The necessity, and benefits, of destruction
Version 1.3, October 2005
Because life builds on life, there cannot be life without death.
However, Christian European ethic professes to be against destruction.
To pursue the goal of eliminating war, disaster, and disease. And
through peace perpetuate (and refine) an economic, political, social, and
moral order as it exists in the world today.
But this world is not appropriate. This world, and its public morals,
are designed to suit those who derive, foolishly, a sense of sense from
the assumption that there either is a personified God who will
guarantee eternal life to those who praise him and follow a collection of rules
presumed to be derived from him.
Or they derive a sense of sense from the idea of an abstract good (sort
of a theoretical God) of which they are an eternal part.
Albert Einstein's "Cosmic Religion"
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ527.HTM
Spinoza - pantheist
http://members.aol.com/Heraklit1/spinoza.htm
A philosophy based on biological understanding offers a radically
different perspective. Such a philosophy recognizes that only the
fulfillment of biological desires makes life worthwhile.
Pleasure Systems in the Brain
http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/ARUreport01.htm
The English philosopher Alfred North Whitehead once noted:
The safest general characterization of the European philosophical
tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/footnotes_plato.html
Indeed, Plato wrote intelligently on the role of desires and
satisfaction, or the connected term “pleasure”.
Stanford University on Plato and pleasure
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pleasure/
Epicure has elaborated more profoundly on the topic.
Epicure – Types of desire
http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm#SH5c
A shortcoming of Epicurus, or of the translation and interpretation of
his work, is the lack of emphasis he places on sexual desires and their
satisfaction. Possible explanations are that either sexual satisfaction
was too self-understood at his times to be a topic, or that the topic
was not considered fit for literature and polite discourse (as was the
case throughout later history).
Nevertheless, from a modern perspective, the essence of biological
desires is sexual. Only sexual arousal, sexual excitement, and sexual
satisfaction provide a natural sense of value in life. In principle,
everything else is only supportive.
An appropriate social order would be one, in which success pays as
sexual gratification. Actually, this is the biological order that is in
place for any animal species except humans. Because only humans are
intelligent enough to be stupid enough to believe in God, or an abstract
eternal good.
***
I have no sympathy for the world social order as it is propagated by
the world’s ideological lead nation, the United States of America, a
country that has been founded and designed by Christian zealots, and that
doesn’t find it ridiculous to elect Christian zealots as their
presidents. I am in favor of a radically different world social order… one that
is biologically more adequate.
I am not alone in having no sympathy for the social and moral order for
which the United States of America stand, though the motives of the
majority of the world’s population that hates the US have different
origins. They want the United States of America destroyed and its social and
moral values dumped not because they would contradict a philosophy
based on biological understanding, but because …
Yes, they hate the United States of America because the people in the
United States of America are so rich, and they themselves are so poor,
that they are rightfully envious. They want the United States of America
destroyed because they simply bank on change. If there is turmoil,
those who are on the top will be toppled, and a new set will be washed to
the top. Maybe, just maybe, this will be of benefit.
While one can encounter such hopes everywhere in the Third World, they
are, of course, not realistic. There is nothing in sight that could
shake, let alone topple, the global dominance (politically, militarily,
economically, socially, and morally) of the United States of America.
Which doesn’t prevent people to silently or openly cheer Osama Bin Laden
(at least he dares).
Mind you: it’s not just the populations in Islamic countries where
Osama Bin Laden would win any popularity contest against George W. Bush.
Which doesn’t mean that these people would prefer the kind of social
order Osama Bin Laden stands for (the kind that has been practiced in
Talibanistan).
Because everybody who understands the most basic rules of arithmetics
knows that when two fight, the benefits are usually with the third. Or,
if there is destruction all around, and one can personally stay out of
harm’s way, then, in a way, one is among those who will profit.
I, like anybody else, do not feel guilty for mental games in which I am
not a player. So, consider a scenario in which all of the United States
of America, including its people and infrastructure, where destroyed in
a huge earthquake. A radically new world would be in place the next
morning. Let me assure you that many (and I do mean: many) people in Third
World countries would find this most exciting. And why not wipe Europe
from the world map at the same time.
It’s the allure of such fantasies that draws people to the most radical
preachers. They tell their flock that this is going to happen. God will
open the earth and the earth shall swallow them. Never mind that
thereafter, antibiotics, and even rice, will be in short supply. All of that
would not matter in exchange for the opportunity to live in such
exciting times.
