Have always had a problem with capitalism, even when I was much younger. Could not understand why until I got older and started digging into the real history of our current economic model. And it is killing us and the planet, despite what anyone says. The dystopian results speak for themselves for anyone with an expanded awareness. It is now a question of can enough people wake up in time to stop the madness? We will see. No one can say we live in uninteresting times...
People are still too comfortable in their privilege, that's why they defend capitalism, which is an evil that absolutely has to go. I guess things will just have to get worse for them before they get it. But it's happening, more people are waking up.
Blaming capitalism for common human behavior is lazy.
Any species that continues to produce ina closed system will eventually pollute its environment to the point of degradation and colony collapse. Did you never take basic biology and grow a yeast culture in a petri dish and watch as the colony consumed all the available energy, massively overproducing until it consumed all the food and poisoned the dish ?
Were the yeast cells capitalist ?
In the 70s I recall helping to cull an out of control rabbit population, between the ranchers and the environmentalists they removed the predators from the environment which allowed an unrestrained rabbit population to do the same thing the yeast did, eat all the food, pollute their environment and end up sick and dying.
Were the rabbits capitalists ?
The point is that humans are just another species of animal following the same pattern. When low cost energy is available we overproduce just like any other animal. It has little or nothing to do with the economic system in play and everything to do with the cost of acquiring energy.
"Did "you" never take basic biology and grow a yeast culture in a petri dish and watch as the colony consumed all the available energy, massively overproducing until it consumed all the food and poisoned the dish ? Were the yeast cells capitalist ?"
Thats the best you can come up with, blaming the creator of the experiment I used as an example of species behavior, I guess that means god is to blame for human behavior ?
In this particular case, I think notBob's anecdote did serve a purpose in shedding light on the subject. But you brought up a good argument that I've just read in a different context.
Regarding Stanley Milgram's famous experiment in how well (or not) empathy stacks up with compliance to authority (the Nuremberg Defense of 'Following Superior Orders') ...
''But it is the experimenter, who commands the test subject to (as far as the subject knows) murder another subject, who is arguably the most important variable to consider if we are to understand how the dynamic plays out in real life. After all, without him, none of those apparently lethal shocks would have been administered in the first place. The fact that he has to play the role in the first place should tell us something, because he ordinarily wouldn’t do so in his everyday life.''
Lobaczewski, Andrew. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism (p. 30). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
That is a poor example, you are comparing a naturally occurring species behavior to a psychological experiment but if we must...
I tend to disagree that torturing and killing other humans is not part of natural human behavior and that it wouldn't happen with the experimenter putting them up to it. Humans as a species have a long and bloody history of brutality towards each other for a million different reasons across every society. Was there an experimenter behind Ghengis Khan and the Mongul hordes ?
Good point, notBob. Within the limited context I posted, I would agree with you. But then Lobczewski goes on to agree precisely with your premise. Just one page further along ...
''Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments demonstrated similar trends to those observed in the German police battalion records: a small minority (less than 20%) who refuse to kill, a much larger group of reluctant participants (who adapt themselves to the situation but might refrain from killing when not observed), and a small nucleus of sadistic, enthusiastic killers.32 In Milgram’s experiment, the majority who administered deadly shocks did so reluctantly.33 Just as the experimenter wouldn’t ordinarily order people to execute others for trivial reasons, the test subjects hadn’t ordinarily been instructed to administer deadly shocks to others. The situation was novel and the vast majority only complied despite mounting inner tension.''
Lobaczewski, Andrew. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism (pp. 30-31). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
In a nutshell, Lobaczweski, you, and myself are in agreement about the dark side of our collective gene-pool. I think I made my stand clear in my original comment to Caitlin ... which I hope you have read.
And this is why I am seeing Lobaczweski's take on the social psychology of totalitarianism more compelling than Desmet's currently popular book. I have a problem with Desmet's vaguely defined 'free floating anxiety' as a kind of secular poxy for 'the god of the gaps', and like Lobaczewki, find the influence of those high in cluster B personality traits (the dark triads of pathological narcissism, machiavellian opportunism, and morphologically defined psychopathy) as being more salient.
Jordon Peterson floated a 3% of any population, Susan Sontag 'the cruel 10%, and at least some recent studies have shown as high as 30% of American CEOs as high in those traits. The forward to Lobaczewski is citing around 6%, but I have yet to really get into the meat of the book.
I guess it any quantification of quality is going to have some qualitative and provisional 'fuzziness' with the model. I used to teach biolab students how to estimate cell culture numbers and density at Temple University Japan's biolabs ... so I am there with you. But something dark is here in human nature, harder to quantify, and it may be the seeds of our collective self-destruction.
Cheers notBob.
We'e in this fight together, and in her own way, so is Caitlin, otherwise I would not have found you.
Aren't CEOs a self-selected sample of a population? Because Custer B traits are concentrated in this group, it doesn't prove that Cluster B traits are 30% of the general population, just that capitalism rewards those very traits that are anti-social.
You might like to read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, in which he explains how this selection took place to begin with and how it continues to work.
Thanks for the heads up. I've heard of Veblen and seen references to him, though have not read him directly. Chris Hedges appears to echo much of that insight. Will put Veblen in my reading list, but (sigh) one lifetime is not enough.
Regarding numbers, yes, I agree that CEOs are self selected, and no, I never claimed that same percentage of Cluster B traits for those who would play king-of-the-mountain applied to the general population.
I think something between Peterson's and Sontag's numbers are closer. Those numbers would go further to explain pre-capitalist hierarchies and would-be empires such as can be found throughout most of history ... now just so much 'Tower of Babel' dust. It further explains the dysfunctions of the constant stream of excuse making-apologizing politicians, CEOs, boards of directors, etc. here in Japan ... who bow in remorse, promise 'structural reform', retire early, wash-repeat, ad infinitum.
The rabbit population was out-of-control because the ranchers, based on myths about wolves and fears that wolves would attack the animals that they had introduced to an ecological system that didn't need them, had destroyed the wolf population that kept down the rabbits.
No, the rabbits weren't capitalists, but the ranchers most certainly were.
Ouch. 'Because' is a loaded word when talking about science. Perhaps 'statistically meaningful correlation' is a more accurate, though less conversational way to think of 'causes'. But if we restrict ourselves to causes, perhaps 'proximal' and 'distal' might give some more useful nuance to the dialogue.
Just a guess, but even closer-to-the-earth ethnic communities probably suffered through periodic ecological disasters on a whole continuum of degrees of culpability — from pure chance of nature (floods and draught) to excesses such as slash and burn or overhunting. I think the question is still up for discussion regarding the correlation between the rise of human populations and the decline of large mammals in North America such as mammoths.
An interesting theory from Jared Diamond in his book Collapse - How societies fail. His research showed that the natives in new Mexico showed signs of a growing road network that was specifically built to increase the reach of the settlement to trees and vegetation at further and further distances. This led to their collapse when the distances became too great or they intruded on others territory.
IMO: Showing that regardless of the economic or political model when civilization exceeds its resource limits collapse occurs.
In fact, one of what I thought were the few weaknesses in Collapse was that Diamond did not give enough emphasis to the logistical limits of population scale ... that law of diminishing returns thingy. Australian aboriginal people, and a few other scattered tribes across the globe seem to be more sustainable than the collective concentrations of power into empires aspiring to last a thousand years.
