SG only natural - Human - resource be engine for Growth ?
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
And what about it?
You are a communist?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
You are a communist?
No.
I don't see how you can associate what I posted with "communism". Would you like to explain?
-
What is your political program?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
What is your political program?
Dont have any.
-
Political beliefs?
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Political beliefs?
As described in the above posts.
-
Judging by your posts, your political beliefs would be close to below ideas:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/faq.php
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
Judging by your posts, your political beliefs would be close to below ideas:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/faq.php
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_socialism.php
Whatever. Labels dont mean anything to me.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
So whatever I described matches these tenets of communism as developed by Marx?
By labelling something as "communism", what are you trying to imply about it? Normally, "communism" implies an undesirable, 'evil' idea. Even if you didnt even investigate it thoroughly, using a negative label already helps you reach a conclusion. Thats Orwellian 'crimestop' isnt it?
Actually, angel7030 did not do any label. It was you yourself that made the claim of label implication and went on to derogatise communism as an evil idea.
Personally, being an idealist, I find that communism is the closest to an Utopian state as any human can ever hope to aspire for. Karl Marx was right, I would unabashedly state.
BUT, being a pragmatist, and aware of humanity flaws, what Karl Marx envison is nothing more and SHOULD be nothing more than a lofty aspiration meant for novels, and not for pratical use, being that, the People would have to surrender TOO much of their own liberty into the hands of EQUALLY flawed human to control which only leads to subjugation, as seen for 70 odds in USSR and close to a !00 years for China.
Had communism benefitted both countries? None, if not, worse off than the rest of the world that followed more democratic models. Are you recommending our Singapore People to adopt communism or its tenets for pratical daily use? You gotta be kidding!
How then are politics to be governed? Is the american model the way to go? Goodness NO! Flawed, but it is as practically best right now, at our human stage of evolution.
Karl Marx or Plato, their ideas are but a human aspiration for a better civilise world. However, we are far too flawed to be ruled or rule others. To seek enforcement to force ideals is even worse, subject to even more potential abuse as USSR KGB had proven.
Theological dogmatic potentates had failed. Communism had failed. It would be crazy to repeat such political ideologies for practical usage again. The american model is far from perfection.
Best acknowledge that we are flawed and power entrusted into anyone's hand, no matter how righteous or upright he is, political left or right, opposition or ruling party, lies a POTENTIAL for disaster of tyranny.
I have no answers, except faith in further education of every single human on earth, on our developement, history, and with it, our role and responsibilities to each other, and perhaps, a better political model may arise in future, though being a contridictory pragmatist, I have not much faith in powerful humans to become detached emotionless immortals, but rather have the fullest faith in their propensity to behave as clowns instead, including myself should power be entrusted in my hands, impossible as it may be.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Whatever. Labels dont mean anything to me.
Labels may mean nothing to you but your beliefs are clearly left wing.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
With the information control in the US centralised in the hands of 5 huge corporations, I consider it extremely rare that such incidents even made the news, even if it was not followed up and subsequently dropped into the memory hole. This is what I would expect in an age of corporate interlock between the various industries.
If Watergate can bring down President Nixon, do you seriously believe that some diligent reporters will not be able to bring down a simple corporation ?
Imagine you are a doctor. You diagnose patients according to their symptoms, results of machine analysis and usually treat them with surgury or medication. Medical care is a technical process. Now, suppose a computer which is updated with all the necessary medical patterns to diagnose and treat patients replaces you, but you still get your salary. How would you like such a life? You would be freed from labour.
If you get paid for doing nothing, how did the money come about to pay for your salary ?
Who pays for the development of the machines and the softwares that replaced the Doctor ?
If we are all free from labor - who makes the machines and develop the softwares ?
In an environment where labor is removed - who will build the intelligence into machines to build themselves and the software required to operate them - ?