Because it is inherently benefiting the poor (or those whose concerns
are not represented in a status quo) if mischief befalls the rich (or
those who represent the status quo) many people, even in the West, or in
rich countries of the East, enjoy hearing or reading news of
destruction.
I know what I’m talking about. I once worked in a newsroom … an
interesting job indeed. And when you judge what arrives over the "ticker"
(that was in telex times, more than 25 years ago), then your guideline is
that bad news is good news. The worse, the better. Because that’s what
people want to read or hear about. The yellow press lives of the
problems of celebrities (serves them right, why are they so rich and famous!).
And for the news desk, it’s war, terrorism, turmoil, and tsunamis.
Because in readers and viewers, all of this keeps the flame of hope alive
that there once will be the big upheaval that changes it all, and that
there will be an end to frustration and boredom, and that for once, one
oneself will be among the lucky ones.
Youth emancipation
Version 1.3, October 2005
Many of the laws that are passed to presumably protect young people
actually rather serve the purpose of controlling them.
This is especially true for laws that do not allow young people to work
and earn money on their own. For young people who opt out of their
biological families, the choices for earning money legally are so
restricted that the only alternatives to returning home are theft, prostitution,
and drug dealing.
Laws that prohibit youngsters to earn a living outside of their
families thus are instruments of pressure in the hands of parents and the
state.
The same is the case for laws that do not allow young people to legally
enter into contracts on their own. Young people who opt out of their
biological families cannot rent a house or apartment; they have nowhere
to stay, and thus have no alternative to living on the streets.
Some young people have good parents, and others have bad parents. Good
parents recognize that from puberty, young people have a great impulse
for designing their own lives. Parents have to understand this, and
they have to withdraw from the lives of their children who develop their
own personalities.
The worst parents are those who enforce their decisions upon their
children who are growing up, against the will of their children.
Many young people during and beyond puberty are inclined to run away.
Often, this inclination is legitimate. The will of young people ought to
be respected. It is not correct to dismiss their wishes for designing
their lives by themselves, claiming that young people are immature.
The campaign of the US government against child prostitution is
hypocritical. The US government (and the legislative branch which it controls)
itself is partially responsible for child prostitution and youth crime
in the US, as well as for the fact that many young people enter the
drug trade. The US government and legislature are partially responsible
because they have shut down so many other options for young people to
earn a living and to be adults.
And through the NGOs that are aligned with the US government, and
through which the US has great influence on other countries, either directly
or indirectly through the UN, the same policies are exported to other
countries, even those where traditionally, young people between 14 and
18 or between 16 and 18 were considered young adults, not children.
As the UN are located on US soil, American NGOs have an easy time,
lobbying, and virtually controlling, UN branches that concern themselves
with cultural or educational policies such as the UNESCO and UNICEF.
Strict standards against young people below the age of 18 (who are
uniformly defined as children) have originated at these UN bodies and other
US-based international organizations in which, typically, feminists and
Christian fundamentalists are strongly represented.
Only in the world of drugs, prostitution, and crime, count 15-year olds
(and even 13-year olds) as fully emancipated members of a community.
Everywhere else, they are just children.
My proposal that young people from the age of 14 are given more
opportunities to earn money on their own (and to prove that they are adults)
has been replied to with the remark that young people should first avail
of an education before starting to work.
But this reply reflects an old-fashioned idea about education as
something a young person obtains as a block, before entering the workforce.
By contrast, I believe that anybody should be given the opportunity to
further his or her education until one's death. I advocate that people
start working early, so they will have an opportunity to earn money
(outside of the foul career options of prostitution, crime, and drug
dealing).
But I do not mean that young people should work full-time, unless this
is their clear wish. Young people should have the option of working
part-time, and of furthering their education part-time.
Actually, I advocate such an approach not only for youngsters, but for
virtually anybody (including myself; I am well beyond 50, and I am
still enrolled in university courses).
Fortunately, there is an ever increasing number of "open" universities
for which no formal prior education has to be proven, and more and more
universities offer distance programs (though an "open" university with
campus classes should be chosen in most cases).
My point is: much of youth crime has its origin in the fact that
teenagers from the age of 14 are still considered children, and treated as
children, while the one thing they really, really want to be, is: adults.
Give them genuine opportunities to earn money, and treat them as young
adults, and you will be surprised to what extent they will start
showing responsible behavior. The traditional laws of many countries other
than the US reflected this assessment in that they conferred the status
of being "adult" upon every teenager, no matter how young, if he or she
entered into a marriage.
