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 ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Earth Day
Thread: Earth Day This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Fauch
Fauch


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 06:58 PM

Quote:
evidence to back up the fact that the human race are still multiplying all over the world, is the rising cost of food, water, housing, gas, etc(not to mention, more and more forested areas being cut down to make more room for living areas, roads, etc). why the rising prices? because the resources are dwindling.



it seems to be true when it comes to oil and gas.

the rising prices in housing is due to financial speculation. it's probably not the case everywhere, but in Europe, there is more housing than is actually needed. the fact is that owning real estate is a guarantee of your Financial solidity, and this guarantee is even better if it can be quickly sold, that is to say, if it is vacant.

some massive rises of prices in food were also due to speculation, when after the real estate market crashes, food commodities became the new safe haven. the fact that those transactions are purely virtual allow the speculators to exchange many many times more than what is really produced. for example, in a year only, they will exchange the equivalent of the production of 20 years. of course no such stock exists, but it still has massive conséquences on prices.


locksley : I'm not doubting that many people are concerned and want to do something about it.
when it comes to political parties, if yours are, then good, they really don't seem to worry much about it here, except maybe some far left movements, a lil bit. the so-called ecological party seems to be a joke, and probably only calls itself ecological to attracts ignorants since it mostly promotes green capitalism.
of course, investing in the research of more energy efficient technology can bring some profit, because it may attract new customer, but it ignores totally the problem of over-consumption, that consumption which is necessary for the system to run. what's the biggest problem? that our cars pollute too much, or that now everyone needs to own 1 or even 2 cars?


Locksley said:

These persons has to become entrepreneurs and seek support from companies if they want their inventions to become realized, since we have the economic system we have. For these persons it's NOT the profit that is the most important thing (but yeah, money is needed for living and even more of it is a nice bonus), it's that they do something that they think is important. They run businesses because that's the means to achieve what they hold as important and good.



to be more exact, that's banks which primarily decide what money will be used for, and it depends on if they think you will be able to pay back your "loan", so your profit is important. of course you can also seek other sources of financing, but the original source of all the money is banks, and they only create money for projects that they think will bring them profit.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 07:29 PM
Edited by fred79 at 07:56, 26 Apr 2014.

seraphim said:
Nothing wrong with that.


bull****. just because people can, doesn't mean that they should.

seraphim said:
The end of civilization will not result in the end of humanity. The only difference between the past and now is that some people posses the ability to destroy the earth. I dont think thats going to happen because nobody is stupid enough to use nukes, not even pakistan or north korea.


the words in bold actually make sense, to a point. do you really have enough faith that, when civilization collapses, that humans will be able to pick up the pieces? and not only that, but not to start the whole process all over again, learning nothing from their past mistakes? i don't have that kind of faith in humanity. speaking of faith, i certainly don't agree that the nukes won't be used in the future. one war with the wrong nation, would change that.

seraphim said:
What, exploiting poor countries is blindness? Extinction of species, destruction of rainforests, acidification of oceans, global warming, Multi resistant bacteria and so on are all cases where interests of the few cause this. But then, thats only impeding our ability to survive, not the immediate destruction of humanity.


i really don't understand where you get "immediate" from. if i ever said "immediate", i meant "immediate threat of the destruction of humanity", and nothing more than that. but i don't remember saying "immediate destruction of humanity". maybe you could try verifying that?

seraphim said:
Again, whats at stake is civilization, not human survival. Being civil is not what makes humans human. We  have beeb living for 98000+ years in absolute savagery, killing animals, killing others, slavery and so on.


again, this makes sense to me. i don't see how it could possibly be beneficial for humanity, though. and isn't that really what makes the whole difference? changing our behavior before it comes to that?

seraphim said:
Life isnt precious there is no such thing as the right to live. Not in nature.


humans think they are above nature, though. that indeed, they are wholly seperate from their environment. it is a lot like the nature of primary psychopaths; they are detached from their prey, so they can do anything at all to them, without remorse or guilt. their prey are no longer a living, breathing thing; instead, they are an object, at their disposal, however they see fit. wouldn't you agree, that there is something wrong with that? if the consistency and logic of arguments really matter, then i don't see how anyone could be for ignoring/abusing/destroying the environment as humans see fit.



