Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[RongzomFan]

There is a good documentary on our amazing food system. It is called Food Inc.

 

Our corporations do an amazing job to feed our exploding population.

 

Our food to salary ratio is amazing compared to everyone else.

 

Tyson, Cargill, Swift should be commended, not demonized.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

There is a good documentary on our amazing food system. It is called Food Inc.

 

Our corporations do an amazing job to feed our population.

 

Well obviously not when this is the case:

 

Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children).

17.3 million people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food

 

These are very large parts of your population.

 

Before you edited your post it said "I don`t know about that". Well now you do so take it into account in what policies you consider would be good for your population.

[sabretooth]

I think there is a valid conversation to be had about politics here in relation to Taoism but I found that other posters didn't seem to want to read anything that they didn't agree with already. I think GiH's suspension is regrettable but I agree that argument should not lapse into personal insult.

 

What happened in Tibet, or what is still happening in Tibet is interesting because a small and overtly religious country has been swamped by a much larger and non-religious country. The experience of individuals and how they reflect on what it all means is, I think , valuable to us all - so I am glad the OP was made. What I can't quite get my head around is how anyone can see corporate capitalism as somehow upholding Taoist virtues.

 

 

Just wondered is there anybody on this forum from Tibet,that has witnessed what the Chinese are doing to their country and people?.

 

 

 

sabretooth.

[RongzomFan]

Despite the majority living such lives this is also the case:

 

One of the most disturbing and extraordinary aspects of life in this very wealthy country is the persistence of hunger. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2008:

 

Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children).

17.3 million people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food. This was up from 11.9 million in 2007 and 8.5 million in 2000.

Very low food security had been getting worse even before the recession. The number of people in this category in 2008 is more than double the number in 2000.

Black (25.7 percent) and Hispanic (26.9 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average.

 

http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html

 

Do you not see the desperate need to improve the lives of these people? US capitalism has done little to nothing over the last 30 years to mitigate this problem. An increase in minimum wage and state welfare measures could eradicate this problem easily but you choose not to and let them suffer and wonder were their next meal is coming from.

 

 

 

Even from your biased source, it is very clear the majority of these people have something to eat. They are just limited in choices.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

Even from your biased source, it is very clear the majority of these people have something to eat. They are just limited in choices.

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is biased?

 

WHat it means is that periodically many of these people do not have as much food to eat as they need. They are HUNGRY BUT HAVE NO FOOD. This happens on and of but does not tip over into hunger that will kill them either because they get more money for some time or because there are government and voluntary programs to feed those on the border of starvation. Besides to feeling of being hungry and weak because of lack of food and the horrific psychological consequences of that this leads to health problems that stem from under and malnutrition.

 

In stead of responding to this knowledge with a desire to help these people all you try to do is deny their plight to not loose a debate on the internet. WOW!

[RongzomFan]

"Low Food Security: This term replaces “Food Insecurity without Hunger.” Generally, people that fall into this category have had to make changes in the quality or the quantity of their food in order to deal with a limited budget. "

 

 

BOOO HOOO. They had to make "changes" to the way they eat. WAAAAHHH

 

Atleast they have something to eat!.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

"Low Food Security: This term replaces “Food Insecurity without Hunger.” Generally, people that fall into this category have had to make changes in the quality or the QUANTITY of their food in order to deal with a limited budget. "

 

 

 

 

BOOO HOOO

 

 

Atleast they have something to eat!

 

Reducing QUANTITY MEANS they have to eat less than they actually need. You really lack the most basic empathy.

Edited April 28, 2010 by markern

[RongzomFan]

It was defined here BY THE GOVERNMENT, specifically WITHOUT hunger

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity/labels.htm

 

The old label was "Food insecurity without hunger"

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[markern]

It was defined here BY THE GOVERNMENT, specifically WITHOUT hunger

 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity/labels.htm

 

The old label was "Food insecurity without hunger"

 

Yes I did:

 

93 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.

 

66 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.

 

47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.

 

27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.

[RongzomFan]

I am talking about the table near the top of the page

 

Vast majority of your food insecure people were WITHOUT hunger.

