Solidarity

Everybody wants the same thing, don't they?
They want to see a happy end
They want to see the game on Saturday,
They want to be somebody's friend
Everybody wanna work for a living,
They wanna keep their children warm
Everybody wants to be forgiven,
They want a shelter from the storm
Look at me, I ain't your enemy,
We walk on common ground
We don't need to fight each other,
What we need, what we need

Solidarity,

Nobody likes to ask for money,
Nobody likes to play the clown,
Nobody likes to wait in a long line,
Nobody likes being pushed around
Everybody wants their family protected
They wanna express themselves
Everybody want to live forever
Look at me, I ain't your enemy
Don't believe everything you hear
This is no time to fight each other
What we need, what we need
Solidarity,
Solidarty......

Black Uhuru

Birth control, wars, famine, natural disasters, pollution, global warming--- all have a connection extending far back into the past.

Capitalism defined

The term capitalism was first used to describe a system of private investment and industry with little governmental control, in which the means of production are privately owned and controlled and which is characterized by competition and the profit motive. In Capitalism, individuals can maximize profits because they own the means of production. Under capitalism, individuals, companies or corporations invest in, own, and share in profits (or losses) of the entities that produce goods, distribute products or provide services.

Capitalism, emerged, without an ideological basis, in the Netherlands and Britain in the 17th and 18th centuries. A "capitalist" was an individual who invested money (or capital) in a given business venture. ...Since then Capitalism has become an evolving concept derived from that earlier European economic practices such as Feudalism, Imperialism, (Mercantilism). Capitalism is widely considered to be the dominant economic system in the world. There is continuing debate over the definition, nature, and scope of this system.

Early entrants to capitalism and free trade (UK, the US, Western Europe, Japan) accumulated great wealth through ideological and trade wars, invasions and colonialism, which established their dominance on the backs of non European peoples. Later entrants to Capitalism currently face huge problems such as global warming, pollution, population growth and resource depletion.

These were not problems up until 30 years ago, certainly not problems when the United States industrialized. Today China is one country projected to match the US as the largest economy in 2030, a straight line projection of current trends. What is unaccounted for by economists is the wealth-reducing damage to the earth that such unrestrained growth will have caused.

Capitalism, in order to be a healthy, viable system has to sustain constant growth. A young, growing population is counted as a plus. A capitalist economy that does not grow is in a "depression." Imagine the game of Pac man, gobbling up all in its path – this is capitalism in a nutshell.

However, the earth has finite resources, and a finite "carrying capacity." The run up in energy and resource prices are simply indications of what is beginning to happen. Global warming is another, and with increasing droughts in large parts of the world, reducing the amounts of food available, promoting famine.

For Westerners who expect to continue their "way of life," when in competition for scarce resources with the huge countries of China and India is simply a fantasy. It is also a fantasy that the Chinese or Indians will someday enjoy affluent lifestyles like Americans.

There are over 3 billions of people from those two countries alone. And if they and nearby East Asia consume and pollute even at (lower) European levels, the oceans will become deserts from over-fishing, resources that are not 100% recycled will become prohibitively expensive and global warming will render most agriculture way over-taxed to produce the necessary food (especially if the Chinese and Indians demand diets comparable to Americans).

This is why capitalism is a pyramid scheme; it is not sustainable. This is why Asia is the new colonials in Africa, South America and the Caribbean. They need to feed the capitalistic machine, and the ever hungry population eager for the trappings of capitalism.

Capitalism is actually worse than a pyramid scheme. In the classic pyramid scheme, the earliest entrants cash in. Ultimately, with dynamic capitalism, i.e. with unrestrained and unlimited growth, no one will. The selfish class, which currently owns most of the world and controls most of it, will continue to do what it does, that is ignore all signs all the while striving to see who dies with the most toys, watching as society we once thought we knew collapses.

One way of countering the problem of limited resource going around has been internalized and been in practice for 200 years:

---------

Thomas Malthus (1766-1834)

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on from long- continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The results of this would be the formation of a new species. Here, then I had at last got a theory by which to work".

Charles Darwin, from his autobiography. (1876)

This passage is often quoted by Darwin and reflects the influence Malthus had on Darwins’ theory of Natural Selection. What "struck" Darwin in Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) was Malthus's observation that in nature plants and animals produce far more offspring than can survive, and that Man too is capable of overproducing if left unchecked. Malthus concluded that unless family size was regulated, man's misery of famine would become globally epidemic and eventually consume Man.

