born-rich people

I was born with a silver dildo in my ass it felt awesome

i was thinking, kids born rich have a possibility of living hard lives, though this hardship is by no means based upon the need or lack thereof of money.

i could see nihilism, depression, and anxiety setting in...they cant match their parents in ability, they wander aimlessly, concerned about legacy (especially if their parents are very successful figures)

i could go on but i think you see what i mean.

i was born rather poor (i can recall eating crackers and ketchup for dinner a few times), but now my parents are more or less in a middle to upper-middle class lifestyle. i know my parents said they would cover me when i need money, but i fucking hate that. its like the unnatural part of it. how am i preparing myself for life without them, on my own?

surely when an animal in an ecosystem ruled for so long by their alpha-male parents is left to his own devices, he doesn't have some sort of "implicit" advantage.

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

  On 7/8/2011 at 6:37 PM, marf said:

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

so....kill everyone?

i honestly dont think its more complex, we shade that out by using human logic to "superimpose" our own morality on the way the world works

what will most likely happen:

the super rich will enslave/eradicate those who are not super rich. they do not represent the best of society.

same for non-capitalist societies (if there even are any)

the strongest live to bear their seed. no one else.

i mean, the wars sorta cull down the population but nowhere near what the neo-malthusians would like.

  On 7/7/2011 at 10:25 PM, Luke Fucking Hazard said:

everything is irrelevant, and whenever i reference the futility and subjectivity of a discussion, i start whirling down a black hole of philosophical resolution and come off looking like a cunt in the end.

this is the nature of discussions on the internet.

except for elusive, who just seems to come off looking like a cunt no matter what.

[pre-emptive]

yes elusive, i'm a cunt, i'm stupid, i'm uneducated, i don't understand what you're trying to get at, i need to read *x* or *y* or *z*. that's ok.

[/pre-emptive]

kaini is actually really alright.

  On 7/9/2011 at 2:42 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/8/2011 at 6:37 PM, marf said:

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

 

so....kill everyone?

 

 

 

i honestly dont think its more complex, we shade that out by using human logic to "superimpose" our own morality on the way the world works

 

 

 

what will most likely happen:

 

 

the super rich will enslave/eradicate those who are not super rich. they do not represent the best of society.

 

 

same for non-capitalist societies (if there even are any)

 

the strongest live to bear their seed. no one else.

 

 

i mean, the wars sorta cull down the population but nowhere near what the neo-malthusians would like.

go and make some money, it's easy. then use your money to fix the world. failing that, just enjoy your short existence.

  On 7/9/2011 at 2:42 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/8/2011 at 6:37 PM, marf said:

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

 

so....kill everyone?

 

 

 

i honestly dont think its more complex, we shade that out by using human logic to "superimpose" our own morality on the way the world works

 

 

 

what will most likely happen:

 

 

the super rich will enslave/eradicate those who are not super rich. they do not represent the best of society.

 

 

same for non-capitalist societies (if there even are any)

 

the strongest live to bear their seed. no one else.

 

 

i mean, the wars sorta cull down the population but nowhere near what the neo-malthusians would like.

Actually, humans are a co-operative species, that's how we've rolled. Solo predator types would have been eaten by lions, ages ago. So given this concept, if nowadays, in gentler times, a human is a solo predator survival of the fittest type. He is actually more of a parasite leaching on society than anything else.

  On 7/9/2011 at 6:57 AM, delet... said:

 

Actually, humans are a co-operative species, that's how we've rolled. Solo predator types would have been eaten by lions, ages ago. So given this concept, if nowadays, in gentler times, a human is a solo predator survival of the fittest type. He is actually more of a parasite leaching on society than anything else.

In Papua New Guinea, before the introduction of money, money being the base line of success for this thread. Before money, tribesmen, living in their isolated villages, gauged wealth by the number of pigs a man owned. And given that they were all living in close quarters and in small groups that relied heavily on one another for defence and shelter and so forth. If one member of the village hoarded too many pigs, this would cause jealousy and resentment amongst his clansmen. So you know what they would do, they would fucking take them off him for being a greedy cunt and not contributing to the whole.

