The richest 1 percent globally own almost 40 percent of the world

[Meatplow]

Is this true? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

8 paragraphs down, is cited by this reference on wikipedia -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy#cite_note-3

This whole article feels incredibly sketchy but i'm curious if this holds any truth.

[1338 h4x0r]

I think wealth usually follows a power distribution

There's this old rule called the 80-20 rule that says 20% of the people own 80% of the resources. The current distribution might be a more extreme form of that old meme

See more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

[pedro durruti]

shure, corporations wield a huge amount of power. they kill people all the time.

[Iskandar]

Various figures like this are stated but I don't really doubt the basic premise is true.

[Light Flantastic]

the western world is a very small portion of the global population idk why it couldnt be true or why it would even seem unrealistic

[Against Miik!]

The top 1% is 60,000,000 people (roughly). The top 100 richest people own about 2% of the wealth in the world (roughly). So I don't think it's a far stretch to say that the other 59,999,900 could scrounge up the other 38% (definitely).

Btw, according to my (rough) calculations. The bottom 50% (3 billion folks) own just a tad more than the top 100 people, coming in at around 3 percent.

[Iskandar]

I wonder how the wealth divide between rich and poor nations compares with income inequality within the countries themselves. As a rule richer nations are more egalitarian (in large part due to social programs and wealth redistribution) and poorer ones much less so.

[Light Flantastic]

in large part due to social programs and wealth redistribution
correlation and causation

[McP3000]

i own two xbox's am i rich enough to be in the top 1%

[Fuqueue]

replace the word 'rich' with 'obedient' and maybe.

[Aaron]

It's a good thing that wealth isn't divided equally.

[Iskandar]

Rampant inequality isn't a good thing Aaron. I expected better of you.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Depends on how the inequality comes about.

[Iskandar]

Inequality of the kind between rich nations and poor nations only serves to hinder economic advancement and social betterment.

It's a fundamentally unequal relationship.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I'm talking with in a single nation.

Neo-Colonialism or w/e is a different story.

[Iskandar]

Okay, aside from natural inequality it's not really good to let it get out of hand because then it only concentrates wealth and power in the hands of a few and thus impedes social mobility. So it defeats the entire purpose of capitalism.

There are similarities in both cases even though they're different scenarios.

[WhoDidTheElf]

While letting it get completely out of hand is bad, inequalities are healthy on a fundamental level.

[Iskandar]

While letting it get completely out of hand is bad, inequalities are healthy on a fundamental level.To a certain degree. The key point is that people should make what is fair, not exclusively what they can get via the market.

[Aaron]

Rampant inequality isn't a good thing Aaron. I expected better of you.
I didn't say rampant inequality is a good thing, I said wealth being divided equally is a bad thing.

Think of the game monopoly; everyone starts with the same amount of money, but within two goes around the board there's always a massive shift in power naturally. Now think of if noone was allowed to be successful and about all those subsequent vacant houses and utilities. Competition is a tool that occurs in everything, not just business, and it's important for the development of society.

People not being supported because they don't have the same opportunities is not the same as people not having resources. There is a social responsibility for everyone to support each other, but it shouldn't be at the detriment of one of the primary factors for social movement.

[Mr. Ron]

inequality must exist

[Aaron]

Damn socialists. Oh wait.

[Mr. Ron]

money and power should be in the hands of the educated

[WhoDidTheElf]

Money and power should belong to the wittiest.

[Smokey D]

Think of the game monopoly; everyone starts with the same amount of money, but within two goes around the board there's always a massive shift in power naturally. Now think of if noone was allowed to be successful and about all those subsequent vacant houses and utilities. Competition is a tool that occurs in everything, not just business, and it's important for the development of society.


Although I agree there's nothing wrong with inequality per se, you have to inquire into why participants in the system are unequal. Presumably, there are times when an unequal distribution is an unjust one. The man who takes my money by force or fraud isn't entitled to it, although what he did may have been 'natural'.

money and power should be in the hands of the educated

In which case there should be no restraints on becoming educated.

oh wait.

[Mr. Ron]

no there are restraints but then again every society needs people of lower income to function so it serves itself out

[GorgeousGabe]

Yes but we are not talking about the necessary inequality that must exist for a society to function here.

We are talking about gross and massive degrees of inequality that exist not because it is a natural or necessary social development, but because of social injustices that are allowed to occur in the world

[Smokey D]

no there are restraints but then again every society needs people of lower income to function so it serves itself out

Even if that's true, which it probably isn't, it doesn't justify denying people of equal potential or ability equal opportunities for any reason other than their own choice.

[Mr. Ron]

Yes but we are not talking about the necessary inequality that must exist for a society to function here.

We are talking about gross and massive degrees of inequality that exist not because it is a natural or necessary social development, but because of social injustices that are allowed to occur in the world
well yeah overt injustices should be quelled. I'm just saying its good that there is a certain degree of inequality.


Even if that's true, which it probably isn't, it doesn't justify denying people of equal potential or ability equal opportunities for any reason other than their own choice.
I'm for offering solid chances for getting a higher education.

[GorgeousGabe]

So you would say that as a species. . . we are doing things more or less right? We are doing a pretty good job? We are doing pretty well for ourselves & for each other??

[Mr. Ron]

So you would say that as a species. . . we are doing things more or less right? We are doing a pretty good job? We are doing pretty well for ourselves & for each other??
in what specific areas

[Iskandar]

I didn't say rampant inequality is a good thing, I said wealth being divided equally is a bad thing.This is useless without discussing what exactly equality means in this case.
inequality must exist
Have you been reading this thread because I don't believe anyone denied that.

[GorgeousGabe]

More specifically, I'm asking how you would rate society globally. It's not a question to which there's a specific or direct answer.

Obviously some places do better in certain areas than others. . . but in my eyes, that is kind of defeating the purpose. Like. . . it's not really great that some human beings can thrive while others suffer, that doesn't show to me that we as a species are doing a really great job of managing ourselves socially.

Especially now in the age of nuclear weaponry, it is becoming more and more and more important for us to create a sustainable GLOBAL society. An international community that at the very least sets its sights upon creating a better world for everybody, and works towards preventing global catastrophe.

I say this because, whether we like it or not, we ARE a global society. Inventions such as the television, airplane, internet, ensure this. Our power to cause climate changes ensures this. Our power to destroy the world ensures this.

If you were to ask me, the whole point of society is to make our lives better and easier. We are social creatures because we cannot do it all on our own. But now we as a species really do have the power to change the world for everybody, but we do so without everybody's input, and thus we are spiraling in a direction that benefits some at the expense of many. In other words, our global society defeats the purpose of society

[Mr. Ron]

More specifically, I'm asking how you would rate society globally. It's not a question to which there's a specific or direct answer.

