Culture in Decline - Video Series from the Creator of Zeitgeist

[DamianTV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bTbLslkIR2k

As this is a Video Series, feel free to bump this thread with any / all New Episodes as they become available. This is also somewhat of a test to see if anyone is actually interested enough in the series to even post Video #2 which is already available.

[wrestlingwes_8]

I watched this a few months ago...if anyone hasn't seen it, it's definitely worth checking out!

[TheGrinch]

Thanks for sharing, very good stuff. Will check out the 2nd episode soon, and keep me updated when any more become available, because that first episode, while a good intro, barely scratched the surface.

[kcchiefs6465]

What's the second episode on? I'll watch this one later and edit in some feedback.

[DamianTV]

What's the second episode on? I'll watch this one later and edit in some feedback.

A Culture In Decline - Episode 2 - Economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC0GT_8l_I&feature=player_detailpage

[misterx]

A Culture In Decline - Episode 2 - Economics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEC0GT_8l_I&feature=player_detailpage

I made it as far as nationalizing the banks before i couldn't take any more Marxist propaganda.

[Philhelm]

What's the basic premise?

[DamianTV]

Dunno. Havent had the time to watch the 2nd one yet.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Episodes #2 and #3 were both excellent. Surprised more people haven't flipped out the 'Economics' episode...probably because very few have watched it..even though everyone here would benefit from the information. Although most will probably denounce it as Communist propaganda from the devil himself and then proceed to reinsert there heads up Jack Hunter's ass..

If you can't take 30 minutes to think outside of the self-imposed Capitalist box, then just skip forward to the next episode, many of you will agree with the general points presented in it.
Anyway, I saw Episode #3 'C.V.D' was posted in a sub-forum but it'll get more exposure here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkEjl-RSfc

[Romulus]

I'll watch this, thanks for sharing.

[Romulus]

I watched all 3. He really offers no 'central' planning means as a solution, just points out that we have not yet evolved into a species that protects itself, but a manipulated culture of serfs, to which I completely agree.

There's no denying the problem, but I think there are times when a 'free market' results in a problem of having 'rulers' and destruction of freedom in a consumption based model. Our freedom is used against us, at our choice.

Its no wonder Chase markets itself as "Freedom".

[DamianTV]

The most agreed with forum member on this website at this moment is Anti Federalist.

While he as an individual is very true to his name, we have to examine the definition of the name as well. The Anti Federalist does everything they can to prevent a means of central planning, when describing these several States as a Union or a Whole.

Our "freedom" is used against us when their are pitfalls. The biggest pitfall is the illusion that a Market is Free when Central Banks control the issue of currency. They are the ones that decide which businesses survive, which ones get the loans to get off the ground, and which ones are going to be eliminated. Example: Detroit Red Lining (Banks would not loan to Blacks) and look at how well that "Free Market" turned out.

Our solutions are not perfectly clear. But what should be clear is to continue doing the same things we are doing and expecting completely different results. If we expect Booms, we should expect Busts. We can also consider looking at what has worked well in the past. Constitutional Money. At least, as a means to an end. Problem is, we arent going to get anywhere unless we can first eliminate the Central Banks of the world.

[Romulus]

To be fair, he stops short of suggesting any central planning or use of force.... I'm still waiting to hear his 'solution' to the problems.

[TheGrinch]

Haven't gotten to the 2nd one yet, but I'm looking forward to watching the next few.

You don't have to agree with the conclusion or necessarily all of the premises to still find it worthwhile. It really bothers me when some won't even listen to sources they don't agree with.... For one thing, leaving introspection aside, how can you disagree with a position if you don't examine the arguments supporting it?

I had many liberal professors, but didn't turn out liberal. However, I did learn a lot about both the things they were right about, as well as how to combat their arguments they're mistaken about.

[KingNothing]

Is it as bad as the Zeitgeist films?

[Romulus]

Agreed. That's the 'orthodox' of the liberty movement. If there are flaws within a genuine free market system we should be honest enough to recognize them. Or speak to how such a system now would change things.

PJ bashes both sides, and even pays respects to RP, Kucinich and Nader. So I don't consider him a 'liberal' by today's standards.. he makes some good points which may or may not be popular with libertarian/ancaps etc.

