"An Essay on the Principle of Population" by Thomas Malthus.
I read this book because it has been recommended as one of the influences for the modern capitalist system. Adam smith is regarded as the founding father of our current economic system and the ideas of Malthus which are presented in this book serve as a solidifying justification to further support the capitalist class system.

As much as I detest the inhumane and completely debunked conclusions of this book, I did give it 2 stars, rather than one. This is because i do think the book is important as a way of peering deeply into the severely flawed mechanics and ideology which supports our modern system. A very good example of a bad example, so to speak.
The basic idea of the book is that if humans all had their basic needs met, then they would reproduce exponentially, covering the Earth and destroying the habitat. Therefore the majority, the poor and working classes must always live in poverty, starvation and disease, in order to keep their numbers in check. Almost any attempt to create a more equal society, to lift the lower classes up out of poverty or feed them, runs against nature and would be harmful to the whole, to the survival and fitness of the "race". He goes on further to explain how the higher classes are exempt from this rule because of their "christianly" well-breeding and self restraint. In short, he justifies a world where the few live in luxury, ease and plenty while the masses of humanity toil for them, largely starving and dying off to keep population in check.
All the while he claims that these views are actually the findings of reason and science. To support his claims of scientific evidence, he uses a long list of outdated assumptions, truncated examples, biased hypothetical scenarios and religious rhetoric. One particularly absurd claim I can remember is when he said such and such is true "because, as science has proven, the Earth is 5,000 or 6,000 years old." Hmmm... I wonder what scientific text he researched in order to come up with that figure. Any guesses?
Anyway, I think this book is very important, not only as an amusing peek into the past when people believed absurd notions for lack of more accurate data. It is important because such a dangerous amount of people still believe the basic idea today, in spite of the vast information, research and data which has long since disproved his ideas. Not only have the ideas been thoroughly disproved from many angles, but we actually are actually still living in a system which was founded on and supports these beliefs.
First of all, is his main premise, that if humans have enough of the basic necessities of life and are not controlled by poverty and starvation, then they will multiply at an exponential rate, causing overpopulation. It has been shown that this is actually the opposite of what has been later observed in our world. Women in poor countries tend to have less children as they are able to receive proper nutrition, clean drinking water, education, etc... Women also have less children when basic medical treatment is available. It has been shown that in situations where there is a high infant mortality rate, there is also an even higher birth rate.
I won't pick apart every one of Malthus' numerous incorrect assumptions here but I will say that I think the mistake ultimately lies with his incorrect beliefs as to what "human nature" is. This is very common and seems to be a root issue especially then, and even now. although now luckily science seems to be shedding light slowly on the issue. Unfortunately, belief systems are slow to adjust to new information and there is a dangerous 'culture-lag'.
Human nature has long been thought of as an force that comes from within the person and cannot be changed, only managed. It was assumed that human nature is selfish, greedy, aggressive and competitive... and cannot be any other way. In ancient times, this view was supported by religions (especially Malthus' own obviously Christian bias). Later, psychology took the same view, except in its own language with people like Frued, and finally came the study genetics which further seemed as if "human nature" comes from within, deciding how we will be and behave.
It turns out that very little of behavior is programmed by the actual genes. The genes merely give options for traits that can be expressed. It is eventually the social environment that decides which traits do become expressed. Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University is one of many biologists who show that human behavior is very adaptable, not fixed. It is influenced by the environment, not from within.
This completely changes the conversation as to what a healthy society should be, because the conclusions of people like Malthus, Adam Smith and capitalism in general rely on the belief that humans are only self-interested, selfish and competitive. It has been said that capitalism, with its inequality, competition and scarcity-based mechanisms is the ideal system to harness and work with this selfishness that is human nature. In fact, selfish and competitive traits are a response to a highly competitive, scarcity based social system, not the reverse. The realization coming from these findings is that this is not the only way society could be organized. In a more equal, collaborative and abundant society, we would see our flexible "human nature" expressing traits which are suited to such an environment. Traits such as collaboration, intelligence, empathy and creativity would be the parts of "human nature" which would be expressed, rather than competitiveness and aggression, as are necessary in today's system.
Because of the view of human nature which was upheld when Malthus wrote An Essay on The Principal of Population, he saw the human (and especially the masses of the poor) as children which must be controlled by poverty and starvation rather than helped to escape such poverty. This view was convenient for him to have, since he was part of the educated leisure and business class which lives from the labor of the poor. It would be extremely inconvenient for him to realize or even glimpse the fact that those in his class are rich simply BECAUSE there are desperate masses who have nothing and are willing to submit (if you can call it willing) to labor. It is just as inconvenient and unlikely that the capitalist economists of today will have these realizations. Luckily, scientific inquiry and social progress march on.