Obviously some places do better in certain areas than others. . . but in my eyes, that is kind of defeating the purpose. Like. . . it's not really great that some human beings can thrive while others suffer, that doesn't show to me that we as a species are doing a really great job of managing ourselves socially.

Especially now in the age of nuclear weaponry, it is becoming more and more and more important for us to create a sustainable GLOBAL society. An international community that at the very least sets its sights upon creating a better world for everybody, and works towards preventing global catastrophe.

I say this because, whether we like it or not, we ARE a global society. Inventions such as the television, airplane, internet, ensure this. Our power to cause climate changes ensures this. Our power to destroy the world ensures this.

If you were to ask me, the whole point of society is to make our lives better and easier. We are social creatures because we cannot do it all on our own. But now we as a species really do have the power to change the world for everybody, but we do so without everybody's input, and thus we are spiraling in a direction that benefits some at the expense of many. In other words, our global society defeats the purpose of society
Man is a self interested creature of war. This will not happen.

[Smokey D]

We already have an international community, and I'd say that most people are pretty keen on creating a better world for everybody, even if what they do in practice seems to the contrary.

[Iskandar]

I dislike hearing about what humans are destined to do because of some vaguely defined human nature. I really do.

Now, Mr. Ron, I ask that you consider that my country has not fought a war with yours in two centuries, nor with Great Britain.

[Aaron]

Life should be like Halo; you have grunts who run around scared when you shoot near them, you have hunters that lift things and protect the cool things but socially have no say, and you have the elites that run society.

[Mr. Ron]

See: History.


We may change one day, but right now? Lets face it.

[muthafunkabass]

im all for inequality im on the rich side

[Iskandar]

See: History.


We may change one day, but right now? Lets face it.See: the present for more illustrative examples.

Economically developed, democratically governed nations hardly if ever go to war with one another.

[Mr. Ron]

See: the present for more illustrative examples.

Economically developed, democratically governed nations hardly if ever go to war with one another.
When they start to decline they have reason to. Their nature is subdued in certain instances.

Plus I'm not just talking about war. We are self interested. We will do crazy things for the stuff we want.

[Smokey D]

See: History.


We may change one day, but right now? Lets face it.

history isn't evidence of human nature it's just what people did.


When they start to decline they have reason to. Their nature is subdued in certain instances.

it's nothing to do with their 'nature'.

[Iskandar]

People went to war a lot more when we were living in adobe huts and ruled by god-kings.
When they start to decline they have reason to. Their nature is subdued in certain instances.
We have no reason to go to war with France.
Plus I'm not just talking about war. We are self interested. We will do crazy things for the stuff we want.It's in our self-interest to create a peaceful world.

[Aaron]

I guess the question needs to be asked, whether people who are born into a class are to remain in that class or not?

[Mr. Ron]

People went to war a lot more when we were living in adobe huts and ruled by god-kings.
We have no reason to go to war with France.
It's in our self-interest to create a peaceful world.
Interests change. Once things get bad we become more self interested and more attuned to our own survival

[Iskandar]

I guess the question needs to be asked, whether people who are born into a class are to remain in that class or not?Nobody should have to.

More idealistically, there should be no classes. Smash the state! All power to the soviets!

[Mr. Ron]

no classes are good

[Smokey D]

no classes are good

What do you mean by class?

[GorgeousGabe]

I don't like the 'human nature' argument either. There have always been societies that have denied the model which you have proposed is our 'destiny'

[Mr. Ron]

What do you mean by class?
economic classes.

[Iskandar]

no classes are goodI'm so confused that you're saying classes are bad and inequality is good.
Interests change. Once things get bad we become more self interested and more attuned to our own survivalThis is so vague as to be useless. It has always been in the interest of everyone involved to have a peaceful world, because war is so destructive, but states violate this norm by choosing to pursue their own self-interest instead of the greater good.

[Aaron]

Economic & social classes.

[Mr. Ron]

I don't like the 'human nature' argument either. There have always been societies that have denied the model which you have proposed is our 'destiny'
so there is no human nature, is what you're saying. None at all.


I'm so confused that you're saying classes are bad and inequality is good.
This is so vague as to be useless. It has always been in the interest of everyone involved to have a peaceful world, because war is so destructive, but states violate this norm by choosing to pursue their own self-interest instead of the greater good.
what no classes are good and certain inequalities are good

[Iskandar]

so there is no human nature, is what you're saying. None at all.If there is, it's not anything we can't override.
what no classes are good and certain inequalities are goodOkay.

[Mr. Ron]

Man deprives others of things to thrive every single day. I don't see how you can debate that.

[Iskandar]

Man deprives others of things to thrive every single day. I don't see how you can debate that.What does that have to do with war. War disrupts normal economic activity.

[Mr. Ron]

What does that have to do with war. War disrupts normal economic activity.
it can create massive amounts of money for a lot of people, actually

[GorgeousGabe]

More powerful than human nature is human knowledge and wisdom which allows us to both understand the past and conceptualize the future accordingly. In other words, we have the ability to realize that, even if there is such a thing as hard-wired destructive human nature like you say, that it is in our best interest to make better decisions

[Mr. Ron]

More powerful than human nature is human knowledge and wisdom which allows us to both understand the past and conceptualize the future accordingly. In other words, we have the ability to realize that, even if there is such a thing as hard-wired destructive human nature like you say, that it is in our best interest to make better decisions
Oh, I don't doubt that we learn from our mistakes. Civilization has become much more peaceful, however, I just think that human nature IS and always will be self interested and warlike.

[TheDarkHorse]

I guess the question needs to be asked, whether people who are born into a class are to remain in that class or not?

For the most part, according to some statistics I checked out. Something along the lines of 1% of lower class makes it to the upper class
no classes are good
Explain

[Mr. Ron]

Classes gives society order and pools of people to draw on for specific purposes. Plus I don't think its possible not to have classes.

[Iskandar]

it can create massive amounts of money for a lot of people, actuallyWar profiteers, sure. That's why I said normal economic activity. War is ruinous for the losers and frequently for the victors as well.

[TheDarkHorse]

Classes gives society order and pools of people to draw on for specific purposes.
You can have order without a hierarchy.

Plus I don't think its possible not to have classes.
I don't think its possible to not break the law, therefore breaking the law is good?

I don't follow.

[Mr. Ron]

You can have order without a hierarchy.

I don't think its possible to not break the law, therefore breaking the law is good?

I don't follow.
I think there needs to be hierarchy. Without a certain chain of command things start to break down. There needs to be people tel others what to do in some situations. I think this is reasonable?

[Smokey D]

economic classes.

What does that mean?

Do you mean people of relative unequal incomes or do you mean entrenched classes of serfs and wage slaves?

