Quote:

---

Celfius its right is his statement,and seems that moonlith gets mad if there is a christian person here,he hates them,even he insulted,nice...let people be happy and have a god,universe didnt born from nothing,if you think all evolved fine,mix trash and stuff and wait 25 years or more lets see what happens.Its more than obvious there is a creator,its beyond of our comprension,example the beauty of the nature,or more far;the orbits of the planet or whatever,why you dont go personally to a church and ask to a person there "why do you believe in god" you THINK its that easy to understand? you must discover it by yourself,that happens here all want the easy way,nothing else just this,good bye

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

...example the beauty of the nature...

---

Tsunami was here!


Earthquake was here!

Quote:

---

you must discover it by yourself,that happens here all want the easy way,nothing else just this,good bye

---

Tell that to all the victims of the beautifull nature.

---

Quote:

---

Victims of nature?

Nature is our victim. Look around you.
A tsunami happens once in several decades. But humans cut down forests, make power plants, commit nuclear tests, create ozone holes etcetera CONSTANTLY. Not to mention devastation caused by wars.

We whine about natural cataclysms all the time, but we fail to realize that WE are the greatest disaster of all. We are so blindly destructive that we even destroy ourselves. And just like a tornado or an earthquake passes, we will eventually pass too; I just hope we don't take the entire planet with us.

Sorry for going off topic.

---

Quote:

---

There have been tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and similar "nature beautifullness" way before mankind walked around this planet...ask the dinosaurs.

So it is a bit easy to say mankind is the reason for ALL nature catastrophies....

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nature is our victim. Look around you.
A tsunami happens once in several decades. But humans cut down forests, make power plants, commit nuclear tests, create ozone holes etcetera CONSTANTLY. Not to mention devastation caused by wars.

---

Of course we have to protect nature. But not for the reasons you imply. Nature is a resource. We have to protect the Earth so that the Earth can continue to nourish and protect (ozone layer) us. But we shouldn't be obsessed with it. And there's nothing wrong with nuclear power.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

There have been tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic erruptions and similar "nature beautifullness" way before mankind walked around this planet...ask the dinosaurs.

So it is a bit easy to say mankind is the reason for ALL nature catastrophies....

---

Oh, not for all the catastrophes ever. But the way it is now, it seems we'll be responsible for the final one :\

Quote:

---

Of course we have to protect nature. But not for the reasons you imply. Nature is a resource. We have to protect the Earth so that the Earth can continue to nourish and protect (ozone layer) us. But we shouldn't be obsessed with it.

---

If we shouldn't be obsessed with our lives and life of our children, then what should we be concerned with?
And saying nature is a resource is same like saying your parents are a resource.

And no, there really is nothing wrong with nuclear power by itself. But the problem, again, is in humans. They misuse it for nuclear armament; overuse it (some 70 new nuclear power plants are planned to be built in Europe I think); and of course dump all the waste where? In nature. Preferably some poor countries.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If we shouldn't be obsessed with our lives and life of our children, then what should we be concerned with?

---

You misunderstood me. We should protect the planet for us and our children. But we shouldn't do it for its own sake.

Quote:

---

And saying nature is a resource is same like saying your parents are a resource.

---

But nature is a resource.

Quote:

---

overuse it (some 70 new nuclear power plants are planned to be built in Europe I think)

---

Nuclear power doesn't cause global warming and is efficient. The only problem is waste storage. Why not launch it into the sun?

Quote:

---

and of course dump all the waste where? In nature. Preferably some poor countries.

---

Here we go... More "the rich are exploiting the poor".

---

Quote:

---

OFFTOPIC post ahead, Warning Warning...

Quote:

---

Nuclear power doesn't cause global warming and is efficient. The only problem is waste storage. Why not launch it into the sun?

---

The difficulty of launching something into the Sun is twofold:

1.) Escape from Earth's gravity.
2.) Cancelling the Earth's angular momentum, such that a direct "dive" into the Sun is possible.

There is no booster in existence that could do this for even a "regular-sized" space probe.
And 45,000 tons of nuclear waste resides in US alone!
And if that wasn't problematic enough, do you have any idea how much it would cost? Nuclear Energy would become unprofitable in an instant.

And if that wasn't bad enough, consider the risks. The rockets have a tendency of exploding on their way to the atmosphere, about 95% of the flights are successful.
An explosion in the atmosphere carrying radioactive nuclear waste would be CATASTROPHIC, to say the least.

