Western Universalism - what's the big deal?

csaurabh · Post by **csaurabh** » 23 Oct 2014 05:29

LokeshC wrote:Long time ago I had this sci-fi idea:
Imagine a machine that materializes whatever you want.
You want your morning coffee and dal-roti .... the machine churns a little and materializes coffee and dal-roti, there it is right infront of you.
You want to get a brand new car .....CHURN!CHURN!CHURN and there is a new ferrari right there.
You want casual sex ... ZAP! just close your eyes and there is the most beautiful woman/handsome man you ever imagined doing what you want her/him to do.
You want it to take care of your kid ... ZAP! that is done as well.

All you need is to supply it with energy (solar panels) and raw materials (which can be done using robots).
I am now starting to realize that WU and its ecosystem is using science and technology (especially automation), to do precisely the above. You have coffee machines, pre-processed food, day care for 3 month old infants, "sex"ting and "hookup" apps on your smartphone, 0 down low interest car loans etc etc.

In India all of the above needs humans to do it and not machines or some factory far off. Humans are not designed to function this way. It has its benefits (like this forum for example), but the cost of such a huge "machine" is your precious time and your interpersonal relationships. Most people in the west work long hours. The WU machines sucks your life out of you and gives you "everything you ever wanted" in return.

I will expand more on this when time permits.

There is a science fiction novel by Isaac Asimov called "The Naked Sun". It is about a world called Solaria, where every person lives alone and has 10,000 robots each to serve them.

Basically, it is individualism taken to it's most extreme form.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 05:50

LokeshC wrote:Long time ago I had this sci-fi idea:
Imagine a machine that materializes whatever you want.
You want your morning coffee and dal-roti .... the machine churns a little and materializes coffee and dal-roti, there it is right infront of you.
You want to get a brand new car .....CHURN!CHURN!CHURN and there is a new ferrari right there.
You want casual sex ... ZAP! just close your eyes and there is the most beautiful woman/handsome man you ever imagined doing what you want her/him to do.
You want it to take care of your kid ... ZAP! that is done as well.

All you need is to supply it with energy (solar panels) and raw materials (which can be done using robots).
I am now starting to realize that WU and its ecosystem is using science and technology (especially automation), to do precisely the above. You have coffee machines, pre-processed food, day care for 3 month old infants, "sex"ting and "hookup" apps on your smartphone, 0 down low interest car loans etc etc.

In India all of the above needs humans to do it and not machines or some factory far off. Humans are not designed to function this way. It has its benefits (like this forum for example), but the cost of such a huge "machine" is your precious time and your interpersonal relationships. Most people in the west work long hours. The WU machines sucks your life out of you and gives you "everything you ever wanted" in return.

I will expand more on this when time permits.

It's all hiyar
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRxqg4G-G4

BTW have you heard this song from the 1960s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izQB2-Kmiic

Here are the lyrics

n the year 2525, if man is still alive
If woman can survive, they may find..

In the year 3535
Ain't gonna need to tell the truth, tell no lie
Everything you think, do and say
Is in the pill you took today

In the year 4545
You ain't gonna need your teeth, won't need your eyes
You won't find a thing to chew
Nobody's gonna look at you

In the year 5555
Your arms hangin' limp at your sides
Your legs got nothin' to do
Some machine's doin' that for you

In the year 6565
Ain't gonna need no husband, won't need no wife
You'll pick your son, pick your daughter too
From the bottom of a long glass tube

In the year 7510
If God's a-coming, He oughta make it by then
Maybe He'll look around Himself and say
"Guess it's time for the Judgement Day"

In the year 8510
God is gonna shake His mighty head
He'll either say, "I'm pleased where man has been"
Or tear it down, and start again

In the year 9595
I'm kinda wonderin' if man is gonna be alive
He's taken everything this old earth can give
And he ain't put back nothing

Now it's been ten thousand years, man has cried a billion tears
For what, he never knew, now man's reign is through
But through eternal night, the twinkling of starlight
So very far away, maybe it's only yesterday

Read more: Zager And Evans - In The Year 2525 Lyrics | MetroLyrics

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 06:06

ShauryaT wrote:]I am coming to the realization that the word sacrifice itself is valid, only if we accept the paramountcy of Individualism. i.e: the rights and needs and wants of the individual are paramount and above all else, within confines of the laws of a westernized state.

Absolutely.

It is easier to understand if the word "individualism" is replaced by "individual (or personal) self interest" placed above family or group interest.

At what point is an individual required to share anything that he thinks belong to him and him alone? At what point does an individual think he needs to share money, food or time that he has with someone else.

Individual or personal self interest means that what I have is mine and mine alone. I am under no obligation whatsoever to share with anyone. In fact if you have a fruit tree or a plate of food or a woman, and I want it, I will simply take it from you because it is my self interest.

At some point societies stem in and say "No. This is not on. Your self interest has to take a back seat. You cannot simply grab another man's food or woman"

In the case of marriage the man and woman have to share money which goes against their individual needs. Worse still - marriage technically forbids sex with other partners which is a restriction of the individual freedom of each partner. Even worse than that - children are simply the worst thing that can be inflicted upon the full and free expression of one's individuality. Waste of time and money. The west has regularly allowed these arguments to trump anything that binds people down to duties and restricts their selfish needs

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 06:36

If I wanted this to be a debate that says Hindutva has a bigger one than religions, I would post other available links. But that is not the point
http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-family.html

Question: "What does the Bible say about family?"

Answer: The concept of family is extremely important in the Bible, both in a physical sense and in a theological sense. The concept of family was introduced in the very beginning, as we see in Genesis 1:28, "God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" God's plan for creation was for men and women to marry and have children. A man and a woman would form a "one-flesh" union through marriage (Genesis 2:24), and they with their children become a family, the essential building block of human society.

We also see early on that family members were to look after and care for one another. When God asks Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" Cain's response is the flippant "Am I my brother's keeper?" The implication is that, yes, Cain was expected to be Abel's keeper and vice versa. Not only was Cain's murder of his brother an offense against humanity in general, but it was especially egregious because it was the first recorded case of fratricide (murder of one's sibling).

The Bible has a more communal sense of people and family than is generally held in Western cultures today, where citizens are more individualized than people in the Middle East and definitely more so than the people of the ancient near East.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-famil ... z3GvcnMgHl

On the other hand we have:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/pf/child-cost/

New parents be warned: It could cost nearly a quarter of a million dollars to raise your child -- and that's not even including the cost of college.

