Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.

[dimebag87]

This must be a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. I'll try to make it even more simple for ya.

The Malthusian idea that everyone's existence must be justified by meaningless employment is retarded.

I think we have the Roman empire to thank for this way of life. You want to go back to a time with a simple life where one is self sufficient but even that way of life would of contained hardship and bullshit that we don't really like to do.

 

[abandonconflict]

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000313/Meaningful employment.
The Dude: Uh, and then, uh, the music business, briefly.
Maude Lebowski: Oh?
The Dude: Yeah. Roadie for Metallica

 

[Doer]

This must be a hard concept for you to wrap your head around. I'll try to make it even more simple for ya.

The Malthusian idea that everyone's existence must be justified by meaningless employment is retarded.

Well, it sounds French. So, instead of explaining what you mean, you climb the high horse. IAC, as I understand it there is one essay of Thomas Malthus, in the 1700s.

He is the man who first warned us that the human population is increasing far faster than the food supply can accommodate.

So, is it Marxist or French sounding theory that says he is somehow wrong? It appears true even today. Science and Logistics can't defeat the hard heart of mankind. It is not theoretical impossible to feed the poor that don't produce from the purse of those that do "work." It is quite actually impossible. That is the M-idea as you call it. Impossible to have it any other way.

And from the Ivory Tower, you pitter nonsense, to claim we are wrong and Malthus was wrong?

Impossible, sir. Very self evident. More food, higher birth rate. You don't supply your alternative. I will tell you. All this Agenda... Marxism or French or whatever, require the other guy to do what society says is right, when no one is looking. That is the only alternative. Some kind of behavior forced by the govt. They tried that in Russia. Vodka is better than social theory.

The only thing that humans will do "good" is based on enlightened self-interest. It is world focused altruism, that is at once made fun of and then excoriated as corrupt. Of course it is corrupt, un-fair, etc. It has always been this way. At least, the rule of law
has some written rules. Less blood than Warlord rule, which is also corrupt. The black heart of mankind is Real. Corrupt.

So, please calm the ego. You nor I are perfect, but we can discuss without insult if you drop Agenda. Insult is part of it.

 

[desert dude]

Deciphering...

"My existence is justified, change the direction you have chosen since it does not justify your existence."

Deciphering:

"I exist, therefore all of you have to work to support me as I while away my hours chasing butterflies and writing poetry."

 

[abandonconflict]

I think we have the Roman empire to thank for this way of life. You want to go back to a time with a simple life where one is self sufficient but even that way of life would of contained hardship and bullshit that we don't really like to do.

Of course there will always be some work to do, but not enough for everyone to have full time employment. Therefore if the only people who deserve to eat are those with employment, well you can see the obvious flaw. I do think that people who serve necessary functions should be rewarded, but if they produce enough to sustain others, should the excess be wasted just to begrudge those who are not needed for such functions?

 

[abandonconflict]

Deciphering:

"I exist, therefore all of you have to work to support me as I while away my hours chasing butterflies and writing poetry."

Deciphering...

"I actually hate my job, but I only do it in order to purchase necessities, you ought to share in my misery!"

 

[abandonconflict]

I understand it there is one essay of Thomas Malthus. in the 1700s.

He is the man who first warned us that the human population is increasing far faster than the food supply can accommodate.

Malthus was wrong?

Impossible, sir. Very self evident. More food, higher birth rate.

There it is. You are racist. You begrudge the third world people of the sun having sustenance because they will reproduce. Malthus was absolutely wrong and a racist. As you can see in the link to the website I provided (containing sources right on the page) more money is spent treating obesity than it would cost to feed the starving. This is direct proof that Malthus was wrong.

 

[desert dude]

Deciphering...

"I actually hate my job, but I only do it in order to purchase necessities, you ought to share in my misery!"

Deciphering:

"Starving to death is not as miserable as working for my daily needs. You guys feed me, or I will stamp my little feet and pout." I would say that in about thirty days we will see no more posts by you on RIU.

 

[dimebag87]

Of course there will always be some work to do, but not enough for everyone to have full time employment. Therefore if the only people who deserve to eat are those with employment, well you can see the obvious flaw. I do think that people who serve necessary functions should be rewarded, but if they produce enough to sustain others, should the excess be wasted just to begrudge those who are not needed for such functions?

Yes but employment as a concept doesn't really exist in a world of self sufficiency does it? You would provide enough for your own and that's all. There wouldn't be any stockpiles of grain that we don't need and this mentality that we need to take for the sake of it wouldn't exist. Of course it would be just pure greed to keep it when there is so much hunger but at the end of the day you could throw rice and water at Africa by the truckload but the problem isn't then just going to go away. We all know that. Naive charity giving folk give their dollar a month of spare cash and think "wow, I'm making a real difference". Nope, not really.

 

[abandonconflict]

Deciphering:

"Starving to death is not as miserable as working for my daily needs. You guys feed me, or I will stamp my little feet and pout." I would say that in about thirty days we will see no more posts by you on RIU.

Deciphering...

Why are you predicting I'll be off RIU? Going to come arrest me? Gotta shut me up?

