>> ^A10anis:

I'm not fat, i have a "higher body weight." Really? Well, there weren't too many people with higher body weights in the great depression of the 30's, or in the Warsaw ghettos, or currently in famine hit Somalia. Of course some put on weight easier, and faster, than others. But it really is very simple, fewer calories equals less weight. If, however, you are happy with your "higher body weight" then fine, but accept the consequences without blaming others for your choice.


I see what you are saying, but it's not always a choice.

A friend grew up as fat girl in public school (imagine what that would be like for a sec). She tried every diet that came along for many years with no success ( and yes, her mother put her on many diets when she was young). Eventually she was put on a certain anti-depressant--and dropped weight with no conscious diet change (yes, she ate less--because the compulsion was gone).

It's not always a choice--and of course eating healthy is always a good thing.

I'm not fat, i have a "higher body weight." Really? Well, there weren't too many people with higher body weights in the great depression of the 30's, or in the Warsaw ghettos, or currently in famine hit Somalia. Of course some put on weight easier, and faster, than others. But it really is very simple, fewer calories equals less weight. If, however, you are happy with your "higher body weight" then fine, but accept the consequences without blaming others for your choice.

Being that this is only a parody telling people to keep their realities in check, I can laugh it it. However, on the radio yesterday I head a commercial for Old Navy's "Stock up for summer" sale - and it used the same format as these "please help the poverty/famine/disease stricken kids" commercials. I thought it was the most disgusting thing any company has ever done to make a dollar.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I've heard this sort of attitude a lot in the last couple of days and it really bugs me. Just because other things in the world are worse, or other tragedies might affect you more deeply than this, it doesn't mean that this isn't sad or that Amy Winehouse wasn't deserving of our pity. Famine in Africa, terorism in Norway, my friend's cat got put down, my husband being diagnosed with cancer, Amy Winehouse's death. All bad news, all happened recently, and I feel sad about them all in different ways.


Since you quoted my post in your response, I'll assume you were responding to me as well. Sure, the death of any people would be felt by someone, and I'm sure those who like her music would feel sad. My commenting is to bring up the fact that celebrity deaths has been given more attention than the real problems in the world, because it's something that sells papers and gain audience from bored people. I think it has the same overtone of the "First world problem" meme and therefore the association.

<troll face>If that bugs you, well that's too bad, welcome to the interweb.</troll face>

>> ^Asmo:

>> ^steroidg:
I'm adding celebrity deaths in to the category of "First world problems".

Yup. A million starving children is a statistic. One dead crackwhore who can sing?


I've heard this sort of attitude a lot in the last couple of days and it really bugs me. Just because other things in the world are worse, or other tragedies might affect you more deeply than this, it doesn't mean that this isn't sad or that Amy Winehouse wasn't deserving of our pity. Famine in Africa, terorism in Norway, my friend's cat got put down, my husband being diagnosed with cancer, Amy Winehouse's death. All bad news, all happened recently, and I feel sad about them all in different ways.

Sweet afro, Simmons.

Don't worry about fat kids. If the famine from rising food prices don't get 'em they'll still willingly become cyborgs in a few decades.

I always liked Russell Brand's Bob Geldof joke:

"It's no wonder Bob Geldof knows so much about famine - he's been dining out on 'I Don't Like Mondays' for 30 years."

Not just societies. Individuals, too. A death in the family can bring healing to those left behind. Alcoholics and other addicts sometimes finally get help after they hit bottom.

The human condition.


>> ^legacy0100:

Anthropology professor Dr. Mark Nathan Cohen once told his students that major reforms or utilization of innovation will not take place in a regular every day society. Such innovative or drastic ideas will take place only after 5 major key events have occurred beforehand, which are: famine/economic failure, natural disaster, outbreak of disease, religious conflict and political upheaval.
Basically it means that it takes a disaster for society to drastically change its course ; a time of Crisis.

Anthropology professor Dr. Mark Nathan Cohen once told his students that major reforms or utilization of innovation will not take place in a regular every day society. Such innovative or drastic ideas will take place only after either of these 5 major key events have occurred beforehand, which are: famine/economic failure, natural disaster, outbreak of disease, religious conflict and political upheaval.

Basically it means that it takes a disaster for society to drastically change its course ; a time of Crisis.

