Individualism- which makes up the reality of normal people denies the long term co-existence of contradictory values by priority of importance (EG: if someone values freedom..but not as much a independence..and the other vice versa. The approach and goals of those two..despite similar entities dramatically change) this is the reason why markets tend to work and large oversight and organisation dosen't.

Markets cater to the normal person need for both independence to create new groups but also makes the groups based on: base needs(money/food/security) proximity (other humans that actually have an impact on their desires and goals) and personal desires (career goals, ambitions) while allowing those values to be expressed towards a project without using the negatives of those ideals on a state level, aka you can have aggressive, independent people without having to introduce military state or whatever.

It's the same with countries, they all have base cultures and foundations but just with more baggage and people trying to change it from the inside. It's easy to get a country to work together in war because their base needs and ambitions and settled i the conclusion of it.

It's hard to do so out of war because once a country is stable and can offer food, goods and assurance again humans start focusing on their more abstract needs and goals, like their own personal ambitions, ideals and rough values (order, support, idealism ectr) most people rough, over arching ideas can be reasonably toned down to those 3 rough concepts and how they are ordered.

These big collective plans don't work because you have to go through so many filters: you have to get the national cultures values and ambitions to be put aside to work for your plan. Then the states, then the classes of people. Then the smaller independent groups like cooperation, movements, clubs even. Then finally the individual. It's the very reason you "can't please everyone"

My suggestion: work towards your goals yourself. Find groups, form groups. Write letters. You'll get a lot more success executing something yourself an leading it because even if you do convince someone else that your idea is right the very nature they have different base main values (the 3 rough abstract: EG: freedom, independence, security or...order, support, security eg) but also those values can be at different levels priority to them means they'll always mangle your idea and put it in a direction you didn't want it to go.

Basically: everyone considers everyone else evil or idiots because they can't conceptualize that other people have immediate different philosophical needs for their own happiness and sanity but also different end goals and values of rough concepts. The hardest lesson we learn to respect what we cannot perceive and that diversity of needs exist, individually, as groups and even as nations.

It's the ground floor of the great contradiction: we need freedom because that is how individuals enact their own values and ambitions, for the better of themselves...and others. Yet we need order because the same driving force slowly tears us central union apart.

If you're a bit confused what I'm arguing against here. Since I didn't go on your points but went on a rant. I'm not. I'm basically saying, the best approach to these problems is your own. Everyone else fixes will never be yours, it will always change something small but primordial to the plan and ambitions you have that will have big, long term effects.

.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>
Mentalities like yours are partly why we have so many problems in the world today. You don't care about the future, or the long term consequences of your behavior. "A peaceful and prosperous world" is generally considered desirable by most people.

<Snipped quote by catchamber>

Your 'practicality' did not agree with what I consider practical so you instantly told me I was the reason the world is shit? Yeah, nah. It's definitely about morality at least in part.

You proved my point about considering others evil or stupid. The point is that even if you and Buddah did see eye to eye on what is important, the simple arrangement of what is more important. Even if one thing. Drastically changes both of your approaches, sometimes to alien policies to one another.

and you get that.

2

"We can only be certain of our personal aspirations, and I hope we share the same goals for the world and its people." - you

We do not all share the same goals for our world and its people. The best we share is words. As soon as you submitted this post you mostly got detractors against you plans of implementation and end goals. See, this is what I was trying to convey. Don't rely on other people or cooperation or politics. Sure, recruit them if you will but do so knowing that...in the grand scheme of doing any of this shit...it takes one...one process for it to dramatically change from its original point.

You're point is rationale, it dose make sense to conclude that if someone is vertical farming...then..it will result in farming. Job done, end purpose fulfilled. but, What are they farming, who is going to, how was it built, who wants to legislate this. Does the person who built it and technically owns it agree with that legislation...does that person with the knowledge on building vertical farms only help other people he knows will support an government policy or business policy. Thus assuring most vertical farms end up defeating the point by say.

legalizing weed and then selling that. So the efficiency of vertical farms mostly go into getting people high.

As you justly eluded to with the above quote on the enigmatic stranger. Objects and reality are A to B but plans...are immaterial and you hand them out to immaterial thought process. A can very easily become Z. So when I say, you should handle it yourself. If you make a vertical farm and then...say...dedicate your knowledge online to show other people how to build say...DIY backyard vertical farming. At least then you can be assured that the practical effect you want is taken, rather than recruiting dubious strangers and organisations or leaders to hear you out.