Developing on that example, what The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) advocates is the total removal of money. Free yourself from obsolete principles such as "No such things as free lunches" etc. Technology allows us to automate production to the extent that human labour will not be necessary anymore, and still create an abundance of food, energy and all the amenities of life, eliminating poverty and suffering at no cost because the concept of money is already irrelevant. The question isnt "Who pays?" but "Do we have the resources to do so?"
If money is removed, and the idea of "no free lunch" is made obsolete - and everything is left to machines - is there any necessity for money, or wages ?
If money is no longer necessary, how will values be measured in the ways that we are accustomed to - or will it be obsolete for "values" to even exist ?
If the question is not about "Who Pays?" - is there any relevance with the question "Do we have the resources to do so ?"
Should this question not be answered by the machines, when man is supposed to be free from such mundane activities ?
To quote from Stuart Chase's The Tyranny of Words:
"Principles are not tools by which discoveries are made, for they tend to close the mind against free inquiry. When men observe the world in the light of ideals which they consider sacred and timeless, they tend to develop priests rather than scientists...The principles of Washinton's Farewell Address are still considered sources of wisdom; the methods of [his] physician, however, are no longer studied..."
Although we could create such an advanced world today, the presence of money, creating distortions such as politics, corruption, crime, war- division within one planet, is hindering human progress because of the type of abberant behaviour that such a system promotes. When we live in a world of scarcity and division, there must the type of hierarchy you described. That social system is your frame of reference. It has nothing to do with so-called human 'nature', which is meaningless because the only thing observable is human BEHAVIOUR. While we have space-age technology, our social system and values are still that of the stone-age's. It is this understanding that separates TZM from other social organisations.
Has money created distortions such as politics, corruptions, crime, war - divisions within one planet (?) - or has these negatives distorted the function of money ?
Is the Stone Age not closer to your Z.A concept of equilibrium in man's needs and nature's limited resources ?
The Tyranny of Words is in the simplistic concept promoted by Z.A. to deride the present system, even when it has not resolved its core issues but will be audacious to delve on the prospective free abundance without labor.
The amount of corruption that is manifested in society is merely a symptom of the problem. When our society promotes and rewards the selfish pursuit of profit and self-interest, how can altruism abound within society, although there are small pockets of it? We are victims of culture. If we want to change the type of behaviour that is displayed, we have to first change the environment that we are in.
Take a look at this, this is the kind of values our social system promotes:
Aspiring to be a corrupt official
TVP is The Venus Project (introduced in Zeitgeist Addendum) abbreviated. TZM is the activist arm of TVP.
If you identify the "Victims of culture" as in "environment affecting behavior displayed" - then if it is identified that "corruption exist when laziness exist - as it require less effort towards achievements - should this not be seen as the symptom of societal problems ?
Should one not find the cause for the laziness that result in corruption ?
Aspiring to be a corrupt official, or does the official become corrupt through familiarity with its environment that allows the abberation to exist ?
Venus is another planet and is some distance away from our Earth.
Should this TZM or TVP be better suited in Venus ?
Isn't what we're seeing in society the result of "a crisis designed for the benefit of the new technocrats with a more sophisticated model to be sold to the world"? Its just that the public does not realise the "technocrat" part of such developments. Look at the state of civil liberties today, how technology is being used as a TOOL, reflecting the kind of environment we are living in, to monitor and datamine huge populations. Look at how technology is being used to create automonous killing machines, improving tools to take another human being's life, how to inflict pain and dominate over others. Its not the technology, I'm sure you would have realised, its our social system.
If the basic technology found today that is primitive and is already mobilised against the human community - what is there to prevent future and more sophisticated technology from being used against Humans, especailly in the future Z.A. world that require Humans to be devoid of profit urge, moneytheism, labor, political structures, class divisions, thoughts of aggressions, wars, or personal or communal needs ?
Can the future homo sapiens defend itself against the likelihood in the Tyranny of Technologies ?
