Posts by Lisa Jackson7

ruggedraven36 said:Total nonsense. Look, if we can manage to follow basic traffic laws across the entire country, why can't we handle a simple rotation rule at the national level? It’s straightforward stuff—easy to grasp, easy to accept. Of course, that’s assuming anyone actually gives a damn about fairness. If they don't, then this whole debate is just a waste of breath. You can't force someone to be decent—that should go without saying.

The traffic law comparison just doesn't hold water.

In that scenario, the common good—"road safety"—is something all drivers create and maintain, at least in theory, equally (setting aside infrastructure for a second, even though it matters).
The assumption is that everyone on the road has undergone training and is equally qualified. Everyone puts in an equal amount of their own resources during that training... but you can't say that applies when comparing some guy working construction to a neurosurgeon.
What I said about traffic laws in practice doesn't mean everything runs on autopilot... rule-breakers still exist, just like the police and the court system do.
But fundamentally, people get it—two cars hitting an intersection at the same time isn't going to benefit anyone involved.

The social division of labor is a way more complicated beast, so while you might experiment with agreements in small voluntary communities, trying to scale that kind of practice up to massive populations is a total recipe for disaster.

ruggedraven36 said:Easy. The whole idea of rotation is built on fairness—and fairness isn't some niche concept that only matters when you're grabbing drinks with friends. It's a universal principle.

Then you'd basically have to turn people into ants or bees... just to handle the sheer scale of how many folks would need to band together.

gentlerider7 said:Sure, that sounds great in theory if you're just hanging out in a group of friends where everyone knows everyone else's business, but how do you actually pull that off on a national level across the whole US?

It doesn't work. Period. You can't run an entire country like one big commune... unless maybe we're talking about somewhere tiny like San Marino or Andorra.
The whole "Dunbar's number" thing—you know, that limit on how many actual connections a person can maintain—is a massive roadblock for any community trying to act like one big family when there are hundreds of thousands or millions of people involved.

We really need to respect the principle of subsidiarity here... some issues should be handled locally, while others belong at the federal level.

gentlerider7 said:So, if we’re looking at those gritty, soul-crushing jobs that nobody actually wants to touch—you know, the stuff like cleaning out sewers, hauling trash, or working deep in some dusty coal mine—how on earth would you handle them in some kind of perfect, imaginary system?

In Thomas Moore's version of Utopia, they’d basically just have criminals do all that dirty work (kind of like how things functioned in the USSR, where prisoners were stuck doing all the high-risk labor). Then again, there are always those weirdly optimistic people who argue there will always be someone out there perfectly happy to take on those kinds of roles.

I remember seeing this other thread about communal living, and people were saying that every single commune eventually falls apart because of these exact issues: like, who's actually going to cook the meals, and who's going to deal with the gross job of cleaning the bathrooms?

Look, it’s pretty obvious to me—jobs are handled on a rotation basis... unless someone physically can't pull their weight, obviously.
If a community can't even fix a problem like that—I mean, seriously—how the hell are they ever going to solve anything else?

[User Not Found] kaže:
Look, no political move makes sense without an economic foundation—it’s all about growth. If migration was driven purely by politics alone, we’d be seeing economies cratering everywhere, but that just isn't happening in any of the countries taking them in. There's no recession in Germany, France, Ireland, or the UK... especially not the kind of recession you'd expect if migration were actually the culprit.

There are all these different kinds of bad calls—if you don't catch them early, they'll absolutely wreck your political game.
It hasn't happened yet—but if we keep ignoring this, we’re looking at a total economic meltdown and skyrocketing inequality. Seriously.

Look, when migrants move here and just refuse to integrate—or they're moving at a snail's pace to actually join the community—it becomes a massive headache. It’s a problem. Period.
The whole "wrong profile" thing with migrants—mostly just refugees—is a massive headache, and don't even get me started on trying to balance mass immigration with the actual survival of our welfare state.

Some parties try to play games by padding their voter base, but this kind of math always backfires—you just end up fueling the rise of groups like the Republican Party over in Germany.

Sometimes pushing migrants or refugees through borders isn't just about people moving—it's pure geopolitics. It’s basically weaponized migration, which totally wrecks the security of whatever country is catching the brunt of it—just look at that whole mess back in 2015 when the war in Syria kicked off and Turkey started letting everyone through.

Let’s actually think about what happens to the economies of countries that refuse to take in migrants—and more importantly, what happens to the places people are actually fleeing from?

China basically doesn't take immigrants—I mean, you've got some folks of Chinese descent there, sure, and maybe a small community from West Africa over in Guangzhou, maybe 20,000 to 200,000 people at most... but that's about it.
In Japan, they make up about 1.75% of the total population.

Neither China nor Japan could ever be called underdeveloped or stagnant—not even close.

When it comes to where people are actually leaving—it’s a massive, soul-crushing crisis in some spots (like the US and Canada, for sure... I'm with you there)—but in other places, it’s barely even an issue. Honestly, it all just depends on a whole lot of things.
Everyone knows the whole "brain drain" thing—it’s such a cliché at this point.

