poster has shown.

    I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.

    As for a time span it can happen within a few months to a few years if people really wanted to work towards it, the Free State Project already has 15 free staters in New Hampshire's congress.

    >And what's to stop people with guns from fucking up that plan?

    What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.
    What's to stop people from doing it now? Government and their agencies. You didn't really answer any of my questions other than the first. What if a large part of the population rejects the socialist libertarian shift? Who's gonna move away to another area?

    What about people driven by religion? The shit-town I'm living is mostly dominated by awful money grabbing "fake" neo-pentecostal churches of the worst, most predatory kind. Thousands of brainless sheep. They're not Amish. They just do whatever the so called Shepherds tell them to do. How would those people become truly free? They'd just become slaves to a theocracy.

    You seem to think that the USA is representative of all the rest of the world. It's not. At all. In any way or sense. Brazil is a prosperous, growing, enriching emergent country. We're lending money to the IMF. We have a stable, solid federal democratic government, with no risk of revolts, revolutions or coups. Even then, in several major cities, there are heavily armed criminal organizations that control partially or totally some very poor areas. The state is taking those areas back, but the fact remains that there are heavily armed criminal organizations that would take over any and all libertarian, non-state protected communities.

    Another example: whenever the landless-movement invades some farm or rural property, they end up being manipulated by some politically inclined assholes.

    Outside the USA you can see, today, millions, even billions of people living in a reality that completely precludes those silly dreams you talk about.
    The entire recorded history of humankind is a long parade of failed examples of what you preach.

    It can and will work very well in completely isolated, almost incestuous communities, but it's just impossible when inserted in a larger context.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Libertarianism, especially the kind that RayofAsh subscribes to, is based on the same principle as theoretical communism and capitalism - that is, people will work together for the common good.

    When you boil the pure philosophies down, this is pretty much all of the idealistic ones. They depend on this concept of human selflessness that has never occurred on anything beyond an individual level. Communism requires everyone to co-operate and follow the rules, even those with power. Capitalism requires everyone to co-operate and follow the rules, even those with power. And Libertarianism requires everyone to co-operate and follow the rules, especially those with power.

    The problem is, power centralizes as a result of human behavior and people with power rarely follow the rules, even with hefty consequences for breaking them. Rayofash proposes a solution where the consequences for breaking the rules are entirely the responsibility of those without power attempting to hold those with accountable. It's an amazing blindness because it simply ignores how anyone with any power will act.

    You can look at the abuses that brought about the current recession as the most recent very public example of how human nature operates. Even with rules in place, and even with consequences laid out, gaming the system was so rampant that when the house of cards fell, it nearly collapsed the entire world economy. Canada was the only first world nation that did not feel the full effect of the collapse because the government was coercing the banks into not doing that shit. Coercing with the threat of force.

    Coercion by an agent with a monopoly on violence is the most stabilizing influence the world has ever seen. Of course it's abused, welcome to the human race, but any society where small groups each have their own claim on violence is tribalism, and tribalism has universally resulted in constant conflict and a nearly stagnant society.

    Why did civilizations like the Romans or Ottomans or Mongols or currently the US, amass so much power and push technology forward so much? By unifying the people under a central authority. It's no accident that when the European colonists arrived in the new world they were leaps and bounds ahead of the aboriginals in technology - tribalism is antithetical to the the idea of co-operative advancement of a civilization.

    Libertarian enclaves like what you suggest, RayofAsh, is just modern tribalism. And tribalism fails. Always has.

    Why do you think you're so much smarter than all the ones who've actually tried this? What makes you the enlightened one?

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Why did civilizations like the Romans or Ottomans or Mongols or currently the US, amass so much power and push technology forward so much? By unifying the people under a central authority. It's no accident that when the European colonists arrived in the new world they were leaps and bounds ahead of the aboriginals in technology - tribalism is antithetical to the the idea of co-operative advancement of a civilization.

    Libertarian enclaves like what you suggest, RayofAsh, is just modern tribalism. And tribalism fails. Always has.
    First of all, tribalism does not always fail. There are tribal societies still living on Earth who have lived that way for ten times as long as civilization or agriculture have existed. 99% of human existence on this planet has been tribal, and it worked pretty well judging by our species continued existence. In fact, I would argue that tribalism has a much better track record than civilization, given that the latter way of life has only taken ten thousand years to bring the world's ecosystems to the brink of collapse.

    Secondly, all your first paragraph is saying is that technological civilization is better at technological civilization than hunter gatherer societies. Obviously. The better question is whether technological advancement should be the underlying goal of humanity.

    People seem to think of civilized man as being 'ahead' of nomadic tribes on some linear path. I would argue instead that the two are qualitatively different roads, and that we have not progressed beyond hunter gatherers so much as we've taken a different evolutionary path. I'd also argue that this path is increasingly looking like a dead end and that turning around should not be out of the question.

    RayofAsh is suggesting a form of society which may be incompatible with modern population density and technological infrastructure. Maybe the choice we're calling attention to here is that between technological civilization and nature (both human nature and the rest of it). Not a real hard choice by my standards.

  • Tiger BurningTiger Burning Dig if you will, the pictureRegistered User, SolidSaints Tube regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Why did civilizations like the Romans or Ottomans or Mongols or currently the US, amass so much power and push technology forward so much? By unifying the people under a central authority. It's no accident that when the European colonists arrived in the new world they were leaps and bounds ahead of the aboriginals in technology - tribalism is antithetical to the the idea of co-operative advancement of a civilization.

    Libertarian enclaves like what you suggest, RayofAsh, is just modern tribalism. And tribalism fails. Always has.
    First of all, tribalism does not always fail. There are tribal societies still living on Earth who have lived that way for ten times as long as civilization or agriculture have existed. 99% of human existence on this planet has been tribal, and it worked pretty well judging by our species continued existence. In fact, I would argue that tribalism has a much better track record than civilization, given that the latter way of life has only taken ten thousand years to bring the world's ecosystems to the brink of collapse.

    Secondly, all your first paragraph is saying is that technological civilization is better at technological civilization than hunter gatherer societies. Obviously. The better question is whether technological advancement should be the underlying goal of humanity.

    People seem to think of civilized man as being 'ahead' of nomadic tribes on some linear path. I would argue instead that the two are qualitatively different roads, and that we have not progressed beyond hunter gatherers so much as we've taken a different evolutionary path. I'd also argue that this path is increasingly looking like a dead end and that turning around should not be out of the question.

    RayofAsh is suggesting a form of society which may be incompatible with modern population density and technological infrastructure. Maybe the choice we're calling attention to here is that between technological civilization and nature (both human nature and the rest of it). Not a real hard choice by my standards.

    You first. Can I have your internet and 80 year life expectancy?

    Ain't no particular sign I'm more compatible with
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    RayofAsh is suggesting a form of society which may be incompatible with modern population density and technological infrastructure. Maybe the choice we're calling attention to here is that between technological civilization and nature (both human nature and the rest of it). Not a real hard choice by my standards.

    Ray's society's best chance to survive would be within a modern society, which they can fall back on when things get to crazy or run out of resources. Another drawback is without a strong government to protect them Ray's society would fall the second a third party with heavier firepower decides they want their stuff. With no stable police force or military to protect it they'd be easy pickings. Assuming it survives that long in the first place.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    I see modern civilization as better than tribalism because, like Tiger has mentioned, scientific progress bloomed under centralized authority and mankind is objectively better off now with greater life expectancy, low infant mortality, low maternal mortality, improved wellness in general. All of these things are the result of medical progress and a deeper understanding of human physiology as well as movement away from mystical culture.

    There is definitely a romanticized view of tribal societies as some kind of abandoned utopia, but it's fantasy. Tribal societies have functioned for millennia, but I wouldn't say they have succeeded. At least, not like centralized civilization has.

    Or would you say that the European dominance of tribal societies all over the glove over the couple centuries of the British empire was an anomaly?

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    You first. Can I have your internet and 80 year life expectancy?
    Yes, if I can have enough undisturbed forest to feed myself and my tribe. But I can't, because civilization's growth is uncontrolled and over time excludes anything that isn't itself from existence. So no, you can't have those things, and neither can I and neither can anyone else.

