[frookenhauer]

tiam;368863 said:

My cynical side would say could the planet couldnt support everyone to have clean water, sanitation, Enough food etc. Im not sure about the specifics of such a rash statement but with the world going to shit as it is trying to stretch the world as it is.

So do you reckon its just better to let people starve, die of thirst or watch them rot through infection? Which is your favorite method of keeping the population within reasonable limits? Would you like to be there and watch it while it happens?

People before Planet before Profit. Its simple, but it might be worth considering.

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

frookenhauer;368892 said:

People before Planet before Profit. Its simple, but it might be worth considering.

It's far, far too simple to be of any use and far too idealistic to ever happen.

[Dance]

1) If I could change one thing about the US, it would be removing the social stigma against intelligence.

2) If I could change one thing about the entire world, every person would have to live in another country/culture for 1 month out of every year, changing which one each year.

[frookenhauer]

Gwynn ap Nudd;369025 said:

It's far, far too simple to be of any use and far too idealistic to ever happen.

Not if you consider it as a principle. This is just an example of something called Ethics, you might have heard of it, or maybe not in which case please feel free to look it up, its fascinating

My earlier statement is simplified, not simple. Allow me to explain:

I honestly think that humanity should always be put first in terms of where resources should be allocated and decisions made should generally consider the impact on people as a priority. If the richer countries did their utmost to raise the standard of living around the world the net gain would be a whole new set of customers to service and profit from. In my more idealistic days, I was against globalisation, because in the short term its just plain and simple exploitation, but in the long run the influx of money improves the lives of the people in those countries. I'm still not completely sold on it, but its paving the way in terms of raising standards of living.

Unfortunately we've only got Earth and seeing as we've only got one pool, its not really a good idea to piss in it. Decisions and plans made should always consider the ecological impact, it just makes sense. for example, nobody really wants to wear a smog mask when walking to work, do they? And England is getting muggier by the day, not nice. A lot of companies are now coming round to this way of thinking, my own company is regarded as the most ethical company in its field in the UK, and I'm proud of the fact. And no, its not greenpeace

And lastly come profits, or not as the case tends to be. By law a company is considered to be a person. Some companies, in their quest for profits act in such a way that if a real person acted this way, they'd be locked up. And yet it is deemed as acceptable, funny isn't it?

[Skywalker]

For my own country... I'd recommend very strict (but voluntary) birth control. Our population rate is 1.578% (2008 est) and with 1.147 billion people, every problem just becomes unsolvable. Be it hunger, poverty, energy crises, education crises, pollution, lack of education... you name it... it's tougher to beat when you have ye many people with ye small resources.

For the whole world... same thing. The world population (6.677 billion) growth rate is about 1.159% (2008 est) and needs to come down...

Scale is what defeats us at every turn when we try to knock a big problem...

[Scifreak]

1. Republic

2. Social Democracy as guiding principle for economics and society rather than pragmatic Neo-Liberalism.

[Scifreak]

Gwynn ap Nudd;369025 said:

It's far, far too simple to be of any use and far too idealistic to ever happen.

I'm sure the peasants and serfs laboring under Feudalism leveled the same 'hopelessly Idealist' charge at those who sought change in the middle ages.

[Scifreak]

tiam;368863 said:

Ermm i know were not supposed to be cynical but id say my country

Political correctness.

.

I find people bemoaning political correctness are usually annoyed that they aren't allowed to air certain prejudices any longer.

'How DARE others be offended1!!!1, it's PC gorn Maahd' etc etc.

Listen to this short clip if you will, the man speaketh sense

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

[frookenhauer]

Scifreak;369619 said:

I'm sure the peasants and serfs laboring under Feudalism leveled the same 'hopelessly Idealist' charge at those who sought change in the middle ages.

I like the way you think, but do you mean that one of the major obstacles for changes that would benefit 'mankind' (for want of a better word ), is getting people to believe that it can be done?

[Shinrei]

Scifreak;369619 said:

I'm sure the peasants and serfs laboring under Feudalism leveled the same 'hopelessly Idealist' charge at those who sought change in the middle ages.

Historically speaking, the advance of the "Ages" of the past had little to do with any sort of idealist thought.

[tiam]

Scifreak;369620 said:

I find people bemoaning political correctness are usually annoyed that they aren't allowed to air certain prejudices any longer.

'How DARE others be offended1!!!1, it's PC gorn Maahd' etc etc.

Listen to this short clip if you will, the man speaketh sense

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

First of all i find your impression of a racist british person brilliant. Second of all im 19 years old and hold no racial predjudices at all. Seriously.

I just think that Britain as a whole is trying to impres everyone else except its own native population. Thats not me being racist or discriminative but i think everything should be equal rather than minorities having 'priveleges' (not the right word i know). i actually think this unbalanced treatment stimulates racial tension.

