Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium: To have or have not

[jonny2mad]

Anyway so you would expect some of the immigrants to try to take control of Elysium or the resources they can grab that used to belong to Elysium, and try to keep hold of them better than their former owners did .

To the why cant we just all share crowd, well thats not how nature is designed, animal species compete for resources even within species .

If you have any sense at all you hang on to resources you dont give away your homeland unless your mentally sick

And what your doing by bringing down Elysium or the west is taking out Islands of sustainability and progress and replacing them with chaos and death .

"the road to hell is paved with good intentions "

[clv101]

To the why cant we just all share crowd, well thats not how nature is designed, animal species compete for resources even within species .

This argument is too simplistic. There are countless examples where sharing and co-operation is mutually beneficial. It is not all about competition. The classic example is that lower degrees of wealth inequality in a society benefits everyone, even the rich for whom reduced inequality means a reduction in their absolute wealth.

[jonny2mad]

Well even in the resource rich world we live in you see people who have tried to share and are getting screwed, south african boers are not doing that well after sharing

And the world we are entering we will have less to share its a world of scarcity, if you have less resources than you need to survive as a group sharing is the wrong policy .

100 cakes you have 100 people each need a cake a day to live well thats fine sharing will work out .

If you have 50 cakes and 100 people sharing will not work as a policy

[emordnilap]

There are countless examples where sharing and co-operation is mutually beneficial. It is not all about competition. The classic example is that lower degrees of wealth inequality in a society benefits everyone, even the rich for whom reduced inequality means a reduction in their absolute wealth.

Yes. Indeed co-operation makes the world work, even while immeasurable numbers of individuals perish.

As for possible outcomes of haves versus have-nots, Orlov (as usual) has a quite plausible - though in no way guaranteed - scenario here.

[UndercoverElephant]

the west would have a declining and more sustainable population if it wasnt for white guilt and mass immigration from the third world .

This is, of course, true, and it is also something that the BiffVernon's of this world cannot or will not see. However, it is also the case that if we had this declining population then large parts of our society would still be heading for economic ruin, because it implies economic contraction and the inability of the younger generations to finance the retirement of the older generations. In other words, it's not just idealistic BiffVernon's who are advocating free immigration on humanitarian grounds - there are also plenty of right-wing "economists" who see the population contraction you speak of as an economic problem, and immigration as the solution. Do not forget that the primary reason the UK opened its borders to people from far-flung parts of its decaying empire was to fill job vacancies that there were insufficient young British people to fill. With the benefit of hindsight, another solution was available: get all those under-employed housewives working! However, I'm guessing that the same people who thought low status jobs were best done by black/asian immigrants also thought women should be housewives.

[UndercoverElephant]

There are countless examples where sharing and co-operation is mutually beneficial. It is not all about competition. The classic example is that lower degrees of wealth inequality in a society benefits everyone, even the rich for whom reduced inequality means a reduction in their absolute wealth.

Yes. Indeed co-operation makes the world work, even while immeasurable numbers of individuals perish.

As for possible outcomes of haves versus have-nots, Orlov (as usual) has a quite plausible - though in no way guaranteed - scenario here.

Great stuff as usual from Orlov.

Rather, it will be the vested interests at every level—the political class, the financial elite, professional associations, property and business owners and, last but not least, the lawyers—who will try to block them at every turn. They will not release their grip on society voluntarily.

This particular group of parasites doesn't get mentioned very often on this forum, but I think Orlov is correct. Their grip on society is every bit as damaging and insipid as that of the financial elite. They too must eventually be recognised as the enemy.

[Little John]

There are countless examples where sharing and co-operation is mutually beneficial. It is not all about competition. The classic example is that lower degrees of wealth inequality in a society benefits everyone, even the rich for whom reduced inequality means a reduction in their absolute wealth.

Yes. Indeed co-operation makes the world work, even while immeasurable numbers of individuals perish.

As for possible outcomes of haves versus have-nots, Orlov (as usual) has a quite plausible - though in no way guaranteed - scenario here.

Great stuff as usual from Orlov.

Rather, it will be the vested interests at every level—the political class, the financial elite, professional associations, property and business owners and, last but not least, the lawyers—who will try to block them at every turn. They will not release their grip on society voluntarily.

This particular group of parasites doesn't get mentioned very often on this forum, but I think Orlov is correct. Their grip on society is every bit as damaging and insipid as that of the financial elite. They too must eventually be recognised as the enemy.

I agree the "managers" are also often parasitic. However, their parasitism rests on serving the interests of those above them who also ensure the managers' status and power. It is still the elite that needs to go first. If they are not there to protect their lackeys, a lot of the problem with those lackeys will evaporate.

[emordnilap]

As for possible outcomes of haves versus have-nots, Orlov (as usual) has a quite plausible - though in no way guaranteed - scenario here.

