Over-population is one major problem of many. What work awaits all those protestors and occupiers?
On Feb 10, 12:32 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Britain actually bombed Kabul as late as 1921 and prevented a secular > king who wanted to use the Turkish model to stabilise and modernise in > 1930. Science would seek to stabilise the population and provide a > war free environment for all. But most people won't make the effort > to understand. Gandhi ended up in some weird rationalisations of > sleeping with children to save the world through denial. > > On Feb 10, 3:11 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It takes hard work to be/stay wealthy. > > Define pleasure- individual or cultural. > > Education builds character supposedly. > > Define business versus huckterism. > > Science is indifferent- can be good or evil. > > What religion? > > Politics has become a wasteful, dishonest game. > > > Gandhi reintroduced home weaving, plus non-payment of taxes, general > > strikes, non-violent demonstrations (satyagraha) and there was some > > improvement- maybe strengthened by Indian participation in WWII for > > the Brits...but was killed by a Hindu so the nation was not unified- > > plus think of the slaughter in the partition- India and Pakistan- > > which still is a thorny problem. The entire Middle East and North > > Africa are a mess and very dangerous. The Green Zone may not last in > > Iraq, for instance. Really- very stupid American policy since the Gulf > > War or back to the 1840's for the Brits in Afghanistan (a total > > wasteland). Good reads are The Blue Nile and The White Nile by Alan > > Moorehead- or Something of Value by Robert Ruark (?). Anyway, I don > > think the internet is going to solve humanity's problems- there is too > > much smoldering resentment. What's our contribution? Weapon systems or > > idiotic merchandise? Plus the displaced will flee to Europe and cause > > more economic pressure, etc. I wonder if our goal is to destabilize > > Russia and China? > > > I am cooking Greek today- moussaka. A humble tribute. > > > On Feb 8, 12:42 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ghandis 7 Dangers to Human Virtue > > > > 1: Wealth without Work > > > 2: Pleasure without Conscience > > > 3: Knowledge without Character > > > 4:Business without Ethics > > > 5:Science without Humanity > > > 6: Religion without Sacrifice > > > 7: Politics without Principal > > > > Allan > > > > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 6:30 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > What intrigued me when I took science seriously was the way I had to > > > > learn what others were finding, and that. at least after school and > > > > university, I could check on what was going on and marvel in the > > > > complexity and shared language. It was hard work I can't sustain > > > > now. Some take science as a clerical method and sometimes, as Vam > > > > points out, this is true. I take the method as one of > > > > demystification, something of an anarchist view. The rest of our > > > > lives are shrouded in mystification. The current England football > > > > manager has 'earned' over £24 million in the last few years and most > > > > of us seem to think this is OK (and all the bwanking rest), apparently > > > > with no clue on of how this is paid for and who really does the > > > > paying. The heir apparent is Harry Rednap, who admitted whilst on > > > > trial for tax evasion not done through an offshore bank, that he can't > > > > read, write or use a computer. > > > > Human beings have been 'happy' with all kinds of madness, from the > > > > divine rights of kings to lives dedicated to stone carvings that > > > > required the destruction of their ecosystems (Easter Island). Most in > > > > the West are so stupid they imagine a world of dynamic individualistic > > > > capitalism when, in fact we are now dominated by State enterprise (see > > > > the Economist at > > > >http://media.economist.com/sites/default/files/sponsorships/MM150/201... > > > > ). The majority of our populations can't do science (school exams are > > > > facile yet most still can't do them and choose not to). > > > > > This problem of a largely ineducable population is crucial in our > > > > democracies. I don't see any solution in 'philosopher kings' or > > > > 'Guardians'. The essence of the problem is that argument is no good > > > > because most can't hack it. It entails personal admission of > > > > inferiority that individualism can't allow because it can't give up on > > > > identity or realise this identity is formed as a world-view. The > > > > lacking ingredient is imagination - to think of throwing oneself off a > > > > cliff and see the flight of a cannonball as a straight line - yet also > > > > the presence of imagination that allows all kinds of brutal facts > > > > about the world to be ignored or