Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
brgnorway

How will life be affected?

Recommended Posts

I guess most of you have noticed the fierce arguing going on in South Africa these days. The problem at hand is not only pollution in general, but the connection between poverty and pollution. So there are two basic problems as far as I understand. USA whom ignores every effort to oblige themselves to any binding agreement, and secondly, that poverty represents endangouring the future. Oh, I think I forgot to mention that we (the western world) are using most of the worlds resources when living our "way of life".

My questions to you honourable fellows are: would you be willing to give up some aspects of your economic wellfare in order to equal the gap between the rich and the poor in order to help the future of our kids? (or is this post nothing but pinky-commie-eurotrash-lefty bullshit?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe much will happen to the world for the next 500000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

000000 years, and by then I believe the world will ahve came to an end. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (brgnorway @ Aug. 27 2002,17:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">My questions to you honourable fellows are: would you be willing to give up some aspects of your economic wellfare in order to equal the gap between the rich and the poor in order to help the future of our kids? (or is this post nothing but pinky-commie-eurotrash-lefty bullshit?)<span id='postcolor'>

Sure i would. Depends on what aspect, but i'm not opposed smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more inteligent look at nuclear power is needed if we are to have a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Remember electric cars run from co2 producing powerstations will do just as much damage as conventional automobiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 28 2002,02:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a more inteligent look at nuclear power is needed if we are to have a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Remember electric cars run from co2 producing powerstations will do just as much damage as conventional automobiles.<span id='postcolor'>

You are perfectly right. The same goes for the hydrogenfuelled cars. The hydrogene has to be made at a plant powered by.......coal, diesel, gas etc.

sad.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But we dont want a mini chynobel every time there is a car crash. Nuclear power is clean and efficiant, but mis management and it can do a lot of damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking away world poverty is a tricky situation. Indeed, if the aim is to give the average african the life of an average american, it could just lead to more pollution and may just be a massive expansion on our current problems. You can spread the resources around all you want but the pollution is still there. If the poverty stricken countries develop rapidly, their governments will face massive population growth, the needs to provide housing, electricity, health care etc... expands. With increasing employment comes increasing standard of living. Thats why westerners are polluting the world -our standard of living is generally much higher, we require cars, and we require power, and we also require recreation and lavish furnishings - all these things contribute to the buggering up of our world. Why are rainforests being cut down? The produce things for us, or to provide housing for the poor, or to farm cattle - what for, us. If every c ountry in the world had the economy of western countries, no doubt the entire world would be in an even bigger state.

Imagine if every person in India had a car, oil reserves would probably run out 3 times as fast, pollution would increase very dramtically. Then we'd all be fucked

Its easy to say ''The world would be a better place if there was no poverty'', but there could be massive consequences if the entire world lived above the poverty line. I agree that people need to be taken out of poverty, but it should be a very gradual process rather than an immediate thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Ruud van Nistelrooy @ Aug. 28 2002,03:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Taking away world poverty is a tricky situation. Indeed, if the aim is to give the average african the life of an average american, it could just lead to more pollution and may just be a massive expansion on our current problems. You can spread the resources around all you want but the pollution is still there. If the poverty stricken countries develop rapidly, their governments will face massive population growth, the needs to provide housing, electricity, health care etc... expands. With increasing employment comes increasing standard of living. Thats why westerners are polluting the world -our standard of living is generally much higher, we require cars, and we require power, and we also require recreation and lavish furnishings - all these things contribute to the buggering up of our world. Why are rainforests being cut down? The produce things for us, or to provide housing for the poor, or to farm cattle - what for, us. If every c ountry in the world had the economy of western countries, no doubt the entire world would be in an even bigger state.

Imagine if every person in India had a car, oil reserves would probably run out 3 times as fast, pollution would increase very dramtically. Then we'd all be fucked

Its easy to say ''The world would be a better place if there was no poverty'', but there could be massive consequences if the entire world lived above the poverty line. I agree that people need to be taken out of poverty, but it should be a very gradual process rather than an immediate thing.<span id='postcolor'>

I believe everything you said is right. But I do not suggest every man and woman should have 3 cars or whatever goes with our lifestyle. And you are right - it is a complex problem. If we are to reverse the situation and establish a possibly healthy future for our lives there has to be taken immediate actions.

In my humble opinion there are/should be both short term and long term goals to achieve. Political goals concerning co2 pollution could be met with restrictions on use of vehicles and new technology. Dumping waste into the oceans should be punished really hard. We should all accept lots of things that will infringe on our economic freedom. These examples are just that - examples. There are so many things one should do, and the list could go on forever so I'll just continue on the poverty problem. I believe it's important to make sure free trade between the rich and the poor world. Point is that if poor people and nations dont have the means to buy technology to prevent or reduce pollution. The Indonesian government have no means to stop people burning the forests simply because they can't afford it. In the Philipeens the neither the government nor the plants can afford to implement modern technology. The result - fishermen have to work for eight to nine hours to catch 3 kg of fish whereas they five years ago caught 10 kg in four to five hours. Problems like these are not easy to fix, but something has to be done fast.

