I wish you the best of luck in it, and I hope you can do more good than I have. The liner has hit the iceberg. Here's your teacup. Help me bail. But remember, the rich guys are having a dance up on A Deck- don't dare spill any water on their nicely shined shoes!
I hate to say it, but a good part of me could easily run away from this country. The reason? Health care, which is an issue that despite all the sturm und drang is really going nowhere. I want to live in a place where healthcare is a guaranteed right of citizenship. Nevermind the incredibly nasty culture we seemed to have built over the last 30 years.
And yet, I haven't gone anywhere, and the odds of my actually doing so are low. Why? For a simple reason: my friends. I do not want to leave them behind, and even if I moved to Canada, I would see them far, far less often then I do now.
When the producers of the world vanish from sight, all the resources in the world won't make a difference. As for pollution, what good is a pollution free world if other people make it unlivable still?
When the industrial producers vanish from sight, all the individuals and teams who can still make things will be there. We'll have some gearing up to do along the way, but technology as we know it will not vanish just because the economy went to shit.
As for pollution in general, what makes you think the problems of environmental pollution and social pollution are unrelated? You can't just regulate the problem away; you have to set in place social controls which create healthier people along the way.
I have good reason to believe that the industrial producers won't be the only kind of producers to vanish.
Existing technology will probably not vanish but it won't be growing at a fast enough pace to keep up with world ills nonetheless. For that we'd need intellectuals, ones that were true and honest to the cause of creating knowledge.
As for 'social controls', what kind are you talking about? I don't exactly support ones that infringe on our right to live, to choose how we live, and to support our lives with the values we create. Rather, protecting those things is precisely the kind of thing I do support.
I have a feeling though I'll be catching flak for being so libertarian really soon.
I find most problems are not outpaced by technology -- but the SIZE of the problems do strain the limits of our technology, and that is due largely to overpopulation.
If we could infringe on one item/freedom/right of living -- namely, breeding/population control, this would eventually allow for less impact from other exercising the rest of their rights. Would that be acceptable?
...keep in mind, our rights only exist on paper and in our ideology. My right to live won't stop a bullet from killing me. No amount of human rights will guarantee protection from the desires of the public. Rights will only be around for so long as a social order can provide for everyone's needs.
Comments 14
Reply
Reply
And yet, I haven't gone anywhere, and the odds of my actually doing so are low. Why? For a simple reason: my friends. I do not want to leave them behind, and even if I moved to Canada, I would see them far, far less often then I do now.
Reply
Reply
As for pollution in general, what makes you think the problems of environmental pollution and social pollution are unrelated? You can't just regulate the problem away; you have to set in place social controls which create healthier people along the way.
Reply
Existing technology will probably not vanish but it won't be growing at a fast enough pace to keep up with world ills nonetheless. For that we'd need intellectuals, ones that were true and honest to the cause of creating knowledge.
As for 'social controls', what kind are you talking about? I don't exactly support ones that infringe on our right to live, to choose how we live, and to support our lives with the values we create. Rather, protecting those things is precisely the kind of thing I do support.
I have a feeling though I'll be catching flak for being so libertarian really soon.
Reply
If we could infringe on one item/freedom/right of living -- namely, breeding/population control, this would eventually allow for less impact from other exercising the rest of their rights. Would that be acceptable?
...keep in mind, our rights only exist on paper and in our ideology. My right to live won't stop a bullet from killing me. No amount of human rights will guarantee protection from the desires of the public. Rights will only be around for so long as a social order can provide for everyone's needs.
Reply
Leave a comment