SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (14461)9/15/1999 9:02:00 AM
From: goldsnow  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
The United Nations Environment Programme says the developed countries must cut their use of natural resources by 90% to give the rest of the world a chance of emerging from poverty.

This radical prescription is part of UNEP's Global Environment Outlook 2000, an end-of-century review compiled by experts from more than 100 countries.

GEO-2000's key finding is stark: "The continued poverty of the majority of the planet's inhabitants and excessive consumption by the minority are the two major causes of environmental degradation," it says.
news.bbc.co.uk

ps. Fat chance that Neocon (s) would even slow down



To: GUSTAVE JAEGER who wrote (14461)9/15/1999 6:53:00 PM
From: D. Long  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 17770
 
Now Gustave, we have known each other too long with these discussions to start getting personal now. As to me living off my daddy's plastic, you are definately barking up the wrong tree. My father grew up the son (one of 12 kids) of a literal dirt farmer and occasional grave digger. He has been a carpenter, a brick layer, a truck driver, a steel mill grinder, and currently has worked in a carpet mill for the past 20 years. My mother has been a secretary for the past 30 years. I currently make more in my present job than both of them combined. As to myself, I was working trimming christmas trees arm in arm with Mexican migrant laborors during the summer at 12 years old, mowing lawns and painting houses with a contractor friend of my fathers by that age as well. I worked my way through college by taking jobs at the local textile mill, the local ribbon factory, several jobs as a forklift driver, working in a dog food plant hosing the meat and maggots off the production floor, working in a potato chip factory, working in a local foundry grinding steel, amongst others. Ive been a dish washer, a fry cook, a waiter, a busboy, a pizza delivery man, a pizza maker, and several sundry janitorial jobs. After travelling extensively, I have moved to Texas where I landed a nice office job with an ISP. I am currently throwing together a little business enterprise with one of the former partners of said ISP. You see Gustave, I am probably more aquainted with the travails of the "proletariat" than yourself. As a matter of fact, I am no doubt the epitomy of the "blue collar worker done good." If you ask any Pennsylvania factory worker or steel mill employee what they think of unions and such, you would no doubt get an earful. But of course that is false consciousness I suppose. Its funny that it seems those the least familiar with working for a living have been the most ardent supporters of socialism, ala Marx and Engels.

Let us not delude ourselves Gustave. One's labor does not amount to a hill of beans unless it is put to purpose. Muscle alone can not devise nuclear power plants, let alone devise a new device or product. It is those who innovate, who take the risks to start an enterprise based on an idea alone, who drive the world. Your stock holder example is moot. No corporation starts out as an IPO. Someone first had to have an idea, take the risks that it would be found worthwhile of spending money on, and build. Labor is a miniscule element in the factors of production. Marx's entire theoretical construct is flawed at the very core. Alienated labor? If his theory is true then *no* means of exchange is possible, *no* production is unalienating. Surplus value? What about the concept that a person deserves the fruits of his labor, and that the majority of the productive enterprise is owed to the owner of the enterprise, and is his fruit to eat. Does one own one's labor, or does it belong to the group? Does one owe the masses the privelege of enjoying what one has wrought without benefiting? Anarchism asks the wrong questions, and always gets the wrong answers. IMHO.

Derek