>>What other country has been to
>>the Moon?
>>Who is at the forefront of
>>medicine, agriculture, manufacturing....
>>
>
>Yes there are good and bad
>aspects to the US system.

Thank you for admitting it. Now we're getting somewhere.

>They have done some great
>things, but it may be
>the case that the long-term
>cost of these great things
>is higher than their immediate
>benefit.

The proliferation of the automobile will definitely have some long term effects, both positive and negative. There are lots of inventions that have had that effect over time. I would say the printing press and the spread of literacy has brought lots of harm to the world. Islam and Christianity should be dropped in there too.


>medecine: when pharmaceutical companies own genes,
>let's see how great that
>turns out to be.

Pharmaceutical companies can't own genes. The best they can do is patent specific genes for a period of 17 years. Most of which will be spent in development of some drug. And considering that there are millions upon millions of genes.

More importantly, just because someone brings something to market, doesn't mean everyone can take advantage(or abuse) the product.

>agriculture: if we find out that
>the cocktail of GMOs and
>pesticides we eat are pretty
>damn unhealthy, let's see how
>everyone likes that

The big question is if. We've been genetically modifiying food for thousands of years. We called it grafting back in the day. The most damaging study done on gmo's was about caterpillars suffering some ill-effects.

>manufacturing: so you're proud that you're
>country works millions of South
>Asians to the bone?

My country doesn't do that. American companies are attracted to cheap labor. American companies often do not own the factories, but contract it out. That's why Polo and Gap can be made in the same place. The folks don't unionize because of the greed and control of foreign governments. Furthermore, Nike doesn't employ 99% of the Indonesian workforce. Apparently other folks find something else to do.

How do you explain the other workers in these South Asian countries that do not work for American imperialists?

>>Who? Probably the ancient Africans who
>>turned the Saharan Forest into
>>a desert.
>
>Climatic change made it a desert
>something like 10,000 years ago
>(it's been a long time
>since I read the figure,
>but I don't think it's
>any less than that). Do
>you know how big the
>Sahara is? I don't see
>how primitive axes and low
>population could turn it into
>a desert.

It's not axes. It's fire.

>Is that equivalent to the environmental
>destruction caused by, say, daily
>automobile traffic?

If you take into account the so-called greenhouse gas effect, sure.

>This statement is so ridiculous. The
>UK had its colonies. The
>US highly improved that system
>greatly: it doesn't have to
>maintain colonies, simply exploit (or
>rather, help private companies exploit)
>"sovereign" countries.

The elites of countries often work hand in hand with private Americans. The people always have a choice of electing/overthrowing their government. Or mabye a more revolutionary idea, working somewhere else. At some point, many folks who work in factories decided farming wasn't where it was at.

And please don't tell me that these workers do not have a choice. Irian Jaya is not a Nike bedroom community.

>>>The most succesful in raising
>>>a generation of people who
>>>don't care (the very people
>>>you hate)?
>>
>>We do not have a monopoly
>>on that. IN fact
>>that should be something commended.
>> Our country has created
>>an environment where the ills
>>of the rest of the
>>world aren't outside our doors
>>everyday. The vast majority
>>of Americans do not know
>>what real hunger is.
>
>A. You didn't answer my question.

It was addresed to Expertise. I don't hate the people.

>B. The vast majority of Americans
>do not know what real
>hunger is because nearly half
>of the world's population lives
>at or below the international
>poverty line ($1/day), because 4%
>of the world's population lives
>on 25% of its resources.

That doesn't make sense at all. American farms produce enough food for more than our population.

>Western wealth and 3rd World
>poverty are highly linked, but
>none of you seem willing
>to recognise that.

The vast majority of western wealth is circular. Poor people give it to rich people in some way or fashion. In cases of G-8 nations have export surpluses, it is to other G-8 nations.

Show me causation in a specific example.

>>No American is worried about
>>mortar shells or terrorist bombings.
>
>But a lot of them seem
>worried about getting shot on
>the street.

Few of them are actually in that danger though. Lots of Americans worry about the stranger with a gun and some baggy jeans because our media is incredibly biased.