Classes gives society order and pools of people to draw on for specific purposes. Plus I don't think its possible not to have classes.

Lots of things give society order, and I don't even know what pools of people for specific purposes means.

so there is no human nature, is what you're saying. None at all.

There is nothing natural. There is only the social.

Man deprives others of things to thrive every single day. I don't see how you can debate that.

Prove that we need to do it.

it can create massive amounts of money for a lot of people, actually

This is the important bit. You're misrepresenting the interests of a powerful few as 'natural' and ordinary part of everyone's life. I think that's what Marx called reification.

You can have order without a hierarchy.

And indeed hierarchy without class.

I think there needs to be hierarchy. Without a certain chain of command things start to break down. There needs to be people tel others what to do in some situations. I think this is reasonable?

I don't know if society really works on a hierarchical model.

[Iskandar]

I think there needs to be hierarchy. Without a certain chain of command things start to break down. There needs to be people tel others what to do in some situations. I think this is reasonable?Classes imply much more than this.

They imply a lack of social mobility for one.

[Mr. Ron]

Classes imply much more than this.

They imply a lack of social mobility for one.
idk there are classes now and there is mobility among them. I never said that classes would be things that people had to stay in. You show commitment and effort you ascend.

[Smokey D]

idk there are classes now and there is mobility among them. I never said that classes would be things that people had to stay in. You show commitment and effort you ascend.

But that's not really the way classes work.

[Mr. Ron]

What does that mean?

Do you mean people of relative unequal incomes or do you mean entrenched classes of serfs and wage slaves?



Lots of things give society order, and I don't even know what pools of people for specific purposes means.



There is nothing natural. There is only the social.



Prove that we need to do it.



This is the important bit. You're misrepresenting the interests of a powerful few as 'natural' and ordinary part of everyone's life. I think that's what Marx called reification.



And indeed hierarchy without class.



I don't know if society really works on a hierarchical model.
Relative. I'm not in favor of sefs or anything like that.


I disagree. I think certain biological aspects of humans drive us in creating certain social norms.


Prove it? Look at the tag on your shirt. You're depriving others for your own gain.


Hierarchy implies class. If there were no levels of individuals then it would't be called hierarchy.

[Iskandar]

idk there are classes now and there is mobility among them. I never said that classes would be things that people had to stay in. You show commitment and effort you ascend.The problem is that classes tend towards obstructing social mobility, not promoting it.

[GorgeousGabe]

And no, having a tag on my shirt doesn't mean I've deprived anyone of anything.

What I am is a consumer. I, like you and like everyone here, was born into a society with a ****ing tube in my mouth. That tube goes from the exploited into my mouth but I didn't put it there, I didn't invent it, I just pay to keep it there because I am addicted to this way of life and don't know how to survive any other way because I haven't been taught

I'll be trying to figure it out now that I'm an adult capable of thinking and making decisions for myself but as of right now what I am is a consumer, not an exploiter

[Smokey D]

I disagree. I think certain biological aspects of humans drive us in creating certain social norms.

Probably, although how they manifest is so completely controlled by society that it's idle to try and identify 'natural' qualities in society.



Prove it? Look at the tag on your shirt. You're depriving others for your own gain.

a) an incoming tide raises all boats and b) I said prove that it was natural not that it happened.




Hierarchy implies class. If there were no levels of individuals then it would't be called hierarchy.

Class implies hierarchy, but there is nothing automatic about the shift from differentiated authority or power to economic classes.

[The_Malcontent]

Are we to be stuck in the classes?
how are we assigned these "classes"?
And in being in a class, are there social requirements?
can we change classes?
a person can't simply say classes as a generalization, it creates a paradox, an impossiblility.

[The_Malcontent]

so the poor ARE the poor?
they have to be that way for our society to function?
how do we know it has to be that way if that's the only way we ever knew.
option number two was never observed.

[Against Miik!]

Yes there have to be poor, or poorer at least, unless you are proposing some sort of Harrison Bergeron scenario.

[The_Malcontent]

im not proposing anything, i was just getting the dimensions and extent of your beleif.
in theory,if people themselves were not a variable in the situation,if everyone was to be middle class everything would fall apart?(don't think communism please,that's what it sounds like, huh?)
Why?

[Against Miik!]

im not proposing anything, i was just getting the dimensions and extent of your beleif.
in theory,if people themselves were not a variable in the situation,if everyone was to be middle class everything would fall apart?(don't think communism please,that's what it sounds like, huh?)
Why?

Not to put forth the cookie cutter capitalism belief, because that has its flaws as well, but:

If we are all in the middle, then that means someone puts us there. It would mean that all but those most thirsty for knowledge will have no reason to seek it. For example, why should I continue my education, if stopping right now would mean I have just as good a life economically as someone who did continue?

For there to be a middle and nothing else, we would have to forgo the assumption that people are not ultimately self interested and nothing else (generally). People always want more for themselves, at least to an extent. This doesn't necessarily mean they want less for others, but really, there is only so much of the pie.

[Smokey D]

There is a difference in saying people will have different economic outcomes and saying class is a necessary and inescapable fact of existence.

[The_Malcontent]

i think you make a valid point.
i hadn't even considered that someone had to put me in the middle class position...
entailing that that someone had to be above me.
hmmmm.
thanks for showing me that point.
as a personal question, are you happy with the way things are, or are they simply the facts?
do you wish change was possible?

[The_Malcontent]

the last post was to miik,sorry for the hole.

[Against Miik!]

There is a difference in saying people will have different economic outcomes and saying class is a necessary and inescapable fact of existence.

No there isn't. The natural end of different economic outcomes is a class system. Not necessarily an institutionalized one like India, but most certainly a de facto one like most other places.

i think you make a valid point.
i hadn't even considered that someone had to put me in the middle class position...
entailing that that someone had to be above me.
hmmmm.
thanks for showing me that point.
as a personal question, are you happy with the way things are, or are they simply the facts?
do you wish change was possible?

The fact that different classes exist and aren't forced upon me (mostly) allows me to know that change is possible, at least for myself.

That said, am I happy where I am economically? Sure. I keep it on perspective, knowing that being an a middle-upper middle class American means I am probably in the top 85%-90% of the world. However, I have no reason not to want to better my situation. That doesn't mean I want to get rich and buy all sorts of crazy things. It just means that I want to be able to live comfortably, which even middle class in America doesn't get you these days. And in order to better myself economically, I have to better myself. There is very little aside from economic factors that are incentive to do that.

There are, of course, self righteous people out there who love knowledge for knowledge sake, or will help people at any cost, but that is only relative because we have a class system, in which there are people who are only in it for the economic rewards. We wouldn't even be able to comprehend that attribute.

[Smokey D]

No there isn't. The natural end of different economic outcomes is a class system. Not necessarily an institutionalized one like India, but most certainly a de facto one like most other places.