To raise a child born in 2013 to the age of 18, it will cost a middle-income couple just over $245,000, according to newly released estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. That's up $4,260, or almost 2%, from the year before.

Estimates can vary widely depending on where you live and how much you earn.

High-income families who live in the urban Northeast, for example, are projected to spend nearly $455,000 to raise their child to the age of 18, while low-income rural families will spend much less, an estimated $145,500, according to the report.

Some one came up with the insincere statement that humans, and children I guess are invaluable and priceless. but here a price is being out upon children as in "hmm - should I buy a sports car or have a child" It's a no brainer when it comes to expressing my individuality. It's me and my needs that count.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 23 Oct 2014 07:01

^^^This issue is real. I know many parents (Indian origin), who have chosen to invest in themselves as opposed to their kids education, given limited options in their financial choices. I have made the argument that why worry, they are your children and when they grown up, you can put your life in their hands and let them fulfill their share of their responsibilities the best they can at that time, you do your part and do the best you can now, without being fearful of what would happen to you. IOW: I was arguing for putting their kids interests first at this time and not unduly worry about their retirements instead. Most of these parents are convinced that their kids will NOT bear ANY responsibility for themselves at their old age and that they as parents have to take the "practical" step of looking after their self interest first. This is the result of a break down in trust, values and obligations and an invasion of the value systems of a westernized state we live in.

The funny part is most of these parents do undertake their responsibilities towards their parents seriously and fulfill them as best as they can. So a dichotomy!

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Oct 2014 07:22

shiv wrote: Cause and effect confusion in your post. The societal degradation is the effect of success. The success is not the result of societal change. This is the nth time I am saying this. Too many people making the mistake you are making.

The success started over 100 years ago. The degradation started after the 1960s.

Failure of western society is the byproduct of economic and technological success.

That is something we must avoid.

Too many Indians, a few even on this thread, see Western Universalism as the root cause, the causative agent, for the high technological and economic achievements of the west. As if it was democracy, freedom and human rights that led to all that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Western universalism is an affectation and a prescription to wannabes that started AFTER the west gained technological and economic ascendancy. There is a cause and effect confusion here among perfectly intelligent people, EXACTLY akin to a cargo cult, where people believe that if you display the behaviours recommended by Western Universalism, that behaviour will somehow result in your advancement and take you to the tech and money peaks that the west has reached.

symontk is making the same mistake, mixing up cause and effect.

Yes it is possible that I am making a mistake, however look at the time periods that you have mentioned. Western success 100 years ago and degradation 60 years ago. This is not a chemical reaction, it takes time to make radical social changes. 40 years is like 2 generations which is sufficient. If you look at the early century movies even the Charlie Chaplin ones, this social change is evident

But how time will India get is also a question. Kerala was a very conservative society in the whole of India to be prompted by Swami Vivekananda to call it a madhouse. But the transformation from that to a progressive society didn't take much time. Even if you look at the number of children data, I had many neighbors with 3 kids. My parents had 3 children. My inlaws have 4 kids. My grand fathers had 14 kids. You will number of kids like 6, 8 in common for old people. But the new generation will have only 1 kid. The change came within less than 20 years

So India may not even get 40 years time gap

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 07:40

ShauryaT wrote:^^^This issue is real. I know many parents (Indian origin), who have chosen to invest in themselves as opposed to their kids education, given limited options in their financial choices. I have made the argument that why worry, they are your children and when they grown up, you can put your life in their hands and let them fulfill their share of their responsibilities the best they can at that time, you do your part and do the best you can now, without being fearful of what would happen to you. IOW: I was arguing for putting their kids interests first at this time and not unduly worry about their retirements instead. Most of these parents are convinced that their kids will NOT bear ANY responsibility for themselves at their old age and that they as parents have to take the "practical" step of looking after their self interest first. This is the result of a break down in trust, values and obligations and an invasion of the value systems of a westernized state we live in.

The funny part is most of these parents do undertake their responsibilities towards their parents seriously and fulfill them as best as they can. So a dichotomy!

Shaurya this is a deadly serious issue. The parents are avoiding personal (financial) poverty by investing less in their children.

30 years ago - I had just emigrated to the UK and was speaking to a cleaning woman who was whining about how her daughter was 15 and she could not wait till the latter became 16 so she could get out of the house. For this woman, the limit of her responsibility to her daughter was 16 years after which the daughter would have to be on her own.

I think it is ironic that we were exposed to so much anti-communist propaganda in the 60s. We were told that no one was allowed to own anything. The state owned everything and woudl distribute everything equally. How terrible.

But if you look at the system that the west has built up, the state requires people to contribute money that is then used by the state to educate children, provide money for food for the poor (and for school children) and to provide money for people who are unemployed or old. The state takes on these responsibilities, or outsources some of these responsibilities to private agencies. But if the agencies fail, the burden falls on the state.

The "state" is a government of people - typically people who come and go every 4 to 5 years after being "elected democratically". There is very rarely continuity of the same people for more than a decade, so policies made a decade ago can be changed. Only the constitution is permanent. The constitution plays the role of God and moral rules and the government are the high priests. If the high priests fail the population, the population suffers. While we like to quote Pakistan as a classic case of constitution in conflict with religion, even Europe and America are examples of state-religion conflict in their own way.

In the west the state has offered to take away from humans the responsibility that societies had imposed on families and parents, guided by religion. It was the duty of parents to feed, bring up and educate the child. There was no legal age at which the child would be declared fit to be thrown out of home. The elderly and the unemployed and te hungry were left to care of family and society. But the state in the west offers basic education and removes the burden from the parents. To an extent the state offers medical care and the state offers money to unemployed people. What God did not do efficiently in the old societies, the state set about doing in modern western societies. By doing this the state took over the role of family and made family less relevant. (How does that differ from a communist system other than elections - but I digress)

Individuals are now encouraged to work (or enjoy leisure time - which is financially good for some other person's line of work) and not worry about children's education or old age. The system revolves around continued success of the state. As long as the state and the system remains successful all is likely to go on well for a while. But as the system gets shaken by unavoidable events the holes in the system show up. The most serious hole in the system is the reduction in the number of children being produced to below replacement level. This is being corrected by people imports to perform services - and this migration leads to dynamics that the state was not equipped to handle.

