In Nigeria presently is in crisis. It is a good time to say black lives matter or should we say African lives matter. The irony of it all was to hear Raila urge the Nigerian government to stop police brutality. Kenyan police seems to have learnt only how to brutalise citizens.
In his book, for us the living, Heinlein makes a point that has been made here and elsewhere that to reduce war, there has to be a vote. He argues that those who vote yes must be in the first draft. This must include those billionaires who fund wars. And we can’t allow them to buy poor people to fight on their behalf. He then says those who are undecided should be in the second draft and finally those who vote no in the last draft, if the war lasts that long. I am almost sure fewer wars will be fought.
Is this narrative of perpetual progress that’s been sold to us sustainable? I like a new phone. A new computer. A new car and all but in some way this all has a cost to the environment and available resources. Question is how long will keep this on? I am no enemy of progress but I wonder if all progress is good or even desirable.
I used to wonder if automation will take away jobs or make our lives easier. But it does look like we continue to toil away- seemingly after the biblical dictum that they who don’t work shall not eat- at sometimes boring jobs that we don’t like just to make a living. Does the future hold better prospects for our working people?
Have a thoughtful weekend everyone.
Random thoughts 
The attached illustrates my own view of war, prejudice, bias and mass mind-bending of any kind. Iâve called it âConflict of Convictionsââ. Unfortunately, weâre all guilty of it to some extent. Any comments? John Faupel
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
LikeLike
We like progress or the appearance of progress.
It’s almost always not politically correct to not the support. You will very quickly be branded unpatriotic
LikeLike
I do so love Heinlein’s solution for war.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It should work, right? I don’t know why it hasn’t been tried.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heinlein was a nutjob, but he did get a few things right. This was one of them.
LikeLike
I have just read on him & he was an army man. This could explain his view towards war. Because, like Butler, whose work on war should be a must read for anyone considering joining the army, was an army man
LikeLiked by 1 person
I forgot to include Butler’s suggestion that America should keep her army within 200 miles off its cost if she needs to protect her citizens. Not having bases everywhere and claim national safety
LikeLiked by 2 people
The World’s Policeman?
LikeLike
Yes. Self appointed sheriff
LikeLike
I don’t think the primary objective is to keep the peace. On the contrary.
LikeLike
The primary objective is to capture resources or access to resources. Money…in other words.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a choice. In practice, politicians always make the wrong choice.
LikeLike
You are right about the politicians
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m currently reading a graphic novel about immigration. It makes an economic argument for open borders between countries. From an ethical perspective, I think it would do wonders for other problems as well.
Imagine a world where people can actually choose to leave a brutal regime.
LikeLike
I think such a world would be a fairer world than the one we inhabit
LikeLike
Things won’t improve until humanity finally comes to the realization that granting the “state” a virtual monopoly on violence is immoral. However, persuading people to abandon their belief in “government” appears to be even more difficult than persuading them to abandon their belief in gods.
LikeLike
You are right on both counts. But how do we convince people that the state is not benevolent ?
LikeLike
The state may not be benevolent, but I am skeptical that the “state of nature” would be an improvement. Anarchism is the province of idealistic 14 year olds.
LikeLike
There would still be some sort of government or nation building
LikeLike
Now that I think about it, without need to organize things like roads and sustain an army and police, the state may not actually be necessary
LikeLike
I am not that cynical, Maka. Your prescription for a society that does not need a state may be what we are heading for, anyway. Because that prescription is the world of Mad Max…roving bands of hunters and gatherers and scavengers. Humungus did not need a State. Humungus WAS the State. (Not sure if you have ever seen the movies)
LikeLike
That world was not overpopulated both by people and disease. Without need to accumulate much wealth, violence is minimised. It will still be there but not greatly as now.
Though I doubt we are headed there. Many states are consolidating power & there is a lot of primitive nationalism in the air made worse by the current crisis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Many of our problems would disappear if 90% of us just…vanished. The Earth would quickly recover. Heck, that is a grimmer prescription than the divine one’s 🙂
LikeLike
90% is grim. Reminds me of 2BOR2B by Kurt V.
LikeLike
For a view of a place where the State does NOT have the monopoly on violence, I would invite Ron to live a few months in San Salvador or Tegucigalpa.
LikeLike
I think it is because of the state that there is a problem in San Salvador.
The state has sanctioned some form of business that leads to violence in trying to control the market.
In a place where there is no proscription, i think violence would reduce. but then this is me being too romantic in how i see the species
LikeLike
Perhaps. Maybe I am old fashioned, but a world in which they are pushing Fentanyl with no state sanction doesn’t sound like a good one to me. Even as I acknowledge some of the problems with State prohibition.
LikeLike
I think without state prohibition & without the economic gains associated with the risk of distribution, there might not be a drug problem
LikeLike
I disagree. There have always been drunks and druggies. Even in places where there is no State. In many places, they are basically drummed out of the band or village. But yeah, State prohibition makes things worse. But the genius of modern chemistry is out of the bottle, and drugs like Fentanyl and Meth are not really like pre-modern “natural” drugs in their damage to bodies and minds. Maybe if there had been no prohibition, the market would not have created these chemical scourges. But they are here now.
LikeLike
In my neck of the woods, before Christianity came knocking and the colonial government hot on their heels with prohibitions, I have found no record of drug addicts or drunks. Alcohol was brewed only occasionally. While bhangi was there, I read that its use was restricted culturally.
But I agree with you that modern chemistry has made things worse.
I think in a place without prohibition, drug use would plummet.
LikeLike
It’s sort of a chicken or egg thing. Marijuana use is not plummeting to my knowledge where I live, despite it now being legal. Plus, maybe the stress and asocial nature of modern atomized society means more people “need” drugs?
LikeLike
i think the stresses of modern life feed the addiction loop. People want to run away from the problems of daily living
LikeLike
On the other hand…I can be a contrarian even w/r/t my own contrarian-ness…this was timely. https://psyche.co/ideas/kropotkin-the-radical-aristocrat-who-put-kindness-on-a-scientific-footing?
LikeLike
https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/mexico-culiacan-change/
Freedom from the State!
LikeLike
This is timely. I have just finished a book recommended by Mary titled Civilised to death and his main argument that the competition that is driving to madness is a result of the civilization not the cause of it. Societies we deem primitive are generally egalitarian and not as competetive
LikeLike
Permanent agriculture as the original sin. Yet…I must admit I really don;t want to live the “primitive” lifestyle.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t recommend going back to pre refrigeration days or WiFi but a scaling down of things, maybe?
LikeLike
I don’t think you can really CHOOSE. Just like after the Original Sin (agriculture), people were better fed, but agriculture seemed to NEED hierarchy, control, and all the ills of modern civilization. (There are always exceptions, but the rule is evident).
Ron talks fondly of a world where the State has no monopoly on force. I see MS13…or religious theocracies….or villages ruled by caste based traditions in which the nonconformists are quickly disposed of. (This also occurs in State societies, of course)
LikeLike