Human Rights, Entertainment, the Economy & Politics

Briefly, this personal opinion post summarises the strategic methodologies humans are making-up-as-they-go to keep population increase figures in check.

After a number of years of prosperity _which some call a “war-recovery-short-pause”_ we begin to witness the unequivocal signs of the next trough in the economic/human rights/political cycle.

Nothing occurring this century is new. Keep that in mind every time a news anchor or entertainer tries to “shock” you. All they are looking for is a hefty pension.

  • I believe it takes a selfish race not to learn from its past and organise itself so as to protect its future.
  • I believe it takes a narrow minded race to not find gradual, common grounds to evolve together.
  • We limit our thought processes and perspectives on the “universe” to our local geographical context, our present time and unstable, editable internet content. As Plato would put it, our reasoning is “blinded” by shadows-in-a-cave.

The below are some, purposely concise, personal reflexions on societal cornerstones. These, as of today, serve as my personal opinion evidence of the above. So… as above, so below.

• Human Rights & Entertainment.
Reality TV is both today’s pet-hate and gossip-foundry. Yet, it makes privacy and dignity seem a lot less important than they really are. I personally think that it is the first step towards undermining the western Human Rights our (western) ancestors worked so hard for. There are articles by economists and governmental policy strategists that corroborate this line of thinking. Entertainment, whether via the internet or via broadcasts, reaches a large proportion of western citizens. However, globally we do not represent a large percentage of humanity, so, if we let our rights to privacy and dignity gradually disolve, we essentially will find ourselves treated in the same way as we know our east and south counterparts are. Take human rights lightly at your, and your descendents peril. That is my take anyway, hopefully time will prove me wrong.

• Financial & Political outlook.
This topic is such a complex one it will be hard to summarise in a few words. There is a question lingering between financiers that queries who drives the cart: financial markets or a country’s/global economy? Currently, I think it is safe to say that both are reactive and independent of any rational order or even, of each other. This has rendered the financial outlook globally unpredictable and therefore impossible to resolve or quieten down. Surfacing economies have a choice to make which will largely depend on the balance of military power they are able to destabilise worldwide. This may sound ridiculous… If so, don’t take my word for it, read about it. Currently the US and China are almost in blatant competition to buy out strategically placed, geographical “bases” globally. I hope, economical drives and cheap workforces will continue to demand better conditions. This will slow down the need to shift the global status quo.

• Faith.
From a pragmatic point of view, I can see no valid substitute for blind Faith, because we need support systems that use identifiers and logotypes to function under the same rules and objectives. From a theological point of view, I see no valid substitute to blind Faith, because no one has yet understood how matter originated or what its universal context and purpose might be (words fall short for these concepts).
I wonder whether those encouraging a detachment from religions realise the purpose and need we have for them. Perhaps few of us can function morally without a religion’s “moral code” but for most, Faith and religion are the direction to fall in line with that ultimately preserves the race. Particularly those religions such as Christianity that encourage self-reflexion, mutual respect and respect for nature (i.e.: God is in everything-> God is in nature-> respect for nature is respect for God.)

These are topics I read about in articles from great up-to-date politics/economics and opinion magazines. As ever, I’m always very grateful for challenging responses and comments. So far, everyone I know thinks along the same lines, however we all comment how rare these discussion topics are. Us, civilians, are rarely encouraged to discuss or even consider: the bigger picture.


19 thoughts on “Human Rights, Entertainment, the Economy & Politics

  1. Pingback: Human Rights, Entertainment, the Economy & Politics | Nae's Nest

  2. I enjoyed your thoughts on human dignity, a topic that is dear to me. In the west, we allowed the Social Darwinists to take charge of the conversation around the time the industrial revolutions started to bloom. This was a matter of convenience: as our economic structures and institutions centralized, so did labor markets, and what better way to describe centralized labor markets but in terms of competition?

    Unfortunately, humans live down to low expectations, and so we find ourselves in the 21st century with citizens becoming individuals and retiring to their private homes while the experts and administrators justify their heavy-handed behaviors by pointing to humans “inability” to self govern. Expect little, and little will be returned.

