Denis O'Brien Irelands Sinister Fringe.

Wurly

Beaner1 wrote: »

You're talking about a closed, protectionist economy which has been shown to be a ruinous policy the world over.

Cool. I'm very interested in the topic and want to know about it as much as possible. Can you link me to some further information so I can have a read of it? Thanks.

Dean0088 wrote: »

So let's say, you invent a cure for cancer right there in you basement labratory. Good luck conquering the world. The first anitbiotics for cow pox were only discovered, manufactured and distributed thanks to the industrial revolution

That keyboard your typing on might have been put in a box in Cork (if it's a Mac) but it was designed in California, with help from a team of European engineers, Canadian programmers and highly illegal labor somewhere in China.

It's not nice to think about, but at least we can type about it.

I don't remember a big meeting where everyone made local economies illegal or shuttered local business. In fact, most businesses start off as one person, an idea and a garden shed. None have ever succeeded on that scale for the betterment of humanity though.

Yeah. They start small and keep getting bought out. I am regularly shocked when I google a product in my kitchen and i'm being brought from page to page in terms of it's owners. The end result is usually some american conglomerate. It's scary.

So the reason I talk about local is an attempt to dismantle the big corporations having such a large monopoly.

We could do as much as we could locally. And then fund the big projects collectively. If we made the process completely transparent so that people could see who's involved and where every penny goes, then this could be a good solution maybe? Could we have both?

Is it not better to try? The fact is, the current model works very well for a small number, generally average for a lot of people and then very badly for a massive amount. So we can't really say it's working in that case, can we?

Autonomous Cowherd

Dean0088 wrote: »

I think you're equating a system (capitalism) to power, which is quite the same as equating money too power seeing as capitalism is based on the green stuff.

Money is quite a good measurement of success because it stacks just so damn neatly. People on a large enough scal (like say, populations) stack just like money too. So it's damn easy to have power of a population without using money as a tool.

Your economic examples, I suspect, are based on your political ideas (which, I'm guessing, are socialist) instead of logic. We could spend ages comparing economic models that are based on politics instead of logic. In my opinion, capitalism kicked off during the Industrial Revolution and has been thriving since.

If we all switched to local markets instead of Tesco/Aldi/Lidl I think two things would happen:

• We'd need more unskilled workers which are useless to the economy and over their lifetime are a drain (we're leaving emotions out of this debate, right?)
• Prices would go up particularly in rural areas.

So yeah, unemployment would drop to 1% but go speak to an LC student or a college grad and ask them if their life's ambition in 2014 is to work as a baker or carpenter in a system not unlike the one that existed in the Middle Ages (local business for local markets under local economies).

Today's world is all about money. And so was yesterdays world. We could go back to the year 0AD and discover every Tom, Dick and Harry was more interested in making a buck than he was in fixing the worlds problems.

The idea of "wealth distribution", while vague on the tactics that'd be used to implement it is interesting. But ultimately I couldn't care. People can redistribute whatever they hell they want. We'd still have lemmings creaming themselves over the next iPhone, stores filled on Black Friday, idiots getting 30% credit cards, school leavers buying investment property and taxi men cursing the government. Within a few years the rich would be rich and the poor would be poor, with the exception of a small percentage who understand power and actually seize their ill gotten opportunity (and fair play) and those who were rich due to corruption, nepotism who never worked a day in their lives.


If you're interested in power stay away from the self help crap. It's all disillusioning "Empowering" logic circle jerks.

Machiavelli, Plato and Sun Tzu ( Sun Tzu for tactics) are great reads. I think most people read them as they are (ie. political or military manuals) but at their core they contain very applicable, logical explanations of people and why we bend to power.

Mentioned several jobs in this post. Not knocking any profession or career - just citing for examples' sake.

you sound very rational and informed and personally I have found Plato, Machiavelli and Sun Tzu to be interesting also. And to a fair degree you describe and perhaps defend the staus quo as justifiable and essentially fair an natural. I disagree and not simply because I lean towards the left, but because Capitalism works only on the basis of perpetual growth. And no matter how one dickies up the philosophy or the political reasoning, we live on a finite planet with finite resources and infinite growth has led us to environmental and social catastrophe.

