Defense Issues

Military and general security

Space X: Greed Makes Stupid

Posted by picard578 on September 9, 2016

Greed and stupidity are intrinsically connected. Stupid people are greedy because they do not know how to identify what they truly lack, and thus try to compensate for that lack with material goods. Greedy people are stupid, because greed – as explained – is a form of stupidity. And today, we are seeing the death of humanity.

At first, humans stared at stars in wonder. They were motivated by awe. In Galileo’s time, they were motivated by curiosity (and scientists, at least, still are). But today, main motivator is greed. This reductionalism of motivation is merely a consequence of reduction of humanity itself.

Nietzsche has said, “God is dead”. Today, it is correct to say that “Humanity is dead”. There may be seven billion individuals on the planet right now, but it is hard to find a human among them. Thanks to rampant materialism and other ideologies, human is no longer seen as a spiritual being, a creator, worthy of respect because he is a human in his entirety. Instead, human being is being torn apart. Capitalism sees humans merely as expendable tools for production of profit, to be discarded once broken. Progressivism sees human merely as a mental patient, someone who must not have his own thoughts, but merely ones approved by the progressivism itself (this characteristic is inherent in all totalitarian ideologies, from Islam to Nazism – if you can control human thoughts, no other control is necessary). Socialism goes a step further; in human, it sees a sick person, incapable of life in every way. Islam, despite its status as a religion, is no different from other ideologies: human beings are expendable, their only purpose is to spread Islam, and if they do not accept Islam, they are killed. Islam is a completely wordly ideology, despite its status as a religion: there is nothing spiritual in it.

All these ideologies negate human spirituality as well as human completeness, reducing human being to merely one of various aspects of its existence, just like blind men trying to describe an elephant. This is why they are so similar, and so helpful to each other. Just like Communists and Nazis cooperated in fighting the establishment until one of said groups got to power in a certain country, today progressivism and Islam cooperate in conquering human mind and establishing totalitarianism of thought. Globalization is a tool of this totalitarianism of thought: humans are tribal animals, and new ideas appear at rate that is proportional to number of tribes. Having large tribes means that no new ideas appear easily, and if they do, they are easily destroyed. This is one of reasons why Islam – where loyalty to “religion” is more important than loyalty to state – is so regressive (or “progressive”, in the politically-correct dictionary), and dangerous. Today, this effect of supranational tribe, or more accurately of a supranational Borg Collective-like hive mind, is being emulated in the West through supranational institutions of European Union, NATO, World Trade Organization and similar. Tribalism does lead to conflict, but it also leads to progress, as new ideas more easily find healthy ground, and tribes (nations) can look to each other to see what works, and what does not. In fact, progress without conflict is impossible.

But stupidity is profitable to those in power. This is especially in problem, as those in power tend to have sociopathic and psychopathic characteristics which, in fact, are the reason why they have acquired the power (unless inherited, but in that case they typically inherit the pattern of thought as well). So those in power favor the integration and globalization, to more easily propagate their stupidity across the globe. At the same time, their stupidity makes them invest into projects that are, in the long term, destructive to humanity. Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan are claimed as great people, because their stupidity was profitable to plutocrats controlling this world. Intelligent they were, but stupid, as repeated failures of neoliberal model show. Profit and greed are pushed as being driving forces of advancement, by the stupid, for the stupid. Yet history, the ultimate teacher, shows that greed has destroyed every civilization that has come to rely on it, just as is happening today with the Western civilization. NASA has a budget of 18 billion USD; Pentagon has a budget of 600 billion USD, to protect the plutocrats, and make profits for the defense industry. Profitable stupidity has destroyed the Roman Empire, as plutocrats had undermined its social and economic basis (a process which started during the Punic wars, with large landowners increasing their latifundia, and destroying the small landowner caste which had provided the Roman Republic with soldiers). In the end, stupid greed is what will destroy the human species, long before some piece of space gravel happens upon the Earth.

Patrice Ayme's Thoughts

One can be smart, without being really intelligent. A crocodile can be smart, but it is not really intelligent. And this true not just of individuals, but of civilizations.

