AOC:Puerto Rico is a Neo Colony? - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15264336
XogGyux wrote:That is not the point. The point is, if you see someone causing harm to themselves, most decent human beings would have a huge to try to prevent it. It does not have to be a crazy person either. The guy banging his head on the wall might be doing it out of intense emotional pain after receiving bad news or out of intense anger... people do these kinds of stuff. It is just an example that explains why someone might have a non-nefarious reason to present their objections and/or help those that object to a PR independence, etc.


Sure, but should they be stopped by force from doing something silly? I don't think so, one can provide advice but that's about it.

XogGyux wrote:Absolutely. This is one of the things that dissapointed myself when I realized it was persistent long after I became an adult. I was a fairly mature child, I had to be, since early in my childhood I attended a music conservatory and the training was rigorous, needed a lot of discipline, hard work and sacrifize. So I grew increasingly frustrated when I continued to see very childish behavior on fully grown adults, most of them. But the worse part is not the childish behavior, the worse part is the condescending behavior of many of these adults when they judge others for this reason.


Indeed, and they never listen.

XogGyux wrote:So has Japan, Their GDP has stagnated since the 1990's and they are independent. https://datacommons.org/place/country/J ... tion&hl=en
Why would you assume that this stagnation is directly and uniquely a result of their political status?


It's not, but given federal inaction and their inability to do much about their situation on those things they don't decide...

XogGyux wrote:Do you honestly think this is what @Tainari88 has in mind? Get independence so that puerto ricans can be paid less $$ legally? I am doubtful of this.


It certainly isn't. But, well, independence would open that option up.

XogGyux wrote:I'd be surprised if this works any other way. When I traveled to other countries through puerto rico, I go through customs in PR but not in Miami. I only go through it once. I don't think people visiting PR even have to go through customs at all if PR is final destination, as it is considered US soil. I cannot imagine cargo shipping being treated any other way. I just don't think there is any economic benefit of using islands as shipping hubs, not specifically PR but islands in general. Traditionally, most islands have very high cost on import prices. Maybe this could have been an economic benefit if we were still transporting items on wood galleons from 400 years ago that did not have the colossal capacity of our current shipping crafts.


Well, the law is clear as far as shipping is concerned. Immigration is another matter... Which makes it even harder to justify the status quo, if anything.
#15264423
My laptop died. I got to get it fixed. But? Once I do? Be back to address the points brought up in this topic. I hate typing on a cell phone @wat0n and @XogGyux . Meanwhile why don't You answer @Robert Urbanek suggestión of unilateral independencia from the USA a couple billion in aid and drop PR with a 10 year transition? Most of the racista Republicans love that idea and that is what they did in the Phillipines. After causing civil wars. Do You think that is the way to cope? That is how racist empires think? Use them and dump them with no help.

Worst case scenario would be a transition out with unforgiven debt as @Robert Urbanek suggested. But that is more realistic than the statehood scene simply because PR is still far from some 80 or 90 percent agreement. After 125+ years of US colonialism? Only about 10 % of the puertorriqueños speak English really well. And nearly half of us don't vote pro statehood. Still voting enhanced commonwealth and or independencia. Remember You can take a plane to Miami or NYC etc SEE Gringolandia check it out....Say...I want to go back...I want to live on the island. Reverse migration happened in the 60s under the Muñoz administration. The economy improved. My parents moved back and many thousands did too. If the economy is decent the boricuas stay Home.

People migrate due to económics mostly. Also You are ignoring the 14% pro independencia voting base. They are mostly young people who have already been to the USA and want to live in PR but with decent salaries via remote work, organic farming, global business and diversifying investment. They tried statehood (boricuas can and have lived in the mainland )and the cuco was no running water, no electricity, climate change hurricanes, and lying conservative politicians in PR and in Washington DC that never deliver a damn thing. They think México, etc has lights on,and would never tolerate one year without electrical power, contaminated water due to pumps not working everywhere with no access to potable water. México is third world. But under the US flag supposed protection? They are not delivering the first world salaries, the lower third world prices for goods and services, nor Even the right to be part of a free trade internacional competitive economy. Albizu Campos talked about what good is being a half ass US citizen if you got paid like if You lived in the third world but have no control over your leaders or government? He did a worker strike and the votes for independencia jumped.

The other alternative is to have all 3.5 million boricuas move to the mainland to live. Leave the land to golf courses and tax Dodgers speaking English only and no one remembers what happened from 1493 up until 1898. What counts is being able to live next door to @XogGyux . Haha!

Abandon the land to the wealthy and the greedy and pay unapayable debts. That is the plan they have for US.

Guess which nation holds the IOUs in dollar currency and Will be negotiating debt payments? Yes China.

SEE 60 minutes IMF....the chief economist is a viejita from Sofia Bulgaria Cristina señora..
#15264451
@Tainari88 whether @Robert Urbanek's suggestion is realistic or not would depend on how would independence be carried out and whether PR would seek good relations with the US. So it's hard to know, the US will obviously not just give billions away with no strings attached.
#15264452
wat0n wrote:@Tainari88 whether @Robert Urbanek's suggestion is realistic or not would depend on how would independence be carried out and whether PR would seek good relations with the US. So it's hard to know, the US will obviously not just give billions away with no strings attached.


That is why I put in examples of the IMF lady.

She stated that the debts are unapayable and they have to be restructured or there Will be instability and increíble problems. PR is not allowed to restructured debt the constitución del ELA adopted in 1952 states the Banks from the USA and other nations get paid first. Once they do You shut down schools, clínics,no por holes fixed, Slash the UPR system. Defund it all. Nothing left for public employee pensiones, nothing for public schools or teachers, cops moved stateside for higher salaries, crimes calls left unattended.

