matrixmann: (Thinking)
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)

World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
matrixmann: (Default)
The sellout of public housing in the big cities to private investors is like when the financially strong part of the bourgeoisie conquers the living space of what once has been the place to live of the regular people - poor, middle class and workers. The part of the populace what once made up the natural residents of the cities get driven out of town into the outskirts...
What remains is an unnatural population in the cities, which only looks for entertainment, pleasure, some food to eat - like in an amusement park. The city's there for providing, but it's no home to anyone anymore. Rich hipsters have a room here and there to stay for a night... They jetset around the world, living everywhere.
matrixmann: (Default)
A reminder in times where mass media declare recently deceased former chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl "a person loving and always having fought for freedom":

In 1985, by the first government under chancellor Kohl, the change of the general law concerning the freedom of assembly had been applied that imposes a ban on wearing face coverings ("Vermummungsverbot") for most public events and a ban of protective gear such as armor of all kinds on these events.
Ever since then, the only right to assemble you have is to come around in your casual suit and to be recognizable for every policeman on this event at any given time.

(See post: (all links in German))
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
"The land of the free never really cared about freedom. Not its politicians, not its oligarchs, not the people that really decide over the course of the country. It worked together with Nazis barely that they've fled from Europe just to bring down the Soviet Union because they were its political enemies. The United States - a Jew-friendly place? Open your eyes, by the time the Germans killed them by the masses in their concentration camps, nobody liked them anywhere either. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite, Disney was an anti-Semite - nobody thought about correcting their views or putting them to jail for it. Ford even had good trade relations with the Third Reich as long as it was possible. IBM delivered punch card machines for the bureaucratic administration of the concentration camps. If the United States really would have been so much against it, they had ordered those key technologies to be stopped to be delivered to the Nazis before they made the declaration of war. It would have just been a blow to them. Key technologies are always subject to the final OK of the state. If it doesn't happen, the administration doesn't want it. And the trail keeps continuing until the present. Fascists and butchers? As long as they're political enemies of an enemy of the states, they don't see reason why not making them their tool for a power change or to simply destroy the most promising competitor beside them.
One can't even tell how long in time this behavior goes back. It's been so much inherent to its system, it's like it goes back to the very early days - since the US was able to move on the international political parquet."


21 April 2017 08:39 am
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
A thing that West German leftists don't get about real socialist way of economy is: They didn't invent it anew how structures to produce look like, or did an economy like a hippie community. They only took the old structures known from capitalism and erased the circumstance of having a feudal lord as an owner.
No private person alone or a group was the owner of a facility, the manager administered the factory according to a non-material idea that was "acting for the good of all other employees that work here". If he didn't do that and abused his position, he could be replaced by will of the other workers employed at this entity.
Everyone had his firm position, knew what set of tasks he had to do every day.
If you wanted to take a different position than your current one, you just moved up the ladder through the coventional way. Education or changing the branch, for example.
It wasn't like "today I do one thing" and "tomorrow the other", something unsteady - something that no-one can calculate with, much less raising a family.
Or something that requires all part-takers to be a firm believer of a certain thing to let this thing last.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Some things, even if they are tradition, better be not touched.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Even though there's International Women's Day on March 8, never forget: As well as there are many kind and good-natured women who fulfill their duties faithfully and are always there in case of need, willing to help, there are also as many of them which make more of a resemblance to Goebbel's wife.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Information vanishes when the last one to tell it dies.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
First, there were fights over religion, then it was political ideologies, now it's about which food to eat.
Mankind really is bored like an overdeveloped ape with too much free time on his hands, isn't it?
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Schon vor mehr als 5 Jahren, als das mit Horst Schlämmer war und dem dazugehören Film, deutete sich das unweigerlich schon an, dass ein Teil der wahlmündigen Bevölkerung die Schnauze voll von der großen Politik hat, weil sie nicht im Interesse der Bürger agiert, und bereit dazu wäre, jegliche Form von "Alternative" zu wählen, die nur anders wäre als die Etablierten. Damals war diese Sache noch ein Spaß, heute ist sie mit der AfD harte Realität. - Und damals wie heute wurde nichts dazugelernt.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
What would somebody say who died 10 years ago about the fuss that takes place today?
In politics as well as society as well as technology - how things in general developed during the last decade?
Would he think "the better that I have died, that's even worse than when I was still alive"?
Or would he say "I should have stayed, just to try to make a change in all these things"?
What about somebody who killed himself?
Would he be happy about his deed?
Would he scream in horror how the world has become, compared to 10 years ago?
What would his words be about Facebook, about streaming, about the current state the world is in - the economical crisis, the West's fight with Russia, the war in Syria, Libya, newly grown information sources that didn't exist back then?
Also, what would he say about culture, about current trends? About the rise of German Schlager, the dropping in the background of Hiphop, the rise of softened Electro House and the current remake mania in Hollywood?
What would he say if he heard that now it's a trend for the lost youth to travel to the Middle East and play "Call Of Duty" for real - voluntarily?

