The 'Population Bomb' Backfires!

[Liar]

I advocate freedom, you advocate control yet end up painting me as a destroyer of freedom and choice and human rights. Amusing.

Freedom without available options is just a paper tiger.

A certain amount of structure in society opens up for more options for more people. There are different types of control, and the one that the government pratices is (or should be) there to counter the control of tradition and conventions. Basic tax-paid education for all citizens, a minimum of helth care for all, non discrimination laws, labor laws, and so on. All tools of "governmental control" designed to empower as many individuals as possible with the means to enjoy their freedom.

It's a compromise I guess, between ideology and pragmatism.

#L

 

[amicus]

Liar...


"...A certain amount of structure in society opens up for more options for more people. There are different types of control, and the one that the government pratices is (or should be) there to counter the control of tradition and conventions. Basic tax-paid education for all citizens, a minimum of helth care for all, non discrimination laws, labor laws, and so on. All tools of "governmental control" designed to empower as many individuals as possible with the means to enjoy their freedom.

It's a compromise I guess, between ideology and pragmatism...."

Your words....


Let me try to clarify something. The end does not always justify the means. In other words, your desire for education and health care is an admirable one, we all hope for adequate education and health care available to all at an affordable cost.

The 'end' of providing those services for all, cannot justify the 'means' if it entails the destruction the choice of the individual to participate in such programs as to supply those ends.

If you end up forcing the population to support your programs, are you anything more than any other totalitarian regime?

You cannot force people to live a rational life, you can only act to defend their right to do so. If they choose not to, then at least, it was their choice.

It does not take a genius IQ to recognize that protecting the liberties of people is far more important than providing them with 'bread and circuses'; even the Romans learned that...after a long while....

Amicus...like the energizer bunny, just keeps on going...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

There is a spectrum with Security on one end, and Freedom on the other. The more freedom you have, the less security you enjoy, and the more security you want, the less freedom you'll have. You can't have both.

Every society decides where on this spectrum it wants to make its stand; how much freedom they'll give up in return for so much security. In anarchies or Libertarian uptopias, it's all freedom and no security whoseover. In centrally-planned economies, it's just the opposite: cradle-to-grave security, but not much freedom. Most societies, given the choice, compromise on some position between the two extremes

The government has a right to demand taxes from us because we elected them knowing what they planned to do. We gave them the right to take a certain amount of freedom away from us in return for a certain amount of security. Now, maybe not all the people are happy with this choice, but the majority of us apparently are, otherwise we'd change things.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in Amicus's libertarian utopia, and I'll bet I'm not alone in feeling that way. I wouldn't do well in it, and I'd probably be one of those people who ends up working for $1.25 an hour who can't afford education or healthcare or even housing for his kids. That's just the way I am. I'm not an entrepreneur and I don’t want to be, so what chance do I have at getting ahead? I'm certainly not naive enough to believe that hard work and competence lead to reward and recognition. Not in this world. And I'm not especially gifted in business sense.

When you state that we'd all be better off in such a society, you make exactly the same error as the communists did, who were also doctrinaire extremists just as you are: you assume ideality. "Businesses will sacrifice for the common good" is as far-fetched as "The workers will sacrifice for the common good."

Neither of these statements is true, and most of us know that. That's why most of us are more or less content with a position somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. We don’t want your world. Freedom isn’t worth squat if you're starving to death.

 

[gauchecritic]

<snip>

If you end up forcing the population to support your programs, are you anything more than any other totalitarian regime?

<snip>

It does not take a genius IQ to recognize that protecting the liberties of people is far more important than providing them with 'bread and circuses'; even the Romans learned that...after a long while....

Amicus...like the energizer bunny, just keeps on going...

Support provided by a government (the people) to enable choice is a far cry from totalitarianism. You have the option to opt out of any service provided, what you don't have the option of is depriving others (by tax and law) of any choice whatsoever.

The Romans never did learn about protecting liberities except very specific people's liberties.