Frookenhaur- Frankly as i said before the orld cannot support everyone to liv like 'the western world' for example. Frankly to say thats unethical is simply naive and to call me unethical is partly correct but to say your an idealist is not exactly a stretch either

[frookenhauer]

tiam;370426 said:

Frookenhaur- Frankly as i said before the orld cannot support everyone to liv like 'the western world' for example. Frankly to say thats unethical is simply naive and to call me unethical is partly correct but to say your an idealist is not exactly a stretch either

Look Tiam, you're taking my argument to the ideal position, but that aint never gonna happen. All I'm asking for is to set those poor fuckers up so they get enough food, have access to clean water, and some basic medication. We can deal with education, laptops and the internet as we go along. They do not have to be at western levels to be consumers, check out India if you don't believe me. We can use it as a model for other countries, minus the nukes, of course. I feel that its about time that we did away with the third world, spend some serious effort raising the world game.

"No more third world!" Would look good on some Greenpeace banners

[Gwynn ap Nudd]

In some cases it's about resource distribution. Some countries just don't have any. Until, and if, their standards of living, industry and education are brought up to those of the majority of the world, continuing economic support will be needed.

Also, bringing in modern medicines and conditions leads to huge population explosions. This causes a cycle of dependence unless the education and industry are brought up at the same time. Many of these countries already have water scarcity problems, population growth and almost any industry will put higher demands on an already stressed commodity. Importing water on the scale needed to sustain development is not feasable for most locations.

Further, a whole pile of places will only see impovements if more modern countries are willing to resort to military action to topple governments. I neither want to see this happen nor am I willing to pay for any part of it.

Back to the people before planet statement and why I think it is too simple to mean anything, I have to ask which people? All of them? How far do you go to benifit people before worrying about the damage to the planet? How much weight is given to people living today versus future generations? What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off? Who decides what is best?

[frookenhauer]

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

In some cases it's about resource distribution. Some countries just don't have any. Until, and if, their standards of living, industry and education are brought up to those of the majority of the world, continuing economic support will be needed.

Resources? Hmm, Just staying in Africa for the moment:

Sierra Leone - Conflict Diamond Capitol
Algeria - Copper
Nigeria - Oil
Namibia - Uranium
And so on and so forth....Plenty of resources, whats the problem? Apart from exploitation.

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

Also, bringing in modern medicines and conditions leads to huge population explosions. This causes a cycle of dependence unless the education and industry are brought up at the same time. Many of these countries already have water scarcity problems, population growth and almost any industry will put higher demands on an already stressed commodity. Importing water on the scale needed to sustain development is not feasible for most locations.

Interesting thing about population explosions, they don't happen overnight...maybe the causes do, but-nevermind. In terms of population control, why not use the chinese method: 1 kid per family = full benefits, >1 kid per family = survival rations, or even hand out free condoms. Better than starving them to death, or would you prefer to hand out morning after pills with bowls of rice?No pill, no rice. Industry? How about coastal nations building desalinisation plants, powered by solar arrays from the saharan countries, energy for water, energy for minerals and equipment, water for manufactured goods. There's the beginnings of some decent trade and industry, and lo and behold...water

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

Further, a whole pile of places will only see impovements if more modern countries are willing to resort to military action to topple governments. I neither want to see this happen nor am I willing to pay for any part of it.

Apart from the fact this happens without your say so, take Iraq for example, if a military dictatorship is running a country, there is not much that can be done without ousting the govt and for gods sakes stop selling them arms! Leave those countries to aid organisations and handouts. Reserve the 'improvements' to the countries which have at least the modicum of a fair government or are at least on the path to political reform. Democracy rules!

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

Back to the people before planet statement and why I think it is too simple to mean anything, I have to ask which people? All of them? How far do you go to benifit people before worrying about the damage to the planet? How much weight is given to people living today versus future generations? What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off? Who decides what is best?

I suggest a international organisation with the G8 front and center dedicated to developing the methods, deciding allocation of resources, and who gets the contracts. The developments should highlight education, impact on environment, jobs. Contractors should be required to train and use local workforces. Etc, etc...Most of the damage to the planet is caused by the rich countries anyway, as long as improvements are highly eco friendly there should be few probs. As for who to help, as many people as feasible. If the budget were one tenth of the budget for the Iraq war, we could do some real good.

Funny thing is, all this is just talk, I know it can be done, the problem is I'm not in charge...

Gwynn ap Nudd;370462 said:

What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?

And thank fuck you aint in charge either. Lets be honest, imagine you were the head of an organisation which had the resources to help a significant proportion of the worlds poor, what would you do?

[Shinrei]

frookenhauer;370498 said:

Interesting thing about population explosions, they don't happen overnight...maybe the causes do, but-nevermind. In terms of population control, why not use the chinese method: 1 kid per family = full benefits, >1 kid per family = survival rations, or even hand out free condoms. Better than starving them to death, or would you prefer to hand out morning after pills with bowls of rice?No pill, no rice.

