Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Economics
Thread: Economics This thread is 34 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 30 31 32 33 34 · NEXT»
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 04, 2008 02:01 PM
Edited by mvassilev at 14:01, 04 Feb 2008.

Economics

There have been a lot of discussion about economics lately. Here's how it started out.

Gallow:
Quote:
Celfius its right is his statement,and seems that moonlith gets mad if there is a christian person here,he hates them,even he insulted,nice...let people be happy and have a god,universe didnt born from nothing,if you think all evolved fine,mix trash and stuff and wait 25 years or more lets see what happens.Its more than obvious there is a creator,its beyond of our comprension,example the beauty of the nature,or more far;the orbits of the planet or whatever,why you dont go personally to a church and ask to a person there "why do you believe in god" you THINK its that easy to understand? you must discover it by yourself,that happens here all want the easy way,nothing else just this,good bye
Angelito:
Quote:
Quote:
...example the beauty of the nature...

Tsunami was here!


Earthquake was here!


Quote:
you must discover it by yourself,that happens here all want the easy way,nothing else just this,good bye
Tell that to all the victims of the beautifull nature.
Balkava:
Quote:
Victims of nature?

Nature is our victim. Look around you.
A tsunami happens once in several decades. But humans cut down forests, make power plants, commit nuclear tests, create ozone holes etcetera CONSTANTLY. Not to mention devastation caused by wars.

We whine about natural cataclysms all the time, but we fail to realize that WE are the greatest disaster of all. We are so blindly destructive that we even destroy ourselves. And just like a tornado or an earthquake passes, we will eventually pass too; I just hope we don't take the entire planet with us.

Sorry for going off topic.
Angelito:
Quote:
There have been tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and similar "nature beautifullness" way before mankind walked around this planet...ask the dinosaurs.

So it is a bit easy to say mankind is the reason for ALL nature catastrophies....
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Nature is our victim. Look around you.
A tsunami happens once in several decades. But humans cut down forests, make power plants, commit nuclear tests, create ozone holes etcetera CONSTANTLY. Not to mention devastation caused by wars.
Of course we have to protect nature. But not for the reasons you imply. Nature is a resource. We have to protect the Earth so that the Earth can continue to nourish and protect (ozone layer) us. But we shouldn't be obsessed with it. And there's nothing wrong with nuclear power.
Balklava:
Quote:
Quote:
There have been tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and similar "nature beautifullness" way before mankind walked around this planet...ask the dinosaurs.

So it is a bit easy to say mankind is the reason for ALL nature catastrophies....

Oh, not for all the catastrophes ever. But the way it is now, it seems we'll be responsible for the final one :\

Quote:
Of course we have to protect nature. But not for the reasons you imply. Nature is a resource. We have to protect the Earth so that the Earth can continue to nourish and protect (ozone layer) us. But we shouldn't be obsessed with it.

If we shouldn't be obsessed with our lives and life of our children, then what should we be concerned with?
And saying nature is a resource is same like saying your parents are a resource.

And no, there really is nothing wrong with nuclear power by itself. But the problem, again, is in humans. They misuse it for nuclear armament; overuse it (some 70 new nuclear power plants are planned to be built in Europe I think); and of course dump all the waste where? In nature. Preferably some poor countries.
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
If we shouldn't be obsessed with our lives and life of our children, then what should we be concerned with?
You misunderstood me. We should protect the planet for us and our children. But we shouldn't do it for its own sake.

Quote:
And saying nature is a resource is same like saying your parents are a resource.
But nature is a resource.

Quote:
overuse it (some 70 new nuclear power plants are planned to be built in Europe I think)
Nuclear power doesn't cause global warming and is efficient. The only problem is waste storage. Why not launch it into the sun?

Quote:
and of course dump all the waste where? In nature. Preferably some poor countries.
Here we go... More "the rich are exploiting the poor".
Minion:
Quote:
OFFTOPIC post ahead, Warning Warning...

Quote:
Nuclear power doesn't cause global warming and is efficient. The only problem is waste storage. Why not launch it into the sun?



