to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power. — Agustino

Do you really think that ensuring everyone is kept happy is the simplest thing to do? From my experience, keeping even several people happy at the same time can be very difficult. Of course, if you control 100% of the world economy... You can just define happiness as drinking Agu Cola; and if you don't like Agu Cola, well, maybe it is time for you to consider another planet.

Before I read your post, I had done a quick GooSearch for the percentage of women in mining, and I looked at the same site you posted. Did you notice that was "MINING REVIEW Africa? Not that Africans don't count.

Here's a quote from a report by the Colorado School of Mines which is applicable to the US:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 13 percent of the mining industry is now female compared with less than 6 percent at the time of Gibbs’ graduation. At Mines, 17 percent of mining engineering degrees in 2013 were awarded to women compared with 6 percent in 1998. And, interestingly, the new head of the Department of Mining Engineering, Priscilla Nelson, who took over the reins in January, is the first woman ever to head the department.

These are all steps in the right direction, says Jessica Kogel, a senior manager at Imerys with close ties to Mines. But she and others say the industry should do more to take advantage of the attributes women leaders can bring to a company. A new report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers in collaboration with Women in Mining (UK), ‘Mining for Talent 2014,’ states that mining ranks dead last among global industries when it comes to women in leadership positions. Among the world’s top 500 mining companies, only 7.2 percent of directorships are held by women. Among the top 100, women make up just 10.3 percent of boards of directors.

There is still some underground mining in the US, but most of (like in coal, iron ore) is open pit and the hard labor is done by machines operated by people who are dwarfed by the equipment.

I wasn't trying to suggest that once the masses discover that there is no more gas at the pump, they will at once turn to cannibalism. That will happen when they get to McDonalds and discover there are no more Chicken McNuggets and Big Macs. Then, not from hunger but out of blind rage they will fall upon one another.

You might want to avoid fast food joints at that time.

According to the Hubbert Curve, which charts the rise and projected fall of oil, the fall from peak down to minimal extraction will take about as long as it took to reach peak oil -- so the end of oil is not just around the corner. While some opportunities for a better energy policy passed us by in the 1970s, there are still opportunities to prepare for the demise of petroleum energy -- not by finding the miraculous substitute, but rather, learning to live with much less energy consumption.



Both Kunstler and Greer recognize that over a century of time, population will be reduced by the usual Apocalyptic Quartet; but in any given time and place, life will be humming along fairly normally, until another jolting adjustment occurs. The long term adjustment will be step wise, rather than going over a cliff.

In any case, those who have had white hair snowed on them, or those who already have one foot in the grave and the other foot on a banana peel, need not worry. It will be all sic transit gloria mundi before the next oil crisis hits.

Given that hell is sort of other people anyway, those who do live through the depopulating plagues should find life much improved. Just think: if 1/3 of the population are assholes (estimates vary upwards, never downwards) and 6 billion people die between 2050 and 2100, that might be 2 billion fewer assholes to put up with. If God is truly merciful, the dead will be composed entirely of assholes.

Why, it will be like... i don't know, winning the multi-state lottery for $500,000,000.

What is the idyllic society? Should everybody have a say in how the social order is prearranged and run? Or should the ‘best’ or most ‘capable’ individuals run things? Finally, if this is something we can agree with; how do we determine who those individuals are? — Issac Scoggins

I think it is too late for this question. — T Clark

It is always interesting to think about the perfect society, but I agree with T Clark: It is too late for this .

At least, it's too late now; but the time may come when it can again be asked. If people like John Michael Greer and James Howard Kunstler (two writers who have given a great deal of thought to what Post-Peak-Oil means) are right, the time for these questions will arise again. Greer doesn't predict a cultural collapse next year, or next week. Rather, he projects a fairly slow unwinding of the energy crisis in decades time. The environmental crisis may be quicker.

AT any rate, at some point in the not too distant future (maybe 50, maybe 100, maybe 150 years) the major and large institutions will have succumbed to the multiple crisis, and people will find themselves in much smaller communities than the present. Then will be time to deploy a better, more suitable society than we have now. (O f course, don't wait until that happens to start planning,)

Both authors (Greer and Kunstler) recommend preparing now for the inevitable.

Society in the future may be more like society has been in the past Most goods and services will need to be created locally. No more blueberries in New York from Chile. No shirts, no shoes, no services from China, No cars. Bicycles? Maybe. Boats? yes. intense cultivation in the summer, then equally intense food preservation, and finally, food conservation. No insulin. Probably no antibiotics. Scavenging for metal and making the tools that are needed.

Owing to major population decline, many towns will be small enough again to have direct democracy, but the ideal society will be the one that the locals want and are able to operate.

There will probably be elements of existing conditions in future societies: strongmen will probably arise here and there, and that may be good or bad. Some individuals will be more important than others because they have unique and crucial skills. Someone who can make beer (or wine) will be more important than someone who can make computer programs for machines that no longer work. A midwife will be more important than a heart surgeon. A good farmer will be more important than a good auto mechanic.

It will be as difficult as ever for societies to be egalitarian and practice mutual support and protection. Anyone who can help people create and maintain the community they have will be very valuable.

if's, and's, or but's — darthbarracuda

Dick comment, but you don't need the apostrophes here. :razz: — Thorongil

Without the apostrophes one gets ifs, ands, or buts; these spellings may be correct, by typographically they require a second glance.

