Arakasi Takeda wrote:
Africa has existed as a continuous habitation of mankind for ten thousand years. Capitalism as a modern theory hasn't been around nearly as long.
Existence as what? As animals? In their history they had frequent famines where many die. The only way they can survive is by doing very simple basic tasks. So, they can sustain a few. And only a few has survived in the past 10,000 years on a level of savages.
Is this a standard of human life for you, AT?
Every time we have a conversation, my opinion of you slips a bit more. I realize that my opinion must mean very little to you, but I feel compelled to say it before moving on.
The cause, this time, is your utter lack of historical perspective. Many of the things you have listed above are true - they had frequent famines where many died. They can sustain a few.
If I were to roll back the clock 1000 years, I could say exactly the same thing about Europe.
Your western civ-centric , modernicity centric view of history, predicated on the usual Randian belief that only the West truly understands capitalism (if you ignore everything before around the 1700's), always fails to recall that we weren't always 'human' in the Randian sense either. We too had our 'savage' period. We too had famine, and disease, and death by the millions. We too grovelled in the mud, bowed before kings, prelates, and bishops, and chopped each other to bits fighting over resources.
Yet, here you are, condemning an entire continent of people for existing in a situation not at all unlike the historical situation of the culture you hold up as the 'right' one. You act as if the West were
always perfect, always better.
In other words, you are a hopless dogmatist. Reality means nothing to you at all. You have replaced history with the sterile myth Rand has spoonfed you. You don't view people as potential humans - you view them as corrupted animals without hope of advancement. You are both utopian and nihilist, and can't even realize it.
Of course, this leads you to all kind of metaphysical errors within even your own philosophy...
Look at your statements in the Iran thread...
Bomb!!! Make it a glass country before they kill us.
Here you are, advocating the direct use of force - catastrophic force. No problem for you to justify it, of course - after all, they're just savages - they don't possess any right to life. What do they know of Randian metaphysics, right?
And, of course, you'll complain back that you are just 'defending yourself'. Well, defending yourself must first involve an
action on the part of an attacker. You know, as well as I, that
intentions are meaningless. Even if you could prove the Iranians had an
intention to kill us, it would hold exactly zero metaphysical weight.
And you can't even prove an
intention on their part....or did you suddenly receive the power to read people's thoughts? There is no
proof of your suspicions....just your own paranoia about people who don't cling to
your personal definition of what a 'human' is.
In
action, which is the only thing that matters, you are no different than any other religious fanatic. Your devotion is fundamentalist, your words inflammatory, and your demeanor arrogant.
I wrote, at one point, that the best way to change the people around us wasn't to use force, but to act as the superior culture. Demonstrate that your way is the better way, and people will come around. You appeal to their reason.
How does your solution solve anything, or demonstrate anything? Your response to these people is to ignore them, to let them die. Let the diseased animals kill themselves...that'll show 'em. You have all the empathy of a sociopath (cruelty to animals being one of the three primary signals to antisocial personality disorder....along with pyromania, mister 'Nuke 'Em All).
Even if you despise his methods, and condemn them to failure because they don't conform to the precise lines of your dogma, Bill Gates is doing far more to convince people of the superiority of
current western civilization than any Randist. These people, so desperate that survival is their only immediate concern, will eventually ask themselves, when survival is further away - 'How did this man help us, and why?' When they start asking those questions, some of them may come to realize why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. Some of them may finally 'get it', as Mushashi was alluding to.
What questions will they ask, if let to your solution?
'Why does he want me dead?'
Then ask yourself why they want to kill us....their reasons are the same as yours.
"Kill them before they kill us....."
There's no more 'life' in your philosophy than there is in their. In the end, either way, they are dead. I believe the saying is 'Where their is life, there is hope'. If charity keeps these people alive for awhile, then there is hope they will live to find a better way. If you leave them to die, they will never learn.
That's my standard of life - I despise using your terms for it (I find the formulation demeaning), but I prefer a 'live' animal to a dead hominid. At least the 'live' animal has a chance to come around.
You don't care one way or the other - it's not your responsibility....either one is equivelent to you. Neither is worth preserving.
AT