Homicidal, suicidal

The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave

JasonNobody wrote:The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave

Hi Jason,

Well, it is okay for the Lion or the Elephant to prance proudly and declare that their Size and Strength, Cunning and Prowess, will keep them safe. but we are not all at the top of the Food Chain. So, what does one do if one is middle on the Food Chain? Well, that is where the Herd Instinct pops in. Societies can band together in order to arrive at Strength in Numbers. One needs only to look at the Loss vs Benefit Analysis. What a Socialist Society provides is not just FREE STUFF but also protection from Capitalist Oppression: low wages, periodic unemployment, long hours, dangerous working conditions, and all the humiliations and the violations of our human dignity. But what you seem to advocate is I guess a kind of political anarchy, which I must not understand well enough because I can't figure out why it has such appeal for so many people (though it has a Romantic Bad Boy quality and I suppose the guys get a lot more sex). but anarchy is the Law of the Jungle, isn't it? It's the Renunciation of Civilization. Have you read Thomas Hobbes? the Uncivilized Condition: " No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." .... But most people remember the SOLITARY POOR NASTY BRUTISH AND SHORT part. Barbara Tuchman wrote a great history book about the 100 Years War back in the 14th Century, "A Distant Mirror", in which we saw the breakdown of Government and what happens when everybody is at the mercy of the Forces of Private Arms and Private Wealth. so, yes, we NEED the Herd Instinct. Think of Human Beings as Bison, and everyone who stays with the Herd is safe, and the only ones who are in danger are those who straggle. I would NOT want to be a straggler. Voting for the Herd is our only Hope. But, yes, it IS inexplicable how many People vote against their best interests. they are virtual Cattle and they Vote for the Meat Packers and Butchers.

But, yes, it's great to share ideas with you.

Hi Jason,

Hi Leo.

Well, it is okay for the Lion or the Elephant to prance proudly and declare that their Size and Strength, Cunning and Prowess, will keep them safe. but we are not all at the top of the Food Chain.

That's life. Might is right on this planet. Dog eat dog world. That is the current reality on this planet. Nothing moves unless you have power and in most cases - money.

So, what does one do if one is middle on the Food Chain? Well, that is where the Herd Instinct pops in. Societies can band together in order to arrive at Strength in Numbers.

Numbers = Power.

But what you seem to advocate is I guess a kind of political anarchy,

Nothing political. I want other people to join me and opt-out of the current political landscape. It is anarchy in the same way (in my "sanctuary" world view lets call it that for now) that you are seen as a Kingship, a sovereign being, independent and free, and with your own moral compass and logic.

but anarchy is the Law of the Jungle, isn't it?

Correct. and this is what I have been getting at for a long time. If, and only if, the human being is "good" through which they come to their own conclusion of what good is and that goodness that they define extends to other people even if those other people define differently what goodness is. It gets complicated but I can prove it. My underlying claim is that people are not good and can never be good and that human race can't be saved because they desperately seek authority or assume that someone has to be in charge. They cry out for a leader to lead them. This is not how I see it. I lead first with "trust other people" knowing that they are selfish and capable of making mistakes. If people can not do this they will remain passive to life and IMO might as well go commit suicide.

It's the Renunciation of Civilization. Have you read Thomas Hobbes? the Uncivilized Condition: " No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death: and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." ....

No I haven't read any of that but I will put it on the list.

But, yes, it's great to share ideas with you.

you to. Take care.

JasonNobody wrote:

My underlying claim is that people are not good and can never be good and that human race can't be saved because they desperately seek authority or assume that someone has to be in charge. .

