What i don't seem to understand is how your friend OBVIOUSLY considers himself to be smart and "logical" and yet he is under the impression that communism works, ugh hello every single communist goverment in history has failed miserably. How can he think this is logical when its proven to not work?
Poll: Which would you rather have?
- Thread starter darkfire613
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I voted for option 2. One of my teachers was talking about a German scientist who said something along the lines of:
Making scientific progress requires:
1 - work
2 - patience
3 - money
4 - luck
On science there are many abandoned theories and dead ends. And sometimes you discover something important based mostly on luck. There's no way that would be accounted for in your friend's ideal world.
By the way, ask him how he'd like it if he were in those bottom 10-25%.
Making scientific progress requires:
1 - work
2 - patience
3 - money
4 - luck
On science there are many abandoned theories and dead ends. And sometimes you discover something important based mostly on luck. There's no way that would be accounted for in your friend's ideal world.
By the way, ask him how he'd like it if he were in those bottom 10-25%.
Well at least I can safely say that Humanity wins this one.darkfire613 said:
Seriously does your friend freaking sympathize with George Orwell?
I could never be friends with someone who unironically chose option 1. It doesn't even sound like a good idea in theory, let alone practice. You do realize that Nazi Germany was less elitist and bloody than what your friend proposes?!
If it came down to stricter government to control population, then yes I would support that. Perhaps forcing people into nursing or whatever's most important vs. least applicable people if things got really dire. However, I'm not of the opinion that humanity is about to eat itself due to overpopulation... if nothing else, even if his view of imminent destruction were true, the world is big enough to support everyone if there weren't big cities while there's still completely empty places everywhere else on the planet. Look at a picture of human light pollution.
If it really came down to those two options, where it really did matter to human survival whether or not we chose Option 1, I'd still choose a death in an alley over a packet of Jell-O rather than be some 'chosen people'. Chances are, from my high school grades alone someone I've never met would decide I don't matter and send me to be killed. There's no guarantee the "smartest", "most beautiful", "most fit" etc. could be arsed to get up and do their duties to human health or space exploration. Why should they?
If it came down to stricter government to control population, then yes I would support that. Perhaps forcing people into nursing or whatever's most important vs. least applicable people if things got really dire. However, I'm not of the opinion that humanity is about to eat itself due to overpopulation... if nothing else, even if his view of imminent destruction were true, the world is big enough to support everyone if there weren't big cities while there's still completely empty places everywhere else on the planet. Look at a picture of human light pollution.
If it really came down to those two options, where it really did matter to human survival whether or not we chose Option 1, I'd still choose a death in an alley over a packet of Jell-O rather than be some 'chosen people'. Chances are, from my high school grades alone someone I've never met would decide I don't matter and send me to be killed. There's no guarantee the "smartest", "most beautiful", "most fit" etc. could be arsed to get up and do their duties to human health or space exploration. Why should they?
I'm going to say the same thing I always say in these situations.
All those of you who believe the world is overpopulated and would happily commit genocide to "save" the people you think are worthy?
You go first.
And while you're at it, cut your dick off (if male) or sew your fucking vagina shut (if female). I REALLY fucking hate population-control elitists. Some of the biggest scum on the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned, and right up there with the most evil of all people.
All those of you who believe the world is overpopulated and would happily commit genocide to "save" the people you think are worthy?
You go first.
And while you're at it, cut your dick off (if male) or sew your fucking vagina shut (if female). I REALLY fucking hate population-control elitists. Some of the biggest scum on the face of the earth as far as I'm concerned, and right up there with the most evil of all people.
Unfortunately theories about government never work correctly because people try too hard to make a system, but never to account for human actions. This is why communism and capitalism are both inherently flawed and idiotic.
Do you really think the "top 5%" would truly be the top 5%? Of course not. More than likely they'd pay their way to the top and exploit everyone else, usually killing off anyone who is a threat to their way of doing things.
Humans are animals. One day we'll the limit that our ecosystem (Earth) can support and there will be a die off. Accept it. The natural method is the most fair.
Do you really think the "top 5%" would truly be the top 5%? Of course not. More than likely they'd pay their way to the top and exploit everyone else, usually killing off anyone who is a threat to their way of doing things.
Humans are animals. One day we'll the limit that our ecosystem (Earth) can support and there will be a die off. Accept it. The natural method is the most fair.
You the more power an entity has, the more control is required.
