Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: John Koerner on July 19, 2016, 04:03:30 pm
-
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1112199458822909/?pnref=story
-
https://www.facebook.com/prageru/videos/1112199458822909/?pnref=story
This sort of BS has been cropping up elsewhere of late, is there some weirdo right wing nut job sect trying to mess with our heads or what?
-
John, that will never fly in Britain. Even Capitalism has given in to the entitlement ethic.
That said, the best thing both sides share is the Health Service (when it functions) because it seems to me to be one of the fundamental things that goes towards sustaining a humane society. I can see no justification for denying every citizen with the right to it access to it. Not all people are created equal and not all are capable of paying for private medical care. I can't accept that a poor person should be left to die on the pavement simply because he is poor because he's not smart enough to hack the 21st century and make enough dough to pay for private insurance.
The rest of the 'rights' are open to debate - but not here! It would drive me nuts.
The link, by the way, is excellent. But it won't be popular in some quarters, of course.
Rob C
-
This sort of BS has been cropping up elsewhere of late, is there some weirdo right wing nut job sect trying to mess with our heads or what?
BS?
Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:
-
BS?
Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:
Yes total and utter poppycock and if you really want to debate at the level of FB then I suggest you go there and spread your silliness amongst those who are less likely to think deeply about life.
-
BS?
Here is a list of what you're "entitled" to when you're born:
Elvis said it best: Don't be cruel! Sensitive souls can't bear reality/truth: it's uncomfortable. It could disarrange inbred faith.
;-)
Rob C
-
John, that will never fly in Britain. Even Capitalism has given in to the entitlement ethic.
That said, the best thing both sides share is the Health Service (when it functions) because it seems to me to be one of the fundamental things that goes towards sustaining a humane society. I can see no justification for denying every citizen with the right to it access to it. Not all people are created equal and not all are capable of paying for private medical care. I can't accept that a poor person should be left to die on the pavement simply because he is poor because he's not smart enough to hack the 21st century and make enough dough to pay for private insurance.
The rest of the 'rights' are open to debate - but not here! It would drive me nuts.
Rob C
The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.
In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.
In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.
The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.
It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.
-
Elvis said it best: Don't be cruel! Sensitive souls can't bear reality/truth: it's uncomfortable.
;-)
Rob C
Quite so Rob, have you yet been able to accept that Grays putting their prices up may have nothing to do with Brexit after all?
-
The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.
In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.
In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.
The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.
It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.
It's called humanity, try it sometime.
-
The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.
In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.
In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.
The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.
It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.
Coldly, that's absolutely true. But we are more than just animal because we have higher gifts, amongst them compassion. It's just one of the crosses we are forced to bear because of our brighter minds.
As I said, it all comes down to degree; there are basic things we can do to keep from savagery and also too many things that we do do to destroy incentive. It's not gonna be a perfect balance.
-
Spot the difference between this -
The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.
In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.
In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.
The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.
It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.
And this -
Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, designated by name, so that patients who, on the basis of human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen], are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death [Gnadentod] after a definitive diagnosis. — Adolf Hitler
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aktion_T4
I know, tricky isn't it.
-
It's called humanity, try it sometime.
Wrong, it's called insanity.
Understand the difference.
If I want to help my elderly mother, that is my prerogative as a human being with feelings toward my own kin.
However, when government MANDATES that a portion of my rightful earnings go to help "others" (who have nothing to do with me, or my interests), it is called UNFAIR BULLSHIT ... and an abomination of how life should work.
My money should be spent at my discretion, to help those of my choosing.
The entire concept of governmentally-forced assistance of the unfit/unwilling isn't "humanity" ... it is ROBBERY and self-perpetuating insanity.
Feeding 10,000 dying people in Africa ... does what? Lets them survive.
Survive to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.
Feeding welfare-receiving families does what? Lets them survive; encourages the lifestyle.
And to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.
That isn't "humanity"; it is bass-ackwards stupidity.
Those who can't survive, shouldn't. The first principle of nature.
-
Wrong, it's called insanity.
