Less than 20% of world population live in a "free country"

Yet their population density is much lower than Denmark, for example. Sweden deaths per 100k is 58.36 and Denmark is 11.58. The Swedish approach is certainly not something to behold.

I think Sweden has had a series of **** governments which is running the place in to the ground. They introduced big social problems when they took in hordes of Germany's unwanted migrants, but didn't really have any plans for where to put them.
 
Last edited:
not gonna lie, if i was bent on world domination by cooking up a disease in a lab i'd probably have asked for something a bit more potent....

jus' sayin....

It may not have come from a lab, but it did come from China. The commies are rubbing their hands in glee as it has succeeded in crashing the world markets outside of China. The virus didn't need to be more potent!
 
Would you rather live without freedom or not live at all?

What does it mean "not live at all"? I mean maybe it's better to go to another world, another "reality" so to say?
I am asking because I don't know what happens to a person after death... Maybe the soul goes to a better place?
 
Would you rather live without freedom or not live at all?
Me personally? Live without - At least then you're still alive and have the opportunity to make changes later on.

Would you rather enslave ~6 billion people or cull that many instead?
That's the vast majority of the planet, innit. Does it need to be that many?
I've no problem with the former, as most of us are already slaves to so many things, but the latter is a lot of bodies to deal with... and the more of those we make, the fewer left to handle the subsequent clean-up.

Also, it depends why they are being enslaved. If it's so they can remain living, productive members of society, then shackle them up and plug them in. If it's just because they'd otherwise act like complete ***** and spoil it for the rest of humanity, then maybe just burn them. We'll find ways to fly this planet on a skeleton crew.

Ideally you want people who voluntarily care about each other and about the world they live in.
Of course!
That would be fantastic... But they were already given that freedom of choice and instead chose to **** it all away and **** themselves over, just so they could go chomp on some Big Macs.

But failing that (fantasy), would you rather enslave the global population or cull it?
As above - Keep them if they can be of use, otherwise start reducing the numbers until they change their tune, but failing that then keep going until the problem becomes more managable.

Forcing people to live enslaved doesn't really help anyone. Not the people, not the planet. It's not really ethical or moral by any standard.
Letting them run free resulted in many species going extinct, and that was long before we had such a massive consumerist population vying for all the industrial resources.
Letting them run free creates so many problems, for the rest of humanity, for the environment, for everything in existence probably - THAT is even more unethical, immoral, irresponsible and just begging for an alien race to come stomp us out.

You could make a case for (Thanos style) mass culling tho. What do you think?
I think I'd need to watch the film(s) before I could respond to that specific question.

e: Before the usual suspects pipe up, imagine a virus that impartially killed 9/10 people. Not targeted along racial or religious grounds or anything like that. Just a totally impartial culling (theoretical). And in the context of the alternative being lifelong slavery instead.[/QUOTE]
 
i think he means somewhere where the lowest paid jobs tie you into a financial rut from which it is difficult to escape, ie working as hard as you can to just about be capable of maintaining the cost of living.

Is every job in the economy supposed to pay enough to support a family of five? I waited tables as a teen and had plenty of money whilst living with my parents. As I got older and took on more responsibilities, I sought different work that payed better.

It never occured to me to go to my boss at the restaurant and demand more money when I no longer got free room and board...that was not the restaurant's problem or responsiblity.
 
Is every job in the economy supposed to pay enough to support a family of five? I waited tables as a teen and had plenty of money whilst living with my parents. As I got older and took on more responsibilities, I sought different work that payed better.

It never occured to me to go to my boss at the restaurant and demand more money when I no longer got free room and board...that was not the restaurant's problem or responsiblity.
Same here. Like many, you start off with rubbish jobs (I worked at Halfords HQ on a little truck) and work your way up.
 
Life will never be free. You always have to do things.

I think we have more freedom than we've ever had.

A lot is also a choice.
You could go travelling etc but you still aren't free. You still need to pay your way.

If you lived off the grid, you'd still need to work to grow food to live. You'd also be giving up modern stuff.

But we do burden ourselves unnecessarily by choice. Mortgages etc. Bigger and better things. Endless credit.

Marriage/kids. That's taking away a lot of freedom. By choice.

You could live care free while you're young, but you'll pay when your older.

Really, we can't complain, and a lot is self inflicted.
 
Back
Top Bottom