--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "njnavarro2004" <njnavarro2004@...>
wrote:
>
Hello Paul and Olafur, thanks for your thoughtful comments.

<snip>

>
>
> A related concept, in my mind, is that of "survivalism".
>
> According to a typical definition found on the internet: "A
> survivalist is a person who anticipates a potential disruption in
the
> continuity of local, regional or worldwide society, and takes steps
> to survive in the resulting unpredictable situation. Some
> survivalists take an interest in survival in the wilderness or at
> sea.
>
> The specific preparations made will depend on the nature of the
> anticipated disruption. The natures of the disruptions most commonly
> planned for among survivalists include: natural disasters, such as
> tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, and severe
> thunderstorms; disasters brought about by the activities of
> humankind: chemical spills, release of radioactive materials, war;
> collapse of the socioeconomic structure resulting in the
> unavailability of electricity, fuel, food, water, and other goods
and
> services".
>
> [My major problem with the normal survivalist view is that for me,
> survival either in the wilderness or at sea without access to a
> technologically advanced civilization and a society of
> philosophically minded people would not provide me with an adequate
> quality of life (ie. after knowing what life could be like, it would
> be essentially unbearable to live under such primitive
> circumstances). --Paul]

Unless it were to happen, I probably couldn't say what level of
hardship or general disappointment with living conditions would cause
me to give up on life-extension (or worse, as the case may be).

Also, my "quality of life" assessment, goes beyond physical comfort,
and touches upon the abstract to a certain extent (similar to
something I think you may have implied above, that I snipped).

For example, if I was living in one of the more liberty and freedom
friendly states of the U.S., and I was able to satisfy my physical
needs and wants to satisfactory degree, that would be good as far as
it goes, but it would nevertheless bother me immensely (and perhaps
unbearably) to be living in a country whose national government is on
what I see as a murderous global rampage, *in my name*, a policy with
which I vehemently disagree.

[I think that you need to understand and accept the notion that as long as you
do not vote, make all possible efforts to not financially support them, publicly
repudiate any acts of the government under which you live, they are *not* acting
"in your name" (any more than anyone else who fraudulently states that they
represent you), and you should not be so concerned about that aspect. Of course,
you should be concerned about the actual harm that the government in your area
is causing to humans and human civilization, but no more concerned than about
any other government which is causing the same amount of harm. I learned this
many decades ago. I feel no personal responsibility or shame for anything the
Canadian government does. I have not voted nor otherwise supported the Canadian
government for over 25 years; and all my writings are a clear repudiation of the
policies and actions of all governments. Furthermore, unless you actually
terminate your US citizenship, then they still think that they "represent" you
(and are still trying to tax you) no matter that you live full time in some
other country.

Nevertheless, I understand that it is easier to be more bothered by the actions
of a government that is local to your place of residence than one that is far
away, if only because you know more intimately about the negative effects of
those actions. In this respect, living outside of the US will help, but then it
should also make you more cognizant and concerned about the actions of any
government local to your new place of residence. When we are in the US, both I
and Kitty find we are more concerned about US government actions and when we are
in Canada we are more concerned about Canadian government actions.

Finally, I for one have always hated this use of "American" for US citizen. As a
citizen and resident of a country in North America, I am just as much an
"American" and I dislike US'ers who attempt to include me in their nationalistic
grouping by using the collective term American. If I could find a way to travel
freely without having any citizenship in any country, that would be my
preference. I would be completely happy with being a fully and uniquely
identifiable independent individual human being, but I terribly resent being
required to be associated with any particular nation, country or government.
--Paul]

[My views on these matters are basically the same as Paul's. I do not look at
myself as an Icelander. I look at myself as a unique individual. I am only an
Icelander in the sense that I was born in Iceland, I have an Icelandic
citizenship (because I have to) and I currently live in Iceland. I am by no
means an Icelander in the sense that the Icelandic government represents me. I
have never voted for the Icelandic government and I do not support it so it
certainly does not represent me or my views. Therefore I do not feel responsible
for any actions of the Icelandic government. -°Olafur]

[I hadn't realized, until Paul pointed it our early in our relationship, the
serious error (not simply nitpicking at minor details) of citizens of the USA
reserving to themselves the term "Americans". Since then, when the subject
arises - most often at the border w/ Canada - I refer to my self as a "USer" or
citizen of the US (only because I was born in the US and there is currently no
place better). I'm very sensitive to the fact that there is a North and South
America, and all the people living on those 2 continents are Americans, with
those in the US, Mexico and Canada, being specifically North Americans. I don't
think most USers have stopped to think about how ludicrous it sounds to a
thinking person when they refer to themselves as "Americans" while seemingly
oblivious to what that title really means.