Nations like USA and Australia make this a hole lot more difficult by their refusal to participate in any way. They just want to USE.

So do most of us I suppose, but still we try to make something happen by at least showing initiative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My family makes an average amount of money. Middle class...

What I wanna see is the big shot ass holes with 454,234,146 dollars to give a bit of that to people in need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">or is this post nothing but pinky-commie-eurotrash-lefty bullshit?<span id='postcolor'>

damn right you pinky-commie-eurotrash-lefty bullshit! mad.giftounge.gifbiggrin.gifsmile.gifwink.gif

if you ask me, this only shows lack of real love for mother nature from less-poluting countries.

first, a few yrs back, US was criticized for its heavy consumption of good and following pollution.(which it still does). now, the same critics are saying that without economic support, these countries have to rely on foreign support to stop polluting. then the progressing answer extraction would be this.

support poor countries so that they stop economic growth and curb polution, while US cut its polution rate.

but the problem is that how can they expect US to cut its consumption and production down(which will turn it into slower economic growth) and have less money and then support other country's economics?

thus, i only see their recent argument as another attempt to get some economic support and/or just a bad reasoning.

so if someone wants to curb polution, here's my suggestion.

1. world's big polluters should be forced to pollute less

2. but growing countries should be permitted to polute to some extent for sake of sustaining themselves. but after awhile, they should also be subjected to anti-pollution measure since now they are in certain level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harnu, those people do give back to you. They are the ones that provide jobs. Without them, there would be nothing. No one should get anything for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eh remraf @ Aug. 28 2002,05:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Harnu, those people do give back to you. They are the ones that provide jobs. Without them, there would be nothing. No one should get anything for free.<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah..they give people jobs because they feel it's the right thing to do.

Bwaahahahaha... give me a break.

IF the average industrialist could find a way to pay people 1/10 of what they make now, to increase profits, they would do it in a heartbeat. It's called greed. The only thing that stops them in the first world are trade unions. Look at the sweatshops that make tennis shoes in Asia. Do you think these people get the same minimum wage as here? Or get medical benefits? Heh. Hardly.

What the world needs is to realize that no matter how big your bank account is, it doesnt do you any good when you die. Tis harder for a rich man to thread the eye of a needle than to pass the gates of heaven. I am sure I read that somewhere.

What we need to do is mature as a civilization to the point where instead of thinking about how great it is to drive a Ferrari to work, or sitting in your megabuck box seats at a baseball game, that we think think about what is happening in the parts of the world we cant see out our window.

As much as Microsoft is a truly evil corporation if you are in competition with them, some good comes from all that money.

As for 'no one should get anything for free' give your freaking head a shake. You need to go to a third world nation and see a few children on deeaths door for no reason other than crop failure and then you can tell me no one should get anything free. It is the responsiblility of the strong to care for the weak. We just need to start extending that concept to more than just our immediate familes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I come from a lower class family. These big businessman provide jobs for me and my family. They are the ones that pay the bills.

As for third world countries, I do my part, I donate my hard earned cash to the church for missionaries. As for going to a third world country, that would be out of the question. I do not have the available money to do so.

Paying for my car, insurance, phone bill, and broadband bill and all the other taxes cuts me dry every month.

Also, to say Microsoft is evil is lame. Just because they make a superior product doesn't mean their killers. Another thing, I'd like to see any other company, church match bill gates philantropy group. Bill Gates and his wife are by far the largest contributors to philantropy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just my thoughts about domestic factories in foreign land.

(next 2 passages are not directed at Warin.)

it is of no doubt that should total cost of prosuction be less than that of revenue, someone will build a labor shop in foreign country. is that wrong?(morally) no. he is excercising his right to make money at lesser cost.

now how about this scenario. you give them same wage as domestic workers and same benefits. what will happen? the cost of production will be greater than revenue, thus no company owner want to make a factory in foreign soil. what does that mean? no jobs for those who could have been hired.

and if that happens some ppl will say that company owner should have not closed the plant. now what about the owner's right to make profit?

this is directed at warin

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tis harder for a rich man to thread the eye of a needle than to pass the gates of heaven. I am sure I read that somewhere.

