Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
The other option is LATER. Bigger genocide to come! Jmo. cn

<add> could not resist. Poverty isn't violence. Violence is when someone hits or stabs or shoots you. Poverty is a condition. cn
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;pWdd6_ZxX8c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c[/video]
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
There it is. You are racist. You begrudge the third world people of the sun having sustenance because they will reproduce. Malthus was absolutely wrong and a racist. As you can see in the link to the website I provided (containing sources right on the page) more money is spent treating obesity than it would cost to feed the starving. This is direct proof that Malthus was wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, let's do the twist. :) You have now combined starving, into 3rd world, into racism. There are starving white families here an America, brother. Don't get lost in the hate. It is a twisted equation to say that Malthus provides an excuse to starve populations. That is just ranting to me. He provided a warning that we must help all to fish, not to give fish. We give a lot of fish and we do a lot of teaching and we do a lot of armed intervention to keep moving. OH YEAH, profit. Profit, too. Money corruption, blood. All to give the world a chance. And for that they will burn us, I'm sure.

You twist in population control when that's not the point of Malthus. Then some bitch about the druggery of working for a living? Someone has to work to provide the charity, and your math, btw is false. You don't compare the apples. And you can't articulate an alternative to actual, (not hate filled) Malthus Conjecture.

How can it not be so? What can we do, for REAL??? We know what happens when we try to "feed the poor." Hateful warlords and their US dups take it.

Can you hear yourself repeating this Agenda? If we outlaw (repressively) obesity treatments, and send that money to keep Millions alive for a year, I gurantee what will happen, instead, is some Warlord kids will get obesity.

You know it is a mark of wealth and power in the 3r world? There is no magic wand. Get over it.
 
deprave

deprave

New Member
abandonconflict said:
In the scope of history, the USA is the greatest oppressor of the third world, having surpassed the British Empire in colonial hegemony.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in modern times but no, not in "the scope of history", It seems when looking at the current situation in more countries Britain and other European nations are responsible for more or at least just as much, and you can't forget china.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
Well, let's do the twist. :) You have now combined starving, into 3rd world, into racism. There are starving white families here an America, brother. Don't get lost in the hate. It is a twisted equation to say that Malthus provides an excuse to starve populations. That is just ranting to me. He provided a warning that we must help all to fish, not to give fish. We give a lot of fish and we do a lot of teaching and we do a lot of armed intervention to keep moving. OH YEAH, profit. Profit, too. Money corruption, blood. All to give the world a chance. And for that they will burn us, I'm sure.

You twist in population control when that's not the point of Malthus. Then some bitch about the druggery of working for a living? Someone has to work to provide the charity, and your math, btw is false. You don't compare the apples. And you can't articulate an alternative to actual, (not hate filled) Malthus Conjecture.

How can it not be so? What can we do, for REAL??? We know what happens when we try to "feed the poor." Hateful warlords and their US dups take it.

Can you hear yourself repeating this Agenda? If we outlaw (repressively) obesity treatments, and send that money to keep Millions alive for a year, I gurantee what will happen, instead, is some Warlord kids will get obesity.

You know it is a mark of wealth and power in the 3r world? There is no magic wand. Get over it.
Click to expand...
That is a blathering string of incoherent distortions. I would explicate it if any of it made sense.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
deprave said:
Perhaps in modern times but no, not in "the scope of history", It seems when looking at the current situation in more countries Britain and other European nations are responsible for more or at least just as much, and you can't forget china.
Click to expand...
Smedley Butler.
 
Canna Sylvan

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
This must be a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. I'll try to make it even more simple for ya.

The Malthusian idea that everyone's existence must be justified by meaningless employment is retarded.
Click to expand...
You're just as retarded as the monkey in your avatar.

People's existence must be justified, why else have the justice system? Otherwise we can kill each other with wanton abandon.

Our existance is justified. Neither you, I , government nor your Malthusian bullshit can take that away or claim otherwise.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Canna Sylvan said:
You're just as retarded as the monkey in your avatar.

People's existence must be justified, why else have the justice system? Otherwise we can kill each other with wanton abandon.

Our existance is justified. Neither you, I , government nor your Malthusian bullshit can take that away or claim otherwise.
Click to expand...
So are you saying everyone's existence is extrinsically justified, by employment as Malthus contended and that I am wrong for disagreeing with him? Or are you saying that I'm retarded because you agree with me?
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
lol and yes; it is. cn

<add> just saw the bit about extrinsic/intrinsic. I confess ignorance. Please explain.
Click to expand...
Justified existence was the effect that Malthus had on Darwin's views (before Darwin rejected them) which gave rise to what is now known as social Darwinism. It is the idea that people must somehow justify their existence in order to occupy earth in light of "the population problem".

Really, Malthusian ideas were widely accepted but ultimately TL;DR'd. in many ways, he can be blamed for turning the renaissance into racism.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
abandonconflict said:
Justified existence was the effect that Malthus had on Darwin's views (before Darwin rejected them) which gave rise to what is now known as social Darwinism. It is the idea that people must somehow justify their existence in order to occupy earth in light of "the population problem".

