Re: Disqualification?

The dialogue continues:

Hi T,

Haven't watched the documentaries yet, but I will go rent Mr. Gore's video tonight. At the very least, I hear that it has good graphics and I just bought a new HD TV (well, used, but its new to me) so I will look forward to it.

I am in a different position than those that are being directly funded by oil companies but my point is that the oil companies have done me a lot of good. Note also that the opposition, the environmentalists, have done me a lot of bad. They destroyed the town that I lived in and, subsequently, the forests surrounding them with their doltish logging restrictions in the 70s. You know all those dramatic pictures of California forests burning, my home burning? That is not caused by global warming. That is caused by the fact that white fir (aka piss fir) grows like weeds, crowds out the bug and fire resistant Ponderosa pines, gets killed by bugs and becomes a tinder box. But can we cut down those shitty and unnatural (normally they would be destroyed by creeping ground fires) piss firs and let the high quality Ponderosas thrive? No, because the earth worshippers insist that they have souls and are more important than people. Bah.

I would say that personal development and progress is a spiritual process, Tory. Someone that lives 18 years is not going to make as much progress as someone that lives for 500 (oh yeah, did I tell you that I intend to live forever?). And think of it this way, pre-industrial revolution, out of the five of us brothers (Daniel, Conner, Sean, You, I) MAYBE one of us would have made it to adult hood...possibly two of us. But based on solid statistics from the time, not all of us would survive. Tell me, if it was your choice which two of us would you have die in early childhood?

Concentration of power: Yes, this is a problem, especially in places like Zimbabwe and North Korea, where power is concentrated in the hands of a single brutal dictator. It becomes less of a problem in places like the United States where concentration of power is primarly based on economic power...the power of persuasion as opposed to political power, the power of force. Don't get me wrong, I think that there is still too much concentration of power here. Look into the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. It was done in the cover of night on Hyde island and gave 12 people the power to control your money (money being a representation of energy, btw). THAT is evil. I also really look forward to the time when I can have a cheap, nano-engineered solar array on the roof of my house so that I don't have to pay some government sponsored monopoly (that being the only way that a monopoly can ever exist, btw) way too much money for power. Here in Texas, I am glad to say that the monopolies have been broken up somewhat and there is some decent level of competetion to hold prices down, but I am all about more and more decentralization.

Yes, I would rather pay a little more for organic foods as well, and I often do so for health reasons. But I work with a woman with four young children, divorced from a philandering husband who can't be bothered to pay child support on time. Do you think that she can afford to pay 30% more for organics on a regular basis. I am sure that she would be concerned to hear about those poor people in India, but when it comes down to it, she would rather be able to feed her children. By the way, you talk about those 12,000 people with concern. Have you changed your attitude towarrds people since we last talked? Goodness, I do hope so. Can you then celebrate the fact that the population of the world has more than tripled and life spans have increased dramatically since the industrial revolution began?

As for morality, here is mine: That which supports human life is the good. That which destroys human life is the evil. You speak of the basics of meeting needs. This is important. I would argue that that the energy companies have helped with that tremendously and will prove to be a major bridge to the next revolution, the technology revolution, that is already in its advanced juvenile stage. Do you believe me when I suggest that it is likely that in the next 50 years, the human paradigm will shift from What do you need? to What do you want? Check out a book called "The Age of Spiritual Machines" you can read the chapter headings on Amazon...prepare for your mind to be blown.

As for the rules of competition and creation of wealth. In Atlas Shrugged, Francisco DeAntio says in his famous "Money Speech" that the thing that he most likes about Americans is that we are the first culture to use anything akin to the phrase "Make Money." The revolution there is that, throughout history people believed, and many still do, that wealth is a static thing...that there is only so much of it and in order for one man to have something, it must be strippped, usually by force, from another. This is simply untrue. Wealth is a growing thing and it is created every time a man conceives of an idea and then turns it into some usable framework. These computers that we are typing on are wealth. Did they exist, even as a thought, 500 years ago? The homes that give us shelter, the medicines that keep us well, the foods that keep us whole and, yes, the energy sources that underly it all, these are wealth and wealth is a thing that grows and expands...as long as humans are free to create it.

Note that it is the places with less freedom that have less wealth. North Korea and Zimbabwe being two extreme examples. India is an example of a place still fraught with beauracratic bunglers, but far more free than it was even five years ago. China is another good example. Ireland is a great example as well. In the early 1990s they got rid of anti-business socialist policies, cut taxes to the bones and said, "Come on in, we want jobs!" Now they are one of the wealthiest countries in the EU! Note that Iceland followed suit right around the turn of millenium. Both of these countries had basically been in depressions for the last 1000 years. Where do you think that they will be in 10 years from now? And when was the last time you heard of someone blowing up school children in Belfast? Right around 10 years ago, I think...what a coincidence.

>>When the majority are being harmed (when I say majority I include not only the human majority, but the flora and fauna as well) such that the minority can fiddle while Rome burns then it is time to affect a change.<<

Believe me, I am right with you when you say that it is time to effect a change. The question is, how do we do it? Do we enact destructive government regulations making it impossible for the energy companies, and as a result, anyone else to do business, as Al Gore advocates, or do we allow the natural progress of science develop new energy sources? Once again, I think that ten years from now, fossil fuels will be a non-issue. Well, maybe it will kick into high gear 10 years from now and be a non-issue in 20. Is that soon enough?