rationalised. In this trance we can > > > > see a disabled family on welfare as a drain on the public purse but > > > > not the soccer manager or bwankster costing us much more (because > > > > somehow hard work justifies the welfare of the rich - even though for > > > > the worker it may just lead to a broken back). > > > > > In science I can speculate on whether space structures appearances and > > > > on transfer of our information to planets nearby in information speed > > > > terms (think of the play 'Andromeda') - in politics it appears to be > > > > as fantastic to wonder of a society free from the grasping rich, or to > > > > see this condition as a failure to understand our biology and the long > > > > history of debt peonage. > > > > > On Feb 7, 12:17 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > E = mc2 is the most important upshot of relativity. Write a 5,000 > > > > > word essay. Well, don't worry too much, someone did one earlier - > > > >http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/ > > > > > > This is only one example, outside my sphere of expertise, I can think > > > > > of concerning just how difficult thinking, experiment and proof can > > > > > be. How different it all is from moroneconomics that makes > > > > > assumptions of standardised human behaviour and outcomes that bless > > > > > the rich. I wonder what physics would be like if it allowed such > > > > > prejudiced thinking? > > > > > > When I walk Max I'm rather proud of him - he does his business in our > > > > > backyard and is an all round nice guy. I can't but notice our > > > > > neighbours have let their dogs foul and that local kids foul with > > > > > litter. We need quite draconian measures to stop the worst in our > > > > > society levelling everything down to the midden and jungle. It seems > > > > > reasonable not to expect the best as standard human behaviour. When > > > > > I look at the stealing going on under the name of economics, politics > > > > > or whatever I get the same feeling. > > > > > > As a scientist, I realised most people know very little of the > > > > > reasoning and skills involved. One tries to be charitable and assume > > > > > this is because they don't get the chance, but to be honest I've felt > > > > > for a long time this is more to do with dullardry, ineptitude and > > > > > laziness. I don't believe the natural human condition is one of hard > > > > > work and animals are not much of a model for this. The 'busy bee' > > > > > usually isn't and spends more time incumbent. > > > > > > When one looks at such as the consideration of mass and energy in > > > > > physics, one should wonder on such matters as 'work' in human > > > > > interaction, and how that may 'break down'. We don't and still live > > > > > in the Dark Ages. If I ask for a 5,000 word essay on work motivation, > > > > > 95% of responses from those forced to comply for qualification > > > > > purposes will be a regurgitation of textbooks on Maslow, Hertzberg, > > > > > Lawler and other 'names' (all dross). The odd student might start in > > > > > such contradiction as that of the wealthy manager sated with money and > > > > > the poor farmer in India saddled with debt. > > > > > > The content of management textbooks has long been a scandal and the > > > > > only change I've noticed since the 1950s is 'weight and gloss'. They > > > > > just weigh more these days, glossing over the same old trash One can > > > > > note the same in legislative documents. Glass-Steagal was 30-odd > > > > > pages, whereas the 'Facilitation of Bankster Fraud Acts' of modern > > > > > times run to thousands. > > > > > > What strikes me as a scientist is that questions like what kind of a > > > > > world do we want ourselves and others to live in, what is the work > > > > > needed to do and maintain this and so on is all excluded. If physics > > > > > was like economics we'd only be able to describe earth, wind, fire and > > > > > water. All that's come from science in this direction is unwarranted > > > > > abstraction, usually of maths-based 'proof'. > > > > > > The farce of our system lies in allowing people to get rich and then > > > > > control wealth and politics. This is obvious. We rightly worry that > > > > > simply overturning this only produces another set of such 'worthies' > > > > > likely to be worse. We may even worry that the absence of such > > > > > libidinal wealth opportunity takes away all motivation. Whatever this > > > > > is about, it's not science. Unlike science, which you won't be doing > > > > > unless you can demonstrate some competence, general argument assumes > > > > > you have some. Hearing this, many fear the message is a call to be > > > > > ruled by scientists. All the scientist really wants is a break from > > > > > superstition. > > > > -- > > > ( > > > ) > > > |_D Allan > > > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
