[extropy-chat] how partisanship skews perception

[Mike Lorrey]

--- Sean Diggins  <sean at valuationpartners.com.au> wrote:
> ========================================
> 
> No, but the big problem, as even a cursory glance through history by
> anyone with a modicum of political and economic comprehension clearly
> indicates, is we are witness to the endgame of rampant, unchecked
> capitalism. Without wanting to inflame this list with heated debates
> as to the veracity of my claim, one only needs to consider the fact
> the nearly a third of the planet's population does not have running
> water in the home to perceive the undeniable fact that capitalism
> as an economic system is a failure on a grand scale.

A 'fact' which is meaningless outside of the context that that a large
chunk of that third of the planets population lives in non-capitalist
countries, and wrt capitalist countries, there are fewer people with
running water now than at any time in history.... thanks to capitalism.
Please leave the anti-capital agitprop at the door. You won't find any
sympathy here, except maybe from James Hughes.

> 
> David's book The Spike missed observing the biggest of ironies - the
> only hope for humanity is The Spike itself, as the paradigm shifts
> urgently needed to reset the course of humanity coincide with the
> hope that such technologies which lie beyond The Spike will actually
> arrive. For me, there is deep irony that technological advances,
> at times the feared enemy of all sides of politics, will be the only
> thing that can promulgate the political and economical paradigm
> shifts which will allow recovery from resource-hungry capitalist
> structures built by the ruling class.

pshaw. Firstly, it is Damien's book, not 'David's. Secondly, resource
hungriness is a function of the market. A centrally planned market is
so ignorant of price signals that it cannot help to be inefficient,
hence socialism/communism are more IN-efficient resource consumers than
a free market. Ergo, a capitalist system will use the least resources
in achieving the Singularity. Pull your head out of Das Kapital and
smell the market.

> Further irony lies in the ruling class being unable to keep this
> technology for themselves (which they will surely try to do), as
> the only way for us to "re-source" the planet's resources is
> through worldwide deployment of technological solutions on a global
> scale, throughout all levels of society, irrespective of class based
> systems. Failure of the ruling elite to recognise this will ensure
> there is no future beyond The Spike (well, not a future which
> includes us). 

WHO let all these commies in the door? Sheesh, they're like Kudzu, as
soon as a bad infestation is more than a decade gone, the idiots are
back to believing in its BS.

The ruling class DON'T WANT TO keep this technology for themselves. If
you'd looked at ImmInst's movie, Peter Voss was clear on this:
technological advances are subsidized by the rich, because they are the
early adopters, they pay the most per unit for tech, subisidizing
development and implementation of mass production so that the poor can
access the same tech at a far lower price.

And you commies keep claiming capitalists don't do welfare. It is clear
that the market functions as a massive technological wefare system for
the poor in a way which the market is able to handle at its maximum
resource efficiency. This is why the 'poor' in the US have multiple
cars, stereos, televisions, plenty of hot water and sanitary living
conditions, computers, DVD players, etc.

The poverty stricken areas of the world are as they are because their
nations do not respect or allow the creation of institutions which help
protect private property rights, or educate people in how free markets
work.

> 
> The natural inclination of the ruling class is to funnel
> technological advances into the military, maintaining absolute
> control over deployment of such technologies and periodically
> waging war to prop up the last economic vestiges of rampant
> capitalism, with compassion being the number one casualty. Control
> is what it is all about, no matter which political system you
> subscribe to. Yet this modus operandi is starting to come apart,
> with capitalistic systems headed to be the catalyst for global
> economic, social, humanitarian and resource catastrophes. 

Man, I didn't think anyone could make someone, over the internet, see
them waving their little red book, but you take the cake.

The military doesn't 'let the ruling class funnel technological
advances into it'. It has realized, since WWII, that being the
technological top dog was the only route to national security against a
numerically superior horde of communist buffoonery.

> 
> Very soon, China is going to be a MAJOR problem for the western
> world, and there are a number of credible studies which show
> impending massive increases in demand for resources such as oil
> by China, Taiwan, Korea et al may be a principle (but unstated) 
> motivation behind the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and the
> formation of the PNAC group of US ruling class planners and
> enablers. Bush is just an enabler....and he is brilliant in the
> role. The issue really is whether the PNAC model is just an old
> way of dealing with a new and potentially insurmountable problem. 
> 

It is no doubt that Chinese demand for oil for its expanding automotive
industry is a principal contributor to the current oil situation.
However, you are ignorant of a few other factors, such as the communist
inspired instability in Venezuela, hurricane damage to oil platforms,
and the muslim inspired instability in Nigeria. The $54 oil prices we
are seeing are specifically for light sweet crude oils, typical of
North Sea, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Prices for sour crudes, which are
much higher in sulphur and harder to refine, are currently running
about $40/bbl. These are proper market prices, and I'll tell you why.

