6 comments

• 

  Charles Wilkes

  1 year ago

  A nice Google trick I hadn't tried. There's no end to the depth of Google.
  Also I really envy your transition to a minimalist. I am terribly burdend with material possessions I can't bear to just throw away, but would really like to see end up in the possession of someone who can appreciate them. I'm 82 years old now, and need to escape from my many too many years of accumulation for the sake of owning things, into the digital world of unlimited sstorage (perhaps on Google's hard drives?) of things I bought in physical form due to lack of other means of ownership. These include books, music, video, and who knows where this can go in the future.
  reply
• 

  Chris Sivori

  1 year ago

  You certainly can't take it with you. The problem is that everyone has things they'd hate to see not appreciated. But, I guess if we all tried to pass along everything sentimental it would get pretty overwhelming.
  reply
• 

  MLE

  1 year ago

  I so feel your pain here. Growing up moving every couple years, I think I developed an unhealthy attachement to things; as I had attached my memories to the "things" I could take with me to my new place.
  
  As an adult, and hopefully as I've matured, I've learned to attach belonging not to things, but to the thoughts, songs, art, photos, smells, etc. that rekindle those memories even more powerfully. I relish any opportunity to trash things now. I love to take car loads to Goodwill and send bags of outgrown clothes to friends. It's to liberating.
  
  Books are treasures - not becuase of the paper they're printed on, rather their wealth of experiences. I applaud your adoption of ebooks. But then again, you were always one smart cookie - and a fabulous memory. ;)
  reply
• 

  babs

  12 months ago

  I totally agree on the need to cut the clutter, BUT I'm so in love with real books. There's something about the feel of the paper in my hands.
  
  However, I do make a point to shop only at half-price books or buy used books off Amazon... I love the idea that I'm reading something that someone else already read. And then, I only hold onto the ones that really spoke to me... the others go back into the stream. The idea is that someday I can have one of those cool libraries at home, full of all the stories I know and love. Geeky and sad, but we've all got our dreams.
  reply
• 

  You damn well know who

  11 months ago

  It's not true that the 'average' of today have more than the wealthiest of the past. The wealthiest of the past always had things like gold and stocks that could be traded for services that most can't access, and the ability to travel. They always had land and deeds to property that the average don't. They had large places to live, more time to eat their food, and were more certain of food and a place to live for their children.
  
  There's no "wonder of market capitalism" unless you WONDER at factory wastelands, large islands of plastic in the ocean, slaves in china, communities of people who live off trash-drumps in Mexico, people burning to death in factories in Thailand, and ecological collapse due to short-sighted "market capitalism."
  Come on,
  WAKE UP! Wealth of the U.S. and Europe is due to theft, genocide, slavery, and imperialism.
  reply
• 

  Chris Sivori

  11 months ago

  The average person has access to more material comforts. By and large, poverty is no longer equivalent with hunger, at least in the first and second world and for most of the third world. That is beyond dispute.
  
  As for the remainder of your comment, my reply is that there are two common ways to see the current state of the world: either as being better than it was 100-200 years ago or worse than it was 100-200 years ago. Most people, faced with those two options would agree that things are better now than they were 100-200 years ago. The reality is that some things are better, some things are worse. All the catastrophes you cite, are clearly exceptions that prove the general rule, ie. that market capitalism, human industry, has improved prospects for most people. Certainly, you do not claim that Thai factory fires are the rule? Certainly you do not advocate for a centrally planned economy? Where there is freedom, there will be capitalism.
  
  Is capitalism short-sighted? To me this question is the same as, is evolution short-sighted? Capitalism is value neutral. Whatever is important to the society will be important under capitalism. Capitalism is just a tool. If individual freedoms are important, they will be important with or without capitalism. I would actually argue that capitalism can facilitate the development of freedom by encouraging self-interest. While Chinese Communism has grafted on capitalistic principles we have just seen the beginning of the rising middle classes who will guarantee the further liberalization of China.
  reply