A Resource Based Economy

[All Else Failed]

I'll respond later on since I have to rush out the door to go to work, but Globalization and Industrialization are in fact connected.


Till then.

 

[edgray]

I'll respond later on since I have to rush out the door to go to work, but Globalization and Industrialization are in fact connected.

They are connected, just not in any way beneficial to the newly industrialised countries, only in a way beneficial the US and other western countries.

Otherwise, global poverty would be going down. Yet it's not, it's going up.

 

[All Else Failed]

They are connected, just not in any way beneficial to the newly industrialised countries, only in a way beneficial the US and other western countries.

Otherwise, global poverty would be going down. Yet it's not, it's going up.

Ok, so once a country industrializes, it is able to produce more and sell more. Material comfort rises.


certain things come with industrialization:


People on average live longer


People on average have more kids


People get wealthier and have more disposable income due to the increase in industry


Things like factories are built and pollute


Materialism increases due to the market being swamped with competing products that can be made cheaply. People MUST BUY/SELL in order to keep an industrialized society going

People are able to live more extravagant lifestyles, which is marked historically by an expansion of suburbia, deforestation and pollution.




So what you have in a industrialized society are people that live longer, have more kids, more income and want to live away from the city. There are all historical facts. All of these things lead to a surplus population, pollution and materialism. So, you want billions more people living like this? Don't tell me that it won't be like this, because almost every industrialized nation follows these things either roughly or exactly. Industrializing the rest of the world will only increase environmental devastation, create BILLIONS more people, and increase material want.

The answer is to not industrialize the rest of the world. Using industrialization as an excuse to "level off" the population naturally also does not work. Look at The US for instance. We've been industrialized for a very long time now and all out population is doing is growing.


Industrialization creates globalism due to the need to expand your buyer base to the rest of the world in order to market products. If you industrialize BILLIONS more people, that will only increase globalism due to massive markets opening up for every nation to buy/sell to and from. So industrializing the rest of the world will only create more globalization.

 

[edgray]

Ok, so once a country industrializes, it is able to produce more and sell more. Material comfort rises.

If what you're saying is true, why is global poverty increasing?

You see, globalisation isn't industrialisation as it happen in the west, globalisation is a country being partially industrialised to suit the requirements of the US empire, pay back huge debts to the IMF, and sell off it's resources cheap.

Look at South America, Iran, India, countries in Africa for prime examples. Devalued currencies, sweat shop labour, plundered resources and the people being poorer than ever.

certain things come with industrialization:

People on average live longer

People live longer in an industrialised nation. But NOT one that's victim to globalisation

People on average have more kids

That's untrue. Industrialised nations have far fewer children than non industrialised nations.

People get wealthier and have more disposable income due to the increase in industry

Again, this is true if they aren't victims of globalisation. Because if it were, why is poverty on the increase?

Things like factories are built and pollute

As I said, modern technology means this can be avoided.

Materialism increases due to the market being swamped with competing products that can be made cheaply. People MUST BUY/SELL in order to keep an industrialized society going

The point is cheaply made products in globalised countries are not for sale in those countries, they're made for the west. The citizens of the countries aren't paid enough to buy them.

People are able to live more extravagant lifestyles, which is marked historically by an expansion of suburbia, deforestation and pollution.

Countries victim to globalisation do not have an increase in their standard of living.

So what you have in a industrialized society are people that live longer, have more kids, more income and want to live away from the city. There are all historical facts. All of these things lead to a surplus population, pollution and materialism. So, you want billions more people living like this? Don't tell me that it won't be like this, because almost every industrialized nation follows these things either roughly or exactly. Industrializing the rest of the world will only increase environmental devastation, create BILLIONS more people, and increase material want.

They have fewer kids. FAR fewer kids. That's why in the West, if it wasn't for immigration, the population wouldn't be growing.

The poorer a country, the more kids they have - that is the fact here. Look at Africa and China for prime examples.

Industrialisation and modernisation, based on new technology and new understanding needn't be anything like it has before. We know so much more about this kind of thing now than we did when the UK started the industrialisation process.

The answer is to not industrialize the rest of the world. Using industrialization as an excuse to "level off" the population naturally also does not work. Look at The US for instance. We've been industrialized for a very long time now and all out population is doing is growing.

So what you're saying is that you have the right to a nice comfy life, but 3rd world countries don't?

So you want the populations to increase? Because that's what happens without industrialisation and modernisation.

Industrialization creates globalism due to the need to expand your buyer base to the rest of the world in order to market products. If you industrialize BILLIONS more people, that will only increase globalism due to massive markets opening up for every nation to buy/sell to and from. So industrializing the rest of the world will only create more globalization.

Ok no offense here but it's clear that you don't understand what the term globalisation means.

I would strongly recommend reading some of these links:

http://globalresearch.ca/
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22551
http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu.au/globaled/go/cache/offonce/pid/178

Also read some Chomsky, some Naomi Klein, the Zeitgeist movie gives a good run down of it too. Look into the anti-globalisation movement.

There's a lot of stuff out there on the subject. And when you look into it, you find that globalisation benefits no one but the wealthy in the west. The statistics bear this out:

Global GDP increase: 40%
Global Poverty Increase: 17%

Income Gap between rich and poor
1970: 30:1
1998: 78:1

People living on less than $1 per day (1982 - 2000): 18% increase

 

[All Else Failed]

If what you're saying is true, why is global poverty increasing?

You see, globalisation isn't industrialisation as it happen in the west, globalisation is a country being partially industrialised to suit the requirements of the US empire, pay back huge debts to the IMF, and sell off it's resources cheap.

Look at South America, Iran, India, countries in Africa for prime examples. Devalued currencies, sweat shop labour, plundered resources and the people being poorer than ever.

I'm talking about industrialized nations, not one that are not industrialized. Global poverty is increasing because the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. If you fully industrialized the rest of the world, it may reduce poverty but it will not get rid of it totally.

That's untrue. Industrialised nations have far fewer children than non industrialised nations.

Yeah, poor people have more kids, but the kids that are born in industrialized nation tend to live longer and healthier lives compared to ones born in say, the Congo or rural parts of Mexico. Industrialized nations have more feasible children.

Again, this is true if they aren't victims of globalisation. Because if it were, why is poverty on the increase?

...and I'm referring to the hypothetical of nations industrializing that aren't industrialized already. You seem to have missed the point of my approach to this.

As I said, modern technology means this can be avoided.

Unless you can find something to totally replace oil and petrol that is used to manufacture almost everything now a days no amount of technology will make factories noticeably less polluting. Just putting up a bunch of solar panels, windmills and nuclear plants won't solve out problems.

The point is cheaply made products in globalised countries are not for sale in those countries, they're made for the west. The citizens of the countries aren't paid enough to buy them.

You missed my point. If you industrialize the rest of the world, they will inevitably have more disposable income. In order to keep an industrialized country going, they need to buy "stuff". Hence, industrializing the rest of the world will cause BILLIONS more people to buy crap.

Countries victim to globalisation do not have an increase in their standard of living.

You keep missing my overall point in these. I am speaking to a hypothetical situation in what happens when a country industrializes. When a country industrializes, they will notice an increased standard of living for a good portion of their population.

They have fewer kids. FAR fewer kids. That's why in the West, if it wasn't for immigration, the population wouldn't be growing.

The poorer a country, the more kids they have - that is the fact here. Look at Africa and China for prime examples.

Industrialisation and modernisation, based on new technology and new understanding needn't be anything like it has before. We know so much more about this kind of thing now than we did when the UK started the industrialisation process.

See above to what I mean about kids.

Immigration should be totally stopped. Produce incentives to the native population to have a few more kids to replenish the workforce.

So what you're saying is that you have the right to a nice comfy life, but 3rd world countries don't?

So you want the populations to increase? Because that's what happens without industrialisation and modernisation.