I understand what you are saying, but gazelles and lions are not human, and we should not judge them as if they were humans.

Darth, I don't know if anyone has told you the facts of life, yet, but let me alert you to how bad they are. Life sucks! Humans can separate themselves a little from nature (and to that extent we become liable to judgement.

"Life isn't a person; life isn't mother nature. It's not a self-conscious process. Until we came along it was all pre-moral--not even a-moral, non-moral, or immoral. Moral didn't exist. "Moral" applies to us only. If you apply morals to "life", nature, the cosmos, etc. you end up with absurdities, like... The moon is gradually moving away from the earth. How immoral of the moon. We need the moon. The Andromeda Galaxy is going to collide with the Milky Way galaxy. Isn't that a crime? Shouldn't the galaxy be diverted? The Milky Way doesn't have to take that from Andromeda, after all.

antelope being hunted for sport — darthbarracuda

When humans engage in horrible acts we can, we should, we must judge it, because judgement is part of our world. Hunting antelope may be natural for wolve, but for your average first world hunter to go shoot animals for trophies can be judged as many bad things.

Because barbarism is a human category of experience. Ripping up plants and chewing them to death is the way animals derive energy. It's not subject to human judgement. One may disapprove of how deer obtain nutrition, but unless one has an alternate method for deer to obtain food... why would one call them barbaric? Deer are not immoral or moral, it's a-moral or non-moral. They are neither barbaric nor civilized; they simply behave.

how barbaric, childish and empty bourgeoisie entertainment seems when the reality of extreme suffering is understood — darthbarracuda

What goes on in the animal kingdom isn't barbaric -- it is life. But filming the zebra being attacked by several lions (or other animals) and then being ripped up -- over, and over, and over -- IS barbaric. Similarly, what is the instructive message in showing uncompetitive chicks being pecked at till they die, or kicked out of the nest by the stronger chick? Apparently producers find this kind of footage really useful.

The selection and inclusion of certain kinds of natural scenes is not, in itself, natural -- it's cultural, and it's done for a pedagogic purpose. No great imagination is needed to derive the message: Killing is natural, the weak die and the strong survive, and the uncompetitive are forced to withdraw and (for all we care) die.

Bad, very bad, and the worst things in life are not necessary for the good to exist, and they are not compensation for good things. Visa versa. There are good, better and best things, there is the same range of bad things, and they exist separately.

A predator (eagle, lion...) captures live prey and begins to eat it before it is dead. The pain the prey experiences before it is dead must be appalling. The pain of severe burns is awful. Cancer, severe injury, and infection can produce pain which rates 10 out of 10. Bullet wounds, blasts, shrapnel, and poisons an produce intolerable pain which until death intervenes, must be endured--not for any good, not in service to anything, not as compensation, not as a balance.

There are ways of relieving pain; short of an induced coma; all pain can't be eliminated short of death. Pain is rated on a scale of 1 (negligible) to to 10 (intolerable). The worst pain I have experienced was, I suppose, 7 and 8 out of 10 -- a badly broken ankle, a very severely bruised thigh muscle, and broken ribs. Each was pretty bad. Fortunately they didn't happen all at the same time. I was endurable because I understood that it wouldn't last a very long time, and it did become less severe fairly quickly (days or weeks, not hours).

IF one could eliminate pain from existence, would one eliminate 1 through 10, or maybe 6 through 10? After all, certain kinds of pain (registering that one has touched something hot enough to burn) are vital. One needs to know if a major bone is broken. One needs to know one is having a heart attack.

Palliative Care specialists are becoming more aggressive in alerting patients to the existence of better pain control (and terminal disease management) than patients might be aware of. But some kinds of pain are still severe and are difficult to quell.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum, Mr. Scoggins down in Big D. Let me hang this around your neck:

Is there an ultimate standard of morality, something outside physical reality? — Issac Scoggins

First of all, what does the intensifier "ultimate" mean to a standard of morality? A system defines what is right and wrong. What is it that would be more right and wrong?

Where, outside of physical reality, would this ultimate standard be lurking? God? If you think God provides the ultimate standard of right and wrong, say so. (Lots of people think it's God's doing.) If not god, then who? What? Where? Why?

John Michael Greer, a blogger, ecologist, science fiction author, "Arch Druid" and so forth says this about Marxism:

Think of any currently popular political or religious ideology, and you’ll likely find at its center the claim that one and only one story explains everything in the world. For fundamentalist Christians, it’s the story of Fall and Redemption ending with the Second Coming of Christ. For Marxists, it’s the story of dialectical materialism ending with the dictatorship of the proletariat. For believers in any of the flotilla of apocalyptic ideologies cruising the waterways of the modern imagination, it’s another version of the same story, with different falls from grace ending in redemption through different catastrophes. For rationalists, neo-conservatives, most scientists, and many other people in the developed world, the one true story is the story of progress.

***
For fundamentalist Christians, no matter what the problem, the solution is surrendering your will to Jesus (or, more to the point, to the guy who claims to be able to tell you who Jesus wants you to vote for). For Marxists, the one solution for all problems is proletarian revolution. For neoconserva-tives, it’s the free market. For scientists, it’s more scientific research and education. For Democrats, it’s electing Democrats; for Republicans, it’s electing Republicans, and so on.

from The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age[/i] Chapter 2, The Stories We Tell Ourselves

Exactly.

