It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Epinephrine
Why should I care about billions of people around the world who have nothing worthwhile to contribute to society?
Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Harman
We have enough oil here, now, to last us 1,000 years at current consumption, which, incidentally, is dropping fast.
Originally posted by Pericle
Right now, even good people, willing to change this world, get into politics to do something about these problems, but when they get up there, these hidden (rich/powerful) faces emerge who corrupts them so that their initial good intentions are changed.
Originally posted by Epinephrine
Originally posted by DisgustedOne
"Less worthwhile people" ?????? I think a man is defined by how he views and treats others less fortunate than himself.
High levels of serotonin tend to cause feelings of joy and indiscriminate love. By preventing these chemical peaks I am able to see without chemically warped perceptions. I guess that defines me as clear-headed individual with an engineer's personality?
You cannot seriously believe that people have unlimited potential or that all humans have the same potential, can you? Basic, elementary biology states otherwise and biological beings cannot wisely build viewpoints of themselves or others as anything more than biological beings. Basing world views on emotions, "ethics", or any other standard but biology and rigorous studies of behavior is just an act of delusion.
[edit on 19-10-2008 by Epinephrine]
From the American Eugenics Website
The philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This adage is appropriate to our current rush into the "gene age," which has striking parallels to the eugenics movement of the early decades of the 20th century. Eugenics was, quite literally, an effort to breed better human beings – by encouraging the reproduction of people with "good" genes and discouraging those with "bad" genes. Eugenicists effectively lobbied for social legislation to keep racial and ethnic groups separate, to restrict immigration from southern and eastern Europe, and to sterilize people considered "genetically unfit." Elements of the American eugenics movement were models for the Nazis, whose radical adaptation of eugenics culminated in the Holocaust.
Originally posted by Mdv2
As long as there are humans there will be greed. Greed is a characteristic of almost every human being. Greed is the reason that we are living in a world that knows such social differences. And my friend, greed will never disappear as long as there are humans.
Originally posted by DisgustedOne
I thought I smelled something bad in your comments.
As for eugenics, I guess my problem with it is that it tries to fix something that really is not broken.
Originally posted by Grumble
Three basic problems with these proposed solutions:
1) Money means nothing. Money is simply the way we establish prices in order to allow for the efficient distribution of resources. It is nothing more than numbers and pieces of paper. What matters is the underlying productive capacity. Do we actually have the productive capacity to accomplish these things? No, for two reasons. Take the world's GNP and divide it over the world's population, and you will find that even if we could somehow spread those resources equally, the cover would be very thin. Furthermore, the GNP we have depends upon the efficiency of markets to maximize output. If you were to force the world to build simple shelters, for instance, instead of allowing the markets to do their work, you would have a gross reallocation of production which would result in the misapplication of resources in inefficient ways, which would make everyone poorer.
2) There is no way to enforce it. There is no global authority to do this, and if there were, it would essentially be a world tyranny. Furthermore, history has shown that the larger an empire grows, the more unwieldy and inefficient it becomes. One world government would be a nightmare which would no doubt fail to distribute resources in the way you imagine.
3) People would not cooperate in making this happen. I will use myself as an example. I work very hard to give my family a nice standard of living. You would require all of us to work just as hard to still produce as much utility for the world to continue to function, but because I am on the wealthy end of the scale I would be required to allow much of that utility to be transfer to others around the world. Why would I continue to work so hard? Why would the most talented people on earth kill themselves with their labor in order to support a system which does not reward them? The truth is that we are individuals, and motivation matters.
What you propose is, in essence, communism. And that has been tried, and it has been an abject failure. I have gone around and around in my own head about this my entire adult life. I attained a degree in economics to learn about it. And despite my good intentions and sincere wish that we would achieve such a thing, I accept that it is impossible. You can either allow individuals to achieve and the intangible fruits of their achievements to benefit us all, or you can mire your nation or indeed the world in the soul-killing misery of universal poverty.
[edit on 18-10-2008 by Grumble]
Originally posted by Epinephrine
reply to post by Moegli
Actually, if you read some psychological literature you would know that it is absolutely possible to be devoid of emotions. Criminal psychopaths, for example, are notoriously devoid of emotion and fear. Also, are not monks of many religious traditions taught to control their emotions in order to think more clearly? Surely that's not out of fear.
I think the real fear lies in people who know only how to react emotionally. How could they possibly face themselves or learn to act without their automatic emotional responses?
Dealing with theoretical, improbable situations in order to coax some feeling out of me in an effort to prove me and my position that uncontrolled emotions leads to delusional ideas an viewpoints is grasping at straws(very emotional and flimsy ones at that). Besides, I find it very unlikely that anyone would find me in the lesser percentage of the population. And if they did, it would simple act as necessary to ensure my survival. What good would anger do?
? Were not so different after all.
uncontrolled emotions leads to delusional ideas an viewpoints