Interesting stuff that I could keep talking abut - but I think the system that does not encourage families to stay together and take care of each other and their children and claims that the state will somehow manage forever is a system that does not know that it is heading for breakdown.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 07:52

symontk wrote: But how time will India get is also a question. Kerala was a very conservative society in the whole of India to be prompted by Swami Vivekananda to call it a madhouse. But the transformation from that to a progressive society didn't take much time. Even if you look at the number of children data, I had many neighbors with 3 kids. My parents had 3 children. My inlaws have 4 kids. My grand fathers had 14 kids. You will number of kids like 6, 8 in common for old people. But the new generation will have only 1 kid. The change came within less than 20 years

So India may not even get 40 years time gap

Kerala is compensating by importing Biharis for labour as people get older, just like western countries import others. It is because Biharis are producing more kids that Kerala benefits. Hopefully Kerala will not treat Biharis the way poor immigrants are treated in the US. Haryana is importing women from Kerala to met the marriage demands of a population that has more males than females.

All this is OK as long as
1. The Indian government does not promise to provide food and shelter for everyone
2. The Indian government does not make laws that make "individual freedoms" more important than duty to family and society.
3. Indians do not believe that we can become advanced and wealthy by behaving like Americans or Europeans. The way to wealth and advancement is hard work and technology, not "individual freedom", and "sexual freedoms" and other rubbish promoted as "universalism". The west got the money to develop technology by colonial looting and slavery. We don't have that option.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 08:35

One of my favourite pastimes is to use data from the west to show that the west is coming up with information that is nonsense or self contradictory

Let me start with the facts:

Fact 1: IQ is affected by poor nutrition in childhood.

Fact 2: List of most common jobs and least common jobs

Fact 3: IQ required for different types of jobs

If you read the lists above you find that waiters, secretaries, clerks and labourers are among the most common jobs and they require an IQ of less than 100.

On the other hand the jobs that require IQs of 120 or over are the lowest in number.

Why then do we insist that everyone should get the same nutrition to keep their IQ high? The world needs more low IQ people than high IQ people. So why are we asked to worry about nutrition and IQ? Heck, with all the individual liberties we are asked to take for ourselves - maybe if I want my child to be a nuclear physicist or rocket scientist I would feed that child well. But If i wanted my child to get some of the most commonly available jobs I would simply let the state education and feeding system care for him while I look for a new girlfriend.

No?

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 23 Oct 2014 10:10

shiv wrote:What God did not do efficiently in the old societies, the state set about doing in modern western societies. By doing this the state took over the role of family and made family less relevant. (How does that differ from a communist system other than elections - but I digress)

I see my family and Jati of gods in my '330 million', they see the sterility of the 'one' or the confused multitudes in my '330 million'

The above needs a brief explanation:
Social scientists, in WU, approach the individual as a 'rational man' unencumbered with pesky relationships. Most models in Politico-Economic fields are based on this simplified (overly) approach. Now there are plenty who study collections and collectivisms - but these are predominantly empiricists looking at networks or old fashioned communists (at best flopian socialists). Thus the field of studies concentrate on the poles on the 'one' or the 'collection' but never in the complex middle.

Indian society lives and breaths family and Jati, even the vast multitude of gods are subdivided into these groups and are closely tied to them. What this means is that the relationships between these collections arbitrate and slows down radical dead ends in the evolutionary pathways. This is also the reason why SD survives intellectual and genocidal attacks to date. At the same time, when innovation occurs, and it does more intuitively, it is far more based on collective optimization. Yet, ironically, the individual (yes Purushartha is that which give meaning to the individual!) is more powerful in these collections.

Alex Tocqueville talks about American democracy and if memory serves me right - he worries about how democracy was causing further breakdown of the church into more denominations. IMHO he was just scratching at the surface... when a system is setup that forces the relationship of the individual to be one on one between citizen and state, sinner and church, the individual is powerless against such a all overwhelming force, there is natural tendency to congregate! This ironically leads to individual empowerment... not the very system that was built via contract to do that in the first place. Dumb example - Jatis funded entrepreneurs in India, still does more than all the planning crap thrown by WU educated quackonomics, KickStarter does that today... but you say those collections are different, yes, but it is merely the system finding equilibrium. The direction is different if looking at it from a WU glasses as opposed to one wearing SD ones...

So it is not just one collection - as in la familia, but it is all other collections that exists.... family and Jati being key...

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Oct 2014 12:54

symontk wrote:Yes it is possible that I am making a mistake, however look at the time periods that you have mentioned. Western success 100 years ago and degradation 60 years ago. This is not a chemical reaction, it takes time to make radical social changes. 40 years is like 2 generations which is sufficient. If you look at the early century movies even the Charlie Chaplin ones, this social change is evident

But how time will India get is also a question. Kerala was a very conservative society in the whole of India to be prompted by Swami Vivekananda to call it a madhouse. But the transformation from that to a progressive society didn't take much time. Even if you look at the number of children data, I had many neighbors with 3 kids. My parents had 3 children. My inlaws have 4 kids. My grand fathers had 14 kids. You will number of kids like 6, 8 in common for old people. But the new generation will have only 1 kid. The change came within less than 20 years

So India may not even get 40 years time gap

Why do you call a society which has less kids as progressive? In what way? What are the parameters to consider the state of some society as progressive? What is wrong with conservative? Could we unintentionally be mixing up degenerated society with conservative society, and a deracinated society with progressive society?

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 23 Oct 2014 13:20

Why Religion died in the West? E.g., Irish Catholicism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028rz97

PS:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/2 ... lic-Church

Ireland the nation, the Irish Catholic Church, unspeakably evil and cruel, are unable to acknowledge their corruption and iniquities, unwilling to step down from their pedestal of sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy:...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 14:12

Pulikeshi wrote:
Indian society lives and breaths family and Jati,

...

So it is not just one collection - as in la familia, but it is all other collections that exists.... family and Jati being key...

Indeed. Translations of Indian concepts into English can be faulty and they are particularly offensive when they have been done by the English.

