Major Disasters: are they Major enough?

[joe_eschaton]

I think natural disasters are good for humanity, like war is the hygiene of the world. I can think of no better or proven means to establish a general redistrbution of wealth. We just need more of them. See people rise to the challenges, help each other out, concentrate on what's important. I support terrorism, of a kind. I loved the Guardian reader's chattering response to Bush: 'how can you declare war on an abstract concept'? Indeed, so I make it known here that I can't be expected to advocate an abstraction either. All the same, terror hasn't really existed as an abstract concept before. I know I support it in its substance, but I don't know as yet in what form. By corrupting the language, disrupting institutions and collectives, or cultures?

Any group mentality, including nationalism/patriotism, is like falling hopelessly and suspiciously in love with the girl next door if you ask me. A pitiable proximity syndrome.

[caledfwlch]

the recent Natural Disasters are merely Nature and Evolution in action, attempting to save itself from disaster from the predatory race which is heavily overpopulating and overcrowding the world to a point where the natural resources simply wont support life, so Nature is simply taking premptive action to save itself, a similar argument could be made for aids, simply being nature/evolution culling the species as we have reached to large a number to be supported, in the insect world this happens with some species, if the population hits a certain number, then strange diseases break out from nowhere culling around 50% of the population, thus enabling the entire race to survive as its entire food supply is then not eaten.

[joe_eschaton]

I'll buy that for a dollar, as long as we aren't supposing a consciousness or purpose in nature, but are merely describing her blind tendencies. But even the equilibrium idea is a bit optimistic if you ask me. The only regularity in nature is a regular irregularity.

Either way, ice age coming ice age coming, throw it in the fire throw it in the fire throw it on the... we're not scaremongering, this is really happening happening...

[flstf]

Mr. Smith from "The Matrix"

"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure."

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by joe_eschaton

I think natural disasters are good for humanity, like war is the hygiene of the world. I can think of no better or proven means to establish a general redistrbution of wealth. We just need more of them. See people rise to the challenges, help each other out, concentrate on what's important. I support terrorism, of a kind. I loved the Guardian reader's chattering response to Bush: 'how can you declare war on an abstract concept'? Indeed, so I make it known here that I can't be expected to advocate an abstraction either. All the same, terror hasn't really existed as an abstract concept before. I know I support it in its substance, but I don't know as yet in what form. By corrupting the language, disrupting institutions and collectives, or cultures?

Any group mentality, including nationalism/patriotism, is like falling hopelessly and suspiciously in love with the girl next door if you ask me. A pitiable proximity syndrome.

Natural disasters, like wars, kill people and result in vast amounts of human suffering. If you are openly advocating for there to be more natural disasters, you are also condoning the levels of suffering that are caused by those events. I find this to be reprehensible.

A general redistribution of wealth? Were you watching the news during Hurricane Katrina? The poor of New Orleans were most affected by the storm: the poor neighborhoods were the furthest below sea level and they are the least able to rebuild after the disaster. Furthermore, as you later stated, natural disasters are unpredictable. There is clearly a contradiction between considering natural disasters to be a "proven means to establish a general redistribution of wealth" and saying that they are unpredictible.

And you support terrorism, I see. But... you ridicule Bush for opposing terrorism because it's an abstract concept? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand what the war on terror is about: of course the literal target of the war is not terrorism, but the terrorists who practice it. However, the goal, at least on a basic level, is to prevent terrorism. Furthermore, terrorism is not an abstract concept any more than chemical warfare is abstract. Again, I find your approval of terrorism to be reprehensible, as terrorism causes great suffering for large numbers of people.

FYI, it is obviously preferable, in my mind, to proudly wave the flag of your homeland than to (metaphorically) wave the dual flags of natural disasters and terrorism. But maybe I feel that way because I oppose the abstract concept of human suffering: call be crazy...

[joe_eschaton]

You've thought long and hard. But what about I'm not sure...

What is necessarily wrong with suffering? To say suffering is wrong is to harbour an outdated morality of morals view. We could equally maintain that suffering is good for us, it sanctifies us and gives life meaning. A bit more of it would concentrate the mind and refine the spirit of the species no end. Pity is for poofs. Be practical man...

Be inspired.

[Rekna]

i'd have to disagree that natural dissasters help redistribute welth, unless you mean take from the poor and give to the rich.

To the rich a natural disaster is an inconvence that makes them a lot of money. They get the contracts to rebuild, their insurance covers all that they lost, and in the end they end up in a possition where can take advantage of the poor. The poor on the other hand loose everything they have, become desperate, and have no way of getting it back. In fact i bet in new orleans you will see a lot of the poor land owners selling their land to rich people who will build either nice luxory hotels/appartments or buisnesses.

To further strengthen my arguement lets look at it at a macro level. A natural disaster hits pakistan or india and entire regions are wiped out, the have tens if not hundreds of thousands of deaths. One hits the US and the results are not nearly as bad. A couple hundred dead, things returning to somewhat normalicy (depending on severity) in weeks to months.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by flstf

Mr. Smith from "The Matrix"

Never quote from the Matrix on anything scientific. #1 Humans make really god awful batteries, #2 all organisms act in the manner described.

[politicophile]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Never quote from the Matrix on anything scientific. #1 Humans make really god awful batteries, #2 all organisms act in the manner described.

Agreed. The "humans as batteries" thing was particularly strange. Maybe the laws of thermodynamics are just a construct of the Matrix?

The other point about flstf's quotation from "The Matrix" is that natural equilibrium is not a definitional trait of mammals. The argument is analogous to this one:
1. All men that were in this room before 4:00 were bald.
2. The "man" who entered the room at 4:01 was not bald.
C. It clearly follows that this late enterer is not a man.

The fact that, in Agent Smith's observation, all mammals maintain an equilibrium with nature is incidental, as this is not an essential characteristic of mammals.

Sorry for the threadjack: I was temporarily stupified by looking at the idiocy that got joe_eschaton banned from this place.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by politicophile

Agreed. The "humans as batteries" thing was particularly strange. Maybe the laws of thermodynamics are just a construct of the Matrix?

Hyperion did it MUCH better, where the evil computers were using human brains for their processing power. I didn't see the Matrix until many years after it was out and I really had a hard time swallowing the 'battery' theory. I take it the computers never heard of geothermal or nuclear power.