So you want them to continue working like dumbass while cutting their demographic growth? Oo
Edit: I'm talking about the billions of Chinese Africans and Indians workers killing themselves at work right now
yes and so am i Why would they accept working 20h a day then? Oo Why in the Earth would the continue this way and stoped migrating illegaly or creating terrorist channels??? |
|
|
|
This is slightly misleading. It is not the individuals who own all this wealth. On the other hand, it is the corporations such as Google, Microsoft, Cargill, Exxon Mobil, Apple, Shell, Chevron, Ford.etc. The individuals only act as a mask for these corporations, and most of the time these individuals are multi-billionaires only in name.
Hmmm... No! That's the main point of the study. It's to study the individuals' wealth. If you take the money and value of the companies the lead then the amounts would be incredibly bigger! |
|
|
|
But you just said you wanted to put an end to their demographic development in order for everyone to be able to live a more western life  If you want to reduce China/India/Africa population they won't be enough to produce what you consume! that's not what i said at all how did we get from "a couple of billion europeans, koreans and japs, along with some of the chinese elite and higher grade indians" to "everyone" ? So you want them to continue working like dumbass while cutting their demographic growth? Oo Edit: I'm talking about the billions of Chinese Africans and Indians workers killing themselves at work right now |
|
|
|
You are most graciously welcome. And more so since I didn't know that I was doing that. And even more so since there is no indication that such was an argument or even a main one.
Well you quoted me saying so. So you just forgot what you read? And you're ignoring it again...
And your conception of justice is 2 millennials old. The talion law is a matter of barbaric countries you know?
The structure and thinking of people has not changed since the Beginning, except that people are deteriorating a little faster than they were for the first 2,000 years of the existence of mankind. The fact that you desire ignorance rather than justice, and the fact that you desire imposing your ignorance others (if you can) rather than returning to a state of knowledge, shows how fast you - there must be many others like you - are devolving towards pure foolishness, and ultimately, pure stagnance. What the fuck man? For you we didn't change anything in our way of thinking in 2 000 years? Oo And you're ok with torturing and killing 5% of innocent people in the middle of the guilty ones?? The good point about you and people like you, you will soon be unable to affect anything, but will need to rely on the good graces of the thinking people who run the home you are in.  Hmm... I'm an engineer and I run the home in which I live thanks  I don't rely on anyone... |
|
|
|
I mean; you´ve been hearing this song forever about everything running out in in a finite world and then you look around you in the year 2016 and the world is totally drowning in stuff and resources. Most commodities are at multi-decade lows. Where do you think all this propaganda has come from? From those who were trying to protect their interests? Those who own the garbage media where this has emanated from? Yes, that´s right, it has come from monopolists interested in keeping up prices over the years.
I'm not sure I understand your point, you're trying to convince me that it's ok we got far more ressources that we need? Well, mine is to post for others is to understand. If something fails in that process that´s just too bad. I try to assume a pretty low level of ability of comprehension that´s all. Ok I'm sorry I absolutely don't understand what you're writing. Maybe it's my English capacities that are at stake here and that others understand easily what you're saying but I don't. You don't have to explain further if you don't want. Just don't think I ignore you. It's just that I don't understand your point at all. If it's to say that we have far enough resources to continue this way... Well if that's your point you'll just go on my ignore list  |
|
|
|
So who will work 20h a day for your computer man?
They're migrating and organizing rebellions/terrorism only because they refuse to continue being the slave of western countries. But your "european elites" can't live their developed way of life without billions of slaves working for them...
So I'll ask you again, who will produce what you're currently consuming?