Prior to the Iraq war, most developing or undeveloped nations tied
their currencies to the US dollar in order to help stabilize their
economies. It was the most stable currency, partly because it was
subsidizing these other economies, and partly because it was so easy
for foreigners to bank their assets in the US. The US for decades has
been the rest of the world's tax shelter.

Because of the US response to 911, restrictions on banking went into
effect that drove away international depositors, and thus lowered the
backing of and the demand for the US dollar internationally. Following
this, developing and undeveloped nations untied their currencies and
retied them to the Euro, partly as a response to the reduction in value
of the dollar caused by their leaders pulling their loot out of US
banks. This de-tying caused those countries to release large amounts of
US dollars, held in reserve by their banks, into the open market, which
further devalued the dollar. All of this 50% devaluation of the dollar
has resulted in inflation of oil prices. A $50/bbl oil price today is
internationally no different from a $25/bbl oil price in 2002.

> The latest fashion symbols in China are Hummer/Humvees.  What does
> that tell you?  

It tells me that chinese people are learning attitudes of individuality
they are going to need to tell their government to go eff itself.

> 
> As a mate of mine recently said to me:
> 
> ------------------------
> "Mark my words, it's going to happen soon that there will be a big
> hassle
> over oil and energy generally. China is going to be the big thing.
> There was
> a big attack on Iraq's infrastructure yesterday that has stopped all
> production from it's northern fields. Iraq at full production should
> do
> about 1.8 million barrels per day and it has world's 2nd largest
> reserves..
> Current global DAILY consumption is 82 Million barrels! The sums are
> all
> wrong. Something will happen especially in the context of the US
> election.
> The yanks are no way going to allow downgrading of their economic
> status
> over oil.
>  
> www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=oil+consumption  
>   
> 
>
www.english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?bicode=060000&biid=2004030851648
> 
> 
> I just worked out that people in the USA are currently paying about
> 68 cents
> Australian for a litre of petrol. Their gallon is only 3.7854118
> litres and
> the exchange rate is about 70 cents. The are paying between $1.80 and
> $1.86
> US per US gallon. They think this is high and their "human rights"
> view  of
> "lifestyle" is based on low fuel prices for gas guzzling vehicles.
> Imagine
> what would happen if their fuel went to say Australian prices of
> $1.10 a
> litre (ie $4 per gallon). They currently use about 19 million barrels
> a day;
> about 4 times the daily consumption of the next closest country which
> is
> either Japan or China depending on who you're listening to.
> 
> Much of China's industry is on reduced output due to energy shortage
> but
> their economy is still growing in spades. I just read that if China
> used the
> same energy per capita as the US then their consumption would be 80
> Million
> barrels a day which just about equates to current global daily
> consumption!
> 
> There is war in the middle east and there have been big problems (
> over
> Chavez)  in Venezuela  which has the world's 5th largest reserves and
> is a
> major  exporter to US. I jut heard in passing last night on a news
> item that
> there has been a big drop recently in US reserves.
>  
> As long ago as the 70's Kissinger said that the US was prepared to go
> to war
> to protect its resources and "lifestyle". NO matter which way you
> look at
> it, all this arithmetic means only one outcome - ongoing and
> increasing  war
> unless some alternative source of energy materialises soon or the US
> make
> "lifestyle" sacrifices like driving smaller cars ( bit this is an
> impossibility in the current US political climate-  " WHAT???!!!
> drive small
> energy efficient cars!!! - this is the US of A dude - we don't do
> that
> shit".) Alternatively they can put the brakes on China somehow?" 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> At 44 years of age, the larger picture is still something that
> somehow is
> slightly out of reach to me, the game is somehow just a bit too big,
> the
> playing field just a bit too wide. Not that political and economic
> concepts
> were/are difficult to understand/assimilate. More that things are
> changing
> so fast and other forces are involved beyond political, social, power
> and
> resources. Technology is the factor that will enable a new
> revolution....as
> it is the only way to deal with the unrepairable issue of resources. 
> 
> Nowadays, one cannot purely live a life based on political
> imperatives.
> Within the next generation, the very nature of what it is to be human
> will
> change. And, according to many of the people involved, such as most
> of you
> on this list, reality as we know it will have changed beyond all
> recognition
> within 25 to 50 years (for better or worse). Once you try to
> incorporate
> such FACTS (and the evidence is already right in front of our eyes),
> the
> recognition of a new (as yet unheralded and uncertain) revolution in
> political systems, tools and perhaps even a significant change in the
