why communism didn't work

[crystal]

Originally posted by Darth_Pugwash
Um, no. All that is happening is that the things humans look for in mates is changing. These days people go for good looks or money more than sheer physical prowess. Therefore, good looking rich people are gonna reproduce more than ugly poor ones. If that aint evolution then I dont know what is.

Sorry, I think you are wrong. In the past it wasn't only the physical power people were looking for in their mates, it was intelligence too. Otherwise mankind probably wouldn't have evolved. Also, take a look at this article:
"Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations"
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/lynnrev.html

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Good point there Crystal. The guy who can make fire is gonna get more gals than the one banging two rocks together.

I will read the article tommorow, though most of it will probably go right over my head.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel

It's true, people like you could easily depress me, but I'm above that.

If you're above that, people like me could not easily depress you.
And you're the one with the depressive "mankind is a cancer" rant.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel

By the way, did it occur to you that Earth might not only there for mankind?

So why is Earth there?
I honestly believe that men are more important then the rest of nature, what does not mean that I think that we should destroy it.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel

Yeah, but in return, many plant and animal species have got a life expectance of NOTHING because they are extinct-Man made them extinct.

During one stage of our progress we did, unfortunately, destroy many species. But the destruction of the environment is NOT a necissity anymore. We can today achieve sustainable economic growth withou much impact on the environment.
And I say that progress is a necessity, and feel bad for the people that wish that we remained living only 25 years, in caves.

Creativity is one of the most admirable human qualities, and to put a stop in progress is to put a stop in creativity.

 

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by luiz


So why is Earth there?
I honestly believe that men are more important then the rest of nature, what does not mean that I think that we should destroy it.


During one stage of our progress we did, unfortunately, destroy many species. But the destruction of the environment is NOT a necissity anymore. We can today achieve sustainable economic growth withou much impact on the environment.
And I say that progress is a necessity, and feel bad for the people that wish that we remained living only 25 years, in caves.

The destruction of Earth was NEVER a necessity. It is the oil, power and other large corporations that cannot be bothered spending a few pennies of PROFIT on making their products safer, or more enviromentally friendly. The Earth coulld sustain itself on most renewable power sources, but we do not. Why? Because most people think it too expensive, and companies don't think it wil give them enough PROFIT. It is all about money.

The Earth was never made for humans. The sheer fact that life developed on Earth was so unlikely, it is less than negligable. The fact that the right percentages of chemicals, in the right place, and the temperature was exactly right-one or two degrees higher or lower and there would be no life-is less thatn billions to one. Earth was never made for humans. It was made for everything carrying DNA. We are no more, nor less, important than other animals. Yet other animals do still continue to evolve. We do not, as we have no need.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by nonconformist
The destruction of Earth was NEVER a necessity. It is the oil, power and other large corporations that cannot be bothered spending a few pennies of PROFIT on making their products safer, or more enviromentally friendly. The Earth coulld sustain itself on most renewable power sources, but we do not. Why? Because most people think it too expensive, and companies don't think it wil give them enough PROFIT. It is all about money.

I wrote this earlier in this thread, but you ignored it:

Man is doing the right thing. Economic growth initially leads to more pollution, but after a certain point (I think it was a GDP of around $10,000 per capita), more growth leads to less and less pollution. Sure, there are quite a few dangers to the enivronment, but things can get (and are getting) better. As long as we have economic growth, anyway.

It's funny (yet at the same time a little disturbing) how communists often blame capitalism and profit seeking for the environmental problems we have, when Soviet Russia was (and still is) perhaps the most polluted country in the world (I don't have any stats, but it should be right up there).

The Earth was never made for humans. The sheer fact that life developed on Earth was so unlikely, it is less than negligable. The fact that the right percentages of chemicals, in the right place, and the temperature was exactly right-one or two degrees higher or lower and there would be no life-is less thatn billions to one. Earth was never made for humans. It was made for everything carrying DNA. We are no more, nor less, important than other animals. Yet other animals do still continue to evolve. We do not, as we have no need.