No matter what way we are living here as emperors of the world in the 'free' capitalist west, we are a minority indulged class (and being out rapidly bred). Tell the boys and girls scrabbling through the toxic, burning digital dumps in Africa that Plato finds this present system reasonable. (Such ends and an infinity like them cannot be justified by any means.)

Jawgap

Wurly wrote: »

Here's the thing though. The fed is privately owned. So it's not owned by the government. It's owned by the banks.

Sorry, are you saying that private banks have controlling equity in the US Federal Reserve????

Wow, there's conspiracy theories and there's conspiracy theories:pac:

Regionally, banks are required to become members of the local Fed as each is organised as a corporation, but their investment to purchase stock gives them no voting tights over executive actions. It's a device to make them put 'skin in the game.'

Member banks elect some of the board members for each regional Fed.

And even if it was publicly owned it would be a terrible investment - it smokes tens of billions of dollars of profits each year, nearly 98% of which goes to the non-shareholding US Government - about 0.5% gets paid as a dividend to its 'shareholders.'

Wurly

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying that private banks have controlling equity in the US Federal Reserve????

Wow, there's conspiracy theories and there's conspiracy theories:pac:

I respect your opinion. I have a question about it though. If you are in disagreement with the above, then can I ask where your opinion came from? Was it your own research into the topic or did you read it somewhere or what? Genuine question.

waking dreams

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, are you saying that private banks have controlling equity in the US Federal Reserve????

Wow, there's conspiracy theories and there's conspiracy theories:pac:

Regionally, banks are required to become members of the local Fed as each is organised as a corporation, but their investment to purchase stock gives them no voting tights over executive actions. It's a device to make them put 'skin in the game.'

Member banks elect some of the board members for each regional Fed.

And even if it was publicly owned it would be a terrible investment - it smokes tens of billions of dollars of profits each year, nearly 98% of which goes to the non-shareholding US Government - about 0.5% gets paid as a dividend to its 'shareholders.'

I don't really understand your post at all. What I think you are saying is that banks must become members of the local fed bank. I understand that. So your reasoning for the fed bank to want members is so they can invest to purchase 'stock' but not have a say in how the bank is ran?

I guess my question would be why is there a need for a fed bank? Is it for regulation or what is the purpose?

Highflyer13

That man could have complete control over the running of this country if he wanted to. Its a scary thought but he could. All he needs to do is give the right people a few extra € or some gifts or promise lucrative positions on various boards. When you are that wealthy your appetite for power is insatiable and you just want more. A lot of the wealthy are like that and a lot of the time its part of how they become so successful in the first place. Ultimate power at all costs.

Fukuyama

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

you sound very rational and informed and personally I have found Plato, Machiavelli and Sun Tzu to be interesting also. And to a fair degree you describe and perhaps defend the staus quo as justifiable and essentially fair an natural. I disagree and not simply because I lean towards the left, but because Capitalism works only on the basis of perpetual growth. And no matter how one dickies up the philosophy or the political reasoning, we live on a finite planet with finite resources and infinite growth has led us to environmental and social catastrophe.

No matter what way we are living here as emperors of the world in the 'free' capitalist west, we are a minority indulged class (and being out rapidly bred). Tell the boys and girls scrabbling through the toxic, burning digital dumps in Africa that Plato finds this present system reasonable. (Such ends and an infinity like them cannot be justified by any means.)

I **** you not, this planet contains humans and that's all we need to survive. We're the smartest mother****ers in the galaxy and observable universe. We are so high on the food chain it's ridiculous. We're actually growing food and body parts in labs when just a few years ago it was a theory. Within five years battery technology will be at a point that drones will be able to fly for weeks and a tatoo on your arm will be electrified to change and display messages. We'll have chips implanted in our retinas and be able to get in a car, go asleep and wake up in America thanks to Virgins "travel pod" plans.

