But you're just making up percentages. — YuZhonglu

I'll make up my percentages and you can make up yours. Works for me.

Communication is difficult when people are overly literal. 25% or 2% are guesses, conversational gambits. Tokens. The meter measuring the degree of correspondence between two people will be jumping all over the place as the conversation goes along, because some words will have 90%, 100%, or 2%, or 45%... correspondence.

Every now and then I come across words that have zero correspondence. I don't know what the word means. Like "phlebasing". I never did find out what that word meant. The author made it up. Camarilla means, in my terminology, a group of running dog lackeys. I had to look it up before it meant anything. How about 'flocculent', and 'synecdoche'. Two more words with zero correspondence. Many people like callipygian rear ends -- from the Greek meaning beautiful buttocks. Nice ass, in other words. I had to look it up. Zero meaning at first.

Again, if there are NO common denominators in two people's mental representations of a word, then why do we assume that when each person uses that word they're referring to the "same" concept? — YuZhonglu

This doesn't seem to be the topic of this thread, but... what the hell.

Occasionally people run into the problem of using a word for which several people assign QUITE different meanings. In those cases, communication breaks down. If one of the 3 thinks Jesus is the hispanic guy that lives down the street, somebody else thinks that Jesus is the son of god, and a third person thinks that there is nobody named Jesus, obviously they are not going to have a productive discussion of Jesus.

In real life it happens that people sometimes have difficulty communicating and it usually isn't the end of the world.

Again, if there are NO common denominators in two people's mental representations of a word, then why do we assume that when each person uses that word they're referring to the "same" concept? — YuZhonglu

The USSR is the same entity whether you think it was the workers' paradise or the nightmare from hell. The United States is the same entity whether you think it is the perfect democracy or a racist, sexist disaster. Correspondence between person A's apprehension of the USSR and the USA and person B's apprehension of the USSR and the USA will never be 100%. It might be only 50% or 25%, but that is sufficient to allow for a discussion.

Almost everything there is has many aspects. We all know that, and don't expect 100% correspondence with the people we talk to. People who do expect 100% correspondence quickly become tiresome and we stop talking to them.

You can't step into the same river twice. In fact, you can't step into the same river once.

Most people find something sufficiently constant about the USSR or America to use these terms as if they represent something reasonably stable and commonly perceptible to all observers. Granted, everybody on earth has a distinct perspective on the world, and supposedly no two of them is alike. How the hell do we ever communicate?

We communicate by being familiar with the most common denominators in complex fractions like "Europe", "soil", "birds", "philosophers", and "USSRs". Once we get past the shallows of common denominators, then we have to get more specific: "When I was in Moscow in 1992, people on the streets displayed more than the usual minimum of soviet enthusiasm." [disclaimer: I have never been in Moscow.] Or, "It is wonderful to visit Washington, D.C. when the cherry trees are blossoming." That's probably true if you don't get mugged while you are traipsing around under the pink petals. [disclaimer: I have not seen Washington's famous cherry trees in bloom. Caveat: They are probably a lot like cherry trees blossoming elsewhere in the world.]

Nothing. I love nuclear as much as I love CO2, pesticides, RoundUp, and PCBs. What's not to love? Why, it's probably powering the very computer I'm using, right now. As for burying the waste from the power plants, well fuck it. We'll all be dead before we get the perpetual storage system built, anyway.

Apres moi, le deluge.

Come again?

So I watched it. I wasn't as taken with it as you were. Yes, it's good to recognize that nuclear power presents us with some real, substantial advantages at this point in time. Yes, it's true that coal and oil (not to mention autos running on oil) have killed far, far, far, far more people than even nuclear weapons, let alone nuclear power plants.

People feel like they have been tricked, and in fact they have been tricked about a lot of things. Tricked, fucked over, screwed, cheated, and been had, altogether. The solution, doing away with capitalism and unmitigated industrialism, is unacceptable. I don't want to go back to the original daylight savings plan--you go to bed at sundown and get up at sunrise. Without industrialism, we won't even have kerosene, and we've pretty much wiped out cetaceans so whale oil is out. That leaves a wick in grease for lighting.

Our choice seems to be "all or nothing". We either keep the whole industrial thing running (until it buries us with a plastic stake through our hearts) or we slip back into a pre-industrial, real simple agrarian economy.

Oh, those fucking stupid people thinking about nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants at the same time. How could they make such an OBVIOUS dumb mistake? — Ever Wise

OK, so let's track what happened. First came nuclear weapons. They weren't a secret. Hundreds of them (a good sized war's worth) were being exploded in the atmosphere, every one of them blasting an isotope salad into the atmosphere, to be distributed by wind and water. All that went on from 1945 until 1963. After that, tests were conducted underground.

