fight4thefuture

It's so difficult for me to figure out what is going on with China. We're both mixed economies. A professor came to my school to give a lecture on her book "The Dragon's Gift"--China's decades long influence in Africa. She explicit said that Chinese foreign policy was "non-altruistic" and more of a business-like approach while ours was altruistic and detrimental to Africa and ourselves. A professor asked her to elaborate on her use of the term altruism and she just stuck to her argument and terminology.

"If it tastes good, spit it out." "If man made it, don't eat it."

I just had to share this: http://xkcd.com/610/

The Largest Ponzi Scheme of All On March 12, 2009, disgraced former NASDAQ chairman and Wall Street investor Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to cheating investors out of $65 billion. Across America there was an eruption of public outrage, even greater than what accompanied the trials of the September 11th conspirators. He became the villain, the target, for us to direct all of the anger that has been building up inside of us. Since the early 1990s, he had been running a ponzi scheme, “ponzi” referring to the 1920s American immigrant and conman Charles Ponzi. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, a ponzi scheme is when you “Rob Peter to Pay Paul.” The FBI reports that Madoff perpetrated the largest scam ever in history, but actually the largest scam is still going on, and it involves the government, the American people, and even you. What Madoff did was run an investment advisory business under the name of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, where he managed and invested the money of charities, businesses, and wealthy individuals. However, he never really invested their money—except in his own pockets. Whenever his clients sought to withdraw money or receive their quarterly returns, he would pay them from their own money or the money of new investors, as a fake profit. He had started doing this during a past recession, to satisfy his customers, who still expected high returns investing with him. In February, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, formerly known as “The Stimulus,” took $787 billion from the American people to stimulate the nation’s economy. Like Bernie Madoff’s scheme, it started in the midst of a recession, to keep the taxpayers, who expected their economic condition to continue to improve, satisfied. In March, a month later, the economy did show some improvement, with Wall Street seeing growth return to the markets, just like Madoff showed his customers making a profit. However, that purported growth was merely the taxpayer’s own money being put back into the economy as “growth.” Instead of robbing Peter to pay Paul, Peter was taxed to pay Paul. Wall Street did not become more profitable and productive all of a sudden. The increased earnings were merely the addition of the money that was handed back to them by the stimulus. In other words, the government siphoned fuel out of each of our cars, and then suddenly filled them back up, making the dial temporarily go up. While Bernard Madoff was able to keep his scam going for a decade, it is unlikely that the government will be able to perpetrate this fraud on the American people as long as that. Madoff only had a few thousand investors, while there are hundreds of millions of taxpayers in this country. Madoff’s fraud unraveled once he ran out of new clients and new revenue. Since the only source of revenue for the government’s scheme is our tax dollars, once the bailouts end, the economy will fall and unfortunately, be even worse than before. Imagine all of the pain and destruction that was wrought by Madoff, except on a mass scale. It is ironic and outrageous that while the government and the American people are prosecuting Bernie Madoff for his ponzi scheme, we are all participating in the biggest one of them all. There has been an excoriation against capitalism and greedy Wall Street businessmen like Bernie Madoff for causing our economic woes. But you know, all Madoff did was redistribute wealth, albeit his investors wealth. He did not allow his investors to make a profit, and just shifted their money around while it was in his hands, just as President Obama and Congress are doing with our money now. Bernie Madoff was a first rate socialist, and socialism is the largest ponzi scheme of all.

Amivi Gama's violent rise to power in East Timor has proved that women are just as capable as men when it comes to brutality and oppression.

Haha, God. (Just kidding) Thanks for reading it, Michael. You are very perceptive. This story was a prototype for something larger I want to do. Julian

This is my first story ever. It is about a doctor that is faced with a tough dilemma. He is on his way to help a patient on an emergency call when he witnesses a murder in progress. He must decide who to save, and every second counts. http://heyjude83190.deviantart.com/art/Eme...Care-113092910# Any comments or critiques are appreciated!

In the Hunchback of Notre-Dame, Victor Hugo included an article titled "This Will Kill That." It discusses how architecture was developed to record the ideas of men, its evolution throughout the centuries, and how the book will one day replace the edifice. I can't help but think that this may have influenced Ayn Rand in choosing architecture as a backdrop for The Fountainhead--and to record her ideas. I have never heard her say this though, so I was wondering if anyone else here may know? Otherwise, I guess we'll never know. Read the rest at: http://www.online-literature.com/victor_hu...k_notre_dame/24 "I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built." - Ayn Rand

Thanks, mrintegrity! And amen.

Certainly not. Being more advanced often means also being more vulnerable. Bacteria that lived billions of years ago survived large numbers of far more advanced species. Cockroaches will probably survive us. How does it mean being more vulnerable? Advanced means improved. Something that is improved is less vulnerable, not more vulnerable. And I refuse to believe that a cockroach is more successful than me.