Every idea and notion you have about the economy and collectivism is the antithesis to this and ultimately people won't go for it because it'll put a stop to advancement of the human race. In simple terms, if you take away someone iPhone (or potential future iPhone) they'll throw a strop.

Within 40 years we'll be colonizing Mars. throughout thousands of years humans have done nothing but grow, and grow and grow. The population of Europe was cut in HALF just a few hundred years ago by the plague and we're still ticking.

At the end of the day every human is self-interested. You, me, everyone. We look after "me and mine". The only reason populations band together in times of war, emergency or nationalism (woo! Hitler!) is because it appeals to each individuals self interest to do so.

The system of Capitalism is so natural it exists in everyone. Charity and social institutions (many of which I support - education and healthcare) only exist and remain self sufficient when the money's been earned to pay for them. I only give away my crusts when I've had my fill of bread - survival. But we live in a modern society with soft cushions to sit on and plenty planned towns, right angles everywhere etc... so we forget that.

Society is one big malfunction that depends on everyone making themselves happy first, and their neighbor second.

You speak of catastrophe - the world is doing great. Intolerance is at an all time low. Murder is down to negligible levels (compared to the 1800s and previous). Wartime deaths are nothing compared to any random year throughout history. Yes we have billionaires, but we have more open education, skilled jobs and living standards than ever before.

Fukuyama

Highflyer13 wrote: »

That man could have complete control over the running of this country if he wanted to. Its a scary thought but he could. All he needs to do is give the right people a few extra € or some gifts or promise lucrative positions on various boards. When you are that wealthy your appetite for power is insatiable and you just want more. A lot of the wealthy are like that and a lot of the time its part of how they become so successful in the first place. Ultimate power at all costs.

Yeah, real Gordon Gekko our Denis is.

Jawgap

Wurly wrote: »

I respect your opinion. I have a question about it though. If you are in disagreement with the above, then can I ask where your opinion came from? Was it your own research into the topic or did you read it somewhere or what? Genuine question.

No, I've heard 'the Fed is privately owned and controlled by foreign interests' conspiracy theory before.

Someone even floated it in an economics lecture I was attending once.

All this makes me laugh though......everyone is railing against DO'B but I doubt no more than 5% of people know the name of the manager of their Local Hospital Group - I wonder who will wreck more citizens' lives and who will people protest against???

jimgoose

Denis O'Brien is not too long gone from the campfire and has the business acumen of a whelk. He is a shining example of how wealth is redistributed in this country, and as such of how not to do it. In a more civilised jurisdiction, like Texas, he'd be in solitary in Port Laoise.

Fukuyama

jimgoose wrote: »

Denis O'Brien is not too long gone from the campfire and has the business acumen of a whelk. He is a shining example of how wealth is redistributed in this country, and as such of how not to do it. In a more civilised jurisdiction, like Texas, he'd be in solitary in Port Laoise.

How civilized and geographically correct.

Highflyer13

Dean0088 wrote: »

Yeah, real Gordon Gekko our Denis is.

Aside from the snide remarks should he not have been penalised over the findings of the Moriarty report? Do you think its acceptable that little or nothing happened Denis when he was found to be corrupt? Whos to say he won't do it again? Fool me once......

Jawgap

waking dreams wrote: »

I don't really understand your post at all. What I think you are saying is that banks must become members of the local fed bank. I understand that. So your reasoning for the fed bank to want members is so they can invest to purchase 'stock' but not have a say in how the bank is ran?

I guess my question would be why is there a need for a fed bank? Is it for regulation or what is the purpose?

The Fed is the US Central Bank - it controls and manages the money supply, in addition to other Central Bank type functions - it's organised on a regional basis and to benefit from its protection banks must buy in.

Stock, shares, equity etc all come in different classes. Lots of companies and corporations sell shares that allow you to draw a dividend, but don't give you voting rights.

kowloon

Sir Osis of Liver. wrote: »

Who knows what that evil bastard keeps in his fridge.

