New survivalists

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

Sheesh, you guys never get off topic, do you?

Here's a completely different topic, for the different side of your life, if you're interested, that is...

http://www.newsurvivalists.info

Nope, not about scammers or gun toting toughs in cabins in the northwoods...

But about living prudently... How will you survive family disintegration, moral decay, crime, the spread of dependency, and so on?

Will your kids be resilient and self-sufficient, or will they succumb to the "new paradigm" of pseudo-intellectual rot that's becoming part of our society's fabric?

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Jul 2004 Posts: 11857 Location: UK

Split from the "My grandfather was a scammer, how odd" topic. as it was, well, off topic:

http://forum.419eater.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=135961

Please continue here, cheers.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

I think you raise interesting points. It's going to be tough to keep politics out of the thread, but I'll take a shot at it.

Firstly, I think there are issues that you have missed.

How about globalisation through powerful international corporations leading to loss of culture and destruction of the democratic principle? Are we looking at a future where everyone the world over goes to Disney to understand history and Coke Cola to understand cultural values? Where everyone, no matter what their background, aspires to be an all-American kid with ideals from a mythic 1950s?

You talk of dependence and I think you are referring to state handouts, but I see the likes of Monsanto making farmers dependant on their products, and populations with free drinking water of exceptional quality in every home paying billions for bottled water. I see markets like clothing where a label and a high price are the product - the actual physical article just a placard for advertising. I see pharmaceutical companies blocking generic drugs in the interests of profit and in the face of those who cannot afford to pay.

Further I see a dependence on a fragile telecommunications and power infrastructure with a steadily rising cost to the end-users, and a steadily rising profit to the suppliers.

Old codgers, and I count myself in their number, have been complaining about moral decay in the young since before the Roman Empire. It hasn't destroyed civilization yet, but it's never been comfortable. On a case by case basis, I don't see any family disintegration and moral decay. Sure they are in the headlines every day, but by and large people bring up their kids OK, no matter what their politics. The kids of today are just as moral and better able to cope with a global village and information overload than their parents ever were. Morals change, but not as quickly or as radically as it may appear. Certainly there are bad eggs, and a global village allows them to congregate just as easily as any other group and global media allows them to be seen, but it seems to me that they are as much in the minority as they ever were.

So on the personal level, where the OP is aimed, I don't see that anything needs to change. Those that are concerned are doing OK, and on the personal level they have no control over those that are not.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

thud419 wrote:

I think you raise interesting points. It's going to be tough to keep politics out of the thread, but I'll take a shot at it.

Firstly, I think there are issues that you have missed.

How about globalisation through powerful international corporations leading to loss of culture and destruction of the democratic principle?

Huh? I read this now and then, but for the life of me I can't imagine how if Ford Motor Company becomes global, it causes a "loss of culture"? Can you explain it?

Quote:

Are we looking at a future where everyone the world over goes to Disney to understand history and Coke Cola to understand cultural values? Where everyone, no matter what their background, aspires to be an all-American kid with ideals from a mythic 1950s?

I really do not comprehend your question. The 50's weren't "mythic", the era really did exist, the calendars hang on the wall.

But somehow, I can't imagine the future having some kind of cultrual retro-event, where everyone suddenly gets interested in greased hair, bobby socks, poodle skirts, t-bucket street rods, burger joints where the waitresses travel on skates, and a wide assortment of other cultural icons and oddities of the era.

So, again, I'm just lost, here.

Quote:

You talk of dependence and I think you are referring to state handouts,

Definitely a big issue, but there's more to it than that.

Quote:

but I see the likes of Monsanto making farmers dependant on their products,

In what way? How do you make a farmer dependent on any one company? You legislate everyone else out of business?

Quote:

and populations with free drinking water of exceptional quality in every home paying billions for bottled water.

Huh? What does this have to do with dependence?

Quote:

I see markets like clothing where a label and a high price are the product - the actual physical article just a placard for advertising. I see pharmaceutical companies blocking generic drugs in the interests of profit and in the face of those who cannot afford to pay.

Ahh, yes. The old "if you make something important, you're evil if you don't bankrupt yourself giving it away" riff. Sorry, I'm not on that page. If you WANT the stuff, you're going to have to pay for it. Or, we could try communism, though we all know that doesn't work and can't work.

Quote:

Further I see a dependence on a fragile telecommunications and power infrastructure with a steadily rising cost to the end-users, and a steadily rising profit to the suppliers.

I dunno how you "see" it, since both of these are becoming less and less profitable.

Quote:

Old codgers, and I count myself in their number, have been complaining about moral decay in the young since before the Roman Empire. It hasn't destroyed civilization yet, but it's never been comfortable. On a case by case basis, I don't see any family disintegration and moral decay. Sure they are in the headlines every day, but by and large people bring up their kids OK, no matter what their politics. The kids of today are just as moral and better able to cope with a global village and information overload than their parents ever were. Morals change, but not as quickly or as radically as it may appear. Certainly there are bad eggs, and a global village allows them to congregate just as easily as any other group and global media allows them to be seen, but it seems to me that they are as much in the minority as they ever were.

I disagree. Vehemently. Kids of today are increasingly less and less equipped to deal with real life issues, much less key things like morality and right and wrong. And much of it is cultural in origin, but the largest factor is political, and the changes in the last 2 decades have been massive. Children of the last 2 decades have almost NO moral background or foundation.

Quote:

So on the personal level, where the OP is aimed, I don't see that anything needs to change. Those that are concerned are doing OK, and on the personal level they have no control over those that are not.

There are millions in this country alone who have on a tenuous grasp on how poorly they are prepared for their own life. That's what "new survivalists" is about... Teaching the things that people like me grew up with, but are utterly foreign to kids of today.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

Hey I'm not attacking you. I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Go to http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml
and read the section "THE INTERFACE CULTURE" That's the only section of interest, but it's far too long to excerpt here. I think you will see where we agree.

That's the important bit, but just to address your other points briefly:

The mythic 50s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnmt5_pRW40

Monsanto makes patented genetically modified crop strains that are weedkiller tolerant, so the farmers can keep their fields weed-free easier. However the crops are only tolerant of Monsanto weedkiller and, because the strain is patented, the farmers are breaking the law if they save seed from one year to plant the next. This is the sort of deal we are looking at with drought-tolerant crops for the developing world.

Generic drugs: The drug companies get 20 years of protection by their patent. But then they indulge in underhand schemes to extend their protection further. I can't find an online reference to the Gaviscon trick where they switched doctors to Gaviscon Advance just before the patent on the original ended so pharmacists couldn't substitute a generic and save money, but here looks to be something similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPurSFPQlKI

And on the subject of kids: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/202

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 10:40 am

Personally, I think we're moving into a golden age.

Sure, today's kids are creepy Facebook-obsessed narcissists, but think what their children (assuming male sperm counts survive the food additive onslaught, and they can, like, induce a real person to have sex with them) will be like when they rebel against their parents. Laughing

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:06 pm

We should go back to the 20's it was all happening then. The 60's and free love don't hold a candle to the parties they had back then Wink

EDIT: 1920's that is there's whole new decade of 20's just around the corner.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:53 pm

^ But the 20's was followed by the 30's when it all fell apart...

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

thud419 wrote:

Hey I'm not attacking you. I tend to agree with a lot of what you're saying.

Go to http://artlung.com/smorgasborg/C_R_Y_P_T_O_N_O_M_I_C_O_N.shtml
and read the section "THE INTERFACE CULTURE" That's the only section of interest, but it's far too long to excerpt here. I think you will see where we agree.

Interesting reading, but the author's POV isn't really my own. He's humorous, but I don't think I agree with his premise fully. Too many intellectual shortcuts, in what I did read.

Quote:

That's the important bit, but just to address your other points briefly:

The mythic 50s: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnmt5_pRW40

It's a commercial. They have done far better ones than that. And, I don't see your point at all.

Quote:

Monsanto makes patented genetically modified crop strains that are weedkiller tolerant, so the farmers can keep their fields weed-free easier. However the crops are only tolerant of Monsanto weedkiller and, because the strain is patented, the farmers are breaking the law if they save seed from one year to plant the next. This is the sort of deal we are looking at with drought-tolerant crops for the developing world.

It's not required you use Monsanto seed or herbicides or pesticides or.... So they make some products that work best together. Your point is?

Quote:

Generic drugs: The drug companies get 20 years of protection by their patent. But then they indulge in underhand schemes to extend their protection further. I can't find an online reference to the Gaviscon trick where they switched doctors to Gaviscon Advance just before the patent on the original ended so pharmacists couldn't substitute a generic and save money, but here looks to be something similar: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPurSFPQlKI

No, the idiot is proposing that we take all the rewards away from the one who spends the big bucks doing the research, and let some know-nothing no-research big company profit from someone else's work.

