What's with this?

N

Norsefire

Salam Shalom Salom
Registered Senior Member
Something Orleander brought up:

It makes my eye twitch to see kids starving while Paris Hilton's dog has a $10,000 diamond collar
Click to expand...

I agree, it's absolute nonsense. The thing is, if you really think about it, we can solve world hunger and get clean water and shelter to those who need it rather easily. All we need is willpower. We have the man power, we have the money, we most certainly have the ability. I think we could do it. Surely if we can spend $10,000 for a diamond collar or billions on non-essential casinos, etc, we can spend the same amount to get a couple of desalinzation plants or water treatment facilities; or more greenhouses to grow food. Or some proper schools and hospitals built up.
 
Because almost all the money Americans spend on starving children ends up in the pocket of some despotic leader. Look at Zimbabwe.
 
can i just point out that the computer your typing on isnt NESSARY, however if you didnt buy computers then a whole heep of people in china, india and koria wouldnt have jobs to feed themselves.

Consumerisium isnt bad 100% of the time, it becomes bad when its exploitive. An example of this is choclate. I compleatly refuse to by and coco based products UNLESS the coco is sourced in queensland. This makes it bloody expencive but i do it because i dont want to surport the slave trade in Ivory Coast where child slaves are forced to farm the coco on pain of death and when they are to weak to keep going they are just left there.
 
Asguard said:
can i just point out that the computer your typing on isnt NESSARY, however if you didnt buy computers then a whole heep of people in china, india and koria wouldnt have jobs to feed themselves.

Consumerisium isnt bad 100% of the time, it becomes bad when its exploitive. An example of this is choclate. I compleatly refuse to by and coco based products UNLESS the coco is sourced in queensland. This makes it bloody expencive but i do it because i dont want to surport the slave trade in Ivory Coast where child slaves are forced to farm the coco on pain of death and when they are to weak to keep going they are just left there.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we shouldn't have consumerism, but we should at least be making a real effort. The thing is, it wouldn't be that hard to build the proper facilities for the people in need all over the world. All we need is a coalition among men, to go and get it done.

In other words, first we need to make sure that all Humans have proper healthcare, education, water, and food, before we go trying to buy $10000 dog collars
 
Well each person on this earth who has money can spend it anyway they want, it just tells a lot about a person when you see how they spend it. A $10,000 dog necklace tells me the person who bought it is shallow and materialistic, but that is only my opinion.

Look at Oprah who has probably billions and she is building schools and other such good things although I think a lot of what she does is materialistic and shallow too in my opinion, such as saying she provides her favorites on her show where audience members have gotten expensive boxes of gourmet chocolates and outdoor grills and even one show that made headlines where everyone got free cars. Those items are all donated to her show and she doesn’t pay for them out of her own pocket however if those companies instead would donate the money to building fresh water wells and water systems in countries that need them then it would be better,

however Oprah’s show wouldn’t be the same or as exciting and she wouldn’t have the ratings she has then she wouldn’t have the money to do the things she does with her charity, it’s a vicious circle having to cater to materialism and trying to use the profits to help those who are in need… …
 
Norsefire said:
I'm not saying we shouldn't have consumerism, but we should at least be making a real effort. The thing is, it wouldn't be that hard to build the proper facilities for the people in need all over the world. All we need is a coalition among men, to go and get it done.

In other words, first we need to make sure that all Humans have proper healthcare, education, water, and food, before we go trying to buy $10000 dog collars
Click to expand...

You are arguing for the communist system.
 
Not really communism. Socialist Oligarchy would be best, and on a planetary level. Perhaps with a strong general AI at its head.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Not really communism. Socialist Oligarchy would be best, and on a planetary level. Perhaps with a strong general AI at its head.
Click to expand...

I disagree. What we need is a firm, benevolent, wise, and intelligent leader.


It is the Triumph of the Will; Mankind can get anything done with enough willpower, we just need to go out and do it!
 
I was watching a documentary where a few millionaires flew over to an African village to help them establish an effective community. A schoolhouse, watertanks, etc etc
The villagers, though, seemed to have no concept of maintenance of this, some of them were like children told to clean their room.
I could be completely wrong and unethical, but maybe it isn't as simple as giving them money, it's about them SUSTAINING it, living off their own sustainability, and not just that, but sustaining something that is a Western cultural system. CAN they accomplish this, without any outside help?
 
SheWolf said:
I was watching a documentary where a few millionaires flew over to an African village to help them establish an effective community. A schoolhouse, watertanks, etc etc
The villagers, though, seemed to have no concept of maintenance of this, some of them were like children told to clean their room.
I could be completely wrong and unethical, but maybe it isn't as simple as giving them money, it's about them SUSTAINING it, living off their own sustainability, and not just that, but sustaining something that is a Western cultural system. CAN they accomplish this, without any outside help?
Click to expand...
I never suggested only giving them money.