Understand the difference.
If I want to help my elderly mother, that is my prerogative as a human being with feelings toward my own kin.
However, when government MANDATES that a portion of my rightful earnings go to help "others" (who have nothing to do with me, or my interests), it is called UNFAIR BULLSHIT ... and an abomination of how life should work.
My money should be spent at my discretion, to help those of my choosing.
The entire concept of governmentally-forced assistance of the unfit/unwilling isn't "humanity" ... it is ROBBERY and self-perpetuating insanity.
Feeding 10,000 dying people in Africa ... does what? Lets them survive.
Survive to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.
Feeding welfare-receiving families does what? Lets them survive; encourages the lifestyle.
And to do what? Multiply and create more of the same, that's what.
That isn't "humanity"; it is bass-ackwards stupidity.
Those who can't survive, shouldn't. The first principle of nature.
Just crawl back under the log and take your utterly toxic nostrums with you.
-
Coldly, that's absolutely true.
And, Rob, that is all of it right there: Nature is cold.
But we are more than just animal because we have higher gifts, amongst them compassion. It's just one of the crosses we are forced to bear because of our brighter minds.
Compassion is only a gift if it's useful.
Allowing unfit, lazy, good-for-nothing individuals to survive, reproduce, and create more DEAD WEIGHT to society isn't "bright" ... it's stupid.
Human over-population isn't "a" problem, it is THE underlying problem of all other problems.
Make no mistake about that.
As I said, it all comes down to degree; there are basic things we can do to keep from savagery and also too many things that we do do to destroy incentive. It's not gonna be a perfect balance.
The perfect balance is you can either swim, or you sink.
If you (or I) decide to help someone important to us, that is our prerogative as individuals.
However, to create a governmentally-enforced system which mandates (and thereby perpetuates) unfit individuals to reproduce and create "more of the same," all over the world, that is not "kindness" ... it is BLINDNESS ... to the absolute destruction of our planet caused by the "dead weight" of an ever-enlarging burden which is being created globally.
-
Just crawl back under the log and take your utterly toxic nostrums with you.
Thanks for the ad hominem.
The truth is, what is the greatest "utterly toxic" factor in our environment is human waste ... in the air, in the water, in our lands ... all caused by over-population ... itself brought to life by spineless, "sensitive" people like you, who can't stand (or embrace) the cold realities that Nature put in place for a reason.
No one likes seeing the weak die off, but it *is* the natural way of things and should be accepted philosophically.
Defying nature for the last couple centuries hasn't "helped" our world ... in point of fact, it has nearly ruined it.
-
Thanks for the ad hominem.
The truth is, what is the greatest "utterly toxic" factor in our environment is human waste ... in the air, in the water, in our lands ... all caused by over-population ... itself brought to life by spineless, "sensitive" people like you, who can't stand (or embrace) the cold realities that Nature put in place for a reason.
No one likes seeing the weak die off, but it *is* the natural way of things and should be accepted philosophically.
Defying nature for the last couple centuries hasn't "helped" our world ... in point of fact, it has nearly ruined it.
Sorry mate, but I ain't going to give your vile views credence by debating them, go hunting for some other bunch of suckers.
-
Sorry mate, but I ain't going to give your vile views credence by debating them, go hunting for some other bunch of suckers.
Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.
I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.
Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?
Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?
Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?
Answer honestly ... or say nothing.
-
I can understand your ideas and in theory some are perfectly sound.
But life isn't theory alone.
Providing unlimited 'benefits' to non-working families that grow and grow in order to get more and more is madness, but it carries votes, and there you have it. Reduce the 'benefits' and you lose votes.
No party wants to find itself out of office, reminding me of something I've said before: anyone seeking office should automatically be banned from holding it. How to get somebody worthy to do the job? It should be something that's offered much in the manner of the 'honours' system - when it is worth something, and not simply a gong for athletes, musicians, actors, artists and sundry non-productives like that. Only somebody who has actually achieved something remarkable in life should be entrusted with running a business as large as a country. And at the end of the day, that's what countries are: businesses. They incurr expenses and need income to pay for them. Making the equation balance is the challenge.