---

Quote:

---

All right, I see. Then we should put the waste under Yucca Mountain.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But nature is a resource.

---

I stand in awe of your argument

1) Nature gave us birth.
2) It raised us.
3) It nurtured us.
4) It gave us everything it has.
5) Yet we are breaking free from it, and seeking destiny elsewhere.

Don't you agree it's more of a parent than a resource? Unless you count your mom and dad as plain resources, of course.

Quote:

---

Here we go... More "the rich are exploiting the poor".

---

Another fantastic argument

What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain. You'll have it dumped in places like Afghanistan.
You could try to think about it once in a while.

If it weren't for people who said the rich are exploiting the poor, you would still be living in slavery.

---

Quote:

---

Of course nature is a resource.
Wood, oil, stone, clay, metals, minerals, water, food: hence the name natural resource.

---

Quote:

---

Nature contains resources, but isn't a resource by itself.

Pocket money your parents give you is a resource; but parents aren't.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

But nature is a resource.

---

I stand in awe of your argument

1) Nature gave us birth.
2) It raised us.
3) It nurtured us.
4) It gave us everything it has.
5) Yet we are breaking free from it, and seeking destiny elsewhere.

---

Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.

Quote:

---

What I said was a fact. You won't have nuclear waste dumped in USA or France or Britain.

---

Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?

Quote:

---

If it weren't for people who said the rich are exploiting the poor, you would still be living in slavery.

---

The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Nature is a resource. We have to protect it so that it can continue to nurture us. And us "breaking free" from it is just making us less dependent on it.

---

"Breaking free" was a figure of speech, we will always be dependent on nature.
But I'm glad we agree that nature should be protected.

Quote:

---

Oh? Ever heard of Yucca Mountain?

---

Sure. That's one site. In a wasteland.
But what about thousands of other sites where nuclear waste is dumped? A lot of them aren't in wastelands, but in places that were simply uncostly. No one pays much attention to the nature or anything about those places - as long as they're cheap.

Quote:

---

The reason that slavery ended was because it was no longer economically viable. With the advent of the Industrial Revolution, it was far cheaper to use machinery than slaves. And with the Agricultural Revolution, fewer people could do the work that it used to take many to do, so not as many people were needed, and it turned out that it was cheaper to pay workers than to provide for them. Slaves weren't cheap.

---

In newer history. But it worked rather well in Rome, Egypt etcetera. Besides, those "payments" were rather pitiful (and still are, in many regions). Not to mention feudalism, imperialism etcetera.
My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

My point is that the rich will always try to exploit the poor, and that the poor MUST resist that as much as possible (but of course rationally. People must be careful in resistance too, lest they end up with communism and such).

---

Ugh... More "the rich are exploiting the poor" nonsense. Look. The rich are giving the poor jobs. If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off. True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all. If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?

If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.
If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).

The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.

---

This is the most horrible (and stupid) thing I have heard in a long time...

---

Quote:

---

Why's that? It'll make the economy stronger.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The rich are giving the poor jobs.

---

They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.

Quote:

---

If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.

---

If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).

Quote:

---

True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.

---

Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".

Who are you trying to defend? Want some profiles of rich polish investors, who "mercifully" employed the poor, to make one kind of HELL of their lives?

Quote:

---

If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?

---

Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.

Quote:

---

If a capitalist wants more money, he or she works harder.

---

No. He just exploits the law a bit more, steals, gets corrupted and so on. Oh wait, you always lived in your little utopian fantasy world, so it doesn't surprise me that you keep saying all that babbling nonsense. Sorry for offense.

Quote:

---

If a socialist wants more money, he or she stops working (goes on strike).

---

If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.

Quote:

---

The solution: fire all the strikers and replace them with cheap immigrant labor or outsource their jobs. Eventually, they'll learn not to strike.

---

You'd be a wonderful slave overseer. They pretty much believed in the same thing. Only that they preferred might over capitalism, so instead of firing, they used to beat the c*r*a*p out of the slaves, to show them a CONVINCING reason NOT to fight for ANY laws of their own.

Nietzsche is your idol, or so?

If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The rich are giving the poor jobs.

---

They give jobs to well qualified people. Those are rarely poor. Unless we live in a different world.