'Quality' of life I guess is another question altogether, but I am not so sure the members of those 'undeveloped' close-to-nature communities are any less happy than the typical wage-slave or Wall Street executive. They may have a shorter average lifespan, and face dangers in the wild we couldn't even begin to cope with. But chances are they are less prone to suffer the petty politics, anomie, and other stresses that come with institutionalized hierarchies.
Another potential weak point of Collapse, (though I will have to skim through it again to verify) was that I think a small but persistent percentage of any population are sociopathic ... including those earlier mentioned ethnic communities. Through Mathew Crawford's substack, I learned a new word ... 'Kunlangeta' ... the Inuit/Eskimo word for 'psychopath'.
Environment and epigenetics no doubt play a role in sustaining that B-Cluster group, but because of the persistence of that game-of-thrones we call 'history', and the fact that we are not wired to collectively learn from history (at least, not morally ... everyone starts from ground zero as an infant), I am guessing there is a strong genetic component to it.
I don't think Caitlin said that capitalism was the root cause of any of the problems she's mentioned. In fact, calling her lazy for something she didn't even do is kind of lazy reading. She clearly stated that the actual problem was lack of awareness. "We are a traumatized species destroying the planet because of our trauma... The goal is to walk down the dark corridors of ourselves and turn the lights on". In other words, we are destroying the planet because of unexamined, unconscious, behavior mechanisms, and we'd have a better chance of addressing the ecocide caused by capitalism if we became aware of the very unconscious forces that are motivating our collective behavior.
Now, saying that it's the natural tendency of natural beings to destroy their environment is sort of disingenuous. It's the natural tendency of ecosystems to require a certain homeostasis. If the conditions that allow for the existence of the ecosystem (many of which have to do with "internal" balance) collapse, then the ecosystem collapses. That is what's going on in humanity's relationship with the earth, that is what we mean by ecocide. As you've said yourself, the problem isn't so much this natural tendency in us so much as it is letting that tendency control us without being aware of the fact that it actually is in control. Saying "oh, it's just human nature" or "it's just the market" rather than expanding our awareness to take stock of whether a particular behavior is actually more harmful than helpful, whether it's necessary or detrimental to our survival.
In conclusion then, we can look to the opening lines of this article. Capitalism cannot provide an adequate response to ecocide, because as a model for understanding and prescribing behavior, it does not take into account or allow for awareness of the subconscious evolutionary mechanisms (fear of death, compulsive need for control, egotism, etc) that would lead to a so-called thinking species "thinking" (through addiction to fossil fuels and speed) itself into extinction. We need to look beyond capitalism for solutions to the problems that our species is facing.
Maybe, as Caitlin alluded to, as the trauma-healing and consciousness expanding effects of psychedelics become more widely understood, accepted, and sought out, that can help us collectively move into a larger, less destructive way of being.
"Expansion of consciousness" is the solution, but how to achieve it? It's not going to happen the easy way, one person at a time, because time is too short and we are too inclined to complacency. But it may happen when we're hungry and cold in the darkness we seem so determined to bring on ourselves. Without ever asking the people of Germany, the German foreign minister donned sackcloth and ashes (maybe not?) and proclaimed that Germany had to take the economic hit so Ukraine would win the war. Wall-to-wall lies. This enforced austerity is a war being fought in the interests of the 1%, .1% , .01% on down the line of the shadow state, who plan to take over the assets of the thousands of failed businesses. Got a better explanation, anybody? And it is this lot responsible for the rapine and razing of nature, the maximum profit lot, who would sell their own grandmothers, and in fact have managed to make seniors a profitable enterprise: thousands were sacrificed during Covid, but there's always more where they came from. This lot is profane and demonic, and nothing is sacred to them, but money. Don't wait for their expanded consciousness.: it ain't coming anytime soon.
You write of the effectiveness of psychedelics, which brings to mind psilocybin, which brings to mind the topic (see "Entangled Life") of fungi pharmacologically seizing control of animal behavior (e.g., ants & zombie fungi). In like manner the bastions of Capitalist consumption , from fashionistas to pharmacistas to industrialistas have zombied the human mind to the endless semi-covert examples of ecocide all around us. And if you count all the reproductive-disruption of estrogen-mimics and other hormone-mimics and hormone-antagonists released by criminal corporations into soil and water, you'd be inclined to think "genocide." Hence, I understand that view.
Yet again another marxist blaming capitalism for natural human behavior. Product designers don't invent new behavior with their products, they design their products specifically to take advantage of existing human behavior.
If I recall the largest developer of human thought control technologies is now also the largest socialist society on the planet. Chinas social credit score is an abomination invented by socialists to control their population
You're engaging in another defense of capitalism, in which you play semantic games to re-assign the word "capitalism" with "crony" and "technocommunism" (snort).
Capitalists have always practiced crony capitalism. As Warren Buffet said, "There is a class war and we are winning it."
Amuse me, what do you and the author propose as a replacement system?
I play no semantics games and have a degree in econ. I have yet to ever hear of any kind of solution from author and I asked her once her thoughts on Austrian School Econ and of course crickets.
It's easy to criticize and not appreciate the actual dynamics.
Since you have "a degree in econ," I guess that you're not much open to learning about other schools of economic thought. In order to expand your knowledge, you would have to jettison everything you paid so much to learn, and that would cause you to suffer more than mere cognitive dissonance.
Maybe Caitlin didn't answer you because she disagrees with the Austrian economic model, or possibly she was just busy with something else.
There are several other models of replacement systems for capitalism; they've been discussed for centuries. And practiced, sometimes with success, for centuries.
You know what they are, but once again you're playing games to lure me into suggesting one so that you, with your superior knowledge, can shoot me down. (And maybe that's what Caitlin sensed, too.)
I feel sorry for you. Maybe one day you will realize you have a degree in a fake science, that deserves a fake Nobel Prize, but what's more depressing is you probably don't have it in you to make the leap. Have a nice day.
You're obviously not here to have a constructive discussion, or even an honest debate. The goal of the article as clearly stated is to point out that unconsciously following conditioned patterns of behaviour and belief systems about our dominant social and economic models is leading to destruction and suffering. The goal is to get people to examine how aware they are of the role that they play within the system. Not to outline and defend every possible alternative system of economics or governance.
But, the fact that she's criticising something that's dear to you, a system that you've received a degree in, and that your response is to parochialy dismiss the existence of any alternative possibilities, while missing the point of the article completely, speaks to how deeply you've been indoctrinated by a belief system that was sold to you as the key to empowerment, freedom and success.
The intellectual dishonesty you display by dismissing the existence of alternative theories and systems of economics and governance is not going to get you any respect around here. I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, or alternatively if you aren't ready yet, just go troll somewhere else.
We're not going to make it, Caitlin. The problem is too big and the will too little, period. All we can do is our own little part and hang on for the rest of our personal little ride through the time we have here. I can only suppose we missed our opportunities when Henry A. Wallace was replaced by the democrats, and JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcom were taken out of play. Perhaps people like John Lennon and others as well. Stick a fork in it...we're done.
There are big misconceptions about what capitalism is and this article shows it.
Capitalism is the natural result of free economic interaction among humans. Even in communism there is capitalism (black markets).
Our current system, however, is not capitalism. It is an oligarchy fueled by the fact that out money is broken. A small cartel of central bankers, bankers and politicians took over the monetary supply from the people to feed their greed.
The necessary result of this is inflation. With inflation over time preference rises. When our money is worse less tomorrow, we overconsume and use other investments (e.g. housing) as money, because it holds its value better. This leads to global destruction of ecosystems.
