Hank,
I believe that Bush and his politics are dangerous. However, it is my
impression that there is a certain logical consistency once one has accepted
three or four of the false assumptions that the Bush philosophy is built on.
Malthus believed that population was increasing exponentially and the means
of sustenance was only increasing arithmetically. It was his view that
famine, disease and war were the means of keeping population in balance with
the means of sustenance. When Darwin read this, they both worked for the
East India Company (remember the Boston Tea Party?, it was their tea), he
came up with his theory of survival of the fittest. Most of the world's
political and socioeconomic philosophies have the Malthus premise built in.
Now we know that population is not increasing at an exponential rate. The
latest data and most sophisticated computer models show that the rate of
growth of population has already decreased and projections are for the
stabilization of the world's population in the not too distant future.
Meanwhile we are finding that something like Moore's Law, that computing
power doubles every 18 months (the simplified version of Moore), is being
found in more and more areas of technology.
So now we have the very reverse of Malthus theory. The Darwinian model of
struggle and competition needs to be replaced by a model of cooperation.
Political and socioeconomic models that make sense if Malthus was right no
longer make sense. What is required in a world of scarcity no longer makes
sense in a world of plenty. Famine, disease and warfare are no longer
necessary. Diverting the resources squandered in armaments into sustaining
the human race through cooperative efforts is the task at hand.
This is looking at just one of the false assumptions of the Bush model.
Along with two or three other false assumptions what appears to be a
reasonable justification for the Bush worldview can be assembled. It isn't
that the people who support Bush are ignorant or malevolent, they are just
working with a few major assumptions that are false. Certainly I agree that
a significant a part of his popularity is based on a core of selfish and
greedy people, who are in it just for the advantage they see in it for
themselves. This part of his base is not likely to be persuaded to another
choice unless they see the ultimate truth that they really don't gain
anything from their greed. There greed only drives the engines of war and
terrorism and in the end will consume all the advantage that could be
derived from the stabilization of world population and growth of our
technological capacity.
Take care,
Dave Watkins
----- Original Message -----
From: "WEBMASTER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 7:41 AM
> Yes, it was an excellent list. One must really wonder how these mentally
> challenged Republicans (and some conservative Democrats) can in good
> conscience vote against their own class interests and support their own
> oppression. With Bush we have the complete elimination and devaluation of
> social security, already started, the ruination of the VAMC - anyone in
> the VA system has seen this erosion or they are blind and dumb, the
> destruction of the environment, and war and destruction (like good Nazis)
> in Iraq and Afghanistan. Conservatives who vote for the Bush crime family
> are vermin-eating, brain-dead, shit-for-brains, Republican (and
> conservative-Democrats - & Dixiecrats) slime-balls. Surely there is no
> one like that on this list..
>
> Hank
-----
/ o o \
===OO=====OO==================================================
4 Portals - 2 Wikis - 2 Conferences -- No More BuSHIT!
It all starts HERE: http://pnews.org/ (On Internet since 1982)
AND HERE: http://pnews.org/PhpWiki/ (Featured News)
AND HERE: http://g0lem.net/PhpWiki/ (Urgent News)
==============================================================
