[Closed] are you part of the problem or part of the solution..?

[s]link pls

edit:Cheers

I decided to ignore the occupy movement as soon as I discovered they think they can feed the world off organic food.

Yes, they are a bunch of hippie scum.

I am sure you will be very happy living in you Murdoch media controlled world.

organic food.

eeurrrgh.. dirty swine!! send 'em to Guantanamo

[img] [/img]

😉

eeurrrgh.. dirty swine..! send 'em to Guantanamo

I'd rather use them to fill mass graves.

As such I propose assisted suicide as their method for delivering us a world in which we can feed ourselves sustainably with organic crops. They can start with themselves first.

Label someone, group them, distinguish from or to oneself, repeat.

^ Works easier with numpties who aren't brave enough to swim against the tide.

Some rich people are good.
Some poor people are good.

They decided to label themselves by releasing a group manifesto, if you support the movement as a whole you support certain policies within that movement. Some of their policies are downright dangerous for developing third world nations.

Please read the Guardian for further information.

I'd rather use them to fill mass graves.

a very wasteful suggestion from the great uncultured hope there..

use for them for burgers at least

They can start with themselves first.

Death by tautology? 😉

Bunch of hippies.
I was once one (it was 'Stop The City' in my day).

It's doubtful what effect we had or they will have but it is the job of optimistic, idealistic youth to do this sort of thing.

use for them for burgers at least

Would they be vegetarian?

😉

Please read the Guardian for further information.

Would they be vegetarian?

They certainly wouldn't be organic with all the semi-synthetic/synthetic drugs that have probably kept the majority of them from dying soon after they were born or during childhood.

The moment you are born you are part of the problem.

The rest of your life is to minimise damage to all ... 🙄

Initially, occupy sounded good. I'm all for a bit of anti greed then it seemed to get hijacked by the crusties and it turned all leftie and anti capitalist, which is just dumb in my opinion. I won't shed any tears if the rozzers give em a hiding.

optimistic, idealistic youth

Pre-mortgage. Lucky bastards. Good on them. As long as balance prevails.

Shoot yourself then Chewkw! Do us a favour if the malthusians are correct and you care so much about being a problem.

I for one could not give a **** about nature (one that riddled us with disease and strife as hunter gatherers) as long as the planet is well enough for us to survive and is in as good a condition as it needs to be to keep us mentally happy.

So, were you to watch all of that video above then you end up with a list of a further three videos, one of which may cause the swear filter to have a fit 🙂

and point taken yunki although the usual pinch of salt with this sort of vid has to be taken as well

Some of their policies are downright dangerous for developing third world nations.

Every human being should have access to an adequate income for their livelihood, so we ask for work or, alternatively, universal basic income guarantee.

And how do they plan to get that with organic farming?

They could probably get sustainable food security with a more limited effect of the environment or even a reduction in agricultural space by going GM.

Funnily enough.... capitalism is doing a damn good job of funding GMO's (if it hadn't been stalled by activists Africa would have less food security issues by now) and of slowly lifting people out of poverty in some second world nations such as China.

Would a universal income not destroy the competitiveness of these countries and so stop investment that eventually leads to wage hikes?

Fools, fools and more fools.

Thanks for that. Well made film. I thought the chap at the start was fairly pointless, but the woman talking later about political policing was nicely eloquent.

How many have starved to death or died from preventable [ but non profitable to treat] diseases during this "damn good" time of capitalism?

so stop investment that eventually leads to [s]wage hikes?[/s]the west exploiting their resources and people to make even greater profit and export this wealth from the country to help keep fat cat westerners rich

How many have starved to death or died from preventable [ but non profitable to treat] diseases during this "damn good" time of capitalism?

How many starved to death in the USSR. Quite a few. I think more people will starve to death if their country is made uncompetitive by a universal minimum wage.

Had the greens not effectively stopped GMO crops being introduced into African nations, far fewer people would have died from starvation today. Oh but they are nice hippies, so we should respect that? They obviously don't want people to starve, peace and harmony and all that maan. But when science find's a way, no sorry you can't have that. We'll let you starve until we find a political solution.

bwaarp - Member

Shoot yourself then Chewkw! Do us a favour if the malthusians are correct and you care so much about being a problem.

I for one could not give a **** about nature (one that riddled us with disease and strife as hunter gatherers) as long as the planet is well enough for us to survive and is in as good a condition as it needs to be to keep us mentally happy.

