World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[marurun]

The sad truth we must consider is that certain regions of the world can only be controlled by an iron-fisted dictator. I know that's a tough pill to swallow because it runs counter to what we have been taught. In North America and Western Europe we have stable, just, lawful (albeit imperfect) democracies. It is natural to assume that similar forms of government can work anywhere in the world... If only we high-minded eurocentric angels take it upon ourselves to overthrow a few nasty dictators.

Well, democracy really only works so well in even developed nations. That's why we have hybridized governments. But in truth, the problem has less to do with the local religions or culture and more to do with economics. Democracy works least well where there is massive poverty and social inequity, because those two conditions are a breeding ground for corruption and lack of access to the reins of democracy. And it's not so much that the local culture or religion is the cause of this poverty and inequity, but that the particular expressions of culture and religion are shaped by it.

[BoringSupreez]

The sad truth we must consider is that certain regions of the world can only be controlled by an iron-fisted dictator. I know that's a tough pill to swallow because it runs counter to what we have been taught. In North America and Western Europe we have stable, just, lawful (albeit imperfect) democracies. It is natural to assume that similar forms of government can work anywhere in the world... If only we high-minded eurocentric angels take it upon ourselves to overthrow a few nasty dictators.

Well, democracy really only works so well in even developed nations. That's why we have hybridized governments. But in truth, the problem has less to do with the local religions or culture and more to do with economics. Democracy works least well where there is massive poverty and social inequity, because those two conditions are a breeding ground for corruption and lack of access to the reins of democracy. And it's not so much that the local culture or religion is the cause of this poverty and inequity, but that the particular expressions of culture and religion are shaped by it.

You don't think that culture and religion have an effect on economics, and that it works the other way around? I have to disagree, there's a very plain trend throughout the last several hundred years: Islamic and animistic countries tend to be poor, heavily Catholic or Orthodox countries are middle-tier, and countries with a sizable or majority Protestant community (past or present) tend to be wealthy. Religions shape worldviews, and worldviews effect the whole way a person lives their lives, including economics.

Please note that everything I said is a generalization, I already know that there are exceptions. This is just the obvious trend.

What really makes me think that religious views effect economies, and not the other way around, is that you don't really see nations peacefully (without forced conversions or transplanting populations) switching majority religions as economic conditions change. The gulf states didn't start converting to Christianity when the oil boom began, after all, they're still very much Muslim. Italy and France have been Catholic for over 1000 years, through thick and thin.

[marurun]

What really makes me think that religious views effect economies, and not the other way around, is that you don't really see nations peacefully (without forced conversions or transplanting populations) switching majority religions as economic conditions change. The gulf states didn't start converting to Christianity when the oil boom began, after all, they're still very much Muslim. Italy and France have been Catholic for over 1000 years, through thick and thin.

This doesn't necessarily run counter to what I was saying. I don't think economic conditions will cause populations to change religion, but it does alter culture and expression of religion. There are members of every religion who hold rather different social views. Besides, notice that the oil boom in the gulf states mostly went to oligarchs. I think when there is greater financial equity and access, people feel more connection to the political process, are less likely to be shut out of the political process, and are more likely to feel a certain freedom to express greater variation in personal views on religion and culture. Africa and the middle east are wracked by corruption, because economic and power disparity leave the public at large with very little real influence. How can you have any faith in a government body in which individuals demand bribes for every step of access along the way? That corruption robs both society and government of investment and puts it in the pockets of individuals, which increases disparity and reduces the return of investment in government and interest in investing in government.

[Pulsar_t]

The double standards strike again as the war crimes in Yemen will go uninvestigated. Petrodollar still has its uses!

[Erik_Twice]

I have absolutely no hopes in the United States ever solving its gun problem. The fact that there are mass shootings practically every day, often several times per day and politicians can still say "eh, stuff happens" is way beyond my comprehension. If I squint and work my brain very hard, I can try to understand on a historical or sociological level how could anyone oppose public healthcare but this whole thing about guns...sorry, I just can't, it's beyond what my mind can accept.

Sorry guys

[prfsnl_gmr]

What really makes me think that religious views effect economies, and not the other way around, is that you don't really see nations peacefully (without forced conversions or transplanting populations) switching majority religions as economic conditions change. The gulf states didn't start converting to Christianity when the oil boom began, after all, they're still very much Muslim. Italy and France have been Catholic for over 1000 years, through thick and thin.

You shoudl read Why Nations Fail. It is an excellent book, and its hypothesis provides a good explanation as to why some places simply do not prosper. (It has nothing to do with religion.) It's outlook is pretty dim, however, and it doesn't provide much guidance with regard to possible solutions.

[Ivo]

I have absolutely no hopes in the United States ever solving its gun problem. The fact that there are mass shootings practically every day, often several times per day and politicians can still say "eh, stuff happens" is way beyond my comprehension. If I squint and work my brain very hard, I can try to understand on a historical or sociological level how could anyone oppose public healthcare but this whole thing about guns...sorry, I just can't, it's beyond what my mind can accept.

Sorry guys

I'm more worried with deaths in traffic accidents.

[Pulsar_t]

I have to agree with Ivo. Too many assholes driving cars and they're collectively a larger threat to innocent bystanders than most gun owners. You can much much more easily kill people using your car being careless or crass or reckless than with your gun. If anything after closely witnessing traffic in several countries there should be tighter license issuance laws. Fuck you if you don't drive responsibly, society doesn't owe you that you drive a small tank that can kill anytime. Of course this traffic argument doesn't negate that the likes of that latest fruitcake shouldn't be able to get firearms. He didn't ask to be mixed-race or to have Asperger's, but he shouldn't be able to own guns because of his mental issues.

Of course the NRA and their supporters would rather have a full civil war in the US before enforcing any form of background checks It's a bullshitty world we live in.

[LBJeff]

I have absolutely no hopes in the United States ever solving its gun problem. The fact that there are mass shootings practically every day, often several times per day and politicians can still say "eh, stuff happens" is way beyond my comprehension. If I squint and work my brain very hard, I can try to understand on a historical or sociological level how could anyone oppose public healthcare but this whole thing about guns...sorry, I just can't, it's beyond what my mind can accept.

Sorry guys

I'm more worried with deaths in traffic accidents.

If you are using this in defense of gun ownership, it's such a red herring, logical fallacy that I'm amazed anybody with an IQ higher than 5 would use it. If not, my mistake.

This is the most common defense used by gun owners in an attempt to cover up what is the use of something that was made with intent to kill or cause great harm to living creatures. Vehicles were created to transport goods and people from place to place that have the unintended side effect of causing death and injury while in use. Guns were created to kill. There is no other use for them. Saying you are more afraid of auto deaths than gun deaths is identical to saying you're more afraid of deaths due to being born than gun related deaths.

Yes, some people intentionally cause auto accidents that hurt/kill. Percentage wise, it's beyond a percent of a percent. There is no gun (short of say, a BB or pellet gun....oh, and paintball guns) that is used for any other purpose but to hurt/kill. Even target practice is so you can become a more proficient at hurting/killing.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm just anti-dumbass arguments in favor of keeping them. Makes us responsible gun owners look like idiots.

[fastbilly1]

So Trans-Pacific Partnership anyone?