He's said what I'm trying to explain in a different way.
Capitalism
- Thread starter TheCenturion
- Start date
He's said what I'm trying to explain in a different way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
But we shouldn't discriminate against them because of this, and we certainly should do all we can to attempt to move past things like this.
That said, there are too many people as is, and if we don't start addressing the problem of overpopulation then we'll soon be in real trouble. If only people who are responsible enough to raise a child were allowed to have one, and where possible it were made sure that this child will be perfectly healthy before birth then the world would undoubtedly be a better place. Is this right though?
Ever seen the film Gattaca?
Firstly they've scrapped EMA (drug 'n fag money, innit) - Thank you Lord.
Secondly Economics and History show us that usually it is best to leave the market alone. Imposing political ideologies, attitudes and control can be counterproductive and lead to failure, especially with regards to Capitalism. The Labour Party have proved this in the last 10 years.
So this isn't strictly a capitalism example, but it's a good one...
Consider their ideology that they wanted at least 50% of school leavers to go into higher eduction. Sounds great, right?
Reality - University was intended for the intellectually elite. Society does not require and does not cater for 50% of 17-18 year olds investing 3 further years in higher education, with the intention to exploit 'superior' jobs. There are not enough jobs requiring this to go around.
Result - Far too many people goto University. You can't blame them either as people go not just for the education but for the lifestyle and the partying. There are far too many courses which simply are not worth the paper they're written on and Universities are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Final Outcome - We now have to pay, at most, £9,000 a year to goto University in tuition fees.
Secondly Economics and History show us that usually it is best to leave the market alone. Imposing political ideologies, attitudes and control can be counterproductive and lead to failure, especially with regards to Capitalism. The Labour Party have proved this in the last 10 years.
So this isn't strictly a capitalism example, but it's a good one...
Consider their ideology that they wanted at least 50% of school leavers to go into higher eduction. Sounds great, right?
Reality - University was intended for the intellectually elite. Society does not require and does not cater for 50% of 17-18 year olds investing 3 further years in higher education, with the intention to exploit 'superior' jobs. There are not enough jobs requiring this to go around.
Result - Far too many people goto University. You can't blame them either as people go not just for the education but for the lifestyle and the partying. There are far too many courses which simply are not worth the paper they're written on and Universities are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Final Outcome - We now have to pay, at most, £9,000 a year to goto University in tuition fees.
Sorry, I'll have a capable doctor. Tim Nice but Dim cn collect the trolleys at Sainsbury's if it's all the same.
Says who?
Science is already trying to do that with GM, better crops, better fertiliser, better water treatment facilities, green energy, fusion, fission.
Then we'd have a totatlitarian regime. No thanks!
I'm not for compulsory euthanasia of the disabled. Who was it called who a Nazi earlier in the thread?
No it is not, diversity and struggle make us what we are.
No one ever said we should.
Are you now saying you accept some people are not as capable as others?
No we won't.
Overpopulation is not a real problem for the foreseeable future, over developed population is a bit of an issue in regards to cheap current consumer technology, but we're already moving on to newer things where that's less of an issue.
At the absolute worst, people you don't care about die of starvation, lack of medical care or a particularly brutal warlord, just as they're doing now and just like now you'll do sweet **** all about it, buy another expensive piece of electrical crap and then whine that government isn't giving you enough stuff.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Everybody has something they like doing. Some people will love being Physicists, or Olympic Athletes. But others love being bakers, or binmen, or mechanics, or farmers... Are you suggesting that any of these jobs are any more important than another? Maybe, maybe not, but every single one of them is vital to our everyday life, it being a complex ecosystem. If they're happy then they have realized their potential, and so are not inferior to anybody else because of it, and certainly shouldn't be treated any differently because of it.
Yes, he's now saying we shouldn't discriminate against people based on ability. Meanwhile I'm facepalming.
I'd explain why you were wrong, but I feel I'd be wasting my time.
Deleted member 61728
Deleted member 61728
Whilst the ads don't physically force you to go out and buy that product (not yet anyway) they must have some effect on the subconscious decision making process when you next have access to buying it.
Take two people one who watches tv,reads newspapers,Internet etc all day and one who doesn't who do you think will spend more money on stuff or will be more prone to buying stuff that they may otherwise not be ?
Why do people (you know who i mean) go out and do nothing other than shop all day and derive such pleasure from the act of exchanging their hard earned money?
