The Student Room Group

Most of the main Green policies are terrifying

Scroll to see replies

Reply 600
Original post by reallydontknow
Researchers from Oxford have calculated there is a 20% chance humans will be extinct by 2100 (iirc) and that probability will only go up. We will never, ever exploit all of the universes resources and you know it. They are, for all intents and purposes infinite. And anybody who argues against this is an idiot.
source?

And the reason animals shouldn't get human rights is that they aren't human, that's simple, we are a species and they are not part of it. They cannot contribute as we do and neither can they comprehend as we do, they are incapable to understand the many things we can, such as physics, biology and chemistry and as such are not as intelligent. Tell me, have you seen a rodent made nuclear fusion reactor anywhere? No you haven't because they probably do not understand that everything is made of atoms, let alone the fact that you can you can get energy from them

Posted from TSR Mobile
:K: so all humans who don't contribute, who don't understand nuclear fusion aren't human and thus don't deserve these rights?
Original post by Aph
source?

:K: so all humans who don't contribute, who don't understand nuclear fusion aren't human and thus don't deserve these rights?


http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhi.ox.ac.uk%2Fgcr-report.pdf&rct=j&q=Oxford%20university%20human%20extinction&ei=D0D8VPCuCM7fPdibgRA&usg=AFQjCNGQUP09iVMrZ25fkeCJnsibzK3jdA&sig2=W8JjA97iZx948T6TRZ5cvQ


No my point was that humans have the capacity and capability to do these things. If somebody wants to be a slob at home then yes he can, but he is still a human. He can understand and comprehend. Don't try and twist my point like that, that's an idiotic argument. The difference between humans and other animals is clear. We have done so much, and can do so much, animals cannot.

We are the most intelligent, and strongest species. We are the top of the food chain and can do almost anything we see fit, animal welfare and rights are all man made concepts they do not exist in nature, but as the top of the food chain we have the right to kill any animal or do as we see fit. Other animals cannot test or farm animals because they do not have the capacity to.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 602
Original post by reallydontknow
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CCcQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fhi.ox.ac.uk%2Fgcr-report.pdf&rct=j&q=Oxford%20university%20human%20extinction&ei=D0D8VPCuCM7fPdibgRA&usg=AFQjCNGQUP09iVMrZ25fkeCJnsibzK3jdA&sig2=W8JjA97iZx948T6TRZ5cvQ


No my point was that humans have the capacity and capability to do these things. If somebody wants to be a slob at home then yes he can, but he is still a human. He can understand and comprehend. Don't try and twist my point like that, that's an idiotic argument. The difference between humans and other animals is clear. We have done so much, and can do so much, animals cannot.

We are the most intelligent, and strongest species. We are the top of the food chain and can do almost anything we see fit, animal welfare and rights are all man made concepts they do not exist in nature, but as the top of the food chain we have the right to kill any animal or do as we see fit. Other animals cannot test or farm animals because they do not have the capacity to.

Posted from TSR Mobile

You did read that link right?!
an informalsurvey was circulated among participants, asking them to make their best guess at thechance that there will be disasters of different types before 2100.
that is in no way scientific at all!!!!!

other animals have similar brain capacities to us the only difference being we have opposable thumbs.

Again if you want to use that argument then human rights shouldn't exist either.
Original post by Aph
You did read that link right?!that is in no way scientific at all!!!!!

other animals have similar brain capacities to us the only difference being we have opposable thumbs.

Again if you want to use that argument then human rights shouldn't exist either.


I'm sure people from Oxford had some sort of knowledge and if these experts in a board think this, it's somewhat reliable.

No they don't. You can't really think humans are matched by any other animal and of you do, prove it. Provide we with some proof showing me complex things animals can do. They cannot even communicate in a way that matches us. We can communicate over thousands of kilometres.


And besides they are a different species that is irrefutable, different things. And we are superior. We are stronger and therefore do as we will.


No not really. As a dominate species we have established a system which we agree with and we are shaping it. Justice is present in animals too as is mutual respect or a hierarchy.


Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 604
Original post by reallydontknow
I'm sure people from Oxford had some sort of knowledge and if these experts in a board think this, it's somewhat reliable.

No they don't. You can't really think humans are matched by any other animal and of you do, prove it. Provide we with some proof showing me complex things animals can do. They cannot even communicate in a way that matches us. We can communicate over thousands of kilometres.