Then cut out the bullshit justifications and call it what it is. Oh, and quit chastising other countries for doing the same as you, i.e pursuing their own interests. — CuddlyHedgehog

British singer Billy Bragg wrote a new version of the Internationale, the worldwide worker's communist anthem: these lines...

In our world poisoned by exploitation
Those who have taken now they must give
And end the vanity of nations
We've but one earth on which to live

express the idea that ordinary working people the world over [are said to] have a common transcending interest over and above the interests of 'nations'. This is true in some respects and not true in other respects.

Small farmers in France and small farmers in Germany or England certainly have a similar problem -- getting a good price for their crops. The EU attempts to work out an equitable solution for small farmers. Between small farmers in France and small farmers in the United States (as if there were any small farmers left in the US) have the common problem of getting enough return on their crops -- without the EU to work out a solution.

Workers in the US auto industry have the same interests as the workers in the EU. Japanese, and South Korean auto plants. The interests of manufacturing companies are represented by trade negotiators; the interests of the workers (in every country) get short shrift.

Agriculture in South America has been penetrated by European and American seed/fertilizer/herbicide/pesticide manufacturers who have gradually shaped their agricultural practices to resemble the industrialized model.

In one hand, we have the stateless, borderless ideals of the old-fashioned communists--workers of the world unite. In another hand we have international capitalism--whatever it takes to maximize return for shareholders. In a third hand you and me are both observing what goes on in the world and trying to describe it.

You and I may not approve of what is going on. In point of fact, I believe you don't, and I don't either. I do not approve of many of the "interests" pursued by the American state, and numerous other states as well. But it seems to me true that states, and international conglomerate corporations, are the contenders in the international arena. They are all pursuing a batch of interests that match the interests of only some of their people. Peasants, industrial workers, foot soldiers, fishermen, municipal workers, nurses, old people--all sorts--just don't register in international affairs.

So, when I say "countries have interests, not friends" only some of reality is described. If you have a better way to capture the complexities of multi-level competing interests around the world, let's hear it.

Because I find there to be this tendency to "be for and against" when looking at countries. So if your critical about the US, that means people aren't going to be critical about those countries opposing the US (or vice versa) — ssu

For the last time, who said this? Who? — René Descartes

Perhaps not in these hallowed halls one does not hear this, but I hear it in conversations quite often. For instance, if one talks about Syria, someone will say "The Americans are bombing women and children (men apparently don't count) again; we are military bullies. We should leave Syria alone. The Syrians don't deserve what we are doing to them... and so on." In their haste to condemn the US for being a military imperialist racist sexist regime, they overlook the horrors of what Syrians various factions are doing, and what the Assad regime is doing to Syrians. At least we are not dumping barrels of chorine gas on neighborhoods.

Of course, the badness of the Assad regime doesn't make the badness of US policy in Syria better.

The same thing is true in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our failures in these two countries do not redeem the failures of these two countries within their own borders. And their failures don't redeem ours either, of course.

Yet another example is the unlawful immigration conflict. People who are advocates for undocumented unlawful immigrants argue for the legitimacy of the immigrants presence here, as if the citizens of this country had no stake in how many immigrants get here, or how much illegality is involved.

Another problem in people's thinking about foreign policy (among other things) is that they 'personalize the behavior of nations'. "The United States is a bully." Syria is crazy." "France is snobbish." "Italians aren't serious." and so on. Diminishing a nation by characterizing it as an annoying person gives one simple objects to think about, but gets in the way of a complex nuanced view of reality.

Let me be the first to admit -- I too have difficulty remembering that nations have interests, not friends. It's just easier to think about world affairs in simplified form.

In the Noam Chomsky - William F. Buckley interview I posted above, Chomsky demonstrates the way we should think. IF only I could think like Chomsky.

You are asking a deeper question than I may be able to answer.

Is it that people can not understand that the US and Iran, for instance, can both pursue reasonable self interest--which happens to be opposed by its opposite? I can think of several reasons why Iran might wish to have nuclear weapons: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and us. And there are several reasons why we might not want Iran to have nuclear bombs: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and us.

Iran has good reason not to trust the USA -- given our interventions in their affairs during the 20th century. We were probably pursuing our self interest in interfering with their affairs but it backfired. Untoward outcomes is a possibility every nation's foreign policy has to contend with. Foreign policy operatives have to ask themselves "Just how much value will this devious piece of maneuvering have for us? Is it worth it? What if it blows up in our faces? Do we have plausible deniability?"

Foreign policy in the middle east seems to be governed by the US Government's stated policy that "Our self interest is staked on controlling middle eastern oil supplies." Marching in and just seizing the oil is bad manners, (and the marching in can back fire badly -- see IRAQ) so let's just install a conveniently pro-American government, and then we can have the oil.

You've gone to bed, but let me expand a bit on why some think that nations can not be judged by personal, individual standards.

A nation may be composed of 10 million, 300 million or a billion. More and less. The government represents the varied interests of its citizens. The government also contains separate interests such as the judicial system, the military, health agencies, economic agencies, and so forth. The citizens carry out all sorts of business, cultural, industrial, agricultural, activities, just to mention a few.