The difficulty of launching something into the Sun is twofold:

1.) Escape from Earth's gravity.
2.) Cancelling the Earth's angular momentum, such that a direct "dive" into the Sun is possible.

There is no booster in existence that could do this for even a "regular-sized" space probe.
And 45,000 tons of nuclear waste resides in US alone!
And if that wasn't problematic enough, do you have any idea how much it would cost? Nuclear Energy would become unprofitable in an instant.

And if that wasn't bad enough, consider the risks. The rockets have a tendency of exploding on their way to the atmosphere, about 95% of the flights are successful.
An explosion in the atmosphere carrying radioactive nuclear waste would be CATASTROPHIC, to say the least.
mvassilev:
Quote:
All right, I see. Then we should put the waste under Yucca Mountain.
baklava:
Quote:
Quote:
But nature is a resource.

I stand in awe of your argument

1) Nature gave us birth.
2) It raised us.
3) It nurtured us.
4) It gave us everything it has.
5) Yet we are breaking free from it, and seeking destiny elsewhere.

Don't you agree it's more of a parent than a resource? Unless you count your mom and dad as plain resources, of course.

Quote:
Here we go... More "the rich are exploiting the poor".

Another fantastic argument

What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain. You'll have it dumped in places like Afghanistan.
You could try to think about it once in a while.

If it weren't for people who said the rich are exploiting the poor, you would still be living in slavery.
Titanium Alloy:
Quote:
Of course nature is a resource.
Wood, oil, stone, clay, metals, minerals, water, food: hence the name natural resource.
Baklava:
Quote:
Nature contains resources, but isn't a resource by itself.

Pocket money your parents give you is a resource; but parents aren't.
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But nature is a resource.

I stand in awe of your argument

1) Nature gave us birth.
2) It raised us.
3) It nurtured us.
4) It gave us everything it has.
5) Yet we are breaking free from it, and seeking destiny elsewhere.
Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.

Quote:
What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain.
Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?

Quote:
If it weren't for people who said the rich are exploiting the poor, you would still be living in slavery.
The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.
balkava:
Quote:
Quote:
Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.


"Breaking free" was a figure of speech, we will always be dependent on nature.
But I'm glad we agree that nature should be protected.

Quote:
Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?

Sure. That's one site. In a wasteland.
But what about thousands of other sites where nuclear waste is dumped? A lot of them aren't in wastelands, but in places that were simply uncostly. No one pays much attention to the nature or anything about those places - as long as they're cheap.

Quote:
The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.

In newer history. But it worked rather well in Rome, Egypt etcetera. Besides, those "payments" were rather pitiful (and still are, in many regions). Not to mention feudalism, imperialism etcetera.
My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).
Ugh... More "the rich are exploiting the poor" nonsense. Look. The rich are giving the poor jobs. If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off. True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all. If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?

If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.
If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).

The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.
Minion:
Quote:
Quote:

The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.


This is the most horrible (and stupid) thing I have heard in a long time...
mvassilev:
Quote:
Why's that? It'll make the economy stronger.
Doomforge:
Quote:
Quote:
The rich are giving the poor jobs.


They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.

Quote:
If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.


If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).

Quote:
True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.


Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".

Who are you trying to defend? Want some profiles of rich polish investors, who "mercifully" employed the poor, to make one kind of HELL of their lives?

Quote:
If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?


Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.


Quote:
If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.


No. He just exploits the law a bit more, steals, gets corrupted and so on. Oh wait, you always lived in your little utopian fantasy world, so it doesn't surprise me that you keep saying all that babbling nonsense. Sorry for offense.

Quote:
If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).


If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.

Quote:
The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.


You'd be a wonderful slave overseer. They pretty much believed in the same thing. Only that they preferred might over capitalism, so instead of firing, they used to beat the c*r*a*p out of the slaves, to show them a CONVINCING reason NOT to fight for ANY laws of their own.

Nietzsche is your idol, or so?

If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The rich are giving the poor jobs.


