Mankind is a blight

[Pliny]

Why is it that Socialists look upon mankind as a blight upon the Earth? I have heard often from left leaning individuals here that the public is stupid and other people are, in general, idiots and plants are more important than people. They aren't talking about anyone specific but in general terms this is their concept of the human race.

"We need to be super controlled or we will destroy ourselves. We need to politically, put a lid on population growth, development and curb our energy use." So says teh socialist.

Forget about first world guilt and white guilt, this is human race guilt. We are destroying the Earth - as if that is our full intention. But no, I suppose that would be stretching it a little. It isn't our full intention we are just too stupid to know any better.

Well, for the socialist, "we" means other people. People who haven't arrived at the same conclusion that, "we are too stupid to look after ourselves". However, there are politicians that can do so. They can force us to change our ways; and they must or we will all die. Does that sound Hitlerian or maybe Stalinistic or is it just common sense? It is definitely socialistic.

You know what though, if the government wasn't looking after all those "stupid" people maybe they would all die and we would be better off. Just us smart guys would be left.

[Shwa]

I'm a socialist and I don't think humankind is a blight. There is room for improvement for sure, but I don't look for Agent Smith when I walk the dog. Then again, I don't attribute to a sound bite the same value I would attribute to an essay, a book or a serious discussion of research.

Racism in TV Body Language?

OK, I also mean a discussion of serious research.

...this is human race guilt...

Ah I see. Perhaps deep, deep down in the Western psyche - from left wing socialists to right wing facists - there is this pesistent notion of Original Sin? It just manifests itself in different ways.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, for the socialist, "we" means other people. People who haven't arrived at the same conclusion that, "we are too stupid to look after ourselves". However, there are politicians that can do so. They can force us to change our ways; and they must or we will all die. Does that sound Hitlerian or maybe Stalinistic or is it just common sense? It is definitely socialistic.

You know what though, if the government wasn't looking after all those "stupid" people maybe they would all die and we would be better off. Just us smart guys would be left.

As an admittedly left-of-centre poster I have always hated the socialist "we" as used by CBC and other organs. By "we" they really mean "you". They say "we need to consider the environment" but they have already done so, so by simple math WE - ME = YOU.

Lefties tend to see people as stupider than they are, whereas rightists tend to see people as smarter than they are.

[eyeball]

As an admittedly left-of-centre poster I have always hated the socialist "we" as used by CBC and other organs. By "we" they really mean "you". They say "we need to consider the environment" but they have already done so, so by simple math WE - ME = YOU.

It seems to me I've been told what we need or don't need to do by the right as much as the left.

Lefties tend to see people as stupider than they are, whereas rightists tend to see people as smarter than they are.

In either case I fear too many of both would answer yes to questions like this one posed in the Political Compass test. In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.

[Sir Bandelot]

Seems to me that any living organism left without checks and balances ultimately outgrows its environment, consuming it's resources to depletion, and must eventually die off. In nature there are inherently limited systems, where organisms flourish and recede in numbers based on natural cycles. See Darwinism.

But WE humans have stepped outside of this natural cycle. We are aware of the effects of those limiting rules and we have learned ways to get around them. As such there is no natural regulation other than what we choose for ourselves, and by and large our greed and competitiveness makes it difficult for us to limit ourselves.

[ToadBrother]

Why is it that Socialists look upon mankind as a blight upon the Earth? I have heard often from left leaning individuals here that the public is stupid and other people are, in general, idiots and plants are more important than people. They aren't talking about anyone specific but in general terms this is their concept of the human race.

"We need to be super controlled or we will destroy ourselves. We need to politically, put a lid on population growth, development and curb our energy use." So says teh socialist.

When an argument begins with a broad strawman, it can only go downhill from there. I mean, after all, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[ToadBrother]

Seems to me that any living organism left without checks and balances ultimately outgrows its environment, consuming it's resources to depletion, and must eventually die off. In nature there are inherently limited systems, where organisms flourish and recede in numbers based on natural cycles. See Darwinism.

But WE humans have stepped outside of this natural cycle. We are aware of the effects of those limiting rules and we have learned ways to get around them. As such there is no natural regulation other than what we choose for ourselves, and by and large our greed and competitiveness makes it difficult for us to limit ourselves.

We have not stepped outside any natural cycle. To some extent we have some limited control over certain cycles, but most certainly, at the end of the day, we are governed by the same natural forces as every other organism. If we truly outpace the environment's capacity to deal with us, we will, like any species suffer dieback.

