Humanity is almost 7 billion people. Now that the mortality rates have decreased, there is a never ending population bloom. Makes me think about Darwin; if natural selection kept the survival of the fittest, what is happening now?
From what ive heard, most governments promote the abstinence doctrine towards "reproductive health". Why so?:
a) To win some good-buddy points with ultra-conservative groups.
b) Because they know its not a true stance that holds up outside of paper:
Its not a true stance, because, the age for sexual relations nowadays is surely 14-15 years of age, and some propaganda here and there is not gonna stop them from getting it on.
So the government accomplishes its real goal, young people having sex. And if the government is talking about abstinence, they are not talking about sex with preservatives, and if they don't have sex with preservatives, they get pregnant - And if they get pregnant, then you have 2 persons that probably will not make it thru college and that will have to join the work force – and if they join the work force, chances are, their child will join the uneducated work force someday too.
Nowadays, big business and government are synonyms. And about big business and uneducated work force: nowadays there is a disintegration of worker unions and a loss of their power, which used to be significant. Why is that? Maybe because there is so much "uneducated work force", that the supply and demand tables have turned. Now the patron has all the cards. The world is turning into one gigantic China.
Why is there cheap labor in China? Because there is so much people. If a group of people demand to be paid $10 wages, and the employer refuses to pay that amount, then they would normally be in a Mexican stand-off or would have to start negotiating. But if theres another group of people that would do the job for $9 wages, then theres no need to negotiate. And with this type of system, why stop at $9 wages?
And there aren't any nice things to say about the greedy top 20%... Im not sure what would be a good estimate for a good living... we perhaps live in different economic universes... id say id be content with an annual income of $27,000... and why would any person (that doesn't have offsprings) want any more than that? With it I can pay rent, pay for my cars crap, pay taxes, food, clothes, technology, bills, etc etc etc...
Id like to tell you who would want to: people that buy into all the materialistic crap we are fed daily and people with a bottomless pit of emptiness.
Dysgenic masses to my left, greedy sickos to my right; in front of me a wasteland.
Not bad!
Are you, by any chance, one of the Brazilian contingent?
Thanks.
No, im from the neighbouring south, a.k.a. swine flu and legal drugs.
SWEET!
Quote from: JohNyx on September 19, 2009, 01:22:57 AM
No, im from the neighbouring south, a.k.a. swine flu and legal drugs.
South....Carolina?
Distrito Federal, México.
Biggest city here - with 20,000,000 people.
Holy fuck, that's a huge city! Jesus. My city has less than 400,000.
Mexico rawks. I know it's fucked up, but I still love it.
Quote from: Jenne on September 19, 2009, 04:25:55 AM
Mexico rawks. I know it's fucked up, but I still love it.
I have never been! My plan for this year involved getting my passport and going and camping on the beach for a couple of weeks Might still happen, if I can ever afford my passport.
Quote from: Nigel on September 19, 2009, 02:32:55 AM
Holy fuck, that's a huge city! Jesus. My city has less than 400,000.
My
country has less than that city.
(but my city is about 200k, in case anyone wondered)
I can't even imagine a city that size. The largest city in the US has less than eight and a half million. The biggest city I've ever been to is Phoenix, with a million and a half.
Now I REALLY want to go to Mexico City.
I have lived in the past at usa's california for 3 and a half years... Woodland Hills, Canoga Park, Van Nuys... Ive been to Las Vegas...
And i was born in Tijuana... also have lived in a 1,000,000 population city called Queretaro, 3 hours from D.F....
The food and water for foreigners is quite unhealthy... E. coli anyone?
Shouldnt trust the police, but if you get in trouble, be sure to have some $5s $20s or $50s if you do... You can get off the hook from drunk driving with about $20...
In the year and a half ive lived in DF: i was almost mugged twice... there was an earthquake that made lightposts swerve about 20º... 4 blocks from where i live there was a shoot out between drug traffickers and federal police... the swine flu crap...
And even do the "war on drugs" is in different places that are at least 4 hours away, theres a 5,000 body count just this year...
We have an anti-pollution car program, where you have to pass exhaust test 2 times a year... and everyone cannot circulate once a week...
This obviously isnt even close to describing anything i guess.
You make me miss Mexico. And I love your phrase for THIS side of California! :D Ah, Baja...I will get back to you someday...
