This is put forward in the excellent Ring of power videos on Youtube, the reasoning being the masonic connections of its French manufacturers, its design resembling the appearence of the Egyptian ruler Selene who Magdalene may be equivalent to, and the fact that the woman of the statue is pregnant, refering to the Jesus bloodline...
Just to wind you up, you psychos...
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 05:37:51 AM
and the fact that the woman of the statue is pregnant, refering to the Jesus bloodline...
Really? :o
That's news to me, but I think this must be the guy responsible:
(http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/TNY2168.jpg)
...
Selene is a Greek moon goddess, not an Egyptian ruler.
Quote from: Jezetha on September 14, 2008, 05:54:16 AM
Selene is a Greek moon goddess, not an Egyptian ruler.
nor a Canadian singer
(http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:qRLU6PzdaqzqiM:http://www.musicweek.com/pictures/468xAny/u/g/r/celine_dion.jpg)
I can't say what she is, but it's a good theory.
How on earth do you manage to come up with subjects for all your stupid threads? And how do you manage to convince yourself that anybody might be interested?
Quote from: erato on September 14, 2008, 06:00:35 AM
How on earth do you manage to come up with subjects for all your stupid threads? And how do you manage to convince yourself that anybody might be interested?
Charlton Heston was:
(http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/ending.jpg)
Quote from: erato on September 14, 2008, 06:00:35 AM
How on earth do you manage to come up with subjects for all your stupid threads? And how do you manage to convince yourself that anybody might be interested?
It's because the biggest stupidity and the biggest conspiracy is the official view on the majority of things: if you can't see how conditioned the world is and how moronic the various controllec media are, I can't understand how you can really be interested in art, which goes beyond the ordinary...
Quote from: Szykniej on September 14, 2008, 06:03:25 AM
Charlton Heston was:
(http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/ending.jpg)
Still one of the greatest scenes in all cinema, perfectly executed and acted- see it on Youtube.
Here's the episode in question
http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=7twsUV44Qrw&feature=related
Quote from: Jezetha on September 14, 2008, 05:54:16 AM
Selene is a Greek moon goddess, not an Egyptian ruler.
Cleopatra Selene II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Selene_II)
OK, she wasn't a
real goddess like
real goddesses are. She was just the daughter of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, so that's almost a goddess by my reckoning.
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 07:03:35 AM
Cleopatra Selene II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Selene_II)
I get it now. Thanks.
Quote from: Szykniej on September 14, 2008, 06:03:25 AM
Charlton Heston was:
(http://www.movieprop.com/tvandmovie/PlanetoftheApes/ending.jpg)
Szykniej, you kick a@$.
Post of the day. Great movie!
Good to see our Tony redeeming this thread 8)
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 06:25:03 AM
It's because the biggest stupidity and the biggest conspiracy is the official view on the majority of things: if you can't see how conditioned the world is and how moronic the various controllec media are, I can't understand how you can really be interested in art, which goes beyond the ordinary...
Odd that you along are able to see through the vast conspiracy that has deceived the rest of us, yet you fall under the delusion that "The da Vinci Code" is real.
Quote from: scarpia on September 14, 2008, 04:33:53 PM
Odd that you along are able to see through the vast conspiracy that has deceived the rest of us, yet you fall under the delusion that "The da Vinci Code" is real.
Waittaminute...the DaVinci Code...you're kidding of course.
Sean doesn't think that.
I hope ???
Quote from: AndyD. on September 14, 2008, 04:40:01 PM
Waittaminute...the DaVinci Code...you're kidding of course. Sean doesn't think that.
I hope ???
I wouldn't be surprised. I oughta make up my own conspiracy theory, popularize it, and see if Sean posts about it a few years later.
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 06:25:03 AM
It's because the biggest stupidity and the biggest conspiracy is the official view on the majority of things: if you can't see how conditioned the world is and how moronic the various controllec media are, I can't understand how you can really be interested in art, which goes beyond the ordinary...
There is no "official view" on the "majority of things". About most subjects, especially historical subjects, people disagree widely. And even if there was an "official view" for this and that, just wildly making up stuff wouldn't be the way to "question" it.