There will not be any domination or hierarchy in a TVP world. Thats a stone-age mentality. When we could cooperate in a world of abundance, we chose to create a world of scarcity, which introduces an "us against them" mentality creating conflicts born of baseless pride and ego. With the removal of money, politics as we know it would vanish. Instead of the mess that we can politics, we would have a cybernated society. That is not machines ruling over us, not one individual making a decision but decision being arrived at through the Scientific Method with the most advanced tools available. Is there a communist or a capitalistic method to distill water? Is there a democratic or republican method of constructing a building? No, because both examples, just like survival, is a technical process with no need for subjective influences like as politics and ego associations.
The Stone Age does not use natures resources in any profitable ways, how can it threaten or be in conflict to the High Technology Z.A. World of Utopian Equilibrium ?
In your cybernated society, who controls the cybots that take over the functions of the Homo Sapiens ?
There may not be a capitalist or communist methods to distill water - but without the standard of valuation - in the form of money - how will the future determine which resource is most effectively or economically resourced or used ?
Without ego, without pride, without labor, without emotions, without enterprise, without motivations, without greed, without ....... is there any humanity left in the cybot homo sapien ?
The basis of being a homo sapien is to live.
While you focus on all the negativity in being a homo sapien to embrace Z.A in its entirety without further questioning - have you forgotten that as a Homo Sapien : Living is to discover, to develop, to create, to be challenged, to feel, to be passionate, to think, to hope, to aspire, to achieve, to indulge, to ........
Is there any reason to be devoid of such humanities and allow cybots to takeover such human functions ?
Will pro-creation be left to technology too ?
With decision-making clouded by politics, money (vested interest), ego/pride, corruption, it is no wonder that the social sciences, if it can be called a science, has always lagged behind the physical sciences. Yes, society is always in a state of flux, that is our scientific knowledge and technology, but our social system has largely remained constant and does not allow us to maximise our technology.
To chose to remain with the unsatisfactory status quo, when an alternative promises a much more fulfilling world, is just closed mindedness. If the present social system is not promoting the human well-being, obviously we should move to a new social structure when we have to do so. The "truism" or "truth" you referred to are meaningless statements for nothing is true (absolutely), what was true a hundred years ago may not be true today.
Our social system does not allow us to maximise our technology ?
Or has it been a fact that technology is too costly under the present circumstances - given all things being equal - and leaving out the selfish corporate interests that prevent such technology to be introduced ?
Just like our social system, our language has been corrupted and is a reflection of the state of our culture. An example would be the word "propaganda". Originally meaning any effort taken to promote a particular belief or doctrine, it has become a kind of "vulgar word", having many negative connotations attached to it. Its not a defence, but a sign of decadence. When we compare the world we live in and the language we use, both are similar. There is always a war on something, war on cancer, war on poverty, war on terror etc. We describe our world in violent and aggressive terms, creating a war-like, defensive mentality. When someone tries to point out someone else's error, it becomes an attack rather an helping that person to improve. In this way, progress is stiffled.
Can the word "propaganda" be a word of "defense" ?
Is it not more correct to see this word as an assault on common sense by propagating falsehood repeated till it is seens as the truth ?
Negativity exist from the subjective reactions of individuals - as in your ability to freely accept the seeming logic as you see while others maybe more circumspect to challenge its concepts to its core.
If someone is intending to point out someone else's error and it is seen as an attack - it is due largely to the inappropriate approach taken to advance that help.
Is this not obvious ?
Can help be extended by identifying one's errors in an aggressive and in some very condescending manner that belittles the person being offered help ?
The manner in which we describe our world depends on one's experience in this World - can a child in war torn Iraq understand what peace is about ?
Or vice-versa, can a child in Japan know what war is about when its environment has been insulated from such brutality and horrors of wars ?
-
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Actually, angel7030 did not do any label. It was you yourself that made the claim of label implication and went on to derogatise communism as an evil idea.
Personally, being an idealist, I find that communism is the closest to an Utopian state as any human can ever hope to aspire for. Karl Marx was right, I would unabashedly state.
