The Earth is Full... now what?

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
an important part of our diet.

Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.


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

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/index.html...
I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
an important part of our diet.
Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

"No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
Quite true.
At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
more than others.
another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
Why not be one with nature?

We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.

The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
transportation within healthy communities.

It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
rich to be prosperous.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
Quite true.
At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
more than others.
another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?

.> Why not be one with nature?
"To be one with nature" is fundamentally against
their religious belief...(They believe that they are
the chosen ones by their Gods. )
If the earth is too crowded, then they are the deserving
ones...the rest have no place on our planet...no place
in our world.

Religion AND Western influence play a major role in this catastrophe.
Philippines is undergoing a population explosion due to its Catholic
roots and now must import rice to survive. In China though the major
role is Western influence.

[Roland Perry]

at 17:09:45 on Sun, 8 Apr 2012, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density.

You have to understand that not only are there dedicated bike facilities
in the Netherlands (where bikes take precedence over pedestrians) but a
great deal of the population live in high density housing not very far
from where they work (or from a train station). The townscapes could
hardly be more different from the USA's suburban sprawl.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by Roland Perry
at 17:09:45 on Sun, 8 Apr 2012, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density.

You have to understand that not only are there dedicated bike facilities
in the Netherlands (where bikes take precedence over pedestrians) but a
great deal of the population live in high density housing not very far
from where they work (or from a train station). The townscapes could
hardly be more different from the USA's suburban sprawl.
--
Roland Perry

Which could a plus if you really were into cycling and used more
efficient bikes than the heavy Dutch bikes. At least I can move freely
within an 8 mile radius with a 21 speed light cargo bike. Then you can
reach beyond that by combining it with buses. Buses alone won't get
anywhere in the sprawl, so maybe that's the way to go.

[Basil Jet]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land.

... which is mostly flat as a pancake.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by Basil Jet

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land.

... which is mostly flat as a pancake.

And so is Florida. Nowadays electric bikes can take the pain out of
climbing.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

There is only one alternative now as it is too late to mitigate the
damage, and that is billions will die. It has to happen. It always
happens. There is no possible alternative now.

The best way to curb the population is to educate women. In the West
where the level of education between the genders is the same the
population is stable. All the growth is due to immigration from the
overpopulated regions of the planet.
The Chinese have been able to control their population with
administrative measures. The real problem is India and similar so
called democracies of the Third World. Their future is very bleak
indeed. Up to now they have been able to survive on international help
but clearly their size has surpassed resources of charitable
organizations combined.

This may be hard to swallow but maybe it's not a good idea to have a
democracy with an uneducated population. I agree that the education of
women is key, but democracy stands on the way of many things
necessary. Here in America cheap gas has become a "sacred cow" and
that's polluting the Earth like nothing else. Not only we must drive
everywhere, but we got trucks (SUVs) being used as personal ego
machines.

So this is a chain of incredible proportions but the chain breaks at
the weakest link.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

(This topic carries a subliminal message for the Pope sitting in a
palace in Rome)
"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/index.html...
I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
an important part of our diet.
Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

What happens to any biological organism be they rats, rabbits or
bacteria when they overrun their environment and cannot find sufficient
food, water, shelter and other factors necessary to survive?
Simple, Their population crashes and that fate awaits humans for the
same reasons. Of course the worst sufferers will be in the third world
where they are already stretched thin, can't raise their own food and
are running out of water. Climate change makes it worse with famine
already beginning in some areas. The future is bleak for many people.
The developed world will fare better. Birth rates are already declining
in most areas, in Europe and elsewhere, even Mexico believe it or not.
Moreover the developed world has the scientific expertise to do things
about climate change, droughts and food shortages. Now, all they'll need
will be the political will to make necessary changes. Lack of political
will and belief in mythology and irrational bull shit will be the
biggest problem facing countries like the US. Lets hope we can get our
act together.

We can only pray. ;)

I think we'll go back to feudal times with all these gated communities
and serfs working to satisfy the rich. They can hire half of humanity
to kill the other half, to paraphrase some fat cat.

The BS will catch up with the bulshitters sooner or later.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology.
There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the
same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/index.html?

eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common sense.
The question is what do we do about it. One option is make pregnant
mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is full, and
that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her understand that
cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime due to the scarcity
of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become an important part of
our diet.
Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do today
and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or use. Tell
you what, I won't drive a car today.

