[Dr House]

Indeed, collective ownership of land always creates a conflict of interest. Without a single person who ultimately has the authority to make a decision, there is no way to fairly regulate competing interests. Thus some interests will be squashed--so much for free speech if you have no land to place your soapbox, or no right to use the land upon which the printing press stands for as long as you wish.

Which is why we instead have land tenure. Individuals are charged rent according to market demand for the land, a small portion of the proceeds is set aside for basic public expenditures, and the rest is given back as an equal land dividend.

[DubiousDan]

Nets:

Yea, I really want to live in a society where life expectancy was 30 and half the women die in childbirth when they are 14. Sounds great. You can't say "it worked", since there is no other societal model from that time to compare it with. Say what you will about capitalism, but this romanticized ideal of hunter-gathering life is fantasy. Life was nasty, brutish and short, but yes, it was equitable.

Personally, I'd take today's inequality over a society where everyone gets equal portions of nothing.

Hunting-gathering is living on an animal level; one is constantly concerned with safety and food supply like a beast...there is no possibility of science, mathematics, literature, etc...what's the point of living in such a society?

Me:
I take it you are speaking from experience:
If you have taken a course in anthropology or archaeology, it is hopelessly out of date.
As for the romanticized ideal of hunter-gathering life being fantasy, I suggest that you inform Marshal Sahlins of that fact so that he can revise his classic “Stone Age Economics.”
I admit that your version is quite in accord with the comic book version, but most modern anthropologists and archaeologists disagree. Primitive man and men living in recent simple social orders spend far less time working than the contemporary industrial serf. You might Google “Chayanov’s Law” to get a handle on this.

Yes, life expectancy was short. That didn’t mean that the biological span of man was shorter. There is some suspicion today that the biological span of man has shortened over the last five thousand years. Life expectancy is primarily determined by the survival of children. Until relatively recent times, even in civilized social orders most children didn’t grow up. This played Hell with the statistical life span. The idea that people grew old at forty in primitive social orders is nonsense. Three score and ten has been the normal span for a very long time. If one examines the lives of the Greeks of the Classical Age, one discovers that those that did not die by war or plague lived to an age comparable to today. However, they lived it, they weren’t attached to a life support cart.

There can be no question that the current survival of children is lowering the biological vitality of Humanity. One might hold that to be a price that we should gladly pay if children could look forward to a meaningful life with some measure of genuine happiness. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and in most cases, death is mercy. Fortunately, the whole game will soon be over, and Humanity will be out of its misery.

Actually, Capitalism is a relatively new religion. It is less than two centuries old. The merchant was merely a part of the social order and he was quite regulated in most of human history. During the Tokogawa shogunate the merchant was assigned to the bottom of the cast system. A not uncommon assignment in warrior dominated social orders.

It’s well that you will take today’s inequality well because you really don’t have much choice in the matter. It is difficult to find an area that is not controlled by civilization. Civilization rests upon slavery and law chains the slave. Of course, the slave does not like to be called a slave, and so most social orders devise euphemisms. However, if you are a master, then I can understand why you approve of this social order. Even those who directly serve the masters are allowed a share in the yield of the harvester.

However, civilization domesticates man and once domesticated, the slave is usually comfortable in his lot. Once domesticated, most domesticated animals prefer domestication to returning to the wild even if they are merely waiting for the butcher’s knife.

[JimmiBaez]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought living conditions in Somalia greatly improved after the smashing of the state. Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_an ... ommunities

Some documentaries worth watching: A Place Called Chiapas, Spanish Civil War (The Six-Part Documentary), Vivir La Utopia (Living Utopia, you can find it in 10 parts on YouTube), Anarchism in America, Terrorists- The Kids They Sentenced (Swedish, with subtitles), Un Poquito De Tanta Verdad (Found in 9 parts on YouTube)

A 90-minute documentary, A Little Bit of So Much Truth captures the unprecedented media phenomenon that emerged when tens of thousands of school teachers, housewives, indigenous communities, health workers, farmers, and students took 14 radio stations and one TV station into their own hands, using them to organize, mobilize, and ultimately defend their grassroots struggle for social, cultural, and economic justice.

Apart from those documentaries listed, you can learn a lot more about what anarchism really is by going to http://www.infoshop.org/faq
On the argument of primitivism, those people are truly unbelievable.