To fix these issues, and also issues of wealth inequality, we need to take away the right to print money from the elites, and return to a sound monetary standard which humans strived on for centuries.
Bitcoin is the separation of money and the state. It could bring along a new renaissance, just like the separation of the church and the state did, lifting up the human race and protecting our planet.
"Capitalism is the natural result of free economic interaction among humans."
No, it isn't. Capitalism is a condition of the state in which the owners and operators of capital, the bourgeoisie, dominate and control the state and its subject population. Before such a class can emerge and do its thing, a lot of supporting conditions are necessary, such as the rule of law, especially in relation to property, the creation of money and banking in the modern sense, the availability of a working class -- the list is actually pretty long. The peculiar thing we observe today is financialization, in which the tools of finance which make capitalism possible take over and become ends in themselves. As the president of General Motors once said, "General Motors doesn't make cars, it makes money." A lot of trouble ensued from that principle.
Bitcoin and its imitators and descendants is quite interesting in this regard. Since the underlying "substance" is absolutely worthless it greatly resembles fiat money, which requires state power to keep the believers believing. It might be the ultimate financialization, completely disconnected from human value and gyrating by itself in some Platonic ether. I am pretty sure it will not grind the flour for my bread, however.
Addendum: any form of socialism is doomed to fail, because it necessitates becoming a form of national socialism. Socialism with open borders does not work because the capable leave the country. We see this currently in Germany, where 25% of college educated are considering leaving the country. And I think it‘s not necessary to explain the problems with national socialism, we Germans tried that and the results were not great.
Historically, socialism was defined as "the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers, or the community in general." There must be millions of cooperatives worldwide which exemplify exactly this idea, most of them probably democratic. "National socialism" in the sense of the system promoted by the NSDAP (Nazi party) required that the political role of the workers be replaced by the Party under the absolute control of a leader or Führer; this arrangement was called the "Führerprinzip" or leadership principle, and does not resemble the original idea of socialism very much at all, although it should win the gold medal for Olympic-class word- and concept-twisting.
Nicely put - I agree with your synopsis & would argue that we are NOT living in a Free Market Capitalist Structure, There is all the window dressing of Free Market but I content that we are moving back to Feudal Capitalism with the creation of new "Barons" ie. Gates/Musk/Bezos. These are the New Kings without the confines of a Realm. Just a small look into Gates's interference & profiteering from Covid illustrates this. The Oligarchy & Banksters are the worlds most dangerous criminals enabled by the puppet class of Politicians (Trump/Biden/Obama/Clinton & Bushes) & like all tragedies throughout World History - it will fall upon the common people to take our Countries back from this Tyranny.
I knew I was in trouble when I was a kid when it came to capitalism. I kept asking "Why?" all the time whenever people tried to explain to me how capitalism worked. "People have to keep making cars because people will want to keep buying them because they make money from making the cars," I was told. I had the audacity to ask "Why would anyone need to keep buying cars if they already have a perfectly good one? You wouldn't make bad cars that needed replacing or else you wouldn't be in business for very long." Adults would just give me a blank share and tell me to shut up. Yeah, I knew I didn't belong in this capitalist society at that very moment. I had to turn on the lights and get the hell out.
Whatever happened to the word "progressive"? We on the far left were driven back to using it after "liberal" became another descriptor for "compliant company shill." (Listen to Phil Ochs' song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" on YouTube. Apparently the change to the meaning of "liberal" took place some time in the 1970s.)
Now "progressive" has followed "liberal" down the capitalist rat hole.
We'll have to come up with yet another word for who we are. "Hippy," anyone? They'll never steal that from us.
Yes, it was hijacked by the neoliberal movement, and the change was cemented in place by the Clinton administration. People on the left side of the spectrum have been struggling ever since to find a replacement for that word, and it's my theory that the right keeps undermining any and all replacements so that we lack a common language so necessary to the evolution of ideas.
Hippy isn't well defined, and some of them have been soft capitalists; they are easily corrupted (which is what happened to the movement in the first place).
Well, I think the popularity of the word _progressive_ probably goes back to 17th- and 18th-century liberal ideology, which held that "Man" and "his" social organization was, if not perfectable, at least greatly improvable, hence "he" would inevitably "Progress" to better things. (I apologize for the scare-quotes, but I need to remind you that these words are used in an ambiguous and often dubious manner.) That "Man" in fact progressed to better things does not seem to me to be evidenced in the history of the 20th and 21st centuries, although one could certainly argue about it.
The UFO material is fascinating and I agree, deserves attention. I'm not ready (yet) to assign it as just another pentagon conspiracy to garner more money for the MIC - partially because the MIC so far, gets whatever funding it wants from the US corrupted government - in fact, it gets even more than it wants yearly. Although, at the same time, I wouldn't put it past the pentagon/deep state to propagandize the American people with yet another fake threat - to militarize the nation even more than it already is. Which is pretty nuts.
However, the 2004 Nimitz UFO incident - was a kind of heads up for me personally. Before that incident became pretty well known - I was inclined to dismiss all UFO stories as more folklore than possibly real. But that 2004 Nimitz encounter - is like, wow - you have several trained USN pilots reporting not only visually but instrumentally these objects, along with different technological state-of-the-art radar platforms on the Nimitz and other support ships *also* reporting these objects, and then of course you have the actual video recordings along with voice reactions from the pilots themselves. Post interviews with the several of the pilots (not just one, so multiple confirmations) also have been pretty convincing (at least to me). Again, still *might* be an elaborate plot - but the UFO story at least for me, was more convincing than those I've seen in the past.
If these objects are really of alien origin, they most likely are not actually manned - but some kind of probes - given the speed and dynamics that have been recorded - no living biological organism could likely survive in them. But who knows, given the age of our own civilization - and the calculated possible ago of other possible intelligent species (just in our own galaxy) it is far more likely that there are species out there that are far more advanced than we are - by 100s of thousands of years. So who knows what kind of technology some other species might have in 100 thousand years. Inter-dimensional space travel? Anti-gravity machines? Etc.
On the other hand, why all the hokey pokey? Why not just introduce themselves to the human race? Or is the human race just a bunch of observable ants to them?
In any case, an interesting mystery. I remain still on the fence until actual communication is established. I wonder if it will happen in our life time, or given Fermi's Paradox, we really are just all alone in this vast space? If so, it would be an awful waste of space.
Yeah, I would guess that we would be little more to them than a bunch of murderous ants. Interesting that you would would mention interdimensional travel, because although I speak of love it's neither here nor there for me other than in a Platonic sort of way, but leaning more towards Aristatol, Plato's student, so that we could all just enjoy life as nature intended it to be without having to worry about people wanting to kill us, but would only be because of mathematical reasoning, that the moment before our theology contends was a big bang, that was the zero dimension, we are in the third dimension, so therefore, the last number of an infinite series of numbers, undefined of course, just like the number zero was left undefined for centuries, but obviously, everyone knew what it was, and, although, any number multiplied by zero is zero, that particular imaginary impossible number multiplied by zero is one, and one equates to the duel identity of I am, and, God. If that's a purpose in life I don't know, but it must be very lonely, because if there's only one god, how would the Creator know that they had actually created anything and that it wasn't just their wild imagination unless of course that supposed Creator actually created something that again it supposed it created and sent it to this universe just to find out if it was real; again, a non-solvable problem because it's not defined, but at the end of the day, that is me, because other than as Aristatol would say, be a good citizen, I really don't care about love or people because they mostly appear to be murderous ants, or just another cluster of elementary particles in an otherwise empty universe.
