>>They have done some great
>>things, but it may be
>>the case that the long-term
> I
>would say the printing press
>and the spread of literacy
>has brought lots of harm
>to the world.

Really? like what, Mein Kampf?
I'm talking on balance. Literacy is a great advance for mankind.

>>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.

It's interesting that you find it so uncontroversial that private companies should own parts of human life.

>>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.

Yeah, but cross-breeding to make new species is somewhat different from splicing fish DNA into corn.

>The
>most damaging study done on
>gmo's was about caterpillars suffering
>some ill-effects.

I'd rather they be held off the market until proven safe, or at least we should clearly know what we are getting, which companies (and WTO) oppose.

>
>>manufacturing:

What you basically say in your reply is "What's wrong with exploiting people when their own government isn't going to protect them?" Which, to me, means that YOU consider these people inferior to yourself. You wouldn't accept those same working conditions (especially with no prospect of advancement), why should they have to?

>It's not axes. It's fire.

They burnt the expanse that is now the Sahara in such a way that it would never regrow again? Where are you getting this info from?
1) Pull out an atlas and check out how big the Sahara desert is (and notice the desertic band that stretches from West Africa through to the Middle East. Was all that burnt down?).
2) Plants grow on volanic islands because the cooled lava contains the minerals they need. Farmers do slash-and-burn because it provides for fertile soil. Burning such a huge forest into a desert would imply vast means to keep fires going for years and years without discontinuing. Without ever letting anything grow back. Does that seem feasible to you?

>>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.

Another great piece of selective quoting. I was responding to the point about Easter Islanders cutting down all the trees.

>The elites of countries often work
>hand in hand with private
>Americans. The people always
>have a choice of electing/overthrowing
>their government.

That's the cycle that goes on far too much in many countries and helps to keep them down. They have no solid base to build up a solid country, and both the corrupt leaders, and especially the foreign governments/companies like it that way.

>Or mabye
>a more revolutionary idea, working
>somewhere else.

Maybe they can make more money where they are than elsewhere. However, that is not a reason to hold them for ransom and keep working conditions and such extremely poor.

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

What is a bedroom community? And I didn't say that they didn't have a choice. However, a choice between exploitation and even greater poverty is not much of a choice. Also remember that a lot of these places are not the West ("the land of opportunity").

>>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.

So why are so many people around the world starving? There's more than enough food. The EU would rather let food rot than sell it cheap. And you can check my stats in any world development review.

>The vast majority of western wealth
>is circular.

The vast majority of western wealth was made possible due to colonialism and slavery. That system has been refined to modern-day capitalism. You think that 20% of the world's population lives on 80% of global GNP simply because they were the best in a trade game between honest business-men?

>Poor people
>give it to rich people
>in some way or fashion.

And that is right? I guess it's fine when you're the rich person and can make it seem like it's what's best for the poor person.

>Show me causation in a specific
>example.

>>Ever heard of the Cold War?
>
>Ever hear that it's over.

Ever heard of the Gulf War?
Ever heard that it's not over?
One example among many of the US imposing insecurity. Not that they are the only one's doing it: France recently sided with a former dictator and aided him in overthrowing the democratically elected president of the Congo-Brazzaville, Pascal Lissouba, to reclaim the post he had owned for 30 years.


>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.

Most farmers don't give a fuck about the environment. Just like most business-men. Do you know how much topsoil is lost every year in the US wheat growing states? How much pollution cattle cause? How bad pesticides et al. are for the environment?

>Is it preferable to let
>people starve?

There are many ways of farming without damaging the environment. Unfortunately they don't generate huge corporate profits, and are brushed aside. Even when those systems are already in place and functioning, cf. the imposition of GM rice in India over functional traditional means.

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

I'm not talking about a particular disease. I'm talking about the general bad state of the mass-produced food we eat. Not only does it taste like crap compared to the real thing (obviously, if you've never tasted a real tomato, you won't be clamouring for any), but I don't think that eating beef laden with steriods, or having eaten ground-up animals (the cause of BSE) is going to be beneficial to your health.

It's great that you find that vast pools of human talent going to waste in jobs that don't interest them is not a problem. Maybe people could take care of their kids better if they didn't have to kill their minds at work for the better part of the day. Maybe they could even take time to read and be a bit more active, so as to qualify for Expertise's definition of a citizen. Maybe they could learn to play an instrument and contribute something more useful than the umpteenth pointless disposable good that they don't care about.