 

Even under the new terminology, it says "no indication of reduced food intake"

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Hi alwayson,

 

Capitalism is freaking awesome, but there's a point to be made with the criticism of corporate dominance.

 

The problem with purely market driven economy is that unless the hearts of men are at peace, their better natures will be overcome by greed. Their actions are driven by sympathic nervous agitation, "fight and flight", and the growing desire for dopamine high, which affects how the markets operate and interact with the world. It's a vicious cycle that can't be treated with simple magic bullets.

 

You and vortex seem to make it a very easy question of free choice. Can one "just" choose to be healthy, educated, wise, attractive, rich, and free of persecution and manipulation? No, for one can realistically affect only some of the factors that shape his life, and others can be hurdles the size of mountain to overcome. Can you compassionately understand why offering the Capitalist Pill as general medicine can be both insulting and frustrating to a human being who observes innocent children that did nothing to deserve a life of suffering, yet the multitude of societal factors constantly coax and indoctrinate them towards that path?

 

Your suggestion only works if people are aware and seeking to know of the long term consequences of their actions, but the overload of sympathic stimulation, i.e. greed, stress, hunger, and violence, is anything but helpful to that! The current system simply is broken and killing the Earth through vastly unsustainable consumption.

 

Capitalism can work, but only if the fractional-reserve banking and interest is replaced with something saner, say money with demurrage, and if we first can give the world easy means to cultivate their hearts. The former will probably rise spontaneously after the latter is achieved, but the real question is: How do we overturn the toxic overload of irritation and agitation? If we can't put forth an effective solution, then the whole discussion and people suffering becomes impasse because nothing changes at the level where it truly matters.

 

Anyways, keep the discussion going on! I love it when people remind me how awesome Capitalism is.

 

Blessings

[gendao]

*Moderating*

 

Wow this thread is long, we have been getting reports on various posts (Thank you for those reports everyone) I was actually just reading one back on page 8.

 

GIH has been suspended from posting for a week. Please watch the language and personal insults.

 

btw Vortex certainly is not a Troll I personally value his post on TTB highly.

 

Thanks Mal

Thank you, Mal. I welcome all civilized debate on the issues here, but juvenile cussing contests tend to abort that.

 

And supporting capitalism while being against Marxism/Communism...is such a "radical" position...that I "must be a troll?" Must be billions of trolls in the free world, then. As well as 140 million dead ones. I am assuredly not a troll, I have been posting Taoist content here for 3 years now.

 

That sounds like a typical Stalinist tactic of branding any dissenter a "class enemy" so that he can be "purged" or shipped off to a reeducation camp.

 

 

Anyhow, back to the ISSUES. Most people would argue that maximizing the Middle Class is what helps to bridge extreme disparities in wealth.

 

American Middle Class:

Yet Marxism specifically demonizes and eliminates this Middle Class "bourgeois." Which is why Communist states all LACK a Middle Class. All the proletarians become uniformly poor, and the small remaining handful of party officials award themselves relative wealth.

Mao's lifestyle during the 1950's also began to resemble the imperial luxury of a Chinese Emperor. His court consisted of an inner circle of around thirty to forty people who worked to his rhythm. In bed for days, lounging by the side of a private pool, or enjoying a bevy of women, Mao lived in an atmosphere reminiscent of the Forbidden City, the place where Chinese Emperors were isolated from their country. His appetite and desire for luxury was continually satisfied. Mao emulated the First Tang Emperor of China binding people to him by discovering their weaknesses. Sycophantic advisors whose position resided with pleasing Mao, never disagreed with him. Security staff during the Great Leap Forward would set up vast potemkin fields of grain to lead Mao to think that the economy was doing well, while in reality, huge numbers of people were starving. Mao, born a peasant, had become an emperor. According to Mao's personal doctor, Dr. Li Zhisui, At the end, the most loved man in China was friendless.

Not quite what was originally promised:

TV today is just the upgraded media equivalents of these corny posters, btw.