We carry DNA, hence, the Earth was made for us (and everything else that carries DNA as well). Your statement is quite contradictory.

Work hard, get some money and buy yourself a large farm where you can let animals live the lives you think they deserve. Then, you'd do "your share" and you wouldn't force your "eco-fascist" ideals upon anybody else either. That's my advice to you.

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by luiz
If you're above that, people like me could not easily depress you.
And you're the one with the depressive "mankind is a cancer" rant.

There are scientific studies that mankind resembles cancer. Also please take a look at VHEMT pages.

So why is Earth there?
I honestly believe that men are more important then the rest of nature, what does not mean that I think that we should destroy it.


During one stage of our progress we did, unfortunately, destroy many species. But the destruction of the environment is NOT a necissity anymore. We can today achieve sustainable economic growth withou much impact on the environment.
And I say that progress is a necessity, and feel bad for the people that wish that we remained living only 25 years, in caves.

Creativity is one of the most admirable human qualities, and to put a stop in progress is to put a stop in creativity.

And under the circumstances I reserve myself the right to nominate you the most ambitious technocrat in CFC. Congratulations for winning!

 

[Stefan Haertel]

And you're the one with the depressive "mankind is a cancer" rant.

If what I'm saying is disturbing you so much, why care for what I write? I ignored your posts earlier in this thread too.

 

[nonconformist]

Wow. Hayek is stereo-casting me as a hippy. I am not a vegetarian, but I believe in the basic principle of From each to his abilities, to each to his needs. This means if you work as hard as you can all your needs will be fulfilled. It means no more fatcats who play golf all day, and get richer and richer, but a nation of hardworking people all equal. It would stop idleness and exploitation.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Wow. Hayek is stereo-casting me as a hippy.

Sorry for mislabeling you, but you know, if it looks like a dog, and it barks like a dog...

I am not a vegetarian, but I believe in the basic principle of From each to his abilities, to each to his needs.

They have that principle in North Korea as well, and everyone really is quite equal (except for Kim Jong-il and his friends, of course). Don't know how hard working they are, though. I'd find it rather hard to work if I were starving.

This means if you work as hard as you can all your needs will be fulfilled. It means no more fatcats who play golf all day, and get richer and richer, but a nation of hardworking people all equal. It would stop idleness and exploitation.

No. It means if you work as hard as you can, you've worked in vain, because you don't "need" to keep all the money and it will go to someone "more needing" than you. It also means that it could be wise not to work very much at all, since some moustachio'd guy in Moskow has said you will get your "basic needs" covered anyway. This would hardly stop idleness. In Soviet Russia, farmers got their paycheque every month and never had a reason to work overtime, which caused starvation.

As I said earlier, lower income differences kill motivation.

And why should people be equal at all, anyway?

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by nonconformist
The destruction of Earth was NEVER a necessity. It is the oil, power and other large corporations that cannot be bothered spending a few pennies of PROFIT on making their products safer, or more enviromentally friendly. The Earth coulld sustain itself on most renewable power sources, but we do not. Why? Because most people think it too expensive, and companies don't think it wil give them enough PROFIT. It is all about money.

Look, I agree that the destruction on the environment caused by our ancestors was abusive. I agree that destroying species is a DISGRACE.
But let's not be naive. Some destruction of the environment is stricly necessary. Even the primitive, non-capitalistic indians of Brazil destroy the environment, to a certain extent(they burned large areas of the amazon, for exemple, to make it easier to plant mandioca).
And the communist USSR was the biggest polluter per capita in the world. So it's obviously not about the money.

Originally posted by nonconformist

The Earth was never made for humans. The sheer fact that life developed on Earth was so unlikely, it is less than negligable. The fact that the right percentages of chemicals, in the right place, and the temperature was exactly right-one or two degrees higher or lower and there would be no life-is less thatn billions to one. Earth was never made for humans. It was made for everything carrying DNA. We are no more, nor less, important than other animals. Yet other animals do still continue to evolve. We do not, as we have no need.

