I mean, it's OK to like DRM and all - but because Microsoft is backing it?
Also BluRay is getting a larger hardware base (because of PS3), is supported by more studios and has a larger capacity. But it's not from Microsoft, so "Overly Critical Guy" hates it.
2 - I agree, actually I myself lean more to a Revolution than a PS3. Nevertheless I think the Cell is very interesting technology and it's great that it is tested in the real world.
3,4 - I don't really know what you mean by lying. AFAIK they said that the trailer was made to PS3 specifications, I haven't heard them saying anything about the story or the what the game is about. (Probably a 1st person shooter, but there are still lots of unknowns) Of course it will be impossible to put that much action per second into the game, so of course the look and feel of the real game will not be so great, but honestly that's obvious.
If you consider that a lie, well then every trailer I've seen so far is pretty much a lie because every trailer overexposes "exciting" stuff (that may happen in the game only very rarely or never at all) and leaving out "boring" stuff.
I really don't see the difference to other trailers in that regard.
Nevertheless, the Killzone trailer shows that these developers and artists are capable and competent - it remains to be seen wether Killzone will reflect that, of course.
Fact is, that the trailer contains many ideas, that have nothing to do with graphics and set it apart from any other trailers I've seen so far: Guys landing in the battlezone, the general chaos in battle, etc. Or to put it in another way: The trailer shows that creative minds were involved, unlike so many others which just show the usual running around. IF they are able to harvest that creativity in the game, it can really be great.
Or to put it in even another words (it's not easy to say what I mean), they were tremendously successful to create a mood, a setting, a feeling of being there in and of course graphics helped a lot, but I bet that these same people could create an almost as great mood with Duke-Nukem style sprite characters. For example, what I mean: In all other trailers of 1st person shooters (I've seen), the non-player characters act like robots: A nuke might explode nearby and they don't even twitch.
Of course the great graphics help, but it would be easy to create twitching characters with sprite-graphics too, the point is not the graphics, the point is evolving the whole theme to the next level.
Maybe we mean the same thing. Sony-Europe is playing a lot with our emotions, you say that is lying, I say it's exactly what I want in a videogame and if they can do it in a trailer, they might succeed in the game as well.
But most importantly I said "I believe" about a billion times just then. Lets wait and see. All I know is I was here last time. And I was lied to. They convinced me to help kill a console that on reflection offered the prospect of more original games, with better art - not power.
Because I never had a Dreamcast, I can't comment on that. However I don't see why a creative game developer should be able to create an original game on Dreamcast and fail to do the same on PS2.
And this time, I won't do that - I will stand by the Revolution because so far I only see pretty versions of the games I already own coming out of the PS3. And that tires me.
I will wait for both to be available and make up my mind then. Since I'm only a casual gamer and don't want to spend so much, it's pretty likely that I end up with a Revolution, too. Nevertheless, I think Sony Europe is able to create great games and Killzone has a good chance of becoming very good. Not because of the graphics, but because these guys know what is important (like your allies twitching and screaming) and what isn't (like shadows).
Check. Produced "real time footage" (Final fantasy cut scenes for the PS2 and we all know the PS3 debacle): Check.
If you are talking about the Killzone trailer, it just really shows the difference between Microsoft and Sony:
Microsoft is like an Ogre, stomping everthing in it's path with brute force. They have absolutely no creativity, no original ideas and - in this comparison - no ideas how to put out great visuals with limited resources.
Sony may be equally evil (actually all big companies are), but at least they are creative (say what you want about Cell, but it is a completely new idea and not an off-the-shelf design. Even if the Cell fails big time, it is great that such a design has been tried and tested and the whole computing industry will be smarter afterwards.) and that seems to be true also for Sony Europe who create Killzone:
At first sight it's astonishing. Impossible that a console could do that!
But if you look a little closer, you see how they cut corners: When the lander explodes, it's just a cloud of dust and 4 or 5 parts flying away. The soldiers don't even have shadows (the burning soldier actually looks quite strange because the fire doesn't cast a shadow), etc. In general what that trailer sets it apart from most others is the liberal and clever use of dust clouds and smoke (which many game engines seem to have trouble with), so if you believe that the PS3 can render dust and smoke better than this generation, you shouldn't have too much trouble believing the PS3 rendering the Killzone trailer in realtime.
Actually (and if you reply, reply to this too please) I find it much harder to believe that they used a movie-style rendering farm to create a trailer and then forgot to the shadows.
Human life is sacrosanct. Any action that can directly preserve human life is worth the cost, provided it does not cost other human life.
I agree. Sterilization for welfare is a prerequesite to guarantee that, though.
The poor are by and large innocent, and should not be forced to do anything that is not required of the wealthier citizenry. We have a responsibility to protect the innocent, especially in cases where previous social structures forced distinct ethnic or cultural groups to compete on unequal grounds.
That is the core idea of communism. That everybody works the same things, that a doctor with a decade of education also has to clean toilets while "the innocent poor" can play doctor once in a while.