I tend to veer away from discussions about "God" only because there are so many different permutations of God in philosophy and theology etc. And often I get Skeptic materialists using the age old caricature of God as some ultimate being behind everything - and then dismissing all theological/metaphysical thought with their strawman, infantile version of God - you then spend all your time arguing over their strawman version.
Although I can see your pessimism about love - on the other hand, the mystery is (for me) that love even exists. And I don't buy into emotions (or consciousness) being simply a product of electro-chemical reactions - which currently there really is no scientific evidence for. That love exists in this somewhat sad world we find ourselves in right now - does seem like quite the paradox. And yet, it does exist.
Yes, you're right, because you never really know what they're talking about when they say that, or the agenda behind that, I use it, as a frame of reference, it's shorter than 'mother nature', or many other such God's, and it encompasses many different descriptions of such things, from a mathematical take, to a personal god, because I could careless what people believe about such things. A god is whatever your make it to be, it's a personal thing, unless of course that's how they make their living
I read a book once where the author argued that there was no such thing as love for another human being, that it was all self-love and that the object of our love, was in fact the victim of our love, a lot of apparent truth to that. In any event I don't need it and find it a bother. Animals, though appear to be capable of love or something, because when I meet wildlife not only do they seem to be capable of loving each other, but if they don't seem to have anything much better to do at the time they'll join me on my walk to wherever I'm going until I end back with humans, but that might just be curiousity, unfortunately, I have a nemisis who thinks otherwise and has had almost every single wild animal in or near the town I once lived, killed.
Did I mention that hardly a week goes by that someone makes an attempt on my life? And, after my first original post today concerning capitalism, they are sure to double down on their efforts, because they use a twisted god to justify their crimes. It's in the Bible, no matter what religion is or was behind it's printing, the Lord commanded his people to murder, rape and rob and to then lie about it. That's a type of God, and obviously the god that is going to provide the Messiah, or whatever other preferred name any particular religion or sect might want to describe the same event, I know that there are a lot of awfully nice people in the world, but personally, if there really is a personal god, and that would only be possible because people make it so by their own beliefs, because as I said, the universe is empty except for energy and vectors, and the minds of things that are aware of self, that would be everything in the universe, including photons as waves or particles, are capable of recreating the universe, so killers, rapists and thieves believe one thing and others another, whatever creation the humans desire or accept is fine with me, because I don't consider as fully one of them. As one of the Rothschild's said, "they are the excrement of animals" and on the whole I might agree, but add that the that said it, even more so.
Anyway, have a great life hope it works out for the humans, but I hardly doubt that it will. As Einstein said, "god doesn't play dice", but oh yes God does, p.s. black holes grow hair, just a part of the language, it has no real meaning outside of the physicists and mathematicians who make up such terms.
It's also possible that attempting to thrust the reported phenomena into the box of existing structures (airships, weapons, drones, etc.) renders us incapable of perceiving them fully.
"No model where human behavior remains driven by profit can address the problem that ecocide will continue as long as ecocide is profitable." This is an assertion without evidence.
Caitlin might want to consider the 470,000,000 people killed by the CCP, not to mention the 20 to 60M people killed by Stalin. I understand why people get frustrated with monopolists like Bill Gates, and sociopaths like Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, and their love of ESG, which is starving millions, and making fuel unaffordable for hundreds of millions of Europeans. But you can't endorse communism without explaining how--for the first time ever!--your solution is going to be different.
Finally, if you want to attain higher consciousness, why don't you start listening to the videos at the Academy of Ideas? Or why don't you enter Jungian analysis? Or why don't you return to your faith? Any of these would be a start, and by no means, the end.
Here's what's great about Caitlin: her ability to see through propaganda. But that great ability needs to also be directed at her own writing, because she tends to be very dogmatic. I listen to Biden and all I hear is assert, assert, assert. That's very annoying. There is no need to be that way.
How is saying capitalism is not good for the environment taking the leap that communism would be? That seems to me like a leap you took.
I do agree, where there is a profit margin, damage is more extreme than population alone, which is also destructive. Nestle's drains local community ground water by bottling it and shipping it away for a profit.
The corporate personhood can destroy the environment a lot quicker than a community was my point.
The population is being culled so there's that.
California has drought too. Agricultural needs use water quicker and so does fracking. Corporate people are polluters and consumers of resources that is not untrue.
The people who were killed by (for instance) Stalin were also killed by capitalism and imperialism at second hand. The emergence of people like Stalin was part of a response to a community being attacked by external powers. If you look at the history of the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, especially in the early 20th century, you will find plenty of military and economic operations against it and its population. Still ongoing, as a matter of fact. Under such circumstances, tough guys come to the fore and are heroized, often with very poor consequences, since tough guys are often not very nice people in general.
Yes, it seems like a response to and imitation of liberalism. I'm talking here about the "communism" of the Communist parties and what is often called "Marxism-Leninism", not, say, the communism of prehistoric tribes, the early Christians or the Dukhobors and other religious communities. The connection seems pretty obvious.
I was responding to Tim WW: "Caitlin might want to consider the ... killed by the CCP, not to mention the millions killed by Stalin." To leap immediately to the failings of some other agent is not to address the main argument; it is whataboutism.
Weaponizing space it is. Not content with being and having been the worlds biggest polluter since the Industrial Revolution and unwilling to be displaced from that lofty perch, America has in its sights the corruption of the moon, and Mars. Now that’s even loftier. Should we cheer for failure of the massive moon bound rocket?
The main unexpectedly disappointing development in the last two years for me has been the enthusiastic adoption of the supine scratch-my-tummy posture by the EU. The invasion of Afghanistan by NATO forces without a soupçon of regret or soul-searching already had expressed it eloquently but I wasn’t listening.
I'm not sure what they are up to with the UFO narrative, but I bet dollars to doughnuts they are preparing to use it against us sometime in the future.
Uh .... it's not an either/or? Black or white? Democrat or Republican? Right or Left? Up or Down? Male vs Female? You're right, I'm wrong? Plus versus minus?
Have always had a problem with capitalism, even when I was much younger. Could not understand why until I got older and started digging into the real history of our current economic model. And it is killing us and the planet, despite what anyone says. The dystopian results speak for themselves for anyone with an expanded awareness. It is now a question of can enough people wake up in time to stop the madness? We will see. No one can say we live in uninteresting times...
People are still too comfortable in their privilege, that's why they defend capitalism, which is an evil that absolutely has to go. I guess things will just have to get worse for them before they get it. But it's happening, more people are waking up.
Yes, more people are waking up. The harder the control system pushes people to the edge, the more people are snapping out of their trance.
Blaming capitalism for common human behavior is lazy.
Any species that continues to produce ina closed system will eventually pollute its environment to the point of degradation and colony collapse. Did you never take basic biology and grow a yeast culture in a petri dish and watch as the colony consumed all the available energy, massively overproducing until it consumed all the food and poisoned the dish ?
Were the yeast cells capitalist ?
In the 70s I recall helping to cull an out of control rabbit population, between the ranchers and the environmentalists they removed the predators from the environment which allowed an unrestrained rabbit population to do the same thing the yeast did, eat all the food, pollute their environment and end up sick and dying.
Were the rabbits capitalists ?
The point is that humans are just another species of animal following the same pattern. When low cost energy is available we overproduce just like any other animal. It has little or nothing to do with the economic system in play and everything to do with the cost of acquiring energy.
