But the most pressing aspect of the topic is addiction because of it's prevalence and the way it affects peoples lives. What's worse right now is there isn't much data or studies to support the obvious problem that porn addiction presents. All we have are a few studies, and anecdotal evidence from hundreds of thousands of people. This is why I'm focusing on the problem of addiction. I feel like a broken record at this point. — Noble Dust

Odd how "broken record" still works as a metaphor when defective records haven't been repeating themselves for so many years.

So, addiction is a very pressing topic but what's worse is that there isn't much data or studies to support the obvious problem that porn addiction presents. All we have is a few studies...

Maybe there isn't much data or studies because it actually isn't that big a problem?

My guess is that people play video games for an extraordinary amount of time for the same reason they look at porn a lot: Their lives are otherwise empty, lacking in normal rewards, or are very unpleasant and they escape through a video screen.

I agree that people who spend too many hours a day looking at porn might have a problem, but addiction may not be its name. I think there are a ton of dysfunctional people out there, living in social milieus that are dysfunctional. Long hours at tedious work and long commutes can leave one little time and energy for renewal or even relationships. Television and the internet both provide low-demand programming that is just interesting enough to fill the emptiness.

People have been using television for a long time, the same way they use internet porn: they turn it on, sit down, and watch it for hours on end -- and people have been watching TV like that since the late 1950s. Internet porn has fewer commercials.

I'm "addicted" to the internet in general. Sometimes when I go to turn off the computer at night, I have to check email one more time, see if there is a fresh post on The Philosophy Forum, check the Guardian to see if there is a breaking news story in Britain, and so on. When I'm not feeding my internet addiction I'm feeding other addictions -- reading, especially. I spend hours a day reading books. Doctor, help me, I'm a very sick man.

Some other kinds of 'porn' on the internet:

dog porn
cat porn
car porn
house porn
architecture porn
art porn
right wing porn
(no such thing as left wing porn, of course; there it's all factual, historical, and high value)

Honestly, this stuff functions the same way. It's quite engaging, it's escapist, there are many different settings and activities so the golden retriever puppies don't all look alike; it goes on as long as you can stand it; cats, dogs... whatever turns you on.

Some people spend hours looking at mid-century modern architecture and furniture. I like to look at brutalist architecture (featuring raw concrete), and 20th century art. So, quite a bit of time can be flushed down the drain looking at dogs, cats, house decor, architecture, and art. Granted, Kandinsky paintings don't give me so much of an erection.

I can see the "married porn" videos now. Lawfully married husbands and wives arrive home after collecting one child from pre-school, taking another to dance class, a third to hockey practice, a fourth to soccer; a trip to the store. By 7:00 everyone is irritable from hunger and even microwaved food takes some time. Then there are dishes, cleaning, homework, laundry, calls from the office, a couple of tantrums (dramatized by the youngest kid) and around 11:00 (on a good night) the parents go to bed. Great sex now? Are you out of your fucking mind? They lurch into sleep, (if they can) and the alarm goes off at 6:00 at the latest. Another day.

Anon66, I'm all in favor of porn; I have never thought that its use produced negative outcomes.

The only thing I was quibbling with you was that porn resulted in lower STD infection rates. There is no reason to suppose that greater porn use would reduce or increase infection rates. Why? Because the numbers of people who are diagnosed with STDs at any given time is, in most locations, quite small, and one person could be responsible for a number of infections. The incidents of STDs can certainly be decreased, but the methods (outreach, treatment, followup) don't have anything to do with porn. They have to do with the way infectious diseases are managed.

The trend I mentioned was from the CDC in Atlanta, but it seems to depend on how the stats are reported. The graph I was looking at earlier included chlamydia along with syphilis and gonorrhea. This graph is for syphilis alone, and it presents a different picture than the 3-infection graph. The CDC graph (as opposed to this one) was from 2006 to 2016.