This is how we rolled, before society got bigger, and this new structure of civilisation, provided a mechanism that both helped to hide wealth from the everyday experience of your average citizen and helped to guard it.

Interesting isn't it.

  On 7/9/2011 at 6:05 AM, sirch said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 2:42 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/8/2011 at 6:37 PM, marf said:

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

 

so....kill everyone?

 

 

 

i honestly dont think its more complex, we shade that out by using human logic to "superimpose" our own morality on the way the world works

 

 

 

what will most likely happen:

 

 

the super rich will enslave/eradicate those who are not super rich. they do not represent the best of society.

 

 

same for non-capitalist societies (if there even are any)

 

the strongest live to bear their seed. no one else.

 

 

i mean, the wars sorta cull down the population but nowhere near what the neo-malthusians would like.

 

 

go and make some money, it's easy. then use your money to fix the world. failing that, just enjoy your short existence.

This misleading Darwinian view of society is horrible and absolutely evil. Please, please go read some books and find about how our modern situation is the product of very specific forces and situations that we have brought into ourselves. Capitalism in the 21th century is not the only way to organize people and distribute wealth.

I will contribute some alternatives.

- Ok, so the rich will eventually openly enslave / exterminate the poor. What if the non-rich strike back? This has happened before in history: the French revolution, may 1968, the Paris Commune, recent South America, Chile during Salvador Allende, anarchism in Spain, Cuba, new approaches to Marxism, squatting, etc, etc, etc.

- 'Adaptation' to 'Reality' means dedicating our lives to money and consumption while turning a blind eye to the generalized inequality and suffering in the world. Are people really happy doing this? I suspect not because otherwise this thread would not exist. Denial is not good for mental health.

- Do nothing IRL and troll on the Internet

- I guess being a nice guy, avoiding trouble with authority, going local and devoting time money to help your community is good, helps alleviating the guilt and keeps one occupied but ...

pd. elusive is extremely rude but I was kind of enjoying his posts on investing. I guess I want to be a filthy rich capitalist too.

was a passing thought.

must control, I have never read any books. can you recommend some?

oh wait, i have read books before. Reason and Revolution. sorta the point of what i said earlier.

ill tell you what, i gotta crash, but when i get up ill write an extended response

  On 7/9/2011 at 8:55 AM, m u st co n t r ol t h o 4 said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 6:05 AM, sirch said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 2:42 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/8/2011 at 6:37 PM, marf said:

animal survival is a lot simpler. Kill something, eat it. Human survival is far more complex. Everyone needs help.

 

so....kill everyone?

 

 

 

i honestly dont think its more complex, we shade that out by using human logic to "superimpose" our own morality on the way the world works

 

 

 

what will most likely happen:

 

 

the super rich will enslave/eradicate those who are not super rich. they do not represent the best of society.

 

 

same for non-capitalist societies (if there even are any)

 

the strongest live to bear their seed. no one else.

 

 

i mean, the wars sorta cull down the population but nowhere near what the neo-malthusians would like.

 

 

go and make some money, it's easy. then use your money to fix the world. failing that, just enjoy your short existence.

 

 

This misleading Darwinian view of society is horrible and absolutely evil. Please, please go read some books and find about how our modern situation is the product of very specific forces and situations that we have brought into ourselves. Capitalism in the 21th century is not the only way to organize people and distribute wealth.

 

I will contribute some alternatives.

 

- Ok, so the rich will eventually openly enslave / exterminate the poor. What if the non-rich strike back? This has happened before in history: the French revolution, may 1968, the Paris Commune, recent South America, Chile during Salvador Allende, anarchism in Spain, Cuba, new approaches to Marxism, squatting, etc, etc, etc.

 

- 'Adaptation' to 'Reality' means dedicating our lives to money and consumption while turning a blind eye to the generalized inequality and suffering in the world. Are people really happy doing this? I suspect not because otherwise this thread would not exist. Denial is not good for mental health.