Hi Jason,

Oh! You think everyone is looking for a leader or somebody in Authority. Well, that may be what it looks like to you, but, you must realize that you are if not anti-social, well, you are not a Social Being. You are a 'loner', right? So when you look at Societies, what you SEE is their Authority Figure, or their Hierarchy System, and you think that that is the Focus and Purpose. But the Head of the Snake is just the Head of the Snake. but the Snake is the Whole Nine Yards. The People who are Social Beings, who form up these Societies can see their leaders simply as Functionaries. Think of it like the Local PTA (Parents Teachers Association). The PTA always needs to have a President. Most people don't want the job. There is a lot of tedious stuff to do. Everyone is glad when Mrs. Dobora agrees to do it. Now, somebody outside looking in would think that she was the Leader that everybody was looking for. Mrs. Dobora is just a Functionary. Look at America right now at that young Phenom Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Outside looking in, she is the effective Leader of the Progressive Party and all the Progressives want to follow her. But, on the inside, within the Society of Progressives, she is seen to measure up as the best Functionary for filling the highest possible Political Slots, and that is because she expresses the Personal Value of the greatest number of people within her Society. So, Jason, you see Society as Leader-Centric. It's NOT. We have a "what came first? the Chicken or the Egg" thing happening here. Leaders are for the sake of their Societies, NOT Societies are for the sake of their Leaders.

Oh, and you see no good in Humanity. Well, yes, Humanity is not entirely Good. Probably about the year 1000 BC Zarathustra in Persia began the Moral Revolution. Before him, while there was a concept of Law, sort of like Rules to Play the Game by, there was no solid concept that there could be some Inner Compass and Personal Orientation that would be Benevolent for Family and Society, as opposed to a Personal Tendency towards the Predatory and Destructive. Well, Zarathustra (Zoroaster) conceptualized this and then made it his Mission to raise awareness of this Good Evil dichotomy and then to advance a program for Supporting Good and Suppressing Evil. The Moral Revolution took off quickly and had about 10 good Centuries, enough so that today we know what Good and Evil is, but Zoroastrianism was centered in the World of the Persian Empire, and with the Fall of Persia, first to the Greeks, and then the Remnant of the Persian Empire again being trounced by the Arab Conquest, well, the Moral Revolution was hobbled. Medieval Europe, that was almost entirely built up the Societal Structures set in place by the Catholic Monasteries (that held themselves aloof from the Bishops who were then-now-and-always will be corrupt), well, they were a Moral Society, that is they had a sense for Social Morality. but being continually overrun by wave after wave of New Barbarians (those believing in the Pre-Moral Ideals of Heroic Virtues -- Manliness, Bravery, Cunning, Strength, and anything that would make for a great Warrior and Bandit, but they were innately predatory and they would conquer and live like parasites on the Societies they latched on to) and Catholic Europe, while successfully able to Assimilate these Barbarians, still, it takes 2 or 3 generations each time, and Europe could barely keep up. The Reformation and then the Industrial Revolution with its Capitalism was basically a full retreat away from the Moral Revolution and we went back to Barbarism. The Socialist Movements are an attempt to swing back to the Social-Moral Revolution, though they are way too Materialistic and go over-board in trying to be entirely Rational about everything. They need to realize that Morality is primarily an Aesthetic. Goodness and Beauty are much the same thing, and as difficult to rationally define. People don't want to be Rationally Happy. They want to be Beautifully Happy.

So, Jason, while you see the Badness of People in seeking out Leaders (what I think is a visual misinterpretation), I see the Badness in People as being prone to Predatory Competition and Cannibalism. They say that Human Beings are Social Animals, but apparently not social enough.

But, yes, with you, Jason, I don't think this is a Philosophical Debate. I think that you simply don't have the usual Social Instincts. You're not comfortable with people. You look at Groups of People and really have no idea what's going on with them. Well, that is enough for the moment.... I got Real Work to do. Talk to you later Jason.

First red flag is that you focus so much on the environment and only see the elements that anger you. This approach is doomed to fail. Trust me, from experience I speak.

Secondly, what is with all this self-loathing. This is never the healthy approach. You should try to look for more good in the world, and work on the self-loathing.

I realize that your anger may also have other causes, but your approaches fuel the fire.

JasonNobody wrote:The truth is, one cannot believe in “authority” and be free, because accepting the myth of “government” is accepting one’s own obligation to obey a master, which means accepting one’s own enslavement. Sadly, many people believe that begging the master, via “political action,” is all they can do, So they forever engage in rituals which only legitimize the slave-master relationship, instead of simply disobeying the tyrants. The idea of disobeying “authority,” “breaking the law,” and being “criminals” is more disturbing to them than the idea of being a slave

Hi Jason, Wow! You need to read some History. the Primary Support for any Civilization is Government. What happens before each devastating Collapse (resulting in significant Population Loss-, is there is a severe decline in Government Power, which usually come about because Private Wealth is able to Out Power Government, and since Private Wealth doesn't care, well, Public Infrastructure collapses and everything Unravels.