The bread and circuses were an afterthought when they became unweildy in government and decadent in outlook.

 

[amicus]

Mabeuse, after you insulted me in a personal way, I decided not to respond to anything your wrote.

However, you keep popping up on my threads, thus, I assume you are impervious to my disconcernations with you.

You are perhaps a political agnostic; that is to say you see the failings of both extremes and decline to take sides. Many do that and I would not criticize you for that but on the same hand, I would not grant you equality in a discussion of either, as you have basically withdrawn and risk nothing.

I am fully aware that I advocate an extreme position, knowing full well that it will never bear fruit.

I came to Literotica with my stories as I was banned from another site, about a year and a half ago, and the owner of the site, suggested I post here. My first story won a monthly first prize and I was quite pleased with the site.

It was not until several months later, while browsing, that I came across this Forum; when I did, it seemed to be fully political and quite one sided, namely, anti Bush.

Merely as an exercise in futility, I began to address each and every criticism of the Bush administration, then the Republican agenda, then the Right wing concepts and eventually, the differences between left and right, liberal and conservative.

These are not new discussions with me, as you may have surmised, nor do I often pull punches, unless in a fit of humor. I do not stomp on the obvious illiterates that populate the site, nor do I beat up on the drunks that righteously rant.

But you are a special case, you know better, or at least should. I have read you, and followed your posts. You have the ability to understand and use reason and logic, yet, often you do not do so.

The reason you do not, is your choice. I can only respond to what you choose to display.


"...Neither of these statements is true, and most of us know that. That's why most of us are more or less content with a position somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. We don’t want your world. Freedom isn’t worth squat if you're starving to death...."


Your words....

Those words of yours is where I determined, 'agnostic', freedom was gained and is maintained by those who are willing to risk their lives for it, to defend it, for themselves and for the next generation.

Freedom is worth starving for.

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

Okay, Gauche....let me make it really simple for you:

Tell me how you, GaucheCritic, have the right to take' 15 percent of my income to educate your children. Assume I am gay and have no children and earn $100,000 annually as a transvestite performer on stage.

Well?

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Ami -

Just because it's Sunday morning, and I've had my coffee, I'll ask you a question: Has there ever been a society that has had the type of "freedom" that you advocate?

I don't think there has - ever. As far back as you want to go, as long as there has been any type of society, and not just roving bands of neanderthals, there's always been some type of structure, and with that structure, comes some restrictions.

As an ideology, your freedom works, but as a reality, I just don't see it.

Just sayin'.

 

[Liar]

Ami -

Just because it's Sunday morning, and I've had my coffee, I'll ask you a question: Has there ever been a society that has had the type of "freedom" that you advocate?

I don't think there has - ever. As far back as you want to go, as long as there has been any type of society, and not just roving bands of neanderthals, there's always been some type of structure, and with that structure, comes some restrictions.

As an ideology, your freedom works, but as a reality, I just don't see it.

Just sayin'.

You'll have to go further back than the neanderthals. We're monkeys. Pack animals. In a pack, we help eachother out. Or else, as a pack, and as individuals in that pack, we're screwed.

Today's communities, naitions and whatnot, are just larger and more complex packs. And if we don't pay the price to help each other out, we'll have to pay a larger price to face the consequences.

The the actual amount of what we pay can always be discussed.

 

[amicus]

Yes Cloudy, it is Sunday morning and I have yet to sleep and far from coffee...


"...Ami -

Just because it's Sunday morning, and I've had my coffee, I'll ask you a question: Has there ever been a society that has had the type of "freedom" that you advocate?

I don't think there has - ever. As far back as you want to go, as long as there has been any type of society, and not just roving bands of neanderthals, there's always been some type of structure, and with that structure, comes some restrictions.

As an ideology, your freedom works, but as a reality, I just don't see it.

Just sayin'.

I wanted to paste that again, for the full brewed flavor....

No, there has never been a society with full human freedom. That really is my point, above and beyond all that I post.