Is it different in other parts of the world?

Not very much. However, anarchism and anarchist movements have existed in many countries.

[DubiousDan]

JimmiBaez:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought living conditions in Somalia greatly improved after the smashing of the state. Also:

Me:
Probably paranoid, but I was wondering if this had something to do with my post.

[JimmiBaez]

Not as much as it did with the question "Is it different in other parts of the world? Are there any examples of an anarchist society working, besides the debatable example of 1930s Spain?"

[DubiousDan]

JimmiBaez:

Not as much as it did with the question "Is it different in other parts of the world? Are there any examples of an anarchist society working, besides the debatable example of 1930s Spain?"

Me:
Paranoid, knew it. By the way, curious as to why you missed an anarchy that survived for centuries and defeated one of the most formidable European cultures of its time. I refer to the Polar Inuit of Greenland.

[ninurta]

JimmiBaez:[]Not as much as it did with the question "Is it different in other parts of the world? Are there any examples of an anarchist society working, besides the debatable example of 1930s Spain?"[]

Me:
Paranoid, knew it. By the way, curious as to why you missed an anarchy that survived for centuries and defeated one of the most formidable European cultures of its time. I refer to the Polar Inuit of Greenland.

Isn't Greenland a Danish commonwealth?

[telluro]

Paranoid, knew it. By the way, curious as to why you missed an anarchy that survived for centuries and defeated one of the most formidable European cultures of its time. I refer to the Polar Inuit of Greenland.

In that sense, anarchy preceeded all forms of civilizations.

For the Inuit it was mostly a necessity given an excessive scarcity of resources and a harsh necessarily nomadic way of life. In the same way, divorce and a somewhat libertine, egotistical sexuality were necessary for the Inuit. Once humans learned to deal with the scarcity and harshness of the region, the Inuit anarchy becomes by and large redundant, and subject only to romantic recreations.

[DubiousDan]

Ninurta:

Isn't Greenland a Danish commonwealth?

Me:
And your point?

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

In that sense, anarchy preceeded all forms of civilizations.

For the Inuit it was mostly a necessity given an excessive scarcity of resources and a harsh necessarily nomadic way of life. In the same way, divorce and a somewhat libertine, egotistical sexuality were necessary for the Inuit. Once humans learned to deal with the scarcity and harshness of the region, the Inuit anarchy becomes by and large redundant, and subject only to romantic recreations.

Me:
I think you are probably correct in that. It is generally conceded in archaeology and in anthropology that persuasive social orders preceded coercive social orders.

However, the significance of that, and the relevance is lost to me.

It is also true that civilization demands a surplus to be taken from the harvester and given to the elites. Lacking that surplus, civilization is denied.

However the harsh nomadic way of life is not exactly how I would describe the life of the Polar Inuit. Danes who have lived with and intermarried with the Inuit at the time of the installation of the Danish stewardship seem to have a differing opinion. At least among those who have written books on the subject.

I am puzzled by the remarks on the sexuality of the Inuit. Divorce would indicate a contract of marriage, which I don’t recall as being part of the Inuit Culture. Since both polygyny and polyandry were practiced, marriage was a rather flexible structure. This was an anarchy, the wife was not property, so she was free of the normal constraints of our social order.
One additional factor in Inuit society was the indispensableness of the wife. She made and mended the garments. Her skill was astonishing. The Inuit clothing was necessary for survival on the Ice and to the best of my knowledge has not been surpassed today even by modern technology. For a male Inuit, a female was not only valued for her sexuality, she was indispensable for survival. Sometimes, two impoverished males would share a female, and she would become the dominate party in the relationship.
A female of the Inuit could hunt. One account that I read described a single female killing a polar bear with a flint tipped spear. This was not a work of fiction. It was not treated as an extraordinary event.
A female could survive on the ice by herself. A male could not for any extended period of time without a female. The female was the indispensable unit of the Inuit social order. It was through the female that the most valuable technology of the Inuit was passed from generation to generation.

I am a little puzzled by the remark on Humans. The Inuit were certainly Human. They could interbreed with other Humans and did so frequently. There are quite a few mixed race Greenlanders today. Oh, yes, the Inuit of Greenland prefer to be called Greenlanders, not Inuit.