No, what you are saying and suggesting will only bring more pollution, people and misery to the world. Not everyone can live western lifestyles. That includes YOU, Europe. It would be global suicide.


No, I am against the world population increasing. That is why I do not think other countries should industrialize. By ending globalism, countries would center back on themselves. They would produce their own goods and not have to use sweatshops and the like. Life would be better. Nations would be able to chart their own course.

Ok no offense here but it's clear that you don't understand what the term globalisation means.

I would strongly recommend reading some of these links:

http://globalresearch.ca/
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22551
http://www.globaleducation.edna.edu....ffonce/pid/178

Also read some Chomsky, some Naomi Klein, the Zeitgeist movie gives a good run down of it too. Look into the anti-globalisation movement.

There's a lot of stuff out there on the subject. And when you look into it, you find that globalisation benefits no one but the wealthy in the west. The statistics bear this out:

Global GDP increase: 40%
Global Poverty Increase: 17%

Income Gap between rich and poor
1970: 30:1
1998: 78:1

People living on less than $1 per day (1982 - 2000): 18% increase __________________

No, I know perfectly well what defines globalism.

Globalism is simply increasing political power over the world, in a nutshell. It means the destruction of traditional institutions and customs in favor of a foreign concenpt of "fun" and materialism. It means a "McWorld".


I've read Chomsky. He's alright for linguistics or if you're coming from the left wing.


I, on the other hand, am coming from a traditionalist right wing point of view. I say end globalism. End immigration. Every nation on the globe should be able to rule itself and enrich its regional culture without being diluted by progressive "multiculturalism". I say champion nuclear energy and return to a more simplistic way of life that is closer to the Earth. "McWorld" is killing us. It is killing traditional values and eroding our culture to noting but pop-music and "entertainment". In summary, let every nation on the globe mind its own business unless (unless some great calamity happens), and strengthen their own ways of life.

 

[edgray]

Your viewpoint is built on three false assumptions.

Firstly, the assumption that population increases with modernisation. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Population growth in western countries is solely down to immigration. Modern lifestyles halt population growth for numerous reasons. Infertility is higher, people choose to have less kids, people need less kids, kids are a massive cost.

Secondly, you wrongly assert that modernisation = pollution. This needn't be the case at all. The West, when it becomes enlightened and civilised, can use it's scientific know-how to modernise in a sustainable manner.

Thirdly, you assume consumerism is guaranteed with modernisation. Again, this isn't and doesn't have to be the case. This will revolve around everybody understanding the true cost of their consumerist habits. And, not to mention that consumerism is based on globalisation. Remove globalisation and you're going a long way to removing consumerism.

And globalisation is a lot more than what you've put. It's the process of getting the world into a position of servitude to corporate interests in the west, predominantly the US. And it's negative effects far outweigh the few benefits.

Also, to address your point at the end, we need to integrate much more than we have already. Otherwise war etc will carry on. And also the US and the west are so reliant on cheap goods from overseas, ending globalisation will see the end of high standards of living we see.

What's needed is global solidarity, the free exchange of technology, ideas and science. As a planet we all rely on each other to some extent. This needs to be recognised.

 

[All Else Failed]

Your viewpoint is built on three false assumptions.

Firstly, the assumption that population increases with modernisation. All of the evidence is to the contrary. Population growth in western countries is solely down to immigration. Modern lifestyles halt population growth for numerous reasons. Infertility is higher, people choose to have less kids, people need less kids, kids are a massive cost.

Secondly, you wrongly assert that modernisation = pollution. This needn't be the case at all. The West, when it becomes enlightened and civilised, can use it's scientific know-how to modernise in a sustainable manner.

Thirdly, you assume consumerism is guaranteed with modernisation. Again, this isn't and doesn't have to be the case. This will revolve around everybody understanding the true cost of their consumerist habits. And, not to mention that consumerism is based on globalisation. Remove globalisation and you're going a long way to removing consumerism.

And globalisation is a lot more than what you've put. It's the process of getting the world into a position of servitude to corporate interests in the west, predominantly the US. And it's negative effects far outweigh the few benefits.

Also, to address your point at the end, we need to integrate much more than we have already. Otherwise war etc will carry on. And also the US and the west are so reliant on cheap goods from overseas, ending globalisation will see the end of high standards of living we see.

What's needed is global solidarity, the free exchange of technology, ideas and science. As a planet we all rely on each other to some extent. This needs to be recognised.

As the world modernizes, the Earth gets more populated as a whole. This is a fact. This is due to new technology.



You're operating on pure fantasy. You're basing your arguments off of a "well, it doesn't have to be this way!" mindset, while completely ignoring the fact that it probably won't change. I am basing my arguments around the current state or affairs, realizing no massive changes will take place for quite a long time and going from there. Modernity is marked by terrible deforestation and pollution. AGAIN, if you cannot find a viable replacement for oil which is used in the production of almost everything now, there will still be mass consumption of it. Also, look at China if you want to see a place that is rapidly exceeding any Western power in terms of coal and oil consumption.

Remove globalisation and you're going a long way to removing consumerism.

I agree. We just have different methods of getting there. We need to encourage regional cultures to develop on their own and champion localism with conservative values.

Also, to address your point at the end, we need to integrate much more than we have already. Otherwise war etc will carry on. And also the US and the west are so reliant on cheap goods from overseas, ending globalisation will see the end of high standards of living we see.

Yes, lets dilute unique populations and make everyone gray so war can end! What? This is a silly notion. Cultures and different peoples should be preserved. You're kidding yourself if you think more integration will just solve our problems. In fact, it will do just the opposite. When different cultures want different things and have different ethics to achieve such things living in close with each other, it will only make conflict.

Diversity + proximity = conflict.

 

[edgray]

As the world modernizes, the Earth gets more populated as a whole. This is a fact. This is due to new technology.

And yet most of the world isn't industrialised or modernised, which is the whole point.

Look at birth rates in highly developed countries and you'll see that the population isn't actually being sustained. Then look at the birth rates in impoverished countries. You'll see a trend, and that trend is that the more modernised a country, the less births. It's a very simple concept.

And as you can see here, as the world slowly industrialises, the growth rate is actually dropping:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_increase_history.svg

You're operating on pure fantasy. You're basing your arguments off of a "well, it doesn't have to be this way!" mindset, while completely ignoring the fact that it probably won't change.

Thankfully, there are many of us with progressive minds that see the potential in living in different ways. There are a growing number of people rejecting the globalisation model, as you see with INCREASED protest every single year. These people also reject rampant consumerism. Green products are on the increase, pressures are being put on govts to alter current production models. The US is of course decades behind the pack in this, and that is the problem. People ARE changing. It's just the US Empire that needs to be changed, and rather urgently now.

I am basing my arguments around the current state or affairs, realizing no massive changes will take place for quite a long time and going from there. Modernity is marked by terrible deforestation and pollution. AGAIN, if you cannot find a viable replacement for oil which is used in the production of almost everything now, there will still be mass consumption of it. Also, look at China if you want to see a place that is rapidly exceeding any Western power in terms of coal and oil consumption.

Modernity isn't marked by deforestation. Highly developed countries have laws protecting forests and the environment. Replacements for necessities are being found all the time. In terms of energy, solar, wind, tidal and nuclear fusion aren't pipe dreams.

Deforestation, like in the Amazon, is purely down to globalisation. US corporate interests raping the natural world. It's happening in those countries because they're forced into it by IMF debt.

I agree. We just have different methods of getting there. We need to encourage regional cultures to develop on their own and champion localism with conservative values.

Conservative values are the biggest part of the problem I'm afraid. Conservatism flies in the face of reality, conservatism rejects new ideas which is what is needed to solve the environmental issues we face. Championing localism is a great idea, but we need to work together to achieve the results we need.