I don't know if it's quite so simple. It's easy to say it's natural (read, required) because that's what has happened, but I dunno if it's actually true. But before we go much further, we're going to need a proper definition of class, as Malcontent suggested.

Are we to be stuck in the classes?
how are we assigned these "classes"?
And in being in a class, are there social requirements?
can we change classes?

These are all vital questions.

[The_Malcontent]

miik,i didn't want to know if you were happy where you stood, i want to know if you are happy with the way things remain for others.Do you beleive its just?

[Against Miik!]

Class is both internal and external, in that in involves not only people of similar economic standing, but also how those people are viewed by the rest of society.

For example, I'll use India again. There are social programs that allow from SC's (scheduled caste members) to get good government jobs, and become relatively rich and well off economically, and yet they are still SC's because of their institutionalized class system.

The external factor is a little less important in places where class isn't institutionalized. But it still exists. Not to bring race into it too much (although it is certainly relevant), but minority rappers and drug dealers, who may have a lot of money, are still most likely going to be looked down upon by others of the same economic standing who achieved their wealth through legitimate means.

miik,i didn't want to know if you were happy where you stood, i want to know if you are happy with the way things remain for others.Do you beleive its just?

O, my bad.

The answer to that is no. While I don't believe everybody should be treated equally (no in terms of manners and such, but economically), I do believe that everybody should be allowed the same opportunities, and where we are now, that just isn't the case. People who say this is America and we all have the same opportunities are delusional. And the thing we all disagree on is how to give ensure that everyone has the same opportunity, or just as importantly, ensure they know they have the same opportunity as well.

[Smokey D]

Well, this is problematic. There is nothing obvious about the proposition that social distinctions based on how we perceive people are necessary for society to work.

[Against Miik!]

Rephrase that maybe?

[McP3000]

Well, this is problematic. There is nothing obvious about the proposition that social distinctions based on how we perceive people are necessary for society to work.
well you can't really prove otherwise because there have always been two social or two economic classes. I find them to be an end of all societies because of humanity's coercive pack-like nature.

[The_Malcontent]

but never the less, rapper/drug dealer is inded in the class bracket.
and no matter how much the others complain about it, they will do nothing because people in the higher classes are already where they would like to be, they could care less,and so could rapper guy.They have a little in common, they are not on the bottom, and they are going in the same direction up, like the rest of us.

[Against Miik!]

but never the less, rapper/drug dealer is inded in the class bracket.
and no matter how much the others complain about it, they will do nothing because people in the higher classes are already where they would like to be, they could care less,and so could rapper guy.They have a little in common, they are not on the bottom, and they are going in the same direction up, like the rest of us.

Not necessarily.

Marx believed that only the poor could help the poor because they are the only ones who are well intentioned when it comes to that. Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, believed that the rich are most suited to help the poor, having the most access to resources. Basically, you can't provide for others if you can't provide for yourself.

Also, I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but we aren't all going up. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer. I don't think this is necessarily good. While I believe classes have to exist, I don't think they need to become more defined and more separated. That won't do anyone any good.

[Smokey D]

Rephrase that maybe?

This conversation began because Ron said that the class hierarchy was inevitable and desirable. I see nothing necessarily inevitable or desirable about treating people differently based on how much money they earn or their relationship to the means of production.

The whole rapper/drug dealer thing may indicate that we tend to categorise people and then make judgments that cohere with our prejudices, but it doesn't really have anything to do with 'economic classes' or their inevitability.


well you can't really prove otherwise because there have always been two social or two economic classes. I find them to be an end of all societies because of humanity's coercive pack-like nature.

You find distinctions in all societies. It is another thing entirely to claim that there are classes and yet another thing to claim that there is a hierarchy between them.

[The_Malcontent]

its the attempt to get away from the poor bracket i refer to as up.
we always want more.

[Against Miik!]

This conversation began because Ron said that the class hierarchy was inevitable and desirable. I see nothing necessarily inevitable or desirable about treating people differently based on how much money they earn or their relationship to the means of production.

Desirable? No. It would certainly be nice if everyone was equal economically, and well off. Not all equally poor. I don't mean poor relatively, because poor wouldn't exist if we were equal. I mean poor in that we all struggled to eat and all that.

But inevitable and necessary? Definitely. And I am against treating people differently based on economic status, although it does happen, because we all have our prejudices. That is a completely thing though.

The whole rapper/drug dealer thing may indicate that we tend to categorise people and then make judgments that cohere with our prejudices, but it doesn't really have anything to do with 'economic classes' or their inevitability.


Well the point I was trying to get across if that class is more than economic standing, although that certainly is a vital condition.

its the attempt to get away from the poor bracket i refer to as up.
we always want more.

Then that attribute can't be a defining factor when it comes to class, if applies to everyone.

[The_Malcontent]

im trying to convey that the things leading to the classes being established,
are a regular function in human behavior.
im attempting to veer from social classes.

[Against Miik!]

I thought I already said why I think the things that lead to social classes are necessary.

[Smokey D]

Desirable? No. It would certainly be nice if everyone was equal economically, and well off. Not all equally poor. I don't mean poor relatively, because poor wouldn't exist if we were equal. I mean poor in that we all struggled to eat and all that.


But inevitable and necessary? Definitely. And I am against treating people differently based on economic status, although it does happen, because we all have our prejudices. That is a completely thing though.

Say everyone earned within a thousand dollars of the national average, and even the lowest income earner was able to live a comfortable middle class life style. In this scenario, I don't know if it would be appropriate to think of people as differentiated by class, or whether the term 'poor' would have any meaning.

The point being that you can have differentiated economic outcomes without some people being poor (in the absolute sense, ie destitute). This is what Ron was unclear on. I couldn't work out whether he meant we needed an underclass or whether it was a fact of our current society that some people earn more or less than other people.

Well the point I was trying to get across if that class is more than economic standing, although that certainly is a vital condition.

But there is nothing vital about distinguishing people on how well they fit with our prejudices about being upper class.

[The_Malcontent]

and i beleive that they are not.
and to go off of poor rapper guy some more,it still remains that he IS where he IS social class regardless.
his line of work does not expose him to posh country club attendees, who have their own social class altogether.

[Against Miik!]

Social and economic class are different, and both help define the broader definition of class in general.

Say everyone earned within a thousand dollars of the national average, and even the lowest income earner was able to live a comfortable middle class life style. In this scenario, I don't know if it would be appropriate to think of people as differentiated by class, or whether the term 'poor' would have any meaning.

The point being that you can have differentiated economic outcomes without some people being poor (in the absolute sense, ie destitute). This is what Ron was unclear on. I couldn't work out whether he meant we needed an underclass or whether it was a fact of our current society that some people earn more or less than other people.

No, poor would have no meaning, as poor is relative, and I'd say a few thousand dollars hardly enough to constitute rich vs poor, in a monetary sense.

The underclass is without question a fact of our current society. The question is whether or not it is necessary. I believe it is. People need to be compensated differently for different tasks. Capitalism at its core got that right.

Now, I don't believe our current form of capitalism is the best it can be. We need to define as a society just what proper compensation is for each task. Certainly the superintendent of a school is more important than the janitors at the school. This isn't because a clean school isn't important, but because a lot of of people can clean, but very few can superintendize (new word). People have different economic value based on their skills, and should. But that doesn't mean that we don't all have the same value as people, because we do.

If you are willing and able to work hard, I think you should make a sufficient wage to provide for you and your family. Just how that will pan out is a little dicey, because we can't have people having 12 kids just to say that they need more money. But there needs to be a system for this that can work with capitalism, and I think there can be, although I'm not in a position now to say what that is.

On the other end of the spectrum, CEO's do not need to be receiving multi million dollar bonuses. This is where capitalism fails as well. The rich make the rules, and they can make the rules work for them. That needs to change without the whole system falling apart, and again, I believe it can.

But there is nothing vital about distinguishing people on how well they fit with our prejudices about being upper class.


I guess vital was a bad word choice. I didn't mean so much that it is necessary, but more that it simply exists.

[Smokey D]

No, poor would have no meaning, as poor is relative, and I'd say a few thousand dollars hardly enough to constitute rich vs poor, in a monetary sense.

Well surely we can distinguish between someone who is poor within the system and someone who is destitute.


The underclass is without question a fact of our current society. The question is whether or not it is necessary. I believe it is. People need to be compensated differently for different tasks. Capitalism at its core got that right.

I don't necessarily disagree, although I do not accept that differential compensation requires some people to be rewarded with millions while others earn only enough to subsist. I cannot see how our system requires people to live on the breadline when so much wealth is being created. It is, I think, entirely possible, for people to be poor relative to the greatest income earners within a society but nonetheless not poor in the absolute sense. This, I think, describes the majority of people living in modern western states.

If everyone can afford to live a middle class existence, then it undermines the claim that 'classes are natural and necessary' or at least requires us to come up with new definitions of class.

[Against Miik!]

Yes I agreed that the wealth gap needs to exist, but it can certainly be less substantial. It has been proven that countries with the most inequality are the worst off, like in South America and such.

Countries where there are poor people but wealth is more evenly distributed is a different story. People are poor, but at the same time happier, because in a way they have learned to live with this poverty. It's complex, because poverty and happiness aren't necessarily correlated. Check out Sen's Capability Approach for more on that, it involves the idea of opportunity that I talked about earlier.

Basically, neither system is great, and somewhere in between would be just fine. Capitalism, while still ensuring everybody (or at least as many as possible) can be provided for is possible.

[McP3000]

I don't necessarily disagree, although I do not accept that differential compensation requires some people to be rewarded with millions while others earn only enough to subsist. I cannot see how our system requires people to live on the breadline when so much wealth is being created. It is, I think, entirely possible, for people to be poor relative to the greatest income earners within a society but nonetheless not poor in the absolute sense. This, I think, describes the majority of people living in modern western states.

If everyone can afford to live a middle class existence, then it undermines the claim that 'classes are natural and necessary' or at least requires us to come up with new definitions of class.
if everyone could afford a middle class lifestyle, wouldnt that just hyperinflate the currency? Market factors would make sellers raise their prices because everyone can pay for it, so they know they can get more for their products.

[Smokey D]

I don't think so. Inflation is tied primarily to commodity demand, money supply and cash velocity. The composition of the economy would probably change and it's possible that demand for certain commodities would go up, but I don't know if it would be enough to cause hyperinflation. And I'm not suggesting we increase the money supply or anything.

Moreover, even if there was some inflation it wouldn't be malignant. Prices might jump but I don't see anything in the system which would cause an inflationary cycle.

[McP3000]

I don't think so. Inflation is tied primarily to commodity demand, money supply and cash velocity. The composition of the economy would probably change and it's possible that demand for certain commodities would go up, but I don't know if it would be enough to cause hyperinflation. And I'm not suggesting we increase the money supply or anything.

Moreover, even if there was some inflation it wouldn't be malignant. Prices might jump but I don't see anything in the system which would cause an inflationary cycle.
if everyone could afford a middle class lifestyle that would most definitely affect commodity demand, which would in turn affect the velocity of cash...

purchasing power is completely relative how do you not understand this

and i understand that inflation to a very very low amount is actually better for the economy

[GorgeousGabe]

I think the bottom line is that we need to figure out an economic model which is not so stupidly driven by creating more and more stuff out of finite resources.

We make more **** than we know how to get rid of. Why? Because we can still SELL it!

Lets have some ****ing material and environmental responsibility first, and THEN we can figure out an economic model

[Iskandar]

This already exists, it's called sustainability.

[Smokey D]

if everyone could afford a middle class lifestyle that would most definitely affect commodity demand, which would in turn affect the velocity of cash...

purchasing power is completely relative how do you not understand this


Because you aren't changing the amount of money in the economy, you're changing how it's distributed. That's entirely different.

And I think you overstate the way increased wealth affects price. As long as the producers in the market continued to be more or less independent suppliers, there is a powerful incentive not to increase prices beyond what is required by demand.

and i understand that inflation to a very very low amount is actually better for the economy

Yeah and?

This already exists, it's called sustainability.

Sustainability is a buzzword not an economic model.

[Iskandar]

There are numerous economic models based around it. Perhaps you've heard of green politics. Now that's a great buzzword.

[Smokey D]

Er, we need a model not what some people want.

[Iskandar]

Economic models are as idealized as party programmes.

[GorgeousGabe]

There are numerous economic models based around it. Perhaps you've heard of green politics. Now that's a great buzzword.

Yes there are places that follow much more responsible models.

Within the next few years, I actually want to do a project going cross country visiting different communes, eco-villages and other intentional communities and photographing their ways of life

The goal would be to release a book of photography, and also talk about who these people are, where they are, what they do and how they do it. . . I have a connection, my mother is friends with a woman who represents a whole community of eco-villages around the world to the U.N, so I am going to be trying to work this one out for sure, and can hopefully get it done within the next two or three years

Also, just for myself it would be great. I'm sure I would learn a lot of really incredible things

[1338 h4x0r]

I really don't get how libertarian types see measures aimed at making sure resources aren't used faster than they can be regenerated are pie-in-the-sky bong dreams

If x fish are born in a sea every year, and you fish y where y > x, what the **** is going to happen? Will the invisible hand of the free market restock the waters?

[GorgeousGabe]

^ ^ ^

exactly

Except apply that model to. . . oh. . . everything

I mean we literally DESTROY mountains to get at natural resources. We just gut them out and blow them up with dynamite, straight up annihilate them.

We dam up rivers, we chop up rainforests, we fish up the seas. . . there will soon be enough excess carbon in the oceans that the water will become toxic to many kinds of plankton. should I illustrate what happens when the lowest bar on the food chain is removed?

[Smokey D]

I really don't get how libertarian types see measures aimed at making sure resources aren't used faster than they can be regenerated are pie-in-the-sky bong dreams

If x fish are born in a sea every year, and you fish y where y > x, what the **** is going to happen? Will the invisible hand of the free market restock the waters?

Presumably they would say that if y > x then supply would decrease, price would go up so quantity of fish demanded would decrease and y would decrease until equilibrium was reached.

[1338 h4x0r]

......except that's retarded because it doesn't work like that in the real world

[Light Flantastic]

pretty sure it does though

I mean we literally DESTROY mountains to get at natural resources. We just gut them out and blow them up with dynamite, straight up annihilate them.

when will these people learn that the human race cant survive without mountains

[Smokey D]

......except that's retarded because it doesn't work like that in the real world

Well, it does work. The problem is whether it would work in time to save fish stocks. I suggest not.

[1338 h4x0r]

Exactly. Especially not when large commercial fishers are getting subsidies

Same applies to rainforest wood, etc.

pretty sure it does though

Except that, derp, no it doesn't:

http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php

when will these people learn that the human race cant survive without mountains

If you like living in a blasted wasteland, sure

There again you haven't been out of the basement in years

[Light Flantastic]

ignoring the fact that you just linked to a site called overfishing.org, an impeccable source if ever there was one, im not sure how it counters the process of supply and demand

[Light Flantastic]

and you're always so insulting, christopher, i think you need to be more relaxed about other peoples opinions

[Smokey D]

Subsidies are like the worst thing ever. Every country everywhere should get rid of subsidies and tariffs and whatnot.

[1338 h4x0r]

ignoring the fact that you just linked to a site called overfishing.org, an impeccable source if ever there was one, im not sure how it counters the process of supply and demand

Except that a number of fish species are already endangered from overfishing and finning (which is just stupid btw)

If overfishing.org isn't good enough for you, here's a guardian article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/feb/18/conservation.aaas

You act like people have never hunted a species into extinction before, durr hurr

Also economic models aren't quite as close to reality as ecological models and more prone to political biasing, not sure if you knew

[Light Flantastic]

you act like extinction of a single species matters

extinction of fish matters more

although also not that much

[1338 h4x0r]

you act like extinction of a single species matters

extinction of fish matters more

although also not that much

Extinction of a species upsets the ecology

Extinction of all fish would be hugely disruptive to the world ecology

[Light Flantastic]

who cares unless it affects humans directly

its not yet affecting humans thus fish are still at a low price

when we actually start running out of fish to eat then prices go up

[1338 h4x0r]

who cares unless it affects humans directly

That's retarded

And who decides what "affects humans directly": biological degradation of all kinds has started to have major impacts on people and yet endangered natural resources remain cheap

I take it you haven't learned what "externality" means

[Light Flantastic]

That's retardednot really why dont you cry about 99.9% of all species that have ever existed being extinct

the vast majority of which had nothing to do with humans

but we're gonna destroy the world if we kill off a few species of fish

[1338 h4x0r]

not really why dont you cry about 99.9% of all species that have ever existed being extinct

That number is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether overfishing, pollution, deforestation, etc. are going to affect us

[Light Flantastic]

im aware its irrelevant to that but thats fine since i was responding to you telling me that only caring if it affects humans is retarded

ergo i am demonstrating why one shouldnt care if it does not affect humans


but if it affects us it will be in the form of a natural population limitation, and i dont really see anything wrong with that either, being that its inevitable at some point

[1338 h4x0r]

Quality of life is an issue as well

[Smokey D]

Collapse of fish stocks is important because there are many societies which depend on fish for their well being, there are potentially important bioscience discoveries (re medicine) to be discovered in fish and other sea life, and there is a correlation between healthy sea and healthy humans.



but if it affects us it will be in the form of a natural population limitation, and i dont really see anything wrong with that either, being that its inevitable at some point

Explain.

[1338 h4x0r]

Well Smokey D if the Earth is a smoldering, trackless ruin but the free market survives, then no worries

[McP3000]

because thats exactly what'll happen

[1338 h4x0r]

Maybe in Texas you are insulated from the effects of unfettered capitalism

This is what happens when the free market is totally unrestrained:

http://s.ngm.com/2007/02/nigerian-oil/img/nigerian-oil-hdr-615.jpg

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/ecuador-oil-pollution-1.jpg

[GorgeousGabe]

when will these people learn that the human race cant survive without mountains

If you like living in a blasted wasteland, sure

There again you haven't been out of the basement in years

OK. I'm going to work through this, not in an attempt to make you agree with me, but in an attempt to try to make you maybe understand this from a sane person's point of view.

We need this planet to survive. This is a very old and very large planet with many systems that keep a kind of natural 'homeostasis' with each other. This is called our eco-system.

Humans now have the power to globally and drastically affect this system.

Does the human race need mountains to survive? Not necessarily. But we have proven that we are unable to control the environment in the same way that nature does. . . BECAUSE we can't control it, because it in fact to a great extent controls US, we should ABSOLUTELY respect it and preserve its natural order as best we can.

Blowing entire mountains off of the map and dumping their gutted remains into the water to create entire man-made islands for rich folks and celebrities to live on is so unfathomably stupid to me that it hurts to think about.

Pumping so much carbon emission into the air that the oceans start to swallow up so much of it that the plankton can no longer survive is so unfathomably stupid to me that it hurts to think about.

The worse we make this world, the worse it will be in the future.

If we don't change our model now, we'll be eating our own **** harder than ever in the years to come.

Some of the most ignorant **** I've ever read comes out of your mouth. The extinction of a single species doesn't matter? Yeah, you're right. . . nothing matters. If that is your point of view, then why appreciate anything at all? We could pave the whole world and drive everything into extinction and the human race could live on in some ****ed up twisted synthetic existence, but think of how pathetic that is that we could very likely be the death of this billions of years old planet.

