"It's a stability thing, not a Western greed thing" seemed to encapsulate your comments.
Joel Send a noteboard - 22/08/2011 03:10:17 PM
You want to see nothing but abuse by the corporations and their 'western pawns' so you find it and see it and ignore the rest where it contradicts your ideology.
I don't have to find it; the challenge is ignoring it. Since I only referenced China and Africa in my last response, here's a long time personal favorite from India. Between the three that's 3.5 billion people who've yet to achieve "decent comfort" with the aid (and despite the presence) of technology AND corporate America. So once again, when we haven't achieved that comfort for the majority of the world with fossil fuels I fail to see how we'll do it for three times as many without them.
You spin my remarks to make it sound like I was implying the west and capitalist interests are pristine clean when I've made it clear on numerous occasions and in that most recent post that I merely view them as a lighter shade of gray in comparison to most of the existing powers that be in those places.
Where exactly did you make that clear in your last post? Your most corporate-critical comment was that they don't spend thousands of dollars traveling to overseas to make loans they know won't be repaid, and that's not much of an indictment; even I wouldn't fault that. Of course, Western multinationals and banks DO make those trips--because it's highly profitable as long as they take more than they give (almost the definition of "profit", which may be the "root of all evil" here).
You even managed to twist my remarks to make it sound like I was implying the people in those places were somehow inferior.
You said most Iraqis live in mud huts and suggested it was because they lacked a work ethic; what did I have to twist there? I ran with that more than I should've because it smacked of the classic "only people too good to work want welfare" argument, but cushioning the shot you took by saying it's different in places you have't visited isn't exactly "all men are created equal".
It's like you're so attached to your worldview that you absolutely refuse to read anything that might show you a contradiction. You ignore all numbers, you object to the claim that standard of living in many of those places has risen even though all data says it has, even the HD index you previously used to cite to show the glories of socialist Europe.
That's a rather ironic statement when I've cited multiple examples of Westerners using technology to exploit rather than improve the Third World, a region I only referenced because "the numbers" show most of the world doesn't live in "decent comfort" even with fossil fuels, and thus it's dubious that three times as many people will do so without fossil fuels. Again, to the debatable extent the developing world IS developing it's mostly Chinese and Indian development that would be impossible without increased fossil fuel usage.
How can you claim that technology has not helped humankind? and that's what you're doing though I'm sure you'd deny it, you just cover it in thin aspersions to capitalism. Well a centralized egalitarian society would do the same things, move it's assets to where they can do the most good, bypass the $50 hammer in favor of the functional equally $5 one. You despise the primary method for improvement so you attempt to deny the improvement has taken place. In a world of 6 billion people you invariably seize on the always present and numerous bad things over the good to reinforce your beliefs. You could look at some place and pick out the mineshaft for blood diamonds and look right past the hub of a center-pivot irrigation system because you don't want to see anything that will screw up your comfortable millenarian outlook on life and it would distract you from a good rant about corporate corruption and campaign donations.
The bad outnumbers the good in most of the world; just because there's less entropy as well as poverty in the West doesn't make poverty any less prevalent on the planet than entropy is in the universe.
Has technology improved things? Sure, when used positively, but not when it's been used negatively. Technology isn't inherently good or bad any more than people are, it just is (I think I said that already. ) The same thing can be said of corporations, actually; if multinationals were subject to the same kind of oversight and accountability as their much smaller but equally corporate competitors I'd complain about them far less, mainly because I'd have far less cause. Technology and corporations are both tools, positive when used for constructive ends and negative when used for destructive ones. If you're using your hammer to smack old ladies in the head and steal their purses, I'd prefer you use the less effective $5 one--but blaming the hammer is ignoring the real problem. Likewise, is doing CONSTRUCTIVE work more efficiently with a $50 hammer really an "improvement" if you still can't feed yourself or your children and live on the street in fear of being arrested for complaining about that? Does a bad post get better or worse by adding more words of greater complexity?
