I fear the red beast... yup communism

[ceti331]

What matters is reality; that which we can directly measure an perceive, and whether our philosophy stands up to the challenges that reality throws at our daily lives. As far as I can see, no established school of thought has got that right. Accepting that principle you can perhaps make a better job at working out what it is you do "believe" about the world.

Unfortunately measurements of reality must be interpreted by people, none of whom have all the information, so outcome is down to price signals,politics or populist movements etc.

The "isms" take hold because they are catchy memes.

in real life, many people I know don't even realize fossil-fuel overshoot is an issue,or if they've heard of it they think it's a cranky theory

[kenneal - lagger]

I think that politics is a circle. If you go to the far right or the far left you meet. There may be some differences but they're equally abhorrent. Both systems involve the "elite" (that usually inappropriately used word again) manipulating the (sh)people to their own ends and that usually involves killing off the ones who don't agree/fit in. A reason for the intense hatred between the two regimes is that they probably see the similarities in each other that they don't like to be reminded of.

The communist Pol Pot in Cambodia must be the all time winner in killing off the population on a percentage basis by killing about 21% (Wikipedia) of the population.

As for being a Trotskyist - you need a hole in the head to be one of those, don't you?

[Ludwig]

A reason for the intense hatred between the two regimes is that they probably see the similarities in each other that they don't like to be reminded of.

They don't hate each other, they simply see each other as rivals. Often they have a grudging respect for each other. The non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin was only abandoned by Stalin because he saw which side his bread was buttered on.

Dictators are generally pretty pragmatic; their ideologies are means to an end.

[mobbsey]

They don't hate each other, they simply see each other as rivals.

Ah, I take it that you haven't seen a National Front march meet an Anti-Fascist League demo at a crowded road intersection?

[Ludwig]

They don't hate each other, they simply see each other as rivals.

Ah, I take it that you haven't seen a National Front march meet an Anti-Fascist League demo at a crowded road intersection?

Kenneal was referring to the "regimes", not the brainwashed idiots who support them

[mobbsey]

Kenneal was referring to the "regimes", not the brainwashed idiots who support them

You can't have one without the other.

In that sense is it worse to be the leader or the follower? (personally, that's why I avoid leadership roles, or being an uncritical follower).

[Ludwig]

Kenneal was referring to the "regimes", not the brainwashed idiots who support them

You can't have one without the other.

In that sense is it worse to be the leader or the follower? (personally, that's why I avoid leadership roles, or being an uncritical follower).

Herein lies the problem.

Most people who would make good leaders, don't want to do it.

As for following: I've briefly joined a few organisations in my time - polical, environmental, religious - but something never quite gelled about them with me. Part of the problem is that I often felt I had more insight than the people who were leading.

Also, my view of the world is essentially mystical, and I think any idea based on material progress - a "better future" - is barking up the wrong tree.

[mobbsey]

Herein lies the problem.
Most people who would make good leaders, don't want to do it.

No, I have done it in the past. I started out locally in my teens, became a national campaigner in the late 80s and even rose to be on the Board of a leading campaign group. All that taught me was that organisations are a great way to dumb-down people's expectations.

I've had far more success, in every possible respect, by sharing my skills and experience since then. This is the basic issue -- sharing versus control. People expect to be told, when in fact the greatest change they can create is within their own lives motivated by their own needs and skills (skills... ah yes, I could talk about that for hours). The greatest problem with that, at least that I have found, is that people are still fixated by the "bums on seats" (latterly transmuted into "how many Facebook friends") metric rather than whether you're actually making real things happen.

[SleeperService]

They don't hate each other, they simply see each other as rivals. Often they have a grudging respect for each other. The non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin was only abandoned by Stalin because he saw which side his bread was buttered on.

Dictators are generally pretty pragmatic; their ideologies are means to an end.

Actually the Soviet-German non-agression pact only ended when the Germans crossed the frontier in Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets were still sending raw materials into Germany until the last minute, literally an hour or so before things kicked off.

Stalin believed that war was likely with Nazi Germany but thought it wouldn't happen until 1943.

[emordnilap]

Also, my view of the world is essentially mystical, and I think any idea based on material progress - a "better future" - is barking up the wrong tree.

