Jump to content


Collective stupidity

Recommended Posts

No it isn't. You won't want to share finite resources any more than I would or you'd be sharing your house with a load of refugees.

 

You're quite right, I wouldn't like it. But I do see it as necessary if we want to sort things out fundamentally.

 

And if resources were shared there wouldn't be any refugees. Or economic migrants, or wars, or starvation etc etc etc. So it has to be a price worth paying surely?

 

There are enough resources for everybody to have enough to eat, clean water, a decent roof over their head, education and health care, oh, and each other. Basically that's all people need to be happy. With those everyone starts from an even playing field, and can start to build a life for themselves.

 

I am not talking about everybody ending up having exactly the same, but not everybody actually wants to be rich. They see people and welfare as more important.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're quite right, I wouldn't like it. But I do see it as necessary if we want to sort things out fundamentally.

 

And if resources were shared there wouldn't be any refugees. Or economic migrants, or wars, or starvation etc etc etc. So it has to be a price worth paying surely?

 

There are enough resources for everybody to have enough to eat, clean water, a decent roof over their head, education and health care, oh, and each other. Basically that's all people need to be happy. With those everyone starts from an even playing field, and can start to build a life for themselves.

 

I am not talking about everybody ending up having exactly the same, but not everybody actually wants to be rich. They see people and welfare as more important.

 

We're moving to social equality from saving the planet. What youre talking about is lifting everyone up and thats going to speed up the depletion of natural resources and the life of the planet in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah equality is not something we should aim for. People don't want to be equal. Certainly I think there should be a reduction in inequality but going all the way to equality has been proven historically to be a dead end.

 

I don't think socialism is the answer and certainly the current capitalist model is failing in all kinds of way to consider the needs of the human race as a whole. There needs to be some intermediate, where the individual can still be an individual and strive to achieve their own goals whilst still ensuring a person cannot consume more than a fair share.

 

The change we need is to stop seeing growth as the only measure of a successful economy. The economic models we use absolutely ignore the fact that they need resources to sustain them, and those resources are running out. The models need to change, the measures of success need to change. We can have a flourishing economy without the constant drive for growth.

Edited by TimmyR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The steps necessary to save the planet won't win votes so anybody proposing them is doomed to failure.

 

Maybe a benign world dictatorship focused on saving the planet is the only thing that will succeed in forcing us to change our ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would need something like that and to get to that point you'd need a really serious pandemic, asteroid strike, nuclear war. Downside is that if Hollywood is to be believed the leader of the free world steps up but instead of bill Pullman or Morgan freeman we've got trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its not a problem, technology is moving along at a terrific pace...in ,say, 50yrs we will have colonised the moon, maybe Mars, in 1000yrs we will have expanded to other places in the universe....

 

I remember reading, around 1988-89, about how acid rain would have destroyed most of the forests of Europe by the year 2000. I wonder how that prediction by experts turned out?

 

---------- Post added 09-08-2018 at 06:41 ----------

 

A) who's going to move to the moon?!

 

we can't even persuade people to move to Barnsley.

 

and Barnsley's nice.

 

B) how would that even help?

 

Lots of economic migrants now live in Barnsley. I guess they consider it a nice place to live, and work. Asos runs it's business by employing large numbers of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember reading, around 1988-89, about how acid rain would have destroyed most of the forests of Europe by the year 2000. I wonder how that prediction by experts turned out?

 

 

The 1990 Clean Air Act established the allowance market system known today as the Acid Rain Program. Initially targeting only sulfur dioxide.

By acting to reduce emissions, and thus curb acid rain, we avoided a situation much worse than we have now.

Rain is still somewhat acidic, but just not as bad as it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TimmyR,

 

You make some interesting observations. But there is one that I’d like to pass comment on.

You state that the pursuit of equality has proven a historical dead end.

Everything we might wish to achieve for our future must be built upon the moral conviction that all men and women are all equally worthy. There is no incompatibility between liberty and equality. In fact, they are simply the two dimension of basic humanity; the liberty that flows from the uniqueness of individuals-but also the equality of recognition and respect that creates sociability.

It’s not the end of history yet- so the pursuit of equality is not over.

Just a historical note.The ideology that the pursuit of Equality is a dead end was peddled by the likes of John Rawls in his book,” A Theory Of Justice “ (!970). It’s not over by a long chalk.

Edited by petemcewan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One solution that Western governments seem to think will work without problems is to open up immigration for the whole world to come to Europe. :loopy:

I'm trying to work out if this plan has any flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One solution that Western governments seem to think will work without problems is to open up immigration for the whole world to come to Europe. :loopy:

I'm trying to work out if this plan has any flaws.

 

One solution that Western governments seem to think will work without problems is to have free-flowing trade, without the same freedom for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One solution that Western governments seem to think will work without problems is to have free-flowing trade, without the same freedom for people.

 

The problem with free flowing people is they will understandably all want to flock to the most developed countries where they can have the best life, eventually overwhelming those countries, and leaving their homelands in terminal decline.

 

Surely a better solution is to offer cash incentives for them to stay in their homelands and develop them up to the same standards, avoiding the mistakes we've made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.