Rob
-
Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.
I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.
Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?
Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?
Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?
Answer honestly ... or say nothing.
I'll dance with you.
What are you advocating exactly? Elimination of antibiotics? Surgery? All medicine? Or are you just advocating typical Randian nonsense that equates quality of life and value of the individual with their bottom line? Because I agree with your idea that overpopulation is the biggest problem we face. It's what I think your answers are proposing that I find unconscionable...
Edit - BTW, the linked FB video equating "socialism" to allowing parents to keep kids on their insurance plicy through age 26? Come on... (It also errs in stating that the goal of young people has "always" been to leave the family unit and become wholly independent. That's actually a fairly recent phenomenon, compared to "always," at least....
-
Translation: you can't refute what I am saying.
I am not trolling, I am giving you pearls.
Can you name one benefit of GLOBALLY keeping people alive, who could not survive on their own, only to produce more of the same?
Repeated over time, eliminating or increasing the UNfit, which model do you think creates a better future of our world and environment?
Do you think the quality of our lands, oceans, and atmosphere has improved the last century ... or gone to hell?
Answer honestly ... or say nothing.
Whatever..........
-
Looks like you triggered someone, John.
https://youtu.be/yCtv4O9tv1g
-
I'll dance with you.
Not sure that's what I asked for ...
What are you advocating exactly? Elimination of antibiotics? Surgery? All medicine?
I said no such thing.
This is the typical "straw man" people try to build in order to "say something" ... rather than just read, and accept, the truth.
Surgery and medicine are useful tools for those who so order their lives, and daily choices, that they can provide these things for themselves.
Or are you just advocating typical Randian nonsense that equates quality of life and value of the individual with their bottom line?
No, this is just more of your own nonsense that you've added, tainting the actual message again, just to "say something" and confound the issue.
Because I agree with your idea that overpopulation is the biggest problem we face.
Then just say, "I agree."
It's what I think your answers are proposing that I find unconscionable...
What other "answer" to overpopulation would you suggest, then, if not to allow those who cannot survive (or who have failed to so order their lives in such a way as to provide for themselves) to pass on?
That is HOW you deal with overpopulation ... by letting the unfit pass on ...
Right now, most systems of government are keeping the unfit around, providing for all their needs, and thereby enabling them to produce more of the same.
Denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.
-
Let me add that it is even worse than that: our government encourages the unfit to produce "more of the same" ... by giving out "more money" for "more children produced" ... which proceeds are given to those who cannot (usually will not) work for and support themselves.
I am sorry, but this is insane.
We have literally created a "survival of the unfittest" paradigm, that is contrary to nature, and that is a downward-spiral of descent into a world FILLED with people who cannot take care of themselves, think that government "owes them" a livelihood (education and health care), and so must be "cared for" by those of us who do work and enable them via forced socialism.
Watch the video again. Whatever "good intentions" forced caring for others may have, it has disastrous results in the long-term.
-
I said no such thing.
This is the typical "straw man" people try to build in order to "say something" ... rather than just read, and accept, the truth.
Surgery and medicine are useful tools for those who so order their lives, and daily choices, that they can provide these things for themselves.
Not a straw man, and certainly not just "saying something." I'm asking for clarification on to what extent you feel that overpopulation ought to be solved by allowing nature to take its course. The answer seems to be that you're fine with allowing as many people to live as can manage without inconveniencing yourself, which is about what I suspected. That has nothing, by the way, to do with a natural balance of what's good for the ecology or our natural resources.
No, this is just more of your own nonsense that you've added, tainting the actual message again, just to "say something" and confound the issue.
See above. It's not nonsense. You made an argument against acting in a humanitarian fashion, but dishonestly disguised it as a claim of supporting the natural order. Which, not coincidentally, places your good above that of others you deem less worthy.
Then just say, "I agree."
I agree only with the premise that overpopulation is a massive threat to our survival.
