Stupid World

[bogan]

I assume you're talking from a NOW perspective? If so, other than it not being my decision and no decision having been made on such things, I'll give you my version...

IF industry has decided to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then yes. IF industry has decided not to keep producing in such quantities that devices can be made available for public "ownership", then no. It all boils down to resource usage etc... who knows, praps we'll be able to update components over the net and a new device won't be needed, but new functionality will be made available.

So, maybe with a hint of wizards? If you're going too keep soapbombing this crap you should at least get a better understanding of it yourself.

[mashman]

So, maybe with a hint of wizards? If you're going too keep soapbombing this crap you should at least get a better understanding of it yourself.

So you didn't understand what I meant when I said that Industry would decide what they produced? Too airy fairy? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, no wizards required... just people making decisions based on smarter criteria than profit. So there are 2 concrete answers, yes and no... no maybe about it.

[bogan]

So you didn't understand what I meant when I said that Industry would decide what they produced? Too airy fairy? I thought it was pretty self-explanatory, no wizards required... just people making decisions based on smarter criteria than profit. So there are 2 concrete answers, yes and no... no maybe about it.

But when promoting a system, it helps to know how it will actually work. Production solely driven by the producers is the same as saying, well this minority gets to decide what you get, and tough shit if you don't like it. You're taking away people's right to choose what they value.

[mashman]

But when promoting a system, it helps to know how it will actually work. Production solely driven by the producers is the same as saying, well this minority gets to decide what you get, and tough shit if you don't like it. You're taking away people's right to choose what they value.

I told you how it would actually work. I'm not going to dot every single i and cross every single t for you as I simply don't know what process they will be. I can surmise given the best case scenario, but that's where your individual imagination needs to come into it. To a large degree the driver will probably be, what are you trying to achieve in regards to resource usage and resources available for the long term and not the short term i.e. 100+ years being long term. If it is deemed necessary to conserve a given resource that will provide benefits to the next generation, then why would you consume it now? If not, then we're gonna have to vote on one or 5 solutions that manage resources and choice. I have no issue with stuff not becoming available... and I see no reason that anyone else would given the reason that production of a phone doesn't happen every year. Currently we have many minorities deciding what we get and tough shit if you don't like it. In fact instead of need, it goes to those who can afford it, which is even more of a waste. So in that respect, nothing really changes as the minority will continue to be choosing for us. Tough shit if you, or I for that matter, don't like it because we want a new phone. Get over it and take solace in the fact that the resources are being used for a real purpose and not just to satisfy some petty whim.

[bogan]

I told you how it would actually work. I'm not going to dot every single i and cross every single t for you as I simply don't know what process they will be. I can surmise given the best case scenario, but that's where your individual imagination needs to come into it. To a large degree the driver will probably be, what are you trying to achieve in regards to resource usage and resources available for the long term and not the short term i.e. 100+ years being long term. If it is deemed necessary to conserve a given resource that will provide benefits to the next generation, then why would you consume it now? If not, then we're gonna have to vote on one or 5 solutions that manage resources and choice. I have no issue with stuff not becoming available... and I see no reason that anyone else would given the reason that production of a phone doesn't happen every year. Currently we have many minorities deciding what we get and tough shit if you don't like it. In fact instead of need, it goes to those who can afford it, which is even more of a waste. So in that respect, nothing really changes as the minority will continue to be choosing for us. Tough shit if you, or I for that matter, don't like it because we want a new phone. Get over it and take solace in the fact that the resources are being used for a real purpose and not just to satisfy some petty whim.

So, in either case there is going to be some cutbacks to personal freedom. Basically comes down to a societal balancing act between population growth management, and the current population's quality of life.

[Ocean1]

That's why you got the answer that Money wasn't everything... which makes your "observation" pretty fuckin stupid.

It's not OK to suggest prospective parents should A: actually want a child and B: have the resources organised to pay for it up front in monetary terms?

But when losers fail to provide the resources needed to raise a kid it's OK for them to hold their hand out for other people's money?


Fuck off fool.

[mashman]

So, in either case there is going to be some cutbacks to personal freedom. Basically comes down to a societal balancing act between population growth management, and the current population's quality of life.

How is the current populations' quality of life going to be, what I assume you're angling at, detrimentally affected? Because they have less of a choice of stuff? If so, as I said, that already happens and people get on with life just the same.

[mashman]

It's not OK to suggest prospective parents should A: actually want a child and B: have the resources organised to pay for it up front in monetary terms?

But when losers fail to provide the resources needed to raise a kid it's OK for them to hold their hand out for other people's money?


Fuck off fool.

No, it's not. It's a disgusting way to treat people.

