If you want to talk about natural selection and the human population, yes it's not "natural", but in a detached way of looking at it, "the rich will thrive; the poor will die". Thinking of it, not in a humanist but as purely through science, this could be a good thing. Think of what happens when deer are overpopulated. It's true that hunting is a violent "sport", but without it deer will starve to death and can result in the death of the species. ..in a strange way, it reminds me of socialism. It's a "nice" dream, but people become unhappy and it falls apart.
The idea of the destruction of the species caused by it's "inhumanity" will not be because of the third world countries, unless it's a super-virus. What is scary is the developing countries who can get their hands on nukes. Bitter and blaming (either justified of unjustified- doesn't matter), these are the people who could start the mass genocide needed for the obliteration of everything. (like "good" humans, we're taking everything with us if we die. ...in a sense)
As far as wealth is concerned, i think it's hard, if not impossible, to define what is rich and what is "enough" to redistribute. I don't think barging down Clint Eastwood's door and demanding give more of his money is fair. It's called taxes. I know people don't think it's enough, but what if "rich" defined our class status (college students). We don't see ourselves as rich, but then we can also order out for pizzas if we are desperate. We may actually consider ourselves as poor, but then we are able to go to the movies and out to eat. But if one said "give up a third of what you have to the poor", many student's would bulk and say they need the money. It may be true, it may not be. But in a socialist world, this would be fair. And there is also a difference between old and new money, people who are born into it and people who work their ass off. America says there is a difference between the two, but i'm sure other cultures may say they are the same (or perhaps equally as "evil"). I think capitalism is a good way (not the best, but "good") of dividing goods up. However, we need people who are liberal in their thinking to balance it out. We don't want to see people starving on the streets or homeless. THere must be things in place to catch them. However, i don't think as naturally sinful people, this will be our undoing. I haven't seen a country's policy i liked better. Cuba has completely free healthcare, but live on a very poor standard of living. :/
As far as the puppies go, you want them to have children? I'm thrilled they're having puppies. The more power to 'em. I think America's populated enough as is.
Laura is Smart...ayla_britestarFebruary 12 2005, 16:24:53 UTC
Well, Laura, what can I say in response to your intelligent comment? You're right, I guess- the rich thrive, the poor will die. It would be pretty unreasonable to demand more philanthropy from the rich. I just can't comprehend the celebrites' spending. It's so excessive- I can't imagine wasting all that money on all that stuff. I say this now, but I wonder if my ideals would hold up if I were a wealthy Hollywood-ite. I hope so! Due to circumstances and my dream of being a teacher, I sincerely doubt I'll be forced to put my convictions to the test!
And as far as the dogs go, yes, better a dog than a kid, but why not an exotic fish or bird? That would be a cooler pet than some silly little dog.
The idea of the destruction of the species caused by it's "inhumanity" will not be because of the third world countries, unless it's a super-virus. What is scary is the developing countries who can get their hands on nukes. Bitter and blaming (either justified of unjustified- doesn't matter), these are the people who could start the mass genocide needed for the obliteration of everything. (like "good" humans, we're taking everything with us if we die. ...in a sense)
As far as wealth is concerned, i think it's hard, if not impossible, to define what is rich and what is "enough" to redistribute. I don't think barging down Clint Eastwood's door and demanding give more of his money is fair. It's called taxes. I know people don't think it's enough, but what if "rich" defined our class status (college students). We don't see ourselves as rich, but then we can also order out for pizzas if we are desperate. We may actually consider ourselves as poor, but then we are able to go to the movies and out to eat. But if one said "give up a third of what you have to the poor", many student's would bulk and say they need the money. It may be true, it may not be. But in a socialist world, this would be fair. And there is also a difference between old and new money, people who are born into it and people who work their ass off. America says there is a difference between the two, but i'm sure other cultures may say they are the same (or perhaps equally as "evil"). I think capitalism is a good way (not the best, but "good") of dividing goods up. However, we need people who are liberal in their thinking to balance it out. We don't want to see people starving on the streets or homeless. THere must be things in place to catch them. However, i don't think as naturally sinful people, this will be our undoing. I haven't seen a country's policy i liked better. Cuba has completely free healthcare, but live on a very poor standard of living. :/
As far as the puppies go, you want them to have children? I'm thrilled they're having puppies. The more power to 'em. I think America's populated enough as is.
Reply
And as far as the dogs go, yes, better a dog than a kid, but why not an exotic fish or bird? That would be a cooler pet than some silly little dog.
Reply
Leave a comment