They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.
Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference. Sometimes cheap mass labor is called for, and the poor are qualified for that.

Quote:
Quote:
If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.


If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).
It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.

Quote:
Quote:
True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.
Doomforge:

Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".
If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.

Quote:
Who are you trying to defend?
A functional economy.

Quote:
Quote:
If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?


Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.
Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.

Quote:
If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.
The Soviet Bloc called itself Communist but really was state capitalist. In Communism, the workers own the means of production. In the Soviet bloc, the state did.

Quote:
craft economical theories
It's clear that you have no knowledge of economics. I adivise you to read Charles Wheelan's "Naked Economics". It's a great book, and where I got most (but not all) of my economic ideas.
Quote:
Thanks for NOT answering my doubts about your way of thinking Avoiding the subject does not make it vanish.



Quote:
Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference.


Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.

Quote:
It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.


Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten. Too bad the weight of the "benefits" is completely unjust, but that doesn't mean a sh*t to you, as I see. You don't care for justice? I wonder how clever you'd get if you were forced to take such job. Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation. And you would feel what being a cheap labor means. Literally. I wonder if your "opinions" wouldn't change a bit then.


Quote:
If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.


And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?

Quote:
A functional economy.


Stalin also called his economy "functional".

Quote:
Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.


where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-
Well, I don't watch much TV and I read, think, and debate a lot. Hence, my thinking.

Quote:
Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.
Being qualified is relative. If a hospital goes under and a star heart surgeon is let go, he will not have too difficult of a time finding a new job. If some auto worker's manufacturing plant goes under, he was only qualified to work in that plant, and it will be hard for him to find a new job.

Quote:
Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten.
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.

Quote:
Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation.
Sure, it would suck for me. But I would attempt to get an education in my spare time, and raise my qualifications. Being cheap mass labor isn't fun, but it's better than being unemployed. They shouldn't complain; they should get better.

Quote:
And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?
Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man? If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.

Quote:
Stalin also called his economy "functional".
Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.

Quote:
where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.
America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).
Doomforge:
Quote:
Quote:
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.


So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.

Quote:
Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man?
If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.


In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here. And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job. If you find one, you can get like 300 euro per month. And it takes a lot of effort to find one. Trust me, if you live in a place like this, finding a job isn't the easiest thing to do - and when you finally get one, you try to maintain it. And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.

Quote:
Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.


Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-

Quote:
America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).


I see. I don't know much about the situation in America (except that it is a better place to live in), and perhaps I was a little too harsh. It definitely doesn't look the way you describe it in my country, though. I'm used to harsh reality, that's why I got a little annoyed looking at your posts. I'm sorry.

Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.
mvassilev:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.


So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.
You don't understand what an advantage that is, though. He can choose to job with the highest pay and/or the best working conditions. And if millions of people do this, then the market responds.

Quote:
In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here.
Percisely. If people don't have skills, it's hard for them to get a new job. That's why education is important. People need to invest in themselves, in their own human capital.

Quote:
And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job.
It's almost the same here in America. Not all skills are useful. Only marketable skills are. The only place a political scientist or philosopher can get a job is at a university, and they don't pay too much there. But that's not their main source of income. Their main source comes from writing books in their field. Sometimes it takes several tries, but sometimes they are moderately successful.

Quote:
And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.
No, they don't. They would rather have top-of-the-class Harvard graduates working for them. But they don't, because the Harvard graduates can find better places to work. Only the unskilled (and those with non-marketable skills) would work for them. Which is why it's important to have marketable skills.

Quote:
Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-
And capitalism is responsible for this because... ? Yes, nepotism sucks. And there is no specific recepie for making a poor country rich. The general recepie is improvements in education, production of marketable human capital, and free trade.


Quote:
Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.
Thanks.
SirDunco:
Quote:
But just to the issue of "nature being a resource" I believe that to be an extremely limited and even dangerous view of hardcore materialistic people who's main goal in life is wealth and money...