Now, Jason, think about where you got your Government Enslaves Us Notions. Probably from people with Private Wealth who use Propaganda to make it easier for them to Cut Taxes on themselves, and Regulation. Jason, you are apparently on the Side of those who are Propelling the Next Collapse.

Really, think about it. Have you ever read about the Social Contract Theory of Government? We Ordinary People ban together and create a Government and we support it so that it will have a Preponderance of Force over Any Private Individuals, Bandit Groups, Militias , etc, that would wish to Enslave Us, for real. Louis the IVX of France, known to have been a Despotic King, defended his tyranny by claiming that he was just One Tyrant, but defending France for 10000 Petty Tyrants. Look around Jason, and who is Enslaving You. Governmenjt is not enslaving you. Amazon is. Walmart is. It is the Capitalists who control our lives. Hire and fire us at their own personal discretion. Private Individuals decide whether we live or die. We band together and create Government in order that we might have some Offsetting Leverage against the Tyrannical Power of Private Wealth.

Also, what would it be like without Government. You would need to join a Gang, right. You could not exist as an Individual.
Imagine it, that anybody who had 20% more upper body strength then you could just call you over and tell you drop to your knees and pleasure him, or wash his pickup truck, or do whatever. How could you stop him?

so, Jason, if you want to be Truly Free, you will need more government, not less.... Unless you are one of the Multi-billionaires who are running the show.

Leo Volont wrote: the Primary Support for any Civilization is Government.

Most Dangerous Superstition, 200-page PDF.

Please peruse and get back to us.

Edit:
Also, today you can notice that people are speaking up about the atrocious abuses of animals and their slaughter, which is of course at this time protected by governments. We have absolutely no need to ingest dead animal carcasses and animal by-products. We are much, much healthier within our bodies and psyches for staying clean of these practices.

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

deadangry wrote: Ruined by the ruthlessly selfish few - our planet's dying, our standard of living is even now going down, in this me-me-me society that I've rejected and feel completely alienated from.

I always love this. A person that wants to believe that they have rejected the “me-me-me” of society, yet their post is all about them and what they want for themselves.

And it is interesting to me as we exist in a global community that has the absolute highest standard of living for the greatest amount of people ever in history. There are fewer people in poverty globally than ever before. There are fewer people being killed by war, disease, or violence than ever in the history of mankind.

But I understand. It is relative. Another member posted recently how the #1 cause of death for males under the age of 45 in the UK is suicide as if it is a negative thing.

Negative? Heck no, it is a positive thing. Think about what it actually signifies. What does it actually mean when we ask ourselves, what was the #1 cause of death of men under the age of 45 previously? Oh, that’s right, it was war, violence, or industrial working conditions. But for such wonderful progress in reducing violence and improving working conditions, suicide would not be the #1 cause. Instead of young, healthy, vibrant men dying in factories or on the battlefield, we have improved so much that young men no longer need worry about these forms of death.

Now our focus and resources can now turn to preventing suicide, because these other forms of death have been reduced as our global community thrives. We live in good times.

Obviously if you buy into the fear producing media, the world is ending and we all live in crappy conditions. If you buy into the media, everyone should be entitled to free everything. From that standard the world is certainly a horrible, dark, miserable place to live. Instead of celebrating how far we have come, the media must thrive on what we have not yet achieved.

And unfortunately this constant 24/7 drumbeat of negativity is absorbed as truth by some and it actually contributes to depression and by extension suicide. Because some people lament what they think they should have or the way the world should be based on some BS narrative put out there to get clicks and generate views for advertisers, the blood and gore media is part of the problem.

If my psychiatrist doesn't achieve anything significant tomorrow, I don't know. I've been hanging on in the adult NHS mental health system for 20 years but you know what, life actually isn't worth living. I'm glad I didn't have kids - they'd only suffer!! I'm leaving a partner behind, and what makes me most angry is that I know this country would fail to look after her.