I say that, for example, corporations need restrictions but the everyman needs freedom.
I say that, for example, corporations need restrictions but the everyman needs freedom.
The nature of humanity is the freedom to make choices. Option one removes that, and so basically, it destroys the human race as much as the worst case of the second. Humanity is very much like a virus(Mr. Smith), in that it's almost impossible to destroy us. Our intellect allows us diversity greater than that which can be provided by simple genetics and physical features, meaning that at least some percentage of the human race will survive whatever happens.
I vote option two. Worse case: we destroy our own civilization and get thrown back to the stone age. Hopefully, enough information will survive to prevent "us" from doing it next time.
I vote option two. Worse case: we destroy our own civilization and get thrown back to the stone age. Hopefully, enough information will survive to prevent "us" from doing it next time.
You lost me at "in order to combat overpopulation and dwindling resources", mate.
I wonder how your friend will feel when he finds himself on the proverbial chopping block, next to yours truly, instead of the seat of power he so very obviously imagines himself in? ^_^
I wonder how your friend will feel when he finds himself on the proverbial chopping block, next to yours truly, instead of the seat of power he so very obviously imagines himself in? ^_^
Uh we had a system that worked perfectly, it's called evolution and living in gods hands. Was it right? Depends on you're endgame IE: goal or the outcome you want. But no, we had to say "NO" to god and declared war on his rules and ways because we know the Right Way.
Ok it is story time!
Imagine a island of undetermined size that is not infinity big covered in grass and is solely inhabited by a good portion of deers, cows, and wolves. All the grass eaters competed for the finite source of grass while their population was controlled by the wolves. Then one day a rambunctious male deer was fooled by his own ignorance to believe his way was the right way and god's way was wrong. So the following days he assembled fellow deer to killing all their competition. Anything that killed deer(wolves) were directly bad so they were hunted by the deer and eventually went extinct on this island. Soon the cows populations grew along with the deer and the island was soon losing the ability to sustain the population of both. So then the very same deer assembled a war party and killed off all the cows.
At this point nothing got in the deer's way to fill the island. One of the deer elders warned of a coming famine due to all the grass being eaten and suggested to finding a way to cure the problem to save as many deer's lives as possible. The very same deer that killed the cows and the wolves argued back "If it wasn't for me you would not be here elder, as the wolves would have promptly eaten you since you are so old and weak, and how dare you suggest killing our brethren! Do you not care for their lives! Perhaps it is you who should be the first to go!" With the death of the sole voice of reason now dead the deer grew in numbers until the grassland disappeared and all the deer including the rambunctious deer that started it all perished.
Overall this is a heavy issue and calling opponents monsters will not solve anything. Even with intelligent discussion I doubt we'd get to the crux of the problem at any point.
Ok it is story time!
Imagine a island of undetermined size that is not infinity big covered in grass and is solely inhabited by a good portion of deers, cows, and wolves. All the grass eaters competed for the finite source of grass while their population was controlled by the wolves. Then one day a rambunctious male deer was fooled by his own ignorance to believe his way was the right way and god's way was wrong. So the following days he assembled fellow deer to killing all their competition. Anything that killed deer(wolves) were directly bad so they were hunted by the deer and eventually went extinct on this island. Soon the cows populations grew along with the deer and the island was soon losing the ability to sustain the population of both. So then the very same deer assembled a war party and killed off all the cows.
At this point nothing got in the deer's way to fill the island. One of the deer elders warned of a coming famine due to all the grass being eaten and suggested to finding a way to cure the problem to save as many deer's lives as possible. The very same deer that killed the cows and the wolves argued back "If it wasn't for me you would not be here elder, as the wolves would have promptly eaten you since you are so old and weak, and how dare you suggest killing our brethren! Do you not care for their lives! Perhaps it is you who should be the first to go!" With the death of the sole voice of reason now dead the deer grew in numbers until the grassland disappeared and all the deer including the rambunctious deer that started it all perished.
Overall this is a heavy issue and calling opponents monsters will not solve anything. Even with intelligent discussion I doubt we'd get to the crux of the problem at any point.
That's just it though, we're talking about a worst case scenario; and as I alluded to in my original post, the number of people in support is irrelevant, not at such a technologically advanced stage.darkfire613 said:
Think about it. How many groups, around the world, could 'actually' defend themselves from war with a modern army, intent upon their annihilation? There wouldn't be any competition at all. It'd be akin to a drunkard fighting an enraged grizzly.
