Arthur,
What economist was it that said that the military and a good war was
the answer to these problems? Lower population amongst the men, (only
the survivors can impregnate the country's women) and during the war they
stimulate full employment through cheerleading the people into accepting
low wages for the good of "the country" to supply the defensive (preditory),
heroic (wasteful) "war effort." If you don't have a strong country or
government
that won't work. I never could figure out why they couldn't just do it without
war but then you don't have the deletions from the population and the best
sperm going to the future of the country. Maybe Freud and Darwin were
right on that one. It is really all about sex and survival of the "fittest."
At
least in Western culture.
So are we back to the old 19th century Romantic solution? Gulags from
the government and revolution from the population. Savages anyone? Not
much nobility their.
It was said that a world class economist died today. KING Hussien of Jordon.
Does anyone know who Orwell was writing about in "Animal Farm?" I've always
been taught that it was the Communists but everything from the Newspeak to
the Predatory, Kangaroo politics is being manifested in the U.S. today. Could
he have been speaking about any system that is unfettered from its competition
with another system and operating under the principles of pure avarice? Even
free market capitalism?
I don't see how anyone could have the hubris to criticize the Aztecs for killing
one
person a day so that the state would continue, with a few extras on holidays.
It is
said that the skull rack at Tenochtitlan had 20,000 skulls from the 364 years of
existence of the Aztec State. The Europeans could kill that many in a battle in
a
couple of days.
We make such choices daily for the perpetuation of the system. On the highways,
in
dangerous jobs etc., through poverty and prisons. We sacrifice more daily as
a % of
our population than the Aztecs could have imagined. Cortes was appalled that
they
would destroy their city rather than have it fall into his hands. He was
happy to kill
people for things. But to destroy the things? That seemed barbaric to him.
On the
other hand the Aztecs decided if the people died so should the things.
They didn't believe
in leaving products around for others to misuse and abuse. They believed
responsibility
extended into the after-life and they could "pay" for anything left in this
world in a later
life. They believed "leave it as if you had never been there." They were,
however, very good
at business, conducting it from the Tierra del Fuego to the Arctic. They found
Quetzal and
Macaw feathers amongst the Inuit.
It was Bertrand Russell who made the purely mathematical calculation that stated
that the American President and the Russian Premier were potentially
(mathematically) greater monsters than any of the tyrants of history with
10,000 lbs of TNT for every man, woman and child on the planet under their
control. And it was the cold eye of science that told both that even a small
nuclear conflict would destroy hope for both. The Russians blinked and saved
the world. I'm am not convinced that America would have made the choice to give
up
and save the world. Eva's couplet that described Man listed "loyal" as one of
the
qualities along with "mysterious." I'm not convinced of either.
REH
> New York Times February 3, 1999
>
> In Japan, From a Lifetime Job to No Job at All
>
> STEPHANIE STROM