Sex Transm Infect. 2007 Jul; 83(4): 257–266.
doi: 10.1136/sti.2007.026245



Figure 6 Primary and secondary syphilis rates: total and by sex, United States, 1986–2005 and the Health People 2010 target. Note: The Healthy People 2010 target for primary and secondary syphilis is 0.2 case per 100 000 population. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.1

is there good porn — Cavacava

Consequentialism is the hands-on winner here. If it works, it's good.

What's "classic porn," just out of curiosity? — Arkady

It's variously defined. Classic porn may be defined as:

Porn produced before condoms began to appear regularly in pornographic productions (sometime in the early 1990s) roughly, 1968 to 1989
Porn produced in 8mm short form, for use in adult book stores (and home use, if one had an 8 mm projector (roughly, in the 1960s to early 1970s)
Porn produced in (whatever film format) before the 1960s (when courts began to overturn restrictions on making, selling, or distributing pornography_
Porn produced as stills on glass plates during the 1880s and later film. Fairly tame material.
Porn produced by non-photographic methods prior to the 1840s (Yes, pre-photo artists drew quite realistic pictures of people engaging in sex -- pretty much standard stuff).

Some of these definitions amount to "porn produced before you were born".
Some porn was produced on 16mm, for theaters, but most of it was 8mm. Deep Throat 1973, was probably shot on 35mm. The progression was from stills, 8mm, 16mm, 35mm, to video. I suppose somebody is shooting porn in HD video, though I don't know why they would.

This is definitely a problem. I was mentioning the secrecy of porn though, because it's almost a joke. No one invites their friends over to watch some classic porn. — Noble Dust

Of course, because many people don't have sex "with their friends". "Friends" are in one group, "sex partners" are in another group, and many people keep them strictly segregated. (Clear separation makes life simpler.)

Usually, people watch porn in support of masturbation, and most people don't masturbate with the friends. Not as adults, anyway.

Many people try recreational drugs because they are, to some degree, risk takers. Another common motivation is participation in peer activities, and a third motivation is relief from unpleasant symptoms of one kind or another. Once tried, the users reactions will depend on the way their brain works. Some people are more likely to become addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc. than others.

Pornography can be made into a risk-free product for adolescents by providing them with thorough education about sex, sexuality, emotions, and sexual behavior. "WE" just don't and won't do it. As a consequence, pornography remains behind the enticing veil of forbidden fruit, adult disapproval, and "illicit" pleasures. Sure, children who base their vocational, emotional, sexual, or financial aspirations on television programs, pornography, or advertising are not going to have realistic ideas. The absence of any information doesn't do much for realism either.

Apparently, it is asking a lot of parents to engage with their children and teach them what it it means to be a sexual person. Maybe church and school--institutions--can do this better, I don't know, but they don't seem to be doing it either. [On the other hand, I don't know if there was ever a time when parents, schools, and churches did a good job teaching children about sex, sexuality, emotions, aspirations, and so on.]

There's also the potential connection to child porn. What percentage of adult porn actors started their careers in child porn? The demarcation between trafficking, prostitution, child porn and adult porn is not at all so clear cut. — Noble Dust

Unless you have some sort of reference on research into the alleged connection, this is just idle speculation.

Porn consumers should have the same attitude towards pornography performers that Livia, the wife of Augustus, (I Claudius) had for the gladiators. Here she lays out her expectations.

Some people consider cursing to be immoral. Some people consider changing religion to be immoral. Some people consider polytheism to be immoral. Some people think that atheism is immoral.

In none of these cases can any harm or benefit be seen, other than the particular actions annoying the people who don't like it. By that standard, grated coconut is immoral become some people find the taste, texture, and mouth-feel annoying. Personally, I think we should burn grated coconut at the stake.

rates of syphilis, gonorrhea, teen sex, teen births, divorce, and rape have all substantially declined.
Contrary to the critics’ assertions, as porn consumptions increased, so did emotional closeness to others. — anonymous66

Where did this information come from and how was it obtained?

The rate of increased diagnoses of syphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia has been slow but steady--when viewing the whole nation. When considering race, location, and age, we find disparities between gay men and straight men, between blacks and other races, and between southerners and other regions. Rates of STDs are highest among blacks, southerners, and gay men, and there are significant disparities which porn wouldn't seem to account for, one way or the other. If one examines the history of diagnoses at specific clinics, one might see more up-and-down movement in diagnoses.

What is most related to the levels of STDs in the population is the effectiveness of outreach, treatment, and follow-up. Has anyone collected actual data about cases who looked at, or did not look at porn? I doubt it.

A planet presently called earth will survive the expansion of the sun (as it ages towards senescence) and then its contraction. What will be left of the planet will be a burnt sphere. So, no, "the world" or "the earth" will not be destroyed. Never, for all practical purposes. That doesn't mean anything alive, or once alive, will survive along with it.

I think it's safe to say that, oh, maybe 20,000 air bursts would generate enough widely distributed radiation and dust to cause some pretty seriously problems for the biosphere.

Your interpretation is more optimistic than mine.

No, we haven't reached the end of oil, yet. But it seems to me to be very overly optimistic to assume that oil production will continue indefinitely into the future, regardless of the energy or cash value of the oil extracted compared to the energy cost required to obtain the oil.

Can we get alone without oil? Sure we can, IF we are prepared (at some point in the not too distant future) to arrange our lives for a world where only very expensive unprocessed petroleum remains.

The most problematic scenario is the one in which we don't make timely and sufficient adaptations to other energy sources, like wind and solar. As James H. Kunstler points out, we don't have a substitute for cheap oil in the manufacture, distribution, and maintenance of windmills and solar arrays.

Peak Oil is the perfect example of this: what basically has happened is Peak conventional Oil. As the price has gone up, so has the means to make oil from various materials. People simply forget two important things in the equation: the price mechanism and the advances in technology. — ssu

The limiting factor on oil production (which produces peak oil) is that at some point, the energy required to extract oil exceeds the energy available in the oil. When we reach that point, we're finished with that technology. There is literally no point in continuing.

Please tell me, just how would we become extinct in 500 years? — ssu

"The world" will not literally come to an end, unless a black hole stops by and vacuums it up before moving on to more pressing business. Homo sapiens will (probably) not literally vanish in 500 years, unless aliens stop by to rid the universe of whatever threat we pose to their own schemes. Eliot was writing poetry not prognostication, and I am not an extinction enthusiast.

However, we can speculate on how our species might meet its demise. It's a worthwhile exercise because we want to avoid coming close to extinction, let alone finding out what extinction feels like.

My guess is that we could at least come close to extinction through a combination of disasters, which are from "fairly" to "remotely" possible. All of them happening at once or in a maximally destructive sequence is not likely.

Disaster #1: A 'limited nuclear exchange' and the resultant firestorms cause a dramatic increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Disaster #2: Global warming becomes quite severe over the next several centuries, and a very large percentage of humans die, owing to starvation and familiar diseases.

Disaster #3: Novel viruses and/or bacteria arise and kill off a significant portion of the humans who managed to survive severe global warming.

Disaster #4: A meteorite large enough to cause large-scale damage further depletes the remaining (small number of) humans. Or, the volcanic eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera would cause the same kind of damage as a meteorite impact.

The least imaginative apocalyptic fiction call for annihilation by means of multiple, well-timed disasters. We escape to the vicinity of Alpha Centauri and continue along our merry way.

What is quite possible are disasters # 2 and # 3, and we don't escape at all. In the worst-possible global warming scenarios, feedback loops accelerate the rate of warming. Some predictions say that by the end of this century, day-time temperatures may be too high for people to work outside for extended periods (like they do in agriculture, for instance) in areas of the world that are normally hot. In subsequent centuries, the zones of 'too damn hot' will cover presently temperate areas.

