Thoughts on the Uprisings in North Africa and Middle East?
- Thread starter 2-0-Sixx
- Start date
I've posted a few months ago, and a few months before that. And I check what's new once a week I guess. Just there hasn't been much to talk about.
The root cause of the uprising was precisely the unsustainability of the countries in the Middle East. Remember that the first countries to catch fire were Tunisia and Egypt (Yemen too, but not much attention seems to be paid to it, it is a Malthusian basket case even without the additional chaos a regime change would cause, the regime there doesn't have much power anyway), places that are no very affluent and don't have a lot of oil. Egypt used to be an oil exporter but it became an oil importer in the last few years (there is something called the Export Land Model that everyone should familiarize themselves with, Egypt was a very nice illustration of it: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7477). They still export some natural gas, but the oil revenues have dried up completely. In the same time, they import 75% of their food because population has quadrupled in 50 years (they used to be food self-sufficient half a century ago). So when food prices rose up globally in the last few months (due to failed harvests in key grain-producing regions all over the world), that naturally causes a lot of pain for a population full of unemployed young people who spend most of their income on food. Combine that with dissatisfaction with the regime that has been building up for many years, and the situation becomes explosive.
Now, Libya and Bahrain are much wealthier countries, and they probably caught fire because of already existing tensions (Shia majority and a Sunni royal family in Bahrain, Cyrenaica vs Tripolitania in Libya) which simply got bolder and more inspired by the success of the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt.
Problem is that the same description fits the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia too and that's really bad.
The root cause of the uprising was precisely the unsustainability of the countries in the Middle East. Remember that the first countries to catch fire were Tunisia and Egypt (Yemen too, but not much attention seems to be paid to it, it is a Malthusian basket case even without the additional chaos a regime change would cause, the regime there doesn't have much power anyway), places that are no very affluent and don't have a lot of oil. Egypt used to be an oil exporter but it became an oil importer in the last few years (there is something called the Export Land Model that everyone should familiarize themselves with, Egypt was a very nice illustration of it: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7477). They still export some natural gas, but the oil revenues have dried up completely. In the same time, they import 75% of their food because population has quadrupled in 50 years (they used to be food self-sufficient half a century ago). So when food prices rose up globally in the last few months (due to failed harvests in key grain-producing regions all over the world), that naturally causes a lot of pain for a population full of unemployed young people who spend most of their income on food. Combine that with dissatisfaction with the regime that has been building up for many years, and the situation becomes explosive.
Now, Libya and Bahrain are much wealthier countries, and they probably caught fire because of already existing tensions (Shia majority and a Sunni royal family in Bahrain, Cyrenaica vs Tripolitania in Libya) which simply got bolder and more inspired by the success of the revolution in Tunisia and Egypt.
Problem is that the same description fits the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia too and that's really bad.
That's also the reason why the world as a whole is doomed at this point - even if there was leadership fully aware of the situation, and there is little evidence that this is the case, it would be completely powerless to change things because any adequate measures would be so unpopular with the population due to the enormous momentum of ignorance and illiteracy, that the people will very quickly uprise, there will be no force sufficiently powerful to control the situation and that leadership will be gone very soon, replaced with someone who doesn't understand the situation in the best case scenario and with complete chaos in the worst case.
There is no working solution to sustainability crisis that does not involve the complete eradication of religion, even religion of the softest kind, because religion is the root cause of the sustainability crisis. The last part of that statement actually isn't absolutely true, religion is in fact the manifestation of even deeper cognitive deficiencies of the human species, but that does not change the fact religion has to go.
The reason religion is the root cause is illustrated by this passage from a certain book:
This is the Christian example, I don't know whether the Qur'an has something like this in it, but that's not necessary, it is the attitude that's promoted that's important. Religion puts humans above the rest of nature and gives them a privileged places in the cosmological order. Which is totally false and out of touch with reality but it allows us to do things without any consideration for their impact on the long-term stability of the very life-support systems of the environment that we depend on. We do that because we think that the laws of nature don't apply to us. Note that the same kind of attitude dominates the thinking even of people are not at all religious - you often hear that "if there is a problem, there is really no problem, because we will invent our way around it". How can we be certain that the laws of nature allow for such an invention to begin with? Well, we can't be (and often it isn't), but according to that kind of mentality nothing bad can happen to us because we are "special"...