They who represent a nation in the world represent a vast array of interests. Somehow they must act to benefit as many of the particular interest the people have as possible. Every other nation has the same situation.

So, if a powerful nation (like Great Britain--back when it was great, or France, or the Soviet Union, or the United States can advance the good of its people's varied interests, it should and it will. That may mean empire; it may mean military dominance; it may mean financial dominance, and so on.

You and I can personally apply our ethical standards to our own situations and behave accordingly. We are only responsible to ourselves and several others, while the state executive is responsible to millions, or billions.

This sounds somewhat a-moral, and perhaps it is. But large nation states are at the top of the moral food chain, and who above them can judge? Only other large nation states are in a position to judge in a way that will possibly make a difference. Holland could denounce Nazi Germany, but UK, the USSR, and the USA were in a position to punish Germany for invading Poland. (Yes, I realize we didn't join the war just then.)

I'm fine if America invades a country, just don't make up bullshit to justify it. Simply say: "We would like to invade this country because we feel like it. There are lots of materials, human labour and strategic positions, and we want all of it. We also want to press the native people as we are superior to them and we need them to make computers and fridges for us. We also have a more powerful army, so its easy for us to invade this country as they can't do anything about it. That's why we want to invade this country. We have no care for local populations, and collateral damage means nothing to us, it's just a statistic." — René Descartes

This is, of course, an excellent example of "graceless honesty".

We had become an imperialistically minded state well before WWII, but after WWII we discovered we were the replacement of the British and the French empires. We pursued military, economic, and political agendas which we preferred -- just like the Romans, Spanish, Portuguese, Hapsburg, German, Russian, French, and British empires had done before us.

There is no other rational basis for a powerful country to act, really, except in its own best interest. Our best interest lay in organizing the world to suit our economic, military, and political needs. The foreign policy of a nation, or empire, may very well be immoral by individuals standards (there are numerous examples). But nations have interests, and that's what they pursue.

[/quote]My main questions:[/quote]

I'm feeling oppositional and obstructive.

Do Americans have a feeling of superiority over others, or a sense of Manifest Destiny to this day? — René Descartes

Many Americans feel superior to many other people. This is typical of people in general. Manifest Destiny has pretty much been fulfilled, so might as well be for it rather than agin it.

Why do Americans need to be so involved in other nations affairs? — René Descartes

Because we live on a relatively small planet, and the affairs of one nation affect the affairs of other nations. That said, it isn't clearly to me exactly what we are doing in Afghanistan. Presumably we were in Iraq to have some say over how their oil was disposed of. That didn't seem to work out very well. Vietnam didn't work out very well either. On the other hand, WWII seems to have been entirely worth it from our perspective.

Why is America a hypocritical country? — René Descartes

For god's sake, can we please get over our shock when somebody is hypocritical!!! Look, René, everybody on earth is hypocritical: it's a vital tool to get through life, and it just isn't natural for human beings to be gracelessly honest all the time -- or maybe ever.

When will America cease it's Imperial ambitions? — René Descartes

How about never? Does never work for you? I suppose when we are one of the many crushed, pureed, and canned countries that once were strong and dynamic, we'll stop being imperialistic.

Who will take over from America IF they ever collapse? — René Descartes

Whoever it is, you will find them hypocritical. If the dire warnings about peak oil, global warming, and economic collapse come true, there may not be another imperialistic power for quite some time. It may be that people will be praying for a strong country to take control of the chaos.

When will Americans realise what they are doing is wrong? — René Descartes

How about never. Does never work for you?

Imperialism has its good points. The British Empire did screw a lot of the natives out of a good deal. On the other hand, they dragged them out of the shadowy superstitious pagan past into the bright sunshine of 19th century enlightenment and progress. So that was a good thing. The trouble with some of Britain's colonies was that the British didn't impose civilization on them quite long enough.

Somebody has to maintain order in the world. The Romans did it. The Brits did it. The Americans are doing it. Naturally the Romans, Brits and Americans have all maintained order in their own interests. Why the hell would they do otherwise? Little 10th century Rus expanded from a batch pf peasant huts to a great empire reaching from Eastern Europe all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Probably all the petty kingdoms and half-assed sheikdoms of Central Asia were better off as part of the Russian Empire than fending off hordes of invaders themselves.

Had the American Indians been the beneficiaries of guns, germs, and steel the way the Europeans were, history would have been different. Alas for them, fortunately for us, they weren't. Nothing wrong with American Indians -- all of them from the Arctic to Terra Del Fuego. But the fact is, they didn't know we were coming, hadn't exploited the mineral resources below their feet, and weren't able to fend us off. So, the Spanish, Portuguese, British, and Americans (mostly us 4) just rolled over them.

Life is not fair. As a rule, nations do not apply personal religious standards to their own actions. Like, nations don't have friends. They have interests. What is in the interest of the State of France? Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood for Algerians and SE Asians? In a pigs eye.

Should America pursue it's interests in the world as if it were a Quaker Meeting? No.

Marx also said that class conflict is one of the features of existing societies:

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master(3) and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.

The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones.

