Capitalism

Capitalism is very similar to evolution by natural selection. The problem with evolution and capitalism is that there is no wisdom involved. In capitalism there is a constant competition and only the fittest survives, just like in evolution.

I will quote Darwin: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."

So, you see, suffering is an intrinsic part of evolution. Do we really want a system based on war, famine and death?

Just like evolution, capitalism creates its parasites and also its immune system, the parasites of capitalism are people who earn money by harming others and there are a lot of them. For example, capitalism creates thieves (parasites) and also creates the police (immune system). Thieves would not exist in a society where goods are spread equally. The inequality created by capitalism creates criminals so it also has to create the police.

Thieves are not the only parasites of capitalism. To me, all bureaucrats and all bankers are parasites. Politicians and lawyers are other parasitic life forms.

In capitalism, people don't care about harming others, they don't care about nature. If they can earn money from destroying nature and destroying human lives, they will because in capitalism money is more important than anything, it's more important than nature, health, peace and life. Smoking harms people and yet people are selling cigarettes and we consider it normal, that's how brainwashed we are.

Capitalism has created a new GOD, its name is "money".

Capitalism also creates wars. The war in Iraq is a good example. One of the objectives of it was to "secure Iraq's petroleum infrastructure". The USA wanted the petroleum.

The Second World War was also created (indirectly) by capitalism. It's no coincidence that WW2 started during the Great Depression. Germany was in a desperate state, it had to pay debts to the countries it attacked in WW1 but the unemployment rate soared to 30% (1932). Desperate times call for desperate measures, so the Nazi Party (with Hitler) was elected to power.

Before the Great Depression, the Nazi Party had 2,6% of votes (1928), after the Great Depression started (1929), the Nazi Party had 18,3% of votes (1930) and 37,4% of votes (1932), after Hitler was candidate for presidency.

So, you see, I'm pretty sure that the Second World War would not have happened without the Great Depression and the Great Depression is a direct consequence of capitalism. That's between 60 and 80 million deaths caused (indirectly) by capitalism. But capitalism has many more skeletons in its closet.

Millions of people are starving or don’t have clean water. They are in this situation because they don’t have money. There is enough food on the planet to feed us all. So, capitalism is at fault for this also.

Nuclear war

During the Cold War there was a strong threat of nuclear war.
I don't believe that the danger has passed. There are lots of people who would gladly destroy a country if they had the means. I'm talking about extremist muslims, mostly.

If we ever manage to destroy this world, I think that religion will have an important role in that, maybe through a war between islam and christianity (the religions of peace). We could, of course, destroy the world through peaceful means, like poisoning everything (and ourselves) by way of pollution.

I believe it's only a matter of time until extremist muslims get a hold on a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs are far more powerful now than they were in the Second World War, they are also smaller.

The Hiroshima bomb had a weight of 4,400 kg and an explosive force of 15 kilotons of TNT. A modern thermonuclear weapon weighing 1,100 kg can produce an explosive force of 1200 kilotons of TNT.

So, a modern nuclear bomb weighing 1/4 of the Hiroshima bomb is 80 times more powerful than it. That means 320 times more power per weight.

When we think about the total global nuclear arsenal of about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5 gigatons (5 million kilotons), it would be a miracle if we wouldn't destroy ourselves.

I pray that people will become wiser soon, before it's too late.

Exponential growth

Most people don't understand exponential growth. Many of our current problems are caused by this lack of understanding.

A nice example of exponential growth is a legend: the man who invented the game of chess showed it to a king; the king was very pleased and wanted to grant one wish to that man. The man said this: "I want a grain of wheat for the first square of the chess board, two grains for the second one, four for the third one, and so on, doubling the amount each time".

The king didn't understand exponential growth, so he said: "I can give you a sack of wheat", but the man said: "I just want what I asked for, no more, no less". It was impossible for the king to grant him his wish because the number of wheat grains amounted to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615. That amount of wheat is approximately 80 times what would be produced in one harvest, at modern yields, if all of Earth's arable land could be devoted to wheat.

The world population doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion in 39 years (1960 - 1999). If that trend would continue, we would have 12 billion by 2038, 24 billion by 2077, 48 billion by 2116, etc.

Resources are being exploited at an exponential rhythm, that's insane. The only way that would work is if resources were infinite, which are not.

If the economy grows by 2% per year, in 35 years it would double.
What we do is just unsustainable, we are growing exponentially on a limited planet. We are acting as if there is no tomorrow. Are we incapable of understanding the consequences of our actions? This will end badly.

Beggars

Giving money (or anything) to beggars is wrong because you encourage that behaviour. If nobody would give anything to beggars, they would not exist. There would still be poor people, but they would not beg because nothing would come out of it.

Even worse is that people tend to give more money to begging children and mutilated beggars. Some poor families have more children because begging children bring them more money, this is the case with a lot of gypsy families. People also mutilate themselves to earn more money by begging.

In India, there are organized gangs which exploit children, sending them to beg and mutilating them because mutilated children bring more money.

Beggars exist because of this sick society. It's odd that in prison people have a roof over their head and food, but society can't provide shelter and food for (all) poor people. Do poor people have to commit crimes so that they could have a roof over their head and food (in prison)?

Again, I need to stress the fact that all people need a home, food & water, education and healthcare.

You should read this:
http://www.childright.nl/en/index2.php?navid=212

Altruism

My favourite example of altruism comes from an unlikely source.

In the animation movie "Aladdin", at one point Aladdin steals a bread and goes through a lot of trouble because of it but, finally, he arrives in a safe place and prepares to eat. At that moment, he sees two children searching through trash for something to eat. He gives his bread to those children, even though he is hungry.

I think that most people wouldn't have done that. It's difficult to be truly altruistic in the real world. When people have everything they need they can afford to be altruistic. When people lack some basic things, altruism becomes more difficult.

In this world, a truly altruistic person is a dead person because there are lots of people dying of hunger. For example, if there were hungry people around you, at what point would you stop giving them your food and begin to eat it yourself? At what point would you think: "my life is more important than another human life"?

Luckily, we don't have to take those decisions every time we eat because hungry people are mostly in underdeveloped countries (out of sight, out of mind).

As I showed before (in my post about overpopulation), giving them food is not the solution because that would only increase the demographic explosion and there would be more mouths to feed.

So what do we do?

wrong world

Have you ever had the feeling that you don't belong in this world? Yeah, I have that feeling. Maybe I was made for another world but just ended up here by mistake.

I find this society, this world, absurd. I don't believe in property, I don't like money.

I don't understand why humans have multiplied this much. I know that's what life does but humans are supposed to be rational beings and yet they are not. They have killed each other since their dawn and they are not any wiser now.

I'm not even sure if it's such a bad thing that humans are destroying themselves. You probably noticed, I don't like humans that much. There were some exceptional ones but most of them are stupid.

I would just like to go to some remote farm or something and live the rest of my days peacefully. I don't want a family, I don't want children, I don't even want friends. I don't have any, anyway, but I'm fine. I don't want money, I don't want property, I don't want anything really, nothing more than a peaceful life.

I thought about becoming a monk but I don't really fancy being a slave to religion. I like the fact that monks have a cooperation based society and not a competition based society. I'm sick of competition, I want to be altruistic. In this sick world, a truly altruistic person is a dead person.

Heaven on Earth

What would heaven on Earth look like? I believe that an earthly heaven would not have inequalities, all people should have everything they need. The world's resources belong to all of us.

Money or property would not exist in this world, there would not be poor or rich people.

I believe that we can create heaven on Earth but it seems that we are not wise enough to do that (yet). Heaven on Earth would be governed by reason.

Overpopulation

I believe that humans have 4 basic needs: biological needs (air, water, food, warmth etc), a home, education and healthcare. I believe that all people should have a right to these things.

Do we have the resources to house, feed, educate and provide healthcare to everyone?
I believe we do have those resources.
Why don't we do it?

There is a problem with doing that. If we did that, the population would explode. The resources of this planet are limited, so we need to control our numbers.

In fact, I think this is the first thing we should do before trying to make the world better, control the population. Having children should be a privilege, not a right. After the second child, one of the partners should be sterilized, as a law.

People don't think about it, but if they would feed Africa, it would get worse over time, because, for every mouth fed now, there will be two to feed (maybe in just one generation).

In 1800 there were 1 billion people on Earth. Now (2011) there are 7 billion people.

I think there is a need for population control in Africa and Asia. One way of doing it is by paying people to get sterilized. This would help much more than just feeding them.

If we would all live like Americans, we would need 3,5 planets. (source)
I think that a sane number of people on this planet would be between 2 and 3 billion, if we want to live decently. There were 3 billion people in 1960, I think that's a good number. Reducing our numbers can be done without violence or wars.

You should see this short video:
Jane Goodall - Overpopulation in the developing world

You should also see this documentary:
How many people can live on planet Earth?

Utopia?

A long time ago I imagined a world, more like a city, really. It was a dome city, with domes of glass, each one having a different function, like an agricultural dome, an industrial dome, a park dome, a housing dome etc.

Before people would enter the city, they would go through a quarantine area, to check them for diseases. Inside the city there would be no diseases because nobody with a disease would be allowed to enter.

Having children would be a privilege, not a right and scientists would try to select the traits they want, such as intelligence, health etc. People with genetic diseases would be sterilized.

In that city there would be no money, everyone would have the same things, if they wanted to. Everyone would wear the same kind of clothes, clothes that would be as comfortable as possible. Every person would have the right to a room, so, if a family would have 2 children, there would be a 4 room apartment for them.

The amount of work needed would be divided between the people capable of work, so they would probably work much less than they do now. If it would be less work to be done, all people would work less time and they would have more time to spend with their families or to advance their knowledge.

The climate would be controlled and all year round there would be a constant spring. You could even live in the park if you wanted to, because it would always be warm and it would never rain, there would be sprinklers for that.

There would be a restaurant dome where everyone could eat, if they wanted to. So, people would never have to cook if they didn't want to. Meals would be recommended by doctors for each person's needs, so that they may be as healthy as possible. People's health would be monitored by computers.

Information would be free, everyone would have access to all human knowledge.

The educational system would concentrate on science and technology, because the purpose of this world would be to advance science and technology, so as to improve the world. There would be no need to learn languages, because there would be only one language in the world. This educational system would not encourage competition, but cooperation. There would not be grades and learning should be as interesting and engaging as possible. In fact, the main purpose of the education system would be to increase the curiosity and creativity of students, the exact opposite of what is done today, where the educational system discourages curiosity and creativity.

Art and music would not be frowned upon, they would be studied, along with philosophy and religions. Literature would be treated as entertainment, because that is exactly what it is. Writers did not write their books to torture children by analyzing them, they wrote them to bring joy to others.

Human history would be resumed like this: people have killed each other since the dawn of humans. That is what people have mostly done over the ages.

This city would encourage what I admire: physical simplicity and mental complexity.

Some years ago I found out about a more realistic world: the Venus Project.

Money (coloured paper)

To me, money is just coloured paper, and I think that is the perspective of reality.

Money is a religion, really. A religion is just a set of absurd beliefs shared by many people. Most people believe that some pieces of coloured paper have value. Those pieces of paper have value because we believe they have. If there is no belief in their value, they are worthless. If people didn't accept money in exchange for their products or services, money would not exist.

If you went to an isolated tribe and tried to give them money for things, they would not understand because, for them, money is just coloured paper. If there was a man on a deserted island, dying of hunger or of thirst, he would not need money, he could do nothing with it, except maybe burn it for warmth.