Humanity came closest to it with the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights. This was the culmination of a millenia of philosophical and political thinking; it reached a pinnacle and held...for a while and then began to both decline and ascend at the same time.

It falls upon us, now, our generation, to define and expand our conceptualization of human liberty and freedom.

My ideology is not practical, for sure, but I do hope it continues to keep alight the flame of human freedom for others to carry on.

I may fail, but it is not because I do not try in each and every way that I am capable of.

regards... amicus...

 

[amicus]

Liar...you made some accurate observations and some logical conclusions...however....

the thing you left out was the recognition that even in the Neanderthals( so named for the Neander River Valley in Germany), the thing you failed to acknowledge, was that 'one man' discovered fire, 'one man' learned how to cook food, 'one man' learned how to sharpen a stick and harden it with fire into a spear; 'one man'...the individual brain of one human being, discovering a new idea and fighting for it or disemminating it, is the 'key' to comprehending what humanity is all about.

It begins with one individual human mind. Not a collective, not a group grope, not a majority opinion, not a politically correct assinine assumption, but the the the single, individual human brain of one man.

Is that so fucking hard to understand?

Jesus Jumpin up Christ.... shit oh dear, what a fuckin' bunch of illiterates...

gimmme abreak...

amicus....

(profanities added for humor)

 

[Liar]

Liar...you made some accurate observations and some logical conclusions...however....

the thing you left out was the recognition that even in the Neanderthals( so named for the Neander River Valley in Germany), the thing you failed to acknowledge, was that 'one man' discovered fire, 'one man' learned how to cook food, 'one man' learned how to sharpen a stick and harden it with fire into a spear; 'one man'...the individual brain of one human being, discovering a new idea and fighting for it or disemminating it, is the 'key' to comprehending what humanity is all about.

I beg to differ. What elevates humans fron the rest of the critters is not that individuals makes discoveries. Individual makes discoveries all the time, in any spieces. What makes us better than the rest of the animals is our ability to preserve that knowledge through other means than passing it on as genetic abilities.

We can, in an active and organized way, share our advances with our fellow humans. Thus immediately incorporating it into the body of the tribe consicousness. This means that we can develop our intellect and tools to navigate and control our surroundings much faster than any other spieces. That's the reason we sit here today, chatting on a porn site via machines that are so complex that mere evolution is bitch slapped into submission.

Because somewhere way back there, our spieces learned to communicate well enough to share experiences directly.

It begins with one individual human mind. Not a collective, not a group grope, not a majority opinion, not a politically correct assinine assumption, but the the the single, individual human brain of one man.

Is that so fucking hard to understand?

No, that's perfectly clear.

But it's still what happens next that is the important shit. if he keeps his ideas and discoveries to himself, what are they worth?

(profanities added for humor)

Okayers.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Mabeuse, after you insulted me in a personal way, I decided not to respond to anything your wrote.

However, you keep popping up on my threads, thus, I assume you are impervious to my disconcernations with you.

You are perhaps a political agnostic; that is to say you see the failings of both extremes and decline to take sides. Many do that and I would not criticize you for that but on the same hand, I would not grant you equality in a discussion of either, as you have basically withdrawn and risk nothing.

Beyond the amusement value of anyone presuming that he or she can "grant" anyone equaility in a discussion, I find it especially amusing that our passionate advocate of individual liberties feels capable of denying it.

Liar makes a trenchant point - one that reminds me of Ngugi wa Th'iongo's point in Devil on the Cross. If the word "freedom" is defined simply to mean "I'm free to grab as much as I can as fast as I can, and so are you," then all other freedoms are ground under in subservience to this single economic freedom. In the end, many other freedoms are lost in enslavement to the economic system. In fact, I think that this is where most people are coming from in opposing complete, unregulated capitalism. They don't object to freedoms; in fact, they are attempting to maximize personal freedom by giving more people access to money and reducing the inherent tyranny of wealth.

Shanglan

 

[LadyJeanne]

Slick Tony....sighs...