Marx, the Communist Manifesto

Why was Marx poor? Well for one, he wasn't welcome in his homeland or in Paris. London accommodated all sorts. For two, his trade was philosophy and writing. He made a little money off his journalistic efforts. He spent much of his time in the round, glass domed reading room of the British Museum researching and writing Das Capital.

You can have a self-supporting tradesman or a financially dependent philosopher. With one you get his labor until he dies an early death; with the other you get philosophy that shook the world. Which one is the better deal? (Not everyone will agree the latter was better.)

Your 25,000th voter doesn't know what the total is, of course. For all he knows, the election IS already decided by many votes. And even if the vote was all but a tie, everyone who voted (either way) matters as much as the last one to vote.

At what threshold does a change in individual behavior cause a major unintended social effect? — Abdul

Behavior changed from what?

Let's say 3000 people are watching a broadway play premier. No one has seen the play before. The expected behavior is that everyone will remain seated until the intermission. Everyone knows is expected, because it is well established social convention.

Suppose, during the first act that 25 people get up and exit the theater at various times. Has an unintended social effect occurred? Then, suppose that during the second act (before the intermission) 30 more people scattered throughout the theater get up and exit the theater. 55 people have now walked out.

My guess is that at some point during the first two acts people walking out will have had a social effect (intended or not) on the 2945 remaining audience and the cast. Probably somebody has studied this. Is there a difference between one person walking out about every minute or people walking out at irregular intervals.

If people walk out of a production, does that change the opinions about the play of the people who stayed? I would guess it does (favorably or negatively).

Life, including politics presents a myriad instances where the uncoordinated actions of individuals can have significant social effects. In open voting (show of hands) the act of voting puts pressure (positive or negative) on others in the room. In legislative voting where votes are displayed on an electronic board, it is clear that some legislators are measuring the vote before they cast their own vote. Sometimes votes are changed.

In a public speaking engagement, one or two loud objectors can create significant problems for the speaker; if the speaker cannot dominate the audience, then he may lose his audience, especially if additional objectors pop up.

It is. Sort of, in a totally crooked way. Other people make up their statistics, I make up mine. And if you say it with a straight face and with conviction, a lot of people will believe you.

How do you know? — CuddlyHedgehog

How so I know? I conducted a survey of 3329 practicing psychopaths (they're listed in the phone book) and asked them if they were happy. 22% said they were happy, 73% said they were not happy, and 5% said that providing me with a slow and painful death might make them slightly happier than they were at the time.

It depends on how you define happiness. — CuddlyHedgehog

True, and I suppose I don't know whether psychopaths are happy. However, people who are psychopaths, and not merely slightly to somewhat psychopathic (a much larger group) don't seem to be happy. They don't connect with other people very well, they don't attach. The connections between their fore-brains (frontal cerebral cortexes) and limbic systems may be structurally impaired. Does serial murder makes a classic psychopath happy? I don't think so.

Remember, psychopathy is abnormal; so is sociopathy. The normal routes to normal (and socially acceptable) satisfactions do not seem to be open to them.

It does thus originate, true, Not to get too fussy, but doesn't "παιδο" contain a lower case alpha and a lower case iota? That aside, are you from England or Australia? There are differences between American and British spellings. Like, color and colour, center and centre.

Check out the comments at the end. — Sir2u

He had better hope the jury isn't drawn from Yahoo user lists.

But I sort of agree, up to a point. I don't know about girls, but boys certainly fantasize about having sex with adults. Whether it was a good, bad, or forgettable experience would depend a lot on the personality of the adult. Sex with a lot of adults just wouldn't be that much fun for a lot of other adults, let alone a 13 year old. Where is a hebephile (prefers older children than pedophiles) when you need one? They are supposed to be good at sex with young teenagers.

Some people become happy via murdering, slaughter, abusing, exploitation, raping, kidnapping etcetera — Kitty

You are confusing the a-morality and moral impairment of psychopaths with their alleged happiness. Psychopaths are generally not happy; they are also generally not remorseful. And besides, one doesn't have to be a psychopath to murder, slaughter, abuse, exploit, rape, kidnap, and so on.

And paedophiles per se are not psychopaths either. (Are you English? Australian? You spelled it paedophile; nothing wrong with that, of course, if it makes you happy. Some people spell it pedophile, which is not more correct or less. You also didn't use the Oxford comma, so my geo-grammarian locator tool is confused.)

Pedophiles don't choose to be pedophiles; they just are--not that they should be turned loose on the nearest elementary school, either. But within the limits of the law and what society considers acceptable, yes -- they too may pursue happiness.

Charleton sometimes has interesting things to say. — T Clark

When he's not being a dick and a charlatan.

Americans have a right "to pursue happiness"; the constitution doesn't guarantee that anyone will over-take happiness.

I have been unhappy, and I have been happy. I can't say exactly what caused either state.

Each person is, though, in charge of their own pursuit of happiness. Maybe they do a good job of pursuing happiness, maybe not. Other people contribute to their happiness, and other people detract from their happiness. One should try to avoid people, places, and things that make one unhappy.

If your spouse is making you unhappy, if you hate the city you live in, and your car is a hateful pile of junk, you should try to get free of these problems: divorce, moving somewhere else, and getting a different car. It doesn't make sense to change your attitude while staying in a bad marriage in a city you hate with a car that is more trouble than it is worth.

