Ah, Fairport. Good choice. Sandy Denny at her full-voiced best.

When I played it, YouTube flashed up an add for a Senior's card.

Capitalism and communism are systems of political economy. Reducing those to a distinction between selfishness and altruism is a caricature unworthy of a serious philosophical discussion. — counterpunch

Altruism and egoism are human traits that far predate the appearance of capitalism and communism. Neither of which is any specific thing but rather an amalgam of philosophies professed by different personalities in different regions at different times to different effect. Whereas altruism and egoism have tangible human measures.

Better self-worth comes from working to achieve worthwhile goals. — Bitter Crank

:up:

Coming across a man dying of thirst, you'd loan him a shovel and tell him to dig his own well.

And then expect payment for borrowing the shovel.

Indeed. With all the moral high ground of usury.

What are you grateful for?

Having the time to think? Having access to a forum such as this? Being sufficiently articulate that you can elicit enough interest, from a dozen people around the world, that they respond to your post?

Having enough to eat? Having shelter and warmth?

Company? Friendship? Love?

Having access to good books and sites that are worth reading?

Make a list.

What are you grateful for?

Having the time to think? Having access to a forum such as this? Being sufficiently articulate that you can elicit sufficient interest, from a dozen people around the world, that they respond to your post?

Having enough to eat? Having shelter and warmth?

Company? Friendship? Love?

Having access to good books and sits that are worth reading?

Make a list. — Banno

:up:

To a large extent, I would suggest that the purpose of life is not an intrinsic one, but is one which we create. We can find our own meaning and purpose in life. — Jack Cummins

Jack, that's what meaning is. All meaning is attributed. It's just the use to which we put stuff.

So @Mtl4life098 is in effect asking what to do next.

One would need to work within one's limitations, the constraints that apply to one's circumstance. — TheMadFool

Goodness, I find myself wanting to reply "What would Nietzsche say?"

I read an excellent excerpt on “the point” of things.

See the thing we must remember is like in geometry a “point” Is only ever relative. What is the point of a spoon for example. Well the point is relative to its function for us “the creators of spoons/ utensils” - to consume liquids, desserts, medicines etc. Now if you rephrase it in another context “what is the point of a Spoon to the existence of mars”? It’s relatively pointless. The existence of a planet is not dependent on a spoon.

So points are always based in a context. So really we are asking what is the point of “X” in relation to “Y”. In certain cases it’s highly relevant and in others it is not.

What is the point of my life? This can feel insignificant when you consider the whole human population of 8 billion people and counting. But put in context; what is the point of my life to my family, to my friends, to my career .. to the talents I have, to the difference I could make to my area of specialisation.

The point of a doctor is meaningless for the healthy seemingly immortal “care free” essence of youth but essential to the weak or elderly or diseased.

When we ask of vagueries of the universe then specific points feel unimportant. But when we ask of the point of something to its close relationships and interactions it is crucial. Just as the millisecond is crucial to the meaning of a second and the second to a minute and minute to an hour and hour to a day and day to a week month year decade century Millenium and so on. The point of something is an order of magnitude. But importantly they are always interlinked. There is always a connection between points. Even is they seem pointless as a collective.

You are a distinct “point”in the universe. You are a point in time, in space, you are a point of energy, a point of Matter. The true endeavour is to understand the relevance or association of “ your point” the the “whole point” Or your “small picture” to the “bigger picture”.

Consider voting. Voting is a Point of decision making. And while sure one vote likely doesn’t count for much... every vote counts. It is one choice in the set Of choices that makes the whole voice of a population. It has to count for something mathematically.

So when one feels pointless or worthless, They likely thing in terms of the grand, the large, the insurmountable. It is essential to think atomistically in terms of the point - a point or purpose or agenda is the fundamental unit of a collective dynamic.

What is the point of oxygen in water? Well it Sets the tone for the fluid. But a single molecule of water is not a fluid. The fluid is the group. But it needs each little point - each little molecule to interact so that the fluid phenomenon can exist.

Don’t underestimate the power of a little bit of change. Because at the end of the day any change is change all the same. We have no idea how our ripples expand outwards and influence those of others in the cosmic fluid.

You have inherent and irreplaceable worth in the dynamic change of the universe. But I compel you to focus on your immediate influence - those around you ... which value you much more than you could ever imagine.

That so, it is not merely reproduction that furthers the interests of the species, but also - knowing what's true. By knowing what's true and acting accordingly we could secure a sustainable, long term future for humankind in the universe - and after that, who knows? It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it. — counterpunch

There's something very childish about this. Musk finds folk handing him money so he chooses to use it to play with rockets. And he makes them land on their tails, just like in the Saturday Matinée.

It's wonderful stuff; don't get me wrong. I love to watch the children play.

All meaning is attributed. — Banno

Ah!

An important point. I would concur!

Sure.

Altruism and egoism are human traits that far predate the appearance of capitalism and communism. — Pantagruel

But you weren't trying to justify altruism. What you said is:

I think the great challenge for each of us is to use what gifts we do possess for the collective good, — Pantagruel

Altruism and the collective good are not synonymous. That's merely the sheep's clothing with which the communist wolf hides its savage purpose. Dictatorship. Slavery. How are these good? How are these altruistic?

That's merely the sheep's clothing with which the communist wolf hides its savage purpose. — counterpunch

Help me out here, @Ciceronianus the White - would it be "Argumant nomen vocatio"?

There's something very childish about this. — Banno

The question is one of purpose - of the meaning of life. I can not define an ultimate purpose for existence. I can show there's a truth relation between the organism and reality in evolution, necessary to survival - and on this basis I advocate acknowledging science as an understanding of reality and acting accordingly to secure a sustainable future.