Even a moderately slow rate of global warming will be too fast for environments to adapt, and many species of plants and animals will fail.

Humans probably won't die of heat exhaustion; we are more likely to die from starvation, because food production will become difficult long before 500 years is up. A starving population will fall prey to ordinary illnesses. (One can safely assume that scientific capabilities will be diminished as people die off.)

What might bring us to our needs during a period of exhaustion and starvation is a novel disease. I have no idea what that disease might be, but in the last half century several new diseases have appeared (AIDS and Ebola) or appeared in new areas (West Nile Virus and the Zeka virus). Some bacteria have become, or are rapidly becoming, immune to antibiotics.

A limited nuclear war is a real possibility. "Limited" meaning... don't know. 100 to 500 nuclear explosions in a desert would probably not result in a rapid increase in death rates over the long run. Nuclear war, however, will not result in many desert test site explosions. Most of them will occur where there are large numbers of people and structures. Those explosions would be 'dirtier' both in terms of radiation and CO2 production.

That's lovely.

A friend of mine has been quoting the Druid to me for years.

BUT, we're already using more resources than Planet Earth can produce — Wayfarer

I read in the paper the other day that we have passed peak sand. Peak sand? Well, we've mixed a lot of concrete over the years, and only certain sands are really good for making concrete. They have to have the right size, the right chemistry, and the right price. Ocean beach sand is salty, and the wrong size, for instance -- so that's out. Other sands are too large in particle size, have other undesirable components, are too fine, etc. Goldilocks sand is just not that easy to get, anymore.

We can’t use desert sand because it’s too round, polished by the wind, and doesn’t stick together. You need rough edges, so desert sand is worthless
Good sand is getting so rare there’s an enormous amount of illegal mining in over 70 countries. In India the Sand Mafia is one of the most powerful, will kill for sand. It’s easy to steal sand and sell there.
Australia is selling sand to nations that don’t have any more (like the United Arab Emirates, who used all of their ocean sand to make artificial islands)
Sand is a big business, sales are $70 Billion a year

When asked if he would write these (last) lines again, Eliot responded with a 'no':
One reason is that while the association of the H-bomb is irrelevant to it, it would today come to everyone's mind. Another is that he is not sure the world will end with either. People whose houses were bombed have told him they don't remember hearing anything.

Wikipedia, of course.

It does come to mind, of course. H bombs is what I think of for "bang".

I remember reading this in 12th grade English class, I was 17--gads, 53 years ago. I liked the poem (even if it was pretty much over my head). "Here we go round the prickly pear, prickly pear, prickly pear" is a variation of "here we go round the mulberry bush, mulberry bush, mulberry bush..." "This is the way the world ends" could stand in as a verse for the children's circle singing game, though it's 1 beat short, unless one makes "world" 2 syllables -- wor-uld.

One thing that nobody seems to comment on - well nobody outside 'alternative' circles, like Naomi Klein, and others of that ilk - is that capitalist economics, and the banking industry, seem to assume that 'growth lines always go upward'. — Wayfarer

On the one hand, continual growth is necessary IF high-quality standards of living are going to be maintained, and IF low-quality standards of living are going to be raised. China, for instance, has had a high rate of growth for some time, and they need every bit of it to allow a growing percentage of Chinese to enjoy something better than meagre peasanthood.

On the other hand, there is almost certainly no technical fix that will yield enough fresh water, food, housing, transportation, medical care, education etc. for the present 7 billion people, let alone the next 1, 2, 3, or 4 billion, to enhance their quality of life significantly in material terms--and that's without figuring in global warming.

i cash in the equity in the property I have in the city and downsize drastically to a more self-suficient lifestyle, although I don't think it's going to be an easy thing to do. — Wayfarer

There is a sort of 'movement' called "Transition Town" where urban neighbors get together, fret about the present, and talk about cashing in their equity, moving to the country, and living happily ever after raising turnips, potatoes, and listening to the Moody Blues on their IPods powered by solar cells. You'd better start buying the equipment, land, and supplies you'll need. NOW. Don't forget defense devices (a double barreled shotgun with plenty of ammunition is quite persuasive) to defend yourself. And you'll need lots of skills you probably don't have, just yet.