The closest expressions I have got for the word "jati" is "extended family", "clan" or "tribe". A jati is a genetic and socio-culturally related group. It is "family" but more than family. It is typically experienced at functions like weddings where the entire khandaan is present. For example - at any function that involved close relatives of my late mother and father the extended family group of (my) grandparents generation, their brothers and sisters and their children and children's children and grandchildren, there would typically be a group of 100 people or so - which is small by some standards. Those 100 would automatically be present at ALL weddings and major family functions. Almost everyone was the same jati, but there were a few outliers of a different (but usually related) jati whose children were absorbed anyway into the group. Of the 100 people - roughly divided into dad's relatives and mum's relatives there would typically be 2 or 3 other alliances between the two groups by marriage. Confusing for children - but when one grows up with the group one knows one's group. It is often easier to pick a soulmate within the group for various reasons - making the group a robust and self sustaining unit. The biggest lump of dung deposited on this system was the translation of "jati" as caste, which our education has perpetuated. The caste system is about jati. It is not about bashing people designated as untouchable into a pulp.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 23 Oct 2014 15:58

RajeshA wrote:Why do you call a society which has less kids as progressive? In what way? What are the parameters to consider the state of some society as progressive? What is wrong with conservative? Could we unintentionally be mixing up degenerated society with conservative society, and a deracinated society with progressive society?

Progressive and conservative are 2 different concepts, not same. Less kids means survival for that kid will taken with atmost care by parents which makes a progressive society. I can expand on it later

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 18:33

A_Gupta wrote:Why Religion died in the West? E.g., Irish Catholicism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p028rz97

PS:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/2 ... lic-Church
Ireland the nation, the Irish Catholic Church, unspeakably evil and cruel, are unable to acknowledge their corruption and iniquities, unwilling to step down from their pedestal of sanctimoniousness and hypocrisy:...

The video is moving, but clearly the government is in cahoots - not willing to take action. Technically graves with people who had injuries would have to be investigated.

To me it did not seem like why religion is dying - but more like how religion is surviving in grossly corrupt fashion, unable to hold the moral authority it had. And it lost the moral authority because the church was violent and bestial. But it retained a veneer of sexual morality - until recently.

But the video to me is informative at to why the Church cannot come back in its current form.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 23 Oct 2014 18:41

symontk wrote:Less kids means survival for that kid will taken with atmost care by parents which makes a progressive society. I can expand on it later

IF the parents take care of the kids. If the parents break up and the kid has rights given by the state, but no parents worth the mention, then you have the degeneracy that is coming into the west.

The other thing about "less kids" is that society should renew itself. That means that two kids per couple is the minimum required to maintain the population.

In the west the norm has become one kid or no kids and even the one kid people are strained by the "income loss" of having one child so that "no children" becomes a desirable goal for personal wealth and personal freedom. In that sense less children is hardly progressive except in a negative sense - progression towards doom.

If you compel a society to have less than two children per couple and argue that the kids are making them less wealthy and fewer kids are more wealth - it is a mistake. Kids are wealth for society (and even for parents) even if the parents are less well off because of kids.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 23 Oct 2014 22:39

symontk wrote:Less kids means survival for that kid will taken with atmost care by parents which makes a progressive society.

This is completely illogical thinking, which seems to be widespread these days.

More kids have always meant a bigger productive force for the family. More kids means a bigger team. Whatever the family occupation, a bigger team meant the work could be distributed among more people and it had a force-multiplier effect. If there is just one working person, it doesn't just mean that less work would be done. Sometimes it also means that no work would be done, because some essential part of the process cannot be taken care of.

More children also mean there is strength in numbers. More kids can better secure the property and the family's dignity. True, for that one used to hope for sons, earlier.

More kids meant, one could marry them off to more families, and thus establish relations with more people, build on a network, which can come in handy for both business and security.

More children means a bigger support network both for the parents and for the children.

In fact, if parents have many kids, then the responsibility of looking after the parents in their old age is distributed over many children, who can all contribute with care, money and time.

Progressive means that the family does what is needed to progress, and more kids meant more progress. In fact it still does, but general poverty and fascination with West-like freedoms have meant people have started thinking differently about it.

Equating less kids with progressiveness is another Western propaganda which has been shoved down our brains through their secular proxies.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 23 Oct 2014 23:43

by Shiv
In the west the norm has become one kid or no kids and even the one kid people are strained by the "income loss" of having one child so that "no children" becomes a desirable goal for personal wealth and personal freedom.

IMHO! I have seen the society here in USA now (2010) going back to old values. In 60s, 70s, 80s it was what you are describing but these days most people are turning back to their grand parents generation.

The vietnam era "Baby Boomers" families are now being replaced by the immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... ted_States

With 1.87 growth ratio (below 2.01 which is require to keep the population same) and rest by immigration population growth is healthy in USA. Especially as the immigration comes from the Dharmic countries.

habal · Post by **habal** » 24 Oct 2014 07:21

SBajwa wrote: The vietnam era "Baby Boomers" families are now being replaced by the immigration.

consumerism and individualism have reduced population, and now sought to be replaced by immigration. New immigrants need to adopt individualism and consumerism to help corporates and pay taxes to feed baby boomers.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 07:27

SBajwa wrote: With 1.87 growth ratio (below 2.01 which is require to keep the population same) and rest by immigration population growth is healthy in USA. Especially as the immigration comes from the Dharmic countries.

Bajwaji this is correct. But look at countries like Spain and Norway where immigration comes from shitistan and similar places.

When a society discourages people from having children they are meddling with the very existence of that society and as it shrinks it will be filled by migrants. Perhaps the culture of that society does not care what is replaced by what - but to me it means that the people of that society have no long term vision.

Someone made a remark in the Mangalyaan thread about the earth seen as a tiny blue dot in space - which shows how precious life is. But unless a society can understand that the soil, the atmosphere, the water and all life forms are inextricably linked - and actually move their society to live in a way that indicates an understanding of these facts - the society is heading for doom.

The funny thing is that I think Islamic societies have instinctively understood that western societies are heading downhill. Islamic societies live much more like animal societies - much more connected up with the rude facts of life - which include death by war, death by competitors, death by disease and a single minded resolve to combat all these deaths by reproducing. That is how bacteria, cockroaches, rabbits and pigs survive. Islamic societies do that instinctively.

Only humans, particularly from the west think they can fight death and curb birth for "survival"

. What a phenomenally stupid premise. This is not "advancement" or "progress". It is retardation and regression based on a very stupid Christian premise that man is somehow special. Western societies have rejected Christianity but the live by the same assumptions that they made when they started "colonizing" the world.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 08:10

Let us leave out religion or cultures and traditions and stick to pure science as believed today.

We may not know how life evolved on earth, but we do hypothesize (and have some evidence) that life survived by eating, reproducing and evolving by pure chance.

Once life came into being, all that life-forms did was to eat, reproduce, die; eat, reproduce, die. In this process life was put under stress by heat, cold, drought, flood etc and those life forms that found place to eat, reproduce, die despite all this survived. This process went until some life forms started eating other life forms, before reproducing and dying. Life survived only because both eater and eaten found places and ways to continue to eat and reproduce before dying.

