Robert Kirkconnell said:
Thanks Criostoir for your input. We think so differently that sometimes I have trouble understanding your points. I can say, however, that my research has led me to vastly different conclusions.
Thank you as well. But, if you would like to understand my perspective better and know where I am coming from, then I would suggest that you read, if you haven't already, Gharles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and Konrad Lorenz's "Behind the Mirror." From my perspective, they complement Lobaczewski's "Political Ponerology" and provide a framework that his theory fits perfectly into.
Robert Kirkconnell said:
For example, there have been some technical gains in agriculture but not much.
From the information given on this website:
https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm
You can see a timeline of agricultural advancement. The site states that in 1950 "One farmer supplies 15.5 persons (est.)" and in 1990 "One farmer supplies 100 persons (est.)." Those are some pretty significant gains in only 40 years. As far as the rest of your post, I agree with you that it is a toxic system and I don't think it is sustainable. The earth has a carrying capacity and if things continue on this course at the same rate, we will probably reach it soon. And, I also agree that the agribusiness' dealings over GMOs is appalling and I think that WE will reap what THEY sow. Pun intended.
Robert Kirkconnell said:
We also have people living longer than Americans all over the world. We also have one of the highest infant mortality rates, even in developed countries.
According to the United Nation's "World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Volume I: Comprehensive Tables"
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Documentation/pdf/WPP2012_Volume-I_Comprehensive-Tables.pdf
in Table S.13 for the years 2010-2015, the Life Expectancy at Birth United States is 78.9 years and that is up 1.8 years from 2000-2005. When compared to Japan, the country with the highest Life Expectancy at Birth in the table, which is 83.5 years, the United States is only behind by 4.6 years, but, more to the point, it is steadily increasing in the Life Expectancy at Birth.
For sure, the United States has a higher Infant Mortality Rate than most European and some other developed countries, for example, take Sweden in Table S.14 for the years 2010-2015, it has a rate of 2.3 deaths per 1,000 live births. Compare that to the United States, which has 6.1 deaths per 1,000 live births. But, this also shows that the United States is down from 7.0 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2000-2005. More to the point, this indicates a steady decrease in Infant Mortality Rates for the United States. I would also point out that having 'higher' Infant Mortality Rates than many other developed countries is a far cry than saying that the United States has "one of the highest infant mortality rates, even in developed countries." That just simply isn't true. Perhaps you worded it wrong. There are other developed countries, depending on what you consider 'developed' is, that have higher Infant Mortality Rates than the the United States. For example, if you look at Table S.14, in the same time period (2010-2015) you will find: Russia (9.7), China (13.0), Mexico (14.2), Romania (10.5), Saudi Arabia (11.2), and then scroll up and down the table and see the scores of other countries, most of them are not considered to be 'developed', in the double digits and triple digits. The United States does have high Infant Mortality Rates in comparison to other developed countries, but it does not have the 'highest', not by a long shot, and, more importantly, it is improving.
Perceval said:
Yeah, economic systems by themselves don't destroy societies, but certain economic systems seem to 'select for' destruction more so than others. Capitalism, in theory, isn't necessarily any worse than any other economic 'ism', but when you take into consideration the nature of those leading society, the 'captains of industry', and the way they spread their pathology throughout society, capitalism - as in trade, industry and the means of production in the hands of private individuals with the mandate to make as much money as possible, - is a disaster that is happening right now rather than waiting to happen.
Industry and the means of production have always been and always will be in the hands of individuals, whether private or public and laws and regulations seek to bind them both and hold them accountable, in theory at least. A government bureaucracy is no safeguard against those that "spread their pathology throughout society." The way I see it, is that social predators will adapt to any economic system in a similar way that an animal predator adapts to any changing environment. If the prey of an animal predator is changed, then the predator that is best suited to catching that new prey will increase in the population and those that are not best suited will become extinct. The same goes for the natural selection of the prey and they both, predator and prey, continue to adapt and evolve. I think it is the same with social predators of the human species. Capitalism is essentially a free market and private ownership of property. Communism is essentially a centralized economy and public ownership of property. But, social predators will try, and have succeeded in the past, in both systems, to centralize their control over society.
Perceval said:
I think that 'people are living longer' claim is a myth, or at least a distortion. What seems to be true is that children today have a better chance of survival than they did 100 years ago, but actual life-expectancy has not increased that much.
Well, I don't think it is quite a myth, especially when you consider the exponential rise in the global population is such a short time. Although the statistics may be somewhat fudged, I do think that life expectancy has increased. Using just the United States as an example, according to the Social Security Administration's website
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
in Table 1, you can see that the Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 for males has increased from 60.6% of the population in 1940 to 72.3% of the population in 1990. For females, the Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 has increased from 60.6% of the population to 83.6% in 1990. Those are pretty significant numbers, especially when you factor in the total population increase during that time period.
Perceval said:
I'd say that technological advancement, especially in the way it has been happening where it fuels productivity at the cost of rising unemployment and ever lower wages and living conditions for those forced to take whatever job they can get, is the child of capitalism. At least, it's continually filling the pockets of the most ruthless and conscienceless.
Even without psychopaths, people will continually adapt to their situations and try to improve their circumstances. Unfortunately, what is good for one, is not always good for another. If certain adaptions are good for a population then those adaptions will continue until they are no longer good for them.
If you read Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" and compare it to Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations," you can see that the similarities between natural selection and market forces are striking.