"Did "you" never take basic biology and grow a yeast culture in a petri dish and watch as the colony consumed all the available energy, massively overproducing until it consumed all the food and poisoned the dish ? Were the yeast cells capitalist ?"
Sorry, who put the yeast cells in the petri dish?
Thats the best you can come up with, blaming the creator of the experiment I used as an example of species behavior, I guess that means god is to blame for human behavior ?
Hi JM
In this particular case, I think notBob's anecdote did serve a purpose in shedding light on the subject. But you brought up a good argument that I've just read in a different context.
Regarding Stanley Milgram's famous experiment in how well (or not) empathy stacks up with compliance to authority (the Nuremberg Defense of 'Following Superior Orders') ...
''But it is the experimenter, who commands the test subject to (as far as the subject knows) murder another subject, who is arguably the most important variable to consider if we are to understand how the dynamic plays out in real life. After all, without him, none of those apparently lethal shocks would have been administered in the first place. The fact that he has to play the role in the first place should tell us something, because he ordinarily wouldn’t do so in his everyday life.''
Lobaczewski, Andrew. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism (p. 30). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
Cheers JM
That is a poor example, you are comparing a naturally occurring species behavior to a psychological experiment but if we must...
I tend to disagree that torturing and killing other humans is not part of natural human behavior and that it wouldn't happen with the experimenter putting them up to it. Humans as a species have a long and bloody history of brutality towards each other for a million different reasons across every society. Was there an experimenter behind Ghengis Khan and the Mongul hordes ?
Good point, notBob. Within the limited context I posted, I would agree with you. But then Lobczewski goes on to agree precisely with your premise. Just one page further along ...
''Milgram and Zimbardo’s experiments demonstrated similar trends to those observed in the German police battalion records: a small minority (less than 20%) who refuse to kill, a much larger group of reluctant participants (who adapt themselves to the situation but might refrain from killing when not observed), and a small nucleus of sadistic, enthusiastic killers.32 In Milgram’s experiment, the majority who administered deadly shocks did so reluctantly.33 Just as the experimenter wouldn’t ordinarily order people to execute others for trivial reasons, the test subjects hadn’t ordinarily been instructed to administer deadly shocks to others. The situation was novel and the vast majority only complied despite mounting inner tension.''
Lobaczewski, Andrew. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil, Psychopathy, and the Origins of Totalitarianism (pp. 30-31). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.
In a nutshell, Lobaczweski, you, and myself are in agreement about the dark side of our collective gene-pool. I think I made my stand clear in my original comment to Caitlin ... which I hope you have read.
And this is why I am seeing Lobaczweski's take on the social psychology of totalitarianism more compelling than Desmet's currently popular book. I have a problem with Desmet's vaguely defined 'free floating anxiety' as a kind of secular poxy for 'the god of the gaps', and like Lobaczewki, find the influence of those high in cluster B personality traits (the dark triads of pathological narcissism, machiavellian opportunism, and morphologically defined psychopathy) as being more salient.
Jordon Peterson floated a 3% of any population, Susan Sontag 'the cruel 10%, and at least some recent studies have shown as high as 30% of American CEOs as high in those traits. The forward to Lobaczewski is citing around 6%, but I have yet to really get into the meat of the book.
I guess it any quantification of quality is going to have some qualitative and provisional 'fuzziness' with the model. I used to teach biolab students how to estimate cell culture numbers and density at Temple University Japan's biolabs ... so I am there with you. But something dark is here in human nature, harder to quantify, and it may be the seeds of our collective self-destruction.
Cheers notBob.
We'e in this fight together, and in her own way, so is Caitlin, otherwise I would not have found you.
— steve
Aren't CEOs a self-selected sample of a population? Because Custer B traits are concentrated in this group, it doesn't prove that Cluster B traits are 30% of the general population, just that capitalism rewards those very traits that are anti-social.
You might like to read The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen, in which he explains how this selection took place to begin with and how it continues to work.
Hi Susan,
Thanks for the heads up. I've heard of Veblen and seen references to him, though have not read him directly. Chris Hedges appears to echo much of that insight. Will put Veblen in my reading list, but (sigh) one lifetime is not enough.
Regarding numbers, yes, I agree that CEOs are self selected, and no, I never claimed that same percentage of Cluster B traits for those who would play king-of-the-mountain applied to the general population.
I think something between Peterson's and Sontag's numbers are closer. Those numbers would go further to explain pre-capitalist hierarchies and would-be empires such as can be found throughout most of history ... now just so much 'Tower of Babel' dust. It further explains the dysfunctions of the constant stream of excuse making-apologizing politicians, CEOs, boards of directors, etc. here in Japan ... who bow in remorse, promise 'structural reform', retire early, wash-repeat, ad infinitum.
Cheers Susan
The rabbit population was out-of-control because the ranchers, based on myths about wolves and fears that wolves would attack the animals that they had introduced to an ecological system that didn't need them, had destroyed the wolf population that kept down the rabbits.
No, the rabbits weren't capitalists, but the ranchers most certainly were.
Hi again Susan,
Ouch. 'Because' is a loaded word when talking about science. Perhaps 'statistically meaningful correlation' is a more accurate, though less conversational way to think of 'causes'. But if we restrict ourselves to causes, perhaps 'proximal' and 'distal' might give some more useful nuance to the dialogue.
Just a guess, but even closer-to-the-earth ethnic communities probably suffered through periodic ecological disasters on a whole continuum of degrees of culpability — from pure chance of nature (floods and draught) to excesses such as slash and burn or overhunting. I think the question is still up for discussion regarding the correlation between the rise of human populations and the decline of large mammals in North America such as mammoths.
Cheers.
An interesting theory from Jared Diamond in his book Collapse - How societies fail. His research showed that the natives in new Mexico showed signs of a growing road network that was specifically built to increase the reach of the settlement to trees and vegetation at further and further distances. This led to their collapse when the distances became too great or they intruded on others territory.
IMO: Showing that regardless of the economic or political model when civilization exceeds its resource limits collapse occurs.
Completely agree with you notBob.
In fact, one of what I thought were the few weaknesses in Collapse was that Diamond did not give enough emphasis to the logistical limits of population scale ... that law of diminishing returns thingy. Australian aboriginal people, and a few other scattered tribes across the globe seem to be more sustainable than the collective concentrations of power into empires aspiring to last a thousand years.
'Quality' of life I guess is another question altogether, but I am not so sure the members of those 'undeveloped' close-to-nature communities are any less happy than the typical wage-slave or Wall Street executive. They may have a shorter average lifespan, and face dangers in the wild we couldn't even begin to cope with. But chances are they are less prone to suffer the petty politics, anomie, and other stresses that come with institutionalized hierarchies.
Another potential weak point of Collapse, (though I will have to skim through it again to verify) was that I think a small but persistent percentage of any population are sociopathic ... including those earlier mentioned ethnic communities. Through Mathew Crawford's substack, I learned a new word ... 'Kunlangeta' ... the Inuit/Eskimo word for 'psychopath'.
Environment and epigenetics no doubt play a role in sustaining that B-Cluster group, but because of the persistence of that game-of-thrones we call 'history', and the fact that we are not wired to collectively learn from history (at least, not morally ... everyone starts from ground zero as an infant), I am guessing there is a strong genetic component to it.
Cheers notBob
Silliest shit I ever read. Well, pretty close.
Maybe you should read more ?
We all could use more laughs, thank you.
