NationStates Jolt Archive

I think about human nature a lot. I'm inspired by it at some times, and at others, bowed down with shame, and it seems that I swing back and forth on that pendulum without ever coming to a stop. I consol myself with the belief that how I live my life, and what I teach my children, is enough to make the difference...to maintain (as Rohinton Mistry put it) the fine balance between despair and joy.

However, I also try to puzzle out the larger reasons for the terrible inequality and brutality that exists, and has always existed, in our societies. The artificial divisions we create amongst ourselves; divisions of race, caste, class, and nationalities. At the heart of our divisions, I believe, is misunderstanding. Not a passive misunderstanding, born of not coming into contact with 'others', but rather a forceful, intentional misunderstanding born out of selfishness. Let me explain.

I honestly do not think there are many among us who can hold onto their biases about the 'other' once they come into close, personal contact with someone from a different race, caste, class or nationality. (Or any other division we create, for that matter) By personal contact, I mean actually getting to know the person, meeting their family, seeing how they live. Of course, it isn't feasible to go out and meet everyone in the world. However, it isn't difficult to extrapolate from your experiences with a few members of a group outside your own that we aren't really all that different. All humans have common needs, such as the need for food, water, shelter and companionship. Some of us a weak, mean little people, and some of use are wonderful. That is true of any 'group'.

These biases are necessary to us, however, in order to justify our selfishness. Every human on this earth could live at a decent standard of living if resources were more equally distributed. There is enough food and resources to supply us all. Of course, that would mean that those with much, would have to do with less, and that is where the problem comes in.

In Western society, we do not hold so much to the ideas of caste or social class. In theory. Yet we do create deep division amongst ourselves based on economic differences. The rich all 'got that way from hard work', and the poor 'deserve their economic condition, because if they worked harder, they too could be rich'. This paradigm of hard-working rich versus the lazy poor is one that is deeply ingrained in the consciousness of many in the Industrialised (and Developing) world. This, despite the fact that laziness is not a quality of just one particular group, nor is it possible for every hard worker to become rich. There just aren't enough resources to make that happen. The whole world could be full of hard-working people, but only a few of them can become wealthy.

Clinging to this belief (and rarely analysing it) maintains for us the fiction that we deserve the fabulous resource wealth we have been born into. For it was blind luck that we ended up where we are, rather than in a slum. If we start thinking of that luck as 'fate', we fall into the trap of castes, where the position of our birth is based on our worthiness, decided in another lifetime. I was born into a rich country, into a family that was poor by my country's standards, but rich by the standards of other nations. I did not choose that family, and I do not believe I was any more 'worthy' to be born into it that anyone else. Why then should I believe that it is my 'right' to exploit the resources of my nation, and the resources of other nations, based solely on the position of my birth? This smacks of 'divine right', and I thought we got rid of that idea a long time ago.

The truth as I see it, is that we KNOW how we live isn't fair. We are thankful we were lucky enough to be born into situations that are changeable...where there is at least the possibility of upward mobility. We feel, deep down, guilty about this, because it is due to an accident of birth, not based on any superior qualities we may possess. We grow comfortable with our wealth (relative of course, to the rest of the world), and in order to justify keeping that wealth for ourselves, in order to justify our selfishness, we create belief systems to explain WHY that wealth belongs to us. We create classes and castes, and divisions that keep people in their 'place'. We create economic and political ideologies to justify inequality. We drudge up statistics and studies to prove ourselves right and to make ourselves feel good about having much, while so many have little.

Deep down, we all know this is wrong. Some of us don't care, but we still know it. What makes my life any more valuable that that of a child born in a slum in Bangladesh? What gives me the right to the opportunities I have, compared to the opportunities available to that child? Why should that child have to work so much harder to get to where I was born into?

The majority of humans (again, according to my belief) are caring individuals who believe in contributing to a wider society. We have formed societies since the beginning of our existence, and have worked hard, trying many different methods, to improve them. We are not meant to live in isolation, and yet we undermine our own efforts by isolating others...by dividing ourselves into 'us' and 'them'. We have the ability to share, to live as a global community, but elements within us prevent this from happening; our selfishness, our greed, our guilt, our love, our hate...conflicts which are mirrored on a wider scale within our societies. We confine ourselves then to caring about ourselves first, then our loved ones, then our community, then our society, and then, only if we have room left...about the 'others'. Is this because we lack the capacity? I think we lack only the understanding.

The point of all this? I believe in hope, because it exists in us all. I choose to believe that changes can be made, that we can drag down the walls we have created to divide ourselves. It starts with our recognition that there is no 'divine right' to a better standard of living, and that humans are equal in both good, and bad qualities. It manifests itself in an openness to the 'other' and resistance to further social stratification. It exists in all of us, and it needs to be nurtured.

Thoughts?

First of all, goos show on philosophising! It is one the most enjoyable and worthwhile past-times, in my opinion. I'm just surprised that your pondering hasn't led you to a more cynical conclusion.

I honestly do not think there are many among us who can hold onto their biases about the 'other' once they come into close, personal contact with someone from a different race, caste, class or nationality. (Or any other division we create, for that matter)
I think you'd be surprised by the stubborness that some people hold on to their bigotry. Presented with the most convincing evidence will make some people's biases even stronger. Thinking isn't "in". If religion didn't encourage this type of behaviour, I wouldn't be so fervently against it.

However, it isn't difficult to extrapolate from your experiences with a few members of a group outside your own that we aren't really all that different.
Not for you, but you have the gift of thought. Others are not blessed with the philisophical mindset you have.

Every human on this earth could live at a decent standard of living if resources were more equally distributed. There is enough food and resources to supply us all.
Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. If everyone in the world had the average standard of living as in America, it would take something like 2.7 Earths to hold it all. There are not enough food and resources to supply humans, as we have far overpopulated our planet, though many don't realise this. Though I don't hold this against them too harshly, as it is in their genes to desire to propogate our species. But they are ignorant, as most people are, because our natural instincts tell us we're filthy liars if we don't try to increase the population of Homo sapiens.

This smacks of 'divine right', and I thought we got rid of that idea a long time ago.
Nope.

The truth as I see it, is that we KNOW how we live isn't fair. We are thankful we were lucky enough to be born into situations that are changeable...where there is at least the possibility of upward mobility. We feel, deep down, guilty about this, because it is due to an accident of birth, not based on any superior qualities we may possess.
Yes, I do at least. I always feel uncomforatable when presented with the inferior standard of living others have compared to me. I wouldn't trade mine for theirs, but it's through no work of mine that I'm better off. Though this isn't true for some people, the ones who are born poor and make a path for themselves, but this isn't common, and I know sure as hell that I wouldn't have done that if I was born to a poorer family (I'm middle class).

We create classes and castes, and divisions that keep people in their 'place'. We create economic and political ideologies to justify inequality.
I agree; although it is true that we could create actual castes through dysgenics, similar to Brave New World. I recommend you listen to Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II". It references the British education system of a few decades ago, but is a criticism of exactly what you say. And isn't too bad, to boot.

Deep down, we all know this is wrong. Some of us don't care, but we still know it. What makes my life any more valuable that that of a child born in a slum in Bangladesh? What gives me the right to the opportunities I have, compared to the opportunities available to that child? Why should that child have to work so much harder to get to where I was born into?
I also recommend Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. It may be a little depressing, but I think it should be a requisite for all high schoolers. For those higher up in the American class system, it may be a wake-up call. For those lower down, it may be a stimulus of knowledge and motivate them to try to change it.

The majority of humans (again, according to my belief) are caring individuals who believe in contributing to a wider society.
If that were only true... Communism would work and humans would make so much social progress if that were true. But sadly, it isn't.

We are not meant to live in isolation, and yet we undermine our own efforts by isolating others...by dividing ourselves into 'us' and 'them'.
Yes, and it makes people feel so, oh so much better.

We confine ourselves then to caring about ourselves first, then our loved ones, then our community, then our society, and then, only if we have room left...about the 'others'. Is this because we lack the capacity? I think we lack only the understanding.
I think we lack the motivation. Understanding would help, but so many people are bigots and ignoramuses, that there would just block it out and say "Well, <insert intelligence above humans> must want it so," or some such bullsh*t.

The point of all this? I believe in hope, because it exists in us all. I choose to believe that changes can be made, that we can drag down the walls we have created to divide ourselves. It starts with our recognition that there is no 'divine right' to a better standard of living, and that humans are equal in both good, and bad qualities. It manifests itself in an openness to the 'other' and resistance to further social stratification. It exists in all of us, and it needs to be nurtured.

Thoughts?
It must be nice to not be a cynic...unfortunately your philosophy can't work because of that. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were cynics, and relied on human greed and ambition to balance power. Unfortunately, that has been undermined, and that's the reason the executive branch has become so powerful. But that isn't related, the fact is, continue with your existentialism, but look a little more into human corruption. That's just my take on it though, and I have no proof that I'm right, I just am pretty sure I am.

Certain people deserve alot more than they get but others get what they deserve.

Certain people deserve alot more than they get but others get what they deserve.
Well, I partially agree. But let me express my opinion with an anonymous quote:
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.

Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. If everyone in the world had the average standard of living as in America, it would take something like 2.7 Earths to hold it all. There are not enough food and resources to supply humans, as we have far overpopulated our planet, though many don't realise this. Though I don't hold this against them too harshly, as it is in their genes to desire to propogate our species. But they are ignorant, as most people are, because our natural instincts tell us we're filthy liars if we don't try to increase the population of Homo sapiens.

But is the average standard of living in America a decent standard of living? Do we (you) all really need SUV's and swimming pools? I think Americans could have a decent lives with less materia. Americans and Australians are the worst polluters anyway (per capita).

There is enough food. But we choose to hand it out to cows to produce very un-ecologic (I know it's not a proper word, you get the idea) food.

First of all, goos show on philosophising! It is one the most enjoyable and worthwhile past-times, in my opinion. I'm just surprised that your pondering hasn't led you to a more cynical conclusion.
I'm not immune to cynicism...I just resist it. I think cynical thinking leads to hopelessness and inertia, and frankly, is another good excuse to not fight for change. "That's the way things are and nothing is going to change it" is a simplistic view that denies the cyclical nature of history. Life is a series of changes, and good or bad, change is inevitable. We humans lack vision because of the restrictions imposed on us by our life span, but it is not impossible to look beyond our own existence on this planet. I do not believe Utopia is attainable, but I have seen that change can work, no matter on how small the level.

I think you'd be surprised by the stubborness that some people hold on to their bigotry. Presented with the most convincing evidence will make some people's biases even stronger. Thinking isn't "in". If religion didn't encourage this type of behaviour, I wouldn't be so fervently against it.
Ah, but I was talking about really getting to know people, face to face, not just 'learning' about them in school. Real human contact does wonders for understanding. Like I said though, it isn't possible to really get to know everyone in the world, so we will always create the 'other'. If we didn't adhere to those invisible lines so much, and allowed ourselves to mingle, our lives would be a lot richer. It takes effort, however, and many are unwilling to put themselves out there.

Not for you, but you have the gift of thought. Others are not blessed with the philisophical mindset you have.
Perhaps most people can't make that extrapolation, seeing the 'other' as a person, rather than a construction. I do think it happens to everyone at least once in their lives, and it may take them by surprise. Hopefully that surprise encourages them to seek out more experiences like it.

Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. If everyone in the world had the average standard of living as in America, it would take something like 2.7 Earths to hold it all. There are not enough food and resources to supply humans, as we have far overpopulated our planet, though many don't realise this. Though I don't hold this against them too harshly, as it is in their genes to desire to propogate our species. But they are ignorant, as most people are, because our natural instincts tell us we're filthy liars if we don't try to increase the population of Homo sapiens.
I never said that it was possible to have the average American lifestyle...or even that it would be desirable to do so. We in the West (I'm in Canada) are incredibly wasteful of our resources and of the resources of others. It's not a sustainable lifestyle. What I was referring to was the basics of life: food, water, shelter and companionship. We could all have those things if resources weren't concentrated in the hands of few. This comes down to a philosophical belief in what is really necessary to have a fulfilling life...do material things create and mirror happiness, or do the social structures between humans fulfill this need? The overpopulation argument as well is not valid. It is not that there are 'too many people to feed', it is an issue of inequity in distribution. Canada produces far more food than we can possible consume, as do many countries, and the excess is sold off. Sometimes the market is flooded by 'dumping' and it plunges...some countries choose to destroy their stock rather than sell it at such reduced prices. This has been a practice used for centuries. The Soviet Union did it...grain rotted in the fields or in storehouses because of inadequate infrastructure, (another problem) and even in Canada, when cattle were culled (slaughtered) during the BSE crisis rather than tested and given away...or even sold at reduced prices. Destroying food was seen as the better option. As well, the world produces entirely too much non-essential foodstuffs...like sugar or coffee. Countries are encouraged to grow 'cash crops' rather than food for their people. This is an underlying cause of the food shortage...poor economic policies towards domestic production of food, as well as market dumping (which reduces the value of cash crops like sugar anyway), and poor distribution (with people in the west consuming many, many more calories than is needed to be healthy).

If that were only true... Communism would work and humans would make so much social progress if that were true. But sadly, it isn't.
And yet there are also wonderful success stories of communities working together... Hutterite and Mennonite colonies, which are essentially communistic (though deeply religious), and are very successful. Villages and neighbours helping one another. It is possible on certain scales. We want to do these things, and yet our divisions prevent us from doing it on a wider level.

It must be nice to not be a cynic...unfortunately your philosophy can't work because of that. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were cynics, and relied on human greed and ambition to balance power. Unfortunately, that has been undermined, and that's the reason the executive branch has become so powerful. But that isn't related, the fact is, continue with your existentialism, but look a little more into human corruption. That's just my take on it though, and I have no proof that I'm right, I just am pretty sure I am.

Well, frankly, I could care less about the US constitution:) I understand human corruption on a very real level...I have seen a lot of horrible things, and I know what humans are capable of. I also know we are capable of a lot of beauty, and I choose to embrace that rather than becoming disillusioned, and withdrawn. It is because I love myself, and my fellow humans, that I choose to fight the cynicism and selfishness in order to create something of more joy. I keep that fine balance, and sometimes I descend into despair, but always there is something out there to remind me that if we were really that bad, we'd have all self-destructed by now:)

But is the average standard of living in America a decent standard of living? Do we (you) all really need SUV's and swimming pools? I think Americans could have a decent lives with less materia. Americans and Australians are the worst polluters anyway (per capita).
No, in fact, but that is upper class standard of living. And no-one needs SUVs, they just guzzle gas...it's disgusting. I am middle to lower-middle class, though I live in an upper-middle class neighbourhood. And yes, everyone could live better lives with less property and material wants--that's one of the bases of Buddhism. Unfortunately, I have no idea how you would go about convincing capitalists of that. Capitalism is a wonderful economic system, but not as good of a social one.

There is enough food. But we choose to hand it out to cows to produce very un-ecologic (I know it's not a proper word, you get the idea) food.
Well, first of all, room is the biggest factor. Room to actually live decently. Japan is a good example of how we have overpopulated our planet, we all have to squish together much moreso than we would like. It is possible to make enough food, that is true. But then some people would have to forego their obesity...who wants that?!? I don't get your point about cows though. Beef is good for you in proper amounts, that's why we find it so tasty. And milk is certainly good for the body. What I think we shouldn't lay on cows is global warming. Bovine flatulence isn't the main contribution to greenhouse gases.

But is the average standard of living in America a decent standard of living? Do we (you) all really need SUV's and swimming pools? I think Americans could have a decent lives with less materia. Americans and Australians are the worst polluters anyway (per capita).

I think when you tell someone they do not need something they actually gain strength in their belief that they should do as they like (even though i agree with you that people dont need suv's,swimming pools or whatever) I also agree that if any other self righteous person trys to tell you how to live (no matter how righteous it may sound to the person, we are all self righteous) Then you have a right to blow off any person and their opinion if you choose to. So after all of our bickering of who is more right, we will always end back up at sqaure one until people choose to accept that everyone is different and righteous in their own self righteous ways. Without a complete sense of understanding equality within all of our opinions we will never reach the first step in a physical sense.

I don't get your point about cows though. Beef is good for you in proper amounts, that's why we find it so tasty. And milk is certainly good for the body. What I think we shouldn't lay on cows is global warming. Bovine flatulence isn't the main contribution to greenhouse gases.
I agree with you. That we're just too lazy and not bothered (enough). I'm sorry I'm lazy now, and just quickly explain the cow thing :)

Beef is good for you, that's true (in proper amounts, as you stated) but it's very un-ecological to produce. They need so much hay and water and space etc before you get any beef. And they pollute quite a lot too. Pigs grow faster and are much more eco-friendly animals to farm. So people should eat more vegetables (instead of feeding cows with them) and more pork and less beef.

You do realise that the proposal is basic communisim?

I like the definitions I got at school for communisim and capitalism, both mean everyone gets enough, one by government interferance the other by compassion.

I think when you tell someone they do not need something they actually gain strength in their belief that they should do as they like (even though i agree with you that people dont need suv's,swimming pools or whatever) I also agree that if any other self righteous person trys to tell you how to live (no matter how righteous it may sound to the person, we are all self righteous) Then you have a right to blow off any person and their opinion if you choose to. So after all of our bickering of who is more right, we will always end back up at sqaure one until people choose to accept that everyone is different and righteous in their own self righteous ways. Without a complete sense of understanding equality within all of our opinions we will never reach the first step in a physical sense.
Agreed.

I have constant disagreements with my boyfriend about this "decent living" issue. He wants to buy everything. movies, books, everything. And we could just walk 200m to library to get them free, but he just has to OWN everything. Now he wants to buy a huge house...with swimming pool I assume. But he has different views and I try to keep my mouth shut. (this actually has nothing to do with your post..just came to my mind)

I just hope people would realise themselves that materia is not a key to happiness. That they don't really need all that stuff they gather around them.