One of the most mindlessly stupid proposals ever to grace Youtube's plethora of intellectual sewer-gas. Nobody will do any research AT ALL because the moment they spend the millions or billions required to do the experimentation, testing, studies, etc, then someone comes along and makes it in some generic high volume production facility, underpricing the people who just invested a fortune in FINDING it.

Maybe I'm biased because I run a business, but it seems somehow that reality never intrudes into this argument. If there's no way to recapture the millions you spend on R&D, why do it? So that you can dissipate the investors millions or billions and then close the doors and unemploy everyone?

Quote:

And on the subject of kids: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/202

It's interesting, and I agree with this. But the "must keep kids safe" political opportunism nonsense is nothing different than the riff above.

"Why we can't allow people to do research on a lifesaving drug and then allow them to charge an amount for it that repays the research! Someone might die rather than pay the price!" The implied thought being, it would be better to never develop the drug in the first place, that way nobody profits. BTW, the risk of someone profiting from something is one of the worst "risks" in our society today. The one MOST under assault.

This "eliminate risks at all costs" is nothing more than the same gibberish that drives our idiotic notion of Social Security, 50 billion mandates for 'safety' that drives up the cost of EVERYTHING we do. Heck, here in the communist state of Oregon, if you crimp ends on a computer cable, you've just broken the law. Didn't you know you need several years experience under supervision + classes and certification to do this safely?

Never mind that trained monkeys can do it just fine with only a few hours of effort...

I agree, it's all mindlessly stupid, but you can's separate our "overprotected" and yet at the same time "overexposed" children from the generalized mass stupidity that has become our current political morass of protectionism, dependency, and mind control.

Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2008 5:57 pm

Before anyone else answers, Google "George Carlin Video's" and watch a few Laughing

You're not going to chance anyone's mind by "ranting" in an anonymous forum like this. Yes those things are serious if you think about it, but there is a better place to vent it.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

Nah, I'm out. A discussion with someone who wont see any point you're making is no discussion. But one last try

Quote:

Why we can't allow people to do research on a lifesaving drug and then allow them to charge an amount for it that repays the research!

I'm talking about drugs that are out of patent. The companies have had twenty years to recoup their investment. Is that really not enough? If it isn't and we need these drugs, maybe we should be putting public money into research.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

thud419 wrote:

Nah, I'm out. A discussion with someone who wont see any point you're making is no discussion. But one last try

Quote:

Why we can't allow people to do research on a lifesaving drug and then allow them to charge an amount for it that repays the research!

I'm talking about drugs that are out of patent. The companies have had twenty years to recoup their investment. Is that really not enough? If it isn't and we need these drugs, maybe we should be putting public money into research.

What I don't get here, is that the doctors can write the prescriptions for whatever they want. You argument, if I recall, was based upon Gaviscon and Gaviscon Advance... Your premise being that the DRUG COMPANIES made the doctors switch. That's baloney. Doctors do whatever they wanna do, and we all know that. Do you really think that doctors conspire with drug companies to make sure the patients get prescribed the most expensive treatments? I don't. I know a few doctors, and none of them have any such inclinations.

But this raises a somewhat different topic, but quite related. Doctors prescribe whatever they think will "fix" things best. If that's expensive, MOST of us have insurance to "pay" it for us.

This means that doctors often operate in a financial vacuum. They often have no idea of the price of what they prescribe, be it drugs, treatments, etc. And becuase MOST people don't care what it costs (insurance pays, why should they care?) we're left with a situation where the very thing everyone's screaming we should have IS THE DIRECT CAUSE of what you're complaining about.

Yet, what do you see on the news? Politicians demanding EVEN MORE insurance coverage. Insurance as a bill payer, not a risk sharer, IS THE SINGLE LARGEST CAUSE OF HEALTH CARE COST INFLATION.

Why do you think food is not priced absurdly high? Because we shop for it. Same with a pack of Men's underwear.

Health care could benefit from the same market forces BUT ONLY IF WE REMOVE INSURANCE as a primary payer and decider of who gets what. Individuals should do that, and they should be doing it fully informed as to cost and return on that cost.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

thud419 wrote:

Nah, I'm out. A discussion with someone who wont see any point you're making is no discussion. But one last try

Oh, for pity's sakes. I simply do not share whatever assumptions you've made so that your comments make sense to you. I find it a bit disturbing that since we think differently, apparently, you'll just assume that I WON'T "see" your points.

Maybe I'm just a bit unique, but I ceased accepting a lot of rather flawed assumptions about things in life, and after that, I find that a lot of what people say really doesn't make much sense.

