MushroomTrip said:
Quote: people do not do things out of their own evolving self interest.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but if I get you right, then I beg to differ. People do only things that fit their self interest. If their judgment can be rationally analyzed and concluded that it was poor, this is something entirely different and it doesn't mean that, when making a decision, one doesn't consider first and foremost their self-interest.
Re-read it, because that it what is said there. Obligation is a concept that relies on the premise that people do not always act on their self interest.
Quote: I just said if you dont want to die horribly(watching people you love suffer around you, for example, while you await your own painful death) then I suggest you understand sustainability issues - especially our food systems reliance on - fossil fuels and fossil water(water that is being used to irrigate crops that is not renewable) and the age of cheesy thing of change the world. HAHA, I really think everyone on this forum, has the type of stuff that it takes to learn facts indiscriminately and I know that although the whole change the world this is cheesy, but being aware of your future is something I was looking to give.
If I don't want to die horribly I will do whatever stands in my power not to. I don't have to tell other people how to live their lives and I most certainly can't properly appreciate how they will die, so the only reasonable thing to do IMO is to take care of myself and be around people that I love and that are of the same mind.
I am interested in this type of debate because it is very important to my interests(food, shelter, security and all the goods that arise from it. People in this forum have the same interest and I woould feel bad, wouldnt be taking care of my intereests, if I did not mention it. The horrible death part, I admit, was edgy, but I realized that for reasonable minds, it would be a claim that they are neutral to and to the apathetic minds that think they have nothing to gain from this type of discussion, I aimed, locked on and blew it out of the water for them in that claim about horrible death. It was a communicative strategy that takes emotions into account. Nevertheless, it still reflects what a large portion of the population will experience in the years to come, due to the problems outlined.
Quote: you are wrong about scarcity and loss of luxuries. IF and IF we hit scarce levels of oil, what makes you think that the people who own the oil, such as EXXON, will share, if they arent getting shit loads of power and profit from it?
I don't even think he ever tried to imply that oil companies will share (i.e. for free). And why should they? Why should anyone give stuff for free, and what makes you think that this will "save the world", which brings me to the next question, what makes you think that the world needs saved?  It doesn't even make sense to assume that, for example, oil companies must share, since the situation will be the same especially when it comes to resources. Will sharing increase the natural reserves, or what?
Share, was meant to represent that they will stay in the market, I forgot to fix that one up. 
I never mentioned anyone should save the world, nor was I intending to. Refer back to what I said in my last post about not mentioning ideas that are crucial to a discussion.
Quote: Hear it out, I honestly think they will not logically participate and make more profits in WEAK global economies, when they can JUST wait for everything to get started up again after the FACT about mass die-offs, where the economies of the world have become stronger and they make more profits from due fact.
Do you think you can explain more on this? Because I honestly can't see how one can take this prediction as being valid or at least reasonable, nor can I see where you're trying to get to. If I'm not mistaken, you're saying that they won't participate in the economy when it will crash (how can you even participate in something that's not there anymore?!?), but that they will start making profits again when the economy will start functioning again. But what's the point of saying something like this?
Communication is so weak. I never used the word CRASH. FUCK!!! I said WEAK Economies. We have a really incompatible communication style. 
Quote: Why is it that companies downsize and exit the markets, when economies are weak?
Um... because there's no profit for them anymore? And because the purpose of a business is profit? 
Quote: What makes you think the major oil owners and chemical companies responsible for the production of just about 95% of the food you eat, wont be doing the same?
What makes you think that this will be bad and will necessarily imply misery? Just because some people are so attached to this way of living and so helpless when it comes to self-sustainability? So what? Where's the tragedy? Who said that everybody has to survive? If anything, a massive change of this sort will give new opportunities to people to organize themselves better, look for more efficient ways of living, and be more self-reliant.
I dont see a tradgedy, I see people potentially imagining that the system is going to take care of him/her, loved ones, with almost identical interests as me, being devastated in more ways that I can yet imagine in horrid cruel agony. Again, I am just looking out for my self interest to discuss this topic and possibly give one or two a more complete veiw point.
-------------------- if you ever feel lost, just remember, life is not a journey, it is entertainment, all 4 fun...
Edited by AlphaFalfa (08/21/09 11:54 AM)
|