>Really? like what, Mein Kampf?

The Bible.

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

They don't own parts of human life. What they own is the right to develop drugs from a certain part of the human genome. There is no ownership of my personal gene for the grey hair amongst my locks. In essence they own a plot of land in the middle of nowhere hoping that the federal highway system will come through and buy it.

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

It's slower and less effective. It has to be done. If people are starving all over the world because they can't grow food, this is my answer.

>
>>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,

So you would make people starve for an additional 20 years? Kill millions to save a few hundred thousand?

It is a opportunity cost question. How much are you willing to risk for the greater good.

>or at least we should
>clearly know what we are
>getting, which companies (and WTO)
>oppose.

Precisely because of luddites afraid of technology.

>>
>>>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?"

There is not exploitation. It is a loaded word. If the work opportunities in a place offers wages at a certain level and an Western corporation builds a plant there in order to take advantage of those already in place conditions why is it called exploitation.

Which, to me, means
>that YOU consider these people
>inferior to yourself.

They live at a different standard of living. Things I take for granted, constant electricity, air conditioning, clean water, cable tv are luxuries in other countries. You seem to be making the argument that American business should be recreating the American Suburban lifestyle everywhere that they have factories.

That sounds crazy to me. In essence you believe the West should make every country in the world into a suburb.

You wouldn't
>accept those same working conditions
>(especially with no prospect of
>advancement), why should they have
>to?

They don't have to. There are many other opportunities to make a living in those countries. I would not be suprised that all the manufacturing/factory jobs were just as sweatshop like. But being a fisherman or a farmer tends to be harder work and longer hours. What other opportunities does a person in that situation actually have? Furthermore should it be the west's responsibility to broaden those horizons.

Do they have a right to a Western way of life?

>>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?

I'll bring you a link.

>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?).

Deserts just don't happen, they grow over time through misuse of land.

>2) Plants grow on volanic islands
>because the cooled lava contains
>the minerals they need.

I don't remember nitrates being in lava, but I can check my geology books. It's academic anyway.

Farmers
>do slash-and-burn because it provides
>for fertile soil.

The method is inefficient because the land becomes fallow soon after one or 2 planting seasons.

>Without ever letting anything grow
>back. Does that seem feasible
>to you?

I'll get you the data.

>Another great piece of selective quoting.

I do what I can.

>I was responding to the
>point about Easter Islanders cutting
>down all the trees.

And that's what I meant.

>That's the cycle that goes on
>far too much in many
>countries and helps to keep
>them down.

So choosing your own government by way of force keeps countries down? Down from what?

> They have no
>solid base to build up
>a solid country,

Build it into? A place with stoplights and convenience stores?

and both
>the corrupt leaders, and especially
>the foreign governments/companies like it
>that way.

They benefit from it, but they would also benefit from a US minded populace who lets the politicians and businessmen take care of everything. US elites have a much better way of dealing with dissidents, it's called freedom of the press. You can publish all sorts of damaging information, but it gets washed away in a sea of information.

>Maybe they can make more money
>where they are than elsewhere.

So they exchange good working conditions for more money. So in essence greed keeps them down.

>However, that is not a
>reason to hold them for
>ransom and keep working conditions
>and such extremely poor.

It's all relative.

>>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?

A bedroom community is a suburb where workers live, which is away from their place of business. Like places outside of the Bay Area in san francisco are mostly residential places with few real productive industries. The folks then commute to their jobs in other locales.

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.

It would be just poverty without the American corporations there.

>Also
>remember that a lot of
>these places are not the
>West ("the land of opportunity").

Every place is a land of opportunity. As long as people have desires you have an opportunity.

>So why are so many people
>around the world starving?

They don't have access to food. They have drought. It costs a lot to move tons of grain around the world.

There's
>more than enough food. The
>EU would rather let food
>rot than sell it cheap.

It's to keep their farmers working. It has political expediency, it doesn't make sense from a humanitarian stand point.

>>The vast majority of western wealth
>>is circular.
>
>The vast majority of western wealth
>was made possible due to
>colonialism and slavery.

How does the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, benefit from colonialism and slavery? Outside of the fact that he has white privilege, so do many of the posters on Okay Player.

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?

Gross National Product does not equal all of the resources in the world. Somethings aren't a resource unless you have use for them. If I have uranium in my hills, it is useless to me unless I can get it refined and made into nuclear fuel for my nuclear power plant to serve the power needs of my community.

>
>>Poor people
>>give it to rich people
>>in some way or fashion.
>
>And that is right?

In general that's how it works. Folks benefit from the labor of others.

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.

They don't have a choice.

>
>>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?

Yes. Not related to a nuclear threat. It was a fight over an actual American interest, cheap oil, unlike Somalia or Bosnia. Did Saddam have a legitimate interest in bring Kuwait back into the fold?

>Most farmers don't give a fuck
>about the environment.