the same people who are producing it now But you just said you wanted to put an end to their demographic development in order for everyone to be able to live a more western life If you want to reduce China/India/Africa population they won't be enough to produce what you consume! |
|
|
|
#1: How to replace our democratic system which is nothing near democratic. Indeed, our democratic system is closer to an oligarchy than to a democracy. As a Harvard study points out, US government policies are closer to the preference of wealthy Americans than to the preferences of the people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.htmlThough the study was only made in the USA, I'm pretty sure it's also a problem we encounter in every other developed country. Solution: I would propose a true democratic system. What does that mean? Well to give power to the people, which means people should decide both of their constitution and their laws. How to do so? Rather easy with current technologies! Especially with BITCOIN! Indeed, we could use blockchain technology to proceed to secure voting for each and every law proposal. The idea would be to use a petition system (like change.org) to propose ideas, and once an idea is backed by enough people (like 20% of the population) it goes through the government institution in order to create a law from this idea. Then the law is proposed in a referendum and voted from the home of each and every one through the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Hello all! So I wanted to create a more positive thread, something centered on the solutions and the ideas we can have. Most of the time threads in Politics & Society are rather creepy because they talk about actual problems we see everyday. This thread is here to discuss and debate in a rather friendly manner about any solution about of a problem you can observe. Please follow the rules in order to make a constructive debate. And respect the "how to" in order to keep it easily readable. This thread is self-moderated. Nothing will be censored as long as it respects the rules. RULES - Be polite. At least a bit. Small insults like "dumbass" or "stupid" will be tolerated as long as they conclude a long and logical argument in which you proved the stupidity (which means the incapacity to understand logic) of the person insulted.
- Give your sources. It's useless to make a point without any source, unless it is clearly assumed. Which means you have the right to not give any source but you'll then need to explicitly say something like "as far as I know" or "if I'm not mistaken".
- Nothing is out of the subject. It means that you can propose a solution for the omnipresence of the color green in your city if you think it's a real problem. Doesn't have to be philosophical stuff.
- Nothing is taboo. Your solution can be something really horrible, as long as it's logical you can present it.
- Your solution must not be something totally obvious. Like "let's erase humanity" yeah it's a solution for more or less everything but... you know...
HOW TO PRESENT YOUR SOLUTION Begin with a short description of your problem preceded by its number. If it's the third problem presented in this thread then you have to write "#3blahblahblah" The number will be used to debate your problem/solution. So people can easily refer to it. Then expose your solution. Simple no? Please try to stay logical before anything else. Here is not the place for your personal beliefs unless they have a direct impact on the solution. Have fun  Nobody here is going to post ideas if they're going to get censored or deleted and if you go and delete this post it will only prove my point.
Thanks I was waiting for this. The point is not to delete or censor any idea, just useless or insulting posts. I don't want trolls or spammers in this thread that's all.  |
|
|
|
Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US!
But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers?
Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day.
and their consumption wasn't an issue when they were content to have only that bowl of rice but it is becoming a problem now that the internet's given them a glimpse of the good life and they are illegally migrating here in their millions, organising rebellions/terrorism and generally making mischief around the world. i don't want to "kill them all". i want to reduce their populations to manageable levels with a one child policy. So who will work 20h a day for your computer man? They're migrating and organizing rebellions/terrorism only because they refuse to continue being the slave of western countries. But your "european elites" can't live their developed way of life without billions of slaves working for them... So I'll ask you again, who will produce what you're currently consuming? |
|
|
|
I mean; you´ve been hearing this song forever about everything running out in in a finite world and then you look around you in the year 2016 and the world is totally drowning in stuff and resources. Most commodities are at multi-decade lows. Where do you think all this propaganda has come from? From those who were trying to protect their interests? Those who own the garbage media where this has emanated from? Yes, that´s right, it has come from monopolists interested in keeping up prices over the years.
I'm not sure I understand your point, you're trying to convince me that it's ok we got far more ressources that we need? |
|
|
|
If you get stuck in this idea that carbon dioxide is some kind of pollution, I guess you´ll soon be having problems with humans and other animals exhaling the stuff and you´d probably be interested in exterminating them en masse to counter the problem.
Dude, nature is about finding a balance. CO2 is produced by animals and humans but it all depends on the rate of production. If it's not too high, then the ecosystem absorbs it via plants... It's a too high rate that we should fear. |
|
|
|
Scientific?
Are you kidding?
You are referencing a summary report FOR POLITICIANS by a firm which avowed purpose is making money off the "scary stories," and which is about the amounts of money to various such stories.
However, if you took the time to actually read the report, you would find that it provides no "plural proofs," whatever that means. For example, consider this statement from the report.
With or without climate change, physical damage from extreme weather is increasing in Europe as populations encroach on at-risk areas and economic growth raises the value of assets (EEA, 2005). With climate change having made certain extreme weather events more likely, and the high likelihood that it will be even worse in the future, it is prudent fashion an adequate response.
