MARKET OF CHOICE ASSAULT AND DISCRIMINATION Please Watch this and Share this

Human Paradox

Reading this reminds me of the fundamental flaw in Imperialist reasoning.

If the only reason you do something is for your own immediate self-interest, you defeat the whole purpose behind that--caring for yourself--the survival and perpetuation of your species. As has been reported elsewhere (see S.I. Hayakawa's introduction to his book "Thought Into Action"), "humanity's greatest adaptation is cooperation."

Amongst all the species existing on Earth, humans maintain the potential to work together--cooperate--in ways unheard of in any other species. As biology has taught us, intraspecies fighting is a self-defeating action that tends to eventually lead to extinction.

Humans have developed means to work together in such a way that we can most often resolve them peacefully and amicably.

How else could humans work so effectively together in many instances?

However, without an external threat i.e. without interspecies competition (and let's face it, unless an alien invasion occurs or we start defining "Nature" as a species, there is practically zero competition worth our time besides bacteria, viruses, and other such parasitic organisms), humans dedicate practically all of our resources fighting with ourselves.

The irony here is too palpable not to laugh--the one meaningful competitor we have--microbes and maybe a few other colony based organisms and those "plants" and "insects" who wreak havoc with our symbiotic relationship with much of the plant, animal, and fungal world--dedicate little overall attention. What really gets our attention is "power" and "How can I get that other guy's resources?"

Does it take six years of depression, abandoning all of your wealth and power, and living under a tree for weeks on end, or living in a desert without food or drink for two months (provided that happens) to make this concept clear?!

I'd like to think not.

But, given the mentalities herein discussed, it comes at no surprise why America and the global human population is slowly collapsing.

BTW, if Asia follows suit, they won't last much longer--things will go up and then crash. Happened in Greece, Rome, Europe, Asia, America, and throughout all of human history.

When people work cooperatively, they survive and often thrive--when they act otherwise--in the long-run, everyone suffers.

The worst part of studying economics is watching its best observations malapplied. It shouldn't take observing the power gained by collusion between firms in oligopolies for people to see the power held in working together--game theory teaches, when all parties work together e.g. the cereal manufacturers General Mills, Kellogg, and Post, they each over the long run reap the greatest net reward.

The problem comes down to self-interest over global-interest. In the long-run, we can see these are the same, but in the short-term, they are different. If I underprice everyone, then I make a ton of resources now. I will get to live in luxury (even if it is at other's expense).

The Vulcans actually make a great example of holding back things for their own ends I.e. so they can maintain their interests over that of others--imperialism. (See the series "Enterprise" for further details.)

In the end, I see now how I got duped by these types back in the early 2000's. I actually believed that sharing the ideas of democracy "great cooperative ideas" and republic are the ideal foreign policy--provided the people want it. Helping a people stop a group of exploitationists who gained power through coercion is productive--provided those people really want it--e.g. helping to overthrow Nazi Germany or Imperialist Japan. Same would have been the case with Great Britain.

But, the problem inevitably comes down to people helping out of self-interest i.e. stopping the loss of human-life to protect the species or to stop it so I can take over or put the person in power who serves my interests irrespective of those interests.

Iran and Vietnam are wonderful examples of this--instead of supporting the people fighting for just rule by their people and then us acting like civilized types, even if we risked oil spikes or threats of Soviet Conquest, we looked only at the short-run prospects and got screwed over the long-run--they did too. Actually, we all did.

Iran has a religious dictatorship--in a very great deal the responsibility of the US--the Iranian people still hold final responsibility, but given the religious establishment was the only thing left after the democracy got crushed--killing that movement with it--can we really blame them? Viet Nam is really no different.

It's amusing to see the logic in Patten so many years after his death.

The man, flaws aside, was a soldier and not a bullshit artist. He knew 100% why we fought the Germans--for our own interests. He wanted to train the German, reorganize them and plow into Russia and end Stalin too. While making sure both didn't groups didn't take over their people.

It was for ultimately self-interest.

Eisenhower supported denatzification, but Patton cared more about the next threat he saw coming. It's the soldier vs politician mindset.

I use the phrase "bullshit", because even if Eisenhower was doing things for ideologically valuable reasons, the end results were the same--many countries continued to exert power over their neighbors (including the US) while individuals were slowly taking over--i.e. those who were in positions to benefit e.g. "the elite".

It's not to say killing one group to protect another is the best plan--frankly, Gandhi and MLK had it right (swiping from Jesus and Buddha), militant-nonviolence is the best course, because it motivates the one group who can maintain momemtum--the polis I.e. "those who are to benefit most from self-governance by the People--the People, all of them as an equal whole."

Problem comes in when you apply technology. It allows for a small amount of power to become a whole bunch-how humanity beat the other species-we used gray and white matter, and some bronze to overcome our obstacles. Technology can make one group tremendously more powerful than another, and when that group is using said power to hurt the other, then you have a whole convoluted mess.

Back to the Vulcan argument--what tweaked Archer so much wasn't that the Vulcans kept back tech to prevent others from using it to do harm or misuse it--logic: better to let them die, than allow them to misuse technology so even more suffer. It was they used that as a cover so to speak. In the end, they had their own agenda.

It all comes down to playing god--you either help or don't. If you do, then you play god, and if you knowingly and consciously let them die, you play god. The end is the same result--you are still playing god.

What seems to make sense, at least to me, is how all of our heroes in fiction--at least, Star Trek, is how they all use the power they have been given to help save others, for it is better to save a "monster" in innocence, than to kill it, because one injustice does not justify another--except in that episode--the Hitler timeline change morality question.

Really, it's a lot more complex, and we all wish it wasn't, but in the end, if you get to the point of running back and forth bashing your head against the wall with this horrendous mind mess of a quandary, at least you are thinking about the consequences of your actions and trying to do what is ultimately best I.e. cheat! ;) Winning the unwinnable game called life! (Well, it seems that way sometimes, at least.)

Imperialism is the manifestation of an extreme limited mindset focused only in the short-run that threatens the prosperity of all of humanity in the long-run. Having questions about military action for the purposes of aiding free another group of people is one thing, but just make sure you aren't really playing into some dicks hands! Yes, ladies--the human trait of working solely for personal gratification at the expense of others!

In the end, it's a message about motives and metaphors. Just know who's doing the talking and make sure it isn't really self-interested. In the end, life is a gift, and when we respect that gift, we are more apt to keep it. But, we also get to choose what our life IAS worth. If mine comes at the expense of others, then it doesn't seem to be worth much-even if that sounds ironic! Hahaha! Only those willing to give it up for good are worth living! Talk about the human paradox called life!

The Daily Beast: Stop Saying ‘Neocon’ http://goo.gl/mag/r6w9tmR