While it's appealing to many christians (because it's basically a secular version of Jesus' "all people are equal"-obsession), it's basically just stupid nonsense. And it has been tried out numerous times, too. It never worked.
I'm not pretending that poverty is something that could be easily solved, and I'm not saying that every ideal is enforceable, or that if an idealistic plan is put into place it won't be abused.
Maybe you should stop talking about what you are not saying and start talking about what you are saying?
I also think there are times when the ends don't justify the means, sterilization is one of those cases.
So you prefer starvation to sterilization? (Yet another question you will not have enough balls to answer)
But how about less military spending, less beurocracy, more spending on drug education and rehab, less on drug enforcement, more spending on creating opportunities, not on giving handouts.
Funny. Sterilization for welfare would acutally reduce buerocracy to a minimum: Want welfare? Get sterilized, end of story. No buerocracy needed.
"More spending on creating opportunities" is just an euphemism for "creating a huge buerocracy that decides and implements government projects".
Euphemisms won't solve anything either.
Fixing the education system (just money won't do it).
But what if some groups cannot cope with raised standards?
Welfare doen't create oppprtunities (at least as currently structured), neither does sterilization (removing competition isn't creating opportunity.)
Completely wrong. Of course reduced competition would lower unemployment - especially in the jobs that poor people need.
I still think that you are arguing for creating a tiered society with first and second-class citizens. This leaves the door wide open for someone to re-evaluate what is valuable to classify you as a second-class citizen.
Nonsense, nobody evaluates, that's the whole point.
No I'm not a communist, I'd much prefer a society structured on merit
I agree, I don't see how sterilization for welfare does contradict that, though. Quite to the contrary, because when rich have more children than the poor, the whole society tends to form a strong middle class with very few rich and very few poor. (which is EXACTLY what you would expect in a society structured on merit)
What you are advocating is what we see currently in many coutnries: Rich with moderate birth rates, poor with high birth rates, middle class with extremely low birth rates. The middle class is literally dying out. You are actually advocating a 2 class society, because that is exactly what we are going to get if trends continue.
We have created a tiered society though.
Maybe you should stop repeating communist slogans and start to look at facts?
Fact is that the western society after the 2nd world war was the society with the strongest middle-class than any other society that came before or after it.
Therefore we have created the society that was less tiered than any other, therefore according to your own standards it couldn't have been that bad.
It is my personal opinion that one should not have children if one is not able to provide for them. It is, however, my personal belief that I have no right to enforce my views on others.
But you think you have the right to force others to provide for children which are not theirs?
Where is the limit, I ask you?
Suppose you have a surplus of 100 dollars/month and you need 50 dollars/month to provide basic survival (in poverty) for your child.
On what moral ground can the state take away 50 dollars from you allow some unresponsible parent to have (another) child and force your child into poverty?
Yes welfare is publicly supported which means that I am paying for poor people and that gives me some right to control how my dollar is spent, but I should not be able to make my dollar conditional on surrender of basic human rights.
So you think that making babies on the cost of others is a basic human right? Can I see the article please?
There are moral obligations attached to living in society. One of them is protection of the innocent. Poor people are by and large innocent, poor children doubly so. So societies obligation to other peoples children stems from the inability to strip someone of thier rights without an active breach of civil trust, and the requirement that we value life.
Following that logic, we would end up with catholic dogma that all contraceptives are evil because they don't "value life".
The poor should be protected - Actually that's the point. Only a stable welfare system can really protect the poor, but as few children as possible should be born into poverty.
Now I hear you saying that bearing children into poverty is a breach of civil trust, but I would argue that one cannot break the public trust merely by exercising their human rights.
You are wrong twice: 1) Making babies on cost of others is no human right. 2) Human rights are no dogma but are made by humans - and they have to make sense. A human right that leads to it's own destruction doesn't make any sense.
Having children arises as an extension of freedom of expression and association. It is my natural right, not a privilege awarded me by those in power - a right that cannot morally be removed unless I break a law. Existing in poverty is not a breach of any law, and as such my social status cannot (morally) be a condition of having children.
This dogmatic argumentation leads nowhere. Similarily I could say that spending your own hard-earned money is an extension of freedom of expression, therefore the state is violating your rights when it robs you and gives the money to the poor.
Dogmas never solve problems.
The whole point is that you have to compromise. Both extremes (100% taxation would lead to communism, 0% taxation would lead to anarchy) are obviously wrong. To solve the problem you have to find a solution which almost by definition is a compromise. The solution won't be perfect, but it will be better than ignoring the problem and letting the welfare system break down.
You say that reproduction cannot be a basic human right because growing populations would destabilize society. All of recorded history disagrees with you.