    Yet, western human history could have been different if we had rejected the Social Darwin explanation. Set higher expectations, expect more, and I believe humans can and will deliver more, including the ability to self govern their lives.

    Their is no historical determinism at work here, but rather us making choices: Do we allow low expectations to define us? Or do we set higher expectations and set ideals and goals ahead of us, trying to pursue a better existence for the entire globe?

    The West, alas, has not set a very good example on this point.

    The first few pages of

    outlines the argument in better detail than I can cover here.

    Keep up the good work.

    • I had a look at your Scribd papers and, at the risk of sounding like a fan girl, “they are awesome (^-^’)”!

      Considering we are writing from either side of the Atlantic and that our political, historical, religious and economic contexts are different, I still agree with everything you say. I was so taken aback by this ; ), that I had to re-read a couple of times your comment (below) and paper at (

      Agreed, we are creatures that relinquish the skill (and right) of discernment too readily. As if it was a burden, more than the vital element to our quality of life that it is. We almost make the choice “not to choose” and we react as per the “political or economic ethos-of-the day” instead of using our own judgement.

      I guess it is a matter of wording… I still need to get my head around the term “historical determinism”… Determined by history? Essentially, I think history repeats itself because, somehow, the systems some ruling men and women put together, to stop vicious cycles, are often thwarted by other “wise” mean and women. Generally, this happens at a cyclical time when those in advantaged positions are too young to really grasp the bigger picture.

      One of those systems is FAITH: Religious Faith that sets parameters for each individual, in the flock, to identify when their discernment and decision making is called upon by circumstances or spiritual leaders.

      My next blog post is based on Faith as the vital vial carrying the elixir to re-awaken discernment, self-reflection and compassion, for neater and more humane living patterns.

      I’ve “blogrolled” your blog from here and am looking forward to continuing to read your Scribd papers: Small “r”.

      I hope all my blah made sense, and again, thank you so much for you contribution,

      • Certainly it made sense, and thank you for the many kind responses.

        In terms of “historical determinism,” the short answer is to simply view it as the belief that history followed a path, only one path, and the only path that it could have taken. In other words, we are simply victims of outcomes beyond our control. For that kind of determinism, I hold no quarter. We are where we are today because we -chose- to allow our circumstances to transpire before us. We can also choose to pursue a different set of circumstances.

        I look forward to your post on faith. I was about to suggest a quick read of my post on government as a spiritual leader, but I now see you beat me to it. ;-) At any rate, consider your blog on my roll, as well.

  3. I agree with most of the articles, however from my point of view, humans doesn´t need religion to dictate moral guidelines are we have an embedded tool by design of nature, our heart.

    I respect religion but with a critical analysis, I do not like what is done with it, the vatican being the principal owner of Beretta one of the top europeen weapon manufacturer, this example only to demonstrate how one can say something and act in a different way, as far as the social illusion of a marketing image is preserved.

    Again, no offense intented, I respect religion and the believes of everyone, I just do not like to see how some people use people´s faith to reach power, fame and economical or materialistic comfort.

    Which from our greatest masters of our civilisation, is the wrong way to wisedom and enlightement. Saying that people needs someone or an entity for moral guidelines (empowered by the fear of repression and eternal damnation from an unconditional loving God) is in my perception judging another one, or an group of persons not to be evolved enough or responsible enough to develop their own moral and ethics through self-experience.

    I do admire the life and example of the Christ, Muhammad, the Buddha and all others great master, I do not approve what is done with their messages, it goes against what they all preached,
    ” what I do you can do and even more ” I´d add, ” With your personal experience of life “.

    Here my extended point of view about this topic, please again do not hesitate to moderate this comment if you believe it is inapropriate

    Thanks again for allowing me to discover your blog, I truly love your perception.

    • You are absolutely right that noone is perfect and that indeed any one in a position of power is often likely to abuse. However, despite this, we should not let go of the valuable systems and guidelines for a better quality of life that the wisest among us came up with.

      In my opinion, which seems pretty similar to yours, it is all a matter of understanding, communication and choosing the goal that best suits a comfortable as possible equilibrium.