Yes, lets dilute unique populations and make everyone gray so war can end! What? This is a silly notion. Cultures and different peoples should be preserved. You're kidding yourself if you think more integration will just solve our problems. In fact, it will do just the opposite. When different cultures want different things and have different ethics to achieve such things living in close with each other, it will only make conflict.

No, it's nothing to do with "diluting" and I never said anything of the sort. Culture needs to be preserved as long as it's necessary. And most culture is redundant without taking on the new information we have about the world.

Integration as in working together, exchanging ideas, sharing technologies and not bullying smaller, poorer people's. NOTHING to do with race or culture as you assert. That's a very bizarre conclusion to take from what I wrote, very bizarre indeed. Makes me very intrigued as to your world view. Those kinds of words, and don't take offense as this isn't a direct criticism, I've only ever heard uttered by racists. I'm sure you're not one, but that is a shared value for sure.

Diversity + proximity = conflict.

Absolute rubbish!! Is the middle east close to the US? No. In fact, when has the US EVER attacked anyone close? I guess Panama would be closest in recent history. Cuba with the whole bay of pigs fiasco. But they had nothing to do with diversity!!

Modern war isn't about diversity. It's about globalisation.

Coveted Resources + Poor Nation = Target for US military

That is the equation for war in the past 60 years.

 

[All Else Failed]

And yet most of the world isn't industrialised or modernised, which is the whole point.

Uh, can you imagine what the world would be like if the entire world was industrialized. People would live longer. IN third world countries they have more babies, but they are less viable and do not live as long.


But population is not exactly my main concern. More industrialization = more damage to the ecosystem. It fuels globalism because when those nations do industrialize and become more powerful, do you really think they will be that much different from any of the other Western nations in Europe and the Americas? Probably not. In fact, I'm going to say there will be little difference in terms of becoming a part of globalism .

Thankfully, there are many of us with progressive minds that see the potential in living in different ways. There are a growing number of people rejecting the globalisation model, as you see with INCREASED protest every single year. These people also reject rampant consumerism. Green products are on the increase, pressures are being put on govts to alter current production models. The US is of course decades behind the pack in this, and that is the problem. People ARE changing. It's just the US Empire that needs to be changed, and rather urgently now.

Oh, I'm all for living in different ways. I think we should still integrate new technology into our society, but we need to return to a more simple way of living where local community, family, friends and regional culture play a more important role than they do now. Modernity has dissolved many aspects of those things.

It is funny though, many of those protesters are just as much consumerists as the people they are protesting. I see MASSIVE amounts of hypocrisy among the left in terms of sticking to their ideology. Green products will not save us. Those new energy saving light bulbs will not save us. Bringing a canvas bag to the grocery store will not save us. Nor will other band aids that are passed as "solutions" to our problems with the ecosystem. The only thing that will save us is the return to simple living, localism and the emphasis on family, culture and restoring lost values.

You conveniently leave out Europe when talking about consumerism. Europe is almost just as bad as America when it comes to consumption and materialism. Hell, you want globalism? Look no further than the absolute train wreck that is the EU.

Modernity isn't marked by deforestation. Highly developed countries have laws protecting forests and the environment. Replacements for necessities are being found all the time. In terms of energy, solar, wind, tidal and nuclear fusion aren't pipe dreams.

Deforestation, like in the Amazon, is purely down to globalisation. US corporate interests raping the natural world. It's happening in those countries because they're forced into it by IMF debt.

It isn't?




Industrialized countries have laws protecting them now because they are so rare.

Solar, fusion and wind are nice and everything but they still won't save us. Oil is still needed to manufacture EVERYTHING.

Conservative values are the biggest part of the problem I'm afraid. Conservatism flies in the face of reality, conservatism rejects new ideas which is what is needed to solve the environmental issues we face. Championing localism is a great idea, but we need to work together to achieve the results we need.

Exactly the opposite. Traditional conservatism with an emphasis on preserving the ecosystem is what is needed. Conservatism IS reality. Modern Liberalism is merely a passing fashion that has been toyed with ever since the french revolution. Conservatism is what it is: Conserving important things. This not only includes important institutions and roles, but the ecosystem as well. Liberalism brings social delusions, false equality, false egalitarianism and confusion due to relativism. Conservatism brings order and law.

Do not confuse traditional conservatism with neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism is basically what the Bush-era politicians were. They have social conservative values (even saying that is stretching it for them) but are more than willing to buy into globalism. Traditionalist Conservatives wish to let other peoples do their own thing while we tend to our own.

No, it's nothing to do with "diluting" and I never said anything of the sort. Culture needs to be preserved as long as it's necessary. And most culture is redundant without taking on the new information we have about the world.

Integration as in working together, exchanging ideas, sharing technologies and not bullying smaller, poorer people's. NOTHING to do with race or culture as you assert. That's a very bizarre conclusion to take from what I wrote, very bizarre indeed. Makes me very intrigued as to your world view. Those kinds of words, and don't take offense as this isn't a direct criticism, I've only ever heard uttered by racists. I'm sure you're not one, but that is a shared value for sure.

I can assure you that I am not a "racist". I do not hate others just because they look different or come from a certain part of the world. Nor do I think that any race is "superior" to the other. Of course, the modern meaning of the word is so thrown around now due to knee-jerk reactions that it hardly really means anything anymore.

However, I think it is silly to not see that preserving unique populations of people in various regions is a positive thing. If you really enjoy diversity, making sure certain peoples don't disappear is important. I totally disagree that culture becomes "redundant" if it does not receive outside influence. Most of the greatest civilizations have mostly progressed by their own thought and invention. This modern attitude that we can just be one happy family made of every color of the rainbow is silly. it destroys cultures just like globalism does.

Absolute rubbish!! Is the middle east close to the US? No. In fact, when has the US EVER attacked anyone close? I guess Panama would be closest in recent history. Cuba with the whole bay of pigs fiasco. But they had nothing to do with diversity!!

Modern war isn't about diversity. It's about globalisation.

Coveted Resources + Poor Nation = Target for US military

That is the equation for war in the past 60 years.

Not rubbish. You can look through history to see that it is true. Most wars are caused by a breakdown of uniformity or the meeting of different people that want different things. That is the basis for most war. Modern war is a bit different here and there, but otherwise that is what defines conflict throughout the ages.

 

[edgray]

Uh, can you imagine what the world would be like if the entire world was industrialized. People would live longer. IN third world countries they have more babies, but they are less viable and do not live as long.

But as I keep saying, western countries cannot even maintain their population without immigration. In most modern nations population is falling within the indigenous people.

Take that to the world, imagine a fully modernised world where the population in EVERY country was falling. This is what needs to be achieved.

eta: only 20% of the world is currently industrialised,

But population is not exactly my main concern. More industrialization = more damage to the ecosystem. It fuels globalism because when those nations do industrialize and become more powerful, do you really think they will be that much different from any of the other Western nations in Europe and the Americas? Probably not. In fact, I'm going to say there will be little difference in terms of becoming a part of globalism .

With modern technology this simply needn't be the case at all. The technology is there, ready and waiting, but is being held back by the profit motive and the vested interests.

We have the potential to modernise the world in a sustainable manner right now. Biofuels, renewable sources of energy etc we could eliminate the need for oil completely.

Oh, I'm all for living in different ways. I think we should still integrate new technology into our society, but we need to return to a more simple way of living where local community, family, friends and regional culture play a more important role than they do now. Modernity has dissolved many aspects of those things.

Interesting. I don't really consider culture as a significant part of this debate however, unless it's related to consumerism which is the predominant culture in the west for sure. That needs to be stopped, it serves no purpose and is highly destructive.

It is funny though, many of those protesters are just as much consumerists as the people they are protesting. I see MASSIVE amounts of hypocrisy among the left in terms of sticking to their ideology. Green products will not save us. Those new energy saving light bulbs will not save us. Bringing a canvas bag to the grocery store will not save us. Nor will other band aids that are passed as "solutions" to our problems with the ecosystem. The only thing that will save us is the return to simple living, localism and the emphasis on family, culture and restoring lost values.