An author you really should read, and he's a good writer, so I'm not suggesting bitter pills, is James Howard Kunstler. among his books are:

The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century
Too Much Magic is what Kunstler sees in the bright visions of a future world dreamed up by optimistic souls who believe technology will solve all our problems.

World Made by Hand (Vol 1 post apocalypse novel)
A History of the Future (Vol 2 post apocalypse novel)
The Harrows of Spring (Vol 3 post apocalypse novel)
... and others

The World Made by Hand series treats at length just what a world without petroleum products would be like -- not just gasoline, but everything that petroleum makes possible, directly and indirectly. Without petroleum, we are sent back to the world of 1875.

He also is author of the Clusterfuck Nation blog, also at this site, Clusterfuck Nation dot com



As an alternative to the back-to-the-land-movement, I'm planning to join the Death With Dignity, Right Now! Movement. If I'm still alive when the crunch comes, I'll deploy the double barreled shotgun and dispatch myself. But I really would like to live long enough to see how this all plays out. Another decade is probably all I can stand, which will makes me 80 in the year 2027, well short of the Main Act in the Center Ring.

Tragedy schmadgedy. In the fullness of time all suffering will end -- as will all the goods of life, and life itself.

Hanover is nothing if not ironic. Or is he a paradox? He's certainly heterodox. Nothing queer about him!

but, a certain amount of expertise is required to build centrifuges for uranium enrichment along with weapons design. — Question

I'm a little fuzzy about this... plutonium is produced in a uranium reactor, right? then the plutonium is chemically separated from the uranium--correct? It's U235 that is separated from U238 by gaseous centrifuges, true?

I rather like apocalypse novels; the great plague that leaves all but a few dead (Earth Abides); the nuclear war that kills everyone off (On The Beach); the nuclear war that sets the world back 2,000 years, after which the whole damn thing repeats itself (A Canticle for Leibowitz); or wipes most people out except for a small town in Florida which is untouched even by fallout (Alas Babylon).

A World Made By Hand (a serious work by James Howard Kunstler) and The Last Second take place in a world which has lost all of its current technology (pun) because of EMPs, small nuclear attacks, and/or plagues. Plagues can be natural but usually are cooked up in labs and escape, accidentally or deliberately.

The Madd Addam trilogy by Margaret Atwood is an excellent apocalypse trilogy with several novel (pun) features. I recommend all of the books I mentioned except Alas Babylon and The Last Second.

One of the themes of post-apocalyptic novels is that technology wound down can not be readily wound up again.

For the matter, why have we let NK get so far, shouldn't something have been done earlier under Bush Jr.? — Question

Like what? North Korea isn't an island nation a thousand miles from anyone else; it butts up against China and Russia, is across the DMZ from Seoul, (which is far larger than New York and LA, combined) and is across the small sea of Japan. In other words, it's an international china shop that bulls can not operate in without causing a lot of wreckage.

The problem is that post atomic era, war has become obsolete — Question

Hardly. Regional wars have been going on continuously since the beginning of the atomic era. It isn't obsolescence that has prevented nuclear war from happening, it's mutually assured destruction.

The US never considered NK a threat, in the past, present, or future. We will always have an absolute advantage of whatever technology they copy from the Russians or Chinese. — Question

Are you sure they are copying technology? Their missile development is pretty slow and steady for working from specs. They probably did get some basics from either China or the Soviet Union on nuclear technology, but again, the rate of development doesn't seem to be that rapid.

Is NK a threat? Well, sure they are. If they can miniaturize a reasonable-sized nuclear weapon so that it would fit on top of a reasonably powerful missile (intercontinental or not), and since they already have submarines that can launch a missile, and even if they can land one bomb successfully in the US, say on Washington, D. C., or Los Angeles, I think we would rather seriously resent having that happen.