You know...that is really a tough thing...

I have 5 daughters, three sons...and I, as you, wish them to be educated and self sufficient...however... you may surmise, as I have, that 'smart' educated women, girls, find slim pickings when it comes to spouses that will accomodate and compliment them in their life quests.

Although I have struggled to educate all my children, in all ways, I remain uncertain as to whether the 'girls' I raised are better off being smart and educated.

That is not a 'maxim' just a question I have as I observe them go through life as, 'intelligent, educated women' in a world of really stupid people, in many cases....

Just a ramble...sorry...


amicus...

You should feel glad that your educated, intelligent daughters don't have to depend upon the stupid for their survival, amicus.

 

[amicus]

Shanglan....far from it...the economic realities of the market place enforce rational behaviour in ones social affairs. Truth, honesty, delivering what you advertise, all the virtues of the entreprenurial playing field, apply equally in life.

But then, you know that, you just wanted to see if I did.

Lady Jeanne...I covered my real point with an Afghan, I think, I have observed that intelligent, smart, educated women usually pick a 'dork' they can control and manage, rather than a soul mate or an intellectual partner.

Not always true, I suppose but from empiracle evidence I can count the exceptions on one finger; but worry not, I am not being sexist; intelligent, smart, educated men often find a fluffy blonde the best repository for future generations.

Go figure....

amicus

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan....far from it...the economic realities of the market place enforce rational behaviour in ones social affairs. Truth, honesty, delivering what you advertise, all the virtues of the entreprenurial playing field, apply equally in life.

Bollocks. I know you hate the Victorian references, and now I see why. They prove you totally and completely wrong in this hypothesis.

It's quite simple, really. Change the name of your brand with each batch. Then you can adulterate bread with ash and baby powder with arsenic (both occurred) all you like; the consumers won't know who you are. And if you can sell sixpence of arsenic for twentypence profit, who cares about brand loyalty?

As for your daughters, I should think they'd be happy of an education allowing them to escape the fate of relying for sustenance on a man so feeble and emasculated that he couldn't bear the thought of an intellecutal equal as a companion.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

However, you keep popping up on my threads, thus, I assume you are impervious to my disconcernations with you.

You are perhaps a political agnostic; that is to say you see the failings of both extremes and decline to take sides. Many do that and I would not criticize you for that but on the same hand, I would not grant you equality in a discussion of either, as you have basically withdrawn and risk nothing.

So not being an extremist makes me a political agnostic? Because I think all doctrinaire positions that ignore reality are equally goofy , my opinions are worthless?

No. It makes you a fanatic. No wonder you spend all your time tilting at windmills and fighting imaginary foes. You see everything in black and white when the world is almost always gray.

 

[amicus]

Shanglan: The market place and marriage....

Because there have been bad people in the business world, now and in the past, you condemn the entire concept of an unregulated free market place.

That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to utilize an old saw.

There are bad people in government also, who use favoritism, accept bribes, falsify official records, slack off on the job and approve Thalidomide and DDT when perhaps they should not have.

Aside from the demonstrable efficiency of the free market place, the inhumanity of a controlled or command economy and its lack of efficiency should make a clear case to anyone seeking rational answers as to the most equitable system of the exchange of goods and services.

I shall not waver from my adherence to the concepts of human freedom just because you don't like a free market place.

Marriage....sighs...you know, I surmise that most when they embark upon a search for a mate in life, staying heterosexual, that they seek happiness and fulfillment.

Nature has made the male and the female somewhat dependent on each other and in the best cases, complimentary. That is to say, 'different'; with each providing the other with missing ingredients.

While you and others tend to try to make it personal, "your daughters", I attempt to remain objective and impersonal. I find your use of personal issues objectionable in a discussion and take it as a sign of weakness and the inablility to approach a subject rationally.

While the spectrum is surely vast and wide in the area of personal relationships, there have been, throughout history, enough simularities to extract a 'common', 'universal' desire for men and women to join forces in a quest for a better life.

It has always been my desire to better understand these things, not impose a preset value to those relationships.

An 'intellectual equal' as a partner may seem a desireable goal to some and if both have a firm grip on their own identity and sexuality, and a good vision on how they both envision the future, then perhaps that can be an ideal pairing.

Unfortunately, as we start the mate selection process very early in life (as decreed by nature) we do not possess the wisdom nor the rationality to make those kinds of decisions.

Nature, by providing us with raging hormones early on, dictates that we usually make those mating decisions based on emotion rather than reason.

Of course, that is a whole nuther can of worms...


amicus...

 

[amicus]

A long time ago, most people believed that the earth was flat and that all heavenly bodies rotated around the earth.

It was by conflict between two opposing points of view that eventually led to the discoveries that affirmed one position over the other.

Such it is with all things; that is how knowledge is gained, through conflict between opposing ideas.

Knowledge is not gained in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon by wise men musing over tea and opium.

It is a hurley burley contentious world of passionate opposites who in conflict and competition resolve issues and move on.

The most cowardly position is that of the 'fence sitter', the one who waits until a winner can be determined and then jumps in, claiming 'he knew it all along'.

No pain, no gain.


amicus...

 

[gauchecritic]

A long time ago, most people believed that the earth was flat and that all heavenly bodies rotated around the earth.

It was by conflict between two opposing points of view that eventually led to the discoveries that affirmed one position over the other.

Such it is with all things; that is how knowledge is gained, through conflict between opposing ideas.

Knowledge is not gained in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon by wise men musing over tea and opium.

It is a hurley burley contentious world of passionate opposites who in conflict and competition resolve issues and move on.

The most cowardly position is that of the 'fence sitter', the one who waits until a winner can be determined and then jumps in, claiming 'he knew it all along'.

No pain, no gain.


amicus...

I don't know what this part your arguement alludes to but a couple of things stand out.

1. No one ever believed the earth was flat. (I'm sure I've said this no end of times in various threads) The idea that everyone thought so was from a scene depicted in a 'biography' of Columbus which was made from whole cloth. The church at that time were virtually the only scientific body in existence and as such made no claims about the shape of the earth. Quantifiable science at the time decreed that the heavens revolved around the earth, the church said so and it was therefore obvious doctrine. Which leads to point
2. All science comes first from sitting around musing over tea (don't know about opium but it is probably not conducive to scientific reasoning) From these thoughts and their attempted proof or absence of contrary proofs comes the questioning time, the conflict if you will. Even with proofs a theory remains forever that, a theory until conclusive proof makes it obsolete or concrete. Until that time all 'good' scientists will sit on the fence.

Those that claim they 'knew it all along' (to my mind) are exactly those that claim their 'system' for any given discussion is unimpeachable.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Shanglan: The market place and marriage....

Because there have been bad people in the business world, now and in the past, you condemn the entire concept of an unregulated free market place.

Yes. It's a system that deals very poorly with the presence of bad people. There's really nothing to restrain them. I feel the same was about Spencerian anarchy. It's a beautiful system for beatiful people. Unfortunately, we've got humans, and it won't work very well with them.

That seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, to utilize an old saw.

No. It's a recognition that ideal forms of economic structure don't work well in a non-ideal world.

There are bad people in government also, who use favoritism, accept bribes, falsify official records, slack off on the job and approve Thalidomide and DDT when perhaps they should not have.

Yes. Bad people still exist. Hence my desire for some sort of regulation and government. Those things entail people being responsible to other people. This helps to curtail some of the bad behavior that occurs when no one is responsible to anyone. That bad behavior still occurs is unsurprising; it will, so long as people have any liberties at all. I prefer a system that seeks to balance the rights gained through personal freedoms with the rights gained through social responsibility.

As for approving Thalidomide and DDT ... Amicus, I am genuinely puzzled. You're advocating a system that would never have required the approvals in the first place, nor forced either product off the market when it proved to be harmful. How is that an improvement?