BUT, being a pragmatist, and aware of humanity flaws, what Karl Marx envison is nothing more and SHOULD be nothing more than a lofty aspiration meant for novels, and not for pratical use, being that, the People would have to surrender TOO much of their own liberty into the hands of EQUALLY flawed human to control which only leads to subjugation, as seen for 70 odds in USSR and close to a !00 years for China.
Had communism benefitted both countries? None, if not, worse off than the rest of the world that followed more democratic models. Are you recommending our Singapore People to adopt communism or its tenets for pratical daily use? You gotta be kidding!
How then are politics to be governed? Is the american model the way to go? Goodness NO! Flawed, but it is as practically best right now, at our human stage of evolution.
Karl Marx or Plato, their ideas are but a human aspiration for a better civilise world. However, we are far too flawed to be ruled or rule others. To seek enforcement to force ideals is even worse, subject to even more potential abuse as USSR KGB had proven.
Theological dogmatic potentates had failed. Communism had failed. It would be crazy to repeat such political ideologies for practical usage again. The american model is far from perfection.
Best acknowledge that we are flawed and power entrusted into anyone's hand, no matter how righteous or upright he is, political left or right, opposition or ruling party, lies a POTENTIAL for disaster of tyranny.
I have no answers, except faith in further education of every single human on earth, on our developement, history, and with it, our role and responsibilities to each other, and perhaps, a better political model may arise in future, though being a contridictory pragmatist, I have not much faith in powerful humans to become detached emotionless immortals, but rather have the fullest faith in their propensity to behave as clowns instead, including myself should power be entrusted in my hands, impossible as it may be.
Hello, it should be angel3070, not me angel7030 hor, where got me go and post all this shit?? just that i, being too popular that people like to idolise me, what to do, so please state clearly ok. Open your big eyes and see clearly, I dunno how you guys post with half eyes open only. -
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Actually, angel7030 did not do any label. It was you yourself that made the claim of label implication and went on to derogatise communism as an evil idea.
Personally, being an idealist, I find that communism is the closest to an Utopian state as any human can ever hope to aspire for. Karl Marx was right, I would unabashedly state.
BUT, being a pragmatist, and aware of humanity flaws, what Karl Marx envison is nothing more and SHOULD be nothing more than a lofty aspiration meant for novels, and not for pratical use, being that, the People would have to surrender TOO much of their own liberty into the hands of EQUALLY flawed human to control which only leads to subjugation, as seen for 70 odds in USSR and close to a !00 years for China.
Had communism benefitted both countries? None, if not, worse off than the rest of the world that followed more democratic models. Are you recommending our Singapore People to adopt communism or its tenets for pratical daily use? You gotta be kidding!
How then are politics to be governed? Is the american model the way to go? Goodness NO! Flawed, but it is as practically best right now, at our human stage of evolution.
Karl Marx or Plato, their ideas are but a human aspiration for a better civilise world. However, we are far too flawed to be ruled or rule others. To seek enforcement to force ideals is even worse, subject to even more potential abuse as USSR KGB had proven.
Theological dogmatic potentates had failed. Communism had failed. It would be crazy to repeat such political ideologies for practical usage again. The american model is far from perfection.
Best acknowledge that we are flawed and power entrusted into anyone's hand, no matter how righteous or upright he is, political left or right, opposition or ruling party, lies a POTENTIAL for disaster of tyranny.
I have no answers, except faith in further education of every single human on earth, on our developement, history, and with it, our role and responsibilities to each other, and perhaps, a better political model may arise in future, though being a contridictory pragmatist, I have not much faith in powerful humans to become detached emotionless immortals, but rather have the fullest faith in their propensity to behave as clowns instead, including myself should power be entrusted in my hands, impossible as it may be.
@Angel3070 as well.
To most people who are not aware of using a higher abstraction such as "communism", the term usually implies something undesirable.