Nothing sinister, just a selection of hooker heads.

waking dreams

Dean0088 wrote: »

I **** you not, this planet contains humans and that's all we need to survive. We're the smartest mother****ers in the galaxy and observable universe. We are so high on the food chain it's ridiculous. We're actually growing food and body parts in labs when just a few years ago it was a theory. Within five years battery technology will be at a point that drones will be able to fly for weeks and a tatoo on your arm will be electrified to change and display messages. We'll have chips implanted in our retinas and be able to get in a car, go asleep and wake up in America thanks to Virgins "travel pod" plans.

Every idea and notion you have about the economy and collectivism is the antithesis to this and ultimately people won't go for it because it'll put a stop to advancement of the human race. In simple terms, if you take away someone iPhone (or potential future iPhone) they'll throw a strop.

Within 40 years we'll be colonizing Mars. throughout thousands of years humans have done nothing but grow, and grow and grow. The population of Europe was cut in HALF just a few hundred years ago by the plague and we're still ticking.

At the end of the day every human is self-interested. You, me, everyone. We look after "me and mine". The only reason populations band together in times of war, emergency or nationalism (woo! Hitler!) is because it appeals to each individuals self interest to do so.

The system of Capitalism is so natural it exists in everyone. Charity and social institutions (many of which I support - education and healthcare) only exist and remain self sufficient when the money's been earned to pay for them. I only give away my crusts when I've had my fill of bread - survival. But we live in a modern society with soft cushions to sit on and plenty planned towns, right angles everywhere etc... so we forget that.

Society is one big malfunction that depends on everyone making themselves happy first, and their neighbor second.

I agree with almost everything you said, and you said it so well. My opinion differs to yours with regards to humans and how we think. I do not believe that people value products rather or over human life. And I think if presented with a life or death situation that humans would naturally drop the iphone to spare their actual life.

I would love if we could say with absolute assurance that we will never be presented with a life or death situation on a global level. A situation that we as humans have created. If the consumer world continues in the fashion in which it is headed we will eventually have to face that ultimatum.

How does the human race prevent something like that from happening now? I hear a lot about world leaders and how they own my as*, I would much rather hear about the actual efforts that are going into making a positive change in the world. Obviously RTE cant help me here ha ha

jimgoose

Dean0088 wrote: »

How civilized and geographically correct.

The sort of neckbeard who feels the need to point out to me that Port Laoise is not in Texas is unlikely to influence my view one way or t'other.

Fukuyama

Highflyer13 wrote: »

Aside from the snide remarks should he not have been penalised over the findings of the Moriarty report? Do you think its acceptable that little or nothing happened Denis when he was found to be corrupt? Whos to say he won't do it again? Fool me once......

If it goes through an actual court, yes. If it's mob justice, no.

I couldn't give a **** either way. It's a storm in a teacup as far as I'm concerned. A sideshow to distract people.

"Political Donations" is the oldest scandal going.

Whether Denis O Brian gets a smack of a truck or earns another billion tomorrow, I'm still gonna make a cup of tea and watch The Simpsons. You feel free to either celebrate or protest, it won't make a shred of actual difference to you, Ireland, the world or your bank balance. And you've wasted a day.

KomradeBishop

Dean0088 wrote: »

...

Good article here, from an ex-NASA physicist:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Summary: Economic growth is inextricably tied to growth in power generation (even if only by a small amount, that is still enough to cause problems), and growth in power generation is (by the laws of thermodynamics) inextricably linked to increased waste-heat being put out into the Earth's atmosphere.
At our current rate of exponential growth, Earth's surface would reach boiling point (100°C) in 400 years - obviously this is unsustainable.

Our level of economic growth - and capitalism in its current form, depends upon neverending economic growth - is simply unsustainable, and the pressures that the current dominant economic system will bring upon the planet, will bring that economic system crashing down long before 400 years.

In 100 or more years time, historians will probably look back on our current economic system, as bizarre and insane.

Highflyer13

moxin wrote: »

It's ironic that the brigade who moan about balancing the national accounts promoting water charges, spending cuts etc also support an exiled tax billionaire controlling our media and fuel stations.