The most important things to me are my family and the experiences we have together. I don't want to kill myself at work just to have a bigger house (I just bought my first, and I'm very excited!), the one I have is fine. I'd rather spend time with my kids than pull in overtime. I don't shower them with gifts to makeup for my absence. My community is important to me, and I get involved in community events. When I need help, my neighbours provide it, because they know that I will do the same in their hour of need. We have very few possessions any more, other than furniture and other essentials (like instruments:)), and don't really spend much outside of food, babysitting and bills and such. We save money, but we also contribute our time and extra money to projects (not charities) that we can see results in. These are community based projects, or projects in my husband's home country of Chile (a workers co-op). I'm perfectly happy not having designer clothes or the latest appliance, and to be honest, we could live on even less and still be fine. I reduce because I want our resources to last and be there for our great, great, great, great, and further grandchildren. We even installed geothermal heating in our house (free heat from the earth) and are trying to figure out how to rig up enough solar and wind generators to get off the grid completely. Well, anyway, we're not perfect, but we're just trying to live our lives cleanly.

We even installed geothermal heating in our house (free heat from the earth) and are trying to figure out how to rig up enough solar and wind generators to get off the grid completely. Well, anyway, we're not perfect, but we're just trying to live our lives cleanly.
We have one small wind generator at our family cottage and that's enough over there. During winter we have to burn wood to keep the place warm but for lights and e.g. kitchen electricity that small generator is enough. They are more powerful that what they look like. Solar energy is a quite useless around here...

I like Churchill's quote on Communism and Capitalism. "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of communism is the equal sharing of miseries."

But anyway, inequality is a fact of life that should never and probably will never be changed.

People are born unequal. Some are born smarter, some faster, some stronger, and some quicker. Because of this the only way to achieve equality is to bring everybody down to the same level. See Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron that talks about this http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
The only other option is to genetically engineer everyone to the same level, and raise them all exactly the same, in other words, we'd all be the same, identical clones.

Economic inequality (at least in a capitalist system) has a number of benefits:
1) It provides incentives for people to contribute to society. Do you honestly think most people would work if they got the same economic standing regardless of whether they did or not?
2) It keeps technology, industry, and science advancing. Why would someone try to invent or discover something if they wouldn't get a benefit from it? Why would someone try to distribute a product if there wasn't an incentive to do so?
3) It is human nature to compete. Competing in a economic setting gives this a relatively harmless outlet, where this competiveness might otherwise be used in a more dangerous setting, such as violence.
4) Inequality advances knowledge and culture. Would half the people going to institutions of higher learning really go if there wasn't the incentive of a higher paying job? The incentive of more money gives people a reason to educate themselves.

All that being said, I believe everybody should recieve have the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, health care, and basic education.

As for on an individual level, money is not the be all and end all. Earn enough to support yourself and you family comfortably, give to those in need, and don't become overly pre-occupied with material possessions.

I'd also like to say I'd rather change my vote on the poll to other. I clicked to soon and misread the question.

People are born unequal. Some are born smarter, some faster, some stronger, and some quicker. Because of this the only way to achieve equality is to bring everybody down to the same level. See Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron that talks about this http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
The only other option is to genetically engineer everyone to the same level, and raise them all exactly the same, in other words, we'd all be the same, identical clones.

No one here is talking about creating 'equality' in the sense of making everyone the same. I am talking about 'equity'..as in fairness.

Economic inequality (at least in a capitalist system) has a number of benefits:
1) It provides incentives for people to contribute to society. Do you honestly think most people would work if they got the same economic standing regardless of whether they did or not?
Funny...I contribute to my community even though it gives me no financial benefit. Putting a dollar sign on every action suggests that the only human motivator is greed. That's not necessarily the case, though greed has an incredible power over us. Economic inequality in capitalism is also misleading. If it were really true that hard work would always be rewarded with riches, then believing this would be fine. It simply isn't true, however. Do you honestly think you work harder than a miner in Peru, who has no labour union to fight for his rights, who works in desperately dangerous circumstances for low pay, wearing out his body well in advance of his years? Is this labour less valued because it is physical and not mental? Or is it simply that this worker had the unfortunate luck to be born in Peru, and not in your country? If the footing was equal in the capitalist system, it would work...but many people have to overcome incredible odds to 'make it', while others are born without those obstacles. I'm not talking about personal qualities of intelligence or motivation...I'm talking about societies, position in life and other outside circumstances that affect one's ability to succeed. Sure, poor countries are being motivated to 'make it' like the industrialised nations...make it in the sense of consuming much more than is necessary, and creating an unsustainable standard of living. Do we really want everyone to reach that 'goal'? We COUNT on inequality to keep that from happening, so that we may have a lot, and the rest get a little.

2) It keeps technology, industry, and science advancing. Why would someone try to invent or discover something if they wouldn't get a benefit from it? Why would someone try to distribute a product if there wasn't an incentive to do so?
Are those products all necessary? Humans have always tried to improve their lives. We are builders of tools...that is how we are able to survive, despite being so physically weak compared to other animals. We have intellect, and the ability to adapt to our environment. Perhaps no one would be inventing the George Foreman grill, or vapoorize:) but we would certainly still be working to make our lives less miserable. The drive to cure horrible diseases is not monetary...a big reason why so little money is spent any more to do that. The majority of funds doled out for medical research is on things like Viagra and appetite reducers...little medicines for the rich, or cocktails to 'ward off' death from AIDs, rather than curing it. I can hear you asking for sources, so here is a quote first:

Of the 10 best-selling drugs of 2002, the top two (worth $13.5 billion in sales) were aimed at reducing cholesterol, one tackled high blood pressure, one ulcers, and two were antidepressants. 1 Pharmaceutical Executive, May 2003.

To read more: http://www.newint.org/, and go to back issues. We improve, we develop, we advance because it is in our nature to do so...not because there is a dollar sign put on it.

3) It is human nature to compete. Competing in a economic setting gives this a relatively harmless outlet, where this competiveness might otherwise be used in a more dangerous setting, such as violence.
4) Inequality advances knowledge and culture. Would half the people going to institutions of higher learning really go if there wasn't the incentive of a higher paying job? The incentive of more money gives people a reason to educate themselves.

I can also argue that it is human nature to co-operate. The truth, I think, lies in the middle. We are a conflicting mish-mash of competition and co-operation, love and hate, creation and destruction. The idea is to foster the good and resist the bad; simplistic sounding, but difficult to do. Capitalist countries are not immune from violence...that capital competition doesn't seem to get rid the 'dangerous setting' you spoke of. The U.S has more people in jail PER CAPITA than any other nation on Earth. Russia has the most people in numbers. Both are capitalist nations. Violence is rife in every society. How it is dealt with can either ignore the problem (lock them up and forget about it) or deal with it (attack the roots of violence, such as ignorance and poverty).


All that being said, I believe everybody should receive have the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, health care, and basic education.
Well they don't all receive those things. How do we ensure they do? How do we change the mindset that we 'deserve' more, even though it means there is less to go around? Most people would agree with you, that these things should be had by all...on one condition: that they don't have to give up anything in order for that to happen.

But anyway, inequality is a fact of life that should never and probably will never be changed.

People are born unequal. Some are born smarter, some faster, some stronger, and some quicker. Because of this the only way to achieve equality is to bring everybody down to the same level. See Kurt Vonnegut's short story Harrison Bergeron that talks about this http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/hb.html
The only other option is to genetically engineer everyone to the same level, and raise them all exactly the same, in other words, we'd all be the same, identical clones.

The idea of equality is not based upon a theory that will not work (such as fixing the equality of our born differences). Equality is sought on a respectful basis that everyone is equally self righteous. Judgement, selfishness,greed,lust and so many other negative factors contribute to the inequality we experience throughout our lifetimes. Some may look at Bill Gates and say he has everything anyone could ever want, while he certainly could get that temporary feeling from all the various material items. That grows tiresome and will never satisfy the appetite we are trying to feed with materials. The appetite we feed wants an everlasting satisfaction not a temporary one. Many who are capable of acting as a chameleon in any situation for some reason choose to stay one color all their life, in effect not experiencing very much of life at all. Anotherwards in order to accept and love equality we must understand not only what we want in life but more of what others want. Understanding more of others while judging them less allows us to see ourselves within everyone of us in some way. We are all equal when we willingly embrace our differences.

We are all equal when we willingly embrace our differences.

I think that is very true...we become more equal when we stop forcing everyone to be THE SAME. I think that when we embrace differences, we are actually acknowledging the common bond humanity has, and though we may look or act a bit differently, deep down we are made of the same stuff. (somewhat of a paradox) Now, by embracing difference, I do not mean JUSTIFYING all cultural differences...for me, violence in any form is morally repugnant. I do not think we should shrug off violence inherent in a culture simply because it is "their culture, not ours". Female genital mutilation is a good example. It is a violence done to women (as girls), and despite being a cultural norm, it is still a violent act that should be done away with. Going in and invading the countries that practice this abomination does not solve anything. Supporting the women (and men) within the culture who oppose this violence is more meaningful and keeps the power in the hands of those who belong to that culture.

So yes, I agree, we should embrace our differences, and accept those differences, even if they bother us on some level...AS LONG AS THOSE DIFFERENCES AREN'T USED TO EXCUSE VIOLENCE.

People arn't born equally, there is a VERY LARGE difference between you and the child born in some 3rd world countries slums.

At the 2004 University of Washington Commencement, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright August Wilson spoke to the graduating class. In his speech he conveyed the following idea:

"Look around you. Everywhere you see systems of commerce and transportation, systems of law and government, systems of communication and finance and agriculture. You didn't build any of it. You are reaping the harvest. You are heirs to all of it. To all of our history. The glorious and the shameful. It does not come free. It comes with rights and responsibilities."

A person in a 3rd world country isn't an heir to it all, they are an heir to nothing, should they also recieve everything for nothing? No, because they don't deserve it. But they also arn't faced with the societal rights and responsibilites you may be faced with.

WHY should there be equality?? Why can't I work that much harder to be that much better??

Inequality is human nature, we naturally desire to be the best, to be NUMBER ONE. Competition drives us to become a stronger world, without competition we would have nothing we have today...

I voted other in your poll because I think there's a problem with your second option: "No, I believe that people are entitled to the resources they have, and inequality is inevitable."

I believe that inequality is inevitable, but not that people are entitled to the resources they have. Even Jesus said "The poor will always be with you" and I think there's something to that--it's a statement on basic human nature. Humans are by nature a selfish lot, and it's only through severe self-discipline that we manage to control that nature. We fail more often than not. That's the biggest reason there's such economic inequality in every society. So in that sense, I think it's inevitable that there will be economic inequality--there are those people who are unwilling to control that selfish instinct and will in fact revel in it in order to acquire power and wealth.

Personally, I'd be willing to make the sacrifice, and I have. I don't make a lot of money, but a portion of what I do make goes to local charities to help the homeless and mentally ill. I can't help much, but I try--and if I won the lottery, for instance, a lot of that money would go to those causes.

But none of us as individuals are entitled to any resources. The planet doesn't owe us anything. If we consider ourselves a global organism--humanity--then I think we owe it to each other to try to help the organism as a whole survive, and that means the stronger individuals helping out the individuals that are weaker. But I don't kid myself--I know I'm in the minority when it comes to putting that philosophy into practice. Lots of people mouth it, but few actually do it (religious people, I'm looking at you).

Thoughts?

I do believe that those who have have a moral responsibility to those who do not. Which, is why I donate to charities, give money or more likely purchase food for those in need.

But, first and foremost I have a responsibility to my family. They should never have to go to the gov. looking for a hand out so long as I have it within my power to provide for them. Of course, anyone who is capable of providing for themselves should be. I am not willing to, nor to I believe I have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to provide for those who refuse to provide for themselves. Working as a social-worker I see both those who can provide for themselves and those who can't being provided for out of our current welfare system. The former frequently get a bigger protion of the pie because they yell the loudest and seem to have an overwhelming sense of entitlement, while those who actually need the help see it for what it is (charity) and are greatful for it. This is the problem with gov. entitlements and letting the gov. be responsible for providing for people. It lacks the judgment that you and I would use when deciding whether or not someone needs assistance. If we had direct, individual, contact with the people and helped them ourselves, rather than abdicating that responsibility to gov. resources would be utilized in a much more productive and efficient manner.

Oh, I do believe that inequity is a given. We live in a world filled with both selfish and unselfish individuals. None of us has the right to dictate to another which she or he should be. We can preach and try to convince at the top of our lungs, but we don't have the right to coerse. As a result, those who are selfish will always have an inequitable amount of the resources.

A person in a 3rd world country isn't an heir to it all, they are an heir to nothing, should they also recieve everything for nothing? No, because they don't deserve it.
They don't DESERVE it because they happened to be born there? Why do YOU deserve it, simply because of where you were born? You did nothing to build up that infrastructure you speak of, yet you are reaping the benefits. Are you somehow better than those born in poor countries?


But they also arn't faced with the societal rights and responsibilites you may be faced with.
Like respecting the law? Paying taxes? Contributing to society through work and participation? ALL humans belonging to a society, rich or poor, have those responsibilities. Being poor does not abrogate you of that responsibility...it just limits the amount you can contribute. Do you really think they would not 'take on more' responsibility if it meant lowering the infant mortality rate, or raise the standard of living in their country? What responsibilities do YOU have that justify the relative wealth you were born into? What responsibilities or qualities do you have that justify clinging onto that wealth, despite the fact that because of this inequal distribution, others must live in poverty?

WHY should there be equality?? Why can't I work that much harder to be that much better?? Do you honestly think you work harder than people in poor countries? You think they lay on their backs all day and collect welfare? THERE IS NO WELFARE in most countries, for one thing, and I challenge you to take the job of an ordinary labourer for ONE DAY and then tell me you work harder than that. It isn't about how hard one works...it is about the opportunities made available to some, and not to others.

Inequality is human nature, we naturally desire to be the best, to be NUMBER ONE. Competition drives us to become a stronger world, without competition we would have nothing we have today...
Again, I argue that it is also part of human nature to co-operate, or society could not function, and our nation states would fly apart. It is essential to keep a balance between competition and co-operation.

I acknowledge that humans are selfish, but I also acknowlege that humans are selfless. We are a strange mix of good and bad, and yes, it takes discipline to nuture the positive sides of ourselves. I think it is strange that so many religions started out for that very reason: to nurture the positive: and yet so many have been turned into destructive tools. What I can not sanction is the justification of our base instincts (selfishness, greed, hatred) by saying, "Nature designed us that way, and that's the way it is". Nature also designed us to be compassionate, selfless and loving. If you want to cling to your wealth, and you have contempt for other humans, believing yourself above them, you HAVE that choice. But don't try to shrug off the responsibility of that choice. Admit that you are selfish, admit that you cling to the negative, and deal with your decision. Things are the way we make them...we are the innovators.

I'm mostly FOR equal distribution, but it should be absolute. People risking their lives for others (cops, firemen) should get more than someone who refuses to work. But that person also should be able to live properly

First of all, goos show on philosophising! It is one the most enjoyable and worthwhile past-times, in my opinion. I'm just surprised that your pondering hasn't led you to a more cynical conclusion.


I think you'd be surprised by the stubborness that some people hold on to their bigotry. Presented with the most convincing evidence will make some people's biases even stronger. Thinking isn't "in". If religion didn't encourage this type of behaviour, I wouldn't be so fervently against it.


Not for you, but you have the gift of thought. Others are not blessed with the philisophical mindset you have.


Sorry, but this is just flat out wrong. If everyone in the world had the average standard of living as in America, it would take something like 2.7 Earths to hold it all. There are not enough food and resources to supply humans, as we have far overpopulated our planet, though many don't realise this. Though I don't hold this against them too harshly, as it is in their genes to desire to propogate our species. But they are ignorant, as most people are, because our natural instincts tell us we're filthy liars if we don't try to increase the population of Homo sapiens.


Nope.


Yes, I do at least. I always feel uncomforatable when presented with the inferior standard of living others have compared to me. I wouldn't trade mine for theirs, but it's through no work of mine that I'm better off. Though this isn't true for some people, the ones who are born poor and make a path for themselves, but this isn't common, and I know sure as hell that I wouldn't have done that if I was born to a poorer family (I'm middle class).


I agree; although it is true that we could create actual castes through dysgenics, similar to Brave New World. I recommend you listen to Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall, Part II". It references the British education system of a few decades ago, but is a criticism of exactly what you say. And isn't too bad, to boot.


I also recommend Savage Inequalities by Jonathan Kozol. It may be a little depressing, but I think it should be a requisite for all high schoolers. For those higher up in the American class system, it may be a wake-up call. For those lower down, it may be a stimulus of knowledge and motivate them to try to change it.


If that were only true... Communism would work and humans would make so much social progress if that were true. But sadly, it isn't.


Yes, and it makes people feel so, oh so much better.


I think we lack the motivation. Understanding would help, but so many people are bigots and ignoramuses, that there would just block it out and say "Well, <insert intelligence above humans> must want it so," or some such bullsh*t.


It must be nice to not be a cynic...unfortunately your philosophy can't work because of that. The Framers of the U.S. Constitution were cynics, and relied on human greed and ambition to balance power. Unfortunately, that has been undermined, and that's the reason the executive branch has become so powerful. But that isn't related, the fact is, continue with your existentialism, but look a little more into human corruption. That's just my take on it though, and I have no proof that I'm right, I just am pretty sure I am. Wow, we have great minds here today. :rolleyes: :) ;)

This is why I believe in moderate socialism - many Americans confuse this with communism, but I believe in a system that would WORK.

You're right, whoever started this - people do often believe that they got to their positions soley through hard work. But Gnostikos, you are perhaps incorrect, saying that higher living standards would require 2.7 earths - people wouldn't have so many children if they were richer, because they often do through lack of information (the biggest cause, also of HIV and AIDS) and to provide care for their old age.

What really angers me is that so much could be done if the massive countries actually tried to help. (Think of all that money spent on "defence" that could be used usefully) But there is no rest from human greed. Never has been, and won't be in our lifetimes.

