Tweet
Originally posted by Kidicious
DanS is looking at things purely from a stockholders' POV.
DanS is looking at things purely from a stockholders' POV.
-
Of course, he's a corporate whore.
-
I really don't see how you can prefer a larger population through altruistic beliefs, even without considering the environmental impact that a large population has. At the most basic level, more people means more suffering - more ideals, more conflicts, more strife, more controversy, more disagreements, more disastification, ect... the goal of pleasing the most people possible only becomes more and more difficult as the number of people increases.
That's a bogus argument: Most people's live carry a great positive value, particularly those leading healthy lives which include both stablity and healthy challenges. less people -> less happiness.
After an urbanized enviroment is reached, the confrontation density hardly raises, while people also benefit from the economic and social structures of scale, and a stable growth allows families to remain more stable, providing healthier conditions for the upbringing of children.
Enviroment is important, though: Plans for the energy and recreation needs of future generations must be made, and we lack those, currently.
Comment
-
Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people.Originally posted by Azazel
I really don't see how you can prefer a larger population through altruistic beliefs, even without considering the environmental impact that a large population has. At the most basic level, more people means more suffering - more ideals, more conflicts, more strife, more controversy, more disagreements, more disastification, ect... the goal of pleasing the most people possible only becomes more and more difficult as the number of people increases.
That's a bogus argument: Most people's live carry a great positive value, particularly those leading healthy lives which include both stablity and healthy challenges. less people -> less happiness.
How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks.After an urbanized enviroment is reached, the confrontation density hardly raises, while people also benefit from the economic and social structures of scale, and a stable growth allows families to remain more stable, providing healthier conditions for the upbringing of children.Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse
Do It OurselvesComment
-
Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people.
It can't be precisely quantified, doesn't mean that it can't be quantified at all, or that the number of people experiencing the happiness is irrelevant.
How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks.
You either grow or stagnate. I prefer growth. I also forsee a future for humanity outside the planet, so I don't see our possibilities as limited in the long run.Comment
-
It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total.Originally posted by Azazel
Happiness isn't something that can be quantified, it only exists within people. A group of 5 happy people is happier than a group of 10 happy people and 5 unhappy people.
It can't be precisely quantified, doesn't mean that it can't be quantified at all, or that the number of people experiencing the happiness is irrelevant.
Stagnation is more stable.
How does continous growth make anythign more stable? It just puts further strain on everything, eventually geting to the point growth is seemingly required to maintain what already exists, turning it into a precarious run-away scenario where you are climbing a wall as you lay the bricks.
You either grow or stagnate. I prefer growth.
And some people forsee a second coming... don't put too much faith in fiction.I also forsee a future for humanity outside the planet, so I don't see our possibilities as limited in the long run.
Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse
Do It OurselvesComment
-
Exactly. This ain't a game of Civ.Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General LuddComment
-
No, he's just a neo-liberal market whoreOriginally posted by Odin
Of course, he's a corporate whore.
Neo-liberal market whores tend to "forget" the non-quantitative factors when reaching decisions. So that's why another million-man slum in Mexico City is good in net terms even if each slum dweller adds one penny to the economy. Nevermind of course the strain on public utilities, the decrease in the quality of life for the other couple of millions, increase in crime, decaying living standards, worsening income inequality, ecological devastation, traffic congestion... I could go on and on...
Just because you can't measure things with dollar signs doesn't mean they don't exist.A true ally stabs you in the front.
Secretary General of the U.N. & IV Emperor of the Glory of War PTWDG | VIII Consul of Apolyton PTW ISDG | GoWman in Stormia CIVDG | Lurker Troll Extraordinaire C3C ISDG Final | V Gran Huevote Team Latin Lover | Webmaster Master Zen Online | CivELO (3°)Comment
-
Without space exploration, humanity has no future, period.Originally posted by
Smiley
Exactly. This ain't a game of Civ.
This isn't a game of civ, but that doesn't mean that space exploration is impossible.
It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total.
Since when is the "happy people percentage" is the guideline?
besides, it's not binary. They're varying degrees of happiness.Comment
-
I was referencing the comment on 10 happy people being better than 5, not space exploration. As the Japanese moon base thread suggests, growing population is not needed for rocket ships.Visit First Cultural Industries
There are reasons why I believe mankind should live in cities and let nature reclaim all the villages with the exception of a few we keep on display as horrific reminders of rural life.-Starchild
Meat eating and the dominance and force projected over animals that is acompanies it is a gateway or parallel to other prejudiced beliefs such as classism, misogyny, and even racism. -General LuddComment
-
Dude, the Japanese are not going to be leading the way on space exploration. Even Ukraine does tons more than Japan in space. Japan's program is even more of a government contractor boondoggle than the US effort. I thought all this was obvious and I didn't need to diss Japan's efforts explicitly. Can't you read between the lines?
Last edited by DanS; March 2, 2005, 11:48.I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Why am I a "neo-liberal"? Wouldn't "liberal" be more accurate?No, he's just a neo-liberal market whore
I never said "never mind" all of those things -- although your list isn't very good. I readily admit that acute problems can exist. On the other hand, an economy that is growing should be able to solve those acute problems in relatively short order. If your economy isn't growing, then that's another problem, and obviously most people would be worse off in that situation, no matter the extra million slum dwellers. In both instances, the focus on the existence of the slum is unwarranted.Neo-liberal market whores tend to "forget" the non-quantitative factors when reaching decisions. So that's why another million-man slum in Mexico City is good in net terms even if each slum dweller adds one penny to the economy. Nevermind of course the strain on public utilities, the decrease in the quality of life for the other couple of millions, increase in crime, decaying living standards, worsening income inequality, ecological devastation, traffic congestion... I could go on and on...I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Originally posted by Azazel
It can only be relevant as compaired to the number of unhappy people - as a percentage of a total.
Since when is the "happy people percentage" is the guideline?
Guideline? All I'm saying is that's the only way you can gauge the happiness of a people. You can't say that there is "more total happiness" simply because the group is larger.
Exactly...besides, it's not binary. They're varying degrees of happiness.Rethink Refuse Reduce Reuse
Do It OurselvesComment
-
If China is growing and the slums are not shrinking significantly why shouldn't we focus on the slums. Growth does not mean the elimination of slums. You need the right kind of growth for that. You need to build better houses and improve neighborhoods to eliminate slums. The market doesn't do that unless you make it do that.Originally posted by DanS
I never said "never mind" all of those things -- although your list isn't very good. I readily admit that acute problems can exist. On the other hand, an economy that is growing should be able to solve those acute problems in relatively short order. If your economy isn't growing, then that's another problem, and obviously most people would be worse off in that situation, no matter the extra million slum dwellers. In both instances, the focus on the existence of the slum is unwarranted.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Neo-liberals are morons who reject Keynes on ideological grounds and have forgotten that thier policies were the same that caused the Great DepressionOriginally posted by DanS
Why am I a "neo-liberal"? Wouldn't "liberal" be more accurate?Comment
-
Guideline? All I'm saying is that's the only way you can gauge the happiness of a people. You can't say that there is "more total happiness" simply because the group is larger.
It's simple multiplication: Even if we use the binary system, where unhappy people equal zero, and happy people equal 1, there is much more utility in a group of 500 people with 50% of them happy, than in a group of 200 people with 100% of them happy.
And this gets a whole lot more complex.Comment
Comment