<span id='postcolor'>

yes, but should the person, if he earned it honestly and thourgh his hardwork, denied access to heaven? this is actually fun concept since one of Protestants (Kalvin?) claimed that AS LONG AS YOU HONESTLY EARNED MONEY you can goto heaven.

so now the question is does not sharing your wealth disqualify you from entering heaven?

as warins said, for those who say each person should fend for themselves, I say, gimme your address, and i'll cut off your arms and see how you can fend for yourself. there are times when a person will be temporarily be unable to fend himself, and sometime, they are not able to fend for themselves since they became that way without their choice(like born with mental hurdles).

for those ppl, we need to help. but let's not over help. because as soon as you over help, there will be ppl who want to take advantage of that. there is a reason why Sweden's job injury benefit claims rose after its maximum allowable benfit was inceased from 75% of wage to 80% of wage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also, to say Microsoft is evil is lame. Just because they make a superior product doesn't mean their killers. Another thing, I'd like to see any other company, church match bill gates philantropy group. Bill Gates and his wife are by far the largest contributors to philantropy.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, obviously you've never worked for a tech firm who has been assimilated by Microsoft biggrin.gif But that was said to point out that Gates throws a buttload of money at helping people in the third world, and that alone makes him a decent guy no matter what his company dies. But lets not let this degenerate into an arguement about M$.

I wasnt aiming anything in particular at you I was just pointing out that we in the first world have it really really really good, in comparison to the third world.

Ralph,

About the only reason that we have it as good as we do is because of trade unionism. There was a time where a blue collar worker made a pittance even here in North America. It's only when a certain degree of lefty socialism came in and started demanding better treatment that that treatment was given.

I'm not saying being rich is a bad thing. I am saying that the pursuit of wealth usually leaves little time for much else. And there are far more important things in this world than a profit margin.

There is nothing wrong with profit. It's just that when 90% of the world are dirt poor and 10% are wealthy, thats an unfair inequity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hhmm..i guess i should have made my points clearer...i support waht you said, just that i don't support about free-giving without proper oversight.

it has been proven that any society with large mass unhappy will fall. thus, redistribution of wealth should not be thrown out of the window. when you have 10% that owns 90% of total wealth then that society is gonna get f!@#ed up soon.

everyone should be guaranteed to have chance and right to make decent leaving, have access to latest knowledge. however, that doesn't mean that everyone should have access to caviar and drive in Mercedes SL500.(then again, considering historical fact, Toyota Camry is close to Mercedes Benz in older days in performance aspect.)

it is great that labor unions were able to set their foot. but if they start asking for more than they deserve, the whole system will be bound to fail sooner or later. in the begining of 20th century, wealthy ppl took too much. then unions came and they adjusted that. however, there are times when they go too far too.

so i agree that human society, life is more than profit. but i also wanted to say that focusing too much on non-profit aspect is also not good...

damn i hate composition. wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that everyone has the right to prosper under his own deeds. This means working for what you want. I do not feel sorry at all for all the people sitting on their asses, collecting welfare, and doing nothing to improve their lifestyle. Then to go out and blatently accuse the people who have worked so hard to establish a profitable business. Theres a difference from the people who can actually work, and those who can't either physical problems, or mental problems. If your collecting welfare, and you know you can work, that is simply wrong. Like I said, no one should get anything for free. They must work for the pay. With equal opportunity employers all over there is no reason that you cant get a job.

Information is abundant and with all the help their is out there, there is literally no person that can not get a good education if they apply themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ Aug. 28 2002,08:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Isnt this a thread about pollution?<span id='postcolor'>

it is..but one of the themes of the conference is that rich nations economically compensate poor countries so that poor countries don't kill their environment.

so that's how the thead went a bit off-road.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesnt sound so bad- how bout we give subsidies to corporations for supplying the 3rd world with the ways and means to bootstrap themselves into the 21st century without the environmental trauma of another Industrial Revolution. Sounds pretty good to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (eh remraf @ Aug. 28 2002,07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Information is abundant and with all the help their is out there, there is literally no person that can not get a good education if they apply themselves.<span id='postcolor'>

In the first world.

It is possible to work your way out of the inner cities of the US and make something better of yourself. In a lot of cases, there are a lot of avenues to acheive that, help to be had.

The thing is that someone in Somalia doesnt have the same opportunites that someone in the USA has. When a person in any nation of the world has the same opportunities, then the world will be a lot better place.

Like Tex says, what is needed is a way to move the entire world into the 20th century, if not the 21st, but in such a way that we dont ruin the rest of the world in doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Aug. 28 2002,09:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like Tex says, what is needed is a way to move the entire world into the 20th century, if not the 21st, but in such a way that we dont ruin the rest of the world in doing it.<span id='postcolor'>

true. we have to make them adapted to progress.

but i wouldn't mind them skipping discos and marijuanas biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Aug. 27 2002,03:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think a more inteligent look at nuclear power is needed if we are to have a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Remember electric cars run from co2 producing powerstations will do just as much damage as conventional automobiles.<span id='postcolor'>

Not if you use wind, water, sun, etc as energy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×