    I'll put it another way. Human population is going to have to decrease. We cannot keep growing without catastrophic collapse. Either we consciously reorient our policy to gradually reduce population, reduce dependence on technological infrastructure, and bring humanity more in line with nature, or we suffer all of those things in a much faster, more painful way. The separation between man and nature is illusory; if we keep living like it's real we invite disaster. The point I'm making is that the environmental limits of Earth mean we have no choice but to restrain ourselves. Either we consciously attempt to control our decline, or we keep ignoring said decline's inevitability and die by the billions in war and famine.

  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    Wait, you're suggesting that we should concentrate less on technology and more on....what? Breaking up societies into warring factions in order to ensure survival of the human race? I'm not sure I get what you mean by being more like nature. Every time a population of animals has had the opportunity to explode, it does, and results in catastrophe.

    You're right that we need to be better stewards of our environment, but nature's way is to engage in rampant population growth until collapse. That is what nature does.

    We should not do that.

  • chrisnlchrisnl Registered User regular
    Whether tribalism or centralized civilization is preferable is going to depend on what is considered better, improved human standard of living or the ecology of the planet. I'm a big fan of modern life and technology, being able to explore what if scenarios at leisure and not having to worry if I'll have enough food to eat and suitable shelter every night is wonderful.

    I see from the Wikipedia article (yeah I was lazy and just wanted an overview) that Brazil has a system fairly similar to that of the USA, with directly elected representatives and executive, but manages to have more than two parties of any size. I'm curious as to why this has developed in Brazil, but stubbornly refuses to develop in the USA. Also I'm curious as to what sort of downsides the people of Brazil perceive in this setup, as compared to the two party system the USA is operating under.

    steam_sig.png
  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    You first. Can I have your internet and 80 year life expectancy?
    Yes, if I can have enough undisturbed forest to feed myself and my tribe. But I can't, because civilization's growth is uncontrolled and over time excludes anything that isn't itself from existence. So no, you can't have those things, and neither can I and neither can anyone else.

    I'll put it another way. Human population is going to have to decrease. We cannot keep growing without catastrophic collapse. Either we consciously reorient our policy to gradually reduce population, reduce dependence on technological infrastructure, and bring humanity more in line with nature, or we suffer all of those things in a much faster, more painful way. The separation between man and nature is illusory; if we keep living like it's real we invite disaster. The point I'm making is that the environmental limits of Earth mean we have no choice but to restrain ourselves. Either we consciously attempt to control our decline, or we keep ignoring said decline's inevitability and die by the billions in war and famine.

    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.

    This isn't to say that destroying natural resources or environments is a good thing, it isn't at all and should be limited for sure, but pretending that those problems are not solvable in multiple ways is incredibly short sighted. We don't have to lock ourselves into the idea we can only exist as we do now or as we did in the past, technology offers promises for other ways to allow humans to live.

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Nova_C wrote: »
    I see modern civilization as better than tribalism because, like Tiger has mentioned, scientific progress bloomed under centralized authority and mankind is objectively better off now with greater life expectancy, low infant mortality, low maternal mortality, improved wellness in general. All of these things are the result of medical progress and a deeper understanding of human physiology as well as movement away from mystical culture.

    There is definitely a romanticized view of tribal societies as some kind of abandoned utopia, but it's fantasy. Tribal societies have functioned for millennia, but I wouldn't say they have succeeded. At least, not like centralized civilization has.

    Or would you say that the European dominance of tribal societies all over the glove over the couple centuries of the British empire was an anomaly?
    Longer lives and lower mortality levels are not objective goods. And tribal societies managed to exist not just for millennia, but for hundreds of millennia, and to spread across the globe without destroying it. We can't say that modern civilization is more successful without taking its prognosis into account. Yes, it's successful in the short term, or when judging merely by our own population's expansion. But what about the rest of life, and what about the future? Our expansion has come at great cost to Nature, and as much as we try to deny it we're nothing but Nature. We need a biologically diverse planet to sustain life, and civilization's trend has been to eradicate biodiversity and non-human life at a frightening rate. Is a brief flash followed by an extinguishing gust of wind more successful than a slow, controlled, steady flame?