Of course, we do have absolute superiority over NK, but NK is very, very close to Russia and the PRC. My guess is that both Russia and China would rather seriously resent us having bombed to smithereens a country on their borders. I don't think SK or Japan would be thrilled about it either.

I don't really know what the insular North Korean regime wants. I am certain that the collapse of the Soviet Union provided no window of opportunity because China would almost certainly have countered any invasion.

I also don't know what it will take for them to collapse economically. They have never been a robust economy to start with, and they have endured famine.

Of course the command to treat others as you would have them treat you is a superior moral prescription. However, it applies to individuals. When people act in the position of governors, it is not possible to treat other states as you would have them treat your state. What does the golden rule tell Britain and France to do to Germany when they invaded Poland? Or, what does the golden rule tell the Soviets when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union?

The English, Dutch, Portuguese, and Spanish explorers and colonists could have treated the native peoples of the western hemisphere as tribes, communities, and individuals with an established right to hold their lands securely, but that would have conflicted with their own intentions as a people. They didn't go to the new world on holiday -- they were there to make money, and as much of it as possible as fast as possible.

Individual explorers often got on rather well with the native peoples, partly because they were no more than a small canoe full, and not a big ship worth. But en masse, no -- not much chance of the golden rule kicking in.

One small difference between the atomic testing of the 1940s through the signing of the atmospheric test ban treaty and a nuclear war involving a "relatively small number of atomic bombs" is that the "test bombs" weren't exploded in dense population areas, except for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Were the Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians, and Israelis to have a little atomic war all to themselves, most of the detonations would be ground or air bursts in population centers (assuming the delivery systems all worked properly). This would result in a high level of social, political, and economic disruption.

Granted, wiping Israel, Pakistan, or Iran off the political map -- India might be a bit large for Pakistan to eliminate as a going concern -- might not disrupt your or my daily schedule entirely (there would be megatons of fascinating news coverage to watch). But I think the consequences would be rather larger than several Chernobyls or Fukushimas.

Question about the stockpile graph: Surely stockpiles of warheads in the US and Russia haven't been diminished that much since their peak, have they? I realize an atomic bomb can be decommissioned, taken apart, and rendered into something that isn't a bomb, but there isn't a solution to the many thousands of plutonium cores, for example; they are still around--somewhere--I assume watched over very carefully, but I am not sure about that.

I accept no answer because I see the evidence of what giving answer can do. — DebateTheBait

You probably do accept answers, but perhaps you are the sort of person who can entertain all possible -- or no possible -- answers, and be content.

we have to be careful in what we believe in. — DebateTheBait

One of the most dangerous things we might believe in is our own bullshit.

If two groups of people believe in an different explanation as to why we are here then we are already asking for conflict. But can you not agree that we are indeed seeking the same answers? — DebateTheBait

We might be able to agree we are asking the same questions. We may be able to agree on some answers. But conflict in inherent to inquiry, unless everyone asks the same question and accepts the same answer.

This simple understanding has the power to elevate that pain and suffering that stems off of religion. We have to understand that we are all the same in search for answers, but for one to say he has the answers for all must accept that he will indeed bring pain and suffering. There's no way around that. — DebateTheBait

Pain and suffering go with the territory of being alive. It's unavoidable.

I also come from a religious family and have been religious, too. I do not now accept the beliefs / answers (mainline Protestant) that I once accepted. I'm quite tolerant of religious beliefs, however, from my more or less atheist viewpoint. Some members of my family are not at all tolerant of others beliefs.

Strong beliefs of any kind challenge others' beliefs and conflicts arise. Whether it's politics, religion, economics, sex, musical preferences--whatever--conflicts arise. I consider conflict, debate, argument... part of the ferment of society. No conflict, no change.

