Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby freemason9 » Wed Oct 28, 2009 9:15 pm

Joe Hillshoist wrote:You can actually say "some people shouldn't be allowed to reproduce" without actually meaning it. More as a comment on their general vitriolic nastiness and downright dumbfuckery than as an actual policy platform you would follow. Especially cos it usually refers to their personal views, ie its a comment on their cultural baggage, not their genetic baggage. I have said that about people before, and there's no way in hell I would support eugenics.

I don't mind selective breeding, but the control of it belongs to the two individuals doing the breeding. No one else.


Thanks, this.
The real issue is that there is extremely low likelihood that the speculations of the untrained, on a topic almost pathologically riddled by dynamic considerations and feedback effects, will offer anything new.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby semper occultus » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:14 am

Cartier boss with $7.5bn fortune says prospect of the poor rising up 'keeps him awake at night'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 07485.html

ADAM WITHNALL Author Biography Wednesday 10 June 2015


Image


The multi-billionaire owner of luxury jewellery company Cartier has revealed his greatest fear – robots replacing workers and the poor rising up to bring down the rich.

Speaking at the Financial Times Business of Luxury Summit in Monaco (obviously), the fashion tycoon told his fellow elite that he can’t sleep at the thought of the social upheaval he thinks is imminent.

According to Bloomberg, Johann Rupert told the conference to bear in mind that when the poor rise up, the middle classes won’t want to buy luxury goods for fear of exposing their wealth.

He said he had been reading about changes in labour technology, as well as recent Oxfam figures suggesting the top 1 per cent of the global population now owns more wealth than the other 99 per cent.

“How is society going to cope with structural unemployment and the envy, hatred and the social warfare?” he said. “We are destroying the middle classes at this stage and it will affect us. It’s unfair. So that’s what keeps me awake at night.”

South African Rupert was estimated by Bloomberg to have amassed a fortune of around $7.5 billion from brands including Cartier, Chloe and Vacheron Constantin.

He returned to his chairman role at Compagnie Financiere Richemont in September 2014 after a one-year sabbatical which, according to Forbes, he spent reading and fly-fishing. And, it seems, contemplating a global social revolution.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby divideandconquer » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:01 am

Never gonna happen on its own. The poor don't have the time, wealth and/or resources to organize. The very well coordinated effort to keep the ever growing poor in survival mode, working two, three, four jobs trying to put food on the table, that is if they have a table, takes everything they've got. Even the ever shrinking, somewhat alienated and atomized middle class is too busy struggling to keep up the quality of life they've become accustomed. In other words, the masses may be vast in number but more isolated than ever before.

In my humble opinion, this guy is using fear to keep the already coherent wealthy and powerful united in their mission to defeat the already conquered masses.

The only way I can see a peasants' revolt occurring is if that's what those amongst the .01% want, once again, to institute even harsher measures of control upon society.
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:38 am

I was debating with myself where to put this: the billionaire sea castle thread, the revolution now thread, the occupy wall street thread?

I said that just for bringing it up, we should take his stuff first.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby semper occultus » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:46 am

.....as was I.....as was I.....no promiscuous thread proliferation for us eh ?

I did a search on that citibank plutonomy report
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:50 am

Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

May evolve?

I thought that was already a given and it happened a very long time ago
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:24 am

semper occultus » Thu Jun 11, 2015 8:46 am wrote:.....as was I.....as was I.....no promiscuous thread proliferation for us eh ?

I did a search on that citibank plutonomy report


I revisited those about a month back; there's two of 'em, and they're fucking excellent. I spend so much time, professionally and personally, frustrated by mealy-mouthed motherfuckers genetically incapable of saying what they mean -- so candor is always refreshing. The authors pull no punches.

Interesting & comprehensive read on the attempts to disappear said reports: http://politicalgates.blogspot.com/2011 ... shell.html

For folks who do not want to wade through the actual reports, this summary by Bill Black is superb

User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Luther Blissett » Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:52 pm

More:

BILLIONAIRE: ‘WAKE UP MY FELLOW BILLIONAIRES, THERE ARE PITCHFORKS IN OUR FUTURE’

Nick Hanauer is one of the richest men in America, and he’s written a compelling letter to all the other super rich people out there about the state of America’s income inequality, which was published in Politico. You might think he’s writing to all his rich friends to warn them about Democrats talking more and more about wealth redistribution, or about U.N. initiatives to prevent privatizing things like fresh water. You might think he’s one of the people behind calls to start making plans to go hide in New Zealand. This letter could read like that, if you don’t read the whole thing, but it turns out, he’s a rich person who gets it.

Rich people aren’t always the best, brightest, hardest workers

Hanauer starts off his “memo” talking about how he got super rich. Then he says:

But let’s speak frankly to each other. I’m not the smartest guy you’ve ever met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I’m not technical at all—I can’t write a word of code.