Life is rational. If something works, it's like a train. It slowly builds up speed. Everyone gets on board or they get out of the way. It's better you start the train and make sure it doesn't go off the tracks.

Have any of you economically illeterate armchair revolutionists heard of something called



Learn something before you speak.

Learn something before you speak.

The irony is astonishing, I suppose.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

The irony is astonishing, I suppose.

I suppose you can refute the free market then? Instead of just making abstract statements.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>

I suppose you can refute the free market then? Instead of just making abstract statements.

I was merely referring to the fact that if I were to point out one person that spewed uninformed stuff constantly, it'd probably be you, because there is no way to refute the free market as much as there is no way to refute a non-free market.

They are things that are (as in; they exist). There is nothing to refute about them. Asking me to refute a free market (as a concept or as a solution to this problem) would be like asking me to refute gravity. It's stupid.

Which further adds evidence to what I said before - you say stuff without thinking about what it means. Your comment and video about the free market did not add anything to the discussion nor did it explain anything nor did it provide sourcing, evidence or .. really, anything worthwhile.

It was just you, opening your mouth, like always. This problem is not solvable simply by shouting 'the free market!' nor is it solvable by shouting 'a non free market!' simply because that adds nothing.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

I was merely referring to the fact that if I were to point out one person that spewed uninformed stuff constantly, it'd probably be you, because there is no way to refute the free market as much as there is no way to refute a non-free market.

What like all that false rape claim 'proof' you did in your anti-feminist thread a while back? I think I still have the link.

Or when you said you didnt need solid proof because of a 'gut feeling' about national rape accusation statistics? Sounds pretty uninformed to me.

The suggestions for the leaders in the original post, all require some level of spending, instead of an email just asking for these things to happen why cant we 'vote with our wallets' and support businesses and organisations that are pushing the said industries if you believe thats what the world needs.

Can you mount some sort of argument against the free market? Or do you have absolutely no opinion on it either way? If thats the case then simply dont respond, because that adds even less to the conversation just to get your abstract observation in.

What like all that false rape claim 'proof' you did in your anti-feminist thread a while back? I think I still have the link.

Or when you said you didnt need solid proof because of a 'gut feeling' about national rape accusation statistics? Sounds pretty uninformed to me.

None of these things make you right now. They may have made you right in the past.

The suggestions for the leaders in the original post, all require some level of spending, instead of an email just asking for these things to happen why cant we 'vote with our wallets' and support businesses and organisations that are pushing the said industries if you believe thats what the world needs.

Something Catchamber already touched upon had you bothered to read the actual thread. An argument as to why this particular subject doesn't necessarily need a free market to function. Could work totally in a non-free market. In fact, I believe it would work slightly better.

Can you mount some sort of argument against the free market? Or do you have absolutely no opinion on it either way? If thats the case then simply dont respond, because that adds even less to the conversation just to get your abstract observation in.

You're awfully dense, you know that? 'Please refute the free market, because it's a theory somehow that can be disproven.' It doesn't work that way. It's an existing process that exists. What do you want me to say. 'No, free markets do not exist!'

Now if you were asking for reasons as to why I believe the free market cannot always be used in every single context just because you're a pseudo-intellectual with a liking for economics, then I could give you one. But you didn't.

But that wasn't really even the part that I found horrendously stupid - it was your failed attempt at calling us armchair revolutionaries despite the fact that more or less everyone disagreed with the OP so far in smaller or larger amounts. Again, something you would've known had you taken the time to read the thread (also read: you're an idiot that tells us we spew things without researching it, but at the same time don't read an entire thread and merely assume things. Also, I don't really buy into Molyneux videos.)

Now, even that could be forgiven, if it weren't for the fact that you tried to call us illiterate while also misspelling the word illiterate. Now, that, I found highly amusing and ironic.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

None of these things make you right now. They may have made you right in the past.

<Snipped quote by Dynamo Frokane>

Something Catchamber already touched upon had you bothered to read the actual thread. An argument as to why this particular subject doesn't necessarily need a free market to function. Could work totally in a non-free market. In fact, I believe it would work slightly better.