 

- Do nothing IRL and troll on the Internet

 

- I guess being a nice guy, avoiding trouble with authority, going local and devoting time money to help your community is good, helps alleviating the guilt and keeps one occupied but ...

 

pd. elusive is extremely rude but I was kind of enjoying his posts on investing. I guess I want to be a filthy rich capitalist too.

ok, so ill start at the beginning.

1)What I am speaking of is not a Darwinist view of human evolution, by any means, nor is it the social Darwinism that misappropriated Darwin's already misinterpreted theorems. this is not "the rich are rich, therefore the rich are inherently better." the fact that you responded to what I said with a pithy, wave-of-the-hand "read books" shows that you are disgusted by what I had to say, and more importantly how you thought I said it.

Absolutely evil? I love your black-and-white attitude towards the development of human society. Of course it sounds bad. You aren't at the top of the dogpile. Those with power would most likely disagree.

2) I am not merely speaking of 20th Century capitalism either, that's completely incorrect. To think these ills developed in the Industrial Revolution and beyond speaks volumes of your opinion. Do you also believe that the Marxian romanticized version of pre-industrial feudalism was far "less evil" and far "more natural"?

If one was to say that capitalism is an unnatural development perpetrated by humanity, then why not simply say humanity is unnatural, or rather, the ideas that we have imposed upon ourselves are increasingly unnatural?

3) What if the non-rich strike back? Ok, this is the central part of what I was getting at (though didn't explain myself properly). Revolution does not merely alter the social and political face of whatever government/religious/whatever movement embraces it and those who oppose it. It also creates new ideas and structures for counter-revolution, to prevent this from occurring again, or even further to something MORE extreme and repressive than the state apparatus before it. With every action, there is an equal reaction, etc.

Need examples? There are plenty.

French Revolution to the Consulate/Napoleon/Metternichian diplomacy that dominated Europe in the 19th century

Spanish Civil War to Franco's dictatorship

increase of revolutionary and dissident activity in Weimar Germany to Hitler and the Nazis

increase of revolutionary and dissident activity in Italy to Mussolini

rise of post-war Japanese dissidents/Communist factions to the Liberal Democratic Party

Chinese Revolution to the establishment of Maoist dictatorship

Cuban Revolution to the establishment of Castro dictatorship (this could be argued for most South/Latin American nations)

American rev. to the revocation of the New Hampshire Grants, the establishment of West Virginia, Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion

dont even get me started on the Russian Revolution

anti-imperialist sentiments/rise of socialism in the US to the establishment of sensationalist news media, Red Scare, union busters and blacklisting (read Chomsky for more information on this era)

this isn't about whether you think Castro or Mao were ultimately "good" guys or not, they had in effect retained some form of the previous state apparatus and in many ways enhanced it to further control the populous.

even if you think revolution is always good and pure and done by the "people" or whatever incredibly nebulous term you want to use in place of it, it almost always finishes with a new alpha cadre or whatever at the top of the dogpile. maybe a law changes here or there, but its essentially the same management.

so we come to the 20th Century, where there is government and business openly operating in a symbiotic nature. Capitalism isn't just an ideology anymore; it is the state itself. RFID chips, patents over DNA, water, air supply, almost all new weaponry, the next massive computer system, these are all relegated to the few who have created them or the men who have control over their creation.

what am i getting at?

the people want to revolt, ok. but this is no longer thousands of farmers with pitchforks against a castle wall and disgruntled soldiers outside of the Bastille. This is people with pop-guns versus men with access to biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles, which don't even need to be launched by some loyal faction subordinate to them. a couple of men can run computer systems with the capabilities to exterminate gigantic portions of the world population. In other words, the men fighting off the revolutionaries need do no more than push a few buttons. Add to that the increasingly centralized and incredibly powerful apparatus of the world economy. Shit, most revolts can be quelled by switching around a few numbers, or by cutting off supplies.