I acknowledge that humans are selfish, but I also acknowlege that humans are selfless. We are a strange mix of good and bad, and yes, it takes discipline to nuture the positive sides of ourselves. I think it is strange that so many religions started out for that very reason: to nurture the positive: and yet so many have been turned into destructive tools. What I can not sanction is the justification of our base instincts (selfishness, greed, hatred) by saying, "Nature designed us that way, and that's the way it is". Nature also designed us to be compassionate, selfless and loving. If you want to cling to your wealth, and you have contempt for other humans, believing yourself above them, you HAVE that choice. But don't try to shrug off the responsibility of that choice. Admit that you are selfish, admit that you cling to the negative, and deal with your decision. Things are the way we make them...we are the innovators.

I think I agree with most everything you said there. The only place I'd ever have a problem with it is if you want to have the gov. force those who are selfish to do something they don't want to, that isn't related to a direct violation of someone else's individual rights.

They don't DESERVE it because they happened to be born there? Why do YOU deserve it, simply because of where you were born? You did nothing to build up that infrastructure you speak of, yet you are reaping the benefits. Are you somehow better than those born in poor countries?

Yes, I was born into it. It is MY inheiritance. With it comes my responsibility to conserve it, develop it, and pass on a greater inheiritance to the next generation. Is the citizens of the poor country responsibility to shape their world and make it how they want it, my fore fathers gave blood, sweat, tears and pride to develop this country from nothing, theirs didn't.


Like respecting the law? Paying taxes? Contributing to society through work and participation? ALL humans belonging to a society, rich or poor, have those responsibilities. Being poor does not abrogate you of that responsibility...it just limits the amount you can contribute. Do you really think they would not 'take on more' responsibility if it meant lowering the infant mortality rate, or raise the standard of living in their country? What responsibilities do YOU have that justify the relative wealth you were born into? What responsibilities or qualities do you have that justify clinging onto that wealth, despite the fact that because of this inequal distribution, others must live in poverty?

The rich members of that society are usually forced to pay a greater tax load. Thus, they have more responsibility.

Money is there, it just matters how much you want to sacrifice for it. I do not believe a person's social class or where they are born limits are far they can suceed in the world. It's just a matter of how hard you have to work and what you have to sacrifice to reach it.

Do you honestly think you work harder than people in poor countries? You think they lay on their backs all day and collect welfare? THERE IS NO WELFARE in most countries, for one thing, and I challenge you to take the job of an ordinary labourer for ONE DAY and then tell me you work harder than that. It isn't about how hard one works...it is about the opportunities made available to some, and not to others.

That is there problem. If they don't feel they are recieving proper pay for their hard work or achievements they should rebel. If they rebel, they can fight for better pay or rights. They are the bottom of the pyramid, if you remove it the entire pyramid will collapse, they have more power then they think.


Again, I argue that it is also part of human nature to co-operate, or society could not function, and our nation states would fly apart. It is essential to keep a balance between competition and co-operation.

Why couldn't we exist in a society where everyone strives to be the best and have the goverment hold us together?? We all simply work as hard as we can and make as much money as we can and then we are equally taxed by the goverment, and the goverment can run all the programs needed to hold us together as a society.

They don't DESERVE it because they happened to be born there? Why do YOU deserve it, simply because of where you were born? You did nothing to build up that infrastructure you speak of, yet you are reaping the benefits. Are you somehow better than those born in poor countries?


Like respecting the law? Paying taxes? Contributing to society through work and participation? ALL humans belonging to a society, rich or poor, have those responsibilities. Being poor does not abrogate you of that responsibility...it just limits the amount you can contribute. Do you really think they would not 'take on more' responsibility if it meant lowering the infant mortality rate, or raise the standard of living in their country? What responsibilities do YOU have that justify the relative wealth you were born into? What responsibilities or qualities do you have that justify clinging onto that wealth, despite the fact that because of this inequal distribution, others must live in poverty?

Do you honestly think you work harder than people in poor countries? You think they lay on their backs all day and collect welfare? THERE IS NO WELFARE in most countries, for one thing, and I challenge you to take the job of an ordinary labourer for ONE DAY and then tell me you work harder than that. It isn't about how hard one works...it is about the opportunities made available to some, and not to others.


Again, I argue that it is also part of human nature to co-operate, or society could not function, and our nation states would fly apart. It is essential to keep a balance between competition and co-operation. This is exactly what I (and perhaps most thinking people) was going to say. See what I mean? It's ignorance and complacency. You hit all the points, Sinuhue.

Yes, I was born into it. It is MY inheiritance. With it comes my responsibility to conserve it, develop it, and pass on a greater inheiritance to the next generation. Is the citizens of the poor country responsibility to shape their world and make it how they want it, my fore fathers gave blood, sweat, tears and pride to develop this country from nothing, theirs didn't.




The rich members of that society are usually forced to pay a greater tax load. Thus, they have more responsibility.

Money is there, it just matters how much you want to sacrifice for it. I do not believe a person's social class or where they are born limits are far they can suceed in the world. It's just a matter of how hard you have to work and what you have to sacrifice to reach it.



That is there problem. If they don't feel they are recieving proper pay for their hard work or achievements they should rebel. If they rebel, they can fight for better pay or rights. They are the bottom of the pyramid, if you remove it the entire pyramid will collapse, they have more power then they think.




Why couldn't we exist in a society where everyone strives to be the best and have the goverment hold us together?? We all simply work as hard as we can and make as much money as we can and then we are equally taxed by the goverment, and the goverment can run all the programs needed to hold us together as a society. You are naïve beyond belief. How can they rebel? In many sub-saharan countries, they would instantly be executed and probably tortured. "It's just a matter of how hard you have to work and what you have to sacrifice to reach it." …are you trying to actually state that they can just work overtime and become successful businessmen? They actually work very hard (it's funny those 16-hour day kids in Victorian England didn't become MPs), and they can't just rise to the top by working more! No, you don't need to remove the working classes. You can't. But you can at least make sure that they have clean water and a sort of safety from easily prevented diseases?

If you would not live to let others live, you are not "self-sacrificing" - which is EXACTLY what you have said that they should do! But they should know their place, born into bondage.

This is exactly what I (and perhaps most thinking people) was going to say. See what I mean? It's ignorance and complacency. You hit all the points, Sinuhue.


The problem is, none of us has the right to take from someone who has more. It is always a responsibility of the rich to care for others and use there means benevolently, but I don't have the right to ever steal what is yours simply because you have more than me. It should always be both given and received as a gift of benevolence.

1) True equality is physically impossible. Are you going to force people to not plant vegetable gardens, or to distribute kids so that the hassle falls on equal shoulders?

2) People should earn based on their merits. The reason this breaks down is that those merits include law-breaking and being a rat bastard. If you remove the law-breaking and the rat bastard part, it gets much less problematic.

3) There should be a standard of living that MUST be met. The trick is people waste so much on entertainment that the actual food/shelter thing gets mangled. House, bed, healthy food, yes. Cable, Booze, Porn, Twinkies, NO. Not only does that junk keep people from being fully healthy (except maybe porn.. porn might keep people from raping each other...), but it makes them more likely to be satisfied. If you have Everquest, and a government check for life, and a lazy disposition, you're not going to be looking at college much.

4) People keep breeding. I'm sorry, but people should NOT be allowed to breed until they can support children. People who have dangerous psychological disorders should similarly be cut off from reproduction (Dangerous being, say, multiple personalities or EXTREME bipolarism. Being mildly bipolar isn't that big a deal, nor is being a little neurotic.)

5) Actually smack corporate crime, finally. Won't happen because they own the bloody world, but ideally...

6) Try to influence the culture itself in to having better priorities. Compare how much Baseball players make to how much teachers make. It's not because that money doesn't exist, its because people care more about sports than education. This is BAD. Change this, and you change the bloody world. Especially around here, since the sports program LOSES money, but still runs the school.

I, myself, am happily not going to be making more than I deserve. As a writer, I only get what I earn. People don't get bought out to be injected to my latest story, nor do I sabotage their efforts of writing. It's why I CHOSE writing as a career. Other industries aren't so benevolent. Otherwise I would have gotten in to science. But the fricking drug companies and oil companies and chemical companies... brrr

The problem is, none of us has the right to take from someone who has more. It is always a responsibility of the rich to care for others and use there means benevolently, but I don't have the right to ever steal what is yours simply because you have more than me. It should always be both given and received as a gift of benevolence. Except Robin Hood… ;) anyway - that wouldn't be right. The Russians tried it in the early Red years and they ended up with a Civil War. But what's really wrong is the complacency (WTF was that guy going on about… they can demand higher wages? And get shot by Mugabe's men?). You have noticed that the thread's Q. asks if you'd give up stuff… that implies your own free will.

You are naïve beyond belief. How can they rebel? In many sub-saharan countries, they would instantly be executed and probably tortured. "It's just a matter of how hard you have to work and what you have to sacrifice to reach it." …are you trying to actually state that they can just work overtime and become successful businessmen? They actually work very hard (it's funny those 16-hour day kids in Victorian England didn't become MPs), and they can't just rise to the top by working more! No, you don't need to remove the working classes. You can't. But you can at least make sure that they have clean water and a sort of safety from easily prevented diseases?

If you would not live to let others live, you are not "self-sacrificing" - which is EXACTLY what you have said that they should do! But they should know their place, born into bondage.

What happens if they rebel? WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY ARE ALL EXECUTED? Hmm?

What happens if you remove the bottom of the triangle?? The triangle is destroyed, if the people of power executed and tortured the the people at the bottom, they would be executing themselves.

They realize they need those people to work 16-20 hour days to keep them in power.

I am self-sacrificing though, everything I do and how hard I WORK, will affect MY next generation.

4) People keep breeding. I'm sorry, but people should NOT be allowed to breed until they can support children. People who have dangerous psychological disorders should similarly be cut off from reproduction (Dangerous being, say, multiple personalities or EXTREME bipolarism. Being mildly bipolar isn't that big a deal, nor is being a little neurotic.)

EXACTLY. If people have nothing to pass on to their next generation, why are they birthing their child into failure?

Those sub-saharan countries are CREATING THEIR OWN problems of overpopulation, disease, and mal-nutrition.

Uh,

I thought this thread was supposed to be about sustainability, not 'Robin Hood' politics.

Everyone knows that the earth's resources are finite, what I want to know is, why aren't renewables higher on the list of products to go for? For example:

Most people in the US live in a wood frame, sheet rock walled house. However, the insulation isn't very good on these houses (I know, I have one, and there's not a whole lot you can do) and they tend to have problems with mold and insects. Why then aren't we building houses with sustainable materials like strawbales? Straw is generally considered a waste product from growing grain, and has better insulative qualities and is more fire resistant than houses made from wood.

Why are we so worried about what other people in other parts of the world may or may not have, when the fact is, we have a lot more than we need here, if we use it wisely.

EXACTLY. If people have nothing to pass on to their next generation, why are they birthing their child into failure?

Those sub-saharan countries are CREATING THEIR OWN problems of overpopulation, disease, and mal-nutrition. Really? So every single African subsaharan is helping create the problems?

Well, maybe they're birthing the child because they do not know ANYTHING about sex, and may well have been raped.

What happens if they rebel? WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY ARE ALL EXECUTED? Hmm?

What happens if you remove the bottom of the triangle?? The triangle is destroyed, if the people of power executed and tortured the the people at the bottom, they would be executing themselves.

They realize they need those people to work 16-20 hour days to keep them in power.

I am self-sacrificing though, everything I do and how hard I WORK, will affect MY next generation. How can they organise a rebellion? You'd think they'd thought of it already, wouldn't you?

Read Amnesty Int. on Africa.

The problem is, none of us has the right to take from someone who has more. It is always a responsibility of the rich to care for others and use there means benevolently, but I don't have the right to ever steal what is yours simply because you have more than me. It should always be both given and received as a gift of benevolence.

If you believe that, then how can you sanction the incredible theft of resources that helped to make so many rich countries wealthy? The theft of people: slavery to run sugar plantations and mine precious metals in the Americas; the theft of resources: from diamonds to copper to cotton, you name it, when Europe divided up Africa and Latin America, they plundered all that they could; the theft of democracy: the imposition of dictators in South America, Indonesia and elsewhere in order to provide 'stability' to allow business interests to thrive; the theft of self-determination: IMF imposed structural adjustment programs that force governments to privatise vital industries and social programs, the selfsame industries and programs that helped build up Western nations to their present standard of living...

You say that sharing, if it is forced, is akin to sharing. I consider it to be a form of reparations for the raping and pillaging of the Third World by the rich powers.

If you want to reap the benefits of the 'blood, sweat and tears' of your forefathers, you should also pay the price of their crimes.

Really? So every single African subsaharan is helping create the problems?

Well, maybe they're birthing the child because they do not know ANYTHING about sex, and may well have been raped. If they didn't know ANYTHING about sex, they wouldn't be having it.

How can they organise a rebellion? You'd think they'd thought of it already, wouldn't you?

Read Amnesty Int. on Africa.

How hard would it be to have a mass exodus of a country or a refusal to work for certain companies in the country?? Rebelling to power is a natural human trait. Don't tell me they were bred without it.

If you want to reap the benefits of the 'blood, sweat and tears' of your forefathers, you should also pay the price of their crimes.

Why? My fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears to fight for those resources. They were not "STOLEN" they were conquered by a greater, smarter, stronger, more advanced opponent.

They can challenge us for those resources back, but we will swing back with our iron fist.

1) True equality is physically impossible. Are you going to force people to not plant vegetable gardens, or to distribute kids so that the hassle falls on equal shoulders?

For once and all, people, stop acting like equality means forcing everyone to be the same. Read the posts first. Let us not talk about equality then if it is such a confusing concept...instead, let us speak of equity: FAIRNESS.

2) People should earn based on their merits. The reason this breaks down is that those merits include law-breaking and being a rat bastard. If you remove the law-breaking and the rat bastard part, it gets much less problematic.
True...if success were a meritocracy, no one in power would still be there. Instead, the ones that get ahead are the most callous, most bloodthirsty of us, and for some reason we celebrate this instead of reviling it.

3) There should be a standard of living that MUST be met. The trick is people waste so much on entertainment that the actual food/shelter thing gets mangled.
Not people as in all people...people as in those who can afford the time and money for such luxuries. The majority of people on this earth just want to be able to feed their families, and damn the tv. To provide for true equity on a global level, we can not spend so much time and resources on the extras. That would mean not spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars on clothes per capita, by not gorging ourselves past the healthy limit on food we neither need, nor enjoy. That means making sure that everyone has ENOUGH before we ask for more. To remain sustainable, we can not all turn into consumer cultures as the west has done. We need to raise the poor up, and lower the rich down, while maintaining sustainability and adequate distribution of resources.

4) People keep breeding. I'm sorry, but people should NOT be allowed to breed until they can support children.
So the poor should be sterilized? India did this in the 70s...rounded up villages and forced them to have vasectomies and tubals. Did it curb the population problem? No, it simply took the choice away from its populace. This is a violence done that can never be recovered from.

It has been proven that education and decent living conditions lower populations. Wealth does not mean more children...most wealthy nations have negative population growth. Ignorance, and faulty 'abstinence' programs in place of education and readily available birth control are a problem. Infant mortality is another one...of course a woman would choose to have many children when she knows most may die. I'm not going to address the mental illness issue right now.



5) Actually smack corporate crime, finally. Won't happen because they own the bloody world, but ideally...
Yes, and have them actually PAY taxes. Shell Corp paid $1 of income tax in 1999 after all their tax breaks and tax shelters. That is certainly not a case of the 'rich contributing more to society'. The richer you are, the more loopholes you can find to hide your money. The middle class bears the brunt of taxes.

6) Try to influence the culture itself in to having better priorities. Compare how much Baseball players make to how much teachers make. It's not because that money doesn't exist, its because people care more about sports than education. This is BAD. Change this, and you change the bloody world. Especially around here, since the sports program LOSES money, but still runs the school.
Agreed. This is a good example of how hard work does not guarantee you riches. Our priorities dictate salaries, and our priorities are deeply flawed.

I, myself, am happily not going to be making more than I deserve. As a writer, I only get what I earn. People don't get bought out to be injected to my latest story, nor do I sabotage their efforts of writing. It's why I CHOSE writing as a career. Other industries aren't so benevolent. Otherwise I would have gotten in to science. But the fricking drug companies and oil companies and chemical companies... brrr

Hehehe...and I am teacher, and I became one knowing I would never make a lot of money. My 17 year old brother is making more as a first year apprentice electrician then I have after 5 years of school and as many years teaching experience. I didn't go into my profession wanting to get rich. I can support myself, and my family, and help my husband's family out as well, and that is enough. I don't have a lot of money for frills, but I enjoy my standard of living. If I knew that others would be able to support THEIR families if it meant giving up the few frills I DO have, I would. Unfortunately, too much of our 'charity' gets sucked into the pockets of the already wealthy. I choose to involve myself in actions and work that has discernible results in my community, where I can keep an eye on the money and time being invested in such works. I only wish our governments would do the same in regards to the 'help' being given to other countries.

Meh. A huge part of it is all the bloody missionaries trying to extend suffering everywhere. Like Mother Theresa, who tried to get birth control banned in India.

Woman was worse than any terrorist ever born.

Meh. A huge part of it is all the bloody missionaries trying to extend suffering everywhere. Like Mother Theresa, who tried to get birth control banned in India.

Woman was worse than any terrorist ever born.

ROFL, that's awesome.

But is the average standard of living in America a decent standard of living? Do we (you) all really need SUV's and swimming pools? I think Americans could have a decent lives with less materia. Americans and Australians are the worst polluters anyway (per capita).

There is enough food. But we choose to hand it out to cows to produce very un-ecologic (I know it's not a proper word, you get the idea) food.

What's wrong with swimming pools?

If they didn't know ANYTHING about sex, they wouldn't be having it.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of rape. It is non-consensual. You don't need to know what it is to become a victim of it.

As well, women in many countries do not have the right to deny their husband offspring. That's right, they CAN'T SAY NO. Oh wait, you'll say, sure they can! Yes, and be beaten, and raped, and forced to become pregnant anyway.

Then there is the issue of birth control. It is prohibitively expensive in many countries. When you must choose between eating (and I'm not talking about eating well, I'm talking about survival) and buying condoms (which may or may not even be available in your area), who would choose condoms? Stop having sex, you cry! Yes, deny people even the basic pleasure of human contact, sometimes the one thing that helps them rise above the misery of their condition. Sterilize the poor...punish them because they were born into conditions they neither created, nor desire.


How hard would it be to have a mass exodus of a country or a refusal to work for certain companies in the country??

And where would the entire population of a country flee too? It's neighbouring nations? Setting up refugee camps in even worse conditions? Be denied refuge in rich countries? Be forced to wander until death? Don't be ridiculous. As for refusing to work...yes, and then you would damn them for being lazy. Sometimes you are forced to endure demeaning and even inhumane conditions in order to guarantee your survival. There are always those who rebel...and are tortured, or executed like Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria, or thousands upon thousands of other in many nations who HAVE rebelled. Did their deaths improve conditions? In only vary rare circumstances, if enough people who matter (in rich countries) were outraged enough.

If you believe that, then how can you sanction the incredible theft of resources that helped to make so many rich countries wealthy? The theft of people: slavery to run sugar plantations and mine precious metals in the Americas; the theft of resources: from diamonds to copper to cotton, you name it, when Europe divided up Africa and Latin America, they plundered all that they could; the theft of democracy: the imposition of dictators in South America, Indonesia and elsewhere in order to provide 'stability' to allow business interests to thrive; the theft of self-determination: IMF imposed structural adjustment programs that force governments to privatise vital industries and social programs, the selfsame industries and programs that helped build up Western nations to their present standard of living...

You say that sharing, if it is forced, is akin to sharing. I consider it to be a form of reparations for the raping and pillaging of the Third World by the rich powers.

If you want to reap the benefits of the 'blood, sweat and tears' of your forefathers, you should also pay the price of their crimes.


Thing is, I don't sanction it. Of course, I don't believe it is ever gov's responsibility to run social programs or even fiscal programs. The only thing I want my government to do is to ensure that my individual rights and freedoms and the individual rights and freedoms remain unabbridged. I would be willing to willingly contribute to certain infra-structure, but it should never be coerced/force.

As for repairations, again, I have the responsibility to care for those within my sphere of contact, but holding me responsible for the crimes of others isn't exactly just. Incidently, I voluntarily assist people in other countries as I am able. Again, I am just saying that Gov. has no business being involved to begin with.

Why? My fore fathers gave their blood, sweat and tears to fight for those resources. They were not "STOLEN" they were conquered by a greater, smarter, stronger, more advanced opponent.

They can challenge us for those resources back, but we will swing back with our iron fist.

I say stolen, you say conquered. It ends up the same; the resources gathered in one small corner of the world rather than shared equitably. You prove my point... humans need to justify their selfishness by falling back on the idea that 'nature' meant us to be this way. We are not only in competition with each other, we are also in co-operation.

As it is, the need for sustainability is being forced upon us by the repercussions of our lifestyle; environmental damage that now damages us; poor health from overeating and under exercising; dissatisfaction with all the material things that were supposed to fulfill us. It seems it will take crisis after crisis to shake us out of the selfish mindset that we are GUESTS on this planet, and that 'conquering' it will do us only harm in the end. That includes the way we treat our fellow human beings. Time and time again, the poor and oppressed have risen up to throw off their chains, often in a most bloody manner. Is that the only action you would respect? Must you be FORCED to act more humanely towards your fellow humans? How sad to be a slave to your appetite.

For once and all, people, stop acting like equality means forcing everyone to be the same. Read the posts first. Let us not talk about equality then if it is such a confusing concept...instead, let us speak of equity: FAIRNESS.


It's hard to make fairness work artificially. You have to educate people in to not giving their money to unworthy groups. For instance, I stopped buying Nabisco and similar products because they have tobacco connections. And dammit, I love oreos. They're so.. addictive... ...

Alas, Marketing exists. Take a marketing class, and tell me it doesn't make you want to hurl.

I was going to take on a business minor, and then that class reminded me that I'm only so evil.


True...if success were a meritocracy, no one in power would still be there. Instead, the ones that get ahead are the most callous, most bloodthirsty of us, and for some reason we celebrate this instead of reviling it.


Yep. Connivers. Fun.


Not people as in all people...people as in those who can afford the time and money for such luxuries. The majority of people on this earth just want to be able to feed their families, and damn the tv. To provide for true equity on a global level, we can not spend so much time and resources on the extras. That would mean not spending hundreds and even thousands of dollars on clothes per capita, by not gorging ourselves past the healthy limit on food we neither need, nor enjoy. That means making sure that everyone has ENOUGH before we ask for more. To remain sustainable, we can not all turn into consumer cultures as the west has done. We need to raise the poor up, and lower the rich down, while maintaining sustainability and adequate distribution of resources.


Agreed, but I'm not sure about lowering the rich. No need to lower them. Just make them pay their fair share for once. As you mention below, tax loopholes.


So the poor should be sterilized? India did this in the 70s...rounded up villages and forced them to have vasectomies and tubals. Did it curb the population problem? No, it simply took the choice away from its populace. This is a violence done that can never be recovered from.


Nope. Just say "Do this, and we'll make you wear pink wigs forever!" Seriously though, if you remove someone's ABILITY to reproduce, they'll have much less to strive for (And the Brits are STILL trying to do this to gypsies). I was also more talking about the US. 3rd world stuff is a whole different can of worms.


It has been proven that education and decent living conditions lower populations. Wealth does not mean more children...most wealthy nations have negative population growth. Ignorance, and faulty 'abstinence' programs in place of education and readily available birth control are a problem. Infant mortality is another one...of course a woman would choose to have many children when she knows most may die. I'm not going to address the mental illness issue right now.


Step 1: Kick the missionaries out.

Step 2: Pay educated people to educate on a large scale.

Step 3: Electrify any missionaries trying to sneak back in to screw it all up.


Yes, and have them actually PAY taxes. Shell Corp paid $1 of income tax in 1999 after all their tax breaks and tax shelters. That is certainly not a case of the 'rich contributing more to society'. The richer you are, the more loopholes you can find to hide your money. The middle class bears the brunt of taxes.


Yep. The middle class gets the least representation and pays the most money.


Agreed. This is a good example of how hard work does not guarantee you riches. Our priorities dictate salaries, and our priorities are deeply flawed.


Yep. Honestly, video games are more important than sports because video games, at the very least, help to advance technology in other areas (the military loves video game simulations even more than terrorists do, heh). Sports have no purpose as a visual activity. They make a GREAT thing to DO, but to watch, they help people be lazy, as they can just live through Shaq instead of BE Shaq. And then they buy the sucky expensive shoes because Shaq says so.... grrr.


Hehehe...and I am teacher, and I became one knowing I would never make a lot of money. My 17 year old brother is making more as a first year apprentice electrician then I have after 5 years of school and as many years teaching experience. I didn't go into my profession wanting to get rich. I can support myself, and my family, and help my husband's family out as well, and that is enough. I don't have a lot of money for frills, but I enjoy my standard of living. If I knew that others would be able to support THEIR families if it meant giving up the few frills I DO have, I would. Unfortunately, too much of our 'charity' gets sucked into the pockets of the already wealthy. I choose to involve myself in actions and work that has discernible results in my community, where I can keep an eye on the money and time being invested in such works. I only wish our governments would do the same in regards to the 'help' being given to other countries.

Yep. As I'm aiming for writing, I do at least have a half a chance of making some -gooood- money, but most likely, I'll be going down to middle class for life (I was raised lower upper middle.) But hey, I can look in the mirror and only think "Damn, you ugly" instead of "Damn, you suck."

I say stolen, you say conquered. It ends up the same; the resources gathered in one small corner of the world rather than shared equitably. You prove my point... humans need to justify their selfishness by falling back on the idea that 'nature' meant us to be this way. We are not only in competition with each other, we are also in co-operation.

As it is, the need for sustainability is being forced upon us by the repercussions of our lifestyle; environmental damage that now damages us; poor health from overeating and under exercising; dissatisfaction with all the material things that were supposed to fulfill us. It seems it will take crisis after crisis to shake us out of the selfish mindset that we are GUESTS on this planet, and that 'conquering' it will do us only harm in the end. That includes the way we treat our fellow human beings. Time and time again, the poor and oppressed have risen up to throw off their chains, often in a most bloody manner. Is that the only action you would respect? Must you be FORCED to act more humanely towards your fellow humans? How sad to be a slave to your appetite.


Well, it comes down to a matter of beliefs, you simply believe we are guests on this earth. I believe this earth is ours, just like how every other planet someday will be OURS. I believe what I see can be mine for the taking if I should choose to want it bad enough.

Why can't we conquer the earth, it was laid before us for our taking, we should conquer it, abuse it, and reuse it. After taking several years of college physics I do not believe anything to be impossible. Why does the Earth have finite resources??? We simply don't understand yet how to recreate those resources. Mankind is advancing faster and faster, this future isn't that far away.

In fact, I challenge anyone to prove that the Earth has limited supplies of Oil, to prove to me that oil cannot be created by the hands of man.

I say stolen, you say conquered. It ends up the same; the resources gathered in one small corner of the world rather than shared equitably. You prove my point... humans need to justify their selfishness by falling back on the idea that 'nature' meant us to be this way. We are not only in competition with each other, we are also in co-operation.

As it is, the need for sustainability is being forced upon us by the repercussions of our lifestyle; environmental damage that now damages us; poor health from overeating and under exercising; dissatisfaction with all the material things that were supposed to fulfill us. It seems it will take crisis after crisis to shake us out of the selfish mindset that we are GUESTS on this planet, and that 'conquering' it will do us only harm in the end. That includes the way we treat our fellow human beings. Time and time again, the poor and oppressed have risen up to throw off their chains, often in a most bloody manner. Is that the only action you would respect? Must you be FORCED to act more humanely towards your fellow humans? How sad to be a slave to your appetite.

Good comments. Unfortunately, to many of us are in the competition frame of mind.

Good comments. Unfortunately, to many of us are in the competition frame of mind.

Yeah, don't ya just hate it how every good argument breaks down to a matter of beliefs?

I don't get your point about cows though.

from: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption/Beef.asp

# The total cattle population for the world is approximately 1.3 billion occupying some 24% of the land of the planet
# Some 70 to 80% of grain produced in the United States is fed to livestock.
# Half the water consumed in the U.S. is used to grow grain for cattle feed.
# A gallon of gasoline is required to produce a pound of grain-fed beef.

Well, it comes down to a matter of beliefs, you simply believe we are guests on this earth. I believe this earth is ours, just like how every other planet someday will be OURS. I believe what I see can be mine for the taking if I should choose to want it bad enough.

Why can't we conquer the earth, it was laid before us for our taking, we should conquer it, abuse it, and reuse it. After taking several years of college physics I do not believe anything to be impossible. Why does the Earth have finite resources??? We simply don't understand yet how to recreate those resources. Mankind is advancing faster and faster, this future isn't that far away.

In fact, I challenge anyone to prove that the Earth has limited supplies of Oil, to prove to me that oil cannot be created by the hands of man. Well, there is global warming. There is also the fact that the Earth may well be turned into a lifeless ball of rock - already it is changing.

This is digressing from the subject at hand. How do you not believe we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings? As to you comment that they deserve it (3rd worlders) and should just work hard to get out of it - please tell that to the dissidents being tortured, or the baby with AIDS, who never had his chance to climb up the pole.

Well, it comes down to a matter of beliefs, you simply believe we are guests on this earth. I believe this earth is ours, just like how every other planet someday will be OURS. I believe what I see can be mine for the taking if I should choose to want it bad enough.

Why can't we conquer the earth, it was laid before us for our taking, we should conquer it, abuse it, and reuse it. After taking several years of college physics I do not believe anything to be impossible. Why does the Earth have finite resources??? We simply don't understand yet how to recreate those resources. Mankind is advancing faster and faster, this future isn't that far away.

In fact, I challenge anyone to prove that the Earth has limited supplies of Oil, to prove to me that oil cannot be created by the hands of man.

Because only God is infinite and even where you run into infinity in science you are essentially running in to God. I don't know what your beliefs are, but the Bible does talk about God punishing "those who destroy the earth."

Yeah, don't ya just hate it how every good argument breaks down to a matter of beliefs?

Yes. Fortunately, some beliefs are based on better evidence than others...

Because only God is infinite and even where you run into infinity in science you are essentially running in to God. I don't know what your beliefs are, but the Bible does talk about God punishing "those who destroy the earth." I doubt that he's a Christian. Most Christians feel this obligation to help their fellow creatures upon this Earth.

Perhaps you should look up the definition of rape. It is non-consensual. You don't need to know what it is to become a victim of it.

As well, women in many countries do not have the right to deny their husband offspring. That's right, they CAN'T SAY NO. Oh wait, you'll say, sure they can! Yes, and be beaten, and raped, and forced to become pregnant anyway.

Then there is the issue of birth control. It is prohibitively expensive in many countries. When you must choose between eating (and I'm not talking about eating well, I'm talking about survival) and buying condoms (which may or may not even be available in your area), who would choose condoms? Stop having sex, you cry! Yes, deny people even the basic pleasure of human contact, sometimes the one thing that helps them rise above the misery of their condition. Sterilize the poor...punish them because they were born into conditions they neither created, nor desire.

And where would the entire population of a country flee too? It's neighbouring nations? Setting up refugee camps in even worse conditions? Be denied refuge in rich countries? Be forced to wander until death? Don't be ridiculous. As for refusing to work...yes, and then you would damn them for being lazy. Sometimes you are forced to endure demeaning and even inhumane conditions in order to guarantee your survival. There are always those who rebel...and are tortured, or executed like Ken Saro-Wiwa in Nigeria, or thousands upon thousands of other in many nations who HAVE rebelled. Did their deaths improve conditions? In only vary rare circumstances, if enough people who matter (in rich countries) were outraged enough.

And don't forget, if a population is poor enough and child labor is allowed, children sometime become a necessary resource for survival. Westernization has force-socialized the idea of the nuclear family onto many nations. It is less expensive for several to live in together than for one to live separately. So having many children can improve chances that all in a family will not starve - even if this leads to problems for the society as a whole. Also there is no government care for people in their old age or if they become too sick to work and no way to save money when every penny is used for survival. Again, a larger family can help survival. It is sad when children are a necessary economic resource.

And richer nations often step in to stop populist uprisings when they have corporations there who are paying people maybe 18 cents an hour to produce things like shoes that they turn around and sell back to consumers in the rich nations for over $100 a pair.

voted others - everyone should deserve to get the resource they have in an ideal world, but in ours, someone who is born in swiss or the USA will have more resource than someone from Congo. No matter how intelligent and a good person he is, it will be almost impossible for the second guy to get 'correct' resources (occidental definition of correct resources). So, a redistribution is needed, but complete equality is not the goal, for me. Equality of chances is.

Well, it comes down to a matter of beliefs, you simply believe we are guests on this earth. I believe this earth is ours, just like how every other planet someday will be OURS. I believe what I see can be mine for the taking if I should choose to want it bad enough.
Do you consider laws impediments then when it comes to taking what you want? What makes this planet any more ours than it was the dinosaurs? Is it a function of humans to consume until consumption leaves all our resources depleted? I am thankful that your selfish appetites are curbed by societal restraints, since you do not seem to think it important to curb those appetites with discipline.

Why can't we conquer the earth, it was laid before us for our taking, we should conquer it, abuse it, and reuse it.
Well, we are doing exactly that....as for reusing it, we will have to find a way to manage the environmental backlash of our actions before they overcome us (pollution, global warming etc)...isn't that a little risky? Do you want to race with time? Do you have that much faith that we will fix the problems we are creating before they destroy us? Do you have the right to make that gamble, when it affects more than you?

In fact, I challenge anyone to prove that the Earth has limited supplies of Oil, to prove to me that oil cannot be created by the hands of man.
Frankly, no one needs to prove this...no such technology exists. If you know of any technology that does produce petroleum, it is up to you to provide the details. However, alternative fuels to fossil fuels DO exist and need to be invested in. I myself use a geothermal heating system in my house, and have installed some solar panels which run the lights on the main floor. Vegetable oils can be used in place of petroleum to run combustion engines. The tides can be harnessed to provide electrical power. All of these things can be done WITHOUT 'abusing' the earth. They make sense, and are more economical in the long run. Choosing to ignore these alternatives is sadly shortsighted, and unrealistic. Just as maintaining the status quo always is.

um lets see here... for one americans wouldnt have to livewith less really bucause we already have more than we are actually using.

um lets see here... for one americans wouldnt have to livewith less really bucause we already have more than we are actually using.

You are somewhat correct....in terms of usage, there are widely disparate levels of consumption in Western (not just American) society. The majority of the population (in the West) is middle class, and it is this majority that bears the brunt of taxation, propping up the rich on one end, and (trying to) support the poor on the other. The middle class do not necessarily consume more than the rich, (on an individual basis) though they certainly consume more than the poor. However, since they DO constitute the majority, is important to examine the consumption patterns of the middle class.

WATER: this is a major issue in terms of consumption. Water is something we can not do without, and yet many people have no access to clean, potable water. In the West we use water at a shocking rate:

The recommended basic water requirement per person per day is 50 litres. But people can get by with about 30 litres: 5 litres for drinking and cooking and another 25 to maintain hygiene. The reality for millions comes nowhere near.

By contrast the average US citizen uses 500 litres per day, while the British average is 200.2 Rob Bowden, Water Supply: Our Impact on the Planet (Hodder Wayland 2002).

This number does not factor in the consumption of water for agriculture (70% of global consumption), or industry (22%). As well, it does not take into account the water used in swimming pools or fountains. The countries that are the most wasteful are also the countries that have the largest reserves of water. However, over consumption is already putting a strain on aquifers (underground water reserves).

