Re: [WDDM] Repeted answer to Antonio

["Giorgio Menon" <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>]

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 07:14:43 +0200, Antonio Rossin wrote
> > G:There's a study
> > that i read a while ago saying that for populations over
> > few thousand units "democracy" becomes a must, meaning
> > they can't menage to rule their own lives but need an
> > "external power".
>
> A:You should specify more what do you mean for "external power".
> I am a bit reluctant to admit the need of such an entity as such.

Our societies are based upon stratification. They need trained people carrying
out specific tasks. You can't solve a legal question alone, you need police
officers, judges, courts in order to grant "equal" opportunities to anyone.
Unfortunately those same officers and judges must apply the existing laws made
to keep the stratification not only possible or plausable, but necessary. This
all has never been a necessity before agricolture was adopted, and mankind for
a very long time has brilliantly survived without them. It all changed when
people gathered in fixed, controllable places and generated a surplus that had
to be distributed and controlled. Then the external power became a necessity.
It was a general loss for the population but a great idea for rulers and their
crew.
You can have an idea about it reading this enlightening essay written by Jared
Diamond ("Guns, Germs and Steel" and the more recent "Collapse", both warmly
suggested): "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race"
http://www.awok.org/worst_mistake/


> Anyway, what democracy could it be, if there is an external power
> ruling over all the others?

Good question. Do you also have a good answer for it?
>  Chinese people's
> impressive economic development bases on western consumerism.
> Let's limit our consumerism to the real necessities and that tendency
> should come to a sustainable balance

Yes, let's limit it. We've been using and abusing it for decades. The problem
is that Chinese people may want to give it a try too. Is it fair to tell them:
"we know what is like, and the planet can't stand it"?

> > > My antithesis is, "Fundamentalism is perfectly compatible
> > > with the people's democratic renounce of democracy.

You should then explain me how can people live outside a stratified society.
The problem is the stratified society built to keep the elites wealthy and
powerful. Democracy well serves this goal.
> > Please consider that in a world ruled by money, fundamentalisms
> > have control over the existing processes. I'm not saying that
> > people accepting it are irresponsible, rather that the fight is definately
unbalanced amd biased.
> > Ciao
> >
> > Giorgio
> What fight are you speaking of?   Please suggest what fight you think
> it more appropriate, be it a viable one...
>
> On this very topic, I have a point:
>
> *Power is generated by those who demand (= ourselves)
> and is managed by those who respond (= those "in power")*
>
> which implies, if  we were able to control our own demands,
> we become actually able to control "the power" as well.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Regards,
>
> antonio


Supply and demand seem to be concepts easy to understand. But this is not so
easy after closer scrutiny. Oil price is not (only) fixed by demand, but by a
plethora of other factors. It's a good speculation. There are only 2 oil stock
markets. One is placed in London and the other in New York. Can we really
control oil demand? Are there solar powered cars for commuters?
Antonio, i'm NOT saying you are wrong. Your viewpoint is very true, but lacks
some contextual elements. We are free, no we aren't. It's both true and false.
I need not to know the "truth", as the thruth is an uniquely circumstacial
factor and cannot be copied and pasted.

Regards

Giorgio