Sometimes it would be better if someone was alive again who didn't follow all these developments, just to give you a more distanced opinion, free from the political correctness of today, free from the frames and shapes which society and public likes to think in during current times.
Having been gone opens a door to potentially give you new ideas. Ideas you wouldn't have if you talked to somebody who's a child of his time and narrow-minded as the current episode is.
Too long ago may become a problem as the changes over 20 and 30 years or more are too huge for someone to comprehend in a small amount of time. There would be the danger of becoming overwhelmed by impressions.
Many things changed in a longer episode of time.

But even during the last 10 years, you have some things which totally took a major development, while you have others where you would say "business as usual". Nothing has changed.
The stupification of mankind hasn't stopped, quite the opposite, it has increased. Through the invention of smartphones and social media shifting from a text-based to a photo- and video-based issue. Bullying and mobbing hasn't vanished from the face of the earth, its results only have become quieter and no-one talks about it anymore loudly. Children themselves don't take a gun into their hands anymore nessecarily to make it known.
Adults don't have more time for their offspring, they even whip themselves some more and force themselves onto their place of work.
Poverty didn't disappear. And the rich have even grown richer than they used to be.
The only thing that maybe has become different, making an interesting change in the pack of cards, that keeping secrets has become more critical for the states. Not only is it more of an importance for them to survive than before, but also the means to do it need to scatter because it is more likely that somebody might get something out and show it to the public. Not all people entrusted with confidential information still agree on or are convinced of keeping their secrets anymore.
Also, there has grown an echo chamber which specialized in picking these things up and spread it as their own propaganda, just like you're used to it from the notorious usual suspects.
This changes the game of what to believe and what not to believe.

Someone who died earlier and was sick of this system might find its joy with the new circumstances...
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Perhaps a correction to this:

These days' race still is like the old game the plebs against the upper class. The poor against the nobles.
The nobles always try to keep the pace with those from the lower class as this is the only thing that ensures them their privileges. And - they even dare to try to control the pace.
It's always the run who's the first. Whose way of life is gonna win and dominate the way of life the rest is going to live.
For these days, the nobles managed to apply all kinds of tricks and ways to lead the people from the lower class astray from the path that would lead them to be the first in that race.
First, one change over the centuries that happened is that everyone can be a noble, be one of their class. The nobles may not find it very pleasant, but it serves the purpose at least.
Through that, lots of people from the lower class get urged to make their efforts to move up to the upper class, so they are not busy with questioning at all why both classes got the wealth that they got.
And, secondary, so they become vulnerable to the dream of moving up the ladder.
The nobles don't want them within their ranks truly, but through the thought of maybe getting somewhere else, they become ready and willing to do a lot of things for the nobles in order to get a piece of the cake they can call their own from then. They become what you call "corrupted".
And so they keep delivering whatever the nobles want. Betraying their own class, living in the illusion in becoming part of something you were never meant to become part of, and they poison the thoughts of the next generation coming that wanted to do it better - seeing how much the previous one sold out their souls to the nobles' desires.
In fact they are... part of what tries to prevent that some others than the nobles are able to ever win the race.
Things remain as they are. The race remains at the same point before it started.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Erinnert sich noch jemand daran wie es gegen Ende der 90er der größte Zeitvertreib auf dem PC war, Moorhühner zu schießen?

