Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Squilliam wrote:Who would be the parasite though? It is really appropriate to call people parasites for simply having certain failings associated with being human?

Parasite refers to the role they play in the ecology of society and not how they see themselves. A wood tick on a dogs ass is also just doing it's thing.

There is this loose social contract at work here of course. That quote Ralphy posted by Jason Read has a powerful sentence.

A successful parasite is one that is not recognized by its host, one that can makes it's host work for it without appearing as a burden

The word appearing is the key.

We are living indeed in interesting times where most folks are deeply cynical about the functioning of the their governments and how the influence of corporations and wealthy individuals is lobbying government to preserve their special interests. This is the mechanics of parasitism . This is actually how it functions in the ecology of our society.

The appearance is failing. As constraints tighten and disparity grows further it will become more and more obvious that the host (society at large) is recognizing the parasite. This is just in reference to the 1%.

Self examination of course needs to go much further. As the declining middle class demand a reversal of the disparity of wealth held by the parasites will they themselves ever recognize the ecological plight of our species in overshoot?

Turbulent times ahead as individuals and societies adapt to an increasingly constrained world.

Great wealth enabled the parasites to appear invisible. Constraints will expose. This will create great tension.

Well that right there is a big part of the problem. We have become, or maybe always were, so focused on the "people" side of things we forget the idea side.

At some point the idea of climate change will effect it's wrath on the people. I could have said that a lot of different ways; the idea over shoot will effect is wrath on humanity, etc.

In the meantime we have the Kardashians so life is good.

Here's a related point about parasites from a talk about economics in the anthropocene by Joshua Farley, which was shared in another thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNa2j2HDvo

For the example, one can jump to the 11:00 mark.

Squilliam wrote:Then would you agree with the following: It is not being wealthy that makes a person a parasite. To be a parasite in this context is to abuse power, use undue influence for your own (or groups) gain or deliberately spread misinformation to negatively influence culture or the political process. Being wealthy can make you a better parasite, but it doesn't necessarily make you one.

and being poor also doesn't necessarily make you a saint.

Yes. This is something I have been subtly arguing with Dohboi over for years. There is nothing inherently parasitic with the individuals who make up the elite. They are just fulfilling a niche in the social ecosystem. There is nothing saintly in the poor, in fact most are just parasitic wannabees, as can be witnessed with their aspirations.

From what I know, capitalists are parasites because they require labor and material resources to back up the value of numbers in hard drives. They need laborers to be more productive but at the same time buy what they produce through loans because that's the ultimate way in which those numbers can go up. They convince laborers to become more productive because if they do, a few of them will become capitalists, too. Finally, it's part of a vision where one day no one will have to work (much) and yet get what they need and want thanks to innovation and new technologies.

From what I know, the parasites in our society are those that do not work. Maybe they go to school, maybe they are trust fund babies, maybe they are bums living off their parents after age 17. Unless you have a steady stream of income and pay taxes, you are a parasite.

Our society encourages parasitism. Welfare for example was intended to be a short term form of aid which helped somebody in unfortunate circumstances while they found a new job, home, whatever. It was never intended that we have entire generations who have never worked. It was certainly never intended that we have three generations of inner city welfare recipients, where nobody has worked since WW2.

I don't particularly care how shiftless, useless, and lazy you happen to be. I don't care whether you want to work either. I do care when you don't contribute to the welfare of others. I would personally take the entire present crop of Marx-quoting bums and plow them into the earth after proper composting, so that the true parasites can finally make a long needed contribution to society.

I was reminded of this last night. After a few weeks of quiet, I heard my mailbox alarm go off. I got up and beheld a familiar drunken bum who was walking down the street and throwing mail from all the boxes into the road. The cops do not respond to mail theft, unless you can prove somebody is also disturbing the peace. The Postmaster has been investigating for months. This one guy is less sinister than the group of three that drive down the road in a dark SUV and steal packages and any envelopes that might contain credit cards or checks. If you come out of your house and yell at them, they have been known to spray bullets in your direction. Yet you can't just shoot them, outside your home, because we have rules.

Too many parasites is our problem, keeping our society sick. But the One Percent of Silicon Valley are not among them, since they employ a majority of the rest of us with their high tech companies. But I suspect from the comments in this thread that some forum members are parasites, and they are not very subtle about assigning blame for their percieved grievences.

How do you classify people who can no longer work due to age or infirmity? Are they parasites, or a moral obligation, or something in between?