What other "answer" to overpopulation would you suggest, then, if not to allow those who cannot survive (or who have failed to so order their lives in such a way as to provide for themselves) to pass on?
That is HOW you deal with overpopulation ... by letting the unfit pass on ...
Right now, most systems of government are keeping the unfit around, providing for all their needs, and thereby enabling them to produce more of the same.
There are a variety of ways on control population beyond allowing suffering of those already alive. They range from the reasonable - incentives against high birth rates - to the authoritarian (China's "one child" policy) to the generally unaccepted ideas about eugenics and state regulated selective breeding.
-
They range from the reasonable - incentives against high birth rates - to the authoritarian (China's "one child" policy) to the generally unaccepted ideas about eugenics and state regulated selective breeding.
I think forced numbers of child-bearing are reasonable, based on income.
Right now, anyone with a sex drive can produce children, whether or not they can afford to have them (or even take care of themselves).
Right now, the more children a jobless woman has, the more money she's given ... when, instead, she should be criminally-charged for gross negligence.
In this country, you can build a business, and drive a car, BUT YOU NEED A LICENSE (and to prove a basic level of fitness/competence) in order to do so.
And so should it be with rasing children.
People should need (and have to qualify for) the right to have children ... rather than just produce them and produce them and produce them ... with no income, education, etc. ... ONLY because our government will provide for them.
It wouldn't work that way in nature ... those offspring wouldn't make it.
-
I think forced numbers of child-bearing are reasonable, based on income.
Right now, anyone with a sex drive can produce children, whether or not they can afford to have them (or even take care of themselves).
Right now, the more children a jobless woman has, the more money she's given ... when, instead, she should be criminally-charged for gross negligence.
In this country, you can build a business, and drive a car, BUT YOU NEED A LICENSE (and to prove a basic level of fitness/competence) in order to do so.
And so should it be with rasing children.
People should need (and have to qualify for) the right to have children ... rather than just produce them and produce them and produce them ... with no income, education, etc. ... ONLY because our government will provide for them.
It wouldn't work that way in nature ... those offspring wouldn't make it.
I can agree with much of this, though I think you're overstating the incentive government provides to have more and more kids. The people that think they're coming out ahead, I think probably are not.
I've had similar arguments with people that are against, for example, letting same-sex couples adopt children but have no problem with practically unlimited child bearing by comparatively wholly unfit "traditional" parents.
-
I can agree with much of this, though I think you're overstating the incentive government provides to have more and more kids. The people that think they're coming out ahead, I think probably are not.
I'm not over-stating, and I think we basically agree.
While I concur that no one who lives off government tax money will achieve the level of success an entrepreneur achieves, the flipside is many have better lives than hard-working lower-middle-class, because they have absolutely everything paid for by our taxes.
For example, I just dealt with a habitability claim (allegation the apartment was unfit). The woman hadn't paid for her rent in 6 months, because she saw a couple of roaches. Now she has an attorney suing for "pain and suffering" of seeing these roaches ...
When I interviewed co-tenants, they all said 1) she has 3 kids, 2) she has no job, and 3) that she just moved to a NEW apartment, free of charge, all funded by US Taxpayer money of course ...
It is sickening what we allow to occur. That woman is nothing but a GD parasite, on every level possible, because of how our socialist "helping the unfit" system is set up.
She is a criminal IMO ... and one of millions of that culture and mindset.
I've had similar arguments with people that are against, for example, letting same-sex couples adopt children but have no problem with practically unlimited child bearing by comparatively wholly unfit "traditional" parents.
The biological equipment to produce children is not enough.
There should be the same strict set of standards to produce children as are in place to adopt children, as the responsibility (and financial + life-stability) commitments are the same.
My last post,
Jack
-
I'm not over-stating, and I think we basically agree.
While I concur that no one who lives off government tax money will achieve the level of success an entrepreneur achieves, the flipside is many have better lives than hard-working lower-middle-class, because they have absolutely everything paid for by our taxes.
For example, I just dealt with a habitability claim (allegation the apartment was unfit). The woman hadn't paid for her rent in 6 months, because she saw a couple of roaches. Now has an attorney suing for "pain and suffering" ...