There is only one alternative now as it is too late to mitigate the
damage, and that is billions will die. It has to happen. It always
happens. There is no possible alternative now.

Now that you've stated that you're worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao
combined...

Only if I promoted war or mass starvation. Actually I'm promoting
PREVENTION and SMART FOOD POLICIES. How can you turn CORN into fuel
and not think of all the people hungry in the world? And do we really
need all the MEAT? I don't think so. But that's only my humble
opinion. How about RIDING A BIKE? That's the best you can do for the

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

China would have a population of 2,207 billion if it had the density
of Germany and the whole Earth would crumble under such demand.
Luckily China has been smarter than you and today and only has 1,350
billion people. Good for them.

A lot of China looks like outer Mongolia. You can't extrapolate like
that. People don't live in such densities on arid steppes.

Parts of America are not very friendly either, ie. Alaska. But my
point is that Germany has a high population density while keeping a
high standard of living. America has 83 people per square mile, so
that's empty. I figure Holland is pretty stable even though it
sustains 1046 people per square mile. Someone riding a bike is not
nearly the same as someone driving an SUV.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Apr 12, 11:39 pm, BeamMeUpScotty

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:23:04 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:16:29 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/

index.html?

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
an important part of our diet.
Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so
the Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing
from future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can
do today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat
or use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.

There is only one alternative now as it is too late to mitigate the
damage, and that is billions will die. It has to happen. It always
happens. There is no possible alternative now.

Now that you've stated that you're worse than Hitler, Stalin and Mao
combined...

Only if I promoted war or mass starvation. Actually I'm promoting
PREVENTION and SMART FOOD POLICIES. How can you turn CORN into fuel and
not think of all the people hungry in the world? And do we really need
all the MEAT? I don't think so. But that's only my humble opinion. How

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

China would have a population of 2,207 billion if it had the density
of Germany and the whole Earth would crumble under such demand.
Luckily China has been smarter than you and today and only has 1,350
billion people. Good for them.

A lot of China looks like outer Mongolia. You can't extrapolate like
that. People don't live in such densities on arid steppes.

Parts of America are not very friendly either, ie. Alaska. But my point
is that Germany has a high population density while keeping a high
standard of living. America has 83 people per square mile, so that's
empty. I figure Holland is pretty stable even though it sustains 1046
people per square mile. Someone riding a bike is not nearly the same as
someone driving an SUV.

So, who are you globalist going to kill off? Blacks? Whites? Asians?
Smart People? Dumb people? Anyone who gets in your way?
I hear the plan is to get rid of all but 500 million people. That's some
6 billion or more. I want to know who's on your murder list.

Once women are educated population growth gets under control. Only
Christians live by the credo "multiply and conquer."
Wait, every Christian sect believes only them will survive Armageddon,
so I think God is the mass murderer here.

Since you're "for" killing babies in the uterus, maybe God is calling it
Social Justice....
God's simply balancing the scales, and creating an equal outcome.
--
*He has the most who is most content with the least* -Diogenes-

The Christians are a funny species. They want kids to be born into a
miserable world and then deny them healthcare. They can't even play
outside or ride a bike. Kids should be told "Welcome to the Jungle."

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
"The reason is we have now reached a moment where four words -- the
earth is full -- will define our times. This is not a philosophical
statement; this is just science based in physics, chemistry and
biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all
draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/08/opinion/gilding-earth-limits/index.html...
I won't dispute those finding because they confirm my own common
sense. The question is what do we do about it. One option is make
pregnant mothers sign an affidavit that she understands the Earth is
full, and that her kid won't have a nice life. We have to make her
understand that cannibalism is a real possibility within a lifetime
due to the scarcity of resources. Or maybe that cats and dogs become
an important part of our diet.
Another option, of course, is to learn to live within our means so the
Earth can sustain us for a long time. Reality is we are stealing from
future generations and that's not nice. There's something I can do
today and that's to ride a bicycle and be conscious of what I eat or
use. Tell you what, I won't drive a car today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

"No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two
biological checks upon a rapid increase in number - a high mortality and
low fertility. Unlike other biological organisms, man can choose which
of these checks shall be applied, but one of them must be."
Quite true.
At the same time never forget much like fantasy kumbaya and manufactured
notions of equality the very idea humans are somehow ultimately above
nature is utopian to begin with. That is, more simply put, not all
posterity are created equal; and some children are _still_ preferred
more than others.
another instance of "hope" over experience perhaps?
Why not be one with nature?