Sorry, but there are many, many well documented events of destabilized societies because of too few ressources available for too few people:
On easter island, the polynesian cut down all the forests to support their population (about 10000 at maximum), after the trees were gone, 80 to 90% of people died and the rest resorted partly to cannibalism
The Mayas in Yucatan had a booming population, but soil erosion ended it. When the Spanish came, they were already gone and even today the population density is well below the maximum during Maya-high times
The black plague was (partly) a result of European overpopulation and killed about 1/3rd
Ethiopia had a big famine in the 1980 after multiplying it's population
I agree that a collapse in the welfare system would be disastrous, but your argue that your "(ultimate) solution" is an even more troubling problem. The reason sterilization is such a terrible thig is because it divides the population into first class and second class citizens. First class citizens who have purchased their status by their inherited wealth gain freedom. Poor people are left to die out.
You seem to believe that the only way to get by without welfare is to inherit wealth, which seems very, very far fetched.
Also, when we talk about inherited wealth: If the poor have many kids, those kids will inherit even less (because they have to share with many brothers/sisters). If a poor couple has just one kid, that kid has a much better chance of getting out of poverty.
So your own argument is in favor of sterilization, even if wealth were only inherited: It would break the ficious cycle of poverty, because poor kids would inherit more wealth because they wouldn't have to share.
Are unproductive members to be genetically screened before sterilization? If not are you ok with just sterilizing anyone who has happened along hard times? What if you lose your job?
I don't blow every money I have on a big car, cigarettes and alcohol (like many others do), so I could survive without welfare for at least a year, even though I still work only part-time.
If I don't find a job in that year, yes I would not have any more kids because I don't think I would do anything good for them. Isn't that what responsibility is all about? Only having children if you can support them yourself?
Another question: What moral right would I have to have others pay for my children?
Are there genes that should mark one for sterilization? What are they? Would you be ok with no person with that gene having ever existed?
No.
If you can take care of your children, feel free to have as many as you want.
Actually, the whole issue is about responsibility.
Do you care if a culture is actively eliminated? Has a poor culture ever produced anything that you would consider valuable? Are you ok with that culture having never existed?
No, why should I care?
Do you see reproduction as a human right? If choice over parenting isn't a right how does it fail? What other rights don't meet those criteria?
Reproduction is no human right. If it were, then human rights were fundamentally wrong and unstable because population growth would automatically destroy these human rights sooner or later.
Maybe I repeat the points in a clear and short manner, so they are not so easy to ignore:
It's irrelevant at what ratio "welfare dependence" (or the inability to support yourself) is genetic or cultural because culture is passed on similarily as genes.
I never did or said anyone should judge anybody because of what group they belong to. You are constantly bringing up remarks about "non-whites" and how they may be more affected. I don't know, and I don't care BECAUSE I don't care about races. Because I don't care about races, I also don't care wether some are disproportionally affected by sterilization. Only racists can support discrimination, "positive discrimination", apartheid and/or affirmative action.
Yes, it might not be 100% fair to sterilize welfare dependents. (Because seldom someone is really dependent on welfare only because of bad luck) But is starving every 50 to 100 years fairer? I don't think so, in fact I don't see what's so extremely terrible about not bearing children into poverty. (We are talking about welfare dependents, remember?) Is it really that great to have more and more poor children with each generation? What is so great about it? And what is so terrible about sterilization?
I'm curious as to what genetic disorders would make someone totally dependent on a welfare system.
In addiction there is a strong genetic element, some people get addicted to alcohol/heroin/nicotine easily while the majority never gets addicted to these drugs despite being in contact with them.
An alcoholic is pretty likely to be dependent on the welfare system.
Of course there a numerous other genetically influenced properties, many of those genetic factors are of course a taboo (like stupidity, laziness, etc.), which may contribute to being partially or fully welfare dependent.
And of course if something so bad that it's called a "disorder" (today only really, really bad things are called "disorders", especially when it's genetic) - like mental retardiation, inability to move for example, are pretty likely to be fully dependent on the welfare system.
If a person is capable of finding a mate and engaging in the act of procreation they are almost certainly capable of engaging in menial labor.
Are you joking?
In my country (Austria) female mental retards are sterilized because they don't understand what sex is and what it will cause. Pressure groups calls that "eugenic" and therefore evil. If they are successful in banning that practice those will bear children, in some cases probably one per year until they reach menopause.
What about the case where an ethnic minority is unable to support itself except on handouts because they are unable to find employment? Not that they couldn't do some work, but no one is willing to pay them for what they can do. Should they be banned from procreating?
Why do ethnic minorities come into the picture?
If they can't support their children, they shouldn't procreate.
Otherwise it will lead to the creation of much misery because all those will starve to death when (not if) the welfare system fails. Which by the way will be in about 10-20 years, when Peak Oil really hits.
What is the difference between someone with Down's or a malformed leg who can do assembly line type stuff, but can't find employment and segregated ethnic population? Neither had any choice to be born as they were.
So?
It depends on what you prefer, the 2 possibilities are:
Giving welfare to those who need it but on the condition that they don't have children (sterilization)
Starving the weak to death. Either directly (by not having a welfare system at all) or periodically (by building up a ever growing welfare system that will fail after a few generations because the number of welfare recipients is growing from generation to generation)
You can sure have your welfare system for a few more decades. But then millions (actually billions because those food donations to Africa will stop) will starve to death because no system, no matter how good it is, can support an ever growing population.