The concern about nuclear bombs didn't disappear in 1963, of course. We could just stop worrying about fallout from above-ground tests. Nuclear bombs remained in production until the late 1980s, when I think we all had accumulated something like 36,000 bombs.

The first Earth Day was 49 years ago--22 April, 1970. I don't remember it. I suppose it was about butterflies and pesticides, trees, flowers, and children. It probably wasn't about CO2 levels in the atmosphere. though acid rain was a known consequence of burning coal and oil. CO2 hadn't become a big issue, yet.

Nuclear power plants were on line were humming away by 1970. In 1970, though, people were still worried about nuclear weapons. They had not gone away. Then there was the 3 Mile Island accident, which wasn't so very terrible but the people were frightened, the way sheep are frightened when they see a wolf. The brakes were slammed on and not much new happened in nuclear power. But the plants that were operating continued on, pretty much.

Chernobyl happened in 1986. This was much worse than 3 Mile Island. This one blew up, blasting tons of radioactive material into the atmosphere.

People are afraid of plutonium, uranium; cesium 137, iodine 131, strontium 90, and lots of other isotopes that they had heard about during atomic testing. These and other isotopes came out of the Chernobyl blast. I suppose we could forgive people for thinking that a dusting of plutonium or iodine 131 is what killed the liquidators at Chernobyl. What killed people there were gamma rays -- harsh, penetrating, ionizing radiation. Workers brought to hospital from Chernobyl were themselves emitting gamma radiation.

About this time, give or take a few years, CO2 became an issue, and as a decade or two have passed, seems like the most pressing issue of the day -- no longer atom bombs (though they haven't disappeared), radiation from nuclear power plants (which haven't disappeared either). Those who have inquiring minds that want to know, are now aware of how exceedingly dirty nuclear weapons production has been. Suspicion might have continued to dissipate had not an earthquake's tsunami wrecked the Fukushima nuclear plant. Another melt down, another mess. Not to worry, the levels of radiation are not too much above background radiation. It's all being diluted, we'll clean it all up, everyone will be happy again, yada yada yada.

So, friends, we have more to worry about now. There are the still ticking atom bombs; all the nuclear power plants that haven't blown up yet, and all the CO2 that is clearly screwing things up. The Ozone Hole seems to be OK for now. Bees are disappearing, along with other non-honey bee pollinators, and that could be really bad. Human sperm counts are dropping around the world (about 50% since WWII). Childhood cancers--which were once a rarity--are fairly common now. Various chemicals being used resemble hormone molecules, and these look-alike chemicals are screwing up development of fish and humans (other animals too).

If there is a common enemy here, it's capitalists and state monopolists (USSR) that have always preferred to externalize the costs of their profit making by dumping the crap in the river, blowing it out the stack, burying it in holes (out of sight, out of mind), or just using the lumpen proles as a sponge to soak it all up.

I don't seem to be able to find the link. Could you repost it, please. Thanks.

Chernobyl was much worse than it was reported to be. The explosion was very bad bad to start with, and the arrogance and stupidity of the Soviet system made it much much worse. The Exclusion Zone? That didn't help the people in Byelorussia who were soaked in a radioactive rain storm a few days later, leaving the soil more radioactive than the soil in the Exclusion Zone. (just one little example)

Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster
by Adam Higginbotham

Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters
by Kate Brown

Dispatches from Dystopia: Histories of Places Not Yet Forgotten Kindle Edition
by Kate Brown

@ssu

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

There were a lot more than 50 "liquidators" at Chernobyl exposed to massive doses of radiation, doses falling into the rapid fatal-effects range.

Two nuclear plants supply a lot of my electricity. There have been no accidents at these plants (that we know of) in the 30-40 years that they have been operating. I am reasonably confident that they will continue on until decommissioning in the next few decades. Both plants have large containers of spent fuel stacked up. I'm not worried about somebody stealing them (they're way too heavy to surreptitiously swipe) but eventually they will have to be put some place. We're not making much progress in finding that place.

If the nuclear plants in my backyard are just fine, the history of nuclear weapons and nuclear fuel production is pretty bad. American and Soviet (now Russian) operations have been filthy. For instance, the Rocky Flats plutonium bomb plant, located not far from Denver, had a fire which burned off much of the roof and the particle filters on the ventilators. Quite a few pounds of plutonium aerosol drifted down on Denver. There were huge releases of radioactive material at the Hanford plant (the site of cold war US Plutonium production), the Idaho reactor research center, and other places.

Ozersk was the Hanford equivalent in the USSR. A river ran out of it, loaded with enough radioactive isotopes that standing next to the river for an hour gave a person a 200 rem dose. The soviets moved all the Kazakhs that lived along the river to somewhere else, right? No, indeed. Ozersk was a secret facility that officially did not exist, and the waste flowing out of the plant was also secret. So... no. The people were not moved away. A tank of waste, buried and covered with a cement plug, went critical and blew up -- an atomic explosion about the size of the Nagasaki or Hiroshima bombs. Very messy.

