[Comrade Ogilvy]

All technology causes pollution, name me one technology that does not require massive pollution to produce. I think the greatest and only negative aspect of technocracy is the pollution it causes which includes more likeliness of cancer, because technology is unnatural, such as metal, chemicals, plastics and radiation which combined make basically a weapon of mass contamination toward humans.

Also technology is not wise because as technology advances there are those that do not even have any technology, and technology makes to much of a reliance of humanity upon technology, thus hurting the evolutionary ability of humanity to be self-sufficient on its own with its own labor and its own mind without using technology to do work, store knowledge (books and computers), and do calculations (calculators and computers).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

All technology causes pollution, name me one technology that does not require massive pollution to produce.

The reason why technology causes pollution today is because doing otherwise is not "economically feasible", not that it is not technologically possible. We have had such "clean" technology for quite a long time, but to impliment them is much more expensive, in terms of money value anyway, and thus any company employing them would have its competitiveness undercut by other, less environmentally friendly companies, and thus would go out of business. So really we see that it is not the fault of technology that pollution and resource wastage exists, but rather our outmoded economic structure. This is basically the whole reason Technocracy exists.

Technology requires metal, metal is the main component of technology in general, such as metal is needed to even create non-metallic technological products. To obtain metal requires much permanent pollution of the environment, such as mining. Pollution is not restricted to permanent damage to the environment by chemicals, which I think you were implying.

Also technology is not wise because as technology advances there are those that do not even have any technology, and technology makes to much of a reliance of humanity upon technology, thus hurting the evolutionary ability of humanity to be self-sufficient on its own with its own labor and its own mind without using technology to do work,

First of all, to do what you suggest would require every individual to learn how to survive without the use of any technology, e.g. hunting, foraging, making shelter, etc. While not bad in itself, it is a bit of a waste as it is not really needed in this day and age.

As for why this is so, I've mostly answered that in the other topic, entitled: "Technological Reliance".

If you're really interested in this sort of thing, that is the role humans and our technology play in the environment, I highly suggest The Ecology of Man. As with all Technocracy lessons, it ensures that you have at least a minimal knowledge of the relevant branches of science to be able to understand the problem. Despite this, it is easily within the ability of most people to comprehend, and is highly recommended to anyone with an interest and/or concern about the environment.

Tools made out of animals are not technology, tools made out of metal and parts of animals shaped by metal and chemicals and other things symbolic of technology are. Anything not made out of and or produced using metals, plastics, chemicals, and or any synthetic materials is not a production of technology. The peasant (agricultural laborer) has not used any technology until recently, as in a few hundred years ago.

Technology also gives orinary humans the ability to kill many humans in a much more efficient and economical way. Technology is the root cause of world wars, enslavement of africans by europeans in the middle of the 2nd Millenia A.D. Technology is also the root cause of the reason why another world war is highly likely to cause massive permanent uninhabitability of most of the world. Technology is always counter-productive. Engineers in the field of technology are usually much more anti-social than those people that are not engaged in technology. Technology also allows the greed of the ruling-classes to be forced upon the masses, with masssive handicap of the masses to do anything to improve their working and living conditions without facing brutality and on a massive scale, thus technology has made rebellion too expensive for the enslaved.

Technology in my prediction will eventually by abolished through Democratic means, and replaced with true progress, which is economic, political, and social equality. Technology and Capitalism are 2 faces of the same coin, to effectively abolish Capitalist tyranny one has to replace technology with political, economic, and social equality. And money as being a part of technology should be replaced with labor, so as to give physical labor the true natural value it deserves eternally and to make this untarnished, which money has done by reducing the value of labor and laborers to capitalist calculation of supply and demand of luxury. Technology is basically luxury, which firtly and lastly benefits the ruling-classes and hurts the masses almost exactly in a "trojan horse" way. Technology has reduced human relations into calculateable arithmetic.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

:lol: My you have some strange views!

All popular views were once strange, technocracy is strange view too. And your whole arguement in favor of technocracy in your post fails to support your claims with the only support being links to other web sites.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

All technology causes pollution, name me one technology that does not require massive pollution to produce.

The reason why technology causes pollution today is because doing otherwise is not "economically feasible", not that it is not technologically possible.

Give me at least a hint to how "that" is technologically possible (technology not causing pollution).

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Give me at least a hint to how "that" is technologically possible (technology not causing pollution).

Certainly. I'll even limit it to your rather narrow definition of technology to do it.