The Ogalalla aquifer in the US Midwest provides water for a fifth of US irrigated farmland and is being pumped dry at the rate of 325 billion cubic metres a year.5State of the World 2000, The Worldwatch Institute.

Once we have exhausted our aquifers, we will join the ranks of those countries who suffer from serious water shortages. This could be avoided by conservation of our water resources, BEFORE our reserves go dry.
• 31 countries with a collective population of half-a-billion people are experiencing chronic water shortages. This may reach 3 billion people in 50 countries within 25 years. The vast majority of this water-stressed population will live in Africa and South Asia.6‘Planet Earth 2025’, People & the Planet, Vol 8/4, 1999.

WASTE AND OVERCONSUMPTION: The West has a highly evolved consumer culture, which targets children from birth, and grooms them carefully to become eager consumers of goods. We also produce an incredible amount of waste, most of which is not easily biodegradable, and which uses up many non-renewable resources (like petroleum, used in the production of plastics and fabrics).
New York City holds the world waste record of 1.6 kg per person per day (city total 24,000 tonnes per day). European cities throw away half as much, but Tokyo and Mexico are less wasteful still.1 In poorer countries, where recycling and re-use are common, the throwaway-rate per person may be ten times lower than in rich countries. But lack of money and infrastructure make adequate garbage collection impossible for the poorest cities of the South, causing serious health hazards.2David Sattethwaite ed., Sustainable Cities: An Earthscan Reader (Earthscan, London 1999).


We in the west (and now, among the rising middle class of the developing world) consume far more calories than is necessary to maintain our health. Why do we do this? Many of us continue to eat, even though we are not hungry.
• 80% of all malnourished children in the developing world in the early 1990s lived in countries with food surpluses.5State of the World 2000, The Worldwatch Institute.
• The World Health Organization estimates that roughly half the global population suffers from poor nutrition – of that half 50% eat too little and
50% eat too much.
• Obesity is the second-biggest killer of Americans after nicotine, claiming at least 250,000 lives a year. A third of obese US adults are at risk of heart disease and diabetes and a fifth of US children are overweight or obese, a figure which has more than doubled in the last 20 years.4Earth Island Journal, Spring 2000.
• Liposuction (an operation to reduce fat) is the leading form of cosmetic surgery in the US with over 400,000 operations performed a year while a third of all the vegetables consumed by US kids are in the form of French fries and potato chips.4,5

The fact is, we consume so much, SO MUCH more than we need to. There are a finite amount of resources available to use on this planet, and even those that we once considered renewable (water, trees, even air) are being put under so much strain, that they are not able to renew themselves at levels to match our consumption. It is VITAL that we learn to curb these appetites. Even if we don't do it out of an altruistic desire to share our resources equitably, we still need to do it in order to guarantee our own survival. We can not continue to stuff ourselves with food until we become obese and unhealthy, we can not continue to dump our refuse into the oceans and rivers, polluting our environment, and we can no longer continue to believe that happiness will be found with a credit card.

voted others - everyone should deserve to get the resource they have in an ideal world, but in ours, someone who is born in swiss or the USA will have more resource than someone from Congo. No matter how intelligent and a good person he is, it will be almost impossible for the second guy to get 'correct' resources (occidental definition of correct resources). So, a redistribution is needed, but complete equality is not the goal, for me. Equality of chances is.

Complete equality would be very difficult to come by, and I am not proposing that either. It would mean shifting the resources from one part of the world to another in order to create a balance. This does not make sense unless it is done in a manner that is mutually beneficial (such as a trade agreement that benefits BOTH sides, not just one). Creating equality of chances is also difficult, for there exists a disparity in terms of these opportunities even in the 'rich' nations. The gap between rich and poor exists in every nation, though it tends to be wider in the poorer countries.

What I believe we need is to encourage trade that is ethical. There is the conception among trade liberalists (not to be confused with liberals, as trade liberalisation is a very conservative concept) that business should be free of moral constraints, and should be allowed to operate as unfettered as possible. To do this, government takes less and less a role in the protection of the interests of its own people, and is in fact forced to care for the best interests of corporations. Free Trade agreements make it nearly impossible for governments to protect domestic industries (though protectionism is still rife throughout the Industrialised world, even though it is viciously attacked in the developing world) despite the fact that many of the rich nations GOT that way because of heavy protectionism. As well, trade liberalisation encourages a 'race to the bottom' approach wherein labour and wage standards are dismantled, as well as environmental protections, and massive tax breaks are given to corporations in order to lure them to a certain country over another. The idea is that the nation which offers the lowest human and environmental standards is more attractive to investment. That is why business flourishes under dictatorships (unless they oppose you, like Cuba).

I am not against globalization, but I am against the rampant abuse of humans, animals, and the environment in the name of profit. Businesses could STILL continue to reap the rewards if they adhered to a global code of conduct. That would mean that co-operation among nations would be essential in forming agreements that would protect the environment and the social systems essential to the health of a population, and a nation. Nations would have to adhere to the accords and treaties they sign, rather than ratifying agreements and then ignoring them. In this way, businesses would be encouraged through laws to behave in an ethical manner. Unfortunately, that level of international co-operation is still a dream, and the rich nations feel free to bully poorer ones into unfavorable (for the developing world) trade agreements. Colonialism has simply become economic.

On a smaller scale, I think it is important to support local businesses and buy locally produced goods. Avoid the 'convenience' of large supermarket chains or department stores...you are only sending your money out of the country, where it does little for our own development. Why is the main market for our goods usually overseas? We produce so much beef, yet we eat beef produced in other countries! We sell raw materials like wood, and oil to the U.S, then buy it back from them at usurious prices once they have been refined, or manufactured into something else. It is important that nations become more self-reliant, and not rely completely on foreign trade. It is a sad fact that many countries which once produced their own foodstuffs now rely almost entirely on foreign exports of food to survive. What they produce instead of food are 'cash crops' like cotton, tobacco and other inedibles. Where once they farmed to feed themselves, and sell the surplus, now many farmers 'bet' on a cash crop in order to buy food, very rarely getting enough money to purchase much more than the pesticides needed for the next crop.

Sigh.

You are somewhat correct....in terms of usage, there are widely disparate levels of consumption in Western (not just American) society. The majority of the population (in the West) is middle class, and it is this majority that bears the brunt of taxation, propping up the rich on one end, and (trying to) support the poor on the other. The middle class do not necessarily consume more than the rich, (on an individual basis) though they certainly consume more than the poor. However, since they DO constitute the majority, is important to examine the consumption patterns of the middle class.


The fact is, we consume so much, SO MUCH more than we need to. There are a finite amount of resources available to use on this planet, and even those that we once considered renewable (water, trees, even air) are being put under so much strain, that they are not able to renew themselves at levels to match our consumption. It is VITAL that we learn to curb these appetites. Even if we don't do it out of an altruistic desire to share our resources equitably, we still need to do it in order to guarantee our own survival. We can not continue to stuff ourselves with food until we become obese and unhealthy, we can not continue to dump our refuse into the oceans and rivers, polluting our environment, and we can no longer continue to believe that happiness will be found with a credit card.

I don't know about where you live, but in the US, it is a very big mis-nomer that the middle class carries the highest tax burden. The reality is that taxes are too high for everyone, particularly given what kind of return we get on our investment. But, the top 10% of income earners are responsable for nearly 50% of total IRS revenues. I know that a lot of people believe in the forced redistribution of wealth. Personally, I do not and see this as grossly unjust. Yes, the rich have a moral obligation to the rest of us, but the Gov. isn't supposed to be in charge of enforcing moral values as far as I'm concerned. That is between an individual and God.

A lot of this is going to change when people start realizing that ecological and economical aren't mutually exclusive.

My off-the-grid self sustaining straw bale house is an excellent example of that. When people realize there is a healthy, ecological and very economic way to live, they will start to choose that over the toxic society we live in today.

I don't know about where you live, but in the US, it is a very big mis-nomer that the middle class carries the highest tax burden. The reality is that taxes are too high for everyone, particularly given what kind of return we get on our investment. But, the top 10% of income earners are responsable for nearly 50% of total IRS revenues.
Ah...but that depends on your definition of middle class. Let me outline some stats for you: (and by the way, I'm Canadian)

An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
o The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
o The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes
That sure sounds like the really rich are being taxed to death. However, when you look at the figures provided by the source, these figures don't hold up to even basic adding and subtracting. One chart shows the top 10%, 5% and 1% of taxpayers paying a whopping 146% of total taxes! (yes, overlapping exists, but no matter how you work the numbers, it just doesn't add up to even 50% of all taxes paid) Since this is patently impossible, the numbers must be viewed with suspicion. I investigated further, and looked at the raw data available at http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0.

Let us just look at the top 5%, since they look to be the ones paying the most taxes.

There are 5.9 million families included in the top 5% tax bracket. They earn an average of $276,000 per family before taxes. Source: Congressional Budget Office, "Preliminary Estimates of Effective Tax Rates" (September 7, 1999) (all statistics to follow are also taken from this source, which can be viewed by visiting the site in the above quote)

These people are wealthy, no doubt about it. However, the 'filthy' rich aren't even factored in here. The top 1% earn in excess of $719,000 (on average). Let us now look at the more 'traditional middle class', the families that earn from $21, 000 to $132, 000 a year. I am basing this idea of the middle class by factoring out those living below the poverty line, and those making more than an average educated 2 income family could. Middle class, in this case meaning neither rich, nor poor.

There are 84.9 million families that belong to this middle class. They pay a combined 42% of federal taxes. Now, the middle class has a 55% share of the total family income. The top 5% has a 28% share.

Let's compare the numbers again: 5.9 million families who have a 28% share of the total family income, compared to 84.9 million families who have a 55% share of the total family income. What the heck does that all mean? You can't just multiply the total amount of income tax paid by these percentages and get an accurate amount. You need to break it down further.

You do that by multiplying the number of families (in millions) by the average income, getting a total and multiplying that by the federal tax rate (done each time for each separate tax bracket). This gives you a real dollar amount paid in each tax bracket.

Let's look at actual tax rates. The top 5% pay 19.6% of their income in taxes. That works out to about: $3.16 billion dollars a year.

The middle class pay various rates of income tax, depending on their tax bracket. In any case, it works out that the middle class pays $498.7 billion dollars a year.
Yes, the rich pay higher income taxe RATES, but it is the middle class that pays the most income taxes in real dollars. The middle class therefore bears the brunt of taxation, because of sheer numbers.

Hooray for Socialism and the redistribution of wealth so that the 815 million people that are starving in this world can have a brighter future.

My off-the-grid self sustaining straw bale house is an excellent example of that. When people realize there is a healthy, ecological and very economic way to live, they will start to choose that over the toxic society we live in today.

I watched a special about straw bale houses...they built a few on my reserve too. They are water proof, and incredible insulator! Are your bales coated in cement? That was how the people I've seen build that way did it..they used square bales and coated them in cement so they were all uniform in shape and size. How much did it cost? I remember that the bales were donated to the reserve, and the workers volunteered.

Yes, the rich have a moral obligation to the rest of us, but the Gov. isn't supposed to be in charge of enforcing moral values as far as I'm concerned. That is between an individual and God.

What about people who don't believe in God? Or don't follow the same set of moral codes as you? We have governments precisely to enforce certain aspects of life that as individuals, it would be impossible to do. Government oversees things on a grader scale than individuals alone are capable of. One of those things includes the regulation of society through laws. Laws are based on basic morality, and then codified. In this sense, the government DOES enforce moral values. Just look at the capital punishment debate. In some states (or countries), capital punishment is seen as a just punishment for certain crimes. That idea came about because of the fundamental values of the populace. It was then codified into law and enforced by the government. If capital punishment is removed as a government-imposed punishment, it will be because of a shifting in the moral grounds that necessitated such a law.

Since you bring God into it, I am assuming you mean for there to be a separation between church and state. I understand why you would therefore assume that would mean a separation of morals and government, but it does not. Governments are formed and run by people, who are not capable of (nor should they be) of separating THEMSELVES from their morals. Once there is a societal shift to stop being so insular, and to actually start caring for the rest of humanity, governments must also take steps to mirror this shift. The way our democratic governments work is based on a majority, and that's what it would take to make such a fundamental shift. The majority, not the minority of people must feel morally obliged to make changes. The majority of the world already wants this, as the majority of the world is poor. Now it is up to individual populaces and individual nations to join the majority of the world in the desire for equity.

What about people who don't believe in God? Or don't follow the same set of moral codes as you? We have governments precisely to enforce certain aspects of life that as individuals, it would be impossible to do. Government oversees things on a grader scale than individuals alone are capable of. One of those things includes the regulation of society through laws. Laws are based on basic morality, and then codified. In this sense, the government DOES enforce moral values. Just look at the capital punishment debate. In some states (or countries), capital punishment is seen as a just punishment for certain crimes. That idea came about because of the fundamental values of the populace. It was then codified into law and enforced by the government. If capital punishment is removed as a government-imposed punishment, it will be because of a shifting in the moral grounds that necessitated such a law.

Since you bring God into it, I am assuming you mean for there to be a separation between church and state. I understand why you would therefore assume that would mean a separation of morals and government, but it does not. Governments are formed and run by people, who are not capable of (nor should they be) of separating THEMSELVES from their morals. Once there is a societal shift to stop being so insular, and to actually start caring for the rest of humanity, governments must also take steps to mirror this shift. The way our democratic governments work is based on a majority, and that's what it would take to make such a fundamental shift. The majority, not the minority of people must feel morally obliged to make changes. The majority of the world already wants this, as the majority of the world is poor. Now it is up to individual populaces and individual nations to join the majority of the world in the desire for equity.

I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, much of gov. comes on the basis of morality, but in the US at least, it was only where the rights of one individual intersect with the rights of another. No one has the right to take what someone has honestly aquired and give it to another no matter what the majority thinks. That is called stealing. In circumstances where it is gotton by dishonest means that is another story. No one has the right to someone else's things.

As for your math on the total tax burden, I'll have to get back to you as I don't have time to go through it all right now.

I have to disagree with you on this. Yes, much of gov. comes on the basis of morality, but in the US at least, it was only where the rights of one individual intersect with the rights of another. No one has the right to take what someone has honestly aquired and give it to another no matter what the majority thinks. That is called stealing. In circumstances where it is gotton by dishonest means that is another story. No one has the right to someone else's things.

The whole system of taxation is based on the 'taking of what someone has honestly acquired' and giving it to another. We redistribute wealth all the time, otherwise we could not support our own infrastructure. You speak of 'honestly acquired', and I would like to explore that concept. I assume that you are speaking of wages earned (outside of taxation)? Yet in your country, labour laws protect you in terms of the wage you can earn. You are guaranteed a certain salary for performing certain tasks. You are also guaranteed working hours, overtime pay, vacation pay and assorted benefits, medical and otherwise, depending on your employer. The majority of workers around the world do not have these guarantees. They also do not have the opportunity to develop a strong labour movement that WOULD work to provide these guarantees. One of the major reasons for this lack is the complicity of international organisation such as the IMF and the World Bank which expressly discourage such movements by tying laon money into structural adjustment programs. Your country flourished and grew rich because of a solid resource base, strong government protectionism of domestic industries, and a labour movement inherited from the workers' struggles during the Industrial Revolution. However, your nation is also complicit in the forced trade liberalisation of other nations, denying them the self-same advantages that have made you wealthy. How is this fair, or 'honestly acquired' wealth? You are right, no one else has a right to someone else's things, yet nations plunder one another all the time. I would like to see that practice end. It is for this reason that I believe governments need to reign in the private sector by making them accountable to not only the consumer, but the producer as well.

As well, I have heard many people argue that they should not be forced into charity...that charities should be run privately, by non-profit organisations only. These are the people that resent their tax money going toward social programs that benefit those they consider to be 'lazy and unproductive'. However, I rarely see these selfsame people bewailing the tax breaks offered to corporations in order to attract and keep their business. Tax breaks which COME FROM PUBLIC FUNDS. Yes, that is YOUR tax money going to multi-million dollar corporations, who may or may not actually keep those profits in your country. Many corporations funnel their profits back to their home base, and trade liberalisation has guaranteed that there will be no laws demanding that a certain percentage remain in the host country's economy.

On a smaller scale, those who contribute to charity are eligible for tax refunds based on the amount they give. Where do you think those tax refunds come from? Again, they come from public funds. In essence, the tax dollars of one person is spread among others in the form of tax breaks based on charitable donations. The only way to avoid this redistribution is to eliminate taxes. Then you have the problem of trying to raise the funds to fill in potholes and keep the schools running in your area.

Rather than complain that we do too much, we should be making sure what we do is managed more efficiently. Hold government agencies accountable for the programs they run, and do not accept that with politics comes a certain amount of corruption. Pay attention to how public funds are managed! We have so much, and yet it is frittered away by bungling and theft. We should be working to make these processes more transparent...not working to undermine them all together because we have grown cynical.

As well, I have heard many people argue that they should not be forced into charity...that charities should be run privately, by non-profit organisations only. These are the people that resent their tax money going toward social programs that benefit those they consider to be 'lazy and unproductive'.

Thats because those are the people that want to give it to private charities in place of a defunct system. Why go through a mediator when you can give it directly? It is fact that when you do it through a mediator (government) less gets to the source and more gets in the mediators pockets. Thus creating a backward ass self defeating system. WHy give that money to people and politcal idealogies over the actual missionary charities?

I watched a special about straw bale houses...they built a few on my reserve too. They are water proof, and incredible insulator! Are your bales coated in cement? That was how the people I've seen build that way did it..they used square bales and coated them in cement so they were all uniform in shape and size. How much did it cost? I remember that the bales were donated to the reserve, and the workers volunteered.

Well, *blush* I haven't started building yet, and I'm kinda still finishing up the designs to the whole house. But I plan on using rectangular bales, and I still haven't decided on whether to coat in cement or adobe plaster. I think the adobe would be cheaper, but will need touch ups every now and then. It's a lot of work designing this thing from the ground up, and I've had to make several plan changes along the way as I've learned about better ways of doing things.