> great
> divide between the ruling class and everyone else...
> 
> We now have corporatisation forcing businesses to replace families,
> globalisation supplanting entire workforces in one country for
> cheaper
> labour in another, the  thought process zeitgeist which generates
> "conglomerate power" viewpoints commencing within the capitalist
> business
> mentality and growing like a cancer from there....
> 
> I'm reminded of an often quoted saying which I now apply to my
> considerations of the forthcoming Spike (for want of a better term):
> 
> "If the human mind were so simple we could understand it, we'd be so
> simple,
> we couldn't." 
> 
> I apply the same dictum to trying to assimilate technology into my
> political
> views....it is somewhere just beyond my reach, but there actually are
> many
> potent minds examining such things, as you all know only too well.
> This list
> seems to have a go at it every now and then, but science is generally
> concerned with the technology itself, not the repercussions.
> 
> In my view, technology is the only source for more re-sources. Yes,
> Bill
> Joy's pieces scared me, but no, we should not stop all research as he
> suggests, otherwise we will have no response to the endgame of
> unchecked
> rampant capitalism and nearly complete rape of the so called third
> world. To
> misquote old Winston, it IS the beginning of the end for capitalism
> as an
> economic construct. We now have corporatisation forcing businesses to
> replace families, globalisation supplanting entire workforces in one
> country
> for cheaper labour in another, the thought process zeitgeist which
> generates
> "conglomerate power" viewpoints commencing within the capitalist
> business
> mentality and growing like a cancer from there....and many young
> people do
> attempt to mobilise against this onslaught. But they mostly fail to
> generate
> anything even approaching critical mass. Some diehard activists on
> the
> extreme left (I'm not one of them) may well go on with the same type
> of
> activism/efforts for another 15 years, with perhaps the same minor
> percentile results, but eventually capitalism will eat itself....and
> be
> replaced by another system due to the desire for change within the
> masses. A
> minority does not grow by persuasion, it grows by NEED. It grows by
> filling
> a void, a gap, which may be growing due to the shrinkage or decay of
> a
> competing system. No amount of activism will serve any useful purpose
> to the
> cause unless the time has come for mass acceptance of the cause
> promoted by
> the activist/s. And we must figure out better ways of destroying
> control of
> media and entertainment by a select few. Re-spell Rupert Murdoch's
> surname,
> change it to Mordor and it's very easy to see him wanting the One
> Ring. Is
> he really Sauron? Yes, he qualifies, in my opinion.
> 
> And Bush, who is his fictional analogy? Is the grotesque Baron
> Vladimir
> Harkonnen from Dune. No, not at all. The US supports and feeds plenty
> of
> those types, stooges running various countries and entities on behalf
> of the
> US. No, Bush is more like an ambassador/enabler for that mysterious
> all
> powerful group in Dune known as The Guild...
>  
> There are BIG CHANGES afoot, and I want to be around to witness the
> results,
> but there will be dreadful struggles along the way. No doubt, some
> existing
> political and economic systems make compelling sense on a variety of
> levels.
> But despite this, things are NOT going to get better and
> egalitarianism,
> socialism or a libertarian society (of any dimension) are NOT going
> to
> become omnipotent any time soon. But the time MAY come when society
> will be
> ready to choose similar structures. 
> Despite the FUD, I have placed all my hopes in technology. I have
> lost my
> hope/faith in human nature, as history shows the true colours of
> human
> nature. Like dumb sheep, we will eat the grass to the ground, all the
> while
> accusing each other of eating too much grass. Politics of any
> persuasion
> will hardly matter. In my view, most political systems ultimately
> become
> tools of the ruling class, no matter how the system/s begin. They
> just
> tinker around with the upward trickle of money and power. So my hopes
> lie
> with bio and nano...and I consider the people directly involved in
> bio/nano
> as being valid contributors to the "which way forward?" debate. 
> 
> So I disagree with Bill Joy. I think the future DOES need us, and it
> does
> need those who still yearn for better political and economic systems
> to
> replace those based on capitalist objectives. There are other factors
> of
> course - I fully comprehend the existence and usefulness of broad
> socialist
> and environmental causes and the ongoing struggle against the
> misguided
> Right and their cloud dwelling ruling class. Yet nothing changes the
> fact
> that the rug is being pulled from under most of us as we speak.....
> 
> Sean
> (also a libertarian at heart)
>    
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> 


=====
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.
It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
                                      -William Pitt (1759-1806) 
Blog: http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=Sadomikeyism


		
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com