Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: It is the Law of Nature

Posted 12 months ago on Nov. 3, 2013, 6:24 a.m. EST by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Just last night I dined. I dined on a fine fatted steak, juicy and tender. In life it had been fed upon grass, and finished off as the waitress did inform me, upon grain. One must eat to survive, and so to survive one must kill - either animal, vegetable, or both. This is true of all species of animal. This is true because one does not eat dirt and live, and so:

to survive one must eat, to eat one must kill, and therefore: to survive one must kill.

To dine is to eat with elegance, and to eat with elegance requires one to kill, with elegance. Only one species takes such great pleasure in its survival that it has learned to fatten the calf and then kill it purely for the pleasure of eating.

There is, I say, a fatted calf in our midst that is ripe for the killing. It is, as I will show, a clear matter of survival - but let us be neither dissolute nor morose upon the occasion, for surely we may pursue all of the elegance our hearts' may desire as we proceed to the slaughter.


There is a Natural Law, and natural laws are like gravity - they exist in nature and are inescapable.

As I live some other must die.

This is one method of expressing a law of nature. It is an incontrovertible fact. I do survive, like each one of us, and we see that survival itself has certain dictates. It is precisely because of these dictates that as a society we arrive at the conclusion that to kill as a matter of self defense is just.

We arrive at such conclusions because they are inescapable. We codify them as a matter of Law within a system of Justice so that we may create a society which will enhance both our own survival as well as that of the species of which we are a part.

As a society we have learned to cultivate both animal and vegetable. We do so not so that the individual may be freed from the burden of killing but rather because of the measure of certainty such cultivation does provide with regard to the gathering of food - freedom from the necessity of killing is simply an added benefit. The killing does still take place, to be sure, but today the mass of humanity is no longer burdened with the sounds of the final squeal and subsequent thud as a life is ended that we may feed.

We do survive; since we survive we feed; we feed because we must; because if we do not we will not survive.

We have learned to cultivate and so we have enhanced our ability, as a species, to survive. This process of cultivation has become so efficient that it has enabled us to cultivate not only other animals with a high degree of specificity, to slaughter with elegance, and so dine in sheer pleasure. It has in fact enabled us to cultivate much more than that.

It has enabled us to cultivate ourselves, or to cultivate each other, and to do so in some very surprising, very disturbing, new ways.

In the minds of future leaders of America we are, with our academic funding policy, cultivating the premise that the mass of humanity is ripe for exploitation for something as mundane as personal gain.

The fact that we no longer kill our own food for survival, that we permit others to do so for us, and do so as a matter of social organization for the purpose of greater efficiency thus enhancing the survivability of the species, has the benefit of permitting the mass of humanity the creation of certain illusions. One being the definition of just what it is to be human.

To be human is to be humane, just as to be inhuman is to be something else: to operate without compassion, without dignity, without remorse. We are permitted such illusions because of the efficiencies our social organization has produced. Without these efficiencies, such considerations as the meaning of human or humane become meaningless. Survival becomes all.

Such considerations become meaningless, for example, among the millions of households currently surviving on food stamps. The recent cuts to this benefit of our social organization have the result of placing survivability into greater question than it was prior to those cuts. They do not have the opportunity to go out and gather food resources by direct means, as every other species does. They are instead forced to gather some form of credit which may then be exchanged - usually for labor performed. But there are no jobs, or there are far too few jobs, far too few opportunities, to gather these forms of credit which may then be exchanged for survival.


Those who cultivate the perception that such cuts are necessary or just do not cultivate for the benefit of society, but rather for their own sheer pleasure. It is their pleasure to cultivate. It is us they are cultivating.


It is human to cultivate. Where it is no longer simply a matter of increasing our efficiency, but rather survival itself, that is in question, we see that we need not concern ourselves with terms but rather focus on nature - to survive is an end in and of itself, and to cultivate toward that end is natural and therefore it is just no matter how inhuman.


It will not, I think, be necessary to cultivate among those children who are so unfortunate as to always be chosen last. Such cultivation seems quite unnecessary.

