The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

As a wise man once said: "Many times, that's what the fuck life is, one vile fucking task after another. But don't get aggravated: that's when the enemy has you by the short hairs."

Don't get aggravated, Shark.  You know what you are doing is right, even if many of us might not quite be able to see it that way. That bit doesn't matter - all that matters is how you conduct yourself.  Keep calm, rational and polite as you have been so far, but show them up for their despicable tactic.  Happy to help with any name-and-shame retweeting or what have you.

[The Legendary Shark]

On BBC1 now, head of the I.M.F. Christine Lagarde, has just said that the combined wealth of the richest 85 people in the world is equal to or greater than the combined wealth of the poorest 3,500,000,000 people in the world.

[The Legendary Shark]

You are wise, Tordels. This is obviously a tactic to, as you say, to aggravate me and split my resources between two fights.

Still, at least now I know which plans to attack!

[Professor Bear]

Let us know when you blog, tweet, or FB any of this so we can help distribute it further for you, Sharky.

[The Legendary Shark]

Thanks Prof, will do

[paddykafka]

Hi Sharkey, I can't add much more to what everybody else has said. In my younger, more idealistic days, I would have shared your anarchist beliefs and ethics. Alas, increasing age and experience of humanity has long since withered those rosy views. But I admire you for the principled stand that you are taking and wish you the all the best. Take care and cheers - Paddy

[JayzusB.Christ]

In my younger, more idealistic days, I would have shared your anarchist beliefs and ethics. Alas, increasing age and experience of humanity has long since withered those rosy views.

Oddly enough, I've gone the opposite way.  Though from a fairly lefty background, I felt myself swinging slightly to the right (ahem) during my twenties, but then began to see the global horrors of rampant Capitalism; and how it's almost without question going to destroy humanity as we know it.

I don't really think Anarchism is workable on an international or even national scale, at least not within my lifetime, because of the usual reason:  People are too greedy.  However, in my book at least, it's an ideal to strive towards while working within the shitty framework I was born into.  People can change; and while I'm far from free of the ego and greed that necessitates politics and law, I try my best. And if I can eventually influence even one or two people to put co-operation and harmony above greed then I'll be happy, but of course i have to work on myself first.

Many would cite Somalia as an example of the evils of anarchy, but there is a difference between the greed-based anarchy that Mogadishu has sunk into, and a co-operative anarchy based on respect for the Common Law that Sharky mentioned earlier.

There you go; call me a naive hippy if you like.  You're probably right, but I still prefer punk and techno to the Grateful Dead 

[Hawkmumbler]

I think my main concern with law abiding anarchy is the main reason why capitalism is currently inescapable, it's a key point I bring up frequently. There are just to many people to allow a superior system to be imposed. 7 billion people, with cultures and political ideologies many of us wont even have heard of.  For a more socialist system to be introduced the world population would have to be much lower, and who here has the right to say who lives and die's?

[The Legendary Shark]

I think that the overpopulation problem is mainly just hype, birth rates in Western countries have been declining for decades. In the 1950s the average birth rate was 5 children per woman, today it's 2.5. The number for a steady population is 2.1 children per woman.

The figure I mentioned in an an earlier post, that the rihest 85 people on Earth have a combined wealth greater than the poorest 50% of humanity, shows the real problem. It's not about population, it's about distribution of resources. There is more than enough on this planet for everybody.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-great-contraction-experts-predict-global-population-will-plateau-a-795479.html

[Hawkmumbler]

You only took into account the western world, ignoring third world nations that don't have access to birth control or sex education. That is where the population is booming, as you can see below, populations in Niger and Tanzania alone are increasing at rates upwards of 7%. Not taking into account political ethics, this is also having a hugely negative ecological and social effect. Money is just a means to commodities, what good is it if we have a lack of land and to live off while maintaining a stable environment.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.GROW/countries?display=map

[JamesC]

There are lots more older people around than there used to be too.
I think one thing that probably hinders radical political / economic change is that people in power hold on to it for so long! Look at Rupert Murdoch. How old is he now?

[The Legendary Shark]

The entire human population of the Earth would fit into the Grand Canyon, although that would probably be a bit cramped and smelly. I also once worked out that every single man, woman and child on Earth could live in a landmass the size of Australia, have something like 1/4 of an acre of land each and still have most of New South Wales uninhabited. (I can't remember the exact figures but it's pretty easy to work out.)

And yes, population in certain African communities is still high but birth rates are beginning to fall as the toxic and destructive processes of the "modern world", and also the more positive aspects of Western systems, slowly and steadily take hold there.

Overpopulation, I think, is being used as a convenient excuse for poverty and such that diverts attention away from the 85 people I mentioned earlier. The idea is project the opinion that "85 people can't possibly be the cause of so great a problem, so it must be the fault of that poor and Randy 3.5 billion people who have nothing but continue to insist on having sex and squirting out babies like it was their God-given right."

[I, Cosh]

I think that the overpopulation problem is mainly just hype, birth rates in Western countries have been declining for decades. In the 1950s the average birth rate was 5 children per woman, today it's 2.5. The number for a steady population is 2.1 children per woman.

I think you're mixing up two slightly different things there: required birth rate for a steady population will be directly related to infant mortality rates. As my gran's sister once said: my mammy had 13 weans but we only knew 8 of them.

[Hawkmumbler]

As much as I agree that capitalism amongst the top 0.00000001% is no doubt a contributing factor to world deprivation, I strongly disagree with your assertion that people are blaming densely populated cointries for world famine. It's a proven fact (and common sense to boot) that a person with acccess to protection will have less children than one without access, which Is the mainr eason for population explosion, a lack of resources.

[The Legendary Shark]

Not a lack of resources, I think, but a misallocation of resources.

And I wasn't claiming that you were blaming densely populated countries for famine but, when one watches "news" reports on this or similar topics there is always a strong inference that these people are starving because they insist on living in harsh environments or refuse to move to a city and that they are listless victims just sat around waiting for hand-outs. I don't know, maybe it's just me that sees that.