No not really. As a dominate species we have established a system which we agree with and we are shaping it. Justice is present in animals too as is mutual respect or a hierarchy.


Posted from TSR Mobile

It wasn't oxford people, it was people who has a conference there. Even still all figures are basicly rubbish...

You know elephants whales and dolphins can comunicate over 1000's of km right?
and we can't comunicate with them, their communication systems could be far more complex. We should assume equal intelligence until we can have a convosation with them.

and your point is? We all agree with animal rights and really they should be equal to ours.
Original post by Aph
It wasn't oxford people, it was people who has a conference there. Even still all figures are basicly rubbish...

You know elephants whales and dolphins can comunicate over 1000's of km right?
and we can't comunicate with them, their communication systems could be far more complex. We should assume equal intelligence until we can have a convosation with them.

and your point is? We all agree with animal rights and really they should be equal to ours.


No they aren't. Scientists and such have some knowledge more than you. You know nothing.

Elephants cannot community rover thousands of km. Just a few km. Whales maybe a few hundred km.

Their communication system aren't more complicated than ours. We can even see each other and send complex information such as computer coding etc. Are you telling me animals have Skype. That's a joke, anybody who believes animals can do anything as good as humans is an idiot hipster, with no real knowledge.

No we should not assume equal intellect. We assume we are superior as we can kill them easily. That is how nature works.

We all agree human rights are important (well most people)
Only a few select idiots think rodents deserve HUMAN rights. The majority of population disagrees.

Posted from TSR Mobile
You can't grow forever. That doesn't make sense.

The more we grow the more science we create the more we have to learn. Sooner or later we'll be learning for most of our lives just to keep up with the new technology being invented. Then there will come a point where we can't grow any more. Technology has become so complicated that the human mind can't process it. Then growth will stop and we shall have to live in this perpetual state of a technological world where most of it is unintelligible to most people. And we shall have to subsist.

For those who think growth can continue forever are probably the same people who say "the oil will never run out" "the land will never run out just keep growing the population it makes us richer". Or maybe they think that we'll all transport our brains into robot bodies and keep growing.

Short sighted.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Aph
But these animals are sentient, they are self aware and apart from technology they are basicly the same as humans. In that they feel the same emotions, are fully aware of their surroundings, there is no real diffence.

So surely then we should also ban keeping pets? After all, what is that other than imprisonment of innocent animals against their will, which is rather ironic because so many of the animal rights nuts, I expect, have pets.
Reply 608
Original post by Jammy Duel
So surely then we should also ban keeping pets? After all, what is that other than imprisonment of innocent animals against their will, which is rather ironic because so many of the animal rights nuts, I expect, have pets.

We should give the animals a choise, like how cats have a choice and could run away if they wanted. If the animal chooses to stay then I see no issue so long as it isn't being abused.
Original post by Aph
We should give the animals a choise, like how cats have a choice and could run away if they wanted. If the animal chooses to stay then I see no issue so long as it isn't being abused.


Have you actually thought that idea through because I can see various flaws and logistical questions

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 610
Original post by Jammy Duel
Have you actually thought that idea through because I can see various flaws and logistical questions

Posted from TSR Mobile

Yes, I know it's not practical but my point was if they clearly don't like it there they should be free, but I see no reason to force animals to live apart from us.
>Reduce productivity and income.

>Increase taxes across the board.


Thanks for your input, Natalie Bennett. The door's behind you.
Original post by Aph
their morality is questionable but their society was perfect.

But it has never been tried before.

again money isn't the only incentive in modern society. People are changing, we are becoming more community focused and eventually we will achieve perfection. We need idealism in order to change.
a zero growth economy is a sustainable one. And money isn't everything.



I cannot believe you are arguing that the borg collective is a model society, can you honestly say that you would be happy to live in the borg collective? A society that was written to essentially represent pure evil is something you are calling perfect?

Yes money is the best incentive, if you deny this then you are being idealistic and naive. If a worker is not being rewarded for extra work, then what is the incentive to do the extra work? Let's assume you are working 8 hours doing a job you dislike. Now you have the option to do an additional hour every week which will improve your company but you will receive no tangible reward for your trouble. Are you honestly saying you would do that extra hour? I don't believe you, but let's say you actually would, would anyone else? No. What you are arguing for is insane, competition is a powerful force and it is a force for good. Do you know what caused the biggest mass lift out of poverty the planet has ever seen? It was China deciding to become more capitalist.

