I do want to give man a chance, I really do, but I don't think it's up to me... Socialist utopia may just not be in the cards.
Take care — ChatteringMonkey

I know the song 'in the year 2525' very well, it was an old favorite of mine during my 70's..80's teenage to young man period of music. A song which, (if you pardon the pun) was way before its time.

Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists.

In union and in fellowship, thank you for the exchange of views.

Giving the human race a chance is a matter for every one of its members that has the cognitive ability to consider it. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem. I don't accept the term utopia and I don't desire such. I desire continued effort to improve the lives of all human beings so that fewer of us live with constant despair or/and suffering. Such despair can even have the horrible effect of turning good, deep thinking humans into misanthropic, pessimistic, antinatalists. — universeness

The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialists don't seem to get.

But since you were already listening to that song in the 70's and 80's, I probably won't change your mind at this point ;-).

Thank you too.

which has earned the right to and can be trusted with 'stewardship' of the Earth, endeavour for around 10,000 tears — universeness

10 000 tears... Very appropriate in this thread. :wink:

Great words, by the way! Men have survived 2 000 000 years. They will survive another. Im curious how it looks in 2 000 000 000 years!

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialist don't seem to get. — ChatteringMonkey

Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only.

Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be improvement is what socialist don't seem to get.
— ChatteringMonkey

Well, it depends. Economic growth leads to disaster. It depends on how much of the natural world you fuck up. If you use smaller and fewer instruments, it will not go wrong. I think we are perfect as we are. No need for improvement. Maybe build a super large particle accelerator. To prove preons. Costs 100 billion only. — EugeneW

Sure I could live with a little fucking up, I'm no fanatic.

Large particle accelerators are fine, as are nuclear powerplants ;-).

The human race is not alone, but part of a larger whole. 'Being part of' means it is nothing without it, cannot exist without it.
Constant improvement of human beings, via science/growth, at the cost of the rest of the whole cannot be an improvement is what socialists don't seem to get. — ChatteringMonkey

No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.

I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by @Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.

I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists.

10 000 tears... Very appropriate in this thread — EugeneW

Sorry, that was a wee typo. It should have been 10,000 YEARS but in the next sentence I state my opinion that these 10,000 years were mainly years of tears and slaughter. The past 10000 years is the period we humans have decided, just about covers the historical period of 'human civilisation', before that period we don't think there were human settlements that we could describe as civilised.

No, you misunderstand me. I am convinced by all of Carl Sagan's great demotions. I do not assign prime importance to the human race from a Universal perspective. I think we are significant as we give meaning and purpose to the Universe, that it might otherwise not have, especially if we are currently the only intelligent life in the entire Universe (which I think is highly unlikely considering the number of planets it has). I also recognise the importance of protecting/understanding/progressing the sentience of all other lifeforms on Earth. That hasn't yet turned me vegetarian or vegan but that's a whole other debate I am always willing to take part in.

I do not advocate for a true socialism which 'ignores the cost of the rest of the whole.'
On the contrary, earlier on this thread, I typed about my limited interest in the cultures of GrecoRome, Germany etc as cited by Xtrix and my preference for those tribal groups who tried to live in harmony with the environment and did not seriously damage it.

I therefore reject your accusation that socialists ignore ecological threats to our planet. Any true socialist must be fully cognisant of climate change. We are not motivated by a desire for personal wealth/power/status, If any true socialist demonstrates such desire then they instantly forfeit their claim to the true socialist label. Capitalists rape our planet for profits not true socialists. — universeness

I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems...

But I suppose there are different blends of socialism. I wasn't my intention to accuse you of anything, my bad.