The reason religion is the root cause is illustrated by this passage from a certain book:
This is the Christian example, I don't know whether the Qur'an has something like this in it, but that's not necessary, it is the attitude that's promoted that's important. Religion puts humans above the rest of nature and gives them a privileged places in the cosmological order. Which is totally false and out of touch with reality but it allows us to do things without any consideration for their impact on the long-term stability of the very life-support systems of the environment that we depend on. We do that because we think that the laws of nature don't apply to us. Note that the same kind of attitude dominates the thinking even of people are not at all religious - you often hear that "if there is a problem, there is really no problem, because we will invent our way around it". How can we be certain that the laws of nature allow for such an invention to begin with? Well, we can't be (and often it isn't), but according to that kind of mentality nothing bad can happen to us because we are "special"...
ThaG, we've gone over this before and you really had no answer when we did, but religion is not the cause of this. But to say that religion is the root cause of the problem only shows your bias and lack of understanding about religion and the true problem.
But to give you credit, some of what you say (especially about the oil) is on point.
But to give you credit, some of what you say (especially about the oil) is on point.
You can refute what I said by showing either of these:
1. That religion does not give humans a special place in the cosmological order. Giving me an example of some tribal cult does not count, it has to be a religion that matters.
2. That thinking of humans as "special" in the way that religious people do it does not lead to ecologically suicidal behavior
1. That religion does not give humans a special place in the cosmological order. Giving me an example of some tribal cult does not count, it has to be a religion that matters.
2. That thinking of humans as "special" in the way that religious people do it does not lead to ecologically suicidal behavior
All of eastern Libya is under control of the people and Gaddafi is losing more and more cities. Good article here: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/2011223125256699145.html
8.55pm: A speak2tweet message posted on the site Alive in Libya claimed that young people have taken control of the city of Kufra. The English translation of the message is:
8.55pm: A speak2tweet message posted on the site Alive in Libya claimed that young people have taken control of the city of Kufra. The English translation of the message is:
Greetings this is an urgent message from Kufra. Young people have taken complete control of the city, they hoisted the flag of Libya and Gaddafi down the flag. Dozens of Chadian families head to the southern border.
I know full well you aren't dictating anything but you didn't get the memo. I remember me refuting it because you posted the exact same verse and we did the usual dance.
http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=323233&highlight=fruitful&page=7
POST 95 AND 97.
Now when you talk about "logic", you forget the fact that you're making a statement/claim about "religion" (which is a very generalized term/word) but then go on and try to dictate things by saying, "Giving me an example of some tribal cult does not count, it has to be a religion that matters."
So let me explain something to you, I don't have to give you shit except for the time of day (if I feel like it) or a foot up your ass and a smile (if I feel like it.) If you're blaming "religion" and citing it as the root of the problem, you have to look at ALL religions, from the "tribal cults" to the religions that matter (in your eye.)
In other words, try being S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C, in your attacks.
http://siccness.net/vb/showthread.php?t=323233&highlight=fruitful&page=7
POST 95 AND 97.
Now when you talk about "logic", you forget the fact that you're making a statement/claim about "religion" (which is a very generalized term/word) but then go on and try to dictate things by saying, "Giving me an example of some tribal cult does not count, it has to be a religion that matters."
So let me explain something to you, I don't have to give you shit except for the time of day (if I feel like it) or a foot up your ass and a smile (if I feel like it.) If you're blaming "religion" and citing it as the root of the problem, you have to look at ALL religions, from the "tribal cults" to the religions that matter (in your eye.)
In other words, try being S-P-E-C-I-F-I-C, in your attacks.
Well, that depends on which oil companies you're talking about and what they have as assets. Those that have a lot of money on paper, or made deals to purchase our debt in exchange for us buying their crude are fucked. But $5 isn't far if things continue to go downhill, and $7-$9 gas isn't a stretch either.
Yes it has happened plenty of times in history and no matter what there was always some force behind the uprising. Now I'm not saying the force was some shadow government, or that the force was bad or had harmful intentions, but to attribute this to a simple people's movement in this day in age is dubious.
I'm not suggesting without a clue or evidence. Is it circumstantial? Yes. Does it rely on looking at history and the peoples predisposition to behave a certain way? Yes. But when large amounts of people are galvanized and governments are toppled in record breakign time with minimal bloodshed, you simply can't say "it was a peoples movement they did it on their own."