A South Korean chaebol recently purchased the majority of the arable land in Madagascar....what is the recourse for the natives? They throw a "revolution"? Against who? How? With what weapons/technology/economic influence do they have the means to accomplish this? Maybe they could be successful in some romantic "The Last Samurai" shit or something.

Daewoo purchase of African land

Dleet made a good point about the tribes in Papua New Guinea...that's certainly true. But what happens when the Papua New Guinea government wants to take advantage of resources the tribe is sitting on? Do you think it always works out to the favor of both parties? We need only look to the age of imperialism for confirmation of that.

No no smetty - you just need to read the right books. I mean you've been reading the wrong ones. Which are not the ones that I have read, therefore they must be wrong.

Just got an interesting article from that den of godless heathenism the New York Times passed on to me.

Egalitariamism helped human race survive?

That's a good read! Thx for posting.

  On 7/9/2011 at 8:25 PM, chenGOD said:

No no smetty - you just need to read the right books. I mean you've been reading the wrong ones. Which are not the ones that I have read, therefore they must be wrong.

 

Just got an interesting article from that den of godless heathenism the New York Times passed on to me.

Egalitariamism helped human race survive?

that is a good article.

we strive for fairness because its a survival mechanism, no? is there not a selfishness in being selfless? to make sure that your kids are treated equally when you have passed? to increase your prestige? to gain the loyalty of a population?

  On 7/9/2011 at 9:40 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 8:25 PM, chenGOD said:

No no smetty - you just need to read the right books. I mean you've been reading the wrong ones. Which are not the ones that I have read, therefore they must be wrong.

 

Just got an interesting article from that den of godless heathenism the New York Times passed on to me.

Egalitariamism helped human race survive?

 

 

that is a good article.

 

we strive for fairness because its a survival mechanism, no? is there not a selfishness in being selfless? to make sure that your kids are treated equally when you have passed? to increase your prestige? to gain the loyalty of a population?

The reasoning you're using seems to imply a rational human being and hardly takes into account emotions. Try to reason from the "mirror-neurons"-perspective: if I see you're hurt, I feel your pain. Empathy. It's a really basic mechanism and doesn't need much rationalization.

All that reasoning that is supposed to categorize behavior as either selfish of selfless is from a way too high order of reasoning. Fairness, prestige and gaining loyalty don't seem to be the most primitive drives. Avoidance of fear and pain are a bit more obvious when looking for primitive drives. They're more primitive and closer to emotions than something like fairness. Something like fairness is just a bit too cerebral.

And when I feel your pain, I might just do something to avoid that, like helping out without any certain future gains.

When discussing healthcare one would argue that eating all those hamburgers must have made the USians lose their empathy...(the irony)

Btw, would you call evading pain out of empathy selfish? I guess one could reason that way, but at one point there isn't going to be a distinction between selfishness and selflessness anymore. Making both concepts interchangeable and perhaps the entire discussion mute.

thats certainly true for the lower echelon of people...when you are further and further detached from the populous you represent or wage some form of control over via technological and structural advancements, how does that empathy kick in?

how many people feel deep empathy for the other side when their country is at war? do they cry every night over it? do they even dwell on it for a minute or two now and then? do they join subversive organizations to "fight the power" in the name of empathy?

now imagine that in the mind of someone whose idea of waging war consists of telling one or two people to go ahead and do it. that's the extent of the involvement. how is empathy to be found there?

+1 you go del ;-]

  On 7/9/2011 at 11:16 PM, goDel said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 9:40 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 7/9/2011 at 8:25 PM, chenGOD said:

No no smetty - you just need to read the right books. I mean you've been reading the wrong ones. Which are not the ones that I have read, therefore they must be wrong.

 

Just got an interesting article from that den of godless heathenism the New York Times passed on to me.

Egalitariamism helped human race survive?

 

 

that is a good article.

 

we strive for fairness because its a survival mechanism, no? is there not a selfishness in being selfless? to make sure that your kids are treated equally when you have passed? to increase your prestige? to gain the loyalty of a population?