As for any other people dealing with the remoteness and harshness of the region, it was not remote nor particularly harsh to the Inuit. Civilization can survive on the ice, but only as an appendage of a civilization based elsewhere. The Inuit can survive there with nothing but the resources of the Ice.

[ninurta]

Ninurta:
[]Isn't Greenland a Danish commonwealth?[]
Me:
And your point?

It was just a question, and it was because i was uncertain of the time peiriod in which they were calling them anarchist.

[telluro]

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything, except that I think that there are some historical developments which cannot be overturned. Once you have civilization, once you have power relations working on that level, the anarchic hunter-gather nomadic lifestyle that existed before becomes one the one hand redundant and on the other hand subject to the whims of nearby encroaching civilizations. Once civilization develops, it's not to say that anarchy is no longer possible, but that anarchy takes on all the qualities of a power vacuum, and "nature hates a vacuum". For anarchy to make a comeback, we'd require an earth-shattering disaster that makes us forget civilization. But given time, some hunter-gatherers will slowly develop agriculture, they will be dominated by other hunter-gatherers, and civilization will re-emerge. It's not to say that this is a necessary development - it's merely that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is a dice-throwing affair and eventually, given enough time, even over huge improbabilities, the 'correct' sequence of numbers always crop up.

I am puzzled by the remarks on the sexuality of the Inuit. Divorce would indicate a contract of marriage, which I don’t recall as being part of the Inuit Culture. Since both polygyny and polyandry were practiced, marriage was a rather flexible structure. This was an anarchy, the wife was not property, so she was free of the normal constraints of our social order.

One additional factor in Inuit society was the indispensableness of the wife. She made and mended the garments. Her skill was astonishing. The Inuit clothing was necessary for survival on the Ice and to the best of my knowledge has not been surpassed today even by modern technology. For a male Inuit, a female was not only valued for her sexuality, she was indispensable for survival. Sometimes, two impoverished males would share a female, and she would become the dominate party in the relationship.

A female of the Inuit could hunt. One account that I read described a single female killing a polar bear with a flint tipped spear. This was not a work of fiction. It was not treated as an extraordinary event.

A female could survive on the ice by herself. A male could not for any extended period of time without a female. The female was the indispensable unit of the Inuit social order. It was through the female that the most valuable technology of the Inuit was passed from generation to generation.

You are correct.

The use of the word "divorce" was mostly meant to establish equivalence. 'Liquid' societies, to which possibly both anarchic nomadic societies and late capitalist societies belong, would have 'liquid' forms of companionship - nomads would not practice marriage in a strict sense at all, whereas our contemporaries practice easy solubility.

I am a little puzzled by the remark on Humans. The Inuit were certainly Human. They could interbreed with other Humans and did so frequently. There are quite a few mixed race Greenlanders today. Oh, yes, the Inuit of Greenland prefer to be called Greenlanders, not Inuit.
As for any other people dealing with the remoteness and harshness of the region, it was not remote nor particularly harsh to the Inuit. Civilization can survive on the ice, but only as an appendage of a civilization based elsewhere. The Inuit can survive there with nothing but the resources of the Ice.

I meant, of course, humans in general, the Inuit included. While the Inuit did not discover themselves the technology that made the Polar environment relatively easier to inhabit, they do use that technology. And it is a technology which influenced their nomadic lifestyle, making it less and less nomadic.

I've just realised that I don't really know whether there are still Inuits living nomadically.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

I meant, of course, humans in general, the Inuit included. While the Inuit did not discover themselves the technology that made the Polar environment relatively easier to inhabit, they do use that technology. And it is a technology which influenced their nomadic lifestyle, making it less and less nomadic.

I've just realised that I don't really know whether there are still Inuits living nomadically.

Me:
It doesn’t matter. The Inuit are no longer anarchists. However, for at least 800 years they were. That’s a pretty good run.

A rifle demands a cartridge, a snowmobile, parts and gasoline. The price is slavery. The Danes are good masters. Of all the nations who have taken the territory of the Inuit, the Danes are by far the most decent. Which is rather strange, for they are the descendants of the Norsemen who lost to the Inuit in the struggle for survival in Greenland. The Norse would not breed with the Inuit nor learn their technology. The Danes were quite willing to do both. A review of the first successful race to the South Pole will illustrate that point.