!!!!!!!

Guy from rich western country tells africans how they should go about breeding and holds incentives over their heads....

I think you need to do more to explain this, because this sounds a titbit tyrannical.

[Scifreak]

tiam;370426 said:

First of all i find your impression of a racist british person brilliant. Second of all im 19 years old and hold no racial predjudices at all. Seriously.

I just think that Britain as a whole is trying to impres everyone else except its own native population. Thats not me being racist or discriminative but i think everything should be equal rather than minorities having 'priveleges' (not the right word i know). i actually think this unbalanced treatment stimulates racial tension.

Frookenhaur- Frankly as i said before the orld cannot support everyone to liv like 'the western world' for example. Frankly to say thats unethical is simply naive and to call me unethical is partly correct but to say your an idealist is not exactly a stretch either

I never accused you of holding racial prejudices, nor did I mention race at all.

Equality doesn't mean treating everybody exactly the same. It's a little more complex than that. Sometimes you have to accept that some people, say women for instance who across the board do not have pay parity with thier male counterparts, are in fact not being treated equally by the current system. Shall we then not do anything about that because it would increase tension between men and women in the workplace? no. Fact is anyone offended by actions to bring the wages into parity needs to have a think.
Political correctness is a confused and reletavily new type of discourse designed to not make varied groups (be they a racial, sexually oriented or group) feel offended by the dominant social goup in society (and thats white males with money, despite what the Daily Mail tells you). It's got to be better than forty odd years ago where the Tories could contend a bye-election under a 'If you want a Nigger for a nieghbour, vote Liberal or Labor' campaign.

[Scifreak]

I cannot believe someone just posted 'why not use the chinese method' in seriusness.

I think the infanticide stats associated with such practises to be wholly unnacceptable.

Thing is, there is enough money and food in the world to deal with population explosions but when you have ridiculous situations like the top 10% of the uk population holding 45% of the wealth there isn't enough to go around. Brcause thoe at the top are hogging it all.

[Scifreak]

Shinrei no Shintai;369924 said:

Historically speaking, the advance of the "Ages" of the past had little to do with any sort of idealist thought.

so Locke and Hobbes couldn't be considered idealist thinkers of thier day? of course I admit that the soci-economic situation and most importantly the level of technological progress of the time they were writing in provided fertile ground for thier thinking. It was the same with Erasmus and Luther, both idealist thinkers of thier time.

[Shinrei]

Certainly idealist thinkers affect the course of history, but in the past they most often act a part in the movement of overall change. For example, before Luther did his famous door nailing, the Catholic church was already facing trouble and decline. Add to this Gutenburg's printing press and we see the excellence of Luther's timing.

If Luther had lived a century earlier, it either may not have happened at all, or it would have been swept under the rug, or at best, led to or hastened a different "Luther" to take up the hammer.

You yourself qualified the fertile ground for Locke and Hobbes. One of my heroes, V. Lenin also found conditions well met for beginning the Soviet Union.

Now, however, in the advanced age of the internet and global commerce and communication, I think that individuals and groups are much more powerful in affecting change on a wide scale. This is what the modern age has given us. Everything is faster, and as we look back at history, we see that ages have been coming and going at a progressively faster rate.

[Scifreak]

Shinrei no Shintai;370598 said:

Certainly idealist thinkers affect the course of history, but in the past they most often act a part in the movement of overall change. For example, before Luther did his famous door nailing, the Catholic church was already facing trouble and decline. Add to this Gutenburg's printing press and we see the excellence of Luther's timing.

If Luther had lived a century earlier, it either may not have happened at all, or it would have been swept under the rug, or at best, led to or hastened a different "Luther" to take up the hammer.

You yourself qualified the fertile ground for Locke and Hobbes. One of my heroes, V. Lenin also found conditions well met for beginning the Soviet Union.

Now, however, in the advanced age of the internet and global commerce and communication, I think that individuals and groups are much more powerful in affecting change on a wide scale. This is what the modern age has given us. Everything is faster, and as we look back at history, we see that ages have been coming and going at a progressively faster rate.

Well I think we agree on the technological drive that allows idealists thoughts to become practise. The fact that you mention the printing press and the internet in the same post leads me to think you share my belief that the Internet is the greatest democratizer and facillitator of information exchange since Guttenburg's press. The current economic model, failing as it is can be traced back to Friedman et al, the theorists whose neoliberal economic ideas came to dominate and replace the Keynsian economics and the social democrat states of old. Somewhere along this path we lost the philosophical drive that equated the good of the people as equal to the good of the individual, and more frighteningly we came to see the good of 'business freindly climate' overpower any idea of social justice. By opening home ownership to the w/c and petit bourgoise and leaving the housing market to the financial managment of rapacious individuals, the power elite have done a 'fuck the poor move' again.

/rant