Really, Malthusian ideas were widely accepted but ultimately TL;DR'd. in many ways, he can be blamed for turning the renaissance into racism.
Click to expand...
I see. I wasn't aware of that wrinkle. I don't think that justified/unjustified existence will be an ongoing concern however. When things get tough (and they will), the bigger question will be capacity to provide for self and clan. Reality has its way of pruning the moral/philosophical hedge.

But "turn the Renaissance into racism"? People were very racist going into the Renaissance and also upon leaving it. They practiced real unadorned I-own-your-ass slavery among other things. Not uniformly by geography, but during the entire time. cn
 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
abandonconflict said:
Justified existence was the effect that Malthus had on Darwin's views (before Darwin rejected them) which gave rise to what is now known as social Darwinism. It is the idea that people must somehow justify their existence in order to occupy earth in light of "the population problem".

Really, Malthusian ideas were widely accepted but ultimately TL;DR'd. in many ways, he can be blamed for turning the renaissance into racism.
Click to expand...
Population - I think that's the real problem that people have trouble addressing. On one hand you'd be insane to advocate for a massive reduction in the worlds population due to the fact, if a policy of that nature was enacted in the near future, it would almost certianly have to be carried out through genocide, coz lets be honest - people ain't gonna stop fuckin'...

On the other, rational thinking and common sense would guide one to the conslusion that slowing or reversing population growth would be the only way to sustain this planet and the those who inhabit it, eliminating famine in the process.

I'm also not discounting the politics, money, power that play into such an issue. While the UN has grand ideas on solving world hunger, poverty nothing is/has worked...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I see. I wasn't aware of that wrinkle. I don't think that justified/unjustified existence will be an ongoing concern however. When things get tough (and they will), the bigger question will be capacity to provide for self and clan. Reality has its way of pruning the moral/philosophical hedge.

But "turn the Renaissance into racism"? People were very racist going into the Renaissance and also upon leaving it. They practiced real unadorned I-own-your-ass slavery among other things. Not uniformly by geography, but during the entire time. cn
Click to expand...
Well yeah, racism always had economics on it's side, but the fledgling science of biology it did not yet.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
echelon1k1 said:
Population - I think that's the real problem that people have trouble addressing. On one hand you'd be insane to advocate for a massive reduction in the worlds population due to the fact, if a policy of that nature was enacted in the near future, it would almost certianly have to be carried out through genocide, coz lets be honest - people ain't gonna stop fuckin'...

On the other, rational thinking and common sense would guide one to the conslusion that slowing or reversing population growth would be the only way to sustain this planet and the those who inhabit it, eliminating famine in the process.

I'm also not discounting the politics, money, power that play into such an issue. While the UN has grand ideas on solving world hunger, poverty nothing is/has worked...
Click to expand...
I have a slightly different take on this. The traditional way in which human populations were held to the land's carrying capacity was twofold:
1) famine
2) war,
singly and in combination.

For seventy years we have short-circuited both by way of diplomacy and foreign aid.
I share with AC the idea that those two are to be avoided at almost all costs, but i do not share with him the idea that we can. War and famine will return. I worry that they will be all the more terrible for having been delayed while we add more people and weapons to the mix. We have two generations of cornfed newswatchers who think it can never happen again. Either they or their children will receive one hell of a wake-up call. The catalyst will be loss of coastline and farmland due to climate change, which imo is just getting started. Jmo. cn
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
I have a slightly different take on this. The traditional way in which human populations were held to the land's carrying capacity was twofold:
1) famine
2) war,
singly and in combination.

For seventy years we have short-circuited both by way of diplomacy and foreign aid.
I share with AC the idea that those two are to be avoided at almost all costs, but i do not share with him the idea that we can. War and famine will return. I worry that they will be all the more terrible for having been delayed while we add more people and weapons to the mix. We have two generations of cornfed newswatchers who think it can never happen again. Either they or their children will receive one hell of a wake-up call. The catalyst will be loss of coastline and farmland due to climate change, which imo is just getting started. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
Solutions are just getting started too.

 
echelon1k1

echelon1k1

New Member
cannabineer said:
I have a slightly different take on this. The traditional way in which human populations were held to the land's carrying capacity was twofold:
1) famine
2) war,
singly and in combination.

For seventy years we have short-circuited both by way of diplomacy and foreign aid.
I share with AC the idea that those two are to be avoided at almost all costs, but i do not share with him the idea that we can. War and famine will return. I worry that they will be all the more terrible for having been delayed while we add more people and weapons to the mix. We have two generations of cornfed newswatchers who think it can never happen again. Either they or their children will receive one hell of a wake-up call. The catalyst will be loss of coastline and farmland due to climate change, which imo is just getting started. Jmo. cn
Click to expand...
Okay, not touching climate change, but the more guns, money & people will lead to all of the above.

You add religion to that mix, we're seeing this now in areas of Africa, its bound to explode sooner or later. There are some that profit of this and who are happy to let it run it's course to achieve population control. It's just genocide in a media friendly package. But if we all donate a dollar a day....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top