Reading What Sucks

I forgot who said this but here, "With great power comes great responsibility,"

Erm... Uncle Ben - from Spiderman?

Another quick point - evolution is not fact. It remains a theory until it can be proven. To be proven requires more than one lifetime - it could take many, many years until we see it happen to a species.

I think evolution is actually already taking place in the current group of homo sapiens sapiens species. We're already progressing from the 44+2 chromosome stage to the 46+2 stage (so-called "christ-consciousness" level), so, soon enough, we'll be, psychologically and mentally speaking, different beings from what we are now (technocentric versions of the previous 42+2 beings)

I'll believe in anything if you'll just believe in anything

This post was edited by Magnifico on Jun 12, 2003.

You've completely lost me there.

Firstly I don't quite see where this whole 46->48 chromosome thing has come from. Sounds like it's pulled straight out of someone's ass to be frank. I see no evidence for an increase in the number of chromosomes humans have.

Secondly an increase in the number of chromosomes does not indicate progression nor complexity - shrimps have 254 chromosomes. Are you less complex than a shrimp? Would you consider yourself less evolved?

Thirdly use of technology would not be evolution since you are modifying a current genetic template outside the remit of what evolution is defined as - which is a genetic change in organisms due to aggregrate effect on a species from their environment. In other words we'd be engineered, not evolved.

Barnes, I don't know what the hell you are talking about with the chromosomes...

For a very good, well thought-out argument about why humans have "gone bad" in the last 10000 years, I suggest that you read Daniel Quinn's Ishmael. Its central theory is something like mclaincausey's, but developed a lot more. It is a very good book.

Personally, I agree with mclaincausey: ever since the Agricultural Revolution, humans have thought they alone rule the earth, and have departed from millions of years of evolution in trying to master nature, instead of living with it.

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

Daniel Quinn is an excellent starting point, as Anduril points out. Also, the Sierra Club has published a book of serveral essays called The Case Against the Global Economy: And for a Return to the Local" that is a great primer on the dangers of globalism, including deregulation, overpopulation, exploitation, environmental devastation, and critical resource shortages. Anarchists consider globalism to be the inevitable outcome of a Capitalist empire, so we also consider the dangers brought about in our modern era to be inevitable within the confines of our system, and we also forsee worse times ahead. The term "Globalism" is synonymous with, and is in fact a euphemism for, "empire."

A system that rewards unchecked greed is a system that inevitably places, as Noam Chomsky put it, "Profits over People." Tribal systems, conversely, place importance on the individual. The capitalist mentality has lead to all kinds of devolution and decay in society--hence causing people to conclude that "humans are crap." But the good news is that the system is one that is flawed, one that brings out the worst in humans--we are capable of much greater things, if we are just put into the right system.

There is also a great book called Resource Wars, but I forget the author. Exploring the symptoms of Anthropocentrism is important, but exposing and reevaluating our mythologies and delusions regarding our status as a species, particularly with relation to other species, is more foundational and important.

There is a growing outcry of alarm and protest against transnational corporate hegemony and the consequences of blind profiteering. We Anarchists and neotribalists have been warning unreceptive ears about these issues since the ancient times, but it now appears that events are focing us to face these issues or face global catastrophe very soon. If only had people started listening sooner--I hope it isn't too late.

Neotribalists see these ills as symptoms of a misconstructed civilization, rather than as causes. Also, Anarchists think that society makes humans, not the other way round--a misconstructed society leads to unstable, dangerous, and warmongering people, instead of the cooperative pack animal that humans are in a tribal, non capitalistic, Anarchistic element.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

This post was edited by mclaincausey on Jun 13, 2003.

An alternative to neotribalism that would work (I am sure you won't like it, but it is viable): combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism. First, move to protect the environment, and to improve third world countries' economies. Remove sweat shop labor and the like. Set up social benefit programs in advanced countries that help those who are not privilidged. This would narrow the gap between rich and poor. There would still be a heirarchy (which I see as a necessary part of any human society -- I know you disagree, but thats what I see), but it would be less rigid, less stratified.

Anarchism sounds OK in theory, but it won't work. The main reason being this: anarchist societies don't focus on production, but capitalist ones do, so capitalist societies will always have more of everything. Capitalist leaders will always want to stay in power, so if they see an anarchist group getting too powerful (which I doubt will ever happen, but who knows), they could quickly eradicate it with their superior production (production wins wars, and you know that -- if you disagree, look at WWII). This is a worst case senario; I don't even think a large anarchist community could sustain itself for more than a few generations.

I think that we should implements a direct democracy eventually (when logistics are sorted out). Just like anarchism, this, too will not happen, but thats my alternative.

"It was not God who created man, but man who created God." --Santa Caserio

An alternative to neotribalism that would work (I am sure you won't like it, but it is viable): combine the best elements of capitalism and socialism. First, move to protect the environment, and to improve third world countries' economies. Remove sweat shop labor and the like. Set up social benefit programs in advanced countries that help those who are not privilidged. This would narrow the gap between rich and poor. There would still be a heirarchy (which I see as a necessary part of any human society -- I know you disagree, but thats what I see), but it would be less rigid, less stratified.

Anarchists believe that expoitation is part and parcel of Capitalism, and based on 5000 years of observation, I think we're right. More evil has been perpetrated in the name of Capital than any other thing, in every single culture in which it has existed. Capitalism and exploitations cannot exist with one another, and Capitalism and liberty and equality also are irreconcilable.

Anarchism sounds OK in theory, but it won't work. The main reason being this: anarchist societies don't focus on production, but capitalist ones do, so capitalist societies will always have more of everything. Capitalist leaders will always want to stay in power, so if they see an anarchist group getting too powerful (which I doubt will ever happen, but who knows), they could quickly eradicate it with their superior production (production wins wars, and you know that -- if you disagree, look at WWII). This is a worst case senario; I don't even think a large anarchist community could sustain itself for more than a few generations.

It is more than OK as a theory, and has worked before in history--Revolutionary France and Spain.

Anarchism, as I have argued in another thread, actually [i]increases[/i production. I certainly don't have all the answers, and that's one of the best things about Anarchism as a formal political theory--that it remains open to suggestion. But a free society is feasable.

I think that we should implements a direct democracy eventually (when logistics are sorted out). Just like anarchism, this, too will not happen, but thats my alternative.

The reason a direct democracy will not happen is because we live in a Capitalist system in which power is centralized--those in power will use their military might to prevent this from happening. We are already slouching towards a police state--when that finally collapses, it is my hope that Anarchism will be given a chance.
Mac

Ewige Blumenkraft!

Your grammar was rather flawed, but ill try to make my way through it.

"What sucks? It sucks that we are polluting our earth to the point where we will kill it soon. WE are using our resources in such a poor maner that we will have no more natural ones. All of my complaining means and will do nothing but damn it is so crappy that we do this to ourselves."

why dont you do anything for the earth? its pretty obvious that your postings here arent helping enough. one would think its time to "take it up a knotch", that is , if you have the will to do so.

Humans are all evil bastards im ashamed to be one. Selfish violent abusive hypocrits elitist liars. I'll be happy when i get revenge on all the humans.