[Romulus]

Is it as bad as the Zeitgeist films?

Watch them at tell us if they are.

[KingNothing]

If there are flaws within a genuine free market system we should be honest enough to recognize them.


Saying that there are "flaws" with a free market system is like saying there are flaws with a tree, or a star , or an ocean. There are not flaws -- there is just a thing in its natural state.

[TheGrinch]

Saying that there are "flaws" with a free market system is like saying there are flaws with a tree, or a star , or an ocean. There are not flaws -- there is just a thing in its natural state.

If you don't care to think outside of your bubble of what you believe, then just find something else to examine. Your "you're a kook for even considering things I know for certain to be untrue" not only comes off as insulting, but extremely arrogant.

[Romulus]

Saying that there are "flaws" with a free market system is like saying there are flaws with a tree, or a star , or an ocean. There are not flaws -- there is just a thing in its natural state.

Alright but are those flaws just when it comes to affecting human life? Govt is obviously an immoral reaction to it, but should other corrections be considered?

[wrestlingwes_8]

Saying that there are "flaws" with a free market system is like saying there are flaws with a tree, or a star , or an ocean. There are not flaws -- there is just a thing in its natural state.

If you think the free market is comparable to nature you really are extremely delusional

[KingNothing]

Alright but are those flaws just when it comes to affecting human life? Govt is obviously an immoral reaction to it, but should other corrections be considered?

They aren't flaws. Capitalism doesn't have flaws. It benefits certain people more than others.

[KingNothing]

If you think the free market is comparable to nature you really are extremely delusional

Uhh. Ok, then.


I'm very surprised by the vicious attacks on free market capitalism going on here.

[TheGrinch]

Uhh. Ok, then.


I'm very surprised by the vicious attacks on free market capitalism going on here.

Vicious? LOL, well, at least we can always count on you for absurd hyperbole.

Does it work best for humans who are primarily driven by self-interest? Probably, but is capitalism equatable to some natural law and order? Ummm, no...

[erowe1]

Isn't cultural decline exactly what the creator of Zeitgeist wants?

[KingNothing]

Vicious? LOL, well, at least we can always count on you for absurd hyperbole.

Does it work best for humans who are primarily driven by self-interest? Probably, but is capitalism equatable to some natural law and order? Ummm, no...


Why is capitalism best only for individuals driven by self-interest? That's leftist nonsense. It affords people the opportunity to express their innate humanity better than any other system. More than ANYTHING else, it exists in accordance with nature. If nature dictates than an individual be a greedy piece of garbage, that individual is free to live out nature's edict. If nature dictates that a different individual live altruistically, that individual is free to live out nature's edict. If nature dictates that yet another individual sit somewhere else on the spectrum, that individual is free to live out nature's edict.

Capitalism is voluntaryism. Capitalism is the freest form of economics/governance, and is, therefore, in strongest agreement with nature. After all, we're all born entirely free with absolutely no constraints other than those imposed on us by nature. It is society, and forms of economics/governance other than capitalism, that enforces rules which inhibit the expression of humanity.

[Romulus]

Wouldn't you agree that big corps are just as dangerous as big govt?

[ClydeCoulter]

Self interest can cause someone to strive for positions of leadership where things that need to be done are not, and things that ought not be done are, out of self interest. It does not always provide for the best outcome.
Education in truth and honesty can go a long way. But, in whose interest is that.

[Romulus]

Self interest can cause someone to strive for positions of leadership where things that need to be done are not, and things that ought not be done are, out of self interest. It does not always provide for the best outcome.
Education in truth and honesty can go a long way. But, in whose interest is that.

Yes, there is no profit motive in "economizing" anything, which is the goal of humanity. The whole idea that we produce more and consume less benefits us all, we work less and have more. But consumption is a nasty thing really...There's nothing 'natural' about it. That is the down side to the profit motive.

[erowe1]

Wouldn't you agree that big corps are just as dangerous as big govt?

Do I agree that a bunch of people voluntarily pooling their resources to accomplish something is as bad as one group of people forcing a second group of people to pool their resources to accomplish something they don't want?

No. Of course not.

[heavenlyboy34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bTbLslkIR2k

As this is a Video Series, feel free to bump this thread with any / all New Episodes as they become available. This is also somewhat of a test to see if anyone is actually interested enough in the series to even post Video #2 which is already available.
A mixture of fact and fiction, journalism and editorial. You can pick out nuggets of wisdom here and there, but altogether it's not really worthwhile.