Right off the bat, he acknowledges that not all the super rich got that way through the sweat of their brow, or because they were unusually intelligent. Yet we hear all the time from Republicans that higher taxes on the rich punishes people for hard work – the backbone of American culture. They never talk about the real backbone of America, which is the middle class, and how they’re punished not just by policy, but also by the super rich.

What’s in store for the super rich, if things keep going the way they are?

Hanauer believes that what sets him apart from others is his ability to see the future. That enables him to know what risks to take, and when, and he profits off them. What does he see for the future of the super rich? He said:

I see pitchforks.

There are pitchforks, and possibly torches, because while he and his super rich friends are “thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history,” the other 99.99 percent of America is struggling. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, even Arab Spring, had their roots in extreme inequality of one type or another. Hanauer warns his friends:

I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this kind of argument; I’ve had many of you tell me to my face I’m completely bonkers. And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.

Here’s what I say to you: You’re living in a dream world. What everyone wants to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we’re somehow going to know about that shift ahead of time.

He goes on to say that “revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly.” He’s right, too. One moment it’s a few disaffected people, with movements that seem to fizzle. That can go on for years, like what’s happened to the Occupy movement, and what people believe will happen to the movements wrought from Ferguson and Baltimore. But then the masses are increasingly disaffected, and increasingly angry about having no voice. When they figure out how to find that voice, they will take it, quickly, painfully, and violently if they have to. History has bore this out repeatedly.

What should we do? What should the rich do, besides run away?

In the face of this, what does Hanauer recommend we do? Is he really, quietly recommending that all the rich people get the hell out of Dodge so they don’t have to face the consequences? No, actually he’s not. He wants us to adjust our policies so they’re more favorable to everybody, not a select, rich few. He says:

The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren’t only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts.

What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let’s do it all over again. We’ve got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my customer base. And yours too. [emphasis mine]

He also points out one salient fact that those who tout labor costs as a market price subject to the laws of supply and demand tend to ignore: Pay for CEOs, hedge fund managers and other investment banker-types, and people in those sectors has skyrocketed, and yet, we have more of them, not less. If rising wages and salaries mean less employment, then why do we have so many more of these people than we used to?

Guess the “fact” that rising wages means less employment only applies to the unwashed masses, and not the super rich in their ivory towers. The unwashed masses, he says, are the engine of the economy, not the super rich. Yet, the Republican-pushed trickle-down theory would have us believe that the rich getting richer is good, while the poor getting any richer at all will destroy us. It’s flat-out wrong, and Hanauer knows it. More of the super-rich need to know it, too, and stop lobbying Congress to shrink government by letting the “free market” work, and gutting the social safety net.

Republican cries for shrinking government would be part of a sound solution, if they were interested in shrinking it the right way.

How does the size of the government fit into Hanauer’s ideas? Do we need more, or less, or is the current size good? Republicans want to shrink the government, and he actually agrees. Before you burn him at the stake as a sham, though, consider this: He says you shrink the government the way you shrink an industry – by reducing demand for it. Why do we have so much government that the Republicans hate? Because we have so much need for it, but all that demand is not going to the right places. Therefore, calls to shrink it are not going to the right place, either. Hanauer says:

The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting $15 an hour or more, they don’t need food stamps. They don’t need rent assistance. They don’t need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won’t need as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales taxes would rise, reducing the deficit. [emphasis mine]

He does blast Democrats for pushing the message that we need to treat workers better because we feel sorry for them. He’s right when he says that doesn’t help the conversation. What can help convince the plutocrats to give it a rest is looking at it from business and economic standpoints. The proper standpoints are correctly defining who creates the jobs, and who boosts the profit margins, around here. It’s not the rich. It’s the middle class.

Hanauer’s warning to other greedy billionaires:

Hanauer says, to his super rich friends: “Capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration and collapse.” Unchecked, unfettered capitalism, this idea that the so-called “free market” can take care of everything if we’d just let it, is catapulting us toward ruin, not prosperity.

The super rich, and their Congressional Republican friends, would do well to learn this, and learn it soon. Or, as Hanauer puts it, “We could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.” What he didn’t say is, “Your choice.”
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Searcher08 » Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:00 pm

Thank you for that - the sense of 'the system communicating with itself' that came through the memo was quite remarkable. I was left pondering the thought "This is what a 'Breakaway Civilisation' would look like', controlling a certain type of financial flow, amplified by entitlement and all consuming, score-keeping greed and the 'nod and a wink' of the players who KNOW the game is rigged and would consciously *rather* game the system and exploit it with all the finesse of a pig at a trough, than work collaboratively to create something which would create systemic wealth.

I imagine they would reach a point where the only interface between them and everyone else would be through people like this.
User avatar
Searcher08
 
Posts: 5887
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:21 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re:

Postby OP ED » Thu Jun 11, 2015 7:59 pm

Jeff » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:05 pm wrote:
Nordic wrote:So the rich aren't going to "evolve" in that sense. If anything they are going to "devolve" because, let's face it, there are no evolutionary pressures on their survival if they can just PURCHASE any sort of technology that will enable them life and reproduction.