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on September 19, 2009, 07:45:25 PM
I can't even imagine a city that size. The largest city in the US has less than eight and a half million. The biggest city I've ever been to is Phoenix, with a million and a half.
Now I REALLY want to go to Mexico City.
Joh is using the metro area numbers for the city, if you use those Portland is over 2 million, and New York comes in at just under 19 million.
None of you live in real cities!
(except for 000)
Not one of your 'cities' has bought their city rights from your king!
you have no right to build a wall around you city, or have a militia of your own.
you just live in sad, sad towns.
that's right, bunch of puny sissy "urban" wannabees.
what will you do when the highwaymen get organised huh?
or when a foreign power decides to invade?
NOTHING, THATS WHAT!
because you have no city rights you have no city wall or militia to defend your rights.
you are sooooo fucked.
PS
me too btw, my town was built after the crown stopped selling city rights.
What would be the point of a wall? 86% of our men have fired guns, and 51% of women have too. You have to cross the Atlantic to get to us, and we have the mightiest navy and airforce the world has ever seen.
Fuck your walls.
Edited to include women.
Our navy is complete crap and our airforce pilots can't even land UAVs reliably.
Also, Salt Lake has (had?) a wall.
Quote from: Requia ☣ on January 08, 2010, 08:04:13 PM
Our navy is complete crap and our airforce pilots can't even land UAVs reliably.
The navy: Look at this utter bullshit. Obviously not useful in wars.
(http://i518.photobucket.com/albums/u346/heinous_simian/USS_Nimitz_in_Victoria_Canada_036.jpg)
Damn skippy! Look at those planes in the middle - cowering in fear with their wings over their eyes.
One wrong U-turn and they all go in the drink.
Please.
Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 05:24:55 AM
Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)
Government knows abstinence as a contraceptive method does not work, because it has statistical knkowledge of its population's tendencies. First sexual relation age is lowering each year. The government knows teenagers are not gonna stop from having sex.
Government promotes abstinence as a contraceptive method just to be in good terms with the powerful far right.
The far rights agenda is ideological, while the governments agenda is profit.
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance = more profit.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 05:46:24 AM
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance
Maybe I'm being stupid but how do you get that second one?
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 05:46:24 AM
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance
Maybe I'm being stupid but how do you get that second one?
The "China effect":
When you get enough people, labour becomes very cheap.
It becomes very cheap because of the "supply-demand"; as in there is a lot of supply of work force, while there isnt that much of a demand for it.
And the protection syndicates offered goes to shit, because to have any leverage stemmed from syndicates, there needs to be organization.
In 1910 there were 1,650 million people in the world, 1950 there were 2,521 million; in 2008 there were 6,707 million people.
If im not mistaken, when syndicates were at its most powerful was around 1910 (by regions it varies), while in 1950 they started to decline in their influence power over decisions, while nowadays their power is null compared to those days.
The population from 1910 to 1950 increased 152%, while from 1910 to 2008 is 406%; the more people you need to organize to make a difference, the harder it becomes.
And its even more hard to organize, when people that are uneducated, with the burden of children, because that makes them less prone to look towards the future and more for instant gratification, and sometimes refusing to strike, because that would imply not bringing food to the table of their families when they are already living paycheck to paycheck.
I see now. Thanks.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 04:11:09 PM
One wrong U-turn and they all go in the drink.
Please.
I can't find any reports of us losing Navy ships in battle for several decades. Either its classified (not sure how you could keep a secret like that though) or what. Still, the US Navy isn't known for its heavy casualties.
This is about the pointlessness of walls, though. Walls do not keep airplanes, artillery, tanks, or even soldiers at bay.
So what's the big shit over walls?
Quote from: Felix on January 10, 2010, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 04:11:09 PM
One wrong U-turn and they all go in the drink.
Please.
I can't find any reports of us losing Navy ships in battle for several decades. Either its classified (not sure how you could keep a secret like that though) or what. Still, the US Navy isn't known for its heavy casualties.
This is about the pointlessness of walls, though. Walls do not keep airplanes, artillery, tanks, or even soldiers at bay.
So what's the big shit over walls?
It's not about walls exactly, its about the right to build a wall.
you haven't bought that right from your king, so you don't have a city.