We could support very high populations if it weren't for all the waste
and lack of planning. The Dutch get along fine with their bikes in a
highly populated land. Bike traffic seems to flow better there than
rush hour in America, which has a much lower population density. Maybe
the Third World needs to discard the Western model altogether and look
for alternatives such as the bike and the preservation of ecosystems.
The cash crops are wiping out forests and creating hunger.
The West has paid a hefty price for development and it's now in
crisis. I can only hope it doesn't bounce back so it'll learn to live
within its means. Perhaps the best hope we can have in the wasteful
rich countries is to have bicycles occupy our main mode of
transportation within healthy communities.
It's not the bike alone of course. Curitiba, Brazil, is a model of
public transportation from a Third World country. You don't need to be
rich to be prosperous.

Look, you still have to make a choice. And some will be more valued than
others in zero-sum game.
Why fight Darwin?
Why deplore competition when it's selection process?
Why not accept some will be valued more than others by whatever perspective?
Again, why fight nature? And not learn from the "West's" mistakes?

If you don't use the Xerox machine, then it makes sense. My concern is
that consumption habits made in West are recklessly copied, and this
adds to the doomsday scenario.
For example the approaches followed by Taiwan (scooters) and Singapore
(bullet trains) are praiseworthy given their reality not that of the
West. And in turn this not the reality for Africa, where the humble
bike could the vehicle of liberation. Adaption to the environment is a
law of nature.

Then tell us how much more copying you can get if you parrot equality,
liberty, or democracy. When you "liberate" the rest of the 6 or 7
billion, how much worse will the world become?
Tell us.

You are rather pessimist about the outcome but it can only be better
than what it is. Liberation means not only democracy but liberation of
Western patterns that are rather unhealthy and unreal. I can almost
hear it: "I got to have a car to be happy." Oh c'mon, this is Africa,
you better be happy with bicycles and bananas. Yes, the West has some
mighty technology such as the Internet that we can take advantage of,
but we all can be happier by roaming free, than by driving a car and
eating McDonald's.
Bananas and the Revolution
By Peter Schata
There is a long political history behind bananas becoming the fifth
most important food commodity in the world. They were one of the first
products where no expense was spared to create world markets for this
unmistakable fruit, turning whole countries over to banana production,
with stooge dictators controlled by the USA, in what aptly became
known as 'the banana republics'. Half a century after the big
Hollywood-style banana campaigns, the banana reflects ever more
clearly a world economic system concerned only with the kind of
'growth' that means control of the markets and massive profits. What
happens to the environment or to the people, who produce and consume
the fruit of such intentions, appears to be irrelevant.
In our democracies there is little self-determination, and we only
need to look at poverty and unemployment in Europe as well, to raise
doubts as to what is meant by 'free trade'. Such distortions of
language that hoodwink millions of people into accepting their lot,
need to be challenged and overturned. New language means new ideas,
new concepts. This is the revolution. We are this revolution!
Such a revolution is especially important if we are to find ways to
shift from the current forms of egocentric globalisation to a global
society that recognises the actual interrelatedness of all human
beings as well as our interconnectedness with the planet that supports
us.

So all things considered it may not be bad idea if most of the third
world should better be content with themselves rather than envy& emulate.
Good advice, and I agree.

Not content where they stand, but to choose a different path.

But still not content. Why not content. I even thought that's problem
contentment had with materialism anyway isn't it?
Wow!
Besides what different paths would these saints have choosen -
Materialism? Power?? Or even.... Bananas????
Serious?

Bananas just give you the right path to follow when managing an
economy wisely. Here's a question:

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU GIVE A BUNCH OF BANANAS TO A BUNCH OF
MONKEYS?

Every possible political system is represented in the distribution of
the bananas among the monkeys. Having a bureaucracy managing the
bananas is socialism. The bureaucracy mismanaging the bananas is bad
socialism. Marxism is one banana per monkey, except that some monkeys
are better than others. Capitalism will make some some monkeys control
the bananas while others go hungry. Then the WISE MONKEYS must learn
to cooperate and groom each other. THERE'S BANANAS FOR ALL.