@ artu: i don't see the point in discussing anything further with you, after reading a little bit of your last post. whereas jj gets personal right before he tunes someone out, you just keep right on staying personal with people. all i will say, is that for someone who seems to be able to speak for everyone(and does so, all the time), you sure are one to speak of a know-it-all, holier-than-thou personality.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:03 PM

Quote:
humans think they are above nature, though. that indeed, they are wholly seperate from their environment. it is a lot like the nature of primary psychopaths; they are detached from their prey, so they can do anything at all to them, without remorse or guilt. their prey are no longer a living, breathing thing; instead, they are an object, at their disposal, however they see fit. wouldn't you agree, that there is something wrong with that? if the consistency and logic of arguments really matter, then i don't see how anyone could be for ignoring/abusing/destroying the environment as humans see fit.



weirdly people seem to actually be more concerned about the suffering of animals than the suffering of other human beings. at least, my Facebook says so, everyday people post about poor animals being abused, but hardly anyone posts about human being abused.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:07 PM

Fauch said:
weirdly people seem to actually be more concerned about the suffering of animals than the suffering of other human beings. at least, my Facebook says so, everyday people post about poor animals being abused, but hardly anyone posts about human being abused.


lol, it's not about the animals with facebook, it's about the "likes".

and indeed, most people who show how "caring" they are in regards to things that affect people's emotions, are only used as a tool, to feed those people's ego, by attracting people to them.

not always, though. but it's hard to pick through the offal, to find the truly caring.

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


Known Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:22 PM
Edited by Aron at 20:26, 25 Apr 2014.

I do wonder why no one rerplied to my post. Well not so much wonder as that I expected it but I'd like to confirm it.

It was constructed in such a way that the usual "climate denial" tag could not be put on me while at the same time those opponents of environmental activism would find it hard to go against it. In so far as I could I tried to sound very reasonable.

So I'm wondering: Did I just sound completely out there and extreme to both of your sides or would arguing or even support my post invalidate portions of your own ideas and thus you choose not to?

Or was it simple badly written and uninteresting?
____________

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:22 PM
Edited by Fauch at 20:28, 25 Apr 2014.

well, it's true most of those posts are for likes indeed. but those who share them may do it because they have been moved.

Aron : I don't have enough knowledge about what you said, so I can't argue

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


Known Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:31 PM

Ah it's on page 2 I think.
____________

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:37 PM

I mean, it's not something I studied. well, I know plants consume CO2 and make O2, but that's pretty much all

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


Known Hero
posted April 25, 2014 08:57 PM

Ah me neither but there are credible studies out there that have been digested for the public, I could link a few. It's not that I stand here or there, I just like to try and find common ground. Co2 being the least dangerous of the heat inducing gasses on earth and at the same time beneficial yet most attention is directed towards it and large corporations have found a new market to speculate in where they trade emission rights with each other at the detriment of the small business and developing countries just like the fishery rights destroyed small fishing communities in England to the point where they asked Greenpeace for help.

Always follow the money.


____________

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 25, 2014 09:15 PM

@fred
I have absolutely no problem with that Fred, why should I, I was the one preferring it a page ago. However, it would be nice if you dont make things up and throw around false accusations before doing so. I dont have a habit of speaking for everyone, except in this specific situation you are confronting everyone (including me) without giving them valid answers (which is the important part, being majority doesnt mean being right) and compansating that with "hah, lol, we'll sing kumbalaya, right!" In other words, you act like everyone else except you is naive, while in fact you very well know that is not the case, it's just a (not so good) defensive tactic because you have nothing else to say. And if there's anyone doing something all the time, it's you doing that. Whether the subject be ecology, crisis in Ukraine, morality, and some other threads I cant recall now, it's this BS and after a while it creates a noise. You may be under the impression that it works, I'm just making it clear that it doesn't (and yes, it doesnt with anybody).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 25, 2014 09:41 PM

the pot and the kettle, artu. you post exactly how you accuse me of posting(especially in this thread). try rereading your own posts. every single thing you've said, has been how you've been posting here. once you find nothing else to say, to further explain your point of view, you start personally attacking people, and what you think of, as their intellect.

also, i find humor in the counter-arguments(it's kumbaya, btw). because i know that, ultimately, nothing said here will change anything in the ways of human beings. you, on the other hand, find offense in counter-arguments. and, feeling somehow offended by that point of view, then offend whoever you thought was trying to offend you.

that's not a very intelligent way to post. you won't convince anyone of your views that way.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 25, 2014 09:59 PM

I find no offense in counter arguments. I, however, get irritated when valid answers are ignored deliberately. I DID explain what's flawed with your argument for two pages, giving links, pointing out inconsistancies etc etc.... over and over again. Maybe, you are not aware of it but that was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm one of the few regulars in the OSM who didnt classify your posting as trolling instantly and took his time to answer. Anyway, enough of this blamestorming. The posts themselves are there, there's no need for further explanation.  