And yes it has been tried before, and it has failed every time, while capitalism has succeeded beyond wildest expectations. And I am not even suggesting extreme capitalism just moderate amounts that make a country successful.

The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 613
Original post by QuantumOverlord
I cannot believe you are arguing that the borg collective is a model society, can you honestly say that you would be happy to live in the borg collective? A society that was written to essentially represent pure evil is something you are calling perfect?
a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.

Yes money is the best incentive, if you deny this then you are being idealistic and naive. If a worker is not being rewarded for extra work, then what is the incentive to do the extra work? Let's assume you are working 8 hours doing a job you dislike. Now you have the option to do an additional hour every week which will improve your company but you will receive no tangible reward for your trouble. Are you honestly saying you would do that extra hour? I don't believe you, but let's say you actually would, would anyone else? No. What you are arguing for is insane, competition is a powerful force and it is a force for good. Do you know what caused the biggest mass lift out of poverty the planet has ever seen? It was China deciding to become more capitalist.
well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?

And yes it has been tried before, and it has failed every time, while capitalism has succeeded beyond wildest expectations. And I am not even suggesting extreme capitalism just moderate amounts that make a country successful

The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!

The greens don't want to increase immigration. They just simply believe that we have no right to keep people out based on where they were born. Why are we better or more deserving to live in this country just because we happened to be born where we were? Borders and countries are archaic principles that be long in the past instead we should be working as one human race, one global community.
Original post by Aph
a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.

Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?

Original post by Aph
well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?

No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.

China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.

China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.

Original post by QuantumOverlord
The only way a zero growth economy is sustainable is if there is a population drain from the country. The hillarious thing is though that the Greens want to increase immigration!

At least they'd turn the country into such a dump that no one would want to come here.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Aph
a society is no evil just different. And yes it was harmonious and with everyone working for the colective it is perfect.

well not really! protecting a loved one would be bigger incentive. And yes I would, if that meant doing my work to a higher standard I would. Also by your logic people wouldn't volunteer because they would expect to be paid. That quite clearly isn't the case. There are far better incentivisers then money. Oh and is this the same china with the massive poverty gap? The one where the money is focused in a few people and most people are poor?


The greens don't want to increase immigration. They just simply believe that we have no right to keep people out based on where they were born. Why are we better or more deserving to live in this country just because we happened to be born where we were? Borders and countries are archaic principles that be long in the past instead we should be working as one human race, one global community.



Lol, you really do sound like a sixth form version of me!

a) Would you volunteer to live in a borg collective then? To have your individuality expunged? To participate in the destruction of other free civilizations? To completely lack self worth and whose only purpose is to be a disposable pawn?
You know the borg collective does exist, its called North Korea. And it is literally hell on earth for those that live there. Well unless you happen to be the Borg Queen (Kim jon un).

b) Are you actually implying you want a civilization where something like the gestapo is used as an incentive? If not what the hell are you saying? Let's go over this again, working the extra hour does not confer any benefit to you, so obviously your family does not benefit financially either. So what then? Why would you do it? If the only answer is to stop the state from hurting your family, then you want to live in a terrifying world. Again it sounds like bloody North korea.

c) This is the same China where capitalism, and I'm going to say this again. Caused the GREATEST LIFT OUT OF POVERTY EVER! Let me say that again. The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen. One more time The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen!. So yeh, stuff the wage gap, I don't care. I happen to think it is repugnant to want to wish poverty on others in order to decrease the wage gap. Its like enacting a policy to make smoking compulsory for the middle class to lower the health gap. Because that would literally be the best way of doing it!

d) Same thing, the Green party would have increased immigration, and in a zero growth economy the result would be mass poverty (except ironically for the super rich). They are economically illiterate, even Labour would admit this, and Gordan brown did a pretty good job of screwing us all over.
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?


No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.

China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.

China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.


At least they'd turn the country into such a dump that no one would want to come here.