I don't think Caitlin said that capitalism was the root cause of any of the problems she's mentioned. In fact, calling her lazy for something she didn't even do is kind of lazy reading. She clearly stated that the actual problem was lack of awareness. "We are a traumatized species destroying the planet because of our trauma... The goal is to walk down the dark corridors of ourselves and turn the lights on". In other words, we are destroying the planet because of unexamined, unconscious, behavior mechanisms, and we'd have a better chance of addressing the ecocide caused by capitalism if we became aware of the very unconscious forces that are motivating our collective behavior.
Now, saying that it's the natural tendency of natural beings to destroy their environment is sort of disingenuous. It's the natural tendency of ecosystems to require a certain homeostasis. If the conditions that allow for the existence of the ecosystem (many of which have to do with "internal" balance) collapse, then the ecosystem collapses. That is what's going on in humanity's relationship with the earth, that is what we mean by ecocide. As you've said yourself, the problem isn't so much this natural tendency in us so much as it is letting that tendency control us without being aware of the fact that it actually is in control. Saying "oh, it's just human nature" or "it's just the market" rather than expanding our awareness to take stock of whether a particular behavior is actually more harmful than helpful, whether it's necessary or detrimental to our survival.
In conclusion then, we can look to the opening lines of this article. Capitalism cannot provide an adequate response to ecocide, because as a model for understanding and prescribing behavior, it does not take into account or allow for awareness of the subconscious evolutionary mechanisms (fear of death, compulsive need for control, egotism, etc) that would lead to a so-called thinking species "thinking" (through addiction to fossil fuels and speed) itself into extinction. We need to look beyond capitalism for solutions to the problems that our species is facing.
Maybe, as Caitlin alluded to, as the trauma-healing and consciousness expanding effects of psychedelics become more widely understood, accepted, and sought out, that can help us collectively move into a larger, less destructive way of being.
Ouch.
Though you put it more harshly than I did, you also gave more specific examples.
Capitalist rabbits and yeast? LOL. Funny snork & snark there notBob.
But I thank Caitlin for prodding us.
"Expansion of consciousness" is the solution, but how to achieve it? It's not going to happen the easy way, one person at a time, because time is too short and we are too inclined to complacency. But it may happen when we're hungry and cold in the darkness we seem so determined to bring on ourselves. Without ever asking the people of Germany, the German foreign minister donned sackcloth and ashes (maybe not?) and proclaimed that Germany had to take the economic hit so Ukraine would win the war. Wall-to-wall lies. This enforced austerity is a war being fought in the interests of the 1%, .1% , .01% on down the line of the shadow state, who plan to take over the assets of the thousands of failed businesses. Got a better explanation, anybody? And it is this lot responsible for the rapine and razing of nature, the maximum profit lot, who would sell their own grandmothers, and in fact have managed to make seniors a profitable enterprise: thousands were sacrificed during Covid, but there's always more where they came from. This lot is profane and demonic, and nothing is sacred to them, but money. Don't wait for their expanded consciousness.: it ain't coming anytime soon.
I think their agenda is not acquisition of abandoned properties, those only have meaning and value if there are people around.
The goal as stated by the WEF and its acolytes is human depopulation.
The most effective way consciousness is expanded is often with "pain". Status quo - rarely.
You write of the effectiveness of psychedelics, which brings to mind psilocybin, which brings to mind the topic (see "Entangled Life") of fungi pharmacologically seizing control of animal behavior (e.g., ants & zombie fungi). In like manner the bastions of Capitalist consumption , from fashionistas to pharmacistas to industrialistas have zombied the human mind to the endless semi-covert examples of ecocide all around us. And if you count all the reproductive-disruption of estrogen-mimics and other hormone-mimics and hormone-antagonists released by criminal corporations into soil and water, you'd be inclined to think "genocide." Hence, I understand that view.
Yet again another marxist blaming capitalism for natural human behavior. Product designers don't invent new behavior with their products, they design their products specifically to take advantage of existing human behavior.
If I recall the largest developer of human thought control technologies is now also the largest socialist society on the planet. Chinas social credit score is an abomination invented by socialists to control their population
I enjoyed reading this post. Thanks.
What you think is capitalism is crony capitalism which currently is technocommunism.
What system would you prefer?
True anarchy and patches would work once this fake capitalism anti-free market system is replaced.
You're engaging in another defense of capitalism, in which you play semantic games to re-assign the word "capitalism" with "crony" and "technocommunism" (snort).
Capitalists have always practiced crony capitalism. As Warren Buffet said, "There is a class war and we are winning it."
Amuse me, what do you and the author propose as a replacement system?
I play no semantics games and have a degree in econ. I have yet to ever hear of any kind of solution from author and I asked her once her thoughts on Austrian School Econ and of course crickets.
It's easy to criticize and not appreciate the actual dynamics.
Have a nice day.
I think I've run into you before.
Since you have "a degree in econ," I guess that you're not much open to learning about other schools of economic thought. In order to expand your knowledge, you would have to jettison everything you paid so much to learn, and that would cause you to suffer more than mere cognitive dissonance.
Maybe Caitlin didn't answer you because she disagrees with the Austrian economic model, or possibly she was just busy with something else.
There are several other models of replacement systems for capitalism; they've been discussed for centuries. And practiced, sometimes with success, for centuries.
You know what they are, but once again you're playing games to lure me into suggesting one so that you, with your superior knowledge, can shoot me down. (And maybe that's what Caitlin sensed, too.)
Sorry, not going to take the bait.
Don't forget the hyphen, it's a degree in e-con, like an e-mba. (edit:
https://www.amazon.com/ECONned-Unenlightened-Undermined-Democracy-Capitalism-ebook/dp/B0038YQWC0
You are unlearned to take any "bait" in any meaningful way.
You have no solutions and do not understand what you think you are criticizing.
Good luck to you, you'll need it.
To demand a solution implies that there is a problem. Can you state the problem?
I feel sorry for you. Maybe one day you will realize you have a degree in a fake science, that deserves a fake Nobel Prize, but what's more depressing is you probably don't have it in you to make the leap. Have a nice day.
Just what I said!
Not an argument.
Just feelings and conjecture.
You're obviously not here to have a constructive discussion, or even an honest debate. The goal of the article as clearly stated is to point out that unconsciously following conditioned patterns of behaviour and belief systems about our dominant social and economic models is leading to destruction and suffering. The goal is to get people to examine how aware they are of the role that they play within the system. Not to outline and defend every possible alternative system of economics or governance.
But, the fact that she's criticising something that's dear to you, a system that you've received a degree in, and that your response is to parochialy dismiss the existence of any alternative possibilities, while missing the point of the article completely, speaks to how deeply you've been indoctrinated by a belief system that was sold to you as the key to empowerment, freedom and success.
The intellectual dishonesty you display by dismissing the existence of alternative theories and systems of economics and governance is not going to get you any respect around here. I suggest you take a good look in the mirror, or alternatively if you aren't ready yet, just go troll somewhere else.
Spot on as usual. Better than my morning coffee, which is the best coffee on this planet.
We're not going to make it, Caitlin. The problem is too big and the will too little, period. All we can do is our own little part and hang on for the rest of our personal little ride through the time we have here. I can only suppose we missed our opportunities when Henry A. Wallace was replaced by the democrats, and JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcom were taken out of play. Perhaps people like John Lennon and others as well. Stick a fork in it...we're done.
Even if we survive, we won't - we'll have to evolve into something else, won't we?
There are big misconceptions about what capitalism is and this article shows it.