Eat, reproduce and die is fundamentally true for ALL life forms, plant or animal. Some plant life have found ways of living as long as 500 or 1000 years while they eat and reproduce, but then they die. Most animals do not get past 100 years.

This has been true for the last 4,000,000,000 years. The zeroes are not a joke.

In the last 2,014 years some humans have come up with the theory that what life forms did for 4 billion years is all bullshit, because humans are special and humans can do special things. And in the last 100 years or so those humans have been thinking that they can change what has been happening on earth for 4 billion years. And to recap, what has life been doing for 4 billion years? Eat, reproduce, die.

So now we are saying, yeah we need to eat. fine. But reduce reproduction and live longer. Why? 'cos we are special.

Why are we special? What is the science behind humans being special? Show me the scientific papers and evidence that humans are special life forms?

Well, this is where science has been thrown into the Pakistan. Humans are special because we are made in God's image. We are like God and we can do all these things.

Excuse me? wtf? Western society, technologically advanced as it is, is pushing a lot of these precepts on to the world - especially the business of personal wealth, slowing reproduction and longer "productive" lives. In the long term this is all baloney. Societies need to survive and you need to do what it takes for your society to survive. And that means not being destructive to your own society. Societies do not survive on individual greed, or by reducing rates of reproduction in the midst of plenty to feed individual greed. The excuse that more children mean less personal wealth, and a society that rewards people with more wealth for having less children is a society that needs to change. Or die.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Oct 2014 18:47

RajeshA wrote:
symontk wrote:Less kids means survival for that kid will taken with atmost care by parents which makes a progressive society.
This is completely illogical thinking, which seems to be widespread these days.

More kids have always meant a bigger productive force for the family. More kids means a bigger team. Whatever the family occupation, a bigger team meant the work could be distributed among more people and it had a force-multiplier effect. If there is just one working person, it doesn't just mean that less work would be done. Sometimes it also means that no work would be done, because some essential part of the process cannot be taken care of.

More children also mean there is strength in numbers. More kids can better secure the property and the family's dignity. True, for that one used to hope for sons, earlier.

More kids meant, one could marry them off to more families, and thus establish relations with more people, build on a network, which can come in handy for both business and security.

More children means a bigger support network both for the parents and for the children.

In fact, if parents have many kids, then the responsibility of looking after the parents in their old age is distributed over many children, who can all contribute with care, money and time.

Progressive means that the family does what is needed to progress, and more kids meant more progress. In fact it still does, but general poverty and fascination with West-like freedoms have meant people have started thinking differently about it.

Equating less kids with progressiveness is another Western propaganda which has been shoved down our brains through their secular proxies.

You are dreaming, please wake up. Come to the real world

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Oct 2014 19:04

shiv wrote:Let us leave out religion or cultures and traditions and stick to pure science as believed today.

We may not know how life evolved on earth, but we do hypothesize (and have some evidence) that life survived by eating, reproducing and evolving by pure chance.

Once life came into being, all that life-forms did was to eat, reproduce, die; eat, reproduce, die. In this process life was put under stress by heat, cold, drought, flood etc and those life forms that found place to eat, reproduce, die despite all this survived. This process went until some life forms started eating other life forms, before reproducing and dying. Life survived only because both eater and eaten found places and ways to continue to eat and reproduce before dying.

Eat, reproduce and die is fundamentally true for ALL life forms, plant or animal. Some plant life have found ways of living as long as 500 or 1000 years while they eat and reproduce, but then they die. Most animals do not get past 100 years.

This has been true for the last 4,000,000,000 years. The zeroes are not a joke.

In the last 2,014 years some humans have come up with the theory that what life forms did for 4 billion years is all bullshit, because humans are special and humans can do special things. And in the last 100 years or so those humans have been thinking that they can change what has been happening on earth for 4 billion years. And to recap, what has life been doing for 4 billion years? Eat, reproduce, die.

So now we are saying, yeah we need to eat. fine. But reduce reproduction and live longer. Why? 'cos we are special.

Why are we special? What is the science behind humans being special? Show me the scientific papers and evidence that humans are special life forms?

Well, this is where science has been thrown into the Pakistan. Humans are special because we are made in God's image. We are like God and we can do all these things.

Excuse me? wtf? Western society, technologically advanced as it is, is pushing a lot of these precepts on to the world - especially the business of personal wealth, slowing reproduction and longer "productive" lives. In the long term this is all baloney. Societies need to survive and you need to do what it takes for your society to survive. And that means not being destructive to your own society. Societies do not survive on individual greed, or by reducing rates of reproduction in the midst of plenty to feed individual greed. The excuse that more children mean less personal wealth, and a society that rewards people with more wealth for having less children is a society that needs to change. Or die.

Human life is not easily replaceable as it is with other animals. If you havent learned that by now, I am not sure when you will learn that. Its not impossible to achieve things which you think only attainable thru Western Universalism. You did mention that more reproduction is needed to replace the dead kids. If you see Kerala's history, you would see that Kerala must have achieved the same in pre-historic times. One of the songs sung during Kerala's Onam season is regarding no infant mortality during Mahabali's reign. Do you have any other state or country which has this unique claim, have even people thought about achieving the same in those periods?

Most of the thought process in other states and countries would be to conquer other places and not doing any service to the population. Doing these things are not that complicated. I remember my child hood days in Kerala when every electric post, every autorickshaw had the message, we two, ours two. Nowadays in Kerala it is not there, since the state has achieved it. But what I noticed was that, other places (like Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Andhra) even during that time, didnt had these message. Even now they don't have. So why you think it is unachievable? It is only unachievable if it has been tried. It is not even tried in other states. So your argument that it is only achievable in places where there is Western Universalism is not correct. If a state like Kerala can achieve that, certainly all states should be able to do that. There is no need of having help from Western Universalism for that

Coming back to Church, the thrust was always on Go forth and multiply. But certain prescriptions work during certain times, and not every time. Also Go forth and Multiply can be taken for different situations and scenarios. Therefore there is no need to box it to reproduction alone.