Actually you wouldn't believe the difference in the level of consumerism between people. You know, I can pretty much carry everything I own in one go. And I'm not alone in this. I know a lot of people that refuse to partake in the needless spending and drive to own stuff. And the majority of the globalisation protestors will most likely have similar values.

Green products won't save us, but they're a step in the right direction, and most importantly, they show that people want the system to be changed. People want to live in a more harmonious way with nature.

You conveniently leave out Europe when talking about consumerism. Europe is almost just as bad as America when it comes to consumption and materialism. Hell, you want globalism? Look no further than the absolute train wreck that is the EU.

EU has nothing to do with globalisation tho. It's just an economic group of countries.

And yes much of Europe, I'm looking at the UK here, are highly consumerist. But not as much as the US. And the adoption of green products is faster over here too.

It isn't?



Industrialized countries have laws protecting them now because they are so rare.

The reduction of forests in western countries really isn't the issue. It'd be nice if they were replaced, and one day I'm sure they will be. But a lot of that has had to do with population growth rather than modernisation. Sustainable forests are now used to supply paper and so forth, with trees being replaced once they're removed.

The issue is the "lungs of the Earth", the Amazon, which is being cut down at a far faster rate and is far more valuable to the global ecosystem. It's being cut down not to modernise anything. No one in south America really benefits from the destruction of the rain forests. It's being done for the corporations in the west.

Solar, fusion and wind are nice and everything but they still won't save us. Oil is still needed to manufacture EVERYTHING.

Oil can be replaced. There are many alternatives. And once we've got transport and energy from sustainable sources, the need for oil will plummet, leaving the few reserves around to manufacture plastics and other goods. You see, we don't need to stop using oil or fossil fuels in their entirety, the planet can cope with a certain amount of pollution. The problem is we're so far beyond that point.

Exactly the opposite. Traditional conservatism with an emphasis on preserving the ecosystem is what is needed. Conservatism IS reality. Modern Liberalism is merely a passing fashion that has been toyed with ever since the french revolution. Conservatism is what it is: Conserving important things. This not only includes important institutions and roles, but the ecosystem as well. Liberalism brings social delusions, false equality, false egalitarianism and confusion due to relativism. Conservatism brings order and law.

Do not confuse traditional conservatism with neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism is basically what the Bush-era politicians were. They have social conservative values (even saying that is stretching it for them) but are more than willing to buy into globalism. Traditionalist Conservatives wish to let other peoples do their own thing while we tend to our own.

Conservatism isn't reality, and here's why:

Firstly, conservatism is based on conserving traditional institutions and structures. It has nothing to with conserving the eco-system. In fact it's noted that conservative governments in the west are more likely to contribute to damaging the environment. See Bush's ventures in oil drilling in Alaska.

But it flies in the face of reality for 1 very important reason. We live in an emergent universe, and an emergent world. Our knowledge of the world expands by the day. That is reality. And conservatism is the very antithesis of that. Conservatism is about carrying on with traditional frameworks and structures irrelevant of new information.

If the conservatives had their way, we'd have nothing like worker's rights, any vague attempt at equality. In Europe we'd have no healthcare. There would be no progress if conservatism would be taken to it's logical conclusion.

Any belief system that's rooted in tradition is contrary to the every expanding understanding we have of reality.

The reality of the world is simply this: we all are born with an equal right to the resources on this planet. So our only drive should be the intelligent management of those resources based not on any tradition, not on any politicians view, not mine, not yours. But on the scientific and technological management of those resources.

I can assure you that I am not a "racist". I do not hate others just because they look different or come from a certain part of the world. Nor do I think that any race is "superior" to the other. Of course, the modern meaning of the word is so thrown around now due to knee-jerk reactions that it hardly really means anything anymore.

However, I think it is silly to not see that preserving unique populations of people in various regions is a positive thing. If you really enjoy diversity, making sure certain peoples don't disappear is important. I totally disagree that culture becomes "redundant" if it does not receive outside influence. Most of the greatest civilizations have mostly progressed by their own thought and invention. This modern attitude that we can just be one happy family made of every color of the rainbow is silly. it destroys cultures just like globalism does.

Fair enough. But I disagree strongly on your final point. We have to learn to be one big happy family. We are all related, notions of country and nationality are archaic and serve nothing but to create unneeded divisions between people. Divisions that make it easy to exploit, as we can see with globalisation.

Do you think if white americans were working in sweat shops people wouldn't care like they don't now for the asians that do?

Not rubbish. You can look through history to see that it is true. Most wars are caused by a breakdown of uniformity or the meeting of different people that want different things. That is the basis for most war. Modern war is a bit different here and there, but otherwise that is what defines conflict throughout the ages.

Ok you'll have to give examples. I'm afraid I don't see many. But I see wars caused by globalisation all throughout the 20th century.

 

[All Else Failed]

But as I keep saying, western countries cannot even maintain their population without immigration. In most modern nations population is falling within the indigenous people.

Take that to the world, imagine a fully modernised world where the population in EVERY country was falling. This is what needs to be achieved.

eta: only 20% of the world is currently industrialised,

And this is bad. Create economic incentives for the native population to breed within a sustainable limit.

With modern technology this simply needn't be the case at all. The technology is there, ready and waiting, but is being held back by the profit motive and the vested interests.

We have the potential to modernise the world in a sustainable manner right now. Biofuels, renewable sources of energy etc we could eliminate the need for oil completely.

Hardly. New technology, if anything, is thrust into the market in order to sell it. You are being short sighted if you think biofuels and other things will make a 100% industrialized earth "sustainable".

You keep missing the fact that oil and petrol is used in the manufacture of pretty much everything. Like, think of any thing, and I can promise you that it could not be manufactures without oil being in it or oil being used in the process to manufacture it.

Interesting. I don't really consider culture as a significant part of this debate however, unless it's related to consumerism which is the predominant culture in the west for sure. That needs to be stopped, it serves no purpose and is highly destructive.

Culture is a significant part of this because globalism destroys culture. So does swamping a country with non-native immigrants.

Actually you wouldn't believe the difference in the level of consumerism between people. You know, I can pretty much carry everything I own in one go. And I'm not alone in this. I know a lot of people that refuse to partake in the needless spending and drive to own stuff. And the majority of the globalisation protestors will most likely have similar values.

Green products won't save us, but they're a step in the right direction, and most importantly, they show that people want the system to be changed. People want to live in a more harmonious way with nature.

I do not believe this. In fact, I do not believe that most people are actually losing sleep over this subject. Most people follow trends. Especially economic ones. "Green" products are just a recent trend pedaled to the masses so they can use them to signify they are caring without actually doing anything.

EU has nothing to do with globalisation tho. It's just an economic group of countries.

And yes much of Europe, I'm looking at the UK here, are highly consumerist. But not as much as the US. And the adoption of green products is faster over here too.

Globalism includes the idea of monster states. The EU is a type of monster state. Sure, it is a economic group of countries, but it is basically the wealthier countries that get the final say on things. Germany, for instance, holds the greatest leverage out of any country. Look at all of the countries that are having to be bailed out. Ireland and Spain are next on the list.

The reduction of forests in western countries really isn't the issue. It'd be nice if they were replaced, and one day I'm sure they will be. But a lot of that has had to do with population growth rather than modernisation. Sustainable forests are now used to supply paper and so forth, with trees being replaced once they're removed.

The issue is the "lungs of the Earth", the Amazon, which is being cut down at a far faster rate and is far more valuable to the global ecosystem. It's being cut down not to modernise anything. No one in south America really benefits from the destruction of the rain forests. It's being done for the corporations in the west.

They won't if the population keeps rising, which it is currently and shows no sign of stopping.


