Hermit Life dot net about page.
This is a self publishing site I am working on. I would also be willing to publish other peoples' work and also place ads. If anyone is interested please contact me at walterholstad@hotmail.com. For now this is one of the 4 websites I have published online with more on the way. They are www.walterholstad.com www.socialismworks.org www.hermitlife.net www.nonprofitactivities.net.
I believe that copyrights are actually holding us back rather than spurring innovation. More designs are blocked via copyright laws, more innovations held back and not developed, than are created with this incentive for large dollar profits. We as a society are working too much. That is what is destroying the planet. Work uses energy. We need a change of mindset and societal structure to make a healthier world, not some technological advance. One thing I don't understand is how people think the very system that is causing the problems in the world is going to suddenly do a 180 and save it.
This privatizition craze and constant trend to the right is also troubling. With no public land or entities left everything would be owned by the rich. The only free people would be the ones who conform to society. Spending 8 hours a day inside is too much and outside is destroyed mostly. We should be able to set up tents in the park if we want to. There should be alternatives to houses and apartment buildings. Monotony is coded into law. The lack of variety and options are difficult to reconcile with this popular conceived notion of a free society which people believe we live in.
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capitalism. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The End of Aging Ch. 3 - Reconsidering
Chapter 2
III.Reconsidering
People begin playing music and singing and Simone speaks during a break in the pageantry. “I personally do not like guns or violence. I believe peaceful resistance is the key to achieving our goals. I believe we should work to create our own services for our people and end our reliance on the system set up by the powerful and long lasting elite group. That way we can end our dependence on them and be self-sufficient.”
Tom puts down his drum and replies, “Funny we went through all that effort to get the guns.”
“Yes.” says Simone. “We can hand them out as mantelpiece decorations for those who wish to have them. They are artful pieces.”
Chapter 4
III.Reconsidering
People begin playing music and singing and Simone speaks during a break in the pageantry. “I personally do not like guns or violence. I believe peaceful resistance is the key to achieving our goals. I believe we should work to create our own services for our people and end our reliance on the system set up by the powerful and long lasting elite group. That way we can end our dependence on them and be self-sufficient.”
Tom puts down his drum and replies, “Funny we went through all that effort to get the guns.”
“Yes.” says Simone. “We can hand them out as mantelpiece decorations for those who wish to have them. They are artful pieces.”
Chapter 4
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Hell On Earth - The End of Aging
Hell On Earth
Death is a part of life which we will all experience. Until one day when the elite figure out a way to stop aging in the human body and create a situation in which all of our bodies behave like children's bodies, creating new cells as old ones die off. In this manner older people will regress back to their childhood states. They may be able to choose an age they would like to remain at.
Of course this offer will most likely only be given to the rich and the elite who can afford it. The poor will be allowed to die. The rich will then continue to have families and raise children and only the poor will be allowed to die in true Capitalistic style. The dead will look upon the people of Earth from their place eternal or will if they can. They may not be able to see the people of Earth but Earth will have become the eternal hell for those who choose to remain for they will not experience the natural course of life but will remain in an artificial state on a decaying planet. The joke will be on them.
The rest of the people will experience the beauty of the ever-after and the natural course of existence.
Chapter 2
Death is a part of life which we will all experience. Until one day when the elite figure out a way to stop aging in the human body and create a situation in which all of our bodies behave like children's bodies, creating new cells as old ones die off. In this manner older people will regress back to their childhood states. They may be able to choose an age they would like to remain at.
Of course this offer will most likely only be given to the rich and the elite who can afford it. The poor will be allowed to die. The rich will then continue to have families and raise children and only the poor will be allowed to die in true Capitalistic style. The dead will look upon the people of Earth from their place eternal or will if they can. They may not be able to see the people of Earth but Earth will have become the eternal hell for those who choose to remain for they will not experience the natural course of life but will remain in an artificial state on a decaying planet. The joke will be on them.
The rest of the people will experience the beauty of the ever-after and the natural course of existence.
Chapter 2
Saturday, October 17, 2009
A Change is Needed - Not Capitalism
Technology Will Always Be Here – Nature, living organisms, not so certainly
Technology is discovered and is always there to be discovered. When technology is destroyed it can be reinvented and redesigned. It will always be there in waiting to be discovered. With nature this is not the case. Once it is gone it is gone for ever or at least a million years. So while slowing the pace of technology will not kill anybody not slowing the pace of environmental degradation might. Sure technology might save some people from cancer and what not but it has also led to many cases of cancer from pollution and contaminants in the air, food, and water. Therefore if technology saves us it will only be from itself.
People say that we have to have incentive and capital or else technology would be years behind what it is now. The problem is that the environment is being destroyed. The ocean has far fewer fish and general marine life than it did a hundred years ago. Modern technology has led to overfishing. Runoff from fertilization of farm fields has led to hypoxic zones which are areas of the ocean with little to no oxygen because of large algae blooms. Deforestation has led to habitat destruction for many species of animals and plants. With all this in mind I would ask these people who say we need the incentive of capital or else technology would be far behind where it is now, I would ask them, Where has it gotten us? We have great tv's and some nice medical treatments but that will not solve all the problems we have created.
The incentive of capital leads to overuse of resources and general inefficiency in society. With handouts given to people to stay home and use fewer resources such as gas for their cars we could save much energy by not requiring people to drive to work everyday and expend so much energy in the process. A different mode of operation is needed to stave off disaster. Not a capitalist incentive to bring about advances in technology.
Sure one could surmise that technology has saved countless lives as has it also taken countless lives. Polio vaccines, penicillin, chemotherapy, and many other treatments are due in large part to technology but technology is handled by human beings in an imperfect manner. We are so wont to create a system where everything is accounted for and people aren't allowed to be sloth without having warranted the right somehow that we expend countless energy doing unnecessary tasks, driving countless miles, and causing enormous pollution in the name of not being lazy and also in the name of progress. Therefore advances in technology are counterbalanced by the inefficiency and nature of our society as a whole.
In the end technology may be doing more harm than good.
Technology is discovered and is always there to be discovered. When technology is destroyed it can be reinvented and redesigned. It will always be there in waiting to be discovered. With nature this is not the case. Once it is gone it is gone for ever or at least a million years. So while slowing the pace of technology will not kill anybody not slowing the pace of environmental degradation might. Sure technology might save some people from cancer and what not but it has also led to many cases of cancer from pollution and contaminants in the air, food, and water. Therefore if technology saves us it will only be from itself.
People say that we have to have incentive and capital or else technology would be years behind what it is now. The problem is that the environment is being destroyed. The ocean has far fewer fish and general marine life than it did a hundred years ago. Modern technology has led to overfishing. Runoff from fertilization of farm fields has led to hypoxic zones which are areas of the ocean with little to no oxygen because of large algae blooms. Deforestation has led to habitat destruction for many species of animals and plants. With all this in mind I would ask these people who say we need the incentive of capital or else technology would be far behind where it is now, I would ask them, Where has it gotten us? We have great tv's and some nice medical treatments but that will not solve all the problems we have created.
The incentive of capital leads to overuse of resources and general inefficiency in society. With handouts given to people to stay home and use fewer resources such as gas for their cars we could save much energy by not requiring people to drive to work everyday and expend so much energy in the process. A different mode of operation is needed to stave off disaster. Not a capitalist incentive to bring about advances in technology.
Sure one could surmise that technology has saved countless lives as has it also taken countless lives. Polio vaccines, penicillin, chemotherapy, and many other treatments are due in large part to technology but technology is handled by human beings in an imperfect manner. We are so wont to create a system where everything is accounted for and people aren't allowed to be sloth without having warranted the right somehow that we expend countless energy doing unnecessary tasks, driving countless miles, and causing enormous pollution in the name of not being lazy and also in the name of progress. Therefore advances in technology are counterbalanced by the inefficiency and nature of our society as a whole.
In the end technology may be doing more harm than good.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Inheritance
I have nothing against individuals who inherit money but I am more concerned for those who don't. We are supposed to be a society of achievement based on work and not handouts. Yet handouts are inherent in our system so that is really a double standard in our society.
Very few people statistically inherit a lot of money but a lot of people are privileged through inheritance and not through achievement. This is on top of the advantages they already have such as a place in the family business or job in the corporation which led them to receive the large inheritance through a family member. Therefore the privileged receive advantages on top of advantages just because of the rules and laws of the system of society.
Taking away inheritance would benefit a larger proportion of people than it would hurt and it would help to level the playing field. This money could be used to cut the deficit, fix roads and infrastructure, educate the population, provide health care, and much, much more.
Therefore taking away the large inheritances of a privileged few for the greater good of society would help a far larger proportion of people than it would harm. So who are we going to cry for? The privileged few who lose their large inheritances or are we going to be happy for the enormous percentage of people who stand to gain by this change in our system of law and governance.
Very few people statistically inherit a lot of money but a lot of people are privileged through inheritance and not through achievement. This is on top of the advantages they already have such as a place in the family business or job in the corporation which led them to receive the large inheritance through a family member. Therefore the privileged receive advantages on top of advantages just because of the rules and laws of the system of society.
Taking away inheritance would benefit a larger proportion of people than it would hurt and it would help to level the playing field. This money could be used to cut the deficit, fix roads and infrastructure, educate the population, provide health care, and much, much more.
Therefore taking away the large inheritances of a privileged few for the greater good of society would help a far larger proportion of people than it would harm. So who are we going to cry for? The privileged few who lose their large inheritances or are we going to be happy for the enormous percentage of people who stand to gain by this change in our system of law and governance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