Also, here is a great article by Charles Eisenstein:

Concern about overpopulation is a red herring; consumption's the problem

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/concern-overpopulation-red-herring-consumption-problem-sustainability


And I wrote this as an ultra-summary:

 If you say the word "overpopulation", then you have a responsibility to name what the proper population number would be. otherwise, if you have no number than how can you claim we are under it or over it? That ideal population number is dependent on the economic system that a population uses to organize it's self. Our current system is definitely "overpopulated" by this logic, but a more efficient system could sustainably handle higher numbers. But, you know all of this, Colin Turner. Right? That is the problem with the word "overpopulation".
NAC, 7/1/2019

Looking Backward Review

I just finished reading "Looking Backwards From 1887 to 2000" by Edward Bellamy. Very interesting science-fiction book written in 1887. It is pretty refreshing to read such a utopian vision of the future. In the story, the main character finds himself in the future (the year 2000). He is taken care of by the doctor that found him and the doctor's family. The book mostly consists of conversations between this person from 1887 and the doctor from 2000, in which the doctor explains how the world has changed, outgrowing money, poverty, class, war and scarcity. Descriptions of the world of 2000 are constantly contrasted with harsh but surprisingly accurate criticisms of 1887 capitalism... its vast wealth inequality, poverty, the inefficiency of competition and consumerism, the endless illnesses of capitalist society. Ironically much of the criticisms of 1887 are insightful as a reader into our own time, this being 2015. Unfortunately, little of the issues talked about have been solved even though in some areas, their symptoms may have lessened.

The world in the year 2000 is basically a communist utopia, meaning that the future described is one where the ideas of communism have created a society which works for all, without any negative aspects mentioned in the book, and so therefore do not exist in the fictional scenario. I say it is a communist utopia, (although communism is never mentioned in the book) specifically because capitalism and money have been abolished, every human in the society has employment at jobs which they enjoy, the government has been put fully in charge of all labor and production, and the government exists only to organize jobs and the production/distribution of goods for the citizens. In the future described, there are still nations, but there is no war and nations collaborate with each other.
One of the things I was wondering while reading this vision of the future is, why was there so much emphasis on full employment? Why is it considered such a worthy goal that the future should cling to work, when it is obvious to me in 2015 that advanced technology should be used to free humanity from toil? But then I am forced to admit that I can't blame the writer of 1887 for not visioning labor-freeing technologies for his '2000', when in reality, we haven't gotten there yet either in 2015.
The book can be wordy at times due to the language of the day and a few views on social problems are dated and might even seem sexist or archaic to the modern reader. Overall I think it is a surprisingly progressive and insightful exploration as to the problems with capitalist society as well some thoughtful solutions.

 Another interesting point the book brought for me is this, and I think it is the most important one:
The main character is learning about a futuristic utopia where society takes care of all of its people and everyone gets along, neither competing with each other of seeking personal profit. The character mentions several times that "human nature must have changed" to make people cooperate in this way. It is explained and illustrated many times throughout the book that human nature its self hasn't changed, but that since society treated people fairly and humanely, people just act different and accordingly.

To me, this issue of human nature is a very important one and it is refreshing to see the writer of 1887 understand it so clearly, even in spite of the fact that the belief in his day was that people are naturally competitive, aggressive and selfish. The belief was that nothing can be done to change society, other than to try to control people from their selfish nature. This belief was one of the primary inspirations for the development of the competitive capitalist system and its philosophy.
This misunderstanding of human nature still persists today but fortunately modern science is showing that human's behavior is almost totally influenced by the environment, by the type of social system in which we live.

Humans are in fact highly flexible and adapt to what society requires of them.
If a human finds themselves in a highly competitive society which shows no regard for them, they will express traits that are aggressive, competitive, selfish, even sociopathic. On the other hand, if a human is in an environment where collaboration, empathy, thoughtfulness and these things are valued, then the human will express other traits that benefit that scenario.
So, then what kind of system do we currently live in and what does it demand from our highly adaptive "human nature"? How does it shape us?
The book "Looking Backwards From 1887 to 2000" Does a great job of illustrating this concept that modern behavioral science is finally coming to recognize with the help of people like Dr. Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University, Dr. Gabor Maté and many others.

2015 Untitled Portrait

"Untitled Portrait"

by Neil Adam Collins

12" x 16"

Oil on Masonite Panel.

The power of words

This reminds me of what happened in the book "1984". In that fictional book, the authoritarian government was in a process of narrowing down of the language, so that there were less and less words that could be used by the people. This process of using less words benefitted the power structure because if people do not possess certain words then it becomes almost impossible for them to hold certain concepts in their minds, to ask certain questions, to criticize certain things about society. Yes, it is true that many words have been subverted, but abandoning these words is to commit intellectual suicide and to diminish our ability to use critical thinking.

One interesting word is "radical" this word has come to be used to describe anyone who has crazy or extreme political views, and many times implies that they tend towards possible violence. I also doubt that many of the people who use the word in this way actually stop to wonder the meaning. The word Radical means simply 'to go to the root'. It has always meant this and has the same meaning when used in mathematics (when searching for the square root of a number). So, this is a very useful word because it points to the importance of looking to and addressing root causes when thinking about politics or social issues. This ''root-cause" thinking is very rare in out political discussions and instead the focus is alway on symptoms and a never ending stream of proposal for patch-work solutions. 

