And this is the fundamental problem with pure capitalism. The object is to make a profit, right? Well, what corporations are doing is making a profit.
"So," says the capitalist, speaking in a purely rhetorical fashion, "what's the problem?"
Capitalism may work really well economically speaking, but only when the people who participate are EQUAL. In other words, they have to have the ability, socially and economically, to start up a competitor and drum the first guy out of business. This is not what is happening in third-world countries. It's not even what's happening in the United States. Profit is great, but human dignity is better. Capitalism needs controls on it in order to function in an ethical fashion in a society in which not everyone has the same opportunities. And sadly, Europe and the United States are not imposing those controls effectively, probably because the profit that the corporations accrue allows them to donate and lobby and get their government to do what they want.
"So," says the capitalist, newly enlightened, "what do I do now?"
Agitate for change. Get elected. Spend some money on good, well-researched causes. When you hear someone talking about how capitalism can do no wrong, gently dissuade them. If you're a huge corporation, stop trying to gouge the most out of these countries and act in your own enlightened self-interest -- if the people are treated well, they'll be around and able to work effectively for much longer. Above all, don't ever think that one person can't change things. Be that drop in the bucket. You'll sleep better at night.
And this makes it okay or something? Does it make you feel good that we, as highly advanced European countries, can take advantage of peoples who are less advanced than we are (although certainly more advanced than we think they are)? It sure sounds like it. Maybe you should take a good look at what actually happened before you start shooting your mouth off. And don't spout platitudes about introducing the natives to capitalism or higher technology or a better standard of living -- we didn't. We introduced them to a government-controlled and -aided exploitation of their natural resources and human rights, in return for jack squat. Now maybe you can't (or don't want to, that's more like it) do anything about it, maybe you don't feel like being a drop in the bucket, but at least you could have the human decency to feel a little guilty.
The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault
You mean like in oh, say, Palestine or Afghanistan, where if you're raped it's often considered your own fault, and you may be forced to *marry your rapist* to keep up the family name? Or possibly killed by a male relative (or even your rapist), also to keep up the family name, because you've been disgraced? Is that considered recovering?
Listen, the U.S. and Great Britain's cultures may be pretty sexually fucked up, but they are NOTHING compared to others. In fact, speaking as a genuine certified female, I'd say I've got it pretty good, sexually, in the U.S. of A. Not that it couldn't be better, but it could also certainly be worse.
Why should any artist create new work? Because real artists aren't in it for the money. We create because it's what we do. It's our passion.
You know, I've seen this time and time again in this particular venue and in others.
Every single time I read it, it makes my teeth itch. Does anyone promoting it realize how completely stuck in fairyland they seem to be? Getting paid for one's work is not intrinsically evil! Granted, it would be nice if everybody could just get along, and give things away all the time, and maybe we could hold hands and sing, too. Perceive: Artists are people. They have families. They need to eat, as do their families. In the society that we have now (both in America and overseas) it's necessary to have money in order to maintain any kind of decent, self-respecting standard of living. If you want an artist whom you particularly like to produce lots of art so you can enjoy it, the artist needs to be paid! Because otherwise the artist will starve to death. Or quit artist-ing and go become the Artist Who Formerly Was, or the Artist Who Now Has A Day Job And Really Means To Get Around To Finishing That Novel Someday, Really.
I've been reading science fiction for a decade now, and I can honestly say that I'm darn glad people decided to pay Kress and Varley and Heinlein and Robinson and Niven and Card and, yes, Ellison. And a myriad of others, naturally, the previously mentioned being just the ones I've read/re-read recently. I am glad people decided to pay these oh-so-deserving artists because otherwise I would not be able to read as many of their oh-so-deserving works.
In other words, or acronyms, TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for. If you don't pay much, you don't get much. If artisting doesn't put food on the table, people will not do it full-time, because they will starve. Go ahead and be as idealistic as you want, shout from the rooftops how it is necessary to suffer for one's art, but anyone with children will laugh at you. Kids need food. Also shoes. That takes money. Solutions? Well, that's something to think about. But think about this, first: Artists want money for their art because it's the only thing that will let them go on making it, full-time. And if they make their art full-time, they make more art. I'm not defending schlock artists here; they know who they are, and we know who they are, and they're an entirely different kettle of rotten fish. But the truly good artist needs to be supported -- that means paid -- because there is an awful shortage of truly good art around. And we could all use more of it. After all, which would you rather have: one sparkly diamond, or sixty?
For example, a genetic defect that would normally kill someone at birth will not affect clones because they are not technically "born."
Of course clones would have to be born. Did you think they'd just appear, full-grown, sprung from the head of their parents? The way a clone is made, basically, is: DNA from a donor cell is implanted into an ovum which has had its genetic material removed. The ovum is then encouraged to divide. Once it has, it's implanted into the uterus of a host mother, and the scientists cross their fingers and hope. But it has to be implanted into a host mother! We don't have the technology to grow fetuses outside of a uterus. And even if we did, a genetic defect that would kill someone at birth would still kill a non-born individual. "Birth" in this case means "when you start breathing and living on your own, without help from your mother/the artificial uterus." If the baby doesn't have lungs, the baby will die whether it was born or not, unless technology steps in yet again.
It is impossible to have a well-reasoned discussion without knowing at least most of the facts beforehand.
Slashdot Mirror
The "cover your butt, Bernard is watching" sig. Remember? It's the message Ender sent to everyone while logged in as "God."
er... what are you planning on doing for the chicks^H^H^H^H^H^Hwomen who work there?
