Stupid World

[mashman]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/gold...ess-model.html

Oceanomics.

[Graystone]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/gold...ess-model.html

Makes a good case for nationalisation of big pharma, of course to do that you'd need universal healthcare, and of course to do that you'd need to raise taxes, and of course to do that you'd have to educate dumb fucks about the difference between socialism and universally provided healthcare.

But of course to do any of that, you'd need to believe humans have a right to increased lifespans and overcrowding the planet's limited resources.

[mashman]

But of course to do any of that, you'd need to believe humans have a right to increased lifespans and overcrowding the planet's limited resources.

From 1999. Go kill the unproductive 3 billion of the planet and next to nothing happens in terms of resources. Overpopulation? Nah, just shit resource usage to float economies... but ya know, dumb fucks still thinking that using 133% of the planet each year to maintain life today is down to overpopulation. Brainless suckers.

[Ocean1]

Makes a good case for nationalisation of big pharma, of course to do that you'd need universal healthcare, and of course to do that you'd need to raise taxes, and of course to do that you'd have to educate dumb fucks about the difference between socialism and universally provided healthcare.

But of course to do any of that, you'd need to believe humans have a right to increased lifespans and overcrowding the planet's limited resources.

You do know that humans are exponentially healthier than they've ever been, right?

And that's driven almost exclusively by private industry?

And that nationalisation of anything is the very definition of socialism?

So your assertion that healthcare is a "right" isn't in good company, there.

[Graystone]

You do know that humans are exponentially healthier than they've ever been, right?

And that's driven almost exclusively by private industry?

And that nationalisation of anything is the very definition of socialism?

So your assertion that healthcare is a "right" isn't in good company, there.

Was driven. When healthcare starts being able to cure all things, it isn't going to be profitable to do so, so the driver of private industry will be less effective.

Socialism is far more than healthcare, nationalised healthcare is just like nationalised roads, still good as gold for a capitalist society.

Healthcare is not some universal right, but it is right that we should make it one.

[Graystone]

From 1999. Go kill the unproductive 3 billion of the planet and next to nothing happens in terms of resources. Overpopulation? Nah, just shit resource usage to float economies... but ya know, dumb fucks still thinking that using 133% of the planet each year to maintain life today is down to overpopulation. Brainless suckers.

Sounds right, by definition the unproductive will use fuck all resource apart from charity from the productive.

As for the rest, sure eugenics is a great answer, bit hard to sell though.

[Ocean1]

Was driven. When healthcare starts being able to cure all things, it isn't going to be profitable to do so, so the driver of private industry will be less effective.

Socialism is far more than healthcare, nationalised healthcare is just like nationalised roads, still good as gold for a capitalist society.

Healthcare is not some universal right, but it is right that we should make it one.

Interpolating historic healthcare success shows differently. It's gone from curing fuck all to curing most things and shows no sign of becoming unprofitable along the way.

Sure, a single national provider should enjoy economies of scale not available to smaller entities. Sometimes that might even make up for the lack of direct accountability and competition. But where the objective is the redistribution of healthcare funds I prefer to call it charity.

And allocating "rights" irrespective of costs is not a viable long term strategy.

[Graystone]

Interpolating historic healthcare success shows differently. It's gone from curing fuck all to curing most things and shows no sign of becoming unprofitable along the way.

Sure, a single national provider should enjoy economies of scale not available to smaller entities. Sometimes that might even make up for the lack of direct accountability and competition. But where the objective is the redistribution of healthcare funds I prefer to call it charity.

And allocating "rights" irrespective of costs is not a viable long term strategy.

So what about extrapolation...

Seems to be working fine so far, in fact you can correlate how many 'rights' we all have with hight quality of life, ie, both have been increasing for ages!

[Brian d marge]

You do know that humans are exponentially healthier than they've ever been, right?

And that's driven almost exclusively by private industry?

And that nationalisation of anything is the very definition of socialism?

So your assertion that healthcare is a "right" isn't in good company, there.

three kg of what ever u smoke

Ill pay for the shipping

granted the viking aint been over in a few years but as for food and stuff AND medicine ,,,,,, ill sit out on me limb and throw bullshyt in ur general direction

[Ocean1]

So what about extrapolation...

Seems to be working fine so far, in fact you can correlate how many 'rights' we all have with hight quality of life, ie, both have been increasing for ages!

Which is not causation. In fact the burgeoning "rights" we all have is simply one feature of the recent massive increase in living standards, which is a result of productivity improvements caused by technology advances.

Before redistributing the fruits of that extra productivity you might ask if that'll cause it to regress. And even if not whether it's sustainable.