Maybe you are stuck where you are, for various reasons. Happiness may just not be in the cards. You may have to settle for being cheerful instead of happy.

The US on the hand has basically forgotten it's strategic deterrence and now has a huge task of modernizing it's extremely old missile systems. — ssu

It is my understanding that our nuclear missile fleet is fairly old. But presumably they are still in working order, and presumably the nuclear weapons on board are still working too. If either the US or Russia were to launch nuclear weapons and destroy... let's say, 400 cities, the resulting fire storms would loft enough dust and soot into the upper atmosphere to bring about an abrupt cool-down in earth's average temperature, enough to disrupt crop production for several years. In addition to the people killed in the bombing and radiation, a few billion would starve.

A substantial amount of CO2, among other gases, would be released. Once global cooling was finished, I would expect that global warming would rebound, and our goose would be cooked in yet another way.

It would appear that mutually assured destruction is still more or less operating.

But of course it's America birthright to invade and occupy nations and steal their oil or make them capitalist. what about Hawaii, or Cuba, or Mexico. Was America justified in those invasions. Is it Americas birthright to "dominate and subjugate and occasionally dismember its smaller neighbours". This is the clear hypocrisy which most American neo-Imperialists have. — René Descartes

There is no arbiter in charge of weighing up and penalizing the actions of empires. Who gave permission to the British, French, Americans, Germans, Italians, Russians, Dutch, Japanese, et al to establish and/or expand their various empires in the 18th through 20th centuries? Nobody.

There is no arbiter in charge of weighing up and penalizing the actions of superpowers, either. The only controls on national or empire behavior are other nations, other empires, which may or may not be in a position to do anything about it.

Treaties can form blocks of policy and power, but the allied nations still have their own views, interests, histories, etc.

The US is still sort of Number 1 in the world, largely because of the way WWII worked out, and the fact that the USSR collapsed. How long we will remain Number 1 is unclear. We will not like being demoted to #2, or even 3, because being Numero Uno means you get to have a lot of things the way you want them. If China becomes top dog, then we won't have everything the way we want it, and neither will some other nations. Doesn't mean we will be destroyed, but our enforced competitive edge will be gone.

But not to worry. The world is on track to run into the brick wall of resource depletion, no matter who is on top, and next to nuclear war, that may well be the biggest existential threat that we will individually face in the future.

Don't look at me -- I didn't translate them.

Yeah, but I want an easy life, not one constrained by a multitude of Maxim's. — Posty McPostface

The Wise Old Sibyl had something for you, but you didn't read the list. There's several there that are quite compatible with indolence:

038. Μηδὲν ἄγαν Nothing to excess (Don't trouble yourself).

051. Φόνου ἀπέχου Shun murder (Not hard to do -- usually).

058. Ὃ μέλλεις, δός Do what you mean to do (Whatever the fuck that is).

070. Ἁπλῶς διαλέγου Speak plainly (You did. "I want to live an easy life.").

073. Κτώμενος ἥδου Be happy with what you have. (Very low-(effort advice).

096. Σεαυτὸν εὖ ποίει Benefit yourself. (Why would you not?)

100. Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως Act without repenting (Skip all that repentance crap).

137. Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ Grieve for no one (Skip the funerals. Less trouble. Less effort).

139. Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί Make promises to no one. (Keep their expectations low, low, low).

Which of the 147 Delphic Maxims seems best for you?