Like water recycling: since the house is going to be in northern New Mexico, it will need to be water efficient. So I was thinking that I was going to do composting toilets, and then I ran into the space and maintenance snag of those, so now I've come up with a three stage system, fresh, grey and black water. You don't need fresh water to poop in, so reusing the water from the shower or the sink seems to make alot of sense.

Also, since the house is going to be off the grid, I'm going to have to install solar panels and maybe even a wind generator. What I'd like for those emergencies is one of those really quiet diesel generators, which we'd mod to run on biodiesel. But I think for the most part that the amount of power needed will be alot less. I'm also hopeful that the fuel cell technology will come along and be very clean. Cheap is a relative thing since it's a one time cost.

One thing about all of this that I haven't seen mentioned is this: when I get done building this thing my electric bill should be $0, my water bill should be about $0 and since gas will be used for cooking, that should really be my only monthly bill, besides groceries and stuff. What amazes me about this is we have the technology to build houses this way now. Straw is considered a waste product, is usually burned to get rid of it, but has been proven to be a long lasting and very energy efficient building material, and is very cheap. In fact , I read someplace that California alone burns enough straw to build more houses a year than we do now.

I'm not some big tree hugging environmentalist either, one of my main motivations in doing somthing like this is economic. I'm not going to retire a millionaire, so anything I can do to reduce costs I'm seriously looking at. To be green and cheap at the same time is just win-win, don't you think? The fact that houses built like this are also considered heathier and less toxic than conventional meterials is a great added bonus.

I've got another funny prediction: I think that pot will be legalized in this country. Not because people want to smoke it, but that hemp oil is very easily made into biodiesel, and I think that biodiesel is one of the things that will help pad us until we fully make the switch from a petroleum based economy back to an agriculturally based economy.

Thats because those are the people that want to give it to private charities in place of a defunct system. Why go through a mediator when you can give it directly? It is fact that when you do it through a mediator (government) less gets to the source and more gets in the mediators pockets. Thus creating a backward ass self defeating system. WHy give that money to people and politcal idealogies over the actual missionary charities?

Yes, there are certainly people who give to charities directly because they are angry with how government mismanages aid. Unfortunately, many of those same charities also mismanage funds, or operate under various political or religious ideologies. As long as you are comfortable with those ideologies, I support you in your giving. However, these are not the people I speak of. A lot of people who talk about introducing a system of privately-run charities only simply use this as an excuse. They don't want to pay taxes, so they claim this system would work better. Yet the kind of person who thinks as the poor as 'lazy and unproductive' is NOT the kind of person who is going to give to charities that try to help the poor. They don't feel that poor people deserve help, and they resent paying taxes that go to social systems. Bringing up private charities is a smokescreen.

To be clear..I am not talking about charity, or hand outs. I am talking about equalizing opportunity by linking trade to the ethical treatment of humans and of nature. Adam Smith's invisible hand has not reigned in business as it was meant to. Abuse of labour laws and human right unfortunately are good business practices. As a fellow human and worker, and as a consumer, I want these practices to be more humane.

Complete equality would be very difficult to come by, and I am not proposing that either. It would mean shifting the resources from one part of the world to another in order to create a balance. This does not make sense unless it is done in a manner that is mutually beneficial (such as a trade agreement that benefits BOTH sides, not just one). Creating equality of chances is also difficult, for there exists a disparity in terms of these opportunities even in the 'rich' nations. The gap between rich and poor exists in every nation, though it tends to be wider in the poorer countries.

What I believe we need is to encourage trade that is ethical. There is the conception among trade liberalists (not to be confused with liberals, as trade liberalisation is a very conservative concept) that business should be free of moral constraints, and should be allowed to operate as unfettered as possible. To do this, government takes less and less a role in the protection of the interests of its own people, and is in fact forced to care for the best interests of corporations. Free Trade agreements make it nearly impossible for governments to protect domestic industries (though protectionism is still rife throughout the Industrialised world, even though it is viciously attacked in the developing world) despite the fact that many of the rich nations GOT that way because of heavy protectionism. As well, trade liberalisation encourages a 'race to the bottom' approach wherein labour and wage standards are dismantled, as well as environmental protections, and massive tax breaks are given to corporations in order to lure them to a certain country over another. The idea is that the nation which offers the lowest human and environmental standards is more attractive to investment. That is why business flourishes under dictatorships (unless they oppose you, like Cuba).

I am not against globalization, but I am against the rampant abuse of humans, animals, and the environment in the name of profit. Businesses could STILL continue to reap the rewards if they adhered to a global code of conduct. That would mean that co-operation among nations would be essential in forming agreements that would protect the environment and the social systems essential to the health of a population, and a nation. Nations would have to adhere to the accords and treaties they sign, rather than ratifying agreements and then ignoring them. In this way, businesses would be encouraged through laws to behave in an ethical manner. Unfortunately, that level of international co-operation is still a dream, and the rich nations feel free to bully poorer ones into unfavorable (for the developing world) trade agreements. Colonialism has simply become economic.

On a smaller scale, I think it is important to support local businesses and buy locally produced goods. Avoid the 'convenience' of large supermarket chains or department stores...you are only sending your money out of the country, where it does little for our own development. Why is the main market for our goods usually overseas? We produce so much beef, yet we eat beef produced in other countries! We sell raw materials like wood, and oil to the U.S, then buy it back from them at usurious prices once they have been refined, or manufactured into something else. It is important that nations become more self-reliant, and not rely completely on foreign trade. It is a sad fact that many countries which once produced their own foodstuffs now rely almost entirely on foreign exports of food to survive. What they produce instead of food are 'cash crops' like cotton, tobacco and other inedibles. Where once they farmed to feed themselves, and sell the surplus, now many farmers 'bet' on a cash crop in order to buy food, very rarely getting enough money to purchase much more than the pesticides needed for the next crop.

Sigh.

ah, but I never gave any solution on how equality of chances should be putted in place. I am not suggesting that every rich nation gives half of its income to poor nations, for many reasons;
1st) money and education goes side by side. Giving 100 000$ to someone who cannot read is useless: the man can't do the right thing to keep that money, and would become poor again in a short period of time/
2nd) rich would never agree ;)
3rd) Some rich people deserved to become rich, some poor deserved to become poor.

The solutions I see are

I/ a more strict, and worldwide control of working conditions.
I'll give you an exemple for why it is needed: capitalism. Capitalism works good as long as there is enough offer and enough demand. But if the offer is reduced to 1 person/ enterprise, nothing works anymore.
Same thing goes for jobs: if there isn't an equilibrium between offer and demand, the government should intervene to protect either the offer (workers) or the demand (enterprises). For these laws to be effective, they need to be international, so not every enterprise goes in China. It would need to be done over a long period of time, because if it is done in one time, it would be a terrible thing for the economy of developping countries, and for the workers of developped countries.


II/ Inside each state, a progressive ban of the advantages of having rich parents
Talking about advantages such as private schools or massive financial help. Someone should have equal chances to succeed wether his parents are rich or not. Succeeding economically should only be a matter of how good you personnaly are.


III/ A social net to ensure the poor who are trying work don't end up in a terrible situation
Allocations shall be made to poor people, at a price of a work of common utility from the receptor of the allocation: this is to avoid cases of people using the society cause they don't want to work at all. This "net" would give people a stable situation from which they can try to make an ascenscion, depending on their merit.

IV/ Other than that and a few other exceptions, apply capitalism
With limitations of the government on monopolies in commercial or social situations, capitalism shall work well.
Health, education, threatened natural resources, police and army forces and the human body (maybe I'm forgetting something, I don't know) should not be subject to capitalism.



my ideal society :)

ah, but I never gave any solution on how equality of chances should be putted in place. ...
my ideal society :)

MC, I think you're going to get a lot of what you're looking for, but I don't think it'll happen through the passage of laws. First of all, one thing that everyone agrees on is that there is going to be a world wide shortage, and then complete depletion of oil. Well, our economy is pretty much based on this one product. When there is no more oil, the massive and complex and corrupt organizations and corporations surrounding it will fall away. We will be moving from our petroleum based economy to an agricultural based economy. It won't be bad, and it won't be the end of the world, but I think it will narrow the gap between the very rich and the very poor, as most products and services will be produced in smaller quantities by local companies, and will provide a more level playing field for small businesses, since shipping will be at a premium due to the lack of cheap fuel.When that happens, the amount of subsidies to these mega-transnational corporations will start to slack off as their maintenance will seem pointless.

High tech products will still be around, but the will be much more energy efficient. See, the hierarchical economy based on the one product is what I think causes most of your inequalities, once that product is gone, the people who've been locked out of jobs and markets will be able to compete, as the 'big guy' won't have a lock on that songle resource.

Maybe?

The solutions I see are

I/ a more strict, and worldwide control of working conditions.


II/ Inside each state, a progressive ban of the advantages of having rich parents


III/ A social net to ensure the poor who are trying work don't end up in a terrible situation

IV/ Other than that and a few other exceptions, apply capitalism

my ideal society :)

I agree completely, though I think democracy has to be thrown into the mix as well. REAL democracy, where people get off their butts and get involved.

I agree completely, though I think democracy has to be thrown into the mix as well. REAL democracy, where people get off their butts and get involved.

yes, of course democracy should be put into the mix... it would be so simple with a dictature. Except that the one to come dictating after me might be an ass.

The main problem with that plan is to get the rich (the more powerful) to let it happen, and to get the poors (a vast majority) to not abuse of the situation via democracy. :'(

Ah, yes...we would have to overcome the historical desire to replace tyranny with tyranny...the force that has destroyed the ideals of every revolution in the past. It seems to be part of our nature to want to oppress the ones who have oppressed us, as though reversing the situation brings balance or justice. That is why I do not support revolution lead by charismatic ideogogues...but rather mass movements led by no one, yet supported by all. A mishmash of belief systems, discussed, argued, talked about, fought for and against, and given fruition within a democratic system. That means a shift in perception, a desire for improvement. The ones who have the most to lose are also the ones who can afford to lose the most...and yet it is they who will bring the complete force of their power to bear in order to stop change from happening; by limiting the majority in favour of concentrating the real power in the hands of the minority.

Ah, yes...we would have to overcome the historical desire to replace tyranny with tyranny...the force that has destroyed the ideals of every revolution in the past. It seems to be part of our nature to want to oppress the ones who have oppressed us, as though reversing the situation brings balance or justice. That is why I do not support revolution lead by charismatic ideogogues...but rather mass movements led by no one, yet supported by all. A mishmash of belief systems, discussed, argued, talked about, fought for and against, and given fruition within a democratic system. That means a shift in perception, a desire for improvement. The ones who have the most to lose are also the ones who can afford to lose the most...and yet it is they who will bring the complete force of their power to bear in order to stop change from happening; by limiting the majority in favour of concentrating the real power in the hands of the minority.


Dude, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The real key to genuine equality is through economics, not socionomocs. You can't force equality on people, some are just going to do more than others, and some just want more than others and are willing to work a little extra for it.

The real way to do what you're talking is to eliminate corporate personhood, allow corporate charters to be revoked by lawsuit or referendum and to make it difficult for corporations to operate across national boundaries. That does everything you want, without the governmental encroachment on individual freedoms.

Dude, I'm gonna have to stop you right there. The real key to genuine equality is through economics, not socionomocs. You can't force equality on people, some are just going to do more than others, and some just want more than others and are willing to work a little extra for it.

The real way to do what you're talking is to eliminate corporate personhood, allow corporate charters to be revoked by lawsuit or referendum and to make it difficult for corporations to operate across national boundaries. That does everything you want, without the governmental encroachment on individual freedoms.

First of all...dude? Seriously? Dude!? I feel like I'm talking to Keanu Reeves.:)

Where in anything that I said did I suggest that equality should be forced on people? (I'm not going to have to go back and explain the difference between equality and equity again, am I?) What individual freedoms did I talk about revoking? What I want is exactly what you are saying: a reigning in of trade liberalisation. Please point out any statement I have made to the contrary.

First of all...dude? Seriously? Dude!? I feel like I'm talking to Keanu Reeves.:)

Where in anything that I said did I suggest that equality should be forced on people? (I'm not going to have to go back and explain the difference between equality and equity again, am I?) What individual freedoms did I talk about revoking? What I want is exactly what you are saying: a reigning in of trade liberalisation. Please point out any statement I have made to the contrary.

Like dude, remember Keanu saved us all from the machines...

and I took this:

'The ones who have the most to lose are also the ones who can afford to lose the most...and yet it is they who will bring the complete force of their power to bear in order to stop change from happening; by limiting the majority in favour of concentrating the real power in the hands of the minority.'

to mean that at some point, force was going to be applied, either way. Also, you agreed completely with Masked Cucumbers when he said:

I/ a more strict, and worldwide control of working conditions.


II/ Inside each state, a progressive ban of the advantages of having rich parents

Both of those require governmental enforcement beyond that which a regulated market forces would provide, especially number 2.

More to the point, it seems as though you are operating under the assumption that the current economic and environmental climate will remain a constant. It will not. At some point, there is going to be a shift in economies because we are operating under an obviously unsustainable economy based upon an unrenewable resource.

'They' won't be able to bring much if the major source of their power and wealth is gone. Key to the global economy as of late has been cheap labor and cheap shipping, and cheap government subsidized fuel. When you take away the cheap fuel, you will very quickly take away the cheap shipping.

'Trade liberalization' is going to be reigned in, but it will be better for all of us if it happens on its own, rather than through government involvement.

Dude. :D

;)
I'll get back to you tomorrow to make my position on individual freedoms a little more clear.

I don't know about where you live, but in the US, it is a very big mis-nomer that the middle class carries the highest tax burden. The reality is that taxes are too high for everyone, particularly given what kind of return we get on our investment. But, the top 10% of income earners are responsable for nearly 50% of total IRS revenues. I know that a lot of people believe in the forced redistribution of wealth. Personally, I do not and see this as grossly unjust. Yes, the rich have a moral obligation to the rest of us, but the Gov. isn't supposed to be in charge of enforcing moral values as far as I'm concerned. That is between an individual and God.

But the top 10% make over 50% of the money. So the middle-classes do carry a higher tax burden in relation to the amount of wealth they make. Considering that one of the things that the government protects is property, it makes sense that those with more property should pay more, as they get more protection simply because they have more to protect. As the government protects more than property that is why they are not paying tax at the same exact percentage as their income.

The whole system of taxation is based on the 'taking of what someone has honestly acquired' and giving it to another. We redistribute wealth all the time, otherwise we could not support our own infrastructure. You speak of 'honestly acquired', and I would like to explore that concept. I assume that you are speaking of wages earned (outside of taxation)? Yet in your country, labour laws protect you in terms of the wage you can earn. You are guaranteed a certain salary for performing certain tasks. You are also guaranteed working hours, overtime pay, vacation pay and assorted benefits, medical and otherwise, depending on your employer. The majority of workers around the world do not have these guarantees. They also do not have the opportunity to develop a strong labour movement that WOULD work to provide these guarantees. One of the major reasons for this lack is the complicity of international organisation such as the IMF and the World Bank which expressly discourage such movements by tying laon money into structural adjustment programs. Your country flourished and grew rich because of a solid resource base, strong government protectionism of domestic industries, and a labour movement inherited from the workers' struggles during the Industrial Revolution. However, your nation is also complicit in the forced trade liberalisation of other nations, denying them the self-same advantages that have made you wealthy. How is this fair, or 'honestly acquired' wealth? You are right, no one else has a right to someone else's things, yet nations plunder one another all the time. I would like to see that practice end. It is for this reason that I believe governments need to reign in the private sector by making them accountable to not only the consumer, but the producer as well.

And I see that as exactly the problem, when governments reign the most fundamental principle this country was founded on is lost. That being, the freedom of its people. Yes, that freedom is abuse. Yes, so countries and or businesses essentially loot other countries. This is wrong and reprehensible.

As for protectionism, we are now reaping the results as our market opens and as for the labor issues, they are screwing us even further as they have raise our standard of life at the expense of others and are now being lost as we open up to a global economy in which labor can be found much cheaper else where, thus redistributing wealth via the free market. Granted, that isn't always under the best of circumstances for either side. Our job market and national wages are reaping the cost of inflated wages, over taxation and a desire to living a standard of life that is already above most of our own means. It is also so far above that of the rest of the world that if you reduce the world to 100 people, US citizens are less than 10 yet they'd be the only ones owning computers, cars and televisions. They'd hold more than 75% of the money, be among the minority with electricity, clean running water and a host of other amenities. Yes, we have and consume way more of the worlds resources than we should. Yes, we have a moral obligation to do what we are able to help others both within and without our country. I just don't want my Gov. which is currently nearly half of our GDP doing it as it is one of the most inefficient users of resources know to man, not that other governments are much better.

The problem is that I am not willing to sacrifice my moral values, one of which I hold dear is freedom of conscience, to force others to do something against their will as anything other than a last resort and then only under circumstance where they are clearly, directly violating the rights of another individual. And, when I say violating their rights, I mean forcing them to do something against their own will. As far as I'm concerned our founding fathers got the part about the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, part right. You have the right to your own life and whatever you are able to make of it with the liberty you have as long as it does not take away anothers liberty by acts of commission. You have the right to persue happiness, though there is no gaurentee you will ever be happy. With that liberty, comes the right to be selfish as long as I don't steal, murder, rape and pilage in the process. The fewer people that exercise that right the better, but to force people to be benevolent is to take a prerrogative that even God does not take. Who am I or who are you or who is anyone to take prerrogatives that even the Creator of the universe doesn't take?

First of all...dude? Seriously? Dude!? I feel like I'm talking to Keanu Reeves.:)

Where in anything that I said did I suggest that equality should be forced on people? (I'm not going to have to go back and explain the difference between equality and equity again, am I?) What individual freedoms did I talk about revoking? What I want is exactly what you are saying: a reigning in of trade liberalisation. Please point out any statement I have made to the contrary.