      Thanks for your valuable comments and for the visit! It’s encouraging to see this much content from feloow readers. Clearly a topic to explore further.

      Thanks again,

        • Hi there! Not at all, thank you for your comments and the visit! I appreciate the time and effort you put into sharing those and I have not forgotten you : )! Will post answers and approve other comments soon! Again, thanks for sharing : ), Hugs, Alyx

  4. Regarding finance and politics, I’ll paraphrase something I contributed to an economics discussion today.

    One must go outside the economics profession to understand clearly what is wrong. Matt Taibbi has been reporting on the incestuous relations between schools of economics and financial firms for years now. He has been reporting on the influence peddling and de facto bribery that the finance sector has used to buy the USA’s congress and the office of the president of the United States. The criminal finance sector has bought protection against being prosecuted for massive felonies. They have done everything from deliberately defrauding customers on a massive scale (because it was profitable) to massive forgery of documents. This president has exerted himself mightily to see to it that no investigation seriously starts. He developed an agreement with the states to coerce them into stopping prosecution efforts by state attorney’s general. That $25 billion package (de facto bribe) to states when the states were starving for cash worked. That is how the USA introduced banana republic law to protect the wealthiest criminals with the power of the highest office while holding ordinary people to the letter of the law. The USA is no longer a rule of law nation. That is the fact.

    It is not so much that restriction of publication in top econ journals to the elite schools is tolerated as that going to the “right school” and pleasing the right professor(s) can set a person up to become fabulously wealthy. Those schools that populate the top of financial firms in New York and London then reap the rewards back in the form of support from their alumni, and the circle is complete.

    That is why publishing in a top economics journal today has absolutely nothing to do with being correct. That fact is no more clearly shown than in the rampant criminality of the finance sector today, particularly in the USA. That is why we see the zombie ideas of disproven economics continuing to be taught. That is why we see those rubbish ideas that have been proven false still written in the top journals as if they were respectable. That is why we see people like Steve Keen unable to publish in the high impact journals. It is because the rubbish spewed out by those at the elite schools justifies policies that keep the financial criminals in power, despite the fact that they are sending the globe down the road to war by destabilizing the financial sector.

    In the long-term this situation may correct itself. I certainly hope so. But it won’t be by accident. I fear that history tells us it will be war on a global scale that settles this matter. Things like this have happened in other fields. For instance, Mandelbrot was unable to publish in the top journals of mathematics. His seminal work was, therefore, published in what were then minor journals. Mandelbrot was still bitter about it when I had lunch with him in 2004. But those lesser journals did get a bump as a result.

    Unfortunately, economics has far greater impact on the world. I no longer think of it as the “dismal science”. First, it is not a science, it is a grab bag of methods of interpreting the world. Mathemtatics, psychology and sociology are not sciences either. Second, there is no more dismal science than epidemiology, which accounts for almost everything in terms of deaths. Everything has a cost in lives. No, today I think of economics as the “criminalized science”. There are honest and bright economists, yes. But a hard core of the profession has been taken over to justify the rapacious actions of criminals. The profession has been invaded by a generation of fakes who adhere to the economic pornography of Ayn Rand’s sociopathic raving.

    • Thanks again for an amazing comment there. I can see where you are coming from and realise there are angles I could work more on.

      I guess history is plagued with the failings and weaknesses of human beings and that anyone of us, put in a situation of “social advantage” are very likely to use it to satisfy basic wants: power, wealth, etc.

      At least, I can rest easy that I have not just “coasted” through life ignoring these truths. If there is something I can do to improve myself and my environment, I’ll defo do it. If I catch myself being “a b… silly” I’ll try and slap myself… We can realistically promise nothing (^-^’).

      Thanks again for your opinions and comments.


  5. You are incorrect that nothing this century is new.

    The most important event in the history of humankind has happened this century, and all people who care about human rights should be studying and evaluating this new condition of humans on earth. This is the first time in human history that the whole earth ecosystem is not capable of feeding all the people on earth plus maintain what food energy the ecosystem needs for its own health.