How about Hanford. Surely America wouldn't do stuff like that! How about running water from the Columbia River through the huge reactors and flowing it directly back into the river? How about the visible plumes of radioactive material (like yellow plumes of radioactive iodine) that came out of the stack above the plant where the fuel rods were dissolved in acid? The plume didn't dissipate as planned, but would quite often curl down to ground level in places like Walla Walla, Washington -- or onto the people who worked and lived at the plant.

All the waste buried in those places is still there, still gnawing through the walls of the tanks, leaking into the adjacent ground...

Fukushima was, perhaps, inauspiciously located. But it was also inauspicious to put the spent fuel storage pools above ground in the buildings with the reactors. What, were the Japanese stupid? No, the plant was built according to American power plant plans. Some of our plants are designed the same way.

The military on the one hand, and the capitalists on the other hand can not be counted on to put safety first. That goes for command economy communists too.

I have no problem with British spelling. Gaol. Colour. Whilst.

We're having spelling problems here. I'm all for "irradiating" Sharia Law, if that would also "eradicate" it.

Spelling. Democratic for demographic. I blame the spell checker. It's getting too aggressive at changing the word, with often absurd results. So much for the robotics revelation revolution. See?

And can we please stop using race as an all purpose term for difference we are going to disapprove of? "I don't like sour apples." "Oh, you must be a racist." There are only four races that don't exist -- white, black, yellow, and red. If you don't like yellow people as a group, you're racist, maybe. If you don't like Welsh people, that's quite sensible. Same goes for Icelanders, Burundians, and Salvadorians. You are also not a racist if you just dislike everybody.

It appeals to me and I’m far from hip. — praxis

Not the picture per se (which is attractive and features a voluptuous pose); the hip part is the decision to run the picture as part fo the swimsuit issue. I can see hip people (and sans hipness types like yourself, as self described) approving of the decision apart from the picture itself.

@Praxis: The overall effect is quite attractive.

It wasn't all that long ago that American women were a lot more covered up for public swimming than they are now, to maintain 'modesty'. Less than a century ago, it wasn't considered appropriate for men to be naked above the waist in public. It was the arrival of the 'itsy bittsy teeny weeny' French imported women's bikini that changed all that. The Australian Speedo bikini did the same for men.

I personally don't much care what Sports Illustrated does with its pages, but one can imagine several low cost PR INTENDED benefits: it looks progressive, it seems slightly fashion forward, it probably appeals to a certain 'hip' demographic, and so on. I doubt if mainline Islamic spokesmen are going to line up and hail the photo as a long sought-after victory of western acceptance.

What I see happening in the only Islamic community that I am familiar with, the one in Minnesota, is that older women continue to wear head to toe covering, but are gradually relinquishing the ubiquitous burgundy or black version. The robe has gotten a bit shorter too, so that it doesn't drag on the street/floor/dirt. The fashion forward women are wearing over-all covers with dramatic patterns and lighter fabrics. Some younger women have stopped wearing the long robe, and may or may not have a head covering (this would be street wear, not going-to-mosque outfits.

In other words, cultural adjustments are being made gradually, which is what one would expect.

Oh dear. You thought I was joking.

How about automating mysticism? We could have robots performing and dispensing the Eucharist for example. An ordained robot could do the whole thing: hear the confession, dispense appropriate penance and absolution, read the lesson, deliver a quick homily, chant a psalm, sing a hymn, perform the consecration of the Eucharistic meal, and then dispense it. The Robot Priest would be available 24/7, anywhere. It could be a chapel, a drive up window, a cathedral, a hospital bedside, your home, the mall, a bowling alley...

Addition advantages: The Holy Robot would obey the vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, would leave the cute boys alone, wouldn't gossip, and would never have heretical ideas. When the unit was not busy, it could monitor the behavior of congregants. Further more, given robotic power, it could do something about misbehaving parishioners who thought they could get away with a little adultery or embezzlement. It would certainly be able to balance the diocese's books, while monitoring congregants and turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

The shortage of priests would be solved. And, for that matter, the shortage of nuns and monks could also be solved. The Church would have that large, reliable, and low cost work force again.

Sounds like a win/win/win to me.

The apprehension of beauty is not universal (everyone will not agree on what is beautiful) but it is sufficiently shared among people that, were we voting, the world would elect the same objects to the Beauty Hall of Fame by wide margins.