    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Nova_C wrote: »
    Wait, you're suggesting that we should concentrate less on technology and more on....what? Breaking up societies into warring factions in order to ensure survival of the human race?
    We already consist of warring factions; the factions are just bigger and their wars more catastrophic. Remember the 20th century? World Wars 1 and 2? Or the Cold War, where we barely restrained ourselves from fighting a battle that would have destroyed all of humanity and most everything else? Yes, I am advocating decentralization of authority in order to ensure survival of the human race.

    Kaputa on
  • Nova_CNova_C I have the need The need for speedRegistered User regular
    You're right, in that the interaction between nation-states is large scale tribalism, and these interactions show what is, I think, a weakness. The Cold War was an era of mutually assured destruction, which prevented the two most powerful nations from directly going toe to toe, and instead fighting proxy wars through neighboring tribes.

    The thing is, scorched earth policies was very typical of tribal conflicts. If you lose ground to an enemy, burn everything to the ground to prevent that enemy for gaining an advantage with that territory. You suggest going back to that with nuclear weapons in the mix?

    Do you honestly think that a small, insular, homogenous community with access to nuclear weapons isn't going to straight up glass a radically different community they are in conflict with? The more racially and culturally homogenous a society is, the more powerful ideas of racial purity and superiority permeate that society.

    I think returning to tribalism in the modern world is the quickest way to absolute destruction and total ruin of the environment.

  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    Please show me one still-surviving ancient tribal society that wasn't and isn't still geographically isolated.

    I don't think that tribal societies are better or worse then ours, but they only survive long by not meeting centralized societies or because no one wants their land. It's a sad and unfortunate part of the dynamics of humanity.

    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
  • Z0reZ0re Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Nature does not have agency and describes literally everything in existence... including modern human society/culture and things like genetic engineering. Ascribing some arbitrary 'rules' to nature, or believing that they don't change is a myopic and limited view.

    Life reshapes the Earth and has done so for its entire existence. The breathable atmosphere we have is an 'unnatural' waste byproduct of millions of years of various gas producing organisms that radically changed everything about their environment. Humans aren't even nearly on the same scale as that yet.

    What rules exist in your mind that humans should bow to instead of trying to change?

    Z0re on
  • CapfalconCapfalcon Tunnel Snakes Rule Capital WastelandRegistered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.

  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    So, where are these rules of capital N Nature? Nowhere? Cool.

    Obviously we have to work within a system, and that's what we've been doing. That's what every species does. But there is not some mystical force we have to appease. We need only know the rules of what is physically possible.

    You talk about rights, which seems really out of place. Why shouldn't we reengineer nature (lowercase n) to suit ourselves? Even if we strictly adhered to "Nature" we do so with the intention of doing the best for ourselves. We have simply advanced to a point that we are allowed to change those rules, and so it would be counterintuitive to NOT change those rules. Even farming is changing the rules, yo.

    As far as consideration of other species, we need to draw the line somewhere, because life is necessarily destructive. You are suggesting an unworkable adherence to some natural law, which really has no basis for being considered superior to other goals. Even in the best of outcomes we go back to a hunter gatherer society, which is hardly conducive to meaningful, happy living. I suggest that we favor organisms capable of experiencing pleasure and pain and try to do the best we can to make everyone happy without unnecessarily trammeling on the interests of others.

    Now, we've done a shit job of that, and you are right to worry about overpopulation and environmental damage. This is not an unavoidable outcome of our goals. This is because of short term thinking, a lack of information, and a desire to maintain the status quo by those in power. The answer, then, is to change our strategy, but not our goals. This is compatible with technological development and expansion, and I have even given moral consideration to other living things. This does not demand that we go back to being a hunter gatherer society.

    sig.gif
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.
    I simply don't trust our ability to create an ecosystem with the checks and balances it needs. We aren't that good at it. Genetically engineered food hasn't upset the balance too much yet. But Z0re's comment suggests a more comprehensive or at least expansive reengineering of Earth's ecosystem, and as far as science has come, I do not think we know nearly enough to reshape things on such a scale without upsetting dynamic equilibrium in unpredictable ways. Nothing can happen without affecting everything else, and we cannot exist independently of the rest of life on earth. Natural selection alters genetic code in a gradual, holistic way. Our heavy handed manipulations occur more rapidly, without taking the whole system into account.
    Z0re wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Nature does not have agency and describes literally everything in existence... including modern human society/culture and things like genetic engineering. Ascribing some arbitrary 'rules' to nature, or believing that they don't change is a myopic and limited view.