 

 

Btw, would you call evading pain out of empathy selfish? I guess one could reason that way, but at one point there isn't going to be a distinction between selfishness and selflessness anymore. Making both concepts interchangeable and perhaps the entire discussion mute.

im trying to explain what im getting at in a nutshell. the selfish part doesn't have much to do with it ultimately

empathy and other pts of human existance=survival mechanisms either for the individual or for the group

now add modernized government, economics, social structures=further and further detached from making empathetic decisions towards the group.

adding to the fact that these structures make it so you don't even need to act outside of it. you don't see the teary eyed faces of those mourning their families if they have all been nuked instantaneously. you can't feel empathy towards a group being cruelly wronged by another if they aren't shown on tv or put in the news.

  On 7/9/2011 at 11:46 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

thats certainly true for the lower echelon of people...when you are further and further detached from the populous you represent or wage some form of control over via technological and structural advancements, how does that empathy kick in?

 

 

how many people feel deep empathy for the other side when their country is at war? do they cry every night over it? do they even dwell on it for a minute or two now and then? do they join subversive organizations to "fight the power" in the name of empathy?

 

 

now imagine that in the mind of someone whose idea of waging war consists of telling one or two people to go ahead and do it. that's the extent of the involvement. how is empathy to be found there?

You probably don't mean it that way, but "the lower echelon of people"? What the fuck. Unless you're reasoning that the higher echelon of people have no empathy or something. Which, funny enough, I was told during my holiday in Playa del Carmen (:-)). Supposedly rich people from the US are an entirely different breed of human beings without any sense of empathy whatsoever. I guess republicans and rich people in this sense can be interchangeable as well. ;p

nooooooooooooooo, not meant in that way at all. in fact, i feel like what im trying to explain is not connecting, im going to assume its a failure on my part and i should read more books.

its not the fault of the rich or poor but of humanity as a whole. by allowing these structures to exist it detaches very human people with very human emotions(presidents, dictators, whatever) into very unnatural states of being due to extensive power and the exercise thereof requires very little effort due to increasingly exponential advancements in technology.

Also, when you are talking about wars and empathy, what usually takes place is there's some kind of alienation between different groups of people. Like seeing Jews as sub-humans in WW2 by the nazis. There comes a point where different groups of people don't see each other as different groups of people, but as different species. You can argue it's a necessity to even start a war. There's usually not much empathy between different species. Unless you're one of those who is worried about accidentally stepping on an ant, or something.

doesn't that then challenge the preconception that all humans are empathetic and willing to work with one another?

ALIENATION. YES. this is a good word. precisely what ive been saying.

  On 7/9/2011 at 11:55 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

im trying to explain what im getting at in a nutshell. the selfish part doesn't have much to do with it ultimately

 

 

empathy and other pts of human existance=survival mechanisms either for the individual or for the group

 

now add modernized government, economics, social structures=further and further detached from making empathetic decisions towards the group.

 

adding to the fact that these structures make it so you don't even need to act outside of it. you don't see the teary eyed faces of those mourning their families if they have all been nuked instantaneously. you can't feel empathy towards a group being cruelly wronged by another if they aren't shown on tv or put in the news.

Well, I must admit I tend to get worried from time to time. Wether people living their lives more or less behind a computer will lose that sense of empathy which makes a civilization a civilized union of people. The empathy muscles in the brain need to have more exercise perhaps. And without it, people might actually be to detached.

Interestingly, seeing something like Anonymous tends to behave like a bipolar entity. At one point, completely detached. At another trying to save the world. In 20 years, we might all be that bipolar.

  On 7/10/2011 at 12:04 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

nooooooooooooooo, not meant in that way at all. in fact, i feel like what im trying to explain is not connecting, im going to assume its a failure on my part and i should read more books.

 

Also, I must admit that I haven't read that 'essay' you wrote earlier. Way too many words. I know you're not sinicalypse, but you got me wondering there. So, there might not be a connection. But as long as we're not alienating that's OK, i guess. ;-)