On 2/18/2014, Expanded Consciousness posted the above
picture for all their followers to see.
I fundamentally disagreed with the message portrayed and the following
debate ensued…
Seth Garrett
The natural order is not superior to man made order.
Seth Garrett
The natural order is based on unlimited reproduction,
unlimited killing, and unlimited starvation. Man made order is much more
civilized.
Expanded Consciousness
Would respectfully disagree Seth, man made order has lead to
more dangerous weaponry and thus more deaths per attack. It has also lead to
the pollution and devastation of much of this Earth. If we respected natural
order a bit more perhaps we wouldn't look at nature as a commodity, but as our
only home. In 2007, the United Nations said that on average, around 25,000
people die every day due to hunger or hunger-related causes, even though we
have the means to feed all people of this earth. And this is civil? Much peace.
Seth Garrett
If we embraced natural order, the starvation deaths would be
MUCH higher. If you think our current system isn't civil, wait till farms are
shut down and people have to look for berries. Half of Arizona would die in a month
due to lack of natural resources.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, I again respectfully disagree. Had humans not become
so dependent on someone else to grow their food, but instead insisted on
growing themselves or with a community co-op they would feed themselves just
fine, in any weather or climate since you can grow organically indoors. Now
what do you have? Monsanto controlling the seeds and selling terminator seeds,
makes no sense. Why would farms be shut down anyway? Again, we have the
resources to feed everyone in the world but why don't we? Perhaps we are too
civil. I am not advocating for one over the other...perhaps the best course of
action would be to have more of a balance. Peace.
Seth Garrett
Because in order to have farmland you have to cut
down the trees which, according to this post, means they are savages.
Seth Garrett
When populations grow, specialization occurs.
When specialization occurs, interdependence occurs. When interdependence occurs
peace occurs. If you want everyone to be a farmer then you will take away 1000
years of social advancement placing us back into the dark ages where people are
fighting constantly over land.
Claudia Zazueta
Umm Seth, man made order is more civilized? Are you serious?
SMH
There is enough food and water on this planet to nourish
EVERY single human being but since greed is in control many do die of hunger
and starvation and that is due to the disconnection we have as a humans with
each other. We lack love, Compassion,
Understanding and Unity as a whole. If
man made order wasn’t in control our world would be a much better place.
Expanded Consciousness
Correct Seth, but not all farms require the destruction of
the trees though, some do and sadly many of those that do are producing for
other countries...so if those other countries got back to the natural order
(grow or produce more sustainable/local) much of this would be alleviate. Take
Brazil for instance, Brazil is today the world's largest exporter and producer
of beef. Much of its expansion has taken place in the Amazon, which currently
has more than 90 million head of cattle, up from 26.6 million in 1990 and
equivalent to more than 90 percent of the total U.S. herd. The Brazilian Amazon
has more than 214,000 square miles of pasture, an open space larger than
France. More here. http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, 'when interdependence grows peace occurs' the US is
very interdependent on many other countries...yet could you please name a year
from the birth of this country until now where it was not at war? I didn't say
I want everyone to become farmers, but everyone could grow something,
anything...then you have the option to barter and trade your goods for the
goods grow around you. Again, you could do a community garden, where the
community pitches in and helps to feed everyone...like we used to do. This is not
a step back in social advancement it is reasserting that which many know, we
need to be more self sustainable or we will continue to ruin this planet we
call home and Earth. Please provide any sourcing for your claims as well.
Thanks.
Seth Garrett
@Claudia - Greed is in control? I disagree. The desire for
financial stability and success is in control. If greed was in control, why
would business provide free services? Why would Cashiers return to you correct
change? Why would employees be friendly to you and keep lost and found items
for your retrieval? The fact of the matter is capitalism encourages people to
be good to each other. If you are greedy and corrupt, someone will find out.
You will lose your reputation and financial stability because no one wants your
business any more. Americans are extremely generous. Your anti-capitalism is
based on a myth.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, but what happens when someone does find out you are
corrupt? What if millions knew, but there was nothing anyone could do because
the company is so intertwined with the US government? See Monsanto and head of
FDA. Head of FDA is former head exec for Monsanto, millions know this yet he
still exist at his position.