I suspect it leads somewhere - that truth is the path to God, as it were, just as misuse of scientific truth spells the doom of humankind. But I don't know.

It might be travel to other stars, other dimensions, time travel, uploading our minds into machines and living forever. It might even be God; but whatever it is, if we survive our technological adolescence, if our species lives long enough, we will find it. — counterpunch

I fail to see what's childish about acknowledging what one can and cannot know.

I can show there's a truth relation between the organism and reality in evolution, necessary to survival - and on this basis I advocate acknowledging science as an understanding of reality and acting accordingly to secure a sustainable future. — counterpunch

Yes, indeed, you commit the naturalistic fallacy. It's been pointed out before, by myself and others.

Odd, that you think calling play "childish" was intended as derogatory. Would that everyone could be Peter Pan.

Communism has failed every country that ever adopted it — counterpunch

And capitalism hasn't?

Over 9 million people starve to death every year, in a world that is pretty much entirely capitalist nowadays. Why is that not a failure of capitalism?

Žižek's explanation of ideology as the stuff we all know but which we don't talk about fits with this nicely, I think. @counterpunch has taken the ideology of the invisible hand on board at a subconscious level, conceptualising the world through it, and so becoming incapable of seeing that it is an ideology. So he thinks he is being neutral and objective!

With all due respect - you and others are wrong. It's a matter of cause and effect that what is wrong cannot survive. The physiology and behaviour of organisms is crafted by evolution in relation to a causal reality. If the organism is not correct to reality it will die out as a matter of cause and effect. From this it follows that for human beings, there's a relationship between the validity of the knowledge bases of action, and the consequences of such action. Acting on the basis of overlapping religious, political and economic ideologies that do not describe the world as it really is - using science, but ignoring a scientific understanding of reality, we will necessarily become extinct. It's cause and effect. What is wrong cannot survive.

@fhorrest, see?



:rofl:

The invisible hand is a mechanism - in capitalism, that allows for the production and distribution of goods and services without dictatorial political control deciding what is produced, by whom, and how it is distributed. Instead, the rationally self interested actions of individuals in a free market decides what is produced, and who gets what. That is the invisible hand.

I have no illusions. You do. You refuse to see that capitalism has proven itself, far superior to centralising economic decision making in some few people with ultimate power. It's more successful, more free, more just and humane. Communism is a failure - and a genocidal abomination. Advocating communism should be more taboo than promoting fascism.

The Messiah speaks. Zarathustra descends from the mountain.

They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears.

Too long, perhaps, have I lived in the mountains; too much have I hearkened unto the brooks and trees: now do I speak unto them as unto the goatherds.

Calm is my soul, and clear, like the mountains in the morning. But they think me cold, and a mocker with terrible jests.

And now do they look at me and laugh: and while they laugh they hate me too. There is ice in their laughter.

Over 9 million people starve to death every year, in a world that is pretty much entirely capitalist nowadays. Why is that not a failure of capitalism? — Pfhorrest

In Essay on Population 1798, Thomas Malthus predicted that, because population grows geometrically - 2,4,8,16, etc - while productive land can only be added arithmetically 1,2,3,4 etc, acres at a time, human beings would soon outstrip their food supply and starve.

Today, there are around 8 billion people on earth. Which is to say, by your numbers, that capitalism feeds 7.91bn people adequately, and you call that a failure? I call it a miracle.

...while productive land can only be added arithmetically 1,2,3,4 etc, — counterpunch

That don't look linear to me.

But then, you don't need facts when you have your ideology to comfort you.

Today, there are around 8 billion people on earth. Which is to say, by your numbers, that capitalism feeds 7.91bn people adequately, and you call that a failure? I call it a miracle. — counterpunch

The existence of agricultural technology is independent of the ownership of it.

It is the technology that feeds the billions of people on earth today, and it actually produces enough food to feed EVERYONE. There is no practical reason why anyone in the world today has to starve. We have the means to feed them all.

It is the distribution of ownership of that technology, and that land it is applied to, etc — which is what’s different between capitalism and its alternatives, who owns what — that results in millions of people starving to death every year DESPITE that overabundance of food.

The graph you posted has no relevance to the argument I'm making, or really - much of an implication to the argument Malthus made. He wasn't predicting the linear growth of population. If you can't keep up - drop back, eh?

See, that's were you lose folk. You made the claim that growth was linear, I showed evidence that it wasn't. You claimed the evidence was irrelevant.

If you are going to do that, don't expect to be taken seriously.

There's plenty more facts at Our world in data. See if you can find anything that suggests the growth of food production is linear, as you claimed. There is enough food for everyone, as @Pfhorrest said.

Your ideology prevents you from seeing this.

Generally speaking, people only starve these days as a consequence of political turmoil, war, natural disaster, disease - things of that kind. It's not capitalism - failing to produce or distribute food. It's disruption of the market - not the existence of it.

See, that's were you lose folk. You made the claim that growth was linear, I showed evidence that it wasn't. You claimed the evidence was irrelevant. — Banno

No. I demonstrated the difference between a:

Geometric progression 2, 4, 8, 16 etc, and an

Arithmetic progression: 1, 2, 3, 4 etc.

Malthus' argument was that population grows geometrically, while productive land grows arithmetically, so we'd starve. Instead, we invented tractors! Now, 8 billion people are fed.

If you stopped trying to be a dick, and tried instead to follow the argument, you might relate this to what I'm saying about science, technology and sustainability.