How do you figure.

Just like
>most business-men. Do you know
>how much topsoil is lost
>every year in the US
>wheat growing states?

Loss of topsoil is a natural consequence of farming.

How much
>pollution cattle cause?

Much of which can be recycled for biomass energy or fertilizer. Unless you're referring to the CO2 given off as a result of them living.

How bad
>pesticides et al. are for
>the environment?

Pesticides are bad. As are volcanic eruptions.

But with that in mind, what do you propose.

The facts
It is more expensive to grow food than it is to sell it. Hence grain storage, subsidies, et cetera.

Do we then stop growing as much food? Or do we increase the cost of growing the food even more by sending it abroad to people in countries that can not support themselves with their own agriculture?

>>Is it preferable to let
>>people starve?
>
>There are many ways of farming
>without damaging the environment.

None of which can feed billions of people.

Unfortunately
>they don't generate huge corporate
>profits, and are brushed aside.

Raw food stuffs isn't that profit laden. Like office supplies, food suppliers make money off of volume.

>Even when those systems are
>already in place and functioning,
>cf. the imposition of GM
>rice in India over functional
>traditional means.

Does India produce more or less rice?

>>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.

What is bad about it the food we eat?

Not
>only does it taste like
>crap compared to the real
>thing

Taste is relative.

(obviously, if you've never
>tasted a real tomato, you
>won't be clamouring for any),

I've had tomatos from someone's backyard. I don't know if that's real enough for you.

>but I don't think that
>eating beef laden with steriods,

Steroids occur naturally. Although not the ones injected in beef.

>or having eaten ground-up animals
>(the cause of BSE) is
>going to be beneficial to
>your health.

The prions that cause BSE couldn't have been forseen by anyone. In fact the method of transmission for BSE was pretty novel at the time it came out. It is an argument against cannibalism.

>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.

Why must you be interested in your job? That's a pretty elitist western way of looking at work.

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.

Why do you think folks kill their minds at work?

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.

You are assuming a lot about the person working the dead end job.

>>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...

The workers of today get their revenge now. Since we know that company loyalty is an antiquated notion, companies are scrambling to find ways to keep people. This will all change when the economy goes down.

>>alienation. It is relatively
>>a modern problem.
>
>It's not that recent. Marx talked
>about it a lot.

Modern age is what I meant. Folks have hated work for years. But work changed when Taylorism became the rule.

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

I don't necessarily prefer that, but it is a typical American middle class attitude.

>Look, I think that "good" work
>is one in which you
>can express your individuality.

Again, why should work be an outlet for individuality?

When
>I was stacking shelves, or
>counting items in a warehouse,
>I felt that any fool
>could do that job.

And any fool could do that job. If you were making a good wage doing that, would it matter to you that anyone else could do it?

That's
>why I consider those jobs
>demeaning.

So you want all people to only work jobs that makes them use their intellect. Sorry potna, but at least half of us are in the lower 50% of the IQ chart. There are always going to be jobs that no one wants to do. There are also going to be a large amount of people who can not be doctors, engineers, ad exec's, musicians, and painters.

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.

Why should you really care? I mean unless it's your stuff you're making, or your business, or good forbid you are have a protestant work ethic which says I must take pride in my work...

Then again, if
>someone feels they are truly
>fulfilling himself by stacking super-market
>shelves, that's great.

Why you want to take that opportunity away from them is beyond me. Some folks aren't cut out to do jobs with higher skill sets. People are different.

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

Thanks, I thought you would appreciate it.

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

In essence is it something that we come up with independently, or is it something taught to us?

>>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).

Of course we're getting somewhere. I'm arguing finding holes in your argument and Expertise's argument. I want to know what makes the left and the right tick.

>>Ultimately nope. Folks hate each
>>other.
>
>Don't say it like it's a
>fact. Not everyone ascribes to
>Hobbes.

Okay let me just say with any group of people bigger than 1, folks will find some type of difference. Often that difference leads to ill will.


>Should we start a debate about
>what freedom is? Briefly, rules
>don't necessarily reduce freedom.

Yes they do. Rules reduce your personal freedom. You can not be with other people if you are in a committed relationship (well you can if you are in an open one, but that's another topic)

My
>freedom to shoot you in
>the street was taken away,
>but everyone's freedom to live
>was enhanced.

A loss of personal freedom is still a loss. There is a greater good gained.

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

Of course you can. There are plenty of folks who live outside the world theater who do okay.

>The Romans built
>>aqueducts without major technology.
>
>That was the highest technology of
>the time. They were very
>advanced.

But the technology that they used is something that a lot of folks can do without significant capital investment.

>
>>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,

I was specifically thinking about a plan in India to clean wastewater before it entered the Ganges. In essence they set up settling tanks and gravity was used to clean water and return it to the river. But the powers that be wanted a more western style system that relied on electricity, which is not all that reliable in the particular area. The low cost low tech very feasible idea was thrown out for the western way of life.