    Life reshapes the Earth and has done so for its entire existence. The breathable atmosphere we have is an 'unnatural' waste byproduct of millions of years of various gas producing organisms that radically changed everything about their environment. Humans aren't even nearly on the same scale as that yet.

    What rules exist in your mind that humans should bow to instead of trying to change?
    I'm aware that vast changes have occurred in Earth's history, some greater than anything we've done and some as a direct result of life. And I agree we are a part of nature, as are our technologies and societies- in fact, that's pretty much my point. Nature does have agency, in as much as we are nature and we have agency, and we should take the rest of life into account when we do things on a great scale. We as organisms are not evolving fast enough to cope with the level of change we're inflicting on the world. In the long run, life in some form will adapt and thrive no matter what we do, but for our continued existence we need a world recognizably like the one that produced us, so I'm of the opinion that we should be cautious about changing it in drastic ways.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.

    There's this thing called irrigation, it is an unnatural abomination unto the eyes of god and nature.

    Environmentalism is good, and it is true that there is no possible way "American Lifestyle" resource consumption can be sustained across the current population, let alone the population that is yet to come given current growth rates. But saying a billion people need to die and we need to get back to Avatar-level anarcho-primitivism is a non-starter.

    GM food is like oxygen, while it is technically possible to get oxygen poisoning, it requires particularly weird circumstances to come about, circumstances which you will see coming.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

    OWS would be impossible in a libertarian (right-anarchist) country because everywhere in the country would be owned by someone, and protest would only be possible in a place where the property owner permitted it, i.e. nowhere. Property rights, FTW!

    In a libertarian country, OWS would likely be a straight up peasant-revolt. Wall St would be a fortified bunker by now, presuming they figured out what was happening fast enough to make it one before a bunch of angry 20-somethings set fire to the ground floor and let banking executives, secretaries, contractors and janitors choose between testing out fire-proofing and figuring out how to fly.

    Where's the fire department you might ask?

    You're all missing the point about OWS being brought up; a proven failure of direct democracy. The way the camps were run is much the same as RayofAsh would havve communities run and it led to dithering and nothing happened. No one is saying that OWS is full of libertarians, that'd be stupid, but their system of leaderless consensus is basically how a libertarian imagines government should be run and it's crap.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.

    There's this thing called irrigation, it is an unnatural abomination unto the eyes of god and nature.
    You say this a joke, but if I had been around when we came up with that idea I'd have said that altering the distribution of flowing water could have devastating, unforeseen consequences and advised against it.

    Well, maybe I wouldn't have, but only because I might not have been aware of the fact that we have an upper limit on growth. That's central to me. All of this agriculture, industry, civilization shit was done without the awareness that our planet can't handle uncontrolled growth. Now, for the first time, all or most of humanity is aware of that fact to varying degrees, and is aware that said upper limit isn't too far away. A qualitatively different way of living is necessary as a result of that knowledge.
    Boring7 wrote: »
    Environmentalism is good, and it is true that there is no possible way "American Lifestyle" resource consumption can be sustained across the current population, let alone the population that is yet to come given current growth rates. But saying a billion people need to die and we need to get back to Avatar-level anarcho-primitivism is a non-starter.
    I'm advocating what I see as the only way to avoid a mass die off like that. Population must be reduced. Maybe with enlightened policy making that reduction can happen gradually, with a minimum of pain and suffering. "Controlled decline" is the term I use to refer to my ideal political economy. I believe that human population will decrease drastically regardless of our decision- we either acknowledge it and attempt a soft landing, or we ignore it and crash hard. Is anarcho-primitivism the end goal of a controlled decline? Maybe, maybe not, but we can worry about that after we've stepped back from the apocalyptic precipice we're currently hurtling towards at top speed.

