From: Walter Watts (wlwatts@cox.net)
Date: Sun Feb 08 2004 - 17:42:43 MST
Sweet post, my old friend......
Walter
Jake Sapiens wrote:
> 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>
-- Walter Watts Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc. "Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered." --- 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 - 17:42:34 MST