Where we would differ is what we would see as solutions...

Environment. This I would suggest is possibly the least contentious. I firmly believe that Governments have to start looking at realistic sustainable energy sources NOW. Wind farms are not realistic, something we in the UK are pursuing in error I feel. The wind is not a guarranted or constant energy source. We should look to harnessing things such as tidal power, use mills to generate electricity for rural areas near rivers, invest heavily in a integrated public transport system so that people don't have to rely so heavily on the car (I have to use the car; there is not public transport to get me to my place of work for my start time and I hate that!), and either limit the use of passenger carrying aircraft or look to new fuels to facilitate international travel. One such example is the new jet powered by hydrogen, which if course emits water as it's exhaust. We also need to stop the senseless consumerism that is positively gobbling up valuable resources - for instance household electricals have become subject to fashions and trends. I know people who replace their TV every 2 years all because they don't like the look of their old one, even though it still works perfectly. MADNESS!!!! Have thay any idea how much enegry is used to make one TV set?! Not to mention all the nasty chemicals used to make the components that go into one. This sort of senseless waste has to stop. That's just one example of a very wide-ranging topic. Expand at will.

Overpopulation. This has been covered elsewhere recently, so I don't need to explain too much here, except to day that I absolutely stand against a policy of eugenics - which as we know PE supports. It is simply not plausible that a group of 'elite' individuals can be chosen, who would then be empowered to select the strains of the human genus that can continue to exist. I will freely admit at this point that I am at something of a loss as to what is the best way forward is. General population control sounds good, but China failed spectacularly with this policy. What do you do...enforce sterilisation after the birth of a certain number of children? Very difficult to know what is best here. All I know is that eugenics is definitely NOT the answer - too subjective and would almost invariably be as disastrous as the Nazi attempt. But what IS the answer? Again, expand at your leisure.

Corporate Greed. Difficult to know here to start here - but what I would say is that large multi-nationals that exploit other, less well of nations to preserve their profit margins is something I have dificulty with. This sort of links into the environemntal argument too, with the massively increased distances goods have to travel to reach their final destination. The shipping of goods via large container ships is heavily subsidised, which of course contributes to making the product cheaper, not to mention of course the cutting of the wage bill by a hefty amount - a worker in China earns aboit 1.8% of a british worker for example, but you can bet your ass you will still be paying through the nose for the end product. Nike and Reebok are just two of major sportswear companies exploit this to the full, as do many electrical companies, and many more are jumping on the bandwagon. This is simply not sustainable.

How to control this as a whole is a difficult one to approach. But the first thing I would venture for manufacturing, that companies can only sell the goods in the country where it is made, and the components must be sources as far as possible within that country is possibly a start. The constant 'downsizing' of worker's pay is abhorrent when some directors award themselves astronomical pay rises whilst telling their workforce belts must be tightened and that they can have inflation but not a penny more. The gap between rich and poor is increasing all the time and, whilst I don't believe for one minute that you can close this gap, it is not acceptable that ordinary, hard working people should be exploited like this. Again, just a snippet of what is a very large and complicated issue, so feel free to expand.

Double Standards. Funnily enough Iraq is a good example for this, especially when the recent release of Mordechai Vanunu is brought into the mix. Before I continue I'd like to reiterate that I still believe that it was right to go into Iraq. It had to be dealt with. But Vanunu's revelations place this policy into something of a quandary. My reasoning is this: I do not know, and I am not sufficiently knowlegeable about the issues surrounding the Dimona plant to comment, but I'll explore this scenario: IF what he was saying is true, and it is also fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, then we in the west clearly stand accused, and dare I say it, are guilty of double standards. One of my criticisms of the US policy towards Israel is that they are allowing the tension within the region to be inflamed by not stopping or condemning Israel when it is clearly in breach of international law, which is of course the reason why we are in Iraq. For instance, the complete lack of condemnation of what were clearly unlawful assassinations of two Hamas leaders. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist organisation, and it has been responsible for many suicide bombings, but assassination is simply not the way forward, and it is a material breach of international law. Because of this Hamas will gain support in the wider community, especially from the moslem quarter. The US should have been far firmer with Ariel Sharon over this. Now, I guess emoldened by the lack of any 'firm' words from the US, Sharon has announced that he no longer feels bound a promise he made to the US not to harm Yasser Arafat. How inflammatory is that? I don't have much time for Arafat but to 'harm' him? This is a sure way to make matters even worse than they already are. And what will the US do? Well, they have issued a statement indicating they oppose this change of heart by Sharon, but their actions, should Arafat be harmed, will be what I will watch. What will be the result if Arafat is harmed/killed? Yet more bloodshed in Israel.