Don't forget that I am retired, although my wife still works. I am entitled to both Social Security and my 401K retirement account, although what we chose to do is wait and live modestly while the wife works to maximize the payouts. But I'm not a burden on anybody. If I become disabled, my insurance is current and I will get treatment, hopefully without losing my home.

The homeless encampment on the hill is another story. Violence, substance abuse, crimes of all kinds. This in an area with a labor shortage. If they cannot qualify for a job that pays enough for a home, they certainly can afford to live in a rent-subsidized apartment, there are hundreds in the area, some occupied by minimum wage workers.

For genuine misfortune I have a Christian sense of charity. But if somebody reaches retirement age and doesn't either own a home or have some level of income that allows them to pay rent, then they screwed up their life. If they took too many expensive vacations, bought too much home for a soft economy and a shrinking job market, or simply maxxed out their credit and defaulted, he key word is THEY. They did it to themselves.

The government is not your Nanny. If you can't plan to take care of yourself, expect hardships. If you do make it through your working career, and have enough to have a comfortable old age, it should not be taken from you to care for the 49% who don't save for the future.

An aspect of being a baby boomer is having to come to the grips that the amount of economic growth that made our lives pleasant and possible does not appear to be capable of seeing us through the extra ten years of life that it has provided us. Globalization gave us thrilling big box stores and cheap goodies even if the pension funds and other traditional retirement vehicles came under siege. The way forward we were convinced was to take advantage of pretax contributions to funds and investing them in the market, which due to inherent greed factors, crashed and ate a big bite of them, and then injected with financial steroids stumbled on with inflated valuation substituted for grass roots growth. Our system always ran on the premise of concentrating wealth, but I took that to mean that I would be part of that trend somehow. I am thankful that now I am older and the internet let's me buy at better price points than the big box stores what clobbered the little shops downtown back in the 1980's, and now I get the goods right to my dor in a package, and my browser tells me what else like that purchase is a fit for me. We raised smart if spoiled kids, they don't see the future of a minimum wage job that turns everyone over before they get a shot at a real one, perhaps they are just soft. I knew all the companies engaged in the businesses that old boomers would need would correctly anticipate our old age as being their big meal ticket, but I always felt growth would be there as long as I was. You were a sweet thing Madam Growth, a lovely creature, and an infatuating dance partner almost all of my life. Seeing you humbled and showing signs of being past your prime, just like I am, makes me want to take my AARP magazine, roll it up, and smack you right on the ass. I am watching the alpha male real estate guy attempt to hook up the nitrous oxide bottle on our old American cruiser and take down all the speed limit signs possible. I guess being a boomer, when things get nuts, I still hearken back to the Animal House depicted times of my youth, I pop the leg rest down on my Lazyboy, wink at the missus, and then shout: "Road Trip!"

Rockman dismisses eroei measures for E&P analysis. He says no oil project has ever been held up on expectations of low net-energy return. Just dollars. That is why the shale-intern idiots are still so persistent. They don't want you to know eroei is a paramount issue. Same with shopping in the future.---Yes, you can talk all the dollars and cents you want. But in the end energy translates to money. Not the other way around. No, amount of Bank fiat money creation is going to deliver more energy to society than the thermodynamic constraints allow. You can go search for oil is the most inaccessible places and use tons of energy to access said oil. But that is a futile proposition because of EROEI. And money cannot change that evident truth.

pstarr, there is online grocery shopping at the supermarket I use most often. You either park in the "eCart" space by the front entrance, and they will put the bags in your car, or they will deliver for a $6 fee up to 10 miles.

I still prefer to pick out produce and meats personally, but then again I am retired and have time to do so. I also still go to Costco once a month and stock my freezer with meat and buy bottled goods like liquor, wine, and spring water.

It's all part of my campaign to burn less than 50 gallons of gas this year. Last year I used 52 gallons.

I suppose things will be different when I live in a rural area. I'll still be reducing hydrocarbon emissions as much as I can, by planning ahead.

I love the slavish addiction to "work" and the condemnation as Parasites those who don't work. It's part of the American Dream which is used to divide and rule and give hope to those who will forever be slaves.

Don't see Warren Buffet or Bill Gates picking up many shovels do you, but hang on they "work" hard in a different way. If you believe that it's their work that's being rewarded you simply don't understand the system. It's their money that earns money, not their hard work.

I can pretty much tell that you don't work, either. But someone has filled your head with pap. The one percent who own most of the means of production pay the Middle Class. They don't pay you, though, because you don't work.

Tanada wrote:How do you classify people who can no longer work due to age or infirmity? Are they parasites, or a moral obligation, or something in between?

Given the fact that several young people will one day be old, a moral obligation.