Reading through the thread now and Its unreal. I was just about to post this. Its all the same posters.

jimgoose

Dean0088 wrote: »

If it goes through an actual court, yes. If it's mob justice, no.

I couldn't give a **** either way. It's a storm in a teacup as far as I'm concerned. A sideshow to distract people.

"Political Donations" is the oldest scandal going.

Whether Denis O Brian gets a smack of a truck or earns another billion tomorrow, I'm still gonna make a cup of tea and watch The Simpsons. You feel free to either celebrate or protest, it won't make a shred of actual difference to you, Ireland, the world or your bank balance. And you've wasted a day.

Roll another spliff, why dontcha. This is what has us where we are.

Wurly

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I've heard 'the Fed is privately owned and controlled by foreign interests' conspiracy theory before.

Everything is just a theory though. How do you know yours is a fact? So that's why i'm asking you how you arrived at your belief that it's the contrary to what i'm saying.

Someone even floated it in an economics lecture I was attending once.

Who and in what context?

All this makes me laugh though......everyone is railing against DO'B but I doubt no more than 5% of people know the name of the manager of their Local Hospital Group - I wonder who will wreck more citizens' lives and who will people protest against???

Fair point. We should know this information.

What makes you think that people won't protest against this? Why are you angry at protesters? One thing at a time. I'll happily stand in solidarity with you to protest against the hospital groups.

Fukuyama

waking dreams wrote: »

I agree with almost everything you said, and you said it so well. My opinion differs to yours with regards to humans and how we think. I do not believe that people value products rather or over human life. And I think if presented with a life or death situation that humans would naturally drop the iphone to spare their actual life.

I would love if we could say with absolute assurance that we will never be presented with a life or death situation on a global level. A situation that we as humans have created. If the consumer world continues in the fashion in which it is headed we will eventually have to face that ultimatum.

How does the human race prevent something like that from happening now? I hear a lot about world leaders and how they own my as*, I would much rather hear about the actual efforts that are going into making a positive change in the world. Obviously RTE cant help me here ha ha

If the world is ever faced with a big race ending problem, we'll turn to the scientists to fix it and compensate them greatly. In fact, we're doing that already.

I don't think people would chose an iPhone over a human life in an actual life or death moment. Nobody pulls an iPad from a burning building. That wasn't what I was saying and that's not the issue in the modern economy.

However, we're more than happy to buy and iPhone once we don't have to look at the poor little Chinese kid who makes it. The real question is whether we want to sacrifice our modern lifestyles for that kid. And we won't.

The only people who buy sweatshop free clothes from American Apparel and the few other brands that make them are young white hipsters with their parents money. It's literally a fashion statement to buy "eco" products or "sweatshop free" products and then tweet about it from an iPhone manufactured by Foxxcon whose workers literally kill themselves on the factory floor the conditions are so terrible.

That might sound like an argument AGAINST capitalism but actually I'm just pointing out how absurd humans can be. Give people (even the most raging, rebellious socialist) a choice between their iPhone and existing in a "local" economy in all its 1850's glory and I think you'll know what (selfish but reasonable) decision he'll make.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Good article here, from an ex-NASA physicist:
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

Summary: Economic growth is inextricably tied to growth in power generation (even if only by a small amount, that is still enough to cause problems), and growth in power generation is (by the laws of thermodynamics) inextricably linked to increased waste-heat being put out into the Earth's atmosphere.
At our current rate of exponential growth, Earth's surface would reach boiling point (100°C) in 400 years - obviously this is unsustainable.

Our level of economic growth - and capitalism in its current form, depends upon neverending economic growth - is simply unsustainable, and the pressures that the current dominant economic system will bring upon the planet, will bring that economic system crashing down long before 400 years.

In 100 or more years time, historians will probably look back on our current economic system, as bizarre and insane.

I doubt it. That guy is most probably right concerning global warming, however we'll come up with a way to prevent it. We need smart guys like him to warn us of the dangers that lie ahead. And so we adjust course as we are doing right now.