The last time I voted in an election was at least 8 years ago, 2 years before I
met Paul. Even then I voted sporadically (was a registered Independent, except
when my former husband ran in the Democratic primaries for county sheriff -
because this was a highly Democratic Party county) and didn't consider myself
supportive of the actions of various agencies of the different levels of
government with which I didn't agree. I wasn't nearly as outspoken as I have
been in the last 6 years, but to those who knew me well at that time or when the
discussion arose with others, I let my limited governmentalist views be known.
But at no time did I feel responsible for what agents of the government did,
even if I had voted for an individual who afterwards initiated legislation or
performed actions or gave orders that went counter to what s/he promised during
an election campaign. The fact that this did occur supported my view that
government didn't properly belong in most spheres of human interaction; Paul
convinced me before the end of 2000 that governments are in actuality a blight
on human life. While governments might at one time have been helpful of human
progress (as the lesser of evils and to enable greater freedom for human thought
and development), individuals are now capable of interacting without the threat
of force, the handmaiden of government. **Kitty]

<snip>

>
>
>
>
> This kind of thinking has me wondering, where's the best place to
> live?
>
> If I believe I will be alive 50 years from now, as I see it, I must
> make an effort to anticipate and evaluate external threats to my
life
> and/or quality of life.
>
> [Since I think that I too have an excellent chance of being alive
> 50 years from now (possibly much, much longer), I try to do just that
> also. --Paul]
>
>
> This may sound ridiculous, but I see a potential usefulness for
> a "survival retreat" somewhere besides North America or Europe (at
> least most places in Europe), i.e., a place to either move to right
> now, or perhaps "escape" to, if the need should arise.
>
> [I have looked at other places, but right now I do not see anywhere
> that is superior to the more open and less inhabited locations in
> North America. North America is a very big and sparsely populated
> continent. I do not see that all of it would be damaged by any global
> catastrophe (including the US dollar collapse - see below) and such
> places as New Hampshire, Oregon and Montana (which currently have
> good tax arrangements) would be good places to both move to and
> arrange one's survival retreat. I and Kitty have our cottage in
> Ontario as our survival retreat, although it is not ideal since the
> winters are far too cold and long here. We are in the process of
> completing the insulation of the cottage and will have an adequate
> wood burning stove for heating. Still I am fully aware of the fact
> that we could not survive here (nor anywhere else, IMO) for long with
> any reasonable quality of life without access to a civilization with
> division and specialization of labor infrastructure, which is why I
> am working to change the philosophical thinking of people to prevent
> such a total loss and to ameliorate what exists now. --Paul]

I spend a lot of time thinking along similar lines, and I've
concluded that "human nature" itself is the culprit. It seems to me
that unprincipled sociopaths, of which we apparently have far too
many, will *always* seek power over others, by way of the state
apparatus. They will always manage, eventually, to overcome any
institutional restraints on their exercise of power, and they will
ultimately drag the majority of the herd to destruction with them.
That's the bleak view I have.

[If I had that view then I would not want to continue living since I would know
that the quality of life that I seek would forever be impossible. Instead, I
have come to be convinced that large numbers of humans only have such a "nature"
as you describe because they have never come to understand that it is actually
in their rational self-interest to enter into long-term cooperative social
arrangements with others and to automatically exchange with others the full
value that they place on a good or service rather than always seeking to
exchange as little as possible. If you will read some of my writings in the
Self-Sovereign Individual Project and their discussion on this group, perhaps
you will come to understand and accept the truth and the ultimate practicality
of this approach.

Such sociopaths as you describe will be powerless if there are no institutions
and if none of the others will associate will them. IOW, we, the others, must
ostracize the evil humans either into changing or out of existence. --Paul]

[Paul's foundational essay is "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Human
Interaction"; http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html The most
current work on the Natural Social Contract that is referred to in the essay is
not yet linked to SelfSIP.org but those who read this group can access it (and
the associated annotation files) at http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html
**Kitty]

>
>

<snip>

>
> For example, if the U.S. dollar suffers a catastrophic collapse in
> the near future,
>
> [This would certainly affect the overall standard of living in the
> US, particularly related to all imported goods, but it would not
> nearly so much affect the local supply of goods and service anywhere
> in the US, which is still largely self sufficient wrt food and other
> basic life needs. To hedge against this possibility and retain one's
> ability to purchase important imports, one should maintain a
> reasonable supply of gold or solid foreign currencies (eg Swiss
> francs). --Paul]

Good point. One big problem, as I see it, will be the high price of
petroleum products. That seems to be a major weakness that will
severely effect the U.S. If Americans have to start paying double or
more, what they currently pay, it seems that a serious domino effect
may occur, potentially making the whole society come unglued. Not
only gas and heating oil will be affected, but common everyday things
derived from petroleum like plastics and fertilizers.