[KingNothing]

Wouldn't you agree that big corps are just as dangerous as big govt?

Not even remotely.

[KingNothing]

Yes, there is no profit motive in "economizing" anything, which is the goal of humanity.


The goal of humanity? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

[Romulus]

Do I agree that a bunch of people voluntarily pooling their resources to accomplish something is as bad as one group of people forcing a second group of people to pool their resources to accomplish something they don't want?

No. Of course not.


Not even remotely.

Goldman Sachs? Monsanto?


The goal of humanity? Isn't that a bit presumptuous?

I would say the majority of people want to exist and live a healthy, prosperous life.. its the small percentage that strive for power, wealth and control over others.

[PaulConventionWV]

I made it as far as nationalizing the banks before i couldn't take any more Marxist propaganda.

Exactly. This is not a liberty video at all. Not to mention the atheist propaganda embedded in it.

[jmdrake]

:rolleyes: I support Ron Paul's version of free market capitalism. That Jack Hunter also supports it is irrelevant.


Episodes #2 and #3 were both excellent. Surprised more people haven't flipped out the 'Economics' episode...probably because very few have watched it..even though everyone here would benefit from the information. Although most will probably denounce it as Communist propaganda from the devil himself and then proceed to reinsert there heads up Jack Hunter's ass..

If you can't take 30 minutes to think outside of the self-imposed Capitalist box, then just skip forward to the next episode, many of you will agree with the general points presented in it.
Anyway, I saw Episode #3 'C.V.D' was posted in a sub-forum but it'll get more exposure here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKkEjl-RSfc

[jmdrake]

Exactly. This is not a liberty video at all. Not to mention the atheist propaganda embedded in it.

Woefully inaccurate atheist propaganda that's embarrassing to intelligent and honest atheists.

[PaulConventionWV]

If you think the free market is comparable to nature you really are extremely delusional

It really depends on your definition of nature, so I think you're jumping to conclusions by saying someone who thinks human action is natural is "extremely delusional."

[PaulConventionWV]

Isn't cultural decline exactly what the creator of Zeitgeist wants?

That's interesting. Why do you say that?

[jmdrake]

As far as the whole "Free market capitalism equals/does not equal nature" thingy is concerned, I believe that's besides the point. As a Christian I believe that we are called to go above and beyond nature. You know one species will hunt another to extinction and not lose sleep over it? Does that mean genocide is okay? Jesus said "For the love of money is the root of all evil." In other words greed, when it operates in its most natural form, is not "good" no matter how you try to slice it. Greed in its most natural form also violated the bedrock libertarian principle of NAP. (Do you think lions and hyenas sit around worrying about if they violated NAP?) So take the economics of capitalism, mix in copious amounts of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and I believe you have a good system.

[Romulus]

So Monsanto and the big Food corps are just OK? There comes a point where these Food/Health/Money/Insurance industries share the same motive and ruin the free market, right?

[jmdrake]

So Monsanto and the big Food corps are just OK? There comes a point where these Food/Health/Money/Insurance industries share the same motive and ruin the free market, right?

Monsanto wouldn't exist without big government. (Patents, subsidized agriculture etc).

[KingNothing]

So Monsanto and the big Food corps are just OK? There comes a point where these Food/Health/Money/Insurance industries share the same motive and ruin the free market, right?

Monsanto isn't evil. Monsanto is just a company. Once they start doing things to actually harm individuals, instead of having the state interfere on their behalf, I'll criticize them.

[wrestlingwes_8]

As far as the whole "Free market capitalism equals/does not equal nature" thingy is concerned, I believe that's besides the point. As a Christian I believe that we are called to go above and beyond nature. You know one species will hunt another to extinction and not lose sleep over it?

Completely false. Unless an outside disturbance is introduced (i.e.-modern human civilization), one species will NOT hunt another to extinction. That is not how nature works, sorry.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Monsanto isn't evil.

Does anyone take this clown seriously? I mean, WOW! Talk about cognitive dissidence.

[jmdrake]

Completely false. Unless an outside disturbance is introduced (i.e.-modern human civilization), one species will NOT hunt another to extinction. That is not how nature works, sorry.

