Freedom is meaningless. If freedom is the right to endlessly exploit Earth's resources at a rate of depletion contradictory to the sustainability of human life, freedom is not an option. The infinite growth paradigm is a flawed one. Wealth is not infinitely expandable in a closed system with non-renewable resources. Capitalism may have aided in bringing us a higher 'quality' of life but at what cost? We consume more per capita than ever before in history, we consume for the sake of consumption because it is necessary to perpetuate growth and consumption. Our growth as a civilization has been almost exclusively driven by capitalist exploitation of oil, so where does that leave us?
The exploitation of oil has been nearly the sole driver of technological and economic development in the last 100 years. Capitalism which necessarily maximizes production and consumption of commodities has done just that with oil. It has marched forward at the fastest possible rate of consumption. When will this rate slow, when will it stop? When the oil runs out. If our population grew to 7 billion on the consumption of oil, what does it mean for our population when the oil runs out? Imagine the reverse. Whether or not you think alternative energy will take its place, capitalism continues to fail in respect to sustainability and the environment.
Capitalism has no mechanisms within it for the preservation of resources, it is effective at consuming resources at the fastest rate possible because it necessarily consumes them at the fastest rate possible. The system cannot sustain itself without constant growth. This means the depletion of our oil, uranium, mass-deforestation, ecosystem destruction, over-fishing, run-away climate change and a whole host of other problems with no capitalist solutions. Capitalism is like a virus on the whole of humanity. It necessarily depletes our resources in order to reproduce and grow driving forward every moment toward our ultimate demise. The problem with this virus is it hasn't yet adapted to occupy a different host, so it drives to its own destruction just the same.
People will say communism and state-driven economies are no better, that the Soviet Union was as destructive as capitalist societies. First, this argument in itself doesn't justify the capitalist paradigm. Secondly, communists have thus far played in an unfair game. Because of the largely unfettered growth of capitalist societies, communists have had to play the state-driven growth game, consuming at rates similar but slightly short of capitalist societies in order to keep up and maintain their sovereignty.
So in conclusion, if freedom means to commit species suicide, the most counter-evolutionary act possible, then I want nothing to do with freedom. If freedom is the ability to grow to a destructive end and to consume for the sake of consuming, let freedom whither and die for I will not commit myself to the cause of species suicide. It may be better to burn out than fade away, but remember Neil Young followed that line with, "Once you're gone, you can't come back."
Capitalism is necessarily the most destructive, idiotic and ill-conceived economic system ever devised and our salvation as a species lies in one thing, conscious evolution. We must recognize that long-term survival depends on a no-growth, steady-state economy.
i've Learned some things in the past 24 hours. Or at least Realized some things. First i have to address the Tragedy in Japan. A lot of people may dismiss this Disaster because it's happened to an Affluent "Western" Country, the 3rd largest economy in the world; however, it is important to recognize that all Tragedies are Equal despite what standard of living the victims may or may not have had before the Tragedy. All Humanitarian efforts are Worthy causes whether they are in seemingly cursed nations like Haiti or seemingly Utopian nations like Japan.
the second thing i learned was that no war is just. In discussing this topic with someone i consider a Friend we came to a Disagreement. He believed that war could and often was Just and that Pacifism was a naive philosophy. I finally realized the problem with this is that by defining wars as just or unjust we are defining sides and in the process establishing Conflict. By saying that war is just or unjust we separate the world into us and them, when really the people who perpetrate injustice upon others are Humans just like us. In reality, every act of war is an error which reflects upon the Values of all of Humanity. No one can say that Gandhi and King's non-violent Pacifist Activism was naive and served no greater purpose. War is simply not the only way of fighting injustice. War which brings an era of peace and freedom is in reality the exception not the rule.
the other thing i've increasing been coming to terms with is that the vast majority of people will not agree with me, whether by their own intelligent decision or out of apathy. Whether the topic is political, concerning an individual's belief that public debate on the Israel-Palestine issue is important or whether it is a question of appreciating the progressive rock of RUSH or the cult following of Meatloaf or even none of the above (god forbid). The fact is we are impossibly divided even considering that we all strive for the same basic things. Love, shelter, freedom.
today, the Rebel of the Day is a guy named Nick Day, who spoke his mind despite criticism and refused to step back even in the face of overwhelming opposition from those who elected him. It is this level of moral conscience which is desperately needed in our society. And I hope that others can see this and make an intelligent decision to speak out.