5 ms·

I detect a veiled authoritarian tendency in your posts, or I may be reading it wrongly. What I read between the lines is that cooperation and coordination on t

I detect a veiled authoritarian tendency in your posts, or I may be reading it wrongly. What I read between the lines is that cooperation and coordination on topics such as global warming are only possible with a dominant west? As a person with western origin I would not want the west to falter or disappear - don’t get me wrong. But the west does not own the key to bringing good into the world. Is the assertion of western global dominance the only way to solve world problems? My question is not rhetorical. Just grappling with this question should be productive.

Chris2048 3y ago
I detect a veiled personal attack, stay on topic and keep it civil please. I didn't offer any labels for myself, nor subscribe to them. I don't provide any blueprint for successful cooperation, I'm just saying increasing the wealth of any random nation for the sake of it (or something about equality) ignoring context or impact doesn't make sense. It didn't need to be "the west", and many would consider Russia to be western, it just needs to be a political unit capable of progress on issues of the commons.
- shswkna 3y ago
  I have heard that angle of argument recently (that distribution/diversity for the sake of it is not inherently better) and must concede it is worth considering. But in this case, it is about actual companies that have been successful and proven it. That in itself is rather a celebration of the western concept that ideas and the private pursuit of them can yield successful outcomes that are an improvement to the world vs. them not being there.
- danbruc 3y ago
  Increasing the wealth of a random nation for the sake of it? Or something about equality? Seriously? Would you say the same thing if you were on the less wealthy side? No worries, it is fine to be poor, I understand that this is necessary to keep the world turning.
  - Chris2048 3y ago
    is "less wealthy" and "poor" the same thing? Is the wealth of a nation the same as equality of wealth within that nation? These are actual questions i'd specifically want you to answer, since you seems not to be engaging in good faith.

Chris2048 3y ago

I detect a veiled personal attack, stay on topic and keep it civil please. I didn't offer any labels for myself, nor subscribe to them. I don't provide any blueprint for successful cooperation, I'm just saying increasing the wealth of any random nation for the sake of it (or something about equality) ignoring context or impact doesn't make sense. It didn't need to be "the west", and many would consider Russia to be western, it just needs to be a political unit capable of progress on issues of the commons.

shswkna 3y ago
I have heard that angle of argument recently (that distribution/diversity for the sake of it is not inherently better) and must concede it is worth considering. But in this case, it is about actual companies that have been successful and proven it. That in itself is rather a celebration of the western concept that ideas and the private pursuit of them can yield successful outcomes that are an improvement to the world vs. them not being there.
danbruc 3y ago
Increasing the wealth of a random nation for the sake of it? Or something about equality? Seriously? Would you say the same thing if you were on the less wealthy side? No worries, it is fine to be poor, I understand that this is necessary to keep the world turning.
- Chris2048 3y ago
  is "less wealthy" and "poor" the same thing? Is the wealth of a nation the same as equality of wealth within that nation? These are actual questions i'd specifically want you to answer, since you seems not to be engaging in good faith.