    You will not find good information on this event in magazines or political publications that deal in opinions rather than facts. The fact is real. The earth is suffering. This event was not caused by the earth shrinking or by our agriculture shrinking. It was caused by the population growing. Whatever else happens, humans will not survive in any kind of comfort on this earth until we recognize this fact.

    • Hi Lynn, it was refreshing to read your comment since very few people even consider the issue of overpopulation and the problem of scarcity it brings.

      If you read my post, your argument is my very first line. The reminder of the post describes the tools that I believe both evidence, and help diminish, population growth and the earth problems it brings.

      As an example, in China, population is controlled by means that western human rights would not allow. Moving towards eastern moral values brings an undesirable change by western standards yet will yield lower population numbers and moderate scarcity.

      I think religion AND INFORMATION are the bridge between the two. People empowered to make the choice not to have children… Very loooong topic to address here.

      Thanks again for your post.

      P.S.: Normaly I don’t answer anonymous messages yet in this case the argument was greatly appreciated.
      P.S.2: I should probably also add the problem of uber-consumption (to call it something), and the mindless waste due to economies that encourage the above. Also, energy scarcity is perhaps due to the stiffling of green-energy production in favour of oil rich countries as well as the lack of foresight of “recently” industrialised countries.

      All readers, please forgive the ninja typos… I might re-write my post and comment a bit to reflect the ideas better. Tomorrow and in days to come.

      • I think our challenge is how to grow in a way that allows us to get to the point of managing the earth as a park. For that to happen, we will need off planet colonies, probably on Mars first. Exactly how has been worked out for decades.

        The human race does not operate by lowering expectations, etc. I say this having watched the idealism of when I was a kid, the commune back to the land thing, be steamrollered into nothingness. We cannot get there by asking people to ask for less, consume less, use less energy, etc. The reason is simple. Evolution. When one segment of the population accepts less, the one that ends up dominating is the one that goes for power and wealth. Look around you. This is not the “Age of Aquarius”. This is the age of the criminal banker and the sociopathic elitist rich.

        Thus, the fastest road to serfdom and being crushed by those who grab for power at any cost is to be the nice person who does the nice thing. Societies need to grapple with this.

        That is why I advocate for embracing nuclear power, so that we no longer wreck the planet with CO2, and for off-planet colonies. Because the highest technology society will rule. Those off-planet colonies will provide a place for humanity to expand into and build fantastic places that provide endless opportunity.

        • Two different points of view, thank you for your comment (^-^’)! I had not considered some of the options you mention.

          In addition to what I wrote in the post I would add that the nice/not nice, good/bad, correct/incorrect approach is something I detached myself from some time ago. Generalisations, although they help us make sense of our environment, rarely paint the picture. Sometimes they even make something seem bleaker than it really is.

          Wish I knew more about colonnies outside Earth. As I know very little on this, I can not really contribute back very much. Still, a “fresh-start” reads sensible and refreshing. However, I would find it disappointing that instead of sorting our problems, we would escape from them.

          Nah, I believe that what we are going through is pretty much the same, or perhaps “less worse”, than what our ancestors went through in WWII or the middle ages, for instance. Granted, Earth’s resources are badly managed and, granted, the media paints an uglyer picture of reality than it deserves. That doesn’t mean that the dip in the cycle we are currently coasting through will not eventually pick up soon.

          Now, only time and our little informed-contributions will tell which way, or rather, how soon, things will pick up again.

          We seem to move round in circles…

          Thats is my take anyway. Thanks again for contributing (^-^’)


          • I don’t think the mass media is painting the picture as bleak as it actually is. What just happened to New York is going to happen elsewhere. The rise in sea levels with global warming will be preceded by massive storm surges and storms on a scale we have never seen. I first started reading academic work on global warming in the 1980’s. The books (a decade or older then) laid out pretty precisely what we have seen, just a bit behind the curve.

            Take a look at The Case for Mars.

            • Will have a look.
              I sincerely hope the consequences of global warming will not be that bad. Otherwise I better start looking for a safe niche to cuddle into (^-^’)!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s