Seth Garrett
http://www.voxeu.org/article/globalisation-promotes-peace
Bilateral trade deters military conflicts
In a recent paper (Lee and Pyun 2008), we assess the impact
of trade integration on military conflict based on a large panel data set of
290,040 country-pair observations from 1950 to 2000. Results show that an
increase in bilateral trade interdependence reduces the probability of
inter-state military conflict between the two partners. If bilateral trade
volume increases 10% from the world mean value, the probability of military
conflict between the two trading partners decreases by about 0.1% from its
predicted mean probability, other variables remaining constant. The
peace-promotion effect of bilateral trade integration is significantly higher
for contiguous countries that are likely to experience more conflicts. For
example, an increase of 10% in bilateral trade volume lowers the probability of
military conflict between two contiguous states by about 1.9%.
Expanded Consciousness
Thank you kindly for the article, Seth. A few key take
aways....
1) Only countries willing to participate will see peace,
what of those that don't and are peaceful within their country but because they
will not sell the US their products we go to war with them? (See Economic
Hitman)
2) " If bilateral trade volume increases 10% from the
world mean value, the probability of military conflict between the two trading
partners decreases by about 0.1% from its predicted mean probability, other
variables remaining constant." (What if it does not increase 10%?)
3) Although it seems integration helps with war, the leading
cause of death in the world is still hunger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dsiufhMu0
Seth Garrett
Globalization also helps the hunger crisis. Natural order
does nothing to help the hunger crisis. Do deer store up piles of grass in
bundles and transport them to hungry cattle in desert areas? No. I have seen
cattle die in the desert. Only humankind has the full capacity for good and
evil. To revert back to natural order is anti-human and immoral.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, if globalization works so well why is starvation still
the number 1 cause of death worldwide? Perhaps because it doesn't work, why?
Because you can't make money on people who can't pay.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm
"The World Bank, the World Trade Organization, the
World Food Program, the Millennium Challenge, The Alliance for a Green
Revolution in Africa, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and industrial giants
like Yara Fertilizer, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, DuPont, and
Monsanto, carefully avoid addressing the root causes of the food crisis. The
"solutions" they prescribe are rooted in the same policies and
technologies that created the problem in the first place: increased food aid,
de-regulated global trade in agricultural commodities, and more technological
and genetic fixes. These measures only strengthen the corporate status quo
controlling the world's food."
"The future of our food—and fuel—systems are being
decided de facto by unregulated global markets, financial speculators, and
global monopolies."
" The World Bank reported that global food prices rose
83% over the last three years and the FAO cited a 45% increase in their world
food price index over just nine months."
"The food crisis appeared to explode overnight,
reinforcing fears that there are just too many people in the world. But
according to the FAO, there were record grain harvests in 2007. There is more
than enough food in the world to feed everyone. In fact, over the last 20
years, world food production has risen steadily at over 2% a year, while the
rate of global population growth has dropped to 1.14% a year. Population is not
outstripping food supply."
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, I never said revert back to a natural order either, I
am advocating balance. Right now we are way out of balance with mother Earth.
In doing so we have put all of humanity at risk.
Expanded Consciousness
The amount of food Americans throw away has risen by
approximately 50 percent since 1974 according to a new study in PLoS ONE.
American now waste on average 1,400 calories per person everyday, equaling 150
trillion calories a year nationwide. Considering that the average person
requires approximately 2,000 calories a day, this means that the US could feed
over 200 million adults every year with the food that ends up in the trash.
Currently, the UN estimates that one billion people—an historical record—are
going hungry worldwide.
Read more at
http://news.mongabay.com/2009/1129-hance_foodwastetwo.html#AZjz4Z9hWxI3sJ8k.99
Seth Garrett
It is not always feasible to transport excess food to other
countries. Waste is an inevitable part of food production.
Seth Garrett
Food goes bad. It expires. Demand doesn't
always remain constant.
Seth Garrett
I agree that world hunger is still an issue. I
disagree about why. You have an anti-capitalism attitude infused into your
response saying that the problem is "we can't make money off people who
can't pay". The reality is it is not always feasible to produce food for
people who can't pay. We have the capacity to produce as much food as people
have money for. But financial issues are legitimate issues. How is a business
supposed to afford to give away free products? How do they pay their employees?