Somebody remembers still how, at the end of the 90s, it was the biggest time killer on the PC to shoot up grouses?
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
"Freedom" and "free travel" are just gifts to the young generation which don't know a world before this was visibly in effect, but they're just breadcrumbs to manipulate them, to get them in favor of that current system that reigns, to make them think if that is gone, they live in a dictatorship. Not even thirst, nor hunger, nor freezing, nor even finding any kind of clothes to keep you warm and protect you from bad weather should make them think they live in bad conditions, it should be that they can breathe no unfiltered air and that they can't spend money on whatever they want which they borrowed from banks anyway.
That way the system wants hold its position and even make sure that, if these young, spoiled and manipulated people that run aroud with twisted priorities in their heads don't get their will, they will become aggressive to take their will from anyone they perceive as standing in their way to get it. And that makes them vulnerable to extremist ideas to even kill people if only they get from the act what they wanted in the first place.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Why do people make the traditional Muslim dresses a dithering question of "religious freedom" and "culture clash"?
A resolute solution to these questions is rather simple: Treat it with equality.
If it's a trouble in official positions if somebody wears such dresses and pieces of clothes, say: "I don't care if you wear a baseball cap, a cowboy hat, a fishing hat or whatever the fuck - here in this position all people ought to wear no headdresses."
Besides, if authorities are constrained to represent neutrality towards every kind of people, beliefs and political worldviews, then it's not only Muslims that should not wear religious signs, it's also Christians which can't wear a cross while on duty. Or can I wear my goth clothes while serving people in the registry office?
In school, there also used to be a time where I wasn't allowed to wear headdresses, the teacher would take them from me for the class or send me outside and put them into the wardrobe. Sunglasses on - well, if I had a certificate of a doctor saying so that I'd need them. Maybe somebody who's blind they'd never speak up against.
Jackets - only in winter if you said you feel cold. With an ordinary old school teacher - no wearing of your trenchcoat mafia memory dress in class!
So, why the hell screaming out that loud and discussion rounds and rounds about "Are we allowed to touch this? We mess with religion, people!"?
You also hurt the religious feelings of a Jedi if you tell him he can't wear his dress!
But you fucking put him under the term "screwball" and tell him he should integrate to the reality!
Are these feelings less worth than those of a member of a recognized religion?
In political views, it's even worse: Every Marxist gets regarded as "someone who looks at things the wrong way" and as enemy of the state. But let some openly expressing Nazi come, nobody's gonna say a word!
Respect only for those who we want?! What the fucking kind of "human rights activists" are you at all?! You're busy with erecting those dogmas again that your ancestors have been busy with tearing down during the last 100 years!
Some people get witch hunt - some get special protection. Just fucking be honest and tell the world it's not about protecting anyone's feelings about religion or looking at the state of the world, it's about fear, being a coward, and putting back up an age where everything you do is ruled by religions and not by human common sense!
Just fucking tell the world it's about establishing again "those people are different from us, that's why they live seperated from us and they're no part of our class war - they're free to be ignored or killed"!
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
As a pick-up of this:

People talk a lot about their alleged individuality, but when you go through the interests displayed by their social media profiles - and there cannot be made the suspicion they only enter it for distracting other people from guessing their could be something important to get from them -, you come across the same kind of contents over and over again. Privately in real life, it's barely different.
During these years, movies are not the big players in the game, music had been so for a longer amount of time and is no more - due to the various possibilities to go for what they call "your thing" -, literature is something that still passes some people, so TV series are the bigger craze; that's also due to cinema being repetitive and bringing up no new ideas during this episode, doing remakes of everything and nothing they ever created in Hollywood.
And what is the case? Everywhere you go, each country which you come across, people seem to name the same things over and over again as the things they like and the things they are interested in. Nothing against quality, but these days you cannot spare but regarding all of that under some kind of forced political agenda. Eventually - why is everyone excited about content exceptionally mostly produced in the US?
Why do people eat each and every shit of a TV series coming from America?
The biggest gimmicks these days are turning 12 Monkeys into a TV series and the Scream movies! Like they haven't been good enough as they were made!
And people even get excited about content that newly filmed shit! Like they didn't know what originally was supposed to happen!
Why do people worldwide know nothing more than to watch Game Of Thrones, The Big Bang Theory, The Walking Dead, Dexter, Hannibal, Person Of Interest, The Blacklist, Black Sails, Sons Of Anarchy, Breaking Bad - a few years earlier: Teen Wolf, Vampire Diaries, True Blood, Glee, CSI: Miami (and its offsprings from other cities), Navy CIS, Hannah Montana, Taken; even earlier: Emergency Room, Grey's Anatomy, Scrubs, Dr. House, Lost, Desperate Housewifes, Sex And The City, King Of Queens, Gilmore Girls - Sabrina the Teenage Witch, Buffy and so on?!
Are people that stupid or easy to impress that American filming industry always finds an easy way to push their buttons?!
The type of that people which watched all this shit as it was current are those kind to have a habit to tell all tell all Manga / Anime freaks that it's all the same which they consume as an entertainment - that they consume anything that comes from Japan in comics, cartoon movies and video games -, but they themselves are none of the better, only with a different focus of attention!!
Brainwashed and Americanized!
And by that kind of people you wanna be taught a lesson about "being individual" and thinking yourself?
They are as individual as a stencil! They can think from the West side to the East side of the road!
They don't even take notice how much they are like their neighbor!
At the latest since Ikea has become the main sponsor of furniture for lots of apartments, they don't even notice how much even their living room looks like the one of the neighbor!
And those rave the most about being individual, being special and being one in a million that needs to be cried for when they die!
You know what? If you wanna get an opinion about mankind, just fucking look at this targeted remote control and see for yourself!
All fucking caged full purses imagening they're someone and they live in wide open lands.


14 June 2016 08:42 am
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Many years ago, it was a craze to want to create a bloodbath at your school.
Today, you pledge allegiance to another group to go out killing lots of people.
Ask somebody who survived that first time and he'll tell you: "We had this all before. You're nothing special."
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Die klassichen Arbeitsteilung von Mann und Frau der früheren Jahrhunderten sollte auch unter dem Aspekt der Arbeitsteilung betrachtet werden.
Ein Tag hat nur 24 Stunden; wenn einerseits Geld, andererseits aber auch Essen gekauft, zubereitet, häusliche Arbeiten wie Wäsche waschen, Putzen und sonstige Erhaltungsarbeiten als auch die Besorgung von Trinkwasser bewältigt werden müssen ohne Zuhilfenahme moderner Geräte wie Waschmaschinen, Herden und Autos, trinkbares Wasser ebenso nicht aus einer Leitung und einem Hahn, sondern aus einem Brunnen respektive durch eine Pumpe aus dem Erdreich geschöpft werden müssen, dann erreichen, allein durch das tägliche Zeitlimit bedingt, die Möglichkeiten eines Menschen die Grenzen des Machbaren für den Einzelnen.
Es müssen also mehrere Personen an der Bewältigung des Haushalts beteiligt sein und an seiner Aufrechterhaltung. Erst die Mittel der Moderne machen es möglich, dass jemand all dies allein bestreiten kann, und dass beide Partner einer Beziehung vollzeit arbeiten gehen können (noch dazu zu den gleichen Tageszeiten).
Es ermöglicht sogar, dass nicht die älteren Kinder (ab ca. 7 / 8 Jahren) einer Familie fester Bestandteil dieser Aufrechterhaltung der täglichen Lebensbasis mehr sein müssen und es lediglich noch eine Frage der Vorbereitung auf das Leben als Erwachsener in einem eigenen Haushalt sein kann.

