matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
People miss guts in this time episode. All feel as courageous to want to join the table, join the discussion and contribute their ideas, but when it comes down to standing out, standing by one's own ideas, risking a head for it and speaking up, defending it, then most of them play the cowards and hide behind the bush. Have a birthday party to organize. A tree to plant. A household shopping to do. Hold back. Try to satisfy the zeitgeist's picture of a good public image. And, above all, try to not to be a leader. Try not to be someone who inspires others, but just who staccatoes down its arguments like a record stuck on replay and who could be stolen from a factory which produces these guys from a mass mold.

Complex

30 June 2017 12:40 am
matrixmann: (Thinking)
"What most people do wrong in understanding politics and processes in society is: All things are interlinked. 5 threads or more inflict influence upon each other at the same time, and that's just only the present! Then add processes that are deeply linked and dependent on history to it.
Everything's as it is because of particular reasons - and the reasons are: The many complex threads of information that meet in one spot.
Trying to get a detailed overview constructed in one's head - like a map of a geographical area - about those actually is understanding the matter.
Unterstanding the matter is the base for developing the path to the future and preventing unwanted processes."
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)
...der frühere Amtssitz des Bundespräsidenten, die Villa Hammerschmidt in Bonn, Relikt aus den Zeiten, als es noch zwei deutsche Staaten gab, ist bis heute verbindlicher Zweitsitz des Bundespräsidenten?

...that the former official office of the Federal President of Germany, mansion Hammerschmidt in Bonn, remnant of those times where two German states existed, still is in use until today as mandatory second residence for said Federal President of Germany?
matrixmann: (Default)
2014: Raid on the regional administrations in Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv.
Beginnings of a war of extermination - and of reversing an illegtimate coup d'état, protected and organized by Western countries, as well as fighting for one's right to live not as a 2nd-class-citizen in the place you lived before.
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Some things, even if they are tradition, better be not touched.
matrixmann: (Black suits comin')
In Lower Saxony, a chief physician in gynecology is able to openly state "I don't do abortions anymore" and reason his decision with his Christian belief, and the chief of the clinic is able to express his support for the doctor, stating "There is no law in Germany that can force a doctor to do an abortion. Unless her life is in danger and there is a medical indication to do it.".

Repeat: In 21st century Germany, a gynecologist is able to state "I don't do abortions anymore" - and gets away with it! Where is the big #aufschrei here? Where are the women rights activists here to scream and shout about it?!
I don't even hear a fucking court or a stupid talkshow screaming "Now that doesn't suit out values and definitions of freedom..." and speak about unlawfulness!
Where are you fucking human rights activists here?! Where are you social justice warriors here to cry about it!! I know, you get paid to shut the fuck up about it when religion is involved in such shitty decisions because religion has become so superimportant in this century!

Thank you, people! Thank you for importing this American shit and let religion rule once again over peoples' lives after they have made it to wrest it from state and church to get everyone the same treatment regardless of who they pray to!

If you let one have his way, all the others crawl from under the rock again too!

Don't you fucking dare to complain about the image of a family that the far right comes up with anymore again... You're fucking far right too if you let such things happen!
matrixmann: (I see with the eyes of a hunter)
You know what mass rallies and protest marches with thousands of people do to the targeted aim? They show it how many people don't like it and who it needs to arrest.
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: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Wisst ihr, warum der gesamte Westen nicht sagen kann "Kriminelle Asylanten lassen wir nicht rein in unser Land!" ( = Leute, die Asyl beantragen, die einem anderen Land bereits eine Straftat begangen haben)?
Weil sie dann ihre ganzen politisch liebsamen Flüchtlinge, die in ihrer Hemisphäre zu "Freiheitskämpfern" erhoben werden, während sie in ihrer Heimat als Kriminelle gesucht werden oder bereits verurteilt wurden, nicht mehr legal ins Land lassen könnten!
Diese würde die gleiche Regelung ebenfalls ereilen!
Genauso, wenn man plötzlich einen Teil der Bevölkerung eines anderen Landes zu seiner eigenen erklärt, ihnen die eigene Staatsbürgerschaft verleiht, um sie dem anderen Land als Bevölkerung zu entreißen!