In Europe right now there are electric battery-powered cars that are recharged at public, free-use solar power stations, usually connected to a parking lot. Thus, both primary and secondary means of power generation are non-polluting.

Need more?

Batteries pollute, they are unnatural unorganic and production and disposing of them cause pollution.

[Mr. Anderson]

Eliminating money from the equation could lead to a form of battery which would not pollute and would be natural. This would be possible in a technocracy.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Eliminating money from the equation could lead to a form of battery which would not pollute and would be natural. This would be possible in a technocracy.

So technocracy is fundamentally Socialist Economics?

Are technocracy and autarky mutually exclusive terms?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Eliminating money from the equation could lead to a form of battery which would not pollute and would be natural. This would be possible in a technocracy.

What do you mean by a battery that is natural? How can a bettery be natural, thats like saying nuclear energy power can be natural and possible as so in a technocracy.

How could you make any battery or any other form of metal object without polluting the environment in search of metal to make it?

[Mr. Anderson]

I just want to clarify, by "natural" I just meant a way of storing energy which has been practiced in the natural world and is proven to be entirely self-sustaining. An example would be fruit. Fruit is stored energy created naturally which is not bad for the environment. What if that concept could be improved upon to create a battery made without the non-renewable ingredients usually used?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

with the rapid development of the space program (far faster and superior to anything any other system could achieve), ET resources will become quickly available.

However it would still make massive pollution to the Earth's atmosphere and air to send humans into space to get "ET resources", would it not?

Rapid technological advances would also quickly develop materials superior in quality to normal metals anyway, and thus require less "natural" materials to make.

The "rapid technological advances" would be dangerous to the environment in long-term, because it would require massive pollution to the Earth's atmosphere and air to send humans into space to get "ET resources".

[Mr. Anderson]

Technocracy would be better than the current system in place. Imagine the resources necessary to create the number of cars we have today and look at their load time. The average load time of a private automobile is roughly 5%. This is crazy, and an obvious waste of resources. It would create more pollution in the long-run.

Continuing with cars, people would live in urbanates. An urbanate would be, roughly, a planned city. Urbanates would be designed to minimize the need for systems of transportation like automobiles. Urbanates would be designed with maximum efficiency in mind to allow people to walk instead of use more polluting methods.

The polluting methods themselves, though, are mostly implemented because of cost-effectiveness. In a technocracy there would be no money, and therefore no cost effectiveness! Green technologies which would normally be dismissed as too expensive could be embraced. Due to research going on, more advanced and cleaner forms of energy generation could be developed. These more advanced and cleaner forms of energy generation would take much longer to develop in our current society due to monetary constraints.

Technocracy, if anything, would result in less pollution, not more.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Technocracy, if anything, would result in less pollution, not more.

Why not abolish all technology, this would result in end of pollution.

Abolishing technology would stop all forms of pollution, unemployment, world wars, all forms of cancer, anti-social behavior, depletion of natural resources, etc. etc. etc.

[Saddam]

To say that stopping all forms of technology would eradicate cancer is a total fallacy. Radiation is contained within many natural substances such as Granite and is now proven to cause cancer without the hand of man.

Secondly, unemployment would not be eradicated. Why would it be? The Oxford English dictionary simply states unemployment to mean - without paid employment, out of work, not being used, idle. People would remain without work just as they are today. It is highly improbale that whatever the political/social system we live in we will have 100% of the population being utilised. Britain is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and incidentally has one of the lowest levels of unemployment.

World wars would stop purely due to the logistics of such an event occuring would be inplausable. It would not stop the desire of one individual to kill another. Tehcnology and science can do this. We are moving through a precarious time at the moment but it is a transitional period of enlightenment. The European Union was set up not only for free trade but to stop the possibility of any future conflict within its borders. As globalisation takes hold we shall see fewer and fewer wars.

Anti-social behavoiur - Do you really believe that if we get rid of technology we will stop this. Crime it the most enduring feature of the human species. The only way to stop crime is by stopping the causes of crime - desire. Even the communists did not manage this. In fact as afar as I know the only ideology which does go a long way to at least reducing it is Buddism.

Future technologies may well be able to restore our natural resources. Nano-technology is believed to have this possibility and may result in a total abundance of everyting we need. To say that only technology pollutes is also wrong. It is scientifically believed that cows (yes cows) are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect through their constant release of methane.

