a reply to: AlienView
Well one could argue entertainment and drugs and sex and other indulgences are not actually happiness
, they're only shadows of its cousin. I
think 1984 is accurate enough. In effect, it's the disempowerment and control of hte citizenry through a mazework of techniques. Keep the needs of the
citizenry as low as can be, while also retaining a sufficiently solid grip on power. If the citizenry doesn't get its minimum then they might riot or
become dysfunctional. Government cannot exist without its citizenry.
How to take freedoms away from people while giving the illusion of increasing them? This is what I see going on. A lot of it has to do with the
increasing steelwork jungle sprouting up across the world and billions of people coming to life, dreaming of riches and fame. How to control the
world's population to ensure everybody can be fed and every industry supplied and all the critical ecosystems of Earth are also sustained? One has to
remove previous freedoms which were enjoyed to stock up and preserve what remains for future generations, or so it's thought to be the case.
Many argue scarcity is artificial, and so it can't serve as a reason to control citizens, but I disagree. They argue the Earth has plentiful resources
for everyone. Resources are only made to be scarce so humans can be controlled. However, what if resources really are scarce? What if ecosystems
really are easily destroyed? Over the past 100+ years in America forests were cut down and regrown at least a couple times. There're few old growth
stands left. At some point somebody - or usually a form of governing body - had to step in and run a sustainable forestry. This meant they had to
control things while also ensuring there's enough wood for everyone and enough help for loggers who've lost their jobs.
It's also that the enterprising people demand so much more reward than the average Jo or Jill. $1,000,000 isn't enough. $100,000,000 isn't.
$1,000,000,000 isn't either! And this is probably where much scarcity comes from. It's rooted in the finite number of people on Earth and the finite
economy which represents them. To defy this one would create money illegitimately which I do not condone! And if everybody were equal and so produced
equal value in the economy then this would also reduce the scarcity. But since Jack works twice as hard and twice as effectively as Matt then Jack
will recieve a considerably larger paycheck. If Matt is on the lower rungs of the economic ladder then he'll be a poor sob. Richard, on the other
hand, runs the business and pulls in 100x more than Jack. So now Matt is really feeling it down there on the lower rungs.
AFte rereading my post I think what I should say is while I think governemnt is necessary sometimes to manage things in order to meet needs, I do
agree with Orwell that government can become its own enemy when it grows too big and forgets its reason for being there. Not to just govern, but to
govern to empower people.
It could be the spirit of freedom will oneday only be realized off Earth. Earth may become a sort of prison or jaded world weighed down by its rules.
It's a place where one fatal mistake can eliminate the entire Earth's population. Years and years of rules and fears and cabin fever will do a toll on
edit on 3-10-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)