What should/can we all agree on?

[steve_bank]

Popular sentiment determines what is truth?

I think we cam all agree Lumpy is grasping at straws trying to prove the gspel Jesus and the bible is true.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Creation vs. Evolution

Creationism is slowly decreasing in public popularity.

First, here's a simple obvious example which no one should disagree with:

Here's a couple of more appropo examples.
1) The earth is close to 14 billion years old. The earth is close to 5 thousand years old.

2) Earthly species are the result of millions of years of natural selection.
Species were brought into existence in a week.

Yes, Science is still struggling with the Creationist Crusade -- but I think the strict Creationists are in retreat, though it's a slow process.

And "creationism" slowly tries to adjust its terms in order to accommodate evolution science. I'm sure the "Creation-Evolution Debate" is not as fired up today as it was 50 years ago. The Creationist debaters performed some good entertainment for audiences, but over time the science is winning out over the literal-Genesis religionism.

Here are some poll results, showing Evolution is gaining, or has surpassed Creation, among the public generally:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2005/09/28/reading-the-polls-on-evolution-and-creationism/ -- 61% want Evolution to be taught in schools, while 54% want Creation to be taught.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/americans-believe-creationism.aspx -- 40% of Americans believe in Creationism, where humans go back only 10,000 years or so. But there's a gradual increase in those believing human evolution required millions of years.

The Latest Polls on Creationism and Evolution | National Center for Science Education

There were few surprises in a trio of polls conducted in late 2004 about public opinion in the United States on issues associated with the creationism/evolution controversy.

ncse.ngo

These polls show that there's a gradual increase in Evolution acceptance, while extreme Creationism is slowly losing ground, as there is more acceptance that human existence goes much farther back than only 10,000 years, and the Biblical/Genesis literalism is being modified more and more to allow for a God who made evolution happen somehow.

So, I'm not sure that Biblical Creationism, i.e., literal Genesis and 10,000 years human history, is any longer the popular sentiment.

Catholic Church teaching: Although the official Catholic teaching today allows for both traditional Creation (literal Genesis etc.) as well as modern Evolution science, the Church does teach Evolution in its science classes.

Catholic schools teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains how evolution proceeds.

Evolution and the Catholic Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think this illustrates that the trend in religious belief today is toward Evolution and away from traditional Biblical Creationism or literal Genesis 10,000 years human history etc.

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy,

May I suggest you start a thread, The Truth By Lumpenproletariat? There you can preach
and proclaim truth as you see fit without derailing other threads.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Replacement Economics

Every thinking and caring person should agree with this (even if it makes them uncomfortable):


YOU SHOULD BE REPLACED (in your job/vocation/business) by anyone or anything which can perform that function in society at lower cost than you are performing it.

or -- --​

Anyone (or anything) which can be replaced by someone (or something) which can do the same function at lower cost SHOULD be replaced.


This is a basic social truth for our time -- possible to be recognized today more than in the past -- and necessary to be recognized in order for human progress to continue; and yet hardly anyone is telling this truth, straightforwardly to all those uncompetitive crybabies in our economy who insist that they are entitled to keep their economic function regardless that someone or something else could do it better or cheaper.

Thinking and caring people should agree with this Replacement Principle and join in a common effort to promote this principle, especially to teach it to children young enough to get it into their heads. It should be taught as Basic Economics in grade school, even elementary school, so future generations of workers will understand that their basic obligation is to be CONTRIBUTERS to the national economy and not just recipients of the economic wealth paid to them as an unconditional entitlement. And their place in the system is not just a slot provided for them to keep them out of mischief, but is where their performance in society can best improve, to increase their contribution in whatever way gets the best results from them, to serve the community.

They must learn to reject the Trump/Biden/Bernie Sanders doctrine that native-born workers are entitled to be protected against competition, and affirm instead that all competition makes the economy stronger, no matter who you are or where you originated or other identity.

Competition is a fundamental principle of Supply-and-Demand Economics, including competition from foreigners and from immigrants. "Identity" delusions must be replaced by performance standards applied to all, no matter who they are. Anyone, no matter who, who walks through the door and applies for a spot within the system, must be accepted and compared to those already recognized as members, and put into a function where they can best serve, including that of competing with those already in the system.

Labor unions, e.g., reject this basic principle of economics, siding with nativists wanting to exclude outsiders from "sneaking in" and "stealing our jobs" as aliens because they are different than "our kind" or because they are "scabs" who would "low-ball" our wages (by competing).