Lastly, as far as your description of technology is concerned I am left feeling dubious. Why is technology only concerned with metals, plastics, and chemicals? Technology is simply taking anything from its natural habitat and transforming it into a tool of use. TO get rid of technology wold mean humans would have to hunt with only their hands and teeth(no spears or clubs - thats technology). As we are far less physically adapted to this way of life we would all soon die out.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

To say that stopping all forms of technology would eradicate cancer is a total fallacy. Radiation is contained within many natural substances such as Granite and is now proven to cause cancer without the hand of man.

Yes, and that only further proves my point, that technology causes pollution, granity is naturally underground, humans dig for it and then shape it, this is not necessary but the inter-related epidemics of technology and capitalism cause this and things like this to an inflated degree beyond reason.

Secondly, unemployment would not be eradicated. Why would it be? The Oxford English dictionary simply states unemployment to mean - without paid employment, out of work, not being used, idle. People would remain without work just as they are today. It is highly improbale that whatever the political/social system we live in we will have 100% of the population being utilised.

When the entire world was in the stage of Feudalism, there was no unemployment, as everyone had to work, that is ofcourse except the feudal lords, vassals, traders, and maybe some urbanites.

Britain is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world and incidentally has one of the lowest levels of unemployment.

Unemployment does not have to exist, just abolishing the inter-related problems of technology and capitalism and the only solution is replacing it with collective manual farming communes distributed over the countryside on an equitable basis.

World wars would stop purely due to the logistics of such an event occuring would be inplausable.

How? That makes no sense, please specify what you are trying to imply.

It would not stop the desire of one individual to kill another. Tehcnology and science can do this.

How?!?!?!?

We are moving through a precarious time at the moment but it is a transitional period of enlightenment.

You think technology is enlightenment? It causes and is causing as we speak the forcing of many people in the world to work in exhaustive "sweatshops" while those few minority of humanity in industrial nations enjoy the fruit of these laborers more than the laborers themself.

The European Union was set up not only for free trade but to stop the possibility of any future conflict within its borders.

This is obviously a temporary delusion, as history had proven over and over and over again.

As globalisation takes hold we shall see fewer and fewer wars.

We are seeing more and more wars through globalisation, and with much more massive genocide than any time in all of human history.

Anti-social behavoiur - Do you really believe that if we get rid of technology we will stop this.

Yes because technology causes social isolation of individuals, such as the conveniences of television eliminates the important natural sociability urge of humans, because entertainment and news come from it. And internet eliminates the important natural direct sociablity urge of humans, because it makes artificial indirect communication possible and entertaining and artificially (and dangerously) makes the use of the hand for communicating into an addictive habit.

Crime it the most enduring feature of the human species. The only way to stop crime is by stopping the causes of crime - desire. Even the communists did not manage this.

They did, by simply eliminating the purpose of it, that is of disobeying authority and or getting food for surviving and or the money for buying food (Communists did this/do this by making employment into a duty rather than a privilege granted by a capitalist employer).

In fact as afar as I know the only ideology which does go a long way to at least reducing it is Buddism.

Buddhism is just mental masturbation, it does not end the hunger and curiosity it only temporarily tames it, such as through meditation and stretching.

Future technologies may well be able to restore our natural resources. Nano-technology is believed to have this possibility and may result in a total abundance of everyting we need.

Yes but at the cost of permanent damage of the environment, such as air pollution, water pollution, and etc. Total abundance is possible without importing machines and or the raw materials and metals to produce them, just by making farming into a collective thing by abolishing cities and towns and distributing the populace on an equable basis over the countryside into collective communes with manual labor and equal distribution of the fruits of labor and the medicine would be the most healthiest since it would come straight from plants grown from organic farming rather than chemical farming.

To say that only technology pollutes is also wrong. It is scientifically believed that cows (yes cows) are a major contributor to the greenhouse effect through their constant release of methane.

I am sure that is not true, because how come this did not occur for the thousands of years of existance of cows? And methane is a chemical that is found in nature, thus most likely the cows ate it and just defecated/urinated it, hence the release of it being a "major contributor to the greenhouse effect".

Lastly, as far as your description of technology is concerned I am left feeling dubious. Why is technology only concerned with metals, plastics, and chemicals? Technology is simply taking anything from its natural habitat and transforming it into a tool of use.

Exactly, and that causes pollution as does the unnatural digging for and then unnatural use of metals, plastics and chemicals and thus obviously the ensuing cancers that occur from this trio combination when it comes in contact with humans, since humans are obviously not adapted to contact with these materials that have been underground for all of human history until the recent invention of technology by capitalism.