I didn't see this in the original post. He make a list of coordinate industrial and resource plans. None of those include any actual economic method how they are achieved-government planned or free market encouragement(cash incentives, movements of consumers ectr)- Maybe I missed it, his commentary besides plans seem to be totally neutral with no plea towards one thing or another.

Sorry if I did, brother.

I agree with what you said about the manner the commentation has been going.

EDIT: No wait, you said thread. Not post. My mistake. Nevermind this.

@ScreenAcne well, yes, reading the original post is exactly what I accused him of, where as reading the whole thread was what I expected. An honest mistake, though, so you are forgiven. For now..

@Buddha

Fuck. Seven days from now I'm gonna have, motherfucking. a bottle bleach stuck in my mouth as the cops inspect my copse and end up looking for some Asian girl.

@Buddha For someone who seems to be so in touch with thier sense of humor, you get pretty sensetive from a little bit of harmless satire.

Calling you armchair revolutionists was clearly not meant to be serious, also had no interest in spellchecking either.

But you got triggered, I guess it happens.

I dont care if its been mentioned in this thread before, I happen to think a free market solution would be better, I can happily repeat whats been said if I still think it to be true. Dictate your own threads.

Okay you broadly dont buy into Molyneux videos, so does that automatically make every argument in the video invalid? did you even watch it?

Take away all your ad-hominems and you are really quite repetetive with your observations.

@Dynamo Frokane I got triggered indeed, and that's why I will be returning to my safe space to avoid having to have this discussion with you any further. In reality, I don't think we're getting anywhere.

Hope you have a good night, Dynamo. You should read the thread. Seriously. It'll help avoid making you look idiotic again.

@Buddha yeah you calling me an idiot 4 different ways doesnt add much at all to the discussion does it? Glad you are finally maturing, night night.

<Snipped quote by Burning Kitty>

Each of the ideas you mentioned are unsatisfactory.

China's one child policy worked somewhat, however with the scale of the world we inhabit we would still end up with many country bumpkins continuing to produce more than one child.

A lottery of that nature would cause too much societal strife, and might lead to unrest among the population to such an extent that they rebel against the processes which enforce the lottery.

Simply euthanizing "leeches" would do little to quell the constant threat of population growth. It would disincentive people from lethargy to such an extent that they might even cause further strain on the world. And, of course, there is always the question of the global scale; it won't slow the birth rates of developing countries and is hard to enforce without incident.

Constant war does too much damage to infrastructure and the environment, and can even lead to the destruction of humanity as a whole: something which is rather unwanted. Besides, war opens up too many other avenues of societal degradation (see 1984).

I should have stated that by reversing population growth, I meant stopping birth rates from occurring at a replacement level, so that the next generation of humanity is much smaller than the last.

Who defines who as a 'leech'? Who is this elite to say who is and isn't allowed to exist?

The general trends in population growth actually shows a general stagnation after a certain point- the fears of overpopulation are simply that, fears. The system can stabilize itself if allowed to.

The issue is that there's always some complications. I just don't really think that you need that much tech for a solution. Simply a new distribution of it and even if global cooperation is impossible each country may see it crucial as to copy solutions from competitors that work.

Ultimately the idea is you have a perpetual state of 'tension' induced as a means of making sure civilization doesn't become complacent. That matters more than a reliance on top-down authoritarian measures of population control that don't really solve the problem. It's the right kind of conflict you want, if you have destructive conflict you go back to the stone age- have productive conflict and you get a man on the moon.

That's why I don't really advocate world government much as world governments tend to lead to global tyrants who would care more about power preservation than any abstract hope of advancing humanity, I suppose a ideological vanity project or two might happen, but I believe that a multi-polar system that doesn't collapse has the best hope of leading to a paradoxically better world. Consider the cold war and consider the constant advancements happening both in america and overseas. America won't play with biotech on humans? China will! China won't allow for new political concepts to develop? The West Will! America won't use biofuels? Brazil does! America didn't invest in a particle collider? Europe does!

The need to deal with climate change will also require many solutions, thankfully more countries have leaders who believe it than don't so even if it may seem hopeless I still think that there is some chance of pulling from the brink... Even if the entropy increases may make that thought come off as foolish. Just remember that complex systems have their ways of finding a equilibrium even if it may seem like we are doomed to apocalypse at times. Technically we should've had Reagan start WW3 and wipe out the human species... Yet still we are here!