The answer to this? Simply to be more consistent in our dealings in foreign matters. Israel is a UK ally, but we do not have much influence over the country. However the US does and it's actions, or more correctly inactions in recent times do smack of hypocrisy. It simply cannot be that we castigate and occupy one country, in the face of international opposition, for it's breaches of UN resolutions, yet we allow another to consistently break international law and take no action whatever. It will only store up more trouble for us in the future. Will we stop these double standards? I'd say yes...After we start WW 3 and have succeeded in eradicated the human species from the planet.

I'd be interested in PE's views here - to understand what his mindset is as opposed to mine and many others here. So PE, over to you...

--------------------

Environment:

Overpopulation and overconsumption are the real issues here.

The former is largely a product of the Third World, and could be solved naturally. The West (by which I mean not only W. Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia, but also S. Korea, Taiwan and Japan) simply needs to cease its wasteful gestures of destructive pity towardst he developing world. Remove access to food aid and modern medicine allow starvation and disease to naturally winnow Third World populations down to sustainable levels.

Overconsumption (chiefly a problem of the West), is best addressed by attacking the psychology underlying consumer culture. Consumerism is rooted in the need to replace (through the acquisition of material goods) the sense of purpose and identity which Traditional societies provided but which liberalism (with its emphasis on the atomized individual and the market economy) deliberately stamped out. We can best address the problem of overconsumption by destroying the liberal social construct and returning purpose to mens' lives through nationalism, Traditionalism and communitarian social organization. Discipline and purpose are the basis of true freedom, and these are desparately needed to counter the cancerous results of the false "freedom" of liberal individualism. Incidentally, refocusing society off the needs and desires of the individual (and applying coercive pressure to reform or eliminate those individuals and entities who cannot be productive and non-exploitive contributors to the community) also would address the problem of corporate greed. Corporations must exist to serve the community, not the community to protect the interests of corporations.

Double Standards:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hexonxonx:
Bullshit. Bayerische Bürger just keep drinking Bier, just as they did for centuries. And they look just like any beer-drinking people anywhere in the world - do you expect an alcoholic to look healthy?
Imbreeding never does anything good to improve the genetic quality. Diversity does.

---

Nature IS diversity. For you to think that you can somehow change this and paint the world in primer gray tones is a fucking joke. Surrrre. Go ahead, give it a try. This planet will shake you off its back without a pause. You may see compassion and respect for life as a weakness, but you are outnumbered. Tough break, kid. Worried about overpopulation? Something will give. Some devestating new plague is bound to spring up that puts cancer and AIDS to shame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
We can best address the problem of overconsumption by destroying the liberal social construct and returning purpose to mens' lives through nationalism, Traditionalism and communitarian social organization. Discipline and purpose are the basis of true freedom, and these are desparately needed to counter the cancerous results of the false "freedom" of liberal individualism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
How would making the population more intelligent and physically and mentally healthier reduce diversity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hexonxonx:
PE, your views on economic matters like overconsumption and corporate greed are laughable. It is pretty evident you're not friends with math (and mathematical models of economy). The solutions you propose can have only limited effect, in both time and reach, after that the system will ultimately collapse. There is no way for it not to - the top-down economic model is an unstable system (in mathematical meaning).
Your attempts to argue that would be even funnier than the post above. But you can try. There's no other comedy as funny as wannabee math talk.