    Kaputa on
  • BehemothBehemoth Compulsive Seashell Collector Registered User regular
    [
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.
    I simply don't trust our ability to create an ecosystem with the checks and balances it needs. We aren't that good at it. Genetically engineered food hasn't upset the balance too much yet. But Z0re's comment suggests a more comprehensive or at least expansive reengineering of Earth's ecosystem, and as far as science has come, I do not think we know nearly enough to reshape things on such a scale without upsetting dynamic equilibrium in unpredictable ways. Nothing can happen without affecting everything else, and we cannot exist independently of the rest of life on earth. Natural selection alters genetic code in a gradual, holistic way. Our heavy handed manipulations occur more rapidly, without taking the whole system into account.
    Z0re wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Nature does not have agency and describes literally everything in existence... including modern human society/culture and things like genetic engineering. Ascribing some arbitrary 'rules' to nature, or believing that they don't change is a myopic and limited view.

    Life reshapes the Earth and has done so for its entire existence. The breathable atmosphere we have is an 'unnatural' waste byproduct of millions of years of various gas producing organisms that radically changed everything about their environment. Humans aren't even nearly on the same scale as that yet.

    What rules exist in your mind that humans should bow to instead of trying to change?
    I'm aware that vast changes have occurred in Earth's history, some greater than anything we've done and some as a direct result of life. And I agree we are a part of nature, as are our technologies and societies- in fact, that's pretty much my point. Nature does have agency, in as much as we are nature and we have agency, and we should take the rest of life into account when we do things on a great scale. We as organisms are not evolving fast enough to cope with the level of change we're inflicting on the world. In the long run, life in some form will adapt and thrive no matter what we do, but for our continued existence we need a world recognizably like the one that produced us, so I'm of the opinion that we should be cautious about changing it in drastic ways.

    Okay? I fail to see how this is an argument for going back to small, isolated populations of humans with no central authority. It's much easier to put limits on human's changes to the environment with a strong centralized authority. In fact, if we could centralize power even more these problems would be infinitely easier to deal with. Imagine if Chinese and Indian factories had to follow US environmental protection laws?

    If there were small community groups, with our level of technology, the results could be catastrophic. Any individual group would have no reason to protect the environment around any other group. Maybe they come and burn down their forests, or just dump the runoff from their mines/factories/whatever in a rival group's fields.

    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Behemoth wrote: »
    [
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.
    I simply don't trust our ability to create an ecosystem with the checks and balances it needs. We aren't that good at it. Genetically engineered food hasn't upset the balance too much yet. But Z0re's comment suggests a more comprehensive or at least expansive reengineering of Earth's ecosystem, and as far as science has come, I do not think we know nearly enough to reshape things on such a scale without upsetting dynamic equilibrium in unpredictable ways. Nothing can happen without affecting everything else, and we cannot exist independently of the rest of life on earth. Natural selection alters genetic code in a gradual, holistic way. Our heavy handed manipulations occur more rapidly, without taking the whole system into account.
    Z0re wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Nature does not have agency and describes literally everything in existence... including modern human society/culture and things like genetic engineering. Ascribing some arbitrary 'rules' to nature, or believing that they don't change is a myopic and limited view.

    Life reshapes the Earth and has done so for its entire existence. The breathable atmosphere we have is an 'unnatural' waste byproduct of millions of years of various gas producing organisms that radically changed everything about their environment. Humans aren't even nearly on the same scale as that yet.

    What rules exist in your mind that humans should bow to instead of trying to change?
    I'm aware that vast changes have occurred in Earth's history, some greater than anything we've done and some as a direct result of life. And I agree we are a part of nature, as are our technologies and societies- in fact, that's pretty much my point. Nature does have agency, in as much as we are nature and we have agency, and we should take the rest of life into account when we do things on a great scale. We as organisms are not evolving fast enough to cope with the level of change we're inflicting on the world. In the long run, life in some form will adapt and thrive no matter what we do, but for our continued existence we need a world recognizably like the one that produced us, so I'm of the opinion that we should be cautious about changing it in drastic ways.

    Okay? I fail to see how this is an argument for going back to small, isolated populations of humans with no central authority. It's much easier to put limits on human's changes to the environment with a strong centralized authority. In fact, if we could centralize power even more these problems would be infinitely easier to deal with. Imagine if Chinese and Indian factories had to follow US environmental protection laws?