>> The most succesful
>>>in creating maintaining the world
>>>in an unprecedented state of
>>>insecurity?
>>
>>Who is insecure?
>>
>
>Ever heard of the Cold War?

Ever hear that it's over.

>>Cheap grain and meat is definitely
>>pointless.
>>
>
>Especially if it's going to kill
>or slowly poison me and
>my environment.

How do you figure that farming is going to poison you and your environment. If anyone is concerned about staying green, it's farmers. They live on the land, so they won't poison it.

Do you think
>that the extensive farming practiced
>in the US is actually
>good for the environment?

I won't even go into the environmental aspects of farming. Is it preferable to let people starve?

>That
>hormone-injected beef is good for
>humans?

The argument that it brings on menses at an earlier age has not been proven.

>See above. And millions of Americans
>have demeaning and uninteresting jobs.

And they do not have to work them. There are lots of starving artists out there who would love the company. The fact that boring jobs exist is not a problem with the economy. Perhaps some people do not find their primary identity in work. Perhaps some people work a 40 hour job for a paycheck and find fulfillment in their families or in their churches.

>My problem is (going off
>on a tangent expressing my
>ideals) that the more technology
>we have, the harder people
>work and more alienated they
>feel.

They work the same amount but produce more. It's Greenspans wish. Increased productivity without an increase in wage pressure.

Alienation from work is another issue altogether. That is more a function of organization than technology. As management breaks people up into divisions and then divides them into cubicles, putting them farther and farther away from the end item, and supplementing a real relationship with ideas like "team building", you then start to see alienation. It is relatively a modern problem.

Somehow that doesn't seem
>right to me. For me,
>progress would be for us
>to spend less and less
>time working at uninteresting jobs
>(although many people have interesting
>jobs they love) and more
>time doing what can truly
>enrich us.

I live in America. I have a Protestant work ethic. I get my identity from work. I am less of a person if I have a less prestigious job. I would prefer to be a low paid government employee than a high paid automotive technician. Etc...

In essence you would have to attack the American psyche in order to get at what truly enriches us. Most Americans believe that it is work.

>>Because most people do not know
>>another way of life.
>
>Who knows a non-social life? Mowgli?

Some folks leave society. Teddy Kazinsky, the unabomber, comes to mind. Ted was also pretty racist based on my reading of the manifesto, but that's a discussion for another time.

>
>>No one asked me to
>>join this society. I
>>was born into it.
>>
>Whether or not you had a
>choice is irrelevant. The fact
>of the matter is that
>your living in a society
>has influenced you (not determined
>you).

I'm not arguing that it hasn't.

>I'm talking about people's urge
>to form societies.

Is it organic or mechanical?

>See above. Why do you refuse
>to admit that one's environment
>influences one's behavior?

I'm not saying it doesn't. But for most it comes down to personal choice.


>Not because we actually need each
>other and because we are
>alike. Too bad you didn't
>pop out of the air
>fully-formed so you could live
>your solitary life.

I'm not sure if I would want that.

>>It is an axiom. How
>>is everyone not an individual?
>
>What does saying everyone is an
>indivdual mean?

It means that each person is unique. Each person is different from another person. They share commonalities though.

>>What really needs to be said
>>is that all individuals are
>>not going to agree on
>>the right course of action.
>
>And? Are you saying we can't
>live together?

Ultimately nope. Folks hate each other. You get past a nuclear family, and things start to break down. You name the group, I can show you some hate. It happens within families, extended families, friends, classes, races, nations.

I don't agree
>with my girl-friend on every
>single thing, yet we mysteriously
>manage to live together. The
>secret? Compromise, understanding and freedom.

You don't have real freedom in a committed relationship. you give up some of your freedom in order to have that relationship.

>Those aren't ideals. They're necessities. Which
>a lot of people around
>the world don't have enough
>of (especially clean water). But
>that has nothing to do
>with you.

Exactly. The fact that lots of nations do not have a water infrastructure is unrelated to the fact that Americans do. The Romans built aqueducts without major technology. I've seen plenty of wastewater treatements that are low tech. You don't need capital investment for clean water.

As far as food goes, in many places there is plenty of food. It's just too damn expensive for folks to buy. Unrelated to the American economy.

>>Laws are flexible and should be
>>overridden by public opinion.
>
>Finally, some common sense!