If we compare the Inuit with industrial man of the last two hundred years, they may seem a little lacking if you ignore the final phase of the industrial plague. If you compare the Inuit with civilized man though out the five millennia of civilization, they don’t look so bad. Actually, during the 20th Century, probably more people starved than in the history of Mankind. Almost all of these were civilized.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything, except that I think that there are some historical developments which cannot be overturned. Once you have civilization, once you have power relations working on that level, the anarchic hunter-gather nomadic lifestyle that existed before becomes one the one hand redundant and on the other hand subject to the whims of nearby encroaching civilizations. Once civilization develops, it's not to say that anarchy is no longer possible, but that anarchy takes on all the qualities of a power vacuum, and "nature hates a vacuum". For anarchy to make a comeback, we'd require an earth-shattering disaster that makes us forget civilization. But given time, some hunter-gatherers will slowly develop agriculture, they will be dominated by other hunter-gatherers, and civilization will re-emerge. It's not to say that this is a necessary development - it's merely that the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is a dice-throwing affair and eventually, given enough time, even over huge improbabilities, the 'correct' sequence of numbers always crop up.

Me:
I think we disagree, but our view of the world is reasonably in agreement. Most of the variations of anarchy that I see here aren’t really anarchies at all. You have delineated some of the fundamental problems of anarchism. However, I think you perceive civilization differently that I do. Civilization is coercive. It replaced the persuasive societies because it was better able to wage war. That is why social evolution of civilized social orders is based on the ability to wage war. The social order which can do that best, wins.
In addition, whether inevitable or not, civilization has created the industrial plague which leads to the technological acceleration. The consequences of this may be survivable, but I fail to see how. Most who have examined the problem either agree or are in denial. By denial, they can’t give a reason for survival, only hope.

Civilization domesticates man. That is why the Spaniards in Mexico and Peru had it so easy. The Spaniards in Chile didn’t have it so easy, the Araucanians were not civilized. Neither were most, if not all, of the North American Amerindians, which made it a bit harder for the United States. However, our goal was not slaves but land, and genocide and incarceration were the tools to that end.
Domesticated animals prefer the farm to the wild, even the steer. The same for domesticated man. “Death before slavery” has a nice ring to it, but men line up to sign themselves into slavery. Of course, they don’t use the word slavery.

So, yes, the path back to the wild won’t be easy. The Inuit and the Bantu proved that you didn’t need civilization to develop technology. The Bantu were civilized, but they had technology before they were civilized. The technology of the making of iron and steel. They made steel before the Europeans did. They did this be using termite domes as furnaces. A technology requiring nothing that a primitive society didn’t have access to.

To me, anarchism and technology are not mutually exclusive. Pressure flaking flint is technology, and agriculture was practiced before civilization. I think it is possible to build an interstellar anarchy. Not easy, but an anarchy could survive to reach the stars. I can’t see civilization doing that.

I realize that anarchy is an almost impossible goal. I think I have devised a possible way, but the implementation is beyond my means. However, the choice, as I perceive it, is not between civilization and anarchy, it is between extinction and anarchy. Either Humanity will learn to be free or it will die.

[telluro]

However, I think you perceive civilization differently that I do. Civilization is coercive. It replaced the persuasive societies because it was better able to wage war. That is why social evolution of civilized social orders is based on the ability to wage war. The social order which can do that best, wins.
In addition, whether inevitable or not, civilization has created the industrial plague which leads to the technological acceleration. The consequences of this may be survivable, but I fail to see how. Most who have examined the problem either agree or are in denial. By denial, they can’t give a reason for survival, only hope.

Civilization domesticates man. That is why the Spaniards in Mexico and Peru had it so easy. The Spaniards in Chile didn’t have it so easy, the Araucanians were not civilized. Neither were most, if not all, of the North American Amerindians, which made it a bit harder for the United States. However, our goal was not slaves but land, and genocide and incarceration were the tools to that end.
Domesticated animals prefer the farm to the wild, even the steer. The same for domesticated man. “Death before slavery” has a nice ring to it, but men line up to sign themselves into slavery. Of course, they don’t use the word slavery.