Julian, Who said anything about feeling guilty? But let's look at it. As human nature stands, this is something most people who kill innocents in war are going to feel anyway. I dread to think what a person who feels guilty will do if he learns how to alleviate his tormenting guilt through the lesson (on a psychological and premise level) that killing innocent people can be a moral good. I'm not so sure his subconscious will be as discriminating as his conscious mind in choosing innocents the next time, especially if he is a person who likes to be good. I think a much more realistic thing is to say that it was a terrible thing that needed to be done under extraordinary circumstances and strong wishes that it should never happen again. And if the person feels guilty, that is merely a sign that he is a human being. I see that as much healthier for those who have killed innocents in war. Through that way they can find some peace. Ignoring the fact that most people who have killed innocents in war are going to feel guilty all by themselves is ignoring reality. Trying to program that out of people and dismissing it by saying they shouldn't feel that way in the first place (because they were performing a moral good) is a bit too much for my reality meter—in addition to the fact that it can be quite dangerous to peaceful society. Battles are not just fought on the battlefield in war. They are also fought in people's minds and souls. Within this context, I fully believe war is hell. Michael What do feelings have to do with thoughts? I just thought it would help me better understand what you were advocating, and it did. All of the abstract reasoning was getting a little much for me. You might find this interesting, Michael... From the play Think Twice featured in The Early Ayn Rand: "Ingalls: I've told you this because I wanted you to know that I don't regret it. Had circumstances forced me to take a valuable life--I wouldn't hesitate to offer my own life in return. But I don't think that of Walter. Nor of Serge...."

According to that standard, bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans. "Advanced" is not the same as "succesful". Considering all living beings, self-awareness is certainly not a decisive factor for success, as the examples of bacteria, worms and insects show. However, in a narrower context it may be an important factor, as we're certainly doing better than many if not most of our closer relatives among the vertebrates. But we shouldn't judge too quickly, after all those dinosaurs that are often thought of as a failure managed to survive a thousand times longer than the human species did so far, so the jury still has a long wait ahead before we can claim our superiority in surviving. No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

Bob, Right. Until the unsentimental rough men turn on the sentimental Good Guys who are sleeping in peace. No thank you. I prefer that thing about he who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. Michael Michael, Do you think we should feel guilty for having to kill innocent people in war? As a human being I understand what you mean. I would hate that I would have to do it. I would feel intense indignation and outrage. I would even feel a sense of helplessness, because I would not want to kill these people; I'd just have to. But I would hate the people who make such horrible choices necessary, not myself. Sorry, if you already answered this. A lot of technicalities were being discussed, so I did not go through all of the posts.

Good point. I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologist, and in Chapter 6 (pgs. 248-9) he says, "The whole idea of the selfish gene, with the stress properly applied to the last word, is that the unit of natural selection (i.e. the unit of self-interest) is not the selfish organism, nor the selfish group or selfish species or selfish ecosystem, but the selfish gene. It is the gene that, in the form of information, either survives for many generations or does not. Unlike the gene (and arguably the meme), the organism, the group and the species are not the right kind of entity to serve as a unit in this sense, because they do not make exact copies of themselves, and do not compete in a pool of such self-replicating entities." Can you show that self awareness increases reproductive success? That is the bottom line. Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated. Ba'al Chatzaf According to that standard bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

No worries.