Ad hominem...

\>>How so?
>
>This question betrays your ignorance of
>the world beyond the US
>and American influence in it.

Please regale me with your tales of Shell oil in Nigeria, or ITT copper mines in Latin America, or Union Carbide in India.

You still haven't addressed why you think Americans are to blame for this. Private American corporations have to deal with local government in order to do business. American corporations don't open ports and enslave workers with guns, anymore that is. No one forces people to go to factories. Unlike back in the day, westerners do not rouse afrikans from their sleep and put them into ships.

>Sorry to say this, but
>do some reading.

another ad hominen attack. What makes you folks on the Left think that I haven't done my reading. If I hear another person here try to do Noam Chomsky or Jello Biafra impression... Bring some arguments to the table.

>On average, for every dollar of
>foreign aid given, about 8
>or 9 are taken.

How do you figure. Please point me to your sources.

>Plus,
>foreign aid is used to
>control recipient countries.

Just like credit card companies control americans. Can you resist credit? Can you learn to delay gratification?

In essence 3rd world countries want the western lifestyle without having the economic infrastructure to support it. Westerners lend them the money, hoping that things will turn around (yeah right). But if you don't have a health, education, physical infrastructure, you can not get into the race with the G-8 nations.

When folks don't want to live like the west, how is their lifestyle? Take a look at the South Pacific.

>If that's
>charity... Social security ain't charity.
>You pay for it so
>you can use it when
>you need to.

You don't understand social security then. I pay taxes so my grandparents can get a check. It doesn't go into an account earmarked for me. (although you can find out how much you've contributed)

>>My tax
>>dollars go to all sorts
>>of things I might, or
>>might not approve of.
>
>Yeah, like financing dictatorships and buying
>ever more weapons.

Weapons are important. They push research. Without weapons we wouldn't have the computer, or countless other nifty things

>>>go to?
>>
>>Exactly. Now you're coming around.
>>
>I like the selective quoting of
>what I wrote.

you're welcome.

>>It goes both ways. Most
>>people would agree with choice,
>>and most would also think
>>that a 7 month old
>>fetus is also a person.
>
>You can abort at 7 months?!?

In some states you can abort up until the baby is born. Finding a doctor to do so will be a problem. Actually finding a doctor who will perform an abortion is difficult in and of itself.

Contrast this with Japan, who kept the pill illegal so that abortions would still be lucrative.

>In France it's limited to
>3. After that you can't
>abort. Mainly because it becomes
>very dangerous for the woman.

You need stats on that. Abortion is not like getting a mole removed and complications can plague it at any stage.

>But a 7 month old
>feotus could be made to
>survive if it were born
>then, so it should be
>considered a person.

People can do that at 6 months now.

But aborting
>at 7 months is just
>crazy.

Some people don't want children.

>> Most people just do
>>not want to say that
>>they are okay with murder,
>
>Abortion is a form of murder,
>which is why everything should
>be done to avoid it,

Why? We murder people everyday. Everytime someone comes up with a new car design they know that a certain percentage of people are going to die. There is a whole industry around these facts.

>but comparing aborting a one
>month old non-concious mass of
>cells to an innocent black
>man on death row is
>insulting.

Life is life. Is it okay to kill off mentally retarded folks, people in vegetative states, anyone not fit to walk and think for themselves?

>>You can try and convince the
>>masses, but unless you're pulling
>>the strings you don't really
>>have any power.
>
>Then how do you explain that
>women got the vote?

Good question.

That
>apartheid ended, that desegregation happened.

Desegregation never really happened. But the person that pulled those strings was Lyndon Baines Johnson. MLK, SNCC, CORE, didn't write any laws. (we could talk about NAACP legal defense fund later)

>>Or should you leave the uneducated
>>masses with the nuclear launch
>>controls?
>
>I wouldn't trust most of our
>"leaders" with the nuclear launch
>controls in a real pressure
>situation.

so you would prefer a national referenda to launch?

>Common sense seems to say that
>having weapons that can destroy
>our planet in minutes isn't
>very smart in the first
>place.

You do what you have to do to survive. If someone threatens you, you don't back down. It's the American way.

k. orr