Great stuff as usual from Orlov.

Rather, it will be the vested interests at every level—the political class, the financial elite, professional associations, property and business owners and, last but not least, the lawyers—who will try to block them at every turn. They will not release their grip on society voluntarily.

This particular group of parasites doesn't get mentioned very often on this forum, but I think Orlov is correct. Their grip on society is every bit as damaging and insipid as that of the financial elite. They too must eventually be recognised as the enemy.

That particular part jumped out at me too. They are an integral segment of the circle that is wholly vicious.

[emordnilap]

Whatever. While the world still functions in its wobbly short-term way, we shall take ourselves on a rare trip to the unreality of the cinema tomorrow evening to watch Elysium.

Our local newspaper's film 'critic' doesn't like the movie - a sure sign I'll enjoy it.

[biffvernon]

...it is also something that the BiffVernon's of this world cannot... In other words, it's not just idealistic BiffVernon's who are

Here we go, once again ascribing to me views that I don't hold.

But if you must, at least don't add apostrophes in the wrong places.

[emordnilap]

[emordnilap]

what happens if you take the privileges of the 1% and try to distribute them among the other 99%? Will that resource, enjoyed by the wealthy, actually make any material difference when spread so thinly?

Probably not but that wouldn't be the point of redistribution.

Not ideal but far better than any system currently extant:

[Little John]

And when Elysium opens its doors what happens next, there are limited resources the people who used to live in mexico city now live all over the earth, they spread to elysium and turn that into mexico city .

Yes, so maybe the real story of Elysium is; what happens if you take the privileges of the 1% and try to distribute them among the other 99%? Will that resource, enjoyed by the wealthy, actually make any material difference when spread so thinly? I guess we'll need to wait for Elysium II for that!

I think it would, Tarrel. But not by itself. The reason is to do with human psychology. If humans see a transparently inequitous allocation or resources and that they are on the wrong end of that equation, then it becomes very difficult to persuade them to cut back on their own consumption in aid of a greater cause (reduction of climate changing behaviours). The only way you get them to do that is if they believe that we really are all in this together. So, equity of resource-allocation is an insufficient, but nevertheless necessary, factor in what needs to be done to address our problem of over consumption of resources.

[emordnilap]

And when Elysium opens its doors what happens next, there are limited resources the people who used to live in mexico city now live all over the earth, they spread to elysium and turn that into mexico city .

Yes, so maybe the real story of Elysium is; what happens if you take the privileges of the 1% and try to distribute them among the other 99%? Will that resource, enjoyed by the wealthy, actually make any material difference when spread so thinly? I guess we'll need to wait for Elysium II for that!

I think it would, Tarrel. But not by itself. The reason is to do with human psychology. If humans see a transparently inequitous allocation or resources and that they are on the wrong end of that equation, then it becomes very difficult to persuade them to cut back on their own consumption in aid of a greater cause (reduction of climate changing behaviours). The only way you get them to do that is if they believe that we really are all in this together. So, equity of resource-allocation is an insufficient, but nevertheless necessary, factor in what needs to be done to address our problem of over consumption of resources.

Yes. And those that want to and can change their behaviour for the good of the biosphere will only do so if they are confident they'll actually be better off as individuals when doing so.

Interesting thoughts on the matter here.

Could we exist with technology, but without growth, without expanding? This flies in the face of everything we know about the way most of us work as individuals, and as a society.

and

The mutation that gave rise to our greedy and ever-consuming nature is the kind that pushed out steadier thought processes. So, what does this mean for us? Although there may be some outliers, it may be that genetically, as a species, we are currently incapable of holding ourselves back.

[RenewableCandy]

Yes, so maybe the real story of Elysium is; what happens if you take the privileges of the 1% and try to distribute them among the other 99%? Will that resource, enjoyed by the wealthy, actually make any material difference when spread so thinly? I guess we'll need to wait for Elysium II for that!

I think it would, Tarrel. But not by itself. The reason is to do with human psychology. If humans see a transparently inequitous allocation or resources and that they are on the wrong end of that equation, then it becomes very difficult to persuade them to cut back on their own consumption in aid of a greater cause (reduction of climate changing behaviours). The only way you get them to do that is if they believe that we really are all in this together. So, equity of resource-allocation is an insufficient, but nevertheless necessary, factor in what needs to be done to address our problem of over consumption of resources.

Yes. And those that want to and can change their behaviour for the good of the biosphere will only do so if they are confident they'll actually be better off as individuals when doing so.

Better off, yes, but not necessarily in strict material terms. For example, a RenewableCandy who hasn't got a full-time job is "better off" than one who has to work 40 hours a week, because there are lots of other pleasant/interesting things to do that don't cost much, whereas Time is irreplaceable, and that delightful feeling of waking up and not having to be a blue-arsed fly all day is beyond price.