Correct, Michael. I know absolutely nothing about anthropology, but this struck me as a potential area for more science-minded egoists to investigate. Efficient communication between people made for better food gathering (especially hunting). This promoted survival. The groups of hominids with good communication skills had a survival advantage. Being able to talk to one's self, is most likely a side effect of the characteristic selected by nature. William H. Calvin in is book -The Throwing Madonna- attributes our facility in speech to our ability to sequence our fine control body movement such as those required for throwing missiles accurately. Speech facility uses the same brain circuits (in the temporal lobe) as required for accurate throwing, so our ability to articulate speech might be a side effect of an ability that was promoted by Natural Selection. Nature does not care if you are smart. It cares if you live long enough to reproduce your kind. Ba'al Chatzaf Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Are We Human or Are We Dancer By John C. “Are we human or are we dancer My sign is vital, my hands are cold And I'm on my knees Looking for the answer” - The Killers Las Vegas alternative rock band The Killer’s latest hit single is called “Human.” In the weeks following its release, it has sparked a mass controversy over the internet, specifically whether the main line of the song is “Are we human or are we dancer” or “Are we human or are we denser.” After all, dancers do tend to be human beings, and after the past century, it is a legitimate question whether human beings can be called ‘civilized.’ I cleared out my ears and cranked up the volume, and although it was hard to tell, it still sounded like they were saying dancer. Were my ears deceiving me? Was the band trying to pull one over on me? Did they mean Dancer, as in Santa’s reindeer Dancer? These now famous lines have been dubbed “The Silliest Lyrics of the Week” by Entertainment Weekly, though some fans have come up with some pretty deep interpretations of the song. Does the “dancer” have any meaning at all? But then again, is there a meaning to being a human either? I think The Killers might be on to something. “All the world’s a stage and all of us merely” dancers. It certainly seems as if life can be choreographed at times. Sometimes we just go through the motions without rhyme or reason. We follow the music and listen to the crowd. Every morning I embark on the bus and plug my iPod into my head. I may not be physically dancing, but I need something for my mind to dance to. I need something to take my spirit up and twirl it about on the divine dance floor. I need a beat. I need motion. I need emotion. I need something to embrace me, to consume me, to bathe me, to cleanse me, to rock me back and forth. But if life was a dance, then where is the grace? Where is the pace? Where is the all-consuming embrace? Is life purely physical like dancing or is there something else? Do we even have free will, or is it more along the lines of free style dancing? Sometimes I want to be human and think things through, but sometimes I just want to be able to turn on the music and dance the nights away... I see this all the time. Kids who can not decide whether they want to be humans or dancers. They go to parties every weekend, get blown away, stay up until 3am in the morning. They are addicted to the dance floor. It is where they go for safety and to surrender their nature as human beings. No talking or thinking is necessary for dancing. You just have to feel the beat pulsating inside of you and sway to the gyrating groove. It enables you to give up the intellectual for the physical, your mind for your body, your reason to your feelings. In America, rave parties often attract more than 20,000 people. Starting in the 1980s, teenagers and young adults began going to these huge parties to just go wild and forget themselves. The events are usually accompanied by fog lights and drugs to complete the effect. I am half Turkish, and I have always been fascinated by the Whirling Dervishes, a religious sect which uses dance to experience an out of body experience. They dance endlessly in circles to leave their human bodies and reach religious ecstasy or majdhb, fana with God. I am sure if you asked them if they were humans or dancers, they would say they were dancers. Jump onto the giant hook and you will soon become a marionette puppeteered by the music, a puddle dropped into a vast ocean manipulated by the waxing and waning of a musical moon. Do not believe me? Try it yourself. Go to a typical Allied dance and watch your fidgeting peers before they switch into dancing mode. We are so used to using a different part of our brains that it is difficult for us to transition. We are so used to being in control that it is hard for us to let go of that control and let something else lead us for a change. Not even to let lead, but just to be led. Hip-hop, fate, God, or nature, it is all one in the same. Yet ever wonder why the smartest kids are the ones who are most gifted at music? Why Mozart was not only a musical genius, but a genius générale? The music which helps us escape logic is ironically sound shaped into a logical pattern. That is why it is so hard to answer the question, are we human or are we dancers? It is like asking what came first, the chicken or the egg? The music or the dancer? If life is a dance and humans dancers, then for it to be real, it can not be just a recital. It has to be a live show with a real, live audience. Who or what constitutes that audience is the question which has plagued mankind since we first began pirouetting on our tip toes. Is our audience ourselves, God, or society? If we are our own audience then the goal of each of our shows should be to just entertain ourselves and do what makes us happy. If God is our audience, the supreme judge of good and bad—dance styles that is—then the purpose of each of our shows is to please God, and Heaven would be reminiscent of Dancing with the Stars, the real stars. If society is our audience, then our goal should be to entertain others and get as many fans and followers as we can get by giving them a performance they will never forget. Aristotle danced for himself. Mother Teresa danced for God. John Lennon danced for others. Whatever The Killers meant by their song “Human,” they have gotten humans both on and off the dance floor to question what exactly it means to be “human.” Finally stifling the debate, though not the confusion, the band has confirmed on their website that the lyrics do indeed say “dancer” and not “denser.” Brandon Flowers, the vocalist and keyboard player, has said in an interview that it is actually a reference to a remark made by the late Hunter S. Thompson, an American psychedelic journalist and author, who said that Americans were being raised to be a generation of dancers. Maybe he was right.