Vielleicht eine gewagte These: Obgleich beide Geschlechter hätten jeweils den Part des anderen einnehmen können ohne dabei nach diskriminierenden Punkten vorgehen zu müssen, bildete sich diese Form der Arbeitsteilung heraus auf Grund der biologisch bedingten physischen Eigenschaften der beiden Geschlechter. Männer sind in der Muskelkraft stärker als Frauen, deswegen sind sie besser geeignet für physisch anstrengenden Arbeiten und den täglichen Broterwerb - der ohne die Zuhilfenahme moderner Maschinen, nur mit Hilfe von Handarbeit, größte Anforderungen an den menschlichen Körper stellt.
Frauen dagegen müssen zwar für die Hausarbeit ein stabiles Rückrat haben, welches für beide Geschlechter gleichermaßen wichtig ist, da auch sie Lasten transportieren und Muskelkraft aufwenden müssen, es ist dennoch leichter für sie zu bewältigen, Wäsche mit einem Waschbrett zu waschen als 30 Kilo schwere Gemüse- oder Getreidesäcke zu tragen. Oder Gemüse zu putzen, zu schneiden und einen Kesel Suppe aus ihnen zu kochen anstelle ein Feld manuell zu bearbeiten.
Wenn eine Frau keinen Mann hatte - weil keiner sie wollte oder ihr Mann bereits verstorben war und kein Sohn bereits reif genug war, die Rolle in der Arbeitsteilung zu übernehmen - konnte es ihr passieren, dass sie solche Tätigkeiten trotzdem ausführen musste aus dem Grunde, dass sie dazu gezwungen war, weil es niemand anderes für sie tat. Manche Exemplare - sowohl heute als auch in früheren Zeiten - waren dabei weniger, andere besser begabt und dafür geschaffen.
Für Männer galt dasselbe an dieser Stelle auf Grund des vorherrschenden Patriarchats einmal nicht, da sie sich wesentlich schneller wieder eine Frau nehmen konnten oder wenigstens ihre Töchter die Rolle der Mutter in der Arbeitsteilung übernehmen mussten, sobald sie groß genug dafür waren.

Für das Grundlegende kann aber gesagt werden: Ob es Diskriminierungsgründe gewesen sind oder nicht, sekundär, im Detail betrachtet, ergibt sich sogar aus dieser Form der Arbeitsteilung eine gewisse Logik, die einige Zweifel offen lässt, ob lediglich Diskriminierung an Hand des Geschlechts dazu geführt hat, dass Mann und Frau die Arbeiten zugeteilt bekommen haben, die sie erhielten.
Ohne die technischen Hilfsmittel der Moderne wäre es auch heute nicht möglich, anders zu leben als auf diese Art und Weise - die Arbeit zu teilen, Aufgaben zuzuweisen, je nach der persönlichen Begabung und den physischen Möglichkeiten des Einzelnen.
Arbeitsteilung ist sogar etwas, was in die Moderne überlebt hat - wenn auch nicht mehr ganz so ausladend wie es in früheren Jahrhunderten der Fall war.
An Stelle der freien Zeit, die durch die Arbeitserleichterung durch Maschinen entsteht, wachsen Hobbys, andere Verpflichtungen, soziale Verpflichtungen, längere Arbeitszeiten - generell oder aufgrund von freiwilligen Überstunden wegen des zusätzlichen Geldes -, Vergnügen, Unterhaltung und das Befassen mit dem Weltgeschene - sowohl in politischer als auch in sonstiger Hinsicht.
Es eröffnet auch den Raum dafür, sich schick zu kleiden, sich zu schminken, einen Duft aufzulegen, weil man durch weniger Schmutzquellen belastet ist, und balzen zu gehen, insofern man noch keinen Partner gefunden hat, oder gar den bestehenden - ganz übel - durch einen anderen auszutauschen.


29 April 2016 12:19 am
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Looking back into history and seeing how much kings and nobles plotted against each other, you may come to the question if it wasn't very much different then with what you call "conspiracy theory" these days? And, the other way round, is that what mankind knows and openly admits about the past a mirror of what current ongoings are like? If you knew the whole extent and not just the glimpses that reveal themselves?


10 March 2016 08:59 am
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
Human rights are the biggest figleaf to cover up malicious actions in this time period.

July 2017

     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23


RSS Atom


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 25 July 2017 08:45 am