Now, who would argue with that? If civilian population center near the coastlines grow, and move closer to the coastlines, aren't the cost of tropical hurricanes hitting the coast going to go up? They are only using "climate change" to support arguments for increased funding.
No they're trying to be critics with their own work explaining it's also an element to take into account which makes difficult to know to which extent CO2 can be related to disasters. But they still deduce that "climate change having made certain extreme weather events more likely". Dude if you go like this there is just no science, of course it's made for politicians and they're paid for this! Is there any source you qualify as reliable??? I gave you a NASA and a EU source! Where the heck am I supposed to find data you acknowledge if this is not "scientific enough" for you? |
|
|
|
So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?
Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicityConsidering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html.... Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying". Bull. Think greenhouses. Standard industrial practice is elevated CO2. Is it true only for some crops? Well, your article isn't a scientific reference. You've linked to nothing authoritative, and you've used a propaganda website, skepticalscience, to do so. From the comments, "This article makes a lot of predictions as if they were proven fact. That is not the case. I am amazed that any number of catastrophic scenarios can be attributed to "excess" CO2 and not one single positive benefit has been presented." This rather follows the advice of Stephen Schneider, doesn't it? "Present scary stories." Think about that for a moment. Go ahead, present your scary stories. Farmers are going to go ahead and elevate their CO2 levels in their greenhouses and just laugh at such silliness. As for "your proofs?" You have introduced no "proofs." I assume that you use the word incorrectly because English is not your first language. But then I don't know what you are trying to say. But I guess it's a propaganda website too no? :/ And I was using the plural proofs cause you didn't answer to any older reports neither. Like this one http://ecologic.eu/sites/files/project/2013/Brief_CC_and_natural_disasters_scientific_evidence_of_relation_Jan_2006_EP_version.pdfScientific enough? |
|
|
|
This is a spectacular illustration about how flawed the keynesian model really is. But this was known since ages, so I don't understand why this is so surprising for some.
THANK YOU! Somedy seeing the truth here ^^ The keynesian model is an abomination. It was a good idea for a transition but can't be a finished model. The reason why it's still taught in universities around the world is because the people who benefit from this model don't want to change that's all. The simple idea of an economy needing growth to be in good health is the more stupid and delusional idea ever! |
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind much if they were actually using a lot of their money for something meaningful. Just imagine what a $1 Trillion R&D budget could to for a few technologies.
Totally true. The problem is that in our modern society, money=power so concentration of money means concentration of power. Having few people filthily rich means they can do whatever they want. If what they wanted was the greater good, I wouldn't mind. Problem is it's not the case, power calls for power so they only want more. That's why it should be regulated. What one man can do of dozens of billions of dollars anyway? You could take 90% of what he has he wouldn't even know it xD |
|
|
|
Justice is giving to one in like manner as he gave. Mistaken justice in the U.S. is the reason why I suggest that if anyone intentionally causes an innocent person to die, he should be executed as well. The barbaric part is what a guilty person does when murders someone. His execution is justice. What? Are you hoping they never find out how many people you have murdered? Thanks for totally ignoring my main argument which is saying that 5% of people sentenced to death are proven innocent... And your conception of justice is 2 millennials old. The talion law is a matter of barbaric countries you know? |
|
|
|
third world peoples are better off largely because they are burning coal and destroying forests and beautiful wildlife to make more space for their cities and even distribution would result in a drastic drop in our (the civilised countries) quality of life. for example right now i get to eat meat every day, should i agree to eat it only once a week so that 5 billion africans who didn't need to be born can also eat it once a week instead of never? i don't think so.
5 billion africans who didn't need to be born? Seriously? And you're totally wrong. 90% of deforestation comes from agriculture. Which mostly leads to meat production. You're by far more responsible of deforestation than the expansion of third world cities you moron. the third world population has been expanding rapidly and will peak at about 9 billion as you say, the current population of nigeria was same as the population of the whole of africa when my mother was born. the 7 billion people we have now can barely be sustained at current levels of resource consumption let alone 9 billion who are all going to demand electricity, air travel, protein rich diets and whatnot, and will probably engage in revolutions and terrorism to get them. something has to give.