The Myron's Discobolus is a Greek classical bronze sculpture (450g BC) has been admired for a long time and has been reproduced many times in bronze and marble. The sculptor captured the discus thrower's motion and focus, in itself an important aspect of the work's beauty. The form of the male athlete is also beautiful, and beautifully captured.



This photo of a world record discus throw probably would not make it into the Beauty Hall of Fame. Why not? It's not a sculpture, it's not a work of art, of course. It's a document. But the main thing about the real discus thrower in the photo is that he is too "particular", "specific". It was that athlete, that throw (as it happened, a world record). The Myron Discobolus is "universal" -- representing not one particular toss, but the athleticism and beauty of discus throwing.

The Greeks held the body--both male and female--mortal and deity--as inherently beautiful. They had in mind an idealized, beautiful form, body; the Greeks didn't do roly poly adults.

By the way, @Ilya B Shambat, beauty is beauty. "Absolute beauty" isn't better. Beauty doesn't exist apart from the physical world, some "essence" or "absolute" quality.

A painless death is the last gift you can give to a pet when they are suffering the debilities of age and disease. "When" is a judgement call, of course.

But, "consume less"! Not really, just change the means of production to robots and the endless demands of productivity increases and all boats will rise. — Wallows

And you think I'm dreaming!

I'm just going to be blunt and call you out on your catastrophizing here. The markets have lifted countless people in India and China out of destitute poverty. You might brush that aside and counter with another knee jerk response that this has happened at the cost of the environment, especially in China. But, it goes without saying that there is no free lunch and we might as well accept the fact that the world is becoming a better place despite what Marx or Engels might have said some 100+ years ago. — Wallows

That's fine; you don't have to believe whatever catastrophizing I do here. And I would agree with you that economic activity in China, India, SE Asia, Korea, and elsewhere has indeed lifted many people out of destitution over the last few decades. Trade has helped, internal consumption has helped. Shaking off very stultifying systems of peonage has helped a great deal too.

Yes, there have been environmental costs. There were, are enormous environmental costs as a result of our own economic development. Economic development, in general, has tended to be a dirty game, because whether in a command economy or a capitalist economy, managers prefer to externalize costs by throwing waste into the river.

The catastrophe that I catastrophacize about, however, is quite novel. the crisis of global warming owing to CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases is unprecedented and is pretty much cross cultural for industrialized nations. It's also novel in that it isn't a crisis that can be thrown into reverse quickly or easily. We already may be past the point where strenuous reductions of CO2 will prevent a sharp rise in global average temperature. Strenuous reductions would certainly be a good idea, but we might get the consequences of CO2 increase before we experience the benefit of CO2 decline.

Global warming probably won't wipe out our species. I don't think it will do that. But it is already wiping out many species. Warming, and excessive use of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and so on. And global warming certainly threatens to cull human population. that will be pretty ghastly. It's worth avoiding.

at this moment, there is a dramatic shift in the market towards a more sustainable future due to a rise in the efficiency of existing products — Wallows

What, pray tell us, is efficient and sustainable about selling water in plastic bottles? arranging society so that everyone who can owns at least one car? A product packaging system that consumes and buries or burns many tons of paper, plastic, and metal every day? Housing built for 2 people that comprises at least 3,000 sq. feet of space, where a century ago, a house for 2 people might have had 1000 square feet?

To sound philosophical there's an unsatisfiable desire for "more" than what people already have. This breeds discontentment ... — Wallows

So, do you think that "the desire for more" is the basic driving force in human development? Some people think it is. Should we suppose that human beings have been hungering for more for the last... let's say, 100,000 years? It seems like our species has spent far more time living in equilibrium with needs, wants, and resources than in incessant hankering after more.

Most of our history has been lived as hunter gatherers whose societies were very stable and who did not accumulate goods. The couldn't carry more than the absolute minimum gear needed to carry out hunting, gathering, and consuming food. Studies of contemporary hunter gatherer societies reveals people who are reasonably healthy, and reasonably happy. Our basic formula for success has been 'travel light'.

Of course, we want 'more'; just because you ate well at breakfast doesn't mean you will not want 'more' at supper time.

The idea that humans hunger for ever more and better goods, experiences, and services is a treadmill made to serve corporate purposes, not an inherent human desire. "Always more" is the motto of capitalism, which requires ever expanding sales to maintain profitability. This, by the way, is capitalist theory, not Marxist theory. It's just a fact: corporations can not achieve steadily increasing profitability on the basis of flat sales and consumer contentment.

Henry Ford understood this. His very short list models (any color you want as long as its black) were not made to be bought and enjoyed for decades. Ford engineers strove to produce a vehicle that would not last too long. Why? Because if everyone who wanted a car bought one, and the car lasted them for decades, Ford would be out of business fairly soon. Ford soon had the company of many auto manufacturers who offered an array of cars in various styles, colors, luxury, or utility. They all followed the same principle: car sales can be driven by encouraging dissatisfaction with what you have in hand in favor of what is at the showroom. And we haven't gotten to 1930 yet!