The fact a country even provides NHS is a modern marvel. Having drastically reduced poverty, disease and war, your country will look after her like no other time ever in global history. But, I understand that is not good enough.

This post is not to convince the OP of anything, but is for others that might read this and take time to reflect.

What is taking place with the OP is unfortunate. While things like poverty, disease, war, and famine are globally at the lowest point ever in the existence of mankind, there are people depressed because some utopian standard has not yet been achieved. The media thrives on painting a dark picture, the end of the world scenario, regardless of how good things actually are. Politicians need votes and they too contribute. They can’t point to the Black Plague or the threat of global war, so they need to create fear, they need to build up “problems” so they can then solve the problem.

If you feel that our global community is headed down some tragic path, I encourage you to check your premise. Turn off the television, disconnect from social media, and do some reading from sources that are not trying to get your vote or earn money from fear.

I see you've included a lot of examples here but, I don't think the OP was trying to engage in that kind of discussion. There is a difference between a utopian and someone who the current system has washed out to the side lines. I understand your point of view but it also comes across as if you believe this system is designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is this system was concocted by an inter-generational line of "thinkers" along with the expectation of a society that could reliably produce a citizenry of "thinkers". That part of the plan didn't work out seeing as how not everyone starts with the same cognitive configuration and we also have failed to achieve a primary school experience that delivers those skills reliably. You have succeeded and good for you. But not everyone has your memories, your life experiences, the things that gave you certain inclinations and made you who you are. Don't you look back at times and reflect on all those little things that happened in your life that defined your trajectory? The little things matter. Some people have a different set of little things and their set gave them a different trajectory. Why even question when someone like the OP expresses such pain or frustrations? Your comments can't really be applied wholesale like this. Do you see?

On a separate note, if you are a person who has rejected mainstream culture but you don't have access to an in-person group of like minded people, life can get pretty lonely. I have no interest in attacking mainstream culture but it is true that stepping outside of it can lead quickly to feelings of alienation without a support structure.

alwaysask wrote:I understand your point of view but it also comes across as if you believe this system is designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is this system was concocted by

I never said any system was designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is, whatever “system” has been concocted over the past 70,0000 years, there has never been and there never will in the eyes of every person a “fair” system for every person. That is reality.

The reality, is that some people were treated horribly unfair in comparison to me or you or the poster you referenced. Some people lived when disease and famine were the most common way to die, when child mortality rates were at 50%, when millions were being killed by genocide or war. To this day, there are people that don’t have a “fair shot” when you compare what you or I or the poster you reference have. We all have Internet, electricity, and some sort of electronic device. What an “unfair” privilege we have. I bet we all have clean drinking water, a roof over our heads, bed, clothing, and food. How “unfair”. We all have these great advantages, including the person you quoted.

The fact that unfairness exists is nothing new.

Now, what are you going to do about it? Be a keyboard warrior? Many take that approach. How about the person you referenced? Even though they have tons of advantages you wouldn’t know it by what they wrote. You would think they are writing from the middle of war torn Syria.

...Your comments can't really be applied wholesale like this. Do you see?

I see that the person you quoted said “our planet” and “our standard of living”...the person you referenced was making wholesale comments about the global community, about global society.

Therefore, my reply was framed in pointing out the absolutely amazing “unfair” advantages we all have compared to any other time in history.

Look, I get it. No matter how wonderful the world is doing overall, there are people that will always believe that they are suffering and that the world is not fair, because they don’t have what their neighbors have. No matter how much progress is made, there will always exist jealousy, coveting what someone else has and you don’t have, cursing how “unfair” life is and blaming some system. And the reality is, systems are not fair, life isn’t fair. I feel genuinely sorry and immense empathy for a small child diagnosed with terminal cancer. How unfair. But, the person you quoted? Not so much.

Do you see?

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:

alwaysask wrote:I understand your point of view but it also comes across as if you believe this system is designed to give every person a fair shot. The reality is this system was concocted by

I never said any system was designed to give every person a fair shot.

You are correct, but you speak as if that is the case. Particularly when you were citing your own prosperity.

