Amen to Charles.
Lack of interest in technological advances and depopulation led to Roman decline and collapse. Although Malthus has been repeatedly discredited, he still seems to roam around like a zombie.
What's fascinating to me in this discussion is its volume and variety of defense. It shows to me that people are defensive and afraid about being hypocritical for buying computers and iphones -- it shows that all the more because it's a completely unnecessary fear: OWS targets corporate profiteer's influence in government at the expense of labor and everyone else. It has not (yet) targeted corporate products themselves.
The problem is not in using products or even in buying them. It's where the money goes after you buy them. There's nothing hypocritical about using a computer. It's not your fault that your government has been bought out by the money you spent on it. It's that collusion beyond the access of the ordinary consumer that OWS is proposing to change.
To suggest that limiting corporate influence would cripple innovation and R&D is unfounded if not flatly false. If we invested in education and raised the living standards of the poor -- poverty is directly correlated to success in education -- we'd be rolling in inventions to solve our sustainability problems. And if we released government from corporate control, government could help get those inventions multiplied and realized.
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Charles <email@example.com>
I think that when the left stops focusing on sustainable prosperity
for all and starts focusing on post-humanist Malthusian neo-
traditionalism, well, that's where a lot of people get off.
Lower East Side Residents for Responsible Developmenthttp://savethelowereastside.blogspot.com/
622 E 11, #10