It is better to teach a man to fish than to feed him for a day. Poor countries
cannot rely on free food. The need capital investment so they can build their
own wealth.
Expanded Consciousness
Exactly Seth! Which means these areas need to get back to
self-sustainable measures. You seem to be complimenting my remarks. Forget
about capitalism for a moment. I am looking at the system as a whole, with no
definition attached, and it has not, is not, and will not work. It's that
simple. If we are to only live for money and profit then millions will continue
to die, and millions of acres of land will continue to be wiped out. Again,
it's about balance. We don't need folks like Monsanto for our survival. Our
survival always has and always will be linked to what we can provide for
ourselves as close to home as possible.
You mention in your previous comment that companies give
away things for free, yet you comment now about how can companies make money off
giving things away for free?
The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As
The 3.5 Billion Poorest....and you want me to believe the system in place is
the best we have got and have had throughout history? Trickle effect does not,
has not, and will never work the way it was told. Sorry.
Seth Garrett
Growing a garden in your backyard is fine, but that does
little to help the poor worldwide. The problem is a good backyard farm will not
likely be able to sustain a family for a whole year even in good environments.
Poor can barely afford a back yard. Poor countries need to fully embrace
individual rights, capitalism, and foreign investment. Then things will
improve.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, 1/10th of an acre can feed an entire family for over a
year. The moment a country accepts foreign aid they are forever in debt in
many, many cases. Again, see Econimic Hitman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM
Seth Garrett
With regard to the top 1%, where do you think all of their
money is? It exists within investments and ownership of businesses. It is
ignorant to say that the top 1% are ripping everyone off. Because of the
businesses they own, you can afford cheap products at Walmart and cheap food at
fast food chains. Take away their wealth and you destroy the businesses that
make your life good.
Seth Garrett
My family has grown gardens in our back yard many times
through multiple seasons in Arizona. I can tell you from experience that it is
wholly inadequate as a sole food source for a family.
Michael Koleoso
If greed is not in control, can you tell me where the
trillions in profit the so-called multinational corporations, notoriously famed
for their tax evasion practices, are spirited away to? There are no free
services that businesses provide because it is all included in the price
somewhere along the line. Anywhere there is profit, there will be deficit
somewhere else. A businesses main objective is to turn a profit. And no
corporation cares much about reputation when it has a captive market
Expanded Consciousness
Investments and offshore bank accounts Seth If you are going to claim something, please
back it up with sourcing like I have. Otherwise it simply seems like your
opinion and not fact. Many thanks.
Expanded Consciousness
It's not all about investment Seth, it's a joke really. The
min wage in the US should be $20/hr to keep up with cost of living and these
people can't afford to raise it?
"The Oxfam report found that over the past few decades,
the rich have successfully wielded political influence to skew policies in
their favour on issues ranging from financial deregulation, tax havens,
anti-competitive business practices to lower tax rates on high incomes and cuts
in public services for the majority. Since the late 1970s, tax rates for the
richest have fallen in 29 out of 30 countries for which data are available,
said the report.
This "capture of opportunities" by the rich at the
expense of the poor and middle classes has led to a situation where 70% of the
world's population live in countries where inequality has increased since the
1980s and 1% of families own 46% of global wealth - almost £70tn."
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world
Seth Garrett
Okay, so what happens when money is in an off shore bank
account? What do banks do? They loan money for an interest rate. When banks
have more money, interest rates go down. That means more people can afford
housing. That means more people can get a loan to start a business. EC, I don't
need to source common sense.
Expanded Consciousness
"In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95
percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent
became poorer."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/01/23/the-85-richest-people-in-the-world-have-as-much-wealth-as-the-3-5-billion-poorest/
Expanded Consciousness
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said, ‘We may have
democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, but we
cannot have both.’
Expanded Consciousness
You haven't sourced much of anything Seth , so forgive me if
that sounds rude but I'll take what you write largely as opinion. Because your
family can't do it doesn't mean it can't and hasn't been done before my friend.
I could source more examples then the one I already provided if need be. Peace.
Seth Garrett
There is nothing evil about pursuing a profit in order to
maintain financial stability, support continued growth, and produce greater
value for the public. Tax evasion is a natural side effect of an oppressive tax
system.