May be in future when there are less kids born in India and population is going down from 30 crores, yes, the progressive attitude would be to have more kids like 2 or 3. Until then lets limit the population

krisna · Post by **krisna** » 24 Oct 2014 19:14

shiv wrote:

The funny thing is that I think Islamic societies have instinctively understood that western societies are heading downhill. Islamic societies live much more like animal societies - much more connected up with the rude facts of life - which include death by war, death by competitors, death by disease and a single minded resolve to combat all these deaths by reproducing. That is how bacteria, cockroaches, rabbits and pigs survive. Islamic societies do that instinctively.

Only humans, particularly from the west think they can fight death and curb birth for "survival" . What a phenomenally stupid premise. This is not "advancement" or "progress". It is retardation and regression based on a very stupid Christian premise that man is somehow special. Western societies have rejected Christianity but the live by the same assumptions that they made when they started "colonizing" the world.

islamic society is like christian society before reformation hit christianity hard.
It is islamic rules or none. similar to the christian ones earleir.

western countries have rejected christain rules ie they dont abide wrt to babies-
but devout christians and many others still abhor contraception. I have friends who are hakims like us but have 5-9 babies. yes cardiologits GI pulomnary etc. you name them all in khanland.

The reason why babies are not produced is mainly due to economic activities and material comforts over the last 100 years or so. It is expenisve to maintain babies. human babies are the most complex of all animal babies. they need long time to be nourished and looked after incompatible with their economic activities and individulaism. Nowadays a human baby needs lot more skills than say 200 years ago.hence more devoted time to child rearing.
western religion has declined with rise in material comforts and breakdown in family structure.
The breakdown is due to rebellion against church over years with rise in individualism to the extreme.
there is somewhat unhealthy and tenous tension between the two.

JMTs.

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 24 Oct 2014 19:19

SBajwa wrote:
by Shiv
In the west the norm has become one kid or no kids and even the one kid people are strained by the "income loss" of having one child so that "no children" becomes a desirable goal for personal wealth and personal freedom.
IMHO! I have seen the society here in USA now (2010) going back to old values. In 60s, 70s, 80s it was what you are describing but these days most people are turning back to their grand parents generation.

The vietnam era "Baby Boomers" families are now being replaced by the immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demograph ... ted_States

With 1.87 growth ratio (below 2.01 which is require to keep the population same) and rest by immigration population growth is healthy in USA. Especially as the immigration comes from the Dharmic countries.

SBajwa ji, to be honest, a lot of what is going out of Dharmic countries (including India) is the kind of stuff that would just sit around in their respective countries and cuss it all day long, if they are not let go off by their respective parent countries. There is a lot of good stuff but there is a lot of rotten stuff too. The people who then achieve a return to the roots from out of these emigree are all self driven ones which becomes a super-profit for India. Those who do not achieve a return to the roots, may or may not be the good stuff hence Americans cannot afford to be as sanguine.

Add to that the fact that most of that goes outside is naukri pesha kind of population and not the Business Risk takers. Within India there has since eons been a major migration of business community and rajput/kshtriya communities and they have massively benefited their adopted cultures. Almost none of which is documented. But an immigrant with zero to low ability to handle risks and societal needs of different kinds is going to be difficult to justify from the immediately following generation in terms of sankaar development.

I think the story about Guru Nanak's blessings where he blesses a good village to not stay at one place and blesses a village of the crooks to stay put, would help understand it better.

It is good that families are getting taken seriously probably that will have some positive impact on American way of life and rid the world of WU.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 24 Oct 2014 19:25

New immigrants need to adopt individualism and consumerism to help corporates and pay taxes to feed baby boomers.

As well as Indians are concerned., That's the choice that couple needs to make! Have kids or have million dollar houses in each state. Even I struggle with this issue every single day and despite my best efforts I am only raising two kids. And all weddings I go to (last 15+ years) I tell the couple to forget about making money/vacation/etc and have lots of kids.

I had to run to the closest library when growing up in India while kids these days have internet, laptops, tablets at finger tips., provided by their own parents (Me included) that's the Race we are in!!

by Shiv ji
When a society discourages people from having children they are meddling with the very existence of that society and as it shrinks it will be filled by migrants. Perhaps the culture of that society does not care what is replaced by what - but to me it means that the people of that society have no long term vision.

Someone made a remark in the Mangalyaan thread about the earth seen as a tiny blue dot in space - which shows how precious life is. But unless a society can understand that the soil, the atmosphere, the water and all life forms are inextricably linked - and actually move their society to live in a way that indicates an understanding of these facts - the society is heading for doom.

If a capitalist society is discouraging people to not have kids., all it means is that Industry of Diaper, Toys, pediatricians, gynecologists, games, etc lobby is losing the war against industry of Cars, houses, alcohol, gambling, etc. I am a firm believer of Charles Darwin's natural selection and Guru Nanak Dev's optimism. All that is happening is for good!!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Oct 2014 19:30

symontk wrote:You are dreaming, please wake up. Come to the real world

You write

symontk wrote:I remember my child hood days in Kerala when every electric post, every autorickshaw had the message, we two, ours two. Nowadays in Kerala it is not there, since the state has achieved it. But what I noticed was that, other places (like Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Andhra) even during that time, didnt had these message. Even now they don't have. So why you think it is unachievable? It is only unachievable if it has been tried. It is not even tried in other states. So your argument that it is only achievable in places where there is Western Universalism is not correct. If a state like Kerala can achieve that, certainly all states should be able to do that. There is no need of having help from Western Universalism for that

In other places too, you have extolled Kerala's "progressiveness"!

Quite an irony here, right?

When others propose a different model, they are dreaming, but "Western Universalism" fascinated people in India and in the West, can go ahead and institute their ideology through a plethora of secular laws, academic departments, international programs, government programs, ngos, etc. all to ensure their ideology is turned into concrete change, but questioning conventional thinking and demanding rationality behind it is "dreaming"!

Nobody is telling Western institutions dishing out various indexes and proposing all sorts of prescriptions that they are dreaming!

In Kerala, Hiindus are fast becoming a minority. Nowhere would you find Muslims abiding by "Hum Do, Hamare Do", including in Kerala! So who is the idiot here following the wrong prescription?

Many countries around the world, including Netherlands (and Singapore, Lebanon, ...) have a much higher population density, and they can maintain relatively good living standards. No reason why it is not possible in India.

I don't think it unreasonable to dream that Indians would use their own brains to see truth and logic and stop being swayed by secular and Western propaganda and prescriptions about what is good for us!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 20:06

symontk wrote: So your argument that it is only achievable in places where there is Western Universalism is not correct.

I have made no such argument. That argument is only in your imagination.