But that's only my humble opinion.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

On Apr 15, 11:58 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
.> > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
.> > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
.> > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
.> > nor the old..
.> Which is why we should try to be civilized and be
.> above animals.
"To be civilized"...is not necessarily being above animals.
The bees and the ants from their perspective are more
civilized than us human. Eg. Ants greet each other when
the meet ...they share the burden when the load is too
heavy...they do not kill like human because of property
or jealous or greed.

Entomologist EO Wilson once famously remarked on Marxism: wonderful
theory, wrong species. :)
And that tells you why America can be more fitted to individualist vs,
oh say, Japan or Germany, or perhaps Israel.

"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
among societies, rather than competition."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005121653

Crack open the history books though and you'll see
that the 'cooperation' only applies within a given
society. When two societies meet, they tend to
fight to the death.
And in overly large and diverse societies, internal
cooperation isn't even guarenteed unless the king
points a spear at everyones bellies.

Interesting thought. So the whole idea of the European Union, the
nations working together and people moving freely is opposed to human
nature.

I think it is the ELITES that give these signals --cooperation or
aggression-- and the monkeys follow. Forgive my expression of
"monkeys," but I strongly believe that human behavior is related to
animals and that it should be helped by studying animal behavior and
training.

But that's only my humble opinion.

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

On Apr 15, 11:58 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
.> > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
.> > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
.> > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
.> > nor the old..
.> Which is why we should try to be civilized and be
.> above animals.
"To be civilized"...is not necessarily being above animals.
The bees and the ants from their perspective are more
civilized than us human. Eg. Ants greet each other when
the meet ...they share the burden when the load is too
heavy...they do not kill like human because of property
or jealous or greed.

Entomologist EO Wilson once famously remarked on Marxism: wonderful
theory, wrong species. :)
And that tells you why America can be more fitted to individualist vs,
oh say, Japan or Germany, or perhaps Israel.

"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
among societies, rather than competition."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005121653

Crack open the history books though and you'll see
that the 'cooperation' only applies within a given
society. When two societies meet, they tend to
fight to the death.
And in overly large and diverse societies, internal
cooperation isn't even guarenteed unless the king
points a spear at everyones bellies.

Interesting thought. So the whole idea of the European, the nations
working together and people moving freely is oppose to human nature.

Yep - and I think we're seeing the beginnings of
that truth coming to the surface over in eurotopia.
The cultural and political incompatabilities have
now been joined by economic woes - and I see hints
that countries being bailed out think the ones doing
the bailing (OK, mostly just ONE doing the bailing)
is starting to get kinda pushy, telling everybody
how they're gonna act, do business, allocate funds ...
Europe has had one big war after another for 1500
years. What makes you think 1945 marked the last
of them ?

It wouldn't be a war but absolute suicide. The last war was suicidal
but it took a maniac to make it happen. People are not that stupid.

I think it is the ELITES that give these signals --cooperation or
aggression-- and the monkeys follow.

Often. Not always, but often. Don't forget though
that even the 'elites' are mere humans under the
tailored clothes.

True, but their arrogance and gated communities insulates them from
the real world. Their vision is distorted by short term gain as well.

Forgive my expression of
"monkeys," but I strongly believe that human behavior is related to
animals and that it should be helped by studying animal behavior and
training.

Most primates automatically form a heirarchical
social order - with an 'alpha' male and female
and their close cohorts at the top of the pyramid.
They bark, everyone else jumps. This seems to be
the 'default' system for humans as well, be it
little tribes or gangs or vast powerful nations.

True, but most people are barely aware of this fact and most alpha
leaders have a short stay at the top. It means that the Mubaraks and
Gaddhafis are being replaced by more flexible hierarchies.

When everything else goes to hell, this is where
we drift to automatically. Indeed it seems to
require constant energy to even keep the heirarchy
somewhat diluted, the pyramid short and easier
to climb.

It ain't that easy to climb. It's just an illusion. If you kill the
illusion, a mafia state may follow.

But that's only my humble opinion.

It's not opinion if you can back it up
with historical evidence and anthropological
observations.