We live in the age of stupid. A major freeway which I know all too well, has proclaimed itself “smart”, according to the giant, very bright LED panels along it. Those “smarts” involve red lights on access ramps. By smoothing the flow in, they are supposed to make traffic smoother. And they do. On the freeway. The freeway flows a tiny bit better, but traffic jams on the streets and roads leading to said access ramps extend now for miles, and the global gridlock is worse than ever, because those blockages in turn block streets and roads parallel to the giant freeway (those secondary thoroughfares used to carry traffic parallel to that of the freeway plus local traffic; now they are…

View original post 2,024 more words

Advertisements

15 Responses to “Space X: Greed Makes Stupid”

  1. Thanks for reblogging my essay, Picard!

  2. Thanks for reblogging my essay, Picard! Now to answer your comment:

    Witnessing the end of humanity? That’s beautifully direct, Picard! And correct. One way or another. It will be either through total durable destruction of human civilization (it could happen by rendering industry unfeasible), or through “transhumanism”.

    It’s true that greed and stupidity are connected. I did not look at it that way. I guess, I am too greedy…

    I will not go as far as asserting, Nietzsche like, that the last man has already perished (did not he have something like that in ‘Also Spracht Zarathustra”?). First there would be my daughter, and quite a few people I know, including you and me.
    However, I can see what you mean. Right wing Nazism, Fascismo claimed actually to be left-wing, and so did Sovietism, Maoism, Khemr Rougeism, etc. In truth all were variant of fascism, like the Japan imperial model.

    There are two extreme types of societies: at one end, the OPEN SOCIETY extolled by Pericles (Karl Popper grabbed the title). At the other end, the fascist society.
    Both reflect not just two opposite social models, the open one, and the fascist one. They reflect two opposite brain modes.

    Openness enables curiosity: it’s the equivalent of the wavy quantum looking everywhere.
    Fascism enables reduced mental instructions, the concentration of all behind the one, creating a superorganism, best for fighting.

    I agree with your observations in general.

    The destruction of Rome was, no doubt the product of extreme and increasing inequality.

    The failures of Rome were, first, internal (the rise of fascism, hence intellectual fascism, hence stupidity; the generalship/consultship system of Republican Rome was much superior relative to the latter system of simply smacking an emperor at the top; the municipal government collapsed from lack of funding, the curiate crisis; tax evasion by the middle class brought tax harassment by bureaucracy; austerity collapsed research, including military research, and all of defense, etc.)

    We are following the same drift as Rome. Just faster, thanks to faster tech.

    • picard578 said

      “I will not go as far as asserting, Nietzsche like, that the last man has already perished (did not he have something like that in ‘Also Spracht Zarathustra”?). First there would be my daughter, and quite a few people I know, including you and me.”

      I did not say that. I merely said that “it is hard to find a human”, not impossible. Out of people I know/knew, only a few care about things such as morality, history, ecology… or anything beyond their immediate concerns of sleeping, eating, taking a shit and similar. Most of said people happen to be university professors.

      “However, I can see what you mean. Right wing Nazism, Fascismo claimed actually to be left-wing, and so did Sovietism, Maoism, Khemr Rougeism, etc. In truth all were variant of fascism, like the Japan imperial model.”

      Fascism can be both right-wing and left-wing, and tends to have characteristics of both… in fact, I would assert that all ideologies are inherently dangerous, because they provide a preset pattern of thought instead of allowing people to create their own worldview through experience. Such preset patterns unavoidably lead to thought-reality disconnect, and well… when ideology and facts collide, that worse for the facts. Ideology makes stupid, even when it is a relatively benign ideology such as humanism.

      Basically, if you want an ideology, you should create your own.

      “The failures of Rome were, first, internal (the rise of fascism, hence intellectual fascism, hence stupidity; the generalship/consultship system of Republican Rome was much superior relative to the latter system of simply smacking an emperor at the top; the municipal government collapsed from lack of funding, the curiate crisis; tax evasion by the middle class brought tax harassment by bureaucracy; austerity collapsed research, including military research, and all of defense, etc.) ”

      It is the large landowners that evaded the tax the most, meaning that most of it fell onto middle class (which again evaded some) and the low class. Now, there were barbarian invasions… but you see, barbarians did not actually want to destroy the Empire (unlike the Muslim invaders later); they wanted to live in it, as unlike Muslims, they had nothing to counter to it (most said barbarians were already Christians). All barbarian “kings” emulated the lifestyle of Roman Emperors and patricians, and their soldiers settled on the land by following the “tertia” rule. So the average person did not even notice that the Empire “collapsed”, and barbarian rulers accepted the primacy of Constantinople. The reason why this happened so easily is because the average citizen had no stake in the Empire’s survival. They did not participate in the government – either at local or imperial level. They had no military experience, as the military was entirely professional, and they had only hate for the Imperial tax collectors. For them, barbarian invasions and rule were a relief. The middle class was actually largely destroyed by the rich through unlimited acquisition of land (“latifundia”), which is in fact what collapsed the military system of the Republic, and tax evasion was easy for the higher class (as it is today). This in turn led to appearance of a professional military, which means that the appearance of the Empire was a symptom of a plutocracy, not a cause… it also means that the Empire was doomed from the onset, as it was nothing but a symptom of a disease. Interestingly, 9th-11th century Roman Empire went back to the military of small landowners (the Theme system), and it proved far more capable than either earlier professional military or later feudal military systems employed by the Empire, likely in part because it limited plutocracy.