 

[dimebag87]

Like somebody said before. Look at how much bill gates has thrown at it. Ridiculous amounts but still to no end.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yes but employment as a concept doesn't really exist in a world of self sufficiency does it? You would provide enough for your own and that's all. There wouldn't be any stockpiles of grain that we don't need and this mentality that we need to take for the sake of it wouldn't exist. Of course it would be just pure greed to keep it when there is so much hunger but at the end of the day you could throw rice and water at Africa by the truckload but the problem isn't then just going to go away. We all know that. Naive charity giving folk give their dollar a month of spare cash and think "wow, I'm making a real difference". Nope, not really.

Rather incoherent but I'll try to explicate.

Better yet, I'll just post the link again so you can see the numbers.

http://www.stopthehunger.com/

Sources at the bottom of the page.

 

[dimebag87]

Yes that's pretty sick. Doesn't surprise me one bit. But what do you suppose we really do about it man. The decisions about whats to be done aren't ours to be made unfortunately.

 

[abandonconflict]

Yes that's pretty sick. Doesn't surprise me one bit. But what do you suppose we really do about it man. The decisions about whats to be done aren't ours to be made unfortunately.

Every man says, I am only one man, what can one man do? Then every man continues to up hold the broken system.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[dimebag87]

Very true. Time to get a civil war on the go then I suppose

 

[cannabineer]

There it is. You are racist. You begrudge the third world people of the sun

having sustenance because they will reproduce. Malthus was absolutely wrong and a racist. As you can see in the link to the website I provided (containing sources right on the page) more money is spent treating obesity than it would cost to feed the starving. This is direct proof that Malthus was wrong.

The thing is, when you feed bears what you get is "more bears". This, I know.
And the obesity stat is entirely irrelevant to proving or disproving Malthus. His basic premise is unassailable: you cannot sustain an exponential population on a fixed and necessary resource, productive land. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

The thing is, when you feed bears what you get is "more bears". This, I know.
And the obesity stat is entirely irrelevant to proving or disproving Malthus. His basic premise is unassailable: you cannot sustain an exponential population on a fixed and necessary resource, productive land. cn

The obesity stat most certainly is relevant, there are more lard asses than there are starving, there is enough being wasted to feed the people that are hungry, even with out depriving the obese of excess. That renders the exponential population vs fixed resource argument irrelevant. We are no where near over populated. That is a scare tactic with only an essay from centuries ago by Malthus to support it, on the other hand, I linked factual numbers directly related to this argument.

Then you finished your argument with a huge fallacy, a mention of productive land. You must have completely ignored the stats about food exporters. People in those nations can't afford to buy the food produced there, so we buy it and give it to live stock. If a nation democratically elects a leader who is determined to use the nation's resources in the best interests of his/her people, we send the CIA in to depose him/her. If someone at home tells the news story truthfully, they are decried a communist by McCarthyists. What ever it takes to keep you buying the things you need to survive, while the people who can not buy them "do not deserve to survive".

 

[echelon1k1]

Meaningful employment.
The Dude: Uh, and then, uh, the music business, briefly.
Maude Lebowski: Oh?
The Dude: Yeah. Roadie for Metallica

Fuck yeah Roadies Rock... Spent 10 years as a roadie / lighting designer & director

 

[cannabineer]

The obesity stat most certainly is relevant, there are more lard asses than there are starving, there is enough being wasted to feed the people that are hungry, even with out depriving the obese of excess. That renders the exponential population vs fixed resource argument irrelevant. We are no where near over populated. That is a scare tactic with only an essay from centuries ago by Malthus to support it, on the other hand, I linked factual numbers directly related to this argument.

Then you finished your argument with a huge fallacy, a mention of productive land. You must have completely ignored the stats about food exporters. People in those nations can't afford to buy the food produced there, so we buy it and give it to live stock. If a nation democratically elects a leader who is determined to use the nation's resources in the best interests of his/her people, we send the CIA in to depose him/her. If someone at home tells the news story truthfully, they are decried a communist by McCarthyists. What ever it takes to keep you buying the things you need to survive, while the people who can not buy them "do not deserve to survive".

Here's the problem, and it's one of math. You essentially stated "there is more than enough food to feed everybody now."
Malthus said "Populations grow exponentially. There will come a time when no amount of food will suffice".
So imo it's you who are arguing apples&oranges. Obesity has nothing at all to do with the inevitable inadequacy of future supplies.

You are dismissing Malthus' entire argument as old and a scare tactic. But was it incorrect? No.

To the Malthusian argument, productive land is crucial. Yes; there currently are food exporters because we're on the fat part of the curve, just like petroleum reserves in the '50s: huge and with no end in sight. Sixty years later, we see that was a bad call. Food is no different. While it is a renewable resource, the land (and to a lesser extent, ocean fisheries) is its necessary foundation. And there comes a point where the only way to build a building (figuratively, population size) taller is to make the foundations (arable land, fishable ocean) wider. Until we can move serious tonnage off the planet, that latter isn't an option. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Here's the problem, and it's one of math. You essentially stated "there is more than enough food to feed everybody now."
Malthus said "Populations grow exponentially. There will come a time when no amount of food will suffice".

Does that make NOW a good time for GENOCIDE?!???!!!!1?