Austerity. The statehood politicians are pieces of shit. As You saw. Clean politicians? Los independentista politicians. But with fear reigning with the shock doctrine there is little progress.

I think the solución is clean energy, hard work, local work. Not being afraid to work hard. For ourselves. After all living in the USA is not about an easy life either. It all takes effort. Better to put the effort into your own society than have some drain to benefit some racist Republicans hoping to block puertorriqueños from voting forever.

Did You SEE the Battle for Paradise by Naomi Klein video?
Everyone is going to be squeezed. But? If the fear of change lessens with local successes based on local people being in charge of their own economy and their own labor? It is progress.
#15264545


This captures why independence is important. Colonialism where boricuas keep waiting for outside validatión and assimilation to solve the lack of real progress, is a study in stagnation.

Statehood politicians are corrupto, incompetente and much more....if one is logical You don't vote for them anymore. But fear and lack of taking complete responsibility for your own country is what colonialism breeds. It is dysfuctional.

Statehood would end it. But it Will destroy who we are too.

Independence in the end Will restore US and give US the opportunity to develop on our own terms. It dependes on the USA not being fascistic racists though in their foreign policies.

Something they have not been able to accomplish Even with African Americans in 2023 @wat0n . They need to change and we as boricuas need to change.

I don't want to be a part of what You and @XogGyux think is the Best of humanity. For me nations that do all that shit the US did? Is not the Best we can do.

People need to end poverty. Stop abusing power. And stop imposing. Be just.
#15264576
wat0n wrote:@Tainari88 well, for any of that to even be on the table, Puerto Ricans have to vote for it. Then we'll see.


I agree. The Good news is from 2% it is now 14%. A huge jump. And growing especially among young people. If the viejos were th growing group...I would be concerned. But son los jóvenes.

They travel to the states and come back. Open the puter get a job and want independencia. The propaganda of fear is not that effective. The rotten stuff continúes?

2050 it won't be a minority.
#15264638
wat0n wrote:It'll be a lot faster if nothing is done with the state of affairs in the island, and even more so if a formal admission request is denied.


Nothing is being done for stateside problems now with a divided congress. The senate is barely funcional. You got right wing insurrectionists pushing their pro Trump Anti Latino agenda, along with Demócrats that might as well be Republicans with their obstructionism.

The Quality of the pro statehood politicians is abysmally Bad. All the High Quality candidates are pro independence or at least are more autónomy enhanced commonwealth. The PPD (status quo party) wants more freedoms and control as well. And they are a Big percentage of the electorate.

The PRC is out there. México is not ignorant either. They put the symbol of (PRI) next to estadounidense under My nationality. It means I get full protected citizenship eligibility with the Mexican government this year. I pay taxes here. I Will be able to vote here and the Mexican government doesn't care that I speak Spanish and that I am Latina. They are not racist Republicans. My son the little 11 year old Will Qualify for dual citizenship as well. He will be able to avoid a US military draft in the future if the USA decides to enter another dumbass war. I hope they get tired of dumbass wars soon. They are going to be running out of money.

México has free Universities and also My son with an excellent education that is international Will have many options. Study in the states, or Puerto Rico, or Europe or anywhere. Avoid one way street shitty half ass citizenship. Learn more than one language and be internacionalista in perspectives. The true problema? Poverty. Colonialism.Lack of educational opportunity for the Latín Americans and lack of decent wage Jobs for all of the Latín Americans wanting decent standards of living. The constant interferences from superpower empires who don't give a shit about Latín American working class people as a whole. The elitista sellout local politicians pandering tonthe powerful players only and not their own citizens.

It is profoundly self hating to think we are not equals to other nationalities that have achieved independence. Hell I am pleased with My education and I am Puerto Rican. My mother came from poverty and achieved a great education despite the racismo and the huge obstacles.

Are You thinking because You are Chileno You can't learn anything or make decisiones on your own? You got to be a Gringo and stop speaking Spanish to achieved goals in your life? That is for imprisoned people not free people with strong minds!

That is being colonized. And that is assimilation of the message of empires. You can't existe without your chains. That was supposed to die off in the American Civil war of 1860s.

The slaves were freed a long time ago--too Bad the Republicans racist fascist do not respect popular votes and never got the memo. Ave María.
#15264642
Seeking independence strikes me as a stupid and reactionary move. Only two paths make sense to me, to seek statehood within the United States or to seek statehood within Mexico.

As to colonialism, what does the term even mean? Its just a slur, that's attractive to the intellectually lazy. I can understand that some native Spanish Speakers don't want to lose their Spanish speaking culture or cultures, that strikes me as a reasonable desire, but whether Puerto Rico converts to English or remains Spanish Speaking, either way it will be a testament to the glorious victories of European colonialism.
#15264697
Rich wrote:Seeking independence strikes me as a stupid and reactionary move. Only two paths make sense to me, to seek statehood within the United States or to seek statehood within Mexico.

As to colonialism, what does the term even mean? Its just a slur, that's attractive to the intellectually lazy. I can understand that some native Spanish Speakers don't want to lose their Spanish speaking culture or cultures, that strikes me as a reasonable desire, but whether Puerto Rico converts to English or remains Spanish Speaking, either way it will be a testament to the glorious victories of European colonialism.

It is not My fault Rich that the UK has-been stale tired Empire could not keep the yoke on the Yanks, or the yoke on the long long list of ex colonies.
It is not My fault that Your compatriotas like dumbass lemmings believed Brexit would be possible and that rat filled Tory party can't Even find someone to cope with a sinking ship over there.

You believed in British colonialism? Go fucking beg the EU on your hands and knees to let You back in there to not drop into a depressión like that Fareed Zakariah dude suggests.