A) Man is part of nature.

B) Would you call rats floating on a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance?"

C) It's called "survival of the fittest" for a reason.

[erowe1]

Goldman Sachs? Monsanto?


I have a hard time understanding how anyone could think either of those, or any other big corporations, are anywhere close to the problem that big government is.

[erowe1]

That's interesting. Why do you say that?

Because of the religious aspects of it.

[wrestlingwes_8]

A) Man is part of nature.

B) Would you call rats floating on a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance?"

C) It's called "survival of the fittest" for a reason.

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions. These are inventions of man. Yes, man is a part of nature but is man living in harmony and balance, like all of nature? No.

B) Yes

C) Again false. Nature does NOT operate solely by the "survival of the fittest" model. There are FAR more examples of cooperative systems in nature than competitive. This is not saying competition is not present in nature, but it most certainly is not the "driving model" that you were indoctrinated to believe during your public schooling.

[erowe1]

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions.
Obviously it must be.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Obviously it must be.

Then show me one other example in nature. Nature has a pattern, and follows it to a T everywhere in the world.

[erowe1]

Then show me one other example in nature.

We don't need another example. It only takes one example to prove the existence of something.

[jmdrake]

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions. These are inventions of man. Yes, man is a part of nature but is man living in harmony and balance, like all of nature? No.

B) Yes

C) Again false. Nature does NOT operate solely by the "survival of the fittest" model. There are FAR more examples of cooperative systems in nature than competitive. This is not saying competition is not present in nature, but it most certainly is not the "driving model" that you were indoctrinated to believe during your public schooling.

Nature balances itself out through the very act of the competition. Man just happens to be one helluva competitor. I don't think if the African savannah got down the the last two zebras, the lion would say "Hmmmm....if I kill this last zebra there will be no more later."

[wrestlingwes_8]

We don't need another example. It only takes one example to prove the existence of something.

It only proves the system exists! It doesn't prove the system is part of nature. Seriously, this isn't that hard to understand.

EVERYTHING in nature has one thing in common. The systems and inputs are sustainable. If you think modern civilization is sustainable then, I'm sorry but you're crazy. Humans could live in complete equilibrium with the environment if they choose so (even improve it in some instances) but modern society has chosen not to.

[heavenlyboy34]

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions. These are inventions of man. Yes, man is a part of nature but is man living in harmony and balance, like all of nature? No.

B) Yes

C) Again false. Nature does NOT operate solely by the "survival of the fittest" model. There are FAR more examples of cooperative systems in nature than competitive. This is not saying competition is not present in nature, but it most certainly is not the "driving model" that you were indoctrinated to believe during your public schooling.
Regarding A, other species-especially primates-can and do alter their environments for their own self-interest, generally not living "in harmony" with nature. Hell, nature pollutes a lot with volcanoes and all sorts of things and creates "disharmony".

Earth is a closed system (http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html). You couldn't destroy it if you wanted to. You can change the nature of things (like oxidizing trees, aka burning them), but that's not changing the system.

[erowe1]

It only proves the system exists! It doesn't prove the system is part of nature. Seriously, this isn't that hard to understand.


What's the difference between existing and being a part of nature?

If you think there's a difference, then to me, yes, that is hard to understand.

[wrestlingwes_8]

Nature balances itself out through the very act of the competition. Man just happens to be one helluva competitor. I don't think if the African savannah got down the the last two zebras, the lion would say "Hmmmm....if I kill this last zebra there will be no more later."

You just repackaged your argument here. You jump to an improbable situation and then use it to justify and prove your thinking.

AGAIN,
Nature does NOT operate solely by the "survival of the fittest" model. There are FAR more examples of cooperative systems in nature than competitive. This is not saying competition is not present in nature, but it most certainly is not the "driving model" that you were indoctrinated to believe during your public schooling.

[erowe1]

EVERYTHING in nature has one thing in common. The systems and inputs are sustainable.

That's a pretty bold claim. What's your basis for saying it?

[wrestlingwes_8]

Regarding A, other species-especially primates-can and do alter their environments for their own self-interest, generally not living "in harmony" with nature.

I'd be very interested to see the study that confirms this


Hell, nature pollutes a lot with volcanoes and all sorts of things and creates "disharmony".