There are many Scapegoats:

1) The wealthy ("none of these plutocrats earned Dime One so they should pay their fair share")
2) Americans for strong borders ("they just want to randomly arrest anyone who looks Mexican")
3) Straights ("non-diverse, intolerant traditionalists eager to exclude gays")
4) Christians ("a cult of homophobes out to force women to have babies")
5) Whites ("they killed the Indians who were here first, then caused slavery...also they're all racists)
6) "Capitalists" ("caring only about profits, they exploit the poor")


Protip: Beware of left-wing liberators offering "real freedom" to the people. Forced labor camps and planned famines soon follow.

I felt that way a few years back, but recently I've become very cynical. It's true that we have access to more information, but I don't see it being used to make things better.

Big business has never had more control over our government than it does right now. Income inequity has never been worse than it is right now. The population is booming, while corporations are automating and laying off workers, sending jobs to third world nations. It's a race to the bottom.

We are too comfortable and apathetic to make the changes needed. I'm very passionate in my beliefs, but I really don't do shit to change this world, other than argue with people on a very cool, but relatively small website. I can't really even think of anything I could do that would have any kind of impact at all. I feel powerless.

We are going to have to wait for some catastrophic event to force us into making changes. Global Famine? Economic collapse? Complete breakdown of society? Meteor? Nuclear holocaust? Global Climate change? I don't know. And if some catastrophic event does occur, there is no guarantee things will change for the better. The powerful have always been good at turning tragedy into capital.

If I didn't have hope, I wouldn't be typing this, but the older I get, the more I feel like the old donkey in Animal Farm.

I don't think that's amoral, I think that's decidedly immoral. Like @ryanbennitt says above, the Federation is keeping people stupid, allowing genocide, famine, wars etc. At the very least, they could introduce their replicators to all friendly states they met and given them INFINITE food and materials. Not doing that, is intentionally keeping them down.

Because it is a post-scarcity world, there is no limit to supplies in the advanced races, but there is in the simple ones and some people will starve, some people will die because of the inaction of the Federation. I think this is immoral. (Morality is obviously different from person to person, but I think the "least harm principle" is almost universal.)

They should of course be careful when introducing new technologies, and do it gradually, but to make an arbitrary decision like "all pre-warp civilizations get nothing" is immoral.


>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^gwiz665:
The Prime Directive is immoral.
quality doublepromote

The Prime Directive is amoral. It comes from the Vulcans. It is a rational directive so as to not be squandered by moral dilemmas (when two options seem equally "good" or equally "bad"). The Prime Directive is neither good nor bad, it's just a directive to cut the moral Gordian Knot. That the application of the Prime Directive is debated so much shows why it exists : to cut the crap debates around morality. Because it's easy to think you won't interfere when you're far away but not so easy when you're in the middle of a situation. Hence the directive and hence the fact that they can't really punish you when you ignore it in the heat of a situation, unless you committed an actual crime like genocide. And I say "committed", not "let happen". You can let happen a genocide if by doing so you are respecting the Prime Directive in regard to a pre-warp civilizations' internal matters. If its two warp capable factions of the same civilization, it's a matter of whether there is ground to recognize them as two different civilizations, which is a political decision more than a moral one.
In Voyager they sometimes had good reasons to ignore the Prime Directive, for example with the Ocampas they were aware that they were being protected by an alien (the Caretaker). Also, the Kazon were warp capable and were interfering anyway so that's a good reason to beat the crap out of them (plus they were hostile from the get go). You can refrain from interfering in the internal matters of a civilization, but you can't use that excuse when it's not an internal matter (e.g. Picard and the Romulans vs. the Klingon civil war : don't interfere with the Klingon's own internal affairs but also keep the Romulans from interfering because that's not an internal matter).
The Prime Directive is not an absolute, but a code of conduct. Also, the only way I could see to get punished under it would be to give warp technology to a pre-warp civilization. That's a inter-civilization incident because you effectively wilfully bring a new player (de facto ally since you control their level of technological progress) on the galactic table, skewing things in your favor by artificial means. That's why you don't see the Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians or even the Ferengi giving warp technology. You just can't do that without facing consequences from other warp-capable civilizations.

Hi quantum! Long time no see! How's that right-wing going for ya?

Communism eh? What about fascism? Huh? What? Yeah, that's right, I can deal in hyperbole too! So there!

Or are you going to go on a tangent about how the fascists were actually left-wing?>> ^quantumushroom:

Ironic? No. Iconic? Ha ha ha.
Didn't the American left learn anything from the soviet experiment? Russia was/is a country with vast natural resources--far more than the USA has--and under communism they had to import grain. Putting aside the gulags, planned famines and secret police for a moment, the centralized soviet government controlled EVERYTHING. It's fair to say the men and women running the soviet empire weren't fools...they tried their best because failure meant death.
The soviet empire deservedly collapsed because it failed to recognize the dignity of the individual, and individual freedom.
Are American Progressives all communists? Of course not. Are they in tune with the consequences resulting from what they support? No, or they wouldn't be Progressives.
Either you believe in utopia or you understand there are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.
That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.

Ironic? No. Iconic? Ha ha ha.

Didn't the American left learn anything from the soviet experiment? Russia was/is a country with vast natural resources--far more than the USA has--and under communism they had to import grain. Putting aside the gulags, planned famines and secret police for a moment, the centralized soviet government controlled EVERYTHING. It's fair to say the men and women running the soviet empire weren't fools...they tried their best because failure meant death.

The soviet empire deservedly collapsed because it failed to recognize the dignity of the individual, and individual freedom.

Are American Progressives all communists? Of course not. Are they in tune with the consequences resulting from what they support? No, or they wouldn't be Progressives.

Either you believe in utopia or you understand there are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.



>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You're not winning any converts by calling anyone morons.
That's probably the most ironic thing I think I've ever read.

As to hundreds of trillions, yes, my mistake. I meant hundreds of billions, or, nearly a trillion. A family of four is below the replacement rate. Not all land is suitable for farming NOW. I'm farming my 10' x 5' cement patio, and an empty parking lot nearby is being farmed by someone else; so it's hard for me to believe it can't (or won't) be done if the demand is great enough. It is tremendously inefficient to ship food for thousands of miles, and yes, if errors occur in that process temporary starvation may result. Eat local if you're concerned.

Natural disasters occur now, and kill hundreds, even thousands of people. Thousands of years ago, long before the planet reached a billion people, natural disasters occurred, and killed hundreds and thousands of people. Famine and starvation are as old as history itself. It will continue to occur into the future. Certainly, we ought to avoid the effects. But are we to going to tell someone not to have a child in fear that the child may someday die as a result of a drought or a hurricane or an 'unnecessary death'? That is folly. I say, be born. Live. Die. It is better to live for an hour and die than to never live at all.

I agree that "everyone living their lives as best they know how while ignoring everyone else" is a horrible thing. But the supposition that having children IS 'ignoring everyone else' is disingenuous. In my personal experience, everyone who has been exposed to families with children have been blessed by the presence of the children. When they are no longer children, they become men and women who engage with humanity for mutual profit. If there are cases to the contrary, it is not because of the existence of the child (or the man or the woman), but it is because of the errant behavior of the same. The errant behavior is corrected through thoughtful communication concerning belief systems and purposes.

As to deforestation, and climate change, the whole planet's system is self balancing. More CO2, means faster and stronger the vegetation growth which in turn produces more O2 at a faster rate. More CO2 for humans means shorter life spans, which means less population growth. There is no ability for human intervention to change this global balancing act.

Maybe the world's limit is 30 billion if people are, as you say, crammed into cities, and the rest of the world is farmed. MAYBE, just MAYBE, that's NOT the most efficient way of living! Maybe people have minds of their own, that they can put to good use to produce their own food on their own land with their own hands as they desire. Maybe, just maybe, global governance is grossly inefficient as is global planning. Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the human mind is this planets greatest natural resource, and maybe THAT is what is being grossly underutilized.

That seems to be the heart of the problem. Humanity is not merely inert dirt that is to be rearranged and placed at the whim of the theoretical global planner. Each human has the same mental capabilities as the global planner, and may have different designs for his or her future. There are gross inefficiencies that exist which will lead to famine, starvation, deprivation, death, misery, and more. These inefficiencies are found in the contents of the mind, not the mind itself.