offGridDownUnder
🚴♂️ Mega poster
You write that like it's a bad thing...
-
Hello ES! We could use some help to get us past the finish line on building the new knowledgebase for the forum.
Can you donate? Please see our fundraising page. Thank you!
Will America go to war with Iran?
- Thread starter Drunkskunk
- Start date
offGridDownUnder
🚴♂️ Mega poster
My post was tongue-in-cheek, and you likely read it that way. But thinking a bit further...
So, now we have the excesses of Epstein, of Putin, of Trump, of every corporation that leaves polluted land and damaged people long after it's not around to pay for it's actions. Bear with me though, this isn't a knee-jerk response.
Opposing that, we have every successful military operation (not all, but some), we have examples of societies which persisted for long periods without exceeding the carrying capacity of their environment - and examples of societies which did exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. Not all due to their own actions - sometimes the climate changed - but it's still a useful measuring point.
The military operations were planned, and more to the point, managed as opposed to being free-for-all episodes. Those successes refute the idea that a managed operation can't work.
If I write "planned community" or "planned economy", people will knee-jerk about how that doesn't work, citing examples that did not. Instead, I'm thinking of "constrained community" or "constrained economy", with examples constrained by the physical reality around them which they successfully adapted to, as well as some constrained by conscious choice - not throwing lit cigarettes out of the window of your car is an example of conscious choice. Any of the long-term persistent societies meet this criteria. Noting the physical constraints removes the knee-jerk response that "people are corrupt", and permits noticing that the constraints are part of what kept the society from overrunning it's available resources.
Groups cooperating work REAL WELL. An outcome of this is that we "become rich" - that is, we have the means to satisfy our desires in addition to our needs. This is separate from whether satisfying these desires is a good idea.
In the US, and in some other societies, we are so rich that we can afford to fulfill trivial bullshit desires. That's a distinction we can make, and try to avoid noticing.
Take a process such as an electric or ICE engine that works well by our criteria. This will generally mean it accomplishes it's intended task (that we wanted) and does not give us troubles we need to overcome, does not fail, doesn't require much attention or resources beyond what we expect. We get what we want at a "price" we are satisfied to "pay".
Ok, now take the same and triple the power being processed through it. It will overheat and fail. Over driving an engine does not lead to over driving it's output - because the ratio of work/waste does not scale linearly. Instead the waste component consumes more and more of the extra energy. It can handle what it can handle and that's it. Sort of like the Earth.
More is not better, not in a physical world. But Capitalism (as practiced now) says anyone can do anything they want to try. So, Epstein, Superfund sites.
The ecosystem does not scale linearly. Nor does human society. Faster is not better. When examined, it's noted that cancer is just unrestrained, un-managed, inappropriate (for the host body) growth.
To me, it seems that the greatest danger we face, and have always faced, is our refusal to admit reality. Yes, I have urges, but too much is too much so I recognize I don't get to fulfill them. Being as rich as we are, we have actually built a society based largely on feeding our desires (no, you don't need the latest fashion, the latest automobile body style, and no, you don't need to be re-elected or have everyone see you as a "big man").
I note a difference between exploring and eventually colonizing other planets and having the latest automobile body style. I can provide good arguments for the former, but no good conscious argument for the latter. Grow up and face yourself - your desires are not something the rest of society needs to support so you can avoid facing up to your personal disappointment of not fulfilling them.
Goals that help society and goals that focus on fulfilling personal urges are obviously different and can be distinguished.
The "US" will go to war with Iran because Trump can't face up to the fact that renewables cost less in terms of the environment, and that his whims are not of importance. The US will go to war with Iran because people won't face up to the fact that they don't need most of their urges fulfilled.
This war is not about survival. It's about the survival of bloat. We are fighting to stay bloated.
It's about the survival of unconsciousness - a hell of a reason to kill other people after all.
So, now we have the excesses of Epstein, of Putin, of Trump, of every corporation that leaves polluted land and damaged people long after it's not around to pay for it's actions. Bear with me though, this isn't a knee-jerk response.
Opposing that, we have every successful military operation (not all, but some), we have examples of societies which persisted for long periods without exceeding the carrying capacity of their environment - and examples of societies which did exceed the carrying capacity of their environment. Not all due to their own actions - sometimes the climate changed - but it's still a useful measuring point.
The military operations were planned, and more to the point, managed as opposed to being free-for-all episodes. Those successes refute the idea that a managed operation can't work.
If I write "planned community" or "planned economy", people will knee-jerk about how that doesn't work, citing examples that did not. Instead, I'm thinking of "constrained community" or "constrained economy", with examples constrained by the physical reality around them which they successfully adapted to, as well as some constrained by conscious choice - not throwing lit cigarettes out of the window of your car is an example of conscious choice. Any of the long-term persistent societies meet this criteria. Noting the physical constraints removes the knee-jerk response that "people are corrupt", and permits noticing that the constraints are part of what kept the society from overrunning it's available resources.
Groups cooperating work REAL WELL. An outcome of this is that we "become rich" - that is, we have the means to satisfy our desires in addition to our needs. This is separate from whether satisfying these desires is a good idea.
In the US, and in some other societies, we are so rich that we can afford to fulfill trivial bullshit desires. That's a distinction we can make, and try to avoid noticing.
Take a process such as an electric or ICE engine that works well by our criteria. This will generally mean it accomplishes it's intended task (that we wanted) and does not give us troubles we need to overcome, does not fail, doesn't require much attention or resources beyond what we expect. We get what we want at a "price" we are satisfied to "pay".
Ok, now take the same and triple the power being processed through it. It will overheat and fail. Over driving an engine does not lead to over driving it's output - because the ratio of work/waste does not scale linearly. Instead the waste component consumes more and more of the extra energy. It can handle what it can handle and that's it. Sort of like the Earth.
More is not better, not in a physical world. But Capitalism (as practiced now) says anyone can do anything they want to try. So, Epstein, Superfund sites.
The ecosystem does not scale linearly. Nor does human society. Faster is not better. When examined, it's noted that cancer is just unrestrained, un-managed, inappropriate (for the host body) growth.
To me, it seems that the greatest danger we face, and have always faced, is our refusal to admit reality. Yes, I have urges, but too much is too much so I recognize I don't get to fulfill them. Being as rich as we are, we have actually built a society based largely on feeding our desires (no, you don't need the latest fashion, the latest automobile body style, and no, you don't need to be re-elected or have everyone see you as a "big man").
I note a difference between exploring and eventually colonizing other planets and having the latest automobile body style. I can provide good arguments for the former, but no good conscious argument for the latter. Grow up and face yourself - your desires are not something the rest of society needs to support so you can avoid facing up to your personal disappointment of not fulfilling them.
Goals that help society and goals that focus on fulfilling personal urges are obviously different and can be distinguished.
The "US" will go to war with Iran because Trump can't face up to the fact that renewables cost less in terms of the environment, and that his whims are not of importance. The US will go to war with Iran because people won't face up to the fact that they don't need most of their urges fulfilled.
This war is not about survival. It's about the survival of bloat. We are fighting to stay bloated.
It's about the survival of unconsciousness - a hell of a reason to kill other people after all.
I understand the problem but the insanity will continue anyway.
I'm pretty sure we're going off the cliff.
My thoughts are summarized as such:
Solution: strive in spite of it to your best ability and enjoy the pre-end times as much as you can.
I'm pretty sure we're going off the cliff.
My thoughts are summarized as such:
Solution: strive in spite of it to your best ability and enjoy the pre-end times as much as you can.
Similar threads