Quote from: Regret on January 10, 2010, 11:13:50 AM
It's not about walls exactly, its about the right to build a wall.
you haven't bought that right from your king, so you don't have a city.
In UK all you need to be a city is a cathedral . . .
Having a wall probably means you are only a town and can join the "The Walled Towns Friendship Circle" - a cute marketing ploy started in my local walled town of Tenby. If you want to be a "city" build yourself a cathedral modern "cities" are too big to wall even if its just a notional wall to prove you have the right to do it.
@Felix Yeah, yeah, yeah we all know how big your army & navy and airforce are [yawn] You buggers just have to have the biggest of everything :wink: but it takes the biscuit when you diss us old-fashioned types for having walls then admit to having the biggest MOAT in history - the Atlantic . . .
Jesus fucking hell, when did this board return to the inanity of 2006? I hate all you fuckers.
China has the biggest wall.
EOT.
Quote from: Felix on January 10, 2010, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 09, 2010, 04:11:09 PM
One wrong U-turn and they all go in the drink.
Please.
I can't find any reports of us losing Navy ships in battle for several decades. Either its classified (not sure how you could keep a secret like that though) or what. Still, the US Navy isn't known for its heavy casualties.
US Marine General Van Riper bought down over half of the Persian Gulf fleet with a bunch of fishing vessels, light aircraft, hand-held radios and improvised explosives during a war exercise in 2002. His force was meant to match the force of a third world nation, like Iran, as preparations for a possible invasion. Blue Team losses were so bad the Navy refloated several killed ships, which is the equivalent of claiming you're not dead in a game of paintball, despite having several dozen shots splattered all over you.
A surface Navy is fundamentally useless.
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 06:14:44 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 05:51:50 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 05:46:24 AM
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance
Maybe I'm being stupid but how do you get that second one?
The "China effect":
When you get enough people, labour becomes very cheap.
It becomes very cheap because of the "supply-demand"; as in there is a lot of supply of work force, while there isnt that much of a demand for it.
And the protection syndicates offered goes to shit, because to have any leverage stemmed from syndicates, there needs to be organization.
In 1910 there were 1,650 million people in the world, 1950 there were 2,521 million; in 2008 there were 6,707 million people.
If im not mistaken, when syndicates were at its most powerful was around 1910 (by regions it varies), while in 1950 they started to decline in their influence power over decisions, while nowadays their power is null compared to those days.
The population from 1910 to 1950 increased 152%, while from 1910 to 2008 is 406%; the more people you need to organize to make a difference, the harder it becomes.
And its even more hard to organize, when people that are uneducated, with the burden of children, because that makes them less prone to look towards the future and more for instant gratification, and sometimes refusing to strike, because that would imply not bringing food to the table of their families when they are already living paycheck to paycheck.
:mittens:
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 05:46:24 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 05:24:55 AM
Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)
Government knows abstinence as a contraceptive method does not work, because it has statistical knkowledge of its population's tendencies. First sexual relation age is lowering each year. The government knows teenagers are not gonna stop from having sex.
Government promotes abstinence as a contraceptive method just to be in good terms with the powerful far right.
The far rights agenda is ideological, while the governments agenda is profit.
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance = more profit.
Causing guilt and conflicting messages also confuse people and keep them off balance in their personal life. If you cant get your personal shit together, how on earth do you hope to manage a revolution?
http://www.anxietyculture.com/sadism.htm
QuoteInstitutionalised sexual repression is the key to the question of how authoritarian society has reproduced itself from generation to generation, over thousands of years, even while the economic conditions and technologies underlying those societies have completely transformed.
The post-Freudian psychologist Wilhelm Reich claimed that sexual repression and the "authoritarian family" style of child-rearing are responsible for the perpetuation of what he called "patriarchal society." Reich traced sexually-repressive child-rearing back to the beginning of hierarchical ruler-and-slave society. For example, it was not in the interests of the ruling families – the chiefs, royals, lords, barons etc – to have their children "promiscuously" reproducing with persons of lower social status. Tight control of child/adolescent sexuality was in the economic and power interests of the rulers (eg via fixed marriages and dowries). And, as usual, the priests served their masters – the church instituted various strict morals and taboos, putting a "divine" slant on all this control and repression of sex.
Reich's psychological theory is fairly complex, but in a nutshell it claims that the strict authoritarian repression of natural childhood desires leads to an inhibited character structure which is obedient, docile and fearful of authority. To quote Reich:
"[this] has a crippling effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear... in short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature."
