141–150 of 217 posts
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
It's an interesting claim. I don't think I buy it--the U.S. is entering our period of decline right now, and our belligerence is, if anything, accelerating that--but maybe you'll make a longer argument with examples on your blog.
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
So in the midst of a global recession you are advocating military expansion to increase birthrates even as resources are dwindling. There has been no greater self destruction in recorded history than the second world war, and that's what results from what you advocate. Conveniently, you fail to mention any of the self destructed nations. God awful.
No, no one sane would advocate for another WWII.
However, a nation that implodes is also incredibly unpleasant. The most well-known is going from Rome to the Dark Ages. This path should also be avoided.
Re: resource scarcity, it's counter-mainstream but I'm not sure that's correct... net actionable resources might even be increasing - see, ex, all the energy that can now be gotten out of thorium. If you're a believer in cold fusion being possible (hot fusion already is possible, but isn't economical) then fossil fuels are basically a non-issue. But that's a long conversation. Suffice to say, I think the Earth can prosperously contain many more people than today, and that if it did so, it would be more prosperous. Much moreso, actually, since all gain comes from talented people and groups doing interesting things. But that's a long conversation.
Anyways. My argument is "completely pacifist societies seem to self-destruct" - there are a few rare exceptions that are extremely mountainous or islands or mountainous islands. Even they have some defense forces. But yes, I think a small amount of militarization goes a long ways towards having a more healthy nation that isn't self-destructing, which is important.
Is it really the women who are avoiding marriage? Do this experiment: go to a newspaper stand and look for magazines about weddings. Look for books about marriage. I have never ever seen one addressed to men (there are ones which seem to be, but on a quick glance I actually think they were written to feed the women's ego), which means IMHO that men wouldn't spend money on subjects like these. Meanwhile you sholdn't b…
By analogy: many women enjoy and write slash stories about male homosexuality, which they obviously can't participate in. Same for wedding stories, dresses and shots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, considering that humans are on top of the food chain, maybe what you describe is a good thing (and we have it in our genes): Population can not grow forever on a planet with a limited amount of resorces. So people either stop having children, or begin killing each other.
malthusian arguments have been debunked. humans are wealth producing, not destroying.
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
I would expect that peaceful societies are conquered by warlike societies, at a lower rate than warlike societies are conquered by other warlike societies.
Logically this ought to be true since (a) the conditions for long standing peace should necessarily mean either a protection from warmongers due to natural geography or political reality and (b) warlike societies seek out conflict and each conflict carries with it the chance of societal death.
I have a theory that I haven't found expounded before. It came from a combination of travel through 60+ countries, living and working and interacting with local people on a pretty intimate level sometimes, and study of lots of history. It's going to be controversial and maybe even shocking, so brace yourself for a moment before reacting please. I think peaceful societies self-destruct. With a few notable exceptions t…
This is patent nonsense. Every society has its day in the sun, military or not, and then collapses. The US is doing this as we speak - despite having the most powerful military the world has ever known, and almost spending more on its military than the rest of the world combined. It's been far from peaceful in the timeframe that Europe and Japan have been (several official wars, quite a number of unofficial ones). Fa…
I tried writing up all the credentials I have that make me have a clear understanding here, but I don't know how to do it without looking snarky. But anyways, today I'm in Beijing, yesterday I was in Hong Kong, last week I was in Japan, and tomorrow I'm getting my hair cut with the nephew of one of the top CPC officials who is my friend and occasionally someone I do business with. And yeah, I read a lot of history.
So anyways. I think you might be uninformed about modern Japanese/Chinese relations.
For instance, there's only four countries that get visa free entry into the PRC without any public business.
Guess who is on the list?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visa_policy_of_the_People%27s_R...
Huh. Interesting point? Don't the Chinese hate the Japanese?
Answer: nope! The leadership doesn't, anyways. The common people do, it's a common enemy for them, just like illegal immigration from Mexico is a common enemy for much of the American Midwest. But the leadership of China are extremely practical, intelligent, and unsentimental people. If a good relationship with Japan is good for China, they'll do it. If Japan makes friendly overtures simultaneously with re-arming and stays on good terms with the USA, yes that's all very possible.
As for the rest of your comment, man you've seriously got to check your own claims more. For instance -
> Far from renouncing war, the US both pursues and idolises it.
Okay. So, you'd expect a greater number of people among the upper class to be joining the military, a greater number of representatives to be coming from former soldiers, and more presidents to be former servicemen too?
Right? You'd expect those numbers to be increasing if American militarism is increasing? Are they increasing? No...? Is there a hole in your theory...? Hmm...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070627182454/http://www.grant-t... ^60% of divorce settlements favorable to women, 40% even, 10% favorable to men. UK, 2004. http://www.attorneys.com/legal_center/articles/child_custody... ^10-15% of men have sole custody of children http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120700651883978623.html ^3.6% of alimony recipients are male, 2006 I am not a fountain of sources, so I hope this will do for…
1. I agree that most divorce proceedings do favor women. 2. As a friend of an attorney who tells me that most of his male clients never seek custody and don't even petition for visitation rights until the CS payments start coming due this is completely inline with our society. I'm sorry, but once the divorce is finished most guys just want to move on with their life, the family they had becomes an encumberment. Most…
This implies that I may not even need to have sex to be forced into child support payments. For example, what if someone sneaks into my bedroom at night (or maybe we're sharing a hotel room while travelling) and is able to make off with some semen while I sleep? By the legal argument that we must advocate for the child, I would be forced into child support. Sure, I could attempt to seek some sort of relief from the mother for what she did, but that would be completely separate from whether or not I am legally obligated to pay child support for the next 18 years.
Maybe all men should be forced to wear locks on their genitalia lest some crazy woman somewhere decide that they want to force the man to create a child?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never more quickly have I realized that there is no point in discussion. There are too many things I'd need to explain to make this anywhere near worthwhile. I'll just point out a few things and then I'll be on my way. This is nowhere near enough to explain everything to you, but I feel the need to give you a few more pointers. First of all, it would be common courtesy in any fruitful discussion that if you require m…
I deleted my comment before I knew you were writing a reply. My comment originally said that I think there's two ways of exploring the world. 1. Start with a conclusion you want to be true and looking for evidence that supports your view, or 2. Start by gathering facts and trying to find conclusions in them. You write: > This is what I want, and therefore I try to find theories to support that. Right. I think that vi…
3. Look for multiple often contradictory world views and evaluate them over time.
Most people try and create a world view where they have the 'facts' and there may be a few unimportant things they don't know and a few things they are wrong about but they got the big picture. Unfortunately, it's easy to answer 'What is the best car company?' with Ford and then always buying that. Even if sometimes Honda might be a better option.