The following is an excellent article from Live Science that I came across. I bolded the part that I thought was particularly interesting though. That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

And a very, very large portion of Jews. Joel, I can relate. My father is Muslim, and sympathizes with the Palestinians, so I have plenty of dinner table arguments with him. I was a Muslim a few years ago myself and was more sympathetic towards the Palestine cause as well, so maybe I could write a piece explaining how I came to support the Israeli side. I did not write this commentary for Objectivist Living, but I thought I'd share it here, anyway. I posted it in a place where we did not share similar values. Julian

Jews will always be pikers at lying compared to Hamas and other Islamist fanatics. They are light years more consistent. Israel will never beat Islamist fanatics at the game of telling whoppers in public and being taken seriously. Michael Michael, I misunderstood what you meant by propaganda. I never meant to expouse any of what you said, and I feel like you kind of jumped on me. By propaganda, I meant forgoing a neutral tone, and writing with an obvious emotional stake in the piece. Granted, one definition of propaganda according to Microsoft Encarta is "2. misleading publicity: deceptive or distorted information that is systematically spread," I understand your concern. In The Art of Nonfiction, Applying Philosophy Without Preaching It (pg. 32), Mrs. Rand said, "I propagandize for Objectivism constantly, in various degrees." Obviously she did not mean that she lies for Objectivism. Julian

Hi Michael, I agree, but unfortunately to counter the current amount of anti-Israel propaganda, it is necessary.

Around the world, Israel is being criticized for responding to Hamas’ rocket attacks with military force. There are protests against Israel in all of the major cities of the world, including the United States. Let’s take a look at what these protestors are saying. The protestors say that they want peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is hard to believe that they want peace when they are only denouncing Israel. It was Hamas that broke the peace agreement by ending the ceasefire and barraging rockets into southern Israel. By defending Hamas, a terrorist organization that wants to destroy Israel, you can not be in favor of peace. The protestors say that they want to free Palestine. That is a complete distortion of the facts. Palestine does need to be freed, but not from the Israelis. Israel is the freest country in the Middle East. Hamas is just as dictatorial as any. They may have been democratically elected because of U.S. pressure, but democracy is just a means to an end. Hamas’ party platform calls for the foundation of an Islamic dictatorship with the Qur’an as its Constitution. They call that freedom? If the protestors really wanted to free Palestine, they would try to persuade the Palestinians to lay down their arms and beg to become Israeli citizens, but the protestors will not, because they are not in favor of freedom. The protestors say that they want to protect the lives of innocent civilians. They are asking for the impossible. They express outrage at the Israeli bombing of mosques, government buildings, and universities, but they are being used by Hamas to make, store, and deploy weapons to kill other innocent civilians. If Israel did not bomb these targets, innocent people would still die, just Israeli citizens instead. The only choice Israel has is to kill innocent Palestinian civilians or let innocent Israeli civilians be killed. There is no other option. Hamas has rigged the game to be death or death, our death or your death. The protestors can not protect innocent lives by having innocent Israeli lives killed in their place. That would only make them further into hypocrites. The protestors say that they want to keep Israel safe. I find this claim particularly perplexing. They point to the 2006 war with Lebanon as an example of military force backfiring. Israel’s objective during that war was to destroy the terrorist group Hezbollah which was launching rockets into northern Israel, but they actually made Hezbollah stronger by caving into international pressure and standing by while they were democratically elected into the Lebanese government. In other words, Israel became less safe by giving into the protestors who now protest that they give into their protests right now. The only way to achieve Middle East peace, Palestinian freedom, Israeli safety, and the protection of innocent lives, is for Israel to ignore these protestors, and thoroughly defeat Hamas.

I don't know why I posted this. It's not even interesting. I have to stop letting this nonsense get to me. It is hard to ignore though. How do you guys cope with the state of science and the culture?

Ditto. Thanks for all the references guys. I got a little creative in my own research. I read The Invisible Man. Right now, I'm reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Dorian Gray is next! I also saw The Phantom of the Opera in NYC a few days ago for my early b-day present. I'd have to say it's my favorite play. It definitely evoked some deep thoughts and feelings from me, and strengthened my desire to be a plastic surgeon. I'll enjoy checking out the other books listed on this thread. As you are so kindly allowing strangers to analyze your psyche, would you mind telling me how you settled on being a plastic surgeon? --Mindy Looking back, I probably wouldn't have started this thread, but I don't think it is possible to analyze my psyche based on the limited information I've given you. Like Brant said, I think I've given some general reasons on here before. They're not my definitive reasons though. Those I would not simply share with strangers. Even a garbage man can make the world more beautiful by clearing trash off the streets. I think it is a sentiment involved in many professions. Writers make words beautiful. Musicians make sound beautiful. Embalmers make the dead beautiful. I want to make people beautiful.

I've wondered the same exact thing. I forgot to add I Will Fear No Evil, which is about an old, dying man who has his brain transplanted into the body of a beautiful, young woman. :thumbsup: Robert Heinlein isn't French, but he won 4 Hugo awards, named after famed science fiction writer Hugo Gernsback, who was born in Luxembourg, which borders France. Could be pure coincidence though.