When I interviewed co-tenants, they all said 1) she has 3 kids, 2) no job, and 3) that she just moved to a NEW apartment, free of charge, all funded by US Taxpayer money of course ...
It is sickening what we allow to occur. That woman is nothing but a GD parasite, on every level possible, because of how our socialist "helping the unfit" system is set up.
She is a criminal IMO ... and one of millions of that culture and mindset.
The biological equipment to produce children is not enough.
There should be the same strict set of standards to produce children as are in place to adopt children, as the responsibility (and financial + life-stability) commitments are the same.
My last post,
Jack
Yippee!
-
The best thing that can happen is for government to stop trying to defy nature.
In nature, what refuses (or can't) provide for itself dies, ridding the ecosystem of its presence and leaving only fit individuals to carry on.
In our "socialist" societies, the unfit are fed, cared-for, and kept alive ... spreading (and multiplying themselves) through artificial advantages ... only because the fit (those who actually work, pay taxes, etc.) are forced to KEEP the unfit alive, further multiplying their masses.
The entire premise of "survival of the fittest" is turned on its head, reversed, and thus socialism promulgates survival of the UNfittest.
It is a blight on this world, and contrary to every principle known to nature.
Could you possibly offer some helpful information like how we're going to stop corporate welfare with the oil companies and industrialized agribusinesses?
Or maybe this is what you should be reading as your final solution for insuring the survival of the fittest...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
-
Yippee!
+1
Can't wait for Jack to lock (blaming it on the moderators) yet another one of the threads he started, threads which often/mostly seem intended as flame bait, certainly not for discussion.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Tim, I think that link's a bit unfair.
The problem is that John's right, but the mechanisms don't exist for making the changes easily and without pain. There's absolutely no doubt that the more people get the more they expect; that starts before kids go to school, depending on the parents and how they choose to bring them up. It's not simply a matter of sponging off the State, the same thing happens with kids sponging off their rich parents. You don't have to go to LA to see it: try Glasgow, one of the least likely places you'd imagine to see spoiled 17-year-old brats driving sports cars around school streets. The entitlement culture hits both ends of the financial spectrum, difference being that one lot use your tax money, the other their parents' wodge. That's up to them, obviously, but the effect on the kids is just as bad. Especiallly if they have no spark of intelligence and/or guile by which to earn their own version of the lifestyle to which they grew accustomed at home.
Insofar as sorting the wider, public social financing problems all governments face, I'd suggest they start by actually encouraging the use of free condoms to anyone who wants them. In the long run save a lot of damaged people from happening. Children that already exist? Introduce a deadline beyond which no further state aid becomes available to children conceived beyond the ones in place during the existing allowances regimes. In effect, still bloody expensive bringing up somebody else's kids, but with the clear warning that the game's up from a set date in the future: you want 'em, you pay for 'em. Even our bleeding hearts would find that difficult to argue against... but I don't know, some here would, simply out of habit and chronic tunnel vision aligned with a highly developed sense for the freeload ethic. Turkeys and Christmas votes, I guess.
Doing nothing isn't an option, but unfortunately that's what'll happen.
Rob
-
+1
Can't wait for Jack to lock (blaming it on the moderators) yet another one of the threads he started, threads which often/mostly seem intended as flame bait, certainly not for discussion.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, help me out: I'm looking for your previous post in this thread but can't seem to find it.
;-)
Rob C
-
Bart, help me out: I'm looking for your previous post in this thread but can't seem to find it.
;-)
Sure Rob,
There was no previous post of mine in this thread, since it is useless to discuss with someone, like the OP, who is not open for other views, nuance, reason, empathy, etc.
He stated his opinion, I don't agree with most of it, and that's about all that can be said. There is no basis provided for a discussion (e.g. a credible report used to form an opinion, or better multiple reports leading to different views on the matter). That's why he often rebuts with, you are wrong. No coherent thought process (no historical/cultural perspective, nothing) to be detected, just some opinions. Dogmas start where thinking (and open discussion) stops.