Aside from the demonstrable efficiency of the free market place, the inhumanity of a controlled or command economy and its lack of efficiency should make a clear case to anyone seeking rational answers as to the most equitable system of the exchange of goods and services.

So you repeatedly tell us. Sorry, but I'm still waiting for any sort of evidence, support, example, or proof. You can bluster all you like about things being "a clear case" and "demonstrable"; this just makes it all the more odd that you can't seem to produce any evidence to support your claims. Looks rather suspicious, don't you think?

While you and others tend to try to make it personal, "your daughters", I attempt to remain objective and impersonal. I find your use of personal issues objectionable in a discussion and take it as a sign of weakness and the inablility to approach a subject rationally.

Ahem. Amicus. Perhaps you'd care to scroll back up and see who dragged your daughters into the conversation:

I have 5 daughters, three sons...and I, as you, wish them to be educated and self sufficient...however... you may surmise, as I have, that 'smart' educated women, girls, find slim pickings when it comes to spouses that will accomodate and compliment them in their life quests.

Yes, it was indeed you and not me. I was answering your statement about them. I would not presume to make references to a poster's family unless s/he had indicated, by using them as a key example, that they were part of the discussion.

While the spectrum is surely vast and wide in the area of personal relationships, there have been, throughout history, enough simularities to extract a 'common', 'universal' desire for men and women to join forces in a quest for a better life.

Agreed. Freedom, education, and respect from one's mate seem to me to be part of those universal goals.

Shanglan

 

[amicus]

"...2. All science comes first from sitting around musing over tea..."


There may be more than I who would beg to differ with you.

Although I do not demean intellectual thought as a source of ideas, I rather think most discoveries come from hands on experience with the various elements of nature.

That is to say, I doubt the 'thinker' create fire, I rather think it was the fellow who toasted his fingers and said, 'voila!'

In other words a familiarity with the objects of natural reality the leads to different uses of very ordinary things, like clay, plants used for medicine, and metal bearing ores that accidentally melted in a campfire and clicked on a bulb.

Plato thought that all knowledge was contained in the mind and we had only to recogize it as such and pursue it.

Aristotle thought that knowledge was gained by learning and classifying the elements of nature.

There is a vast difference that led to that fundamental error in Descarte's thinking, "I think therefore I am." he got it backwards. "I am, therefore I think..." is far more accurate.

It wasn't Einstein, rather Pierre and Marie Curie who discovered natural radiation that led to E=MC squared.

There is of course some rare, abstract thought that occurs and generates new ideas; but by far and large, it is experiment and discovery, trial and error that solves problems.

And it appears logical to me, that when people first began to consider what the shape of the earth might be that they considered 'flat' or an inverted bowl as the most logical shape.

It appears, in historical references, that the Chinese first postulated that the earth was a sphere and as I recall they even predicted the approximate diameter through the use of mathematics, some several millenia before the Europeans.

amicus....

 

[amicus]

At the very basic level with you, Shanglan, it seems to be a 'lose/lose' option you offer in debate.

You demand evidence for the efficacy of the free market place, I suggest you open your eyes and look around, it is self evident.

You disregard that as 'not providing evidence.'

Although you are historically knowledgeable about the abject failure of every other system of economics, you still look at the successes of the western world and say so what? Just because those nations, using a basically open market place have dominated the world scene...you say so what? Give me proof.

Further....that because some men are evil does not necessarily imply that all men were born evil and must be restricted and regulated.

The original sin concept has filtered into economics with almost as powerful and effect as had the religious one. I suggest that concept does immeasureable damage to both the psychology of the indidivual and to the social schemes that rise from it.

Man is not born evil. Nor is he born with a propensity to bad acts. What you, perhaps, and others classify as 'evil', perhaps that is the basic instinct to survive, to act in one's own personal self interest.

Perhaps the 'aggression and acquisitiveness' you see as evil, is simply natures way of again insuring that survival.