So you think he is wrong then ... hhhhmmmm .... 😆

For you to enjoy the world or do as you like the population will naturally cull themselves to free up more space because that's just the nature of things ... so you see you don't have to be concern about the nature.

Junkyard, if capitalism is that awful, who made your computer? Etc. 😉

OK, so it's not perfect and yes, many, many people in the developing world continue to suffer, but I'd argue that the benefits of capitalism have helped those regions more than hindered. Education, medicine, transportation, communication, food, etc, etc, etc. It's not all rapacious greed-mongers like Apple, you know.

For you to enjoy the world or do as you like the population will naturally cull themselves to free up more space because that's just nature of things ... so you see you don't have to concern about the nature.

Or technology will improve giving everyone more food and better living standards. Can't have that though can we, you'd rather let people starve to death or enter forced sterilization programs than prosper and multiply due to technological advancements pushed by capitalism. All because a few to many daffodils are being trampled and you want a little more space to enjoy the countryside.

I think it's funny that the "we are the 99%" mob are the 1% compared to the rest of the world's population.

bwaarp - Member

Or technology will improve giving everyone more food and better living standards. Can't have that though can we, you'd rather let people starve to death or enter forced sterilization programs than prosper and multiply due to technological advancements pushed by capitalism. All because a few to many daffodils are being trampled and you want a little more space to enjoy the countryside.

😆 So you define the living standard for those Amazon Indians? Should Amazon Indians be using iPhone and iPad? Do you wish to have the world in your image or live according to your lifestyle?

So you define the living standard for those Amazon Indians? Should Amazon Indians be using iPhone and iPad? Do you wish to have the world in your image or live according to your lifestyle?

Who say's I have an Ipad? Although I might buy an a smart phone that sources it's production from a Chinese company that pays a half decent wage, that way I'm supporting a developing nation. No but I would generally say for the majority of people discounting certain tribes there is a basic minimum living standard. So if they want good medical care, food security, good housing, good education, clean water and access to the internet then they should be allowed.

Regulated capitalism that does not abuse those people can do just that.

Flash are you actually trying to make a point there and not just snipe 😉

Capitalism does nothing unless it can profit from it. there is no profit in helping poor people so they live in poverty, die from preventable disease and starve. where it does help it employs people to make a profit and for no other reason [ its about the shareholders silly not the workers ]. It is not hard to think of a method of making the world fairer even if you keep the current system but you wont make money doing it.

Capitalism does nothing unless it can profit from it. there is no profit in helping poor people so they live in poverty

Yes but generally if one can make a country stable enough then capitalism can be used to develop that country. The Philippines and other Asian countries are good examples of a countries that is slowly climbing it's way out of social poverty, through capitalism. If the Phillipines were not so corrupt and slightly more socialist then it would do even better. The point I'm making is that if you swing to far in one direction, socialism or unregulated capitalism then you will get poverty.

Once China move's away from an industry based economy it will move it's industry to Africa. It's a giant pass the parcel game that has yet to be completed.

How do you think the vaccines for preventing disease are developed? Hippies giving their money away to big pharma? Nooooooooo.

bwaarp - Member
So if they want good medical care, food security, good housing, good education and access to the internet then they should be allowed.

Regulated capitalism that does not abuse those people can do just that.

😆 Are you saying they are not content with their lifestyle? They have everything but then you come along and define what's good for them then ... you see ... you cull them in your image. You then called it regulated capitalism for greater good ...

Are you saying they are not content with their lifestyle? They have everything but then you come along and define what's good for them then ... you see ... you cull them in your image. You then called it regulated capitalism for greater good ...

Generally if you read about or talk to these people they want food, water and good education to improve the lives of their children. So... I'm not being Mr White man colonialist who expects they want the same lifestyle as me. You assume they are savages who know no better; that because they are desperately poor they know little better and want little more. You believe that they cannot think for themselves, this is racism at it's finest.

I am not talking about Amazonian tribes who have good access to food.

yunki, thanks for the link.

bwaarp - Member

Generally if you read about or talk to these people they want food, water and good education to improve the lives of their children. So... I'm not being Mr White man colonialist who expects they want the same lifestyle as me. You assume they are savages who know no better, that because they are desperately poor they know little better and want little more.

Nope. Nothing to do with Mr White there but then Mr White just quicken the pace of consumption that's all.

Yes, many people want better life only if they are trained to be consumers otherwise they might simply be content with what they already have ... only for a while until they get extremely bore.

I am not talking about Amazonian tribes who have good access to food.