Now, here is my next question: Is that really what you are after? If it is, you are in luck because it is coming. But if you have bought into the Anti-human agenda that drives modern environmentalism (it ceased to be pro-environment many years ago) than you will continue to be frustrated. You remember our talk about the Singularity and Event Horizons? We have passed the first event horizon. There is no turning back now. Personally, I am very happy and that is because I have a comfortable understanding of it and a well-founded belief in the goodness of people. Really consider reading the books "The Age of Spiritual Machines" and "The Singularity is Near." I think that they are very important, if not the most important books that you can read regarding your business. I will look into "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" although I do have to tell you that I am much more interested in the future than the past.

Finally, altruism is a sham. I help people. For example, the woman with four children who I work with, I got her the job. Did I do it for altruistic, sacrificial reasons. Hell no. I did it for selfish reasons. I did it because I knew that she would do a good job and make me look good. I also did it because it felt good and right. Would I have done it if I thought that she would be a lazy tax on resources and make me look bad? No, I would not. I would never be an altruist.

OK. I have to run!

Love,

D

And my response:

Hi D,

It sounds like the forest you were talking about may have been mismanaged. Were the firs natural to the area?

You do touch on the philosophy that humans are above and somehow separate from the natural system upon which we depend for life. Personally I revere all life. And if we don't support natures biodiversity then the long term consequences for humanity are potentially disastrous.

It's true that the oil companies have made some things more convenient for a few people in the short term, but our awareness of the cost of a petroleum based society has grown. It is not sustainable in the long term (by long term I am not talking about 10 years, but the truly long term) for a couple of reasons. We are all aware that petroleum resources are finite, but more than that we have learned that the side effects of a petroleum based society are harmful in the short term (in terms of damage to the flora and fauna as well as human rights abuses) and have long term global ramifications of human suffering on a scale that has never before been experienced.

I am not a luddite and I apologize for allowing you to couch the argument in those terms, but I believe that we should take the time to carefully weigh the consequences and future ramifications of the actions we take and the products we create.

Economic power is political power. Armies don't fight for free and our government is currently beholden to the investment of special interests. Right now we are embroiled in an engagement that is rooted in economics (I had a history professor in high school whose contention was that all wars are rooted in economics). War is profitable. The documentary "Why We Fight" discusses the military industrial complex and how dependent all the states are on military contracts. The current administration has ties to the corporations that are making a lot of money off of many aspects of the current conflict.

The conflict currently goes against the will of the American people and if we weren't led into it by lies I don't believe it would ever have popular support. It does however make a lot of money for a few individuals. (I really wish that Daniel hadn't joined the National Guard.)

Corporations will not hesitate to use force, if they can get away with it, to forward their interests. I don't believe we see as much of it as we used to in America, but both overt and covert incidents of corporate violence still happen all over the world.

We have also externalized slavery and made it more economically feasible. Workers in developing nations (often children) work ridiculously long hours for subsistence or below subsistence wages and our corporations don't have to feed or house them. Many Americans have their needs and many of their wants fulfilled, but our current system is based on exeternalized slave labor.

I am curious about the Federal Reserve. You have studied more about economics than I have so if you want to provide me with more resources in terms of economic theory I am interested.

I feel for the woman who is raising four children. Fortunately we have some social systems in place that will at least keep Americans from starving to death.

One of the reasons I am a proponent women's education is that the more highly educated a woman is the longer she will wait to have children and the fewer children she will have. I am also an advocate of birth control. I have done pro-bono work for an organization promoting women's education in a number of developing nations. I also contribute money, goods, and services to organizations that I believe to be worthwhile.

However your mention of the single mother just reinforces my point. There are currently more people on the planet than we are willing or able to care for. The stated ideal of the Green Revolution was to alleviate the suffering of the starving masses. What actually happened was that it allowed the population to explode (while at the same time having negative impact on the environment and not alleviating starvation) and set the world up for even greater suffering as there are now significantly more people who we are unwilling or unable to support.

Although the 20,000 individuals who lost their lives in Bhopal is a significant number it is just one small example of corporate negligence. The list of tragedies created by corporate malfeasance is seemingly endless. You can turn on PBS late at night and see different shows documenting human and environmental injustices night after night. It is my contention that as a member of the privileged class with the time and resources to make a difference that I am honor bound to try to improve the quality of all life on this planet.

There are some traditional methods of controlling population: famine, disease, and war. There is also an unexplained wave of male infertility that may tie in to the population issue. As self aware, forward looking beings we have to ability to reduce population to manageable levels without the tragic suffering caused by famine, disease, and war.

You mischaracterize my position when you say that I am anti-human. I characterize myself as a humanist with the ultimate extension of humanism being environmentalism. The environment is a requirement for the support of human life. If we destroy the worlds natural resources in a pell mell rush to hedonism we are shooting ourselves in the foot (maybe in the head).

I would like to point out that the author John Perkins, who I mentioned in my last email, is sharing aspects of his personal history so that we can understand what is happening in the present.

My understanding of Objectivism is that it is a somewhat dated philosophy from the Modern movement. The idea being that only special individuals with unique characteristics should rise and lead whereas Postmodern thought is more along the lines that large groups of people affect change and that the leaders are not unique or special, but are merely fulfilling a role for the whole (that rhymes).

I caught a trial PBS show called "22nd Century" that may have been inspired by the Kurzweil book. The information was interesting, but the premise of the show (a debate between the ghost of Aldous Huxley and a woman from the future tied in to the World Wide Mind) was a little hard to take and the editing (fast cuts, weird choppy zooms, and hoaky background graphics) was terrible.

I read a bunch of reviews of the Kurzweil book, The Age of Spiritual Machines. The reviews were mixed although the consumer reviews averaged four out of five stars. I also read the table of contents which has chapter summaries. It sounds like an interesting book, but it is not available at my local library and the odds are against my buying it.

Love,
T