You talked about forceably redistributing wealth via taxes. That is a violation of individual freedom. I suppose if you want to make taxes voluntary we have something to talk about. Your argument about equity vs. equality is essentially a symantical one. Both word have the same root and are based in the idea of balance. Either word is reasonable and moves in the direction of the ideal, but forcing the ideal requires taking the prerrogatives of God and even then He doesn't force. Freedom of choice is a requirement to a benevolent society otherwise it is only forced until those being forced aquire sufficient power to overthrow the current power.

But the top 10% make over 50% of the money. So the middle-classes do carry a higher tax burden in relation to the amount of wealth they make. Considering that one of the things that the government protects is property, it makes sense that those with more property should pay more, as they get more protection simply because they have more to protect. As the government protects more than property that is why they are not paying tax at the same exact percentage as their income.

Why? They use the same roads I do. The same military defends them. The same police for protects them. The same laws apply to them (for the most part). They have no more responsibility to pay for the governments existance than the poorest citizen that is protected and afforded the same rights and privileges by the same government. At worst they should pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else or ideally we should all pay for what we get out of the government. Not more, not less. That is true equity.

And I see that as exactly the problem, when governments reign the most fundamental principle this country was founded on is lost. That being, the freedom of its people. Yes, that freedom is abuse. Yes, so countries and or businesses essentially loot other countries. This is wrong and reprehensible.

As for protectionism, we are now reaping the results as our market opens and as for the labor issues, they are screwing us even further as they have raise our standard of life at the expense of others and are now being lost as we open up to a global economy in which labor can be found much cheaper else where, thus redistributing wealth via the free market. Granted, that isn't always under the best of circumstances for either side. Our job market and national wages are reaping the cost of inflated wages, over taxation and a desire to living a standard of life that is already above most of our own means. It is also so far above that of the rest of the world that if you reduce the world to 100 people, US citizens are less than 10 yet they'd be the only ones owning computers, cars and televisions. They'd hold more than 75% of the money, be among the minority with electricity, clean running water and a host of other amenities. Yes, we have and consume way more of the worlds resources than we should. Yes, we have a moral obligation to do what we are able to help others both within and without our country. I just don't want my Gov. which is currently nearly half of our GDP doing it as it is one of the most inefficient users of resources know to man, not that other governments are much better.

The problem is that I am not willing to sacrifice my moral values, one of which I hold dear is freedom of conscience, to force others to do something against their will as anything other than a last resort and then only under circumstance where they are clearly, directly violating the rights of another individual. And, when I say violating their rights, I mean forcing them to do something against their own will. As far as I'm concerned our founding fathers got the part about the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness, part right. You have the right to your own life and whatever you are able to make of it with the liberty you have as long as it does not take away anothers liberty by acts of commission. You have the right to persue happiness, though there is no gaurentee you will ever be happy. With that liberty, comes the right to be selfish as long as I don't steal, murder, rape and pilage in the process. The fewer people that exercise that right the better, but to force people to be benevolent is to take a prerrogative that even God does not take. Who am I or who are you or who is anyone to take prerrogatives that even the Creator of the universe doesn't take?

But the law structure as it stands now gives corporations equal protection that it gives people, and in doing so, it gives the people who own those corporations the ability and right, in essence, to steal. For example, one of Donald Trump's corporations just filed for bankruptcy. This corporation will not have to pay its debts, whether they belong to other companies or its workers in terms of monies collected for retirement programs or whatever. I don't know the exact details of this particular corporation, but the point is that the person or people who _own_ the corporations that go "bankrupt" do have the wealth to pay the corporations debts, but the laws are set up to allow the owners of corporations to do things that are forbidden to most citizens. Corporations -and by extension those who own them- are allowed to violate the rights of individuls. The laws are currently set up so that they are practically encouraged to violate the rights of individuals. Changing the regulations governing corporations would not be imposing on the rights of individuals so much as holding the individuals who own those corporations to the same responsibilties expected of everyone else.

Why? They use the same roads I do. The same military defends them. The same police for protects them. The same laws apply to them (for the most part). They have no more responsibility to pay for the governments existance than the poorest citizen that is protected and afforded the same rights and privileges by the same government. At worst they should pay the same percentage of their income as everyone else or ideally we should all pay for what we get out of the government. Not more, not less. That is true equity.

People who are too poor to own a vehicle certainly do not use the same roads to the extent that others do. Individuals do not use the roads to the same extent as corporations, and thus those who make money off the corporations, who benefit from them the most, who use the public roads and waterways to move the raw materials and goods. If the country falls because the military does not protect it and with it the dollar falls, those with the most dollars lose the most. As far the police, just check DOJ crime statistics. The poorer a person is the more likely that person is to be a victim of crime. That certainly does not sound like equal protection.

Like dude, remember Keanu saved us all from the machines...

and I took this:

'The ones who have the most to lose are also the ones who can afford to lose the most...and yet it is they who will bring the complete force of their power to bear in order to stop change from happening; by limiting the majority in favour of concentrating the real power in the hands of the minority.'

to mean that at some point, force was going to be applied, either way. Also, you agreed completely with Masked Cucumbers when he said:

I/ a more strict, and worldwide control of working conditions.

Alright, let me address the comment I made about those who resist change. I was referring to the historical tendency of the wealthy and powerful to actively work against any movement that encourages change. I am referring to labour unions, political activists, journalists, charitable organisations, or ANYTHING at all that disturbs the status quo. Violent steps are taken to maintain that status quo: military coups, paramilitary death squads, censorship, or political tinkering that outlaw certain freedoms in favour of 'security'. What then has happened in many cases, is armed revolution, led usually by educated, middle class men who claim to speak for all the poor and dispossessed. Those in power are removed by force, and then replaced by revolutionaries. Those selfsame revolutionaries become abusive of their power, and just as afraid of change; in essence, becoming what they fought against. I brought this up, because I do NOT support violence, in any form, and I do not support revolution, because it is simply replacing one bad system with another. I believe in movements of various populations, joined together in the basic desire for improvement. That means poverty groups working with women's rights and aboriginal rights groups, working with educators and medical practitioners, and producers and manufacturers and every other sector of society, striving within the bounds of peacefulness to make changes that benefit the widest amount of people.

What I can not support is the steady erosion of freedoms in the name of trade liberalisation. So many people have said, "I don't agree with you, because we shouldn't FORCE people to do what they don't want (re: taxes, which I'll address in a moment)", and yet that is exactly what you are condoning when you support the interests of business over the interest of people. People are being forced to offer their labour for rock bottom prices in the name of liberalisation and 'competition'. People are being forced to work long hours in terrible conditions, not because they WANT to, but because they HAVE to in order to survive. People are forced to silence their protest for fear of retribution, because governments are supporting businesses over the environment and it's own people.

Examples of this? Nigeria, and the Ognoni who opposed Shell's pollution of the land. Eight activists were tried on trumped up charges and hanged.
Trade unionists in Indonesia, Pakistan and Myanmar are routinely 'disappeared' or beaten to 'encourage' them not to complain about working conditions. Governments around the world have lowered their standards, dismantled their laws not to IMPROVE the conditions of their people, but rather to improve conditions for business. What gets lost are individual freedoms, and at a larger level, sovereignty of nations. When a nation can be sued BY A CORPORATION for 'protectionist practices' (such as labour laws, which put an 'unnecessary' burden on business) and WIN, we can not pretend that individual freedoms are being protected over the interests of corporations, which are neither transparent, elected, or accountable to the public.

When I talk about control of working conditions, I mean that working conditions need to be determined by a dialogue between workers, producers and governments...not determined unilaterally by business interests. Labour unions have grown fat and corrupt in the West, as bloated an inefficient as governments, but in the developing world, labour unions are still struggling to exist, and to enact the improvements necessary to provide a living wage and a healthy working environment for people. Do not dismiss their importance, especially in fledgling economies. Denying them the right to exist is a fundamental violation of INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS. That TRADE AGREEMENTS are being written to do just that should shock and worry you. Your government, acting in your stead, can sign binding trade agreements without consultation, that tie you to certain trade conditions for life...doesn't anyone remember the Multilateral Agreement on Trade?

What I think many of you are taking from my statements is that we should round up the rich and force them to give up money. That isn't what I'm talking about. I have no problem with people becoming successful...as long as the conditions through which they attained that success are legal, just, and do not infringe on the individual rights of others. I can not condone wealth gained by forcing other countries to strip away the rights of its people in order to 'open up to business'. If you have gotten rich off of the misery of others, why should you be considered a success instead of a criminal? It is precisely this attitude toward business that I want to change. Businesses and corporations are not faceless, evil entities, working to destroy the earth. They are formed by people, flawed or sublime, good and bad, hard working and lazy. However, the idea that businesses will act in the best interests of everyone, because THAT IS BETTER BUSINESS, has been proven wrong again and again. The most bloodthirsty, cruel and rapacious corporations win. The corporations who can get the most government support, thrive. Why? Because they can. The system is set up to encourage this. We need a balance...the people must have a say in decisions that so drastically affect their lives. Through them, governments must decide on certain minimum standards by which corporations must operate. In the best interests of everyone...individual and corporation alike. As it stands now, the odds are decidedly in favour of business. How is that allowing individual freedom?


II/ Inside each state, a progressive ban of the advantages of having rich parents

Both of those require governmental enforcement beyond that which a regulated market forces would provide, especially number 2.

I know it seems as though I want to completely level the playing field...take away everything and then redistribute it evenly. However, that is not the case. It wouldn't work, and it would cost more to do than would ever be paid back in benefits. When I said that I support this concept, I was thinking in a more abstract sense...of societies as a whole. I do not think that a regulated market would allow people to make the kinds of fortunes that (some) are right now. We would not have billions of dollars of unethical profit.

More to the point, it seems as though you are operating under the assumption that the current economic and environmental climate will remain a constant. It will not. At some point, there is going to be a shift in economies because we are operating under an obviously unsustainable economy based upon an unrenewable resource.
I most certainly AM NOT operating under that assumption. Quite the opposite. Change is inevitable. How that change comes about, however, is my concern. Yes, we are operating at unsustainable levels, and at some point things are going to blow up in our faces. I would prefer we start to prepare NOW, by becoming more sustainable. That includes making sure that business practices are sustainable, NOW, before disaster hits.


'They' won't be able to bring much if the major source of their power and wealth is gone. Key to the global economy as of late has been cheap labor and cheap shipping, and cheap government subsidized fuel. When you take away the cheap fuel, you will very quickly take away the cheap shipping.

'Trade liberalization' is going to be reigned in, but it will be better for all of us if it happens on its own, rather than through government involvement.

How exactly is it going to be reigned in then? By lack of fuel? By environmental disaster? Do you seriously have that much faith that the market forces themselves with reign in the excesses? Or will those companies who are already sitting on alternate technology simply reap the rewards of low competition due to supply factors? What is so wrong about agreements made, not only on unilateral, but multilateral levels, that guarantee protection for individual freedoms and sovereignty? One of the biggest reasons governments are so inefficient and corrupt is because people in democratic nations (dictatorships are different animals all together) don't involve themselves ENOUGH in the processes. We don't DEMAND enough transparency, or accountability. That is not a problem with the institution, it is a problem with the process. We need to strengthen our democracies by becoming more involved...not divest ourselves of more power. How are individuals to work together to make large scale improvements outside of governments? How are we to work together without regulations governing those relationships? How do we establish a set of rules that ensures one person's individual rights do not infringe upon another's? I am working from the assumption that, while flawed, the systems we have can be changed. Trying to scrap them and start from scratch is what every revolution has tried and failed to do. THAT is why I support governments being involved in the process, because governments are the closest thing to being a tool of the people as is possible with what we have. If you have another method, I am willing to talk about it:)

Does that make things clearer? I am not for stripping freedom away, or forcing people to give away their money...but I also recognise that you have to pay a price for being member of a society...that includes helping to pay for infrastructure, social programs (which includes healthcare and education) and assorted other aspects necessary to keep a country together. I know there are some who do not feel this way, but as of yet, I have not seen any viable options put forth...perhaps a private sector anarchy? I would be interested in hearing opinions on this.

You talked about forceably redistributing wealth via taxes. That is a violation of individual freedom. I suppose if you want to make taxes voluntary we have something to talk about.
How would you go about making taxes voluntary? In order to do that you would have to make sure that the people who CHOOSE not to pay into public funds also do not access the programs or benefits paid for by those funds. How do you make sure that people who don't pay taxes don't use the roads...don't use the justice system, don't go to school or access healthcare...don't use the public library or public swimming pool? Why should people who do not pay into public funds be able to access them? In essence, you would be ghettoizing a portion of the population, for you would have to remove them to an area where publicly funded services are not available. If you intend the private sector to do all of these things in place of the government, I would like a better explanation from you of how that would be managed. Would you allow the disparity that would inevitably be created by this method? There are already ghettos and gated communities to separate rich and poor...how would we provide for those who could not afford the user fees necessary to maintain roads and other public works? Again, for those of you who would like governments to do less...please be specific about what role they should take, and how the private sector would be able to pick up the slack.

Your argument about equity vs. equality is essentially a symantical one. Both word have the same root and are based in the idea of balance.
These concepts of equality versus equity go beyond semantics. They have been TAKEN beyond those boundaries by those who oppose equality as defined as "SAMENESS". The extreme example is handicapping everyone so that no one is smarter, better looking or more talented than anyone else. This is constantly brought up as a reason that equality should not be something we strive for. The balance to that then, must be equity, meaning FAIRNESS. The idea here is that people are not the same, and that we should celebrate differences, but we should also strive to be fair....to not create conditions which make it nearly impossible for the majority of the world to live in anything but crushing poverty. These conditions exist, and yet you support them because you do not like the idea of government taking away your freedom to take advantage of this situation. I believe that leveling the playing field does not mean stealing from one to give to another (as is currently the practice), but rather allowing for JUST distribution of resources based on the abilities and needs (ark...sounds like communism, but it isn't really...it's capitalist socialism, an oxymoron perhaps) of each nation. Countries that can produce their own food SHOULD rather than relying on 'cash crops' that bring in very little real wealth for the producer, and force that country to rely on foreign food imports. And so on.

Either word is reasonable and moves in the direction of the ideal, but forcing the ideal requires taking the prerogatives of God and even then He doesn't force. Freedom of choice is a requirement to a benevolent society otherwise it is only forced until those being forced acquire sufficient power to overthrow the current power.

Let's not bring God into this, because I don't believe in a divine power, nor are our western democracies based on a mandate from any higher power. Our governments and the organisation of our societies are based on the power of the people (however stilted and unused it has become). Freedom of choice is already curtailed by the ideas that certain actions are societally unacceptable. If we decided that murder was ok, we would be free to do it. If we decided that gay marriage was ok, it would become legal. Societies determine the rights that are guaranteed to themselves...not God. If we believe that we have a moral imperative to guarantee individual freedoms within societally acceptable boundaries, and curtail the rights of corporate personhood, we will eventually do it. The majority must decide. The minority, as always will have a voice in this, but the ultimate decision must come from the largest sector of society.

This of course would take a fundamental shift in attitude...one I am not holding my breath for, but nonetheless do feel is possible.

Then again, during the pre-Christams super-glut, this is probably a message most people want to wait until after the New Year to think about:)

Do you consider laws impediments then when it comes to taking what you want? What makes this planet any more ours than it was the dinosaurs? Is it a function of humans to consume until consumption leaves all our resources depleted? I am thankful that your selfish appetites are curbed by societal restraints, since you do not seem to think it important to curb those appetites with discipline.

On a global scale there is no law preventing a country from doing unto another, it is just the risk of consequence of the action, such as war or terrorism. We won't have to worry about resources in the future, science is making break throughs every day, we've been able to clone and edit DNA, do you think it will be long before we start recreating the structure of simple resources?


Well, we are doing exactly that....as for reusing it, we will have to find a way to manage the environmental backlash of our actions before they overcome us (pollution, global warming etc)...isn't that a little risky? Do you want to race with time? Do you have that much faith that we will fix the problems we are creating before they destroy us? Do you have the right to make that gamble, when it affects more than you?

I question this race of time... the science world is growing faster every day. Your simple environmental backlashs are nothing to contend with the spirit of discovery of the human race. Not even the world's worst diaster could stop us.

Ever hear the saying "Good of the many, over the good of the few"? If pollution and smog is caused now, it is worth it to cause the elimination of pollution/smog in 10-15 years...


Frankly, no one needs to prove this...no such technology exists. If you know of any technology that does produce petroleum, it is up to you to provide the details. However, alternative fuels to fossil fuels DO exist and need to be invested in. I myself use a geothermal heating system in my house, and have installed some solar panels which run the lights on the main floor. Vegetable oils can be used in place of petroleum to run combustion engines. The tides can be harnessed to provide electrical power. All of these things can be done WITHOUT 'abusing' the earth. They make sense, and are more economical in the long run. Choosing to ignore these alternatives is sadly shortsighted, and unrealistic. Just as maintaining the status quo always is.

No such technology exists, exactly, no technology does exist, that doesn't mean it won't exist.

We shouldn't stop ourselves from understanding and discovering more about oil simply because our short-sighted knowledge thinks that there isn't much left out there. We shouldn't have to settle for your more expensive/less effective alternatives, we need to increase spending on oil research, we need to dig deeper into the Earth...

Because honestly, we don't know jack shit about oil. We just know it's damn good at what it does.

I question this race of time... the science world is growing faster every day. Your simple environmental backlashs are nothing to contend with the spirit of discovery of the human race. Not even the world's worst diaster could stop us.