You know why the whole West can't state "We don't let any criminal asylum seekers into our country!" ( = people who sign an application for asylum that have committed or been sentenced for crimes in their home countries)?
Because then they couldn't let those political refugees of the pleasantly kind legally in anymore which they call "freedom fighters" in their hemisphere while those are wanted in their home countries or have already been convicted!
Rulings like that would apply to these too!
The same when they suddenly declare a part of another country's populace to be populace of their own and give them their own citizenship to take them away out of the sphere of influence of that other country!
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: (Black suits comin')
Be aware of the techniques of infiltration and defamation.
When you start a new movement, be aware that there's already dozens of various interest groups at the initial starting blocks to subvert and corrupt your new creation.
The goal is the following: Taming it. Making it a controllable thing for those which you try to overcome.
If they don't get it one way, they try the other one.
One of both always works because of the ability of human weakness and because of human naivety.
Strategic thinking is the only thing that is your insurance against that - being aware of it and countering it as soon as you notice the first signs of it getting closer to you.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Meinungen sind gut, Überzeugungen wären besser.

Opinions are good, but convictions would be better.
matrixmann: (Waiting for command)
An der Filterblase wird die Revolution scheitern.

The bubble a movement lives in will make the revolution fail.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Plastikbesteck hat den Tellerwäscher gekillt.

Plastic cutlery killed the dishwasher (from "from rags to riches").
matrixmann: (Ready)
Let me tell you the core of rehabilitating and getting people to behave differently:
"People, no matter which background you come from, what lies in your past - we now start to behave like normal adults, we respect the each other, we don't harm each other's crazes, unless they start to touch the life of another which didn't ask for it, and we just fucking start to be a society which about everyone of us would desire to live in".
Because, just tell: How much did it previously use to have all kinds of regards for somebody's situation and let him get away with everything on the background of this? How much made it in bargain to do only years-long psychotherapy with everyone, even with those who lack the realization that they need some?
It doesn't change anything at all if it doesn't come with a radical change in what the surroundings of a person are. Most people try to practice what they have learned in psychotherapy, but they remain caught up in the traces of their old lives and their old brain structures. They try over and over again until they succeed for as much as they must, or they give up and surrender to it.
In the past, sometimes it already has proved effective to just give people a strict daily schedule and putting them under surveillance to follow it. If they still thought to act like a slacker, they faced even some more consequences in this frame.
The basic concept of this is easily and exaggeratedly expressed as "change through work" in the words of past days, today one could rather reduce it down to "just giving somebody structure in his daily life" and that's just what it should be. No draconian acts of punishment or exploitation.
For people on the whole, be it criminal or not, you can apply similar thing: Put them into a frame of a structure what their life and their thinking should be like, and it decides over what they act like. As community rules matter more for human behavior, because humans are an animal species that lives in groups, than the individual belief system for most people.
So, be it teaching criminals a better way or wanting to shape a different society: You need to give an outside push into a direction, otherwise behavior structures that already developed dig themselves deeper and deeper into human brain and group culture and worsen in their extent.
In order to achieve a change in behavior, you need to add a CUT to the psychotherapy - to stop with the practice of the old habits. To start something new, to start a corrected version of what had been collectively done wrong before. And this needs to be done regardless of somebody's backgrounds or his ethnic or his spiritual origins. All of society need to be integrated into this, even if it must come by force.
If you lock certain groups of that "new path", you leave yourself vulnerable to practices that had been done before - that it's a society of only a part of all humans and therefore some become able / are forced to generate their own system again besides that of the general society -, as well as that it doesn't drag all people with it, instead remains a closed sect. Which does not help correcting the problem to begin with.
Besides: A new path for all automatically means a path where everyone can grow together with each other.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
"Your unconditional basic income is a nice idea, but here's the flaw in your system: It reestablishes how the old social benefits worked, but it doesn't change anything on the factor "prices". As well as that it doesn't change those facts that still each year it's the goal of all national economies to impress each other by proving how much percentage they can compile in attaching zeroes to the sums of the last year ( = GDP) and that the economy it ought to function in only can keep itself up by generating lots of fictional money that doesn't exist out of credits it didn't hand out to one customer, so it's whole self-asserted "growth" is nothing more than multiplying the sums that have originally been there before a few hundred, a few thousand years ago. In other terms: Not only you keep adjusting the sum each year, you also don't change anything that makes it so nessecary that this basic income needs to exist at all. You only make the circumstances takeable again. But that because you don't really know what you're trying to fight when you talk about "overcoming capitalism".
You're still one of those dreamy starry-eyed idealists that don't know how the world they live in really works."
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Perhaps a correction to this: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/82348.html

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.

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Statistics


Free counters!

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