The reality is, whatever “system” has been concocted over the past 70,0000 years, there has never been and there never will in the eyes of every person a “fair” system for every person. That is reality.

This is true to a point. We have yet to discover such a system. Is a fair system impossible? I would say at present yes. I would not rule it out as a future possibility but that will depend on the pursuits of tech (IMO)

The reality, is that some people were treated horribly unfair in comparison to me or you or the poster you referenced. Some people lived when disease and famine were the most common way to die, when child mortality rates were at 50%, when millions were being killed by genocide or war. To this day, there are people that don’t have a “fair shot” when you compare what you or I or the poster you reference have. We all have Internet, electricity, and some sort of electronic device. What an “unfair” privilege we have. I bet we all have clean drinking water, a roof over our heads, bed, clothing, and food. How “unfair”. We all have these great advantages, including the person you quoted.

Yes yes most first-worlders are technically part of the global 1%, I'm aware.

The fact that unfairness exists is nothing new.

Also true

Now, what are you going to do about it? Be a keyboard warrior?

No.

Many take that approach.

yes they do.

How about the person you referenced? Even though they have tons of advantages you wouldn’t know it by what they wrote. You would think they are writing from the middle of war torn Syria.

I didn't but I understand what you mean about the tone. I think that person was more painting a picture of their internal misery and relating it to the way their outside world makes them feel.

I see that the person you quoted said “our planet” and “our standard of living”...the person you referenced was making wholesale comments about the global community, about global society.
Therefore, my reply was framed in pointing out the absolutely amazing “unfair” advantages we all have compared to any other time in history.

Yes but acknowledging our material advantages doesn't really speak to the problems of not having a social sphere that you can relate to. This state of progress argument also is something I'm used to hearing from political types. Folks who bring it up often seem to brush aside the fact that yes we all have smart devices, but for some people that phone bill is a far more significant chunk of their income than it is for others.

Look, I get it. No matter how wonderful the world is doing overall, there are people that will always believe that they are suffering

as well as people who are actually suffering. Not everyone is a drama monger

and that the world is not fair, because they don’t have what their neighbors have.

This is the only reason people find the world unfair?

No matter how much progress is made, there will always exist jealousy, coveting what someone else has and you don’t have, cursing how “unfair” life is and blaming some system.

Unfairness is always blamed on a system?

And the reality is, systems are not fair, life isn’t fair. I feel genuinely sorry and immense empathy for a small child diagnosed with terminal cancer. How unfair. But, the person you quoted? Not so much.

That's an odd way to look at it. Last time I checked there is no consistent correlation between a specific condition/event and how much suffering it can be relied upon to cause in a given person. A person can feel the same type of misery from a breakup that someone else feels from losing their entire family. The difference is in how much observers are able to empathize with the sufferer.

Do you see?

Yes but it's not really an eye opener

alwaysask wrote:A person can feel the same type of misery from a breakup that someone else feels from losing their entire family.

Yes, a child compared to an adult might feel much misery when they are denied a toy. Feelings are subjective. I get that.

The difference is in how much observers are able to empathize with the sufferer.

The difference IMO is not about empathy. It is about how we choose to respond. You can empathize with the child, you can feel the child’s pain, yet still not respond in a manner that legitimizes, enables, or reinforces their behaviors as appropriate.

I choose not to legitimize this one-percenters subjective global doom/gloom BS anymore than I would reinforce a child crying for a toy. Maybe you wish to legitimize those feelings. More power to you.

NOTE: Having been in this forum and others for years, this conversation is nothing new for me. Every now and then someone comes along that disagrees with how I provide advice. There are plenty of people that believe they know better or have a superior approach. Fair enough. More power to them. More power to you. Thanks for your opinion.

quietvoice wrote:

Leo Volont wrote: the Primary Support for any Civilization is Government.

Most Dangerous Superstition, 200-page PDF.

Please peruse and get back to us.

Edit:
Also, today you can notice that people are speaking up about the atrocious abuses of animals and their slaughter, which is of course at this time protected by governments. We have absolutely no need to ingest dead animal carcasses and animal by-products. We are much, much healthier within our bodies and psyches for staying clean of these practices.