Huh? Modernization causes deforestation since the modern way of living is the suburb that is 35 minutes away from where you work so ugly highways have to be built. Strip malls, poorly designed cities and ghettos spring up due to the increasing population. Urban sprawl, largely a theme of modernity has killed our old growth forests.

Oil can be replaced. There are many alternatives. And once we've got transport and energy from sustainable sources, the need for oil will plummet, leaving the few reserves around to manufacture plastics and other goods. You see, we don't need to stop using oil or fossil fuels in their entirety, the planet can cope with a certain amount of pollution. The problem is we're so far beyond that point.

Really? Can you give me alternatives to be used in the manufacture of everything we have around us? No one has thus far. But you see, even if we totally get off of oil for energy means only, the demand will still be there. Especially if you want to industrialize (read, use a shit ton of oil) billions of people.

Conservatism isn't reality, and here's why:

Firstly, conservatism is based on conserving traditional institutions and structures. It has nothing to with conserving the eco-system. In fact it's noted that conservative governments in the west are more likely to contribute to damaging the environment. See Bush's ventures in oil drilling in Alaska.

But it flies in the face of reality for 1 very important reason. We live in an emergent universe, and an emergent world. Our knowledge of the world expands by the day. That is reality. And conservatism is the very antithesis of that. Conservatism is about carrying on with traditional frameworks and structures irrelevant of new information.

If the conservatives had their way, we'd have nothing like worker's rights, any vague attempt at equality. In Europe we'd have no healthcare. There would be no progress if conservatism would be taken to it's logical conclusion.

Any belief system that's rooted in tradition is contrary to the every expanding understanding we have of reality.

The reality of the world is simply this: we all are born with an equal right to the resources on this planet. So our only drive should be the intelligent management of those resources based not on any tradition, not on any politicians view, not mine, not yours. But on the scientific and technological management of those resources.

I am not talking about the kind of conservatism you see in Washington. That is mostly neo-conservatism at work.


Yes, it is about preserving traditional institutions and structures which are important. However, this DOES NOT mean that Conservatism cannot leave some behind that are recognized to be unusable. Like slavery.

Also, Conservatism IS about conservation, especially since most of the most important conservationists were Conservatives. Nature is sacred. Conservatism is all about keeping traditional sacred things alive, so it is only natural that real Conservatives would want to conserve natural beauty. Maybe not the neo-cons in Washington, but they aren't real conservatives anyways.



"And conservatism is the very antithesis of that. Conservatism is about carrying on with traditional frameworks and structures irrelevant of new information."

Wrong. Conservatism does not keep you in the past. Some things that are true are eternal. Conservatism is able and does evolve with time. It takes new things and slowly integrates them into the framework if it fits. If Conservatism could not keep up with the times, it would be totally gone by now, but it is still going.


"Any belief system that's rooted in tradition is contrary to the every expanding understanding we have of reality."


Wrong again. Liberalism is a nice set of illusions which say everyone is equal and that if only we set the bar low so everyone can get by we'd all be one happy family. Conservatism, on the other hand is selective. Only the best. Some people are better than others. Most Traditions are sacred and therefore eternal. often, when our knowledge expands, we find that it fits nicely withing a conservative view of realty.


"So our only drive should be the intelligent management of those resources based not on any tradition"

Well when you realize that it is a Conservative tradition to conserve then yeah, traditions do play a role in resource management. Get the idea of typical, false Washing Conservatism out of your head. They don't care about the environment.

Fair enough. But I disagree strongly on your final point. We have to learn to be one big happy family.We are all related, notions of country and nationality are archaic and serve nothing but to create unneeded divisions between people. Divisions that make it easy to exploit, as we can see with globalisation.

Do you think if white americans were working in sweat shops people wouldn't care like they don't now for the asians that do?

No, there is nothing wrong with a specific people that have specific identities and customs/laws that have evolved in a certain region to lay claim to that ancestral region as their own. This allows their cultures to develop into unique ones, that can be defended.


People did work in sweatshops, it was called the first half of American History.

Ok you'll have to give examples. I'm afraid I don't see many. But I see wars caused by globalisation all throughout the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States

 

[edgray]

And this is bad. Create economic incentives for the native population to breed within a sustainable limit.

No I think this is fine and it's what we should be aiming for in every country.

Hardly. New technology, if anything, is thrust into the market in order to sell it. You are being short sighted if you think biofuels and other things will make a 100% industrialized earth "sustainable".

You keep missing the fact that oil and petrol is used in the manufacture of pretty much everything. Like, think of any thing, and I can promise you that it could not be manufactures without oil being in it or oil being used in the process to manufacture it.

The point that you keep on missing is that oil can still be used where it's needed. But it can be removed from so much of our lives from transportation through to plastics. A certain amount of oil being used is not a problem, as I said, the planet can cope with certain levels of C02.

Culture is a significant part of this because globalism destroys culture. So does swamping a country with non-native immigrants.

It changes culture, but doesn't destroy it. Change is nothing to fear, although its long been known that this fear is the very basis for conservatism, it really isn't necessarily a bad thing. Culture should change, nothing should stay stagnant.

I do not believe this. In fact, I do not believe that most people are actually losing sleep over this subject. Most people follow trends. Especially economic ones. "Green" products are just a recent trend pedaled to the masses so they can use them to signify they are caring without actually doing anything.

Well if you are correct, then it's just blown your entire opposition to the idea of a resource based economy out of the water because it shows that society can be guided and their ideals can be changed, and based on this opinion, incredibly easily by simply creating a "fad".

I disagree tho and this is something you should look into. Sure, the average consumer might buy green to ease the conscience a little, but look into the growing numbers of people actively campaigning - this is going up. People are actually waking up and caring.

Government's in Europe are really having to work hard to meet the demands of this new perspective.

Globalism includes the idea of monster states. The EU is a type of monster state. Sure, it is a economic group of countries, but it is basically the wealthier countries that get the final say on things. Germany, for instance, holds the greatest leverage out of any country. Look at all of the countries that are having to be bailed out. Ireland and Spain are next on the list.

I thought we were talking about globalisation here?

They won't if the population keeps rising, which it is currently and shows no sign of stopping.

The population is rising purely because of poverty and immigration.

Huh? Modernization causes deforestation since the modern way of living is the suburb that is 35 minutes away from where you work so ugly highways have to be built. Strip malls, poorly designed cities and ghettos spring up due to the increasing population. Urban sprawl, largely a theme of modernity has killed our old growth forests.

Well yes, the increase in land needed by society, coupled with the US's use of lumber for construction.

With proper forest management, replanting initiatives and decent lumber farming techniques, this isn't something that need impact the overall global environment.

Really? Can you give me alternatives to be used in the manufacture of everything we have around us? No one has thus far. But you see, even if we totally get off of oil for energy means only, the demand will still be there. Especially if you want to industrialize (read, use a shit ton of oil) billions of people.

Hemp is a good starting point. This can of course be used for cloth, paper etc, but the oil can be used in industry. Hemp can be used in construction alongside wood. It can be used as part of a composite with glass fibre to replace ordinary plastics and metals. Hemp can power diesel engines and replace petroleum in a variety of manufacturing situations.

That's just one example. I'm sure there are many more other natural products just waiting to be used.

I am not talking about the kind of conservatism you see in Washington. That is mostly neo-conservatism at work.

Yes, it is about preserving traditional institutions and structures which are important. However, this DOES NOT mean that Conservatism cannot leave some behind that are recognized to be unusable. Like slavery.

Also, Conservatism IS about conservation, especially since most of the most important conservationists were Conservatives. Nature is sacred. Conservatism is all about keeping traditional sacred things alive, so it is only natural that real Conservatives would want to conserve natural beauty. Maybe not the neo-cons in Washington, but they aren't real conservatives anyways.

