[Morality of Eternal Life?]

If people do not die, then we would run out of resources. Or as someone put it, many must die so that one may become immortal.

I AM sorry but you're just perpetuating the myth of 'genetic immortality' which is fundamentally inaccuate since all future generations must differ from their ancestors and with suffucient differences once acquired there grows less and less attributes from the 'ancestor' as to question any form of inheritance at all.

 

Such a methodology can be focussed upon the ideation of philosophy. Philosophy is essentially morality wrapped into one's own perspective. Philosophy = The ideas that shape one's existence.

 

Death cannot exist without life but Life may possibly exist without death/ending. Most western religions and philosophies concord with this premise. Eastern religions and philosophies generally flow toward a dissolution of the 'bondage' of Self within and beyond physical parameters but they also concord with the fundamentals of western theology.

 

A question I ask every 'philosopher' I meet is, "Do you agree with the premise that all philosophers require a patron?". This is clarified with the question, "Is it true then that only philosophers who are in accordance with the 'ruling classes' of their time are those that become part of written (permitted) history?

 

I know the answer... Do you or Stefan?

[The real difference between types of anarchisms]

I often hear and read about different types of anarchism: anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, left and right anarchisms, green... you name it.

 

All of which are fine by me because in reality, the real difference between all of them is how each anarchist believes a free society would eventually be shaped. Would the workers eventually own all the means of production as the anarcho-syndicalists claim? I don't think so, but who knows? The difference between true anarchist schools of thought is just how they believe things would pan out.

 

Now, if someone claiming to be an anacho-syndicalist claims that there is a need to have workers own the means of production and that a centralized effort must be carried out to ensure that happens using violent means, then they can call themselves whatever they want, but they sure as hell are no anarchists... by definition.

One of the best political analytical graphics I've ever seen was the line in the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allan. To the left it showed Socialism/Communism and to the right it showed Fascism/Plutocracy/Monarchy/Dictatorship and in the middle Anarchy/Self-Government.

 

The media and most political commentators represent 'anarchy' as revolution and chaos. No-thing could be farther from the truth. 'Serfs', like you and I in the eyes of the 'elites', when left to their own devices will naturally treat others as equals and respect their personal lives and communal lives.

 

When egotism, self-aggrandizement and the delusion of the 'superiority complex' is exhibited by any indivivdual and/or group with a lust for leadership that society is DOOMED!