Stoney

@Puntinicaz, I didn't know our system was the best possible, you know? A system based not on production and consumption but on the constant INCREASE of production and consumption makes no sense. So, for example, if the auto industry goes into crisis because there really is no longer a need for cars (every average family owns 2), what do you do? You give incentives to restart production, because there’s no way around it, you have to keep producing and selling even if it’s unnecessary, and the average family gets into debt up to their necks, with all the profit that comes from it for banks, financial companies, etc. A system where sellers earn 400 times what they spent on production is doomed to fail, because it creates a fictitious wealth—forget about the euro exchange rate, that's just the tip of the iceberg. I agree with you that suddenly changing the system would create incalculable chaos, but it’s also true that it doesn’t seem like significant efforts are being made to change things. For example, if someone sees that the energy crisis is responded to by reopening nuclear power plants...

@Puntinicaz. To you, it seems obvious to say that the global monetary system implies crises? Look, it’s quite different from saying that crises are caused by human negligence: it means that even if the economy were conducted honestly with the best intentions, crises would still occur, and this renders any discussion of a theoretical-economic nature, and unfortunately any hope of revitalizing the system, futile. As is human nature, once one realizes that a system isn’t working, one doesn’t toss it aside but "hopes" it will gradually start to function. Based on what principle? It’s unclear. However, if you dare to say, even with sensible demonstrations, that the only solution is to discard that now-rotten system, the usual moral accusations of being subversive, too radical, "communist" come flying in. Perhaps it really is laziness, as you say, or I don’t know. Personally, I prefer to talk about stupidity. Human beings are idiotic, plain and simple. Is that an overly simplistic explanation? Perhaps, but I can’t seem to find a better one.

Thank you all, guys, I'm glad to see that such masterpieces of literature are so widely appreciated; you have no idea how happy that makes me... @Dr.Adder: there's a story in "The Night We Burned Chrome" that truly moved me, it's called "Fragments of a Holographic Rose." I don't even know how to describe it, it's simply... poetry. As for Philip Dick, what can I say... unfortunately, I know little about him because I'm very inconsistent in my readings; I often jump from one genre to another as it happens. However, I've seen, besides the classic Blade Runner which, as is known, is based on one of his masterpieces, the film adaptation of "A Scanner Darkly" and I found it absolutely fantastic. I'm currently reading "The Simulacra," it's scary to know it was written in 1964. There's nothing more to add.

Puntinicazpuntini, two things. First: there's no need to invoke Zeitgeist (which I haven't even seen, I've read things here and there), some conclusions were reached by others before, for example Karl Marx. Second: just because a documentary states one truth and ten nonsense, it doesn't mean that the one truth automatically becomes nonsense as well. That's a very foolish way to argue a critique.

Ask yourself: why aren't they thinking of a way to produce low-cost energy by harnessing renewable resources? And there are plenty, you know. Wind, tides, waves, sunlight, geothermal energy. Yet the costs would be nothing compared to what the whole world would gain in terms of energy. So why is it so difficult? Because "free" energy doesn't benefit anyone. It's a billion-dollar industry, not just a joke. If everyone had energy available, they wouldn't spend money to buy it anymore. In a world where everyone is well-off and has the necessary resources to survive, a system like ours would be useless. The entire economy is based on the scarcity of primary goods, and it's not just a matter of malice on the part of the bosses; it's an intrinsic and functional limitation: that's how the system works, even if one wanted to operate it with the best intentions.

AlessioIride, the problem is intrinsic: if there were a perfect and enlightened man, he could govern wisely whether applying democracy or applying dictatorship, it matters little, as he is so enlightened... the problem is that he does not exist. Seriously, now, can you imagine a system capable of placing all human beings on the same level, guaranteeing equality for everyone, happiness, and progress? I can't, because even in a perfect system, it would only take one slightly braver and more enterprising individual to end up putting everyone else in the bucket. We must then realize that, ultimately, this is the human being: a partial evolutionary failure incapable of organizing for the survival of its species. Period. No need for too much fuss. Is it discouraging? Does it belittle us? Is it a bad analysis? Well, it's better than the one that makes us believe in some supposedly superior beings, even created by the love of a God. I envy the rats, the ants, the bees, the wasps, even the trees and plants, because spontaneously, naturally, without thinking, by simply being themselves, they manage to exist and fulfill their own lives.

Think about this: the economic system IMPLIES crises; they are not extraordinary "one-off" cases. Indeed, a scarce good is always the most in demand, and therefore more expensive. Thus, if I own a good that everyone needs (oil, gas, etc.), I wouldn't even think of selling it to everyone; it’s better to hold onto it tightly and release it drop by drop so that the price goes up. A similar logic will exist as long as money exists. This alone would be enough to close any discussion here. I constantly think about it while I work, while I count my paycheck, while I buy food, and I suffer from it in what I would dare say is an existential way. Then I realize it has always been this way: the rich eat well, and the poor struggle, despite wars, revolutions, ideologies, universal suffrage. Freedom, democracy, justice—these are just smoke in our eyes. What we thought was an emancipation from the ignorance of the past—namely, culture, ideas, "free" thought—has merely been the veil of Maya convincing us that we live in a modern era that has left behind the logics of the past. We are a jumble of ideas about how the world should go, a series of moralizing beliefs that crash against the impenetrable wall of the ultimate reality of things. So think twice when you talk about "democracy" in a "modern" state, when you talk about "justice" and how things should change.

Dervin, my personal library is filled with authors more than famous. I don't hold it against Baricco for being popular; I hold it against him because he writes nonsense, which is quite different. The fact that he is popular precisely because he writes nonsense and does it so well that he is considered a genius is a side note and leads one to reflect on how low the average IQ of people is, which bothers me quite a bit. Can I freely write that it bothers me, or should I avoid making a criticism, which is, by the way, entirely debatable, just because someone might feel offended?

"The models of regime to lull popular consciousness also start from the bottom and the trivial." A beautiful sentence.

Soraludovaika, you don't need to explain to us men that masturbation is perfectly normal and isn't necessarily a sordid practice: you need to convince the women. You know, they don't listen to us, maybe they'll believe you since you are one of them.