Well why is it that conservatives by and large disagree with the climate change model? And let's not get into it here, but it is a scientific consensus, and it is wholeheartedly being rejected by the conservatives. Much like evolution, the acceptance rate for the theory is lower in conservatives. Why? Because conservatives simply reject ANYTHING that might disrupt their worldview and anything that may change the world around them.

Wrong. Conservatism does not keep you in the past. Some things that are true are eternal. Conservatism is able and does evolve with time. It takes new things and slowly integrates them into the framework if it fits. If Conservatism could not keep up with the times, it would be totally gone by now, but it is still going.

It has been shown that the psychological basis for conservatism is a fear of change (Glenn Wilson and others).

Conservatism evolves over time because it simply has to. The world around conservatives changes constantly, and they can do nothing about it. But there are a long way behind progressives. The two ideals are polar, one embracing change, the other rejecting. You can think what you like about it, but this is an honest look at it.

Wrong again. Liberalism is a nice set of illusions which say everyone is equal and that if only we set the bar low so everyone can get by we'd all be one happy family. Conservatism, on the other hand is selective. Only the best. Some people are better than others. Most Traditions are sacred and therefore eternal. often, when our knowledge expands, we find that it fits nicely withing a conservative view of realty.

Yes that sums it up nicely: conservatism leads to elitism, hierarchy, and all the other things that cause so many people problems in the world.

The very notion of a "tradition" is against reality. New information should always affect things. But conservatives fight change because they fear it, so they pevert and distort reality to fit their scared view. Take things like climate change, evolution etc. These facts are constantly dismissed in far higher numbers than those with a non-conservative world view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_States

As I said in a previous post, aside from WWII, which was the only noble war to have been fought in the last 100 years. It was far more complicated that what you are saying tho, and simplifying it to fit your idea of diversity + proximity = conflict is to ignore the many factors involved.

WWII was nothing to do with "diversity + proximity" it was to do with the typical ultra-right wing tactic of building an enemy to blame everything on. The conservatives in the US are currently doing the same thing with liberals. You look at how people even on this forum talk about liberals, like their some kind of animal that needs to be shot.

So no, do not bring up WWII to further that ridiculous and erroneous notion.

 

[edgray]

An interesting thing regarding people's want for change. A new cycle track has been built in Seville:

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/seville-is-new-cycling-capital-of-spain-28805

Which is now seeing 70,000 people using this every day. Every single day. No one predicted that so many people would willingly choose a healthier and greener alternative to traveling by car.

 

[All Else Failed]

I'm bored with the rest of what we're talking about but:

Yes that sums it up nicely: conservatism leads to elitism, hierarchy, and all the other things that cause so many people problems in the world.

The very notion of a "tradition" is against reality. New information should always affect things. But conservatives fight change because they fear it, so they pevert and distort reality to fit their scared view. Take things like climate change, evolution etc. These facts are constantly dismissed in far higher numbers than those with a non-conservative world view.

And?

The best should rule, natural order should be seen as a good thing. There need not be any bad connotations with hierarchy. Some people are just better than others and their skills are more useful.


Tradition is not against reality. Tradition is built upon reality. The concept of family, for instance, is not only traditional but also a biological constant that should be preserved. Unfortunately, modernity is doing whatever it can to errode the institution.

Real Conservatives do not fear change. All Conservatism does is take change and say "Ok, slow down. Lets think about this for a minute". It measures and weighs things before just accepting them because they're new and shiny. One of the biggest mistakes we can ever make is thinking that all progress is "good" and everything in the past is "bad".

 

[edgray]

And?

The best should rule, natural order should be seen as a good thing. There need not be any bad connotations with hierarchy. Some people are just better than others and their skills are more useful.

Tradition is not against reality. Tradition is built upon reality. The concept of family, for instance, is not only traditional but also a biological constant that should be preserved. Unfortunately, modernity is doing whatever it can to errode the institution.

Real Conservatives do not fear change. All Conservatism does is take change and say "Ok, slow down. Lets think about this for a minute". It measures and weighs things before just accepting them because they're new and shiny. One of the biggest mistakes we can ever make is thinking that all progress is "good" and everything in the past is "bad".

Sorry I didn't see you'd responded here, so my apologies for the late response.

Ok, firstly, "the best should rule"

On what planet are the best at the top?! Politicians?! Wall St Bankers??!! Greedy Corporate CEOs??!! This is the best??!!!! If the very best were ruling us, it would be the scientists, the technicians and engineers, the people that really are the best at what they do and actually contribute well beyond what is expected of 1 person. Hierarchy guarantees nothing about the leaders being the "best", only that they're the richest. And to become rich you've got to be the opposite of the best: you've got to be devious, manipulative, exploitative, selfish, greedy - in other words, the very worst.

I like the idea of a technocracy, but that is the only possible situation where a hierarchy is justified. And I suppose that would be the starting point of a resource based economy: letting the scientists and the technicians solve the basic problems of society based on facts like the carrying capacity of the world, rather than opinion that is always guided by a dangerous self-interest and manipulated and flawed logic.

"Tradition is built on reality"

yes it is. But as time moves, reality moves too, making tradition redundant. It's a very simple concept. A tradition becomes out of date VERY quickly in this day and age. Monarchy is a tradition, one that your very country was built on the foundation of moving beyond. I'm sure you can see how the reality of modern life has no need for that tradition whatsoever.

The tradition of family is an interesting one. The fact is, trying to preserve those old ideals are simply out of place in this day and age. Couples simply do not stay together any more. Parents work too hard and too long for too little money to spend sufficient quality time with their children. Moms seldom get to raise children alone any more as they are working too. The concept doesn't seem to fit in modern life. And a new solution for that needs to be found rather than bemoaning the fact that the antiquated tradition is falling apart because it's no longer relevant. This is the problem. A conservative viewpoint ignores the reality and tries to maintain a structure that simply doesn't fit with what's actually going on in the world. The world cannot bend to that viewpoint, the viewpoint has to change.

"Real Conservatives do not fear change."

As I said, it's been shown that conservatism is based on a fear of change. Conservatives traditionally fight change at every opportunity. The very meaning of the name is all about conserving rather than progressing.

 

[All Else Failed]

Sorry I didn't see you'd responded here, so my apologies for the late response.

Ok, firstly, "the best should rule"

On what planet are the best at the top?! Politicians?! Wall St Bankers??!! Greedy Corporate CEOs??!! This is the best??!!!! If the very best were ruling us, it would be the scientists, the technicians and engineers, the people that really are the best at what they do and actually contribute well beyond what is expected of 1 person. Hierarchy guarantees nothing about the leaders being the "best", only that they're the richest. And to become rich you've got to be the opposite of the best: you've got to be devious, manipulative, exploitative, selfish, greedy - in other words, the very worst.

I like the idea of a technocracy, but that is the only possible situation where a hierarchy is justified. And I suppose that would be the starting point of a resource based economy: letting the scientists and the technicians solve the basic problems of society based on facts like the carrying capacity of the world, rather than opinion that is always guided by a dangerous self-interest and manipulated and flawed logic.

"Tradition is built on reality"

yes it is. But as time moves, reality moves too, making tradition redundant. It's a very simple concept. A tradition becomes out of date VERY quickly in this day and age. Monarchy is a tradition, one that your very country was built on the foundation of moving beyond. I'm sure you can see how the reality of modern life has no need for that tradition whatsoever.

The tradition of family is an interesting one. The fact is, trying to preserve those old ideals are simply out of place in this day and age. Couples simply do not stay together any more. Parents work too hard and too long for too little money to spend sufficient quality time with their children. Moms seldom get to raise children alone any more as they are working too. The concept doesn't seem to fit in modern life. And a new solution for that needs to be found rather than bemoaning the fact that the antiquated tradition is falling apart because it's no longer relevant. This is the problem. A conservative viewpoint ignores the reality and tries to maintain a structure that simply doesn't fit with what's actually going on in the world. The world cannot bend to that viewpoint, the viewpoint has to change.