[Petroleum prices are already at least double what they were just a few years
ago and little has changed except that there are more and more wind turbines
appearing around the country and there are major technological advances in solar
cell efficiency on the near horizon. Energy sources are everywhere. While
government polices certainly will slow adoption of new energy sources they will
come along when required because of necessity alone. --Paul]

[Regarding petroleum prices, during my visit to Paul and Kitty I was reminded
how much cheaper they are in the US than in Iceland. In Iceland a gallon of
petroleum costs over 6$, and it does not seem to have much effect on the
economy. -°Olafur]

[Olafur, do you know how much of the price of petrol/gas in Iceland is taxes??
We saw the price of high octane vary by ~$0.30/g across the US at the Flying J's
(the truck stop we use) depending on the amount of state tax imposed. Same is
seen in Canada. And some governments are reaping in a windfall with the higher
cost from the oil refineries. Yes, the high price does have an effect on the
purchases made by individuals and companies, but it's been relatively slow and
creeping and most people have just gotten used to it, even if they do complain
mightily with sudden peaks. **Kitty]

[I didn't find any reliable references for this but
according to an article I found on gas prices in Iceland the total tax mark-up
after the gas arrives to Iceland accounts to a whopping 60% of the gas prices.
If this number is accurate I must say that I am very surprised by how high it
is. -°Olafur]

[Most of the taxes on gasoline in the US are a flat rate of so many cents per
gallon (cpg) for the state on top of a federal 18.4 cpg with a few states adding
a sales tax (%) to that. Those in Connecticut pay the most taxes per gallon -
"As of July 2006 it totaled 63.4 cents per gallon. This includes 18.4 cents per
gallon in federal taxes, 25 cents per gallon for the state excise tax, and a
6.3% gross receipts earnings tax...Changes to the New York State tax law
resulted in a 5.6 cent per gallon decrease in this state’s taxes, from a
nationwide high of 67.9 in April 2006, to the third highest amount, 62.3, after
Connecticut (63.4) and California (63.1). In contrast, Alaska has the lowest
taxes at 26.4 cents per gallon." from
http://api-ec.api.org/industry/index.cfm?bitmask=001004003000000000 click on
state fuel taxes. I recommend also looking at the link on Gas Prices in
Perspectives; for a review of inflation and/or oil/gas prices I suggest a look
through the many related articles at Mises.org http://www.mises.org/search.aspx

In Canada the provincial and federal governments collect taxes on a percentage
basis which means that their coffers have been growing considerably with the
fuel price increases. Those in Ontario pay a total of 31.1% tax on each liter of
gas, while the rate is even higher in some of the other provinces. (A liter is
~1/4 of a gal.) The Canadian Department of Finance has its own web page
detailing this all out, comparing the Canadian fuel taxes to the other "G-8
nations" and attempting to justify the continuation of these rates.
http://www.fin.gc.ca/toce/2005/gas_tax-e.html (last updated Oct 2005) Even the
Canadian Automobile Association (CAA, the equivalent of the US AAA) repeat much
of the government line (in the link above) about the benefits of these taxes:
"Studies have shown that federal and provincial governments receive about $10
billion per year in gasoline taxes. Federal taxes go into general coffers and
help to fund a range of programs. Provincial gasoline taxes are allocated as
determined by each provincial jurisdiction." No mention of course that this is
money taken (stolen) from the purchaser for the gasoline - averaging 43% of the
price in Canada - and it appears that most Canadians just accept this.
http://www.caa.ca/mini%20sites/gasprice/pricing.html **Kitty]


So I see catastrophic collapse of the dollar as something extremely
negative for the U.S. and perhaps outweighing any other advantages
the U.S. now seems to have.

[I did not say that it would not be extremely negative. I merely do not think it
will be catastrophic in the sense of terminating ordered and civilized society
within the US. And yes it might possibly make the US then less attractive than
other places. However, that is merely an open question that one should wait to
appraise rather than preemptively act against. --Paul]

>
>
> or U.S. rulers attack Iran and trigger WW3, where
> would be the best place to live?
>
> Nelson J. Navarro
>
> [I really do not see how a US attack on Iran would trigger a World
> War. IMO, this is more likely wrt either Taiwan or North Korea. But
> once again if it did occur and tossed the world into a kind of dark
> ages, then there would be no quality of life worth surviving for. --Paul]

Being somewhat of a student of history, particularly as it relates to
U.S. foreign policy, I see the U.S. ultimately headed for conflict
with Russia and China; for example both Russia and China have vast
business and strategic interests in Iran.

[But I don't think that Russia has the power to be any kind of threat anymore.
As for China, they also can't do much at any distance from their country. But if
the US actually used atomic weapons against Iran, I think the entire world
(except Israel) would gang up to censure them in every possible way. --Paul]


Moreover, there's always a wild-card; e.g., the attack on Iran may
result in the fall of collaborator governments such as that of
Pakistan, whereby militants get their hands on nukes, etc.

[Certainly it is always possible in many countries that rogue generals or other
militants will get their hands on a few nukes. This has been possible
continuously since the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, once again I do
not think that any such rogue activity would start a global war. --Paul]


In any case, it seems to me that the U.S. establishment elite are
bent on global rule, thus I don't see how major conflicts will be
avoided.

[The rest of the world combined is big enough to stop them and so far has been
effective in preventing them from going so far as to potentially have
catastrophic effects on the world's civilization. --Paul]

>
> BTW, the same kinds of considerations take place wrt cryonics. Yes,
> it may well be that once cryopreserved, I will never be restored to
> life. However if I am, then the world that I come back to is likely
> the sort of world in which I can be happy and if I am not, then the
> world that does not or cannot restore me is not likely one in which I
> would want to live in any case. --Paul]
>

Interesting point.

Regards,
Nelson

Nelson J. Navarro