Seth Garrett Under capitalism, companies have a motivation
to make the customer happy. They provide free napkins, catsup, bathrooms, wifi,
etc. But they can't do that unless they make a profit.
Seth Garrett
With regard to the top 1% (top 85 individuals), that is a
bunch of hype that is based on poor logic. The problem with the logic is that
it assumes that wealth is finite. It assumes that the every year the earth
produces X amount of GDP and each country has to divide it amongst themselves.
You're train of thought leads me to believe that you have are assuming that the
top 1% are taking more that their fair share of the worlds output. But what you
don't seem to understand is that the earth does not have a limit on the amount
of wealth it is able to produce. The rich are not taking more than their fair
share, they are PRODUCING more than their fair share. It is about time that the
poor countries of the world stopped blaming the rich for their problems and started
creating their own wealth. China did it. Why can't Africa? China is unique in
its disciplined culture. They have hard work and educational values instilled
in them at a young age. It is time that the world realized that poverty is a
cultural problem, not an exploitation problem.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, sorry but under capitalism the companies don't need a
motivation to make a customer happy, when you own the entire market people will
have to buy from you either way. How else do you think Walmart, Monsanto, oil
companies, stay in business....they are so tied to the government they would
never be in trouble. Look at the banking system, they completely bankrupt the
people of the US in their subprime rage and they got bailed out when others
were left to be homeless.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, you say there is “nothing evil about pursuing a profit
in order to maintain financial stability, support continued growth, and produce
greater value for the public.” Do you understand the notion of growing just for
growth is the same that cancer has in the body?
Eventually you outgrow, this model is vastly flawed and will not be
sustainable in the future. If companies
want to make true investments they should invest in homes with built-in solar,
making hemp legal so it can fuel our cars, etc.
What we have now is a prison of sorts, where the upper class owns the
resources and they decide the price at which we should pay for these.
Seth Garrett
Crony capitalism is different from capitalism. Where
corruption exists, it should be purged because it violates free market
principles. Where monopolies exist, they should be disbanded by the government
because free markets require competition.
Seth Garrett
Good analogy to cancer. But unlike cancer, economic
"growth for growth sake" is limited to supply and demand. People are
free to choose alternatives like solar and back yard gardens but they don't
because the current prices are not oppressive enough. If prices skyrocketed,
people would naturally gravitate to other options.
While it may seem like humans are a cancer on the earth,
humans naturally appreciate nature. It is our God given role to tend the earth.
Nature flourishes under the dominion of man. We organize beautiful gardens,
build parks, create wildlife preserves, decorate our houses and roads with
nature. We take care of pets. We feed animals on farms. We help animals and
nature as we expand. We are not a cancer to the earth. We are gods of the
earth. We make the earth a better place as we expand.
Expanded Consciousness
Uh, Seth, if you think people are
free to choose why is hemp biofuel not in use? Because dominate companies like
DuPont don't want it to cut into their margins. "Nature flourishes under
the dominion of man." -Please site your sources for this....ask BP, Shell,
Chevron whether they really care about the Earth or if all they care about is
profit margin. Humans are not a cancer...the way in which humans have become so
detached from Earth and not caring about it is the cancer.
Please site sources that explain how we make the Earth a
better place by expanding?
Expanded Consciousness
Either way though Seth, if a company is to please its share
holders it must expand and make more profit...whether it is good for the Earth
and its people or not...right?
Expanded Consciousness
Sorry, Seth, it is impossible to believe you since most of
what you are saying is seen as opinion and not fact...present the facts and
perhaps my view might change. But I have done enough research over the years to
know that you don't have those facts, otherwise you would have presented them.
peace.
Seth Garrett
EC, I have presented plenty of anecdotal evidence to support
my case. If you refuse to acknowledge my arguments then that shows how
closed-minded you are. You might need to expand your consciousness a bit.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, anecdotal: (of an account) NOT necessarily true or
reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research
You're right Seth, you have provided ample anecdotal
evidence now provide actual evidence.....you see I base my beliefs on facts,
not on the beliefs of others. Provide your facts and we will have an easier
time understanding each other. You have provided one source, I have provided
ample. My mind may appear closed because the door lacks validation to open
Seth Garrett
I am not involved in the Biofuel industry, but
my answer is the same, crony capitalism should be abolished so that people are
free to choose.