We think, we have a a conscience, therefore we are more important.
Allow me to make this question: there is a man and a rat dying. Somehow you have the ability to save one of them. Who would you save?
I'm sure you answered the human, and thus you consider human life more valuable then other forms of life.

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by crystal
There are scientific studies that mankind resembles cancer. Also please take a look at VHEMT pages.

Dude, your first link is called "The Church of Euthanasia"
Do YOU really believe YOU are part of a cancer?

Originally posted by crystal

And under the circumstances I reserve myself the right to nominate you the most ambitious technocrat in CFC. Congratulations for winning!

I think progress is good and necessary, but this hardly qualifies me as the most ambitious technocrat around

 

[luiz]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
If what I'm saying is disturbing you so much, why care for what I write? .

It doesn't disturbs me at all, albeit it's undeniably depressive.

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel

I ignored your posts earlier in this thread too

But I don't ignore responses to my posts

 

[crystal]

Originally posted by luiz
Dude, your first link is called "The Church of Euthanasia"
Do YOU really believe YOU are part of a cancer?

Originally I saw that article at some other address, but it is now 404, so I had to google for it to find another copy... There may be some images missing, but otherwise I think it's the same article.

And yes, I do believe we are the cancer of Earth.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

It doesn't disturbs me at all, albeit it's undeniably depressive.

In my eyes, it's the truth, and the truth is sometimes depressing.

But I don't ignore responses to my posts

Which were posts in response to mine

 

[Birdjaguar]

Does the earth know? Does the earth care? Could anything on earth, other than humankind, identify us as a cancer or as anything else? What are we doing now that will have any long term impact on the "earth"?

Choose:

1. We have evolved so well as to dominate the earth and have earned our place and power until we are supplanted by life better adapted than we are.

2. Humans have overreached the "natural order of things" and have become a pariah on our world. But can we separate humans from the "natural order of things"?

3. The world, and humankind with it, are evolving in accordance with God's plan. Choose your God here.

4. For the first time in history humans are able to see the broad sweep of change that has been the story of life on earth and its scary. Not only can we see the past, but we can imagine one or more futures.

Could we make life on earth better for more people than we currently do? Probably. Will we? Probably not if history is any guide. In the short run people are important. We care about others. As we increasse the view from 1 year to 50 years to 1000 years to 100,000 years to 1MM years or more, at both the individual and race level, people become less and less important.

If your perspective is that the world is only a few thousand years old and only has a very limited number of years left, then what we do with it, to it etc. is in another's hands anyway.

 

[Stefan Haertel]

3. The world, and humankind with it, are evolving in accordance with God's plan. Choose your God here.

Is "no god" also a god in your argumentation? I don't think there is a master plan, sorry.

 

[nonconformist]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
In my eyes, it's the truth, and the truth is sometimes depressing.



In my eyes this is also the truth, Stefan.
Wil people stop making references to the Soviet Union, it was not a proper communist state. Anyway, I am talking about Marxism, which is different. A world for the worklers, by the workers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
Is "no god" also a god in your argumentation? I don't think there is a master plan, sorry.

No. "No God" is not a God. You have to choose one of the other options. No reason to be sorry. Whether on not we believe there is a master plan or not, does not change the existance or non existance of such a master plan. Truth/Reality, whatever its nature, does not need us to sustain it. That is part of the fun of being ignorant.

 

[Hayek]

Originally posted by nonconformist
Wil people stop making references to the Soviet Union, it was not a proper communist state.[/B]

A dictionary's definition of Communism:

Communism noun [uncountable]

1 a political system in some countries in which the government controls the production of all food and goods, and which has no different social classes

2 the belief in this political system

I'd say the Soviet Union had such a system and therefore, making references to it is entirely justified. Or what do you mean by "proper Communist state"?

 

[Benderino]

Originally posted by nonconformist

A world for the worklers, by the workers.

I'm more of a fan of the world for the intellectuals, by the intellectuals.