The problem is human nature, which is not evil but IS flawed. I don't expect it to significantly improve things for most of the world at any time, because it never has at any time. The West has generally done better by prioritizing individual freedom while recognizing it can't be universal unless we stops short of allowing individuals the "freedom" to deny each others freedom. Unfortunately, we've done a sorry job exporting that rubric because it has to be taught by example rather than by rote, and we're allowing it erode at home because treatment and behavior that would cause mass revolts if it came from a PUBLIC collective (i.e. government) is somehow sacrosanct if in a PRIVATE collective (i.e. multinational corporations). That's a special case of the deeper and more fundamental problem I've cited in this thread, but is definitely a real problem for the West as well as its colonies.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 22/08/2011 at 03:11:55 PM
If ever there was a reason to cut greenhouse gas emissions
19/08/2011 10:14:00 AM
- 863 Views
I've seen Start Trek, I know the real threat is you killing whales.
19/08/2011 10:34:08 AM
- 520 Views
I know
19/08/2011 10:36:22 AM
- 470 Views
You make a fair point
19/08/2011 11:22:53 AM
- 445 Views
There's so much wrong with that
19/08/2011 01:08:57 PM
- 500 Views
"They don't recycle; kill them all. "
19/08/2011 07:11:15 PM
- 496 Views
Very Space Hippy
19/08/2011 10:39:10 PM
- 513 Views
It's still debatable whether we've abandoned the evolutionary ladder.
19/08/2011 11:16:58 PM
- 589 Views
You'll welcome to debate that with a biologist, it's not my specialty or interest
20/08/2011 04:46:43 AM
- 545 Views
I've seen a lot of mainstream biologists suggest human evolution may be mostly mental now.
21/08/2011 11:32:48 AM
- 562 Views
Neither of us are biologists though and it's not really relveant anyway
21/08/2011 01:21:06 PM
- 504 Views
I'm not ignoring it, just wondering why over half the planet ignores it and lives in misery.
21/08/2011 01:55:53 PM
- 519 Views
If you have occassion to spend time in those places you'll know why
21/08/2011 02:38:44 PM
- 450 Views
How does literal mud huts as the norm respresent living standards rising "a lot".
22/08/2011 12:29:35 AM
- 570 Views
You seem to have cherry-picked what you wanted to hear out of my comments
22/08/2011 01:07:10 AM
- 342 Views
"It's a stability thing, not a Western greed thing" seemed to encapsulate your comments.
22/08/2011 03:10:17 PM
- 479 Views
Only if you really cherry pick them
23/08/2011 02:48:08 AM
- 492 Views
This seems to have descended into an insoluble partisan debate.
23/08/2011 07:43:07 PM
- 553 Views
*rudely butts in*
23/08/2011 04:38:33 AM
- 534 Views
American companies don't go to China SOLELY to screw the working class, no;that's largely incidental
25/08/2011 08:03:05 PM
- 583 Views
we should abdon the myth of the evolutionary ladder
20/08/2011 11:49:35 PM
- 383 Views
Probably; as discussed in Brams thread it should never be seen as predictive, let alone prophetic.
21/08/2011 11:55:09 AM
- 492 Views
Well, for this context I think the use is okay
21/08/2011 11:59:19 AM
- 463 Views
That's an interesting point about the NEED for fossil fuels as a stepping stone to advanced culture.
21/08/2011 12:33:59 PM
- 562 Views
Not a need, just an edge
21/08/2011 02:06:23 PM
- 377 Views
There's industrialization and then there's industrialization.
22/08/2011 12:53:35 AM
- 739 Views
If you were more familiar with engineering you'd not say something like that
22/08/2011 01:53:33 AM
- 735 Views
I dispute that industrialization is primarily about non-agricultural production.
22/08/2011 03:10:19 PM
- 641 Views
Well you can argue that with a dictionary I suppose
23/08/2011 03:50:52 AM
- 500 Views
I'm not above that, but the dictionary definitions I've found are disappointingly self-referential.
24/08/2011 02:25:21 AM
- 428 Views
That tends to be the case, it is a kinda vague term outside of specific context
24/08/2011 09:12:19 AM
- 587 Views
Tends to moot that part of the debate though.
26/08/2011 12:31:21 AM
- 600 Views
and we wonder why so many people ignore "scientist"
19/08/2011 01:17:38 PM
- 518 Views
Think it's better to ignore "reporters on a slow news day," to be honest *NM*
19/08/2011 02:38:23 PM
- 191 Views
Hypothetical aliens are perfectly wise
19/08/2011 06:24:13 PM
- 432 Views
You may be confusing aliens with God.
19/08/2011 07:08:01 PM
- 457 Views