3 ms·

Encouraging societal contributions is valid, but let's remember that poverty often results from systemic issues. Compassion and kindness are key. Having a job

• pc_edwin 3y ago
  Yes having a job almost guarantees a positive contribution to society. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of modern humanity, without it we'll still be share cropping for feudal lords (if we are lucky). Sweatshops pull millions out of dire poverty. Nobody willingly works at sweatshops out of an abundance of options. Tobacco hires millions of people and makes a huge impact to world wide productivity. Its an extremely powerful stimulant (& nootropic) that arguably fuelled the industrial revolution. Planned Obsolescence creates millions of jobs and increases product accessibility to the under privileged. Arms manufacturing prevents permanent global conflicts and bloodshed. You don't attack an adversary may be able put up a formidable defence. Pre 20th century world was full of permanent conflicts enabled by technology/weaponry asymmetry. Maybe you forgot include positive impacts of all these things before subtracting the negatives. It appears, every example you just gave is a net positive to society on balance.
  • myshpa 3y ago
    While some industries may create jobs initially, they often do so at the expense of exploiting vulnerable populations and perpetuating systemic poverty and inequality. Take planned obsolescence, for example. While products might be cheaper upfront, they break down quickly, costing consumers more in the long run and wasting resources. Fossil fuels and sweatshops might offer employment, but they frequently exploit workers and contribute to ongoing poverty. Additionally, the tobacco industry and arms manufacturing has caused countless deaths and health issues. None of those examples is a net positive to society. But you'll choose not to see that, I'm sure.
    • pc_edwin 3y ago
      Its not that your claims are false, they appear to be mostly correct. My original point was that its a net positive despite those negatives. It comes down to Chesterton's Fence which basically suggests we shouldn't get rid of something until we have some idea of why it was put there to start with. It used to be really ugly. Exploitation, slavery, tyranny and worse were the norm. The only business in town was survival where both the price and churn was high. Señor Dang wont let me truly express myself here so I suggest you do your own research because its really hard put in short polite words how bad things used to be. Compounding entropy is the default for human affairs. Everything you see around is so precious and fickle, all of it was hard fought and won over generations. While we should strive to continually improve our bargain with nature, the ideas you and your kin share will bring about the end of modern civilisation as we know it. You guys don't just want to make incremental change, you want root control over the system to rm -rf inequality, poverty, racism, xenophobia.. When in reality these are crucial underpinnings of civilisation. There is no equality between me and Usain bolt. John Carmack has probably forgotten more about programming then I know. This is where it ties back to Chestertons Fence, you can't just rm -rf stuff you don't understand. John Carmack talents are exploitive and is making feel very not equal (Victim™). The NBA is the most racist organisation in America for hiring 73% blacks whilst only 13% of America is black. The nation state experiment (borders) is by definition xenophobic. The biggest perpetuator of systemic poverty and inequality is collectivism. Its inflation. Its embedded growth obligations. Its byzantine regulations. I suggest you look into the Cantillon effect, IMF & World Bank Expolitation by Alex Gladstein etc.
      • myshpa 3y ago
        > we shouldn't get rid of something until we have some idea of why it was put there to start with Right, Chesterton's Fence doesn't mean we shouldn't change, but that we should understand before doing so. And we do understand, which is why there's a push for change. > I suggest you do your own research I did, I know. I also know that these things could be back again, and soon. > so precious and fickle, all of it was hard fought and won over generations “When you grow up, you tend to get told that the world is the way it is, your life is just to live your life inside the world, try not to bash into the walls too much, try to have a nice family, have fun, save a little money. That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader, once you discover one simple fact, and that is that everything around you that you call life was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again.” > the ideas you and your kin share will bring about the end of modern civilisation as we know it We're already over the edge, and instead of trying to slow down our fall, we're accelerating even faster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272418379_The_Trajectory_of_the_Anthropocene_The_Great_Acceleration https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272418379_The_Traje... > inequality, poverty, racism, xenophobia.. When in reality these are crucial underpinnings of civilisation These aren't necessary components for a society to thrive and progress. It's crucial to differentiate between describing what has often occurred in history and prescribing what ought to be or what is ethically right for the future. > You guys don't just want to make incremental change, you want root control over the system > The biggest perpetuator of systemic poverty and inequality is collectivism. Its inflation. Its embedded growth obligations. Its byzantine regulations. I suggest you look into the Cantillon effect, IMF & World Bank Expolitation by Alex Gladstein etc. Do you really believe these kinds of problems can be solved by incremental change?