Instead we must find the means of cultivating those who would cultivate us. Such individuals often insulate themselves from the rest of society. Therefore to cultivate among them requires an indirect approach. We must cultivate those around them.

For example: befriending the children of the cultivators in such a way that they are induced to intoxication, and left in an inebriated state upon the railroad tracks, will almost certainly induce some sort of reprisal upon the heads of those engaged in the befriending. It is, almost, a natural and universal law.


Thus begins the process of Cultivation


And just what is there to be harvested? An act of retribution? Or is this simply more cultivation?



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by UncommonRebels (12) 12 months ago

Obviously nothing more humane than lazy, weak-minded vengeance.

This is crazy rambling nonsense. You're trying to declare war in the most pussified, passive aggressive way. Just SAY IT, if that's what you mean.

To eat we have to kill? Uh, no we don't. Eating an Apple doesn't kill the tree. A glass of milk doesn't kill the cow. To eat, we must grow.

Humanity is tossed out the window because we must survive? Total BS. All is lost without humanity.


[-] 0 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

I gotta agree. This is no more than a rant meant to inflame. Not much different than what I see on the right. So nice to see banality exits on both poles.

Instead of "cultivation" how about recognizing your own oneness with the other and work to heal the rift? A solution is coming that requires not a single drop of blood shed, but that will create a something new and profound. When that happens, silliness such as this will be looked upon a hundred years hence and those looking will wonder as you have: WTF.


[-] 2 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

Your questions are good ones and thanks for the reasoned opening for dialogue. It's refreshing.

Some of my reply is going to sound nonsensical. That's because it comes from a broader view of time and how time works with nature to make things happen. But that doesn't mean the results I'm speaking to here aren't real, possible and proven to have happened before.

Ok, to address your response:

I sympathize with your perspective too ZenDog and in some ways my sympathy includes agreement: knocking off people is an expedient to getting one's way. And, it's certain that individuals, and our government, have done this exact thing as a shortcutted means to a desired end. But such acts come at an <em>extreme</em> level of cost that can't be measured by earthly consequences.

As such, such acts aren't necessary if one can present a solution that is compelling for everybody - including people like the Koch brothers. I'm under no delusions: People like the Koch brothers may be intellectually, spiritually and psychically unreachable. But I don't believe that. What I do believe is their views are distorted by the very nature of their wealth and how they came about it. The distortion is distorted even further by the game we <em>all</em> find ourselves in. The challenge of the game is, these people have become exceedingly good at the rules. The rest of us have not and will not. We won't because when the masters of the game become masters, they are able to ongingly rewrite the rules, leaving us in a perpetual state of confusion as to how the game is played.

The game of course is <em>earning a living in </em><em>market economies in which amoral money is used as a measure and store of valu</em>e.

The alternate game (alternative economic model) I'm promoting through <a href="www.copiosis.com">Copiosis</a> doesn't attempt to wrest the Koch brothers' control of this current game. It also doesn't try to seize their assets inducing their industrial apparatus and wealth from them. What it does is so radically change the rules that it <em>completely neuters</em> the assets they control and the wealth they have. Then the new rules compel them to do only things that benefit people and the environment. If they don't comply with the rules, they still keep their wealth and their assets, but they lose <em>all their power</em> as well as their influence over other people (which, by the way, is the main vector through which they exercise that power and influence).

The Copiosis Economy doesn't allow anyone to harvest wealth from anybody else period. The only way anyone can create wealth is through acts that in absolute terms are good for people, society and the planet. I'm serious about the neutering effect: in a Copiosis Economy the Koch brothers can't use their money to wage anything. This includes the ability to prevent well-meaning people from doing things that restore the environment, innovate technologies that far outperform any fossil fuel (or for that matter any orthodox) technology or create methods to help people like the Koch brothers relieve them selves of the distortions they suffer from.

What happens in today's game is the person who can influence or control money controls what gets done. In our innovation, money can't be used this way. So even though the Koch's and others may feel that global warming is a hoax, people who believe it's real can do work needed to mitigate that warming. The Koch's can try to extract oil from the ground, but they will have to do it with their own bare hands because they won't be able to pay people to do it and people currently doing it will naturally choose to support other, better technologies,<a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-google-thinks-autonomous-flying-drones-are-the-future-of-clean-energy"> like this one</a>.

So, people like the Koch's, in Copiosis, are rendered powerless. Period. They get to keep their wealth and their assets, but the assets quickly become useless and their wealth's power is <em>severely </em>restricted.

The real question is, how do we make Copiosis happen? We have a plan. And that plan's gonna work. Watch and see.

I beseech you, ZenDog. Before you criticize what I'm saying here, please look over Copiosis, read the excerpt offered for free there, so you understand what you may try to critique. Our innovation is like nothing you have seen before. So critiquing it without understanding the basic tenets will just make you look foolish.

Now, about the incidents you point out: There are real and are part of the game. The great and positive thing about these is they serve to incrementally focus more human attention on the matter. This is part of our plan. It is not a plan we put into action, but it is ours because we're playing it and we know the rules.

We will need a great many people to overcome the financial power people like the Koch's have. It's doable. We've done it before. We'll do it again. The stakes are high for sure. But I am confident time is decidedly <em>not</em> short. There is exactly enough time for us to accomplish what we need. The Koch's, the Tea Party, politicians and the masses brainwashed by them are all playing our game. We have mastered the rules. And these rules supersede the rules that dictate the market economy game.

This reply could be interpreted as hubris. If you have that response, I can only say this: watch what happens.

[-] 2 points by UncommonRebels (12) 11 months ago

Copiosis seems a lot like social democracy. Curious to know the major differences? Anyway, the logic in both systems is the same: give all people access to essential economic necessities (aka freedom from debt bondage; see Second Bill of Rights) and they'll have the opportunity for upward mobility (see Gatsby Curve) or citizens will at least be able to attempt their life goals without disastrous consequences. The nations that do this now have the happiest populations (there's a yearly survey). People just want freedom to try for self-actualization. In America, the working class endures a lifetime struggle just to reach zero.

"Necessitous men are not free."

[-] 2 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

Sorry for the delay. I was out all last week for Thanksgiving.

You're right about the similarities. Jeez, one of the things we struggle so much with in the US is the risk of becoming destitute if you follow your heart (i.e. self-actualization) and don't make it. That seems like the greatest tragedy of our current system.

The differences are pretty great although I agree nations with "social democracies" have the happiest populations and BTW, those populations more than not say they love their government.

In a Copiosis economy there is no government to speak of, so there are no taxes at all. That's a pretty big difference relative to social democracy. Consumers in a Copiosis Economy do not pay anything for the basic necessities. Since there is no government, there is no central planning authority: people are completely free to do what they wish. But intrinsic designs within the system motivate positive human behavior only.

Corporations also don't exist as all business organizations become essentially coops. I think Gar Alperoviz would love. :-) But, I think the biggest major difference though is that it is unlikely in a Copiosis economy for power to be concentrated thereby eliminating less-desireable political systems to emerge from it.

Ugh, the freedom from bondage challenge is a big one in the US. Something that we will look back on as an era of shame IMO.

[-] 1 points by UncommonRebels (12) 10 months ago

Thanks for your response. So, you're describing a system of functioning anarchy? Why does that need a new name? The Copiosis website offers plenty of promises, but I see little in terms of practical solutions, dispute resolution, or logical calls to action--perhaps too idealistic for the complexities of the modern era. And all I care about is what can we do NOW to make society better, more democratic. That means moving toward social democracy as part of an evolutionary process.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

oic--this was copy pasta.

[-] 2 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

Not completely. GirlFriday. I was responding to both of your comments and it made more sense (from an efficiency standpoint) to copy and paste relevant points into your reply, which came after this one.


[-] 2 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

I don't believe my fifth paragraph illustrates anything of the kind. But both my opinion on this matter and yours is just that. Time will see. I could be wrong, I'll admit that. But my sense says it's possible to pull it off without - what did you call it - cultivating anyone.


[-] 1 points by Copiosis (19) 11 months ago

If you haven't read the material, then you're wasting my time. Not trying to be gauche here. I believe you will read about it though. When it's caught on a bit more. I'll pass on trying to convince you. Thx.


[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 11 months ago

I told him that I'd be willing to go to his site and check it out. I will do that before I comment.

[-] 1 points by UncommonRebels (12) 11 months ago

I think that true democratic freedom or anarchist utopia or an egalitarian society or whatever we want to call it can only evolve through social democracy. Tearing the current system down only puts new players in power, and the new players could be worse than the current ones. And really, we're taking about a relatively small number of powerful anti-democratic bad apples who have created a vast army of ill-informed citizens. It is the hearts and minds of the people we should win: the uneducated, the debt ridden, the hungry, and all those who believe such qualities should be rare in the USA. Many wealthy Americans would love to see a socially supported working class and campaign finance reform and movement toward a more collectivist society. Anyway, here's my bloodless plan. It's just dickish enough that it might work:


[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 11 months ago

You might want to contact the folks that put this unfinished work together.





[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 months ago

don't have the teeth for it

[-] 1 points by ThomasKent (131) 12 months ago

After the first lab-grown burger, what else might we be making a meal of decades from now? Science fiction offers some clues – some bland, others grisly.

Frankenstein vs Googleburger Pass the salt. And the pepper. And while you’re at it, the ketchup too.

They said it politely, but these were among the reactions of the two expert “tasters” who earlier this month got the first taste of a potential food of the future – a burger grown in a laboratory. Funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin, the five-year project took cells from organic cows, cultured them in a nutrient solution to develop muscle tissue, and then teased them into thin strands of meat.

To make what was barely a quarter-pounder required tens of billions of lab-grown cells and nearly 20,000 of the cultured strands. Plus egg powder, beetroot juice, breadcrumbs, salt and saffron to add texture, flavour and colour to the otherwise white meat. And $330,000.

The result? One taste tester said it was “close to meat, but not that juicy”. Another described it as “like an animal protein cake”.

Commercial cultured meat is at least a decade away, and with the backing of billionaire Brin and others, issues of taste and feel should be solvable. We do not yet know whether it can ever be produced cheaply and in large quantities. However with an estimated billion people are clinically obese, another billion seriously malnourished, and the global population expected to grow by two billion to nine billion by 2050, it is beyond dispute that the status quo is not sustainable. So do we have the appetite for change? And what might we be making a meal of decades or centuries from now?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 months ago

Well, this is interesting.


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 months ago

I just want to make sure that I heard you correctly. You said the lights are on inside the house and you are carrying on. Contrary to popular belief, you will eat dinner and go about your business?


[-] 0 points by TheRoot (94) from New York, NY 11 months ago

being humane is a value to you; cultivate ending government schools


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 months ago

Hmmm..........this will be interesting.


[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 months ago

Well, when we have Koch whores like HC.........I would hope they don't breed. I don't want to befriend their children. You see, it's not just my children but my children's children.





[-] 0 points by WSmith (1838) from Cornelius, OR 11 months ago

Dude, with all that's going on, this is what you want to focus on?

Quit drinking your own bath water!











[-] -3 points by Narley (284) 11 months ago

Quite poetic. I enjoyed it. Your heart is in the right place, even if I don’t agree with your logic.

From a more practical standpoint, At some point the people who give will be outweighed by the people who take. At some point there will be a straw that breaks the camel’s back on what the what the people who are able to give to those who don’t have.

It’s my belief that the change we always talk about will not come from rhetoric and protests. I think serious change will come only when conditions and circumstances in society force people to react for survival and safety. If the day ever comes where the government can’t, or won’t, provide life sustaining benefits. Then we will have a real revolution, meaning a shooting war.

I’ve said it before, cold, scared, hungry people are dangerous. The minute to take away their means of survival is when the revolution begins. Political and social ideologies become meaningless when you have to feed your children. People will become predatory out of necessity.

So, I think the government knows this, even the repubs, and will never significantly decrease entitlements. To do so would disastrous.