These words should not be abandoned but should be retaken. If a person does not know the meaning of a word or is misusing it then this is a wonderful opportunity for conversation, for the spreading of information, which is usually more powerful for social change and progress than any party politics could dream of being.

Root Causes

Here are some thoughts about critiques of capitalism, Federal Reserve Banking, Fiat Currency, etc...

It is important information that you are sharing and it is definitely a start to get people thinking about. At a more root level, it is also important to realize that these things which are usually refered to as "corruption" or greed are actually symptoms of how money works. It is not just the kind of money that we use. Money in the first place oporates out of scarcity, competition and inequality. These things are inherent to the use of money. Money and these negative aspects of it may have been useful or even necessary at one time in the past but they are now obsolete and harmful to the social/psychological condition of humanity, not to mention the environment. Money creates the need for people to compete with eachother, to submit to eachother for labor in order to survive and to fall into classes in an unequal, hierarchical system. These things are usually looked at as inevitable things that we must put up with because they are part of human nature and will always be with us. Fortunately, this outdated scientific misunderstanding is being overturned by new research and information which is coming from modern science. These old ideas come from misinterpretations of evolutionary theory which was popularized by people like Thomas Malthus (Essays on the Theory of Populations), ad further spread by Adam Smith and the like. Human Nature is an incredibly important topic because the common understanding of it is extremely incorrect and outdated. And as I said, "human nature" is used as the basic justification for a competitive monetary system which leaves over a billion humans. In short, Money its self is obsolete and has become incredibly harmful, yet we seem incapable of updating our society because of these old ideas. We currently live in a world where because of scientific progress and technology, we have the ability to create and abundant society for every human on the planet without need for mindless toil or environmental damage. However, this level of personal freedom, prosperity, equality and sustainability is not compatible with the use of money, even though it is technically possible.

I realize it is not possible to go to far into the root in such a short video. I think your video is great and I am only saying the things it makes me think of. Great work




$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Human Nature

It is very possible that many people who commit horrible atrocities actually cannot be rehabilitated. Never the less, coming to a logical understanding of the causes of their disfunction can still help us to minimize the further creation of such people. "Human nature" is widely misunderstood but luckily, the behavioral sciences are making huge leaps in this area in recent years. 

The basic understanding is coming out of the scientific community, that the human is highly adaptable and that behavior is almost completely created by the environment, in our case, the social environment or society. If we live in an abusive society which values competition, people having power over others (or as Terence would say, a "dominator culture), a society where compassion and cooperation are not useful for 'success', then I think it is no wonder that many humans show violent, sociopathic behavior. 

Very little of behavior is programmed by the actual genes. The genes merely give options for traits that can be expressed. It is eventually the social environment that decides which traits do become expressed. 

This is further clear when realizing that almost all severely violent offenders are people who they themselves experienced abuse and severe trauma or neglect in their own lives. 

I really feel as if this issue of "human nature", or the misunderstandings of it is one of the key issues that has the power to radically improve our world if looked into.
NAC



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-brqskIoBw



Here is what I'd call an INFODUMP on the topic.

They fought for your freedoms....?

A few thoughts on the military in the context of "Our troops fighting for your freedom is the reason why activists, liberals and peace-lovers even have the privilege to complain about the military in the first place."




Don't believe anyone who tells you that they fought for your freedoms by fighting in the military. They are lying, although they probably believe the lie. They actually fought for the rich ($), for the corporations ($), for the profit of weapons dealers ($), global construction contractors($), Oil tycoons ($), the debt-profiteers like the IMF ($), They fought for the interests of central banking cartels ($), on and on. This is what they fought for, make no mistake. This is true even back to George Washington and forever after, it is nothing new. 

Any "freedoms" you enjoy in the USA were fought for by the people, and they usually had to fight hard against the US government and rich elites in order to get those freedoms. Worker's rights had to be fought for by workers. Several of the early US presidents are documented as deploying troops to gun down striking workers in the thousands at the whim of factory owners ($). Gunned down for demanding wages enough to eat with, shorter than 16 hour work days and safe working conditions. 

Black people's rights were fought for mostly by black citizens, not 'given' by Lincoln, like they tell you in first grade. Women's right were fought for by women, not by soldiers. Child labor, freedom of speech, the list goes on and on. 

The people have always had to fight against the interests of the rich and the government, the interests of power. At first they are called dissenters, terrorists, etc.... Then when they begin to finally win, the government passes a law of 'permission' and takes all the credit. Patriotism is a scam. It is incorrect to ever state that POWER can ever be "corrupt" because it is inherently INVALID directly from its root. -NAC

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"Stockholm syndrome = flag worship.

"Stockholm syndrome, or capture-bonding, is a psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and sympathy and have positive feelings toward their captors, sometimes to the point of defending and identifying with the captors" -APM

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the beauty of patriotism, war, nationalism and the men and women who defend "our freedoms". You be the judge if the flag is worthy of respect...

By the way, this isn't liberal propaganda. This is found on a right wing consevative news site. This is the kind of rhetoric that many gung-ho patriots use to defend their pride in "The best goddammned country in the goddammned world". 

-NAC