 

Of course, the cop-out argument used by some is that none of these were "pure" Communist states - of which one has never actually existed. Well, the same argument could be made about capitalism, democracy or any other form of government. Very few things in life can be implemented in reality in their purely theoretical form. Yet, you can still draw some approximate conclusions based upon parts that were implemented & field-tested.

 

Moreso, common sense thought experiments alone can evaluate many theories just on paper to some degree.

 

Let's consider this analogy:

 

Short Anti-capitalist: Extreme disparities in height are a problem. It's JUST not fair for there to be people 5'2" tall...when there are towering giants 6'3" and over walking around! They are blocking our sunlight! We must do something to fix this massive inequity!

Medium Capitalist: Why is that (biodiversity) a problem, again? Height is all relative anyways, like Yin & Yang. You can never eliminate one without the other.

Tall Banker-Funded Marx: Nonsense. The tall are oppressing (actively or passively) the short, so if we can just eliminate the medium & taller (myself & the future party bosses excluded)...then we can eliminate oppression! The simple solution here then is to kill anyone 5'9" or taller.

Anti-capitalist & Short People: Yea!! Great idea!

Medium Capitalist: Are you people insane? Killing off all the medium people will only further widen the gap in height!

Anti-capitalist & Short People: F*** you dirty class enemy heightist! Send him off to reeducation camp!

Medium Capitalist:

Edited April 28, 2010 by vortex

[RongzomFan]

You and vortex seem to make it a very easy question of free choice. Can one "just" choose to be healthy, educated, wise, attractive, rich, and free of persecution and manipulation?

 

 

Yes one can.

 

What is stopping you?

 

I mean with the FAFSA program, there is no excuse.

[RongzomFan]

I am talking about the table near the top of the page

 

Vast majority of your food insecure people were WITHOUT hunger.

 

Even under the new terminology, it says "no indication of reduced food intake"

 

 

I guess you got nothing markern.

[buddhasbellybuttonfluff]

Hi alwayson,

 

Nevermind!

 

Blessings!

[Sunya]

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/27/gms-phony-bailout-payback/

 

GM's phony bailout payback --Take $43 billion, borrow $7 billion, then pay back the $7 Billion with the money you took, borrow $10 billion more, and announce you've 'paid back the loan'. Enron and Lehman got nothing on these guys...

[Sunya]

Since you feel "insecure", go to a psychiatrist.

 

Don't take it out on everyone here. Atleast not on me please.

 

Your personal situation is not applicable to this thread

 

Can you honestly say that the majority of Americans are not insecure? I'm not talking about myself, I'm talking about everyone. Look at the shows people watch. Look at the desires people have. Look at the marketing. Look Look LOOK! Wake up, you're seriously naive.

 

Hi alwayson,

 

Capitalism is freaking awesome, but there's a point to be made with the criticism of corporate dominance.

 

The problem with purely market driven economy is that unless the hearts of men are at peace, their better natures will be overcome by greed. Their actions are driven by sympathic nervous agitation, "fight and flight", and the growing desire for dopamine high, which affects how the markets operate and interact with the world. It's a vicious cycle that can't be treated with simple magic bullets.

 

You and vortex seem to make it a very easy question of free choice. Can one "just" choose to be healthy, educated, wise, attractive, rich, and free of persecution and manipulation? No, for one can realistically affect only some of the factors that shape his life, and others can be hurdles the size of mountain to overcome. Can you compassionately understand why offering the Capitalist Pill as general medicine can be both insulting and frustrating to a human being who observes innocent children that did nothing to deserve a life of suffering, yet the multitude of societal factors constantly coax and indoctrinate them towards that path?

 

Your suggestion only works if people are aware and seeking to know of the long term consequences of their actions, but the overload of sympathic stimulation, i.e. greed, stress, hunger, and violence, is anything but helpful to that! The current system simply is broken and killing the Earth through vastly unsustainable consumption.

