6 ms·

As horrible as it sounds, from the perspective of species survival, poverty is not a big issue. The globalization of culture and ideology that such a movement w

by Rhapso 11y ago

As horrible as it sounds, from the perspective of species survival, poverty is not a big issue. The globalization of culture and ideology that such a movement would impose to eradicate poverty would itself be a bigger threat to survival than poverty. Diversity of thought and culture is a huge survival benefit, and to fulfill the western fantasy of poverty eradication we would have to impose a new set of values and thoughts upon all those affected. It would have to be built on the destruction of diversity that is of higher utility than those people's welbeing. But this is admittedly, from a perspective that would be cruel to a great many people. I can see strong arguments for modifying cultures worldwide to lower poverty, but only in ways that promote that they find their own varied and unique solutions to the problems, rather than imposing a single solution.

finishingmove 11y ago
You talk about ensuring the survival of the species, yet you downplay the suffering of fellow humans. What would there be left to save if everyone thought this way?
- Rhapso 11y ago
  Not much. I'm not evangelistic about my ideals. Variety of thought, values and philosophy is a survival boon. We just need enough people to think this way, all of us would not be good. I don't want to save my ideology, i want to save the existence of any ideology.
  - finishingmove 11y ago
    Do ideologies of destruction and self-destruction get the same treatment as any other? Preserving them for the sake of preservation and diversity perhaps?
    - Rhapso 11y ago
      Yes. I hope people get the chance to re-invent slavery, racism, genocide and every other horrible thing over and over. I have strong ideas about all of those things, but they are part of what humanity is. Maybe humanity will change, maybe it wont. I want to save it either way.
- finishingmove 11y ago
  Downvoted by the HN Asperger's crew.
yongjik 11y ago
Among the list of things I'm not too worried about that could eradicate humanity or at least send it back to stone ages during the next 500 years, "terrorism" ranks above asteroids. (For example, think about genetically modified super-disease. And consider how much easier it could become to make one.) And what feeds terrorism? Poverty and injustice. Frankly, I guess I'll sound like a broken record, but if we're worried about the future then there's no bigger imminent threat than CO2. Left unchecked, every major coastal cities in the world will be underwater by 3000. * Besides, are you seriously saying that "non-Western" cultures should remain poverty-stricken so that the "Western culture" can benefit from the resulting diversity? This is wrong on so many levels.
- Rhapso 11y ago
  > * Besides, are you seriously saying that "non-Western" cultures should remain poverty-stricken so that the "Western culture" can benefit from the resulting diversity? This is wrong on so many levels. You hit the nail on the head here. The problem is not that we should or should not be helping them, but rather that we ACTIVELY and WILLFULLY base our economy on their continued poverty. I think the best thing the US could do to end poverty is exit the world economy. The problem is that our standard of living and way of life is built upon the cheap labor of impoverished countries to produce the goods we consume. I don't think western culture would benefit from such diversity. In fact the idea of diversity being a benefit is hinged upon the understanding that if western culture is not the most fit strategy, that there will be other cultures to rise when it falls. The reason that I promote colonization as a more effective strategy then trying to fix problems here is simple: - Attempting to fix problems here slightly improves the state of affairs, and reduces one of many possible causes for local extinction. - Adding even one viable colony squares the chance of loss (that is an awesome improvement) and every additional colony exponentially improves on our likelihood of survival.

by Rhapso 11y ago

finishingmove 11y ago

You talk about ensuring the survival of the species, yet you downplay the suffering of fellow humans. What would there be left to save if everyone thought this way?

Rhapso 11y ago
Not much. I'm not evangelistic about my ideals. Variety of thought, values and philosophy is a survival boon. We just need enough people to think this way, all of us would not be good. I don't want to save my ideology, i want to save the existence of any ideology.
- finishingmove 11y ago
  Do ideologies of destruction and self-destruction get the same treatment as any other? Preserving them for the sake of preservation and diversity perhaps?
  - Rhapso 11y ago
    Yes. I hope people get the chance to re-invent slavery, racism, genocide and every other horrible thing over and over. I have strong ideas about all of those things, but they are part of what humanity is. Maybe humanity will change, maybe it wont. I want to save it either way.
finishingmove 11y ago
Downvoted by the HN Asperger's crew.

yongjik 11y ago

Among the list of things I'm not too worried about that could eradicate humanity or at least send it back to stone ages during the next 500 years, "terrorism" ranks above asteroids. (For example, think about genetically modified super-disease. And consider how much easier it could become to make one.) And what feeds terrorism? Poverty and injustice. Frankly, I guess I'll sound like a broken record, but if we're worried about the future then there's no bigger imminent threat than CO2. Left unchecked, every major coastal cities in the world will be underwater by 3000. * Besides, are you seriously saying that "non-Western" cultures should remain poverty-stricken so that the "Western culture" can benefit from the resulting diversity? This is wrong on so many levels.

Rhapso 11y ago
> * Besides, are you seriously saying that "non-Western" cultures should remain poverty-stricken so that the "Western culture" can benefit from the resulting diversity? This is wrong on so many levels. You hit the nail on the head here. The problem is not that we should or should not be helping them, but rather that we ACTIVELY and WILLFULLY base our economy on their continued poverty. I think the best thing the US could do to end poverty is exit the world economy. The problem is that our standard of living and way of life is built upon the cheap labor of impoverished countries to produce the goods we consume. I don't think western culture would benefit from such diversity. In fact the idea of diversity being a benefit is hinged upon the understanding that if western culture is not the most fit strategy, that there will be other cultures to rise when it falls. The reason that I promote colonization as a more effective strategy then trying to fix problems here is simple: - Attempting to fix problems here slightly improves the state of affairs, and reduces one of many possible causes for local extinction. - Adding even one viable colony squares the chance of loss (that is an awesome improvement) and every additional colony exponentially improves on our likelihood of survival.