    If there were small community groups, with our level of technology, the results could be catastrophic. Any individual group would have no reason to protect the environment around any other group. Maybe they come and burn down their forests, or just dump the runoff from their mines/factories/whatever in a rival group's fields.
    I see where you're coming from. But smaller, decentralized groups of humans simply can't maintain our level of technology. The destructive behemoth that is modern industrial civilization needs centralized authority, or its infrastructure breaks down. Decentralization goes hand in hand with a reduction in dependence on technology. It's not just that Texas gets to make cars with no gas mileage standards since New England is no longer forcing environmental regulations on them. It's that there's no one driving around the country in the first place because an interstate highway system is no longer needed to connect vastly separate parts of one nation-state (and because no one has the time or money to maintain it). Yes, there would be less standardized regulation, but the processes being regulated would be on a much smaller scale and wouldn't be able to cause as much damage. Vast, energy-intensive international shipping networks only need oversight if they exist in the first place.

    Once again, I'm advocating a gradual process in place of a sudden change. I think we're headed toward decentralization with less dependence on technological infrastructure whether we like it or not. The question is, do we purposefully head in that direction and try to figure it out step by step, or do we wait until industrial collapse forces it on an unprepared populace all at once?

    Kaputa on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Why would you think we're headed toward decentralization and less dependence on technology when every indicator in the world is the opposite?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Brian KrakowBrian Krakow Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

    OWS would be impossible in a libertarian (right-anarchist) country because everywhere in the country would be owned by someone, and protest would only be possible in a place where the property owner permitted it, i.e. nowhere. Property rights, FTW!

    In a libertarian country, OWS would likely be a straight up peasant-revolt. Wall St would be a fortified bunker by now, presuming they figured out what was happening fast enough to make it one before a bunch of angry 20-somethings set fire to the ground floor and let banking executives, secretaries, contractors and janitors choose between testing out fire-proofing and figuring out how to fly.

    Where's the fire department you might ask?

    You're all missing the point about OWS being brought up; a proven failure of direct democracy. The way the camps were run is much the same as RayofAsh would havve communities run and it led to dithering and nothing happened. No one is saying that OWS is full of libertarians, that'd be stupid, but their system of leaderless consensus is basically how a libertarian imagines government should be run and it's crap.

    OWS was never about doing anything beyond protesting economic inequality and related issues. People who complain about its "directionless" nature remind me of people who complain about the UN's inability to impose world peace: you're missing the point and expecting the impossible.

    Direct democracy is fine for relatively small, likeminded groups.

    Brian Krakow on
  • BehemothBehemoth Compulsive Seashell Collector Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Behemoth wrote: »
    [
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Capfalcon wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    I gotta say, while I disagree with most of what you're saying, this stuck out to me.

    This is a bad argument. It has no reason other than "Things shouldn't change because things shouldn't change." Why are you opposed to genetic engineering? Really, you've probably eaten genetically engineered food already, and I guarantee you couldn't tell the difference between a dish with it and a dish without it.
    I simply don't trust our ability to create an ecosystem with the checks and balances it needs. We aren't that good at it. Genetically engineered food hasn't upset the balance too much yet. But Z0re's comment suggests a more comprehensive or at least expansive reengineering of Earth's ecosystem, and as far as science has come, I do not think we know nearly enough to reshape things on such a scale without upsetting dynamic equilibrium in unpredictable ways. Nothing can happen without affecting everything else, and we cannot exist independently of the rest of life on earth. Natural selection alters genetic code in a gradual, holistic way. Our heavy handed manipulations occur more rapidly, without taking the whole system into account.
    Z0re wrote: »
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Z0re wrote: »
    Or we escape the earth, or genetically engineer the environment or ourselves to suit whatever ourselves.
    I discount these sorts of ideas for two reasons. Most importantly, it seems extremely unlikely that we are going to manage space travel in time to ameliorate the overpopulation/energy/environmental collapse issue. Two, what right have we to simply reengineer Nature to suit us and only us? We are not above Nature. We should stop trying to rewrite the rules and start accepting them.

    Have you heard of the naturalistic fallacy? Nature does not have agency and describes literally everything in existence... including modern human society/culture and things like genetic engineering. Ascribing some arbitrary 'rules' to nature, or believing that they don't change is a myopic and limited view.

    Life reshapes the Earth and has done so for its entire existence. The breathable atmosphere we have is an 'unnatural' waste byproduct of millions of years of various gas producing organisms that radically changed everything about their environment. Humans aren't even nearly on the same scale as that yet.

