Back to Ted

  • @FastAndBulbous
    link
    -61 year ago

    Do you have anything to contribute? I’m trying to have an actual discussion about policy.

    I think the profit incentive is important in maximising yield, do you have anything to add to this as to why I may be wrong? Or are you just going to signal me as an other so that others just switch off and get defensive.

    I think it’s kind of ironic that some claim to want the world to see things from their point of view but then immediately attack those who question their views or try to understand. This just suggests to me you’re more about signalling to your in group than growth in ideas and discussion.

    • @the_q
      link
      5
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      deleted by creator

      • @FastAndBulbous
        link
        -2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There is a lot to discuss. I’m discussing about why I think communal style living/economics don’t scale well. You think it does, there are reasons we both have our opinions and maybe we could actually learn from each other rather than you viewing me as someone to be defeated.

        • @the_q
          link
          2
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          deleted by creator

          • @FastAndBulbous
            link
            -11 year ago

            You need to define what you mean by not working.

            Of course discussion is needed. How else do you expand your mind and thoughts without discussing things? I don’t take your views as being inherently true in much the same way you don’t take mine, that’s healthy and normal.

            • @the_q
              link
              2
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              deleted by creator

              • @FastAndBulbous
                link
                -31 year ago

                I would argue the primary cause of all of these problems is that we live in a world of finite resources. I think all of those things would still be problems under any political system we tried to implement. If there was plenty of resources for everyone we would just multiply until that wasn’t the case any more.

                I reject the notion that we could rid the world of these things, the entirety of human history provides empirical evidence that backs me up on this. I think it’s fantastical to think we could rid the world of these things, all we can do is try to reduce the impact as best we can in the limited ways that we can as individuals and as a society.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  3
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  We produce more than enough food to feed everyone. Even if you say something like logistics is an issue, we could still feed everyone in the developed nations at least, but we don’t. That’s a choice.

                  Climate change is much more of a practical issue than starvation and poverty. We already have solutions for starvation as I said.

                  • @FastAndBulbous
                    link
                    -11 year ago

                    We don’t have solutions for starvation at all on a global scale and we do try to feed everyone in developed nations that’s why countries have welfare. I agree the welfare safety net should be stronger generally, but I don’t think people starving to death is a widespread issue in developed nations. The homeless are much more likely to die due to lack of shelter or drug issues.

                • @the_q
                  link
                  2
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  deleted by creator

                  • @FastAndBulbous
                    link
                    -21 year ago

                    Yes because seeds are the only resource people fight over…