Octavia, sister of the future Emperor Augustus and wife of Mark Antony, brought up the children of Antony and Cleopatra in Rome as their guardian. I think that's pretty remarkable. Her brother captures them and parades them in chains before the Roman populace, then becomes their guardian and has his sister raise them, educating them with her own children. Then he marries Cleopatra Selene off to an African king. If she didn't become a goddess it was her own fault.
Quote from: drogulus on September 14, 2008, 07:03:35 AM
Cleopatra Selene II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleopatra_Selene_II)
OK, she wasn't a real goddess like real goddesses are. She was just the daughter of Cleopatra VII and Mark Antony, so that's almost a goddess by my reckoning.
What would the daughter of Mark Antony and J Lo be?
(http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/12_01/JloWI0312_468x576.jpg)
>:D
Quote from: M forever on September 14, 2008, 05:05:38 PM
There is no "official view" on the "majority of things". About most subjects, especially historical subjects, people disagree widely. And even if there was an "official view" for this and that, just wildly making up stuff wouldn't be the way to "question" it.
I'm wondering if this is you in troll-mode. When people are at a safe distance from events, so there's no real sense of personal identity involved in any particular interpretation, they can discuss happily. But when it concerns world views people currently hold then there's very much an issue of an 'official view', and indeed an official culture- and no matter how high the pile of obvious garbage the media prints and spews, no matter how plain the contradictions are, many people will cling to it desperately.
I'm not daft enough to follow any 'conspiracy' as you lot may like to say, in your nice supportive clique, but if you can't question things I think you're in the wrong place- this is supposed to be a critical arts forum.
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 08:34:09 PM
I'm not daft enough to follow any 'conspiracy' as you lot may like to say, in your nice supportive clique, but if you can't question things I think you're in the wrong place- this is supposed to be a critical arts forum.
In the end, it's always Jews.
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 08:34:09 PM
I'm not daft enough to follow any 'conspiracy' as you lot may like to say, in your nice supportive clique, but if you can't question things I think you're in the wrong place- this is supposed to be a critical arts forum.
We ARE questioning things. We're questioning you. You wouldn't want anything less, would you?
Hmmmm...or
would you......
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 08:30:29 PM
I'm wondering if this is you in troll-mode. When people are at a safe distance from events, so there's no real sense of personal identity involved in any particular interpretation, they can discuss happily. But when it concerns world views people currently hold then there's very much an issue of an 'official view', and indeed an official culture- and no matter how high the pile of obvious garbage the media prints and spews, no matter how plain the contradictions are, many people will cling to it desperately.
Can you give examples for such "official world views"?
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 14, 2008, 08:35:32 PM
In the end, it's always Jews.
No, by the 22nd century it'll be the rednecks.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 15, 2008, 11:50:52 AM
No, by the 22nd century it'll be the rednecks.
Is there a difference?
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 15, 2008, 11:55:41 AM
You would. You're probably one or the other.
Maybe I am? ???
What if I am, how do I know? ???
Quote from: Philoctetes on September 15, 2008, 11:55:41 AM
You would. You're probably one or the other.
I think a Redneck Jew would be an inspired idea for a movie. I mean, Hollywood isn't exactly busting out with new ideas, right? Or good ones.
Quote from: AndyD. on September 15, 2008, 02:32:41 PM
I think a Redneck Jew would be an inspired idea for a movie. I mean, Hollywood isn't exactly busting out with new ideas, right? Or good ones.
Nope. Charlton did that, too! ;)
(http://sharprightturn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/charleton-heston-the-ten-commandments1.jpg)
Quote from: Szykniej on September 15, 2008, 02:36:50 PM
Nope. Charlton did that, too! ;)
(http://sharprightturn.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/charleton-heston-the-ten-commandments1.jpg)
(cracking up) I love it! Post of the month!
I read the first part of the Protocols of the Elders... once and found myself thinking, "Wow, these guys have some really good ideas!"
Quote from: M forever on September 15, 2008, 06:35:41 AM
Can you give examples for such "official world views"?
Well, subtle ideas about how things are justified, but less philosophically, for instance the notion that the Western block is has the moral high ground, and that the international system and distribution of resources around the world is all in due order. The notion that America and its poodles are just following rational manoeuvring that has no ethical component at all, is unacceptable.
It gets to be a personal thing- most people have an
identity with the world around them- they can't turn the news on quickly enough to tell them what to think, and then have their ideas reinforced....
Those very vague examples aren't good examples for "official" world views at all. Lots of people disagree with them, including in the "Western World". I don't understand what you are saying about the "poodles". Is that an "official" term, too?
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 15, 2008, 11:50:52 AM
No, by the 22nd century it'll be the rednecks.
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/182445/0_22_kinky_friedman_texas.jpg)
Quote from: drogulus on September 17, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/182445/0_22_kinky_friedman_texas.jpg)
I see his great grandson in a furnace :'(
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on September 17, 2008, 03:15:27 PM
I see his great grandson in a furnace :'(
I'll bet you do. How do you think they get there, smart guy?
Quote from: drogulus on September 17, 2008, 03:36:39 PM
I'll bet you do. How do you think they get there, smart guy?
From the development of gradual intolerance and bigotry?
And brainwashing?
Quote from: M forever on September 17, 2008, 02:26:54 PM
Those very vague examples aren't good examples for "official" world views at all. Lots of people disagree with them, including in the "Western World".
No they don't.
You just did.
Quote from: Sean on September 15, 2008, 05:20:18 PM
Well, subtle ideas about how things are justified, but less philosophically, for instance the notion that the Western block is has the moral high ground, and that the international system and distribution of resources around the world is all in due order. The notion that America and its poodles are just following rational manoeuvring that has no ethical component at all, is unacceptable.
It gets to be a personal thing- most people have an identity with the world around them- they can't turn the news on quickly enough to tell them what to think, and then have their ideas reinforced....
That's quite an oversimplification, isn't it? Or is this just another quest for absolute justifications?
The Western countries have a political system they want to defend, based largely on principles that are widely admired around the world, even if no country ever acts on them with perfect consistency. The most serious resource and distribution problems are not in Western countries, they are in countries that are ruled by dictators who profess to hate the West.
So I don't know that there's a permanent moral high ground that anyone owns. It does seem that there's more of a genuine effort to achieve a fair distribution of goods in Western countries, and that along with political freedoms goes a long way towards providing moral justification.
drogulus
QuoteThe Western countries have a political system they want to defend
'Course they want to blinking defend it- it means they can consume 80% of the world's resources while the great majority that is the rest of humanity gets by on the other 20%.
The inherent stupidity of your post is a perfect example of the West's self-justification. And the serious problems in other countries you mention are no such thing- they are routinely created and propagated by Western interests, keeping them unstable while the resources, particularly oil of course, sails out. The goods are rarely paid for by Western companies- and instead the host country is said to be corrupt in being unable to account for the money: there was no way the oil companies were going to pay backward Angola for instance billions of dollars when they could keep the place at war for decades.
Quote from: Sean on September 17, 2008, 06:45:36 PM
drogulus
'Course they want to blinking defend it- it means they can consume 80% of the world's resources while the great majority that is the rest of humanity gets by on the other 20%.
The inherent stupidity of your post is a perfect example of the West's self-justification. And the serious problems in other countries you mention are no such thing- they are routinely created and propagated by Western interests, keeping them unstable while the resources, particularly oil of course, sails out. The goods are rarely paid for by Western companies- and instead the host country is said to be corrupt in being unable to account for the money: there was no way the oil companies were going to pay backward Angola for instance billions of dollars when they could keep the place at war for decades.
Our ability to consume the resources didn't just happen. We had to develop societies that had the freedom to innovate technologically, which meant politically as well. And no one in the West has figured out how to bring backward countries up to the modern standard unless they want to do it themselves, like Japan and Korea, and now China and India. The reason this type of advancement isn't universalized is not because we are preventing it, it's because we don't know how to do it. No one knows how to drag a society kicking and screaming into the modern world. A trillion dollars worth of foreign aid has had relatively little effect. The various communist/socialist experiments have been an utter failure. Do you have a plan?
How much money has been paid by the world for OPEC oil? And how much modernity and political stability has it brought? When we paid them little and ran the oil show they were poor and backward. Then they kicked us out and ran the show themselves and now they are rich and backward, soon to be poor and backward again. Your theory that we are responsible for all of this gives us far more credit than we could possibly deserve. We couldn't help Russia when they wanted our help and it was in our best interest to do so, so now we have Putin. That's typical.
For you the West must be absolutely justified or absolutely guilty of some terrible thing. Your attitude is the mirror image of the 19th century "White Mans Burden" where we teach the rest of the world how to be like us. Guess what? We don't know how to be
like us, we only know how to
be us. Poor countries are like that, too. They might want to change, but don't know how. And we don't know how to change, either. Societies have an organic, self organizing way of responding to circumstances that doesn't yield easily to top-down rearrangement.
For an explanation from an economists point of view you might want to read
The Elusive Quest for Growth by
William Easterly (http://www.amazon.com/Elusive-Quest-Growth-Economists-Misadventures/dp/0262550423/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221769409&sr=1-2). It hasn't got much conspiracy in it, just some good sense about why this is so much harder than theorists realize.
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 08:34:09 PM
I'm not daft enough to follow any 'conspiracy' as you lot may like to say, in your nice supportive clique, but if you can't question things I think you're in the wrong place- this is supposed to be a critical arts forum.
Now I know why I've never felt comfortable here. I was going on the assumption that this is a popular entertainment site with Sean providing the soft porn.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 18, 2008, 12:42:55 PM
Now I know why I've never felt comfortable here. I was going on the assumption that this is a popular entertainment site with Sean providing the soft porn.
I can't question this, in our nice supportive clique.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 18, 2008, 12:45:01 PM
I can't question this, in our nice supportive clique.
Over the years I've heard a lot about cliques here, and I think it's about time to really start one - my house next Wednesday at 7 P.M. Rocky Mountain Time and bring your own booze and recordings.
Well, the Henning Gang is still going strong, though for security reasons, I don't attend the business meetings.
Quote from: karlhenning on September 18, 2008, 12:53:11 PM
Well, the Henning Gang is still going strong, though for security reasons, I don't attend the business meetings.
Got it - you're taking the Dick Cheney approach.
Quote from: Bulldog on September 18, 2008, 12:50:59 PM
Over the years I've heard a lot about cliques here, and I think it's about time to really start one - my house next Wednesday at 7 P.M. Rocky Mountain Time and bring your own booze and recordings.
Can I bring my copy of
Vincebus Eruptum? We can listen to
Second Time Around and drink martinis. And we can make burgers on the grill!
Quote from: drogulus on September 18, 2008, 12:59:39 PM
Can I bring my copy of Vincebus Eruptum? We can listen to Second Time Around and drink martinis. And we can make burgers on the grill!
Sounds great, and I even have an electric starter for the charcoals. But someone will have to bring the burgers; these are hard economic times, and I have to be frugal until I get my very own bail-out payment.
Quote from: Sean on September 14, 2008, 08:34:09 PM
I'm not daft enough to follow any 'conspiracy' as you lot may like to say, in your nice supportive clique, but if you can't question things I think you're in the wrong place- this is supposed to be a critical arts forum.
I pretty much question everything I hear or read. Including your posts, which don't even need much questioning to be quickly discarded as mostly nonsense.
I find it fascinating when people really question stuff, when they are critical and sceptical and really think through and research certain things. They do often come up with unusual, surprising, different insights, and I like to read stuff like that. Unfortunately, your posts aren't like that. They are mostly just confused, wildly thrown together stuff.
drogulusQuoteOur ability to consume the resources didn't just happen. We had to develop societies that had the freedom to innovate technologically, which meant politically as well.
So as societies' organization develops they're better able to exploit others? Okay.
QuoteAnd no one in the West has figured out how to bring backward countries up to the modern standard unless they want to do it themselves, like Japan and Korea, and now China and India.
I you don't see it but this is rather conceited and a very uncritical funnelling of the rest of the world's cultures through Western 'standards'; there is indeed such a thing as material development, but it needn't be couched in the cultural terms you happen to be familiar with.
QuoteNo one knows how to drag a society kicking and screaming into the modern world.
Look, there is only so much oil, so much gas, so much of many things: if it was all distributed with the marvellous egalitarian values that you blithely take the West's word for having, it would be pretty thinly spread. And no democratically elected government is going to vote for that in preference to a pack of lies about the non-Western world's corruption pumped out by the media for the mindless immoral masses to cling onto, no matter how obvious things are to the contrary.
QuoteWhen we paid them little and ran the oil show they were poor and backward.
So just loot the rest of the world and the hell with the peoples the resources belong to?
QuoteYour theory that we are responsible for all of this gives us far more credit than we could possibly deserve.
America certainly has a wondrous record in surreptitiously escalating small time factions and skirmishes into major internation conflicts.
QuoteWe couldn't help Russia when they wanted our help...
The media's hatred for Russia is as stupid as it is baseless.
QuoteSocieties have an organic, self organizing way of responding to circumstances that doesn't yield easily to top-down rearrangement.
Maybe, but there's still such a thing as morality and there's a better way to organize the world than with the West keeping itself in position at the apex of a vast grotesque capitalist pyramid, and experiencing all kinds of inner tensions and social problems as a result. I just do not believe the international system.
M
Quote...and I like to read stuff like that. Unfortunately, your posts aren't like that. They are mostly just confused, wildly thrown together stuff.
Well if I explained everything in the sufficient detail required for lesser minds, I'd be here all day.
You don't have to explain everything in more detail because it is easy to see that most of what you write is, when one looks behind the inflated vocabulary, just childish nonsense. You aren't a misunderstood genius or somebody who gets rejected because what he says is too hard for everyone else to understand. You are just confused.
Quote from: M forever on September 19, 2008, 11:37:41 AM
. . . You are just confused.
And as that covers quite a few people, pointing that out dashes any notion that Sean is in any 'position of power' in a supposed 'minority of one'.
Just saying.
Quote from: Sean on September 18, 2008, 11:41:40 PM
drogulus
Maybe, but there's still such a thing as morality and there's a better way to organize the world than with the West keeping itself in position at the apex of a vast grotesque capitalist pyramid, and experiencing all kinds of inner tensions and social problems as a result. I just do not believe the international system.
Sean, I don't think you recognize the problem. If there's a better way
what is it? You can't just do something, it has to work. You really ought to take a look at the book I recommended. It's a very sobering look from the inside of the international aid industry. If you want to disbelieve the international system it's better to do it from a position of knowledge and give your scepticism a real foundation, not just a bunch of abstractions about justice. It might surprise you to learn that many of the people who have worked on the problems are just as idealistic as you are. They are frustrated that their efforts have been largely wasted.
Sean thinks we need him to announce to us the existence of morality?
Quote from: M forever on September 19, 2008, 11:37:41 AM
...what he says is too hard for everyone else to understand.
I'm partial to this idea.
Quote from: drogulus on September 19, 2008, 12:00:22 PM
Sean, I don't think you recognize the problem. If there's a better way what is it? You can't just do something, it has to work. You really ought to take a look at the book I recommended. It's a very sobering look from the inside of the international aid industry. If you want to disbelieve the international system it's better to do it from a position of knowledge and give your scepticism a real foundation, not just a bunch of abstractions about justice. It might surprise you to learn that many of the people who have worked on the problems are just as idealistic as you are. They are frustrated that their efforts have been largely wasted.
The developing world has no monopoly on corruption, and has a lot less money to exercise be corrupt over. And who's more corrupt than who doesn't justify taking resources for yourself at others' expense...
Quote from: Sean on September 20, 2008, 09:30:06 PM
The developing world has no monopoly on corruption, and has a lot less money to exercise be corrupt over. And who's more corrupt than who doesn't justify taking resources for yourself at others' expense...
What does that mean? This is exactly the same as the evasive rhetoric about gods and souls. You're indulging private meanings in public communications. Words like "exploit" are tossed around precisely because they have no fixed meaning. Do you mean steal? Or enslave? Or defraud? These have meanings, and when you charge someone with these offenses they can either be convicted or acquitted based on evidence. But if you say I exploit the poor (which might mean either employing them or not employing them) everything I do is the crime and nothing counts as evidence of innocence. Mostly I'm just guilty of being fortunate and diligent enough to do better than someone else. That's all that's necessary to "exploit". The advantage for you is you don't have to justify your attitude, just blame all bad outcomes on whoever you don't like, and credit all virtue to your favorite god.
Quote from: drogulus on September 21, 2008, 08:09:21 AM
What does that mean? This is exactly the same as the evasive rhetoric about gods and souls. You're indulging private meanings in public communications. Words like "exploit" are tossed around precisely because they have no fixed meaning. Do you mean steal? Or enslave? Or defraud? These have meanings, and when you charge someone with these offenses they can either be convicted or acquitted based on evidence. But if you say I exploit the poor (which might mean either employing them or not employing them) everything I do is the crime and nothing counts as evidence of innocence. Mostly I'm just guilty of being fortunate and diligent enough to do better than someone else. That's all that's necessary to "exploit". The advantage for you is you don't have to justify your attitude, just blame all bad outcomes on whoever you don't like, and credit all virtue to your favorite god.
As M said, just confused.
If an oil company goes to a country, drills into the ground to pump out fossil fuels that the aborigines have no idea how to extract or even use, and give them in return a sum of money that exceeds their gross domestic product for the past few centuries, then this is exploitation. Evidently it would be more noble to just go there and try to have sex with them.
Quote from: drogulus on September 21, 2008, 08:09:21 AM
...Mostly I'm just guilty of being fortunate and diligent enough to do better than someone else. That's all that's necessary to "exploit". The advantage for you is you don't have to justify your attitude, just blame all bad outcomes on whoever you don't like, and credit all virtue to your favorite god.
Yes, this is
such a nice view of things to fall back on. We
deserve to take and consume way out of proportion!!
The West just needs to live more peacefully, it's not an especially happy place, and should stop worrying about finding ways to justify having to burn yet more and more oil, until it's gone, civilization collapses with peaked production, and the climate is polluted. The
fundamental mindset is wrong...
Quote from: scarpia on September 21, 2008, 08:18:33 AM
If an oil company goes to a country, drills into the ground to pump out fossil fuels that the aborigines have no idea how to extract or even use...
Maybe they'll learn. And maybe then their oil should be theirs. So lets keep them unstable so they don't learn.
Quote from: Sean on September 21, 2008, 03:58:17 PM
The West just needs to live more peacefully, it's not an especially happy place
Maybe not, but it only get worse. I'd rather live here than India.
Quote from: Sean on September 21, 2008, 03:59:45 PM
Maybe they'll learn. And maybe then their oil should be theirs. So lets keep them unstable so they don't learn.
There is nothing that keeps them from learning. It's not like the required technologies and skills are secrets. But their governments prefer to cooperate with Western companies because they don't want their people to have the knowledge and equipment to get to the oil themselves - because then, they wouldn't have absolute power over them anymore.
Well I take a different view.
you missed a comma.
We don't need to justify consumption, which is related to productivity. A different question would be how much we produce for others, for the consumption of the rest of the world, either as products we sell, or invent, or as aid, loans at below market rates, forgiveness of debt, or other kinds of assistance. By that standard we are virtuous, not evil, and why isn't that the proper way to judge?
Quote from: Sean on September 21, 2008, 03:59:45 PM
Maybe they'll learn. And maybe then their oil should be theirs. So lets keep them unstable so they don't learn.
The oil
was theirs, that's why they got paid for it. The question is whether that money is spent to better the country. In Russia and Venezuela, for example, there is some pretense of the oil revenue being used for the public good, despite the demagogues that rule those countries. If in undeveloped countries the money gets spent on machetes so that the people there can hack their fellow citizens to death on the street, that is not the fault of the oil companies.
Quote from: drogulus on September 21, 2008, 04:30:26 PM
We don't need to justify consumption, which is related to productivity. A different question would be how much we produce for others, for the consumption of the rest of the world, either as products we sell, or invent, or as aid, loans at below market rates, forgiveness of debt, or other kinds of assistance. By that standard we are virtuous, not evil, and why isn't that the proper way to judge?
In the cultural extension of his self-loathing,
Sean just wants to rant,
Ernie.