So, this idea of driving sales by the whip of dissatisfaction wasn't invented in 1901. Sales of fashionable goods (clothing, shoes, jewelry, home furnishings) had been applying this principle to the affluent bourgeoisie for a while; let us say, during the 19th century. The further back you go, the fewer people there were who had sufficient resources to engage in discontented buying (we are talking about very small numbers).

You know this: there is a huge industry devoted to the careful, 24/7 cultivation of discontentment. It is so ubiquitous that it might seem invisible. It is certainly so ubiquitous that it is inescapable short of becoming a cloistered monastic or falling into a coma.

Yes. I don't know how, exactly, but to this semi-untrained economist, it seems obvious that the work economy as going to fracture. It isn't that economic activity will cease -- it won't until human life ceases -- but it will break up into less economic activity much less widely distributed.

For example, before the supply of oil is exhausted (maybe 100 years away), once heavy manufacturing becomes impossible because of labor, resource, and market, problems, global trade is going to come to shrink. It isn't that people won't want to buy anything; producers may not be able to make stuff to sell, AND get it to where buyers are. And if the buyers economy is collapsed, they won't be able to afford to buy anything. The fracturing and collapse of parts of the world economy probably isn't 100 years away--it's somewhat less. No, I don't know.

But it stands to reason that with heat waves, floods, crop failures, fires, and disease (animal, plant, human) taking an ever larger toll, (I left out major wars) economic activity is going to shrink.

this most inept and mendacious of presidents — Wayfarer

Well, I don't think anyone expects this most inept and mendacious of presidents to solve the problem. On the other hand, the presumably less inept and mendacious presidents that preceded this one, and their party leaders in the House and Senate, didn't do anything about the problem either.

It's a complicated problem. We have a very long border. There are a lot of people who would like to live here rather than in some shithole further south. So, they walk right in. It isn't that they are bad people (most of them are not bad people), but the fact is it isn't up to the restless people around the world to decide the immigration policies for everybody else.

Sovereign Nations, in one of which everyone on this board lives, have the responsibility of defining how to manage population and resources. No nation has to accept all comers. No nation has to believe that everyone who shows up on their doorstep is oppressed and is entitled to asylum. What every nation has to decide is how many people does it want to have? Which age? Which skill level? Which ethnicity? Which x, y, and z. Maybe it determines that the need for low skilled Central Americans, is simply not very high, and they can't come in. Or maybe they decide that average true Scotsman is likely to have chronic health problems and bad teeth. So no to them, too. (Ok, so Andrew Carnegie was an exception.)

Maybe they will decide that very clever, young, healthy, educated Chinese are what we need many more of. Or more French. I'd vote for that. We need more French people in the United States, especially French good at le fine cuisine. More French, more Finns, and more Fuji Islanders.

Unfortunately, inept governments in Washington have not evaluated the problem of resources and population very carefully, if at all.

sales of luxury items that only the very rich can afford will decline, and they will decline to the degree that the wealthy are, so to speak impoverished. — Janus

Let me respond as a semi-untrained economist: The current taxation level on the rich is about 30%. It used to be closer to 90%. And you know what? When it was at 90% there were still rich people getting richer. Granted, it might have taken more work on their part to get rich, and their children may not have been made quite as rich through inheritance, but they made do. They recycled their mink coats into mink stoles, their silk gowns into fancy curtains (the opposite of Scarlett O'hara in Gone With the Wind), and so on. The Gold Corvettes could eventually be used for grocery shopping instead of lavish display, etc.

impoverished — Janus

Just to alert the rich to the risks they face, "after another 5 seconds of whining about being impoverished, we'll just blow your tits apart". If they don't shut up, fire away.

The only hope would seem to be that everyone very gradually reduces their level of consumption, particularly of fossil fuels; — Janus

OK, so here you have stumbled upon an inconvenient truth: The present level of consumption (all goods and services) is unsustainable. Global warming is a reality, and one way or another consumption is going to get cut -- probably by some unpleasant process where heat and high water eliminates large batches of consumers from existence. Fossil fuels are not just our achilles heel, they are the bulging aneurism in our aorta that will burst, bringing this whole fandango to an abrupt and clumsy finish.

Deflating the intensity of religious feeling probably would reduce intergroup friction over religious issues. Banning from public display crosses, hijabs, saffron robes, crescents and stars, forehead dots, etc. might help. However, it isn't scapular crosses, head coverings, or other symbols or clothing items that give religion public intensity. Let's go a little further: Let's also ban religious education, agitation, and religious preaching. After all, it is in churches, mosques, temples, madrasas, Sunday schools, and so forth that people get religiously revved up.