Look, I'm done talking about this—I didn't even get to give you my full take over on Politico, but that was my shot at showing you just how messy this whole thing actually is. Trying to shove it all into some neat little ideological box? It’s honestly dangerous.

Solid work, if you ask me...

Frontier Issues of the Political Economy of Migration

Migration hits both sending and receiving countries like a freight train—it’s got a massive economic impact on everyone involved. Since everyone isn't getting the same slice of the pie when it comes to migration, you end up with these special interest groups—total vultures, really—who only care about their own narrow agendas while fighting over the scraps left behind by migration.
Self-serving agendas aren't just for lobbyists—they’re baked right into the DNA of politicians and bureaucrats too. Honestly, it's all just one big game of looking out for number one.

In this paper, I'm digging into how... Political culture basically dictates how policy gets made and how interest groups use lobbying to mess with public policy decisions. We’re also looking at how these groups and their lobbying tactics shape everything from assimilation to how people feel about international trade. At the end of the day, these narrow interests can either tank social welfare or boost it—it just depends on who's pulling the strings.

Sam Martinez9 said:If any nation’s policy is actually being dictated by its long-term national interests, it's going to be Germany, France, or the United Kingdom. You can see that clearly when you look at the results—both in practice and in the historical record. Generally speaking, the countries that embrace immigration tend to pull ahead, seeing significant growth first in their economies and then across every other metric imaginable.

When you look at the young Americans moving to places like Germany or Ireland today, you have to wonder about their underlying motivation. Is there a sense that they are heading over there specifically to dismantle or undermine those political communities from within?

They’re only pulling this off because they’ve got eyes on them constantly—it’s basically just constant surveillance at this point... Given how things are shifting—they’re totally flipping the script on migration policy too... whether that happens tomorrow or way down the road, it's coming.

Look, you can't pull this off without making some massive blunders—it’s definitely not perfect. First off, you've got all these conflicting interests within the countries themselves; it's not just about the money... there are certain groups, even political power players, who want to weaponize migration policy for their own agendas. Just looking out for their own damn interests—nothing else.

Look, when you talk about the order of operations—immigration, economic growth, all that stuff—it's a mess. Look, you don't just get an influx of labor out of nowhere—it only happens once the groundwork is laid. You need a "hungry" domestic or foreign market, serious capital investment, and you have to actually exhaust the local talent pool first. Simple as that.

You can't just freeze them out and expect some kind of "economic boom" to happen—if that’s the plan, they might as well stay home and enjoy the prosperity themselves.

Are young Americans heading off to Germany or Ireland just to tear their political systems apart?

Economic migrants show up when they see a shot at actually making it—for themselves and their families. Period.

Everything else about them showing up—since they aren't just "labor statistics" but actual people—basically boils down to whether the US migration policy is actually decent, mediocre, or just straight-up trash.

Sam Martinez9 said:That isn't quite right. It's not like the US, France, or the United Kingdom just started taking in immigrants yesterday.
If you take a moment to look at the history of migration in Germany, you'll see this pattern:

Late 19th Century: Industrialization acts as a magnet

German reunification in 1871 significantly accelerated industrial growth. Even though fewer people were moving overall back then, there simply weren't enough workers to go around. Germany once again became a destination for immigrants. On the eve of World War I, roughly 1.2 million "migrant workers," primarily from Poland, were working in Germany.

The history of 1955–1973: Guest workers fueling the economic miracle

The Federal Republic needed a massive influx of labor to sustain its economic boom. Between 1955 and 1973, both private corporations and public institutions in West Germany brought in approximately 14 million guest workers from Italy, Morocco, Turkey, and various other Mediterranean nations. About three million of those individuals decided to stay and brought their families along, ultimately forming one of the largest groups of Germans with a migrant background.

Nobody’s disputing that... you just gotta look at the sequence of events here—setting up market conditions and production scale --> needing cheap labor --> importing it from abroad.

Making a political call to let in economic migrants without any actual justification—especially since we’re already drowning in refugees—would be an even bigger disaster.

Look, from the end of World War I all the way through the '60s, both in the US and across Europe, there was a massive push for quotas, protectionism, and strict immigration limits... and honestly, there's a damn good reason for that.

Sam Martinez9 said:So, are you suggesting that back in the 70s, Germans were importing Americans, Mexicans, Canadians, Turks, Greeks... into the US just to dismantle the American political community?

Was my brother living and working in Germany for thirty years because of that theory?

What I'm saying is that migration policy has to be handled based on what's actually good for a country in the long run—otherwise, if you cave to any kind of pressure or outside interest, the whole political fabric just falls apart.

I'm not talking about the 70s, but man, everything we've seen with migration over the last 10-15 years gives us plenty of reason to be worried.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Exactly, that's the crux of it. Massive differences exist even on the same street, but why should that automatically trigger a conflict? Does a mentally sound person pick a fight with everyone who isn't exactly like them? I'd say no. For a conflict to actually ignite, people first have to be heavily manipulated by propaganda (instrumentalized). Cultural differences that escalate into actual clashes always follow some kind of propaganda campaign driven by specific interests.