Losers? Get fucked!

[bogan]

How is the current populations' quality of life going to be, what I assume you're angling at, detrimentally affected? Because they have less of a choice of stuff? If so, as I said, that already happens and people get on with life just the same.

I've already explained it, if your system does not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen, then that is a major downfall. If you ignore people's right to choose, then that is a major downfall. If you stick you head in the sand and try to ignore both, again a major downfall, and also one that makes you look like a fool.

So, both have downsides, but with population control, people can continue to live in much the same way they do now, without the overpopulation becoming a massive issue. People can chose to have kids, but there must be a lot of effort involved, and they must prove they are worthy of it. So it's not an empty yes/no choice, but a how much are you willing to contribute to ensure your children have a good quality of life?

[puddytat]

All we need is food & water....the rest is excess.

As for limiting population, good luck with getting that past the ''God Squads". You'll have more of a chance trying to get consensus on climate change....

[husaberg]

[bogan]

All we need is food & water....the rest is excess.

As for limiting population, good luck with getting that past the ''God Squads". You'll have more of a chance trying to get consensus on climate change....

I don't think either of us are considering the resistance to change aspect

[Ocean1]

No, it's not. It's a disgusting way to treat people.

Yeah? Y'see I think having kids 'cause it's the easy option and then failing to live up to the responsibility of parenthood is rather more disgusting.

They say it takes all sorts. I have no idea why they say that, personally I'd leave idiots out of the recipe to start with...

Losers? Get fucked!

I know, it's amazing, and I can't figure it out either, I mean who'd lower their standards that far? But there y'go I suppose even blind eels fuck.

Which is a pity, the world wouldn't miss them either.

[mashman]

I've already explained it, if your system does not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen, then that is a major downfall. If you ignore people's right to choose, then that is a major downfall. If you stick you head in the sand and try to ignore both, again a major downfall, and also one that makes you look like a fool.

So, both have downsides, but with population control, people can continue to live in much the same way they do now, without the overpopulation becoming a massive issue. People can chose to have kids, but there must be a lot of effort involved, and they must prove they are worthy of it. So it's not an empty yes/no choice, but a how much are you willing to contribute to ensure your children have a good quality of life?

Does "my" system not have a way for people of different mind to you to have a say how things are chosen? As I said, you're gonna have to do some extrapolation yourself. What freedom have I removed in regards to the right of choice? The 2 children thing? Better than stopping them based on some arbitrary supposed medium of exchange. Consider that JK came from a state house. Had his mum not have had 100k in escrow, for example, he would have never been born. Now whilst that's a positive, in a twisted way, it highlights what humanity could lose through such an "ideal". How many real pioneers would not have been born? Yes that's going off on a wee tangent, but it stands to reason and it is a direct consequence of population control. Can you point out where I've been sticking my head in the sand and saying it's "my" way or no way?

What's so great about how we live at the moment? As I mentioned earlier, there are a whoke raft of things we could change very easily that wouldn't require any form of population control and would allow us to live as we currently do. Why is that so unpalatable? Why do you cling to the notion that there needs to be a lot of effort involved in order to prove that you're a good parent? Yes some people shouldn't have kids, but youve got to let them try to be parents and your financial system absolutely drives poverty, no 2 ways about it. It puts strain on parents to the degree that they spend more time providing for theit kids than they do being with them... which is about as fucked up a notion as I can imagine. So all you want to do is make it hard so that the worthy get? Irrespective of the fact that you'd be fucking over good people, you just really wanna make sure that those who you don't think deserves things don't get them and the collaterol damage is all worth it?

Is it ironic that "my" system isn't on the ballot and therefore I don't get to use my right to vote for what I believe in. Where's "my" choice?

Lots of questions there... I know you don't like answering them, but break your mold, try to answer them.

[mashman]

Yeah? Y'see I think having kids 'cause it's the easy option and then failing to live up to the responsibility of parenthood is rather more disgusting.

They say it takes all sorts. I have no idea why they say that, personally I'd leave idiots out of the recipe to start with...

I agree... but I don't define being a parent as a money making machine with a little bit of time thrown in to boot.

If you're the result, then I agree. You cannot predict how a child will turn out as they have a lifetime to acquire skills/knowledge/drive etc... and "evolve". You find it a mere inconvenience, else you'd understand that and want the very best environment for every kid. You don't. That makes you an idiot.

I know, it's amazing, and I can't figure it out either, I mean who'd lower their standards that far? But there y'go I suppose even blind eels fuck.

Which is a pity, the world wouldn't miss them either.

And how would you be pickin those with low standards eh? By using your 1850's yardstick and how much money they're worth? My God what an utterly bland planet that would be.