That's an interesting line on a couple of counts. To address one, am I right in saying that you don't like the idea of a 'better future' based on material progress but you see a better future by some other criteria? Or that there's no such thing as a better future?

[Ludwig]

Actually the Soviet-German non-agression pact only ended when the Germans crossed the frontier in Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets were still sending raw materials into Germany until the last minute, literally an hour or so before things kicked off.

Stalin believed that war was likely with Nazi Germany but thought it wouldn't happen until 1943.

Fair dos, you called my historical bluff

[Ludwig]

Also, my view of the world is essentially mystical, and I think any idea based on material progress - a "better future" - is barking up the wrong tree.

That's an interesting line on a couple of counts. To address one, am I right in saying that you don't like the idea of a 'better future' based on material progress but you see a better future by some other criteria? Or that there's no such thing as a better future?

Well no future seems to turn out as good as we envisage it. We will never attain "heaven on earth", although a lot of people believe we will even if they won't quite admit it. Human nature always gets in the way. Death gets in the way. I read a book a while back about the "psychology of happiness", and it was quite interesting, but at one point the author wrote of the "tragedy of death". If we are going to view life as intrinsically tragic because of death, we might as well give up now.

BUT... I also believe there is a higher level of reality that makes the individual human life insignificant. I'm not sure what form it takes or whether it can even be described in terms of "our" reality. I used to be agostic about its existence, but I have enough evidence of it from personal experience, and from books, to convince me that there is something more.

On another level: what is the ultimate goal of humanity? To be happy? The problem with the pursuit of happiness is that it relegates ethics to being a mere means to an end; it rejects the idea of self-denial, of doing things because they are the right thing to do. I've slowly come round to the idea that what we call morality is not simply a tool of evolution to benefit our species, but something inherent in the nature of things. All the major religions seem to start from this basic premise, twisted though they inevitably become by worldly leaders.

I realise this all sounds very earnest, but you did ask

[fifthcolumn]

One thing's for sure: it wouldn't solve the problem of how to feed 7 billion people without cheap oil.

We will feed 7 billion with expensive oil and other things will have to get cheaper or be used more efficiently for longer OR ELSE our standard of living will go down.

TPTB don't give a shit because at bottom they know that we had a market economy in the past where all the worker bees walked/cycled to work or took the bus/tram/whatever and if there are no substitutes to oil based transportation for the most part then that's what we will do again.

It doesn't really require any conspiracy other than they just don't give a shit because they just don't see a problem for *them*.

Which is not to say that there *aren't* any conspiracies. Clearly the West is conspiring against Iran and clearly the Russians, Venezuelans et al are conspiring with Iran right back.

And as you say, perhaps what most of us need is a good kick up the arse to develop character.

[mobbsey]

We will feed 7 billion with expensive oil and other things will have to get cheaper or be used more efficiently for longer OR ELSE our standard of living will go down.

That's a developed world perspective.

If you look at reports from CAFOD or Oxfam, and most notably FAO's "The State of Food Insecurity in the World" (especially chapter 2) there's a billion or more people in the world who don't have enough to eat now -- and that process is being exacerbated by price rises.

We're not feeding 7 billion people with today's technology -- a good proportion are undernourished or have insufficient nutrients in their diets, even in the most developed states (given it's having such a scarring effect on lifestyle, I'm amazed that this issue isn't in the news more -- apart from the fact that the people who make the news are probably all on expensive diet foods rather than having a poor diet caused by poverty).

Consequently even small changes to prices and conditions in the supply chain will create a much greater/non-linear impact in society. E.g., it only takes a small shift in prices to create riots/instability in many states.

[energy-village]

I have been reading how the Greek people are avoiding significant numbers of people going short of food only through extended families helping out. If true it means there are food issues in the west today.

Ultimately if British people were at risk of starving we'd expect our government to use whatever method they could to provide for us – and the vast majority would be quite happy to turn a blind eye if it meant using the armed forces to reapportion resources from elsewhere. We would quite like it sugar-coated “terrorism, abuse of human rights, WMD issues” etc. but it wouldn't really matter if i's weren't dotted or t's crossed.

Hopefully it will never come to that though.