It only appears as "disharmony" to you because you don't understand the system. Only where volcanic activity happens on a very regular basis does it bring most of the systems of nature to a halt(i.e.-trees, nutrient cycling, water cycling). In most of the volcanic areas, they only receive eruptions every now and again. This allows the systems of nature to regenerate and actually, in many ways, improves the systems.

If you think the pollution coming from a volcano is the same as that coming from your tail-pipe, you need to refresh your scientific understandings.


Earth is a closed system (http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html). You couldn't destroy it if you wanted to. You can change the nature of things (like oxidizing trees, aka burning them), but that's not changing the system.

Doesn't change the system but most certainly changes the course of the system.

[wrestlingwes_8]

That's a pretty bold claim. What's your basis for saying it?

Haha, you can't be serious. If you don't know anything about the systems of nature why are you even participating in this conversation? This is BASIC biology, jeesh!

[KingNothing]

It only proves the system exists! It doesn't prove the system is part of nature. Seriously, this isn't that hard to understand.



So, humanity exists outside of or beyond nature?

[erowe1]

Haha, you can't be serious. If you don't know anything about the systems of nature why are you even participating in this conversation? This is BASIC biology, jeesh!

I don't claim to be smart.

But I asked what your basis for saying it was. Do you have a basis for it?

Also, FWIW, biology isn't the only field that studies nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)seems to say the opposite of what you said.

[wrestlingwes_8]

So, humanity exists outside of or beyond nature?

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature. That doesn't mean we are immune to the consequences or effects of nature.

[KingNothing]

Regarding A, other species-especially primates-can and do alter their environments for their own self-interest, generally not living "in harmony" with nature. Hell, nature pollutes a lot with volcanoes and all sorts of things and creates "disharmony".

Earth is a closed system (http://www4.uwsp.edu/geo/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/earth_system/types_of_systems.html). You couldn't destroy it if you wanted to. You can change the nature of things (like oxidizing trees, aka burning them), but that's not changing the system.

It also seems noteworthy that studies have discovered primates waging pre-emptive war on each other. Isn't that crazy?

And Earth is only a closed system when you limit your discussion of "nature" to Earth itself, and certainly, one could destroy Earth if one were so inclined -- just look at what Darth Vader did with the Death Star, or consider what a supernova would do to our pale blue dot.

[KingNothing]

EVERYTHING in nature has one thing in common. The systems and inputs are sustainable.

The universe disagrees with this statement.

[wrestlingwes_8]

I don't claim to be smart.

But I asked what your basis for saying it was. Do you have a basis for it?

Also, FWIW, biology isn't the only field that studies nature. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics)seems to say the opposite of what you said.

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

[KingNothing]

It's awesome when the most indignant, intellectually arrogant and cocksure, member of a discussion is also the least informed.

[erowe1]

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?

Also, isn't all of nature taken together a closed system? And when you say "(excluding some outside disturbance)" that very criterion itself limits your statement to closed systems.

By the way, I can't help noticing what looks like hesitance on your part to give a reason for the claims you're making. You just want me to go ask someone else. Do you actually have a reason? Or are you just repeating something somebody told you?

[erowe1]

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature.

If nature has bounds, then it's impossible to live outside them. Whatever humanity does must be within the bounds of nature, whatever they are.

[KingNothing]

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?


Because, closed system. Duh.

[KingNothing]

Humanity is currently refusing to live in the bounds of nature. That doesn't mean we are immune to the consequences or effects of nature.

I think that many humans choose to ignore their nature, but that must, by definition, be something that capital-N Nature allows.

[erowe1]

I think that many humans choose to ignore their nature, but that must, by definition, be something that capital-N Nature allows.

Whatever any humans choose, it's in their nature to choose that.

[jmdrake]

You just repackaged your argument here. You jump to an improbable situation and then use it to justify and prove your thinking.

AGAIN,

No, not at all. And if anything you are the one "repackaging". Animals on driftwood not part of nature? What the hell kind of nature are you talking about? The obvious truth is that animals aren't these "warm fuzzy creatures who are careful not to make other species extinct." The hand wringing humans go through regarding the extinction of this or that animal is what isn't "natural". That humans care about animals outside their species is not natural. Like the story of the couple that found a baby deer and nursed it to help. With other species that would be met the either a "meh" or "lunch."