[eyeball]

If we truly outpace the environment's capacity to deal with us, we will, like any species suffer dieback.

I think a smaller population is the only truly sustainable solution to overconsumption and as grotesque as it sounds this is probably the best we'll be able to hope for.

Put it this way, if we knew an asteroid was going to slam into Earth and the only option we had is to pick where it hits, what would or should we do? Let nature decide, pick straws, let might make right or do something else?

In a world of beggars and choosers I guess the options are pretty black and white.

Edited December 18, 2009 by eyeball

[Sir Bandelot]

We have not stepped outside any natural cycle. To some extent we have some limited control over certain cycles, but most certainly, at the end of the day, we are governed by the same natural forces as every other organism.

Not so, in my view we have technology, industrial agriculture and medicine to stave off things like shortages in food and epidemic diseases. Seems to me that in nature animals go through annual cycles of proliferation and decline, where a local ecology does not provide enough food for an overgrown herd of Caribou, there will be large losses in life until the balance is again restored and population increases. Thats the kind of natural cycle I was talking about.

We are not completely immune to it, but we have come a long way in that we seek to control the environment, not be controlled by it.

[Shwa]

But WE humans have stepped outside of this natural cycle

So does that mean we have attained a super-natural status or a supra-natural status?

Not so, in my view we have technology, industrial agriculture and medicine to stave off things like shortages in food and epidemic diseases.

So major droughts and famines, pandemics, wars, old age - they are all things of the past now? Yeehaw! But wait...

There are several - likely hundreds - of species that go through several generations of local stability. I wonder if a queen bee from a stable colony ever declared that 'WE BEES have stepped outside of this natural cycle' and became god-bees?

[Guest TrueMetis]

See Darwinism.

Can't, there is no such thing as Darwinism anymore as there is Einsteinism. Now if you are talking about Evolutionary theory than you should know that it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. That's it, that is all evolution is.

[Sir Bandelot]

Can't, there is no such thing as Darwinism anymore as there is Einsteinism. Now if you are talking about Evolutionary theory than you should know that it has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Evolution is any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. That's it, that is all evolution is.

It's just a word, but I was not alluding to evolution so much I was about survival of the fittest, by natural selection. The theory that an organism thrives when it fits in with its environment. If the environment changes suddenly, before the organism can adapt, it dies. That's it, thats all I was saying.

[Pliny]

As an admittedly left-of-centre poster I have always hated the socialist "we" as used by CBC and other organs. By "we" they really mean "you". They say "we need to consider the environment" but they have already done so, so by simple math WE - ME = YOU.

A salient point.

I should always remember to consider that when a socialist is speaking about "we" (third person plural)he is speaking about "I"(myself)(first person singular).

Speaking in general terms such as "we", "the left", "the right", etc., are of course generalities and generalities tend to confuse.

Shwa calls himself a socialist and, like yourself, doesn't think that mankind is a blight upon the Earth. How can that be?

Lefties tend to see people as stupider than they are, whereas rightists tend to see people as smarter than they are.

I interpreted this in a comparative sense at first. Lefties see people as stupider than they (Lefties) are. This made sense to me. Of course, you mean that Lefties see people as stupider than they (people) are. Either way I think the statement true.

The latter part about rightists only makes sense in the subjective and not comparative sense, of course.

As I am right of centre your statement about rightists is somewhat correct, I think. But it is not a question of seeing people as smarter than they are but seeing them having more capability and potential than they are given credit for. They are dumbed down by a public education and then considered to be generally stupider than they are. A rather self-fulfilling prophesy from the State and the ideological, intellectual left that dominates the behavioural engineering and modification sciences.

I don't see poor people or street people as being stupid or incapable so I don't view them as victims of anyone but themselves and the choices they have made in their lives. I am speaking of course of the perpetually poor and downtrodden not someone who has an experience of adversity and needs some help to pick himself up. That person can see he is in dire straits where as the perpetual victim uses that status as his modus operandi in life.

The left, as you say, perceives people to be stupider than people are. They then feel compelled to help him. It must be realized that a person who has learned that victimhood pays will remain a victim as long as he believes this is the case. Trying to ease the victim's lack of necessities by providing him with food and shelter and clothing only cements his perception that being a victim gets him his necessities with little effort. He will immediately consume what he is given and he will lose or destroy anything of value he doesn't immediately consume. He may collect piles of useless material as long as they don't contribute to destroying his modus operandi. If those things give the apparency of improving his victim status; all the better.