It is reactionary to not cooperate in mutual benefit. Colonialism is not mutually beneficial. It never was.

Nothing glorious about British colonialism. Sir Francis Drake tried to take over San Juan. But he like most British endeavors never took risks. Except when their racist elites tell the British lower clases to pay the price for all that failed glory. Where are the earnings from the ex Empire? In your pocket? No. It is in the pocket of the elite in the UK who did NOTHING with it.

Bitching and moaning about your fucking worthless politicians?

You still believe in shit that no longer works. Why?

Because the Glory? Lol. Of what? Show me the money to weather the storm of that depressión headed your way....

Meanwhile if You want to come and visit me @Rich and SEE Chichen Itza? I don't mind. You don't have to pay hotel or food. Just the plane ticket. Lol. I believe in Good international relations ...hee hee. Eres un bribón,@Rich .

I love México it is fun...I usted to do do archaeology over here.

Come for a visit You nutty man!

Fuck all those losers making Bad decisions in parliament.!
#15265971
@Tainari88 I finished the book that you recommended me. I enjoyed it very much, I think it was fun, well-written, engaging, and interesting. I don't believe this book supports the points you are making, in fact I think it very much supports most if not all of the views that I shared with you. Let me give you some examples:

In Chapter 1 the author writes “Tolerance is not a sapient trademark” soon after he says “No sooner did they arrive to a new location and the native population became extinct” and the author appears to suggest that homo sapiens exterminated other homo species. At the end of chapter 1 and beginning of chapter 2, when the author is talking about the “tree of knowledge gene” he points out that even cousin species such as chimps select their leaders in a quasi-democracy system in which the “alpha male” is not necessarily the strongest and/or more violent but rather the one that has more social interactions with other chimps, and states it is similar to politicians, and then he goes to say that their groups cannot raise in numbers too much because as their numbers grow, it is harder to maintain relationships and thus they split, oftentimes they even behave in a genocidal fashion, attacking other groups similar to ethnic cleansing. The author does not mention it, but this behavior is not specific to primates either, we can see similar “genocidal” behavior in other mammals, for instance, lions and bears can sometimes kill a female cub in an attempt to mate with a said female which otherwise would not mate with the male.

All of this to say, this book reinforces what I have been saying, that so far, humans have demonstrated a strong predilection for violent behavior, including toward other humans and hominids. While he makes clear that we don't know exacly how other homo species went extinct, the possibility that we might have had a decisive hand on it is certainly compatible with the available evidence and at a later part in the book, he also mentions that analysis of bones/injuries is also compatible with a world in the past that was at least as violent if not more as compared to modern, relatively speaking (per capita).

I said before that humanity has always been violent and perhaps more so in the past than today. This book seems to support that idea, at the very least is compatible and not contradictory at all.

The author postulates that societies revolve around “myths” and in this context, he is referring to human beliefs that might not necessarily be demonstrable true, but that we believe nonetheless. This includes the usual suspects such as religion and spirituality but in the context, the author is using it, it is far more expansive including governments, nations, law systems, etc. In this paradigm, the collective human race has never had a myth centered around peace and the common good. Small pockets do sprout from time to time, but they are certainly not universal and thus there is no framework for which “let and let life” has ever existed before.

In chapter 3 the author describes the social customs of the Ache hunter-gatherer society, how they murdered their elderly women and abandoned their weak, less productive members of society, how they killed the babies that were born without hair because they were thought to be damaged somehow and how they killed and buried a girl when elderly men would die. Frankly, the suggestion that violence and human atrocities is a relatively new feature and that our current societies are worse, is laughable and this book certainly does not offer any evidence to suggest otherwise. When the author is offering a conclusion about the ache, he says something along the lines “the ache were not angels or fiends, they were human”. Again, this both supports my point that humanity has a long track record of being violent/ruthless and that if anything, current societies tend to be less, rather than more, violent.

Chapter 4 enumerates many species that we basically drove to extinction, not unlike what we are doing currently. It turns out we are not much different from our ancestors.


In chapter 11, “Imperial visions” the author specifically states what I have been saying countless times during this thread.
His words “Almost all people in the 21st century are the offspring of an empire or another”. He goes further to state: “The contemporary critique of empires generally takes 2 forms: 1 empire do not work, in the long run, it is impossible to rule over a large number of conquered people 2: even if it can be done, it should not be done because empires are evil engines of destruction and exploitation, every people have the right to self-determination and should never be subjected to the ruling of another. From a historic perspective, the first statement is plain nonsense and the second is deeply problematic. The truth is that empires have been the most common form of political organization for the last 2500 years. Most humans for 2.5 millennia have lived under empires”… it goes on, he states that empires are a very stable form of government. A few sentences and he states “conquered people don’t have a good track record from freeing themselves from their imperial overlords, most have remained subjugated for hundreds of years”. A few more sentences “In many instances, the destruction of 1 empire, hardly meant independence for subjected people. Instead, a new empire stepped into the vacuum when an old one collapsed or retreated”.

These are all the points that I have been making: 1.- We are all the products of empire. Puerto rico, The US? Or perhaps the Spanish empire that came before it? You are not arguing to get the original Puerto Rican culture back, the Taino culture, you are fighting for the criollo-Spanish culture that is the result of a Spaniard colony.

Then he alludes that "conquered people don't have a good track record from freeing themselves". Again, true... I said similar things before. I'd go further, forget about "freeing themselves", even when they do get independence, that is not a guarantee for success. Look at Egypt from Britain, or all of Africa from Britain/France/Portugal. Most African countries have been independent for over half a century and most of them are places that none of us would like to move and live there. The idea that getting PR independence is going to suddenly materialize prosperity, to me seems unrealistic and absurd.