Please point me to where I have said such a thing. I don't think you and I are in disagreement but you are simply arguing for the sake of saying something. If it can be done in Kerala without "westernization" it can be done elsewhere in India. We need not follow the western social model and kill family values as some people seem to imagine. If you are one of the people who think we must kill family values to become a "developed" country, then you are wrong.

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Oct 2014 21:09

RajeshA wrote:
symontk wrote:You are dreaming, please wake up. Come to the real world
You write

symontk wrote:I remember my child hood days in Kerala when every electric post, every autorickshaw had the message, we two, ours two. Nowadays in Kerala it is not there, since the state has achieved it. But what I noticed was that, other places (like Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Andhra) even during that time, didnt had these message. Even now they don't have. So why you think it is unachievable? It is only unachievable if it has been tried. It is not even tried in other states. So your argument that it is only achievable in places where there is Western Universalism is not correct. If a state like Kerala can achieve that, certainly all states should be able to do that. There is no need of having help from Western Universalism for that
In other places too, you have extolled Kerala's "progressiveness"!

Quite an irony here, right?

When others propose a different model, they are dreaming, but "Western Universalism" fascinated people in India and in the West, can go ahead and institute their ideology through a plethora of secular laws, academic departments, international programs, government programs, ngos, etc. all to ensure their ideology is turned into concrete change, but questioning conventional thinking and demanding rationality behind it is "dreaming"!

Definitely not dreaming since Kerala already achieved population reduction in several districts

symontk · Post by **symontk** » 24 Oct 2014 21:12

shiv wrote:
symontk wrote: If you are one of the people who think we must kill family values to become a "developed" country, then you are wrong.

I never told that, but what I mentioned that there can be unknown & known consequences to social changes, ultimately its about the choices that everyone make

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Oct 2014 21:16

One of the reasons, I think, the West makes such a fuss about child labor is that West wants Indian families to have less children, as they start thinking that children are a burden.

Traditionally, children have worked as apprentices in whatever work the family was involved in - farming, herding, craftsmanship, textiles, etc. It did not mean that there was no education for these children. There was, that is before the British choked all life out of it. However beyond that, children still use to work as apprentices in their family occupation. How is a child supposed to learn all the tricks of the trade, if he starts his training in the family occupation with 18?

Traditionally families never looked at children as a burden, simply because children while growing up used to both help out with family occupation, and secondarily there was enough extended family support to help out with children when they were young.

So Indians used to have big families, upwards of 6-7 children, sometimes even 11-12.

Western-designed Modernity and its Missionaries however want to tell Indians all that is backward, and a sign of illiteracy, high infant mortality, etc.. From all that what we know of Bharat before the coming of the Islamics and British is that Bharat was in fact Jagatguru, the hub of knowledge, research, health, strength and prosperity. So buying the catchphrase "illiteracy" and "backward" to describe Indians needs a stretch of imagination, but if one knows not about it, then even an ounce of ignorance suffices.

Having large families was a deliberate, well-thought out, rational stance of Indians, of all hues and classes.

But Secularists and Western-inspired "intellectuals" have been trying to destroy the fabric of Hindu society using all sorts of angles

Smaller families are modern, extended families are passe
Keeping to traditional family occupations is casteist thinking,
Upper castes have kept you oppressed, forced you into certain occupations
Bollywood is all about falling in love, which needs rebelling against small-minded parents
Hum Do, Hamare Do
Child Labor is really really wicked, and if you allow it, you are the most horrible parent
Full Equality of men and women, in all professions

Most of the above points seem so "progressive", but they do so under the premise and propaganda that traditional every thing was completely opposite, and modernity is trying to bring change.

Even traditional Indian society used to find a golden middle and balance the needs of progress of the individual with the responsibilities to family and society.

But Secular politics and West want to paint traditional Indian society with the blackest possible paint, and show that it is the West that brings enlightenment to the stupid Indian masses. More importantly using such propaganda and pushing Indians to adopt such thinking, West has ensured that India does not outgrow it drastically. The sheer human mass in India has always been feared by the West, and cutting down on Indian population has always been a foremost goal. Even as they have preached it, they have done so reminding Indians that it is for the benefit of the planet and paucity of resources in India. The issue that they themselves robbed India of resources is not brought up!

There are justified reasons why our current predicament makes us vulnerable to see merit in these arguments, but that is because we are being told that it is wrong to dream of holding on to our traditional sense of family and at the same time devise social systems, infrastructure and technology which enables us to more easily do so.

SBajwa · Post by **SBajwa** » 24 Oct 2014 21:21

Full Equality of men and women, in all professions

The worst part about the "Equality of Sexes" is that "Educated" women do not produce as many children as "Uneducated" one's.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Oct 2014 21:27

symontk wrote:
symontk wrote:You are dreaming, please wake up. Come to the real world

symontk wrote:I remember my child hood days in Kerala when every electric post, every autorickshaw had the message, we two, ours two. Nowadays in Kerala it is not there, since the state has achieved it. But what I noticed was that, other places (like Bangalore, Chennai, Mumbai, Andhra) even during that time, didnt had these message. Even now they don't have. So why you think it is unachievable? It is only unachievable if it has been tried. It is not even tried in other states. So your argument that it is only achievable in places where there is Western Universalism is not correct. If a state like Kerala can achieve that, certainly all states should be able to do that. There is no need of having help from Western Universalism for that

RajeshA wrote:In other places too, you have extolled Kerala's "progressiveness"!

Quite an irony here, right?

When others propose a different model, they are dreaming, but "Western Universalism" fascinated people in India and in the West, can go ahead and institute their ideology through a plethora of secular laws, academic departments, international programs, government programs, ngos, etc. all to ensure their ideology is turned into concrete change, but questioning conventional thinking and demanding rationality behind it is "dreaming"!
Definitely not dreaming since Kerala already achieved population reduction in several districts

As ever so often you miss the message altogether. I am saying that your "Dreams" have come true only after a huge program was started to translate your "dream" into reality. It did not become reality by dreaming only. So why do you think that others cannot start a similarly huge program? Why should it just remain a dream?

Many earlier used to also think that BJP winning a majority in Delhi is only a dream! But it happened.

In any case, your dream has been fulfilled. Congratulations! Now it is time for the dreams of Islamists to be fulfilled in God's own country, which is to finish of the non-Muslims in Kerala! Their eternal gratitude would be with your ilk!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 24 Oct 2014 21:30

SBajwa wrote:
Full Equality of men and women, in all professions
The worst part about the "Equality of Sexes" is that "Educated" women do not produce as many children as "Uneducated" one's.

