Real world relevence of science fiction and the Whedon-'verse
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Friday, January 20, 2006 16:58
VIEWED: 7719
PAGE 4 of 6
Well, when you listen to what the transnationalist crowds are saying in speeches all over the globe, it gets VERY scary.
I'll give you a 'frinstance: "To save the planet, 80% of the human population must go." Okay, they say we're over-extended. Fair enough; we're overpopulating in certain parts of the globe, but what do they want to do about it?
Now, in a speech about the effects of the new Codex Alimentarius [recap: vitamins, supplements are now defined as "toxins" and those who distribute them without a medical license will be considered as trafficking in illicit drugs the same as a heroin dealer], the United Nations OWN FIGURES say that if they can actually enforce these laws now on the books in EU and USA [rotsa ruck, but anyway], then they estimate deaths from starvation to reach a billion [that's with a B, people] people, with another billion due to the effects of malnutrition and related diseases [ie: diabetes]. The context here was that that would be a Good Thing. ?!! Happy about starvation?! That's not a Utopian Ideal; that's a bunch of elitists who want a very big playground. Their "desire to do good" is a pointedly selfish one.
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Faramond
I disagree with you on the human nature and doing the right thing, unless this is what you mean. Necons are the result of the human desire to do good gone out of control. They see other people who are not in line with them as evil or ignorant, and thus to marginalized completely, and that any means are justified if it brings them closer to their ends, which are a series of supernational entities arranged into a one world state. You can never discount these people's belief in a utopian ideal and their almost religious belief in how one gets to that goal.
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
See, I don't see it as the "One Hero" deal at all. I think Jayne quoting book said it best: "If you can't do something stupid, do something right." I think it's about personal responsibility, not heroism.
Example: I used to work for a bookstore owned by a multi-millionaire and his wife. The wife was being overtly rude to people she assumed were "poor." I was one of the managers. It was a situation of: do I say something and lose my job, or am I prepared to live like this? I thought it was my duty to say something, to "do the right thing", even though everyone said it would be pointless and stupid. So I did. And I was fired. I'm no hero; I just am not willing to live like that. And now, in her memory, she knows that there will be people who will risk their job to tell her that she's wrong.
....epilogue: I'm still trying to find the right job. And I'd do it again. Veritas vel ad nex means: truth, even unto death.
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While "Saffron" is indeed pretty, bigger don't mean better.
And I'm seriously regretting my "boob" thread: can we all agree on a moratorium on mammary-related posts from now on?
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay....
Here are Loeffler's Laws of Beaurocracy:
[ www.steelonsteel.com]
1. Give lip service to your originally stated goals
2. Keep your organization in existence AT ALL COSTS, even at the cost of your originally stated goals
3. Defend yourself from any attack, no matter how truthful it is
And I don't know who stated it earlier, but since when is CONSENSUS such a wonderful thing? Then we'd have no discussion. This "One Mind, One World" crap gives me the willies. Too close to 1984.
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
MY BAD....
SORRY, PEOPLE.
It should read like this:
1. Give lip service to your originally stated goals
2. Keep the organization in existence at all costs, even at the cost of your originally stated goals
3. Defend yourself from any and all accountability
....sort of sounds like it could work for beaurocracies AND corporations, doesn't it? Common denominator: people.
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Capitalism seeks to mimic nature, but it isn't nature, and so it has to evolve over time. But that doesn't mean we should go back to govt. institutions, aka Intelligent Design.
Okay, Intelligent Design versus Evolution....I keep hearing stuff on this that I MUST address.
m-m-must....d-destroy....r-r-rhetoric.
"Capitalism seeks to mimic nature, but it isn't nature, and so it has to evolve over time." ...so, according to evolution [ie: things have the appearance of design, but are actually the products of random, uncontrolled forces with no intelligent direction] it adapts for survival. This implies no moral compass [ANYTHING that aids survival and reproduction is, for lack of a better term "good": predators, prey, scavengers], yet everyone gets upset when corporations [or govts.] act this way [well, except when stockholders get higher dividends; they don't complain all that much]. Ethics and evolution are antithetical to each other. According to evolution, things just are, not right or wrong. So, extinction of a given species [or corporation] is simply the forces of nature selecting the more powerful [or perhaps ruthless] over the weaker [who are slowed down by all those pesky morals]....so people shouldn't get upset. It just IS. People shouldn't [according to this] get upset about finding out they have cancer. That just is. Regarding conservation/environmentalism, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, "If the Spotted Owl goes extinct, then [according to evolution] SCREW him." That's how evolution works. So if corporations mimic nature, they're doing a pretty good job.