I don't disagree - I'm not making moral judgements, keep that in mind. Civilization is coercive and exploitative. It does domesticate man -as Desmond Morris says, the allegory proper for a city isn't a concrete jungle, but a human zoo- but it also takes the gameplay to a whole new level. Sure there are great risks, but there are also great potentialities for man. The very fact alone that man remains a child in an urban setup (apart from natural biological childishness) is a boon for heightened scientific discoveries. Man may become gods and conquer the stars because of civilization.

BTW, it is a facile explanation to say that domesticated man is less dangerous. One anthropological explanation holds that really deadly warfare emerges from the agricultural revolution, when man breeds and raises and loves his own animals, and then coldly choose one of the animals he has lovingly raised, takes him to the barn and slaughters the defenceless animal. Whereas for the hunter-gatherer it's mostly a competition with the animal. In fact evidence shows that warfare and fighting among hunter-gatherer 'societies' was mostly not of the deadly kind. Several tribes in Africa had been found to have rules for wargames that minimized blood-shedding -they didn't have the stomach for it- for example, if you're touched with a particular stick, you're "dead". Some of them even tried it with Europeans, except the Europeans didn't play dead.

Whereas the farmer starts creating the frame of mind that separates the business of killing in cold blood from everyday stuff.

In the case of Mexico and Peru, the Spaniards were probably dealing with a dead husk of a civilization, corrupt and decadent, and at the same time caught politically during a civil war, mistook invaders for gods, and technologically far inferior. It was ultimaly a case of ruffians toppling over the last remaining decaying walls of a civilization. It happened with Alexander and the Persians, and also with Cortez and the Aztecs.

So, yes, the path back to the wild won’t be easy. The Inuit and the Bantu proved that you didn’t need civilization to develop technology. The Bantu were civilized, but they had technology before they were civilized. The technology of the making of iron and steel. They made steel before the Europeans did. They did this be using termite domes as furnaces. A technology requiring nothing that a primitive society didn’t have access to.

To me, anarchism and technology are not mutually exclusive. Pressure flaking flint is technology, and agriculture was practiced before civilization. I think it is possible to build an interstellar anarchy. Not easy, but an anarchy could survive to reach the stars. I can’t see civilization doing that.

True, technology is a primate trait, rather than a civilizational one. With civilized humans however, they have a tendency to become hyper-technological, and that gives them an edge over all other animals and anarchic humans.

I realize that anarchy is an almost impossible goal. I think I have devised a possible way, but the implementation is beyond my means. However, the choice, as I perceive it, is not between civilization and anarchy, it is between extinction and anarchy. Either Humanity will learn to be free or it will die.

I disagree here. The chances of extinction rise because of civilization, but are still very remote - just like the chance of crashing to your death rise because you board a plane. The main danger for civilization, however, is cultural madness (of which Western liberalism is most probably a case), but that is a danger for a particular civilization -this present civilization it is true is so spread out that when it goes down, the risk for humans is greater than it was during the fall of Greco-Roman civilization, which was the other comparably spread out civilization, available to me- and ultimately there will be other civilizations taking up the torch.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

BTW, it is a facile explanation to say that domesticated man is less dangerous. One anthropological explanation holds that really deadly warfare emerges from the agricultural revolution, when man breeds and raises and loves his own animals, and then coldly choose one of the animals he has lovingly raised, takes him to the barn and slaughters the defenceless animal. Whereas for the hunter-gatherer it's mostly a competition with the animal. In fact evidence shows that warfare and fighting among hunter-gatherer 'societies' was mostly not of the deadly kind. Several tribes in Africa had been found to have rules for wargames that minimized blood-shedding -they didn't have the stomach for it- for example, if you're touched with a particular stick, you're "dead". Some of them even tried it with Europeans, except the Europeans didn't play dead.

Me:
I never said that domesticated man is less dangerous. A pit bull or a real dachshund are deadly animals. I’ll put a pit bull against a wolf any time. I said that civilization evolves by war. You’re quite right, the Zulu were civilized. That’s why they could stand and slaughter or be slaughtered. The North American Amerindian by and large had no stomach for real war. It takes a highly domesticated animal to stand in ranks and be butchered.


Telluro:

In the case of Mexico and Peru, the Spaniards were probably dealing with a dead husk of a civilization, corrupt and decadent, and at the same time caught politically during a civil war, mistook invaders for gods, and technologically far inferior. It was ultimaly a case of ruffians toppling over the last remaining decaying walls of a civilization. It happened with Alexander and the Persians, and also with Cortez and the Aztecs.