Of course you may call me evil eugenicist, but that won't change a thing. The welfare system as it exists in the West is doomed.
I'm not saying that everyone is equal in every regard; I'm just saying calling one genetic group "better" than another is dangerous.
I agree, if somebody needs the welfare-system (s)he should be sterilized, regardless of being part of whatever group.
The criteria you supplied, the ability to find work, depends on more than genetics. It depends on the supply of work, as well as the perceptions of those doing the hiring.
So?
You don't offer any solution. (You seem to be a fan of the status-quo, which just frankly isn't a solution)
It's a fact that every generation, there are more and more people on welfare.
Wether it's genetic is actually pretty irrelevant, because they will starve to death when the welfare system fails, regardless.
Also it's irrelevant wether it's genetic because if it's cultural, it doesn't really change the situation because cultural values are passed on the the next generation just like genetics and pretty much anything I said is equally true for cultural problems.
At the end of the day a majority of the citizenry are still alive, fed, and able to reproduce, so they have been successful from the evolutionary point of view.
That is wrong.
During collapsing societies, there is not enough food to feed everybody. So when some bands form to steal food from farmers (which would eventually become a system of protection money), they would feed themselves first (being egoistic), feed the farmers second (because they are the basis of their own survival.) and let everybody else starve.
Because of this and of course because farmers will find ways to put secretly put away food for themselves and their families, farmers will have a pretty good chance to survive.
Everybody else has to get lucky enough to become part of a protection ring (and only a small percentage would be able to be part of that group and survive the fights between these groups.
The farmer has no innate advantage over any other profession.
Of course he has.
Smart farmers can hire gunmen with food which will give them not only survival but also some local political power.
In none of them was the ability to grow your own food a reproductive advantage. None.
Actually in post-WW2 Europe, people were starving in the cities and many fled to the country to work or even beg.
While of course I don't have any detailed statistics or studies, I would think that people in the country had much better chances for survival.
But don't worry, Peak Oil is coming soon, together with land erosion, desertification of large areas and water shortages, I guess we will find out sooner than we want to who is best fitted for survival in an industrial society that is breaking up.
Social health care is unstable because each generation has more genetic defects, so with each generation less and less healthy people have to support more and more ill people.
Sooner or later the social health system fails - which is actually already forseeable in most european countries. It worked for about 2 generation and I give them maybe one more generation, maybe 2, tops.
As far as evolution is concerned if you are able to find a mate there is no reason why you shouldn't procreate.
If your genes are so messed up that you cannot survive by yourself and are permanently dependent on a welfare-system, all your offspring will die a horrible and painful death (most likely starvation) as soon as the welfare-system fails.
Given the fact that the state of most welfare systems is getting worse with each generation (just precicely because people procreate who cannot survive by themselves anymore and the number of welfare-dependents is growing, never sinking) it's just a matter of time until it fails.
Maybe the major of New Orleans bought busses with it - which later drowned because he (and nobody else in the city administration) forgot to put them into higher grounds. Only hours later he requested "I need busses, man" on national TV.
Climate, in contrast, is non-linear - and as with any non-linear system, tiny inaccuracies in the starting values can drasticly, disproportionately, and often unpredictably (due to the complexity and / or iterations of the calculations) alter the outcome.
1 - You seem to understand chaotic systems (which is not the same as non-linear systems). Don't you think that burning all oil and most coal on the planet in less than 200 years may have an effect on climate? Don't you think it may be smarter to wait a little bit until more facts are in? Don't you think it may be smarter to play it safe instead of running through all as fast as we can?
2 - Take for example a bucket of water and put it on a stove. After you turn the heat on, there is no way any scientist in the world can predict the size and positions of the bubbles that rise on top. (= weather) But many will be able to predict the average temperature and the time to reach that temperature. (= climate) Of course the climate is indeed a lot more complicated than a bucket of water (but see 1: That's a reason to be careful, not a reason to run through all ressources as fast as possible).
These are proxies, not direct measurements. Saying they're accurate to a fraction of a degree - while politically correct - is buying into unproven theory. It may be correct, it may be incorrect. But the only "truth" is in direct measurement. Even then, you can argue about what it means - taking into account heat island effects, for example.
First of all, every measurement is "indirect" because it is by definition combined with at least one conversion of energy.
Second, it doesn't matter one bit wether you measure life (what you are calling with "direct") or not. There are life measurements which are very unaccurate and there are archeologic measurements which are very exact.
The ones that DO understand these things, know the system is very, very complicated and is not so easily explained.
So to summarize you say that the system is very complicated and we do not fully understand it.
You know, usually if something is very complicated sane people are very careful about it especially when they don't fully understand it and even more when their life depends on it.
Ice also melts near the northern pole (Greenland, northern Canada)
The glaciers are melting everywhere in the world
Warmer water expands which causes a higher sea-level
Because of the massive inertia of the whole system (we are currently feeling the effects of maybe the 70s) it's pretty likely that it will accelerate in the next decades and not slow down.
Having said that, I don't think that rising sea levels will be our biggest worries in 10-20 years.
I personally think that burning coal to offset oil (which can soon no longer be drilled to satisfy demand - for the first time in human history) will create all what we though was already behind us: Acid rain, dying forests, bad air and of course even worse global warming.
Because all our crops are optimized for the oil industry (current crops require much fertilizer (made out of oil) and are actually worse in energy-efficiency than older crops) and soils are in pretty bad shape already in many parts of the world (in many areas the soil itself can no longer really support much plants, everything comes from the fertilizers) we will see much, much worse problems than rising sea levels. And much sooner, too.
When many analysts agree, then they're probably on to something.
Since reporters, analysts and pretty much anybody in the publishing industry loves to copy each other's reports (hey, just look how many people (inside and outside the press) claim that the PS3 will cost $ 900. - And that was the result of an adding mistake which could be pretty easily seen) that doesn't mean anything at all.
The only one who totally avoids these pitfalls is Nintendo, because the Revolution is not designed to be a replacement for the GameCube in the traditional sense.
IMO, Sony also avoids the issue because they will keep selling the PS2 for many more years (similar to what they did with the PS1 after the PS2 launch).
Slashdot Mirror
On every thread you take Microsoft's position.
I mean, it's OK to like DRM and all - but because Microsoft is backing it?
Also BluRay is getting a larger hardware base (because of PS3), is supported by more studios and has a larger capacity. But it's not from Microsoft, so "Overly Critical Guy" hates it.
3,4 - I don't really know what you mean by lying. AFAIK they said that the trailer was made to PS3 specifications, I haven't heard them saying anything about the story or the what the game is about. (Probably a 1st person shooter, but there are still lots of unknowns) Of course it will be impossible to put that much action per second into the game, so of course the look and feel of the real game will not be so great, but honestly that's obvious.
If you consider that a lie, well then every trailer I've seen so far is pretty much a lie because every trailer overexposes "exciting" stuff (that may happen in the game only very rarely or never at all) and leaving out "boring" stuff.
I really don't see the difference to other trailers in that regard.
Nevertheless, the Killzone trailer shows that these developers and artists are capable and competent - it remains to be seen wether Killzone will reflect that, of course.
Fact is, that the trailer contains many ideas, that have nothing to do with graphics and set it apart from any other trailers I've seen so far: Guys landing in the battlezone, the general chaos in battle, etc. Or to put it in another way: The trailer shows that creative minds were involved, unlike so many others which just show the usual running around. IF they are able to harvest that creativity in the game, it can really be great.
Or to put it in even another words (it's not easy to say what I mean), they were tremendously successful to create a mood, a setting, a feeling of being there in and of course graphics helped a lot, but I bet that these same people could create an almost as great mood with Duke-Nukem style sprite characters. For example, what I mean: In all other trailers of 1st person shooters (I've seen), the non-player characters act like robots: A nuke might explode nearby and they don't even twitch.
Of course the great graphics help, but it would be easy to create twitching characters with sprite-graphics too, the point is not the graphics, the point is evolving the whole theme to the next level.
Maybe we mean the same thing. Sony-Europe is playing a lot with our emotions, you say that is lying, I say it's exactly what I want in a videogame and if they can do it in a trailer, they might succeed in the game as well.
But most importantly I said "I believe" about a billion times just then. Lets wait and see. All I know is I was here last time. And I was lied to. They convinced me to help kill a console that on reflection offered the prospect of more original games, with better art - not power.
Because I never had a Dreamcast, I can't comment on that. However I don't see why a creative game developer should be able to create an original game on Dreamcast and fail to do the same on PS2.
And this time, I won't do that - I will stand by the Revolution because so far I only see pretty versions of the games I already own coming out of the PS3. And that tires me.
I will wait for both to be available and make up my mind then. Since I'm only a casual gamer and don't want to spend so much, it's pretty likely that I end up with a Revolution, too. Nevertheless, I think Sony Europe is able to create great games and Killzone has a good chance of becoming very good. Not because of the graphics, but because these guys know what is important (like your allies twitching and screaming) and what isn't (like shadows).
What nonsense.
If you write an application that will run on your basement computer, then yes "hardware is cheaper than developer time".
If you write an application that will run on thousands if not hundreds of thousand computers, then no, hardware is not cheaper than developer time.
If you are talking about the Killzone trailer, it just really shows the difference between Microsoft and Sony:
Microsoft is like an Ogre, stomping everthing in it's path with brute force. They have absolutely no creativity, no original ideas and - in this comparison - no ideas how to put out great visuals with limited resources.
Sony may be equally evil (actually all big companies are), but at least they are creative (say what you want about Cell, but it is a completely new idea and not an off-the-shelf design. Even if the Cell fails big time, it is great that such a design has been tried and tested and the whole computing industry will be smarter afterwards.) and that seems to be true also for Sony Europe who create Killzone:
At first sight it's astonishing. Impossible that a console could do that!