When he says "In many instances, the destruction of 1 empire, hardly meant independence for subjected people. Instead, a new empire stepped into the vacuum when an old one collapsed or retreated”. This is exactly what I have been saying for weeks. If the US “empire” collapses or retreats… (whatever that means)… there is going to be someone else picking up from where the US left us. Russia? China? India? Some ungodly alliance from the middle east? Who knows… but from the contemporary point of views, there are 3 possible candidates, which are China, India and Russia… not a single one of them would make life better I guarantee you that. There could be a 4th… coalition of European nations/EU… but they are probably indistinguishable from the US in terms of values and approach to most things. The narrative that the author gives about china in that chapteris particularly worrisome. Further down in Chapter 11, the author says “… most of today's cultures are based on imperial legacies, if empires are by definition bad, what does that say about us? There are schools of thought and political movements that seek to purge culture of imperialism, leaving behind what they claim is a pure authentic civilization untainted by sin. These ideologies are at best naïve. At worse, they serve as disingenuous window dressing for crude nationalism and bigotry”. The author goes as far as to claim that the world is moving towards a large, global empire and he seems to be at peace with this.

The latter chapters are very interesting as well, but they are not as relevant to this discussion. There are certainly a few memorable quotes that perhaps will come up later on further discussion but I don't think they are immediately pertienent.
Again, great book. I appreciate the recommendation very much. I believe my views are perfectly compatible with the views of the author and I believe what I have been saying all along is in line with the points the book is trying to make.
#15265973
XogGyux wrote:@Tainari88 I finished the book that you recommended me. I enjoyed it very much, I think it was fun, well-written, engaging, and interesting. I don't believe this book supports the points you are making, in fact I think it very much supports most if not all of the views that I shared with you. Let me give you some examples:

In Chapter 1 the author writes “Tolerance is not a sapient trademark” soon after he says “No sooner did they arrive to a new location and the native population became extinct” and the author appears to suggest that homo sapiens exterminated other homo species. At the end of chapter 1 and beginning of chapter 2, when the author is talking about the “tree of knowledge gene” he points out that even cousin species such as chimps select their leaders in a quasi-democracy system in which the “alpha male” is not necessarily the strongest and/or more violent but rather the one that has more social interactions with other chimps, and states it is similar to politicians, and then he goes to say that their groups cannot raise in numbers too much because as their numbers grow, it is harder to maintain relationships and thus they split, oftentimes they even behave in a genocidal fashion, attacking other groups similar to ethnic cleansing. The author does not mention it, but this behavior is not specific to primates either, we can see similar “genocidal” behavior in other mammals, for instance, lions and bears can sometimes kill a female cub in an attempt to mate with a said female which otherwise would not mate with the male.

All of this to say, this book reinforces what I have been saying, that so far, humans have demonstrated a strong predilection for violent behavior, including toward other humans and hominids. While he makes clear that we don't know exacly how other homo species went extinct, the possibility that we might have had a decisive hand on it is certainly compatible with the available evidence and at a later part in the book, he also mentions that analysis of bones/injuries is also compatible with a world in the past that was at least as violent if not more as compared to modern, relatively speaking (per capita).

I said before that humanity has always been violent and perhaps more so in the past than today. This book seems to support that idea, at the very least is compatible and not contradictory at all.

The author postulates that societies revolve around “myths” and in this context, he is referring to human beliefs that might not necessarily be demonstrable true, but that we believe nonetheless. This includes the usual suspects such as religion and spirituality but in the context, the author is using it, it is far more expansive including governments, nations, law systems, etc. In this paradigm, the collective human race has never had a myth centered around peace and the common good. Small pockets do sprout from time to time, but they are certainly not universal and thus there is no framework for which “let and let life” has ever existed before.

In chapter 3 the author describes the social customs of the Ache hunter-gatherer society, how they murdered their elderly women and abandoned their weak, less productive members of society, how they killed the babies that were born without hair because they were thought to be damaged somehow and how they killed and buried a girl when elderly men would die. Frankly, the suggestion that violence and human atrocities is a relatively new feature and that our current societies are worse, is laughable and this book certainly does not offer any evidence to suggest otherwise. When the author is offering a conclusion about the ache, he says something along the lines “the ache were not angels or fiends, they were human”. Again, this both supports my point that humanity has a long track record of being violent/ruthless and that if anything, current societies tend to be less, rather than more, violent.

Chapter 4 enumerates many species that we basically drove to extinction, not unlike what we are doing currently. It turns out we are not much different from our ancestors.


In chapter 11, “Imperial visions” the author specifically states what I have been saying countless times during this thread.
His words “Almost all people in the 21st century are the offspring of an empire or another”. He goes further to state: “The contemporary critique of empires generally takes 2 forms: 1 empire do not work, in the long run, it is impossible to rule over a large number of conquered people 2: even if it can be done, it should not be done because empires are evil engines of destruction and exploitation, every people have the right to self-determination and should never be subjected to the ruling of another. From a historic perspective, the first statement is plain nonsense and the second is deeply problematic. The truth is that empires have been the most common form of political organization for the last 2500 years. Most humans for 2.5 millennia have lived under empires”… it goes on, he states that empires are a very stable form of government. A few sentences and he states “conquered people don’t have a good track record from freeing themselves from their imperial overlords, most have remained subjugated for hundreds of years”. A few more sentences “In many instances, the destruction of 1 empire, hardly meant independence for subjected people. Instead, a new empire stepped into the vacuum when an old one collapsed or retreated”.