On one level, it makes a great deal of difference what people believe. People who think vaccination cause autism; people who think climate change is a hoax; people who think the US Government planned 9/11 are, in my opinion, wrong.

On another level, it doesn't matter what people believe. If one is caring for other people, their ordinary human needs can be met without considering what lunatic ideas they like.

Sometimes were are in a position of caring for others; sometimes we are in a position of educating others. One wouldn't ask a starving man whether he thought the CIA planned 9/11. On the other hand, if one is teaching history, one can't grant every opinion about 9/11 equal status. Some theories are just too screwy and need to be called out as such.

(None of my pet theories are at all screwy, of course.)

When I say, "It would appear that might does make right" that should not be taken as an endorsement. I heartily disapprove of "Might Makes Right" thinking. But it isn't wise to think that just because the noble unarmed occupy the highest moral ground that they stand much of a chance against the lowlifes down in the valley who are armed to the teeth and are not burdened by a sickly inability to use force.

Sometimes the noble bearers of goodness, truth, and light have arranged to be well armed, and manage to vanquish the forces of darkness, falsehoods, and evil. At other times the nobles end up in a gulag somewhere, or worse. Ecclesiastes says, "I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Whether we are right or wrong, strong or weak, we can't be altogether sure of how we will fare in the conflicts to come.

There are clearly advantages to being mighty, and having the prerogative to write history, at least for a while. We have to decide whether we'd rather be right (whether we win or not). Personally, I'd rather be right, even if it means a trip to the gulag.

Fair trade, not free trade. Nos vies pas leurs profits. Our lives, not your profits. (Votez Philippe Poutou NPA New Anticapitalist Party - France). ┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘

In which case, was it a just act for the nazis to kill the jews in Germany under the nazi regime? — Samuel Lacrampe

Of course it was not just. However...

The Nazis, born into a nation noted for its thorough systematic methods, were careful to establish a judicial cover in accordance with their racial hatreds. What they were doing was "authorized" and "legal" and for "the good of Germany". Whether individuals fell into the hands of the Gestapo for being pessimistic about the war, whether they were Jews discovered in a cellar, or whether they were an entire Jewish ghetto, procedures were followed, more or less.

Had the Nazis prevailed (they could have, had everything gone according to plan) the might of the Third Reich would have validated the extermination of Jews, Gypsies, Jehovahs Witnesses, homosexuals, Slavs, criminals, asocials, etc. We would not now, 70+ years later, be debating this--just like Turkey is not debating the Armenian genocide a century ago. Just like Americans are not debating the American Indian exterminations which were concluded around 125 years ago.

Regardless of who wins, though, people are free to judge others by their own standards. Israelis feel imminently justified in the establishment of Israel. The Palestinians are not obliged to agree with them. We are not obliged to agree with the Turkish people that there was no Armenian genocide. No one had to approve of the apartheid regime of South Africa. The white rulers of South Africa thought it was appropriate. Lots of people didn't.

Most communities follow a a double standard: The winners generally get away with their crimes. The losers are punished for theirs. No one has punished the United States for exterminating Indians. We won. The Germans were punished for killing the Jews because they lost.

Communities usually give themselves moral cover. Americans did not (many do not) generally think that we were exterminating Indians. We were defending ourselves from the Indians, or moving the Indians out of the way of progress, or just killing a lot of buffalo for the hides, or just clearing the land. We certainly weren't committing a crime against humanity.

Really? No racism anywhere except that started by Christianity?

How did Christianity do that? Are there any other factors in Western Civ that might have a leading role?

If the Greeks or Romans were not racist, what kept them from it?

5% to 1% would have to scrounge and scrap much like the rest of us animals do nowadays in order to survive — dclements

"The living will envy the dead." Even a limited nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, or Pakistan and India, or Iran and Israel--let alone an unlimited nuclear exchange everywhere--would reduce humans to scavenger status. It is difficult to describe just how utterly changed the terms of existence would be.