    What rules exist in your mind that humans should bow to instead of trying to change?
    I'm aware that vast changes have occurred in Earth's history, some greater than anything we've done and some as a direct result of life. And I agree we are a part of nature, as are our technologies and societies- in fact, that's pretty much my point. Nature does have agency, in as much as we are nature and we have agency, and we should take the rest of life into account when we do things on a great scale. We as organisms are not evolving fast enough to cope with the level of change we're inflicting on the world. In the long run, life in some form will adapt and thrive no matter what we do, but for our continued existence we need a world recognizably like the one that produced us, so I'm of the opinion that we should be cautious about changing it in drastic ways.

    Okay? I fail to see how this is an argument for going back to small, isolated populations of humans with no central authority. It's much easier to put limits on human's changes to the environment with a strong centralized authority. In fact, if we could centralize power even more these problems would be infinitely easier to deal with. Imagine if Chinese and Indian factories had to follow US environmental protection laws?

    If there were small community groups, with our level of technology, the results could be catastrophic. Any individual group would have no reason to protect the environment around any other group. Maybe they come and burn down their forests, or just dump the runoff from their mines/factories/whatever in a rival group's fields.
    I see where you're coming from. But smaller, decentralized groups of humans simply can't maintain our level of technology. The destructive behemoth that is modern industrial civilization needs centralized authority, or its infrastructure breaks down. Decentralization goes hand in hand with a reduction in dependence on technology. It's not just that Texas gets to make cars with no gas mileage standards since New England is no longer forcing environmental regulations on them. It's that there's no one driving around the country in the first place because an interstate highway system is no longer needed to connect vastly separate parts of one nation-state (and because no one has the time or money to maintain it). Yes, there would be less standardized regulation, but the processes being regulated would be on a much smaller scale and wouldn't be able to cause as much damage. Vast, energy-intensive international shipping networks only need oversight if they exist in the first place.

    Once again, I'm advocating a gradual process in place of a sudden change. I think we're headed toward decentralization with less dependence on technological infrastructure whether we like it or not. The question is, do we purposefully head in that direction and try to figure it out step by step, or do we wait until industrial collapse forces it on an unprepared populace all at once?

    I don't think it's possible to induce without industrial collapse. You're just not going to convince people to do a step-by-step conversion to a lower level of technology. Civilizations don't work that way.

    Behemoth on
    iQbUbQsZXyt8I.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Yeah, OWS has no place in this discussion.

    OWS would be impossible in a libertarian (right-anarchist) country because everywhere in the country would be owned by someone, and protest would only be possible in a place where the property owner permitted it, i.e. nowhere. Property rights, FTW!

    In a libertarian country, OWS would likely be a straight up peasant-revolt. Wall St would be a fortified bunker by now, presuming they figured out what was happening fast enough to make it one before a bunch of angry 20-somethings set fire to the ground floor and let banking executives, secretaries, contractors and janitors choose between testing out fire-proofing and figuring out how to fly.

    Where's the fire department you might ask?

    You're all missing the point about OWS being brought up; a proven failure of direct democracy. The way the camps were run is much the same as RayofAsh would havve communities run and it led to dithering and nothing happened. No one is saying that OWS is full of libertarians, that'd be stupid, but their system of leaderless consensus is basically how a libertarian imagines government should be run and it's crap.

    OWS was never about doing anything beyond protesting economic inequality and related issues. People who complain about its "directionless" nature remind me of people who complain about the UN's inability to impose world peace: you're missing the point and expecting the impossible.

    Direct democracy is fine for relatively small, likeminded groups.

    And OWS was mired in trying to find "consensus" because even with their small size, they were full of varied interests.

    That was the point.

    Once you get above like 20 people, direct democracy doesn't really work, this is why we invented representational democracy.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    Why would you think we're headed toward decentralization and less dependence on technology when every indicator in the world is the opposite?
    Because that's what happens when a civilization falls. Egypt, Rome, Islamic civilization, and probably countless others are decent examples. Every form of civilization rises, peaks, and falls; ours is no different and will not escape the fate of its predecessors. I see this fall as inevitable and as imminent enough that we should take it into account in setting our social and economic policies.

Sign In or Register to comment.