Seth Garrett
@Ayn Nugen - You asked "How does the rich
produce more than their fair share and for what purpose other than greed?"
The rich usually get their riches from "ownership". They make their
money off of assets that they own. It is not because they are greedy. That is
very unfair to assume. Flawed logic would make one think that the rich can
exploit everyone by owning everything, but that is not the case. As I said
before, there is not a finite amount of wealth. If there are only 100 homes for
sale and the rich own them all, you can just build your own home and create
your own wealth.
Seth Garrett
I can take pictures of my neighborhood if you
don't believe humans nurture plants in their front yards. I can google
Yellowstone national park for you if you don't believe humans create wildlife
preserves. Your insistence on my providing a reference for every obvious
example is a futile waste of my time.
Expanded Consciousness
And I can take pictures of the
destruction happening in the rain forest, what's your point Seth?
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, if you can provide me factual
data that proves we are restoring the Earth at a faster pace than we are
destroying it then I will believe much more than you say...but a picture of
your front yard isn't going to cut it. Sorry, it seems your scope of the world
is vastly limited and because you refuse to provide any sourcing this
discussion must end as I feel as though I am running on a tread mill....gives
me something to do, but not getting anywhere. peace.
Seth Garrett
I think that they whole crux of this argument is based on
two conflicting views - 1) nature dominant with humans fitting in with nature,
2) human dominant with nature fitting in with humans. I have explained already
why I view the latter as the more correct and moral path for the future. Namely
because natural order is not superior to man made order.
Expanded Consciousness
Except for the fact that natural order will always prevail
since we can not control all aspects of nature, Seth If humans vanish from this planet it will
flourish, if humans vanish the planet, they too vanish...we are nature, to try
and separate that is a grave mistake of the psyche. You said it yourself, you
gave only anecdotal evidence, which translate to giving opinion not fact.
Seth Garrett
You are correct, the natural order will always
exist in the absence of a higher order. Nature is based on random chance. Man
made order is based on intelligence. The natural order has no morals. Nature
kills without regard to right or wrong. Suffering is commonplace in the natural
order. Man made order distinguishes between right and wrong. Man made order
minimizes suffering.
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, please tell me how it is
intelligent to destroy your own planet for profit?
Seth Garrett
If you consider cutting down trees
"destroying your planet", then you must not understand that trees
grow back. If you consider exhaust from cars "destroying your
planet", you must not understand that volcanoes produce much more
pollution. Using the earth is not destroying the earth. The more we use the
earth, the better our technology. With better technology we can built better
cars and more efficiently use trees, etc. With intelligence, we can cultivate
nature on the earth. This is not "destroying your planet".
Expanded Consciousness
Seth, what about the oil spills in
our water ways? The radiation from Fukushima and other nuclear power-plants,
and nuclear weapons at that? How do these help the earth...again, you speak as
if what you say is fact with no regard for providing your sourcing. So, again,
I will take what you say as your individual opinion and not universal
truth
Yes trees grow back...VERY slowly, some have been growing
for hundreds of years, and how many are grown back vs torn down?
Sorry brother, you won't win this debate, you really can't
since we are debating your opinion and not facts.
Expanded Consciousness
Let's not also forget about the
depleted soil nutrition, gene diseases, etc that stem from just pesticides
alone, Seth. Let us also not forget that Monsanto insists that farmers grow
monoculture produce, very dangerous to our food system. Let's not also forget
about the barium that is being tossed into our air. The list really goes on and
on Seth...it's not just trees being taken down. And to compare what a naturally
occurring volcano does vs what we consciously do is a bit silly really. Since
we CAN control ourselves if we really wanted to.
Jackson Gash
@expanded consciousness...I applaud your patience and
concise retorts when debating with Seth. It's quite sobering to see that people
like Seth (who are obviously quite educated) still can't see the wood for the
trees (no offence intended Seth)...such a deep seeded issue it is to displace
the common doxa, subvert the capitalistic nature of both producers/consumers
and its associated insatiable appetite which we are all subject too. Many
people still live in this state of "plausible deniability" kind of
feels like we are being held to ransom when we wake up! I hope we will see
things change in our lifetime
To be continued...