All of the infrastructure on which we depend for survival (given life as we know it) would collapse. Thanks to EMP, transportation and electronic communication would be gone. Any internal combustion` motor depending on microchips (most of them) would not work. Most electronic equipment would not work, even if one could supply it with electricity. Cities are very dependent on pumps to move water up and move sewage out. These would not be working. Refrigeration and heating would mostly disappear. There would be no lights after sundown. Factories would be silent--including factories that make pharmaceuticals.

it was the religious who gave the colonists the 'right' to treat blacks and natives as subhuman — Cavacava

Who are these religious who granted the colonists the right to treat blacks and natives as subhuman? Good Christians didn't need permission to engage in slavery. Slavery, after all, was an acknowledged condition in the New Testament, it had existed in England in post Roman times, and it existed elsewhere in the world.

Slavery existed in England before the North American colonies were established (prior to 1600). English ships began the African slave trade -- again before 1600. Aside from outright slavery, labor as punishment for criminal convictions came very close to slavery. Indentured or 'transported' workers could be bought and sold. They did have some minimal rights, while slaves had zero rights

Slavery made good business sense, as long as slaves were the cheapest most malleable labor one could get. It didn't need a religious cover. My guess is that few slave owners actually believed that their slaves were not pretty much human. They needed to distance themselves from the people they owned and (fairly often) with whom they interacted sexually. One could argue that their hatred of blacks after the civil war might stemmed in part from the guilt they bore as slave owners.

I'm not trying to let religious people in the North American colonies off the hook. They were not just complicit, they were actively involved, in northern colonies like Massachusetts and Rhode Island as well as in the south. The Bible is long enough to provide cover for all sorts of things--like the liberation of slaves, as well as enslavement.

The memory of where you left your keys accurate? — Wosret

God Himself loses His keys.

there is great strength in weakness — Cavacava

I won't take anything away from any of the leaders and marchers who strove mightily to overcome southern resistance to the legitimate demands of very disadvantage blacks, but the civil rights campaign won to a large extent because the Federal Government finally decided to use federal power to force the south to accept change.

Federal power was exercised through Supreme Court Decisions (not just decisions to rule segregation illegal, but court orders to integrate, or else), armed federal or national guard troops lined up at the entrances to high schools, FBI investigation of murders and bombings, federal civil rights law, and so on. The same thing happened in the north - Boston, for instance, would never have agreed to various busing schemes to achieve integration if they hadn't been forced by the Supreme Court to do so. [Busing was a very cumbersome solution.]

That being said, if it hadn't been for King, the Southern Christian Leadership Committee, and various other groups, the federal government (like, during the Kennedy administration) probably wouldn't have done much.

When the laws allowed for slavery and apartheid, they were unjust laws. — Samuel Lacrampe

To whom were they unjust? The owners of slaves? No. The slaves? Since when do slaves have rights? Slavery is just if the slave society defines it as just. Apartheid is just if the apartheid regime says it is just. And they did.

What changed the "justice" of slavery and apartheid in slave and apartheid regimes was either overwhelming opposition to slavery and apartheid in other regimes, expressed through legislation, trade embargoes, or armed resistance. In all cases, those who had the most might were able to define what was right.

Might deciding what is right often results in an expansion of liberty (emancipation, desegregation, integration) and a redefinition of what had been deemed morally wrong. Gays can't be discriminated against in hiring and housing, (if such rules are locally in effect), and marriage between gays is now legal in some countries. "Physically weak and defective persons" have been granted protection by the might of the state, such that buildings must install elevators, ramps, and wider doors so that people in wheelchairs can have access. Were these changes brought about by the might of wheelchair users? Hardly.

Hardly, but cripples, the blind, the retarded, the deformed, etc. have another sort of power: the ability to place a claim on the attention of the fit and able-bodied. This hasn't always existed, of course: Per Dickens...

"At this festive season of the year, Mr Scrooge, ... it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."