3 ms·

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" r

by 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 yongjik 11y ago

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.