[Sir Bandelot]

I interpreted it as saying, righties are anti-intellectual, by choice. Eg. a distrust of science, especially the religious right wing. Would that also mean to say, righties are more fervently religious than lefties? Possibly

- All grotesque generalizations, but it's about a perception.

Edited December 23, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Michael Hardner]

A salient point.

I should always remember to consider that when a socialist is speaking about "we" (third person plural)he is speaking about "I"(myself)(first person singular).

Usually he means "you" as in you - Pliny.

"We need to think about the environment" = "You - Pliny, YOU are you listening ? - YOU need to think about the environment."

Shwa calls himself a socialist and, like yourself, doesn't think that mankind is a blight upon the Earth. How can that be?

His view, like mine, is more nuanced than the typical leftist view.

I interpreted this in a comparative sense at first. Lefties see people as stupider than they (Lefties) are. This made sense to me. Of course, you mean that Lefties see people as stupider than they (people) are. Either way I think the statement true.

The latter part about rightists only makes sense in the subjective and not comparative sense, of course.

As I am right of centre your statement about rightists is somewhat correct, I think. But it is not a question of seeing people as smarter than they are but seeing them having more capability and potential than they are given credit for. They are dumbed down by a public education and then considered to be generally stupider than they are. A rather self-fulfilling prophesy from the State and the ideological, intellectual left that dominates the behavioural engineering and modification sciences.

Yes, we are on the same page.

I don't see poor people or street people as being stupid or incapable so I don't view them as victims of anyone but themselves and the choices they have made in their lives. I am speaking of course of the perpetually poor and downtrodden not someone who has an experience of adversity and needs some help to pick himself up. That person can see he is in dire straits where as the perpetual victim uses that status as his modus operandi in life.

A victim of oneself is still a victim of something.

The left, as you say, perceives people to be stupider than people are. They then feel compelled to help him. It must be realized that a person who has learned that victimhood pays will remain a victim as long as he believes this is the case. Trying to ease the victim's lack of necessities by providing him with food and shelter and clothing only cements his perception that being a victim gets him his necessities with little effort. He will immediately consume what he is given and he will lose or destroy anything of value he doesn't immediately consume. He may collect piles of useless material as long as they don't contribute to destroying his modus operandi. If those things give the apparency of improving his victim status; all the better.

The left needs to allow people to fail to a degree, but not beyond the point where a person doesn't have necessities. Almost nobody wants to live at that level - the level of bare necessities - and not contribute to society unless they are damaged. Those who do, still will respond to incentives as we see with workfare.

Living at the level of bare necessity is a minimum that we can provide people, and most will work a minimal amount to improve their station.

I don't think that the victim in your example is a real person. Is it ?

[Pliny]

Usually he means "you" as in you - Pliny.

"We need to think about the environment" = "You - Pliny, YOU are you listening ? - YOU need to think about the environment."

Yes, I do understand that.

His view, like mine, is more nuanced than the typical leftist view.

WEll, the progression is from a more nuanced view to a more progressive view to a leftist view to an extreme rightest view.

Yes, we are on the same page.

A pleasant surprise!

A victim of oneself is still a victim of something.

One is never ever a victim of anything but himself.

The left needs to allow people to fail to a degree, but not beyond the point where a person doesn't have necessities. Almost nobody wants to live at that level - the level of bare necessities - and not contribute to society unless they are damaged. Those who do, still will respond to incentives as we see with workfare.

Living at the level of bare necessity is a minimum that we can provide people, and most will work a minimal amount to improve their station.

I don't think that the victim in your example is a real person. Is it ?

The victim is always working and he works harder than any of us. It is a status that is remarkably hard to maintain.

In times of economic stability we of course can provide out of the fat of the land. When governments are unpredictable in their taxation policies yet charged with providing for the welfare of the citizenry they tend to abandon economic sanity and find themselves in a hole. It basically gets in trouble by making promises based upon it's tax revenues which, should they collapse creates chaos in the delivery of their social programs. A total failure of the economy is a government created bust.

For all businesses to fail at once there must be a common factor. I, having done a bit of study, believe the boom/bust cycle of national economies is due to a devaluation of the currency and the introduction of paper fiat currencies coupled with fractional reserve banking policies.