>Increased productivity without
>an increase in wage pressure.

Translation: work harder, earn the same, companies increase profits, and lay off as much as they can, the remaining people work harder...

>alienation. It is relatively
>a modern problem.

It's not that recent. Marx talked about it a lot.

I would prefer
>to be a low paid
>government employee than a high
>paid automotive technician.

Why is that?
Look, I think that "good" work is one in which you can express your individuality. When I was stacking shelves, or counting items in a warehouse, I felt that any fool could do that job. That's why I consider those jobs demeaning. There is nothing to be brought to them, and very little to take out of them. You don't, and can't, care about what you are producing. Then again, if someone feels they are truly fulfilling himself by stacking super-market shelves, that's great.

>Some folks leave society. Teddy
>Kazinsky, the unabomber, comes to
>mind.

Great example.

>>I'm talking about people's urge
>>to form societies.
>
>Is it organic or mechanical?

Please explain your question.

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

I had an answer to this, but I'm not going to bother with it, because Expertise and yourself will just give your pointless "That's life, roll with it." answer

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

As you like to say, "Now we're getting somewhere". (even though we're not, really).

>Ultimately nope. Folks hate each
>other.

Don't say it like it's a fact. Not everyone ascribes to Hobbes.


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

Should we start a debate about what freedom is? Briefly, rules don't necessarily reduce freedom. My freedom to shoot you in the street was taken away, but everyone's freedom to live was enhanced. I may have given up (more or less out of free will) the freedom to sleep around, but I gained many other freedoms. Like the freedom to come home late and not have to cook a meal for myself .

>Exactly. The fact that lots
>of nations do not have
>a water infrastructure is unrelated
>to the fact that Americans
>do.

As I said before, Western wealth and Southern poverty are co-dependent, can't have one without the other.

The Romans built
>aqueducts without major technology.

That was the highest technology of the time. They were very advanced.

>I've seen plenty of wastewater
>treatements that are low tech.
> You don't need capital
>investment for clean water.

Then you should go to these countries and tell them that, cos they're obviously too stupid to do it for themselves.

>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.

Companies and gov'ts are to blame because they actively participate in this (not just US). We are to blame because we passively participate in this (and yet are essential to the processes).

>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.

Are you sure about that? And why not, because they suddenly turned good-hearted?

>westerners do not rouse
>afrikans from their sleep and
>put them into ships.

Hell no, they pay for their own plane ticket now. Or better yet, stay where they are, consume your goods and sell you cheap stuff.

>>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.
>
Check out http://www.jubilee2000uk.org
quotes:
"Each year developing countries pay the West nine times more in debt repayments than they receive in grants."
"Africa spends four times as much on debt repayment as she does on healthcare."
Guess who all that money is owed to?

> But if you don't
>have a health, education, physical
>infrastructure, you can not get
>into the race with the
>G-8 nations.

If you've been pillaged for 100s of years, it kind of makes things harder.

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

"The west is supreme, our lifestyle is the best", is what you are saying.

> 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)

True, I was a bit quick in my writing. But do you consider that charity? I don't. Making sure that old people who've worked all their lives don't end their days in poverty isn't charity.

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

nifty things like countless wars? Yes, military research is often the basis for everyday technology (mobile phones, to name one). I don't see how that justifies them. Especially as most military around the world ain't produced shit but body-bags.

>In some states you can abort
>up until the baby is
>born.

That is completely stupid and pointless.

>You need stats on that.

Well, that's the reason. Do I really have to go look for medical evidence just to carry on an internet debate?

>Abortion is not like getting
>a mole removed and complications
>can plague it at any
>stage.

Obviously, but there are more risks at 8 months than at 2.

>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?

Did I say it was? However, the foetus is in the unique position of not actually being an independent entity. Thus the mother has full control of it and can decide what she does with it.

>so you would prefer a national
>referenda to launch?

Why not? That way I doubt we'd ever use them offensively.

>You do what you have to
>do to survive.

If you have to destroy the planet to survive, then you do that?

If
>someone threatens you, you don't
>back down. It's the
>American way.

And the rest of the world is just a bunch of bitch-ass pussies.


AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")