TO get rid of technology wold mean humans would have to hunt with only their hands and teeth(no spears or clubs - thats technology). As we are far less physically adapted to this way of life we would all soon die out.

What about farming and using organic tools, such as has been done until the advent of the coinciding inter-related epidemics of capitalism and technology. And we are very very physically adapted to this way of life, much more than the lifestyle of using machines, chemicals, plastics, metals, and etc., since all it requires is physical work, which in itself is a natural and efficient means of reducing stress which is an epidemic in the most technologically developed nations (for obvious reasons as aforementioned). Physical labor as a means of reducing stress was the natural means of reducing stress until the "evil" of capitalism and technology was "born" (brought into being).

[Saddam]

you say that my view of the European union is a temporary delusion. No time in history has this been tried, so you have nothing to compare it to. This phenomenon is based on mutual interest, not force and thus has a far greater chance of success. I think it is far more likely that your ideological standpoint of collective farming is delusional. Every example of such methods have failed disasterously. It caused starvation and social depression wherever it tainted the land.

The grantie example is only a small example, and I can assure you that it is not only found underground, neither is granite the only substance found to contain cancer causing molecules. You believe that cancer only came about after technology began - cancer could only be diagnosed with the advance in medicine, it undoutedly has been around since the begining of the human existance.

In Feudalistic times people were unemployed and they starved, as they would under the communal farming society. Furthermore, what if somebody did not wish to work on the farms. Would they be forced to, as in Pol Pots Cambodia, and Stalinist Russia?

The cases of genocide are occuring in the countries where major technological development has not taken place. No first world country takes part in genocide.
The issue of world wars is simple - they would not occur as man could by itself not travel the distances to fight it. However wars would still be fought, only between villages. As far as I'm concerned this would make no difference.

Through science we have learned not to harness our basic human instincts and rather than lashing out when attacked we can now find more diplomatic solutions. The places in the world where murder rates are higest are also some of the least technologically, scientifically, and educationally developed in the world.

Sweatshops have always existed, interestingly they are dieing out, slavery is no longer a universal custom, and again this progress was made by the more technologically developed nations.

As far as anti-social behavour is concerned I believe technology has diminished this prospect. OK television is a negative force here, but the new methods of communication such as the telephone or the internet can only increase social behaviour. They give us extra opportunities to communicate with people who we would otherwise never know. From this we become aware of other cultures and learn from their positive aspects.

Communists did not stop crime, money is not te only object of desire. Desire is relative, take away money and it will be another mans wife you shall desire, or another mans mind. Jelousy will always exist until we learn, thruogh technological progress how to harness that negative aspect of humanity.

You clearly do not understand Buddhism, It is certainly not any more temporary than the agrarian existance you believe in. Working on a farm doesnt stop curiosity, and certainly wont stop hunger (in the times of famine)

Scientists have proved that the earth is self healing (for want of a better word) air pollution is only temporary, as is water pollution. In any case technology can be used to replace these resources

The human race can be considered to be a bacteria of sorts, it procreates, spreads, uses up the resources in the vicinity and moves on when none are left. Technology has brought about contraception which has reduced the population growth of the Western World, if we removed all technology, not only would their be more mouths to feed but farming methods would be so basic that there would not be enough land to feed them. Your ideology effectively condones the mass starvation of millions if not billions of people.

Which part of this ideology would actually raise the standard of living of the people. I've heard that in times of starvation stress levels rise quite dramatically.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

you say that my view of the European union is a temporary delusion. No time in history has this been tried, so you have nothing to compare it to. This phenomenon is based on mutual interest, not force and thus has a far greater chance of success.

It does not its predecessor was the league of Nations, bismarckian balance of power, pax romana, and etc.

I think it is far more likely that your ideological standpoint of collective farming is delusional. Every example of such methods have failed disasterously. It caused starvation and social depression wherever it tainted the land.

Collective farming has existed for thousands of years and without it humans would not exist today, because hunting can not feed as much as farming, especially collective farming. How did collective farming cause starvation and social depression? That makes no sense, farming is not an industry, especially collective farming of the sort I mentioned which is without the use of machines and metallic tools, and it produces food to end starvation, cities and towns cause starvation not farming, cities and towns demand abundance of unnecessary food for selfish desires.

