Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Darvi]

You cant take away money from people just "because poor need it". Its sad but its their problem, not yours, if you have good will you can give it to the poor, but you dont have to, because money is YOURS, and it belongs to YOU.

Yeah screw the starving I need more shiny watches! My money! All mine! FLEE PEASANTS!

I probably sound like douche, but you wouldn't be happy if people in black suits came and seized half of your property "for the poor".

Perhaps if they were dressed in green... wearing nice hats...

[Loud Whispers]

You cant take away money from people just "because poor need it". Its sad but its their problem, not yours, if you have good will you can give it to the poor, but you dont have to, because money is YOURS, and it belongs to YOU.

Yeah screw the starving I need more shiny watches! My money! All mine! FLEE PEASANTS!

I probably sound like douche, but you wouldn't be happy if people in black suits came and seized half of your property "for the poor".

If I were in any financially comfortable position I wouldn't be happy to swim around in coal fired hot tubs the size of Ireland whilst there were people out there scraping peanuts.
So yes, I would be very happy. Selflessness is a virtue I try to uphold in all my laity.

[DarkWolfXV]

If I were in any financially comfortable position I wouldn't be happy to swim around in coal fired hot tubs the size of Ireland whilst there were people out there scraping peanuts.
So yes, I would be very happy. Selflessness is a virtue I try to uphold in all my laity.

Yes, there are people starving, and i also would be happy to help them if i had serious money overflow, but you cant force everyone who is rich to give away their money, some people simply dont want to.

[Loud Whispers]

If I were in any financially comfortable position I wouldn't be happy to swim around in coal fired hot tubs the size of Ireland whilst there were people out there scraping peanuts.
So yes, I would be very happy. Selflessness is a virtue I try to uphold in all my laity.

Yes, there are people starving, and I also would be happy to help them if I had serious money overflow, but you can't force everyone who is rich to give away their money, some people simply don't want to.

Then I'd call them out for being someone who would watch the people around them die if it meant they could keep the shiniest trinkets around. Don't even need to mention the scale. When you own many more resources than is necessary to live an opulent lifestyle, and you get some of your resources taken away and start crying foul because you wanted to buy more things you were going to waste, it only highlights yet another reason why consumerism gone mad is almost as bad as consumerism in action.

[ChairmanPoo]

If I were in any financially comfortable position I wouldn't be happy to swim around in coal fired hot tubs the size of Ireland whilst there were people out there scraping peanuts.
So yes, I would be very happy. Selflessness is a virtue I try to uphold in all my laity.

Yes, there are people starving, and i also would be happy to help them if i had serious money overflow, but you cant force everyone who is rich to give away their money

Sure you can. It's called taxes. The problem is on how they're being used. IE: bailing out needy banks instead of needy people.

some people simply dont want to.

Yeah, some people do that. It's called tax fraud

[GlyphGryph]

Thoughts on everyday "luxury" goods, and their waste of resources.

In a literal sense when countries like the UK and USA are facing obesity problems whilst others are starving, or on the broader scale. Industry and pollution, pollution and our planet. Our only planet.

See, it's comments like these that make me sure there's a fundamental disconnect in our thought processes. I literally don't see the relationship. What the hell does American obesity have to do with starving people?

I understand the concerns about over-consumption causing additional environmental damage (though even that's fairly tough to complain that mightily about, since eliminating over-consumption would only reduce the damage per person, rather than eliminating it. "Let's prolong the inevitable by making your life less-good so that future people can have an equally less-good life for a little while" is never going to be a satisfactory battlecry for people). But I don't understand how some people having things magically makes the people who don't have things worse off, which is something you seem to be indicating is an obvious truth.

[ed boy]

Thoughts on everyday "luxury" goods, and their waste of resources.

In a literal sense when countries like the UK and USA are facing obesity problems whilst others are starving, or on the broader scale. Industry and pollution, pollution and our planet. Our only planet.

See, it's comments like these that make me sure there's a fundamental disconnect in our thought processes. I literally don't see the relationship. What the hell does American obesity have to do with starving people?