He doesn't even start to explain what variety of Socialism (he possibly confuses that with Communism), or Capitalism he's talking about. So therefore it sounds more like flame-bait than something worth responding to. I tend to not feeding the trolls.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Guys, guys - don't feed the troll.
-
This thread almost makes me want Koerner to go back to writing ad nauseum about the Nikon D500.
Brad
-
Guys, guys - don't feed the troll.
Too easy, too easy: consider the subject he's impassioned with. Ignoring it, disapproving of it, neither will make the reality less visible and expensive, and it most certainly won't go away of its own accord. It will only grow.
Thing is, there truly has been a helluva drop in people feeling responsibility for their own actions over the past few decades. There was always immorality, but it used to be accompanied by retribution and/or remorse. Today, there's very little of anything like that. You need read no further than these threads to see for yourself that people think that 'freedom' equates with the 'right' to screw everybody else, do as you please, and escape the financial consequences by dumping everything onto the State, meaning the shoulders of those still working to pay their way.
Ain't pretty, but there you go. Denial changes nothing, and shooting the messenger leaves the problem untouched.
Rob
-
and shooting the messenger leaves the problem untouched.
Not shooting anyone - just not getting sucked into a pointless mud-wrestling contest.
-
Too easy, too easy: consider the subject he's impassioned with. Ignoring it, disapproving of it, neither will make the reality less visible and expensive, and it most certainly won't go away of its own accord. It will only grow.
We agree, Rob.
The masses see nothing, understand nothing.
There is no animal that has ever existed, in all the world's history, that has left such a devastating footprint of destruction on our planet as has mankind.
Even from outer space, man's devastating effects can be seen: lights, structures, roadways, etc.
This has never happened with any other life form, so affecting our world as to see the affects from space.
Philosophically, the surface of the earth can be likened to the skin of a dog.
When a dog has a healthy coat, its fur shines and flourishes.
By contrast, when unhealthy (or afflicted by mange), the hair on a dog disappears and is replaced by scabbing, crust, exema, etc.
The same is true with our planet: when healthy, grasses, trees, and rivers flourish.
By contrast, when unhealthy, trees and grasses die, water dissipates, and "bald patches" prevail.
What most people are too blind to see is, our buildings, concrete structures, roadways, etc. are crust-like pustules to the face of this earth, proof of its unhealthy state.
Our very activity on the earth's surface is like the activity of mange-mites on the hide of a dog: festering, erupting, infecting.
The blind can't see it as such, same as mange-mites can't see what they're doing to the dog, but that is exactly the truth of the matter of what we're doing to our planet.
People look at a city-scape of New York and think, "Progress."
I look at a city-scape of New York and think, "Every bit of Nature, destroyed."
Of course, and again, the blind can't see it as such, being the living mange-mites creating this condition, but MANY top scientists will tell you that the earth is a sick, slowly-dying organism, and human overpopulation (infection) is the cause of it.
But, as a great philosopher once said, "These are delicate, distant matters ... they should not be reached-for by sheeps' hooves."
Famed BBC naturalist, Sire David Attenborough, agrees (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADp0QkZC-Sk).
All anyone has to do is Google "Human Overpopulation," and again (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/08/scientists-more-worried-than-public-about-worlds-growing-population) and again (http://www.care2.com/causes/top-scientists-to-world-leaders-do-something-about-overpopulation.html) they can find scientists warning of this peril.
I know I said I wouldn't post on the subject again, but felt the need to make a final comment.
The prophesies warn of "The Seven Plagues," yet the great irony is that neither locusts, mice, nor any other vermin are the true plagues of this planet; in point of fact MAN is The Plague of this Earth==the deadliest, most destructive, hardest-to-eradicate pestilence to ever to infect our world. Every other life form on earth is dwindling, while mankind is increasing. But, here again, we don't see it as such.
And "why" is this happening?