001. Ἕπου θεῷ Follow God
002. Νόμῳ πείθου Obey the law
003. Θεοὺς σέβου Worship the Gods
004. Γονεῖς αἰδοῦ Respect your parents
005. Ἡττῶ ὑπὸ δικαίου Be overcome by justice
006. Γνῶθι μαθών Know what you have learned
007. Ἀκούσας νόει Perceive what you have heard
008. Σαυτὸν ἴσθι Be/Know yourself
009. Γαμεῖν μέλλε Intend to get married
010. Καιρὸν γνῶθι Know your opportunity
011. Φρόνει θνητά Think as a mortal
012. Ξένος ὢν ἴσθι If you are a stranger act like one
013. Ἑστίαν τίμα Honor the hearth (or Hestia)
014. Ἄρχε σεαυτοῦ Control yourself
015. Φίλοις βοήθει Help your friends
016. Θυμοῦ κράτει Control anger
017. Φρόνησιν ἄσκει Exercise prudence
018. Πρόνοιαν τίμα Honor providence
019. Ὅρκῳ μὴ χρῶ Do not use an oath
020. Φιλίαν ἀγάπα Love friendship
021. Παιδείας ἀντέχου Cling to discipline
022. Δόξαν δίωκε Pursue honor
023. Σοφίαν ζήλου Long for wisdom
024. Καλὸν εὖ λέγε Praise the good
025. Ψέγε μηδένα Find fault with no one
026. Ἐπαίνει ἀρετήν Praise virtue
027. Πρᾶττε δίκαια Practice what is just
028. Φίλοις εὐνόει Be kind to friends
029. Ἐχθροὺς ἀμύνου Watch out for your enemies
030. Εὐγένειαν ἄσκει Exercise nobility of character
031. Κακίας ἀπέχου Shun evil
032. Κοινὸς γίνου Be impartial
033. Ἴδια φύλαττε Guard what is yours
034. Αλλοτρίων ἀπέχου Shun what belongs to others
035. Ἄκουε πάντα Listen to everyone
036. Εὔφημος ἴοθι Be (religiously) silent
037. Φίλῳ χαρίζου Do a favor for a friend
038. Μηδὲν ἄγαν Nothing to excess
039. Χρόνου φείδου Use time sparingly
040. Ὅρα τὸ μέλλον Foresee the future
041. Ὕβριν μίσει Despise insolence
042. Ἱκέτας αἰδοῦ Have respect for suppliants
043. Πᾶσιν ἁρμόζου Be accommodating in everything
044. Υἱοὺς παίδευε Educate your sons
045. Ἔχων χαρίζου Give what you have
046. Δόλον φοβοῦ Fear deceit
047. Εὐλόγει πάντας Speak well of everyone
048. Φιλόσοφος γίνου Be a seeker of wisdom
049. Ὅσια κρῖνε Choose what is divine
050. Γνοὺς πρᾶττε Act when you know
051. Φόνου ἀπέχου Shun murder
052. Εὔχου δυνατά Pray for things possible
053. Σοφοῖς χρῶ Consult the wise
054. Ἦθος δοκίμαζε Test the character
055. Λαβὼν ἀπόδος Give back what you have received
056. Ὑφορῶ μηδένα Down-look no one
057. Τέχνῃ χρῶ Use your skill
058. Ὃ μέλλεις, δός Do what you mean to do
059. Εὐεργεσίας τίμα Honor a benefaction
060. Φθόνει μηδενί Be jealous of no one
061. Φυλακῇ πρόσεχε Be on your guard
062. Ἐλπίδα αἴνει Praise hope
063. Διαβολὴν μίσει Despise a slanderer
064. Δικαίως κτῶ Gain possessions justly
065. Ἀγαθοὺς τίμα Honor good men
066. Κριτὴν γνῶθι Know the judge
067. Γάμους κράτει Master wedding-feasts
068. Τύχην νόμιζε Recognize fortune
069. Ἐγγύην φεῦγε Flee a pledge
070. Ἁπλῶς διαλέγου Speak plainly
071. Ὁμοίοις χρῶ Associate with your peers
072. Δαπανῶν ἄρχου Govern your expenses
073. Κτώμενος ἥδου Be happy with what you have
074. Αἰσχύνην σέβου Revere a sense of shame
075. Χάριν ἐκτέλει Fulfill a favor
076. Εὐτυχίαν εὔχου Pray for happiness
077. Τύχην στέργε Be fond of fortune
078. Ἀκούων ὅρα Observe what you have heard
079. Ἐργάζου κτητά Work for what you can own
080. Ἔριν μίσει Despise strife
081. Ὄνειδος ἔχθαιρε Detest disgrace
082. Γλῶτταν ἴσχε Restrain the tongue
083. Ὕβριν ἀμύνου Keep yourself from insolence
084. Κρῖνε δίκαια Make just judgements
085. Χρῶ χρήμασιν Use what you have
086. Ἀδωροδόκητος δίκαζε Judge incorruptibly
087. Αἰτιῶ παρόντα Accuse one who is present
088. Λέγε εἰδώς Tell when you know
089. Βίας μὴ ἔχου Do not depend on strength
090. Ἀλύπως βίου Live without sorrow
091. Ὁμίλει πρᾴως Live together meekly
092. Πέρας ἐπιτέλει μὴ ἀποδειλιῶν Finish the race without shrinking back
093. Φιλοφρόνει πᾶσιν Deal kindly with everyone
094. Υἱοῖς μὴ καταρῶ Do not curse your sons
095. Γυναικὸς ἄρχε Rule your wife
096. Σεαυτὸν εὖ ποίει Benefit yourself
097. Εὐπροσήγορος γίνου Be courteous
098. Ἀποκρίνου ἐν καιρῷ Give a timely response
099. Πόνει μετ’ εὐκλείας Struggle with glory
100. Πρᾶττε ἀμετανοήτως Act without repenting
101. Ἁμαρτάνων μετανόει Repent of sins
102. Ὀφθαλμοῦ κράτει Control the eye
103. Βουλεύου χρόνῳ Give a timely counsel
104. Πρᾶττε συντόμως Act quickly
105. Φιλίαν φύλαττε Guard friendship
106. Εὐγνώμων γίνου Be grateful
107. Ὁμόνοιαν δίωκε Pursue harmony
108. Ἄρρητον κρύπτε Keep deeply the top secret
109. Τὸ κρατοῦν φοβοῦ Fear ruling
110. Τὸ συμφέρον θηρῶ Pursue what is profitable
111. Καιρὸν προσδέχου Accept due measure
112. Ἔχθρας διάλυε Do away with enmities
113. Γῆρας προσδέχου Accept old age
114. Ἐπὶ ῥώμῃ μὴ καυχῶ Do not boast in might
115. Εὐφημίαν ἄσκει Exercise (religious) silence
116. Ἀπέχθειαν φεῦγε Flee enmity
117. Πλούτει δικαίως Acquire wealth justly
118. Δόξαν μὴ λεῖπε Do not abandon honor
119. Κακίαν μίσει Despise evil
120. Κινδύνευε φρονίμως Venture into danger prudently
121. Μανθάνων μὴ κάμνε Do not tire of learning
122. Φειδόμενος μὴ λεῖπε Do not stop to be thrifty
123. Χρησμοὺς θαύμαζε Admire oracles
124. Οὓς τρέφεις, ἀγάπα Love whom you rear
125. Ἀπόντι μὴ μάχου Do not oppose someone absent
126. Πρεσβύτερον αἰδοῦ Respect the elder
127. Νεώτερον δίδασκε Teach a youngster
128. Πλούτῳ ἀπίστει Do not trust wealth
129. Σεαυτὸν αἰδοῦ Respect yourself
130. Μὴ ἄρχε ὑβρίζειν Do not begin to be insolent
131. Προγόνους στεφάνου Crown your ancestors
132. Θνῆσκε ὑπὲρ πατρίδος Die for your country
133 Τῷ βίῳ μὴ ἄχθου Do not be discontented by life
134. Ἐπὶ νεκρῷ μὴ γέλα Do not make fun of the dead
135. Ἀτυχοῦντι συνάχθου Share the load of the unfortunate
136. Χαρίζου ἀβλαβῶς Gratify without harming
137. Μὴ ἐπὶ παντὶ λυποῦ Grieve for no one
138. Ἐξ εὐγενῶν γέννα Beget from noble routes
139. Ἐπαγγέλλου μηδενί Make promises to no one
140. Φθιμένους μὴ ἀδίκει Do not wrong the dead
141. Εὖ πάσχε ὡς θνητός Be well off as a mortal
142. Τύχῃ μὴ πίστευε Do not trust fortune
143. Παῖς ὢν κόσμιος ἴσθι As a child be well-behaved
144. Ἡβῶν ἐγκρατής As a youth be self-disciplined
145. Μέσος δίκαιος As of middle-age be just
146. Πρεσβύτης εὔλογος As an old man be sensible
147. Τελευτῶν ἄλυπος On reaching the end be without sorrow