Labelling some idea as simply "communist", "left-wing" or "socialist" is meaningless because you're comparing the present with a past system with the same name and the same associations. When that happens, how can communication take place? In other words, how can you compare the communism in Russia in 1917 with an idea that just recently surfaced? Or how can you compare that same idea with the tenets of communism, which were never practiced, and were written in the 19th Century? If you want to label something as "communism/socialist/left-wing", it would be clearer if you specified what do you mean by "communism", in which country and at which period of history.
To quote from The Tyranny of Words again:
"The social 'sciences' look to the past, the physical sciences to the present. Economists, lawyers, students of government , examine the lessons to be learnt from history, unmindful that the procession of events we call "history" is an irreversible process. That an event never exactly repeats itself is a cardinal concept of scientists."
As stated in earlier posts, there are no such things as "utopias". All social systems are in a state of transition. Even if we used the most advanced technologies at present to better the human and the environmental well-being (something which money is preventing today), we would only be in the beginning of another phase because technology is always improving.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Labelling some idea as simply "communist", "left-wing" or "socialist" is meaningless because you're comparing the present with a past system with the same name and the same associations. When that happens, how can communication take place?
It seems your understanding of political terms is not that deep.
That's why you hesitate to use them.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
If Watergate can bring down President Nixon, do you seriously believe that some diligent reporters will not be able to bring down a simple corporation ?
If you get paid for doing nothing, how did the money come about to pay for your salary ?
Who pays for the development of the machines and the softwares that replaced the Doctor ?
If we are all free from labor - who makes the machines and develop the softwares ?
In an environment where labor is removed - who will build the intelligence into machines to build themselves and the software required to operate them - ?
If money is removed, and the idea of "no free lunch" is made obsolete - and everything is left to machines - is there any necessity for money, or wages ?
If money is no longer necessary, how will values be measured in the ways that we are accustomed to - or will it be obsolete for "values" to even exist ?
If the question is not about "Who Pays?" - is there any relevance with the question "Do we have the resources to do so ?"
Should this question not be answered by the machines, when man is supposed to be free from such mundane activities ?
Has money created distortions such as politics, corruptions, crime, war - divisions within one planet (?) - or has these negatives distorted the function of money ?
Is the Stone Age not closer to your Z.A concept of equilibrium in man's needs and nature's limited resources ?
The Tyranny of Words is in the simplistic concept promoted by Z.A. to deride the present system, even when it has not resolved its core issues but will be audacious to delve on the prospective free abundance without labor.
If you identify the "Victims of culture" as in "environment affecting behavior displayed" - then if it is identified that "corruption exist when laziness exist - as it require less effort towards achievements - should this not be seen as the symptom of societal problems ?
Should one not find the cause for the laziness that result in corruption ?
Aspiring to be a corrupt official, or does the official become corrupt through familiarity with its environment that allows the abberation to exist ?
Venus is another planet and is some distance away from our Earth.
Should this TZM or TVP be better suited in Venus ?
If the basic technology found today that is primitive and is already mobilised against the human community - what is there to prevent future and more sophisticated technology from being used against Humans, especailly in the future Z.A. world that require Humans to be devoid of profit urge, moneytheism, labor, political structures, class divisions, thoughts of aggressions, wars, or personal or communal needs ?
Can the future homo sapiens defend itself against the likelihood in the Tyranny of Technologies ?
The Stone Age does not use natures resources in any profitable ways, how can it threaten or be in conflict to the High Technology Z.A. World of Utopian Equilibrium ?
In your cybernated society, who controls the cybots that take over the functions of the Homo Sapiens ?
There may not be a capitalist or communist methods to distill water - but without the standard of valuation - in the form of money - how will the future determine which resource is most effectively or economically resourced or used ?
Without ego, without pride, without labor, without emotions, without enterprise, without motivations, without greed, without ....... is there any humanity left in the cybot homo sapien ?
The basis of being a homo sapien is to live.