These are all the points that I have been making: 1.- We are all the products of empire. Puerto rico, The US? Or perhaps the Spanish empire that came before it? You are not arguing to get the original Puerto Rican culture back, the Taino culture, you are fighting for the criollo-Spanish culture that is the result of a Spaniard colony.

Then he alludes that "conquered people don't have a good track record from freeing themselves". Again, true... I said similar things before. I'd go further, forget about "freeing themselves", even when they do get independence, that is not a guarantee for success. Look at Egypt from Britain, or all of Africa from Britain/France/Portugal. Most African countries have been independent for over half a century and most of them are places that none of us would like to move and live there. The idea that getting PR independence is going to suddenly materialize prosperity, to me seems unrealistic and absurd.

When he says "In many instances, the destruction of 1 empire, hardly meant independence for subjected people. Instead, a new empire stepped into the vacuum when an old one collapsed or retreated”. This is exactly what I have been saying for weeks. If the US “empire” collapses or retreats… (whatever that means)… there is going to be someone else picking up from where the US left us. Russia? China? India? Some ungodly alliance from the middle east? Who knows… but from the contemporary point of views, there are 3 possible candidates, which are China, India and Russia… not a single one of them would make life better I guarantee you that. There could be a 4th… coalition of European nations/EU… but they are probably indistinguishable from the US in terms of values and approach to most things. The narrative that the author gives about china in that chapteris particularly worrisome. Further down in Chapter 11, the author says “… most of today's cultures are based on imperial legacies, if empires are by definition bad, what does that say about us? There are schools of thought and political movements that seek to purge culture of imperialism, leaving behind what they claim is a pure authentic civilization untainted by sin. These ideologies are at best naïve. At worse, they serve as disingenuous window dressing for crude nationalism and bigotry”. The author goes as far as to claim that the world is moving towards a large, global empire and he seems to be at peace with this.

The latter chapters are very interesting as well, but they are not as relevant to this discussion. There are certainly a few memorable quotes that perhaps will come up later on further discussion but I don't think they are immediately pertienent.
Again, great book. I appreciate the recommendation very much. I believe my views are perfectly compatible with the views of the author and I believe what I have been saying all along is in line with the points the book is trying to make.


Harari makes some very interesting conclusions XogGyux. One of them is that human civilizations are influenced by the human stupidity factor. Look that up. Lol. And that it is a mistake to over emphasize the superiority of one group of human beings or ethnicity over another group's. Why? We all learn from interacting from one another.

If the USA loses a war against another power and that power then prohibits English being spoken, herds all the Americans into reservations and does the same shit that was done to the Native Americans with the colonization does that mean that the Americans never had anything worth knowing about or learning from?

Society does evolve. It grows in wisdom with time and experience. Harari talks about that as well. I hope you read the other two books in the series. Homo Deus and 21 Lessons for the 21st century.

You can't bring the Taino culture back. It is gone. Replaced. But 60% and more of the modern Puerto Ricans have mitochondrial DNA that is Taino in their maternal lines. They had long ago Taino indian mothers and Spanish fathers. Something common in the history of the Caribbean. The genes live on but the culture dies off.

The issue is if we can continue to be so rapacious and greedy with the amount of technology that we have now...can we press the button for nuking each other now and think our species is going to do well and our civilization is going to survive the onslaught or wind up going back to Stone Age living.

I am glad you enjoyed the read. I disagree with you XogGyux, the Israeli history professor is saying we need to cooperate because if we don't do so soon? Our technology won't be a good thing for us to have if our social interactions are still stuck in violence and genocidal and exploitative behaviors from the past. He speaks about why we have a liberal society now as opposed to slavery, child labor, and women never voting and horrible social aspects from the past. We need to move beyond our {stupidity factor} as he calls it. Lol.

Predatory societies are not the ideal Xog. After all who was predatory with the Jews and the founding of the state of Israel in the 1940s was about needing land for a Jewish nation that suffered from not being able to stop the genocide from the Third Reich.

When is all that exploitation going to end for us Xog?

All the empires from the past had a rise, a cresting and decline. Mostly due to bad decisions of the elites of the empires and also overstripping the resources and not being able to sustain themselves with their overspending on wars and conquests. They all lost their colonies. Spain lost Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, etc etc. England lost the US American 13 colonies, and many more. Why? The whole concept of Empire is about controlling people to extract from them and squeezing them to the point of rebellion. It is not something to be repeating all the time. It is not something productive. There are not really good wars Xog. Wars are messy and take a lot of innocent civilians with them. And they destroy buildings, cause economic collapse and suffering.

Those are facts. This is Harari on 60 minutes discussing what is going on with modern governments.



You see what he said at the end @XogGyux we need to emphasize COOPERATION. Because if we do not? It is not going to be pretty.

Inequality is bad. And if it is not addressed the machines won't be making moral and ethical decisions about what to do. They are going to be solving problems according to their programming. Not their consciousness level. He gave the example of the accident with a car.

Cooperation is the key to the future. Not competition. And that is reality.
#15265988
Tainari88 wrote:Harari makes some very interesting conclusions XogGyux. One of them is that human civilizations are influenced by the human stupidity factor. Look that up. Lol. And that it is a mistake to over emphasize the superiority of one group of human beings or ethnicity over another group's. Why? We all learn from interacting from one another.

He did suggest something along those lines. And I absolutely disagree. I am not certain if he meant it from his point of view, or if he meant that there was no objectively superior moral stance/etc. If he meant just objectively, that might technically be true, but useless for us. His view quite clearly that the world does not really care for the human subjective experience. The universe does not care if you cry or if you suffer or if you die. That is, as far as I can tell, objectively true. However, I think it would be a mistake to say that one society or one culture is not better than another. I think it would not be controversial to agree that your society and your culture and my society and my culture are both superior to that of the Ache, that murders its elderly women, or the society of certain islamic countries that treat the women as cattle or even our own society 300 years ago that used other humans as slaves. There is a subjective aspect to all of this, in which we do care about humans (I assume), the universe might not care, but you care and I care, therefore I don't think it is a leap to conclude that indeed, some societies are superior.