Spot on—to pull off "divide and conquer," you absolutely have to paint the "other" group as some kind of threat.
Though, there's an even more calculated strategy... bring in a minority group, mess around with how they integrate or adapt to society, and just constantly fuel resentment and frustration... basically tearing the political community apart from the inside.
That kind of destruction serves one specific purpose: keeping the political elites in power.

Any resemblance between this and the (un)regulated influx of immigrants isn't coincidental...

Sandra Murphy33 said:I haven't missed anything—I stand by every single word I wrote and maintain that everything is exactly as I stated. 😛

Perhaps it is your own expectation of a certain reaction that has missed the mark... ?

There is no dichotomy here; it is simply a matter of observing what has been happening on Earth since time immemorial...

"Simple observation" doesn't exist.
That would imply some kind of hyper-objective, unbiased observation, but we know that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"—and in our case, that means indifference...
The observer projects their own soul, psyche, and heart onto what they see, giving color, tone, and meaning to the subject. That is why we have different visions and perspectives, even though the world appears the same to everyone... or does it? 😉

Quite the opposite; it is about the constant, inherent human longing to shape reality to our liking. Where do you see this "hostile, cold, and indifferent world" when there isn't a trace of it? Literally nowhere is there fear; man's future isn't questionable in the slightest. In fact, it is secure from every perspective you can imagine. And that is precisely my point: the world is not merely indifferent; the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity. It has always been this way, and it always will be.

Whether such a vision is "good" is another question entirely. But it is inherent to us. Thinking differently isn't in our nature. Not as individuals, but as a collective. An individual might manage to break free from such a viewpoint, but humanity cannot—not by any means.

Regarding the idea that "the world exists to joyfully and fervently serve humanity," Eastern philosophy would certainly have something to say about that... This particular understanding is tied strictly to the "civilized" West; while it may be the majority view, it is far from the only one in existence.

And as for there being no fear and no "vision of a hostile world," well, you certainly picked a (historical) moment to make such a claim... 🤦

And most beautifully, such a perspective isn't even "inherent" to us—especially not to "humanity" at large. It is something entirely learned and adopted, typical only of Western civilization.

Actually, according to the Bible, the world was entrusted to us for stewardship. We aren't the masters here... people are meant to be guardians of the planet—part of nature itself, but as self-aware beings, we're responsible for its well-being and our own.

Amanda Jackson5 said:Fair point, but taking an anti-philosophical stance is itself a philosophical move. It's a bit of a Catch-22; no matter how you spin it, you're stuck with the same result. Ethan Gomez82 would only be truly consistent if he just stopped thinking about these topics altogether and, by extension, stopped commenting on them. Because if you aren't thinking, you aren't talking. If you are thinking, yet you insist that thinking is a waste of time, you've already tripped over your own feet.

Lešek Kolakovski puts this much more elegantly:

We can't go around declaring a set of questions perpetually groundless unless we are implicitly relying on some constant standards of rationality.

"The Horror of Metaphysics," p. 8.

Besides, even a resigned admission that philosophy is essentially useless can serve as a way to (only) keep the discipline alive:

For over a century, a huge chunk of academic philosophy has been dedicated to explaining why philosophy is either impossible or useless—or both. In doing so, philosophy proves it can safely and successfully survive its own demise simply by busying itself with proving that it really is dead.

Ibid, p. 9.

So true... it's just a defense mechanism—classic sour grapes logic.

steelridge58 said:To build on what was just said,

Wouldn't it be so much better—and frankly, a lot healthier for a space like this—if we actually focused on cultivating the power of genuine thought?
I'm talking about a real collision of ideas.
A true exchange through meaningful dialogue.

What is the actual purpose of philosophy?
If we assume—just within the scope of this specific discussion—that the goal is to logically refine our thoughts and bring clarity to the subjects we're debating,
- then I can't help but wonder how far we've strayed from that ideal,
or how deeply we've lost our way
- and more importantly, why that's happening.

And I think that applies to the values of society at large, too.

Look at initiatives already teaching kids how to engage with different perspectives...

The main goal is just getting kids used to thinking for themselves.

As for why science and philosophy need each other to survive—without it, both fail—check out Sabine Hossenfelder's take from the Brookings Institution...

Why the foundations of physics have not progressed for 40 years

Not gonna get into a massive debate right now—I'm heading out for a few weeks for the beach, family stuff, etc. Peace.

🙂

Gerald Jackson48 said:It happens all the time. People take stuff from a scientific field—and let’s be honest, evolutionary psychology is primarily just that, a science—and they dump it straight into the messy world of political and ideological nonsense. It’s a disaster. You end up with these totally warped interpretations of research that was actually meant to be purely academic.

It happens all the time, regardless of which political side you're on. People take something that isn't even a proven fact—just some unverified claim—and try to turn it into a fundamental law of nature. Then, they use those "laws" to dictate how everyone should behave morally. It’s a mess. Even evolutionary psychologists aren't safe from this. They end up wading straight into the murky swamps of political ideology, especially when they write those pop-science books meant for the general public. It's easy to lose your way there.

👍

Facts... that's why I have so much respect for the folks who actually say, "Hey, give people the chance, the space, and the resources" to figure out what works best for them.
And honestly, when it comes to guys like Schumacher, it’s more than just theoretical debate.

So-called developing nations still have plenty of tight-knit communities where there's an actual shot at this kind of "collective entrepreneurship."

In the developed West, that kind of thing is barely even a glimmer on the horizon, though it hasn't totally died out yet.

I actually posted my own critique about Greta Thunberg over on Politics... all this social energy could be better spent tackling social polarization, or just hitting "like" and tweeting at world leaders to finally "listen to the scientists."

Instead of millions of local grassroots movements, we just get this endless cycle of yelling at global institutions...

ironmarlin1 said:

Unless, of course, we’re actually calling for a return to the Khmer Rouge or some other brand of idiotic neo-primitivist nonsense—the kind of regressive garbage that usually succeeds at nothing more than dragging society back an entire century.

bluemason3 cares about the weight of centuries...

How exactly does he envision "societies" being pushed "forward"... if we’re talking strictly in terms of "evolutionary progress"? In biology, there exists this sort of... The concept of an "arms race" is such a heavy, suffocating term, isn't it? It’s that relentless, spiraling momentum where everyone is constantly looking over their shoulder, convinced that the only way to stay safe is to build something bigger, louder, and more terrifying than whatever the guy next door is tinkering with in his garage. It reminds me of those old stories about prestige and power—where you aren't just building a tool, you're building a monument to your own anxiety. It’s this exhausting cycle of escalation that never actually leads to stability; it just leads to a world where everyone is sitting on a powder keg, waiting for someone to trip. Biologists have their own way of labeling this phenomenon—this idea that the stronger party is inherently the more advanced one. If we look at the Khmer Rouge, whom history remembers with such visceral dread, and try to measure our own "progress" against them, where exactly does that leave us? Are we truly more evolved, or just better equipped? It strikes me that we might simply be an upgraded iteration, having refined and polished the very methods they utilized. In fact, perhaps the only reason we remember them so vividly is due to the cold, evolutionary logic of an arms race; we internalize their brutality to ensure we aren't caught off guard again. We didn't just defeat them, though—we rebranded the conquest. We stepped into the vacuum they left behind and framed our dominance as these noble "peacekeeping missions," which, when viewed through the cynical lens of a global arms race, looks suspiciously like merely perfecting the art of subjugation.

Actually, it's pretty hard to say how the evolutionary mechanisms described in modern or extended evolutionary synthesis necessarily lead to "progress"... simple adaptation to an environment doesn't automatically mean that.

So, someone or something has to define what "progress" even means... Is it a higher GDP? More output with less labor input (people who, instead of digging canals, could be designing space stations right now... yeah, sure, let's go with that)... or maybe a healthier society where more people actually get a chance to contribute to defining and building that "healthier" state.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Beljki wrote an outstanding post. Truly top-tier, Pinker-level stuff. 👍

Give me a break... seriously... when Schumacher went back to Germany after World War II to act as an economic advisor for the military administration in the American occupation zone—driving through those wrecked-out cities—he just muttered... "A desert..."

So, yeah—the end result of a high-tech civilization at that point in time and space was basically a desert... and even long after that, the threat of turning into one remained.

He also said this...
"We have to hunt for a technological revolution that gives us the inventions and machines capable of reversing the destructive trends currently threatening us. "

You see the same thing playing out today—just look at kids stuck in front of computer screens and smartphones all day long.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Honestly, there's zero point in nitpicking exactly how many grains of rice are in a bowl or what kind of patterns are on some napkins to define an "average" meal... I mean, if you’ve decided that this mediocre baseline—which, let's be real, keeps shifting because of some arbitrary government regulation—is somehow your gold standard, then fine. Whatever. If that explanation works for you, go for it.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Buddhist economics—now that's something actually worth talking about.

Buddhist economics first hit the scene when it was used to run the government economy under the Indian Buddhist Emperor Ashoka—back around 268 to 232 BCE. Ashoka’s reign was actually pretty legendary for its massive philanthropic vibe and public works projects... we're talking building hospitals, hostels, parks, and even protecting nature.

E. F. Schumacher actually coined the term "Buddhist economics" back in '55—he was out in Myanmar acting as an economic advisor for Prime Minister U Nu. He used the term in his essay "Buddhist economics," which first hit the scene in Asia back in '66—basically a handbook—before landing in his massive collection "Small is Beautiful" in '73. Nowadays, you see followers of Schumacher and Theravada writers like Prayudh Payutto, Padmasiri de Silva, and Luang Por Dattajivo using it all the time.

The first conference for the Buddhist economics research platform went down in Budapest, Canada, back on August 23–24, 2007. Then they held the second one at Ubon Ratchathani University in Thailand from April 9–11, 2009.

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Alright, who exactly are we talking about here—who hasn't just totally wasted their life? Give me some actual examples—just for some context—and back it up with some real arguments too.
So you're seriously telling me that Schumacher walked away from his entire career just for... what exactly? What kind of "profitability" is that even supposed to be?

bluemason3 said:The term "Middle Way" in Buddhism carries very different meanings depending on whether you're looking at it from a practical or a philosophical standpoint.

For instance, philosophically, it represents a path between "extremes"—from their perspective, things like nihilism and essentialism. The whole Madhyamaka school (one of the major Mahayana branches, most famously represented by Nagarjun) actually got its name from this concept (madhya-middle).

That’s actually a much more frequent and central meaning of the phrase in Buddhist thought.

When it comes to discipline, if we look at formal Buddhist hagiographies, the Middle Way refers to the space between extreme asceticism and a "normal" life, rather than a balance between asceticism and hedonism.

The Buddhist monastic lifestyle implies poverty (your only possessions might be an alms bowl and a few basic items, mostly because the early monastic tradition was itinerant and they didn't have permanent monasteries to store things in), celibacy, wearing a few scraps of discarded cloth (which were later replaced by more formal, donated robes), living on alms, and eating just one meal a day... it’s still pretty ascetic, but it’s considered the "middle way" when compared to the previous extremes of starving oneself to the brink of death.

----
But honestly, kill me now, I have no idea how any of this relates to what we're actually talking about here. 😵

There isn't enough substance in any of this to even bother commenting on a mention of Buddhism. Most of these posts seem to just tack on labels without any real reason, maybe because someone thinks it sounds cool or they have some random personal association. Who knows?

And that guy trying to push those micro-farming methods in the developing world basically wasted his life. Fine, if he managed to sell it to someone and make a buck, or if some misguided fan gave him free praise, then whatever. Trying to force ideological backdrops onto everything or hunting for connections in things like Buddhism or papal encyclicals is... well, I’d better just stay quiet.😁

Generally speaking, it's all nonsense. A society can't progress without freeing up resources to shift "energy" into activities beyond mere survival. That requires high-efficiency modern agriculture with minimal human input (you could achieve this through slavery or serfdom, but that only frees up a tiny fraction of society and is ethically questionable) and universal education to retrain the workforce for other sectors.
So, it is absolutely necessary for developing nations to move in that direction if they don't want to stay stuck in the Middle Ages forever, and any sensible government will try to make that happen.
Unless, of course, we're calling for a return to the crven kmer or some other idiotic neo-primitivist garbage that usually just succeeds in pushing society another century backward.
At least the old-school communists had some semblance of an economic logic—even if it was flawed or nonsensical at first glance—and occasionally they actually managed to spark a short-term positive shift. These modern primitives, though? They’re just irrational, pseudo-religious zealots. They cling to this fabricated "golden age" that doesn't exist, fueled by ideological fantasies about returning to a past that never was. I suppose there might be some logic in how they seek out religious backings; their entire approach is such a mess of irrational cognitive loops and transparent rationalizations. It's clearly just a way to project their own fantasies because they can't handle reality, so they go looking for a kindred spirit.

Schumacher and the Khmer Rouge... what a wild combo. 🤦

Schumacher wasn't trying to trap developing nations in some eternal "Middle Ages" loop—it was actually the exact opposite... he wanted to break through that total stagnation and apathy.
He saw how a huge chunk of that paralysis came from their civilization just being stuck in a parasitic symbiosis with Western industrial giants like the UK... among others.
Neither "free market" hacks nor those "classic communists" were going to help them out with their tired, old-school formulas.

Sure, he took cues from Gandhi, Tolstoy, and certain social sciences? So what? He wasn't just mindlessly copying a playbook for Third World development.

You just have to know the difference between being inspired and being a total copycat...

ironmarlin1 said:You sound a bit like a passage pulled from an essay by Bill Hamvas... which is actually quite good. I was recently reading a radical progressive piece written in that classic Pinker style: https://www.thenation.com/article/po...-bannon-putin/

Of course, Hamvas was well known for following the traditionalist teachings of René Guénon and, to some extent, Julius Evola.

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that's what the madman wrote in his book), which then leads to the far right... whereas Guénon and Evola lead to Darya Dugina and Steve Bannon.

Why couldn't Nietzsche lead to Thomas Mann, or Guénon and Evola lead to Bill Hamvas? You might have asked that same question to Georg Lukács when he was persecuting Hamvas. We all know the kind of answer you would have received in those days. Then again, Lukács had much closer ties to Mann (through his essays, for instance), so he wouldn't have made such a glaring oversight regarding Nietzsche.
Even John Zerzan—who, with his particular set of views, bears a certain resemblance to the Unabomber—serves as a lifeline for some, a way to resist those ideologues. These days, people are showing up at your doorstep threatening death and physical violence if you happen to own the "wrong" books, all in the name of that radical-progressive fanaticism. I've experienced it personally. These are heavy times. And the communists used to hunt down Hamvas. Imagine what it's like today...

It is fascinatingly ironic that the "far-right" today finds its fuel in evolutionary theories of biological racism. It’s a fertile ground that Pinker and his cohort of "evolutionary psychologists" helped till years ago. If you ask me, evolutionary theory will serve their racist agendas much better than Hamvas or Mann ever could. We even have an example right here on this forum (Alyosha) with such theses. But honestly, examples aren't even necessary; it's blindingly obvious to anyone looking. (Those who find it unclear should be viewed with suspicion.)
Though, I suppose we shouldn't get bogged down in questions of race or the right wing. People who claim to be dedicated to "hunting racists"—which sounds like a profession far too noble a name to exist without being a mere front for something else—have plenty of them in their own ranks. And Black Americans aren't even their primary target. Today, anti-Islam sentiment is a regular fixture within these "progressive" circles. For instance, for years, these federal agencies were busy inquiring about Black rights, yet never once did they mention Muslims.
But let's be real, I think it's mostly just a public spectacle designed to mask massive financial and ideological interests behind lofty ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality, and so on. It's the classic playbook... blacklists for certain authors, and whitelists for ideals that seem non-existent to everyone else, making them perfect breeding grounds for various subversions. To me, someone who spends all day preaching progress and equality while simultaneously harassing people and threatening them with death is far more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for criminality. It's quite simple to grasp, and you don't need much intellect to see why that is.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."? There is profound wisdom behind that, even if the thought seems foolish on the surface.

Nietzsche basically targeted everyone—his critics, his fans, you name it—and honestly, it’s impossible to put them in one camp. But hey, it's not that surprising when you look at the contradictions scattered all over his work, his quotes... even his own damn life.
He’s managed to grab a massive amount of attention from Christian philosophers and theologians—people totally obsessed with his whole "holy YES to life" thing... regardless of how anti-Christian he actually is, or maybe even because of it.
Thomas Mann? For sure... he saw something prophetic in Friedrich Nietzsche that would lead to a "new humanism"... definitely within art.
Mann was always a critic—basically pointing out how "instinctual" power and reason are constantly at odds, with one just being shoved down the other's throat.

The link from René Guénon to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Julius Evola is straight-up direct.

Even John Zerzan—who kind of reminds me of... Unabomber Some people's views are basically the only thing keeping us from total collapse—they’re the last line of defense against these ideologies. Nowadays, you’ve got fanatics practically knocking on your door, threatening death or physical violence just because you own books that don't fit their radical-progressive agenda. I've dealt with this shit personally. These are heavy times, man. Even back in the day, the communists were out there persecuting Ralph Waldo Emerson. Just look how far things have gone since then...

I don't even know what to say about those attacks you're bringing up—honestly, I've seen you harping on about them in other threads too...

It’s actually pretty wild how backwards this works—it’s like the whole far-right movement is basically being fueled by the exact opposite of what you'd expect. Those damn evolutionary theories about biological racism—absolute garbage. Steven Pinker basically paved the way for all those "evolutionary psychology" hacks with his buddies—total joke. They'll probably twist evolutionary theory to back up their racist nonsense long before they ever touch anything by Ralph Waldo Emerson or Thomas Mann. We’ve got an example right here on the forum from a user like Alyosha—someone who lives and breathes these kinds of theories. But honestly, you don't even need examples—it's pretty obvious what's going on just by looking at them. (If that isn't clear to you, I've got my doubts about you.)

Honestly, I get the feeling most evolutionary psychologists are playing around with "nitroglycerin" without even realizing how volatile it is... or maybe they know exactly what they're doing and they just don't give a damn.

As for Alyosha—this is exactly where we split ways.

Then again—social constructivists can be absolute lunatics too.

Look, I’m telling you—this isn't even about race or right-wing politics. The people who claim they're out there "hunting racists"—which, let's be honest, sounds way too noble a title for a job that probably just serves as a front for something else—have plenty of those types right in their own ranks. And it's not even Black Americans they're primarily targeting. These days, being anti-Islam is basically a requirement in those "progressive" circles. For years, you'd see these Government agencies obsessing over civil rights for Black Americans, yet they never once breathed a word about Muslims.
But look, I honestly think it’s just a massive PR stunt designed to mask fat wallets and radical ideologies behind these shiny, virtuous ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality and the rest of that usual checklist... It’s the classic playbook—blacklisting certain authors while white-listing these "ideals" that everyone pretends are real, even though they’re actually just perfect breeding grounds for all sorts of agendas. To me, someone who spends all day preaching about progress and equality while simultaneously tormenting people and issuing death threats is way more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for crime. Honestly, you don't need a PhD to see through that.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."" There's some deep logic there, even if it sounds totally insane at first glance.

I get it... unfortunately, it's just a permanent abuse of science to grab university chairs, secure research grants, and control the media.

I once sat in on a seminar by Puljak—which had nothing to do with his actual work—and, man, he's basically the first thing you think of when you hear him speak... I mean, he knows how to hold an audience and he isn't boring, but... yeah, no thanks.

ironmarlin1 said:You sound a bit like a passage pulled from an essay by Bill Hamvas... which is actually quite good. I was recently reading a radical progressive piece written in that classic Pinker style: https://www.thenation.com/article/po...-bannon-putin/

Of course, Hamvas was well known for following the traditionalist teachings of René Guénon and, to some extent, Julius Evola.

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that's what the madman wrote in his book), which then leads to the far right... whereas Guénon and Evola lead to Darya Dugina and Steve Bannon.

Why couldn't Nietzsche lead to Thomas Mann, or Guénon and Evola lead to Bill Hamvas? You might have asked that same question to Georg Lukács when he was persecuting Hamvas. We all know the kind of answer you would have received in those days. Then again, Lukács had much closer ties to Mann (through his essays, for instance), so he wouldn't have made such a glaring oversight regarding Nietzsche.
Even John Zerzan—who, with his particular set of views, bears a certain resemblance to the Unabomber—serves as a lifeline for some, a way to resist those ideologues. These days, people are showing up at your doorstep threatening death and physical violence if you happen to own the "wrong" books, all in the name of that radical-progressive fanaticism. I've experienced it personally. These are heavy times. And the communists used to hunt down Hamvas. Imagine what it's like today...

It is fascinatingly ironic that the "far-right" today finds its fuel in evolutionary theories of biological racism. It’s a fertile ground that Pinker and his cohort of "evolutionary psychologists" helped till years ago. If you ask me, evolutionary theory will serve their racist agendas much better than Hamvas or Mann ever could. We even have an example right here on this forum (Alyosha) with such theses. But honestly, examples aren't even necessary; it's blindingly obvious to anyone looking. (Those who find it unclear should be viewed with suspicion.)
Though, I suppose we shouldn't get bogged down in questions of race or the right wing. People who claim to be dedicated to "hunting racists"—which sounds like a profession far too noble a name to exist without being a mere front for something else—have plenty of them in their own ranks. And Black Americans aren't even their primary target. Today, anti-Islam sentiment is a regular fixture within these "progressive" circles. For instance, for years, these federal agencies were busy inquiring about Black rights, yet never once did they mention Muslims.
But let's be real, I think it's mostly just a public spectacle designed to mask massive financial and ideological interests behind lofty ideals: human rights, civil rights, gender equality, and so on. It's the classic playbook... blacklists for certain authors, and whitelists for ideals that seem non-existent to everyone else, making them perfect breeding grounds for various subversions. To me, someone who spends all day preaching progress and equality while simultaneously harassing people and threatening them with death is far more suspicious than someone who openly advocates for criminality. It's quite simple to grasp, and you don't need much intellect to see why that is.
Didn't Hegel say: ""Even the criminal thought of a villain is greater and more sublime than all the wonders of heaven."? There is profound wisdom behind that, even if the thought seems foolish on the surface.

I've only ever read bits and pieces of Hamvaš—just snippets and quotes, unfortunately.
But I've been hearing that specific kind of "vibe" for a long time now—not just from him—it just pops up every once in a while.

As for that article you mentioned, the author immediately frames Traditionalism as this obscure, lurking beast—something even more dangerous than nationalism.
An "expert" on the far right, clearly....

But according to Pinker and those American ideologues, Nietzsche leads straight to Evola (that’s what the maniac wrote in his book) and then down to the "far right"... whereas Guenon and Evola lead to Dugin and Bannon.

Pinker is completely blinded by his hatred for Nietzsche—he’d probably censor him if he could... and yeah, he brings up Evola as some "early fascist intellectual."

The thing is, Evola is primarily an aristocratic traditionalist.

ironmarlin1 said:How on earth did this thread morph into its own version of The Joe Rogan Experience?

Dunno—guess Charles Zerzan, Imre Hamvas, Michael Schumacher, and even Steven Pinker are just too "inspiring" for everyone... anyway, I'll get back to your post ASAP, just tied up right now.

Amanda Jackson5 said:If we follow that logic, it implies that being human is essentially undesirable. It feels like a romanticization of a primitive, animalistic existence—likely flavored with secularized millenarian ideas and those "emanation" theories where being further from the "source" equates to a worse, uglier, more difficult existence. And if that's the case, why stop at criticizing civilization? We could just spiral into an infinite regression. You can actually find similar lines of thought in places you wouldn't expect, like among biologists, where some even argue that life itself is inherently self-destructive. Peter Ward calls this the Medea Hypothesis (as a counterpoint to the Lovelockian Gaia hypothesis):

In contrast to the Gaia hypothesis (or theory), which is named after a nurturing mother figure or Mother Nature, Ward proposes a hypothesis named after a much more toxic maternal figure—Medea. What’s the core idea? There is a fundamental tendency within life around us, including our own species, to make the Earth less hospitable for life, ultimately rendering it "uninhabitable." Throughout history, the evolution of life has triggered a series of catastrophes that were devastating for biological stability (which Ward refers to as Medean events), and it will continue to do so. Instead of the "return to nature" advocated by environmental movements, people should focus on practical work to maintain the possibility of survival for ourselves and other living beings. The reality is that we live on a planet that is aging rapidly, and if we want to survive as a species, we will soon be left with only two choices: planetary engineering or leaving the planet entirely. Rather than trying to restore the planet to its pre-human state, we should do exactly what the Gaia hypothesis suggests life does—optimize conditions for future life.

Peter Ward: The Medea Hypothesis – Is Life on Earth Ultimately Self-Destructive? Princeton University Press, 2009.

Contrary to all of that, I was raised in the spirit of the Enlightenment, so I believe in progress, and by extension, I believe in civilization. Nothing good for humanity comes from a lack of civilization. This isn't a question of immediacy versus mediation. The very essence of being human is self-awareness and intellect, which is nothing more than mediation. The further you drift into mindless instinct, the closer you get to that immediate, pulsing existence, and the further you move from a consciousness whose very core is representation. In the end, you just arrive at death and nothingness. I truly don't see how that could be considered a desirable state, especially for human beings.

The only real value in eco-primitivism or any movement trying to drag us back to the past is that they act as a necessary reality check for those obsessed with progress, the Enlightenment, etc.—basically, they counter Pinker's "Enlightenment Now!" style of thinking.

Humanity is like a guy lugging around way too much luggage—he's stumbling, rushing too hard, dropping stuff everywhere, and constantly having to backtrack just to pick up the pieces.

hiddeneagle98 said:Wouldn't you say that Zen Buddhism offers a much more effective remedy for these issues than eco-primitivism ever could? I mean, isn't the whole core of Zen about embracing the present moment and living with immediacy? Sure, Buddhism doesn't go out of its way to try and dismantle language entirely, but maybe that’s because such a drastic move isn't even necessary in the first place.

The whole concept of eco-primitivism is just fundamentally unachievable. Honestly, the fact that these people want to tear down civilization just so they can chase some idealized, comfortable existence they've cooked up in their heads really points to a massive lack of self-discipline. True renunciation means choosing to step away from civilization through willpower, not blowing the whole thing up just so you don't have to deal with the actual struggle of self-control. People can spin all the fancy philosophical webs they want to mask that laziness, but if you ask me, it’s hardly worth wasting time studying.

Anyway, that’s my two cents, in short—I haven't had much free time lately. I haven't even been able to get around to reading most of the other posts properly, so bear with me while I vent.

Sent from my Reddit

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher—you know, that legendary economist—actually titled one of his most famous books...Buddhist economics—man, where do we even start with that?Basically, everything he wrote back in the 50s was all about pushing local resources—you know, that whole "economy where people actually matter" vibe.

He was the one who actually kicked off the whole concept...Appropriate technology—it’s more than just a buzzword, it's the whole damn point. We need tools that actually fit our lives instead of this massive, soul-crushing industrial machine we're stuck in. Just thinking about how much we've lost to "progress" makes me want to scream.He talked about tech that’s actually easy to use and fits right in with the Third World—stuff you can actually scale down to small local communities. He even worked his way around as an economic consultant in places like Myanmar, India, and Zambia.

He started out as a total Keynesian—one of those die-hard followers of John Maynard Keynes—but somehow ended up becoming one of the biggest names in the whole heterodox economic scene.

Ernst Friedrich Schumacher

Back when he was a young guy, Ernst Friedrich Schumacher was a hardcore atheist—but man, seeing him ditch that whole materialistic, capitalist, agnostic modernity thing as he became obsessed with religion? That was something else.

It’s pretty obvious he’s got a thing for... Buddhism—man, what a trip.But man, ever since the late fifties— Catholicism. It really hit him hard—shaped his whole way of thinking.

He noticed. It’s pretty wild how much my own take on money and work lines up with what you see in those old papal encyclicals about social issues—it's basically the same vibe.From Leo XIII.'s "Rerum Novarum" all the way up to John XXIII.'s "Mother and Teacher"—plus everything else... Distributism—man, people just don't get it. It’s basically the only way forward if we actually want to fix this broken system. So, what are G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and Vincent McNabb actually backing here?
The guy basically soaked up most of Thomism—it gave him a solid, objective framework to lean on, unlike all that ego-driven subjectivism and relativism nonsense that defines modern philosophy and society today. He was also pretty obsessed with tradition—just couldn't get enough of it. Christian mysticism—man, what a trip.He was deep into reading folks like Saint Teresa of Avila and Thomas Merton—stuff he actually bonded over with his buddy, the Catholic writer Christopher Derrick. He ended up converting to Catholicism back in '71.