Of course, such traditions undermine the agenda of feminazis and
Christian zealots who crusade to have any person under the age of 18
perceived and treated as child, no matter whether the age is 7 or 17. But the
real concern of feminists and Christian zealots is not the welfare of
people under 18.
For both feminazis and Christian zealots, to keep those who are not yet
18 under control, allows them to mold their characters and to convert
them to their ideologies. This should be recognized for what it is: an
egoistic interest to have offspring who reflect their parents'
preferences.
It is futile to argue that per se, parents know what is best for their
children. Fact is that some parents know what is good for their
children, and others do not. While good parents will make wise suggestions as
to what their growing up children should do (and this should be
encouraged), young individuals should have more rights to decide on their own.
Even when some of the decisions young people may take seem wrong to
their parents, they may in fact be much more appropriate for the world a
younger generation lives in than the outmoded templates their parents
believe in.
Why China’s success is crucial
Version 1.0, October 2006
I don’t agree with Chinese policies in every detail. But this is beside
the point.
China’s political and economic success is crucial for two very
important reasons:
1. atheistic government
2. government by a dedicated elite, organized as a single state party
Any genuine social progress in the world cannot accommodate religions.
I am convinced that sooner or later, religions will vanish anyway. That
they disappear sooner rather than later is greatly in the interest of
those with enough self-cognition to realize the fundamental foolishness
of religions.
Since the times of Socrates, it is an established political theory that
government should be an enlightened elite, and not by those who
represent the sentiments of a majority of people that can easily be misguided
by inciting negative emotions such as hatred and envy.
Plato calls the enlightened elite an aristocracy (which simply means
“rule by the best”). The term today is associated with hereditary
nobility, so Plato’s term is today better translated as “enlightened elite”.
Book VIII of Plato’s Republic
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/mirror/classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.9.viii.html
On Plato’s Republic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
Interestingly, while Plato (and Socrates) considered rule by an
enlightened elite (aristocracy) the best form of government, democracy ranked
only fourth among five forms. Plato’s ranking, from best to worst, is:
1. aristocracy (rule by an intellectual elite, not a hereditary
nobility)
2. timocracy (rule by “guardians”, a dedicated military junta)
3. oligarchy (rule by the rich)
4. democracy (rule by demagogues who address the sentiments of the
uneducated)
5. tyranny (rule by a whimsical dictator)
The ideal city
http://www.scottlondon.com/articles/idealcity.html
While in earlier times, there rarely existed intellectual elites
(qualified by a substantial degree of self-cognition), there were also fewer
obstacles to their rule (in the form of a mass media that can incite
negative emotions and allow populists (“demagogues” in Plato’s words) to
ride on them).
I have no influence on Chinese politics. But I do sense that the
Chinese government is aware of the fact that the competition is not just
between the Chinese economy and the US economy. The competition is between
two entirely different political systems. I also assume that the
Chinese government has enough understanding of the dialectical course of
history to know that the two
political
systems cannot coexist for ever.
Sooner or later, there must be a winner.
And if the winner is the US political system, as it has been in the
Cold War competition between the US and the Soviet Union, then it’s not
just that China will be the loser with respect to the prevailing
political system. China will then also become a second-rate political power, in
the same manner as Russia became a second-rate political power after
the defeat of the political system of the Soviet Union.
History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991)
http://experts.about.com/e/h/hi/history_of_the_soviet_union_(1985-1991).htm
The Chinese leadership, I assume, is aware of this, and this awareness
speaks out of many international Chinese policies. No other country,
apart from the US, is as active as China in forming international
alliances, especially in Latin America and Africa. And while China outcompetes
practically all Third World countries in attracting Western investment,
it is China that provides benevolent investment in Third World
countries, even in infrastructure projects that are of very little interest to
Western investors who always eye a short-term profit.
China's Courtship of Brazil and LatAm Makes Washington See Red
http://www.brazzil.com/content/view/9388/79/
China’s Rising Role in Africa
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8436/
China rising: A 21st century powerhouse
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12161566.htm
Unlike the US, China attaches practically no strings to its economic
cooperation, which is why there is a high and rising level of sympathy
for the Chinese involvement in other countries.
Hopefully, this will be followed by a realization in other countries
that the Chinese political model, too, is worthwhile to be adopted. If
one searches diligently enough, one does find indications that such an
export of political structures has started. Just one example:
China, Tanzania Vow to Boost Cooperation on Anti-corruption
http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/185966.htm
|