The grantie example is only a small example, and I can assure you that it is not only found underground, neither is granite the only substance found to contain cancer causing molecules.

Ofcourse, but did I imply that it was the only substance? I implyed that it was just an example of many other things like it which also cause cancer.

You believe that cancer only came about after technology began - cancer could only be diagnosed with the advance in medicine, it undoutedly has been around since the begining of the human existance.

Cancer has not been undoubtedly around since the beginning of human existance, at least not as massive an epidemic as it is today.

In Feudalistic times people were unemployed and they starved, as they would under the communal farming society.

Thats a lie, because in feudalism everyone was working for the feudal lord, and the more people the feudal lord had working for him would mean the more wealth he produced, unlike capitalism in which the more workers there are the lesser wealthy the capitalist is.

Furthermore, what if somebody did not wish to work on the farms. Would they be forced to, as in Pol Pots Cambodia, and Stalinist Russia?

That is the choice of the indigenous people if they want to abolish the inter-related parasites: capitalism, technology, cities, towns, trade, money, immigration, colonialism, imperialism, and etc.

I have 3 main political principles, these 3 principles I have concluded after concluding my thus far knowledge on everything:

1) Indigenous Nationalism versus (as opposed to) Colonist Nationalism (Expansionism/Imperialism)
2) Direct Democracy versus (as opposed to) Indirect Democracy (Bureaucracy/Republicanism)
3) Public Socialism versus (as opposed to) Private Socialism (Capitalism/Corporatism)
4) Agrarian Ruralism versus (as opposed to) Commercial Urbanism (Industrialism/Technology)
5) Intellect versus (as opposed to) emotion (religion/law/morality)

The cases of genocide are occuring in the countries where major technological development has not taken place.

Like?

No first world country takes part in genocide.

U.S.A. and U.K. do "take part in genocide".

The issue of world wars is simple - they would not occur as man could by itself not travel the distances to fight it. However wars would still be fought, only between villages. As far as I'm concerned this would make no difference.

There is a big difference, because war between villages without technological weapons would not be as catastrophic as it is when they use technological weapons, such as kalashnikovs and shoulder rocket-fire missiles. And world wars would not be as world-destroying when nuclear weapons, ships, and rockets are abolished through abolition of pollution through cultivation of all lands for the use of agricultural production by using "peasant labor armies".

Peasant labor armies are not possible nowadays, because of the capitalist invention of cities and towns with their easy way of life and easy labor for living-wages, thus the countryside has become much more underpopulated then before, underpopulated in the sense that there are not enough people to save the farming lands from industrial corporations, whom use chemical farming and thus destroy the limited precious top soil (organic farming has recently been discovered to be much more efficient economically and in producing more healthy agricultural products).

Through science we have learned not to harness our basic human instincts and rather than lashing out when attacked we can now find more diplomatic solutions.

Science and technology are not inseperable

The places in the world where murder rates are higest are also some of the least technologically, scientifically, and educationally developed in the world.

The most amount of murders in the world occur in the United States of America, the supposedly most technologically, scientifically, and educationally developed place in the world. Also America has cancer as the leading cause of avoidable death, and the second leading cause of avoidable death is obesity in America. About 40% of Americans are at health risk from obesity and about 60% of American children are at health risk from obesity. And america has the highest amount of psychotic crime, such as teenage girls throwing away their newborn babies (in garbage bins, bookbags floating in ponds, toilets) and students killing other students at school, tell me which other country has this much problem?

Sweatshops have always existed, interestingly they are dieing out, slavery is no longer a universal custom, and again this progress was made by the more technologically developed nations.

Serfdom is not slavery, capitalism replaced serfdom not slavery. Slavery was much much more harsh than any economic system in any society today or that has existed in the last 2000 years. The "slavery" that existed in Southern U.S.A., was de facto serfdom, because they just farmed and the main source of them was to make use of the Agricultural lands of Southern U.S.A.

As far as anti-social behavour is concerned I believe technology has diminished this prospect. OK television is a negative force here, but the new methods of communication such as the telephone or the internet can only increase social behaviour. They give us extra opportunities to communicate with people who we would otherwise never know. From this we become aware of other cultures and learn from their positive aspects.

Thats a hallucination, internet and telephone have made people more anti-social and more hateful of other cultures and more ignorant of the positive aspect of other cultures and rather biased and bigotist toward them.