We might as well go ahead and ban the existence of religious organizations. If we really don't like religious static in society, then let's just ban it altogether. NO RELIGION ALLOWED.

Banning religion won't make it disappear overnight, of course. The Soviets banned religion, and while it's vitality was considerably reduced, once it was no longer banned (1991) it seems to have sprung back with remarkable resilience.

We could ban religions selectively. The soviets tolerated the Russian Orthodox church more than some other religions. I find Catholic and mainline protestantism quite tolerable, but would be glad to see Islam and fundamentalist Christianity banned. Judaism is OK, and the Orthodox are good for local color. I suppose the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and so forth could be put up with. I have my doubts about animism. Certain screwy heretical groups, like Mormons, should probably be suppressed. Though, they have gradually been getting slightly more liberal, lately. However, the gay valedictorian at Brigham Young University (a Mormon school) didn't get much applause at his speech to his graduating class in April.

How about turning churches and mosques into granaries? Or gay bath houses? Or atheist lecture halls? Or squash courts? or... There are some gaudy Catholic churches that would make fabulous bathhouses and bordellos--very campy.

See. Your @Gnostic Grace, you just are not being imaginative enough.

I sense a lot of bitterness in this post — Wallows

It's dirty work but somebody has to do it.

Does that sound familiar to you? Maybe I just need to hang out in better circles :chin: — ZhouBoTong

Oh yes, very familiar. Americans have been receiving a steady diet of anti-socialist/anti-marxist/anti-communist education since at least the end of WWII. The last decade when one could find a lot of socialists around was the 1930s and the Great Depression. (Or so I gather I wasn't alive in the 1930s.)

In fairness, Marx's ideas are really very radical. I think they make sense, but they are still very radical. He is, as they used to say, "far out". Where we have people trying Marxism--the USSR and China, particularly--the results were terrible. (Marx wasn't a marxist. He didn't attempt to instantiate his revolutionary predictions.)

What we have instead are a couple of centuries of free-enterprise propaganda that insists, over and over again, that there is nothing better, more humane, more productive, better for the whole universe than The American Way of capitalism.

I'm not a hard core Marxist. When there was a local movement, I participated in a DeLeonist interpretation of Marx promoted by the Socialist Labor Party, and later the New Unionist Party. More or less it's industrial unionism. Marx, Engels, DeLeon, and a lot of leaders of the various forms of socialism are 19th century figures. I mention that only in the context that one has to update their thinking. Updating it isn't an invalidation. But a lot of socialists, communists, trotskyites, stalinists, maoists, and so forth are really slavish followers of their hero. The Socialist Labor Party were slavish follows of Daniel DeLeon. I've read his stuff and there's nothing wrong with it, but the reality he was working in isn't the reality that prevails 120 years later.

And I don't know how you have a perfect mini-example ready to support every idea you have, but great stuff. — ZhouBoTong

Being 72 helps, having a good memory helps, and of course not responding to topics where there is no handy mini example available is especially helpful.

It's about how similar, in a number of ways, fish and people are.

Well, you've met people who you thought were cold fish, so there you go.

It's about how evolution carried through fish development into mammal, and eventually human development. For instance, during the fetal stage (in utero) the fetus forms gill slits and arches. Why do they do this? Because all vertebrates have a common fish ancestor from which we all descended. Chick, pig, and human embryos all display this feature. It's a good read written for the at-least-somewhat informed general reader.

I thought "Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body" by Neil Shubin was very interesting. I don't think he resolved the question of a continuity of consciousness between fish and humans, but there is a continuity of structure between fishes and people that have made our consciousness possible.

Insects, fish, mammals, ourselves have ancient common roots. The way neurons operate, for instance, was worked out very early on, and their operation has some continuity throughout the species.

(Interesting factoid: the bones of your inner ear were once part of fish jaws.

Have a piece of your distant cousins today - fried, baked, broiled, stewed, or raw.

I know, from reading Dr. Science (He knows more than I do; he has a masters degree -- IN SCIENCE!) that I have recycled through my corporeal cells several times since I was born -- save the brain, maybe the heart muscle. Legally, I am the same person I was 72 years ago, and I feel like there is continuity as far back as I can remember (like 68 years ago). Something drastic has to happen to break that sense of continuity -- like a run in with a brick wall, a brain tumor, alzheimers, or something like that.

"Should the future concern me?"

Nah! No reason for you to worry about the future. Just carry on as if there was no tomorrow! (just joking)

The future should concern you, me, everyone especially when there is something we can do about it. It makes sense to save today for tomorrow's unexpected expenses. It makes sense to consider how yesterday brought about today will bring about tomorrow.