I'd agree with that. Sharks haven't been pressed to evolve, either. And that's why we won't eat them. They're the predators, we're not.


Speaking for yourself of course.
Personally I think it is mostly a matter of cooking them correctly.
Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e 'l primo amore.

:: ::
S.H.C.R.
User avatar
OP ED
 
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby coffin_dodger » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:30 am

Fuck 'em.

They're trapped in the same cage we are.
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Iamwhomiam » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:48 am

First they came with Pitchforks, and then they came with Pikes.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:58 am

Well it would be an external transmission phase:

Luther Blissett » Thu Nov 10, 2011 1:55 pm wrote:
tazmic wrote:Having spent some time trying to understand Fuller, he's gone and spelled it out for me (17:54 -> 19:50):





Here, I've transcribed it:

Steve Fuller wrote:…I do think there is going to be this issue of how much diversity is tolerable within an affordable medical system or welfare system, which is kind of the context in which the "racial hygiene" movement first got established, in the context of creating welfare states. I'm very much of the mind, if any of you are familiar with the history of philosophy, if you look at people like Leibniz, Hegel, all of these people are devotees of a certain branch of theology called theodicy, which is basically how god justifies evil in the world. If you've got this great god, why is everything so horrible? All that misery is a means towards a greeter end that will be realized in the fullness of time. As creatures created in the image and likeness of god, we participate in that process. It's just for us to, as it were, suffer as victims, but it's actually for us to be engaged with the process, and to experiment with the world, and experiment with ourselves, and to go forward, and transform things, and yes there will be a lot of damage on the way, yes a lot of people will die, but it will be in the name of a greater good. I actually do believe something like that I have to say. I do think that anyone who wants to get onboard with transhumanism or the enhancement project and really wants to think about this in a comprehensively social way, is going to have to live with that. In other words, you're gonna have to take that onboard, you can't get into this kind of blinkered libertarian world where everybody just makes their own little choices individually. Being involved in scientific experiments should be part of national service. You should be obliged to do it. The problem is that if this whole enhancement agenda, and all this scientization, technologization, if this is just something that people can choose to either be "in" or "out," given the current socioeconomic disparities in the world today, we're just going to see a wider and wider gap between the haves and the have-nots. So my point is that you've got to get everybody on board
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:59 am

Holy shit.

Luther, thank you much for that gem. This Steve Fuller character was not even on my radar -- definitely a case of judging a thinker by the horrible cover of his terribly titled book!

I've spent some time this morning digesting reviews since I first saw that...this was the best:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsc ... /12/10538/

The author first diagnoses the problem of humanity as a bipolar disorder between our animal nature (biology) and our search for transcendence of nature (ideology).


That's basic Discordianism, I reckon (biogram vs. logogram was RAW's formulation, no?) -- and far older than any Malaclypse. I think it's a little reductive to call the whole of human language and culture "ideology," especially since The Good Shit transcends that altogether.

For Fuller, humanity, which is moral, is the central project of the social sciences. Humanity consists of socially organised resistance to the natural selection and natural forces through collective projects such as Christianity, the University and the State. Participation in large-scale projects allows humans to control or even reverse the effects of natural selection. For Fuller, the classical sociologists Durkheim, Marx, and Weber all concur with his characterisation of the project of humanity.


Fuller's preoccupation with theodicy isn't merely intellectual framing, though:

In 2005, Fuller was an expert witness to defend ID to be taught in schools at the Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial. The judge disagreed that ID is science since it is based in theology. In a controversial move, Fuller recommends the promotion of an Abrahamic theological perspective to motivate students to become scientists in the United States because of Abrahamic theology’s view that humans are privileged to understand and control nature as they are in created in the image and likeness of God.


Huh. This dude sounds like a pretty fucking dangerous lunatic, actually.

Predictably, like so many "big thinkers" his understanding of history is puddle-deep:

As humanity 2.0 will push against boundaries of morality, Fuller links theodicy to humanity 2.0. Theodicy is the problem of evil in a world created by God. Fuller’s answer to alleviating suffering, which occurs with natural disasters or human deeds, is to suffer smart. He recommends moral entrepreneurship, which is to recycle evil into good through an agent who did evil deeds but has decided to do good. Fuller’s examples of moral entrepreneurs are Jeffrey Sachs, George Soros and Robert McNamara.


Image

Gonna lie down for awhile and hug myself. Meanwhile, you know....everybody get on board.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Rich 'may evolve into separate species'

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:14 pm

I actually had difficulty understanding that he was literally saying that "humanity as a whole needs to get on board with the enhancement project" because only a lunatic would say that. Every other time I think of him, I imagine that he's calling for us to fight against transhumanism.

His way to ensure that we don't split apart is that we all become cyborgs and leave no mortal humans behind. I think? It's so difficult to imagine someone would say that, and as far as I'm aware he's the only one who does.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4990
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests