2 ms·
If we agree that both scenarios are equally dystopian, perhaps this suggests that we as a society need a far more creative solution than the ones we're currentl
by gyardley 16y ago
If we agree that both scenarios are equally dystopian, perhaps this suggests that we as a society need a far more creative solution than the ones we're currently squabbling about - instead of trying to implement one or another path to a dystopian outcome. No need to rush headlong into a mistake.
- khafra 16y agoThey aren't equally dystopian, they're dystopian to vastly different degrees. The current situation is an unsustainable disaster for millions of people, which is why many of us aren't content to let things stagnate while we think about it for another 3 presidential terms. I actually agree with you that we're rushing headlong into a mistake; I just think it's a lesser mistake than the one we're rushing headlong from.
- corruption 16y agoI definitely do not agree they are equally dystopian. In the "pay for yourself" dystopia, the poor and uneducated continue to eat poorly and die early, horrible deaths. [I know this is hyperbole, but is somewhat supported by literature on type II diabetes risks etc] In the "tax the risk" dystopia, the poor and uneducated are essentially given a prodding to make better choices, while still leaving that choice as an option. In the current system the true cost of poor choices is deferred onto the rest of the population. We currently all pay the tax for poor choices of individuals. This gives no real incentive to change behaviour, and given what we know about ego:willpower interactions doesn't help a large portion of the population.