World is Falling Apart Thread (Locked forever)

[Sarge]

That's when you reevaluate your penalties and make them stiffer. You make it not worthwhile to break the rules.

There are quite a lot of private businesses that do play by the rules, so I don't accept the notion that they're all just blindly pursuing profits with no regard to anything else. Sure, you get those folks, and that's what the referee is there for.

Furthermore, I would argue that there's a systemic problem right now with the referee. The government shouldn't be in a position to be corrupted in the first place. Yet they are, because they have fashioned rules that encourage such behavior. And they are often prime beneficiaries of sweetheart deals with business. I think it's referred to these days as "crony capitalism", but I'm not sure how much actual "capitalism" is involved, it's just flat-out cronyism. I see this as a problem with Republicans and Democrats.

Do I blame the businesses that do these things for it? Yep. But I also blame the government that enables it. And while public-private partnerships certainly have their place, there's just as much incentive for corruption within that sort of system as the current one. It's one of the reasons I would rather limit governmental powers more strictly, as given human nature, I'd rather have the risk of a corrupt entity diffused among numerous weaker entities than concentrated in the hands of one incredibly powerful one. And the US government dwarfs any business out there by orders of magnitude in power.

Long and short of it, I believe there is a deeper problem that no change to systems will necessarily fix, and that's a moral problem. When both politicians and business collude to enhance their own largesse with no concern for the country, we all lose. When people are no longer capable of self-governance, our system of government falls apart.

I am always reminded of John Adams' statement regarding people and our government. "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I believe it is as true today as it was then (even if you aren't religious).

[Pulsar_t]

Sadly we discuss this, yet have no say in how things end up becoming. But I know this:

- Industrial rates of consumption are unsustainable. Living in large heated/airconditioned housing and driving gasoline vehicles just is not sustainable for the enivornment. People must learn to live better with less. Consumerism isn't helping, unrestrained expectations of economic growth aren't helping
- Current rates of reproduction in the third world are unsustainable, education and technology out to help alleviate this. Robots can help the elderly and reduce the need for taxation in welfare states, but will the manufacturers make the robot helpers available for all?
- The climate is changing on its own as well, probably too rapidly to accommodate many forms of life on the planet. Humans must help reduce the damage for everyone involved

[MrPopo]

All of those are just temporary solutions. We all know the real solution.

[Pulsar_t]

This reminds me of a scifi story where they breed new bioengineered humans on Mars instead of terraforming it. Forgot the author/title, but ultimately that's what it might take.

Meanwhile, back on Earth..

[marurun]

Long and short of it, I believe there is a deeper problem that no change to systems will necessarily fix, and that's a moral problem. When both politicians and business collude to enhance their own largesse with no concern for the country, we all lose. When people are no longer capable of self-governance, our system of government falls apart.

If the problem is a moral one than there is no solution. Rules cannot account for morals. They can only account for behaviors. There is no perfect set of rules, and there is always some reliance on people of character, but if we can minimize the need for "saviors" in the political sphere, if you will, we can attempt to slow the work of people with selfish intentions. That's one of the reasons I so often champion transparency and why so many folks were disgusted with the outcome of the Citizens United case. Allowing virtually unlimited funding from anonymous, or at least anonymous to the public, sources has the potential to wreak havoc with issues of corruption and selfishness in government.

We need to be able to see more of the inner workings of our government, because the more we see, the more we can use what we see when it comes time to make our decisions about who will represent us. Practices like partisan gerrymandering hamstring efforts for democratic participation, despite this, by carefully carving up districts to maximize voter benefits of one group over another. Ohio is on the cusp of passing a constitutional amendment to require all redistricting to be performed by a carefully balanced commission, thus attempted to counter the tendency of the party in power to restructure things in a way that grants them persistent advantage over how the people can exercise their will. If more states had the political will to do this, and if more federal and state agencies allowed strong sunshine laws, I have hopes that "We the People" might begin to re-exert a stronger influence on how our government operates.

[Sarge]

Well, that means there is no governmental solution, at any rate.

Of course, we have to have rules for those that choose to not play well with the rest of society, but there's a tipping point at which we don't have the resources to deal with all the rule breakers. That's why I feel it, ultimately, is a moral issue. And there's no rule on Earth that will fix a moral issue.

So the solution is to try to educate as many fellow members of society as we can. Don't look to government as your hope for salvation, or to business. Teach them about the principles on which this country was founded. Show where we went wrong, and also what we've done right. Give them a grasp of true history, not one embellished to achieve political ends, so we can see where we've been and where we're going.

Ultimately, I don't know if we get back to where we once were. I don't think it's hopeless, but I also believe that there is a point where the fundamental character of a nation can be altered to the point where there is no return.

I don't disagree regarding transparency. There's been precious little of that. There are often lofty promises from politicians regarding that (including our current President), but they often fall well short.

[marurun]

Ultimately, I don't know if we get back to where we once were. I don't think it's hopeless, but I also believe that there is a point where the fundamental character of a nation can be altered to the point where there is no return.

I don't know that getting back to where we once were is the answer. Our previous period of greatest influence or advancement were very often on the backs of others who were not considered winners after the fact. I do not believe we are, in any way, less moral than we were. We're just less moral in some ways and more moral in others. And I do think government has an important role to play. Sometimes the law and government intervention is the only way to stop an immoral series of events from playing out. We also have to be careful which morals we pick. We have to look at social good. The morals we select as our ideals must fulfill the good of society first, and respect a secular role.

I don't disagree regarding transparency. There's been precious little of that. There are often lofty promises from politicians regarding that (including our current President), but they often fall well short.

Yeah, for all the things I like about the prez, transparency ain't one of them.

[Pulsar_t]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /31375863/

Insanity. I didn't know humans evolved into genderless drones the past few decades

Huxley's Brave New World is coming together sooner than expected, and it's deliberate as fuck.

[Erik_Twice]

Conversely, I didn't know that women had evolved to like pink and hate Lego and Erector sets.

"Target is not saying that genders don't exist," wrote Amy Severtsen Stanwood. "They are simply recognizing that toys and bedding do not have genders. Mingling superhero action figures with other dolls isn't going to cause children to suddenly question who/what they are."

[Pulsar_t]

This isn't an isolated decision though. Girls with that extra amount of testosterone have always played with boys' toys, but now there's a movement demanding equality regardless of physiological characteristics, and admittedly I used to play with Barbie and her useless boyfriend from time to time, but never asked specifically for such toys at stores. Another example would be woman soldiers, which is pointless unless they start wearing exoskeletons. I like how they cry foul when female recruits get harassed in the "workplace" by their male counterparts. It isn't optimal for males to work in female-dominated fields either, especially when they sync up their periods and leave the male(s) in another uncomfortable reality

Let's just agree to disagree. I used to be PC around feminists and some "progressive" types, but now I don't give a damn.