Oil and Coal still dominate world energy. However, it's rapidly switching to nuclear, wind, solar and biochemical solution that are so crazy they just might work. We've used fire since man first stood upright so it'll take another 40 years to make a full switch. But switch we shall.

tipptom

Beaner1 wrote: »

I believe that he was involved in corruption back then. I don't think this has only relevance to the current situation as DOB, Irish politicians and society has moved on quite a bit since.

Do you take Dennis money envelopes straight to FG Sarah or do you get someone further down the line to do it.

Autonomous Cowherd

Dean0088 wrote: »

If the world is ever faced with a big race ending problem, we'll turn to the scientists to fix it and compensate them greatly. In fact, we're doing that already.

I don't think people would chose an iPhone over a human life in an actual life or death moment. Nobody pulls an iPad from a burning building. That wasn't what I was saying and that's not the issue in the modern economy.

However, we're more than happy to buy and iPhone once we don't have to look at the poor little Chinese kid who makes it. The real question is whether we want to sacrifice our modern lifestyles for that kid. And we won't.

The only people who buy sweatshop free clothes from American Apparel and the few other brands that make them are young white hipsters with their parents money. It's literally a fashion statement to buy "eco" products or "sweatshop free" products and then tweet about it from an iPhone manufactured by Foxxcon whose workers literally kill themselves on the factory floor the conditions are so terrible.

That might sound like an argument AGAINST capitalism but actually I'm just pointing out how absurd humans can be. Give people (even the most raging, rebellious socialist) a choice between their iPhone and existing in a "local" economy in all its 1850's glory and I think you'll know what (selfish but reasonable) decision he'll make.

Smiles. You are right on many issues. Sounds like perfect utilitarianism. But you have enormous faith in some transhumanist future that presumes we will evolve into a benevolent trekkie-style species. I do not believe we can do this without at some point examining our rampant consumerism and self-interest. Call it a spiritual awakening, if you will. We can only depend on science to save a portion of us, those who can afford augmentation like you outline....pity about the rest.

Fukuyama

tipptom wrote: »

Do you takr Dennis money envelopes straight to FG Sarah or do you get someone further down the line to do it.

These kind of comments are pure garbage and the reason the left in Ireland are a laughing stock. Any differing opinion and suddenly you're an FG member, "Blueshirt" or somehow directly involved in corruption.

Always light on reason or explanation or actual, workable solutions that don't come from IndyMedia.

Carry on though, you're doing a 5hite job at promoting socialism in Ireland.

KomradeBishop

Dean0088 wrote: »

If the world is ever faced with a big race ending problem, we'll turn to the scientists to fix it and compensate them greatly. In fact, we're doing that already.

Dean0088 wrote: »

I doubt it. That guy is most probably right concerning global warming, however we'll come up with a way to prevent it. We need smart guys like him to warn us of the dangers that lie ahead. And so we adjust course as we are doing right now.

Oil and Coal still dominate world energy. However, it's rapidly switching to nuclear, wind, solar and biochemical solution that are so crazy they just might work. We've used fire since man first stood upright so it'll take another 40 years to make a full switch. But switch we shall.

There is nothing to show that technology will provide any silver bullets - that is a faith-based argument; by the time we start having useful commercial fusion plants, it will have been more than a century since the idea was first realized, and will probably be closer to a century and a half before it's widely adopted (which shows that these promises of technological 'silver bullets', tend to be wildly overoptimistic).

The physicist in that link, explains how we are already past the point where technology can save us, from a pain-free transition to more renewable energy sources.

In the end: You have to end endless exponential growth, to prevent eventual climate change - that is straight-out incompatible with our current form of capitalism, which requires neverending growth.

Jawgap

Wurly wrote: »

Everything is just a theory though. How do you know yours is a fact? So that's why i'm asking you how you arrived at your belief that it's the contrary to what i'm saying.

All knowledge is contestable - there are no truths. What I do know is there is an act of congress, there is an institution and they file returns. I'm content with accepting what I've read from various sources both supportive and critical of the model. People are obviously free to interrogate other sources and take a different view.