But if you look a little closer, you see how they cut corners: When the lander explodes, it's just a cloud of dust and 4 or 5 parts flying away. The soldiers don't even have shadows (the burning soldier actually looks quite strange because the fire doesn't cast a shadow), etc. In general what that trailer sets it apart from most others is the liberal and clever use of dust clouds and smoke (which many game engines seem to have trouble with), so if you believe that the PS3 can render dust and smoke better than this generation, you shouldn't have too much trouble believing the PS3 rendering the Killzone trailer in realtime.
Actually (and if you reply, reply to this too please) I find it much harder to believe that they used a movie-style rendering farm to create a trailer and then forgot to the shadows.
But of course we will all see it soon enough.
Well, at least they include quotes with several specific sources while the politically correct never back up their claims.
I agree. Sterilization for welfare is a prerequesite to guarantee that, though.
The poor are by and large innocent, and should not be forced to do anything that is not required of the wealthier citizenry. We have a responsibility to protect the innocent, especially in cases where previous social structures forced distinct ethnic or cultural groups to compete on unequal grounds.
That is the core idea of communism. That everybody works the same things, that a doctor with a decade of education also has to clean toilets while "the innocent poor" can play doctor once in a while.
While it's appealing to many christians (because it's basically a secular version of Jesus' "all people are equal"-obsession), it's basically just stupid nonsense. And it has been tried out numerous times, too. It never worked.
I'm not pretending that poverty is something that could be easily solved, and I'm not saying that every ideal is enforceable, or that if an idealistic plan is put into place it won't be abused.
Maybe you should stop talking about what you are not saying and start talking about what you are saying?
I also think there are times when the ends don't justify the means, sterilization is one of those cases.
So you prefer starvation to sterilization? (Yet another question you will not have enough balls to answer)
But how about less military spending, less beurocracy, more spending on drug education and rehab, less on drug enforcement, more spending on creating opportunities, not on giving handouts.
Funny. Sterilization for welfare would acutally reduce buerocracy to a minimum: Want welfare? Get sterilized, end of story. No buerocracy needed.
"More spending on creating opportunities" is just an euphemism for "creating a huge buerocracy that decides and implements government projects".
Euphemisms won't solve anything either.
Fixing the education system (just money won't do it).
But what if some groups cannot cope with raised standards?
Welfare doen't create oppprtunities (at least as currently structured), neither does sterilization (removing competition isn't creating opportunity.)
Completely wrong. Of course reduced competition would lower unemployment - especially in the jobs that poor people need.
I still think that you are arguing for creating a tiered society with first and second-class citizens. This leaves the door wide open for someone to re-evaluate what is valuable to classify you as a second-class citizen.
Nonsense, nobody evaluates, that's the whole point.
No I'm not a communist, I'd much prefer a society structured on merit
I agree, I don't see how sterilization for welfare does contradict that, though. Quite to the contrary, because when rich have more children than the poor, the whole society tends to form a strong middle class with very few rich and very few poor. (which is EXACTLY what you would expect in a society structured on merit)
What you are advocating is what we see currently in many coutnries: Rich with moderate birth rates, poor with high birth rates, middle class with extremely low birth rates. The middle class is literally dying out. You are actually advocating a 2 class society, because that is exactly what we are going to get if trends continue.
We have created a tiered society though.
Maybe you should stop repeating communist slogans and start to look at facts?
Fact is that the western society after the 2nd world war was the society with the strongest middle-class than any other society that came before or after it.
Therefore we have created the society that was less tiered than any other, therefore according to your own standards it couldn't have been that bad.
Yes, I know sayi
But you think you have the right to force others to provide for children which are not theirs?
Where is the limit, I ask you?
Suppose you have a surplus of 100 dollars/month and you need 50 dollars/month to provide basic survival (in poverty) for your child.
On what moral ground can the state take away 50 dollars from you allow some unresponsible parent to have (another) child and force your child into poverty?
Yes welfare is publicly supported which means that I am paying for poor people and that gives me some right to control how my dollar is spent, but I should not be able to make my dollar conditional on surrender of basic human rights.
So you think that making babies on the cost of others is a basic human right? Can I see the article please?
There are moral obligations attached to living in society. One of them is protection of the innocent. Poor people are by and large innocent, poor children doubly so. So societies obligation to other peoples children stems from the inability to strip someone of thier rights without an active breach of civil trust, and the requirement that we value life.
Following that logic, we would end up with catholic dogma that all contraceptives are evil because they don't "value life".
The poor should be protected - Actually that's the point. Only a stable welfare system can really protect the poor, but as few children as possible should be born into poverty.
Now I hear you saying that bearing children into poverty is a breach of civil trust, but I would argue that one cannot break the public trust merely by exercising their human rights.