Ever hear the saying "Good of the many, over the good of the few"? If pollution and smog is caused now, it is worth it to cause the elimination of pollution/smog in 10-15 years...
You have contradicted yourself here...you say, the good of the many over the good of the few. It is the few that benefit (financially) from the abuse of our resources. It is the many that suffer the consequences of that abuse. You still have not been able to justify the gamble of inventing technologies to undo the damage we have done. You provide maybes and predictions, but no facts. No even the world's worst disaster could stop us? How could you possibly know that? How could you possibly predict what kind of severe weather is going to be produced by the continuing abuse of our planet? By stop us, what exactly do you mean by that? Would the loss of a few millions lives be alright in the grand scale of things, because it didn't STOP us? You talk about eliminating smog in 10 - 15 years (you weren't very clear here, but I assume you mean that it won't help us NOW, so therefore isn't a useful thing to do), and use that as an excuse to continue to use unsustainable energy. Hmmm..which would be better...reduce now, or increase our usage with synthetic petroleum, causing even more damage?


No such technology exists, exactly, no technology does exist, that doesn't mean it won't exist. So we should keep things as they are until it does? How incredibly proactive of you.

We shouldn't stop ourselves from understanding and discovering more about oil simply because our short-sighted knowledge thinks that there isn't much left out there. We shouldn't have to settle for your more expensive/less effective alternatives, we need to increase spending on oil research, we need to dig deeper into the Earth...

Your ignorance of alternative energy is jaw dropping. More expensive and less effective? I use a geothermal heating system in my home, tapping the latent heat of the earth. The entire system, with labour, cost less than $10,000, and it is good for 50 years before it will need maintenance (new heat conversion units perhaps). That's it...I will never pay another heating bill again. Not only does it act as a heating system, but also as a cooling system in the summer. No air conditioners, which use an incredible amount of electrical energy. In the house I lived in before this, I paid an average of $200 a month (more in the winter, less in the summer) in heating costs. Let's do the math: 50 years at $10,000 for geothermal heating, compared to $120,000 for the same amount of time for gas heating. That is assuming that gas prices stay the same for the next 50 years, which is a ridiculous proposition at best.

Other forms of alternative energy can be just as efficient, and affordable. What is more efficient than harnessing energy directly from the sun? Or using the tides themselves to generate electricity, instead of building huge dams? Why bother digging deeper into the earth (which will be even MORE expensive) or trying to refine oil found under the ocean floor, when we can use energy much more cheaply and easily from other sources? Your fixation on oil above all else seems a bit neurotic...but no one expects you to get over your anachronistic ideas about the importance of petroleum. The world WILL move on without you.

Because honestly, we don't know jack shit about oil. We just know it's damn good at what it does.
Actually, we know a great deal about oil, though there is always more to learn. We know that it is an inefficient fuel, because it takes so long to produce (outside of your imaginary synthetic petroleum technology, which I'm sure will be much faster), it burns inefficiently, releasing waste gases which are harmful to the environment and to humans, and is unevenly distributed, making it a less-than-desirable source of energy for those nations that do not have great reserves of it. Why bother? Why bother creating a synthetic version of a bad resource? You have given no legitimate reason for choosing this over alternative fuels other than misinformation.

Alright, let me address the comment I made about those who resist change. <truncated>

We're really not too far off from each other here. The system that is in place now kinda sucks, and the little guy does tend to get stepped on. However, that a corporation can sue is a legal and protected right here in the US, under the 1st Amendment (the right to address government for grievences).

However, a corporation is granted the right to exist, and if that corporation violates the trust of the people, it's charter can be revoked. Better or even reasonable enforcement of the current laws would help in this. Furthermore, the WTO, who I think you despise without naming is responsible for forcing many nations into policies they dislike in the name of 'free trade'. Again, elimination of corporations to cross national boundaries would put a halt to these practices very quickly.

One more thing I think you're on to, but needs clarifying is the reporting aspects. Governments and large corporations are able to operate with a high degree of secrecy. Some it that is good, but most of it is harmful. 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant' would go along way here. Requiring companies and government to report on policies and activities and have those policies and practices posted in a public forum (like the internet) would go a very long way into pressuring governments and corporations into doing things in a more upfront and honest manner. The whole Halliburton no bid contract thing is a great example of that. Had the government been required to disclose all conversations and proceedings to such a meeting, it is doubtful that such a crooked contract would have been signed.


I know it seems as though I want to completely level the playing field..... I would prefer we start to prepare NOW, by becoming more sustainable. That includes making sure that business practices are sustainable, NOW, before disaster hits.

The problem wih that right now is that while the technology is available for sustainability, the profitability for large corporations is not. People are starting to prepare now and are starting to do things that are more ecologically sound. Again, one of the things standing in the we of that in this country, and in most of the rest of the world is the heavy reliance on petroleum and petroleum related industries. A move away from oil (more on this later) is going to a boon to sustainability and ecology and economy. But, to start now, think global, act local. When you build your next house, built it out of renewable materials like straw, adobe and bamboo. I'm redoing the floors in my house right now, and instead of carpet (which is highly toxic to produce and live around) or hardwood floors (which mean the cutting down of old growth timber) I went with bamboo flooring. Bamboo is not wood, it's a grass. It's readily renewable and when formed and pressed and treated, it's an environmentally friendly, but beautiful looking alternative to wood.


How exactly is it going to be reigned in then? By lack of fuel?

Yep. It's called Hubbert's peak. We're right in the middle of it. http://www.hubbertpeak.com/


Do you seriously have that much faith that the market forces themselves with reign in the excesses? Or will those companies who are already sitting on alternate technology simply reap the rewards of low competition due to supply factors?

Yes. No.

Look, we essentially live in a society that is based upon the production and use of one product: oil. Think about it. Cars, computers, energy, clothes, agriculture have all become dependent upon petroleum based products. The keyboard I'm typing this on was a dinosaur 65 million years ago. The alternative technology is there, but it's not very expensive, and in a lot of cases is not very profitable to make and sell. Like a solar water heater. It's basically a box painted black with some tubing. Not high tech, no patents to be had, very little money to be made from it. That's my point, as oil and petroleum becomes more and more scarce it will become more and more expensive and people will look for more economical alternatives. How much does it cost to heat hot water with a gas water heater? $400 a year? How much for solar or compost based systems? $0. At those savings, it won't take the average person long to start making the conversion.

What is so wrong about agreements made, not only on unilateral, but multilateral levels, that guarantee protection for individual freedoms and sovereignty?

Nothing.

One of the biggest reasons governments are so inefficient and corrupt is because people in democratic nations (dictatorships are different animals all together) don't involve themselves ENOUGH in the processes. We don't DEMAND enough transparency, or accountability. That is not a problem with the institution, it is a problem with the process. We need to strengthen our democracies by becoming more involved...not divest ourselves of more power. How are individuals to work together to make large scale improvements outside of governments? How are we to work together without regulations governing those relationships?

I agree with part of that. Of course everyone needs to be more civicly minded. We all need to be better local and global cictizens, we all need to understand the issues to a reasonable enough degree in order to make good decisions when voting. We all know that, that's pretty basic.

BUT! The problem you missed is that many of the governments involved are poor ones and are seduced by the money offered by these large corporations in exchange for their oil and gas. Shell in Nigeria is an excellent examle. Same with ExxonMoble in Angola. These companies are desperate because no significant amount of petroleum reserves have been found since the early 1970's. Trust me, gasoline will eventually become what is was when it was first invented: a luxury for the rich to run thier expensive toy cars. Get used to the idea of a diesel, it'll run on old fry grease.

How do we establish a set of rules that ensures one person's individual rights do not infringe upon another's? I am working from the assumption that, while flawed, the systems we have can be changed. Trying to scrap them and start from scratch is what every revolution has tried and failed to do. THAT is why I support governments being involved in the process, because governments are the closest thing to being a tool of the people as is possible with what we have. If you have another method, I am willing to talk about it:)

I've got it! The U.S. Constitution! It's great and addresses everything you can just mentioned. It's malleable too! Getting more people involved will definitely help, and people like McCain will help as well, by getting the money out and voices in.

Does that make things clearer? I am not for stripping freedom away, or forcing people to give away their money...but I also recognise that you have to pay a price for being member of a society...that includes helping to pay for infrastructure, social programs (which includes healthcare and education) and assorted other aspects necessary to keep a country together. I know there are some who do not feel this way, but as of yet, I have not seen any viable options put forth...perhaps a private sector anarchy? I would be interested in hearing opinions on this.[/QUOTE]


If you go back to what I originally posted:

By allowing corporate charters to be revoked by referendum, by prohibiting the operation of a corporation across national boundaries, eliminating corporate personhood and having the officers to be directly liable for the actions of the company if proven to be criminal and forcing complete disclosure of all activites to a public forum, you're going to accomplish everything you want, without a lot of interference.

When that one product is gone, or too expensive for the average person, you are going to see a great shift of power and of economy. The massive industry in place that is based on petroleum is going to be phased out as wells run dry. Think about how much stuff is on your desk right now that is oil based plastic. Those industries will have to find other, renewable materials to manufacture with or they will cease to exist.

And that day is coming...

Actually, we know a great deal about oil, though there is always more to learn. We know that it is an inefficient fuel, because it takes so long to produce (outside of your imaginary synthetic petroleum technology, which I'm sure will be much faster), it burns inefficiently, releasing waste gases which are harmful to the environment and to humans, and is unevenly distributed, making it a less-than-desirable source of energy for those nations that do not have great reserves of it. Why bother? Why bother creating a synthetic version of a bad resource? You have given no legitimate reason for choosing this over alternative fuels other than misinformation.

Bah, anyone who claims to know how oil is created is full of shit.

Oil can be an extremely efficient resource, modern technology doesn't allow this yet though, what happens if we continue to invest in oil and we are able to break down oil to hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons would be extremely effective energy sources.

We need to invest more money in oil research and development and less money on this solar shit.

We're really not too far off from each other here. The system that is in place now kinda sucks, and the little guy does tend to get stepped on. However, that a corporation can sue is a legal and protected right here in the US, under the 1st Amendment (the right to address government for grievences).
I don't know much outside of second-hand information on the 1st Amendment...is that right an individual right or a corporate right? What I mean is, are corporations considered 'people' under your laws, or is specifically written that a business has the right to bring a grievance against the government. A lot of new (I know the Constitution isn't new...) trade agreements define corporations as 'persons' under the law, giving them the same protections as people. Scary.

However, a corporation is granted the right to exist, and if that corporation violates the trust of the people, it's charter can be revoked. Better or even reasonable enforcement of the current laws would help in this. Furthermore, the WTO, who I think you despise without naming is responsible for forcing many nations into policies they dislike in the name of 'free trade'. Again, elimination of corporations to cross national boundaries would put a halt to these practices very quickly. Yes, I despise the WTO..though it is actually the IMF that does most of the enforcement on this issue.

One more thing I think you're on to, but needs clarifying is the reporting aspects. Governments and large corporations are able to operate with a high degree of secrecy. Some it that is good, but most of it is harmful. 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant' would go along way here. Requiring companies and government to report on policies and activities and have those policies and practices posted in a public forum (like the internet) would go a very long way into pressuring governments and corporations into doing things in a more upfront and honest manner. The whole Halliburton no bid contract thing is a great example of that. Had the government been required to disclose all conversations and proceedings to such a meeting, it is doubtful that such a crooked contract would have been signed.
This is exactly why I mentioned that businesses, operating as they do now, should not be given protection as individuals as they are neither transparent, or accountable to the people. We allow fundamentally undemocratic organisations (WTO, IMF, G8, APEC etc) control over the basic sovereignty of nations. It kind of goes against the 'spread of democracy' we all love so much...

The problem wih that right now is that while the technology is available for sustainability, the profitability for large corporations is not. People are starting to prepare now and are starting to do things that are more ecologically sound. Again, one of the things standing in the we of that in this country, and in most of the rest of the world is the heavy reliance on petroleum and petroleum related industries. A move away from oil (more on this later) is going to a boon to sustainability and ecology and economy. But, to start now, think global, act local. When you build your next house, built it out of renewable materials like straw, adobe and bamboo. I'm redoing the floors in my house right now, and instead of carpet (which is highly toxic to produce and live around) or hardwood floors (which mean the cutting down of old growth timber) I went with bamboo flooring. Bamboo is not wood, it's a grass. It's readily renewable and when formed and pressed and treated, it's an environmentally friendly, but beautiful looking alternative to wood. I'm with you on this one...both for economic and ecological reasons, we have gone with geothermal and some solar energy, and locally produced tile (because the in-floor heating keeps it at just the perfect temperature). This was done in a 50 year old home.....I am really looking into the straw bale thing for a home down the road. It ensure stability for us in terms of utility payments, and I feel like I am setting a good example for my children.
I absolutely believe that action at home is necessary before we go rushing off trying to save the world. However, I also act within a larger framework philosophically, and try to envision an ideal world. It doesn't mean that I expect that world to materialise...it just gives me something to work toward. That means educating myself and others about alternative and sustainable practices. I think you probably feel the same way. I accept that oil is a driving factor in our economies and I understand the need to hold onto it (after all, no one is going to make a continuing profit off my heating system now...), but I also see the alternatives available, and I think that a great many people are choosing these alternatives not because of altruism, but for financial reasons. Either way, it's a good move. By the way...the University of Alberta (in Canada) has recently found a way to make plastics using vegetable oils. This research is being done in a number of countries and looks pretty promising, considering we use a lot of oil for this alone.

No, I don't think people have to be forced into using this energy. Like you say...it only makes sense to change. I'm actually more worried about labour standards and how we treat each other in this world. Human to human. I don't think that alternative energies will solve this problem...which is why we need more understanding and ethical business practices.

BUT! The problem you missed is that many of the governments involved are poor ones and are seduced by the money offered by these large corporations in exchange for their oil and gas.
Of course that is the major issue...which is why a global code of ethics for businesses is necessary...let us have free trade that also respects the environment and the dignity of human life. Make that good for business and don't let these corrupt governments (and individuals) get away with selling their people down the river for their own gain. Well...idealistic at best....

I've got it! The U.S. Constitution! It's great and addresses everything you can just mentioned. It's malleable too! Getting more people involved will definitely help, and people like McCain will help as well, by getting the money out and voices in.
Good...of course ANY system we come up with would have problems, and need revising..but that is the nature of the beast. At least we can see eye to eye on the POSSIBILITY of such a thing...

By allowing corporate charters to be revoked by referendum, by prohibiting the operation of a corporation across national boundaries, eliminating corporate personhood and having the officers to be directly liable for the actions of the company if proven to be criminal and forcing complete disclosure of all activities to a public forum, you're going to accomplish everything you want, without a lot of interference.
Again, this is exactly what I am looking for. It seems like a no-brainer, but you can see how hard it has been to get any of these things to happen. When I say tying business into ethics I want just two things: transparency, and accountability.

I think we agree....we just didn't get to flesh out ALL our ideas in our posts. Of course, there is more to be said about this topic, but I've run out of (alternatively produced) steam:)

Bah, anyone who claims to know how oil is created is full of shit.

Like geologists? Or chemists? They can explain in detail how oil is created and how to make synthetic oil. We've been able to produce synthetic oils since the 1930's.

Oil can be an extremely efficient resource, modern technology doesn't allow this yet though, what happens if we continue to invest in oil and we are able to break down oil to hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons would be extremely effective energy sources.

Hydrocarbons are what cause oil to be dirty in the first place.

We need to invest more money in oil research and development and less money on this solar shit.

Why don't you learn to be the worlds greatest chef in the preparation of dodo bird or passenger pidgeon? Read what I posted above, then get back to us.

No, I don't think people have to be forced into using this energy. Like you say...it only makes sense to change. I'm actually more worried about labour standards and how we treat each other in this world. Human to human. I don't think that alternative energies will solve this problem...which is why we need more understanding and ethical business practices.

I've cut a lot out, mostly the parts we agree on, and, yes, it is a VERY big issue. :)

the crux of the current global economy is this: cheap labor, cheap shipping and cheap government subsidized fuel, in the shape of petroleum. Like a three legged stool, take off one leg, and the whole stool will fall. When oil based fule becomes prohibitively expense to ship long distances on either ship or plane, you're going to see the cost of shipping go WAAAAYYY up. Those products that were once very cheaply made in other countries and then brought here are not going to be as competitive as they once were. Textile is a great example. All of those textile mills that closed because the labor in other countries was so much cheaper with fewer benefits are going to start opening back up. Why? because the cost of manufacturing here will have equalized out, due to the lack of cheap shipping from overseas. Make sense? The crux of the power/money base right now is based on that three legged stool, once that stool falls, the economy is going to drastically change, and I think change with a bias towards the smaller, more efficients, as there won't 'oil to burn'.

Good...of course ANY system we come up with would have problems, and need revising..but that is the nature of the beast. At least we can see eye to eye on the POSSIBILITY of such a thing...

Right. Flexibility is the key. I'm personally a Libertarian. Go to www.lp.org, you'll see what I mean. Big money is screwing things up at a stunning rate. However, that big money is largely based on that three legged stool. Once that's started to fall, it will fall back to us.


Again, this is exactly what I am looking for. It seems like a no-brainer, but you can see how hard it has been to get any of these things to happen. When I say tying business into ethics I want just two things: transparency, and accountability.

I think we agree....we just didn't get to flesh out ALL our ideas in our posts. Of course, there is more to be said about this topic, but I've run out of (alternatively produced) steam:)
It's a big topic, and we're talking about it at a very high level, but we're close. :)

Bah, anyone who claims to know how oil is created is full of shit.

Oil can be an extremely efficient resource, modern technology doesn't allow this yet though, what happens if we continue to invest in oil and we are able to break down oil to hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons would be extremely effective energy sources.

We need to invest more money in oil research and development and less money on this solar shit.

I'm starting to suspect you are joking....or just really, really ignorant.

It's a big topic, and we're talking about it at a very high level, but we're close. :)
I got it...the stool analogy is a very good one, and I think I'm going to steal it from you:)

Thanks for the discussion!

I got it...the stool analogy is a very good one, and I think I'm going to steal it from you:)

Thanks for the discussion!

No, thank you, it's a pleasure debating tough issues. Not that there was much debate, seeing as how we agreed on most of it. Look up those links, you'll like 'em.


:D