Economics and China

[Taem]

Frequently throughout human history, people begin to think, just as you are here, that a consolidation of power will remove the barriers to positive change. This is because they fixate on the fantasy of the "positive change", rather on the reality of how power is shared or how consensus is built in society. The problem is not the lack of centralized power, the problem is the lack of a unified consensus on what we actions should be made, and subsequently who should do, or pay for them to be done. But, let's say yes, you get your emperor. Now with unchecked power, what assurances do we have that the fantasy of the "positive change" becomes a reality? If the majority are opposed to the changes, and our emperor imposes the changes "by force" with barrel bombs, and boot heels. What is the result? I think we are seeing it in Syria, with refugees, malnutrition, disease, poverty, suffering, death, a generation lost, and civil wars.

Two points; first and foremost, my propositions were mostly off-the-cuff, as I personally would never follow or bend to such a dictator, and would fight against it, even if the ultimate goal was one of benevolence, because as I said in a prior post, I like my gluttonous lifestyle too much to change it. Second, you point out the atrocities happening due to war, but this is true in every war and one of the main reasons I brought up Stalin, because many innocent people will die when a dictator seizes power despite their (leaders) good intentions, but how many more would die had that vision not been fully meted? It’s difficult to say, but if I’m right about my observations regarding our future, then it’s a safe bet to say more lives would be saved than would be lost when you’re looking at a potential mass extinction. Regardless, I never said my imaginary dictator would be benevolent; most conquerors weren’t know as known as “Kind” or “Just”, but as cruel, merciless, or great – I make no qualms about the type of person it’d take to accomplish this “unity”.

Capitalism is not to blame either. It is merely the entirely fair proposition that to those who sow the seeds, should reap the harvest. If I have earned much, which I have earned honestly, what right does anyone have to lay claim to my boon?

But, as a society, we must also consider the condition of those who are in the society with us. Peace is easier when people's needs are met. So, it makes logical sense for the person with more, to share some with those who have less. There will always be inequity in wealth. It just needs to be moderated enough to prevent a civil war. My goal is to convince the wealthy to see this logic, and convince them therefore to part with enough to meet the needs of those less well off to prevent suffering. A compassionate capitalism, which for the most part is what we practice in the USA. The trouble is that in "business" much as in the starving survivors in a lifeboat, what you do to survive as a business may not be the ethical thing, and so you maybe should choose an honorable ethical death rather than eat the remaining survivors with you in the boat.

Sentimental sensationalism; to be sure, my reference to Capitalism was directed towards gluttonous waste and the pursuit of cheaper materials through deforestation, over-mining, and nonuse of recyclable goods when they are clearly available. My next comment about sharing was attempting to tie this logic with *if* the world was conquered, and this leader (or even group, doesn’t have to be a singular entity) forced the wasteful corporations (cell phone makers anyone?) to use farms to grow as many resources as possible while also using recyclable goods. With the world starting to “recover” from its overuse and new mindset of living within its means, I assumed a natural sense of sharing would form from this unity hence I used the word sharing of resources, however I could be sadly mistaken and those in poverty stricken areas might find life even worse than before, and the greedy would find new ways to work within the current system so hence, nothing would actually change on a political level of how things run, but at least we’d have a few more centuries to ponder it. I see this leader not doing these things to “help” society, because our society is beyond all reproach of a level of cynicism for its leaders and institutions. No, this leader would be looked upon as a villain until the day they died, and only after that time would their great vision be realized. This leader would be doing what they do with the express intent of saving our species.

Anyway, if you haven't figured it out by now, that’s why I made the final comment about being a science fiction writer, because my enjoyment comes from fleshing out a concept to its fullest potential, with foresight into the extreme. In real life, I don't think too often about these things, but when I do, I enjoy siting and pondering deeply on them. Seeing everything that is happening to our world currently is like looking at a giant puzzle, and the fact Farmers Almanacs are now coffee coasters when they used to be highly prized for their accuracy confirms again all I’ve seen and heard and gets my thought process going trying to find a reason, looking at all the potential causes and looking way forward. In reality, even if we destroy our planet, I don’t fear our species will go extinct because if the world ever does become uninhabitable, some of our species will live in bio-domes with self-sustaining ecosystems while everyone else, I don’t know what will happen to them, but at least we will survive.

On a related note, here's another interesting thing I read: there is strong evidence that the Amazon rainforest produces its own rain. You can read about it here: link. Also, new evidence has come out showing that the chance of rain decreases with more pollution in the air, so we have a litany of potential problems with this one issue alone (deforestation). Basically, more droughts, but larger typhoons and hurricanes hitting hard and fast but not replenishing the used water because the ground is too dry to absorb it. Again, not a deal breaker, but just another piece in the puzzle.

To investigate changes in Amazonian precipitation and the projections in global climate models, the researchers modeled the relationship between precipitation and moisture flux. As expected, they found that atmospheric conditions play a strong role in the influence of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change on overall precipitation.