Take two people one who watches tv,reads newspapers,Internet etc all day and one who doesn't who do you think will spend more money on stuff or will be more prone to buying stuff that they may otherwise not be ?
Why do people (you know who i mean) go out and do nothing other than shop all day and derive such pleasure from the act of exchanging their hard earned money?
It's more "I need a new X" and because for years you've seen adverts for "X supplied by Y" you think "hmmm I've heard Y make good X I'll get theirs over Z's"
I didn't state anyone should be treated as inferior because of what they do.
However the importance of specific occupations to society are not equal either, this also has little to do with capitalism and everything to do with society in general.
It also means that not everyone's potential is equal as you stated, but that their potential for happiness and productivity is equal but within their specific capability.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
If Tim wanted to be a Doctor more than anything else than they would have studied, and they would have tried as hard as they could to do so. At the end, no matter who the person was at the beginning, odds are you're going to have a pretty capable Doctor at the end of it. I'd rather have that Doctor, not the Doctor who's parents put them through the most prestigious university on the planet so they can earn as much money as possible.
Read a study a while back saying the ideal number of human beings on Earth is somewhere around 3 million, can't find it now...
Expanding our resources is great, but if the population increases exponentially then we're just digging ourselves into a bigger and bigger hole. If anything space would be an issue, and i'm not sure about you but i'm really not keen on the idea of destroying all the countryside and forests and land that we can find in order to cater for this.
Good, throwing another hypothetical your way - what if children were taken away from their parents at birth, and raised by qualified, responsible people to give everyone the same start in life?
Embryonic and prenatal screening are certainly not new concepts. I don't see a problem with it, considering most parents will want the best for their child and this is one of the best ways of achieving it. It would be great if everybody could have 30 children and this wouldn't have any consequences, but it's just not possible. Spitting out more humans in the hope of finding the best ones just makes them harder to find. Besides, if a cure isn't available then often the only way of getting rid of a genetic disease (which i'm sure you'll agree is a good thing to do) is to breed it out.
Diversity, yes, completely. Struggle? It depends, is it a struggle to be the best you you could ever be or is it a struggle to become superior to another?
I'd respond to Tefal but i've other stuff to do, and it looks like they're being counter-productive and trying to tell me how to think. I know what i think. I know how i feel about other people, and i know that this is not effected by where they are in relation to where i am.
Not everybody is cut out to be a doctor. Tim isn't. No matter how hard he tries he won't cut it. Sorry Tim but that's life.
Was it written in crayon?
What makes you think it's going to increase exponentially?
Erm. You can't possibly believe there isn't enough room.
Don't murder grass, murder people! Genocide not pesticide! Is that what you're saying?
Then people would still be of varying ability, and parents would need counselling to handle the loss of their child which was brutally taken from them at birth by an oppressive state.
Eugenics is certainly not new, but it's been frowned on now for over 50 years as inhuman.
Both. That's what drives us, like it or not. It's in all of us. I try to direct myself to compete against what I believe I can achieve, but we're funamentally designed to be competitive. If we weren't we'd still be in caves.
I think he's more telling you 'to think' rather than how to do it.
Well we all know that but you are taking part of a sentence out of context which is completely meaningless.
What constitutes a qualified, responsible person?
If this was a good idea, then how come state care facilities are such poor places to raise children?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Because those wealthy enough to get into power dont really come from the gutter, hence have no real need to put their pittance that way. And neither do the majority. They are competitors that can easily be trodden on, and you are not one of them so why feed a competitor...But in a less cruel way. We suffer from sympathy and to some extent empathy and then hand the money over, but it can take a lot to disturb our quest for personal gratification to make us feel empathetic enough to hand over money and opportunity.
Thats like asking, how can, in a sane world, excess food be destroyed for economic value and not sent to africa?
Thats like asking, how can, in a sane world, excess food be destroyed for economic value and not sent to africa?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Exactly mate, exactly.
Not aiming an attack at you but brand and advertising obviously have an affect on you if you wear the Ted Baker stuff to go out as you say. Then you clearly believe that the branded stuff is of a higher quality to that of the supermarket
...And some people won't have any genetic talent at anything, and may not have bothered to acquire any useful skill, so will end up not being good at anything useful. Some people, however will have genes, upbringing, and skill acquisitioning skills that allow them to be good at almost everything they try.
Also, some people might get born with some chronic, often fatal genetic disease. They are not born equal to some healthy child with 'good' genes.