I don't think everyone in the world should live like folks in the west.

>cos they're obviously too stupid
>to do it for themselves.

I doubt that. There are all sorts of "problems" that folks in lesser developed nations face outside of mass education.

>>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).

But aren't the foreign governments and people more at fault, if anyone can really be at fault in an exchange for goods and services?

>Are you sure about that?

Give me an example. The only slavery that I know of goes on in Sudan and Haiti. The scenario I described was the one used by Americans and the British in Asia back in the 1800's.

And
>why not, because they suddenly
>turned good-hearted?

There are cleaner ways to get people to do what you want them to do. Education, Media, or better yet consumerism. The real problem with most of these spots is that they know that there is a different standard of living. American ad exec's pump the 90210 life to the world. Maybe the working people don't see it, but I guarantee the business owners and foreign educated leaders of their country are up on things. (why are so many foreign leaders educated in America or in the West?)

>>westerners do not rouse
>>afrikans from their sleep and
>>put them into ships.
>
>Hell no, they pay for their
>own plane ticket now.

So that they can fly here get an education and not go back home. It's called the brain drain.

Or
>better yet, stay where they
>are, consume your goods and
>sell you cheap stuff.

We both get something. I get a worthless piece of paper and they get a badly made television.

>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."

A grant is free money. A debt repayment is paying back a loan. There is a distinct difference. Should we then forgive the debt of these countries? What if they want more money?

>"Africa spends four times as much
>on debt repayment as she
>does on healthcare."

Africa, the continent, doesn't have a health infrastructure. Africa probably spends more on weapons than on debt repayment. (although I have a feeling folks are borrowing to buy weapons..)

>Guess who all that money is
>owed to?

I'm still waiting for my check.

>> 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.

They were like that before the "pillaging".

>>
>>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'm not saying that. In fact what I am saying is that the American consumer lifestyle that the world envy's is the problem with this entire debate. The Right says we don't need to do anything other than rape the land, I mean capital investment. The Left says we need a mass wealth transfer program. I ask is there an alternative to the suburban mentality of 1st world elites. Neither side even considers that life can be something other than the convenient comfortable life that we live right now.

When I started working I wondered where did my money go
- rent 36%
- food - 17% (groceries and going out with my folks)
- loans - 9%
- Car - 9%
- credit - 6%
- utilties - 4%
- laundry - 3%

I had about 15% left at the end of the month. It didn't seem like a lot, but I had what I needed.

It then occurred to me that the computers, the clothes, the gadgets, the car stuff I wanted, and I was considering to get on credit, I didn't really need. I sure wanted them. I wanted clothes for work, so I could talk to girls, a computer for the net, a car to drift in, et cetera..

The folks who tell me that they are poor aren't really that poor. They are comparing themselves to the folks they see on Extra, or maybe the one guy who is a comp sci major who is making 60k a year. (in Austin you need about 16-17K to live in a nice place, be fed, and have a car)

Let's bring this back to the 3rd world. You have lots of folks who live a year on less than I make in a day. beyond any notion of American poverty, i'm talking about subsistence level of poverty.

So let's look at life from a non-economic point of view.

I need to eat, I need to sleep somewhere, and I need to do that for the rest of my life.

That is being accomplished all over the planet without the lifestyle of the Americas. But folks want to live like us, hence all the stress and strife.

>> 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?

Yes.

>I
>don't. Making sure that old
>people who've worked all their
>lives don't end their days
>in poverty isn't charity.

They should have provided for themselves. In most other spots the family takes care of them.

>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.

You would exhange all technological advance for no more weapons?

>>In some states you can abort
>>up until the baby is
>>born.
>
>That is completely stupid and pointless.

Why? Just because it is disagreeable to you doesn't mean that a woman should not be able to choose what she does with her body.

>
>>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?

Life which isn't conscious is not important in your eyes. "A non conscious mass". Kill folks in comas.

However,
>the foetus is in the
>unique position of not actually
>being an independent entity.

A child isn't independent either. But we have all sorts of crazy laws protecting them. I say until you're 18 or independent you don't have any rights. The law doesn't agree with me, but the rest of society does.

Thus
>the mother has full control
>of it and can decide
>what she does with it.

this extends past child birth.

>>so you would prefer a national
>>referenda to launch?
>
>Why not? That way I doubt
>we'd ever use them offensively.

I don't have that much faith. I think if the American public was given a choice between launching a nuke at Saddam, or better yet vietnam, or sending thousands of soldiers to die many would choose atomic weapons.

>>You do what you have to
>>do to survive.
>
>If you have to destroy the
>planet to survive, then you
>do that?

It's been going on for eons. It's not 'right' but it is the way of life.

k. orr

http://breddanansi.tumblr.com/