"Real Conservatives do not fear change."

As I said, it's been shown that conservatism is based on a fear of change. Conservatives traditionally fight change at every opportunity. The very meaning of the name is all about conserving rather than progressing.

No, none of those should be on top. Only the best that can be awarded positions through a strict meritocracy should rule.

Hierarchy guarantees nothing about the leaders being the "best", only that they're the richest. And to become rich you've got to be the opposite of the best: you've got to be devious, manipulative, exploitative, selfish, greedy - in other words, the very worst.

No, hierarchy simply means that there are positions of leadership that need to be in place so that society can function. Every form of government has a certain degree of hierarchy. A "chain of command" if you will. If somoene knows how to do something better than another person, should they not guide others if a situation comes up that needs their expertise? It only makes sense. The word "hierarchy" has simply gotten a bad name over the past few hundred years.



and I disagree with your ideas on how and why people get rich. My family is reasonably wealthy and we never manipulated anyone. We got wealthy through our own small business and tireless hours of work. No greed, lying or manipulation went into it.

I like the idea of a technocracy, but that is the only possible situation where a hierarchy is justified. And I suppose that would be the starting point of a resource based economy: letting the scientists and the technicians solve the basic problems of society based on facts like the carrying capacity of the world, rather than opinion that is always guided by a dangerous self-interest and manipulated and flawed logic.

What makes you think scientists, engineers and whatnot won't do the very same thing politicians are doing right now?

"Tradition is built on reality"

yes it is. But as time moves, reality moves too, making tradition redundant. It's a very simple concept. A tradition becomes out of date VERY quickly in this day and age. Monarchy is a tradition, one that your very country was built on the foundation of moving beyond. I'm sure you can see how the reality of modern life has no need for that tradition whatsoever.

No, reality is a fixed thing. There is truth, and then there is our society that likes to take a relativistic, subjective look at reality. The best thing we can possibly do is to conform ourselves around reality (conservatism), and not try to conform reality around us (liberalism).


You saying modern life having no need for any tradition whatsoever is a pretty bold, and miscalculated idea. if you eliminate tradition, you're going to eliminate entire cultures, since culture IS traditions that are handed down to each successive generation after the other.

The tradition of family is an interesting one. The fact is, trying to preserve those old ideals are simply out of place in this day and age. Couples simply do not stay together any more. Parents work too hard and too long for too little money to spend sufficient quality time with their children. Moms seldom get to raise children alone any more as they are working too. The concept doesn't seem to fit in modern life. And a new solution for that needs to be found rather than bemoaning the fact that the antiquated tradition is falling apart because it's no longer relevant. This is the problem. A conservative viewpoint ignores the reality and tries to maintain a structure that simply doesn't fit with what's actually going on in the world. The world cannot bend to that viewpoint, the viewpoint has to change.

The role of the family and its erosion in modern times is a MASSIVE subject in itself, so I'll try to break it down in short, simply terms:

This is mainly due to a breakdown of cultural values, rampant liberalism, easy-peasy no fault divorce, militant feminism and the loss of the sacred in our communities. Couples do not stay together anymore because liberal attitudes of "sexual liberation" and the removal of religious/cultural restraints on people divorcing. Now, I totally think that a couple should separate if there is violence or abuse taking place, obviously. But, I am going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of marriages fail because of "boredom" and the enticing allure of other people's sexuality outside of the marriage. This was all brought about by the infectious idea that "free love" can be had with little consequence. Since no one can judge you anymore because relativism is now the fad, and you can clean your husband out pretty quickly or just split ways with a no-fault divorce, there is little holding people together. Parents need to stay together for their kids. That is the main reason for marriage: to make and maintain a family, not necessarily the happiness of the two adults. I wish I could expand on this more, but it would take entire pages to fully express myself. I don't have the time to do that right now.


I am all for moms staying home to take care of kids. But, in partial agreement with you, cost of living is so high that it is almost unthinking anymore for the mom to not also be working unless her husband brings home a healthy amount to support them both and their kid(s). This needs to change. However, I think this can be solved in an organic way. What, do you think that people should just not get married or have kids anymore?

"Real Conservatives do not fear change."

As I said, it's been shown that conservatism is based on a fear of change. Conservatives traditionally fight change at every opportunity. The very meaning of the name is all about conserving rather than progressing.

Again, I disagree. It is not based on fear, but the stark realization that humans can move too fast and quickly forget what is truly important. It is a slow, measured change over time which does into wish to just throw important things to the wind in favor of things that are "new and shiny". You still have the wrong idea about conservatism not being able to progress. You can conserve important traditions and customs and still progress in areas that warrant progression. What needs to happen is a synthesis of past and future, which many refer to as a "Archeofuturism".

 

[edgray]

No, none of those should be on top. Only the best that can be awarded positions through a strict meritocracy should rule.

Well we can certainly agree on that.

But, let's look at the reality, and that is, those are exactly the people who end up on top, and always will be in a society based on any system that resembles ours.

No, hierarchy simply means that there are positions of leadership that need to be in place so that society can function. Every form of government has a certain degree of hierarchy. A "chain of command" if you will. If somoene knows how to do something better than another person, should they not guide others if a situation comes up that needs their expertise? It only makes sense. The word "hierarchy" has simply gotten a bad name over the past few hundred years.

Well the fact that hierarchy has gotten such a bad rep should tell you that it's not the right way to go. Not unless you can guarantee the that the "best" will get to the top. Which you simply can't when society is based on any system that resembles ours.

and I disagree with your ideas on how and why people get rich. My family is reasonably wealthy and we never manipulated anyone. We got wealthy through our own small business and tireless hours of work. No greed, lying or manipulation went into it.

Wealthy enough to join the ruling elite? I shouldn't think so. The people that run the show have net worths of the hundreds of millions, billions even. We're not talking about someone being pretty well off.

What makes you think scientists, engineers and whatnot won't do the very same thing politicians are doing right now?

Because their actions would be based on empirical research, not on some notion of how things ought to be, based on an out-dated mind set.

No, reality is a fixed thing. There is truth, and then there is our society that likes to take a relativistic, subjective look at reality. The best thing we can possibly do is to conform ourselves around reality (conservatism), and not try to conform reality around us (liberalism).

You saying modern life having no need for any tradition whatsoever is a pretty bold, and miscalculated idea. if you eliminate tradition, you're going to eliminate entire cultures, since culture IS traditions that are handed down to each successive generation after the other.

Reality is certainly not fixed. It alters with every new discovery humans make.

For example, when the US constitution was written, man knew nothing of the universe. Man knew nothing of how life comes from non-life. Man knew nothing about why people get sick. Man knew nothing about the atomic world. Man knew nothing about our origins. I could go on here but you should get the point.

Reality was very different back then. It has changed beyond all recognition. Our understanding of the universe, our understanding of ourselves, how society functions, what works, what doesn't work. These things simply weren't known back then.

So reality for human beings changes constantly. The moment we are in now, the knowledge we have right now, will be out of date with the next discovery.

And you have that backward, by the way. Conservatism tries to get people to bend to a bunch of archaic notions about what reality was in the past, not what it is now. It's a highly erroneous way to view the world, and leads to an un-acceptance of new realities (global warming, the effects of globalisation, the wasteful consumer cycle etc etc)

I'm suggesting, and many others too, that we have to adapt to the new reality.

You saying modern life having no need for any tradition whatsoever is a pretty bold, and miscalculated idea. if you eliminate tradition, you're going to eliminate entire cultures, since culture IS traditions that are handed down to each successive generation after the other.

If the tradition becomes out of date, loses it's use or it's value, then it must go. Trying to cling on to these things simply won't work as reality changes around us. Some traditions might very well stand the test of time, but there must always be flexibility to change.

