If you had a choice that'd benefit society ...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

Argentinababy

Original post by Macy1998

The second one, I guess? No one can fight climate change and poverty.

Simply untrue.

Reply 21

Glors

Original post by Plagioclase

If it was permanent, getting rid of inequality and poverty, since that would probably solve the threat of ISIS and Climate Change.

good answer, however I believe the climate would be negatively affected if there was worldwide equality as the world would see an increase in co2 emissions released

Reply 22

Plagioclase

Original post by Glors

good answer, however I believe the climate would be negatively affected if there was worldwide equality as the world would see an increase in co2 emissions released

In the short term that's true. On the other hand, it would mean that everybody would be in a position to take meaningful action against climate change (rather than having this battle of responsibility between the developed and developing world). Also, bear in mind that development of the developed countries is going to happen, inevitably, so all this would do is make this change instantaneous rather than stretching out over decades, which in the long term would probably reduce the cumulative CO2 emissions. It's cutting a massive chunk out of the time-series graph of annual emissions so assuming that the sudden increases doesn't result in any major feedback effects, it would probably be beneficial.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 23

garfeeled

Isis and climate change. Though it's a bit harder if by poverty you mean just absolute poverty.

Reply 24

BookBird

Original post by Glors

how would that benefit society in the short term?

Who said anything about short term? Knowledge is power. Every child should have access to primary education, boy or girl. End of story really c:

Reply 25

Kholmes1

Original post by Plagioclase

If it was permanent, getting rid of inequality and poverty, since that would probably solve the threat of ISIS and Climate Change.

Really? I wouldn't get rid of inequality and poverty if I had a choice. I know it sounds weird. But if everyone was equal thus got paid the same than there would be no point of getting a good job as people would be getting paid the same anyway.

Reply 26

Plagioclase

Original post by Kholmes1

I'm not really convinced this is the case though, I think people exaggerate how important a motivator money is. People often point to the USSR as an example of how "total equality" (even though it wasn't) fails, but that's not really the situation we're talking about now since the USSR was a poor country transitioning from a feudal system, led by tyrants. In our scenario, everyone is well-off to start with and we already have the necessary infrastructure in place for productivity and efficient production, so we're starting off from a much better spot. We're not talking about bringing everyone down to the level of the poorest, we're talking about bringing most people up to the level of the comparatively well-off. Obviously there's not going to be much of a motivation to become, say, a doctor if you're going to have a poor standard of living regardless of what occupation you pursue but I'm not sure if the same can be said in a world where you've got a good standard of living regardless of what occupation you pursue. I think people want to be seen doing something valuable with their lives so I'm not convinced that "difficult" professions would suddenly be abandoned just because everyone else has been brought up to the same level. I find it really hard to believe that all doctors would suddenly run away and become shopkeepers if shopkeepers earned as much as them, because you don't become a doctor just for the money, you become a doctor because you want to help people.

In fairness, I didn't really interpret this as total equality, I interpreted it more as getting rid of the extreme inequality that exists in society today. I do agree that some degree of inequality is probably healthy, but nowhere near to the extent that we have inequality in society today.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 27

DylanJ42

Original post by Glors

how comes

Well where would the money come from to make the poorer people as well off? Would it be taken from the rich? If so then we can say goodbye to new inventions and discoveries as no one would have an incentive to work hard. Nobody would become doctors etc etc

Then you get demand and supply in the market, nobody would buy low quality goods and everyone would want luxury goods. Supermarkets like Aldi, Lidl, Supervalu would close due to no business. Although they would have no workers anyway because there would be no low skilled workers to work there, as everyone would get the exact same education and the exact same opportunities.

In short, I forget a lot of my economics but I know it would suck a lot for everyone to be equal

gLOBAL COMMUNISM

Original post by mangala

gLOBAL COMMUNISM

Global communism would be so boring and the world wouldn't be as economically and socially developed as it is today.

Reply 30

Glors

Original post by mangala

gLOBAL COMMUNISM

Plus its a horrible thought of Kim Jong whatever being influencial, he'd then make us all get his dodgy trim :biggrin:

Reply 31

troubadour.

Original post by Glors

Global communism would be so boring and the world wouldn't be as economically and socially developed as it is today.

It's still a better idea than, 'if people weren't poor, there wouldn't be any terrorism or climate change.' :tongue:

Reply 32

Glors

Original post by Hydeman

It's still a better idea than, 'if people weren't poor, there wouldn't be any terrorism or climate change.' :tongue:

but there'd be a lot more political unrest and less innovation. Just think, would several multinational firms such as apple, sony and nike exist if the world was communist

Reply 33

troubadour.

Original post by Glors

but there'd be a lot more political unrest and less innovation. Just think, would several multinational firms such as apple, sony and nike exist if the world was communist

I'm opposed to Communism, whether it be local or global. I'm just saying that global Communism is a tad more plausible than the idea that eliminating poverty would suddenly get rid of the IS/terrorism and climate change in one fell swoop.

I'm with you on the innovation point. :wink:

Reply 34

Glors

Original post by Hydeman

what are your thoughts on how to at least contain the issues

Reply 35

mangala

Original post by Glors

Global communism would be so boring and the world wouldn't be as economically and socially developed as it is today.

U.S.S.R in the 1950s is my response if you wanna talk about economic development. in terms of social development, consider cuba - they reduced the illiteracy rate from 24% to just 4% in a single year - that kind of social development was unmatched, and still is.

Reply 36

mangala

Original post by Glors

Plus its a horrible thought of Kim Jong whatever being influencial, he'd then make us all get his dodgy trim :biggrin:

not real communism, just a dictatorship using communism as a mirror

Reply 37

troubadour.

Original post by Glors

what are your thoughts on how to at least contain the issues

I think it's a mistake to aim for mere containment, at least in the case of the Islamic State. It has to be defeated, not contained. The quickest, but perhaps not the best, way of doing that is to use NATO ground forces in addition to airstrikes. Suffice it to say, it would be field day for IS recruiters, but it's arguable that the slow crawl to stalemate (which is what's happening at present) is somewhat morally reprehensible.

It's one thing to not act because you can't; it's an entirely different situation in which you refuse to act despite having the capability to do so. And for what? Just to appease the collective conscience of regressive leftists who've no understanding of the causes of terrorism and can always be relied upon to oppose any intervention by default, with little to no regard for any facts.

Of course, any such invasion must be followed by a vastly better occupation than the one which followed the invasion of Iraq in 2003. There will need to be massive deradicalisation efforts both at home and in the occupied countries, followed by a much more gradual handover of power (>20 years). We'd do well to take a few pages out of the books of people like Maajid Nawaz and promote a kind of secular Islam in the region to counter the Wahhabist nonsense that presently has the peoples of both Iraq and Syria under its heel.

As for climate change, the solution is a lot clearer: massive simultaneous investment in both current renewable generation capacity and research into improving energy storage, efficiency and nuclear energy. And all this has to be done alongside a huge reduction in carbon-based sources of energy. The political aim of this, which ties in with the issue of terrorism, is energy independence. The sooner we can kick the Saudis' collective asses to the kerb, the sooner we can get back to a state of relative security.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 38

Alaska+

Original post by Glors

If you had the ability to do one thing, what would you choose to do, eliminate the threat of ISIS along with climate change or would you Stop worldwide inequality and Poverty?