You can't bring the Taino culture back. It is gone. Replaced. But 60% and more of the modern Puerto Ricans have mitochondrial DNA that is Taino in their maternal lines. They had long ago Taino indian mothers and Spanish fathers. Something common in the history of the Caribbean. The genes live on but the culture dies off.

So what? A lot of us have DNA from Ghengis Khan, 99% of our DNA is shared with chimpanzees,s and with share 40% DNA with a banana. I fail to see the significance of this within this context.

The issue is if we can continue to be so rapacious and greedy with the amount of technology that we have now...can we press the button for nuking each other now and think our species is going to do well and our civilization is going to survive the onslaught or wind up going back to Stone Age living.

And wether that happens or not, I assure you, does not depend one bit on whether puerto rico keeps the status quo, ascends as a state or fully independizes.

I am glad you enjoyed the read. I disagree with you XogGyux, the Israeli history professor is saying we need to cooperate because if we don't do so soon?

Oh well, that is a useless platitude. Do you believe this history professor does not think humans cooperated to kill mammoths? to keep a fire alive? To build the pyramids? To win wars? Humans have cooperated continuosly before we were even humans. As a social primate humans have cooperated before there were even humans. Indeed, even our ancestors (other hominids) and many other primates (chimpanzee) cooperate and would not survive without it. So again, this is a very general meaningless claim that is as true as me claiming that sometime in the next decade there will be a stock crash and a stock rally... This is not really very useful information or a particularly remarkably observation.
Our technology won't be a good thing for us to have if our social interactions are still stuck in violence and genocidal and exploitative behaviors from the past.

The genocidal and exploitative behavior is not only in the past, it is in the future and there is no reason to believe it will simply disapear anytime soon. Just because you and I wish it to go away, does not make so. Ignoring the existence of genocidal and exploitative behavior can be just as destructive and damaging as the behavior itself.

Predatory societies are not the ideal Xog.

Perhaps not, but the alternative as it turns out is to be a prey society. Do you disagree?

When is all that exploitation going to end for us Xog?

I don't know if it will ever end, but I am positively confident that it will not end during our lifetimes.

All the empires from the past had a rise, a cresting and decline. Mostly due to bad decisions of the elites of the empires and also overstripping the resources and not being able to sustain themselves with their overspending on wars and conquests. They all lost their colonies. Spain lost Cuba, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, etc etc. England lost the US American 13 colonies, and many more. Why? The whole concept of Empire is about controlling people to extract from them and squeezing them to the point of rebellion.

But you do realize, just like Harrari pointed out, that everytime an empire falls, another raises. That was my point. The day that the US falls, you better pray that the next one will be better, but you rest assure some other empire will raise in its place. Who do you believe are the current candidates if the US collapsed tomorrow? Who would be the next global empire? Do you honestly think the next one is going to be better? I don't. I honestly believe that the US has been relatively meek and well-mannered when it comes to historical empires, especially considering the US does not really have any competitors in this whole hemisphere. If the US ever had the burning desire of conquest the way that Alexander the Great, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain or Napoleon... rest assured that everyone from rio grande to tierra del Fuego would be speaking English today and the US flag would have a few hundred more stars on it.
It is not something productive.

Well, this is simply not true. Clearly, this has all been very productive. In just over 10k of human civilization we have transformed the globe so much. Wether for the better or for the worse, we don't know yet, but we have been extremely productive.

https://youtu.be/EIVTf-C6oQo

While I enjoy the book, I'd take any sort of prediction about the future with a grain of salt, nobody knows this. His expertise are not in technology, biochemistry, biotechnology or informatics. This "genetic inequality" warning... there is a fair point in pointing out that we haven't figured out the ethics of all of the genetics, and we won't. But that is the whole point... we have only started to scratch the surface of what is possible. I don't think this is at all pertinent to the discussion at hand, so we should just move along with the discussion because of lack of relevance. If you want to discuss about bioethics, by all means, open a thread about it, we will get going. But again, in this realm, 1.- is not his expertise, 2.- his comments/advise/warning as general platitudes that are neither specific not helpful, 3.- not relevant to this topic.
#15265991
XogGyux wrote:He did suggest something along those lines. And I absolutely disagree. I am not certain if he meant it from his point of view, or if he meant that there was no objectively superior moral stance/etc. If he meant just objectively, that might technically be true, but useless for us. His view quite clearly that the world does not really care for the human subjective experience. The universe does not care if you cry or if you suffer or if you die. That is, as far as I can tell, objectively true. However, I think it would be a mistake to say that one society or one culture is not better than another. I think it would not be controversial to agree that your society and your culture and my society and my culture are both superior to that of the Ache, that murders its elderly women, or the society of certain islamic countries that treat the women as cattle or even our own society 300 years ago that used other humans as slaves. There is a subjective aspect to all of this, in which we do care about humans (I assume), the universe might not care, but you care and I care, therefore I don't think it is a leap to conclude that indeed, some societies are superior.


So what? A lot of us have DNA from Ghengis Khan, 99% of our DNA is shared with chimpanzees,s and with share 40% DNA with a banana. I fail to see the significance of this within this context.


And wether that happens or not, I assure you, does not depend one bit on whether puerto rico keeps the status quo, ascends as a state or fully independizes.