Because the waitresses at Hooters may be cute, if you like that sort of blonde (as in sort-of-blonde) thing, but, well, yeah.
Pizza is the universal language.
And this is the fundamental problem with pure capitalism. The object is to make a profit, right? Well, what corporations are doing is making a profit.
"So," says the capitalist, speaking in a purely rhetorical fashion, "what's the problem?"
Capitalism may work really well economically speaking, but only when the people who participate are EQUAL. In other words, they have to have the ability, socially and economically, to start up a competitor and drum the first guy out of business. This is not what is happening in third-world countries. It's not even what's happening in the United States. Profit is great, but human dignity is better. Capitalism needs controls on it in order to function in an ethical fashion in a society in which not everyone has the same opportunities. And sadly, Europe and the United States are not imposing those controls effectively, probably because the profit that the corporations accrue allows them to donate and lobby and get their government to do what they want.
"So," says the capitalist, newly enlightened, "what do I do now?"
Agitate for change. Get elected. Spend some money on good, well-researched causes. When you hear someone talking about how capitalism can do no wrong, gently dissuade them. If you're a huge corporation, stop trying to gouge the most out of these countries and act in your own enlightened self-interest -- if the people are treated well, they'll be around and able to work effectively for much longer. Above all, don't ever think that one person can't change things. Be that drop in the bucket. You'll sleep better at night.
And this makes it okay or something? Does it make you feel good that we, as highly advanced European countries, can take advantage of peoples who are less advanced than we are (although certainly more advanced than we think they are)? It sure sounds like it. Maybe you should take a good look at what actually happened before you start shooting your mouth off. And don't spout platitudes about introducing the natives to capitalism or higher technology or a better standard of living -- we didn't. We introduced them to a government-controlled and -aided exploitation of their natural resources and human rights, in return for jack squat. Now maybe you can't (or don't want to, that's more like it) do anything about it, maybe you don't feel like being a drop in the bucket, but at least you could have the human decency to feel a little guilty.
The victim lives (and in countries where the culture is NOT as hopelessly sexually fucked up as in Amerika and Gross Britain) eventually recovers, as from any other brutal assault
You mean like in oh, say, Palestine or Afghanistan, where if you're raped it's often considered your own fault, and you may be forced to *marry your rapist* to keep up the family name? Or possibly killed by a male relative (or even your rapist), also to keep up the family name, because you've been disgraced? Is that considered recovering?
Listen, the U.S. and Great Britain's cultures may be pretty sexually fucked up, but they are NOTHING compared to others. In fact, speaking as a genuine certified female, I'd say I've got it pretty good, sexually, in the U.S. of A. Not that it couldn't be better, but it could also certainly be worse.
Why should any artist create new work? Because real artists aren't in it for the money. We create because it's what we do. It's our passion.
You know, I've seen this time and time again in this particular venue and in others.
Every single time I read it, it makes my teeth itch. Does anyone promoting it realize how completely stuck in fairyland they seem to be? Getting paid for one's work is not intrinsically evil! Granted, it would be nice if everybody could just get along, and give things away all the time, and maybe we could hold hands and sing, too. Perceive: Artists are people. They have families. They need to eat, as do their families. In the society that we have now (both in America and overseas) it's necessary to have money in order to maintain any kind of decent, self-respecting standard of living. If you want an artist whom you particularly like to produce lots of art so you can enjoy it, the artist needs to be paid! Because otherwise the artist will starve to death. Or quit artist-ing and go become the Artist Who Formerly Was, or the Artist Who Now Has A Day Job And Really Means To Get Around To Finishing That Novel Someday, Really.
I've been reading science fiction for a decade now, and I can honestly say that I'm darn glad people decided to pay Kress and Varley and Heinlein and Robinson and Niven and Card and, yes, Ellison. And a myriad of others, naturally, the previously mentioned being just the ones I've read/re-read recently. I am glad people decided to pay these oh-so-deserving artists because otherwise I would not be able to read as many of their oh-so-deserving works.
In other words, or acronyms, TANSTAAFL. You get what you pay for. If you don't pay much, you don't get much. If artisting doesn't put food on the table, people will not do it full-time, because they will starve. Go ahead and be as idealistic as you want, shout from the rooftops how it is necessary to suffer for one's art, but anyone with children will laugh at you. Kids need food. Also shoes. That takes money. Solutions? Well, that's something to think about. But think about this, first: Artists want money for their art because it's the only thing that will let them go on making it, full-time. And if they make their art full-time, they make more art. I'm not defending schlock artists here; they know who they are, and we know who they are, and they're an entirely different kettle of rotten fish. But the truly good artist needs to be supported -- that means paid -- because there is an awful shortage of truly good art around. And we could all use more of it. After all, which would you rather have: one sparkly diamond, or sixty?
Of course clones would have to be born. Did you think they'd just appear, full-grown, sprung from the head of their parents? The way a clone is made, basically, is: DNA from a donor cell is implanted into an ovum which has had its genetic material removed. The ovum is then encouraged to divide. Once it has, it's implanted into the uterus of a host mother, and the scientists cross their fingers and hope. But it has to be implanted into a host mother! We don't have the technology to grow fetuses outside of a uterus. And even if we did, a genetic defect that would kill someone at birth would still kill a non-born individual. "Birth" in this case means "when you start breathing and living on your own, without help from your mother/the artificial uterus." If the baby doesn't have lungs, the baby will die whether it was born or not, unless technology steps in yet again.
It is impossible to have a well-reasoned discussion without knowing at least most of the facts beforehand.