Posted: Thu May 17, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject: Count the number of times he says NWO
Haven't posted in a while but here is Gordon Brown announcing he is moving us slowly but surely into the New World Order. Apologies if its been posted already.
Last edited by Useful Eater on Sat May 19, 2007 6:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
I disagree. Brown is spinning, not raising his flag. Like NWO is soft, inevitable and cuddly and coming to you soon. Nothing to do with sweat shop labor and bombs.
Now thats sickening
Greenspan persuaded Thatcher (far right conservative) that UKs utilities and public services should be handed to multinational big biz.
Brown("old" or left wing labour (hah hah)) takes on this vampire as an adviser
Labour = Conservative
What is YOUR value as a human being? Depends how you measure it. If you measure it by means of capitalism, the value of a human being approaches zero as time moves towards 2049. Global trade does part of that. Computers do the rest. You're FUNGIBLE.
This is actually a call FOR SOCIALISM or for some form of HUMANISM -- but obviously a grassroots variety, not some Stalinistic parasitic variety. We need a vision that preserves the value of human beings AS human beings, NOT as mere worthless and expendable corporate economic cogs.
Can anyone think of ANOTHER way? How can you be of value to the economy -- and thus sustain your life in the "marketplace" -- if you can be replaced by a $1000 gadget? (And wait until the price drops on those!)
Last edited by dilbert_g on Mon May 21, 2007 2:47 pm; edited 2 times in total
I have talked to more than one person that believes that human beings,(or any organic life), are only electric meat walking around, responding to stimuli.
When I,romantic that I am, propose that any computer is still a simple binary code, multiplied beyond comprehension, yet still, only a machine, a tool, like a sharp rock, or a lever, they jump to the assertion that in some way , the machine is superior to us, and that it is going to "rule the world" or some such.
I am not worried about the machines, when I find one that can weep at the tragedy of "Romeo and Juliet", or discuss the quandary Prince Hamlet faces in his indecisiveness, I shall give it another look.
The old "garbage in-garbage out" axiom seems apt.
I am more concerned with the ease with which people can surrender decision making to a system, like the way WWI started, the plan was there and the powers of Europe simply followed the plan. _________________ "A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
Don,
I am certainly not debating the intrinsic value of human beings. I believe in that.
I am asking about the pure economic value of human beings as human labor and human thought in terms of production of goods and services. What happens when everything is automated?
In a perfect world, there would be no need for humans to crawl around in a mine shaft.
There would be no need for children to go blind at a sewing machine, working as slave labor.
A sustainable economy could be in place, in which whatever creative impulse one might have would not be an idle dream, art, engineering, whatever a person found fulfilling would be realistic.
Every year the damage done by the past could be healed a bit more.
The better angels of our nature would be shared by all, with no account books. _________________ "A bayonet is a tool with a worker on both ends."- V.I.Lenin
Patriotism is a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome.
I agree. That would be true in a perfect world. In an imperfect world, certain select people OWN all the automation, so the benefits promised in the 70's were never distributed throughout society. The chain of events and institutions that has led them to own it, and to afford to own and develop them, is an interesting inquiry.
Others are in the opposite position of NOT owning the automation.
Certainly, better angels and all would transform our world into a sharing society. (I suspect that as crude as the Straussians are, they are at least somewhat correct that some humans require strife and need an enemy to focus on or some other method of "management", but I'm not suggesting this is true for all or even most.)
In this sharing society, SOME would be creative people. Some would be lazy and watch TV programming or take Soma. Some would get addicted to video games.
On the other hand, I'm suggesting that if Humans have grossly diminished economic value to global corporations, compared to machines, then the options are either this perfected world you describe or else extermination. Lassez faire is too dangerous. People might instigate rebellion if left too idle.
The economically practical option would be extermination, or slow elimination. Like the practical value of plow horses is nil (except for some aesthetic value perhaps), so you don't see many plow horses in America. You see some Alaskan husky dogs, but in most places you don't see them pulling sleds, just as housepets.
I'm not talking about the way you or I would calculate human value. I know that YOU are a good person. I'm asking about the way the "invisible hand" of the market (which Steven Zarlenga refers to as a religious icon, an invisible god) would calculate the value of surplus humans. Soylent flourescent Orange anyone?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