Malthus' view is that poverty and famine were natural outcomes of population growth and food supply; he also believed the ultimate reason for those outcomes was divine institution. He believed that such natural outcomes were God's way of preventing man from being lazy. Darwin arrived at a theory of Natural Selection after reading Malthus. Unlike Malthus, he framed his principle in purely natural terms both in outcome and in ultimate reason. By so doing, he extended Malthus' logic further than Malthus himself could ever take it.

Supporters of Darwin and by extension Malthus, believed that producing more offspring than can survive, establishes a competitive environment among siblings, and that the variation among siblings would produce some individuals with a slightly greater chance of survival.

Malthus was a political economist who was concerned about, what he saw as, the decline of living conditions in nineteenth century England. He blamed this decline on three elements: The overproduction of young; the inability of resources to keep up with the rising human population; and the irresponsibility of the lower classes. To combat this, Malthus suggested the family size of the lower class ought to be regulated such that poor families do not produce more children than they can support. China is one country that practices this form of organic control.

“I think I may fairly make two postulata. First, That food is necessary to the existence of man. Secondly, That the passion between the sexes is necessary and will remain nearly in its present state. These two laws, ever since we have had any knowledge of mankind, appear to have been fixed laws of our nature, and, as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.

Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man. Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio.”

– Malthus 1798,

Recently I came across this passage from wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, regarding a similar philosophy to Darwins and Malthus.

The word eugenics etymologically derives from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genēs (born), and was coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1883.Eugenics has, from the very beginning, meant many different things to many different people. Historically, the term has referred to everything from prenatal care for mothers to forced sterilization and euthanasia. Much debate took place in the past, and takes place today, as to what exactly counts as eugenics.

Some types of eugenics, such as race-based eugenics and class-based eugenics, are sometimes called 'pseudo-eugenics' by proponents of strict eugenics that deals only with perceived beneficial and detrimental genetic traits.

The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies that were influential during the early 20th century. In a historical and broader sense, eugenics can also be a study of "improving human genetic qualities". It is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to improve the gene pool. Some forms of infanticide in ancient societies, present-day reprogenetics, preemptive abortions and designer babies have been (sometimes controversially) referred to as eugenic.

Because of its normative goals and historical association with scientific racism, as well as the development of the science of genetics, the western scientific community has mostly disassociated itself from the term "eugenics", although one can find advocates of what is now known as liberal eugenics.

Ideological social determinists, some of which have obtained college degrees in fields relevant to eugenics, often describe eugenics as a pseudoscience. Modern inquiries into the potential use of genetic engineering have led to an increased invocation of the history of eugenics in discussions of bioethics, most often as a cautionary tale. Some ethicists suggest that even non-coercive eugenics programs would be inherently unethica, though this view has been challenged by such thinkers as Nicholas Agar.

Eugenicists advocate specific policies that (if successful) would lead to a perceived improvement of the human gene pool. Since defining what improvements are desired or beneficial is perceived by many as a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined objectively (e.g., by empirical, scientific inquiry), eugenics has often been deemed a pseudoscience. The most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. This aspect of eugenics has historically been tainted with scientific racism.

One of Thomas Malthu’s solutions to the ever dwindling problem of poverty and starvation was a choice between lowering the birth rate and or increasing the death rate, to keep in line with nature’s slower growth. Genetic Modification is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of such living organisms as animals, plants, or bacteria. Biotechnology, a more general term, refers to using living organisms or their components, such as enzymes, to make products that include wine, cheese, beer, and yogurt.

Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically engineered," or "transgenic." GM products (current or in the pipeline) include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibres.

In 2006, a total of 252 million acres of transgenic crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa.

On the horizon are bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.

In 2006, countries that grew 97% of the global transgenic crops were the United States (53%), Argentina (17%), Brazil (11%), Canada (6%), India (4%), China (3%), Paraguay (2%) and South Africa (1%). Although growth is expected to plateau in industrialized countries, it is increasing in developing countries. The next decade will see exponential progress in GM product development as researchers gain increasing and unprecedented access to genomic resources that are applicable to organisms beyond the scope of individual projects.

Controversies surrounding GM foods and crops commonly focus on human and environmental safety, labelling and consumer choice, intellectual property rights, ethics, food security, poverty reduction, and environmental conservation.

Some of the controversies surrounding GM foods include:

Safety

• Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity

Access and Intellectual Property

• Domination of world food production by a few companies
  Increasing dependence on Industrialized nations by developing countries
  Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
  

Ethics

• Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
  Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
  Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
  Stress for animal

Labelling

• Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
  Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labelling attempts

Society

• New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

---------

Be alert for Part Two