Hi Quietvoice,

Loved the recommendation for that book "The Most Dangerous Superstition". It's sort of assumes as given every Anarchistic Assumption, doesn't it? It sort of ignores all the lessons of History, doesn't it. We've seen what happens when Governments Collapse. We call those things Dark Ages. The Biggest Meanest Brutes become Dictators over all within their grasp. Government is a Social Contract so that the Weak may pool forces in order to counterbalance the Strong.. Then there is the Argument that Government People are Wicked and that Non Government People are Virtuous. But here we are assuming that Government by the Self Appointed. No, Rule of the Self Appointed is Anarchy -- again, the Strong Domineering over the Weak. Government, as it will be in just a decade or so, will simply consist of Systems Information Planning using Super Computer Networked Artificial Intelligence Systems. If we can't trust Humans, then fine, we will let the Machines make the rules and keep everything fair.

Leo Volont wrote:Government is a Social Contract so that the Weak may pool forces in order to counterbalance the Strong. Then there is the Argument that Government People are Wicked and that Non Government People are Virtuous. But here we are assuming that Government by the Self Appointed. No, Rule of the Self Appointed is Anarchy -- again, the Strong Domineering over the Weak.

Well said, Leo. It may be flawed, but it's the best we can do for now.

Government, as it will be in just a decade or so, will simply consist of Systems Information Planning using Super Computer Networked Artificial Intelligence Systems. If we can't trust Humans, then fine, we will let the Machines make the rules and keep everything fair.

Interesting... and scary.

I inhabit a world where by far the majority are well-intentioned and well-behaved.

We see what we put out, I suppose.

Hi Candid,

Everyone says that, that Democracy is better than everything else. Well, Democracy is a kind of a Irrational Religious Fervor. Faith in the Common Man. And this "It's the Best We Can Do" is the faith growing luke warm. but look around! The World is Collapsing Economically, Politically and Environmentally. DEMOCRACY DID THAT! But look at History. Government by Civil Service has a good track record. Often the Kings put in place Civil Service Administrations. Often Kings were supported by their People because the people believed in their Fairness... when they had Civil Service Regimes. Ironically, the Muslim World did the best, because they usually had Government by SLAVES -- they would take children right off the Slave Market (kids with Bright Eyes and looked Smart) and they would educate them and then apprentice them into the Civil Service Government. Often the Chief Vizar of the Empire would be a Slave. This PREVENTED Self Interest. Slaves could not own property outright (though they could be allowed property in trust... sort of like allowing your Slave to take care of his own office expenses, BUT if he started dressing better than the Emperor then there would be a problem).

So, Candid, Government, as a Calling, with modest but adequate salaries, and continuous auditing, would be FAR better than Democracy. Democracy doesn't guarantee anything but Rule by ignorant amateurs. The reason Lobbiests write nearly all the LAWS is because our "Law Makers" don't know how. To drive you have to take a driving test. To be a Senator you just have to hire a good PR firm and take enough bribes to pay it. You know Psychology, right? Well, all those Scientific Pricks did for the last 100 years was to find out how to Engineer Public Opinion. Democracy is no longer the High Road. Democracy is the Reason why Politicians will NOT fund Public Education.... because the Majority Party gets more Votes from the Uneducated. Also, with Global Warming, we will all DIE because of the inevitable foot dragging of Democratic Compromise and Checks and Balances.

So, we need a Career Civil Service that will use Information Systems as their Tool.

One thing Life has taught me is to accept the status quo. If it's good enough, great. If it isn't, what can I do to fix it? On a personal level, maybe I can... and it's on me to do that, or stfu. If I can't fix it, haven't got a better idea, that's also a stfu situation.

Your proposal doesn't do it for me. I understand governments may not have the chance to do much before they get voted out again, but I prefer that to a government that's in for life.

I don't worry my pretty little head over all the stuff the doomsayers come out with. I can be quite vocal about overpopulation, but as a Darwinist I rather enjoy spectatorship. So we run out of arable land to feed ourselves, or we're having wars about water consumption, or we've chopped down too many trees in the name of high-density housing and are running out of air... so what? There may be enough survivors to start it all up again by the time we figure out which other planet humans can live on.

I leave no descendants, that's my contribution. I'm just watching it unfold.