---

Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference. Sometimes cheap mass labor is called for, and the poor are qualified for that.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If the rich wouldn't, then the poor would have less jobs, and be worse off.

---

If they wouldn't, they would not be rich. Excluding the corrupted politicians and other people that do not hire, but earn money in every other possible way (including theft, corruption and such).

---

It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

True, they aren't getting paid much, but it's better than not being paid at all.

---

Doomforge:

Great idea. In times when people worked for food, people like you used to say "true, they don't get much food, but it's better than starving them". But at least they were honest enough to add "well, we have no choice anyway, if we let them starve we won't have anyone to work for us anyway".

---

If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.

Quote:

---

Who are you trying to defend?

---

A functional economy.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If they didn't want the jobs offered to them, then they wouldn't work, would they?

---

Yeah, world is so easy.. There is so much work around.. the unemployment doesn't exist, and you can freely pick the job you want.. uh, yeah. Perhaps in your country. Not in mine. Here people usually pick whatever they can.

---

Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.

Quote:

---

If mvassilev tries to act wise, he writes all stereotypical nonsense at HC. No, I'm not a commie. My country was under communistic government until 1990 so I all can i say about your "theories" is: BS. You believe in some sort of utopia where bureaucracy, working from dawn till dusk and capitalism is the key to live a happy, rich life. I live in a realistic world where people are poor, work from nine to five with good education and earn less than corrupted idiots after primary schools that had enough luck to get born in rich families.

---

The Soviet Bloc called itself Communist but really was state capitalist. In Communism, the workers own the means of production. In the Soviet bloc, the state did.

Quote:

---

craft economical theories

---

It's clear that you have no knowledge of economics. I adivise you to read Charles Wheelan's "Naked Economics". It's a great book, and where I got most (but not all) of my economic ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Thanks for NOT answering my doubts about your way of thinking Avoiding the subject does not make it vanish.

Quote:

---

Wrong. They give jobs to people who are well-qualified for the job. There is a big difference.

---

Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.

Quote:

---

It's mutually beneficial. The poor get jobs and money, and the rich get money from what the poor do.

---

Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten. Too bad the weight of the "benefits" is completely unjust, but that doesn't mean a sh*t to you, as I see. You don't care for justice? I wonder how clever you'd get if you were forced to take such job. Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation. And you would feel what being a cheap labor means. Literally. I wonder if your "opinions" wouldn't change a bit then.

Quote:

---

If one rich man doesn't employ a poor man, that poor man can go to another rich man and get hired there.

---

And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?

Quote:

---

A functional economy.

---

Stalin also called his economy "functional".

Quote:

---

Poor countries and rich countries are different. In rich countries, the only unemployed people are those who have unrealistic demands or have no skills and don't want to work as cheap mass labor.

---

where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If your profile information is correct, than for a 16 year old, you are one hell of a wise guy. Furthermore, I recall you posting like that since a year or so. When I was 15, I watched dragon ball. And you, a 15 year old guy, could already explain why believeing in God is dumb, know what mechanisms rule human body and that it's "all chemistry", know and understand what is the best political system in the world (many philosophers spent lifes on that subject, but heck, mvassilev knows the best..) and craft economical theories. You're either a genious, or a seriously puffed-up wannabe wise guy. Again, sorry for offense, but I can't stand the way you try to act super-wise. If you're older or simply extraordinarily intelligent, please forgive my careless words. -_-

---

Well, I don't watch much TV and I read, think, and debate a lot. Hence, my thinking.

Quote:

---

Wrong-what? you repeated my words, only writing them in another order.

---

Being qualified is relative. If a hospital goes under and a star heart surgeon is let go, he will not have too difficult of a time finding a new job. If some auto worker's manufacturing plant goes under, he was only qualified to work in that plant, and it will be hard for him to find a new job.

Quote:

---

Slavery is beneficial too. Slaver gets cheap labor, slave gets food and gets NOT beaten.

---

Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.

Quote:

---

Oh, you "aim for getting a good job", right? You "rise your qualifications"? You're 16 years old. You have no qualifications. If your parents died, hypothetically, and left you with nothing, you'd be forced to take a job or to die out of starvation.

---

Sure, it would suck for me. But I would attempt to get an education in my spare time, and raise my qualifications. Being cheap mass labor isn't fun, but it's better than being unemployed. They shouldn't complain; they should get better.