Money does have its use. It's more difficult to exchange goods (barter). In a perfect world, people would help each other but we don't live in a perfect world. People are mostly egotistic and that's only natural, evolution encourages selfishness and discourages altruism (except for kin altruism).

I think it's silly that most money is earned by doing nothing productive. Most money is earned by those who control money, the bankers.

The monetary system works like this: people go to banks and borrow money, which they have to give back with interest. Of course, the money to pay the interest does not exist yet, so, the money for interest needs to be earned from someone else, whose money is also borrowed (because all money is borrowed).

This system only works because of the time lag between borrowing and giving back. Money has to be constantly pumped into the market for people to be able to pay interests. If the amount of money remained constant, the economy would collapse. If everyone would go to pay their debts, not only there would not be any money left in circulation, there would still be debts to pay.

Inflation is a constant in the current monetary system and that is really like stealing. Imagine that someone has earned $1000 and he keeps them in his wallet. If he keeps that money in his wallet for a year, that money will have less value. For example, if the inflation was 2%, he would lose $20. It's really like someone stole them from his wallet.

I think there are two solutions for these money problems: interest free money or no money at all.

You should see these documentaries:
Money as debt
Money as debt II - promises unleashed

Property

Land existed long before humans came along and it will probably exist long after humans have gone the way of the dodo. But humans have put some fences and said: this is MINE.

Property is really the right to use something.
Property is an acknowledgement of this right by society. That land is yours only because people acknowledge it, it's a social agreement. If another country would conquer yours, they could take your "property" because they don't acknowledge it.

The existence of property leads to social inequalities, as some people will inevitably gain more. The more you own, the more you can gain, that is why the rich become richer. Since resources are limited, the more one owns, the less others own, so the poor become poorer.

We are at the point where 1% own 40% of the planet's wealth, 10% own 85% of the plant's wealth and 50% own 1% of the planet's wealth. (source)

In an extreme situation, a single human can own the entire planet. While this is extreme, this is theoretically possible. What if one human owns all the arable land in the world and he decides to grow biomass crops on it (for biofuel)? Will we respect his property and starve?

Nobody really owns anything. We don't even own ourselves, we just borrow atoms to build our bodies and we give them back when we die. Our atoms were in other beings before us and they will go on to form other beings.

Life, the Universe and everything

Today I found some ticks on my dog. At that moment I said to myself: I wish there was a god. I really don't think that an intelligent god (much less a loving god) would create such a thing. I think that if god existed, the world would look much different, I think it would be a better place.

Life has one basic command: replicate. Well, that is what life really is, reproduction with heredity. There is no good or evil in that. If you can replicate by sucking blood, that's good enough. Replication, of course, leads to increasing numbers and the resources are finite, so, at one point or another, the struggle for life occurs, the struggle for resources. Suffering is a good incentive for that struggle, if organisms would not suffer, they would not struggle for life. So, life leads to suffering and also to violence between organisms.

From this on, my thoughts went to methods of avoiding parasites and diseases but I realized something: if conditions are good for human life, they are also good for parasites and diseases. In Antarctica there are not many parasites or diseases but there is also little life, mostly penguins.

Life conditions are very narrow. 99.9999 of the Universe is not suited for life. Exploring the Universe is much better done by machines than by humans. Machines don't need air, food, water, entertainment, sleep, warmth, socializing etc. Intergalactic distances are huge, even with the speed of light, a human life is not enough.

So, life is not appropriate for exploring the Universe, machines are much better at that. Probably any intelligent life in this Universe would arrive to the same conclusion and they probably would not bother going themselves in spaceships, but making intelligent robots who would explore the Universe for them. I think the peak of this would be designing space ships that replicate themselves. In a way, it could be said that they would be the life forms of the Universe.

Why aren't we seeing these robot driven space ships? Maybe intelligent life, capable of designing this, is extremely rare, or even non existent. Maybe they exist but don't want to do that or maybe intelligent life is doomed to destroy itself. Or maybe there are other obstacles I have not thought about.