Yeh,exactly. I really don't get how people can be so resistant to the idea of the free market given its fantastic reputation. And people that say "THIS time", I'm sorry but no, if you want to be a guinea pig then fine, but I'm sticking to a system that is tried and works.
Reply 617
Original post by The_Mighty_Bush
Why is everyone working for the "colective" perfect? What if I don't want to work for the collective or feel that my work is exploited by the lazy in the collective?
but if everyone puts the collective first then no one would be lazy...


No, one is saying that volunteering doesn't exist and the only thing people care about is money. What they are saying is that if you had no incentives beyond altruism that there would be many people who would become lazy or freeloaders etc. Plus very few people would volunteer to do the necessary but distasteful work in society if you could sit on your arse instead.
there are plenty of incentives, it might surprise you that some people actually like working and would actually hate to do nothing all their life.

China has the biggest middle class in the world. Guaranteeing an income to people through the violent power of the state does not get rid of poverty. What reduces poverty is economic freedom and free trade.
what 'violent power of the state'? and no, poverty is reduced by stopping the super-rich exploiting everyone.

China's rising capitalistic economy is, as QuantumOverlord pointed out, the biggest anti-poverty force the world has ever seen. You know what else will help the poor more than any government in the history of mankind? When 2 capitalists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett die and 95%+ of their wealth goes to Bill Gates charity.
and surely you should know that most of that money will just end up in the hands of the already rich and wont help many people at all.

Original post by QuantumOverlord
a) Would you volunteer to live in a borg collective then? To have your individuality expunged? To participate in the destruction of other free civilizations? To completely lack self worth and whose only purpose is to be a disposable pawn?
You know the borg collective does exist, its called North Korea. And it is literally hell on earth for those that live there. Well unless you happen to be the Borg Queen (Kim jon un).
north Korea is clasicly-comunist. I support a more anarchic way of thinking and believe that the power to make decisions should be via direct democracy not in the hands of one man so would I join the borg? no, because I cannot align with their morality but I admire their society. and again no, I would not live in north Korea because I don't support dictatorships.

b) Are you actually implying you want a civilization where something like the gestapo is used as an incentive? If not what the hell are you saying? Let's go over this again, working the extra hour does not confer any benefit to you, so obviously your family does not benefit financially either. So what then? Why would you do it? If the only answer is to stop the state from hurting your family, then you want to live in a terrifying world. Again it sounds like bloody North korea.
no, no one should be forced to do anything, I would stay behind because I take pride in my work and hate to leave anything unfinished. I would do it because so long as I didn't have prior commitments it would be the best use of my time.

c) This is the same China where capitalism, and I'm going to say this again. Caused the GREATEST LIFT OUT OF POVERTY EVER! Let me say that again. The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen. One more time The greatest lift out of poverty the world has ever seen!. So yeh, stuff the wage gap, I don't care. I happen to think it is repugnant to want to wish poverty on others in order to decrease the wage gap. Its like enacting a policy to make smoking compulsory for the middle class to lower the health gap. Because that would literally be the best way of doing it!
why are you so insistent that everyone would become poorer? and are you telling me that you care that you could be working 9-5 on minimum wage when some tycoon how doesn't even manage the day-to-day is sitting at a poolside sipping martinis and making millions and hour? for doing far less?

d) Same thing, the Green party would have increased immigration, and in a zero growth economy the result would be mass poverty (except ironically for the super rich). They are economically illiterate, even Labour would admit this, and Gordan brown did a pretty good job of screwing us all over.
well the alternative is having everyone believing we are better so I don't see an issue. plus the ultimate objective is a 0 growth economy THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY but to begin to get to that point.
Original post by Aph
but if everyone puts the collective first then no one would be lazy...


there are plenty of incentives, it might surprise you that some people actually like working and would actually hate to do nothing all their life.

what 'violent power of the state'? and no, poverty is reduced by stopping the super-rich exploiting everyone.

and surely you should know that most of that money will just end up in the hands of the already rich and wont help many people at all.

north Korea is clasicly-comunist. I support a more anarchic way of thinking and believe that the power to make decisions should be via direct democracy not in the hands of one man so would I join the borg? no, because I cannot align with their morality but I admire their society. and again no, I would not live in north Korea because I don't support dictatorships.

no, no one should be forced to do anything, I would stay behind because I take pride in my work and hate to leave anything unfinished. I would do it because so long as I didn't have prior commitments it would be the best use of my time.

why are you so insistent that everyone would become poorer? and are you telling me that you care that you could be working 9-5 on minimum wage when some tycoon how doesn't even manage the day-to-day is sitting at a poolside sipping martinis and making millions and hour? for doing far less?

well the alternative is having everyone believing we are better so I don't see an issue. plus the ultimate objective is a 0 growth economy THE ONLY SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY but to begin to get to that point.