Quote:

---

And find the same horrible treatment and beggarly wage. What's the difference?

---

Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man? If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.

Quote:

---

Stalin also called his economy "functional".

---

Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.

Quote:

---

where do you live? Is your family rich? Did you even worked ONCE in your life? Answer me please and don't avoid the subject.

---

America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.

---

So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.

Quote:

---

Then why would I work for the second man? Why not the first man?
If the second man wants my labor, he would have to give me some sort of incentive for it.

---

In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here. And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job. If you find one, you can get like 300 euro per month. And it takes a lot of effort to find one. Trust me, if you live in a place like this, finding a job isn't the easiest thing to do - and when you finally get one, you try to maintain it. And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.

Quote:

---

Free-market capitalism works within a democracy, and has worked for much longer than state capitalism.

---

Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-

Quote:

---

America. No, they are middle-class. No, because I'm getting an education so I wouldn't have to be cheap mass labor. And I'm well-versed in economics (for my age and level of education, that is).

---

I see. I don't know much about the situation in America (except that it is a better place to live in), and perhaps I was a little too harsh. It definitely doesn't look the way you describe it in my country, though. I'm used to harsh reality, that's why I got a little annoyed looking at your posts. I'm sorry.

Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Excepts that slaves aren't free to choose where to work.

---

So that is the only advantage? A poor guy can choose which slaver will own him? Uhh, right.

---

You don't understand what an advantage that is, though. He can choose to job with the highest pay and/or the best working conditions. And if millions of people do this, then the market responds.

Quote:

---

In my country, people - those, who aren't qualified to do anything but simple jobs - are afraid of losing their job. Because no one needs them anyway - students will happily take their jobs as part-time jobs and do it for less cash. And you advise them to look for another employer? It's pretty much like you lose a job => you can't find another for a year here.

---

Percisely. If people don't have skills, it's hard for them to get a new job. That's why education is important. People need to invest in themselves, in their own human capital.

Quote:

---

And it does not concern uneducated people only. Studies like philosophy, political science and such offer pitiful outlooks. There is no need for such people in my country - humanistic studies don't guarantee ANY job.

---

It's almost the same here in America. Not all skills are useful. Only marketable skills are. The only place a political scientist or philosopher can get a job is at a university, and they don't pay too much there. But that's not their main source of income. Their main source comes from writing books in their field. Sometimes it takes several tries, but sometimes they are moderately successful.

Quote:

---

And capitalistic slavers really enjoy that fact.

---

No, they don't. They would rather have top-of-the-class Harvard graduates working for them. But they don't, because the Harvard graduates can find better places to work. Only the unskilled (and those with non-marketable skills) would work for them. Which is why it's important to have marketable skills.

Quote:

---

Yes, it theoretically works like that. But it looks nice in theory only. Or perhaps it looks like that in the richest countries? I've never been to any, so I can't tell for sure. One thing is certain, though: Nepotism rules my country and many post-soviet union ones. A simple example, I tried to get a nice job for my last summer, and I'm pretty sure I was the best for it. But ultimately the chief's cousin got it, despite his horrific english which was pretty much the biggest requirement. And they were kind enough to inform me he was better than me. Too bad I know him personally, and he barely knows a word in English. -_-

---

And capitalism is responsible for this because... ? Yes, nepotism sucks. And there is no specific recepie for making a poor country rich. The general recepie is improvements in education, production of marketable human capital, and free trade.

Quote:

---

Perhaps we don't agree in many ways, but I'm happy to see you're able to keep a polite discussion even when someone sorta attacks you personally. That's a useful feature in life. Keep it up.

---

Thanks.

---

Quote:

---

But just to the issue of "nature being a resource" I believe that to be an extremely limited and even dangerous view of hardcore materialistic people who's main goal in life is wealth and money...

---

Quote:

---

But we shouldn't protect the Earth for the sake of protecting the Earth.

---

Quote:

---

The role of Earth is not just as a milk cow for resources. It is the only thing that we have.

---

Quote:

---

Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.

---

Quote:

---

Dare might I ask, but why not?

---

Quote:

---

@mvassilev: next time you see someone needs help, you first think if it's profitable to help him, and in case it isn't you leave? Or perhaps you're discriminating nature more than humans?

---

Quote:

---

Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The role of Earth is not just as a milk cow for resources. It is the only thing that we have.