Ya, they have good access to food and they will adapt too in future but their stress free lifestyle will be gone once "civilisation" catch up on them ...

Encountered the Occupy mob in Edinburgh, pretty horrible bunch of people.

Caused large amounts of problems for a large amount of people, none of whom worked for the banks. Selfish, hypocrites in my experience.

Nope. Nothing to do with Mr White there but then Mr White just quicken the pace of consumption that's all.

Yes, many people want better life only if they are trained to be consumers otherwise they might simply be content with what they already have ... only for a while until they get extremely bore.

So you are saying the strive for food, an education to supply food and water in the next generation and clean living standards is a consumerist ideal?

I think you've shown your true colours there. Would you rather humanity didn't exist so that the birds can carry on competing with each other until one species becomes massively dominant at the expense of the others?

Consumption drives demand, which drives the demand for labour, which creates wealth, which gives people access to food security. Once one resource become limited, demand and capitalism drives technological advancements that open new avenues for the creation of wealth.

I have no solution Yunki, I don't even have sound on my computer to watch that, but I do try and think about what relevance and what I can do in little small parts try and do your bit? - send some cash to our local charity and watch my legs burn in the rain across Wales guys n gals! I'd really appreciate it if someone gave some cash for this hospice. cheers. http://www.justgiving.com/KevJimLonLas

OK, so it's not perfect and yes, many, many [s]people in the developing world continue to suffer, but I'd argue that the benefits of capitalism have helped those regions more than hindered. Education, medicine, transportation, communication, food, etc, etc, etc.[/s] yadda yadda bollocks yadda yer mum has no class bollocks yadda [s]It's not all rapacious greed-mongers like Apple, you know[/s] irrelevant but obvious unfunnyism about Apple

And that there is one of the weakest defences of a broken system you'll hear...for the next hour or so anyway. Jesus wept.

And that there is one of the weakest defences of a broken system you'll hear...for the next hour or so anyway. Jesus wept.

One of the weakest rebuttals I've ever heard. Jesus Wept.

The Occupy movement would have us live in a global version of Zimbabwe.

I jest.

In all seriousness capitalism would still exist under the occupy movements manifesto, it would just be heavily regulated. Not something I disagree with... but I disagree with much of the fine print in their manifesto.

So you are saying the strive for food, an education to supply food and water in the next generation and clean living standards is a consumerist ideal?

Why the next generation what about now? Why has capitalism failed for so long and it is not technological solutions but moral ones. We could do it all today with current technology if we gave a shit or some multinational could make loads of money doing it.

I disagree with much of the fine print in their manifesto.

Why the next generation what about now?

Precisely. If we relieve the ultra-powerful elite (the infamous 1%) of a reasonable element of their wealth, we could do it tomorrow.

I jest.

Just as well you let us know.

There is something deliciously stupid about people who defend capitalism when they don't understand it.

Political policing? Been going on for years. It's why they've lost the trust of the communities who need it the most.

The cops in that video are scum. If you knowingly take public money to do that you don't deserve to live in a democracy. Oh hang on....

Jazz hands!

I just finished my dinner. 😆

bwaarp - Member

So you are saying the strive for food, an education to supply food and water in the next generation and clean living standards is a consumerist ideal?

Others have given you the answers but put it this way we never stop wanting. Fact!

I think you've shown your true colours there. Would you rather humanity didn't exist so that the birds can carry on competing with each other until one species becomes massively dominant at the expense of the others?

True colours? How about Dear Leader putting mankind to hard labour for greater good of his wisdom ... 😆 Human are supposed to be easily disposed of considering their infestation of the entire world. They are the greedy maggots that consume everything in their path. Maggots at least get eaten by bigger insects but human eats them all ... bloody pest.

Consumption drives demand, which drives the demand for labour, which creates wealth, which gives people access to food security. Once one resource become limited, demand and capitalism drives technological advancements that open new avenues for the creation of wealth.

Consumption drives greater consumption that create greed in an advance ways ...

colours? How about Dear Leader putting mankind to hard labour for greater good of his wisdom ... Human are supposed to be easily disposed of considering their infestation of the entire world. They are the greedy maggots that consume everything in their path. Maggots at least get eaten by bigger insects but human eats them all ... bloody pest.

Morally, what duty to other species do we have?

You are a traitor to your own kind.

Why the next generation what about now? Why has capitalism failed for so long and it is not technological solutions but moral ones. We could do it all today with current technology if we gave a shit or some multinational could make loads of money doing it.

Junkyard - I agree with you morally here, we should be doing more. However than includes a good education for the third world, without a good education what hope do people have in eeking out a living. Unfortunately, even in a world with out large corporations people will still barter goods. You need an education to produce goods whether it is pottery or nuclear science.

There is something deliciously stupid about people who defend capitalism when they don't understand it.

So which failed ideologies do you subscribe to.... marxism, fascism or anarchism?

Morally, what duty to other species do we have?

Yep, let's not give a flying f*** about other species. Especially things like bees. What do they do, except keep us all alive?

Yep, let's not give a flying f*** about other species. Especially things like bees. What do they do, except keep us all alive?

Seriously, explain why... bar our own happiness or survival.... do we have a moral obligation to them?

We should look after bee's because colony collapse is bad for us. But should we give a damn beyond that about animals that were once our predators or bacteria that once caused us immeasurable suffering? Do they care about us? We are a product of nature... the natural world is about competition. The competion that nature imparted on this world ultimately led to the creation of human kind. May I reiterate, why should I care that we are one of the best competitors on this planet when that which created us was natural?

Nature is neither beautiful or cruel. It just is..... it is indifferent to you and I or seemingly anything else for that matter. So it should not be held in any sort of reverence or hatred.

**** damnation man, **** redemption, we are God's unwanted children, so be it.

Sorry, but I must of missed something in earlier threads but why dont members of the occupy movement just start a political party and stand in elections?

Seriously, explain why bar our own happiness or survival do we have a moral obligation?

We have a moral obligation precisely because we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation, and additionally because we share a planet with a vast and wonderful natural world which deserves our respect and attention.

We have a moral obligation precisely because we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation, and additionally because we share a planet with a vast and wonderful natural world which deserves our respect and attention.

I don't agree with you..... any moral obligation we have is secondary to the long term survival of the human species.

Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.

It should not be used as an excuse to impede the progress of human technological development or well being... especially when it comes to areas such as food security, medicine, space exploration and future power generation (eg fusion).

we are the only species that is able to have a moral obligation

and then you have characters like bwaaarp, who, on the basis of what a handful of outspoken people who formed themselves into a tenuous organisation loosely connected to a much wider debate had to say about food production methods, has damned an entire global discussion relating to starting to think about regulating our obscenely powerful and grossly inadequate overseers..

what an interesting psyche.. 😯

(apologies for the offensively long sentences in this post)

I don't agree with you any moral obligation we have is secondary to the long term survival of the human species.

Well, you still need to protect the delicate eco-system we're an endemic part of to ensure your own survival, so put your amoral egotism to the fore, and do it for selfish reasons if you must.

what an interesting psyche..

"interesting" indeed!

selfish reasons

The only reasons people do gestures of goodwill is to make them feel better about themselves. That's also selfishness, the best people in the world are completely and utterly selfish.

I'm not amoral, I'm just know where my allegiances lie and they are first with humanity....fairies and daffodils second.

I won't go through life intellectually apologising to nature or intellectually feeling bad about myself because of what species I am. Humans have done that before with religion, especially within the Catholic church.

The only reasons people do gestures of goodwill is to make them feel better about themselves

That's a statement about you, no-one else.

That's a statement about you, no-one else.

Setting off the feel good chemicals in the brain is a selfish act. That's not an excuse for me not to carry out acts of goodwill, I'm merely aware of the reason as to why I do it.

I won't go through life .... intellectually feeling bad about myself because of what species I am

No, no need to do that, but please feel free to feel bad about yourself for the way you act intellectually and morally.

No, no need to do that, but please feel free to feel bad about yourself for the way you act intellectually and morally.

Nahhh I thought and spent a considerable amount of time as part of the environmental movement. Spent time in Friends of the Earth and then decided I was surrounded by people who deep down resented most other people around them and found it quite easy to dehumanize vast swathes of humanity, labelling them things like "viruses".

Won't be part of it again. But thanks for your concern! My passionate dislike for parts of the occupy movement and so my reluctance to get involved with them comes from enjoying the presence of humanity more than trees.

Setting off the feel good chemicals in the brain is a selfish act.

share the love man..

[img] [/img]

the natural world is about competition. The competion that nature imparted on this world ultimately led to the creation of human kind. May I reiterate, why should I care that we are one of the best competitors on this planet when that which created us was natural?

Because it also created intelligence in some of us at least to rise above and be more than just an animal. It also says a lot when someone of the species at the top of the food chain, gets careless with the supply chain and it's support mechanisms.