Oh well, that is a useless platitude. Do you believe this history professor does not think humans cooperated to kill mammoths? to keep a fire alive? To build the pyramids? To win wars? Humans have cooperated continuosly before we were even humans. As a social primate humans have cooperated before there were even humans. Indeed, even our ancestors (other hominids) and many other primates (chimpanzee) cooperate and would not survive without it. So again, this is a very general meaningless claim that is as true as me claiming that sometime in the next decade there will be a stock crash and a stock rally... This is not really very useful information or a particularly remarkably observation.

The genocidal and exploitative behavior is not only in the past, it is in the future and there is no reason to believe it will simply disapear anytime soon. Just because you and I wish it to go away, does not make so. Ignoring the existence of genocidal and exploitative behavior can be just as destructive and damaging as the behavior itself.


Perhaps not, but the alternative as it turns out is to be a prey society. Do you disagree?


I don't know if it will ever end, but I am positively confident that it will not end during our lifetimes.


But you do realize, just like Harrari pointed out, that everytime an empire falls, another raises. That was my point. The day that the US falls, you better pray that the next one will be better, but you rest assure some other empire will raise in its place. Who do you believe are the current candidates if the US collapsed tomorrow? Who would be the next global empire? Do you honestly think the next one is going to be better? I don't. I honestly believe that the US has been relatively meek and well-mannered when it comes to historical empires, especially considering the US does not really have any competitors in this whole hemisphere. If the US ever had the burning desire of conquest the way that Alexander the Great, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain or Napoleon... rest assured that everyone from rio grande to tierra del Fuego would be speaking English today and the US flag would have a few hundred more stars on it.

Well, this is simply not true. Clearly, this has all been very productive. In just over 10k of human civilization we have transformed the globe so much. Wether for the better or for the worse, we don't know yet, but we have been extremely productive.


While I enjoy the book, I'd take any sort of prediction about the future with a grain of salt, nobody knows this. His expertise are not in technology, biochemistry, biotechnology or informatics. This "genetic inequality" warning... there is a fair point in pointing out that we haven't figured out the ethics of all of the genetics, and we won't. But that is the whole point... we have only started to scratch the surface of what is possible. I don't think this is at all pertinent to the discussion at hand, so we should just move along with the discussion because of lack of relevance. If you want to discuss about bioethics, by all means, open a thread about it, we will get going. But again, in this realm, 1.- is not his expertise, 2.- his comments/advise/warning as general platitudes that are neither specific not helpful, 3.- not relevant to this topic.


I think we are back to talking past each other again.

Look, XogGyux, I studied cultural anthropology. That included genetics and other sub groups of anthropology like paleo anthropology, forensic anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics, and ancient civilizations, sociology, urban anthropology and primatology. I studied that with a lot of dedication Xog. I trust you know more about medical procedures and jargon and health sciences. I do not presume to tell you about that.

What I am saying is simple. That entire premise of superior and inferior is not about human civilizations. It is about human ethics. Human morality. What makes our lives guided by rights. And over time human societies have evolved.

Colonialism and neo colonialism is something old and obsolete. The problem in the future is going to be about ethics. Did you hear what he said about not allowing one nation or one group of elite or otherwise control all the data?

Why? Because of the manipulation dangers to having access to the information of the entire world. And the ability to have real physical, economic and mental advantages over other societies. That are poor or come from nations that are set up to be the subjugated societies serving the interests of a very fascist or illiberal elite class. The fascists are not absent from the USA and the Republicans or from warmongers selling nukes to the world.

Think about it. You manufacture a bomb capable of offing the entire world. You do it because it is profitable. Not thinking about that it might wipe out the human species. Doesn't that sound like an ethically dubious question to you?

If you don't cooperate for cutting down the inequality in a society you hack the vulnerable societies and people and you manipulate them all with SHIT and lies to gain power forever. Concentrate it only in few hands. If you don't put serious work into controlling that violent, greedy and inhumane part of human tendencies? It is incredibly dangerous.

That is what Harari is alluding to.

You should give Homo Deus a read too. That book is fascinating. Unless the governments and the people who wield power are monitored and scrutinized they will have the power to enslave ALL OF US. Forever. Because they will only let a tiny group control the technology and create the algorithms. Intelligence solves problems. Artificial intelligence solves problems. But consciousness is the key to human innovation, morality, and ethics and the ability to create a society that is just and can marry problem-solving with a balanced and humane future. Otherwise? We will be ruled by some cold system that will pack us into categories and strip us of a sense of consciousness. Take it with a grain of salt. The US government and the Chinese government are in a race to control their populations with propaganda and BULLSHIT and have not put much effort into a moral and ethical human cooperation world. With multi-polar power centers. We can't allow one concentrated place of all data...it spells dictatorship. He is right about that. Shared power is the only answer. Really.

Why are you arguing about the obvious? No one is saying that humans have not been violent. In the past. That is not the issue. The issue is emotion in human beings is the mechanism that regulates morality, ethics, empathy, sympathy, and also a sense of justice, and fairness, and it is imperative that information is not misused to force people to do the bidding of those who allow greed, and power to run rampant be the ones making some incredibly important decisions on how to use the technology tools that are coming for all of us in the future.

Be human. Humane. And that means seeing the humanity in all the nations. Not just the USA and its enemies or friends. But all of us.
#15266015
Tainari88 wrote:I think we are back to talking past each other again.

It seems that way :lol: .

Look, XogGyux, I studied cultural anthropology. That included genetics and other sub groups of anthropology like paleo anthropology, forensic anthropology, archaeology, and linguistics, and ancient civilizations, sociology, urban anthropology and primatology. I studied that with a lot of dedication Xog. I trust you know more about medical procedures and jargon and health sciences. I do not presume to tell you about that.