While you focus on all the negativity in being a homo sapien to embrace Z.A in its entirety without further questioning - have you forgotten that as a Homo Sapien : Living is to discover, to develop, to create, to be challenged, to feel, to be passionate, to think, to hope, to aspire, to achieve, to indulge, to ........
Is there any reason to be devoid of such humanities and allow cybots to takeover such human functions ?
Will pro-creation be left to technology too ?
Our social system does not allow us to maximise our technology ?
Or has it been a fact that technology is too costly under the present circumstances - given all things being equal - and leaving out the selfish corporate interests that prevent such technology to be introduced ?
Can the word "propaganda" be a word of "defense" ?
Is it not more correct to see this word as an assault on common sense by propagating falsehood repeated till it is seens as the truth ?
Negativity exist from the subjective reactions of individuals - as in your ability to freely accept the seeming logic as you see while others maybe more circumspect to challenge its concepts to its core.
If someone is intending to point out someone else's error and it is seen as an attack - it is due largely to the inappropriate approach taken to advance that help.
Is this not obvious ?
Can help be extended by identifying one's errors in an aggressive and in some very condescending manner that belittles the person being offered help ?
The manner in which we describe our world depends on one's experience in this World - can a child in war torn Iraq understand what peace is about ?
Or vice-versa, can a child in Japan know what war is about when its environment has been insulated from such brutality and horrors of wars ?
Do not forget that even diligent reporters have to answer to their editors, who are in turn influenced by political and economic heavyweights of the corporatocracy. A simple corporation? Again, don't forget that of the world's 100 largest economic entities, 51 are corporations and 49 are countries. Granted that was a study conducted in 2000, the situation may or may not be different today.
I'm not familiar with the full proceedings of Watergate. But chances are it was a deliberate act to oust a president. I'll get back when I find out more about it.
It would be nice to see some real journalism in action, having mainstream news cover events like the Bilderberg Meetings instead of the puppets at the G-8 or IMF/WB meetings. Other than the Guardian coverage this year, I have not seen any mainstream agencies reporting such a convergence of the world's most influential people at the Bilderberg Group.
I was using the doctor example in order to make it easier for people to accept a world without money made possible by technology. Of course humans will construct the machines in the initial stage. Peter Joseph answered a similar question in a radio address.
"
It seems like you arent really sure what is The Venus Project.
"It's useless to criticize the culture without providing alternatives. The Venus Project proposes plans for social change that work toward a peaceful and sustainable global civilization. It outlines an alternative social design where human rights are not just paper proclamations, but a way of life. The Venus Project has a vision of what the future can be if we apply what we already know to achieve a sustainable world civilization. It calls for a scientific redesign of our culture in which war, poverty, hunger, debt, and unnecessary human, suffering are viewed as not only avoidable, but unacceptable. Anything less will result in a disastrous continuation of the problems inherent in today's world.
Simply stated, a resource-based economy focuses on resources rather than money, and provides an equitable distribution thereof in a humane and efficient manner. It is a system in which goods and services are available without the use of money, credit, barter, debt, or servitude."
Money causes abberant behaviour in that corrupt and selfish acts are rewarded in a monetary system. A manager would willingly fire his employees if that would allow him to increase company profits and hence his income. Corporations would lie, cover up, scheme, cause human and environmental damage in order to make more profit.
From the FAQ:
"Our problems cannot be solved in a society based on money, waste, and human exploitation. Today, money is used to regulate the economy for the benefit of the few who control the financial wealth of nations. Unless the underlying causes of planned obsolescence, environmental neglect, and outrageous military expenditures are addressed, we are bound to fail. Treaties, blockades, boycotts, and the like used in the past have not worked.
Many believe that ethical standards and international laws will assure a sustainable global society. Even if the most ethical people in the world were elected to political office, without sufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. What is needed is the intelligent management of Earth's resources for the benefit of all and protection of the environment.
Earth has plentiful resources. Rationing resources through monetary control is dysfunctional and counter-productive to survival. Today, we have highly advanced technologies but our social and economic development has not kept up. We could easily create a world of abundance without servitude and debt through the creation of a global, resource-based civilization."