Because we keep alive the UNfit ... we create programs to "keep the unworthy alive," to "provide for their needs," rather than allowing them to pass on, which would happen in Nature, and through this artificial sustenance we thereby ensure the unfit will not only survive but propagate more of the same.
This practice is contrary to nature.
It is not life-affirming; it is life-destroying ... because it saps all of the world's resources in order to sustain the volume of needs thereby created.
I could go on forever, but (for the most part) I realize that the "pearls and swine" maxim will inevitably apply.
-
Ahhhh [OINK] this piggy says that taking a longer view, the problem you wrestle with is self-correcting.
After all, suicide is painless (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7uemm6Yo)
-
Jhon, hoo Jhon...
You think you see the big picture but your far away from it. Nature will survive us, no worry. We might destroy a load of thing before our biological extinction but nature will survive. Life will prosper again, even if tomorrow a meteor hit us and destroy everything.
Thing is many have a problem with death. Many have faith in something and have less problem with it. When we die, anyway, it is alone, it is hard and scary. This feeling is common to most animals, probably some plants too, we do not know.
On the other hand we are close, civilisation wise, to the eternal life. In a century or two, if we do not kill ourself before and if capitalism and technology and moor's law continue to exist, we might give an another answer to death. Burial traditions will change drastically.
Burial traditions is what define the Homo genre. Sensitivity and art too.
If I tell you that one day you'll be able in about a year to transfer your conciousness into a machine, what would you think ? Because this is where we are heading.
We will have the choice. Transfer or not ?
Before that we will go through all the social problems we can imagine. The technology will be accessible only for riches then will be hacked then will be accessible for everybody blablabla.
We are conqueror Jhon. HUMANS ARE CONQUEROR. They start to degenerate when they have nothing to conquer any-more.
Space is the key, and the only way for us to travel trough space is under a mineral form, not a biological form.
Keep that in mind and sleep well.
-
For a man who insists he hates socialism the OP seems awfully keen on the national variety.
-
Ahhhh [OINK] this piggy says that taking a longer view, the problem you wrestle with is self-correcting.
After all, suicide is painless (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4gO7uemm6Yo)
Chris, suicide is not what I am talking about.
The problem is also not one "I" wrestle with, but is a problem that is pandemic globally.
Those able to provide for themselves, contribute to society, and sustain themselves are not the problem.
Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.
I am surprised you can't understand the difference, though (in the end) I shouldn't be.
At least you labeled yourself correctly and broke into this discussion utilizing your primary language.
-
On a side note, Jhon, I would not allow you to be transferred. You are too dangerous for a community of conqueror :p
The problem is also not one "I" wrestle with, but is a problem that is pandemic globally.
Those able to provide for themselves, contribute to society, and sustain themselves are not the problem.
Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.
You sound like a new born in a hippie camp. Humans are like that since the start so it is time to wake up, Jhon.
We just follow our Darwinian plan like all other species out there. This is the destiny of the planet.
If I push you far into survival mode will you die or will you fight ? I'm sure you are more cruel and rude than you might even imagine.
Tomorrow go to wallmart and buy the following book :
On the Origin of Species
-
If you are bold enough, please provide to our judgement a list of 30 things you do for "the society", our "civilisation" or for the "nature".
-
Oh no! Hulyss please!
If he does that I will be forced to lock the thread
-
Yea it start to be dangerous :D
-
Oh no! Hulyss please!
If he does that I will be forced to lock the thread
Please do.
-
Those unable to provide for themselves, who don't contribute to society, and who expect "others" to sustain them are the problem.
I agree, let's friggin' nuke them.
too poor ? let's nuke them too
refugee ? wipe them , all of them
crippled, ill or otherwise infirm - yup, straight nuke
good train of thought ... stand tall !
-
I agree, let's friggin' nuke them.
too poor ? let's nuke them too
refugee ? wipe them , all of them
crippled, ill or otherwise infirm - yup, straight nuke
good train of thought ... stand tall !
It's readily apparent that you lack the subtlety to appreciate the difference between "doing" versus "allowing."
I advocate no one harm another individual, without just cause.