Oh, you mean Sibyl — CuddlyHedgehog

Yes--that one.

The other day I was in an Asics shoe store (Asics is now spelled properly, corrected from 'aesics' ) and this guy -- suppose he was around 50, was making a major production of trying to decide which of 4 shoes was best for him. He was asking the clerk what their advantages were, blah blah blah. I thought he needed some advice, so I said "The Asics are butcher than tasseled penny loafers." "What do you mean?" he asked, sort of annoyed. I said, "you know, 'b u c h e r". "That's spelled 'b u t c h e r'" he announced. I was going to add, "Maybe you're not butch enough for those shoes," but thought better of it.

My spelling skills seems to be slipping. So bucher, sybil, and aesics. All wrong. Fuk.

I don't know, and you don't either. (Default position on any difficult question)

Below, "you" is a general reference, not a reference to any particular "you".

So, whether one knows what is best for one depends on how well one knows one's self. "Know yourself" the serious sybil sensibly said. IF you know yourself well, THEN you probably know what is is at least fairly good for you (good, maybe not best).

Even if you know yourself well, you can not know very much about all the possible outcomes of any given action. You may know the outcomes of some actions; you may know that some of them are good, and some of them are bad. You may decide to pursue actions that have bad outcomes because that is what you really want to do. Fine. As long as you know... oh, spitting in the boss's face will get you fired, and may make it difficult to get hired someplace else. As long as you're willing to put up with that consequence, then go ahead and gob-smack the SOB.

Can somebody know you better than you know yourself? To a limited extent. If you are very honest in your introspection, and accept your serious flaws and understand their influences, NO, somebody else can't know you better than you know yourself. But if you float around in a daze, sort of stumbling your way through life, babbling nonsensically about this and that, and showing only occasional flashes of intelligence and insight, then somebody else might very well know you at least as well as you know yourself.

But in no case does somebody else know what all the outcomes of any given action might be.

Much of the time, our guesses about probably outcomes of actions are spot on. Good. It's when they are miserably spot off that we have unpleasant surprises.

Pasting images from this comic series could get out of hand in no time at all!

What they, and you are talking about is INSULTS. — charleton

subject/verb agreement error: ...are insults. Pet peeve #20942.
unnecessary punctuation error ...they and you. Pet peeve 20943.

Trump is without a shadow of doubt the single most stupid leader of any country since the dawn of history. He can't read, he can barely write. He's a narcissistic fantasist. ... sorry went off on one there. — charleton

All true, but then you have your Brexit geniuses. Colossal stupidity.

I wish i knew how to import the pictures from this comic onto our threads... alas, I am a failure. — Moliere

You may very well be a failure, but we require more evidence.

Pet peeve #20944: Unsubstantiated claims.

What else don't you know?

In Safari on a Mac, mouse over the image desired, holding the control key, click and select from the options... "copy image address". Then, back in TPF, click on the image button at the top of the text box, and paste the image address. Press GO and presto



There are other ways of doing this.

I always read for pleasure, even if it is a book on concentration camps. A well written book which presents the history of the horrible is a pleasure to read --the content is not a pleasure to receive, but the delivery can be.

Conversely, badly written books are a drag to read no matter what their content. A badly written joke book is not amusing.