If you're going to appreciate ANY thing in the whole world, then you should be able to agree that the world itself is worth appreciating

[McP3000]

Maybe in Texas you are insulated from the effects of unfettered capitalism

This is what happens when the free market is totally unrestrained:

http://s.ngm.com/2007/02/nigerian-oil/img/nigerian-oil-hdr-615.jpg

http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/ecuador-oil-pollution-1.jpg
lol

[1338 h4x0r]

Yeah lol living a filthy hellscape must be pretty cool, praise Jesus and His invisible hand

[Light Flantastic]

Explain.
explain what, the world birth rate is higher than the death rate and we have limited resources

so at some point we will have population limitation

unless we've moved to another planet by then


nigeria is a free market!
idk man this coupled with your earlier misunderstanding of supply and demand leads me to believe that you dont really know what a free market entails


The extinction of a single species doesn't matter? Yeah, you're right. . . nothing matters. If that is your point of view, then why appreciate anything at all? We could pave the whole world and drive everything into extinction and the human race could live on in some ****ed up twisted synthetic existence, but think of how pathetic that is that we could very likely be the death of this billions of years old planet.
gabe how many times do i have to explain to you that humans dont have the power to destroy the planet

at all

[1338 h4x0r]

idk man this coupled with your earlier misunderstanding of supply and demand leads me to believe that you dont really know what a free market entails

The point is that oil companies are insufficiently regulated in Nigeria


gabe how many times do i have to explain to you that humans dont have the power to destroy the planet

at all

Maybe not but I think he's talking about the current biosphere, which is well within our power to destroy

[Light Flantastic]

The point is that oil companies are insufficiently regulated in Nigeria
false dichotomy silly


Maybe not but I think he's talking about the current biosphere, which is well within our power to destroyhe said we could be the death of the planet wut

[1338 h4x0r]

false dichotomy silly

I don't get it

he said we could be the death of the planet wut

You're interpreting him too literally

When he said we could be the death of the planet I take it he wasn't talking about the molten metal core of the Earth

[Light Flantastic]

I don't get it
you're trying to claim the only two choices are ****ed up nigeria or government regulation

which is patently stupid on a number of levels

When he said we could be the death of the planet I take it he wasn't talking about the molten metal core of the Earth

we cant even destroy life on the planet

the time scale for the development of complex life is only grand on a human scale

in the course of the planets history its nothing

so even if we could wipe out all complex life (which i highly doubt), we're still not going to be the death of the planet

[1338 h4x0r]

you're trying to claim the only two choices are ****ed up nigeria or government regulation

Are oil companies just going to regulate themselves?

:lol:

[Light Flantastic]

no im pretty sure property rights cover not having waste dumped on your land

[1338 h4x0r]

Who's going to defend rural Nigerians with no money from Shell et alia

What about negative externalities of doing what they want on their own property (e.g., toxic fumes floating over to the nearby neighborhoods)

[Light Flantastic]

Who's going to defend rural Nigerians with no money from Shell et alia
pro bono/speculative legal work

(e.g., toxic fumes floating over to the nearby neighborhoods)
which would still be a violation of property rights

[GorgeousGabe]

Maybe not but I think he's talking about the current biosphere, which is well within our power to destroy

he said we could be the death of the planet wut

That would leave our planet far more dead than it is now. We have the power to remove most if not all life from this planet. If we don't have that power right now, within the next 100 or 200 years we WILL have that power

And no to correct you there is basically zero incentive for corporate powers to obey any kind of property laws in foreign countries that are too chaotic to protect themselves. . . that is why they go there to exploit their resources and to dump their waste

[Light Flantastic]

We have the power to remove most if not all life from this planet. no we dont, and the complex life we could remove would only be temporary

If we don't have that power right now, within the next 100 or 200 years we WILL have that power

so now you're predicting the future


And no to correct you
to correct me where

[GorgeousGabe]

You are saying that just because something is against the law, that somehow this is enough to keep the market on the right track and to stop businesses from overstepping their power at the expense of innocent people.

No, that's not the reality. Not even in this country is that the reality.

And yes, we have the power to damage the ecosystem so thoroughly that it would fall apart so completely that the contents of the atmosphere would change and become totally unsuitable for any kind of life that has developed here.

I don't know if we can kill little tiny microbes living in the mariana trench for example, but basically everything else, we could kill with relative ease

I mean maybe that doesn't matter to you, but I don't think it's a very great goal to shoot for

[Light Flantastic]

yeah i guess that means we need regulations those arent exactly the same as laws they're magical ideas that just work

[1338 h4x0r]

Private courts, Gabe

[Light Flantastic]

it seems every time you have no argument you resort to these things its not very impressive i must say

especially since i've never even discussed private courts here i dont think

[Light Flantastic]

And yes, we have the power to damage the ecosystem so thoroughly that it would fall apart so completely that the contents of the atmosphere would change and become totally unsuitable for any kind of life that has developed here.

I don't know if we can kill little tiny microbes living in the mariana trench for example, but basically everything else, we could kill with relative ease
even if we could theoretically kill complex life it will evolve again so it doesnt even matter

[GorgeousGabe]

I am saying more extreme regulations should be enforced

That would be lovely

[GorgeousGabe]

even if we could theoretically kill complex life it will evolve again so it doesnt even matter

It's a possibility. We don't know that.

Even so you are grasping at straws here.

Is your argument literally as pitiful as,

"We should keep going down the road that we are going down, because EVEN IF we screw up and literally kill all life on this planet, it could evolve again so it's no problemo"

[1338 h4x0r]

There's always the chance that sentience was an evolutionary accident, so if we do ourselves in, there may be no species to contemplate how much better the free market performs than anything else ever again on our planet

it seems every time you have no argument you resort to these things its not very impressive i must say

especially since i've never even discussed private courts here i dont think

Yes but they'd perform more efficiently than Big Gummt

[Light Flantastic]

I am saying more extreme regulations should be enforcedso you dont really know what the conversation was about then, i see

It's a possibility. We don't know that.

Even so you are grasping at straws here.

Is your argument literally as pitiful as,

"We should keep going down the road that we are going down, because EVEN IF we screw up and literally kill all life on this planet, it could evolve again so it's no problemo"
um going down the road we are going down wont kill all life on earth when i say we might be able to kill some life i mean like if we set out to deliberately irradiate the entire surface of the planet or something

global warming isnt even going to come close and some other extinction event is highly likely anyway so yes it is entirely pointless to try and save species when the vast majority of them are and will become extinct

[GorgeousGabe]

Wrong on all counts

1) we are developing technology that could conceivably create black holes
2) mining the quantum vacuum could destroy a lot more than life on earth
3) I don't have to talk about nuclear war. . . and what if we develop even more powerful weapons? lord knows we're trying. . .

Also, just think about it. . . if we continue to destroy the ecosystem, it's going to start biting back at us. We're going to have to separate ourselves from the natural forces of the planet more and more and more and more. What if, for example, we kill off so many bids and insects that plant life can't reproduce as successfully? And all the plankton die off, seriously crippling the food chain at the bottom link? So many species will start to go extinct that we will basically need to artificially re-create the ecosystem. We could kill MOST life on earth off just like that, and once we've crossed that threshold, the only real option would be to continue to make earth a more desolate and naturally un-habitable place, where life would be made possible only through use of machines and technology.