[Graystone]

Which is not causation. In fact the burgeoning "rights" we all have is simply one feature of the recent massive increase in living standards, which is a result of productivity improvements caused by technology advances.

Before redistributing the fruits of that extra productivity you might ask if that'll cause it to regress. And even if not whether it's sustainable.

I see, so the correlation of private pharma and increased quality of pharmaceuticals means it is caused by it's privateness, not technology, but the correlation of 'rights' with increased quality of life is caused only by technology? Double standard much?

Course it is. Interpolate trends and apply causation based on what one wants to see, it's increasing so it cannot stop right

[mashman]

Sounds right, by definition the unproductive will use fuck all resource apart from charity from the productive.

As for the rest, sure eugenics is a great answer, bit hard to sell though.

"But of course to do any of that, you'd need to believe humans have a right to increased lifespans and overcrowding the planet's limited resources.". Population isn't the issue was my point... thanks for agreeing.

Are you saying that gene therapy is required to make the unproductive more productive? Somewhat ironically, if you "cure" everyone of that "malady" and set out to provide them with the same standard of living as we have today, then yes, you will then be overpopulating the planet. There's more than enough to go around and plenty for spacey sciency toys too etc... so long as we stop creating the shit that takes resource, human and material, aware from such pursuits. That is economically sustainable, just not economically sustainable from a financial perspective, and that's where the real cognitive dissonance, I mean problems start to raise their head.

Tis funny bloody though and raises some serious concerns about the boys at the banks who seem unable to be able to work out something as simple as, "When there are no more customers will we still be making a profit.". Such brainlessness would certainly explain why we're going in the opposite direction of sustainability.

three kg of what ever u smoke

Ill pay for the shipping

granted the viking aint been over in a few years but as for food and stuff AND medicine ,,,,,, ill sit out on me limb and throw bullshyt in ur general direction

Vikings? dude, wtf, just have sanitation workers quit for a year and we'll see just how useful medical science is. After all, it would seem as though the medical profession are taking credit for all sorts of human benefits when basic hygiene and sanitation is clearly the primary, by far, reason for our

[Viking01]

three kg of what ever u smoke

Ill pay for the shipping

granted the viking aint been over in a few years but as for food and stuff AND medicine ,,,,,, ill sit out on me limb and throw bullshyt in ur general direction

Yes, I realise that it's been about 1,000 years since we were last
over to chlorinate the existing UK gene pool and improve its quality.

And that from what is happening in the UK at the moment, another
visit is evidently long overdue.

But we're being to think that this time, even our restorative powers
may well not be enough. And frankly, we're not sure it's worth the
effort.

Cheers,
Viking

[Ocean1]

I see, so the correlation of private pharma and increased quality of pharmaceuticals means it is caused by it's privateness, not technology, but the correlation of 'rights' with increased quality of life is caused only by technology? Double standard much?

Course it is. Interpolate trends and apply causation based on what one wants to see, it's increasing so it cannot stop right

I never mentioned "pharma", specifically. But yes, industry, (almost all of it private) produces the technology responsible for the improvement in the quality of life, some of which you chose to call "rights". Get yer causal links straight.

Course what is what? If you're implying industry in general, or health care tech development in particular is immune to the deleterious effects of socialism I suggest a remedial course in history may be in order.

[Graystone]

"But of course to do any of that, you'd need to believe humans have a right to increased lifespans and overcrowding the planet's limited resources.". Population isn't the issue was my point... thanks for agreeing.

Are you saying that gene therapy is required to make the unproductive more productive? Somewhat ironically, if you "cure" everyone of that "malady" and set out to provide them with the same standard of living as we have today, then yes, you will then be overpopulating the planet. There's more than enough to go around and plenty for spacey sciency toys too etc... so long as we stop creating the shit that takes resource, human and material, aware from such pursuits. That is economically sustainable, just not economically sustainable from a financial perspective, and that's where the real cognitive dissonance, I mean problems start to raise their head.

Tis funny bloody though and raises some serious concerns about the boys at the banks who seem unable to be able to work out something as simple as, "When there are no more customers will we still be making a profit.". Such brainlessness would certainly explain why we're going in the opposite direction of sustainability.



Vikings? dude, wtf, just have sanitation workers quit for a year and we'll see just how useful medical science is. After all, it would seem as though the medical profession are taking credit for all sorts of human benefits when basic hygiene and sanitation is clearly the primary, by far, reason for our

Population remains the issue, if we had less, we would use less.

Another issue is the makeup of that population, you want to change that, good luck! Eugenics, dictatorships, wars, genocides, utopian dreamlands, all these are options to change that, probably similarly hard to sell...