We just got to watch the world news. Nothing new in the jungle,
depressing for the most part.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

On Apr 15, 11:58 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"
.> > Evolution is strictly on the basis of survival of the
.> > fittest, the strong and the hungry. Evolution has NO moral...
.> > has no compassion for the weak, the women, the sick
.> > nor the old..
.> Which is why we should try to be civilized and be
.> above animals.
"To be civilized"...is not necessarily being above animals.
The bees and the ants from their perspective are more
civilized than us human. Eg. Ants greet each other when
the meet ...they share the burden when the load is too
heavy...they do not kill like human because of property
or jealous or greed.

Entomologist EO Wilson once famously remarked on Marxism: wonderful
theory, wrong species. :)
And that tells you why America can be more fitted to individualist vs,
oh say, Japan or Germany, or perhaps Israel.

"Wilson came to believe that humans, like ants, are genetically
designed to live within natural limits. It is becoming increasingly
obvious that those limits are directly related to reduced energy use
and consumption of natural resources, family planning, and COOPERATION
among societies, rather than competition."
http://www.mtexpress.com/index2.php?ID=2005121653

Crack open the history books though and you'll see
that the 'cooperation' only applies within a given
society. When two societies meet, they tend to
fight to the death.
And in overly large and diverse societies, internal
cooperation isn't even guarenteed unless the king
points a spear at everyones bellies.

Interesting thought. So the whole idea of the European, the nations
working together and people moving freely is oppose to human nature.

Yep - and I think we're seeing the beginnings of
that truth coming to the surface over in eurotopia.
The cultural and political incompatabilities have
now been joined by economic woes - and I see hints
that countries being bailed out think the ones doing
the bailing (OK, mostly just ONE doing the bailing)
is starting to get kinda pushy, telling everybody
how they're gonna act, do business, allocate funds ...
Europe has had one big war after another for 1500
years. What makes you think 1945 marked the last
of them ?

It wouldn't be a war but absolute suicide. The last war was suicidal
but it took a maniac to make it happen. People are not that stupid.

I think it is the ELITES that give these signals --cooperation or
aggression-- and the monkeys follow.

Often. Not always, but often. Don't forget though
that even the 'elites' are mere humans under the
tailored clothes.

True, but their arrogance and gated communities insulates them from
the real world. Their vision is distorted by short term gain as well.

Forgive my expression of
"monkeys," but I strongly believe that human behavior is related to
animals and that it should be helped by studying animal behavior and
training.

Most primates automatically form a heirarchical
social order - with an 'alpha' male and female
and their close cohorts at the top of the pyramid.
They bark, everyone else jumps. This seems to be
the 'default' system for humans as well, be it
little tribes or gangs or vast powerful nations.

True, but most people are barely aware of this fact and most alpha
leaders have a short stay at the top. It means that the Mubaraks and
Gaddhafis are being replaced by more flexible hierarchies.

A while back, I came across a list of Irish kings
going back nearly 3000 years. Almost every single
one bore the note "Killed by ..." - and the successors
rarely lasted very long either.
However the SYSTEM survived - every new king slipped
smoothly into the same boots the previous king wore,
the same govt structure. In short, only the faces
change. (I suspect this will ultimately be the case
in Egypt and such)

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

When everything else goes to hell, this is where
we drift to automatically. Indeed it seems to
require constant energy to even keep the heirarchy
somewhat diluted, the pyramid short and easier
to climb.

It ain't that easy to climb.

Ain't supposed to be. Even those with a little power
want to keep it for themselves.

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
It's just an illusion. If you kill the
illusion, a mafia state may follow.

They've been polishing the illusion since
Machiavellis time at least ... doesn't
seem likely there's gonna be any mass-
enlightenment event.
And even if there was ... go from the status-quo
to WHAT exactly ? IMHO it'd wind up being the same
old same old, just with a different color of paint.

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

But that's only my humble opinion.

It's not opinion if you can back it up
with historical evidence and anthropological
observations.

We just got to watch the world news. Nothing new in the jungle,
depressing for the most part.

People are people. They're wired-up pretty much the
same, have pretty much the same needs and desires and
weaknesses. Not unsuprising that there's not much real
variety in political or economic structure through time.
After ten or twelve thousand years of 'civilization',
I suspect everything has been tried - and most systems
proved lacking.