So that's the discussion.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 04, 2008 02:04 PM

Dunco, what can the Earth do for us? It protects us with the ozone layer and it provides basic resources. Therefore, we should protect the Earth so that it can continue to protect us with the ozone layer and provide us with resources. Also, we have to make sure that it doesn't make our life worse, which is why we have to fight global warming. But we shouldn't protect the Earth for the sake of protecting the Earth.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted February 04, 2008 02:50 PM

Why should we protect Earth? There is a whole lot of reasons.

As you "ruled out" the argument of protecting it for Earths sake, I'll try a different, even though I strongly disagree.

The role of Earth is not just as a milk cow for resources. It is the only thing that we have. The planet gives life to everything around, including us. And we are by far the only ones on this planet. If we want to survive we have to protect nature and protect the biodiversity of the planet. It is home to plants, insects animals of all sorts, who all have as equal right as us to live here. Yet the human is the only species that will fully destroys it's own habitat. If we continue doing as we are we will not only destroy all the beauty and diversity left in the world but eventually destroy ourselves as well.

Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.
The systematic exploitation of earth for money is a twisted concept that should have been wiped out a long time ago. The Earth's role is not to provide profit and it is not just our home, therefore we have to be respectful to it.  
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TheDeath
TheDeath


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
posted February 04, 2008 03:11 PM
Edited by TheDeath at 15:19, 04 Feb 2008.

Quote:
But we shouldn't protect the Earth for the sake of protecting the Earth.
Dare might I ask, but why not?

EDIT: I whole-heartedly agree with SirDunco

EDIT2: @mvassilev: next time you see someone needs help, you first think if it's profitable to help him, and in case it isn't you leave? Or perhaps you're discriminating nature more than humans?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 04, 2008 11:48 PM

Quote:
The role of Earth is not just as a milk cow for resources. It is the only thing that we have.
The Earth is the only milk cow we have. Thus we have to keep it alive.

Quote:
Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.
No. But what do you think life is about? And why do you think that success necessarily comes at the expense of others. And I didn't say anything about making money from the Earth.

Quote:
Dare might I ask, but why not?
Because we have no need to protect the Earth any more than we need to for it to sustain us. What do we "get" (I'm not talking just materially) if we (en masse) start protecting the Earth beyond that point? Nothing, really.

Quote:
@mvassilev: next time you see someone needs help, you first think if it's profitable to help him, and in case it isn't you leave? Or perhaps you're discriminating nature more than humans?
I had a similar discussion before. Here it is:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=12254
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=20822
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=20858
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=20897

Now, yes, I would help someone who needs help because I would feel good doing it. Why? Because it is part of human instinct, and I am a human. I could choose not to do it, but I feel better if I choose to do it. I have no reason to help someone I don't know other than to feel good. I don't get any of the same kind of feeling from nature, though.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted February 04, 2008 11:58 PM

Quote:
Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.

Actually, any casual look at just about any aspect of nature will tell you that life is ONLY about success at the expense of something else.  Only humans seem to have moral qualms with selfish consumption.  

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2008 12:17 AM

Economics is not a zero-sum game.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
TitaniumAlloy
TitaniumAlloy


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Professional
posted February 05, 2008 05:52 AM

We can also protect the earth because it is beautiful


/hippy
____________
John says to live above hell.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted February 05, 2008 12:27 PM

Quote:
Quote:
The role of Earth is not just as a milk cow for resources. It is the only thing that we have.
The Earth is the only milk cow we have. Thus we have to keep it alive.


If you would agree to protect Earth on the base that it is the only "Milk Cow", even though I believe that view to be twisted then alright.
Still the Earths role is something much more then just a resource silo.


Quote:
Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.
No. But what do you think life is about? And why do you think that success necessarily comes at the expense of others. And I didn't say anything about making money from the Earth.


Perhaps you did not make that exact statement, but all the others imply, in my opinion that is, this view. If you see the Earth only, or at least, primarily as a source for resources, you seek to exploit it. Correct me if I am wrong pleas.



Quote:
Dare might I ask, but why not?
Because we have no need to protect the Earth any more than we need to for it to sustain us. What do we "get" (I'm not talking just materially) if we (en masse) start protecting the Earth beyond that point? Nothing, really.

So you believe that humans own this planet, that it is the property of the human kind to do whatever it wants?  To destroy, ravage and exploit as it pleases? Where did you get that?
This planet here gives life to everything around us, how can you possibly say that it's only role for us is to "get" what we want from it?

Really what I see in you is a degeneration by the capitalist/materialist "I want more." syndrome. The plague of modern society.


Quote:
Actually, any casual look at just about any aspect of nature will tell you that life is ONLY about success at the expense of something else.  Only humans seem to have moral qualms with selfish consumption.


True, but in nature no species takes more than it needs from the other. Wolves do not kill herds of deers, deers do not needlessly eat whole pastures. We are the only species to take more than we require. Nature is an almost perfect mechanism that sustains itself.
Then again this only works until humans do not mess with it too much. People in the past have been know to live in harmony and respect with the world around them.

____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
angelito
angelito


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
posted February 05, 2008 12:54 PM

Quote:
True, but in nature no species takes more than it needs from the other. Wolves do not kill herds of deers, deers do not needlessly eat whole pastures.
This is just because they don't "see" any reason for that. If anmimals would have any advantage out of killing other species or taking many resources, they would do it.
Human didn't had any gain form that kind of habit in early times either. Everything started when people began to specialize in certain skills. This was the moment when some kind of "trading" started. You build my house, I get some fish for you. You create a weapon for me, I create some shoes for you. etc..etc... So if I get a bunch full of fishes, which is probably not much more work than getting only as much as I would need for myself, I would GAIN something for that (shoes from this guy, a house from  that guy, etc...).
This process didn't happen in the world of the animals (yet ).

Quote:
Nature is an almost perfect mechanism that sustains itself.
Then again this only works until humans do not mess with it too much.

I doubt that to be honest. Imagine how many life had to end just out of "nature's will" (Ice age, meteroits, etc...). Or the great deseases we had when mankind was present already on earth like Cholera, Pest, Syphilis etc.. or AIDS nowadays.

And some folks still believe nature consists of many different kind of gods, which they have to pray to and sacrifice animals. In earlier times, they even sacrified humans.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted February 05, 2008 01:30 PM

True that trade and the division of labor brought many changes to the human society. Still I believe that trade is possible with out the destruction of nature. It is human greed that causes it not trade as a such. Trade in certain conditions causes greed and all the other effects attached to it.

Not all trade is greedy and destructive.

As for nature. Even the illnesses and ige ages and natural disasters are just a circle of life in nature. And as nothing is completely perfect, nature is the only real system that is near to it.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2008 02:09 PM

Quote:
If you see the Earth only, or at least, primarily as a source for resources, you seek to exploit it. Correct me if I am wrong pleas.
I seek to use it, not exploit it.

Quote:
So you believe that humans own this planet, that it is the property of the human kind to do whatever it wants?  To destroy, ravage and exploit as it pleases?
We, as the human race, should primarily worry about the human race.

Quote:
Really what I see in you is a degeneration by the capitalist/materialist "I want more." syndrome. The plague of modern society.
It's the great thing about modern society. Without materialism, our standard of living would be far lower.

Quote:
As for nature. Even the illnesses and ige ages and natural disasters are just a circle of life in nature. And as nothing is completely perfect, nature is the only real system that is near to it.
Human society isn't perfect, but it's better than nature.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted February 05, 2008 02:59 PM

Quote:
Quote:
If you see the Earth only, or at least, primarily as a source for resources, you seek to exploit it. Correct me if I am wrong pleas.
I seek to use it, not exploit it.

Sometimes it is the same thing. Then again, not always use but only to a certain level.

Quote:
So you believe that humans own this planet, that it is the property of the human kind to do whatever it wants?  To destroy, ravage and exploit as it pleases?
We, as the human race, should primarily worry about the human race.

But we should also worry who our actions effect. It is not just us who our actions reach, but also the environment around us, therefore we must be careful.

Quote:
Really what I see in you is a degeneration by the capitalist/materialist "I want more." syndrome. The plague of modern society.
It's the great thing about modern society. Without materialism, our standard of living would be far lower.

Great thing? Really? Look at the world around you, the poverty, illnesses, destruction, criminality, social problems, explotation of people and nature, at the sake of progress and a better living standart. Yes, but for who? The rich top of the worlds population. Progress must be proportionate and thought through, because at this pace this society and even the whole earth is headed to it's doom.

Quote:
As for nature. Even the illnesses and ige ages and natural disasters are just a circle of life in nature. And as nothing is completely perfect, nature is the only real system that is near to it.
Human society isn't perfect, but it's better than nature.

Please, this is by far one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. Human society produces so much suffering not only to its self but to others then anything else in this world.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2008 10:06 PM

Quote:
But we should also worry who our actions effect. It is not just us who our actions reach, but also the environment around us, therefore we must be careful.
But then we should tie it back to how it affects the human race.

Quote:
Great thing? Really? Look at the world around you, the poverty, illnesses, destruction, criminality, social problems, explotation of people and nature, at the sake of progress and a better living standart. Yes, but for who? The rich top of the worlds population. Progress must be proportionate and thought through, because at this pace this society and even the whole earth is headed to it's doom.
A rising tide lifts all boats. In the long run, the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor. The poor get richer too. We are all better off than we were 1000 or 500 or even 100 years ago, and most of us are better off than we were 50 years ago. The rich get richer. The poor get richer.

Let me tell you a story. My great-great-grandfather was a shepherd. My great-grandfather was a doctor. My grandfather is a professor. My father is an engenieer. And I am sitting here typing this message, enjoying a life with which I am mostly happy. You may argue that humanity hasn't really progressed, but I'll just point to my own family and to the families of countless others whose lives have improved in the last 100 years.

Quote:
Please, this is by far one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. Human society produces so much suffering not only to its self but to others then anything else in this world.
And nature doesn't cause suffering? It is human society that enables us to have this very debate. Human society has created some very good things. In developed countries, very few people starve to death any more. Now, in poor countries, they still do, but that is DESPITE human society, not because of it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pinkspear
pinkspear


Known Hero
Crazy like a fool
posted February 05, 2008 11:15 PM

Quote:


A rising tide lifts all boats. In the long run, the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor. The poor get richer too. We are all better off than we were 1000 or 500 or even 100 years ago, and most of us are better off than we were 50 years ago. The rich get richer. The poor get richer.

Let me tell you a story. My great-great-grandfather was a shepherd. My great-grandfather was a doctor. My grandfather is a professor. My father is an engenieer. And I am sitting here typing this message, enjoying a life with which I am mostly happy. You may argue that humanity hasn't really progressed, but I'll just point to my own family and to the families of countless others whose lives have improved in the last 100 years.



You use the word better. What do you mean by it? Maybe advancement? I think people who lived 400 years ago may had equally good life (or life conditions) as a shepherd, as we have nowadays.

Progression? Yes, certainly. Now we don't have to bring water from the river, hunt animals for food, live in wooden houses, etc. But this kind of advancement (improvement) brought much suffering to nature. Soon as we won't have water to drink, fresh air to breathe, we'll realise the cost of our so-called "progression".

I agree with SirDunco's posts here

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 05, 2008 11:35 PM

Quote:
You use the word better. What do you mean by it? Maybe advancement? I think people who lived 400 years ago may had equally good life (or life conditions) as a shepherd, as we have nowadays.
...
...
...

I don't even know how to reply. How about you go live for a year as a shepherd with all of the "conveniences" of the 17th century. Then come back and tell us how you liked it.

Quote:
Now we don't have to bring water from the river, hunt animals for food, live in wooden houses, etc.
And we're much better off for it.

Quote:
But this kind of advancement (improvement) brought much suffering to nature. Soon as we won't have water to drink, fresh air to breathe, we'll realise the cost of our so-called "progression".
Which is why we have to take care of nature. But we still have to improve, but keep nature in mind when we do so. But we shouldn't turn back the clock or stop progress. We have to protect the water and the air, but we should still appreciate the vast progress that we have made.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pinkspear
pinkspear


Known Hero
Crazy like a fool
posted February 05, 2008 11:46 PM

Don't get me wrong. Of course our life now is far more convinient (easier) than x hundreds of years before. My point is that we could live without this kind of easy, yet damaging lifestyle. And  I don't say that progressing is always harmful and we do not benefit from it. It's that the negative effects of this overall advancement outweighs the positive ones.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
SirDunco
SirDunco


Responsible
Supreme Hero
posted February 06, 2008 12:23 AM

Quote:
the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor.

Number one, the rich have no need to get any richer and certainly not at the expense of someone poorer. That is pure exploitation of person by person. It is the rich who get richer and a tiny percentage of the population controls a huge amount of wealth and resources. All people seek to do is gain gain gain, become rich, powerful, successfully and respected in the high society

Material gain is not the absolute pinnacle of accomplishment. Money is just a tiny fraction, unfortunately one that this system does not let us live without. There are far more important things in life, society and in the world, that then those little pieces of paper people consider dear. Sure money are a trade article, but when it becomes the absolute ruler of peoples lives, it seems that not everything is right.

Pinkspear, thanks, I agree with you too. Progress for the sake of progress is not right. We do not need half the things we have and even if we decide to keep them, they can be managed in a far better way. No one give us the right to take whatever we want. And not even the human is it's own absolute master.

Sure things are easier and more comfortable, but the easy way is not always the right way. Heck, I could be living a more comfortable life, without some of the things I do, sometimes even risking my neck. Sure things could be easier. But I know that that is not the right way, the way to be taken. Comfort is something you have to earn and not take for granted, for one day you will get an ugly slap in the face by reality.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
pinkspear
pinkspear


Known Hero
Crazy like a fool
posted February 06, 2008 12:36 AM

Quote:

Progress for the sake of progress is not right.


That's indeed a better wording for what I wanted to say. There's nothing  I can add, you summed it up pretty well.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted February 06, 2008 03:03 AM
Edited by mvassilev at 03:06, 06 Feb 2008.

Quote:
Number one, the rich have no need to get any richer and certainly not at the expense of someone poorer.
Just because they can live comfortably without getting richer is no reason that they shouldn't try to get richer. And, in a free market, they don't exploit their workers because then they'd leave and go work somewhere else. Do you even understand how the free market works? Wanting to maximize one's utility is what drives it. Ambitious people looking to make a profit make the world better.

Quote:
That is pure exploitation of person by person. It is the rich who get richer and a tiny percentage of the population controls a huge amount of wealth and resources. All people seek to do is gain gain gain, become rich, powerful, successfully and respected in the high society
Yes. And guess what? There's nothing wrong with that. The rich want to be richer. The poor want to be richer. The rich make the poor to compete for jobs. The poor make the rich compete for their labor.

Quote:
Material gain is not the absolute pinnacle of accomplishment. Money is just a tiny fraction, unfortunately one that this system does not let us live without. There are far more important things in life, society and in the world, that then those little pieces of paper people consider dear. Sure money are a trade article, but when it becomes the absolute ruler of peoples lives, it seems that not everything is right.
Hard to disagree with you here, but have you ever considered that people want to get richer so they can have a better life. The divorce rate among the rich is lower. They are far more healthy. Their children are healthier and better educated. And so on.

Quote:
No one give us the right to take whatever we want.
We can do whatever is advantageous for us. But, and this is very important, this is why we have to social contract. The social contract makes it more advantageous for us to work within society's framework rather than steal, maim, and murder.

As regards comfort, we all make our own choices. But I'm not going to choose what you chose.


Why is everyone such an idealistic socialist? If you guys somehow came to rule a country, I definitely wouldn't want to live in it. And I'd watch you go bankrupt.


Who rated this thread "average"?
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 34 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 10 20 ... 30 31 32 33 34 · NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.2185 seconds