Even the most parasitic dependent can, at any time, opt to change their ways ... and begin providing for themselves.
My best guess is that, if welfare (socialism and other enablers of parasitism) were removed that people will begin to fend for themselves.
If they cannot, or will not, then so be it.
Every person should be autonomous.
If a person cannot be autonomous, then they are unfit, need to fade-on-out, which is the natural order of things across all ecosystems.
If "you" decide to help your family members in need, that is a choice you can make ... but "I" (and other members of society) should not be forced to provide this help to your family members.
It is rather fascinating to watch the small-minded invent any number of "strawmen" ... to keep talking ... as a way to circumnavigate the issue.
I never advocated nuking anyone, harming anyone.
I advocated to let people sink or swim, based on their own abilities, merits, or lack thereof.
If the upended turtle rights itself, it lives ... if it cannot do so, it dies.
But that is not the same as actively killing a living turtle for no reason.
A naturalist understands what I am saying; a member of the swine-herd will not.
The hardcore naturalist allows nature to take its course ... even if it is painful to watch a struggling (but ultimately unfit) individual die-off ... because, ultimately, it is for the best that it does so.
-
I think actual Christians may have a problem with this idea.
-
"A hardcore naturalist"
Would that be one with an auto repeating high calibre butterfly net?
-
Would that be one with an auto repeating high calibre butterfly net?
A quick review of your contributions shows you have the mentality of a 10 year old and can't say anything of substance.
-
I never advocated nuking anyone, harming anyone.
I advocated to let people sink or swim, based on their own abilities, merits, or lack thereof.
What you're advocating is euthanasia by neglect. You'll be happy to know that's exactly what's happening right now in senior care centers across the US and maybe across the globe. My mother was just one of those non-contributors to society and she was dealt with just as you suggested.
I guess you'll be putting your aging parents in the same facilities, right?
-
I think actual Christians may have a problem with this idea.
Christians have a problem with reality in general.
The idea that we are all going to float about "in heaven" ... or burn in an eternal "hell" ... is another insanity that is pervasive amongst those who are not scientific-minded.
This is part of the problem: outdated, outlandish beliefs founded in a distant, superstitious past.
If you want to believe in Santa Claus (used to be St. Nicholas, but repeated over time degenerated into the phonetic "Santa Claus"), that is your right.
Santa Claus and his giving out "presents" or "coal" to children is nothing but the junior version of the idea God will be assigning "heaven" or "hell" to adults.
The silliness of this is so obvious that it bears no further mention.
Again, most people are still filled with bizarre, ancient, and outdated beliefs that they cannot simply accept cold reality for what it is.
It is natural to want to be "nice," but the best thing to be is objective.
I refuse to discuss religion any further. Nothing good ever comes of it.
What I am trying to discuss is the reality that harboring the unfit, and allowing them to propagate (which is the backbone of socialism and democrat ideology) is the cause of all other problems.
The functional reality is, those who cannot make it should not make it. This reality happens across every ecosystem, except the human ecosystem.
We have turned nature upside-down, because we "feel" for the unfortunate.
That is fine, and we can each make a personal decision to help the unfortunate, no problem.
But to create an entire system of government that forces the fit and able to sustain every unfit specimen, regardless of how unfit, regardless of how unwilling each may be to lift a finger for itself ... and which system encourages (dare I say, rewards) the unfit to keep reproducing ... giving more-and-more money so they can make more-and-more of the same ... all funded and made possible through a system of bleeding-out the capable just to perpetuate the unfit/unwilling ... is an abomination of every ethos of "Natural Selection."
I promise this will be my last post on this subject :-X
-
What I am trying to discuss is the reality that harboring the unfit, and allowing them to propagate (which is the backbone of socialism and democrat ideology) is the cause of all other problems.
Problems? What problems?
-
To start opposing capitalism/free market and socialism and describing this opposition as "a given in the contemporary world" is manipulative at best. Socialist countries in Europe under EU trade rules are probably more free market driven than the US.
So the first 3 seconds say everything we need to know...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Sorry! Recess is over.
Topic Locked