Master Crimzon
Baby Killer
Originally posted by dadudemon
Resources are created. Everyday, resources are created. Of course it's matter is finite. I find it rather absurd that it was mentioned in the first place. However, what is considered a resource is very much organic. A nonexistent energy now, could exist later, etc. Resources, economically, have multiple definitions. It isn't just bullshit like iron-ore and wood.
Naturally, but there are the basics- and energy cannot be destroyed or created. That means that all of our resources derive from the basic, natural ones- we cannot produce energy out of nothing. And planet Earth has very limited resources that can develop into further resources for our own benefit. When I say 'resources', I do not necessarily mean elements and other such materials- but all of the 'resources' are constructed through nature. Think about it: food, water, shelter, etc. It all initially comes from Earth, in the first place.
Originally posted by dadudemon
This, I agree on, however, it isn't even remotely close to being related to my posts. (Okay, it is....but it is extremely tangential.)
Nuh-huh.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, it is fair. Since when did humans cease to be living organisms? What ever happened to the survival of the fittest? Obviously, Rush is playing the game of "life" better than others. He happens to have a, gasp, "resource" that the extreme vast majority do not. He also plays the contemporary social games that allow him to maximize the use of the "resource" as much as possible.Of course, the flip-side is, "We, as intelligent beings, should know when to throw aside 'survival of the fittest' ideals and simply share what is not 'needed'." Unfortunately AND fortunately, that is solely up to the individual. These two ideals are not necessarily polar, but the former can quite quickly exceed the precepts of the latter.
Survival of the strong is fair. It is perfectly acceptable that those who are strong get more benefits than those who are week; it is the natural order of things. But there comes a point in which we must say 'Hold your horses'. Limbaugh is a rich guy. Why does he need to be even richer? There is no reason to it, and depriving people of the basic essentials of life simply in order to have more material goods is an absolutely wrongful act.
It's not as if this is a life-or-death matter. Limbaugh simply got greedy, and that greed resulted in a 1,000 potential unemployed people. That is wrong. It's not just because I hate him, either- I wouldn't be happy if anyone did such an act.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not always true. Your scenario is only true if no physical resources are added to the system, no processes are improved/made more cost effective, and no new technologies or services are invented. Now, you would be correct if every last ounce of the planet was already being employed to act as the computing substrate for the singularity. Also, who says we have to settle for just the Earth?
I think we can safely assume that we are using most resources on Earth with rather solid technology. And there is a very definitive problem with technology, being that it typically adds more problems as much as it solves existing ones.
Everything is dependent upon Earth's resources- sure, we can increase the efficiency of using them, but, heck, to point. The water thing is a perfect example: if there are 100,000 gallons of water available and 100,000 people in need, then the average 'Gallons per person' will be 10. It cannot be changed via 'technology'- even if we, hypothetically, create some form of technology to create water, the technology will be highly expensive in nature and will thus depend upon even more of Earth's resources. A society has a certain 'supply' it can provide to its populace- that supply cannot be increased at the moment. If somebody gets more of it, then in order to make sure that we are using resources within our 'budget', then it must be balanced by giving another person less.
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, that's not always true either. Humans are greedy mother ****ers and even if the world's population were reduced to 1 billion overnight, people would still need and starve to death. There would still be killing. etc.
Well, duh, but if there were 1 billion people in the world then it would be a far better place. Less population density and lesser supply- which means the price of goods will go down, which means that the average standard of living will be vastly increased. There would certainly be war, there will be starvation, and there will be death- but they will be far less in quantity.
Originally posted by dadudemon
We are very very far from reaching the state you allude to. People are not fighting to survive off of the scarce resources left...they still fight out of greed (and other things like stupid religions. 😐 )
See, that's the problem. The desire of the people for 'more, more, MORE' leads towards the creation of a sort of irrationality that does not enable them to truly comprehend the situation. Greed only evolves, and if it continues to evolve along with the populace, then there will be more resources utilized- putting a greater strain on Earth. It cannot go on eternally.
People are not quite as far as you might think. There are estimated that conclude that, in 2050, there will be about 8.9 billion on the planet, a very significant increase. If you want to expand our greed, then we must decrease the amount of people who are greedy. That's it.
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's rather naive of you to think. It's not that simple by any stretch. Because I buy a $100,000 car, a child dies of starvation? You do know that throwing money at problems is far and away not the best solution, don't you? It isn't as simple as buying an electric moped and giving the other $98500 to a Burmese family. Sure, money is part of the solution, but it is NOT the solution.
Well, I know throwing money at some shit isn't the best course of action, but it is at least part of the solution. Limbaugh does not need the money. The people he got to be unemployed? They need it. Because of his greed, it can be estimated that people will, inevitably, suffer- it is possible that they would have suffered anyway, but his own desire for greater personal wealth certainly contributed to the situation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But idiots feed the troll. 😐 It's their damn fault, too.And, those Thousand people will either be recycled back into the system, sharpen their skills and then be recycled, relegated to lesser paying jobs, or just become bums.
Possibly. But he certainly 'inconvenienced' them, especially in today's struggling economy.