---

Non-capitalist systems are ineffective if the global paradigm remains capitalism, but market economies themselves are inherently unstable because they rely upon ever increasing levels of consumption, and consumption cannot even be sustained long-term at the current level, much less at ever higher rates. Market capitalism isn't a sustainable economic paradigm, and ultimately, its very lifeblood (consumption) ensures that it cannot endure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delightful Little Capuchin Monkey:
So who gets to snuff that lumpy, pasty sack of shit Prozak (see photo elsewhere in this forum)? I don't think he's been doing his pushups.

---

Hey, I like what you wrote above "Delightful".
How can anybody take "Prozak" serious!

--------------------

Please clarify what you mean by "applying coercive pressure to reform or eliminate those individuals and entities who cannot be productive and non-exploitive contributors to the community."

While you're at it define what you mean by "unproductive genetic strains."

And why should I believe that "market economies themselves are inherently unstable because they rely upon ever increasing levels of consumption?" Do you have any evidence to support this?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by MadMeg:
A few questions:

Please clarify what you mean by "applying coercive pressure to reform or eliminate those individuals and entities who cannot be productive and non-exploitive contributors to the community."

---

I would think the meaning is fairly clear. Those who wilfully fail to contribute to the collective well-being of the community would need to be coerced into productive activities (labour camps are useful in this regard), or, when dealing the the extremely recalcitrant, more permanent means of correction might be utilized. Execute a few robber barons and the rest will fall into line.

quote:

---

While you're at it define what you mean by "unproductive genetic strains."

---

Basically:

Sterilization for those who are carriers of severe hereditary defects (certain diseases and mental disorders) and those below a certain intelligence threshold would be the order of the day. Obviously, people cannot control these aspects of their lives. That doesn't mean we should let them breed.

quote:

---

And why should I believe that "market economies themselves are inherently unstable because they rely upon ever increasing levels of consumption?" Do you have any evidence to support this?

---

Overpopulation. At present the human population is growing at an unsustainable rate, although ironically in Europe the population has actually fallen. Wealth does appear to stop population growth. The poorest countries therefore need our help in the form of education and support to make their lives better. Most are happy to live out their existences as they have done for centuries. They just need our support to achieve this. I would also counter that the reason most of Africa is in the mess it is in is largely down to the legacy of colonialism, therefore we owe it to these people to at least try to put right the mess we left behind. However, 'population control' is already in place; the AIDS epidemic will probably decimate the populations in the third world and at this time we are powerless to prevent it.

Overconsumption. How to change this is much more difficult. People in the West have had decades of being able to buy what they want without the spectre of the damage to the environment looming over our heads. In truth it's always been there, it's just it was never given any serious thought, except by a very few 'hippy ecologists in tank tops', who were marginalised by the politicians and given no real time by the media. Now we really do have to start thinking about how we use our resources. Our reliance on fossil fuels is certainly not sustainable; it could well be within my lifetime that both oil and gas will be exhausted. Oil is in just about every manufactured non-food item you buy, and gas is increasingly (in the UK at least) being used for generating electricity. We will not have this luxury for much longer and need to address this with great urgency. But our biggest problem is that the very people we entrust to make policy are in the pockets of the very people who will be directly affected by any change to energy policy. Catch 22! This is also the case with maunfacturing; the massive increase in imported goods from China has been achieved on the back of massive subisdies for cargo shipping, and of course the fact that in China there isn't really an environmental policy to speak of, and we in the west are feeding this machine! The politicians don't want to stop it because here in the UK at least it's consumerism and the exponentially growing consumer debt industry that is keeping our economy afloat. Redressing this will be difficult. One of the key steps would be to prevent the people in power from taking 'advisory roles' in business because it always creates a conflict of interest. The trouble is that this would have to be a multi-lateral policy, and that is where it would become unstuck.

In all honesty I think this comes down to education and the way the public at large are 'fed' information. For as long as we are fed messages via the media that imply we can have everything now we will continue to do so. Until this 'peer pressure' is stopped I see no end to this vicious circle. One thing I do believe is that a National Socialist approach, as outlined by PE, will achieve nothing other than a small elite group that live massively opulent lives, and 'proletarians' who eke out existences and do little other than feed the machine that supports the elite. Read 1984, it'll look something like that, or better still read Animal Farm, that is true eugenics!