Communists did not stop crime, money is not te only object of desire. Desire is relative, take away money and it will be another mans wife you shall desire, or another mans mind. Jelousy will always exist until we learn, thruogh technological progress how to harness that negative aspect of humanity.

Jealousy is not the only cause of crime, and having someone elses wife is not as much of a crime as is killing someone, especially for just some money to buy something to eat.

You clearly do not understand Buddhism, It is certainly not any more temporary than the agrarian existance you believe in. Working on a farm doesnt stop curiosity, and certainly wont stop hunger (in the times of famine)

Famine will not happen if the whole Nation and its land belongs equally to the people, which sadly has not happend in any socialist and or communist country, however that does not mean that this is impossible.

Scientists have proved that the earth is self healing (for want of a better word) air pollution is only temporary, as is water pollution. In any case technology can be used to replace these resources

How? Please give examples.

The human race can be considered to be a bacteria of sorts, it procreates, spreads, uses up the resources in the vicinity and moves on when none are left. Technology has brought about contraception which has reduced the population growth of the Western World, if we removed all technology, not only would their be more mouths to feed but farming methods would be so basic that there would not be enough land to feed them. Your ideology effectively condones the mass starvation of millions if not billions of people.

There are different ways of farming, and people don't farm under force, that is why socialist and communist collective farming communes have failed thus far. All of the Socialist and Communist governments so far have been bureaucratic (indirect democracy) as opposed to a direct democracy where the people vote on issues concerning them and handle their affairs collectively for the benefit of all as opposed to indirect democracy (republic/representative democracy) where the people vote for a more appealing politician to carry out his or her promises (which they almost always "break").

Which part of this ideology would actually raise the standard of living of the people. I've heard that in times of starvation stress levels rise quite dramatically.

Starvation occured in socialist and communist countries because of their stubborn use of industries even though the country was already under socialist and or communist power, they would have been wise to have mobilized and organized the population to help itself by first educating it and etc. rather than spending money on training and arming the population for war, and socialism and communism are supposed to be pacifist and depend on the power of the masses rather than the power of the well-armed (armed with technological weapons) ruling-classes.

[Saddam]

I feel we are simply going round in circles now

I shall make only four points here

1. Famine would occur due to the removal of safety measures which prevent it such as refrigeration and other tehnologically based food storage methods. The removal of technologically based farming methods would clearly dramatically reduce yields, and would thus cause mass starvation. Take the example of Japan where 60% of the land is unable to produce.

2. Only in the last 100 years, with the aid of technology has the Western world managed to remove the spectre of famine and starvation from its lands. Through the use of technology we can now produce enough food to feed the whole world. I do not agree with the greed which continues to present itself in our countries however, again through the application of education we can make our populous more willing to supply the rest of the world with food.

3. In Feudalistic times not all the land was owned by lords, in fact much of it was communal farming based - it was these areas which suffered from adverse conditions resulting in the famine which was otherwise restricted in the areas where lords were present.

Finally, the USA and UK do not take part in genocide, regardless of your views on the Iraq war genocide has not taken place here. Name one instance in the past 20 years where either government has systematically killed a large proportion of an indigenous population BECAUSE of their race.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

1. Famine would occur due to the removal of safety measures which prevent it such as refrigeration and other tehnologically based food storage methods. The removal of technologically based farming methods would clearly dramatically reduce yields, and would thus cause mass starvation. Take the example of Japan where 60% of the land is unable to produce.

Its because they don't abolish the towns and cities and distribute the populace of the towns and cities on an equable basis over the countryside in collective farming communes with use of simple primitive tools rather than machines. This was done in Democratic Kampuchea, and they produced much more higher yields and built many lakes and etc through collective manual (physical) labor. However the reason why people still starved was because Democratic Kampuchea was at war with militarist Vietnamese imperialist colonizers of Khmer land of Kampuchea. Hence they bartered a lot of the National harvest (mostly/only rice) for weapons and ammunition from the People's Republic of China.

2. Only in the last 100 years, with the aid of technology has the Western world managed to remove the spectre of famine and starvation from its lands. Through the use of technology we can now produce enough food to feed the whole world. I do not agree with the greed which continues to present itself in our countries however, again through the application of education we can make our populous more willing to supply the rest of the world with food.

