Greed Based Systems and Alternatives

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

there is great wealth disparity, but even the unwealthy don't generally have it that bad.

The rich don't have it that good either. They just have more of the not-that-bad stuff.
That's 'cause the damned poor folk are the reliable demographic and advancement matters less than profits.
That's 'cause they want to be one of the people who has lots of not-that-bad stuff.

Fags.

[Risen]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

That's the problem, isn't it. READ the threads in which at least myself discussed the reverse of that argument. Go bump the thread if you want Because there is no consensus among ACTUAL scientists that humans cause global warming. It's a lie.

Man you're going to love when they reform the world economy and start implementing their carbon credit taxes on people. The day has come where we can finally be charged for the air we exhale...

[whatever]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

And how many millions would die if we halted industry? If it wasn't for 'pollution', we wouldn't be living the cozy lives that we are today. We'd be too busy trying to survive to complain about the 'monster' we created.

It's fun to let one's Ne run away looking at it from either angle

which is more dangerous? industry or lack thereof?

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by whatever

which is more dangerous? industry or lack thereof

That's an easy one. How many warm bodies do you want? Industry is unnecessary for the healthy satisfied survival of 1/10 the current population, but we need it for maintenance now.

[whatever]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

That's an easy one. How many warm bodies do you want? Industry is unnecessary for the healthy satisfied survival of 1/10 the current population, but we need it for maintenance now.

brilliant

[Anja]

Originally Posted by pure_mercury

I am not in favor of a "pollution tax" or "carbon tax" or whatever you would call it. I am in favor of making entities who do pollute subject to clean up their own messes and/or be sued into oblivion by the people affected by their misdeeds.

Got it.

[colmena]

[quote]There are plenty of indigenous tribes that don't harm one another./QUOTE]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

I'd like to see a few examples - they were extremely rare. Most peace was transient, at best, and only isolationist tribes, by definition, weren't normally in conflict.

Yes, it's true that the chance for peace is much higher in isolationist tribes; in the mountains, or on islands etc. Many Amazonian tribes, however, have had great success in splitting up colonies when problems arise. There's also the factor of places like the Amazonian region being so vast and relatively sparse in population, that it's very unlikely that two different colonies would have to meet.

Tribes such as the infamous Huaorani live relatively stress free lives.

The most presumed peaceful tribe that I saw (on Tribe) were the Anuta of the Solomon islands. Here's an article on them:
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Harmony thrives in Pacific isolation

It is one of the world's most remote islands but has a community spirit that is almost utopian, reports Huw Cordey from Anuta in the Pacific.

The Layap of Bhutan are a mostly Tibetan Buddhist peoples that wouldn't harm a leech on their donkey, let alone chastise their neighbor. Since the '80s, however, the Layap have had closer trade ties, so it will be interesting to see what happens to the communities. Although the ones higher up, who are most accustomed to the air pressure, have been left alone, pretty much.

Generally where there is abundance and isolation, indigenous peoples have thrived (and vice versa, unfortunately).

You can d/l a few episodes of tribe from this user:
makuanito Profile | Veoh Video Network

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by colmena

Generally where there is abundance and isolation, indigenous peoples have thrived (and vice versa, unfortunately).

We can definitely agree with that (and thank you for the link - I'll look into it tonight!).

That's exactly why I take the stance I do, however. If the modern world has a weak spot, it is in cataclysmic change. Environmental, resources, tribal... these tendencies need to be managed better than they are.

Even in the last 500 years, these issues have dominated the world. But now, in the present (ie: ~50 years or less), if things go up in smoke, it'll be because everything is burning. I really would like to see better controls over the known igniters.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by ptgatsby

Environmental, resources, tribal... these tendencies need to be managed better than they are.

Yet they never will be and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Yet they never will be and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Really? Then the free market is the ideal, and the only option...?

Funny that it doesn't seem to have been the standard over the last 50,000 years. Things advance, things change, understanding changes.