--------------------

quote:

---

One thing I do believe is that a National Socialist approach, as outlined by PE, will achieve nothing other than a small elite group that live massively opulent lives, and 'proletarians' who eke out existences and do little other than feed the machine that supports the elite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
You keep acting like education is a magic elixir, it isn't. Contemporary Western society is the most educated in the history of the planet...and the most wasteful. Education is useless so long as it is geared to serve technocracy.

---

You can't have it both ways. Your 'elite' group who would be empowered to carry out your precious eugenics policy would have to have some education, yes? Education is a very braod brush, and you seem to think I am preaching about the conventional education we give our children, which failed me so badly because it was so rigid and did nothing to promote individuality. You assume far too much with this reply.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
In which case we'd be no worse off than we are now, but with fewer useless mouths to feed.

---

Yes we would. We live in a hierachical society, true, but there are many crucial differences between our present lives and your proposed NS-based existence. We can look for our own information, read what we want, protest if we please, vote for whoever we want, listen to whatever we wish and, most importantly, speak freely.

None of this would be possible under NS, because, like Communism, the regime controls what you see, read and listen to and, crucially, the only two ways in which power can change hands are the death or abdication of the head of state, or an uprising to overthrow the government. Democracy is far from perfect but it is a country mile ahead of that scenario!

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:
You can't have it both ways. Your 'elite' group who would be empowered to carry out your precious eugenics policy would have to have some education, yes? Education is a very braod brush, and you seem to think I am preaching about the conventional education we give our children, which failed me so badly because it was so rigid and did nothing to promote individuality. You assume far too much with this reply.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Knickerzohnonnof:
Yes we would. We live in a hierachical society, true, but there are many crucial differences between our present lives and your proposed NS-based existence. We can look for our own information, read what we want, protest if we please, vote for whoever we want, listen to whatever we wish and, most importantly, speak freely.

None of this would be possible under NS, because, like Communism, the regime controls what you see, read and listen to and, crucially, the only two ways in which power can change hands are the death or abdication of the head of state, or an uprising to overthrow the government. Democracy is far from perfect but it is a country mile ahead of that scenario!

---

Again, attack arguments I've actually made, instead of the ones you wish I'd made.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
Again, attack arguments I've actually made, instead of the ones you wish I'd made.

I'm proposing a decentralized social and political structure, the antithesis of statist totalitarianism (such as National Socialism).

---

I do believe I am, except you choose not to argue against the fact that NS preaches about the oppression of 'undesireables', who could concievably be anybody or anything the leader takes a dislike to, which is what I eluded to previously.

Totalitarian is possibly not the correct word, but under NS theory, the state has absolute control over the economy, and therefore the lives of everyone under its umbrella. I believe this is in essence totalitarian.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delightful Little Capuchin Monkey:
Allow me to break into this very civilized debate and point out that in all likelihood, Planetary Eulogy has a very small penis. Sieg heil! Seek help!

Okay, as you were...

---

...ROTFL....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Planetary Eulogy:
National Socialism, at least as promulgated by the Hitler regime, was most certainly totalitarian. I'm not interested in central state control of daily life, only in developing a mechanism to oversee a comprehensive eugenics program and perhaps one to take punitive measures against the economically exploitive.

---

The latter I don't necessarily have a problem with. The former is artificial evolution. As with GM food We are not, nor should we be, nature's substitute. Just as I believe we should not be spending vast resources just to keep people alive, regardless of their quality of life, I am equally passionate that we should never even attempt to simulate a process that has refined itself over billions of years, and has none of the weaknesses we humans have. You would say I am weak because I have compassion for others. I would counter you are weak because you cannot see beyond the surface of an individual. They must have certain qualities you precieve to be good. Those qualities are stained with your prejudices. Nature isn't prejudiced. We all are, every human being on the planet. This is why eugenics cannot work. This is why nature must be allowed to take it's course. We as a race are becoming too large for the planet to sustain us. This will be countered by natural forces, and that time could well be sooner than we all think.

--------------------