The role of the family and its erosion in modern times is a MASSIVE subject in itself, so I'll try to break it down in short, simply terms:

This is mainly due to a breakdown of cultural values, rampant liberalism, easy-peasy no fault divorce, militant feminism and the loss of the sacred in our communities. Couples do not stay together anymore because liberal attitudes of "sexual liberation" and the removal of religious/cultural restraints on people divorcing. Now, I totally think that a couple should separate if there is violence or abuse taking place, obviously. But, I am going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of marriages fail because of "boredom" and the enticing allure of other people's sexuality outside of the marriage. This was all brought about by the infectious idea that "free love" can be had with little consequence. Since no one can judge you anymore because relativism is now the fad, and you can clean your husband out pretty quickly or just split ways with a no-fault divorce, there is little holding people together. Parents need to stay together for their kids. That is the main reason for marriage: to make and maintain a family, not necessarily the happiness of the two adults. I wish I could expand on this more, but it would take entire pages to fully express myself. I don't have the time to do that right now.

So you see the new reality is that people do not want the family unit to remain. It's losing it's relevance in today's society. Why try and bend society back to something they've chosen to leave behind? Seems very silly to me. The alternative is to alter of societal model to match the progress of society, not hold it back with a minorities viewpoint that is simply ignoring reality around them.

I do disagree with your thoughts on the breakdown of the family. They are contributing factors for sure, but you've neglected to see how much the world has changed since the family unit was solid. People work too hard now, wives cannot afford to stay at home any more.

I am all for moms staying home to take care of kids. But, in partial agreement with you, cost of living is so high that it is almost unthinking anymore for the mom to not also be working unless her husband brings home a healthy amount to support them both and their kid(s). This needs to change. However, I think this can be solved in an organic way. What, do you think that people should just not get married or have kids anymore?

No, I think that personally we need to manage our resources better. And that includes human resources, which can free up time, allow a mother to raise their kids without being impoverished. I do not, however, see the need for 2 parents in one home in a traditional sense.

A good case for this is Iceland. Very interesting country. In Iceland, most women have had their first child by the time they're in their early twenties, and they are no longer with the father. Children are raised by the mother, and their subsequent partners. Up until recently, the country was sufficiently affluent to allow mothers a lot of lee-way when it comes to their working arrangements.

There are lots of possible solutions to these kinds of problems, but trying to force society to fit a mold of the traditional family unit is insane: it's been rejected. We need to recognise that, and figure out better ways of dealing with kids. This should also relate to society's actual need for offspring.

Again, I disagree. It is not based on fear, but the stark realization that humans can move too fast and quickly forget what is truly important. It is a slow, measured change over time which does into wish to just throw important things to the wind in favor of things that are "new and shiny". You still have the wrong idea about conservatism not being able to progress. You can conserve important traditions and customs and still progress in areas that warrant progression. What needs to happen is a synthesis of past and future, which many refer to as a "Archeofuturism".

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/10/1

 

[All Else Failed]

It actually is fixed. There are the way things are regardless of human beings (nature) and then there are overarching patterns of behavior which humans display (chemical reactions, biological determinants etc etc). Humans have a nasty habit of denying reality, and so they construct illusions (the world is the way we want it to be) and delusions (everyone is truly equal no matter what) to make the world fit around them instead of taking reality and shaping our lives around it to lead lives that are not lies.


You use the term "archaic" a lot, but I do not see this as any sort of insult or bad word. You keep slipping into this mistake of seeing that past as bad. We should by no means live in the past, but we should also by no means cast away the treasures of the past that can continue to shape society in a positive way.

If the tradition becomes out of date, loses it's use or it's value, then it must go. Trying to cling on to these things simply won't work as reality changes around us. Some traditions might very well stand the test of time, but there must always be flexibility to change.

Well, that is the thing: It does not have to be out of date. If anything, you're sounding a lot like a globalist here. "Eliminate cultures and traditions that do not fit into the overarching world view/economy!" Cultures need to be preserved. This means letting them rule their own with their own ways of life. This means letting them use whatever traditions they want. It is none of our business.

So you see the new reality is that people do not want the family unit to remain. It's losing it's relevance in today's society. Why try and bend society back to something they've chosen to leave behind? Seems very silly to me. The alternative is to alter of societal model to match the progress of society, not hold it back with a minorities viewpoint that is simply ignoring reality around them.

I do disagree with your thoughts on the breakdown of the family. They are contributing factors for sure, but you've neglected to see how much the world has changed since the family unit was solid. People work too hard now, wives cannot afford to stay at home any more.

No, I am quite sure most people want families to remain. I see plenty of sadness and bemoaning of the loss of the traditional family even in Europe. It is not that people want it gone, it is because modernity has given us a set of distractions, illusions and the overall worship of the individual above all that is making us think we want it gone when in all reality this is not truly the case. Who wouldn't want a loving mother and father? Brothers, sisters and extended family?

So, again, are you for totally eliminating the concept of family? If so, I think this is very dangerous. Destroying the family collapses the community since there are no real familial ties to be worked from.

No, I think that personally we need to manage our resources better. And that includes human resources, which can free up time, allow a mother to raise their kids without being impoverished. I do not, however, see the need for 2 parents in one home in a traditional sense.

A good case for this is Iceland. Very interesting country. In Iceland, most women have had their first child by the time they're in their early twenties, and they are no longer with the father. Children are raised by the mother, and their subsequent partners. Up until recently, the country was sufficiently affluent to allow mothers a lot of lee-way when it comes to their working arrangements.

There are lots of possible solutions to these kinds of problems, but trying to force society to fit a mold of the traditional family unit is insane: it's been rejected. We need to recognise that, and figure out better ways of dealing with kids. This should also relate to society's actual need for offspring.

I'm for managing our resources better as well. However, I do think children need a balanced view of both the masculine and the feminine. They are two very different influences in a child's development.


I don't think it has been reject by choice. It has been rejected due to modern delusions seeping into out cultures.

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/relea...politics.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/sep/10/1

The day I accept any views on Conservatism from two well known liberal, biased organizations is the day I eat my own hat. ESPECIALLY Berkeley. I've read these already and they make pretty broad, vague statements.

 

[edgray]

It actually is fixed. There are the way things are regardless of human beings (nature) and then there are overarching patterns of behavior which humans display (chemical reactions, biological determinants etc etc). Humans have a nasty habit of denying reality, and so they construct illusions (the world is the way we want it to be) and delusions (everyone is truly equal no matter what) to make the world fit around them instead of taking reality and shaping our lives around it to lead lives that are not lies.

Ok I hate to be a killjoy but if you cannot accept this then we might as well stop this conversation right here.

The universe is ever changing, nothing is stagnant, nothing is permanent. The world around us changes. Everything we do affects the world around us, changes it, and changes us again.

Tell me that the universe is stagnant. Tell me the Earth is the same as it was 10,000 years ago. A million years ago. Tell me people are the same as we were 500 years ago. Tell me this and I'll call you quite, quite insane. You're fighting the very nature of reality, which is emergent. Reality is fluid, ever changing, much like society, much like people.

The construction, for example, of believing the world is the way we want it to be is exactly what you're doing here. Take your assertion that of biological determinants and chemical reactions. Life is very much affected by the environment around it, and that environment is constantly changing. Things are born, things die. Life evolves. Species become extinct. Countries slip into the sea. continents split. Meteors come down from space and wipe out almost all life on the planet as we know it. Humans discover things. Humans evolve.

The only perennial truth, if there can be one asserted, is mathematics. 2 + 2 will always equal 4, to put it simply. This is the only universal truth. And even that will die once the universe does. And even maths isn't perennial in our understanding of it. Mathematics itself is still a growing field.

That's it really, until you can see this there's no point carrying on I'm afraid. The acknowledgement of this is the fundamental problem of the human race, and until we all see it, we'll carry on making the same mistakes over and over again.