However, I would point out, which I'm sure you will agree, that the "most ruthless and conscienceless" are not regarded highly among most people and they will not be able to endure if the people's awareness of them and their dissatisfaction reaches a critical mass. As to the rest of your post, I agree with you.
Laura said:
Of course not. It's how it is implemented. Probably the most beneficial way to run things would be for tribes to be communist, local communities to be capitalist, and federal governments to be socialist; BUT, each in a particular sphere.
That is an interesting take, but people are different and one size will not fit all. However, I do think that various forms of communalism mixed with private ownership at the local community level would probably work for most people in varying mixtures. I think the key to making it work is whatever is most practical for a given local community. I think that there are good people that would voluntarily give to their local community for benefit all, but would still want to have private ownership, whereas others would prefer to have communal ownership. But, still I think that in most cases it could work out.
Interesting that you mention these types of communal arrangements. I have recently read some books that give some historical examples of these kinds that you might find very useful: Lisa M. Bitel's "Isle of the Saints," William A. Chaney's "The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England," Frank L. Owsley's "Plain Folk of the Old South," and Grady McWhiney's "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South."
I would like to add that if inherited instincts are a factor in optimal human communities, which I suspect they are, then I think that these books are valuable in presenting some systems that have worked for those that descended from the British Isles and may also work for their descendents today, but in modified forms.
To illustrate what I mean by "communalism mixed with private ownership at the local community level" here is an example of communal pasture lands and private ownership of livestock from "Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South":
In Mississippi and elsewhere in the South, the Celtic open-range tradition determined both law and policy. Judge Handy pointed out that there were "large bodies of woodlands and prairies, which have never been enclosed, lying in the neighborhoods of the plantations of our citizens, and which, by common consent, have been understood, from the early settlement of the State, to be a common pasture, or, in the phrase of the people, the 'range,' to which large numbers of of cattle, hogs, and other animals in the neighborhood… have been permitted to resort. These large numbers of cattle and other animals are necessary to the wants and business of the people, … and the large and extensive tracts of land suitable for the pasture of stock, are most generally not required by the owner for his exclusive use. If so required, no one questions his right to fence them in. … But until he does so, by the universal understanding and usage of the people they are regarded as commons of pasture, for the range of cattle and other stock of the neighborhood.
[…]
By contrast, the southern system of raising livestock on the open range was simple and easy. Aside from marking or branding their animals, Southerners had little more to do than round them up in the fall and either sell them to a local buyer or drive them to market. One could even raise livestock without owning land.
[…]
The traits that Jordan said characterized southern herding were traditional in Scotland, Ireland, and Wales long before they were practiced in the American South. Unlike the English, the Celtic peoples of the British Isles disdained tillage agriculture, preferred instead to let their livestock make their living, and worked little except to mark or to drive their animals to market. In these and other ways their herding practices were almost exactly those that preveiled throughout the Old South, including open-range herding, overland trail drives, and the neglect of their animals.
[…]
That was the key to how the plain folk lived: in the literal sense of the phrase, they lived "high off the hog." When the larder got low they simply stuck another hog. For vegetables, almost no tillage was necessary, since green gardens in the southern soil and climate, once planted, grew wild, reseeding themselves year after year if they were appropriately neglected, as was also the case with "pumpkins, sweet potatoes, and several other vegetables." In 1854 a startled German, who found the South far different from his own culture, wrote to friends back home: "There are such fine fruits and plants here. The forest is a veritable vineyard, for grapes of all kinds grow in the wild forest as well as such things as are planted in the fine gardens of Germany. All such things grow in the woods here… You can also keep as many cows here as you wish, for feed does not cost a penny. Cattle feed itself in the woods in winter and summer, no cattle here is fed in the barn. Grass grows six to eight feet high in the woods and one person has as much right there as the other. Similarly you can keep as many pigs as you wish, and you need not feed them. The same is true of chickens… We do not want to go on, for we can live here like lords.
There are many other good examples in these books of how such systems were effective and some of their drawbacks and other tradeoffs.
Laura said:
Críostóir said:
The global population is exponentially rising and with it, is technological advancement.
More food and goods can be manufactured and produced today with far fewer workers than previously, due to robotics and agricultural technology.
Those two sentences above effectively cancel each other out.
They don't cancel each other out from where I am sitting. That is what is going on, that is what we're looking at from what I'm seeing anyway. Perhaps I just don't quite understand what you are getting at.
Laura said:
And actually, there is a limit to food production and resources and we have already not only used up what was "ours", but have used up most of what belongs to future generations. You might want to read Lierre Keith's book "The Vegetarian Myth" and some of the sources she refers to about the limits to growth and how we have basically pillaged the planet and what is going on now is, ultimately, resource struggles/wars.
I totally agree.
Laura said:
The fact is that life force is being preserved in a lot of people who have no quality of life whatsoever. I don't think that's an improvement. And mortality rates have not declined. Don't know where you are getting you stats, but they are wrong.
Mortality rates have declined and populations have increased. I have given the sources of my statistics and I have no compelling reason to suspect that they are grossly inaccurate at this time. Now, I don't know where you are getting your stats, so I cannot compare them. But, based on the information I have, my statement is logical.
But, I also agree with you that a lot of people in the world that have no quality of life, especially when compared to others. You may find this article interesting:
http://www.economist.com/news/21566430-where-be-born-2013-lottery-life