This is complete lies and foolishness. First of all technology always existed as long as capitalism (trade) did. Capitalism (trade), through out its history has caused farming laborers to migrate from the countryside to the towns and cities for easy labor and lifestyle working for the bourgeois/merchant/trader. The famine and starvation occurred because of lack of laborers, thus technology just replaced laborers, which would not have to happen if the state abolished towns and cities and sent the people back to the countryside to work as farm laborers, if this continued and without the use of technology, we would have no pollution today, no unemployment, no world wars, no nuclear weapons, no exhaustive labor, no overpopulation epidemic, no resource depletion epidemic, no dependence on foreigners (for trading, especially raw materials).

3. In Feudalistic times not all the land was owned by lords, in fact much of it was communal farming based - it was these areas which suffered from adverse conditions resulting in the famine which was otherwise restricted in the areas where lords were present.

That is such a Feudalist myth, that the areas not owned by lords "suffered from adverse conditions resulting in the famine". That statement defies logic, reason, and intellect.

Finally, the USA and UK do not take part in genocide, regardless of your views on the Iraq war genocide has not taken place here. Name one instance in the past 20 years where either government has systematically killed a large proportion of an indigenous population BECAUSE of their race.

Why 20 years? Because you know they did genocide to Vietnamese, Koreans, Japanese, Germans, Aborigines of Australia, and Native Americans?

[Saddam]

Cambodia is a country with an area around 2/3 the size of the UK yet only possessed around 1/5 of the population. Better still compare that with Japan. Japan has around about the same amount of productive land as Cambodia yet has 12 times the population. How do you suppose that such basic farming techniques support the entire population. There was enough land in Kampuchea for the communal farms to produce enough food for all to eat. Yet they still starved, Many of the worlds countries could not sustain their indigenous population with the backward farming methods you favour. Far more food would have been produced at much less devastation to the environment had machinery been employed. In your analysis you state that simple farming methods with organic tools will stop pollution. What about the huge amount of Jungle and forestary land that must be destroyed in order to make way for this? Brazil is a perfect example of this right now. You said yourself that they built lakes, this in itself damages the environment by changing the landscape from its natural form.

The statement about Fuedalism does not defy logic, reason and intellect but is based upon historical evidence.

I would like to see proof of the higher yields produced in the Kampuchea

Famines do not occur due to a lack of labourers, they occur due to adverse external conditions. These include the potato famin in Ireland in the 19th century. Almost the entire Irish population was based around farming yet they still managed to starve in their millions without war.

Genocide at the hands of the British and Americans did not occur against the Germans or Japanese. The Second world war brought about their deaths in defence against an invading force. Vietnam saw many atrociities however I feel that genocide is going a little too far here as the carpet bombing campaigns had the primary aim of targeting the enemy troops.

Name one case in the past 50 years where the Americans or British used genocidal techniques against the Native Americans or the Aborigines.

Finally, I you have such theoretical statistics could you please poost them here. What is the production per capita of food when utilising these methods? And what is the total land needed per capita for every man woman and child to have enough food to eat suing these methods?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

How do you suppose that such basic farming techniques support the entire population.

When the entire population is engaged in agrarian physical labor, which is not possible as long as cities, towns, and private property exists.

Far more food would have been produced at much less devastation to the environment had machinery been employed.

What devastation to the environment would farming without machines cause?

Machines are not employed, your use of the word "employed" in the above quotation of your statement is utterly improper, especially in the context of our debate. Because I am trying to make (among many points) the point that machines replaces human laborers, thus causing unemployment.

In your analysis you state that simple farming methods with organic tools will stop pollution.

Where did I imply it as simply as that just using only organic tools will stop pollution?

What about the huge amount of Jungle and forestary land that must be destroyed in order to make way for this?

Man can do this, you underestimate the abilities of man and in its place trust the abilities and truth of machines more than that of Man.

Brazil is a perfect example of this right now.

Example for what? Destroying the rain forest and forests? Whats wrong with that? All it will do is destroy the viewing pleasure of scientists trying to study different types of species of insects, plants, and etcetra.

You said yourself that they built lakes, this in itself damages the environment by changing the landscape from its natural form.

Pollution is not simply changing of the landscape of the environment. And digging a lake using human labor rather that air-pollution-causing machines in no way "damages the environment".

pollution is negatively changing the environment, by distorting the natural cohesion and process of the environment. Making a lake by the methods aforementioned especially in a place where many lakes already exist is not negatively changing the environment or landscape for that matter.

The statement about Fuedalism does not defy logic, reason and intellect but is based upon historical evidence.

That historical evidence is ruling-class propaganda then, reproduced by the white-collar worker lackeys of the ruling-class.