And while you may view your positions as humane and equitable, I view them as destructive and psychologically dangerous as you and others set forth to tell us that our basic nature is evil and must be controlled, regulated and restricted as we go about our affairs.

We don't need your theocracy to give us a purpose in life, we already have one, our basic, mutual self interest and cooperation of those others so endowed with free will.

In others words, hands off! Practice your faith elsewhere! We who are men are proud of it and you would serve humanity well to just get the hell out of the way.

We will populate the stars while you remain here, voting on who can post nasty pictures on some futuristic website.

amicus....

 

[mrmgp]

Pat Buchanan wrote a book mentioning the declining birth rates of Western nations, and how in a few generations, Caucasians in Europe and North America may become minorities as racial/ethnic groups with higher birth rates begin to outnumber the caucasians in a few generations. He believes that this trend will eventually result in the fizzling out of Western culture as people of other races, religions and ethnic groups become the majorities. In this country, we've already seen the Hispanic community squeeze out the black community as the largest minority group, and when all minority groups are tallied, whites have become less than 50% of the population. In France, Muslims are such a large population that some believe the real reason the French government always seems to side with Muslim nations over the US is because of fears of a sudden epidemic of terrorism and insurgent activities should France piss off its Muslim community. I haven't read Buchanan's book, but his premise does make me wonder what the cultural face of Europe and North America will be if caucasions become outnumbered by people of other races and cultures and religions.

This post should in no way be read to mean that I'm a white supremacist. European-based culture has simply held "supreme" throughout a large part of the world largely because of the advanced technological status, militarism and imperialism of Europe and its descendant nations like the United States. Sooner or later, Western culture will fall. Just like all other previous civilizations in the history of the world. I'm just curious to see what culture become the new dominant force in the world. Will it be Asian culture with China at the center, or Islamic culture with what I believe will eventually become a united Muslim superstate at the center?

 

[gauchecritic]

So now discovery arises from tension and conflict? I wish you'd stay on point.

You said "Knowledge is not gained in the Hanging Gardens of Babylon by wise men musing over tea and opium." I said that it was, so your proof that it is, is that discoveries are made by practical people rather than thinkers. (Not wholly true either) Ok, I'll call you mister malaprop from now on. That isn't what you meant. You win.

But then you do it again. At some point you said something like 'the last 50 years of liberalism have destroyed(?) what the free world stands for' and now you ask the horsey to look around and see what a wonderful place capitalism has made of the west. Is it destroyed or not?

Man is not born evil. Nor is he born with a propensity to bad acts. What you, perhaps, and others classify as 'evil', perhaps that is the basic instinct to survive, to act in one's own personal self interest.

Take this and place it against this; a purpose in life, we already have one, our basic, mutual self interest

Mutual self interest? An oxymoron of tremendous proportion there malaprop my son.

Perhaps the 'aggression and acquisitiveness' you see as evil, is simply natures way of again insuring that survival.

People are born amoral 'evil' along with 'good' are things they learn in order to live in society because they are naturally gregarious.

I think you labour under a popular misconception of the word 'fit'. As in "survival of the fittest." In this case it equates with 'apt' not 'strongest'. Strong lungs do you no good on most of the planet. Six feet tall is not a good thing to be for most species. Fighting is the last thing that even your own body actually wants to do.

Nature's way, like water, is to seek the easiest route.

 

[amicus]

"...People are born amoral ..."

Is that an absolute statement? With an exclamation point also?

I suppose one can maintain the point that the new human mind arrives tabula rasa, accompanied by ethnic and racial and genetically passed along proclivitities in both the physical and mental aspect.

But a finer point might be that an infant is born capable of feeling pleasure and pain. Of feeling cold and hot and comfortable and uncomfortable.

In other words, fully equiped with the receptors and perceptors of reality which eventually lead to a discovery of that which is good for the child and that which is bad. i.e. the beginnings of a natural system of morality, good and evil.

So that since a child is born with the ability to determine the early stages of right and wrong, it is not born 'amoral' at all. Just inexperienced.

...and so the dance goes on...