There is no point worrying about an asteroid killing you, because, chances are, you won't know about it in advance. (There might be some warning for a general area, like southern Africa.)

Worrying or not worrying about the future is, of course, always a gamble. You might go through the pain of withdrawal, all that misery, only to discover that you have an incurable cancer. Or, you might go through all the unpleasantness of withdrawal, only to discover the heroin fairy has left you a life-time supply under your pillow (and bed, probably -- wouldn't all fit under your pillow).

I'm assuming that your opiate scenario is a hypothetical.

Marx lived in the most advanced capitalist country of his day (Great Britain, empire and all), and was aware of how complex its economy was. He expected industry and technology to continue developing, and along with that, the complexity and variety of social life that is based on the means of production.

I don't believe Marx ever laid out a blueprint for a socialist society. Comrade Lenin, Trotsky, et al had no input into Karl Marx's thinking. The resolution of the conflict between the contending forces of labor and capital was too indefinite to predict what could/would happen. It seems to me that Marx said somewhere that if the conflict between labor and capital wasn't resolved, it would result in the destruction of both classes.

Marx wasn't thinking of CO2, global warming, mass extinction, and so forth, but in a way his production could come true: The capitalist insistence on externalizing (dumping) the real costs of production onto the people in the form of pollution, nuclear waste, CO2, etc., is clearly against the interests of the vast majority of people. It looks like we will all go down together.

In an economy serving 300 million, 500 million, or a billion plus people, there pretty much has to be a hierarchy of coordination. Supply chains from raw material to finished retail are just too complex to be managed in a decentralized way. Just for example: if an economy wants cell phones, flat screens, tablets, et al it has to have access to a string of rare earth elements, extremely thin but strong glass, all sorts of different grades of computer chips, and so on. I can't imagine how a decentralized manufacturing system could coordinate all these elements coming together in one place as the finished product.

Or berries. It doesn't make sense for a grocery in West Cupcake, Iowa to find a way of obtaining supplies of raspberries beyond whatever happens to be growing near by. It takes a lot of hierarchical organization to get even one blueberry from Chile to West Cupcake.

Maybe The People will decide that it is immoral to fly blueberries from Chile to West Cupcake. That would simplify that part of the problem. But if The People insist on blueberries, other methods of producing them closer to West Cupcake will have to be found. This can be (has been) done, but again it takes complex arrangements to bring about, and that takes hierarchical organization.

Commissar: "After the Revolution there will strawberries for all!"
Worker: "But Commissar, I don't like strawberries."
Commissar: (growling) "After the Revolution you will like strawberries."

But the main point of this thread is rather about the intractable problem of exploitation that Marx thinks can be resolved in his Manifesto and Das Kapital with a complete worker-led economy. — schopenhauer1

Here's a practical example that illustrates your point. A group of grass root food coops were organized in Minneapolis back in the late 1960s-1970s. They were shoestring operations using volunteer labor. In exchange for working x number of hours, one received a discount on one's whole grains, nuts, roots, cheese, whatever. They were kind of ratty, but had great esprit d'corps. Over time, they found their niche and flourished. A number of the original coops are still around 50 years later, and have become successful financial operations.

The simple "coop" of the early movement couldn't survive. As sales increased, and consumer expectations of the coop rose, the operations had to become more 'professionalized'. "The People" wanted higher cleanliness standards, a wider variety of organic foods, longer hours, better lighting, and so on. Volunteers were and are still used, but the larger more complex operations require paid staff who can work with complex warehousing, health standards, commercial refrigeration, and all the rest. All to the good.

However, the once grass rooty coops are now Co-op Corporations. They are owned by the members who receive discounts and bonuses from their shares in the coop. There has been dissatisfaction among the paid staff which sounds pretty much like the dissatisfaction one would hear about at any for-profit business: pay too low, no benefits, work-expectations too high, etc.

The critical difference between the old, ratty grass-root coops and the shiny, clean corporate co-op is the form of ownership. The share-owners of the Co-op are the governing group, not the volunteer committee that ran the old coop. The alienating principle of ownership came into play fairly quickly. The share owners were stingy and unsympathetic to their paid workers. The volunteers began to feel like chumps, and drifted away -- requiring more paid workers who became resentful, etc.

That's clearly NOT how socialism should work.

I don't think Uncle Karl was proposing a 'flat organization of society"; he wasn't a radical an-archist, after all, bent on eliminating every trace of hierarchy. You seem to be supposing that the ideal socialist arrangement would be 'flat' -- no hierarchies sticking up above the plain of equality.

Some of the problems impinging on equality among workers are the province of human psychology and group dynamics. These human factors--ambition, cliques, group solidarity, insiders/outsiders, individual manipulations of the group and other individuals--will abide for ages to come, with or without a workers paradise. So, a primary task of people living in this workers paradise will be to self-manage the features of human psychology that work against social harmony.