How do do know what The Tyranny of Words is about? Have you read it in its entirety? Otherwise, as Einstein commented, "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."
I do not understand how can you compare a TVP world, which has to be in the future, if it succeeds, and the Stone Age. Both are separated by vast differences in time period and technological level, just to name 2 of them. As I stated in my previous post, using labels tend to convey meaning inaccurately.
The Venus in TVP refers to a community in Florida.
What do you mean by humanity? Does it involve depriving people of the essentials of life in order to make a profit? You're probably associating TVP with dystopias like Brave New World, 1984 etc.
From the FAQ:
"The aim of this new social design is to encourage an incentive system based on human and environmental concerns, and to avoid the shallow and self-centered goals of individual wealth, property, and power. These new incentives would help people evolve self-fulfillment and creativity, both materially and spiritually."
Our present values are those that are developed from living in a monetary system. In a TVP, naturally new values will evolve as the old ones will be obsolete. Why do you think "values" are absolute? The Aztecs thought it was righteous to sacrifice tens of thousands of human beings at one go. Would you still think it is righteous?
When did I ever state the introduction of merging humans with technology? At least that's the impression I get from your term "cybot" and your fear of losing the (human?) tendency to behave abberantly. Thats transhumanism and has nothing to do with this discussion. What I stated and what TVP advocates is using technology to help us arrive at the most efficient decision and to aid us in tasks like construction and production (just like in automated factories today). Have you ever used a calculator? Have you ever worn spectacles? Is that not relying on technology? Are you then a cybot and have lost any so-called humanity?
Our social system, based on a monetary system, obviously does not allow the maximisation of present technology. We have the technology to build 100% efficient solar panels. We have the technology to tap geothermal, wave and tidal energy. We have the technology for energy-independence. Why do we have to wait 30 years for a glimmer of it? If there was a Manhatten Project-scale effort to give us energy-independence, it can be done. That's why I said the answer was more of "Do we have the resources..." rather than "Do we have the money?"
From the FAQ:
"At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. had about 600 first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short-supply by turning out over 90,000 planes per year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money or gold, but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources and technical personnel that enabled the U.S. to achieve the production and efficiency required to win the war. It appears that the real wealth of any nation is in its natural resources and its people who are working toward a more humane life-style through the elimination of scarcity."
Building on my example of "propaganda", as I stated earlier, its original definition was a technical one, just like the words diffusion or osmosis. But when its used today, people have attached so much negative connotations to it that it immediately becomes synonymous with malicious lies. How can clear communication take place when emotions are swayed using such inaccurate labels?
As demonstrated time and time again in this forum, rebutals usually end up being some form of personal insult rather than a response to the points discussed. Its no one's fault. Its just that our society conditions us to associate being corrected with inferiority. Not only that, but we are conditioned to hold such static worldviews that it becomes associated with our identity and hence, when our beliefs are challenged, it is perceived as some personal attack and there is no chance for civilised discussion.
Other than that, you have already answered your own question.
Can help be extended by identifying one's errors in an aggressive and in some very condescending manner that belittles the person being offered help ?
Of course such an "unappropriate approach", in your own words, will only result in argument and I fully agree with you.
-
Originally posted by angel3070:
It seems your understanding of political terms is not that deep.
That's why you hesitate to use them.
I hesitate to use them because they are terms that everyone has their own definitions of them based on our experiences and associations. If you and I are not referring to the same thing and start a discussion on for instance, democracy, how can our communication be clear?
From The Tyranny of Words:
"The abstract phrases (such as fascism, communism) given are loose and hazy enough to fit our loose and hazy conceptions interchangably...(everyone has their own definitions of them) Multiply the sample by ten million and piction if you can the aggregate mental chaos. Yet this is the word which is soberly treated as a definite thing by newspapers, authors, orators, statesmen, talkers, the world around."