None of that is relevant really. None of what we have discussed within the realm of your expertise should be at all controversial. The very book you suggested literally says it... Empires have been the most common form of government through human history, just about everyone alive today is a descendant of one empire or another and the author even suggests that the world might form a single planet-wide empire at some point in the future.
I am not here debating with you whether polynesian tribes practiced polygamy or who were the first humans to make potery or conquer fire or what was the religious inclinations of nearthertals. If that was the case, by all means I'd be struggling to have a sensible discussion, but what really matters for the sake of this discussion that lies within the realm of history/anthropology is not really controversial or particularly obscure.
I have been gone above and beyond to remain engaged and read and watched every single thing you posted to see if there is any sort of chance there is another way. Not only I have not seen any such evidence, but I am fairly confident that what you have provided reinforces my views on the matter.
Do you believe I don't also want a world of shared peace and tranquility? A world where we have less poverty, less inequality?
I have done as much as you have asked to understand your points, but time after time when I ask questions you go past them, not offering a clear-cut answer. So I ask you again.
1.- Do you think that if the US disappears from the map today, other major quasi-empire nations such as Russia and China will just mind their own business and stay at home and we will all be a peaceful family? Do you HONESTLY believe that?
2.- If you answer No to my prior question. Do you think the world would be better off under a Russian lead world or a China led world?

What I am saying is simple. That entire premise of superior and inferior is not about human civilizations. It is about human ethics. Human morality. What makes our lives guided by rights. And over time human societies have evolved.

Have you read the book recently?
There are no rights. We, humans, make them up. There is no objective right and wrong, we also make it up. In fact, morality is a made-up things that humans create.
I am not saying it is unimportant, to the contrary, it is absolutely important... FOR US. However, the same way we make up morality and ethics, it also means that we end up creating a hierarchy of what is good/bad and what is better/worse. There is no absolute morality, the universe does not have a morality. Humans have a morality, it is intrinsically subjective. We can make objective assessments of wether something is moral or not, or perhaps even a rank of moral options, but at its core, it is based on a subjective core principle that we as humans care about well-being. Once you make that subjective assessment, you can then build upon the system with progressively more objective assessments. But the core (human well-being) will always remain subjective because there is no universal rule that proclaims that human well-being is moral.
This is a tangential point to the discussion, but it is important because it leads to the point that indeed some societies, some cultural norms, and some civilizations are indeed superior (morally/ethically) to others. So back to my question:
Do you disagree that the western values/society such as those seen in the US, are as a whole superior to those of a culture such as the Ache, that kill/abandon their elderly/weak, babies? Or that of some Islamic countries which treat women as second-class citizens? Or north Korea, that idolizes a dictator to near-deity levels? My answer is absolute yes the US/Western values are superior. What is your answer to that question?

Colonialism and neo colonialism is something old and obsolete.

Old, yes... thousands of years. Obsolete? No unless you don't believe the modern countries are colonial/neo-colonial in nature, however, if you don't believe that then this whole thread's point is moot.
If you think the US is neo-colonialist... it is then self-evident that it is not obsolete, by the very fact that it is still being practiced it cannot possibly be obsolete. It is like saying Islam is obsolete... it is widely practiced today, cannot possibly be obsolete.

That are poor or come from nations that are set up to be the subjugated societies serving the interests of a very fascist or illiberal elite class. The fascists are not absent from the USA and the Republicans or from warmongers selling nukes to the world.

I am sorry but this is absolute hateful nonsense, I won't even address it further.

Think about it. You manufacture a bomb capable of offing the entire world. You do it because it is profitable. Not thinking about that it might wipe out the human species. Doesn't that sound like an ethically dubious question to you?


Interesting you should mention this. Did you read chapter 18? The author says:
Sapiens by Harari wrote:The Nobel Peace Prize to end all peace prizes should have been given to Robert Oppenheimer and his fellow architects of the atomic bomb. Nuclear weapons have turned war between superpowers into collective suicide, and made it impossible to seek world domination by force of arms.

Ofcourse, he wrote this book before the events of Feb 24th 2022 so there is still time for Russia/NATO to prove him wrong... or perhaps the very fact that despite this war we have not nuked each other he is being proven right at this very moment. Either way... what are your thoughts about this?
I understand you want peace, so do I. But it really goes against human nature, you should know this. We are a species rapidly learning how to purge our nature from our behavior... But "rapidly" takes millennia on evolutionary terms. That is why I tell you, and will continue to tell you, that what you are wishing for, despite being pure and admirably (and certainly having my support) is not really achievable during our lifetimes or even beyond.

You should give Homo Deus a read too. That book is fascinating.

At some point I will, I liked his book so I'll get some more at some point in the future. I have other things in the pipeline for now and clearly reading his book is not going to make a difference in this discussion. I found the one you suggested first to be at odds with your own viewpoints so I doubt some of his other work would make much of a difference on this topic.

Unless the governments and the people who wield power are monitored and scrutinized they will have the power to enslave ALL OF US. Forever. Because they will only let a tiny group control the technology and create the algorithms. Intelligence solves problems. Artificial intelligence solves problems. But consciousness is the key to human innovation, morality, and ethics and the ability to create a society that is just and can marry problem-solving with a balanced and humane future

This is all in the realm of speculation. Furthermore it has nothing to do with the topic of PR status.

The US government and the Chinese government are in a race to control their populations with propaganda and BULLSHIT and have not put much effort into a moral and ethical human cooperation world.

The US and the Chinese are the only two governments doing propaganda BULLSHIT? So Russia is not? Iran is not? North Korea is not? Saudis are not? Venezuela is not? Cuba is not? Turkey is not? This is the norm rather than the exception.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]