You are wrong twice: 1) Making babies on cost of others is no human right. 2) Human rights are no dogma but are made by humans - and they have to make sense. A human right that leads to it's own destruction doesn't make any sense.
Having children arises as an extension of freedom of expression and association. It is my natural right, not a privilege awarded me by those in power - a right that cannot morally be removed unless I break a law. Existing in poverty is not a breach of any law, and as such my social status cannot (morally) be a condition of having children.
This dogmatic argumentation leads nowhere. Similarily I could say that spending your own hard-earned money is an extension of freedom of expression, therefore the state is violating your rights when it robs you and gives the money to the poor.
Dogmas never solve problems.
The whole point is that you have to compromise. Both extremes (100% taxation would lead to communism, 0% taxation would lead to anarchy) are obviously wrong. To solve the problem you have to find a solution which almost by definition is a compromise. The solution won't be perfect, but it will be better than ignoring the problem and letting the welfare system break down.
You say that reproduction cannot be a basic human right because growing populations would destabilize society. All of recorded history disagrees with you.
Sorry, but there are many, many well documented events of destabilized societies because of too few ressources available for too few people:
Yeah, maybe that's why movies about the love-life of grasshoppers don't break box office records either.
People just can't relate and identify with the characters.
But wait! Maybe it's all my fault, maybe I'm just repressing my latent erotic feelings for grasshoppers? Maybe I am grasshopperphobe?
Water is pretty common in the universe, but LIQUID water is scarce.
Earth is the only body in the solar system that can have liquid water on the surface.
You seem to believe that the only way to get by without welfare is to inherit wealth, which seems very, very far fetched.
Also, when we talk about inherited wealth: If the poor have many kids, those kids will inherit even less (because they have to share with many brothers/sisters). If a poor couple has just one kid, that kid has a much better chance of getting out of poverty.
So your own argument is in favor of sterilization, even if wealth were only inherited: It would break the ficious cycle of poverty, because poor kids would inherit more wealth because they wouldn't have to share.
Are unproductive members to be genetically screened before sterilization? If not are you ok with just sterilizing anyone who has happened along hard times? What if you lose your job?
I don't blow every money I have on a big car, cigarettes and alcohol (like many others do), so I could survive without welfare for at least a year, even though I still work only part-time.
If I don't find a job in that year, yes I would not have any more kids because I don't think I would do anything good for them. Isn't that what responsibility is all about? Only having children if you can support them yourself?
Another question: What moral right would I have to have others pay for my children?
Are there genes that should mark one for sterilization? What are they? Would you be ok with no person with that gene having ever existed?
No.
If you can take care of your children, feel free to have as many as you want.
Actually, the whole issue is about responsibility.
Do you care if a culture is actively eliminated? Has a poor culture ever produced anything that you would consider valuable? Are you ok with that culture having never existed?
No, why should I care?
Do you see reproduction as a human right? If choice over parenting isn't a right how does it fail? What other rights don't meet those criteria?
Reproduction is no human right. If it were, then human rights were fundamentally wrong and unstable because population growth would automatically destroy these human rights sooner or later.
Maybe I repeat the points in a clear and short manner, so they are not so easy to ignore:
In addiction there is a strong genetic element, some people get addicted to alcohol/heroin/nicotine easily while the majority never gets addicted to these drugs despite being in contact with them.
An alcoholic is pretty likely to be dependent on the welfare system.
Of course there a numerous other genetically influenced properties, many of those genetic factors are of course a taboo (like stupidity, laziness, etc.), which may contribute to being partially or fully welfare dependent.
And of course if something so bad that it's called a "disorder" (today only really, really bad things are called "disorders", especially when it's genetic) - like mental retardiation, inability to move for example, are pretty likely to be fully dependent on the welfare system.
If a person is capable of finding a mate and engaging in the act of procreation they are almost certainly capable of engaging in menial labor.
Are you joking?
In my country (Austria) female mental retards are sterilized because they don't understand what sex is and what it will cause. Pressure groups calls that "eugenic" and therefore evil. If they are successful in banning that practice those will bear children, in some cases probably one per year until they reach menopause.
What about the case where an ethnic minority is unable to support itself except on handouts because they are unable to find employment? Not that they couldn't do some work, but no one is willing to pay them for what they can do. Should they be banned from procreating?
Why do ethnic minorities come into the picture?
If they can't support their children, they shouldn't procreate.
Otherwise it will lead to the creation of much misery because all those will starve to death when (not if) the welfare system fails. Which by the way will be in about 10-20 years, when Peak Oil really hits.
What is the difference between someone with Down's or a malformed leg who can do assembly line type stuff, but can't find employment and segregated ethnic population? Neither had any choice to be born as they were.
So?
It depends on what you prefer, the 2 possibilities are:
You can sure have your welfare system for a few more decades. But then millions (actually billions because those food donations to Africa will stop) will starve to death because no system, no matter how good it is, can support an ever growing population.
Of course you may call me evil eugenicist, but that won't change a thing. The welfare system as it exists in the West is doomed.
