matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Advise to all arriving visitors:

If you share extreme political right-wing points of view, in fact if you call yourself a November Alfa Zulu India and look for a comrade, I'd advise you to better leave my territory.
I am armed, but I am none of your kind.
Get clear of this before you add me to your list.

For the dangerous times' sake:

Descriptions of violence in this journal are either a rhetorical device (Stilmittel) to convey content or part of a discussion.
Any similarities to living persons given at any time are purely unintentional.
Ambitions to harm anyone in the reality are NEVER given.

Political partisanship:

I'm one of the many people which watch the processes inside the big clockwork, for the reasons that it's either their job or for private hobby interest.
If you wanna chase criminals planning to kill any living persons, go some other place!
You only get on the nerves of an ordinary person!

Additional note to the sake of social media:

Comments made via famous data-collecting services or services of data-collecting firms are not desired.
This includes the services of the book to show your face as well as the goggles with two the O's.
If you're not sure if the service you want to use is one of these kraken, better drop it anonymously.

Another content note:

This is an NWO-free zone.
If you like to cling to this theory or the other likes, you've landed at the wrong space. Spreading of these kinds of contents is not desired as it is highly speculative substance whose proofs primarily work in the minds of their believers.
If not subject of an entry, there's no wish in discussing that matter or making it available to an audience.

About sharing:

If one writes openly, he needs to live with other entities reposting his content.
As long as no-one tries to generate personal gain (money, damage to others), it'll be okay with that.
In other cases remains the possibility to link because links don't take away anything from the place it once was put out.

Anonymous commenting generally is enabled, unless spam occurred or somebody is trying hard to molest or have a fight.

"Summer of Hardstyle" is on!

More info about the campaign here

matrixmann: (Somebody called me?)
Is it just me or has there really been a technical downgrade between the original Silent Hill series (I-IV) and the later installments, although for V there's been the hike-up to the next-generation consoles?
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: (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."
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Information vanishes when the last one to tell it dies.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Is there a different way to win a war than sending troops and artillery?
There is: Do it the subtle way. Destroy the infrastructure, by selling and privatizing, to let your opponent pay off debts that actually don't exist. Erase the ability to do self-catering with home-grown food, introduce the dependence on imports. Carry technology and patents out of the country. If human intelligentsia can't be lured away, make sure they can't make any profit out of their knowledge anymore - forbid them to work in their disciplines, declare graduations and diplomas to be invalid. Abolish law and order and take your sweet time to install yours as the new ones - to let chaos move in, and crime take hold. Additionally, send your own criminals in to fool the masses and to let the daily terror on the streets be perfect. Pump your own wares and goods into the newly acquired territory - to calm down the conquered masses and to make profit yourself; best even is if you let it be accompanied by advertising and propaganda how good it is, how grateful people can be to have it, meanwhile you can do the dirty work to strip them off their assets. While being at the assets: Rearrange the overall property situation. If the pattern makes sense or not, it doesn't matter - the confusion and the gain for your own fraction is the main objective.
At the end of it all, most importantly: Break the morale, the mindset of the people that you annex. Deconstruct the education system and build it anew. Let culture disappear to be never seen again. Kill the spirit of what made these people up! Make sure that way that you're going to be happy with your annexion for the coming decades - 'cause the resistance fades away with the people aging.
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: (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?


17 July 2016 05:17 pm
matrixmann: (Thinking)
The bus stop turns into the youth club...
First love, first drink, maybe even first time getting physical. And lots of friends.
What has modern society to offer to its youngsters?
Living in sterile, mold-contamined, pimped up flats, celebrating their weekends in used up buildings whose purpose they know at the highest from when they were kids, offered consumer goods which they can never pay, jobs that don't exist and promises that never come into effect. On top, bags of clothes manifactured in the third world which they can cut and rearrange to show how run-down they are, and ugly hair-cuts which make them appear like they have some sort of problems.
Education somewhat is an alien concept, both in the way of knowledge about the world and emotional development.
They get handed a lot of toys and tools to get paid the time their parents haven't spend with them, but can't make up for the deep nothing they perceive.
Sold out worlds, they long for destruction, for the destination that remains for when there's no task for you or your body is plagued by diseases. Diseases the parents thought about in their selfishness "they will be able to get along with that". And they keep wondering why these kids in their selfishness for exstasy beget another aimless generation of kids accidently...
On the other hand, education in the form of learning in excess for those who can pay for it. Planning of futures until the age of 40, orchestrated and without a doubt that anything can come in between this. No guess of what poverty means, what deprivations means, not even that it exists at all or what life-threatening circumstances could be. A bubble which nothing goes wrong within.
In the end, the planning also reveals its shallowness: Getting education, getting jobs, founding families, reproduce, buying houses, buying cars - running around and following the established role model, without a thought for a deeper meaning, just as trying to get drunk and loitering around in derelict houses and on the streets. It's about running away and clouding your mind.
The middle class youngsters ignore in their planning, that their kids are going to have to fight even harder for getting jobs as there is limitation in this, so it is also done in a manner of feeding your ego, numbing your mind to prevent to understand something.
Whereas the kids which grow up in poverty rather get their kids unvoluntarily and suddenly start to get those dreams of a idyllic world that isn't reachable for them. If they do not turn out in the end to abandon them, to show them the true face of what their existence already is: Superfluous.
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.
matrixmann: (I see with the eyes of a hunter)
Lobby groups - grassroots - enterprises - paid suit whores - it's hard to tell the truth between all these things. Everyone works for the well-being of his interests. Even those ones which tell you all the time they want to do something for you. And they grab all nessecary means what it takes to get their interests realized. Be it a group that commits itself to refugees or that campaigns against them - where do you wanna know from if not on both sides money-heavy interest groups stand and want to get their will? Where do you wanna know from if it's a conspiracy theory?
The world is not seperated in angels and devils. Everyone's got his dots on the vest.
All like to make money out of you. They all like to make some profit out of you which gives them power over a part of the world.
It's not like capitalistic habits made their way around civil rights advocacy groups.