Sigh. You arn't taking in anything I have been saying

Lets take that example again. You work 8 hours per day on a fixed wage, you have the option of working an extra hour every day. It will benefit the 'collective' but there will be no benefit at all for you or your family. Even if you would do it, the vast majority of people wouldn't do work that confers no rewards to themselves. Notice how volunteers tend to be people that are already well off. If you are someone working the minimum wage I can tell you categorically you are not going to work another hour for no reward.

And I mentioned violent power of the state because you mentioned something about your family being an incentive. What the hell is that supposed to imply if not a threat from the state? Please tell me..

North Korea isn't communist, its Juche. You do realize that, as I keep telling you, the more communist you make a country the worse the dictatorships become! Capitalism has actually brought the first vestiges of democracy to China, and it is likely in 30 years time, that it will go further.

I am insistent that everyone would become poorer, because that is exactly what will happen. And you keep going on about how the wage gap is more important than the average wealth of the individual. it isn't! You seem to have an envy for the super-rich that you can use to justify making poor people even poorer. Again, answer this point, why are you more concerned about the wage gap in china versus the incredible gain in wealth and improvement in life quality of the poor?

And lol to the sustainable economy point. Fossil fuels arn't sustainable. Let's remove them entirely from the UK, and see what happens. It must be a good thing though, because they arn't sustainable! I'm well aware that an economy can't grow indefinitely, but I am prepared to wait until we have better technology and infrastructure and a population that isn't increasing. Because yes, a zero growth economy isn't possible with a growing population. If we were to have one now, we'd bankrupt the country within 4 years. Fantastic.
Reply 619
Original post by QuantumOverlord


Lets take that example again. You work 8 hours per day on a fixed wage, you have the option of working an extra hour every day. It will benefit the 'collective' but there will be no benefit at all for you or your family. Even if you would do it, the vast majority of people wouldn't do work that confers no rewards to themselves. Notice how volunteers tend to be people that are already well off. If you are someone working the minimum wage I can tell you categorically you are not going to work another hour for no reward.
actually you might! I know loads of people who work at minimum wage and always go above and beyond what is asked of them. You have too little faith in humanity.

And I mentioned violent power of the state because you mentioned something about your family being an incentive. What the hell is that supposed to imply if not a threat from the state? Please tell me..
well no you didn't the other guy did??? and it was just to prove that money isn't the dest incentive.

North Korea isn't communist, its Juche. You do realize that, as I keep telling you, the more communist you make a country the worse the dictatorships become! Capitalism has actually brought the first vestiges of democracy to China, and it is likely in 30 years time, that it will go further.
that does not have to be the case. And right now we live in a dictatorship really where a tiny minority of the very rich have almost all the power. I envisage a Communist country with no leader at all and where everyone is voice is equal. That to me is perfection and that to me is what the Borg are.

I am insistent that everyone would become poorer, because that is exactly what will happen. And you keep going on about how the wage gap is more important than the average wealth of the individual. it isn't! You seem to have an envy for the super-rich that you can use to justify making poor people even poorer. Again, answer this point, why are you more concerned about the wage gap in china versus the incredible gain in wealth and improvement in life quality of the poor?
we should not need the super rich as they are called to give the poor money. If we rely on the super rich for everything then they have all the power and it makes a very very unfair society.

And lol to the sustainable economy point. Fossil fuels arn't sustainable. Let's remove them entirely from the UK, and see what happens. It must be a good thing though, because they arn't sustainable! I'm well aware that an economy can't grow indefinitely, but I am prepared to wait until we have better technology and infrastructure and a population that isn't increasing. Because yes, a zero growth economy isn't possible with a growing population. If we were to have one now, we'd bankrupt the country within 4 years. Fantastic.
The environment and the people are far more important than money. We can get along without money if we have too. we cannot get along in a polluted environment that will kill us. I've much rather be poor and only have the basics then dead and I think you agree.

Quick Reply