[jmdrake]

Yes it has a basis, go ask any high school biology teacher. They will tell you that the systems of nature are sustainable (excluding some outside disturbance).

That is the main problem of modern physics. Open ANY physic textbook and in the diagrams and examples they will tell you that those laws do not apply to nature, only closed systems.

Please explain how you can consider a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance" when it's clearly part of nature?

[Danan]

I would say the majority of people want to exist and live a healthy, prosperous life.. its the small percentage that strive for power, wealth and control over others.

How is wanting to live a healthy, prosperous life not entirely driven by self-interest? In a free market individuals are always confronted with choices and they will always choose what they subjectively feel to be superior. That's the entire basis of economic thought and capitalism.

Even giving away all your wealth to poor people would ultimately be what you deem to be the best use for your money, if you chose to do so. Or to put it differently, it would ultimately be driven by self-interest.

[Danan]

Yes, there is no profit motive in "economizing" anything, which is the goal of humanity. The whole idea that we produce more and consume less benefits us all, we work less and have more. But consumption is a nasty thing really...There's nothing 'natural' about it. That is the down side to the profit motive.

That's completely nonsensical. First of all, as I've already explained above we are always economizing. That's not a choice we have, but comes from the fact that we are conscious, intelligent beings who are able to choose from a set of options the one that we deem to be the most beneficial, in a world of scarce resources (including our time on earth). Every purposeful human action is intrinsicly rational. It exists in an ends-means framework. So unless you enter the land of milk and honey where no scarcity exists and you are immortal, every human action that is not a mere bodily reflex is "economized", whether you like it or not.

How much time you work and how much time you spend on leisure is ultimatively up to you. Of course you won't necessarily find an employer who wants to hire you for 10 hours a week, but that's your problem. That's nothing that has to be decided uppon by society or even government. There is nothing "uncapitalistic" about enjoying one's leisure. No sane economist would argue that someone who doesn't work 24/7 to increase his earnings is violating economic laws of the free market. You obviously do not know about the concept of opportunity costs or marginal subjective utility. People are not profit maximzing (as in monetary profits). They are utility maximizing. There is no principle of the free market that would suggest that maximum consumption is the overall goal. But if it is what makes you personally happy than go for it. There is nothing "nasty" about it either. What the hell do you mean when you say it's not "natural"? Is typing on a message board or wearing cloths "natural"?

Educate yourself properly before you try to be a smartass.

[Danan]

A) The way man lives in modern societies is NOT how nature functions. These are inventions of man. Yes, man is a part of nature but is man living in harmony and balance, like all of nature? No.

Nature is not in balance at all. It's an entirely chaotic system interrupted with occasional short periods of relative stability.

[wrestlingwes_8]

So, as you understand it, biology contradicts physics?

YES. ANY PHYSICS TEXTBOOK WILL TELL YOU THIS


By the way, I can't help noticing what looks like hesitance on your part to give a reason for the claims you're making. You just want me to go ask someone else. Do you actually have a reason? Or are you just repeating something somebody told you?

Because if I'm talking to someone about biology I shouldn't have to explain THE VERY BASICS. If nature wasn't inherently sustainable, there wouldn't be any nature! All the seeds of different plants would germinate, grow, then die and nothing would grow back if it wasn't sustainable. Fucking christ I swear you people just argue for the sake of arguing.

I have 3 and half years of formal education in plant sciences PLUS all the things I've learned through reading books and personal experience. I don't give a shit if you don't believe what I have to say. In this specific instance I know for certain science is on my side here

[wrestlingwes_8]

Nature is not in balance at all. It's an entirely chaotic system interrupted with occasional short periods of relative stability.

Through this perceived chaos emerges stability. So you are wrong, nature is indeed very in balance. How do you think forests manage to maintain themselves for hundreds of years???

[wrestlingwes_8]

Please explain how you can consider a piece of driftwood an "outside disturbance" when it's clearly part of nature?

An animal or plant that is exotic to an area is considered a disturbance to that specific ecosystem. The local flora and fauna are not accustomed to whatever attributes a new species has, and they usually respond in a negative way. Why do you people insist on arguing for the sake of arguing? It's fucking bizarre

[erowe1]

YES. ANY PHYSICS TEXTBOOK WILL TELL YOU THIS


Can you give me a quote from a physics textbook that says this?