So it seems that in the change from egalitarian to authoritarian society, sex transformed from an "innocent", "natural" behaviour to something controlled and suppressed – a "commodity in the service of economic subjugation" as Reich puts it. The Christian church went even further and redefined natural sensual pleasures – symbolised by Eve in the Garden of Eden – as a central part of "Original Sin". In particular, female sexuality, pleasure and eroticism were demonised by the clergy.
The concept of Original Sin has performed an important function in authoritarian societies. The Protestant Work Ethic, for example, was built around it. If pleasure for pleasure's sake was seen as something sinful, then the opposite: endless hard work, with little or no relief, was (and still is) seen as a moral obligation. Original Sin was yet another stick to beat slaves with – to keep them working and stop them complaining.
Also this http://www.anxietyculture.com/guilt.htm In fact, hell, the whole site
Quote from: Cain on January 11, 2010, 10:52:06 AM
Quote from: JohNyx on January 10, 2010, 05:46:24 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on January 10, 2010, 05:24:55 AM
Interesting read, JohNyx. I'm wondering how you got from "The government propagandizes about abstinence" and "The abstinence propaganda doesn't work" to "The government doesn't want actually abstinence happening"? It doesn't seem to logically follow...
(those aren't quotes from your writing but i was paraphrasing)
Government knows abstinence as a contraceptive method does not work, because it has statistical knkowledge of its population's tendencies. First sexual relation age is lowering each year. The government knows teenagers are not gonna stop from having sex.
Government promotes abstinence as a contraceptive method just to be in good terms with the powerful far right.
The far rights agenda is ideological, while the governments agenda is profit.
More people = more work force + more difficulty to make organized resistance = more profit.
Causing guilt and conflicting messages also confuse people and keep them off balance in their personal life. If you cant get your personal shit together, how on earth do you hope to manage a revolution?
http://www.anxietyculture.com/sadism.htm
QuoteInstitutionalised sexual repression is the key to the question of how authoritarian society has reproduced itself from generation to generation, over thousands of years, even while the economic conditions and technologies underlying those societies have completely transformed.
The post-Freudian psychologist Wilhelm Reich claimed that sexual repression and the "authoritarian family" style of child-rearing are responsible for the perpetuation of what he called "patriarchal society." Reich traced sexually-repressive child-rearing back to the beginning of hierarchical ruler-and-slave society. For example, it was not in the interests of the ruling families – the chiefs, royals, lords, barons etc – to have their children "promiscuously" reproducing with persons of lower social status. Tight control of child/adolescent sexuality was in the economic and power interests of the rulers (eg via fixed marriages and dowries). And, as usual, the priests served their masters – the church instituted various strict morals and taboos, putting a "divine" slant on all this control and repression of sex.
Reich's psychological theory is fairly complex, but in a nutshell it claims that the strict authoritarian repression of natural childhood desires leads to an inhibited character structure which is obedient, docile and fearful of authority. To quote Reich:
"[this] has a crippling effect on man's rebellious forces because every vital life-impulse is now burdened with severe fear... in short, morality's aim is to produce acquiescent subjects who, despite distress and humiliation, are adjusted to the authoritarian order. Thus, the family is the authoritarian state in miniature."
So it seems that in the change from egalitarian to authoritarian society, sex transformed from an "innocent", "natural" behaviour to something controlled and suppressed – a "commodity in the service of economic subjugation" as Reich puts it. The Christian church went even further and redefined natural sensual pleasures – symbolised by Eve in the Garden of Eden – as a central part of "Original Sin". In particular, female sexuality, pleasure and eroticism were demonised by the clergy.
The concept of Original Sin has performed an important function in authoritarian societies. The Protestant Work Ethic, for example, was built around it. If pleasure for pleasure's sake was seen as something sinful, then the opposite: endless hard work, with little or no relief, was (and still is) seen as a moral obligation. Original Sin was yet another stick to beat slaves with – to keep them working and stop them complaining.
Also this http://www.anxietyculture.com/guilt.htm In fact, hell, the whole site
Some people discredit Reich's work completely, for the fact that at the end of his life, he went off the deep end with his ideas about Orgone; but he did have some good ideas before that.
Ill check out the site, thanks.