In the middle of the sixteenth century the English government decided to ‘plant’ English settlers in Ireland. The reasons were complex but certainly included the perceived need to expand the reach of the new Protestant religion beyond England’s shores. But it was also about reasserting the superiority of the Anglo-Normans who invaded the island 400 years earlier. And those Anglo-Normans were the descendents of the people who invaded England from Northern France a hundred years before that, and conquered it.
I use ‘England’ and ‘English’ rather than ‘Britain’ and ‘British’ in this context because Britain did not exist yet: England…
I see no point in debating whether or not a creator exists. My problem is the nature of the many gods that men have imagined, the way in which they pretend that their god is the only one and that (s)he/it has revealed a set of rules by which we should live in order to ensure an after-life that is better than this one.
I also have a problem with the idea that we can appeal to the god(s) in an attempt to get him/her/it to change his/her/its design to suit our personal needs, maybe making some kind of sacrifice…
And taxes? Maybe the tax system is the most toxic of all. We want jobs to be created but we tax labor. How stupid is that? Why not shift the whole system in one go. Tax the scarce resources our planet gives us. It will make us reconsider our production methods. Become super-creative.
You claim to be an economist but appear to be overlooking the basic truth of economy: everything reduces to labor. Resources on the vine or in the ground are useless without labor being applied to them. Money is nothing but a token representing the labor it buys, therefore all taxes are taxes on labor.
One thing I've never fully understood about Medium is the role and origin of 'publications'. I have posted material in publications and I get that they provide subject specific niches. But if I wanted to create my own publication for a niche I believe is underrepresented on the platform, how do I go abouit it?
Frederick, I found Kardeshev Technologies. I found the written content almost impossible to read because of the lack of contrast between the text and the background. Maybe you are able to influence the web designer to correct that? As for what they do, I am wholly supportive. I don't think that alters my reaction to your claim. Nothing can be made useful to humanity - to sustain life - without the input of human labour. That is an inescapable fact.
Michael Saylor has a drastic opinion. He says when you measure inflation based on something real, like stocks, for 2020, inflation is more like 20%. This opinion is based on a simple idea.
The problem here, is that groceries are real. But stocks are not! Their price goes up and down based on the performance of the issuing organisation. CPI IS the real measure of inflation for ordinary people. It's a true measure of their purchasing power for the majority of their day-to-day purchases. What you are talking about applies only to the very rich.
Further down the article you talk about 'free money' being handed out to people whose incomes have been devastated by the pandemic. They are not going to go out and purchase stocks, as you assert. They need that 'free money' to purchase groceries. Without it most would be relying on food banks.
As more of us get vaccinated we can start looking forward to returning to normal. That idea made me think about other occasions when people celebrated a potential return to normal. Like the end of war in Europe in May of 1945. I’m not old enough to remember — I was 3 years old at the time — but, like you, I’ve seen the photographs and the newsreel footage. People went wild with joy at the ending of almost six years of warfare and the possibility of life returning to something resembling what they thought of as normal.
But to Darwin and modern biologists, “survival of the fittest” refers to something very specific — the ability to survive and leave behind viable offspring. It is not meant to go beyond that.
And there is, surely, the fundamentally important consideration of context, or, I should say, environment. Darwin talked about the fitness of a genetic strand to survive the conditions prevailing in any particular place and time, not the more generalised notion of 'fitness' which some interpreters presume, leading to inappropriate conclusions about evolution.
It seems strange that astrobiologists would confine their thinking to (a) the limited and limiting environment of planet Earth and (b) the infinite universe. Should we not at least begin to think constructively and creatively about our immediate environment beyond the surface of our planet? We have the ability to park habitable objects in orbit around the Earth, or around the Sun, to provide a possible way for our civilisation to continue and grow without destroying the Earth's ability to sustain us.
Let me begin by stating what I do believe. I believe it is not impossible that the universe as we perceive it was created by a super-intelligent being. I do not believe that being, if it exists, is a ‘god’.
Why? Because, as I understand it, a god has a number of attributes which I find impossible to believe in. What are these attributes?
Frank is a retired Engineer from England now living in Ireland. He is trying to learn and share the lessons of history.