Me:
I disagree completely here. I suggest a little more study on the matter. I don’t recall a civil war among the Aztecs. The great weakness of civilizations at the level of the Aztec and the Inca is that they depended too much on the leader. Cortez and Pizarro came from civilizations which had played the game of war across three continents. They were not only technologically more advanced then the American states, they were politically and tactically superior. Treachery and deceit were a common military tactic to the Spaniards. In both cases, they simply captured the leaders who underestimated their military capacity and exposed themselves to capture. However, the great advantage of the Spaniards was the gun, the psychological effect to people who were unaccustomed to firearms cannot be truly appreciated. It was a weapon of the Gods for which there was no defense.
When the Norsemen came to America, they had no guns. They were repelled. The Inuit were not particularly troubled by the swords of the Norse, they had spears and better bows. They lacked iron, but flint is sharper and does the job.

In both Mexico and Peru, the social organization of the natives was better than the Spaniards. The living standards of the areas declined after the Conquest. No, the primary advantage of the Spaniards was their ability to wage war developed in the military inferno that was Europe, Africa, and Asia. The infant civilizations of the Americas were not husks, they were vibrant civilizations which had accomplished much in isolation. They simply had a two millennia disadvantage against the Spaniards.
The civil war in Peru was over, the winner was captured by the Spaniards on his way to claim the prize of victory.

Oh, I see why you made the remark about civilized man being more militarily capable than pre-civilized man. It was in response to my statement that Mexico and Peru were easily conquered because they were civilized. Remember, this was not a context between civilized and uncivilized, this was a contest between civilizations. All that was necessary for the Spaniards was to replace the elites and they became the elites.
Among people without elites, they had to do the bloody work of domestication. Hernando de Soto shared in the spoils of Peru, and thought that he could duplicate them in North America. He died along the Mississippi after fighting a bloody vicious battle across much of North America. His followers returned to Spain empty handed.

If you will study the history of Chile, you will see what it takes to domesticate the undomesticated.

[DubiousDan]

Telluro:

I disagree here. The chances of extinction rise because of civilization, but are still very remote - just like the chance of crashing to your death rise because you board a plane. The main danger for civilization, however, is cultural madness (of which Western liberalism is most probably a case), but that is a danger for a particular civilization -this present civilization it is true is so spread out that when it goes down, the risk for humans is greater than it was during the fall of Greco-Roman civilization, which was the other comparably spread out civilization, available to me- and ultimately there will be other civilizations taking up the torch.

Me:
I take it you are not familiar with Moore’s law. I would assume from the above that you also have not heard of the technological singularity. Are you aware of what an exponential function is?
In order to understand the dangers posed by technology, one must understand technology.

We are in the industrial plague. The industrial plague has generated the technological acceleration. The technological acceleration increments at an exponential rate. That means if you make a Cartesian graph with time the x axes and y the rate of technological growth , that there will be a limit on the x axes which the curve will never reach. To put it a bit more simply, if technology continues to accelerate at its present rate, there is a time which it will never reach. Since humanity carries the torch of technology, there is a time which humanity will never reach. This is not some time in the distant future, this is a time within this century.

Civilization may continue, but Humanity will not. I don’t know what political games that artificial intelligences will play, but I don’t really care.

What I am speaking of is not some crackpot theory. It is widely known in scientific and computer technology circles. Naturally, the oligarchy would prefer that it not be too well publicized.

For one version, http://mindstalk.net/vinge/vinge-sing.html

There are other versions, and of course, there are those who disagree. However, those who disagree largely base their argument on the future failure of Moore’s law. So far, it hasn’t failed. Others make simple arguments for simple minds such that computer intelligence will never exceed human intelligence.

The singularity is but one of the little goodies hidden in the technological acceleration. There is, for example, mass conversion without radioactive elements, nanomachines, and of course DNA technology. However, the greatest threat in the technological acceleration are the unknown technologies which have not yet been discovered. Think back to 1909 and what we knew then. Then think forward to 2109. Remember that the curve is not linear, it’s exponential.

Yes, there is hope, there is always hope. The oligarchy would prefer that everyone have hope.