[CounterChaos]

If I was to ""hypothesize"" that modern day capitalists-aware of the finite resources on earth-aware of the massive growth in population-aware of the social and economic realities worldwide-could be implementing a Socialist Manifest Destiny under the guise of "The New World Order"-would I be tarred and feathered?

*Is anyone aware of any computer models/PowerPoint presentations etc., that predict/demonstrate the saturation date of population growth and resources worldwide?

I know this is way out there for some...Would it not be easier to implement a socialist model worldwide (peacefully) if you were in a position of influence worldwide? Are modern capitalists stupid? I don't think so...I think they are just riding their horse to exhaustion. I am truly intrigued by this thought and would love to hear yours....Cheers

They feed us tidbits now and then to pacify our need, just enough to quell descent but not to stop the bleed. ~Sandori~

<=====Brought to you by your public education system.

[Social_Critic]

This is going to be an interesting thread. I'm a capitalist, and I have no interest whatsoever in implementing worldwide socialism. I know socialism is a lot less efficient and tends to generate poverty, which means humanity, being poorer, would extract less minerals and eat less. I guess this is where you are headed? I think they call this being a luddite in those fancy texts they use at Cambridge. Or something like that.

I prefer to stay capitalist and defeat socialism because not only does it destroy value, it also has a tendency to erode freedom (I have written at length about the link between socialism's concentration of power and the inevitable rise of a kleptocratic and corrupt party oligarchy whose main focus is number one).

So the question should be framed, how do we land humanity into a sustainable worldwide economy? We have to let things work out. Eventually, population willl stop growing, either because enough of us got to the two child policy, or because antibiotic resistant bugs come crawling out of India or some other place where they tend to let people use antibiotics as if they were taking sugar pills. Or maybe it'll be both. Anyway, population will stabilize somehow. And then we just got to work out how to find cheap sources of energy and stop using nitrogen fertilizers. Easy.

[CounterChaos]

I'm a capitalist, and I have no interest whatsoever in implementing worldwide socialism.

That may be true...But are you in charge? Are you "personally" or with a select few behind you leading the way with your ideology?

[Suska]

In the short run resources in general are for luxuries, in other words the things we're worried about running out of are tools of competitive nations and multinationals. There are good reasons to concern ourselves with the case of petroleum dependent agriculture, if we hadn't come up with it the current population probably could not have been sustained. Would it even have been produced? The last few decades are quite like the previous; after the long-bomb save everyone went back to betting on another one.

The irreducible fact is that if we could reduce the growth rate to near zero, say .1%, in a thousand years there will be 300 billion people. And our current situation is basically a hail-mary, we're way past the point of sustainability.

Socialism in this context is just viewing the Earth as limited, whereas capitalism sees it as unlimited (hence our current situation.)

[El Gilroy]

Capitalism bad. Want controlled economy instead.

[CounterChaos]

In the short run resources in general are for luxuries, in other words the things we're worried about running out of are tools of competitive nations and multinationals.

Agreed...There seems to be a misconception that being poor is a bad thing. In a modern industrialized capitalist society it can be a hindrance to participation in that system, but I don't think it is a bad thing or even a undesirable thing. I have lived all over the world and I see in most societies even those considered dirt poor with horrible living conditions under western standards as having a very happy populace. Poor does not always mean that you are underfed-to many westerners it could simply mean you don't have a color TV.

The Philippines was recently in a study where they ranked as having one the highest populations of happy people on earth. The United States ranked very close to the bottom of the list.

[Social_Critic]

Well Sandori, I got to admit I'm not in charge. But I did sit in boardrooms (I was only one of the flunkys who sit against the wall and kick the guy at the table from behind to wake him up). And I never, ever, heard any discussion about worldwide socialism, or even worldwide capitalism. For the most part, those guys eat, sleep, and have sex with money and power. Some of them are pretty stupid. It's really surprising to see how a really stupid person can get way up by kissing behinds and being related to somebody (George W. Bush being an excellent example).

Conclusion: I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Right now those super rich guys can't even agree on how to rip us off, or whether they should keep ripping us off as much as they have. But the one thing we capitalists always do is try to figure out an angle to make more money. We can't help ourselves, it's in our genes.

[CounterChaos]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am trying to say..I am mainly referring to the number of different think tanks, not mid-sized corporation daily boardroom antics. I am referring to the individuals and groups that are looking at the "global picture", that are large enough or desire to make a "global impact"..The rest are just along for the capitalist ride...Cheers

Socialism in this context is just viewing the Earth as limited, whereas capitalism sees it as unlimited (hence our current situation.)