Because if I'm talking to someone about biology I shouldn't have to explain THE VERY BASICS. If nature wasn't inherently sustainable, there wouldn't be any nature! All the seeds of different plants would germinate, grow, then die and nothing would grow back if it wasn't sustainable. Fucking christ I swear you people just argue for the sake of arguing.
Is that all you mean by "sustainable"? Just sustainable for some amount of time, not forever? Because if that's all you mean, then obviously human civilization is sustainable in exactly the same sense.



I have 3 and half years of formal education in plant sciences PLUS all the things I've learned through reading books and personal experience. I don't give a shit if you don't believe what I have to say. In this specific instance I know for certain science is on my side here
All I can think is that you must have flunked out of the same intro to plant sciences class 7 semesters. Otherwise, if some school conned you into thinking you were educated, you should demand your money back.

[wrestlingwes_8]

If nature has bounds, then it's impossible to live outside them. Whatever humanity does must be within the bounds of nature, whatever they are.

The sky isn't purple because you say so, sorry.

[erowe1]

The sky isn't purple because you say so, sorry.

Really? So it's bound to be blue? The rest of us here call that "nature."

[wrestlingwes_8]

Can you give me a quote from a physics textbook that says this?

This is like asking, show me the specific evidence that the sky is blue. Sorry, I don't have time to entertain your ignorance. I don't care if you think I'm full of shit, science is on my side here


Is that all you mean by "sustainable"? Just sustainable for some amount of time, not forever? Because if that's all you mean, then obviously human civilization is sustainable in exactly the same sense.

Well the wheels of nature have been turning for billions of years now so, yeah, I'd say that's pretty sustainable.



All I can think is that you must have flunked out of the same intro to plant sciences class 7 semesters. Otherwise, if some school conned you into thinking you were educated, you should demand your money back.

It's not my fault you don't have the slightest fucking clue how nature operates

[erowe1]

I have nothing against stupid people. Some of the best people I know are stupid.

But when a stupid person talks down to everybody else and insists that they pretend he's smarter than they, with ridiculous assertions he can't back up with anything more than saying, "because I know this stuff and you don't," I don't really have patience for that.

I don't mind continuing this thread. But understand, Wes, that a lot of what I say from here on out will essentially be to bait you into spouting off more clownish tomfoolery for my and others' entertainment.

[noneedtoaggress]

lol this thread is hilarious

might be a good idea to start by agreeing on some basic defnitions

but don't let me stop you, i can still go make some popcorn.

[smokemonsc]

Thanks for this thread. Erowe1 & crew I think you are winning this discussion by....a lot.

The idea that Wes is presenting of "sustainability" and the theory of evolution seem to be mutually exclusive to me. Wouldn't evolution inherently make nature chaotic? To me the idea of evolution is exactly what Darwin said it was (paraphrasing) 'survival of the fittest.' Isn't evolution then the natural act of species trying to get the better of one another? Also the existence of extinction kind of blows the whole 'sustainability' argument right out the window.

[UMULAS]

........

[Jim Casey]

I hope people understand that majority of the things that the "Zetgeist" movement has been refuted right?
You mean like a solution to war and poverty with technology and sustainability? Anyway, here's episode #4 of Culture In Decline, "War On Nature".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFdf0lL3GFg

[Petar]

it's interesting to see that this psy-op is continuing... carry on...

[UMULAS]

.......

[jtstellar]

so what happened to his central computer (designed by someone) dictates everything theory

[Neil Desmond]

it's interesting to see that this psy-op is continuing... carry on...
At first when I read this I was like *rollseyes*, but after seeing the ending I was like *ohsnap!*, a swirly background. :p

[Neil Desmond]

so what happened to his central computer (designed by someone) dictates everything theory
This, maybe?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELEwjVRxxGE

[Jim Casey]

Already thanks to incentives and the free market, majority of countries in the world are in 1st and 2nd world countries.
We have entire communities that depend on prisons for employment, just one of many issues addressed in the latest episode of Culture In Decline.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeswJY0o2uA
The Alex Jones impersonator in this one is so funny.:D