 

Capitalism can work, but only if the fractional-reserve banking and interest is replaced with something saner, say money with demurrage, and if we first can give the world easy means to cultivate their hearts. The former will probably rise spontaneously after the latter is achieved, but the real question is: How do we overturn the toxic overload of irritation and agitation? If we can't put forth an effective solution, then the whole discussion and people suffering becomes impasse because nothing changes at the level where it truly matters.

 

Anyways, keep the discussion going on! I love it when people remind me how awesome Capitalism is.

 

Blessings

 

Great points. Cheers. Thanks for joining in.. I was beginning to lose hope that this thread was being overrun by naive 15 year olds.

Edited April 28, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

I'm talking about everyone.

 

 

I am not omniscient

 

I can only know my mindstream.

 

You might want to seek medical help.

 

My friends are quite happy and active.

 

Minimize your tv content, and go to the gym, is what I would suggest along with medical help.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

I am not omniscient

 

I can only know my mindstream.

 

You might want to seek medical help.

 

LOL What are you talking about? If you claim to be a professor of sociology then you should know the current state of our society. Go ask your peers in academia in the fields of sociology and psychology. Furthermore, if you claim to understand Buddhism then you should know that samsara is perpetuated because beings cling to a self -- this creates anxiety, insecurity, fear, desire etc. Well... what is our modern society based on? Everything is about the self. You need a new car! You need a new look! You need a hotter wife! You need to go here! You need to do that! It's a selfish mentality where the insecurities of the self are exploited.

[markern]

I am talking about the table near the top of the page

 

Vast majority of your food insecure people were WITHOUT hunger.

 

Even under the new terminology, it says "no indication of reduced food intake"

 

 

I guess you got nothing markern.

 

What it does say is LITTLE or no indication of reduced food intake not as you quoted it no indication. You are conciously trying to make it look as if there is less of a problem than it is just to score points in a debate instead of taking the issue seriously. That says stuff about you as a person that if put in print probably would be moderated away but still is true.

 

98 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more.

 

96 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get more.

 

94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals.

 

97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food.

 

88 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

 

93 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.

 

66 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food.

 

47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food.

 

27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.

 

19 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months.

 

All households without children that were classified as having very low food security reported at least six of these conditions, and 67 percent reported seven or more. FOOD-INSECURE conditions in households with children followed a similar pattern.

 

Furthermore, if you look at the statistic you will see that 39,66% of food insecure people cut size of meal or skipped meal because they did not have enough money for food and 37,2% ate less than they felt they should.

[RongzomFan]

dude, I am tired of pointing out your errors with these long posts.

 

Clearly you can't read

[Sunya]

You might want to seek medical help.

 

The rest of society is fine, right? Totally healthy mentally with no fear or insecurity whatsoever?

 

A proper sociological approach to fear is of both empirical and theoretical significance in understanding late modern society. Normally fear has been explored psychologically, as one of the emotions, but recently a sociology of emotions has begun to emerge. Furthermore, there have also been attempts to examine fear macro-scopically, arguing for the existence of a distinctive 'culture of fear' in contemporary societies. Furedi's argument to this effect is explored here, suggesting the need for a more systematic theorising of fear in its social contexts. Via an analysis of the elementary characteristics of fear, a model is constructed of the 'parameters of fear'. This model serves as a guide to the classes of phenomena within which fear is constituted and negotiated. It is also used to further examine the virtues and failings of 'culture of fear' approaches to fearfulness in modern societies.

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118874436/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[RongzomFan]

The rest of society is fine, right? Totally healthy mentally with no fear or insecurity whatsoever?

 

I suggest medical help, exercise, and minimization of tv.

 

Take a break from the internet and go on a jog.

[markern]

dude, I am tired of pointing out your errors with these long posts.

 

Clearly you can't read

 

You haven`t pointed out any errors. Apparently YOU were not able to read the word LITTLE which you conciously omitted to make it look like less of a problem and evidently you have problems reading this as well:

 

39,66% of food insecure people cut size of meal or skipped meal because they did not have enough money for food and 37,2% ate less than they felt they should.

[RongzomFan]

Oooooo you win!

 

Little or no indication of reduced food intake

 

Ok we agree.

Edited April 28, 2010 by alwayson