OK let's analyze a race that came from absolute brutality to absolute
civilization: THE SCANDINAVIANS. The Vikings, as we all know, didn't
take prisoners, not even the monks were spared. They terrorized Europe
--they may have been terrorists-- and would have given competition to
the Somali pirates. And now, what do we have now? We have some of the
most advanced countries on Earth, fully civilized, fully sustainable
countries. I mean, they are not only rich, but fully civilized. Sweden
aims for zero accidents on the road --rather Utopian just like zero
drugs in America-- but more worthwhile. There are many parameters by
which you may judge civilization, but TRAFFIC is my favorite. You go
from anarchy in America where might makes right, to a highly regulated
Autobahn system that works in Germany, to a place like Denmark that
makes sure that the Law of the Jungle takes its course when you ride a
bicycle. When you fail to protect the weak, everything falls apart and
civilization is just a joke.

Again, the Scandinavians show us the way.

Loading Image...

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
not even the monks were spared.

Wise. :-)

Prayers didn't work.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
They terrorized Europe
--they may have been terrorists-- and would have given competition to
the Somali pirates.

'Terrifying' and 'terrorism' are two different
things. 'Terrorism' is a special warfare tactic
designed to undermine a strong existing govt
from below - by destroying public confidence in
that govts ability to protect the population,
its valuable property and its important interests.
The Vikings were just 'terrifying' - and it
intimidated the people they attacked. It was
not meant to overthrow governments, just to
grab the loot more quickly. No larger political
goal existed.
Relative to Somalia, some similarties actually ...
few resources or opportunity for upwards mobility
motivated them to go 'viking' (raiding/stealing).
They were in it for the money initially. Only later
on did they focus on grabbing land. If you can't be
a king at home, find a new home where you can be a
king. They were such good fighters compared to the
target populations that they could take what they
wanted easily.
But once they DID grab land, the paradigm shifted
strongly towards an agrarian lifestyle and they
tended to organize government in the local style.

Maybe the Somalis will go down that path too. Maybe they'll invest in
Wall Street.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
And now, what do we have now? We have some of the
most advanced countries on Earth,

Depends on how you define 'advanced', doesn't it ?

Advanced: technology particularly electronics, standard of living,
transportation, longevity, low crime, traffic...

Technology moved along ... but absolute brutality
kept popping up until the mid 1940s ... into the
1990s if you count eastern europe, Serbia etc..
I have doubts things will remain peacable ...
the EU is gonna fracture, and it may not be pretty.
Also, is robbing the rich to enrich the do-nothings
'advanced', or just a reincarnation of the Viking
raiders ?

The rich seem to be happy in Scandinavia. Not that they not should
trim down welfare.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
fully civilized, fully sustainable countries.

I have doubts ... and 'sustainable' looks to be
the first one to go.

I don't think so. They don't tolerate LITTERING and are very active in
RECYCLING. Not a throw away society at all. Norway could choose to
sell cheap gas like Venezuela --the envy of America: 12 cents a
gallon-- but instead chooses to make prices high to promote frugality.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
I mean, they are not only rich, but fully civilized. Sweden
aims for zero accidents on the road --rather Utopian just like zero
drugs in America-- but more worthwhile. There are many parameters by
which you may judge civilization, but TRAFFIC is my favorite. You go
from anarchy in America where might makes right, to a highly regulated
Autobahn system that works in Germany, to a place like Denmark that
makes sure that the Law of the Jungle takes its course when you ride a
bicycle. When you fail to protect the weak, everything falls apart and
civilization is just a joke.

You seem to equate micro-managment from on-high as
the mark of 'civilization'. I hear the echos of kings,
tyrants, inquisitors ......

Yes, they may have some royalty but their freedoms are intact. Perhaps
because someone is overlooking the system, it works so well.

It's not a safe way to live, too much power invested
in the State apparatus. Hell, the UK has already become
a surveillance state ... pretty much everything Orwell
warned them about. Just wait until things go a little
sour and you'll see the full power of these governments
squeezing life and liberty from their citizens like
juice from an orange.

The rich in America enjoy their surveillance state in the gated
communities. They don't make an issue about that because they want to
be safe.

The 'wild' USA is still far more free, still far more
authority vested in The People, ergo more 'civilized'
in my opinion. Your 'civilization' ... a gilded cage.

Again, it depends how you define free. I like to say that freedom is
having safe, healthy communities, not gated communities. Also the
WORST POSSIBLE SOCIETY in terms of sustainability.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Again, the Scandinavians show us the way.

I wonder how many Breviks exist there ... ?

Maybe many more if they were a gun-ho society.