      “We are following the same drift. Just faster, thanks to faster tech.”

      Indeed we are. The history repeats itself, every time more quickly, and each time it hurts more than the last time. Yet many people I have talked to over the Internet believe that history is irrelevant because “things are different”, when they really are not. Studying the collapse of Rome has major implications for the modern society… especially since modern society is largely based on that of Rome (even modern administrative practices are merely a slight improvement over those introduced by Diocletian in the late 3rd century).

      • purasuchikku said

        Any book recommendation on the Roman empire collapse?

        • picard578 said

          Not much that I can remember, there are “History of Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbon, “The Fall of the Roman Empire” by Peter Heather (haven’t read the last one), as well as Henri Pirenne’s books “Charlemagne and Mohammad” and “History of Europe” if you want to know how that connects into Middle Ages. Personally, I was always more interested in the Roman military, and I have an unfortunate habit of forgetting the titles of books I have read (as well as years, names etc.).

  3. altandmain said

    It is that money and the accumulation of material wealth becomes the end into itself. It becomes like a drug. It is not so much money they are after as much as it is the status that think money will bring.

    There is a certain level of civic virtue needed for a society to function, especially amongst the rich. Perhaps a poignant example is the “we’re all in this together” mentality of WW2 versus today.

    • picard578 said

      Agreed. But multiculturalism does not allow precisely that mentality to form. During the late Roman Empire, when invaders entered the Empire they did not assimilate into Roman culture, they continued to live and fight on their own, under their own chieftains and their own culture and traditions. As a result, Roman Empire dissolved. And as much as progressives would like to ignore that fact, nothing has changed.

  4. To Purasuchikku: On the Roman Empire collapse, I recommend… my site. I have thought long and hard on the problem, read many books. I am along the lines Picard evoked. I am actually going to publish on more essay on that, imminently.

    One caveat, though: the Republic established the empire. However, the empire was rotten at the core, from its start under Augustus. And it has to do with its nervous, and thinking, system.

    Many authors think the Roman empire was a success. But the empire did not create the empire. The Republic did.

    • picard578 said

      I would say that the Empire was a symptom of the problems that the Republic suffered from in its later years. Basically, the plutocracy metastized and created the Empire. Empire could never be not rotten, because it represented everything wrong with the Republic.

      • 100% correct. Actually the Gracchi said it at time, around 140 BCE, in the most striking terms, observed that the unfortunates of Rome, who had built Rome, as forced to live like “wild beasts”.
        The Gracchi just wanted to ENFORCE existing, and ancient, anti-plutocratic laws. Those laws had been foiled by globalization. The analogies with what is happening today are far-ranging, and absolute.
        Admirers of the Roman empire, in contradistinction with the Roman Republic, admire a metastatic cancer.

        • picard578 said

          Yes… and today we see identical symptoms. Not only in depth, where the rich are taking more and more power. What I’m talking about is the current focus on individuality in politics, where political parties all have identical programmes, and rely on personalities of their leaders to gain votes. Leader’s popularity and personality wins in the voting system, not actual program, because programs are all the same – enriching the rich, stealing from the poor, internationalization, globalization etc. This too happened in Rome, with the result that populist leaders eventually became actual emperors.

    • altandmain said

      The other big challenge was the corruption of the Patrician class. They were the evil aristocracy of their day.

      Perhaps if there were leaders that invested in their people, their infrastructure, and addressing the social injustices of Rome. The very rich plutocracy, left out of control would plunder society. Alas, most did not.

      Trajan comes to mind as one of the better emperors in that regard.

      • Trajan was as good as a Roman emperor got. Indeed. However, the very principle of one man thinking for all is flawed. The Gracchi, and Caesar were patricians. Patricians had led the rebellion against king Tarquinus Superbus. Globalization led to plutocratization, according to the same principle as today.

      • altandmain said

        It seems that today’s patricians – the very rich, are willfully ignorant of history. Considering their access to the Internet and modern technology, it is more inexcusable than ever. Sadly, the worst aspects of human nature overcome any reason. Greed will destroy us if left unchecked.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: