A simple question

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Xmo1, Jan 26, 2018.

  1. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    about the 1 percent who own the wealth and resources of Earth.
    I don't understand why people have not concluded that the global economic system, and the national economic systems that feed it are broken, and need to be fixed.

    We are not Borg, but there should be agreement on this.

    Why are people not tending to problems like over population?

    There should be global agreement that there are global problems that need to be addressed globally.

    Why is the world so screwed up?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    Because I am not running it!
    Global agreement wont change a thing even if it were possible to obtain same...implementing stratagies would be the problem.

    To get anything done you need one authority, government or person who calls the shots.

    This may produce more worries than the ones you feel need addressing.

    It is a good thing that a few people monopolize wealth..if everyone had money the system could not work...you would not work...no one would work.

    If you dont have war you cant have peace...if you dont have poverty you cant have wealth.
    Anyways tell us your plan..say you were that one person calling the shots ...how are you going to fix things and how fast..over population for example could you fix that in a week or two?
    Alex
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Bali in Nov closer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,389
    And shoot the ones who disagree

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Or the elusive benevolent dictator

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Vociferous likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    I think the answer is technocracy - the best people in their fields collaborating to take care of people. The collaborative effort should determine resource usage. The focus should be humanitarian, but also to do what is best to grow and sustain life on this planet. I can easily imagine a more Herculean task, such as taking care of life on a planet the size of the sun. Here, it's a matter of scale. Given the state of technical communications I think it is not only possible to do it, but incumbent on us all to use these new resources as the caretakers of life on Earth. Social systems should take care of people, not kill them. They should grow resources, not deplete them.

    The first thing to address, I think, are the global economic systems. No one should have to ask who is going to pay for something that benefits life. I just read where a city declared it illegal to feed hungry people in a public park.

    I also have a picture of housing at Fort Hood, TX. It looks like an anthill, and is borderline nauseating. Those folks should live near our territorial borders, and around our cities to be called upon for both military and humanitarian actions. Today, the homes available to them serve no one more than the developers who are getting a quarter mil a pop for these sub-standard plaster boxes. So this is a readily identifiable problem, as are most problems that deal with large populations of humans. Smart people should have the resources to make things more sensible, and humans should not be governed by what is economical, but rather what is best for life.

    Human Migration - we should be taking care of people that migrate, not increasing the difficulty of their movement. If there is an act of God it should be mitigated. If there is war it should be stopped. If there is famine food should be provided. If the economic systems are causing hardships, then they should be re-engineered. If these efforts are encumbered, or limited then that is only adding a problem. None of these difficulties require rocket science, and I think if they are not addressed properly then we are the guilty parties.

    How do we deal with overpopulation? Again, the experts provide the solutions. My guess would be that our civil buildings should radiate from our knowledge. Schools and hospitals, among others, should be central to our cities. Our primary care, housing, and feeding systems should be central to education systems. What do we have in most cities? We have bureaucracies that say you are only someone if you have an ID. They teach no one. Bureaucracy belongs in the cloud if anywhere, not at the heart of our cities. We need to get some perspective, because war and money have blinded our systems to what is important - life on planet Earth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  8. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
  9. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    I believe here is a commonly cited platitude that addresses this:

    There's no doubt that Capitalism and Free Market Economy are a broken system; it's just that it's less broken than all the other systems.

    i.e. it's one thing to assert that something is busted - quite another to come up with a solution that's as good as, let alone better.
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    It is often those 1% that bring modern standards of living to developing peoples. If you distributed everything equally, no one would have enough for large projects such as school systems and infrastructure projects.

    So come to Canada!
    Or, if you can't do that, get involved in your county's politics and urge a more socialistic form of government.

    For Pete's Sake, at least healthcare should be universal!

    Or, rather than giving them handouts, why not encourage the into the system where they can make their own money and become more contributive to society.

    Why is it nauseating? It doesn't appeal to your sense of aesthetics?

    Those people have homes that they could not otherwise afford if they were surrounded by ponds and parks and greenery.


    So, conscription? That's your solution?

    So, raise the standard until many lower-income people can't afford them?
    Seems to me, the first step in making a better world is to put rooves over peoples' heads.

    And they are. That's what States of Emergency are for.

    By whom? America? It has not worked so well when they've stepped in before.
    Whose side do you constrict? Often, both sides feel they are the oppressed. Would you stop the Palestinians wanting their land back? Or the Isrealites?

    Sure. How?
     
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    Is that not our current system?
    Who involved would not say that is what they do.
    Think about it.
    Ask the richest man I bet he will see his role as important and contributing to the system as best he can.
    You care and that is wonderful.
    We need a God and nothing less could manage the problems.
    Certainly humans are too greedy for your noble thoughts to gain ground.
    The world is what it is...
    It is a pity that a country like USA does not show free education, health care and a living wage even if out of work all to be a basic human right.
    It is a pity that very rich folk believe they have the right to huge wealth but thats the game at the moment.

    Fancy making it illegal to feed another human..that is yreating them like animals..dont feed the animals you will only attract them...strange and I bet those promoting the law are good religious folk or could they be athiest...any clues as to who ptesented such a law?

    Building utopia is not easy but its fun to try.
    Again how would you cure over population and this time I will give you thirty years.
    How would you manage wealth redistribution and agaon I give you thirty years...each problem solve it...

    Alex
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    You are correct..not that is what I advocate...publically.

    But change of the magnitude we touch upon is revolution...revolution unfortunately has two ingredients...first the change which requires force and removing the old guard, the death rates can be observed in the various revolutions thru history..it is part of the game.

    Always nasty.

    Secondly and separate to the first wave of killings a revolution has a period known as a reign of terror...in this time folk who seem stuck in the old ways are liquidated both to remove them and to convince those who remain that things will never go back to the way they were.

    ..a reign of terror may head off a counter revolution which also is on the cards..more deaths which ever way it goes...it's just the way it is sadly...

    Dramatic social change will never be easy if you want things to change fast...say reducing population...it will take centuries if done nicely if at all but more probably population may reduce thru massive die offs...it will hurt.
    But reducing population even by ten percent is near impossible...I will leave it for folk to work out just how many such a modest figure translates to numbers of humans.
    Even a wsr and a couple of plagues wont see those numbers...so we will only become more.

    Alex
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2018
  13. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    I've read to #9. I'm researching. Technocracy has history. Humanism has history. How's this sound: Terrestrialists Movement for a Humanitarian Technocracy (TMHT)? The word Global (ist, ism, et al) has been taken, hence terrestrial (ist, ism, etc.). I think it's time to replace social Darwinism that abhors the one constant in the universe (change) with something more reasonable and intelligent.

    Why I detest the housing - I can easily imagine better. Not a wall across the borders, but people employed by the government living in strong homes of their own design on a few acres of land. It's all about land isn't it. They should get some, and it should be significant, not an eighth of an acre with homes built of the cheapest wood possible and staples. That's an affront to dignity at best. Why should they be different, because they fought for it. So why not be at least strategic about it. Side on that - modern architecture makes me smile. This stuff is garbage.

    Sorry, got to read and scoot. Just wanted to say thanks for the responses.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    You can imagine better!
    Well, problem solved!

    And that won't cost any more than what they paid for these cookie cutters?
    That would be an impressive feat. How do you propose to do that on the same budget?
    If I can get a house of my own design for the same thing I'm paying now, could I get a discount if I use the bloops of my neighbour? I think I'd rather have a much smaller mortgage than a prettier house.
    I'll bet all my neighbours would too.
    And do you know what would happen then?
    We'd all be living in identical houses, but because of your inexpensive engineering breakthroughs, they would be half the cost!
     
  15. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    I'm sorry. You're thinking WAY inside the box. You call it reality. I call it travesty. Talk to some material scientists, and some chemists. Find the possibilities and overcome the difficulties. See past your own limitations. Two heads are better than one. That's a fact, and it translates as well economically as it does with any other focus. Again, I pause. There's a thread in the Architecture and Engineering forum titled my ideal architecture.
     
  16. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    I'm finding it hard not to be glib.

    Oh is that how it's done! You're the first person to think of that.
    All this time, engineers have been consulting flower-arrangers and sheep-shearers.
    But no longer!


    Wow. That really solves the problem! Overcome difficulties and seeing past limitations are not things anyone has thought of before.
    But you did!

    All this time, architects have been holed up in their towers, working decades in solitude.



    I am reminded of a sure-fire way to become a billionaire:

    Be really smart and make lots of money, and you will surely be a billionaire.


    Like your statements, above, this is called a truism. Truisms are trivially true. They sound lovely but are content-free.
     
  17. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,959
    Invent better clothing and everyone can live outside...except when they need to be inside.
    If there is anything that is neat about humans its their ability to build houses.
    If one is not happy with ehat is avaiable build your design...if they wont let you it may be your lucky day.
    Alex
     
  18. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    So you're an idealist.

    I have a sketchbook full of sketches in which I've imagined futuristic, utopic cityscapes and sustainable communities.

    Like yours, they're lovely, but I know they will never get built. Because they're idealisms, Meaning they don't take into account practicalities such as budgets and regulations.
     
  19. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    I could have posted this in biology but: They haven't cured the flu and hiv, (commas!) because they have decided that the problems cannot be solved. Not said is; by their group of minds. Exterminating viruii is easy. They all have a protocol, and it's just a matter of interrupting that protocol with an appropriate method. I think they just have too much information today, and it interferes with their ability to find the simple solutions. Virii are not difficult to crack. If nothing else set the hackers on it. Some 15yr old should be able to ...

    And with regard Ft. Hood: They should give each battalion, or whatever 3-4 acres for each soldier who has a family. And, because the sentence would be too long, make sure they have a base automobile, decent home, and the ability and functionality to feed their children, medical care, and anything else they might need to comfortably exist, instead of - throwing the money at the developer(s) of this ugh 'lack of imagination.'
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  20. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
  21. Xmo1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    483
    Mountains and caves make excellent, nearly ready made, living areas. The windward side is for natural growth. The leeward sides of mountains could support hydroponics, with most of the natural resources to construct them mined right from the mountain itself. Caves are ready made storage areas. Big cities are NOT the answer for intelligent living. They are the answer for savages who will eventually cause their own extinction by populating themselves into starvation, and in the meanwhile wounding (ripping; Check out these guns bro!) themselves in competitive struggles. Doesn't the phrase 'competitive struggles' give people a clue? They are a waste of energy that could be used in constructive behaviors.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2018
  22. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,175
    Caves are cold and damp. Cities are ecologically superior to any other mode of living.
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,443
    And yet, only a vanishingly small number of people choose to live in them

    And yet that has been the trend since we could first make our own accommodations.

    Wild speculation. It's worked for dozens of millennia now. It stopping working is baseless.

    Rome grew and fell, and yet it did not extinct humans and it did not stop them from rebuilding cities.
     

Share This Page