---

The Earth is the only milk cow we have. Thus we have to keep it alive.

---

Quote:

---

Life is not just about us and about money and success at the expense of others.

---

Quote:

---

Dare might I ask, but why not?

---

Quote:

---

Actually, any casual look at just about any aspect of nature will tell you that life is ONLY about success at the expense of something else.  Only humans seem to have moral qualms with selfish consumption.

---

Quote:

---

True, but in nature no species takes more than it needs from the other. Wolves do not kill herds of deers, deers do not needlessly eat whole pastures.

---

Quote:

---

Nature is an almost perfect mechanism that sustains itself.
Then again this only works until humans do not mess with it too much.

---

Quote:

---

If you see the Earth only, or at least, primarily as a source for resources, you seek to exploit it. Correct me if I am wrong pleas.

---

Quote:

---

So you believe that humans own this planet, that it is the property of the human kind to do whatever it wants?  To destroy, ravage and exploit as it pleases?

---

Quote:

---

Really what I see in you is a degeneration by the capitalist/materialist "I want more." syndrome. The plague of modern society.

---

Quote:

---

As for nature. Even the illnesses and ige ages and natural disasters are just a circle of life in nature. And as nothing is completely perfect, nature is the only real system that is near to it.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

If you see the Earth only, or at least, primarily as a source for resources, you seek to exploit it. Correct me if I am wrong pleas.

---

I seek to use it, not exploit it.

---

Quote:

---

So you believe that humans own this planet, that it is the property of the human kind to do whatever it wants?  To destroy, ravage and exploit as it pleases?

---

Quote:

---

Really what I see in you is a degeneration by the capitalist/materialist "I want more." syndrome. The plague of modern society.

---

Quote:

---

As for nature. Even the illnesses and ige ages and natural disasters are just a circle of life in nature. And as nothing is completely perfect, nature is the only real system that is near to it.

---

Quote:

---

But we should also worry who our actions effect. It is not just us who our actions reach, but also the environment around us, therefore we must be careful.

---

Quote:

---

Great thing? Really? Look at the world around you, the poverty, illnesses, destruction, criminality, social problems, explotation of people and nature, at the sake of progress and a better living standart. Yes, but for who? The rich top of the worlds population. Progress must be proportionate and thought through, because at this pace this society and even the whole earth is headed to it's doom.

---

Quote:

---

Please, this is by far one of the most ridiculous things I have heard. Human society produces so much suffering not only to its self but to others then anything else in this world.

---

Quote:

---

A rising tide lifts all boats. In the long run, the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor. The poor get richer too. We are all better off than we were 1000 or 500 or even 100 years ago, and most of us are better off than we were 50 years ago. The rich get richer. The poor get richer.

Let me tell you a story. My great-great-grandfather was a shepherd. My great-grandfather was a doctor. My grandfather is a professor. My father is an engenieer. And I am sitting here typing this message, enjoying a life with which I am mostly happy. You may argue that humanity hasn't really progressed, but I'll just point to my own family and to the families of countless others whose lives have improved in the last 100 years.

---

Quote:

---

You use the word better. What do you mean by it? Maybe advancement? I think people who lived 400 years ago may had equally good life (or life conditions) as a shepherd, as we have nowadays.

---

Quote:

---

Now we don't have to bring water from the river, hunt animals for food, live in wooden houses, etc.

---

Quote:

---

But this kind of advancement (improvement) brought much suffering to nature. Soon as we won't have water to drink, fresh air to breathe, we'll realise the cost of our so-called "progression".

---

Quote:

---

the rich don't get richer at the expense of the poor.

---

Quote:

---

Progress for the sake of progress is not right.

---

Quote:

---

Number one, the rich have no need to get any richer and certainly not at the expense of someone poorer.

---

Quote:

---

That is pure exploitation of person by person. It is the rich who get richer and a tiny percentage of the population controls a huge amount of wealth and resources. All people seek to do is gain gain gain, become rich, powerful, successfully and respected in the high society

---

Quote:

---

Material gain is not the absolute pinnacle of accomplishment. Money is just a tiny fraction, unfortunately one that this system does not let us live without. There are far more important things in life, society and in the world, that then those little pieces of paper people consider dear. Sure money are a trade article, but when it becomes the absolute ruler of peoples lives, it seems that not everything is right.

---

Quote:

---

No one give us the right to take whatever we want.

---