From: Jake Sapiens (every1hz@earthlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 12:54:13 MST
A few thoughts came to mind as I read this. While I would agree that the
disparity between poor and rich does increase, the absolute wealth of the
poor does not decrease so dramatically and in some respects could arguably
be improving. For example consider the technology that even poor people
have access to today, that would have been considered pure luxury to the
wealthy people of several generations past. Granted they may not get the
new television with DVD etc., but even the working junky black and white
one scavenged from a dumpster surpasses the dreams of 19th century
aristocracy. And generally even poor people can go to their public library
for free Internet access, something that a mere 20 years ago was reserved
for a few elites and its quality and breadth barely matched what is
available today by just about anyone wishing to avail themselves to it.
Alas humans are extremely status conscious apes, and we tend to not
perceive things in these terms. If all things stay the same with us and
our neighbors becomes fabulously wealthy, we will tend to feel the poorer
for it in relative status terms.
That much said however, we can still address the question you pose. I
would suspect that in terms of absolute conflict, we could look to the 9-11
terrorists for some instruction. A group of 19 individuals, with limited
though not non-existent financial resources, and a small support system of
perhaps a hundred others (I'm guessing here keeping in mind that the
conspiracy had to remain small enough to avoid detection), has successfully
killed about three-thousand people, forced the powers that be to divert
possibly a trillion or so dollars over time (Afghanistan, and Iraq), and
has created a mass hysteria that has lead to the needless death of at least
500 US military personal in Iraq, in addition to those who died in
Afghanistan for a more relevant if not entirely successful campaign (Osama
still lives). Though they didn't exactly succeed in overthrowing the US
empire as we know it, neither has the US succeeded in entirely dismantling
the organizational support (Al Qeda) that made their efforts possible.
Although I feel certain that this relatively high attrition exacted upon
the US has been due at least as much to the incompetence of US political
leadership in response to 9-11 as to the direct efforts of the terrorist,
at even half the price they have still proved their destructive value/power
quite amply. Of course if ultimately they fail, it doesn't matter how much
power they wielded. If you lose, you lose. But it should give one pause
before assuming the invulnerability of the status quo, even if we are
talking about the wealthiest people the world has ever known vs. a group of
people who are essentially paupers by comparison.
-Jake
> [Original Message]
> From: Dr Sebby <drsebby@hotmail.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 02/08/2004 2:20:37 AM
> Subject: virus: the human price?
>
>
> ...thinking about an old post i was reading (something about the poor
> getting poorer as the modern political machine helps the rich get
richer), i
> thought.."well, that really does seem to be the case...and the only way
it
> is ever dealt with is if the poor and dumb get SOOO upset that they are
> finally driven to massive revolt since the threat of death is nearly
> equitable to the life they are living."
>
> ...so i thought about the true economics of power. it occurs to me that
> money is time, and time is essentially life to us. so how much money
does
> the average human cost in terms of power brokering? example: if i wanted
to
> overthrow the current federal government and overturn the wealthiest
> families that have a stranglehold on this country's economy and society,
how
> many followers would i need that were not afraid of seriously tempting
death
> or imprisonment? how many peoples' ultimate sacrifice would be required
to
> win a power battle against the hundreds of billions of dollars available
to
> my opposition's forces(whatever they may be)? it's a much easier
equation
> to play with if dealing with a smaller...relatively solitary country.
but
> still, i would think that some approximate value could be generated for a
> human life in terms of power wielded.
>
> any ideas?
>
>
> DrSebby.
> "Courage...and shuffle the cards".
>
>
>
>
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: "rhinoceros" <rhinoceros@freemail.gr>
> Reply-To: virus@lucifer.com
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> Subject: virus: Re: What does it mean to be me?
> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 19:53:11 -0700
>
> Coffee-house philosophy time...
>
> The biggest mystery for me about the "illusion of the self" is not about
> just any self but about mine.
>
> I mean, I can easily talk about selves in general, and I seem to
understand
> how selves depend on memories and how a core self can be instantly
created
> upon interaction with things even in the absence of memories, and what
has
> been said about the role of self-reference, complexity, competing
modules
> in the brain and everything. However...
>
> The question of identity is weird. We do know that millions, trillions,
and
> gazillions of sperm cells never get to become selves. So, our selves seem
to
> be very lucky to be the ones they are, on this planet and in this
particular
> century. It is luck beyond probability theory, because we haven't drawn a
> lottery ticket out of any repository of souls -- we have drawn it out of
the
> infinite posibilities of forging a self.
>
> On second thought, however, the fact that our selves were forged rather
than
> picked out by luck seems to be a way out of the metaphysical curiosities:
We
> just came to be. But this is not so clear any more when we get back to
the
> question of identity -- when I think that I am talking about *my own*
self.
>
> Think of it: You are sitting over there reading this, with *your own*
self
> forged in a complex process. The probabilities that the person who
> experiences this "illusion of the self" would be someone else and not
"you"
> are overwhelming. Still, it is "you" sitting there and experiencing "the
> illusion of the self", on planet Earth, in the 21st century of all
> centuries. The lottery is back, along with Descartes' "I think therefore
I
> am".
>
> I think we have a long way to go and many more models to try before "the
> illusion of the self" is really understood well enough to be reconciled
with
> our perception.
>
>
>
> ----
> This message was posted by rhinoceros to the Virus 2003 board on Church
of
> Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=296
30>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
> <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 10:52:39 MST