I did think of socialism as a 'progressive' ideology, as the progressive abolition of social and material limits for everybody. And construed as such that does kindof assumes material progress provided by industrialism and economic growth. And that seems hard to reconcile with living in harmony and within the limits of ecosystems... — ChatteringMonkey

But I suppose there are different blends of socialism — ChatteringMonkey

I am not sure that I understand all of your intended meaning based on the wording you typed above but I think it's true to suggest that there are different blends of people who claim the label of socialist and there are plenty of people who pretend to be socialist (from Hitler to Putin with many others in-between) when the label they have underneath the socialist label reads nefarious bas****. I subscribe to all of the basic tenets of 'traditional socialism' such as control over the means of production, distribution and exchange and from each according to their ability to each according to their need, nurture people not profit, etc.
But my socialism is completely democratic and socialism can never ever be imposed on any 'significantly sized group of dissenters,' great effort must be made to accommodate the main wishes of any large group of dissenters who live under a socialist system which has the consent and can maintain the consent of the majority of the population it represents.

We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction.

We can only deal with the Earth's ecology from the reality of where it is right now rather than mull over exactly who is responsible for past damage done to the Earth due to industrialisation or past/current systemic desire for prioritising economic growth.
Any new/current technology developed/continued must now take ecological consideration to be a major factor when deciding whether or not a technology should be used or developed further.
This has to be a major tenet of 'true socialism.' All true socialisms must earn. learn and demonstrate 'Green credentials.' The SNP and the Green party in Scotland's attempt to find common ground is a good step in this direction. — universeness

What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward?

There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?

What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?

I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism?

What about continued damage done by industrialization going forward? — ChatteringMonkey

This is a major, pressing concern in my opinion. Any true socialist must unite with all and any groups trying to immediately halt and reverse such on-going damage before it becomes too late.

There seems to be a tension in socialism, where on the one hand industrialization is the source of all evil and on other hand it's also the reason socialism exists to begin with (as a reaction to industrial capitalism). Does socialism need to keep it going, or assumes that it will, albeit with redistributions and/or changes in power relations?
What if choices need to be made between material wealth provided by industrialism and ecological damage done by it? Or maybe put another way, would a socialist support de-industrialisation or de-growth for ecological reasons, even if that would mean making people poorer?
I guess my question is about how these values actually relate to eachother in socialism? — ChatteringMonkey

Human Industry is defined as "economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of goods in factories." As technology advances, the word 'automated' is being associated with 'industry,' more and more. Such human-based activity cannot 'soil/destroy' the very nest we live in. It's plain dumb to do that.

An example to consider, is a poor person/group living near that which is often called part of the 'lungs' of the Earth (The rainforests) decides to start chopping down trees and planting some crop to try to make some money to feed his family or improve his lot in life. Why does he need to do this?

I don't blame the poor person/group for this behavior, I blame the excesses of the global rich and powerful and the imbalanced use of the Earth's resources. We simply must find ways to be able to provide the basic needs for every human living on this planet without destroying the Earth.
So yes, we make people poorer BUT ONLY RICH PEOPLE. We dilute power and authority but only totalitarian/autocratic/aristocratic/plutocratic/celebrity/unfettered capitalistic power.
We develop systems to produce economic parity for all. UBI or Universal Baisc Income is an example of such an attempt. Give every citizen £2000 pounds a month, no questions asked. No citizen can then claim they are not treated fairly, economically.
True socialists continue the struggle to get the balance correct before it's too late and our species goes extinct.

Shell also said that it would increase the pace of share buybacks in the second quarter, to $4.5 billion, compared with $4 billion for the first quarter, and that it would raise the dividend by 4 percent, to 25 cents per share.

NY times today.

Just thought I’d drop it in this thread to remind ourselves what’s really going on here.

Plenty of money to use on things that matter — preventing war, aid to the suffering, prevention of climate change, raising wages, healthcare, infrastructure, etc etc.

But no. The profits — which all workers, their communities and their tax dollars helped to generate — must go back to the shareholders. The stock price must go up.

We all know who owns the stocks. (Spoiler: it’s not Joe Sixpack.)

Whatever little money is left … that’s your cost of living increase — which rarely keeps up with inflation (especially now). That’s maybe a new building and be equipment. Maybe.

I guess it’s up to the wealthiest stock-holding citizens to save the world. Fun to watch as they play astronaut and buy Twitter on a whim.