ALL competition is good for "the economy" (even among wage-earners) by improving the production for ALL consumers, including competition between wage-earners. ALL PRODUCERS are obligated to compete, to improve the overall performance for the benefit of consumers. It's not only companies, but all individual producers, all independent contractors, rich and poor, and all wage-earners who must compete. There is nothing about the principle of competition which says that somehow wage-earners are exempt from the obligation to compete and possibly be replaced by someone who performs better. ALL better performance by producers must be given priority over anyone who is less competitive.


The "should" facts
Statements of value are also factual claims.

This Replacement Economics is a "should" statement or principle, and is also fact. A fact can sometimes be a statement of what SHOULD BE, in comparison to what is. There are some "shoulds" and some "should-nots" which are fact, even though they give preference to WHAT IS NOT as opposed to what is. A statement about what SHOULD BE can also be a fact, saying how things ought to be as opposed to how things actually are.

The actual economics in practice right now says that some/most workers are entitled to stay in their function and be protected against competition which would "low-ball" their wages, because these workers are heroes and victims or in some other way needing sympathy, to prop them up, at the expense of all others who must pay the cost of propping up these uncompetitive producers.

But there should be nothing which props up someone who is less competitive and could be replaced by someone/something which could perform the same function at lower cost. Because the good of the whole community (the whole economy, the whole population) takes priority over the good of particular individuals thinking they are entitled to be propped up at the expense of all the others.

This Replacement Economics Principle is true and correct and in harmony with the empirical facts -- historical facts, whereas most pundits who currently preach economic policy are demagogues who reject this Principle in favor of an entitlements principle which puts the interest of certain workers above the interest of the whole community, and which sacrifices the interests of all in favor of a victims obsession to protect special interests like the less competitive, or those whose position is threatened by someone more competitive -- (like some American workers are threatened by competition from hated Chinese workers or other scapegoats).

 

[steve_bank]

Lumpy It is called the profit incentive in free market capitalism. Not exactly breaking news.

Investors and owners of a business want to minimize cost, and maximize profit and efficiency.

Unlike the capitalism of the time of Marx labor has unions. here is a continuous dynamic between labor and management.Here in Seattle Boeing is a good example, and the auto unions.

The problem is carried to its logical end demand for skilled labor goes down. Factory automation. I was party to it as an engineer.

The kind of jobs that supported families have gone down as a result today more people are working poor, can't afford housing.

Population goes up while demand for skilled labor goes down. That leads to social instability. We see it in the news from Bangladesh.

Social prgrams are a moral issue, and are required for stability.

IMO free market capitalism as it is now is not sustainable.

 

[Bomb#20]

Unlike the capitalism of the time of Marx labor has unions.

Labor unions were alive and kicking in Marx's time -- they were legalized in 1824 in Britain and 1842 in the U.S. If Marx had cared a little less about his creationist economic theories and a little more about what was actually good for the working class he'd have quit revolutionary politics and become a union organizer.

 

[steve_bank]

I doubt 19th cabinetry unions have the legal protections and political power they do today.

In 2oth century Wicca there was 'Bloody Harlan County'. Violent conflict between labor and coal mine owners. There is a documentary and movie on it.

Harlan County War - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Harlan County War, or Bloody Harlan, was a series of coal industry skirmishes, executions, bombings and strikes (both attempted and realized) that took place in Harlan County, Kentucky, during the 1930s. The incidents involved coal miners and union organizers on one side and coal firms and law enforcement officials on the other.[1] The Harlan County coal miners campaigned and fought to organize their workplaces and better their wages and working conditions. It was a nearly decade-long conflict, lasting from 1931 to 1939. Before its conclusion, an unknown number of miners, deputies and bosses would be killed, state and federal troops would occupy the county more than half a dozen times, two acclaimed folk singers would emerge, union membership would oscillate wildly and workers in the nation's most anti-labor coal county would ultimately be represented by a union.

Henry Ford had his own private paramilitary force and a fixer that attacked union organizers. There were murders.

Capitalism is not the same today. People starting at the bottom can and do rise to the top. In the UK if you had a good idea the royals got cut.

I am an example. I grew up with a single parent father who did not graduate high school, living in public housing. I did not get rich but I had a good career as an engineer.

Education became open to all since around the 60s.

I doubt Marx could have imagined economics and culture of today.

Yet some cling to the old Marxist paradigms.