Capitalism is the natural result of free economic interaction among humans. Even in communism there is capitalism (black markets).
Our current system, however, is not capitalism. It is an oligarchy fueled by the fact that out money is broken. A small cartel of central bankers, bankers and politicians took over the monetary supply from the people to feed their greed.
The necessary result of this is inflation. With inflation over time preference rises. When our money is worse less tomorrow, we overconsume and use other investments (e.g. housing) as money, because it holds its value better. This leads to global destruction of ecosystems.
To fix these issues, and also issues of wealth inequality, we need to take away the right to print money from the elites, and return to a sound monetary standard which humans strived on for centuries.
Bitcoin is the separation of money and the state. It could bring along a new renaissance, just like the separation of the church and the state did, lifting up the human race and protecting our planet.
"Capitalism is the natural result of free economic interaction among humans."
No, it isn't. Capitalism is a condition of the state in which the owners and operators of capital, the bourgeoisie, dominate and control the state and its subject population. Before such a class can emerge and do its thing, a lot of supporting conditions are necessary, such as the rule of law, especially in relation to property, the creation of money and banking in the modern sense, the availability of a working class -- the list is actually pretty long. The peculiar thing we observe today is financialization, in which the tools of finance which make capitalism possible take over and become ends in themselves. As the president of General Motors once said, "General Motors doesn't make cars, it makes money." A lot of trouble ensued from that principle.
Bitcoin and its imitators and descendants is quite interesting in this regard. Since the underlying "substance" is absolutely worthless it greatly resembles fiat money, which requires state power to keep the believers believing. It might be the ultimate financialization, completely disconnected from human value and gyrating by itself in some Platonic ether. I am pretty sure it will not grind the flour for my bread, however.
Addendum: any form of socialism is doomed to fail, because it necessitates becoming a form of national socialism. Socialism with open borders does not work because the capable leave the country. We see this currently in Germany, where 25% of college educated are considering leaving the country. And I think it‘s not necessary to explain the problems with national socialism, we Germans tried that and the results were not great.
Historically, socialism was defined as "the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers, or the community in general." There must be millions of cooperatives worldwide which exemplify exactly this idea, most of them probably democratic. "National socialism" in the sense of the system promoted by the NSDAP (Nazi party) required that the political role of the workers be replaced by the Party under the absolute control of a leader or Führer; this arrangement was called the "Führerprinzip" or leadership principle, and does not resemble the original idea of socialism very much at all, although it should win the gold medal for Olympic-class word- and concept-twisting.
Lmao, Bitcoin renaissance
Nicely put - I agree with your synopsis & would argue that we are NOT living in a Free Market Capitalist Structure, There is all the window dressing of Free Market but I content that we are moving back to Feudal Capitalism with the creation of new "Barons" ie. Gates/Musk/Bezos. These are the New Kings without the confines of a Realm. Just a small look into Gates's interference & profiteering from Covid illustrates this. The Oligarchy & Banksters are the worlds most dangerous criminals enabled by the puppet class of Politicians (Trump/Biden/Obama/Clinton & Bushes) & like all tragedies throughout World History - it will fall upon the common people to take our Countries back from this Tyranny.
I knew I was in trouble when I was a kid when it came to capitalism. I kept asking "Why?" all the time whenever people tried to explain to me how capitalism worked. "People have to keep making cars because people will want to keep buying them because they make money from making the cars," I was told. I had the audacity to ask "Why would anyone need to keep buying cars if they already have a perfectly good one? You wouldn't make bad cars that needed replacing or else you wouldn't be in business for very long." Adults would just give me a blank share and tell me to shut up. Yeah, I knew I didn't belong in this capitalist society at that very moment. I had to turn on the lights and get the hell out.
Whatever happened to the word "progressive"? We on the far left were driven back to using it after "liberal" became another descriptor for "compliant company shill." (Listen to Phil Ochs' song "Love Me, I'm a Liberal" on YouTube. Apparently the change to the meaning of "liberal" took place some time in the 1970s.)
Now "progressive" has followed "liberal" down the capitalist rat hole.
We'll have to come up with yet another word for who we are. "Hippy," anyone? They'll never steal that from us.
Yes, it was hijacked by the neoliberal movement, and the change was cemented in place by the Clinton administration. People on the left side of the spectrum have been struggling ever since to find a replacement for that word, and it's my theory that the right keeps undermining any and all replacements so that we lack a common language so necessary to the evolution of ideas.
Hippy isn't well defined, and some of them have been soft capitalists; they are easily corrupted (which is what happened to the movement in the first place).
Peace!
It does look like "progressive" now has also been hijacked to mean something it wasn't originally.
Well, I think the popularity of the word _progressive_ probably goes back to 17th- and 18th-century liberal ideology, which held that "Man" and "his" social organization was, if not perfectable, at least greatly improvable, hence "he" would inevitably "Progress" to better things. (I apologize for the scare-quotes, but I need to remind you that these words are used in an ambiguous and often dubious manner.) That "Man" in fact progressed to better things does not seem to me to be evidenced in the history of the 20th and 21st centuries, although one could certainly argue about it.
The UFO material is fascinating and I agree, deserves attention. I'm not ready (yet) to assign it as just another pentagon conspiracy to garner more money for the MIC - partially because the MIC so far, gets whatever funding it wants from the US corrupted government - in fact, it gets even more than it wants yearly. Although, at the same time, I wouldn't put it past the pentagon/deep state to propagandize the American people with yet another fake threat - to militarize the nation even more than it already is. Which is pretty nuts.
However, the 2004 Nimitz UFO incident - was a kind of heads up for me personally. Before that incident became pretty well known - I was inclined to dismiss all UFO stories as more folklore than possibly real. But that 2004 Nimitz encounter - is like, wow - you have several trained USN pilots reporting not only visually but instrumentally these objects, along with different technological state-of-the-art radar platforms on the Nimitz and other support ships *also* reporting these objects, and then of course you have the actual video recordings along with voice reactions from the pilots themselves. Post interviews with the several of the pilots (not just one, so multiple confirmations) also have been pretty convincing (at least to me). Again, still *might* be an elaborate plot - but the UFO story at least for me, was more convincing than those I've seen in the past.
If these objects are really of alien origin, they most likely are not actually manned - but some kind of probes - given the speed and dynamics that have been recorded - no living biological organism could likely survive in them. But who knows, given the age of our own civilization - and the calculated possible ago of other possible intelligent species (just in our own galaxy) it is far more likely that there are species out there that are far more advanced than we are - by 100s of thousands of years. So who knows what kind of technology some other species might have in 100 thousand years. Inter-dimensional space travel? Anti-gravity machines? Etc.
On the other hand, why all the hokey pokey? Why not just introduce themselves to the human race? Or is the human race just a bunch of observable ants to them?
In any case, an interesting mystery. I remain still on the fence until actual communication is established. I wonder if it will happen in our life time, or given Fermi's Paradox, we really are just all alone in this vast space? If so, it would be an awful waste of space.