Wurly wrote: »

Who and in what context?

Well let's see, it was nearly 10 years ago, there were about 200 people in the lecture and I didn't get everyone's name, but it was Durham Uni Business School.

Wurly wrote: »

Fair point. We should know this information.

What makes you think that people won't protest against this? Why are you angry at protesters? One thing at a time. I'll happily stand in solidarity with you to protest against the hospital groups.

Because Ireland is a parochial country.

Also, I'm not against or angry at the protesters - I think the priorities are screwed up and they are letting themselves be manipulated. Why not turn some of that skepticism on the leaders of the water protest......

.....if those leaders were truly interested in social justice, they'd tell people "don't pay, now let's go help some people....."

And you miss the point on the LHGs - the organisational structure is not the problem, it's the lack of accountability. Maybe if people were interested in resolving the problems with the health services, they'd understand the extent of the accountability deficit therein

Fukuyama

Autonomous Cowherd wrote: »

Smiles. You are right on many issues. Sounds like perfect utilitarianism. But you have enormous faith in some transhumanist future that presumes we will evolve into a benevolent trekkie-style species. I do not believe we can do this without at some point examining our rampant consumerism and self-interest. Call it a spiritual awakening, if you will. We can only depend on science to save a portion of us, those who can afford augmentation like you outline....pity about the rest.

Consumerism came from post-war USA. Wants suddenly became needs and corporations made us all insecure so we HAD to buy the new car, house, phone, shirt whatever.

This wasn't evil or a conspiracy. It was and is marketing.

The youngest generations (born after 9/11) are remarkably marketing savvy. Millennial and Gen Xers are too. Brand loyalty is in the toilet for these age groups and corporations don't know what to do about it because more marketing isn't the answer. It might seem like there are brands everywhere but Starbucks and MacDonalds are loosing ground to small groups of college students setting up cafés and burrito joints. They've had a bigger impact on their profits and share price than any protest, injunction or boycott.

So, remarkably, tacking corporations isn't best done through socialism but through capitalism.

And if you think Apple and Samsung aren't scratching their heads at how to tackle this little gem then you're wrong.

Setting up a business and tackling problems for the average person is easier now than it every has been throughout history. And, to balance things out, you can open your laptop and buy Apple shares if you fancy.

I also don't put faith in a trans-human future. The technology exists and is being used. Soldiers with no limbs are having bionic legs hooked up to their brains while a new leg is being grown in Berlin for them. We're sending humans to Mars soon to live there forever.

Fukuyama

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There is nothing to show that technology will provide any silver bullets - that is a faith-based argument; by the time we start having useful commercial fusion plants, it will have been more than a century since the idea was first realized, and will probably be closer to a century and a half before it's widely adopted (which shows that these promises of technological 'silver bullets', tend to be wildly overoptimistic).

The physicist in that link, explains how we are already past the point where technology can save us, from a pain-free transition to more renewable energy sources.

In the end: You have to end endless exponential growth, to prevent eventual climate change - that is straight-out incompatible with our current form of capitalism, which requires neverending growth.

I'm no expert on gloabal warming so I don't know how much I can offer here but what I will say is that it's a wild argument against Denis O Brian and capitalism because there are no reasonable alternatives (I know you weren't targeting him in saying it).

I'd rather a painful switch to biofuels or whatever than a painful (and bloody) switch to world-wide socialism. Particularly the brand of socialism advocating asset redistribution.

Germany is leading the pack IMO when it comes to alternative energy because they binned nuclear, told NIMBY moaners to shut it and built more windfarms and experimental solar farms than God could.

A few months back (a year?) Ireland was proposing a wind farm that would have put us in a sellers position (main market - UK). Straight away the issue was canned because people didn't want a windfarm spoiling their view in the bog arse of Leitrim or somewhere.

Where was the social unity there? Ireland could have literally held a huge trump card against the "old enemy" and put ourselves in a great position to be Europe's little Atlantic generator with a finger on the power button.

People are self interested and any solution has to work with, not against that human trait.