Agreed..I'm really not looking at this as a conspiracy theory, rather a product of inevitability. I believe that we have finite resources on this earth and that "reason" will prevail over capitalism.

Socialism will never be as a result of revolution, but rather as a product of reason. ~Sandori~

[Social_Critic]

You mean like the American Enterprise Institute and so on? But does anybody really listen to Michelle Pletka other than the people who read the back pages of the Wall Street Journal? I don't think so.

You figure this one out: There are say 10,000 of them in those think tanks. And not all those think tanks think alike anyway. And there's 300 million of us bona fide profit making stock and bond holding capitalists. They can't stop us. We're like the orc army in the Lord of the Rings, and they are hobbits.

[Suska]

Hobbits won btw, they also managed somehow to not be violent miserable slaves too and weren't made of soil and mystic bio-alchemy.

[CounterChaos]

Conspiracy theorists label these groups and others like them as leading the masses toward world control by the Antichrist....Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission...Etc.

What they are talking about is basically their fear of-Socialism

Hobbits won btw

...Yeah..That's what dreams are made of...

VP Note: seem my comments below. These posts were only a few minutes apart. Use the edit function.

[Social_Critic]

The hobbits didn't win. They sat on large trees which tossed a few rocks around.

The real battle was fought by men, dwarves, elves, ghosts, and magicians. But that was Middle Earth, which is mostly made up of New Zealand and a Hollywood studio. Here on Upper Earth, dwarves are rare, the elves are all in rock bands, and men wear ties and work for us, the orcs. Magicians and ghosts have been shown to be fake, like 70 home run hitters, they are on dope. So the hobbits can sit on trees all they want, they can't defeat us.

This conspiracy theory is pretty good, but I like the one about flying saucers landing in New Mexico a lot better. it sure kept my kids in good behavior when I threatened to send them to Mars if they didn't behave.

[Suska]

They sat on large trees which tossed a few rocks around... and destroyed the ring. Hobbits won.

If you don't understand that dreams lead the way - that dreams lead the way to your version of capitalism - that without ideas about what the world is and where we can go - it isn't really anything coherent. The question has never been "what is possible or likely?" but "what do you want?" until very recently at least. The modern atheist is like the man looking for a thief with a stolen lantern, he asserts into the world that he does not assert into the world.

[CounterChaos]

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

I said:

I'm really not looking at this as a conspiracy theory, rather a product of inevitability. I believe that we have finite resources on this earth and that "reason" will prevail over capitalism.

You then said:

This conspiracy theory is pretty good, but I like the one about flying saucers landing in New Mexico a lot better.

Common I would like to have a serious discussion...

...inevitability is the key word here...I think that most people don't want to even consider this possibility because it means more of the same and they are not going to see change in a lifetime....The propaganda machine set in place so many years ago will take a very very long time to fade away. How long, is anyone's guess...When you are dealing with finite resources and known rates of population growth-you don't have to guess....Which is better, waiting for a revolution that will never happen, or involving yourself in guiding the ruling class to a smooth transition to the inevitable?

http://jayhanson.us/

I would recommend everyone to have a look at this informative website. It covers in good detail many aspects I bring up...Cheers


Socialism is the human experience, touched by reason. ~Sandori~

VP Note: Double-Post. You have been warned about this before. If this continues, I will simply delete them. Please edit your previous post if you wish to add further comments.

[QatzelOk]

there will be 300 billion people. And our current situation is basically a hail-mary, we're way past the point of sustainability.

It's funny to read Western writers talk about how "the number of humans" is what makes our situation unsustainable.

Meanwhile, the Western consumer maximizes his consumption of every resource he can get his claws onto. And then complains that there are too many "termite consumers" on the earth.

Maybe if we all consumed less resources, there'd be more for everyone?

[CounterChaos]

Maybe if we all consumed less resources, there'd be more for everyone?

How do we do that though? Here comes China, India and South American countries-not to mention the former states of the Soviet Union all wanting more and more and more of a good western thing. It seems to me that it comes down to two options:

1. A serious look at birth control worldwide (don't tell me it can't be done, China has done it for years)

or

2: A serious look at war.

Save for any miraculous discovery, I think we are in serious trouble. I've talked about thorium before-maybe it is the answer?

Something else I have noticed too...Things go on. China is working on starting to put their own space station in orbit etc...They don't seem concerned about the future. (unless it's an ark..lol) None of us are privy to what really goes on in these close door think tank meetings of what is supposed to be our best and brightest. So maybe it is all just a bunch of second hand paranoia that we are referencing, a product of a concerned but in the dark masses.
<=====Brought to you by your public education system.