Can you rephrase this?

You're going to argue (I suspect) that prison labor is a good thing because it provides extremely cheap production of goods. Then these goods can be sold to the public at a lower price.

That's not how it works.

It's true that prisoners earn something like $.30/hr on average in this country. But if you think goods are being sold at a lower price most or all of the time, you're delusional. $.30/hr worker salaries just means that a corporation can sell goods at the same price and pocket even more money from the transaction, instead of paying ordinary workers minimum wage to produce those same goods.

Also consider this: even if the public was receiving cheaper goods from the privatization of prisons as a source of cheap labor, we're still paying higher taxes than we would without this privatization. Why? Because the private prison complex wants more people in prison, and it wants them to stay there longer. And it costs about $400,000 per year, per prisoner, to keep these people fed, medicated, sheltered, clothed, to provide their utilities, etc.

Basically prisons are run like a business now, designed to turn .72% of the population basically into slaves who will work almost for free. And they don't even have to feed or house these slaves themselves, since we, the taxpayers, are doing that for them. Imagine a cotton plantation in the 18th Century south where slaves work for pennies and are provided their daily necessities by other people. The plantation owner is not eager to give that up. Remember, back then, the most valuable slaves were young males, because old/crippled slaves couldn't work as hard, but they ate just as much food as anyone else. Older slaves were more expensive to keep, therefore, than young ones, because with young slaves the owners got much greater returns on their sunken costs.

This stipulation doesn't exist anymore because the plantation owners aren't the ones who pay out of pocket to feed and clothe their own slaves anymore. So they can just throw anyone in jail at all, and none of that shit will matter.

Why do you think no one is in a hurry to decriminalize marijuana and other hard drugs? Because having even a trace residue of one of these drugs on your person allows them to enslave you for that $.30/hr paycheck for four years (or whatever the sentence is for Possession nowadays). Without bullshit laws that can throw people in jail for totally trivial shit, that super-cheap labor force dries up.

These people are the reason the USA has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the entire world, and also why we have the highest recidivism rate in the world. If we actually cared about fixing this country, we'd stop treating prison as a place of punishment and start treating it as a place of personal reform. We'd stop the profits of prison labor from going into businessmen's pockets, using it instead to rebuild infrastructure and fund shrinking educational facilities. We'd put an end to people profiting off the prison complex, so we can have fewer prisoners, get them out of prison sooner, and make sure that more of them reintegrate into society instead of becoming repeat offenders.

We don't think your opinions are ridiculous because we're cunts and assholes and we don't "get it." We think they're ridiculous because you're fourteen years old and you don't think about the broader consequences of the "genius solutions" you wish to deploy. Often enough you're not even addressing the people who are actually responsible for these problems!

.

Also, the new law allows prisoners with marijuana related sentences to appeal for shorter sentences.

And their appeals will be denied, but they'll have fooled you into thinking the system is fair and balanced for the prisoners now. Bravo.

California legalized the recreational use and sale of marijuana.

Are you aware that one of the largest warning signs of being on the autism spectrum is taking everything literally, and being unable to detect sarcasm, hyperbole, or subtext?

Yes, California legalized weed. So did two or three other states. That doesn't change the fact that there's enormous resistance against legalizing it country-wide, because doing so would inhibit the private prison complex, among others. Weed is also only hard drug among dozens.

Tangentially related, your "ingenious" ideas about solar paneling will face exactly the same stonewalling from the oil and gas industries. What benefits the entire country does not benefit the very small number of people who are pocketing huge amounts of money from these scams, and they're the ones with lobbying power in the lawmaking process, not you. Probably the greatest irony in this genius thread is that our senators' ability to be bought is the reason this shit happens in the first place; yet you want us to send your thread to our senators and governors thinking they'll listen! They wouldn't even if your ideas were feasible. (And they're not feasible anyway.)

@pugbutter It has been hell getting republican senators to oppose some of the less... Savory aspects of the Trump agenda as is.

Getting them to invest in vertical farming is just not in question unless some billionaire can get a lobbying group going for it or a governor somewhere runs on the promise of investing in it.... Even than there is a chance it'll be overpriced to hell and take forever to finish like with Jerry Brown's bullet train.