Now, let's contrast that with Intelligent Design...[ie: things have the appearance of design because they ARE designed, not due to random, uncontrolled forces, but by some intelligence or intelligences that we might speculate on: ancient astronaut theory, the "God" hypothesis, etc.--THAT is the theory; let's toss the political rhetoric of "religion vs. science" in the trash where it belongs] This implies that corporations are formed by design. [I know, duh] But it also allows for a potential for a moral compass, and this is WHY people get upset when corporations/govt's act without ethics, because people see them as acting deliberately, rather than randomly. Intelligent choice.
Many scientists today speak of systems: the nervous system, the cardiopulmonary system, the reproductive system, the immune system....system this, system that. All these systems working together in a cohesive way to maintain function. Like a machine. Like nanotechnology. DNA "code": a digital, redundant, self-replicating, error correcting code that is neither random nor periodic. Sort of exactly like what SETI is searching for as a basis for discovering extra-terrestrial INTELLIGENCE out there in the 'verse.
....you starting to get my frustration with the double standard?
Then they say there are "problems" with these systems, in other words: a given system had order, and now there is an element of chaos in that order that must be addressed for the health of that system. They act as if things SHOULD WORK PROPERLY, that their is a sense of order, and we have to do something to FIX this system. Now throw in the Second Law of Thermodynamics [the Law of Entropy] that states: "Over the course of time, things go from a condition of order to a condition of disorder."
Makes sense?
It cannot work both ways; you can't be saying "evolution" and then get all mad at people when they do something to gain dominance or power over others; they are simply 'following their instinct to survive'. You see good intentions slowly deravel, as by entropy, but it's because we MAKE DECISIONS, decisions that are usually selfish. We cannot escape these tendencies; you look at England's "Bloodless Revolution" and then look at England today. You see the Protestant Revolution, then look at Protestantism today: every bit as corrupt as those they separated from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Faramond:
While "Saffron" is indeed pretty, bigger don't mean better.
And I'm seriously regretting my "boob" thread: can we all agree on a moratorium on mammary-related posts from now on?
"....also, I can kill you with my brain."
Hey, I was talking about her personallity, which is really nice.
No she's not fat
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Faramond,
1. I certainly didn't mean consensus through cooperation, I mean you debate, disagree, argue, compete, and then hopefully reach a consensus. I'd like to see the number of votes needed to win on any bill upped to 60, that way some sort of bipartisan agreement would be required. Otherwise the majority will always be shafting the minority. But I didn't mean cooperative govt. by any means, you must've missed my excessive rants on the subject.
2. Bad things will happen. You need a system designed for that. Yes, in nature predators prey on quarry, but you mis-stepped the analogy. A business prepresents a predator or prey species, not an individual predator. If nature encouraged the extermination of species, then this wouldn't work. Sure there will be bad people, etc., but your system must be fine tuned to help encourage the most desireable behavior without taking free will away from people.
I think a moral compass is a dangerous thing, and not a good idea. I think that a general pragmatic look at the survival of the planet, and the people on it indicates that ideal behavior dictates that it not be destructive or genocidal. It probably shouldn't be oppressive, because this will create resentment, foster hatred, and lead to the downfall of society and chaos, which will be both destructive and genocidal. But this is pure pragmatism. Beyond that, each society should be allowed to set its own rules based on its own culture. An overarching moralistic view is bound to lead to badness.
Here's the other part you're missing: Evolution within the confines of the rules you set up. In nature, there is a balance which prevents the extermination of all competition, and if it is not so, then evolution stops. Occassionally something like this happens, everything dies, and then it all starts over again. But nature has had billions of years to evolve that balance. We've only a couple hundred years to evolve capitalism, and I think we've done a swell job. There are still bugs to be worked out, improvements to be made.
I view the economy as a river. The river flows through the valley, for the benefit of everything in the valley. You tweak the flow of the river to try to bring the most benefit, but if you make drastic changes, build dams or canals, the whole valley might drastically suffer, so it has to be done very lightly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saffron still wins
I think that cat is out of the bag, and there will be no stuffing those boobs back into concealment. Citizen, did you meet her at the con in london?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You know, I think Saffron's boobs are fine but her face looks so.... gaunt. I know this is supposed to be about boobs but I prefer Kaylee.
Doing my best to keep boobs front and center.
---------------------------------
Please don't think they give a shit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME