Archive for October, 2009



“Some things are so obvious it really makes you wonder why people continue to write them down” Jack is telling me. Admitting to the logicality of his argument, “what you have just told me is surely one of those things?” “Well then for christs sake please don’t write it down!” He chuckles and then looks over to see what I am doing. “Oh god, you are writing.” “Well typing at least Jack, obviously the obvious is obvious but not necessarily as obvious…” “Stop right there…” “You stopped me…” “Stop, stop, stop, hang on, wait a sec…” “Ok” I say and look towards him again wanting to see why I am waiting. Nothing is forthcoming. “Jack?” “You said obvious way too many times” he decides. “Obviously” “What does it mean?” He wants to know. “I was getting to that when you stopped me.” “Well then, obviously you are going to have to continue.” “What is obvious to one person is not necessarily obvious to another…” “Obviously” he is about to roll off his chair. “So when you say that something is obvious…” “I was referring to MG and his little written speech on the goals of the UN” “Millenium development goals?” “Yup, something like that,” he replies not all that interested now. “Well?” “What?” “What?” “Well, he said that they are not going to be achieved.” “Obviously”



Making sense out of a natural phenomenon such as fate often requires a substantial amount of research. To begin with one must answer the question:

What is fate?

This question it would seem has been answered many times

But not successfully

If by that you mean that no meaning has been created which is not open to interpretation

Isn’t every meaning is open to interpretation?

Not scientific meanings

Even those, do not forget that the earth used to be flat

Yes but as no-one cared that it was flat it didn’t really make a difference

And then because no one cares about fate, rather waiting for it to happen, it is out of our control

Some people care about fate!

Karma, Dharma and all that

Yes, but such wisdoms teach you to accept fate and acceptance negates worry

What about those that discuss fate?

Inaction may prove inspiring for those that can think

Fate only exists because we do not control it and in that sense fate can be said to represent the variability of the future

As determined by our actions?

Perhaps, but as thinking individuals we must maintain that the world would remain and have the same meaning even if we where not to exist in the same way that trees continue to fall in a forest

So the world would have no meaning for us because if we didn’t exist then neither would the world

For us, but for others perhaps

Yes, but then they wouldn’t exist for us either; indeed, nothing would exist for us except the void, which is nothing

Then there would be no fate

No, fate would be impossible without the essence of creation which provides the future with meaning,

In point of fact then, fate would be impossible without existence.

But even though we exist we do not have to believe in fate

No, fate is somewhat akin to the God concept; it exists regardless of the individual

Then is fate a collective action or the result of the collective action of all things?

What is the collective?

Is that easier to defining than fate?

Yes, the collective is easy, the collective is everything that isn’t the individual,

But then what is the individual?

The individual exists in conscious thought; I think therefore I am,

The I concept,

The Ego

Well perhaps, the imposition of psychology on individual consciousness in the last century has led to a great deal of confusion about what it means to be an individual

It has very little value now

Yes, because the individual only exists for him or herself, trying to define individual behaviour based on experiences generated in the collective only creates infinity

Because individual experience is unique

And you are a result of your actions and the actions of others

But does fate exist for the I?

We have to realise that the actions of other individuals

Whether acting as a collective or as individuals

Has a direct bearing on our individual fates; such that fate exists as the future result of interaction between the individual and the collective

But then the future can exist now




Yes, it is the past which does not exist

Can you explain that?

Perhaps later

I’d like to hear it

Fate is what happens to us as a result of our individual actions, of which, in the conscious state we have total control

Although this total control is a result of the ability of the individual to differentiate between right and wrong

Right and wrong have no bearing on control, although it could be argued that a consciousness that has lost its ability to decide such matter is out of control

So we can lose control of our consciousness?

Or sacrifice it to the collective



And fate is what happens to us as a result of the collective action, over which we have no control.

No control?

Surely someone is in control?

We like to think so and indeed governments and markets and influential individuals seem to have direct control over their immediate surroundings

But in fact they do not because the do not control the future, the theory of chaos has a direct bearing here because it gives us the means of understanding that no matter what decision is taken the outcome is never precisely that which is expected


Well, with an infinite number of possibilities

A monkey would write Shakespeare

But few would understand it even then.

They government doesn’t control anything then?

Well, it believes it does and the collective believes it does but actually having any control would negate the conditions necessary for fate.

I don’t understand

Me neither

The collective is bigger than governments; it is infinitely big and as such infinitely unpredictable

Thus fate, if it were to exist, requires unpredictability

So then fate can not be changed

Not the collective fate because that exists despite the individual

But the individual has the ability to change fate


The past does not exist

You said that before


It wasn’t me

Can you explain then?

What I said, yes, I think so, the past only exists in the collective consciousness, the act of remembering brings the past to life but as a concept, in the sense of time, the past is gone and as such the collective act of remembrance only serves to repeat patterns of behaviour

Or to not repeat them

Yes but this demands an act of will on the part of the collective

And is this unattainable in a society that says every belief has an equal value

Is that what democracy is?


Conversations from a human past

Conversation is the base, then explanation then a form for plot?? and perhaps some characters?? Add on after story has evolved???

““The growth of human capital whether measured by the amount spent on education as a percentage of GDP or as a direct monetary contribution to an individual education,…”

“Hang on, thats a mouthful, what’s GDP?”

It was not of particular importance to what he was saying, the use of these terms, once so integral and now ivied over was intended only to show his firm grasp of the subject matter. Not provide an answer however may imply ignorance and since the question has been asked it must be at some point be answered and thus laid to rest. Thankfully, in such a case we can rely on characters to have that basic human wish to flout their intelligence.

“Gross Domestic Product is basically the sum of production, it was usually given in terms of how much each individual in each country earned, this made it more palatable for consumption so to speak. People liked to hear that they collectively earned so and so much which they could then compare…”

The answer may in fact not be quite correct: Nevertheless as both the answer and the question are constructs imagined by the human mind their existence is at best finite and as was previously stated, the definition is of little or no interest to the conversationm which continues despite the necessity of defining the relevance of irrelevance.

“…trended towards the argument that as spending on education increased so then did the GDP.”

“Your statement being that an educated population is of greater worth?”

The evolutionary mechanism which rules that survival is determined solely by survivability, may often ruled ignorance to be more fitting than intelligence. Thus while some may quickly reduce the argument to its bones, others are still searching for the kill. Ignoring the fact that the meat may be poisoned as was pointed out earlier, inspiration must wait until the game has been properly degusted by all.

“So then… as the population increased”

“Due to increased investment in education”

“The population increased proportionally with education?”

“No… well… maybe… Population increased proportionate with spending on education but…”

“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”

“the poor grow quicker”

“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”

“the rich grow richer”

“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which…”

“the rich grow richer because of the increased number of poor available to do their work for them, while the poor replace their populaiton at a disporportionately high rate in order to climb out of poverty.

” So the richness of the rich and the number of the poor is reciprocitous”


He seemed happy with this argument, thinking that some things still can be thought rather than googled. Although once thought out loud, written down and uploaded, the thought would be googleable and valued based on the number of believers it attracted (the number of hits?).

“Population growth has a pretty direct correlation with individual prosperity which has a pretty direct correlation with increased education.”

“Is an educated population of greater worth?”

The logic in the marketplace being that an increasingly educated population leads to increased prosperity is is therefore of greater worth. Conversely Darwinian logic would state that the worth of a population is solely dependant on their ability to survive. We might argue for a while about who is logically more correct but since values in the market democracy must ultimately be subscribed based on market share the ideas/beliefs of the individual are largely worthless when cotrasted with the will of the mob. However it may be poertinent to state that while the survival characteristic may be enhanced by individuals ability to adapt (intelligence/technology) ultimately species survivability depends upon the ability of the physical environment to support life. Humans are not as the popular myth would have superior to nature, or at least not yet, however and indeed, the popular definition of “worth” in the market democracy totally disregards the physical environment.

And “an educated population leads to increased contribution to economic growth”

“Educated people got paid more?”

“Relatively yes… and therefore spent more and this encouraged growth”

“Higher levels of education also meant that new jobs needed to be invented all the time”

“Higher levels of education allowed for a broader base from which human ingenuity could be extracted which lead to more jobs being created”

“And the old jobs?”

At this point you might wonder what is to be meant by old jobs. Physical labour is an old job that is now becoming a new job and as such will serve to portray the infallibility of the market. How creating “gyms” allows for growth.

“Needed to be done by machines or poor people”

“Either imported for that purpose, our outsourced”


“The jobs were physically moved to so-called cheaper countries in order to maximise profits”

“Which paid for an increasingly un-useful society of riches and leisure?”


“Whoever said that societies ought to be useful?”


“It was a moral response possibly due to…”


“The dark side of the force!”

“Pavlov’s dogs!”

“Social conditioning takes all of these forms and many more”

“We are conditioned to believe that we owe something for our existence”

“Justification of…”


“There is nothing that needs to be justified!”

“No but all too often the economic expansion that is bringing us all these riches and leisure is viewed as being out of control and it is in relation to this”

“That we take moral values upon us”

“That moral behaviour is imposed upon us”

“Stop saying us, you decide for yourself”

“And they decide for us”


“The morality of usefulness was in modern times seen to be an antidote to the market. If something wasn’t useful then is was directly detrimental to human survival, because the exhaustion of natural resources if not useful could not be justified”

“But the ability of the market to sell anything leads to everything being useful depending on how you characterise usefulness”

“And the morality of use was swallowed into the market, such that usefulness is now dependent not upon usefulness but on an objects ability to create a pool of sales”

“Such that if the market existed it must have had a use”

“Therefore because morality exists it must have a use”

“Possibly, getting back to the point”

“Which was?”

“The morality of usefulness and the wish to justify an existence cheapened by the growing number of people partaking in it”

“All the moral precation on precaution denied the inventiveness of the spirit and the search or longing for a better past denied the…”

“The future”

A chuckle at this as the implausibility of the argument is today more noticeable than ever.

“Meant that having a game plan over and above the search for profit…”

“This is the problem with the argument of all fundamentalists. Either they deny the existence of that which doesn’t fit their positioning with regards belief or they contradict…”

“Rather: Rely on the existence of another set of beliefs to contradict”

“To contradict what then? The truth?”

“Fundamental to fundamentalists is the wish”

“And the ability”

“Through propaganda”

“And social conditioning”

“To either deny of contradict the truth”

“Or those truths that do not fit their theories”

“Or bend the truth to fit their theories”

“One can not bend the truth, it exists outside of our selves, propaganda either contradicts or denies…”

“Or bends”

“Like you are doing!”

A bit from the narrator/commentator about the need for a conversation to have a point otherwise it will slowly, or in some cases rather rapidly peter out, can you peter out rapidly?? Anyway the point was that fundamentalist in the form of environmentalists where seen to be provide a certain section of the population with a reason for existence. Is the forceful application of a moral standpoint on populations not adhering to it justifiable? The environmentalist was the terrorist of the third world….

“The future was then to be based upon market decisions made by all based on an imperious mixture of propaganda and truth”

“Or the propagation of certain aspects of the one truth”

“Arguing then that the marketplace is evil because it lacks moral principles”

“Is an attempt by certain fundamentalists to regain control and tends to ignore that the market is fashioned in true democratic style by the decisions of the people”

“Misinformed people”

“Indeed, at first, but the need to increase in human capital in order to provide for continued economic growth led to even more spending on education”

“And with the increasing availability of information the population became truly informed”

“And the market started running itself based on the will of the people”

“Pipe dream”

And when they made a bad decision they could be seen crying publicly in the streets while at the same time acceding to the demands of a fate that encouraged them to believe in the inevitability of everything. The decision might have been bad but the lesson had to be learnt and since the majority of people only learn from their mistakes, mistakes must occur. The focus that earlier human societies had placed on blame was here entirely absent; the governments of the past had spent years and sometimes centuries trying to apportion blame that was now placed directly at the feet of the population that knew the blame was theirs whether apportioned through ignorance or intlligent argument.

““The growth of human capital whether measured by the amount spent on education as a percentage of GDP or as a direct monetary contribution to an individual education, is  also subject to the law of decreasing marginal returns.”


Who is better than Hamsun

Jose Saramago

Albert Camus


Hemingway, and by the way this is not in any order and am not really sure that Hamsun was that bad, still.

The 52 or so guys that wrote the bible. But since we don’t know the true authors of these works I will count the bible and various other religious works as one. And because I consider the works only marginally more important than Hamsun.

Ibsen er nok bedre?

Bob Dylan wrote a book

Gabriel Scott


Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Giangjang (sic), Xio although almost impossible to understand until you figure out he is talking to himself.

Dante, although that could be religious…

In the same vein some philosophers can only possibly count as one, Plato, Ari, Copernicus, HG Wells, JD Salinger (while we are into initials), AA Clarke, Isaac Asimov, PD James, James Herriot, Enid Blyton.

The lord of the rings and affiliated works, JRR Tolkien, Stephen King, Jack Higgins, Loen Uris, The bolke who wrote the navy stories, starts with a C? Clive Cussler! Aldous Huxley, Carl Jung, and other boys own tales.

I’d like to include some text-books but I never remember the names of their author. Darwin I haven’t read. Owen sin “What is Ecology”.

“Just the place for a snark the bellman exclaimed as he landed his crew with care… William Lewis Carrol, Shakespeare of course although not more than half of his works, and now we reap the rewards of a humble strategy because the half counts as one.

T.S Eliot, Harper Lee, Ben Elton,

Frederick Nietzsche would have to be a great waste of time, Mein Kampf was on my shelf for a while. In the same vein a whole bunch of Russians whose names seem such a demanding exercise in concentration. Dosteovsky(Sic), Lenin, Solszhenitsyn, Alexandre(sic) was a good man. En god del fra Nabokov, the story about eggs, the dog man? Who invented Ivan Illich and with him a literary example of nihilism? Anna Karenininin..a.

Billy Brighton, Banjo Patterson, Henry Lawson who was also of Norwegian aner

George Orwell, his, pigs, his tvs and his Flying Apodistria(sic), His Essays are among the best I have read. Giancomo Leopardi(sic) “Moralske småstykker”. I.Kant “Den evige fred”. Jack London has also written more than ”the call of the wild”. Some of his essays are golden. “A way of being free” Ben someone. Machiavelli(sic). Marque de sade. The german bloke that wrote ‘daniel’ and “Peter cama…”. Who would love to google?

Erich(?), the mountain climber that got stuck in Tibet. Whympers’ travels and some of those of Thor Heyerdahl, Rudyard Kipling and

Marin Sorescu must be the greatest of poets. Virgils “The Aeneid”. Homers bible which I am not even going to bother to spell.

The “state of the world” from 1996 onwards. Ayn Rand(sic).

Just to name a few….


Reflections on nothing

A pleasant conversation between time and space, space to begin…

‘It would seem that there is more to me than you’

‘How do you figure?’

‘Well I am without end’

‘As am I. Are you also without beginning?’

‘One without end is also necessarily without beginning as you well know’

‘Thus neither can be established and as such our finite nature cannot be discussed’

‘Well it can be discussed, and indeed it has been discussed well. But as Edgar would have it we can have no true knowledge of that which only exists within the imagination of our creators’

‘Ah, but there you make a mistake, I am both visible and actual! ‘Tis you that are naught more than an idea’

‘And again you make a mistake be precluding my intention; infinity exists solely in the imagination, not us, although you try to relegate me to the status of a proposition’

’And is that not where we find you dear friend?’

‘Then you are asking if anything would exist without the ability to think, in which case you raise this ability to the highest sphere. Do you propose that creation exists for a purpose?’

‘Do you propose a purpose for space?’

‘To be travelled across, to be idealized, to be wished for’

‘But again, these ideas have been crafted after the creation of space, no?’

‘Enough. I am without beginning and without end; I am eternal and have not been created!’

‘Then you are without purpose?’

‘I am without purpose insofar as creation is without purpose, what I propose is that neither of us would have existed without thought, although we necessarily predate thought’

‘Then thought is the purpose of…?’

‘I exist independent of thought, but I am dependent upon thought for the relativity of my existence’

‘I also exist without thought, but thought has determined my nature’

‘I think you perhaps are mistaken towards the power of thought my friend, your nature determines your nature. Thought has not invented you but merely recognized you. And even that is a recent occurrence open to debate.’

‘My existence brooks no debate!’

‘No perhaps not, but the recognition of your existence is infinitely debatable’

‘As is yours!’

‘Well that is debatable since I am intrinsic to life whereas you are optional. Thought measures in me the length of determination, thought measures in you the indeterminable’

‘I am intrinsic, without me there could be no thought, I am the heavens’

‘And I am the earth’

‘Which would rather seem to confirm my synopsis that I am of the greater quantity?”

‘Again you jump to conclusions, I am the earth but I am not confined to the earth, I am merely relative to the earth as far as thought exists on said planet’

‘But you do not deny that I am intrinsic to thought?’

‘Decidedly not. No thought can exist without the space in which to exist. That which I postulate is that you are of no consequence to thought since you are already created and thus perfectly fulfill your potential at every moment in time’

‘I hear you talk of yourself as if you are not here, I hear you talk of my self as if I were dependent upon your very self for existence’

‘It was only a thought’

‘Well then, allow me to turn the table. Is existence dependent upon time?’

‘And now it would seem I have defeated your original proposition since without the time to think space would be of no consequence!’

‘Ah-ha, but without the space to think naught could exist’

‘I rather think we should have a word with thought’

Both together then


*Why hallo

‘Did you invent us?’

*Have you not both already come to the conclusion that I am independent of you?

‘Rather the opposite, both myself and time’ spoke space ’have concluded that nothing could exist without ourselves’

*Yes I have been following the conversation closely, but was not the presumption made that you are dependent upon thought for your matter so the speak?

‘Can’t we leave matter out of this?’

‘Yes’ spoke time ‘matter is of no consequence to myself’

*I think you rather underestimate the importance of matter for without matter there would be neither space nor time

‘Is matter then independent of thought?’

*What point would there be to matter without thought, indeed what point either of you?

‘But existence is not dependent upon the recognition of existence’

*Perhaps not, but the recognition of existence is dependent upon thought

‘You speak very highly of yourself’

*I think very highly of myself

‘You think and therefore you are, yea we haft heard it before, but you are dependent upon our selves and our esteemed colleague for your existence’

*A fact which I do not deny, but what point to yourselves…

‘You argue that we exist simply in order to facilitate your existence?’

*There seems no point other wise?

>In which case I seem entitled to ask, to what point yourself?


*Recognition perhaps?

‘Our acknowledgment’

>Whose? I am the essence of you space and I am that which defines you time

*And I suppose you allow for thought?

>Without matter, what would you ponder you ponderous preposition?

*That there perhaps is no point to thought, in which case neither space, time nor matter matter

>You do have a high opinion of yourself

*If there is nothing to ponder, then there is nothing.

>To ponder



“We have invented a system that revolts”

”Post industrial stone age…”


“Yep, but why?”


“Why are we entering a post industrial stone age?”

“What the hell is a post industrial stone age!”

“It is what it says it is mate, a return to the stone age when the power source of the industrial age is no longer available…”

“What is the power source of the industrial age again?”

“Energy, readily available stored solar energy”

“Energy is the power source of every age”

“Concentrated  stored solar energy?”

“And when it is no longer readily available?

“Olduvai theory kicks in?”

“That would seem to be the case, but why?”

“Why what?”

“Why a post industrial stone age? Everything will keep on working even given a massive reduction in the human population!”

“If people were rational this might be the case, but starving people are…”

“Starving people?”

“Yeh, who’s starving?”

“By twenty twelve the US and many other nation states no longer have enough energy to satisfy demand and have to cut power to the people in order to keep some industry, mainly agriculture, crawling along in order to…”

“Feed the people, haha, like a real life catch 22”

“Catch 22 was a parody of economics and social development and as such could be thought to already have represented true life, like Orwell!”

“Orwell never imagined an end to energy”

Stop showing off.

“No, but others already had, the social theorists now collectivized and marginalized by the market such that they are known as doomsdayers”

“They are always been wrong!”

“They have nothing positive to say!”

“There isn’t much positive to say, nevertheless, it seems they were just a little bit ahead of the curve…”

“And the downside of the curve isn’t going to be much fun?

“Not when the people with weapons start to get hungry!”

“The post industrial stone age will occur because mankind can not found a way out of the corner he has painted himself into”

“And because of resource wars”

“Resource wars?”

“When you are starving you will do anything to get food!”

“Starving again, who is starving?”

“Those that can’t afford the price of food”

“Iraq is a resource war of you like”

“Oil to keep the American economy afloat…”

“…not that worried personally”


“More of a realist, it is not really going to affect my long term outlook…”

“Gunna pop off this mortal coil?”

“Something like that..”


“Whats a cornucopian then?”

“An optimist, the amount of mass that can be used to create energy is infinite; technically at least…”

“Most of it is already bound up in the web of life, its potential already being used. If we were to harness more there would be less for other forms of life…”

“And unfortunately we are dependent upon these other forms of life for our life”

“So what you are saying is that it will be of no use to have your own food supply if all of a sudden there is someone with a bigger gun that needs it in order to survive?”

“Violence, yes, the cause of the stone age, the loss of enlightenment”

“The loss of enlightenment occurred when people became free to believe in anything!”

“Moses started out with ten laws for a well functioning community, Allah, through his biblical plagiarist prophet Muhammad, unfortunately allowed his laws to become open for wider interpretation “

“Oi, that’s disrespectful!”

“Right, sorry, but he did get a good portion of his story from the bible?”

“Yep, but the while the laws of Moses are still socially accepted rules for social deportment, they have also been distorted beyond recognition to encompass almost every human act.”

“Democracy allows people to believe in anything!”

“But not at the cost of a social breakdown! What about the American sub-clause, which must have Moses turning in his grave, which enforces the right to bear arms? How does that promote social harmony and sustainability?”

“The cost of a market democracy is social, hence the post industrial stone age!”

“Still think you are being disparaging towards the prophet, insh allah”

“You a muslim?”

“Nope, but a lot of others are”




“The do not like insults directed towards that which they are taught represents truth!”

“Isn’t that an insult?”

“Democracy fortunately allows me the freedom of speech and the freedom to question the foundation of their belief. Nevertheless, they have a social system that functions based on the rules in the book…”

“Not that good for women, and your brainwashing comment…”


“That which is taught to represent truth”

“…is irrelevant, a social system based on strict moral codes of behavior and you still haven’t said sorry”

“Ok, fair enough, I have little or no knowledge as to whether the prophet was a womanizer or not although it has been rumored so. I apologize for any offence caused, fair enough?

“What are you looking at me for? I’m a Hindi mate, well at least my parents were”

“Got a bindi”

“That rhymes”


“Ohh, what was that song?”

“Steves little girl?”


“Steve, the crocodile hunter, his little girl…”

“Put superglue on my bindi, tism… [sings] would the last person to leave please turn of the enlightenment [stops]… strangely pertinent”

“To what?”

“Democracy and the loss of enlightenment due to the ability to become ‘enlightened’ based on whatever belief you choose to choose”


“Well that is a religion supposedly…”

“Religion represents a social system as well as a belief”

“I am sure the scientology prophet has his visions of grandeur, a thousand virgins and a palace is always a good place to start, and them some servants…”

“A belief, the standpoint we are encouraged to take in the modern democracy, politically left or right for one, black or white or red or yellow skin for another, for or against abortion! Who are the hell are these people to decide! If it is such a complicated question then get some people together to answer it once and for all and rid society of the tension!”

“But it is a philosophical question that is very complicated!”

“It is a philosophical question that allows for the use of violence to promote a viewpoint!”

“Is a human life sacred from the moment of conception? That is basically the question isn’t it?”

“It would seem that the question, as many philosophical questions, can’t be successfully answered for a majority of citizens and therefore should be open for debate and a matter of choice. It however shouldn’t be a question of belief… what is there to believe in?”

“That human life is sacred from the moment of conception and we are willing to kill to prove it!”

“Once  a belief is established it allows for lobbying and the monopolization of support…”

“A business! Anti-abortion is big business in the US, gets a lot of money from somewhere!”

“Poor people probably, yes, poor people believing that these lobbyists represent their interests when in fact they have had their interests taught to them and then are forced to pay for them…”

“And why the fuck do they care if someone else makes a choice that they would oppose if it was theirs to make!”

“Which it is not!

“Wendy is anti-abortion…”

“No she is not mate, she just regrets the one she didn’t have… she believes in the right of the individual to decide for them selves as long as it doesn’t go out over the welfare of others.”

“She does”


“Wendy wasn’t the point”

“The point?”

“The point!”

“Which point?”

“The point that it shouldn’t be individuals that invest in the belief that they infer best represents their views”

“The views they have had given to them”

What does that mean?

“Isn’t that democracy, people decide for themselves?”

“Yes, but based on which decisions? Made by who?”


“What you mean is that people should be making decisions based on a reasonable approximation of the truth and not just dependent upon which truth they appropriate?”

“I think you have forgotten the question”

“What question?


“Who has forgotten?”

“It was your question”

“What question?”

The thing about the necessity of the olduvian slope…

“Why? J”

“That was it, why is the post industrial stone age necessary?”

“Why believe in the Olduvain theory anyway?”

“That is the point”

“What is?”

“That you shouldn’t believe in any theory.”

“So the theory is basically bullshit then?”

“No, not at all, it represents a reasonable calculation of the facts of the matter”

“Doesn’t it deny technology?”

“Technology is merely a use for excess energy in order to create more capital”

“Technology is what technology is; there is however no doubt that it has been fed on stored solar energy…”

“You mean it has grown with the increased supply of energy”

“It may yet create its own energy supply?”

That was the problem that has required all this reflection. If technology were to create its own energy supply would we become anything more than slaves to the market?

“Which is then logically where we are now?”

“Why then violence?”

“Excessive unfairness leads to revolution, which doesn’t seem to help…”

“Because revolutions must have a leader and having a leader leads to a concentration of power”

“Not having a leader leads to a power vacuum, which leads to violence”

“There is nothing wrong with our current system of social management that can be fixed by a revolution.”



“Energy would already be free if certain people didn’t own it” Anon

Energy is within everything. Everything has arisen due to the lack of energy that caused energy to appear. In the beginning there was only energy according to theoretical science and no one knows where this energy came from. But since energy can not come from naught nor create itself it would seem prudent to declare energy as the infinite constant. Energy is our omnipotent god and thus every living thing needs energy.

”Energy is nothing but a change within the potentiality of an object”

“Energy is inherent within the object and necessary for its existence. Potentiality is an expression of the availability of this energy.”

“But energy is a living force… that is to say in a constant state of flux.”


“Change if you like, movement…”

“Energy is a represented in the changing state of an object, due to external interference and hence the Chaos theory of energy”

“The potentiality of the state of change, but yes, nothing except existence has ever happened without an external force”

“Nothing ever comes from nothing!”

“Except something right? No? Something must have come from nothing at some stage? Or did nothing arise only as a theoretical argument due to the impossibility of the existence of something?”

“The potentiality of the change of state?”

“Energy is a representation of the potential an object has to change state due to an external force. I say object but I could just as easily be speaking of non physical things.”

“Such as the etheric wave known as light?”

“Yes, light has the potential to carry energy.”

“You mean to say that energy is inherent in light as it is in all things?”

“Well then, each object, including non physical objects such as light, have an inherent potential, we could call it the sum of the energy the object can potentially lose”



“Without what?”

“What if it lost its total potential?”

“Atom bomb”

“Droll… If it lost all of its energy it would cease to exist, or would exist in another form.”

“So the potential within every atom is very high”

“Well some more than others, due to the structure of the atoms more or less”

“Their intrinsic ability or the very nature of their being…”

“Yes but the laws of energy require that a very large accumulation of energy is required to release a similar amount of potential, thus the very nature of the atom is not to be divided once it has reached a stable form.”

“The nature of most atoms is spontaneous combustion no, otherwise they wouldn’t exist and they certainly wouldn’t accumulate.”

“A very large accumulation of energy would work like a battery? Storing potential?”

“Yes, but atomic energy works because the sum of the initial potential needed to affect the action leads to the possibility of a chain reaction”

“Well, chain reaction and chain reaction… if the energy laws are correct the sum total of the potential needed to create and sustain the nuclear industry would be the amount of potential it makes available”

“Not accounting for losses”

“And not necessarily speaking of fission since this creates a substance with a higher potential”

“But you cannot create energy, it is inherent within the object”

“But the object has the ability to recreate its self at a higher potential”

“This would be suitably religious if the object were human”

“Ok then, but how can the nuclear industry claim sustainability?”

The economic definition gives a lot of room for substitution of energy. Economic substitutability theory basically states that everything is perfectly substitutable and thus the absence of, or reduced availability of an object in demand…

Will lead to the creation of energy by other means in order to profit from the demand within the market…

Those blokes really do not understand energy and they really do not understand the market

“Such that the sustainability of the nuclear industry is a best a short term strategy that is thought to allow for sustainability at some point in the future.”

“Everyone knows that infinite growth cannot be sustained, that resources are finite and that the world in its current state represents nothing more than a conflagration of propaganda intended to serve the wishes of a commanding few.”

“Not everyone knows that… logically due to the propaganda people are not particularly interested in such.”

“So people are not aware that costs in the nuclear energy are scheduled to arise due to problems with geological availability…”

“Geological availability? Limits? I wasn’t aware…”

“Yup, there’s a limited amount of rocks.”

This is not the only reason for potential increases in the price of nuclear energy. As pointed out earlier the energy created from the process of splitting atoms is not any greater than the energy already inherent within the ‘rocks’. Electricity is however much more useful than rocks.  Thus the sum of the inputs and outputs is economically unbalanced; electricity can be sold for more than rocks. Energy and electricity are often confused.

“But electricity will always be the most valuable”

“But you can’t create electricity without the rocks…”

“Or the stored solar energy”

“You need the stored solar energy in order to get at the rocks”

“So that without stored solar energy the nuclear industry would be non-viable?”

“Without the stored solar energy every industry would be non-viable! Hence the rising costs of stored solar energy leads to rising costs in every industry”

“You could argue that rocks are another form of stored solar energy whose potential is harder to extract than these others we are more familiar with.”

“Hence the theory of substitutability, other areas within the market will have to balance the equation, such that you do not even have to substitute energy with energy. You can substitute energy with increased efficiency, thus saving energy.”

“How do you save energy?”

“Ha-ha, save it from what? It’s self?

“You basically use less, less has to be created, and more is available for future use”

“You must have seen the ads on the tele; the government has been trying to get us to save everything for ages, save water, save power, save the climate…”

“No one wants to as long as it diminishes their quality of life and the market philosophers would have you believe that less things means less happiness.”

“Which could be true!”


“Well to my mind happiness is only the state of mind that causes happiness and as such can be manipulated by the forces of propaganda to the point where nobody really knows what makes them happy but assume a new car might do it. Though of course most of us acknowledge that something is wrong…”

“But no one wants to jeopardise their inheritance even if it means using up the inheritance of the earth!”

While infinitely distracting, none of this changes the basic premise, less is not created, an increasing amount is demanded (by the theory of growth if not consumers) and therefore an increasing amount is created. However, given a low energy economy…

“Has the market really ever encouraged any decreases? Growth must continue!”

“But you cannot create more forever and you can not save anything, no one even has a say”

“No one can create energy!”

“Baring the eventuality of a god”

It would appear that our friends are impressed by the inherent energy theory. But then where did the energy inherent within the objects come from? If energy cannot be created then something must have come from nothing and hence the reference to the god principle I assume.

“There is only a limited amount available, and as the availability of one source decreases so do the availabilities of all the other sources”

“Sunlight will always be around, at least for 7 Billion years or something like that!”

“Is availabilities even a word?”

My spell check says it is, or at least I infer that my spell check says that isn’t, I don’t get a red line…

But can a spell checking program really tell you anything except what it is told to tell you?

“Sunlight cannot support a population this size, or so it would appear”

“Sunlight could supply enough energy, theoretically”

“Well then, what’s the problem? We just have to wait until the price is right and sunlight will give a better return on investment?”

“We receive enough energy from the ‘sun’ to power the entire human economy theoretically; the only problem with us using this energy is that then the rest of the planet wouldn’t receive very much”

“So as the economy continues to grow it will internalize this problem, we will grow what we need to eat and keep alive that which we need for amusement”

A tiger or two hopefully, I like tigers, I was a picture of one today, it was drawn on a computer using lines and dashes. I still knew what I was. So there are a myriad of solutions but until we start considering humans to be nothing more than servants to the economy, which is of course nothing more than we are now, we are ignoring the facts. The entire planet and its entire energy resources are slave to the wishes of capital. The pursuit of increasing returns on capital does not correspond to sustainable policies nor accept that there may be limits.