It's because he sees 'More food than necessary here, not enough food here, therefore move food from A to B', without realizing that a solution like that would require impossible levels of infrastructure at an unattainable level of efficiency.

[LordBucket]

there's a fundamental disconnect in our thought processes.

I think it basically comes down to envy. The thinking doesn't appear to be rational.

[Loud Whispers]

there's a fundamental disconnect in our thought processes.

I think it basically comes down to envy. The thinking doesn't appear to be rational.

I am neither starving nor do I want to indulge in consumerism; nor do I want wealth from the elite to be given to me.
This absolute waste of resources is inexcusable. The mentality that entitlement to screw with the world for one's benefit is a result of this; and to endorse this makes you a horrible person. Nothing I have said I have said without reasoning, nor have I said without facts. I am constantly disgusted by the people saying tough luck to the starving, that money is for decadence and decadence alone. You are arguing that luxury goods are worth the price of the decay of people.
What you are saying is insanity - without reason at best, and malignant selfishness at worst. Long term and short term.

It's because he sees 'More food than necessary here, not enough food here, therefore move food from A to B', without realizing that a solution like that would require impossible levels of infrastructure at an unattainable level of efficiency.

"Because foreign aid doesn't exist."
Of the countries involved in sending foreign aid, 120 billion dollars were sent, with only a few countries like Sweden, Norway and Luxembourg achieving the UN mark to send 0.7% of the country's GDP as aid. The world total military spending this year was 1.7 trillion dollars, the US government subsidize fossil fuel companies for 10 to 52 billion dollars a year (of which they consume over 1/4 of the world's fossil fuels) and as wikipedia put it about the US's luxury business:

"In the United States in 2007 luxury goods accounted for a $157 billion industry. In the period between 1979–2003, household income grew 1% for the bottom fifth of households, 9% for the middle fifth, and 49% for the top fifth with household income more than doubling (up 111%) for the top 1%. If the above trend had been reversed, there wouldn’t be nearly as many extravagant luxury items on the market such as $1 million cars and $45 million private jets. Even in such a slowing economy, there is still a big market to get consumers to spend their money on luxury items. The luxury goods market is a continually growing industry with marketers always trying to get consumers to spend their money on luxury goods."

So you are rallying to the defense of keeping luxuries in the hands of a social elite while a growing disparity permeates society in the US and the world.

Thoughts on everyday "luxury" goods, and their waste of resources.

In a literal sense when countries like the UK and USA are facing obesity problems whilst others are starving, or on the broader scale. Industry and pollution, pollution and our planet. Our only planet.

See, it's comments like these that make me sure there's a fundamental disconnect in our thought processes. I literally don't see the relationship. What the hell does American obesity have to do with starving people?

And it's responses like those that make me wonder if I truly am living in a world where the guys WHO ARE #1 USA USA USA (oh dear) are setting a precedent for decadence and fail to even address actual world issues, brushing them over as "not our problem."

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm honestly not seeing the relation as to why consumption is a problem. You're saying, essentially "The rest of the world is miserable, so we should stop making and consuming things"?

No. What I'm saying are my;

Thoughts on everyday "luxury" goods, and their waste of resources.

In a literal sense when countries like the UK and USA are facing obesity problems whilst others are starving, or on the broader scale. Industry and pollution, pollution and our planet. Our only planet.

Well, what could ever be wrong with that?

Considering how much of our stuff is made overseas, it's even worse that that, though - you seem to be saying we should stop providing these people with jobs and income?

Is that what I appear to be saying? Because I appear to be saying that wasting resources and terrible resource distribution is wrong, and privileged factory workers should be happy for their $2 jobs. After all, we wouldn't want to deprive them of income now would we?

You cant take away money from people just "because poor need it". Its sad but its their problem, not yours, if you have good will you can give it to the poor, but you dont have to, because money is YOURS, and it belongs to YOU.