I'm not saying that everyone is equal in every regard; I'm just saying calling one genetic group "better" than another is dangerous.
I agree, if somebody needs the welfare-system (s)he should be sterilized, regardless of being part of whatever group.
The criteria you supplied, the ability to find work, depends on more than genetics. It depends on the supply of work, as well as the perceptions of those doing the hiring.
So?
You don't offer any solution. (You seem to be a fan of the status-quo, which just frankly isn't a solution)
It's a fact that every generation, there are more and more people on welfare.
Wether it's genetic is actually pretty irrelevant, because they will starve to death when the welfare system fails, regardless.
Also it's irrelevant wether it's genetic because if it's cultural, it doesn't really change the situation because cultural values are passed on the the next generation just like genetics and pretty much anything I said is equally true for cultural problems.
That is wrong.
During collapsing societies, there is not enough food to feed everybody. So when some bands form to steal food from farmers (which would eventually become a system of protection money), they would feed themselves first (being egoistic), feed the farmers second (because they are the basis of their own survival.) and let everybody else starve.
Because of this and of course because farmers will find ways to put secretly put away food for themselves and their families, farmers will have a pretty good chance to survive.
Everybody else has to get lucky enough to become part of a protection ring (and only a small percentage would be able to be part of that group and survive the fights between these groups.
The farmer has no innate advantage over any other profession.
Of course he has.
Smart farmers can hire gunmen with food which will give them not only survival but also some local political power.
Actually in post-WW2 Europe, people were starving in the cities and many fled to the country to work or even beg.
While of course I don't have any detailed statistics or studies, I would think that people in the country had much better chances for survival.
But don't worry, Peak Oil is coming soon, together with land erosion, desertification of large areas and water shortages, I guess we will find out sooner than we want to who is best fitted for survival in an industrial society that is breaking up.
Sooner or later the social health system fails - which is actually already forseeable in most european countries. It worked for about 2 generation and I give them maybe one more generation, maybe 2, tops.
If your genes are so messed up that you cannot survive by yourself and are permanently dependent on a welfare-system, all your offspring will die a horrible and painful death (most likely starvation) as soon as the welfare-system fails.
Given the fact that the state of most welfare systems is getting worse with each generation (just precicely because people procreate who cannot survive by themselves anymore and the number of welfare-dependents is growing, never sinking) it's just a matter of time until it fails.
That is pretty much to be expected when you introduce a welfare-system that pais proportionally to the number of warm bodies in the household.
Please explain how driving a more fuel-efficient car that reduces the oil-imports and has no other inpact on local jobs is "ruining our economy".
Please explain how insulating your house using local labor and saving money for foreign oil is "ruining our economy".
Maybe the major of New Orleans bought busses with it - which later drowned because he (and nobody else in the city administration) forgot to put them into higher grounds. Only hours later he requested "I need busses, man" on national TV.
1 - You seem to understand chaotic systems (which is not the same as non-linear systems). Don't you think that burning all oil and most coal on the planet in less than 200 years may have an effect on climate? Don't you think it may be smarter to wait a little bit until more facts are in? Don't you think it may be smarter to play it safe instead of running through all as fast as we can?
2 - Take for example a bucket of water and put it on a stove. After you turn the heat on, there is no way any scientist in the world can predict the size and positions of the bubbles that rise on top. (= weather) But many will be able to predict the average temperature and the time to reach that temperature. (= climate) Of course the climate is indeed a lot more complicated than a bucket of water (but see 1: That's a reason to be careful, not a reason to run through all ressources as fast as possible).
First of all, every measurement is "indirect" because it is by definition combined with at least one conversion of energy.
Second, it doesn't matter one bit wether you measure life (what you are calling with "direct") or not. There are life measurements which are very unaccurate and there are archeologic measurements which are very exact.
So to summarize you say that the system is very complicated and we do not fully understand it.
You know, usually if something is very complicated sane people are very careful about it especially when they don't fully understand it and even more when their life depends on it.
However:
Having said that, I don't think that rising sea levels will be our biggest worries in 10-20 years.
I personally think that burning coal to offset oil (which can soon no longer be drilled to satisfy demand - for the first time in human history) will create all what we though was already behind us: Acid rain, dying forests, bad air and of course even worse global warming.
Because all our crops are optimized for the oil industry (current crops require much fertilizer (made out of oil) and are actually worse in energy-efficiency than older crops) and soils are in pretty bad shape already in many parts of the world (in many areas the soil itself can no longer really support much plants, everything comes from the fertilizers) we will see much, much worse problems than rising sea levels. And much sooner, too.
Since reporters, analysts and pretty much anybody in the publishing industry loves to copy each other's reports (hey, just look how many people (inside and outside the press) claim that the PS3 will cost $ 900. - And that was the result of an adding mistake which could be pretty easily seen) that doesn't mean anything at all.
IMO, Sony also avoids the issue because they will keep selling the PS2 for many more years (similar to what they did with the PS1 after the PS2 launch).