Remember that phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs". Everyone will have the exactly the same level of responsibilities, nor will everyone receive the same rewards. Some workers (say a worker with 5 children) will need more pay than a young single. Similarly, some workers will present managerial talents rather than excellent eye/hand coordination. Managing involves more complicated tasks than parts assembly. That doesn't mean that the manager deserves to be living in a penthouse. Managing the flow of work is just another job at which some people are better than others. A much higher level of thinking will be expected of brain researchers than will be expected of enterprise managers. Brain research is a job. Just because it is highly specialized and technically demanding, doesn't mean the brain researchers should live in palaces overlooking the ocean.

This idea isn't altogether unknown and untried. The abbot of a Benedictine monastery has power and responsibilities greater than the average monk, but he still lives in a room like the other monks live in and eats the same food.

Marx didn't lay out a blue print for a socialist society. The first seizure of power, where the capitalist possessors are dispossessed isn't the heart of the revolution. A redistribution of land isn't the critical step either. There are several preliminary steps. The real revolution is when the workers (who are, again, almost everyone in a society) begin to devise the kind of socialist economy and way of life that is workable and acceptable.

A revolution can't be sprung on people. It's absurd to think that way. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, leading eventually to the formation of the USSR, happened TO the people. The Maoist revolution in China happened TO the people. So, HOW a revolution comes about is a critical thing. I prefer a revolution that is the outcome of extensive organizing, political work, and education. If the final step has to be violent, so be it, but in many cases the violent element can be minimized.

The people have to be involved in thinking about what kind of society they want, really, before the revolution begins. Hence, organizing, political work, and education. The instantiated revolution has to come FROM the people, not happen TO the people.

Thank you for alerting me. No, I had not seen this before now.

As I understand him, Marx envisioned a radically different economy and culture than the one that exists now. Which revolution will bring about the fruition of Marx's vision?

There are a series of revolutionary events that will need to happen, like dispossessing the capitalists of their wealth, before any sort of marxist vision can be realized.

The last, most difficult. and longest phase of the revolution will be the working class (which is, you know, most of the people in an industrialized country) learning how to be Socialist Citizens who can intelligently and competently manage their very large economy, regulate their own industrial activities for the common good, maintain a free, culturally rich society, attend promptly to the massive environmental problems which we have, and so forth. A lot of individual and group learning will have to take place in this revolution. The tricky part will be surviving this stage until we all get good at playing our respective roles.

It's too late to say more -- got to go to bed. 3:30 a.m.

The world is changing so fast that people who are over 30 born and lived in another world than there is now. And they compare the old world with the new and many of them dislike the new world. — Geo

Not so fast. I'm 72. Unimaginably old to you, I suppose. But let me tell you... I've been using computers for the last 40 years and have used the internet since 1991. A lot of us old farts have stayed abreast of technology.

You need to do a little recalibrating. The really big leaps were in the later part of the 19th century and mid 20th. Cell phones are nothing but a marriage of land line and radio technology--miniaturized of course. Computers have been crunching away for 70 years. Telegraphing messages around the world got underway around 150 years ago. Global capitalism has been shrinking the world a lot longer than the Internet has.

Is the Internet amazing? Sure it's amazing. I love it. But let's not get carried away. High tech devices and systems are bent to serve commercial masters. Google has always been an advertising company (whatever else they were up to). Like young guys, us old guys like tech. We've liked tech longer than you've been alive twice over. Our fascination with technology didn't stop with CD players 40 years ago. We've updated regularly.

The gadgets change, sure, and gadgets don't define reality. Human reality does not change very fast. That's why people over 30 (even over 40, 50, and 60) run the world and people under 30 do not.

A lot of people border on (or actually are) hysterical when it comes to childhood sexuality. Some children tend to be precocious in their sexual activity. I was, like you from an early age. I didn't have sex with an adult male, but I certainly thought about it. The hysterical reaction of people who compose your family and community can make an indifferent experience into either a traumatic, or a more traumatic one, post facto.

Had either one of us grown up in another time (not that distant) our sexual experiences would have been deemed much less significant. But since in the latter half of the 20th century (at least) sex between children and adults has been deemed always and totally bad.

I'm not arguing in favor of adult/child sexual relationships. I'm just acknowledging that it happens, and is probably not always experienced as traumatic by the child. Many of us have a range of non-sexual experiences in our families that we wish we had not had. People can, and do, behave badly toward us. As adults we have to find a way of putting bad experiences away -- either through therapy, maturation, or just plain denial, if one can make that work.

So I wish you well. I hope you find everything you need.

By the way, is anyone helping you with homelessness? Don't know where you live or what your circumstances are.