17 May 2016 05:36 pm
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
One thing everyone needs to be ready for: If you tear down the current system, it means your current state of wealth is going to vanish too. The gadgets, the electronic devices, the oversupply that you use - is tied to the current economic and political system. If you make it go away, these things only keep existing as a remembrance of different times. There are no more of these things getting produced, the food chain needs to be rebuild from the basic local infrastructure.
There are going to be times of shortages and deprivation again over a certain amount of time.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
1986: Pripyat, Ukraine. During an excercise of a complete blackout in the nuclear power plant "Chernobyl" an explosion in one of the reactors happened. First kept under the rug for days what truly has happened, later the whole town and surrounding area was evacuated.
During the following months, a sarcophagus as a means to stop the worst was built above the reactor to prevent the meltdown to soak into the ground and the radioactive dust to escape into the air.
Still until today it remains not absolutely sure what were the true origins of the fallout, if either purely human error or the addition of an earthquake directly under the reactor which it didn't suit for.

2002: Erfurt, Germany. A former student of an academic high school comes up to his school in the midmorning during the yearly period of the exams and kills 16 people as well as himself in a killing spree.
matrixmann: (I see with the eyes of a hunter)
Strange perception to make: On one hand, everywhere they always refer to a "globalized" and an "interconnected" world, but on the other, it's like "conspiracy" to them to note that people in far away distanced places now also can work together on one and the same project.


17 March 2016 07:17 pm
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Wenn du deine Traumfrau nicht kriegen kannst, klone sie dir.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
2011: An earthquake with the magnitude of 9.0 appears under water not far from the coast of Japan.
First the quake itself devastates the area, but more importantly it triggers a tsunami wave which adds on top of this.
A nearby nuclear power plant in Fukushima was affected heavily by both and, due to human arrogance and greed that made it be constructed suitable to economical needs, but not apropriate to the needs of a facility that stands on a cliff coast of a volcanic island, a meltdown appeared during the following days.
400.000 people in estimated numbers had to leave their homes and be evacuated in the zone set by the state around the power plant.
The state of Japan, being located where it is, hung on a thing thread depending on the outcome of the acute actions made to meet this disaster.

Still until this very day, the consequences out of this event keep the authorities busy.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Did capitalists think for a second - what if when they made all state property theirs? How do they increase their piece of the cake still then? What do they want to put on top of that? Going to space?
What if discovering and exploiting space still is impossible? What if if you have to be content with the resources you find on the earth?
What if if you can't go to the depths of the ocean if there are still no technical means for that business, or they overstep the profits you wanted to make?
What do you seriously do if you have conquered the last area, the last territory on earth, to increase your stack of richness that you have?
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Für den König hätte man auch Synthetikfasern erfinden müssen, um ihn in seiner Langeweile zu begeistern.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
On the occasion of another climate summit: If you wanna do nature a real favor, mankind needs to stop living like a lord and draw on unlimited resources - and not just China, India and all those countries which now start to develop to the standard of the so-called "first world countries".
They also need to stop in the West to regard it as a self-evidence to use and throw away, to regard it as a justified measure to invent new things, cut out the old ones and produce the new ones like there is no end only because they can't reach new economic growth with producing the old equipment, and to produce worse things like energy saving lamps instead of regular bulbs made of glass, plate and tungsten only because some lobbyist with no specialized knowledge says they're environmentally more acceptable.
Above all, as radical and evil as it seems, mankind needs to put on serious thought to the fact that their wasteful lifestyle isn't able to be reached by all people in the world if the world contains more than 7 billion people. Either you can continue and have the least percentage of the human world have access to this standard of living, or you need to step down and live very basic from what the industrialized world currently calls its "normality", or there can only be at the most 2 billion people throughout the world which live like that so the resources they consume is enough for this mass taken from one planet. As it neither is healthy for the earth as well as for other planets to exploit their resources of metal ore, nor it is going to cause the world a lot of joy being contamined by radiation that exists throughout space.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Don't you climb upon a train! Climbing on a train is stupid, especially if power lines are visibly above it. Be it whether you're a refugee, a kid who is bored with his life or if you just only want a free ride.

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