That's not really science fiction, either. . . we already have cities that are very much like that in the deserts of the world where the only thing keeping life on its feet is forced irrigation

Or if we disrupt the atmosphere enough that it stops being able to replenish, and the oceans start to dry up. . . I mean we could do a lot of CRAZY **** to this planet if we don't watch ourselves

Personally, I think it's bad enough that we've reduced the rainforests to a sliver of their original size, blown up entire mountains, and fished certain species' into near extinction. I think it's bad enough that we've melted the snow caps and the glaciers. I think we've already gone too far, and the bad news is that as a species we have only just gotten started

[ridethelib]

if it's that dire gabe why not 1) stop posting here and 2) stop wasting time dying your hair and go do something about it

[1338 h4x0r]

Wrong on all counts

1) we are developing technology that could conceivably create black holes

No

Michio Kaku explains

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk8Vr00EBHA

"First of all, the energy of these black holes wouldn't even light up a light bulb"

[GorgeousGabe]

*shrug* well I've read elsewhere that there is a slim chance it could destroy the world.

Not that I believe it will. . . but they will make even bigger colliders

[Iskandar]

We're far more likely to damage our planet and create a hell of a mess that will be extremely expensive and detrimental to all forms of life rather than wipe out humanity with our efforts.

Case in point, we're sort of doing it already.

[GorgeousGabe]

if it's that dire gabe why not 1) stop posting here and 2) stop wasting time dying your hair and go do something about it

I'm too busy trying to make art and music

I don't buy plastic bottles and I refuse plastic bags, and I buy everything that I can off of ebay. I take public transportation. I don't have lots of appliances, and I don't leave them turned on. I do the little things that I can

I will fight for the bigger things but honestly I am too dis-organized to be a real weapon for social change in any way other than to make art that will hopefully speak for people with bigger, more radical and more well thought out social ideas

[Iskandar]

Gabe's intentions are good guys. Stop shitting on him because he's new here.

[Light Flantastic]

very few people have bad intentions most are just misguided

[ridethelib]

I'm too busy trying to make art and music

I don't buy plastic bottles and I refuse plastic bags, and I buy everything that I can off of ebay. I take public transportation. I don't have lots of appliances, and I don't leave them turned on. I do the little things that I can

I will fight for the bigger things but honestly I am too dis-organized to be a real weapon for social change in any way other than to make art that will hopefully speak for people with bigger, more radical and more well thought out social ideas

well i guess you're doing what you can so i can't yell at you :(

[Smokey D]

Recycling cans and avoiding plastic bags isn't doing what you can, it's doing what you want so as to assuage your liberal guilt without actually fixing the problem. Like how donating to the poor merely perpetuates the immiseration of the working class rather than leading to revolution to actually change their situation.

[GorgeousGabe]

We're far more likely to damage our planet and create a hell of a mess that will be extremely expensive and detrimental to all forms of life rather than wipe out humanity with our efforts.

Case in point, we're sort of doing it already.

What do you mean 'my intentions are good'

That is exactly what I said except with more of a crazy disorganized ranting kind of flavor (like I tend to have)

Recycling cans and avoiding plastic bags isn't doing what you can, it's doing what you want so as to assuage your liberal guilt without actually fixing the problem. Like how donating to the poor merely perpetuates the immiseration of the working class rather than leading to revolution to actually change their situation.

You're right. Doing what I can is being a good person to those around me.

But honestly if people are going to be pointing fingers anywhere, I have no idea why it would be at me in the first place. I don't really feel obligated to do anything more than 'doing what I can' because I'm not responsible for the big problems of the world in any way shape or form.

I try to get what I believe in done as best as I can, but I know that honestly it will simply not be my hand that brings down the powers that are evil in this world. Like I said- I am not nearly coherent or organized (or rich) enough for anything political.

So what do I do? I play benefit shows, I don't buy plastic, I try to eat less meat, I don't buy superfluous things, I sign petitions, I buy on ebay, I don't drive a car. . .

My liberal guilt? Fixing the problem? 'Fixing the problem' doesn't really come into play in my life. I don't even move enough money to be a PART of the problem, so forget having enough to get together any movement that would fix it

[1338 h4x0r]

*shrug* well I've read elsewhere that there is a slim chance it could destroy the world.

The Earth gets hit by worse **** everyday than what gets created in particle physics research sites

I'm not trying to be a dick to you, btw, just saying that the tiny tiny black holes that could theoretically come into existence in the LHC would cease to be just as soon. As far as I know, to create a "genuine" black hole, you need something the size of a dying star

[GorgeousGabe]

I believe it, but I'm not an expert

[GorgeousGabe]

And yeah a GRB would be the end of us. From what I understand that would basically turn our planet into crème brûlée

[1338 h4x0r]

I believe it, but I'm not an expert

I don't think experts (at least not the overwhelming majority) are concerned about a black hole sucking up the Earth from Switzerland on out

And yeah a GRB would be the end of us. From what I understand that would basically turn our planet into crème brûlée

Yeah I edited that out of my post since it's not relevant but we'd be pretty much ****ed if that ever happened

[GorgeousGabe]

No the experts aren't but some skeptics are. I'm not worried about it, I think they should go ahead and blow every science olympic gold medal record out of the water, or whatever they do in the science world

but **** they can only build them bigger from here on out

and eventually yeah maybe possibly eventually they could make a black hole or mine the quantum vacuum or split the wrong sub-atomic particle JUUSSSTT in the right way to blow us all to hell

[Iskandar]

Recycling cans and avoiding plastic bags isn't doing what you can, it's doing what you want so as to assuage your liberal guilt without actually fixing the problem. Like how donating to the poor merely perpetuates the immiseration of the working class rather than leading to revolution to actually change their situation.No more Marxist-baiting, k.

[cobert]

No more Marxist-baiting, k.

Why?

I don't like your Stalinist thought suppression.

/trollmode

This topic got way out of hand and is no longer about wealth divide.

[Iskandar]

Well, Marxism is dumb and incapable of actually solving problems like the global wealth divide.

[1338 h4x0r]

No the experts aren't but some skeptics are. I'm not worried about it, I think they should go ahead and blow every science olympic gold medal record out of the water, or whatever they do in the science world

but **** they can only build them bigger from here on out

and eventually yeah maybe possibly eventually they could make a black hole or mine the quantum vacuum or split the wrong sub-atomic particle JUUSSSTT in the right way to blow us all to hell

I have an intuitive sense (and this, I admit, is based on a vague teleological belief that the Universe is here for us to study) that blowing up the whole works is probably not possible

So don't worry: http://cosmicdiary.org/blogs/claire_lee/?p=50