There's no "want" here. There's no "WON'T" here either. The only "won't" on my part, is to accept false premises for discussion. That leads to accepting them in your life or thinking ,and that I will not do.

I dunno, perhaps you had some deep thoughts inspired by the pepsi commercial, but I could find nothing even faintly relevant to the topic under discussion. And I disagree vehemently with the notion we need to destroy our R&D industry just to make a few folks have nicer emotions.

As for the globalism and culture loss... I, again, have absolutely no idea how those relate. I cannot for the life of me figure it out. And your argument about farmers and Monsanto was totally bogus. You had no point. It's wrong for Monsanto to develop a strain of seed and fertilizer, and not allow others to grow it or produce it? Or were you complaining that the plants were only tolerant of Monsanto's herbicides? I can't figure it out. I can't see a single thing wrong with it.

If you think there is, convince farmers to not buy it and Monsanto will change their mind about marketing or policies or whatever. But Monsanto made a product for the US market, exported it, and people are complaining that it's incompatible with the inferior farming done in developing countries. Or that it's financially infeasible for subsistence farming. Or any number of other complaints.

So? How on earth is that some crime against humanity? There's STILL untold numbers of alternatives that WORK in the situations that doesn't.

Baiting Guru Joined: 04 Jan 2006 Posts: 3193

Over the last year food costs have increased here at several times the level of general inflation, and the last time I bought a pack of men's underwear it was either stunningly expensive or substandard.

Gaviscon wrote letters to all the doctors telling them that instead of writing Gaviscon, they should write Gaviscon Advance. The doctors are far too busy to research the reasons for every piece of such information coming in every day and they did as they were told.

Your original point was how do we bring up our kids. I assume your kids are well brought up; all the kids I know personally are, and I would hazard a guess that all the kids you know personally are too. How does that affect anyone else's kids? How does how you treat your own children affect children in general? Or is there some other way that you personally plan to affect the upbringing of all the kids who are not being brought up right?

Not quite a Newb Joined: 15 Mar 2008 Posts: 60

thud419 wrote:

Over the last year food costs have increased here at several times the level of general inflation, and the last time I bought a pack of men's underwear it was either stunningly expensive or substandard.

Well, comparing prices to 20 years ago, I can't see where food prices have exceeded the rate of inflation. But food prices in the store, if I were to hazard a guess, are often 20 to 50% transportation, rather than materials or labor. Since transportation costs are going up (we pass emissions laws which make trucks go less distance on a gallon, mandate fuel that has less energy per gallon, and then scream we're doing this to "save" ourselves). And, of course, we all know that transportation is going up, and will keep doing so, until we stop pretending that our own oil is on HOLY GROUND and start pumping it here. Still, food is a bargain here compared to many places on earth, so I'm not sure you have any signficant beef.

Quote:

Gaviscon wrote letters to all the doctors telling them that instead of writing Gaviscon, they should write Gaviscon Advance. The doctors are far too busy to research the reasons for every piece of such information coming in every day and they did as they were told.

So, ummm... wow. Your proposed fix for this is? Prohibit drug companies from advertising their product? Prohibit doctors from reading said advertising? Or just prohibit new products? This one's really getting confusing. The real problem is insurance - and how insurance as a bill payer has kept the patient from being wise with his money - and yet you do not address it, but keep complaining about the symptoms.

Quote:

Your original point was how do we bring up our kids.

Yes, we've tried.

Quote:

I assume your kids are well brought up; all the kids I know personally are, and I would hazard a guess that all the kids you know personally are too.

No, far from it.

Quote:

How does that affect anyone else's kids? How does how you treat your own children affect children in general? Or is there some other way that you personally plan to affect the upbringing of all the kids who are not being brought up right?

I don't "plan". I "do". I expend money and time and energy volunteering in a program that helps kids gain a more solid and smart background, along with an exposure to solid spiritual influence.

Perhaps instead of sticking our heads in the sand, those of us who have children who are grown should volunteer more. Lots of people have the attitude that they did their part, and now they can just sit in the corner and watch, feeling justified at their own efforts.

That's not good enough.

Posted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:31 pm

Can you two agree on that you don't agree maybe? And leave it there Laughing

There are lots of different opinions and that makes the world a bit better, nothing is perfect and there are always better solutions, so think before you vote I would say or don't vote at all (George Carlin)

Discussing mens underwear in this forum is a little to high for the normal level and in my eyes a bit of a waste of good server space.

Thank you