The German Minister for Defense, Ursula von der Leyen, a physician by trade, has seven children!

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 22:21

symontk wrote: I mentioned that there can be unknown & known consequences to social changes, ultimately its about the choices that everyone make

When there are known and unknown consequences of any action it is essential that every consequence of that action be documented and compared with known standards to see whether it is good or bad and whether it is worth continuing or emulating or whether it should be discarded.

This is what I am doing on this thread about social changes in western societies. If you have access to learned journals and papers that have done that I would be happy to be pointed to them so that I can compare what I see with what has been written. Would you be able to help here?

The other thing is that political systems and social mores do not cause anyone to develop science and technology. One need not adopt the behaviour of western societies and imagine that we will become "advanced" by doing that. Certain types of behaviour promoted by western universalism - such as runaway individual greed instead of social responsibility need to be rejected and condemned. I am repeating a lot of stuff for you because all this has been discussed earlier. You simply have not bothered to read all that. So please don't reply to this paragraph by saying " I never said that". I am not accusing you of having said that. I am simply repeating some things that came up earlier which you have not bothered to read because that is what this thread is about.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 24 Oct 2014 22:34

^^^the project director for the successful GSLV launch goes to the temple every morning - this is certainly behavior frowned upon by western universalism.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 22:44

RajeshA wrote:
But Secularists and Western-inspired "intellectuals" have been trying to destroy the fabric of Hindu society using all sorts of angles

Smaller families are modern, extended families are passe

Keeping to traditional family occupations is casteist thinking,

Upper castes have kept you oppressed, forced you into certain occupations

Bollywood is all about falling in love, which needs rebelling against small-minded parents

Hum Do, Hamare Do

Child Labor is really really wicked, and if you allow it, you are the most horrible parent

Full Equality of men and women, in all professions

The need to change populations from social organisms to "individualistic beings" who think of themselves only is all about consumerism. Philosophies that admire frugality and refuse excess are no good for marketing. Societies that make do with less are no good for capitalist consumptive economies. Traditional societies who are proud of themselves and their past will not join the consumption boom that is required to keep some multinational companies (and the western governments they support and are supported by) wealthy and in power.

The "equality" of women is western universalism gone apeshit because it fails to acknowledge where women are superior and actually suppresses female functions in society. A lot of western universalism openly supports companies and products that are very harmful to the environment - but the argument is that this is needed for humans because humans are superior to animals. You know where that bit of nonsense comes from. Humans are animals too and human health is linked to animal and environmental health, multinationals be damned.

For example the push to give everyone equal nutrition is promoted by companies that promote methods of increasing crop yields by genetics, pesticides and fertilizers. If they are banned in the west, they are marketed in the turd world. The research about protein and meat eating promotes animal husbandry industries including foods, antibiotics, machinery, storage and transport.

So a whole lot of "Universal values" are based on the greed of companies to see certain changes in populations to increase consumption to keep their sales going. If you don't agree with them they will say how your children are starving and people's index of happiness is low. And our western inspired sepoy intellectuals will agree with them.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 24 Oct 2014 22:54

symontk wrote: Human life is not easily replaceable as it is with other animals. If you havent learned that by now, I am not sure when you will learn that.

Utter unadulterated rubbish. If humans are so difficult to produce why is it that your beloved Kerala has cut down on the number of humans being produced.

We have more humans today than ever before, fatter and greedier than ever before and plant and animal species are disappearing rapidly and you are pooping on this thread by making this utterly idiotic statement. Shameful. You are saying things simply because you want to type something - not because it has any meaning.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 25 Oct 2014 02:28

I think the desire to see their children well-nourished is almost universal among mothers; that it can be done only with certain brands of food, etc., is commercialism and the food industry's self-interest.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 25 Oct 2014 04:45

Do not mean to change the subject, but I'm posting about one interesting area that is somewhat related to WU, I mean WU rubbish. I also intend to put in econ forum, but if you feel it is inappropriate here, okay to remove. It was briefly mentioned in Libya dhaga. It is about French Colonialism in 21st century in Africa. Yes, looting in Africa by France never stopped!! I'm putting snippets of an article below, but read the whole thing to get the context, if interested. Material is slightly date, but relevant..

French Africa Policy Damages African and European Economies

..
By Christof Lehmann – Since the independence of the former French colonies in western Africa they are in spite of the richness of their natural resources and the productivity of their populations still catastrophically under-developed.
In 2007 the French and European economies began deteriorating into a devastating recession. France seems to be like a man who is standing at the edge of a cliff, transfixed by the thought of falling into the abyss. In fear of losing the lucrative racket of controlling the western African economies he forgets that there is Terra firma and a possibility for both French, European and African prosperity behind him. Africans and leading European politicians expected that the administration of President Hollande would bring much-needed change with respect to French control over the economies of Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Ivory Coast, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Niger, the Republic of Congo, Senegal and Togo. However, also Hollande´s administration seems to be so transfixed by the prospect of falling into the abyss that it does not fathom the possibility of taking one step back.

The root causes for the lacking development of the western African economies are closely related to the fact that France, contrary to other former colonial powers, managed to install its commissars at the heart of its former colonies economic and monetary system and that it still maintains almost unchallenged control over them. The system was created by German National Socialists during the 1930s and 40s. It was used to usurp France and other German occupied nations.

In other words sixty-five per cent of all foreign currency reserves of the fifteen nations and all revenue generated outside of the unions territory is kept at the French National Bank. On 3 Mai 2010 the website of Jeune Afrique quotes the former French Minister of Finance and Commerce, Christine Lagarde: “The Bank of the States of Central Africa, for instance, places an almost 90 per cent of their reserves in the French National Bank”.

The words of the late Etienne Gnassingbé indicate that the Bleeding of Africa can be taken literally. According to the statutes of the monetary and economic union every member state is free to leave it. So much to theory. In practice, France has left a trail of post-modern coup d´etats, violence, and murder in those nations who tried to get out from under what many West-Africans perceive as French Finance-Nazism in Africa.

The question for this and the coming year is whether France will continue standing at the edge of the cliff and fall while dragging both western Africa and Europe into the abyss together with it, or if it dares to listen to the voices of reason from Africa and its European partners, turn its gaze away from the abyss and see that there is fertile land, right behind it.

Same subject is covered in a bit sensational way in following post.

http://www.siliconafrica.com/france-colonial-tax/