Yeah screw the starving I need more shiny watches! My money! All mine! FLEE PEASANTS!

Cut down on the greedy diets and the amount of food consumption will go down. This'll mean more can be exported or be made more useful than made into waste.

I understand the concerns about over-consumption causing additional environmental damage (though even that's fairly tough to complain that mightily about, since eliminating over-consumption would only reduce the damage per person, rather than eliminating it. "Let's prolong the inevitable by making your life less-good so that future people can have an equally less-good life for a little while" is never going to be a satisfactory battlecry for people). But I don't understand how some people having things magically makes the people who don't have things worse off, which is something you seem to be indicating is an obvious truth.

I don't understand how you think redistributing wealth in manner that benefits everyone and not just the elite few will not benefit everyone. If you cut down that $157 industry or tax the ridiculously super wealthy or - there are so many systems that could be employed that would benefit everyone, a great deal many people would need not die in the world; and would have a dignified quality of life free from the worries of trying to stay alive. But instead you wallow around in avarice with the idea that the world is yours to exploit.
The inevitable is not inevitable if people actually want to make the world better, instead of selfishly wasting resources for your own enjoyment. No, over-consumption wouldn't reduce the damage per person, it would reduce the environmental damage too and create a society that isn't so focused no getting rich at the expense of others.

The US produces 5,500,000,000,000 metric tons of CO₂ a year. So little of that CO₂ is from necessary energy expenditure.
Creating a sustainable lifestyle is not a fucking joke, it's the serious first step to stop being self destructive.

"Let's prolong the inevitable by making your life less-good so that future people can have an equally less-good life for a little while."

"Let's create a sustainable lifestyle that isn't centered around greed, so that future people can share an equally prosperous and not apocalyptic shit hole. Because we're nice like that, we actually care about the future our children will live in."

[Helgoland]

Foreign aid* is all nice and dandy, but the real problems are structural ones - rampant corruption in thirld world countries, lack of education, tolls that hinder global trade, subsidies etc. However, fixing these would be mildly uncomfortable for the West, so we don't do it.

*In the sense of giving out food and such; that's a necessary measure in the short term, but doesn't alter the situation in the long run.

[Loud Whispers]

*In the sense of giving out food and such; that's a necessary measure in the short term, but doesn't alter the situation in the long run.

And these yet still exist. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that supports the theory that greed is the way forward. We could go on about building infrastructure; irrigation, wells and the like, but that derails a bit. It demonstrates enough the misguided resource allocation consumerism encourages and needs to survive.

[King DZA]

I don't have any problems with the idea of people living luxurious lifestyles. However, when enough resources (which are not uncommonly obtained through the exploitation of the less fortunate) to give entire villages of people comfortable, contented lives are hoarded to ensure that a select few can remain exceptionally privileged, it should serve as some indication that there's a bit of an imbalance that needs to be dealt with.

There has to be something I'm missing, because I am truly puzzled as to why that is apparently such a difficult concept to grasp.

Imagine if you and I are both neighbors, and we each own one acre of land with 10 apple trees. I collect apples from 8 of my trees, cut down two and build a house out of the wood, then plant 4 more apples trees. And you collect apples from two trees and sleep under a tree. I "produced" more, and I "used" more. But it would be very strange to look at this and say that I "used up" more of the available resources. Next season there will be more apples, and in a few years I'll have more apples trees than you do. That fact that I "used" more isn't a problem.

Interesting analogy. Now, if you saw that your neighbor was clearly struggling to make the same amount of progress as you, would you be willing to lend a hand and help him to develop his own property a little more so that the quality of his life would improve, or ignore him so that you could spend more time enjoying yourself? Perhaps even transcend to an entirely separate level of dickery by exploiting his vulnerability and seizing his apples, giving him no choice but to work for you, and then preaching about how much better off he now is?

[Korbac]

Guys, guys, let's calm down. Dogmatism is the downfall of all debate.

I put forward one vital point : If you're a fan of the StH series, '06 never happened. 

[Andrew425]

I think you guys are seriously overestimating the amount of rich people. Yes they could be taxed better and probably more. It just isn't enough to pay for everything. What do you guys view as rich? $100, 000 $200, 000? It seems like a lot to someone who is making $25, 000 but with larger salaries equals larger expenses.

[GlyphGryph]

Interesting analogy. Now, if you saw that your neighbor was clearly struggling to make the same amount of progress as you, would you be willing to lend a hand and help him to develop his own property a little more so that the quality of his life would improve, or ignore him so that you could spend more time enjoying yourself? Perhaps even transcend to an entirely separate level of dickery by exploiting his vulnerability and seizing his apples, giving him no choice but to work for you, and then preaching about how much better off he now is?

I don't think it's relevant to the problems me and Bucket have pointed out - I don't see how Guy#1 is OMG MAKING TOO MANY APPLES OH NO WE'RE DOOMED. I hate thieves and robber-barons just as much as the next guy, and it would be great if the first guy could help his neighbour improve his own production. (Assuming the neighbour wants to - how much does the ant owe the grasshopper, and how much should he sacrifice for the fact that he's done well and another has screwed their shit up? How much money do you give the starving druggy, knowing most of it's going to go right to feeding the habit he needs to break in order for us all to actually be better off, instead of just redistributing happiness with less than 100% efficiency)

But LoudWhispers is arguing that he should stop producing so many goddamn apples, and also give his current apples away. As if that will have a good outcome.

Loud Whispers, I just think you don't really have any understanding of economics, or how it works. There is no money problem (at least in regards to the issues you've raised here). There is no global food shortage. Pretty much every place in the world that's suffering and miserable in poverty and hunger is doing so for reasons completely unrelated to their not being enough food and money to go around. It's a systems problem, a people problem, an organizational problem through and through.

If the US population cut it's food consumption by half, none of that would change. Those people would still be starving. The two are entirely unrelated. The ONLY outcome would be a huge temporary increase in expenditures by the US government in paying people not to grow food in an attempt to keep the market from crashing below sustainable levels, and/or a whole lot of farmers out of the job and suddenly stricken by poverty themselves - a lot of them in third world countries with no other source of income. We already have the capacity to produce more than enough food to feed the entire world with plenty to spare. This is not a global resource scarcity problem.

Money, meanwhile, is ferociously difficult to put towards useful ends. Take UNICEF - probably one of the premier charities in people's minds. Do you know their executives make salaries in the several million dollars a year range? That only a small portion of their money goes towards helping anyone?

Do you know that most food and clothes donations enterprises are not only almost strictly for profit, but actually actively destructive to the society they claim to be helping? Turns out if you give everyone a bunch of fish every day, the fishing-boat-building economy collapses, overall happiness goes down, and everyone gets right fucked if supply gets interrupted. (This is more of a problem with clothes charities, which are terrible fucking things when you consider that textiles manufacture is one of the better paths for third world companies to modernize, and buying and selling locally is a lot better for everyone involved)

I'm all for redistribution of wealth, foreign aid, and a whole bunch of the crap you advocate, but this doesn't make your arguments, that the cause of these problems is somehow, in some specified way, over-consumption, any less bullshit.

The inevitable is not inevitable if people actually want to make the world better, instead of selfishly wasting resources for your own enjoyment. No, over-consumption wouldn't reduce the damage per person, it would reduce the environmental damage too and create a society that isn't so focused no getting rich at the expense of others.

It would reduce the average environmental damage per person. It would reduce the amount of resources consumed per person. If we're talking non-repairables, like using up non-renewables, this does not make the outcome it any less inevitable. It just draws it out. If we can't figure out a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, for example, we could stop over-consuming, period, today, and it would do jack shit at preventing rising global temperatures.

The solutions to every one of your problems is ultimately completely unrelated to this notion that consumption is the issue - sustainability is the issue. But all the modest living in the world won't magically make that happen - it just means the environment would be ruined a bit more slowly by a smaller but just as destructive industry.