Yeah, I would guess that we would be little more to them than a bunch of murderous ants. Interesting that you would would mention interdimensional travel, because although I speak of love it's neither here nor there for me other than in a Platonic sort of way, but leaning more towards Aristatol, Plato's student, so that we could all just enjoy life as nature intended it to be without having to worry about people wanting to kill us, but would only be because of mathematical reasoning, that the moment before our theology contends was a big bang, that was the zero dimension, we are in the third dimension, so therefore, the last number of an infinite series of numbers, undefined of course, just like the number zero was left undefined for centuries, but obviously, everyone knew what it was, and, although, any number multiplied by zero is zero, that particular imaginary impossible number multiplied by zero is one, and one equates to the duel identity of I am, and, God. If that's a purpose in life I don't know, but it must be very lonely, because if there's only one god, how would the Creator know that they had actually created anything and that it wasn't just their wild imagination unless of course that supposed Creator actually created something that again it supposed it created and sent it to this universe just to find out if it was real; again, a non-solvable problem because it's not defined, but at the end of the day, that is me, because other than as Aristatol would say, be a good citizen, I really don't care about love or people because they mostly appear to be murderous ants, or just another cluster of elementary particles in an otherwise empty universe.
I tend to veer away from discussions about "God" only because there are so many different permutations of God in philosophy and theology etc. And often I get Skeptic materialists using the age old caricature of God as some ultimate being behind everything - and then dismissing all theological/metaphysical thought with their strawman, infantile version of God - you then spend all your time arguing over their strawman version.
Although I can see your pessimism about love - on the other hand, the mystery is (for me) that love even exists. And I don't buy into emotions (or consciousness) being simply a product of electro-chemical reactions - which currently there really is no scientific evidence for. That love exists in this somewhat sad world we find ourselves in right now - does seem like quite the paradox. And yet, it does exist.
Yes, you're right, because you never really know what they're talking about when they say that, or the agenda behind that, I use it, as a frame of reference, it's shorter than 'mother nature', or many other such God's, and it encompasses many different descriptions of such things, from a mathematical take, to a personal god, because I could careless what people believe about such things. A god is whatever your make it to be, it's a personal thing, unless of course that's how they make their living
I read a book once where the author argued that there was no such thing as love for another human being, that it was all self-love and that the object of our love, was in fact the victim of our love, a lot of apparent truth to that. In any event I don't need it and find it a bother. Animals, though appear to be capable of love or something, because when I meet wildlife not only do they seem to be capable of loving each other, but if they don't seem to have anything much better to do at the time they'll join me on my walk to wherever I'm going until I end back with humans, but that might just be curiousity, unfortunately, I have a nemisis who thinks otherwise and has had almost every single wild animal in or near the town I once lived, killed.
Did I mention that hardly a week goes by that someone makes an attempt on my life? And, after my first original post today concerning capitalism, they are sure to double down on their efforts, because they use a twisted god to justify their crimes. It's in the Bible, no matter what religion is or was behind it's printing, the Lord commanded his people to murder, rape and rob and to then lie about it. That's a type of God, and obviously the god that is going to provide the Messiah, or whatever other preferred name any particular religion or sect might want to describe the same event, I know that there are a lot of awfully nice people in the world, but personally, if there really is a personal god, and that would only be possible because people make it so by their own beliefs, because as I said, the universe is empty except for energy and vectors, and the minds of things that are aware of self, that would be everything in the universe, including photons as waves or particles, are capable of recreating the universe, so killers, rapists and thieves believe one thing and others another, whatever creation the humans desire or accept is fine with me, because I don't consider as fully one of them. As one of the Rothschild's said, "they are the excrement of animals" and on the whole I might agree, but add that the that said it, even more so.
Anyway, have a great life hope it works out for the humans, but I hardly doubt that it will. As Einstein said, "god doesn't play dice", but oh yes God does, p.s. black holes grow hair, just a part of the language, it has no real meaning outside of the physicists and mathematicians who make up such terms.
It's also possible that attempting to thrust the reported phenomena into the box of existing structures (airships, weapons, drones, etc.) renders us incapable of perceiving them fully.
"No model where human behavior remains driven by profit can address the problem that ecocide will continue as long as ecocide is profitable." This is an assertion without evidence.
Caitlin might want to consider the 470,000,000 people killed by the CCP, not to mention the 20 to 60M people killed by Stalin. I understand why people get frustrated with monopolists like Bill Gates, and sociopaths like Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, and their love of ESG, which is starving millions, and making fuel unaffordable for hundreds of millions of Europeans. But you can't endorse communism without explaining how--for the first time ever!--your solution is going to be different.
Finally, if you want to attain higher consciousness, why don't you start listening to the videos at the Academy of Ideas? Or why don't you enter Jungian analysis? Or why don't you return to your faith? Any of these would be a start, and by no means, the end.
Here's what's great about Caitlin: her ability to see through propaganda. But that great ability needs to also be directed at her own writing, because she tends to be very dogmatic. I listen to Biden and all I hear is assert, assert, assert. That's very annoying. There is no need to be that way.
How is saying capitalism is not good for the environment taking the leap that communism would be? That seems to me like a leap you took.
I do agree, where there is a profit margin, damage is more extreme than population alone, which is also destructive. Nestle's drains local community ground water by bottling it and shipping it away for a profit.
Perhaps you could enlighten me ? Why is China experiencing the biggest drought in its history ? Could it possibly be too many people ?
The degradation of the environment is a direct result of human population growth regardless of the nation or its economics or social structure.
The corporate personhood can destroy the environment a lot quicker than a community was my point.
The population is being culled so there's that.
California has drought too. Agricultural needs use water quicker and so does fracking. Corporate people are polluters and consumers of resources that is not untrue.
The people who were killed by (for instance) Stalin were also killed by capitalism and imperialism at second hand. The emergence of people like Stalin was part of a response to a community being attacked by external powers. If you look at the history of the Russian Empire / Soviet Union, especially in the early 20th century, you will find plenty of military and economic operations against it and its population. Still ongoing, as a matter of fact. Under such circumstances, tough guys come to the fore and are heroized, often with very poor consequences, since tough guys are often not very nice people in general.
Your argument is that the birth and failings of communism is capitalisms fault ?
Yes, it seems like a response to and imitation of liberalism. I'm talking here about the "communism" of the Communist parties and what is often called "Marxism-Leninism", not, say, the communism of prehistoric tribes, the early Christians or the Dukhobors and other religious communities. The connection seems pretty obvious.
Whataboutism? No, please.
Which whataboutism?
I was responding to Tim WW: "Caitlin might want to consider the ... killed by the CCP, not to mention the millions killed by Stalin." To leap immediately to the failings of some other agent is not to address the main argument; it is whataboutism.
Weaponizing space it is. Not content with being and having been the worlds biggest polluter since the Industrial Revolution and unwilling to be displaced from that lofty perch, America has in its sights the corruption of the moon, and Mars. Now that’s even loftier. Should we cheer for failure of the massive moon bound rocket?
The main unexpectedly disappointing development in the last two years for me has been the enthusiastic adoption of the supine scratch-my-tummy posture by the EU. The invasion of Afghanistan by NATO forces without a soupçon of regret or soul-searching already had expressed it eloquently but I wasn’t listening.
I'm not sure what they are up to with the UFO narrative, but I bet dollars to doughnuts they are preparing to use it against us sometime in the future.
looking into UFO;s is more important than looking into the plandemic mandatory lockdowns and clot shots....got it...https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/exclusive-proof-that-the-top-israeli?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Uh .... it's not an either/or? Black or white? Democrat or Republican? Right or Left? Up or Down? Male vs Female? You're right, I'm wrong? Plus versus minus?
Maybe it can be both?
Covid is a capitalist.
covid is a planned farce
exactly...that Cate never even mentions it is quite puzzling
COVID is supposedly a virus, now we have capitalist viruses along with capitalist yeast and capitalist rabbits and capitalist Soviet wolf hunters.