It should not be used as an excuse to impede the progress of human technological development or well being... especially when it comes to areas such as food security, medicine, space exploration and future power generation

All of which can be done without the current failed method of capitalism. I'd go as for to say that capitalism is currently stopping us from progressing as a species, technological advances should not be the only measuring stick when it comes to human progress.

All technology feels like at the moment is us "tinkering" for materialistic purposes.

Ok so what method other than well regulated capitalism that the Occupy movement is actually campaigning for, would be better at succeeding capitalism. Go ahead, be my guest and enlighten me.

Because it also created intelligence in some of us at least to rise above and be more than just an animal.

Speciesism!

It also says a lot when someone of the species at the top of the food chain, gets careless with the supply chain and it's support mechanisms.

Yes, we should protect the environment for our own ends. I've already stated that.

All technology feels like at the moment is us "tinkering" for materialistic purposes.

Apart from GMO, Nuclear technology, Wind Energy, Solar Energy, Fusion research, Vaccine development etc etc etc etc etc..... all things that are being driven by demand. For example the consumer demand for computers helps to drive the development of those computers which then give researchers access to newer, more powerful computers at cheaper and cheaper prices to use in research.

We need to spend our way out (potentially through consumerism) of using technologies that harm the environment and drive the development of greener technology through utilizing capitalist supply and demand.

one millenium we will all realise than this monetary/power aquisition thing is not what human evolution is about and the only real value is ourselves and we will come together (through some kinda esp shit or something)an get together in our minds and float away from this planet at the speed our minds want in a ****in Ferrari. together. forever....... whoo

bwaarp - I was going to ask you whether you saw humans at the top of a pyramid with everything below them, then you posted:

Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.

Is there a reason why you think we as a species should abuse everything else to our gain? We co-exist and need to reduce the impact we have on the (often finite) 'resources' we rely on for life.

In fairness, I'm not sure ecology is one of bwaarp's strongest subjects.

We co-exist and need to reduce the impact we have on the (often finite) 'resources' we rely on for life.

See point B.

In fairness, I'm not sure ecology is one of bwaarp's strongest subjects.

After spending aproximately five years in Friends of The Earth and just about the same amount of time researching carrying capacity, I've come to the conclusion all but the higher population figures - 13 to 15 billion are horseshit. This figure most likely won't be exceeded due to better access to healthcare and parental planning in developing countries over the next 50 years. That once again the doom mongerers grabbed the front pages and this is possibly my primary reason why I rejected the green movement. Large swathes of them believe human population control is the answer and more level headed greens like George Monbiot are in the minority.

Thus I dislike and take a dim view of the alarmist sections of the environmental movement as I can see some of their views being increasingly used as excuses to intrude on basic human rights and give weight to the eugenics movement.

No, sorry, I'm still not convinced, despite all that time in FoE and all that research, that you understand ecology.

Questions about environmental issues are only relevant if A) Environmental damage outweighs the economic gains for the 3rd world B) Environmental damage directly threatens the survival of the human race C) Environmental damage causes a loss of moral in large swathes of the world population.

So, in essence, questions about environmental damage are relevant then.

So, in essence, questions about environmental damage are relevant then.

Only in the context of human survival, scientific understanding and decent levels of happiness, that is it.

decent levels of happiness

And what's the capitalist measure of this?

And what's the capitalist measure of this?

Something vaguely rational, like psychological surveys.

Who'll pay for the psychological surveys?

Who'll pay for the psychological surveys?

Trying to insinuate big corporations will fiddle them?

Medical think tanks connected to universities throughout the world tend to fund these things. It's already being done, national happiness surveys are done throughout the world. Doesn't take much to try to correlate scores with the environment through the correct design and application of the study.

So, is it the big corporations that are producing all that wonderful technological advances to see us out of the shit that are paying for those?

Big business sure cares whether we're happy or not doesn't it?

EDIT: Whoa...ninja edit above.

So, is it the big corporations that are producing all that wonderful technological advances to see us out of the shit that are paying for those?

No not really, unless you think companies that are interested in understanding how the human mind responds to it's environment are big bad corporations that are out to get you.

I suppose they also purposely give people cancer so that they can cure you.

So who are they then?

An eclectic mix of universities, corporations and NGO's. Generally with so many conflicting interests that during conferences, some sort of general truth will get out despite the presence of big bad corporations 😉

Oh right, I'm just trying to cut to the truth through your vagueness, that's all.

So, say, given that we're the main cause of a current mass extinction event, should we just plough on regardless with scant regard to species unless it threatens our survival?