What I suggest is a joint multi-national effort, with the very basic goal, first, to establish the necessities for these communities

So, we not only give money, but also actually plans to build up, and we get down and dirty and do it: build water treatment facilities and places for food as well as proper shelter. Of course we would train the people there on how to maintain them

Next comes other basics such as proper hospitals AND trained medical professionals, perhaps by educating the populace

It can be done, we just need to do it
 
Perhaps we should then establish reserves for tribal peoples, where wecan care for them properly. I wonder what the native americans said when the white man came offering technology and civilization. Maybe they don't want our flippin help. I can only think it would be generous of us to offer, but that does not guarantee their acceptance, except to make it compulsory. Thus we're back to an oligarchy.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Perhaps we should then establish reserves for tribal peoples, where wecan care for them properly. I wonder what the native americans said when the white man came offering technology and civilization. Maybe they don't want our flippin help. I can only think it would be generous of us to offer, but that does not guarantee their acceptance, except to make it compulsory. Thus we're back to an oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Of course we would offer first; if they don't want food, water, and shelter, well, that is their choice to make.

What's with you and oligarchy? Although I think democracy is rubbish, I don't understand what makes an oligarchy any better. Oligarchy is just the rich few ruling the poor majority.
 
Actually I'm all for benevolent dictatorship to be honest. One man, one rule, one law. Simple steps from the pasture to the gallows. Keep the majority alive, but don't trust them to just go around and live. Assigned jobs, possibly even reproduction. I like order.
 
Mr. Hamtastic said:
Actually I'm all for benevolent dictatorship to be honest. One man, one rule, one law. Simple steps from the pasture to the gallows. Keep the majority alive, but don't trust them to just go around and live. Assigned jobs, possibly even reproduction. I like order.
Click to expand...

As do I but I think that is a wee bit extreme. However yes I think we need efficiency, and democracy isn't efficient. It's a waste of time for a silly concept called freedom, which doesn't exist.
 
Democracy and freedom give the average a view that they have control of things over which they have no control. Socialism makes the working man think he has a right to things he has no control over. Communism is dictatorship by group. Dictatorship doesn't pretend to be anything but what it is. The average man knows not to cause trouble, because the secret police might be bored. A benevolent dictatorship would reduce the excesses of secret police and various other authorities, provide for all efficiently by compulsion.
 
Then there's the risk of Westernising them, which we probably will end up doing. When all's said and done and they have their sustainable civilization, will they actually like being just like us?
 
Orleander said:
Because almost all the money Americans spend on starving children ends up in the pocket of some despotic leader. Look at Zimbabwe.
Click to expand...

But some of it does get through. If only a piece of it helps it does do some good somewhere. I agree with you though and there should be a much better way to see that ALL of the donations actually go to those who really need it. Unfortunately the leaders of many poverty stricken countries won't allow proper accountability of the funds so that is where we have the biggest problem.
 
Just giving money away will only solve some of the symptoms, while it ignores the root cause of poverty. In most third world countries the governments are corrupt and incompetent - if you really want to help, more revolutionary changes will be needed.

After all, where does the money stop? Basic facilities, or a comfortable existence? Do we bring them up to the same standard of living we have in the west? Then the question must be asked: why are we giving the money we earn at work to someone who hasn't earned it all?
So where will it all end? Regular payments of millions of dollars, pounds and euros to Africa and the poorer areas of the east? That is not how the world works. The money will never get to the lowest common denominator - just because someone is poor doesn't mean they are the innocent, crying children you see on TV. There are always those one notch up from squalor who will take their cut.
Charities are a scam.
 
Norsefire said:
As do I but I think that is a wee bit extreme. However yes I think we need efficiency, and democracy isn't efficient. It's a waste of time for a silly concept called freedom, which doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
You say freedom doesn't exist, then tell me. Would you agree with the phrase:
"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
​
Do you agree with it? What is it saying, but that it's better to die fighting for your freedom than to live as a slave. What is a slave, but a man who lacks that imaginary concept you refered to as freedom
 
madanthonywayne said:
You say freedom doesn't exist, then tell me. Would you agree with the phrase:
"It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."
​
Do you agree with it? What is it saying, but that it's better to die fighting for your freedom than to live as a slave. What is a slave, but a man who lacks that imaginary concept you refered to as freedom
Click to expand...

I agree with freedom from, not necessarily always freedom to


Obviously, if you are to live without any sort of "freedom", then there is no point to life. What I was referring to, however, was the liberal sort of freedom that is anti-progress and anti-social. It's foolish, and can be done in more efficient ways.

I am referring to left-wing "freedom" that hinders any sort of efficiency, which is required in order to effect progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top