Form a community, like the Amish, and do whatever you want.
You don't have to change the entire country, just change a small community.
Remember that even the best ideas are meaningless if they cannot pay the bills
We don't have infinite resources. That means it costs resources to give someone a basic quality of life. If things were infinite, we wouldn't have to
ration them or compete over them. In a finite world, something somewhere has to collect the resources, refine them, and make them available.
I do believe that MOST people will contribute to society in meaningful ways EVEN IF you give them a basic quality of life for free. I think only a
minority will not. It might be that this would pay for itself over time as the individual flowers and produces for the society. It's an interesting
Some people think you have to FORCE others to be productive. Or nature has to. Only through death and punishment can we improve. Only through stress
can we evolve and become better. I don't believe this. I believe people are productive when the chips fall into place. What makes the chips fall into
place? Hard to say. But treating others humanely, so long as they're not overly evil, is not a bad thing to do. This is especially true if MOST people
What causes people to become so dependent and pitiful that they no longer produce? That's what this is about. Some feel that when life is too easy it
causes people to become this way. So if somebody is dependent and not producing, you can help them by making life harder. Like above, I think this way
of thinking is premature. First of all, MOST people are not dependent and pitiful (unless they're children or elderly or disabled). Second of all, if
people need misery and punishment and suffering to produce then doesn't this rule out them EVER living in a bountiful world with no misery and
suffering? Doesn't this mean we MUST live with death and suffering?
We all strive to make this a bountiful world with no misery and suffering, yet we require misery and suffering to be producers. Doesn't this mean that
a bountiful world cannot be our goal?
So we evolved in a world of death and destruction and cannot live in a world without it. But perhaps it won't all happen at once. Maybe we'll slowly
transition to a bountiful world so that we can adapt? Can we be eased into a world that has much reduced pain and death?
This all presupposes that non-producers are not already suffering in some way. We know that the disabled and elderly usually are more likely to be
dependent and to be non-producers. Children, on the other hand, are still in their formative stage and are disabled in a different kind of way. But
what about others? Might there be some people who're suffering in a way we don't understand very well? Homosexuals once suffered in silence. Isn't
that one example? Some people are said to be too sensitive or thin skinned. Might this be something which can't be easily fixed? We try to fix all
sorts of things, with varying amounts of success. Psychiatric drugs, for example, don't work any better than placebo in about 30 to 40 percent of the
cases. What if some people are on the edges and not easily fixed and not understood because of this?
At the end of the day, there's only so much to go around. If there were too many non-producers, we simply could not afford to give them even a minimal
quality of life. It comes down to numbers. Some people can't be helped, either. It may be impossible to give everyone a basic quality of life without
severe concessions. Maybe it's easier for us to blame and claim ourselves not to be responsible than it's to admit there's nothing we can do to save
edit on 11-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)