So the fact that our western countries have known THE EXACT SAME PHENOMENON of demographic growth doesn't count? It means that as we reproduced like rabbits a century ago they can't do it now? What hypocrisy... either we reduce the third world population with contraception and sterilisation, be it forced or connected to international aid, or we agree to have marxism, impoverish ourselves and redistribute most of what we have to poor countries on the basis of to each according to his need. how disgraceful it is that our civilisation produces so many pussies who care more about niggers who aren't born yet than defending there own interests.
Ok on this one you definitely are the dumbest and most horrible kind of person possible. Don't you understand anything? They consume in order to produce things FOR US! But at least you are right on the fact that killing all of them would answer the problem... But who will cultivate your corns? Make your clothes? Produce your computers? Of course we can kill them all. But I hope you agree to work 20h a day as they do eating a bawl of rice a day. |
|
|
|
In fact how would you even define complexity?
My mistake. Is it foolish of me to act like I am conversing with complexity that might even be less than that of a rock? Complexity is a non scientific term. So I'm asking what you mean by this in case we disagree on the meaning... You didn't answer my point on evolution. Here something less complex becomes complex. The monkey becomes human. It means something less complex and less intelligent leads to something of greater intelligence. So what is your argument now? Evolution is just a theory? |
|
|
|
So, ignorant on effects of CO2 and O2 partial pressures, refuse to consider Trenberth's admissions, what else can you be ignorant or wrong about?
Sorry I'm not a doctorate in gazes effect... All I know is that too much O2 is bad for health: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicityConsidering CO2, again you're being narrow minded, considering only some crops. Here is an article explaining why your vision is just short sighted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.htmlAnd for Trenberth.. You're just being stupid. I'm not refusing to admit that he might have lied, I'm refusing to admit that with just a sentence from you. Is it really being ignorant to refuse one's assumption without ANY KIND of proof? Trenberth - Here is the email I mentioned. https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/kevin-trenberths-real-travesty/ From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann < mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming........ Kevin Oh, and the Stephen Schneider in his email list? Let's take a look at one of his little opinions. On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.Much better than just you writing something. Here you have a link, that's called giving sources, it's the base of any written article. And it's the first time you did this so congrats. Not sure I understand everything here. English is not my native language but seems like something fishy is under that for sure. Could it be that you simple fell for some of those "Scary Stories?"
LOL...
Could it be that you never, ever, answers one of my proofs? Could it be that I gave you something like a dozens of different points backed with articles and reports accepted by the whole scientific community, and that you chose to ignore them "cause you know, they're lying". |
|
|
|
Remember Kennedy v. Louisiana? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana The savagery shown by the perpetrator (Patrick O. Kennedy) was outright shocking, and the jury had no option but to award him the death penalty. But then the human rights organizations made such a hue and cry, and finally his death sentence was overturn. "Kennedy was sentenced to death after being convicted of raping and sodomizing his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The rape was uncommonly brutal: it tore the victim's perineum "from her vaginal opening to her anal opening. [It] tore her vagina on the interior such that it separated partially from her cervix and allowed her rectum to protrude into her vagina. Invasive emergency surgery was required to repair these injuries." If anyone think that this monster deserved something other than death penalty, then he needs to consult a psychiatrist immediately. That's rather extreme for sure. But I don't think he deserves death (from a justice point of view). He deserves lifetime jail (real one). Why? Because if he's guilty he will live an horrible live (I don't even want to imagine what happens to pedophiles in prison) and pay every day for his crime. And if he's innocent he'll still be alive if his innocence is ever proved. The fact is that a dead man or a man in jail for the rest of his life both causes no threat to society. One costs some money yeah, but that's not a huge amount at all. And you can never be "perfectly sure" that somebody is innocent. Even DNA lies sometimes you know Let the punishment match the crime. Let there be as much pain as he dished out. Let there be enough horror as he caused, to be caused in him. Let there be death to match the death that he caused. He stole the property of someone. Let him be deprived of his property to the same extent, or more to make up for inconvenience he caused. Let a jury of common people decide the details. You're confusing justice and revenge man. Not the same thing. Justice is here to be sure that one will not be a threat to the society after he was found responsible of a crime. And you all forget ONE thing: on average, at least 5% of people sentenced to death in the USA are found totally innocent. So you're going to torture and then kill someone, knowing on 100 people you torture and kill, 5 will be innocent? That's why death penalty is barbaric. It's because from times to times, a random innocent citizen is killed. Just because he was at the wrong place at the wrong moment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