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

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted April 26, 2014 12:50 AM

*I* get irritated when people drag threads off topic by bickering about... well, whatever they're bickering about. I could be mistaken but this thread is supposed to be about Earth Day, isn't it?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

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


Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
posted April 26, 2014 01:17 PM

fred79 said:
seraphim said:
Nothing wrong with that.


bull****. just because people can, doesn't mean that they should.

Quote:

the words in bold actually make sense, to a point. do you really have enough faith that, when civilization collapses, that humans will be able to pick up the pieces? and not only that, but not to start the whole process all over again, learning nothing from their past mistakes? i don't have that kind of faith in humanity. speaking of faith, i certainly don't agree that the nukes won't be used in the future. one war with the wrong nation, would change that.


Even nukes wont destroy humanity of earth. Nobody is going to full nuclear even if a nuclear war broke out, maybe tactical nukes and those wars would be mostly vs weaker countries.I cant fathom full scale nukes being used, but since this is a matter of belief, well.


Quote:

i really don't understand where you get "immediate" from. if i ever said "immediate", i meant "immediate threat of the destruction of humanity", and nothing more than that. but i don't remember saying "immediate destruction of humanity". maybe you could try verifying that?


The only immediate threat is possibly a killer asteroid or death from space supernovas... Other than that, you are talking about a time scale that will outgo your life and way into the future.

Quote:

again, this makes sense to me. i don't see how it could possibly be beneficial for humanity, though. and isn't that really what makes the whole difference? changing our behavior before it comes to that?


I dont know about what you mean about beneficial for humanity. Protecting the enivroment, developing cures and what not, maybe beneficial to humanity as a whole but people who live in thirdd wolrd countries are more concerned about surviving and getting some wealth.

To be frank, I dont think, apart from people who are too idealistic or in charge, care about "benefiting" humanity and do care more about survival, happiness and wealth.
Humanity is not a single consciousness that does X over Y. You cant blame the entirety of the human race. If wealth disparity wasnt as broad and everybody had the same education ,same culture and same kknowledge about everything, then you could go and say "Well, everybody is too greedy and doesnt care about the enviroment".


Quote:

humans think they are above nature, though. that indeed, they are wholly seperate from their environment. it is a lot like the nature of primary psychopaths; they are detached from their prey, so they can do anything at all to them, without remorse or guilt. their prey are no longer a living, breathing thing; instead, they are an object, at their disposal, however they see fit. wouldn't you agree, that there is something wrong with that? if the consistency and logic of arguments really matter, then i don't see how anyone could be for ignoring/abusing/destroying the environment as humans see fit.


Funny thing is, this behavior is natural. If you are religiouis, you might disagree but the human mind is a natural thing.
It is easy to come to terms and say that we are above nature because rich countries have overcome floods, disease, famine and what not.
Humans are also smarter than everything else in nature.
Humans are above other animals however most rich countries protect their enviroment and have national parks, poor countries are expoited.
Protecting the enviroment is in the interest of everybody, but people choose their personal well being over the enviroment.

Would you want to remain poor your entire life or would you rather start a bussiness where you pour lead into the rivers and become a millionaire? Personal well being is always a first, everything comes later, at least to those people who destroy the enviroment.
Destroying the enviroment will cause harm to everyone in the long run, but what can you do about it? You cant go against china, india,russia, brazil and what not.
You can go against the oil industry and so on. Some rich and powerful people are behind those things.


@ corr

Should we discuss how great and colorful earth day is, was? Earth day is about protecting earth. The discussion is not off rails.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 26, 2014 01:59 PM

@ seraphim: cor was referring to artu and i, not you.

i never said everyone would use their atom bombs. my statement only verified the belief that i think the human race is certainly stupid enough to use them again, only.

and, if you're really asking me if i would remain poor in my life, or pour lead in rivers to become rich... lol. there is no contest. i would stay poor. i'm poor now, really. i have no problem not having mass quantities of wealth. i wouldn't pour lead into a river, even at gunpoint. i'd tell whoever holding the gun to blow me. i'd rather die, than be a part of something like that.

there are some things some people aren't capable of. deliberately helping to ruin the environment, is one of mine. i would gladly pull the trigger on myself, before doing such a thing.

you seemed to be inquiring if i was religious. i don't believe in any god, but if i had to pick one, i'd say the natural world around me, the earth. it gives me life, and when i die, i will return to it. the natural world is beautiful, to me. i have a deep respect for it. i've had my hiccups throughout my life, and i'm certainly not perfect. i've been a real mean mother****er some of my years. but i am always trying to improve my relationship with the natural world around me.

i hold whatever gives us life, sacred. i am a firm believer that, if there is a debt, it has to be paid. if you are given something precious, then it is up to you to return that same respect, however you can. it seems, most people do not believe that nature can be a part of the philosophy. which is very grave, indeed.

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


Promising
Famous Hero
Wielding a six-string
posted April 28, 2014 01:41 PM
Edited by Locksley at 14:14, 28 Apr 2014.

Environment, technology and capitalism

The mega successful Volvo commercial with Zlatan Ibrahimovic will soon be followed by a new ad with the pop star Robyn, known for Dancing on my own, With every heartbeat, Be mine and some other songs.

Two days ago the biggest Swedish newspaper published a long interview called Life according to Robyn (published in English for her non-Swedish fans), where she talks a lot about environment, technology and capitalism.

In short, Robyn tells her story about how she as an environmentalist can make an ad for a car company.


I think the interview is a good illustration of how many positions people can move between when facing environmental problems: fear, escapism, resignation, activism and continue living as we always have - at the same time. We puzzle and puzzle to cope with living in a system we see isn't good for us and that is too big for us as individuals to change. Even pop stars with millions of fans have these troubles.

If it doesn't matter what I do, what can be done? In the everyday life I don't think it's wrong to do things that are bad for the environment because we have to, but one can work for changing the system that make one do those things. As long as there's just one bin for all kinds of waste it's ok to use it while working for introducing a new recycling system.

But what if it's not realistic to change the system in a short time? Perhaps it's necessary to also work within the system simultaneously, to make changes to it to minimize the damage? In my previous posts I've mentioned how concerned people invent and try to support green technology with political and economical means. Many like journalists, politicians, and artists try to change people's attitudes. And many individuals try to do what they can by choosing within the current systems, like going by bus instead of car even if it takes a little longer time or buying "organic" milk even if it costs more.

When a society is working for making changes within the system the aim could be to make choosing "green stuff" easier, and simply ban "bad things" as soon as we can afford to do so. Things that are too difficult to ban even in the long run because we need them as much as we do, for example cars, should be improved as much as possible.



The Robyn article is an interesting picture of how companies influence the world, or people's attitudes, through a combination of money and ideology, while also adapting to what the customers (and lawmakers limiting CO2 emissions) want them to be. But there are many questions that aren't fully anwered:

Who is fooling who, Robyn or Volvo?

Is Robyn a tool working against the environment she wants to save, or does her video contribute to make Volvo "greener"?

Is Volvo "green" already, (like Per Carleö, Volvo's head of market communications, says in the article) which would mean that Robyn is doing a "good" company a favour it deserves?

Is Robyn simply promoting herself with this video, by being seen as having environmentally sound values, while she enjoys the money she gets from Volvo?

Is it a good strategy to do a car ad, "and use it to talk about my own anxieties about the environment"?

Does the video matter or is there just "not much time to turn things around"?




The on-topic parts of the interview:

Quote:
"I've gotten more interested in technology with time. I love the philosophical aspect of science fiction, it allows you to challenge and discuss the big questions in a carefree way. Although nowadays, what with the environment, it feels like this big cloud of doom has lowered itself over humanity. We need more than a way of escaping the real world; we need to deal with the big questions. What happens if we have to abandon Earth and move to Mars? Science fiction is turning into reality".

Are you positive about our future, or does it fill you with dread?

"Dread. I don't have a lot of hope. I had more when I was younger, but not anymore. We're in pretty big trouble".

/.../

What are your thoughts?

"You start to realize that there's not much time to turn things around. There is a period in your life when you're full of initiative and can influence things. And then you start to get older and have to think about yourself, your health, all of that. And that's what it's like for everyone; we all go through that phase. You realize that mummy or daddy isn't there to tell you to stop using fossil fuels. There aren't any governments taking responsibility right now. They're all going along with the global economy".

We're the adult generation. There's no one else.
"Yeah, it feels like we need to live longer lives to have time to do anything. I have this feeling that things keep slipping through our fingers".

Has that realization changed your life?
"I think I try to live in the moment more. Just be there".



Quote:
A few days earlier I (the interviewer) had spoken to Per Carleö, Volvo's head of market communications, who has been involved in the commercial series that Robyn is a part of, along with Zlatan Ibrahimovic and Swedish House Mafia.

"She had a lot of questions about our technological and environmental projects. She called a lot of specialists in environmental technology and asked what their thoughts were. She was very involved, you could tell she cares about this" (says Per Carleö).

How much are you paying her?
"We're not even going to discuss that".


It's late afternoon back in Sörmland. Robyn serves me coffee, while she drinks tea.

Why are you making this commercial?
"That's a good question. I like Volvo. I like what they stand for. They are a Swedish company that invented the three-point safety belt, but didn't patent it because they knew that would mean fewer people could use a safer belt. Things like that. This is a commercial for a wide reaching environmental project, and after a lot of research I realized it can really make a difference".

"I like driving. I do it all the time. At the same time I'm an environmentally aware person, I know I really shouldn't be driving at all. So what can you do? This is a way of discussing the fact that right now it's impossible for us to live in an environmentally sound way. That's a problem for a lot of people, a stress factor. We're stuck in a world based on systems that are fundamentally bad for the environment, and I don't believe we should stop living, or revert to the 19th century with horses and carriages. I think technology is going to help us into a new age where we can at least limit the effects of carbon dioxide".

It's one thing to realize that we live in a world where we have to make environmentally unsound decisions. But isn't it a completely different thing to make ads for the industry?

"I'm not making this commercial because I want to take responsibility, I'm doing it because it's fun. I've been given the opportunity to film something, illustrate my music visually and make some money! But convincing myself has been a process. It's a commercial. For a car. That's it. I don't think it's my responsibility to change people's attitudes towards driving, but maybe I can make some people choose a better car".

Quote:
In a later meeting we clear up some details, talk a bit more about Röyksopp and Zhala. She also wants to make sure I've understood her correctly about the commercial.

"I don't know how clear I was, if you understood my decision to make this commercial. What did you hear me say?"

That you've wrestled with the decision, that you've spent a lot of time justifying it to yourself, and in the end came to the realization that it's both problematic and easy in different ways, and screw-it-I'm-doing-it.

"Good. I felt like I sounded more uncertain than I actually am. Because my minds made up, and I'm really enjoying it. Trust me, it wasn't an easy decision, but in the end I feel good about it. I've worked really hard and spent a lot of time working with Max to make a video that feels true to myself. I figured that I would take that commercial space, where a car ad would be anyway, and use it to talk about my own anxieties about the environment. I hope I'll be successful".

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 28, 2014 09:52 PM

she doesn't sound much like an environmentalist to me. not much more than the average person. like many of us, she probably has some concerns about ecology, she probably thinks that nature is more beautiful than concrete, but from what I understand, having fun is a higher priority for her. she somehow sounds like a product of the system, like your politicians who are concerned about ecology, but will take the direction that economy dictates them because it's easier.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 28, 2014 09:59 PM

It's not like you can abandon the the economy completely for the sake of environment.

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


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted April 28, 2014 10:54 PM

well, technically, we could. economy is virtual (well, trading is real and necessary, but the way we do it now is defined by an ideology and not really by real needs).

maybe there is also something like with religion. it's not just easier from a material point of view (or at least it seems so) to work for the system, but maybe it's also psychologically more confortable for a lot of people. the system tells them what to do and basically who they are, kinda like religion does. interestingly islam is sometimes considered one of the biggest threat to our economical system, for that reason.

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


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted April 29, 2014 01:20 AM

What are real needs according to you? I agree that capitalism motivates people to buy stuff more than they'll ever use but what you would consider useless luxury and what you would consider a decent expense is quite subjective and very much related to the conditions you've been used to, (so naturally it also depends a lot on where you were born).  American "poor" probably spends much more gas and electricity than Indian middle-class. If everybody in China starts to live like an average European, World's resources decrease drastically. So, it's almost certain that the capitalist idea of infinite growth and global expansion will get stuck, hence modified at some point. But at these levels of population, we can not simply go back to farming your yard and drinking water from a well.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 8 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0980 seconds